Meet The Wrong Type of Jew, The Media Doesn't Want You To Know Exists | ...

An Appeal By David Graeber Re: Labour 'Antisemitism'

Pledges, Demands and Blackmail by Les May

I WAS recently chatting to an older lady who has actively supported Labour for the forty plus years I have known her. She tried to persuade me that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘right wing’ plot to remove someone who is widely considered to be on the ‘left’ of the Labour party, though as the economics journalist William Keagan pointed out some years ago the policies of Clement Atlee government in 1945 were more radical. I disagreed with her; so far as I am concerned the accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ which led to Corbyn’s downfall are a systematic attempt by a small number of Jewish people and organisations to ensure that Labour party policies are not critical of the actions of the state of Israel towards Palestinians.

Overt scepticism amongst Jewish people about Labour party policies towards Israel predate Corbyn’s election to the leadership in September 2015. In April 2015 the Jewish Chronicle (J.C.) published an article by Marcus Dysch when the Labour leader was Ed Miliband which said:

‘Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were 'very' or 'quite important' in influencing how they would vote.

'The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance.

'The Labour party itself fared worse than its leader, with its Israel policy attracting only eight per cent of Jewish voters. The Tory approach was preferred by 61 per cent.’

I should however caution that the survey from which the above was derived questioned only 580 Jewish people and we do not know how this sample was obtained.

The day after, 8 April 2015, the website Forward carried an article Liam Hoare with the title ‘How Ed Miliband Lost Britain's Jewish Voters’.

Hoare tells us: ‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge. ‘The British Jewish community is a middle class community and the Conservatives are the traditional home of the middle class...’

‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge’ and .The nadir of Miliband’s relationship with the Jewish community then came in October when Labour backed recognition of Palestinian statehood during a symbolic vote in Parliament. Miliband thought it good politics, but the fact that attitudes toward Israel influence the vote of 73% of British Jews apparently wasn’t taken into account.’

I have no doubt that Ed Miliband’s critical stance was a response to the scale of the casualties inflicted by Operation Protective Edge.

Wikipedia says this: 'Between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). Gazan civilian casualty rates estimates range between 70% by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65% by United Nations Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36% by Israeli officials, The UN estimated that more than 7,000 homes for 10,000 families were razed, together with an additional 89,000 homes damaged, of which roughly 10,000 were severely affected by the bombing.'

Now whilst I disagree with the seemingly uncritical support for Israel which seems to be offered by many Jewish people in Britain I believe they are entitled to hold such views and if they so wish vote accordingly at the ballot box. Although it would be quite untrue to say that the late Jim Dobbin courted Catholic voters, I doubt that his public stance against abortion did him any harm with them. Voting for an MP whose views you share is what parliamentary democracy is about.

But this is very different from the attempts being made by a small number of Jewish people to manipulate Labour into being a party which will never be critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. And if you think my choice of the word ‘manipulate’ is too strong or ‘cue anti-semitic trope here’, then consider this.

In January of this year the Board of Deputies of British Jews published ‘Ten pledges to end the antisemitism crisis’ directed at the Labour party. Though I think that all the ‘pledges’, which are in reality demands, are attempts to circumscribe the freedom of action of the Labour party and the freedom of expression of its members, I will highlight two of these which I think are particularly pernicious.

Number Seven reads: ‘Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community. The Jewish Labour Movement should be engaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.’

Number eight reads: ‘Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.'

The first thing to note here is that these two are inter-related. Both seek to define the ‘Jewish Community’ by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. We are left to assume that the right sort include those who run the Board of Deputies, which does not speak for the 70% British Jews who are either secular or Charedi, and those who control the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and individuals who do not align themselves with the Board of Deputies, are to be ignored. Just to make the meaning of this ‘pledge’ absolutely clear the Jewish Chronicle of 12 January described JVL as a ‘fringe’ organisation.

I understand that the Jewish Labour Movement refused to campaign for a majority of Labour MPs at the 2019 general election and that it does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party!

I find it difficult not to believe that both the so called pledges, which are in fact a thinly disguised attempt at blackmailing the Labour leadership, and the constant attacks on Corbyn using accusations of anti-semitism, are anything other than attempts to shift Labour policies to a position favourable to a foreign power, in this case the state of Israel. This is not new; I am old enough to remember and have known people who wanted to shift Labour to a line more favourable to the foreign policies of the USSR. They were recognised for what they were and called ‘fellow travellers’.

Let’s recognise the problem for what it is and not make the lazy mistake of turning Corbyn’s suspension into yet another left/right battle. The blackmail seems to be working.

The many articles on the website of the Jewish Voice for Labour are well worth reading. Attitudes to Labour are more diverse amongst Jewish people than you may have been led to believe. Remember the Board of Deputies does not speak for all British Jews.

******************************************

Blackmailers Always Want More Revisited

by Les May

SEVERAL days ago the High Court struck out a claim for libel against the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) made by Tony Greenstein. The organisation now boasts that the ruling made it permissible for it to call him, and presumably anyone else, a “notorious antisemite” in articles on the CAA website.

The problem for anyone challenging the CAA over such personal attacks is that whilst they are made with all the certainty of them being objectively true, the law treats them merely as opinions, and as the saying goes ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’.

The finding makes Mr Greenstein liable for costs of nearly £68,000, something else the CAA is eager to crow about.

Having seen off Greenstein the CAA is now renewing its attacks on the Labour party claiming that Starmer has ‘conned’ them and offered them ‘crumbs’ by allowing the Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension to be dealt with by the Labour Party’s existing disciplinary procedures which resulted in the lifting of the suspension. If Starmer thought that his removing the Labour whip would result in him being allowed to deal with complaints of anti-semitism in his own way, he was mistaken. The response from the CAA has been to claim ‘New evidence emerges showing that incompetence, factionalism and politicisation remain the hallmarks of Labour’s disciplinary process under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership’. Blackmailers always want more.

Not content with that, at the end of October the CAA submitted a short letter and almost 70 pages of allegations against a number of former and sitting Labour MPs who it referred to as ‘Respondents’ as if it had some legal authority . If Starmer actually read these he must have wondered who is in charge of the Labour party, himself or the unelected Gideon Falter and Joe Glasman of the CAA.

It should also be said that Starmer’s action in removing the Labour whip from Corbyn may be the start of an attempt to reverse the democratisation of the party which placed the decision about who should by Leader in the hands of the membership, and not in the hands of the parliamentary party.

The ruling against Greenstein is a warning that it is not possible to challenge the tactics of the CAA head on, pernicious though they are. But it is possible to point out some of the shortcomings of this organisation.

The CAA likes to present itself as a ‘non-governmental organisation’ and a ‘charity’. In 2019 its income was almost £900,000, almost all from legacies and donations. But when the Charity Commission investigated complaints against the CAA’s Gideon Falter said, ‘There are many people who oppose our mission and complain to the Charity Commission at every opportunity’ and described it as an ‘orchestrated campaign’. In October 2018 the report in the Jewish Chronicle showed how the CAA had broken charity law;

The Charity Commission told the JC its investigation was launched "following concerns raised about a petition launched by the charity which called for the resignation of the leader of the Opposition".

A spokesperson said: “Charities are free to campaign and engage in political activity in furthering their purposes...

"But there are rules that charities must follow. One of the most important of these rules is that charities must stress their independence from party politics and demonstrate party political balance.

"This is a cornerstone of charity law and the public rightly expect us to uphold it robustly."

The commission instructed CAA to change the petition's wording "to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity".

Reading the CAA’s most recent complaints against named individuals in the Labour party, which quote exactly which of the Labour party’s rules have been broken, it is difficult to see how the organisation can be said to complying with rules set out for charities.

The CAA makes much of its ‘methodology’ in its investigations into anti-semitism. But this is what the Institute from Jewish Policy Research had to say about its methods in January 2015;

However, unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws, and in the context of a clear need for accurate data on this topic, its work may even be rather irresponsible.

Its report is based on two surveys – one of Jews living in the UK, exploring their perceptions and experiences of antisemitism, and one of the general population of the UK, exploring its attitudes towards Jews.

In the first one, the data about Jewish attitudes are based on an open web survey that had very limited capacity to assess whether respondents were in any way representative of the British Jewish population. So the percentages quoted are of survey respondents, not of Jews in the UK. The findings might be representative of the Jewish community in some way, but it is at least equally likely that they are not. Unfortunately, due to quite basic methodological flaws and weaknesses, there is absolutely no way the researchers or any readers of the report can really know

.

Because of this, the claim in the report, for example, that “more than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s” verges into irresponsible territory – it is an incendiary finding, and there is simply no way to ascertain whether or not it is accurate. Moreover, the very inclusion of such a question in the survey, which most credible scholars of the Holocaust utterly refute, was a dubious decision in and of itself, and raises issues about the organisers’ pre-existing hypotheses and assumptions. Professional social researchers build credible surveys and analyse the data with an open mind; the CAA survey falls short both in terms of its methodology and its analysis.

The second survey, conducted by YouGov, is much better – the results are certainly broadly representative of the UK population. The findings would have benefited significantly from greater contextualisation, both in terms of attitudes towards other minorities, and the inclusion of some positive statements about Jews rather than just negative ones, which would have helped to provide some balance and nuance. But the research makes a valuable contribution to knowledge. The inclusion of some context might also have altered the way in which the results were presented in the CAA report and press release, which included the rather sensationalist claim that almost half of British adults harbour some kind of antisemitic view.

A far more accurate and honest read of the YouGov data would highlight the fact that between 75% and 90% of people in Britain either do not hold antisemitic views or have no particular view of Jews either way, and only about 4% to 5% of people can be characterised as clearly antisemitic when looking at individual measures of antisemitism. This figure is similar to Pew data gathered in 2009 and 2014 which estimated the level of antisemitic attitudes at somewhere between 2% and 7%, and Anti-Defamation League data gathered in 2014 which, while also flawed, put it at 8%, and, more robustly, identified the UK as among the least antisemitic countries in the world. It is possible that the proportion has risen in light of the summer’s events in Gaza (and those interested should look out for the next results from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey), but the notion that it has risen to such a significant degree seems to be highly implausible.

So much for the Campaign Against Antisemitism's‘methodology’.

In what I write and say I try to avoid using words like ‘racist’, ‘islamo-phobic’, ‘anti-semitic’, ‘fascist’, ‘nazi’ etc, largely because the way they are sometimes used against individuals is difficult to distinguish from what has been called ‘hate speech’. Nor do I find it easy to distinguish the repeated attacks by organisations like the CAA on Corbyn and other individuals, easy to distinguish from what is called in social media circles ‘trolling’.

The Labour party and those of us who support it have a choice to make. We can go on trying to appease organisations like the CAA or we can insist that if it feels it has the right to call people anti-semites, we have the right to defend ourselves against such charges and to criticise the policies of the state of Israel and those who act as apologists for it. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'Caesar would not be wolf, if the Romans were not sheep'.

The Charity Commission website carries details of the CAA. The page headed ‘What, who, how, where’ is revealing, and rather difficult to equate with it’s recent activities with regard to the Labour party and its supporters.

*******************************************************

Tail Succeeds in Wagging Dog!

by Les May

Angela Rayner aka Cinderella

LAST year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group.  Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals.  One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation.  One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties.  Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart.  I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences.  It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.

Given the apparent failure of Labour to get its policy message over to the electorate, which in no small measure was a result of the constant distraction of trying to deal with the anti-semitism row, one might have thought that anyone hoping to lead the party would avoid taking sides about anything which might cause a rift within the party.  Seemingly not!

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner and Emily Thornberry have all pledged support to the 12 demands of the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. Keir Starmer is reported as having said ‘trans rights are human rights, that the issue shouldn’t become a political football, and that the we need to dial this down’.  (I’m not surprised at the first three, but I thought Thornberry had ‘more oil in her can’, as we say in Rochdale.

Yesterday the ‘i’ reported that a senior Shadow Cabinet member representing a northern constituency had called it a distraction and said ‘My constituents don’t give a flying fuck about transsexual issues’.  Debbie Hayton, who refers to herself as ‘trans’, wrote in The Spectator, ‘they seem oblivious that the public has little time for extreme transgender ideology’ and that ‘Labour is lurching towards a crisis brought on by transgender campaigners whose demand for compliance is total’.

It would appear that Labour has learned nothing from what many people still see as a witch hunt those who refused to buy into the demands of the Zionist lobby disguised as an attack on anti-semitism.  It is too late to put the ‘trans’ genie back in the bottle; the damage is already done.  Labour cannot afford to expel members for thinking differently.  Tolerance means accepting that others have a different view to you.  It does not mean that you have to accept that someone else is right and you are wrong, just because they say so.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/do-rebecca-long-bailey-and-angela-rayner-have-a-problem-with-trans-people-like-me/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rebecca-long-bailey-keir-starmer-trans-rights-pledges-womens-place-a9333376.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1241298/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-Labour-leadership-contest-Lloyd-Russell-Moyle-bbc-news-politics-live

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/13/veteran-left-wing-feminists-row-labour-leader-hopefuls-branding/

https://labourlist.org/2020/02/trans-rights-deputy-hustings-and-tv-debates-labours-leadership-latest/

https://twitter.com/Labour_Trans/status/1226939313264394241

***********************

Pastor NIEMOLLER for OUR TIME

“First they came for the Communists
 And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews

And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then the Jews came for the Palestinians

And I didn’t speak out, afraid of being labelled “Anti-Semite””.

 

Christopher Draper, 2019

**************************

Who Really Speaks for British Jews?

by Les May

 

THE Jewish Chronicle (JC) wants to be seen as the only authentic voice of British Jews. Yesterday (Tuesday 9 July) its website carried a piece headed ‘The Guardian's long standing and shameful tradition of promoting antisemitism denial’ with the sub-heading ‘For decades, Britain's most prominent left-wing paper has promoted those denying antisemitism on the wider left, contributing to today's toxic climate for British Jews’.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/the-guardian-s-latest-letter-continues-their-long-tradition-of-promoting-antisemitism-denial-1.486275

What becomes clear in reading this is that the writer’s concern is that people, including Labour people, are willing to take information about the opinions of Jewish people from sources other than the JC and the people who write for it.  In particular the writer does not like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) which is dismissed as a ‘tiny minority of far-left Jews’.

And what does this ‘tiny minority of far-left Jews’ actually have to say when providing guidance about what constitutes antisemitism?

‘Free speech is legally protected. Within these legal limits political discourse can be robust and may cause offence. There is no right not to be offended. The fact that some people or groups are offended does not in itself mean that a statement is antisemitic or racist. A statement is only antisemitic if it shows prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.’

‘Criticising Zionism or Israel as a state does not constitute criticising Jews as individuals or as a people, and is not evidence of antisemitism.’

‘Drawing such parallels (with Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa) can undoubtedly cause offence; but potent historical events and experiences are always key reference points in political debate.  Such comparisons are only antisemitic if they show prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.’

If you want to check that I am not just quoting selectively then visit the website below.  You’ll find a robust attitude to antisemitism.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/antisemitic-misconduct/

If you actually talk to people about antisemitism in the Labour party they are baffled.   It simply is not part of their experience, they’ve not seen it, they’ve not heard it, they have no idea what all the fuss is about.  Note here that I am not saying that people who are prejudiced against Jews as Jews are not to be found in the Labour party or amongst its supporters. Such people exist in all walks of life and I doubt the Labour party is exempt.

The people who write for the Jewish Chronicle seem to think that the vast majority of voters actually care about the writer’s opinions and so will be swayed in how they vote.  I doubt that the majority of people care one little bit.   This isn’t antisemitic,  it’s just that we do not feel inclined to take these people as seriously as they take themselves. And we are not going to accept at face value the JC’s exaggerated claim of ‘a toxic climate for British Jews’.

************

Half Bricks and Abuse of MPs

by Les May

HARRIET Harman has been at it again.  In last Saturday’s Times she was reported to have said that some MPs had changed their stance, presumably on Brexit, because of threats and abuse they had received.   But as is often the case with Harriet the story she is telling is a bit lacking in detail. Or to put it another way we have only Harriet’s say so for it.

As I pointed out recently, Luciana Berger has been repeatedly verbally abused and physically threatened, but the people doing it are not connected with the Labour party.  It’s not good enough for her to say that she believes that the abuse she received after the incident with the mural in 2018 came from ‘left wing individuals’.  Without some firm evidence I am not willing to believe claims of this kind.

This is a re-run of what we saw in July 2016 when The Guardian ran a story about a brick being thrown through the window of Angela Eagle’s constituency office after she declared her intention to challenge Corbyn for the Labour leadership.

According to the paper, ‘Eagle called on Corbyn to rein in his supporters, saying attacks such as the vandalising of her office were “being done in his name, and he needs to get control of the people who are supporting him and make certain that this behaviour stops and stops now.  It is bullying.  It has absolutely no place in politics in the UK and it needs to end”.'

What’s interesting about the Berger and Eagle cases is the lazy assumption that it is supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who were responsible and that he should somehow or other ‘control’ them. I’m a supporter of Corbyn, but if I write something to which you take exception, take it up with me, don’t try to blame Corbyn.

If you make lazy assumptions like this and are not meticulous in finding out the facts before rushing into print it’s easy to give the impression that Labour is a hotbed of bullying and anti-semitism.  Just because they print it does not mean we have to believe it. 

********* 

Trevor Philips & The Novichok of Politics

by Les May

I'M seventy six.  The first thing I do each morning is take a pill to lower my blood pressure.  Yesterday I forgot until mid morning.  My wife asked me what I was doing.  When I told her she said she was surprised I was willing to take a daily pill when I am usually sceptical about medication.  I replied “I’m trying to make sure I live long enough to see a proper Labour government again”.

My dad was mentally ill; my mother illiterate.  For the first eleven years of my life six of us lived in a ‘two up, two down’ on Deeplish (a district of Rochdale).   It had gas lighting, an outside lavatory, the sink was a rectangular depression in slab of stone, in other words a ‘slop stone’, and the outside wall was constantly damp in winter.  The rent was 10/6 (53p or £14.40p at 2018 prices).

In 1953 we got lucky and were allocated a ‘council house’. The rent was £1 a week which is equivalent to £27.12p (£117.52 per calendar month, PCM) at present day prices.  After 26 years of Tory governments and 13 years of Labour governments selling off council houses the rent of a now privately owned ex-council house on the Belfield estate (another district of Rochdale) is £460 PCM. These houses were built as a result of a Labour government’s 1930 Housing Act piloted through the Commons by Arthur Greenwood.

My dad worked as a road sweeper, on the bins or ‘the tubs’ (these served the outlying houses which did not have mains drainages).   When he could no longer hold down a job and went into hospital we did not starve thanks to Labour’s 1948 National Assistance Act. It’s what enabled me to stay at school until I was 18.

Unsurprisingly my political hero is Clement Attlee. In a very real sense all I have I feel I owe to the 1945 Labour Government.  I got a good education which enabled me to work until I was 67.  I had a job which did not make me rich, but it gave me a house and the security that allowed us to turn it into a home.  When an unexpected bill arrives I don’t have to ask a Wonga lookalike for a loan.  It wasn’t just the money that supported my family which allowed us to break out of poverty I’m grateful for.  I’m equally grateful that we were not viewed as scroungers. Today we would be.

I’ve voted Labour all my life because I want everyone to have the chances I had. I despaired throughout the Blair years and the Harman interregnum.  When Corbyn was elected leader I looked forward to him setting the Labour party in a new direction.  Equality of opportunity is not enough, not least because it is impossible to achieve.  We have to care about equality of outcome if other families are to have the same support that mine had.

When I read that Trevor Philips has said ‘Labour is led by antisemites and racists who basically want to essentially eliminate anyone who disagrees with them’, I ask myself how anyone can so casually toss about words that are the political equivalent of Novichok and yet in almost the same breath say ‘We have to find a way to talk to each other with respect’.

As a Labour supporter I feel tainted by Philips’ poisonous comments.  It is as if he is accusing me of being a racist.  Like so many other people who use this kind of language he produces no evidence for it.  He’s acting like the Trump of Labour politics.

What we are seeing from Philips, Umanna, Field, Regan and their ilk is self indulgence and a polishing of their egos.  They don’t care about the families like the one I grew up in.  They don’t care that ordinary families cannot find a home. They don’t want a proper Labour government which will tackle at root the gross inequalities in our society and build the council houses people need.  They style themselves ‘centre left’ and attack Corbyn for being too left wing.  Corbyn is far less radical in his politics than Attlee was.  Just look at Attlee’s record on nationalisation if you want confirmation.

The Two Faces of Jonathan Sacks

by Les May

THE first of these passages is taken from the 2015 book ‘Lessons in Leadership’ by Jonathan Sacks.

‘It is not enough to be righteous if that means turning our backs on a society that is guilty of wrongdoing.  We must take a stand.  We must protest.  We must register dissent even if the probability of changing minds is small.  This is because the moral life is the life we share with others.’

In 2016 he wrote:

‘Anti-Semitism is a virus that survives by mutating.  In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion.  In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race.  Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel.  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.’

http://rabbisacks.org/anti-zionism-is-the-new-anti-semitism-rabbi-sacks-writes-for-newsweek/

Demonstration by British Jews

*******

Decide For Yourself

by Les May

YOU can find an image of the mural which has been denounced as ‘anti-Semitic’ by people attacking Corbyn at:

http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/anti-semitic-mural.html

If you click on it you will get an enlarged image. Right click on that and you will get a menu which includes ‘Save Image As’.  Find that file and click on it to load it into an image viewer. You will then be able to decide for yourself whether it really is ‘anti-Semitic’ or just a well executed piece of art which you are free to interpret as you wish.

As the ‘white on black’ font of the website is hard to read I have converted it to ‘black on white’ and appended it below. I hope the author does not mind.

How does a piece of public art lead to the possible downfall of one of 's most senior statesmen?  It sounds like a riddle and I'm sure it would baffle anybody just twenty years ago, but not in this current Orwellian age.  Literally just days after being accused of being a Russian agent, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty's Opposition, has been denounced as an anti-Semite. 

Being labelled an anti-Semite is incredibly easy these days if you're a UFO and ghost-believing tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist like me, but it is still quite rare inside the pen of Corbyn's ideological community.  The mural was put up in 2012 by the artist Kalen Ockerman, better known as 'Mear One', see: http://mearone.com/. 

It was called Freedom for Humanity and was painted on a wall in the heart of 's .  It depicts a row of six elderly suited men sitting round a table which is covered by a board game that resembles Monopoly.  The table has no legs and its top is supported on the backs of four naked and faceless seated human figures who are bent over completely.  Behind them are a pile of loose cogs from a machine.  In the background is a pair of smoking factory chimneys next to two objects that are either volcanoes or cooling towers from a power station.  There is a network of lines behind them that look like chemtrails in the sky.  On the left is a man carrying a placard in his right hand that says: 

'The New World Order is the enemy of humanity.'  His left hand is held aloft in a fist.   On the right is a tired and sad-looking mother holding her baby. Above the scene is a rising sun framing a pyramid with a detached capstone containing the Eye of Providence.   I think it is a magnificent artwork and deserves to be ranked among the great examples of political graffiti across the world, like those ingenious pieces from and .  It must have been a striking experience to walk down the street and see it. I was planning to take a trip to the location and film it for HPANWO TV while it was still there.   Then I looked into the matter and I found out that it had already been obliterated in 2012, just three weeks after it had been finished.  The borough council ordered the destruction of the painting on the grounds that it was 'anti-Semitic!'   Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-19844681/kalen-ockerman-mural-to-be-removed-from-brick-lane.

The problem that has arisen today comes from all those years ago. Jeremy Corbyn originally spoke out against the removal of Freedom for Humanity.  He told the artist he was "in good company" and compared the removal of the painting to the famous Man at the Crossroads fresco in that was whitewashed by the Rockefellers for its Marxist iconography (It was happily recreated in at a later date).  There is absolutely no suggestion at all that the six antagonistic figures in the painting were Jews.  The artist himself denied it and the man on whose wall the mural was painted, a restaurant manager of Bangladeshi origin, said that two of the figures looked Indian, see source link above.  The allegation is that the faces of the six evil men included generic Jewish features of the kind seen in propaganda from Nazi Germany.  I don't see that myself; the faces are all very different.  Two of them, the one of the far right and the one third from the left, look like old photographs of British colonial officials from the days of the Empire.  The one on the far left has a full beard that is more typically Russian.  The problem with the painting is most likely its conspiracy theoretical element.  As I say in the background links below, there is a paranoid hypersensitivity when it comes to linking conspiracy theory of any kind to hatred of Jews.  This serves a purpose for the people behind the conspiracy because it means their enemies are hampered by social degradation and marginalization.  Therefore the conspirators eagerly encourage this public hysteria.  However, in the background links I explain why it is, in the vast majority of cases, a false premise.  The New World Order is caused by the Illuminati, not the Jews.  I can't put it any simpler than that; there are no qualifiers to that statement. Corbyn was first pulled up by a Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, on Twitter (where else?). 

Corbyn backed down and about-turned. He said that Freedom for Humanity was 'deeply disturbing' and he now 'wholeheartedly supported its removal'.   He went on:  

'I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.'

As I've explained, the content of the mural is not anti-Semitic and there is information available to explain why that is in detail which I have produced myself. Corbyn should have known better than to believe that a grovelling public apology would save him from the standard and predictable hashtag barrage.  It would have been better to stand his ground and fight the anti-Semitism premise altogether.  If Mr Corbyn had approached me I would have coached him in this matter. The media lynch mob is currently in full swing;  the torches and pitchforks are being passed round. Jewish welfare groups under the influence of the Israeli lobby have taken the bait hook, line and sinker.  Corbyn is desperately trying to placate them, in vain.  As I said, it's an exercise in futility.  

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43536830. 

This is just the latest in a series of attempts to discredit the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn by his Blairite opponents within the Labour Party.  See here for details of the previous flare-up: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/is-ken-livingstone-nazi.html.  The only real anti-Semitism in the Labour Party comes from the radicalized Muslims that the government have been breeding for the last few decades through their sponsorship of Saudi-run mega-mosques and their agents posing at popular media hate-preachers, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/anjem-choudary-arrest-blocked-by-mi5.html. 

Corbyn is actually very similar to Donald Trump.  He would be deeply offended at my comparison, but I think it's accurate.  He is a man in a political office whom the does not want in that role.  They worked hard to keep him out of it.  They have since wavered between trying to remove him and trying to manage the situation with him remaining as leader.  Whenever the latter fails they try the former.  Corbyn's career prospects are not looking rosy.   A part of me thinks this is probably for the best; not because of Corbyn himself but because of the second echelon of Labour officials behind him, a posse of total blackguards who are currently trying to ride in his slipstream to their own positions of power.  If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister then it will only be for a few months before there is an et tu Brutus situation and then he'll be lying in the back benches with Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Diane Abbott's knives his back.  At the same time, anything that the real 'Evil Six!' from the painting do not want gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.  Thankfully the Jewish voice of reason has not gone silent in its hour of need. Jenny Manson of the Jewish Voice for Labour defended Corbyn and marvelled at the ingenuity of the media for smearing 'the most passionate anti-racist campaigner of the last forty years' as 'pro-racist and anti-Semitic.'  

 Source: https://evolvepolitics.com/the-jewish-voice-twitter-account-is-absolutely-destroying-the-medias-latest-corbyn-anti-semitism-smear-tweets/. I take my hat off to these people; they face abuse from other Jews for their stances. They were there for David Icke when he was in this position and I'm glad they are here again.

See here for background: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/jews.html.

And: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/new-mural-in-oxford.html.

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/is-david-icke-dangerous.html.

And: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/programme-188-podcast-jews.html.

Faking the News on Facebook?

By Les May

IN the distant days of my youth my two primary modes of entertainment were listening to the radio and reading books from Rochdale library.  The former gave me a liking for the music of Django Reinhardt plus a detailed knowledge of the deeds, and misdeeds, of the Forsyte family.   The latter gave me memorable book titles like ‘Winston Churchill’s Toyshop’ and accounts of the doings of characters like Sefton Delmer.

As soon as I heard of the appearance of anti-Semitic messages on Facebook pages set up by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, I thought of Delmer, or at least of his spiritual heirs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefton_Delmer

In the autumn of 1940, Delmer was recruited by the Political Warfare Executive (PWE) to organize radio broadcasts to Nazi Germany.   The twist in the story was that the broadcasts would undermine Hitler by pretending to originate from fervent Nazi supporters complaining about the way that he was being let down by his underlings.  Pretending to be something you are not and using that as a disguise to undermine your opponent, was Delmer’s forte.

A modern day Sefton Delmer would not need anything so crude or expensive as a 600kW medium wave transmitter to spread discord. In fact his intended victims would open the door and welcome him in by making him a Facebook ‘friend’ without for one moment knowing who he is.  Once ‘inside’ what is easier than to post anti-Semitic messages to discredit not just Corbyn, but all Corbyn supporters.

If this sounds a little far fetched check out these websites all of which offer ‘aged’ Facebook accounts to anyone with the cash to buy.

https://fbaccs.com/

https://pandasmm.com/buy-social-accounts/buy-facebook-accounts/

https://buyaccs.com/en/buy-bulk-facebook-accounts.php

Whenever Israel and the Palestinians decide to have a go at each other the war isn’t just fought with guns and bullets and the PBI, it’s also fought on social media like Facebook and Twitter, by each side’s cyber-soldiers.  In time we shall no doubt find out whether Russia really did influence the outcome of the Brexit referendum and/or the US presidential election by similar means.

Labour’s superior ability in using social media to get its message across has been been credited with helping to dramatically slash the Tory’s majority at the last election.  Now it is learning that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Your opponents can play dirty, and they may just be doing it.    

Anyone for ‘snail mail’?

******

A Man Righteous Among the Nations

By Les May

YOU have probably never heard of Dutch schoolteacher Johan van Hulst.  I certainly had not until I read an obituary of him in the Washington Post.  Along with two colleagues he is credited with saving the lives of some 600 Jewish children who would otherwise have been sent to the death camps.  All this under the nose of the SS and knowing that if he were found out he too would be killed. That is what anti-Semitism really means.   It is part of the experience of many of our continental neighbours whose countries were occupied by the Nazis.  It is not part of our experience and it puts the ‘anti-Semitism’, which some would have us believe is rampant in the Labour party, into some kind of perspective. It also gives the lie to those people who claim the ‘The Holocaust’ was a hoax.

Both Stalin and Hitler despised Jewish people because they did not have a state of their own. Stalin deported them, Hitler murdered them.  With a history like this it is unsurprising that anyone who self identifies as Jewish will feel a close affinity with the state of Israel, the one country that is not going to deport them or murder them.

But identifying with a country is a two edged sword. It thrusts upon you a moral responsibility for that country’s actions.  On 17 March 2003 the late Robin Cook received a standing ovation from the House of Commons for his resignation speech after leaving the Cabinet in protest at the Iraq war.  Thousands of people took to the streets to voice their objections to the war.  They were people who wanted to tell Blair, and the world, ‘you do not go to war in my name’.

So the distinction between gratuitous anti-semitism and thought through anti-Zionism may begin to look a bit hazy at times.   Nonetheless the distinction is real.  Gratuitous anti-semitism on social media should not be made an excuse for not questioning the policies of the state of Israel, either by individuals or the press.   Nor should it be made an excuse for the press seeking to interfere in the internal structures of the Labour party.

It cannot have escaped notice that if Corbyn accedes to the demand that Christine Shawcroft should be suspended from the party and removed from the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC), it will shift the balance of power between the pro- and anti-Corbyn forces.  So whilst it is not difficult to find a few dozen examples of gratuitous anti-Semitism coming from some members of the Labour party, it is also a story being whipped up mostly by MPs who have always objected to Corbyn leading the party and a press which thinks the same.

How many of the people who are so vocal about this would be willing to act like Johan van Hulst did?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/johan-van-hulst-dutch-schoolteacher-who-saved-hundreds-of-jewish-children-during-holocaust-dies-at-107/2018/03/28/cdbd44c2-31ca-11e8-94fa-32d48460b955_story.html

Guido Fawkes & Jewish News gang-up on David Ward

David Ward and Baroness Jenny Tonge

 ON the 25^th, April 2017, the Tory commentator Guido Fawkes wrote on his Blog:
'You’d have hoped David “The Jews” Ward’s career was over when he lost his seat at the last election. Alas not.  The LibDems, shamelessly even by their low standards, refused to boot him out of the party.  Knowing Ward’s views on ‘Zionists’ are popular among sections of the Bradford electorate, the LibDems – while criticising Labour over their anti-Semitism scandal – quietly appointed him as their parliamentary spokesman for the city.  Now they have selected him as their candidate there.  If Labour get completely creamed it is not impossible that Ward could make it back to parliament. Remember this the next time the LibDems ever take a stand on discrimination… '

On April 26th, 2017, the Jewish News publishesd the following story:

'Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has barred controversial former MP David Ward from running for his old seat in Bradford East, after he was selected as the local party’s candidate.'

It went on to trumpet:

'The dramatic move came just hours after a high-profile backlash from the prime minister, the Jewish community and senior figures within party, who were left appalled at the prospect of him once again becoming an MP.'

After his dismissal, David Ward said he believed he was being targeted because of his criticism of Israel.  'The antisemitic thing is a nonsense,' he said. 'It is just used, it’s a well-known tactic.  How do you avoid conversation or any criticism about Israel?  Just say people are antisemitic.  I am certainly not antisemitic.' 

  

Asked why he believed Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, had axed him, he said: 

'Just the pressure that they come under, all the party’s come under, and it works. The pressure works. It’s the fear of the electoral damage that can be done by being seen to oppose Israel.  It’s contaminating and infecting our own political system.'

Mr. Ward’s reselection appeared to take Lib Dem headquarters by surprise when news of it emerged on Tuesday night.  The party had selected the vast majority of its candidates over the past year in preparation for a snap election, but Bradford East was not among them.