The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ian Fantom Archive
UK’s Labour Antisemitism Split
Just what the Doctor Prescribed
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Since the election in 2015 of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of Britain’s Labour Party there has been a crescendo of ‘antisemitism’ talk in the party, and talk of Jeremy Corbyn “not doing enough to combat antisemitism”. There has been constant talk in the mainstream media of a resurgence of antisemitism throughout Britain, with particular attention being focussed on the Labour Party. There were reports of members being targeted for apparently innocuous comments, such as Naz Shah, who was forced to apologise for retweeting a satirical cartoon by Norman Finkelstein about relocating Israel to the United States, and former Lord Mayor of London Ken Livingston, who, in defending her, stated, “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. Ken Livingstone was suspended, and in his own defence he asked, “how can the truth be an offence?”. He stated that there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic”.

Later, during a pro-Corbyn counter-demonstration in Parliament Square, organised by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Labour, Labour Party member Stan Keable was secretly filmed by the BBC saying that the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazi regime – “a well documented if shameful historical fact”, he wrote later. For this he lost his job with a Labour-controlled London council, and his union refused to support him. He told me he was also expelled from the party. A few months earlier a new group had been set up under the name ‘Labour Against the Witch-hunt’, and their website campaigns for the reinstatement of the growing number of members who have been suspended or expelled from the party. Stan Keable is their honorary secretary.

There has been constant pressure on Jeremy Corbyn from Zionists in the party to include the new ‘Internationally Accepted Definition of Antisemitism’ in the party’s code of conduct. By this they are referring to the ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’, adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Eventually this was passed by the National Executive Committee and by the Parliamentary Labour Party, with just eight Members of Parliament voting against. According to this new definition, it would be considered ‘antisemitic’ to criticise Israel or Zionism. A Scottish member of the Labour Party and shop steward in the massive GMB union, Peter Gregson, was expelled from his union for campaigning against that new definition being adopted by the union. He was defended by an orthodox rabbi. He appealed and defended himself at the London headquarters of the GMB on 4 March 2019. He was unsuccessful, but by this time had 1 560 signatures of Labour Party members declaring, “Israel is a racist endeavour”, “brazenly breaking the IHRA rule”, he states. He is currently ‘under investigation’ by the Labour Party. His own write-up of the case appears at Change.org. A different slant was put on the case by the Jewish News and the Trotskyist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, though the Revolutionary Communist Group supported him.

I took advantage of his trip to London for his appeal at the union’s headquarters on 5 March, 2019, by inviting him to talk at a group whose meetings I organise each month, which we call Keep Talking. A colleague and I set up that group in 2010 to take over from the declining 9/11 Truth movement in London, which some of us believed to have been sabotaged from within.

The focus of our group had not been on Israel, or Zionism, and we tacitly agreed amongst ourselves not to deal with the Holocaust issue, because that was so taboo in the UK that any onslaught from the Zionist lobby could completely derail us from our main topic, which was false-flag terrorism and causes of wars. In fact, my colleague, Dr Nick Kollerstrom, author of many investigative books, including ‘Terror on the Tube’, had been targeted in a witch-hunt for a literature review he wrote on ‘The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion’ and a comment about a swimming pool at Auschwitz, since deleted. I defended Nick Kollerstrom’s right to investigate that topic, and to write about it freely, though I myself had no knowledge of the topic, and so no views on it. That was the seminal incident that led to Keep Talking being set up.

Even so, our Keep Talking group wasn’t spared. In November 2016 our guest speaker was physicist and long-term weather forecaster Piers Corbyn, who explained his model of climate change and why he rejected the theory of the greenhouse effect for global warming. At the end of the talk he was asked by a newcomer, sitting on the front row, for his views on the Holocaust, to which he replied, “On some things it’s best not to have views”. Piers Corbyn had stated right at the beginning of his talk that if the press were to attack him it would be to get at his brother, Jeremy Corbyn, and indeed, it turned out that the newcomer on the front row was a journalist from The Daily Mail, who subsequently wrote up a story based on a book on the bookstall, ‘Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality’ by Nick Kollerstrom. I managed to get that article pulled in the paper edition, but nevertheless it appeared in the Internet pages of Mail Online. Subsequently, three of our meetings had to be called off, the first one because of an aggressive mob outside the venue, whilst the police stood idly by, even when a 74-year-old colleague of mine was thrown to the ground. The second was called off “on police advice” by the venue, when Jewish News put out a fabrication that we were about to discuss Mossad’s role in the death of Princess Diana, in the knowledge that we had stated that none of us had any knowledge or views on any involvement from Mossad. I have been persuing that under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. The third was called off when the board of the Conway Hall Ethical Society in London, which has hosted meetings on ‘conspiracy theories’ in the past, cancelled our bookings. None of these Keep Talking meetings was about Israel or Zionism. These incidents did, however, set me off investigating the groups and individuals involved. Such events were becoming widespread in the country, even resulting in the cancellation of jazz concerts by Unz contributor Gilad Atzmon, who has twice been a speaker at Keep Talking.

In the meantime, several ‘moderate’ Labour Party Members of Parliament have resigned from the party, to form a new parliamentary grouping, the Independent Group, to be joined by some who then resigned from the Conservative Party. They all resigned because of disagreements with their parties over Brexit, and they are generally regarded as ‘Remainers’, but the former Labour Party members conflate this with ‘antisemitism’ in the party. Since then, many have been saying in the mainstream media that Brexit is being sabotaged. And now, Remainer Jess Philips, MP, who is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, is emerging as the Establishment candidate to challenge Jeremy Corbyn, saying that Corbyn “won’t admit he’s a sexist antisemite”.

In Keep Talking we eventually decided to tackle this issue head on. In my investigations, tracing the organisations and people back in time, I came across the complete diaries of Theodor Herzl. A study of his writings reveals a lot about his plans that was for many years kept from the public, and even now is little understood amongst the public. Yet these writings explain the current resurgence in ‘antisemitism’, and why this should have been expected when the Labour Party voted for a leader whose wish was to return the party to its Socialist roots.

The Doctor’s Diaries

Dr Theodor Herzl was a Viennese journalist and playwright, and, according to the dust cover of Marvin Lowenthal’s 1956 ‘The Diaries of Theodor Herzl’, was “the father of the State of Israel, a heroic and legendary figure, beloved and revered by countless followers”. Undoubtedly, many present-day Zionists will be using Herzl as a role-model. Yet until 1960 only sanitised versions of his diaries were published. Herzl specifically requested this in Book 1 of his diaries: [page 55]

When this book is published, the prescriptions for the organization of the government will be omitted. The people must be guided to the good according to principles unknown to them. Therefore the editors of the book – if I am no longer alive – shall extract the administrative maxims and keep them in the secret State Archives. Only the Doge and the Chancellor may read them. To be omitted are also those remarks which could annoy foreign governments. But the course the negotiations took shall be retained, so that our people may see how I led the Jews home.

Medical doctors in the UK used to hide their prescriptions by writing them in Latin; Dr Herzl has other means. So what was Dr Herzl’s prescription that he was hiding from the public? The present generation is allowed to know, because Herzl wrote at the end of his Book 1: “after we have done everything that is necessary to carry out our plan inexpensively, we shall make our entire program public”.

In 1960 ‘The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl’ was published. The Preface states: “Hundreds of passages, a number covering several pages, were omitted because of political or personal considerations”, adding that the diaries “belong to history, and not only can, but should be made public”. A colleague of mine, who had handed me a list of quotations from the diaries, told me: “There are many versions of the diaries – I have 6 different releases but only one is complete and no surprise the incomplete ones don’t contain the interesting parts. It took me 2 years to locate a physical source and eventually got all 5 volumes from a book dealer in Jerusalem at a cost of over £250. The complete one is by The Herzl Press in 1960 edited by Raphael Patai and translated by Harry Zohn”. It seems that the complete diaries were eventually published in order to be hidden in plain sight. The volumes were later scanned and posted on the Internet, but I was warned that I should download them quickly before they disappear.

Rich Jews and Poor Jews

Theodor Herzl.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Theodor Herzl. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Herzl wrote: “I wanted in particular to contrast the suffering, despised, and decent mass of poor Jews with the rich ones. The latter experience nothing of anti-Semitism which they are actually and mainly responsible for”. So he has defined the problem as having been caused mainly by the ‘rich Jews’, for which the ‘poor Jews’ were paying the price. He told a colleague at the Neue Freie Presse, “I understand what anti-Semitism is about. We Jews have maintanied ourselves, even if through no fault of our own, as a foreign body among the various nations. In the ghetto we have taken on a number of anti-social qualities. Our character has been corrupted by oppression, and it must be restored through some other kind of pressure. Actually, anti-Semitism is a consequence of the emancipation of the Jews. … They do not realize that we are what we are because they have made us that way amidst tortures, because the Church made usury dishonorable for Christians, and because the rulers forced us to deal in money”. So now he’s blaming the Christian Churches for banning usury, almost as if that were an antisemitic act. Herzl is making it clear that the root of antisemitism is the usury brought about by the ‘rich Jews’, for which the ‘poor Jews’ are made to suffer. Yet he doesn’t attempt to tackle that problem, but replaces it by another. “Throughout our two thousand years of dispersion, we have been without unified political leadership. I regard this as our chief misfortune”, he states. “Now, if we had a united political leadership, the necessity for which I need not demonstrate further and which should by no means constitute a secret society – if we had such leadership, we could tackle the solution of the Jewish question – from above, from below, from all sides”. In other words, it’s a power grab, in which the ‘rich Jews’ will control the minds of the ‘poor Jews’. Herzl takes this further by declaring, “It is a military campaign”.

Planning a War

“The exodus to the Promised Land constitutes in practical terms an enormous job of transportation, unprecedented in the modern world”, he stated then asked himself, “Did I say “transportation’?” Yes, he did, and people have been suspended from the Labour party in the present era for mentioning the ‘transportation agreement’ between the Zionists and the National Socialists. Yet mass transportation is exactly what was in Herzl’s mind. He talks of a “proletariat of intellectuals”, saying, “I shall form the general staff and the cadres of the army which is to seek, discover, and take over the land.

Earlier in his diaries [p 17] he wrote to Baron von Hirsch, a rich Jew who had been funding the resettlement of refugee Jews in Argentina, asking for a meeting. He included the first draft of his letter, saying he may have made some changes, and adding, “But in substance, those were its contents, and again the only fear I had was that Hirsch or some third party looking over his shoulder

might take me for a money-seeker”. That meeting took place on Whit Monday, 1895. He “dressed himself with discreet care”, explaining: “One must not show rich people too much deference”. In fact, he was extremely arrogant when he got to the meeting. Later the same day, he wrote to Baron Hirsch: “On returning home I found that I had stopped on page 6 [of his notes], and yet I had 22 pages. Due to your impatience you heard only the beginning; where and how my idea begins to blossom you did not get to hear”. After about three pages in his diary he comes to the point:

I spoke of an army, and you already interrupted me when I began to speak of the (moral) training necessary for its march. I let myself be interrupted. And yet I have already drawn up the further details, the entire plan. I know all the things it involves; Money, money, and more money; means of transportation; the provisioning of great multitudes (which does not mean just food and drink, as in the simple days of Moses); the maintenance of manly discipline; the organization of departments; emigration treaties with the heads of some states, transit treaties with others, formal guarantees from all of them; the construction of new, splendid dwelling places. Beforehand tremendous propaganda, tremendous propaganda, the popularizition of the idea through newspapers, books, pamphlets, talks by travelling lecturers, pictures, songs. Everything directed from one center with sureness of purpose and with vision. But I would have had to tell you eventually what flag I will unfurl and how. And then you would have asked mockingly: A flag, what is that? A stick with a rag on it? – No, sir, a flag is more than that. With a flag one can lead men wherever one wants to, even into the Promised Land.

He is clearly preparing for a military campaign, and the two basic ingredients for any war of aggression are money and propaganda. He called it ‘education’ in the meeting with Hirsch, and Hirsch was having none of it.

Project Fear

In his conversation with a colleague at the Neue Freie Presse, Ludwig Speidel, he reports himself on page 10 as saying: “However, anti-Semitism, which is a strong and unconscious force among the masses, will not harm the Jews. I consider it to be a movement useful to the Jewish character. It represents the education of a group by the masses, and will perhaps lead to its being absorbed. Education is accomplished only through hard knocks”. He refers to the “education of our people” in his subsequent conversation with Hirsch on page 20, saying, “There are two possible aims: either we stay where we are or we emigrate somewhere else. … At any rate, in the meantime new generations will arise whom we must educate for our purposes”. He continues: “Now, with regard to education, I propose to employ, from the outset, methods quite different from those which you are using”, but before he has explained what they are he says some things about Hirsch’s methods, which Hirsch contests. Then Herzl continues: “To attract Jews to rural areas you would have to tell them some fairy-tale about how they may strike gold there”. In his third letter to Baron Hirsch he writes: “There are, ultimately and above all, the Jewish masses, and I shall know how to get across to them”. “After ten years”, Herzl writes on page 51, dated 6 June 1895, “the movement will be irresistible, and the Jews will come running to us barefoot through fog and darkness. Nothing will he able to stop them, at least not in the countries in which they are free to move. If there should then be attempts to impede the free passage of the Jews, we shall know how to mobilise the public opinion of the world (liberals, socialists, anti-Semites) against the imprisonment of the Jews. Then, too, our diplomats will be at work (we shall make financial concessions in the form of loans and special gifts). Once we are outside, we shall put our trust in our army, our purchased friendships, and a Europe weakened and divided by militarism and socialism. This is Jewish emancipation”. Then on page 56, dated 9 June, he writes, “In the beginning we shall be supported by the anti-Semites through a recrudescence of persecution”. According to a translator’s note, he writes ‘recrudescence’ in French. It’s an English medical term, too. It means a fresh outbreak, or a resurgence, of a condition. So he is planning a resurgence of antisemitism, in order to get his plans off the ground. That could explain how in different generations they can claim that antisemitism is getting worse.

On 12 June he describes plans for persuading governments to co-operate in the transfer of Jews, and on page 83 he writes: “It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, acredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. … At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and them make despicable as ‘Stooges of the Jews’. Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we will have emigrated”. He continues on the next page: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends; the anti-Semitic countries our allies”.

Still on 12 June, but now on page 96, he expresses the same sentiments without using the word ‘antisemitic’: “Today the thought arises in me that I may be solving more more than the ]ewish Question. Namely, tout bonnement [Very neatly], the social question! I don’t know, I doubt it, because in all these matters I have the creation of new conditions in mind; and the difficulty in the social question is precisely that everywhere men are bogged down in ancient abuses, lengthy stagnation, and inherited or acquired wrong. Whereas I presuppose a virginal soil. But if it turns out to be true, what a gift of God to the Jews!”

Two days later, on page 143, he says in an imagined speech to the Rothschilds’ Family Council: “I have already told you that we want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project, respecting their independence, which is valuable to us – as a sort of people’s control authority”. In another imagined address to the Rothschilds’ Family Council, he writes on 15 June, page 152: “Any person of discernment must see the development clearly even now. But no great exertion will be necessary to stimulate the migration movement. The anti-Semites are already taking care of this for us. As soon as our institution becomes known, the anti-Semites will agitate for the Society in the government, in parliament, at rallies, and in the papers. Good for the Jews who are going with us. Woe to them who will let themselves be forced out only by brutal arguments”.

Clearly, the plan was to use the ‘antisemites’ to instil fear amongst the ‘poor Jews’, in order to get them to move ‘voluntarily’, and those ‘poor Jews’ who don’t go along with the plan will suffer the consequences. Later, in the same imagined address, now on page 180, he writes that “the legal equality of the Jews, where it exists, can no longer be abolished”, and that “that would immediately drive all Jews, poor and rich alike, into the arms of the revolutionary parties”. “Therefore, no effective measures can actually be taken against us”, Herzl writes, “And yet, anti-Semitism increases among the nations every day, every hour, and must continue to grow, because the causes have not been and cannot be removed”. Yet he has already told Speidel about the fundamental cause of antisemitism being to do with usury, or the perception on usury, and Speidel agreed. He is clearly not trying to solve a problem, but to create one.

An honorary anti-Semite

Herzl envisaged that full disclosure of his project would eventually appear in his newspaper, to which he owed a debt of gratitude. However, in Book 2 of the diaries it becomes clear that the newspaper wanted to publicly distance itself from Zionism. An appendix at the end of Marvin Lowenthal’s 1956 Diaries, in an entry for ‘Neue Freie Presse’, states that a colleague of Herzl’s commented: “This leading Austrian newspaper was apprehensive of being identified with a movement which was, after all, only the private concern of one of its most eminent contributors. It sought rather to identify itself with German-Austrian liberalism. In Zionism it saw a kind of Jewish edition of anti-Semitism”.

The appendix also includes an entry on the publisher of the newspaper, Eduard Bacher, stating: “In the Jewish question, Bacher’s liberalism was equivalent to anti-Zionism. … In December 1899, it looked as though Bacher was prepared to sell out his interests in the ‘Neue Freie Presse’, and Herzl, with the financial backing of his family, offered to buy them. Days of exciting scenes ensued, with the negotiations spiced by quarrels and reconciliations. Eventually Bacher did not sell, and Herzl was given the highest salary on the paper and put in complete charge of its literary department”.

This power struggle constitutes much of Book 2 of his diaries. Herzl states, modestly, on page 99, “What an example I am to the poor, aspiring Jews, such as I used to be myself!”. So he was poor, but now he, supposedly with family connections, has the financial backing to purchase Vienna’s leading newspaper. Perhaps the key to understanding this lies in interpreting his subsequent mind-bending sentence: “If my object had been money, I should never have been able to come face to face with the biggest financial power on earth, the Rothschilds, the way I am going to do”. That sentence might make sense if it had ended with “the way I have done”. So how did he come into the money?

As Herzl nears the end of his Book 1, he further demonstrates his “kind of Jewish edition of anti-Semitism”, with: “The anti-Semites will have carried the day. Let them have this satisfaction, for we too shall be happy. They will have turned out to be right because they are right”. Indeed, Herzl later wrote, in Book 2, on page 266: “Bacher joked: ‘The Jews will listen to you more peevishly than the Gentiles. You will become an honorary anti-Semite’”. I doubt whether Bacher was joking.

Recrudescences

So how does one bring about a Herzlian recrudescence, as prescribed by our doctor, when he stated: “In the beginning we shall be supported by the anti-Semites through a recrudescence of persecution”?

We are clearly now in the grip of another Herzlian recrudescence. In December 2018 The Times of Israel reported “Unprecedented EU poll finds 90% of European Jews feel anti-Semitism increasing: Anti-Semitism ‘disturbingly normalized,’ says EU rights chief, after massive survey of 12 EU states finds 85% of Jews rate it the biggest social problem in their countries”. Only at the end of the article do they point out that the survey measured Jews’ “perceptions of anti-Semitism”, rather than actual antisemitism, and publish a quote saying: “We can clearly see that they feel anxious – and indeed, more anxious than they did five years ago in most instances – and whilst these are valuable indicators, genuine threat levels are much more objectively and accurately measured by security services than these types of surveys”.

Neither the article nor the survey itself states which definition of ‘antisemitism’ is being used. Since the previous survey several EU countries had adopted the new ‘IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism’, but the organisation that ran the poll, together with IPSOS, and published the poll, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), had not adopted that definition. One major change has been the interpretation of criticism of Israel as being antisemitic, and the survey implies that definition when, for instance, they state: “The most common anti-Semitic statements Jews come across regularly, according to the survey, are comparisons between Israelis and the Nazis with regard to the Palestinians”. ‘Antisemitism’ used to mean prejudice or hatred of Jews as Jews. If this is anti-Semitic, in the sense of anti-Jewish then it is also anti-Teutonic. But under the new Zionists definiton of ‘antisemitism’, the word is as remote as ever from the meaning of ‘anti-Jewish’. The Times of Israel report also states, “Suggestions that Jews have too much power and ‘exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes’ also ranked highly”. Again, does that really suggest prejudice against Jews or hatred of Jews as Jews? The main proponent of the idea of Holocaust victimhood was Norman Finkelstein, in his book ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’.

The FRA’s director, Michael O’Flaherty, called on EU states to “take note and step up their efforts to prevent and combat anti-Semitism”. There seems to be a lack of separation between objective polling and campaigning on the basis of the results, which were not on ‘anti-Semitism’ but on perceptions of ‘anti-Semitism’. The launch of the survey was streamed, and within seconds it was announced that the survey was part of the fight against antisemitism. There is clearly an agenda in this project. The survey was carried out online, and Jews were notified via their organisations. The survey report admits: “Unaffiliated Jews are difficult to reach for surveys in the absence of the sampling frames, and it can be assumed that they are underrepresented in the current sample”. That would especially be relevant when we are talking merely about perceptions.

A clear example of Herzl’s plans to frighten the ‘poor Jews’, or the ‘little Jews’ as he sometimes called them, was Benjamin Netanyahu’s appeal to French Jews to relocate to Israel, following the Charlie Hebdo outrage. “To all Jews of France, all Jews of Europe”, he tweeted, “Israel is not just the place in whose direction you pray, the state of Israel is your home”, the Independent reported. Later he gave a speech in France, saying: “These days we are blessed with another privilege, a privilege that didn’t exist for generations of Jews – the privilege to join their brothers and sisters in their historic homeland of Israel”. He spoke, not for the first time, of every French Jew being welcomed to Israel “with open arms”.

Was Netanyahu really saying that Jews would be safer in war-torn Israel than in France? That’s the message that was coming across. To me, this is reminiscent of the Dreyfuss Affair in Herzl’s time. Herzl later put it about that he had been motivated to write ‘The Jewish State’ by the Dreyfus Affair, “in order to promote the Zionist cause among non-Jewish Americans”, according to Herzl’s biographer, Shlomo Avineri. Yet the timing does not support this idea, and there is no mention of the Dreyfus Affair in Book 1 of Herzl’s diaries. That was used retrospectively to as a scare tactic.

Then on 21 February 2019 The Times of Israel announced: ‘Anti-Semitism worst since WWII, Macron tells French Jewish group: President vows to ban racist groups and recognize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism after spate of recent incidents targeting Jews’. Macron used the word ‘resurgence’ rather than ‘recrudescence’, but it means the same. The Times of Israel then gives the game away by refering to the Dreyfus Affair, which Herzl had claimed to have led him to Zionism. “Anti-Semitism has a long history in France where society was deeply split at the end of the 19th century by the Alfred Dreyfus affair over a Jewish army captain wrongly convicted of treason”, the article states. The article also stated: “Macron announced measures including legislation to fight hate speech on the internet, to be introduced by May”. I like the beautiful ambiguity of that statement. I think May would be in dire difficulties if she tried the same thing on in Westminster, which would be akin to her failed attempt to introduce a ‘Counter-Extremism Bill’ which, if it had gone into law, would have enabled any critics of the state whom the state deemed to be ‘extremists’ to be arrested and probably imprisoned.

Zionism versus Socialism

So why should this Herzlian recrudescence be targeting Jermy Corbyn’s Labour Party in particular? I think Jeremy Corbyn is the least likely person I’ve ever met to advance ‘racist’ sentiments, whether they be anti-Jewish or anti-any-other-ethnic-group. Yet the Times of Israel article states: “The UK results [of the survey], experts suggest, may point to a ‘Corbyn factor’ connected to the ongoing row over anti-Semitism in the British Labour party”.

The former Labour Party MPs, who quit to form the Independent Group, seem to be conflating Brexit with antisemitism in the Labour Party. Yet the timing, and the coordinated resignations shortly afterwards from the Conservative Party, citing Brexit, but not antisemitism in the Conservative Party, makes it clear that the issue was Brexit, and that antisemitism had been weaponised. Jonathan Cook, writing in Middle East Eye on 27 December last year, presented an analysis of the antisemitism witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn, headed ‘Labour and anti-semitism in 2018: The truth behind the relentless smear campaign against Corbyn’.“Bombarded by disinformation campaigns, many British Jews are being misled into seeing Corbyn as a threat rather than as the best hope of inoculating Britain against the resurgence of right-wing anti-semitism menace”, he writes. He reports on the above survey, as well as other surveys and supposed antisemitic incidents. “The Guardian has been at the forefront of framing Corbyn as either indifferent to, or actively assisting in, the supposed rise of anti-semitism in Labour”, he writes. In fact, he writes, “Other surveys show that, when measured by objective criteria, the Labour party scores relatively well: The percentage of members holding anti-Semitic views is substantially lower than in the ruling Conservative party and much the same as in Britain’s third party, the Liberal Democrats”.

But why would Jeremy Corbyn be especially targeted? Jonathan Cook writes: “Israeli politicians loathe Corbyn because he has made support for the Palestinian people a key part of his platform”. That is a commonly held view, and is undoubtedly true. However, a study of Herzl’s complete diaries will show that the problem has much deeper foundations than that.

Herzl makes it clear that he is against democracy. He writes (page 169): “I am against democracy because it is extreme in its approval and disapproval, tends to idle parliamentary babble, and produces that base class of men, the professional politicians. Nor are present-day nations really suited to the democratic form of government; and I believe they will become less and less suited to it. … Politics must work from the top down”. He envisages an ‘aristocratic republic’. “Our people, to whom we are presenting the new country, will gradually accept the new Constitution that we give it. But wherever opposition may appear, we shall break it down. Everywhere we shall try it with friendly persuasion, but if need be we shall push it through by brutal force. … We shall impose extensive but firm limits on public opinion”. That sounds to me like a good description of where British politics is heading at the moment, especially when Herzl states in the same context, “Government by referendum does not make sense in my opinion, because in politics there are no simple questions which can be answered merely by Yes or No”. The eighth Labour MP to resign on the basis of Brexit and antisemitism was Joan Ryan, leader of Labour Friends of Israel, who had been featured in Al Jazeera’s The Lobby programme as one of the main players in the undermining of Jeremy Corbyn.

Herzl makes many references to Socialism and Socialists, and is clearly not in favour.

“You talk like a Socialist”, he told Baron Hirsch when he first met him (page 24). In an imagined speech to the Rothschild’s Family Council he states: “My view is that Socialism is a purely technological problem. The distribution of Nature’s forces through electricity will eliminate it” (page 45). In his first letter to Bismarck, he states that he is not a Social Democrat (page 119), and two pages later, in discussing the consequences that would arise if Jews were to be deprived of equal citizenship, he states, “Immediately all Jews … would join the Socialist Party, with all their resources”. In another imagined address to the Family Council, he states (page 157): “the moneyed Jews are driven to pure speculation by the persecution of capital by the Socialists and anti-Semites”. On July 15, 1895, he asked a friend what he thought of the anti-Jewish riots in Vienna. “’The Jews must turn Socialist’, the friend replied, obstinately”, wrote Herzl (page 202). Ten days later (page 214) he writes that he asked a local friend what his solution was. “The Jews have to join the Socialist movement!”, the friend replied. Herzl wrote, “In my opinion, that would be as nonsensical as Socialism itself”. It is clear that Herzl regards Socialism as a rival to Zionism, especially when he writes: “I hear that he [Birnbaum] has turned away from Zionism and gone over to Socialism when my appearance led him back to Zionism again”.

In Volume 2 Herzl makes this rivalry between Zionism and Socialism even more evident. He wrote on March 17, 1897, about the first Zionist meeting to take place in Vienna, which had taken place the previous day. “A few Socialists spoke in opposition to Zionism, using old arguments”, he wrote, “The Zionist resolution was carried, with only 50 voting against it. Then the Socialists intoned the ‘Lied der Arbeit’ [Hymn of Labour], whereupon our people responded with the ‘Bundeslied’ [Song of the Covenant], which deeply moved everyone”. In September 1897 he relates a conversation with Count von Bülow, who was about to become German Foreign Minister. “The anti-Socialist aspects of Zionism was gone into in the greatest detail”, he reported (page 666). On the next page Herzl stated: “I made my position clear – that it was folly on the part of the Jews to join the Socialist Party, which would soon rid itself of them”. And on the next page, he wrote, “With regard to the Socialist aspects of the problem, at any rate, we saw eye to eye. He was impressed when I mentioned the fact that at the University of Vienna we have taken students away from Socialism”. On page 700 he talked of “the most effective propaganda against the Socialists”.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

I think it’s very clear from this that Hezl was against Socialism. This, together with the methods advocated by Herzl, will explain why the Labour Party, as soon as it returned to a Socialist leadership, had a problem with the recrudescence of ‘antisemitism’. If criticism of Zionism is deemed ‘antisemitic’, then criticism of Zionism’s iconic figure, “the father of the State of Israel, a heroic and legendary figure, beloved and revered by countless followers”, and undoubtedly a role-model for many Zionists, will undoubtedly be deemed ‘antisemitic’. But the Labour Party is not anti-Jewish, nor is there a problem of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Labour Party. The problem is that Zionism is endemically anti-Socialist, and that in order to combat Socialism in the Labour Party the present-day Zionists are doing just what the doctor prescribed.

 
Of Related Interest
Israel's friends demand total surrender
Liverpool, Labour and Lucky Luciana Berger
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Renoman says:

    The truth hurts, the Jews don’t like the truth, it makes it more difficult for them to steal money from the stupid. They’re all about the Con.

    • Agree: anon1
    • Replies: @Moi
  2. Christo says:

    Good Article. Nails all the points about Herzl, usury, rich Jews, poor Jews, antisemitism, Zionism. and that he pretty much prophesied “Hitler” and paying him too . And then loops it into the current British Labour party/Corbyn contrived anti-Semitic tempest in a teapot.

    One thing “Zionism is endemically anti-Socialist”, I don’t quite think that is quite right.
    Zionism hates other races to have be Socialist system because it is successful in homogeneous white societies and reduces Usury though productivity. (Germany late 1930’s).
    IMO Zionist have no problem with Socialism for Israel, which is why by default they have to keep/make it ethnically “pure” , but the same cannot be allowed for others . This explains the overrunning of white nations today, yet Israel has walls.

    Of course when I say “Socialist ” or “Socialism”, I mean the only real kind of Socialism- “National Socialism”. Socialism without national(and natural) tribalism, is merely Communism by a different name.

    In short, Israeli Nazis hate British Commies

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Anonymous
  3. It is past time for Corbyn and the Labor party to say “no more” to the Zionist in Labor and rather than wait for them to resign, kick them and the “Friends of Israel” fellow travelers out of the party. Be like Rep Omar, and stop taking their guff.

    • Disagree: Moi
    • Replies: @Golan Exiled
    , @Moi
  4. nik1975 says:

    Recrudescence…

    Genius fascinating and brilliant analysis of the continual reparance of insipiant antisemitism from right wing sources…

    … a false flag by another name

    war by deception

  5. @Christo

    Socialism without national(and natural) tribalism, is merely Communism by a different name.

    Only in America. Real socialism, unlike Communism, does not require state ownership of the means of production.
    As for socialism for Israel, I have long held that communism is all about defining the commune and the Politburo. Zionists are the commune. and the rich Jews are the politburo. Jews that aren’t into Zionism are never part of the commune. They are more like the useful idiot goyim that are thrown crumbs, as long as they are useful.

  6. Wally says:

    Information on and by “holocaust” Revisionist, Nicholas Kollerstrom, here:
    Memorabilia: Nick Kollerstrom on the Myths and The Realities of The Holocaust at The British Memorial, By Nicholas Kollerstrom : https://codoh.com/library/document/5409/?lang=en

    Breaking the Spell: The Kollerstrom Story, By Roberto Hernández : https://codoh.com/library/document/3964/?lang=en
    The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion, By Nicholas Kollerstrom : https://codoh.com/library/document/684/
    Memorabilia: Bishop Williamson Interview by Nick Kollerstrom (Part 1), By Nicholas Kollerstrom : https://codoh.com/library/document/4747/?lang=en

    Memorabilia: Bishop Williamson Interview by Nick Kollerstrom (Part Two), By Nicholas Kollerstrom : https://codoh.com/library/document/4749/?lang=en

    A Corrupt Review of BREAKING THE SPELL, By James H. Fetzer : https://codoh.com/library/document/3347/?lang=en
    more here: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Nicholas+Kollerstrom
    http://www.codoh.com

  7. @The Shadow

    https://southfront.org/trump-its-time-for-u-s-to-recognize-israels-sovereignty-over-golan-heights/

    Corbyn and the non Zionist in his party have been warned.

    Economic Zionism<Tobacco<Israel<<Iraq<Afghanistan<5g<Venezuela<Golan

  8. Very interesting piece! However, in real history, socialist zionism had been most successful, as opposed to Herzl’s model. Zionist Socialists of MAPAI, MAPAM, Ahdut Avoda etc actually established the Jewish state in Palestine, and in the same time, Jews came to positions of prominence in many socialist parties of the world. Jewry fights against non-Jewish politicians unless they care for Jewish well-being. If instead of Corbyn, it would be Milliband – he would be allowed to declare his support for Palestine every day.

    • Disagree: Sean
    • Replies: @nik1975
  9. Anon[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Anti-Semite = anyone who opposes anything Jews do.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  10. MarkU says:

    This supposed “antisemitism” business has gotten well out of hand in the UK, just as it has in the US.

    According to Wiki the ‘Conservative friends of Israel’ constituted 80% of the parliamentary Conservative party by 2014. According to numerous more recent sources, about 100 Labour MP’s are also members of the ‘Labour friends of Israel”. So something of the order of 2/3 of UK politicians are essentially lobbyists for the interests of a tiny country in the middle east which has been in violation of international law since its inception. We have now reached a stage where merely pointing out Israeli breaches of international law is considered “antisemitism”. How is this state of affairs in any way ‘normal’?

    People in the US might ask themselves why their own government is so subservient to Israel, on both sides of the house? How is it that the recipient of international aid appears to have such a massive influence on the donors of that aid? the relationship is normally the other way round (obviously) What model exists that might explain these anomalies?

    The only model that I can think of is that the international financiers (bankers essentially) have massive influence in the US and Europe (the UK in particular) and that most of the aforementioned bankers are Jewish, having gotten a head start in the usury business when it was still frowned upon by other major religions. If anyone has a better explanation I am prepared to listen.

  11. onebornfree says: • Website

    Fuck the jews. Fuck the anti-semites. Fuck all religions. Fuck the labor party. Fuck the conservative party. Fuck the entire UK government. Fuck all governments.

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” – onebornfree

    The World’s Biggest, Most Dangerous Scam Is…The “Government Solutions Work” Scam:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-worlds-biggest-most-dangerous-scam.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Anon
  12. I make a few remarks about a few different themes, not always directly related to the article:

    1- The text mentions the fact that saying that “Israel is a racist endeavour” is antisemitic. But in 1929 an important Zionist, Berl Katznelson, had said that “The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest” (quoted by Max Blumenthal in his book Goliath, p. 351). This is even worse than to speak of a “racist endeavour” because an enterprise of conquest in the situation that it was happening wasn’t possible withtout ethnic cleansing, massacres and ultimately racism or apartheid. This was said by a Zionist. What if someone quotes him and ask about how right or wrong he was?

    2- A passage of the text talks about propaganda. Albrecht Müller told something interesting about this in a recent article. He was a colaborator of Willy Brandt. He founded a web site in Germany which has some similarities with UR, but also some differences. They write themselves most of the articles, they are leftists (even if against uncontrolled immigration). In a recent article he tells how he had visited one son of him in Ireland and was coming back with his other son by train. They had brought a bottle of wiskey and so he said loud to everybody nearby that anybody who had an own cup was invited to drink wiskey with them. Someone with a military backpack opened it and showed a cup. They begun talking, where he had been and the soldier told that he had been in a mission of OCDE in Yugoslavia. Müller asked him, which side was responsible for attacks. He answered that both sides were equally responsible for violence. Müller asked why you don’t read about that in the media. The soldier told that they write their reports telling what was happening in their reports, but that the Americans tell them that as they aren’t native speakers, the Americans have to read it and make a revision of the reports. They would then change the reports and blame only the Serbs. This is what we would hear later in the media.

    3- About antisemitism. Once I asked an old German man about this. He’s a Catholic and remained a Catholic until today. He always went to the mass. But he also likes Israel which he visited a few times. I asked him whether he ever heard antisemitc comments made by priesters in the Church during the time of the Nazi regime. It was a private conversation and I was asking generally about his experince during that time. He told me he had never ever heard any such comments made in the church. But he also told that all farmers of the region were indebted to Jewish moneylenders. I must admit that I thought that this was a myth and was surprised to hear that even in the country far away from big cities this happened.

    4- The part about climate change should be cut. It’s superfluous and the fact that a physicist believes that it’s not real doesn’t change the fact that it’s real, that the science about global warming is very old and there is absolutely no doubt about it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @phil
    , @Bill Jones
  13. Miggle says:

    Then on 21 February 2019 The Times of Israel announced: ‘Anti-Semitism worst since WWII, Macron tells French Jewish group: President vows to ban racist groups and recognize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism after spate of recent incidents targeting Jews’.

    Give me a moment to cool down and clean up my vomit, which fortunately missed the keyboard.

    “Anti-Semitism [the] worst since WWII?” You mean above zero, Muckron, or about to rise above zero?

    AFAIK there was vitually no anti-Semitism at the time of WWII. That is, excluding the bunch of murderous thugs who took over the failed state of Germany. The Nazis certainly hated the Jews. Did anyone else? A few isolated nutcakes, no doubt. Did the German people at large hate the Jews? No. The rate of intermarriage was extraordinarily high. Kristallnacht was organized by the Nazis, who could rev up a mob, but it was mostly carried out by them. Did other Europeans at that time hate the Jews, again apart from isolated rogues? Evidence, you piece of muck?

    • Replies: @Anon
  14. Anon[131] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    A bit OT, but Britain deserves to be flushed down the toilet of history:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-21/uk-denies-asylum-christian-convert-iran-because-christianity-not-peaceful

    The employee who blocked asylum on those grounds is correct, of course. What is more correct is that Judaism and Islam, the mother cult and other Semitic subcult respectively, are 1000x more violent pre-apocalypse (in the modern age) according to their books and actions.

    Christianity is the first modern subcult of Judaism, which merely prays for the violent end of them and the world that is described in Revelation. The other two cults of Judaism and Islam, in comparison, actively work doctrinal violence to bring that end about.

    Its all the rankest poison and it all has to go with extreme prejudice. We are in the midst of a literal cult harvest ritual that is meant to end in worldwide genocide and the destruction of all nations. This is the reality, and it is the definition of mass insanity. Most of our leaders and all of our (((institutions))) are working toward it. This is worse than any nightmare or horror movie.

    https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

  15. Anon[131] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miggle

    AFAIK there was vitually no anti-Semitism at the time of WWII. That is, excluding the bunch of murderous thugs who took over the failed state of Germany. The Nazis certainly hated the Jews. Did anyone else? A few isolated nutcakes, no doubt. Did the German people at large hate the Jews? No. The rate of intermarriage was extraordinarily high. Kristallnacht was organized by the Nazis, who could rev up a mob, but it was mostly carried out by them. Did other Europeans at that time hate the Jews, again apart from isolated rogues? Evidence, you piece of muck?

    Except that antisemitism is the only sane position and was well deserved. You are essentially stating that Nazis were the only sane people in Europe at the time, which is highly unlikely given Jewry’s history in it. Intermarriage rates mean virtually nothing, as they have always been high due to both Jewish and Aryan cultural drift that is common across all prole classes when in proximity to one another. Not everyone is politically aware, nor historically educated, and that has always been the case. What matters is the number of people that are, what their opinions are, and why. Those people, on both the Semitic and Aryan side, seemingly have been similarly consistent in respective number.

    There is zero virtue in philosemitism. They want to destroy you, in total. Which can be readily discerned through a review of their texts.

    • Replies: @Nonny
  16. Anonymous[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Christo

    You are dead-right on the socialism point. Neither Jews generally nor Zionists specifically have any major problem with socialism per se; after all, think of the large number of socialist kibbutzim that once dotted the Palestinian Mandate (i.e., proto-Israel). No, what Jews hate is any kind of socialism they don’t control. The obvious example you’ve pointed out here is, of course, Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism in Germany (1933-45). But this is also largely true of the Soviet Union.

    Did you ever ask yourself why many millions of Jews throughout the West went so ga-ga over the USSR in the 1920s and 30s, only to regard the place with total indifference (or worse) in the 70s and 80s? Did you ever begin to suspect that it had something to do with the near-total control that Jews (‘Jew-Bolsheviks’) had over the CP-USSR in the beginning, only to lose it as a result of Stalin purging the Trotskyites in the 30s? One thing is certain: by the 60s, most Jewish leftists were moving rapidly away from any pro-Soviet sympathy and towards Trotskyism (or some other anti-Soviet leftism), or even into full-blown Neoconservatism (which was even more doggedly anti-Soviet). Was that all just a coincidence?

    Also, I think that roughly the same point could be made with regard to capitalism: Jews have no problem with a capitalism they can control. But forms of capitalism–or for that matter, any social-economic system–that they can’t control they regard with disdain or even hatred.

    Strange how that works!

    • Replies: @Kelso
  17. Anonymous[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I know how you feel, Beefcake. But try and think of all the good men and women left in Britain (of which there are, no doubt, many) who are just as indignant over this as you. Do they deserve to suffer as their corrupt élites do? I think not.

  18. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:
    @UncommonGround

    The text mentions the fact that saying that “Israel is a racist endeavour” is antisemitic. But in 1929 an important Zionist, Berl Katznelson, had said that “The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest” (quoted by Max Blumenthal in his book Goliath, p. 351). This is even worse than to speak of a “racist endeavour” because an enterprise of conquest in the situation that it was happening wasn’t possible withtout ethnic cleansing, massacres and ultimately racism or apartheid. This was said by a Zionist. What if someone quotes him and ask about how right or wrong he was?

    Its worse than you state and that even most antisemites assume. With all due respect, their major mistake is always relying on third party sources if not unverifiable quotes.

    How to get to the bottom of just how deep their motivations go is to read their texts, or their articles that quote their texts (probably the more practical route) and therefore have filtered them for you by topic. However, the OT is very accessible, informative as to their motivations, and everyone should read it.

    Try this article here:

    https://www.betemunah.org/edom.html

    The entire thing is useful, but pay attention when it quotes the following Zohar excerpt:

    Zohar Torah portion of Va’era page 32a

    Which is also found here:

    https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

    The above excerpt explicitly directs Jews to lead the West into a war with Islam and a “nation from the East” that will destroy the entire West, genocide all Arabs, and leave Israel as the only nation left standing.

    As I said, reading their texts is the only way to get to the heart of their motivations and plans. Judaism is a racist, grand supremacist endeavor. There is no Zionism apart from the core tenets of Judaism. Its goals are not regional but worldwide, and its goals require at least one but probably several mass genocides and a future apocalyptic World War.

    The world is being directed by a blood cult from antiquity.

  19. Nonny says:
    @Anon

    So are you saying Miguel is wrong, or just that Jew-hating is a good thing? Was there a high level of Jew hating, bad or good, around WW2?

    • Replies: @Anon
  20. Saggy says: • Website

    An interesting article, but this is an absurd conclusion ….

    “I think it’s very clear from this that Hezl was against Socialism. This, together with the methods advocated by Herzl, will explain why the Labour Party, as soon as it returned to a Socialist leadership, had a problem with the recrudescence of ‘antisemitism’.”

    Socialism obviously has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is the only rational response to the machinations of the Jews, I’ll list the most egregious –

    #1 – The Jewish religion posits that the mashiach will arrive, rebuild the temple, and conquer and subjugate all nations of the world, ushering in the olam ha ba, or world to come. In the world to come all non-Jews will serve the Jews and be subject to Jewish laws for gentiles only known as the Noahide laws. The Noahide laws are already formulated, the usual penalty for transgression is decapitation – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah andand

    and



    #2 – The US military acting in the interests of Israel has turned four countries in the ME, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, into killing fields, with millions dead, and even greater destruction likely in the future, with the next target being Iran. See
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
    and

    #3 – The Jews are actively destroying western culture with cultural Marxism, see

    and destroying western populations with unrestricted 3rd world immigration, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-tvGcZ1Snk

    #4 – The holohoax is a preposterous and degenerate hoax that is promoted by nearly every Jew on the planet, and that is being used to destroy western civilization. For a 12 minute red pill see –

    for a 30-minute red pill see –



    Really, any discussion of ‘antisemitism’ should start with some version of the above preamble.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Anon
  21. Z-man says:
    @MarkU

    This supposed “antisemitism” business has gotten well out of hand in the UK, just as it has in the US.

    Transparent and getting worse. But the media monopoly on pro Israel policy will break.
    Unfortunatley now my leader Donald is surrounded by Zionists in his administration and even his family. His saying that the Golan Heights is sovereign Israeli territory is the latest disaster.
    Israel is the problem, Palestine is the solution.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @Rev. Spooner
  22. Che Guava says:

    Thanks for an interesting and informative article.

    I am interested in the histories of Labour parties.

    We never really had one in Japan. Our neighbours in Nth. Korea, though, you may translate the name as Worker’s Party, but Labour Party is equally valid.

    Of course, many factors of history obviate comparison with the Brit. (and derivative, Oz and N.Z.) labour movements.

    One point I would add: Einstein’s vaunted world tour of the early 1920’s (and especially fondly commemorated here in Japan) was in fact Herzl’s world tour, to promote Zionism, with Einstein as a kind of cheap show pony.

  23. Moi says:
    @Renoman

    Herzl was smarter than the goyim, and thus he begat Yisrael. Sadly, Jeremy Corbyn is no truth-teller like Ken Livingston.

  24. Saggy says: • Website
    @Saggy

    The cultural Marxism link (where you can learn everything you need to know about it) is

  25. Moi says:
    @The Shadow

    Sorry, did not mean to hit the “Disagree” button. Anyhow, how can Antisemitism be wrong if world Jewry supports an unjust, evil project like the apartheid colonial-settler enterprise.

  26. Later, during a pro-Corbyn counter-demonstration in Parliament Square, organised by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Labour, Labour Party member Stan Keable was secretly filmed by the BBC saying that the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazi regime – “a well documented if shameful historical fact”, he wrote later. For this he lost his job with a Labour-controlled London council, and his union refused to support him.

    I don’t get this.

    Why would this historical trivia be considered “shameful”? Jewish nationalists wanted to establish their nation state in the historical Israel/Palestine; German nationalists wanted to get rid of Jews. Their interests in this respect, coincided.

    What is “shameful” about this all?

  27. phil says:
    @UncommonGround

    “The part about climate change should be cut. It’s superfluous and the fact that a physicist believes that it’s not real doesn’t change the fact that it’s real, that the science about global warming is very old and there is absolutely no doubt about it.”

    Interestingly, Descartes already thought deeply about what was absolutely indubitable, but he didn’t say that “climate change” was indubitable.

    I recommend to you Mark Levin’s interview (on YouTube) with Patrick Michaels (Emeritus Professor, University of Virginia). Michaels offers a good summary of the nature and validity of climate models.

    I suggest that you keep an open mind about most things in this world.

    • Agree: Mike P
  28. nik1975 says:
    @israel shamir

    hi Israel

    nice comment

    would Milliband be allowed to seriously critique and seek changes in Apartheid?

  29. MarkU says:
    @Z-man

    “Israel is the problem, Palestine is the solution.”

    Sorry but I have to disagree with you there, Israel is purely a symptom of the wider problem. White south Africans earned condemnation and boycotts when they practised apartheid. When Israel does it, it is their critics which are condemned and driven from office. Israel is not and could not possibly be that powerful. Israel is the smoking gun for those with eyes to see.

    I would also urge people to avoid blaming Jews wholesale for the problem, it muddies the waters and provides justification for allegations of antisemitism. It is analogous to blaming all Italians for the Mafia. The problem is not Jews as such, it is the Zionist bankers which are the real problem and they are the ones controlling our governments and media. I will leave you to ponder the (apocryphal) quote from Thomas Jefferson.

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”

    It seems that is the way that the US is headed, the US national debt is about $22 trillion dollars and rising. You have been used, sucked dry, and as soon as you are no longer needed as cannon fodder you will be discarded.

    • Agree: Rev. Spooner
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  30. Sean says:

    The leading ant Zionists are humanistic Jews and the losers in an argument between Jews. Hapless white Gentiles (and a few dim Muslims) try to take the loser Jews’ side and get ruined, over and over again. Will white Gentiles learn that they are completely ineffective against the Israel Lobby? No.

    The contest leadership of the Labour party came down to a couple of Jewish brothers not so long ago. Jews can not be convinced of anything by white gentiles. The ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’ formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is there to deal with Anti Zionist Jews, not ludicrous conspiracy theorists.

    • Replies: @Willie
  31. Anon[799] • Disclaimer says:
    @onebornfree

    Fuck the jews. Fuck the anti-semites. Fuck all religions. Fuck the labor party. Fuck the conservative party. Fuck the entire UK government. Fuck all governments.

    What a logically consistent worldview you have. Its totally worthwhile to have it sprayed all over these comments sections.

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” – onebornfree

    LOL is the only reply that childish lolitarian rubbish deserves. Perhaps consider stepping back in your time machine to pre 2001 when people were taking this seriously due to a retarded level of security and Jew non-awareness. You guys are the SWPLs of the Right. Your cushion prevents you from perceiving reality correctly. Though, in your case, I think that its also a healthy dose of racial fear. The new trend of minority libertarians, in the face of White Nationalism, is hilarious. Its like offering someone a ham sandwich after that person has already eaten and spit out the spoiled meat. You guys need to stop adopting failed theories and practices, across the board. Its a true habit for you.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  32. Frankly speaking, Jeremy Corbyn, appears to be a saint. He has been neutered not recently but a long time ago.
    Imagine a person like Corbyn leading the troops a thousand years ago.
    If I was the next in command, I would send him to the rear to help with the “Chuck Wagon” or what ever it was known then to dice carrots.
    What would you do?
    The “decency” always being attributed to him is nothing but “cowardice”.
    If you believe in your cause shout it from the battlements and make a noise.
    This man is a sham just like Bernie Sanders, Trump, ad nauseam.
    The Orange Dotard is wholly owned; Sanders proved to be gutless when they screwed him and this saintly man appears to have no gonads.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  33. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nonny

    Miggle seems to be defending Germany by way of implying that the Nazis were crazy and that the average German was not antisemitic. If I was reading him/her correctly. This is a morally flawed approach to defending Germany because it seeks to validate the moral position of the Jews: namely that antisemitism is wrong and that the Nazis were crazy. I posted to illustrate the deep flaws in that position.

    “Jew hating” is absolutely a good thing. That’s an undeniable fact that is not up for debate, because the debate is unquestionably over.

    What else is a good thing is whatever less propagandistic term that could be better employed to avoid your attempt to morally swing the conversation your way before any debate has begun and therefore not have me hold you in contempt out of the gate.

    To begin, Jews hate us and call for our eventual genocide in their texts, which has to occur before their Messianic period that must come within 220 years at the most. So there is that. Only an insane person would not consider returning the enmity.

    Second, in their texts the Jews call for the eventual dispossession of all nations but their own and total world domination.

    They directly state that the final stage of this process will come about in a world war with (Semitic) Islam and the West, which will be designed to destroy every nation except (Semitic) Israel. (A war that seems to be slowly cranking up). After this war is over, Israel will be the only national power left. This is what they directly state, and this is what they are working toward. This is mainstream Judaism.

    So, yes, “Jew hate” and every other possible appellation that you can some up with for the concept is not only a good thing but the only moral thing. That is, if you feel that people other than Jews should survive lest alone be self determinate.

    As I prior stated, this debate is over before it had begun.

    There is no more moral act for all of humanity’s sake than resisting mass-genocidal Judaism and its enablers.

    Though, I would guess that it is about 74 years too late for any meaningful prevention. Buckle up. That doesn’t mean that anyone need sell their soul to the Jew that would see them murdered. Accept your fate, but spiritually resist your hangman. We will be.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  34. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saggy

    The Jewish religion posits that the mashiach will arrive, rebuild the temple, and conquer and subjugate all nations of the world, ushering in the olam ha ba, or world to come. In the world to come all non-Jews will serve the Jews and be subject to Jewish laws for gentiles only known as the Noahide laws.

    According to what I have read directly in the Zohar, it is unlikely that there will be many but a relative handful of slaves to follow the Noahide Laws. These laws seem to be a falsely-moderated distraction for any gentile that comes across the notion of Jewish world domination from the Jews themselves.

    Because what is actually stated in their deeper books is that all non-Jews will be outright genocided at the time that their Messianic period is beginning.

    Which makes that fact the needed context for the discussion. Not some system of forced morality under foreign rule, which people may be uncomfortable with but also may accept.

    • Replies: @Saggy
  35. @Z-man

    You are beyond pathetic by calling him “my leader Donald”
    Your leader Donald is a Zionist and all his words and deeds cannot be the work of a ventriloquist.
    Pinch yourself and wakeup.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  36. Saggy says: • Website
    @Anon

    “According to what I have read directly in the Zohar, it is unlikely that there will be many but a relative handful of slaves to follow the Noahide Laws.”

    I would like to see a link to substantiate this …..

  37. MarkU says:
    @Anon

    Actually all the Jewish people I know are atheists, the idea of them studying ancient Hebrew texts and plotting world domination is hilariously crazy.

    Either you have some cognitive disorder and cannot differentiate ‘some’ from ‘all’, or (far more likely) you are nothing but a troll who is trying to keep alive the myth of ‘antisemitism’.

  38. @Rev. Spooner

    You are beyond pathetic by calling him “my leader Donald” Your leader Donald is a Zionist and all his words and deeds cannot be the work of a ventriloquist. Pinch yourself and wakeup.

    I understood ‘Z-man’ to be indulging in a bit of sarcasm, but maybe I’m wrong.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  39. @MarkU

    I would also urge people to avoid blaming Jews wholesale for the problem, it muddies the waters and provides justification for allegations of antisemitism. It is analogous to blaming all Italians for the Mafia. The problem is not Jews as such, it is the Zionist bankers which are the real problem and they are the ones controlling our governments and media.

    Have you not been following this whole Corbyn-brouhaha in Britain? Corbyn has bent over backwards again and again explaining that he is merely opposed to Zionism and not to Jews in general. So does the zio-media back off and say, ‘OK. We had you wrong. Sorry for the trouble.’ Hell no! The more Corbyn BOHICAs for these pests, the more they pester him, demanding that he conduct yet another investigation into more and more Labour members who–if Corby ever became PM–might actually serve as useful allies on a wide range of issues in addition to Zionism. The more Corbyn apologizes, the more they attack him! So that’s where appeasement gets you with these people. No reasonable compromise with them is ever possible, because they will never settle for just half a loaf–or two percent of a loaf! No, no: they want the whole thing. And they won’t stop until they get it.

    But let’s back up a minute: if you really hate the banksters, the media, the cultural marxists, the zionists, and the neoconservatives, and it turns out that all these groups are somewhere between 50 and 90% Jewish, doesn’t that indicate that there might–just might!–be something wrong with the Jewish subculture itself? Even if most Jews as individuals are not so bad and are not to blame, couldn’t we say that there is indeed something wrong with them

    collectively?

    After all, when the shoe’s on the other foot, the (((cultural marxists))) have no compunction against attacking white goy culture generally because of slavery, Hitler, or the Cossacks of Old Russia, even though 90+ percent of our ancestors literally had nothing to do with any of that! (As I recall, our country even fought the Germans–twice. Does that get us off the hook? Oh no!)

    Why is it that ‘fairness’ and ‘reciprocity’ are always demanded only of us? A better question: can it even be considered reciprocity at all if it’s only demanded of one side?

    Think about it.

    You still won’t be obliged to hate any assignable individual merely on account of their race/religion. But you also won’t have to censor your own thoughts and feelings just because some of them might object if they knew. Isn’t that a fairer policy after all?

    • Replies: @MarkU
  40. This was a very informative article.

    appreciate it

  41. Z-man says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    A bit of sarcasm yes but Trump is still better than anyone else, except maybe Rand Paul if he can stand up to the Jooz. But Paul won’t run against Trump in 2020 thus making all the other presidential ‘contenders’, whether Dems or Repubi’tards, who are totally owned by the cabal, inferior.

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @nsa
  42. @UncommonGround

    Meanwhile, for those of us who live in the real world, here’s what the global warming scam is all about:

    http://www.investors.com/po&#8230;

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    and

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0&#8230;

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.””

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @james charles
  43. @Anonymous

    You are not quite as dopey as the Beefcake who didn’t even notice that it was reported on unfavourably in the British MSM and was the error of one civil servant, acknowledge as an error. But you haven’t noticed that it had nothing at all to do with elites, corrupt or otherwise. Is reading with comprehension too difficult?

    BTW it could be interesting to speculate as to what the “employee” thought he was doing. Was he perhaps a Muslim!? Or maybe he was trying to be clever and test the genuineness of the refugee’s claim to be a Christian convert and therefore likely to be persecuted in Iran. After all every genuine Christian would have read and absorbed every word of Revelations…

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  44. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Anon

    ……and fuck you too 🙂

    No regards, onebornfree

  45. renfro says:
    @Z-man

    Trump is still better than anyone else

    Hard to believe you want to be owed by the Jews…..as Trump is totally and completely owned by the Jews.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  46. renfro says:
    @Bill Jones

    You are being had by believing articles like that one that are put out by /for the oil companies.

    Contrary to the hype climate control actions would not be anti capitalist.
    If solar panels became affordable by more and more private producers, it would require and create a huge industry, more and more jobs…its hardly anti capitalist……it just takes a bit out of oil corps and electric corps monopolies .

    I would support requiring solar panels for new homes and most commercial buildings, …..they wouldn’t preclude backup energy sources for critical entities like hospitals and other huge users of electricity.

    Given the choice I would rather use solar than be tied to the utility company forever. My futuristic type cousin has total solar for his 3500 sq ft house, has had it for years, since the 80’s, he loves it. He still has tie in to local elec, in case the solar is too low, but that rarely happens. I thought about doing but my wife threatened me with exile because some of her beloved trees would have to be cut down because of the shade they throw on the roof half the day.

  47. Z-man says:
    @renfro

    His Zionist sell out excluded, he is still hated by the majority of the ‘Tribe’ because they don’t completley own him like the rest of the whore..err politicians.
    I still have some hope…

  48. nsa says:
    @Z-man

    “Trumpstein is still better than anyone else”.
    How so? You white trash Maga types are being used as asswipe while the lard butt with the mind of an eighth grader delivers mightily for his vile conniving traitorous jooie sponsors and relatives…..massive tax cuts for the rich jooie termites and their corporations, promotion of jooie homosex around the world, free taxpayer money for the hideous Izzies and their murderous projects, more wars to advance jooie supremecy in the ME. But exactly what is in it for you white trash Maga types, except being used as asswipe? You didn’t even get 1″ of new wall. Illegal and legal immigration are now at a record high. Your vile jooie pals are laughing their asses off while you bend over and enjoy taking it good and deep like a bitch…….

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  49. MarkU says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Have you not been following this whole Corbyn-brouhaha in Britain? Corbyn has bent over backwards again and again explaining that he is merely opposed to Zionism and not to Jews in general. So does the zio-media back off and say, ‘OK. We had you wrong. Sorry for the trouble.’ Hell no! The more Corbyn BOHICAs for these pests, the more they pester him, demanding that he conduct yet another investigation into more and more Labour members who–if Corby ever became PM–might actually serve as useful allies on a wide range of issues in addition to Zionism.

    Yes I have been watching, I actually live here. I agree that Corbyn being apologetic about the non-existent “antisemitism” was an error. I also agree that the people intending to smear him were completely uninterested in the distinction between Zionists and Jews. This was one of numerous attempts to smear him with something, anything. Corbyn’s apology was triumphantly used as an admission of guilt and undoubtedly made things worse, a mistake George Galloway would never have been so spineless or stupid as to make.

    But let’s back up a minute: if you really hate the banksters, the media, the cultural marxists, the zionists, and the neoconservatives, and it turns out that all these groups are somewhere between 50 and 90% Jewish, doesn’t that indicate that there might–just might!–be something wrong with the Jewish subculture itself? Even if most Jews as individuals are not so bad and are not to blame, couldn’t we say that there is indeed something wrong with them [Collectively]

    To be frank I know little or nothing of Jewish subculture since all the Jews I have had contact with have been secular. But the groups you listed are either created, infiltrated or owned by the banksters anyway. Like most criminal organisations the banksters are strongly nepotistic and that would adequately explain the predominance of Jews in those organisations.

    After all, when the shoe’s on the other foot, the (((cultural marxists))) have no compunction against attacking white goy culture generally because of slavery, Hitler, or the Cossacks of Old Russia, even though 90+ percent of our ancestors literally had nothing to do with any of that! (As I recall, our country even fought the Germans–twice. Does that get us off the hook? Oh no!)

    I agree entirely, how were we repaid for defeating the Nazis? by terrorist attacks in Palestine and hanging British soldiers. We boycotted and condemned apartheid in south Africa and where are the anti-racists when it is white folks being robbed and murdered?

    So what are we supposedly in disagreement about?

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  50. Alfred says:

    Zionist Jews – most Jews but not all are Zionists – are painting themselves into a corner with this Antisemitism nonsense. It will come back and bite them where they least expect.

    Right now, the Israeli air force, the lynchpin of all their plans for the Greater Israel, is essentially grounded. Sure, they can pound that concentration camp called Gaza as much as they like. But they can no longer attack either Lebanon or Syria with impunity. Just try and guess for yourselves what will happen in a ground war without 100% air support. Heavens, that is not in their military manuals. It is not supposed to happen that way.

    So who is going to take back the millions of non-Semites who will want to go home to where they came from?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  51. Z-man says:
    @nsa

    You repeated youself several times dick head. If anyone must know about taking it it’s you, scum bag.

  52. @MarkU

    We have now reached a stage where merely pointing out Israeli breaches of international law is considered “antisemitism”

    How long before, at least in the UK but probably everywhere else too, it is “anti-Semitic”, and therefore illegal, to charge any Jewish person with any crime ? Coming soon to a Supreme Court near you.

  53. Z-man says:
    @Alfred

    I was thinking just that but the Rusian air defenses, especially when opperated by the locals may not be as good as advertised. But yes it would be sweet to see Israeli AF jets shot out of the sky.

  54. Rhodes says:

    The FRA’s director, Michael O’Flaherty, called on EU states to “take note and step up their efforts to prevent and combat anti-Semitism”.

    European Investigation Order granted to SCCRC relating to Lockerbie case

    ”On Wednesday 13 March 2019 an application by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to the Lockerbie case was heard by three judges of the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh. The SCCRC sought and was granted a European Investigation Order addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. The Order granted by the court reads as follows:

    In the application by the SCCRC under section 194IA of the Criminal
    Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 seeking a European Investigation Order.

    The Court, on the motion of the Advocate depute, being satisfied that an
    order was necessary and that it was in the interests of justice that it be made
    to secure possible future criminal proceedings, made an order prohibiting the
    publication in any form of the information discussed in respect of the
    application by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, heard before
    the court this morning; withholding from publication material, namely (a) the
    name of the person referred to in paragraph 3 of the application and
    elsewhere in that application and any information calculated to disclose his
    identity or his present whereabouts (b) any reference to, or any detail of or
    pertaining to the involvement, actual or alleged, of that person in the
    bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and (c) the other incident referred to
    in paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the application; along with making that order
    at common law, withholding that information from the public domain, the
    court made an Order in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act
    1981, prohibiting publication of all of that information, as set out in the first
    part of the Order and made that a final Order, effective from now; having
    heard counsel for the applicant, Grants the application and authorises the
    issue of a European Investigation Order, together with the schedule of
    documents conform to separate order and schedule attached hereto, to the
    Federal Republic of Germany to obtain the evidence specified therein. ”

    http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/

  55. @Wizard of Oz

    Sure Whiz, there are still good Brits who deserve our sympathy. Amusingly, however, there’s also this:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-15/british-mp-mocked-over-gps-tracking-national-database-knife-buyers-plan

    and many other examples of how Britain is becoming what a truly great Brit (Orwell) warned prophetically about.

    I’d ask what any self-respecting Aussie is doing defending Great Britain, but we all know Australia is pretty far down the toilet itself.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  56. @MarkU

    So what are we supposedly in disagreement about?

    For a minute there, it sounded like you were discourse-policing, telling us to be careful not to hurt the tender little feelings of the Jews when criticizing banksters, Zionists, etc. But I was trying to point out to you how futile this is and what an unfair burden it places on us, using Corbyn as an example.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  57. Anon[141] • Disclaimer says:

    UK parliament hijacked … to attack IRAN ? :

    A quite incredible story out of England has not received much media coverage in the United States. It concerns how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to “take down” parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. ”

    ”It all recalls Pat Buchanan’s description of the U.S. Congress as an Israeli occupied zone ”

    […]

    “Indeed, wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded mechanism in place ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel”

    The ”Mother of Parliaments”

    “Taking Down” British Officials

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/

    Israel conspires against the Mother of Parliaments

  58. Akir says:

    Hate to say it, but do you ever get tired of having to argue about Jews?

  59. @nsa

    Who cares. But so far Trump at least did not start any new war.

  60. @Bill Jones

    ” . . . but to destroy capitalism.”

    “The more capitalism creates wealth, the more it sows the seeds of its own destruction.”

    The negative externalities that are G.H.G.’s.

  61. MarkU says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Since the Zionist game plan is to conflate criticism of themselves with antisemitism, what sense does it make to make it easier for them by criticising Jewish people wholesale on the basis of ethnicity? I understand and share your frustration but you have to fight with the head, not the heart.

    Ironically the Jewish people that I know think a lot more of Jeremy Corbyn than I do, he is far too self-righteously PC for my liking. He is also a mediocre disputant who fell into the elephant trap of apologising, firstly for that supposedly antisemitic mural (it turned out later that only two of the figures depicted were Jewish) and for apologising for the supposed antisemitism in the Labour party thereby admitting ‘guilt’.

    Personally I think the Zionists are vastly overplaying their hand. The spectacle of of US politicians giving record numbers of standing ovations to Netanyahu , the seeming immunity of Israel and financial institutions to the law and the fact that fully 2/3 of UK politicians are ‘friends of Israel’ is surely enough to indicate the ethnicity of the real controlling faction. As Voltaire said “to find out who rules you, find out who you cannot criticise”.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  62. Latest: Peter Gregson has been banned from the Facebook pages of Labour Against the Witch-Hunt for linking to my article. They cited the paragraph which included: “I defended Nick Kollerstrom’s right to investigate that topic, and to write about it freely, though I myself had no knowledge of the topic, and so no views on it“.

    He had already been suspended from the Labour Party, but was told to keep that information confidential, whilst a Jewish newspaper went ahead and published it. In the letter they sent to him they suggested he could get help from a psychiatrist.

    Everything is infiltrated here in the UK. It’s clearly being — and been — directed by a cabal that would have known about Herzl’s full plans all along (whilst ordinary Jews would be attracted to democratic Socialism). My conjection is that they would have known more than Herzl did; he wouldn’t have known more than he had to know to do his job.

    • Replies: @Ian Fantom
  63. @MarkU

    These are good points, and while we should always take great care to avoid lumping in ordinary, individual Jews with the crimes of Jewish elites, the fact remains that it is impossible to discuss Zionism outside of the context of Organized Jewry. The “Jewish Question” (and not merely a Zionist Question) will have to be raised at some point.

  64. @Beefcake the Mighty

    As I am instinctively in favour of small government and against waste I find it interesting that the UK knife violence stats showed considerable improvements until about 2 or 3 years ago when it unfortunately stares one in the face that huge cuts to police numbers and therefore to policing seems to have led to more violent crime.

    As to Australia I think we are doing OK in an imperfect world and actually think immigration of smart, skilled, educated East Asians and Indians will tend to take us beyond multiculturalism towards secular modernism with a capitalistic flavour. I fear a Green supported Labor government may increase the number of undesirable immigrants mostly in the shape of the wrong kind of refugees. The trouble that 8000 African refugees can cause – although really a flea bite – should serve inoculate us against more such foolishness but I fear that folly may resume.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  65. At its core, Zionism is inimical to one thing: exposure and punishment of Israel’s crimes against humanity. The GOI values Britain’s futile tantrums in international forums as international scrutiny of grave Israeli crimes proceeds.

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=24348&LangID=E

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.18March.pdf

    The UK regime is a reliable vote for Israeli impunity, and Zionist Jew supremacists see Corbyn as a threat to that. Attacks on socialism are a feint.

  66. @Wizard of Oz

    Fair enough. BTW, on Orwellian Europe more generally, here’s this nugget from France:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-22/open-fire-french-military-authorized-use-deadly-force-yellow-vests-if-lives

    That’s the kind of thing we’re more used to seeing in third world dictatorships. Goes well with recent French legislative proposals to refer to mothers and fathers in text books as “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/french-schools-replace-mother-and-father-parent-1-and-parent-2

  67. @Ian Fantom

    Peter Gregson has asked me to point out that the Facebook page is ‘Labour Against the Witch-hunt (Unofficial)’ “because it does not represent the views of LAW. The FB page was set up and is controlled by Tony. It is as such because the LAW steering group did not have the energy to moderate the page”. He tells me: “Tony is a long-time campaigner on Palestine. The son of a Rabbi, he lives in Brighton and is a founder of Labour Against the Witch-hunt, though the steering committee of LAW have booted him off at least once for saying stupid things”. My posting could have given the impression that Labour Against the Witch-hunt was against him; that’s not the case. “It is just one man.. and the Committee are generally unhappy with his pronouncements and blanket bans. He does this as Tony. NOT as LAW”. Fair enough!

    Actually, I copied the name wrong: it’s Tony Greenstein. He recently wrote an article ‘Why it’s not anti-Semitic for Ilhan Omar to raise the question of dual loyalty’
    (https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-its-not-anti-semitic-ilhan-omar-raise-question-dual-loyalty). Perhaps one day he’ll write one headed ‘Why it’s not anti-Semitic for Ian Fantom to defend the right to investigate the Holocaust’. We’ll see!

  68. Kelso says:
    @Anonymous

    The kibbutz was a way to prevent land from falling back into Palestinians hands. Once the real real estate was collective, it would become Jewish owned forever.

  69. Willie says:
    @Sean

    That’s the problem, anything rational gets thrown into the pile with these people who ascribe every ill in the world with the Jews, and like you say ludicrous conspiracy theories.
    Especially true of the Palestinians who have contributed mightily to their own problems with their corrupt leadership, which is a reflection of Arab leadership in the entire ME. Talk about usury.

  70. Willie, do tell us about all the sub-human Palestinians who deserve what they got,

    like 11-year old Majdi al Satari who contributed to his fatal brain lacerations,

    and tell us just how mightily 11 year-old Ahmad Abu Tyor contributed to his wilful killing by dancing,

    frightening cowardly Israeli snipers who severed his femoral artery with ‘butterfly bullets’ designed with Mengelian ingenuity to cripple and mutilate.

    You can explain why it’s all their fault with the probative ICC bill of indictment beginning on p. 142…

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.18March.pdf

    We’re going to decapitate your verminous criminal cult just like we did to Hitler’s Reich. And hunt down all you fugitive genocidaires just like we did to Eichmann.

  71. @MarkU

    You’ve certainly defined the problem, the question is how do we solve it?
    It seems to me the only solution is mass demonstrations on the level of the “yellow vests”. Also, I’m willing to bet most of those politician in Israel’s pocket truly hate being Israels slaves.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  72. MarkU says:
    @2stateshmustate

    Perhaps I am just being pessimistic but I suspect that economic collapse or war will occur before we are able to effect any real change. In the old days a general strike might have gotten some results but I doubt that we have enough social capital left for that course to work.

    Social capital broadly refers to those factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity. Wikipedia

    (Almost the very antithesis of multiculturalism don’t you think?)

    The problem with effecting change with violence is that it tends to leave equally undesirable people in charge. In any case, things will have to get a lot worse before people are motivated enough to take to the streets in sufficient numbers.

  73. One reason Herzl hated socialism was that he was a tool of European elites and European imperialism. “Jewish restoration” was conceived in the 1840s as a tool of British imperial foreign policy, to encourage the development of a pro-British colonial state in Palestine, in order to counter French and Ottoman power in the region. This policy came in and out of emphasis, but was there as a potential tool even when out of relative favor. Of course, the financiers of the “City of London,” including the Rothschilds, were patriotic citizens of the empire and went along with such projects of Cecil Rhode’s Round Table, many members of which were actually antisemites. Later in the 1800s, this Jewish restoration project became known as Zionism and Theodor Herzl became its champion. Mark Burdman, in his essay on this topic, wrote wrote of the influence that British agents, Rothschild and others, had on Herzl: http://www.campaigner-unbound.0catch.com/how_britains_biggest_racists_created_zionism.htm

    Thus, Herzl was committed to capital, finance and European, particularly British, imperialism from the start. It’s no wonder that socialism is considered by British elites to be not only opposed to capitalism and imperialism, but by extension anti-Zionist and therefore vulnerable to the antisemitic smear.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ian Fantom Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?