Posts Tagged ‘James Taylor’

The CAA and JLM: Israel’s Counterparts to the Nazis’ Auslandsorganisation

March 5, 2018

Here’s another parallel between Nazi Germany and Israel, and it’s about the very nature and character of the Israel lobby itself, and how it interferes in British and American politics. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy sought to promote Fascism and their national interests abroad through expatriate organisations. In Germany, the official department responsible for this was the AO, or Auslandsorganisation, or ‘Overseas Organisation’. The article on this in James Taylor’s and Warren Shaw’s A Dictionary of the Third Reich (London: Grafton 1987) runs

A Nazi Party department responsible for German communities overseas. In many countries substantial numbers of citizens of German descent joined organisations like the German-American Bund or the Argentine Nazi Party. In the structure of the AO, countries with substantial German communities were considered as separate Gaue (political divisions). Substantial funds were devoted to these overseas organisations which often proved an effective cover for German political interference. In the 1940 US presidential election, the AO was deeply involved in the transfer of funds to Roosevelt’s (sometimes unwitting) opponents. (Pp. 38-9).

I am very much aware how much anti-Semitism is based on the notion that Jews care more about their own communities than the gentile people amongst whom they live, and that this suspicion became more acute with the rise of Zionism. The Soviet Union became increasingly anti-Semitic after the foundation of Israel, because they feared that it would create divided loyalties amongst their Jewish citizens.

Despite this, the Israel lobby in this country is acting precisely as a Nazi AO, mirroring official Israeli policy. Benjamin Netanyahu declared that all Jews, everywhere, were citizens of Israel. This has been mocked and rejected by very many liberal Jews. You can find an image on the net of a Jewish American fellow with a Palestinian friend. The Jew comes from Anchorage in Alaska, and he makes the point that it’s ridiculous that he can go and live in a place he’s never even seen, but the Palestinian, who was born in that land, can’t. And there are many more like him, including an increasing number of young Jewish Americans repelled by Israel’s barbarous treatment of the Palestinians.

And Netanyahu himself is very choosy about which Jews he decides to let in. Left-wing or liberal Jews, and those, who have made the mildest criticism of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of its indigenous Arabs, don’t get in, but are turned away at the airport or deported. Clearly the Likudniks have taken the advice of the violently anti-Semitic Karl Von Luegerer, the 19th century mayor of Vienna, who nevertheless had many Jewish friends: ‘I decide who’s a Jew and who isn’t’. Quite. And Netanyahu has decided that Jews, who stand for decency and universal human rights aren’t the right kind of Jews for his country, for all his claims to represent the Jewish community worldwide.

And the Israel lobby in Britain – the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, the Jewish Labour Movement and others – do interfere in Britain’s politics, as does AIPAC in America. There was the Al-Jazeera report a few years ago which showed members of the British Israel lobby conspiring with Shai Masot of the Israeli embassy to choose which Tory MPs they wanted in the British cabinet. This was a true conspiracy, but Mike was accused of anti-Semitism for describing it as such, on the spurious grounds that because he used the term, he must believe in the stupid and murderous conspiracy theories about the Jews. Like they control the world’s banks, and are out to destroy the White race. Mike doesn’t, and smearing him or anyone else because they call this real conspiracy with the Israeli embassy what it was, won’t alter the facts.

And there’s precious little evidence that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism or the JLM are genuinely concerned to protect ordinary Jews from anti-Semitism. The people they have smeared as anti-Semitic include self-respecting, decent Jews, who frequently have suffered abuse and assault because of their religion/ethnicity. But because they’ve spoken out about Israel’s increasingly racist character, they’ve been libelled and smeared.

And in America it’s been pointed out that AIPAC and the funds it gives to the parties it wants to represent Israel’s interests, do come under the wartime legislation passed by Roosevelt to prevent the manipulation of American politics by foreign powers, like the Nazis. But no-one wants to recognise this, or do anything about it.

There’s a simple tactic going on here. Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians is a Fascist project of colonisation and ethnic cleansing, with some concessions of liberal ideas of democracy and representation. The organisations set up to defend and promote Israeli interests in Britain and America also resemble Nazi organisations. But because these parallels are also close to the traditional accusations and smears of anti-Semites, it allows the Israel lobby to smear their opponents. Even as the Israel lobby acts precisely in the kind of way anti-Semites have traditionally smeared the Jewish community.

It’s time to stop this. The CAA and JLM don’t represent Jews or really battle anti-Semitism. They are just concerned to promote Israel, and vilify and libel its critics. The CAA should have charitable status removed as the political organisation it is, and the political interference by the JLM and other branches of the Israel lobby here and elsewhere should be brought to light and very critically examined.


Israel, the Nazis and Racial Nationalism as the Basis for Citizenship.

February 24, 2018

Israel is a racial nationalist state. Racial nationalism is the official policy of the Fascist right, such as the NF and BNP in Britain. It states that only White Britons should be allowed to hold citizenship. It is the ‘volksburgenschaft’, or folk citizenship, that the Nazi Alternative Fuer Deutschland wish to return to. And it was the state policy of the Nazi party, as expressed in their 25 point programme of 1922. And ethnic identity, in this case, Jewish, and preferably of White, European or American heritage, is the official basis for Israeli citizenship.

Other states also have made racial identity a condition of citizenship. Under Japanese law, only ethnic Japanese may be Japanese citizens. This had led to the denial of their civil rights to resident aliens, such as the Koreans, many of whom have been in Japan for generations. I am not impressed by the Japanese state’s racism either, though people I know, who have lived in Japan, have told me that the Japanese are personally a very kind people. This comes from a former Vietnamese boat person I worked with, who spent years living and working in the Land of the Rising Sun.

The racist nature of the Israeli state is laid out in their constitution.

This demands

1. The union of all Israelis in a Greater Israel.

3. The demand for additional territories for food production and to settle the excess Jewish population.

4. Citizenship to be determined by race; no Palestinian to be an Israeli.

5. Non-Jews in Israel to be only guests and subject to appropriate laws.

Okay, so this isn’t really the Israeli constitution. It’s actually from the Nazis’ 25 point plan. I’ve just swopped the wording around, replacing ‘German’ with ‘Jew’, and ‘Jew’ with ‘Palestinian’ where appropriate.

But it accurately reflects the racist nature of the Israeli. While other nations move towards ethnic diversity and multiculturalism, Israeli law still follows the racial nationalism of its founders.

And this also describes Israel’s continuing policy of annexing Palestinian territory and driving out the indigenous Arab population.

It is these policies and the racism at the very heart of modern Israel that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and Jewish Labour Movement have been establish to defend, by smearing anyone who mentions them or criticises them as an ‘Anti-Semite’. In these instances smearing very many decent, anti-racist people, including proud, self-respecting Jews.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Labour Movement are Fascist organisations that should have no place in the political mainstream, let along influence and be part of the Labour Party. Get them out. Expell the JLM from the Labour Party, and remove the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s charitable status.

For more information on the Nazis’ 25 point programme, see James Taylor and Warren Shaw’s A Dictionary of the Third Reich (London: Grafton 1987) 252-3.

The Nazis’ Collaboration with Zionists, and the Madagascar Plan

February 20, 2018

This is a bit more on the way the Nazis initially collaborated with the Zionists to send Jews to Israel, before they started murdering them in the ‘Final Solution’. I put up a piece yesterday about the British Fascist leader’s, Oswald Mosley’s qualified support for Israel, and another post this morning about another British Fascist and anti-Semite, Charles Gore, who supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in Madagascar. These are all historical facts, but it’s the type of information that the Israel lobby and their British thugs and libellers, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Labour Movement really don’t want people to know about. It was because Ken Livingstone dared to say, quite accurately, that Hitler originally supported sending Jews to Israel, that he was libelled as an anti-Semite by the Israel lobby and the Blairites. And it’s because Mike wrote his pamphlet, The Livingstone Presumption, defending Red Ken and some of the others libelled by them, that the CAA has also libelled him as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, things he most definitely isn’t and which he finds utterly repugnant.

But the lies and libels of the Israel lobby and Blair’s faction in the Labour party don’t alter history. And the Nazis’ collaboration with the Zionists and the plan to turn Madagascar into a new homeland for the Jews are both mentioned in James Taylor’s and Warren Shaw’s A Dictionary of the Third Reich (London: Grafton Books 1987). This is a work of respectable, orthodox scholarship, which contains many entries detailing the persecution of the Jews, the Holocaust, and the Nazi death camps, including separate entries for the most notorious, like Auschwitz. And the entry for ‘Anti-Semitism’ mentions the Nazis’ collaboration with the Zionists in a passage, which reads

At the outset the Nazis had tried to drive the Jews out of German living space, and were briefly in collaboration with the Zionist movement. Eichmann studied this aspect seriously and even, in May 1938, tried to curb Streicher’s excesses. There were fantasies like the Madagascar Plan (to turn that vast island into a Jewish colony) and, late in the War, Himmler’s attempts to trade Jewish lives for war materials. (p. 38).

Madagascar also has its own entry in the book, which reads

Madagascar. As a solution to what the National Socialists insisted was the ‘Jewish Problem’, the idea of deporting Jews to the large island of Madagascar came up from time to time before the war. As a proposal it was probably as serious as many of Himmler’s fantasies. By 1941, however, the Madagascar option was no more than a smokescreen for the true nature of the Final Solution.

The Nazis’ brief, initial collaboration with the Zionists, and their support, and that of British anti-Semites like them, such as Charles Gore, for a Jewish homeland in Madagascar as a way of purging the countries of Jews, is a fact of history.

The only people lying about it are the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Blairites.

End Workfare Now: Part 3

June 20, 2017

Workfare Is Unjust

Workfare unfairly penalises the unemployed. For example, in 2011 the ConDem government made the conditions imposed on benefit claimants and the penalties for avoidance under the Labour government’s New Deal even more stringent. Those performing workfare were required to work for up to thirty hours a week for 28 days. The work performed was to be that which benefited the community. Taken as wages, this meant that claimants were working at a rate of £2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. If they turned the job down, or didn’t complete the course of mandatory labour, they had their benefits sanctioned for three months. This was increased to six if they repeated the ‘transgression’. This is unjust, because no-one else in society is expected to work for the minimum wage except convicts in prison.

It’s also unjust in that it makes the economically insecure even more so, and takes away the way long-accepted social right to refuse to work. At the same time, it gives power over the unemployed to the state’s bureaucrats and the private outsourcing companies. Also, forced labour is offensive against human dignity and does not lead to increased personal development.

Workfare Stops People Looking for Jobs

Spending thirty hours a week on workfare actually cuts down on the available time the unemployed are able to spend looking for work. P.A. Gregg, in their book Job Guarantee: Evidence and Design (Bristol: Bristol University Centre for Market and Public Organisation 2009) actually found that because of this, workfare actually stopped people from getting jobs.

Lowering Incomes over Life

Workfare is also unjust, as instead of giving people the ability to acquire a career, or jobs leading to one, it may instead lower their long-term income by keeping them in a series of low-paid, temporary work. People should have the right to decide for themselves which jobs to take and what they should do when it affects their long term prospects. If the state instead forces them to take a certain course, then it should also be required to compensate them if the course demanded is the wrong one.

Workfare Keeps Wages Low

By forcing people to take low-paid jobs, and making this a threat to force other workers also to take jobs that pay less than they would otherwise take, workfare leads to lower wages. The Labour Party in the UK declared that it was in favour of a ‘national living wage’ above the minimum. However, it then contradicted this intention by stating that those performing workfare would do so at the minimum wage. The Labour party may have meant this to stop those on workfare competing with those in paid employment, though MPs like Liam Byrne have shown themselves to be every bit as spiteful and punitive in their treatment of the unemployed as the Tories. In any case, this policy still puts on pressure to force wages downwards.

For there to be a genuine living wage, politicians should increase and strengthen the ability of the unemployed to bargain for higher wages. It is only when workers really have an effective ability to bargain that employers are either forced to pay a living wage, or decide that the job is unnecessary and the potential productivity too low. Standing concludes from this that ‘The reality is that the utilitarian mindset does not care about the precariat’.

Workfare Labour Replaces Genuine Workers

If the jobs performed under workfare were genuine and productive, it would be unfair to workers in those jobs, and to the short-term unemployed, as the government-subsidized labourers supplied under workfare would replace existing workers, or stop them hiring other unemployed people. In 2011 Tesco collaborated with the Jobcentres to create 3,000 unpaid placements for those on workfare, who would work for the company for four weeks. Homebase and Asda were
also keen to use such unpaid labour. As was Poundland, which also announced that it was taking on benefit claimants, though it denied that this would affect their existing recruiting activity. Whatever those companies said, clearly their use of cheap workfare labour was replacing paid workers and stopping the unemployed from getting permanent jobs with those companies.

Workfare Extends State Power

When the High and Appeal Courts upheld the challenge to performing mandatory workfare by the geology graduate, who objected to having to work in Poundland, and a young chap, who had been sanctioned for refusing it, the Condem government responded by rushing through emergency legislation making the refusal to perform workfare punishable by sanctions. The procedure in which the legislation was rushed through parliament was supposed to be use only in national emergencies. The legislation further contravened accepted notions of justice, in that it acted retrospectively. That is, it punished actions committed before the laws against them had been passed, an idea that strikes at the very notion of justice enshrined across the world in human rights laws. The Labour party, which should have opposed this motion, didn’t. They abstained, and members of the Shadow Cabinet were told that if they voted against the motion, they would have to resign. This demonstrates just how deeply workfare had become embedded as the official ideology of the state and the main parties.

Welfare-to-Work as Corporate Scam

The private companies administering workfare, such as A4E and Ingeus, have profited immensely from this new, growth industry in unfree labour. They are paid £13,500 for every person they manage to put in a long term job. If the job is only short-term, then they receive only half that amount. There is thus considerable pressure for them to choose only those most likely to obtain long term employment, and thus discriminate against vulnerable minorities, including the disabled. The Employment Related Services Association, the trade body for the welfare-to-work industry, complained that more of the people being referred to these companies were those with disabilities, who had been judged ‘fit for work’ according to the tests imposed for the Employment and Support Allowance awarded to the disabled to help them maintain their independence.

The workfare companies also have wide powers in deciding which ‘work placements’ to put people on, and what counts as ‘community benefit’. The DWP permits them to place workers in private companies if this is considered to benefit those firms’ local communities. For a long time the DWP has refused to publish the information on the allocation of workfare labourers to private firms. The government flatly refused to reveal the identities of the participating firms on the grounds that if they did so, the scheme would fail due to public pressure forcing them to drop out. A list of the firms involved has recently been released after a series of Freedom Of Information Act requests. The two largest workfare contractors also refused to comment, when they were asked if they were forcing the workers contracted to them to work for private companies.

Additionally, many of the private companies administering the scheme are run by, or have links to, politicians, which is symptomatic of the general corporate corruption of parliament and the revolving door between corporations, MPs and senior civil servants. Tomorrow’s People, the charity that became notorious for stranding the workfare labourers it had employed for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee under London Bridge, where they were forced to sleep, was run by a Conservative peer.

Conclusion: End Workfare Forced Labour

Workfare is thus highly exploitative, and should be banned. It is the thin edge of a wedge leading to the increasing use of force against the poor and unemployed. One staff member from the Citizens’ Advice Bureaux described the situation to Standing thus

The boundaries of the acceptable are being pushed further in the direction of unfree labour. We’ve been here before – breaking stones in return for food during the Irish famine, and similar schemes in 16th & 17th century England, the difference being that technology means peoples’ activity can be monitored more and informal economy lifelines are being pushed further underground. I was talking with a colleague who has picked up growth of prostitution as one means of survival. I don’t know what it would take to break us (society, whatever that means) out of apathy to make protests against what we’re doing to ourselves.

Standing also makes a very apt point, directed at those members of the Left, who refuse to take a stand on it, fearing that it would damage their parties’ chances of winning elections. He states

It is a moralistic policy that should be passionately opposed by every liberal and progressive. If doing so puts political success at risk, so be it. Values matter.

This looks like a dig at Blairite New Labour, which has consistently abstained on the workfare issue instead of firmly opposing it. The Blairites based New Labour’s electoral success on appealing to swing voters, and not challenging Tory policy, except on the grounds that they could administer it more efficiently and were more concerned with social justice. The latter view is particularly specious, as in many cases New Labour went much further in its austerity and privatisation programmes than the Tories. It’s a concern that still motivates the Blairites in their repeated campaigns against the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. And it’s not an excuse for failing to tackle this new form of forced labour, a system that is slowly edging towards real slavery.


Alexander Berkman, ‘Lazy Men and Dirty Work’, in George Woodcock, ed., The Anarchist Reader (Fontana Press: 1986) 334-338.

Alex DeJonge, Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union (Fontana/Collins 1986) 270-2.

‘Miss World and Mrs Mao’ in Clive James, The Crystal Bucket (Picador: 1982) 232-4.

Guy Standing, A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens (London: Bloomsbury 2014) 262-79.

‘Labour Service (Reicharbeitsdienst – RAD)’ in James Taylor and Warren Shaw, A Dictionary of the Third Reich (London: Grafton Books 1988) 213.

‘Unemployment’ in James Taylor and Warren Shaw, A Dictionary of the Third Reich (London