THE SATURDAY ESSAY:why critiquing Zionism is a Ken Livingstone’s throw from the New Anti-Semitism

I doubt very much if Cuddly Ken knows the first thing about ‘Zionism’

Oh dear, here we are again. As Tom Lehrer sang around the middle of the last century in his classic National Brotherhood Week:

Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants/ and the Protestants hate the Catholics/ and the Muslims hate the Hindus/ and everybody hates the Jews

Not too deep down – myriad pogroms and Nazi death camps later – a majority of people in the West are at best suspicious of Jewry…and at worst, harbour feelings of violent resentment at the power they wield. In Eastern, Central and South Eastern Europe, sneering rejection of their ‘clannishness’ is the default position for most citizens. In every conversation about banking malpractice, it’s never too long before the name Rothschild pops up, followed by Goldman Sachs. Everyone is called Dimon and Blankfein and Diamond and Lehman. Hollywood, financial services and most  of the professions in the West are dominated by Jews. They excel in the arts. In the UK, there are 263,000 Jews, and yet this 0.4% of the population accounts for 4.7% of all MPs – including the current speaker and the last Opposition Leader.

Let’s get even more personal about it: Ros Altmann is a Jew. Sir Philip Green is a Jew. A pretty unpleasant pair.

davidstar

To my mind, two distinct forms of racism exist: those based on resentment of success, and those based on detestation of failure. I have felt since the early 1970s that ethnicity (and even the term ‘racism’) are distractions from the real issue, which is one of culture clash. With a genuinely level playing field, multi-ethnic societies on the whole function perfectly well. Attempts at establishing multiculturalism have, by contrast, been an unmitigated disaster throughout history. Northern Ireland, Nigeria, India/Pakistan, the USSR, the USA (South v North), contemporary Britain and – worst of the lot – the European Union remain examples of endless attempts to override anthropoligical truth. Even today, a hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, the US remains a country where blacks and hispanics struggle, Jews thrive, but all of them are sneered about in private.

Such ‘melting pot’ success – and it is a truly extraordinary one – as has been achieved in the US is down to homogeneity of the civics there: by and large, there is one language, one flag, one education curriculum and one God….Munnneeee. Latterly, America has chosen pc as the way to keep the cohesion on the road – in my opinion, another word for denialism, but each to his own. However, if you ask me why Trump is going to get the GOP nomination, my answer would be succinct: “The arch hypocrisy and fascism of pc”. I would probably leave unsaid “and bitter resentment of democracy being stolen mostly by Jewish banking firms” because if one said that in the States these days, chances are you’d be deported and the people you said it to would need counselling for the rest of their lives.

So if the problem is one of culture, is it possible to be a ‘culturalist’? I would say emphatically, yes it is: I am culturalist. I believe anything other than a monocultural socio-economic model leaves every State prone to anarchy; and I believe some cultures are better (for me) than others.

Let me give you some examples. I believe British Jewish culture is superior to British crypto-atheist culture. I believe that because economically, it is far more successful; and socially it is infinitely more successful. Problem families are largely absent from UK Jewish society. Economically, there is far more philanthropy and mutualist communitarianism. The divorce rate among Jewish Brits is half that of other communities.

On the other hand, I believe the British culture of equality and tolerance – for all its myriad faults – to be superior to achetypal Islam. And no, I’m not interested in this convenient addition of the suffix ‘ist’ to distinguish the bad guys from ‘ics’. Islam in its contemporary form is mysoginist, ignorant, intolerant, demanding, illiberal and undemocratic. The desire of Islamic Brits to have their own education and legal system is I’m afraid a clear warning that only the blind can ignore: most younger Muslims do not wish to integrate into a State they see as decadent bordering on depraved….and they state this time after time in opinion research.

Because I am at heart a liberal democrat (no capital letters) Benthamite, I would rather my community and country was allied to cultures I perceive as most congruent to mine. This isn’t narrow bigotry, but a conclusion based on watching uninformed ideals snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and the acceptance of overwhelming evidence that we are a pack species based on fair competition within the pack, and honest trade with other packs. That combination, above any other, is the secret of our species development. (I shrink from calling it ‘success’, because we are failing miserably at the moment…specifically because we have lost this plot).

I write of cultural congruence in various senses. The UK’s Chinese community, for example, fulfils it pretty much to the letter: they share my community/family values and my fascination with good food and entrepreneurial capitalism; their kids display little violence and very high average IQs; they retain admiration for their culture and what the PRC has achieved, but they are very firmly rooted in our host culture. They too may seem closed and standoffish at times, but this I believe is a function of facial expression: once you establish ‘good egg’ credentials, they are (like the Jews) unbelievably generous – and quick to smile at ironic humour.

Looking beyond Dover, well….I live in France now, because its lasting communitarianism and thinly disguised anti-globalism chimes very well with mine. The French insist that all immigrants stick to the rules on the atheist nature of the State here: I’m all for that, as religion only becomes benign when it stops looking for power surges to electrify its fanatics.

But we in Britain are quite wrong to see France as ‘alien’. Rather than somewhere with which we should be in a Union, it is ‘another pack’ with whom we can amicably trade. If you look at the etymology of language difference, most Rosbifs and Frogs speak the Normand French of Henry II of England; they just pronounce most of it differently. The idioms, sentence constructions and derivations are the same because we were both invaded by the Romans, and then commenced a long tradition of invading each other.

Plonk the entirety of the UK’s population in France tomorrow, and it would produce mayhem. I think our problems would be more to blame for that than theirs, but either way France comes under my heading of cooperation between tribes. Just not a Union.

davidstar

Scratch a German, and you will find a person privately convinced that the Greeks are Untermenschen. Scratch a Greek, and you will find a dislike of the ‘Dutch tightfists’ as represented by Jeroan Dijesslebleom. Scratch any Clubmedic, and you will find deep suspicion of the Germans’ controlling culture. Scratch the Harder Left across the West, and you will find many ideologists looking to make the Jews an exception to their formulaically robotic pc.

I know perfectly well that expressing the last of those beliefs sets me apart from the great majority of the Radical Left. And thus, it’s hardly surprising that in my own country of birth, a row has now broken out within the Labour Party. Naturally, this is being stirred vigorously by Camerlot, and over-dramatised by the largely Right-wing press….but those are catalysts, not causes: ultimately, the Left (as I do) despises banking power…and as we saw earlier, most of that power lies in the hands of Jews.

In order to maintain this narrative, the Left persistently complicates the history and facts surrounding it. This latest case involving famous ‘national treasure’ hardliner Ken Livingstone is a classic of its kind. The former GLC leader and London mayor was suspended from the Labour party two days ago after claiming Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”.

He also said “a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green or in Stoke Newington. It’s a physical loathing.” The following day, Livingstone told the Evening Standard that “everything I said yesterday was true”, adding that he had evidence of Hitler’s support for Zionism.

This is vintage Ken stuff. What he asserted is massively open to question – he cited a Marxist historian of whom the kindest adjective to use is ‘controversial’. But the use of words above gives away his real feeling: “a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel” is a profoundly Freudian admission that Livingstone and his ilk do in fact hate the Jews in Israel.

It all comes down in the end to people you’re allowed to hate. And to this end, the harder US and European Left have forever and a day skirted round the danger area of anti-Semitism by looking for closely related euphemisms that even pcers can use: Israelis, Hassidics, Zionists and so forth.

What was this ‘Zionism’ that Adolf Hitler allegedly admired? In fact, it is one of many historical examples of how ‘rights’ to this or that territory depend on where one starts the clock ticking. For millenia, the Middle East was home to dozens of migratory peoples, and so the ticking clock applies even more to this region.

But some things are relatively easy to establish. During the period 1,000 to 900 BC, there was a clearly recorded ‘United Kingdom of Israel’, ruled in turn by Saul and David.

Around 440 BC, Judean drought caused Moses to migrate into Egypt, where the Jews were enslaved for a considerable time.

The enslavement by Egypt was followed – once the Jews escaped – by the arrival of the Romans in Judea. This second enslavement nurtured the Israelites’ obsession with The Messiah. So when Jesus the Nazarene pitched up there, he was at first seen as the patently miraculous liberator they had sought. Seen equally as a threat by both Romans and Pharisees, he wound up crucified…but was succeeded by a Christian sect. It was this that the Romans (quite rightly) saw as a threat to their power. And it is at this point that the Jewish diaspora begins in earnest…as persecuted Jews flee in all directions to escape the Roman suppression.

What too often gets overlooked by fanatics on all sides is that the Jews are seen (and describe themselves) as the children of Israel: the Israelites. And this homeland was never far from Canaan, Judah/Judea, and Palestine. Here’s the map as it was 900 years before Jesus was born:

Davidisrael

At around 11 o’clock high above, we can clearly see Cyprus. Now look at the map of contemporary Israel superimposed on the original Kingdom:

modisrael

If Israel is a fascist imperialist nation (as most Islamist sites claim) then believe me, it’s crap at Imperialism…being as it is just 35% of the size it was nearly 3,000 years ago.

Now of course, this is spurious: events closer to the present are being completely ignored in the analysis. But that’s my point about ticking clocks: as with Marxist dialectics of historical political development, the history of national territory brings nothing to the party…because every claim can be disputed by a previous or subsequent claim.

I’m merely pointing out here that when it comes to land claims, Israel’s is just as good as anyone else’s….or just as superficial. To use obvious parallels, the Picts are the rightful owners of Scotland, the Danes have a good claim on England, the Bretons an excellent title to Wales, and the Hun a very strong case for a homeland in Lot et Garonne….where one major town is still called Allemans le Dropt.

davidstar

Now, there is a modern 19th century form of Zionism that basically pressed for a homeland for the Israelites whose tribal name had morphed via the southern Judah presence into Judaism…the Jews. In German (from much of which Yiddish [Judisch] is descended) the word for Jewish is still Judisch.

This is the scintilla of truth behind Ken Livingstone’s half baked “Hitler was a Zionist” drivel: Zionists from time to time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries accepted the idea of the Jewish homeland being situated in South America…although nobody bothered to ask the main candidate Chile what it thought about this daft idea. For a brief few months in 1941, Hitler also listened to the eugenicist Nazi amateur Heinrich Himmler (whom he ridiculed in private) and his fantasies about deporting European Jews to Madagascar.

But the idea that Hitler wanted Jewry to survive is preposterous. His Weltanschauung was of a Jewish world conspiracy to which the only solution – the Final Solution – was to treat the Jews as “the bacillus” he described over and over again in his rambling Mein Kampf: to disinfect the world from them as if they might be leprosy.

davidstar

I’m sorry folks: I know that many of you see my defence of the Jews in general and Israel in particular as my “blind spot”. But I do not and never will see them as a threat to the philosophy I embrace in favour of any ideology I must obey. World socialism, Islam and neoliberalism are quasi-religious ideologies, the pursuit of whose aims will happily accept war, drone murder, citizen destitution, media censorship, illiberal laws and an end of democracy as the means entirely justified by the ends.

For sure, Netanyahu has been guilty of some of those things, and the Palestinians have been given a raw deal. But so have the Iraqis and Syrians…at the hands of Barack Obama (a black man) David Cameron (a white man) and Recep Erdogan (a very bad man).

I will always reject systemic, one size fits all ideology. I believe in philosophy grounded in humanity. I believe humanity is flawed raw material, and therefore Utopian ideology will always fail. I don’t think Zionism is a serious concept and I see no evidence of its relevance or existence in our contemporary World.

Frankly, hiding behind criticism of Zionism is just the same old same old. It is anti-Semitism based on hegemonous conspiracy theory. For Ken Livingstone, it is nothing more than a port of convenience. For the Labour Party, it is merely a tool for hounding a leader most of them don’t like. And for the Conservative Party, it is a useful distraction from destruction.

54 thoughts on “THE SATURDAY ESSAY:why critiquing Zionism is a Ken Livingstone’s throw from the New Anti-Semitism

  1. Far too long mein Tiger. I realise it s an essay but my ageing eyesight /brain do not march to the lucidity or attention span of youth — even if yours still appear capable of doing so.

    Learn to praecis there s a dear…..

    Liked by 1 person

  2. That may be true but this is an orchestrated political campaign to unseat Corbyn because of his views on his Israel. At its heart it is not about Ken Livingstone’s views or anti-semitism but about whether you want the Israelis and powerful traitors within the British establishment (traitors, because they care more about Israel than Britain) to run the country. Look back at David Cameron’s comments at PMQs recently and you’ll see a man deliberately stirring up an ‘anti-semitism’ row where none existted because his backers want Corbyn gone and a Blair-like stooge installed in place, who will willingly fight Israel’s wars.
    That is why all patriotic British people should vote Labour in the local elections. It is democracy at stake, and it is as important to ordinary Jewish people that the wicked people taking their name in vain for their own ends are defeated, as it is for non-Jews.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. “Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants/ and the Protestants hate the Catholics/ and the Muslims hate the Hindus/ and everybody hates the Jews.”

    The modern day revision ….. Muslims hate everybody who isn’t a member of their ‘sect’ ….. as do ‘The Corbyn Clowns’.

    A gas chamber in Islington might be the kindest thing.

    Like

  4. JW

    Even if I take your contention that Hitler could not be described as a Zionist, (and depending on your definition of Zionist there is an argument that by supporting the Haavara agreement, Hitler showed support for the Zionist cause), how on earth is that even within a stone’s throw of ‘new anti-semitism’ to suggest this? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that an allegation of anti-semitism or ‘new anti-semitism’, along with ‘self-hating Jew’ is becoming a badge of honour in the bizarre thought-contolled realm of public discourse. Such is the paranoia deliberately instilled in those daring to discuss this issue from an anti-Zionist standpoint, (one that bizarrely does not apply to any other organised lobby group), that ad-hominems such as ‘anti-semite’ are extremely effective and it requires a brave person to stand up against them.

    Zionism was and is an ethnically-based nationalism birthed from the same womb as other nineteenth century European nationalist movements. As such, criticism of the ideology of its adherents should be treated in the same way as that applying to Bolshevism, Russian Nationalism, Wahhabism or any other set of political ideas. Were I railing against the geopolitical actions of the USSR, it would be laughable to smear me as ‘anti-Russian, or suffering from ‘new anti-Slavitism’.

    Of course, there will be some that really do hate ‘the Jews’ on the grounds of their genes and think that anyone carrying the same genes as those that identify as Jewish are worthy of persecution. It would be likely that such people also use Zionist, Neocon, Bolshevic, Trotskyite and International Banker as euphemisms for ‘Jew’ to cover the true object of their hatred, but that should not prevent those of use that use these terms in their true meaning from speaking out against them.

    Your contention that this ‘new anti-semitism’ is now mainly a creature of the left is also questionable. Perhaps there is more of a deep-seated revulsion to ethnically-based politics on ‘the left’, but I think most are well aware of the difference between being anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish. Personally I detest the easy ‘left/right’ spectrum for the division of political ideas, but several of my heros could be described as anti-Zionist jewish intellectuals and most would be described as being ‘left wing’. Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who” is worth reading as he tries to tease apart the strands of ‘Jewish’ ethnicity, culture and identity politics from an insider’s perspective.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. Agreed Canexpat – I don’t see why anyone should be seen as the chosen people when it comes to criticism, & to be honest I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by continually screaming ” Anti-Semitism !!! ” & referring to a lot of good people as ” Self hating jews “. Whatever the rights & wrongs of it, I don’t like what according to this very informative article describes as a foreign nation interfering in our affairs, & that applies also to the likes of the EU, US, Saudis etc.

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israel-lobby-manufactured-uk-labour-partys-anti-semitism-crisis/16481

    Liked by 3 people

  6. It would be more beneficial to this country if politicians could concentrate on the issues facing us all.
    We have to read it on the MSM, listen to it, watch it – and now John Ward has to BLOG about it.
    Really FASCINATING…..
    Get a LIFE OLD MAN !!!

    Like

  7. I agree with much of what John has written! i also believe like John that political gamesmanship is taking place and that Ken LIvingstone has miss-interpreted,after all does Hitler signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact make Hitler a Bolshevik,i don’t think so! does making such a mistake necessarily make you a Nazi/Bolshevik No! Historical facts and miss interpretation of them just makes you a Historian!

    Like

  8. I guess the ultimate challenge to your thesis in here is your postulate that the UK believes in ‘fair competition as a tribe’.

    Well, if that is the case, the Jews within the tribe believe in fair competition in banking (as that is one of the richest niches of the economy they are prominent in). If they do, they will not constantly give a job to Solly from the synagogue’s son in favour of some working class grandson of someone who went to school with John Ward, assuming aforesaid grandson studied hard at school, showed great aptitude for mathematics and all the other important skills necessary to succeed in the banking world etc.

    The other difficulty I have with the more literal interpretations of Judaism is this concept that Jews are ‘God’s Chosen People’. If we want to get down and dirty about it, that says that they are a master race, a concept which when applied to blonde Germans was I’m sure we all agree the postulate which caused Hitler’s merciful downfall.

    If there is ‘fair competition within the tribe’, then God will view all of the tribe as equally worthy and if he doesn’t, why the hell should the ‘unworthy’ give a damn about all the precepts of God?

    It is up to the Jewish people themselves to address this issue and, if they refuse to, come out with other anti-non-Semitic nonsense trying to claim that they are superior in God’s eyes, then I hope you will write an article trying to defend that, because it will stretch your no doubt enormously powerful brain to the limits.

    Most important of all in this is some concept that ‘God’ passed a message down to earth at a time when the planets were aligned almost uniquely around 2BC through Jesus of Nazareth.

    What I’d like to know is whether he passed any similar messages through folks at the time of the Great Chinese Dynasties, when China led the world and Europe was a place of primitive savages?

    I react very, very badly to any insinuation that the Jews are some special, superior, chosen people.

    It is my definition of racism. Just as much as white men being superior to black men and thus enslaving them. Just as much as men treating women as chattels and controlling them. Just as much as white heterosexuals having hatred for those who don’t represent a breeding threat as they are homosexual.

    It says that merely by dint of who you are born to (and you cannot become a Jew, you have to be born one), you are superior to the rest.

    You can believe in that if you choose, but I utterly refuse to.

    Now if the way these things are phrased are merely fairly childish ways of expressing confidence in their own faith, I suggest strongly that they find more mature ways of doing it.

    I don’t want to kill Jews, I don’t want them put in ghettoes, I don’t want them hounded out.

    But nor will I tolerate any claims that they are intrinsically superior. Not in Britain, not anywhere.

    And if their behaviour patterns to Gentiles reflect unfair competition within the tribe, I expect that to be exposed, just as much as every white, middle class, heterosexual man born to white English parents is subjected to merciless examination of any slight deviation from being the perfectly fair citizen that is the utopian British ideal……..

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Shlomo Sand, an Israeli Emeritus Professor of History at Tel Aviv University, would not accept the ancient history cited by John. In “The Invention of the Jewish People”, a best-seller in Israel, he argued that the exile was a myth fomented by the Christian church as an image of divine punishment. Sand says most of the early indigenous Jews never left Palestine but simply converted to Islam and survive as today’s disinherited Palestinians. “This seemingly radical thesis was once shared by, among others, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister who in 1918 still believed that (in Sand’s words) “the ancient Judean peasants converted to Islam … for material reasons … Indeed, by clinging to their soil they remained loyal to their homeland” [p 186]. Sand, like Koestler before him, argues that most Jews in the world are descended from a Turkic people, the Kahazars who became the Ashekanazi Jews. Zionism ends up like all other nationalisms, especially German, French and British, as discovered to be founded on a total myth. Ernest Renan noted the way that peoples who have done great things together and wish to do more – “avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore” – invent a back story to make it sound better. Karl Deutsch 1912 – 1992 defined a nation as “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours.” Nationalism kills. Extreme nationalism kills exponentially. Most Jews knew that in 1945, if not now.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. @AR

    Thank you for the above, I really should read Sand’s book. The Khazar hypothesis is an interesting one and it would not surprise me if there is a Turkic contribution to Ashkenazi DNA. In fact, according to the ‘In Our Time’ on the Volga Vikings, the Khazar’s converted to Judaism in order to facilitate trade between the pagan/Christian Vikings and the Islamic society of Baghdad. I think it irrelevant anyway really, as the justification for the colonisation and oppression of a native population based on the contention that ones distant ancestors occupied that particular area of real estate 2,000 years ago would be risible in any other context.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

    I simply do not give a fig about the genes carried by any individual. I do think culture has an enormous influence on the behaviour of individuals and their attitudes and I am a unashamed ‘culturalist’. I have a preference for cultures that promote empathy for the less fortunate, regardless of genetic makeup and which oppose injustice, nepotism and corruption in all its forms and which furthermore extend that opposition for the protection of those outside their own group. I am more than happy to live amongst any cultural group that shares those mores.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. The ‘historian of whom the kindest adjective to use is ‘controversial’‘ is Lenni Brenner. A pdf of his Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators is at http://www.thestruggle.org/Zi_Age_Dictators.pdf

    It is complete except for an index (perhaps at the behest of Croom Helm the publisher) and runs to 236 pp. It claims to be and certainly appears to be a scholarly work with 604 footnotes. Chapter 7 Hitler Looks At Zionism is at p 41.

    Like

  12. Slight problem , there is not one iota, not a jot of historical evidence to back up that there was ever a historical figure called David and it probably, is wholly in the realms of elitist propaganda to give the impression that there is some sort of “perfect monarch”. You also choose to ignore that the tribe of Israel, an uncouth, uneducated mob, destroyed the “high civilisation” of the the Philistines in order to claim their “home”. Historians actually liken what happened, to Arkansas being the dominant state in the USA as a result of a civil war.. I’m surprised at you John , these are simple facts that I assumed one as well read as you would be privy to. The modern common usage of the the term “Philistine” in a pejorative sense, stems largely from the Matthew Arnold work “On Philistines and Barbarians”. The trust is, much of the history of the Jewish tribes as related in the Bible has zero archaeological proof to back it up and can be viewed almost wholly, as the same sort propaganda most cultures indulge in when things were not as “rosy” as they wished them to be. The whole time line of the “capture in Egypt” is totally contradicted by the actual records that still exist from the area. That might be historically an inconvenience, it happens to be the currently known facts though.

    I strongly suspect that, Ken was referring to Hitler’s original thoughts on the “Jewish problem” and I hasten to add, this is not my view of the situation at all and was that, Hitler was willing to support the island of Madagascar being given to those of the Jewish faith and allowing them a “fresh start” there. He rather naively, assumed that, the Jewish community and the other European powers would jump at the chance and that, that would solve everyone’s “problems”.

    Then there is the issue of how, a goodly number of those who emigrated to Israel from around the Black Sea area are no more actually Jewish than the emperor of Japan. There is a sizeable community of those calling themselves Jewish, who converted to Judaism during period when it was “the trendy thing to do” and they, in terms of racial background, have less than zero connection to any bunch of wandering misfits from the middle east;

    Let us also not forget that, of the six million cruelly slaughtered during world war 2, two million were killed in situ, mostly at the hands of Ukrainians, Latvians. Estonians etc etc, albeit, after being armed by the Nazis. It’s one of the sad ironies of history that, the fledging state of Germany attracted so many of the Jewish faith because, it had virtually no history of pogroms as opposed to many of the eastern European states. It should also be remembered that , thousands of those of the Jewish faith funded and fought for, the Kaiser’s dream of a “place in the sun” though there is some evidence to support the idea that, the funding was with a tacit agreement with the Kaiser that they should be allowed to return to their traditional homeland after the Central Powers were victorious.

    Israel has every right to exist in peace and it citizens be allowed to go about their business without the threat of some sort of impending Armageddon however, to deny there are now uber right elements who have a hand on the tiller of power in Israel itself, is to bury one’s head in the sand and pretend the real world does not exist. There is sadly, a body of opinion that has huge financial backing that seeks to portray any critique of Israeli policy, no matter how undemocratic draconian and expansionist it might be, as anti Semitic and that my august friend, is really what much of the current squabbling is about?

    Liked by 4 people

  13. It seems entirely plausible that the Zionist leadership would deal with Nazi Germany. They wanted well educated, intelligent, Jewish people to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Nazi Germany wanted rid of the very same people (more fool them….)
    Of course, there was a confluence of interests, with very different agendas. One wonders why a deal could not have happened.

    Like

  14. Zionism

    Nazism

    Different people, pretty much the same goal from their perspective.

    I mean FFS , since when as Zionism been considered a good thing?

    Like

  15. @pippabear

    Yes the chaps from the Middle East seem to excel at lobotomising everyone from the hair down, its always everyone else who is the villain.

    So..

    Who is everyone else?

    Like

  16. @ AR.Shlomo Sand’s book is a bit heavy, but a ‘must read’. As it happens, the modern state of Israel was brought into being by a British civil servant, Sir Frederick Leggatt, my step grandfather!

    Like

  17. @mickC

    I consider the situation could have been similar to the confluence of interests between Jewish Zionists and fundamentalist Christian Zionists in the U.S. Each group considers a very different outcome from the return of the diaspora to Israel, but both work to bring it about.

    Like

  18. Whilst you’re all busy trying to prove and disprove historical and contemporary “truths”, most of which are in the eye of the beholder, you would do better perhaps to seriously consider where the greatest threat to Western civilization, culture and society is actually emanating from today ………. and they are far more deadly.

    As for those nasty banks, misconceptions are rife on the size, origins and ownership of the biggest banks in the US and UK. Excluding Rothschilds and The Giant Vampire Squid, the biggest turn out NOT to be Jewish – In the U.S., the list is headed by JP Morgan Chase / Bank of America /Citigroup /Wells Fargo/ Morgan Stanley / US BanCorp /Bank of NY Mellon etc. etc. In the UK – HSBC / Barclays / RBS and Lloyds top the list. (See Wiki and Google.) Oft repeated propaganda dies hard.

    Like

  19. I have often thought that the problem the Jewish people face lies in four little words “ we the chosen people” – the very definition of racism. John omitted from his history (as did our school RI lessons) the bit about how the Hebrews entered the chosen land. How God told them at the fall of Jericho to kill all the men and boys and all the women who had known men but that they could keep all the young virgin girls for their own use (sex slaves). Also omitted how their God told Saul to go down into the land of Moab and kill every man, woman and child and also all the domestic animals – Genocide Plus! Probably no worse than all the other tribes around that area at the time but still to venerate such a history is curious.

    I have also wondered why, if they are such benefactors of mankind the Jewish people have been expelled from, or persecuted in just about every European country they have bowled up in after the diaspora. I think it may because they have been experts in the business of usury which they were forbidden to practise amongst their own people but free to use to ensnare the gentiles.

    As John has said, modern banking which he despises is largely in the hands of Jewish interests. I know Barclay’s etc was founded by Quakers but who controls it now? Modern banking practises double usury, creating money from thin air as credit/debt and charging interest on it. This Finance Capitalism is destroying the earth as the ancients from Babylon to Greece said it would.

    Jewish control of the MSM and Hollywood (Mel Gibson ranted against Jewish control of Hollywood and never worked again as far as I am aware) is bound to arouse suspicion and resentment.

    I do not know what the answer is . The undoubted intelligence of the Jewish people and their family values etc means they may rise to the controlling heights amongst any nation they care to settle amongst ( see Romania pre -WW2). They are at the controlling heights in our society, Phillip Green, Maxwell, Bob Diamond, Mandelson etc, etc but does it benefit the vast majority of us?

    Of course it must be admitted that there have been no bombs planted but that would be counterproductive any way. Maybe the Jewish people just need better PR – John!

    Does pondering these questions make me an anti-semite. I don’t harbour hatred for any individual. Men should all be judged for their actions. Also blanket racial violence is abhorrent but even given these disclaimers I think that merely the act of thinking a wrong thought will label me so.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Ken Livingstone says that he did not say that Hitler was a Zionist, only that he wanted to deport Jews to Israel.
    You can google “Isaeli Prime Minister and Hitler” and see what you get.

    Like

  21. I could sympathise with the outraged open-mouthed poses of the commentariat over all this if Ken had said something like “They got what was coming to them” or “It never happened”. But the stroppy self-aggrandising old newt-keeper had the nerve to commit heresy by talking of the Greatest Story Ever Told in a manner that was not suitably awed and cleared beforehand with the Board of Deputies. In so doing he has greatly helped Blair’s Progress faction in its struggle to regain control of the Party, and stop it becoming Respect-Plus. Likud UK instead, perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. That failed to impress me, apart from the fact that it waffled on & on with a load of completely unrelated information, it completely failed to understand what the problem is.
    It is nothing to do with Jews or Israel per se.
    It is everything to do with morality & the glaring lack of it shown by self declared Zionists around the world – MOST of whom seem to be athiestic, corporate globalists with no particular affiliation to any country.
    Disliking Zionists is almost obligatory if one possesses a modicum of moral fibre & basic guts.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Nothing quite like a Flag ‘ZIONISM ‘ to attract self serving attention and comments.
    We witness this as proof today in the zombie labour party, all over the press and on this dead man walking blog.
    Zionism is a football that REALLY FLIES.
    Shame on all of you cocksuckers.

    Like

  24. I’m not Jewish, not a Zionist nor am I an Israeli apologist. I do however detect a fairly pungent whiff of anti-semitism in many of the comments today. There are frequent commenters here who will enthrall you with tales of Meyer Rothschild and his offspring becoming the world’s bankers. They’ll also tell you that the Queen is a lizard. Phillip maybe, but not Brenda surely?
    And as for banking, the Islamic Hawala system moves mind boggling sums of money world wide on a daily basis without notice, or taxation for that matter. So, who owns the world? The Cohens or the Khans?
    While the planet is in thrall to the legends first put forward by middle eastern bronze age goat herders and later formalised by Rabbis, Priests and Imams we are all screwed.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. @Badgerap

    I have just re-read the comments on this post. The majority are undoubtedly anti-Zionist, and show an antipathy towards any contention that any group should be regarded as ‘exceptional’ and not subject ot the same criticism applied freely to any other self-declared interest group. This is very far from hatred of Jews as a group. Neither did I find any comments along the lines of “Jews are x” or “The Jews are y”, and your contention that you detect a “fairly pungent whiff of anti-semitism in many of the comments…” would suggest to me that your olifactory organ is badly calibrated. The problem is that the Israeli lobby have been remarkably successful in programming the West to equate criticism of an ideology (Zionism) with criticism of a religion/culture/self-identifying group, i.e. Judaics/Jewishness/Jews. (See the video clip from Chomsky on yesterday’s thread.)

    “There are frequent commenters here who will enthrall you with tales of Meyer Rothschild and his offspring becoming the world’s bankers. They’ll also tell you that the Queen is a lizard. Phillip maybe, but not Brenda surely?”

    Lovely straw man argument, but I fail to see its relevance to the above comments. The fact that there are some posters who hold rather unconventional views on some subjects in no way invalidates the sober and well-informed comments made above. In fact, the above comments have heartened me in that it is clear that many informed, intelligent and decent readers of this blog have not fallen for the Zionist=Jewish canard.

    For example, I am convinced that a dispassionate assessment of the evidence regarding the events in NYC 15-odd years ago suggest the active participation of many who would be described as Zionist Jews. Such a view probably marks me as a “conspiracy loon” in your eyes, and it certainly brands me an N.V.E. by Cameron’s definition as I do believe that some Jews, note NOT “The Jews” (along with non-Jews), did participate in the attacks. I contend that holding such an opinion does not make me anti-semitic, anymore than a suggestion that German Nazis may have planned the Reichstag fire makes me anti-German.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. There are few if any straight lines in our material Universe, & what there are, mostly seem to emanate as projections of our own thoughts. Rather seems to me that psychology has it nearest to a truth, if your world view is corrupted, then you have to project blame on others for your own internal inconsistency. “Wasn’t me, it was them”, said the four year old. As far as the state of Israel goes, I’m all too aware of the parallels to the abused becoming the next abuser. There is no judgement in this reply, simple personal observation.

    If you think something you should be allowed to voice it, if you don’t, regardless of the emotional load others may place on & in it, you hide the path to our shared understanding & hide common decency from view. Thank you JW, I’m reassured that there is still a little room for, at least, a little metered discussion, in a world that seems dominated by poller arguments.

    http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/28/required-reading-statement-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-jewish-socialists-group/

    Liked by 2 people

  27. The Hard Left hate people who can provide for themselves. That is a major reason why the Hard Left hate Jews. The strength of Jewish families, religion for some, their charities and their ability to start and run businesses give them the strength to resist the encroachment of the socialist state. The Hard Left like people who are dependent because these people will choose to live on their plantation. That is why the Hard Left supports the break down of the family. It leaves children dependent on state benefits and therefore at the mercy of their benefactor. The problem with their strategy, which the Hard Left are too dumb to see, is that they still need someone to pay the running costs for their plantation and that, if they exterminate (China, Cambodia) or force into exile (Cuba) all the people who can actually make a society function, that someone will no longer be there.

    Like

  28. I think the troubles that Israel faces , surrounded as they are ,by Arab countries that are becoming more unstable and more radicalised by Muslim fundamentalists by the day, Livingstone is the least of their problems. Diaspora and Zionism is what they had to do to survive and scarily a nuclear capability is no longer their trump card.

    Like

  29. franleader that is the problem,maybe a majority of a certain race creed do behave in certain ways and therefore people believe they can attack them not for their actions individually but their race or creed on the whole,yet i know they’re many Israelis who denounce the Israeli government actions,just has we disagree with what our government do,This allows those perpetrating to muddy the waters,so simply, am against the actions of the Israeli government,i (being distance) have no reason to hate the people of Israel.

    Bumb turd i grew up learning the atrocities that faced the whole of the Jewish population of Germany,and made me, be determined to not let it happen again!

    And yet of all the places in the world Israel shows the Greatest resemblance to those actions,and just has if i was living in the thirties i would sure i would be condemning German actions as i do Israeli actions today!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. @Canexpat “I contend that holding such an opinion does not make me anti-semitic, anymore than a suggestion that German Nazis may have planned the Reichstag fire makes me anti-German.”

    Thank you for the wise words you have posted here. I agree with your analysis, including understanding of the evidence concerning the events of NYC. The available evidence concerning another huge event just under 10 years later has obvious parallels to the Reichstag fire and the events of NYC. There are indications that some of same the people implicated in NYC may have been involved. Investigating these crimes is not being anti-semitic, I have no idea whether the perpetrators are even semites.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Well said in reply to bagerap, Canexpat.
    FWIW, I regard all organised religions as ridiculous, a comfort blanket for grown fools.
    All are unprovable hypotheses.
    Not mentioned is the Catholic Church’s part in forbidding the charging of interest to Catholics,
    thus forcing the role of moneylenders onto the Jews, surely the most commercially stupid decision in all history?

    Similarly, I regard as ridiculous any claims to superiority from any race or nationality.
    The dumbed-down US claim to “exceptionality” would be the biggest joke on the planet
    were its elite not set on the destruction of as many nations and as much population
    as they can manage on the way to WWIII, global depopulation & a totalitarian
    world Govt.

    Khazars, from what I’ve read, were a bunch of brigands forced at sword point to adopt a religion
    by neighbours fed up with their predatory ways. Given the choices of Christianity, Islam or Judaism,
    they chose the latter. If memory serves they originated in the Caspian sea area.
    Ethnic Jews they are not.
    It is the predatory mindset of banksters, their corporate buddies & politicians etc that is the 21st century’s
    main problem, along with UN Agenda 21.

    Israel was called into existence by a UN act, which was a stupid move, causing instant warfare, & lots more since.
    All great for the banksters, as wars create debts, but no good for anyone else.
    Israel has morphed into a Fascist state where the US sends its police to train in how to hold down a
    subject population.
    Concentration/death camp Gaza is probably a prototype for the US’ FEMA camps.

    John Doran.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. The jews since Hitler are always on the goodside now andmore to do with the USA. Before Hitler the jews as a group were often singled out and blamed for anything and everything because those with power thought it easy.

    Now think carefully, if those that used to be blamed for everything wielded the power then you would never be blamed for anything ever. So the Rotschilds, GS and the rest actually silently took over and the mechanism was FIAT CURRENCIES, remove that and you neuter the beast.

    I could go on about fiat currencies, bribes, NWO owning everything this way but can’t be bothered because not one person in the west would do anything about it. That Israel can break international law on a persistant basis is only possible through the direct support of the US. They own the global reserve currency so they get to cause all the economic fiascos everywhere as and when they choose.

    For me the most important thing right now is not oil in the middle east it is water and the lack of it … Personally feel the Israelis want Assad out who is in fact much more moderate than his father and was slowly moving to a more modern society for their water supply. Israeli water is some of the worst on the planet and far more important than oil. Everyone will go on about oil, rubbish if you own the global reserve currency you are not going to be stuck for a few barrels of oil are you?

    Whereas fresh clean water! Just to the NE, in somebody elses territory, actually flowing into Iraq, but for how much longer if Assad is outed? Then up steps the USA fairy and waves the magic miltary wand to make it so … Israel needs more water, poof Israel has more water.

    Like

  33. When I turned 65 recently I thought I would finally read the bible cover to cover (Australian Kings James version). So far I am up as far Esther , have to say that it’s slow going , its also very dull, it seems to consist so far of the Children of Israel as Waldgaenger above says chronicling the unprovoked invasion, murder and conquest of all their neighbours, a pause for begetting then more rape and pillage. There are the stories we learned about in religious instruction Samson , flight from Egypt etc but the rest seems to be non stop ethnic cleansing until they offend GOD and suffer a set back. A practice which continues from 1948 to this day as any reference to the expanding maps of Israel and shrinking maps of Palestine will confirm.
    What really worries me however, is the now nearly fascist blanket that prevents any questioning of any of this including the holocaust , and burying it under the banner of anti-Semitism, that’s a dangerous trend in a modern society. The UK is fast approaching the totalitarian states that prohibit even questioning of the Holocaust as in France and Germany.
    One final question I saw in a YouTube video “why have the Jews been hatted and persecuted for the best part of 2500 years” do they never ask themselves that question” , do we ever ask ourselves that question.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. “Around 440 BC, Judean drought caused Moses to migrate into Egypt …”

    This very lapsed Jew has his doubts about that.

    Like

  35. @DT Thanks for the link.

    @ChrisB

    I don’t really know where to start with your assertions about the ‘Hard Left’ and their attitude to ‘Jews’. You do make some blanket statements about Jewish culture, and I am aware that as they are all things you believe are positive you therefore avoid any charge of anti-semitism, but what if your list was negative? There could be some defence if you define ‘Jews’ as a homogeneous culture, but I would certainly question the validity of doing so.

    Secondly, you are of course aware of the background of Bernie Sanders, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, 80% of the early Bolshevics and possibly Lenin. I don’t know about you, but I have always considered those in the list to have views that would reside somewhere on ‘The Left’ and I’m sure they would have thoroughly approved of what you describe as the ‘Socialist state’. (Indeed one of the reasons Hitler was able to garner such support for his anti-semitic programme was because he was able to paint the attrocities of the Soviet Union as being due to ‘Jewish Bolshevism’.)

    Most of the policies that have led to the dependence of so many on state largess have been pursued by the adherents of a litte economic and political philosophy known as Neoliberalism. This could only be described as a project of the Hard Left in some sort of alternative universe.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. At home they tried to implant within us elevated feelings. They emphasized morning and evening that we were different—better, more elevated than the goyim. What was theirs was non-kosher, disgusting, and despised. … And in the house meanwhile they would tell me, “Don’t play with the shiksas, the non-Jewish girls, with their colored eggs, and don’t taste their giant Easter bread, and don’t go into their homes which are absolutely non-kosher.” … However, [my mother] added, “When we go by the statue of Jesus, we need to spit three times and say, ‘It is an abhorrence,’ but make sure that the goyim don’t see you…”

    Liked by 1 person

  37. “Stephen Bloom’s book about an ultra-Orthodox Jewish enclave (the Chabad Lubavitchers, a prominent Hasidic movement founded in Lithuania) in Postville, Iowa, gives a clear example of what relations must have been like between many Jews and Poles and Eastern Europe before the rise of the Nazis. Jews in the Iowa town, Bloom reports, do not want to touch Gentiles, they resist eye contact with them as they walk down the street, they have no knowledge or interest in Gentile life around them, they appear “obnoxious and imperial” to local people, they cheat local merchants, and they use oil in their candelabras because oil, which doesn’t mix with other liquids, symbolizes Jewish separateness from all non-Jews. “Wherever we go,” one Chabad leader said, “we don’t adapt to the place or the people. It’s always been like that and always will be like that. It’s the place and the people who have to adapt to us.” “Postville people, by and large, were tolerant,” says Bloom, “… [but the Hasidic Jews] were downright rude. They seemed to go out of their way to be obnoxious, especially when it came to business dealings … At first, the locals welcomed the Jews, but even the simplest offer—a handshake, an invitation to afternoon tea—was spurned. The locals quickly discovered that the Jews wouldn’t even look at them. They refused to acknowledge even the presence of anyone not Jewish.”1

    Like

  38. Dear All

    Thanks for every thread, even the unconsciously anti-Semitic ones hahahahahaha, get a grip – that was a joke.
    I was trying to challenge received wisdom, and received mostly set pieces in return.

    Removed from the ‘newsworthy’ context, herewith a much shorter solution to the puzzle, composed especially for Geli the Teuton Tart, whose firm grasp on all things is not what it was:

    https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/philosophy-is-open-for-business-its-time-ideology-was-closed-for-the-duration/

    Like

  39. Some inconvenient facts from Wikipedia (not a “marxist source”):
    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: “transfer agreement”) was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.[1][2] The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) and outside it.[3]
    —————————
    After the German invasion of Poland and the onset of the Second World War in September 1939, the practical continuation of the Haavara agreement became impossible. And we all know what happened thereafter.
    Politics makes strange bedfellows! Although Hitler had made his views of the Jews quite clear in “Mein Kampf”, the Nazis and the Zionists did have one thing completely in common. They both fervently believed that German Jews were not Germans and should be sent somewhere else. This view was not shared by the majority of German Jews of course. In this regard Ken Livingstone is completely correct. The Jewish faith is a great religion which deserves respect and Jews protection just as all other religious and ethnic groups. Zionism, however, is a political ideology that can and should be open to criticism just like any other ideology.
    It is also a matter of historical record – and confirmed by genetic research done by Israeli scientists – that the origin of Ashkenazy Jews, who make up the majority of the present population of Israel, is not Palestine. They are descended from the Khazars (present Ukraine) and converted to the Jewish faith. It is indeed ironic that the present day Palestinian Arabs have much more genetically in common with the original Jewish tribes. Most of the current Palestinian population descended from the original inhabitants of Palestine who converted to Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. @Canexpat

    To suggest that Bernie Sanders is Hard Left is ludicrous. He only appears to be a socialist on the US spectrum of politics. In Europe, he would be seen as a social democrat. The others you name are figures from 100 year ago or more. While dwelling on history, I am old enough to remember when any self-respecting socialist spent a year or so on a kibbutz, most of which were established in occupied territory. The USSR were of course co-sponsors with the US of the recognition of Israel by the UN. What has changed? I suggest that socialists came to realise that kibbutzim were self-organising and self-governing collectives, not collectives imposed on the inhabitants by an outside authority. The kibbutzim are in sharp contrast to the various Arab dictators who adopted the socialist/communist one party model, which was much more to the liking of European socialists.

    The debate, however, is about contemporary Left wing politics and British Jewry. Of course British Jews are not a homogeneous mass, as I suggested by stating that the Jewish religion was important to some but not all Jews. As an ethnic group, however, there are characteristics that distinguish them from the population as a whole. Your suggestion that supporting relatives and giving to charities should not be seen as positive characteristics says a lot about you. Perhaps you feel more comfortable with fathers who walk out on their children leaving them dependent on a welfare state splitting at the seams. It is also worth noting that Jewish family cohesion is not dependent on compulsion. It is an indictment on modern socialists that they are more comfortable with cultures where the murder of women who choose to control their own lives is prevalent.

    Finally, given your evident difficulty in looking at the world in anything other than binary terms, seeing Neoliberalism as the only possible alternative to Totalitarian Socialism, I would just ask: ‘Why do you log onto this blog?’

    Like

  41. @ChrisB

    Agree entirely about Bernie Sanders, I included him as a contemporary reference, and upon reflection it was probably a mistake given the other names I listed.

    With all due respect, could I suggest that you re-read what I posted? I acknowleged that everything you listed was positive. I was rather questioning the idea that such blanket statements should be made at all. My point was that had you written a list of negative attributes instead, you would have been, (rightly in my view), open to the accusation of anti-semitism. I was questioning the ability to get away with statements along the lines of Jews are x, y and z when x, y and z are positive, but that an immediate accusation of racism will follow if x, y and z are negative.

    Perhaps my wording was clumsy, but I do question that what I wrote required the blatant ad-hominem

    “…Your suggestion that supporting relatives and giving to charities should not be seen as positive characteristics says a lot about you.”, and “Perhaps you feel more comfortable with fathers who walk out on their children leaving them dependent on a welfare state splitting at the seams.”,

    in response.

    Indeed, had you been clear that you were talking about the precepts of the Judaic religion, and the idea that religious Jews who follow such precepts are less likely to suffer family breakdown or be self-supporting, I would not have had such a problem with what you wrote. I’m not sure that such wide statements are applicable to what you term ‘British Jewry’ as many Zionist Jews are proudly atheistic. I could continue with many examples of (admittedly generally atheistic) Jews being intimately involved with political movements that are profoundly coercive, but I suspect you already know that and are yourself attempting a binary argument.

    And finally…

    “Finally, given your evident difficulty in looking at the world in anything other than binary terms, seeing Neoliberalism as the only possible alternative to Totalitarian Socialism, I would just ask: ‘Why do you log onto this blog?’

    You do seem to delight in the production of straw men. The reason I raised Neoliberalism is that as the dominant political/economic philosophy in the West for three decades, I feel it is demonstrably responsible for the enormous destruction of the social fabric we have been witnessing. Your interpretation of this as my stating it as “the only possible alternative to Totalitarian Socialism” is quite a stretch :-)

    BTW I log onto this blog because it provokes polite and informed debate, and contains contributions from JW and posters whose diverse opinions I may often disagree with, but respect despite this disagreement. I have changed my perspective on several issues through interactions on this blog. I trust you log on for the same reasons.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. @Lampitt: With regard to Israel being surrounded by Arab Nations becoming more unstable by the day. Google “The Yinon Plan”. This may all be conspiracy and black propaganda but the Balkanization of the Arab States seems to be continuing apace and would fit the plan.

    Like

  43. Per reflection, getting a grip may involve booking in for the circumcision precedure.
    I may be some time.

    Like

  44. @ JW. If you found a nubile young lady to do your circumcision you might discover a Miss was as good as a Mojel.

    Like

  45. Yawn. That’s 20 minutes of my life I won’t get back. And we’re supposed to consider this for 36 hours are we. Blimey…I think I’ll pass thanks.

    Like

  46. Sorry old bloke but your ripped from the Old Testament history of the Jews isn’t history, it’s myth. Which is neither here nor there.
    More there and now here is association of banking with Jews. The history here, that being that Jews got into banking in Europe first and best because of the old Roman churches strictures against lending at credit, suggests to people that Jews were or are especially adept at banking. I reject this. It’s just they had the opportunity first and took it. The gigantic behemoth Wall Street banks are now public corporations and as Jewish as a ham sandwich. I suppose the same applies to the City.

    It has been the great good fortune of the financial giants that any criticism of them can and often does end up with the counter charge that the critic is an anti Semite. Subject changed, end of story.

    That said, the great financial powers are the New Zion. Wall Street the New Jerusalem. Don’t believe me? How about Hollywood and the theme song of the 1988 movie Working GIrl.

    The New Zionists are not Jewish. But they are bankers.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s