Pssst. Wanna Manifesto? Awesome new front group for LM

For a dead parrot, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) continues to display a great deal of life; the bizarros gotta new front group: Manifesto Club. It joins:

1) Africa Direct — genocide? What genocide? (defunct);
*Association of British Drivers — just say no to speed limits;
2) — “Let’s build!” (awesome);
3) Campaign Against Militarism (defunct — begat the London International Research Exchange);
3) Campaign for Internet Freedom (defunct);
4) Channel Cyberia (defunct);
5) Families for Freedom (defunct);
6) Feminists for Justice — date rape? (defunct);
7) Freedom & Law (defunct);
EIGHT) Future Cities Project (awesome);
Genetic Interest Group
9) Global Futures (defunct);
10) Institute of Ideas (awesome);
11) Irish Freedom Movement (defunct);
12) Libero! — established by (Doctor) Carlton Brick* as a support group for libertarian football fans / a weird-arse attempt at cornering the football market (defunct);
13) Litigious Society (defunct);
14) London International Research Exchange (defunct);
15) Parents Against the Charter ? (defunct);
Progress Educational Trust GM is cool!
Science Media Centre GM is cool!
16) Sense about Science (awesome);
17) Sp!ked Online (awesome);
18) Transport Research Group — cars are good (defunct — begat the Future Cities Project);
19) WORLDwrite (awesome);
20) (East London) Workers Against Racism (defunct);


21) the magazine NOVO (Germany).

*Links with but not established by.

Established in 1978 as a split from the IS, the RCP — according to James Heartfield (James Hughes) — was disbanded over a fairly long period. Thus the last time the RCP stood in an election was 1992, while the last public campaign it was involved in was the Campaign Against Militarism (1992–1995); the RCP sold LM to Helene Guldberg at the end of 1996.

Living Marxism, the monthly magazine of the RCP, was launched in 1988. It later (1996) changed its title to LM — which met polite titters — but what got the Godless Communists into heap ’em big trouble was an article by Thomas Deichmann, published in LM #97 (February 1997), and titled ‘The picture that fooled the world’. “This image of an emaciated Muslim caged behind Serb barbed wire, filmed by a British news team, became a worldwide symbol of the war in Bosnia. But the picture is not quite what it seems”, wrote Doubting Thomas (LM issued a press release at the time to ensure maximum publicity for his startling claims). Accused of manufacturing lies, Ed Vuillamy, one of the journalists responsible for producing the story, denied Deichmann’s allegations. A few years later, in March 2000, ITN won a libel case against LM, and it was forced to close. See David Campbell, Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia – the case of ITN versus Living Marxism | Also Alexander Cockburn, Guardian Fabricates Chomsky Quotes in Bid to Smear World’s Number One Intellectual: Storm Over Brockes’ Fakery, Counterpunch, November 5/6, 2005 | David Pallister, John Vidal and Kevin Maguire, Life after Living Marxism: Fighting for freedom – to offend, outrage and question everything, The Guardian, July 8 2000 | Dave Walker, Libertarian Humanism or Critical Utopianism? The Demise of the Revolutionary Communist Party, New Interventions, Vol.8, No.3, 1998 | George Monbiot, Far Left or Far Right?: Living Marxism’s interesting allegiances, November 1, 1998

*Three speakers focused on David Beckham, among them Carlton Brick, from the university [of Paisley, Scotland], whose address was intriguingly titled “Father, why hast thou forsaken me? Postmodernism, desire and dissatisfaction: a case study of David Beckham’s meaning”. Explaining how Beckham’s career has been littered with Christian symbolism, Brick said redemption, resurrection, and salvation “are the narratives that tell his story”. The footballer’s perception of himself seems to concur: he has appeared in magazines adopting a Christ-like pose, has a crucifix tattoo and named one of his sons Cruz, Spanish for cross. But Brick’s paper said reading Beckham as postmodern religious icon, a new god of the global consumer culture, was insufficient. “Rather, Beckham’s celebrity speaks to the paradoxical desire to attribute meaning in a culture which is increasingly defined as meaningless …” ~ Beyonce, Becks and me me me, Sydney Morning Herald, September 17, 2005

Also awesome : Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) | Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) | Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada)

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in !nataS, Trot Guide. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Pssst. Wanna Manifesto? Awesome new front group for LM

  1. lumpnboy says:

    @ndy, trainspotting aside, there is no need to join in the lazy smearing of of LM/the RCP. I read Living Marxism during the Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian conflicts and my recollection is that they were concerned to highlight why they thought all ‘sides’ were guilty of atrocities, and that the mass media couldn’t be trusted to provide anything like a reasonable interpretation of what was happening. While they may have got a lot wrong, as is often the case with left-wing journalism, some people act like this made them Serb apologists. But they were actually right about the photograph not actually showing what it was taken to show, but being a key moment in the representation of the conflict nonetheless.

    More to the point, they didn’t deny that there were massacres on an enormous scale in Rwanda, so your comment supposedly capturing the line of Africa Direct (“genocide? What genocide?”) is I think ill-judged, at least so far as I can tell.

  2. @ndy says:


    I was hoping you’d comment lumpnboy. As for lazy smearing: slackbastard is the name…

    More seriously though, two things. One, the article by Deichmann; two, the article by Fiona Foster / Fiona Fox.

    Inre the latter, the central claim by Fiona in the article is that the International Tribunal established by the UN (Resolution 955 of 8 November 1994) to investigate crimes of genocide in Rwanda was politically skewed against the interests of the Hutu majority. In truth, “Both sides [Hutu and Tutsi] were responsible for human rights abuses and massacres”; there was no ‘genocide’ of Tutsis as such.

    By reducing the war in Rwanda to a genocide in which only one side participated, the NGOs have successfully criminalised an entire community – the majority of Rwanda’s people… The lesson I would draw from my visit is that we must reject the term ‘genocide’ in Rwanda. It has been used inside and outside Rwanda to criminalise the majority of ordinary Rwandan people, to justify outside interference in the country’s affairs, and to lend legitimacy to a minority military government imposed on Rwanda by Western powers.

    Note that Fox also claims that “the UN Tribunal will only investigate killings which took place between April and July [1994]”; the Tribunal itself claims that it “was established for the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. It may also deal with the prosecution of Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations of international law committed in the territory of neighbouring States during the same period.” In addition, while Fox maintains that the discourse surrounding the Rwandan ‘genocide’ criminalises an entire population, “The first trial at the ICTR started in January 1997, following the arrival of the first accused to Arusha in May 1996. As of April 2007, the tribunal has handed down twenty-seven judgments involving thirty-three accused.”

    Estimates of the number of individuals killed during the 100 days from April 6, 1994 (the death of President Habyarimana) to July vary, from between 500,000 to 1,000,000. As a result, perhaps 3/4 of the Tutsi people were killed (Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, HRW, 1999).

    Inre the case of Deichmann, there’s a few issues. One is the accuracy of the ITN report and Deichmann’s critique; another concerns the legitimacy of the subsequent court case and the closing of LM as a result of an unfavourable decision. My reading thus far suggests that Deichmann and LM were technically correct on some issues but that the thrust of their argument was false.

    Leaving aside these two issues, I think the case of the RCP remains a fascinating one, especially as it concerns the transformation of a party of ostensibly ‘revolutionary communists’ into a network of intelekshual apologists for rampant capitalism.

    Paul Anderson:

    December 17, 2003

    I’m late on this one, but what the hell. George Monbiot had an almost-fascinating column in the Guardian last week (for which click here) on the strange phenomenon formerly known as the Revolutionary Communist Party, which transmuted into Living Marxism magazine (later plain LM), which in turn spawned (inter alia) the Spiked! website … and the Institute of Ideas think-tank …

    There are several very weird things about the former-RCP. The most obvious is its ideological trajectory. The RCP had its origins in an ultra-orthodox-Leninist faction inside the International Socialists, the forerunner of the Socialist Workers Party, in the early 1970s, which became the Revolutionary Communist Group. To cut a long story short, the RCG expelled a group that became the Revolutionary Communist Tendency, later the Revolutionary Communist Party, which established itself by the early 1980s as an independent Leninist revolutionary sect. It was a lot more cerebral and fashion-conscious than the SWP — for its internal culture click here and here — but otherwise unremarkable, though in a moment of lucidity it did call for a ballot during the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The RCT/RCP had a well-produced agitational paper, the next step. Otherwise, it was notable mainly for its quixotic front organisations, in particular East London Workers Against Racism (ELWAR), a squaddist fight-the-fash outfit, and, notoriously, the Red Front, a disastrously ineffective general election intervention in 1987.

    But in 1988, the RCP turned the next step into a monthly magazine, Living Marxism. And in the next few years, its leading lights – particularly Frank Furedi (party name Frank Richards), the chief ideologist of the sect, and Mick Hume, the editor of the next step and subsequently Living Marxism – started to delight in taking political positions at odds with leftist orthodoxy. The RCP was formally dissolved in 1996, Living Marxism became LM, and it ruffled feathers by coming out against censorship of pornography, against moral panics on child sexual abuse, against environmentalist doom-mongering and so on.

    Controversialism can make for zippy journalism, and some of this was a welcome (though hardly original) assault on a lot of leftist cant of the day. But some was taking unpopular positions for the sake of it, and some was vile nonsense – most notoriously the “stand” taken by LM (as Living Marxism had become) against reports of Serb atrocities in Bosnia, the result of which was a (wholly justified) libel action by journalists it had traduced that resulted in its closure in 2000 and the creation of Spiked! …

    Whatever, by the time Spiked took over from LM, the former-RCP had apparently ditched just about all the leftist baggage it once carried. The output of Spiked and the Institute of Ideas has been superficially indistinguishable from the free-market libertarian right in the political positions it has taken up — and as Monbiot shows, the former-RCP has not been averse to getting into bed with people that no self-respecting RCPer in the 1980s would have touched with a barge-pole.

    But the ideological journey is not the whole story. One thing that makes it particularly remarkable is that the core of the group has remained together throughout – and that its members have been almost incredibly successful in terms both of their own careers and in establishing credibility for their front organisations: they’re in there with most broadsheet newspapers, the Institute for Contemporary Arts, the Royal Society and all the rest.

    How have they done it? Well, money has had a lot to do with it. The RCP in the 1980s was never very large, but it was big enough to produce the next step by exacting a tithe on its members, the standard Leninist practice. With Living Marxism/LM, however, the show went up a notch just at the time that the RCP became invisible on the activist left: colour printing, WH Smith distribution et cetera. Rumours started doing the rounds about mysterious funders — and given Living Marxism/LM’s editorial line, pro-Serb and anti-environmentalist, quite a lot of the rumours were about dodgy cash from Slobodan Milosevic, corporations desperate to buy some left credibility or even the spooks. Monbiot’s piece in the Guardian is just the latest to insinuate that the former-RCP is in receipt of money from the forces of darkness.

    My intelligence suggests a different explanation of the group’s affluence: the success of some of its key members as entrepreneurs, in particular one Keith Teare (party name Keith Tompson, website here), onetime sociologist at the University of Kent with Frank Furedi, founder of Easynet and the Cyberia internet café chain and now a Silicon Valley guru, who has made a multi-million-dollar packet in the past 10 years. Even now, Cyberia’s CEO is Phil Mullan, former RCP, Living Marxism and LM stalwart . . . Well, it beats running a general print shop as every other leftist outfit does.

    Fuck me — it sure does! Check it out now, the funk soul brother:

    Keith Teare was founder or co-founder of two companies that achieved $billion valuations or greater.

    The EasyNet Group plc: UK. Founded in 1994 as one of the first ISP’s in Europe, Teare was CTO and co-founder. It went public on the AIM exchange in London in 1996 and by 1999 was trading at a valuation of more than $1 billion. In 2007 it was acquired by Rupert Murdoch’s B Sky B where Teare’s co-founder, David Rowe is still CEO of the division, for around $400million.

    RealNames Corporation, founded in Palo Alto in 1998. Teare was founder and CEO. The company created a multi-lingual naming system, with distinct national namespaces, sitting on top of the DNS. It used natural language keywords, mapped to URI’s to allow native language navigation. Teare raised more than $130m in venture funding and filed for an IPO (led by Morgan Stanley, with Mary Meeker as lead analyst) in 1999. After negotiating a world-wide agreement to include RealNames in the Microsoft browser in early 2000, the company filed an amended S1, and had an implied valuation of more than $1.5bn. The bursting of the Internet bubble meant the company stayed private, but prospered. By 2002 it was responsible for over 1 billion keyword navigations per quarter. it had agreements in Japan, China and Korea and was responsible for supporting the nascent multi-lingual DNS system run by Verisign. In Q1 2002 Microsoft decided to cease to support the technology. 1 billion page views previously resolved by RealNames were redirected to the MSN search service. This resulted in the closure of the company in Q2 2002.

    In addition to these 2 very large projects Teare is credited with also being the founder of edgeio corporation; the seed funder of NetNames (the world’s first domain name registrar, created by Ivan Pope); the founder of cScape, a leading UK systems integrator; and co-founder of CYBERIA, the world’s first Internet Cafe.

  3. Changeling says:

    Don’t allow ad hominem (be it true or false) to detract from the reality that – whatever else may be said about Living Marxism – they did a great service to truth by exposing the “death camp” hoax, and a great disservice to truth by defending themselves so appallingly in their legal battle with ITN.

    Unfortunately, the version of “The picture that fooled the world” only shows 1 picture of the “inmates” in the “death camp” and not the numerous other pictures on the page ( really is quite ordinary, though I guess it’s better than nothing), but even that photo leaves us with questions.

    Questions such as “How did ITN get to photograph pictures of a death camp up close while prisoners milled around?” or “Why do prisoners in a death camp look no more than mildly uncomfortable?” or perhaps “Why are prisoners in a death camp apparently imprisoned by no more than a small barbed wire/chicken wire fence?”

    Two more revealing photos are available at – the first one in black and white from a lie-ridden article by Ed Vulliamy in The Guardian, the second one a still from the documentary film Judgement. Even the black and white photo (done in B&W presumably to give a more sinister feel) reveals clearly that some of the prisoners have smiles on their faces – including the “emaciated man” (who was apparently afflicted with a deformity as a result of tuberculosis as a child. None of the other inmates look in any way emaciated.) The second (colour) photo depicts an almost relaxed atmosphere among the “prisoners” in the “death camp”. The above link also explains the situation being depicted. Anyone who has seen Judgement (as I have, though unfortunately it’s no longer available on Google Video) can only conclude that the “death camp” claims are an inversion of the truth. It actually shows Penny Marshall of ITN trying to get the Bosnian Muslim refugees to say they were being mistreated. She failed to elicit her desired response, but the hoax succeeded nonetheless. The doco was made from footage from a Serbian TV crew who were filming the ITN crew as they pulled off the hoax. The ITN crew were *invited* by the Bosnian Serb government after allegations of Serb death camps had been made in the Western media. The ITN crew are left largely unsupervised to talk to whoever they want. They also took footage from an actual Serb prison for Bosnian Muslim POWs (the photo of the “death camp” is actually a refugee centre) – footage which ITN never bothered showing – which depicts a strikingly relaxed atmosphere for a POW prison.

    An overview of the LM vs ITN libel case is available at

    An overview of LM‘s seriously flawed courtroom strategy – possibly deliberately flawed – is available at

    A comparison of the media manipulation techniques employed against the Serbs and also against the 1999 Seattle WTO protestors is available at

    I will check out the other links you’ve provided sometime, @ndy. One thing I do know is that significant chunks of the “left” are – to put it mildly – severely compromised by the Establishment, so I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the assertions and implications made are true.

  4. lumpnboy says:

    @ndy, I’m not sure what you mean by LM being ‘technically’ correct – the photographers went inside the enclosure and shot the man through wire from there, and this became an image of a Serbian death camp in the extraordinary proliferation of the photo in the days after its appearance. The point that the image was thus made to serve interests and ideologies which were then hegemonic amongst a number of Western governments and throughout much of the corporate media doesn’t seem technical to me, but substantive. The question of whether the original journos intended to mislead – the basis of the LM loss of the lawsuit as I understand it – that seems secondary to me.

    And in general the RCP/LM in that period evinced a concern to critique the deployment of ‘new’ ideologies as justification for intervention and/or the pursuit of particular interests. As I read it at the time, much of their critique of the use of the term ‘genocide’ was part of a critique of the ‘new ideologies of imperialism’ i.e. the ways in which humanitarian and moral considerations, even feminist and environmental considerations (eg. those Muslims are bad to their women, let’s invade Afghanistan), were being deployed to demonize the right villains in ways which are compatible with the right interests. Hence the famous LM cover, emblazoned with the words (very small) “If they told you” and then (very big) “SERBS HAVE NUKES” and then (very small) “would you believe them?”

    I know so little about the Tribunal and the interests which animated it that I can’t really comment very usefully.

    All this is not to say that LM was necessarily accurate in any given claim – I’d suggest though that it is more likely that, in their pursuit of critique along these lines, they would be lazy about facts, rather than having any actual interest per se in holocaust denial or pro-Serbian govt activism. This kind of indifference/incompetence is normal in the media, and certainly in the Left media, and only stands out in their case, and is portrayed as so sinister, because they contradict much of the thrust of ‘progressive’ opinion at the time on these matters, I suspect.

    I’m just assuming we both think the anti-LM lawsuit was an abusive, repressive action.

    The seeds of their ‘pro-science’ anti-environmentalism were there before any of them started being involved with corporate cash for saying it, by the way. There is a strange consistency even in their various post-RCP evolutions, which of course also partly undermines what I would say in relation to a…

    Declaration of interest: I have a couple of friends who were involved in the RCP in the early/mid-’90s, who would probably defend certain aspects of RCP ideology even though they are very critical of where the leadership all ended up, and even though they were themselves part of losing tendencies opposed to the trajectory of the party. I don’t share these commitments, but I am aware that they now feel that they get abused for relatively valid or defensible, if iconoclastic/contrary, views and actions which get lumped in with some of the more horrible views and actions pursued by the leadership, particularly in the form of certain post-RCP networks.

    Out of curiosity, @ndy, why were you hoping I’d comment?

  5. @ndy says:

    Yo lumpnboy.

    On the photo.

    I think the analysis by David Campbell is fairly convincing — a lot more so than, say, Thomas Deichmann (or Jared Israel for that matter). Deichmann:

    The fact is that Fikret Alic and his fellow Bosnian Muslims were not imprisoned behind a barbed wire fence. There was no barbed wire fence surrounding Trnopolje camp. It was not a prison, and certainly not a ‘concentration camp’, but a collection centre for refugees, many of whom went there seeking safety and could leave again if they wished.

    The barbed wire in the picture is not around the Bosnian Muslims; it is around the cameraman and the journalists. It formed part of a broken-down barbed wire fence encircling a small compound that was next to Trnopolje camp. The British news team filmed from inside this compound, shooting pictures of the refugees and the camp through the compound fence. In the eyes of many who saw them, the resulting pictures left the false impression that the Bosnian Muslims were caged behind barbed wire.

    By ‘technical’ I mean that, based on my reading of Campbell’s essay, it appears to be the case that there was a fence surrounding the area in which the journalists filmed, but this did not constitute an ‘enclosure’ in the sense in which Deichmann claims. That is, that it was the journalists who were imprisoned, and the refugees who were free. Secondly, that it was the intention of the journalists to falsely convey this impression.

    To begin with, the famous still was taken, by others, from film reports. Thus:

    It was from Penny Marshall’s and Ian William’s video reports that the newspapers took (“frame-grabbed”) the image of Fikret Alić to produce what would become an iconic photograph. Despite its subsequent prominence, the image of prisoners at Trnopolje’s wire fence, and the image of Alić in particular, comprised but a fraction of the television stories. Marshall’s ITV report ran for six minutes, in which the opening two minutes and thirty-five seconds dealt with Omarska, with the balance (three minutes twenty-five seconds) covering Trnopolje. In that portion of Marshall’s story, the images of Alić and others at the fence run for twenty seconds (from 2:40 to 3:00). In William’s report, which ran for just over six and a half minutes, Omarska took up the first two and a half minutes. When the report shifted to Trnopolje, footage of various prisoners, many of them very thin, behind a variety of fences, ran for one and a half minutes. During this sequence, the image of Alić at was on screen for only a few seconds (4:51 – 4:56).


    Who was Imprisoned? Conditions at Trnopolje

    Of course, the issue of the fence, its condition and the meaning of ‘the enclosure’ would be largely without interest were more significant issues not at stake. The judge’s question that follows his own view on ‘the enclosure’ – does it matter? – moves us on to the pivotal question of whether Alić and the others were imprisoned.

    Deichmann’s original article was written in a way that could give the appearance of casting doubt on Alić’s status as a detainee. The idea that the picture of him behind barbed wire fooled the world, and was not all it seemed, set the tone. The charge that it was the camera crew rather than Alić who were surrounded by barbed wire established the contrast between who was free and who was not, while the description of Trnopolje as a refugee collection center that many freely came to and remained able to leave at will diminished the sense of malevolent purpose. Deichmann’s article was, however, careful to include some precisely worded caveats to this possible interpretation. On the penultimate page, for example, he noted that most of the refugees in Trnopolje were undernourished. Civilians were harassed in the camp, and there were reports of some rapes and murders.

    In the course of the trial, the principal concern of LM’s defense was to call into question the fact that Alić was imprisoned behind a barbed wire fence. It is perhaps somewhat surprising, therefore, to find that LM’s editor testified that Alić was imprisoned. When asked by the barrister for ITN whether it was his contention that Alić and the other detainees could leave Trnopolje on 5 August 1992, Hume answered: ‘No, it is not my case. He is in a field surrounded on two sides by low wire fencing, outside of which there are armed guards, the north side of which abuts the community building and the south side of which abuts a barbed wire compound within which the ITN crews were filming and within which there are other armed guards. I think that’s abundantly obvious.’ Hume also testified that conditions at Trnopolje were harsh, while Deichmann described Trnopolje as ‘an awful place’.

    The terrible conditions at Trnopolje were established in the libel trial by the evidence of Dr Merdzanic, a Bosnian medic who was detained at Trnopolje and acted as one of the camp doctors. Merdzanic was interviewed by ITN in 1992, and it was he who secretly supplied the photos of badly beaten inmates to Penny Marshall, which were used in the original broadcast. In his testimony, Merdzanic made it plain that he was taken against his will from his home in Prijedor to the camp at Trnopolje and that he was not free to leave the camp. Moreover, he testified that he heard the screams of inmates being beaten by the guards, that he treated those inmates after they were abused (some of whom he secretly photographed), and that he also treated women who were raped by the guards. None of Merdzanic’s testimony was challenged in court by the LM legal team. Hume maintained that the fact they did not cross-examine Merdzanic was because ‘there has never been any question in my opinion or in the article that I published that this camp was anything other than a grim place at which there were beatings, there were killings and there were rapes. There has never been any question of that. We have never argued contrary to that’.

    Hume’s declaration that Alić was imprisoned in harsh circumstances and unable to leave, and that neither he nor Deichmann had described Trnopolje otherwise, stands in marked contrast to Deichmann’s original article, where the idea that it was a spontaneously-created refugee center from which people were free to come and go at any time was given greater prominence than the third-hand, passive description of ‘reports’ about the maltreatment of the internees. Indeed, although having described Trnopolje as very grim, Deichmann stood by the sentence in his original piece, where he wrote that ‘everybody I spoke to confirmed that the refugees could leave the camp area at almost any time.’ However, Deichmann argued that, notwithstanding the general claim in this sentence, it was not his case that Alić and the others pictured in the ITN reports were in fact free to go: ‘I do not say that they at the time were able to leave and there – you know, there were fences, there were guards, which we have seen here, armed guards’.

    Despite this confusion, the position of Hume and Deichmann at the trial was – in contrast to Deichmann’s original article – that Alić and the others were imprisoned behind fences patrolled by armed guards, and that they were not free to leave Trnopolje, which was an awful place in which violent crimes were committed. In most if not all respects this understanding mirrors the original ITN broadcasts. Those reports, even in the portion that covered Trnopolje, clearly showed a variety of fences behind which some people were confined, and the guards that detained them. Both reports also described how, in a part of the camp to the rear of the area in which Alić and the others were penned, there were refugees who had made their own way to the facility, who were told they could leave if transport to homes beyond Serb-controlled areas could be arranged. The fact that these ‘voluntary arrivals’ were produced by the violence of ethnic cleansing in the surrounding areas, or that such transport, if it had materialized, would have been consistent with ethnic cleansing, was noted by the ITN stories, but it was not something LM dwelled upon.

    Given that there was something of a congruence on the broader question about Trnopolje – certainly a far larger congruence than Deichmann’s original article allowed for – the precise nature and significance of LM’s argument becomes indistinct as the object of their complaint becomes clearer. To this end, we have to say they did not question that Alić was imprisoned – just that he was imprisoned behind a barbed wire fence. Even more specifically, LM’s contention was that they were concerned only with the idea that ITN’s reports directly or indirectly suggested Alić was imprisoned behind a barbed wire fence that enclosed him fully (i.e., that he was ‘caged’ by a barbed wire fence enclosing him and the camp on all sides). LM’s preoccupation with the specific nature of the wire that imprisoned Alić led Penny Marshall to tell their barrister; ‘you look at the picture and see barbed wire; I look at the picture and see Fikret. That is the difference between us.’

    In general, I think that the question of whether or not the journalists in question intended to ‘fool the world’ is important insofar as it suggests that there was a deliberate attempt at constructing a ‘hoax’: “Living Marxism… did a great service to truth by exposing the “death camp” hoax” (Changeling). I agree with you that “the image was thus made to serve interests and ideologies which were then hegemonic amongst a number of Western governments and throughout much of the corporate media”; this is the function of images generally, but of this one in particular. That said, the image of Fikret Alić has been read as being both more and less than this, and I think these issues are also important. Certainly, Deichmann thought that these issues were important, which is why his original article devotes as much time to his analysis of this particular image as it does, invoking his expertise as a gardener, a tip-off from a defence lawyer, and his own trip to the site four years later. And the veracity of the photograph itself frames the article as a whole.

    It’s not possible for me to reconstruct the trajectory of the RCP’s critique of the new(ish) ideologies of the 1990s, but I wouldn’t argue that ‘humanitarianism’ wasn’t then and isn’t now being used to justify military intervention the real purposes of which have less to do with ‘defending human rights’ than they do ‘defending Western interests’ (being a euphemism for a defence of the interests of Western elites). I also agree that the sin of inaccuracy is hardly one confined to LM.

    With regards the RCP, on my reading, another remarkable aspect of its (d)evolution has been the apparent unanimity of opinion with which it did so. In other words, precisely the apparent absence of oppositional elements (including some of your friends).

    PS. I was hoping you’d comment as I can recall reading articles from Living Marxism/LM some years ago in a certain student publication. Outside of references to Easterhouse in the music press (and a small number of other references the specific nature of which I can no longer recall), I think this was my only encounter with the RCP and that tendency. I may also have actually browsed some issues of the zine at the time. In other words: you are likely to be much better-informed than I on the ins-and-outs of the RCP.

  6. The late Alija Izetbegovic, former illegitimate “president” of Bosnia Herzegovina, illegal ursuper of power in 1990 from the duly elected Bosnian muslim leader, Mr. Fikret Abdic, is the one behind the death camp fraud. Izetbegovic admitted it to former UNMIK head Bernard Kouchner on his death bed in 2003. He told Bernard Kouchner that he lied about Trnopolje and Omarska being “death camps” in the hope of provoking NATO bombing against the Bosnian Serbs.

    The Goebbels style “Big Lie” was spread world-wide with the mainstream media-connected resources of a multi-million dollar funded American “public relations” & lobbying firm called Ruder Finn – which also worked as a lobbying group in Washington on behalf of the Islamist Nazi terrorist KLA and Tudjman’s HDZ Fascist neo-Ustasha Nazi racist government responsible – along with the US Clinton administration – for the ethnic cleansing of over 550,000 Krajina province Serbs from 1990 to 1995 and for the murder of at least 20,000 Serbs during the same period.

    Izetbegovic, the man described by ITN, BBC, CNN, The Guardian et al, as a “secular muslim and moderate democrat committed to a multi-ethnic Western style liberal democracy” was in fact committed to genocide of all non-muslims (mainly Serbs).

    Well before the outbreak of war in 1992, Izetbegovic PUBLICLY announced his commitment to genocide by having his Islamist version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, his 1970 manifesto, “The Islamic Declaration” – which was a call for Jihad and the extermination of non-Muslims – re-published in 1990 as part of his election campaign.

    The following is from the ISSA Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy Special Report published soon after Izetbegovic’s death:

    Izetbegovic appointed the Muslim National Council (MNC) of Bosnia to achieve long-term aspirations, to create a Muslim state in the Balkans. This state would defend the Muslim interests throughout Yugoslavia, i.e. Sandzak, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia). “Rise brother Muslims, there are enough of us to accomplish our goals, whom the Muslim and those of Muslim blood will not betray. This time will never come again. Now is the opportunity to realize the dream of every Muslim” [qouted in Doc Center, 2002 from the Bosnian Muslim magazine VOX]. Among other objectives the MNC was working for were the creation of a Muslim state within the borders of present day B&H and formation of the Muslim Armed Forces.

    In October 1991, the MNC defined its political platform:

    “The day is nearing when the announced Islamic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be proclaimed. The date, which every Muslim in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sandzak [Raška] is ardently waiting for has been known for a long time to be the 31st December. There are some indications that the Serbs might oppose this historic event…Every individual Serb must be aware of the responsibility of the entire nation, the penalty for crimes will be collective-for one dead Muslim one hundred Sebs will be liquidated-for one wounded Muslim (depending on the wound severity) 10-50 Serbs will be executed [ibid].

    The document further elaborates how the Serbs would be treated in the Islamic Republic.

    “All Serbs will have a 12-hour working day. The wages will be proportionate to the loyalty of all employees and as a rule they will be paid 30 percent less than the wages of Muslims whom occupy the same post… Serbs will receive rations for food, which they will obtain in special shops. Serbs do not have national parties and if the do not abide by the rules of political life, they will not be entitled to political organization or to vote… Serbs are equal to Muslims if, of their own will, they are received into the Islamic faith of their forefathers… A good Serb is a living and obedient Serb or a dead, disobedient Serb [ibid].

    The presidency of the Association of the Islamic Clergy (Ilmia) for B&H offered in 1992 in huge print, run in annual Takvim, the following instruction for jihad:

    “Jihad in Islam is not only a war in the name of Allah. In reality, Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program that aims at changing the social system of the whole world and order it in harmony with its regulations and ideals. Islam wants to destroy all the states and governments anywhere on earth which stand opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the state or the nation that is in power. The purpose of Islam is to establish the state based on its ideology and program, no matter which nation becomes the bearer of Islam or which nation is undermined in the process of establishing the ideological Islamic state” [ibid].

    See: Who was Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate democrat or radical Islamist? and Alija Izetbegovic: A Retrospective Look at His Impact on Balkan Stability.

    For photographs of Izetbegovic’s massacres (perpetrated by his Islamist Nazi “tough guy”, Naser Oric: given a “harsh” 2 year sentence by NATO’s Hague ICTY and RELEASED!) in the towns and villages of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Skelani, Milici, Kravica, Gorazde et al, see: The Real Srebrenica Genocide.

    Of course, The Guardian and BBC knew that Izetbegovic was a Nazi as early as 1983 when he was jailed for his Islamist attempted terrorist activities, but deliberately censored the truth about his WW2 Nazi background and genocidal Nazi beliefs which he reiterated publicly in a shuttle tour of fundamentalist Islamist terrorist states in the Middle East during 1991 (especially his visit to Tehran where he agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that Salman Rushdie deserved the death sentence for writing The Satanic Verses).

    ITN reporters went to Bosnia in 1992 in search of “concentration camps held by the Serbs” after American reporter, Roy Gutman, of New York’s Newsday paper made a sensational claim – with no independent proof whatsoever – (other than Izetbegvic SDA government press releases) that the Bosnian Serbs were running “death camps”.

    Pity ITN didn’t do so in 1991 when there were already real death camps set up at the Borovo footware factory and the “Rowing Club” in Vukovar, Croatia: at least 1,000 Serbian civilians – including women,children & the elderly – were beheaded and dismembered in a two month period in late 1991 by Tudjman’s neo-Ustasha Nazi “Black Legion” troops (Croat version of the SS) with many more thousands of Serbs being murdered and half a million expelled from late 1991 to late 1995. See Hiding Genocide: Croatia has resumed its “liquidation” of Serbs, while arguing that “ethnic cleansing” is a Serbian creation…

    As far as The Guardian is concerned they were an integral part of the ITN “accidental” deception and fakery regarding the refugee collection centre known as Trnopolje.

    That is to say, their practice of “accidentally” placing their reporters INSIDE an enclosed agricultural compound surrounded by a less than 5 foot tall broken down CHICKEN WIRE fence – with two rusted out old strands of barbed wire on top – and then proceeding to “accidentally” film from within this enclosed area – surrounded by this chicken wire fence – a single very thin looking Bosnian muslim, known as Fikret Alic – whom instead of being sullen as one would normally expect from someone who was starving, was smiling and laughing. Mr. Alic was surrounded by men also doing the same – smiling and joking – the only difference being that these men were all normal looking and some even had pot bellies.

    Even the judge in the LM vs ITN case had to admit that the ITN/Guardian people were “mistaken” in their belief (a nice way of saying that they were lying) that they were not filming from within an enclosed area (pretty hard to “believe” any such thing, since Penny Marshall & her team of ITN cameramen & The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy had to crawl through a broken down part of the chicken wire fence in order to gain entry!)

    Thus, ITN lied as did The Guardian not for what they explicitly said and wrote, but what they implied when they failed to tell the world that Trnopolje was NOT a WW2 style Nazi “concentration camp” with all that such a camp implies: 30 foot high guard towers in each corner containing machine gun nests and surrounded by 10 foot high electrified fences and/or razor sharp barbed wire. They also failed to broadcast the uncensored video footage showing the Bosnian muslim refugees ridiculing the notion put forth by Penny Marshall, that they were in a prison or that they were not being fed.

    See the photo fakery The Guardian perpetrated again 12 years later in September 2004, where they tried to pass off a photograph of Fikret Alic at Trnopolje refugee camp as “inmates of the Serbian concentration camp of Omarska”.

    The description of the photo stayed up as “concentration camp of Omarska” on their website for nearly 2 years until it was exposed as a fraud.

    See Lies the London Guardian told me… or, The Return of Villainy

    ITN/Guardian reporters Ed Vulliamy and Ian Williams claim they were unable to film freely at Trnopolje and also claim that the POWs at Omarska were “poorly treated and in a state of fear”. How strange indeed that both ITN and The Guardian decided NOT to broadcast any of their video/film footage of these POWs at Omarska, but instead labelled the photograph of Trnopolje as… Omarska!

    ITN and The Guardian journalists were invited by the Bosnian Serbs to visit both Trnopolje and Omarska to see for themselves that the “death camp” allegation was a monstrous lie. Not only that, but they were provided with a Bosnian Serb military escort to Trnopolje and Omarska which is why the ITN/Guardian team did not need to fly in via parachute behind enemy lines to get the “scoop of the century”.

    So to recap: ITN and The Guardian reporters were INVITED by the Bosnian Serb authorities – in the middle of a war zone known as Bosnia-Herzgovina on August 5, 1992 – to provide them with safe passage via a Bosnian Serb military escort which enabled the Guardian/ITN team to visit these alleged “death camps” and then said Bosnian Serb authorities ALLOWED The Guardian/ITN team to film/photograph this Omarska alleged “death camp” and “atrocities at Omarska” which said footage of “atrocities” was then subsequently ***NEVER USED EVEN ONCE*** in any broadcasts by ITN and which said photographs of Omarska were ***NEVER PUBLISHED EVEN ONCE*** by The Guardian in its so-called “reporting” on this supposed “death camp”.

    Instead, we have the faked ITN footage of the supposed “death camp” Trnopolje being labelled by The Guardian’s Ed Vulliamy as Omarska instead in order to cover up the fact that Omarska was far more humane than your regular US or British prison.

    Then a certain David Campbell of the University of Newcastle, UK comes along after this fraud was exposed and uses ITN and The Guardian as his “impartial” sources! Here is what David Campbell writes:

    As Fikret Alic has observed: ‘I would like to say that behind the cameramen there were Serb soldiers and they shouted to write everybody’s names who said something in front of the camera’. See ‘Bosnian Prisoner Praises ITN Crew’. Ian Williams noted the severe restrictions on their capacity to report freely – including the fact the ‘guards stood over everybody we spoke to’ –in a live interview following the broadcast of his report.

    Unfortunately for David Campbell I have the Emperor’s Clothes’ film Judgement in my possession:

    There are NO Serbian “military film crews” present. A Serbian RTS [“Radio Television Serbia” TV] cameraman dressed in a khaki green camouflage shirt does not equal “a military film crew”. This is a deliberate twisting of the facts by David Campbell in order to support the racist anti-Serbian lying of ITN & its ally: the Islamist terrorist employment agency otherwise known as the Guardian newspaper (one of their former journalists was exposed as having been connected to a major Islamofascist terrorist group with links to al Qaeda; after which he was fired).

    In the Emperor’s Clothes film Judgement Penny Marshall can clearly be seen wearing a bulky military flak jacket.

    Hmmmm… I wonder why Ms. Marshall is wearing a military flak jacket?

    Did Ms. Marshall join the British army without telling us?

    Hold on a minute, it’s August 5, 1992, in Bosnia Herzegovina, and a brutal inter-religious/ethnic war is raging all around between four ethnic/religious and political factions – with bullets and shells flying all over the place – maybe that has something to do with it.

    Does that now make Penny Marshall a member of a “military film crew”? According to Dr. Campbell’s “logic”, it most certainly does.

    There is NOBODY from the Bosnian Serb authorities – dressed in civilian or military clothing – intimidating or “standing over” ANYBODY in the film – whether they be Bosnian muslim refugees or ITN/Guardian journalists or camera-crew members – NOT at the 25:20 minute mark – as David Campbell claims – or ANYWHERE ELSE in the entire film!

    There are no “armed guards” tagging along with Ms. Marshall and her ITN film crew or The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy.

    NOWHERE does ANY Bosnian muslim refugee show visible signs of fear at the Trnopolje refugee collection center (described by the British media as a supposed ‘death camp’ that “…started life as a transit camp..” and this alleged ‘death camp’ according to the British media DOUBLED as a “refugee transit camp” which “…housed the refugees.”

    NOWHERE does even ONE Bosnian muslim refugee at Trnopolje show even the slightest visible hint of fear, anxiety or tension.

    In fact, most of the refugees are smiling and laughing: even casually joking with Ms. Marshall.

    The above is hardly surprising, since as pointed out earlier, the Bosnian Serbs themselves invited Ms. Marshall, ITN and The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy – providing all of them full protection via military escort in the middle of a war zone – to visit both the Trnopolje refugee center and the Omarska POW camp to show how ludicrous Roy Gutman’s stories of “death camps” (stories based primarily on Izetbegovic’s SDA party – the illegitimate Sarajevo- based “Bosnian government” – sources & their handsomely paid American PR firm Ruder Finn – really were).

    EVERYONE in the film is quite calm and relaxed (except the arrogant Ms. Penny Marshall, who was agitating for a “death camp scoop” because of immense pressure brought to bear on her by ITN’s management, due to Mr.Roy Gutman’s previous phony “death camp” reports in New York’s Newsday newspaper back in July, 1992).

    All of the refugees appear quite calm – with many of them, as noted above, smiling, joking and laughing amongst themselves – including most notably, Fikret Alic himself (that’s right, the real skinny looking one whom supposedly was “beaten”, “pistol whipped” and had “four of his teeth knocked out” while showing ZERO physical evidence of any such mistreatment) – while other refugees were so calm that they almost appeared bored and nonchalant with the attention they were getting from Ms. Marshall, ITN’s camera crew and The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy.

    David Campbell is so eager to defend the ITN/Guardian version of events that he displays the same capacity for dishonesty and Orwellian “doublethink” as his sources: The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy, Ian Williams and ITN’s Penny Marshall.

    For example, David Campbell informs us that the man in the overalls, a muslim refugee named “Mekhmet”, whom – on camera – said to Ms. Penny Marshall regarding Trnopolje that “it’s a refugee camp, NOT a prison!” (Mekhmet is to the right of Fikret Alic, and is the guy holding the [?]

  7. [continued from the previous post] less than 5 foot tall broken down CHICKEN WIRE fence enclosing Ms. Marshall and the ITN/Guardian team) was according to Mr. Campbell’s claims, supposedly “imprisoned” by the Bosnian Serbs at Trnopolje, but that he also came to Trnopolje “VOLUNTARILY”!

    So according to Mr. Campbell’s “logic” – or rather the lack of it – in support of the ITN/Guardian & Izetbegovic government’s racist-Islamist version of events – Mekhmet is now a “voluntarily” imprisoned refugee!!! (Since according to the British tabloid press, Trnopolje, whilst supposedly being a “death camp” where “people were murdered and raped on a daily basis” – also DOUBLED as a refugee collection center – since Trnopolje, according to the British media “…ALSO HOUSED THE REFUGEES”!)

    We are also informed by Mr. Campbell that the Bosnian muslim medic, a certain Dr. Merdzianic, who was supposedly “forced” to look after the refugees’ health at Trnopolje, was able to “secretly” hand over a camera to Ms. Marshall containing film – supposedly of beaten and tortured Bosnian muslim “inmates”.

    How could this have been done in “secret” if there were Bosnian Serb “guards” watching the good muslim doctor’s every move? Why would the Bosnian Serbs even ALLOW Ms. Marshall to go anywhere near Dr. Merdzianic, let alone interview him if they were indeed guilty of such horrendous atrocities as claimed by Dr. Merdzianic?

    Hardly surprisingly, Mr. Campbell doesn’t bother to tell us.

    Mr. Campbell also doesn’t explain to us why the Bosnian Serbs INVITED Ms. Marshall and her film crew to Trnopolje and Omarska, whilst as pointed out by the International Committee of the Red Cross at the time of Ms. Marshall’s visit, both the Bosnian muslim Izetbegovic SDA authorities AND the Bosnian Croat HDZ authorities under Messrs. Mate Boban & Franjo Tudjman, outright REFUSED to allow Western journalists and Red Cross/UN personnel access to THEIR prisoner of war camps where they were holding Bosnian Serbs as well as Bosnian muslims loyal to the legitimate ELECTED muslim leader of Bosnia, Mr. Fikret Abdic.

    Keep in mind that at the ITN vs LM libel trial, ITN claimed, incredibly, to have actually “LOST” (?!?) the uncut raw film footage (i.e. its so-called “rushes”) of the “pictures that SHOCKED THE WORLD”!

    As Deichmann recounts, this caused a great uproar and commotion in the courtroom at the time.

    Interestingly, ITN appears to have lost a crucial videotape of the uncut rushes from which the report was edited together — an accident, of course.

    The above comment was made by Philip Hammond soon after the ITn vs LM libel trial verdict.

    Mr. Philip Hammond of the UK, co-editor with US Professor Edward Herman, of the University of Pennsylvania,
    analyzed media coverage of wartime events in Kosovo in ex-Yugoslavia in their book Degraded Capability: the Media and the Kosovo Crisis.

    It is hardly surprising that ITN suddenly claimed to have “lost” the raw unedited footage, since it would have clearly shown how Ms. Marshall, her ITN film crew and The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy all ended up getting inside the CHICKEN WIRE fence-enclosed barn and transformer station – from which Ms. Marshall and her crew filmed in order to make it look like the Trnopolje refugees were the ones enclosed by barbed wire, and thus give the image of a supposed “death camp”.

    Here is what Jared Israel had to say about the ITN vs LM trial:

    If, throughout the trial, LM and Deichmann had adopted the strategy of exposing ITN’s pattern of lying about the Serbs, then they would have had the moral stature to turn the physician’s testimony against ITN by exposing the physician as a cynical liar.

    For example, they might have said to that doctor, ‘You have made some horrific charges. But some things about your story are puzzling. You say you had to hand Penny Marshall your camera in secret, because, you claim, the Serbs were watching and you had much to fear. Could you elaborate?’

    After the doctor waxed poetic about how he was under scrutiny with an ever-present threat of deadly reprisals, the defense could have asked, ‘Why did you believe the Serbs wouldn’t want you to give Ms. Marshall your film?’

    The doctor would explain that of course they were afraid of the truth getting to the public. The defense could have responded, ‘There was quite a public hue and cry about supposed Serb concentration camps at that time wasn’t
    there? And the Serbs denied it, didn’t they?’

    Then the defense could ask, ‘If you are telling the truth about supposed monstrous abuses at Trnopolje, and if the Serbs therefore wanted desperately not to let the truth get out, then why did the Serb leaders invite ITN to
    film and interview people in Trnopolje? Why was Ms. Marshall allowed to speak to you in the first place?”

    Deichmann writes that the court permitted LM to use the uncut film that ITN shot at Trnopolje. This film is almost identical to footage shot by the RTS (Serbian TV) crew that filmed alongside ITN. The RTS footage was used to make the Emperor’s Clothes movie, ‘Judgment!’ As anyone who has seen ‘Judgment!’ will testify, the Bosnian Muslim refugees at Trnopolje wandered about freely.

    They gave casually disdainful answers when asked if they were being mistreated – as if the idea were ridiculous.

    Beaten men, men who are threatened with violent reprisals (even death!), may out of fear deny they are being harmed, but they begrudge such lies.

    They are sullen, not relaxed and casual, like the refugees in Judgement and, therefore, also in the uncut ITN footage.

    The defense could have played the footage in which one of the Muslim refugees, Mehmet, chats amiably with Penny Marshall, while a large group of refugees looks on, with everyone except Penny Marshall appearing relaxed, reasonably cheerful, and with no evidence of fear.

    They could have asked the doctor, ‘Do you see any guards here?’ And, ‘If your stories were true, wouldn’t these be the men who were being beaten and killed; wouldn’t it be their wives and girlfriends and mothers who were being raped. How do you explain that they joke with Penny Marshall?

    Why does the refugee, Mehmet, reject Penny Marshall’s persistent attempts to get him to say the Serbs are mistreating the Muslims? Why does Mehmet say the Serbs are kind, “very kind”?

    And how do you explain the fact that there are no guards?

    Are you claiming that the Serbs placed you, a doctor, under close watch, but they did not even send a guard to tag along alongside Penny Marshall’s film crew when she interviewed these men – the very ones you say were being beaten and killed?

    I submit, doctor, that your story about rapes and beatings is, based on the evidence of our own eyes, a fabrication.’

    Why does Deichmann accept that “the photos [supposedly passed secretly to Penny Marshall] showed Bosnian Muslims who had been beaten and mishandled.”

    How could he know when and where the “poorly lighted photographs” shown at the trial by ITN had really been taken?

    How could he know the photos were not phonies? Couldn’t the people in those photos have been actors? Or mightn’t they have been Muslims or even Orthodox Christian Serbs who had been photographed elsewhere? Who knows?

    Didn’t this trial take place precisely because LM challenged the authenticity of the “pictures that fooled the world”?

    Wasn’t ITN suing because Deichmann had written that the ITN pictures were “fakes”? If ITN pedaled fake pictures before, why on earth did Deichmann say, without hesitation, that they were peddling real pictures now?

    Deichmann writes, “The physician described on the witness stand the rape and assault of defenseless civilians.”

    Note he does not even use the term, “alleged.” To be accused of rape and assault by this doctor was to be convicted.


    Can’t one imagine a few possible reasons for the good doctor to have lied? Such as:

    a) he was promised some reward if he lied or
    b) he was afraid of what would happen to him and/or his family back in Bosnia if he did not lie.

    Deichmann says the man’s testimony was “the most moving.”


    Why in heaven’s name did the LM people refuse to cross-examine the physician?

    I think they did not challenge the doctor’s testimony because, having been caught up in great events, they had first taken a brave stand and then, seeing that the enemy had raised the stakes (by attacking LM all-out) they surrendered.

    Whether or not there was ever an explicit discussion between some representative of Deichmann and/or LM and the ITN people, in effect LM-Deichmann and ITN cut a deal. I will explain the nature of this deal later.

    The article about Trnopolje from Wikipedia in early 2007 contains some obvious absurdities and self-contradictory claims. It states that Trnopolje was a “detention camp” – in other words, a prison complex which implies that the “inmates” are imprisoned behind tall and strong wire fences and NOT free to come and go as they please. Then in the very same sentence, it states that: “Trnopolje was a relatively minimal-security staging area…” thus certainly implying that it was most definitely NOT a “prison”.

    In other words by using the phrase “relatively minimal-security staging area”,the author is clearly implying that people could very easily escape at any time; thus according to this statement, Trnopolje was absolutely NOTHING like a WW2 Nazi style “concentration camp” as The Guardian‘s Ed Vulliamy claims (perhaps Mr. Vulliamy has never seen what a real “concentration camp” looks like: 30 foot high guard towers in each corner containing machine gun nests and surrounded by 10 foot high electrified fences and/or razor sharp barbed wire).

    The implication that people could not only escape with relative ease but that in fact that they could come and go as they pleased is confirmed again in the very same sentence! It states that “detainees…were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area’s perimeter”!

    First it’s a “concentration camp”, then it’s a “detention camp”, then it’s a “minimal-security staging area” where “detainees” are even allowed to go outside in search of food!

    And this sentence is somehow supposed to explain away how everyone except Fikret Alic was emaciated looking (whilst smiling and laughing)whilst many of the other so-called “detainees” had pot bellies: “…detainees were fed only sporadically,but were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area’s perimeter”.

    Clearly implying that Fikret Alic must have been fed so “sporadically” that he ended up so thin, that whilst being allowed to leave the “minimal-security staging area” of Trnopolje where he was “allowed to forage for food outside the detention area’s perimeter”, Mr. Alic was somehow so incompetent (or unlucky)that he was incapable of finding food and feeding himself, whilst all the other “detainees” were clearly able to do so, since, we are told: “this explains the widely varying nourishment condition of the inmates.”

    SO we have a “concentration camp” which isn’t, but rather a “detention camp” which really isn’t, but rather a “minimal-security staging area” which is so minimally secure that “detainees” are even allowed to go outside the “perimeter” – since it did not have the luxury of “concentration camp” style security benefits like 10 foot high electrified and/or razor wire fences – in order to “forage for food”.

    Incidentally, if we want to know why Wikipedia can engage in such preposterous absurdities as above, one only need look at its track record on the subject of the Balkans conflict in ex-Yugoslavia.

    Wikipedia is fast becoming a totally discredited source of information on the Balkans conflicts specifically, as it has been exposed on numerous occasions as having deliberately censored exculpatory evidence in support of Croatian Ustasha Nazis’ and Bosnian Islamist Fascists’ war crimes along with the suppression of their pro-Nazi, pro-genocidal views expressed prior to the outbreak of war – as well as during the war.

    One notorious example is the almost WORD for WORD copying of the Croatian HDZ ruling party’s propaganda information ministry hagiography of the late Croatian pro-Ustasha Nazi Hitler loving president, Franjo Tudjman – who wrote in his 1989 Croatian version of Mein Kampf “Wastelands of Historical Truth” the following:

    The establishment of Hitler’s New Order could be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews, as well as to correct the French-British sin of the (post WW1) Versailles setup and “Genocidal violence is a natural phenomenon in harmony with the societal and mythologically Divine nature. Genocide is not only permitted it is also recommended ,whenever it is useful for the survival or the restoration of the earthly kingdom of the chosen nation, or for the preservation and spreading of its one and only correct faith.

    The Guardian‘s censorship of the truth of the genocide of thousands of Serbian civilians and the ethnic cleansing of over a million and a half more, perpetrated against the Serbs by the racist Tudjman HDZ neo-Fascist Ustasha Croats, the KLA Islamist Nazi terrorist leaders: Ceku, Haradinaj, Thaci, Demaci and the Bosnian Izetbegovic SDA Islamofascists who glorify the Nazi Waffen SS Handzar division from World War 2 speaks volumes.

    In kindergarten, we all learn a very basic rule, which I like to call “The Boy Who Cried Wolf Principle.”

    How does this rule work? Suppose that you know this person, whom we will call Ed Vulliamy of The Guardian, and suppose that Ed Vulliamy, in the past has lied to you repeatedly, dramatically, and shamelessly about topic A over many years.

    The next time that Ed Vulliamy of The Guardian makes an assertion about topic A with the same slant as assertions on topic A that have repeatedly been huge lies, you have to make one of two choices:

    1) Make the provisional assumption that Ed Vulliamy is lying again (until proven otherwise); or

    2) Make the provisional assumption that Ed Vulliamy is, for the first time, telling the truth (until proven otherwise).

    If you choose the second option you demonstrate that you are an imbecile who cannot reason. This is what Wikipedia, this guy Ed Vulliamy of The Guardian and Penny Marshall of ITN would have us do.

  8. C. Brayton says:

    More amazing than the tactics employed, or the reasons for doing so, has been the wholesale adoption of these tactics by the PR power elite. Apparently, these tactics get results. I see a lot of really strange examples here in Brazil, especially of the nebulous multiple identity kind.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.