April 26, 2021

A Plug for The Wayback Machine

If you see something on the net that you think might get disappeared save its url at the Wayback Machine. It's easy to use and I believe it's tamper proof. You save a url and the page is preserved as was no matter what happens after.

It's my own Amazon review of David Baddiel's stupid book. At the mo it has 281 helpfuls so that is what will appear on Wayback even if the figure increases. Wayback is also useful for saving fascist and zionist stuff so as not to give them clicks  or so as not to link directly to them.

April 20, 2021

Napolean the Zionist - Scottish PSC On This Day Series

On this day in 1799, Napoleon issued a call for a Jewish Palestine as a bulwark against Britain, a century

before the birth of Jewish Zionism. “In year 7 of the French Republic, Buonaparte, Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the French Republic in Africa and Asia - to the rightful heirs of Palestine“...herewith calls on you…to take over that which has been conquered and, with French warranty and support...to maintain it against all comers.”  https://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/on-this-day?id=246&view=event  

Receive On this day daily by sending your name via WhatsApp to +44 7592 321692  

April 19, 2021

Is Baddiel calling Ken Loach a Holocaust Denier?

David Baddiel attempted a bit of a pile on against me a couple of weeks ago and in so doing seems to have accused Ken Loach of Holocaust denial.

The smearing of Ken Loach begins with the BBC wildly misrepresenting a speech by Miko Peled at a fringe meeting hosted by Free Speech on Israel at the Labour Conference 2017. Labour had done remarkably well in the general election of that year and the establishment decided to focus all the smearing on exaggerated, manipulated or fabricated allegations of antisemitism. Anyway, here's Miko Peled:

There was no discussion, just that remark by Miko Peled. Anyway, let's see now what the BBC did with that:

It's interesting but at some point in the interview the interviewer notes that Loach is alleging that some Labour MPs - actually it was mostly Labour MPs - were "confecting" allegations of antisemitism before going on to do exactly that herself. But anyway, this is the interview where Loach is wrongfooted by a Beeber flat out lying about what had occurred at the aforementioned FSOI meeting. She said that there had been a discussion as to whether or not the Holocaust had happened. Having no clue what she was talking about but knowing she was lying, he couldn't straight up condemn Holocaust denial or debate because that would have seemed like confirming that the discussion that had not taken place had taken place.  Wow, I just looked at the video again and the Beeber was such an outrageous liar.  Look from 01.44 "there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn't it?" Loach shakes his head vigorously and says "I don't think there was a discussion". She then says "well it was reported and it was on the [unintelligible]" She then says 01.57 "would you say that is unacceptable?" Loach then says "I think history is there for us all to discuss", thereby turning to a generalisation about history, not the specifics of the Holocaust.

This is one of the most lied about lines of the whole long smear campaign and the BBC's tweet truncating the clip so as to lie about Loach is still in place. Dave Rich of the Israel lobby and security group, Community Security Trust, couldn't resist his own mischief, tweeting that "Ken Loach said....whether the Holocaust happened "is there for us all to discuss".

But Dave stops short of calling Loach a Holocaust denier. He was challenged by Linda Sayle.

Now if you look, even Dave Rich wasn't stooping to accusing Loach of denial, just of tolerance towards deniers and debate with them.

Poor Linda didn't know how Dave likes to play with quotation marks. Do you see how his quotes are simply around "is there for us all to discuss", not "whether the Holocaust happened"? Dave does that all the time. Anyway, Dave did not, repeat not, call Loach a Holocaust denier. But note, he stops short of denying "scattering accusations of antisemitism around like confetti". He should have stopped at "I have no idea".

Anyway, David Baddiel picks up and runs amok with Dave Rich's smear and, for the book, sexes it up just a tad.  See page 66 on:

The film director Ken Loach was made a judge of a school competition run by Show Racism the Red Card, which is a football anti-racist charity similar to Kick It Out. In 2016, [it was 2017] during an interview at the Labour Party conference, Loach said, on being asked about the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust, [Miko Peled in the above clip] ‘Well, I think history is there for us all to discuss.’ He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier*, [my italics] but nonetheless this appointment led to protests from the Jewish community. For a while, SRtRC reacted angrily, doubling down, getting Eric Cantona to tweet about what a great anti-racist Ken Loach was and suchlike. In the end, Loach did step down from judging the competition, but as ever there was no outcry from progressive quarters – only Jewish ones – about the possible incongruity of his appointment.

I wouldn’t particularly mention this – it’s just a standard, everyday example of #JewsDontCount – were it not for the fact that while this minor furore was going on, a man called Dave Rich, who works for a charity, the Community Security Trust, which provides security against racist attack for Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, [and lobbies the government for Israel and smears Israel's critics] tweeted this:

Followed by a second tweet that just said: ‘I can think of better judges for an anti-racism competition.’ I retweeted it. And then Ken Loach’s son, Jim, tweeted this:

First up Baddiel misrepresents Miko Peled. Baddiel has written a book which he intends to be taken seriously. Clearly he is either lying about Miko Peled or he simply didn't check anything, even the thread that he RTd a tweet from. In fairness the lack of checking is possible given he gets the year wrong. But even without checking, surely he realised that Dave Rich was being slippery with the Ken Loach quote. If he didn't know any of this or didn't reason any of this for himself, then why did he ignore most of Jim Loach's tweet?  "@Baddiel casually retweets internet trolls like @daverich1 who defame my father @KenLoachSixteen".

Jim Loach protests Baddiel RTing "internet trolls like @Dave Rich who defame" his father. No pause for thought over the word "defame", no? Jim Loach is accusing Baddiel and Rich (and by extension and most concerning of all, the BBC) of lying about Ken Loach, which they all were. But Baddiel had points to score and scores to settle so he takes the opportunity to show what a know-nothing he really is. 

You see, Jim Loach references one of Baddiel's racist outbursts, this one against the former footballer, Jason Lee who Baddiel encouraged famously racist football fans to mock by way of Baddiel donning blackface makeup and wearing a pineapple on his head to represent dreadlocks.Googling Baddiel, pineapple, Jason Lee, stuff like that, you will happen upon many an article with Jason Lee saying that Baddiel never apologised to him for what he did. Baddiel claims he apologised. He doesn't say who he apologised to and doesn't seem to realise even what he did wrong. Now see page 70:

What the apologies make no difference to is the recurring presence of that photo on my Twitter timeline. Particularly since I started speaking out publicly about anti-Semitism, whether it be anti-Semitism in general or on the left. In fact, it can seem that what the people demanding apologies from me want is not apologies. What they seem to want, really, is silence. They want me to shut up, particularly about anti-Semitism. As far as they are concerned, the photo of me as Jason Lee is a trump card that means I cannot speak about racism...

There is a tactic some of you may be aware of called Whataboutery. 

Yup, there is a tactic called Whataboutery. It's when you justify your own wrongdoing by reference to the wrongdoing of your opponents.  But Jim Loach is not accusing Baddiel of doing what his father has done. He is correctly calling Baddiel a liar about his father and a hypocritical liar over antisemitism. 

But there is another charge of hypocrisy to be made against Baddiel. He says that his own racism is used to try to disqualify him from talking about racism in other situations, in particular in his case, against Jews, He says this is a #Jewsdon'tcount instance. But that's exactly what Baddiel is saying about Ken Loach. The only difference is that Baddiel, Rich and the BBC all lied about Loach. You don't have to look far to find examples of Baddiel's racism. That is, you don't have to lie to make a racist out of Baddiel.

Here he is saying he looks like a "pikey".

Here he is essentialising Blacks, Asians and Jews by occupation. He got some rare mainstream flack for that, albeit in the Guardian's letters page.

But really mentioning two (three with blackface - many with blackface many times) examples of Baddiel's racism spanning over 20 years doesn't convey nearly enough of it.

He does another slippery thing. He claims that people have tried to silence him since he started talking about antisemitism as if this postdates the examples of his racism which go back to the 1990s but I'm sure I saw him alleging antisemitism against Israel's leftist critics back in the 1990s, which you could say was Baddiel's racist heyday if only it was over. 

But the final thing is this. I remember the first time I read Baddiel's stupid book, the line about Ken Loach that baffled me the most was after Baddiel claimed Loach was challenged about "the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust" we have what looks like a non sequitur:

He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier

Now remember Dave Rich insisted he certainly wasn't accusing anyone, certainly not Loach, of Holocaust denial. So who did accuse Ken Loach of being a Holocaust denier? Why would Baddiel say he denies it?

It rankled with me as I was sure my skim reading had let me down. That's one reason I got the Kindle version, so I can cross-reference, search, copy and paste, etc.

But then a couple of weeks ago I was googling for something, probably Baddiel related and I found that Baddiel himself has been "confronting Holocaust denial", ie, debating with Holocaust deniers,ie, what I thought Baddiel, Dave Rich and the BBC were falsely accusing Ken Loach of promoting.

I noticed that in the BBC puff for the stuff two Holocaust deniers are named and it appeared that Baddiel goes off to debate these people. I tweeted that Baddiel was doing what he falsely accused Ken Loach of doing, ie, debating the Holocaust. Actually, it's worse, it's publicising not simply the fact that some people deny the Holocaust but their names. This meant that people intent on denying the Holocaust could hone and further publicise their arguments by going to the go-to names. 

I tweeted my criticism in a four tweet thread.

The BBC's lie that Jewish socialists discussed whether or not the Holocaust happened was the most disgusting of all the lies in a smear campaign that is still ongoing. In fact, Baddiel's book with the Loach smear replicated in it is the most recent contribution to the campaign.

That could have been that but rather then respond to my first tweet that QRTd his tweet, he grabbed the fourth one which didn't name anyone and didn't tag him. He knew that I was slagging him over Loach but none of his followers could know because he grabbed the tweet, he didn't QRT it. Sneaky huh? Look: 

Now even in the tweet he grabbed there is no suggestion he is a Holocaust denier. That's just silly and his followers are silly. Many of them replied to him saying how illogical I was and some had a go directly at me. I responded pointing out that I had said that he condemned Loach for promoting Holocaust debate whereas by confronting Holocaust deniers he is engaging in the debate that he falsely condemned Loach for promoting.

Well in all the toing and froing, I finally said to someone, the only way Baddiel's tweet tagging me works is if he thinks that me comparing what he is doing to what he accused Loach of doing is if he is accusing Loach of Holocaust denial. Oh wait! Finally the penny dropped. "He [Loach] has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier" followed by the word "but". Baddiel seems to be flatly contradicting his mentor, Dave Rich (or maybe Rich is Baddiel's mentee). Baddiel appears to be accusing Ken Loach of Holocaust denial. I wonder.

By the way, the smearing of Ken Loach is yet another score settling exercise in Baddiel's stupid book. This time it is more aimed at Ken's son Jim. What a piece of work that Baddiel (aged 55) is.

BBC still smearing Ken Loach after all these years

 This BBC tweet basically lying about Ken Loach should not still be there. But since it is, I'll embed it here to show what liars they are. 

Please watch the 46 seconds that the BBC presents via its tweet. Thank you.

Now watch a fuller version of the same interview:

The length of that one is 2 minutes and 28 seconds. The fuller version shows the BBC's desperation in trying to present evidence of left antisemitism.

Does anyone know the name of the lying piece of shit from the BBC?

By the way, this is only clip I could find of Miko Peled saying "Holocaust, yes or no?" which was the only mention of the Holocaust at the Free Speech on Israel LabCon17 fringe meeting the Beeber was lying about. 

April 05, 2021

JDA Smokes Out the IHRA - It's all about Israel

It didn't take long for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism to come to the attention of the Zionist movement. The JDA is a new definition of antisemitism that directly challenges the IHRA with its eleven examples, 6 of which are about The State of Israel and none of which mention racism against Jews or indeed Zionism.

Here's the JDA's definition:

Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)

There you go. I would have simply said racism against Jews but that'll do. It works as a definition which is more than can be said for the IHRA which is as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

It's hardly a definition at all. According to that definition I could go outside and say something pleasant to a non-Jew and that could be construed as antisemitism because I "may" have been perceiving Jews in a "certain" way when I "directed" my pleasantness at a "non-Jewish individual". On the other hand, someone could break into my house, point a gun and me, shout "die effing Jew" and shoot me and that "may" not be picked by the IHRA definition but it definitely would be picked up by the JDA as you can see.

But the IHRA has examples upon which it depends for meaning or I should say meaningfulness. Even the first one looks sound but is dodgy. 

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Really? What about calling for aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews simply for being Jews. Suppose militant supporters of some ideology or other kill people who turn out to be Jewish but it wasn't the reason they were targeted? Bloody stupid. But of course the JDA has that one sorted in the definition.

But of course the real villain of the IHRA piece is its example number 7:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

But it also has other little protections for The State of Israel:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.


Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis


criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic

That last little protection for free speech is a pretence because it has been taken to mean that if you criticise Israel you have to criticise other states for similar things on the same agenda.

Anyway, what does JDA say?
Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic (whether or not one approves of the view or action)

Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.

Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid. 

Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. 

Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.

You'd never know it but it all tallies with the current legal situation in the UK and in most of the world, including Israel funnily enough, though in Israel the legal situation often depends who is saying a given thing, a Jew or an Arab.

But anyway, first out of the stocks to condemn the JDA was an online mag so right wing, Melanie Phillips is there as a token moderate. It's called Jewish News Syndicate. It's a bit of a whinge simply insisting that criticism of Israel and seeking its abolition are antisemitic. I was pleased to see the piece because it showed that the JDA was already having an impact as Zionists scrambled to save their bogus definition. But next up was Dave Rich of the Israel advocacy and Jewish security group, Community Security Trust. Writing in the Jewish Chronicle Rich made clear that it was all about Israel. 

Dave is put out that the JDA mentions Israel and Palestine lots of times. Of course, the IHRA didn't mention Palestine at all. Rich says that the IHRA has been used as an "informal tool" for investigating incidents but he doesn't say where or how or what the outcomes have been. Of course, he doesn't mention its greatest success has been silencing criticism of Israel or getting people thrown out of the UK Labour Party.

He criticises that the JDA doesn't mention "hate crime" but neither does the IHRA. And take a look at this:

the Jerusalem Declaration has serious flaws. Its core definition tells us antisemitism is “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” This formulation risks missing all but the most overt cases. The Hungarian government’s campaign against George Soros never mentions the fact Soros is Jewish but it derives its resonance and force from the use of antisemitic language.

Actually it's nice of Dave to highlight the antisemitism of an ally of Israel and the Tories, the antisemitic Orban government of Hungary. But what does the JDA say?

Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance.

Is the Rothschild conspiracy theory really so different from Soros? No, it's not at all different. Why does Dave do this?

The IHRA definition’s warning against comparing Israel to Nazi Germany has been removed; instead we are told that “even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases”. Whereas the IHRA definition says it could be antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, the Jerusalem Declaration finds a convoluted way to say that it is not, on the face of it, antisemitic to argue for the elimination of Israel, as long as Jews’ “collective rights” are respected in any future arrangement.

Aha, now we see. The IHRA does not "warn" against comparing Israel to the Nazis, it forbids it and belies the claim that criticism of Israel similar to that of other countries is permissible. But why shouldn't people say that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians has been a crime against humanity? Why shouldn't people be allowed to argue for Jews and Arabs and neither to be equal in the one state that might not be called Israel?

The good news here is that a workable and genuine definition of antisemitism is out there and being noticed. If that Dave Rich article is the best the Zionists can do it should start getting adopted as soon as it starts getting discussed.