“–
Did you hear that Jeremy Corbyn, in a speech in 2013, said that British
Jews weren’t really British even if they were born there?

Last week Richard Millet became the
hero of the BBC and the media ratpack in their war against Jeremy Corbyn.  Millett appeared on the BBC’s 6 O’Clock News
last Friday as a victim of ‘anti-Semitism’. Millett was even the cause of a
splutteringly dishonest Leader in The Times last Saturday ‘Labour’s
Moral Vacuum’.

What was the cause of this rise to
media prominence? At a Palestine meeting in Parliament in 2013, which
he tried to disrupt, Millett was told by Jeremy Corbyn that he should study some
history and for good measure get a grip on English irony. For
these mild comments, The Times attacked Corbyn as ‘straightforwardly antisemitic’. ‘

According
to The Times Corbyn ‘used the word “Zionists” as a synonym
for “Jews” and as a term of casual abuse.’ which is a good example of how the sins of the British
press are visited on their victims. It is The Times and the rest
of the yellow press which can’t distinguish between ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’. The
Jewish Chronicle’s far-Right editor, Stephen Pollard also asserted
that ‘the Labour leader
‘used the word “Zionist” obviously to mean “Jews”. There is
nothing obvious about this at all of course. 
Corbyn was careful to distinguish between Jews and Zionists, unlike the
Jewish Chronicle.

Richard Millett is one of the best known
Zionist thugs and bully boys amongst a group of Zionists whose sole purpose is
to disrupt Palestinian and anti-Zionist meetings in London. In December 2017 I
did a feature
on 31 of these Zionist fascists, misfits and assorted thugs.

Richard Millett was number 13 on the list and
the piece on him was accompanied by a picture of him with Paul Besser, former Intelligence
Officer for the neo-Nazi Britain First group. So much for his opposition to
anti-Semitism! Absurdly the Times article
quotes Millett as claiming that he was frightened of recriminations if Corbyn was toppled
as a result of the row. “I don’t know
what will happen,” he said. “I am
scared on a physical level and the Jewish community is upset about what they
see is happening. I think we are all scared.”  Likewise the Mail claimed
that Millett and the Jewish community was ‘scared on a
physical level’ because of the false accusations of Labour anti-Semitism.

Millett and  fellow Zionist thugs
and fascists demonstrated
with Tommy Robinson’s Football
Lads Alliance at the Al Quds demonstration last June yet they have the
chutzpah to claim they are physically frightened of their opponents! It is a
sign of the degeneration of the British press and the BBC that they take these
claims at face value without even doing a cursory investigation into their background.

On Millett’s blog there
is a piece about him being evicted from the Commons in April
last year. Both Millett and the Daily Mail’s reporter Jake Wallis-Simons lied, stating
that Millett was evicted by “armed
police“. This is untrue. 
According to a witness I have spoken to the following was actually what
happened:

The incident happened just a few weeks after a
policeman was murdered at the House of Commons. There was an increased armed
police presence.Mark Hendricks MP called the
police (he did not ask for “armed police” as Millet implies. Because
of the increase security immediately after the murder an armed police detail
was closest and first to arrive. However, and this is what is important, the
armed police explained that they would not remove the disrupters and called for
regular police to deal with the situation. I was there and clearly heard all
this as Millet also did.

In the original Mail
on-line story by Jake Wallis Simons last Thursday Corbyn is quoted as
saying that

‘[British Zionists] clearly have two problems. One
is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country
for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English
irony either.’

This apparently is anti-Semitic
according to the paper
which supported Hitler before the war! 
Clearly Zionists don’t want to study so much as rewrite history and
their appreciation of any form of irony is close to zero.

Although
the Mail does not mention Millett the video link is from Millets
blog where he is seen and heard shouting throughout. The DM journalist, Jake
Wallis Simons, is a virulent Zionist who is close to Mandy Blumenthal, organiser for the far-Right semi-fascist Herut group who featured at Number 28 on my list of Zionist fascists.
Wallis-Simons is the go-to guy for Blumenthal whenever she or the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism want
publicity about emigrating to Israel, anti-Semitism etc.

What the
BBC, the Mail and The Times didn’t tell their readers was that
Millett has been banned, along with Jonathan Hoffman, for harassing people at Amnesty
International events as the 3 videos I am putting up show. Millett is clearly no shy and fearful Jew in these videos, rather a loud mouthed
bully.

Although
Millett claims his concern is with anti-Semitism he has demonstrated, like most
Zionists, that he has no objection whatsoever to anti-Semites who are
pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. Millett is like Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard, who once wrote that Polish anti-semite Michal Kaminski MEP was ‘one of the greatest friends to the Jews ‘ 

Eight years
ago there was a campaign in London against a shop Ahava in Covent Garden.  It sold stolen products from the West
Bank.  We picketed it every other week
and eventually they were evicted from the premises because fellow shop owners
were fed up with the constant pickets.

Israeli shop assistant accuses demonstrators of Killing Jesus to Millett’s approval

Millett was
active, with Jonathan Hoffman in supporting the shop. In the course of a
demonstration one day, a staff member at the shop accused Jewish protestors against the shop of
being ‘Christ killers’ and when asked to explain this remark she
said that it was ‘because you are Jewish’. What was
the reaction of Richard Millett to this vile anti-Semitic trope, an accusation
that has led to thousands of Jewish dead in Easter pogroms? An accusation which
was at the heart of Christian anti-Semitism for centuries?

Did Millett demand that the woman be sacked for antisemitism from what is after
all an Israeli shop?  We are always told that Israel and Jews are one and the same! Not a
bit of it.  In a blog Ahava’s
female staff suffer continued bullying Millett’s concern was about the
‘bullying’ of the anti-Semitic shop assistant. In fact this like much else that
Millett says was a lie.  The staff were never targeted. It was the shop which
was the object of the demonstrations not
the staff who worked there.  Millett told his readers that:

As you can see at the beginning
of the video the woman is angry that the activists are now specifically
targeting her!

Her apparent remark about Jews
killing Jesus (although, no where in the footage do we actually hear her say
that) is a remark to a male, Jewish activist who spends large proportions of
his sad life hanging around outside the Ahava shop.

This is disingenuous as we can clearly hear in the video a Jewish
demonstrator asking why she had called them ‘Christ killers’. She didn’t deny it.  Her response was ‘Because you are Jewish’ thereby accepting that this was what she
said. There was therefore nothing ‘apparent’ about the remark.  Millett clearly has no problem with anti-semitism when it is directed at the ‘wrong sort of Jew’.

I don’t blame her for an
off-the-cuff remark when confronted by a group of bullies.

It was an ‘off the cuff remark’ as was Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion that he brush up on his history and English irony.  However Corbyn is the worst anti-Semite since Adolf himself according to Millett and the Zionist chorus in the press. 

Thus we see
that the only concern of Millett is
to protect an Israeli shop, trading in the stolen minerals of Palestine, from
being closed down.  Anti-Semitism is only
a useful propaganda tool for this racist thug.

In my post of
this incident Zionists
Defend Ahava Staff Who Accuses Jews of Being ‘Christ Killers’ I noted that
the accusation of being a Christ Killer was at the heart of some of the most
bloody pogroms and violence against Jews. 
Norman Cohn in Pursuit
of the Millenium wrote that:

‘For
generations the laity had been accustomed to hear the Jews bitterly condemned
from the pulpit – as perverse, stubborn and ungrateful, as bearers also of a
monstrous hereditary guilt for the murder of Christ.’ p.77 (my emphasis) 

Abe Foxman as
ardent a Zionist as anyone was quite clear about the implications of accusing
Jews of being Christ Killers. In
his talk, ‘Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the
Christ:” Could It Trigger Anti-Semitism?’ Foxman, speaking as the National
Director of the ADL on February 6, 2004 at Palm Beach, Florida stated that:

‘For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization,
four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: “The Jews
killed Christ….

For hundreds of years those four words – acted out,
spoken out, sermonized out – inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and
expulsions.

Hitler, in 1934, visited the Oberammergau Passion
Play, and when he left, he proclaimed (and I paraphrase): “The whole world
needs to see this Passion Play, for then they will understand why I despise the
Jewish people.”

Many during the Holocaust who killed Jews from
Monday to Friday went to church on Sunday and there was no disconnect for them,
because, after all, all they were doing was killing “Christ killers.”

So when the press report that Millett was upset by Corbyn’s ‘antisemitism’ we should take this with a very large dose of salt.

The concern
of the Daily Mail and The Times about anti-Semitism contrasts with their
indifference to racist violence against Muslims, Gypsies and other minorities
in this country.  The same Daily Mail
which employed
Katie Hopkins who described migrants as “cockroaches” is apparently concerned with
‘anti-Semitism.  

The Mail’s concern didn’t extend to anti-Semitic attacks on Ed Miliband, Labour’s Jewish leader, because
of his Marxist father, Ralph Miliband or his inability to eat a bacon sandwich, stands in
contrast to their record in the Hitler era. 
The Daily Mail’s support for the British Union of Fascists, Hitler and
its opposition to the immigration of Jews from Nazi Germany is well known.  See for example When
the Daily ‘Hate’ Mail Supported Hitler

What is less
well known is that The Times, throughout the period from 1933-39 was not only
an advocate of appeasement of the Hitler regime but that its editor Geoffrey
Dawson adamantly refused to cover the growing persecution of Jews in Germany. Dawson
was a member
of the pro-Hitler Anglo-German Fellowship which was a Tory pressure group formed
by influential personalities in British society, among them the banker and
industrialist Ernest Tennant, a ‘personal
friend of Joachim von Ribbentrop, then ambassador of the Third Reich in the
United Kingdom.’ In 1946 Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremburg having been
found guilty of war crimes.  Amongst
other things The Times supported Himmler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in
Czechoslovakia as part of the appeasement of Hitler.

Will
Wainewright, in his book Reporting
on Hitler: Rothay Reynolds and the British Press in Nazi Germany described
how Times  reporter Norman
Ebbutt struggled with his editor, Geoffrey Dawson, ‘who agreed with his chums in clubland that Britain had to be at
peace with Hitler’. Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Churchill wrote in Prophet of Truth: Winston S. Churchill,
1922–1939 (London:
Minerva, 1990), p. 850  how Dawson
explained to Lord Lothian on 23 May 1937:

“I should like to get going with the Germans. I
simply cannot understand why they should apparently be so much annoyed with The
Times at this moment. I spend my nights in taking out anything which I
think will hurt their susceptibilities and in dropping little things which are
intended to soothe them

So when we hear The Times or the Mail
today telling us how aghast they are the ‘anti-Semitism’ of Jeremy Corbyn, when
we know that their attitude to the Roma, Muslims and refugees has not changed
one iota, it is fair to draw the conclusion that what they are concerned with
is not racism against Jews but opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. 

See also Skwawkbox’s article Two ‘zionists’ criticised by Corbyn called ‘rude yobs’ – by RIGHT-wing, pro-Israel Streeting on the time when right-wing MP Wes Streeting called Millett and Hoffman ‘rude yobs’ for trying to disrupt a meeting he was chairing on Palestinian human rights.

See below the full review of Will Wainewright’s book on Hitler and the British
press.

Reporting
on Hitler: Rothay Reynolds and the British Press in Nazi Germany by Will
Wainewright

Reviewed by Roger Boyes, February 18
2017 The Times

Put foreign correspondents together, beer in hand, and chatter will soon
shift from the news of the day towards the casual brutality of editors; their
failure to spot the significance of a story, their talent for inserting
precisely the wrong word in a crafted text. Editors, eh, don’t you just love
them.

In the 1930s a remarkable bunch of aggrieved reporters met at a Berlin
Stammtisch — a pub table reserved for regulars. The men from the Daily
Express and Daily Mail were saddled with intrusive proprietors who
thought Adolf Hitler was exactly what Germany needed. The reporter from The
Times

struggled with an editor, the Yorkshireman Geoffrey Dawson, who agreed
with his chums in clubland that Britain had to be at peace with Hitler. The Manchester
Guardian correspondent had no problems persuading his boss to publish
accounts of Nazi persecution, but try as he might could not talk him into an
editorial policy in favour of arming up for a war against the Third Reich.

The reporters saw what was going on around them in Germany — the Jews
humiliated and beaten on the street, the persecuted churchmen and communists,
the opening of the first concentration camps, the histrionic rallies — and
choked back their frustration.

It did not help that Gestapo snitches sat next to their Stammtisch. Or
when the Nazi foreign ministry sent a smooth official to their table to give a
positive spin on new restrictions on Jews.
“There are, I think, times when a correspondent should be a diplomat,” the
official told them.

Soon enough there wasn’t any need for these ghoulish visits. The Nazis
could count on the likes of Lord Rothermere. By the time Hitler came to power,
the Daily Mail proprietor had been running the paper for more than a
decade. One new sub-editor taken on in the late 1920s noted: “The day-to-day production of the paper was
carried on under the system of bullying and insult.”

Rothermere travelled to Germany in July 1933 and was entranced, writing
an editorial headlined “Youth Triumphant”. There was an unfettered national
spirit, soon Germany would rival Mussolini’s Italy as the best-governed country
in Europe. He struck up what he considered a friendship with Hitler.

Imagine then how the Mail’s Berlin correspondent, Rothay
Reynolds, must have squirmed. Will Wainewright tells his story in this
fascinating book, a short study in conscience denied. Reynolds is a distant
relative and Wainewright stumbled on a letter written by him after the outbreak
of the Second World War, by which time he was both safely out of Nazi Germany
and the Mail.

The story that emerges after a bit of digging is of a devout man, an
Anglo-Catholic who took Holy Orders, was sent as a young assistant chaplain to
the British community in St Petersburg, and after a while chose to become a
Roman Catholic. That meant leaving his job and since he was 33, good at
languages and Russia in 1905 was in ferment, he decided to become a stringer
for the Daily News. While there he befriended Hector Hugh Munro, the
writer Saki.

By the time he landed the job of Daily Mail reporter in Germany
in the 1920s, Reynolds had done some war work, writing propaganda fake news for
MI7, the disinformation wing of the Secret Service. The full scope of
Wainewright’s problem as a biographer becomes clear by this stage: Reynolds
arrived in Germany as a middle-aged man having, it appears, chosen to be a
foreign correspondent because it suited his solitary nature. We find out almost
nothing about him. There is a girl called Jane whose hand he touches, but
nothing comes of it. He may or may not have had dealings with the Secret
Service in Berlin. Faced with some of the most dramatic unfurling events in
20th-century history, he fails to find a journalistic voice.

And while, in hindsight, he can blame his lame texts on the bias of
Rothermere, it is also clear that he was a pretty duff reporter. When Hitler
launched a bloody purge of his brown-shirted colleagues in 1934, the Night of
the Long Knives, he swallowed the official version. “We were told for instance, that General von Schleicher, revolver in
hand, had tried to resist arrest and had therefore been shot down,”
Reynolds said years later after leaving the Mail. “In fact, the former chancellor and his wife had been murdered in cold
blood.” His piece in the Mail did not so much pull its punches as
give an ovation: “Swiftly and with
inexorable severity Hitler has delivered Germany from men who had become a
danger to the unity of the German people and to order in the state.”

Rothermere’s Führer-love bought access to Hitler, but he did neither his
newspaper nor his country any good. Had Reynolds been more gifted he might have
been able to find himself a niche between an overbearing proprietor and an evil
regime. Instead, he made some token acts of solidarity, publicly reciting the
rosary in the street, for example, but he did not distinguish himself.

Almost everyone seems to stand out more strongly
than Reynolds By contrast Sefton Delmer, of the
appeasement-supporting Daily Express, demonstrated some rat-like
cunning. Delmer arrives at the Reichstag after it has been set ablaze before
Reynolds, but after a reporter for The Times, Douglas Reed, who has just
been kicked out of the building by Hermann Goering. Delmer sees Hitler’s
Mercedes approach and enters parliament in the Führer’s slipstream, landing a
suspiciously long and coherent quote from him about setting the whole continent
ablaze.

Around the Stammtisch, almost everyone seems to stand out more strongly
than Reynolds. Eric Gedye of the Daily Telegraph, visiting from Vienna,
had few illusions about the Nazis. After his expulsion from Austria he started
work on a fiercely anti-appeasement book, promising the unvarnished truth. The Telegraph,
upset that he was going to criticise the paper (though it rar ely interfered
with his copy), sacked him. The paper said he had left by mutual consent. “That is correct,” said Gedye. “It is equally correct that Hitler invaded
Czechoslovakia by ‘mutual arrangement’.”

Reynolds’s real admiration was for The Times’s correspondent
Norman Ebbutt. The wrestling between correspondents, Dawson and some of the
leader writers about appeasement has already been well chronicled. Yet the
author has dug deep in The Times’s archives and come up with some
blistering reports.

Here’s Ebbutt on the 1936 “election” held just after Hitler had sent his
troops into the Rhineland, in breach of the Versailles Treaty. The work of the
Hitler regime, he said, had “been done at
the expense of freedom, truth and justice as these are conceived in the western
world, and some who feel bound to support the Führer tomorrow on the patriotic
issue will do so in fear and trembling that they are delivering Germany over to
a new wave of National Socialist fanaticism”.

That’s telling it as it was, even if that day’s leader struck a rather
more emollient note. Ebbutt was thrown out in the summer of 1937 (“By far the best correspondent here left this
evening,” wrote the American reporter William Shirer) and he was seen off at
the station by 50 correspondents who knew that their days were also numbered.
Wainewright doesn’t know if Reynolds was there. The Nazis had warned the
reporters not to give Ebbutt a send-off so perhaps Reynolds decided that
discretion was the better part of valour. That seems to have been his
watchword.