Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Harry Potter and the Ziono-Hollywoodists

Another installment in my "why not let these people have a nuclear weapon, what can possibly go wrong" series.

This is a clip from a December 15th documentary screened by IRINN, the Iranian News Channel. Its theme is how the Jews, battling for world supremacy, are using Harry Potter as a tool.

Sample quote:

The Harry Potter film series reached the cinema  following the success of the Zionist propaganda machine which made this little known author and her book famous......It can be viewed as a compilation of secrets and of theories used by the Zionist media.....

And then there is this observation:

The Zionists support Harry Potter because he is the promised Messiah.

Anti-semitism in the gym

Depressing but sadly unsurprising.

The rise of anti-semitism

This morning's Independent provides a wonderful/terrible little example of how anti-semitic ideas are casually entering the mainstream.

Its Pandora diary column reports on a mild speech clanger by the Southampton football star Matt Le Tissier:

The former Southampton and England midfielder was to present an award to Tottenham Hotspur's manager Harry Redknapp, but not before an ill-judged wisecrack prompted collective jaw-dropping around the room.

"I always enjoyed playing at White Hart Lane," said Le Tissier of his time at Spurs, the London club whose Jewish fans make up a large proportion of its support. "It was the only place where I felt I didn't have a big nose."

Then the Independent diary makes this extraordinary statement:

The gag is unlikely to endear Le Tissier to the Jewish lobby.

The Jewish lobby?

The Jewish lobby is the least of Le Tissier's problems. Because I understand that while the Jewish lobby was miffed at him, the Zionist conspiracy and the Elders of Zion are furious.

When anti-semitism needs a spell check

(Hat Tip: Richard)

Hamas TV and the Holocaust

We may have the fourth season of the Apprentice.  But meanwhile on Hamas TV ...

And I'll huff and I'll puff....

When I read this story:

A children’s story based on the tale of the Three Little Pigs was rejected for an award after judges became concerned that it would offend Muslims.

I knew it sounded familiar. Then I remembered.

Shortly after Disney released the original Three Little Pigs cartoon in 1933, Rabbi J.X. Cohen, the director of the American Jewish Congress wrote complaining that a scene depicting the wolf as a peddler was anti-semitic and that, especially in light of what was happening in Germany at the time, the offending scenes should be removed.

Roy Disney, Walt's brother, replied that the scene was not anti-semitic, merely vaudeville.

But when the film was later re-released, the scene was re-animated. What you see now is the doctored version.

There is nothing new in the affairs of man.

Dawkins on the power of the Jews

I have just come across the most extraordinary statement by Richard Dawkins. It is right there on the Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it. Here it is:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. 

Chris Dillow manages some elegant reflections on social proof.

All I can manage is Oh My God.

UPDATE: Click here for an elaboration on this post

Jew kills Mickey Mouse

The good news - Hamas children's TV has finally dispensed with Farfour, its Islamist Mickey Mouse.

The bad news - here's how they did it:

How best to respond to the Israel boycott

The fine piece by Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz on the Israel boycott in this morning's paper is even finer online.

We've produced a 3,500 word version of their oped which includes an excellent description of the circumstances in which an academic boycott could be justified.

But at the end of 3,500 words one is left with this question - how should one respond?

The boycott motions are the work of a handful of left activists. They are totally unrepresentative of their members and even their members aren't all that representative of their profession (at least in the NUJ's case). The motions won't actually do anything. So wouldn't the best thing be to ignore them?

No.

Tempting though it is just to yawn and turn the other way, the motions have to be fought. The boycotts are an attempt to anchor Israel in the minds of the public as similar to South Africa and an illegitimate state. Once this impression is allowed to take hold, the only argument one can have is how bad Israel is compared to South Africa, and the best one can hope for is to move it a little down the scale.

In other words the debate is lost before it begins.

The other day I interviewed the Leader of the Opposition David Cameron at a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch. "Are you a Zionist?" I asked him. It is a symbol of just how far we have come in this debate that his affirmative answer was considered brave and risky.

In Israel, some are considering retaliation. A boycott of a British touring party starring in the ABBA musical Mama Mia, for instance. Or putting a label on British goods reading "These goods come from a boycotting country".

This would be very foolish.

To treat every British person as if they were responsible for the boycott is deeply wrong. And dangerous. if you lump every British person together a solidarity with the boycotters might be created.

No, the only way forward is through careful argument and efficient organisation. A long slog, but the only alternative.

Are many anti-Zionists really just anti-Semites?

Howard Jacobson deals brilliantly with the question:

It is, anyway, a red herring. I am tired, myself, of deciding who is and who isn't. Anti-Semitism, when all is said and done, is not the only crime on the block. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a blackguard. And you certainly don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a fool. Boycotters assure us of their innocence of anti-Semitism as though that settles once and for all the question of their intellectual and moral rectitude. Some have even stopped dressing like Palestinians (seen as marginally compromising of their impartiality the last time round) and started paying reverential visits to Auschwitz. Since we are demonstrably not Jew haters, these new recruits to Jewish anguish ask us to accept, since we are neither Nazi sympathisers nor Holocaust deniers, our credentials are in good order. But it isn't quite as simple as that.

The rest of the essay is very powerful too.

(Hat Tip: The great Dizzy)