Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

  • The Green Antisemites

    More on Zack Polanski, from the Mail:

    Family members of Greens leader Zack Polanski fear they will be forced to leave the UK if he ever became prime minister.

    The party, which stormed to a surprise by-election victory last month, is holding its spring conference on Saturday where it will debate and vote on a controversial motion alleging ‘Zionism is racism’.

    Under Mr Polanski’s watch, the Greens have attracted an army of alleged Islamists and far-Left activists, moving away from its traditional roots.

    The traditional roots – it’s in the name – are in the ecology movement. Long forgotten. It’s now all about getting the fashionable antisemite vote.

    The Daily Mail has spoken to three members of Mr Polanski’s extended family – none of whom now talk to him.

    ‘He’s currently the leader of the future Islamic party of Britain, that’s what the Green Party is fast becoming,’ said one. ‘And there would be no place for Jews in an Islamic state of Britain.’…

    ‘If the Zionism-is-racism motion is passed it will make the Greens the most anti-Semitic party in British history since Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists,’ said a second relation. ‘The idea of it is one of the most sickening things I’ve heard in a long time.’

    A third family member said: ‘The mad thing is that he’s gay, he’s Jewish but he’s cosying up to people whose ideology is the complete antithesis of everything that he’s supposed to stand for. It’s like he’s a chicken, telling us to vote for KFC.’

    Just 5 per cent of motions submitted to the Green Party’s conference actually concern protecting the environment.

    And, a final touch of irony.

    A Green Party spokesman said: ‘Zack is one of five Jewish leaders of a political party in British history and the harassment he has received since being elected is patently anti-Semitic.

    ‘Reporting like this demeans the Press and our democracy.’

    That’s some nerve there. Chutzpah, even. Criticism of antisemitic policies becomes antisemitic if it’s done by a party with a Jewish leader….

  • Vandalising Harry Potter

    Meanwhile, in Leeds.

    A trans-owned bookshop has been inviting customers to vandalise JK Rowling’s Harry Potter novels for 25p. 

    The Bookish Type in Leeds is inviting customers to deface the beloved children’s book to raise money for transgender healthcare.

    Customers can deface ‘as many pages’ as they want of an edition of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. 

    The independent shop then plan to auction the book off once it’s filled up.

  • Two smug men

    Also:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the “many, many good reasons” John Lithgow had to sign an 8 year contract of guaranteed work to play Dumbledore in the HBO Harry Potter despite his manly qualms about JK Rowling’s “cruelty” are all prefaced with a $ sign.

  • Trapped in a cult of their own making

    ….For 47 years, the regime has sold a delusion of absolute victory and divine invincibility. If they show a single ounce of weakness to the United States or Israel, that illusion shatters. They are trapped in a cult of their own making, where admitting defeat means instant collapse from within. They fear the wake-up call of their radical base far more than any missile strike.

  • Straight out of Nazi Germany

    What more can you say about the Greens under Zack Polanski? Well….

    Green Party activists described Jewish people as “an abomination to this planet” in anti-Semitic WhatsApp messages, The Telegraph can reveal.

    One member of the Greens for Palestine group, a Left-wing faction in the Green Party, said Jews “murder, bomb and starve” children.

    Another claimed the arson attack on four ambulances owned by a Jewish charity in Golders Green, north London, on Monday had been a “false flag” operation, suggesting it could have been carried out by Jewish people. 

    A Green council candidate shared posts on social media, making the same claim.

    The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said its lawyers were investigating the activists’ remarks. It said views expressed in the Greens for Palestine group chat were “straight out of Nazi Germany”.

    They were warned – but just couldn’t resist.

    A briefing document shared with Green activists last month had warned members not to post anti-Semitic comments online. In a “call for self-moderation”, Greens for Palestine told supporters not to “take the bait” and ask themselves “what this would look like on the front page of a newspaper”.

    It said: “Those who oppose us will be looking for the opportunity to say that we are a bunch of unpleasant, vengeful anti-Semites. They will seek to bait us into making statements emotionally, and smear us whenever they can. Don’t take the bait!”.

    It added: “Our cause is a righteous one – we are the good guys.”

    Ha!

    Added, from Jewish News:

    The individual responsible for the Green Party’s key political broadcast videos since Zack Polanski became leader has shared multiple conspiracy theories relating to the Hatzola ambulance firebombing this week, including the implication that a “Jewish owned news platform” had prior knowledge of what was going to happen, as well as the accusation that it happened “exactly when they need it to generate support for the war in the Middle East”.

    Jeremy Clancy, has worked closely with the Green Party since Zack Polanski became leader, with the videographer helping produce videos for the Green leader back when he was running for the role.…

    Mr Clancy shared multiple conspiracy theories on his social media relating to the Hatzola ambulance attack. These included a tweet which said: “CCTV shows three figures starting the fire at 1.45am UK time. This New York-based, Jewish-owned news platform tweeted this video at 2am UK time. Sorry if I don’t buy this complete BS”.

    Another tweet shared by Clancy read: “A film crew just happened to be present when the Jewish organization’s ambulances were set on fire in London. Wow! What a coincidence!”

    As pointed out in a community note attached to the tweet in question, “The fire was filmed by residents woken by explosions in a residential area and captured on CCTV showing suspects setting the ambulances ablaze; no film crew was pre-positioned.”

  • Welcoming the antisemites

    JC report here.

  • The Together Alliance

    A new progressive alliance is looking very much like the old progressive alliances. From the Times:

    Jewish groups say they have been ignored by the organisers of an anti far-right march in London, which has been backed by celebrities including Sir Lenny Henry and Paloma Faith.

    The Together Alliance, which is made up of groups claiming to represent more than 15 million people, is hoping that a record crowd will travel to the capital for its march against “hate and division”. 

    The trade union-backed body has won the support of actors such as Sir Mark Rylance and Steve Coogan and musicians, politicians, comedians, authors and broadcasters. 

    What a catalogue of the great and the good. Paloma Faith! Steve Coogan! Sir Mark Rylance! But please – no Jews.

    Jewish leaders said they believed they had been frozen out by the organisers despite the event’s far-right focus, while groups they perceive as being linked to “extremist rhetoric and outright antisemitism” were listed as supporters.

    Russell Langer at the JC – How ‘progressive’ celebrities help fuel extremism on Britain’s streets:

    “Together Alliance”, a new self-described “anti-far right” umbrella group, is gearing up for a major demonstration in central London on March 28.

    Many celebrities have put their names to the event, but so have several organisations that have been criticised for links to, or sympathy with, Islamist or antisemitic ideological positions. Many of these groups have also been involved in organising the regular national marches for Palestine that have included repeated and well-documented instances of antisemitic rhetoric and expressions of support for proscribed terrorist organisations.

    The sort of hateful rhetoric we see on these marches is not just tolerated; in some circles it appears increasingly normalised as a condition of social acceptance.

    We’ve heard about the red-green alliance, between the hard left and Islamism. Now it looks like it’s extending to the soft left – the “nice” progressives. On board here are the old familiar pro-Palestinian crowd, with those Muslim groups nicely embedded. Firmly excluded are the Jews.

    And who are the “far-right” they’re marching against? Zionists, by any chance?

  • So, so extremely upsetting

  • Iran and North Korea

    Could Kim Jong-un be the next US target, after the killing of Iran’s Khamenei? In a word, no. The Daily NK talks to Ryu Hyun-woo, a former North Korean ambassador to Kuwait.

    Is a U.S. operation to eliminate Kim Jong Un conceivable?

    “The U.S. could remove Kim Jong Un, but the likelihood of actually carrying out such an operation is close to zero. The biggest reason is that there is no alternative force or figure inside North Korea capable of taking over after Kim is gone. In Iran’s case, there is at least a possibility of power transferring to a pro-American leadership. North Korea is different. It has maintained a dictatorship with no second-in-command and no political rival for decades. There is no opposition party. It is a society that rooted out dissent entirely to sustain the sole leadership system established under Kim Il Sung. If Kim Jong Un were removed, the center of leadership would simply vanish. North Korean society would almost immediately descend into chaos. You would see internal power struggles over who controls the state, and out of that instability millions of North Korean refugees would be generated. That is not just a problem inside North Korea. It fractures the security landscape of Northeast Asia as a whole, and China has no desire to see North Korea collapse.”

    So the situation is fundamentally different from Iran?

    “Exactly. In the Middle East, the U.S. has allies who can help manage the fallout from striking Iran: Israel, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE. Countries that can help Washington maintain a favorable regional order after the strikes. Northeast Asia is different. The U.S., China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan are all part of a balanced regional structure, and none of them wants to fracture that balance. On top of that, North Korea signed a mutual defense treaty with China in 1961 and concluded a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with Russia in 2024. Both treaties contain provisions for automatic intervention by Russia and China in the event of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Iran has no equivalent agreements. That is why Kim Jong Un, even while feeling fear at the news of Khamenei’s killing, would also be exhaling with relief that he won’t end up in the same position.”….

    Could the Iran war push North Korea and Iran closer together?

    “Right now there is essentially no shared interest driving deeper North Korea-Iran cooperation. In the past, North Korea transferred missile technology to Iran. Today, Iran is ahead of North Korea in both drone and ballistic missile technology. North Korea has nothing to sell. North Korean nationals in Iran amount to embassy staff, a handful of traders, and a small number of Reconnaissance General Bureau personnel. Iran has a population of 90 million. It does not need North Korean labor. And Iran is a hard-nosed negotiator. The Persians are merchants by heritage. They calculate every transaction and will not accept a losing deal. North Korea knows this. What North Korea pursues across the Middle East is diplomatic support at international forums like the United Nations, a vote in its corner. The prospect of substantive economic or military cooperation is effectively zero.”

  • Misogyny in the IOC

    Sharron Davies at the Telegraph, in an unforgiving mood:

    While we are all bending over backwards in gratitude to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), how ridiculous that we have to be grateful just to have women’s sport returned to women. What an insane position that the IOC adopted in the first place, presuming that somebody who identified as the opposite sex had no advantage. If there is no biological difference between men and women, then there is no point at all in having separate male and female categories. Except everyone knows that this difference exists.

    For far too long, fairness has been disposable for women. Since the IOC took sex screening away in the 1990s, it has taken more than 25 years just to return to the point of common sense. Issues affecting men’s sport, such as shark skin swimsuits or Paralympians wanting to compete at the Olympics, were resolved within months – not a quarter of a century. We have had a decade of allowing people to self-identify, of basing rules on feelings rather than science.

    Now that science has won the day, the next hurdle is to make sure these changes apply to all women, not merely the elite. There is no way you can turn around and say that to people at grass-roots levels, to juniors and even recreational athletes, that certain women are not worthy of fair sport. Every woman is worthy of fair sport. Otherwise, it is direct sex discrimination. You cannot declare, “Yes, this is unfair and unsafe,” while failing to extend that principle to all levels of sport. Women and girls want to compete fairly, just the same as everybody else. Where else do we find our next Olympians, if they do not come through this route? ….

    Maybe, under the first female president, things will change. But it is just so sad that on an issue so fundamental, the IOC proved to be such an old boys’ club. Just remember what Richard Budgett, a British doctor and the IOC’s former medical director, once said: “The important thing to remember is that trans women are women.” What an idiotic remark. Misogyny has been rife within the IOC to the point where women did not matter. What changed were the examples that the public could no longer ignore. When people were watching Lia Thomas, a trans-identifying male, taking a US collegiate title in women’s swimming, or Khelif beating the hell out of female opponents in boxing, there was a pressure to which the IOC had to bow. People saw something on their screens that was unbelievably unfair and dangerous.

    Yes, it was the public backlash that did it. People saw what was going on: our elite sporting bodies pushing women under the bus as they rushed to accommodate the absurdities of the trans activists. Finally the message got across, but it should never have happened in the first place.

    When it comes to the female category, I am delighted that it has finally seen the light. But do not forget we are here because the IOC has, until now, made the wrong choices. And it did so without any scientific basis, only interviewing transgender athletes who had an agenda. Yes, Coventry has listened at last, but the organisation she runs should have been doing the scientific work from the very beginning. Sorting this out should never have taken so long.