|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| The first rule of political hypocrisy: Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable ...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse. Protecting the Jews, by Israel Shamir, unz.com Jun 24, 2019 |
IS Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of anti-Semitism The definition states:
"Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
Please not that the state of Israel and the ideology of Zionism (including Zionist lobby) are not included in this definition. In other words critique directed toward those two entities does not represent anti-Semitism.
The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively rational person. The uncontroversial illustrations of anti-Semitism includes:
- Advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;
- Holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;
- Holocaust denial;
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;
But there are also weaponized accusation of anti-Semitism that are devised to suppress of critique of Israel as a racist ethnostate and Zionism as far-right supremacist ideology:
- Accusing some Jewish citizens (members of Zionist lobby) of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;
- Denying the state of Israel is a racist ethnostate;
- Applying double standards by exempting Israel policies toward Palestinian while expecting or demanding such a conduct of any other democratic nation;
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Accusing Israel as a state of exaggerating the Holocaust for political purposes.
Zionist lobby who tried to occupy and control the power centers of the West want three things:
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Jan 01, 2021 | www.unz.com
John Hagan , says: Website December 31, 2020 at 7:55 am GMT • 11.0 hours ago
This short video is a satire regarding the US obsession with antisemitism and Israel. Why do you imagie that here are 50 states in the US and 32 Holocaust museums, yet there are only 25 civil war museums. US population is 2% Jewish. Even universities in the US understand that Jewish equity studies have a higher academic appeal than trans gender equity studies.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/l3czFJxV3Z4?feature=oembed
Regarding the above article it seems that history can repeat itself.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2020 | www.unz.com
geokat62 , says: September 30, 2020 at 12:03 pm GMT
Bardon Kaldian , says: September 30, 2020 at 1:54 pm GMTFinally, I must recall that in France explicit advocacy of French ethno-nationalism is illegal, but since February 2019 the French State considers that anti-Zionism (opposition to Jewish ethno-nationalism) is hate speech.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, in response to the events during WWII, Jewish Supremacist Organisations developed the following formulation:
ethno-nationalism => fascism => genocide
To ensure Never Again!, the most that Westerners can aspire to is a country based on the principle of civic-nationalism.
As a result, "blood and soil" is out and "multiculti" is in.
So, never forget, goy, Diversity Is A Strength !
sally , says: September 30, 2020 at 2:45 pm GMTFrance, however historically important & still powerful in many areas, is becoming a joke- along with UK- because of its anti-national policy of oppressing their own people as such. No country has ever survived if they favored racial or ethnic minorities at the expense of its core, fundamental people...
@RichHow do you say Assange in French? Welcome to the Bankster controlled Nation State system.. everywhere it is the same.. they impose copyright and patent laws and give the monopolies those laws create to their friends.
The major global markets are composed of corporations whose balance sheets represent 90% intangible asset and 10% tangible that change since 1955 where the ration was 14% intangible and 86% tangible.. This switch explains the growing divide in wealth between the haves and the have nots. and in France the power that goes with that wealth seems to be controlling.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2020 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
New leader Keir Starmer spurns two chances to clear Jeremy Corbyn's name, preferring instead to pay damages to former staff
By Jonathan Cook
" Information Clearing House " - Jeremy Corbyn, the former left-wing leader of Britain's Labour party, is once again making headlines over an "antisemitism problem" he supposedly oversaw during his five years at the head of the party.
This time, however, the assault on his reputation is being led not by the usual suspects – pro-Israel lobbyists and a billionaire-owned media – but by Keir Starmer, the man who succeeded him.
Since becoming Labour leader in April, Starmer has helped to bolster the evidence-free narrative of a party plagued by antisemitism under Corbyn. That has included Starmer's refusal to exploit two major opportunities to challenge that narrative.
Had those chances been grasped, Labour might have been able to demonstrate that Corbyn was the victim of an underhand campaign to prevent him from reaching power.
Starmer, had he chosen to, could have shown that Corbyn's long history as an anti-racism campaigner was twisted to discredit him. His decades of vocal support for Palestinian rights were publicly recast as a supposed irrational hatred of Israel based on an antipathy to Jews.
But instead Starmer chose to sacrifice his predecessor rather than risk being tarred with the same brush.
As a result, Labour now appears to be on the brink of open war. Competing rumors suggest Corbyn may be preparing to battle former staff through the courts, while Starmer may exile his predecessor from the party.
Rocketing membershipCorbyn's troubles were inevitable the moment the mass membership elected him Labour leader in 2015 in defiance of the party bureaucracy and most Labour MPs. Corbyn was determined to revive the party as a vehicle for democratic socialism and end Britain's role meddling overseas as a junior partner to the global hegemon of the United States.
That required breaking with Labour's capture decades earlier, under Tony Blair, as a party of neoliberal orthodoxy at home and neoconservative orthodoxy abroad.
Until Corbyn arrived on the scene, Labour had become effectively a second party of capital alongside Britain's ruling Conservative party, replicating the situation in the US with the Democratic and Republican parties.
His attempts to push the party back towards democratic socialism attracted hundreds of thousands of new members, quickly making Labour the largest party in Europe. But it also ensured a wide-ranging alliance of establishment interests was arrayed against him, including the British military , the corporate media, and the pro-Israel lobby.
Politicized investigationUnlike Corbyn, Starmer has not previously shown any inclination to take on the might of the establishment. In fact, he had previously proven himself its willing servant.
As head of Britain's prosecution service in 2013, for example, his department issued thinly veiled threats to Sweden to continue its legal pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who had sought political asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy, even as Swedish interest in the case waned.
With his background in realpolitik, Starmer appears to have grasped quickly the danger of being seen to share any common ground with Corbyn – not only should he pursue significant elements of his predecessor's program, but by challenging the carefully crafted establishment narrative around Corbyn.
For this reason, he has refused to seize either of the two chances presented to him to demonstrate that Labour had no more of an antisemitism problem than the relatively marginal one that exists more generally in British society.
That failure is likely to prove all the more significant given that in a matter of weeks Labour is expected to face the findings of an investigation by the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The highly politicized watchdog body, which took on the probe into Labour while refusing to investigate plentiful evidence of an Islamophobia problem in the Conservative party, is expected to shore up the Corbyn-antisemitism narrative.
Labour has said it will readily accept the Commission's findings, whatever they are. The watchdog body is likely to echo the prevailing narrative that Corbyn attracted left-wingers to the party who were ideologically tainted with antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. As a result, or so the argument goes, Jew hatred flourished on his watch.
Starmer has already declared " zero tolerance " of antisemitism, but he has appeared willing – in line with pro-Israel lobbyists in his party – to conflate Jew hatred with trenchant criticism of Israel.
The barely veiled intention is to drive Corbynite members out of Labour – either actively through suspensions or passively as their growing disillusionment leads to a mass exodus.
By distancing himself from his predecessor, Starmer knows no dirt will stick to him even as the Equality Commission drags Corbyn's name through the mud.
Sabotaged from withinStarmer rejected the first chance to salvage the reputations of Corbyn and the wider Labour membership days after he became leader.
In mid-April, an 850-page internal party report was leaked, stuffed with the text of lengthy email exchanges and WhatsApp chats by senior party staff. They showed that, as had long been suspected, Corbyn's own officials worked hard to sabotage his leadership from within.
Staff at headquarters still loyal to the Blair vision of the party even went so far as to actively throw the 2017 general election, when Labour was a hair's-breadth away from ousting the Conservatives from government. These officials hoped a crushing defeat would lead to Corbyn's removal from office.
The report described a "hyper-factional atmosphere", with officials, including then-deputy leader Tom Watson, regularly referring to Corbyn and his supporters as " Trots " – a reference to Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of a violent Communist revolution in Russia more than a century ago.
Corbynites were thrown out of the party on the flimsiest pretexts , such as describing those like Blair who led the 2003 attack on Iraq as "warmongers".
But one early, favored tactic by staff in the disciplinary unit was to publicize antisemitism cases and then drag out their resolution to create the impression that the party under Corbyn was not taking the issue seriously.
These officials also loosened the definition of antisemitism to pursue cases against Corbyn's supporters who, like him, were vocal in defending Palestinian rights or critical of Israeli policies.
This led to the preposterous situation where Labour was suspending and expelling anti-Zionist Jews who supported Corbyn on the grounds that they were supposedly antisemites, while action was delayed on dealing with a Holocaust denier.
The narrative against Corbyn being crafted by his own officials was eagerly picked up and amplified by the strong contingent of Blairites among Labour legislators in the parliament, as well as by the corporate media and by Israel lobbyists both inside and outside Labour.
Effort to bury reportThe parties responsible for leaking the report in April did so because Labour, now led by Starmer, had no intention of publicizing it.
In fact, the report had been originally compiled as part of Labour's submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, effectively giving Corbyn's side of the story against his opponents.
But once Corbyn stepped down, the party bureaucracy under Starmer preferred to shelve it . That decision meant there would be no case for the defense, and Corbyn's opponents' claims would go unchallenged.
Once leaked, Starmer stuck to his position. Rather than use the report as an opportunity to expose the ugly campaign against Corbyn and thereby question the antisemitism narrative, Starmer did his level best to bury it from sight.
He vowed to investigate "the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain". That sounded ominously like a threat to hound those who had tried to bring to light the party's betrayal of its previous leader.
Rather than accept the evidence presented in the leaked report of internal corruption and the misuse of party funds, Starmer set up an inquiry under QC Martin Forde to investigate the earlier investigation.
The Forde inquiry looked like Starmer's effort to kick the damaging revelations into the long grass.
The British media gave the leaked report – despite its earth-shattering revelations of Labour officials sabotaging an election campaign – little more than perfunctory coverage.
Labour 'whistleblowers'A second, related chance to challenge the Corbyn-antisemitism narrative reached its conclusion last week. And again, Starmer threw in Labour's hand.
In July last year – long before the report had been leaked – the BBC's prestige news investigation show Panorama set out to answer a question it posed in the episode's title: " Is Labour Antisemitic? "
John Ware, a reporter openly hostile to Corbyn and well-known for supporting Israel and his antipathy towards Muslims , was chosen to front the investigation.
The program presented eight former staff as "whistleblowers", their testimonies supposedly exposing Corbyn's indulgence of antisemitism. They included those who would soon be revealed in the leaked report as intractable ideological enemies of the Corbyn project and others who oversaw the dysfunctional complaints process that dragged its heels on resolving antisemitism cases.
The Panorama program was dismal even by the low standards of political reporting set by the BBC in the Corbyn era.
The show made much of the testimony of pro-Israel lobbyists inside the Labour party belonging to a group called the Jewish Labour Movement. They were not identified – either by name or by affiliation – despite being given the freedom to make anecdotal and unspecified claims of antisemitism against Corbyn and his supporters.
The BBC's decision not to name these participants had nothing to do with protecting their identities, even though that was doubtless the impression conveyed to the audience.
Most were already known as Israel partisans because they had been exposed in a 2017 four-part al-Jazeera undercover documentary called The Lobby. They were filmed colluding with an Israeli embassy official, Shai Masot, to bring down Corbyn. The BBC did not identify these pro-Israel activists presumably because they had zero credibility as witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ceCOhdgRBoc
One-sided coverageNonetheless, a seemingly stronger case – at least, at the time – was made by the eight former Labour staff. Their testimonies to the BBC suggested they had been hampered and bullied by Corbyn's team as they tried to stamp out antisemitism.
Panorama allowed these claims to go unchallenged, even though with a little digging it could have tapped sources inside Labour who were already compiling what would become the leaked report, presenting a very different view of these self-styled "whistleblowers".
The BBC also failed to talk to Jewish Voice for Labour , a group of Labour party members supportive of Corbyn who challenged the way the Jewish Labour Movement had manipulated the definition of antisemitism in the party to harm Palestinian solidarity activists.
And the BBC did not call as counter-witnesses any of the anti-Zionist Jews who were among the earliest victims of the purge of supposed antisemites by Labour's apparent "whistleblowers".
Instead, it selectively quoted from an email by Seumas Milne, Corbyn's chief adviser, to suggest that he had interfered in the disciplinary process to help antisemites avoid suspension.
Proper context from the BBC would have revealed that Milne had simply expressed concern at how the rule book was being interpreted when several Jews had been suspended for antisemitism – and that he had proffered his view only because a staff member now claiming to be a whistleblower had asked for it.
This section of the Panorama show looked suspiciously like entrapment of Milne by Labour staff, followed by collusion from the BBC in promoting their false narrative.
Flawed reportingDespite these and many other serious flaws in the Panorama episode, it set the tone for subsequent discussion of the "antisemitism problem" in Labour.
The program aired a few months before a general election, last December, that Corbyn lost to Boris Johnson and the ruling Conservative party.
One of the key damaging, "gotcha" moments of the campaign was an interview with the veteran BBC interviewer Andrew Neil in which he repeatedly asked Corbyn to apologize for antisemitism in the party, as had been supposedly exposed by Panorama. Corbyn's refusal to respond directly to the question left him looking evasive and guilty.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tecUadXe82k
With the rest of the media amplifying the Panorama claims rather than testing them, it has become the accepted benchmark for judging the Corbyn era. The show has even been nominated for a Bafta award, the British equivalent to an Oscar.
Shortly after the program aired, Corbyn's team disputed the Panorama narrative , saying it had contained "deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public". They also described the "whistleblowers" as disaffected former staff with "political axes to grind".
Ware and seven of the former staff members who appeared in the program launched a defamation action against the Labour party.
After the internal report was leaked in April, the legal scales tipped decisively in Labour's favor. Starmer was reportedly advised by lawyers that the party would be well-positioned to defeat the legal action and clear Corbyn and the party's name.
But again Starmer preferred to fold. Before the case could be tested in court, Starmer issued an apology last week to the ex-staff members and Ware, and paid them a six-figure sum in damages.
Admitting that "antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years", the statement accepted the claims of the ex-staff to be "whistleblowers", even capitalizing the word to aggrandize their status.
It said : "We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying."
Threat of bankruptcyWith typical understatement, Corbyn said he was "disappointed" at the settlement, calling it a "political decision, not a legal one". He added that it "risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour party in recent years."
Starmer's decision also preempted – and effectively nullified – the Forde inquiry, which was due to submit its own findings on antisemitism in Labour later in the year.
Many in the party were infuriated that their membership dues had been used to pay off a group of ex-staff who, according to the leaked report, had undermined the party's elected leader and helped to throw a general election.
But in what looked disturbingly like a move to silence Corbyn, Ware said he was consulting lawyers once again about launching a legal battle, personally against the former Labour leader, over his criticism of the settlement.
Mark Lewis, the solicitor acting for Ware and the whistleblowers, has said he is also preparing an action for damages against Labour on behalf of 32 individuals named in the leaked report. Among them is Lord Iain McNichol, who served as the party's general secretary at the time.
Lewis reportedly intends to focus on staff privacy breaches under the Data Protection Act, disclosure of private information and alleged violations of employment law.
Conversely, Mark Howell, a Labour party member, has initiated an action against Labour and McNichol seeking damages for "breach of contract". He demands that those named in the leaked report be expelled from the party.
He is also reported to be considering referring named staff members to the Crown Prosecution Service under the 2006 Fraud Act for their failure to uphold the interests of party members who paid staff salaries.
This spate of cases threatens to hemorrhage money from the party. There have been warnings that financial settlements, as well as members deserting the party in droves, could ultimately bankrupt Labour .
Corbyn to be expelled?Within days of the apology, a crowdfunding campaign raised more than £280,000 for Corbyn to clear his name in any future legal actions.
Given his own self-serving strategy, Starmer would doubtless be embarrassed by such a move. There are already rumors that he is considering withdrawing the party whip from Corbyn – a form of exile from the party.
Pressure on him to do so is mounting. At the weekend it was reported that ex-staff might drop the threatened case over the embarrassing revelations contained in the leaked report should Starmer expel Corbyn.
Quoting someone it described as a "well-placed source", the Mail on Sunday newspaper set out the new stakes. "Labour says they have zero tolerance to anti-Semitism. Zero tolerance means no Corbyn and no Corbynistas," the source said.
There are already reports of what amounts to a purge of left-wing members from Labour.
Starmer has committed to upholding " 10 Pledges " produced by the Board of Deputies – a conservative Jewish leadership organization hostile to Corbyn and the left – that places it and the pro-Israel lobbyists of the Jewish Labour Movement in charge of deciding what constitutes antisemitism in the party.
Selective concernStarmer's decision about who can serve in his shadow cabinet is a reminder that the storm over Corbyn was never about real antisemitism – the kind that targets Jews for being Jews. It was a pretext to be rid of the Corbyn project and democratic socialism.
Starmer quickly pushed out the last two prominent Corbynites in his shadow cabinet – both on matters related to criticism of Israel.
By contrast, he has happily indulged the kind of antisemitism that harms Jews as long as it comes from members of his shadow cabinet who are not associated with Corbyn.
Starmer picked Rachel Reeves for his team, even though earlier this year she tweeted a tribute to Nancy Astor, a supporter of Hitler and notorious antisemite. Reeves has refused to delete the tweet .
And Steve Reed is still the shadow communities secretary, even though this month he referred to a Jewish newspaper tycoon, Richard Desmond, as a " puppet master " – the very definition of an antisemitic trope.
Starmer's "zero tolerance" appears to be highly selective – more concerned about harsh criticism of a state, Israel, than the othering of Jews. Tellingly, Starmer has been under no serious pressure from the Jewish Labour Movement, or from the media or from Jewish leadership organizations such as the Board of Deputies to take any action against either Reeves or Reed.
He has moved swiftly against leftists in his party who criticize Israel but has shrugged his shoulders at supposed "moderates" who, it could be argued, have encouraged or glorified hatred and suspicion of Jews.
But then the antisemitism furor was never about safeguarding Jews. It was about creating a cover story as the establishment protected itself from democratic socialism.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
|
|
|
May 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
The new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apparently learned how to behave from the Corbyn experience. He has been crawling on his belly to Jewish interests ever since he took over and has even submitted to the counseling provided by the government's "Independent Adviser on Antisemitism," a special interests office not too dissimilar to the abomination at the U.S. State Department where Elan Carr is the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism.
The adviser, Lord Mann, who like Carr is of course Jewish, has now insisted to Starmer that the use of words like ''Zionist'' or ''Zionism'' in a critical context must be regarded as anti-Semitism if Starmer wants to establish what he refers to as "comprehensive anti-racism" within the Labour Party. Mann wants to confront what he refers to as "anti-Jewish racism" in Britain, saying that "the thing Keir Starmer has to do is stick with the clear definition of antisemitism, and not waver from that. The second thing he should do if he wants to really imbed comprehensive anti-racism including antisemitism across the Labour Party – then the use of the words Zionist or Zionism as a term of hatred, abuse, of contempt, as a negative term – that should outlawed in the party."
Perhaps not surprisingly Lord Mann's comments came during an online discussion with the Antisemitism Policy Trust's director Danny Stone, one of the major components of Israel's powerful U.K. Jewish/Zionist Lobby. A majority of British Members of Parliament of both parties are registered supporters of "Friends of Israel" associations, another indication of how Jewish power is manifest in Britain and of how spineless the country's politicians have become.
Mann added: "If he does that, it gives him [Starmer] the tools to clear out those who choose to be antisemitic, rather than those who do so purely through their ignorance as opposed to their calculated behavior. I think he is seeing tackling antisemitism as one of those things that will be shown to mark that he is a leader."
So, in Britain you are still presumably free to criticize Zionism, but not Israelis, as long as you do not use the word itself. If you do use it in a critical way you will be one of those presumably who will be "cleared out [of the Labour Party] for choosing to be antisemitic." Do not be alarmed if similar nonsense takes hold in the United States, where already criticism of Israel, such as it is, eschews the word Jewish in any context. Fearful of retribution that can include loss of employment as happened to Rick Sanchez at CNN, the few who are bold enough to criticize Israel regularly employ generic euphemisms like the "Israel Lobby" or "Zionism," ignoring the fact that what drives the process is ethno- or religious based. However one chooses to obfuscate it, the power of Israel in the United States is undeniably based on Jewish money, media control and easy access to politicians. When the friends of Israel in America follow the British lead and figure out that the word Zionist has become pejorative they too will no doubt move to make it unacceptable in polite discourse in the media and elsewhere. Then many critics of the Jewish state will have no vocabulary left to use, nowhere to go, as in Britain, and that is surely the intention.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
|
|
|
May 22, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Darren Hiebert Someone already commented on the 1982 Oded Yinon plan, which is what has been playing out for the past 30 years. Literally, the "balkanization" of the middle east into ethnic/religious conclaves more easily overpowered in war, giving Israel regional hegemony of a highly advanced weaponized Jewish minority amongst an overwhelming majority of iron age armed Arabs/Muslims. This can't go on much longer and changes are coming.
Recently, we have seen the disturbing use of the term 'antisemite' to aggressively accuse those that question the current Israeli agenda, and to shut down debate over the rights and freedoms of the indigenous Palestinian people under more than 50 years of oppressive occupation and illegal annexations. Zionism is equated with Judaism (which they are NOT), and disagreeing with Zionism equates to antisemitism which will get you "escorted from the game". The voice of 98% is much louder than the irritating whining of 2%. It's time we started using itTalking of weaponization- "anti-semitism" is their best weapon. It just destroyed the only UK politician with a semblance of humanity and genuine-ness, gave the Tories a majority win and condemned the people in the UK to who knows how many more years of corporate feudarchy. (- i have never supported any political party).Charlotte Russe ,
A THEFT FROM THOSE WHO HUNGERInstigating sectarian wars is a well-established way of balkanizing territories. It's what Empires have been doing throughout history. In that regard, Britain and now the US is no different, it's just following the footsteps of all past imperialist domains. What's astonishing, is that the desire to vanquish and subjugate indigenous populations still exists today. You'd think human nature would've evolved just a bit over the last 5,000 thousand years. I guess not, since the West as well as the East are continuing the battle over geostrategic hegemony.
"A Clean Break" as cited by Cynthia Chung sounds very much like the "Yinon Plan" which refers to an article published in 1982 in the Hebrew Journal Kivunim entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s." The article was published by the World Zionist Organization. It was written by Oded Yinon.
The Yinon Plan is an early example of how political warfare in the Middle East would be viewed in terms of sectarian divisions. Many believe it influenced the formulation of policies adopted by George W. Bush and his Project for a New American Century (PNAC) gang. The article predicted major political events in the Middle East since the 1980s, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, the Syrian Civil War and the rise of the Islamic State.
It seems obvious, the Oded Yinon Plan was adopted during Bush's presidency as a way to further American interests in the Middle East. In this context, Israel becomes an ancillary US military base. However, before Bush we can't forget Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Brzezinski who organized and funded the Mujahideen with the help of Osama bin Laden to combat Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war.
"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistan madrasas. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad .. The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade." https://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bin-laden/5688305
The Mujahideen morphed into Al-Qaeda and then into ISIS–the rest is history ..Smiling Obama, expanded Bush's two wars into seven, recycling various terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Trump's 2016 campaign promise to remove troops from the Middle East was a pipedream. Even the strategic shift towards a "Great Power Competition" has done little to extract the US military from all the endless wars.
The US Empire has "800 formal military bases in 80 countries, a number that could exceed 1,000 if you count troops stationed at embassies and missions and so-called "lily-pond" bases, with some 138,000 soldiers stationed around the globe ..
Here's an excerpt from a prescient speech given by Eisenhower to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, in Washington D.C., on April 16, 1953. Eisenhower highlighted the cost of continued tensions and rivalry with the Soviet Union:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of
threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
|
|
|
May 21, 2020 | www.unz.com
What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realization that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate "causes" violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won't find "hate" anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history.
Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things.
When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn't arise in a given man simply because that man is "bad." Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.
The Longest Hatred
Jews have described anti-Semitism as the "longest hatred." I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioral expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the "longest hatred" are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object.
Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human -- a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable.
Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man's hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is "criminal."
If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true "longest hatred," then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors.
Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim ) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism's dominance fantasy.
From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them.
Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own -- a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.
The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations.
One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as "listing on his garment" the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged. [3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, "Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge," Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal , Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).
Isn't it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn't Jewish culture and historiography the real "garment" upon which Jews name their "victims," thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship -- the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled.
Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they "hate" you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.
... ... ..
Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment May 18, 2020 at 5:15 pm GMT
Dr. Robert Morgan , says: Show Comment May 19, 2020 at 1:22 am GMTHatred is only a psychological burden when it can't be fulfilled.
Hatred is only a psychological burden when the mind creates an obstacle that it can't overcome. It can always just not make the obstacle, and move somewhere else. As the Chinese saying goes "of the 36 strategems, the best one is flee".
Fear and the resulting hate are the weakest of human reactions. It is lowering yourself away from the higher intellectual being that you are, to a base animalistic instinct. The Buddhist does not 'forgive an enemy' – he simply does not see an enemy. Of course, this requires an ideology that lacks the duality of 'good' and 'evil' – mind made and limited concepts. And running away? That is often just the most rational response. Take the fascism that is creeping in onto the west – stay and fight the state? Why? I've played Russian roulette with my life before, between Russian roulette, and a life somewhere else, I choose a life somewhere else.
A Buddhist sees someone acting violently just like someone who is physically crippled. A mental condition that makes the individual less than what they could be. Why hate a psychological cripple? Because they act on their intention – sure, that dooms them far more than some genetic lottery. But it also gives them an out that a physical cripple doesn't have. Hate does not allow for reform of that which can be reformed, and so it grants no positive solution.
The current revolution in values
The no-hate practices of Stoics, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Christ's followers, is millennia old. The revolution, if you ask me, is coming from the fact that the modern West has cast off its shackles of Christianity (which is not Christ's message for the most part), and taken to filling the void of atheism with some mixage of ancient and peaceful faiths. That these people professing a metaphysical 'we are all One' are also atheists, makes them very confused, so they act out with 'anti-hate'-hate. An intellectual dishonesty because they are not intellectually honest with themselves.
Hate is a nihilist's solution (and you do quote that fool Nietszche more than once! ) – kill everyone whom I despise, and the world will be set right. But in doing so, you become what you hate. I am reminded of the great old game Diablo, in enunciating this in gamer format.
By preaching "a world without hate," Jews..
Samson option. Judaism preaches hate with respect to the Gentile, other than through false advertising, like a wolf teaching sheep where to graze. That dumb spiritually yearning atheists fall in line with the message is simply due to 'the fool is not the one that doesn't know, but the one who does not want to know'.. Show these SJWs the Talmud, quote them passages of the Old Testament – they will just brush it off with 'all faiths are the same, they preach the same bullshit, have these same diatribes'.
Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.
Not that I will quote Spock or the Vulcans, but emotion, hate, fear – these things do not help your rational reasoning process, that cognitive process which drives you towards a solution to your problem. Emotion will instead cloud your thinking, throw an element of chaos into it, and make you act before you think. Fine for the ape, beneath and damaging to the human. This is no peaceful reflection, but reflectionary reaction – like a dumb rock falling to Earth under the effect of gravity.
Durocher: "Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The only exception in the Bible is located within the "love thy enemy" section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) "HallParvey , says: Show Comment May 19, 2020 at 6:00 pm GMTNo, that's wrong.
While the Stoics thought it virtuous to love mankind, this was only because other men were presumed to be rational creatures akin to oneself. For the Stoics, to love was not a virtue in itself; it wasn't seen as some theological essence, and reason still held primacy. But this all changed with the coming of Christianity, and its identification of Love with God himself. You quote 1 John, but the wrong verse. It goes on to say, in 1 John 4:8, that "God is love". But if God is love, then what does that make hate but the antithesis of God? Haters then become an enemy of God, and are by definition devoid of any virtue. Thus, in the West, the modern elevation of Love into the ultimate virtue, and the demonization of Hate, descends directly from Christian theological thought. At the same time, in Christianity, reason is devalued. Contra the Stoic position, man does not help himself through his own efforts, by means of rational understanding, but rather through simple, child-like faith in Jesus, the putative incarnation of Love. Jesus doesn't reason with anyone. He's no Socrates, looking for truth. He simply proclaims that he IS the truth, the way, and the light (John 14:6). Reason, evidence, and argument play no role whatsoever.
The overvaluation of Love in our own times can entirely be laid at the doorstep of Christianity and its cultural residue. The necessary consequence of this overvaluation is the demonization of Hate.
Hate is a natural emotion. We are born that way. Hating something or someone leads to fight or flight. Flight is always preferable to fight, when possible.brabantian , says: Show Comment May 19, 2020 at 6:11 pm GMTHating something because it exists is a waste of time. Hating something because it causes you pain is natural. Human.
Finnish nationalist Kai Murros, his famous and very memorable short discourse, 'On Hate'. 2min33secmark green , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 3:25 am GMThttps://www.youtube.com/embed/97mbNzg2YUQ?feature=oembed
Outstanding essay by Andrew Joyce. Hate is not the world's worst evil. In fact, it's not evil at all. This moral pretension is a post-Holocaust fairy tale.Badger Down , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 4:16 am GMTThe fraudulent 'anti-hate' campaigns that have arisen in America over the past 50 years are all politically oriented and racially-motivated. Their objective is not the elimination of 'hate', but the deligitimitisation of white identity, white cohesion, white advocacy, and white continuity.
Ironically, to achieve these unadvertised goals, these camouflaged campaigns rely on derision, division and defamation. In their wake are invidious double standards which not only disadvantage white peoples, but elevate Jewish nationalism (Zionism). This artifice tears at the very core of Western (white) civilization.
If you love justice and fairness; if you love your family and your people, you must hate those responsible for this ongoing and detestable war of aggression.
It bears repeating:vot tak , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 4:30 am GMT
"Semitism is the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind"."For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.hrundia , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 5:17 am GMTThese positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents.
The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector."
Yes, onward Christian soldiers I wrote something else after, but figured it would get lost in translation and erased it. This is really pathethic stuff. The "great thinker" here writes about Buddhism, yet is completely clueless what Buddhism reflects. I started reading this article thinking it might have something useful to say, but realised the author is in the same demented right wing rut the rest of the freakshow running the west for israel are. But that's what israel wants for "deep thinkers" among their jailhouse bitches.
Three cheers for hatred!Franz , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 5:46 am GMTThis is one of the smarter posts I've read on this site in a while. I've felt the same way for a long time – hatred is a rational consequence of understanding what's happening to white people. It seems that the only white people who can be truly alive these days are absolutely boiling with this healthy, virile, and useful emotion. There are three options for a white person: Deny that the white race is being dispossessed (deny the world), deny that you hate this (deny the self), or accept hatred into your heart.
I think you make it too easy on yourself with the antizionism. By all means, hate Zionists (I do!), but it's doing too much work in your analysis. The weakness and cowardice that's destroying the west is an internal urge of Europeans, with Christianity as ultimate religion of cucks (=deniers of the self). Let's not forget to knock back a nice tall glass of haterade in honor of the pathetically weak and cowardly gentiles who have so diligently contributed to our destruction over the decades.
anarchyst , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 1:08 pm GMTEuropeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible.
Europeans appear less resigned than afraid. Fear squashes the ability to hate. It seems counterintuitive but if you've done any police work you know it because you've seen it in action.
Fear of poverty, of overcrowding, of losing our place in the world. And the iron triangle of government, media, and education are adding now logs to the fire of fear daily.
Fight the fear. Your hate will return.
@Badger Down The term "semite" and all of its derivatives should apply only to true "semites". Most jews are not "semites" at all but are eastern European Turkish interlopers who have no right to define themselves as "semites".Mia Culpa , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 1:32 pm GMT
True "semites" are those whose history places them in the Levant for the long haul–Palestinians and other Arabs can properly be called "semites", unlike most eastern European jewish "transplants".
It is long overdue for the record to be set straight on who is a "semite" and who is notThis article misses the mark. Should have included reference to the article "The Virtue of Hate" in First Things magazine, February 2003, by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik.https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate
Unz contributor E. Michael Jones has discussed this subject.
|
|
|
Feb 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org
mark cutts Hi Bill
we have witnessed in the UK the defamation of Corbyn the ' Left Disrupter ' as he wanted to throw back the normal state of political play.
He and the well meaning Labour Party was headed off at the pass.
We have to remember that the Ruling Class have to have fall back positions and that Biden is better than Bernie as is Warren and so on.
It appears to me that the DNC also has its fallback positions too and Bernie will be chopped by the Super Delegates once again on the altar of ' electabilty ' ( read any form of Socialism – American or British is not acceptatble to the PTB ) and that is how it may end.
The battle at the moment in the UK Labour Party is which leader will back up and support extra Parliamentary action in resistance to this very right wing Tory government?
In the US the thing is the same if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
Personally I would think that he would be a plus ( despite his foreign policy views ) but remember that Trump was a maverick Republican yet I'm not sure that Sanders would veer over to that position.
If he did then the " action " part of the steep learning curve would have to kick in to defend him and more to the point his genuinely progressive policies.
In the UK now Corbyn as the personification of ' Socialist ' threat is no longer doorstepped by the British media.
Instead the installation of a Leftish Centrist by the media ( i.e. a person that is -no threat to the existing order ) is a requirement.
This is all under the guise of a " Strong Opposition " to the right wing government.
Warren – not Biden seems to be that kind of favourite for the Ruling Class should Trump fall.
We had Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair – you in the US will get Warren.
I wish Bernie and his backers weel but I don't see it happening.
Maybe Tulsi Gabbard in another 4 years?
She and AOC are very good But this is not their time.
Not yet. 2 0 Reply Jan 30, 2020 10:37 PM
Richard Le Sarc ,
When I think of how Corbyn refused to fight back against ENTIRELY mendacious and filthy vilification as an 'antisemite', I think it might be possible that the MOSSAD told him that if he resisted he might end up, dead in his bath, like John Smith.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
A P , Jan 30 2020 18:21 utc | 68
The problem with continuing to use Zionism and antisemitism is because those terms have been corrupted and confused to the point they mean little beyond their wide pejorative application. Kinda like "left" and "right" when describing the Reps and Dems... Sanders is a "socialist"? Spare us all that idiocy.There can be little mistaking what Jewish ethnonationalism or Judeophobia means. Using these terms would force those who use them for "cover" out into the light for all to see, and not just here at MoA.
Information_Agen , Jan 30 2020 18:59 utc | 75
I think ethnosupremacist is a more accurate term because the ambitions of Zionism are global in nature, not by any means tethered to Israel. That's just where they want their headquarters from which they'll rule over all of humanity.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kabobyak , Jan 30 2020 14:35 utc | 21
A P , Jan 30 2020 14:58 utc | 22
To Florin 3, and then all who replied:YES, YES, YES!
Words matter, they can be as precise as scalpels or as blunt as a sledgehammer. In skilled hands, a word-tool can be either be a scalpel or a sledgehammer.
Jewish ethnonationalism (Zionism) was well underway from the mid-1800s, and well-supported (at least in terms of "solving the Jewish problem") in some elite circles in the early 1900s as the Balfour Declaration proves. The Nazis erred in thinking it was the Jewish population was the "problem", when the problem resided in the Jewish/banking and intellectual elites (e.g. Rothchilds).
AIPAC etc. shows this malignant ideology continues to grow in scope and influence.
We here at MoA should adopt Florin's more correct terms and use them here at MoA AND ANYWHERE ELSE WE POST... From and acorn of an idea, a mighty oak of understanding may grow. But it won't grow if we don't nurture it.
Semitism refers to speakers of Semitic languages, of which Hebrew-speakers are but one part... most of the rest are Arabic speakers. The term antisemitism was hijacked in the early 1800's.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-Semitism
"... also antisemitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite.
Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann Adler's Judaeophobia (1881). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature. Jew-hatred is attested from 1881. As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817."
---------Words matter as the Israel Project's "Global Language Dictionary"(IP-GLG) demonstrates, the Jewish ethnonationalists (Zionists) use words to hide their intentions. Why not call the IP-GLD "Propaganda Language to support the theft of, and genocide in, Palestine"? It's a far more accurate description of the contents and intents... but being honest and transparent is not what the international Jew/Israel Lobby/elite is all about.
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/08/global-language-dictionary/
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Florin , Jan 30 2020 12:11 utc | 3
My background is semantics and semiotics not geopolitics, but I often wonder how arguments involving Israel and its international lobby arm would be apprehended differently if two words were changed (made more accurate):1. 'anti-semitism' to 'judeophobia.' Most semites arent Jews, most Jews arent Semites. The 'woke' Left seems not to have noticed that with the word 'anti-semitism,' all other semitic peoples are excluded.
2. Zionism to 'Jewish ethnonationalism.' Sure, it's cumbersome, but by highlighting that zionism is in fact {quasi} ethnonationalism, the often hypocritical positions of Jewish supporters of Israel who otherwise attack nationalism is exposed.
https://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/supremacy-zionist-exception/
Just a thought.
moon , Jan 30 2020 12:15 utc | 4
'Unilateral Peace' (h.t. see link)pppp , Jan 30 2020 12:48 utc | 5Great Map
RT: Israeli woman convicted of drug trafficking but pardoned by PutinSharonM , Jan 30 2020 13:01 utc | 6Interesting what this was traded for.
@5:Vig , Jan 30 2020 13:10 utc | 7
Putin and Netanyahu's relationship is too close for comfort.Posted by: Florin | Jan 30 2020 12:11 utc | 3Petri Krohn , Jan 30 2020 13:31 utc | 81) if you really have a background in semantics and semiotics your question seems a bit odd. But let me tell you, historically this argument has a very, very long tail. But Ok, I have met people in my field, who apparently weren't aware of simple basics after whatever degree. Thus you may not be a sham naive.
But could you tell me something about the "'woke' Left". As elder, I may not be quite as radically hopeful as b is. Woke is related how to radical semantically and considering usage?
2) welcome to the realisation that Zionism may have been some kind of Janus-Face or similiar response to the later Nazis to 19th century dynamics. In that context history and surely the history of language research may be a good starting points.
If you don't appreciate short-cuts and fast explanation to the complicated plain of history. Which surely Semantics mirror.
Lord Trump works in mysterious ways!MarkU , Jan 30 2020 13:37 utc | 9Often the end result of Trump's actions is the opposite of what he ostensibly aims to achieve. Some believe this is intentional.
For years Israel has been bullshitting the world with talk of peace and a two state solution. The plan has one positive aspect, it lays bare the Israeli vision of "peace" for all to see. It is not a two state solution but apartheid. A legal cover for occupation.
@Florin (3)librul , Jan 30 2020 13:38 utc | 10You are absolutely right in my opinion, the issue is that the terms used in most public discourse have been chosen with malice aforethought. Good luck with trying to change the terms of debate. Even if you succeeded (which you won't) they have a new term, 'antisemitic tropes' which, as you will have noticed, is as broad as they choose.
The real problem is that the western world is run by bankers and a surprisingly large proportion of the most influential ones are Jewish. They control the media (including Hollywood) and have a death grip on most western governments. Why else would 2/3 of the UK parliament be in 'Friends of Israel' groups, why else do US politicians have to swear undying loyalty to the nasty little apartheid war criminal state?
You are just going to have to settle for being right but seeing your point ignored. As we know, any criticism of Israel or any of their cronies is indicative of a desire to round up all Jewish people and put them all in great big ovens, apparently.
casey , Jan 30 2020 13:49 utc | 11
The "Vision for Peace"
makes an unequivocal shout to future generations:"We did not want peace"
Is Elijah Magnier considered a reliable source? If so, he sure had a (conditional) doozy on his twitter feed yesterday.paul , Jan 30 2020 13:49 utc | 12Trump's 'vision for peace' appears to be a prelude to war.AnneR , Jan 30 2020 13:56 utc | 13As for vision, both Schmidt and Trump disgrace the word. Trump is not a man of vision. He is closer to the opposite. Vision IS needed in geopolitics and in politics generally. Most leaders today are afflicted with severe lack if vision.
Russia can no longer be defended, Putin in particular. To constantly preach about international law while warmly countenancing Israel's endless and brutal violation of it looks even worse on Russia than it looks on the US. For the US it is arrogance. For Russia it is subservience.
Florin @ 3Completely agree with #1. An egregious presumption by zionist supporters demarcating, fallaciously, judeophobia as anything to do with the Middle East, North Africa. Calling what is and has been judeophobia (anti-Jewish/ness) anti-semitism and using it exclusively for this group is to deny Palestinians particularly their really existing Semitism. And it makes "special" this discrimination, prejudice, different, more heinous.
With #2 less in agreement, unless by "ethno-nationalism" you mean that the zionist Ashkenazim (the majority of Jewish zionists, to my knowledge)have falsely adopted the semitism of the region while, of course, actually viewing themselves as superior to Arabs/Palestinians/Arab Jews - the genuine semites.
And zionism is surely about as European, western an Orientalist, supremacist mindset, worldview? As well as being in practice and action in Occupied Palestine (known as Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza) - in completely colonialist, inhumane, violent, war criminal ways and has been so for more than 70 years. Indeed since the later 19C...
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Why did people vote for Bojo? Let me explain it. There were 3 reasons.
1. Labour lost 59 seats. 55 of these voted Leave in the referendum. The other 4 were traditional Tory seats that Labour were lucky to pick up in 2017, when Jezza did pretty well, despite all the polls and pundits. May and the Tories were expecting a Labour wipe out in 2017. They got it in 2020.
The Blairites and the Remoaners strong armed Jezza into adopting a ludicrous and incoherent Brexit policy, ignoring the referendum result and having a 2nd referendum. Negotiating a new agreement with Brussels which they themselves would then campaign against. This was widely seen as both farcical and profoundly anti democratic.
The even more fanatical Brussels Groupies in the Liberals suffered the same result.
2. Smear Campaign (a) mounted by the Board of Deputies, the Israeli embassy, the MSM, and the massed ranks of Shabbos goys in the Friends of Israel. This was waged relentlessly by our Levantine friends for 3 years, and clearly had an effect. They said they were going to drive Jezza out of public life, and they did. The policies and membership of Labour are now subject to the veto of a tiny religious majority with close links to the Tories.
3. Smear Campaign (b) mounted by the Blairite Backstabbers who make up 80-85% of the PLP. "Lord" Watson, Benn, Bradshaw, Bryant, Thornberry, Phillips, Austin, "Lord" Mann, Ryan, Berger, Ellman, Smee, the list is very long and very undistinguished. They tried to unseat him twice in No Confidence motions, supported by around 180 of these snakes. They were more terrified of a Labour victory and Jezza getting the keys to Number Ten than any Tory. They were shooting off their fat mouths for 3 years, saying Jezza wasn't fit to be elected dog catcher. They gave the Tories so much ammunition they didn't know what to do with it. Without all this backstabbing, the Labour might well have won the 2017 election, if only in coalition with the SNP. People don't vote for parties that are fighting with each other like rats in a sack.
Hope that explains it.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2020 | www.unz.com
https://staticxx.facebook.com/connect/xd_arbiter.php?version=45#channel=f11da05bf14b4f4&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, then the British Labour Party is institutionally insane and beyond recovery.
Labour's leadership candidates didn't learn a thing from their Party's humiliating electoral defeat last month. Instead of returning to universal anti racist politics consistent with so-called 'Labour values,' the compromised contenders for party leadership bow to the demands made by the Board of Deputies of British Jews , a self-elected pressure group that claims to represent 0.5% of the British public. Our Labour leadership candidates have attended to whims uttered by a tiny privileged voice while ignoring at least 99.5% of the British public. 'For the very few and no one else,' falls short of describing this political suicide.
This weekend, Labour's first leadership hustings in Liverpool provided another spectacular display of the candidates' spineless and unprincipled behaviour. Each waited his or her turn to utter embarrassing statements that they hoped would appease their party's bitterest enemy.
During the event, leadership candidate Jess Phillips took a furious swipe at her rivals' 'alleged silence over anti-Semitism.' She claimed that Labour's failure on antisemitism had lost the party its "moral high ground" in the battle against racism. She referred in her comments to Rebecca Long-Bailey, Emily Thornberry and Sir Keir Starmer, who had all been part of Corbyn's team.
https://players.brightcove.net/4221396001/r1mPWQ7cg_default/index.html?videoId=6124605067001&applicationId=MIRROR%20Embed%20Offsite&referrerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Flabour-leadership-hustings-hit-furious-21305818&ttID=6124605067001&plID=r1mPWQ7cg&publisherId=4221396001&videoTitle=Labour%20leadership%20hustings%20in%20furious%20row%20over%20top%20MPs
Emily Thornberry, who just a week ago was on " her hands and knees " asking for Jewish "forgiveness," hit back at the accusations, saying she has always been clear that antisemitism "undermines us as a party." Vowing to kick out so-called 'antisemites,' she said: "What the Israeli government is doing at the moment is completely unacceptable. But that is not the fault of the Jews."
Someone should remind the 'kneeling enthusiast' that in his entire career, Corbyn never criticised Jews, Judaism or Jewishness. He did criticise Israel and Zionism, while making a clear distinction between Jews and Zionism. It is this critique of Israel and its politics that made Corbyn and the party 'antisemitic' in the eyes of the Zionist pressure groups. If Thornberry insists on getting on her hands and knees to ask for pardon, she ought to understand the 'fault' that has been attached to her party, otherwise, her conduct fits too well with the definition of insanity.
Frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer, candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey and candidate Lisa Nandy all repeated the same line. Each vowed to repair Labour's relationships with British Jews. There is nothing inherently wrong with altering the Party's appeal to Jews but the leadership candidates must have failed to notice that Corbyn wasted his political energy as a Party leader trying to do just that.
In the early stages of his leadership, Corbyn's popularity was the result of the false perception that he was an ideologically principled leader. It was Corbyn's anti war stand, opposition to Anglo-American imperialism and Zionism that so many liked. As time passed, it became clear that Corbyn, the person, had little or nothing in common with his revolutionary image. The man zigzagged around every possible topic including antisemitism and Zionism, let alone Brexit. The man who at one stage was perceived as a 'Left Icon' publicly transformed into a caricature of a political 'left over.' Corbyn lost the election because he was unfit to dwell in Number 10. The Brits realised that if Corbyn couldn't handle a tiny foreign lobby, he would struggle to deal with Putin.
But there was a lesson entangled in Corbyn's political demise. When Corbyn showed a bit of willingness to resist the Lobby's pressure, his public support grew dramatically. Two weeks before the election, while being interviewed by BBC's Andrew Neil, Corbyn refused to apologise to the Jewish community . He took a firm stand and upheld a universal anti racist approach to discrimination. The spike in the polls was immediate. In some of the polls Labour halved the gap with the Tories. At the time, I was skeptical about Corbyn's bravery. I thought his reaction was likely accidental. Perhaps he wasn't prepared for the question and forgot to crawl on demand. It only took a few days before Corbyn and his shadow chancellor reverted to their usual apologetic take on the matter: the rest is history. Corbyn's Labour suffered its worst electoral defeat in 84 years.
Jeremy Corbyn interviewed by BBC's Andrew Neil
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tecUadXe82k?feature=oembed
This week we learned that Labour's leadership candidates haven't learned a thing. 'Insanely' they repeated Corbyn's mistakes maybe expecting different results. Instead of producing a firm position consistent with their Party's universal ideology, they competed to appease the whims and demands of one hostile foreign lobby.
As in every tragic story, there was a glimpse of hope: MP Diane Abbott reported in a tweet from the Liverpool hustings that "Richard Burgon gets the most applause of anyone at the Liverpool deputy leadership hustings for his thoughtful response on the anti-semitism issue."
So Richard Burgon gets the most applause of anyone at the Liverpool deputy leadership hustings for his thoughtful response on the anti-semitism issue @RichardBurgon #LabourLeader pic.twitter.com/Tg0ecjKy08
-- Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) January 18, 2020
Watching Deputy leader candidate Richard Burgon comments reveals that his seemingly firm stand against the 'antisemitism blitz,' did indeed receive warm applause from the Labour party members in the room.
Watch Richard Burgon's attempt at reason:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6S4czspYb9U?feature=oembed
However, a careful listen to Burgon's position clarifies that his stand on the issue is even more ridiculous than that of the other candidates. Burgon refuses to sign the BOD's demands because he wants to work with the BOD as well as 'all other Jewish organisations." Burgon was referring particularly to the "minority within the minority, whether it would be LGBT Jewish people or Black Jewish people "
ORDER IT NOWThe party that claimed to act for 'the many not the few' is now concerned with 5% (considered the demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity within western society) of the 0.5% of the entire British population. In mathematical terms, Burgon rejects the BOD's demands because he is concerned with a population that comprises 0.000025 of the country's entire population. I haven't bothered to look at the percentage of Black Jews in Britain as there is no indication that such a community exists or is at all organized in Britain. And if it does exist, it has yet to oppose the BOD's alleged hegemony.
Rather than looking for a 'minority within a minority' to flirt with, Burgon and the Labour party would do well to reinstate the Party's flat rejection of racism of all types. If such an approach comes short of satisfying the Israel Lobby, the Labour party is free to continue without their approval. This is the only meaning of acting as a true opposition party.
It all paints a very grim picture. The Labour Party in its current form is an occupied zone. It is not occupied by Zionists, or Blairites, as we often hear, it is conquered by its own insanity. The positive reaction to Burgon's comments suggests that Labour supporters are still attuned to their party's ideas. It is just the leadership that has drifted.
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 20, 2020 at 8:56 pm GMT
This is mildly comic.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 20, 2020 at 9:38 pm GMT' Emily Thornberry, who just a week ago was on "her hands and knees" asking for Jewish "forgiveness," hit back at the accusations, saying she has always been clear that antisemitism "undermines us as a party." Vowing to kick out so-called 'antisemites,' she said: "What the Israeli government is doing at the moment is completely unacceptable. But that is not the fault of the Jews "'
All those atrocities are commented at the behest of the Arab community in Israel.
Who'da thought?
@Colin Wright The tactic I see the Lobby use often is that when one dishes out a particularly strong criticism of Israel, they cry out 'anti-Semitism!' as they strike you down, 'Why are you so obsessed with the only Jewish state in the world?' they say, thereby actually being 'anti-semitic' themselves by associating Israel with Jews.OilcanFloyd , says: Show Comment January 20, 2020 at 11:33 pm GMTI think this is how the dynamic goes, ostensibly right-wing parties support Israel no matter what they do, these parties are completely infiltrated with Neoconservatives and they are only right-wing in the economic sense – free markets so that our companies may monopolise and dominate. These parties may pay lip service to their base's right-wing social values but they always concede ground to the opposition.
Ostensibly left-wing parties are filled with socialist Jews, in these circles it is encouraged to virtue signal about the two-state solution, but not to actually push forward plans to make it happen (sanctioning Israel for building settlements). If you watch the Al-Jazeera exposé of the Lobby, you will see such a group operating within Labour.
Corbyn was one of those flabby equality types, it seems impossible to me that he hates or even disliked Jews. His real crime was opposing the Israel Lobby. This episode should have alerted a significant number of Britons as to the power-wielders in this Nation.
I'm not British, so I understand that there is much that I can't understand about the politics and goings-on in Britain. But surely there is a choice other than voting Jewish v. other minority ("anti-tacism") concerns! It would make sense for a Labor party in Britain to concentrate on the best interests of the majority, native British population, but that never happens! It seems like that is the situation in every western nation, and that IS insane.John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 20, 2020 at 11:41 pm GMTThere is some important truths here.John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 12:02 am GMTThornberry and Phillips literally make your toes curl inside your shoes when you read some of their squishy, self-serving pleas being passed as principles.
But I regard their words and behavior more a matter of sheer political incompetence than anything else. Incompetence is to be found in politicians far more than is commonly realized.
As well, of course, we have corruption, as we saw with Tony Blair who literally became wealthy in gratitude for his helping kill a million Iraqis to please Aerial Sharon. Tony's "New" Labour meant a party dedicated to lobby funds and strongly pro-Israel policies. Tony helped lead the charge against Corbyn, too.
We saw no complaints about "anti-Semitism in Blair's heyday. Somehow, after he left power, anti-Semitism just suddenly exploded inside the Labour Party the way Athena exploded from the forehead of Zeus. Extraordinary.
I long defended Corbyn as a decent and humane politician – qualities frequently missing in the profession – and I still believe that of him. The idea that he was ever "anti-Semitic" is bitterly laughable. And as a matter of fact, we have very little active anti-Semitism today in the West, and much of what self-serving fraternal organizations call anti-Semitism is fair criticism of Israel's often barbaric policies.
The whole campaign against Corbyn was McCarthyism resuscitated for a new cause. It should have been confronted in exactly that way. Truth well-spoken can still be a powerful weapon. We have far too little of it in Western politics.
In the end, he did prove weak vis-a-vis the Israel lobby, but that's easier to judge from the outside than when you are being libeled and insulted and pelted with eggs week after week.
The lobby uses an old established principle. Throw enough crap at the wall, and some it will stick. It is a standard principle of advertising and has always been instinctively applied by groups like Germany's 1930s Brownshirts.
The lobby and Israel do not want fairness and decency anywhere near the affairs of Israel. You are not allowed to be fair. You must be totally for Israel and against anyone Israel regards as undesirable.
That was Corbyn sin. And he could not be allowed near power. And talk about external interference, several Israeli politicians, including Netanyahu, got directly involved in British politics over the period of Corbyn's leadership.
Israel – like a major part of racist cowboy America, notably all of Trump's crowd holding pick-up truck meets in Walmart parking lots – simply has no use for genuine liberals or progressives.
Why?
The essence of being a genuine liberal is deep regard for human and democratic rights. Obviously, Israel could not exist as it is today were liberal views to hold any sway.
And the same goes for America's imperialism abroad and its defense of the Plantation System in many parts of the world.
There almost are no liberals in America or Israel.
You do not even have a country in fact when you have an empire. Empire and military and security concerns dominate and provide most of the attractive career paths for talented people, crowding out everything else.
And what is Israel but a privileged strategic colony of the American empire? One pretending to represent high principles when the truth is literally the opposite. Israel's best friends in the region are tyrants – Saudi's Crown Prince or Egypt's Generalissimo – who keep their people suppressed. And it calls democratic organizations like Hamas "terrorists" for the same reason people like Corbyn are attacked.
Some democratic values. But we do live in a world where painting the roses red is an accepted principle. We see that in every word and activity of a Donald Trump or a Boris Johnson.
@Just passing through "Flabby equality types"?Fran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 1:18 am GMTSimply a remarkable turn of phrase.
What we might expect from a Netanyahu or a Trump.
Gilad,Sean , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 5:57 am GMTIf the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Look no further then yourself.
Someone should remind the 'kneeling enthusiast' that in his entire career, Corbyn never criticised Jews, Judaism or Jewishness. He did criticise Israel and Zionism, while making a clear distinction between Jews and Zionism. It is this critique of Israel and its politics that made Corbyn and the party 'antisemitic' in the eyes of the Zionist pressure groups. If Thornberry insists on getting on her hands and knees to ask for pardon, she ought to understand the 'fault' that has been attached to her party, otherwise, her conduct fits too well with the definition of insanity.
It is dishonest of you to suggest that you are only critiquing Zionism and Israel. Your mantra is enlightening the world to the dangers of Judaism and their diabolical control of the levers of world power, thru their racists choseness and thru Holocaust worship and victimization. (Do I have that correct I have been studying your ideas for a while) You inform how Jewish power works thru the Jewish lobby, and their Shabbos goys. Not only do you inform (thru your books) but you insist that Jew power be stopped, like you are clearly warning people about Judaism and Jews. So am I correct you do not subscribe to the IHRA which most of the world ascribes to? Do you not understand that you are what the current Labour leaders are "down on their knees about" No?
What Labour is trying to do now is separate the legitimate critique of Zionism and Israel from the Jew haters. It is a delicate line and the lines got blurred last time around. Aren't you and your fellow travelers the ones that blurred them? The line in the sand is: delegitimizing Israel as the right of Jews to self determination as a Jewish state. You disagree with that correct? To cross that line is considered anti-semitic, and no political party in the Western World is going to delegitimize Israel's right to exist.
So why are you doubling down on your ideas? Trust me if it has not dawned on you that you are the one that emphasizes the .5% (the Jews ) that runs the world, not the rest of the 95%. The 95% do no really care about Zionism, Israel or the Palestinians. They care about their lives in the UK.
You just lost that argument during the election or did you not notice?@Fran Taubman It was not just Israel, Corbyn was reflexively 'progressive' on every issue; he was friendly with the leaders of the IRA before the cease fire, not so long ago said there was no upper limit of immigration, and wanted to give the EU immigrants a vote in another Brexit referendum which would certainly mean reversing the decision of the real British. He quite obviously objects to strong ethnic majorities with any special rights in their own country. Yet Corbyn did think Palestinians have special rights. Even those born and who have lived their entire lives outside Palestine were Palestinians with a right of 'return' in his book. He also said an 'man who self IDs as woman' was eligible to stand on Labour's all women shortlists to become an MP. You got suspended for disagreeing with the idea that woman could have a penis. He was more or less openly unpatrioticGilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:19 am GMTFar from seeing Israel as particularly malevolent, Corbyn thought it was no worse than his own county, he was pro–underdog. He would doubtless conceptualise it as a veil of ignorance thinking, but in practice the West and all its works were bad. His support came from massively expanded universities, mainly among students in the humanities, where it is all about pronoun engendering rather than biological organs, and hyper-internationalism. The traditional Labour support are just that: traditional. Many of them in the former Labour industrial heartlands north of Watford had voted Brexit so how could he possibly have carried them with him? Him agreeing to let Boris have an election was either just a bad political mistake, or a sign that he wanted to get losing and resigning over with in a world gone populist and nationalist. Time has passed Corbyn and his treacherous fellow travelers by.
@Colin Wright It is comical I guess that he next party to go through the same devastating transformation is your Democratic Party..Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:27 am GMT@Fran Taubman ' What Labour is trying to do now is separate the legitimate critique of Zionism and Israel from the Jew haters. It is a delicate line and the lines got blurred last time around. Aren't you and your fellow travelers the ones that blurred them?'Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:30 am GMTNo. Of course it is you Zionists who blurred those lines, by persistently equating condemnation of Israel with anti-semitism.
Moreover, you did it quite intentionally. I could have condemned the USSR; no one would have claimed that this demonstrated I was bigoted against Russians. I could have called for the unconditional defeat of Nazi Germany; that would not have proven that I hated Germans.
But if I call for the abolition of Israel? I am an 'anti-semite.'
This is the equation you Zionists yourselves insisted on. What do you want?
@Just passing through " left-wing parties are filled with socialist Jews, "Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:49 am GMTCorrect and for a reason .
Left and Progressive ideologies are (unfortunately) Jerusalemite to the core.
They teach ppl 'what to say' (Chomsky, Democracy Later, JVP, Mondweiss) as opposed to 'how to think for themselves' (Heidegger)..
Left is defined by boundaries of correctness as opposed to correspondence rules with reality
As if this is not enough, both Left and Progressivism are forms of self-elected righteousness.. We are here for the 'progress' as opposed to the rest who are 'reactionaries'.
It doesn't take too much study to grasp that the strict binary distinction between 'the revolutionary' and the 'reactionary' is identical with the strict Jew/Goy binarism.
Consequently, the Left and the Progressivism offer the Jews an alternative discourse of choseness
@John Chuckman Corbyn may be a decent human being but 1. this is not enough to run a country 2. It is impossible to deny that it was Corbyn's Labour that deteriorated into its current Orwellian apparatus. 3, If Corbyn didn't manage to grasp what he was up against after being the patron of the PSC (Palestinian Solidarity Campaign) for 3 decades, he belongs in the learning difficulties class,,, he can't run a state or party or a corner shop.Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 7:25 am GMTBut there is something good to say about Corbyn. It is his extreme lack of cognitive ability that brought to light the extreme infiltration of the Lobby (both Zionist and so called 'anti) into our public life (politics, media, finance, culture)
"Your mantra is enlightening the world to the dangers of Judaism and their diabolical control of the levers of world power, thru their racists choseness and thru Holocaust worship and victimization."Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 7:46 am GMTTry to concentrate Frau Taubman,,, please point out where do I criticise 'JUDAISM' in this piece or anywhere else.
Not that I believe that Judaism should be free of criticism but Judaism isn't my topic, I am actually way more concerned with Jewish secularism.
I do indeed write about Jewish Identity politics. Jewish culture, Jewishness (יהודיות), Judeo-centrism, J-biologism I dig into the metaphysics of these and suggest that some aspects of those ideology are problematic, racist, supremacist. They endanger the world and Jews alike.
@Fran Taubman "The 95% do no really care about Zionism, Israel or the Palestinians. They care about their lives in the UK."Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 7:49 am GMTTo start with we are talking about 99.5% (in Britain) or 98% in the USA ,,, again you don't concentrate enough to engage,,, but out of interest, would you also hold the same position in Germany in 1937, would you say that 98% of the Germans didn't really care about the Jews?
I actually think that 10 years ago, no one cared about the Jews, or Zionism or Palestine except just a few humanists in the marginal Left.. but the orchestrated campaign against Labour that was led by the BOD, CAA in collaboration with the chief Rabbi, the Israeli embassy , the media and beyond revealed to the Brits that they have a problem .
In fact, you are doing your relentless Hasbara job on each of my papers because the problem has unveiled itself and it is more severe than ever
As I mentioned to you many times before, my criticism of Jewishness is not different from early Zionists such as Gordon, Herzl, Nordaw, Kazanelson, Borochov, our diagnosis of the problem is pretty much identical. We, however, differ on the remedy. They (the early Zionists) believed that a solution was possible (civilizing by means of 'homecoming'). I am myself a very successful product of their philosophy (so are Israel Shamir, Uri Avneri, Israel Shahak, Gideon Levi and just a few others) ! However, Israel has amplified all the symptoms it was designed to suppress. Hence, I can't think of an appropriate remedy, I may even argue that a remedy that sustains the J ID is conditionally impossible
@OilcanFloyd Labour was let down by its pandering to minorities, from Muslims to sexual perverts. They were also in favour of increasing immigration.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 7:54 am GMTIf a Labour party were to oppose immigration on purely economic grounds (more people = more supply = lower wages) then they would win big. Unfortunately they are either controlled, incompetent or more likely a mix of both.
@John Chuckman Corbyn is allowed idpol fanatics to dominate the party. The pandering to minoriteks was unreal. The only reason they were actually opposed to Israel was to pay lip service to their sizeable Muslim voter base. The fact that Israel and their agents have been responsible for pushing Britain into Middle East wars was not even hinted at.animalogic , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 8:38 am GMTI personally believe in equality of opportunity. The Labour party believes in equality of outcome and their anti-White race-baiting is unbearable (people like David Lammy or Diane Abott)
The Tories are pretty bad, they virtue signal their right-wing credentials but don't actually do anything. If Labour were competent and realised that they must win over the low to middle-low income native British people, they could have won. Labour as they currently stand are Islamophillic.
@John Chuckman Great article & great comment, John Chuckman.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 9:51 am GMT
"But I regard their words and behavior more a matter of sheer political incompetence than anything else. "
There"s a lot of truth here. It is political death to appear & to be weak. Constantly apologising is a strobe light shrieking weakness (how often do politicians apologise for anything ? Infrequently, I'd say).
So, yes, Labour's leadership is incompetent, stupid & insane.
Frankly & assertively state the truth: the State of Israel is open to question & where justified, criticism. Such criticism has NOTHING to do with Jew's, especially UK Jews. We will criticise any state that engages in immoral or criminal activity. For us doing anything less would be immoral.
Wear the flack, dig in, repeat, do not resile a millimetre.@Gilad Atzmon This is the problem with Zionists displaying high levels of ethnocentrism, it stops them from seeing objective reality and they start becoming neurotic and drawing more attention to themselves.anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 11:30 am GMTOr do you think they want more anti-Semitism in society to remind Jews of their DNA? Didn't some prominent Israeli politician say that integration and assimilation is akin to a second Holocaust?
We all know that if peace were to come to the Middle East, Israelis would start degenerating into nothingness much like Westerners. No more national service and no more danger. Just drugs and pride parades.
I personally never even understood what anti-Semitism was about until I started hearing about it in the media in relation to Jeremy Corbyn, on further investigation I found many interesting sources of information regarding Jews (Unz Review included) which could be regarded as anti-Semitic. My believe after research that a group of Jews were responsible for the was in the Middle East is denounced as anti-Semitic but I would likely never have found this out of it were not for the Zionists crying out in pain.
The perfect amount of anti-semitism must be maintained in society. Not too much so that there is a mass uprising, but also not so little that normal Jews lose their sense of identity and the chances of finding Jews to participate in conspiracies is lowered considerably.
If I were a British Jew who has not experienced anti-Semitism in real life, and one day a news story tells me about the rise in anti-Semitism in British society and directed me to these instances, I would become quite aware of my Jewishness and likely become more loyal to Israel to be on the safe side.
"The Brits realised that if Corbyn couldn't handle a tiny foreign lobby, he would struggle to deal with Putin."OilcanFloyd , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 11:33 am GMTDeal with Putin? Over what? His disrespect for Uncle Sam?
@Gilad Atzmon The Democratic Party went through their devastating transformation in the early 1990s, and chose to abandon its traditional base of American workers and concentrated on winning through increased immigration and appealing to the fringes. Had the population not increased from 230 million to around 300 mollion since, mostly through immigration, the Democratic party would be out of business. Instead, they look to be the future, and much of America is without a nation.MarkU , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMTSean , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMTCorbyn was one of those flabby equality types, it seems impossible to me that he hates or even disliked Jews. His real crime was opposing the Israel Lobby. This episode should have alerted a significant number of Britons as to the power-wielders in this Nation.
It has done.
As I said earlier the Zionists greatly overplayed their hand in the last UK election and normally oblivious people have begun to notice.
@Gilad AtzmonDigital Samizdat , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 1:50 pm GMTHowever, Israel has amplified all the symptoms it was designed to suppress.
Early Zionists were articulating a view of the time that once they created Israel there would be an alteration in Jewishness. There are emergent qualities of a nation state and once you create one it will start acting in accordance with the dictates of realism like all the others. How could Israel have been different? If the world is getting more like Israel then it is because the common people have increasingly come to reject the idea their country is a charitable institution. John Gray has an interesting article about this in which he says the days when being a 'progressive' was a step on a political career are coming to an end because to ordinary people have lost faith in hyperliberal sexual mores, internationalism of behalf of minorities and even whole countries that are actually comparable to Britain, which is now a medium sized economy highly dependant on the financial services virtual city state south of Watford. Four days ago:-
Donald Trump threatened the UK with a 25 per cent tariff on its cars unless the British government officially accused Iran of breaking the 2015 nuclear deal, it has been reported. The secret threat last week, first reported by The Washington Post, which cited unnamed European officials, would have seen the tariff imposed on all European automobile imports to the US unless Britain, France and Germany agreed to the ultimatum.
Assuming Corbyn had been elected what could he have done about that, or this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/asia/china-russia-iran-military-drills-intl-hnk/index.html
The joint drills also serve as a signal to the world that relations between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing have reached a "meaningful" level, Tahani said. He added that it was the first time Iran has held a joint exercise with two major world naval powers at this scale
Britain is militarily and diplomatically puny and now only notable for its lack of productive capacity (inexorably eroded by Europe), which made the industrial worker dependant Labour Party's decline inevitable. Bliar's decade of immigration rubbed the nose of the people in diversity, and lost much of their remaining advantage in the depressed Midlands and North.
@Gilad AtzmonAnonymous [238] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 2:42 pm GMTI actually think that 10 years ago, no one cared about the Jews, or Zionism or Palestine except just a few humanists in the marginal Left.. but the orchestrated campaign against Labour that was led by the BOD, CAA in collaboration with the chief Rabbi, the Israeli embassy , the media and beyond revealed to the Brits that they have a problem .
So true. Now, thanks to this pitiful Corbyn interlude, a larger number of British leftists than ever will have begun to fathom why they can't have nice things. So maybe in the end, it's all for the best.
I find it bizarre how Brexit is supposed to be finally happening in less than 10 days, if Boris keeps his word (lol), and yet the media seems to have completely dropped any mention of it.Anonymous [238] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 2:47 pm GMTThis will be arguably the biggest event in British history since WW2 but based on the media's coverage of it it's almost as if Brexit no longer exists. The media seem more interested in the Harry and Meghan royal family scandal.
@Sean Britain nowadays is an "every man for himself", zero hours contract "services" economy. As you point out there's no place for a "Labour Party" in such a political and economic climate, in such a society the centre-right rule because people don't expect a welfare state or any real workers rights, they just want minimal taxes to maximise their income.jamesc , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 3:16 pm GMTGilad is, of course, right to question why anyone of the Labour leadership contenders should submit to the BOD's demands. The answer, of course, is that their demands come with an unsubtle threat – do as they say, or the BOD and their allies will destroy the Labour party in the same way that they destroyed Corbyn.jack daniels , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 3:52 pm GMT@John Chuckman It seems to me there's lots of anti-Semitism around. How could there not be, given how aggressive Jews are in pushing their agenda and punishing their critics? A vague, general hostility between ethnic groups is pretty widespread in history and pretty natural.Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT@Gilad Atzmon ' It doesn't take too much study to grasp that the strict binary distinction between 'the revolutionary' and the 'reactionary' is identical with the strict Jew/Goy binarism 'Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMTYeah -- but the whole 'Neocon' phenomenon violated the perfection of that division, however superficially.
'Neocon' ideology is basically progressivism with two adjustments to meet the changing desiderata of Zionist Jews: support for American aggression (there's no other word for it) in the Middle East, and a reduction in the tax burden for the very wealthy now-that-the-very-wealthy-are-disproportionately-Jewish.
Immigration, multi-culturalism, multi-sexuality -- all mighty fine. Just no taxes and more war for Israel. That's what their 'conservatism' consists of.
@Just passing through It is very possible that self destruction is embedded in Jewishness,,, This would explain why Jewish past is a chain of disasters but it also entails that Goyim should be finally vindicated They just happen to be in the wrong place at the worng timeFran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMTGolda Meir said once "We (Jews) can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." Now try to imagine that Golda was projecting her own guilt. Check what happens when we replace the word Jews with Goyim and Arabs with Jews
@Gilad AtzmonGilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 5:53 pm GMTTo start with we are talking about 99.5% (in Britain) or 98% in the USA ,,, again you don't concentrate enough to engage,,, but out of interest, would you also hold the same position in Germany in 1937, would you say that 98% of the Germans didn't really care about the Jews?
Not a chance of comparison. So so many forces at play as the world moved forward from 1937.
The anti-semitism in Europe from Medieval times to before the war was the result of the Christian Church and the European aristocracy as the head of the church. This lead to secular Zionism where Jews could be normal people.The second Vatican council and the rise of Christian Zionism remedied the riff between Christianity and Judaism who have joined forces in fighting Islamic fundamentalism. This battle is viewed as a Judo-Christian battle to save western civilization.
The rejection of global secularism has created many Jewish and Zionist supporters amongst Eastern European Catholic countries who are fighting Islamic integration in their countries.
There are many many forces at play in the world today that did not exist in 1937. No comparison.@jamesc Of course,,, and our role as writers and commentators is to expose these politicians and the corrosive impact of the Lobby..Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 5:58 pm GMT@Sean I agree with a lot of the ideas you explore here. My last book's title is Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto. The reality you describe above is that post political realm .a collective mass fatigue ,,,Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:04 pm GMT@MarkU ' As I said earlier the Zionists greatly overplayed their hand in the last UK election and normally oblivious people have begun to notice.'sarz , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:08 pm GMTSo one hopes. One of the more exasperating tendencies of the English is their willingness to overlook almost anything if noticing it would prove awkward.
@SeanFran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 6:35 pm GMTAssuming Corbyn had been elected what could he have done about that [Trump's threat of 25% auto tariffs]
How about counter-tariffs on American chips and software, in conjunction with Germany and France, if possible.
@Gilad AtzmonCurmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 7:20 pm GMTAs I mentioned to you many times before, my criticism of Jewishness is not different from early Zionists such as Gordon, Herzl, Nordaw, Kazanelson, Borochov, our diagnosis of the problem is pretty much identical. We, however, differ on the remedy. They (the early Zionists) believed that a solution was possible (civilizing by means of 'homecoming'). I am myself a very successful product of their philosophy (so are Israel Shamir, Uri Avneri, Israel Shahak, Gideon Levi and just a few others) ! However, Israel has amplified all the symptoms it was designed to suppress. Hence, I can't think of an appropriate remedy, I may even argue that a remedy that sustains the J ID is conditionally impossible
Many forces are at play, to blame it all on the Jews is to not understand the way the world has evolved especially in the middle east. The secular Zionist that founded Israel ran into a buzz saw of fanatical religious irrational Islamism. Jihad against the Jews. Most of the fight over there has nothing to do with the Palestinians or land. It is a religious war, and an irrational one. Islam is at a similar place to Medieval Europe Christianity. Verbatim. We poison Muslim's wells. You never understand the evolution of the natural forces in nature that the Jews have had to respond to. Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with Islam's failure in the modern world. We just happed to be there.
I actually think that 10 years ago, no one cared about the Jews, or Zionism or Palestine except just a few humanists in the marginal Left.. but the orchestrated campaign against Labour that was led by the BOD, CAA in collaboration with the chief Rabbi, the Israeli embassy , the media and beyond revealed to the Brits that they have a problem .
I and many have a flipped view of this. We view the recent display of Jewish force as saving the UK from Globalism, conspirators, Islamic immigration and irrational progressives who want to make Zionism, Jewish power, Palestinians and Islam the center of the universe. The Jews saved the UK from Corbyn and his cronies. As I keep repeating: you and your travelers are the problem. Keep pounding your Zionist are running the show drum as it fits your paradigm and see where it leads.
In fact, you are doing your relentless Hasbara job on each of my papers because the problem has unveiled itself and it is more severe than ever
If Hasbara is fighting the incessant lies and propaganda about Israel and Jews then yes I am a Hasbarist. I take your positions personally as an artist that grew up in a religious home of survivors (half). I am here to speak about my personal information and experiences that is all I need to engage in this thread. I can tell you as a fact no one spoke about the Holocaust when I was growing up. No one. It was humiliating, the survivors never claimed victimization They wanted to pretend it never happened.
Since the onslaught of the digital age there has been relentless attacks on Jews and Israel with vicious propaganda. I am here to fight that., and make corrections against outrageous claims. Not only are we fighting the hard left and Muslims, but as you can see on your threads Jews are now fighting against the WN and Neo Nazis. It is important to speak out. The internet did not turn out like we hoped. That is why I engage.
@Gilad AtzmonFran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 8:51 pm GMT" left-wing parties are filled with socialist Jews, "
Correct and for a reason .
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "socialist Jews". If "socialist Jews" equates to Marxism/communism, then that may, or may not be true. Marxism is the Jewish version of socialism, which has been pushed as being all socialism, when, in fact, many of Marx's non-Jewish contemporaries were not only hostile to his concepts of socialism, but openly "anti-Semitic".
If "socialist Jews" means Jews see themselves as a commune, I believe that is more accurate, because with the exception of a few faith based ones, all political parties are "filled with socialist Jews". In Canada, one critic used to refer to the "Little Knesset" within Parliament. The Jews from all of the political parties were as one, when it came to Jews and Israel.
The reality is, that the Jews have just been more successful than other "minority groups". They infiltrate all parties and lobby for the ethnic self interest. That the Jews became so prominent in Labour, or actually "New Labour" was by design. Like Emily Thornberry, and her ilk, Tony Blair was also on his hands and knees, not asking forgiveness, rather offering himself up to be used and pimped out. Labour will become government when the Jews have decided that the Conservatives aren't as compliant as Labour.As for Corbyn's interview with Andrew Neil, I wouldn't have expected less. Neil, from all I've seen, is the BBoD's bitch. He continually asks targets like Corbyn or Nick Griffin "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions then interrupts the answers. When challenged, he resorts to "I am the one asking questions." The best thing any politician could do would be to tell him to F-off, this interview is over. I saw this with an AfD member involved in a "debate", when interrupted the 3rd time, she said obviously you aren't interested in my reply, as you won't let me answer. Then took off her microphone and walked off to considerable audience applause.
@Gilad AtzmonAmerimutt Golems , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 9:41 pm GMTTry to concentrate Frau Taubman,,, please point out where do I criticise 'JUDAISM' in this piece or anywhere else.
Your lectures (on video) with the circles and arrows, the curves of mountain peaks and valleys where you explain how the Jews make hay in between Holocausts.
Why do you post articles about Criminal Jews and claim there criminal behavior is Jewish behavior? I have heard you explain sexual deviation and blame it onJewish males and their Jewish parents, as in Epstein. He is not a criminal to you he is a Jewish criminal.
Your recent claim that the "ethnic cleansing" of black neighborhoods in Monsey and Jersey City caused the recent violent attacks on Jews when in fact the crimes were committed by schizophrenic lunatics. One living in a solid middle class neighborhood of Harlem, who's sister was trying to have him committed.
It sounds to me and others like a concerted effort to dehumanize Jews and separate them and their behavior from the rest of society, why else spread vicious slander to a sycophantic rabid Jew hating audience? A lot of what you post is one sided like the rape accusations of the Israelis. You don't know the truth and the truth is not on a tabloid page. You sensationalize this stuff. You could claim that Jews fly at night to secret location and the rabid Jew hater would believe you.
Dehumanizing Jews is not cool.
@Fran TaubmanGilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 10:12 pm GMTThe second Vatican council and the rise of Christian Zionism remedied the riff between Christianity and Judaism who have joined forces in fighting Islamic fundamentalism. This battle is viewed as a Judo-Christian battle to save western civilization.
So-called Islamic fundamentalism is to some extent a function of U.S. foreign policy.
The CIA removed a legitimate government in Iran leading to 'blowback'.
Jihadis sent to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets by the CIA and Saudis destabilized already chaotic Pakistan. When these people returned they became a menace in countries like Algeria (civil war) and France (bombings) plus even fought in Bosnia.
El Trumpo's Saudi buddies are funding mosques and extremism in the West including Britain.
Foreign Funded Islamist Extremism in the UK – Henry Jackson Society
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Foreign-Funded-Islamist-Extremism-final.pdf@Colin Wright Neoconservatism should be regarded as a natural development from a promised land to a promised planet It is an attempt to integrate the English Speaking empire into the Tikun Olam philosophy The disastrous outcome is known to everyone here,,,Gilad Atzmon , says: Website Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 10:18 pm GMT@Curmudgeon It is pretty simple, there is a categorical difference between Jewish socialists (which is really an oxymoron as socialism is universal and Jewishness is tribal) and Socialists who happen to be Jewish (by origin) which is a totally valid concept The all idea of socialism is that it doesn't matter whether you are Black or Jewish or woman or Muslim. We are all sharing the same class struggle as working people. The people who identify politically as Jewish can't really be socialists as their primary identification defies the socialist universal concept.AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:01 am GMT@Fran Taubman /in fact the crimes were committed by schizophrenic lunatics/Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:33 am GMTOh, okay.
So now that we've cleared that up, we shouldn't expect to see those offenses added to the list of "anti-Semitic hate crimes." After all, their perpetrators were acting irrationally, as mentally ill people, rather than as individuals with a rational animus toward Jews.
Good to know that zionists aren't interested in exploiting such occasions to further advance "hate crime" legislation, isn't it?
@Fran Taubman ' Your recent claim that the "ethnic cleansing" of black neighborhoods in Monsey and Jersey City caused the recent violent attacks on Jews when in fact the crimes were committed by schizophrenic lunatics. One living in a solid middle class neighborhood of Harlem, who's sister was trying to have him committed 'Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:40 am GMT'Schizophrenic lunatics' are often canaries in the coal mine. When they act out, the direction they choose is often suggested by the attitude of some segment of the wider society.
See John Brown, the Zebra killers, John Hinckley, the Unibomber, the guy who shot up that synagogue in Pittsburgh. They were all pretty obviously disturbed and headed for a violent outburst of some kind. However, it was trends in the wider culture that suggested to them what targets could be rationalized as legitimate. Who they whack -- or try to whack -- is not random.
I could, say, inveigh against abortion. I personally could be perfectly sane, my rhetoric lucid and rational, and violence genuinely the last thing on my mind. Nevertheless, when some loon bombs an abortion clinic, it's perfectly possible he drew inspiration from my website.
You can't simply segregate the behavior of the mentally ill from trends in the wider society. The loons watch TV too, hear the gossip in the barber shop, etc.
They respond.
@Gilad Atzmon ' The all idea of socialism is that it doesn't matter whether you are Black or Jewish or woman or Muslim 'Karel , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:48 am GMTWell, not really. You may well agree with socialism, and so naturally you prefer to find it on the side of the angels in all things -- but it ain't necessarily so.
Jack London was indubitably socialist -- and very racist, sometimes genocidally so. In at least one story, the happy ending comes when the white race works out a way to exterminate all Chinese.
Then there are the National Socialists. Say what you will; their policies were at least as 'socialist' as those of the post-war Social Democratic regimes across Western Europe. Yet if the Soviets had decided to pursue 'socialism in one country,' the Nazis had plumped for 'socialism for one nationality' -- or as they thought of it, one race.
@Colin Wright your claim that "Jack London was indubitably socialist -- and very racist, sometimes genocidally so. In at least one story, the happy ending comes when the white race works out a way to exterminate all Chinese". is somewhat anecdotal. You confuse fiction with reality. It is as if someone claimed that Conan Doyle identified with the murderers decribed in his writings.Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:30 am GMT@Karel That's pathetic.Fran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:42 am GMT@AnonStarter Totally it happened to a church in Texas. It is violence against Christians and Jews and Whites and Blacks. But does not make you feel more safe if you are Jewish. We are currently spending money for 2 armed security guards at our Synagogue, one inside and one outside.Fran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:45 am GMT@Gilad Atzmon Socialism today is completely different then Socialism in the 1950's which was totally different then 1917.Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 4:21 am GMT
Originally Socialism was about the peasants who were uneducated and some were slaves. There was also an aristocracy and class system. So Socialism was at first meant to brake down the classes.
We now have a middle class and upward mobility.@Fran Taubman ' We are currently spending money for 2 armed security guards at our Synagogue, one inside and one outside.'Druid , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 4:22 am GMTYou are or we are?
@Fran Taubman The taubman troll. Wrong. The 95% do care. What he has is the courage to say it and fight the demons(like you)Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 4:23 am GMT@Fran Taubman 'Socialism today is completely different then Socialism in the 1950's which was totally different then 1917.AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 5:38 am GMT
Originally Socialism was about the peasants who were uneducated and some were slaves. There was also an aristocracy and class system. So Socialism was at first meant to brake down the classes.
We now have a middle class and upward mobility.'History lectures from Fran.
God help us.
@Fran Taubman Unfortunately, Fran, zionists are exploiting the occasion to advance such legislation and bilk the government of more money in the process. You either aren't paying attention or you're playing dumb.Anon [279] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 5:44 am GMTWere I betting man, my money would be on the latter.
British men are the most cucked of all Europeans, except for maybe the Swedes. They've had Jews living among them and marrying into their aristocracy for 4 centuries. It's hopeless. As Henry Ford said in The International Jew in 1920:Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 5:51 am GMTJewry will retain such kings as it desires as long as it desires them. Probably the last throne to be vacated will be the British throne because what to the British mind is the honor of being Jewry's protector and therefore the inheritor of the blessing which that attitude brings, is to the Jewish mind the good fortune of being able to use a world-wide empire for the furtherance of Jewry's purpose. Each has served the other and the partnership will probably last until Jewry gets ready to throw Britain over, which Jewry can do at almost any time. There are indications that it has already started in this last task.
Henry Ford foresaw what was to come. Even if he didn't predict WWII, he correctly predicted then that the English would persuade the US to take the Jews' side of the war.
Wouldn't surprise me if Meghan Markle has a Jewish advisor coaching and egging her on about how to tear apart the royal family.
@Fran Taubman You can always use you advantageous position as a Jew to campaign against the malicious behaviours of your group. For example campaigning against the push for war with Iran which has a distinctly Jewish flavour, much like those who caused the war in Iraq were mostly Jewish Neoconservatives.JUSA , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 6:01 am GMTYour status as a Jew would be more conducive in persuading other Jews about these sorts of harms caused by certain Jews, you could also campaign against the neurotic Jews who are launching a lynch Mon against Labour for not licking their boots hard enough.
But instead of being reasonable, you defend every single bad behaviour by a small clique of Jews judging by your comments on this website.
As it says in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion , throw as many theories and ideas how there as possible to confuse the gentiles, make them fight among themselves. Practically every "ism" out there is invented by a Jew. Jews gave us capitalism, communism, socialism, liberalism, leftism, neoconism, classism, racism, sexism, Zionism the only "ism" they didn't invent was pragmatism . The end result is Jews always end up leading every ideological fight, with gentiles blindly following and quarreling among themselves over these stupid ideologies invented by the Jews.nsa , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 6:12 am GMTJews also lead all the labor unions, to drive a wedge between labor and management, so they can use it as an excuse to move manufacturing out of the US since they control capital. And they invented all the economic theories like "the purpose of a business is to maximize profit, profit is king" (Milton Friedman) to help pave the way for de-industrialization of US and simultaneous maximum immigration, ostensibly to lower labor cost and maximize profit, but really to destroy the country and weaken white society through multiculturalism.
Divide and conquer. Works every single time.
Unbelievably, to this day, gullible subservient Yanks and Brits mutilate the genitals of their male offspring to demonstrate fealty to a vile Kock Kutter Kult. Is this rational ..asking some quack to cut the end off your kid's dick to please some creepy fictional talmudic sky god? Maybe give your kid a break and find some other way to kiss the precious yid's ass.Gilad Atzmon , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT@Colin Wright I agree that socialism means many things to different people my reference to socialism which you quoted above was Marxist oriented, however I do agree that not all socialists are MarxistsPanirKudi108 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 7:01 am GMT~ AfPak•Hezbollah Amity Pact {of (arya)Scythian IndIran}~Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 7:03 am GMTNeed of the hour kalki..
Luongo says the economy will blow up.Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 7:07 am GMThttps://www.youtube.com/embed/mxD-6_uF_7Y?feature=oembed
@Gilad Atzmon Homecoming would have been possible if Israel weren't a colonial project, but if the Jews actually bought the sovereignty from the Palestinians themselves, for a fair price.Ghali , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 7:54 am GMTWith their money (earned by exploitation and corruption), Jews rule the Western states. A large majority of the people in these states know that, but they are keeping quiet. One might ask. For how long? The answer is not very long. It is a repeat of the 1930s in Europe, Germany in particular. Europeans rebelled against Jews. Hitler was one of those who rebelled. History is repeating itself.Miro23 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 9:35 am GMT@Colin WrightBill Jones , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:12 am GMT@MarkU
' As I said earlier the Zionists greatly overplayed their hand in the last UK election and normally oblivious people have begun to notice.'So one hopes. One of the more exasperating tendencies of the English is their willingness to overlook almost anything if noticing it would prove awkward.
IMO they did overplay their hand with the Labour Anti-Semitism blitz. It was obviously fake, and aimed at Corbyn because of his (previous) Palestinian sympathies.
The British don't like to "make a fuss", but they can be bloody minded in some situations, and appreciate fair play. The missing factor here is a politician who can crystallize their views. At one point it looked like it would be Corbyn, but he washed out in the pre-election Johnson-Corbyn live TV debate – accepting all the Anti-Semitism smears and promising more Labour self-flagellation.
He would have greatly improved Labour's election chances if he had stood up to the Zionists.
The assumption would then be, that if he was capable of standing up against the Zionists, he would also be capable of standing up against the U.K.'s many other special interest lobbies.
@OilcanFloyd " It would make sense for a Labor party in Britain to concentrate on the best interests of the majority, native British population, but that never happens! It seems like that is the situation in every western nation, and that IS insane."Bill Jones , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:19 am GMTAnd sane observers notice that the prime movers of the insanity are Jews.
@anonymous "Deal with Putin? Over what? His disrespect for Uncle Sam?"Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:33 am GMTPutin's major sin is his failure to insufficiently celebrate sodomites.
@Fran TaubmanFran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:44 am GMTOriginally Socialism was about the peasants who were uneducated and some were slaves. There was also an aristocracy and class system. So Socialism was at first meant to brake down the classes. We now have a middle class and upward mobility.
Strange logic, but not strange considering where it comes from: an addled head.
If there is a middle, there must be something lower, and something upper. Therefore lower, middle and upper classes, and other layers in between.
The same goes for "upward mobility" implying there is movement up the social scale from an original point down the scale.
As to the other inanities about Socialism, thank you very much. It only shows the dismal ignorance of a defective intellect.
Stick to the Talmudic doctrine, the right subject for an oozy mind.
@AnonStarter A very disrespectful comment. Our synagogue congregants are paying for the security.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:48 am GMT
As far as I know there are no government funds available for security. If legislation does pass I assume it will cover all religious and educational-institutions to protect from the recent shootings.You either hate Zionist or you are spuriously trying to defame Jews by accusing them of thievery.
If I were a betting woman I would say both. Oh and clever replacing Jews with Zionist. I live in NY. I doubt legislation would pass to protect Zionist. LOL
I would also bet that your comment is pretty insincere.
Jews do not bilk the governmentMost Jew haters on this site dare pretty direct. You are full of hide and seek.
@AnonJust passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:53 am GMTWouldn't surprise me if Meghan Markle has a Jewish advisor coaching and egging her on about how to tear apart the royal family
.
That family of inbreds was going out anyway, most people only admire the Queen and then the line gets quote mediocre with Charles.
I find it astounding how much the media are paying attention to this Markle drama, they should focus more on Andrew and Epstein.
@JUSA So in summary, the Jews are doing to Anglo society what the Jews and Anglos did to various parts of the world?Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 10:54 am GMTShame on the Anglos for trusting Jews in their criminal enterprise, history should have told them that one day the Jews' hungry gaze would turn onto them.
America is currently doing Judea's bidding in the Middle East, all I can say is, today the Anglo works hand in hand to hang the others, very soon in the future, the Anglo will find himself standing at the gallows with Schlomo ready to hang him.
Colonialism was entirely prodded on by Jews in my opinion, they used the Anglo might to conquer the world and divert the profits to themselves. I personally would be supportive of Rothschild and Warburg banks paying reparations to both Whites and Browns/Yellows/Blacks for all the harm they have caused.
@nsa Babies are not circumcised here in the UK, that seems to be an American feature.Fran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 11:00 am GMT@Ilya G Poimandres If only. Palestinian leaders are not interested in a fair price or any workable solution that includes Jews. Islam as currently practiced in the ME is an insane and irrational sectarian mess.Quinsat , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 11:29 am GMTIslamist LEADERS not the regular folks want Jihad against the Jews for whatever Jihadist reasons they can think of. Jordan is a colonial creation. Why not go after Jordan. If I were a Palestinian that is what I would do.
If rationale was running the show it would have all been settled like 70 years ago when the partition plan was created. The Palestinians would be celebrating 70 years as Palestine.
It would have been settled many years after that when the Palestinians had the full world court. Yessir Arafat met with Clinton more then any other world leader. True also of his presence in Europe.
But no one cares anymore because rational solutions do not fit a Jihadist mind. Like when the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel.
If Israel were gone tomorrow nothing would change over there. They would start holy wars against each other.
'Struggle to deal with Putin 'Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:10 pm GMT5 short words which say never bother reading this commentator again.
@Fran Taubman Yes, because Israeli society is such a tolerant and peace loving place?Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:20 pm GMTWhile their agents lobby Western governments to fight their wars, Jews send their kids into the IDF to shoot unarmed Palestinians. And yet Zionists like you have the chutzpah to say Israel is on the brink of destruction to justify your Jewish Lebensraum project.
Remind me who killed Yitzhak Rabin after he signed the Oslo Peace Accords?
Would any Israeli politician dare move forward with the peace process knowing there is an abundance of Zionist fanatics in Israeli society who will kill them if they are not Zionist enough?
You Zionists are just making this worse for normal Jews, whose feelings towards Israel are latent at best. You know that increasing anti-Semitism leads to Jewish racial awareness and makes them more likely to participate in subversive activities, lest the invisible hand of the anti-Semite set in motion another Shoah. This is why Jewish critics like Gilead Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Norman G. Finkelstein cause so much kvetching in Zionist circles.
@Fran TaubmanKali , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:24 pm GMTYou either hate Zionist or you are spuriously trying to defame Jews by accusing them of thievery.
Quel horreur mon Dieu!!! Accusing Jews of thievery! What's the world come to?
Where are you Chuck? I'll leave that one for you to deal with and exercise your inimitable talent at poking fun at the bleeding obvious.
@Anonymous Media hysterics over Brexit have served their purpose it seems. The country was divided, the opposition party shown to be weak, and now the establishment can get on with tying the British economy to the US and "israeli" economies as, it seems, was the plan all along.Fran Taubman , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:31 pm GMTBrexshit was a disgusting manipulation of the British people by the rich and powerful Jewish lobby. It's msm did as it was instructed like a good lapdog. Now we all get to suffer what will surely be some rather interesting effects: privatisation of the NHS and a "deffence" policy tied directly to "israel" alongside the criminalisation of opinions which question these moves.
Le sigh,
Kali.@Just passing through I am a US citizen. I have no advantaged position. I have the same rights and privileges every other US citizens have.Au Contraire , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:38 pm GMT
Totally ludicrous comment.
I am not interested in a war with Iran. They Persians are wonderful people. Iran should stop killing Israelis, Jews and Americans. They should stop their behavior of taking over other countries like Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.I am not here to police the behavior of Jews who are like every other peoples in the world. There are malicious Jews, and Jews with exceptionally high morality. Like other people.
There exists in the British Labour Party both Jews and non Jews with bad neurotic behavior. I am not a British Subject.
Jeremy Corbyn got what he deserved. He lost the election. And no person in Labour had more bad behavior, low morals and neurotic behavior then Corbyn. He could not defend himself or his party because he stood for nothing that helped the people of the UK.
@Fran Taubman No, Fran, what really isn't cool is dehumanizing humanity.Sean , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:44 pm GMTFor reference, see the Jewish Talmud.
@Just passing throughgeokat62 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:48 pm GMTTo produce healthy children, you should marry a third or fourth cousin. Farther out, the genetic costs of outbreeding begin to outweigh those of inbreeding. That was what a cohort study found in examining Icelanders born between 1800 and 1964. Fertility was lower if the woman's husband was either closer in or farther out (Helgason et al. 2008).
Being a family of inbreds has not hurt the Rothschilds.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/a-tale-of-two-rothschilds-7831372.html A tale of two Rothschilds The relationship between Kate Goldsmith and rapper Jay Electronica has uncanny parallels with her great aunt Nica's passion for Thelonious Monk
Well, not that much.
I find it astounding how much the media are paying attention to this Markle drama, they should focus more on Andrew and Epstein.
I am mildly surprised that more attention has not been given to Epstein throwing vast amounts of money to Catholic professor Martin Nowak at Harvard to help him discredit Inclusive fitness . (Charles Darwin was a product of moderate consanguineous marriage, and so was er, Hitler. whose parents called each other 'Uncle' and 'Niece'). Tory ideas man David Willetts, in the Financial Times, thought Nowak's book Supercooperators excellent for understanding the development of cooperation in society. Why is it that so many Jews even renegade ones are so committed to promoting the role of nurture over nature.
Maybe Jews instinctively understand that people want to disbelieve in genes mattering much. As far back as the play The Tempest , Shakespeare has Prospero identify hereditary qualities as malevolent. when calling Caliban "a born devil, on whose nature/ Nurture can never stick". In humans Nowak says the key to eliciting cooperation is indirect reciprocity, which is when you help others and get a good reputation that pays off big time because people will help people who are known to help other third persons. The late Professor Henry Harpending on Kin Selection
Giving Bigotry a Chance This figure shows the data from the Druze, a community in the Middle East that has endured episodes of very small effective size. Here opportunities for discord and clannishness are high as individuals able to discriminate kin would ally against the "others." In this kind of social/genetic environment one would predict very different patterns of family and clan and group loyalty and cooperation.
geokat62 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMTThis weekend, Labour's first leadership hustings in Liverpool provided another spectacular display of the candidates' spineless and unprincipled behaviour.
They were simply following in the footsteps of the great Traitorous Shabbos Goy, Tony Bliar, who showed his party cohorts how to get ahead in this world do the bidding of your masters and you will be splendidly rewarded!
@Fran TaubmanAnonymous [317] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:04 pm GMTThis battle is viewed as a Judo-Christian battle to save western civilization.
Yes, yes of, course, Fran. The Judos are earnestly doing everything in their power to save Western civilization by "encouraging" their Shabbos Goys puppets in key governmental positions to welcome mass immigration into their countries.
Yes, The Dumb Goyi m should be grateful to the efforts of Open Society Foundations, HIAS, etc. for saving our civilization.
. and never forget, goy, Diversity Is Our Greatest strength!
@Anon British people almost think of themselves as Jews in a subconcious sort of way. In Britain there is almost no perception of the City of London financial industry as being in any way Jewish, the vast majority of native British people see banking and finance as authentically British, in fact perhaps the most quintessentially British industry there is.Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:09 pm GMTThe British have assimilated Jewish ways so much they have practically made it their own. I get the impression that many non-Anglos use the terms Anglo and Jew almost interchangeably and see them as one and the same.
@Fran Taubman Jews, and Judaism, and Zionism, and Talmudism, are the problems Frannie. All of them.Kali , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMTThey are all ugly manifestations of Chosenism, riddled with Hypocrisy (Chutzpah), anti-Humanism, anti-Christianity, anti-Islamism, and oppression of peoples within their grasp (Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.).
You Frannie, are a part of the problem. You and your Jewish worldview of lies and myths.
Grow up. Learn about Christ, the Truth.
Otherwise go to Hell, where you and your kind truly belong, worshipping your true master, Satan. Christ Himself described what you all are and when you die, you cannot escape Truth any longer.
@Fran TaubmanMLK , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:31 pm GMTThe Jews saved the UK from Corbyn and his cronies Keep pounding your Zionist are running the show drum as it fits
Can you see what you did there Fran? In one breath you state that " the Jews s aved the UK from " (which, incidentally subjects the British people to another 5 years of unrestrained Tory austerity, crippling poverty and ever-rising homelessness, whilst dismantling the National Health Service, and our freedom of self expression, so thanks for that) and in the next breath you castigate Gilad for suggesting that the zionists ( i. e. jews) are running the show.
Can you see the contradiction in your own writing, in your own views?
You're so hell-bent on defending "israel" and its' international constituency, and on blaming Muslim Arabs for the mess the ME is in thanks to zio-backed/instigated western interference, that you have closed and shuttered your own mind against any and all opposing views, to the point that your "arguments" become utterly incoherent and self contradictory.
My own grandparents survived the war and very rarely spoke about it. This despite the fact that my great-grandparents lost 3 of their 6 children (or 4 out of 7. Can't quite remember) in just one night when the air-raid shelter they were sheltering in was blitzed. – All so that your ideological forefathers could push forward on their plan to wipe Palestine out, steal the land and build themselves another golum there.
Could it be that those who survived the war (first declared by international jewry agaist nationalist Germany) in your family didn't talk about their experiences because EVERYBODY who survived understood that their suffering was shared by all and that no-one was unique in this regard?
If you never question your pre-conceptions, how can you know they're right?
Kali.
@Gilad Atzmon This really isn't so complicated. Corbyn proved incoherent, if nor worthless and weak, on Brexit, a National Question if there ever was one.Kali , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 1:32 pm GMTDid any of you see Labor's closing pitch in the last election? A parody appeal to what Steve Sailer calls The Coalition of the Fringes. Nothing on the paramount question of national sovereignty, except a veiled promise to give it good and hard to the British majority when Labor took power.
This was Hillary's crass appeal.
I know it's hard for most here to hear but you characters, including not the least the author, are outliers in where in the scheme of things you rank Israel and the Jews. I never fail to be reminded of that old joke about the little Jewish boy in school -- with the punch line "Elephants and the Jewish Question."
Is it really so difficult for this audience to understand that since Corbyn got the big, important stuff wrong, his position/messaging on Jews/anti-semitism/Israel/Palestinians . . . , regardless of its specific content, revealed he was the wrong man for the job.
As if this is not enough, both Left and Progressivism are forms of self-elected righteousness.. We are here for the 'progress' as opposed to the rest who are 'reactionaries'.
Virginia Democrats are currently engaged in this self-defeating behavior, having nothing to do with Jews etc. Having won control in the last elections, they've decided the time is right to re-litigate the Civil War.
@Fran TaubmanZ-man , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:20 pm GMTThat is why I engage.
Constantly, reflexively contradicting is NOT the same thing as "engaging" Fran. Just the opposite, in fact.
Kali.
Jake , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMTFor the 0.5% Not the 99.5%
Pretty much how it is here in the good ole' USA. The 2% own the government – ZOG*. Izrael Uber Alles!
But it's beyond ZOG it's the Globohomo Elite, which is dominated, of course, by Jews.
The war is coming and that 'Taubman' typist (poster) above isn't going to be happy. (Wry grin)*0.5% or 2% it doesn't matter, the globohomo/Zionist elite, a minority within a minority, run most of the Western governments anyway.
As always, beware The Power of the CABAL .@Truth3 If your first sentence is true, then it is equally true that Judaizing heresy is the problem. And if that is true, then the logical, inherent, fruits of Judaizing heresy are the problem.melpol , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMTAnglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. Anglo-Saxon Puritanism is responsible for the basic ethos of WASP culture, for its religious and therefore moral proclivities.
And that means that WASP culture, Modern English culture, is the problem.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that is not forcibly stopped dead in its tracks and rejected culturally leads inextricably to Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Jews as a high achieving minority have always been hated. But Corbyn cannot commit political suicide and directly blame Jews for Britain's problems, so he picks on tiny Israel to get Jew haters to support him.9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:25 pm GMT
Before Israel existed Jew hating politicians were bolder, they directly claimed they hated Jews.A "democratic socialist " like Corbyn never stood a chance in the UK which , like the US is a plutocracy, in fact the UK is still a monarchy as to be seated in the House of Commons a member of Parliament MUST first swear allegiance to the Queen . The massmedia in the UK is indirectly owned by billionaires and millionaires who were universally opposed to Corbyn , Corbyn was also opposed by the intelligence services and the military who characterized him as a threat to "National security" ,and for months he was smeared as an anti-semite because he supported Palestinian rights and , for good measure, the BBC in its coverage of the campaign was clearly biased in favor of Boris Johnson . Should Bernie Sanders another "democratic socialist " become the nominee of the Democratic party he will be subject to the same treatment by the press and the powers that be as meted out to Corbyn , it has already started with the ambush of Sanders by Warren and CNN at the last Democratic debate .Jake , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:36 pm GMT@Anonymous This sentence should be repeated over and over by everyone trying to figure out what is going on: British people almost think of themselves as Jews in a subconcious sort of way .Kapyong , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:40 pm GMTThis is the long term end game of Judaizing heresy, which is what Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was, and Anglo-Saxon Puritanism determined Modern English culture.
If you do not reject WASP culture, Modern English/Anglo-Saxon culture, then you are part of the problem.
@Fran TaubmanKali , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:41 pm GMT"If the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Allow me to pick this nit –
This stupid saying is NOT the definition of insanity (rather the definition of practicing to get better.)The definitions of insanities fill a book an inch thick.
This is actually a saying from Albert Einstein and is a classic example of the fallacious Argument To Authority – citing an authority but who is outside their area of expertise.
@Fran Taubman " Israel should stop killing Arabs should stop their behavior of taking over other countries like Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. "Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMTFixed that for ya Fran
You're welcome!
Kali
@melpol I think you know very well Corbyn did not harbour any hatred towards Jews. Once again, Zionists and Talmudists creating anti-Semitism out of thin air to satisfy their demand for persecutionJust passing through , says: Show Comment January 22, 2020 at 2:53 pm GMT@Z-man Ask yourself how they got to this level of power. Why were they allowed to ingrain themselves within the elite of Western societies by the previous elite?Current Commenter
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2020 | original.antiwar.com
If you wonder what the post-Trump Republican Party will look like, take a glimpse at Tom Cotton, one of the US senators from Arkansas (where I live). Cotton has waged a relentless campaign for war against Iran and has supported every horror produced by the US foreign-policy establishment for the last 20 years. He makes other American hawks look like pacifists. Cotton once said that his only criticism of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where people are held indefinitely without charge or trial, is that too many beds are empty.Typical of take-no-prisoners warmongers, Cotton savages critics of the pro-war policy that has characterized US foreign policy in the 21st century. No baseless charge is beneath him. He recently attacked the Quincy Institute in the course of remarks about anti-Semitism. (You can see what's coming.) According to Jewish Insider , Cotton said that anti-Semitism "festers in Washington think tanks like the Quincy Institute, an isolationist blame America first money pit for so-called 'scholars' who've written that American foreign policy could be fixed if only it were rid of the malign influence of Jewish money."
This is worse than a series of malicious lies – every word is false. In fact, it's an attempt to incite hostility toward and even disruption of one of the bright spots on the mostly desolate foreign-policy-analysis landscape.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (QI) started last year with money from, among others, the Charles Koch Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Foundations. Its officers and staff include respected and sober foreign-policy analysts and journalists such as Andrew Bacevich, Trita Parsi, Jim Lobe, and Eli Clifton. Also associated with the institute are the well-credentialed foreign-policy authorities John Mearsheimer, Paul Pillar, Gary Sick, Stephen Walt, and Lawrence Wilkerson. This is indeed a distinguished team of foreign-policy "realists" who are heroically resisting America's endless-war-as-first-resort policy.
Named for John Quincy Adams – who as secretary of state famously declared that "America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" – QI "promotes ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." The QI website goes on to state:
The US military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to act as a global police force. The United States should reject preventive wars and military intervention to overthrow regimes that do not threaten the United States. Wars of these kinds not only are counterproductive; they are wrong in principle.
It then goes on to indict the current foreign-policy establishment:
The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible conception of US interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind. Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself.
Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the United States had earned.
This may not be pure libertarian foreign policy ("US interests" is too slippery a term for my taste), but compared to what passes for foreign-policy thinking these days, it's pretty damn good.
So why is Tom Cotton so upset? It should be obvious. QI opposes the easy-war policy of the last 20 years. Of course Cotton is upset. Take away war, and he's got nothing in his toolbox. He certainly doesn't want to see the public turn antiwar before he's had a shot at high office, say, secretary of state, secretary of defense, CIA director, or even the presidency.
Cotton's charges against QI are wrong on every count.
QI is not isolationist as long as it supports trade with the world and diplomacy as the preferred method of resolving conflicts.
It's not a blame-America-first outfit because the object of its critique is not America or Americans, but the imperial war-loving elite of the American political establishment. Cotton is part of that elite, but that does not entitle him to identify the mass of Americans with his lethal policy preferences.
It's not a money pit. As you can see, QI boasts an eminent lineup thinkers and writers. So the money is obviously well-spent on badly needed analysis. QI should have been set up long ago. Cotton shows his pettiness by putting the word scholars in sarcasm quotes. He should aspire to such scholarship as Bacevich, Parsi, et al. have produced.
But where Cotton really shows his agenda is his absurd claim that anti-Semitism "festers" in QI (and other think tanks – which ones?).
Cotton here is performing that worn-out trick that, alas, still has some life in it: conflating criticism of Israel and its American lobby with people who are Jewish (and who may well oppose how the Israeli state mistreats the Palestinians). I'm sure he knows better: this is demagogy and not ignorance.
On its face, the proposition that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians and its Arab and Iranian neighbors probably hates Jews as Jews is patently ridiculous. Any clear-thinking person dismisses that claim out of hand.
Undoubtedly Cotton has in mind primarily Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy , published in 2008. (It began as an essay in The London Review of Books .) In that work, Walt and Mearsheimer reasonably attribute the lion's share of influence on US policy in the Middle East to the Israel lobby, "a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." They add, "[I]t is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls' US foreign policy. It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles, whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel's case within the United States and influence American foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit the Jewish state."
This is hardly controversial stuff, although reasonable people can disagree over whether the lobby was decisive in any given case.
But does anyone doubt that American champions of Israel work overtime and spend a lot of money to advance what they see as Israel's interests? If so, see this and my book Coming to Palestine . (Many non-Zionist Jews disagree with them about those interests.) Organizations like AIPAC often boast about their influence. That they sincerely believe Israel's interests coincide with America's interests is beside the point. (I won't address that dubious contention here.) That influence, which supports massive annual military aid to Israel, has helped to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians, wars against Lebanon, and attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It has also provoked hostility to America and vengeful terrorism against Americans. (For example, the 9/11 attacks as acknowledged by the government's commission .) Pro-Israel American political and military officials acknowledge this.
Cotton need not wonder why the lobby has succeeded so often since he himself is using the anti-Semitism canard to inhibit Israel's critics. No one wants to be condemned as anti-Semite (or as any other kind of bigot), so we can easily imagine prominent people in the past withholding criticism of Israel for fear of being thought anti-Jewish. (It's Israel and its champions, not Israel's critics, who insist that Israel is the state of all Jews, no matter where else they may be citizens.) Thankfully, despite the efforts of Cotton, Kenneth Marcus, Bari Weiss , Bret Stephens, and others, the invidious conflation has lost much of its force. More than ever, people understand that to oppose the entangling alliance with Israel and to express solidarity with the long-suffering Palestinians do not constitute bigotry against Jews.
Can Cotton produce any evidence that anyone at QI believes that pro-Israel Jewish Americans should be barred from lobbying and making political donations or that such an obvious violation of liberty would fix American foreign policy? Of course not. There is no evidence. Moreover, I'm sure the QI realists understand that other interests also propel the pro-war US foreign policy, including glory-seeking politicians and generals and the profit-craving military-industrial complex.
Those who reflexively and slanderously tar Israel's critics as anti-Semites seem not to realize that the worthy effort to eliminate real anti-Semitism is undermined by their efforts to immunize Israel and its American champions from good-faith criticism.
Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is Coming to Palestine . Reposted from The Libertarian Institute .
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | astutenews.com
January 18, 2020 A Opinion One comment At a talk I delivered in Northern England in March 2018, I proposed that the best response to falsified accusations of antisemitism, which are often lobbed against pro-Palestinian communities and intellectuals everywhere, is to draw even closer to the Palestinian narrative.In fact, my proposal was not meant to be a sentimental response in any way.
"Reclaiming the Palestinian narrative" has been the main theme in most of my public speeches and writings in recent years. All of my books and much of my academic studies and research have largely focused on positioning the Palestinian people – their rights, history, culture, and political aspirations – at the very core of any genuine understanding of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonialism and apartheid.
True, there was nothing particularly special about my talk in Northern England. I had already delivered a version of that speech in other parts of the UK, Europe and elsewhere. But what made that event memorable is a conversation I had with a passionate activist, who introduced himself as an advisor to the office of the head of the British Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Although the activist agreed with me regarding the need to embrace the Palestinian narrative, he insisted that the best way for Corbyn to deflect anti-Semitic accusations, which have dogged his leadership since day one, is for Labor to issue a sweeping and decisive condemnation of antisemitism, so that Corbyn may silence his critics and he is finally able to focus on the pressing subject of Palestinian rights.
I was doubtful. I explained to the animated and self-assured activist that Zionist manipulation and misuse of antisemitism is a phenomenon that has preceded Corbyn by many decades, and will always be there as long as the Israeli government finds the need to distract from its war crimes against Palestinians and to crush pro-Palestinian solidarity worldwide.
I explained to him that while anti-Jewish racism is a real phenomenon that must be confronted, "antisemitism", as defined by Israel and its Zionist allies, is not a moral question that is meant to be solved by a press release, no matter how strongly-worded. Rather, it is a smokescreen, with the ultimate aim of distracting from the real conversation, that being the crimes of military occupation, racism, and apartheid in Palestine.
In other words, no amount of talking, debating or defending oneself can possibly convince the Zionists that demanding an end to the Israeli military occupation in Palestine or the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid regime, or any genuine criticism of the policies of Israel's right-wing government are not, in fact, acts of antisemitism.
Alas, the activist insisted that a strong statement that would clarify Labor's position on antisemitism would finally absolve Corbyn and protect his legacy against the undeserved smearing.
The rest is history. Labor went into a witch-hunt, to catch the "true" anti-Semites among its members. The unprecedented purge has reached many good people who have dedicated years to serving their communities and defending human rights in Palestine and elsewhere.
The statement to end all statements was followed by many others. Numerous articles and arguments were written and made in defense of Corbyn – to no avail. Only a few days before Labor lost the general election in December, the Simon Wiesenthal Center named Corbyn, one of Britain's most sincere and well-intentioned leaders in the modern era, the "top anti-Semite of 2019." So much for engaging the Zionists.
It doesn't matter whether Corbyn's party lost the elections in part because of Zionist smearing and unfounded anti-Semitic accusations. What truly matter for me as a Palestinian intellectual who has hoped that Corbyn's leadership will constitute a paradigm shift regarding the country's attitude towards Israel and Palestine, is the fact that the Zionists have indeed succeeded in keeping the conversation focused on Israeli priorities and Zionist sensibilities. It saddens me that while Palestine should have occupied the center stage, at least during Corbyn's leadership years, it was still marginalized signifying once again that solidarity with Palestine has become a political liability to anyone hoping to win an election – in the UK and anywhere in the West as well.
I find it puzzling, indeed disturbing, that Israel, directly or otherwise, is able to determine the nature of any discussion on Palestine in the West, not only within typical mainstream platforms but within pro-Palestinian circles as well. For example, I have heard activists repeatedly questioning whether the one-state solution is at all possible because "Israel simply would never accept it".
I often challenge my audiences to base their solidarity with Palestine on real love, support, and admiration for the Palestinian people, for their history, their anti-colonial struggle, and the thousands of heroes and heroines who have sacrificed their own lives so that their people may live in freedom.
How many of us can name Palestine's top poets, artists, feminists, football players, singers, and historians? How familiar are we really, with Palestinian geography, the intricacies of its politics, and the richness of its culture?
Even in platforms that are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, there is an inherent fear that such sympathy could be misconstrued as antisemitism to the extent that Palestinian voices are often neglected, if not completely supplanted with anti-Zionist Jewish voices. I see this happening quite often even in Middle Eastern media that supposedly champion the Palestinian cause.
This phenomenon is largely linked to Palestine and Palestine only. While the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the United States – as was the case of many genuine anti-colonial liberation movements around the world – have strategically used intersectionality to link with other groups, locally, nationally or internationally, the movements themselves relied on black voices as true representatives of their peoples' struggles.
Historically, Palestinians have not always been marginalized within their own discourse. Once upon a time, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), despite its many shortcomings, provided unified Palestinian political discourse which served as a litmus test for any individual, group or government regarding their position on Palestinian rights and freedom.
The Oslo accords ended all of that – it fragmented the Palestinian discourse just as it has divided the Palestinian people. Since then, the message emanating from Palestine has become muddled, factionalized and often self-defeating. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) has done a tremendous job in bringing about some clarity by attempting to articulate a universal Palestinian discourse.
However, BDS is yet to yield a centralized political strategy that is communicated through a democratically-elected Palestinian body. As long as the PLO persists in its inertia and without a truly democratic alternative, the crisis of the Palestinian political discourse is likely to continue.
Concurrently, the Zionists must not be allowed to determine the nature of our solidarity with the Palestinian people. While true Palestinian solidarity requires the complete rejection of all forms of racism, including antisemitism, the pro-Israel camp must be sidelined entirely from any conversation pertaining to the values and morality of what it means to be "pro-Palestine".
To be anti-Zionist is not always the same as being pro-Palestine, the former emanating from the rejection of racist, Zionist ideas and the latter indicating a real connection and bond with Palestine and her people.
To be pro-Palestine is also to respect the centrality of the Palestinian voice, because without the Palestinian narrative there can be no real or meaningful solidarity, and also because, ultimately it will be the Palestinian people who will liberate themselves.
"I am not a liberator," said the iconic South American revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara. "Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves".
For the Palestinians to "liberate themselves", they have to claim their centrality in the struggle for Palestinian rights everywhere, to articulate their own discourse and to be the champions of their own freedom. Nothing else will suffice.
Feature photo | Members of the Jewish anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group demonstrate against the Israeli General Elections outside a polling station in Jerusalem. Sebastian Scheiner | AP
By Ramzy Baroud
Source: MintPress News
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The Rev Kev , December 23, 2019 at 9:02 am
"Netanyahu calls ICC war crimes probe anti-Semitic"
In breaking news, the International Criminal Court (ICC) today accused Netanyahu of being anti-Gentile and intend to lay charges against him for this. Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan and several other countries offer to bear witness against him while Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States say they will offer character references in his defense.
xkeyscored , December 23, 2019 at 12:21 pm
from Debka :
Government imposes gag on ICC controversy
Dec 22, 2019 @ 15:47
The Israeli government in its weekly session on Sunday classified as secret all references to the decision of the International Crimes Court in the Hague to probe Israel for offences in "Palestinian areas." The ministers passed the subject over to the security-policy cabinet. PM Binyamin Netanyahu again denounced the Hague court: "While we are moving forward in new areas of hope and peace with our Arab neighbors, the ICC in The Hague has taken a step backwards. On Friday, it finally became a weapon in the political war against the State of Israel."Massinissa , December 23, 2019 at 2:09 pm
I mean, technically Arabs are also semitic.
Which is why anti-semitic meaning exclusively anti-jewish is a bit strange.
John , December 23, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Seems to me that anything Netanyahu dislikes or which he feels is a threat to him he labels as anti-Semitic. After a while, who listens.
Carey , December 23, 2019 at 5:29 pm
Umm, the US Prezdint, Senate, House ever heard of Anti-BDS resolutions and legislation?
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2018 | off-guardian.org
It is an anger that would be shared by millions, if they understood the truth about the way they have been deceived and manipulated by the UK Establishment, not simply over the election but over the most fundamental issues of trust and decency.
Some of the most evident deceptions that were used against Jeremy Corbyn, such as the mendacious claims of anti-semitism, have been well aired – if not successfully countered.
The failure to challenge and dismiss these claims rests almost entirely with the most influential media – the BBC and Guardian particularly – who have the greatest influence with Labour voters, even though they may not have been initially responsible for contriving this high-level smear campaign.
The producers of those media and the journalists who work for them are also primarily responsible for failing to present an opposing view that legitimised Labour's position and demonised that of the Tories.
One issue stands out a mile in the context of anti-Semitism claims, being Israel's continuing crimes against Palestinians, and the silence on the extraordinary and illegal moves being made by the Israeli government during the election period.
The apparent basis for accusations against Corbyn of anti-Semitism is because of his historic support for the Palestinian cause and legitimate criticism of Israel's barbaric and criminal treatment of those living in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza. If any direct reference was made to this viewpoint, it was only in references to Corbyn's "support for terrorists" – meaning Hamas.
But reflecting on the election campaign, the absence of any direct reference to foreign affairs, and policies on which Labour may have had significant support from many in the UK, is striking. In fact it is more than that – it is indicative. Because the sub-text – the subliminal message beneath the main issues of contention was always about foreign affairs.
... ... ...
In his recent essay on the operation of propaganda , Edward Curtin highlighted the power of movies in embedding false ideas in peoples' minds, something also noted by Christopher Donnelly in his exposition on "hybrid warfare".
There is, I think, now substantial evidence that both the broadcasting and suppression of particular movies played a part in pushing the UK electorate into voting against its interests. It was the coincidence of these two movies' appearance – and disappearance, with the election period that makes the case persuasive.
Capricornia Man ,
I was with this author all the way until he made the infantile complaint that only 30 per cent of the electorate voted for Brexit. The corollary of this is, of course, that LESS than 30 per cent voted to remain. But such inconvenient, if obvious, truths need not be mentioned if you happen to be a crusading leftist remainer.Also seldom acknowledged by left remainers is that the EU is structurally neo-liberal and is enforcing austerity on the peoples of Europe. Read Costas Lapavitsas: 'The Left Case Against the EU'.
Unmentionable, too, is that the undeclared leader of the stop-Brexit campaign is one Tony Blair who has called Brexit "rancid" and has reputedly put ten million pounds of his own money into this campaign.
Another unmentionable is that important parts of Corbyn's programme would have been illegal under the rules of the EU's single market.
The author follows a well-trodden path in insulting working-class people who voted 'leave' allegedly in "ignorance" and had "longstanding prejudices".
With this kind of stuff coming from sections of the left, why be surprised that sections of the working class voted for the right?
When Labour promised in 2017 to implement Brexit, it achieved a 10 percent swing and almost won the election. When the Blairites turned Labour into a remain party in 2019, it lost the general election badly.
How many times does the electorate have to show what it wants before EU-idolaters will accept it?
Gall ,
You have some very insightful comments on this site. Also you publish a needed antidote to the Guardian and all the other mainstream propaganda out there.Personally I was ambivalent about Brexit being from across the pond or as the elites like to say from the "colonies" I didn't really think it was my business. Unlike some from the commonwealth ( the euphemism for the British Empire) like to go on about our love for guns.
Compare what happened at the Battle of the Little Big Horn to Wounded Knee. Just as a thought experiment but I digress. Not too much because we're told that thanks to what would become the Second Amendment we gained "Independence" from Britain. A nice fairytale we were all taught in school and like GW chopping down some cherry tree because he couldn't tell a lie or whatever. More myth than actual truth.
The fact is that America became an extension of Britannia. Actually the biggest part of the Empire known as the East India Company. Don't believe me. Take a look at the flag. All the bars without the stars.
Maybe I'm wrong but I see this whole Brexit now is an effort to resurrect an Anglo-American alliance and all drunken Boris who has as much tact as his Russian counterpart who almost single handedly and handily destroyed Russia by selling it off at bargain basement prices which is what I'm sure Boris II plans to do and set up the old mercantile empire using America's military much like Israel is using us as a "force multiplier".
Thus I sympathize with you all over there. Here we dodged the bullet known as Clinton who probably would have turned us all into radioactive dust if elected for Trump who in reality was the lesser of two evils but evil just the same since he seems to be selling us out to the Rothschilds who as you know rule the City of London and are the benefactors of the terrorist state of Israel.
Personally I thought you would have been better off with Cobryn but instead got Boris the Terrible who promises to "get Brexit done". I wish you all the best and hope that it all comes out alright.
George Mc ,
More fun:https://www.globalresearch.ca/boris-revenge-coming-assault-britain-democracy/5697885
" things will certainly go wrong for Boris. The great "Get Brexit Done" lie may have helped him back to Downing Street, but it left untouched the insoluble conundrum at the heart of Brexit – the fact that we can maintain the close economic relationship with the European Union on which Britain's prosperity depends; or we can go for the sort of low-cost, low-regulation "Singapore-on-Thames" that Johnson's financiers (oligarchs, hedge funds, expatriate media barons) demand "
Merry Christmas!
M. le Docteur Ralph ,
You are a civil servant for an exceptional nation, a nation so exceptional that it expends almost 4% of its GDP on defence, but a nation that is also so exceptional that it expends that 4% of GDP simply by printing up pieces of paper in the basement.Imagine a bunch of loser nations get together and have this really stupid idea of creating their own new currency.
If these bunch of losers succeed instead of printing up pieces of paper in the basement you will have to pay real money to finance that 4% of GDP and pay those outlandish bonuses to the bosses of the industrial complex that receives your defence spending.
So, the first thing you do is you use your prison bitch to join the proto-new currency and then you use your Hungarian Jewish asset to force your prison bitch to leave. A failure.
Next, you push the exchange rate against your own currency so low that you are sure the loser nations will bend, they do not. A failure.
Next, you raise their new currency so high against your own currency that they cannot trade and you are sure that the loser nations will bend, they do not. A failure.
Next, you take the country where your security services have previously established a military junta and with your leading investment bank help you falsify their national accounts. A failure but a disaster for the country in question. Everyone is too scared to sue your leading investment bank.
Next, you take your prison bitch of a country and get them to run a referendum to leave the loser nation trading block. You fix the referendum through postal votes. Then you run an election and get an upper-class clown elected to make sure they leave on absolutely the worst terms possible.
You are sure that this time you are on to a winner, pity for the prison bitch country, pity for the risk for the whole of the rest of the world given what happened when you helped your buddies at Goldman tank Lehman, but who cares you live in Chevy Chase and your government pension is perfectly secure.
George Mc ,
Just found this helpful essay on possible future scenarios of the UK. And they're not happy ones:https://www.globalresearch.ca/brexit-collapse-british-labour-post-mortem-uk-election/5698109
The ending is ominous:
"Corbyn in the UK represented a last futile effort to re-transform the British Labour party, trying to turn the clock back into what it was once. But the core and base for that reconstitution no longer exists. And that's also, at least in part, why Labour suffered the historic defeat yesterday. And why Nationalism is on the ascend once again.
And why, after the next crisis, even ascendant Nationalism as we see it today may not be sufficient for the continuation of late Neoliberal rule for global capitalism."
because it refers to an earlier part:
"Nationalism is undermining national unity in the UK–just as it is doing so in the USA and in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, and let's not forget India and Kashmir, and other locales in Asia. Capitalism in crisis always turns to nationalism as a shield to divert blame for its economic and social troubles on 'the others'. The extreme version of this nationalist 'blame it on the outsiders game' is called Fascism."
Dungroanin ,
Not so George. Here are 3 simple upsides:1. Even with all the abuse, gaslighting, spoiler candidates and a winter election on cold rainy dark prexmas day – nearly 11 MILLION GENUINE voters did choose Corbynite Labour.
2. Many of the backstabbing exLabour and pains in the arses are gone from their shouty AS accussing perches.
3. Aside from losing Pidcock (to postal fraud) the next leadership is looking like a great team and will be backed by the still solid membership- and the remainder shit on shoe parachutists are deselected in good time for next election.
Its a long game politics and there was no predicted wipeout – Again.
That what does not kill you makes you stronger!
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2019 | www.unz.com
The pandering by Donald Trump and those around him to Israel and to some conservative American Jews is apparently endless. Last Wednesday the president signed an executive order that is intended to address alleged anti-Semitism on college campuses by cutting off funds to those universities that do not prevent criticism of Israel. To provide a legal basis to defund, the administration is relying on title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits any discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Since the Act does not include religion, Trump's order is declaring ipso facto that henceforth "Jewishness" is a nationality.
The executive order does not mention Israel by name, but it does state that its assumptions are based on "the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities'; and (ii) the 'Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism' identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent."
The IHRA "contemporary examples" supplementing the basic description are important. They considerably broaden the definition of anti-Semitism, to include "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations" and "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." The examples also included holding Israel to a higher standard than other nations when criticizing it, and IHRA offers no possible mitigation even if the accusations are, in the case of the behavior of some Jews and of Israel, accurate.
Those who are confused because in the past expressions like "Italian" or "Irish" or "British" meant actual countries should recognize that Trump-speak never respects any connection with reality when there is political advantage just sitting out there waiting to be snatched and exploited. And that imperative is considerably multiplied when one is referring to either the state of Israel or of Jews in general, particularly as seen by the Trump White House, which clearly and repeatedly sends the message that it reveres both. Trump's order will in effect constitute a government-promoted argument that Jews are a people or a race with a collective national origin, like Italian or Polish Americans, an assertion that clearly is untrue.
In fact, suppressing criticism of Israel on college campuses using a "weaponized" claim of anti-Semitism has long been a major foreign policy objective of the Israeli government even though nonviolent assembly and free speech are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Congress has several times considered a comprehensive Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, though it has not passed due to legitimate free speech concerns. The nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (B.D.S.), which is very active on American campuses, has been particularly targeted and criticism of it is frequent in the media and from Congress while also emanating from the White House. As most accredited colleges receive federal funding, which can be considerable at a major research university, the executive order will create a major dilemma over how to respond, particularly for those schools that have Middle East study programs.
Work on the presidential executive order was initiated in the summer inside the White House by a team led by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, together with his close aide special assistant to the president Avi Berkowitz. They sought to develop a formula whereby government policy would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and Donald Trump both agreed with that assessment and followed through on it. On December 8 th he promised to take action against B.D.S. and other critics in a speech delivered before the Israeli-American Council. The speech is worth reading in full by anyone who is concerned that the United States now has a government that favors one already privileged, wealthy and powerful constituency in particular and is not committed to upholding the civil liberties of all Americans.
Israel is an apartheid state. Covering up for its crimes against humanity as well as its war crimes is something of a growth industry in the United States, with Zionist billionaire oligarchs launching new foundations on a regular basis. Jewish power in the U.S. means that Israel always has been given a pass, even when it deliberately attacked and sought to sink the U.S.S. Liberty, an American Naval vessel in international waters in 1967. Thirty-four crewman died in the assault. The subsequent investigation of the attack was whitewashed by the president, secretary of state and the Navy department while the survivors were threatened with imprisonment if they revealed what had occurred. That is how a powerful and ruthless Israel acting through its traitorous domestic proxies operates and it illustrates how feeble the Establishment is in standing up to it.
This latest outrage, in which free speech and association will be denied to benefit one group on the basis of its claimed perpetual victimhood, had its genesis earlier this year when the federal government's Education Department ordered Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to reorganize the Consortium for Middle East Studies program run jointly by the two colleges in part based on their failure to include enough "positive" content relating to Judaism. The demand came with a threat to suspend federal funding of Title VI Higher Education Act international studies and foreign language grants to the two schools if the curriculum were not changed.
The Education Department was particularly irate over a conference in March called "Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities." A Republican congressman was outraged by the development and asked Secretary DeVos to investigate because the gathering was full of "radical anti-Israel bias."
Coverage of the story revealed that "Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, has become increasingly aggressive in going after perceived anti-Israel bias in higher education." Her deputy who has served as a focal point for the effort to root out anti-Israel sentiment is Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights Kenneth L. Marcus, who might reasonably be described as "a career pro-Israel advocate," the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which he has used to exclusively defend the rights of Jewish groups and individuals against BDS and other manifestations of Palestinian pushback against the Israeli occupation of their country. He has not hesitated to call opponents anti-Semites and has worked with Jewish students to file civil rights complaints against college administrations, including schools in Wisconsin and California. In an op-ed that appeared, not surprisingly, in The Jerusalem Post , he observed that even when student complaints were rejected, they created major problems for the institutions involved. "If a university shows a failure to treat initial complaints seriously, it hurts them with donors, faculty, political leaders and prospective students."
Last year Kenneth Marcus reopened an investigation into alleged anti-Jewish bias at Rutgers University that the Obama Administration had closed after finding that the charges were baseless. Marcus indicated that the re-examination was called for as his office in the Education Department would henceforth be using the IHRA-derived State Department definition of anti-Semitism that also includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination," making virtually all criticism of Israel a civil rights violation or even a hate crime.
Critics of the Trump move, many of whom are themselves Jewish , are uncomfortable with being placed by government into one category, noting inter alia that ALL students are de facto already protected by Title VI, which has been interpreted as making all forms of discrimination illegal. And they also note that the law was never intended to protect individuals whose feelings were hurt or who claim to be unwelcome or even threatened by someone saying something that they disapprove of. Since such protection is clearly the intention of the executive order, it is undeniable that the Trump's latest ploy is little more than a mechanism to pressure colleges into effectively banning B.D.S. and other groups critical of Israel.
And the order itself raises at least one unpleasant thought: if "Jewishness" is a nation even though it is demonstrably not one, what is the alleged Jewish nationality all about? Is this just one more example of the politics of Jewish identity or is it really some form of dual loyalty, with American Jews divided between those who are loyal to the U.S. and those who are loyal to some supra-nationality or allegiance? The fact is, that Donald Trump himself has several times expressed the view that American Jews, particularly those who are politically liberal, should be more loyal to Israel.
Trump's maneuver is unfortunately part of a well-funded and highly coordinated federal and state campaign to pass laws to criminalize critics of Israel . And the issue has also surfaced within the Democratic Party among those campaigning for the presidential nomination . Speaker Nancy Pelosi forced Representative Ilhan Omar to apologize after she criticized proposed anti-boycott legislation. More recently Bernie Sanders is being smeared as an anti-Semite even though he is Jewish because he associates with critics of Israel and has spoken out in favor of defending free speech while also supporting Palestinian rights.
There is a certain irony in all of this political theater, that the wealthiest and most powerful identifiable group in the United States should yet again be playing the victim is in itself astonishing. And making it a crime to deny Israel legitimacy while at the same time denying the same thing to Palestinians should give anyone pause.
And there is also considerable hypocrisy in that pro-Israel groups on campus have been if anything better funded and more aggressive in promoting their point of view than B.D.S. has been without any consequences. Canary Mission , for example, claims to "document people and groups that promote hatred of the U.S.A., Israel and Jews on North American college campuses" by posting their names, photos and personal information on its website. Israeli-American real estate investor and billionaire Adam Milstein is reported to be its principal funder while the site's listings have been allegedly used by the Israeli border security officials to deny entry to pro-B.D.S. American citizens and also with potential employers to deny applicants jobs.
The Lawfare Project's Campus Civil Rights Project meanwhile helps aggrieved Zionist students to "take legal action to ensure that schools live up to their legal obligations to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation, and discrimination."
So here we are again. Special privileges for the perpetual victims. And no one in the media is willing to tell it like it is, while the handful of meek voices in congress have been effectively silenced. So sad, particularly as an election year is coming up and there will undoubtedly be much more of this. When the Israelis occupy nearly all of the West Bank with Donald Trump's approval and start "relocating" the existing population, who will be around to speak up? No one, as by that time saying nay to Israel will be a full-fledged hate crime and you can go to jail for doing so.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Rebel0007 , says: December 17, 2019 at 2:39 am GMT
This is a case of extreme 1st amendment rights abuse, not solely for violating freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, and redress the government with greivances, but it is also making both an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.geokat62 , says: December 17, 2019 at 5:04 am GMTIf this anti-Semetic definition is to be claimed to allow for the free exercise of Judaism, then it would only be fitting that it is anti-Islamic to Boycott, Sanction, and Divest from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which again, proves that this has made Judaism the established religion in America, where most Americans are Christians.
There are no equal protection laws passed for Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Seiks, or any other religion.
This is totally insane! I know that Ivanka converted to Judaism, and Trump loves his daughter, but this is disgusting!
With this incredible speech, Pastor Chuck Baldwin gives Rick Wiles of TruNews a run for his money.Colin Wright , says: Website December 17, 2019 at 5:18 am GMTChuck Baldwin Exposes Donald Trump's
Tyrannical Executive Orderhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/LPby6C6BSrU?feature=oembed
Description:
Donald Trump's so-called "antisemitism" Executive Order Is abominable, reprehensible & downright tyrannical. It is a blatant attack against the First Amendment protection of free speech and for all intents and purposes elevates all things Jewish to royalty status in America -- being granted official government protection against any kind of criticism.
In this video, Chuck Baldwin exposes the fact that not only is Donald Trump a hack for Zionism; he is also a wanna-be tyrant -- and this Executive Order proves it.Here's the full transcript:
[MORE]
Donald Trump's Executive Order this past week will empower the federal Department of Education to withhold funding to campuses that do not squash anti-Israel rhetoric. In other words, it is now official government policy to deny college students and faculty members their natural and constitutional right to criticize, especially and primarily, if they criticize any and all things Israel. This will also, doubtless, include speech that supports Palestinian rights. Trump also declared that the religion of Judaism is a nationality or ethnicity, and is beyond criticism. Can you imagine the outcry if he had declared Christianity to be a nationality. Plus, by issuing this Executive Order, Donald Trump has made every Christian and non-Jew in the United States a second class citizen. But don't expect Robert Jeffress and his gaggle of Christian Zionists to figure that out. I have said repeatedly that Donald Trump is America's first Zionist president. And Trump's actions continue to prove that statement right. Trump's latest attack against the constitution – specifically the First Amendment – is just his latest sellout to Israel. I'll say it straight out: Donald Trump is not trying to make America great. He's trying to make Israel great. By the way, I'm glad to see the rabid Jewish Zionist, Mark Levin, agree with me. At the signing ceremony of this draconian Executive Order, Levin called Trump "America's first Jewish president." Even casual research will easily discover that Trump's family is dominated by Jewish Zionists, as is his circle of friends and business associates. What a coincidence! Trump says his EO is protecting free speech on college campuses. That's a lie. His EO is squashing free speech specifically, speech that criticizes Israel or Zionism. Donald Trump is a pathetic puppet of the likes of the ultra Zionist billionaire, Sheldon Adelson. Even worse is the fact that the Christian Zionist preachers and churches in this country are as much Adelson's puppet as is Trump, which is why they love Trump so much. And all of this hypnotic support for faux Israel can be traced directly to the false teachings of John Darby and CI Scofield and the thousands of Christian Zionist churches and scores of Christian Zionist colleges that those two men created. Now, the Zionist, Donald Trump, is trying to prohibit colleges from criticizing Zionism. If you were looking for an impeachable offence, this blatant abridgement of the First Amendment by the president of United States is it. But, don't expect Democrats in Congress to challenge Trump's unconscionable EO that officially elevates Jewishness to royalty status. Because the same Israeli Lobby that controls the Republicans in Washington DC also controls the Democrats. Trump's EO will deny funding for colleges and universities unless they prohibit the right of faculty and students to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech to criticize Israel. How long will it be before Donald Trump decides to criminalize anyone who criticizes Israel? Donald Trump is not only a Zionist hack, he is a wannabe tyrant, and this Executive Order proves it! [loud applause]
@Bragadocious 'Obama considered something similar to this. He also signed two major international trade agreements with anti-BDS language. Giraldi said nothing about this; I checked. He did mention the trade agreements but forgot the punchline: Obama signed them into law! Why one standard for President Zero, another for Orange man?'Colin Wright , says: Website December 17, 2019 at 5:20 am GMTWe'll have to revisit this if Obama becomes president again.
@Robert Dolan 'Trump has lost his mind.Truth , says: December 17, 2019 at 5:23 am GMTI sort of wish they would impeach the stupid cuck bastard.'
They very well may. Unless you can explain how the Senate would convict, it means nothing.
@Robert Dolan Bro, 2 years ago you were wearing a MIGA hat (Israel).22pp22 , says: December 17, 2019 at 5:35 am GMTSilly on the part of Jews. If they are counted separately, it becomes even harder to hide that they are absurdly overrepresented in all the desirable professions.Yaakov , says: December 17, 2019 at 5:38 am GMTThe Enemy is now in plain sightOne Tribe , says: December 17, 2019 at 5:39 am GMTThank you again for your courageous reporting, Mr. Giraldi.Z-man , says: December 17, 2019 at 6:33 am GMTThis is a very interesting situation!
I am seeing it with a double-vision.
If this so, and passed into law?!
Then, what possible legal excuse still exists for not declaring AIPAC, and all of the other 'special interest extra-governmental agencies', foreign agents of a foreign 'nation'?We shall see.
@geokat62 Thank you for the clip geokat62 . Chuck Baldwin simply speaks the truth.Rebel0007 , says: December 17, 2019 at 6:44 am GMT
But here is where I diverge from the conclusions of the good pastor. Trump has now stated the obvious, Jews are a race and a religious cult. Besides this truth he is, hopefully, forming an irreparable wedge between secular and Zionist Jews. This only helps the majority in this nation. Unfortunately this majority also includes Christian Zionists, a heretic group even more revolting than Zionist Jews.
I still believe that Trump is cynically doing this to protect his flanks from the rabid Zionists, who with the rest of that Jew Cabal, who hate him more than anything, would all attack Trump and make him a one term POTUS.
Because, believe it or not, Trump is still better than any of the Demo'krat candidates out there for, as the 'good pastor' said, both political parties are owned .
As far as the exec. order itself it is unconstitutional and will be shot down in the courts. But if this power isn't checked and destroyed now it will become a crime to even think anti I z rael thoughts (Orwell, Huxley et al).
A pox on that most artificial of nation states, BDS now but in a conflict 4 more years of Donald because I can see him going to war with the NEOCONS over Russia and other Satanic goals of the Cabal. Time will tell and hopefuly Trump will do the right thing.@Anonthotmonger , says: December 17, 2019 at 7:02 am GMTWhat you stayed is not equal protection. The law prohibits the criticism and boycott of a Jewish state. The government has a double standard. It is a rock solid case of an establishment of Judaism as the religion of America.
The government has boycotted, sanctioned, and divested from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is an Islamic state, but not the terrorist group, and in fact the adversary of the terrorist group IS.
The Israeli government has waged war on every religion, and so has our own government by refusing Christians and Muslims to criticize the barbaric racial holocaust, precisely as Hitler refused to allow Catholics and Protestants to criticize his racist policies, the Nazis raided the Catholic and Protestant churche, seized assets, and placed clergy in concentration camps.
This anti-Semetic law is an affront to all religions because it has nothing to due with the Jewish religion and everything to do with the Israeli government. It has nothing to do with Jewish people and everything to do with the Israeli government.
This is simply an effort to silence any criticism of murderous regimes and the holocaust against Islam, precisely as Hitler had done in Germany towards those who criticized his insane racist policies and barbaric holocausts.
How would it fly if Trump's EO instead forbade criticism of Russia in schools and colleges in USA?Miro23 , says: December 17, 2019 at 7:27 am GMTVery strange that something like this could ever be written and signed. A fast budding and explicit "Judeo lese majetse" is unfolding before our eyes. And if it is meant to protect Jews as a race and nation, then that will naturally induce people to see them as exactly that: a separate nation. Will this quell concern about loyalty or raise more doubt?
p.s. In 2018, Israeli army expert snipers made a turkey shoot of Palestinians marching on the 70th anniversary of their people being ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homeland. A "shoot to cripple" policy only murdered several score but, with high speed dum dum bullets, they blasted bloody wreckage through the flesh and bones of many thousands of unarmed people. You may not see them on your porno channels and game shows, but a large number will be crippled for the rest of their lives.
This is a good example of a very recent state sponsored atrocity on a large scale. Students in our schools and colleges might want to examine this in a variety of ways. The history, legality, ethics, demographic dilemmas etc. Sure, it might roll over into some criticism and activism, e.g. DBS Israel, but is that to be prohibited by our government? What sort of citizens are our schools and colleges supposed to be cultivating if students are not permitted to exercise their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience?
EliteCommInc. , says: December 17, 2019 at 9:42 am GMTCritics of the Trump move, many of whom are themselves Jewish, are uncomfortable with being placed by government into one category, noting inter alia that ALL students are de facto already protected by Title VI, which has been interpreted as making all forms of discrimination illegal.
A positive side of this is that even the most dopey university students now understand the situation
executive order:9/11 Inside job , says: December 17, 2019 at 11:25 am GMT"Combating Anti-Semitism
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world. Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or national origin.
It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.
Sec. 2. Ensuring Robust Enforcement of Title VI. (a) In enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following:
(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"; and
(ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.
(b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.
Sec. 3. Additional Authorities Prohibiting Anti-Semitic Discrimination. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency charged with enforcing Title VI shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying additional nondiscrimination authorities within its enforcement authority with respect to which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could be considered.
Sec. 4. Rule of Construction. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter the evidentiary requirements pursuant to which an agency makes a determination that conduct, including harassment, amounts to actionable Start Printed Page 68780discrimination, or to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."
theguardian.com : "Believe it or not , Barack Obama had Israel's best interests at heart " By Avi Shlaim :
"Obama's actual record during his eight years in office make him one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents since Harry S. Truman . Obama has given Israel considerably more money and arms than any of his predecessors ."
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2019 | www.truthdig.com
Calgacus • a day ago • edited ,
si91 • a day ago ,Corbyn also appeared indecisive, or somewhat worse than that, when it came to Labour's burgeoning anti-Semitism scandal, in which some Jewish Labour MPs or candidates were targeted for abuse by pro-Palestinian leftists.What a lie, an inversion of the truth, from Salon. Repeating the utterly and cynically manufactured fake anti-semitism smear. The scandal is from the witchhunters, the abusers -- vicious liars who slander Labourites as anti-semites based on nothing.
Thanks Emma for posting a longer list here in another thread, of Labour's Jewish anti-Semites hounded out by the vicious witchhunters. Again, while the Israel Lobby and Jewish organizations wield a lot of power in the USA, it has never gotten that crazy here.
voza0db si91 • 19 hours ago • edited ,"Whatever you make of Jeremy Corbyn, he is a person of great moral decency and unbending principle,"
No he's not. He laid a wreath at the graves of the vile perpetrators of the Munich Massacre. There's nothing "decent" about honoring Jew hating scum.
emma peele si91 • a day ago ,Jews like the existence of antisemitism. It's how they can do whatever they want - from robbery to torture to murder - without anyone complaining or doing anything about those actions.
In REALITY this rejection of Judaism has many centuries. But, then again, all those mentally weak enough to follow religious fairy tales do reject in the same manner other fairy tales.
It's a funny party in the end!
si91 emma peele • a day ago ,More lies and smears
"Mr Corbyn took up an invitation to join a delegation paying respects to those killed in a 1985 Israeli bombing of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) headquarters in Tunis. Yes. Mr Corbyn has confirmed he did lay a wreath, saying this was for those who died in the 1985 bombing."
It seems to be a growing club
Gee I wonder why
emma peele si91 • a day ago ,Where's the smear? The people Israel bombed at the PLO HQ in Tunis included the perpetrators of the Munich Massacre of 1972, and Corbyn laid a wreath to commemorate these jihadist savages.
Lydia Mpls C-13 Sceptique • 8 hours ago ,That's a lie
Murdock and Maxwell must be your heroes. How's the Epstein show going? Think people don't notice?
Dave Lydia Mpls • 4 hours ago ,You posted your dancing Pepe The Frog meme so, it's clear that you're yet another white nationalist fool who would hand over white working class people to their Corporate Owners under the guise of "we;re only going to hurt the brown people & the Muslims". What's so sad is how many white working class people fall for such shit.
Lord Dude Lydia Mpls • 8 hours ago ,Yet another post from the TDS infected Lydia who only has "WAYCISS!" in her brain. Talking about falling for shit....
If it weren't for the continual "WAYCISS!" meme the left would cease to exist.
gustave courbet C-13 Sceptique • 10 hours ago ,He can't see that he's obligated to import diversity into his country.
Operation Gladio.
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2019 | www.truthdig.com
Charlotte Ruse • 14 hours ago ,
"Corbyn confronted a widely-despised, internally-divided government, whose leader is viewed as part monster and part buffoon, amid record social inequality and growing support for socialism. (This description applies to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. ) The UK is now led by an extreme-right Conservative government which, under Boris Johnson, is pledged to exit the European Union (EU) on January 31 in order to complete the "Thatcher revolution."
Several contributing factors led to Corbyn's loss: the election was a mandate on BREXIT; the mainstream media mercilessly and relentlessly attacked Corbyn as being an antisemitic Russian asset; and the growing emergence in dispossessed rural areas of a nationalist right wing ideology targeting refugees as the reason for working-class austerity. In other words, the ruling class clearly stacked the "propaganda" deck against Corbyn and ensured his defeat......
It should be noted, that the day after the election the U.K. pound surged. The explanation for this is simple, the financiers and bankers know that the workers who voted for Bojo will have a greater chance of losing their socialized medicine before they ever get back their good paying manufacturing jobs.
And this brings me to the US elections. The only way to counter the demagoguery of a "part monster and part buffoon" is to attack him "stridently" from the Left and NOT from the Right. A candidate CANNOT be feckless on issues of social justice, BUT on the other hand cannot be seen as an ALLY to the security state.
This is an impossible task in the US, especially when there's only two "right-wing" political parties. This explains why the "supposed" opposing political party-- the Democrats only will attack Trump on national security issues rather than for his numerous social crimes--hence alienating "Trump's working-class" who view this attack as bogus and meaningless. But this is the inevitable outcome when the non-opposition political party is controlled by the security/surveillance state.
A Leftist candidate running within the Democratic Party needs to SEPARATE his campaign "entirely" from the security state nonsense (propaganda) and aggressively speakout against the imperialist agenda and how the trillions spent on endless needless wars MUST be reallocated to rebuilding the decaying infrastructure, improving public education, Medicare-for-All, ending homelessness, etc... In other words, to excite the "entire" working-class you have to GENUINELY prove that you DESPISE the decades long policies imposed by the ruling class which betrayed US workers and led to their economic demise.
This type of political campaign requires "battling" the security state who'll use the state-run mainstream media to demonize their candidacy in right wing outlets or ERASE and mock their candidacy on "progressive" media cable channels. Propaganda, will be unleashed nonstop to taint their message so that their campaign platform will eventually politically alienate both the Left and the Right
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2019 | www.truthdig.com
terryindorset • 11 hours ago ,
Russifier terryindorset • 8 hours ago ,4 things: 1 = Farage did a deal with Johnson to field Brexit Party candidates in 300 odd seats Labour seats that the Tories targeted, to split the Labour vote. This is what did the damage. Johnson is going to give Farage a knightood for services to the Tory Party.
2 = that Labour didn't support the leave referendum vote was a wrong (actually catastrophic) descicion.
3 = advocating a second referendum vote igored the idea that the election was a second referendum.
2 & 3 hastened core Labour voters to go for Johnson's 'get brexit done' which is doesn't. It's Brexit in name only &, the UK will not leave the EU. Johnson is lying again4 = there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. This was all hatched by the Netanyahu government in Jerusalem along with the Blairites. Watch the 4 al jazeera 'The Lobby' videos on youtube - it's all there.
John Kauai terryindorset • 10 hours ago ,"It's Brexit in name only &, the UK will not leave the EU"
Would you like to elaborate on that?I appreciate your analysis. I did not understand the average Briton's [hatred | distrust | fear of] the E.U. Some examples would be nice. US media painted Brexit as a complete folly.
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
AlmostNormalTexan • 3 days ago>
College students are free to protest the behavior of Russia without being labeled anti-Russian; they can protest the People's Republic of China without being accused of sinophobia.Sid Finster AlmostNormalTexan • 3 days agoWhy does Israel need a special dispensation from this? If the argument is that any criticism of Israel for any reason is antisemitic, then you are essentially saying that Israel should be uniquely immune from criticism that every other country on earth is subject to.
The irony is that insisting that Israel is above criticism and deserves special treatment creates more genuine anti-Semites than any criticism of Israel ever could.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
snake , Dec 13 2019 18:59 utc | 86
The only anti-semitic thing I've seen has been the way the mainstream political/media class in both the US and UK have adopted the longstanding neo-Nazi claim that all Jews are Zionist agents and therefore one can't be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jew as such.by: Russ @ 57 yes, I agree give an example..
what i see is the Zionist are once again asking the masses to attack the Jews, just as the masses were asked to
Attack the Jews in Hitler's Germany.. its a divide and conquer world.
this is the story in America
This is the story in Iraq
The decision to settle large numbers of Jews in Palestine after the First World War was in my view one of the most disastrous ever taken by a British government. From that inevitably followed the Arab Revolt, the Nakba, and all the tragedy since. English Outsider @ 62 <=blackmail brought the British government assistance in using Jewish Immigration to occupy and take from the Ottoman their oil rich land. Certain oil companies were involved also.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New York Times that the definition "makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is antisemitism". I'm a Zionist. But on a college campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression.
I suspect that if Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or think they conspire to harm humanity. Further, there's a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don't know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the government is essentially defining the answer for us.
The real purpose of the executive order isn't to tip the scales in a few title VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I'm worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I'm worried that faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I'm worried that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.
Antisemitism is a real issue, but too often people, both on the political right and political left, give it a pass if a person has the "right" view on Israel. Historically, antisemitism thrives best when leaders stoke the human capacity to define an "us" and a "them", and where the integrity of democratic institutions and norms (such as free speech) are under assault.
... ... ...
Kenneth Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, and the author of the forthcoming The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
integer , December 13, 2019 at 11:01 pm
Bernie Sanders Has a Big Jeremy Corbyn Problem Noah Rothman – Commentary Magazine
Corbyn rendered his party toxic. His penchant for standing in solidarity with terrorists and anti-Semites opened a seal out of which a cascade of anti-Jewish sentiments poured, engulfing his party in scandal. His brand of radical socialism was insufferably hidebound. His expressions of sympathy for history's greatest criminals were thoughtlessly dogmatic. The Labour Party under Corbyn drifted so far toward overt Jew-hatred that Britain's chief rabbi denounced the institution. The Archbishop of Canterbury agreed with that assessment, as did 85 percent of the country's Jews. There was no ambiguity here.
Sanders may be insulated from the charge that he shares these suspicious sentiments because he is Jewish, but this clear pattern raises some disturbing questions. It is incumbent on the press to ask them. To at least a degree, Sanders clearly evinces some of Corbyn's instincts on policy, but his affiliations suggest a similar tolerance for the radical left's occasionally anti-Semitic indulgences.
Plenue , December 13, 2019 at 11:17 pm
Not often that I see an article that is almost entirely comprised of outright lies.
integer , December 13, 2019 at 11:40 pm
Rothman's rant was published two days after the following article by Sanders:
How to Fight Antisemitism Bernie Sanders – Jewish Currents
Opposing antisemitism is a core value of progressivism. So it's very troubling to me that we are also seeing accusations of antisemitism used as a cynical political weapon against progressives. One of the most dangerous things Trump has done is to divide Americans by using false allegations of antisemitism, mostly regarding the US–Israel relationship. We should be very clear that it is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the Israeli government.
Ending that occupation and enabling the Palestinians to have self-determination in an independent, democratic, economically viable state of their own is in the best interests of the United States, Israel, the Palestinians, and the region. My pride and admiration for Israel lives alongside my support for Palestinian freedom and independence. I reject the notion that there is any contradiction there. The forces fomenting antisemitism are the forces arrayed against oppressed people around the world, including Palestinians; the struggle against antisemitism is also the struggle for Palestinian freedom . I stand in solidarity with my friends in Israel, in Palestine, and around the world who are trying to resolve conflict, diminish hatred, and promote dialogue, cooperation, and understanding.
[emphasis mine]
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2019 | www.veteranstoday.com
Jeremy Corbyn, knifed by his senior lieutenants and failed by his media team, is on the danger list and now looks isolated.
At the fatal NEC (National Executive Committee) meeting this week to discuss whether the party should adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in full, with all its examples, he prepared and presented a 500-word statement to water down the definition but this met with an angry reaction from most NEC members and he dropped it.
According to the Guardian the most controversial passage in Corbyn's draft statement said: "It cannot be considered racist to treat Israel like any other state or assess its conduct against the standards of international law. Nor should it be regarded as antisemitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict."
That these words caused such a rumpus tells us all we need to know about the mentality of the modern Labour Party. It is surely self-evident that the Israel project was racist from the start and confirmation, if any were needed, is provided by the discriminatory nation state laws, emphasising Jewish supremacy, recently passed by the Knesset. Why deny the glaring truth? And last time I checked there was no 'settlement' of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the two-state idea endlessly talked about but never energetically pursued was stone-dead.
At the end of a stormy meeting the NEC accepted the IHRA definition and all its examples but added a statement "which ensures this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians."
But the Israel lobby were still not satisfied and renewed their whingeing. The Jewish Leadership Council's chief executive, Simon Johnson, said Corbyn had "attempted shamefully to undermine the entire IHRA definition", adding that the free speech caveat "drives a coach and horses" through that definition. "It is clearly more important to the Labour leader to protect the free speech of those who hate Israel than it is to protect the Jewish community from the real threats that it faces."
A false dichotomy of course. And if their case cannot withstand free speech it must have been bullsh*t in the first place.
Richard Angell, director of the centre-left Progress group, said : "The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A 'right to be racist' protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour."
Today's decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism."
He was backed up by another Progress director, Jennifer Gerber, who is also a director of Friends of Israel. She said: "It is appalling that the Labour party has once again ignored the view clearly and repeatedly stated by the Jewish community: that it should adopt the full IHRA definition without additions, omissions or caveats.
"The IHRA definition has been adopted in full by 31 countries, including the UK, as well as over 130 UK local councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. A 'freedom of expression on Israel' clause is unnecessary and totally undermines the other examples the party has supposedly just adopted."
The recurring message is that free speech is a threat and doesn't seem to have a place in their world.
Re-frame anti-Semitism accurately – don't accept skewed version by the Israel lobby
So let's get this straight: DNA research confirms that the great majority of those calling themseves Jews are not of Semitic blood. So does anti-Semitism mean what it says? Shouldn't it mean that if we outlaw anti-Semitism we outlaw being nasty to the genuine Semites of the Holy Land, i.e. the indigenous people who include Palestinians whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish? And are they not terrorised and persecuted by the Israeli regime which is the chief perpetrator of anti-Semitism and which has oppressed, dispossessed, impoverished and slaughtered those people for 70 years?
Corbyn and his New Look Labour Party were in a position to lead a move to 'unskew' the definition of anti-Semitism and re-frame it accurately – with of course the help of the various campaign and BDS groups worldwide. But now they've effectively muzzled themselves.
And for some strange reason Corbyn and his team, throughout the unpleasant warfare in his party over anti-Semitism, completely ignored the warnings issued by legal experts Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and others which explained how:
- the IHRA definition is "too vague to be useful" and conduct contrary to it is not necessarily illegal. Public bodies are under no obligation to adopt or use it and, if they do, they must interpret it in a way that's consistent with their statutory obligations and with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly;
- the right of free expression is now part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act;
- Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone "the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference ";
- the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. "What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of Government from a stance which it has naively adopted,"says Sedley;
- calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating BDS against Israel cannot properly be characterized as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, any public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities "would be acting unlawfully";
- it is "not fit for any purpose that seeks to use it as an adjudicative standard. It is imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation".
Robertson adds: "The Governments 'adoption' of the definition has no legal effect and does not oblige public bodies to take notice of it. The definition should not be adopted, and certainly should not be applied, by public bodies unless they are clear about Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is binding upon them, namely that they cannot ban speech or writing about Israel unless there is a real likelihood it will lead to violence or disorder or race hatred."
Crucially, freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population" – unless they encourage violence, hatred or intolerance.
What's more, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism subject to the inclusion of these two caveats :
(1) It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
(2) It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government's policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.The Government in adopting the IHRA definition dropped these caveats saying they weren't necessary. But you'd expect that from an administration brazednly stuffed with members of the Zionist Tendency.
These top legal opinions are lethal ammunition. Had Corbyn and his media team deployed them to good effect the baying attack dogs would have been stopped in their tracks.
So the IHRA definition is not something a sane organisation would incorporate into its Code of Conduct – certainly not as it stands. It contravenes human rights and freedom of expression. But when did the admirers of apartheid Israel ever care about other people's rights?© Stuart Littlewood, 6 September 2018
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2019 | www.veteranstoday.com
Stuart Littlewood in Great Britain on election day
[ Editor's Update: The BBC/Sky/ITV poll suggested the Conservative would win 368 seats, 42 above the 326 needed for an absolute majority in the House of Commons ]
– First published December 12, 2019 –
It's polling day in the UK. Right up to the last gasp so-called anti-Semitism has been used as a lethal weapon in this general election campaign. Ignorant and gullible people, supported by a mischievous mainstream media, have deployed it indiscriminately to trash Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party and to remove a number of candidates from the lists .
I have watched pushy TV reporters demanding to know if their quarry "has a problem with Jews". So how would you deal with an onslaught of media and even party slurs, assuming you aren't guilty as charged?
Do you have a problem with Jews?
Which Jews are you talking about?
Er, Jews in general
No.
Any particular Jews?
Yes.
Oh. Which ones then?
Israeli Jews.
Why?
Don't you know what's going on over there?
Umm
Go do your homework. I'm busy.You are accused by your party of making anti-Semitic remarks. What do you say to that?
What anti-Semitic remarks?
They say you criticised the state of Israel
Wouldn't you, if you knew what's going on over there?
What do you mean?
Do your homework. I'm too busy to give you a history lesson.Your leader has said repeatedly that anti-Semitism isn't tolerated. Yet you made anti-Semitic remarks about another party member.
Is he/she a Semite?Er, Jewish anyway. That makes him a Semite.
Not necessarily. Very few Jews are Semites according to DNA research. On the other hand most Palestinians are. Are you saying my remarks were directed at someone I thought was a Palestinian? Now that would make a great story.The IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition is what we must go on . blah, blah blah
The IHRA definition doesn't stand up.
Why do you say that?
Read Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the UK's own Human Rights Act 1998. I can express my views – so can you – even if we upset someone, as long as we're not stirring up hatred or inciting violence.
But if you criticise Israel you stir up Jew-hatred.
No, Israel's criminal behaviour towards our Palestinian friends – Christian and Muslim – is what stirs up Jew-hatred. The more savvy Israelis admit it.
But the IHRA definition is universally accepted
No it isn't. It's widely criticised. I'd suggest you read what top legal opinion such as Hugh Tomlinson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Robertson QC have to say.
So where does anti-Semitism come in?
It doesn't really. And here's the irony. DNA research – for instance that done by Johns Hopkins University and published by Oxford University Press – found that only a tiny proportion of Jews are Semitic. Very few have ancestral links to the Holy Land, whereas most indigenous Arabs, especially Palestinians, are proper Semites.Have those findings been refuted? If not, the real anti-Semites would seem to be the non-Semitic Israeli Jews with their hatred and oppression of the Palestinians – including the Christian communities. If you're so hot on anti-Semitism why not go after them?
What about the Jewish community in the UK? We are told they are fearful and thinking of leaving.
The Jews I know have integrated and prospered here. They love it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.Are you saying they are not fearful?
There's a noisy Zionist hardcore that supports the Israeli regime and claims to speak for British Jews. They make the Jewish community nervous about a backlash. Fortunately an increasing number of Jews oppose Israel and its brutal policies and actively campaign for Palestinian freedom from Israel's military occupation. This is admirable but means the hardcore Israel flag-wavers are getting more and more hysterical.The Labour Party is under investigation for anti-Jewish racism. Isn't it shocking? What do you say to that?
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission is investigating to see if the party has committed any unlawful acts or failed to deal with complaints in a proper and effective manner. It says it may have regard to the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism and associated examples "while recognising it is a non-legally binding definition".So it looks bad for the Labour Party.
The party certainly has some explaining to do, especially the excessive time it takes to investigate and set up hearings and its policy of suspending the accused before checking the truth of the allegations. It must do better. But I suspect the general public are getting bored with the whole subject. And so am I.Stuart Littlewood
12 December 2019
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca
Breakaway MPs hope that smearing Corbyn will obscure the fact that they are remnants of an old political order bankrupt of ideas
The announcement by seven MPs from the UK Labour Party on Monday that they were breaking away and creating a new parliamentary faction marked the biggest internal upheaval in a British political party in nearly 40 years, when the SDP split from Labour.On Wednesday, they were joined by an eighth Labour MP, Joan Ryan , and three Conservative MPs. There are predictions more will follow.
With the UK teetering on the brink of crashing out of the European Union with no deal on Brexit, the founders of the so-called Independent Group made reference to their opposition to Brexit.
The chief concern cited for the split by the eight Labour MPs, though, was a supposed "anti-semitism crisis" in the party.
The breakaway faction seemingly agrees that anti-Semitism has become so endemic in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader more than three years ago that they were left with no choice but to quit.
Corbyn, it should be noted, is the first leader of a major British party to explicitly prioritize the rights of Palestinians over Israel's continuing belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territories.
'Sickeningly racist'?
Luciana Berger (image on the right), a Jewish MP who has highlighted what she sees as an anti-Semitism problem under Corbyn, led the charge, stating at the Independent Group's launch that she had reached "the sickening conclusion " that Labour was "institutionally racist".
She and her allies claim she has been hounded out of the party by "anti-semitic bullying". Berger has suffered online abuse and death threats from a young neo-Nazi who was jailed for two years in 2016. There have been other incidences of abuse and other sentences, including a 27-month jail term for John Nimmo , a right-wing extremist who referred to Berger as "Jewish scum" and signed his messages, "your friend, the Nazi".
In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, the former Labour MP said the Independent Group would provide the Jewish community with a " political home that they, like much of the rest of the country, are now looking for".
In a plea to keep the party together, deputy leader Tom Watson issued a video in which he criticised his own party for being too slow to tackle anti-Semitism. The situation "poses a test" for Labour, he said, adding: "Do we respond with simple condemnation, or do we try and reach out beyond our comfort zone and prevent others from following?"
Ruth Smeeth , another Jewish Labour MP who may yet join a later wave of departures, was reported to have broken down in tears at a parliamentary party meeting following the split, as she called for tougher action on anti-semitism.
Two days later, as she split from Labour, Ryan accused the party of being "infected with the scourge of anti-Jewish racism".
Hatred claims undercut
The timing of the defections was strange, occurring shortly after the Labour leadership revealed the findings of an investigation into complaints of anti-semitism in the party. These were the very complaints that MPs such as Berger have been citing as proof of the party's "institutional racism".
And yet, the report decisively undercut their claims – not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all.
That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was "no reliable, empirical evidence " that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.
Nonetheless, the facts seem to be playing little or no part in influencing the anti-semitism narrative. This latest report was thus almost entirely ignored by Corbyn's opponents and by the mainstream media.
It is, therefore, worth briefly examining what the Labour Party's investigation discovered.
Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.
The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly "endemic" or "institutional", it seems.
Intemperate language
There is the possibility past outbursts have been part of this investigation. Intemperate language flared especially in 2014 – before Corbyn became leader – when Israel launched a military operation on Gaza that killed large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including many hundreds of children.
Certainly, it is unclear how many of those reportedly anti-semitic comments concern not prejudice towards Jews, but rather outspoken criticism of the state of Israel, which was redefined as anti-semitic last year by Labour, under severe pressure from MPs such as Berger and Ryan and Jewish lobby groups, such as the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement.
Britain's Witchfinders Are Ready to Burn Jeremy CorbynSeven of the 11 examples of anti-semitism associated with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition adopted by Labour concern Israel. That includes describing Israel as a "racist endeavour", even though Israel passed a basic law last year stripping the fifth of its population who are not Jewish of any right to self-determination, formally creating two classes of citizen.
Illustrating the problem Labour has created for itself as a result, some of the most high-profile suspensions and expulsions have actually targeted Jewish members of the party who identify as anti-Zionist – that is, they consider Israel a racist state. They include T ony Greenstein, Jackie Walker, Martin Odoni, Glyn Secker and Cyril Chilson .
Another Jewish member, Moshe Machover , a professor emeritus at the University of London, had to be reinstated after a huge outcry among members at his treatment by the party.
Unthinking prejudice
Alan Maddison , who has been conducting statistical research on anti-semitism for a pro-Corbyn Jewish group, Jewish Voice for Labour, put the 0.08 percent figure into its wider social and political context this week.
He quoted the findings of a large survey of anti-semitic attitudes published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in 2017. It found that 30 percent of respondents from various walks of society agreed with one or more of eight anti-semitic views, ranging from stereotypes such as "Jews think they are better than other people" to Holocaust denial.
However, lead researcher Daniel Staetsky concluded that in most cases, this was evidence of unthinking prejudice rather than conscious bigotry. Four-fifths of those who exhibited a degree of anti-semitism also agreed with at least one positive statement about Jewish people.
This appears to be the main problem among the tiny number of Labour Party members identified in complaints, and is reflected in the predominance of warnings about conduct rather than expulsions and suspensions.
Far-right bigotry
Another of the institute's findings poses a particular problem for Corbyn's opponents, who argue that the Labour leader has imported anti-semitism into the party by attracting the "hard left". Since he was elected, Labour membership has rocketed.
Even if it were true that Corbyn and his supporters are on the far-left – a highly questionable assumption, made superficially plausible only because Labour moved to the centre-right under Tony Blair in the late 1990s – the institute's research pulls the rug out from under Corbyn's critics.
It discovered that across the political spectrum, conscious hatred of Jews was very low, and that it was exhibited in equal measure from the "very left-wing" to the "fairly right-wing". The only exception, as one might expect, was on the "very right-wing", where virulent anti-semitism was much more prevalent.
That finding was confirmed last week by surveys that showed a significant rise in violent, anti-semitic attacks across Europe as far-right parties make inroads in many member states. A Guardian report noted that the "figures show an overwhelming majority of violence against Jews is perpetrated by far-right supporters".
Supporters of overseas war
So what is the basis for concerns about the Labour Party being mired in supposed "institutional anti-semitism" since it moved from the centre to the left under Corbyn, when the figures and political trends demonstrate nothing of the sort?
A clue may be found in the wider political worldview of the eight MPs who have broken from Labour.
All but two are listed as supporters of the parliamentary "Labour Friends of Israel" (LFI) faction. Further, Berger is a former director of that staunchly pro-Israel lobby group, and Ryan is its current chair, a position the group says she will hold onto, despite no longer being a Labour MP.
So extreme are the LFI's views on Israel that it sought to exonerate Israel of a massacre last year, in which its snipers shot dead many dozens of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza in a single day. Faced with a social media backlash, it quietly took down the posts .
The eight MPs' voting records – except for Gavin Shuker, for whom the picture is mixed – show them holding consistently hawkish foreign policy positions that are deeply antithetical to Corbyn's approach to international relations.
They either "almost always" or "generally" backed "combat operations overseas"; those who were MPs at the time supported the 2003 Iraq war; and they all opposed subsequent investigations into the Iraq war.
Committed Friends of Israel
In one sense, the breakaway group's support for Labour Friends of Israel may not be surprising, and indicates why Corbyn is facing such widespread trouble from within his own party. Dozens of Labour MPs are members of the group, including Tom Watson and Ruth Smeeth.
Smeeth, one of those at the forefront of accusing Corbyn of fostering anti-semitism in Labour, is also a former public affairs director of BICOM, another stridently pro-Israel lobby group .
None of these MPs were concerned enough with the LFI's continuing vocal support for Israel as it has shifted to the far-right under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have stepped down from the group.
'Wrong kind of Jews'
Anti-semitism has taken centre stage in the manoeuvring against Corbyn, despite there being no evidence of significant hatred against Jews in the party. Increasingly, it seems, tangible abuse of Jews is of little interest unless it can be related to Corbyn.
The markedly selective interest in anti-semitism in the Corbyn context among the breakaway MPs and supposed anti-semitism watchdogs has been starkly on show for some time.
Notably, none expressed concern at the media mauling of a left-wing, satirical Jewish group called Jewdas when Corbyn was widely attacked for meeting "the wrong kind of Jews". In fact, leading Labour figures, including the Jewish Labour Movement, joined in the abuse .
And increasingly in this febrile atmosphere, there has been an ever-greater indulgence of the "right kind of anti-semitism" – when it is directed at Corbyn supporters.
A troubling illustration was provided on the TV show Good Morning Britain this week, when Tom Bower was invited on to discuss his new unauthorised biography of Corbyn, in which he accuses him of anti-semitism. The hosts looked on demurely as Bower, a Jewish journalist, defamed fellow Jewish journalist Michael Segalov as a " self-hating Jew " for defending Corbyn on the show.
Revenge of the Blairites
So what is the significance of the fact that the Labour MPs who have been most outspoken in criticising Corbyn – those who helped organise a 2016 leadership challenge against him, and those who are now rumoured to be considering joining the breakaway faction – are heavily represented on the list of MPs supporting LFI?
For them, it seems, vigorous support for Israel is not only a key foreign policy matter, but a marker of their political priorities and worldview – one that starkly clashes with the views of Corbyn and a majority of the Labour membership.
Anti-semitism has turned out to be the most useful – and damaging – weapon to wield against the Labour leader for a variety of reasons close to the hearts of the holdouts from the Blair era, who still dominate the parliamentary party and parts of the Labour bureaucracy.
Perhaps most obviously, the Blairite wing of the party is still primarily loyal to a notion that Britain should at all costs maintain its transatlantic alliance with the United States in foreign policy matters. Israel is a key issue for those on both sides of the Atlantic who see that state as a projection of Western power into the oil-rich Middle East and romanticise Israel as a guarantor of Western values in a "barbaric" region.
Corbyn's prioritising of Palestinian rights threatens to overturn a core imperial value to which the Blairites cling.
Tarred and feathered
But it goes further. Anti-semitism has become a useful stand-in for the deep differences in a domestic political culture between the Blairites, on one hand, and Corbyn and the wider membership, on the other.
A focus on anti-semitism avoids the right-wing MPs having to admit much wider grievances with Corbyn's Labour that would probably play far less well not only with Labour members, but with the broader British electorate.
As well as their enthusiasm for foreign wars, the Blairites support the enrichment of a narrow neo-liberal elite, are ambivalent about austerity policies, and are reticent at returning key utilities to public ownership. All of this can be neatly evaded and veiled by talking up anti-semitism.
But the utility of anti-semitism as a weapon with which to beat Corbyn and his supporters – however unfairly – runs deeper still.
The Blairites view allegations of anti-Jewish racism as a trump card. Calling someone an anti-semite rapidly closes down all debate and rational thought. It isolates, then tars and feathers its targets. No one wants to be seen to be associated with an anti-semite, let alone defend them.
Weak hand exposed
That is one reason why anti-semitism smears have been so maliciously effective against anti-Zionist Jews in the party and used with barely a murmur of protest – or in most cases, even recognition that Jews are being suspended and expelled for opposing Israel's racist policies towards Palestinians.
This is a revival of the vile "self-hating Jew" trope that Israel and its defenders concocted decades ago to intimidate Jewish critics.
The Blairites in Labour, joined by the ruling Conservative Party, the mainstream media and pro-Israel lobby groups, have selected anti-semitism as the terrain on which to try to destroy a Corbyn-led Labour Party, because it is a battlefield in which the left stands no hope of getting a fair hearing – or any hearing at all.
But paradoxically, the Labour breakaway group may have inadvertently exposed the weakness of its hand. The eight MPs have indicated that they will not run in by-elections, and for good reason: it is highly unlikely they would stand a chance of winning in any of their current constituencies outside the Labour Party.
Their decision will also spur moves to begin deselecting those Labour MPs who are openly trying to sabotage the party – and the members' wishes – from within.
That may finally lead to a clearing out of the parliamentary baggage left behind from the Blair era, and allow Labour to begin rebuilding itself as a party ready to deal with the political, social, economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
|
|
|
Dec 09, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca
To Tony Hall , Director General of the BBC
cc: Fran Unsworth and Tracey HenryDecember 6, 2019
URGENT – "Is the BBC Antisemitic?"
We need to register with you our deep concern that, once again, and in the closing stages of an acrimonious election campaign, the BBC's coverage of antisemitism charges against the Labour Party has been both unbalanced and uncritical. Your reporting today of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)'s repetition of its flimsily-based charges against the Party that it used to support falls disastrously short of the Corporation's own formal standards of accuracy and balance.
This represents what we can only call a flagrant breach, and of all times during a general election campaign, of the BBC's legal commitment to due impartiality and fairness.
Over recent months, and with no remission during the election campaign, coverage of allegations of Labour antisemitism has featured repeatedly in the BBC News, and often as the lead item. In news programmes the allegations have been reported as quasi-factual, with no indication that they are fiercely contested. In more discursive formats such as the Today programme or Newsnight, presenters have consistently adopted a negative, attacking stance towards anyone who questions the basis of the allegations. In complete contrast, those making the allegations, usually based on hearsay rather than personal experience, are supplied with leading questions and softball follow-up.
Jews are as diverse as any other substantial group in society. Yet people whose representative status is highly doubtful are routinely presented by the BBC as 'representatives of the Jewish community'. Surely you can ensure that your broadcasting staff know the facts and convey them appropriately. The Board of Deputies, for example, has no supervised electoral process – and in any case its synagogue-based membership covers no more than one third of the UK's Jewish population. Secular Jews make up at least 50% of British Jews and have no voice through the Board of Deputies.
As Battle Rages in UK Labour Party, Moshe Machover Expelled After Asserting 'Anti-Zionism Does Not equal Anti-Semitism'In particular the voices of the large numbers of Jews who are Party members, who know how atypical the quite rare examples of antisemitic behaviour in the party are, and who are enthusiastic supporters of a Corbyn-led Labour government have been almost entirely ignored. The BBC has allowed itself to be used as a megaphone for deeply contested charges.
The BBC's Guidelines state that when a partisan political position is put forward, an opposing one, if it exists, should be broadcast too. The Labour Party does have many Jews who support it and who are prepared to speak out, notably in the organisation Jewish Voice for Labour. Our many requests to be able to present our experience and our perspective are routinely ignored, and in the rare exceptions have never been given equal weighting with the negative voices.
The BBC's coverage of the JLM's release of its evidence to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's inquiry (into any discrimination in Labour's processes for handling complaints of anti-Semitism) is a prime example of the BBC's systematic imbalance. This deliberately-timed attempted destabilization of the Labour Party's position by JLM has appeared in virtually every main news bulletin today, including live coverage – uncontested – of the JLM news conference on BBC News Channel.
The evidence that Jewish Voice for Labour gave to the EHRC inquiry was made public at the time and is publicly available on our web-site . This evidence is directly relevant to your news item but was not even mentioned in today's extended BBC coverage. It seems that the BBC is treating us as the 'wrong sort of Jew'.
All Jews are not the same. Asserting that they are is an aspect of anti-Semitism. The BBC should be ashamed of its record in openness to the multiple voices of British jewry.
By behaving in the way that it has (and today's JLM coverage is only the latest example) the BBC has, constructively, been contributing to an assiduously promoted anti-Labour agenda.
We look forward to immediate corrective action.
This letter will be published on our website.
Sincerely,
Leah Levane and Jenny Manson, co-chairs JVL
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
|
|
|
Dec 08, 2019 | www.unz.com
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
|
|
|
Dec 08, 2019 | www.unz.com
England and France, two antagonists, two mainstays of European civilisation, are simultaneously engulfed in paroxysm of Judeophilia. The result of the forthcoming very important parliamentary elections in Britain hinges on this issue, with Labour and Tories competing who will express their love of Jews more profusely, while the Jews can't decide whom they loath less. France, after a year of the middle-class Yellow Vests rebellion, enters the fresh working class uprising with million strikers rioting on the streets, but its parliament finds prime time to ponder and rule how Frenchmen should love Jews and hate those who hate them. What is the meaning of this charade?
Surely they do not argue about Jewish cuisine. While palatable, it is rarely more than that. A proof can be found in Israel, where Arab food rules, Japanese is recognised, Italian cherished but Jewish cuisine shines by its absence. It is not Jewish noses, though a significant feature of facial anatomy, they are not more elaborate or prominent than, say, Sicilian. It is all about ideas.
Judeophilia, love of Jews is a troublesome symptom of a dangerous malady, of elites' estrangement from its working classes, the malady presently in full bloom in France and England. Judeophilia strikes divided societies and could lead to their collapse much faster than its Siamese counter-twin, antisemitism. It did so in the past, most famously in Kingdom of Poland, where the szlachta (nobility) loved Jews and despised ordinary folks, the bydlo ( rednecks), until their state collapsed. In a Christian, or post-Christian society, Jews are a symbol, a signifier of a certain attitude and behaviour that is profoundly non-Christian.
Jews are a small minority that defies the large society and opposes it. Jews care for themselves and disregard the majority and its needs; they have no scruples beyond prescribed by the criminal law; they feel no communality with the majority. Jews do not share communion with majority, and do not appeal to the same deity. Jews prosper when the majority regresses. They are fast to see a break and use it for their advantage.
We won't enter a discussion whether the real Jews fit the description, and to what extent. That is how they are perceived by those who love them and who hate them. There were Jews who acted against the paradigm, and they weren't considered 'good for Jews'. Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian Chancellor, Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet official, Leon Trotsky or Torquemada weren't 'good for Jews'. And there are plentiful Gentiles who were considered 'good for Jews', like Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. Usually they were bad for everybody else. So, while we shall defer our judgment on 'real Jews', there is no doubt that philo-Semites are bad for your health.
The dominant economic and political paradigm, Neo-Liberalism claims that Jewish attitude is the right one, and that we all should emulate Jews. This is an impossible claim; a majority can't emulate a minority. A society whose members relate to each other as Jews-to-Gentiles is a cannibals' cabal, and that is exactly what happens in our world. Jews prosper because they are few; if all emulate Jews, the result is misery, not prosperity . An all-Jewish society can't exist; Israel is a place where Thai, Chinese, Ukrainians and Palestinians work, the Russians and Druze guard them, while Jews do usual Jewish things.
In England, the Jews are divided about Boris Johnson. They do not want Brexit to succeed, but the access of Corbyn scares them even more. Corbyn is an avowed enemy of no, not of Jews, but of neo-liberalism. Combine it with his rejection of Israeli politics, and you come to the sum of anti-Jewish attitudes. Yes, Corbyn is anti-Jewish, if you wish, even anti-Semite, i.e. a man whom Jews hate, for he is against both Jewish modes of operation, the capitalist and the Zionist. He is perfectly ok with people of Jewish origin, he has no prejudice, he is no racist, but it is irrelevant. His victory won't be 'good for Jews', neither for Jews who bleed Palestine, nor for Jews who prosper at the expense of the British worker. Perhaps Corbyn would be wonderful for Jewish workers, but they are not represented in the Board of Deputies , and the Chief Rabbi does not care for them.
On the international scene, Corbyn is not a friend of NATO. If he could he would take the UK out of this obsolete military alliance. So would President Trump, who is looking for a justification to steer the US out of NATO. Jews do not like this attitude. For them, the US and the UK should stay in NATO, for NATO is a strong defender and supporter of the Jewish state.
Brits have a difficult choice in the coming elections. Johnson is not too bad, and his stand against EU should be applauded. Corbyn is likely to seek compromise on every position, including Brexit, immigration, NATO, but his initial stand is good. For a working man, he is the right choice. And the Jewish attitude to him is a strong indicator: of the two contenders, Corbyn would be better for those who do not emulate Jews.
France
In France, the Jews are very close to power, and it is usually a sign that things do not go well for native middle and working classes. Indeed things go from bad to worse. While a million of French workers demonstrated against Macron's government, the French parliamentarians discussed antisemitism. Not surprisingly, they accepted the definition produced by a Jewish organisation. Demurring against this definition caused a lot of trouble for Corbyn; Macron had learned a lesson.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything. I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws. Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'. This fear kills their souls more than the accusation. Though, best of people, Shakespeare, St John the Divine, Dostoyevsky and Chesterton are considered anti-Semites, and it did not diminish their fame and glory.
You can't escape this label; if they want they will attach it to your name. Likewise, a man can't avoid being called a male chauvinist and accused of harassment by a radical feminist. Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Julian Assange of rape and destroyed his life as surely as if she'd knifed him, also accused a student of harassment because he avoided looking at her. Such accusations should be shrugged off.
France is not doing well because its elites are engaged in the rip-off and sale of their country's industrial, political, and cultural assets. In the last few years, France had lost Alstom, Pechiney, Technip, Alcatel. These premium assets were lost to US companies. French businessmen and officials who were supposed to care about French heirlooms, betrayed their trust and defrauded their country, that's why France is not doing well.
Not all of these treacherous men are Jewish, not by a long chalk. But Jews are invaluable partners in such publicity-shy schemes, and that's why: "The Shoah Memorial is a secular temple for the entirety of France's post-Christian elite. Holocaust foundations, Jewish communal projects, Jewish benevolent societies and Jewish philanthropies allow the Jewish community to discourage reporting affairs they are involved in. They can facilitate the deals in obscurity" – I was told by a knowledgeable Jewish person, well versed with goings-on within the French Jewish community and in the higher business, banking and political circles of the Republic. I'll call him JT (I shall share more of his knowledge in the next essay – ISH). –
"Jewishness has once again become a way of avoiding scrutiny and accountability. Only anti-Semites dare to see a link between the sale of Alstom, Macron's career, the Rothschilds, and the Jewish community." Wink wink.
"At two crucial moments Jewish communal support was decisive to Macron's political career; first, at the second tour of the French elections, in which major Jewish organizations unanimously cajoled and preached the Macron vote to all and sundry; second, to suppress the Yellow Vests Uprising. Only anti-Semites dare to think the Rothschilds had anything to do with either."
JT is very critical with France and French people: "French White gentiles are ashamed of their past and identity, flee into hedonism, profligacy, drugs, anti-depressants, libertinism, pornography, and homosexuality. Their Stockholm syndrome is driven by an extra-European-birth-cohort whose numbers now exceed that of the native population. Unwilling to fight for their land and heritage, ignorant of their past and increasingly illiterate, their love of France is futile, superfluous, and incoherent at best.
"As France increasingly resembles a North African backwater, its Jews, the chief facilitators of this demographic shift, have become its chief losers, and a process of Jewish de-assimilation from the Republic has began. French Jews cannot identify with a society on its last legs, and a spineless native population. In such circumstances, French Jews shift their focus to survival and opportunism, not to national defence. Israel, Miami, New York have become second homes. France's Jewish patricians (all to the last dual-citizens since the fifties), are helpless. Their ties to an increasingly hard-up Israel and to the powerful Jewish American community make them leaders of the fire-sale of France's industrial, political, and cultural assets. France is sliding into failed nation status in which everyone is abandoning ship."
French Jews help the US to rob France, says JT. The American companies supported by all-powerful DoJ are the main reason why France does not prosper. When France attempted to tax American Internet companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook) Trump threatened to slap 100% custom duties on French wine. The right choice for France is to part the company with the Yankee predator, to cease paying billions of fines for breaking unjustifiable unilateral American 'sanctions', to part with NATO and to laugh at Trump's demands to pay more for unnecessary American protection. But France, and other European nations are hesitant. They do not jump at the opportunity offered by Trump's stupidity and arrogance, though the Orange man did everything he could to free the Europeans. He opened the gates, he insulted them and kicked them, but they refused to leave the stables.
An Excellent American expert in International relations, Prof Michael Brenner of Pittsburgh U, has noted:
"Europe's political class is psychologically unable to break free of its dominant/subordinate relationship with America. This pattern endures despite the presence of a mentally impaired man in the White House. The prognosis, therefore: 'Wither thou goest, we go!" American leaders have exploited this compulsive deference ruthlessly. It allows Washington to ensure European fealty at virtually no cost. Moreover, they can extract compliance across a wide array of non-security issues – commercial, financial, IT (warring against Huawei), political, diplomatic – by drawing on the same free-floating loyalties.
Europe has been obedient to the siren call of Uncle Sam in following it over the cliff time after time – in Afghanistan, in Iraq (France excepted), on Russia, on Iran (by acquiescing in severe sanctions), on Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in embracing Bolsonaro (invited Keynoter at Davos), even on Venezuela and Bolivia. The ultimate test will come were Washington to pick a fight with China that it, and the West, cannot win; will Europe then take the final, fatal leap hand-in-hand?"
It appears that love of Jews is an integral element of this fealty, together with LGBT nonsense and other peculiar American imports. Love of Jews and love of America – are they separable at all? If and when France and England regain their independence, their Jews would recover their normal place in their societies. Admittedly, it won't be a place at the top, but it would be a respectful place of equals in a healthy society, rather than a place of a symbol and a facilitator of foreign influence on the ruins of Europe, as it is now.
|
|
|
Dec 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
JohnH -> anne... , December 06, 2019 at 03:53 PM
Charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are highly suspect. From what I can see, they all stem from Corbyn's remarks supporting Palestinian rights in the face of the Israeli government's institutionalized racism and oppression of Palestinians.likbez -> JohnH... , December 07, 2019 at 01:53 AMIf Bernie were not Jewish, there would have been an enormous smear campaign against him for exactly the same reasons.
Charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are highly suspect. From what I can see, they all stem from Corbyn's remarks supporting Palestinian rights in the face of the Israeli government's institutionalized racism and oppression of Palestinians.Yes. This is clearly one of the most dirty tricks played by UK Israel lobby, if we talk about Corbin. Baseless charge of anti-Semitism became a political smear, the way to destroy political opponent.
Much like charge of "Putin stooge" in the USA. And Russophobia is very similar to Anti-Semitism, if you think about it. It serves as a kind of politically correct anti-Semitism.
|
|
|
Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration, were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .
When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If the most extreme "anti-Semitic canards" were probably true, then surely the whole notion of anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops, "Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."
Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious.
Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy, but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my lengthy Meritocracy analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.
It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians.
One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago, while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a perfect example of this situation. As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled "the Holocaust Industry" has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past, when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.
Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global conflict. However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.
Lindemann's discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia's restive Jewish minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.
For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia's Jews to the "Pale of Settlement," suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional "middleman" occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.
Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have become a very uncomfortable one.
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia's very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .
Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and "the system worked" in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial. However, a few pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary, in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since the publication of Ariel Toaff's remarkable volume on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.
Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much broader treatment, Esau's Tears , which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.
For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical Review by describing the book as a "545-page polemic" a strange characterization of a book so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage. Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes simply astonishing.
I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich's seemingly irrational outburst, while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had "touched raw nerves." Indeed, Gottfried's own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic, is conveniently available online .
The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann's meticulous attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical facts and preventing students from discovering them.
The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao's Communist forces in China was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton's classic Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village. When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews, does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as "anti-Semitism" to describe that situation?
Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann's rather innocuous text might also lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The fall of so many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish international bankers in producing those political outcomes.
Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild boast about the existence of a vast and secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near the head of almost every major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes. If one of the world's most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford really so unreasonable in doing the same?
Lindemann also notes Disraeli's focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins, a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that Disraeli's public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists whom our history books usually place at center stage. In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli's under-appreciated role may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.
One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau's Tears denounced Cambridge University Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world's greatest literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies. But his last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages, there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.
ORDER IT NOW
At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn's work were easily available. Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine's award-winning 2004 book The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory and his public stature not remotely the same.
Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russia's leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulag volumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of today's overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland, it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate him to nearly un-person status.
A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn's controversial final book, an American writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag , and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many college reading lists. But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.
ORDER IT NOW
The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn's literary status in the West came just a decade or two after an even more precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason. Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by Hollywood and wartime propaganda. When he published his magisterial Hitler's War , this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually even his imprisonment.
These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals. Observers have noticed that even fairly small Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them. But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts. So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.
We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.
Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who refuse to conform to such pressures. Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.
Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media "stop vilifying Jews" and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.
So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other side of the ledger.
Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to "cluster" together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.
As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion. In similar fashion, even a highly agitated Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy, perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.
Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their fellows.
A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between "anti-Semitism" and "racism," which our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world's greatest evils. Under this analysis, "anti-Semitism" represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while "racism" represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter.
Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such conflict. Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious beliefs.
The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter Moreira's 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War , focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.
A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s relationship with the Jewish community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims' skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, "Please, Stephen, don't give me the gory details." Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again. Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.
It is easy to imagine that Morgenthau's gullible acceptance of such obviously ridiculous war-time atrocity stories played a major role when he later lent his name and support to remarkably brutal American occupation policies that probably led to the postwar deaths of many millions of innocent German civilians .
|
|
|
Dec 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
Mirvis' intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community. And in addition, the chief rabbi would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism.
... ... ...
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public's First Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial west's Achilles' heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards "lesser peoples". The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550 children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave will be uninhabitable by next year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel's equivalent of white supremacists – on their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at Palestinians and chanting "Death to the Arabs". One Israeli newspaper columnist has described the Jerusalem Day march as a "religious carnival of hatred".
Anonymous [106] Disclaimer , says: November 28, 2019 at 2:45 pm GMT
Just goes to show how ... so called "Chief Rabbi" has become the most important commentator on a British general election, and the Tories and much of the media in Britain absolutely love it.Not even America they would let a Rabbi blatantly interfere with a presidential election. It's incredible how a British general election has literally become about Jews, I've never seen anything like it in any other country. The media is so obsessed with what Jews think anyone would think Corbyn was running to be PM of Israel!
|
|
|
Dec 01, 2019 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
The Antisemitic Card
By Finian Cunningham
November 27, 2019 " Information Clearing House " - It is a ludicrous situation when anyone criticizing Israeli state violations against Palestinians or neighboring countries is then instantly discredited as being "antisemitic".
We see this in Britain and the United States all the time. Congresswomen like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been denounced for being "anti-Jewish", including by President Trump, simply because they protested Israeli policy of occupying Palestinian lands or for having a malign influence on US foreign policy.
In Britain, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his party have once again this week been vilified as "antisemitic" in prominent news media.
The reality is that Corbyn is neither racist or anti-Jewish . The specious allegation stems from him and sections of Labour being vehemently critical of Israel and its conduct towards Palestinians.
If elected in the general election next month, Labour says it will cut military trade with Israel and move to officially recognize a Palestinian state.
This conflation of valid criticism of the Israeli state with being "anti-Jew" is a cynical distortion which is wielded to give Israel impunity from international law. It plays on moral blackmail of critics by equating the historical persecution of Jews and in particular the Nazi holocaust with the sanctity of the modern Israeli state.
That distortion is exposed by many Jews themselves who have spoken out in the US and in Britain to defend the right of people to criticize Israeli policies. They understand the vital distinction between the Israeli state and the much wider existence of Jewishness. They understand that to be opposed to Israeli state practices is in no way to mean animus towards Jews in general.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent MediaOnly in the past week, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his government intends to expand annexation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank. The land occupied by Israeli forces since the 1967 Six Day War is illegally occupied , according to multiple UN resolutions under international law. Now Netanyahu wants to increase the violations. And with the support of the Trump administration which also announced it was no longer viewing Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as illegitimate.
Over the past month, the Israeli military has stepped up airstrikes on the Gaza Strip where nearly two million Palestinians subsist in abject poverty largely because of an Israeli blockade. One family of nine, including children, was killed by an airstrike on their home on November 14. As always the death toll among Palestinian civilians is grotesquely disproportionate to Israeli victims of rockets fired from Gaza.
Israeli forces have also been carrying out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria, including the capital Damascus, over the past year. Russia, among others, has condemned those attacks as "unlawful aggression". Arguably, war crimes.
When Jeremy Corbyn and Britain's Labour Party and a handful of American politicians speak out to denounce Israeli violations they are doing so to uphold international law and voice support for victims of state violence. That is a principled and honourable position.
Shamefully, the US and British governments and much of the corporate news media never do speak out. They shield Israeli leaders from international accountability by vetoing UN resolutions or by turning a blind eye. Pro-Israeli lobbies funnel massive donations to politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle, and to the British Conservative Party. Their silence is bought. Not only silence but outright distortion, such as when people criticize Israeli malfeasance – and there is much of that – then they are absurdly character-assassinated as "antisemites".
Admittedly, many British Jews phoned into radio stations this week to complain that they feel unwelcome in Britain due to what they perceive as growth in antisemitism under the Labour Party . To be fair though, their claims were not backed up by hard evidence of specifically anti-Jewish behaviour. They were eliding their Jewishness with Labour's criticism of Israel.
The claims made against Corbyn this week by the British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirviz of being "unfit for office" because of an alleged complacent attitude towards antisemitism in his party should be put in context.
Corbyn has apologized several times for a tiny fraction (less than 0.1 per cent) of party members accused of antisemitism. Why should he be obliged to keep on apologizing, as BBC interviewer Andrew Neil imperiously demanded again this week?
Chief Rabbi Mirviz is a self-declared friend of Conservative leader Boris Johnson and an ardent, uncritical supporter of the Israeli state.
Mirviz does not represent all British Jews, as many other Jewish groups came out voicing their support for Corbyn and his valid right of free speech to criticize Israel.
Mirviz got prominent media coverage for his views this week in the London Times and Daily Mail, among others. Britain's rightwing media are owned by billionaire oligarchs who despise Labour's manifesto for progressive wealth redistribution.
Official race-hate figures for Britain show that physical attacks against British Muslims are preponderantly more than attacks against any other religious minority, including Jews . Boris Johnson's Conservatives have evident problems of fomenting Islamophobia. Yet we don't see British media providing proportionate criticism on that to balance their focus on Corbyn and his alleged views.
The antisemitic card is played to shield Israel from important criticism; and by Britain's plutocrats and their media who would rather see the public squabbling over spurious claims about antisemitism so they can keep on plundering wealth from the majority of British people.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org
Chief Rabbi Mirvis is Helping Stoke Antisemitism
by Jonathan Cook / November 29th, 2019
Chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has not only misrepresented the known facts about Labour and its supposed antisemitism crisis. He has not only interfered in an overtly, politically partisan manner in the December 12 election campaign by suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn – against all evidence – is an antisemite.By speaking out as the voice of British Jews – a false claim he has allowed the UK media to promote – his unprecedented meddling in the election of Britain's next leader has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less safe. Mirvis is contributing to the very antisemitism he says he wants to eradicate.
Mirvis' intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community. And in addition, the chief rabbi would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a back-bencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism.
Rising tide of nationalism
The second possibility is that Mirvis doesn't really believe that Corbyn is a Goebbels in the making. But if that is so, then his decision to intercede in the election campaign to influence British voters must be based on an equally fanciful notion: that there is no significant threat posed by antisemitism from the right or the rapidly emerging far right.
Because if antisemitism is not an issue on the right – the same nationalistic right that has persecuted Jews throughout modern history, culminating in the Nazi atrocities – then Mirvis may feel he can risk playing politics in the name of the Jewish community without serious consequence.
If there is no perceptible populist tide of white nationalism sweeping Europe and the globe, one that hates immigrants and minorities, then making a fuss about Corbyn might seem to make sense for a prominent Jewish community leader. In those circumstances, it might appear to be worth disrupting the national conversation to highlight the fact that Corbyn once sat with Hamas politicians – just as Tony Blair once sat with Sinn Fein leaders – and that Corbyn's party has promised in the latest manifesto to stop selling weapons to Israel (and Saudi Arabia) of the kind that have been used to butcher children in Gaza. Mirvis might believe that by wounding Corbyn he can help into power a supposedly benevolent, or at least inoffensive, Tory party.
But if he is wrong about the re-emergence of a white nationalism and its growing entry into the mainstream – and all the evidence suggests he would be deeply wrong , if this is what he thinks – then undermining Corbyn and the Labour party is self-destructiveness of the first order.
It would amount to self-harm not only because attacking Corbyn inevitably strengthens the electoral chances of Boris " watermelon smiles " Johnson. It plays with fire because Mirvis' flagrant intervention in the election campaign actually bolsters a key part of the antisemitic discourse of the far right that is rapidly making inroads into the Conservative party.
Succour to white nationalists
White nationalists are all over social media warning of supposed Jewish global conspiracies, of supposed Jewish control of the media, of supposed Jewish subversion of "white rights". It was precisely this kind of thinking that drove European politics a century ago. It was arch-antisemite Arthur Balfour who signed off the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that sought to end Britain's "Jewish problem" by encouraging European Jews to move far away, to a part of the Middle East then known as Palestine.
That is, of course, why today's white supremacists love Israel, why they see it as a model, why they call themselves " white Zionists ". In creating a tribal democracy, and one heavily fortified, land hungry, belligerent and nuclear-armed, Israel has done for Jews exactly what white nationalists hope to do again for their white compatriots. The white supremacists' love of Israel is intimately bound up with their hatred and fear of Jews.
Mirvis has given succour to white nationalist discourse both because he has spoken out against Corbyn without offering evidence for his claims and because those entirely unsubstantiated claims have been echoed across the media.
There is good reason why the billionaire-owned print media and the Establishment-dominated BBC are happy to exploit the antisemitism smears – and it has nothing to do with concern for the safety of Jews. The corporate media don't want a Labour leader in power who is going to roll back the corporate free-for-all unleashed by Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago that nearly bankrupted the rest of us in 2008.
But that is not what those flirting with or embracing white nationalism will take away from the relentless media chorus over evidence-free antisemitism claims.
Mirvis' intervention in the democratic process will drive them more quickly and more deeply into the arms of the far-right. It will persuade them once again that "the Jews" are a "problem". They will conclude that – though the Jews are now helping the right by destroying Corbyn – once the left has been dealt with, those same Jews will then subvert their white state. Like Balfour before them, they will start thinking of how to rid Britain and Europe of these supposed interlopers.
This is why Mirvis was irresponsible in the extreme for meddling. Because the standard of proof required before making such an intervention – proof either that Cobyn is an outright Jew hater, or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK – is not even close to being met.
The left's anti-imperialism
In fact much worse, all the evidence shows the exact reverse. That was neatly summed up in a survey this month published by The Economist, a weekly magazine that is no friend to Corbyn or the Labour party.
It showed that those identifying as "very left-wing" – the section of the public that supports Corbyn – were among the least likely to express antisemitic attitudes. Those identifying as "very right-wing", on the other hand – those likely to support Boris " piccaninnies " Johnson – were three and a half times more likely to express hostile attitudes towards Jews. Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people. That, after all, is the very reason Boris " letterbox-looking Muslim women " Johnson now heads the Tory party.
The Economist findings reveal something else of relevance in assessing Mirvis' meddling. Not only is the real left (as distinguished from the phoney, centrist left represented by Labour's Blairites) much less antisemitic than the right, it is also much more critical of Israel than any other section of the British public.
That is easily explained. The real left has always been anti-imperialist. Israel is a particularly problematic part of Britain's colonial legacy.
Elsewhere, the peoples who gained independence from Britain found themselves inside ruined, impoverished states, often with borders imposed out of naked imperial interest that left them divided and feuding. Internal struggles over the crumbs Britain and other imperial powers left behind were the norm.
But in a very real sense, Britain – or at least the west – never really left Israel. In line with the Balfour Declaration, Britain helped to establish the institutions of a "Jewish home" on the Palestinians' homeland. British troops may have departed in 1948, but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States.
The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel's creation to solve Europe's "Jewish problem". It provided the components necessary for Israel to build a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the Palestinians were made Israel's serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland.
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public's First Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial west's Achilles' heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards "lesser peoples". The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550 children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave will be uninhabitable by next year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel's equivalent of white supremacists – on their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at Palestinians and chanting "Death to the Arabs". One Israeli newspaper columnist has described the Jerusalem Day march as a "religious carnival of hatred".
It was Mirvis and Sacks that encouraged British Jews to join them on this tub-thumping trip to Israel, which they suggested would provide an opportunity to spend time "dancing with our brave soldiers". Those soldiers – Israeli, not British – occupy West Bank cities like Hebron where they have locked down life for some 200,000 Palestinians so that a handful of crazed religious Jewish bigots can live undisturbed in their midst.
What is so appalling is that Mirvis is blind to the very obvious parallels between the fearful Palestinians who hastily have to board up their shops as a Jewish mob parades through their neighbourhood and today's white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the west who seek to march provocatively through ethnic minority communities, including Jewish neighbourhoods, in places like Charlottesville .
Mirvis has no lessons to teach Corbyn or the Labour party about racism. In fact, it is his own, small-minded prejudice that blinds him to the anti-racist politics of the left. His ugly message is now being loudly amplified by a corporate media keen to use any weapon it can, antisemitism included, to keep Corbyn and the left out of power – and preserve a status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Jonathan Cook , based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan , or visit Jonathan's website .
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
With the election nearing, the British corporate media is once again running smears of the Labour leader. And for good reason, says Jonathan Cook. The stakes could not be higher for Britain's ruling class.
In the coming elections, Prime Minister Boris Johnson on left, is facing off against Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn.
F or a few months over the summer the British corporate media largely lost interest in smearing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. Maybe they had begun to worry that the constant drum-beat of the past three years was deadening the public's sensitivity to such claims.
But an election is now weeks away, and the anti-Semitism smear bandwagon is being rolled out once again.
Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle (who also writes for the Tory-loving Mail , Express , Sun and Telegraph newspapers) has yet again been terrifying readers as best he can, implying not so subtly that voting for Labour might risk a genocide of British Jews. After several years of painting Corbyn – preposterously – as some kind of unkempt, gray-bearded leader of a British Gestapo-in-the-making, Pollard spent a few recent days highlighting in the corporate media the predictable results of the latest survey of Jewish public opinion. It suggests that a growing number of Jews are considering leaving Britain if Corbyn manages to oust Boris Johnson from power.
That we have reached the point where so many British Jews have been persuaded that Corbyn's vocal criticism of Israel's oppression of Palestinians means his entire party is infected with a supposed hatred of Jews needs some explaining. It is something I have been trying to do regularly, and in real time, as life has been breathed into these various slurs , both by a corporate media that detests the fairer society a Corbyn party promises and by an Israel lobby that identifies so closely with Israel that it has completely dehumanized Palestinians, to the extent that the crimes against them can be entirely overlooked -- treated as no more significant than stepping on an ant.
In the figure of Pollard, we have a journalist who merges both outlooks, typified in this extraordinary tweet last year that at the time stunned even some of his followers but has now become a staple of the campaign against Corbyn and his democratic socialist politics. Efforts by the left to highlight the class war waged by an elite that's been sucking the life out of the British economy to enrich itself have been maliciously recharacterised by Pollard and other rightwing journalists (some of whom ensconced themselves in the Labour party during Tony Blair's rule) as an attack on Jews. But it is not the left that conflates the corporate elite with Jews, it is rightwing journalists like Pollard.
We shall return to this issue later in the post.
Jonathan Freedland's Libel
A recent incident helped to illustrate just how organized and malevolent the anti-Semitism smears against Corbyn truly are.
Jonathan Freedland, a supposedly liberal columnist at The Guardian newspaper and a BBC regular, again proved how he has been a key figure in weaponizing this allegation against a Corbyn-led party. So eager is he to damage Labour and make sure it is no position to end a decade of Tory-imposed austerity that he threw aside all normal journalistic caution and published a libelous claim of anti-Semitism against a potential Labour candidate in the coming general election.
There were several revealing aspects to this incident. Freedland defamed Majid Mahmood, a Labour local councilor in Birmingham, without making even the most rudimentary factual checks that the highly damaging claim was actually true -- a basic journalistic duty. He simply relied on the word of a "previously reliable Labour source" -- in other words, one of the many Blairite enemies of Corbyn within the Labour parliamentary faction and party bureaucracy who have been briefing against the leader for the past four years.
(It is worth recalling that a prominent anti-racism activist, Marc Wadsworth, was hounded from the party last year, accused of anti-Semitism, for warning that Blairite MPs like Ruth Smeeth were briefing against their own leader to journalists in the rightwing press. Smeeth accused Wadsworth of anti-Semitism because she is Jewish, though Wadsworth says he did not know that -- and, of course, her Jewishness is irrelevant to the issue of whether she was seeking to malign her own party's leader through the media. Wadsworth's mistake, it seems, was to assume that corporate "liberal" journalists like Freedland were not also part of those smear efforts.)
In Mahmood's case, it was an egregious example of mistaken identity. Freedland and his "source" had confused the Birmingham councilor with a London lawyer of the same name who was fined over anti-Semitic comments four years ago. Such confusion was clearly neither accidental nor innocent. Mahmood's case highlighted something that was already patently obvious: that anti-Corbyn groups have been trawling the histories and social media posts of Labour members in an organized effort to weaponize anything they can find against the Labour leader. The defamation of Mahmood was simply the latest smear to emerge from this campaign.
Smears from Within Labour
Freedland's "defense" was itself telling. The person relaying the smear to him was, he said, from inside Labour and had been "previously reliable." That meant someone fairly senior in the party -- thereby explaining Freedland's readiness to believe him uncritically -- and someone who had passed on similar damaging information before. It was irrefutable confirmation that Corbyn's most venomous opponents are not in the Conservative Party but drawn from Labour's own top ranks. They want a Corbyn-led party destroyed even if it means keeping the Brexit-backing, austerity-loving, racism-indulgent Tories in power.
There was another ugly aspect to the behavior of Freedland and his "source." It looked suspiciously like both had uncritically accepted the unfounded claim against Mahmood because he had a Muslim name. They both appeared to have assumed that Muslims are more likely to be racist towards Jews and therefore accepted the claim with a much lower standard of evidence than would have been expected in the case of anyone else.
In fact, the councilor's name is a Muslim equivalent of "David Brown" or "George Smith." Can we really imagine Freedland libeling someone with either of those names so casually, without making even cursory checks to be sure he had identified the right David Brown or George Smith?
This kind of behavior has a name: it is called racism. And it is quite extraordinary to see Freedland so susceptible, after he has made a journalistic career out of exploring the intricacies of racism when it applies to Jews. It almost leaves one suspecting that this paragon of liberal journalism is really a hypocrite.
Fears the Free Lunch Will End
The anti-Semitism smear campaign is being revived in the corporate media for good reason. The stakes could not be higher for Britain's ruling class. As worried as many of them are by Brexit, Corbyn is seen as a bigger threat. He might call time on the banquet they have been gorging on for four decades uninterrupted.
If Corbyn shunts Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Tories out of power, the millionaires and billionaires who control both the British print and broadcast media, including the BBC, fear the good times could come to an abrupt end. The Brexit threat pales in comparison. That would simply shift our primary economic allegiance from Europe to the United States, leaving the predatory capitalism on which the corporate class has grown unimaginably rich as strong as ever.
A Corbyn government, by contrast, is an unknown quantity. The free-lunch might end, or at least start to feel more like an unsatisfying snack.
In truth, given the bitter divisions tearing apart his own party -- between most of the mass membership, who are behind him, and the holdouts from the Blair-Brown era that still dominate the parliamentary party -- it is hard to imagine Corbyn being able to do as much as his critics fear.
He may manage to curb the worst excesses of the neoliberal financial system; he may block further privatization of the National Health Service, even reverse it a little; and he may bring a few vital national industries back into public ownership. He may manage too to redirect some of the cream the fat cats have been lapping up back into the public coffers for a New Green Deal. All of that would be a relief after so many years of Tory-designed austerity for the many and state socialism for the few.
But the corporate class are now so greedy, so used to getting their way, that even the smallest diminishment of their power and wealth is seen as an unbearable offence against what they divine as the natural order.
Tool of Class War
They are not about to leave anything to chance. Corbyn must be tarred and feathered again. Four years of experimenting with various smears have selected anti-Semitism as the weapon of choice. That false accusation can most easily be disguised to ensure it does not look like what it is intended to be when used against Corbyn and Labour: a tool of class war.
Claims of anti-Semitism have worked ideally in damaging Corbyn because no real evidence has been needed. In fact, such claims succeed even when opposed to the known evidence (as we shall see). They work chiefly by innuendo and emotion. And better still, they work even when those accused like Corbyn and his allies deny the accusation. As in all good witch-hunts, denial is proof of guilt, as an ally of Corbyn's, the MP Chris Williamson, has repeatedly found out. He has been barred from standing in the election, and has now resigned from the party, after correctly noting that Labour had in effect made the anti-Semitism smears appear more credible by constantly apologizing over evidence-free claims of anti-Semitism from those seeking to harm the party's image with voters.
This is a winning formula for the ruling class because anyone who tries to argue that Corbyn's opponents are weaponizing anti-Semitism through the corporate media is thereby proved to be an anti-Semite. The smears are entirely resistant to all evidence that they are smears.
Survey: Little Anti-Semitism on Left
That the anti-Semitism claims are slurs has been demonstrated over and over again. But paradoxically the latest refutation came last week from the corporate elite's house journal, The Economist -- though, of course, it was not presented that way .
The magazine published a new survey of British public opinion showing that an ideological group it labelled as "very left wing" -- presumably the people who share Corbyn's views -- were among the least likely to hold anti-Semitic opinions, even though they also had by far the most critical views of Israel (an outlook The Economist mischievously termed "highly anti-Israel").
In other words, those people on the left who firmly oppose Israel's oppression of the Palestinians were unlikely also to harbor anti-Jewish views. The great majority could clearly distinguish between Israel and Jews, and did not hold Jews responsible for the crimes committed by the state of Israel.
The same could not be said, however, of either the center or the right. Supporters of the right were less than half as likely to adopt critical views of Israel as the left but were three and a half times more likely to hold anti-Semitic views. Meanwhile, only a small number of centrists were critical of Israel, and an almost identical number held anti-Semitic views.
What the figures reveal is the very opposite of the Labour anti-Semitism narrative -- unless we wish to argue improbably that Labour and its 500,000 members (the largest party in Europe) are entirely unrepresentative of the wider public that shares their ideological worldview. The left overwhelmingly opposes Israeli colonial oppression of Palestinians but very few blame Jews for Israel's behavior. Israel is seen as a political project, one driven by an ugly ideology of settler colonialism, not a project representing all Jews. The latter is an anti-Semitic position that, paradoxically, is supported and promoted by Israel itself.
Conversely, the same figures suggest that there is an identifiable problem of racism and anti-Semitism on the right, and a potential one among centrists too. Whereas the left understands that Israel and Jews are entirely separate and distinct categories, both the center and right appear to share a tendency of conflating Israel and Jews.
Racism Rife on the Right
In the case of the right, the figures show a close correlation between opposition to Israel and anti-Jewish feeling. A significant portion of the right either blame Jews collectively for Israel's crimes or dislike Jews and so oppose the state that claims to represent them. Even though you would never know it from the media coverage, which concentrates exclusively on a supposed problem within the Labour Party, anti-Semitism is rife on the right in a way that simply isn't true on the left.
The survey also hints at the possibility of a more veiled problem of racism and latent anti-Semitism among "centrists," a group presumably represented politically by the Lib Dems and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party. Very few in this group express anti-Jewish sentiments – in fact, exactly the same small proportion as on the left. (Tellingly, despite these identical results, the Labour Party has been smeared as "institutionally anti-Semitic", whereas the centrist Lib Dems have not.)
Nonetheless, there is a significant difference between the two political blocs -- and one that could reflect much less well on the centrists than the left.
A much larger proportion of the centrist group appear to harbor sympathies for Israel, or at least view it uncritically, despite the ever-mounting evidence of Israel's record of human rights abuses and intensifying oppression of Palestinians.
Remember that large numbers of the centrist Blairite faction of Labour MPs (though not the wider Labour membership) belong to Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) and have proudly maintained their association with that organization. They have continued to do so even after the LFI at first vigorously defended, then fell silent on Israel's repeated massacres over the past 18 months of Palestinians protesters at the Gaza perimeter fence that encages them.
More than 220 Palestinians, including women, children, journalists, and medical staff, have been killed by Israeli snipers at the protests, while tens of thousands more have been maimed. But in a blatant example of anti-Arab racism, the LFI has blamed Hamas for these deaths, as though ordinary Palestinians in Gaza are simply pawns of Hamas and lack the volition to demand for themselves an end to an Israeli blockade that has imprisoned them for 12 years.
Centrists Conflate Jews & Israel
Only a quarter as many centrists as leftists are critical of Israel, according to The Economist survey. In other words, a proportion of centrists appear to identify with Israel's colonial oppression of Palestinians -- possibly because they favor Jews over Arabs and Muslims (presumably as part of a "clash of civilizations" worldview) or maybe because they have positive feelings about Jews that translate into uncritical support for Israel, whatever it does to the Palestinians it rules over.
That could indicate a significant problem of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice among centrists, similar to the ugly assumptions made by Jonathan Freedland and his "source." However, we can do little more than speculate on this point because the survey is concerned exclusively with Jews and Israel.
Nonetheless, the figures also allude to a potential anti-Semitism problem in the ranks of the centrist camp. The stark lack of criticism of Israel among centrists, combined with little anti-Semitism, suggests that a significant proportion of centrists, like right-wingers, consider Jews and Israel to be intimately connected -- that they struggle to disentangle a political project (Israel) from an ethnic or cultural group (Jews).
There is only a narrow distinction between a right-winger who conflates Israel and Jews in a way that vilifies Jews and a centrist who conflates Israel and Jews in a way that venerates Israel.
Rejecting Universal Rights
The difference in the respective outcomes of this conflation could reflect differing understandings of what Israel does. Israel's treatment of Palestinians – whether seen as justified or not – is then projected on to Jews. Once the conflation is accepted, Jews unfairly receive either credit (from centrists) or blame (from the right) for Israel's actions.
Or, more likely, the right-wingers and centrists who conflate Israel and Jews -- as a proportion appear to do -- are equally indulgent of a particularist and regressive approach to rights. Instead of committing to universal human rights, shared by all alike, the particularists assign superior rights to those they think of as more like themselves. Right-wingers, it seems, tend to exclude Jews from this category, while centrists have a greater tendency to include them.
But the danger is that, if these centrists can be persuaded that Jews are not part of their in-group -- for example, by undermining the idea of a supposed Judeo-Christian West, embodying the supposed values of "civilization" -- then they could be as susceptible as the right to a generalized Jew hatred. It is a commitment to universal human rights -- a doctrine to which most on the left subscribe but which some on the right and the center appear to reject -- that provides the only sure-fire political inoculation against racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular.
The Economist , of course, wishes to avoid drawing this very obvious conclusion, one implied by its findings, because that would wreck the narrative it and the rest of the corporate media have been constructing to damage Corbyn. In fact, The Economist poll echoes earlier research ignored by the corporate media, such as figures showing that instances of anti-Semitism in Labour amount to 0.08 percent of the membership, and surveys demonstrating that the Tory party -- and its "watermelon smiles" leader Boris Johnson -- have a far bigger problem with racism, towards both Muslims and Jews .
'Not a Whiff of Anti-Semitism'
Not everyone in the political and media class is ready to dance to the same tune, as was made clear in an interview that gently turned the tables on Alastair Campbell, chief adviser to Tony Blair when he was Labour prime minister. Campbell helped Blair distort the intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 that gave superficial credence to a different but equally confected story: both that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that those weapons were just a hair's-trigger away from being fired at the U.K. Up to 1 million Iraqis were killed as a result of that illegal war, and many millions more were driven from their homes.
Campbell, a man whose anti-Muslim, anti-Arab prejudices permitted him to help lay waste to another country on an entirely bogus pretext, and whose reputation in the corporate media suffered not a whit as a result, decided to use the interview to try to revive the Corbyn anti-Semitism smears and undermine Labour's chances of winning the election. Like other Blairites, Campbell has been an outspoken critic of Corbyn, even going public with the fact that he has started voting for the Lib Dems.
He asked his interviewee, John Bercow, the outgoing speaker of the House of Commons and a Jewish member of the Conservative Party, to comment on Corbyn and the anti-Semitism allegations. Campbell's transparent aim was to recruit Bercow to the smear campaign – both as a Jew and as someone who has come to be widely trusted since becoming house speaker as an arbiter of an even-handed politics.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SVcWo-W60lU?feature=oembed
Bercow's response was not what Campbell hoped for. The former speaker answered cautiously, but observed: "I myself have never experienced anti-Semitism from a member of the Labour Party I do not myself believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic I have known him for the 22 years I have been in parliament and I have never detected so much as a whiff of anti-Semitism from him."
Campbell's face could barely conceal his disappointment.
The interview was another reminder that those leading the anti-Semitism smear campaign often have, given their own histories, precisely zero credibility on the issue of racism, let alone class politics. Whatever they may think they believe, it is not racism that truly concerns Campbell or Freedland; it is their fear of a different kind of politics, one that requires from them an entirely different way of understanding British colonial history, of interpreting Britain's role in the world, and of ending the U.K.'s gaping class divide. They, like so many others in the media and political elite, are frightened that a different kind of politics might force them to look in the mirror – and finally understand that long ago they chose to stand with the oppressors rather than the oppressed.
Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist based in Nazareth. This article is from his blog Jonathan Cook.net .Tags: Anti-Semitism Jeremy Corbyn Jonathan Cook
Piotr Berman , November 19, 2019 at 01:48
"But it is not the left that conflates the corporate elite with Jews, it is rightwing journalists like Pollard."
The author does not understand what is (New) anti-Semitism. One of the un-enumerated symptoms is begrudging. It is OK to say that financial elite is largely Jewish. Especially if you are happy about it. But if you do not cherish those most productive members of the society for the oodles of money they produce every minute, then you make them insecure, and thus you are an anti-Semite. Perhaps of self-hating variety, although at that points perhaps even Mr. Pollard would feel some strain, a middle class Socialist Jew is not in this "most productive" elite.
Corbyn is vile in so many ways that the responsible forces in UK had to try all methods. The first I have read was that he is a bicyclist who uses a CHEAP (!!!) bike to go to work. A template from Maoist China. The second thing, he does not like Trident. How can Britannia rule the waves without Tridents, rented for the occasion from Colonials. Without Tridents, Russians would overrun Norway and than, in quick succession, Scotland and Isle of Man. Then I read that Corbyn is inept, so inept that he cannot be sufficiently snide during the question period in Parliament. And so on. (Everything from The Guardian.) I still do not understand why "anti-Semitism" is sticks so much better than this other stuff.
Cara MariAnna , November 18, 2019 at 14:48
Thank you Jonathan Cook (and CN) for this excellent in-depth analysis of how and why the predatory elite deploy false accusations of anti-semitism in their ongoing campaign to horde wealth, resources and power.
Joe Bien , November 18, 2019 at 10:48
Thank you, CN. Very good analysis/observation. That this is only one of countless cases of the same merry-go-round, of the same flaccid (yet effective) tactic(s) employed by the lobbies and individuals perpetuating the quashing of dissent, is, as ever, truly shocking and compelling.
Excellent article.Mark Thomason , November 16, 2019 at 14:56
The attack on Corbyn is just the elite seeking to smear him, in defense of their own interests. They have stolen so much, that they need now above all to stop anyone who would prevent them from keeping it all.
That Israel can be used in this turns on the fear that good government in Britain would not support what Israel has been doing for so long. No doubt. No principled government could, nor does any such government anywhere in the world.
The use of Israel in this way is just one more cost, one more burden borne, by the West. It is the price of doing the wrong that is the Israel Project today.
Israel could have been done better. It has not been. Especially under Netanyahu, it is an exercise in "How low can you go?" It has found deep depths, and has not yet ended its plunge.
bob , November 16, 2019 at 03:41
With z-list celebrities like Rachel Riley adding to the 'anti-semite' debate routinely on twitter this story will not ever go away until Corbyn does. One way and another the media elites under the tutalage of the upper classes in the UK Corbyn is depicted as everything that is 'evil' with the world. It is of course all fake news. There's no more anti-semitism in labour as any other part of the country. But it suits those in fear of change.
Drew Hunkins , November 15, 2019 at 17:24
Aww, the parasitic financial elite (of ALL religio-ethnic backgrounds) doesn't like Corbyn's policy proposals so they're going to resort to Alan Dershowitz style mud-slinging. What's new? They will resort to any tactic, no matter how vile and pernicious, in order to hold onto their class privileges. That 40% of working folks can't come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or medical bill simply does not matter.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
Israel's champions owe us an explanation. First, they insist that Israel is and always must be a Jewish state, by which most of them mean not religiously Jewish but of the "Jewish People" everywhere, including Jews who are citizens of other states and not looking for a new country. To be Jewish, according to the prevailing view, it is enough to have a Jewish mother (or to have been converted by an approved Orthodox rabbi). Belief in one supreme creator of the universe, in the Torah as the word of God, and in Jewish ritual need have nothing whatever to do with Jewishness. (We ignore here the many problems with this conception , such as: how can there be a secular Judaism?)
The definition of Jew has been bitterly controversial inside and outside of Israel since its founding. The point is, as anthropologist Roselle Tekiner wrote, "When the central task of a state is to import persons of a select religious/ethnic group -- and to develop the country for their benefit alone -- it is crucially important to be officially recognized as a bona fide member of that group." (This is from the anthology Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections , which is not online and is apparently out of print. But see Tekiner's article, "Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands." )
Second, Israel's champions insist that Israel is a democracy -- indeed, the only democracy in the Middle East. They vehemently object whenever someone demonstrates how Israel-as-the-state-of-the-Jewish-People must harm the 25 percent of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish, most of whom are Arabs.
Israeli law uniquely distinguishes citizenship from nationality . The nationality of an Israeli Arab citizen is "Arab" not Israeli, while the nationality of a Jewish citizen is "Jewish" not Israeli. Are citizens of any other country distinguished in law like that? The prohibition on marriage between Jews and non-Jews is not the result of political bargaining with religious parties but of a desire to protect the Jewish people from impurity. These contortions are required by Israel's self-declared status as something other than the land of all its citizens. Early Zionists said they wanted Palestine to be as Jewish as Britain is British and France is French -- a flagrant category mistake that has had horrific consequences for the Palestinians.
The insistence by Israel's supporters -- that Israel can be both Jewish and democratic -- thus is puzzling. What does it mean for Israel to be a Jewish state if that status has no real consequences for non-Jews? If all it meant was that the Star of David was on the flag, we might hear far fewer objections to Israel. But of course it means much more.
To see what it means, one has to look beyond Israel's Declaration of Independence, Basic Law (its de facto constitution), and specific statutes, which contain language that on its face forbids discrimination against non-Jews. We should know better than to take official documents at face value. What matters in any society is the "real constitution," the principles that underlie commonly accepted behavior. The old Soviet Union's constitution listed freedom of the press among the "rights" of Soviet citizens, and the U.S. Constitution says that only Congress may declare war and that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
More pertinent, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, wherein the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," also stated that "it [was] clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." We know how that worked out.
So what's the story inside Israel? (I'm not talking about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel has occupied for 52 years and where Palestinians have no rights whatever.)
After doing an interview recently about my new book, Coming to Palestine , I was challenged by a listener over my statements that the Israeli government treats Arab and Jewish criminals differently depending on whether they shed "Jewish blood" or "Arab blood" (no such distinction actually exists) and that political parties can't call for changing Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens.
Who is right?
Regarding criminal justice, Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy shows anecdotally that Arab Israeli citizens who kill Jews can spend more time in prison than Israeli Jewish citizens who kill Arabs. "Arab blood is cheaper in Israel," Levy wrote in 2014, "and Jewish blood is thicker." He says things are the same today. Over the years, many articles have been published documenting this de facto, though not de jure, disparity. Indeed, Ha'aretz reported in 2011 that
Arab Israelis who have been charged with certain types of crime are more likely than their Jewish counterparts to be convicted, and once convicted they are more likely to be sent to prison, and for a longer time. These disparities were found in a recent statistical study commissioned by Israels Courts Administration and the Israel Bar Association . The [unpublished preliminary] study is unique in that it is the first of its kind to be commissioned and funded in part by the courts administration, and in that it sought to examine claims by attorneys that Israeli judges deal more harshly with Arab criminals than with Jews.
Note that government discrimination against non-Jews across the spectrum of issues is not usually written into the law, although it may be . Mostly flagrantly, discrimination is legally applied to the "right of return." People defined as Jews, no matter where they were born or live, can become
Israeli citizens/nationals virtually on arrival, while Arabs driven from their ancestral homes in 1947-48 and 1967 may not go back, much less become full-rights citizens/nationals. Put concretely, I, an atheist born in Philadelphia to Jewish parents born in Philadelphia (with roots likely in the vicinity of the Black Sea), can "return" [sic] to Israel and become an Israeli citizen at once, while my friend Raouf Halaby, a naturalized American citizen born to Arab Christian parents in west Jerusalem three years before Israel was founded, may not. The only difference is that my mother was Jewish, making me, a Spinozist, a Jewish national in Israel's eyes, and Raouf's mother was not.
Regarding restrictions on political parties, the Basic Law: The Knesset states :
A candidates' list [party] shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include :
1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
Before proceeding, let us note a conundrum. The issue I'm raising here is whether a state be both Jewish and democratic. The root of the word democracy is demos , people. So if the raison d'être of Israel is the welfare of only some of its citizens and millions of certain others who are citizens and residents of other countries, how can Israel be a real democracy? Strictly speaking, considering that word and , the law's language legitimizes a party that "negat[es] the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state" but not as a democratic state. Would the Israeli election authorities accept that distinction? I don't think so.
In the past the Israeli Supreme Court has reversed government bans on a party's or candidate's inclusion in an election. Particular cases will revolve around the exact wording of a party's mission statement or candidate's platform, and legal language is subject to endless, unpredictable, and political interpretation. But, regardless, the government has the power to ban at its disposal, and future Supreme Courts may not be so liberal. So the threat of a ban always looms. Incidentally, a party or candidate that engages in "incitement to racism" is also ineligible to participate in elections, yet this provision has yet to be applied to Jewish parties and politicians, such as Likud and Benjamin Netanyahu, that routinely spout racist rhetoric.
Israel's champions also deny that Arab Israelis -- citizens, mind you -- have grossly inferior access to land, most of which is owned by a "public" authority and the Jewish National Fund (very little is privately owned); building and village permits; public utilities; education; roads; and other government-controlled services and resources. The Israeli government has carried out programs in the Galilee and Negev, known as Judaization, from which Arab Israelis, especially Bedouins, have been cleared to make way for Jewish Israelis. Such restrictions inside Israel have the stink of apartheid.
In his book Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination, and Democracy , Ben White documents that the Israeli government allocates resources -- unsurprisingly -- just as one would expect, considering that Israel by its founding doctrine is not the land of all of its citizens but only of some. This doctrine was reinforced last year in the Nation-State Law , which declares that "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
So, as Israel's champions say, all Israeli citizens are indeed equal. It's just that some -- those whose nationality is "Jewish" -- are more equal than others -- those whose nationality is "Arab" or anything else but "Jewish." Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Sheldon Richman
Sheldon Richman , author of Coming to Palestine , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2019 | www.unz.com
V. Jews, Big Capital, and the Ruling ClassEqually unsustainable is the implication that Big Capital and the establishment ruling class is not, and has not been, significantly Jewish over historical time. Žižek simplifies and caricatures the Middle Ages as a time when "the Jew emerged as the enemy, a parasitic intruder who disturbs the harmonious social edifice." Žižek obviously employs the term "harmonious social edifice" with skepticism and disdain, seeing the pre-existing order (that before the arrival of the Jews) as fraught with exploitation, tensions, and contradictions. In Žižek's framework then, Jews may be a chaotic capitalist force that enters Europe, but this was a Europe already experiencing chaotic capitalist forces, and therefore it would be irrational to blame Jews for anything arising from their emergence and expansion in Europe. What needs to be distinguished here is the distinction between what might be termed the organic development of finance in Europe, [18] For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown, Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973). and the exorbitant and often extremely negative developments ushered in by the arrival of the Jews and their subsequent special relationship with European elites and with capitalism itself.
The organic development of finance and class divisions in Europe is demonstrated in the evolution of feudalism as a result of the adoption of heavy cavalry by the Franks in the eighth century, with other, non-military, aspects of continental feudalism arising as the inevitable social repercussions of this change in military organization. [19] Ibid .
(For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown, Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973).) Since knights needed money, horses, servants, attendants, and freedom from all other non-military occupations, like tilling the soil, knighthood gradually became an upper-class affair. Increasing technological sophistication then made mounted warfare more and more expensive and caused knights to become more sharply distinguished from the ordinary peasant. It also caused free peasants to become less and less valuable as soldiers, and they therefore declined towards mere servitude. It was, therefore, in a sense inevitable that the new class of knights should become a landed aristocracy, and its members were thus in a sense destined to low-level jurisdiction of a semi-agricultural kind over their peasants. This situation really was, in a sense, a "harmonious social edifice" to the extent that it followed a clear logic and permitted these communities and their territories to be competitive in a rapidly changing military and geopolitical context. The ruling classes were obliged to adopt paternalistic practices in relation to the peasantry, and outright exploitation was rare since it could be dangerous and counterproductive in that it could provoke a mass uprising and thus damage militarily-valuable social cohesion. The social edifice was thus indeed "harmonious" in the sense that it was coordinated and balanced, and was generally beneficial to the organic national community.The arrival of Jews in Europe undoubtedly created an imbalance in these class relations, and between the ruling class and the lower orders. Evidence of this imbalance in medieval Europe can be obtained both from surviving documentation and artefacts, and from analogous modern situations such as the the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, during which Jewish intrusion into the existing quasi-feudal social arrangement ended in widespread rebellion and societal collapse due to the specific excesses of Jewish exploitation. The arrival of the Jews in Western Europe as a financial and geopolitical power can be dated to their ascent under the Carolingians in the ninth century, and possibly earlier in the Narbonne where they were noted as an extraordinarily wealthy class. In this development, the birth of formal, symbiotic relationships between Jews and self-interested European elites, we see a crucial fissure in European class relations. Jewish financiers entered into the harmonious social edifice as privileged and protected outsiders whose sole purpose was to accelerate and distort resource transfer between European classes, rendering internal class division less about communal efficiency than about personal gain. In this system, paternalism gave way to such situations as the permitted Jewish trade in Christian slaves (a key reason for the agitations for Agobard of Lyons) and widespread exploitative tax farming.
One of the great modern myths, a stroke of Jewish revisionist genius, is that Jews were forced into such practices by restrictive laws on the ownership of land, and certain other local contexts. This is historicist relativism at its most bankrupt and, thankfully, modern scholarship is slowly eroding such misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. Take, for example, the most recent edition of The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion , which states the "remarkable" fact that Jews
whether in Narbonne in 899 or Gironne in 922, in Trier in 919 or Worms in 1090, in Barcelona in 1053 or Toledo in 1222, or in early medieval England, were permitted to acquire and own land if they wished. Not only were Jews legally permitted to own land, they could acquire significant amounts (especially in Italy, southern Spain, southern and east-central France, and Germany); possessed fields, gardens, and vineyards; and owned, transferred, and mortgaged land holdings. They preferred to hire tenants, sharecroppers, and wage laborers to work their lands. For themselves, they chose the most skilled and profitable occupations, foremost money lending. [20] R. M. McCleary (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 68.
Essentially then, we see the immediate and deliberate entrance of the Jews into European society at the level of knight, if not higher, but without any of the logic or benefits of the position of knight within the organic social edifice. The Jew in this new social order existed for no logical reason other than the personal enrichment of certain elites and the communal enrichment of the Jews themselves. This may be regarded as the first perversion of capitalism and the first true exploitation (excessive or unfair use of workers with no reason other than greed) of the serving class within this system.
Again, dispensing with historicist relativism, we can demonstrate the pattern of Jewish disruptive behaviors within capitalism with reference to analogous modern conditions. For example, the arenda system of late nineteenth- and early twentieth century-eastern Europe (especially Poland, Ukraine, and Romania) was remarkably similar to the feudal system of medieval Western Europe. The arenda system can be regarded as broadly harmonious until the mass influx of Jewish arendasi during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which saw the Jews increasingly operate as tax farmers, property agents, customs agents, and loan merchants. Jewish monopoly in these roles prompted both the rapid commercialization of land and the expansion of Big Capital, both of which were intended by Jews to exclusively benefit their in-group. Since the existence of entire Jewish communities depended on exploitative capitalism, Jews fiercely contended for monopolies in key areas. For example , The Va'ad Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Jewish Council) twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of customs and taxes by Jews, stating: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control."
Crucially, high Jewish position in the social hierarchy was not accompanied by paternalism of any kind. In fact, Jews are notable throughout history for their incredibly hostile and exploitative behaviors towards non-elite Europeans. Philip Eidelberg, a historian of the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, describes how Jewish arendasi " exploited the estates more ruthlessly than the native Rumanian arendasi ." He continues by explaining that Jews were not interested in the long-term prosperity of estates or their workers, and often hiked rents to breaking point "even at the risk of eventually exhausting the available land and inventory." [21] P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39. In Rumania, Jews enjoyed monopolies, with Eidelberg demonstrating that Jewish bankers would decline to grant capital to any non-Jew wanting to enter this form of finance. [22] Ibid , 120.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39.) Thus, the Jews competed for profit solely with each other, ever-increasing the chokehold on their European peasantries. Eidelberg writes that "the result was a bidding spiral in which the peasant was the loser. In fact, it was just such a competition between the two greatest Jewish arendas families -- the Fischers and the Justers -- which was to help spark the 1907 revolt." [23] Ibid, 39.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39.)Jews, of course, continue to occupy conspicuous roles in the worst and most exploitative aspects of capitalism. Jews have also continued to acquire land for exploitative purposes, the most interesting example being the Argentinian activities of the British Jewish oligarch Joe Lewis , a tax avoider and currency speculator who made his billions alongside George Soros when both gambled on the British pound sterling crashing out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. As one commentator explains, "Soros' and Lewis' bet against the pound actually led to the pound crashing, after Soros ordered his hedge fund to " go for the jugular " and aggressively trade against the currency, thereby prompting its sharp devaluation. Though Soros is often called "the man who broke the Bank of England" as a result of the $1 billion in profits he made on that fateful day, Lewis is said to have made an even larger profit than Soros." While these Jews made billions, the British public suffered a rapid economic recession. Lewis didn't mind. He repeated the experiment in Mexico, causing the Mexican peso crisis , which "led to a massive jump in poverty, unemployment and inequality in Mexico and left its government beholden to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through a loan package arranged by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton."
Growing extravagantly rich from parasitic currency speculation, Jewish oligarchs Soros and Lewis, together with co-ethnic Big Capitalists Eduardo Elsztain and Marcelo Mindlin, started buying massive tracts of Argentine real estate, particularly in Patagonia, where they pooled resources to take over local banks, the regional water supply, oil and gas wealth, and the area's largest energy supplier. Lewis then set about buying tens of thousands of hectares, declaring his wish to create "his own state in Patagonia." Some locals were willing to sell their land. One, Irineo Montero, had refused, and he, along with his wife María Ortiz and their employee José Matamala, were all found dead under mysterious circumstances. Lewis' land consolidation was then made complete, and paved the way for a Zionist enclave that has exploited locals so thoroughly that there have been regular massive demonstrations ("March for Sovereignty) against this new Jewish ruling class, attracting 80 percent of the local population. According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan, Lewis is much more amenable to his fellow Jews, and has been inviting thousands of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers to his territory annually. In late 2017, former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan alleged : "Since the Falklands War, the Israeli army has been organizing 'holiday camps' in Patagonia for its soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis' land."
What we see here is just a very modern example of the millennia-old Jewish pattern of establishing full-scale operations for extracting a nation's riches and exploiting its people. We must earnestly ask of Slavoj Žižek: Has Big Capital and the establishment ruling class not been, and does it not remain, significantly Jewish
Digital Samizdat , says: November 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm GMT
Another ringer from Andrew Joyce! We are so lucky to have him. He is helping us all to recover our collective racial memory (as Jung might call it) as White Gentiles.israel shamir , says: November 21, 2019 at 10:02 pm GMTIn April 2019, Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto for their debate titled "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism"
And who, pray tell, was invited to defend the honor of National Socialism?
In a 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled "Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew," Žižek argued that anti-Semitism places Jews in "impossible Otherness"
Judaism places Jews in "impossible Otherness." Their bizarre 'chosenness' is the root of their collective pathology. (Notice how all their theories concerning our supposed ethno-centrism are just so much projection!)
It is a matter of special irony that Marxists should present their own contradictions in relation to anti-Semitism and the supposed psychosocial aspects of the anti-Semite.
Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the Jews in Zur Judenfrage ? Here's a well-known passage:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange . The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Pretty frickin' harsh, eh! I guess if old Karl were still around to hear the pathetic maunderings of post-modern Communists like Žižek, he would just shake his head and say, 'I am not a Marxist.'
According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan
That's interesting, Dr. Joyce. I've been following him over at Voltaire-net on and off for nearly a decade, and I had no idea that Meyssan had been an intelligence officer. Neither Wikipedia nor Infogalatic ever mention it. Good to know
I wrote about ZizekSam J. , says: November 23, 2019 at 11:13 am GMThttp://www.unz.com/ishamir/slavoj-zizek-and-freedom-flotilla/
Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. The Slovenian philosopher spoke kindly of the swindler Bernie Madoff, who was "a scapegoat who was easy to blame, when in fact the real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed Madoff to commit his crimes." Indeed, it must have been 'the system' that pushed poor Mr. Madoff into crime, just as it was 'the system' that pushed Shylock to enter into money-lending and Jack the Ripper into the business of carving.
" Rubin wrote that all anti-Semites see Jews as both:John Gruskos , says: November 23, 2019 at 11:59 pm GMTMoronic, brilliant.
All-powerful, weakling.
Cosmopolitan, provincial.
Cunning, naïve.
Extraordinarily sensitive, calloused.
"Nigger-lovers," "worst bigots."
Richest, poorest.
Artistic, tasteless.
Money-lovers, intellectual snobs.
Socially pushy, exclusively clannish.
"Some of the above are correct but there's a much more succinct and accurate description. There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.
Even if I'm wrong thousands of years of history show a bunch of Jews moving into your territory in in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths moving into your country
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers.
COMPLETE LIST OF JEWISH EXPULSIONS (1,030)
Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley.pdf
or
Here's another link but the graphics are a bit odd.
" In the course of his European Graduate School lecture, Žižek comments that "the real mystery of anti-Semitism is why it is a constant "
This is not a mystery at all. NO ONE can stand psychopaths over the long term. They're fucked up. You even hear Jews leaving Israel because the culture is so fucked up. Even psychopaths don't want to live with psychopaths.
The only know recipe to living with psychopaths recommended by psychiatrist is don't live with them at all. The sooner we realize that the Jews are a damaged, evil, twisted tribe of psychopaths and there's no reasoning, dealing, co-opting or living with them the better we will be. The only 100%. guaranteed, tried and true, tested with 100% satisfaction of dealing with the Jews is to get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means necessary get them away from you and leave them no control of any sort over your country or any other aspect of your and your countrymen's lives.
@israel shamirJohn Gruskos , says: November 24, 2019 at 12:16 am GMTthe real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed Madoff to commit his crimes
The slovenly Slovene succinctly summarizes Marxism.
Fidelpoludo , says: November 24, 2019 at 8:22 am GMTŽižek copying, almost verbatim, a review of MacDonald's book by Stanley Hornbeck that appeared in the March 1999 issue of The American Renaissance.
What a damning indictment of American Renaissance!
Slavoj Zizek, the uttermost dregs of human intellectual depravity, agrees so utterly with an Amren article he feels comfortable copying it word for word as it it were his own!
@Digital SamizdatRobert Dolan , says: November 25, 2019 at 5:23 am GMTHave these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the Jews in "Zur Judenfrage"?
This "well-known (pretty frickin' harsh) passage" is permanently cited by anti-marxists to denunciate "Karl" as "antisemite" and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis of capital (for being founded in his "antisemitism").
By the way, it is not necessary to imagine "old Karl" to be "still around" or "to turn in his grave" to enlighten us with the word "I am not a Marxist". If we can trust in the words of Engels he said it in reality: "What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist" (a remark cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).Yeah .they are a horrible people to be sure and they've cucked the entire western world.neutral , says: November 25, 2019 at 9:09 am GMTThomm is a low IQ degenerate, but he's right about one thing ..it truly is astonishing that such a small group could engineer so much destruction.
Regarding this whole "jews are both for communism and capitalism, and thus anti semites are full of contradictory nonsense", one needs to point the obvious fact that these jewish inventions are meant for consumption for the gentiles and not the jews.Irish Savant , says: Website November 25, 2019 at 10:57 am GMTSome will think that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are polar opposites, but this is not true, both preached a universal ideology, and both would not think it is problem at the same time that jews are immune from this ideology (because Marx would no doubt support Israel if it existed at his time).
A car-wreck of logic indeed. What absolute rubbish Zizek comes up with. JM Keynes observed that economics exists only to give astrology a good name. Judging by today's 'philosophers' the same could be said about them.anon [138] Disclaimer , says: November 25, 2019 at 12:48 pm GMT@israel shamir It's the system that has allowed Slavoj Zizek to showcase his theory . System works with usual laziness who knows who and not what .anon [153] Disclaimer , says: November 25, 2019 at 1:27 pm GMTIf Maddoff were a victim may be Epstein was , then so were Hitler and Polpot
System around them allowed them to reach mass appeal and inflict severe damages .
Abusing system is not self-victimization . Prince Andrew did not hurt self .It's the system one works to prevent undesirable products . We undermine the system .
When you side with proponents of right for Palestinian or the victims of usury banking , financialization or against penchant for military budget or eternal war you bring normal perspective , you restore balance between cause and effect and you remove artificial false intellectual reasoning g like existence of antisemitism or American responsibility or America being the beacon to humanity or America being a mystic abstract concept of higher values .
Allowing and worshipping these kinds of ideas
we make inroads by the parasites possibleAbstract concept is easy target for corruption distortion emotional manipulation .
Antisemitidm should be described and that description should be applied to other anti -ism ( anti black anti Arab anti Iran anti Chinese anti Vietnamese anti Russian etc ) epidemiological survey should be conducted along those detailed descriptive points not like -the way ADL puts out questionnaires .
It is time for Slavoj Zizek. to go to a library and get hold of the books by Herzl just to get started .
@anon masonry is clear example of this they tricked british and french people that let jews play an important paper in the ideological foundation ,germans understanding the danger but recon¡gnizing that the ilustration was the way of the future adapted his own version of masonry with greek symbols and pure european myths and of course mantaining jews out of the inner circle of power more or less like in scandinavia .Greg Bacon , says: Website November 25, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT
spanish people simply banned the masonry .its curious how italian and iberians and their colonies were able to crush any jewish resistance and asimilate the rest of them in the new world even if they arent the smartest europeans .
i think we need a fusion of german and latin character to face this new era
There's around 200 nations in the world and if I may be so bold–since this is going against the Cultural Marxists agenda that race is a social construct–4 main races that contain around 30 subgroups.Verymuchalive , says: November 25, 2019 at 1:42 pm GMT
In other words, lots of stories to pick from for the MSM.Yet, day after day after day, we usually only hear about ONE nation and ONE race, Israel and the Jews.
It's gotten all so tiresome to have these human peacocks constantly parading around, demanding that us Goyim worship them or else.
And if we fail–in their minds–to show them the proper adoration, we get accused of anti-Semitism.Does this insanity ever stop?
@HammerJack Andrew Joyce's work would never appear in American Renaissance. Taylor and his cohorts prevent any criticism of Jewish involvement in White dispossession.anon [138] Disclaimer , says: November 25, 2019 at 1:51 pm GMThttps://medium.com/@rosselson/theodor-herzl-visionary-or-antisemite-97bfbe92980Verymuchalive , says: November 25, 2019 at 2:11 pm GMTHerzl did not like Jews , celebrated possible future conversion of his son , thought en masse conversion to Christianity , did not think of allowing Hebrew as state language and did not conceive Shabbat a holiday
But also thought sneak attack on local Arab , planned deceptive discussions and ploys to make them leave Palestine without arousing immediate large scale protests , he offered the service of new state to be a barrier between uncivilized Asia and developed Europe , he promised Balfour of protecting British interest
He wanted no Arab in the midst and eagerly and glowingly promised his visions of equal democratic society .
Above all he can't pull it off himself . He needed help . He needed money that he by threat and persuasion got from rich Jew . What about other nations shedding their non Jews blood to erect a pure Jews nation ????
His minions got there also by lying false promising misrepresenting and bribing They also used religious hatred of Christianity to Islam and racial hatred of European to Arab and Turkey .
Britain pod in blood and money Now its Germany and USA .-- -- --
But there are antisemite thinking or musing that. A-gentile never be able to get rid of , so said the Slovenian
The paradoxes Mr Slovenian sees in antisemite argument is what litter the philosophy of Zionism .
@Digital Samizdat Meyssan is a leftist of North African origin. Earlier in his career, he was involved in harassing the National Front and other parties of the right.tumi , says: November 25, 2019 at 2:33 pm GMTFrom 1996 to 1999, he worked as substitute coordinator of the National Committee of Surveillance against the extreme right, which held weekly meetings with the 45 major political parties, unions and associations belonging to the French left-wing in order to draw up a common response to escalating intolerance
I think Dr Joyce mistakes Meyssan's involvement in the above committee with that of performing intelligence functions. Meyssan was an enthusiastic supporter of Hate Speech laws to be used against the Right. Except later he fell foul of them himself and no longer lives in France.
Indeed, for an anti-segregation organization, the early NAACP was essentially divided between the Jews who ran it, and the Blacks who went along for the ride. As Hasia Diner puts it in In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, many in the NAACP's Jewish leadership "worked most intensely with other Jews."[7]"Anon [409] Disclaimer , says: November 25, 2019 at 2:56 pm GMTMuslim has replaced Blacks . Muslim "leaders " seek in Israel the conduit to power or pipeline to something ( usually end up getting less scornful hateful mutterings in Fox and WSJ ) . In return they attend interfaith meeting to be lectured ,open up discussing Koran with ideas of dropping some pages ,and agreeing to hate Shia ,agreeing to start propaganda against Iran Syria and Muslim Brotherhood ,spreading the FDD orchestrated fear of Iran, imbibing hook line and slinkier the narrative against Iran Syria Hizbullah Libya Houthi and Taliban or Qatar . Add to that Russia and china also. And they start discussing direct flight from Tel Aviv to Medina from where their prophet once banned the Jews after decades of deceptive behaviors of the Jewish clan.
What does muslim get ? The same stuff the blacks got- violence drugs sex trafiiciking, destruction of community, shuttering down of school college and enrichment of few who sing Hosana to the Jews .
For the time it is ;limited mostly to ME S Asia and N Africa . But I won't be supposed to see it get into a more permanent footing in USA ,Canada,Australia. For a back on the back Muslim will hurt themselves the way Afroamerican were taken for a ride.Nice, that the Oxford Handbook cited sells for $429 over at Amazon. I hadn't liked Joyce's articles particularly, but this one is helpful because it shows not just history, but the link to current events. Particularly useful the info about Joe Lewis, (never heard about him before). Doubly so in view of the fact that South America seems very unstable now, with a migrant expulsion towards Mexico/US that is as bad as the Syria-to-Europe a few years back. But much more under the radar.. no "color this" or "spring that" hashtags this time.jack daniels , says: November 25, 2019 at 3:00 pm GMT@neutral Capitalism and communism have materialism in common. Various schemes based on religious principles vary from both.Germanicus , says: November 25, 2019 at 3:48 pm GMTSecondly, a capitalist can favor communism so long as it doesn't damage his own interests.
1) He may be able to make money trading with a foreign communist government e.g. Kaiser, Ford.
2) He may favor communism as a means of destroying the old Christian order, which was the case with US capitalists who funded the Bolsheviks e.g. Schiff, Warburg, Hammer.
3) A corrupt communist regime may allow selected friendly capitalists to flourish with in effect a state subsidy. Most regimes of any kind are corrupt.The idea that a capitalist can't be a communist is childishly simplistic, really just a slogan.
@Fidelpoludoanonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: November 25, 2019 at 4:16 pm GMT"Karl" as "antisemite" and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis of capital (for being founded in his "antisemitism").
Nonsense, Moses Mordechai Levi advocated for the establishment of a privately owned central bank, and never criticized interest/usury.
@israel shamir [Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. ]Who were these 'sincerely dissident Israelis' who didnot' know Zizek is a zionist charlatan?
They are not 'sincere' but they are like him zionist jews.This fact is obvious many years now and he showed himself as a zionist racist anti Palestinians and non Jew many years ago in Israel. Who are these dummies that they don't know who is Zizek.
Zizek like Trump is a charlatan zionist racist. He is a fraud like Henry Bernard Levy
You should see the video when he appeared at 'charlie Rose program' – a womanizer and racist American exceptionalism, to see how this 'communist' clown was admiring Jewish capitalism to please another clown charlie rose.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
johnf , 21 November 2019 at 02:26 AM
...Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael's far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra orthodox parties as "anti-semitic!"
... ... ...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/left-and-right-unite-in-denouncing-libermans-anti-semitic-speech/
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
I've just finished reading the uncorrected proof copy an excellent study of the manufactured Labour "antisemitism crisis". [Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Antony Lerman, Justin Schlossberg and David Miller, Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party & Public Belief (London: Pluto Press, 2019)]
The launching point for the book's analysis is a national poll, accompanied by the use of focus groups, on how people make judgments and form opinions.
The results showed that on average people believed that a third of Labour Party members had been reported for antisemitism. A key part of the authors' investigation was to examine how it could be that so many people came to believe this when the actual figure was far less than 1%.
The book focuses on how this chasm between (mis)perception came to exist. The authors used questionnaires as part of their survey, and the anonymous written answers show just how ignorant and poorly informed many Brits are -- a significant percentage believe what they read in the trashy rightwing tabloids or what they see on TV!
Some focus group members even believed Corbyn would bring in Sharia Law if elected.
Bad News for Labour begins with an overview of the focus group discussions. Several participants in the focus groups who came believing that a third of Labour Party members had been reported for antisemitism revised this number downwards, sensibly, as the group discussions went on and participants took to educating each other.
At the same time focus group members believed the controversy has done serious damage to the party.
What is clear is that for Ukania's Joe and Jill Normal, who don't often go beyond the newspaper headlines to look at news sources, etc., it is the case that
MASSIVE MEDIA COVEREAGE OF X = X MUST BE A BIG PROBLEM.
Bad News for Labour then looks at the plethora of competing positions and interests within Labour which created a confusing context for dealing with the antisemitism controversy. The authors identify 3 main areas:
1) the argument that there was a significant and widespread problem regarding antisemitism within the Labour Party;
2) that the issue was being used to undermine Labour's left leadership, and specifically Jeremy Corbyn, as part of the internal politics of the Party;
3) that the controversy was linked to the defence of Israel and attempts to change Labour policy with regard to that state.
The crucial factor here is that no matter what steps Labour's left leadership takes to deal with the party's antisemitism problems (and these steps have been taken, unevenly and somewhat slowly), those bent on ousting Corbyn as leader for reasons internal to the party's politics will not cease their efforts no matter what Labour does to address antisemitism within its membership.
The perfect example here is Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, who is on the payroll of the UK's Zionist lobby. Watson did his utmost to stoke the fires of the antisemitism crisis. Sensing now he has played his full hand on this issue, he is currently using Brexit as his foil for attacking Corbyn.
Labour has edged its way towards a fragile truce within itself on Brexit, by making the ridding of Johnson and the Tories its priority, so that having a general election is the first objective, and only after that can such matters as a second EU referendum with options of a viable deal and remain be contemplated.
Watson is now trying to upset this arrangement by saying a second Brexit referendum has to come before a general election (echoing a position taken by Blair a few days before) -- a ridiculous proposition, because having a referendum first will simply reopen divisions within Labour that existed during and after the first Brexit referendum. Far better to win an election, which will leave Labour more in control of events (and probably more united by virtue of electoral success), and then tackle the thorny matter of a second EU referendum.
Watson was promptly slapped down by Corbyn.
Bad News for Labour sensibly suggests that the best way for Corbyn and the party's left to overcome these attempts by Labour's mainly Blairite rightwing to undermine the Left is for the Blairites to be deselected by their local Labour parties as candidates in the next election.
Several Blairites, knowing they face deselection, have already jumped ship and joined the centrist Lib Dems while a couple went on to be Independents. Other Blairites, knowing which way the wind is blowing, have announced they won't be standing in the next election.
The outrage of the Labour Zionists making life difficult for Corbyn is highly selective. It is certainly true that some of these Labour MPs received antisemitic abuse (though mainly from people who were not party members).
At the same time, the Labour politician Diane Abbott, a Corbyn ally who is shadow home secretary/interior minister, was targetted by racists, though this has received much less media attention. Amnesty International's research showed that Abbott received 45% of all abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the 6 weeks before the 2017 election.
The crux of Labour's antisemitism controversy is the bruhaha over its grudging acceptance of the flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of "antisemitism". The media's coverage of this controversy was framed by 2 assumptions: that under Corbyn antisemitism in Labour had become "institutionalized", and that Corbyn and his associates had failed to counter this.
The IHRA definition is deeply flawed, so much so that it is deemed not fit to be given any legal standing.
Media coverage of Labour's disputes with this definition cloak this fact by referring to it as "the widely accepted IHRA definition", "the widely accepted definition put forward by the IHRA", "the IHRA's widely accepted definition", "the global definition of antisemitism", "the globally recognized definition", "the near universally accepted definition", and so on, in effect suggesting that Labour was completely out of line in its reluctance to accept the 38-word definition, despite the fact that a powerful body of legal opinion saw it as a hopelessly vague statement accompanied by a rag-bag of "examples".
The IHRA examples in effect make it automatic that any characterization of Israel as "racist" is perforce "antisemitic", in this way placing Israel's apartheid policy towards Palestinians beyond criticism.
Under immense pressure Labour alas caved-in and accepted the definition and all its examples.
Perhaps the fact that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's announcement in May that it was investigating Labour's handling of antisemitism complaints following submissions from the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Antisemitism had something to do with Labour's capitulation on this score.
Bad News for Labour therefore trades on a double entendre -- news that is bad for Labour, but also "faux news" that itself is bad precisely because of its all-too-common distortions, biases, and underlying malicious intent. It's no surprise that two Murdoch papers, The Times and Sun , have been at the forefront of this campaign against Labour.
Perhaps more surprising are the outfits that kept company with Murdoch newspapers in this campaign against Corbyn, namely, the supposedly objective BBC and the "progressive" Guardian , both of which matched the Murdoch rags step for step in a rush for the gutter.
Bad News for Labour presents a flood of evidence detailing how this campaign was confected and what its effects on the party have been.
Since I'm a British citizen I'll be in the UK next week attending the Labour Party annual conference as a member-delegate. Testing the waters on this issue will be interesting to say the least.
Meanwhile the media say nary a word about the rampant Islamophobia in the Conservative Party (starting with its leader, BoJo, and his insouciantly feeble jokes about burka-wearing women looking like "letter boxes" and "bank robbers", and so on), and the fact that surveys show antisemitism to be more prevalent in the Tories than it is in Labour.
As Americans say: go figure.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Kenneth SurinKenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org
Browse by Topic Poetry on Sunday Latest Articles
Recommended Reading
- The Coiner's Delicate Proposition, In Practice
Paul Tristram / 09/15/2019- Scents of Presence
T.P. Wilkinson / 09/15/2019- Behind the Veil of Birth
Scott Thomas Outlar / 09/15/2019- diving into bedlam
Paul Haeder / 09/15/2019- The Grinathon
Henry Bladon / 09/15/2019- slaughterhouse five times ten
Paul Cech / 09/15/2019- Title as evidence
Sheshu Babu / 09/15/2019- Dope Peddlers in Brooks Brothers Suits
George Salamon / 09/15/2019- The Patriot Act three times
Don Krieger / 09/15/2019- How to find a Tiger in Africa
T.P. Wilkinson / 09/14/2019A False Accusation of Antisemitism from Where You Would Least Expect It
Plunder of the Commons: A Manifesto for Sharing Public Wealth Guy Standing
The Plot to Overthrow Venezuela: How the U.S. Is Orchestrating a Coup for Oil Dan Kovalik
Obama's Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State Jeremy Kuzmarov
Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons Kris Newby
Future Histories: What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Can Teach Us About Digital Technology Lizzie O'Shea
Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age Ellen Brown
The Five Hundred Year Rebellion: Indigenous Movements and the Decolonization of History in Bolivia Benjamin Dangl
How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Daniel Immerwahr
Sand and Blood: Americas Stealth War on the Mexico Border John Carlos Frey
and Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year Michael Hudson
- More books "
by Jeff Blankfort / September 12th, 2019
I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.
-- Benjamin Netayahu, 2001, quoted in Ha'aretz , July 15, 2010
It is not uncommon, of course, to be labeled "anti-Semitic" for calling attention to the inordinate power of the Israel Lobby over our political processes or suggesting that the Iraq War was launched on Israel's behalf. The last place that I would expect to find such an allegation, however, was on the CounterPunch website to which I have contributed a number of articles on the subject over the years.
On August 2nd in an opinion piece by Ron Jacobs, headlined, "Israel -- The Largest US Aircraft Carrier in the World," those, like myself, who have described, in detail, on CounterPunch and elsewhere, the manner in which the Israel Lobby controls both Congress and the White House on issues relating to Israel, were accused of propagating "what is an essentially anti-Semitic argument concerning the nature of the Washington-Tel Aviv alliance."
That Jacobs, a veteran of the Sixties as long of tooth as myself, a prolific writer and frequent contributor to Left publications, would make such an allegation, after what we have learned about the role of pro-Israel Jewish neocons in fomenting the Iraq War and following that, implementing crippling sanctions on Iran while agitating against the nuclear agreement with Tehran, is as mind boggling as it is insulting.
Jacobs did this under the cover of what purports to be a review of a new book by historian Stephen Gowans, Israel: A Beachhead in the Middle East , which Jacobs contends is "a necessary and forceful rebuke of those on the left and right who insist that Washington is Israeli-occupied territory."
First, a book review it is not. One cannot do justice to any serious book in just 764 words which is the length of Jacobs' piece, although whether Gowans' book which amplifies the charge of antisemitism can be taken seriously is open to question.
If not a book review then, what is it? Let's start with the title, a quote from the late general and Secretary of State Alexander Haig whose very sanity came into question following the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan when Vice-President George HW Bush was away from the capital. At that point, as the New York Times described it , Haig "raced upstairs [to the press room] and went directly to the lectern before a television audience of millions. His knuckles whitening, his arms shaking, Mr. Haig declared to the world, 'I am in control here, in the White House.' He did not give that appearance."
In any case, Gowans use of Haig's quote in his book turned out to be hearsay from a dubious source.
From Jacobs' opening sentence, it seems clear that his intention was to provide "damage control" for the plethora of predominantly Jewish organizations whose primary raison d'etre is pushing the agenda of the Netanyahu government on Capitol Hill whose activities, not to mention, existence, have been largely ignored or dismissed by others on the "Left" who share Jacobs' aversion to blaming even a segment of American Jews for anything. (Think Noam Chomsky, Phyllis Bennis, Stephen Zunes).
"The Israeli government does not control the foreign policy of the United States.," is how Jacobs began his article. True, but none of those he is criticizing argue that it is and Jacobs must surely know this. They affirm, with considerable evidence to back it up, that supporters of the Israeli government are largely responsible for shaping US policies in the Middle East and nowhere else. In other words, Jacobs has created a straw man.
If we restrict ourselves to this millennium, one only has to look at the appointees from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) that George W Bush brought into his administration, and particularly to the Pentagon and who became activated, like sleeper cells, after the events of September 11.
From PNAC, came a troop of 20, foremost among them, Dick Cheney, Dubya's Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld, (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz, (Deputy Secretary of Defense), Richard Perle, (Defense Advisory Board), Doug Feith, (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Lewis (Scooter) Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff), and John Bolton who received a recess appointment as UN ambassador when it was clear he wouldn't get Senate approval. (Bolton would later be hailed by Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, as "the sixth man in our office" and last year, after replacing H.R. McMaster as Trump's National Security Adviser, he received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America).
Launched in 1997 by neocons Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, (son of Irving Kristol, the neocon movement's co-founder), PNAC drew attention on Capitol Hill the following year when it sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton, calling on him to overthrow Saddam. Among its signatories were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Legislation was passed, the Iraq Liberation Act, in 1998, which stated that it was US policy to oust Saddam but no action was taken or contemplated.
What makes the Israeli connection indisputable was that PNAC was preceded a year earlier by a policy paper prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Its authors were a study group led by Perle which included Feith, David Wurmser and his Israeli wife Meyrav Wurmser and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein , highlighting Iraq's possession of "weapons of mass destruction." Wurmser would go on to become a Middle East Advisor for Vice President Cheney and with Feith, help set up the Office of Special Plans to produce evidence of Iraq's WMDs when the CIA failed to come up with it.
What those who insist that the 2003 war on Iraq was just a continuation of traditional US imperialist policies refuse to acknowledge is that the invasion of Iraq marked a 180 degree break with what US Middle Eastern policy had been up to that point, namely, to maintain stability in that oil rich region.
That is why former president George HW Bush, his Secretary of State, James Baker and his National Security Advisor, former general, Brent Scowcroft, publicly opposed the war and why Bush Sr resisted demands from the neocons and Israel's allies in the media, to have US troops march to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power after ousting Iraqi troops from Kuwait a decade earlier.
When this fact was pointed out to George W Bush by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press , Dubya responded, "I answer to a higher father."
Before the war went south, Perle and Wolfowitz were competing in the media for credit for the great victory over Saddam. Both men, along with Cheney, Feith, and Bolton, were also members of JINSA's Advisory Board, an influential but little known neocon operation that came into existence in 1976, apparently in response to President Gerald Ford having suspended a shipment of US jet fighters to Israel for six months upon Israel's refusal to give up land in the Egyptian Sinai that it had captured in the October 1973 war.
Moreover, Ford sent a private letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin warning him about a likely re-evaluation of US-Israel relations, hinting that he might call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. Rabin made the letter public which alerted AIPAC to respond. It struck back against Ford by getting 76 senators, three-quarters of that body, to sign a letter to the president, warning him that the US-Israeli bond was sacrosanct and should not be meddled with. Ford quickly backed off and over the years, many more such letters, drafted by AIPAC, would reach the desk of our presidents.
JINSA saw its goal as making sure that the US and Israeli militaries would become so entwined that no future president would ever contemplate or be able to disentangle the armed forces of both countries. To ensure that, it created a large advisory board composed of former generals and admirals and a few police chiefs while arranging programs to take newly retiring generals and admirals on all expense paid trips to Israel. There are currently 57 former generals and admirals on the JINSA advisory board. The first and last article about JINSA in a national publication appeared in The Nation in 2002 and like PNAC, its existence has been ignored by those engaged in damage control on Israel's behalf.
Even Colin Powell's attribution of the war to Donald Rumsfeld's embrace by "the JINSA crowd," in Karen DeYoung's biography of Powell, Soldier , did not stir any of the latter to reconsider their positions.
Going back to the first US war on Iraq, all of the sanctions put in place against governments viewed by Israel as its enemies, have largely been the work of AIPAC and its sister organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. WINEP or TWI (its current acronym) was spawned by AIPAC in 1985 in order to make the step from lobbying for Israel to actually making policy itself. It has become arguably the most influential of the Beltway think tanks whose "experts" routinely appear before Congressional committees and whose op-ed pieces invariably find their way into the opinion sections of our leading newspapers and the inboxes of members of Congress.
To enforce the sanctions, after 9/11, President Bush set up a special department in the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence which, beginning with the appointment of pro-Israel zealot, Stuart Levey, became the exclusive provenance of pro-Israel Jews, the latest of whom, Sigal Mandelker, is actually an Israeli. It is this department, in essence, an arm of the Israeli government, that determines what countries and companies are adhering to or breaking sanctions on Iran and Syria and which organizations should be placed on the terrorist watch list.
When Obama took office, the Israeli press reported that Levey had made a special trip to Israel to assure Netanyahu that under the new president, nothing would change.
Were there not sanctions on Iraq and on Iran, the major US oil companies would have been more than happy to do business with both countries. The last company that tried, Conoco, was obliged to cancel a deal it had made with Tehran in March, 1995.
The only way the Obama Administration was able to sign the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) with Iran and the other members of the UN Security Council plus Germany was to declare it to be an agreement, not a treaty, thus avoiding having a vote on it by the Senate where it would surely have been defeated. Not to be denied, Israel's friends in Washington had the Senate pass a bill requiring Obama and succeeding presidents to ratify US participation in the agreement every 90 days. This was the equivalent of a poison pill and a perfect set-up for Donald Trump.
There is far too much evidence of Israel's control of Washington to include in this short article but two more items should seal the debate.
The first begins in 2015 in Las Vegas when Jewish multi billionaire Sheldon Adelson held two auditions for prospective Republican presidential candidates at his Venetian Hotel to determine which one would be the best for Israel. Adelson was at the time and still is the owner of the most widely read newspaper in Israel, Israel Hayom , which is provided free and has been seen, until recently, as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. On the day he opened his newspaper, he apologized to his Israeli audience for having "worn the uniform of the US army and not the Israeli Defense Forces," a clip of which can still be seen on You Tube.
Adelson's choices after the auditions were first Ted Cruz and then Marco Rubio. When both failed to attract the voters, Adelson switched to Trump, pumping tens of millions of dollars into his campaign and, judging from Trump's gifts to Israel, not the least of which was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, it is safe to say that Adelson bought himself a president.
Cut now to last December, in Florida, at the annual convention of the relatively new Israeli American Council, the major funder of which happens to be Adelson. On the stage as the host was Israeli-American Haim Saban, one of the Democratic Party's major funders who once boasted to a New Yorker writer that he was a "one issue man and that issue is Israel."
It was shortly after the November mid-term elections and Saban was interviewing the returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, the Senate's top ranking Democrat. As Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) described it on Dec. 2:
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat who likely will be speaker of the new US House of Representatives, listed pro-Israel lawmakers she plans to name to key committee positions and said her party remained fundamentally pro-Israel.
'We have people very well placed to share our values,' Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in addressing the final event Sunday of the annual Israeli-American Council conference, after listing planned assignments.
Pelosi said she would name Rep. Nita Lowey, D-New York, to chair the Appropriations Committee; Eliot Engel, D-New York, to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee; Ted Deutch, D-Florida, to chair the Middle East subcommittee; Adam Schiff, D-California, to chair the Intelligence Committee; Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, to chair the human rights-monitoring Helsinki Committee; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, to a key Appropriations Committee position; and Lois Frankel, D-Florida, to a key Foreign Affairs Committee position.
All have longstanding pro-Israel records and all but Hastings are Jewish." 1
Pelosi's exchange with Saban can still be viewed on You Tube but don't look for any report on that conference outside of the Jewish press. The corporate media, like Congress, is under the thumb of the Israel Lobby.
Jeffrey Blankfort lives in Northern California. He can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Jeff .
- Wasserman-Schultz had been the chair of the DNC who was forced to resign after the release by WikiLeaks of the DNC's emails exposed the DNC's efforts to sabotage Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton's behalf. Obviously, that did not hurt her in Pelosi's eyes. [ ↩ ]
This article was posted on Thursday, September 12th, 2019 at 6:49am and is filed under Israel/Palestine , Prejudice , The Lobby , Zionism .
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
ExposeThem511 , 58 minutes ago link
Quote memorialized by Jean Patrice in "Communism Unmasked" first edition in the 1940s:
The author used the following quote in the referenced book at pp. 257-258 because the topic of Appendix II on p. 257 was "Jews and Vatican II." The author was questioning why the Jews would have been invited to Vatican II as if anyone invites a corporate adversary to a board meeting. Appendix II beginning on p. 257 is a worthwhile read.
Author's prefacing statement:
Let me here quote the warning issued by Benjamin Franklin. He is reported as being very hostile to the Jews. According to the diaries of Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, one of the framers of the American Constitution, Franklin protested very strongly against the Jews. He is reported as saying at the Constitutional Convention:
In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers, they have lowered its moral tone, depreciated its commercial integrity, and segregated themselves and not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion and upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a State within a State, and, when opposed, have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. . .
If you do not exclude them from the United States in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of Government for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our life and substance and jeopardised our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, that if you do not exclude the Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your grave, Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics. Let them be born where they will never be otherwise.
Interesting how Franklin mentioned "a State within a State" just like today's "the Deep State."
History has been significantly veiled to hide these truths.
Lumberjack , 1 hour ago link
Lumberjack , 45 minutes ago linkThis is new:
A crowded dance floor
While the case of the “Dancing Israelis” has long been treated as an outlier in the aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.
According to a FOX News report from December 2001, 60 Israelis were apprehended or detained after September 11, with most deported, and a total of 140 Israelis were arrested and detained in all of 2001 by federal authorities. That report claimed that the arrests, ostensibly including the “Dancing Israelis,” were in relation to an investigation of “an organized [Israeli] intelligence gathering operation designed to ‘penetrate government facilities.’”
The report also added that most of those arrested, in addition to having served in the IDF, had “intelligence expertise” and worked for Israeli companies that specialized in wiretapping. Some of those detained were also active members of the Israeli military; and several detainees, including the “Dancing Israelis,” had failed polygraph tests when asked if they had been surveilling the U.S. government.
Lumberjack , 36 minutes ago linkMore:
note the head of urban moving systems fled to Israel on Sept. 14, when all airspace was shut down over CONUS., Did he cross the border into Canada to flee?
The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with information indicating that he had quit his employment with Urban Moving Systems as a result of the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban’s employees. The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban had even once remarked, “Give us twenty years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country” (page 37 of the FBI report ).
The FBI returned to search the premises of Urban Moving Systems a month later, but by that time found:
The building and all of its contents had been abandoned by…the owner of Urban Moving Systems. This [was] apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 09/11/2001 arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI-NK on or around 09/13/2001.”
The company’s owner — Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen — had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News that “Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.” Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database Intelius, in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company — Granite Telecommunications — that works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.
Barry Madingo-Odongo , 1 hour ago linkClip on the "5 Dancing Israelis"
https://mobile.twitter.com/zogistani99/status/907121866317467648
They did it. And if the American people do understand that, israel's going to disappear. israel will flat-*** disappear from this Earth.
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2019 | www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
The Center for Security Policy hosted a panel at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) titled "Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security."
Speakers included Center President Fred Fleitz, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz of the National Council of Young Israel, Dan Pollak of the Zionist Organization of America and investigative journalist and author James Simpson.
During his opening remarks Fleitz noted that, "There is an effort right now to dress up supposed criticisms of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu as just criticisms of their policies, that there's nothing against the state of Israel. This is not right. This is repackaged anti-Semitism. It is repackaged Israel hatred to delegitimize the state of Israel and the state of Israel's very right to exist."
He said that, "The point that I want this panel to make is that anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel is soaring on the left and this is a real danger for this country."
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) noted that the U.S. reaps tangible benefits from its relationship with Israel. Citing an example from his own experience, he said that when he served as an Apache helicopter pilot he utilized Israeli-developed technology.
The Pennsylvania Congressman said that "there's one democratic nation in the Middle East that believes in Western values, and it's Israel." He described the Jewish State as a "little oasis of freedom" in the region.
During his remarks, Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz stated:
From my perspective the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people in this country is the liberal progressive Jewish community. I think that what they've done is that they've replaced Judaism with liberal progressivism. It's become practically speaking a religion for them," he explained, saying that "in order to push forward their liberal progressive agenda, they are willing to throw Israel under the bus.
Watch a recording of the event below:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/XWLB3EJwyaE
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2019 | portside.org
When Ilhan Omar Is Accused of Anti-Semitism, It's News. When a Republican Smears Muslims, There's Silence. The difference in coverage is startling and disturbing. August 28, 2019 Mehdi Hasan The Intercept printer friendly
Rep. Ilhan Omar participates in a panel discussion during the Muslim Collective for Equitable Democracy Conference and Presidential Forum at the National Housing Center in Washington, D.C., on July 23, 2019. , Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images "IT'S ALL ABOUT the Benjamins, baby."
That is, of course, what Rep. Ilhan Omar famously tweeted on February 10, in response to a tweet from my colleague Glenn Greenwald decrying "how much time U.S. political leaders spend defending a foreign nation" -- namely, the state of Israel. Then, when a journalist followed up by asking Omar who she believed was "paying American politicians to be pro-Israel," the congresswoman tweeted: "AIPAC!"
The freshman Democrat from Minnesota "unequivocally" apologized the very next day, saying that she was grateful to Jewish allies and colleagues who were educating her "on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes" and insisting that she never intended to "offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole."
But it was too late. With those two (since-deleted) tweets, Omar kicked off a political and media firestorm that lasted for weeks and saw her condemned and castigated by, among others, cable news pundits , newspaper op-ed columnists , Jewish community groups , Donald Trump , congressional Republicans , and even the leaders and members of her own party.
Now, fast forward to last week, specifically August 21. Rep. Mo Brooks, a right-wing Republican congressperson from Alabama with a long history of controversial and offensive remarks, was interviewed on WVNN, a radio station in Huntsville, about the decision by Israel's government to deny entry to Omar and her fellow Muslim Democrat Rashida Tlaib.
"Usually, there is not much controversy with respect to Israel," Brooks told host Jeff Poor. "Usually, the United States Congress is overwhelmingly close to 100%, if not 100%, in support of recognizing Israel as a long-term American ally, and that we have a mutual defense relationship. Unfortunately, we now have people in the United States Congress who view Israel as an enemy, and that makes for an entirely different mix of conversation."
Which "people" would that be? Brooks didn't hold back.
"There is, and I think it's based on the growing influence of the Islamic religion in the Democratic Party ranks," he continued. "Keep in mind: Muslims more so than most people have great animosity toward Israel and the Jewish faith. And as you have more and more Muslims in the United States, as they gain greater and greater influence in elections, particularly in Democratic Party primaries, then you're going to see more and more people like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and company that are anti-Israel, and that brings an entirely different viewpoint into the United States Congress."
"I think you're going to see this influence in the Democratic Party grow and grow and grow over time, but ultimately become the dominant influence within the Democratic Party, where the Democratic Party will become very strongly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel," Brooks added. (These comments start at about the two-minute mark of this recording of the show ).
Wow. I have been reporting on Islamophobia in U.S. politics for more than a decade, and I honestly cannot remember coming across a more brazenly Islamophobic statement from an elected member of Congress. "Growing influence of the Islamic religion" among Democrats? "More and more Muslims" winning elections? The "dominant influence"? "Anti-Jewish"? In an age of rising white nationalism, in which Muslims have been gunned down in mosques by domestic terrorists who believe such conspiracy theories about Islam, these remarks aren't just offensive, they're downright dangerous.
So you might think the media -- and the Democrats -- would be all over Brooks and the Republicans, right?
Right?
Not quite. I asked Parker Molloy, of Media Matters for America, to check the numbers. In terms of cable news, Molloy found that in the seven days after Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, "Fox News mentioned her during 21 shows, CNN in 53, and five on MSNBC." The freshman Democrat's name, according to a Lexis search, was also mentioned in a whopping 479 newspaper articles.
And in the seven days since Brooks's remarks? Zero mentions of him in the national press. Zero coverage of him on network and cable news. Not one story; not one report.
On Tuesday, Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, tweeted out a clip of Brooks's remarks, pointing out that it had received "nearly half a million views" on Twitter, yet had received "virtually no coverage" in the mainstream press.
Shahid told me that he had shared the clip with a number of reporters and producers last week, but none of them had followed up with a story on it. "No bite," he said.Can you imagine the reaction if Ilhan Omar had said that Jews had become the "dominant influence" within the Republican Party, or if she had decried the "growing influence" of the Jewish religion in the GOP? Or if she had spoken about Jews gaining "greater and greater influence" in elections?
We would now be embarking on another seven (or even 70!) days of nonstop coverage, and condemnation, of what would be (rightly) described as her brazen and shocking anti-Semitism. It would be front-page news; the subject of almost every panel discussion on cable.
Yet Brooks makes these outrageous and bigoted claims about Muslims and Islam and ? Silence. A shameful and very deafening silence. No headlines. No op-eds. No panels. No reporters chasing down House Republicans and demanding a condemnation or disavowal from them.
Look, I expect nothing from the likes of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy or House Minority Whip Steve Scalise. They're bad-faith actors who, incidentally, have their own issues with racism and anti-Semitism: McCarthy accused Jewish billionaires of trying to "buy" the midterm elections for the Democrats, while Scalise once described himself as "David Duke without the baggage."
But what about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Why isn't she drafting a congressional resolution to condemn Brooks, as she did for Omar? Where are the statements of outrage from Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, who were so quick to go after one of their own? Why aren't MSNBC and CNN rolling on this? How come the Washington Post and the New York Times aren't publishing long pieces about the GOP's Islamophobia problem? Why aren't the liberal columnists who lined up to slam Omar now writing op-eds denouncing this blatant and undeniable racism from Brooks?
As I pointed out last week , anti-Muslim bigotry has been normalized in liberal and Democratic Party circles. Meanwhile, anti-Semitism has been weaponized by Republicans eager to smear their Democratic opponents (while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the anti-Semites and white nationalists in their own ranks).
The net result? Omar is hung out to dry while Brooks gets a pass. Omar is now a household name, and the subject of multiple death threats , while Brooks gets to carry on making offensive and conspiratorial claims about Islam, Muslims, and the Democratic Party without any sanction or censure.
This week, ironically, Omar's alleged anti-Semitism was back in the news. Again. Media organizations that studiously ignored Brooks' bigotry for seven straight days managed to find time, and column inches, to cover the Alabama Republican Party's ridiculous call for Omar to be expelled from Congress.
Yes, you read that correctly: the Alabama GOP. The state party of Rep. Mo Brooks.
You can't make this stuff up.
Mehdi Hasan is a columnist and senior contributor at The Intercept. He is the host of The Intercept podcast "Deconstructed." Hasan is also the host of Al Jazeera English's "UpFront."
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2019 | off-guardian.org
The Chosen Folk are so "chosen" and clever they have Lucky Larry as their 911 made billionaire poster boy bragging he gave the order to pull 7. Not to mention Epstein, flaunting his sexcapades in the so called "news" like he's some kind of Charles in Charge. No, the one in charge is the Superior General. And the one who claims it all (you included) by Papal Bull enjoys his duper's delight and the inquisition continues unimpeded. Of course the owner of 3/4's of Jerusalem is never mentioned. The ruse (and who benefits) is plain as day.AdminI don't think this is a coherent intervention.
Ethnicity is not racial; it describes cultural, linguistic and national associations. Race is generally understood as a reference to common biological ancestry.
Jewishness might, by some be accurately described as an ethnicity, but not as a race, as there are Jews from different 'racial groups' (-if one subscribes to such a notion at all).
If you are going to intervene with a response like the one above, I would suggest that you go the full mile and explore in an article or three which aspects of Jewishness which relate to ethnicity and which to ideology.'Fins Mcgee' denotes 'chosenness' as a defining ideological characteristic of those who self identify as 'Jewish'. Writers and thinkers like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and others would be in agreement. If that is a fair summation, then anyone who strongly identifies as 'Jewish' is, in truth, self identifying as somehow 'chosen' or special or superior to non Jews.
If that is unfair or wrong, then explain yourself and explain why. Explain what is 'Jewishness' ?
Taking your comment as it stands as the extent of your view would mean that all criticism of Jewish ideology is, in essence, 'racist'.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2019 | www.rt.com
... ... ...
GG: Sure. And the success with which they have done that, the skill with which they have done that shows me that they do have a bigger lock than I thought that they did. Not even Israel has a bigger--not even in Israel does the Zionist movement have a bigger lock than it does in the United States. So nothing compares to that. But it does, and it's a trick, I know it's a trick because an Israeli Cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni giving me dinner in her house in Tel Aviv, literally told me that it was, it's a trick she said, we always do it. And they do it obviously because it works. If someone stands up for Palestinian rights, the first, the default position is to call them an anti-Semite. The fact that someone like me with my politics and the basis of my politics so heavily Jewish from Marx through Trotsky, through Chomsky, through, you know, half the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee were Jewish. It was, according to the right wing, a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, that's what I was involved, and the idea that I can be described as an anti-Semite is patently absurd [INDISTINCT] Jeremy Corbyn who comes out of the same stable as me more or less. So, I like to think it doesn't work but obviously to some extent it does. My own wife who's a person of color, an Indonesian woman was abused in the street the other day as the--as the wife of an anti-Semite, as the wife of a racist. It's absurd but effective but less effective I think than before, on the principle that if you call everybody an anti-Semite then eventually nobody is an anti-Semite. The boy who cried wolf is a parable of note for a reason.
CH: Well, the poison is that, you know, the real anti-Semites, the Christian right in the United States who's become an ally, a political ally of Israel, you know, it's the equation of anti-Semitism with the State of Israel, that's what's so dangerous and one of the biggest racists in the Middle East is named Bibi Netanyahu. What do you...
GG: And there's worse than him waiting in the wings.
CH: And there is, Avigdor Lieberman and others. So, but let's talk about where we're going because we may be going in a very frightening direction if things don't go right. What are those forces out there that frighten you and what does the left have to do? How do we have to wake up to make sure those forces, we don't end up like Hungary with Viktor Orban?
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2019 | averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
... ... ...
The problem, however, is because this is overlaid by factional struggle ...
This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a few years ago.
Here's the thing. Just because your opponents take up an issue, some times cynically and in bad faith. and use it to inflict as much damage as they can does not mean the problem is fictitious.
Precisely because they can point to Facebook groups full of useful fools, and Twitter accounts with Corbyn-supporting hashtags acting as if the Israel lobby and "Zionists" are the only active force in British politics, this is the stuff that makes the attacks effective and trashes the standing of the party in the eyes of many Jews and the community's allies and friends.
The institutional anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, therefore, somewhat different to the kind you find in other institutions. It is sustained by the battle for the party, a grim battlefront in a zero sum game of entrenched position vs entrenched position. As such, whatever the leadership do, whatever new processes the General Secretary introduces for one side it will never be enough because, as far as many of them concerned, the leadership are politically illegitimate; and for the other it's a sop and capitulation.
The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. A situation that can only poison the well further, and guarantee anti-Semitism won't honestly and comprehensively be confronted.
Boffy said... 3 March 2019 at 16:42A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism.asquith said... 3 March 2019 at 18:54It is first necessary to close ranks, and defeat the assault of the Right. As Marr said to Blair this morning, had Prescott announced he was forming a separate group, and was establishing his own witch-hunting bureaucratic apparatus in the party, Blair would have sacked him immediately - actually not so easy as the Deputy is elected. But the thrust is valid. Unless Corbyn deals with Watson, the Right will roll over the Left, despite the huge disparity in numbers.
Again it comes down to whether Corbyn is up for that task, or whether we need a leadership of the left with a bit more backbone to see it through.
I'm afraid this IS due to the "intersectionality" cult, whereby certain groups are always privileged and wrong, and some are always oppressed and right. Jews are, according to this "analysis", the uber-privileged and uber-white.Ian Gibson said... 4 March 2019 at 05:30We've heard several times that according to "intersectionality" that it's impossible to be racist against white people because racism requires both prejudice and power, and white people are by definition powerful. Therefore, anti-Semitism is dismissed because it can't be a thing because Jews are all-powerful and even more oppressive than other whites.
Those who don't subscribe to all of these beliefs are nevertheless tinged with them, which is why people who aren't staunch antisemites will nevertheless fail to take anti-Semitism seriously.
Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin about whether the 'careless' anti-Semitism you've described means the party is institutionally anti-Semitic is rather missing the point. (OK, the column is by John McTernan, but the FT gave him column inches to argue that case, and I guess they didn't mean it as the satire it most certainly is.)Boffy said... 4 March 2019 at 09:47As many of the comments on your blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. We live in society: we can never, ever be that whiter than white - especially when it comes to Israel/Palestine, which is so full of contradictions and traps for the unwary (e.g. the position of the Israeli state claiming to speak for all Jewry around the world, in the way that the Board of Deputies position themselves as speaking for all British Jews - neither close to being true, but small wonder that opponents of what they do and stand for take that universality at face value.)
The fight we need to take up is to compare and contrast just how pro-active the current party is against anti-Semitism in its constitution and machinery with the glaring absence of such elsewhere, and to present a positive picture of what we are doing, rather than mumbling apologetically into our beards. We need to take the fight to the rigged system at the same time as being unstinting in rooting out the troubling stuff.
The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define discrimination against women.Jim Denham said... 4 March 2019 at 15:25That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions. In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations.
If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM.
But, just rationally, the concept that only those discriminated against get to define the discrimination is bonkers. Suppose you come from Somalia or some other country that practices FGM, you could argue that it is part of your cultural heritage, and that anyone seeking to prevent you from undertaking this barbaric practice was thereby racist, on your self-definition of what that discrimination against you amounts to. Or Saudis might argue that it is racist to argue against their practice of lopping off women's heads, or stoning them to death for adultery, including having been raped, etc.
The JVL come pretty close to arguing that there is *no* anti-Semitism in the Labour party (Jenny Manson, for instance, says she's never witnessed any)and Glyn Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour to the story of the emperor's new clothes.Boffy said... 5 March 2019 at 09:00Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party, made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership, and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further 20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never seen any instance of it.Boffy said... 5 March 2019 at 09:22Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member in 1500. If the average branch size if 100 active members, it means on average there is one potential case of anti-Semitism in every 15 branches. So, if you are a member in any of the other 14 branches, you would never see that one potential case of anti-Semitism.
In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about 14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu.
In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, probably in their usual knee-jerk reaction of putting a plus sign wherever the SWP put a minus. Having done so, and as a result of the bureaucratic centrist nature of the sect, they find themselves now having to follow through on the position they adopted on the basis of the "practical politics" - opportunism - as it dictated itself to them at the time.
If, and probably more likely when, they change position, it will come as with all their previous changes of position with the assertion that "nothing has changed", as when after claiming a few years ago that the LP was a stinking corpse - as they ridiculously stood their own candidates in elections with the inevitable result - and the next minute proclaimed themselves as its most ardent militants, as they sought to use their sharp elbows to gain positions on Momentum's leading bodies!
Incidentally, on the question of "observance", the only time I have seen someone get stabbed, is more than 50 years ago, when I was at school. I've seen plenty of other violent stuff in the intervening period, for example, people getting glassed, people having wrought iron tables smashed over their heads. My sister, who is several years older than me, and was out bopping during the days of the Teddy Boys, saw more people getting slashed, in the 1950's, because the flick knife was the Ted's favoured weapon.Jim Denham said... 5 March 2019 at 11:14But, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve the media when it talks about the current spate of knife crimes. Its just that, however, terrible such crimes are for those that suffer or witness them, and no matter how much the media that has to sensationalise every story, for its own commercial purposes, talks about an epidemic or a knife crime crisis, the number of knife crimes per head of population is extremely small.
The chances that 999 out of 1,000 of us will never be the victim of, or witness knife crime does not mean it doesn't exist. But, those that then claim that the 999 out of 1,000 of us who say we have not seen it, must be somehow being dishonest, are not dealing with the facts, and are simply fuelling a moral panic.
When some phenomena is statistically insignificant, which 1 in 1,500 cases, is, and when as with many such phenomena there is no normal distribution of the occurrence of such cases - for example, knife crime will tend to be concentrated in particular areas - trying to present any kind of rational analysis based upon personal observation is a mug's game.
Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives would have us believe. It is certainly thec ase that anti-Semitism is a bigger problem in the Tory party, and other right-wing organisations than it is in the LP, again not that you would know that from the reporting of it, or from the attitude of certain factional sects, such as the AWL.
Speedy said... 6 March 2019 at 06:39Labour has 'much larger' group of antisemitic members which Corbyn has failed to deal with, Momentum founder warns
By Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor The Independent, Monday 25 February 2019 16:10 |
Labour has "a much larger" group of antisemitic members than it recognises which Jeremy Corbyn has failed to "deal with", Momentum founder Jon Lansman has warned.
The Labour leader's long-standing ally said "conspiracy theorists" had infiltrated the party – a consequence of its huge surge in membership in recent years.
Mr Lansman stopped short of backing the call from Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, for Mr Corbyn to take personal charge of the antisemitism complaints dogging Labour.
But he said: "I do think we have a major problem and it always seems to me that we underestimate the scale of it. I think it is a widespread problem.
"I think it is now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore antisemitic opinions which, unfortunately, is polluting the atmosphere in a lot of constituency parties and in particular online. We have to deal with these people."
Approaching this from another angle...Boffy said... 6 March 2019 at 10:42The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter.
History is very much the tale of new technology transforming the potential of human behaviour and beliefs, and one of the oldest beliefs ("the blood libel") is anti-Semitism.
This is how Labour has changed - ie, the rise of Corbyn has coincided with the ubiquity of this technology. In fact, arguably the rise of Corbyn was aided by it.
Corbyn's nuanced position on Israel/Palestine gives permission to social media extremists.
The rest is history.
Incidentally, this is why you are less likely to confront anti-Semitism in real-life while the internet may be awash with it - there are the real and virtual identities which only occasionally bleed into each other.
Which is true and which is not? We might wonder if technology has evolved ahead of human adaptation - the "real world" filters that govern apparently "real" behaviour missing.
I'm sure even certain posters here are less bananas in "real life" than their online comments might suggest!
I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout.Jim Denham said... 7 March 2019 at 09:10Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary measures. That truly would be the actions of a Bonapartist. That Tom Watson is prepared to do that, as he sets himself up in a situation of dual power, to confront Corbyn is no surprise that anyone who even remotely considers themselves a part of the Left should support should a move is a disgrace. Perhaps no surprise that the AWL supporters of Zionism, and the witch-hunt, appear to be doing so, then.
Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, and for its Secretary who sits on Labour's NEC to also be suspended, for interfering in an ongoing investigation! So, why did those same Blair-rights not call for the suspension of Watson, who immediately demanded Williamson's suspension, and withdrawal of the whip, before any investigation, or indeed of Hodge and others who on a daily basis go to the media to sally forth about cases that are under investigation, or waiting for investigation.
This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated.
Jim Denham's comment is a case in point. How much more "anti-Semitism" exists? What is the factual basis of the statement, as opposed to click bait headline. Even if the actual extent is 100% more than the data so far presented, that would mean that potentially 1 in 750 LP members might be guilty of some form of anti-Semitism. Its hardly an epidemic, or institutional anti-Semitism, and far less than exists in the Tory Party, which is also infected by Islamaphobia, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.
In fact, its probably much less than you would find in the BBC, Sky or other establishment institutions. Anti-Semitism exists, and is a problem, but that does not mean it is not being used by Labour's enemies or the proponents of Zionism for their own political ends. The real conspiracy theorists are those that try to present anti-Semitism as a conspiracy based upon infiltration of the LP, the same people who presented the support for Corbyn from 300,000 new members as really just being a case of far left entryism, by Trots.
This is a meme, taken from Incog Man, a far-right site. It was posted with positive endorsement by a Labour member, Kayla Bibby, a delegate to conference in fact:Boffy said... 7 March 2019 at 12:36Link to the meme:
https://static.timesofisrael.com/jewishndev/uploads/2019/02/ellmann-640x400.jpg
Bibby subsequently received only a formal warning, with Thomas Gardiner of Labour's Governance and Legal Unit (what used to be the Compliance Unit), saying it was only anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
Not only could a Labour member post something obviously anti-Semitic, it was not deemed to be so by the Compliance Unit. I bet we all know people who would agree.
It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not.Boffy said... 7 March 2019 at 13:47In fact, there are probably not an inconsiderable number of Jews, who think that the state of Israel does exercise undue influence over US policy, and certainly it seems to be the case that, in the US, more liberal Jewish groups, seem to think that one reason that the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, in Israel, was so supportive of Trump, and we see the same support for Trump amongst Zionists in Britain, is at least in part due to the fact that Obama had been distancing the US from its historical uncritical support for Israel.
If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state, under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole?
Clearly it wouldn't, because there are a majority of British people who oppose Toryism, and thereby oppose the actions of the British state under the control of the Tories. A nationalist, or racist might want to equate the nation state with the whole of its people, but the people who are doing that here, by interpreting criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism, are the Zionists themselves, and their apologists, because they seek thereby to delegitimize any criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism by equating it with anti-Semitism.
That in effect makes the Zionists themselves, and their apologists anti-Semites, because in adopting this equation of Jewishness with being Zionist, and with Israel, they make all Jews thereby responsible for the actions of Zionism and of the state of Israel!
The problem for the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham, on this issue comes down to this. Until thirty years ago, the organisation, under its previous names, was an ardent defender of the ideas and traditions of Jim Cannon. Cannon's "The Struggle for a Proletarian Party" was required reading for all of its members. Then, in an about face, the organisation overnight collapsed into what Trotsky called "the petit-bourgeois Third Camp", and so became ardent defenders of the enemies of Cannon, the petit-bourgeois Third Camp of Burnham- Shachtman. That kind of wild zig-zag is typical of bureaucratic-centrist organisations, which is what the AWL is.Anonymous said... 7 March 2019 at 16:54As part of this collapse into the petit-bourgeois Third Camp, and the moralistic politics it is based upon, the AWL also adopted the ideas of Third Campists like Al Glotzer, in relation to Israel and Zionism, as opposed to the position of Mandel, which represented a continuation of the ideas of Cannon and Trotsky. I set this out in a short blog post 12 years ago Glotzer and the Jews as Special , after the AWL had repeatedly censored it appearing on their website in response to an article setting out Glotzer's position.
Having committed themselves to the reactionary Zionist ideology that essentially underpins Glotzer's stance - the same thing idea of having lost faith in the working-class, and so having to rely on the bourgeois state, or "progressive imperialism" to accomplish the tasks of the working-class, is behind the AWL's support for NATo's war against Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc., but is also behind the politics of other Third Campists such as the SWP, that instead look to other larger forces, such as reactionary "anti-imperialist" states to carry forward its moral agenda - the AWL are left now trying to defend their position of support for the creation of a racist, expansionist state in Israel, as the inevitable consequences of that venture unfold.
For a Marxist, it is not at all difficult to say that the establishment of the state of Israel is one that we should not have supported at the time, because it would lead to the kind of consequences we see today, and yet, to say, 75 years on from the creation of that state, it is an established fact, and trying to unwind history, by calling for the destruction of that state would have even more calamitous consequences for the global working-class. It is quite easy for a Marx to say that the current nature of the Israeli state, as a racist Zionist state, based, like almost no other state in the world on a confessional basis, i.e. of being a Jewish state, a state for Jews in preference to every other ethnic/religious group flows from the ideology, and nature of its creation. But, then to argue that the answer to that is not a destruction of the state of Israel, which could only be done on the bones of millions of Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, but is to wage a working-class based struggle against that racist foundation upon which the state has been founded, and that struggle is one that must unite Jews and Arabs alike. In fact, the position of palestinians today is a mirror image of that of the Jews 75 years ago.
The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all, as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA.
Boffy said... 8 March 2019 at 11:15Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief
Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists.
This is nothing but authoritarianism in action, censorship of political opponents and the closing down of any credible definition of free speech.
In other words this is something any leftist worth half an atom would be fighting against with all their energies.
But what do we find, pathetic pro war pro imperialists leftists and post modern liberals joining the witch hunt.
Meanwhile in the real world:
A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham?
How can anyone on the left get away with supporting and providing ideological cover for Israel How can any leftist allow a socialist movement to be sabotaged by the Israel state and its army of appalling immoral apologists?
These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves.
Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually wrong meme that Israel controls the US.Boffy said... 9 March 2019 at 08:58But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism.
It is what leads such Zionists to then also insist on their right to determine who is a Jew or not. The AWL do that with all those Jews, such as the JVL, who refuse to accept the AWL's definition of anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism. Its like the old saw that the definition of a Scot is someone who wears a kilt, and when asked about Jock McTavish, from Arbroath, who does not wear a kilt, the reply comes back, then he cannot really be a Scot!
The Zionists insists on defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, and thereby closing down debate. Jim Denham does that most clearly here, in his refusal to debate the actual substantive points. It is typical of the attitude of the AWL, in general which long since gave up trying to defend its bourgeois liberal, opportunist politics by rational debate, and instead turned to bureaucratic censorship, and ill-tempered invective.
Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews, as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure.Boffy said... 9 March 2019 at 16:31Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs."
The conflation of equating Israel with the term Jew flows directly from the Zionist ideology that underpins the Israeli State, but which also adopted by the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham. It thereby effectively denies statehood to non-Jewish Israeli citizens, making them non-persons, erasing them from history, in the same way that Jim Denham has sought to do in diminishing if not entirely denying the genocides against other ethnic groups such as Native North Americans, Australian and New Zealand aboriginals etc., as a result of his Zionist privileging of the specific genocide against Jews in the Holocaust.
It is the same kind of racism, of course, that is applied by the BNP and other white nationalists, who seek to portray Britain as being a nation for white Britons, and thereby deny other Britons the right to consider themselves really British. Every socialist, can understand the racist nature of that ideology when it is applied to Britain, and elsewhere, but the AWL, and its members, like Jim Denham, deny it when it is applied to Israel, which they want to treat as being different to every other state on the planet, in defence of their Zionist ideology that privileges Israeli Jews over others, and by extension equates the term Jew with the term Israel.
Its most extreme version comes with the fascists that Netanyahu has now gone into alliance with, whose ideology states that God only put gentiels on the Earth to be slaves and serve the needs of Jews, as the chosen people! It means that they see the place of non-Jewish Israelis in those terms, as being allowed to remain in Israel only on that subservient basis. This is the ideology that the AWL is now logically tied to, in having adopted Zionism as the answer to the problems of Jewish workers rather than socialism.
And, of course, the extension of that principle for other Zionists is illustrated in their support for fascists like Orban in Hungary, who wants to adopt a similar nationalist ideology of keeping Hungary, and other "white" European nations exclusively for "whites", in the same way that Zionists want to keep Israel exclusively for Jews.
It is a sorry state when socialists have degenerated to such an extent that not only do they fail to distinguish between nationalist ideology and socialist ideology by adopting nationalist solutions to workers problems such as "nationalisation", by the capitalist state, but where, in adopting such reactionary nationalist ideology, the logic of their position drives them to supporting the idea that nation states should be exclusively for particular ethnic groups, such as Israel for the Jews, Hungary for white Christians and so on.
The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has led them to widen the scope of that attack. As Labour List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic". The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan, who wrote an article in the FT to that same effectBoffy said... 10 March 2019 at 11:09Channelling Jim Denham, McTernan writes,
"As the historian Deborah Lipstadt points out, anti-Semitic tropes share three elements: money or finance is always in the mix; an acknowledged cleverness that is also seen as conniving; and, power -- particularly a power to manipulate more powerful entities.
All of these feature in the criticism of Israel and the so-called Israel lobby. They can be easily moulded into a critique of capitalism, too."
The line of argument was illustrated to me some weeks ago, in a comment I received in relation to an article I wrote about Marx's analysis of fictitious capital, as part of my critique of Paul Mason's Postcapitalism . The commenter, argued that Marx's analysis of fictitious capital appeared to be simply Marx blaming bankers and money lenders, for which read Jews, for the world's ills, and was thereby simply an expression of the well-known fact that Marx was a self-hating Jew, much as the AWL, describe all those other Jews that do not share their commitment to |Zionism. The commenter as evidence of this provided a link to a literary critique of Marx's On The Jewish Question , which is cited as proving that Marx was an anti-semite.
In fact, I pointed out that in nothing that Marx had written about fictitious capital, or what I had written describing Marx's analysis of fictitious capital are bankers discussed, let alone Jewish bankers. The anonymous commenter, has, in fact, since deleted their comments, meaning that my responses to them were also deleted.
But, this is the way this right-wing witch-hunt proceeds, by throwing a net to catch whatever they can trawl in, and at the very least sowing the seeds of doubt as they require those being attacked to respond to their wild accusations. It means that any statement can be framed to mean that there is some subtext beneath the actual words and pictures that is somehow anti-Semitic, if only you know the relevant coda to unlock the true meaning, and anyone who doubts the meaning being placed upon it, is thereby a defender of the anti-Semitic message. As with the attacks on Momentum, and the initial surge of membership supporting Corbyn, it is always phrased in dark conspiratorial language, about unseen forces being behind what is seen on the surface. So, we were supposed to believe that a few hundred Trots in Britain somehow morphed into 300,000 new LP members! But, Momentum now having shown that it is a tame part of the establishment, is even able to recruit McTernan himself as a member.The appeasement as with all witch-hunts only provokes the witch-hunters to widen the scope of their activities. The AWL, which was at the forefront of helping the witch-hunters with their shameful support for the witch-hunting of Jackie Walker, was repaid by having their own members expelled too, and having right-wing Labour MP's appear on TV, to characterise the AWL themselves as "anti-Semites", despite their well-known Zionist politics. Yet, oddly, the AWL seem to consider that a price worth paying, as their advocacy of Zionism seems to trump any other consideration for them in their politics.
It didn't take long for my comment of yesterday to be proved correct. Today we learn that Jess Phillips has claimed that Marxism is necessarily misogynist, because it places class oppression above all else, and so now claims that as well as the Left in the party being anti-Semitic, it is also misogynist. The attack of the Right, as I said yesterday will spread ever wider on this irrational basis, using all of the usual conspiratorial language that such witch-hunts have always adopted. Rather like a Dan Brown novel, it will imply that there are dark (Marxist) forces at work, of which Corbyn is the head of the coven (or even worse that some unseen Dark Overlord is really standing behind Corbyn, who is only its representative on Earth (i.e. in the LP).It will suggest that these dark forces do not speak openly, but only in codes and symbols that have to be unlocked by the forces of Light, who like Jim Denham, can look into the minds of men and women, and see what is really going inside.
I actually found that despite the anonymous Zionist commenter to my article on Medium having deleted their comments, my replies to them, were in fact still floating around here , here , and here .
As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist, as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism.
|
|
|
Aug 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Ghost Ship , Aug 3 2019 10:55 utc | 72
I used to think the Guardian couldn't sink any further into hypocrisy but it has :
The internal emails, released after a freedom of information request by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, revealed the council attempted to assess the Big Ride website according to the rubric of the controversial IHRA definition .A few months back the Guardian was pushing for various organisations, including the British Labour Party, to adopt the IHRA definition to combat so-called anti-semitism.I don't remember it suggesting then that the IHRA definition was controversial then.
|
|
|
Aug 03, 2019 | www.unz.com
Priss Factor says: Website August 3, 2019 at 5:20 am GMT 200 Words There are plenty of Jews who will side with Jewish criminals(often white-collar) and gangsters over Law & Order. Jewish Power pulled all manner of strings to ensure that their boy Obama would pardon Jonathan Pollard.
tac , says: August 3, 2019 at 6:19 am GMT
This may be out there for most of you here, but try and consider it nonetheless. Trump was pre-selected (just like the other POTUSes dating back Lyndon B Johnson), with a caveat of rendering the ever-growing skeptics of the political process and at the same time white race sympathizers as a fringe group. Since many would agree that Trump is a crypto-jew (as I've provided examples of this on UR), he was tasked with subverting the Nationalist movement and was made to steer it into the philo-Jewish sphere...Thomm , says: August 3, 2019 at 5:34 am GMTAll these anti-Israel articles are designed to tickle the grudges of WNs, but nonetheless fail the basic logical test :Gyre07 , says: August 3, 2019 at 11:59 am GMTi) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism fails.
ii) Jews are not distinguished from other whites by blacks. So Jews face all the same risks from blacks that gentiles face. Somehow, this does not compute in WN 'logic' .
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Jews is what blacks say about whites. Given the small number of Jews and no prior history of enslavement, the WN claim is even weaker. Claiming oppression and superiority simultaneously is evidence of Dunning-Kruger.Thanks,
-Mordecai 'Ira' Rabinowitz@Thomm 1) Jews, not unlike Christian WNs use their religion as a 'closed' secret society which they use to leverage their various skills and 'access' to promote each other for personal gain (unlike Christian WN). Like a endless co-op.j2 , says: August 3, 2019 at 6:47 am GMT
2) Most Jews are raised (hard-wired) to worship money and power.
3) Jews are taught from an early age that they're 'exceptional' and have a right (due to an instilled sense of victimhood) justifying taking what they want when they want it. Otherwise known as 'entitlement'. This latter characteristic is what makes them toxic citizens of any country they set 'in their sites' as a means to their ends.And there are lots of other notable distinguishing aspects. Mostly stemming from Jewish culture. Notably though, many Jews are very susceptible to hubris and the myopia that comes with it.
Greg Bacon , says: Website August 3, 2019 at 7:09 am GMT"Chabad is a fast-growing orthodox Jewish sect that believes all Jews must return to Israel before the messiah can reappear to save humanity; a view consistent with Zionism's political objectives."
I find it very possible that this is indeed the goal: they want more Jews to move to Israel. For many Jews it also has a religious motive. I have often wondered if this is also the reason that this Unz webzine is allowed to publish critical articles on Jews and even more critical comments on them. Both may convince more Jews to make an aliyah.
Bardon Kaldian , says: August 3, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMTWe'll leave readers to explore the internet's various conspiracy theories linking Scientology to Israel and the Mossad.
Israel and the quack religion Scientology seems to be a good fit. Both use layers of secrecy and fabrications to justify their existence and both have an unlimited thirst to separate you from your money.
One can go online and find endless articles about many of these anti-Semitic incidents, only to find out some Israeli or American Jew were the ones behind the episode. Makes one wonder if the real anti-Semitic incidents were separated from the phony ones, just how many actual cases of anti-Semitism would remain.
Just asking that question probably qualifies as anti-Semitic, as a certain group of land thieves abhor anyone who dare ask questions about their existence.
@Thomm This BS should be addressed, at least to shed some light on extreme stupiditiesj2 , says: August 3, 2019 at 1:58 pm GMTi) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism fails.
White nationalism is stupid, but some – just some -- of its premises are not. For instance, Jews could be treated like successful parasites. Is cancer "smart" because it has a power to, sometimes, destroy the body? Jews had not created anything comparable to great existing civilizations (let alone old empires). For instance, ca. 50 million Germans around 1800-1850 created virtually whole new global civilization in all aspects of technology, arts, sciences, governance while perhaps 15 million Jews living in the world at that time- not much. Virtually all of their contribution came as followers of German creative spirit.
So, there is nothing superior with Jews if host nations allow them to sneak into positions of power which they themselves misuse for their tribal & frequently criminal activities. Host nations are not stupid; they are sometimes all-too well meaning toward clannish outsiders in their midst (Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Asians ..). When successful hosts come to their senses- all "power" of interconnected aliens evaporates.
O course, I am not here talking about creative & positive contribution of Jewish individuals, or even groups, to host nations.
One significant addendum has to be mentioned: "Jews" do not control everything, nor do they have an amount of power most WNs think they possess. But, in the US society, rich Jews who are ethnically conscious have a much greater leverage than their numbers, because - why? Because they remain, many of them, an alien & clannish ethnic group whose interests run contrary to identity & culture of most people who built this country. Saban and Adelson finance their ethnic group, while Buffet, Gates & Koch brothers are basically traitors.
If US ceased to be a plutocracy in many respects, at least 50% of Jewish influence would go through the window.
ii) Jews are not distinguished from other whites by blacks. So Jews face all the same risks from blacks that gentiles face. Somehow, this does not compute in WN 'logic'.
True
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Jews is what blacks say about whites. Given the small number of Jews and no prior history of enslavement, the WN claim is even weaker. Claiming oppression and superiority simultaneously is evidence of Dunning-Kruger.
The difference is here: blacks are whining parasitic idiots who themselves can't do anything, just create the chaotic turd world environment. Jews, as a group, are rather capable- Israel shows that-; then, they are a minority, while whites are majority compared to both blacks & Jews. Blacks fantasize about some imaginary civilization whites had, according to them, "stolen"; whites, on the other hand, have really created great civilizations in past 500 years across the world, and Jews had been of virtually no importance in building those civilizations, both in Americas or in Russian Asia or in European rule in India, Indonesia, Without a single Jew, there would be Anglo-America, Hispanic-America, Russian Siberia, British India, Anglo-American power in China & Japan, rench rule in Indo-China, British Australia
What is WN fantasy is that Jews form some kind of organized secret society which "rules". There is no such thing, anywhere. But, one could point to a few unpleasant things about Jewish ethnic group:
1. they have been hugely over-represented in financial scandals which had had dire consequences (Panama scandals, Stavisky affair, certainly other numerous others). On the other hand- they did not have anything to do with Wall street panic of 1929.
2. in dirty affairs which included Maxwell, Epstein we see corrupt & sleazy Jewish white collar criminals who are, in all likelihood, connected to Israel's spying agencies & secret services. There is some dirt in all that, and this dirt has unmistakably Jewish face. As does various criminal activities connected with Israel (diamonds, smuggling, prostitution etc.). Not that Israel is some super-villain (there are much worse countries, especially Islamic), just, more dirt can be traced to Israel than to, say, Germany or Switzerland.
@Franklin Ryckaert "But the Unz Review publishes also articles critical of Israel."That is true, but a diaspora Jew, who has whole his life heard that goyim have irrational hatred of Jews, will explain to himself that these critical articles of Israel (or of Jews) are simply hatred and do not reflect the reality. That they only show that anti-Semitism is growing and he better move to Israel.
... ... ...
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2019 | OffGuardian
This article was first published on March 1st of this year, however, it is given fresh relevance in the wake of Labour's reinstatement, and then re-suspension, of Derby MP Chris WilliamsonPhoto: The Crucible at the Pacific Conservatory Theatre
PUTNAM: Now look you, sir. Let you strike out against the Devil, and the village will bless you for it! Come down, speak to them -- pray with them. They're thirsting for your word, Mister! Surely you'll pray with them.
PARRIS: (swayed) I'll lead them in a psalm, but let you say nothing of witchcraft yet. I will not discuss it. The cause is yet unknown. I have had enough contention since I came; I want no more.
Arthur Miller The CrucibleIn his magisterial autobiography, Timebends , describing his motivation behind his classic work The Crucible (extracted above) -- the most compelling and enduring allegorical piece of drama to grace the American theatre -- Arthur Miller reveals the following:
What I sought was a metaphor, an image that would spring out of the heart, all-inclusive, full of light, a sonorous instrument whose reverberations would penetrate to the centre of this miasma. For if the current degeneration of discourse continued, as I had every reason to believe it would, we could no longer be a democracy, a system that requires a certain basic trust in order to exist."
The 'miasma' referred to by Miller in the above passage was the atmosphere of censorious paranoia whipped up by the anti-Communist witchhunts of the 1940s and 1950s, starting under the auspices of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), established in 1938, joined thereafter by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings into alleged Communist infiltration from the late 1940s.
The period concerned, commonly referred to as McCarthyism, illuminated the parameters of free speech and expression in a country and culture which prides itself on both. It drilled home the profound truth that tyranny is less the by-product of totalitarian political systems and more the product of totalitarian ideas and nostrums that sustain political orthodoxy in a given space and time. And, too, whenever those ideas and nostrums come under challenge, said democracy is exposed as a cloak behind which mendacity resides, ruthlessly seeking malcontents to expose and miscreants to punish.
In Britain in 2019 we need no longer turn to US history for an understanding of McCarthyism and its execrable fruits.
For in Britain in 2019 McCarthyism is with us and among us, corroding our public and political discourse, poisoning it with the untruths, lies and mendacious smears of some of the most malignant political forces that ever existed in these islands.
Reds under the bed has been replaced with antisemites under the bed; this with the full and open complicity of a mainstream media whose dread over the prospect of transformational political change is entwined in tight embrace with that of an Establishment -- political and security -- in ensuring nothing but nothing will ever change in this country apart from the colour of the curtains on the windows in Downing Street.
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party has to intents been usurped by his deputy Tom Watson, a man for whom Shakespeare's "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here!" line from The Tempest could have been written with in mind.
Labour Friends of Israel
Watson is the Labour Party's Matthew Hopkins, the infamous witch-hunter whose reign of terror in 17th century Britain finds its metaphorical equivalent in the 21st century with the objective not of locating and hanging out to dry antisemites but instead anti-Zionists, which means to say genuine anti-racists.
For what is Zionism if not racism, a species of white supremacy responsible for relegating the humanity of five million men, women and children of the illegally occupied West Bank and besieged Gaza Strip to that of latter-day Helots?
Adding to the mountain of intellectual and moral ordure erected in service to this miasma of untruth and base hypocrisy, are the findings of a UN investigation into the Palestinians killed and wounded by Israeli snipers during last year's Great Return March in Gaza.
According to the UN's Santiago Canton:
Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity."
In diplomatic-speak, Mr Canton is here referencing the manner in which Israeli soldiers shot down dozens of unarmed Palestinians -- among them children, medics and journalists -- like deer in a forest, with some of those Israeli soldiers caught on tape laughing and celebrating their 'kills'.
It is to this monstrosity of an apartheid state Tom Watson and his friends are giving succour and sanction; and it this supremacist juggernaut of oppression we are expected to accept as compatible with left-wing progressive values.
There is nothing more grotesque than being lectured to about antisemitism, or any other form of racism, by apologists for a racist apartheid state. Yet this grotesquerie is precisely where we have arrived at in response to Corbyn's unlikely elevation to the leadership of the Labour Party.
His legacy as a staunch supporter of Palestinian human rights and self-determination has been weaponised against him and his supporters by a pro-Israel lobby within and without the Labour Party, plumbing depths of indecency last witnessed during the era of McCarthyism across the Atlantic.
For those who doubt how deeply entrenched the pro-Israel lobby now is within the UK body politic, Al Jazeera's blistering documentary The Lobby is required viewing.
Given the context and the stakes involved in this ongoing witch hunt and smear campaign, the lack of meaningful resistance on the part of Corbyn is unconscionable; his refusal to mobilise his base in the face of it inexplicable. The result has not been to see it disappear but for it to prosper and grow in ferocity.
Be under no illusion either of the complicity of key figures in and around the Labour leadership in whipping up and/or acquiescing in this baseless hysteria -- Lansman, McDonnell et al. -- to the point where Corbyn has been rendered well nigh unelectable as a prospective prime minister.
That this is a smear campaign and witchhunt conducted, regardless of the fog of obfuscation deployed to the contrary, on behalf of a foreign power -- and an apartheid power at that -- compounds the offence.
But this issue is now bigger than Corbyn. It is about where we stand on matters of intellectual and moral integrity; and most of all on the rights we accrue to an oppressed people and those of their oppressor. Future generations are watching and waiting for the stance that we take.
Arthur Miller understood this, which is why his light will shine forever bright as a beacon of moral courage in an age of deceit.
End.
Ben Trovata
"They misunderestimated me."George Bush,the Younger,Nov. 6, 2000.MichaelKI'll not supply any facts. None whatsoever,saying only: Corbyn( I believe) is made of better material. Blairites must be expelled, or otherwise, go away!
I think one has to appreciate, despite all the 'far-left' labels stuck on him, that Corbyn only appeared to be a 'raving looney leftie' in comparison with the rightwing Blairite majority of MPs who've controlled the Labour Party for so long and capitulated to and followed a Thatcherite political agenda, for decades.markCorbyn himself isn't really a 'revolutionary' or even a radical. He's what half a century ago would have been described as a pretty normal, middle-of-the-road, Labour social democrat, barely on the left of the Party at all. But some of this is debatable, depending on where one stands on the spectrum personally. It's a sign of how far 'left' politics and 'left' discourse has degenerated in the UK, and political culture's moved so far to the right, that Corbyn, like a relic of a bygone era, is perceived as far more leftwing than he actually is, in reality.
What he is though, is ineffective as a leader. He lacks authority, I think, because he fundamentally lacks a set of strong ideas that show what he stands for and where he wants the country to move. There's no real narrative that mobilises support for him, and this is the curse of Labour; the leadership's fear of mobilising the membership and their supporters and votes in the country, too much and too far, which could easily lead to them raising their expectations way beyond what's 'realistic' and possible within the boundaries of bourgeois liberal democracy. Labour fought for political power in parliament; but didn't believe in openly challenging economic power in society in any meaningful way, because that strategy was simply not allowed because it was 'revolutionary' and not reformist.
Of course Corbyn is a "raving loony lefty."Barovsky
He wants to re nationalise the railways (maybe.)
And build a few council houses (maybe.)
How raving loony is that?
Obviously he's a raving loony.
Oh, and he objects to the genocide of the Palestinians.
Obviously a raving anti semite as well.
Just ask the Board of Deputies and Margaret Hodge and the Daily Mail. They'll explain it all to you.More to the point; he's a (Labour) Party man. The Party comes first, regardless. For almost 130 years the Labour Party has been an integral part of British capitalism and imperialism and the British state. Thus Corbyn, a run-of-the-mill social democrat is concerned only with the survival of the Party and he will do whatever is necessary in its defence including defenestrating his election manifesto (compare his draft with the one finally circulated in 2017)!mathias alexandShould he by some chance actually end up as PM, what are the odds of him actually reversing austerity when he's already sold out over every key part of his original manifesto?
There are going to be a lot of very disappointed and once more disconnected Labour voters.
What is this "leadership" and "authority" thing? As for his ideas he could have any number of them that you will never hear about in the MSM.MaggieTrue Mathias, but you can see and hear about them on the Jimmy Dore Show whose shows truly are a breath of fresh air:falcemartelloBernie Sanders of Britain and why he is widely loved, and sadly rare. July 2016
https://www.youtube.com/embed/a29WF44jDug?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
Labour Party Platform, Amazingly specific and pro worker. May 2017
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vI073wq2zKY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
Jeremy Corbyn Delivers Inspiring Speech June 2017
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8RsSPOcVcNM Wimbledon issues ban on chanting Jeremy Corbyn July 2017
https://www.youtube.com/embed/0MwqZkBOEz0 Pro Jeremy Corbyn ad makes Right wingers cry.July 2017
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ptC-0_gObNM NBC News Smears Jeremy Corbyn as an anti semite. July 2017
https://www.youtube.com/embed/F4d-ZAPx1q4 BBC Andrew Neil smashes Jeremy Corbyn Smear on Live TV Feb 2018
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IJZkYDYh37U Corbyn responds rationally to Russian nerve attack and is immediately smeared March 2018
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OsnAIUZIt8M Corbyn smeared as anti semite for attacking Bankers. September 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9US9v0ndusAnd on and on it goes, and the sh*t does stick. For the majority of people eventually just cave in and believe this Zionist garbage.
Anti-semitism oldest form of gas lighting that was ever created in the western world especially after the second world war. If one were to go to Palestine it is not uncommon to find some ebraic semite wearing a t shirt with on it printed an IDF soldier taking aim at a pregnant arab semite. Israel has to be exposed for what it is. It is an anglo-zionist colonial outpost.. Zionism was born in England it pre dates Herzl.harry lawHence until more exposure of the brutal nature of the Israeli zionist and their parents the anglo-zionist becomes exposed then the diluted term of anti semite will continue to be used. I find that with the dying western paradigm so will this gaslighting term become irrelevant .If any intellectual honesty were to be used the real anti semites are the zionist.
Post Scriptum : Israel has a shelf life and it is omploding with in hence so will zionism.
Having experience racism first hand growing up and still being exposed to it today for mhy ethnicity I am not fortunate enough as the ashkanazi /zionist to deflect and gaslight my oppressors.
Former South African Minister Ronnie Kasrils himself Jewish on Thursday accused Israel of conducting a policy against the Palestinians that was "worse" than apartheid.andyoldlabourSpeaking on the sidelines of a UN meeting on the situation in the Palestinian territories, Kasrils said South Africa's townships had never been attacked by helicopter gunships and tanks, in contrast to the military means employed by Israel.
https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/israel-worse-than-apartheid-sa-kasrils-352481
Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel all different organisations?Capricornia ManNo, of course they are not, even if the ordinary man in the street may think so.
They are all controlled by the Israeli state, to do the bidding of that state, to demonise any person who shows empathy with the plight of the Palestinian people, any person who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli state.
On the other hand, you have Jewish Friends of Labour, seen by the Israeli state as "self hating Jews", the "wrong type of Jew".
What we are seeing at the moment is Zio-McCarthyism.'McCarthyism' is exactly what I have been calling the witch-hunt for some time. It's surprising that the term is taking so long to come into general use when it is the appropriate term based on historical analogy, as shown by the article. The pile-on against anyone who dares to support the political and national rights of the Palestinians induces physical illness in anyone remotely interested in justice and truth.vwbeetleThe rancid 'liberal' media frames its "coverage" by treating accusations of 'antisemitism' not as the thing which has to be proved, but as the proof itself. A classic McCarthyite process.
The vast majority of Britons must be fed up having their politics held up to ransom in this manner. Stand up for yourselves and by-pass the fifth column and the coward element in the Labour Party.
To read the Guardian, one would think that Williamson has no supporters in Labour whatsoever. As far as the Guardian is concerned, Jewish Voice for Labour and its condemnation of the witch hunt and smear campaign against Corbyn and Williamson and anyone who supports Palestinian rights, does not exist. Up until a couple of years ago I was a regular contributor on CIF discussion threads, largely rebutting Zionists and their propaganda and outright lies. I was eventually blocked, probably because large numbers of Zionists reported me, despite the fact that I largely restricted my posts to historical facts. Over the past two years it is almost impossible to make comments on CIF about any article about Israel/Palestine, or the anti-semitism smear campaign. What has happened at the Guardian? Does anyone know why the paper seems to have changed course?MichaelKThe lurch to the political right at the Guardian is linked to the Snowden and Assange revelations that challenged the cosy ideological relationship between the media and the state, to a degree that is simply not allowed, if one wants to be seen as loyal and responsible. There are consequences is one, as an individual, group or institution, is perceived as being illoyal by the Establishment and the state.HaltonbratAssange and Snowden pulled the Guardian over an invisible line, into a grey area, at the time, which was perceived as being tantamount to treason, and now the Guardian has been successfully reined in once more and now co-opperates with the state on matters relating to 'national security.' The damage, has been undone and a proper and reasonable relationship established.
The Guardian has been pro-Zionist since the days of editor CP Scott who introduced the Zionist leader to Looyd George and supported the Zionists in his writings in the Manchester Guardian.ShardlakeIt all changed, and not for the better, after Alan Rusbridger left. It's as much a mouthpiece now for this appalling government as the Murdoch press and their like. There's been a continual shift in centre ground politics to the right since the days of Thatcher.Stephen MorrellWe are seeing what Edward Bernays described in 1928 as the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
PS. The Labour Party never fails to disappointStephen MorrellIt's time to stop calling Israel an 'apartheid state'. Snipers today, missiles and bombs tomorrow, with deliberate and active ruination of amenity, infrastructure and the means to live -- by siege, every day.HaltonbratIsrael's atrocities are not simply 'crimes against humanity'. They're crimes directed against a particular ethnic/national/racial segment of humanity. That's called genocide. Netanyahu and his gang are genocidal, and consequently the garrison state of Israel is also a 'genocide state'. Time to start applying the g-word.
Yes, The actions of Israel meet the UN definition of genocide.markThe Times of Israel, a national newspaper, quite openly advocated genocide. It called for the Palestinian people to be exterminated at concentration camps in the desert. The "Justice" Minister, a woman called Shaked, called for Palestinian mothers to be exterminated, so that no Palestinian children could be born. Two rabbis in Israel published a book called "The King's Torah." It called for all Palestinian children to be murdered.maggieKilling a goy, any goy, is a Mitzvah, a praiseworthy act.
If the Jews get the war with Iran they have been trying to incite and agitate for for so long, they will use this as cover to carry out actual genocide on a massive scale.
People need to give up completely on Labour. It is infested wall to wall with 30 shekel whores.
Hi Mark, Do you have links to the information you have posted please.markIf we give up on Labour, then who do we rely on? I think what we should be doing is focussing all our energies on removing (de selecting) the 90 "friends of Israhell" who have been baying for Chris Williamson and Jeremy Corbyn to be removed permanently from the Labour Party. Beginning with the evil with Hodge, and her cronies headed by Tom Watson.
The Times of Israel, 1/8/14.Stephen Morrell
"When Genocide Is Permissible", by Yochanan Gordon.
Openly advocates, endorses and justifies the genocide of the Palestinians.Ayelet Shaked, 14/7/14.
"Mothers of all Palestinians should be killed. They have to die and their houses should be demolished. They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands."
A day before Palestinian teenager Muhammad Abu Khudair was kidnapped and burned alive by 6 Jew thugs, Shaked published a call for the genocide of the Palestinians in Facebook.
"The entire Palestinian people is the enemy, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."
She called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers. "to prevent them giving birth to little snakes."The King's Torah, 230 page book published 2009 by Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva. Authors Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur. Endorsed by many leading rabbis.
It openly incites and calls for the extermination of the Palestinians, and explains how this is morally justified.
It is a call for indiscriminate extermination.
The killing of children, en masse, responds to "the existence of an internal need for revenge."
"In the face of revenge, no one is innocent, be they old, young, children, men or women, and regardless of their health."
It rejects any notion of international law and the protection of civilians in time of war, or international humanitarian law on the prevention of genocide. Israel is above international law, because Jews are superior to Gentiles and the lives of Gentiles have no value.Jews are indoctrinated from birth to hate all the goyim.
Israel is an openly genocidal, terrorist, racist state.
There is no doubt that in the event of a major war with Iran, it would use this as cover to commit genocide, which has been long planned.I apologise for taking up so much space in replying to your very telling question about what alternative is there to Labour. First, it should now be clear to everyone that Labour, whether led by Corbyn or any other 'left' social democrat, is no answer to the dire situation we face. Right now there is no mass party on this planet that can provide the leadership necessary, let alone serve as the instrument, for the revolutionary change so desperately needed to excise the malignancy of capitalism from the human social organism. This is a crisis of revolutionary leadership.markThe bourgeois Greens are not the answer either, and most of the traditional left and 'far' left are mired in one form or another of opportunistic kow-towing to Corbyn and Labour or the Greens. This isn't to say that one should never vote Labour, the party of the working class. It's to say that one should only give support to Labour, as 'a rope supports a hanging man' (Lenin), when it furthers revolutionary and class consciousness in the working class. The working class, as politically backward as it might be now in many ways, is the only class with the social power to overthrow the capitalists -- it can stop and start production at will and, most importantly, if it had the political consciousness and leadership to do so, it could take over production and overthrow capitalism. Such a consciousness is smothered and suppressed by Labour and the current leaders of the trade unions (such as the latter currently exist).
Presently Labour deserves no vote because under Corbyn they've refused to support Brexit and are pushing for a second referendum. Tony Benn, Corbyn's mentor, would have been railing against him over his betrayal of this fundamental class issue in Britain. Corbyn is Blair lite. On the EU he's Blair quiet.
If in power, Corbyn would either be forced to bow to the diktats of capital and the ruling class or be pushed out, and pronto. Already forces centred on MI6's The Guardian, the Zionist lobby, the aristocratic feudal relics, the military, 'the City' rentiers, and of course the Blairites, have been undermining him because of his mild reformist and foreign policy stances. However, the ruling class would rush to Corbyn and Labour, or another 'left' alternative, if their rule were seriously threatened by an awakened working class. Before fascism, Corbyn would be their best and last hope.
What then of the left and far left? They're all still propaganda groups. We have the likes of the SP, SWP, Socialist Alternative and so on, who've advocated a vote for Labour unconditionally at just about every election. And they've also supported the bourgeois Greens. In doing so, they provide no alternative to Labour. Instead their strategy is to try to pressure Labour to the left. How's that been working? Corbyn still supports the EU. How many times has he mentioned Julian Assange? Or the basic necessity to do away with the monarchy and House of Lords and all the other 'traditions of the dead generations [that] weigh like a nightmare upon the living' (Marx). At least in the US, the ISO (followers of the late Tony Cliff) have decided to sate their opportunistic appetites and dissolve themselves to join the Democratic Socialists of America (ie, social democrats inside a bourgeois party, the Democratic Party of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Then we have the Socialist Equity Party, ostensibly 'Trotskyist' and followers of David North, that declares trade unions in principle to be an instrument for the subjugation of the working class. Imagine that: the prime defense organs of the working class historically are written off in advance because their leaderships betray the rank and file (which they do, but not always, not inevitably). Outfits like the SEP don't have a perspective to take these trade union leaderships on from within and fight to replace them with a revolutionary leadership in the heat of struggle to turn the unions into real working class defense organs.
Consequently, a revolutionary consciousness cannot be developed from within the working class in struggle for it to act in its own historic interests. The SEP have a slew of other programmatic issues that are awry as well, but their outlook boils down to opportunism afraid of itself.
This isn't to say that the World Socialist Website is completely useless. It isn't, but its articles on workers and trade union struggles in particular need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
In short, if there are only propaganda groups at the moment that pose an alternative to Labour, then it at least behoves those looking for an alternative to Labour to not waste time or effort on any group that can't get even the basics of a program right, let alone before they even dirty their hands in actual struggle.
What's left then? Right now, the first criteria to look out for is if an ostensibly revolutionary group advocates 'No vote to Labour', and draws a class line for Brexit and against a new referendum; one that works consistently to destroy any illusions in the bourgeois state and its parliament ever being 'reformed' to act in the interests of the working class -- which means also exposing those who do. That's pretty fundamental, but it's a start.
So far the only group that does these things in the UK is the Spartacist League of Britain. See:
https://www.icl-fi.org/english/wh/index.html
and
https://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1157/brexit.htmlVery shrewd assessment. But I'd say a re run of pre war Weimar is the most likely outcome. People are far more likely to turn to far worse than Trump or Farage as things deteriorate. Expect to see more Zionist controlled opposition like the EDL.maggieMmm.. Stephen, a very interesting reply.. and links, which I will read and try to digest, though I have to confess a lot of the information contained therein, at 'first glance' I thought had been tried, tested and failed owing to the avarice of the capitalists and their power to remove the ground from under our feet.Stephen Morrell
This may be the wrong interpretation? But I will read the links more thoroughly and try to get my head around the concepts.What I think we could do immediately, is to have the one man one vote system, to elect the 'man/woman' we choose to represent us and dispense with 'parties' altogether.
Surely, it can't be that difficult with today's technology, which would automatically dispense with the ballot box and the inherent frauds that continually happen.
Or am I being too simplistic and naοve?
Then again.. isn't this just the Russian system, and was that of Libya?The organs of power that spring up during revolutions are what work at the time. They're not created a priori, but they go on to serve the basis for the exercise of mass democracy. The Paris Commune had the The Committee of Public Safety, Russia had soviets (Russian for workers' council) that first arose in 1905 and again in 1917. The basis for their power rests on a politically conscious and armed constituency that has risen up which can recall elected representatives at any time (because they're armed).espartacoSoviets elect representatives to higher soviet bodies (collegiate system), but their main purpose is to decide and vote on what, not whom. On an economic plan for example.
In contrast, bourgeois democracy at most gives you the privilege of voting for which scumbag will oppress you for the next 4 or 5 years. This is not to denigrate democratic rights but it is the way capitalist rule is disguised and legitimated; and we're made to feel responsible for outcomes because we participated in voting in elections. We help the executioner load his gun. One should never confuse elections with democracy.
I can recommend the following reading list which might help:
EH Carr, "What is History" (a great, broad-brushed approach to understanding different stages in human history and development).
K Marx, F Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"
F Engels, "Socialism Utopian and Scientific"
VI Lenin, "What Is To Be Done" (On the need for a party of the Bolshevik type)
VI Lenin, "State and Revolution" (On why the existing state must be smashed replaced by a new one, and what happens to it after a socialist revolution)
LD Trotsky, "Lessons of October" (On why the revolution occurred in backward Russia and not Germany)
LD Trotsky, "Results and Prospects" (On why backward countries in the epoch of imperialism not being able make a bourgeois revolution whose tasks can only be accomplished by a proletarian revolution -- the theory of 'Permanent Revolution')
LD Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed" (Why Stalin arose and soviet democracy was smashed in the USSR)
Some of these are a little heavy going and polemical (eg, Lenin), and Marx is full of historical and literary references, but patience will be rewarded. Except for EH Carr (available as a Penguin classic), these can all be accessed at: https://www.marxists.org/
Too much ado about nothing It is very simple Socialism has NOTHING to do with religion Judaism, Christianism, Islamism or whatever. They invite these kind problems because the bourgeois that control Labour, allowed every kind of minorities to infiltrate the Party (and all other parties) to, eventually, destroy it through religious, racial and minority wars. What you see is what you get when leftist minoritymongering has taken over politics. The solution is very simple, all religious groups should be thrown out of the party, together with all the bourgeois. MP's first !!!lundielI agree. We currently have MPs of all parties acting as agents for their countries of birth, or as agents of third countries (Ms Smeeth). This worked when they (agents) had no real political power, they were limited to cultural exchange visits etc. The change came with the growth in size and power of our security services .there's more than one way to skin a cat like Corbyn!MaggieFear not Lundiel, the work is already begun . Jeremy will NEVER be allowed to lead.MuchoAnonymous 'Civil Servants' (Deep State Operatives) have briefed the media regarding the allegedly frail condition of possible PM-to-be Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of no evidence whatever.
Understandably, Corbyn is very angry about this demanding an investigation into the leak.Given the story is without foundation and knowing the threat the establishment sees in Corbyn, a leader whose policies include the creation of a National Bank (aaaarghh the fiend the fiend) and the renationalisation of public utilities (including transport) a leader whose knee-jerk reaction to Ashkenazi Jewish assaults against the Semitic population in Israel is to speak out loudly and boldly in defence of Palestinians' rights
given all this, we know that the idea of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of Great Britain is absolutely unacceptable to our ruling 'establishment'.
Let it be said then what Mr Corbyn and his inner circle must be thinking about the appearance of this non-story that the establishment is 'creating the option to eliminate' Mr. Corbyn (by heart attack dart?) in the event of his winning or threatening to win a UK general election.
Performing such a national service would be 'business as usual' for our "protectors" at MI5.
For example -Keith Mothersson: After he died in 2009, his obituary appeared in The Guardian.
The following facts are not included in the obituary of this heroic absolute gentleman:
"Keith created an organisation in 2008/9 called "ALL FAITHS FOR 9/11 TRUTH".
He, like most members of '9/11 Truth (UK & Ireland)', saw 9/11 truth as a spiritual (as much as a political) matter.
He went round the country meeting religious leaders and forming connections and bonds between the various groups he had organised. There were C of E, Catholic, Muslim (the largest group based in a couple of the biggest mosques in the country), Buddhist, and even a Jewish group.
I was involved with Keith, approaching 'Catholic' leaders (as an aside, the couple I tried to talk to [it was early days] were hostile to the idea even engaging with the issue maybe, for someone who has taken vows of obedience, this is an issue for the Pope alone)."The thing is that Keith was the connection and bond between the groups he had started forming.
He lived in Perth, Scotland. On one evening during September 2009 Keith returned to his house in Perth. He arrived home in a dishevelled state, exhausted and confused. He told his partner that he been accosted by a group of men on the walk home and had "a terrible struggle in a van". He had been held down then released. He repeated "Why me?" to himself a few times before his partner helped him to bed.
She told friends that when Keith woke up he didn't know who he was. He did not recognise her either. He was taken to hospital where he lay silently in bed for two weeks before dying.
A multi-faith, well-organised, religious collective demanding answers re 9/11 represented a genuine threat to the "Deep State".
Keith had gone too far. He was "eliminated" and his nascent organisation along with him.
And there is no one to whom one can even report this terrible crime. Such is the nature of our society.
https://wwwkevboyle.blogspot.com/2019/06/corbyns-health-and-keith-mothersson.htmlJeremy Corbyn is not a fool. He understands very well the 'options' for the Deep State such a story creates and what this leak could possibly imply.. that is why I believe he may look as if he is indecisive?
Very interesting Maggie, thanksandyoldlabourThat is indeed correct. The various politicians who are involved in this disgraceful hounding of Corbyn and others, have pledged alliegence to Israel and the interference of Israel in the politics of the UK.Martin UsherThe key to the anti-Semitism problem is the conflation of Judaism with Zionism. This didn't happen by accident, it is a deliberate and relatively modern policy. (An old (Jewish) friend described the indoctrination he got to me growing up. That was quite a long time ago, its probably so ingrained now that nobody notices this process any more.)RamdanI may have a very simplistic view of things but to me Judaism is an Abrahamic religion with deep roots going back thousands of years. Zionism is a relatively modern European movement that dates from the latter half of the 19th century that has origins and aims that are not unlike many other 'volk' movements from the same period. Most of these were relatively harmless, 'back to the land' sorts of things but the racial undertones provided the underpinnings for, among others, the Nazis.
I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but seriously there's a huge undercurrent of racism in some parts of Jewish society. I was first made aware of this many years ago when and old (goy) friend made the mistake of marrying an Orthodox girl. Up to that point I had only known secular/reform Jews so didn't think too much of it but the reaction from her family was quite extreme, protracted and not at all nice. The culture's there if you look for it -- its actually not unlike radical Islam in mindset so if it ever gets to a position of power (e.g. in modern Israel) then its going to be trouble for the untermensch!
"Israeli Zionism is the singular cancer that has been forcefully injected into the minds of world leaders across the globe; a cancer that these similarly affected leaders would wantonly force upon what little remains of the moral, civilized and correct conscience of man."vwbeetleZionism is a malevolent influence upon the body politic of the western world.Francis LeeThe picture of Tom Watson and the other political 5th Columnists in the Labour party standing in front of a very large blue and white star of David flag tells us all we need to know. A bit like a political group in the UK sporting a Hammer and Sickle flag at Tory party conference. Labour Friends of Israel is of course a Zionist front in the LP. It's object is to further Israeli interests, and therefore it necessarily means against British interests. What else would they be doing? Promoting socialism perhaps? LFI has already been set in motion to get Corbyn and his co-thinkers to change their ways or else. In this sense also the British elite are working hand-in-glove with LFI and the Israelis, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if the CIA were not also involved at some level.mathias alexandThe trouble with Labour is that it doesn't want to be regarded as being 'extreme' or 'unrespectable'; oh dear no. We've even done away with Clause 4. Now how much higher do you want us to jump? We want to be Her Majesty's loyal opposition. 'Pale pink humbug' as Orwell called it. He called it right.
Labour is hampered by a lack of internal democracy which goes back to its origins as an alliance of pre-existing groups like trade unions, etc.DunGroaninThe Obsessive Groaniads daily pile of AS mud slinging, Barbara Ellen frothsGezzah Potts
"maddening, mendacious, slippery, gormless, prevaricating'
she snarls NOT writing about the tory clowns.
"I've long been anti-Corbyn for reasons beyond Brexit (antisemitism, anybody?)"
She raves and slobbers not realising that she is projecting.Another article there by a 'famous' author ive never heard of has his unnamed publicist getting lots of free advertising for his 'great' writings for free because he thinks he has been subjected to AS!
Complete Utter Nonsensical Crappery by the shameless gormless Groaniad.
Ho hum wait till the next government tasks the completion and implementation of Leveson 2.
DG . What do you expect from these presstitute stenographers. Full boycott of all mainstream media, including alleged 'progressive' media. On a tangent, used to read Barbara Ellen many years ago (30?) when she wrote for the NME which was basically my 'bible' back then. How sad the once great Babs Ellen has become a . Slug.DunGroaninAh the NME a bible for us back in the day see how it was taken out and shot after it supported Corbyn in 2017.Gezzah PottsA very accidental death it suffered.
Imagine what they would bave done to Russell Brand if he had had the same influence.
Yes i'm afraid most of the neolib con artiste creatures of the Obssezsive Groan are beyond saving. They will sizzle in the light.
Thanks DG. I only know the NME is now online only, didn't know the reasons for its print demise. I wonder what the late Steven Wells would have made of all this ludicrous crap? I just can't tolerate the cretinous craven presstitutes in the MSM anymore. Gets me too fecked off knowing what they're loudly spouting is pro empire, pro imperialist bullshit in the service of the 0.01℅. Good site for you to check is Neoliberalism Softpanorama. A vast treasure trove of info.Francis LeeWhat is difficult to forgive is the fact in times gone by, and occasionally today, the Jewish intelligentsia have made a huge input into the development of western civilization. In terms of politics, Marx, Rosa Luxembourg, Greogy Lukacs, Eduard Bernstein, Leon Trotsky, Leonard Woolf; in terms of social theory, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Hannah Arendt; in terms of literaure Franz Kafka, Saul Bellow. Contemporary intellectuals being Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and possibly a less well-known and very courageous Jewish oppositionist, Gideon Levy, who writes for Haaretz. These were the guys I cut my teeth on as a student and whom I still revere to a great extent. It was the Jewish intelligentsia who led the opposition against the forces of reaction, particularly in Europe.John CalvertTimes have changed it seems, Israel and Zionism are now the forces of reaction.
Yes. But how many of those great names would have willingly and proudly posed in front of the national flag of the state of Israel?Philip ToalFacts would be appreciated in light of the truth that G. levy, Finkelstein, Pappe etc. are indeed alive and well. It's apparently a case of informed opinions based on pure facts as opposed to ignorance as to who is alive or dead that is issue important.Chris WAntinationalism for goyim and nationalism for jews because goyim have these genocidal tendencies Many, many Jews deep down believe that Non-Jews want to kill them, so pre-emptive strikes is the way to go. Most of all strikes against the ethnic and religious identity of non-Jewish people, because those identities make a people strong. So socialist Jews in Europe and zionist ones everywhere fight the same pro-Jewish/anti-goyim fightharry lawJohn McDonnell encapsulates for me the pathetic spinelessness of the Labour Party, in a long interview with the Jewish news the interviewer asked him why Corbyn shared platforms with Anti-semites "So when we're talking about sharing a platform with anti-Semites, we're not talking about people who are just supportive of the Palestinian cause, do you think it might be time for an apology"?markJmD: "You have to look at why he was sharing platforms, it was not to endorse them, it was to try and engage with them".
There you have it, his friend Corbyn spent the past 30 years of his life traversing the country addressing Palestinian and antiwar groups and offering them his support, then in one sentence McDonnell throws his friend under the bus "it was not to endorse them". With a friend like McDonnell who needs enemies.
My advice to McDonnell is get on your belly and crawl and then ask for forgiveness from the Board of Deputies, it still will not be enough. They will only be happy when Corbyn is destroyed.However much you grovel and appease these people, it is never enough. Give $10 billion to Israel and you're anti semitic because you haven't given it $50 billion. Fight 5 wars for Israel, and you're anti semitic because you haven't fought 10 wars for Israel.Steve HayesNetanyahu explained it all quite well.
"If we get caught, they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do. America is a golden calf, and we will suck it dry, chop it up and sell it off piece by piece till there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the Will of God and America is big enough to take the hit. So we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."
To America, add Britain.
The comparison to a witch hunt is perfectly accurate. The attack works by mere accusation. The facts, evidence, criteria of evaluation are all irrelevant. Accuse emotively, and construe any dissent or even scepticism as proof of guilt. This is the modus operandi of the witch hunters, the arbiters of truth and the only acceptable version of reality. This becomes a loyalty test. Anyone who refuses to support the witch hunters is either already a witch or in imminent danger of becoming one. https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/09/on-dog-whistles-and-witch-finders.htmlHarry Stotle'The attack works by mere accusation. The facts, evidence, criteria of evaluation are all irrelevant. Accuse emotively, and construe any dissent or even scepticism as proof of guilt. This is the modus operandi of the witch hunters' hammer, welcome to head of nail.MaggieRight out of Goebel's hand bookSteve Hayes
- "This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it."
- "The truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Maggie I am pretty sure that none of the quotes you attribute to Goebbels were said/written by him. Perhaps you could cite your source(s)?MuchoHurricane survivors forced to pledge allegiance to Israel to receive Support (In Texas Town) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqOIeUTx8VQ&t=11sMuchoFormer Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney talks with PressTV about how the Israeli Lobby owns both the Congress and the Senate and how AIPAC and the ADL took her out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_VNOk7Wv5A
More than 200 British MPs sign a pledge to Israel https://unitedwithisrael.org/over-200-uk-candidates-sign-pro-israel-pledge/
Montel Jordan This Is How We Do It https://www.youtube.com/embed/0hiUuL5uTKc
More than 200 British MPs sign a pledge to Israel ..should say Candidates for election, not MPs
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2019 | mondoweiss.net
Lawmakers in New Jersey have introduced an antisemitism bill that would prohibit certain criticism of Israel in public schools and universities. The proposed legislation comes on the heels of similar bills being passed in South Carolina and Florida . Last year, the Department of Education adopted a new definition of antisemitism to include criticism of Israel.
SB 4001 was introduced on June 24 by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Sen. Robert Singer. It aims to ensure that antisemitism is treated the same way as other forms of discrimination by amending state law. However, the bill equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism in a number of places including:
-[D]emonizing Israel by using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israeli people, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all interreligious or political tensions;
-[A]pplying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel; and
-[D]elegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.
In fact, the bill states that criticism of Israel can only avoid being considered antisemitic if "it is similar to criticism toward any other country."
A group of 13 human rights groups (including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations) have sent a letter to the New Jersey Education Senate Committee urging lawmakers to reject the legislation:
We write to raise concerns with S. 4001/A. 5755, an Act prohibiting anti-Semitism in public schools and institutions of higher education (the Act), which fails to achieve this goal. The Act codifies a widely contested redefinition of antisemitism that includes protected speech critical of Israel.2 This vague and overbroad redefinition in the Act conflates political criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish hate, encouraging infringements on constitutionally protected speech related to a human rights movement, and undermining the fight against real antisemitism.
Indeed, in our experience defending civil rights on college campuses, we have seen firsthand how the redefinition that the Act would codify has been used as a tool to silence students, faculty, and staff who advocate for Palestinian rights.3 This experience makes clear that the primary aim of this bill is to censor First Amendment-protected criticism of Israeli government policies and speech calling for freedom, justice, and equality for Palestinians. It invites New Jersey schools and universities to violate free speech rights by discriminating against certain viewpoints and chilling one side of an important political debate.
SB 4001 is very similar to a Florida bill that was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in May, just days after the state's cabinet held a ceremonial meeting in Israel. Last year, South Carolina became the first state to pass such a law.
Last September, the Department of Education changed the criteria for investigating antisemitism to include criticism of Israel and reopened a 2011 case in which Jewish students at Rutgers University were allegedly discriminated against. That complaint was originally made by the Zionist Organization of America in response to a pro-Palestinian event on campus. This new interpretation is sometimes referred to as the "State Department Definition" because it's listed on their website, but it hasn't actually been formally adopted as federal law. However, Congress is currently trying to change that.
In March, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019 . The bill would adopt the definition listed on the State Department's website "for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities." A previous version of the bill died at the end of the last congressional session. Scott's legislation currently has 16 cosponsors, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
Liz Jackson is a founding staff attorney for Palestine Legal, an independent organization that defends the rights of people who speak out on issues of Palestinian freedom. "This definition is the result of a decades-long lobbying push by Israel advocacy organizations (and Israel itself) to codify the false equation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel, in order to censor calls for Palestinian rights," she told Mondoweiss , "This is an Israel lobby priority because there is no other way to address critiques of Israel's human rights record. They don't want to talk about brutality towards Palestinians because they have no good answer. Their only response to Palestinians' call for freedom and equality is to censor it."
The push the redefine antisemitism began to gain steam over a decade ago after pro-Israel groups began promoting a paper by Tel Aviv University professor Dina Porat titled, "The International Working Definition of Antisemitism and Its Detractors." Porat wrote that antisemitism could manifest itself with regard to Israel in the following ways:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Like the aforementioned state laws, Porat's definition stipulates that criticism of Israel is antisemitic unless it's "similar to that leveled against any other country."
The proposed New Jersey bill comes amidst a national debate regarding the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) and potential laws that would prohibit participation in it. As of April 2019, 27 states had adopted anti-BDS laws and there have been various attempts to criminalize the movement at the federal level. 344 Representatives currently back a resolution condemning BDS, while Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar recently proposed legislation affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in such boycotts.
|
|
|
Jul 05, 2019 | www.unz.com
Originally from: The plot to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power, by Jonathan Cook - The Unz Review
Corbyn was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party within sight of power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars for empire, fashionable "humanitarian interventions" whose real goal was to attack other sovereign states either to control their resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the military-industrial complex.
It was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There was the danger that they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn was seen to have an Achilles' heel. He was a life-long anti-racism activist and well known for his support for the rights of the long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments quickly learnt that they could recharacterise his support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. He was soon being presented as a leader happy to preside over an "institutionally" anti-semitic party.
Under pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and highly controversial definition of anti-semitism -- one rejected by leading jurists and later repudiated by the lawyer who devised it -- that expressly conflates criticism of Israel, and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred. One by one Corbyn's few ideological allies in the party -- those outside the Blairite consensus -- have been picked off as anti-semites. They have either fallen foul of this conflation or, as with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred and feathered for trying to defend Labour's record against the accusations of a supposed endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.
The bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in relation to Williamson. The comment that plunged him into so much trouble -- now leading twice to his suspension -- was videoed. In it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a "scourge" that must be confronted. But also, in line with all evidence , Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism problem. In part he blamed the party for being too ready to concede unwarranted ground to critics, further stoking the attacks and smears. He noted that Labour had been "demonised as a racist, bigoted party", adding: "Our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion we've backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we've been too apologetic."
The Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson's remarks not once but each time it has covered developments in his case. Every Guardian report has stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was "too apologetic about anti-semitism". In short, the Guardian and the rest of the media have insinuated that Williamson approves of anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour was "too apologetic" when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of anti-semitism, that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded premise of its critics that the party condoned racism.
Like the Salem witch-hunts
The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL calling them "part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the Labour Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: "Neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community."
In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt .
The anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the narrow corporate media "spectrum", even though they are unsupported by any actual evidence of an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one representative of wider British society. The allegations have reached such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria by the media, that the party is now under investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission -- the only party apart from the neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an investigation.
These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism -- opposition to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews -- was the same as anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel .
Now, however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland claiming not only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they speak for all other Jews in making such an identification. To criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn -- and there are many, even if they are largely ignored -- are denounced, in line with Lansman, as the "wrong kind of Jews". It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be unremarkable.
In fact, the weaponisation of Anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so normal that, even while I was writing this post, a new nadir was reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who hopes to defeat Boris Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good as accused Corbyn of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews to be exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Last month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked. Contrary to the refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure that he could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides of that Washington conversation was that the Labour leader might soon become Britain's prime minister.
Framing Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard asking Pompeo if he would be "willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK". Pompeo responded that it was possible "Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected" -- a telling phrase that attracted remarkably little attention, as did the story itself, given that it revealed one of the most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election.
Here is the dictionary definition of "run the gauntlet": to take part in a form of corporal punishment in which the party judged guilty is forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who strike out and attack him.
So Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet -- systematic and organised blows and strikes against Corbyn -- that he is being made to run through. In fact, "running the gauntlet" precisely describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour leader -- from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite faction of his own party, from rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous generals and senior civil servants.
'We cheated, we stole'
Pompeo continued: "You should know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened."
So, Washington's view is that action must be taken before Corbyn reaches a position of power. To avoid any danger he might become the UK's next prime minister, the US will do its "level best" to "push back". Assuming that this hasn't suddenly become the US administration's priority, how much time does the US think it has before Corbyn might win power? How close is a UK election?
As everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has been a distinct possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority goverment two years ago with the help of fickle, hardline Ulster loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating their own leader, prime minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.
So if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do whatever it can to make sure Corbyn doesn't win an election well before that election takes place, it means the US is already deeply mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US is ready to meddle in the UK's election, which is bad enough; he is hinting that it is already meddling in UK politics to make sure the will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong leader.
Remember that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America's spy chief, was unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he was in charge. He observed : "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It's -- it was like -- we had entire training courses."
One would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the CIA's culture during his short tenure. He simply became the figurehead of the world's most powerful spying outfit, one that had spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that had lied its way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by Pompeo. They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.
An eroding consensus
It takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear pattern here.
Brand was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media elites are captured, and that the power structure of our societies will defend itself by all means possible, "fair or foul". Corbyn is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged to stop a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders -- though not a rich businessman like Donald Trump -- winning the nomination for the US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism prized by the corporate media -- with its reliance on official sources and insiders for stories -- to divulge the secrets of the national security states we live in.
There is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned by critics: a small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of our societies. The conspiracy operates at an institutional level, one that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few. In that sense we are all part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that embraces us every time we unquestioningly accept the "consensual" narratives laid out for us by our education systems, politicians and media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears and narratives that turned us into the turkeys that keep voting for Christmas.
That system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully constructed over many decades is rapidly breaking down as the power structure that underpins it is forced to grapple with real-world problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual collapse of western economies premised on infinite growth and a climate that is fighting back against our insatiable appetite for the planet's resources.
As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events and economic crises.
The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children's future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say: "No!"
The Alarmist , says: July 4, 2019 at 12:47 pm GMT
nsa , says: July 5, 2019 at 3:42 am GMTThe initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe.
There was a term for that — Borking. But that was a much milder thing at its inception. So let’s just say that Corbyn is getting the Full Trumping. The latest smear is that JC is battling senior dementia, not far away from the 25th Amendment crowd, including a non-licenced Yale mental health “expert” who keeps pushing the case for Trump’s insanity in the MSM.
Daniel Rich , says: July 5, 2019 at 5:54 am GMTHumble nsa has worked in the UK (nord zee oil) and spent considerable time in working class pubs when onshore. The vast majority of decent working class people in the UK are closeted jew haters, and for good reason. So chances are the jew smear campaign will get Corbyn elected PM in a three way race. Of course, he will eventually prove to be a disappointment….but it will be fun seeing the tribe and their legions of useful idiots squirm for awhile.
Simon Tugmutton , says: July 5, 2019 at 8:24 am GMTantisemitism = all Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians fully excluded.
+ all european khazars in.
The word itself is devoid of meaning, rendered useless and become a full blown ‘stopper’ to end discussions about the Apartheid State and anything else to do with criticism of the state and the squatters in Occupied Palestine.
9/11 Inside job , says: July 5, 2019 at 9:43 am GMTAnother accident might yet see Corbyn as Prime Minister. If it is the System – in the shape of Theresa May and sundry Conservative MPs doing their best to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum – that has been resisting Brexit, then that same system is responsible for the return of Nigel Farage to the fray. His new Brexit Party could split the right-wing vote and allow Labour in by default.
I sympathise with Corbyn on the Palestine issue, but I am old enough and unlucky enough to have lived through the comparatively centrist Labour administrations of the 1970s and view with trepidation the prospect of John McDonnell, an avowed Maoist, as finance minister. Corbyn is surrounded by equally sinister and unpleasant people: he would likely be replaced soon after his elevation, and then God help the people of Britain.
This prospect is evidently alarming a number of Labour’s core voters, who seem to be defecting to the previously somnolent Liberal Democrat party, so maybe the left-wing vote will be split as well. The Brexit Party is also set to mop up a lot of working-class Labour voters, especially in the north of England, who are viscerally opposed to the EU.
Interesting times ahead, in the very best Chinese and proverbial sense of that term.
Ordinary Brit , says: July 5, 2019 at 11:24 am GMTThe plutocrats who are served the intelligence agencies such as the FBI, MI5. CIA and MI6 hate socialist leaders such as Maduro and the UK’s former Prime Minister Harold Wilson , if they can’t control them they will be removed by an engineered coup , a scandal or an early death , in the future Corbyn should avoid the hotel toothpaste .
@Honor is LoyaltyI think very few British people have Jewish ancestry. I never met a Jewish person until I was in my 30s and he was a secular Jew – bacon eater, etc. Among ordinary people outside London there was no antisemitism because most people didn’t know any Jewish people. But this Israeli embassy organised campaign against Corbyn is waking people up to the disproportionate influence of Jews in the UK. In The Times where the columnists are mainly Jewish there is an Israeli embassy planted story nearly every day.
|
|
|
Jul 08, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org
That is why genuine radical leftists are much less interested in who becomes the figurehead of a corrupt and corrupting political system than they are in finding ways to challenge the system and thereby highlight how power operates in our society. The goal is fundamental change, now of a kind that is needed to save us as a species, rather than continuing image management.
Corbyn's rise is so important because he threatens to lift the veil on the power structure, either because he is forced into a clash with it as he tries to implement his policies or because he is crushed by it before he can pursue those policies. Corbyn offers a unique opportunity to hold up a mirror to British society, stripping away the beautified mask to see the ugly skeleton-face below. He risks making the carefully concealed structure of power visible. And this is precisely why he is so dangerous to the status-quo-supporting centrists.
No single Jewish view
But still, aren't Williamson and Labour members suggesting that "Jews" are the ones behind this, as Iannucci infers? When we speak of plots by the powerful, global corporations, the banks and capitalists, aren't we really using coded language for "Jews"? And if we aren't, how do we explain the fact that Jews are so certain that Labour is mired in "institutional anti-semitism"?
"Jews", however, are not of one mind on this issue, except in the imagination of centrists pursuing the "Labour is institutionally anti-semitic" narrative. Certainly, there are lots of different views among British Jews about Labour. It's just that only one strand of opinion is being given a platform by the political and media class – the one against Corbyn. That should hardly surprise us if, as I explained, the corporate media are not there to reflect different constituencies of opinion, but to enforce a consensus that serves the powerful.
The problem with Iannucci's implicit argument that Jews should be left to decide whether Labour is anti-semitic – and that denying them that right is itself anti-semitic – is not only that it assumes Jews are of a single view. It makes two further dubious assumptions: that those who have been given a voice on the subject have actually experienced anti-semitism in Labour, and that they have no other identifiable motives for making such a claim. Neither assumption withstands scrutiny.
When the largely conservative leadership of the Board of Deputies is given centre-stage as spokesperson for British Jews on the issue of Labour and Corbyn, it can speak with no meaningful authority. Its previous leader, Jonathan Arkush, was not only an unabashed supporter of the Conservative Party, but openly welcomed its governing alliance with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, extreme Protestant loyalists, as "positive news" for Jews. His successor, Marie van der Zyl, argues that the Board exists "to promote a sympathetic understanding of Israel" – a position that necessarily drives her and the Board into a profound ideological clash with Corbyn and much of the Labour membership behind him.
Examples crumble on inspection
Those Jews inside Labour vociferously promoting claims of a supposed anti-semitism "crisis" in Labour, chiefly the Jewish Labour Movement and a handful of Labour MPs, have been much less forthcoming with actual examples. There is no doubt, as we are often reminded, that former Labour MP Luciana Berger received death threats , but it is much less often noted that those threats did not come from Labour members, they came from the far right. Dossiers like the one submitted by MP Margaret Hodge have shown to be cluttered with cases of alleged anti-semitism that have nothing to do with the Labour party. And MP Ruth Smeeth's infamous claims of an anti-semitic remark against her by black anti-racism activist Marc Wadsworth crumbled on closer inspection, as did her claim to have received 25,000 anti-semitic comments in a matter of days.
The motives of the leadership of the Jewish Labour Movement need questioning too, as an Al-Jazeera undercover investigation revealed two years ago. It exposed the fact that the JLM was working closely with Shai Masot, an agent inside the Israeli embassy whose job was to help mobilise opposition to Corbyn. Again unsurprisingly given that the media serves the interests of power, Al-Jazeera's investigation received negligible coverage and made almost no impression outside pro-Palestinian circles despite its shocking findings.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L3dn-VV3czc?feature=oembed
As self-confessed Zionists, and hardline ones at that, the leaders of the JLM – representing only a few hundreds members, some of them not Jewish – regard Israel as a supremely important issue, and seem largely indifferent to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. The JLM and its allies in Labour Friends of Israel have been central to efforts to force the Labour party to adopt a new definition of anti-semitism that conflates strong criticism of Israel with Jew hatred.
Jewish supporters of Corbyn inside Labour, who have been highly critical the JLM and Labour Friends of Israel, such as Jewish Voice for Labour , have been mostly sidelined in media coverage or dismissed as the "wrong kind of Jews".
In other words, when we hear from Jewish organisations, it is specifically the ones that have an agenda deeply at odds with Corbyn's – either for his left wing politics or for his adamant opposition to Israeli oppression. Supposed "Jewish" opinion on Labour has simply become another echo chamber, one selected for amplification because its message is the one centrists want to hear: that Corbyn and his supporters are very bad people who must not be allowed near power.
|
|
|
www.linuxtoday.com
Jun 30, 2019 | OffGuardian
... ... ...
Then came Giladgate and the suspension of Labour MP Chris Williamson for defending Israeli Jewish musician and vehement critic not only of his own state but "a particular subset of Jews" Gilad Atzmon.
I stress that term, a particular subset of Jews. Those who call Atzmon antisemitic have rarely in my experience troubled to read him in the round, though a few offer cherry-picked quotes. I blame a confusion Atzmon is at pains to disentangle.
In The Wandering Who? he sets out three understandings of Jewishness.
- One refers to those born Jewish
- Another to followers of ethical values and spiritual disciplines encoded in the Torah. To make important generalisations about either is absurd; to make important negative generalisations a double disgrace: a moral affront in and of itself, and a moral affront in light of a thousand years of Western history culminating in Hitler.
- The third understanding, however, refers to "Jews identifying as members of a superior race" . These last, says Atzmon, "are the Jews I speak of in such negative terms, and whom I urge to question their arrogant assumptions" .
If these are the words of an antisemite, call me one too.
I myself have not encountered that third category in personal life. The Jews I know and count as friends are on the left, or at any rate liberal. (Nor do any belong to Atzmon's second category: with a few exceptions I don't much rub shoulders with religious types, whatever brand they smoke). But this reflects the demography of my worlnon-existence the non existence of Atzmon's third category of Jews.
In the Never Again culture of Israel, and the powerhouses of London and New York City, they do exist, and I applaud the man's courageous, principled and costly[ 2 ] stance of calling them out.
Talk of cherry picking brings us, in this context, back to Dame Hodge.
Three nights ago she was on Newsnight to slam the reinstatement of Chris Williamson. In so doing she issued another slander, folded into an aside on the man Williamson had with guilt by association a standard smear in Stalinist[ 3 ] McCarthyite and other forms of witchhunt defended at no small cost.
The next day that man responded with clear proof that Hodge, probably through ignorance as much as malice, had profoundly misunderstood a statement he'd made.
Here then, is Gilad Atzmon on the subject of Margaret Hodge on the subject of Chris Williamson.
I offer it not because Hodge is important, though as the above photo shows she still commands respect within the Labour Party. I offer it because great care is called for when examining issues not intrinsically difficult but so buried by obfuscation and mendacity, so emotionally charged and in this case so tightly bound with the quite different agenda of ousting Corbyn.
On these matters, Hodge's interventions are at best crass, ignorant and spiteful. At best and in this she exemplifies so much that is rotten in our political classes and debased media.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/U0G5ZqO6iJw
You might also read Atzmon's written response of yesterday, addressed more at Lord Falconer than Dame Hodge. After rebutting accusations of holocaust denial, he concludes:
I categorically deny being an anti-Semite. Crucially, I have never been charged or even questioned about anything I said or wrote by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the world. That Lord Falconer accuses an innocent citizen, one with an absolutely clean record, of being "guilty" and the BBC presenter does not challenge or even question Falconer's assertion is a clear indication that Britain is now a lawless place an authoritarian society governed by a compromised political class. Britain has become uninhabitable for intellectuals, truth tellers and peace lovers. Sad it is but no longer a surprise. NOTES:Philip Roddis Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes "to help me think, and because I like to be read", and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel". His blog is Steel City Scribblings[1] In this context we should note three ironies. One is that this same Labour right applauded the Maidan Square coup which brought antisemites, the real kind, into the Kiev administration to embolden Ukraine's far and thoroughly antisemitic right (as when in 2017 thousands of nationalists marched in Kiev to celebrate the birthday of Stepan Bandera.) Another, related, is that in devaluing the antisemite term which is what you do when you call Corbyn one you let real antisemites off the hook. A third is that like the West at large, Israel I mention this given how many names on Tom Watson's tweet are in Labour Friends of Israel has again and again been willing to work with antisemites, also the real kind, in pursuit of its agendas.
[2] The nature of Israel both as a racist state and, to borrow from a Stephen Gowans book I'll shortly review, as a 'beachhead for imperialism' from which to control the middle east is obviously relevant in more ways than one. Here I confine myself to the observation that Israeli Jewish critics of Israel, like white South African members of the ANC in the apartheid era, exemplify whatever other traits they may demonstrate considerable courage.
[3] I'm aware of a revival, outside the traditional circles of Western Communist Parties, of interest in defending Stalin. At one level this is understandable. Given the corruption of our media and political systems it can be tempting to assume that whomever our rulers and their servants hold up as paragons of virtue, or as monstrosity incarnate, will be the opposite. I'd go so far as to say such reasoning will more often than not deliver broadly accurate results. It's no substitute for proper investigation, however, and I'm planning a post addressing not so much the brutality of Stalin as his criminal incompetence. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email
Can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
Martin UsherIts the age old trick moving the goalposts to adjust the game so you win. I grew up in a family that was heavily involved in the anti-Fascist movement before the war ( before I was born) and was involved with what could be called "Jewish rescue" -- helping people who had got out of Europe settle in the UK. As such I never really gave the the definition of anti-Semitism any thought, it was obvious.Seamus PadraigRecently I noticed that the definition had changed -- the goalposts had moved -- because of the work of a group I'd never heard of before, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I grew up familiar with the ADL and knew it as relatively non-political organization that went after any sort of anti-someone, not just anti-Semitism, but the IHRA turned out to be not just focused on one issue but also intensely political.
It appears to not only want to redefine the concept but also to reapply it to the modern world as a tool for applying political leverage. Its rather cynically exploiting our revulsion for what happened 80 years ago by using the concept as a way of stifling political dissent, in particular Israel's relations with its neighbors. This is political opportunism of the first order -- and very cynical opportunism at that -- which is likely to backfire since its likely to embrace Fascism rather than oppose it. (Its legislative agenda appears to include outlawing dissent by criminalizing it.)
So I'll just stick with the old school definition and old school organizations, thank you very much. This upstart organization may have traction in government, its got the money, the PR and probably runs a very effective blacklist (which I'm now a member, I'd guess). However, I very firmly believe that we are ultimately obliged to do what's morally right, not what's expedient.
As American writer Joe Sobran once noted, "An anti-Semite used mean someone who hated Jews; now it means anyone that Jews hate."BigB"What is anti-semitism": that is a very good question? The answer is a biased and violent socio-political constructivism a purely politicised terminology and an intentionally weaponised one at that.TinyThere has been no scientific basis for racial categorisation or discrimination for decades now. Probably not since Lewontin and Jay-Gould critiqued E O Wilson's 'Sociobiology' (see Lewontin's extended essay "Biology as Ideology" from 1991). Since even then; biology has moved on rapidly genetic determinism is dead.
With it is the 19th century reductive materialist categorisation of population groups as 'objects with particulars' or distinct races with specific quotients of intelligence or other determining biological factors. Every grouping is of individuals who are more alike than any minor differentiations that may be apparent or supposed. No two people are ever the same: right down to the structure and functional neuro-anatomy their brains as advanced imaging techniques and neuroscience have shown (see Gina Rippon's "The Gendered Brain" for an in-depth discussion of the science.)
So what shapes us if not our genes this does. Our conditioning and environmental reactions. That is this discourse, or any other encountered discourse we are primarily shaped by epigenetic environmental and socio-cultural factors. So much so, epigenetics supersedes genetics and can even curtail genetic development (see Rippon's discussion of 'Caeusescu's babies').
We are picking up on social cues and other environmental factors all the time. To which we micro-adapt to on an instant by instant socio-interactional basis. This is what shapes identity the affordances, cues and inter-subjective interaction with culture and the environment Lewontin's 'Triple Helix'.
So what is anti-semitism: in the light of their being no scientific categorisation of race? The political constructivism of discriminatory social categorisations is an 'imagined sociology'. One that has no basis in either fact or reality. As Lewontin determined: "race is a racist construct".
Everyone knows what anti-semitism is about: the phrase is meaningless except as a politicised weapon. It is a 'plastic phrase' like the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' it's meaning is variable and contestable. It is a 'word to wound' and should be categorised as being hate speech in itself. Anyone who employs AS is a racist themselves, and their discriminatory bias should be exposed by their profane and performative pronunciations.
So why is AS in the political lexicon if it is no longer acceptable in the scientific lexicon? Are we not supposed to have a science based empirical paradigm?
I would say that it's principal usage is as an attack vector on perceived socialism and character masking of capitalism itself in its current expanded usage and iteration. It is more than just covering the heinous war crimes and apartheid of the Israeli state and Zionist venture. It's usage has been extended (I called it 'definition creep' of the IHRA) to defend the endemic and structural racism of capitalism itself. It is a morbid symptom of the move to curtail free speech, stifle debate and dissensus, and control the public fora which can be extended to 9/11 truth and anti-capitalist critique specifically of any cabal or oligarchical domination as well as defending Israel itself. It can basically mean anything: when allied with the pernicious and weasel worded 11 'working definitions'.
For me, the political universe of discourse is largely moribund. It is a capitalist-captured endocolonisation of any real discourse of freedom and liberation. And 'democracy': you can forget democracy policy is about consensus narrative construction, behavioural change, and conformity. There is no such ideology as anti-capitalist ideology any more there is only capitalist obedience conformity or capitalist obedience conformity binary constructivisms to choose from. One where you cannot critically unmask the core truths of capitalist institutional racism without being at risk of being branded a racist.
A smart group or groupings: who wanted to resist the coercive silencing of dissensus would strategically move to reframe the debate away from the nihilistic concretisation of racism that is the politicised discourse. With education, and the application of the "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" a whole new dialogic could be created one that circumvents the nihilism of the capitalist-captured racist constructivism of their political debate. After all, we have the science on our side if we ever want to shift the paradigm. And not just for race: for all discriminations. Capitalism pretends to tackle racism by creating it. It is the commodification and objectification of individual human beings into perceived discriminatory groups that is at fault.
We do not have to follow the framing of the narrative that is a top-down polarising politicised dominion over humanity. Humanists can create their own debate, on their own terms, based on the latest science and information. Racism is defunct and bad education, poor and redundant 19th century classification, and Universal Humanism nihilation. If it is to dominate the politicised universe of discourse a new paradigmatic universe of non-racist, non-sexist, non-violent, non-discriminatory discourse is easily achievable. Culture is who we are and what we do. Welcome to the micro-evolutionary nexus. Welcome to the future of humanist non-discriminatory thought and socio-cultural recategorisation. Welcome to the socialised redundancy of racism and race.
The Boy Who Cried WolfwardropperAn Aesop fable adapted by Louis Untermeyer
A boy employed to guard the sheep
Despised his work. He liked to sleep.
And when a lamb was lost he'd shout
"Wolf! Wolf! The wolves are all about."The neighbors searched from noon 'til nine
But of the beast there was no sign
Yet "Wolf!" cried the boy the next morning when
The villagers came out again.One Evening around 6 o' clock,
A real wolf fell upon the flock.
"Wolf!" cried the boy." A wolf indeed."
But no one paid him any heed.Although he screamed to wake the dead,
"He's fooled us every time." They said.
And let the hungry wolf enjoy
His feast of mutton, lamb and boy.The moral is this:
A man who is wise,
The Boy Who Cried WolfAn Aesop fable adapted by Louis Untermeyer
A boy employed to guard the sheep
Despised his work. He liked to sleep.
And when a lamb was lost he'd shout
"Wolf! Wolf! The wolves are all about."The neighbors searched from noon 'til nine
But of the beast there was no sign
Yet "Wolf!" cried the boy the next morning when
The villagers came out again.One Evening around 6 o' clock,
A real wolf fell upon the flock.
"Wolf!" cried the boy." A wolf indeed."
But no one paid him any heed.Although he screamed to wake the dead,
"He's fooled us every time." They said.
And let the hungry wolf enjoy
His feast of mutton, lamb and boy.The moral is this:
A man who is wise,
Does not defend himself with lies.
Liars are not believed forsooth,
Even when liars tell the truth.Dame Hodge, as Normal Finkelstein beautifully describes her, is, frankly, not very bright.Louis Proyect
Being bright is no longer a requirement for high political office.
In fact it is screened out at an early stage of a neophyte's career.Atzmon is anti-Semitic. So is fellow Jew Ron Unz, who publishes everything that Atzmon writes. Here's something I wrote about Atzmon 8 years ago: https://louisproyect.org/2011/09/29/the-gilad-atzmon-controversy/Seamus PadraigAnd what if Atzmon is 'anti-Semitic'? I'm not saying he would claim to be; but it stands to reason that he would suit at least some people's definition of an anti-Semitecertainly your definition.DevonSo what about it? If Gilad is critical of Jewish identity (identities?), maybe it's because he knows what he's talking about . Not only was he born in Israel and raised in a very Zionist family, but he has made it his lifelong avocation to study up on the history of Jewishness and Jewish identity. Even if you say his is just an opinion, you still have to admit that his is an extremely well-informed opinion. This is not Dr. Goebbels banging away on his Schreibmaschine here. Gilad certainly has a right to his views.
And what if it were to turn out that he's right, Louis? What if there are real problems with Jewishness that have historically caused gentilesfirst Christian and now Moslemto view Jews generally with suspicion if not contempt? In short: what if the rest of the world isn't just 'crazy'? What if?
I have read Gilad's books and followed his blog for some time now (even before he appeared at Unz), and while I may not agree with every last little thing he says, I find his writing in general very lucid and enlightening. But most of all, I have a lot of respect for the guy because of his integrity and courage; because of his determination to look in the collective mirror, as it were, and honestly report what he really seesrather than what he wishes he saw.
(Oh: and he blows a mean stax, too! If any of you people here are into the old John Coltrane-style jazz, you really ought to check out Gilad the next time you get the chance. His shows are second to none.)
No one is interested in what others have to say about Atzmon, anymore. We read Atzmon and decide for ourselves.markIt predictably contains something as shallow as your comment, that he is antisemitic. The world, save for a very small group with a sinister agenda, are bored with this stupidity.
Oy vey, goy! The truth is anti semitic!! Shut it down!!!Gilad AtzmonI read your pathetic piece 8 years ago and looked at it again just now. You indeed manage to parrot other people's slander, yet the one thing you failed to do is to point exactly where in my work do i express hatred or call to discriminate Jews for being Jews. I certainly am critical of certain aspects of Jewish politics (in consistance with my opposition to all forms of biologically oriented identiterianism) . In my work I prove beyond doubt that Jewish ID politics is not merely a Zionist symptom but far wider phenomenon. In my work i insist that Jewish poliyics (left, right and centre) must be subject to criticsm I am indeed an opponent of Jewish Marxism as you pointed out in your article My criticism of this tribal phenomenon is identical with Lenin's criticism of the Bund (1903) ,,,I am about to go for a gig but will be interested to see whether you can produce an argument..I expect something slightly more profound that calling Unz or Shamir 'antisemites' or 'white supremacist' I hope that you are up for the challengeLouis ProyectI am indeed an opponent of Jewish Marxism as you pointed out in your article.Gilad--
I imagine that you are referring to Groucho rather than Karl who was actually a Christian. I have to admit that the scene in "The Marx Brothers go West" was a bit troubling when Harpo smashed his harp over the head of a Catholic nun played in this film by Margaret Dumont.
I actually have no issue with Karl Marx but I have a serious issue with the Bund and Bundists and I make this point clear in my work on tribal marxism.. you obviously didn't do your homeworkGilad AtzmonHello everybody, Gilad Atzmon here,,, Just in case you missed it, Here is an expose of caricature Lord Falconer reading a Zionist script in front of a BBC's camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fATmjCFckRsFrancis LeeYou think that anti-semitism violence (vintage 1941-45) was bad enough in Ukraine, try the Baltics, now our glorious NATO ally. As far as I know SS Waffen Units still had their reunions in Riga and Vilnius. Given the age profile it would seem that only few of the mass murderers are still alive. But the fact that they were still allowed to parade in an EU country at that late date is extremely disquieting. And it is a fact that the record past and present is studiously unreported. Censorship by omission. You see, Nazis are okay as long as they are own our side.bevinOf course the Baltic locals played their part in the mass murder, one in particular the Kovno garage massacre was so abominable that even the Germans were shocked. Check it out if you have the stomach for it.
In spite of Latvia Prime Minister's Maris Kučinskis disapproval, Riga authorized the March 16 march to honor Latvia's Waffen-SS Volunteer Legion established on that date in 1943. International protests have failed to prevent the march, just as they failed earlier. D uring WW2, some 150 thousand Latvians served on the side of the III Reich. They served in the so-called Volunteer Legion of the SS consisting of the 15th and 19th Grenadier Divisions of the Waffen-SS (or 1st and 2nd Latvian Divisions), the Latvian Luftwaffe Legion, German divisions and police battalions. They are responsible for many war crimes. One of them took place in Podgaje on February 2, 1945. During the breakthrough of the Pomeranian Wall, SS-men of Battle Group Elster which was part of the 15th Waffen SS Grenadier Division murdered 32 Polish POWs from the 3rd Infantry Regiment of the 1rst Infantry Division of the Polish People's Army. They were bound by barbed wire and burned alive in a barn.
Marches honoring Latvian SS-men have been a regular event in Riga since 1990. In 1998, the Latvian government made that date a national holiday, though international protests forced it to be reduced in 2000 to a national day of memory.
It is no different in neighboring Estonia. It celebrates August 28, which is when Waffen-SS began to recruit, in 1942, volunteer for its Estonian Legion which became the 20th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division. It fought at Narva and in Lower Silesia and Bohemia. Estonian SS-men also participated in counter-partisan operations in the rear areas of the Eastern Front, committing mass atrocities on the civilian population. It was commanded by SS-Obergruppenfόhrer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, the future butcher of Warsaw. Apart from the 30 thousand Estonians in the Waffen-SS, thousands more served in SS border guard units, security police, and the Wehrmacht.
Lithuania maintains the cult of the so-called Plekhavicius Legion, the Lithuanian Local Corps, or LVR, a criminal collaborationist organization serving the III Reich, and Ukraine worships the 14th Volunteer Grenadier Division of the Waffen-SS Galizien, whose formation's anniversary (April 27, 1943), is loudly celebrated in Lvov and other cities of western Ukraine. Glorifying the SS-Galizien alongside the Banderist OUN-UPA became the foundation on which the post-Maidan Ukraine's national identity is being built.
Croatia honors the Ustasha and the SS-men of the 7th Waffen-SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, while Bosnia-Herzegovina likewise honors the SS-men of the 13th Waffen-SS Bosnia-Herzegovina Mountain Division Handschar. Hungary and Romania often stage historic reconstructions and other events commemorating these countries participation in World War II on Hitler's side on the Eastern Front.
Finally the Baltic States are fostering a cult of the so-called "forest brothers", or anti-commmunist guerrillas of 1944-1953 consisting of many former SS-men and Nazi collaborators
One of the problems with this campaign is that it has come to be seen as being, basically, about Corbyn and the Labour party whereas in fact it is about expanding the Israeli state's license to kill Palestinians while being rewarded by taxpayers in the UK.Seamus PadraigThe real issue, which particularly interests the UK which is, in historical terms, largely responsible for the existence of this European colony in the Holy Land, is that the peoples of Palestine have been subjected to a series of injustices without parallel in the modern world. And that, at almost every stage of Israel's seventy year descent into fascism-for that is what it is and who Likud and its allies are- it has been supported by the UK and the UK's political master, the United States.
It is this matter- the snipers killing ambulance attendants in Gaza, the burgeoning and appalling crisis caused by the Israeli siege, the inhumane treatment of prisoners, the contempt shown for established international law, a contempt which has been an important factor is reducing the post-war UN system to wreckage and allowing the serial aggressions of imperialist states- it is this matter which ought to be exercising the media, Parliament and, most particularly, the Labour Party.
Members of the party cannot dodge the fact that, when the UK left Palestine, abandoning its mandates and withdrawing its police forces it handed the people of Palestine, whom it had systematically disarmed, over to the offices of the terrorist organisations which formed the Jewish state and perpetrated the Naqba.
And the government of the UK at the time was dominated by the Labour Party. Israel was created by the Labour Party's actions and irresponsible inactions. It weighs on the collective conscience of the party and of the, now shattered remnants of, the Trade Union movement whose leaders treated the working people of Palestine with a cynical indifference which telegraphed the movement's decline
In other words, no party in the world, with the possible exception of the egregious Democrats in the USA, has more reason to be critical of the government of Israel and to insist that that state be sanctioned and boycotted until it is ready to deal honestly with the majority of its subjects, the disenfranchised residents of the state, the occupied areas of Palestine and the millions of descendants of those expelled from their land and homes in 1948. The Party should call a special conference to examine its policies on Israel and to put together a comprehensive plan to reverse the crimes of the past, and present and to bring the justice and fair treatment Britain promised the League of Nations to these victims of the Empire.
And those who protest that Israel should be left alone, and its crimes condoned, its child murders welcomed and its abuse of prisoners approved, ought to be excluded from the Party on obvious grounds with the Whip being withdrawn from all those MPs who have chosen, in being 'Friends of Israel', to be enemies of humanity and advocates of evildoing.
Eloquent! Thanks for the comment.markThis anti Semitism smear campaign serves two purposes. (1.) To criminalise any and all criticism of Zionist atrocities and war crimes, no matter how egregious. (2.) To vilify Corbyn and "drive him out of public life", as openly declared by the Board of Deputies and the Israeli embassy.Philip RoddisI'll say it again, bevin. You should be writing above the lineRhisiart GwilymHear, hear to Philip's comment! Your level of knowledge and perspicacity with a central core of steely moral honour isn't all that common in the world. Please don't hide you light, b! Let's hear more of your analyses.Harry StotleThere is a semantic discussion to be had on definition but that is something not even the keenest minds can yet agree on more importantly, and germane to Phil's article is the weaponisation of antisemitism as a means of exploiting political opponents, in other words hasbara.Ken KennOne of its chilling effects of hasbara is to always put critics of Israel on the backfoot now matter how egregiously Israel or their supporters behave, such as disproportionate violence inflicted on Palestinian civilians, or Labour MPs working hand in glove with Israeli operatives to subvert left wing elements within their own party.
Stephen Sizer discusses the manual explaining how certain hasbara techniques are applied at different stages culminating in accusations of antisemitism designed to bring about personal or professional ruin.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/4Qq257bPZ0c
When consider motive amongst those Labour MPs screaming for the head of Chris Williamson and by extension Jeremy Corbyn several possibilities come to mind.
MPs may be afraid they might be net to be accused so identify with the aggressor rather than the person being vilified (even though those being tainted are invariably left wing with a strong record on anti-racisim)
It may be that some of them are simply ignorant, an idea that cannot be entirely be dismissed given how indoctrianted some of our political class are.
Or it could be they are complicit: in other words they understand how useful hasbara can be, especially as a device to purge the Labour party of socialists and as a means of ushering a new age of Blairism.Incredible as it may seem some Labour MPs still go all misty eyed when the views of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair come up, rather like right wingers in the tory party who still have attachment issues with Pinochets former girlfriend, Baroness Thatcher.
Number 4 is the most interesting tactic. All racism is wrong and hate Speech can be a criminal offence. If the anti semitic accusations are true how is it that, as far as I know from within the Labour Party, no Court cases have ever troubled a Judge? The answer is simple that would require proof/evidence. The MSM are Judge and Jury and their required standard of proof is zero.SharonMJust add " allegedly " to a quote or " he said/ she said " and that's all they need to bamboozle the masses.
I'll hazard a guess that no-one from the Labour Party will end up in any court on any antisemitic charges in the future either.
Hasn't it got to the point of self-parody? The zionists have even managed to make remembrance of a genocide well overdone. That takes some astonishing exploitation.Bob MarsdenIHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism.AntipropoAntisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
This definition of anti-semitism doesn't define semite.
If semite is held to be a synonym or euphemism for Jew, [all semites are Jews, all Jews are semites] then the word is redundant and can be removed from the definition of antiJewishness.
If this isn't the sense intended, as is implied by characterising "non-Jewish individuals" as potential victims, then a definition must include procedures for discriminating who is and isn't a semite, to answer such questions as: Is an Ethiopean Jew a semite? Is an Ashkenasi Jew a semite? Is a convert to Judaism a semite? and can non-Jews be semites?. Can a semite be identified by depictions of their facial features, such as the shape of the nose? If so Yasser Arafat was a semite.
In this definition, it seems that semite is an imaginary type or set, with indeterminable tokens or instances. Thus "rhetorical antisemitism" has indefinable, non-existent victims. So any allusion to tabu speaking about Jewishness will be accepted as antisemitic, with no possibility of refutation or defence. The only victim required is the accuser.
So the definition is a prejudicial nonsense, as is manifested in its current usage.
Incidentally:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People
1 -- Basic principles
A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.This omits the fact that the land was home to other peoples, and defines the State in racial terms. So any adverse comment on Israel is automatically anti-Jewish.
You stumble when you say "if so Yasser Arafat is a Semite" because of course ALL Palestinians, in fact all Arabs are semitic. The term Semite and the slander antisemite have been stolen-just as they stole and continue to steal Palestine- by the Jewish zionists and their willing accomplices in the Christian west.Guy" If so Yasser Arafat was a Semite." Yes, as are the Palestinians .I am surprised that Israel , it's occupants ,zionists and all have not been taken to task as to whether they are actually Semitic . It is a canard and we have all fell for it.markPalestinians are the real descendants of the Jews of the Bible. The fake Jews like Nuttyyahoo or Mielkevic, or whatever his name is, all hail from the Khazar kingdom near the Caspian Sea. That is their homeland.GuyI first came across this information many years ago in reading the book "The Thirteenth Tribe " by Arthur Koestler .I have since read much about this hidden peace of historical information from other sources and some from Jewish archives.harry lawhttp://www.fantompowa.info/koestlerindex.htm
Cheers.
Tony Blair was asked at an Israeli University if he believed Jeremy Corbyn himself was anti-Semitic, Blair said yes.different frankBlair's false accusations while presenting no evidence are deeply damaging to Mr Corbyn and hugely damaging to the Labour Party, in fact it brings Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party into disrepute in blatant contradiction to Labour Party rules. A false accusation of Anti-Semitism is just as obnoxious as a genuine accusation, the former made with the intention of harming Jeremy Corbyn and to bring both Corbyn and the Labour Party into disrepute is met with a shrug of the shoulders 'nothing to see here, move along' Similarly Margaret Hodge can say Corbyn is " A fucking Anti-Semite and racist" and nothing happens to her. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Is it any wonder the Party has lost nearly 100,000 members in the past couple of years.
"Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews." ~Hajo Meyer (born August 12, 1924 23 August, 2014) holocaust survivorBrian SteereAnother word for a post truth politics is the psyop. Using the mind as a weapon against itself. My response is to go deeper than the baiting reaction of emotional reaction or rational opposition. The ability of the mind to make special or indeed sacred is to set apart in order to set over and against with the key being in the ability to seed, set, and enforce a framework of narrative identity.harry lawWorking the polarised identity is not unique to power seeking through Jewish influence but is part and parcel of power set apart and over life as the mind of cunning contrivance or cleverness.
Gilad Atzmon mentions in his book that for around 2000 years, the richest daughters were married to the cleverest sons, and that this worked a measurable eugenic outcome in the population as a whole.
Irrespective of the specific historical context of any particular development of cultural identity is the underlying matrix or mechanism of its assertion and substitution of relational being by managed conflict.
I write to illuminate this towards our re-cognition and re-membering in true relational being and not within the framework of problems that predefine the terms of their own 'answer' such as to protect the problem from resolution and release by means of packaged presentations of complex instruments.
There is another facet of relational being that needs to come in here and that is of resonant communication as distinct from coded symbols and association. Attention focussed within its own 'special' thinking is diverted and in a sense bubbled off from its true relational being. Narcissism in this sense is built into the idea or image of self along with threat of extinction that invokes both terror and rage as polarities of division that generate a progeny of reactive containment under illusion of escape.
The more investment in 'solutions' that displace or dissociate the original error, the more identity is set and subjected under its own original split-word but projected or assigned to the OTHER be that G-d or Creation it is now perceived rather than beheld, and through a lens of separation of the a-tempt to lord it over, along with the fear and hatred of subjection. These two are one error but split the experience of victim and victimiser.
The characteristic signature of the 'ego' or false self is conflict under narrative control. But to maintain continuity (believed survival or sustainability) requires the ongoing inducement to avert the 'greater fear' of humiliation of loss of possession and control by sacrificing through 'lesser evils' or 'necessary lies, wars or sickness by which to repackage and redistribute psychic emotional conflict AWAY from the 'self-special'.
Everyone protects their investment as they see it and yet the native intelligence by which to re-evaluate a poor choice so as to replace with a more truly aligned outcome, is self-denied by a refusal to look within under fear of threat or weakness. Thus the clever-minded can seem to look within with astonishing clarity but only to the weaponisation and marketisation of what is revealed. Which is riding the crest of the wave so as to be in position of control from a segregated sense of self or private agenda that is by definition set apart and over others on whom one's own motives are projected and attacked there.
Orwell coined 'doublespeak' for self-contradictory mind. this runs deeper than we think, because it provides the very basis by which we seem to think alone. A psyop is a mind-trap that baits reaction by which the unwary is induced to give power away. The idea of deceit is not new and the notion of a power of deceit as self-destructive illusion is not new.
That we are in a sense living what we take to be life under an already deceit or illusion is not new, nor the recognition that denials come back to the mind that thinks thereby to have become 'more' or 'better' in unexpected ways.
One way of reading the world is to use what comes to our notice as a thread to our own 'unconscious' participation or correspondence so that instead of enacting the mind of judgement and living its script, we observe the mind in act and release investment in conflict identity. If you give willingness for this you will notice the mind in every attempt to re-interject a sense of 'control' or separation. The more you notice the more energy and attention is released from succumbing to a personal sense of power, to an impersonal love. Perhaps 'love' like 'God' is too degraded a word to use but love of power for its own sake is giving all power to powerlessness. What else would so intensely focus in embodying such an idea but a powerlessness in terror of looking within, set in rage on its sense of denial 'without'.
Is is said that all power is of God but that does not make an illusion of power real. But to participate in an illusion of power is to give unto Caesar what is due unto God.
Releasing the reversal of cause and effect is recognising and aligning in truth we do not manufacture, possess or control but are at-oned with in sharing. The narrative is shifted in purpose. You are given a special role in the healing and awakening from a collective entanglement. But it is never more or less than to be who you are as distinct from trying to be what you are not at expense of a full or overflowing awareness.
Hate and guilt can make a world and suffer it real but do You WANT this?
Who lives by the 'Seperation' word shall die by the S-word. For the true Word is before and after and in a sense inside time that seems to cover story.
The power that works in darkness of denied conflict, deems light an attack on its power of protection from light. But light simply is awareness. Only an illusion of light can 'attack' an illusion of darkness. In this sense the mind is a trickster when spinning out from the heart's knowing. Entertainment becomes entrainment to an invested identity habit.
Tom Watson put this letter together endorsed by 80 Labour Party MP's. After implying that the changes to the composition of the NEC panel involved corruption. The letter goes on ..Philip Roddis"It is clear to us that the Labour party's disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference, this must stop, we need an independent process".
Then unbelievably in the very next sentence he contradicts himself by calling for political interference.
"We call on Jeremy Corbyn to show leadership by asking for this inappropriate, offensive and reputationally damaging decision to be overturned".
In his last sentence, after Williamson is allowed back into the party by a properly constituted and legal administrative process overlooked by two Barristers, he throws due process under the bus. People like Margaret Hodge who called Jeremy Corbyn "A fucking Antis-Semite and racist" and who called upon any CLP who minimised Anti-Semitism "that we should just close them down" these people reveal their true nature on free speech, democracy and due process, they are against all three. Here is his last sentence
"Ultimately, it is for Jeremy Corbyn to decide whether Chris Williamson retains the Labour whip, he must remove it immediately if we are to stand any hope of persuading anyone that the Labour Party is taking Anti-Semitism seriously". Can the Labour Party be taken seriously?
Since writing this I've happened on an interview Roger Waters an exception, alongside Brian Eno, to the rule that rock stars shall not rile the Israeli lobby gave in 2016 to the Independent. The header says it all: Pink Floyd star on why his fellow musicians are terrified to speak out against IsraelJenIt's mostly British rock stars who have spoken out against Israeli policies and actions that terrorise Palestinians. That may say something about the nature of the music industry in Britain as opposed to its American equivalent.Rhys JaggarThe US music industry, indeed the entertainment industry generally since major record labels these days are owned and run by the same corporations that own and run television and movie studios, book and magazine publishers, and news media, is one where the power of money and to make and break careers is highly concentrated among a few companies and individuals.
Antisemitism is actually a very silly term since it means 'the state of opposing semites and their values'. The first question to ask is who, exactly, the Semites were and are? The definition broadly given is 'those people who speak the semitic languages'.So here is a list of Semitic languages:
1. ARABIC 300 million speakers. Ho hum, so being anti-semitic means hating arabs does it? Should I call Bibi Netanyahu antisemitic for hating the Palestinians? NAUGHTY BOY! SPANK! SPANK!!
2. AMHARIC 22 million speakers. This is a bunch of Ethiopians who you may or may not choose to like. But they are most certainly not Jewish.
3. TIGRINYA 6.9 million speakers. Another Ethiopian group.
4. HEBREW 5 million native speakers. So rather less than one in sixty Semites are actually Hebrew-speaking Jews. Do 59/60 semites really wish Bibi Netanyahu et al to corral them all under one umbrella with him at the helm? I have my doubts, you know .
5. TIGRE 1 million speaker. A third small Ethiopian sect.
6. ARAMAIC 0.5 to 1 million speakers from Assyria.
7. MALTESE around half amillion speakers.So Jews have appropriated a term for themselves when they represent less than two percent of Semites. What arrogance they possess!
So before we go any further, I suggest Jeremy Corbyn uses as one defensive strand that he likes many arab semites .that should cause unrest with Miluds given orders by the Mossad, Downing Street and GCHQ.
Secondly I suggest that Jews coin a new term referring solely to them as they are not, nor will they likely ever be the overwhelming majority of semites on earth. How about JEW HATER?
Finally I call on all non Jewish semites to disavow the use of the term antisemitic when referring to Jews, expressing outrage that Jews could insult their distinct cultures, traditions and values through insisting on using a term despicably inappropriate for matters at hand.
They could call for Margaret Hodge to be kicked out of the Labour Party for antinonjewsemitic behaviour, but that might be being petty
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2019 | www.unz.com
Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable. This is the first rule of political rhetoric. If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
This thought came to my mind during my recent visit to France for the publication of my new book In The Name of Christ . France is going through a rapid shrinking of freedom. All the nations experience that, but France leads. For years they had laws that banned things displeasing to Jews; and now they expand these laws punishing not only saying or writing but also thinking, implying or winking. The bill criminalising anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may be voted on very soon. As the law voted in 2015 (after the Charlie Hebdo attack ), against the "apology of terrorism", the new law will allow the government to seize anyone, just for a tweet or a post on Facebook, and send a person for 18 months to "preventive imprisonment", even before he comes to a court. The judge will sanction him on the basis of "intimate conviction" of his "hidden intentions".
This fight against alleged antisemitism has become – like in the UK – a powerful tool of the ruling elites against the people. It is used against the Gilets Jaunes (the Yellow Vests), and against the opposition in general. The authorities apply the R2P principle to assault French freedom, that is they allegedly protect the Jews, as if Jews need protection, and in the name of Jews they steal freedom of all.
With a certain poetic license, one can proclaim the Jews are innocent of this assault, like the Aleppo kids are not guilty of bombing Syria and Afghan women are not guilty of American occupation. The Jews have been used as proverbial victims, but so were children and women. The guilt and responsibility is of those who use them as a pretext.
You may argue that the comparison is forced, for the French Jewish bodies actively participate in this campaign against French freedom. Yes, that's true, but these organisations are voluntary self-appointed guardians of Jewish interest. Jews didn't vote for them, didn't elect them. The government was free to disregard them saying they do not represent their Jewish citizens. Actually, that was the traditional French approach, refusing to deal with Jewish organisations saying the French Jews are French and they do not need an intermediary. If the government preferred to listen to them, it is only because they say what the government wants to hear.
In Annecy, one of France's prettiest medieval towns I had met Maître Viguier, the lawyer for Mr Alain Soral, and over the pot of cheese fondue the place is famous for he told me an amazing story.
In the course of their demo, the Yellow Vests had burned a picture of a French TV personality, Bernard Henri Levi (BHL for short), and of some other worthies. This event had been depicted in a jolly video clip that you can watch with pleasure and the clip had been uploaded on a website associated with Alain Soral.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/rxFchAvqwK4?feature=oembed
The CRIF (or/and LICRA and other bodies) had accused Mr Soral of antisemitism, a criminal offence, on the strength of this fact, and demanded 2 years of prison + 30,000 euros, requested as punishment + 82,500 as compensations for the "victims". The Maître said the elites try to unite the Jewish people against Gilets Jaunes and against ordinary French people. Other supporters of the GJ, Jean Bricmont and M. Chouard are the next on the list, after Soral.
The CRIF said that the rap was in coded language. The burned picture of BHL suggests a great fire to burn every Jew. "Between 1940 and 1945, the Nazis called the Jews 'vermin' and 'parasites' that should be exterminated", they say. And that's why the word "parasites" in the clip necessarily refers to Jews that should be exterminated. A very weak logic; Socrates would send these CRIF sophists back to the holes they usually hide from sunlight. Whatever the Nazis said, they have no copyright on the word 'parasites'. In the Soviet Union after the October 1917 Revolution, when Jews occupied quite a prominent place in the society, the most popular revolutionary song said the parasites have no right to rule the land.
Parasites are those who do not toil but consume; and this is not a specific Jewish feature. By claiming that Jews are the parasites, the self-proclaimed Jewish organisations indulge in vile antisemitism, I told them.
What's wrong in burning a picture of BHL? BHL is a French citizen who is entitled to his views. However, none of his views could or should be accepted as "the Jewish position". The French Jews, and certainly the Jews of the world, hold a wide variety of views, some of them agree with BHL in some points and some disagree, sometimes disagree strongly. Mr BHL had been a fervent supporter, or even an instigator of the NATO attack on Libya in 2011 that had made this rather prosperous North African country a failed state ruled by Islamist armed gangs. Mr BHL had been a fervent supporter or an instigator of the Kiev 2014 coup that deposed the legitimate president of the Ukraine and had brought followers of the Nazi Quisling Stepan Bandera to power. Mr BHL had tried to ignite the ire of his French compatriots against the GJ. These and other strong views of Mr BHL had caused indignation of some French citizens who expressed their indignation by burning his photo. These acts by Mr BHL and his adversaries are perfectly legitimate within the limits of free public discourse.
What is not and can't be legitimate is an attempt by the CRIF to create a false impression as if those opinions and acts by Mr BHL were an expression of the Jewish position. This is an obnoxious anti-Semitic lie. The Jews of France, of Israel and of the world didn't necessarily wish Libya to be bombed or Kiev upturned; the Jews have no united single political position on French elections or on French political movements. Some French Jews support the GJ, and some reject them. Some vote for Mr Macron and some for Mme Le Pen or Mr Soral.
It's only vicious anti-Semites who claim that all Jews follow and support BHL. This nasty claim had been upheld by a self-proclaimed "Jewish organisation" CRIF.
Let me reiterate: the body called CRIF does not represent French Jews, for it was not elected by French Jews. Its leadership is not accepted by French or any other Jews. It is a political organisation with its own goals; its goals do not coincide with those of majority of Jews in France or elsewhere.
While it is possible to argue that in some cases CRIFF acts in the interests of the Jews by fighting anti-Jewish prejudice, in this particular case the CRIF acts against the Jewish interests, as this action is likely to enforce the anti-Jewish prejudice of all Jews acting together for some dubious goal like break-up of Libya or Ukraine or for other controversial goal.
The Jews qua Jews have no position on these topics. Mr BHL is neither an elected representative nor a spiritual authority for the Jews in France or anywhere else. He does not dress as an observant Jew, he does not observe Jewish laws and customs; his family famously includes apostates; his actions were always those of a free agent; he never consulted with Jewish authorities, spiritual or temporal.
He is perfectly entitled to his views and opinions; however he may not claim he acts in the Jewish interests or represents the Jews. Even less so CRIF may present a protest against BHL as an act against Jewish people as the whole; as an act of anti-Semitism. If somebody is anti-Semitic it is CRIF that suggest that an attack of BHL is an attack on the Jewish people. If this would be a case, should we consider a condemnation of the Black comedian Mr Dieudonné – an act of anti-black racism?
It is perfectly legal to burn the image of BHL in Israel; and I intend to do it tomorrow in Tel Aviv on the Gordon Beach, I told them. No court in Israel would accuse me of anti-Semitism if I burn his picture; or a picture of Mr Netanyahu who is anyway an elected representative of the Jewish state of Israel. While Israeli flag is protected from desecration, an image of a person of a Jewish origin is not. It is free to burn or despoil it in any way you like.
I am certain that French citizens are not less free than Israeli citizens, and I hope that the French court will reject the frivolous claim of the self-proclaimed Jewish body called CRIFF against Mr Alain Soral. It would be good if Mr BHL would find courage to support Mr Soral against CRIF by affirming that he was not and is not acting as a legitimate representative or spiritual authority of the French Jews. It would be even better if the French Republic would accuse CRIF for encouraging anti-Jewish prejudice by frivolous claims.
If the French Republic finds it necessary to condemn Mr Alain Soral for whatever reason, let her do it without pretence of acting for the Jewish cause. Keep Jews out of this polemics! The Jews have enough troubles of their own without being used as a sort of supreme argument in an intra-French dispute.
This is what I said to the French lawyer, and he produced my argument in the French court. You can read all this argumentation here in French or just watch a conversation (in English with French translation) I had with a popular French presenter Jean-Michel Vernochet and the charming poet, political thinker and my translator Mme Maria Poumier:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/c_lg6lLknME?feature=oembed
... ... ...
Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]
This article was first published at The Unz Review
Pinche Perro , says: June 26, 2019 at 4:34 am GMT
I think it would be better for everyone, Jews included, if the organized Jewish community had less influence in the highest levels of society in western countries. I also think it would be helpful if it wasn't such a taboo to criticize them and their culture. Every other ethnic, racial, and religious group that I know of is subject to criticism. Jews should join the party.Biff , says: June 26, 2019 at 11:29 am GMTI want what's best for all people, including Jews. Thank you to Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon, Ron Unz and others for reminding us that there are decent people of Jewish heritage out there.
@renfroSick of Orcs , says: June 26, 2019 at 11:40 am GMTI seriously doubt a non Jew in the US government thought up the idea of criminalizing BDS, which neither the government nor the public gets any benefit from.
You don't have to be German to be a Nazi, and likewise, you don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Lots of non-Jews in Congress want to criminalize BDS.
@Pinche Perro You are correct, sir, but any criticism of The Chosen–however constructive or well-meaning–summons Zombie Hitler and the 4 Horsemen of the Holocaust...
Google matched content |
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Haters Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: October 01, 2020
