Jewish logic is astounding! The Jews fought Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour tooth and claw. Their newspapers claimed he is a new Hitler. Their Chief Rabbi issued a fatwa against Corbyn. Israel’s Foreign Minister said he hopes Corbyn will lose British election. And Labour had been soundly trashed in the British elections. Jews could congratulate themselves with this result: they’ve got what they wished. But such a response would be too simple-minded for Jews.
When the results of the elections became known, immediately, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz responded with: “The blaming of the Jews for this historic defeat has already begun. It will only get louder.” Well, this is the nature of elections. If you actively support one, winning side, you’d be congratulated by the winners and blamed by the losers. This is just, this is right. But it is not good enough for the Jews. The smart people want a better deal: to be congratulated by the winners, while the losers should just regret they haven’t had you on their side. They can’t blame you for it will be antisemitic act.
This is the great Jewish trick: they always win, and they never lose. When their side loses, they say they didn’t act qua Jews. Even if they pull the Jewish solidarity card, and say that as Jews they have to be for unlimited immigration everywhere but in Israel; or as Jews they want Corbyn to lose; you are not allowed to “blame” them for the result. The Jews are always blameless. You may congratulate them with the result, never blame.
Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian journalist who had worked overtime blowing Corbyn antisemitism hoax into flame, twitted “I predicted Labour would be defeated”. He was corrected: “it was not predicted, it was manufactured by you!” And the Jews responded with “How do you dare to blame a Jew?”
And now, if you are unhappy with Corbyn’s defeat, should you blame the Jews? Yes and no. No, because whatever Jews say, it is Brits that vote. No, so they won’t think that Jews decide everything. And still, yes. They contributed their energy to his defeat. The Jewish onslaught on Corbyn had one immediate unfortunate consequence: Corbyn have tried to accommodate the attackers and sought a compromise with wealthy Remainers at the expense of the workers. And a politician who accommodates Jews is likely to be defeated twice: once, by a politician who is totally, without reservations, on the Jewish side; and the second time, by your supporters who would leave you. This is what happened to Corbyn. He went towards Jews, away from the British working class; while on the Jewish territory, he was easily defeated by Johnson, the eager friend of Israel.
Corbyn had a chance: if he would unleash a Night of the Long Knives on Blairites after his victory in the party, if he would allow the party members to deselect the pro-Remain Blairite Jewish MPs, if he would drop silly pseudo-left notions of climate change, green economy, gender discourse, migrants, if he were to stick to the hard left class line, he would surely win. People are sick of fence sitters.
Instead of being horrified by Jewish fatwa, he could make it his banner. Instead of blessing Jews with the Hanukkah and getting “Go f*ck yourself” in return from Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, he could bless the British people with coming Christmas. But then, he won’t be Corbyn.
This development has a long history. The close aide to Jeremy Corbyn and a leading Labour strategist Seumas Milne had published a piece in the Guardian (he was then the paper’s leading columnist) called “This slur of anti-semitism is used to defend repression”. That was in 2002, and he wrote: “Since the French revolution, the fates of the Jewish people and the left have been closely intertwined. The left’s appeal to social justice and universal rights created a natural bond with a people long persecuted and excluded by the Christian European establishment. Despite the changed class balance of many Jewish communities, Jews remain disproportionately active in progressive political movements throughout the world” but now they accuse the Left of anti-semitism.
I replied to him then:
In civilised New York, a girl eager to brush-off an insistent admirer does not have to be rude. She slips him a phone number to call, and there a recorded message informs him, “The person you are calling does not wish to remain in contact with you. If you want to listen to a sad poem, press ONE, if you want to cling to unrealistic dream of reunion, press TWO, if you want to have counselling and advice, press THREE.”
The Milne’s article is a rejected lover’s complaint. Apparently, he can’t overcome his rejection by the Daughter of Zion. He laments the glorious days of their alliance: “Since the French revolution, the fates of the Jewish people and the Left have been closely intertwined. From the time of Marx, Jews played a central role across all shades of the left.” Mr Milne and the Left are in need of some advice and counselling (press THREE).
Everything that has a beginning, Mr Milne, has an end as well. Before the French Revolution, the Jewish people supported despotism against the aristocracy, and the Magna Carta was signed by King John despite their opposition. After Napoleon, the Jewish people had had a long alliance with the Left. It was long, but not everlasting. This alliance was severed in the aftermath of the failed 1968 revolution. Since that time the Jewish People have built a new alliance, with Globalisation forces.
Give it a thought, Mr. Milne: if the Daughter of Zion could ally herself with the Left, why could she not change her partners? Should she be considered a permanently beneficial force, next to God Almighty? Jewish leadership benefited from the union with the Left while it was an aspiring force, struggling with the traditional upper classes. After their aspirations were satisfied, they had no more interest in such an ally.
Why should one describe as a ‘natural bond’ rather than a ‘marriage of convenience’ this relationship with the rich Jewish bankers and newspaper owners who had supported the Left? It was quite an unnatural bond, formed against the obvious class interests of the involved sides, and its collapse was inevitable. The Left accepted the help of rich Jews, disregarding their motives. It paid a heavy price: alienation from the working classes who had had a long and painful history of Jew-Gentile relations, alienation from the Church, and the uncompromising hostility of the upper classes. The Jews used the energy of the Left until it ran out, and then ditched it. Now, the Left can dial a phone number in New York and listen to the pre-recorded message. (Read this article in full here.)
Since 2002, the Left didn’t part with Jews; instead, it went to the desert the wealthy Jews wanted to send it, to the desert of identity politics and climate bull, to the desert of accommodating Jews and disregarding Christians. This policy came to the natural end in the 2019 elections. The new leadership of the Labour should learn its lesson and complete the disengagement from the Jews.
They could learn much from Joseph Stalin, whose 140th anniversary had been celebrated yesterday in Moscow and elsewhere. This great and victorious leader of the Left didn’t stray away from his course of liberating mankind on fashionable nonsense; he had no use for Derrida’s deconstruction; he was a friend and a patron of the Church; he didn’t encourage gender changes and perversions, he developed industry instead of promoting green sources; he banned abortions; immigration was tiny (mainly American workers and engineers fleeing the Great Recession).
As for Jews, he was a friend, but not a slave. He didn’t hesitate to jail and execute the treasonous ones, he rewarded the loyal ones, he saved millions of Jews from the Nazi death machine. Jews – from Tel Aviv to London and from Moscow to New York – worshipped him. Eventually the fickle Daughter of Zion ditched him, but she always does.
His enemies accuse him of running the Gulag archipelago of jails and prisons, of harsh prison terms, but now in the age of Totalitarian Liberalism this complain appear jaded somewhat. The US penitentiary system has more prisoners than Stalin’s ever had, in absolute numbers and relative to population. No jail in Stalin’s days could compare with Guantanamo, where untried prisoners pray for death, or with Belmarsh prison where Assange is being kept.
Or indeed with “the highest security prison in Rhode Island, where he slept in halls with 50 bunks, shat in door-less toilets next to murderers and human traffickers, took group showers with cannibals and child rapists in the world’s last outpost of legalized slavery, earning ten cents an hour, paying a dollar for a bottle of water in a private prison complex where free cold water no longer exists. To make the maximum off of prisoners, no fresh water is provided, only access to hot water and ice, so that prisoners have to constantly pay for cups. Otherwise they don’t get to drink. Sometimes prisons withhold earnings from hourly wages, reducing them to two cents” – and that is in the US under Obama, not in Russia under Stalin. Ivan Denisovich of Solzhenitsyn had enough cold water.
After the last week sentence of Adolfo Martinez (16 years of jail for protesting LGBT flag), I think the myth of “cruel Stalin” may fade into oblivion, with many other myths of the period.
The Russian people were invariably anti-Stalin by 1991, as a result of insistent and permeating government propaganda. But now, in 2020, 70 per cent of Russians have a favourite view of this historical personality, a contemporary of Hitler and Churchill. Yesterday, thousands of Russians had brought their red carnations to his tomb at the Red Square. Will the Brits remember their Labour leaders in 70 years?
(2) Rothschild Leaks
– “Jewishness has once again become a way of avoiding scrutiny and accountability. Only anti-Semites dare to see a link between the sale of Alstom, Macron’s career, the Rothschilds, and the Jewish community.” – told me a knowledgeable Jewish person, well versed with goings-on within the French Jewish community and in the higher business, banking and political circles of the Republic. I’ll call him JT. (My regular readers have met him in my preceding essay, and now he has his own Twitter account and a blog).
I almost hung up on him. When I see ‘Rothschild’, my hand reaches for the click-out button. I do not wait for ‘reptilians’ or ‘Rockefellers’ of another boring rant against bankers-and-Jews. What could one add to this over-researched (since 18th century) topic! However, JT added to our knowledge in this long piece.
He says that while Rothschilds are not as big as many other giant banks, and they have fewer assets, they have unique influence in politics, based on hundreds of years of experience. Joining Rothschilds is “considered a kind of rite of passage for executive appointments in the government”. That’s why Macron joined them looking for a political career. A short list of Rothschild alumni in the world’s largest corporations gives us Shell, De Beers, the Guardian – the newspaper that smeared Jeremy Corbyn as antisemite, the Economist, etc. They have hidden and secret contacts with other groups and persons of importance. And yes, they are often Jewish.
“As with the rest of the Jewish community the Rothschilds use their Jewishness to intimidate journalists into disinterest, and the Holocaust to prevent any appeal for transparency. Everyone who is anyone uses Jewishness for political purposes, and statesmen flock to this media-unfriendly brand.”
With offshore comes secrecy, influence, and tax avoidance. It is a considerably sought-after service, especially when laundered through the “Rothschild” brand.
JT makes an interesting observation. There were so many leaks of offshore banking – Panama leaks, Luxembourg Leaks, Bahamas Leaks, Paradise Paper Leaks – but none of them had revealed Rothschild’s offshores. There is a system to this madness: all the leaks are connected with the International Consortium for Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) financed and controlled by George Soros’s Open Society foundation and by Pierre Omidyar. They are the people who are promoted as a new Wikileaks, and their Glenn Greenwald as a new Assange.
But observe the difference. Julian Assange and his Wikileaks had made all the secret stuff available for you and me. We all can read the State Department cables. And Julian is locked up in the high security prison.
Glenn Greenwald has got the treasure trove of Snowden Files, gigabytes lifted from the NSA and CIA computers, likely to reveal the 9/11 conspiracy, planning of Middle Eastern wars, their spying on the American people – and he sits tight on it. We shall never see any of it. Not surprisingly, Greenwald prospers, eats well and sleeps well at his home with his boyfriend.
The brave researcher, Max Blumenthal wrote in a long and extensive piece about Omidyar’s activities:
Greenwald pledged in 2014 to build a secure “reading room” where outside journalists could review files at the publication’s New York City office. That room has not materialized. In October 2017, he published a cable from Snowden files that revealed Saudi Prince Salman bin Sultan explicitly directing a faction of Syrian insurgents to “light up” Damascus and “flatten” its civilian airport on March 18, 2013. The cable also revealed that Saudi Arabia had supplied 120 tons of explosives to the armed opposition, resulting in attacks on the Syrian presidential palace and locations across Damascus. That cable had been in the possession of The Intercept’s founders for over four years, but it was inexplicably held. Had it been released when they got it, people would learn that the so-called “moderate rebels” were, in fact, waging a campaign of terror on behalf of foreign sponsors – and perhaps, the Syrian war would be over sooner.
I wonder what was the reason of Snowden’s escape to Moscow? Why did he have to run away at all? Why did he have to steal the stuff nobody ever saw excepting Greenwald and his boss Omydiar? I really do not care that the greedy Feds intend to pocket Snowden’s royalties for the book he published. Let Omidyar compensate him.
Omidyar had bought Greenwald to assure that nothing of substance contained in Snowden’s files ever became public, and Greenwald sold the files and his own soul, provided he had it in the first place. The leaks that he publishes are those that fit into his schemes like Trump’s links to Putin.
And now sit tight for a surprise. Omidyar is the main backer behind the efforts of the infamous Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to run internet censorship by tech giants, reported Whitney Webb. Omidyar provided the capital to launch the ADL’s “new Silicon Valley center to fight intolerance” and to team up with Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft — to create a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab for ultimate censorship.
Glenn Greenwald pretended for years to be a Palestine supporter, a harsh critic of Israeli apartheid. How come, Glenn, that now you play in the ADL team that brands Palestinian activists as hatemongers and antisemites? You pretended to be for peace and against US wars. How come that your team fights against Tulsi Gabbard, the only anti-war contender for the US presidency? Is that the voice of blood or the voice of blood money you earned? When you agree to accommodate a mysterious money-man, you end up in the embraces of ADL, apparently.
JT says that of all the countless mentions of Rothschild in the ICIJ databases, even relating to Jeffrey Epstein material, only two files are accessible, and they come from auditors, not ICIJ or their privatised leaks. The rest remains inaccessible. The ICIJ might even be described as “leak catchers,” a term corroborated by Mintpress’ expose of Omydiar’s activities. And Rothschilds and their clients remain safe and protected.
In the next issue, we shall continue reading JT’s papers.
My blessings to our readers with glorious Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ! As my present to this occasion, I shall send free of charge my e-book Our Lady of Sorrows about the fate of Christianity in Palestine under Israeli occupation. Just send an email with subject Our Lady to [email protected] And my e-group had been moved from Yahoogroups to [email protected] All are welcome to join.