A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for the Daily Sceptic condemning the weaponisation of antisemitism against Andrew Bridgen MP. As is widely known, Bridgen has been conducting a campaign in Parliament to publicise the plight of people who have been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine. On the morning of January 11th he tweeted the observation of an (unnamed) consultant cardiologist that the COVID vaccine programme was “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”. By lunchtime, Bridgen had lost the Conservative whip. At Prime Minister’s Question Time, Matt Hancock, who as Health Secretary had been personally in charge of the vaccination campaign, asked a question about “disgusting, antisemitic, anti-vax conspiracy theories” which he claimed were “not only deeply offensive but anti-scientific”. Because he spoke in Parliament, Hancock’s comments were protected by parliamentary privilege. But Hancock also put his comments out in a tweet, which had no such protection. For having called him ‘antisemitic’, Bridgen is now suing Hancock for libel.
As I remarked at the time, the accusation of antisemitism against Bridgen was patently ludicrous. It was, I argued, part of a concerted campaign to weaponise antisemitism, to use it as a cudgel with which to beat anyone who spoke out against the Covid regime. The accusation felt like it was intended not simply to silence – or at least discredit – someone who was asking awkward questions about the vaccine programme, but also to send a message to any other MP who was thinking of following suit that he or she would also be smeared, and cast out as Bridgen had been. The accusations have not managed to silence Bridgen, but no other MP is speaking out publicly as he has done.
Now there has been another, similar attack, not this time by an MP on another MP, but by the Guardian on Neil Oliver. For the past year and a half, Oliver, previously best known as the presenter of television programmes on the history and archaeology of the British coastline, has been speaking out on GB News against state over-reach under the guise of protecting public health. Every now and then, an attempt has been made to smear Oliver with an accusation of antisemitism. For example, in August 2022 the Jewish Chronicle published an article claiming outrage among Jewish groups that Oliver had interviewed a ‘former Holocaust denier’ on his programme. In fact, the guest in question, Peter Imanuelson, denied that he had ever been a Holocaust denier; and he was not being interviewed about anything to do with the Holocaust, anyway. Oliver and Imanuelson were discussing whether the fall in birth rates in 2022 might be attributed to the Covid vaccine.
Now there has been a more high-profile attack on Oliver’s presence at GB News. This follows the recent resignation of Oliver’s colleague Mark Steyn. In a video on his website, Steyn said he had resigned because GB News presented him with a new contract which would have made him personally liable for any fine imposed by OfCom. Steyn is now broadcasting his show directly from his website. Some predicted that, following Steyn’s departure from GB News, Oliver might not be on GB News for much longer, although as far as we know OfCom isn’t investigating complaints against him.
Wednesday’s Guardian featured an article entitled, ‘Jewish groups and MPs urge GB News to stop indulging conspiracy theories.’ This stated that: “The UK’s leading Jewish organisation and a group of MPs have called on GB News and the media regulator OfCom to tackle the broadcaster’s indulgence of conspiracy theories, warning that some recent segments and guests risked spreading ideas linked to antisemitism.”
According to the Guardian, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism had decided to speak out following Oliver’s programme last Saturday night, in which he had referred in his opening monologue to a “silent war” and to plans to impose a one-world government. These, the Guardian claimed, constituted an antisemitic trope, related in some way to the Rothschild banking family. It did not appear to concern the Guardian that Oliver himself had said nothing about Jews or the Rothschilds.
The accusations against Oliver are so flimsy they’re hardly worth rebutting. I would not have written this article merely in order to counter them. The important point is that Oliver is not guilty of antisemitism. So why is the Guardian going after him? My suspicion is it senses weakness following Mark Steyn’s departure and wants to cause further trouble for GB News. Expect attacks on Laurence Fox or Dan Wootton next.
When Oliver referred to a “silent war” in his monologue on Saturday night, he was talking about the “silent war” that he believes the British parliament is waging against the British people. Oliver argued that the people can win this war by using the British constitution, according to which the people are sovereign, and not Parliament – despite its claim to be so.
In his brief discussion of the constitution, Oliver was preparing the ground for a guest who appeared later on his show, William Keyte, an expert on constitutional law. The Guardian article pays a lot of attention to Keyte, and tries hard to smear him by association, reporting that he has contributed articles to websites which also feature “conspiracy theorists” who have made allegations about the motives of the Israeli state and the Rothschild banking family. So, we should treat Oliver with suspicion because he interviewed a man who has contributed to a website that has published people who may, conceivably, be antisemitic conspiracy theorists. This is a form of offence archaeology of which the Byline Times is fond and was once memorably described as ‘six degrees of separation from Hitler’.
I would strongly recommend listening to what Keyte said on Oliver’s programme (from 27 minutes in). The Guardian article claims that Keyte has been talking about Common Law. That is a misrepresentation of his position. For the past three years there has been a great deal of talk within the freedom movement about the potential of Common Law, and a number of organisations have run courses to teach people about it. I have personally been dubious about using Common Law to fight back against the overmighty state, not because I don’t believe in Common Law, but because the police and the judiciary and government do not. They believe in the primacy of statute and case law, and they are the power in the land.
Constitutional law is a different matter. As Keyte said in another interview, “I have been trying to say for quite a long time to people who are awake to this, you really need to be arguing this from the position of constitutional law. Stop talking about Common Law, because that’s not going to do you any favours; you really need to hold the governments’ feet to the fire through the systems that we have… through the mechanisms they know they’re meant to be bound by.”
The Guardian’s attack on Keyte recalls an article it published in 2020 seeking to discredit Martin Kulldorff, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdowns and argued instead for the ‘focussed protection’ of vulnerable people. The Guardian sought to smear Kulldorff by association, saying that he had appeared on the independent radio programme The Richie Allen Show, which had previously featured interviews not only with “conspiracy theorists” but also with Holocaust deniers.
What particularly concerns me about the Guardian’s attack on Oliver is that it has co-opted organisations that are supposed to represent Jewish interests. This is what always happens. A newspaper approaches organisations that purport to speak on behalf of the ‘Jewish community’, tells them that someone has been saying something antisemitic, and asks them for a comment. Naturally, they say that they deplore antisemitism, and that something should be done about it. And the newspaper has its story.
I’m sorry, but the more that Jewish organisations go on about antisemitism when there is very little there, the less likely the public are to pay attention when these same organisations flag up genuine instances of antisemitism. I can’t help thinking about the boy who cried ‘Wolf’.
Andrew Barr is the founder of Jews For Justice. In addition, he’s the author of Wine Snobbery, Pinot Noir and Drink: An informal social history. Jews For Justice doesn’t have a webpage, but it does have a Telegram group. Anyone who is interested in joining can email Andrew at jewsforjustice@protonmail.com.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
fully agree, especially with both my parents being refugees from Germany. my annual synagogue subscription is currently due which includes an extra amount for the Board of Deputies which has been cancelled.
From the playbook:-
Racist, if not…
Fascist, if not,
Neo-Nazi, if not…
Denier, if not…
Conspiracy theorist, if not…
Anti-Semitic, if not…
All the above.
But what happens to the playbook when (pick any country) and (pick any religion) discovers as fact that a very high percentage of their population (friends, family, offspring) have been poisoned with an almost enforced medication and that the individuals on the Executive who approved this medicine are almost all of the same religious or cultural-religious background?
Shouting “anti-******* ” at any dissenters and protecting those who should not be protected but exposed for their crimes may result in the possibility of a profound backfire and that those laws which were allegedly to protect protected classes actually illuminates them.
The “Left” has too many idiots doing idiot things, with consequences they cannot extrapolate to conclusion. They will burn the world in order to keep power and us divided with name calling.
I really like Neil Oliver and could listen to him for hours. I’ve also started listening to his history broadcasts on the internet which are excellent. People who use antisemite and racist slurs to shut down discussion have already lost the argument.
It’s no surprise whatsoever that actual, genuine antisemitism is rapidly rising when people in power (usually non-Jews) weaponise the term to the point of making it ridiculous.
My family is Jewish and so I am lucky enough to be immune to this particular form of attack (my mother’s go-to is “conspiracy theorist”) but the Jewish community is doing itself no favours by supporting this casual and clearly political carpet bombing with the A-word.
The actions by media outlets like the Guardian accentuates the “antisemitic trope” of Jews controlling the media. Which – let’s be honest – we largely do. It baffles me why this is controversial. It’s indisputable that there is a disproportionate number of Jewish people in positions of power in the media, and it is indisputable that they use that influence for their own benefit.
Why wouldn’t they? Throughout the entirety of human history any group who has a degree of control over information has used that control to promote and benefit themselves. Because that’s what humans do. Are we seriously expected to believe that Jewish people are the only group in history to have not used any influence they have to support their own agenda? If so – why the hell not? It’s what anyone else would do. But in the knowledge that that is what is happening, why in Gods name would you then use that influence in such a cack-handed, visible and sinister way? At least be smart about it and maybe, just maybe, you wouldn’t be stoking hatred against the 99.99% of us who don’t own newspapers and don’t want to undermine democracy.
Indeed. If a non-Jew said some of the above, they’d be accused of being anti-semitic. In fact some people might well accuse you of that anyway, based on what you’ve said.
I think this case is different to Bridgen’s. In the Bridgen case the accusation was an obvious reach. Most of the accusations in this case are an obvious reach too, but in truth we don’t know what Oliver means exactly when he’s talking about “world government”. I strongly doubt he’s anti-semitic in the sense of thinking that Jews are all evil or should be denied equal rights of whatever, but let’s say for argument’s sake that Oliver believes that there is a cabal of rich, powerful people trying to run the world, in which Jews are over-represented. Would that make him “anti-semitic”? In many people’s eyes, it would. Probably I could now be accused of anti-semitism just for suggesting this.
https://youtu.be/_m-gO0HSCYk?t=65
https://youtu.be/_m-gO0HSCYk?t=260
It was well worth watching the Mark Steyn entry https://www.steynonline.com/13231/has-ofcom-popped-steyn-balloon ,from around 20 minutes in. He even mentioned Toby a little further on.
We all know what this is about, anti semitism is being used as the cover all to shut up Lockdown and vaccine questioners. Mr Oliver has been a courageous, outspoken voice for many of us who see the tyranny being vested upon the British people, who has called out the tactics of the Government, the Pharma and the MSM, in its creation of division in British society, driving a wedge which they can then utilise for their own greed for ever more power.
Using Jewish people and their religion as call all to block free speech and challenge to misanthropic behaviour by the afore mentioned is in and of itself anti semitic. The Guardian is funded by Gates and as such is a dog whistle operation contect to pedal whatever lies and propaganda it needs to do in order to satisfy its paymasters.
Neil Oliver will not be shut up, like Mark Steyn he is a speaker for truth, and the truth is like a Lion you don’t have to defend it, set it free, it will defend itself.
Yes, The Guardian is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, likewise the Telegraph, BBC and goodness knows how many other media outlets.
When are we going to get an investigation into Bill Gates and the BMGF? Gates and the BMGF are exercising extraordinary influence around the globe, without the informed consent of the billions of people in the world.
We desperately need scrutiny of this so-called philanthropy, which is influencing government and taxpayer-funded policy, e.g. the diabolical Covid-19 response which has squandered billions of pounds on worse than useless Covid jabs, testing, PPE, surveillance etc.
The response to the manufactured Covid crisis is being used to destroy our freedom, setting in place mechanisms to inhibit free movement and association, and setting up people to be subject to medical interventions, i.e. jabs, on the demand of governments working as agents for the likes of the BMGF, WHO, Gavi, CEPI etc.
The global population has to be alerted to this matter – how do we do this when the mainstream media is under the control of the perpetrators?!
I amused myself recently by imagining going back in time 15 or so years, just to tell everyone that, in the 2020s, that nice Neil Oliver and that lovely Alice Roberts off of that pleasant BBC Coast show would be representing opposing sides in a bitter cultural war.
The retort to The Guardian’s tenuous claim of antisemitism against Neil Oliver should surely be to highlight Billy Gate’s association with Geoffrey Epstein, of which there is more than enough photographic evidence.
Not something they draw attention to as they quietly pocket his grubby money.
And which was used by his wife as a reason for divorce.
Way past time for the spotlight to be shone on Ofcom…
I read the Guardian article and was astonished how poorly executed this attempt was. It was basically He talked about a one-world government. In the past, people have warned of one-world governments secretly run by jews. Therefore, he is employing antisemitic tropes (and we strongly suggest that GBN gets its house in order, ie, cancels him).
OTOH, it’s important to keep in mind that these smear-campaigns are not intended to be successful. They intended to replace a conversation about a topic the people behind this absolutely don’t like with a (pretty much canned) conversation about antisemitism which – again – at least partially succeeded.
One of the most remarkable things about this piece is the obvious fact the the Grauniad is, and has ever been, the most assiduous and disgusting purveyor of Palestinian Arab agit-prop against Israel, and supporter of groups attacking the “Islamophobia” of those who correctly criticise the Religion of Peace on the basis that sections of their Holy Texts are clearly anti Jewish and misogynistic and promote unacceptable sexual behaviour.
It is also the case that the Jewish diaspora groups the Grauniad rushes to, were largely supportive of Corbyn and includes those at the forefront of criticising Israel’s very measured responses to terrorist attacks.
It is worth reading any number of Melanie Phillips’ excellent blog postings on these groups.
What happened with Mark Steyn is utterly pathetic. If anything, a regulator should eg be fining TV News channels for NOT EXPOSING grooming gangs, not for exposing them. Steyn was simply doing what all Investigative journalists should be doing, which is INVESTIGTING. Instead we have a mainstream News media that simply panders to officialdom at every turn. They question nothing. They are just bought and paid for mouthpieces for each and every Liberal Progressive dogma from the phony Climate Crisis to Open Border Multiculturism. We longer have “science”. We have “Official Science”, where scientific truth is pronounced from podiums by designated experts and if you dare to question any of it, not with conspiracy theories, but with facts and reason then you must be silenced by the regulator which reminds me of that “Central Scrutinizer” on the Frank Zappa Album “Joe’s Garage”.
Like Steyn, Neil Oliver is becoming dangerous to The Authoritarian Establishment. They will use any smear they can to try and remove him from GB News and to discredit him. I’m sure he has very little in his back-story which will provide any ammunition but they won’t hesitate to use all the usual smears.
William Keyte was interviewed by Richard Vobes before appearing on the Neil Oliver Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mBC873TSEE
and again, subsequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPMY-PZhdI
You will get a much longer explanation of the Constitutional position and they are well worth watching.
Of all papers, The Guardian dares to criticises Neil Oliver for anti-semitism?
Those who live in glass houses…
https://www.camera.org/article/in-the-guardian-antisemites-are-authorities-on-antisemitism/
.
Toby Young, Neil Oliver, Andrew Bridgen plus a few others – there’s an electable party right there.