Ken Livingstone and the Jewish media
Ken Livingstone is the latest casualty of the unwritten rule of our times that freedom of speech ends where Jews get offended – and easily offended they do get. I’m glad they’ve picked on someone like Red Ken who doesn’t get intimidated or gives in at the first time of troubles and has vowed to fight this undemocratic censure of his elected position by an unelected committee who must either have thought that London does not need a mayor at all or that making the business of running London fall behind by a whole month was a small price to pay for appeasing the sensitivities of an arrogant Jewish reporter from the Evening Standard.
The laws and processes underpinning present-day thought-control are right out of the literary world of Kafka, a Jewish author whose dry and witty style I love and admire. Maybe it takes one to know one, for he was a member of the legal profession himself. With their shameless impunity these upholders of the public order don’t even seem to blush at the ever more apparent contradictions in their position. It is a cardinal sin to liken a pushy reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard, yet it is perfectly respectable to liken the whole body of Islam regularly to Nazism as many editorials of the larger broadsheets have done for many years, or to equate Muslims with terrorists and caricature their beloved prophet with a bomb in his turban. Jews may get offended at the slightest notch, but Muslims, you can kick them while they’re down.
Prince Harry had to apologise for wearing a Nazi outfit at a fancy dress party. Nobody would have batted an eyelid had he dressed up as Stalin instead. One cannot even point out that Stalin was personally responsible for more deaths than Hitler, since this would potentially undermine the sanctity of the Holocaust and make one fall foul of the thought-crime laws which just landed David Irving in prison in Austria and have put scores of people behind bars in Germany.
What’s different now is that the persecution is no longer hushed as it used to be. Jewish power has come out of the closet (I should really say Zionist, because the real Jews distaste this abominable behaviour by those who have hijacked their name). One tenth of Londoners are Muslim, yet their Mayor is suspended for offending the sensibilities of Jews who number less than half a percent of its population. Nationwide, Jews are half a percent of the British population whilst Muslims, according to the latest census, are edging towards three percent or six-fold their number. Yet there are Jews on the front bench of every parliamentary party whilst Muslims only supply a handful of Brown-Sahebs eagerly apologising for every anti-Islamic measure the government implements. But if you believe the media, amongst whose pundits Jews are equally notorious through their presence as Muslims are through their absence, it is the Jews who are the beleaguered and threatened minority.
Muslims have previously been criticised for too vociferously demanding certain rights, although generally they have no protection under the law as demonstrated by recent acquittal of Nick Griffin who cleverly redesigned the BNP’s racist stance into an anti-Islamic one to stay within the law. It is true that when minorities demand – and get – an influence above their numerical weight and contribution there is generally resentment amongst the rest of the population, leading to conflict. If this holds true for Muslims in some areas, it must certainly hold true for the minority belonging of British Jews. By boldly displaying their power to control they invite a backlash. Maybe the panel who censored the mayor of London should be prosecuted for incitement of anti-Semitism.