Saturday, February 25, 2006

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.


At 26 February 2006 at 03:48, Blogger roma99 said...

To counter the influence of Jewish media or media controlled by a dissproportionate minority the charter of the BBC should include a watchdog role over other media.
This would mean an emphasis on the BBC counteracting privately owned news media by producing balancing material or highlighting biased and unchallenged reporting.

Something like this could only happen with public pressure.

At 26 February 2006 at 10:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a superb article - and excellent blog!

It strikes me as highly ironic that Livingstone's off-the-cuff slur was actually directed at (a) intrusive journalists (b) Germans (c) Prison Guards (d) The Daily Mail group.

Not once did he mention the holy word 'Jewish'.

Have any German complained about being demeaned by the Mayor? Not as far as I know. Prison guards? Nope. Even the hacks' union didn't back an eyelid.

In this latest, quite ludicrous case of hyper-sensitivity, self-obsession and over-reach, organixed Jewry has felled its quarry about insults actually directed at others!

But of course, I forgot. The journalist in question identified himself as Jewish...

That, apparently, merits an apology, whenever Mr Finegold demands it. Perhaps he should ask his parents?

At 26 February 2006 at 15:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you fail to understand is that just as it is hugely offensive to Muslims to publish the Mohammed cartoons, it is equally offensive to Jews to call them a concentration camp guard. In both cases, you just don't go there.

Where Livingstone's argument falls to shreds is that:
a) He was fairly drunk (as the tape recording indicates).
b) The reporter was not being aggressive and did not swear.
c) The reporter chatted very happily to all the other guests leaving the party.
d) If Livingstone had such a problem with the Mail group he wouldn't have accepted large wads of cash to review restaurants for the Evening Standard a few years ago. He is, in short, a hypocrite.

It is also worth pointing out that contrary to what you insinuate, not a single one of Britain's 'Jewish run' newspapers have published the Mohammed cartoons and nor are Muslims in general called Nazis.

There are bad Muslims as there are bad Jews - though sadly you seem to categorise everyone in my religion as one.

You point out that Jews make up such a small percentage of the population. This is just the point - minorities need to be protected.

The sad reality is that the more Ken infuriates Jews by not simply saying sorry, the bigger martyr he becomes in Muslim eyes - and how desperate he is to court their vote as his speech at the demo over the non-publication of the cartoons shows.

The left has many admirable qualities, but the latent anti-semitism that runs through it is not one of them.

Just because some people (and I admit that includes some Jews) have an irrational hatred of everything Islam, it doesn't mean that you have to return the favour towards Jews.

It makes you no better than them. And like Livingstone, it makes you a hypocrite.

At 26 February 2006 at 16:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and nor are Muslims in general called Nazis..."

I take it you have never read the venom spouted by Melanie Phillips, Davd Aarravonitch, Johan Hari or Nick Cohen. The last time I checked they were still jewish....

At 27 February 2006 at 02:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The poster of comment #3 wrote: "it is equally offensive to Jews to call them a concentration camp guard. In both cases, you just don't go there."

So, is the existence of Jewish 'kapos' during World War Two and its aftermath - as described by John Sacks in his book 'An Eye for an Eye' another part of history to be banned from open discussion - to keep Jewish self-appointed censors happy?

You may well prefer not to 'go there', but the fact remains that Jewish collaborators helped the Nazis run many of the wartime concentration camps. According to some reports, their brutality exceeded that of the German guards. And once 'liberated' by the Russians, they turned the tables and ran post-war camps, interning and slaughtering Germans with exceptional cruelty.

At 28 February 2006 at 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and any historian who will dare to point this out, relations between zionists and hitler and other realities of history, even if foremost living European expert on the 'world' wars, David Irving - along with countless others are locked up in Europe. No, Ken must stand firm and never apologize for nothing to apologize for, and thus guard the right to free speech. If he's a martyr, all the better. Keep on telling it like it is, great blog!

At 3 March 2006 at 21:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jew power comes out of the closet to show its ugly head. Just goes to show the Mayor of London doesn't run the Capital, the Jews do. London is no different to any other large city. Just as most politicians all over the world, our Mayor is only a cardboard cutout from behind which the real controllers hide and go about thier bussines. I think Ken has just had his eyes opened.

At 8 March 2006 at 20:18, Blogger Thermblog said...

Your point about the number of people Stalin killed is a good one and it is a great pity that the liberal west obscures that fact.

Apart from that you sound like a typical German, Hitler apologist and Jew hater. The point about the holocaust is that it was the greatest crime ever committed by a civilised nation. Yes, the Germans considered themselves modern and enlightened the way westerners do today. As such the number of people killed by Hitler is only of secondary importance. What happened is a warning of how thin the veneer of civilisation really is. This is what Jewish complaints usually try and remind people of.

Given the recent actions by Muslims threatening, whining and even killing over nothing, you've got an incredible nerve continuing to yammer on about Jews.

At 8 March 2006 at 21:16, Anonymous Anonymous said... is owned by Google.

one of the co-founders of Google , Sergey Brin, is Jewish.

Ever post you make to is logged on Google's servers.

Just remember that you Islamofascist piece of shit.

Because if Mossad come calling, you'll only have yourself to blame.

At 8 March 2006 at 23:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The news that the elected Mayor of London was to be suspended from office for a month at the direction of an appointed tribunal startled Londoners, partly because few had any idea that there existed a body with the power to overturn their democratic preference, and partly because the penalty seemed so disproportionate to the alleged offence.

The tribunal ruled that Livingstone had been "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" to a Jewish journalist who approached him outside a private party in February last year. When the journalist identified himself as working for the Evening Standard, a long-time nemesis of the London Mayor, Livingstone chided him: "What did you do? Were you a German war criminal?" The reporter said he was Jewish and that he found the remarks offensive. Livingstone then told him he was acting "like a concentration camp guard -- you are just doing it because you are paid to."

The background here is that the right-wing Standard, London's biggest-selling daily paper, has been engaged in battle with the left-wing Livingstone, London's most popular politician, for a quarter of a century. The Standard is owned by Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, which opposed Jewish immigration in the early years of the twentieth century and championed Hitler in the 1930s. Since then, it has waged inflammatory campaigns against black and Irish people, and more recently against asylum seekers and Muslims.

When the story broke, Livingstone was accused of boorishness, insensitivity towards holocaust victims, and even anti-semitism. He was asked to apologise but refused, basically arguing that he had every right to be rude to a journalist working for this particular organisation. On the question of the alleged offence to Jewish people, he said: “I have been deeply affected by the concern of Jewish people in particular that my comments downplayed the horror and magnitude of the holocaust. I wish to say to those Londoners that my words were not intended to cause such offence and that my view remains that the holocaust against the Jews is the greatest racial crime of the 20th century.”

For some reason, that plain-spoken statement was not good enough for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who made a formal complaint to the local government watchdog. Now that this complaint has resulted, a year later, in Livingstone's suspension from office, many commentators shocked by the severity and undemocratic nature of the penalty nonetheless blame Livingstone for bringing it on himself by his refusal to apologise. That seems a perverse interpretation of events. It was the determination of the Board of Deputies to lay the matter before the statutory authorities that led to London being deprived of its elected Mayor for four weeks.

Just weeks before Livingstone's contretemps with the Evening Standard journalist, Prince Harry was photographed wearing Nazi regalia at a private party (guests had been asked to dress in “colonial or native” attire). In contrast to its aggressive pursuit of Livingstone, the Board of Deputies adopted an emollient approach to the third in line to the throne. “It was clearly in bad taste,” said a spokesperson for the Board, but he added that the young royal had apologised and so there was no more to be said. When it was revealed, shortly after the Livingstone incident, that senior Daily Mail executives had donned Nazi costumes at a fancy dress party held in 1992, the Board said it was "not an issue at this moment in time". However, it did find the time and energy to denounce Interpal, a prominent Palestinian charity, as a “terrorist organisation”. As a result of an out-of-court settlement following a libel action, the Board was forced to retract the charge and apologise for making it.

Recently, the Board joined the Chief Rabbi in condemning the decision of the Church of England to withdraw its £2.5 million investment in Caterpillar, the US-based corporation that manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinian homes and farms. “The timing could not have been more inappropriate,” the Chief Rabbi argued, because Israel at this moment found itself “facing two enemies, Iran and Hamas”. The Caterpillar decision, he warned, would have “the most adverse repercussions on ... Jewish-Christian relations in Britain.”

And here the agenda becomes increasingly obvious. It's not about protecting the rights of Jews in Britain; it's about protecting Israel from scrutiny and protest. The aim is to muddy the waters – and the reputations of critics of Israel like Livingstone - with charges of anti-semitism. In his denunciation of the Church's stand on Israel, the Chief Rabbi drew no distinction whatsoever between Jews as a whole and Israel as a state. Worse yet, he identified Jews in Britain with some of the most inexcusable policies of a particularly abhorrent Israeli government. I'm far from being the only Jew in Britain who finds these equations anti-semitic, whether they come from Iran's Ahmadinejad, Malaysia's Mahathir or those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews.

The British media treat the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies as the authentic (and exclusive) representatives of Jews in Britain, despite the fact that neither is elected by or accountable to the Jewish community as a whole. The Chief Rabbi heads the Orthodox Synagogues, to which a minority of Jews are affiliated. He can make no claims on behalf of Reform, Chasidic, Sephardic or non-synagogue affiliated Jews. The Board of Deputies is a self-perpetuating collection of worthies and it's safe to say that 90% of British Jews have no idea how they're chosen.

Neither the vendetta against Livingstone nor the diatribe against the Church of England have served the real interests of Britain's diverse Jewish population. The cheapening of the grave charge of anti-semitism has made it harder to oppose and expose the real thing, which certainly exists. The elevation of brutal Israeli realpolitik into an article of faith is a mockery of the ethical, universalist strand of Judaism that once flowed into revolutionary social movements around the world. It's not Livingstone, but the Board of Deputies that has shown disrespect for the holcoaust – by seeking to exploit it in pursuit of a parochial political smear-campaign.

At 9 March 2006 at 00:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didnt you know.

If you slander muslims its considered freedom of speech.

If you even mention the words holocaust and denial in the same sentence, or in earshot of a jew then its criminal.

This is the double standard we must live with in europe.

At 9 March 2006 at 10:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Londoner hit the nail on the head . I couldnt agree more..

At 9 March 2006 at 17:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

denying the holocaust is denying historical FACT. that is why it is illegal in Germany.

calling a Islam an idiotic death cult is just stating an opinion.

of course you Muslims are too stupid and so wrapped up in your paedo Mohammed death cult to understand the friggin difference.

here's a simple statement to ALL muslims that dont like European law - fuck off to Saudi Arabia. preferably today - as soon as possible.


Post a Comment

<< Home