Light on Luciana

The claim is that both Luciana Berger and Daniel Finkelstein had not of "that" mural until March 2018. I look at the Jewish Chronicle and the machinations of Marcus Dysch.

Attention has recently focussed on the interventions of Rachel Riley in the Labour Antisemitism debates, and behind the scenes lies the provocatively titled “GnasherJew.” This article draws on my research into MuralGate and the role of pro-Israeli activists in particular who I argue have “gingered up” press, politicians, and prominent Jews to their hard-line agenda, in particular, in orchestrating a distraction from Gaza. This argument is prosecuted at length in a long essay MuralGaga which focussed on the blogger known as Clare Quilty (who released the image that triggered MuralGate), and at equal length in the study GagaPhooey, which considered the reception of MuralGaga. One difference between the two essays is that whereas the former drew on open sources, the latter could make use of the viewing data for that site available to me as possessing my own academic site. This adds considerable verification to the findings as it discloses the careful, indeed, international (yet covert) attention to my work. As scandal broke after scandal emphases shifted away from Clare Quilty (towards Marcus Dysch) and, as well picked up on the role of @GnasherJew, especially in relation to “his” tweets over MuralGate and in reaction to MuralGaga. These sources permit an understanding of Gnasher as predominantly Israeli-centric, and not, as the profile would have it, as showcasing Labour antisemitism.

In the light of a very understandable aversion to conspiracy theories, especially as connected with the antisemitism crisis I mention a few aspects of reasonable investigative journalism. I want to begin by taking as a basis something as simple as attention to public utterances, for example tweets. Thus there is no falling down a rabbit-hole of mysterious, occult forces. Second, progress is made simply by an ongoing process of raising questions and revising. This may involve special methods that is beyond the skills, contacts, and experience of the " armchair journalist. " My focus is MuralGate, which we may think about in terms of artificial versus natural outrage. Here the device of an ideal type comes into its own: four aspects of the community vis-à-vis the " outrage production process " may be sketched: activists, media, politicians, and establishment. This with a view to explaining how the establishment are gingered up. Some detailed examples show the value of a time line that serves to guide discovery, and how careful attention to the content of images may yield insights into their capture, and by way of corollary, the reason why they were captured. In a word, we situate that suspicious entity the conspiracy theory (which in this context must be juxtaposed to the " coincidence theory ") within the context of the journalistic scoop, one that holds out the promise of further scoops if the challenge is embraced. Reason and Investigative Journalism The very idea of a conspiracy theory, especially as applied to the antisemitism crisis in Labour, is bound to make some people uneasy because that road seems to lead to mystification and nonsense, nonsense backed up by ancient prejudice. But I don't think such accounts can be dismissed out of hand. After all, politicians get together to organise coups, sometimes working on particular communities having carefully mined data for analysis, and for very definite strategic ends that may be kept hidden. There is nothing esoteric about this, and, as per any other theory, we should be open to the desire to understand and reflect on whether our understanding is correct. This is of the very essence of investigative journalism because the whole point is to uncover what others would prefer to cover up. In other words there is such a thing as a " reasonable conspiracy theory " which may have practical utility: we may conclude that because this group is working for that policy by exerting such pressure then by countering with this concession will (will not) succeed. The key thing is that, as with any scientific theory, we have an aid to thought, one that will encourage others to think, and think more exactly. What, in general terms, are the procedures we should follow? In the first place we can attend to some publically available data, for example, the communications on Twitter between this person and that person. This data is constituted by meaning, for example, some tweeters may show an obvious concern with Israel, and perceived threats such as

1

Understanding the Conspiracy of MuralGate “MuralGate” refers to the allegations of antisemitism that dogged Labour and especially Jeremy Corbyn when it was revealed in March that he seemed to approve of an antisemitic mural in 2012. Early on it was countered that this fabrication of outrage was a conspiracy (rather than a “Last Straw” to which exasperated Jews said “enough is enough”). This new analysis substantially vindicates the conspiracy theory. 1. By closely examining the number of “comments” on the screenshots of the incriminating images taken from the Facebook page I show that the shots were taken in 2012 – though only published for the first time in 2015, and that the 2018 image used was a composite. 2. By closely examining the tweets of the person concerned who re-released the data, and who accidentally published himself playing guitar at his wedding to @absoluteradio, I identify @CQuilty52 (his name, address, alter-egos, and so on). 3. By collecting and sequencing @CQuilty52’s relations with: (a) other antisemitism activists (and Douglas K Murray), (b) significant journalists (Nick Cohen, Isabel Hardman, Dan Hodges, Melanie Philips, and Guido Fawkes), (c) the Jewish establishment (BDBJs and JLC), (d) politicians especially Luciana Berger, I provide an account of @CQuilty52’s role in what was a carefully planned plot. 4. I show that @CQuilty52 is a “friend” of David Baddiel and David Schneider and look at their role in this story. 5. I provide highly probable reasons for thinking that @CQuilty52 was behind Guido Fawkes’ revelations regarding Naz Shah (2016), the coordination of the two inquiries into social media, the pressurising of the Jewish establishment, and liaison with politicians in the plot. 6. By examining at deliberate silences and feigned ignorance, I construct an argument that shows how an artificial calm was created before an artificial storm, one which implicates Luciana Berger, Sajid Javid and others (in setting up the antisemitism debate in April) but which was probably planned in February. 7. I decisively undermine the “authorised version,” the myth of the last straw, for example, by showing how the “enough is enough” narrative was already being constructed two weeks before enough officially became enough. 8. I probe the relations between others such as Alex Rubner and Victoria Freeman, Sarah (daughter of Baroness) Deech and others who appear in this story giving reasons why one but not the others was involved. 9. I give a brief but telling analysis of the comparable figure, Shai Masot, whose tweets show a similar concern to undermine critics of Israel by infiltrating UK politics. 10. On the balance of probabilities I argue that such also were the motives of the plotters. The essay has six parts. In the first I examine the visual images that permit me to “carbon date” the time of capture. In the second I identify the alter egos of the chief protagonist and give an ideal type for his role (“The Production Manager”). In the third I look at the strategy and tactics of the Production Manager including the feigned ignorance of Corbyn’s comment and, as well, I undermine the opposing narrative. This permits a fourth part in which I present an informed sequence of events. The fifth and concluding part considers motive. Part six is an appendix taking the form of a time line which, with some repetition, assembles key events (with endnotes now as opposed to footnotes).

2018

In my investigation of the Labour antisemitism scandals I argued that what I called " grass roots Zionist hawks " acted as a ginger group. The hawks, as I called them, were easily identified especially on Twitter. Clare Quilty @CQuilty52, the blogger who released the MuralGate image would be one example, @GnasherJew who was quick to attack MuralGaga, my exposé, yet another, and Richard Millett @RichMillett, the Zionist without irony according to Corbyn, a third. I described such groups in one paragraph, and will repeat my description shortly. The point of this note, however, is to explain what hawks do, and describe how they do it. From the very first, that was my focus – the functional relations between groups. That was the point of my playing cards conceit. I identified hawkish clubs, digging spades, the hearts who have won our hearts, and precious diamonds – not to mention jokers to classify the various characters my study had examined: hawks, press, politicians, establishment, and even comedians. Although the study could not escape the Jewish/Israeli dimension (obviously, as the accusation was one of antisemitism), by no means are these groups confined to the Jewish community. Still, that was the focus, and the point on which to insist is that by no means did I assume homogeneity. To the contrary, only on condition that that community lacked homogeneity did the possibility of gingering up make sense. For what actually happened was that the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council actually organised their " enough is enough " demo on the streets of Westminster. Although this was a hawkish thing to do, my claim was that such behaviour was not " natural " – a point that was made humorously by Daniel Finkelstein who relates that some of the protesters had objected that there was " no point pushing because there was no food at the front. " Such good natured amateurism was the very opposite of hawkishness – a fact that served to shore up the narrative that exasperated Jews had been pushed to this extreme. To repeat, then, I wish to look at just how this ginger group did its gingering, but first I shall describe their nature. I described such hawks as follows: Hawks will have a single-minded concern with Israel, especially BDS, taking a belligerent attitude to the movement, associating it with antisemitism and comparing it to the Nazis. Indeed, they will attack Jews critical of Israel, including religious Jews – hawks may or may not be Jewish but on the whole have little connection to the Jewish religion, or show any interest in the prophets or the psalmists. They will be well-appraised of the situation in Israel from pro-Israeli sources, and be combative against pro-Palestinian support groups, at times disrupting book launches or meetings in Parliament (or show solidarity with those who do and who they follow on Twitter). They will scrutinise the communications of what for them are hostile groups, storing and sharing screen-shots that may indicate antisemitism, for instance, anti-Zionism, indeed, they will share the skills involved in such practices. Hawks establish links with media people they deem friendly, and nudge pro-Israeli politicians and establishment figures in the hawkish direction. Hawks, are of course pro-Israel, but I prescinded from any question of direct influence – as springing from the grass roots such groups would be quasi-autonomous. So as to how Israel " does it " I suggested the analogy of a religious group supplying a shared sense of meanings and values. For although the Jewish community as a whole lacks homogeneity, this is certainly not true of the hawks. Their gingering up consists precisely in the communication of such meanings and values that is possible precisely because the rest of the community has a certain plasticity. Were this not the case the ginger group would have no leverage.

The tweets of the hawks make it so difficult to see.

This file is essentially the same as my long essay MuralGaga renamed “MuralGate and Gaza.” It seems from the searches I have performed that MuralGaga has been deprioritised by Academia’s search engines so that it actually appears lower in searches than many other essays of mine on the same topic – despite the fact that with over 3,000 views MuralGaga is by far my most “popular” essay. I suspect that the pro-Israel activists have been complaining about my essay, something that Academia have not denied. I should point out that in this essay I was too Quilty-centric. Now I tend to think of Ben as more of a messenger boy. My later thought puts more emphasis on those behind the Twitter handle @GnasherJew.

This short case study looks at a particular pro-Israeli hawk on Twitter, @GillianLazarus. Lazarus, of course, is a very human person whose twitter feed reveals a humane and intelligent personality. Nevertheless, I show how her involvement with the so-called “Gnasher Jews” leads to a polarising and monochrome mind-set, indeed, participation in a conspiracy. I identify the political philosophy behind the hawks as no less than that of Carl Schmitt, defender of Hitler’s political murders, and show how his Concept of the Political informs the meanings and values of the hawks’ way of life.

On the rhetoric of a witch-hunt.

2018

This note is supplementary to a previous one, on the Militant Tendency of the Israel Hawks in which I recalled the nature of an easily identifiable group on Twitter that I labelled " grass roots Zionist hawks. " I argued that the implicit political philosophy of these groups was Schmittian in that these groups were polarised and polarising: all human affairs become reduced to friends-versus-enemies with " existential threat " looming in the background. I showed how these groups ginger up other groups which, though not fully sharing the values of the hawks, nevertheless had something in common that gave the hawks some leverage – indeed, like Archimedes, the hawks have " found a place to stand " and have thereby moved the world! I must now continue to explain the dissimilarities with the inventor of the lever. For I shall touch albeit too briefly on the nature of human reason which is a matter of asking questions, questions for intelligence that seek insight, and questions for reflection that seek to ensure that the understanding acquired by the first type of question is correct. In other words, human reason is heuristic, it serves to guide discovery, or to return to the man from Syracuse, we seek " Eureka! " (whence " heuristic " is obtained). In many ways the practice of the hawks leads to the eclipse of reason.