Guardian

Berchmans’ dehumanizing comment about Israelis: 266 Recommends & not deleted by CiF moderators


Below the line of Jane Eisner’s CiF commentary, “President Barack Obama’s calibrated AIPAC message, was this comment by serial Israel hater, and Jew baiter, Berchmans, responding to a passage from Eisner’s essay about Netanyahu’s relationship with Obama.

Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman? Is there any chance the comment would not have been deleted?

If you click on our Berchmans link, you’ll see a CiF commenter who:

  • Claims Ahmadinejad has not, in fact, denied the Holocaust,
  • Claims Iran is not pursing nuclear weapons
  • Endorses the views of Norman Finkelstein
  • Suggests that Hollywood and the media have pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative
  • Argues that the charge of “Holocaust denial” is merely a cynical means to  tar any criticism of Israel with the false charge of antisemitism.
  • Says: “modern antisemitism is an IDF-related phenomena”
  • Opines that Zionists engage in an orchestrated assault on opinion at ‘Comment is Free’
  • Suggests that Hamas’ charter is not antisemitic
  • Implies that Hamas is justified in hating Jews

Berchmans has not been banned or, unlike many pro-Israel commenters, to the best of our knowledge, been placed in pre-moderation.

The hate spewed by this commenter towards Israel, and the state’s Jewish supporters, with impunity, represents a perfect example of the biased moderation at ‘Comment is Free’.

82 replies »

  1. And Berchmans got my ‘I think Milne is an existential enemy of Israel’ (in reply to his last CIF article on Iran-Israel) deleted on the grounds it was ‘inflammatory, incendiary rhetoric’.

    TG clearly bows to its democratic/ochlocratic readership: give the punter what he wants.

  2. um, I don’t know why I do this, but here you go.

    I think Berchmans talks a lot of bull. I think he’s denial of the existence of anti-Semitism is pathological. His infantilisation of Muslims and his equating them with the most fascistic elements of the community is puke inducing. Lately he suggested that Syrian rebels should surrender, which is an open support for Assad, a right-wing dictator. I think he’s responsible for derailing many of Cif debates, and I’m surprised he hasn’t been warned by the mods.

    That said, I don’t think you’re being accurate here:

    “Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman?”

    Berchmans is not implying that Netanyahu is subhuman, but that he doesn’t get along with anybody else of the human species. He didn’t call Netanyahu subhuman, but a misanthropist. You can disagree, but in this particular case, you cannot accuse him of racism (in fact Muslims have much more to complain about his stances than Jews).

    I’m no fan of Likud. I think their Charter is part of the problem. I’m for the independence of the state of Palestine and their right to have an army. But I think that Berchmans’ comment is not just incorrect (Bibi is much more intelligent and capable of forming alliances than his enemies think he is -something a misanthropist can’t do). The problem is that Berchmans’ comment betrays a detachment of reality and an obtuseness that it only helps to cement the irredentist ideas that so much plague this conflict.

      • The Baath party has its roots on fascism and German Romanticism. It is by all means a right-wing movement.

        • Thank you for the correction.
          I confused them with the Syrian Communist party for some reason.

    • I have to agree with Juan (on this comment at least, not on his overall stance). Adam, you have a wealth of putrid bile and turgid filth from Berchmans to choose from, but you have picked the wrong one here.

      Berchmans is clearly, as Juan says, accusing Bibi of being a misanthropist rather than sub-human. That’s an opinion about his personality rather than his religion or ethnicity.

      He is still a vile individual who ought to have been banned from CiF a long time ago, but this comment is not the reason why.

      • I also agree with Juan.

        Just today B. posted yet another despicable comment re. “the people who died in the sewers of Warsaw must be spinning in their graves” (i.e. at the actions of the Israeli govt.).

        But he did not call Netanyahu “morally subhuman” – nor did he “dehumanize” Israelis or call them all war-mongerers.

        There’s plenty of reprehensible material on each thread to rightly condemn B. on without having to distort his words.

  3. Adam you forgot to add that Berchmans threatened a female poster (Slvertree) with raping her and made jokes about his desire to “bang” Anne Frank. He explained these “slips” with being drunk/angry.
    His posts are full of lies about himself, one day he’s a child care worker an another he’s a postman etc. That the Guardian allows him to post on CIF tells everything about its policy.

  4. Berchmans is the Guardian and the Guardian is Berchmans they both deserve each other.He is as thick as they come,When you have Bella Mackie the Rustbuckets daughter in charge of moderation,then you can expect people like this idiot Berchmans to get away with anything.

    I have this feeling that the Rustbucket is Berchmans bastard love child.That would explain why he gets away with these moronic posts.

    We should target Berchmans on CiF till they ban him,like they banned Moran.

  5. Berchmans is the worst of the bunch, but if you read any post at all in the Guardian (not just CiF) about Israel or the wider Middle East, the comments are beyond sickening. The vast majority are a pile of steaming antisemitic filth, with the same memes playing over and over: Israel is the tail wagging the dog; America and/or UK are going to war “again” for Israel, Ahmadinejad never said “wipe Israel off the map”; the Jews are well-treated in Iran; and of course the usual “apartheid Israel”, oppressing Palestinians stuff.

    There are a few brave defenders of Israel such as “Hushed Silence”, “Winged Hussar”, “Voice of Israel”, “Voice from America” etc., (apologies fi I missed anyone) and a few sane posters like Sarka. But the rest just makes me puke.

    Adam, I don’t know where you get the mental strength to wade through this filth and come out sane at the other end.

    In fact it is not just the Guardian. It is every single paper in every country, no matter its political views. Even the Telegraph (the Torygraph as it is known) can spew out thousands of antisemitic comments as happened yesterday on its report about Obama’s speech to AIPAC.

    There are days when I simply want to hang up my keyboard and go to the beach.

    My question is, where did all these antisemites hide in the days before the internet? Or was it the internet that created these monsters in the first place?

    • “My question is, where did all these antisemites hide in the days before the internet?”

      Actually, this is possibly a good development (this is a hypothesis). Anti-Semitism was rife in public discourse even after WWII. What the internet does is to give fringe elements who don’t get a voice in the mainstream a channel to air their voice.

      The same as campus politics. It’s lively and rhetorical, but it has little impact on the rest of society. As a Chilean girl I met once told me, “faculties of Humanities are the safety valve of Latin American capitalism. The longer the far left spends time at Student Unions, the less threatening they are to power” (the internet is possibly something similar).

      • Juan – although the anti-Israeli activity and rhetoric that exists on campuses currently has little effect, what the various groups and Saudi-funded chairs are looking for a is a long-term creation of a group that emerges from college totally influenced by one-sided views of Islam, the Middle East, and Israel.

        This is starting in the US, but you can look at the UK as a test case, where this approach has been systematically deployed for about two decades now. The results are apparent in the bizarre, almost incomprehensible alliance in the UK between well-educated and liberal university graduates and the worst elements of Islam such as the adoration of Iran in the Guardian and Arab anti-Israeli activity such as Hamas and Hizbollah

        • Hi AKUS,

          that could be the case, but the truth is that radical Islam is a minor threat to our societies. It’s a far right movement of morons and it cannot deal with a complex society as ours. Every attempt of radical Islam to gain clout has been a PR disaster for the faith. I reckon it’ll survive in pockets of society, but it won’t be able to grow beyond that (it’s different in the ME, where they are a serious threat, but I think there’re chances that things get better there). The Red-Green alliance everybody talks about is politically irrelevant, and it encompasses tiny fractions of the left. In the UK they managed to get one MP and two councillors. They lasted ONE term, and couldn’t stay together for longer. They might be vociferous, but as we say we’re I come from… “they don’t exist”

      • Juan, I agree to a degree.

        Take a look at child pornography or peadophilia.

        The internet allowed them to unify and find each other thus creating cells and rings which were not present to such an extent prior to the internet.

        The internet may actualy spil over – if it didn’t already.
        What will happen when fiction becomes reality and reality becomes fiction?

      • The internet also allows the opportunity to portray multiple anonymous voices that can parrot each other, all the while insisting there is some faux quorum or agreement on a particular thought. Who says that White Supremacists haven’t taken on various news websites by dominating their discussion boards? This is my primary complaint with my hometown newspaper where you can’t write an article about Hollywood without some sick reference to Jews and Zionists in control of American thought and culture. Hatemongers know how to spread their filth. Be devoted, be consistent, and follow the rules of not using words that will lead to an automatic removal. These people may be stupid enough to have sex with their cousins, but they have definitely figured out how to infiltrate a publicly accessed website.

        • “These people may be stupid enough to have sex with their cousins, but they have definitely figured out how to infiltrate a publicly accessed website.” koufax

          But, mostly, as smart demopaths, they exploit the current moral confusion generated by PC ideology and its bogus concept of “fairness”, as if each and every non-sense had the same validity and right to come to light, particularly at the expense of other people´s bona-fides: that´s how criacionists argue and that´s how islamists, anti-West and judeophobes now act.

          So, to a great extent WE are at fault for giving a free platform for such haters and intellectual delinquents, as everybody is more concered with being “polite” and not being perceived as curtailing free-speech.

          No one has the *obligation* to provide a platform for haters. They can spew their sh*t elsewhere, in their own blogs or at mental institutions.

          • I’m not a fan of maniacal PC mantras, but I also will not blame Political Correctness with the decline of Western civilization. It’s one thing to not censor Mark Twain; it’s another thing to not tell Rush Limbaugh to shut his fat, flap trap. I don’t like the designation of “N-word” but I would not shout out that word unless I am making a point about it. Folks on the Right who want to push the buttons of acceptable behavior have been pegging the “PC police” as truncators on their self-expression for a bit too long.

            At the end of the day, the newspapers own their web domains. If they feel it’s necessary to allow folks to infiltrate and claim a bunch of nonsense about Israel, Zionism, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Environmentalists, etc, then they should suffer the consequences of not only a failing readership, but a complete lack of credibility.

            • My impression is that folks on the Left are the ones that use the PC-card much more often, and in fact they invented the concept to begin with.

              • Maybe the issue is defining what is PC behavior. Rush Limbaugh, for example, doesn’t necessarily just fly in the face of PC behavior but general decency. But when I complain about Rush, I am told to not be a PC police officer. I’m not. I just don’t agree with terminology like Feminazi.

                But if PC behavior is about banning books with bad words, then that behavior lies heavily along the lines of banning books for religious reasons. Banning books isn’t liberal. Changing terminology may have some well-meaning behind its cause, but the end result is the polar opposite of what it means to be Liberal.

    • anneinpt, your question highlights some of the problems created by the internet.
      Before the internet, granted we have always had the ‘green ink’ brigade, if you wrote a letter to a newspaper you had to provide your name and address even if your name and or address was withheld from being published.
      The internet gives anonymity and allows people, including the deranged, to post comments that would never have been published before particularly where the ‘moderation’ is slow or slipshod.
      I don’t think the internet has created these people, but rather like naughty children hiding behind a bush or a wall and shouting out swear words at passers by, it encourages or at least allows them to behave in a way that they would not dare otherwise.
      Of course we have the regular posting of comments by those who have some form of anti-semitic Tourette’s syndrome, but they have always existed just that in the past they couldn’t hide behind the anonymity given to them by the internet.
      I think you will find that the anti-semites, including some who post here, are not only brainless and clueless but spineless as well.

      • “Of course we have the regular posting of comments by those who have some form of anti-semitic Tourette’s syndrome,..” Gerald

        LOL! Perfect. 🙂

    • anneinpt, I believe that some of the posters are actually the same person using multiple names.

      I’ve have thought it would be a good project to collect the anti-Israel posts and analyze them for content and word usage.

  6. I don’t know this guy, but let’s assume Adam is telling the truth about Berchman’s position.

    “Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman?”

    Would be valid if he described Netanyahu as morally subhuman, which he didn’t. He said he doesn’t get on with humans.

    “Claims Ahmadinejad has not, in fact, denied the Holocaust,”

    That’s a stretch.

    “Claims Iran is not pursing nuclear weapons”

    A claim consistent with the opinions of all 16 US intelligence agencies, the Israeli intelligence community, and Obama’s own defence secretary. I mean, they can’t ALL be anti-Semites…can they?

    “Endorses the views of Norman Finkelstein”

    Normans views are that a solution to the conflict should be a two-state solution along the lines of international law, and that the memories of the victims of the Jewish genocide are abused for political gain. Shocking.

    “Suggests that Hollywood and the media have pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative”

    I don’t watch much of what Hollywood produces, but certainly this is true of the elite media, and also of the bulk of scholarship.

    “Argues that the charge of “Holocaust denial” is merely a cynical means to tar any criticism of Israel with the false charge of antisemitism.”

    Well, use of the “Holocaust card” as a political cricket bat is well documented. On this site alone, I’ve been accused of Holocaust denial, in spite of being staunchly opposed to such denial.

    “Says: “modern antisemitism is an IDF-related phenomena””

    That’s a very narrow view. Herzlian Zionism was the the same as 19th century classical anti-Semitism. The colonisation of Palestine by the Zionists obviously started a new chapter in the chronicles of anti-Semitism, which continues to this day, the actions of the IDF are just one tiny aspect of it.

    “Opines that Zionists engage in an orchestrated assault on opinion at ‘Comment is Free’”

    That would be funny were we not on CiFWatch, a site dedicated to mounting an orchestrated assault on opinion at “Comment is Free”.

    “Suggests that Hamas’ charter is not antisemitic”

    The charter is eye-wateringly anti-Semitic, but the charter is not in use today. The Hamas platform on which they were elected isn’t anti-Semitic.

    “Implies that Hamas is justified in hating Jews”

    Hmmm.

    • “I don’t watch much of what Hollywood produces, but certainly this is true of the elite media [pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative], and also of the bulk of scholarship.”

      This is actually NOT true. There’s a myth that the media are mostly pro-Israel. That might be the case in the US, and depending on where you look at. If you see Europe, for example, until very recently the Telegraph was not sympathetic to Israel, and the Guardian and the Indy are rather hostile. In Spain, El País, the most read high brow, is anti-Israel, sometimes mendaciously so, as it’s most of the press. Greek newspapers, better not to go there. In France, opinions tend to be from the mildly sympathetic to the utterly hostile. Germany is different, but for its past, I reckon. In Italy, il Corriere is quite pro-Israel, but other outlets are much more critical. Scandinavian countries have a lot of printed anti-Zionist press, and so does Holland.

      If you go to Latin America, the same is the case. In Mexico, for example, a newspaper like La Jornada, has called Israel “a colony of the US” and “the master of puppets that controls US policy”… all in the same article… Argentinean newspapers tend to be quite sympathetic to Israel, but you will find a lot of criticism of Zionism, particularly in Pagina 12.

      The idea that the elite media panders to Zionism is based on conspiracy theories rather than reality.

      • I was thinking specifically of the UK elite media. It’s trivially true in the US, but the UK is more interesting. Pro-Israel bias has been documented quite extensively, particularly by the Glasgow Media Group.

        Describing Israel as a US colony is amusing though, if only for its sheer inaccuracy.

        • “Pro-Israel bias has been documented quite extensively, particularly by the Glasgow Media Group.”

          The Glasgow Media Group is not an unbiased source. It would tag as pro-Israel anything that is not openly pro-Palestinian. The UK mainstream media is not pro-Israel. The Times may be, and possibly the Telegraph (and you have to qualify it), but certainly not the Guardian and the Indy. The BBC is seen by everyone as their enemy… pro-Palestinians think it’s a Zionist outlet, and pro-Israelis accuse it of demonizing Israel. I think that shows that there’s some truth in the Beeb’s commitment to balance.

          Political and cultural magazines cover the whole spectrum. I wouldn’t call the Economist, for example pro-Zionist, and the LRB for example is openly anti-Israel.

          • There is no such thing as an unbiased source, not in my experience. It’s not the right question to ask. “Does their research stand up to scrutiny” is the right question to be asking.

            You might disagree with their findings (which from memory relate to TV coverage), but I’m aware of no scholarly challenge to their methodology.

              • LOL. Exactly: it´s right here that doo-doo´s progressivistic dogmatism come to light. He´s a moral relativist about everybody else, excep regarding his own little pseudo-humanist credo.

                Yeah, who was just whining about “double standards”? Yeah, it was doo-doo, the master hypocrite.

            • “There is no such thing as an unbiased source, not in my experience.” doo-doo

              Man, for the uptenth time you come up with a sweeping generalization. But, for someone who claims to speak for “the rest of the world”, that´s not surprising.

              See, doo-doo, you Goebbelian monologues aren´t working.

    • “Implies that Hamas is justified in hating Jews”
      Hmmm.”

      Berchmans does this all the time. I’ve challenged him on that because it shows a racism of low expectations towards Muslims.

      US imperialism in Latin America would make the occupation of the WB a picnic. Not a single Latin American anti-imperialist movement ever asked for the killing of American civilians or espoused the type of racist bile Hamas is famous for. The same goes for the Saharawis. Where’re they shouting “death to Moroccans!”

      Implying that Muslims are justified in their anti-Semitism because of Israel’s actions is treating them like automatons with no moral compass.

      • Indeed. It’s the obverse of the argument that Israelis are justified in hating Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians.

        Unfortunately, moving from the specific to the general is a flaw in human thinking that transcends religion and culture.

        • “Indeed. It’s the obverse of the argument that Israelis are justified in hating Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians.” doo-doo

          Here you go again with your moral equivalence BS. If everything is a mental jelly, there´s no distinctions to make and, in particular, your crap about the ICJ, human-rights, ONGs etc it´s all a pack of LIES to advance your failed leftist agenda.

          Of course, that´s the tactics: feign that “we´re all sinners” (in the past that was “marxist self-criticism”) but conveniently excuse your pseudo-progressive crowd. A true mediocre postmodernist dogmatist your are, completely indoctrinated and boring as hell.

          Your mask isn´t working, doo-doo.

      • “Implying that Muslims are justified in their anti-Semitism because of Israel’s actions is treating them like automatons with no moral compass.” Juan

        And it´s pure racism. The racism of lower expectations.

    • dubi stated:

      “Well, use of the “Holocaust card” as a political cricket bat is well documented. On this site alone, I’ve been accused of Holocaust denial, in spite of being staunchly opposed to such denial. ”

      YET dubi still claims that the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran never said he threatened to destroy Israel.

      dubi, YOU LIE.

    • “Well, use of the “Holocaust card” as a political cricket bat is well documented. On this site alone, I’ve been accused of Holocaust denial, in spite of being staunchly opposed to such denial.” doo-doo

      In fact, YOU used the nazi-card, accusing me of racism (the infantile term of abuse of your crowd of “progressivists”) because I dared point out the fact of Jewish *disproportionate* talent in many fields, including science, maths, physics and medicine, a fact that makes mediocres such as doo-doo foam hysterically. For you, talent and merit is anathema as it destroys your egalitarian fantasy.

      Now, for someone that uses “Mein Kampf” to indict Zionists, whom you accuse of being guilty of anti-Semitism and hence the Holocaust, then we can quite correctly say that while you may not deny the Holocaust, you do blame the Jews for it. I´m not sure what is worse.

    • The “elite media and also of the bulk of scholarship” have “pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative”??

      In which parallel universe?

      • A good example within scholarship was the Joan Peters hoax, “From Time Immemorial”. Before it was exposed as a hoax, it received breathless praise from particularly the American intellectual establishment. Reviews were written, endorsements came flowing in talking about how scholarly it was, and how it would change the way in which we viewed the conflict.

        It was a similar story in the elite media in the US too. Of course, the book was exposed as a hoax, but it was instructive as to how the intellectual establishment worked.

  7. Time to take a look at some classic CifWatch hypocrisy.

    In the article above, Adam laments:

    ““Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman?””

    And yet, here we have a CiFWatch regular saying:

    “Just the genocidal ayatollahs, the pint sized president of the Islamic Republic of Iran ***ARE LESSER BEINGS***.” [emphasis mine]

    http://cifwatch.com/2012/03/04/the-last-day-what-a-nuclear-attack-on-israel-might-look-like/comment-page-1/#comment-68790

    Adam, please put your own house in order. If comments can be made on your site which refer to the leaders of a nation as not just “morally subhuman”, but actually “lesser beings”, can you really react with the mock outrage above?

    • dubi pointing her boney finger at CifWathc?!

      Let the record show that dubitante has been proven wrong, yet, dubitante continues to lie regarding the genocidal threats by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

      • I suspect that if Adam stops holding his own commenters to a lower standard that those at CiF, your days might be numbered.

        For those interested, and clearly I don’t include our friend TGIAI, “marg bar” is not a threat.

        “Death to” is a good literal translation of “marg bar”, but a poor idiomatic translation. A closer idiomatic translation is “Down with”. “Marg bar” is commonly used in popular politics in Iran, especially for chants or for putting to music.

        I’m not sure where it originates, perhaps from “Marg bar Shah”. My favourite Persian political slogan is “marg bar sibzamini”, which means, literally, “death to potatoes”. Now, clearly this isn’t a threat of violence against potatoes. It’s a reference to Ahmadinejad’s attempt to buy votes with…potatoes.

        You will also hear chants of “marg bar dictator” from Ahmadinejad’s opponents. It is an expression of disdain, frustration or disappointment. Not a threat of violence.

        Unless of course you are TGIAI, in which case, HIDE!! The Islamic bogeyman is coming to get you!!!

        • dubi, Still shilling for the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran.

          Do you also believe that there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran as the president of the Islamic Republic told the audience at Columbia University?

          Checkpoints at every airport in the world are necessary due to the Islamic bogeyman. Remember Pan Am 103 dubi?

          • “Do you also believe that there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran”

            I fully suspect that Ahmadinejad is gay…or maybe just curious.

            “Checkpoints at every airport in the world are necessary due to the Islamic bogeyman. Remember Pan Am 103 dubi?”

            Remember Iran Air 655? Or is that different, because it was shot down by Christian militants?

            • dubi, Remember the gay teens executed by the Islamic Republic, hung from construction cranes?

              Remember KAL 007, shot down by the Soviets – or is that different because it was show down by commie atheist militants?

        • “…, your days might be numbered.” doo-doo

          Oh, doo-doo, is this a threat? Very scary.

          In fact, you project your own BS on others, because you are the one that systematically and consistently lie, spin, say in one post the opposite of you claim in the next, disregard logic and evidence, adopt moral relativism for others and absolutistic dogmas for you and, last but not least, arrogantly hector people of the blog as if you were a kindegarden teacher and insult them, as you just did by comparing them to Hamas gangsters.

          In sum, you are the intellectual delinquent here. So if you want to lift the blog standards the best and only thing you can do is LEAVE
          IMMEDIATELY. B´Bye!

        • “The Islamic bogeyman is coming to get you!!!” doo-doo

          Yeah, bogus like 9/11, Madrid and London bombings and the endless murderous *ISLAMIC* acts of terror all over the world, particularly against muslims themselves.

          I sincerely hope you´ll be shredded to little pieces by one of your heroic shahid´s bogey explosives.

    • “Time to take a look at some classic CifWatch hypocrisy.” dood-doo

      Oh, cut the crap. Time to a certified hypocrite and liar such as yourself to move elsewhere. You have ZERO credibility to ponfiticate about anything at all in this blog. Go back to your readings of “Mein Kampf”.

      “Adam, please put your own house in order. ” yaba-daba-doodoo

      This is your authoritarian inner commissar coming to the surface and projecting your moral and intellectual vices on others.

      YOU go put your “house” in order, preferably in a mental institution.

  8. From the latest Guardian editorail “Israel and Iran: straining at the leash”
    The first post with 110 recommends so far

    “Iraandoost

    6 March 2012 8:37AM

    Israeli thoughtless, irrational and mad mad mad leaders are so desperate to start a war at any cost; one can only hope it will be one within themselves and themselves only so they can be replaced by moderate, rational and reasonable human beings”

    Another CIF poster, in the mold of Berchmans, with a further 110 followers and counting, who believe that Israelis, and Jews by inference are subhumans, or not to be regarded as human beings at all

    Now where have we heard this before – and where did it lead to ?

        • There’s every evidence of Silverstein’s reject persisting in his folly but there is no hope in Hell or elsewhere of his becoming wise.

          Misquoting Blake’s Proverbs of Hell.

      • Alawites are also being threatened nowadays, which is why Gentz said Israel will be preparing to absorb refugees from Syria and has requested to send aid to people who abuse her on a daily basis.

  9. Berchmans is far too cunning to post outright antisemitic comments on Cif, preferring to use sly innuendo.

    Another of his ploys is to dismiss instances of antisemitism, for example he says the Hamas charter isn’t antisemtitc, and recently he denied that Ken Livinsgstone’s insulting comments to the Jewish press photographer were antisemitic. On the other hand, he’s extremely quick to accuse posters of Islamophobia.

    It’s easy to see what Berchman’s game is. He’s on a mission to give anti-semites a space to operate in. He knows Cif’s real community standards (not the fake ones they claim to uphold) and he has learned to use them well.

    • Is he any different to a lot of posters here? Posters that know they can get away with posting offensive, vulgar drivel, in violation of CiFWatch’s own comment policy, but do so knowing the “real” CiFWatch policy.

      Anyone who claims that the 1988 Hamas charter isn’t anti-Semitic is an anti-Semite. No discussion required. – If indeed he has, and I’ve no idea if that’s true – link anyone?

      But from my perspective, he’s no different to many of the posters here, except that his prejudices lean in a different direction.

      • “Posters that know they can get away with posting offensive, vulgar drivel, in violation of CiFWatch’s own comment policy, but do so knowing the “real” CiFWatch policy.”

        Aww, now doo-doo is back to the victim mood. Listen, doc, you consistently posts lies, judeophobic propaganda and postmodernist BS.

        You even managed to cite “Mein Kampf” and to accuse Zionism for anti-Semitism. That would have been enough to kick you out of any decent blog.

        But, as a professional demopath, you exploit the current PC intellectual muddle and continue to post your crap. AND you dare complain?! That´s the moral inversion we´ve reach: anti-Semites now take offense for being called what they are AND claim victimhood when deservedly challenged and censored.

      • dubi, From your “progressive” perspective, WW2 US/UK and national Socialist Germany were the same – they just leaned in different directions.

        Who are we to judge (unless we sit on “the highest court in the world” BS)?

          • The reason this website is here is to criticize what a newspaper decides to peddle as information. When I come to this site, I expect to read about the bull being spread by the Guardian. When I (supposedly) got to the Guardian (or any other newspaper) I expect to read about the facts on the ground. I don’t expect that newspaper to misrepresent reality in order to titillate a mass audience who have penchants for degrading and abysmal, hatedriven agendas.

            In other words, this site is credible in exposing the Guardians lack of credibility. There is a difference, and so while I don’t agree with some terminology found here, and I will get into it when I feel I must, it doesn’t bother nearly as much as when I read that drek in some mainstream fashion.

            • “The reason this website is here is to criticize what a newspaper decides to peddle as information.”

              CiFWatch spends a good deal of its time, including in the article above, criticising what happens in the comments BTL. If CiFWatch is going to take a stance on that, it is dripping with hypocrisy if they hold themselves to a lower standard.

              “When I (supposedly) got to the Guardian (or any other newspaper) I expect to read about the facts on the ground.”

              Well that’s just incredible naiveté on your part. Newspapers are not there to inform. Neither is this blog.

              “I don’t expect that newspaper to misrepresent reality in order to titillate a mass audience who have penchants for degrading and abysmal, hatedriven agendas.”

              Dear God man, if you want to be informed, the last place you should look are the elite media.

              “In other words, this site is credible in exposing the Guardians lack of credibility.”

              This site has less credibility than the Guardian, not least of all because it routinely posts things which are demonstrably false, but also because it criticises the Guardian for precisely the same faults that I see here every day.

  10. Classic doo-doo tactics. First, a statement of truth, but not without a little pseudo-skeptic quibble.

    “Anyone who claims that the 1988 Hamas charter isn’t anti-Semitic is an anti-Semite. No discussion required. – If indeed he has, and I’ve no idea if that’s true – link anyone?”

    Then, immediately his moral relatistic BS, that basically cancels the previous paragraph…

    “But from my perspective, he’s no different to many of the posters here, except that his prejudices lean in a different direction.”

    …essentially conflating a terrorist gangster hate organization to people in this blog. A lie and an insult to boot. All with this fake-objetivity stance.

    No, doo-doo, your postmodernist BAVARDAGE WON´t stick. Try another tactic. Or find yourself a shrink.

  11. Aside from all the other nonsense, when did a call for war become equivalent to a call for genocide. By that definition, every single war in the history of the world is a call for genocide. Talk about watering down the definition. Idiotic.

  12. Very simple, target Berchmans by endlessly pressing the report button till they either delete his psychopathic posts or d ban him………

  13. I posted on this site last week that Berchman accidentally outed himself as a Muslim (I also provided the quote), reading his most recent offerings (last two months) he is becoming much more obvious with his hatred for all things Jewish.

    It seems that poor old Berchman the postman/ social worker etc has stopped even pretending to be a pacifist who is against all forms of violence, and instead has decided to just speak from his putrid heart.

    • “I posted on this site last week that Berchman accidentally outed himself as a Muslim”

      Is there an implication that adherence to Islam is something to be ashamed of? Or that such adherence harms his credibility?

      • No why?, are you projecting your own insecurities about Islam onto my post which mentions that Berchman outed himself as a Muslim?

        Please do enlarge why you framed your question in such a strange way?, it seems that you are similar to Berchman in accusing others of inferring things without any factual evidence to back up your bizarre ramblings.

        • It was your use of the term “accidentally outed”, as if it was something that should have been kept a secret, and then offering proof to back it up.

          Is his faith (or lack thereof) relevant to anything other than an ad hominem attack?

          • No it would not, especially if they had spent years claiming to be agnostic. Berchman’s body of work condemns him for the anti-Jewish idiot that he so clearly is.

            Actually, why do you continue to defend his slanderous posts?, why do we not read anything from you condemning some of his more disgusting posts?.

            • I have no interest in him, I’ve never read CiF so I don’t come across him. If he writes something you think is anti-Semitic, go at it. But, as is so common on here, instead of making legitimate criticism, Adam makes something up.

              I do speak out against anti-Semitism, but it’s important to do so from solid ground, something Adam seems to be missing. Why do we not see more criticism of the anti-Muslim hate speech that appears on here every day?