Archive | January 14th, 2013

Alan Hart : A significant defeat for the Zionist lobby?


Former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (R) speaks after U.S. President Barack Obama (L) nominated him to replace U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary during an event in the East Room at the White House on January 7, 2013 in Washington, DC. ABACA photo

Hagel’s confirmation by the Senate willbe a defeat for the Zionist lobby (and its non-Jewish neo-con associates), but whether or not it will be seen in the future as the beginning of a process that ended the lobby’s iron grip on policy for Israel-Palestine is a very big, open question. There is, however, a sign, a very small one but still a sign, that such a process might (repeat might) be getting underway.

By Alan Hart


I would like the headline to be a statement but it has to be a question.

As I write it looks as though the Zionist lobby realises that it overplayed its hand in smearing Chuck Hagel in the hope of causing President Obama to back off nominating him for the post defense secretary. The implication is not that the lobby’s stooges in the Senate will refrain from giving Hagel a hard time at his confirmation hearing, but that they will not risk, at least for a while, further public exposure as Israel Firsters by causing the nomination to be rejected.

How much Obama himself is to be credited with outflanking the Zionist lobby on this occasion is a good question. There is certainly a case for saying that by authorising the leaking of Hagel’s name well in advance of the presidential nomination, Obama was deliberately provoking the Zionist lobby (and its neo-con associates) confident in the knowledge that there would be enough eminent and respected Americans, including some Jewish Americans, who would come forward to defend Hagel and rubbish the Zionist lobby’s smear campaign.

There were and Justin Raimondo put it this way. “When the ultra neo-cons of the Emergency Committee for Israel launched their propaganda offensive to cleanse the body politic of Hagelian revisionism, they took their campaign to ‘Criticize Hagel, Criticize Obama’ to such ridiculously vicious lengths that they inspired a vigorous pushback from the sort of people who had put up with their nonsense for too long: grizzled veterans of the diplomatic, political, and military corps who had sat in silence during the Bush years as the neo-cons played havoc with the country’s foreign policy.”

If as seems most likely Hagel is confirmed, it will be a defeat for the Zionist lobby, but how significant will that actually be? Will it be an indication that the lobby is beginning to lose its grip and, if it is, that we can look forward to a second-term Obama making best use of his greater freedom by doing whatever is necessary to get a real Middle East peace process going?

It all depends, I think, on why, really, Obama wanted the Republican Hagel as his top man in the Pentagon.

There are some who believe that Obama sees in Hagel a man who will assist him to put America’s own best interests first by ending the Zionist lobby’s control of policy for Israel-Palestine. In this way of interpreting Obama’s motivation, great attention is paid to one particular statement Hagel made when he was a senator and which, some like to believe, inspired the president to conclude that he, Hagel, was the best man for the job. This was Hagel’s statement:

“The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here … I’ve always argued against some of the dumb things they do, because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel … I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”

But the prospect of having a much respected Republican ally for second-term effort to break free from the Zionist lobby’s controlling grip may not have been the main reason, or even a reason, for Obama’s decision to nominate Hagel. It could be that David Brooks hit the nail on the head in an op-ed analysis for the New York Times.

Under the headline Why Hagel Was Picked, Brooks opened up with this observation:

“Americans don’t particularly like government, but they do want government to subsidize their health care. They believe that health care spending improves their lives more than any other public good. In a Quinnipiac poll, typical of many others, Americans opposed any cuts to Medicare by a margin of 70 percent to 25 percent.”

Brooks then noted that the line tracing federal health care spending “looks like the slope of a jet taking off from LaGuardia,” and that Medicare spending “is set to nearly double over the next decade.” This, he added, is the crucial element driving all federal spending over the next few decades and pushing federal debt to about 250 percent of G.D.P. in 30 years. “There are no conceivable tax increases that can keep up with this spending rise.”

In my view what Brooks went on to say contains the key to real understanding of not only why Obama wanted Hagel, but also what we can and cannot expect from a second-term Obama presidency on policy for Israel-Palestine.

So far, Brooks noted, defense budgets have not been squeezed by the ever rising demand for expenditure on Medicare. (The military budget has more than doubled since 9/11). “But that is about to change.”

To set up his main argument Brooks drew off one advanced by Oswald Spengler, the German historian and philosopher (1880 – 1936) who wrote The Decline of the West. Spengler, Brooks said, “was certainly correct when he told European leaders that they could either be global military powers or pay for their welfare states, but they couldn’t do both.”

Brooks continued:

“Europeans, who are ahead of us in confronting that decision, have chosen welfare over global power. European nations can no longer perform many elemental tasks of moving troops and fighting. As late as the 1990s, Europeans were still spending 2.5 percent of G.D.P. on defense. Now that spending is closer to 1.5 percent, and, amid European malaise, it is bound to sink further.

“The United States will undergo a similar process. The current budget calls for a steep but possibly appropriate decline in defense spending, from 4.3 percent of G.D.P. to 3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“As the federal government becomes a health care state, there will have to be a generation of defense cuts that overwhelm anything in recent history. Keep in mind how brutal the budget pressure is going to be. According to the Government Accountability Office, if we act on entitlements today, we will still have to cut federal spending by 32 percent and raise taxes by 46 percent over the next 75 years to meet current obligations. If we postpone action for another decade, then we have to cut all non-interest federal spending by 37 percent and raise all taxes by 54 percent.

“As this sort of crunch gradually tightens, Medicare will be the last to go. Spending on things like Head Start, scientific research and defense will go quicker. These spending cuts will transform America’s stature in the world, making us look a lot more like Europe today.

Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.”

For absolute clarity, “to boot” in the sentence above means “as well” or “also”. It does not mean that Hagel was selected for the prime purpose of assisting Obama to put the boot into the Zionist lobby!

The conclusion I think the Brooks analysis invites is this. Throughout all his second term, Obama’s main focus will be on his legacy – “How will I be seen in history?” His priority will therefore be oversight management of America’s economy, to prevent it collapsing on his watch and possibly provoking at some point a revolution of rising discontent which could see America burning; and that is not going to allow Obama the time and the mind space to do what is necessary to cause (or try to cause) the Zionist state to be serious about peace on terms most Palestinians could just about accept.  I also think this is most likely to be the case even if in his head and his heart Obama would like to read the riot act to Israel.

My guess is that Obama will content himself with the thought that Israel is becoming more and more of a pariah state because of its own actions and that Zionism is on the road to self-destruction.

The alternative speculation, as outlined by Raimondo, is that it’s because of the Legacy Factor that Obama will make resolving the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel a top priority. Raimondo put it this way:

“The domestic economic situation is not going to improve much over the next four years, and I think the President knows that this will be an uphill battle. So where does that leave his legacy?

“Most Presidents move on the foreign policy front in their second terms, and this one will be no exception. And where this President is likely to make his move is where two of his Democratic predecessors tried, and failed, to make their respective marks, and that is in finally forging a lasting peace accord in the Middle East.”

It is, of course, true that if Obama became the peacemaker he would go down in history as not only a great president but, most probably, the greatest president in American history. But could that really be his legacy?

For the sake of discussion let’s assume that Obama can break the Zionist lobby’s iron grip on policy (an awesome assumption), and does become free to use the leverage any American president has to press Israel to be serious about peace on terms most Palestinians could just about accept, what then? Does it automatically follow that Zionism’s in-Israel leaders would say, “Okay, Mr. President, we’ll do what you want.”?


No! No! No!

In my view there is a very strong possibility, even a probability, that if a second-term President Obama did turn some real heat on Israel to back a demand that it end its defiance of international law and its occupation of the West Bank and its siege of the Gaza Strip, its leaders would say to him, “Go to hell!” There would also be a possibility that they would demonstrate their fury and teach him a lesson by creating some havoc in the region. What do I mean?

When President Carter worked with the Soviet Union to produce a joint superpower declaration of principles on the way to peace, all Arab governments and Arafat’s PLO agreed to co-operate, only Israel rejected this superpower initiative. Prime Minister Begin sent his foreign minister, General Moshe Dayan, to Washington for a conversation with Carter. Very shortly after it, the joint US-Soviet Declaration was torn up and replaced with a new memorandum of US-Israel understanding. What happened? Dayan said to Carter: “Mr. President, you must understand that my prime minister is mad. If you push him too far he could bomb the Arab oil wells.” (If Obama did put real pressure on Israel, it’s not impossible that Netanyahu would send his foreign minister to Washington to say to the president: “You must understand that my prime minister is crazy. If you push him too far he could bomb Iran.”)

Jimmy Carter with General Moshe Dayan

 Obama is not stupid. He knows that if he did seek to put real pressure on Israel, it could all go horribly wrong and leave him with a legacy that was not worth having.

For that reason I believe (I would love to be proved wrong by events) that there is almost no chance of a really serious and sustainable push for peace during Obama’s second term.

Back to my headline question. Hagel’s confirmation by the Senate will be a defeat for the Zionist lobby (and its non-Jewish neo-con associates), but whether or not it will be seen in the future as the beginning of a process that ended the lobby’s iron grip on policy for Israel-Palestine is a very big, open question.

There is, however, a sign, a very small one but still a sign, that such a process might (repeat might) be getting underway.

An important red line was crossed by those veterans of the diplomatic, political, and military establishments who dared to go public with their criticism and condemnation of the campaign by the Zionist lobby (and its neo-con associates) to demonize Hagel.

That crossing put the issue of America’s “special relationship” with Israel on the agenda for open debate. As Raimondo noted: “That has never happened before. The issue of Israel was always considered to be beyond debate, the most recent example of this uniformity of opinion being the last presidential debate between Obama and Romney in which the candidates spent a great deal of time competing with each other to see who could be more effusive in their undying support for the Jewish state.” (I do wish Raimondo and others would stop using the term “Jewish state”. How could it be that when nearly one quarter of its citizens are Arab and mainly Muslim? Israel is a Zionist state).

In an op-ed for the New York Times, Roger Cohen was refreshingly honest about the need for debate. He wrote:

“President Obama’s decision to nominate Chuck Hagel, a maverick Republican with enough experience of war to loathe it, as his next secretary of defense is the right choice for many reasons, chief among them that it will provoke a serious debate on what constitutes real friendship toward Israel. That debate, which will unfold during Senate confirmation hearings, is much needed because Jewish leadership in the United States is often unrepresentative of the many American Jews who have moved on from the view that the only legitimate support of Israel is unquestioning support of Israel, and the only mark of friendship is uncritical embrace of a friend.”

If Jewish Americans in growing numbers end their silence on Israel’s behaviour (as a non-Jew I can say criminal behaviour) and participate in open debate, there will then be a real prospect of transforming the Zionist lobby’s temporary defeat into a permanent one.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Alan Hart : A significant defeat for the Zionist lobby?

They Called Them – Spitfires


David Cundall Makes Spitfire History with Burma-Myanmar Find

by Jim Dean, VT Editor 

featuring David Cundall


The plane that save Britain in WWII

We ran across this David Cundall story on the BBC last year when we published our first piece on it. It seemed like something out of a dream, scores of brand new Spitfires buried in Burma at the end of WWII.

Even more amazing was the War Department did not lead the way on their recovery, but a stubborn and determined British farmer that made it a life’s quest.

David Cundall has his team in Myanmar now and they are digging up what will hopefully be their first Spitfire.

Despite the water having to be pumped out of their first buried crate, they felt that the gun grease used to protect the planes would still have them in pristine condition. Needless to say we are all waiting with baited breath.

The British government people were Johnny come latelies, but better late than never. They provided some stage two funding to send the recovery teams to Myanmar and assured Cundall that he will be taken care of for his years of out of pocket cost for his search.

And to add to the international expedition, a wealthy computer war game millionaire from Belarus, Victor Kislyi, also jumped in with a half million dollars to fund the initial digs. With luck, possibly a hundred brand new Spitfires might be recovered with many to fly again, literally coming out of their graves to do so.

The next few months will be very exciting ones for WWII historians, and especially all of the hard working  and dedicated combat plane restorers who have kept the air shows running all of these years.

YouTube – – Cundall in Burma

Don’t miss the Spitfire gun camera footage at the end of the AP article below.  It’s a gem.

David Cundall – the Man and His Dream

YANGON, Myanmar — AP    An excavation team searching for a stash of legendary World War II-era British fighter aircraft in northern Myanmar said a wooden crate believed to contain one of the planes has been found, full of muddy water.

How much water damage occurred was not yet clear, and searchers could not definitively say what was inside the crate. But British aviation enthusiast David J. Cundall, who is driving the hunt for the rare Spitfire planes, called the results “very encouraging.”

“It will take some time to pump the water out … but I do expect all aircraft to be in very good condition,” Cundall told reporters Wednesday in Myanmar’s main city, Yangon.

The Spitfire helped Britain beat back waves of German bombers during the war that ended in 1945, and it remains the most famous British combat aircraft. About 20,000 Spitfires were built, although the dawn of the jet age quickly made the propeller-driven, single-seat planes obsolete.

As many as 140 Spitfires – three to four times the number of airworthy models known to exist – are believed to have been buried in near-pristine condition in Myanmar by American engineers as the war drew to a close.

The wooden crate was found in Myitkyina in Kachin state during a dig that began last month. Several digs are planned nationwide, including another near the airport in Yangon.

Historical photo of a Spitfire being buried

Cundall said the search team in Kachin inserted a camera in the crate and found water. What else was inside the crate was unclear and pumping out the water could take weeks, he said.

The go-ahead for excavation came in October when Myanmar’s government signed an agreement with Cundall and his local partner.

Under the deal, Myanmar’s government will get one plane for display at a museum, as well as half of the remaining total. DJC, a private company headed by Cundall, will get 30 percent of the total and the Myanmar partner company Shwe Taung Paw, headed by Htoo Htoo Zaw, will get 20 percent.

During the project’s first phase, searchers hope to recover 60 planes: 36 planes in Mingaladon, near Yangon’s international airport; six in Meikthila in central Myanmar; and 18 in Myitkyina. Others are to be recovered in a second phase.

Searchers hope the aircraft are in pristine condition, but others have said it’s possible all they might find is a mass of corroded metal and rusty aircraft parts.

Cundall said the practice of burying aircraft, tanks and jeeps was common after the war.

“Basically nobody had got any orders to take these airplanes back to (the) UK. They were just surplus … (and) one way of disposing them was to bury them,” Cundall said. “The war was over, everybody wanted to go home, nobody wanted anything, so you just buried it and went home. That was it.”

Stanley Coombe, a 91-year-old war veteran from Britain who says he witnessed the aircraft’s burial, traveled to Myanmar to observe the search.

It is “very exciting for me because I never thought I would be allowed to come back and see where Spitfires have been buried,” Coombe said. “It’s been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along.”

YouTube –– Spitfire gun camera footage

Here is a bonus video that I just found. A German 109 fighter pilot stumbles across the most shot up bomber that his has ever seen, and can’t shoot it down.  Instead of flying the safe route to Sweden 30 minutes away, and internment for the rest of the war, he goes for his British base and makes it. And yes, many years later, these two pilots get to meet each other. This is a treasure.

YouTube –  – 109 will not shoot down crippled bomber

Editing:  Jim W. Dean

Posted in UKComments Off on They Called Them – Spitfires

Conspiracy Theories: A Modest Proposal


by Sass Cuntstein, Information Czar and Cuntstitutional Scholar Extraordinaire


In my previous article Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” I argued that conspiracy theories – especially the ones that are true – pose a growing threat to Western civilization in general, and to people like me in particular. I pointed out that since 9/11, a veritable tsunami of conspiracy theories has been racing toward the American shore, threatening to wash away everything we have accomplished. Clearly, something must be done.

My earlier article, published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, proposed a number of remedies for the conspiracy disease. I argued that some day, the government might have to ban conspiracy theories. (Yes, I now realize I may have overlooked a minor matter called the “First Amendment”; but we Cuntstitutional scholars cannot be expected to remember every little detail we learned in law school, can we?)

I also recommended that the government should immediately begin to “cognitively infiltrate” conspiracy groups in order to disrupt them with “beneficial cognitive diversity.” But wouldn’t you know it, those paranoid conspiracy theorists imagined that I was proposing that the government conspire against them! What is it about “cognitive infiltration” and “beneficial cognitive diversity” that these people don’t understand?

The conspiracy theorists also had a field day with my assertion that the government ought to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” In their paranoid fantasies, they imagined that I somehow meant them harm. Nothing could be further from the truth! I most certainly do not want to harm the purveyors of conspiracy theories. I want to KILL them! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The critics of my earlier article were right about one thing: I did not always make my meaning clear in simple, plain English. I wrote that way for a couple of reasons. First, I chose to publish it in a prestigious law review, and we all know that the only way to get published in academic journals is to dilute your prose with a lot of indecipherable gobbledegook. But more importantly, I chose to write it in code, as my mentor Leo Strauss always insisted: Since the truth is too dangerous for the masses, one should always write at two levels: An innocuous or indecipherable surface level in case one of the semi-literate hordes of goyim should happen to stumble upon it; and a second, deniable, deeper level at which the unspeakable truth of the matter is hinted at, but never directly stated. Expressions like “cognitive infiltration” and “beneficial cognitive diversity” and “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” are just vague enough that a casual reader might pass over them without registering their full import.

Unfortunately, the paranoid conspiracy theorists read my article very carefully. And they broke the code. So now that the cat is out of the bag, what is to be done? How can I propose that the government smash the conspiracy theorists, without giving those same conspiracy theorists more ammunition for their paranoid fantasies?

To hell with subtlety. At this late date, I am going to have to just come right out and tell the government how to annihilate the conspiracy theorists and put an end to conspiracy theories. If the conspiracy theorists don’t like it, they can stick it right up their blogs!

So here, in plain English, is my plan for “disabling the purveyors of conspiracy theories.”

There is only one way to stop the conspiracy theorists, once and for all.


Some will question whether the Constitution permits the “Unitary Executive” to have Americans killed and eaten without due process of law. But since 9/11, it has been clearly established that the Unitary Executive can indeed have Americans, or anyone else, kidnapped, indefinitely detained, tortured, or killed, without any due process whatsoever. After you have kidnapped, tortured, and killed them, eating them is a relatively minor matter; and since nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits the Executive from eating his victims, I believe that devouring the people at will must be regarded as one of the prerogatives of government.

Once we grant the government’s right to promote cannibalism in service to the greater good, we may extend that right in such a way as to permit the government to wage an effective war on conspiracy theories. Here are some specific proposals for government programs aimed at devouring the conspiracy theorists who threaten our great nation.

Conspiracy Pizza: The National Security Agency, using its power to surveil every phone call, email, and internet post in the world, should identify the most active, influential, dangerous, and/or edible conspiracy theorists. Once these high-(nutritional)-value targets have been identified, they may be tracked 24/7/365 via their cell phones. When one of these dangerous, delicious conspiracy theorists enters a pizza restaurant that has established an Infra-Guard style partnership with the NSA, the pizzeria management will be alerted with a “ping,” and the unsuspecting conspiratorial customer will be served a “special pizza” producing a quick death by heart attack.

When the customer begins to gasp for breath, the pizzeria management team escorts him to a specially-equipped slaughterhouse room in the back of the restaurant, where he will be butchered and reduced to sausage, pepperoni, ham, and other imitation pork products. (Pacific Islander scientists have proven in a series of double-blind studies that most Americans, especially fat ones in Hawaiian shirts, cannot tell the difference between “long pig,” i.e. human flesh, and actual pork.)

Based on a preliminary study, we believe that at least 40% of American pizzerias would cooperate with the proposed NSA program. Aside from the tremendous cost incentive of getting free meat toppings for their pizzas, thereby enormously expanding their profit margins and waistlines, the pizzeria owners would be offered a bounty of $1,000 for each conspiracy theorist so disposed of.

Black Helicopter Dinner Party: This project, whose pilot program is funded by the Koch Brothers and the Heritage Foundation, aims to exploit one of the conspiracy theorists’ greatest weaknesses: Their penchant for believing the worst about their government, and expressing their beliefs in a paranoid and thus non-credible manner.

Under this program, unmarked black helicopters full of hardened Special Forces soldiers in unmarked black uniforms would land on the front lawns of selected conspiracy theorists’ homes. The soldiers would kick in the door, storm the house, tie up the inhabitants, and begin to dismember, roast, and eat them. The targeted conspiracy theorist would be tied to a chair but allowed the use of hands and arms, with access to his computer and telephone. Naturally, the conspiracy theorist would make many “crazy” phone calls and FaceBook postings describing precisely what was happening to him and his family; and naturally, nobody would believe him…except perhaps the most dangerously paranoid of his conspiracy-theorist friends, who, thanks to NSA monitoring, would be targeted for the next Black Helicopter Dinner Party.

This program would weaken the credibility of the targeted conspiracy theorists, and by extension conspiracy theorists in general; and it would simultaneously rid the world of the most dangerous and extremist members of the conspiracy community. Additionally, the government would save money currently wasted on rations that feed our Special Forces soldiers. There is no reason why such battle-hardened professional assassins should not have to eat what they kill.

Operation Soylent Green: It is always possible that the two programs described above will not be completely successful. What makes conspiracy theorists such difficult targets is that the more we persecute them, the more paranoid they get. Rumors that the government is cannibalizing its own citizens may well get out of hand. Our contingency plan for this scenario is Operation Soylent Green. Named after the visionary, inspirational science fiction film, this Final Solution to the conspiracy problem envisions the mass arrest, detention, killing, and eating of every conspiracy theorist in the land. (Conspiracy theorists would be identified through NSA computer algorithms that examine all electronic communications and search for keywords indicating that the subject has a conspiratorial mind-set.) The mountains of imitation pork harvested by this method would enable significant cost-cutting measures benefiting school lunch programs, prisons, hospitals, military mess halls, and other institutional food settings.

Naturally, there will be some who oppose these measures on civil liberties grounds. Strict constructionists will argue that the Founding Fathers never intended that government should feast on its citizens. Fortunately, a long series of court decisions has established that the Constitution no longer means what it says; instead, it means whatever the Unitary Executive and the Federalist Society want it to mean. So if we want the Constitution to authorize government-sponsored cannibalism designed to promote the general welfare by ridding us of the conspiracy theorists among us, well, then that is exactly what the Constitution says. (See, I actually do remember something from law school!)

Others may claim that while my proposals are indeed sensible and potentially effective, they have one fatal defect: The flesh of conspiracy theorists, whose paranoia and anti-government rage affects their hormonal secretions, tends have a sour, faintly bitter flavor. My retort to these nay-sayers is simple: A modest dose of MSG is enough to turn the flesh of even the bitterest conspiracy theorist into a delicious dish indistinguishable from high-quality pork. (Yes, we will have to import many tons of MSG from China, which will add to our trade deficit; but the nutritional value and cost savings achieved by enhancing the American diet with significant quantities of conspiracy theorist meat will more than offset the loss.)

My fellow Straussians, whether neoconservative or neoliberal, may take me to task for finally, in this essay, explaining precisely what I meant by the expression “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” I hope they will accept my apologies for violating their taboo on plain speaking – a violation I firmly believe to be in the service of the greater good. And I hope they realize that this article, like my previous article, will receive no publicity whatsoever from the mainstream media or academia; and that the more the conspiracy theorists howl “Obama’s Information Czar wants to kill us and eat us” on their blogs, the less they will be believed by those who still consider the academy and the mainstream media trustworthy.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Conspiracy Theories: A Modest Proposal

Dear Jewish Times: Please Re-Think Call to Assassinate Obama


Sent to

Dear Andrew Adler,

As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to call for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad. I hope this email reaches you before the Secret Service does! If by some miracle you remain free on your own recognizance, or can afford the bail, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of a Mossad assassination of Obama on my radio show with you. I have openings next Wednesday and Friday, 4 to 5 pm Eastern.

You ask, “what would you do” if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, facing the fact that a war with Hezbullah and Hamas would be much nastier for Israel in 2017 than in 2012. Your answer is that Netanyahu’s only choice is to start a war now – with Iran as well as Hezbullah and Hamas. And the only way to start that war is to kill President Obama, who stands in its way.

When an apparently logical line of reasoning leads to an illogical or insane conclusion, it is time to re-think your logic. (I’m no Obama fan either, but let’s face it, publishing calls for his assassination is stupid and immoral as well as illegal! And war with Iran would be a disaster!)

So start re-thinking. Israel has been operating according to your kind of logic since 1948. And that logic is leading to its destruction.

In 1948, it seemed logical to slaughter whole villages full of men, women and children, in order to exterminate part of the Palestinian population and force most of the survivors into exile. This was the only logical way to get a Jewish majority for the new state. That logic, however, has led to a situation in which billions of people around the world hate Israel, and a significant fraction of those are committed to its destruction.

In 1963, “worst-case” logic dictated that Israel obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, it seems likely that the Mossad participated alongside elements of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, who was determined to deny Israel nuclear weapons. A growing minority of Americans is joining a much larger number of intellectuals from around the world who are aware of this likelihood; the result is more anger and disgust with Israel. See Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment.

In 1967, strategic logic dictated an attempt to create a Greater Israel through a disguised war of aggression. During this war, strategic logic dictated that Israel destroy the USS Liberty and murder its entire crew. Through a minor miracle, that attempted failed, most of the Liberty crew survived, and today, a growing number of Americans loathes Israel in large part due to this incident.

Since the 1967 war of aggression, paranoid/bellicose “logic” has led Israel to refuse to return the territories it stole, despite the consensus of the world community that it must do so. The result is that Israel is a pariah nation, and few around the world would shed a tear at its demise. Ever-growing numbers want a world without Israel. So, in a vicious circle, Israel resorts to ever-more-insane acts of desperation.

Many further examples of your kind of logic have ensued: The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, false-flag terror attacks around the world, cross-border assassinations, invasions of Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, and so on. Each time Israel acts this way, people like you cite the logical strategic necessity for such actions; while a much larger number of people incur more and more hatred and disgust for Israel and Zionism.

Personally, I have always disliked Israel, because I have always disliked injustice. But until recent years, this was not a high-priority issue for me. Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after another – the most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d’etat on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for Israel – I am committed to putting an end to Zionism.

And I’m far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command. If Netanyahu takes your advice and murders Obama, you just might get to see Israel reduced to smoking radioactive rubble, and American Zionists – even those who had not overtly called for the assassination of the President – made to pay a heavy price. (I shudder to imagine what might happen to you personally, given your openly-published call for Obama’s assassination.)

As you admit in your article, Israel has painted itself into a corner, a Kobayashi Maru situation, a “no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem.” Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel’s responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim. And then, wholeheartedly seek to make amends, as Jews are supposed to do every Yom Kippur.

Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: “We’re sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injustice – not just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders, are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable. Apartheid and endless war doesn’t have a future. We want to work with you to build a new Palestine-Israel and a new Middle East. Come home – in numbers that we’ll work out based on what’s practical. We’re willing to endure a temporary lowering of the standard of living for Israeli Jews and Russian-immigrant fake Jews in order to help you return to the country we stole so unjustly, and make it a country for you as well as for us.”

After a certain number of Israeli outrages, it will be too late for this kind of offer. It may even be too late now. But it’s worth a try, since the current road is such an obvious dead-end.

If you disagree, you’re welcome to join me on my radio show and explain why. But please don’t use my show as a platform to call for the assassination of the President.


Kevin Barrett

PS You might also enjoy my article on “Zionist shots across Obama’s bow”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Dear Jewish Times: Please Re-Think Call to Assassinate Obama

Is Obama killing “kill list” critics?


by Kevin Barrett


Aaron Swartz, a prominent info-warrior and critic of Obama’s “kill list,” was found dead in New York Friday.

As with so many freemasonic assassinations, including that of “DC Madam” Deborah Jean Palfrey, Swartz was hanged. Naturally the police are calling it suicide.

Swartz’s death raises the obvious question: Can you criticize Obama’s barbarian, unconstitutional “kill list” without ending up on it yourself?

My earlier article  “Disable the purveyors”: Is US secretly liquidating dissidents? suggested that the US government “kill list” may include domestic dissidents as well as foreign opponents of US policy.

But hey, I’m a reasonable, moderate guy. I’m not necessarily against all “kill lists.” In fact, I would love to see someone compile a list of everyone involved in the “kill list” program, from the top of the command chain down to the lowliest drone operator, and… (remainder of sentence deleted for reasons of National Security).

But the problem with Obama’s kill list is that it is targeting good people (like Aaron Swartz) not bad people (like names deleted for reasons of National Security) . The bad people are the ones running the kill list. They are the ones who should be (remainder of sentence deleted for reasons of National Security).

So let me hereby state that I am not only an inveterate opponent of Obama’s kill list, I am so angry about it that I would support putting an end to it by any means, including (remainder of sentence deleted for reasons of National Security). So shoot me.

Please note that I’m a practicing Muslim, so suicide is out of the question.

Anyone who participates or co-operates in any way with Obama’s “kill list” is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, which states that no-one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Therefore, anyone who participates or co-operates in any way with Obama’s “kill list” ought to be (remainder of sentence deleted for reasons of National Security).

Maybe if we just put all kill lists on a kill list, and killed them all off, we could finally have a world where good people could just mind their own business in peace.

Posted in USAComments Off on Is Obama killing “kill list” critics?

From outside Beth Israel

Readers of this blog will know in what high regard I hold Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends and their lonely years outside the Beth Israel Temple in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Those that don’t, just look at a couple of examples Here and here.
Every week Henry Herskovitz publishes his “Report on Beth Israel” and I’m going to start posting at least some of those reports. The first is below.
A Peep from City Council
Newly elected Ann Arbor City Councilman Chuck Warpehoski lashed out at our vigils at Council’s January 7th meeting after fielding some critical remarks from vigil supporters B and M. He falsely accused us of displaying a swastika painted over the star of David, and distorted our claim that Beth Israel Congregation takes innocent children on purposeful trips to “Israel” where they are indoctrinated into an ideology that monstrously kills Palestinians, steals their land and claims a mythical “right” to their actions. It is some, but not all, of these vulnerable children who are twisted into monsters, who may grow up to embrace a viewpoint exemplified by Ovadia Yosef.

Yosef is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel – a government employee – and the founder and current spiritual leader of the Shas political party. Shas is Israel’s fourth largest party in terms of Knesset seats and four of its members currently hold posts in Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. In 2010, the Jerusalem Post reported on Yosef’s claim that “Goyim were born only to serve us [Jews]. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel”. Then there’s another government employee, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, who wrote “The complete guide to killing non-Jews”. And another former Sephardic Chief – Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu – said in 2008: “… it is important to make one thing clear – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs.” Pretty monstrous, wouldn’t you say?

Old Tactic, Same Results

Over a year ago we reported that the tactic of Zionist Jews was to make donations to the American Friends of Magen David Adom, and to send small Christmas cards to this writer facetiously encouraging our peaceful weekly vigils. This year I received a similar, but larger congratulatory document suitable for framing from Helen and David Aminoff of Ann Arbor.

No time was wasted calling the Aminoff household to thank them for this award, and to invite them for coffee so that our similarities and differences could be openly and discussed in a friendly atmosphere. Helen called back immediately, corrected my pronunciation of “Magen David Adom”, and said:

Good evening Henry Herskovitz, this is Helen Aminoff returning your call … thank you for your good wishes but neither my husband nor I feel that it would serve any useful purpose to sit down with you at this stage.

Last week we reported that our voice – and more importantly the voice of Palestine – had been once again denied a radio audience by our friends at WEMU, a local NPR affiliate station. Now we get a one-on-one invitation similarly refused. But we take heart in the fact that our nine-year-long venue at Beth Israel Congregation is the one media source within our control, and we continue to receive overwhelming support from passing traffic. Perhaps it is this reason that our friends and opponents fear our message so much that we are denied these opportunities for communication.


Five vigilers, Sixteen Degrees Fahrenheit

Remember Rachel Corrie

Henry Herskovitz

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends

Posted by 

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on From outside Beth Israel

Jewish political accountability – Is now the time?

Okay, so I’m nearly a year late in knowing about this but still, it’s pretty interesting.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that, if Jews are now openly acting politically then is this not a good opportunity to start holding them, as we would any other political collective, politically accountable?

First ever European Jewish Parliament inaugurated in Brussels.
The inaugural meeting of the 120 elected members of the first ever European Jewish Parliament (EJP), described as a new and innovative forum to voice the thoughts, beliefs and ideas as well as concerns of European Jews, took place on Thursday at the European Parliament building in Brussels.

16 February 2012

Photo: From L to R: Bulgarian Member of the European Parliament Antoniya Parvanova, who hosted the inauguration of the first ever European Jewish Parliament

The Parliament members, who represent 47 countries, have been elected by more than 400,000 people from East, Central and Western Europe who voted online and showed an unprecedented interest and demand across the continent for a new, fresh, up-to-date, transparent and democratically elected organization in Europe, says the European Jewish Union (EJU), the organization which initiated the creation of this parliament.

Among the elected MEJPs are several well-known leading figures of European Jewry such as Pierre Besnainou from France, Cefi Jozef Camhi from Turkey, Nathan Gelbart from Germany, Oliver Mischon from the UK, Joel Rubinfeld from Belgium, as well as an important number of young emerging personalities and leaders.

In her opening address to the inaugural meeting on behalf of the European Parliament, MEP Antonyia Parvanova hailed the historic meeting which she said will mark the future of the Jews in Europe and beyond”.

“I am proud and honoured to be in front of all of you today. For the first time, we have here gathered in this room the representatives of organizations representing more than 3.5 millions Jewish citizens across our continent,” she said.

She continued: “For the first time in history, the European Jewish people is coming today as one man or I should say as one assembly standing for one cause.”

She stressed that the new established European Jewish Parliament will be “the voice representing and empowering the Jewish community in Europe.”

“Debates and discussions are always a driving force in family and there can be sometime differences of opinion. But I am confident that the European Jewish Parliament will be a strong voice which will contribute positively to the European development.”

She ended her speech with a traditional Jewish blessing. “I light the candle, symbol of peace. I light the candle of this assembly and of the first session of the European Jewish Parliament” and with the Hebrew words “Mazal Tov” (Good Luck).

Tomer Orni, CEO of the European Jewish Union (EJU), the organization which initiated the founding of the new parliament, declared: “The vision of a European Jewish Parliament is now a reality. This is an historic event as the new parliament is a major milestone for Jewish representation in Europe. We are deeply convinced that the parliament will be a positive force in meeting the changing conditions and big challenges the European Jewry is facing.”

The members of the parliament are individuals with various backgrounds who are respected in various Jewish communities. Their common denominator is their Jewish identity and passion for furthering Jewish interests on an international scale.

“The fact that the European Jewish Parliament is gathering in the same building as the European Parliament, the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU), is “more than symbolic,” said Joel Rubinfeld from Belgium, a former president of the umbrella group of Belgian Jewish organizations, who was chosen to co-chair the new parliament together with Vadim Rabinovich, EJU Vice-President. They will lead the works towards the Parliament’s first General Assembly.

Rubinfeld stressed that the challenges “which concern nothing less than the future and the place of 3 million European Jews in their respective countries are huge.”

He mentioned anti-Semitism, the delegitimization of Israel but also the promotion of Jewish values and opening to other communities among these challenges.

“But after today’s meeting, I am confident that we can meet these challenges,” he said.

The idea of a European Jewish Parliament first came from Israeli President Shimon Peres who predicted the success of this new structure.

The Parliament is headquartered in Brussels where the annual regular General Assemblies will be held.

A Parliament Constitution will be prepared during the first year.

The inauguration of the European Jewish Parliament coincided with the visit to Brussels of a delegation of 40 leading members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations led by its Executive Vice Chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein.

The delegation held talks with EU, NATO and Belgian officials, and discussed issues such as anti-Semitism in Europe, Iran and Syria.

European and American Jewish community leaders were to join the members of the European Jewish Parliament to celebrate together the launch of the parliament at a gala dinner Thursday night in the presence of Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Reynders, and German MEP Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The list of the members of the European Jewish Parliament was published on the EJU website: [2]
EJU [3]
European Jewish Parliament [4]

Source URL:



Posted by 

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish political accountability – Is now the time?

How long can we go on with this?

This happened in 1995 and still people are being persecuted for questioning the gas-chambers at Auschwitz.

How long are we going to go on with our interminable“Free, free Palestine” while this atrocious state of affairs continues?

Major French Magazine Acknowledges Auschwitz Gas Chamber Fraud

One of France’s most influential and reputable magazines, L’Express, now acknowledges that “everything is false” about the Auschwitz “gas chamber” that for decades has been shown to tens of thousands of tourists yearly.

“Auschwitz: The Memory of Evil,” a lengthy article by journalist and historian Eric Conan, a dedicated anti-revisionist, appears in the January 19-25, 1995, issue, pages 54-73 (and in the Jan. 26 international edition). L’Express is a liberal large-circulation weekly news magazine, similar in format to Time or Newsweek.

L’Express also reports that, after a five-year battle among the “experts,” Polish president Lech Walesa has decided that the new, revised number of dead to be inscribed on the Birkenau monument will be 1,500,000. (For years the monument proclaimed 4,000,000 Auschwitz deaths.)

Generally speaking, writes Conan, there have been many obvious falsifications in the Auschwitz and Birkenau camp sites. Stefan Wilkanowicz, vice-president of the International Committee of the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum (and director of an influential Polish Catholic periodical), says:

The biggest blunders have been rectified but the principal discussions are never-ending and far from being settled. I can even say that essential debates, distressing, sometimes unexpected, are only beginning.

About the famous “gas chamber” in the Auschwitz I camp, Conan writes:

In 1948, when the Museum was created, Crematory I was reconstructed in a supposed original state. Everything in it is false [Tout y est faux]: the dimensions of the gas chamber, the locations of the doors, the openings for pouring in Zyklon B, the ovens (rebuilt according to the recollections of some survivors), the height of the chimney. At the end of the 70s, Robert Faurisson exploited those falsifications all the better because at that time the Museum officials balked at admitting them. An American revisionist [David Cole] has just shot a video in the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): one may see him questioning the visitors with his “revelations” [Emphasis added.]

In spite of this, Conan goes on to report, there are no plans to alter anything there. With regard to the famous “gas chamber,” a staff member of the Museum directors’ office, Krystyna Oleksy, says: “For the time being we are going to leave it in the present state, and not give any specifics to the visitors. It is too complicated. We’ll see later on.”

Victory for Revisionism

This feature article in a leading French magazine is a great victory for Holocaust revisionism. On a key point, L’Express now acknowledges, the revisionists have been right all along.

In fact, the magazine concedes a point that revisionists have been legally penalized for making. Dr. Robert Faurisson, Europe’s foremost revisionist scholar, was heavily fined after repeating it on numerous occasions during his “thought crime” trials in France. (Will the French government now prosecute L’Express magazine and journalist Conan for their revisionist Holocaust views?)

In May 1992 a German court fined David Irving 10,000 marks (about $6,000) for publicly saying what L’Express now openly admits. (See: “Irving Fined $6,000 in German ‘Gas Chamber’ Trial,” IHR Newsletter, July-Aug. 1992, pp. 3-4.)

The court punished the British historian because he had told a Munich meeting in April 1990 that the structure in Auschwitz that has been portrayed for decades to tourists as an extermination gas chamber is a phony reconstruction (“Attrappe”), just like the one at Dachau.

Irving was found guilty of thus “disparaging the memory of the dead,” a crime in Germany that effectively applies only to Jewish victims. In the case the Judge refused to consider any of the evidence presented by Irving’s attorneys, including a plea to permit Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator and archives director of the Auschwitz State Musueum, to testify in the case.

Faurisson’s Comment
Dr. Faurisson comments on Conan’s article:
Clearly, the Auschwitz propagandists are at a loss. Oleksy’s statement is an important vindication of the revisionist position. Every visitor of the Auschwitz “gas chamber” should confront the guides (or, if possible, Museum officials) with these sentences by Oleksy.

During a September 1992 interview with American revisionist David Cole, Auschwitz Museum Curator Piper said, “so now this gas chamber [at Auschwitz I] is very similar to this one which existed in 1941-1942.”

As Conan knows, already in 1976 I demonstrated the falsehood of this entire story by questioning Museum official Jan Machalek, and by finding in the Auschwitz Museum files original plans clearly showing that, in fact, the alleged “gas chamber” was, between October 7, 1941, and August 31, 1943, a room with a single entrance where dead bodies awaiting cremation were stored.

If Museum officials now wish to rebuild the room as it was during the war, they will have to fill in the south-east doorway. After doing so, though, they would no longer be able to explain how the alleged victims entered the “gas chamber” for gassing. I do not think the officials would dare contend that the victims entered by way of the door of the ovens room.

For details on these points, see what I published in Serge Thion’s 1980 book Vérité historique ou vérité politique? La question des chambres à gaz, pp. 316-317. I have also repeatedly mentioned the story of that “reconstructed” gas chamber in The Journal of Historical Review (see, for instance, Winter 1981 issue, p. 335), as well as during the 1985 and 1988 Zündel trials in Toronto (see, for instance, 1985 Trial, Transcript, pp. 2364-2366). Even as early as 1968, Olga Wormser-Migot wrote in her book Le Système concentrationnaire nazi (p. 157) that the Auschwitz I camp was “without a gas chamber.” In 1985, Raul Hilberg stated under oath during the first Zündel trial in Toronto (Transcript, p. 774), and Pierre Vidal-Naquet wrote in L’Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif (pp. 510, 516, n. 94), what Franciszek Piper said to Cole in 1992. Jean-Claude Pressac told the same story in his 1989 book, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (pp. 108, 123, 133).

In his L’Express article, Conan mentions Jean-Claude Pressac’s 1993 book, Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz. Among the fantastic number of “dossiers” and articles recently published in French newspapers and magazines in connection with the 50th anniversary of the camp’s liberation, this article may perhaps be the only one to mention that book. Pressac’s ambivalence has become an embarrassment for the “exterminationists.” For instance, his estimate in Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz (1993) of total Auschwitz deaths was 775,000 (rounded up to 800,000), and in the 1994 German edition he further reduced this to between 630,000 and 710,000 (of whom, he asserts, 470,000 to 550,000 were “gassed” Jews).

Posted by 

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on How long can we go on with this?

On the Warning Track” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Christian Zionism”

On the Warning Track Jan 13, 2013

by crescentandcross

OTWT continues the ongoing discussion on “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Christian Zionism” namely J.N Darby and C.I. Scofields view on the so-called End Times,and why it matters today!


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on On the Warning Track” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Christian Zionism”



This is a guest post by Mark Perryman

On the eve of the carcrash of last weekend’s SWP conference, which has consumed all the anger and energy of a small fragment of the British Left for the past week , Alex Snowdon of Counterfire posted an assessment of the state of the ‘Revolutionary Left’ on his blog here. I hold no brief for Counterfire, they do some things with a degree of flair and imagination, other things not so well and I’m personally unfamiliar with the backhistory of the key figures involved. Nevertheless I would cite Alex’s piece as an interesting and thought-provoking piece, reflective too of a recent online debate at the Socialist Unity Website. Unfortunately by and large though this isn’t being reflected in any kind of wider, more organic discussion, the reasons for that I’ll return to at the end of this contribution below.

Since the Socialist Unity and Alex Snowdon piece’s appeared the SWP fallout has erupted of course. Within a small circle this is of some considerable import, but beyond? Laurie Penny’s excellent New Statesman piece points to some potential broader ramifications for Left practice, reminiscent of the Beyond The Fragments debate of over thirty years ago. Spookily the book is being reissued in an updated edition in March of this year by Merlin Pressperhaps now to be read by a new generation of Left activists with fresh interest.

Richard Seymour’s equally excellent post on his blog is of interest to non-SWP members for different reasons. It is internally focussed yet reveals the basic problem with enforcing Democratic Centralism short of a party holding state power. Without the full force of the state to wield this Leninist-inclined structure depends on a high degree of collective self-discipline, which has immense strengths when it holds but once that ‘spell’ is broken is shattered entirely. Richard is boldly asserting the right to dissent from a majority decision because he believes that this particular majority decision was corrupted. Either he will be part of forming a new majority, agree to abide by the former majority’s decision, be expelled or leave. There is no other end game, he and the SWP must know that.

Both Laurie and Richard’s contributions hint at the broader debate that perhaps should be taking place and this is where Alex Snowdon”s piece is most useful as a beginning

Some brief points then in response to Alex.

Firstly on issues on terminology. I assume by ‘revolutionary left’ Alex means mainly a Trotskyist influenced left , I would also include the Communist Party and its off-shoots, Respect and other outside Left formations. Where does the Labour Left fit in? And the Red-Greens in the Green Party?

Secondly, the European dimension. In Greece the Left are doing very well, with good results in France and Holland too. In all three countries though the Far Right are also doing very well. In Germany and Italy the Left is facing significant setbacks. In the Irish Republic, Spain and Portugal the position is stagnation at best. In Scotland there are new signs of hope with the two SNP MSPs now standing as independents but the legacy of the SSP implosion remains.

It is vital to learn from these experiences across Europe but it is wrong to generalise and even more wrong to only listen to those there who share your own tendency’s viewpoint at home. Any Left grouping here that engaged seriously with the European Left would be a significant step forward.

Beyond Europe advances in Latin America remains key, the Arab Spring in the balance. Internationalism will be shaped by both, the practical lessons for the home Left however are less clear.

Now to Alex’s notes on the ‘Revolutionary Left’

I take it he would include the SWP, SP, Counterfire, AWL, Socialist Resistance. We might add the CPB and Respect.

These can count membership numbers in hundreds, the SWP in thousands. There are other groups but these are mainly in the tens of members.

None of this list are enjoying anything resembling dynamic growth. Most do at least one or two things of some importance , eg The Marxism Festival, Coalition of Resistance, The Morning Star, winning in Bradford West. None have anything resembling a significant footprint in society nor a local base of any great measure either (that might develop in Bradford for Respect but not much sign of it yet).

Beyond the parameters of this list the Green Party isn’t making much of a breakthrough and with Labour shamefully announcing it is to prioritise targeting Caroline Lucas’s seat has a real fight on to hold on to its MP. The Greens though can claim some kind of local base, Brighton, Norwich and elsewhere. However despite the efforts of ‘Green Left’ ,the Red-Green element is scarcely visible, and mostly The Green Party appeals to voters as a left-wing Liberal-Democrat Party (I don’t mean that as an insult, more a shorthand electoral characterisation).

Inside Labour Compass has a strong media profile and does some interesting things. But its version of pluralism looks mainly rightwards, to left-wing Lib Dems, most recently here and it hasn’t the activist base that the impressively large size, numbering tens of thousands, of the Compass email subscription list might indicate it would be able to boast. The more orthodox Labour Left depends on a declining and ageing group of MPs which is most unlikely to either grow or be renewed. Neither Compass nor the Labour Hard Left have any kind of meaningful strategy to shift Labour Leftwards.

For those who don’t join up to any such group, the web is full of sites and blogs to gravitate towards, or indeed set one up yourself if the fancy takes you. But, including Red Pepper, few have any kind of life outside online contributions and none have any sort of social footprint.

The latter is made the more severe, and is partially caused by, the lack of any mass movement, certainly on the scale and with the roots of Stop the War, The Miners Strike, The Poll Tax, CND or Anti Nazi League. We cannot simply wish that lack out of existence, we have to address the reasons.

UK Uncut remains incrediby dynamic and creative but has been fatally wounded by the March 2011 criminalisation of protest at the Fortnum & Masons action and elsewhere. Student protest has to date proved transitory, the marketisation of HE threatens to consumerise educaton and it is unclear if any resistance wll take shape rather than doleful resignation, from staff and students. Occupy has come and gone, it also remains unclear whether what is left reaches far beyond a pre-existing milieu of diract actionists, brave yet socially marginal.

Where does this leave us? With a left-wing audience, bigger and less tied to Labour than ever before. But neither the ideas and forms of either Alex’s ‘revolutionary left’ nor my broader definition, appeal to many of this constituency.

It is remarkably difficult to develop a dialogue between contesting experiences, some of which are fiercely competitive and shaped by fallouts, splits and expulsions but this is a vital process which must also engage with those on the Outside Left yet entirely disconnected from the organised, parties of the Left’s. A broader, outsider, dissident leftism is much bigger and broader than the combined membership of all these small groups added together. Yet our aspirations are shaped for a Left we’d like to be part of are inevitably affected by these experiences of an organised left we’re not part of. Its called a dialectic. It is unlikely, in fact impossible, that a single group could construct such a process but without one it is hard to see a better Left emerging.

Which returns me to the SWP fallout. In the past week I have had two lengthy conversations, one with a current (and in terms of the party conference, a dissident) SWP member and one ex. The conversations were open-ended, enriched by their experience and opinions, and will remain confidential. I’ve never made any bones of my respect for some of what the SWP does at its best and my deep-seated criticism of much else. I’ve never been a member, and as a ‘Euro’ in my long past CP days might have been regarded almost as a hostile element, a wobbly reformist perhaps would have been the nicest way of putting it. None of this infected our conversations. We need a practice that gets past the petty-squabbles, the name-calling, the arcane historic point-scoring. We need a space where instead of trying in the first instance to build a party we simply have a conversation about how we arrived in this place, the twists and turns on the way, the lessons learned, the better Left most of us want to be part of.

If we can begin to detect the recognition that such a conversation, however difficult, is key then that would at least be a start towards establishing how.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on CRAWLING FROM THE WRECKAGE

Shoah’s pages