Oh all right, let’s talk about that mural then

March 26, 2018

by Martin Odoni

The largely-fictitious ‘anti-Semitism-in-Labour’ controversy is clearly never going to be allowed to die. I have no doubt more examples will be brought to public attention in the final days before the Local Elections in May, and most accusations will stem from heavily-distorted information, just as Mike Sivier can testify from what happened a year ago.

In case anyone is just back from a five-day holiday to Mars, the present storm of outrage is about a notorious mural on Brick Lane in London.

Mural

The artist who painted the mural is an American called Kalen Ockerman – alias ‘Mear One’. The mural is widely-held to be anti-Semitic in intent.

Back in 2012, there was a discussion on social media about having the mural removed. Jeremy Corbyn left a comment on the discussion thread defending its presence on freedom-of-speech grounds. This comment has ‘mysteriously’ been dragged into the cross-examination of the public domain just as the Local Elections campaign is getting under way.

Now, I really was not planning to comment on this, because frankly it was embarrassing that anyone thought it worth the nation’s time or attention. What Corbyn said six years ago about someone’s right to produce a slightly paranoid bit of artwork is not important. No, sorry, it really is not. James O’Brien (oh good grief, him again?) and Shelagh Fogarty may have thought that this business was worth top billing on their LBC shows today, but they are wrong. They should not have dignified it with their time, nor should the other hysterics across the media. The only reason I am even bothering to write about it is because individuals on social media – including the aforementioned O’Brien – have been complaining that Corbyn sympathisers are ‘more outraged’ by Owen Smith’s rebelliousness on Brexit than they are about anti-Semitism.

That accusation is rubbish, but okay, I will talk about the mural. And I will not just focus on how minor or old Corbyn’s ‘transgression’ is. I will also point out a detail that the critics refuse to acknowledge about the mural; –

It is not anti-Semitic.

No, I am perfectly serious, it really is not. Now, if a Jew wishes to argue with me about that, they are welcome to bring it on – the comments section is below. But I will not have the likes of O’Brien, or Fogarty, or any of a million other outrage-foam-at-the-mouths who are not Jewish telling me what is anti-Semitic or what is not. I am a Jew, and I have experienced the sharp end of real anti-Semitism first hand. I know the genuine article when I see it, and I also know a false alarm about anti-Semitism when I see it too. So you can stuff it if you are non-Jewish and you try to tell me which is which. The mural is not anti-Semitic, and this is why.

The rich men portrayed in the mural sitting around the Monopoly gameboard include the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs and the Morgans. The Rothschilds and the Warburgs are indeed Jews. But the others are not. They are portrayed in exactly the same light as the Warburgs and the Rothschilds, but this is not because of their ethnicity, but because they are all banking magnates. Their portrayal is not anti-Semitic, it is anti-plutocratic.

The pyramid in the background is often assumed to embody the legendary ‘Illuminati’, which is often thought to be an undercover world-controlling movement dominated by Jews. But again, this is not correct. The pyramid actually symbolises Freemasonry, and the widely-held (and possibly correct) suspicion that Freemasons often give each other un-earned ‘foot-ups’ up the hierarchy.

Freemasonry is not a Jewish movement.

How do I know that all of this applies to the mural? The explanation for that is shockingly simple; unlike the majority of pompous outraged attack dogs snapping at Corbyn’s heels, I bothered to read up on the history of the mural before passing judgement on it. One of the details I checked was what the artist had to say about it. Sure enough, Ockerman responded to the accusations of anti-Semitism back in 2012, and explained all of the above.

You might argue, “Why should we believe what Ockerman says?” but if you think about it, that really is a stupid question; if Ockerman had intended to stir up anti-Semitic paranoia by painting the mural in the first place, surely he would be defeating the object of his own exercise by then denying that the rich men in the picture are Jewish? (And be careful – if you see a picture of rich men with large noses and your immediate assumption is “Jews!!!!” that may say more about your own prejudices than it says about the artist’s.)

What astounds me is that the people who are steadfast in their certainty that the mural is anti-Semitic seem so confident that they know more about it than the person who bloody painted it in the first place! So much so, they never even thought to find out what the artist had to say. And James O’Brien has the nerve to lecture his listeners on being ‘rational’ when he makes an absurd leap-to-conclusions, probably a bandwagon fallacy too, on this scale? Not for the first time recently, I find myself saying, “Pull yourself together, O’Brien!

NB: Worry not, James, I do like you really, and I agree with far more of what you say than I disagree with usually, but you really have been suckered on this. I cannot believe you wasted ninety minutes of your programme today on this. It is a complete non-story.

It has been pointed out that the mural bears a passing resemblance to Nazi propaganda. I do see that, and I agree that it is unfortunate. But again there is a deafeningly-loud fallacy in the argument. Just because the mural has a resemblance to Nazi propaganda, it does not follow that it has to have the same meaning as Nazi propaganda. As I say, it does not. I find the reference to the Freemasons in the mural a bit paranoid, but the fundamental meaning of the picture is visibly anti-elitism, and there is no reason to assume that the plutocrats therein are Jewish. I mean, why is there no Star of David in the image?

(Jonathan Cook makes some more useful points about how doubtful and obviously-orchestrated this flare-up about the mural has been.)

Now as I say, this whole business has been a nonsense. Even if there were genuine anti-Semitic content in the mural, so what? It was years ago, and it was very clear that Corbyn’s comment was not meant as a defence of anti-Semitism. Now, how is a passing comment that Corbyn made six years ago on a bit of bizarre artwork suddenly so important that it takes priority over the Local Elections, over Conservative laundering of Russian finance, over Tory and pro-Brexit groups getting potentially-illegal help from Cambridge Analytica, the fantastic fraudulence of Jeremy Hunt’s untrue ‘pay-rise’ for NHS workers, the suspicious-looking miracle of only three people getting exposed to a lethal nerve agent in Salisbury and all of them so slightly that somehow none of them are dead almost a month later, the never-ending Brexit chaos, rampant child poverty… ? Good grief, I reckon even the ball-tampering scandal by the Australian Test Cricket team should rate as more of a priority than this! I mean, at least that happened this week! (Darren Lehmann and Steve Smith should be sacked, for what my view on that is worth, by the way.)

Of course, the answer to my question lies with the alternative topics I have listed. A lot of the media would like to talk about ‘anti-Semitism-in-Labour’ right now precisely because it blots out all these other matters. And sadly, even usually fairly sensible broadcasters and journalists, including O’Brien and Fogarty, have allowed themselves to get caught up in the tidal wave of rage.

No, Corbyn is not ‘comfortable in the company of anti-Semites’. No, the majority of the Labour left are not anti-Semites, not even a large minority of the Labour left are anti-Semites. Rather than being taken in by the huge number of accusations, what is needed is actually to study a lot of the accusations. Do so and you soon notice how absurd some of them are. Ask Mike Sivier about his ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’. No, I kid ye not, he really was accused of ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’ last year!

'Anti-Semtic punctuation' is now a thing.

Zionists are becoming such uncompromising censorship-trolls, they have now invented ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’. (Click here for more info.)

Ask Tony Greenstein (who is himself Jewish, but an anti-Zionist).

Ask Alan Bull.

Ask Jacqueline Walker, of course.

This whole controversy about anti-Semitism only started up in the aftermath of Jeremy Corbyn standing for leader of Labour, and the reason for it should be obvious; Corbyn is pro-Palestinian, and a loud critic of the way Israel treats the Palestinian people. The Zionist-Israeli lobby is terrified of the prospect of a UK Prime Minister who is pro-Palestinian, and so they are trying to isolate him by getting some of his most articulate supporters removed from the party. The Zionists, especially in the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, are perfectly happy to use false accusations in order to do so, knowing that they are unlikely to be held to account for doing it, as authorities fear the same accusations being re-directed at them.

What the Zionists are doing is corrupt and illegal. Instead of exposing this corruption, the media are allowing themselves to be pushed into playing along with it.

Labour were seven points up in the polls sixteen days ago, and the Local Election campaign began last week. This non-story controversy from years ago suddenly flares up now.

How is it that no one in the media is able to join such giant dots?

_____

MORE ON THIS HERE.

Advertisements

110 Responses to “Oh all right, let’s talk about that mural then”

  1. Terry Norman Says:

    Tory Akush board of Jewish Deputies abusing his position by using it to politically beat up Jeremy Corbyn with a pack of LIES

  2. sdbast Says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.


  3. BBC led on it on Today at 6am. I am disgusted and horrified.

  4. Arthur Powis Says:

    Thanks for a sane and sensible analysis.


  5. great comments. Thank you.
    Totally agree that the issue re- anti-zionist is not anti-Semitic needs publically challenging. Calling out the Israeli manipulations against Corbyn and others is needed and is not anti-Semitic.
    Can’t help wondering is another aspect of the timing of this is linked to JC wanting more care and honesty re-establishing who was behind the chemical attack – If we were in a parallel universe where it was a false flag attack, then if I was that false flag I would be worried at proper procedures that might uncover the true flag – so creating a smoke screen that also would make it much harder for anyone to point at me would be an excellent tactic – wouldn’t i
    t?


  6. Ken Livingstone was also right, here’s some info on Max Warburg from wiki, this backs up his claims that some Jewish people supported the Nazi’s in the early 30’s.

    Beginning in 1933, Max Warburg served on the board of the Nazi Reichsbank, reporting directly to Hjalmar Schacht, before emigrating in 1938.


    • The Reichsbank was not “Nazi” , it was a private bank that was also the central bank of Prussia from 1876. Max Warburg, like many German Jews, hoped that Nazism was a storm that would pass. He was forced off the board of the bank in 1935 and had to “sell” his German banking interests in 1935 as the Nazi’s “Aryanised” (i.e. stole) Jewish property at knock down prices, at which point, I assume, he left the board of the Reichsbank (I can’t imagine that he would have been allowed to stay under the Nuremberg laws). The Nazi’s took the bank under state control in 1937, and in the war it certainly became a Nazi bank. He fled Germany in 1938, otherwise he would have met the fate of other German Jews. It is an absolute disgrace that you say he supported the Nazis.

      I wouldn’t have Hjalmar Schacht round for tea, but he was not a Nazi. He was dismissed as head of the bank in 1939, clashed with various Nazis, was implicated in the 1944 Hitler assassination plot (whether this was a reality or not is unclear) and was sent of a series of concentration camps but survived. He was tried at Nuremberg but acquitted. So I am not sure what the relevance of him being President of the Reichsbank when Warburg was on the board is.

  7. Carol Milner Says:

    I’m quite pleased. I had no idea why the painting was supposed to be antisemetic, but thought that because I’ve only ever (knowingly) known one Jewish friend, I didn’t really understand what was anti semetic

  8. tomspence Says:

    Bravo! Other than the cricket thing- about which I have neither sufficient knowledge to form an opinion nor inclination to acquire it- I wholeheartedly agree with every word.

    If I may be so bold I would like to add the following points, however:

    – Firstly, there is one aspect of this debacle which I, as a non-Jew, believe to be undeniably anti-Semitic, however unintentional; that being Ockerman’s more reactionary facebook-published response to the mural being “buffed” [i.e. ‘old white Jews’… ‘their beloved Rothschild… Warburg’… ‘evil’… etc]. And I fear this lends credence to the notion that the original intention was anti-Semitic. Even so it is disingenuous of all concerned to pretend that Corbyn was in any way endorsing any such sentiment.

    Also, as a non-Jew I feel I must acknowledge my privilege and accept the view- albeit belatedly and in retrospect- that the image does have anti-Semitic undertones, even if I do not/cannot share the subjective viewpoint. I actually watched the footage of the mural’s creation at the time and had I noted any anti-Semitic intention or sentiment I would have turned it off. I watched again yesterday, with my privileged ‘blind spot’ accepted, and arrived at the same conclusion.

    I agree [sort of] with Corbyn’s critics when they say that he is uniquely positioned to challenge [actual] anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, but in the context of his popularity combined with his record on opposing anti-Semitism [and other forms of bigotry, of course] in thought, word and deed inspiring, educating and informing his “followers”.

    On the same token those critics claiming that he “personifies the problems and dangers of anti-Semitism” are dangerous charlatans, those arguing that he’s “sided again and again with anti-Semites rather than Jews” seem to me to be conflating anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israel/Knesset/Likud policy, while those promoting the idea that he has ignored the problem are engaging in what is little more than Orwellian double-speak.

    On that point, and lastly; I’ve noticed that, amid the tabloid hysteria and online feeding frenzy the findings and recommendations of Chakribart’s report have come under renewed attack- especially, and notably, by those opposed to the influence of civil liberties campaigners, and/or such an individual being in the House of Lords with an agenda for democratic reform.

    In her defence I contend that while the findings and recommendations may fall short of some peoples’ expectations- and for perfectly legitimate reasons- no other major political party, or leader, has instigated an internal inquiry on the issue of anti-Semitism, or any form of bigotry for that matter, even though all of them contain members and representatives with less than desirable opinions within their ranks [the Conservative party especially].

  9. royboxer Says:

    Reblogged this on royboxer and commented:
    Jeremy Corbyn is too nice, is he going to fight back, why is he letting them lead the agenda. If Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic, this Jewish boy will eat his Kippah if I had one.


  10. and Today on about it again this morning, at 7 and 7.30. Long interview with Lord Levy and Long Bailey (“defending” the Labour Party). No counter to the charge at all, no questioning of whether the mural was in fact anti-semitic. Long Bailey appeared to go along completely with the attack. I do hope someone has a plan!


  11. I’m 66 and I’ve never seen such a co-ordinated attack on any politician in this country ever. Three weeks ago JC was a Czech spy, two weeks ago he was Putin’s stooge and this week he’s a raving anti-semite, with each story being heavily promoted in the media way beyond its actual value. I can draw only one conclusion; the establishment is terrified of a democratic socialist government in the UK. I’m not a Labour party member by the way.

    One other comment; please do something to make your comments section readable instead of having to squint to try to understand it.

  12. Frank Fitzsimons Says:

    Excellent work. No doubt this will be used in Media Studies for years to come.


  13. As an experienced family therapist I knew said on more than one occasion, “Context is everything.” As pointed out in the analysis above, very clearly this is in the context of the local elections, possible scandals about Tory party funding and other behaviour of the Right which is questionable to say the least. As for Tony Blair getting involved the anagram of, “Tony Blair MP” says it all, “I’m Tory Plan B!”


  14. What do you make of Jeremy Crobyn’s statement on the 24th of March?

    ““In 2012 I made a general comment about the removal of public art on grounds of freedom of speech. My comment referred to the destruction of the mural ‘Man at the Crossroads’ by Diego Rivera on the Rockefeller Center.

    “That is in no way comparable with the mural in the original post. I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I wholeheartedly support its removal.

    “I am opposed to the production of anti-Semitic material of any kind, and the defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of anti-Semitism in any form. That is a view I’ve always held.

    “The Tower Hamlets mural I celebrate is the one which commemorates the mobilization of East London’s Jewish community in the anti-fascist demonstrations against Mosley’s Blackshirts in Cable Street in 1936.””

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      I disagree with him on it. I think he may have retreated on the matter because he was swayed by the outrage, which he shouldn’t have done. But again, it’s not that big a deal.

    • Lisa Hughes Says:

      He’s basically damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t – if he’d come out and said ‘well, my comment was on censorship of art and only that, not on the content of the piece, I’m sure everyone would agree that censorship on the basis of ‘that makes me feel a bit icky and i don’t know why’ is a very dangerous path to go down’ do you honestly think it would have been allowed to rest at that?

  15. John Court Says:

    At last a commonsense approach to to the actual facts.and not the fantasy created by the Tory run Media.


  16. Thank you for this, I didn’t know anything about the whole situation or why the mural was deemed ‘anti-semitic’. However, I listened to James O’Brien and for the second time felt he had the totally wrong end of the stick, but sadly was beating anyone who dared defend the image with it.. I thought Corbyn’s initial comment was more about freedom of speech/expression too. This is totally about unseating Corbyn, why else bring this up now? I have never seen someone personally/politically attacked as much as Corbyn.. The country needs someone as strong as him as PM.

  17. screaminkid Says:

    Great read and actually well researched? Amazing as so much is just opinion without any facts at all? Totally agree that this is a Zionist smearfest aimed at Corbyn and supported by Torylite Blairites who shud hav been deselected?
    Freemasons are a much more dangerous element than we think?

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      The sad thing is, it wasn’t particularly hard to do the research. But very few in the media i.e. the people who are supposed to do fact-checking for a living can be bothered to do it.


  18. Agree with this article. The real problem with Corbyn is his active support for terrorists and that is what we should be concerned about.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Oh yeah? WHICH terrorists?

      Please, don’t bother to say “The IRA, Hamas, or Hezbollah”. Those rumours have been debunked for YEARS.

    • tomspence Says:

      Anybody who pretends to be concerned about Corbyn’s associations, yet fails to condemn past and present government’s connections to, support for, and/or arming of dictators and dictators [Pinochet, Botha, Hussein, bin Laden, el Sisi, al Khalifi, Modi, Xi Yingpin, al Salman, Duterte, et al, all of which Corbyn opposed] and the aiding and abetting of murderous Wahhabi/Salafist militias [Mujihadeen, al Qaeda, Taliban, Nusra Front, Libyan Islamic Fighter Group, et al, all of which Corbyn also opposed] is a rank hypocrite, their opinion worthless.


  19. Excellent article thanks! The attack on the Left is visible all over Europe. I wonder whether this smear campaign will really hurt Corbyn, though? People must have seen The Lobby from Al-Jazeera in the UK, no? The author here is a a very important voice in these dangerous times, when so much more is at the stake than the symbolism of this mural. #IStandWithJeremyCorbyn The only politician who takes a stand against foreign intervention and is not licking the boots of anyone. A true rebel with a cause.


  20. Thank you for this article about the mural. So badly needed. When I first looked at the mural and was asked to believe that all the men portrayed were “obviously” Jewish, I was very puzzled. I also thought all the imagery needed a lot of research. You have a done a lot of it. Big thanks.


  21. Nothing to say but Thank You for explaining. You also echoed my thoughts but put it so much better than I could. Hope you don’t mind if I share far and wide?


  22. excellent article, thank you,

  23. Edward Kolawole Says:

    I was just as surprised when I eventually saw the mural. What was anti-semitic about powerful rich men who own and run the world being depicted in this way. Are these not established facts?? Try visiting the open Coltan and diamond mines in the Congo and Sierra Leone or the sewing of clothes in Bangladesh, Indonesia. I would like an explanation of what aspect of the mural can be linked to NAZI propaganda? I don’t see nothing! I would also like to know how one suffers from antisemitism and how it is manifested and applied?

  24. Roy Anderson Says:

    The Labour mp’s who shout “Corbyn is an anti Semite” should really scream out “We hate Corbyn and all he stands for”. That at least be more truthful. Wheeling out anti Corbyn propaganda every time an election is looming shows just how weak and feeble they really are.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      It’s the way they keep imagining they’re fooling anyone that gets up my nose. It’s so obvious what they’re doing, I feel insulted when they think everyone believes them.

  25. Lainey Arthur Says:

    Thank you. The BBC did zero investigation on this last night. They just accepted what they were seeing without question. They didn’t explain the organisations behind the protest, or who was at the protest. How many were Labour Party Members? and if not Lab Party Members, why were they there? What was the evidence that convinced those people to protest? The BBC didn’t interview anyone who had personally witnessed anti-semitism. Of course anti-semitism is disgusting and must not be tolerated but we are really no wiser about how much of it there is in Labour (I’ve never witnessed it). Also as rightly pointed out, zero political context given to this story on the News..

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      You raise the key point there. *I* have never witnessed any anti-Semitism in Labour circles either. My mother joined the Labour Party in 1967. She has never witnessed any anti-Semitism in the party in all that time either, and as I have been on the periphery by extension for over 40 of those years, if it was really prevalent, I’m sure I’d have picked up on it. Even if the anti-Semitism rise were only a recent phenomenon with the ‘Corbyn Surge’ of 2015, again, I don’t see how my family could have missed it so completely. Add in the various examples of clearly absurd accusations raised as cynical smears, and there is a very substantial doubt that the problem of ‘Antisemitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ is anything like as huge as the media are painting it.

      This is not to say that there aren’t substantial numbers of anti-Semites now in the Party, I’m sure there are hundreds, and yes, that’s hundreds too many. But that’s a very, very small proportion given the party presently has 600,000 members.

  26. conchubour cruadhlaoich Says:

    Clear piece..

    We need to openly talk about trolling, triggering known securities to enervate emotional reactions that either disrupt evidence led discourses or influence the targets behaviour… as a tool of political practice…

    It is grooming. Pure and simple. My recent blog covers this.

    It is abusive, invasive and in politics, potentially lethal.

    People’s lives matter.

    We are seeing the blatant use of manipulation as a societal reveal right now, and that is a good thing. And we need to get on top of it, pronto.

    The media will not desist, so we must disable the triggers, the trolling, the vulnerability in ourselves, and within our communities..

    Shouting ad hominems will not do that.

    This artilce and many others are doing the work we need…

    And the grass roots writing is vastly larger than any media, much more nuanced, better informed, closer to the evidence, the outcomes…

  27. Jan Steele Says:

    Can anyone identify which person each individual is supposed to represent please?

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      From left to right, they are Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Crowley, Carnegie and Warburg.

      Aleister Crowley, please note, was a notorious ANTI-SEMITE, and he is clearly being caricatured in the mural. It’s rather absurd to argue that the mural is anti-Semitic when it’s pillorying an anti-Semite.

  28. stevecheneysindieopinions4u Says:

    Interesting perspective. I was prepared to accept the idea that the businessmen pictured were portraying stereotypes, but now, I’ll be calling people out on that assertion.

    As you say, the issue is a non-event. What I find interesting is how many accusations of anti-Semitism against Corbyn’s Labour predate his leadership. Specifically, a lot of them date back to the Milliband years. It’s hard not to think that they’ve been “stored up” until they could be deployed without the obvious “they have a Jewish leader!” response.

    I’ve said to others, if Labour really were replete with anti-Semitism, we probably wouldn’t be talking about examples from 5-6 years ago. I think it’s safe to say that, if they were anything more contemporary, we’d be hearing about that.

  29. John Cox Says:

    The mural looks strangely familiar to me, as if from something I saw when very young. That, if my memory serves me right, could mean that it is a 75+ year memory. I also remember it as being anti-rich plutocrats and the same names being mentioned as represented in it. Is the mural a copy of an earlier painting or mural?


  30. This is a very naive response. You say your did ‘research’ but fail to note or at least comment that Mear One himself had stated “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are”. This sentance drips with anti-semitism. And why put any Rothschild in a mural at all? No Rothschild has held any political or economic power for 100 years! But the artist, and this is a conspiracy theorist. He believes that an elite of the Rothschilds and other rule the world against ‘the EarthPeople’. And yes Masons and Illuminati are not generally Jewish! But there is no contradiction in conspiracy theorists mindsets to believe both Illuminati shite AND anti-semitic shite. There is no contraction as THEY do not see the real contradiction. That he has bizarrely thrown in anti-semite Crowley again is not contradictory for a conspiracy theorist.
    You should also note that Mear One has just done today an exclusive for another notorious anti-semite David Icke in which he continues to moan his mural was not anti-semitic while continue to show it is, adding that there is a hidden star of David in the US dollar! Mear One is without question a conspiracy theorist and one who attributes inordinate power to a number of Jews. That is simply anti-semitism. That he is also a conspiracy theorists in other ways does not negate that.
    And that a Jewish Leftist defends such shite sickens me.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      ‘You say your did ‘research’ but fail to note or at least comment that Mear One himself had stated “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are”. This sentance drips with anti-semitism.’

      No it doesn’t. He mentioned they were Jewish because they were the ones trying to label the mural as anti-Semitic. He was pointing out why they were taking offence at it. He wasn’t saying the local white Jewish folk were demons, he was saying Rothschild and Warburg (and all the other NON-JEWISH plutocrats in the picture) were demons. Anti-Semitism can only be inferred from the sentence by prejudicial interpretation of it.

      ‘And why put any Rothschild in a mural at all? No Rothschild has held any political or economic power for 100 years! ‘

      Because the Rothschilds still hold an estimated $2 trillion in assets even today. You are unbelievably naive if you imagine that anyone with that kind of wealth doesn’t wield extreme power by default.

      ‘But the artist, and this is a conspiracy theorist. He believes that an elite of the Rothschilds and other rule the world against ‘the EarthPeople’.’

      No, I wouldn’t put it that strongly. Ockerman just thinks there is a terrible and unjustifiable imbalance of power between the very rich and the ordinary poor. And I agree with that. If you want to characterise that as a secret rich elite running the world, okay have it your way, but in any event, there is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about that notion; a rich elite would be a rich elite, whether they are Jewish or not.

      ‘And yes Masons and Illuminati are not generally Jewish! But there is no contradiction in conspiracy theorists mindsets to believe both Illuminati shite AND anti-semitic shite.’

      Sure there isn’t. But you haven’t offered any particular evidence that demonstrates that both apply in this case. All you’re doing is pointing out that it’s possible.

      ‘There is no contraction as THEY do not see the real contradiction. That he has bizarrely thrown in anti-semite Crowley again is not contradictory for a conspiracy theorist.’

      Read that back to yourself. I can barely follow what you’re trying to say.

      ‘You should also note that Mear One has just done today an exclusive for another notorious anti-semite David Icke in which he continues to moan his mural was not anti-semitic while continue to show it is, adding that there is a hidden star of David in the US dollar!’

      It was undoubtedly naive that Ockerman chose to use Icke as an outlet, he’s a British Alex Jones. And I’m sure the UK press will use it for another Field Day of pumped-up outrage. However, that really doesn’t prove anything. I also have to contest the honesty of what you are asserting.

      Firstly, if you’re so sure you’re right, why do you feel the need to misquote him? What he actually wrote was; –

      “There are several other hidden symbols, which *****some may argue have Jewish influences*****, such as the star configuration that rises above the eagle crest forming a two-dimensional tetrahedron, *****considered by some***** as the star of David, I always wondered why?” (Emphasis added.)

      Ockerman is not saying there is a hidden Star of David on the dollar bill, he is saying that some people believe there is Jewish iconography on the mural, and he wonders why they think the icons are Jewish.

      Secondly, you are saying that because an anti-Semite chose to publish his statement, that makes Ockerman an anti-Semite too. That is guilt-by-association logic, a classic fallacy.

      Thirdly, I note the way you only focus on that bit of Ockerman’s statement, and ignore the bit when he says the following; –

      “Though there are strange iconographic images like the pyramid and stars, that doesn’t mean I believe the system is Egyptian, *****anymore than I believe there is some Jewish conspiracy creating and controlling our money either*****. So to conflate my anti-capitalist message with anti-semitic rhetoric, as the UK politicians and their msm puppets have so adeptly accomplished, is very ill-intended and manipulative.” (Emphasis added.)

      Now think about that before considering what you say next.

      ‘Mear One is without question a conspiracy theorist and one who attributes inordinate power to a number of Jews. That is simply anti-semitism. That he is also a conspiracy theorists in other ways does not negate that.’

      But as I say, that’s rubbish. He quite explicitly DENIES in the above sentences that a Jewish elite is running the world. Your accusations about him being a conspiracy theorist are, at least partly, unsustainable. (And no, I have to reiterate, if his artwork is based on a belief in a Jewish elite, he would not then deny that that elite exists, as it would defeat the whole object of creating the mural in the first place, and to no recognisable gain.)

      Anyway, I’m glad you got that little ranting succession of accusatory suspicions and prejudices off your chest.

      Now back to the MURAL; there is still nothing anti-Semitic in it – certainly you haven’t pointed out anything that is. You see, it doesn’t matter all that much whether Ockerman is an anti-Semite or not (although you certainly haven’t proved that he is). We’re not talking about him, we’re talking about the mural. All you’ve come up with to support your assertion that it’s an anti-Semitic image is the fact that there’s a Rothschild in it, and the truth is, the reasons for putting him in are perfectly justified, and not in any way on racial grounds. Any inference of anti-Semitism is immediately cancelled by any objective analysis, because most of the ‘rich tyrants’ in the picture are NOT JEWISH – one of them is a notorious anti-Semite – and they are presented in exactly the same style of caricature. The only logical conclusion to be drawn from carrying your argument to its fullest extent is that Ockerman hates all white races.

      Beyond that, you’ve barely even discussed what’s in the picture.

      ‘And that a Jewish Leftist defends such shite sickens me.’

      It’s a pity about that. I recommend you try Diocalm.


      • thank you for that calm and well argued response to a pot calling a kettle black.


      • sickening. you are SO desperate to prove this mural has no anti-semitism in it you are excuse the ‘demons’ comment [ this guys does not call anyone else demons ] AND given credibility to the idea that there is an all powerful entity called “the Rothschilds” .. you clearly have fallen for the racist conspiracy bullshit yourself. There is NO entity called the Rothschilds and has not been for 100 years. There are a number of different families called Rothschild, once related but that do not, unless you are conspiracy nut, work together! There is also no Rothschild family that holds ” an estimated $2 trillion in assets even today”. Again if you HAD done proper research you would know that figure was retracted. They have nothing near that! Rothschild and Co are a medium sized investment banks and nothing more! If again you would have done your research you would not in Mear One’s other work, he has used painted Rothschilds more than anyone else including as members of the Illuminati .That you seem to be happy to believe someone who is a conspiracy theory nut, who calls Warburg and Rothschild ‘demons’ and puts them next to Aleister Crowley, who happily goes on David Icke is worrying. As that I am having the conversation in 2017. https://www.investopedia.com/updates/history-rothschild-family/#ixzz4Vj7bnGwN
        http://barthsnotes.com/2018/03/26/a-note-on-mear-one-and-jeremy-corbyn/

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        Maybe you should try a Rennie instead? It’s clear you’re suffering from severe indigestion.

        The figure that was retracted, incidentally, was actually $500 trillion. That was clearly absurd, as it was double the financial wealth of the whole planet.

        You can keep being insinuating and accusatory if you must, but it just makes you look like you’re throwing a babyish tantrum. When it comes down to it, you’re the one who looks desperate to believe something, not me.

        Not that this has anything whatever to do with this, but… you think *Investopedia* is a reliable source? Puh-leeeeeeeeze, it’s written by tax-ophobes who want everyone to believe that John Maynard-Keynes knew nothing about economics.

        You still haven’t really discussed what’s in the mural by the way, which means you’re still being only fleetingly relevant.

        Maybe Gaviscon will help?

    • tomspence Says:

      I have little time for simplistic Illuminati/Freemasonary/E.T. superstition, and vehemently oppose pernicious “Protocols/Frankfurt School” conspiracy- although there is absolutely no doubt that “global elites” do run the show, broadly speaking – but your claim that the Rothschilds have no political or economic power is false.
      In proving this I’d ask that you to “google” ‘Genie Oil & Gas Strategic Advisory Board’ whereupon you’ll discover, via the company’s website that Lord Jacob Rothschild sits on the board alongside Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and other incredibly powerful people. Then search for ‘Golan Heights drilling rights, 2013’ which will result in numerous articles that describe how the Knesset granted such rights to Genie. This might prompt questioning the motives behind the push for regime change in Syria, and international condemnation of Russia, as they, alongside Syrian and Iran forces and Kurdish freedom fighters repelled murderous Wahhabi/Salafi backed militias [aka Cameron/Obama’s “40,000 moderate rebels”] and helped Assad cling to power, but that’s another conspiracy.


  31. I am a Corbyn support – I am the expelled one time secretary of Leyton and Wanstead Labour Party. But the Labour Party needs to take to antisemitism seriously (a) because that is right and (b) if we give our enemies a stick to beat us with, it is difficult to complain when they beat us with it.

    The case in point here is whether the mural is antisemitic (as Corbyn has clearly stated)

    I had a good look at the mural, and it seems to me that there is definitely a case to answer. The first banker on the left is meant to be, I believe, Nathan Rothschild, or possibly his son, Walter Rothschild. If you compare a picture of Nathan (http://www.chilternsaonb.org/ccbmaps/1329/137/nathan-rothschild.html) or Walter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rothschild,_2nd_Baron_Rothschild) (feel free to Google your own, but bear in mind Nathan is Nathan, the first Baron Rothschild, not his grandfather, Nathan Meyer Rothschild) what you will notice is that they do not have large unkempt beards, nor do they have exaggeratedly large noses. Both of these are tropes of antisemitic caricatures, think Fagan or look here (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/341921796682723746/).

    I am not sure who the others are meant to be (the third from the left is the non-Jewish JP Morgan, who was renowned for his nose). Oddly, Kalen Ockerman/Mear One claims that one of the crowd is Aleister Crowley (who would not have worn a suit) and was not free from antisemitism – but make of that what you will. The others, I don’t know.

    The illumanati eye on the pyramid is commonly used part of antisemitic world domination theories (but not always), but see here for a clear example of that (https://voiceofpeopletoday.com/rothschild-family-secrets-illuminati/) Similar, New World Order can (but far from always) be used in the context of a Jewish conspiracy.

    So, apart from a unnecessary Fagan-esque depiction of it is all a bit circumstantial. So the question is whether there any evidence to support the view that this mural reflects antisemitic ideas. There is. This is a Mear One’s facebook post from 2016, where he suggest that Israel, the USA and UK are run by a “Zionist elite”

    “I challenge everyone to give one of my heroes a listen. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Spiritualist, we are all seeking truth and common ground. Back in 2012 I painted a controversial mural a stones throw from London’s financial globalist district and it depicted a group of Banksters playing a game of monopoly on the backs of the working class and the poor. I was labeled Anti Semitic by the Zionist and unconscious supporters of capitalism. David Icke has been plowing through the rhetoric for decades and he happens to be one of a select few who are willing to take a stand against the crimes of humanity committed by the Zionist elite governing the state of Israel and the U.S. We stand facing a great problem defined by greed and arrogance in our world with no compassion for the rest of humanity. The very idea that one group has the definitive answer, making huge profit on the demise and disenfranchisement of hard working people, is the horror of elitism and its unbounded cruelty. Concentration camps still exist, but They have tricked the world into fear of speaking out. The Palestinians are living through an intentional hell. #FreePalestine by all means necessary. This in no way is a judgement on religion or faith, more so, this is a call for an awakening in humanity to bear witness to the atrocities caused by pure evil, destroying the lives of those who can’t feed nor protect themselves against Their unbridled pursuit of money and power. Just give Mr. Icke a chance to blow your mind. We need revolution like the sick need medicine. Peace and love to all good people. Lift the blindfold and see what has become of our world. Untie your gag and say something #FreedomForHumanity”

    He then follows this with a link to a YouTube video by David Ike on “Rothschild Zionism”, equal measures of anti-Semitism and tin hat conspiracy.

    So, the evidence supports the view that the mural is antisemitic.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Right, Matthew, you can calm the blazes down now. I’ve found your comment and approved it. It was in the spam folder of the blog, perhaps because it was so long and had so many words in it that it triggered the filter. Between that, work and sleep, you now know why I took a while approving the comment. I would appreciate you not being so accusatory in future please.

      My response; –

      “The Labour Party needs to take to antisemitism seriously (a) because that is right and (b) if we give our enemies a stick to beat us with, it is difficult to complain when they beat us with it.

      Matthew, no one will take anti-Semitism more seriously than me. Trust me on that. I still have painful memories going round and round in my head after thirty years of being routinely surrounded at school by a gang of teenage bullies screaming at me, “Dirty Jew! Filthy Jew! Money-grabbing Jew!” etc. They thought it was genuinely funny tormenting me with references to the Grand Canyon being formed “when someone told the Jews they’d dropped 5p down a rabbit-hole”. Now I don’t know what ethnicity you are, but if you are not Jewish and therefore haven’t experienced that sort of victimisation, I would really be grateful if you didn’t lecture someone who has been through it about the importance of fighting anti-Semitism, or about what anti-Semitism looks like. I’m inventing a new word for it; “goy-splaining”. Like “mansplaining to a woman” except it’s non-Jews explaining to Jews facts that Jews know better than anyone. It really has been driving me up the wall the last couple of days, being told by people who’ve never so much as seen a kippah what is or is not anti-Semitic.

      “I had a good look at the mural, and it seems to me that there is definitely a case to answer. The first banker on the left is meant to be, I believe, Nathan Rothschild, or possibly his son, Walter Rothschild.”

      Why should we assume it is specifically either of them?

      “If you compare a picture of Nathan (http://www.chilternsaonb.org/ccbmaps/1329/137/nathan-rothschild.html) or Walter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rothschild,_2nd_Baron_Rothschild) (feel free to Google your own, but bear in mind Nathan is Nathan, the first Baron Rothschild, not his grandfather, Nathan Mayer Rothschild) what you will notice is that they do not have large unkempt beards, nor do they have exaggeratedly large noses.”

      This business about the noses is really starting to grate, because in the final analysis, it is about the ONLY indication in the mural that can realistically be interpreted as anti-Semitic. I must refer you to a point I made to Jason Gardner on another comment; –

      “Caricatures that depict ugly characters with exaggerated facial features is actually a completely generic description of the entire history of satirical cartoons. It doesn’t just apply to Jewish figures, it applies to all manner of people in all manner of walks-of-life. The average political cartoon in a newspaper, just for instance, portrays MPs in precisely that way. You just happen to have picked out the time and place in in history when it was fashionable to use that method on Jews more than on anyone else.

      Both of these are tropes of antisemitic caricatures, think Fagan or look here (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/341921796682723746/).”

      On the subject of Fagin, he was a scruffy, dishevelled figure. These businessmen in the mural are not. And if big noses in a cartoon are certain evidence of a parody of the Jews, then clearly Asterix the Gaul was not from Roman-era France but from Canaan.

      The tropes you are describing are often seen in figures such as German – especially Prussian – academics and bureaucrats, as well as US businessmen, sometimes adding in an enormous half-smoked cigar, and a name with a middle initial and a surname ending in ‘-berg’. It’s not just the Jews that have been caricatured in this way, not by a very long shot. Again, from the reply I gave to Gardner; –

      “You get those caricatures in satire going back well over a century. You might as well accuse the title sequence of ‘Yes, Minister’ of being anti-Semitic, because it portrays the noses of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds as ludicrously over-sized and ugly.”

      Moving on; –

      “I am not sure who the others are meant to be (the third from the left is the non-Jewish JP Morgan, who was renowned for his nose).”

      There you go.

      “ Oddly, Kalen Ockerman/Mear One claims that one of the crowd is Aleister Crowley (who would not have worn a suit) and was not free from antisemitism – but make of that what you will. The others, I don’t know.”

      And why would Ockerman demonise an ANTI-SEMITE when trying to say something anti-Semitic? How utterly self-defeating.

      “The illumanati eye on the pyramid is commonly used part of antisemitic world domination theories (but not always), but see here for a clear example of that (https://voiceofpeopletoday.com/rothschild-family-secrets-illuminati/) Similar, New World Order can (but far from always) be used in the context of a Jewish conspiracy.”

      Of course. But you haven’t established that either such myths have influenced Ockerman’s actions, or explained why your suspicions should be seen as more likely than Ockerman’s own explanations.

      “So, apart from a unnecessary Fagan-esque depiction of Nathan de Rothschild it is all a bit circumstantial.”

      Very circumstantial, and as I say, Rothschild is not depicted in a particularly Fagan-esque style.

      “So the question is whether there any evidence to support the view that this mural reflects antisemitic ideas. There is. This is a Mear One’s facebook post from May 2016, where he suggests that Israel, the USA and UK are run by a “Zionist elite”

      Ah, now you see, you’ve committed the classic blunder that always sets my teeth on edge. You’ve equated Jews with Zionists. That always angers me. I am a Jew, but I am not a Zionist. I know some Zionists who are not Jewish. For reasons I explain here – https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/the-paradox-of-zionism/ – I think any non-Israeli Jew who advocates Zionism is an absurdity; if a Jew can live in another country besides Israel – like just for instance myself – then he/she proves that Jews and non-Jews really can co-exist, demonstrating that a Jewish state was never really necessary, even in light of the Holocaust. A lot of Jews fleeing the Nazis did not escape to Palestine, they escaped to other countries where they assimilated. (My own ancestors fled the Pogroms of the Russian Empire in the late-19th Century and settled somewhat harmoniously into the British way of life, so there have long been countries that accept Jews without great resistance.)

      I largely disagree with Ockerman’s argument. I don’t think the USA or the UK are ‘run’ by a Zionist elite (although almost by definition, Israel is). But at the same time, there’s no doubt that the Zionist movement does exercise a considerable dangerous influence on the two countries’ Governments. If it didn’t, both the Americans and the British would have disowned Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians a long time ago. But while I broadly disagree with what Ockerman says, I don’t think his argument is anti-Semitic, because his assertion isn’t about Jews as such.

      “I challenge everyone to give one of my heroes a listen. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Spiritualist, we are all seeking truth and common ground. Back in 2012 I painted a controversial mural a stones throw from London’s financial globalist district and it depicted a group of Banksters playing a game of monopoly on the backs of the working class and the poor.”

      You see? You’ve just offered a quotation of Ockerman demonstrating exactly my point. The mural was anti-capitalist, and yes probably anti-Zionist. But NEITHER of these attitudes is anti-Semitic. On the contrary, many of the most passionate anti-Zionists are Jewish.

      “He then follows this with a link to a YouTube video by David Ike on “Rothschild Zionism”, equal measures of anti-Semitism and tin hat conspiracy.”

      Matthew, we’re not discussing David Icke, and as I keep pointing out to people, that is a guilt-by-association argument, which is fallacious. You are also, again, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in that sentence. And while it has been clear since that notorious interview on ‘Wogan’ back in the 1990s that Icke has become a complete madman (why didn’t the dimwit just stick to sports reporting? He was quite good at that), and Ockerman is therefore a fool to keep associating with him, I don’t even think Icke is an anti-Semite as such either. Even his dotty references to Jews being lizards are not a reference to Jewish people, they’re a crazy assumption that ‘Jew’ is a codeword in old texts for ‘lizard’. He’s a total nutjob for sure, but not exactly an anti-Semite.

      I have to point out, everyone who has so far commented against this article has been making the SAME arguments, and they boil down to narrow assumptions, leaps of logic, and discussions of details that aren’t even connected to the mural, and “WHOAH!!!! DAVID ICKE!!!!”

      “So, the evidence supports the view that the mural is antisemitic.”

      I’m afraid it doesn’t. It’s quite possible that Ockerman is an anti-Semite (although I have seen no reliable evidence that he is, just lots of insinuating descriptions of past deeds that could be interpreted in many other ways), but even if he is, that wouldn’t prove that the mural is anti-Semitic too.


      • Four key points to be going on with:

        1. I have been clear that there is a case for thinking the mural itself is not clearly antisemitic – which is why I started giving it some careful consideration. It is ambiguous at best, or perhaps deliberately crafted to be deniable, or most likely a confused jumble of ideas some of which are drawn from antisemitic ideology. But it is at least ambiguous. But putting a large nose of a Jewish person who did not have one, putting an exaggerated “Jewish” beard (very familiar from the antisemtic iconography*) on someone who did not have one, is suspect (that it is Nathan Rothschild comes from Mear One, he says that are “Rothschilds” in the mural, and I have carefully done through trying to match the real people with the mural). Then to put a the illuminati behind him, a symbol commonly used by antisemites in conjunction with their view of Jewish economic power, makes one suspect a little more. But as I have said, this raises suspicions. It is not enough evidence by itself, the question is does Mear One have form of this? Does he (for example) while discussing this mural link it to the idea that there is a world conspiracy of Rothschild Zionism? Yes he does. You do not accept that this is anything other than anti-Zionism, but it is not criticism of Israel, or of Zionist ideas. It is antisemitism with the world “Jew” crossed out and “Zionist” put in its place (see pts. 2 and 3)

        * See Abraham Cooper, Portraits of Infamy: A Study of Soviet Antisemitic Caricatures and Their Roots in Nazi Ideology (L.A. Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1986)

        2. I am not confusing anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I am not saying that any criticism of Israel or the Zionist movement is antisemitic. What we have here are not criticisms of Israel or Zionists ideas, but antisemitic tropes (there is a world conspiracy of Jews, Jews are behind the government of UK, USA etc, Jews are powerful and rich) with the word “Jews” crossed out and the word “Zionist” put in its place. This was common in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc after 1948. Jewish communists were purged (and executed), often because they were “Zionists”, but they were not – accusations of Jewish disloyalty are a classic antisemitic trope, barely recycled as “anti-Zionism”. Of the 40,000 Jews left in Poland (including those repatriated from the Soviet Union) in 1948, 35,000 were driven by the 1970s out in “anti-Zionist” campaigns that were barely disguised antisemitism. In 1964 the Soviet Ukrainian Academy of Science (i.e. the state) published a book by Trofim Kichko called “Judaism with embellishment” than mixes crude antisemitism of the Protocols type with alleged “anti-Zionism” . Analysis and extracts here, https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/kichko.pdf)m do read this, is shocking: a part of the world that many considered socialist was using pretended anti-Zionism to as real antisemitism. There is a history of this posing as left wing.

        So no, I am not confusing anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Rather, antisemites can thinly disguise their arguments but substituting “Jews” with “Zionists”, and it is important that we can spot that. Where someone suggests there is a world conspiracy of Zionists (which is Mear One is arguing, hidden power behind the UK and US government), it is not difficult to spot.

        3. The David Icke stuff is not “guilt by association” as you claim. In this post, which is about defending this mural, Mear One says of Icke “give one of my heroes a listen” – Icke is one of his heroes. He then posts a link to a video where Icke suggests that that “Rothschild Zionism” is a worldwide conspiracy, hidden power, etc. This is nothing to do with Israel, it is dressed up antisemitism. It does matter if you think that Icke is in poor mental health, the point is that Mear One has posted the video of his “hero”. This is not “guilt by association”, it is guilt by posting a video by a someone he claims is brilliant and saying that he agrees with them – not the same thing at all. Do watch the video, it is also shocking – it is simply antisemitism, albeit wrapped in layers of conspiracy theory. Mear One’s views are thus not simply a matter of “past deeds” and “insinuations” as you suggest, but seem to be the real deal antisemitism.

        4. You say that even if Mear One is antisemitic then that does not mean the mural is. The point is that the mural could be seen as antisemitic (as I think you have conceded), if he is antisemitic (or probably more accurately, using antisemitic ideas), and indeed expresses those antisemitic ideas while discussing the mural, then I think the mural being based on those ideas is the highly likely.


  32. Not unlike the Zionist response to morally-bankrupt Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, the pro-Zionists are again attempting to conflate any criticism of those who happen to be Jewish, who may be engaged in morally bankrupt activities, with a criticism of their religion, rather than a criticism of what they are actually engaged in? If the characters portrayed in the mural are guilty of what the artist sees as moral degradation, surely, it matters little whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or of any other religious persuasion? With this in mind, it is of no consequence whether two, three, or all those in the mural, committing crimes, are Jewish or not? It seems to have escaped the pro-Zionists, or purposely overlooked, that Jewish people, much like the rest of humanity, can be guilty of some absolutely heinous acts, and should be condemned and censored for that behavior as it occurs? Otherwise, if we say nothing regarding those moral transgressions, we are as guilty as those perpetrating the transgressions, ‘qui tacet consenter videtur’, whether that is in Israel in the Occupied Territories, or in the boardrooms of London, or New York?


  33. Thank you for investigating this and throwing more light on the artist’s ideas. Especially that the figures depicted were caricatures of actual banking magnates, only two of which were Jews.
    However a Jewish acquaintance tells me she has read your article but that the main problem with this mural was its actual location, in a predominantly Jewish area of London, so it was considered to be provocative. Possibly it was also put up during sensitive times. So there’s just a little more to it than meets the eye.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Very possibly, but the location of the mural does not change the nature of its content. If it had been painted in another area, would the reaction have been greatly different? I doubt it.


  34. Thank you for writing this.

    I, as a member of the Labour Party, of Momentum and a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, have never seen anything like this before against the Leader of the Opposition. Michael Foot got hammered but this ongoing campaign against Corbyn is unbelievable.

    I am 70 in a weeks time and have been so upset by this on top of the Russia Gate BS, Salisbury BS, Brexit BS.

    I live in Costa Rica – a safe haven. My wife and I are horrified by the daily dose of Tory/Establishment Propaganda from the BBC.

    Please keep putting this message out. The truth must out otherwise the 1% will win.

    I shall share this with my friends.

    Pura Vida from Costa Rica.


  35. So you have censored my comment?


    • You may email on mattcooperz@yahoo.co.uk and explain. The post shows that Mear One is an anti-Semite of some kind, and if their are ambiguities in this mural they should be interpreted in that context. To suppress that information makes you an apologist for anti-Semitism.

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        On second thoughts, you know what? I WILL suppress your comment. Making a paranoid, McCarthyite insinuation like that against me, just because I decided that I need to sleep instead of review blog-comments at some point in the 24, was completely uncalled-for.

        If you apologise, I will re-consider.


      • Paranoid. I am sorry that I can across like that. Look, the guy is an anti-Semite, read my post. Don’t suppress debate

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      This article is getting way more comments than most do, and unfortunately, I have to work for a living, so I can’t monitor the comments section 24/7. I still have loads in the queue that I need to review – I’ve had to delete a number that were abusive – and I haven’t got to yours yet. Kindly be patient.


      • But…. I am not seeing my comment as awaiting moderation, and have not since this morning. I will repost.

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        Matthew, will you PLEASE chill the fornication out? I’ve been in work all day, I haven’t had a chance to find your original post and check it. I am literally getting dozens of comments on this all the time, and I’m not used to trying to handle so many. I will clear your comment as soon as I can, so please don’t bombard my blog with repeat posts. It will only cause me to take longer.


  36. Thank you Martin-Brilliant piece of writing-everyone who thinks they know what anti-semitism is should read it. Really is shaking up people’s ideas. Even if we did not understand fully before this we knew it was wrong and so did a lot of people-membership Labour party up 350-we saw through the deceitful way the Tories were going with it. Once more brilliant piece-thank you, Regards, Jacqui Butterworth

    On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:11 PM, TheCritique Archives wrote:

    > Martin Odoni posted: ” by Martin Odoni The largely-fictitious > ‘anti-Semitism-in-Labour’ controversy is clearly never going to be allowed > to die. I have no doubt more examples will be brought to public attention > in the final days before the Local Elections in May, and most accu” >

  37. Julie Caves Says:

    Not sure if it applies but I believe the Illuminati symbol is printed on the US dollar, so it makes some sense to use it in a crtique of money by an American.

  38. grrroftheday Says:

    Hi there, Succinct piece. I was wondering what you make of the allegations portrayed here in this thread…


  39. Firstly, I’m not Jewish. Does that matter? You say it prevents me from voicing an opinion, I say that’s rubbish. This is something I posted on FB earlier, so apologise if its a bit basic and obvious in parts. This isn’t posted with any form of outrage in mind, it was purely something I wanted to do to explain why I (and many others) see it as anti-Semitic:

    Before talking about at the mural itself, it is important to look at the events prior to the start of WW2. Specifically, in the context of the depression of the 1930’s, Adolf Hitler (with racist, social, economic and religious imagery) and the Nazi party gained popularity, in part by presenting “Jews” as the source for a variety of political, social, economic, and ethical problems facing the German people including a racial struggle with and the “intent” of the Jews to survive and expand at the expense of Germans.

    Core to this was the Nazi propaganda machine, which at its heart used the tabloid newspaper “Der Stürmer” to spread its anti-Semitic message, it did this in a number of ways:
    1. The use of anti-Semitic caricatures, which depicted Jews as ugly characters with exaggerated facial features.
    2. The stereotype that Jews are money grabbing and greedy.
    3. The stereotype that Jews are controlling and oppress the working class.
    4. The constant message that Jews are not human.

    Der Stürmer ran for over 20 years and whilst it was condemned by many it was supported by Hitler and Himmler, with the artist Philipp Rupprecht producing thousands of anti-Semitic caricatures.

    For those who don’t see how the Tower Hamlets mural is racist, if we look at the imagery of the mural, we see direct parallels with Nazi propaganda:
    1. The caricatures with the exaggerated noses.
    2. The use of monopoly to reference control and money.
    3. The placement of the monopoly board on the backs of naked workers to signify oppression, and again control.
    4. The specific inclusion of Rothschild and Warburg.
    5. The imagery of barbed wire, smoke and furnaces.

    We then move on to the inclusion of the Masonic all-seeing eye and the reference to New World Order.

    There is an anti-Semitic theory called the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy that asserts a connection to the Rothschild family and other (primarily) Jewish international bankers and the fact that this will lead, ultimately, to a further conspiracy theory called, coincidentally, New World Order. As such anti-Semitic material is often found with references to the Masons and NWO.

    At this point, even those with no knowledge of world history can see the anti-Semitic nature of the mural; its use of Nazi-style caricatures, the Nazi-imagery, the direct references to Judeo-Masonic and New World Order conspiracies.

    Finally, if any doubt remained, we need to look at the artist behind the mural:
    1. It was painted in the Jewish area of London
    2. Mear One, real name Kalen Ockerman, himself has said “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are.”
    3. Ockerman is a long-term supporter of David Icke and his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, regularly contributing to his blog.
    4. Ockerman is a creator of similar works (see False Prophets), referring to Illuminati and the Rothschilds.
    Hopefully this goes some way to explaining things for those who don’t see or understand the racist nature.

    But only 2 of those depicted are Jews you shout. Well The list of caricatures is supposedly; Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Crowley, Carnegie and Warburg.

    Conspiracy theorists claim JP Morgan and JD Rockerfeller are of Jewish descent. They also claim that Carnegie was controlled by Jewish masters.

    Crowley was a mason and regarded by conspiracists as a major cultural influencer, who whilst expressing anti-Semitic sentiments, was not adverse to using, employing and conspiring with Jews.

    So whilst only two are Jewish, it doesn’t affect the anti-Semitic message.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Before I offer any analysis of the rest of your comment, let me set you straight on that ridiculous strawman argument you opened with. I did NOT say that being a non-Jew prevents you from voicing an opinion. Don’t be ridiculous. I said that a non-Jew will not know better how to recognise anti-Semitism than someone who has experienced being on the receiving end of it. And that is still true.

      As to the rest. Starting with the stereotyping points.

      “1. The use of anti-Semitic caricatures, which depicted Jews as ugly characters with exaggerated facial features.
      2. The stereotype that Jews are money grabbing and greedy.
      3. The stereotype that Jews are controlling and oppress the working class.
      4. The constant message that Jews are not human.”

      1. Caricatures that depict ugly characters with exaggerated facial features is actually a completely generic description of the entire history of satirical cartoons. It doesn’t just apply to Jewish figures, it applies to all manner of people in all manner of walks-of-life. The average political cartoon in a newspaper, just for instance, portrays MPs in precisely that way. You just happen to have picked out the time and place in in history when it was fashionable to use that method on Jews more than on anyone else.

      2,3, & 4 – you could supplant the word “Jews” with “capitalists” in all of these sentences, and they would still be an accurate summary of a stereotype, just not one that Der Sturmer would use very often. What you haven’t done is point out why we have to assume that Der Sturmer has exercised a defining influence on Ockerman when he painted the Brick Lane mural.

      Now when you append these points to Tower Hamlets, you point to; –
      “1. The caricatures with the exaggerated noses.
      2. The use of monopoly to reference control and money.
      3. The placement of the monopoly board on the backs of naked workers to signify oppression, and again control.
      4. The specific inclusion of Rothschild and Warburg.
      5. The imagery of barbed wire, smoke and furnaces.”

      1. As I say, you get those caricatures in satire going back well over a century. You might as well accuse the title sequence of ‘Yes, Minister’ of being anti-Semitic, because it portrays the noses of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds as ludicrously over-sized and ugly.
      2. Yes, but that wouldn’t imply Jews, it would merely imply monied interests. This is again ridiculous, because to carry the logic of that suggestion to its fullest extent, you would be arguing that playing Monopoly is somehow an attempt to emulate an anti-Semitic stereotype.
      3. Well yes, it does indeed signify oppression and control. But that again does not automatically imply that the oppression has to be at the hands of Jews. Again, I have to carry your logic to its fullest extent and point out that your argument seems to indicate that only Jews can be oppressive.
      4. What about the specific inclusion of ALL the others? Why does Ockerman not exclude the likes of Carnegie and Morgan, and replace them with more ‘Jewish caricatures’ of the early 20th Century? There were enough rich Jewish families back then for him to do that, had it been his intention.
      5. Again, there is no reason whatever to assume that that is a reference to Jews. In fact, for you to assume it is raises serious questions about your own prejudices. The reality is, if I were to look at barbed wire, smoke and furnaces through a Judaic lens, my immediate thought would be of the Nazi Holocaust – the concentration camps, the extermination camps, and the incinerators. In the context of this mural, the smoke and furnaces, in conjunction with the cogs, clearly imply heavy industry, while the barbed wire indicates that the poor are imprisoned.

      Now with reference to your remarks about Ockerman; –

      “1. It was painted in the Jewish area of London
      2. Mear One, real name Kalen Ockerman, himself has said “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are.”
      3. Ockerman is a long-term supporter of David Icke and his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, regularly contributing to his blog.
      4. Ockerman is a creator of similar works (see False Prophets), referring to Illuminati and the Rothschilds.”

      1. So what? If he’d painted it in a rural lane in Cornwall, would that make it an attack on The Countryside Alliance? You do realise that many locals in Shoreditch were very supportive of the mural, right?

      2. I repeat my reply I gave to Glyn Harries yesterday. Ockerman “mentioned they were Jewish because they were the ones trying to label the mural as anti-Semitic. He was pointing out why they were taking offence at it. He wasn’t saying the local white Jewish folk were demons, he was saying Rothschild and Warburg (and all the other NON-JEWISH plutocrats in the picture) were demons. Anti-Semitism can only be inferred from the sentence by prejudicial interpretation of it.”

      In short, criticising a Jew, or even a group of Jews, is not necessarily evidence of anti-Semitism.

      3. More guilt-by-association logic. Ockerman strikes me as foolish and paranoid. He may even be an anti-Semite, but I have yet to see any reliable evidence of it, only tidbits that can be inferred (usually selectively) as anti-Semitic. But either way, we’re discussing the mural, not Ockerman. As for Icke, even taking into account his obsession with the idea that “’Jews’ is a codeword for lizard-people”, I’m not entirely sure that even he is actually an anti-Semite. I think he’s just insane.

      4. You do realise that ‘False Prophets’ is just his re-painting of the Brick Lane Mural after the original was destroyed, right? Here, he even discusses it quite openly on this link; –

      https://news.1xrun.com/mear-one-debuts-false-profits/

      The funny thing? He doesn’t even mention the Illuminati in the interview at all, which is a pretty stupid omission on his part, if his motivation for creating the mural in the first place was to turn the world against the Illuminati, wouldn’t you say?


  40. It is crazy to cite ‘Illuminati’ Freemasons & ‘Jews’ as some kind of proof (via the ‘all-seeing-eye’) that ‘the poster’ is ‘anti-Semitic.

    There is nothing to suggest that the group above the ‘monopoly table’ are any more or any less Jewish than the the group below the table.

    The ‘Khufu Pyramid’ (cap-stone shown) predates Illuminati, Freemasonry, & Jews. Nobody know who built Khufu (today’s technology still can’t) or designed it.

    Khufu is ‘transcendental’, where Pi:Phi generates ‘Pythagorean Comma’ & ‘Squaring Circle’ generates the Pythagorean Triangle 3:4:5: – http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Pi_to_Phi_at_Khufu_0_toPhi_Rate_xxx.png


  41. Good work, almost entirely agree with you, and thanks for actually *doing* the ‘work’ others got paid to (not) do.
    People, like above, have been zoning in on one of Mear One’s lines of defence:
    “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are”…
    …which isn’t even antisemitic! Maybe churlish, maybe snippy, but not in and of itself antisemitic unless pointing out somebody’s Jewishness, while being miffed at them, is antisemitic. (Which is absurd.)
    But, of course, I haven’t seen anyone countering that a few lines later he says:
    “I believe there is no difference between a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, they all made the simplest of choices, they chose to be lead [sic] instead of realizing their true self nature and accepting that they themselves are already god.”
    Nazi bastard!!! (Corbyn I mean, obviously.) Cheers.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Agreed, Ockerman is the victim of cynical quote-mining, a sadly viral dirty tactic among British Zionists.

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        Oh, one thing Ockerman is undoubtedly wrong about there; unlike the Christian or Muslim, a Jew does NOT get to choose whether (s)he is Jewish. (S)he gets to choose whether to follow the traditional religious culture and customs of the Jewish people, but will remain a Jew either way. An adherent to tradition will be ‘a practising Jew’, a non-adherent like myself (I am an atheist) will be ‘a non-practising Jew’, but a Jew will always be Jewish. Even if I wanted to, I could no more stop being a Jew by my atheism, than Morgan Freeman could stop being a black man by choosing to vote for the Tea Party.


      • Good point. Maybe his ignorance of this racial aspect of being a Jew further underlines his lack of true antisemitism. A real hater might know stuff, be more preoccupied by otherness, maybe. David Icke has been called an antisemite in these comments and I find that unlikely. I’ve seen him at pains to reassure his audience/followers not only that he only seeks to (at times) identify rich, powerful bastard who happen to be Jewish, but also that many Jews more or less see many things his way. (His views aren’t all about lizards and stuff either, in fairness. I’m not a fan but he’s not *entirely* nonsense-based.)
        And I know racists are more nuanced, *slippery*, today, understanding that naked racism is ugly so always denying it and neologising with stuff like ‘alt-right’, etc, “some of my best friends,” etc, but I’m certain guys like Ockerman and Icke simply are not racists (and in fact both seem to be die hard fight-the-power anti-racists) – they don’t have time for it anyway: secret societies and unaccountable power, etc, are their game, whatever one thinks of their logic.
        Btw your blogpost is recommended in a comment on this piece by Richard Seymour (I like some of the comments): https://www.patreon.com/posts/17775436
        I really like Seymour but his comments on this latest round of slander reflect a worrying trend, and I’ve seen similar sentiment elsewhere. It seems to be becoming accepted, beaten into many left intellectuals, that conspiracy theories = antisemitism. Talk of shadowy elites = antisemitism. “Zio-” = antisemitism. And it goes on.… Nobody wants to be called an antisemite, so who benefits when this becomes assumed, natural? (To make it plain, as I probably should, I mean that conspirators benefit. Shadowy elites benefit. Zionists benefit, and so on. Normal working Jews sure don’t benefit, but that’s clearly of no concern whenever antisemitism is in the headlines.)
        If this emerging logic takes deeper hold, my (I’d always thought quite reasonable) suspicions about the JFK assassination will someday serve as sufficiently hard evidence that I’m a raving Jew-hater! (And I foresee the last few words of that sentence being quoted by the prosecution in my trial.)


  42. No one was affected by a ‘nerve agent poison’?
    ‘ . . .   he began his letter to the Times . . . with; “may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” ‘
    “ The Times published a letter from Stephen Davies (Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust) on the 16th March. ‘Sir, further to your report (‘Poision Exposure Leaves Nearly 40 needing Treatment’), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.’ ”

  43. Jason Kilby Says:

    Hi Martin

    Thanks for the blog, and detailed follow up on other comments…

    When I first viewed an image of the mural, I struggled to understand the scandal… On reading the media / BTL comments on how obvious it all was, on review, I still only felt that it depicted anti-sematic undercurrents at worst… But the reporting wears you down… Maybe I’m not seeing what I should be seeing, maybe I’m not as tolerant / compassionate as I thought I was, why am I out of step with the narrative? I, generally in life, don’t go looking at everything expecting to be insulted / offended by it (being an atheist, like yourself, helps!), but you do start doubting yourself when it’s ‘systematically’ pointed out how obvious the situation is, the symbolism, the ‘tropes’, 30s Nazi propaganda, how out of step you are, etc….

    Maybe that’s the aim?

    You’ve given me a little bit of my sanity back… Thank you…

    Jason Kilby


  44. I actually do not believe the mural is antisemitic, though it does tell the truth about Jewish bankers and English ones as well. So pointing out that there are some Jews who control banks even though it is true is not anti Semitic. That is daft, i thought it was nothing but a painting about bankers. So what Jews are in it. What about the English or American bankers, they are in there are they not? So i know oh god i admit it. I am anti american, anti English even though i am not. yep the definition stinks but its seem to me the Jewish question has a special place. I don’t care what colour or region you are it is what you do, and yep bankers who are English, american, German or Jewish I hate because they made me paid for their mistakes. Its not their ethnicity i hate but there deeds. now the mural was brought up by the Zionist labour mp forget her name, she did this on purpose to damage the party at the local elections so she should be kicked out of the party. i was intimidated along with my wife then and very young children with a nursery teacher by people who were orthodox Jews while we were in a park. It happened. I was also refused leaflets in a public space by the same kind of Jews because i was not Jewish


  45. Being a Muslim i can attest to being threatened with violence along with my kids because the UK is a christian country. i have been told to only stick up for your own ie white people and Muslims should be expelled, this means me and my children. I have had people who said they served in the Israeli army tell me they killed 100s of Muslims, the person said it right in front of my kids who were 4 – 9 years at the time. My Libyan neighbours had their tyres slit, threatens for being Muslims and Arabs I have seen Islamophobia and fought against it. i have challenged bus drivers who are openly racist on bus against black people. So yeah racism and antisemitism exist so does other forms of the other

  46. David Horton Says:

    Interesting what you say about O’Brien…I used to email him frequently and he always read them out,indeed one day stating that I was becoming his favourite commentator…until I disagreed with him and now I cannot get an airing from any of the presenters [which I used to]…like you,I agree with most of what he says but….I think I have learned that he is not a serious journalist but just another one who wants to put bums on seats and that’s a shame as we really need someone who will really tell it as it is [oh and Corbyn is a real hobby horse of his and he cannot see past his own bias].

  47. Walter Zuk Says:

    Thanks for your article Michael. I wonder if you’ve seen this piece in the Guardian?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      I have, and I shook my head through most of it. It’s clear from his own words that the writer was looking for resemblances to anti-Semitism rather than finding actual examples of anti-Semitism. That behaviour is a symptom of paranoia.

      (My name’s Martin, by the way.)

      • Walter Zuk Says:

        Sorry Martin. I agree, and known dozens of people who have seen the mural, their take was it was about anti-capitalism, rather than anti-semitism.

  48. Ruth Tenne Says:

    As an Israeli human rights activist I totally concur with Martin Odoni’s report . The charges of anti-Semitism against the Labour party are not new and are wholly baseless. Back in 2016 I published quite comprehensive article related to those charges. . I would recommend reading this article (see below)alongside Martin Odoni’s writing on this subject

    “The recent rise of the left in the British Labour Party and the strong support of its new leadership for human rights and social justice for the Palestinians has triggered new charges of anti-Semitism, made by the Jewish community against members of the Labour Party. Some of those allegations attracted a great deal of sensational reports by the media , especially in the case of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone”

    http://www.redressonline.com/2016/06/the-truth-behind-the-charge-of-anti-semitism-in-britain/

    Ruth Tenne


  49. Thank you for this piece – whether you find the mural offensive or not is, I would suggest, a matter of background and interpretation. As someone who isn’t Jewish I wouldn’t presume to try to argue against your opinion, or the opinion of those of the Jewish faith who find it distasteful / upsetting. Your case is presented well. Those who are keen to use the incident as ‘proof’ that Jeremy Corbyn or Labour is ‘racist’ unfortunately create the impression that they either don’t do detail / nuance, or that they have another agenda.

    And, of course, any attempt to open up debate or see other sides (witness my Twitter conversations today) quickly gets shut down by those who equate any criticism of Israel’s approach to Palestine with anti-Semitism. I am told “we’re right, this person is wrong” and Jewish people like yourself who don’t embrace what I believe is called ‘Zionism’ are denigrated as a tiny, ‘far-left’ minority. There are people calling you – a Jewish man – ‘racist’ because you aren’t broad-brush condemning a whole political party – the one that actually stands on the side of minorities and the dispossessed. As someone outside the argument from a faith point of view – this and the vitriol that accompanies it is pretty shocking.

    But of course, regardless of your interpretation of the mural, what’s happening here is much more than that – for me it’s akin to the pre-US election Clinton email server ‘scandal’ – spread so effectively by Cambridge Analytica. Anti-Labour elements take an individual’s support for freedom of speech and a very human mistake in not looking at the image in more detail at the time (he’s a busy man!), refuse to accept his apology, make outlandish claims about patterns of behaviour and can never truly be satisfied, whatever he says or does in response.

    I thought John McDonnell did a fine job of shutting it down today, but we see again something that isn’t true presented as fact again – that anti-Semitism is somehow part of the wider left’s ideology, more so than the centre or right. Sadly the Guardian, BBC and other sometimes progressive-leaning organisations are at the forefront of this and it gives rise to all manner of conspiracy theories among Corbyn’s supporters, which then, in turn, become the news as a stick to beat them with.

    A positive point is that the façade can’t hold up forever and I would suggest very few people will think this mural is a bigger issue than their council going bust or cuts when casting their ballot at the Local Elections.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      On that last point, I certainly hope they won’t think that. The lack of importance in this whole mural business is kind of the point I’m making. We have millions of kids now below the breadline, our health service is on the brink of collapse, and the most corrupt, sleazy Government in modern history about to take us out of Europe without a plan for what we do afterwards, and we’re talking about a flippin’ painting that was destroyed years ago?

  50. leftpoliticstoday Says:

    Well said.

  51. rotzeichen Says:

    Brilliant work Martin, thank you for the care and patience you apply to this matter. In the long run the truth will out, but in the meantime these people seek to do as much damage as they can.

  52. Robert Thorneycroft Says:

    “The pyramid in the background is often assumed to embody the legendary ‘Illuminati’, which is often thought to be an undercover world-controlling movement dominated by Jews. But again, this is not correct. The pyramid actually symbolises Freemasonry, and the widely-held (and possibly correct) suspicion that Freemasons often give each other un-earned ‘foot-ups’ up the hierarchy.”

    Care to site a reference for this statement?

    The most common symbol of freemasonry is a set of compasses over a square with a large G in the middle. I’ve never heard of the pyramid being assigned to freemasonry at all and can find no reference on sites such as http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-symbols whereas a simple image search for illuminati shows exactly the image depicted in the mural.

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      Sure, here you go.

      https://www.thoughtco.com/eye-of-providence-95989

      The eye on the pyramid is sometimes called ‘The Eye Of Providence’, and has been associated with Freemasonry since 1797.

      • Robert Thorneycroft Says:

        I didn’t say Freemasons don’t use the All-Seeing Eye / Eye of Providence, indeed the site I linked clearly mentions it is used in most lodges. I was saying Freemasons don’t use it in conjunction with a pyramid. Freemasons use the eye either by itself or depicted within the set of compasses over a square (Now more commonly changed to a large G as I mentioned above).

        The eye of providence is a common religious symbol and to quote the article you linked “The Freemasons have never used an eye with a pyramid.”. I don’t think it could be any more explicit than that.

      • Martin Odoni Says:

        I didn’t imply that you ‘said’ anything, I was just trying to answer your question. Mear One may be mistaken when he says that the Pyramid is a masonic symbol. (To be fair, I thought it was too.) But that was still the meaning behind it being in the mural. If he was wrong, okay, but we need to remember that the Pyramid with the A-S.E. also appears on the US dollar, which still fits the anti-capitalism message, and does not noticeably fit any anti-Semitism message.


  53. A well thought out argument. The only comment I would make is that when I saw the pyramid I did not immediately think of Freemasons, I thought of a Dollar Bill. Which, I think, is probably more in line with the message the artist was trying to convey.

    As for the other responses to your article had no idea there were so many lunatics out there – some of their comments are just pure comedy gold! Fair play to you though, as you have taken the time to answer them in full.

    I would agree with you in that the mural and Corbyn are not remotely anti Semitic. Unless criticising banking greed, globalisation, neoliberalism or the actions of the Jewish State automatically makes you one.

    If that is the case then I guess I must be one too…

  54. Ruth Tenne Says:

    Along with Martin Odoni’s writings , I would like to widen the discussion and go far beyond the merits of the MURAL and its perceived reference to anti-Semitism . Any debate about the implications and impact of the anti-Semitism (perceived or otherwise) should be carried out in relations to other groups in the community , notably, Muslims – against whom hate crimes and sheer forms of Islamophobia have been dramatically increasing in recent year ,especially following the BREXIT vote.

    I enclose an abbreviated version of my article which was written (2007) in the wake of a similar claims of anti-Semitism by the main- stream Jewish community and its leadership.

    As you could see from the article I am Jewish and Israeli human rights activis

    Ruth Tenne: All- Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism http://www.palestinechronicle.com/ruth-tenne-all-party-inquiry-into-anti-semitism/

    April 17, 2007 Articles

    By Ruth Tenne
    PalestineChronicle.com

    A recent article in The Jewish Chronicle (29 March 2007) reports that ” concern over increasing Anti-Semitism in Britain is reflected in the government’s broad acceptance of the grim conclusions of last year’s Parliamentary inquiry into hatred directed at the Jewish community “. it goes on to say that “In a 20-page command paper that will be presented to Parliament, ministers have backed action on the majority of the inquiry’s recommendations and expressed understanding of communal anxiety “..

    Unfortunately, The All Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism and the Government’s follow-up recommendations fail to recognize that a multi-racial and multi-faith society ought to have a coordinated and consistent policy whereby no ethnic or, religious, group, should be considered in isolation from other such groups. Thus, an inquiry into Anti-Semitism which singles out one particular religion may constitute an unwelcome precedent that may lead to undesirable, if not harmful, effects. Moreover, the follow-up report takes a dangerous step by stating that rhetoric about Israel and Zionism, “from the far right to the far left and Islamic extremists alike, employs anti-Semitic motifs that are consistent with ancient forms of hatred towards Jews”

    This seems to suggest that peace organizations and activists who criticize Israel may be under the danger of being subjected to a witch hunt reminiscent of McCarthyism and the un-American activities campaign of the 50s…

    Sadly, various forms of harassment by Israel’s apologists are quite wide-spread in Britain. In the course of my work with peace organisations in Britain I encountered, along with my colleagues, the phenomenon of “reversed Anti-Semitism”- namely, being claimed to be anti-Semite by Jewish groups and individuals who could not tolerate the fact that a Jew, or an Israeli like myself, is prepared to criticize Israel’s policies and its treatment of the Palestinians.

    In the light of my experience I felt compelled to submit an unsolicited submission to the All-Party Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism which was set up by the British Parliament in November 2005. This included the following points:

    For historical reasons Anti-Semitism is referred solely to the Jewish race. Yet, the definition of modern day Anti-Semitism may have direct bearing on , or implications for, other religious and ethnic groups (who may also be part of the Semitic race) . An inquiry into Anti-Semitism ought, therefore, to be concerned with the manifestations of hatred and abuse directed at any religious and ethnic group (e.g. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc.) , and consequently embrace a much wider agenda….

    The all-embracing definition of Anti-Semitism, as well as that of other religiously-motivated abuses, should be tightened up in order to prevent it being exploited as an emotional term which may trigger an outrage and highly-charged statements by some interest groups (e.g. the Jewish community and Israel’s lobbyists on one hand and Muslim groups on the the other hand). That is to say, that the definition of Anti-Semitism and of other religiously-motivated offences ought to be closely related to the existing Race-Relations Act which has long been seen as an integral part of the British society and of its legal and law-enforcement bodies

    The monitoring of Anti-Semitism and other religious, or race- hatred incidents should be conducted in an objective and methodological way. Therefore, it has to be defined by precise categories referring to the type and severity of the abuse – e.g. Hatred-inciting public utterances as compared with malicious damage, arson and violent attacks against the members of a faith group . A public body should, therefore, be set up to monitor and record all religious, or race , aggravated offences rather than to leave it to partisan groups which are set up by the community in question. Thus, reports published by the national media ought to refer to the (statistical) records issued by a public body rather than to inflammatory accounts issued by certain interest groups – which may carry the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy . Furthermore, religious-hatred incidents, such as anti-Semitism, or Islamophobia, should be compared and considered in relations to the rise in violence in the host society rather than to be regarded in isolation from the present political, social, and economic circumstances (e.g. hostility towards asylum-seekers which may ignite hatred towards Muslim refugees ,and the volatile situation in the Middle-East that triggers hostility towards both Muslims and Jewish people).

    Sadly, the All-Party Inquiry and the Government’s follow- up report did not seem to take notice of the above points. Nor did the Inquiry appear to pay attention to submissions made by Jewish groups who do not agree with the line taken by the Board of Jewish Deputies, or the Zionist Federation. This may jeopardize community relations as well as hinder future harmony between different faith and religious groups. The Muslim Community in Britain – whose size is four times larger than that of the Jewish community and is disproportionately represented in Government and Parliament – ought to request a similar inquiry into the widely prevalent phenomenon of Islamophobia, and demand that the recommendations of the Inquiry into Anti-Semitism will equally apply to faith aggravated incidents against Muslims. If the Government chose to ignore the political and social marginalization of the Muslim community , and to regard the views of Israel’s critics as being an implicit form of Anti- Semitism, it may face the danger of engendering a perilous and inexcusable rift in Britain’s pluralist society . Such a policy may stand in a stark contrast to the Government’s declared efforts of “wining the hearts and minds” of disaffected communities and their member”


  55. Personally, the fact that even the most rabid of the right-Wing gutter rags didn’t deign this worthy of coverage at the time (2012) speaks volumes. Dug up to smear Corbyn JUST as the elctions loom. Same old Tories, eh?.

  56. pjd412 Says:

    Oh, come on! Those “rich bankers” really had such big, hooked noses and broad dome-shaped balding foreheads … Are you that clueless. Please google “Nazi Jewish caricatures..”

    Disclosure, I hate the murderous state of Israel – but like porn, I know antisemitism when I see it!

    • Martin Odoni Says:

      “I refer the honourable gentleman to various replies I have given elsewhere on this page.”

      Only two of the men in the picture are Jews. All six plutocrats were specifically identified by the artist.

      I will not approve ANY MORE comments that simply restate an assertion that has already been debunked repeatedly in both the article and comments section.

      END OF DISCUSSION.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: