I wrote to my MP on 14 April 2018. Another instance of political abuse had allowed UK air-strikes on a country which was no threat to the UK and no threat to NATO. In my opinion our prime minister at the time, Theresa May, had sanctioned these attacks on Syria without consulting parliament and therefore I believed she should have resigned. Our country was off the rails then, and more so now.
The reason given for these attacks was that Bashir al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. Why he would do that is beyond rational. It now transpires that not only was there no evidence that chemical weapons were used but that some OPCW inspectors’ reports were ignored. OPCW findings have allegedly been doctored to try to make it look like there was proof that Syria had used such weapons. The OPCW is not fit for purpose – even if some of its personnel are fit for purpose.
Today in the west, Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson, has questioned the OPCW report. For his trouble he has been called a traitor and other nasty names by thoughtless people who soak up the government narrative without inquiring if it is true. Instead of being proud of Carlson for asking the right questions a barrage of accusatory tweets have been launched at him. That is a big problem. We see it in the imprisonment of Julian Assange. Any person with the integrity to question officialdom and report the truth becomes the target of pillory.
Those, who try to row their oars against the mainstream, gain no kudos in being proved right. By the time that happens the damage has already been done. The purpose is to try to persuade others to row along with us. We need to unite honest journalists like Peter Oborne, honest journalists like Robert Fisk who went to Douma personally and reported that no chemical weapons had been used, honest reporters like John Pilger and Julian Assange. There are a quite a few more together with honest blog-writers like Craig Murray and blog-sites like The Canary. But for all these to become mainstream we need a government with honesty and integrity.
Jeremy Corbyn has real integrity. Even his opponents realise it. That is why some thinktank got together to invent the nonsense story of his “anti-Semitism”. This story enabled the BBC’s Andrew Neil to waste a quarter of an interview trying to get Corbyn to apologise for non-existent “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party. That was instead of concentrating on the wonderful Labour policies that can bring back honesty to government and thus a fairer and more equitable society.
You want proof that Jeremy Corbyn is a fair and honest man? You want proof that he is in no way anti-Semitic? It comes from the Jewish community itself. This is Jeremy Corbyn’s own record in support of Jewish concerns. Unfortunately I am not sure of the original source so cannot credit.
1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street in defence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms.
2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstration to protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population.
3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK.
4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack.
5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning an anti-Semitic attack on a London Synagogue.
6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning terrorist attacks on two synagogues.
7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials.
8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims.
9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News” for its pioneering investigation into the spread of Antisemitism on Facebook.
10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site.
11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question.
12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule.
13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press.
14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport.
15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football.
16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz.
17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population.
18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community.
19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp where Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers.
20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the Labour Antisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC.
On top of that, thanks to the slanderous accusations of chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a number of Jews have spoken out in Jeremy Corbyn’s support. Paul Goldman, a former businessman, wrote to Rabbi Mirvis telling him in no uncertain terms that the Chief Rabbi did not speak for him and many other Jews in this country. This testimony is from a distinguished old gentleman, Frank Land OBE.
Outside of this country there was sterner criticism of Chief Rabbi Mirvis in a letter to Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of United European Jews and signed by one of its executive, Rabbi Mayer Weinberger. The content is worth giving in full so there can be no “out of context” claims.
“Dear Jeremy Corbyn – Leader of the Labour Party
I write to you on behalf of the Executive Board of the United European Jews Organisation regarding an unusually disturbing declaration that was totally reported in the media that the overwhelming majority of British Jews are “gripped by anxiety” at the prospect of a Labour victory in the forthcoming General Election.
Please note that we totally reject and condemn in no uncertain terms these remarks, which does not represent the views of the mainstream chareidi Jews that live in the UK.
We believe that such assertions are due to propaganda with a political and ideological agenda. An agenda, which, I might add, is diametrically opposed to fundamental Jewish values as well as the opinions of tens of thousands of Jews in our community.
At this time we also relay our gratefulness numerous acts of solidarity with the Jewish community over many years and also welcome your assurances that Labour will do everything necessary to defend the Jewish way of life and protect our rights to practise our religion.
For all this; we take the opportunity to say: Thank you! Mr Corbyn.
Yours sincerely,
Rabbi Mayer Weinberger
Director”
We need a man with the respect of all good people, from all communities and backgrounds whatever their religious beliefs, to restabilise and redirect a country that has come off the rails. That man is Jeremy Corbyn.
To my last piece debunking the claim by Ephraim Mirvis that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is anti-Semitic one person, Jack Mendel, included my blogpost in one of his tweets.
His accompanying comment was to the effect: “Ooh look an antisemitic article about why Jeremy Corbyn’s antisemitic Labour Party is not antisemitic.” I might be paraphrasing but not by much.
When I asked him on Twitter in what way my piece was antisemitic, rather than providing an answer he first: deleted my tweet; second: blocked me.
So much for free speech!
Before that I had no real interest in somebody sharing my post whether they agreed with it or not. Afterwards I was bemused that Jack – if he was convinced that the statement made and the ground he stood on was worth defending – would not want to discuss or explain in what way he deemed my article anti-Semitic.
I wrote in my previous piece “There is an old adage that if you say something often enough people will start to believe it.” In essence Jack Mendel appears to be following that same meme. Put another way certain people who have no argument can get away with labelling someone anti-Semitic instead of an argument.
Before it was deleted my tweet in response to Jack’s comment in sharing my piece had 15 views. Perhaps somebody wiser than Jack had pointed out to him that there was nothing anti-Semitic in the article.
Who is Jack Mendel? He is the online editor of Jewish News, a tabloid, which, according to his LinkedIn page has a distribution of 25,000 with an additional 500,000 hits online. It is aimed at the Jewish community. Most people from the Jewish community are as fed up with the memes of “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust denial” as we non-Jewish people, who are usually the targets of these venomous comments. It seems from the few Jewish News headings I have seen (including the featured image) that it has an agenda. That agenda is to keep labelling people without argument hoping that eventually some of the muck will stick.
Jack, you have a degree in Politics and International Relations from the University of Reading, and presumably in getting that degree you had to argue from more than one point of view, yet now you have become a person with power – indeed, little more than a dictator, who can decide which voices get heard and which are discriminated against. Your alma mater will be proud of you – if it uses the same criterion for argument – but I very much doubt it does.
Never to my memory has there been an election where wealthy Jews have been so frightened. Many of them have a large influence over and ownership of the media and even it may appear over the Church of England. Just in case you had any chance of missing it when they start a story like this it hits all the media en bloc: Telegraph, BBC, Guardian, Mail, Express, Financial Times, Jewish Chronicle and many other outlets in a carpet spread.
The boringly incessant cliché used to blacken Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is an unsubstantiated claim of anti-Semitism. There is an old adage that if you say something often enough people will start to believe it. That is what the wealthy Zionists and their Neo-Con allies are hoping for because let me tell you for all these claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party none of the media outpourings produces any credible evidence or examples of anti-Semitism. They just say it is there.
It is a bit like saying there are aliens among us. Aliens may be among us. How would anyone know without proof? Likewise there may be the odd incident of careless thought and thoughtless words that make it appear anti-Semitism is an issue. I have not seen aliens. I have not seen anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
The big fear for the rich is not racism of any kind – the Labour Party has always been opposed to racism – including the persecution of Palestinians in the apartheid state of Israel. The big fear is that some of the accumulation of wealth might be more equitably distributed. That is the real fear.
Those who circulate this nonsense are not poor Jewish families trying to eke out a living in these days of austerity. They are not persecuted like Anne Frank’s family, forced to move abroad because of Nazi ideology. They are rich. They are bankers. They are owners of corporations and owners of the media – or those who can put pressure on the owners of the media.
Yes, people are leaving the Labour Party. Sometimes they blame it on anti-Semitism without citing examples. But the real reason is that they do not belong in a party that is trying to bring social justice and equal opportunities for all – including the poor. They belong in opportunist parties where they can have a more-than-comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their families perpetuated into old age. Take for example, Lady Neuberger, who is not even a Labour peer, but quoted in the Guardian article linked above.
“Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Lady Neuberger said that under Corbyn’s leadership “there has been this insidious antisemitic tone to quite a lot of what’s happened and an unwillingness to really face it.””
This is it: accusatory words. This is the total “argument”. The words are there and make it appear that anti-Semitism is an issue. However there are no examples to back this “argument” up.
We hardly ever hear of rabbis making political comments except occasionally on Radio 4’s thought for the day. This statement by the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, that the “overwhelming majority of British Jews are gripped by anxiety” that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party might win the election is misguided at best but most likely untruthful. First there would have needed to have been some kind of poll on this which I have yet to see.
The tentacles of power politics stretch far and wide bringing the Archbishop of Canterbury into their clutches. Justin Welby, has issued in a tweet a statement about the “deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews”. There is certainly anxiety. But it is not about anti-Semitism. Instead it really appears to be about the existentialist threat to a change in the social structure bringing the needs of the poor into the frame. I wish they would say that was their worry because I am sure this anti-Semitism nonsense will backfire on them. And so it should.
It is not new for Chief Priests and Rabbis to be worried about the threat of a change to their comfortable way of life. The same thing happened 2000 years ago. Hopefully today they will not be as severe in their punishment of an innocent man and his followers as they were then!
Cartoon by Bob Moran
This year I am cycling for two charities. One I have supported since its first event is The Big Ride for Palestine, which this year again is providing sports equipment for Palestinian girls. If you want to know more about this important and needy cause here is a news article about this year’s event. To support this please click on the link.
The second cause is just as worthy and locally-based. It is the Myton Hospice Challenge – a gruelling 100 miles from Warwick through the Cotswolds and back to Warwick. To support this please click this link.
If I was responsible for allocating places in heaven anyone supporting both would surely get one.
On Easter Sunday this year in Sri Lanka three Christian churches together with three hotels in Colombo were targeted by ISIS in suicide attacks which claimed the lives of more than 250 people and injured some 500 others including worshippers and foreigners. The attack was premeditated. What is more the Saudi Arabian foreign office knew it was planned five days before it happened.
The following leaked document shows that the Saudis were aware of the slaughter that was about to take place and may even have been the perpetrators. In a top secret letter from Foreign Minister, Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz al-Assaf, to Saudi Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Abdul Nasser al-Harethi, it instructed Saudis in Sri Lanka to stay away from churches on Easter Day.
https://english.alahednews.com.lb/47824/269
Saudi Arabia has a history of funding ISIS and terror. As Julian Assange pointed out in an interview with John Pilger not only was Saudi Arabia funding ISIS it was also funding the Clinton Foundation.
Only last year a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, was murdered in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul by a special squad flown in from Saudi Arabia to do the dirty act. The BBC was, for once, excellent in reporting this and for a few days the plight of the destitute and dying in Saudi’s war on Yemen was given coverage. Sadly, because of western love of Saudi money it was short-lived.
The love of money is the root of all evil according to a letter written by Paul to his fellow-Christian Timothy. By the time of his second letter to the same he was in chains and imprisoned for speaking the truth. People who tell things as they are – there are few in mainstream media allowed this luxury – are just as likely today to be persecuted for their honesty as they were in Paul’s day.
That is why Julian Assange is in Belmarsh prison. He told the truth about US war-crimes in Iraq. Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning provided Wikileaks with video evidence of these war crimes. For telling this truth and providing the shocking footage many of us have seen, she went to prison. Although released by the Obama administration she is back in custody now for an indefinite period for refusing to testify against Wikileaks. People who speak the truth lay themselves open to all kinds of punishment, from incarceration, torture and amputation to capital beheadings and crucifixion. It is widely held that Julian Assange is currently being subjected to mind-warping drugs.
We in the west love money so much we are prepared to forgive Saudi Arabia for its genocide against Yemeni people already struggling to survive in one of the poorest of countries in the world, people who are often indiscriminately slaughtered with western weapons, and children dying of starvation. We are prepared to forgive Saudi Arabia for the planned murder of the US and former Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in the consulate in Istanbul. We are prepared to forgive Saudi Arabia for the mass execution of its political opponents. We are prepared to forgive Saudi Arabia for any involvement in the mass murder of Christians in Sri Lanka.
Why? We forgive them not because forgiveness is a tenet of Christian teaching – though it is. We forgive them because we love their money. This love of money is the root of all the criminal acts outlined in the previous paragraph. Yet western governments lack the moral fibre to speak the truth. Worse still, western governments seek to make those who do tell the truth, pay for their honesty and for the moral fibre they possess that governments lack. Saudi Arabia is not our friend. Neither are western governments.
Julian Assange, like Paul, and many others from history, is being persecuted for revealing the truth. We teach our children it is right to tell the truth. If journalists and human rights campaigners stop telling the truth there is no hope for the future of society. We come into the world without money. We go out of the world unable to take anything we gained with us. Paul said that too. Therefore there is an obligation on us to speak the truth and support others who do so. I urge one and all to speak up for Julian Assange. He represents us all.
Paris
Sadly, last night, the impressive spire of the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris fell onto the roof of the cathedral. Constructed of wood and covered with lead it burned for some seven hours before the weakest point gave way and the spire came down. I expect many others have drawn mental comparisons between the collapse of this spire and the structure called the “spire” which was demolished along with WTC1 in New York on 11 September 2001.
The collapse of the 19th century spire can be seen on several videos showing what would be expected to happen in accordance with Newtonian physics, the laws of motion and gravity. Newton’s first law (Law of inertia) is obeyed in that an object when acted upon by a force will continue in a linear direction unless acted upon by another force. In this case the force acting upon the spire was gravity (a natural force) which came into play when the point of least resistance gave way allowing the spire to fall. Importantly the spire continued to fall in the same direction until it was acted upon by another force – the cathedral roof – which stopped its further linear momentum.
This second picture shows that the spire continued in the same outward direction in which it started (featured image).
New York
While this article compares spires it is fair also to say that the whole of the North Tower fell without apparently following the laws of Newtonian physics though a case could be made for the stronger nuclear forces which can compromise atomic structures.
The “spire” which was a core column of WTC1 (North Tower) has been the subject of much speculation. It falls several seconds after other parts of the building have already fallen. It then appears to vanish into its own footprint, that is, straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Whereas the spire on Notre Dame cathedral leaves behind the structure that had been previously supporting it – the equal and opposite forces of Newton’s third law. Watch how it falls in the video below and imagine the stronger support structures beneath it. Where did they go?
As with the spire of the cathedral, which was a much weaker structure, one corner of WTC1, where the initial fire took place was weaker than other parts and the top section started falling, like Notre Dame spire, outwards. Unlike the spire in Paris it did not continue on that path. This photograph shows the original momentum and if a straight line was to be drawn from the corner edge the degree of tilt can be seen.
That still was taken from the video linked here. To obey Newton’s laws it would have continued in the same path for the simple reason that it is the path of least resistance. There are currently more than 3000 qualified engineers and architects who are seeking to find out what really happened almost 18 years ago. Below some of the pioneers of this movement explain why Newton’s laws of motion were not followed when the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed in almost freefall.
I hope people can see from the way the spire of Notre Dame fell that the twin towers -which were also much stronger below compared to the compromised section at the top – should have followed a similar path.
Vasily Nikolaevich Prozorov, a former SBU (Ukrainian Security Services) officer, escaped to Russia with a huge trove of potentially damaging information against the Poroshenko regime. It ranges from the running of black sites where prisoners are tortured and deprived of air to Ukraine’s culpability in the downing of MH17. Also in the trove is the involvement of the CIA and MI6 in joint operations with the SBU.
Prozorov gave an international press-conference yesterday outlining some of his revelations. Independent observers believe there is a lot more to come. One of the torture sites is a warehouse near Mariupol military airport (see cover image of interior). It is known that two people have died from the extreme tortures with the possibility of many other deaths since there is a network of secret torture-sites in Ukraine. The prison near Mariupol is referred to as “The Library” and prisoners are called “books”.
Two victims of Ukraine’s torture prisons
Great Britain and the United States have sent a number of advisors to Ukraine. Prozorov claims that the CIA have had a residential presence since the conflict began in 2014 and make regular visits to the SBU headquarters. He even goes so far as to name two MI6 “agents” – Charles Backford and Justin Hartman who went to Kramatorsk for which they had to get special permits from the SBU. He thinks the year was 2016. He further named a member of the [US] Defense Department’s Intelligence Agency, Harry Reid, as a visitor.
Prozorov, V. N. and his SBU credentials
In his televised interview Prozorov was convinced that Ukraine was involved in bringing about the destruction of MH17 which claimed 298 lives and was directed over war-torn Donbas. When he tried to make inquiries into this he was told “If you don’t want to have problems keep your nose out of it.” He named the current deputy chief of the Ukrainian presidential staff Valery Kondratyuk and chief of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s intelligence directorate, Vasily Burba, for the cover up regarding MH17.
In the interview Prozorov appeared to have a strong hand and was keeping his cards close to his chest. There is likely to be more to come. At the time of writing it has been difficult to get a western view on these revelations from our media. It should not be long before Bellingcat is hard at work. In the meantime one dissenting voice, The Koz Times, points out that Prozorov “was dismissed from the post of the senior consultant-expert of a department of the headquarters of the security Service of Ukraine” for “systematic use of alcohol in the workplace, discrediting the rank of officer.”
I have a good idea on what our media might be concentrating.
