Brick Lane Revisited Or Let’s Talk about that Mural Again Who killed Cock Robin? I, said the Sparrow, With my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin. In MuralGaga I argued that MuralGate was a concerted smear campaign.i As soon as I placed the essay online I started tweeting it and some readers took me to be saying that the mural upon which Corbyn made his notorious comment was not in the slightest antisemitic.ii Now, of all I have seen written on this topic Martin Odoni has impressed me the most. This Jewish blogger is quite adamant that the mural was not at all antisemitic, and I am loathe to disagree. So I have not been inclined to correct my critics, although in my essay I had hedged saying that any antisemitism was ambiguous. Here I was also influenced by a commentator who had taken Corbyn to task on Facebook in 2015 – the first actually to mention Corbyn by name. The tweets of Tarik Cherkaoui also seemed to me authored by someone with integrity. This Corbyn supporter’s mother had been imprisoned by the Israeli’s yet he had instantly felt that the images haled from Der Stürmer. Obviously, he was part of no smear campaign, and out of respect for his opinion I decided to sit on the fence. In itself, fence-sitting is not too uncomfortable, for antisemitism would seem to admit degrees. Here we can consider the “anti-Catholicism” of the sitcom Father Ted. Some of the humour is gentle – in the Craggy Island funfair a crane hoists a park bench. This can hardly be taken as anti-Catholic, although some could say it looks down on a more unsophisticated way of life. On the other hand, the satire of the priests, arms-twisted by their bishop, protesting a controversial film with placards, Careful now! Down with that sort of thing! – this is classic, and to the point. But the nastiness of the character of Father Jack, to my mind, moves towards the territory of demeaning and hurtful slander. Substitute a grasping Jewish banker here, or an incompetent Negro, or a violent Muslim – and see how I form my opinion. This is what I mean in thinking that Father Ted falls into anti-Catholicism, and why that category admits degrees. Ditto with antisemitism.iii But what exactly do we mean in saying that something is “ambiguously antisemitic”? Here we can note that in 2012, when the report of the destruction of the mural was originally covered by the Jewish Chronicle (though Corbyn’s comment would not be published until 2015) the mural was said only to have antisemitic “undertones.” Supposing we hold that a piece of art may have “overtones” as well as “undertones,” and that these overtones are assuredly not antisemitic, then, supposing also some of the undertones are antisemitic, then we can say that the art is “ambiguously antisemitic.” It’s this idea I wish to explore. * 1 Whilst context is nearly everything, we can at least begin by looking at the images in Freedom for Humanity, conveniently taking as a dividing line the monopoly board. What is obvious about the image? The simple answer is that nothing is obvious. A well-known video shows a party scene into which a gorilla on a unicycle enters and exits. The gorilla is obvious to those who see it, but I can vouch for the fact that first time round the obvious is easy to miss. Whether with the scholastic tag (after Aristotle), a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver or with Simon and Garfunkel, a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest – it’s what we bring to our seeing, our concerns, that is all-important.iv For example, when I think of “Brick Lane” the words “Curry House” automatically spring to mind. Still, we might want to say that what is obvious is the white bodies above and the black and brown bodies below. For as David Feldman has pointed out that “for all the attention it received, one thing seems to have eluded almost all commentators: the mural not only depicts Jews and Jewishness, but places them in opposition to the pain and suffering of black and brown bodies.”v Now, I take it that the suffering of those black and brown oppressed leapt out to those for whom racial oppression is significant, the inhabitants of the local area, for example. For such people, this is in the foreground, the “overtones” of the image, so to speak. Those above – the white men in suits – including some “Jewish folk” (Ockerman) by contrast represent undertones. This is a little simplistic, I concede, for more striking is the relations between the two. As the placard reads: The New World Order is the Enemy of Humanity. Feldman, of course, is writing a corrective to those who foreground those above the monopoly board. Odoni points out that the artist gave them names. They represent from left to right: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Crowley, Carnegie, and Warburg. Of these two are Jews, and one an antisemite. Rothschild and Warburg may be said to have big noses, but 2 so does Morgan, and Odoni points out that to associate this trait with Jews may say more about the viewer than the artist – and a contributor claiming to be a historian of over 30 years with an interest in street art in a 2012 blog points out that this characteristic is a staple in cartoons.vi In response to criticism the artist refers to the Rothschilds and Warburgs as “demons,” though, it is clear that, sincerely or otherwise, the point is that their Jewishness is incidental, the real target being plutocracy. And whilst the motif of a “new world order” suggests a world-wide conspiracy,vii the artist explicitly denies the controlling influence of Jews (even as he repudiated antisemitism, for example, in his pinned tweet and when interviewedviii). Moreover, the symbolism of an illuminati pyramid seems to be associated with Freemasons (rather than Jews) and Odoni also points out that the image has no Star of David.ix In the light of these mixed symbols it is easy to see why the Chronicle spoke only of undertones. * Nor did the CST report of antisemitic incidents in 2012 take a strong stand.x The episode in Hanbury Street is the last mentioned, and confined to reporting other opinions both for and against. It makes neither the executive summaryxi nor the blog.xii By far the most serious incident that year is a Steve Bell cartoon in the Guardian portraying Netanyahu with Blair and Hague as glove puppets.xiii This cartoon was not removed, and we see no public disapproval from, say, Jonathan Freedland,xiv and while the Jewish Chronicle mentions Bell’s cartoon in its end of year review, the mural is passed over in silence. xvOn Facebook the vast majority of comments on Facebook were positive,xvi until, that is, when Corbyn’s comment became broadcast when elected leader. Then we see a flurry of negative comments “liked” by, for example, Sarah Deech – who also claimed that “many, many” complained – though it seems as though just two did, she and Marcus Dysch who broke the stories (in 2012 and 2015).xvii Somewhat surprisingly – though in a communication we can take with a pinch of salt – antisemitism campaigner David Collier told me that he didn’t really think there was “much in [the mural].” He “never really got it” so he “pretty much left it alone.”xviiiAgain, the incident was not recorded by the CFCA of that year, though “BBC Olympic site claims Jerusalem is capital of Palestine” is.xixTo my knowledge there was no campaign to get the images removed from Facebook. Even when Corbyn’s comment was known there are no formal discussions by the APPG (2015) or HAC (2016), not even in Gideon Falter’s written evidence this despite the fact that the report was clearly politically motivated against Corbyn, according to David Planck.xx The (risible) claim is even made the preeminent Jewish MP Luciana Berger (whose complaintxxi sparked MuralGate was unaware – though her friend Dysch chose to break the news hours after she was meeting with Corbyn in Liverpool. From its reception it would seem that “ambiguity” is the word. * Ambiguity, like truth, is a casualty of war, and the mixed message of Mear One became a pawn in a game, one that could be promoted in many different ways. Although I am happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable, it seems that the mural became a weapon in the identity politics of the local area. One of the vociferous opponents contributing to the 3 2012 blog, (Trial by Jeory), Terry Fitzpatrick, had been convicted of racially aggravated harassment of those connected with Operation Black Vote, and to boot, had made contributions to the ardently Zionist Harry’s Place blog.xxii In this context the alleged antisemitism of the art-work probably became a blunt instrument. In fairness, however, I know little of the details, and I am far from suggesting that all the skulduggery lies with one side. Thus, Lucy Lips (who interestingly changed his or her mind on whether the mural should be removedxxiii) gives alternative perspective.xxiv It is easy to see how an artist, “waltzing in from LA” could brush up against delicate ethnic sensitivities so that: Lutfur Rahman, the Tower Hamlets mayor, said: “I have received a number of complaints that the mural has antisemitic images. I share these concerns. Whether intentional or otherwise, the images of the bankers perpetuate antisemitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political institutions. “Where freedom of expression runs the risk of inciting racial hatred then it is right that such expression should be curtailed. I have asked my officers to do everything possible to see to it that this mural is removed.”xxv That is, the mural was not removed because it was unambiguously antisemitic. But this is not all. For, just as the all-seeing Eye of Sauron keeps watch on the unfolding battle, so The Observer observes.xxvi Thus Nick Cohen is concerned (I do not say wrongly) about the infiltration of radical Islamists that is forcing “liberals to pick sides. Let us hope that they stop picking the wrong one.” These concerns are serious, and my point will appear trivial in comparison. It is simply that in “picking sides” we are tempted to tell lies – for instance, to pretend that what is not unambiguous is plainly unambiguous. Cohen knew of the destruction of the mural.xxvii He was certainly told of Corbyn’s comment in 2015, and quite possibly knew earlier, for it had been stored since 2012. Sauron’s Eye is behind the saga of MuralGate, at least according to one Hobbit who has found himself writing an epic of Tolkieneqsue proportions.xxviii And while Cohen clearly grasps an important principle, namely, that in times of polarisation the extreme part comes to be taken for the whole, as if “the most bigoted form of orthodoxy represented British Judaism” he does not seem to grasp how all this applies in our time, namely, that the most bigoted form of Zionism does not represent British Judaism.xxix Let us concede that Cohen has grasped a truth. Very good. Does this give him a licence to tell lies? And even if it did, must we believe them? For the lie that gives the lie to the counter-claim that you cannot fool all of the people some of the time (because virtually the entire mainstream media and many decent moderate Jews all seem to have been taken inxxx) is simply that this (at worst) ambiguously “antisemitic” work is unambiguously antisemitic, so much so that Corbyn was clearly at fault to defend freedom of expression. But this is simply a nonsense. Mural Gaga. Moreover, it is a nonsense that has been systematically compounded by many other nonsenses – with a little help from established Jewry, significant politicians, press, and Rabbis, and even the Prime Minister of Israel. How 4 come? Because the whole has been gingered up by a part. And this, probably, with a little help from some “sparrows” who no-one asks too many questions about.xxxi Has Corbyn has become the Dreyfus of our day? Whatever other errors they may make, because on this particular issue only the hard left are telling the truth their J’accuse to the mainstream remains. i https://www.academia.edu/37055678/MURALGAGA. In general, see here for references. ii In 2012 Mear One had said on his Facebook page: “Tomorrow they want to buff my mural Freedom of Expression. London Calling, Public art.” Corbyn replied: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.” Corbyn’s reference was to Diego Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads. Later, Corbyn would reject any comparison with the Mexican’s artwork. iii For an illustration of how the late Sister Wendy Becket responded to the allegedly anti-Catholic artwork “Piss Christ,” see at 3.57: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pAKdkJh- Y&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2NoW_IKKy6d0uknhJSkZXj72cpGve8cdAd1oZs5DfocmzoCe0MGri6i28 iv This phenomenon has many surprising applications. In the “skipping pylon” gif the pylon seems to make a thud even though the gif makes no sound, with one person claiming that he feels his phone vibrate. Or in experiments relating to the McGurk effect, the sound like “ba” is shown with a man pronouncing “ba” and the sound is heard as “ba”; when the same sound is shown with a man pronouncing “fa” it is heard as “fa” – even by researchers familiar with the phenomenon over decades. Both may be found in this thread: https://twitter.com/stephenfry/status/1075462555005566976 v https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/labour-s-festering-anti-semitism-problem-didn-t-start-with-corbyn- 1.5980426. Nick Cohen has the Monopoly board resting on “suffering humanity.” https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/corbyn-has-won-the-battle-for-the-left/ vi NewCentrist (the historian’s user id.) provides examples of anti-capitalist images that might be thought anti- semitic (given a “big” nose) but which probably aren’t. And NewCentrist claims that in his or her experience antisemitic artists seldom care if offence is given, sprinkling their work with swastikas and Stars of David. https://trialbyjeory.com/2012/09/29/a-new-mural-row-in-brick-lane/ An article in c received around 20 or so comments back in 2012. Roughly 8 thought the mural antisemitic. https://www.timesofisrael.com/london- council-set-to-remove-anti-semitic-mural-showing-jewish-bankers/ And consider: https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/harry-potter-is-gringotts-picture-antisemitic- 1.482785 5 vii “New world order” may have been a reference to George Bush’s remarks after the first Gulf War. And, passing over the legitimacy of comparisons with Rivera, it is not impossible that in Mear One’s mind Man at the Crossroads may have provided a model for Freedom for Humanity, especially as the titles of the respective murals indicate very cognate themes: the openness of a man at a crossroads, able to turn to the left or the right, is an objective condition for the freedom of humanity. viii For a 2012 clip on the mural from BBC London with some comment from the artist see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-19844681/kalen-ockerman-mural-to-be-removed-from- brick-lane ix Nor do we see menorahs, Hebrew text, or swastikas – the depiction of the Rothschilds seems to me the only antisemitic trope in the image. x https://cst.org.uk/data/file/4/1/Antisemitic-Discourse-Report-2012.1425052041.pdf So it is that Dave Rich (CST) never seems to have addressed the question until 2018 when he explains to those in the Jewish Chronicle wondering exactly why the mural is antisemitic that it recalls the Protocols. This was the “official line” of @CQuilty52 who had notified Nick Cohen (if he didn’t already know) of the mural comment in 2015, and who released it early in the morning March 22nd in response to a tweet of @GuidoFawkes. This tweet referred to a second social media trawl (after Palestine Live) and stressed the Rothschilds. Corbyn’s comment actually only referred to “Rockerfeller” (sic). xi Nor did Marcus Dysch mention the incident when he reported on the document when it was released. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/rise-in-antisemitism-makes-2012-third-worst-year-on-record- 1.41471?highlight=eric+pickles. xii The mural is not mentioned in the blog at the time, but in 2018 we find 5 entries. https://cst.org.uk/search?query=mural. These are from Dave Rich, who did not mention the mural in his 2016 work, The Left’s Jewish Problem: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L07RDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+left%27s+jewish+proble m&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxobDByanfAhVDRBUIHWbkB9EQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=mural&f=false However, we find 7 mentions in the 2018 edition: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WmxaDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+left%27s+jewish+probl em&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg6MeIyqnfAhXXUhUIHXreBusQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=mural&f=false Nor does David Hirsh, in his 2017, Contemporary Left Antisemitism mention the mural: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NpcuDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=contemporary+left+antisemi tism+hirsh&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDsqeWz73gAhWiqHEKHQc0ANkQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=mural&f=f alse though in 2018 he faults Corbyn for not seeing its “Nazi style”: https://twitter.com/DavidHirsh/status/1025059658090860545 Nor does Alan Johnson (BICOM), writing for the Chakrabarti report mention the mural: http://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Prof-Alan-Johnson-Chakrabarti-Inquiry-submission- June-2016.pdf Neither to JLM ever mention the mural comment in their Twitter-feed prior to MuralGate, though in December 2019 it is cited among 11 other pieces of evidence that prove that Corbyn is antisemitic and an enabler of antisemitism. Here see @JewishLabour but also @MikeKatz. Neither does Marcus Dysch mention it in 2017 during his “evening with Jeremy Corbyn”: https://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/dysch-on-politics-corbyn-reception-1.434460 @MarcusDysch never mentions the mural after MuralGate until JVL mention him: https://twitter.com/MarcusDysch/status/1189593939235487751 Also, it is worth getting accurate that Dysch claimed that @JewishChron had contacted Corbyn in 2015, but no public record exists, rather, the Chronicle had merely raised a question as to whether Corbyn had supported the artist (without mentioning the Twitter handle). Here see: https://twitter.com/MarcusDysch/status/977653674599239682 And note that when Dysch first tweeted on the mural in 2012 he did so only indirect voice (quoting Rahman) and referencing “antisemitic imagery” – in quotes. https://twitter.com/MarcusDysch/status/254166973880102914 In the CST discourse report however at the end of 2018 the mural receives extensive coverage and appears on the front cover: https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/6/0/Antisemitic%20Discourse%20Report%202018%20WEB.pdf xiii https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/guardian-cartoonist-defends-netanyahu-puppet-master-image- 1.38522 xiv https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/269455220386447360. Freedland never tweeted about the mural until 2018. xv https://www.thejc.com/culture/features/it-s-been-quite-a-year-need-a-reminder- 1.48360?highlight=steve+bell 6 xvi I have presented and numbered the 195 comments accessible in June 2018 here: https://www.academia.edu/37340696/Response_to_Ken_OHara_on_the_Composite_Nature_of_an_Incrimin ating_Image. Prior to 2015 less than 2% (that is, the comments numbered 106, 170, and 164) judge that the work was antisemitic. xvii In 2018 Dysch was to lament that the story had made little impact. xviii See this short exchange: Collier sticks to the “myth of the last straw” whereby he only learned of the mural that weekend. The myth is refuted in: https://www.academia.edu/38165979/Collier_and_Codswallop xix https://antisemitism.org.il/antisemitic-incidents-map-2012 xx https://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/HoC-HA-SCmte-report-on-antisemitism- Critique-18.10.16.pdf https://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/hasc-report-antisemitism-partisan-party-political- polemic/#sthash.aVKSFTnU.ks8zAiCs.dpbs https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/david-plank-rosemary-bechler/chilling-effects-politics- of-anti-semitism-in-uk xxi Incidentally, only the first few words of Corbyn’s comment about the mural is actually visible on the tweet from Clare Quilty that led Berger to complain. Corbyn neither defended nor condoned the mural (it was praised in the comment before his displayed on the screen-shot), but according to the gloss splashed by Quilty Corbyn was supposed to have “condoned” the mural. xxii https://trialbyjeory.com/2012/09/29/a-new-mural-row-in-brick-lane/ https://trialbyjeory.com/2010/11/19/terry-fitzpatrick-to-stand-trial/ https://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/terry-fitzpatrick-guilty-racism xxiii http://hurryupharry.org/2012/10/05/i-was-wrong-about-the-mural/. Equally interesting is a Stephen Pollard tweet from 6 October 2012 in which he agrees with Lucy Lip’s original opinion (that the mural should not be white-washed). https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/254625810957365248. The issue is quite ignored until Pollard, in a rare article for his paper, calls Corbyn a liar: “In November 2015, the JC reported that back in 2012, Jeremy Corbyn had defended the existence of a mural which had been widely condemned as being antisemitic.” Note the care here: “Corbyn defended the existence” not “Corbyn defended the mural.” https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-jeremy-corbyn- 1.461313?highlight=luciana+berger. Pollard does not tweet again on this topic until March 2018 – not even with Nick Cohen (co-tweeting with from 2012) or Marcus Dysch (his own political editor who broke the story) or with @TwllDun (who was the first to write on Corbyn’s comment, and who Pollard had praised and tweeted with around 30 times since 2015) – not once in over 300 tweets referencing Corbyn from the time of his election until the mural story breaks. Moreover, Pollard seems to have quite forgotten the mural recently, for example, in this podcast in which the “enough is enough” demo is mentioned without ever discussing the trigger https://foreignpolicy.com/podcasts/first-person/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-jewish-antisemitism/ Nor do the Board of Deputies or the Jewish Leadership Council (who organised the Dayenu demonstration in March 2018) seem to have commented on either the mural or Corbyn’s comment when covered in the Chronicle. Nor has Jeremy Newmark (once described by Electronic Intifada as a veteran of the UK Israel lobby suspected of engaging in a smear campaign against the leader) ever tweeted about the mural or Corbyn’s comment. xxiv http://hurryupharry.org/2013/02/17/lutfur-rahman-spends-100000-on-harassing-whistleblowing- councillor/ The said Conservative counsellor, Peter Golds, was an opponent of the mural: https://twitter.com/going4golds/status/977301057092182021 Golds also points out that the mural appeared 7 in Spitafields “once the centre of London Jewry.” FOI 14527900 also shows that Golds was aware of the timing of the mural: https://twitter.com/going4golds/status/978389835051397121 For critical view of the mural, though one that includes the mixed opinions of the time, see: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-in-u-k-anti- semitism-on-the-wall-1.5192777. Anshel Pfeffer only tweeted on MuralGate day, acknowledging that the antisemitism was disputed at the time: “Of course, there were those who disputed the mural was anti-Semitic or thought it should remain even if it was.” https://twitter.com/AnshelPfeffer/status/977286869917556736. On London street art by Gary Means who arranged the piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2lrgLNxhE. xxv http://hurryupharry.org/2012/10/05/i-was-wrong-about-the-mural/. Incidentally, the owner of the wall, Azmal Hussein, later won a court case against the Mayor for electoral fraud and Rahman was banned from standing for election for five years, a hint, perhaps, of other motivations below the surface. xxvi https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/bagladeshi-protests-reflected-londons-east- end xxvii For details see: https://www.academia.edu/37365397/The_Tweets_of_Nick_Cohen_Concerning_Jeremy_Corbyn xxviii https://www.academia.edu/37359336/Introduction_to_MuralGaga_Writings see also: https://www.academia.edu/37379708/Who_Let_the_Dogs_Out_-_MuralGaga I do not believe that Cohen took the screen shot because he seems not to have possessed that skill at that time, though he would surely have communicated with @Twll Dun prior to October 2015 about the mural. https://www.academia.edu/37753213/Who_Captured_the_MuralGate_Image When @CQuilty52 “informed” @NickCohen4 about the mural he did so repeating @TwllDun’s (and Cohen’s) view that Corbyn was not antisemitic, but was stupidly not attuned to antisemitism. Thus, @TwllDun picks up on Corbyn’s “Why?” – in response to Mear One’s call for freedom of expression as if to say that Corbyn, in defending free expression, was not able to see the other side of the issue, namely, that the work was antisemitic. Leaving aside the question as to whether the comparison with Diego Rivera’s art was apt, the intention of Corbyn’s intervention was clear enough. He was merely recalling a historical parallel in which a banker (Rockefeller) had restricted freedom of expression when, in virtue of its depiction of Lenin, it was deemed politically unacceptable. https://medium.com/@twlldun/the-socialism-of-fools-cb3426fc10bf For this reason it seems to me that Corbyn’s “Why?” contracts, “Why are you surprised?” or equivalently, “Why, what did you expect?” The point being that if it happened once it could happen again – subversive art will always meet with censors. That is to say, the question prefacing the historical reference asks about those wishing to destroy the mural, not the content of the mural itself. At this juncture we can remark on the criticism launched at Corbyn for shiftiness, most especially in Pollard’s 24 March where he called Corbyn a liar. Corbyn shifted from his original excuse that he had been defending free expression. But, and to make a more general point, we can observe a tension in liberalism, becoming even more pronounced for those such as Pollard and Cohen who espouse liberal interventionism, regarding the 8 defence of free expression for opponents of liberalism. Thus, there was no tension whatsoever when the opponents are illiberal, and so we find Cohen (who in 2012 had authored, You Can’t say That) very much championing the rights of Charlie Hebdo – whose cartoons have not been free from antisemitism. Writing 24 March in The Spectator, Cohen observes (justly, perhaps) that he had not found Corbyn so vigorous in defending free speech: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/corbyn-has-won-the-battle-for-the-left/. However, a first point is that Corbyn could (but did not) try to turn the tables on his opponents here by accusing them of shiftiness – for even if they had, in 2012, and well before the mural suddenly became an issue in 2018 in virtue of Corbyn’s support, defended the mural (or at least not called for free expression to be curtailed) – now they rounded on Corbyn for his “liberalism.” But the deeper point here is that “free speech” tends to be an arbitrary value – for lines are always drawn somewhere, and are drawn for different reasons, and in virtue of different allegiances. And of course, this becomes most acute in times of polarisation and war, so, to take the extreme case, we can suppose that Goebbels, had he not committed suicide, would have been executed with Streicher. “Joseph Goebbels said that fascists should not worry about their propaganda being too rough” is how Cohen opens – this in reference to Mear One! Clearly, Corbyn is being Hitlerised here. On Pollard’s Hitlerisation of Corbyn (despite disavowals): https://www.academia.edu/39774690/Peace_Peace The counter-balancing (albeit illiberal) value here is that free expression can both wound and incite hatred, and may be justifiably curtailed to soothe tensions – as happened in Hanbury Street. That is to say, (I am guessing), Corbyn’s emollient and illiberal final position was probably truest to his deeper instincts (so that, from his own perspective, he was right to regret his over-hasty support for the mural). This is another facet in the whole furore revealing the ambiguities of the mural – which, we cannot stress enough, only became a weapon at a time when unarmed protesters were being massacred in Gaza. xxix https://www.academia.edu/37320263/Corbyns_Cricket_Test xxx Confirmation, here, can be seen in the Twitter reception. See https://www.academia.edu/37943710/The_Antisemitic_Mural_as_a_Weapon_on_Twitter xxxi https://www.academia.edu/38139484/The_Mendacity_of_Gnasher_Jew 9