Jewish scandals are like earthquakes: sooner or later, another is bound to strike. Sometimes they shake giant companies and reputations to the ground. Think of Robert Maxwell in the United Kingdom and Bernie Madoff in the United States. But there’s also a very big difference between Jewish scandals and earthquakes. Respectable academics are allowed to analyse and describe earthquakes in as much detail as they like. Everyone agrees that we need to understand earthquakes better and reduce the harm they do. Ideally, we’d like to prevent them altogether.
Pattern recognition is forbidden
But respectable academics are not allowed to analyse and describe Jewish scandals in any serious detail. The scandals can’t even be given their correct racial label. To respectable opinion, Maxwell and Madoff were mega-fraudsters who just happened to be Jewish. Nothing more can be said. No racial, cultural and psychological patterns can be recognized, no preventative measures proposed. And so Jewish scandals will continue to strike. The latest in the United Kingdom centres on a Jewish activist called Jeremy Newmark, who has resigned as chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) after being accused of “theft and embezzlement” during his earlier time at the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC):
Jeremy Newmark, ex-JLC, ex-JLM
An internal audit into the conduct of Jeremy Newmark while he was chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council reported that he deceived the organisation out of tens of thousands of pounds and misled charities about the cost of projects he worked on. The [Jewish Chronicle] has obtained a devastating report into the alleged actions of Mr Newmark — who is currently chair [now resigned] of the Jewish Labour Movement and narrowly failed to win the Finchley and Golders Green seat for Labour at last year’s general election — between 2006 and 2013.
In order to avoid a scandal, the JLC’s trustees decided to keep Mr Newmark’s alleged behaviour secret and not inform the police. The trustees — including former chairman Sir Mick Davis, who is now chief executive of the Conservative Party, and property tycoon Leo Noé — accepted Mr Newmark’s resignation on the grounds of ill health after his seven-year long stint at the helm of the charity.
When presented at the time with the evidence of the internal investigation, Mr Newmark is understood to have acknowledged that the picture it painted “did not look good”. But the JLM chair, who was elected as a local councillor in Hertsmere last year, has consistently denied any wrongdoing and insisted he left the JLC because he was suffering from diabetes. He had been diagnosed with the condition six months before his departure.
… Defending the actions the JLC took at the time, Sir Mick this week said the organisation’s trustees had acted immediately after they became aware of the issues. He added that in the wake of Mr Newmark’s resignation, no further action was taken out of regard for his health and family. Details of the 2013 investigation have remained undisclosed for the past five years.
… The trustees involved in making the decision included Stephen Pack, then president of the United Synagogue; Vivian Wineman, then president of the Board of [Jewish] Deputies; Mr Noé; Gerald Ronson, chair of the Community Security Trust; and Sir Trevor Chinn, also a JLC vice-president. …
Mr Pack defended the actions of the JLC trustees, saying: “The judgment that was taken at the time, particularly by the president [Sir Mick], was that any monies that were alleged to have gone were put back, so a charity wasn’t disadvantaged. And that it was in the best interests of the community that Mr Newmark should step down and go. It was not necessary to publicly humiliate him.”
He said the concept of lashon hara meant it would be wrong to sully Mr Newmark’s reputation. “I don’t think it’s the position of somebody who purports to be an Orthodox Jew to take that sort of action.” … (Revealed: how Jeremy Newmark deceived the Jewish Leadership Council out of thousands of pounds, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th February 2018 / 23rd Sh’vat 5778)
This Jewish scandal has been neither named as such nor given the attention it deserves by the mainstream media. And it certainly hasn’t been analysed for specifically Jewish patterns of harmful culture and behaviour. No respectable researcher would dream of conducting such an analysis and concluding that the Jewish community has a very bad influence on British politics. But this is the Occidental Observer, certified by the SPLC and ADL as extremist and unrespectable, so I will now undertake exactly that analysis and reach exactly that conclusion.
Before I begin, however, I need to say this: the Jewish Chronicle and its editor Stephen Pollard should be congratulated on placing truth and journalistic integrity before “communal interests.” Pollard would probably be delighted to see the Occidental Observer shut down and all its writers jailed, but he has exposed Jeremy Newmark for exactly what he is: a crook.
The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) had the chance to do the same thing when Newmark’s peculations came to its attention. Instead, it chose to keep quiet and allow Newmark to take his undoubted skills of organization and propaganda to the Jewish Labour Movement. As you can see from the Jewish Chronicle’s story above, the JLC justified its silence by the Jewish principle of lashon hara, which literally means “evil tongue.” The principle tells Jews that it is a serious sin to reveal harmful truths about a fellow Jew unless doing so serves a good end, such as preventing crime or correcting misbehaviour. But that’s exactly why the JLC should have exposed Newmark, not least by reporting him to the police. He was a public figure who subsequently stood for parliament, asking for and winning the votes of people who did not have all the information they should have had about his character.
The Jewish Leadership Council 1. Sir Mick Davis 2. Stephen Pack 3. Bill Benjamin 4. Nigel Layton 5. Stephen Lewis 6. Vivian Wineman 7. James Libson 8. Poju Zabludowicz 9. Leo Noé 10. Gerald Ronson 11. Sir Trevor Chinn 12. Jonathan Goldstein 13. Hilary Newmark
Would the JLC have protected a gentile who had behaved in the same way as Newmark? I find it impossible to believe that it would. I also suggest that the true motive behind the JLC’s leniency was not lashon hara, but the desire to avoid a shande far di goyim, “a scandal in front of the goyim.” Newmark’s behaviour evoked a classic anti-Semitic stereotype: that of the greedy, self-centred Jewish fraudster. Exposing his crimes would have been very embarrassing on that ground alone. More importantly, perhaps, it would also have shed an unwelcome light on the composition of the JLC, where Jews from supposedly hostile political traditions are happily cooperating in pursuit of shared Jewish interests.
As the Jewish Chronicle pointed out, Sir Mick Davis of the JLC is “now chief executive of the Conservative Party,” where he exercises decisive influence by overseeing party funding. But his colleague Jeremy Newmark was a staunch Labourite, like Michael Levy (now Lord Levy), the Labour fundraiser who took money from Jewish businessmen like Sir Trevor Chinn, a current member of the JLC. Levy was central to the “Cash for Honours” scandal under Tony Blair. He was accused on very strong evidence of selling appointments to the House of Lords in exchange for large donations from Jewish businessmen like Sir David Garrard and the late Andrew Rosenfeld. But he escaped prosecution on a legal technicality.
Smashing a bipartisan tradition
Alastair Campbell, Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press secretary, has said in the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community,” which wields enormous financial and media power despite its tiny size. Blair’s successor Gordon Brown saw the same need and was very close to the Jewish businessman Sir Ronald Cohen. But Brown lost the premiership to the Tory David Cameron, whose rise was funded by the Jewish businessman Andrew Feldman, later to become Lord Feldman and co-chairman of the Conservative party. The Labour leader by then was Ed Miliband, son of the Jewish Marxist and possible KGB asset Ralph Miliband. But Miliband lost the 2015 general election to Cameron and was replaced by a hitherto obscure backbencher called Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn’s unexpected triumph was greeted with horror by the Blairites: not only does Corbyn appear to have genuine socialist principles, he has also smashed a longstanding bipartisan tradition of British politics. Unlike Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May, he isn’t a shabbos goy – that is, he isn’t in politics to serve Jewish interests above all else. Instead, he has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and shown solidarity with Iran and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Obviously, Corbyn is not good for British Whites, but that goes without saying. Defending White interests is absolutely forbidden in mainstream British politics and Corbyn would never dream of doing so. What makes him so objectionable to Blairites is that he doesn’t make Jewish interests his first priority instead.
Elites versus majorities
And what makes him so interesting is that he comprehensively won a leadership election that he might easily have been unable to enter. In other words, he was popular with Labour’s general membership, not with Labour’s elite, and Labour’s electoral system is plainly rigged in favour of candidates favoured by that elite and its Jewish backers. There are obvious parallels with wider British politics, where policies like mass immigration have been imposed by the elite against the wishes of the majority. To stand as leader, Corbyn required nominations from Labour MPs who did not support him, but who felt that the contest should have as wide a range of candidates as possible. Corbyn would represent the far left and, if expectations were met, would be comfortably defeated by a Jew-approved “moderate” like Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall. But expectations were not met: Corbyn “romped to victory,” as a British tabloid newspaper might put it.
Gentile Jeremy versus Jewish Jeremy
Those tabloid newspapers have subsequently been very hostile to Corbyn as Labour leader. And so have “moderate” Labour MPs. Jeremy Newmark and the Jewish Labour Movement have been at the heart of Labour’s internal opposition to Corbyn and his pro-Palestinian allies. Newmark organized or collaborated with persistent but so far unsuccessful attempts to paint Corbyn as an anti-Semite or friend of anti-Semites. Newmark plainly wanted to topple Corbyn as Labour leader and many of Corbyn’s supporters have been delighted to see “the biter bit.” Inter alia, the Newmark Affair has revealed a sharp contrast between the morality of the two Jeremys.
During the parliamentary expenses scandal of a few years back, Corbyn was revealed to have claimed the least money of any member of parliament: “£8.70 for an ink cartridge.” Corbyn is, in my opinion, a superannuated adolescent Marxist devoted to virtue-signalling and ethnic pandering, but there’s no doubt that he has personal integrity and cares about ordinary people. Unlike the bankers’ friend Tony Blair, he isn’t in politics to enrich himself by serving the plutocrats and the Deep State. Now compare Gentile Jeremy Corbyn with Jewish Jeremy. When Jeremy Newmark was serving Jewish interests in Israel, he regularly employed a taxi-driver called Yair Yatziv. Newmark then tried to avoid paying the large sum he owed the driver. Yatziv himself, who “served for 30 years” in the Israeli Defence Force, said this of Newmark’s dishonesty: “I don’t know why he did it. I gave him service, he used me — why didn’t he give me the money? You’re a big shot, running for Parliament in London. It’s a shame.”
Newmark the Psychopath?
It was indeed a shame: Newmark was behaving very badly both as a socialist and as a Jew. He was effectively stealing money not just from a downtrodden worker, but from a fellow Jew who had given decades of service to Israel’s vital military. Unlike Yair Yatziv, I can suggest a reason for Newmark’s behaviour. Jeremy Newmark may well be a psychopath. He certainly has a fascinating psychology in which selfishness and arrogance mingle very comfortably with utter disregard for the truth. I first became aware of him about five years ago, when he deployed some remarkable logic at a legal hearing into the “University and College Union’s policy on Palestine.” This is part of the judgment passed by the tribunal that heard the case:
Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a “pushy Jew” stereotype was being applied to him. (UCU cleared of antisemitism – Anthony Julius charged with ‘being rubbish’, New Left Project, 26th March 2013)
As I said: it was remarkable logic. But the case as a whole shed a harsh light on Jewish psychology and behaviour. A Jewish academic called Ronnie Fraser had claimed that the University and College Union was “institutionally anti-Semitic” in its policy on Palestine. Alas, the tribunal dismissed his claims as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” Moreover, the tribunal concluded that Ronnie Fraser and his witnesses displayed “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”
“Extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing…”
Among those witnesses were Denis MacShane (né Matyjaszek), the Labour MP who spent eighteen years fighting anti-Semitism while failing to spot Muslim rape-gangs in his constituency of Rotherham; Anthony Julius, the Jewish lawyer who has indicted literary greats like T.S. Eliot for anti-Semitism; and Jeremy Newmark, then best-known for his work in the Jewish Leadership Council. As we’ve already seen, Newmark was singled out for censure by the tribunal. Here is more of what it said against him:
Unfortunately, [other witnesses] appeared to misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them. We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 [University and College Union] Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). … The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment that we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing. (If I were in the same room as the notorious perjurer, Jeremy Newmark, would that make me a liar? #CST/Jonathan Arkush/Stephen Sizer, Harriet’s Place, 8th October 2014)
A vital skill for both policemen and the judiciary is the ability to read character. The tribunal of judges who heard the case against the University and College Union obviously reached very negative conclusions about Jeremy Newmark’s character. And they were right: he is a deeply dishonest, arrogant and selfish man. No-one who read their judgment will have been surprised by the new revelations about him. Nor will many members of the Jewish community. As Stephen Pollard has written: “Ever since I became editor of the [Jewish Chronicle], one story has been repeatedly mentioned to me. ‘You have to expose Jeremy Newmark’…” Pollard has been editor of the Jewish Chronicle since November 2008, but says he was unable to act because he had no solid evidence against Newmark, only rumours.
Enter Jewish Gerald
Now solid evidence has arrived and Newmark has been exposed as a crook. But plainly many powerful Jews would prefer that Newmark was unexposed and still busy in the Jewish Labour Movement, working to undermine his namesake Jeremy Corbyn and return Labour to the paths of righteousness. Labour should make Jewish interests its first priority, as the Tories do thanks to the financial control exercised by Sir Mick Davis of the Jewish Leadership Council. Labour served Jewish interests under Tony Blair, who was funded by Lord Levy, and under Gordon Brown, who was funded by Jonathan Mendelsohn (now Lord Mendelsohn), Lord Levy’s replacement as Labour’s financial supremo. Levy had to resign because of the “Cash for Honours” scandal but, as I pointed out above, escaped prosecution on a legal technicality.
Ex-convict Gerald Ronson (far right) meets Theresa May
Sir Gerald Ronson, a Jewish businessman and “philanthropist” who still serves on the Jewish Leadership Council, didn’t share Levy’s luck. He was jailed for his part in the Guinness share-trading fraud, a Jewish scandal in the 1980s. Another Jewish figure in the scandal, Ernest Saunders, was released early from jail after being stricken by Alzheimer’s. He then made medical history by miraculously recovering from the disease. Perhaps Ronson’s memories of the Guinness Affair prompted him both to forgive Jeremy Newmark and to recommend that Newmark’s departure from the JLC be attributed to “diabetes.” Ronson has outlived the stigma of his own imprisonment: on David Cameron’s recommendation, he was honoured by the Queen in 2012 for his “philanthropic work.” Inter alia, he is head of the Jewish Community Security Trust, whence he has warned that “Antisemitism will rise if Jeremy Corbyn becomes [prime minister].” After all, Ronson is an expert on the topic:
“I’ve been involved in fighting antisemitism for over 50 years. The enemy has changed, the enemy is more sophisticated. It’s a much more complicated issue. When we look at the left, they were our friends 20 or 30 years ago in the fight against fascism. Now, of course, they’re anti-Zionist, anti-Israel. You’ve got the right, which has always been there – and although their focus is most probably at Muslims, black people etc, the Jew is always there in the scenario.”
The tycoon, who is chief executive of Heron International plc and chairman of the Gerald Ronson Family Foundation, also called on wealthy people to be more philanthropic. “I believe that if we are blessed in life, that if the good Lord blesses us with the ability to make money, we have a responsibility to put it back into our society”, he said. He added that he had both raised and given away “tens and tens of millions [of pounds]… predominantly covering the areas of welfare and education”. (Antisemitism will rise if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM, warns Gerald Ronson, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th August 2017 / 16th Av 5777)
He means “welfare and education” mostly for Jews, of course: Ronson has a particularist reading of terms like philanthropic and our society. Like the rest of the Jewish Leadership Council, he is concerned above all else with the interests of Jews. That’s why the JLC allowed the undoubted crook and possible psychopath Jeremy Newmark to leave the JLC without a scandal for the Jewish Labour Movement. Newmark may have continued his crimes at the JLM, which has referred “certain internal financial matters” to the police, according to the Jewish Chronicle. Certainly the Newmark Affair is far from over.
Not an Anomaly
Just as certainly, you will not see the Newmark Affair properly analysed in the mainstream media or by respectable academics. It will not be called a “Jewish scandal” and its specifically Jewish features will not be used to support a certain heretical conclusion. And what is that conclusion? Namely, that persistent aspects of Jewish culture and behaviour are very bad for British politics and for wider British society. Jeremy Newmark is not a unique anomaly or a rare exception: the dishonesty, selfishness and greed he displayed are both more common among Jews and more likely to be concealed by Jews from official scrutiny.
Nor was it anomalous that Newmark, allegedly a staunch Labourite, worked with Sir Mick Davis, allegedly a staunch Conservative. Until very recently, both sides of British politics were funded and controlled by rich Jews like Lord Levy and Sir Mick. Jeremy Corbyn has broken that cosy arrangement, which is why Jeremy Newmark and other Jews want to topple him as Labour leader and replace him with another shabbos goy like Tony Blair. But Newmark’s fall has not ended the collective Jewish pathologies so evident in the story of his misbehaviour.
And further vital questions remain. For example, how many other crooks are at work in Jewish organizations like the JLC? How many other Jewish scandals have been concealed from the police and from the attention of goyim? The Occidental Observer will ask those questions. The mainstream British media will not. That silence on Jewish pathologies needs to change. As more British Whites wake from their media-induced slumber, it is indeed changing.