May 29, 2016

Zionists order Corbyn to follow John Vorster to Yad Vashem

This is interesting.  Having jumped through hoops to appease the UK's Zionist movement it turns out that Jeremy Corbyn may have disobeyed a direct order to indulge in a bit of holocaust hypocrisy at Israel's holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.  Here's The Guardian:
Jeremy Corbyn faced fresh criticism over his handling of antisemitism allegations after Labour’s sister party in Israel said it had had no reply to a letter its leader [Isaac Herzog] sent to him a month ago expressing dismay and inviting him to Jerusalem to see the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.
Visits to Yad Vashem are something of a walk of shame given some of its past visitors.  Here's John Vorster, a one time president of apartheid era South Africa and a nazi internee during WWII:

The picture is from Yad Vashem's own website.

And apart from Israel's own leaders, Vorster isn't the only racist to have graced Yad Vashem with his presence.   Here's Poland's Michal Kaminski of the virulently nationalist, Civic Platform Party visited Yad Vashem too:

Here's Tony Greenstein on Kaminski:
Kaminski led the campaign against a national Polish apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Jews in Jedwabne by Poles in 1941 (see )  Kaminski was formerly a member of the fascist National Revival of Poland Party. 
Vorster and Kaminski are just the kind of people you might expect to turn up at the jewel in the Zionist crown.  That tribute to Jewish suffering that says that no-one else matters and Israel can do no wrong.

And so to Corbyn:
Herzog invited Corbyn to bring a delegation to Yad Vashem to witness that the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”. An Israeli Labour party official confirmed that it had “not had a reply” after rumours circulated in the Jewish community in London that no response had been received in Jerusalem or issued from London.
 So no answer from Corbyn so far so we can only hope that if he does ever answer he won't make that walk of shame.

But not content with implying that Corbyn has done something wrong, rather than the first thing he's done right since this whole orchestrated smear campaign began, Toby Helm (The Observer journo who wrote the piece) managed to take do something no self-respecting journalist should ever do.  He took a Zionist's words at face value.  Let's see that again:
the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”
Now that's just not true.  There have now been many instances of Jews being forced to go to Israel when they haven't wanted.  Even West Germany back in the 1980s handcuffed Soviet Jews and bundled them on to El Al planes bound for Israel.  Poland had an antisemitic campaign in the 1960s where an agreement with Golda Meir had Jews being forced to go to the Israel they didn't even approve of.  And with the collapse of the Soviet Union Jews who wished to go elsewhere once again found themselves being forced to go to Israel. For that unhappy episode, see 972 Mag.

May 25, 2016

Leon Rosselson at Housmans

Wednesday 1st June 2016, 7pm
Entry £3, redeemable against any purchase

Leon Rosselson is appearing at Housmans Bookshop in Caledonian Road.

Here's the invite from the man himself:

I'll be talking (and singing) about this pamphlet, and the accusations of 'anti-semitism' in the Labour Party, at Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX. No idea who'll be there but I hope to see some friendly faces.

May 18, 2016

Who sneers at "AsaJews" and says Jews have "big noses and loud behaviour"?

Well search the internet for examples of the usual suspects like certain Islamists and neo-Nazis and if you turn up anything at all it will probably be quotes from the various Zionist sites I linked in my previous post.

But I remembered writing to the Jewish Chronicle in response to a libelous article by David Aaronovitch.  I've been published there before, at least twice in response to pieces by Aaro but the time I had in mine proved beyond question that he is a bare faced liar and so they wouldn't publish. My letter's here and I remembered roughly the last bit:
Still, in these ecumenical times I think it's nice that a non-Jew such as David Aaronovitch can write for the Jewish Chronicle but when he invokes stereotypes like "big noses and loud behaviour" I'd say he's crossed a line. Surely in the JC a Jew's anti-Zionism is preferable to a gentile's anti-Semitism.
I actually found my old post whilst looking for the David Aaronovitch article that prompted it.  What I couldn't find was the article by Aaro.  It could be that the JC smartly disappeared it.  But not to worry. I smartly pasted a copy (together with a running critique) here.  Here's the bit I was referring to at the end of my letter:
Ah yes, say some readers, we are way ahead of you. Mr Elf and Mr Greenstein are archetypal “self-haters”. They are typical Jews who hate Jews (an organisation, come to think of it, which would complete the long, self-indulgent list of Jews For or Against This or That). They wish somehow to lose their unwanted Jewishness by currying favour with the goyische welt. They like the Nobel prizes and the comedy, but they don’t want to be associated with the big noses and loud behaviour in Waitrose
He actually goes on to say:
The boycotters, and especially the Jews for Boycotts, are not self-hating Jews — they’re adolescents. It isn’t themselves they hate, but Daddy and Mummy. In fact, they’re so vain they probably think this piece is about them.
Clever huh?  So according to Aaro, Jews have big noses, are loud and Jewish parents are Zionists?  In case you think he missed an antisemitic stereotype like say the money thing, here's how he started the piece:
It has long been one of the perverse talents of British middle-class activists
So there we are, according to David Aaronovitch, Jews have big noses, are loud, Jewish parents are Zionists and we are all middle class too.  I must remember that when I spend 12 hours in a minicab I don't even own.

Now why couldn't I find Aaro's masterpiece on Google except on my own blog?  Maybe he got the right to be forgotten.  Dodgy characters can do that when they've been rehabilitated out of their dodginess but Aaro hasn't.  He hasn't changed at all.

And that brings us to the antisemitic AsaJew put down.  The latest campaigner against "antisemitism", Baroness Royall, makes a specific point of this one in her blog post for the UK Labourite wing of the World Zionist Organisation:
Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
We need to note here that Baroness Royall offers no evidence of what she claims but if you google AsaJew you will pretty much only find Zionists throwing this particular antisemitic putdown around. Aaronovitch is not just not an exception, he even offers advice on when or how it should or can be used or abused:
Of course Aaro works for Murdoch, probably the biggest Zionist in Christendom, and typically also antisemitic:
And as a JC regular he also works for Stephen Pollard, assuming the editor of the JC is the commentator's boss. And here's Pollard:

Of course no one has to pay for Aaro's racist outbursts at The Times or the JC but he is also something of a regular on BBC Radio 4 and if you live in the UK, as I do, and you own a television, which I do, you do have to pay for the BBC so most Brits have to pay for David Aaronovitch one way or another.

So while the Labour Party is allowing Zionists to goosestep all over it, silencing criticism of Israel amid a welter of bogus allegations of antisemitism,  those most likely to hurl antisemitic abuse at their political opponents are given a free, indeed a paid for, hand.

What kind of racist low life uses "AsaJew" as a putdown?

Have a little look at Baroness Royall's blog post over at the blog of the ethnic cleansing enthusiasts, the Jewish Labour Movement:
I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.  That is true, but it is only part of the story.  I am clear that in the OULC there is a cultural problem which means that Jewish students do not always feel welcome.  And we have to take action to change this situation.   Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
Now astute readers will see immediately what has happened here.  Baroness Royal was supposed to go into the Oxford University Labour Club and find lots of evidence of antisemitism.  She couldn't find anything that would pass muster, even on a Zionist blog, as evidence so she's invented an example or she's running with the invented examples of other people.

See this again,
Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
See that?  "as a Jew".   People can face ridicule for saying that.  Really, there are racists out there who will ridicule you for prefacing a remark "as a Jew".  What kind of scum can they be?  Surely there's some evidence.  I know, let's try googling "AsaJew".

And what do we see?

First up we have UK Media Watch and an article headed "As a Jew explained".  Taste:
Jewish anti-Zionists give their identity politics a strange twist. Instead of claiming to represent the opinion of most of their fellow Jews, they mobilize their identity “asaJew” in order to give their oppositional view more legitimacy. 
 Then there's the Jewish Chronicle.  Here's JC editor, Stephen Pollard:
The AsAJews only ever come from one side of the fence: anti-Zionist, pro-boycott and anti-anti-antisemitism. Have you ever heard anyone say: “As a Jew, I must say how much I support Israel’s right to exist”, or “As a Jew, let me state how much I disagree with the idea of a boycott”?
Next up there's even a hashtag for this racist expression: #AsaJew.  Let's have a look at that. On second thoughts, this is a family blog but I didn't see any anti-Zionists sneering at the expression "As a Jew".

Now I would have skipped over this Reddit but the little bit of blurb on the google page drew me in:
This subreddit is for public shaming of loudmouthes thinking that pretending being jewish adds them credibility. A typical post of this kind of person starts with "As a former jew, converted to humanity..."
So much has this "AsaJew" putdown been chucked around it even got an entry in The Encyclopedia of Decency back in 2009

Bizarre ethnoreligious insult used by wackadoodle wingnuts to demean and disregard the opinions of non-wingnut members of the Jewish faith that this writer, for one, is not touching with a fucking bargepole.
Posted by Malky Muscular at 09:17
Labels: Insults

And they are the top entries I found on the google search and yet Baroness Royall had no awareness of them.   If I had kept going I could have listed Harry's Place and a Harry's Placer called Marc Goldberg.  But as I said this is a family blog and besides the list of Zionists using the antisemitic putdown "AsaJew" is literally endless since more come on stream every day.

Now I can well understand Baroness Royall treating false allegations as evidence but what I don't understand is how she missed so many egregious examples of Zionist antisemitism as to leave such a hostage to fortune. 

May 12, 2016

Young Zionists censor themselves!

See if you can spot the difference between these two extracts from a post that appeared on the Israeli Labour Party's UK branch website.
This is what you see now:
In recent weeks The Guardian has published a series of letters (like this one and thisone) from groups of individuals setting out positions on Zionism & antisemitism that are far removed from mainstream Jewish Labour perspectives.  
 And this is what appeared yesterday:

Curiously I can't access the site via google cache to check the rest of what they wrote but I had a feeling they'd excise the offensive suggestion that Jewish critics of Israel aren't quite the real thing. They're actually complaining that their letter to The Guardian wasn't published and they lament The Guardian's lack of balance.  But have a good look at the letter.  Maybe The Guardian was doing them a favour by not publishing it but then The Guardian's been doing the Zionists quite a lot of favours lately.

PS: The Jewish Labour Movement is a "faction within the World Zionist Organisation"

May 03, 2016

Why is a Sun reporter supporting Momentum Head Jon Lansman?

I noticed a Sun reporter, @MrHarryCole touting Jon Lansman ludicrous idea of banning the word "Zionism" from discussions in Labour Party circles.  I thought it was odd for anything anyone connected to Corbyn to get Sun approval.  Sam Kiley, an ardent Zionist, before he began working for Murdoch at Sky actually left The Times because of Murdoch's aggressive proprietorial interventionism for Israel's sake.

Here's his tweet:
Obviously leftists noticed how Jon Lansman of the supposed grass roots Corbynite support group, Momentum, had won the approval of a Murdoch staffer.  It's hard to imagine that a pat on the back for a Corbynite from a Murdoch staffer would happen without approval from the Digger himself.  It would be like Ha'avara happening without Hitler's approval. At the time I didn't think too much of the Sun imprimatur.  I just tweeted how it was ludicrous to ban the word "Zionism" from Labour Party discussions.  But I then got retweeted by this Harry Cole chap, look:
Now look at the thread after the tweet Cole quote/retweeted:

See my little offering there?
Well at this point Jon Lansman's Comrade Harry Cole seems to have had a panic because now look:

See that? The guy engages with me by QRTing my tweet then blocks me. But did you see the side bar when it asks you to consider following something similar to what you were looking at? Yup, The Telegraph - no surprise there - and Jon Lansman. And why am I not surprised at that one?

So what have we learned? Jon Lansman is either a Zionist himself or at least someone willing to appease Zionism for some short term gain. He certainly seems to have pleased someone at the Murdoch stables. And when I mentioned the Diggers interests in the Golan heights the previously cocky Harry Cole had a panic.

And what haven't we learned? Well what I, rather than we, haven't learned is what the flip is going on?

May 02, 2016

More on Hitler's support for Zionism

Here's another comment from the Crooked Timber site post supposedly about this orchestrated campaign against the Labour leadership and left.  This comment was from Corey Robin:
This is from Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews. Volume I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939. Friedlander, along with Yehuda Bauer, is considered the dean of Holocaust historians.
In addition, the material difficulty of emigrating was considerable, especially in a period of economic uncertainty; it entailed an immediate and heavy material loss….
In one instance only were the economic conditions of emigration somewhat facilitated. Not only did the regime encourage Zionist activities on the territory of the Reich, but concrete economic measures were taken to ease the departure of the Jews for Palestine. The so-called Haavarah (Hebrew: Transfer) Agreement, concluded on August 27, 1933, between the German Ministry of the Economy and Zionist representatives from Germany and Palestine, allowed Jewish emigrants indirect transfer of part of their assets and facilitated exports of goods from Nazi Germany to Palestine. As a result, some one hundred million Riechsmarks were transferred to Palestine, and most of the sixty thousand Germany Jews who arrived in that country during 1933-39 could thereby ensure a minimal basis for their material existence.

…About Zionism itself, moreover, Nazi ideology and Nazi policies were divided from the outset: while favoring, like all other European extreme anti-Semites, Zionism as a means of enticing the Jews to leave Europe, they also considered the Zionist organization established in Basel in 1987 as a key element of the Jewish world conspiracy….

Even before the conclusion of the Haavarah Agreement, such “cooperation” [between the Nazis and the Zionists] took bizarre forms. Thus, in early 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein, a man who a few years later was to become chief of the Jewish section of the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst, or security service, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich), was invited along with his wife to tour Palestine and write a series of articles for Goebbels’s Der Angriff . And so it was that the Mildensteins, accompanied by Kurt Tuchler, a leading member of the Berlin Zionist Organization, and his wife, visited Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel. The highly positive articles, entitled “A Nazi Visits Palestine,” were duly published, and, to mark the occasion, a special medallion cast, with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

Zionist hopes were moderated by practical worries about excessive numbers of immigrants. “In order that the immigration not flood the existing settlement in Palestine like lava,” Ruppin declared at the Zionist Congress held in Prague in the summer of 1933, “it must be proportionate to a certain percentage of that settlement.” This remained the policy for several years to come, and well after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws, both the German Zionists and the leader of the Yishuv were still envisaging an annual rate of fifteen to twenty thousand German-Jewish emigrants, extending over a period of twenty to thirty years.
Later in the book, Friedlander talks about a growing move in the mid to late 1930s against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine among certain sectors of the Nazi Foreign Ministry. This led to increasing opposition to that Haavarah agreement, which was the Nazi policy for facilitating Jewish emigration to Palestine. But this is what Friedlander has to say about that growing opposition to the Haavarah agreement:
But no one [in the Nazi foreign ministry] dared to take any concrete measures against the agreement, as Hitler had not yet expressed his viewpoint. His decision announced at the end of January 1938, clearly implied maintenance of the Haavarah: Further Jewish emigration [to Palestine] by all possible means . The bureaucracy was left with only one choice: Comply. And so it did. 

Lots of Zionists are quick to point out that Hitler said he didn't like Zionists in Mein Kampf  but the above excerpt shows that he seems to have changed his mind some time between the 1925 publication of Hitler's book and Ha'avara in 1933.

It's stuff like this that is going to have the Zionists biting off more than they can chew especially if they try to take on Ken Livingstone.

UPDATE: What a difference 3 years makes. I don't remember when Ken left Labour but the Zionists have defeated him for now.  I actually have no idea what landed me in the edit version of this page but, boy, was I embarrassed when I read that last line.

Hitler's support for Zionism

I hardly blog anymore but I thought I ought to grab some stuff from the net while it's hot.  Ken Livingstone is the latest casualty in the orchestrated campaign against the Labour leadership and left because he said something like, "Hitler supported Zionism".

There's a not entirely bad article on the Crooked Timber website by some banker (really) called Daniel.  I'm not quite sure what he's saying and frankly I don't really trust him because I think he's saying that there seems to be something in these allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party but he doesn't give many or even any examples.  But I'm just grabbing this quote from Hannah Arendt which the commenter seems to think supports Ken:
But quite apart from all slogans and ideological quarrels, it was in those years a fact of everyday life that only Zionists had any chance of negotiating with the German authorities, for the simple reason that their chief Jewish adversary, the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, to which ninety-five per cent of organized Jews in Germany then belonged, specified in its bylaws that its chief task was the “fight against anti-Semitism”; it had suddenly become by definition an organization “hostile to the State,” and would indeed have been persecuted—which it was not—if it had ever dared to do what it was supposed to do. During its first few years, Hitler’s rise to power appeared to the Zionists chiefly as “the decisive defeat of assimilationism.” Hence, the Zionists could, for a time, at least, engage in a certain amount of non-criminal cooperation with the Nazi authorities; the Zionists too believed that “dissimilation,” combined with the emigration to Palestine of Jewish youngsters and, they hoped, Jewish capitalists, could be a “mutually fair solution.” At the time. many German officials held this opinion, and this kind of talk seems to have been quite common up to the end. A letter from a survivor of Theresienstadt, a German Jew, relates that all leading positions in the Nazi- appointed Reichsvereinigung were held by Zionists (whereas the authentically Jewish Reichsvertretung had been composed of both Zionists and non- Zionists), because Zionists, according to the Nazis, were “the ‘decent’ Jews since they too thought in ‘national’ terms.” To be sure, no prominent Nazi ever spoke publicly in this vein; from beginning to end, Nazi propaganda was fiercely, unequivocally, uncompromisingly anti-Semitic, and eventually nothing counted but what people who were still without experience in the mysteries of totalitarian government dismissed as “mere propaganda.” There existed in those first years a mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine—a Ha’avarah, or Transfer Agreement, which provided that an emigrant to Palestine could transfer his money there in German goods and exchange them for pounds upon arrival. It was soon the only legal way for a Jew to take his money with him (the alternative then being the establishment of a blocked account, which could be liquidated abroad only at a loss of between fifty and ninety-five per cent). The result was that ¡n the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organize a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods “made in Germany.”
There's a lot more out there to demonstrate that Hitler supported Zionism from the time he came to power to the outbreak of WWII and if I remember I'll grab it and post it.

Zionists are beside themselves that what Ken Livingstone said, whilst clumsy and wrong in parts, was essentially true and certainly not antisemitic.  But of course they could have done without an exercise in Zio-Nazi collaboration getting an airing because as much as they seem to be able to get Labourites suspended with a snap of their fingers, the question has to be asked, what were the Zionists doing collaborating with such a rabid Jew hater?

They were saving Jews of course.  But were they?  See the deal.  Jews could get much more money out of Germany if they went to Palestine than if they went elsewhere.  Now if you understand Zionism then you will understand that Zionists prefer to get Jews to Palestine than to anywhere else and the Zionist leadership were clear that they would rather have x amount of Jews in Palestine the twice that number safe elsewhere.

But Hitler had to approve this deal.  Why would he approve it?  Simples! to get rid of Jews. But why Palestine?  Because it was easier.  But it wasn't easier.  Jews could go to other places.  The main difficulty was turning up penniless.  The question of why Zionists wanted Jews in Palestine is like asking why Zionists wanted to be Zionists.  But the big question and it's still a mystery is why was Hitler so keen not simply to get rid of Jews but to get Jews to go to Palestine.

Perplexing one that and one Zionists aren't too keen to answer.  Maybe we'll never know.  But what we do know is that for a time back there, Hitler supported Zionism.