Saturday, 29 September 2012

Antisemitic mural in Brick Lane

Seventy-five years after the Battle of Cable Street, an anti Semitic mural is unveiled in a street in the East End of London - no doubt with the approval of the Islamist-Labour controlled Borough of Tower Hamlets.  

In 1874, when England was still civilised, Tower Hamlets elected a Tory MP in Disraeli's landslide victory. What would Disraeli think of the borough today? He was always friendly to Islam and wrote in his diary as a young man, staying with Ali Pasha in Albania, of the joy 'of being made much of by a man who is daily decapitating half the country.' I doubt though that modern semi-Muslim Tower Hamlets would accord with his romantic dream of England.

Looking at the masonic symbol and the caricatures of Jewish capitalists in the mural (I suppose Hilda Ogden would have called it a muriel), you see how the extreme right and left are legs of the same pair of trousers - hating the bourgeoisie, detecting Jewish conspiracies... In some parts of Eastern Europe, whence Jewish immigrants came to East London, the Jews and the business class did seem to many almost synonymous. Marx excoriated Jews. Goebbels claimed the Nazis' Jewish policy proved they were socialist. Progressive socialists and anti-Semites were not clearly distinguished a hundred years ago and they are becoming slightly less distinguishable these days, too. Then add in the increasing dislike of Jews felt by many Muslims.


  1. I suppose it's difficult to portray a stereotypical "businessman" without him looking something like a Jewish caricature - the two have become so intertwined in the history of European cartoon and caricature that we seem to have no other template for the "businessman" stereotype. A similar problem can be found in Oliver Stone's sequel to the film Wall Street, in which the conniving bank directors and financiers who are about to consciously create the economic collapse of the US and Europe all look, speak, and act like old Jews. This film could easily be seen as anti-Semitic, but I would argue that Stone simply could not figure out a way to portray the "evil financier" type without appealing to anti-Semitic caricature.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. I feel guilty. I don’t know why. Maybe I have been brainwashed...

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Hard work this blog...

  6. Is it true that Ana Pauker, Alexandru Nicolschi, Iosif Chişinevschi, Leonte Rautu, Paul Georgescu, Mihail Roller, Silviu Brucan, Valter Roman, Sorin Toma et. etc.were Jews?

    How could they be Jews if communists? A contradiction in terms. And besides Judaism teaches one to do good...

    1. Remember Lev Davidovich Bronstein?

      No? What about his nom de guerre, Trotsky?

      That said I don't have a solid answer for your question, other than saying that there were Jews who wholeheartedly embraced atheism because it would diminish the distinctions between Jew and Christian.

    2. My guess is that Communist Romanian Jewish intellectuals stayed in Romania to “contribute” to the worldwide Jewry’s fight and retribution against fascism (anti-Semitism) and to purge Romanian culture of its fascist (anti-Semitic) “tendencies”. They sacrificed themselves, that is, for the “cause” (Cosa Nostra).

      Alexandru Solomon produced an interesting documentary about a group of Romanian Jewish communists turned Zionist who robbed a bank in the early ’50 in order to help Israel.

      Great Communist Bank Robbery
      Marele Jaf Comunist

  7. A Romanian academic was rather rude to me recently when, while discussing free speech, in reply to a point she made, I said I am glad that in Romania people can speak freely about their feelings about different races. But,I do not allow people to post things on my blog saying Hitler was right about Jews. Of course Jews were disliked for being capitalists and communists and internationalists and one knows why they were these things and why these three things were unpopular. As I said elsewhere, I enormously admire the Jews but love every race and nation.

    1. You misunderstood my saying. It was my fault. When I said that Hitler was right about Jews I didn’t mean that I considered their killing to be just (that Germans were entitled to kill them). I meant that the (amateurish) sociological analysis that Hitler did in Mein Kampf about why Jews have their anti-nationalist political opinions (and actions!) was (and I have noticed from your comment, is) uncontroversial. May Jews (Herzel, Jabotinsky, Koestler and many others) agreed with it.

      Btw, Romania would have benefited if Hitler won the war... Britain not. But who cares about the suffering of Romanians. We have the reputation of “Borats” in the West. We deserved it. (I have heard a rumor that S.B. Cohen intends to make a film mocking bigoted Orthodox Jews in Britain...)

      Your belittling misconception (racism?) that Romanians have the habit to be rude about inferior races in public is wrong.

      Firstly, of my comments on your blog are under anonymity as is my downloading and watching of porn...

      Secondly, it is one thing to pretend publicly that you have no racial prejudices and that you are free of ethnocentrism and another thing to behave so with real people in real situations. I am severe in judgment but weak and generous in my behavior with people. The socialist politicians (and all those “humanists”) are generous in talk but egoistic in behavior.

      Thirdly, I am not ashamed or shy to defend in public what I wrote on your blog and elsewhere because I have a clear conscience. And in addition I have the misfortune to be a fee person.

  8. Because we wasted our time talking about Jews (they have the power to defend themselves…) and because you developed an interest in Monsenior Ghica I would like to bring to your attention the personality of Nicolae Steinhardt. He is a very interesting figure. It is a pity that his masterpiece “The Happiness Diary” is not available in English .

  9. Read Kevin B. MacDonald’s “The Culture of Critique” and you will understand why Hitler, pardon Fichte and scores of many other intelligent people (Wagner, Le Bon, Papini, Cioran etc.etc) were right about Jews. Sir Richard F. Burton has a book with a title that I like: The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam.

  10. I just reposted the comment I previously deleted - what does it mean?

    1. It is a long discussion. And maybe I not be very coherent. But you are an intelligent interlocutor.

      Firstly, I must tell you that I like more the self doubting, self mocking, candid and melancholic people (writers) generally rather than the cocksure ideologues ( I prefer Cioran to Eliade).

      Among Jewish intellectuals I prefer Spinoza to Maimonides, Kafka to Max Nordau, Otto Weininger to Freud, Lev Shestov to Trotsky, Nicolae Steinhardt to all the in vogue Romanian Jewish writers and critics of the ’50 and ’60.

      Take the famous quote from Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

      “A powerful, animosity-filled STATE WITHIN A STATE is spreading through nearly all the countries of Europe...
      This state is constantly AT WAR with all others, severely oppressing the general citizenry.
      It is Judaism, the Judaic state.
      The Jews must be granted human rights even though they deny them to others.
      They are, after all, human beings; and the injustices that they commit do not give us the right to behave as they do.
      In granting them the rights of citizens, however, I can see no alternative to cutting off all their heads and replacing them with heads that are purged of Jewish ideas...
      In order to protect ourselves from them, I see no alternative to conquering their promised land and transporting them all to it.“

      It is a speech aggressive towards the Jews of that time. It was and it is deemed anti-Semitic. But think of it as a sociological analysis (it could be rephrased in a neutral and technical lingo), especially in the light of the intervening history (the Bolshevik revolution, the over involvement of Jews in the communist insurgency, the importance attached to anti-Semitism by the Nazis, the Holocaust, the creation of Israel, the present day conflict in the Middle East, the power of the “Israel Lobby” in the USA). Don’t you think that Fichte analysis was prescient?
      Some Jewish thinkers and politicians agree with that analysis (view). You can find their views on this web page:
      (maybe it is an anti-Semitic page but...)

      Cioran in his fascist manifesto “The Transfiguration Of Romania”(1936) wrote a an anti-Semitic chapter, “National Collectivism”. In the book “The Temptation to Exist” (1956) he wrote a redeeming philo-semitic essay “A people of loners”.
      But if you read both texts you realise as Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine realised that the substance of his thoughts about Jews has not changed. Only the language is different. Jews themselves have not changed after all…

      Borges (who is considered a philo-semite) in his short story “Death and the Compass” alludes to the same secular conflict between Jews and gentiles.

      Red Scharlach : “An Irishman tried to convert me to the faith of Jesus; he repeated to me the phrase of the goyim: All roads lead to Rome. At night my delirium nurtured itself on that metaphor; I felt that the world was a labyrinth, from which it was impossible to flee, for all roads, though they pretend to lead to the north or south, actually lead to Rome, which was also the quadrilateral jail where my brother was dying and the villa of Triste-le-Roy. On those nights I swore by the God who sees with two faces and by all the gods of fever and of mirrors to weave a labyrinth around the man who had imprisoned my brother.”

      Read around and think for yourself. And of course in knowing Jews nothing can substitute for real life encounters with Jews. Personally, I had a bad experience with one Jews but maybe others are more lucky.

  11. Romanian gentiles would have been better off had Hitler won. England lost her empire as a result of the war. We should probably have been better off neutral. The USA was the only winner.

    1. “England lost her empire as a result of the war. We should probably have been better off neutral.”

      That is what Neville Chamberlain wanted. Chamberlain and Churchill are two types of Englishman. The good and the bad cop.

    2. The USSR looked like a pretty big winner to me (maybe more so than the USA).

  12. Fake news. Maybe you should question more what you read in the media. Only two of the caricatures portrayed were of Jews: Rothschild and Warburg. The rest were modelled on non-Jewish robber barons, Rockerfeller, Carnigie JP Morgan and also Alistair Crowley. If its anti-semitic it's also anti-WASP. This is a synthetic controversy.

    1000 British girls and underage children were raped by Muslim gangs in Telford. Most of these rape-gangs are only here because the liberal metropolitan elite imported them against the wishes of the British people. Jews are very overrepresented among this elite. This is not a conspiracy theory.

    Telford has got scarcely any news coverage. Yet jews are able to get a fake news story about Corbyn's 6 year old Facebook comment about a mural on to the front pages of every major newspaper and on to the lips of every political talkshow host on TV and radio.

    There is more media outrage about Labour's alleged (but unproven) anti-semitism problem than there is about the proven fact that Labour ignored the rape, sexual slavery, and murder of working class white girls. That should tell you something about the extent of Jewish power over Britain's politics.

  13. Interesting information about Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan. It might be less about the power of Jews and more about fear, for several reasons, of criticising brown skinned ethnic minorities. I am sure Corbyn is not anti Semite. He is a Communist and Communists cannot be racists, even if Marx disliked Jews.