“Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain. He has always believed in conspiracy theories – which is why he has failed to crack down on the scourge of antisemitism in his party. This is the man that has caused huge offence by blaming an imaginary ‘Zionist lobby’ for society’s ills and now he has decided to smear UK officials too.
“People should not believe a word that he says – this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families.“
As we have consistently made clear: the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party
That bit tying belief in antisemitic conspiracy theories to this totally non-Jewish story about the NHS is a big move. I think they’re intellectually correct, but from a totally Jewish point of view I do worry how Corbyn Labour Party Jew hatred is dominating the entire conversation about Corbyn. His economic insanity should be more than bad enough on its own to stop him being elected.
Here’s the Andrew Neil, Jeremy Corbyn interview in full in case you haven’t seen it.
Unsurprisingly, this bias to the left also extends to a systematic bias against Israel. One key way in which Wikipedia is systematically biased against Israel is related to the website’s fundamental policy that all information presented in its articles be verified through the use of citations to “reliable sources.” The problem, therein, is that on Wikipedia what are considered reliable sources are generally “legacy media” (e.g. The New York Times) and works from academia, both of which are already known for their own systematic bias against Israel.
Within Wikipedia, like in the broader public sphere, matters related to Israel are controversial and fraught with disputes, resulting in a highly disproportionate amount of time and energy being consumed on this subject on the site. Due to these long-standing disputes, Wikipedia has adopted special rules governing editing articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict (other controversial subjects are also subject to special editing restrictions, including abortion, the Syrian Civil War, and global warming).
Veteran anti-Israel editors are adept at gaming the system by using these special rules to limit the influence and efficacy of pro-Israel editors, if not to get them outright banned from editing in the topic area or from all of Wikipedia.
You and I both know this is nonsense, since the Israel gov’t pays to have pro-Zionist articles..
This tweeter linked to an old, old video story from 2010 about a single training day to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia. I seem to remember I might have been invited to it. The first person on the video is Naftali Bennet back when he was running Yesha Council which wasn’t a significant Israeli government backed institution even back then. I absolutely know for sure there is no determined or co-ordinated “Zionist” effort paid for by the Israeli government to counter the bias on Wikipedia though I wish there was!
I’ve known for a long time that Wikipedia entries on Israel (and often on Jewish matters too) are very slanted. It’s not always the most obvious of lies but it is every form of deceptive framing, suppression of explanatory background and nearly always geared to make the Israel look bad.
This coincides with something David Collier has just published about a text book used to teach about Israel to UK school children:This book has NO PLACE inside a classroom. It is poisonous – it rewrites history – it whitewashes anti-Jewish violence – and every child who has studied from it – has been exposed to hard-core anti-Zionist revisionist material. Faithfully delivered to them by their teacher, their school and the taxpayer.
‘In August 1929, angry clashes occurred over holy sites in Jerusalem. These grew into 4 days of bloody riots and mob violence throughout Palestine, leaving 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead.’
Here is one example from the book. The year is 1929.
That is how the ‘school’ book describes the bloody massacres of Jewish communities as Arab mobs ran riot throughout Mandatory Palestine. As ‘Arab / Jew’ clashes:
The comparable fatality count is more than deceptive. The reason 116 Arabs died, is because the British killed them as they tried to stop them massacring Jews.
This trick used with the fatality count is an absolutely textbook (excuse me) method of reframing to demonise Jews and whitewash the actions of those who murder Jews. This is the kind of thing that is all over Wikipedia. Which is why it comes as no surprise in Collier’s full report that some of this textbook is even sourced from Wikipedia (something the school kids are told not to do!).
In his conference call on Monday, Mr. Zuckerberg said that Facebook had become better able to seek out and remove foreign influence networks, relying on a team of former intelligence officials, digital forensics experts and investigative journalists. Facebook has more than 35,000 people working on its security initiatives, with an annual budget well into the billions of dollars.
“Three years ago, big tech companies like Facebook were essentially in denial about all of this,” said Ben Nimmo, head of investigations at Graphika, a social media analytics agency. “Now, they’re actively hunting.”
Facebook is a huge money spinner: Wikipedia begs for donations (though it has some pretty rich sustaining donors from (left leaning) Silicon Valley.
There is no way Wikipedia can ever invest the fortune that Facebook is spending every year on security and weeding out deceptive content. I would contend that Facebook’s model is heading away from profitability too but its immense market power will ensure that it remains profitable for a long time to come.
I believe Wikipedia is a much bigger problem for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment than any of the social media fights we hear a lot more about. In many respects, corruption of this kind of long standing reference material is going to be a far bigger societal problem than ephemeral social media posts and adverts.
A few weeks ago I was in a debate with an avowed British Nationalist who focuses all his attention on two main points: the white racial integrity of Great Britain and a strong belief that the only reason “his” white country has non-white immigrants is because of a deep Jewish conspiracy. These are the two essential planks of a particular world view and this incredibly sticky belief system continues to attract a loyal following.
The evidence that Jews control the world and that all Jews must be in on this scheme, no matter how they present themselves in public, stems mostly from the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and a deeply disingenuous and vast body of literature containing quotes from “The Talmud”. This ideology believes that all Jews, no matter how observant or secular, are hiding a great deal of evil stuff in the Talmud and that websites have managed to correctly translate and decode it all to find the hidden commandments to do evil things to “white” people.
Some followers of mine may remember I used to do a regular YouTube video with Simon Harris. Following our chats, mostly about Israeli, Jewish, British and Catalan identities, he plunged deep into the same world as Mark Collett and now edits and publishes updated versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, apparently finding much that reinforces his own beliefs in that notorious, fictional creation.
Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit.
Any living organism which ceases to fight for its existence is doomed to extinction.
A country or race which ceases to fight is equally doomed. The fighting capacity of a race depends on its purity. Hence the need for ridding it of foreign defilements.
The Jewish race, owing to its universality, is of necessity pacifist and internationalist. Pacifism is the deadliest sin; for it means the surrender of the race in the fight for existence.
The first duty of every country is therefore to nationalise the masses; intelligence in the case of the individual is not of first importance; will and determination are the prime qualities.
Remember, those words are Winston Churchill’s summary of Hitler’s Mein Kampf (I’m much more comfortable quoting Churchill than Hitler).
Mark Collett is also not a big fan of Winston Churchill. Even though some have tried to claim Winston Churchill didn’t like Jews, what you find when you dig into it is that Churchill correctly identified that he didn’t like those Jews who were involved in Communism. He was pretty clear about not launching into racist attacks on Jews (or anyone really) purely on account of race. Churchill writes:
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
That comes from a controversial essay, as it is often quoted and misquoted because it does discuss Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution (those claims refuted by Richard Langworth here). It was also written before the Protocols had been conclusively proved to be a forgery.
But this does bring us to an especially important part of the world view of the Jew hating far-right: “Jewish involvement in everything I don’t like and blindness to any Jews working on something I do like”. Without trying to refute every claim made, the big one is that Jews are responsible for Communism (via the Bolshevik revolution). Even Winston Churchill in his 1920 essay linked above, falls into this trap.
The following 1947 essay by By Eugene Lyons (preserved for us by another great foot soldier in the counter Jihad movement, Andy Bostom) is an excellent refutation of the Jewish communism myth which even Churchill in 1920 had been taken in by:
In the fight against communism, American Jews—writers, labor leaders, public figures, Jewish organizations and the Jewish press have played a leading and effective role, far out of proportion to their numbers in our population.
If, despite this, the silly myth of “Jewish communism” persists in some quarters, it only proves the extent of human credulity. It is a myth brought to full flower by Nazi propaganda, part of the evil heritage of Hitlerism. People familiar with the history of Bolshevism are inclined to dismiss it contemptuously as too grotesque to be refuted. I share their contempt, but I am convinced that the nonsense should be thoroughly and openly debunked. The malicious legend that Jews are somehow to blame for communism in Russia and its fifth column here is a weapon in the armory of intolerance. With the pendulum of American sentiment swinging against everything Soviet abroad and at home, there is danger that weak and prejudiced minds may translate anti-communism into antisemitism.
In the actual revolution of 1917, a galaxy of brilliant Jews emerged in the Bolshevik camp—Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Uritzky, Litvinov and others. Because their counterrevolution against Kerensky’s democratic regime succeeded, history has magnified these names until they seem to fill the whole stage of that period. The anti-Jewish propaganda conveniently forgets that Jews were even more numerous and more prominent in the Menshevik and Social Revolutionary camps—in the groups, that is, opposing Bolshevism. Within the Bolshevik high command, Jews were always a distinct minority. The founders of the party and its most active leaders from 1903 to 1908 were Lenin, Malinovsky, Skvortzev-Stepanov, Vorovsky, Professor Pokrovsky, Bonch-Bruchevich. Rumyantzev—not a Jew among them.
A direct consequence of this warped and jealous world view is a desire to believe every possible piece of bad/fake news about Israel and the behaviour of Jews in Israel (our only country). This leads these people to revere and quote every single negative story from violently left wing sources like Israel’s far-left Ha’aretz newspaper (which is a primary source of negative Israel stories for The Guardian or the New York Times). They believe everything in Ha’aretz and the BBC about Israel despite railing against these same outlets for ignoring “white genocide” or downplaying the effects of immigration into western nations.
Add to this an almost obsessive examination of highly fringe activities performed by, at most, a minority of a small minority of Jews (mostly around circumcision). They will also cast the sins of any prominent Jews (Jeff Epstein, Bernie Madoff etc) across the entirety of Judaism.
All of this is to deal with the “blame the Jews” part of the Simon Harris / Mark Collett world view. I have no problem saying that there is an enormous battle going on in the west between sovereign nations and a movement to form a globalist “one world” system. I also have no problem noting that Jews are in that fight on both sides. It is only those blinded by this peculiarly sticky desire to hate Jews, who can’t understand that being Jewish isn’t the only way to understand that person’s actions.
The other part “racial purity” I’ll deal with a little more quickly.
I’m of the opinion that we need to judge people by their actions. Actions are much more deeply affected by ideology, culture and values (all of which we learn from our parents and the society we grow up in) rather than the accidents of our genes and the colour of our skins. Britain was once an almost exclusively white country.
It would appear had the British people ever been asked they would have requested a much lower level of immigration. That request was never clearly asked and no viable mainstream political voice ever offered such a choice. A point eloquently made by Douglas Murray in his book, “The Strange Death of Europe” .
But poll after poll did show that a majority were deeply worried about what all this meant for the country and its future. In spite of this, even the mildest attempts by the political class to raise these issues (such as a 2005 Conservative election campaign poster suggesting ‘limits’ on immigration) were condemned by the rest of the political class, with the result that there was still no serious public discussion.
If Mark Collett thinks Britain’s answer today is paying black and brown people to leave the UK so he can have the prized “white ethno state” he seeks, he can advocate for that. As always with this point of view, when people cannot be “encouraged” to leave with money, at what point do people with this view use more dangerous coercion? People must decide for themselves whether Mr Collett’s very carefully chosen public words can be taken at face value.
If Simon Harris (and his new disciple Shazia Hobbs) want to promote century old forgeries that have led humans to commit horrible crimes against humanity in the past, that should be their right in the free world. However, I won’t be involved with helping them spread this Jew hating, racist nonsense. As the West continues to polarise, this evil nonsense may well gain currency – indeed it clearly is doing so – but I will not associate with anyone complicit in this evil.
Regardless of how the mass inflow of mostly Commonwealth and Pakistani immigrants caused problems of assimilation, it did force Britain to confront the ugly reality of racism. As much as ‘anti-racism’ has been exploited by the Marxist left to undermine patriotism, Britain should be proud of the steps it took to counter racism and today I don’t think of Britain as a deeply racist society. All are children of the Empire. The biggest resurgence of dangerous racism today comes from the UK Labour Party.
I’ve directed a lot of effort since 2001 at understanding Islam. Looking deep inside to see what is within it that makes it such a formidable cultural super power and which produces repetitive patterns of behaviour in followers that negatively impact the lives of non Muslims. I’ve achieved a great deal of personal clarity on this. Not for one second of all that did I view all Muslims as inherently evil by dint of their birth.
In fact I’m pre-disposed to hold in the highest regard the opinions (on Islam especially) of those born and raised to be Muslim who subsequently eschew the brain washing and either pick another faith or none. I can say with personal certainty my knowledge of the broad range of Islamic history and, more importantly, the stories they teach their kids, lets me understand societal changes experienced by countries in the West which refuse to deal with Islam honestly.
Many in the counter Jihad movement are Jews, a disproportionate number in fact. It might have something to do with the realisation that Israel is on the front line of the global Jihad. Some of us have backed Tommy Robinson since a long time before most of you had heard of him. Many have joined and stayed along the way. The only thing we (and Tommy) can’t abide in this movement is anyone with even the slightest belief that Hitler was right.
The only way to stop antisemitism is to criminalize it, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told reporters in New York on Monday.
“The time for talking and having a conversation is over,” Danon said. “What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demands is action and now.”
Danon, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council meeting said that those who engage in antisemitism “must be punished, whether it is here at the UN, political leaders, editors, policy pundits, or college professors, it does not matter.
“Antisemitism should have no place in our society,” he continued. “Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist. It will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed.”
When has criminalising something ever stopped it?
What a lunatic statement. When has criminalising something ever stopped it? Has criminalising prostitution ever stopped prostitution? Has criminalising drugs ever stopped drug taking? Did criminalising alcohol stop drinking? Did criminalising dissent against USSR stop dissent? It was criminal to hide Jews in Europe in Nazi occupied Europe, people still did it!
I wish people (and especially fellow Jews) would step away from the belief that legislation and government enforced laws are the answer to every problem.
We can’t stop people holding Jew hating views or spreading and believing lies (specifically crafted in most cases) to engender Jew hatred. All we can do is make holding these views socially unacceptable. Ostracise those who hold them and use ridicule too.
We’ve done this to Neo-Nazis and the so-called far-right but we’ve allowed Islamic Jew hatred and far-left Jew hatred (which disguises itself as anti-Zionism) to fester and now explode. Our efforts are massively hampered by the far-left control of the media and various hate filled NGOs (like SPLC in the US or Hope not Hate in the UK) calling any political position they don’t like “far-right”.
Our efforts are also hampered by the ridiculous overuse of the term “antisemitism” (while trying to ignore real antisemitism) and by the false equivalence of the new term “Islamophobia” with Jew hatred. Criticism of the ideology of Islam is vital for our civilisation: hatred of individual Muslims is abhorrent. The fact that the term “Islamophobia” deliberately conflates something necessary with something abhorrent renders that term maliciously dangerous.
“And yet these actions have gone unpunished,” Danon said. “I have not seen the NYT [hold] any one accountable for this horrible cartoon. When you have pictures, cartoons, words, demonstrations, it leads to violence and shootings.”
Now I do agree that when a significant cultural icon such as the New York Times publishes a cartoon that displays so many elements of Jew hatred they should be denounced and look very carefully at the specific staff who published that article. I am all for firing people if they are prone to believe and spread lies about Jews: they can go edit Stormfront magazine for the Nazis, not the New York Times.
We can’t legislate thoughts as a crime, we can only stop actions. We can’t change minds with laws.