On
her blog we learn that Karen Glaser is ‘an experienced journalist’ whose ‘journalism has been syndicated
internationally.’ This perhaps tells us more about
the standards of journalism today than the quality of Ms Glaser’s output.  Karen tells us that she writes on relationships
and Jewish matters
and that she has been a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle, which is not encouraging
given the decline in the latter’s circulation and its role as a Zionist megaphone.
She boasts that the guests on her Guardian podcasts have included David
Aaronovitch and Melanie Phillips, which hardly gives us much confidence in
her claim to be a left-wing British Jew. But perhaps she means a ‘left-wing’ Zionist
which is an entirely different thing. In short Karen is just the kind of tame
establishment journalist that The Staggers loves to indulge.

The
New Statesman, which used to consider itself on the left, has been second only
to the Guardian in its venomous attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and its indulgence of
his Zionist critics (for example the abysmal article
by the Jewish Labour Movement’s Mike Katz and Adam Langleben on why they supported
the IHRA). My attention was drawn to what must count as just the most trivial article
I have yet read of the anti-Corbyn genre. Ms Glaser’s Why
I kicked my boyfriend out at 2am over anti-Semitism in the Labour party. It
is the Zionist equivalent of Freddie
Starr Ate My Hamster and bears about the same relationship to the truth.

Apparently this tragic lonely heart had been
in a relationship with ‘Sean’ for some 9 months before discovering his ‘anti-Semitism’. He is you understand a
Corbynite and these people are nothing if not clever and devious.  Presumably he hid his anti-Semitism under
the bed sheets for all of the 9 months until Karen had her epiphany.  Or perhaps he pretended he was a Tory? We have
Karen’s assurance that Tories are never anti-Semitic so it’s no wonder that
Karen was fooled by this dastardly swine.

Apparently Sean ‘gestured in exaggerated fashion’
to her many possessions. “Well, your life
looks OK to me,” which is proof that she had been sharing her most intimate
secrets with Himmler’s bastard offspring. How dare the upstart suggest that
Karen’s life is a bed of roses when anyone can see that it consists of tears
and strife, toil and trouble to say nothing of public self-humiliation. She had
clearly been in bed with an anti-Semite if not a fully fledge Nazi. It is one of life’s wonders that Karen is not suffering from PTSD.

When
told that she seemed to be comfortably off Karen, sharp as a button, responded
instantly that “Lots of Jews had nice
apartments in 1930s Berlin,” and we all know what happened to Germany’s Jews.
What an insensitive soul she had shacked up with not to realise that Corbyn’s
Gestapo was about to nationalise her flat whilst putting her in ‘protective
detention’ along with all those other Jewish capitalists.

Karen
you understand was doing her best not to appear to be the ‘hyperbolic Jew of anti-Semitic ridicule.’  Rest assured Karen, only an
anti-Semite could possibly suggest that you were exaggerating your pain, being hyperbolic
or behaving like a typical JAP (Jewish American Princess).  After all, everyone knows that Momentum’s
uniform includes regulation jackboots for the day when Fuhrer Corbyn takes
control.

Karen
tells us, in one of those romantic moments that we all treasure, that ‘I really liked’ Sean.  After this public drubbing you wonder what
exactly it was that she liked about him, apart from having the patience of a
saint or two. You get the feeling that it might have been preferable to have had a relationship
with a tarantula rather than take the risk of being Karen’s consort.

And
when Sean told Karen ‘that Labour’s
anti-Semitism had been massively overstated, that it was essentially a tawdry
attempt to smear Corbyn’ you could have heard a pin drop. Its akin to
taking communion and drinking the blood of Christ naked or even worse, eating a ham sandwich in an Orthodox synagogue (which the Jewish anarchists used to do!).

However
Karen, a woman with a permanently shimmering halo,‘took a deep breath and answered him properly.’ as one should of
course though one suspects that she must have considered reaching for the
rolling pin.  Our Jewish heroine ‘explained to my lover that this is no
laughing matter’.

Here
we have an existentialist clash of love and life. When the jackboots are on the
doorstep, the last thing you want is for your lover to question your fears of an
imminent demise.  Karen was, in essence, a budding Jamal Khashoggi.

Karen patiently
explained ‘that there is a consensus
across Anglo-Jewry that there is a serious problem of anti-Semitism in Labour’.
 And where there is a consensus there is
eternal life and truth. Clearly this ingrate, who one assumes isn’t even Jewish,
was incapable of demonstrating even the slightest empathy with Karen’t horrible
predicament.

At
this point I feel duty bound to point out that Israel was founded in order to stop the
Karens, Beckys and Sarahs of this world bedding down with shegetzes. For
those who are unacquainted with these things let me explain that the shegetz like its female counterpart, the
shiksa, is derived from the
Yiddish word sheketz, which roughly
translated means an abomination, an
unclean thing, a detested thing.  Rabbi
Jack Abramowitz described it as “simply
indefensible”, “inherently condescending, racist and
misogynistic”. Nonetheless non-Jewish boyfriends are inherently risky.

However
I digress. Karen is nothing if not broadminded and despite being a Zionist had
no objection to having a shegetz for
a partner. One can only hope that she has learnt her lesson and that in future
she keeps it in the tribe. If she were in Israel she would be known as a
trollope and worse. Miscegenation is taken seriously in the Holy Land because
it isn’t so much a question of religion but racial purity whereas in the
diaspora these things are only too common.  50%+ of American Jews ‘marry out’. 

Karen
whose patience is one of the most loveable things about her, tried to explain
to this non-Jewish parvenu that ‘if Tory
politicians had done half the things to any other ethnic group that Corbyn has
done to the Jews, leftists would be baying for blood.’

Now
I know that the anti-Semites who read this blog will probably scoff and chuckle
at this but Karen has a point. In fact a number of points. After all it is well
known that when it comes to ‘other ethnic
groups’ the Tories are a model of British tolerance and good manners.
Indeed the party of the grisly May has never, as far as I am aware, ever
advocated discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, race or
sexual orientation. Enoch Powell is but a distant memory.

Yes
I know that the Tory party are in alliance with a range of anti-Semitic parties
(at least 3 – Swedish
Democrats, Poland’s
Law &; Justice and Latvia’s
Fatherland and Freedom Parties) – in the European
Conservative and Reform group in the European parliament.  Of course Tory
MEPs voted
to defend the anti-Semitic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a
vote of censure recently. But quite rightly Karen would have dismissed this as totally
irrelevant.  She’s
not talking old-fashioned anti-Semitism i.e. hatred of Jews she is talking
Israel and hatred of Zionism.

The
Windrush
scandal was merely a figment of someone’s imagination.  ‘Hostile
environment’ policy? That’s just another name for global warming.  Stop and search? That’s just the Police being
helpful to Black kids who’ve lost their way in life. Black deaths in
custody?  Well everyone has got to die
somewhere.  Clearly Karen has got a
point.  If other ethnic groups had
suffered  a fraction of what Jews have had
to put with under Corbyn, that pound shop British Goebbels, then us leftists
would have risen up.  It could well have turned
into another Peterloo such would have been our anger.

And
when Sean asked, ‘as Corbynistas always
do’ what Corbyn had actually done, then Karen went through her ‘grim list’. 
And for the doubting Thomases here let me assure you that the list
is indeed Grimm as in Grimm’s Fairy Tales. 

Having
been provoked, beyond endurance, by her non-Jewish lover, Karen let forth:
There was his absurd claim that Hamas and Hezbollah ‘are dedicated to peace and justice’ when we all know that it was Hezbollah
which invaded Israel in 1982 and again in 2006. 
Indeed this terror group occupied a large swathe of land in Northern
Israel for years with a puppet Zionist in charge. As for Hamas, we all know
what they are capable of.  They even send
forth hundreds and thousands of demonstrators to the fence with Israel with
strict instructions to get themselves killed, forcing the poor Israeli boys to
do just that.  Because as we know ‘Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of
the Jews’ (it doesn’t!) and it would seem the destruction of the
Palestinians too. Then there is Corbyn’s defence of the blood libeller Raed
Salah (again not true but what’s a lie between lovers?) to say nothing of his
membership of Facebook groups ‘where
deeply anti-Semitic posts are the norm’ (also not true) and ‘his siding
with those behind the now infamous Nazi-style mural showing hook-nosed
anti-Semitic caricatures, getting rich on the backs of the world’s poor.’ The
latter refers to a mural of 6 bankers, 4 of whom were non-Jewish, none of whom
had a hook nose. Why let a few facts come between lovers?

Of
course there will be some cynics reading this who will be credulous at this
point but I ask you to restrain your laughter. 
This is a serious and difficult matter for Karen who ‘tried to explain to the man with whom I’d
just shared my bed just how painful this all was.’ Anyone with an ounce of
sensitivity will by now realise the difficulty poor Karen was in.  The conflict between her love and lust for
Sean and her horror at his clear anti-Semitism posed a dilemma that no woman should
have to undergo.

Karen
however was nothing if not patient with her errant Sean.  She explained that in the past decade some
40,000 Jews had emigrated from France to Israel.  Of course, like all Zionist statistics this
is somewhat misleading. After the murder
of 4 Jews in the Hypercacher supermarket in 2015 Israel did its best to
stimulate the emigration of Jews. 
Netanyahu came over to Paris to tell the Jews there that their ‘real
home’ was Israel but not only did they not come in the expected numbers but
of those who did come ‘many of them are
also returning to France in greater numbers’ according to Andy
Semotiuk. Zionism’s answer to anti-Semitism has never been to fight it but
to do what the anti-Semites want, which is to leave and set up their own racial
state. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2014 there were
6,547 Jewish emigrants from France and in 2015, despite the Charlie Hebdo and
Hypercacher murders the number rose only to 6,628. In 2016, the number dropped
to 4,239 and in 2017 there were only 3,157. In the first five months of 2018
there were just 759 emigrants. In short there are lies, damned lies and Karen’s
statistics. Why
the Expected Wave of French Immigration to Israel Never Materialized

Karen,
whose patience with her shegetz, was
almost superhuman, explained to the anti-Semitic misfit that ‘mocking Jews when they call out
anti-Semitism, is analogous to white people telling black people they are
imagining their experiences of racism.’ Well put. Read from the crib sheet
with perfection. The only problem is that Jews in Britain are White not
Black.  Not only White but the most
privileged section of the White community in terms of socio-economic status. It
was noticeable that in all her examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ none of them
actually related to anything that has actually disadvantaged British Jews.  They all related to Israel. Strange that.

Even
worse poor Sean then blurted out that ‘Jews
have money, don’t they?’ whilst hastening to reassure Karen that he wasn’t
talking about her.

By
this time, you will understand that Karen Glaser had just about had enough of Sean
and quite understandably she exploded. Anti-Semitism in her boudoir was really
too much. Since Jews don’t have saints, one almost wonders whether Pope Francis
might help out and canonise the Blessed Karen Glaser.  I realise that you have to be dead before the
process of beatification begins but I’m sure that Karen, halo intact, could be
made an exception. She patiently told the miscreant that:

‘the point is
that anti-Semitism is never about Jews and the actual lives they lead, and one
of the central tropes of anti-Semitism is the pernicious association between
Jews and money. It never, ever goes away. For many on the left this means that
the Jews can never be oppressed or exploited but are, in fact, the source of
others’ oppression and exploitation. That’s why Corbyn couldn’t see anything
wrong with that vile mural. It matched his world view.

You
will understand I am sure the magnitude of young Sean’s offence. Indeed I am
surprised that Karen didn’t pick up her phone, dial 999 and report him for a
hate crime.  I should imagine that 6
months in the clink might be the best cure (since being deprived of Karen’s
nocturnal favours probably won’t be punishment enough).

Before
m’lud pronounces sentence it is probably fair to quote a couple of Jewish
experts who can be witness to Sean’s anti-Semitic crimes.

The
first is William
Rubinstein, a past President of the Jewish Historical Society. In his book The
Right, Left and the Jews, (Croom Helm, 1982) Rubinstein writes that

the
rise of Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status has led to the near disappearance of
a Jewish proletariat of any size : indeed the Jews may become the first ethnic
group in history without a working class of any size…. it has made Marxism,
and other radical doctrines, irrelevant to the socio-economic bases of Western
Jewry, and increasingly unattractive to most Jews.

While there have been many wealthy and powerful Jewish
individuals and dynasties throughout modern history, only since the 1950s has
Western Jewry as a whole risen into the upper-middle class. And the
Jewish proletariat transformed itself into a near-universal Jewish
bourgeoisie.’ p. 51

Perhaps we should quickly pass on since
it’s obvious that this Rubinstein fellow is also anti-Semitic. How about the
much more reasonable Geoffrey
Alderman, who is a right-wing columnist for the Jewish Chronicle?  In his book ‘The Jewish Community in British Politics, Clarendon Press 1983,
Alderman writes (p. 137)

the tendency for British Jews to be found in the higher
social classes is very evident. In 1961 over 40 per cent of Anglo-Jewry was
located in the upper two social classes, whereas these categories accounted for
less than 20 per cent of the general population. The electoral consequences of
this trend become clear when it is remembered that , at the time of the 1964
general election which Labour won, three -quarters of the top two social
classes supported the conservative party.

Hmm. Maybe not. So it seems that not
only is Sean right about Jews being more prosperous than the average Gentile
but we have also stumbled on the real reason why so few Jews vote Labour today.
Nothing to do with that left-wing Adolf Corbyn. 
It would seem that it’s no longer in their interest to do so, as just
about anyone who has lived in a Jewish community will tell you. They are
insufferably bourgeois.  It was not for
nothing that in Thatcher’s constituency of Finchley Jews constituted one of her
main support bases.

The ever patient Karen, who truth be
told wanted to hang on to Sean if at all possible, then got on to the IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism. I know what some of you malcontents are going to
say. That people like Geoffrey Robertson QC have slagged
it off as being not fit for purpose
but as Karen explained the IHRA

‘was written in response to this hatred, a definition to
help European police forces and prosecutors better understand it. That’s why
the Labour Party’s refusal to adopt it in full for so long caused huge hurt and
pain.’

And nothing defines our Karen so much
as pain.  Her article oozes the stuff.
The fact that the IHRA mentions Israel more than Jews is completely irrelevant.
Its sole concern is anti-Semitism. After all it’s a Working
Definition on Anti-Semitism and has been for the past 14 years. What
further proof do you need of its relevance than the fact that all those Tories
support it? There is barely an anti-Semite in the world, Orban, Trump, Netanyahu,
who doesn’t support it.

Up piped our irrepressible Sean ‘“Britain has hate speech and
anti-discrimination laws.  Why do Jews
need additional protection?” A good question you might think but I beg you
to understand that this last, flippant comment was what we in the trade call
the straw that broke the camel’s back (if comparing a Jew to a camel isn’t anti-Semitic).

You will now understand why Sean’s
insolent and brazen refusal to emphathise with his erstwhile lover led to the
breakdown of a beautiful relationship. One can only imagine the pained
expression on Karen as she barked ‘I think
it’s time for you to leave’.

As St. Karen of Golders Green explained
to The Stagger’s readership

‘Corbynistas’ standard response to Jews is that they know
their claims of anti-Semitism are false and that they make them to smear the
Labour leader. Of course this doesn’t explain why this woman threw her (now ex)
lover out of her freshly painted flat at 2.30 am.’

Never a truer word spoken in jest.  Karen is right. Sean’s impudence doesn’t
explain why ‘this woman’ behaved as
she did.  I can only presume it was a
product of the fact that for all her wittering about ‘anti-Semitism’ she could
not explain how it was that anti-Semitism had only risen since Jeremy Corbyn
had become leader of the Labour Party and why Tory links with genuine anti-Semites
never seemed to get a look in.  Or indeed
why, if Labour was indeed anti-Semitic 
it was the papers of the Right, like the Daily
Mail, the paper that supported Hitler in the 1930’s and which opposed the
immigration of Jewish refugees from Nazism, who were hottest on Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’.

There is only one moral one can draw
from this story and it is an old one.  Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Karen
Glaser deserves to be scorned and treated with complete disdain and contempt
for the dishonesty of this account, from beginning to end. If it did indeed
occur then we can rest assured that it is a parody of the breakdown in her
relationship with ‘Sean’.  I suspect,
like the odyssey of the Children of Israel in the Sinai desert it is a comfortable
myth which hides more than it reveals about Karen’s personal life.

It would of course be interesting to
hear Sean’s account of this fairy tale but for the New Statesman to do that would
be to break a habit of a lifetime.  It
would mean conceding a right of reply to someone who had been abused and
traduced. Even if his name has been changed there is no doubt that there will
be people who know of Karen’s ex-partner and will think worse of him as a
result.

However that is as nothing when one
considers that Sean should count himself extremely fortunate to be free of this
hectoring, bullying, self centred and superficial woman. That she is probably
typical of British journalists and the staff on the New Statesman is indeed a
cause for reflection if not concern. Pundits and commentators today are little
more than prostitutes doing their proprietor’s bidding. Their opinions are for
sale and any journalist with an independent streak is unlikely to gain and
retain employment on most newspapers.

I can think of just two, possibly
three, journalists who retain any credibility or independence today.  Patrick Cockburn,
the legendary Robert
Fisk and John
Pilger. The first two are employed by The Independent and
Pilger has no regular paper.  Instead we
have a succession of mediocrities flitting between The Guardian, New Statesman
and BBC, none of whom challenges the neo-liberal view of the world that sees
capitalism as a good thing and inevitable and which is incapable of marrying up
things like poverty, global warming and climate change with the social and
economic system that produces these phenomenon.

Perhaps I have wasted too much time on
Karen Glaser, who is really just an insipid and insignificant reflection of
other peoples’ thoughts. Someone who retails hasbara
 as her own original thought and whose
view of the world is coloured by her own perception of her ‘oppression’.  At the end of the day Karen Glaser’s article
says as much about the editors at the New Statesman as it does about her.

Below is a letter I rushed off to the New
Statesman. It will not of course be published.

Tony
Greenstein

[email protected], [email protected]

Attacking
Jeremy Corbyn for ‘anti-Semitism’ is of far more interest than an article
explaining why Donald Trump, Israel’s best friend, bears the political and
moral responsibility for Pittsburgh

Or why Karen
Glaser’s boyfriend should count himself extraordinarily lucky to have escaped
the clutches of this stupid woman

New
Statesman Limited
John Carpenter House
7 Carmelite Street
Blackfriars
London EC4Y 0BS

Dear Editor,

Are there no
limits to the New Statesman’s shallowness?  It seems that the Staggers is
determined to plumb the depths of the sewer in order to attack Jeremy Corbyn.

Even by your
abysmal standards ‘Why I kicked
my boyfriend out at 2am over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party’ reaches new
heights of absurdity.  We expect this kind of trivia from the
Establishment’s Guardian but is this all
the New Statesman can contribute? A sly and snide article signifying nothing
other than your own miserable fury?

Simple
questions such as why is it that ‘antisemitism’ is of such a concern in the
Labour Party at a time of the ongoing Windrush scandal (i.e. real and genuine
racism) are too much for you. Or how about asking why it is that the Tories’
alliance with 3 antisemitic parties in the European Parliament – the Swedish
Democrats, Poland’s Law & Justice Party and Latvia’s Freedom and Fatherland
Party – is of such little concern? 

Of course I
understand that the habit of Latvia’s MEP Robert Zile in marching alongside the
veterans of Latvia’s Waffen SS each March is not in the same league as Corbyn’s
iniquities but then we have Israel to defend.

Saying that
Jews have money i.e. they tend to be privileged is clearly more important than Tory
MEPs voting to defend the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban. After all
Orban is best friends with Benjamin Netanyahu, even if Holocaust survivors picketted him when he
paid homage at Israel’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem in July. 

The fact that
Orban described the pro-Nazi ruler of Hungary during the war, Admiral Horthy,
as an ‘exceptional
statesman.‘ pales into insignificance compared to Corbyn’s mural. Presiding over
the deportation of half a million Jews to Auschwitz bears no comparison to
meeting with Hamas and, god forbid, Hezbollah.

Let us not
get hung up on the little white lies that Karen Glaser managed to insert into
her article.  Raed Salah has always denied the blood libel allegation and
it is interesting that the Jerusalem magistrates court acquitted him of this accusation
before the higher colonial District Court overturned his acquittal. Or that the
famous mural did not have any hook nosed Jews in it.  Or that Hamas
has changed its Charter but that in any case when Israel commits mass murder in
the name .of ‘the Jews’ it is unsurprising that they might consider their enemy
‘the Jews’.

Even stranger
how these genocidalist anti-Semites condemned the murder of Jews at Pittsburgh.
But why should you let facts get in the way of your campaign against Corbyn?

The New
Statesman was born in the womb of Fabian imperialism.  Trusteeship rather
than exploitation was its watchword.  Hence why it was an early supporter
of Zionism. However under Lord Passfield and Clement Attlee Fabian imperialism
demonstrated that it was no different to that of Tory imperialism. 

Karen
Glaser’s boyfriend should count himself extraordinarily lucky that he has
managed to free himself from the clutches of this stupid woman.

Tony
Greenstein

Tony Greenstein