When Shakespeare Met Mosley

“For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.”
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 3.

The lives of William Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley are separated by more than three centuries, but they exist simultaneously in those corners of the Jewish mind where time, fact, and fiction are entirely relative. The Jews, it must be admitted, are a talented people. The strangest of these talents is the capacity to engrave into shared cultural memory a pantheon of grievances against individuals and events, many of which never existed. These shared fictions encourage ethnocentrism, tribal affiliation, and aggression towards perceived enemies. Take the Exodus story, for example. There is absolutely no evidence for any such event taking place in Egyptian history, and yet as the historian Paul Johnson remarked, Exodus, a kind of proto-victimhood narrative, “became an overwhelming memory” and “gradually replaced the creation itself as the central, determining event in Jewish history.”[1] Now, just in time for Purim, a festival celebrating victimhood under, and victory over, Haman, yet another imaginary enemy, a new production of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice will be set in 1930s London. What has been revealed about the play thus far suggests that it will be staged in such a fashion as to represent a revenge on both Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley, Englishmen who stand side by side in the burgeoning pantheon of Jewish hatred.

The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) isn’t what it used to be. This year it plans to stage a play “exposing the blithe injustice of empire,” while another, Cowbois, promises a “rollicking queer cowboy show” and “a western like you’ve never seen it before”. It’s about a bandit whose arrival in a sleepy frontier town “inspires a gender revolution and starts a fire under the petticoat of every one of its repressed inhabitants.”

As well as producing such stunning and brave works as this, the RSC has helped produce The Merchant of Venice 1936. In this iteration of Shakespeare’s classic, the Jewish actress Tracy-Ann Oberman plays Shylock, “a widowed survivor of antisemitic pogroms in Russia,” who runs a pawnbroking business in London’s Cable Street, where Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists plans to march. Antonio, the merchant, and Portia, are British aristocratic followers of Mosley. The official advertisement for the play explains:

It is London in 1936 — fascism is sweeping across Europe, and Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists is threatening to march through the Jewish East End. Shylock (Tracy-Ann Oberman) is a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street.  Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge? A vivid evocation of our history, and a warning for our times.

Note: This is an adaptation of the original text, which contains themes of racism, including anti-Semitism.

Framed in this way, the play acts as a salvo against two of the primary Jewish obsessions in the British context — the presence of perceived anti-Semitism in the English literary canon, and the largely mythical Jewish understanding of an event in English history known as the Battle of Cable Street.

The Merchant of Venice

It’s now ten years since I explored Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, a huge and deeply compromised text exploring the history of a putative English anti-Semitism. For Julius, a literary scholar, English literature poses a special challenge for Jews, and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice occupies a particularly heinous role in the origins of English anti-Semitism. For Julius, and many other Jewish literary scholars, representations of Jews in English literature are unique because they represent part of a “persecutory discourse” which “puts Jews on trial” and fosters a “predisposition to think ill of Jews.” Julius complained that English “literary anti-Semitism has its own mode of existence. It has its own internal history…its own inner laws, its own distinct properties.” Julius blamed English works of literature, in particular Chaucer’s The Prioress’s Tale, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, for the very fact that “literary anti-Semitism came into existence.”

Julius’s analysis of Shakespeare’s play is worth briefly considering again, in light of the new ‘1936’ production, because it encapsulates the way in which Jews ignore certain aspects of the play in order to maintain that it’s inherently prejudiced and anti-Semitic. Having done so, Jews are then forced to ‘deal’ with the play, normally through unconventional methods of staging it or by clever additions which cultivate more sympathy for Shylock (the 2004 movie starring Al Pacino is a good example).

Julius states that the play has been used through the centuries “to promote ignoble elation at the spectacle of a Jew’s humiliation.” The play is said to “show a bad Jew; it encourages us to think badly of him; it encourages us to regard him as broadly representative of all Jews, it encourages us therefore to think badly of all Jews; further, it encourages us to think badly of Judaism.” Julius doesn’t elaborate upon or justify this logically tendentious syllogism. Instead, in a section intended to enlighten us on the English reception of the play, he quotes a German, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, as saying that he could detect “a light touch of Judaism” in everything Shylock says and does. Hardly damning.

The problem with this citation isn’t limited to the referencing of a German who never set foot in England. In fact, that is the least of the problems. More serious is the fact Julius deliberately misleads his readers by selecting and cropping quotes. The quote in question is derived and cited as being from Jonathan Bate’s The Romantics on Shakespeare. I own the book, and the reference to “a light touch of Judaism” is only the latter part of a full sentence, the former being at odds with Julius’ thesis that the character is meant to be broadly representative of all Jews. It reads: “Shylock, however, is everything but a common Jew: he possesses a strongly-marked and original individuality.”

The slippery Mr Julius doesn’t quote the English Romantics whose comments on The Merchant of Venice are freely available in the same chapter because his thesis stands condemned by their analysis. William Hazlitt pronounced that Shakespeare’s “Jew is more than half Christian. Certainly our sympathies are much oftener with him than with his enemies.” Heinrich Heine, who watched a performance in London, had this to say: “When I saw the play acted at Drury Lane, a beautiful pale Englishwoman standing beside me burst into tears at the end of the fourth act, crying out several times, ‘the poor man is wronged.’ She had a classical face and large dark eyes which I could not forget, for they had wept for Shylock.”

Shakespeare’s play is in fact a complex work with much to say about morality and revenge. To reduce it to the level of simply being about, or against, Jews, is to ignore much of its worthwhile content. And yet Jews, for a number of reasons, have approached it purely as a kind of ur-text of anti-Semitism.

Jews only really discovered Shakespeare, in any significant way, in the 1890s, following the large-scale westward migration from Russia and other areas of eastern Europe. The first Yiddish translation of the play appears in 1894, in New York. From the beginning, Shylock was staged by Jews as a kind of Jewish hero, and the first Yiddish translation isn’t titled The Merchant of Venice, but rather, in Yiddish, Shylock the Moneylender.

After deeper study, the second, English-speaking, generation of Jews in the West began to realize the subtle implications of the play. They worried about its capacity for shaping ‘ways of seeing,’ and the cultural knowledge it imparted about Jews (involvement in finance, tribal affiliation, and concepts of tribal revenge). There’s an argument to be made that the play was the first subject of a ‘cancel culture.’ The first major censorship efforts began in the 1920s in the United States, then spread to the UK. This persisted through the 1980s, when the ADL started to peak in its power, with a rash of activity to ban it in schools across the United States. It was banned in schools in Midland, Michigan in 1980. In Canada it was banned in several schools in Ontario in 1986. And in 1988 it was banned in several school districts in New York. The play continues to be subject to strategic omission. For example, Michael Morpurgo, one of the most successful children’s authors of Britain, recently released a collection of Shakespeare’s plays rewritten for a nine- or ten-year old audience. The only play that was left out was The Merchant of Venice. Morpurgo, who claims a Jewish step-father, explained his reasons as being that the play was anti-Semitic.

What is the Play Really About?

The Merchant of Venice actually falls within the category of comedy. It does have tragic elements, but it’s predominantly a comedy. It’s an example of what’s called “New Comedy.” In ancient Greek times they had a form of play known as “Old Comedy,” for example the plays by Aristophanes, and these were satirical and heavily political. Aristophanes is understood to have been succeeded by a playwright called Menander. Menander initiates “New Comedy,” which orbits a fixed set of tropes. One of these tropes is the idea of young lovers outwitting their parents, and seeking “a happily ever after.” New comedy is something that Shakespeare was particularly attracted to. We see it most clearly in Romeo and Juliet, but we see it also in The Merchant of Venice. Although there is the antagonism between Antonio and Shylock, the primary narrative aside from this is a love story. It’s a love story between Bassanio who is Antonio’s friend, and Portia, a wealthy heiress, or princess, that Bassanio is desperate to be able to become a suitor for. In order to be a suitor, he requires funds from Antonio, his best friend.

Antonio is a wealthy and successful merchant, but all of his ships are out at sea. And when they’re out at sea they’re vulnerable. As Shylock himself ponders in the play, they’re vulnerable to storms that may destroy the vessels, and to rats that may devour their cargo. Of course, the play opens with Antonio himself sitting in church brooding over his wealth and its vulnerability, and although The Merchant of Venice has been viewed and decried by Jews as a riff on ‘Jewish greed,’ the play is a much broader meditation on avarice.

Since ‘New Comedy’ plays always have a ‘bad guy’ and in this case that person is a Jewish moneylender, this creative choice alone seems sufficient to trigger centuries of Jewish antagonism towards Shakespeare’s work. Primarily, the problem with Shylock is that he’s a Jew portrayed in a massively popular example of literary genius, as a villain and a moneylender. Moneylending is a huge part of the socio-economic history of the Jews that Jewish intellectuals have invested a lot of energy into rewriting. Furthermore, the play is understood by Jews to offer echoes of the so-called Blood Libel. The locus here is Shylock’s demand that the loan offered to Antonio will be secured with a pound of Antonio’s own flesh. And yet the apparently bloodthirsty pledge is not what it first appears. When Antonio asks for the loan, Shylock replies,

“O father Abram, what these Christians are.
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect the thoughts of others!
Pray you tell me this; If he should break his day what should I gain by the exaction of the forfeiture.
A pound of man’s flesh taken from a man is not so estimable, profitable neither.
As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say to buy his favour I extend this friendship.
If he will not take it so; if not, adieu;
And for my love, I pray you wrong me not.”

Even within the creative confines of the play it’s a purposefully unrealistic request, at least at first. Shylock only becomes obsessive about getting the pound of flesh once he realizes that Antonio has definitely defaulted. At that point he’s become so embittered that his daughter, Jessica, seems to have eloped with a Christian boy that he falls into a blood frenzy. At first, however, it seems that Shylock sets the bar so high because it’s a kind of hyperbolic peace offering. Even Antonio seems to perceive it that way, because he replies, “Hie thee gentle jew.” And once Shylock leaves, he says: “The Hebrew will turn Christian: He grows kind.” Antonio clearly interprets the demand for a pound of flesh not as a Jewish lust for blood, but as an olive branch in the conflict between the two. Later, of course, this is utterly destroyed, because after an important sequence of events Shylock reveals himself to be bloodthirsty. He reveals himself to be greedy for revenge, more so than for money. And this issue of revenge comes to the fore in the most famous speech in the play. Setting it up, Antonio confronts Shylock and asks him why he wants the pound of flesh. Shylock replies:

If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason?
I am a Jew.
Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge.
If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?
Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

What Shylock is essentially saying here is: “There’s an antagonism that’s mutual between Jews and Christians, and for every time a Christian comes against me, I, the Jew, will pay him back even harder.”

In my view, this monologue encapsulates much of the dynamic of the Jewish-European interaction for the last 1,000 years, because it’s a pendulum. There’s Jewish action, followed by a European reaction, and so on. There is a constant to and fro between the two populations, even if it is rarely acknowledged, or permitted to be acknowledged, today.

Shakespeare is of course also saying here that Jews are human, and that their humanity does not detract from the fact that they can be at fault for their wrongs. This contrasts with Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, where Barabas the villain is a kind of two-dimensional, cartoonish, evil Jew. What Shakespeare is doing here, possibly as a direct response to Marlowe’s work, is saying that a caricature like that does not really have much moral agency or responsibility. You can impart more moral responsibility and agency to someone when you acknowledge their humanity. In other words, we understand that they have the same faculties as us, and yet have chosen, as an act of their own corrupt will, to undertake negative actions.

The fuel for this pendulum-like dynamic is a sense of tribal hurt and a consequent hunger for vengeance. Shylock uses the terms “my tribe” or “my nation” on several occasions to discuss the offense that he feels that Antonio has caused. Shylock’s tribe has been offended, and, nominated by fate as their representative, he will have his revenge on one of the city’s most prominent Christians on their behalf. He wants it to be painful, and he wants to literally take a piece of the man who slighted his people.

In Jewish understandings and stagings of the play, this pendulum dynamic is entirely lost. Shylock exists only as the passive victim of Christian aggression, forced into bitterness by relentless, unprovoked, and unfair persecution. Consider again the description of the upcoming staging of The Merchant of Venice 1936. Shylock is “a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-Semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street.  Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge?” [emphasis added]

This is the reverse of Marlowe’s Barabas. Whereas Barabas is cartoonishly evil, we now have cartoonish innocence: a survivor of unprovoked pogroms; a widow; the operator of a small business; living in humble surroundings; who just wants to provide for her child; and who has led a life “plagued” by “racism and abuse.” The three-dimensional character created by Shakespeare in completely lost, replaced by pure propaganda.

The Battle of Cable Street

Matching this new, false, Shylock is the equally neurotic staging of the play in the context of the so-called “Battle of Cable Street.” The Battle of Cable Street was a series of clashes that took place at several locations in the inner East End of London on October 4th, 1936. It was a clash between the Metropolitan Police, sent to protect a march by members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley, and a motley group of anti-fascist demonstrators, including local trade unionists, communists, anarchists, Jews, and socialists. Mosley’s march had been publicly advertised, prompting the Jewish People’s Council to organize a petition objecting to it. The petition was then forwarded to the Home Secretary, John Simon, who declined to ban the march. In the build-up to October 4th, there was a blanket of propaganda depicting the BUF as violent terrorists. The anti-Fascist demonstration was sufficiently large, and the ensuing chaos so great, that the march was abandoned. The event has since gone down in anti-fascist and Jewish memory as a great triumph over a dangerous enemy. It’s use as the context for the latest staging of The Merchant of Venice is therefore full of political and cultural meaning.

In recent years, however, scholarship has revised the idea of the BUF as violent thugs who preyed on innocent minorities. If anything, the BUF has emerged as having been consistently victimized by Jewish-Communist violence and public relations tactics. Nigel Copsey, the foremost British expert on British anti-fascism, points out that “violence was instigated more frequently by anti-fascists than fascists.” Jews and Communists used the BUF’s reactive violence as a method of “denying the BUF political and social respectability.” In other words, simply by attacking BUF members and their demonstrations, anti-fascists were attaching violence to the BUF in the public mind, even if none of it was caused or initiated by the BUF themselves. This process was furthered by “deliberately overstating the extent of BUF violence.” Copsey explains:

Stephen Cullen has argued that one such occasion was the response to Mosley’s meeting at Oxford Town Hall in November 1933. At a protest meeting called by prominent Oxford dons to expose the violence used by the Blackshirts at Oxford Town Hall, anti-fascists alleged that fascist stewards thrust fingers up noses wearing gloves with metal rings and knuckledusters. There were also, as David Shermer notes, stories ‘told of needles being driven into the testicles of hecklers and of castor oil being forced down recalcitrant throats.’ As Cullen points out however, a local police report in the Home Office files makes no mention of any fascist stewards wearing knuckledusters, and where this report remained private, the anti-fascist version of events was heard publicly in a crowded meeting and was reported in the press.[2]

The Battle of Cable Street, of course, wasn’t a battle between anti-fascists and fascists, but between anti-fascists and the police. The riot resulted in 73 injured police officers, and 80 arrested anti-fascists. Nor was it a triumph over the BUF, who very quickly returned to the area within days and held a number of successful mass gatherings. As one article in Haaretz concedes, “The Battle of Cable Street was not the great victory over British fascism as left mythologizers portrayed it. Membership of the BUF in London nearly doubled afterwards and a week later 200 black-shirts attacked Jews and burnt shops not far from Cable Street in what became known as the ‘Mile End Pogrom.’”


It’s difficult to see The Merchant of Venice 1936 as anything other than a crude expression of Jewish neuroticism and propaganda directed against those who, as Shylock exclaims, have “scorned my nation.” Shakespeare’s crime was to paint a portrait of a Jewish character using negative colors, sufficient in itself, in Jewish eyes, to place the text on a par with Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What we’re seeing is a kind of revenge upon the play. And since the play is fundamentally about unhinged tribal vengeance, I think if Shakespeare could see this production, he’d smirk at the propensity for life to imitate art.

[1] P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987), p.26.

[2] N. Copsey, Anti-Fascism in Britain (London: Routledge, 2017), 15.

20 replies
  1. Desert Flower
    Desert Flower says:

    I saw the names Andrew Joyce and Shakespeare in my email in box and it made my morning. I look forward to reading this.

    Joyce is a literary guy and I like it when he focuses on the Jewish Problem in our stories. He provides great insight about all of the very serious problems involving Jews….across time and in many cultures.

    I loved the audio interview he did a couple of years ago about the Merchant of Venice. I wish I could find it again.

  2. Biden's Balloon
    Biden's Balloon says:

    “His (Jew Tom Lehrer) favourite quote on the subject is from British comedian Peter Cook, who, in founding the Establishment Club in 1961, said it was to be a satirical venue modelled on “those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War”. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/stop-clapping-this-is-serious-20030301-gdgcoz.html

    Album by Jew-duo “Godley & Creme” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cook#Consequences_album

    “The litigants are unaware that larger forces are at work”. However, I fear that as well. Probably the cruel Jewish weather god Yehuda Ben-Yahweh is behind it once again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_(Godley_%26_Creme_album)

    “Let me begin with the statement that I trust will not be a matter of dispute. I am Jewish and always have been. I’m not ashamed of it, and I’m not proud of it. The whole thing is not an issue to me – it’s irrelevant! And I see no reason why my being Jewish should be dragged into the discussion at all. The fact that I’ve been massacred personally for thousands of years is neither here nor there. So can we agree at least on one thing? Namely, not to waste our time discussing whether I’m Jewish or not!” https://genius.com/Godley-and-creme-dialogue-1-lyrics

    If being Jewish doesn’t matter, then why its constant mention, Mr. Jew? (The subject does not appear in the dialogues earlier on the album).

    “We hear some wonderful clips of dialogue, including Veronica Hague’s dead body being used as a draught excluder, the Jewish, war and death connections, and our characters jumping down the hole.” https://consequences.podbean.com/e/godley-cremes-consequences-podcast-10-side-5/

    (I am already quite excited with curiosity.)

    It would be worth investigating in depth what “influence” these people have not only behind the scenes but also on them. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Jews_in_pop_and_rock_music

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      O, how sweet it is!!!!!!

      Here’s a play for you and especially for Mr. Ingersoll and all the other agnostics. Ingersoll, a man who worked with Charles Finney? Really?

      Here a play for you, one, just one of many I have documented in my books!!!!!

      “During the summer of 1853 Oberlin was struck with a severe drought. The hay fields were dried up so there was no feed for the cattle. The cattle soon must die and the harvest fail unless rain comes. Crops had withered, wells dried up, and the parched earth became powdery.

      On Sunday morning the church was filled. Not a cloud was in sight and no one expected a drop of water to fall from the skies that day. The situation was desperate. Finney arose from his chair walked to the pulpit and lifted his voice in prayer.

      “O Lord! Send us rain. We pray for rain. Our harvests perish. There is not a drop for the thirsting birds. The ground is parched. The choking cattle lift their voices toward a brassy heaven and lowing, cry ‘Lord give us water… We do not presume to dictate to Thee what is best for us, yet Thou dost invite us to come to Thee as children to a father and tell Thee all our wants. We want rain! Even the squirrels in the woods are suffering for want of it. Unless Thou givest us rain our cattle must die… O Lord, send us rain! and send it now! For Jesus sake!’ Amen.”

      “In the preacher’s voice,” reports the California minister, “was the plaintiveness of a creature’s cry. I do not know whether any pencil caught more of this wonderful prayer, but all who heard it had to tell of its bold importunity. It had the pathos and power of an Isaiah.”

      Then the pastor-revivalist poured out his soul in a searching sermon, “hewing close to the line,” from the text, “I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left thy first love.”

      “Not many minutes did the sermon go on before a cloud about the size of a man’s hand came athwart the summer sky,” says the California preacher. “It grew fast. The wind rattled the shutters of the old church. Darkness came on the air, joy aroused our anxious hearts as great raindrops pattered on the sun-scorched shingles of the monumental old church. Finney’s lithe figure, tall as a Sioux warrior, ruddy as a David, trembled. His clarion voice choked. God had heard his cry. The sermon was never finished, for torrents of water poured from the prayer-unlocked heavens. The preacher bowed over the pulpit and said, Let us thank the Lord for the rain.”

      He gave out the hymn, When all they mercies, O my God my rising soul surveys, Transported with the view, I’m lost in wonder, love and praise.

      The congregation could not sing for weeping. Then Finney lifted heavenward a prayer of thanksgiving and praise. “I can remember not a word of the closing prayer, but the reverent and relaxed figure, the pathetic voice, the pallid and awe-struck countenance, are vivid as if it was yesterday; the plank sidewalks of the dear old town splashed our garments as we walked home from a short service, of which life’s memory must be lasting.” This is the testimony of the student who sat in the gallery and saw and heard Finney that morning.”1

      O, how they and unfortunately us as well, mock the God of the Bible and in song and plays and dance?!!! What did they never understand that single greatest statement ever made on meteorology in the entire bible came by way of Christ Jesus when He was being led to the cross and stopped to say to those women crying for Him:

      ” “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then

      “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!”
      and to the hills, “Cover us!”

      31 For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” Luke 23:28

      “When it is dry” speaks of droughts and wasn’t that promised to the Jewish people way back in Deut. if they turned to idols? Indeed it was!!

      And what will happen when it is dry the tree? History teaches us the worst devolves into cannibalism!!!!! Best to have faith yes?

      Instead of returning to God which the bible tells us He has control over all of these plagues we follow the blind and stupid like Ingersoll!

      Wow, what happened to education? I find it hard to believe that a people so well educated, with so many great schools, colleges, universities and a history like theirs and a people today so totally and completely ignorant of everything called God and religion. How did this happen?

      But O how sweet it is that – Ice storm of 1998 which buried the Eastern Seaboard of the United States fulfilling completely what Job tells us about how God ‘stops every man from his labour!’ Job 37:6-8

      stops labor? what labor would this ice storm have stopped? I’d argue or rather know it was 9/11. It is no coincidence to me believing something far more serious was planned but failed due to God being concerned.

      Yeah, mock God in song and plays. Typical isn’t it? Just typical. Wasn’t Christ right in asking that question but who do you say that I am?

      Good grief only one of them got it right St. Peter?

  3. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    To make the Merchant of Venice a Jewess in East London in 1936 could not be more of a victim environment. How is she going to access to power to extract the pound of flesh? The British bobbies won’t help!

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      The eminent psychiatrist Anthony Storr, a qualified admirer of Carl Jung, wrote the following in “Feet of Clay” (1997):
      “I recall meeting Sir Oswald Mosley…a courteous, old-fashioned aristocrat with beautiful manners…I saw charisma in action….I began to understand why, in his early days, he had been hailed as a future Prime Minister. He was so convincing that one began to feel that he might be right [about Northern Ireland’s otherwise “intractable problem”]….I became fleetingly impressed by a man whose former policies I hated….” (pp.218-9).

      I am now told that Richard Hull’s smooth translations of Jung, once described by Mosley as that “remarkable Swiss” far superior to Freud, “sanitised” anything apparently “Nazi”.

      • S. Cooke
        S. Cooke says:

        Laurie M. Johnson’s “Ideological Possession & the Rise of the New Right: The Political Thought of Carl Jung” [Routledge, 2019] is a challenge that needs a response.

  4. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    The mention of the Battle of Cable Street reminded me of an eyewitness account of the events I read last year. (The account was posted as a comment on a thetruthseeker.co.uk article on November 23, 2022.) I was so struck by this piece of lost history that I copied and saved the comment, and I’ll re-post it here:


    As W W 2 looked increasingly likely in the 1930s, the Synagogues put out the message for all jews to get into anything to do with war supplies, Winston Churchill and Herbert Morrison the Home Office minister and minister for provisions, made sure everything came from jewish suppliers.

    Lord Lindeman, the cut out man between Rothschild and Churchill, said on Jewish news, quote ” This is one very good business opportunity for us all”

    Herbert Morrison was Peter Mandlesons grandfather, Aleister Crowley Churchills friend and fellow 33rd degree mason, said of Morrison “he is so bent he cant even piss straight”

    When our menfolk were fighting W W 2 the jews in the UK went to jewish doctors and got signed off war service with petty things like flat feet short sight and occasional severe headaches.

    This left the country at the mercy of swathes of jewish men.

    London suffered very badly with these gangs, the Kray twins took over from Peter Rachman who took over from Jack “spot” Comer and Billy Hill, until recently organised crime gangs were jewish and supported by Mossad.

    Similarly in Northern Ireland drugs like ectasy tablets etc came in by the thousand from Mossad to be sold by the Para-Militaries to raise money to buy israeli guns and explosives.

    Master criminal Mad Frankie Fraser said in a TV interview that during the wartime blackout, the jewish gangs would go out at night to the shops and businesses who refused to pay them protection money, and rob them then set them on fire, they would then say it was caused by a stray German bomb.

    Churchill himself used this excuse when he had the British Geneology centre burnt down with its births and deaths documents going back centuries, this was so that later he could claim that there were always people of colour here when they only started coming in after w w 2.

    Houses and businesses were burgled, and the contents would be sold in London’s Petticoat Lane an area well known for fencing stolen goods.

    Black marketeers con men spivs fences and forged food coupon sellers, all jews and all operating in london, the expression “oh what a lovely war” was heard on many jewish lips.

    The soldiers away fighting, did not get their pay regularly, and many wives at home got into debt with the jewish moneylenders, the jews forced them to sign away their homes, many were forced into prostitution for the jews, and any who ran away had their faces slashed, this was why the jews were called ”Razor gangs”, the Edgware Rd in London was where many teenage and even underage girls were forced to perform sexually for the jew, these girls were known as “shiksa trade” and a lot of money was made from the USA servicemen over here.

    So the Muslim gangs who were recently exposed as raping hundreds of young kids is nothing new, and our government let both cases go on and on.

    The broadcaster William Joyce had his face slashed for speaking out about wartime jewish crime. I remember as a small boy my mothers small parlour in Londons East End would have the neighbours all cram in to hear William Joyce broadcasts, because British soldiers would call the BBC ” Bullshit time” and as the war ended, people would say its over and we won, we did not win we lost big time, but the jews all made fortunes, and they were all able to move to upmarket homes away from East London to Ilford Barkingside and Chigwell.

    One can read online about the Battle of Cable street, I watched it from my window and the truth was very different.

    There was more fear in London of the jewish gangs than of Hitler, Oswald Mosely was a British Patriot and such a skilled politician that the Jews asked him to lead both UK political parties, but he refused. Oswald Mosely set up the Blackshirts, men easily recognisable who could be called on for help, these men old or very young, as our strong healthy men were away fighting to get Germany away from Hitler and back under jewish control, these brave men would stand guard outside shops and homes during the nights of the blackout to protect them, this was what caused the jews communists and racist types to fight the English families in Cable st.”

    You can find the original comment posted under this story:

    • Wade Smith
      Wade Smith says:

      @ Anne C
      I have just seen Ms Oberman puff her silly play in an interview on Independent Television in Britain. She repeats, and probably even believes, the nonsense that Mosley planned a march to injure the Jews in the East End, and that the local communities including Afro-Caribbeans (!) and Irish dockers joined together physically to resist his march, when in reality the only fighting in Cable Street there was between the communists and the police. The British Union held a peaceful procession and large meetings through the same area of London several days later, their local membership nearly doubled, and they later got a reasonable election result on a restricted franchise.

  5. John D. Alder
    John D. Alder says:

    Perhaps this propaganda of the jews will backfire on them and create a new wave of interest in Mosely and the BUF? Perhaps a revived BUF? I can hope so !

  6. Tell tale bird
    Tell tale bird says:

    Does anyone have Andrew Joyces article on the battle of cable street where he explores Jewish novelist Howard Jacobsen’s comments about his grandfather kicking a police horse and knocking it out (a feat pretty much impossible)?

  7. londonstone
    londonstone says:

    “….In the end, there remained Mosley “fans” and nothing else. Mosley’s advent was a disaster to Fascist development in Britain, for it prevented the best elements in the country from associating themselves with any Fascist movement for some years; Mosley’s Kosher Fascism got newspaper publicity, and the special support of the Daily Mail, whilst the Imperial Fascist League was left in a position of comparative obscurity. …” [etc etc]
    page 52 of Leese’s autobiography “Out of Step”

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      The best elements in the country who preferred Oswald “Greater Britain” Mosley to Arnold “Swastika Flag” Leese included General Fuller the military expert, Jorian Jenks the agriculturalist, Alliott Roe the industrialist, Wyndham Lewis the philosopher, Beverley Nichols the writer, Henry Williamson the novelist, Fay Taylour the speedway champion, Peter Eckersley, the radio engineer, Hugh Williamson the historian, Roy Campbell the poet, John Chamier the air-force pioneer, etc.

  8. Wade Smith
    Wade Smith says:

    Mosley died in 1980, the last of the great politicians in Britain. All his major writings and important speeches (some online) are still available, so that honest inquirers can discover his real ideas for themselves, and use any of this thoughts or policies they consider valuable today – with or without acknowledgment. It is quite ridiculous to consider him inferior to someone whose autobiography is artlessly subtitled as that of a doctor of an “anti-Jewish camel”. It is worth adding that a sympathy for Mosley was shown by prominent people as diverse as the musician Reginald Goodall, the poet John Betjeman, the comedian Kenneth Williams, the historian Alan Taylor, the philosopher Colin Wilson, the sociologist James Gregor, the lawyer Frederick Lawton, the theologian Brocard Sewell, and the publisher Cecil King.

  9. londonstone
    londonstone says:

    “whose autobiography is artlessly subtitled as that of a doctor of an “anti-Jewish camel”
    You’ve mangled that. (Maybe English is your second or third language?)

    I suggest simply that inquiring minds may find print pages 51-53 of Leese’s book stimulating of further reflection; including on why Mosley and the BUF ultimately “failed” despite the accolades and money backing denied to Leese and the IFL. Was the passage in Leese I first quoted sour grapes only (why?); or was there more to it than … political rivalry?

    I do have a copy of Mosley’s “My Life” (1970 edition) but its 521-plus pages remain unexplored. If anyone has in mind any passages that they think best explain the ultimate failure of the BUF, it would be helpful if you would post the page or chapter references.

    • Wade Smith
      Wade Smith says:

      English is my mother-tongue. Leese’s unintentionally amusing “anti-semitic camel” doctor was rectified in another edition by hyphenating “Camel-Doctor”.
      Mosley’s failure to make inroads before and after the war was chiefly the result of a blanket ban on broadcasting (lifted slightly only after publication of his autobiography, which you own but apparently have not read), the universal denial of halls and restrictions on marches, the constant propaganda that his opposition to WW2 was treason (he was imprisoned without charge or trial, before Leese), vilification by pro-immigration media-people, viciously violent attacks on members by Jews and leftists, the relative unpopularity of his plan for British leadership of Europe-Africa, and the shortage of funds.
      Mosley started his venture outside the party system with the comment that his greatest fear was that Britain would experience a “slow crumbling down the years” rather than, or before, a 2great crisis of the system”. The real tragedy is that this mess, for which his enemies alone are responsible, is at last upon us, long after his death. “The hour does not always find the man” (Carlyle).

  10. Cat
    Cat says:

    Bravo on a superb review of this deceitful Royal Shakespeare Company play. Jewish subversion of theater for their own propagandistic reinterpretations of history knows no ends. To wit, a Broadway play, “Parade” about “antisemitic murder.”

    “Play tells story of 1915 lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia, in case that spurred a revival of white supremacist group KKK and the creation of the Anti-Defamation League.”

    If we weren’t in the thick of woke, wouldn’t it be great if a teachable-moment / opposing viewpoint were allowed to mount a production? Not only would the truth about Leo Frank, a pedophile murderer, be told, but heaven forbid, the world might learn that the KKK was created by the B’nai B’rith and that the ADL to this day is still is a hate-racketeering spy agency?

  11. John Tanner
    John Tanner says:

    Tracy-Ann Oberman was interviewed in “The Guardian Weekly”, March 3, 2023, which also recorded opinions of other Jewish actors on “The Merchant of Venice” that she regards as repulsive.
    She “bases” her Antonio on a caricatured Mosley, and Portia on “all” the Mitford sisters. She alleges that on October 4, 1936, policemen beat up Jews, instead of protecting them; in fact, they arrested lawbreaking demonstrators, who rolled marbles under their horses and barred the highway with stolen obstacles. She thinks Shakespeare wrote the play (around 1597) at a time of “huge antisemitism” in Britain, although Jews were virtually absent from the country between 1290 and 1656.
    Jewish actor Henry Goodman chips in: “The worst depictions – the most virulent, filthy, hook nose – were performed by Jewish actors.”
    Jewish director Abigail Graham was “horrified to discover” that audiences in Stockholm were more convinced that the “behaviour of Jews” was the “reason” for antisemitism, after watching the production. So she faked her own radical “version” that cut the “white Christian male’s journey”, and showcased him as anti-black. Like much else today on stage and screen, or in literature, a white author’s work, however great, is turned into negative propaganda “about the intersection between white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, antisemitism and racism”, the original being effectively suppressed.
    Oberman’s show will tour the UK “supported by extensive education resources”. She dreams that her imaginary “battle” of Cable Street will be “taught as part of the British civil rights movement”.
    I am reminded of a TV program years ago when the BBC panjandrum Richard Dimbleby commented on a film-clip of the naval boxing-champion and fascist miner Tommy Moran, defending himself against repeated attacks by a mob who struck his head with a metal bar, with the words: “Here we see blackshirts beating up Jews in the East End of London”!
    “Who controls the past controls the future” (Orwell). 1936-“1984”-2023.

  12. Monsieur X
    Monsieur X says:

    Times of Israel, a French translation of “Israel: a Refuge for Swindlers” condemned
    This Wednesday, the European Jewish Organization (EJO) announced on Twitter new court sentences handed down to two nationalist activists.
    One, Francis Goumain, contributor to far-right sites, is relatively unknown. The other, Yvan Benedetti, is a figure of the far right..
    Following the publication on March 11, 2022 on the “Jeune Nation” website of an article entitled “Israel, land of asylum for the great scam”,the 17th chamber of the Paris Judicial Court declared guilty, by judgment of February 27, 2023, Yvan Benedetti of public insult, and Francis Goumain of public insult and public provocation to racial hatred or violence.
    The article is still available here (and hopefully under the first amendment protection):
    In French
    In English
    The original on Occidental Observer (an article by Andrew Joyce)

Comments are closed.