Google+ Followers

Thursday, 19 April 2018

Winston Churchill – a Mass Murderer to whom history was very kind

As a child I lived in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales for a year.  One of the things that has stuck with me since that time was the hostility amongst Welsh working class people to Churchill as a result of his sending the troops and police into the valleys to help the coal owners defeat the striking miners, some of whom were shot.

But Churchill’s reputation was made primarily in imperial affairs. It is indisputable that Churchill was primarily responsible for the slaughter at Gallipolli in 1915.  Prior to that there was his period as Home Secretary when he took personal control of the Sydney Street siege in January 1911.   Two Latvian revolutionaries were holed up there and they were besieged by police and troops.  When the building caught fire he ordered the fire brigade not to put the flames out and allowed those inside to burn to death.  As Colonial Secretary he presided over Partition in Ireland and over the beginning of the Mandate in Palestine.  In Palestine he introduced the murderous Black and Tans who had seen bloody service in Ireland.
Churchill saw very early the potential of Zionism as an antidote to Communism amongst Jews
Adam Jones, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research, calls Churchill "a genuine genocidaire", noting that he called Indians a "foul race" and said that the British air force chief should "send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them."  [Jones, Adam (2016-12-16). "Chapter 2 State and Empire; War and Revolution". Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge]

Whether it was sending in the army to protect the coal owners in Wales or presiding over the famine in Bengal in 1942, Churchill was a mass murderer.  Churchill’s whole career had been dedicated to the preservation of the Empire.  In January 1931 he resigned from the Conservative Shadow Cabinet over self-government for India.  Churchill was a died-in-the-wool supporter of the British Empire.
Churchill made his reputation in the second world war, primarily through his fighting speeches.  However his opposition to Hitler was not from an anti-fascist perspective.  He saw Hitler as a threat to British interests.  Initially he had welcomed Hitler as an anti-communist.  During the War Churchill was distinguished by his refusal to do anything to alleviate the position of the Jews including the bombing of Auschwitz and the railway lines leading up to it.  He was however a die hard Zionist and that is why Zionist supporters treat him kindly, despite his undoubted anti-Semitism. 
Striking up a familiar pose
During the war he advocated the mass bombing of German cities like Dresden and Nuremburg.  Thousands  died as a result yet the war itself was advanced.  These were undoubtedly war crimes.  When Greece was liberated he put the local Nazi collaborators back in power as his main goal was keeping the Greek Communists out of power.

His most famous tract Zionism and  Bolshevism was published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920.  Suffice to say that Churchill was not overfond of revolutionary Jews!  He wrote of the ‘International Jew’ as being responsible for all the ills his class suffered from, including the French Revolution!
Churchill enjoying himself at the Sydney Street siege
‘The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.... This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. ... It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century;...
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.. ...
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character.’
Churchill like most of his class saw Zionism as an alternative to the attractions of revolution for Jews. Those who see that the origins of Zionism were progressive are very much mistaken. 
Churchill's Police confront the miners in South Wales
It was also during his period as Prime Minister that Britain engaged in the most horrific use of torture and concentration camps against the Mau Mau people in Kenya.  Victims included Hussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of Barak Obama.  See Revealed: Britain's torture of Obama's grandfather and Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero

Tony Greenstein

A statue of former British prime minister Winston Churchill is silhouetted in front of the Houses of Parliament in London in 2015., Luke MacGregor/Reuters
History,” Winston Churchill said, “will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself.” He needn’t have bothered. He was one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century, yet is the only one, unlike Hitler and Stalin, to have escaped historical odium in the West. He has been crowned with a Nobel Prize (for literature, no less), and now, an actor portraying him (Gary Oldman) has been awarded an Oscar.

As Hollywood confirms, Churchill’s reputation (as what Harold Evans has calledthe British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization”) rests almost entirely on his stirring rhetoric and his talent for a fine phrase during World War II. “We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. … We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. … We shall never surrender.” (The revisionist British historian John Charmley dismissed this as “sublime nonsense.”)

Words, in the end, are all that Churchill admirers can point to. His actions are another matter altogether.
Blenheim Palace where Churchill was born
During World War II, Churchill declared himself in favor of “terror bombing.” He wrote that he wanted “absolutely devastating, exterminating attacks by very heavy bombers.” Horrors such as the firebombing of Dresden were the result.

In the fight for Irish independence, Churchill, in his capacity as secretary of state for war and air, was one of the few British officials in favor of bombing Irish protesters, suggesting in 1920 that airplanes should use “machine-gun fire or bombs to scatter them.

Dealing with unrest in Mesopotamia in 1921, as secretary of state for the colonies, Churchill acted as a war criminal: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilised tribes; it would spread a lively terror.” He ordered large-scale bombing of Mesopotamia, with an entire village wiped out in 45 minutes.

In Afghanistan, Churchill declared that the Pashtuns “needed to recognise the superiority of [the British] race” and that “all who resist will be killed without quarter.” He wrote: “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation. … Every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once.”
In Kenya, Churchill either directed or was complicit in policies involving the forced relocation of local people from the fertile highlands to make way for white colonial settlers and the forcing of more than 150,000 people into concentration camps. Rape, castration, lit cigarettes on tender spots, and electric shocks were all used by the British authorities to torture Kenyans under Churchill’s rule.
But the principal victims of Winston Churchill were the Indians — “a beastly people with a beastly religion,” as he charmingly called them. He wanted to use chemical weapons in India but was shot down by his cabinet colleagues, whom he criticized for their “squeamishness,” declaring that “the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable.”

Churchill’s beatification as an apostle of freedom seems all the more preposterous given his 1941 declaration that the Atlantic Charter’s principles would not apply to India and the colored colonies. He refused to see people of color as entitled to the same rights as himself. “Gandhi-ism and all it stands for,” he declared, “will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed.”
In such matters, Churchill was the most reactionary of Englishmen, with views so extreme they cannot be excused as being reflective of their times. Even his own secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery, confessed that he could see very little difference between Churchill’s attitude and Adolf Hitler’s.
As a dedicated racist  Churchill was a strong believer in racial purity and selective breeding - eugenics
Thanks to Churchill, some 4 million Bengalis starved to death in a 1943 famine. Churchill ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles in Greece and elsewhere. When reminded of the suffering of his Indian victims, his response was that the famine was their own fault, he said, for “breeding like rabbits.”
Madhusree Mukerjee’s searing account of Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine, “Churchill’s Secret War,” documents that while Indians starved, prices for foodgrains were inflated by British purchases and India’s own surplus grains were exported, while Australian ships laden with wheat were not allowed to unload their cargo at Calcutta (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets). Instead, Churchill ordered that grain be shipped to storage depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans to increase the buffer stocks for a possible future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. European warehouses filled up as Bengalis died.

This week’s Oscar rewards yet another hagiography of this odious man. To the Iraqis whom Churchill advocated gassing, the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed down on Churchill’s orders in 1944, sundry Pashtuns and Irish, as well as to Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic speeches have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s racist hands.

Many of us will remember Churchill as a war criminal and an enemy of decency and humanity, a blinkered imperialist untroubled by the oppression of non-white peoples. Ultimately, his great failure — his long darkest hour — was his constant effort to deny us freedom.

Shashi Tharoor is author of “Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.” He chairs the Indian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.
George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader's heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It's not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting Churchill's empire.
Can these clashing Churchills be reconciled? Do we live, at the same time, in the world he helped to save, and the world he helped to trash? Toye, one of Britain's smartest young historians, has tried to pick through these questions dispassionately – and he should lead us, at last and at least, to a more mature conversation about our greatest national icon.
Churchill was born in 1874 into a Britain that was washing the map pink, at the cost of washing distant nations blood red. Victoria had just been crowned Empress of India, and the scramble for Africa was only a few years away. At Harrow School and then Sandhurst, he was told a simple story: the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation. As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples". In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, a crack of doubt. He realised that the local population was fighting back because of "the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own," just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a "strong aboriginal propensity to kill".
He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".
The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."
Then as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph". There seems to have been an odd cognitive dissonance in his view of the "natives". In some of his private correspondence, he appears to really believe they are helpless children who will "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown".
But when they defied this script, Churchill demanded they be crushed with extreme force. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians, and when the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror."
Of course, it's easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as anachronistic. Didn't everybody think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye's research is that they really didn't: even at the time, Churchill was seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him because his views were so antedeluvian. Even his startled doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."
Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill – to the astonishment of his staff – had only jeers for them. This rather undermines the claims that Churchill's imperialism was motivated only by an altruistic desire to elevate the putatively lower races.
Hussein Onyango Obama is unusual among Churchill's victims only in one respect: his story has been rescued from the slipstream of history, because his grandson ended up as President of the US. Churchill believed that Kenya's fertile highlands should be the preserve of the white settlers, and approved the clearing out of the local "blackamoors". He saw the local Kikuyu as "brutish children". When they rebelled under Churchill's post-war premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps – later dubbed "Britain's gulag" by Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins. She studied the detention camps for five years for her remarkable book Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, explains the tactics adopted under Churchill to crush the local drive for independence. "Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire," she writes. "The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects." Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured.
Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed: you can find them on the front pages any day of the week. He is the man who invented Iraq, locking together three conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders that have been bleeding ever since. He is the Colonial Secretary who offered the Over-Promised Land to both the Jews and the Arabs – although he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both. He jeered at the Palestinians as "barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung," while he was appalled that the Israelis "take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience".
True, occasionally Churchill did become queasy about some of the most extreme acts of the Empire. He fretted at the slaughter of women and children, and cavilled at the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Toye tries to present these doubts as evidence of moderation – yet they almost never seem to have led Churchill to change his actions. If you are determined to rule people by force against their will, you can hardly be surprised when atrocities occur. Rule Britannia would inexorably produce a Cruel Britannia.
So how can the two be reconciled? Was Churchill's moral opposition to Nazism a charade, masking the fact he was merely trying to defend the British Empire from a rival?
The US civil rights leader Richard B. Moore, quoted by Toye, said it was "a rare and fortunate coincidence" that at that moment "the vital interests of the British Empire [coincided] with those of the great overwhelming majority of mankind". But this might be too soft in its praise. If Churchill had only been interested in saving the Empire, he could probably have cut a deal with Hitler. No: he had a deeper repugnance for Nazism than that. He may have been a thug, but he knew a greater thug when he saw one – and we may owe our freedom today to this wrinkle in history.
This, in turn, led to the great irony of Churchill's life. In resisting the Nazis, he produced some of the richest prose-poetry in defence of freedom and democracy ever written. It was a cheque he didn't want black or Asian people to cash – but they refused to accept that the Bank of Justice was empty. As the Ghanaian nationalist Kwame Nkrumah wrote: "All the fair, brave words spoken about freedom that had been broadcast to the four corners of the earth took seed and grew where they had not been intended." Churchill lived to see democrats across Britain's dominions and colonies – from nationalist leader Aung San in Burma to Jawarlal Nehru in India – use his own intoxicating words against him.
Ultimately, the words of the great and glorious Churchill who resisted dictatorship overwhelmed the works of the cruel and cramped Churchill who tried to impose it on the darker-skinned peoples of the world. The fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the "savages" is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Jackie Walker’s The Lynching is a perfect answer to the vile racism of the Jewish Labour Movement

How the Victim of Jeremy Newmark’s racist campaign came out on top

Jackie Walker was Vice Chair of Momentum when she was suspended from the Labour Party in May 2016.  During a private conversation with a friend she had stated that ‘many Jews, my ancestors too, were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade… so who are the victims and what does it mean .’  Jackie missed out one word among as in ‘among the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade.’  [see The lynching of Jackie Walker, Open Democracy, 12.10.16].  For that she was attacked as an anti-Semite.

The reason Jackie was targeted was not because of one word but because she was a Black-Jewish anti-Zionist.  In May 2016 there was massive support for Jackie in the Labour Party and Momentum.  Even Owen Jones supported her and within less than a month she was reinstated.
The Jewish Labour Movement withdrew its invitation to a meeting because McDonell has spoken on a platform with Jackie Walker
However the Jewish Labour Movement, the British branch of the racist Israeli Labour Party, a party that openly believes in segregation and Jewish supremacism, didn’t give up so easily. At the TUC Conference in Brighton in September Jackie spoke on a platform with John McDonnell.  When McDonnell was announced as a speaker at a JLM meeting at Labour Party conference, there were calls for him to be disinvited for speaking on the same platform as Jackie. The Jewish Chronicle quoted Jeremy Newmark, Chair of the JLM as saying that McDonnell ‘"must explain his defence of Walker which is inconsistent with his call for zero tolerance. This raises serious questions. Our members expect him to explain himself.’ 
The above tweets are just some of the vile abuse sent by Zionist 'victims' of antisemitism
On September 17th, over a week before the Labour Party conference, I wrote a blog The Jewish Labour Movement and its Political Lynching of Jackie Walker.  I had picked up on the increasing attacks on Jackie by the JLM and to me this seemed a classic case of a political lynching.  It was clear to me that the Zionists were pushing for a resuspension of Jackie. What was happening to Jackie would not have happened to a White person.  The JLM had deliberately targeted Jackie and made her into the classic scapegoat.  Its supporters indulged in the vilest racist abuse, something that crooked Labour General Secretary Iain McNicol was quite happy to turn a blind eye to.  No one has ever been disciplined for abuse of people on the Left.  Only right-wing MPs are victims.
According to the Jewish News of 14th June 2017, ‘the title [The Lynching] is a reference to an article by Marxist commentator Tony Greenstein, who wrote: “The attacks on Jackie Walker and others are political, a determined effort by the Israel lobby to make Britain’s Labour Party safe for Israel and Zionism.”  I am proud to have been the source of the title of this profound and moving play which describes the visceral racism employed in defence of the world’s only Apartheid state, Israel.
At the 2016 Labour Party Conference Jackie attended a ‘training session’ on anti-Semitism run by the Jewish Labour Movement.  She was recorded saying that she hadn’t found a definition of anti-Semitism that she could work with.  A pretty uncontroversial statement.  She also stated that it would be nice if Holocaust  Memorial Day could include all holocausts including those of Africans who had died in the slave trade or as slaves in the West Indies.  These remarks were secretly recorded by the Jewish Labour Movement and immediately there were loud calls to suspend Jackie for ‘anti-Semitism’.  This time there would be no support from Owen Jones or Jon Lansman.  On the contrary Lansman went out of his way to support Jeremy Newmark in his campaign of vindictive persecution.  
This wealthy property developer and founder of Momentum has followed a Zionist agenda in Momentum, always seeking to give legs to the false anti-semitism campaign
In The Independent of 30.9.16. Lansman leapt to the defence of the corrupt racist Jeremy Newmark, Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement.  Lansman threw Jackie, his deputy in Momentum to the wolves for the sake of his Zionist friends.
‘“I spoke to Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement this morning, he’s very upset and I can understand that – I work closely with Jeremy, I’ve been meeting with Jewish organisations to talk… I’ve been outspoken. I was very, very unhappy about… and I did comment on it, about it, what she had previously said.
Picket of Momentum Executive Committee which Stabbed Jackie Walker in the Back
On October 3rd 2016 Momentum’s Steering Committee met at the TSSA Headquarters near Euston and voted by 7-3 to remove Jackie as Vice Chair of Momentum.  The meeting was picketed by Free Speech on Israel.  Unsurprisingly Iain McNicol then followed up by suspending Jackie for a second time as a result of Lansman’s racist scabbing.
What makes Lansman’s actions particularly despicable is that the false anti-Semitism campaign which had netted Jackie Walker was a campaign whose primary purpose was to remove Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party.  Lansman was acting as a fifth column within Momentum.  The Alliance for Workers Liberty’s Jill Mountford and Mike Chessum, voted with Lansman to remove Jackie.  The AWL would soon be removed from Momentum’s Executive Committee too when Lansman decided to destroy the democracy of Momentum.
Go and watch this play it is very moving and describes the racism that Jackie has experienced in Britain not least in the Labour Party from careerists and opportunists such as Momentum’s property developer dictator Jon Lansman.
Tony Greenstein

Jackie Walker (James Tye)
Two years after being purged from the Labour Party over spurious anti-Semitism allegations and a successful run of performances in the UK, Jackie Walker is touring Europe with her one-woman show.

The Lynching of Jackie Walker, an autobiographical piece, was borne out of a political crisis in Britain’s Labour Party. Following the election of Jeremy Corbyn, an outspoken critic of Israel, as party leader, accusations of anti-Semitism within the party’s left have been on the rise.
Former vice-chair of Momentum, the left-wing group formed to support Corbyn, Walker – who is of Jamaican and Jewish descent – was an early target.
“They wanted a lynching, a political lynching,” she states in the play’s trailer. “So I thought I would get my own court of public opinion and you’re going to be that for me tonight.”
Jeremy Newmark - the corrupt Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement who led the witchhunt of Jackie Walker
Walker was eventually cleared of charges of anti-Semitism only to be suspended again after she was secretly filmed challenging a controversial definition of anti-Semitism at a Labour Party training session. The head of the Board of Deputies of British Jews recently called for Walker’s expulsion from Labour.
The anti-racist activist draws a clear connection between a resurgence in the radical left and the accusations levied against her.
You can see this in programs like Al Jazeera’s The Lobby. Suddenly the establishment began focusing on anti-Semitism – which does exist – to both beat and confine the left,” she tells me, referring to an undercover investigation exposing how pro-Israel groups influence British politics. “I think they’ve found it an effective tool.
It is a tool that has since been used against many other Labour Party members, including Glyn Secker, secretary of Jewish Voice for Labour; Black anti-racist activist Marc Wadsworth and Israeli anti-Zionist Moshe Machover.
The Lynching is both allegorical in its treatment of political persecution and something of a clarion call for the masses. A non-linear narrative weaves together pluralities of voice, history and location, finally arriving at the present, an alarming mirror of the past.
Concerned for the most part in another period of social upheaval, Walker attempts to situate her particular “lynch” in a broader historical process. “This has all happened before, as my mother says [in the play]. This is a technique that the right use against the radical left whenever they need to button us down.”
Alarming mirror of the past
The play begins as Walker navigates the crowd towards an unadorned stage with a whiteboard, stool, table and coat stand. A photo of Walker’s mother, Dorothy Walker, is held in place on the board and on the coat stand hangs the brown trilby hat of Jack Cohen, Walker’s father.
Walker has a forceful yet disarming presence. She morphs from one character to another, employing a simple prop, turn or other sharp movement. The ghost of Dorothy speaks in a patois lilt and brings a fierce historical wit. She is both witness and public defender, traversing disparate geographical locations as she builds a case.
“Tonight you will hear about a witch-hunt, about fake news, alternative facts and an attempt to smash the biggest, most radical political movement we’ve ever seen,” she begins. It will become clear throughout the course of the performance that the play is as much about the vindication of a mother as it is her daughter.
The first act details the courtship of Dorothy – a Jamaican civil rights activist – and Jack – a Russian communist Jew – in 1940s Brooklyn. Their involvement, at first romantic, quickly matures. “It was music that brought us together, but it was in the politics where we found love,” states a nostalgic Jack.
Political activity – such as boarding buses as a mixed-race couple in the segregated South – attracts attention from the state and Dorothy is finally thrown out of the country, but not before a period of solitary confinement at a psychiatric hospital, where she is forced to give birth tied to a bed.
Such tragic stories are, however, punctuated by moments of laughter and Walker inhabits her mother with a true warmth, in a script littered with bitter anecdotes:
“Jamaica – a paradise. When white people get there for the first time, they say they discover it, they call it tabula rasa. That mean empty page. Perhaps they were blind because there were thousands of Indians living there,” she offers mockingly.
The Lynching is awash with historical reference. It traces the ghoulish picnics held at lynchings in the deep South and the founding of slave plantations in colonized Jamaica before crossing the Atlantic, where the Walker family is met with the “No dogs, no Irish no coloreds” signs of 1950s Britain.
Once in England, we encounter an 8-year-old Jackie who experiences a series of flashbacks, disrupting the narrative with short vignettes of troubling tales. Neo-Nazi attacks on the family home, racist slurs in the school playground and physical attacks color the stage, each scene interrupted by a lullaby.
Dorothy’s death marks another abrupt interruption in the play. An overwhelmed infant Jackie tells the story in short, simple sentences, shifting from past to present tense. “I went to sleep really quickly. But then, suddenly the light went on. And my mum can hardly breathe. I don’t remember how she got to the floor.”
Once at the hospital and following a post-mortem diagnosis, the child determines the real cause of death. “I remember what my mum told me and I think she died because she was poor and sick. Poor and sick and colored.”
From this emerges a present-day Walker, who begins detailing life in the years following her mother’s passing. It’s a sobering moment marked by its unvarnished, matter-of-fact delivery. Bleak irony is replaced by more somber observations: “I left care at 18, same way I came into Britain, with a suitcase and £25.”
An attack on change
After a brief sketch of her time in the Labour Party, grassroots activism and election to vice-chair of Momentum, we are brought to the present-day allegations.
A damning statement by the state prosecutor leads to the re-emergence of Dorothy Walker, who gives a detailed rebuttal of each charge. “Wake up!” she appeals, “we have seen this before. This is not an attack on Jackie Walker. This is an attack on change.”
Walker makes a compelling case in the mirroring of her and her mother’s struggle, and this bears fruit in the final act. “What I’m trying to do in the play is to get people to have a historical view of what is happening at the moment,” she explains.
This new anti-Semitism, which equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, is one of the major tools they’re using to try to fracture and break us.”
The Lynching possesses a sirenic, almost shamanic quality, alerting us to the dangers of collective amnesia, offering the role of witness as its salve. The final scene of Dorothy and her daughter attest to this.
Eight-year-old Jackie stands center stage and describes a dream where she is visited by her mother. The two sit at the top of a hill and the child describes her Christmas meal among other things.
The mother begins to float slowly away toward the clouds as she says goodbye, leaving behind a tearful daughter, who resolves to remember.
And it is in this quiet love of memory that The Lynching triumphs.
Riri Hylton is a freelance journalist/editor working in both print and broadcast journalism. They are based between London and Berlin.

50 Years After Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’ Parliament Debates Fake ‘Anti-Semitism’ and Applauds Zionist MPs Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth

At a time when Blacks have been told to prove their Right to Stay, Labour's Right uses ‘Anti-Semitism’ to Attack Corbyn & Defend Israel

I have had a query about the Sun headline, which appeared for a few hours before they replaced it, and the cartoon beneath it.  The cartoon did not, as far as I know, appear in The Sun.  It is clearly an anti-Semitic cartoon which gives full meaning to the atmosphere that the Sun and other tabloids took
What is most striking about politics today is that the entirely artificial and fake anti-Semitism narrative that is peddled by every national newspaper – from the anti-racist Sun to the oh so liberal Guardian – as well as every television pundit, is simply not believed by either the general public or Labour Party members themselves. Huff Post reported that ‘Just 19% said it was a serious issue while 77% believe it is used to undermine the leader or stop criticism of Israel, a YouGov study for The Times found.’  Labour Members Think Anti-Semitism Claims Are Being Exaggerated To Damage Jeremy Corbyn.  In other words by a 4-1 margin Labour Party members simply refuse to accept that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a problem.
There is no evidence that the wider public and ordinary people are any more concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ either.  It is a text-book example of how a media frenzy combined with powerful interest groups can create a non-story and an accepted narrative.  It is reminiscent of the powers of Orwell’s Big Brother.
There are no great anti-racist movements being formed to fight this ‘anti-Semitism’ such as Rock Against Anti-Semitism perhaps in order to fight this apparent upsurge of ‘anti-Semitism’.  This fight is entirely confined to the Westminster bubble and people like Jonathan Arkush, Zionist President of the Board of Deputies who accused the non-Zionist Jewdas group of being a ‘source of virulent anti-Semitism’.  At least Arkush was honest.  The ‘anti-Semitism’ he is talking about is Jewish in origin.
There have been strenuous attempts, through the manipulation of false statistics by the CST to frighten members of the Jewish community but I doubt if very many Jews are quaking in their boots at the prospect of the rise of anti-Semitism either.  See More Fake News – The Myth of Increasing Anti-semitism

At a time when the very real and serious issue of British state racism has reared its head once again, Parliament debates the complete non-issue of ‘anti-Semitism’. The debate in Parliament yesterday was a tribute to the vanity and ego of Zionist MPs Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger and John Mann – all of them supporters of the Israeli state.
Ken Livingstone - the target of Labour's Zionists for fake anti-semitism
In June 1948 the Empire Windrush docked in Tilbury with 492 passengers from the Carribean. Under the British Nationality Act 1948 they were entitled to citizenship of the UK and Colonies. Up to the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act anyone from a former colony was entitled to enter Britain and claim citizenship. Minister of Health Enoch Powell even toured the West Indies urging people to come to work in Britain.  The 1971 Immigration Act called a halt to primary immigration but gave existing immigrants indefinite leave to remain. 

It was David Cameron’s promise in 2010 to cut the number of immigrants to under 100,000 and Theresa May’s attempt to implement it that caused the problems.  The Immigration Act 2014 created quite deliberately a climate of hostility and suspicion. People had to prove that they had a right to stay in this country. If you didn’t have a passport or some other evidence of citizenship then you could be considered an illegal immigrant. Of course this only applied to Black people.  It was a thoroughly racist Act that Labour said nothing about. Thus Albert Thompson, who has been here over 50 years was denied cancer treatment because he had no documents to prove his status. Theresa May refuses to intervene over man's £54,000 NHS cancer bill
John Mann - the rent a mouth MP with an overweening sense of ego with the detestable Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan, another honorary Jew, behind him
The Home Office under May destroyed all the landing cards of those who came thus destroying the obvious way to prove someone’s claim to citizenship.  All this was reflected in the  notorious ‘go home’ vans of the Home Office under Britain’s most racist Home Secretary.  The 2014 Act made doctors, landlords, teachers into immigration officials.

Yet what was the House of Commons debating yesterday?  Anti-Semitism.  No Jew in this country is in danger of being deported or deprived of cancer treatment because of their immigration status. The Go Home vans were directed at Black not White Jews. Anti-Semitism is the false anti-racism of the Right.  It is a debate which was proposed by the government for nakedly political reasons, i.e. to attack Corbyn knowing full well that traitorous Labour MPs would join in.

The Zionist MP for Liverpool Wavertree, Lucian Berger in her speech about ‘anti-Semitism’ called for the expulsion of Ken Livingstone, who more than any other single individual pioneered anti-racism in local government.  What is his crime?  To mention the fact that during the 1930’s the Zionist movement collaborated and worked with the Nazis. This is a verifiable historical fact as Zionist historians, from David Cesarani to Lucy Dawidowicz and Hannah Arendt testified. 
Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews.  Livingstone has never uttered an anti-Semitic phrase in his life.  Livingstone is hated for his support of Palestine not because of anti-Semitism.

Only a few weeks ago Luciana Berger, a former Director of Labour Friends of Israel and today Presidednt of the Jewish Labour Movement, revealed a six year Facebook post about an old mural, long erased.  Her only purpose was to attack Corbyn and help the Tories in the local elections. The sooner she is deselected the better.
This is the real racism - Home Office vans sent into Black areas of Britain with the message you're not wanted
Berger has a history of making false allegations of anti-Semitism from her student days.  She is a seasoned Zionist operative who makes herself out to be a martyr.

Equally as appalling was Ruth Smeeth MP who staged a tantrum at the Chakrabarti Press Conference when she falsely accused Black anti-racist Marc Wadsworth of anti-Semitism.  If you want to know about real racism, then you should have tuned into tonight’s programme on BBC1 about the death of Stephen Lawrence 25 years ago.  Stephen was an innocent Black teenager waiting for a bus who was cruelly murdered by White racists.  Marc Wadworth was interviewed about the police racism which allowed the murderers who killed this 18 year old Black teenager to go free. Marc is facing expulsion next week by a racist Labour Party which prefers US Intelligence Asset Ruth Smeeth over a Black anti-racist activist.

Ruth Smeeth, who got a standing ovation from the Tories and Labour’s Red Tories told the House of 10 messages she received.  I  publish them below.  Of  the 10 just one, the last, was explicitly anti-Semitic.  Of the other 9, possibly 2, numbers 5 and 9 are implicitly anti-Semitic.  No. 4 was sexist.  The others might be termed abusive but they are not anti-Semitic.  No doubt they have been chosen with care.  Telling Smeeth she is ‘cancer of humanity’ or that she  is a Zionist is not anti-Semitic.  They may be unpleasant but Smeeth, a defender of Israel’s shooting of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children is also unpleasant.
Albert Thompson - denied treatment for cancer of the prostate because of Britain's racist immigration laws
It’s about time we said it loud and clear.  There is no evidence that anti-Semitism is on the increase in this country.  No one has died from a social media post or tweet.  There are no Jewish Stephen Lawrences.  There are no Jewish Windrush members who are facing deportation.  This ‘anti-Semitism’ is an entirely bogus and fake exercise.

It isn’t just the Labour Right who go in for this nonsense.  Eleanor Penny, in the ever worthy but infinitely boring Red Pepper tells us thatMany people are genuinely worried about the rising tide of antisemitism in this country – and rightly so’ and that ‘We need to confront the growing problem of antisemitism across the political spectrum.Jewdas, Corbyn and the policing of Jewishness

I realise that people on the left, from the breathless Penny to the SWP need to pay homage to the idea that anti-Semitism is on the increase but there are no signs of it.  Anti-Semitism is not a form of state racism.  The state spends millions of pounds protecting Jewish schools from a non-existent threat whilst patently failing to defend mosques from fascist attacks.

I feel like the boy who declared that the Emperor had no clothes. There is no doubt that Israel’s best friends in Eastern Europe – the governments of Poland and Hungary – are anti-Semitic. Poland’s Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz asserted that the Czarist forgery, which Hitler swore by, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. Hungary’s newly elected far-Right Prime Minister Viktor Orban has promised to rehabilitate Admiral Horthy, the pro-Nazi ruler who presided over the deportation of half a million Jews.  Orban however is best friends with Netanyahu, both of whom hate that archetypal Jewish financier who pulls the strings, one George Soros.  But the British press who are so opposed to ‘anti-Semitism’ have also attacked Soros, the ‘puppet master’, in anti-Semitic terms.

There is also no doubt that Trump and his entourage use anti-Semitic dog whistles when the occasion arises.  As Dana Milbank said in the Washington Post, Anti-Semitism is no longer an undertone of Trump’s campaign. It’s the melody.

However this kind of anti-Semitism, the kind that hates Jews, is not up for debate in Parliament.  What Luciana Berger, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann are most concerned about is the type of ‘anti-Semitism’ that involves hatred of Israel’s murderous system of Apartheid.

Tony Greenstein

Ruth Smeeths 10 ‘Anti-Semitic’ Message

1.             Hang yourself you vile treacherous Zionist Tory filth you are a cancer of humanity
2.             Ruth Smeeth is a Zionist she has no shame and she trades on the murder of Jews by Hitler who the Zionists betrayed
3.             Ruth Smeeth must surely be travelling first to Tel Aviv with all that slush after all she’s complicit in trying to bring Corbyn down
4.             First job for Jeremy Corbyn tomorrow expel the Zionist Bicom Smear Hag Bitch Ruth Smeeth from the Party
5.             This Ruth Smeeth is Britanaphobic we need to cleanse our nation of these types #JC4PM
6.             Deselect Ruth Smeeth asp Poke the Pig get all the Zionist child killer scum out of Labour
7.             You are a spy You are evil, satanic, leave #Labour #Corbyn
8.             Ruth, you are a Zionist plant, I’m ashamed you are in Labour, better suited to the murderous Knesset, #IsupportKen
9.             Your fellow traitor Tony Blair abolished hanging for treason.  Your kind need to leave before we bring it back #Smeethisfilth
10.         The gallows would be a fine and fitting  place for this dyke piece of Yid shit to swing from
 (those in bold are anti-Semitic or likely to be)