6 April 2021

EXCLUSIVE –Dr Allington of King’s College is a Unique Academic - He Starts Out With the Conclusion and then he finds the ‘Evidence’

 Daniel Allington is the Academic Fraud Behind the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s ‘Research’ into Anti-Semitism

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, was set up in 2014 in the middle of Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s blitzkrieg against the defenceless Palestinians of Gaza. It was formed with the intention of  depicting those opposed to the Israeli attack as 'anti-Semites'. All criticism of Israel according to the CAA is ‘anti-Semitism’.

Its first action was against Tricycle Theatre in London, which refused money from the Israeli Embassy to help fund the Jewish Film Festival. This was only the beginning of the CAA’s poisonous work in seeking to paint Palestine solidarity and anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic.

Its victims are usually Jewish because Jewish anti-Zionists give the lie to the Zionist claim that they represent all Jews. One of its first victims was veteran Jewish MP, Gerald Kaufman, who was himself a Zionist, for comparing Israel’s actions in Gaza to that of the Nazis.

When Kaufman made reference to the influence of what he called ‘Jewish money’ on the Conservative Party’s pro-Zionist policies, the CAA ran a relentless campaign of hate against him. The Conservative Friends of Israel describes itself as a Jewish group and they are quite open about their use of their financial resources to pursue Israel's agenda.

The term ‘Jewish money’ is regularly used within the Jewish community. It simply means money belonging to Jews.  I counted over 600 instances of its use in the Jewish Chronicle alone by searching their archives!

There are no less than 32 posts on Gerald Kaufman on the CAA site and the most disgusting one, when Kaufman, Father of the House of Commons, died betrays the vicious, spiteful animus that lies behind the CAA’s operation.

The CAA's Obituary was that ‘Sir Gerald Kaufman MP’s words have left a rotting stain on our institutions’. We should not be at all surprised by the language of this vile organisation. It is of a piece with the Israeli government which, after murdering Palestinians, then refuses to hand over their bodies to their families. 

However the attention that the CAA pays to ‘anti-Semitism’ on the Left is not reciprocated when it comes to the Right of the political spectrum. Not once has it called out the viciously racist and anti-Semitic content of Boris Johnson’s 2004 novel ’72 Virgins’ that depicts Jews as controlling the media and fixing elections.

Similarly when Jacob Rees-Mogg attacked two fellow Jewish Tories, Sir Oliver Letwin and the then Speaker John Bercow, as “Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves.” the CAA said nothing.

As Michael Berkowitz, Professor of Modern Jewish History at UCL wrote:

‘With his nod to “Illuminati” – pointed at Letwin and Bercow – Rees-Mogg is knowingly trafficking in the portrayal of Jews as underhanded and sinister. … while studiously avoiding the word “Jew”, he has exhumed, embellished, and rebroadcast one of the most poisonous antisemitic canards in all of history.

Even Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian's Zionist echo chamber, condemned Mogg for his attack on George Soros, a favourite victim of the far-Right, saying that‘Jacob “Illuminati” Rees-Mogg has form in this area.’ .

You might expect the CAA to vigorously condemn Mogg, who also retweeted the comments of Alice Wiedel, leader of the neo-Nazi German Party AfD but all you will find is a neutral article Jacob Rees Mogg defends sharing German far-right leader’s speech on Twitter which reports what he said without any of the normal vitriol and condemnation reserved for the Left. 

The CAA even played down criticism of the neo-Nazi AfD saying that the ‘AfD has a long history of problematic language and policies’. No doubt if the year was 1933 the CAA would have been describing the Nazi Party's 'problematic language'  about Jews. Note they don't describe them as 'anti-Semitic' because the AfD are the most pro-Israel party in the Bundestag.

Why is there no mention of Rees-Mogg’s ‘Illuminati’ comments by the CAA?  Because Mogg is as ardently pro-Israel as the AfD.  When it comes to anti-Semitic figures or parties on the far-Right then the CAA goes easy on them as long as they are pro-Israel.

There is little doubt that the CAA is funded by the Israeli state, whether directly or indirectly via people like Sir Trevor Chinn. When I applied for disclosure on their sources of funding the CAA resisted to the end.

To date there are no less than 813 posts on CAA's website attacking Jeremy Corbyn. One of their officers, Jo Glasman, boasted in a video that they had ‘slaughtered’ him. The CAA was one of two Zionist groups, the other being the Jewish Labour Movement, which made a complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

In order to maintain the pretence that it opposes all forms of anti-Semitism the CAA devotes a tiny part of its resources to tackling fringe fascists. One such was the mentally ill Holocaust denier Alison Chabloz who posted some appallingly anti-Semitic videos mocking the half million Hungarian Jews exterminated in the last months of the war. 

Chabloz has just been jailed for 18 weeks for her holocaust denial comments. This is entirely wrong. Holocaust Denial is not illegal in Britain and it should not be. Making denial of a historical event illegal inevitably prompts people to say 'what are they hiding'. 

In those countries like Austria and Germany which have made holocaust denial illegal they have substantial neo-Nazi parties, the Freedom Party and the AfD, in their legislatures.

Those who jail Holocaust deniers today will gaol left wing ‘subversives’ tomorrow. It is one thing for the left to no platform the fascist right. It is entirely another thing to call on the State to do so.

It is noticeable that the CAA has refrained from criticism of pro-Zionist neo-Nazis and anti-Semites such as the BNP, English Defence League, Tommy Robinson and his supporters and Britain First. You will look in vain for anything on the mainstream far-Right on their site. The reason is that the far-Right in Britain works with far-Right Zionists such as Jonathan Hoffman, the former Zionist Federation Vice-Chair.

The CAA has been at the forefront of attacking academic freedom. Because she wrote an article ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’ in 2011 describing how the holocaust intimidates people into self-censoring their views on Israel.  the CAA targeted Bristol University lecturer Professor Rachel Gould.

This McCarthyist organisation demanded that Rachel publicly retract her article and write explaining why she had retracted her essay. If she declined to do so then they demanded that she be dismissed “and her dismissal should be made public so as to clearly signal the University of Bristol’s values”.

Academic freedom is a term that the CAA is completely unfamiliar with. It has used the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism, which it insists on renaming The International Definition of Anti-Semitism, as a weapon to wield against anyone who dissents from their views on Zionism and Israel. Even the IHRA’s principal drafter, American academic Kenneth Stern was moved to say, in testimony to the US Congress, that the CAA’s attack on Rebecca Gould was ‘chilling and McCarthy-like’. 

Daniel Allington - fixing the evidence to justify predetermined conclusions

This blog however is not about the CAA so much as the intellectual charlatan and academic fraud, Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College, who uses his academic qualifications in a  completely bankrupt discipline ‘Social and Cultural Artificial Intelligence’ to give legitimacy and cover to the CAA.

Daniel Allington’s academic research has about as much merit as the academic research of Himmler’s favourite academic, Professor of Race Studies, Hans F. K. Günther.

You can guage the quality of Allington’s ‘research’ from his ‘new first of-its-kind study’ Left wing radicalism linked to sympathy for violent extremism. As I explained to a prison officer, when I was remanded for just such ‘violent extremism’ 3 weeks ago, the term ‘extremism’ is a relative term without any objective value. It depends entirely on your vantage point. Is not a Prime Minister who decides to spend £16 billion on more nuclear weapons but can't afford free school meals for children whilst attacking the right to protest in the Police & Crime Bill an extremist? 'Extremist' depends on where you stand and Daniel Allington stands on the racist far-Right.

I pointed out that 100 years ago, the Suffragettes were also termed extremist but today they are venerated by the Establishment. Indeed all those who fought for the limited democracy we now have were termed ‘extremists’ in their day.  But whilst my prison officer understood my arguments, not least about how the Prevent programme was not about ‘extremism’ but attacking left-wing and Muslim critics, the Jewish Chronicle’s reporter, ‘liar’ Lee Harpin was incapable of so doing in an articleArrested anti-Zionist compares himself to the Suffragettes’.

Allington wrote that

‘The more strongly someone agrees with the ideas of revolutionary left-wing groups, the more likely they are to sympathise with violent extremism.’

Of course revolutionary socialists and Marxists are likely to be branded ‘extremists’ by the supporters of capitalism! You don't need to do research to know that but Allington's purpose is the criminalisation of anti-capitalists.

The Problem for the CAA was that historically the Right is more Anti-Semitic than the Left - Allington Fixed It by Changing the Questions!

The CAA has faced a problem throughout its history. Despite the fact that its targets, anti-Zionists, are almost exclusively on the Left, anti-Semites are almost exclusively on the Right. What the CAA needed was an academic who was willing to prostitute himself and his academic institution by producing bogus ‘research’ that would enable the CAA to conclude that anti-Semitism was primarily a problem of the Left.

David Hirsh - Allington's academic partner, someone who praised Richard Littlejohn for his opposition to 'anti-Semitism' and a notorious Zionist apologist (see below)

This has been the goal of Israel apologists such as David Hirsh, a junk academic from Goldsmith College, someone who wrote of his own trade union the UCU that ‘I have never been in a more hostile and antisemitic space than my union.’  Hirsh collaborated with Allington in perpetrating the CAA's academic fraud.

Since 2014 the CAA has produced a worthless ‘anti-Semitism barometer’ telling us how anti-Semitism is increasing in Britain. Despite everything they found that anti-Semitism was more common on the right than the left. As their 2017 Anti-Semitism Barometer concluded: 

Supporters of left-wing political parties and ‘remainers’ are less likely to be antisemitic than those on the right or supporters of the ‘leave’ camp’. 

What then CAA needed to do was invent a set of questions that would 'prove' that it is the Left who are the anti-Semites not the Right. 

Step forward Daniel Allington who was prepared to use his academic credentials in a dishonest attempt to portray the far-Right as benevolent to Jews.

From 2015 to 2018 the CAA used Yougov to ask a series of statements that were allegedly anti-Semitic in order to show the level of anti-Semitism in the community.  They were:

1.    “British Jewish people chase money more than other British people.”

2.    “Having a connection to Israel makes Jewish people less loyal to Britain than other British people.”

3.    “Jewish people consider themselves to be better than other British people.”

4.    “Compared to other groups, Jewish people have too much power in the media.”

5.    “Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda.” or in 2015 “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”

6.    “Jewish people can be trusted just as much as other British people in business.” or in 2015 “In business, Jews are not as honest as most people.”

7.    “I am just as open to having Jewish friends as I am to having friends from other sections of British society” or in 2015 “I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew.”

In fact it is arguable that a majority of these statements are not anti-Semitic since there is a factual basis to them.  But despite that, even if some people believe generalisations about Jews such as these it doesn’t mean they are hostile to Jews, which is the classic way of understanding anti-Semitism.

Commenting on the 2015 Anti-Semitism Barometer Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Ha'aretz that:

take for example the statement that “Jews think they are better than other people.” Of course it’s not the thing that one should normally be caught saying in public - but is it anti-Semitic? For a start, many Jews do subscribe to the Jewish notion of “the chosen people,” and for that matter it’s not only Jews; members of many if not most nations, religions and ethnicities believe they are better than the others. That’s natural and normal national pride. Even if this view runs counter to liberal orthodoxy, believing that Jews think of themselves that way can certainly be a fair and honest assessment.

The same can be said of another of the survey’s statements: “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.” That’s a rather nasty accusation but the fact is too many Jews, both political leaders in public appearances and ordinary Jews on social media, are often too quick to bring up the Holocaust in order to make a point. The sad truth is that many Jews have cheapened the memory of the Holocaust by using it in an inappropriate fashion. Holding that opinion doesn’t necessarily make you an anti-Semite.

Pfeffer accused the CAA of an eagerness to see the anti-Semitism in Britain, which inarguably exists, as much more widespread than it really is’. There are no prizes for guessing why this might be so.

About the ‘finding’ that 56% of British Jews agree that “the recent rise in anti-Semitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s.” Pfeffer wrote that

‘If the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously.’

He went on to say that

‘To compare today’s Britain, for all its faults, with the Jews’ situation in 1930s exhibits a disconnect from reality which borders on hysteria.’ .

The 2019 Antisemitism Barometer was the first to show that ‘anti-Semitic views were most widespread on the far-left.'  

How you might ask was this achieved? Was there really such a shift in anti-Semitism that the Left not the Right were now the most anti-Semitic?  The answer is no.  Under the guidance of two dishonest academics - Allington and Hirsh -  the CAA added a new set of 6 questions, all of which were to do with Israel not anti-Semitism. They were:

1.  Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on our democracy.”

2. “Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.”

3. “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.”

4. “I am comfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.”

5.  “Israel makes a positive contribution to the world.”

6.  “Israel is right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it.”

The bogus and fraudulent nature of these questions should be immediately obvious even to the most stupid but apparently not to Allington and Hirsh.  They have nothing at all to do with Jews but with a racist state that calls itself ‘Jewish’. The CAA had to concede that Question 5

‘Although… not antisemitic in itself, analysis showed that it was in fact a very good predictor of a respondent’s responses to other statements and therefore a good indicator of anti-Zionist antisemitic attitudes in general.’

Question number 4 is particularly egregious. I have to confess that I have never found myself comfortable spending time with supporters of Apartheid in South Africa or indeed racists generally.  Did this make me an anti-White racist as the supporters of Apartheid used to claim?  I am equally unhappy spending time with defenders of General Pinochet in Chile.  Does that make me anti-Chilean?

Question No. 6, that if you don’t accept Israel’s ‘right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it’ makes you anti-Semitic.  But that assumes that Israel is engaged in defence rather than being the most aggressive state in the Middle East. 

I refuse to accept that Allington and Hirsh don't understand this. It is obvious that a question about Israel's 'right to defend itself' assumes that Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes is about self-defence. Both these academics are unfit to teach students.

In 2018 the CAA employed Daniel Allington to help restructure the  Antisemitism Barometer . In 2018 the survey still demonstrated that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the right than left. The question was what to do about this unhelpful conclusion.  Allington therefore decided to add these 6 new questions with the sole intention of skewing the results. This makes Allington an academic fraud and a cheat. His ‘research’ is valueless and he is what would have been called in the past a scoundrel. 

On the basis of Allington's 'research' the CAA was able to conclude that:

‘Among the very left-wing, 42% believe that Israel’s supporters are damaging British democracy, and 60% believe that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews, which directly evokes one of the examples of antisemitism in the International Definition of Antisemitism.’

Dr Allington has as much right to occupy an academic post at King’s College of London University as Jack the Ripper would have had to hold down a job in the medical profession. I intend to write to King’s College pointing out that they employ an academic fraud who is no better than a plagiarist.  What they do about this charlatan is their business.

So when you read a CAA post that has the strap line that 'Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Barometer 2019 showed that antisemitism on the far-left of British politics has surpassed that of the far-right' you know that this is a consequence of pure chicanery and academic fraud.  It has no basis in reality.

Tony Greenstein

David Hirsh – the ‘Left’ Zionist who praised Richard Littlejohn

One of Allington’s academic collaborators is David Hirsh, sociology lecturer at Goldsmiths College and self-proclaimed  ‘left’ Zionist. Hirsh has form when it comes to praising racists such as Richard Littlejohn, the Daily Mail columnist.

Even posters to the Engage blog (long since deleted) which Hirsh runs, took exception to Hirsh’s praise for Littlejohn, who wrote about the Rwandan genocide

Does anyone really give a monkey's about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them.’. 

Hirsh wrote:

I'm just about to publicize Littlejohn's TV documentary about antisemitism and link to an interview with him and I'm wondering how to do it. Maybe this is the end of my credibility, as someone on the left, as a sociologist, as a human being? Maybe this one act signifies my final defeat? ...

Perhaps the fact that Richard Littlejohn is campaigning against antisemitism tells us more about how much of the left has moved than about how I, David Hirsh, have moved.

In response to critics Hirsh asked:

What has happened to antiracist politics when even Richard Littlejohn is to the left of all those that I mention? I never said he was good, I said he was a clearer opponent of anti-Jewish racism than a whole layer of "antiracists".

Another way of formulating the question is to ask ‘What is it that makes even the worst racists oppose ‘anti-Semitism’?  Someone who was not an academic fraud or Zionist would question what this ‘anti-Semitism’ actually consists of such that racists oppose it. But Hirsh is first and foremost a Zionist not an academic.

Littlejohn was described by the BNP’s Nick Griffin as his ‘favourite journalist’[See here for an excellent demolition job by Johann Hari on Littlejohn].

That Littlejohn’s support for Israel and Zionism is of a piece with his racism against Black, Muslim and Traveller peoples is demonstrated by his reference in the Sun to Palestinians as “the pikeys of the Middle East”. ‘Pikey’ is normally used about Gypsies, another Littlejohn hate.  But what was Hirsh’s take on all of this?

‘I didn't know the Rwanda quote which is disgusting - but I well remember that he was xenophobic, homophobic, unpleasant.” A good reason, you might think, not to praise him but when you are defending Israel you cannot afford to be choosey about your friends. Hirsh asked:

How come this right wing sleaze is now suddenly more of an anti-racist than you are? At least than Livingstone is, than the SWP is, than Alexei Sayle is, than UCU is than UNISON is, than T&G?’ ... I never said he was good, I said he was a clearer opponent of anti-Jewish racism than a whole layer of "antiracists".

The obvious answer is that Littlejohn is not an opponent of anti-Jewish racism. He is a supporter of Zionism. But since Littlejohn, like many on the far Right, sees Israel as a ‘White’ and civilised state, then he too has to be welcomed into the fold. 

In response to the suggestion that his post be taken down, Hirsh and his supporters leapt into action.  Amongst the comments were the following:

 ‘What do you want, for Engage to be a minority site dismissed as some obscure ramblings of an extreme-left fringe? ‘

Obnoxious as he is as far as I am aware nobody has ever accused Littlejohn of being an anti-Semite (in fact Jews must be one of the few minorities he is keen on).

Given the pressing need to publicise that anti-Semitism is a problem and that this programme might well reach a wider audience than the few thousand political obsessives we normally address ourselves to, I am not sure David had that luxury.

Diasporist asked the following question. (July 06, 2007)

If you were a Gypsy and you were told that someone was making a programme about anti-Gypsy racism, the only trouble was that they often say and write nasty things about Jews and Gays. How would you feel about

Hirsh is not unacquainted with the far-Right, including the Zionist far-Right. In 2016 he took part in a Campaign4Truth debate with the Zionist far-Right. Participants included Brian John Thomas, Tommy Robinson’s organiser in Israel, Melanie Phillips and David Collier (who described Palestinians in the third person ‘it’).

Campaign4Truth is run by Tommy Robinson and Pegida supporters Ambrosine Shitrit and Sharon Klaff. See EXCLUSIVE – Focus on Zionism's Fascist Wing - Katie Hopkins Shows the Depth of Racism Amongst British Jewry

See also Disengaging from Littlejohn Jews sans frontieres

Tony Greenstein

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please submit your comments below