Has the Elite’s Slavish pro-Israel Agenda Finally Gone Too Far? 612

Hezbollah’s defeat of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the July war of 2006 was heroic and an essential redress to the Middle East power balance. I supported Hezbollah’s entirely defensive action then and I continue to applaud it now. That, beyond any shadow of a doubt, makes me guilty ofn the criminal offence of “glorifying terrorism”, now that Sajid Javid has proscribed Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. I am unrepentant and look forward to the prosecution.

A large majority of the public, and certainly almost everyone who remembers that 2006 invasion, would revolt from my being prosecuted on those grounds. The very absurdity of it is a sure measure that Sajid Javid has simply gone too far in naming Hezbollah – the legitimate political party representing in parliament the majority rural population in Southern Lebanon – as a terrorist organisation.

Together with the largely manufactured “Corbyn anti-semitism” row, Javid’s move is aimed at achieving in the UK the delegitimisation of political opposition to Israeli aggression and absorption of the occupied territories and the Golan Heights, in the way that has been achieved in the USA. However, there is a much better educated population in the UK and a great deal of popular awareness of decades of Israeli crimes. In fact, the continuing resilience of the Labour vote shows that at least over a third of the British population does not buy the “anti-semitism” tag applied to all those concerned at the continued plight of the Palestinians.

Hezbollah has never been implicated in any terrorist attack on the UK. Its military posture in Southern Lebanon vis a vis Israel is entirely defensive; it evolved as a military force in reaction to wave after wave of Israeli invasion of Lebanon, in which the Israeli “Defence” Force casually decimated Shia communities en route to attacking Palestinian refugee camps. Hezbollah has never invaded Israel. Hezbollas played an effective and laudable role in assisting the defeat of Isis and their Jihadist allies in Syria.

Oh look, I just “glorified terrorism” again.

Javid’s move is primarily aimed at pleasing Israel and looking to score political points over Jeremy Corbyn, whose past contacts with Hezbollah can now be deemed terrorist. But it is also a move to please the UK elite’s other paymaster, Mohammed Bin Salman, by further forwarding his attempt to delegitimise and to subjugate Arab Shia communities. Coupled with the irony of announcing DFID support of £200 million for Yemeni victims of our very own bombs and “military support”, this is a shameful week for British foreign policy.

I first became devoted to the Palestinian cause as a first year student at Dundee University, when I watched a film about Israeli destruction of Palestinian olive trees in the occupied territories, to devastate their economic base and force families to leave. That film made me cry.

It is a matter of despair that, 42 years later, this practice continues, and indeed has been ongoing for that entire time. I find this almost as heinous as the continuing killing and imprisonment of Palestinian children. I find it a useful exercise every morning to ask yourself this question:

How many children has the Israeli “Defence” Force killed since the MSM last reported one?


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

612 thoughts on “Has the Elite’s Slavish pro-Israel Agenda Finally Gone Too Far?

1 2 3 4 5
    • Kerch'eee Kerch'ee Coup

      @Paul Barbara
      A number of studies have linked the consumption of desalinated water to iodine deficiencies and reduced intelligence (possibly an explanatory factor for the discrepancies between average Ashkenazi IQ in Europe and that in Palestine).. In their beneficent wisdom, therefore the occupiers are simply trying to avoid such dangers to the native population and it is most unfair of persons such as yourself to criticise actions taken to this end.

      • Herbie

        ” iodine deficiencies and reduced intelligence (possibly an explanatory factor for the discrepancies between average Ashkenazi IQ in Europe and that in Palestine)”

        Surely the higher IQs tend to stay in the US and Europe whilst the lesser IQs head for Israel.

        The US and EU would have to decline quite a bit to make Israel the more attractive option for those with fulfilling lives in the West.

        • Charles Bostock

          “Surely the higher IQs tend to stay in the US and Europe whilst the lesser IQs head for Israel.”

          How would you reconcile that with the fact that Israel is at the cutting edge of a lot of innovative technologies?

          • Dave Lawton

            Charles Bostock
            February 26, 2019 at 12:12
            Because they pinch other people inventions or design`s from articles and then patent it. Have see it left right and centre. I’m amazed how it gets passed through the patent office because if a device is published in the public domain it cannot be patented.

    • Laguerre

      Israel has been consuming so much water that there’s none left.


      Though I thought I’d seen something else last week on the same subject, which more correctly attributed the problem to Israel’s vast consumption, though still blaming Syria and Jordan for consuming their own water. The Jordan, reduced to a small trickle, is now so toxic that you will get poisoned if you try to get baptised where Jesus was.

  • M Johnston

    Oh, dearie me, what a very unresearched article. The Hezbolla started that conflict not the IDF. 8 soldiers died and 2 captured by the Hezbolla. The Israelis actually will do anything to get the bodies and the hostages back, hence retaliation. THE Hezbolla are Shiite Muslims and their only intention being in Lebanon was to turn it into a Muslim state. I’ll let you work that one out, what do u think would happen to the Lebanese Arab Christians, Graig?
    The children part is so untrue, yes they do hold children, who have antagonised or have a suicide belt on and try to mix with Israelis
    They do not kill children. The Hamas put children as defense, so the IDF, will not shoot kids, and the Hammas know this and use them as shields. Now if this isn’t a breach to humanitarian law, what the hell is.
    The terrorists will use their families to infiltrate into Israel. The families are paid if the children carry out terrorist actions. The terrorists use schools, UN posts, kindergartens, hospitals, to fire missiles into Israel every day. If you were being bombed every day, one day you’ve had enough so there is retaliation, but, The Israelis have much patience but stand fast to protect their citizens. Its a people’s army, and Israel is made up of Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Druze, Jews, Greek Orthodox and many more and they are all Israeli citizens and will never leave Israel. Their so called brothers will kill them because they are Israeli and living in Israel. The politics in Israel is right wing and many Israelis hate it. Look at the UK, do want this government, I would guess a big no, but we have it. While your researching properly maybe look at your own countries history and at present. We are and were a legal wiper out of races, so please stop posting a lot of tripe.

    • Laguerre

      Straight out of the hasbara manual. It was Israel who attacked, but naturally they sought an excuse, much like the Nazis put up a fake provocation at Gleiwitz.

      • Charles Bostock

        “Straight out of the hasbara manual. It was Israel who attacked, ”

        So you would disagree with duplicitousdemocracy at 11:08 below (the 4th line refers)?

        • Laguerre

          So you deny the historical fact that Israel attacked, taking advantage of a minor provocation? I knew you played fast and loose with the truth, but you certainly do a winner there.

          • Charles Bostock

            Merely referring to what duplicitous democracy posted, mon vieux. If you disagree with him, why don’t you take it up with him?

    • Republicofscotland

      I love this guy, Israeli’s are the victims in his eyes, no mention of the 70 years of murder and persecution of the Palestinian people, who wouldn’t retaliate under the circumstances.

      • Charles Bostock

        Over the last 70 years Arabs have killed, tortured, exiled, imprisoned and persecuted a damn sight more fellow-Arabs than have the Israelis (NB – no apôstrophe necessary on “Israelis”).

        Inter alia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Irak and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states refer.

        • Bayard

          Oh, come on, its Welsh carrot time again. How many Arab states are there, and how many Jewish ones? Perhaps you should try citing those states that, individually, have “killed, tortured, exiled, imprisoned and persecuted a damn sight more fellow-Arabs than have the Israelis” or are there none.
          Also, your favourite argument – It’s OK to do anything that others are doing more of or doing worse – wouldn’t get you very far in a court of law: “M’lud, I admit to murdering my wife, but I should not be punished because Saudi Arabia murders ten times that number of people every year”.

          • Alex Westlake

            Arab states that individually, have “killed, tortured, exiled, imprisoned and persecuted a damn sight more fellow-Arabs than have the Israelis” – how about Syria and Iraq for a start?

        • Republicofscotland

          Oh Christ more whataboutery from Charles, in his feeble attempts to defend the indefensible.

    • Kerch'eee Kerch'ee Coup

      You might try listening to the work of Julia Boutros, a Christian Lebanese singer on whom the mantle of Farrouz has fallen.”The South Stood Up” , for example, which is available on YouTube praises the dedication and steadfastness of Hezbollah members. I am sure that you are aware that the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon on only coalesced in response to the Israeli invasion in 1982 and atrocities committed and abetted by the invaders.
      As to the Druze while members of clans in Lebanon and Syria including the whole of the Golan Heights tend to be disgusted by the behaviour of their co-– religionists in Palestine, I have never heard any expressing the wish to kill them. Let me also remind you that we British have since the 1850s been counted as “Honourary Druze”, a title never bestowed on the Occupiers.

      • Charles Bostock

        So a Christian Lebanese singer “praises” Hizbollah. Are we supposed to be impressed? Why should one pay more attention to her than to Bob Dylan or Bob Geldof or Georges Brassens? Does being a “popular singer” imply political or indeed any other kind of special knowledge or sophistication?

        • Herbie

          “Does being a “popular singer” imply political or indeed any other kind of special knowledge or sophistication?”

          Probably not.

          But she’s married to someone who’ll know quite a lot about politics and international affairs. Lebanese Minister of National Defense and Advisor to the President of Lebanon on International Cooperation.

          Maybe they talk about it .

          Seems he’s a bit pro-American, which is kinda strange at first glance, given who she supports.

          But then the games are just for the little people, eh.

    • duplicitousdemocracy

      Hezbollah did indeed initially take the Israeli soldiers prisoner, in a bid to release Lebanese prisoners still being held by the Israelis. The Israelis denied holding any but subsequently released five. This attack happened after repeated diplomatic efforts by Hezbollah to release the captives. The seizing of bargaining chips went horribly wrong when the Israelis chased after the attack team from Lebanon and ended up hitting a land mine. The war escalated because an incompetent IDF officer did something he should never have done and went in pursuit.
      The rest of the post about children with suicide belts, human shields, etc does not merit refuting because it’s fairy tale rhetoric from a regime frantically attempting to excuse the inexcusable.

  • N_

    A Tory government held to ransom by a group of its own ministers who are threatening to resign if the policy becomes one of “No Deal”? In other words, held to ransom by ministers who are viewed as “Europhiles” by rabid anti-Europeans? Seriously, how likely is that?

    Does this seem like the time, four and a half weeks from Brexit, when the Tory leadership is finally going to crack the whip, ally itself with Labour, and tell the anti-European Tories to f*** off? People who believe this rubbish must be living in fantasy land. A crashout, a semi-deal or a deal backed by the ERG are all more likely. EU elections in Britain in May are extremely unlikely.

  • Garreth Brady

    There is no doubt that Israel behaves abominably in its continued usurpation of Palestinian land. There is also no doubt that the constitutional values of Israel confer racial/ethno-primacy to Jews over non-Jews. Both of these truths are wilfully distorted and misrepresented by a western media who represent the ‘beneficiary caste’ within the geopolitical status quo.

    The above said, it is even more disappointing to see Craig Murray continue to promote the parochial nationalism of a Scots world which has historically oppressed the Gaelic people in the Highlands and Islands. Does the historic – and continued – aggressive domination of the Gaelic world by central-belt Scotland really differ so dramatically from that of Palestine by the Israelis? I believe the two situations to have much in common. And yet Craig Murray and others are deafeningly silent on the matter.

    As the SNP continue to divert funds from Gaelic local authorities, and implicitly support the drain of resources and people away from the Gaelic world towards Glasgow and Edinburgh, they are only continuing the pattern of economic and political coercion exercised by Scots again Gaels for centuries – to strip the Gaelic world of viability and political autonomy, and undermine the validity of the Gaelic people as separatoe ethnicity and race, deserved of our own country.

  • Clark

    I wish to state my position for the record. Henceforth I support Israel as a Jewish state, and I support its possession of nuclear weapons. Therefore I now diverge from Craig by supporting a two-state solution.

    I continue to oppose Israeli expansionism, illegal settlements, exceptionalism, undue political influence beyond Israel, oppression of Palestinians including wanton and provocative shootings and killings especially of children, abuse in detention, the blockade of Gaza, demolition of Palestinian homes, segregation of Palestinians, breach of UN resolutions and pursuit of the Yinon Plan. I continue to agree with Craig that many of these make a two-state solution less achievable, but Israel needs to remain a Jewish state nonetheless.

    To anyone who feels that I have changed my stance, you are right. What has changed my mind is the subliminal anti-Semitism and support of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in this site’s comments section; that group of commenters who embolden each other by the exchange of sly and snide put-downs and smears against anyone raising a logical or factual objection to their conspiracy theories; those commenters who advance conspiracy theories that somehow always blame Israel, Mossad, Jews or an individual Jew. You know who you are. YOU have changed my mind.

    My reason is the centuries of persecution of Jews culminating in the Nazi’s Final Solution. A Jewish Israel controlling nuclear weapons is the insurance against that ever happening again. The anti-Semitic muttering, innuendo and cooperation on these threads is the proof that such insurance is necessary, the proof that anti-Semitism continues to bubble away beneath the surface, ready to break out should the opportunity arise.

    Mark Lewis, the lawyer who would have sued Craig for libel, told the Times of Israel:

    “If these people would have rational debate, I would do that [instead], but they are nutters who have conspiratorial theories and I will never change their outlook”


    He was wrong about Craig, but this site’s anti-Semites have proven him right about themselves.

      • Clark

        I couldn’t think how to reply last night. Thank you for that refreshingly honest comment.

        What are your thoughts on supporting Jeremy Corbyn? I don’t necessarily mean joining the Labour party or voting for it, as I have no idea what your politics are. I mean standing against the barrage of slurs of anti-Semitism against him, which are in any case totally untrue.

        My point is that he supports the recognition of Palestine as a nation state, without which there can be no two-state solution.

    • Deb O'Nair

      Israel has not signed up to the NNPT and history shows that they tried to supply nukes to Apartheid South Africa, which was totally reckless and irresponsible. I am broadly opposed to nukes as they are only a limited deterrent against other nuclear armed states. With Trump pulling out of the INF treaty and approving the deployment of tactical nukes on Trident missiles, and which will no doubt lead to tactical nukes being deployed on Russian/Chinese border, having a small nuclear arsenal (like the UK and Israel) will be a liability in the event of global thermonuclear war, and even hardened cold-war warriors recognise that tactical nukes are the quickest way to full scale thermonuclear warfare.

      I think most people would have no issues with Israel being a Jewish state for Jewish people if the 1.5m Palestinians in Israel had a viable Palestinian state to go and live in and, as you have pointed out, Israel has consistently done everything in it’s power to make that an impossibility, and now that the US and its allies no longer object to Israel’s continuing violations of UN resolutions, with some joining in with the violations, e.g. Jerusalem, Israel has no reason or incentive to come to terms with a viable Palestinian state and consequently will not be able to reach a lasting peace with some of it’s regional neighbours.

      Israel has gained regional territorial dominance at the cost of around 4,5 million Palestinian people who are either effectively stateless or living under permanent military occupation, while a further 1.7m live in the world’s largest prison where the population are regularly subjected to military assault. This degrades Israel as a nation and is simply not worth the perceived benefits over the long term.

      • Clark

        “Israel has not signed up to the NNPT”

        As I understand it, a country can’t sign up to the NPT and have nukes. Only the five “nuclear weapons states” can have both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Nice work if you can get it.

        “they tried to supply nukes to Apartheid South Africa”

        The UK was up to its neck in that too. Dr David Kelly and Agent Cameron went to bring them back to the UK, and somehow lost two of them on the way back.

        “nukes […] are only a limited deterrent against other nuclear armed states”

        I really don’t think any country would dare try another Final Solution so long as Israel has nukes.

      • Clark

        But he’s got a point, hasn’t he? Try taking a different identity for a bit (change your IP address or the mods will catch you), and YOU try talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are simply impossible to reason with. They don’t care about facts.

          • Herbie

            I’d say it shows you’re really quite naive, in just accepting his PR utterances.

            I mean, you know that Craig was ambushed in that TV interview, and that had to be planned in advance.

            1. Craig didn’t know the other chap would be there. I think that’s correct.

            2. The other chap had been going through Craig’s blog looking for something to throw at him. So he knew in advance that he’d be in on the interview with Craig.

            Looks a bit contrived to me.

          • Clark

            Herbie, you’re muddling two different people: the interviewer, and the lawyer who got involved later. But this makes no odds anyway; that specific sentence:

            “If these people would have rational debate, I would do that [instead], but they are nutters who have conspiratorial theories and I will never change their outlook”

            ..is perfectly true. Lewis’s other motivations do nothing to negate its truth. The most evil kitten torturer in the world can say that the Sun rises in the east, but it’s still true.

          • Herbie

            “– “If these people would have rational debate, I would do that [instead], but they are nutters who have conspiratorial theories and I will never change their outlook”

            ..is perfectly true. Lewis’s other motivations do nothing to negate its truth. The most evil kitten torturer in the world can say that the Sun rises in the east, but it’s still true.”

            I see.

            You’re looking at it as an abstract truth just kinda like sittin out there disembodied and all.

            The Gnostic view.


            So, why do you believe it to be true.

          • Herbie

            I’m sorry, I don’t see much in the way of reasoned debate so far as the attacks on Corbyn and the Labour party are concerned.

            I do see quite a few unreasoned smears.

            So, I’m not convinced this is about reason or rationality at all.

            It’s simply smearing of political enemies, isn’t it.

          • Clark

            I see no direct link with Corbyn and the Labour party, and I already said that Mark Lewis’s comments do not apply to Craig.

            There is however an indirect link, one that propagandists are counting on not being noticed.

            The ‘arguments’, or more accurately smears, against Corbyn and the Labour party work by exploiting Jews’ legitimate fears. To repeat, the propaganda is exploitative of Jews, and is therefore anti-Semitic itself, in action rather than word. It presents no evidence that anti-Semitic attitudes are more prevalent in Labour members than in the population generally. What evidence there is points the other way, but this is rarely mentioned.

            None of the above invalidates the specific point I quoted from Mark Lewis either. Seen in this light, his stated intention to move to Israel because of Labour may be either propaganda, or he may be a victim of such propaganda. Or most likely it is a bit of both, in a self-reinforcing cycle.

          • Herbie

            “The ‘arguments’, or more accurately smears, against Corbyn and the Labour party work by exploiting Jews’ legitimate fears.”

            That’s always been the case. That’s why you need to look carefully at cases of alleged antisemitism to ensure they aren’t being deliberately contrived to that end.

      • pete

        Clark is perfectly entitled to change his mind about the viability of the two state or single state solution to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. So far no one has come up with a solution acceptable to both sides and the only thing growing in the area is the mutual suspicion and hostility of the parties involved. At this stage in the conflict it is not possible to deny the legitimate rights of either side to have a clearly defined area that they might call a homeland and which either side could reasonably make defensible against the other – necessary given the hostility to each other of the parties involved. And whether this is within a single entity or not is open to debate.
        The conflict continues due to the uneven power of one side against the other.
        What makes this blog interesting is the range of views expressed, similarly Craig is right, within the perimeters of civilised debate, to allow dissident voices, however much you may disagree.
        And now, before I drown in a sea of platitudes, can we celebrate Irena Sendler:

          • pete

            I notice that Linda’s comment has been removed, I am not surprised, it crossed more that one line and by quite a large margin.

            I have to say that probably in common with some others I try to keep my comments at least within the bounds of reason, I am not familiar with all the circumstances of the middle east conflict, I am still ploughing through some histories of the area. I have never been there. I have to rely on reports available from people whose reliability is uncertain, whose sources are untested and who may have an axe to grind. Nor is the matter simplified by the involvement of larger forces, like the USA, possibly motivated by greed, or the need for resources or funding for a war industry.
            I am inclined to give some credence to the reporting of Robert Fisk, he is based in the area and visits the war zones, I think he would not be easily fooled.

          • Clark

            Pete, I recommend you forget it. Humans can’t solve their own problems. As technology becomes more powerful, we each become more dangerous to each other. This is the solution to Fermi’s paradox.

    • Glasshopper

      Good post. I too am a longstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause, but things can, and often do get out of hand very easily.

      As i pointed out elsewhere a while ago. If you’re on the internet reading about the Deir Yassin massacre – for example, you’re only a couple of clicks from DavidIrvingLand, and it is important to know where the line is. Off Guardian has attracted a small but noisy crowd who have somewhat lost the plot, and there’s some of the same stuff going on here.

      Zionism became a dirty word for many, but it’s core meaning was, and is, perfectly reasonable and should not be automatically associated with extremist ideology. Neither, for that matter should the Hezbollah or Hamas movements that were originally established for self-preservation of beleaguered peoples.
      Hard core “anti Zionists” frequently end up promoting ethnic cleansing whether they realise it or not. Anyone who has bothered to visit Israel, as i have, can see very quickly that even the UN recognised Right Of Return would be calamitous to Israel, due to the miniscule size of the place. It’s also worth noting what happens to minorities in the region who are not able to defend themselves, and understand that it may, on occasion, be necessary to get tooled up and build some walls.

      The good news is that there is fantastic support in Israel for a better future for all peoples in that area, with a long tradition of remarkable people – like the late Uri Avnery – to bring it about. Unfortunately, the good guys have very little power. If they had, someone like Marwan Barghouti would be sitting round a table discussing the future rather than languishing in prison.
      I blame the US more than anyone else, because they have sponsored the campaign to destroy and undermine those looking for compromise. But the biggest electoral block of US voters demanding adherence to the rabid wing of militant Zionism are not Jews, but fundamentalist Christians who believe the Jews will see the error of their ways and repent, ushering in the second coming of the Lord. Meanwhile much of the traditional western support for Israel stems from it’s establishment as a military garrison in the most oil-rich region of the world.

      This is one of the many reasons why those of us who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause need to be cautious. Zionism is not all bad. Though there is much to criticise, there is much to admire. And contrary to popular belief, zionism is not all about Jews.

      • Clark

        “a long tradition of remarkable people – like the late Uri Avnery”

        Yes, I used to read his articles. He was excellent.

        “Unfortunately, the good guys have very little power.”

        Yes. And every time we tolerate an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, we rob them of power and hand it to the aggressive Israeli right wing.

        “But the biggest electoral block of US voters demanding adherence to the rabid wing of militant Zionism are not Jews, but fundamentalist Christians”

        Yes, the US Right, the gun nuts, the “pro life” lobby, where the conspiracy theories come from, like “Sandy Hook was Mossad”. The ones Trump panders to.

        “Meanwhile much of the traditional western support for Israel stems from it’s establishment as a military garrison in the most oil-rich region of the world”

        The neocons, who sponsor the global warming denial conspiracy theories.

      • Linda

        No I have not commented on this site before. What difference does it make anyway? Your question tells me you’re avoiding the points I make. It’s your right to do this, of course, so is your right to your own ignorance of the ‘whole picture’. I have no interest in debating you when your information bank on the jews is practically empty and what’s there is filled with information that’s manufactured by jewish media. Step outside the jewish media zone and you’ll just be blown away by what you’ll find. I used to take your exact position several decades ago but that became conscientiously impossible when I learned about the multi-sided facts of jewish history, and not just the Hollywood or jewish academia’s version.

        • Clark

          I expect your initial comment will be deleted soon; it is, after all, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. When it is deleted, all comments that subtend from it will also go, so I do not feel like making a lot of effort to refute its obvious contradictions and absurdities.

        • Clark

          One thing you could do for me is link a reliable source for your claim:

          “the jews have determined that NO GOY should examine official documents to do with the holocaust.”

        • Linda

          My comment already sat in moderation for 9+hours before publishing, so your glib excuse is falling flat on its face.

          And even if I am censored by snowflake censors like you, it means nothing to me, dear. More and more people are finding out the truth about jewish criminality throughout history, and you can either join the truth seekers of the world, or remain in the the comfort of your grim, propagandized reality. Sheep.

          And it’s amazing that you would even need a link to identify the fact that no goy is allowed to touch official holocaust documents in jewish hands. Evidently, all goy who’ve written books or articles on the holocaust are given the research information by jews themselves – censored to suit the jewish narrative – and published by jewish publishers, of course. Those historians and writers who’ve not STRICTLY followed the jewish narrative are smeared as antisemites and some of them are even imprisoned. Why would the jews go so far out to punish those with a different POV to them with regards the events of WW2? What is wrong with ‘naturally’ having multiple views of such a grand and historic event like the holocaust, just like we have available on the ‘market of ideas’ multiple views on just about every single major event in history? Why are we making an exception for the holocaust – that it can never, ever be reviewed by fresh eyes and by the discovery of more information? Your easy way out of my comment was to accuse me of being an antisemite. I assure you I have more semite blood in my little finger than Netanyahu and all his progeny combined do. And in any case, if I were not a semite, I still wouldn’t care about your stupid smear – I stick to facts and to my truth and no passive-aggressive bully like you can do anything about it.

      • Clark

        No link then?

        Linda, looking at the time stamps, you posted your first reply to me at 08:29, and I saw it and replied by 13:03. That’s four hours thirty-two minutes maximum. When held for moderation (which comments at this site usually aren’t) comments appear stamped with the time of posting. Care to explain your “sat in moderation for 9+hours before publishing”, or are you not above simply lying?

        • Clark

          No link, but a partial retraction. From:

          “the jews have determined that NO GOY should examine official documents to do with the holocaust”


          “no goy is allowed to touch official holocaust documents in jewish hands

          Are all records “in jewish hands”? Because there may be very good reason to keep family records out of hands such as your own.

          “Linda”, I think you have Posted at this site before…

    • IrishU


      Just a note to say that I agree with the vast majority of your post and it captures my belief on Israel and the Middle East. I especially endorse your comments about certain people on this blog and their repeated snide put-downs and smears to those who challenge the conspiracy theorists and those who always blame or seek to find a connection with Israel, Mossad, Jews or an individual Jew.

      For those who will weigh in to attack this comment and your original post I feel it best to highlight this:

      “I continue to oppose Israeli expansionism, illegal settlements, exceptionalism, undue political influence beyond Israel, oppression of Palestinians including wanton and provocative shootings and killings especially of children, abuse in detention, the blockade of Gaza, demolition of Palestinian homes, segregation of Palestinians, breach of UN resolutions and pursuit of the Yinon Plan.” I agree 100%.

      However, I support Israel as a Jewish state.

      Israel cannot be wished out of existence and the Palestinians certainly won’t fight and win a war to end the state of Israel. Both sides need to realise the stalemate they are in. Warm words to Palestinians from Western armchair resistance leaders are worthless and do nothing but prolong the bloodshed. A two-state solution is the only remotely viable prospect.

      I am happy to discuss this post with anyone, provided you come equipped with something more (thought) provoking than calling me a troll or a member of 77 Brigade / GCHQ etc.

      • Laguerre

        “Israel cannot be wished out of existence and the Palestinians certainly won’t fight and win a war to end the state of Israel.”

        Oh, that will come but not yet, and probably not the Palestinians. Israel is actually in a difficult situation right now, which could break it, but probably not yet. Israel has an unbeatable enemy on its borders: Hizbullah, created by its own actions of intransigent militarism. And nobody in Israel wants to fight any more (on the ground that is, not the professional airforce) – they don’t mind a turkey-shoot at Palestinians, but actual fighting they won’t do any more.

        • IrishU


          There are a lot of big assumptions in your comment.

          If you think that Israelis won’t fight to defend their state when attacked you are deluded.

          I wonder how many people gave Israel any chance of survival in 1948, 1956, 1967 etc?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ IrishU February 27, 2019 at 14:44
        I believe the only possible solution would be a return to the pre-Six-Day War lines, with small exchanges of land to create viable links between pockets. I believe the great majority of Palestinians would agree to this, if given the choice. And reasonable reparations from Israel, for they were undoubtedly the intruders. And Jerusalem an open city. All guaranteed by the West and the UN. Right to return could be restricted to Palestinian land.
        Sure, Israel is a small country, yet that doesn’t stop the Israeli govt. openly welcoming all Jews from anywhere on earth to come there.
        But I know damn well that Israel would not accept such an agreement – they not only want to hang on to their illegal gains, but they want to expand as per the Yinon Plan.
        As governments, even Arab and Muslim governments, have on the most part more interest in turning a blind eye to Israeli abominations and trading with them, it is left to the peoples of the world who have some sense of morality (rather than perceived self-interest) to put as much pressure on the oppressors and occupiers of the Palestinians and their lands, with BDS and getting the truth of Israeli atrocities out.
        The AS smears against Corbynite Labour are not going to stop or even slow down – Zionists know full well that Corbyn as PM will internationally call out Israel for its atrocities – that is what fuels the intensity of the smears.
        If there was any truth in the smears, there would not be the many individual Jews and Jewiish Organisations which back Jeremy Corbyn to the hilt.
        As for ‘conspiracy theories’, seems some people have become totally brainwashed by the CIA weaponisation of the term, to the point of obsession.
        All races, and all religions, indulge in conspiracies. If a Roman Catholic Bishop is accused of being involved in a conspiracy, even if the Vatican itself is also claimed to be involved, that is not regarded as ‘anti-Catholicism’. Why is Israel or Zionism a special case?
        A so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ is most often a refusal to accept an official narrative and an alternative (most times far more plausible) narrative proffered instead.
        One man’s ‘conspiracy theory’ is another man’s truth, just as one man’s terrorist is another’s ‘Freedom Fighter’.

        • Clark

          Good comment, until we get to this:

          “As for ‘conspiracy theories’, seems some people have become totally brainwashed by the CIA weaponisation of the term, to the point of obsession. All races, and all religions, indulge in conspiracies. […] A so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ is most often a refusal to accept an official narrative”

          How many more times? No it isn’t; that just when the term is used as a smear. You empower that smear, by associating valid criticisms with things that couldn’t possibly be true, and suspecting your own neighbour. It’s love thy neighbour, Paul, not “dismiss him because he’s a dumb sheeple”.

          • Clark

            What is it you don’t get? There’s a difference between a theory that involves a limited conspiracy, and a theory that’s totally dependent upon half the population conspiring against the Great Truth Seekers, such that evidence isn’t even worth considering because The Conspiracy “controls everything”.

            This is to do with humility.

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      You have correctly identified Linda as a pusher of conspiracy theory and a TRUE antisemite. However, I cannot agree that Linda is representative of a larger clique patronising this discussion. Linda is a fairly scary outlier.

      If I contest that those seeking to damage Corbyn and the Labour Party are deliberately twisting anti-Zionism with antisemitism, I am not referring to Zionism of 50 years ago, but what passes for Zionism now.
      Netanyahu has been in power continuously for coming up 20 years. The Nation-State bill, the attempt to boost parliamentary representation of Jewish Home by forming a block with the blatantly terrorist Otzma Yehudit, the continued settlement building on the West Bank to break Palestinian land into tiny non-contiguous parcels which de facto removes any chance of a viable two state solution.
      I do condemn Zionism not for what it in theory was 50 years ago but what it has morphed into.
      I do not call for the destruction of the Israeli state, rather the total withdrawal of settlements to UN recognised borders.

      • Clark

        Vivian, I agree with all you have written, with one caveat:

        “However, I cannot agree that Linda is representative of a larger clique patronising this discussion”

        Linda simply expresses opinions more openly than some here. I discovered this during my long stint on the 9/11 thread. Usually, it is an unspoken subtext; people know that their comments may be deleted or they may be banned. For instance, the people who refer to Larry Silverstein, WTC leaseholder at the time of the 9/11 attacks, as “Lucky Larry”, though there is no evidence against the man at all.

        • Curious

          I would like to support Linda’s comments with references. Prof. Israel Shahak’s book on “Jewish History and Jewish Religion: the weight of 5000 years” explains the extreme racism of Judaism. He included the interesting fact that the Talmud’s racism was such that it was not accurately translated into English.. Shahak wrote it to try to end the self-serving victimization propaganda that Jewish Israelis use to justify their criminal treatment of Palestinians: criminality that is almost entirely censored by our media. The information about the fraudulence of the “Jewish people” and “land of Israel” has been expertly exposed by Israeli Prof. Shlomo Sand’s various excellent books. His talks are accessible on line. The propaganda that substantiated Israel’s legitimacy was uncovered by Prof. John Quigley’s “The Case for Palestine” in which he claimed that the government of Israel had no legal title whatsoever to an inch of Palestinian land until the 1993 Oslo Accord (the agreements of which Israel soon violated, of course). Another voice that must be listened to is that of Miko Peled — also online — the author of The General’s Son. The grandson of a founder of Israel and son of a leading Six Day War general, he is a passionate advocate for BDS before Palestinians are exterminated/ “the patient is dead.”
          Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is implicit support for Israel’s (as Peled notes) apartheid, ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide.

        • Curious

          “Clearly you read Linda’s comments before they were deleted. How would you characterise them?”

          People have not delved into this history enough; Richard Falk co-authored two books on the biased coverage of the New York Times on the Middle East and Israel /Palestine in particular that explains the widespread misunderstanding of this issue. I think it’s important to use only impeccable sources for information rather than relying on mainstream “news”..
          Here are some more of my preferred sources: All experts and all Jewish.
          Norman Finkelstein: son of two Holocaust survivors whose Princeton degree was on Zionism. He wrote : ” Gaza: It’s not Really Violence, It’s a Massacre” at:

          also see these important interviews:

          Finklestein on Therealnews.org part 1: May 2015 See: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13880

          Israel’s Iron Dome and Palestinian Armed Resistance – 2/5 See:

          Ilan Pappe (Jewish Israeli Professor of History), Wrote
          “Ethnic Cleansing by All Means: The real Israeli ‘peace’ policy? ” at

          also: Pappe’s: “One-State Solution and The Way Forward For Palestine” at:

          Henry Siegman: [Rabbi] Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He is the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994 and former executive vice president of the Synagogue Council of America. he wrote about the Implications of President Trump’s Jerusalem Ploy January 23, 2018 Trump’s move on Jerusalem achieved what years of Israel’s settlements failed to do and shatters the illusion of a two-state outcome. See:
          download Siegman interviews : Video AudioGet CD/DVD More Formats
          part 1: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us
          part 2: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/31/us_jewish_leader_henry_siegman_to

          • Clark

            And you agree with Linda, that Jews control the media and academia? That Jews have not suffered persecution, and Jewish violence to all Gentiles is inherent because of the Talmud, which all Jews follow? Etc. etc. etc.

          • Clark

            That the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis has been greatly exaggerated, by Jews, who hold all the records and permit no non-Jews to inspect them, for the specific purpose of maintaining the fiction? You agree with all this?

          • Curious

            I would have liked to re-read Linda’s response, but it has been censored. That seems to be a fairly normal occurrance for documents that support the Palestinian position.

            [ Mod: Linda’s comment was deleted because it clearly breached the rules for publication of comments on the blog. From Craig’s moderation rules for commenters:

            No racism. Any comment which is racist will simple be deleted immediately. The biggest problem we face is anti-Jewish comment, which I will not tolerate. We are not in the business of stigmatising anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish, but there are quite frequently distinctly anti-Jewish comments. I deleted one just an hour ago.

            Similarly, no holocaust denial. I do not believe it should be illegal (I am against thought crime) but I do not wish to have it on my blog as those associated with it often have very unpleasant sympathies. That is not to say the subject of the holocaust can never be mentioned – it will never be possible to ascertain the precise number who were killed, and it is important we remember not only the Jews but the Poles, gypsies, gays, freemasons and numerous others who suffered. But the basic facts are not in doubt. It is surprising how often people attempt to insinuate holocaust denial.

            Regards. ]

            I am not aware that any documents, books, news articles, or plays that support Israel or the Jewish perspective have been censored.

            I have not been aware of any professors or teachers or doctors who have lost their jobs or been denied tenure for supporting Israel. I have not been aware of libraries that have faced criticism for holding books sympathetic to Israel, or schools that have had to censor events that supported Israel.

            While members of the Jewish community sometimes like to brag among themselves of their power over government, media, and education, woe betide anyone who airs such facts publicly; even Jews who break ranks are often frightened about their community’s retribution.

            I was involved in one of two challenges of media accuracy in major newspapers. In one case, an editorial defamed Hamas with totally bogus information; in the other, the paper claimed that Hamas had broken a ceasefire that in fact Israel had broken. Both papers admitted our claims were valid, yet the press council refused to find against them, allowing them total unaccountability.

            This could all be an intellectual discussion, except, as Miko Peled (who lost his daughter in a Palestinian suicide bombing) claimed, “the patient is dying”; the slow, intentional genocide is proceeding. Richard Falk called for the world’s people of conscience to act: Gaza’s children are losing the will to live. While UN Special Rapporteur, Falk called on people to demand that our governments support boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel. We must break the silence and act.

          • Ascot2

            I see that a very reasonable response by Curious to Clark’s last comment has been removed.
            This seems to answer Craig’s original question as to whether or not the “pro-Israel Agenda has Finally Gone Too Far?”
            No wonder the problems fester and grow.

            [ Mod: Hi Ascot2 (aka ‘Curious’). An explanation was added to your comment, which you should be able to view.

            Incidentally, from Craig’s moderation rules for commenters:

            …. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.

            Please use one identity only. ]

          • Clark

            “I would have liked to re-read Linda’s response, but it has been censored. That seems to be a fairly normal occurrance for documents that support the Palestinian position”

            Not on this site it isn’t. Just look around; every thread of comments turns to Palestine, and Israeli abuses. What got deleted in this case was a completely false diatribe about centuries of world domination by Jews. But you seem to lack sufficient honesty to admit that.

            Many thanks to site moderators.

    • Peter Close

      Well, in some ways, this is almost inspiring… Just as many of us are trying to deal with the avalanche of smears, apparently intended to suppress all criticism of Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, and undermine support for BDS…along comes your straightforward, unequivocal, blatant, vile antisemitism. None of this debate about whether or not the figures in a mural that was destroyed in 2012 were Jewish… just old-fashioned Holocaust denial, Jewish world domination, rich Jews encouraging the Nazis to exterminate poor Jews, usury… Please crawl back to where you came from and stay there.

    • SA

      Sensible as usual but I think your declaration is based on some principles that seem to be unconnected with the real world.
      Firstly, why would anyone want nuclear weapons and why would any one who otherwise advocates pacifism and nuclear disarmament proclaim the rights of one country to have nuclear weapons because they feel threatened and not others that equally now feel threatened by the fact that they have nuclear weapons? The end result of this declaration is that we should advocate that Mauritius should have an atom bomb in order to persuade the U.K. to leave the Chagos Islands. In fact in some way you seem to also be tacitly agreeing with the leaders of North Korea whose policy seems to be bearing results, as opposed to Iraq and Iran.
      Ok you and others plead that Israel is a special case. And that is fine because of the history but the problem is that if you do not have equivalence where law applies equally you end up with an imbalance because in effect you have to place the rights of one group against others and in a way give them Carte Blanche to do anything they like which is the current situation.
      The second point about a Jewish homeland is valid again provided it does not take away from other people’s rights. It is one of the glaring facts regarding Israel is that its insertion in Palestine was facilitated by Europeans who have in one way or another created and made the persecution of Jews and the subsequent Holocaust, a reality. The perpetrators including some collaborators, have suffered no consequences of loss of territory or displacement as the Palestinians have. Most of those innocent Jews had long ancestral domicile in countries that had nothing to do with Palestine. The biblical concept of Israel is partially historic and also partially based on a famous religious text. International and national laws based on religious text and religion have, since the reformation not been the base of national and inter-nation laws in Europe and the growth of secularism and the idea of universality of human rights means that state laws based on specific religious or purely ethnic premises will tend to discriminate against ‘the other’. Many Moslem countries with Sharia based laws are rightly criticised for the fact that it removes this universality of equality. So in short this was the wrong solution to a west created problem.
      As to a two state solution. What two state solution? Israel’s policy of creating de facto bantustans and the impossibility of a viable Palestinian state reduces this to an intellectually futile exercise.

      • Clark

        SA, thank you for a reasoned argument not predicated on a conspiracy theory. It is refreshing.

        There is nothing fair in the Jews having been handed the part of Palestine that they were; it is a result of the Balfour declaration and a decision made by Westminster about part of what was the British Empire. Very similar to the travesty of the Partition of India which created massive conflict between countless millions across that entire subcontinent, it was an appallingly arrogant imperial decision made with complete contempt for the people it would affect, looking much like a punishment for struggling for independence. India and Pakistan now each have nuclear weapons, which are aimed primarily at each other, and thus a balance of power holds, for now.

        North Korea can hardly be blamed for having developed nuclear weapons either; they saw what happened to Iraq, and then Libya. I’d rather that no countries felt a need for massive armament, nuclear or otherwise, but for that, international law would need to be effective, implying that the UN would need to be respected. Neither are.

        Meanwhile, on these threads, we see the source of the problem. A considerable proportion of the commenters simply hate Jews. Full of self-righteousness, they weave fantasies of Jews controlling medicine to kill everyone, and Jews controlling academia to cover up controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, while chatting back and forth with apparent friends who seem to legitimately support the Palestinian people, but never say a word about these hateful conspiracy theories. Another faction simply hate Muslims, and bang on constantly about suicide attacks and rape gangs. They are less numerous here, but that is due merely to this site’s subject matter.

        There are some moderate, reasonable commenters but they seem drowned out by this aggressive row between the two sides. Sorry. Maybe I’ll have something more constructive to write after I’ve had some sleep.

        • SA

          Two further thoughts. There was really any Anti-semitism of the type institutionalised in Europe since the Middle Ages and culminating in the Holocaust. Any subsequent anti semitism in Arab countries arise only after 1948 and was reactive to the implantation of Israel in Palestine. My second thought is that Israel has been and also become increasingly an implant of settlers and more aligned with Europe and the West than being part of the Middle East and also that is why Israel is so strongly supported by the west whether it ‘shares our values’ as is demanded of others, or not.

          • Clark

            SA, I’m not going to be able to answer you. There is no hope of peace, but possibly merely a balance of power, for as long as it lasts. Human psyche is generally not capable of respect; nearly everyone sees fault almost exclusively in others, just as the majority think their various skills are above average – the logical impossibility of everyone being better than everyone else matters not a jot. The problem cannot be solved.

    • IrishU

      It is your opinion that she is overdoing.

      Judging by the amount of support she is receiving, both online and in the ‘real’ world, people agree with her. I certainly do.

  • Sharp Ears

    I had missed that Dearlove had been smearing Seumas Milne as a security risk in the event of Corbyn becoming PM

    . Pure chutzpah there Sir Richard.

    The truth about Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn and the new McCarthyism
    David Hearst
    25 February 2019 17:54 | Last update: 3 hours 31 min ago
    False accusations by yesterday’s spooks against Milne and Corbyn are a direct attempt to stop a popular and democratically elected leader from becoming prime minister

    A reminder of Dearlove’s multiple directorships. No conflicts of interests there we trust!

  • Paul Barbara

    It should never be forgotten (or should be learnt, if not known) that Israeli administrations not only slaughter, torture and repress Palestinians, but have assisted brutal repressive regimes across the globe.
    ‘Israel’s Latin American trail of terror’: https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2003/06/2008491463219614.html
    These countries troubles were clearly no threat to Israel (as they always claim Palestinians are), but were seen as opportunities to make money and spread their murderous arts through training death squads etc.
    To Latin America you can add Sri Lanka, South Africa, and Indonesia during their extremely brutal occupation of East Timor.
    Add the Lavon Affair, the murderous attack on the virtually unarmed USS Liberty, many more ‘False Flag’ ops like bombing Iraqi Synagogues etc to drive Iraqi Jews to emigrate to Israel, and countless assassinations around the globe, and one realises there is much more than ‘defense of Israel’ at work here.

  • Mochyn69

    I have a serious question for Luciana and others.

    Racism in all its forms is abhorrent as is oppression and suppression of minorities whoever and whereever they may be. That is a given.

    So, if I want to comment on the policies of the state of Israel or certain lobbying groups in the US and the UK, for example, or express support for the unfortunate dispossessed Palestinian people, please can you tell me what language I should use in order not to be castigated or smearfed as anti-semitic in your opinion?

    After all, it does seem we are talking about semantics here.


  • Alex Westlake

    Hassan Nasrallah – Hezbollah’s leader – is on record as saying – “If the Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”. He is also on record as saying “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli” If you support Hezbollah then that is what you are endorsing.

  • Sharp Ears

    Back in 2014, the Pope visited Israel. He visited Yad Vashem, the grave of Herzl, the ‘founder of Israel, and the Wailing Wall. He placated the Palestinians by visiting the ‘Barrier’, ie the separation wall around the Occupied West Bank.

    Pope Lays Wreath at Tomb of Zionism’s Founder

    He would have been better occupied sorting out the widespread abuse of children and minors by clerics and others within the Catholic church, the latest instance of which is the exposure of Cardinal Pell in Australia.

    Vatican to await George Pell appeal before taking any action
    Outcome of child sexual abuse trial is painful news that shocked many, says Vatican

    !Painful news!…!shocked!… It’s been public knowledge for years. Revolting old men.

  • Dungroanin

    The Funny Tingers Group can be joined by the GODY groupies soon.
    They march up the hill and then march down again. Grieve/Soubry before. Now Letwin/Cooper.

  • Ste

    Have you ever looked at the 2001 attribution of Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to “Saudi Hezbollah” rather than AlQaeda? DC field office under Clinton administration was unconvinced by evidence obtained by Saudi torture. In early days of incoming Bush administration, the acting Deputy Attorney General re-assigned the case to Eastern District of Virginia, where case would be handled by different FBI field office. In June 2001, on eve of statute of limitations, the EDVA FBI returned an indictment against Saudi Hezbollah, ignoring evidence against AlQaeda. This indictment against Saudi Hezbollah stands as primary terrorist allegation against Hezbollah. One wonders in retrospect whether FBI and DOJ attention in first nine months of 2001 might not have been better spent investigating AlQaeda rather than Saudi Hezbollah.

    Who was the acting Deputy Attorney General who re-assigned the case to the all-too-eager EDVA? He’s still in the news. It was Robert Mueller, who was almost immediately afterwards nominated to head FBI.

    And who was the eager US attorney in EDVA to whom Mueller transferred the Khobar Towers case? Also still in the news. James Comey.

    In 2009, Gareth Porter wrote a 5-part series http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/06/exclusive-part1-al-qaeda-excluded-from-the-suspects-list/ discussing the seemingly obvious yet overlooked connection of Khobar Towers bombing to Al Qaeda and challenging the Mueller-Comey attribution to “Saudi Hezbollah”.

    As the Mueller-Comey attribution of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing remains so essential in characterization of both Hezbollah and Iran as “terrorist” organization, a thorough re-examination and parsing of Khobar Towers case is more important than ever.

    • Laguerre

      “Have you ever looked at the 2001 attribution of Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to “Saudi Hezbollah” rather than AlQaeda?”

      In those days, no-one was really aware of the visceral Saudi hatred of and obsession with their Shi’a. This was the only occasion I ever really remember something being attributed to “Saudi Hezbollah”. So I guess they may have been invented for the purpose by the Saudis. Now we know much better how much profound hatred of the Shi’a overwhelms any good sense in Saudi princes. I don’t need to remind you why – the Saudi Shi’a are sitting on the oil-fields, 100% of them, and Saudi princes would be back to herding camels, if the Shi’a declared independence.

  • Sharp Ears

    Manipulation of statistics is the name of the game played by Messrs Graham and Boyd whose paper was ‘published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) and Community Security Trust (CST), which explored the relationship between antisemitism and hostility to Israel.’

    The paper –
    The apartheid contention and calls for a boycott Examining hostility towards Israel in Great Britain
    David Graham and Jonathan Boyd / January 2019

    The New-Antisemitism: proof at last?

    JPR – https://www.jpr.org.uk/governance Lord Rothschild is the chair of it.
    It is a charity like the CST (Community Security Trust) but the trustees of the CST were given anonymity by the Charity Commission when Sir William Shawcross was the chair. He is a supporter of the Zionist state and was a council member of the Henry Jackson Society. YCNMIU.

    ‘From 1997 to 2003 he was a member of the BBC World Service Advisory Council. In 2008 he became a Patron of the Wiener Library, and in 2011 he joined the board of the Anglo-Israel Association and was appointed to the board of the Henry Jackson Society.
    Shawcross took up the Chairmanship of the Charity Commission for England and Wales on 1 October 2012 and served as chair until February 2018.’

  • Sharp Ears

    O/T but reference charities and the sums paid to their chief executives.

    All in a good cause? How top charities spend £226m on fat-cat pay, spin doctors and other running costs – and claim it goes to frontline service
    Marie Stopes International and Save the Children International, report figures suggesting 100 per cent of their expenditure goes on ‘charitable activities’
    However, they both pay their chief executives over £200,000 a year
    The findings have led to calls for a shake-up of charity sector accounting rules

    Stephen Kinnock’s wife is the former Danish PM. She is now the CEO of Save the Children and was paid ‘$299,136 last year, while 18 members of staff were paid $195,000 a year or more. Save the Children Fund, the charity’s UK arm, logged £42.9 million of costs in its £370.5 million of charitable activities spending, breaking this down into £18.5 million spent on management and administration and £24.4 million on support.’

    Do you remember Craig writing about Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox at Save the Children?

    Save the Fatcats

    Peak Kinnock

  • Deschutes

    Thank you Mr. Murray for this excellent piece on Hezbollah, the 2006 invasion which the IDF decisively lost due to anti-tank weapons like the Kornet, and how Hezbollah is not a “terrorist organization” but rather Shias in Lebanon doing their best to repel the numerous and ongoing Israeli invasions and destructions of their country. This whole “you’re an anti-semite” smear is so utterly worn out and overdone, I don’t know why Corbyn or the British put of with such nonsense. You object to Palestinians being killed for peacefully demonstrating; you object to their homes being bulldozed by CAT armored bulldozers; you object to Israeli “settlers” viciously kicking out Palestinians out of their homes and attacking them: and for this you are an ‘anti-semite’? No, I’m not anti-semitic. What I am is pro-human rights!

    • Blunderbuss

      “Sergei and Yulia are currently in a ‘safe place’ back in their native country but are believed to only be in contact with British officials”.

      I initially thought “their native country” meant Russia but, on reflection, I think it means the former Soviet Union. My guess is that Sergei and Yulia are in Estonia.

      • michael norton

        There are people in The United Kingdom who, apparently are going to court for what they deem the interests of Shamima Begum,
        they consider she is held against her will in Syria and should be returned into the bosom of her family in London, the is opposite to the wishes of our current Home Secretary.

        It therefor should be possible, for a third party to apply to the English courts on behalf of Yulia Skripal, perhaps under habeas corpus,
        for Julia to be released from U.K. custody, unless they can show her to have committed criminal activity.

  • Paul Barbara

    Chagos Islanders win case in the ICC:
    ‘Victory For The Chagos Islanders’: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51166.htm
    ‘…I was in Parliament – where the highest court then sat in the House of Lords – on the day of the judgement. I have never seen such shame-faced judges in what was clearly a political decision.
    In 2010, the British government sought to reinforce this by establishing a marine nature reserve around the Chagos Islands. The ruse was exposed by WikiLeaks, which published a US Embassy diplomatic cable from 2009 that read, ‘Establishing a marine reserve might indeed, as the FCO’s [Colin] Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or descendants from resettling.’
    Now the International Court of Justice has decided that the British government of the day had no right in law to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius when it granted Mauritius independence. The Court, whose powers are advisory, has said Britain must end its authority over the islands. By extension, that almost certainly makes the US base illegal….’
    Alas, we can expect HMG cock a snook at the judgement, as the UK is one of the ‘Exceptional’ regimes that laws don’t apply to.

  • Sharp Ears

    Israeli historian Benny Morris doubles down on his advocacy for ethnic cleansing
    January 18, 2019


    ‘So here, Morris, who also wants to somehow be known as a leftist, is making clear that “separation” is part of a genocidal scheme. He would not call it genocidal, and he denies that what he’s describing is ethnic cleansing, but that’s what it really is.’

    ‘Something like a cage has to be built for them [the Palestinians]. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal out there that has to be locked up in one way or another.’

  • Muscleguy

    I can attest to the gulf in education and knowledge between the UK and US. Back around 2011 we had an American woman working in the lab. One day we were discussing stuff, as you do, and the horrible mismatch in children killed, Palestinian vs Israeli was mentioned.

    The American objected to this stating she was sure it was the other way around and she had never heard of Palestinian children being killed, just Israeli. We sent her to the internet to look it up for herself and she came back spitting feathers in anger at the US media for so seriously misinforming her. It seems they only report the very occasional Israeli deaths and do not report Palestinian deaths.

    Later on she was so dismayed by Bush Jr’s Patriot Act America she sought British Citizenship so she would not have to go back if she didn’t want to. I was pleased to be a reference for her.

    One small awakening for America.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Muscleguy February 27, 2019 at 09:28
      There may be a mismatch in education and knowledge, but at least in her case there was a lso a mismatch in morality, because as soon as she learnt the truth, she raged against the false MSM picture, whilst all too many Brits get enraged when the truth is pointed out, not because they had been bamboozled, but because the people trying to inform them about the truth are, in their eyes, ‘Anti-Semitic’.

      • Clark

        “all too many Brits get enraged when the truth is pointed out, […] because the people trying to inform them about the truth are, in their eyes, ‘Anti-Semitic’”

        Just another product of your fevered imagination, I’m glad to say.

  • J

    Thought this was worth mentioning. Clark and others are making a determined attempt to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism through the lame justification that critique of Israel on these comments is accompanied by anti-Semitism. He won’t cite any evidence so, clearly, an exact analogue of the process occuring through respectable media. In tandem, a creeping criminalisation of political views is ongoing.

    Clark is quite categorically supporting the move to delegitimise a range of political views, whether he realises this or not.

    • Antonym

      Evidence of current anti-semitism: just read this blog or Off-Guardian BTL. Everything under the sun is due to the Jews. In Israel they are the Zionists in the West The capitalists.
      There is nothing happening in the rest of the ME, South Asia, Africa or the Far East that is more burning than Judea and around.
      You know this, but don’t want to see it.

      • J

        I’ve been reading the blog for some years and I haven’t seen anything like your characterisation, The onus is on you and Clark to provide evidence if you want to be believed. Even if it were true you’re both trying to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism for your own reasons.

        [ Mod: Comments with overt anti-Jewish content or underhand insinuations are usually deleted swiftly by moderators, in line with the moderation policy, and persistent offenders are banned. Accordingly, most regular readers are unaware of the nature or the volume of antisemitic comments. ]

        • J

          Proves my point.

          1. Clark is responding to a small sampling, this blog

          2. Even so, Clark makes no effort to provide evidence.

          3. Clark conflates criticism of Israel on this blog with anti-Semitism, very fashionable to be sure but he makes no effort to qualify the offending items as having subsequently been deleted from this blog and instead gives the impression all or most criticism of Israel is the problem.

          4. Clark, evidence please. Leaving aside newcomer Linda’s’ timely first post.

          • Clark

            “Clark is responding to a small sampling, this blog”

            Try reading the comments under 9/11 no-planes or demolition theory videos on YouTube. They’re unmoderated.

            “Even so, Clark makes no effort to provide evidence”

            Now rectified above.

            “Clark conflates criticism of Israel on this blog with anti-Semitism […] gives the impression all or most criticism of Israel is the problem”

            That’s not true, please retract it.

          • Clark

            No need to remain in doubt – go read comments at YouTube, or a hundred other unmoderated sites. You get similar comments here, but minus the overt anti-Semitism – but then this site has a moderation rule against it. And moderators, including me as a former mod, have told you that it gets deleted here.

            But I could be working for the Jews. Is that what you’re saying? Spit it out.

          • Clark

            J, you’re just proving my point with each new comment you post.

            YOU and your ilk are why Jews need Israel, and an Israel with nukes.

          • Clark

            J, I think I misinterpreted one of your comments and if so I apologise. I took your February 28, 00:38 comment:

            “I admit, I may be wrong, that’s my opinion”

            as a general denial of the covert, subtext anti-Semitic content of conspiracy theories that I have been trying to alert people to. On reflection I think you were replying to my remark at 23:16:

            “That’s not true, please retract it”

            I hope you’ll look at my other comments and come to see that I do not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, nor regard all or most criticism of Israel as any sort of problem.

            Quite the opposite. It is specifically in irrational, “class one”-type conspiracy theories that I find baseless blaming of specifically Jews, not Israel. Such overarching conspiracy theories often work on an assumption that “the Jews control”: “the media”, “America”, academia, banking, NASA etc. Sometimes “Jews” might be replaced with Freemasons, the NWO, the Illuminati, or various other nebulous, ill-defined entities, but in such cases the “overlord” group often seems to be drawing upon Jews as traitors embedded within society.

    • Glasshopper


      Rubbish. Clark is simply pointing out that anti-zionism can slide into David Irving territory if not kept proportionate.

    • Clark

      J, I’m disappointed that you take that view, and I dispute it. Please note my second paragraph in the comment you criticise:

      “I continue to oppose Israeli expansionism, illegal settlements, exceptionalism, undue political influence beyond Israel, oppression of Palestinians including wanton and provocative shootings and killings especially of children, abuse in detention, the blockade of Gaza, demolition of Palestinian homes, segregation of Palestinians, breach of UN resolutions and pursuit of the Yinon Plan. […]”

      As to evidence, I can’t produce any when the anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists are careful not to reveal their true position in their comments. But clues do leak through; I learned to recognise them on the 9/11 thread. Note Linda’s accusations against “Jewish media”, “Jewish academia” and “Hollywood”. Note 9/11 “no planes” conspiracy theorists’ frequent references to “Hollywood style special effects”, and Twin Tower demolition theorists’ condemnation of Jewish Noam Chomsky for telling them to refer their “physics” arguments to academia.

      • Clark

        Note 9/11 Twin Tower demolition theorists’ argument that, despite their claim that the accelerating collapses of the Twin Towers violated Newton’s laws of motion unless the buildings had been pre-rigged with explosives throughout, no university, professional engineering body, or retired physicist or engineer in the world will expose this. They cite salaries and research grants, which of course does not apply to students, the retired, or for instance Russian, Chinese or Iranian universities etc. It’s hard to avoid the unspoken subtext that what they really think is that “everything is controlled by the Jews”, just as Linda’s comments assert.

        The same goes for the medical conspiracy theory; “A Jewish doctor may not cure a goy”.

          • Clark

            Rowan, the collapse of the Twin Towers was not an insurance scam for Larry Silverstein.

            American Society of Civil Engineers – over 150,000 members
            American Institute of Architects – over 90,000 members.

            That’s just the US; then there are all the similar professional bodies, and engineering and physics departments of universities all over the world. I forget which one repeatedly voted down A&E9/11Truth’s motions. And if you watch A&E9/11’s video Meet the Experts, you’ll find that many of them are more concerned to reinvestigate WTC7 than the Twin Towers – rightly so, since it’s far more of an oddity, but of course that building’s collapse killed no one.

            And then there’s me; my physics aint too bad. You’ll find my description of the collapse sequence and some calculations on the 9/11 thread. The Twin Towers collapsed as Newton’s laws predict.

          • Clark

            Rowan, Chandler’s physics argument is very general; it predicts that no collapse can accelerate through a vertical structure, if it has previously stood. So if you have a set of glass shelves with the top shelf supporting, say, a 5kg lump of lead, and it has stood OK for a while, then Chandler says that if you break the top shelf and the lead starts to fall, the ensuing collapse can’t accelerate through the lower shelves.

            Simple reductio ad absurdum; Chandler’s wrong. So A&E9/11 should retract their support, loud and clear, but instead they’ve just made the links less prominent.

          • Clark

            And if you watch A&E9/11’s video Meet the Experts…

            Don’t; probably the most boring film in existence, and about three hours long. But if you do watch it, you’ll notice that a lot of them don’t actually seem very bright. Gage himself has an architectural qualification, but if you check his CV you’ll see he’s basically an administrator not a designer or an engineer.

          • Rowan Berkeley

            Dear anonymous moderator, maybe “we” don’t discuss 9/11, but Clark does, otherwise I would not have responded to him, so please ask him – publicly – to desist from coat-trailing and provocations. Thank you.

          • Clark

            I’ve been making a claim that conspiracy theories are frequently anti-Semitic, or have strong anti-Semitic elements. I leaned that when I came under concerted verbal abuse on the 9/11 thread. I’m trying to keep “physical evidence” arguments to a minimum, and concentrate on the broader aspect of conspiracy theorists’ complete dismissal of the global physics and engineering community, but maintaining complete cut-off is impractical.

            Conspiracy theories are topical because Corbyn’s support organisation Momentum have just released a video about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. My position is also similar to Craig’s, and he’s this blog’s owner, so what you’re asking is somewhat perverse.

            I was going to offer to come to your site and discuss it, but the link seems to have vanished from your comments.

        • J

          “As to evidence, I can’t produce any when the anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists are careful not to reveal their true position”

          Point of logic, you Clark are guilty of anti-semitism. Because sometimes you don’t say what you really mean. So am I. So is everyone. Bravo!

          “It’s hard to avoid the unspoken subtext that what they really think is that “everything is controlled by the Jews”

          It’s hard to avoid any all inclusive category you decide upon, yes.

      • George

        Are references to “Hollywood style special effects” a sign of anti-Semitism?

        And is it true that anyone who disagrees with Noam Chomsky must be anti-Semitic just because Chomsky happens to be Jewish?

        • Clark

          But it’s always Chomsky they go after, always his lectures they interrupt, always him they accuse of being a gatekeeper. Except when it’s Amy Goodman of course. And then there are the Moon-missions-were-faked conspiracy theorists, going on and on about Stanley Kubrick – I didn’t even know he was Jewish until I twigged and went and looked it up. Oh and all NASA astronauts are Freemasons, reviving that old Nazi meme. Then there’s The Atlantean Conspiracy / Flat Earth nonsense – grief, check their website, supposedly all humanity was genetically programmed centuries ago to obey or believe certain “bloodlines”; guess which ones? No, you don’t say…

          Gets tedious there’s so much of it.

          • George

            “I didn’t even know he was Jewish until ….”

            Well precisely. Just as Marc Wadsworth didn’t know that Ruth Smeeth was Jewish when he made an observation which she quickly turned into an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”. And that was the end of Marc Wadsworth.

          • Clark

            But if there hadn’t been a pre-existing anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that “Jews control the media”, that tactic of accusation couldn’t have worked. So we tolerate such corrupting nonsense at our own peril, which is precisely why I’m making such an effort over this.

          • Clark

            * Because there’s a difference between “Jews” and “the Jews” – the former refers to a number of Jewish individuals with varying objectives, the latter assumes that all Jews have a unified objective.

            (I know, I wrote “Jews control the media” when I should have written “the Jews…”; thank you for helping me clarify my thinking.)

            * Because there are differences between Hollywood, to which Collin Spears refers, and US news media, of which he says “The same was largely also true of print media, with editors, managers, etc.”, and then:

            “Of the largest news mega media corps, less than 10 years ago 4 of 5, depending on how you count them, were run by Jews, but for New Corp, run by Rupert Murdoch. That being said, it is not the case currently, I believe it is now 2 out of 5…but I don’t look at board members”

            * Because there’s a big difference between US news media and global news media.

            * Because news media is (inadequately) subject to legal redress. Owners, editors etc. can’t just print or broadcast any lies they wish; they get forced to retract, so they have to spin instead. News media has editorial policy and accountability – because powerful people need news, and base their decisions upon it.

            * Because the (decreasing number of) different news media organisations compete; they’ll expose each other’s wrong stories – not often enough, but it does happen.

            So ‘control’ of news media is much less than ‘control’ of Hollywood, and news media isn’t a monolithic conspiracy.
            – – – – –
            A disproportionately high number of Jews are powerful in politics and media, but that is not the same as claiming that “the Jews control the (global) media”, as if all our information is only what suits “the Jews”. That doesn’t mean that news media is free or objective or has no agenda; it’s crap (read Bad Science) and pro-war and pro-corporatism among many other sins, but it isn’t just serving “the Jews”.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Can anything be more pathetic than the media’s handling of Michael Cohen’\s revelation/n that Roger Stome knew of the Russian hacking to appear on Wikileaks which would hurt Hillary’s campaign, what Trump interoperated .to mean that she was a druggie pedophile, but would only show that she was man[pulating DNC funds to her advantage. nothing more.

    So Trump’s colliding with the Russians to help lock her upnimmedistelu had gotten nowhere.

  • Sharp Ears

    Israel lobby funders back breakaway British MPs

    Garrard. Chinn. Foster. Goldstein. etc. Follow the money.

    ‘Garrard has for many years been a major financial backer of Labour Friends of Israel, a front group for the Israeli embassy, and was recently appointed to its board. Prior to left-wing Palestine solidarity activist Jeremy Corbyn becoming party leader in 2015, Garrard donated almost $2 million to Labour under former leaders Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. Garrard was so dismayed after Corbyn’s leadership election in September 2015, that he called in a loan of more than $2.5 million he had made to the party.’

    Blair, Brown and Miliband are/were Labour Friends of Israel.

    ‘he Sunday Times this weekend named Trevor Chinn and Jonathan Goldstein as two other “potential donors” to the group – although it cited no evidence. Chinn is one of the leaders of BICOM and Goldstein is chair of the Jewish Leadership Council – both are British pro-Israel lobby groups.
    Chinn donated more than $6,000 to Labour Friends of Israel’s chair Joan Ryan in 2017.
    He donated a similar amount to deputy Labour leader Tom Watson in 2018.’

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Chris Williamson formally warned over room booking for ‘witch hunt’ film screening’:
    All these ‘rich donors’ jumping ship only underlines what their objectives were in the first place – control, not only by their ‘terrible power of the purse’ (as it has been described in the past) to influence the leaders, but also by their donations to their chosen ‘like thinking’ politicians.
    Some down-to-earth folk don’t play ‘politically correct’, and call it what it is – bribery, buying politicians and ultimately parties.
    And it is often a very lucrative investment, rather than gift – in one of the censored then leaked Al Jazeera US Lobby series, one plotter says they had succeeded in getting $32 billion for Isr^el through their machinations.
    Michael Meacher was also ‘warned’, or better threatened, that if he carried forth his intention to show ‘Loose Change’ in a room booked in Parliament, he would end up ‘sleeping with the fishes’. He backed down, but continued speaking out about anomalies in the ‘Official Narrative’.

  • wonky

    Any delusional individual or group who believe themselves ‘exceptional’ or even ‘chosen’ by God, Gaya, the Universe, whatever, belong in a padded cell.

    Back in 45 ‘they’ had a chance to establish Bavaria as the new Israel with Munich as the new Jerusalem. An apt punishment for the murderous Germans. A beautiful piece of land with rich soil, breathtaking mountain views and well educated, industrious natives to be exploited as slaves for centuries to come. But no, it had to be the promised land, didn’t it..

    • Garth Carthy

      “Any delusional individual or group who believe themselves ‘exceptional’ or even ‘chosen’ by God, Gaya, the Universe, whatever, belong in a padded cell.”

      That’s right, and that explains why the world is such a basket case: The world’s policeman (US) and its police dogs (Israel and UK)
      all suffer from the ‘God’s chosen ones’ syndrome. Adolf Hitler had a similar mental aberration…

      • Clark

        Unfortunately, exceptional is the way every human being, and probably every animal, feels about themselves. It’s just the life force at work; none of your ancestors considered others’ desire to eat, mate or have young more important than their own, and celibacy is not hereditary. Of course we grow up, we become socialised; in Freud’s terms, we develop an ego to mediate those desires from the id, and we come to share a conscious illusion that “we’re all equal”. We find rational explantions to paste over behaviours motivated essentially by selfishness, but we still interrupt whoever is speaking so that our own voice is heard instead of theirs, we still accept the pay rise instead of asking it be passed to those lower in the hierarchy, we still don’t invite the homeless into our home.

        Some develop more critical self-awareness than others do, and there are excesses either way. And here are you two discussing, yet the paradox is that you’re agreeing with each other that ‘you’ are better than ‘them’, because ‘they’ feel superior to ‘you’.

        • J

          “But it’s always Chomsky they go after”

          Loose categories sink otherwise sea worthy minds. And immediately above you generously include everyone else in your failings, which is pretty egotistical in a meditation on ego. Think it possible you’re wrong some of the time. It’s liberating.

          • Clark

            I don’t need a lecture thanks, because for years I gave it the benefit of the doubt, until, eventually, the weight of evidence – admittedly inconclusive individually – became too much. Read through all my comments on this page again – a lot of actual conspiracy theories have a strong anti-Semitic element.

            So I’m starting to wonder why you’re defending so hard.

          • J

            Clark, I can’t control what you think, and on the evidence of this thread, nor do I care. Now that you’ve called me anti-Semitic, I believe we’ve reached the logical conclusion of your argument and the complete validation of mine.

          • Clark

            I said I was wondering; it is you that has declared a “conclusion”.

            The term “anti-Semitic” properly applies to behaviours, not individuals.

            You could contribute to the solution by endorsing Chomsky’s very sensible argument.

          • J

            I will replace my original response to this once moderators have established why they deleted it.

            Moderators, explanation please? If you could kindly tell me which parts are objectionable?

            [ Mod: The explanation was appended to your message, which you should be able to view; but it will be repeated here nonetheless.

            From Craig’s moderation rules for commenters:

            We don’t discuss 9/11. There are plenty of places on the web where you can do that. It tends to take over threads.

            This discussion should have been deleted at an early stage, but on this occasion was left open as a courtesy to the participants. Your comment clearly oversteps even those extended boundaries. If you want to pursue this argument with Clark, please email it to him directly. ]

          • J

            No. The post is not visible. I’ve resubmitted below, discussion of 9/11 is removed, but there is a brief reference to the 9/11 thread, still hosted by this website and which it would be somewhat Stalinist to omit any reference to.

            Original post:

            Your entire argument boils down to subjective interpretation. Fine. This subjective view serves other political purposes, much as were served during HUAC, also fine.

            But then you require others to adopt your formulation of an argument, to demonstrate the correct ‘behaviour’ in your opinion. You have explicitly stated presumption of guilt. Non compliance with your required formulation is evidence of further vague assertions. You’re either far more stupid than you think, especially for such a knowledgeable man, or you have another undisclosed agenda. Your subjective view is not scientific or objective, you are merely appealing for a level of trust which have stated that you will deny to others.

            I’ll give you one concrete example why you should not be trusted:

            The case of Sirhan Sirhan. All the physical evidence including the autopsy performed on Robert Kennedy, injuries to bystanders, stray bullet holes, and ALL eyewitness testimony demonstrate conclusively that Sirhan did not shoot Robert Kennedy, yet Sirhan remains in jail to this day despite the Kennedy family themselves demanding a new investigation.

            It would appear your belief that all conspiracies are false and likely anti-Semitic requires you to ignore physical evidence. One look at the physical evidence is enough. Will you look? You know that some foundational part of your belief system will collapse and you will be changed. You will become someone else and very possibly something you currently despise in others.

            I can more or less confidently predict that not only will you not view the evidence (you know in advance you’ll be be wasting your time) but even if you did, you will not be able to accept the logical conclusion which follows from that evidence, that a group of men conspired to murder Kennedy, men with the power and influence to misdirect the police investigation, men who chose Sirhan, a young Palestinian man, to be blamed for the murder and who also had the resources to induce his odd behaviour.

            This first documentary was shown once on American television many decades ago, it contains a broad overview of the physical evidence and many eye witness accounts, some of those recorded within minutes of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iR4WuKvAY

            The second documentary interviews Sirhans lawyer Laurie Dusek and Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard medical school and contains explosive but extremely disconcerting new evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCU2MCxjAJ0

            Between the two of them, you will have a broad overview of the known facts.

            On the 9/11 thread, you’ve already ignored physical evidence, you can’t account for it, therefore everyone but you is acting in bad faith. And because conspiracy theorists are a mixed bunch, and some are vociferously anti-Semitic, all theories are equal and any of them can be used to invalidate the others.

            An equivalent position would be to use the handful of climate denial scientists to discredit all climate science.

            Some form of belief system is inhibiting your ability to view the evidence objectively. Now you seek to invalidate or de-legitimise any argument you choose if it fits one of your arbitrarily defined categories for summary dismissal.

            [ Mod: Abusive remark deleted. ]

            And Chomsky very much disagrees with you. See the video. https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/110078184483917825

          • Clark

            “your belief that all conspiracies are false”

            That isn’t my argument. I’ve laid out the difference between suspecting a limited conspiracy eg. the Robert Kennedy case, and an actual conspiracy theory, multiple times; here’s an example:


            Years ago I briefly scanned Mike Ruppert’s examination of the Robert Kennedy evidence and thought that the convicted man could well have been stitched up. This seems to me a case of smearing enthusiast investigators with the false label of “conspiracy theorists”, ie. my “second class” to King of Welsh Noir. But basically every non-scientific theory that dismisses a strong scientific consensus has to be a “class one”-type conspiracy theory.

            Chomsky himself says that Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” should be submitted to the scientific community; that’s what gets him accused of being a “gatekeeper”. I can’t follow your link because it’s dead, but seeing as it concerns the Birmingham Six, you must be referring to the use of “conspiracy theory” as a smear; an expert witness may have lied, or been wrong or carefully chosen, but the entire scientific community wouldn’t be faking their theories in order to convict the Birmingham Six.

            If you think I overlooked evidence on the 9/11 thread, you haven’t read enough of it. I apologise that the arguments are dispersed, but if I hadn’t had so much insult, abuse, and general obfuscation from actual, class-1 conspiracy theorists (several of whom proved anti-Semitic) the arguments would be a lot more concise.

          • Clark

            J, there are many miscarriages of justice that were deliberate and politically motivated; the Lockerbie prosecution is a very clear example. The political establishment and compliant ‘news’ media are often eager to smear those who point this out as “conspiracy theorists”, but a smear does not make it so. But neither does this mean there are no conspiracy theories; indeed, the smear wouldn’t be effective unless there were.

          • Clark

            And sorry; I used to have a contact page, the mod probably assumed that it’s still there, but I let it lapse. I’m clark at killick1 dt plus dt com

          • Clark

            Oh, and I saw the abusive remark before it was deleted. That’s what actual, class-1 conspiracy theorists do. It’s what they tried to do to me on the 9/11 thread. My hostility isn’t abstract; it feels dreadful when a gang of commenters continually exchange innuendo and put-downs to try and drive one’s rational argument from the arena.

          • Clark

            The Wikipedia description of “conspiracy theory” has been greatly improved since I last looked:

            A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy or the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. Evidence showing it to be false, or the absence of proof of the conspiracy, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating it from refutation.
            – A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy. Barkun writes that conspiracies are “actual covert plots planned and/or carried out by two or more persons”. A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is “an intellectual construct”, a “template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events”. Positing that “some small and hidden group” has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to special knowledge or a special mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account.

            That said, someone has been very active changing “Alternative Theories of X” pages into “X Conspiracy Theories” pages.

          • J

            Clark, I like you and always appreciate your comments, well informed or informative, respectful, and often very considered. I can’t claim such standards most of the time, if at all. And I’m heartened to read some of your subsequent comments relating to the primacy of evidence.

            However, you appear to remain committed to conflation, for your own purposes and I remain committed to calling you out when you do it.

            The link to Chomsky again: https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/1100781844839178251

          • Clark

            J, I have now watched the video at Twitter that you linked to. Chomsky doesn’t say anything that “very much disagrees with” me. Being pedantic, I’d disagree with Chomsky’s assertion that there’s no defence against accusations of anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial; the standard defence of “there’s no evidence for that” is effective, but I’m sure Chomsky wasn’t being entirely literal in that remark. The trouble with smears is that shit sticks, but being seen to throw masses of shit can more than redress the balance eventually.

            Here’s Chomsky on conspiracy theories; at best they’re a waste of time, and frequently the powerful encourage and feed them:


          • George

            I have noticed – along with at least one other – that we are not supposed to discuss 9/11 but nevertheless Clark does and gets away with it while the rest of us have our comments deleted. Since one of my comments was deleted – and considering that 9/11 wasn’t my main concern (Chomsky was) – I am re-submitting it here:

            In the video link interview with Chomsky, he does his usual fudging around. He admits there ARE conspiracies and sometimes something hidden beneath the surface but this kind of talk “usually” turns out to be “a pathology”. He blathers a bit about “the normal workings of institutional structures” (what is “normal” and which structures?). We then get a complete misdirection about JFK who apparently wasn’t a “nice guy” at all – as if this has any bearing on whether a conspiracy killed him. There’s a bit about how conspiracy theories are good if they’re right and bad if not. Well DUH! And so on…

            But then Chomsky also said this about 9/11:

            “And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn’t have any significance. It’s a little bit like the huge energy that’s put out on trying to figure out who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?”

            Let’s just consider that for a moment. Chomsky is considering the possibility – however remote in his view – that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he’s saying it doesn’t have any significance that the US government carried out an attack on its own population! It doesn’t have any significance that the “war on terror” was launched on the basis of a lie!

          • Clark

            …but this kind of talk “usually” turns out to be “a pathology”

            Chemtrails, MMR-causes-autism, climate science denial, ancient bloodlines… He’s got a point, no?

            …what is “normal” and which structures?

            Normal is capitalism and the institutional structures (‘government’, ‘law’, ‘states’) which support and protect it.

            JFK who apparently wasn’t a “nice guy” at all – as if this has any bearing on whether a conspiracy killed him

            Would you make a big effort speculating about a conspiracy if someone had killed Bush? Personally I’d have just cheered, and almost hoped they got away with it.

            And he’s saying it doesn’t have any significance that the US government carried out an attack on its own population!

            No, he’s saying that, given the evidence, he finds that so unlikely that he’s not going to waste time speculating about it. He does do a lot of serious work, scouring archives including declassified documents, compiling the historical record, lecturing, teaching anyone bright enough to listen.

            It doesn’t have any significance that the “war on terror” was launched on the basis of a lie!

            But you’re using the “reverse scientific method”, as conspiracy theorists tend to. You’re assuming it’s a lie, and then building your world view upon that assumption. And you’re accepting a US propaganda term “War on Terror” – such terms are designed to cloud the mind. Here’s the history:

            9/11 was used as the reason to invade Afghanistan, but if you’ve seen Wesley Clark’s “seven countries in five years” speech, you’ll know that the military advisors (Pentagon) had been in favour of that for years, because ex-CIA proxies (“Al Qaeda”) were based there, and they’d become enemies of the US and the al Sauds.

            But 9/11 failed to produce the impetus to attack Iraq, which was the Bush administration’s real objective (‘cos Saddam had tried to kill Bush’s daddy), which is why the false flag anthrax attacks were done – which still wasn’t enough because the strain was traced to a US military lab. So then there was Curveball, and eventually the Dodgy Dossier – getting the support of Westminster turned out essential for credibility, because all the better targetted pretexts had been exposed.

            “his usual fudging around”, “He admits”, “He blathers”, “complete misdirection”

            You obviously have very little respect for Chomsky; in fact, it almost sounds like you suspect him of something. What? And why?

          • Clark

            Don’t you even care about the Pentagon advisories to the Administration, to drip-feed Kennedy assassination evidence to keep stoking the conspiracy theories? Chomsky’s warning you that you’re being deliberately misdirected.

            I’ve posed several questions; please try to work through them before opening new subjects; let’s clean as we go.

          • George

            The “JFK wasn’t a nice guy” line is one used to completely dismiss the entire matter of the assassination and thereby dodge any discrepencies. That is the way this line has always been used.

            And as for your comment re: 9/11 that Chomsky is “saying that, given the evidence, he finds that so unlikely that he’s not going to waste time speculating about it”, this is a lie. He IS speculating about it and he is considering the possibility – however remote in his view – that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he’s telling us in no uncertain terms that IT DOESN’T MATTER! And in saying that he loses all credibility.

    • wonky

      ..and here I was, thinking my suggestion to move Israel to Bavaria – even now, 7 decades too late – had the potential for a nobel peace prize nomination.. 🙁

    • Clark

      Potentially dodgy comment from wonky. ‘They’ – a nebulous, ill-defined entity; a conspiracy theory concept. “An apt punishment” could be taken as German loss of territory, or as having Jews “inflicted” upon Bavaria. “Well educated, industrious natives to be exploited as slaves for centuries to come” could be drawing a parallel with the Palestinians’ conditions, or could be suggesting a slave-owner mentality. And “it had to be the promised land, didn’t it..” rather overlooks British influence.

      But then I seem to remember that wonky supports the global-warming-is-a-hoax conspiracy theory.

      • Clark

        “Back in 45…”

        So definitely criticism of Jews then, because there was no Israel in ’45. There were no displaced Palestinians for “to be exploited as slaves” to be a parallel to.

        • wonky

          Ever heard of humour?
          Allow me to clarify:
          – ‘They’ is whoever decided to go ahead with “Israel it is, then!”. Certain Brits were most definitely involved.

          – ‘Apt punishment’ of course refers to the territorial loss of Bavaria, which was and is THE prime filet piece of German land.
          It was also Nazi and Illuminati heartland. So losing this particular “Lebensraum” and possibly having to prostrate before
          the despised “Judens” would have taught them a proper painful lesson.

          – “To be exploited as slaves”.. well, this is merely a good old “eye for an eye” argument..
          It was the Germans that had built their war machine on slave labour.

          – “Slave owner mentality”.. there are plenty of questionable passages in Talmudic texts discussing issues
          of exceptionalism and the duties of the “goys”, are there not? Is it appropriate to criticise them? Hell yeah, it is.
          Fortunately, many people of Jewish faith are neither Talmudists nor (where’s the garlic when you need it..) Likudniks.

          For the record, I do not support the “global-warming-is-a-hoax” conspiracy theories, as promoted by “big oil” and affiliated bastards. Everybody sees, feels and “knows” that something is very wrong with the weather. I do suspect, however, that this unusual weather is to a large extent manufactured by nefarious geoengineering practices. I call it ‘Fake Weather’.

    • IrishU

      Any source for Lousie Ellman saying, “No-one is innocent in Gaza, not even children”?

      Or do you just believe everything on Twitter / the internet as long as it fits into your predefined opinion?

      I hope you had the wit to realise the photo posted by ‘jolly_angeline’ is obviously fake…

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.