web analytics
October 20, 2014 / 26 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Labor Party’

Someone Else Will Pay

Friday, December 28th, 2012

From 1977 to 1980, BBC One ran “Citizen Smith,” a TV comedy about an aspiring young revolutionary who wore a beret and a Che T-Shirt and did his best to create a Communist Britain while heading up the Tooting Popular Front, consisting of six members, by virtue of shouting “Power to the People” and making up lists of the people he would put up against the wall on the day of the glorious revolution.

This is finally Citizen Smith’s time where the lazy and cowardly aspiring revolutionary can create his own Tooting Popular Front, camp out in a public park for a few months, and earn generous media coverage. And for those too lazy to camp out in the spring and summer, there’s always hacktivism, the truly lazy man’s revolution, download a denial of service program, aim it at a site and watch it go down for a minute, an hour, or perhaps even a day or two.

Social media is full of Citizen Smiths, dressing up in Che avatars and shouting their “Power to the People” slogans in 140 characters or less. And these Citizen Smiths are taken seriously by their older peers in the media who have had their own days of pretending to be Che and now just pretend to be journalists. While the Citizen Smiths create their fake revolution, the grown-up Citizen Smiths show up to cover it, in the great battle for a Communist Britain, America, Australia and also all the rest.

There is a great deal of hard work ahead, such as deciding who to put up against the wall first. Everyone has agreed on the rich, the dreaded 1 percent, except presumably for those 1 percenters funding the revolution and paying the Citizen Smiths who work for NGOs and come up with new social media engagement strategies to tackle economic disparities and that sort of thing.

The Citizen Smiths who speak on behalf of the 99 percent of Tooting have won their great victory in the last election through the wallets of such champions of the working class as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros and several thousand other billionaires and millionaires, quite a few of whom also fancy being Wolfie Smith more than they want to play the top hat guy from Monopoly. They have struck a blow against the influence of money on politics from some billionaires on behalf of the influence of money on politics from other billionaires.

And with the 1 percent safely disposed of, at least aside from the 1 percent that is running the show and turning the Citizen Smiths from clowns smoking on their girlfriend’s couch while drawing up plans for revolution, into men and women sitting in posh offices in corporate towers delegating the drawing up of those plans to subordinates who can actually draw, the revolution marches on.

In Austria, an Australian Professor teaching Musicology, put up his own list of who to bop bop bop when the day of the glorious revolution comes.

“Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it,” Professor Parncutt wrote, “If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint.”

Parncutt’s sainthood may prove somewhat difficult to achieve considering that the people he proposed to put up against the wall on the glorious day include the Pope and his closest advisors, along with prominent critics of Global Warming, who will be put on trial before an international tribunal of qualified scientists, and then be given an opportunity to recant and have their sentence reduced to life in prison. Some modern heretics however would, in Parncutt’s words, “would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed.”

It’s easy to laugh at Citizen Parncutt’s proposal to bring back heresy trials staffed with modern scientists, but who knows by 2050, when scavengers digging through the rubble around what used to be London, come across a copy of Parncutt’s brilliant manifesto, they will hop on their donkeys and deliver it immediately to the Eco-Pope who will proclaim Parncutt a saint right before the Saracens storm through the barricades.

Even now the difference between Parncutt and a lunatic is that much of the infrastructure to make Citizen Parncutt’s dreams a reality already exists. There are international tribunals and an entire political and media frenzy declaring that global warming is the greatest threat of our age. We snicker at fools who took the Mayan apocalypse seriously, but people who would never hide out in a basement because of some ancient prophecy listen to media buffoons drawing up lists of what parts of the world will be underwater in ten years or twenty and take the whole ridiculous thing seriously.

Parncutt wants you to know that he is not by any means a monster. He opposes the death penalty for murderers, even those like Breivik. It does no good to kill the people who have already killed, our Citizen Parncutt explains, what he would like to do is kill the people who have yet to kill but whose ideas the moral musicologist has decided are deadly.

Such is the humanitarianism of the true progressive who will not kill a serial killer, but will kill those who are truly dangerous. “The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive,” Parncutt explains, and he will have no truck with barbarically expensive racist death penalties, the only people who truly deserve to be killed according to him are those who, like the Pope and Global Warming skeptics, whose views differ from his own so dramatically that they must be killed to save lives.

“The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for Global Warming deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions,” Parncutt writes. “Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.” Naturally. Citizen Parncutt is not motivated by such petty emotions. His revolutionary will-to-kill is as pure as the driven snow.

The good thing about a number as high as one million is that you can kill any number of people if you set the number of people you want to save high enough. If Parncutt were to kill 999,999 people to save 1,000,000, he would still have saved net one person and be ahead of the saint game. And then in 2050 when historians wondered why the Parncutt Popular Front was allowed to pile up all those corpses, the response will be that it was a matter of numbers. They started small and then kept going because they had so much room to spare with all those zeroes and before they knew it  they were only a few corpses shot of the big one million. But luckily they stopped with one man to spare and are considered heroes.

“The fact is that Socialism, in the form in which it is now presented, appeals chiefly to unsatisfactory or even inhuman types,” George Orwell wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier, essays meant to be a defense of Socialism, but showing the strains that would eventually lead him to transform Ingsoc, or English Socialism, into the greatest fictional tyranny in modern literature, “all that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking towards the smell of ‘progress’ like bluebottles to a dead cat.”

There are more cats and bluebottles than ever. Orwell’s description of the Socialist crank now describes the mainstream leadership and a sizable portion of the base of every ruling lefty party you can think of, including the one ensconced in the White House, while shouting about class warfare and power to the people, while pocketing the allowance money from billionaires that allows them to win elections.

Economic crises and crises of all sorts bring their sort out to play more than ever. The children of the 1 percent wear buttons boasting that they are the 99 percent. Every global problem from terrorism to ethnic cleansing is explained purely in economic or environmental terms. And the people playing Citizen Smith and drawing up their lists of who to plant up against the wall are, as Orwell wrote, are not out to join “a movement of the masses”, but to enact “a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’.”

The “hypertrophied sense of order” from Orwell’s Socialist “with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation” can be found just as easily in Citizen Parncutt as in Citizen Smith or Citizen Obama. It should not be confused with competence or practical skill, the only area the Smiths ever achieve any skill in is yelling from stepladders about a revolution until they find enough sheep to drive ahead of them to the polls or the battlefields, but with the sort of half-grown men who draw up lists of all the people they’ll kill to make the world a better place.

Their sense of order does not extend to actually making the world a better place, but of matching up their inflated sense of self-importance with the power to impose their own whims on the world for their own emotional satisfaction.

“I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it,” Professor Parncutt writes. “And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy?” And just to make certain that you give the right answer, he adds, “I don’t think so.”

Crazy is a judgement call. In 1956 drawing up plans to have some international body execute scientists for questioning the interpretation of global temperature readings would have been crazy, but in the age of Citizen Smith it may no longer be. Hitler and Goebbels were both completely insane, and yet they were perfectly adapted to their time and place. They were lunatics, but it was a time when sane men wanted lunatics to tell them what to do and who to kill.

At the tail end of the ’70s, Citizen Smith was a joke, but at the dawn of the 2010s, he is an institution, the head of an NGO, a member of the board of a dozen foundations for social and environmental justice, and perhaps even a cabinet minister. Joschka Fischer went from Citizen Smith in the 70s, clubbing police officers and consorting with terrorists, to the Vice-Chancellor of Germany in the oughts. Obama went from Community Organizer Smith in the 90s to the White House in even less time.

This is the age of Citizen Smith. The age of the lazy, egotistical, cowardly, spiteful and petty man of the people, who prefers to avoid the people. This is the age of the 1 percent revolutionary playing the 99 percenter. This is the age of the enemies list, when their work within the system has paid off and it’s time to make someone else pay.

“On these streets of no solution/Where the gutters run with tears/I will lead my revolution/I’ve been revolting here for years/‘Cos I’m a people’s man,” went the words to the closing song of Citizen Smith, “On the glorious day/Someone else will pay/On the glorious day.”

The glorious day of the inglorious man is here. And someone else is paying. Any someone else who isn’t him.

Originally published at Sultan Knish.

It’s Official: Britain’s Muslim Population Doubled

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The national census for England and Wales has come out, and, as usual, this once-a-decade event has had all of its most significant points overlooked.

By any measure, what it reveals is a country undergoing seismic change. Over the course of a decade up to four million more people have entered the country to live. In the capital, London, people identifying themselves as “white British” have for the first time become a minority. Perhaps most strikingly, the national Muslim population has doubled.

This last fact is perhaps one of the least considered of the census so far. Doubled? Surely not. This has to be the claim of Mark Steyn or some other demographics-obsessed nut. Well no, it isn’t, and it is now official: between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim population of the UK rose from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. Otherwise put, that is an increase from 3 percent to 4.8 percent of the overall population.

If in 2001 the British Prime Minister had said to the British public that over the next decade he intended to double the number of Muslims in the country, he would most likely never have been returned to office. But of course he did not say that, any more than any of his successors or predecessors did.

For the last decade, every major politician has lied about this issue. While talking tough, about putting a cap on immigrant numbers, pushing people to assimilate and much else besides, they have done nearly nothing. For instance, ten years ago Home Secretary David Blunkett talked as tough as he thought he could, saying that migrants ought to learn English. His successor, Jacqui Smith, said the same thing five years later. As did immigration minister Phil Woolas a couple of years after that. Throughout the last decade the Labor government managed to do exactly what the Conservative and coalition governments before and after them have also managed to do: go as far as they thought they could in rhetoric while going wholly against what they said — and the wishes of the country — in actions.

Now we can see the fruits of their labors. The census reveals that three million people are now living in households where no adult speaks English as their primary language. As Labor’s Sadiq Khan has admitted, local councils have spent their money on translation services rather than language classes, thus actually dissuading people from learning the language. The result is communities with inter-generational language barriers. There are parts of London where a quarter of the people are in the same situation. They have created a society where many people can speak about each other but many cannot actually speak to each other. And all the while politicians and pundits are busy trying to pretend that this is all the most wonderful result imaginable.

The London Evening Standard welcomed the news that white British-born people had become a minority in their own city, and ran a lead opinion piece accusing anybody unhappy about the doubling of the number of Muslims of being “Islamophobes.” Since then, the comments have barely gotten more enlightened. The author Will Self declared on the BBC’s leading talk show Question Time that people unhappy about the direction Britain is going on are “racists.”

On the BBC’s Newsnight I sat alongside two very nice, wealthy, successful immigrants who explained how positive the census results were for Britain, showing a “diverse” and “multicultural” society. I was the only one of the four panelists to point out that this wave of immigration might have any negative effects. And the only one to point out that the strange thing about a “multicultural” society of this kind is that it can celebrate every imaginable culture other than the one which allows all these cultures to co-exist alongside each other. In other words, it is the center which is the only thing not being celebrated, and the center that is being consciously eroded. Worst of all is that this happened in defiance of the repeatedly expressed views – as tested time and again in nationwide polls – of the general public.

Of course much of this simply confirms what the last Labor government appears to have intended. Three years ago, in the Evening Standard, Andrew Neather, a former adviser to the Blair government, said that the huge upsurge in immigration over the last decade was in part due to a politically motivated attempt by Labor ministers radically to alter the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.’”

First Crisis for Yachimovich: Kibbutzim Threatening to Leave Labor

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

The kibbutz movement is threatening to sever its historical ties with the Labor Party before the upcoming elections. The reason: the recommendation of party Chair Sheli Yachimovich that in the primaries their sector will be unified with the moshavim sector.

The kibbutz and moshav movements have historically marked two distinct philosophies within the labor movement, and nowadays, despite privatization and many other changes both movements have undergone, they still view themselves as historically distinct and as such each deserving its own dedicated representation.

Should the Yacimovich proposal be accepted in a procedural vote at the party conference by the end of the month, it will guarantee both sectors only one Knesset seat, in place of the two seats which traditionally have gone to them. According to the kibbutz movement leadership, such a move may result in their abandoning the party with which they have been strongly identified over the years.

Hanik Marshak, secretary of the kibbutzim sector, was furious at the Yachimovich decision “We oppose such a move,” she told Maariv. “Consolidating seats might hurt the party in terms of its size and representation. The Labor Party should continue its tradition of many years and not change the procedure.”

Marshak also promised that if the issue is not resolved, the kibbutzim will consider the possibility of leaving the party. “We will assemble our sector’s institutions and come to a decision,” she said.

A source inside the Labor party estimated that if it loses the kibbutzim votes, this will mark the first crisis under the leadership of Yachimovich.

Today, according to estimates, the kibbutzim sector within the Labor party holds about 7,000 registered voters. In past years, the same sector boasted as many as 15 thousand voters.

Last election the Labor Party lost its traditional control over the kibbutzim to Kadima. Labor, then still under the leadership of Ehud Barak, received the support of 30.6 percent of the kibbutzim voters, compared with 31.1 percent that went to Tzipi Livni’s party.

An old joke best explains the distinction between a kibbutz and a moshav: if a kibbutznik had enough, he’ll probably move to a moshav (easier communal rules); but if a moshavnik had enough – he sure as heck is not moving to a kibbutz (even more stringent communal rules).

Now it appears the entire kibbutz movement might be moving – but probably not to a moshav…

Lord Nazir Ahmed Suspended from Labor Party for Offering £10m Bounty on Obama, Bush

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

Back in 1998, Lord Nazir Ahmed, 53, became the first Muslim life peer (appointed member of British nobility whose title cannot be inherited, as opposed to hereditary peers). Now he is reported to have said: “‘If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the (capture) of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10 million (for the capture of) President Obama and his predecessor, George Bush.”

Lord Ahmed made the comments at a conference in Haripur in Pakistan.

A Labour Party spokesman said to the Telegraph: “We have suspended Lord Ahmed pending investigation. If these comments are accurate we utterly condemn these remarks which are totally unacceptable.”

According to Pakistan’s Express Tribune, Lord Ahmed offered the bounty after hearing that the US had issued a $10 million reward for the capture of Pakistani terrorist leader Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba group, who it suspected of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people died as terrorists stormed hotels, a train station, and the local Chabad House. Six Jews were murdered in that attack, including Chabad emissaries Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg.

Lord Ahmed, a native of Pakistan, became Baron Ahmed of Rotherham at the age of 40. According to the Telegraph, in 2007 he objected strongly to awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, because the author had “blood on his hands.”

In 2009 Lord Ahmed was jailed for getting into a fatal car crash while texting. The Court of Appeal later suspended his 12-week jail sentence.

Shalit Says Knesset Run Won’t Involve Gilad

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012

Noam Shalit said he would not involve his son, freed soldier Gilad Shalit, or the rest of his family in his run for the Knesset.

Shalit held a news conference Tuesday, a day after announcing that he would run for a spot on the Labor Party’s list for the next election.

Labor Party leader Shelly Yacimovich at the news conference at the party’s headquarters in Kfar Saba told reporters that she had asked Shalit to run after they had discussed the possibility for the last month.

Some politicians and organizations who worked with Shalit during his son’s five-year captivity in Gaza have criticized him for capitalizing on the ordeal to build a political career.

“The voters can decide whether or not what I’m doing is right,” Shalit said. “I understand the criticism, which was expected and is legitimate. The timing of my decision is a result of the current political situation, which created a window of opportunity to run that may not have existed in a year or two.”

Shalit laid out his political views, including two states for two peoples.

Shalit said that Gilad is “recovering” from his ordeal and is “looking forward to his future.”

Gilad Shalit’s Father to Enter Politics

Monday, January 9th, 2012

Noam Shalit, father of recently-freed IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, informed Labor party Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich that he will run for a slot on the Labor Party list in the next elections. Yachimovich welcomed his decision and said she is “convinced that he will greatly contribute to Labor as a Knesset Member.”

Israeli Left Goes Bonkers Over Transparency

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

You will be excused if you have not been following the debate over proposals to demand that sources of funding for political parties and activist groups be revealed.
 
In Ireland.
 
Curiously, it is the Sinn Fein Party there that is demanding reform. Actually, this is not so unusual. Lots of democracies require disclosure of financial support from outside the country for political groups operating therein. The United States requires that such groups register as agents for foreign entities. Aside from Israel, I doubt any country has allowed funding from abroad for seditious groups supporting the enemies of their country in time of war.
 
What a difference between the debate in Ireland and the bloodcurdling hysterical rhetoric of the Israeli left, led by President Shimon Peres, against the proposals to investigate and expose funding sources for the anti-Israel activist groups operating inside Israel. Even the left wing of the Likud, led by Dan Meridor, has come out in opposition to the investigation.
 
The intervention by Peres against the legislation is notable because he himself is hardly a neutral observer. His own left-leaning Peres Center is financed by members of the European Union and other foreign interests.
 
The Israeli left is taking to the streets and to the newspapers. A few days ago a demonstration by leftists against the proposal was held in Tel Aviv, complete with PLO flags and anti-Israel banners. The demonstration was sponsored in part by the Israeli communist party, so you can see how devoted the demonstrators were to freedom, democracy and pluralism.
 
Now even Prime Minister Netanyahu has been cowed into changing the proposal. First, instead of investigating the funding of leftist seditious groups operating in Israel, the Likud government proposes symmetric scrutiny and investigation of funding for groups of both the left and the right.
 
Second, Netanyahu turned the rewrite of the proposed law over to an open agent of the New Israel Fund. Since the New Israel Fund was probably the main group the law’s initiators wanted investigated in the first place, this is a bit like allowing Tony Soprano to conduct his own RICO investigation of organized crime.
 
The rewrite of the law has been handed over to Isaac “Buji” Herzog, a Labor Party stalwart and son of the late Israeli President Chaim Herzog. Until a few days ago he was the Labor Party minister of welfare in the coalition government. He is now a member of one of the three factions left over from the breakup of Labor after Ehud Barak and four others quit its ranks.
 
Public opinion polls show Herzog as the most popular of the leaders of the rump Labor Party, and he is generally respected more than the other Labor lightweights. But he also has a long track record of working with the New Israel Fund. Last year he led the campaign to demonize critics of the New Israel Fund as “McCarthyists.” More troubling, he himself was involved in the recruitment of foreign tainted and illegal funds for various front groups set up in 1999 that were involved in the Mugabe-style campaign finances of Ehud Barak.
 
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the demand that groups from the right also be subject to a bit of financial transparency and accountability. But the symmetry already conceded by Netanyahu is intolerable and out of place.
 
NGO groups of the right operating in Israel are not actively attempting to achieve Israel’s demonization or even annihilation. They have their own platforms, with which you are free to disagree or agree.
 
But the far left is composed of groups that are seditious and actively seeking to harm Israel. Many persecute innocent Israeli army officers, collaborate with terrorist groups and with the enemies of Israel (like the flotilla terrorists), support the worldwide boycotts against Israel, collaborate with anti-Israel figures like Goldstone, endorse forms of treason such as advocating the Palestinian “right of return,” promote refusal by soldiers to serve in the Israeli military, and openly identify with Israel’s enemies.
 
The Israeli left and its amen chorus outside Israel are trying to misrepresent the proposal for transparency of finances as an assault against nice caring “human rights” groups in Israel, claiming it is because Israel fears having its “war crimes” revealed. These are ordinarily the same people who posture their devotion to transparency and open government – in fact, they are the same people who celebrate the WikiLeaks leakers.
 
But the reality is that these far-left “human rights” NGOs generally support the enemies of Israel even during time of war. They refuse to acknowledge that Jews are entitled to human rights – certainly not the human right to walk down the street or sip coffee in a cafe without being murdered. Many have never heard of a Palestinian terrorist atrocity they wish to denounce.
 
And to make matters worse, many of these same leftists are whining that the proposal to require transparency in their finances is undemocratic and contrary to freedom of speech. But these are the very first people to demand that non-leftists in Israel be stripped of their rights to freedom of expression. These are the first to insist that every denunciation of left-wing sedition is in fact “McCarthyism” and “fascism.”
 
These same leftists led the massive McCarthyist assault against freedom of speech for non-leftists after the Rabin assassination. These are the people who regard the expression of any opinion with which the Israeli communist party might disagree to be “racist” and to constitute “incitement.”
 
Not a single one of them has spoken up on behalf of the right of settlers and right-wingers to express themselves. Not a single one has spoken out against the selective misuse of Israel’s idiotic “anti-racism” law to harass non-leftists while there has yet to be a single case in which that law was used to indict Arabs or leftists for anti-Jewish bigotry.
 
Arabs and leftists in Israel can cheer and justify mass terrorist attacks against Jews. That is not racist. Left-wing professors at Ben Gurion University may wave banners (as they recently did) in Arabic, saying: “In spirit and in blood we will redeem thee, Palestine” and “A Thousand blessings to the shaheed suicide bombers.” That is not racist either.
 
But wives of Israeli rabbis suggesting that Jewish girls not date Arab men may soon be facing criminal indictment for “racism.”
 

Of course, we all know what happens to any Arab women who date Jewish men, but their “honor killings” and mutilations do not count as “racist” either in the minds of the caring left.

  

 

   Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at the University of Haifa. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted at steveneplaut@yahoo.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/israeli-left-goes-bonkers-over-transparency/2011/01/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: