The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
The Smearing of Ken Loach and Jeremy Corbyn Is the Face of Our New Toxic Politics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The film-maker’s crime – like Corbyn’s – wasn’t antisemitism but recalling a time when class solidarity inspired the struggle for a better world

Ken Loach, one of Britain’s most acclaimed film directors, has spent more than a half a century dramatising the plight of the poor and the vulnerable. His films have often depicted the casual indifference or active hostility of the state as it exercises unaccountable power over ordinary people.

Last month Loach found himself plunged into the heart of a pitiless drama that could have come straight from one of his own films. This veteran chronicler of society’s ills was forced to stand down as a judge in a school anti-racism competition, falsely accused of racism himself and with no means of redress.

Voice of the powerless

There should be little doubt about Loach’s credentials both as an anti-racist and a trenchant supporter of the powerless and the maligned.

In his films he has turned his unflinching gaze on some of the ugliest episodes of British state repression and brutality in Ireland, as well as historical struggles against fascism in other parts of the globe, from Spain to Nicaragua.

But his critical attention has concentrated chiefly on Britain’s shameful treatment of its own poor, its minorities and its refugees. In his recent film I, Daniel Blake he examined the callousness of state bureaucracies in implementing austerity policies, while this year’s release Sorry We Missed You focused on the precarious lives of a zero-hours workforce compelled to choose between the need to work and responsibility to family.

Inevitably, these scathing studies of British social and political dysfunction – exposed even more starkly by the current coronavirus pandemic – mean Loach is much less feted at home than he is in the rest of the world, where his films are regularly honoured with awards.

Which may explain why the extraordinary accusations against him of racism – or more specifically antisemitism – have not been more widely denounced as malicious.

Campaign of vilification

From the moment it was announced in February that Loach and Michael Rosen, a renowned, leftwing children’s poet, were to judge an anti-racism art competition for schools, the pair faced a relentless and high-profile campaign of vilification. But given the fact that Rosen is Jewish, Loach took the brunt of the attack.

The organisation behind the award, Show Racism the Red Card, which initially refused to capitulate to the bullying, quickly faced threats to its charitable status as well as its work eradicating racism from football.

In a statement, Loach’s production company, Sixteen Films, said Show Racism the Red Card had been the “subject of an aggressive campaign to persuade trade unions, government departments, football clubs and politicians to cease funding or otherwise supporting the charity and its work”.

“Pressure behind the scenes” was exerted from the government and from football clubs, which began threatening to sever ties with the charity.

More than 200 prominent figures in sport, academia and the arts came to Loach’s defence, noted Sixteen Films, but the charity’s “very existence” was soon at stake. Faced with this unremitting onslaught, Loach agreed to step down on March 18.

This had been no ordinary protest, but one organised with ruthless efficiency that quickly gained a highly sympathetic hearing in the corridors of power.

US-style Israel lobby

Leading the campaign against Loach and Rosen were the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Labour Movement – two groups that many on the left are already familiar with.

They previously worked from within and without the Labour party to help undermine Jeremy Corbyn, its elected leader. Corbyn stepped down this month to be replaced by Keir Starmer, his former Brexit minister, after losing a general election in December to the ruling Conservative party.

Long-running and covert efforts by the Jewish Labour Movement to unseat Corbyn were exposed two years ago in an undercover investigation filmed by Al-Jazeera.

The JLM is a small, highly partisan pro-Israel lobby group affiliated to the Labour party, while the Board of Deputies falsely claims to represent Britain’s Jewish community, when in fact it serves as a lobby for the most conservative elements of it.

Echoing their latest campaign, against Loach, the two groups regularly accused Corbyn of antisemitism, and of presiding over what they termed an “institutionally antisemitic” Labour party. Despite attracting much uncritical media attention for their claims, neither organisation produced any evidence beyond the anecdotal.

The reason for these vilification campaigns has been barely concealed. Loach and Corbyn have shared a long history as passionate defenders of Palestinian rights, at a time when Israel is intensifying efforts to extinguish any hope of the Palestinians ever gaining statehood or a right to self-determination.

In recent years, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement have adopted the tactics of a US-style lobby determined to scrub criticism of Israel from the public sphere. Not coincidentally, the worse Israel’s abuse of the Palestinians has grown, the harder these groups have made it to talk about justice for Palestinians.

Starmer, Corbyn’s successor, went out of his way to placate the lobby during last month’s Labour leadership election campaign, happily conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism to avoid a similar confrontation. His victory was welcomed by both the Board and the JLM.

Character assassination

But Ken Loach’s treatment shows that the weaponisation of antisemitism is far from over, and will continue to be used against prominent critics of Israel. It is a sword hanging over future Labour leaders, forcing them to root out party members who persist in highlighting either Israel’s intensifying abuse of the Palestinians or the nefarious role of pro-Israel lobby groups like the Board and the JLM.

The basis for the accusations against Loach were flimsy at best – rooted in a circular logic that has become the norm of late when judging supposed examples of antisemitism.

Loach’s offence, according to the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement, was the fact that he has denied – in line with all the data – that Labour is institutionally antisemitic.

The demand for evidence to support claims made by these two bodies that Labour has an antisemitism crisis is now itself treated as proof of antisemitism, transforming it into the equivalent of Holocaust denial.

But when Show Racism the Red Card initially stood their ground against the smears, the Board and Jewish Labour Movement produced a follow-up allegation. The anti-racism charity appeared to use this as a pretext for extracting itself from the mounting trouble associated with supporting Loach.

The new claim against Loach consisted not so much of character assassination as of character assassination by tenuous association.

The Board and Jewish Labour Movement raised the unremarkable fact that a year ago Loach responded to an email from a member of the GMB union who had been expelled.

Peter Gregson sought Loach’s professional assessment of a video in which he accused the union of victimising him over his opposition to a new advisory definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which openly conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel.


The IHRA definition was foisted on the Labour party two years ago by the same groups – the Jewish Labour Movement and the Board of Deputies – in large part as a way to isolate Corbyn. There was a great deal of opposition from rank and file members.

Resisting new definition

Pro-Israel lobby group liked this new definition – seven of its 11 examples of antisemitism relate to Israel, not Jews – because it made it impossible for Corbyn and his supporters to critique Israel without running the gauntlet of claims they were antisemitic for doing so.

Loach was among the many Corbyn supporters who tried to resist the imposition of the IHRA definition. So it was hardly surprising, given Gregson’s claims and the parallels of his story to many others Loach has been documenting for decades, that the film maker replied, offering his critical opinion of the video.

Only later was Loach told that there were separate concerns raised about Gregson’s behaviour, including an allegation that he had fallen out with a Jewish member of the union. Loach distanced himself from Gregson and backed the GMB’s decision.

That should have been an end to it. Loach is a public figure who sees it as part of his role to engage with ordinary people in need of help – anything less, given his political views, would make him a hypocrite. But he is not omniscient. He cannot know the backstory of every individual who crosses his path. He cannot vet every person before he sends an email.

It would be foolish, however, to take the professions of concern about Loach from the Board and the Jewish Labour Movement at face value. In fact, their opposition to him relates to a much more fundamental rift about what can and cannot be said about Israel, one in which the IHRA definition serves as the key battleground.

Toxic discourse

Their attacks highlight an increasingly, and intentionally, toxic discourse surrounding antisemitism that now dominates British public life. Through the recent publication of its so-called 10 pledges, the Board of Deputies has required all future Labour leaders to accept this same toxic discourse or face Corbyn’s fate.

It is no coincidence that Loach’s case has such strong echoes of Corbyn’s own public hounding.

Both are rare public figures who have dedicated their time and energies over many decades to standing up for the weak against the strong, defending those least able to defend themselves.

Both are survivors of a fading generation of political activists and intellectuals who continue to champion the tradition of unabashed class struggle, based on universal rights, rather than the more fashionable, but highly divisive, politics of identity and culture wars.

Loach and Corbyn are the remnants of a British post-war left whose inspirations were very different from those of the political centre and the right – and from the influences on many of today’s young.

Fight against fascism

At home, they were inspired by the anti-fascist struggles of their parents in the 1930s against Oswald Moseley’s Brown Shirts, such as at the Battle of Cable Street. And in their youth they were emboldened by the class solidarity that built a National Health Service from the late 1940s onwards, one that for the first time provided health care equally for all in the UK.

Abroad, they were galvanised by the popular, globe-spannning fight against the institutional racism of apartheid in South Africa, a struggle that gradually eroded western governments’ support for the white regime. And they were at the forefront of the last great mass political mobilisation, against the official deceptions that justified the US-UK war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

But like most of this dying left they are haunted by their generation’s biggest failure in international solidarity. Their protests did not end the many decades of colonial oppression suffered by the Palestinian people and sponsored by the same western states that once stood by apartheid South Africa.

The parallels between these two western-backed, settler-colonial projects, much obscured by British politicians and the media, are stark and troubling for them.

Purge of class politics

Loach and Corbyn’s demonisation as antisemites – and parallel efforts across the Atlantic to silence Bernie Sanders (made more complicated by his Jewishness) – are evidence of a final public purge by the western political and media establishments of this kind of old-school class consciousness.

Activists like Loach and Corbyn want a historical reckoning for the west’s colonial meddling in other parts of the world, including the catastrophic legacy from which so-called “immigrants” are fleeing to this day.

It was the west that pillaged foreign soils for centuries, then armed the dictators supposedly bringing independence to these former colonies, and now invade or attack these same societies in bogus “humanitarian interventions”.

Similarly, the internationalist, class-based struggle of Loach and Corbyn rejects a politics of identity that, rather than recognising the west’s long history of crimes committed against women, minorities and refugees, channels the energies of the marginalised into a competition for who may be allowed to sit at the top table with a white elite.

It is precisely this kind of false consciousness that leads to the cheering on of women as they head up the military-industrial complex, or the excitement at a black man becoming US president only to use his power to set new records in extrajudicial killings abroad and the repression of political dissent at home.

Loach and Corbyn’s grassroots activism is the antithesis of a modern politics in which corporations use their huge wealth to lobby and buy politicians, who in turn use their spin-doctors to control the public discourse through a highly partisan and sympathetic corporate media.

Hollow concern

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement are very much embedded in this latter type of politics, exploiting a political identity to win a place at the top table and then use it to lobby for their chosen cause of Israel.


If this seems unfair, remember that while the Board and the Jewish Labour Movement have been hammering on about a supposed antisemitism crisis on the left defined chiefly in terms of its hostility to Israel, the right and far-right have been getting a free pass to stoke ever greater levels of white nationalism and racism against minorities.

These two organisations have not only averted their gaze from the rise of the nationalist right – which is now embedded inside the British government – but have rallied to its side.

In particular, the Board’s leaders – as well as the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who publicly reviled Corbyn as an antisemite days before last year’s general election – have barely bothered to hide their support for the Conservative government and prime minister Boris Johnson.

Their professions of concern about racism and their attacks on the charitable status of Show Racism the Red Card ring all the more hollow, given their own records of supporting racism.

Both have repeatedly backed Israel in its violations of human rights and attacks on Palestinians, including Israel’s deployment of snipers to shoot men, women and children protesting against more than a decade of suffocating Gaza with a blockade.

The two organisations have remained studiously silent on Israel’s racist policy of allowing football teams from illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank to play in its football league in violation of FIFA’s rules.

And they have supported the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund in the UK, even as it finances racist settler projects and forestation programmes that are intended to displace Palestinians from their land.

Their hypocrisy has been boundless.

Truth turned on its head

The fact that the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement have been able to exercise such clout against Loach on allegations for which there is no evidence indicates how enthusiastically the Israel lobby has been integrated into the British establishment and serves its purposes.

Israel is a key pillar of an informal western military alliance keen to project its power into the oil-rich Middle East. Israel exports its oppressive technology and surveillance systems, refined in ruling over the Palestinians, to western states hungry for more sophisticated systems of control. And Israel has helped tear up the international rulebook in entrenching its occupation, as well as blazing a trail in legitimising torture and extrajudicial executions – now mainstays of US foreign policy.

Israel’s pivotal place in this matrix of power is rarely discussed –because western establishments have no interest in having their bad faith and double standards exposed.

The Board and the Jewish Labour Movement are helping to police and enforce that silence about Israel, a key western ally. In truly Orwellian style, they are turning the charge of racism on its head – using its against our most prominent and most resolute anti-racists.

And better still for western establishments, figures like Loach and Corbyn – veterans of class struggle, who have spent decades immersed in the fight to build a better society – are now being battered into oblivion on the anvil of identity politics.

Should this perversion of our democratic discourse be allowed to continue, our societies will be doomed to become even uglier, more divisive and divided places.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Britain, Israel Lobby 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The official reaction to Ken Loach’s 1966 agitprop, Cathy Come Home, was the one that he appeared to want: to give unmarried mothers priority in the allocation of public housing in the UK. Ken Loach, more than any other individual, more even than Margaret Thatcher, is responsible for the explosion of single motherhood, the destruction of the working-class family, and the creation of the white British underclass. It is amazing that the Left still treats him as a secular saint.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @lloyd
    , @Iris
  2. Lot says:

    Cook the Jihadi mourns the humiliating defeat of his fellow white-hating communist Jeremy Corbyn. But it wasn’t a Jewish conspiracy: Corbyn was rejected by the voters repeatedly in a massive landslide, then removed by his own party, and his favored replacement further crushed 2-1.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Magylson
  3. lloyd says: • Website
    @James N. Kennett

    A quick wikipedia check confirms Cathy was married and remained faithful to her husband. That was important to get public sympathy in England in 1966. Loach perhaps less radical then gives a nod to conservative argument by having their misfortunes descend into a spiral from her husband removing the brakes from his truck and them falling behind in rent. A scene shows the family eating icecreams. Plus continuing having children.

  4. Iris says:

    Hello Hasbara;

    Jeremy Corbyn is possibly the only politician ever who had to re-run a leadership competition he’d just won.

    He was relentlessly and publicly persecuted by the UK’s Israel lobby during all of his leadership, and his persecution brought a crude light on the total Zionist control exerted over British political life.

    Your blatant misrepresentation of facts that happened only months ago is yet another manifestation of your in-you-face arrogant supremacism; you will pay for that.

    • Replies: @Just Passing Through
  5. Iris says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Ken Loach, more than any other individual, more even than Margaret Thatcher, is responsible for the explosion of single motherhood, the destruction of the working-class family

    What destroyed the British working class is the loss of qualified jobs, outsourced abroad to allow the ascent of the financial “industry” and maintain the pound as secondary global currency.

    You are confusing the cause with the effect.

  6. Magylson says:

    Agree with iris. Also corbyn nearly won the election in 2017.

    • LOL: James N. Kennett
  7. Its amazing how many times I’ve read this article. The names & details change but the story stays the same — or gets worse.

    • Replies: @mark green
  8. @Iris

    Although Lot is a Hasbara and hates Corbyn for his opposition to Israel (not Jews, Corbyn was a firm anti-fascist), Lot does have a point.

    Corbyn was going to allow freedom of movement from all parts of the world, the White working class are increasingly getting disillusioned as the party was overrun by non-Whites.

    Corbyn’s plan was to destroy the capitalist system (not bad I might hear you say) AND flood the country with Third Worlders who would demand the new “redistribution of wealth”

    • Replies: @Iris
  9. Iris says:
    @Just Passing Through

    Corbyn was going to allow freedom of movement from all parts of the world

    This is not correct. Jeremy Corbyn made his position with regard to the refugee question very clear in public: the Geneva Convention should apply. Where necessary, people fleeing a war-torn country should be given temporary refuge to protect their lives. That’s not open immigration policy.

    Furthermore, Mr Corbyn is a known Eurosceptic, while the EU’s open border policy, by the considerable burden it brought on the UK’s public services, was a prime reason for Brexit.

    The most important migrant community in the UK are the Poles, very hard working people without which the construction and service sectors will hardly function. But a breaking point has been reached in a system that works only for may be 10% of the UK’s population.

    Mr Corbyn failed partly because his pro-EU young supporters was not in tune with the anti-EU stance adopted by older working class people.

    But he failed mostly because of the relentless smearing and propaganda campaign organised by the Zionist lobby. Corbyn made clear his plan to organise QE and bailout for the people, so he was a mortal danger to the financial plutocrats who unconditionally promote Israel.

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
    , @Matra
  10. “the nationalist right – which is now embedded inside the British government”

    I’ve read some utter crap on this site (as well as much more really good stuff) but that takes the cake. A government of elite cosmopolitans is about as far away from nationalism as you can get.

    Boris – born in New York, Turkish ancestry (grandfather changed name from a Turkish one to Johnson). Eton/Oxford.

    Rishi Sunak – Indian Brahmin ancestry, married the (Indian) Infosys heiress, Winchester/Oxford/Stanford/Goldman Sachs

    Dominic Raab, Czech dad, married to a Brazilian, grammar school/Oxford/Cambridge, as an international lawyer defended Tony Blair

    Priti Patel, born in UK to Ugandan-Indian Kshatriya caste family, grammar school/Keele/Essex. Worked in PR, married to a Brit.

    These are the ‘big four’ cabinet posts, and if they are “nationalists”, which nation?

    (I support them because Brexit, but with no illusions)

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Curmudgeon
  11. Iris says:

    You forgot to add that:

    – Boris Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather, Elias Avery Lowe, was a Jew born in Moscow.
    In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle in 2007 Boris said:

    “I feel Jewish when I feel the Jewish people are threatened or under attack […] When I suddenly get a whiff of anti-Semitism, it’s then that you feel angry and protective […] I’m proud of [my Jewish ancestry] very proud.” Boris Johnson – My Jewish credentials, The Jewish Chronicle, 06/09/2007

    – Dominic Raab’s father was a Jew born in Czechoslovakia who emigrated to England as a young boy.

    – Priti Patel is Netanyahu’s poodle spy; she secretly exposed state matters to him while on holiday in Israel without informing the UK government which is irrelevant anyway.

    Keep voting for the Tories; it is indeed a “nationalist” vote, you just got the nation wrong.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  12. ” This veteran chronicler of society’s ills was forced to stand down as a judge in a school anti-racism competition,”

    Does any sane person have any sympathy for social justice tossers who take part in this sort of Theatre of the Absurd?

    • Replies: @Lot
  13. If someone in England formed an association with a few others, someone from each electoral district and called it the Anti-Semitism Party, they would be immune to accusations of Anti-Semitism, wouldn’t they? I wonder if it would do well at the next election.

  14. @animalogic

    It’s amazing how many times I’ve read this article. The names & details change but the story stays the same — or gets worse.

    So true. But Cook and others must stop circulating the modern fiction that racial patriotism is inherently evil, ugly and dangerous whereas national patriotism is valiant, honorable and essential. Same goes for the taboos involving boundless ‘criticism of Jews’ (antisemitism) as compared to boundless criticism of whites (liberal discourse). By trading in these kosher myths and venomous double-standards, Cook is weakening his own case.

    Before the modern era, national pride was implicitly tied to ethnic and/or racial pride. These attitudes were natural, widespread, organic, and taken for granted. This is why tribes, cultures, and nations have historically tended towards homogeneity. Until recently, most nations had meaningful borders (even America) and the people within these exclusive spaces were culturally, linguistically, religiously, and ethnically distinct. It’s what defined a nation.

    Homogeneous societies still exist in places such as Korea, Japan, China as well as most of black Africa. Why the huge difference? Jews haven’t traditionally lived in those places.

    In Europe and No. America, where Jews have lived, there are colossal demographic changes underway. Not coincidentally, these changes have occurred while Jewish power and influence have blossomed. Yes, multiculturalism has indeed been good for the Jews; but it has undermined the cultural and genetic interests of the white world.

    Today, white racial kinship and racial solidarity has been demonized from above. Yet other races (especially Jews) are permitted to maintain their boundaries and openly engage in race-based advocacy.

    Anti-racism instruction (designed for whites) along with images of biracial splendor are now ubiquitous in Western culture. This is special menu is prepared exclusively for the goyim, but do keep in mind that the master chefs are Jewish. Finish your plates, children!

    Thus the tidal wave of Hollywood entertainment showcasing black male / white female romance. So sexy! And don’t forget to enjoy the regular depictions of pro-white villains who act insane or become homicidal because they’re racist Nazis.

    Is all this targeted and divisive toxicity good for the Jews?

    You bet it is!

    With that in mind, don’t hold your breath waiting to see an Israeli TV program glamorizing a tryst between a handsome Jewish man and a sexy Arab girl (or ‘black’ Jewess.) Ha! It ain’t happening and it’s not going to. Jews care too much for their children to risk their futures with such reckless imagery. That delicious Kool-Aid flavor is reserved exclusively for the goyim. So drink up!

  15. @Iris

    I voted for the only party which would take the UK out of the European Union – a precondition for getting anything done in the UK is independence.

    Boris (and Priti) are chancers who know and are prepared to pay the costs of doing politics in the UK. I doubt Boris dreams of Old Moscow, I really do.

    They don’t want to get the Alan Duncan treatment, let alone the Corbyn one.

    But note – despite the massive orchestrated campaign of hysterical lies against Corbyn’s imaginary “anti-semitism”, that didn’t damage him with working class Brits, the people the Labour Party ought to be for. What did for Corbyn was his surrender to the Blairites (Kier Starmer et al) over a second referendum.

    This is all irrelevant to my main point – that the Johnson administration can in no way (Brexit apart) be described as “nationalist right”, an error which devalues Mr Cook’s other arguments.

  16. @Iris

    .. without which the construction and service sectors will hardly function.

    Sure they would – scarcity of builders with a demand for construction would increase builders’ wages, and the natives would apply. Even without increases in wages, a good builder earns a lot these days. I have a friend who is very good at building kitchens, 35 year old from Cornwall, he gets £800 a day.

    The Poles are hard working, but the immigration policy drains their societies of capable people too.

    If you let anyone in, your society fails. If you only let the best in, their society fails. Better to nurture talent than plunder other nations of their human capital (imo 🙂 ).

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Curmudgeon
  17. Lot says:
    @Bill Jones

    Yes. If they hate Israel and America, everything else is forgiven.

    Iran, China, Russia, converts to Islam, communists like Corbyn: all are popular here.

  18. Lot says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    The USA should take a ten year period with immigration only from Eastern Europe. We need a rebalancing.

  19. @Ilya G Poimandres

    If you let anyone in, your society fails. If you only let the best in, their society fails. Better to nurture talent than plunder other nations of their human capital

    I have been saying this for decades. More disposable income means people buy more “crap” and that drives the economy.
    If “not enough workers” is a real problem (as in immediate post WWII Germany) then temporary workers become a temporary solution, until you encourage a higher natural birthrate.
    The mantra of “seeking the best and brightest” is an admission that your educational system is a failure. In the big scheme of things, if there are 60 million high intelligence “old stock” Britons, there will always be more numbers of high intelligence foreigners from places like India, China, and even Pakistan, even if the percentage of the high intelligence population is much lower. The same is true for the rest of the “White” world.
    Would the Swiss really have so much non-White immigration if they weren’t obsessed with attracting ME oil money and having a strong international presence in football?

    • Agree: Ilya G Poimandres
  20. @YetAnotherAnon

    There’s more crap in this article than that. I’ve always seen Cook as controlled opposition. If he were really that opposed to Israel’s policies, Bibi would have tossed him long ago.
    The reality is that the Jews in the Labour Party have been disproportionately powerful for close to a century. Cook’s reference to the Battle of Cable Street is a good example. Moseley’s crowd was staging a legal march. The “Battle” was Labour and the Jews attacking Moseley and the police. Like the July 12 parades in Northern Ireland attacked by IRA supporters, no one is forcing these people to attend a legally staged event with which they disagree.
    The Windrush affair which started the flood of non-Whites to Britain was an almost entirely Jewish affair. Dock workers and other trade unionists, the grass roots of Labour, marched for and with Enoch Powell. They were undermined by (((Labour))). While never an Auntie Shem-ite or racist, Enoch Powell’s “forgotten” speech sums up the situation nicely, and is relevant today.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  21. History should stand or fall on the truth or falseness of the evidence and not laws implemented by bought and paid for politicians who live on spin and fees. So called right and left should not be arguing about their ongoing differences but rather focus on this single fundamental issue which sinks them both.

  22. @Curmudgeon

    Opening of that EP speech

    “We live in an age of conspiracies. They are far more successful and well-managed conspiracies than the conspiracies of history. Perhaps the improvement in efficiency is one of the benefits which we owe to the technological revolution. At any rate, the age of the old-fashioned conspirator is no more. He no longer gathers with his fellows in tiny groups, admitted by password to huddle round a dark lantern in a dingy garret. Today the conspirators sit in the seats of the mighty, at the desks of Ministers and editors; they live in the blaze of continual publicity; their weapons are the organs of opinion themselves.

    The politics of the last few years have been little more than a series of conspiracies conducted by the politicians and the Press against the common sense of the public. They have for the most part been brilliantly, audaciously successful. Opposition, criticism, questioning have been beaten into the ground, not by force but by something much more efficacious: by tacit agreement on the part of those who speak and write to speak and write the same kind of nonsense, year in year out, until ordinary men and women no longer dare trust their own wits but give up the struggle and deliver themselves passively to the guidance and domination of their betters. The Higher Nonsense is a mightier instrument of mass repression than machine-guns, grapeshot and cavalry charges ever were.

    The success has been so complete that we fail not only to be astonished at it, but even to perceive it.”

  23. Matra says:

    Furthermore, Mr Corbyn is a known Eurosceptic

    Whatever he used to be his announcement that he would refuse to accept the result of the 2016 referendum and require the British to vote again (and perhaps again and again) ended any perception that he was a Eurosceptic.

    • Replies: @Iris
  24. Iris says:

    his announcement that he would refuse to accept the result of the 2016 referendum and require the British to vote again

    Jeremy Corbyn did the exact contrary and publicly called, on TV, to accept the Brexit referendum’s result.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  25. @Iris

    “Jeremy Corbyn did the exact contrary and publicly called, on TV, to accept the Brexit referendum’s result.”

    Yes, before the 2017 election, in which he did pretty well.

    2019 election, after the Blairites had nobbled the manifesto.

    The Final Say on Brexit

    Labour will give the people the final say on Brexit. Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain. A Labour government will implement whatever the people decide.
    Only a Labour government will put this decision in the hands of the people to give you the final say. This will be a legally binding referendum and we will implement the people’s decision immediately.

    That sure doesn’t sound like respecting the 2016 vote

    • Replies: @Iris
  26. Iris says:

    This is disingenous.

    What was being discussed in this article was the personality and real beliefs of Jeremy Corbyn, not the political compromise within Labour, which came as a result of the implacable pressure exerted by the Isreal lobby through their proxy Blairites, and also as a last resort option to extract the country from the disastrous and lingering situation created by Cameron’s half-baked referendum.

    The Conservative party made a disaster of the Brexit transition, but are blessed with have full-fledged support from Zionist press and money to mask their incompetence.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  27. @Iris

    I agree that the Brexit fudge was foisted on Corbyn by his political enemies, but he didn’t have to accept it (perhaps he was worn down by the constant attacks), and accepting it was a fatal error.

    “The Conservative party made a disaster of the Brexit transition, but are blessed with have full-fledged support from Zionist press and money to mask their incompetence.”

    It’s true that the May regime was a disaster, I’m hoping (with realist scepticism) for better things from the Boris Brigade. It’s true that Boris, as a main-chancer, won’t have an ethical Middle East policy any more than Blair/Cameron/May did, but there is little point in fighting on several fronts simultaneously.

  28. Oswald Moseley’s Brown Shirts

    Blackshirts. I asked my dad, who’s miraculously not yet senile, rather than rely on possibly mendacious online sources.
    Not to be confused with Wodehouse’s “Black Shorts”, of which Roderick Spode was a notorious member. Brownshirts spoke German.
    Went to the funeral of an ancient relative at the Mosley family’s church, in the the next parish from “ours”, last year. Impressive wall-tablet memorial things, and so on.

  29. UK says:

    Corby’s first speech as Labour leader was to implicitly call for open borders in the “refugee” crisis. That was his number one priority.

    Loach and Corbyn may loathe Jews but their main hatred is simply for anyone who does not conform to the pattern of justice they have imagined in their heads. They, in narcissistic overeach, have decided that they know how people should have achieved and that it must all be proportionate between sexes, races, sexualities and whatever other category they can come up with. There is no reason for this other than that they are so Dunning-Kruger they have no idea why outcomes may vary. They then also want to humiliate those who look like those who did well in the past to further do “justice” to their vision of what “justice” is.

    Basically, if things don’t look like what they think they should then they take it personally and are full of bile. Such is the way with all fuckwits.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
How America was neoconned into World War IV
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement