Saturday, September 21, 2019

Spooks, Corbyn, and the Facts of Life

The BBC series Spooks, released in the US under the title MI-5, fictionalized the work of MI-5, the UK's domestic intelligence agency. Spooks ran for ten seasons and received numerous prestigious awards. In contrast to American-style TV shows, Spooks was intended to be less fantasy and more gritty, with a lead character being brutally killed in the second episode.

But there was something very odd about the storylines in this immensely popular show. Who were the villains in Spooks? Who was plotting evil acts of murder and terror?

The rogue's gallery in Spooks included anti-abortion radicals, white supremacist groups, rival British intelligence agents, the CIA, and the Mossad, along with a pro-Israel terror group called "The November Committee." There were virtually never any Islamist terrorist groups - although there were a number of episodes in which such groups were falsely suspected and proved to be innocent.

Yet the real facts are the exact opposite. MI5 monitors some three thousand Islamist extremists living in the UK. Meanwhile, there are only 100 suspected dangerous neo-Nazis and far-right extremists. And the threat from rogue British intelligence groups, the CIA and Mossad is mere fantasy, while "The November Committee" is a fictitious invention. Why invent pro-Israel terror groups for a storyline, when there are pro-Palestinian terror groups that actually do exist?

It's more than a little disturbing that an entire generation of BBC viewers were brainwashed into falsely believing that the threat to Great Britain is from British nationalists, Americans and Jews, rather than from Islamists. But the distortions performed by the BBC were simply reflecting an already existent problem. The United Kingdom suffers from pathological anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment. Immediately after 9/11, there was a grotesque outpouring of anti-American hatred. And Israel is widely perceived as an oppressive colonial regime, rather than as the historic homeland of the Jewish People trying to defend itself against those who wish to wipe it out.

The most prominent example of British pathological anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism is, of course, Jeremy Corbyn, potentially the next prime minister of the UK. He is openly more hostile to the US and to Israel than to actual Islamist terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whom he has described as his "friends" and "brothers." Even worse, he claimed that Hamas "is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region," whereas the reality is that Hamas runs a brutal regime which diverts aid funds into creating rockets to fire at civilians, and shoots the kneecaps of Palestinian dissidents or throws them off rooftops.

Even when condemning the most extreme Islamist atrocities, such as 9/11 and Islamic State, Corbyn always seeks to "balance" it with condemnation of the US or UK. Whether or not Corbyn is antisemitic and makes British Jews feel unsafe pales into insignificance compared to his support for brutal authoritarian regimes and hatred of democratic free societies like the US and Israel. He has even praised Iran, appeared on Iranian state television and called for improving relations with Iran—despite Iran being the number one country seeking to destabilize the world and finance terror.

Fascinatingly, last year the head of MI5 summoned Corbyn to a meeting. Senior officials described the goal of the meeting as trying to explain to Corbyn "the facts of life." They had been "troubled" by his various statements which downplayed Islamist and Russian killings in the UK. Unfortunately the meeting was postponed, due to Corbyn being busy with denying having an antisemitism problem, and it seems that the meeting never took place. Meanwhile, the official historian of MI5 noted that should Corbyn rise to power, it would be a problem for the whole of Western defense.

Even if Corbyn himself loses the election and fades into obscurity, he is only the most extreme example. There is a clear and rampant problem in British society of an inability to recognize the difference between free societies and fear societies, between democracies and tyrannies, between acts of defense and acts of aggression. It's time for everyone to learn about the facts of life.

17 comments:

  1. So now you have stooped to calling anti-abortionists "radicals"? You are clearly insinuating that they are freaks. You don't like people who frown upon the idea that a mother has the "right" to suction out and slaughter a tiny, breathing life dying to breathe free? I'm sorry, but especially this close to Rosh Hashanah, that wasn't called for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suggest you take a class in remedial English. Pay special attention to the lesson on adjectives.

      Delete
    2. Huh? He called them "radicals" in the context of the show, where the fictional group had radical goals in terms of perpetrating violence.
      Reading comprehension is a useful skill to have. :)

      Delete
    3. No, he's calling the anti-abortionists portrayed in the show "radicals", with no implication about any actual anti-abortionists. He also calls another group portrayed in the show a "pro-Israel terror group", with no implication (on R' Slifkin's part) about any actual Israel supporters. What the show implies is another story.

      Delete
    4. As you pointed out, it is close to Rosh Hashanah, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you may have misread the article - the author is referring to the fact that the show portrays "anti abortion radicals" - i.e., those that will bomb abortion clinics, etc (which I think you would agree makes them "radicals") as being among the greatest threats to the free world today.

      In other words, he is criticizing the fact that TV shows today tend to show all the threats as coming from the right.

      Delete
    5. You have to know when "anti-abortion radicals" means "anti-abortion people who, by definition, are radical" and "those particular anti-abortion people who do radical things."

      Delete
  2. QUESTION:

    “Will the Democrats choose a Jew-hating leader like Corbyn?”

    ANSWER:

    The Democrats have ALREADY chosen leaders like Jeremy Corbyn:

    Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Bernie Sanders
    [self-hating Jew with no love of Israel], Hillary Clinton
    [accused Israel of being an occupying force],
    and ex-President Barack Hussein Obama [who for 8 years
    did everything possible to weaken and humiliate Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It goes back... https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-u-k-intel-goaded-arabs-into-48-war-papers-show-1.5300880

    ReplyDelete
  4. You have a problem which is that you've been taught something that is simply not true. I.e., that a popular government, chosen by the majority of its citizens, is somehow inherently a moral one. But history and the present show that this is not so. Such a government is frequently slightly worse than the average of those citizens, and often works to bring that average down, whether by importing masses of new citizens from less moral societies or by using the media and educational system to directly inculcate its citizens with immorality.

    >There is a clear and rampant problem in British society of an inability to recognize the difference between free societies and fear societies, between democracies and tyrannies, between acts of defense and acts of aggression.

    Your problem is that you mix three unrelated things into a cholent and assume/imply that they're related.

    Free society vs. fear society-which is Britain? I should remind you that the British police and courts arrest and incarcerate otherwise law-abiding people for objectionable statements on social media and that violence is ubiquitous in British cities.

    Democracy vs. tyranny-the two are not even on the same axis.

    You can have a state which has a democratically elected legislature and executive, and at the same time is absolutely tyrannical to its citizens, or anarchic, or both. An example is the Rotherham scandal, where the actions of the democratic government over a quarter of a century amounted to actively protecting imported (by the same government) predators who raped thousands of British children, tyrannically suppressing native Britons who attempted to interfere. And that's far from exceptional-you can see the "see also" section in this article for a sampling of similar events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

    You can have a monarchy which zealously guards the rights of its subjects, including the right to free speech (except for lese majeste and other clearly defined areas).

    Acts of defense vs acts of aggression-all defense is aggression from the perspective of the aggressor, and all aggression justified. If you wish to rationally explain to the average British voter that we Jews have a right to live here in Israel and use violence (often preemptive or disproportional) to secure that right-good luck, Chuck. Those voters were no great fans of Jews 70 years ago, and they've been heavily diluted with masses of Pakistan, Bangladeshi, Arab and African Muslims, which their democratic government has seen fit to import.

    All of the above adds up to four simple conclusions:

    1. Corbyn is a harbinger. His (democratically elected) successors will be worse.

    2. If you are a British Jew, you need to get out, because you're in the position of the dodo bird in 1600. Writing is on the wall.

    3. Our foreign policy towards Britain needs to be about what it is to the Sunni Arab states-outward detente, secret cooperation when possible, zero expectation of "fairness" or any of that nonsense.

    4. If you mistake the public image Western countries seek to present (morality, freedom, justice, fairness) for their actual character (at best, the amoral pursuit of their elites' financial and political interests while the masses get bread and circuses, at worst, Rotherham/Saville-type degeneracy at the top and bottom), you will always be in the position of a surprised and appalled naif. Be a realist (especially when it comes to non-Jews,) and you will be prepared for what you see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I remember an episode from that show that involved recruiting a black Muslim convert into being a double agent in an Islamist group.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And now you know why many of us who dislike Trump's baggage (crude, rude, arrogant, etc.) will nevertheless enthusiastically vote for him: he is all that stands between us and despicable Leftism.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I've said democracy is a fraud and your post just confirms it. The people of Great Britan had never voted to import millions of negroes, muslims and Hindus into their country. Nobody ever asked their opinion. They have been brainwashed, intimidated and suppressed. Their country and culture are being wiped out and this dictatorship and terrorism by the elites is being marketed as democracy that us supposed to be the will if the people? For England a totalitarian state is the only way to save their nation. What other solution is their?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree strongly with Rabbi Skifkin as regsrds this blog. It is however worth reading Rise and Kull First by Ronen Bergman as there have been times when Mossad and other Israeli security services (Aman & Shin Bet) clearly undertook actions that were not morally acceptable. In fact it could have been much worse if the plans of Sharon as Defende Minister at the time were not frustrated by senior officers and operatives. This is not to excuse the BBC or by any means to assert an equivalence with Islamic terror. However, to portray Israeli security services as representing no threat at times to western countries and their citizens is not correct. Of course, the positive aspect of this is that in Israel, the independent judiciary and press does mean these things end up getting revealed.....but only just at times...ask Itzhik Mordechai what he went through being wrongly framed by others as being responsible for clearly unacceptable and illegal acts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was in the Anti Defamation League leadership program. (Long story.) They were absolutely obsessed with a handful of guys in the deep south playing around with Nazi flags. To them, these harmless buffoons were a Major Threat to Our Way of Life! Meanwhile, there's rampant anti-Semitism, not to mention many other forms of bigotry and speech surpression, right in front of their faces in the leadership and institutions of the American left, and they simply cant see it. Paradigm shift. That old group - and they are indeed elderly and dying out - simply cannot perceive how the world has changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what brings in donations from old Jews and funds from the government. If they started complaining about eg the US importing millions of Muslim immigrants who hate Jews, or about rampant antisemitism and physical attacks on Jews from blacks, it would not be profitable. Ditto the SPLC. They've gotta pretend like the main problem is some trailer dweller in Indiana channeling the ghost of Himmler via YouTube.

      Delete
  10. Once they turned Doctor Who into a SJW women the BBC proved there are no depths it won't sink to

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is happening to the famous James Flynn of the 'Flynn effect'. This is England. Slifkin ban pales in comparison.


    https://quillette.com/2019/09/24/my-book-defending-free-speech-has-been-banned/

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Your Inner Animal

It's strange. There are all kinds of different challenges that modern science raises for traditional religion in general and Judaism in ...