Saturday 2 January 2016

Absurdist antisemitic tragicomedy (with rough transcription)

There has been a lot of coverage of that antisemitic rant. Was it worthy of any coverage?

Most people seemed to think the host should have cut it short, or that the host must have been sympathetic to the caller because he allowed him to go on for 13 minutes.
I didn’t think Simon Lederman was sympathetic in the slightest. He was just out of his depth.   I’m afraid it was like something out of the two Ronnies.  
Inarticulate, faltering rhetoric from the caller and the apparently tenuous grasp of history (from caller and host) turned the whole thing into a parody out of ‘Down the Line’. 

It might have been worth broadcasting if the host had been sharper, but the enormity of the caller’s delusional conspiracy paranoia would have stumped many an experienced  debater, so it ended up being an exercise in how not to demolish an antisemitic ignoramus. 
Hello! Men in white coats! Where are you?

Who are the Zionists?

Daphne Anson called him the heavy breather. I think the phone must have been inside his mouth and he began with a theatrical, menacing drawl. “The establishment is controlling us all.” 
“Andy from St. Margaret’s” started his attack on Radio London’s Simon Lederman radio program by stating that the world is “not free” and “they are trying to control us more and more and more. They want to put a chip up our backsides…the elites… A ring through our noses, and a vizor for our horizons… the Rothschilds… It’s about the Zionists.”

Absurdist antisemitic tragicomedy with rough transcription.  Act 1:

“Who d’you mean?” asks the host 

“The Rothschilds! The Rothschilds are controlling us all, and don’t get confrontational with me!”

“I’m not” counters the host, defensively. “Is this how you go through life? Getting arsey when questioned? "

“Yes.”[..] “It’s about the Zionists”

“Who are the Zionists?”

“Good question. The Zionists........ 100 years ago, right, okay, who wanted, who wanted to say.., I want to create a... Israeli state. Right? It was Palestine, right. Okay. And most.. of the Jews...of the world... come from.... eastern Europe! From a place called, originally,  from an empire called Khazaria. And they turned to Judaism about seventh century. They’re not from Palestine” 

Cue long, loud intake of breath. 

“They came from there, and the Rothschilds.. the people who own the Bank of England, the people that own the federal reserve, they’re all Zionist Jews the people that own corporate America, the media, you’ll find, if you just do a little bit of research, that ...all Zionist Jews. We are ruled by Zionist Jews.

By this time Simon Lederman is flummoxed and  floundering. So much conspiracy paranoia, where to start? 

“How are you... how are you ruled? I mean in terms of the creation of Israel...? (attempts a sketchy/ potted history of the creation of Israel) ......."You don’t believe that’s the case?”

“Well, you have to understand, well for a start, I mean the history of Jews... from Palestine from Khazaria, of Judaism okay, it’s a long long history, okay thousands of years, has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism, you’ll find a lot - we have been.... not told anything in this country.... in the mainstream media but the - the  - Zionism is about the State Of Israel but if you go to true Judaism, they’re against the state of Israel. The very - those guys with the hats and the curly hair they have huge..”

“These are the ultra othodox.......”

“What? They’re just true Judaists

Vague  waffling about Neturei Karta.

“Orthodox Jews, from different sects, aah but a-a-a-um, many of that sect, of- of one of various sects, they are against the state of Israel. For philosophical religious reasons spiritual reasons” 

Big inhalation

“And you won’t ever see that on our media.”

“Why do you have such an interest in such a narrow aspect of..”

“Narrow? narrow? A handbag? Because the point about it is, all fundamentally so sparklyfy(?) so hugely wide - it - they - control the Munneeyy. The Munneeey. Finance.”

“It is only Jews that wield control in the world?”

Intake of breath


“Because you haven’t named me any aspects of life"

“80% of corporate America, of the media, is owned. By. Jews! Right, and they’re Zionist Jews. I’m against Zionism, not Judaism. I’m against Zionism, because I believe that the state of Palestine, and the funny thing is  - before Israel was created, and I understand the security of the Jews needing secure but before it was the Europeans that actually oppressed and killed the Jews, not the Palestinians, not the Arabs,... and the Arabs themselves in Palestine they were the safest ever.”

“What would you have done post WW ll? “

“Well yet again the British Empire that was, has created huge problems for the future.”

“What would you have done?”

“Well, I would never..Balfour created essentially the state of Israel it should never have.. it was a land Palestine that the British had a protectorate over...”

“This is what you wouldn’t have done -”

“About what?”

“You said you understood the need for security.”

“Germans were the ones that killed them, right? Eastern Jews.”

“You said the threat to Jews came from Europe and not from the Palestinians”

“Arabs, exactly You mentioned second world war.”

“I’m asking what you would have done at the end of the second..”

“Well we shouldn’t have done anything...I understand what Jews felt at the end and the pogroms, but you have to understand, how many Red Indians were lost in America, how many were cleared out, how many were decimated in America 17m do you know how many Aborigines have been..... we keep going on and on about ‘The Jews” 

“No. With due respect you’re the only one who’s done that.”

This has descended (if it could possibly get any lower) to pure farce by this time.

“No I’m doing it now, but I’m saying in mainstream media they keep banging on about the Jews and the ugh ugh ugh ugh the holocaust. There have been many holocasts “ (that’s what he said)

“It’s in the news because there’s live conflict going on....and not in Australia”

“No because they wiped them out!”

“I understand that”

“17 million Red Indians.”

“I understand the point you’re making.”

“Right! It’s about time we recognised that fact. The bottom line is”

“But I think we’ve spoken about....”

‘What? about Americans being wiped out?”

“We speak about how America came to be”

“We are taking about numbers, right? We’re talking about numbers my friend. Six million Jews. Red Indians approximately 17 million were wiped out.”

“And in which year?”

In.. when.. in.. when.. they conolised America” (he said that)

“In which year?”

“Not in one year!”

“In which era?”

“In America, when the Western powers took over america they wiped out.... it’s the approximations of about 17 million...”

“Tell me when..”

(This is pure farce. It’s a Pinter play. Samuel Beckett)

“Over a period of... I would say... I can’t say specifically but I will try and get as narrow to what your question is ......(vast inhalations) you’re going over, about over, about 150 year period.” 

“Do you not think the reason the holocaust is discussed more is because some of the people who went through that are still living?”

“Naoow it’s got nothing to do with that. It’s got nothing to do with that the bottom line is that..”

“You’re telling me that has nothing to do with the fact that that is discussed more than ....”

“Right. So you’re really trying to tell me...”

“I’m not telling you anything. I’m asking you a question”

“You’re asking me a question fair enough. Are you going to alleow me to speekk?”


“Because you’ve done a lot of trivia tonight so now you’ve got to listen to something profound.”

“I don’t have to listen to anything”

“This is our station. It’s the people’s station okay?”

“And I’ve given you more than anyone...”

“You’ve given me this point because you know you’ve never heard this before, and..”

“There’s no need to shout at me”

“I’m not shouting at you. I’m being firm with you.”

“That’s fine.”

“Don’t try and dominate me! Okay? Let’s talk on a level playing field.”

“It’s level, it’s level.”

“Thank you so the point is what I’m saying to you, right, the sig... lets get down to the boddom line of what's we are neow”

“You’re not going to answer my last question.”

“Remind me briefly”

“You’re saying that the reason the hollicaust is being discussed more isn’t because the people who suffered in it are still alive?”

“No and I’ll tell you the reason why I said that because there are red indians who have suffered their families from the past suffered”

“From the past”

“So how far d’you wanna go back?”

“The closer....”

“The reason it’s not discussed is because we’re dominated by the Jewish system. The Jewish financial system the Rothschilds control us and the bank of England, the federal reserve is run by Zionist Jews.”

“Now we’re going back to where we started, goodbye”

It would have been an ideal vehicle for Pete and Dud. Pity they're not around.


  1. Yes, it was very much like 'Down the Line'. We were into 'it's beyond satire' and 'you couldn't make it up' territory, crossed with a bit of Beckett. (The "Red Indians" bit especially made me laugh).

    Quite a lot of the Twitter reaction I saw - especially from those who the "anti-Zionist" caller reckons 'rule the world' - reacted with black humour to it, saying they felt they'd met that caller many times before online.

    And most of them felt that the nice-but-out-of-his-depth BBC presenter had at least tried by attempting to give the sighing antisemite enough rope to hang himself by and then trying to reason with him.

    As a listener, I have to say that the antisemite did obviously dangle a lot - though that was almost entirely down to himself. Simon really didn't make much headway with him.

    Some of our fellow bloggers and their readers, as you wrote, were far harsher on Simon Lederman than pretty much anyone else. That's a shame I think. He really was trying.

  2. Living in a free speech society is not always a comfortable experience, but it's better than living in a fear speech society.

    I think as long as people don't incite violence or illegal acts, then it is important that people be allowed to air their views and concerns, however detached from reality. But broadcasters do have a responsibility to ensure that the more outlandish views are exposed to careful scrutiny. Sounds like this was a bit of a fail.

    1. Yes, I agree, and (rather unusually for much of the BBC) I think Simon Lederman was actually trying to live up to that here - though not very successfully.

    2. Broadcasters really don't have to give us 'detached from reality'. That's what works of fiction are for. If I really want the latest ramblings of David Icke or whoever, I'll go to the websites this bloke uses.

  3. I think that free speech is so important that even a view as absurd as that needs to be heard in order that it can be rebutted. But unfortunately the MSM’s, and particularly the BBC’s reporting of Israel, has been so dishonest and one-sided that a certain ill-educated section of listeners might actually be taken in by this kind of ridiculous rant. The BBC re-writes history whenever it suits their agenda, and with no regard for the consequences.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.