1078 Trump's emails in my Spam folder. LGB group rejects the T

Trump's emails in my Spam folder. LGB group rejects the T

Newsletter published on November 16, 2019

(1) Trump's emails in my Spam folder
(2) LGB group rejects the T
(3) Trans dispute prompts new gay faction to break with Stonewall
(4) Greta Thunberg wearing an Antifa t-shirt which reads"Antifascist
Allstars"
(5) Billionaires Have Declared All-Out War on Sanders and Warren
(6) Britain’s Jews don't like either Johnson or Corbyn - say they are
'politically 'homeless'

(1) Trump's emails in my Spam folder
- by Peter Myers, November 16, 2019

I had no idea that I've meen receiving emails from Donald J. Trump at
one of my addresses - until I checked my Spam folder the other day.

There were quite a few emails from him, going back a long time.

What does it tell you when the President's emails are filed in the Spam?

It means that he's on a Blacklist. And, surely, that he's not running
the show - the Deep State is.

I did support Trump in 2016, but if I were a U.S. citizen today I would
support Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders had been on my list,
but his support for impeaching Kavanagh, and his war on 'antisemites'
have cost him my vote.

In a preferential voting system (instant runoff), I would put Michael
Bloomberg and Hillary last.

But there's some good news: Britain has emerged from the clutches of its
Jewish lobbies. They don't like Johnson, because they want to stay in
the EU (they don't like any kind of nationalism but their own). And they
don't like Corbyn, because he's an'antisemite' - or so they say, because
he likens Israel to Nazi Germany.

Hooray. Let's celebrate.

I'm sure that they're supporting the Liberal Democrats.

In this election, everything is up in the air. No-one can predict the
outcome, and polls are unreliable.

Although, given the present state of the EU, I'm pro-Brexit, I think
that European federation would be a good idea, if it were not being run
by Soros and Rothschild as part of the Globalist agenda. Why don't EU
leaders wake up, and change the EU to fall into line with what the
people want, before it's too late?

A Corbyn win would restore Britain to 1950s-style socialisation,
something I support because I grew up under a similar economic system in
Australia. However, he's made the same mistake that Bill Shorten made
recently in Australia, cozying up to the Trotskyists, Gender Feminists
and Gay lobby, and this is likely to cost him dearly.

A Johnson victory will have major implications for Australia and New
Zealand. The 'Five Eyes' countries, who supposedly run the world, will
get their independence back from the Globalists, and form a bloc.
They'll still maintain relations with neighbouring countries, but the
Open Doors era will be over.

Britain has the choice of two great leaders. The rest of the world can
only be envious.

(2) LGB group rejects the T
https://www.binary.org.au/lgb_group_rejects_the_t

November 02, 2019

Stonewall, Europe’s biggest LGBT rights organisation, is facing a
challenge from a breakaway group. The new group called LGB Alliance, was
announced as a response to ‘trans rights usurping ‘gay’ rights within
the original group. The new organisation has been formed to

"counteract the confusion between sex and gender which is now widespread
in the public sector and elsewhere".

The Telegraph reported,

Q
The participants included former employees and supporters of the lobby
group Stonewall, as well as doctors, psychiatrists, academics and
lawyers with expertise in child safeguarding."

It added that all members had agreed a foundation statement which
prioritised biological sex over gender theories which they regard as
"pseudo-scientific and dangerous".

The members of the new Alliance agreed, as part of a 20-point position
statement, that: homosexuality is same-sex (not same-gender) attraction;
lesbians are biological women who are attracted to other biological
women; sex is not "assigned" at birth but observed and it is not
transphobic for lesbians to have their own spaces and institutions which
exclude male-bodied people.
EQ

Kate Harris, a former volunteer fundraiser for Stonewall said "The main
difference is that lesbians, gays and bisexuals have something in common
because of our sexual orientation, that has nothing to do with being
trans…We will be called transphobic, but we’re not."

Kirralie Smith, Binary spokeswoman, said this kind of split was inevitable.

"Biological facts and the trans ideological agenda are at odds, they
cannot co-exist. Insisting that feelings trump facts is divisive and
unreasonable. Feelings are not measurable or consistent. Scientific,
biological reality is the only reliable way to define sex and gender."

(3) Trans dispute prompts new gay faction to break with Stonewall
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/stonewall-splits-accused-promoting-trans-agenda-expense-gay/

Gabriella Swerling, social affairs editor

23 OCTOBER 2019 o 5:27PM

Europe’s biggest LGBT rights organisation has split after being accused
of promoting a "trans agenda" at the expense of gay and lesbian rights.

Stonewall is known for campaigning for the equality of lesbian, gay,
bisexual and trans people across Britain. The charity’s mission
statement says that it aims "to create inclusive and accepting cultures".

However, following a meeting on Tuesday night - and amid an ongoing row
about trans inclusion - the charity has divided and forged a splinter group.

Announcing themselves as the LGB Alliance, the group, formed of
"influential lesbians, gay men and bisexuals" met in central London last
night and forged the new organisation in a bid to "counteract the...

(4) Greta Thunberg wearing an Antifa t-shirt which reads"Antifascist
Allstars"

https://i.redd.it/noteiunxxpc31.jpg

(5) Billionaires Have Declared All-Out War on Sanders and Warren

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/billionaires-have-declared-all-out-war-on-sanders-and-warren/

NOV 07, 2019 OPINION

Billionaires Have Declared All-Out War on Sanders and Warren

For many decades, any politician daring to fight for economic justice
was liable to be denounced for engaging in "class warfare." It was
always a grimly laughable accusation, coming from wealthy elites as well
as their functionaries in corporate media and elective office. In the
real world, class warfare — or whatever you want to call it — has always
been an economic and political reality.

In recent decades, class war in the USA has become increasingly
lopsided. The steady decline in union membership, the worsening of
income inequality and the hollowing out of the public sector have been
some results of ongoing assaults on social decency and countless human
lives. Corporate power has run amuck.

Now, the billionaire class is worried. For the first time in memory,
there’s a real chance that the next president could threaten the very
existence of billionaires — or at least significantly reduce their
unconscionable rate of wealth accumulation — in a country and on a
planet with so much human misery due to extreme economic disparities.

In early fall, when Bernie Sanders said "I don’t think that billionaires
should exist," many billionaires heard an existential threat. It was
hardly a one-off comment; the Bernie 2020 campaign followed up with
national distribution of a bumper sticker saying "Billionaires should
not exist."

When Elizabeth Warren stands on a debate stage and argues for a targeted
marginal tax on the astronomically rich, such advocacy is anathema to
those who believe that the only legitimate class war is the kind waged
from the top down. In early autumn, CNBC reported that "Democratic
donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the
presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald
Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination."

As for Bernie Sanders — less than four years after he carried every
county in West Virginia against Hillary Clinton in the presidential
primary — the state’s Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin flatly declared last
week that if Sanders wins the nomination, he would not vote for his
party’s nominee against Trump in November 2020.

Some billionaires support Trump and some don’t. But few billionaires
have a good word to say about Sanders or Warren. And the pattern of
billionaires backing their Democratic rivals is illuminating.

"Dozens of American billionaires have pulled out their checkbooks to
support candidates engaged in a wide-open battle for the Democratic
presidential nomination," Forbes reported this summer. The dollar total
of those donations given directly to a campaign (which federal law
limits to $2,800 each) is less significant than the sentiment they
reflect. And people with huge wealth are able to dump hundreds of
thousands or even millions of dollars at once into a Super PAC, which
grassroots-parched AstroTurf candidate Joe Biden greenlighted last month.

The donations from billionaires to the current Democratic candidates
could be viewed as a kind of Oligarchy Confidence Index, based on data
from the Federal Election Commission. As reported by Forbes, Pete
Buttigieg leads all the candidates with 23 billionaire donors, followed
by 18 for Cory Booker, and 17 for Kamala Harris. Among the other
candidates who have qualified for the debate coming up later this month,
Biden has 13 billionaire donors and Amy Klobuchar has 8, followed by 3
for Elizabeth Warren, 1 for Tulsi Gabbard, and 1 for Andrew Yang.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has zero billionaire donors.

(The tenth person who has qualified for the next debate, self-funding
billionaire candidate Tom Steyer, is in a class by himself.)

Meanwhile, relying on contributions from small donors, Sanders and
Warren "eagerly bait, troll and bash billionaires at every opportunity,"
in the words of a recent Los Angeles Times news story. "They send out
missives to donors boasting how much damage their plans would inflict on
the wallets of specific wealthy families and corporations."

The newspaper added: "Sanders boasts that his wealth tax would cost
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos $8.9 billion per year. He even championed a bill
with the acronym BEZOS: The Stop Bad Employers By Zeroing Out Subsidies
Act would have forced Amazon and other large firms to pay the full cost
of food stamps and other benefits received by their lowest-wage employees."

For extremely rich people who confuse net worth with human worth, the
prospect of losing out on billions is an outrageous possibility. And so,
a few months ago, Facebook mega-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg expressed
his antipathy toward Warren while meeting with employees. As a
transcript of leaked audio makes clear, Warren’s vision of using
anti-trust laws to break up Big Tech virtual monopolies was more than
Facebook’s head could stand to contemplate.

"But look," Zuckerberg said, "at the end of the day, if someone’s going
to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you
fight."

The fight happening now for the Democratic presidential nomination
largely amounts to class warfare. And the forces that have triumphed in
the past are outraged that they currently have to deal with so much
progressive opposition. As Carl von Clausewitz observed, "A conqueror is
always a lover of peace."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/bernie-sanders-the-billionaire-class-is-afraid/

NOV 08, 2019 NEWS Bernie Sanders: 'The Billionaire Class Is Afraid'

Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday night that America’s billionaire class
is "scared," and rightly so, after numerous outlets reported that former
New York City mayor and billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg is
actively planning to make a late entry into the 2020 Democratic
presidential race.

"The billionaire class is scared and they should be scared," tweeted
Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, apparently in
response to news that Bloomberg is expected to file paperwork for his
possible 2020 Democratic candidacy in Alabama before the state’s Friday
deadline.

According to the New York Times, Bloomberg, a former Republican, "has
not yet made a final decision on whether to run."

"But in the first sign that he is seriously moving toward a campaign,
Mr. Bloomberg has dispatched staffers to Alabama to gather signatures to
qualify for the primary there," the Times reported. "Mr. Bloomberg and
his advisers called a number of prominent Democrats on Thursday to tell
them he was seriously considering the race, including former Senator
Harry Reid of Nevada."

The Sanders campaign quickly seized upon Bloomberg’s possible White
House bid as evidence that rich Democrats are worried about the prospect
of Sanders—who has said he doesn’t think billionaires should
exist—becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.

"Three simple points," Sanders speechwriter David Sirota wrote Thursday
night in the campaign’s Bern Notice newsletter. "1. The billionaire
class sees the Bernie Surge and is terrified that Bernie is going to
win. 2. More billionaires seeking more political power isn’t the change
America needs. 3. Bernie is going to win."

As the Times noted, Bloomberg’s "presence in the race would offer fodder
to the party’s rising populist wing, led by Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders,
who contend that the extremely rich already wield far too much influence
in politics."

Some observers suggested Bloomberg is worried about former Vice
President Joe Biden’s candidacy and could be entering the fray in a
last-ditch attempt to stop the Democratic Party from nominating a
progressive.

Progressive activist Jonathan Cohn tweeted Thursday night that
"Bloomberg’s decision to enter tells us what we already know: Both
Sanders and Warren have real paths to victory, and big donors are afraid
that Biden increasingly doesn’t."

Warren would eliminate business write down depreciating capital; minimum
tax of 35% on foreign earnings. A financial transactions tax of 0.1% on
sales of shares and bonds

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/11/07/how-would-elizabeth-warren-pay-for-her-health-policy

Warrencare How would Elizabeth Warren pay for her health policy? Let us
count the ways


Print edition | United States Nov 7th 2019 | WASHINGTON, DC

To her credit, Elizabeth Warren is the kind of politician who likes to
show her maths. The Massachusetts senator has climbed near the summit of
the Democratic presidential primary carrying amply footnoted and
thoroughly costed plans on matters both prominent and obscure. She has
plans for a wealth tax on the rich, for universal child care and
cancelling student debt, yes, but also plans to promote competition
among farmers, improve the funding of Native American reservations and
relieve Puerto Rico’s debt. Yet on health care, perhaps the most
consequential policy area, Ms Warren was hazy for months.

The senator had yoked herself to Medicare for All—a single-payer system
free at the point of service proposed by her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
Unlike Mr Sanders, though, she dodged questions on whether taxes on the
middle class would rise to pay the $3.4trn in added annual costs. On
November 1st she released a detailed financing plan "without increasing
middle-class taxes one penny." Other candidates, she declared, should
put forward similarly detailed plans or "concede that they think it’s
more important to protect the eye-popping profits of private insurers
and drug companies and the immense fortunes of the top 1% and giant
corporations."

The details explain both the initial reticence and the subsequent
defensiveness. The underlying sums strain credulity, requiring heroic
assumptions on cost reductions and budgetary gymnastics on
revenue-raising. This mars Ms Warren’s wonkish reputation. It may
placate voters for the primary, but would surely damage her in a general
election against President Donald Trump, if she gets that far.

Start with the spending. Over the next ten years Americans are expected
to spend $52trn on health care. Under a generous single-payer system,
spending would increase by $7trn, according to a recent study by the
Urban Institute, a left-leaning think-tank, which serves as the starting
point of the campaign’s calculations. Through a number of steps, Ms
Warren whittles this difference down to zero. She argues that national
health spending would remain constant, even though more people would be
covered (eg, the 28m citizens and undocumented migrants without
insurance) and the use of medical services would increase were they free.

Among her modifications of the Urban Institute’s numbers are lower
administrative costs (2.3% of overall spending, compared with Urban’s
6%). Ms Warren’s plan assumes a slower rate of growth in health costs
(3.9% versus Urban’s 4.5%) and less generous payments to hospitals for
services (110% of current Medicare reimbursement rates versus Urban’s
115%). Added to this are targets for reducing spending on drugs—by 30%
on generics and 70% on branded medicines—enforced by the threat of large
excise taxes, the possibility of overriding patents and the option of
having the government produce drugs itself. Given the resistance to such
a plan from doctors, insurers, drug companies and hospitals, this would
be hard to pull off.

Even with these steps, and the redirection of all existing public
spending on health care, Ms Warren has a $20.5trn budgetary hole.
Filling it is made harder by her insistence that taxes on the middle
class will not increase. Currently employers shoulder a significant
portion of health-care costs. Under Ms Warren’s plan, the same cheques
would be redirected to the federal government. In practice this would be
a tax on employment, which seems likely to hurt middle-class Americans.
It would also increase the relative cost of hiring low-wage workers,
hurting the people Ms Warren most wants to help.

She finds some money from the kind of conjuring promised by less
rigorous campaigns, like better tax enforcement (which provides
$2.3trn), comprehensive immigration reform (providing $400bn) and the
elimination of the fund that pays for the defence department’s Middle
East operations (another $800bn). After all that, she is still short by
$6.8trn.

To make up the shortfall, Ms Warren plans to add levies on large firms
and rich Americans—beyond those she has already proposed. On top of the
repeal of Mr Trump’s tax cuts and a new 7% charge on corporate profits,
she would eliminate the ability of businesses to immediately write down
depreciating capital; she would also impose a minimum tax of 35% on
their foreign earnings. A new financial transactions tax of 0.1% would
be placed on sales of shares and bonds, wrecking the business of
high-frequency traders (perhaps a plus from Ms Warren’s point of view).
The country’s 40 biggest banks would pay an annual fee of 0.15% on
"covered liabilities" (liabilities minus federally insured deposits).
The wealth tax has been revised upwards too. Fortunes above $1bn would
be charged a 6% annual levy. A Warren presidency could cost Jeff Bezos,
the boss of Amazon, $26bn over a single term. Nor could he escape by
shedding his American citizenship. Ms Warren has proposed an "exit tax"
of 40% on the net worth of billionaires to head off that threat.

These contortions are all the result of past decisions. Despite her
earlier, more pragmatic instincts on health care, Ms Warren adopted two
nearly incompatible pledges: to deliver Mr Sanders’ version of
single-payer health care—more generous than that of Britain or
Canada—but without any premiums or deductibles and without raising taxes
on the vast majority of Americans. Because her evasiveness on funding
was attracting criticism from her more moderate competitors, like Pete
Buttigieg and Joe Biden, Ms Warren released this plan, which seems to
assume that anyone outside the top 1% of earners counts as middle class.
During the primary election, the strategy could work. She can credibly
answer her opponents’ claims by repeating her quasi-official
catchphrase, "I have a plan for that". Primary voters may shrug off the
entire episode.

A general-election contest with Mr Trump would be a different matter.
There was reasonable speculation that Ms Warren’s woolliness on health
care was a tactical move, enabling her to strike a more centrist pose on
securing the Democratic nomination. That option now looks closed off.
The new plan opens her up to all manner of attack from Mr Trump, even
though his own health plan is ill-defined, beyond a so-far unsuccessful
drive to repeal Obamacare, and his record on health—2m more Americans
are uninsured than when he came to office—is dreadful.

Going into an election promising to discontinue the health insurance of
the 178m Americans who have private plans through their employers seems
mad. "Democrats now have a 30-point advantage over Donald Trump on
health care," says Jim Kessler of Third Way, a centre-left think-tank.
"If that gap narrows—and it will narrow if Democrats are for Medicare
for All: it could narrow to zero—he gets re-elected." According to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-policy think-tank, 51% of Americans
support Medicare for All while 47% oppose it. But when various
objections to the programme are made—such as the elimination of private
health insurance, and the possibility of increased taxes and queues for
treatment—support drops to below 40%. As a policy, Warrencare might be
described as negligent. Politically it looks more like malpractice.?

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition
under the headline "Warrencare"

(6) Britain’s Jews don't like either Johnson or Corbyn - say they are
'politically 'homeless'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/utterly-betrayed-britains-jews-are-now-politically-homeless/

‘Utterly betrayed’: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless

Tanya Gold

9 November 2019 9:00 AM

We Jews have evolved to be neurotic; so neurotic that, in certain
circumstances, the Syrian border feels slightly safer than Muswell Hill.
I’ll take Muswell Hill. Polls say that only 7 per cent of British Jews
will consider voting for Labour on 12 December, while 47 per cent of
British Jews will consider leaving the country if Labour win. I’d rather
fight Dave (generic name) from the Labour Representation Committee than
Dave from Hezbollah (likewise generic). But I shouldn’t joke; and
nothing feels funny any more. Things are always OK until they aren’t.

Jews have fled Labour since Ed Miliband’s time. In 2010 we were split
quite evenly between Labour and the Tories: but Gordon Brown is a
serious man. Despite the fact that Miliband is Jewish, support dwindled
under his leadership — he was too ashamed of Israel, the homeland to
which Jews remain attached, whatever the Jewish Corbynista fringe may
say — and he is a nebbish. Corbyn, though, is something awful: the
leader whose response to the Enough’s Enough rally in 2018 was to spend
the Passover seder with Jewdas, the ‘radical diasporists’ who have
prayed ‘Please God, smash the state of Israel / Smash it in the
abundance of your love’. That was his answer to Jewish fear, and we knew
him then for what he was: a Jew baiter, and a coward. Under his
leadership, and the semi-respectable sheen of anti-Zionism — let’s have
a Rainbow Nation with Hamas! — the poison spreads. The libel that the
Jews are the enemy of everything holy (formerly Christ, now socialism)
has returned.

Among Jews who care about Labour, or what Labour once was, there have
been fierce battles since 2017: between those who would fight from
within, and those who think that any vote for Corbyn is a vote for an
anti-Semite. Broadly, the second group has won. Even I have no time for
the Jewish activists who attempt to solve the crisis from within, and I
previously defended them: to each Jew, her own path. But what is at the
end of it? It is a familiar position for a European Jew: to be
considered the enemy of goodness, and I console myself by saying they
made us choose; like Trotsky, we could not be a Jew and a citizen of the
world. It would have been easy for them to reassure reasonable Jews — I
accept there are unreasonable ones — but instead they praised the woman
who wrote ‘Free Palestine’ on the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto, and too
much else to print. It is contemptuous, but why not? Electorally, we do
not matter; and why should they be immune from the 2,000 years of libel
which is their cultural inheritance?

Most Jews now live in a state of existential fear; the rest — Jewish
Voice for Labour [JVL], and Jewdas — in thrilled denial. ‘In 2017,’ says
one Jewish acquaintance, previously of the left, ‘we still thought there
was a chance that Labour’s anti-Semitism problem could be beaten from
within. MPs such as Ian Austin, John Mann and Louise Ellman were trying
to achieve change, along with many party members. But that hasn’t
worked: all three of those MPs have been beaten by the sheer scale of
the problem.’ All but Mann have left Labour. ‘A major religious leader
[Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi] has called the opposition
leader an anti-Semite and refuses to sit in the same room as him.
Corbyn’s supporters — including a handful of Jews — queue up to tell
Jews in the mainstream what they should and should not find
anti-Semitic. This is by far the biggest challenge to the UK Jewish
community of all our lifetimes.’

‘I’m waking up with a sense of doom every day,’ says another. ‘Fear is
what it is, fear and dread, mixed with a sense of disbelief that this is
happening in my lifetime, and that so few people seem to care.’

‘I feel utterly betrayed by the country I grew up in, that used to feel
safe,’ says a third. ‘My father fled from Austria in 1941. I feel
relieved he is not here to see what is happening now. Deep in my heart I
always felt the people around me would have my back. I have now lost
that trust.’ A fourth says: ‘We no longer have the freedom to vote on
anything other than being Jewish.’

This is my dilemma, for the past four years have felt like an awakening.
I can no longer pretend to be what I will call a Disraelian Jew: an
exotic, but one who belongs here, a Jew and a leftist. In a sense it
expiates my shame, which was previously dormant but is now brightly
alive; that we, as British Jews, survived almost intact — there were
casualties in the Channel Islands — while continental Europe is a
graveyard. Incidentally, I think that explains why I spoilt my ballot
paper in the referendum, an act which, at the time, mystified me
slightly. I am not so attached to continental Europe.

‘Jew’ is absolutely a loaded word again. I have been told, very
recently, that the Rothschilds control Europe — at an Alcoholics
Anonymous meeting of all places; and by a socialist, naturally. This is
normal. When I ask Labour members about anti-Semitism they react with
denial or, more likely, fury; why do we seek to maim the utopia, and why
do we not do something about Islamo-phobia? (I wish I could; but how
does ignoring anti-Semitism further the anti-racist cause?) I know they
think my testimony is suspect — oh, lying Jew! — but my antennae are set
to peril, and I trust them. I also trust that things will get worse;
that the more it is tolerated, the more it bleeds across the culture. Do
people really think that a far-right thug will pause before he punches a
Jew and think: hang on, didn’t this rhetoric emerge from Stalin’s
Russia? The left provides the script, always, for they are the
pseudo-intellectuals writing their borrowed lies; the right, the fists.
For these people, consciously or not, the Holocaust is not something to
lament. It is, rather, another thing they hate us for.

As the denial goes on, I allow myself the luxury of wondering if it
would be better if they said, outright — we hate Jews. At least Nazis
did not call themselves anti-racists, although they probably would
nowadays. John McDonnell called himself ‘saddened’ on The Andrew Marr
Show, as if Anglo-Jewry were a woman who had disappointed him because
she did not understand him. Yet he remains the president of the Labour
Representation Committee, which hosted the most excitable Jew haters at
the Labour conference fringe this year; why has he not resigned, and
cursed them for endangering the project? Perhaps he has forgotten he is
their president; perhaps he does not believe that they do.

That they made us choose makes me weep, for I have not considered voting
Conservative before. But I won’t. There is a respectable strain of
Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me — one glance at Jacob
Rees-Mogg’s face is enough; and all racism thrives under inequality. The
Tories cannot save us; that is a laughable sentence. That Labour call
themselves progressives, and yet are imbued with the infection of
ancient Christian Jew-hatred — the murder of God was our original sin —
is equally laughable. We have returned to our settled place; too proud,
in every sense, to assimilate; rather, we drift across the world to
where we feel safe: the Syrian border for some; Muswell Hill for others.

At least I feel close to my ancestors now; I understand them better. I’m
not English, I tell my friend, after I had read Jim Allen’s Perdition, a
ruthlessly anti-Semitic play beloved by Ken Loach. I had to read it,
after I saw Loach greeted with a standing ovation at Labour conference —
and I read, in its pages, of Jewish culpability for the Holocaust; of
the Jewish demonic attitude.

Yes, you are, he says, meaning to comfort me. No, I’m not. If I was an
English schoolgirl, I am a real Jew now.


1