Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Jewish Labour Supporters Attack the Anti-Semitism Witch-Hunters

March 18, 2019

Oh ho! Mike today posted a very interesting article about two letters written by Jewish supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party, which the anti-Semitism witch-hunters will definitely not like.

One was written to the Groaniad by 200 Jewish ladies, who were angered by the formerly left-wing newspaper’s unqualified support of Margaret Hodge. Hodge was disappointed that so few people have been charged with anti-Semitism, as she personally had denounced 200 people. They pointed out that of 111 people she had accused, only 20 were actually members of the Labour party. The other 91 were nothing to do with the party’s disciplinary procedure and her complaints against them were a waste of the party’s time.

They also said that her other claims – that the party should shut down those branches which had expressed loyalty to Chris Williamson, or refused to adopt the I.H.R.A. definition of anti-Semitism should be similarly treated as suspect. They supported Williamson’s statement that the party had been too apologetic in its treatment of the anti-Semitism accusations, and stated that the I.H.R.A. definition of anti-Semitism had been shredded by two QCS and the Jewish human rights specialist, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, and the Jewish retired appealed court judge, Stephen Sedley. Their letter concludes

All signatories to this letter grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. We know we must maintain eternal vigilance against antisemitic resurgence. But we also celebrate our Jewishness, especially the disputatiousness (pace our aphorism: two Jews three opinions) central to Jewish identity. We are terrified by Margaret Hodge’s attempt to hijack our history and rewrite our identity and by unwillingness to investigate, fact check and challenge her allegations.

The Groaniad refused to print the letter, on the grounds that it didn’t say anything new. So two Jewish Labour ladies, Naomi Wayner and Leah Levane, one of whom was a signatory to the letter, published an article about it and the text  of the letter in the Prole Star.

See: https://www.prole-star.co.uk/single-post/2019/03/15/Jewish-Labour-Women-The-Voices-The-Guardian-Wants-To-Silence

Mike comments that this means that probably more people will see it and read it than if it had been published by the paper.

The Sunday Times, when of the offenders in the media smears of decent people as anti-Semites, also printed a letter by 12 Holocaust survivors. They state that they don’t believe the party is perpetrating any hostility or prejudice towards Jews, and if it is, it is minimal, and no more prevalent than in any other party. And rather than considering Jeremy Corbyn a threat, they say he has been over backwards for Jews.

They also state

Media attention on the Labour Party in general, and on Corbyn in particular, is being generated by anti-Labour and anti-Corbyn mischief makers, who unfortunately are over-represented within the so-called Anglo-Jewish leadership — a leadership whose legitimacy is not recognised by the mainstream Haredi (strictly Orthodox) Jews.

The Jewish Chronicle, a paper with a proud future behind it, has criticised the letter, and in particularly claimed that the authors or somehow connected to Shraga Stern, the Orthodox Jew, who appeared in a photo with Corbyn during his visit to Finsbury Park mosque. The paper also claimed that the rabbis who signed an earlier letter of support for Corbyn didn’t know what they were signing. According to the Skwawkbox, both claims have been thoroughly refuted. See:

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/03/17/jewish-chronicle-pushes-fake-news-to-discredit-pro-corbyn-letter/

Mike also notes that the film Witchhunt, about the persecution of anti-Zionists and Corbyn supporters within the Labour party, has just been released. He hasn’t seen it yet, but encourages everyone to do so. He ends his article

The mainstream – the ‘establishment’ – will try hard to regain the initiative; we have seen one attempt already in the response of the Jewish Chronicle. The best advice you can take is to use your own intelligence and make up your own mind, based on the evidence available and the reliability of those providing it.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/03/18/at-long-last-the-voices-of-opponents-of-the-anti-semitism-witch-hunt-are-being-heard/#comments

I’m surprised that the Sunset Times published the article by Holocaust survivors, but perhaps they were afraid of the bad press they’d get if they didn’t. As Jewish bloggers like Tony Greenstein, Martin Odoni and David Rosenberg have pointed out, Orthodox Jews are not represented by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and don’t recognise the Chief Rabbi. And I suspect that Haredi Judaism of some of the signatories may well also be embarrassing to some of the witchhunters. According to a recent article by Shaun Lawson, a liberal Zionist, witchhunter Jonathan Hoffman tried to shut down Jewish supporters of Corbyn with a questionnaire asking them about how Jewish they were in terms of synagogue attendance, activity within the Jewish community, adherence to the Jewish purity laws and Torah, and so on. He had to abandon this approach. From what I gather, the Haredi are a Jewish revival movement, who call Orthodox Jews into a full observance of the Mosaic Law. Which means that there can be absolutely no question about their Jewishness, not that Hoffman’s wretched questionnaire could ever quantify that and the merest suggestion that it could is ridiculous. The Jewish community is divided in its adherence to the Law, from the very strict – the Orthodox and the Haredi, to the less so, like Reform Jews. But all of them view themselves as devout Jews, just as I’ve no doubt the third of the community that is secular also do not deny or are ashamed of their heritage.

As for Shraga Stern, who the Jewish Chronicle seems to believe was somehow involved in persuading the Holocaust survivors to write their letter, he has also received a threatening message because of his appearance with Corbyn, just like Mrs Manson. Is the Jewish Chronicle trying to stir up more hatred against him through its article?

I’m sure Mike’s right that further attacks will come, especially as Survation has put Labour five points ahead of the Tories. But with claims like anti-Semitism, you do have to exercise proper scepticism and critical thinking. You have to ask what the issues really are behind the article, who is writing it, and what they are not telling you. 

 

Advertisements

Arbitrary Detention in Fascist Italy and the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition’s Secret Courts

March 17, 2019

Fascism was, from its very origins in 1919 an aggressive, violent movement that sought to destroy and suppress its opponents. But the creation of the Fascist police state was only really created in November 1926 with the passage of the legge di pubblica sicurezza, or Public Safety Law. This was introduced by the former Nationalist politician Alfredo Rocco, who declared

The function of public security is no longer to be considered as something exceptional, in conflict with the dogma of individual liberty as the foundation and aim of society. It is, on the contrary, to be judged as one of the primary functions of the activity of the state…. It is therefore an activity whose exercise cannot be obstructed by absurd preconceptions.

This allowed the Fascist parties to arrest and send into internal exile and confinement people who were only suspected of subversion without legal representation or redress. And it followed legislation originally passed by the liberal Italian state, which Mussolini and his thugs had overthrown.

I found this description of the law, its effects and its liberal origins in Adrian Lyttelton’s The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy 1919-1929 (London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Lt: 2nd Edition 1987). pp. 298-9. After the above quotation from Rocco, Lyttelton writes

With this flat repudiation of all doctrines of natural law or individual rights went the abolition of all distinctions between the State as a permanent entity and the Government of the moment. The safety of Fascism and the safety of the State were treated as identical.

In accordance with these premises, all vestiges of the responsibility of the executive for its actions were annulled. The citizen was left without redress; the police were no longer required to produce reasons to justify the imposition of restrictions on liberty. The police authority, for example, enjoyed absolute discretion in granting authorization to form associations or to exercise certain professions: ‘consequently the citizen has no right to obtain authorization, or – having obtained it – to keep it.

The institution of confino made possible the internal exile and confinement to an enforced domicile, for a period of up to five years, of those suspected of the intention of engaging in subversive activity. The procedures governing the operation of the confino were especially arbitrary. the decision to commit suspects to the confino was taken by a provincial committee presided over by the Prefect; the only appeal was to a committee headed by the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. The accused could be arrested at once, before their appeal was heard, and they were not allowed either to employ a lawyer or to summon witnesses in their defence. The jurisdiction of the magistracy was entirely excluded. Moreover these unpredictable and arbitrary procedures gave an opportunity for the party to interfere. It was usually the party which denounced suspects, and on occasion local leaders, like Carlo Scorza in Lucca, used the mechanism of confino to deal with their personal enemies. it is true that regular imprisonment could not be inflicted by administrative order, as in some totalitarian regimes. The Special Tribunal set up to judge ‘crimes against the State’, which had the power to inflict the death penalty, preserved legal forms, even if the composition of the court made these a very slight safeguard.

Unfortunately the creation of the Police state in Italy was much assisted by the inadequacy of the guarantees for liberty provided under the parliamentary system. The Fascist regime was able to build upon established institutions and precedents. Confino itself was an inheritance from the Liberal State: though domicilio coatto, as it was then known, was originally intended for use against the Mafia, the camorra and brigandage, governments soon gave way to the temptation to use the weapon against political suspects. However under Giolitti the application of domicilio coatto had been confined to professional criminals. In other respects, too, the procedures of the Liberal state had left much room for arbitrary police action. The sweeping emergency measures of January 1925 were legitimized by the vague and undefined powers given to the Prefects under article 3 of the existing communal and provincial law. The power of fermo, or preventative arrest, had always been much abused, and the attempt of the 1912 penal code to introduce the rule of habeas corpus had not been a success; the police and other officials were in practice almost entirely immune from prosecution for excess or abuse of their powers. Even the sanctions of public opinion and parliamentary discussion, though effective in securing new political liberties after 1900, were usually powerless to check the more humdrum abuse of official authority. Nor can the trouble be traced exclusively to official attitudes, the truth is that to a vast number of the Italian people, especially in the backward rural areas, the informal exercise of power to keep the peace, based on tradition or practical intuition, appeared more comprehensible than the workings of the law, which were slow, cumbersome, and bore little relation to real needs.

This is very much, however, the kind of situation that may arise through the legislation the Tory -Lib Dem coalition signed in, which introduces secret courts. Similar legislation was also introduced, or mooted, by that famous Labour moderate and Centrist politician, Tony Blair. Under this legislation in the interests of national security you may be arrested without know the charges against you, and tried in a court from which the press and public have been excluded. You may not know who the witnesses are, and evidence may be withheld from you and your lawyers. It’s the kind of kangaroo court like the perverted judicial systems of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. And very similar to the quasi-judicial proceedings the Labour party has been using to throw out those accused of anti-Semitism. That passage describing the operation of a similar judicial system in Fascist Italy shows the immense dangers in giving such vast, arbitrary power to the police and the State.

We haven’t got to that stage quite yet, but the Fascist system’s precedents in the domicilio coatto of the liberal Italian state and its acceptance by a large section of the Italian public also shows how such repressive measures can be easily introduced to a public, which has been prepared for it by a relatively free state. Just as the introduction of the secret court legislation and the hysteria whipped up by the press about the threat of terrorism could easily prepare the British public for something much closer to the police states of Fascist Italy, Nazi German and Stalinist communism later.

By introducing and supporting secret courts, Blair, the Tories and the Lib Dems have shown that they are enemies of democracy. They have to be thoroughly rejected. If we want a genuinely free and democratic Britain, the only choice is to vote for a socialist Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn. 

After Mosque Massacre, Islamophobe Tommy Robinson Rants about Muslims and ‘White Replacement’

March 17, 2019

It’s only a couple of days after the horrific attack by White supremacists on the mosques in New Zealand. The country’s in mourning, and decent people around the world are united with the victims in their shock and grief. But even as we see the pictures of the tearful survivors and their communities, and the Kiwi PM herself paying their tributes to the victims, the Nazis have started to come back out of the woodwork.

Zelo Street has today put up a piece reporting the vile comments in Belgium by Tommy Robinson, aka Stephen Yaxley Lennon, formerly of the BNP, previous founder and supremo of the EDL and one of the leading figures of Pegida UK, before they got rid of him. After losing his court case against Cambridgeshire police for harassment, discrimination and human rights abuses, Robinson had gone to Belgium for a conference on Free Speech. He gave an interview stating that NGOs in Britain were working to suppress freedom of expression, and that simply stating you were opposed to islamicisation would get you sacked.

Zelo Street here helpfully points out that this is a reference to the case of one Tom Dupre, a merchant banker, who was revealed by Hope Not Hate to be the-then leader of the Fascist group, Generation Identity. This was why he was sacked by his employers, Standard Chartered. But of course, Robinson didn’t mention his membership of this malevolent organisation when alluding to his case in his wretched video attacking the Panorama investigation into him.

But this wasn’t all Robinson said. He carried on, saying like him were being beaten and persecuted in order to make an example of them to the rest of the population, who should put up with it all and not complain about the authorities decision to replace them with mass Muslim immigration. The interviewer rightly said that this was the ‘White Genocide’ theory. Which was promptly hotly denied by Robinson, who said he didn’t have a White Genocide theory, as he wasn’t talking about Whites, only Muslims.

But Zelo Street points out that the ‘Great Replacement’ is part of the ‘White Genocide’ theory, held by Fascist groups like Generation Identity, whose leading European figure, Martin Sellner, and his girlfriend, Britanny Pettibone, are friends of Robinson’s.

Zelo Street’s article concludes

And there was Stephen Lennon promoting the White Genocide conspiracy theory – except he wasn’t quite doing that. Because he didn’t say “white”. It was all about Islamisation, and in his world, Islam is not a race and so he can’t really be racist.
He talks like a racist, and acts like a racist. But he isn’t a racist. So don’t call him one.
See: http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/03/tommy-robinson-admits-racism-almost.html
There’s a nasty anti-Semitic element to these theories about the ‘Great Replacement’ and ‘White Genocide’, as the people conspiring in these warped theories to import great numbers of non-Whites to destroy and replace the White population are there Jews. It’s simply another mutant form of the old anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the Jews are out to enslave the White race through Communism, capitalism and racial intermixing.
I am not accusing Robinson of anti-Semitism. He didn’t mention the Jews in this rant, just as he didn’t mention skin colour, only Islam. And Robinson has been perfectly happy to march around with the JDL and there was even a Jewish division within the EDL. In the video that was leaked to the press of him confessing to buying cocaine and calling taxi drivers ‘little Pakis’, Robinson said that he’d fight for Israel if there was a war between that country and the Palestinians. Who are, of course, that country’s indigenous inhabitants, who are being colonised and forced out by settlers from Europe and America.
But the anti-Semitic origins and connections of the ‘Great Replacement’ and ‘White Genocide’ theories still need to be mentioned and stressed. Because the attacks on people of colour almost inevitably lead back to attacks on the Jews. Whoever it’s directed at, ultimately the theory is part and parcel of the same racist, Fascist nonsense.
People have just been killed because of this poisonous nonsense. But Robinson and co. are still pushing it. 

Chris Williamson Sends His Thanks to His Supporters

March 16, 2019

This is a short video of just under two minutes in length, posted by Gordon Dimmack in conjunction with MYTV Media. In it, Chris Williamson is greeted by a supporter, and gives his message to all his supporters. He thanks them for helping him through a very dark and difficult time.

The supporter asks him if he has a message for people, as there are many out there who feel lost, and bewildered about what they can and cannot say, and we’re at a critical time in our country.

Williamson states that he hasn’t really been on social media since the whole difficulty arose. But he put one thing out there offering thanks to everyone, who got in touch with him. His message was and remains: keep your eyes on the prize and hold on. It’s a wonderful protest song from the civil rights movement in the ’50s and ’60s. And that’s what we need to do, because just look how much progress we’ve made. We’ve got a socialist leader of the party, we’ve got great policies which are overwhelmingly supported by the public, and we are on the cusp of literally changing the balance of power in this country in the favour of ordinary working people forever. And that’s a huge prize. We’ve just got to stick together in solidarity. Don’t leave the party. Jeremy (Corbyn) once said ‘It’s not called the struggle for nothing’. So stick together, in solidarity and we will get that prize. But we’ll only do it if we stick together to make sure that it happens.

The young man interviewing Williamson shakes his hand and tells him, ‘Chris, we’re rooting for you, we love you.’ To which the great man responds ‘Thank you, comrade’.

I think the young fellow is Lee from Swindon, as at the end of the video is a legend asking people to follow Lee@swindon. I’m certain he’s the same chap who tore Watson off a strip for doing his level best to undermine Corbyn and wreck the party. In which case, he definitely gets two thumbs up!

It’s a great video showing how much Williamson appreciates the support he’s getting, and why he deserves to be in the next Labour government, not suspended and smeared as an anti-Semite.

Hear what the man says! Eyes on the prize, boys and girls! We’ll win yet.

Aaron Bastani of Novara Media Exposes BBC Anti-Labour Bias

March 16, 2019

The Beeb has been hit with several scandals recently about its right-wing bias, and particularly about the very slanted debates and the selection of the guests and panel in Question Time. Members of the audience have been revealed as UKIP and Tory plants, the panels frequently consist of four members of the right against only one left-winger, chair Fiona Bruce intervenes to support Conservative speakers and repeat right-wing falsehoods. When she and other members of staff aren’t making jokes for the audience against Diane Abbott, of course.

In this eleven minute video from Novara Media, presenter Aaron Bastani exposes the anti-Labour, anti-socialist bias across BBC news programming. He begins with Brexit, and a radio interview by Sarah Montague of the Beeb’s World at One and Labour’s John Trickett. Trickett talks about how they’ve been to Europe, and suggests changing the red lines and forming a consensus. He is interrupted by Montague, who tells him that May’s deal has been struck, and gives Labour the customs union they want. She asks him why Labour would not support it. Bastani points out that the government is not in favour of a customs union. If they were, the Irish backstop would not be an issue. Does Montague not know this, or is she laying a trap for the opposition when now, more than ever, it is the government that needs to be held to account.

The Beeb’s Emily Barnett asked a simply question of Labour’s Emily Thornberry the same day. Barnett states that the EU have said that it’s May’s deal, and asks her if she has any evidence that they’re open to another deal. Thornberry replies with the letter Labour had written to the EU, with its entirely viable suggestions. Barnett repeats that they aren’t supported by the EU. Thornberry responds by saying that Michel Barnier said that it was an entirely reasonable way they could have negotiations. Bastani points out that Barnett’s assertions aren’t true. Guy Verhofstadt, Michel Barnier and Donald Tusk have all welcomed Labour’s suggestions. Tusk even told May that Corbyn’s plan could break the deadlock.

Bastani states that it isn’t just on radio that there’s bias, where basic facts are not mentioned or denied and where there is a great emphasis to hold Labour to account than the government. He then goes on to discuss the edition of Newsnight on Tuesday, the day before those two radio broadcasts, where presenter Emily Maitlis talked to the Tories’ Nadim Zahawi and Labour’s Barry Gardiner. This was the evening when May’s withdrawal agreement was voted down for the second time, but it looked like there was a tag-team effort between Maitlis and Zahawi against Gardiner. He then plays the clip of Maitlis challenging Gardiner about what will be on Labour’s manifesto. Gardner replies that it will all be discussed by the party, which will decide what will be put in the manifesto. Maitlis rolls her eyes and then she and Zahawi join in joking about how this is ‘chaos’. Bastani says that the eye roll was unprofessional, and states that the Guardian talked about it because it was anti-Labour.  He goes on to describe how Maitlis has form in this. In 2017 she tweeted a question about whether the Labour party still had time to ditch Corbyn. She’s not impartial and, when push comes to shove, doesn’t have much time for democracy. He plays a clip of her asking a guest at one point does democracy become less important than the future prosperity of the country.

Bastani goes on to discuss how the Beeb had a live feed outside parliament during the Brexit vote. This was, at one point, fronted by Andrew Neil, who had as his guests Ann McElroy from the Economist, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Matthew Parris. He submits that this biased panel, followed by Maitlis’ eye roll and the shenanigans the next day by Barnett shows that the Beeb’s current affairs output simply isn’t good enough.

He then moves on to Question Time with its terrible audience and panel selection. He says that there is an issue about right-wing activists not only getting access to the audience, but to the audience question, but on last week’s edition with Owen Jones the rightists asked five questions. Bastani states that the purpose of Question Time is to show what the public thinks beyond the Westminster bubble. But if the audience is infiltrated to such an extent, then what’s the point. He also argues that it isn’t just the audience that’s the problem. You frequently see the panel set up four to one against the left. There may be some centrist figures like the economist Jurgen Meyer, who voted Tory, but in terms of people supporting a broken status quo against socialists, it is anything but a fair fight. And almost always there’ll be a right-wing populist voice on the panel, whether it be Isobel Oakeshott, Nick Ferrari, Julia Hartley-Brewer, and their function is simple. It’s to drag the terms of the debate to the right. You almost never see someone from the left performing the same role.

He goes on to discuss how some people believe that since in 2017 election, the Beeb has recognised some of its failing and tried to correct them. Forty per cent of the electorate is barely represented in our television and our newspapers. Bastani states that he finds the changes so far just cosmetic. You may see the odd Novara editor here and there – and here he means the very able Ash Sarkar – but the scripts, the producers, the news agendas, what is viewed as important, have not changed. This is because they still view Corbynism a blip. They still think, despite Brexit, Trump, the rise of the SNP and transformations in the Labour party and the decay of neoliberalism, that things will go back to normal. This is not going to happen as the economic basis of Blairism – the growth that came out of financialisation and a favourable global economic system and inflated asset prices – was a one-off. This was the basis for centrist policies generally, which is why the shambolic re-run with the Independent Group is bound to fail. And there is also something deeper going on in the Beeb’s failure to portray the Left, its activists and policies accurately. Before 2017 the Beeb found the left a joke. They would have them on to laugh at. In June 2017, for a short period, it looked like it had changed. But now we’ve seen the Beeb and the right close ranks, there is class consciousness amongst the establishment, who recognise the danger that the Left represents. They don’t want them on.

The radical left, says Bastani, has made all of the right calls over the last 15-20 years. You can see that in innumerable videos on social media with Bernie Sanders in the 1980s, Jeremy Corbyn in the Iraq demonstrations in 2003, or even Tony Benn. They got everything right since 2000. They were right on foreign policy, right on the idiocy of Iraq, right about Blairism, as shown by the collapse of 2008. They were right about austerity and about the public at large being profoundly p***ed off. mainstream print and broadcast journalists missed all of this. They want to be proved right on at least one of these things, which means they have a powerful incentive to prevent Corbyn coming to power and creating an economy that’s for the many, not the few. Corbyn represents a threat to Maitlis and her colleagues, because it’s just embarrassing for them to be wrong all the time.

This is a very good analysis of the Beeb’s bias from a Marxist perspective. In Marxism, the economic structure of society determines the superstructure – its politics and culture. So when Blair’s policies of financialisation are in operation and appear to work, Centrism is in vogue. But when that collapses, the mood shifts to the left and centrist policies are doomed to fail. There are many problems with Marxism, and it has had to be considerably revised since Marx’s day, but the analysis offered by Bastani is essentially correct.

The Beeb’s massive right-wing bias is increasingly being recognised and called out. Barry and Savile Kushner describe the pro-austerity bias of the Beeb and media establishment in their book, Who Needs the Cuts? Academics at Glasgow and Edinburgh universities have shown how Conservatives and financiers are twice as like to be asked to comment on the economy on the Beeb as Labour MPs and trade unionists. Zelo Street, amongst many other blogs, like Vox Political, Evolve Politics, the Canary and so on, have described the massive right-wing bias on the Beeb’s news shows, the Daily Politics, Question Time and Newsnight. And Gordon Dimmack posted a video last week of John Cleese showing Maitlis how, out of 33 European countries polled, Britain ranked 33rd in its trust of the press and media, with only 23 per cent of Brits saying they trusted them. Now that 23 per cent no doubt includes the nutters, who believe that the Beeb really is left-wing and there is a secret plan by the Jews to import Blacks and Asians to destroy the White race and prevent Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson getting elected. But even so, this shows a massive crisis in the journalistic establishment. A crisis which Maitlis, Bruce, Barnett, Montague, Kuensberg, Robinson, Pienaar, Humphries and the rest of them aren’t helping by repeating the same tired tactics of favouring the Tories over the left.

They discrediting the Beeb. And it’s becoming very clear to everyone.

Two Videos by Dick Coughlan Showing Tommy Robinson as He Is

March 14, 2019

Dick Coughlan is an anti-racist, anti-Fascist atheist ranter on YouTube. I don’t agree with his atheism, which is in any case only really evident in this video in his sign off: ‘May God be less’. But I’m putting up these two videos because they show just what an amoral, lying thug Tommy Robinson is. Robinson’s one of the leading islamophobes in this country. He’s been the head of the English Defence League, was briefly involved in Pegida UK, and has been in and out of jail for contempt of court. He was caught livestreaming outside the courtroom where Asian men accused of forming grooming and rape gangs were being tried, thus threatening to prejudice their trial. Although he claims to be a racist, he was a member of the BNP. In one video he sent to one of his friends, which was leaked to the press, he contradicted his claim not to be racially prejudiced by referring to an Asian taxi driver as ‘a little Paki’, and compounded it by boasting about how he’d obtained cocaine in every country in the world, including Qatar, when the local Muslims were at prayer.

He claims to be the victim of persecution by the British establishment, but his own conduct and those of his legions of followers is highly intimidating. He turns up with his goons at his critics’ homes announced and demands to talk to them in a very aggressive manner. He also doxes them, revealing their personal information on the net, leaving them vulnerable to hate messages and death threats from his fans. He did this a few weeks ago to a critic in his home town of Luton. The lad’s parents live in Cumbria, so he and two of his friends drove up there in the middle of the night to intimidate them. Another opponent is the historian and journalist Mike Stuchbery, who Robinson and his friends also tried to intimidate in the same manner. They turned up at his house, banged on his windows and at one point made the false and malign claim that Stuchbery is a paedophile. For which Stuchbery’s taking him to court.

In the first video below, Coughlan talks about the video Robinson sent, that was leaked to the press. This was done by one of his friends, and Coughlan points out, not unreasonably, that if they’re doing that to Robinson, then clearly they aren’t friends of his. He also discusses how it shows Robinson to be a racist and druggie, despite his denials. But he really attacks Robinson for his comments about a rape charity, which was offering special services to Black and ethnic minority women. Robinson took a photo of their advert with the caption ‘So it’s OK to rape White women then?’ This was very definitely not what the charity was saying. The advert was for a branch of rape charity, that existed to help all women, regardless of their colour. It was offering special services – such as contact with staff that spoke Asian and other minority languages, for example, because the women in these communities may be at a disadvantage because of their unique needs. At the same time, the charity certainly was not going to turn away White women. This is clearly shown in the flyer for the charity, which shows four White faces amongst the Black and Asian women. Robinson was aware of this, and how it would contradict his lying caption, and so deliberately shot the flyer at an angle so that the four White faces wouldn’t show. Robinson’s lies resulted in the charity having their phone lines clogged with hate calls. They will have to change their posters, leaflets and have new lines installed because of Robinson’s accusation. As a result, God knows how many women have not been able to get the advice and help they need.

Equally disgusting was a lie Robinson tweeted about a rape that was supposed to have occurred in a school in Luton. An eleven year old White girl was supposed to have been gang-raped by Muslims. Robinson tweeted this, with a comment asking why the authorities were silent.

They were silent for a good reason: it never happened.

Nevertheless, the outrage Robinson generated with his wretched tweet was so intense and widespread that the school, Luton council and police had to go to the press and on television and radio to refute the lie.

In the second video, he talks about his personal experience of dealing with Robinson and his internet squadristi. It’s title refers to Robinson’s real name, Stephen Yaxley Lennon. And it’s a scream of rage and defiance against their doxing and threats. Robinson is being sued for defamation by a young Syrian lad, who was attacked at his school by a bully. The lad, a refugee, was a victim of racial assault, but Robinson instead sympathised with the bully and his family, who, he claimed, were the real victims. Coughlan was contacted by the lad’s solicitors, who asked him to serve the legal papers on Robinson.

Coughlan describes this process, taking care to refute the lies posted about him by the Robinson and his supporters. According to them, Coughlan turned up with other men in black balaclavas to terrify and intimidate Robinson’s wife and children. Coughlan admits that he did have company, as he isn’t a tough man and didn’t know what to expect. He was also accompanied by journalists, one from the Daily Mail and another from Channel 4. But they very definitely didn’t wear black balaclavas and didn’t try to threaten or intimidate Robinson’s wife and children. He states he went to Robinson’s wife’s house, as although it’s in her name, he is registered as living there. He has to do this, as Robinson is prevented from touching mortgages due to a conviction for mortgage fraud. When he got there, Coughlan was met by a couple of coppers, who took the writ from him, and said they would deliver it to Robinson instead.

Coughlan then goes on to describe the personal attacks, so far mercifully not physical, he has received from Robinson and his supporters. They have released details of where he lives online, and revealed that Coughlan formerly used cocaine. Which Coughlan finds absolutely hysterical, as he has put all this information out there. However, they got a photograph of where they thought he lives absolutely wrong, and Coughlan corrects them. They have also gone through all his tweets and videos trying to find anything that makes him look a Nazi. This includes a video of Coughlan in his bedsit, with a picture tacked to the wall, which is supposed to be a swastika. As Coughlan shows, it isn’t. It’s a caricature he drew of Rees-Mogg. And some of those claiming that Coughlan is somehow himself racist clearly have far right views themselves. One even announces that he works for the far-right news corporation, Breitbart.

Coughlan isn’t dismayed by their antics, as despite the personal insults and threats to kill him and burn down his house, nothing’s happened. In fact, it’s only made him more determined to combat Robinson further. He states that he’ll contact Mike Stuchbery about his decision to sue Robinson, as he wants to deliver that writ as well. Just as wants to serve the legal papers to the great anti-Muslim gruppenfuehrer from anyone else determined to sue him. The war has only just begun.

I’m posting both of these up because, although I’ve put up other videos about some of the same events by Kevin Logan and Mike Stuchbery, these confirm what a thoroughly nasty piece of work Robinson is. He isn’t persecuted, he’s one of the persecutors. And it shows just how paranoid and nasty he and his supporters are that they attack to a charity looking after women, who have suffered such dreadful assault. I also admire Coughlan, and the others, who have been threatened by him and his mob, like the good blogger over at Zelo Street, who are standing up to him and bringing the war back to them. Many of us would be too afraid to respond like that in the face of such threats, but Coughlan and co. stand tall and unbowed. I wish them all the best of luck in their campaigns against Robinson and his mob of rabid Fascists, and hope they take them down. From Coughlan’s videos, it should be spectacular.

One warning to everyone viewing: Coughlan’s a sweary bloke with a rather coarse sense of humour, so be careful where you play this.

Gordon Dimmack Urges John Cleese to Look at and Support Independent Media

March 14, 2019

In this 17 minute long video from the left-wing vlogger Gordon Dimmack, he talks about John Cleese’s decision to move from the UK to the Caribbean. When the papers covered the story a month or so ago, they very much gave the impression that it was all about a feud between Cleese and the Beeb. Cleese was angry at the Corporation for not showing Monty Python and annoyed that it was no longer rated over here as one of the greatest comedies ever. In short, he was going because of personal bitterness.

That appears to be part of it, sure, but from this wider coverage it’s clear that there’s much more to it. Cleese is concerned about the massive corruption in British politics and the major part played in this by the press. Dimmack plays a clip from an interview Cleese gave to Emily Maitlis of Newsnight, in which he talks about how terrible and mendacious the press is. He supports his point by showing Maitlis a graph illustrating a study done by the  EU into the trust the citizens of its countries have in their press. Of 33 countries, Britain comes 33rd, with only 23 per cent of Brits saying they trust their media.

That’s damning.

Maitlis tried to get round this by pointing to a statistical outlier, Albania, which is near the top of the list, where 98 per cent of its citizens believe their press to be trustworthy. Albania under Hoxha was a Stalinist dictatorship. After the Fall of Communism it became a mass of seething corruption which destroyed several governments as the economy collapsed through pyramid schemes. So it very probably doesn’t have a remotely trustworthy press. But Maitlis’ remark ignores the greater trust other, stable countries with a history of open, democratic politics, like the Netherlands, have in their media. When Maitlis tries to object to Cleese’s point that the British press is not trusted and untrustworthy, he just laughs in her face.

The conversation then moves on to Cleese’s complaints about Python, which Dimmack supports, although he says he like Ricky Gervaise’s latest comedy, Malcolm. Dimmack then moves to another interview Cleese gave, in which talked more about his departure from these isles. He was going first to Nepal to see the tigers, then going to do another tour of America before finally settling in Nevis, which he and his wife saw and fell in love with. He states that he’s leaving because it’s nearer to his daughter in Los Angeles, and that he does most of his business in America. But he’s also moving because he’s sick of the corruption in British society. He states that he was personally involved in British politics, first for proportional representation and then in the Leveson II inquiry. But these were stifled by the British press. He’s also critical about the banks and their destruction of the economy. He’ll still be interested in British politics, but he won’t return until we get a government that is serious about changing things in Britain for the better. This is possible, but he fears he’ll be away for some time.

To show how genuinely politically engaged Cleese is, Dimmack flashes up a couple of tweets from the great man about Russiagate and sources supporting his belief in Russian involvement in Trump’s election. Dimmack fully agrees with Cleese about the corruption of the lamestream media, and says he has tried to point him in the direction of people, who do tell the truth. Like Max Blumenthal about Venezuela, and Jimmy Dore. People Cleese could more easily contact in America. Dimmack admits that there’s hardly any chance that Cleese will read his tweets, as he’s got 597 million followers. But perhaps if enough people follow Dimmack and tweet to Cleese recommending he look at the above journos of the new media, this may change and Cleese will start supporting them. Which would be great, because Cleese’s support would obviously be highly influential. Dimmack states very clearly that he is trying to change the world, and if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem and should step away.

Sam Seder and Co Lay into Anti-Democrat Party ‘Jexodus’ Movement

March 14, 2019

In this video posted on the 12th March 2019, Sam Seder and his friends at the Majority Report lay into the Jexodus movement, launched by Elizabeth Pipko, to encourage Jews to leave the Democrat Party because of ‘anti-Semitism’. It’s the Jewish counterpart to Brandon Strauka’s ‘Walkaway’ movement.

They play a clip from Fox and Friends in which Pipko appears to explain why they’re launching the movement. This begins with Trump hypocritically pontificating that the Democrats have been the anti- Israel, anti-Semitic party after the comments by Minnesota congresswoman Ilham Omar about dual loyalty to Israel. Jexodus, as the Fox presenters gleefully tell their audience, are a group of Jewish millennials. They stated that

We reject the hypocrisy, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism of the rising far-left. Progressives, Democrats, and far too many old-school Jewish organisations take our support for granted. 

Seder remarks that the fact they’re using Strauka’s walkaway movement without crediting him is really offensive.

Pipko herself then appears. She’s not only the movements spokesperson, but she’s also a former Trump staffer. Seder and his friends thus point out the contradiction. She can’t talk about Jews leaving the Democrat party as if she’s one of those giving up their membership, because she was never in it in the first place. Pipko explains that the movement’s called Jexodus after the Jewish people’s departure from Egypt. As Seder explains, Exodus is the book in the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – which describes how the Jews, then the Hebrews or Israelites, left Egypt. Exodus is already a term which refers to Jews. Calling their movement ‘Jexodus’ is therefore somewhat redundant. The Jewish Seder explains that it would be like saying that ‘this year at our house, we’re having a Jassover – a Jewish Passover’. He and his team then go on to make up other words combining ‘J’ and another element of Jewish faith or identity to show how ridiculous this is. Like ‘Jagels’ – bagels for Jews. Or ‘Jom Kippur’ – Yom Kippur’, but for Jews. ‘It’s like Jisrael – Israel, but for Jews!’ is another joke.

She then talks about how the anti-Semitism started under the Obama administration, and then got worse. But the Democrats have tried to hide it, refused to condemn it, and now its time for Jews to leave. The Fox presenters then talk about how there was going to be a resolution by the Democrats condemning anti-Semitism and specifically Omar’s comments, but due to pressure from the party’s left, this was changed to a more general resolution.

Pipko then moans that what was frightening wasn’t Omar’s original comment, but the lack of leadership by the Democrat party. As Seder jokes, they should have ‘jendemned ‘ – condemned it, but for Jews! They then go on with the ‘J’ jokes, as well as saying how they remembered Obama telling AIPAC that he was going to cut off their funding, ‘you goddamn load of shop-owners!’ Michael Brooks, who is also part Jewish, then spoofs Pipko’s attack on Obama as anti-Semitic by impersonating Obama calling them a load of Christ-killers while claiming to be politically correct. More of these jokes about Jews being ‘Christ-killers’ follow.

They then go to the Jexodus website, and its logo. This has the Star of David with the stars and stripes of the American flag, with ‘Jexodus’ underneath in mock Hebrew letters. They observe that it’s disturbing as it sort of resembles a White supremacist website, but one which believes the Jews really have taken over America, and this is what they’ll be doing soon – ‘Jamerica!’, Seder exclaims.

I’ve put this video up, as it shows how the Republicans and Israel lobby in America are using the same tactics to smear the Democrats and Israel’s critics as anti-Semites, just as Corbyn’s opponents within and outside the Labour party are doing over here. And it’s just as false. The accusations of anti-Semitism did start against Obama, it’s true, but it’s not because he was anywhere near anti-Semitic. It was Obama that gave Israel its Iron Dome missile defence system, for example. What enraged the Israel lobby in America was that Obama didn’t give the country all of the funding it wanted, though what Obama did give it was considerable. Hence there was the unedifying spectacle of pro-Israel groups whining about how anti-Semitic he was and claiming that America itself was somehow massively full of Jew-haters.

And obviously it’s colossally hypocritical for Trump to claim that the Democrats are anti-Semitic, when a large bloc of his supporters and cabinet were members of the Alt-Right and avowed anti-Semites and White supremacists.

Now there’s the question of the way Jexodus has conflated criticism of Israel not just with anti-Semitism but also anti-Americanism. There’s an interesting piece on the web – I think it might have been posted by the Electronic Intifada – which details the history of Zionism, and the way Jewish Zionists promoted their cause in the early 20th century in America by making deliberate parallels between themselves wishing to found a new land, and America’s own pioneers. This explains how it is that after Israel’s victories in the 1967 war the American Right could move over so easily to supporting Israel, with right-wing Christian fundamentalists proclaiming that ‘its values are our values’. In fact, as Tony Greenstein has explained on a post he has put up on his blog this morning, the question of dual loyalty and support for a foreign state – in this case Israel – which Ilhan Omar raised is a very good point. And it’s one that Israel itself has cause by declaring that Jews everywhere are citizens of Israel, even though half of the world’s Jews live outside it. It was a declaration that would have appalled the early Jewish opponents of Zionism, who were afraid that the founding of a Jewish state would lead them to be suspected of having greater loyalty to that nation than to their own native countries. This is why the British Jewish community by and large strongly opposed the Balfour Declaration pledging British support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

In Britain, America and other countries the Israel lobby and Conservatives, including those within the opposition parties, are using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the left and to shut down justified criticism of Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians. Ultimately this tactic will harm the Jewish community, as it gives the impression that it is full of dictatorial, domineering personalities who demand absolute, uncritical support for a foreign nation from gentiles and Jews alike. And it will demean the charge of anti-Semitism by using it so gratuitously to smear decent, anti-racist people.

 

Noakes and Pridham on the Middle Class Precursors of Nazism

March 13, 2019

As well as discussing and documenting the history of Nazism, Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham in their book Nazism 1919-1945: 1: The Rise to Power 1919-1934 (Exeter: University of Exeter 1983) also discuss the precursors of the Nazis from the late 19th century to the time of the First World War.

They state that radical nationalism first arose amongst the German middle class, who resented their political exclusion by the aristocracy and who felt that the dominance of the aristocracy had weakened Germany through alienating the German working class. This radical right was organized outside parliament in Leagues, such as the Pan-Germans. These middle class radicals rejected the liberal attitudes of patriotism, tolerance and humanity of their fathers, especially when it came to ‘enemies of the Reich’. Noakes and Pridham write

This ‘new Right’ – like its French counterpart – developed outside the political parties in pressure group-type organisations known as ‘leagues’ – the Pan-German League, the Navy League, etc. Its ideology reflected the ideas and political aspirations of the middle-class generation which had grown up in the immediate aftermath of German unification and came to maturity in the 1890s and 1900s. These men had discarded the remnants of the enlightened 1848 Liberalism of their fathers and grandfathers. According to Heinrich Class, who became chairman of the Pan-German League, three ideals had characterized the liberalism of his father’s generation: ‘patriotism, tolerance, humanity’. However, ‘we youngsters had moved on: we were nationalist pure and simple. We wanted nothing to do with tolerance if it sheltered the enemies of the Volk and the state. Humanity in the sense of that liberal idea we spurned, for our Volk was bound to come off worse.’ For men like Class the fortunes of the new German state had acquired paramount importance: their own self-esteem came to be bound up with the prestige of the new Reich.

The populist flavour of this new nationalism derived from their sense of exclusion from the traditional Prusso-German establishment. As successful businessmen, professionals and bureaucrats who had benefited from the rapid economic development following unification, they resented the patronizing attitudes of the traditional elites who tended to regard them as parvenus. Moreover, they felt that the elitist nature of the political establishment weakened Germany by alienating the masses, encouraging the growth of class spirit and dividing the nation. In their view, this fragmentation of the nation was also encouraged by the existing political system of parliamentary and party government. This, it was felt, simply reinforced the divisions between Germans and led to the sacrifice of national interests for the benefit of sectional advantage. They rejected the idea central to liberal democracy that the national interest could only emerge out of the free interplay of differing interests and groups. Instead, they proclaimed a mythical concept of the Volk – an equivalent to the pays reel of pre-1914 French nationalism – as the real source of legitimacy and claimed that current political institutions (the Reichstag, parties etc.) were distorting the true expression of national will. In their view, the key to uniting the nation was the indoctrination of an ideology of extreme nationalism: above all, the goal of imperial expansion would rally and united the nation. (pp.4-5).

They also state that these volkisch nationalists believed that Germany was under threat by the ‘golden international’ of high finance and western liberalism, controlled by the Jews, the ‘black international’ of Roman Catholicism and the ‘red international’ of socialism. Thus there was a foreign threat behind their domestic opponents the left Liberals, Catholic Centre Party and the Social Democrats, and so considered these parties guilty of treason. (p.5). The radical right became increasingly influential in the years before the outbreak of the First World War as a reaction to the rise of the German socialist party, the Social Democrats, which became the largest single party in the Reichstag in the 1912 election. The government appeared too willing to compromise with the moderate left, and so the traditional German Conservatives began to join forces with the radicals. (p.5).

They state, however, that it was during the War that this new Right really gained influence through demands for a victorious peace’ that would give Germany foreign colonies and stave off further demands for increasing democracy in Germany. This saw new political parties founded by the industrialists to obtain this goal. They write

It was, however, during the course of the First World War that this new Right seized the initiative. The main focus of their efforts was a campaign to commit the Government to a so-called Siegfrieden in which Germany would use her expected victory to demand large-scale territorial annexations in both East and West in the form of overseas colonies. This was regarded as vital not simply in order to re-establish Germany as a world power, but also as a means of diverting pressure for democratic reform at home. As the pressure for a compromise peace and for constitutional reform increased after 1916, the Right responded with even more vigorous agitation. The main emphasis of this campaign was on trying to reach a mass audience. On 24 September 1917, in a direct response to the Reichstag peace Resolution of 17 July, a new party was founded – the Fatherland Party. Financed by heavy industry, and organized by the Pan-German League and similar bodies, its aim was to mobilise mass support for a Siegfrieden and to resist moves towards parliamentary democracy. The party soon acquired over a million members, mainly among the middle class.

The Pan-Germans were, however, particularly anxious to reach the working class. Already, in the summer of 1917, a ‘Free Committee for a German Workers’ Peace’ had been established in Bremen by the leader of a ‘yellow’ i.e. pro-employer workers’ association in the Krupp dockyards, which carried out imperialist propaganda supported by the army authorities. Among its 290,000 members was a skilled worker in the railway workshops in Munich named Anton Drexler, who established a Munich branch of the organization on 7 March 1918 and who soon was to become a co-founder of the Nazi party. (pp.5-6, my emphasis).

They go on to say that this party was originally very limited, with only forty members, and so the Pan-Germans were forced to try more effective propaganda themes, such as outright anti-Semitism. (p.6).

It’s thus very clear from this that Nazism definitely was not a genuinely socialist party. It has its origins in the radical, anti-parliamentary nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th century middle class. Its immediate parent organization was a fake worker’s movement set up by Germany industry and supported by the army. This contradicts the allegation by modern Conservatives, like the Republicans in America and the Tories over here, that the Nazis were a socialist party.

However, the ‘Free Committee for a Workers’ Peace’ does sound like something founded by the Tories, when they were declaring themselves to be the true party for working people two years ago. Or the creation of Tony Blair, when he was still in charge of the Labour party, and determined to reject any real socialism and ignore the wishes of genuine Labour members and supporters in order to gain funding from industry and votes from the middle classes, who would otherwise vote Tory. And who very definitely supported imperialist wars, although they were camouflaged behind rhetoric about freeing Iraq and giving its people democracy.

Corbyn Demands General Election after Failure of May’s Brexit ‘Meaningful Vote’

March 13, 2019

As Mike reported this morning, May lost the vote about her supposedly renegotiated Brexit deal. As Mike himself has said, it’s anything but new. It was the same material she’d tried to pass already, and, again contrary to everything she said, it also wasn’t legally binding. The Tory MPs Charles Walker and Daniel Kawczynski have said that if May lost the vote, she should call a general election as it would then be clear that the government was dead.

Jeremy Corbyn has done it for her. In the video below, he stands up in parliament and demands that the government call a general election, backing this up with very strong arguments. But please hold your nose while watching it – it comes from the Scum.

It begins with the speaker announcing that Corbyn is about to stand and speak. He thanks the Speaker, and begins with the statement that the government has been defeated again by an enormous majority, and must now except that their deal, their proposal, the one the Prime Minister has met, is clearly dead and does not have the support of this House. And quite clearly, no deal must be taken off the table. We’ve said that before, we’ll say that again. But it does mean the House has got to come together with a proposal that could be negotiated. The Labour party has put that proposal and we will put that proposal again. Because the dangers of what the Prime Minister’s proposing if she carries on threatening us all the danger of no deal, the danger of that, knowing full well the damage that will do to the economy. Corbyn states that his party will put forward its proposals again, which are for a negotiated customs union, access to the market and protection of rights. Those are the proposals they’ll put forward. They believe there may well be a majority for them, but there will also be the potential for negotiating them. The Prime Minister has run down the clock and the clock has been run out on her. Maybe it’s time instead we had a general election and the people could choose -. And there the clip ends.

That’s it. May’s credibility is in tatters. Of course, it was in tatters long before last night, and her second meaningful vote hasn’t changed anything, except perhaps to make it even more glaringly obvious what a spent and empty political force she is. Corbyn, Walker and Kawczynski are right. We should have a general election now.

But I don’t doubt that the Tory party will try to cling on to power with all its might. Zelo Street has reported this morning that May’s Brexit problems are all the creation of herself and her party, the Heil and the Scum are trying to shift the blame somehow on to Corbyn. It won’t wash. A general election is the only hope we have of finding a government that will be able to salvage something from this mess. A Corbyn government.

Mike says that if it happens, it’ll be our third in four years. Which is approaching the level of political instability our political pundits believed could only happen in the continental system, and particularly with the Italians. But now it’s hit us, and the only chance of producing genuine, beneficial change is for a general election and the replacement of May’s failed Tories with a Labour government under Corbyn.

For further information, see https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/03/12/theresa-may-lost-her-brexit-meaningful-vote-wheres-our-election-charles-walker/

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/03/may-fouls-up-press-blames-corbyn.html