Andrew Windsor’s Dodgy Zionist Sex Scandal

Material now coming into the public domain appears to implicate the Duke of York, Andrew Windsor, the second son of the reigning monarch of the UK, Elizabeth Windsor, and fifth in line to the throne, in a scandal involving the trafficking for paid sex of underage girls by a Jewish billionaire banker, Jeffrey Epstein, in the US, UK and elsewhere. Epstein has admitted soliciting under age girls for prostitution. Now testimony has been submitted in court in the United States accusing Windsor, as well as the hot-shot Jewish-Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, of engaging in sexual activity with underage girls procured by Epstein, allegedly working with Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late corrupt press baron Robert Maxwell, who was also a rabid Israel supporter.

Robert Maxwell was one of the key architects of the Mossad kidnapping of Mordechai Vanunu, who exposed the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal – in excess of 200 nukes – in the Murdoch press in 1986. One of the few creditable actions of Murdoch’s Times was to run this story, but the fact that Vanunu had previously unsuccessfully offered it to Maxwell’s Mirror Group put Mossad onto him, the result being his abduction via a fake holiday to Rome. Maxwell was up to his neck in this crime. It should be recalled that, after Maxwell finally drowned himself in the sea, fearing imminent exposure of his embezzlement of hundreds of millions of pounds of his workers’ pension funds, he was buried in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives.

Dershowitz, one of the most rabid, virulent witch-hunting Zionist racists in the United States, and a stalwart of AIPAC, is now screaming bloody murder at the young woman who has accused him and others of involvement in this affair. But this time Dershowitz’s characteristic bluster and air of cultivated, fake moral outrage, familiar when he is dishing out phoney allegations of ‘anti-semitism’ against critics of his murderous Israeli clients,  is not serving him so well. The woman involved, through her lawyers, put out a statement saying that Dershowitz’s pungent remarks that she “should not be believed” amounted to her being “unjustly victimised again” (see The Guardian, 2 Jan for more details).

Though Ms Maxwell does not appear to have the direct political involvement of her father, her close association with Epstein, who does have similar Zionist proclivities, appear to make Dershowitz and Ghislaine Maxwell appropriate bedfellows (in the metaphorical sense of the term).

Guilt or innocence?

So what is the significance of this case? There are several strands. First of all, no conclusions can be drawn as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and it is not necessarily clear whether what was involved was actual coercion, or simply the use of the inordinate wealth of the accused to buy sexual services and favours that would otherwise be denied to them. More details need to come out to be able to judge this. Communists are consistent democrats, and firm opponents both of sexual coercion where it can be shown to have taken place, as well as of the criminalisation of consensual sexual activities.

One of the deleterious effects of the ‘politically correct’ climate of pseudo-egalitarian ideology that has seeped into the body politic in Western countries, courtesy in no small measure of fake ‘anti-racist’ Jewish-Zionist ideologues like Dershowitz with their continual drip-drip of fake allegations of anti-semitism, is a general witch-hunting climate that extends to the sphere of sexual relations, where the distinction between consensual sexual activity and abuse is systematically blurred.

Stupid moralism

Thus in the UK we have feminist-influenced ideologues making equations between genuinely foul examples of abuse, such as that perpetrated by the late Jimmy Saville, with individual cases such as that of Jeremy Forrest where clearly consensual relationships were involved that ran afoul of overly rigid age of consent laws. I have written about this subject before, and made my own proposals for better criteria for dealing with it. But it should be noted that consensual sexual activities for money are still consensual relations, irrespective of the opinions of reactionary religious and feminist ideologues about it.

An example of the stupidity of radical feminist-inspired moralism over this is the prosecution of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi over his putative relationship with an teenage sex-worker a few years ago. Berlusconi is a foul reactionary politician and Iraq war criminal, who richly deserved the earlier attack made on him by an angry but deranged assailant, who hit him in the face with a heavy marble statuette and seriously injured his jaw. But the prosecution of Berlusconi for his relations with ‘Ruby the Heartstealer’ actually produced a degree of public sympathy, since she did not regard herself as a victim and refused to testify against him. This is an example of where such moral witch-hunts are not only wrong in principle, but actually counterproductive even from the point of view of (quite legitimately) opposing reactionary figures like Berlusconi.

It is not entirely clear which side of this line the alleged activities involving Dershowitz and Andrew Windsor  fall on. But irrespective of this, it appears that Dershowitz is now hoist on his own petard, as a lying lawyer and witch-hunter.

Abolish the monarchy

What is the wider significance of this? Well, for a start, this could be extremely damaging to the British monarchy, though Andrew is now a fairly minor figure, being only fifth in line to the British throne and with virtually no chance of ever succeeding. Nevertheless, the taint of royal involvement in a sex scandal, particularly one where there are hints of possible paedophilia involved, is very damaging. Though obviously the absence of a monarchy does not render the body politic immune to such things, a formal regime of hereditary privilege – that is, state nepotism – itself a form of corruption – must necessarily provide a culture medium for other forms of corruption. So these events are solid ammunition for the elementary socialist demand for the abolition of the monarchy. Apart from the Saville and then Rolf Harris scandals – both of whom involved people with extensive establishment and even Royal connections – Rolf Harris even painted a portrait of the Queen – there are other such scandals involving establishment figures, such as that of Sir Cyril Smith, who was knighted by the Queen, as was Sir Jimmy Saville.

The supersized Rochdale Liberal MP abused boys in children’s homes for decades. Newspaper editors who sought to expose his behaviour were served with D-Notices to suppress publication, showing knowledge and condonance of this abuse at the highest level. Then there is the Dolphin Square investigation, where the cops now say that they believe that young boys were abused and even murdered in the 1970s and 80s by a paedophile ring that included top politicians and judges, at a variety of locations. One of the murdered victims is believed to be an 8 year old boy of South Asian background. This is utterly explosive stuff, and linked to the wider issue of abuse in children’s homes.

With all the shenanigans involving the current Tory Home Secretary, Theresa May, failing to appoint a credible chair of an enquiry into historical sex abuse by senior figures in the establishment from the 1970s to the 1990s, allegations were in the public domain in the 1980s, including from a (since deceased) leader of the Kent miners, Jack Collins, that accused a former Tory Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, of involvement in child sexual abuse.  He has also been more recently publicly accused of raping a teenager – which he strenuously denied after being questioned by police. Brittan’s alleged role in sidelining investigations into such matters has been an important issue in making it very difficult for May to appoint a safe establishment figure (a latter-day Hutton, perhaps) to chair this enquiry.

Interpenetrated

An important strand of the Andrew Windsor business is that it is yet another indication of the thoroughly interpenetrated nature of relations  between the central elements of the ruling classes of the advanced capitalist countries, and the Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie. You cannot get much more central to the British ruling class than the monarchy and its hangers-on like Andrew, whose role as Britain’s ‘trade ambassador’ – appointed under Blair and continuing under Brown and then Cameron – prior to an earlier eruption of the Epstein scandal, underlines.

It should also be recalled that this was not always the case – the sympathy of ex-King Edward VIII for Hitler is also a matter of history, reflecting fascist, anti-Jewish views that were quite common in the Western ruling classes of his day. Edward VIII, by some accounts, found Jews almost as distasteful as Hitler did.

Such views became distinctly unfashionable as imperialist war with Germany became inevitable, and were rendered utterly superfluous with the destruction of most of the revolutionary Jews by Hitler, and then the foundation of Israel by the very non-revolutionary Zionist pseudo-left, who created a new imperialist ally of Britain, the US and not least the new pro-NATO German Federal Republic through the expulsion of the Palestinian Arab population, transforming the position of the Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie from a mistrusted semi-ally into a strategic partner of the major imperialist powers and a vanguard element of world capitalism. As was an inevitable result of such nationalist betrayals of socialist universalism, Israel is now dominated by an openly racist, rabid right.

No progressive or reactionary peoples

One other important point deriving from this is that Jewish-Zionist sources have been very instrumental in promoting anti-Muslim hatred both in the US and the UK. In the Rochdale and Rotherham sexual abuse cases, where gangs of Pakistani Muslim men, mainly taxi-drivers, were convicted of sexual abuse of young girls, there has been a huge campaign to racialise the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation and to portray the main perpetrators of such abuses as being Muslims. But Cyril Smith was not a Muslim; he operated in Rochdale and, unlike the various convicted perpetrators of Muslim origin, he had protection from the state and the establishment. As did Saville and it looks likely, a whole bevy of other establishment figures.

The truth is that it is inequality and the oppression and economic powerlessness of youth that make them vulnerable to abuse of all kinds. It is no accident that it was youth from deprived, working class backgrounds who are in a position to be preyed on by abusers of all backgrounds, from young girls with no prospect of jobs and independent living in economically deprived Northern towns, to young people in children’s homes, who continue to be regarded by the ruling class as trash. Even as they tut-tut about abuse and attempt to racialise the issue, Tory, Lib-Dem and Labour politicians cut the benefits of youth who they portray as a feckless and immoral, and thus make it easier for would-be abusers with a bit of financial clout to gain the opportunity to abuse young people, who do not have the means to easily escape.

What this shows is that there are no progressive or reactionary peoples, nations or cultures. It would be relatively easy to write an article, based on the Jewish origin of quite a few of the alleged perpetrators in the Epstein scandal, as well as other alleged offenders such as Leon Brittan, to argue that Jews have some innate tendency to sexual misconduct of varied kinds. But that would be wrong, just as wrong as the attempts by anti-Muslim bigots such as Melanie Phillips to generalise about Muslim men from the scandals involving some Muslim men in Rochdale and Rotherham.

What has been shown by these events is that sexual abuse is a complex problem that involves and affects all ethnic groups, and that we should seek to analyse and remove the causes of it, which are rooted in poverty, inequality, and lack of economic power. It will take a social revolution to remove these causes; attempts to ‘solve’ the problem while ruling this out will only result in more social regression, with either racist, or reactionary-moralistic, witch-hunts taking the place of a rational and humanistic approach.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. Ian

    I don’t demonise anyone. I criticise racist politics that are effectively hegemonic in the Western countries, that mainstream politics defers to. If this were not true, to give a blatant example, why did no mainstream politician condemn the violent attack on George Galloway on 29 August?

    Jewish-Zionist politics are racist politics. Just as much as, for instance, white nationalist politics. This is only a controversial proposition in Western countries.

    Like

  2. John Cable

    Why mention that some of the people involved in the allegations are Jews or Zionists? The religious and/or political affiliations of the accused are irrelevant. Your article reads not unlike coverage in racist websites and newspapers of the cases of gangs of sexual predators in Britain who happen to be Muslim.
    You seem convinced that “Zionists” are the root of all that you most dislike in modern capitalist society. It is absurd to blame them for the excesses (as you see them) of “political correctness”.

    Like

  3. Ian

    It is interesting that John Cable says ‘Jews or Zionists’. Someone’s ethnic origin is to not be equated with their political affiliations (I don’t see anything religious about this business). The fact is that the relationship of these people to the British establishment, including access to the Monarch’s family, is intimately connected to their politics, which is a form of organised racism. I don’t think that John would be proclaiming that the political affiliations of the accused are/were ‘irrelevant’ if the Duke of York had been accused of involvement in a sex or corruption scandal with Neo-Nazis. If Edward VIII had been caught with his trousers down in some scandal involving Hitler’s supporters, would John say ‘the political views of the accused are irrelevant’? I doubt it.

    Why are Zionists different?

    The sexual predators who happen to be Muslim are not, to my knowledge, part of a powerful political movement with privileged access to the highest levels of the establishment. It is also a fact that the Zionist political movement – a form of organised racism – that these people support, is responsible to a considerable degree for the kind of agitation that is trying to whip up hostility to Muslims, including over ‘grooming’ etc. Pointing out that such people are just as capable of the same thing seems completely legitimate to me.

    The relations of the British monarchy today with Zionism is actually not that different from the relation of Edward VIII with the Nazis. Both had or have much broader ruling class support. It is a deeply embedded liberalism about the Jewish question on the British left that gives rise to this knee-jerk response, that any criticism of anyone of Jewish origin for corruption that is linked to their ethnocentric politics is somehow dodgy.

    Unless that person is a heretic who has been excommunicated by Jewry, as with Gilad Atzmon, in which case all is permitted – including stuff about ‘self-hatred’ that really is racist and reactionary, not that different from allegations of race-treason etc. from the white far right in years past.

    And yes, the Zionist false ‘anti-semitism’ allegations are responsible for encouraging imitation, and a climate of irrationality about other things, including sexual abuse. If you read my article carefully, you will see that there is a rational critique of such hysteria included within it. And pointing out that these people, particularly Dershowitz, are hoist on their own petard on this is completely appropriate.

    How many of these people howled with the wolves against Julian Assange, despite the lack of any coherent evidence against him, and the obviously phoney nature of the allegations?

    Zionists are pretty powerful in capitalist society today. How else to explain that 80% of Tory MP’s support the openly Zionist faction within their own party? Or should we not mention this, and not try to analyse it, for fear of being slandered as racist? This is an openly organised, racist, anti-Arab/Muslim faction within the main party of the ruling class in this country. The other parties have their equivalents.

    Meanwhile, the government is now instructing carers at nurseries to spy on (obviously Muslim) tiny tots lest they express ‘anti-semitic’ sentiments. Is this not insane and bizarre, worse than the McCarthyist chant: “If your mommy is a commie, turn her in”?

    Are they going to do the same with Jewish toddlers, to see if they express anti-Arab views, picked up from their families? Don’t hold your breath. David Cameron has got an answer to that, he calls it ‘moral equivalence’. Listen to his Hanukah oratory if you want to know what kind of racism is deeply embedded in British politics today, thanks to pro-Zionist politics.

    Like

  4. Myron Robinson

    The manner of writing this column suggests that you are an anti-Semitic despicable human being. . What importance does the article have in calling Dershowitz a racist Zionist. A Zionist he is but not a racist. Journalists like you shout for freedom of the press and honest accurate reporting except when Israel and/or Jews are the beneficiaries of your columns. A good article destroyed by your anti-0semitic & anti Zionist vitriol. Call yourself a journalist. You are nothing but a useless EPOS.

    Like

  5. Ian

    I just shrug at such nonsense. Dershowitz is a Zionist but not a racist? Political Zionism is predicated upon a regime of ethnocracy, ethnic cleansing and racist tyranny. Dershowitz is one of its most rabid and prominent supporters in the US. Myron Robinson evidently thinks this is just fine and innocuous.

    His definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ shows why that term should be abandoned. There is such a thing as anti-Jewish racism, it involves hatred of people for their background and parentage in the Jewish people, as historically constituted. This should be condemned as much as hatred of, say, black people for the colour of their skin should be condemned.

    But Myron Robinson says that it is racist to say that Zionism is racist, and to point out that this kind of racist has privileged access to the highest summits of the British establishment, including the monarchy. This broadening of the definition of racism from ‘race’-based hatred to criticism of someone else’s racism, shows that today, in its concrete usage, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ serves a racist purpose. For if one people is privileged in this regard, then the victims of their racism (in this case Palestinian Arabs) must correspondingly be underprivileged.

    Like

Comment on the above

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s