Mark Elf’s abusive email

November 14, 2007 at 6:30 pm 16 comments

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:45:17 +0000 (GMT)

From: MARK ELF <


Subject: Re: Bullying tactics

You “presume from the cc’s on Tony’s email that you are working
together as a group on this one.” Are you fucking mad? When you are cc’d into an email promoting viagra or penis enlargement, do you presume that you are working as a group with the sender?

You useless piece of shit. And you complain of bullying tactics whilst betraying a woeful ignorance of racism.

What a wanker you are, whoever you are, ftp.

FTP is a loyalist slogan by the way. It stands for Fuck the Provos. Since you host sectarianism (at best) you might think it a happy coincidence.

You useless wanker, honestly. I can’t believe what you claim to believe. I was going to copy all the other cc’s on this list but, since there are some on the list I don’t know, it wouldn’t be right. It would look like bullying, you wanker! Sorry to be repetitive but there’s nothing worse than an idiot who thinks they’re clever.

What a fuckwit. I’m trying to get my head around this. I blog but I don’t do much surfing. You run or speak for a site that claims to want to “free the people.” I take that to mean all people. You host an article by Gilad Atzmon that states that Israel should have learned from what it was that made Jews unpopular enough to get millions of Jews killed by the nazis. Atzmon’s beef used to be that non-religious people who identify as Jews are zionists since they are asserting, not an identity but, supremacy. But now apparently whatever it was that Israelis have to learn was what it was that made Jews unpopular enough for even those Jews who had converted to Christianity or other religions or who never claimed that they were Jewish, to be killed. So there you have a Christian sitting in church with his or her yellow star. Suddenly they are yanked out of the church by the gestapo and marched off to a concentration camp. They did something to make themselves unpopular?

And the colonial settler State of Israel should learn something from that?

Maybe the last of the colonial settler states has learned that it’s a jolly good idea to have people like Atzmon compare it to the Jews who perished in the holocaust no matter what they did, no matter how they behaved, no matter what they claimed to be, because then they can say that anti-zionism is antisemitism.

But then all that (not so) subtlety is going to be lost on a wanker who believes that people cc’d into an email must be working as a group with the sender.

There are two more specifics in your email that I would like to address since you have written to me out of the blue to complain of my bullying tactics.

You have pasted a copy of an email from a Steve Cohen. Cohen, you might know, is a Jewish surname. Not all people with that surname are Jews but it’s a safe bet usually that someone with that name is Jewish. That does not mean that other Jews are responsible for the email he sent nor are people who are cc’d by someone that also has a Jewish surname.

You quote Deborah Maccoby too. Another Jewish surname. You suggest that Tony Greenstein and all of those he cc’d are responsible for her email and are responsible for any hypocritical departure from what she said regarding “silencing” or not. Individuals who are Jews can still write as individuals.

I have to say that you are not only defending this “free the people” site’s duty to post antisemitic (arguably, you say) articles but you have given vent to it on your own account, at least twice in yoru ludicrous email.

I’m not seeking a reply from a useless piece of shit but just in case you do reply, keep it “off list” you big bully.


My response:

*sigh* The Viagra/penis enlargement thing doesn’t work here. I have no idea who sends me mine, and I doubt that I know them. I have never been part of a viagra/penis enlargement spamming ‘movement’.These guys ARE part of the same group. Both are publicly active in the war of attrition on Atzmon – Rance can be found to be editing the Atzmon entry on Wikipedia, while the angry Elf constantly runs antiAtzmon posts on his blog.

JAZ claims it “is a group for Jews and others opposed to the Zionist movement and ideology, and to its impact on both Palestinians and Jews”, and I neither know, nor care, what the ethnic background of its membership is, nor even how many people are in the group. I have explained that personally I can’t become a non Jew against Zionism – Other against Zionism doesn’t work for me either. What concerns me is the tactics they employ against a group they say they are (or were) in sympathy with.

Whilst Elf notes that someone named Cohen is not necessarily Jewish, he says it is safe to assume they are. He also notes that Maccoby is a Jewish surname – perhaps he approves of categorising people by the sound of their surnames? I think it sounds well dodgy. Once again, the people on that CC list are the ones that Greenstein added – I don’t know all of them – and the point of mentioning that their tactics mirrored those of a Hasbarah lobbyist is that they are the same tactics. I’m sure that not every person who responded to her call out to harrass ‘Carol singers’ was Jewish, and it was the Hasbarah lobbyists assumption that I must be Jewish for being on that list.

I don’t know how Steve Cohen got my email address, but as you will see, Greenstein confirms that he knows him, and Cohen specifically named Greenstein in the email. The Fuck the Provos stuff is mad – ftp is short for freethepeeps, my user name, and others use it as “Fuck the Police” and “Fuck the Pope” – later you will see that because I don’t bother denying it, it becomes part of the folklore about me that I am a Loyalist. Who is bringing race into this?

Had any other group used the same tactics, I would have noted that their tactics mirrored that zionist campaign, even if they were called “Supporters of Climate Change theory”, or “People against Police corruption” – I’m not sure how I became the bully by the end of his email – the accusation was made to the group – and I had noted that I might well publish emails I received – ftp


Entry filed under: freethepeeps, Mark Elf.

“you cannot expect us to” Greenstein to me and CC list

16 Comments Add your own

  • 1. peacepalestine  |  November 15, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    I’ve written about this again on my blog.

    I noticed as well that Indymedia people have sort of just now noticed that this issue has been online on some major sites. One of my posts to Indymedia said as much.

    Obviously, when we have an Islamophobe going on and on about “someone else’s racism”, it tends to weaken his argument.

    And, Elf as well as TG and the other cast of absurd characters, famous for their abuse and smearing, rather than respond to my challenges as to what I have ever written that is Anti-Semitic, simply repeat it.

    All it takes is a few clicks of the keyboard to be hit with a flood of TG’s (and his friends’) Islamophobism.

    This is another reason Indymedia would put themselves on the other side of the Palestinians if they are giving in to what this person wants. One who admits he does not respect Palestinians, and even hates them, however, he supports them. (The logic there is so weak it makes me dizzy). It’s not necessary to agree with someone or approve of them to respect them, but this is something Tony and Co have to really figure out. Respect is absolutely lacking in these Jews Sans Manières.

  • 2. peacepalestine  |  November 15, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    I just have been told that they’re talking badly about us at JSF in comments to a post. They still call my site Anti Semitic, (without proof, natch), they call IM Holocaust Justifiers, and Elf seems to think it’s wrong of you to expose the tactics.

    I thought I was a long letter writer, but Tony seems to do nothing else but post all over internet and still complain that CP didn’t give his idiotic (a word he loves) reply to a piece of mine any airspace.

    They make it all into a personality issue. I find it kind of pathetic.

  • 3. freethepeeps  |  November 15, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    This seems to be where its at.

    Hmmm, this made me laugh:

    “Apologies to the organisers of the one state conference. Atzmon obviously thinks that his neo-nazi worldview and his harassing of Jewish activists in the Palestine solidarity movement is more important than the one state conference. But then he has the SWP on his side so who is anyone to argue?”

    First, ‘mooser’ mentions Atzmon on the thread, then Joe 90 posts a link to this blog, then Atzmon posts. But it is for Mark Elf it is clear that it is Atzmon who is derailing the thread.

    He does the same thing when he ignores the fact that Steve Cohen chose to write to me instead of the list, at the behest of TG, and that it was after that that I wrote to them.

    So, when he talks about me in these as one of the “antisemites who are cyber stalking Jewish anti-zionists” he once again seems incapable of understanding the chain of events. He’s well quick to label me an ‘anti-semite’ though. Aah well, I shall of course post all the comments up here at some stage. This is after all a collection of all the stuff out there regarding this battle in the war of attrition.

    So, just to make it clear, the record shows that it was mooser and joe 90 who were the first to derail a One State thread to attack Atzmon and it was Steve Cohen who was the first to start the ‘cyber stalking’. Apparently cyber stalking is a tactic “similar to those of the zionists” – *

  • 4. peacepalestine  |  November 15, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    here is a comment I left on Elf’s blog… naturally, he won’t put it up. He’s against that kind of thing.

    Joe, and everyone:
    I’m only working “overtime” because Tony is so driven. He still has to show just WHERE I am Anti-Semitic. He still has never come up with the goods, but people are seeing how Islamophobic he is, and this is not good news for him, I imagine. Right. Using one’s own words, very important. While we’re on it, I think it wouldn’t hurt to tell you a little tip that a colleague of mine where I teach told her students: Emails and letters are something you should think very carefully about. You may end up regretting them if you say things that show the worst parts of your character.

    I would say that Elf saying he was drunk is not a very good qualifier. He is generally rude. And at any rate, bullying people he doesn’t even know who are trying to do their job, without pay and for the benefit of the general public should at the very least be treated with some respect. But respect is not something the likes of you feel is due to every human being. This is why you fail in promoting your agenda. You really don’t respect anyone who is not like you.

    Obviously, Elf won’t let this through, I’ll paste it up on FTP’s blog. I think he should see that you are calling IM Holocaust Justifiers, etc. He might want you to substantiate that kind of claim.

  • 5. peacepalestine  |  November 15, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    how right you are, FTP, they blame others for things they themselves do. Kind of sad, innit? But, welcome to the madhouse. I’ve been here for about 3 years, dealing with their obsessions. It is draining, but they certainly will not miss a chance to go on their rampages.

    One question I’ve been asking myself, why have they limited themselves to just IM and not to the hundreds of other places this article appears? Someday we’ll have to work that one out.

  • 6. golemonwheels  |  November 18, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Your whole stance, ftp, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You’re so certain that those calling for Atzmon’s antisemitic essay to be hid are acting as part of a Zionist campaign to silence him that you’re willing to use your block to force UK Indymedia to host an essay that many members of the editorial collective consider racist.

    You blocked an effort to remove a post members of your own collective considered racist.

    It’s not just Zionists who think Atzmon has a problem with the Jews, but you seem to automatically translate anyone who (rightly) condemns Atzmon’s antisemitism to closet-Zionist status. That’s a horrific misreading of reality. And I can understand why the UK collective would be pretty frustrated that your block has prevented them from removing a racist essay from the UK Indymedia site.

    If you decide that you’d prefer to err on the side of enabling antisemitism, that’s one matter. That you use a block to force the entire site to err on the side of antisemitism whether they want to or not — well, that’s very, very problematic, isn’t it.

    Promoting antisemitism can *never* advance the Palestinian cause. All it can do is taint with bigotry all the anti-Palestinian work the UK Indymedia collective has done.

  • 7. freethepeeps  |  November 18, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    In fact, there is no consensus within the collective that the post is racist, or is even intended to be racist.Unlike in Tony’s little ‘anti-zionist’ ‘shitlist crew’, there is no one worldview in the collective. While you may be clear in your own head ‘golemonwheels’ that it is antisemtic, it still aint necessarily so. That some people may choose to see an elephant in the room, does not guarantee that it is there. Tony Greenstein is a well known anti-semite – just google it. I don’t think that his posts should be hidden, even though I have little time for him or his behaviour and tactics. I don’t agree with those who say he is an anti-semite any more than I agree with him that raising the issue of religious teachings, when talking about a ‘Judaic worldview’ is irrelevant. I guess we’ll not ever agree on any of it. In any case I have stood aside from the decision, so it can no longer be said that I am forcing anyone to do anything.


  • 8. golemonwheels  |  November 18, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    In fact, there is no consensus within the collective that the post is racist, or is even intended to be racist.

    Nor did I suggest there was consensus; that’s one of the many straw men you’ve set marching lately. I reminded you of the fact, instead, that there was a significant component of the collective which did and does find the article antisemitic, and that you decided to unilaterally override them — to err, that is, on the side of promulgating antisemitic material.

    They are no doubt thrilled that you’re using procedural measures to prevent them from removing an antisemitic post — after all, it’s not only your own reputation you’re affecting by your toleration of antisemitism but that of the entire collective. You’re so worried lest the zionists put one past you that you’d rather associate UK IMC with material even members of your editorial collective consider antisemitic. What a wonderful thing you favored them with.

    The appearance of Atzmon’s antisemitism on UK IMC represents a victory for people like David Duke who thinks so highly of Atzmon that he not only publishes Atzmon’s antisemitic essays but even writes a special foreword to them just to let us know how brilliant he thinks they are.

    Look who else finds spiritual kinship with Atzmon.

    You see this as a zionist campaign to silence Atzmon. It is instead the revulsion of anti-racists — including those with impeccable anti-Zionist credentials — against antisemitic bollocks wrapped up in leftist vocabulary. David Duke and David Irving hear what Atzmon is saying about the Jews and they approve heartily. What do those professional bigots see, and members of your own collective see, and anti-Zionist activists like Sue Blackwell and Lenni Brenner see, that you do not?

    Perhaps the question is this. Since you are demonstrably willing to err on the side of promulgating antisemitism, how antisemitic does a piece need to be before that antisemitism outweighs your fear of zionist censorship? What is the tipping point? Do you wait for Atzmon to call for a return to the gas chambers, and decree that for IM purposes nothing short of such a call could possibly be considered antisemitic?

  • 9. freethepeeps  |  November 18, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Firstly, we work by consensus. So the tyranny of the majority isn’t an issue here. Banning an article without consensus is a step too far imo and I would rather see an informed decision than a kneejerk response.

    Secondly, I have stood aside from the decision (as I already said) so I am not preventing the Kollektive from doing anything.

    Anti-semitism is after all, (besides being a political tool for the silencing of political adversaries), only a “marginal prejudice”.

    You agree with that, right?

  • 10. golemonwheels  |  November 19, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Firstly, we work by consensus. So the tyranny of the majority isn’t an issue here.

    That’s the nature of the unanimous consensus process. It replaces the tyranny of the majority by the tyranny of the lone enthusiast. And in the process it gives the lone enthusiast license to do considerable damage to the collective.

    Regarding antisemitism, history has taught quite painfully that from small acorns large oaks can grow when otherwise good-hearted people are persuaded to turn their backs. Surely you’re not arguing that antisemitism is so “marginal” that Indymedia should consciously ignore the fight against it, let alone actively encourage it by hosting antisemitic statements on Indymedia sites?

  • 11. freethepeeps  |  November 19, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Well, I don’t think that it has yet been proven that there is anti-semitism in the article.

    It appears then to be a political disagreement.

    Why don’t you tell me where the anti-semitism is.

    Then I might understand what you are saying more.

    My point about the marginal prejudice, is that on the one hand we have this massive campaign being run against the article. and on the other hand the main prosecutor belittles the phenomen of which he complains.

    Why the hurry on his part?

    Why not allow people time to read, debate and discuss?

    The article comes with a clear health warning in the comments, so no-one can be foolish enough to buy the alleged anti-semitism that some people say it contains, surely? At the least they will know if is a strongly disputed article.

  • 12. golemonwheels  |  November 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Although quite a few people have been at pains to explain to you what’s antisemitic in Atzmon’s piece — only to have you premptorily wave the arguments aside unanswered, with nothing more substantial than a ‘that’s what YOU think’ — I will give it another try.

    Imagine that a cartoon caricature appears on Indymedia of Condaleezza Rice dressed in plantation clothes, barefoot, eating fried chicken and watermelon and calling George Bush “massah.” Then suppose the person who posted it added a footnote: “This cartoon isn’t racist, because it doesn’t attack *all* blacks, it’s only attacking Rice, and therefore it’s perfectly innocent.”

    Would you buy that argument? I don’t think anyone on Indymedia would. Why? Because clearly it’s a case of the traditional tropes of anti-black racism being called into play. Out of all the possible ways of caricaturing Rice, the reader is apparently supposed to believe that it’s a mere innocent coincidence that the cartoon so closely resembles the classic racist stereotype. That beggars credulity.

    Now, suppose someone on Indymedia complained about the racism of the cartoon, only to be told by the cartoonist, “You’re not really anti-racist, you’re only trying to silence critics of Rice, and therefore we will leave the cartoon unhidden.” What kind of reaction would Indymedia then get from actual anti-racists appalled and offended by such an editorial decision? Mass gratitude?

    What Gilad Atzmon does is just as blatant. He takes the core trope of the antisemitic racist viewpoint — that of the Jew as the secret hand behind the government and the media, fomenting war for profit — and applies it wholesale to anyone who supports the existence of the state of Israel. Neocons, he said, have been “pretty successful” in their plans to “Zionise America and Britain.” Clearly, he believes that the US and the UK are in the hands of the Zionist, the new secret hand. This is simply another retelling of a tale he’s told many other times.

    It might be a coincidence if it does it once. Maybe even if he does it twice. But the “secret hand” trope is so central to Atzmon’s stance that he returns to it again and again, clearly demonstrating that it’s not just a one-off incident.

    This is why David Irving and David Duke and the Holocaust denier “Israel Shamir” find Atzmon such a kindred spirit: he is telling the classical antisemitic narrative of the secret hand.

    To you, apparently, antisemitism is primarily a political cry to silence critics of Israel. To the rest of the world, antisemitism is a force which only two generations ago murdered one out of three Jews on the planet. To you, apparently, Atzmonian antisemitism is a political stance, not a racist one, and should therfore be discussed on Indymedia as if it were merely another political platform. I think you’ll find that Indymedia’s place on the left will inevitably be harmed by such a position. To you, apparently, the ever-increasing list of those who find Atzmon’s stance unsupportable is the result of a political “campaign” against him. To a more impartial observer, seeing anti-zionsts, zionists, Jews and gentiles, left and right uniting against him shows that the issue of fighting antisemitism transcends politics.

    Is it possible to criticise Israel without falling into Atzmonian claptrap? Yes, it certainly is. There is no doubt that supporters of Israel are a powerful political force in America — as you would expect in a democratic nation whose voters overwhelmingly consider Israel to be a friend. It’s not antisemitic to say so. But there is a key difference between saying “there is a powerful political force” and saying “the US and the UK are Zionised,” with its Protocols-like insinuation of the secret iron hand of a shadow government. The latter is the rhetoric of Duke, Irving, and Atzmon. And, yes, of Julius Streicher as well. This is the line that Atzmon has crossed.

    Indymedia’s position is, and should be: No platform for racists. Atzmon has crossed into racism. The proper thing to do is quite clear.

  • 13. freethepeeps  |  November 19, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    So, the anti-semtism in the article, for you, is contained in the words “Zionise America and Britain.”?

    You do realise that isn’t even something that Greenstein has raised in all his attempts to reveal where the anti-semitism in the article lies. And yet he asserts that the article contains “the most vile racist statements.” Youy apparently missed them!

    You do also accept that zionism is a political ideology and that criticising it cannot easily be said to be ” targeting people because of some inborn, genetic quality”, surely?

    Are you getting why I said that we appear to be having a political disagreement?

    Even you and Greenstein can’t agree where the actual anti-semitic content of the article is.

    Why is that?

  • 14. golemonwheels  |  November 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Neither Tony nor I were presenting what we believed to be a *comprehensive* examination of the antisemitism in Atzmon’s piece. Unfortunately, there was so much antisemitism there that he and I could pick out different examples without overlap (and without exhausting the examples either).

    Weak tea, peeps.

    The decision is not a political one but a moral one. You have decided — using politics as a pretext — to blind yourself to a particular form of bigotry. Instead of “no platform for racists,” you have “no platform for racists except for coded antisemites whom I will pretend I am too obtuse to decode, wink wink, and if this strikes you as morally reprehensible I’ll call you a Zionist.”

  • 15. freethepeeps  |  November 29, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    You bore me – and I can’t be arsed……

  • 16. golemonwheels  |  November 30, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    That’s all right, freethepeeps, I wasn’t expecting you to deliver anything approaching a coherent response anyway.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


November 2007

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: