There is a very serious problem with the resurgence of genuine anti-Semitism in different parts of the world, including in much of Europe.
The Internet is playing a massive part in that – and it’s not just the modern Neo-Nazi groups (of which there are now many) that are espousing a viciously anti-Semitic world view, nor just embittered Arabs, but lots of other people too.
Lots of this stuff is every bit as nasty as Nazi propaganda in the thirties and it goes way beyond any legitimate political issues and off into the realm of unbridled racial hatred of the most offensive kind. Jewish communities have every right to be extremely sensitive or defensive, given very real anti-Semitism and given the obvious historical contexts too.
This upsurge in racism and propagandizing against Jews has to be taken seriously.
I don’t refute any of that.
There are also a lot of people who hide a base-level anti-Semitism behind the justification of criticizing Israeli policies – you can spot those fairly easily by noting how an initial condemnation of, say, the Israeli occupation or the IDF quickly descends into vile nonsense about ‘the Jews’ as a race.
That is anti-Semitism, often trying to disguise itself as something else.
But, even acknowledging all of that, I still maintain the position that this ‘Anti-Semitism Crisis’ in the Labour Party is a largely manufactured business designed primarily to discredit or even bring down the Jeremy Corbyn leadership.
Since his accession to leadership of the Labour Party, barely a day has gone by without the political establishment and mainstream media engaging in anti-Corbyn, anti-Leftist propaganda or questioning Corbyn’s ‘legitimacy’ as leader of the opposition.
The ‘Anti-Semitism’ card has been played relentlessly as the central weapon in that arsenal.
There’s very little that needs to be added now that wasn’t said two years ago, when the ‘crisis’ first erupted.
Back then, the party reportedly suspended 19 activists in the attempt to purge anti-Semitic offenders. But did 19 people (out of a membership of 400,000) really constitute ‘a crisis’?
As noted at that time, many of the Labour activists or offenders were themselves Jewish, which made the ‘Anti-Semitism’ charge seem rather misplaced. Charley Allan, a Jewish Labour Party member had described the atmosphere in the press and Labour Party as a “witch hunt.”
As referenced here two years ago, journalist Asa Winstanley put up a very thorough analysis to fairly convincingly demonstrate that the ‘anti-Semitism crisis’ in Corbyn’s party was being in large part manufactured by anti-Corbyn elements of the party and by Israel Lobby insiders who were, presumably, concerned with Corbyn’s attitude towards things like Iran or the Palestinians.
As I noted back then, this wasn’t surprising, as the charge of anti-Semitism was being leveled towards Corbyn and the left-wing elements of the party from even before he was announced as the party leader. And where most of these instances of ‘anti-Semitism’ had been discovered, they weren’t things that simply happened and then got picked up on – they were things that were carefully *sought out*, often by looking back months or years on people’s social-media timelines.
That Corbyn has been targeted for smear campaigns is fairly obvious and was reinforced by the Al-Jazeera programmes that exposed Shai Masot and the Israel lobbyists’ campaign to undermine the Labour Party leadership – a scandal that Emily Thornberry had requested an investigation into. As Wall of Controversy notes in his piece on this latest anti-Semitism scandal (which is much better than mine): ‘The media has since shown no interest whatsoever in digging deeper and following the trail of evidence for what now ought to be known as ‘Israelgate’.’
That there is a problem with Anti-Semitic attitudes and comments is not something I’m refuting. But that it is in any way a result of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is something I’m refuting entirely.
Much more likely is that people and organisations who’ve run out of ways to oppose or detail Corbyn’s leadership are reverting back to the ‘Anti-Semitism’ crisis in order to keep up the pressure. Unlike two years ago, the situation now is that Corbyn did far better than expected in last year’s General Election – to the extent that many even mainstream commentators see him as the next Prime Minister.
That situation is much more unsettling for the anti-Corbyn parties than things appeared to be prior to that. Which means the counter-Corbyn movement needs to be escalated and maintained.
In my view, there are two types of Anti-Semitism. One is real, racist anti-Semitism based on a dislike of – or propagandising against – Jewish people. That’s Anti-Semitism. And there’s lots of it about. The other is ‘anti-Semitism’: people who criticise or talk about Israel politically or about political Zionism, but who get deliberately and strategically equated with the first type of anti-Semitism in order to discredit or smear them and thus stop them from speaking out.
I entirely accept that there are probably a number of Labour activists or party members who fall into the first type, but try to disguise it with the second type. I would say, however, that Jeremy Corbyn is firmly the second type, but is being deliberately conflated with the first type by his opponents.
I hope poor old Eddie Izzard doesn’t have too hard a time of it when he comes on board to try to monitor this situation. I’m, as it happens, a big fan of Eddie Izzard – he is probably my all-time favorite comedian, particularly his shows from the late 90s and early 00’s.
But I’d rather he didn’t allow himself to be dragged into this particular arena: and I hope he knows what he’s letting himself in for.
Read more: ‘Behind the Veil of Labour’s Manufactured Anti-Semitism Crisis‘, ‘The Ken Livingstone Witch-Hunt & the Deeper Plot‘, ‘Auschwitz, the Holocaust & the Lessons We Still Haven’t Learnt‘, ‘How it Became Impossible to Criticise Israel‘, ‘What was PRITTI PATEL Doing in Israel?‘…
“Anti-Semitism”, this charge reminds us of the fable by Aesop called the Boy who Cried “Wolf”. As well, one must allow for the possibility that the actions of some Jews, the reckless, self-serving actions of the Jews, tend to provoke “anti-Semitism”.
Indeed but the angloamerican elites benefit and the jews move closer to them every time.
The angloamericans, the Us/Uk elites brought it all about and bring evil jews to rule Israel and duped jews to bring multicultural chaos to the Europeans who are perceived to have brought misery to the jews. The hiding of true history, also the work of the Us/Uk elites, maintain their evil program.
One might have hoped that the jews would understand that they have been doublecrossed and duped to play their remarkable role in first Britains service and now in the service of the angloamericans.
But since most people mistakenly believe that the Israel project is only tied to the Balfour era, the same historical ignorance which hides the British origin of the whole deal, the jews look like they did it to themselves. If people who now direct honest critique against the jews and their exaggerated use of ‘antisemitism’, were aware and brought up the whole story, the jews might begin to relax from their siege mentality. A mentality nurtured by the angloamerican elites using the Tavistock institute.
But the grassroots also contribute, like bbb points out. The grassroots inadvertently become the footsoldiers who help their elites to maintain control over their jewish stooges.
The grassroots reactions are often emotional but still sincere. The elite conspiracy which brought it all about is harder to understand than the simpler explanation the grassroots have sofar been fed with. I’m not sure the truth will reach them. They spit it out.
British agents told the Germans to kill the jews and told the Israelies to kill the arabs, first thing Israel was established. In both cases the British agent concerned was seen as a pathbreaker.
petergrafstrm, I didn’t fully understand this paragraph: “The grassroots inadvertently become the footsoldiers who help their elites to maintain control over their jewish stooges.”
That sounds like a very interesting point – but I don’t think I’ve got it.
The grassroots rarely think about things like the following:
In the 2009 Brookings Institution paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” , US policymakers would state under a section titled “Allowing or encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that :
…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack.
The grassroots are usually of the opinion that the Us/Uk are the puppets. More or less. And that the jews are the puppeteers.
My version is that they are aligned and that even the most powerful jews hardly ever get out of line so you rarely get to know what would happen when they have serious differences.
I have brought up one probe in the form of Bismarck’s unification of Germany which was assisted by german jewish bankers with the understanding of the Rothschilds, who were consulted by Bismarck. And that even though the Rothschilds had a very delicate situation also being the bankers of the Austrian Hungarian empire. One of Bismarck’s enemies. This may have added to Britains ‘tolerance’ about it since initially Bismarck was not then the greatest potential rival, so weakening the Austria-Hungarians might initially have been welcomed.
Britains attention was then also on the Us, where the British tried to split the Us in two parts in order to impose freetrade. The south wanted it, but the north wanted tariffs in order to build up their own industry and not be flooded with Britains exports.
This mentioned because Bismarck probably got some respite.
Otherwise this was what Britain normally would have tried to prevent. When the jews were emancipated in 1869, Bulwer Lytton wrote On the coming race, published in 1871. He also directly meddled on the continent in Germany helping to bring about the occult movements which formed the background of nazism. Lytton an associate of Palmerston had much earlier (in the 1830s)also inspired Rickard Wagner in his lifelong struggle against the jews. The timing suggests that Lytton in that era together with the British oligarchy were motivated by their decades long plan to create a bufferstate in the ME and therefore wanted to undermine the jews on the continent.
The later intense efforts by Houston Chamberlain (never mentioned by the critics of jewish power) to prevent jewish assimilation in continental Europe happened when Germany had risen to become a formidable rival. At that stage Britains financial dominance would have been ended without the war but also because the jews would have had no reason to discriminate Germany unless some machiawellian power had interfered…
Regarding your polite summary our past exchanges/my commenting, I gladly admit that I have been elliptic. It is in the nature of these marginalized aspects of history that it would be too longdwindling otherwise. And I learn new details every year.
Spot-on, BBB x
I agree with this articles defence of Corbyn. It is the fact that everybody else among the establishment everywhere are hypocrits and pk-false, which makes any honest human being contrast. That said I also agree about the nasty tone on the web about jews.
On my part I have tried to make people notice that both the prominent role played by jews from early 19th century and all the way to the direct development of nazism much later both derive from Britains efforts to 1) create a bridgehead in the ME and 2) to prevent Germany to rise and to prevent the jews from assimilating on the continent. This to make the center of finance remain in the hands of the angloamericans.
To clarify; by ‘prominent role’ I dont mean anything flattering. It was about jews becoming involved in revolutionary activities which eventually became the bolshevik revolution.
But most of the critics on the web see this as something originating from the jews in particular the so called money power assumed to be pulling the strings. So, the narrative goes, the jews want to rule the world and they start to implement the downfall of civilisation destroying it to later build up a tyrrany under jewish rule.
This is what it looked like to many honest observers, say like Gordon Reed.
I will not repeat this time what I have written about many times on various blogs including this one about what I claim really happened. It would be too long a comment.
But let me just conclude with saying that the official historical account totally fails to expose Britains real role. And that includes what the British did against all rivals, including the jews. This because had the jews been allowed to assimilate in Germany there would have been nothing to prevent Britain to loose her near monopoly over finance. Germany when united, and mind you, with the assistance of jewish bankers and with the full understanding of the Rothschilds, constituted a formidable competitor. The British elites, needed war AND to move the competitive jews to the Us. Where they already had other jews put there by Britains previous creation of B’nai B’rit and other zionist organizations which it spawned. All with the aim to control the Us by proxy.
Although I dont bring in the details this time, this background motivated Britains significant encouragement of nazism confirmed by their major figures Goebbels Hitler and Himmler.
Zionism would never have attracted the jews in large numbers without the anti-jewish currents set in motion by the British.
Today some jews are still playing that not so flattering prominent role, annoying many of us with their support for subversion of traditional Europe.
But it didnt happen because jews originally wanted to enslave humanity no matter what people read in the Thalmud.
It happened because Britain wanted to rule the world with no room for rivals. And because the British elites outsmarted everybody.
Thanks petergrafstrm. I acknowledge entirely that you’ve made the point before, in regard to the wrongheaded scapegoating or demonisation of ‘Jews’ on much of the Internet, when – in your view – this has always been a red herring.
I know also you’ve commented at length about the key British role in things previously, and it’s all extremely interesting. A lot of that is stuff I haven’t properly looked into myself, only at a glance. But I know you’re convinced of it: and I am wholly open to that version of history, and you’ve prompted me to think about that angle more.
One of the things I have found fruitful in writing and posting these articles on this site is that people like yourself often bring a good quality of additional perspective, information or insight to the equation – often factoring in things that I have not. Since none of us is the master of all knowledge, this works as a neat little eco-system.
The quality of the comments/contributions I sometimes get here from the likes of yourself is also very pleasing – even when I don’t necessarily agree with the point. When I see some of the low-brow, low-grade comments that pepper a lot of other sites or blogs, I feel gratified that I somehow manage to avoid most of that and attract comment from intelligent, informative people like you instead.