"Red Ken" Livingstone is
a Labour politician from another era. At the age of seventy he is still a vocal
and stalwart democratic socialist. With his cool-headed manner and rather
autistic attitude to his peer group credibility, he is constantly clinging on
to the peripheries of the Blairite "New Labour" roundabout. He has
come within a hair's breadth of expulsion several times and even became London 's first mayor in 2000 as an independent candidate when his
party turned him down. When his friend and fellow leftist Jeremy Corbyn became
Labour leader last year, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-corbinator-wins.html,
Livingstone must have thought all his troubles were over, but it seems he was
wrong. In last year's general election the Blairite Labour tendency supported a
Muslim woman called Naz Shah who stood for the party against the Respect MP George
Galloway in the Bradford West constituency. Galloway
fought a very dirty personal campaign against Naz Shah and I don't think he
deserved to beat her; therefore I was quite pleased when Ms Shah won and became
the new MP. The British Labour neoconservatives were over the moon for other
reasons... How quickly allegiances change in politics. Oceania really
is at war with Eastasia. Naz Shah is now the bete noire of those same neocons because it's been revealed she
made supposedly anti-Semitic remarks on social media in August 2014; this was
long before she became a member of parliament. She reTweeted a satirical joke
that suggested Israel be relocated to North
America and made an enclave
within the United
States . She
also compared Israel to Nazi Germany. As a result she was immediately suspended
from the Labour Party and could end up being expelled even though she profusely
apologizes.
I think I feel so strongly about
this because I myself have recently been accused of anti-Semitism, falsely I
have no doubt, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/programme-188-podcast-jews.html and: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/is-ben-emlyn-jones-anti-semitic.html.
The words "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semitic" are used so
casually nowadays that they've lost their original meaning. They're tossed
around like sweeties to the point where few people understand them. The effect
is that hardly anybody recognizes real anti-Semitism when they see it. For
example in Saudi
Arabia
there are no synagogues by order and to posses copies of the Talmud or Torah
can result in severe punishment, up to and including execution. At a speech in
the Grand Mosque of Mecca, the imam Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, referred to Jews as:
"The scum of the human race... offspring
of apes and pigs... The worst of the enemies of Islam... Worshippers of false
Gods..." Yes, this is the same Saudi Arabia that is Britain 's best friend in the Middle East ,
that sells us oil and hosts our military bases and did so through a number of
previous Labour governments... Yes, but Naz
Shah is an anti-Semite! It got even more ridiculous when Ken Livingstone
stood up as one of Ms Shah's most vociferous defenders. He related on a radio
show information written in the book Zionism
in the Age of the Dictators by the Marxist historian Lenni Brenner which
asserts that the Zionist lobby, following the Balfour Declaration of 1926, approached
Adolf Hitler and tried to negotiate the emigration of all the Jews from Germany to Palestine . I don't know whether or not that is correct, but the
point is that Ken Livingstone is saying that to oppose Israel is not the same thing as hating Jews. He then said,
correctly I think, that: "there is
a well-orchestrated
campaign by the Israel lobby to smear
anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic." He got into a heated row on the Daily Politics show with a fellow Labour MP, John Mann. This
carried on outside the studio as a furious Mann chased Livingstone along the
corridors shouting that his opponent was a "Nazi apologist!"
Livingstone was suspended by the Labour Party's national executive committee.
There followed some extremely poor quality TV interviews with Livingstone; this
one is probably the worst: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrBQMJEObR8.
The programme is presented by the BBC's Big King Jock of propaganda, Andrew
Neil. During this "discussion" Neil interrupts Livingstone
continuously, hardly letting him complete a sentence; and replies in a manner
specifically distorting what Livingstone previously said. Somebody less
experienced and sanguine would surely have cracked under this strain. Both Neil
and his co-host also deliberately twist the meaning of a tableau that Naz Shah
posted showing Martin Luther King in a police mug-shot and the caption: Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal, see: http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/naz-shah-compared-israelis-to-hitler/.
The point of this meme is that to resist evil it is sometimes necessary to
break the law, if the law supports that evil. Yet the BBC specifically misled
the viewers over its meaning in order to demonize Ms Shah. Andrew Neil says
he's never before heard a Labour MP call one of his right honourable friends a
"Nazi apologist", in a tone that leaves no doubt Ken Livingstone is
to blame for that and not John Mann. Neil then brings in fellow guest Nick
Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats and former deputy Prime Minister to
David Cameron, who says absolutely nothing rational about the matter at all. He
just delivers some typically creative parliamentary rhetoric. Neil only
interrupts him once. Then on comes John Mann via video link, red-faced and
foaming at the mouth. He is allowed two completely uninterrupted and uncriticized
monologues. I'm not a supporter of Ken Livingstone. He has made unacceptable
moral compromises in my view and is too busy running with the fox at the same
time as chasing with the hounds, but is he an anti-Semite? Is he a Nazi? No, of
course not. He and Naz Shah are merely the central fall-guys of this whole
farce that is attempt to make the viewing public see British foreign policy
through a warped lens so they can be led up the garden path into future wars
yet again. I'm pleased to see that Ken Livingstone, at the time of writing, is
refusing to apologize for his remarks.
See here for this episode of the Mind Set Podcast where we discuss this subject: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/ben-emlyn-jones-on-mind-set-podcast-121.html
See here for this episode of the Mind Set Podcast where we discuss this subject: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/ben-emlyn-jones-on-mind-set-podcast-121.html
See here for background:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/genocide-in-gaza.html.
And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/english-defence-league-in-oxford.html.
5 comments:
Cultural Marxism & Death By Demonization. We are not allowed to question the 'Untouchable' subjects which actually annuls both the victims & the chance for analysis/dialogue, the latter being the only way to bring real accord. It is also a definite ploy to undermine Corbyn, though I'm not convinced by him anyway.
So we can safely say that:
1. Ken L has been prepared to make the public aware of the distinction between political Zionism and the following of Judaism
2. Ken L has been prepared to make the public aware of the security services' involvement wrt the cover up of establishment paedophile rings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc
2 ticks for Ken I reckon?
Neil, I feel more respect for KL based on that. He's not a fence-sitter if he's tackling the child abuse issue. Either way, he certainly has been treated very shabbily by the media and political authorities. X, the Zionist issue seems to have been engrained to trigger the emotional reaction we saw in Clegg and Mann during that ridiculous interview. It was a "car crash" alright, but not for Ken Livingstone
So we can safely say that Ken L has been
1. prepared to demonstrate publicly the distinction between political Zionism and Judaism
2. prepared to state the clear evidence linking British Security Services and paedophile rings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc
That's 2 ticks for Ken L in my book
Yes, Neil. Maybe I was too hard on him
Post a Comment