Propaganda-driven mystery author twists facts

Monday, April 15, 1996

Writer’s article paints unsupported picture of super-spy
activityBy David J. Altman

In response to Name Withheld’s viewpoint ("Anti-Defamation
League infringes on civil liberties," April 10), the author wished
his name withheld due to fear of repercussions. He is right to do
so ­ his English composition teacher would rightly chastise
him for writing a piece so full of utterly unsupported conspiracy
theory (if indeed he is a student).

I do applaud him for the literary talent of the article ­
Name Withheld ­ already visions of Deep Throat and secret
moles pop into my head. The rest of the article was similarly
decorated with much cloak and dagger, illuminati imagery.

Let me understand this correctly: He believes the
Anti-Defamation League is a super-secret spy organization for the
Israeli intelligence services. His proof is that Abdeen Jabjara, in
an antileague conspiracy theory tract, cites several sources that
reputedly made comments supporting his theory. A closer examination
of the comments reveals that while misguided, they don’t support
Jabjara’s theory.

Ethnic hypersensitivity does not prove the leagues is a Mossad
front. Neither does the comment by a man engaged in a lawsuit
(nobody ever lies to help themselves out in a lawsuit where huge
piles of money are at stake, right?). While Joftes makes grand
assertions, no instance of the conduct mentioned by him was
described with any particularity.

Name Withheld blithely claims that the Anti-Defamation League
spies for Israeli Intelligence. What’s the proof? Show me pictures
of the secret payoffs, information drops, penetration and
surveillance. He melodramatically talks of "secret" blacklists. Who
was blacklisted? How? From what?

His own quote of Zakim shows that Zakim was concerned about
anti-Semitism, and wanted people to find out whether any of these
people or groups were engaging in such activity. If the Black
Student Union heard rumors that someone was making racial slurs,
and asked its membership to confirm or deny this rumor, we would
not think it so strange.

The author talks about the league files found during a law
enforcement raid of two police officers’ houseboat. How, why, did
these police officers have league files? Where did he get his
information? He cryptically states these officers were later
convicted. Of what? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the files?

Name Withheld mentions that the league has a relationship with
police officers around the country. And? So do the Urban League,
the NAACP and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He mentions that the
Anti-Defamation League files had the names of other organizations.
Sure, these types of organizations communicate. Doesn’t La Raza
have files on MEChA, the Muslim Students Association and the Black
Student Union?

He somehow links the league’s budget to keeping tabs on various
organizations. Again, so what? He doesn’t say one word on how the
files were used. Were they used to prosecute racism and
anti-Semitism?

I most appreciated his reference to the article entitled "Spies
of Zion" ­ would that be a work associated with the infamous
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" I’ve never heard of the San
Francisco Weekly, but I guarantee you that they also carry articles
dealing with the inferiority of blacks, the disloyalty of Asians
and the threat caused by Latino immigration. Name Withheld uses
articles and tracts by extremists to prove his points. This does
not bode well for his credibility.

The league did not "spy" on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The
league did record some of the the public speeches given by Dr. King
(crime of crimes ­ to record a public speech for posterity. I
wonder if the author considers it an equal crime that Dr. King’s
historic "I Have a Dream" speech was similarly recorded).

In short, Name Withheld, you yourself are nothing more than a
conspiracy theory propagandist, the kind used by the KKK and the
neo-Nazi’s. Your work is heavy with unsubstantiated, inflammatory
rhetoric, short on logic and credibility. You weave a tale murky
with paranoia and innuendo, while hiding yourself in shadow to
avoid being asked the hard questions. Your attempts to fool the
gullible are pathetic.

Oh, and a word to the Daily Bruin ­ I’ve been at UCLA seven
years. Publication of this extremist claptrap was the worst piece
of editing I’ve ever seen (and we know that’s saying a lot,
considering I’m talking about the Daily Bruin). Where are your
&%#!@^*&^#!*&! ethics ?!?!?

Print that!

Altman is a UCLA law student.