How can activists against anti-Semitism not be ashamed by this campaign of online HATE?

It’s now nearly four days since the Sunday Times and its reporter Gabriel Pogrund published a cocktail of cobbled-together nonsense accusing me of Holocaust denial, and it seems the national media are just starting to realise that I’m not putting up with it.

Mr Pogrund’s screed prompted a feeding frenzy among the right-wing press, many of whom probably thought Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party had offered them an open goal. Big mistake.

Libel is a serious matter, and falsely accusing a person of Holocaust denial is one of its most serious forms. All the offenders have received my demand for an apology, correction and retraction. Some have responded – inadequately – and have been told to think again. I’m still waiting for a response from others – but I won’t wait forever.

One of the reasons I’m not prepared to wait very long can be found on my Twitter feed (@MidWalesMike), which has received a phenomenal amount of hatred from people of all walks of life – few of whom seem willing to read my side of the story, or to accept that there might be a sliver of truth in it (what with it containing the actual dialogues on which the allegations against me are supposedly based, and all).

I thought it might be worthwhile to show you some of the abuse I’ve been receiving. Even the worst of what follows is mild in comparison to some. The most rabid of my haters either delete their tweets to keep from being exposed, or have blocked me. In some cases, I have blocked them. It will be interesting to see whether any of those published below are deleted after being shown here.

But you should get a flavour from the following, none of which contain anything approaching rational discourse:

This is only part of the story on Twitter, I should add. I remain overwhelmed by the number of people who have rallied to my side – especially those who have donated to This Site using the box below to show their support (although I am just as grateful to those who can only show moral support by speaking up in my favour).

If I don’t hear anything new from the offending newspapers and TV channel tomorrow, I’ll dig out the tweets by people who may be considered to be more high-profile.

I wonder how many of those will have been deleted by the time I try to retrieve them?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


78 thoughts on “How can activists against anti-Semitism not be ashamed by this campaign of online HATE?

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      If I am a shill, as you seem well informed on the subject, where do I apply for my pay cheque? Perhaps I am just the grandchild of a survivor and the great grandchild of those who did not survive, and perhaps you are unaware of how grossly offensive your comments are.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        I’ll answer this:
        If you are a shill, then you’ll already know where to get your paycheque.
        If you’re not a shill, perhaps you should stop behaving like one.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        No – you attack the innocent because you don’t like what they’re saying.
        Whether you get paid for it or not is your business but I certainly wonder why you continue to put up with this humiliation if you aren’t getting paid.

  1. jeffrey davies

    trouble with this lot of not nice people is they believe the rubbish they fed every day their worlds been taken over by false news which sadly they believe attack the papers through the courts mike you should get enough crowds funding to chase these beggers jeff3

  2. Christopher John Phillips

    On what basis do these inhuman people say all these untruths?

    I am usually very careful with what I write, and always include the following facts to stop such people…

    I love Jews, I love Arabs, The are BOTH semitic races. My parents took in a 14 year old Jewish girl from Italy in 1938 from Italy, and saved her from the Holocaust. We remained friends till her death onlt a short time ago aged 92. She was for Jews & Muslims living together, in Palestine.
    I am against all war & terrorism. (from any side) I have been to Palestine & Israel, met Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and even a Zionist. I have friends who live there.

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      I love Jews – and Palestinians as well. I support the state of Israel, and I support a Palestinian state. But here’s why we think Mike is an antisemite. It’s because he sees nothing objectionable about Ken casually claiming that “Hitler was a supporter of Zionism.”

      Never mind that Hitler killed millions of Zionists*. Hitler was a support of Zionism, because he signed the Ha’avara agreement to ethnically cleanse his country of Jews. It’s perverted. And Mike defends it, because he simply will not accept that left wing bigots are bigots, thereby becoming complicit in the bigotry.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        The German Federation of Zionists represented Zionism in Germany in the 1930s, did it not?

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        Did Germans want Zionists either to die or to leave the country in 1930s or not. Answer the question.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        I find the question racist against Germans.
        Not all Germans agreed with the policies of the Nazis. Consider Oskar Schindler, for example. He was one of many.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        So, with due respect noted to the minority of Germans of the White Rose movement and similar, let me ask again. Did the state of Germany want the Zionists to either die in 1930s or not?

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        Your question is based on a false premise.
        The Nazi government of Germany wanted their country to be empty of Jews. Jews are a different social group from Zionists.
        Initially, they didn’t care if their Jewish population died or left the country, as long as they absented themselves.
        You suggest that I move the goalposts in this discussion, but you are always the one who actually does it.

  3. Catherine Cooper

    Mike, I couldn’t read all those disgusting lies that people have posted about you! You are an honest, decent person who ensures that the truth is published, when the right wing press and the BBC spout lies. Don’t let these vile people get away with their lies!

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        The German Federation of Zionists represented Zionism in Germany in the 1930s, did it not?

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        And Hitler regarded these Zionists as not Germans and unworthy of German citizenship, did he not?

      3. Shaya Grosskopf

        No, it isn’t. Hitler wanted to kill Zionists (and other non Zionist Jews); it follows he did not in any normal sense support them.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        As I have said all along, the Nazi (and later, Hitler’s) support for the German Federation of Zionists refers to a very specific set of circumstances. Your repeated reference to “any normal sense” shows either a failure of comprehension or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent this discussion.

      5. Shaya Grosskopf

        No, you’ve found that the idea of Ken Livingstone being supported by the far right to be (as intended) offensive. So you agree with me that the “normal sense” of the words “supporter” does imply moral culpability ,and so you adopt Ken’s Jew baiting where the victims are collaborators for trying to save their lives.

      6. Mike Sivier Post author

        I don’t find a claim that Nick Griffin offered verbal support to Ken Livingstone offensive.
        I do find it inaccurate to suggest that this is in the same category as the support that was provided by the Nazi Government to the German Federation of Zionists.
        I haven’t said anything about the word “support” implying “moral culpability”, as you describe it, so your further comments are not applicable.

  4. Jolena

    The background game here is to undermine Jeremy Corbyn by discrediting his supporters, by whatever means possible. Fake ‘anti-semitism’ accusations are inflammatory and therefore easy to perpetuate.
    When you are the lone leadership voice against a corrupt global establishment, as Corbyn pretty much is, it’s hardly surprising that authoritative left wing news sources such as VP are increasingly targeted.
    Considering the global stranglehold of the establishment/elite on our little planet, personally I think it’s a miraculous manifestation of the resurgent power of love and humanity that a) Corbyn is here and b) real journalists like Mike Sivier are gaining ground in the digital media.
    MSM and the BBC are now, at worst lying, and at best woefully inadequate; we congratulate you Mike Sivier on becoming a ‘threat’, and will support you in any way we can.

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      Perhaps the background game is to oppose real antisemitism by real anti-semites like Mike Sivier, who think that it perfectly OK to say that “Hitler was a supporter of Zionism” but not OK to say that “Nick Griffin is a supporter of Mike Sivier.” (for the record: I think both are wrong; but Mike Sivier didn’t loose family to Nick Griffin’s gas chambers,so the latter remark is less grossly offensive than the former).

      Honi soit qui mal y pense.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Hitler – or at least the Nazis – did support German Zionism in its attempt to move as many German Jews out of that country as possible. That is historical fact.
        If Nick Griffin is a supporter of me, it’s nothing to do with me. I’ve never received any form of support from him, to my knowledge.
        The rest of this comment is neither here nor there.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        Nick Griffin – or at least the alt right – posted in support of Ken Livingstone. That is a historical fact.

        If Adolf Hitler was a supporter of Zionists, it’s nothing to do with the the Zionists.

        This patent failure to maintain logical consistency is why you are an antisemite. It’s one standard for the supporters of the Jews, and another for the left wing antisemites. I don’t doubt it will take you more than 10 minutes to come out with some illogical non sequitur that fails to address the point but nevertheless provides enough smoke for you to hide in. It’s been your modus operandi for a long time, and it’s why you have been suspended yet again from Corbyn’s Labour party.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        No, it isn’t.
        Logic seems to escape you.
        If the Nazis didn’t support the Zionists in their plan to transport thousands of Jews to what was then British Mandate Palestine, it would not have happened. That is logical.
        The German Federation of Zionists could not have achieved this on their own.
        That is why they approached the Nazi government in the first place.
        Explain any failure of logic in the above.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        The migration of 60,000 German Jews to what was then British Mandate Palestine, of course. Try to keep up.

      5. Shaya Grosskopf

        Sorry, I see. You mean the plan to help thousands of Jews escape death in their country of birth, which had turned against them would not have happened without Haavarah. No, there’s no doubting it, the Ha’avara agreement saved lives. The existence of the state of Israel was not contingent on this small number of refugees (low thousands).

        But if Nick Griffin wouldn’t have tweeted in support of Ken Livingstone, then that tweet would have never been tweeted.

        Nick Griffin’s support for Ken Livingstone, and the Nazis support for Zionism, was incidental, immaterial, and objectively could only be called support for the purposes of baiting you or Jews respectively.

        There’s no failure in my logic.

      6. Mike Sivier Post author

        I’ve seen this strategy before: It’s called the “straw man” fallacy.
        I haven’t suggested any dependence of the existence of the state of Israel on the number of Jewish people transported to British Mandate Palestine under the Ha’avara agreement.
        And I wouldn’t say 60,000+ people counts as being in the “low thousands”.
        Nick Griffin’s support for Ken Livingstone was verbal only. The Nazis’ support for German Zionists in this instance was actual – they provided the resources needed for the migration to take place. That’s a big difference but you fail to acknowledge it. It certainly wasn’t “incidental” or “immaterial”.

      7. Shaya Grosskopf

        Well, I’d have thought the materiality of the support provided

        60,000 Jews moved to Palestine in the 1930sto escape the clutches of Herr Hitler and his supporters. How many under the Ha’avara agreement, Mr Expert of Holocaust History? Not all of them. And where did the “+” come from?

        The resources for the migration to take place, came, of course, from the **refugees** who gave up their possessions for their lives, and not, as you claim, from “Zionists.”

        Please don’t give up the day job as falsifying history is clearly not your strong point.

        So is it or is it not legitimate for me to describe Nick Griffin as a supporter of Ken Livingstone. Well, if you keep moving the goalposts and coming up with novel definitions of supporter as “verbal” only, then no. But I only said it to bait you, and by moving the definition you’ve proven that the assertion is, as is obvious, offensive.

      8. Mike Sivier Post author

        Around 60,000 Jews were moved to British Mandate Palestine under Ha’avara, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. If you want to argue with that, go ahead.
        The migration would not have taken place if the Nazis had not allowed it. They provided the resources.
        Feel free to describe Nick Griffin in whichever terms you like. But I haven’t changed any definitions; I merely applied them as appropriate.

      9. Shaya Grosskopf

        Problems with reading comprehension, Mr Sivier? How many of the 60,000 Jews we both found on the internet moved under the Ha’avara agreement? The answer, according to the source, you quoted, is imprecise. “Most”. But not all. And where did the “+” come from, Mike? It surely didn’t come from the Jewish Virtual Library did it? It came from you, didn’t it?

        You didn’t like it when I called Mr Griffin a supporter of Mr Livingstone. You kept adding qualifiers. I intended to offend you, and you were offended. And so did Ken Livingstone. After all, he was in the middle of a diatribe about the ills of Zionism when he decided to drop in his history lesson about how Hitler was a supporter of Zionism. Is Ken in the senile habit of mentioning random irrelevant historical facts, or will you accept the truth evident to all the disciplinary panels who sanctioned you and him that the intention was to cause offence by implying culpability.

      10. Mike Sivier Post author

        My understanding was that more than 60,000 people moved. If you don’t like it, say something different. But that’s my understanding.
        I wasn’t offended by your reference to Nick Griffin. You simply made a fool of yourself, as usual.
        And Mr Livingstone wasn’t mentioning a random irrelevant historical fact. He was commenting on an image that satirically suggested moving Israel to the USA – in response to a plan that had been put to the Israeli government to move all Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries. The similarity to the Ha’avara transfer plan is obvious – especially as both were proposed by Zionists. You lack understanding of even the most basic elements of this discussion.

      1. aunty1960

        I am going up to Labour Representive Annual Conf tomorrow. There is a serious discussion and debate from Jewish Voice for Labour

        I am going to make my point across re disabled and tenants silenced and no right to justice or right to chronnicle our suffering and abuse

        and I will raise the misrepresentation and entrapment of good decent loyal bloggers and activists.

        I am in the middle of much at moment. under seige re disabled abuse and attacks and spent last disabled money on ticket up to London. will have to walk from main station to Conway Hall with extremely painful knees and joints.

        But I will do it. I am Fed Up with It. Someone has got to listen.

        and I will do it for myself got legal challenges from Atos and been arrested for a cartoon and diarising abuse of vulnerable tenants and disabled.

        Tough I dont care if you like me or not. I have other severe disabled and vulnreable who have no voice as well.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        I absolutely applaud you for taking up the issues around benefits. But there is *nothing* – NOTHING – NOTHING – there which links welfare to Hitler or Zionism. By all means be politically active, but leave conspiracy theories linking welfare reform to “misrepresentation and entrapment” of Jew baiters like Ken Livingstone, and those who have adopted his position as their own like Mike Sivier.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        What are you on about?
        Are you taking issue with my point that, while commemorating the genocides and holocausts of the past, we should also be aware that such atrocities are still taking place, including the intended deaths of as many disabled people as possible? Are you saying those deaths aren’t happening or intended?
        I’d like to see your proof for that.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        You might want to think what a comparison between reduction in government benefit and an industrialised based system which brough in train loads of humans for extermination in purpose built factories might look like to people who had been through a real Holocaust. I am not just talking about my people, but also those who survived the massacres in Rwanda, and similar atrocities that take place today in Mynamar. Those are real genocides. Government reform to welfare, really, really is first world problem.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        You should probably talk to a person with disabilities who has been victimised by the current Conservative government of the UK before you make any claims about what the Tories are doing. There are plenty who read this site.
        I have not made any comparisons between the Nazi holocaust and the Tory genocide. My point was that, while we should commemorate genocides and holocausts of the past, we need to acknowledge that such events are still taking place. To that, I would probably add now that the perpetrators have become much more sly about it and are now finding ways to achieve their aims while distancing themselves from responsibility. It’s the ‘Denial’ stage of genocide. Are you really that keen to be a willing participant in that?
        Your reference to the Tory-orchestrated deaths of disability benefit claimants as “Government reform to welfare” and “reduction in government benefit” is obscenely offensive to those who have lost loved ones because of it.

      6. Shaya Grosskopf

        Your attena for taking offence have a curious bandwidth. Hitler was a supporter of Zionism? What’s the offence, just a historical fact. Government welfare reforms? Obscenely offensive. I chortle at your small minded bigotry.

        I am not taking a position on the government welfare reforms. Certain reforms have been ruled unlawful, and I understand that for disabled people the effects of the reforms are devastating.

        To draw any comparison between these welfare reforms and actual occasions when states have intentionally killed civilians is the real obscenity.

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        I’m not laughing. You aren’t funny. Your arguments are pathetic and your reasoning is worse.
        I have made myself clear with regard to the historical and current situations.
        One reason your attitude is so utterly repulsive is that you are in a position to do something about the current attacks on the sick and disabled – did you read my article today on the hundreds of millions of pounds being spent by the government, forcing sick and disabled people through the enormous stress of court proceedings in the hope that the effort will be too much for them and they’ll either die before the hearings or shortly afterwards? Not important to you. You aren’t interested in saving lives.
        Well, I am.
        This is an actual occasion in which a state is intentionally procuring the deaths of civilians. You just choose to ignore it.
        You are complicit in this genocide.
        Shame on you.

  5. JohnDee

    Technical note: Mike – I’m unable to ‘Like’ your post here – below ‘Like this’ it just says ‘Loading…’ ! Is the set up correctly?

    BTW – I second Catherine and Jolena sentiments – try not to let the bastards get you down. ‘Keep laughing.

    I feel I know you, Mike – ever since we wrote and demanded the DWP death figures and all the crap they threw at you then – but you persevered and eventually we won a small victory, even if the death figures were designed to be obfuscated.

    ‘Seems to me like they’re so scared of you Mike! You were such a threat that they had to try to smear you. I think you might rightly feel a great deal of pride for all that! Keep up the good work and thanks again, Mike. We’ve got your back.

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      It may be that Mike has a record on domestic policy of which he can be proud. That is not a license to proclaim offensive falsehoods about Hitler supporting Zionism based on some distortion of the plain meaning of the word “support.”

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        I haven’t distorted anything.
        You are twisting and squirming for all you’re worth, though.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        Yes you have. Two disciplinary committees have found the imputation that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism to be unacceptable hate speech. You keep pretending no offence was intended. Everyone knows Ken’s views on Zionism – everyone knows the context of Ken’s remarks was an attack on Zionism – everyone knows Ken intended to imply that the Zionists shared culpability for the Holocaust. Apart from you. Because you are an extremist.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        You are lying.
        Only one disciplinary committee has heard my case, and was relying on a report containing false information.
        What was the basis for its decision? You have absolutely no idea – or if you do, you have no reason to know and I would like to know how you do.
        I have seen no evidence suggesting what you claim.
        You say “everyone knows Ken’s views on Zionism”. Presuming you mean Ken Livingstone, are you referring to his views as he describes them, or as his opponents have stated them? There is a very large difference between the two.
        There was nothing in Mr Livingstone’s words in 2016 about the Ha’avara agreement that suggested any implication along the lines you imply. He restricted himself to the facts. You should try it.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        And what about Ken’s committee, which found that his comments were unacceptable? One plus one, even for a left wing ideologue like yourself, must assuredly add up to two in all instances.

        The fact that you keep changing definitions of support to exclude the possibility that Nick Griffin is a supporter of Ken proves to the world what it knew already – that you believe that support carries a weight of moral culpability.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        The disciplinary committee found that Mr Livingstone’s comments had caused offence. It did not find that they were inaccurate – quite the opposite, in fact.
        Considering your own comments, it seems clear that those comments did indeed cause offence – but only to people who, like yourself, wilfully misinterpreted them for petty political gain.

      6. Shaya Grosskopf

        What petty political gain do you refer to? You seem to know more about my finances (including my pay as a shill – is it PAYE or do I need to include it on a tax return?) and my political positions (I voted for the legalise cannabis people in the London Assembly elections) then I do.

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        You are trying to blacken my name in order to stifle a loud voice for reason, because it contradicts views that you wish to push forward – clearly.

  6. bbbarabas

    “Mike”, I have your back!
    All those Hypocrites, just don’t get it, Their replies, in the hate words they use, doesn’t make any sense at all!
    Take them all to the Libel Courts, we your followers, will look after your costs, but there won’t be any, because you will win!

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      The hatred here is surely from the people who will not accept that saying that Hitler was a support of Zionism, is, in the normal meaning of the word, intended to create gross offence as many of the victims of Hitler were in fact Zionists.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        The only people likely to be offended by the fact you mention are those with an agenda of hate themselves.
        Yes, many of Hitler’s victims were Zionists. That does not change the fact of what his government did.
        Your use of “in the normal meaning of the word” – if we’re supposed to take that word a being “support” or “supporter” – is redundant, if by that you mean it’s being said that Hitler was a habitual supporter of Zionism. Nobody has said that apart from you.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        By your definition, Nick Griffin is a supporter of Ken Livingstone. You don’t like that when I use language to bait you, do you, and you never lost a single relative to the BNP.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        No – my definition requires supporters to actually provide a tangible form of support.
        I see you are using another “straw man” fallacy. To my knowledge I have not lost any relatives to the BNP, but that has no relevance to anything we are discussing.
        I’m glad you admit that you are trying to “bait” me, though – thereby invalidating your argument.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        Indeed, I will bait you. I consider it an honour and a duty to publicly humiliate antisemites with their own words.

        So to avoid further backsliding, supporters are people who provide tangible form of support. Nicholas Winton provided tangible support during the Kindertransport in helping the Germans achieve their dream of expelling the Jews. According to Mike, Nicholas Winton was a supporter of Hitler.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        No, Nicholas Winton was a supporter of the children whose passage to the UK he obtained.
        You need to compare like with like, you see. The people receiving the support were the people being moved, therefore Mr Winton was providing it. He did not provide any tangible support to Adolf Hitler, as far as I am aware.
        As far as I can see, the only person being humiliated through this dialogue is you.

      6. Shaya Grosskopf

        You can be a supporter of more than one thing you know. I found this out when I was about four. You must be coming up to fifty, and today is a big day for you. It’s the day I publicly humiliate you with your own vile views.

        Nicholas Winton removed Jews from Hitler’s domain. That saved Adolf the expense of exterminating them. And money changed hands.

        But of course, you’ve written a book on it (only £1.99) so why I am telling you this.

        And of course, there’s nothing offensive (you say) about saying Winton supported Hitler, just a historical fact, that for *no discernible reason* (apart from the readily discernible reason that there is an obvious imputation of culpability liable to cause grievous offence, but which you deny because then Ken’s comments would be seen for what they were) .

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        You are comparing an officially-sanctioned agreement between the Nazi government and the German Federation of Zionists with a series of bribes to corrupt officials.
        Your suggestion that Sir Nicholas Winton’s acts were supporting Hitler is grossly misleading and offensive. And you expect to be taken seriously on the basis of this?
        I notice you are trying to twist your own words. I did not suggest Sir Nicholas supported Hitler – you did.

  7. rob filth

    I think it’s obvious to anyone who has actually followed your blog quite why these smears have appeared in the mainstream media news, and it has little to do with valid concerns of anti-semitism and more to do with an act of revenge.

    Not forgetting that this is the same Mainstream Media who only this week allowed Nigel Farage a platform to express a thinly veiled anti-semitic conspiracy theory about the EU, their hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      Here is the real smear – “Hitler was a supporter of Zionism”. Hitler killed millions of Zionists. People still walk around with his number tattooed on their arm, and you sit here and moan about “smears”. We’re not putting up with the watering down of history, the recasting of the victims as the perpetrators – from the left or the right.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        That’s right – we’re not putting up with the watering-down of history.
        Whether you like it or not, there was a period in the 1930s in which the Nazi government of Germany helped the German Federation of Zionists in that organisation’s plan to move thousands of Jews out of Germany. It wasn’t a Nazi-organised ethnic cleansing, as you have described in a previous comment; the German Zionists devised the plan and took it to the Nazis.
        That doesn’t change what was going on at the same time, or what happened later – and nobody has tried to pretend otherwise. In this particular instance, the Nazis (and later, Hitler himself) supported the German Federation of Zionists and, as that organisation represented German Zionism at the time (although I notice you have failed to acknowledge this by responding to me), they supported Zionism. The evidence is irrefutable.
        I’m sorry it’s uncomfortable for you, but these are the facts. The only smears are coming from you and yours. Stop denying the facts. Stop denying history. There is no argument here, among those who know the facts and don’t have an agenda.
        You have an agenda. Admit it, apologise, and move on.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        So let’s start with my agenda. I admit it. I’m a Jew, and a descendant of survivors. My grandmother came from a home in what used to be Königsberg and is now the oblast of Karlingrad. Very little is left of the entire community she left behind, beyond a little footnote on her tombstone, which you can inspect at your leisure in the Jewish cemetery in Whitefield.

        These arguments have all been rehearsed ad nauseum, but here we go again. Hitler supported Zionists like Nick Griffin supported Ken Livingstone. He loathed Zionists, as he loathed all Jews, and wanted them dead, or at the least out of his country.

        You used to deny that “supporter” implied there was no moral culpability on the part of the recipient of that support. Now, finding yourself choking on the historical fact that by that definition, the BNP supports Ken Livingstone, you, predictably enough move the goal posts. And so we will sink down the slippery slope, until the Holocaust and Hitler was the Zionists fault.

        Well I say no. Stop playing with words. The Holocaust was Hitler’s fault, there was nothing shameful more shameful about the haavara agreement than Nicholas Winton’s Kindertransport, and we should be celebrating these wonderful people who saved the lives of people like my grandmother, not accusing them of siding with Hitler in a way which is unambiguously intended to cause gross offence.

        Hitler killed Jews – Zionists or otherwise. He never supported a Jewish homeland. He wanted his country Judenrein. That’s a historical fact. Deal with it.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        Your comment is nonsense.
        Hitler did not support Zionists in the same way Nick Griffin supported Ken Livingstone. I have been consistent on this point.
        I have never suggested that the Holocaust was anybody’s fault other than the Nazis’.
        I have never suggested that there was anything “shameful” about the German Federation of Zionists’ entry into the Ha’avara agreement.
        I have never suggested that the German Federation of Zionists sided with Hitler.
        You have a serious problem with the facts. Deal with that.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        No, you’ve been inconsistent/

        You deny that “support” caries implications of culpability, but are obviously motivated to deny that Ken Livingstone enjoys support from the far right. Why else would you be so offended by the possibility that Ken Livingstone as supported? Why does it bother you? Be honest.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        I haven’t denied your claim that Nick Griffin offered verbal support to Ken Livingstone. Verbal support is immaterial – an expression of opinion.
        The remainder of your comment is therefore irrelevant.

      6. Shaya Grosskopf

        And yet you keep feeling the need to add “verbal” and to differentiate it from the support Hitler gave to the Zionists. Which goes to show you are a rather poor liar.

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        No – it shows that my understanding of the meaning of the word “support” is better than yours – or at least, better than that which you claim to have, for the purposes of petty political point-scoring.
        As you are now going over the same ground again and again, I can’t see the point in responding to all your comments – or even publishing them.
        Next time, have something new to say.

Comments are closed.