The Framing of Jeremy Corbyn and British Socialism

Craig Murray has a most excellent analysis after reading the leaked 851 page report.  Craig is so good I'm going to have to check him regularly, I might add to my sidebar.

I also strong recommend reading and re-reading the comments section, as I have done, to hear the perspectives of many British socialists, and a handful of zionists.  Even the socialists I partly disagree with, I love to read over and over because they express themselves so well.

Many note that Craig doesn't actually describe much anti-Semitism in his article.  In the comments section, he indicates that pages 270-272 are the prime pages describing real anti-Semitism in the report.

I downloaded the report from Off-Guardian (other sources seem to have disappeared, many have been threatened with Data violations which Murray says are not applicable in this case--such violations should not protect crimes) and took a look for myself.

Page 270 is blank (???) and instead I started at page 268 which is where the relevant section begins, up to 272.

About 60% of the examples on those pages refer specificially to Zionism by name, and not Judaism or Jewishness.

Of the remaining 40% we allegations of:

1) Holocaust Denial (one particular member ALT)

2) Claim that Rothschilds invented Naziism

3) Soros and Clinton portrayed as Rothschild puppets

4) talk about "Jewish Power"

5) article "Meet the Jews in Trump's Inner Circle"

6) "Rothschild and the Illuminati"

7) exclamation: "I am sick to death of hearing and reading about moaning Jews..."

Few of those people received suspensions.  Except possibly for #1, I wouldn't consider them very serious either.

The high profile members who WERE suspended, like Ken Livingstone and Tony Greenstein (himself of Jewish background in a famous leftish district--and who came to the defense of his friend Livingstone) were simply repeating historical facts (Agreements between Zionists and Nazis and their effect) in relevant contexts.

(To wit, not only did the Zionists reach the Haavara Agreement with Nazis in 1933 to permit rich enough Jews to buy their way out of Germany and take their wealth in the form of German manufactured goods, but also the Zionists blocked the boycott of Nazis by nearly all other Jews from 1933-37 which might have toppled the Nazi state when it was weak.  These Zionists persuaded major international merchants--many of whom were Jewish--NOT to honor the boycott.  Zionist agreements with Hitler ended in 1937.)

(I know nothing about Rothschild and Naziism.  HOWEVER there is another claim which I believe is true, and that is that Hertzl supported the anti-semitic ruler of Vienna, who may have been a model for Hitler who also lived in Vienna at the time, and that many later mistakenly thought that Hitler would similarly be anti-semitic in rhetoric only.  During this same time period, Hertzl held the first world conference of Zionism in London, where some time later the Balfour Agreement was a letter written to Lord Rothschild--a back room deal that gave much of Palestine to the Zionists.  There could be more connections here, and in fact a number of dodgy websites claim there are.  Meanwhile most people I respect believe that Naziism and Zionism are both ethnic supremacisms cut from different corners of the same 19th century cloth, even while or if not actually fabricated and promoted by the exact same people.)

In my opinion, the damage done to the socialist project within the Labour Party by hyping the lightweight "Labour Antisemitism Crisis" was far worse than the damage, if any, caused to anyone Jewish by these trivial bits of "antisemitism," if they can even be called that.  

It's my reading of Craig Murray that he says much the same thing, though Craig doesn't specifically downplay "the actual" antisemitism revealed in the report--only nobodies in the outback like me can do that.  Craig says there is some serious stuff there, but that the mishandling had nothing to do with Corbyn and the Labour socialists and was simply blamed on them--i.e. Corbyn and his closest associates were framed by those who dislike Corbyn's socialism, and anti-semitism was a conveniently available tool thanks to the new IHRI definition of antisemitism which includes anti-zionism, along sid the longstanding committments to greater rights for Palestinians among Corbyn and his friends.)

I've really come to like Tony Greenstein as well as Murray if not better.  And recetnly he's been writing a lot, with more relevant articles out just today.  Maybe I'll add him to my sidebar.

His second article today carries on from the first talking about the IHRI conflation of anti-zionism with antisemitism.

Tony Greenstein has convinced me that Gilad Atzmon is truly an anti-semite and we do not make such accusations lightly.  Read Tony's incredible deconstruction of Atzmon's writings and sayings.  For me, the key bit is that Atzmon denies the possibility of honest Jewish anti-Zionism, ignoring the 2000 year history of something just like that, and the possibility of Jews (like anyone else) being ethically concerned about racism and the apartheid state of Israel, as they can (and quite often are) if their minds are free from the endless lies of Zionism--which is not solely a Jewish phenomenon either.  Jewish anti-Zionists include a vast number of writers I respect.  To Atzmon, anti-Zionist jews are all liars, ready to turn into Zionists at the next anti-Semitic comment (similar to what Athiests are incorrectly maligned of doing in foxholes).  On the contrary, Jewish Anti-Zionists include many of the most intelligent, honest, ethical and courageous people I know, who would rather (and frequently have) faced severe ostracization and even death before becoming a tool of racist oppression.  We anti-Zionist jews and others are part of many groups, and loyal to them, but not so loyal as break fundamental ethical principles to elevate them, as the Zionists have.  One of those ethical principles, now enshrined if not universally obeyed in all modern societies, is anti-discrimination.  Atzmon has been kicked out of Palestinian Rights organizations for his antisemitism, they won't tolerate it either.  From what I gather in this review of a 2018 boot, Atzmon is basically selling a collection of nonsense ideas, centered around a Nazi-like antisemitism (he's a "former-Jew" after all, after having given up "the Jewish Identity").  It's also strongly anti-socialist and anti-communist, while seeming comfortable to right wing and other extremisms.  But such is the flexibility of his nonsense writing, that it's been published at Counterpunch as well.  But I still feel he would be as entitled to his conspiracy theories as anyone else, as long as they weren't generalized (such as to Jews as a category), or maliciously libelous.  I think Greenstein, like many others, often makes too much of such theorizing.  I'd only accept certain dangerous cases as being unacceptable, notably Holocaust Denial, and even then, only as an offense and not a crime.

An Update on the British Labour situation today from Tony Greenstein's friend Asa Winstanley.

From Jamie Stern-Weiner: A detailed critique of the claim that the British left is full of antisemitism (by fair measures, the British left has less real antisemitism than the conservatives, but more criticism of Israel).

"Rubber Bullets"

https://twitter.com/CNSDallas/status/1268321956744617985

(This is my first attempt to link from Twitter, don't know if it will work.)

"Rubber Bullets" is a euphanism.  They are 40mm rubber coated steel rounds, 15% of which result in serious permanent injury, and 3% in death.

In the past week, many people have suffered serious injury from these weapons, which like tear gas, should be banned for police usage.

(Tear gas is banned in warfare as a "chemical weapon.")

Guy from Dallas shown on Twitter lost an eye and teeth.  Many seem to suffer from these sorts of facial injuries, as it appears cops aim for head.

Reply to a Zionist about Palestinian "anti-Normalization"

I do find this issue of "anti-normalization" somewhat interesting.  I wonder how it compares, for example, with the approaches taken by indigenous groups in the USA, who certainly did lose a lot of land from the 1600's to 1900.  However, it is also my understanding that by 1905 such Americans were all officially made US citizens, and following anti-discrimination laws passed in the 1960's, they are legally entitled to buy land anywhere in the USA, just like any other US citizen, and among other activities for which discrimination is legally forbidden among US citizens "regardless of race, religion, ..."  That may not always work, but at least they can take it to court where discrimination of many kinds is supposed to be illegal.

I read a few of the stories that came up in the search you suggest, and then the recent article I've linked at bottom popped up, describing the discriminatory Israeli planning process, which expands Jewish enclaves, but not Palestinian towns, all across Israel and Palestine.  For several decades now I had heard that it was impossible or nearly so for Palestinians in the west bank to buy land or get building permits, while Israeli Jewish West Bank settlements keep expanding, tapping more water sources, and making it necessary for Palestinians to cross checkpoints on foot to go from one Palestinian area to the next, while Israeli Jews drive on freeways above it all.  Noam Chomsky has described the West Bank, a central area of the Palestinian State recognized by about half of the UN countries, but possibly being fully annexed by Israel soon, as increasingly isolated and separated Palestinian "bantustans," separated by Israeli civilian and military settlements and facilities to which Palestinians are not permitted entry.  That is indeed the way it looks on maps I have seen, and I've seen videos of checkpoints on TV.  Many people I read, mostly Jews, use the terms "bantustans" like that, as well as the terms Ethnic Cleansing and Apartheid State.  Some even use and try to justify the term Genocide, whose definition sometimes overlaps Ethnic Cleansing.

In his book, Knowing Too Much, Norman Finkelstein debunks the claim that Palestinians fled their homes in 1948 because of orders given by other Arab countries.  Historians in the early 1960's went through radio archives and could find no evidence of the alleged orders.  In the early 1980's, a expat former Israeli foreign minister wrote a book describing the extensive planning process which had gone into the Palestinian ethnic cleansing in 1948.  As of now, Finkelstein says, the only dispute among serious historians is how much was planned and how much was accidental.  Among the stories I have read, mostly written or spoken by Jewish writers such as Chomsky and Finkelstein, the most authoritative historian of Palestine is said to be Ilan Pappe, whose 2006 book is titled "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine."  He is also an Israeli expat.  Chomsky spent several years in Israel just after it was recognized, but nowadays, like many Jews who say things unacceptable to the Israeli government, has been detained or denied entry.  Another such Jew is Ariel Gold, member of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), who tried to visit Israel a few years ago, but was detained and ultimately had her visa revoked, by the very man who Israel is now sending to be UN Ambassador.

Finkelstein also writes that the arabs of Jordan were primarily nomadic in 1948, whereas the arabs of Palestine had long been settled mostly in towns and villages, where the vast majority have lost their homes and possessions since then.  To this day, there remain Palestinian arabs in refugee camps in several other countries in the middle east, and they get little or no respect from other Arab countries, as well as Israel, just like you say.  Though it may be that disrespect of Palestinians and Palestinian Refugees by other Arab countries is more a matter of government policy than the attitude of Arabs generally ("in the street").  Egypt, and most of the Arab kingdoms are client states of the USA, and seek alignment with US policies, as well as alliances with Israel, which might also be called a client state of the USA, as it accepts US military and diplomatic assistance.  Many people I read feel that Israel (through the Israel Lobby, described in a book of that title by two Jews, Mearshimer and Walt) is the ultimate motivation for US endless wars/regime change operations in the middle east.  Chomsky puts the shoe on the other foot, saying that it is US Military Planning which requires Israel to be protected to continue US hegemony in the region (he has denied the importance of the Israel Lobby).

I first became aware of Palestine in 1969, when the Jewish Communist uncle of a friend of mine started to tell me about the Nabka. Before he could answer my first question, my friend's mother shut him up.  All my other friends in that era (1963-1980) were Jewish also, and over time I some of them questions also, because I wanted to know.  It often didn't end well, and may have been one more brick in the path toward getting a Jewish girlfriend, which did several times seem possible and desirable.  If it hadn't been for Israel, I possibly would have converted to Judaism because of such desires.  I thought about it several times over the decades.  For many years, I subscribed to Rabbi Michael Lerner's Tikkun.  But now I'm quite happy being Unitarian/Freethinker, and reading articles frequently at Mondoweiss...published by yet another Jew.  I discovered Anti-Zionism in 2007 at the US Social Forum, in a seminar hosted by some group similar to JVP.

But don't worry.  Neither Trump nor Biden sees anything good about BDS.  Biden explicitly rejected it recently, though everyone I know believes Americans have free speech rights to boycott anything they choose, especially for political purposes, and some state laws against BDS have been annulled by US courts on this basis.

Israel: Discriminatory Land Policies Hem in Palestinians

Israel: Discriminatory Land Policies Hem in Palestinians The Israeli government’s policy of boxing in Palestinian communities extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to Pa...

[Note: I mention that I've learned my anti-Zionism from mostly Jewish sources as a historical fact.  It is not my intention to discredit Palestinian voices, who I am now pleased to be seeing more of.  I mention this historical fact because it runs counter to the frequent excuse by Zionists accusing their critics as being Arab extremists who want to wipe out Jews.  My point is that it doesn't matter whether you are Jewish or Arab or any other religion/ethnicity/identity, you are still able to understand these issues in universalistic terms, if you can get past racist and supremacist indoctrinations.  And many uniformed people are simply unaware of the longstanding pole of anti-Zionism among Jews themselves--it used to be the majority among Jews as recently as 1940, and is still huge, among all Jews including Orthodox, Reform, and Secular.  Zionists and Israel do not speak for all Jews and never have.  It is highly antisemitic to claim--as some Zionists do--that most anti-Zionist jews are unstable self-hating hypocrites who would turn to Israel at the least antisemitic remark.  Anti-Zionist Jews face many hardships in the modern world, including ostracization from erstwhile friends, expulsion from the British Labour Party as well as other legal and social discrimination, and sometimes violence and death at the hands of Zionists.  There ought to be a special word for anti-anti-Zionism and its like among other ethnicities.  I wouldn't be surprised if anti-anti-Racism in general is the biggest source of discrimination in the world today.]

Woody Allen vs Mia Farrow

After checking these things out, I side completely with Woody Allen.  I believe he is a fine human being as well as one of the greatest movie makers of all time (in fact, he's #1 in my book of movies, which I've seen all I could buy, and I'd like to see them all).

Mia Farrow is a monster.  It was clear from her movie performances as well.  She's unhinged, selfish, insane, willing to destroy her ex-husband (and even her young child) simply to win a custody battle.  And with all Woody Allen movie fans as collateral damage.  I simply cannot understand what Woody ever saw in her.  I could barely stand her performances either (though they may have added some bite).  Diane Keaton and the others are so much better, and real people.

Leading up to the key custody battle, it is totally and utterly implausible that Allen would have sexually abused his 7 year old daughter.  Even if he had some kind of problem, which there has never been any other evidence of.

It's almost unreal.  They had 4 children and adopted 10 others.  (I believe this was mostly Farrow's idea.)  Allen was certainly some kind of foolish martyr/saint for putting up with all this as long as he did.

Ronan Farrow, who defends his mother at the expense of Allen,  is a jerk.  He's also been willing to destroy anyone and anything to get ahead.  Most haven't kept up with this, but his leading story about Weinstein, which was the first to paint him as a rapist and not mere harasser, failed basic journalistic standards and was ultimately dismissed in court.  Ultimately Weinstein was convicted on other grounds.  I'm not trying to defend Weinstein anymore, he obut I think generally he produced excellent movies and seems to have had a positive influence on Michael Moore, who made gems under Weinstein's watch, but has now descended into producing crap like Planet of the Humans.

I one subscribed to New Yorker but after their role in boosting Russiagate I decided not to renew (I would have cancelled, but I'm too disorganized for that).  I see it just as a gossip rag now, run by the deep state for social control.

I believe there has been some crap in #MeToo also.  Certain people were brought down for no good reason including Franken and Keiller.  I certainly wouldn't trust Ronan Farrow to get the stories straight.  It seems to me the big chips have been taken down mostly on the left rather than the right.  Those on the right who were brought down (like Ailes) were on borrowed time and oxygen anyway.  The selective punishment aspect of #MeToo thing smacks of Epstein-like setup, entrapment, and control, which is what ScandalMania is generally I believe.  We need to focus on processes more than people, policies more than scandals.  A helpful media would help that focus rather than distract.  Of course we don't have a very helpful mass media, what we have is Manufacturing Consent.

But even I can't live without mass media altogether.  I simply understand and try to watch out for it's limitations.  On international affairs especially, NYTimes may be more wrong than it is right, but sometimes it works and I'm still looking for something better.

Here's a Woody Allen and Mia Farrow Timeline from the NYTimes.

The Times on Ronan Farrow.

The Bipolarity of Extremism

I first started thinking of this bipolarity with regards to Zionism.  But then I saw equally clearly that it applies to all Extremist Nationalisms and Identitarianisms, including Nazi, White Supremacy, Fascism, Neoliberalism, and so on.  For every Identity, there are some who subscribe to an Extremist version, and all Extremists sound and act pretty much the same.

So I'll just refer to the Extremist nationalism or identitarianism of the generic N people, who could be anyone.  God could be any tribal deity or unquestioned principle.

The Manic

We N's kick ass.  We know what we want (it's in our founding documents, revelations from God to select leaders, and daily affirmations) and we will get it.  Real soon.  We are on the way right now.  Nothing and no one will stand in our way.  Sissy rules of fair play don't apply to us, we are on a special mission from GOD and the ends justify the means.  We're God's chosen people, and we're smarter, stronger, tougher, and more resilliant than anyone else.  Any against us are fools and their corrupt masters.  They know they are weak shits.  They know their time is up.  They will tremble as we approach.  We will clean up the disaster of their corrupt laziness, and build the shining city on a hill that will be as a beacon to all right minded people.

The Depressive

No one, ever, has been more unfairly marginalized, criticized, demonized, or insulted as we have been.  Discrimination and violence against us is legendary, even before we became a people in ancient times we were being abused for standing up for goodness and truth.  Our unique place in the world, as a scapegoat for the corruption and meanness of others, means we need a special place for ourselves, not subject to the whims, evil, and cross examination of others.   A place where we can just be ourselves.  Suffering as much as we are, we can't go on otherwise.  [And back to the top...]

How Communism is Different

There can be extremist versions of Communism, such as the original Maoism*, but Communism per say is not an extremism or extremist identity, though often accused as being such.  (The same is true of Judaism and Jewish Identity; they are not extremist per se, they simply have an extremist version called Zionism.)

Communism does not respect any form of Extremist Identitarianism.  All people should be united in achieving the ultimate goal of Communism (from each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs).  That pair of universal principles for material human society was expressed by both The Apostle Paul and Karl Marx.  The principles have no specific realization, they are both clear and indefinite at the same time, and are to be continuously defined and improved on by human society.  All good universal principles are like that, such as Equality and Love.

Communism respects personal identities so long as they are positive and inclusive and not demanding of unwarranted special privileges at the expense of others.  Communists do not believe in states or regions defined by ethnicities.  States or regions are defined by every person in them.  There is no way to escape or be protected from injustice or inequality.  It must be fixed whenever, wherever, and however it exists, and it is the job of all good people, working together through coalitions, to do so.

The very word Communism comes from the same root as Common, meaning all or universal, as in the US Contitutional phrase of Common Good.

Communists are accused of promoting Class Warfare, pitting Workers against Owners, but it's an illusion.  Owners are not some alien race, they are merely individuals exercising the false and socially destructive principles of Capital Ownership.  People who are currently exercising those foul principles are free to choose to abandon them righteously and join us.  It is the Capitalist Class who are the true Class Warriors, and they've been winning, mostly, though everyone knows it can't go on forever.

I first heard Zionism being called Extremism by an old leftist Jew (he insisted it was true by definition) and nearly everything I've learned about Zionism and Israel and Palestine and has been through writers who are Jewish at least in the ethnic sense.  People like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Philip Weiss, and Aaron Mate.  I admire and keep trying to emulate their objectivity and passion for justice and truth.

"Whenever you put some people ahead of others," the old leftist Jew said, "you have supremacism, which is a form of extremism.  Everyone understands to some degree what being put down is like, we've all had that experience in some way, and so we can and should all work together against discrimination and for equality.  But no other group is ever going to be satisfied with having your group, as a group, ahead of all others.  Therefore it is an extreme position.  Zionism says Israel is firstly for the Jews, they can immigrate freely by merely proving they are Jewish, but people from other groups cannot immigrate freely, even if they lived there before and left involuntarily."

(*As of this writing, it's unclear whether Maoism has any meaning at all, except for an ad hoc description of Communism with Chinese Characteristics, whatever than happens to be.  The original Maoism from Mao Zedong had a very clear but fairy tale picture of what society must be like, such as small farming and industry only, and Maoists would stop at nothing to get it, both being clear signs of an Extremism.)

The Conspiracy

Where are the conspiracy theories, you probably weren't asking yourself.

Well, here's a good start (below).

Curiously, there were two military pandemic "simulations" in the months leading up to the Wuhan outbreak, code named "Event 201" and "Crimson Contagion."

One included a novel Coronavirus.

These exercise simulations go way back.  This time if not every time before, it was determined that the US lacked sufficient ventilators to deal with peak infection.  These simulations virtually modeled what we are seeing around the globe today: social distancing, semi lockdowns, etc.  And strangely 1 million people went "missing."  Dissidents?

Fort Detrick was closed by CDC last summer for safety violations, then opened in November as a result of Pentagon lobbying.  Immediately after being reopened, the local newspaper reported two containment breaches.

Detrick was also at the center of the 2001 weaponized Anthrax attacks that infected 23 and killed 5.  Ever stonewalled, the FBI gave up the investigation in 2010 and many findings were classified.

Just prior to those Anthrax attacks, a simulation had been done involving an Anthrax-like agent, codenamed "Dark Winter."  People involved in that exercise 19 years ago were also involved in the simulations last year.

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/all-roads-lead-dark-winter/

Self Doubt

During March 2020 I was obsessed more than usual over the possibility I might be wrong, and that this wrongness might lead others to take risks with COVID-19 more than they should have.  This was true both during emails to friends and posts to my Blogger account.

In many cases, after long mental deliberations, I took those risks of being wrong anyway.  My blog doesn't seem to get a lot of readers, let alone enough respect for people to change their ways because of it.  Nobody turns to this blog for medical advice, the purpose is to foster deeper thought.  I hope to bring up points which get lost in normal discourse, but may lead somewhere useful if explored deeper (not just by me, but by others taking them further).

Then I've been torn by the concern that maybe I should take down earlier articles that didn't emphasize the risks enough.

In fact, my earliest articles on COVID-19 might very well be wrong.  But I can't take them down for another reason: I still hope they are right!  And countervaling many panic-driving media accounts that lead people to the meme "We're All Gonna Die!" instead of "We can minimize this catastrophe by working together in different ways."

I think my position has now shifted pretty much in line with MoonOfAlabama, who I was criticizing earlier for shifting his position.

I've noticed this, and decided it was worthy of comment, but not for serious soul searching of the kind "maybe I shouldn't be blogging at all."  At least not yet.

The funny thing was, I was among the first of my friends calling for staying away from large gatherings.  From late February until mid-march.  Then my friends went way past me in fear, it has seemed, largely driven by mass media accounts which naturally focus on individual horrifying stories that seem to contradict statistical evidence (such as, old people are more vulnerable).  Stories focus on young and healthy people who have died, contradicting the mass of other evidence that continues to show older and sicker people being more at risk.

One of my ideas for a long time has been: exposure is not just a "yes/no."  Exposure is a quantity, and probability AND severity of infection are a function of that QUANTITY.