If you think Donald Trump is getting a hard time from an openly one-sided media, then consider what is happening in Britain where the Labour Party has been punished for months for the temerity to reject the Jewish political agenda.

But now the law of unintended consequences has finally caught up with the manufactured “Labour anti-Semitism” pseudo-crisis. No-one could have predicted that it would backfire so deliciously — or that it would turn into such a potential “red pill” moment on the realities of Jewish power in Britain today.

It happened during a BBC interview with leading Labour left-winger and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone. He was being interrogated about a witless female Muslim Labour MP who had lost her job over a re-tweet she made two years ago, despite apologising in public four times. Pressed to repent, Livingstone finally snapped and came out with the fated words.

Hitler was supporting Zionism… Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel.

For good measure he then said the woman, Naz Shah, was the victim of a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby” and repeated it all later.

It was a jaw-dropper, a real moment to savour. The heavens duly fell in on him courtesy of the media slime machine that never sleeps. Buckets of ordure were duly tipped over his head while the pack set off in pursuit. The most surreal moment came when one notorious non-Jewish Friend of Israel, John Mann, chased Livingstone into a toilet.

Livingstone refuses to backtrack or apologize. He has been duly suspended and an inquiry into his comments has been announced. In all the uproar no-one initially noticed one small detail — everything he said was true. Why stating a historical truth amounts to anti-Semitism is not clear, although apparently many Jews were “offended.”

Here is where the law of unintended consequences kicks in. People (who would never read TOO) have tapped the words “Haavara agreement” into search engines and been astonished at what they read. The 1933 Haavara agreement between the World Zionist Organisation and National Socialist Germany allowed Jews to emigrate with all their wealth to Palestine. The Nazi agreement on the transfer of Jews to their “historic homeland” runs completely against everything most people have been taught. It is one of those non-secret secrets which has been effectively buried in contemporary teaching of history. In one of the largest archives of twentieth-century history, the BBC, there is not one word about this, let alone a TV or radio documentary. (The only documentary is this one from 1984.)

That is the way our political establishment want to keep it. The delicate and complicated issue of German-Jewish relations before the war is a story they do not want the public investigating at all. For them, it all has to begin and end with what they call “the Holocaust.”

Now many astonished, curious young people will be able to ask — what else do we not know? What is this about a Jewish boycott, for instance? Did world Jewry really declare war on Germany on March 24, 1933 and attempt to cripple the country with an economic sabotage? Why is Livingstone called an anti-Semite for repeating what Netanyahu admitted not long before? Is it true that former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir belonged to a gang that offered to ally with Nazi Germany to fight against the British?

The Haavara agreement is especially excruciating because various Zionist leaders clearly said that they were in the same business as the German national socialists — creating an ethnic homeland based on racial purity and exclusionism. They were clearly were a mirror of each other and understood each other very well.

Who knows where the questions will end? (At his disciplinary inquiry Livingstone will cite a book by Marxist historian Lenni Brenner who has written extensively about collusion between campaigners for a Jewish homeland and the Nazis.)

This could be the beginning of the unravelling of one of the most grotesque and relentless media campaigns of recent years. For months now, the media have been insisting that the failure of the Labour Party to make Jewish issues its main priority is akin to a national emergency. The ensuing PR firestorm has been so obviously out of proportion that it has drawn widespread attention to the domination of the media by Jewish priorities.

Thanks largely to the Muslim bloc vote, the Labour Party leadership was won by the far-left and long-standing Palestinian supporter Jeremy Corbyn last year, and he has been under constant attack ever since. To an organized Jewish community used to having the Labour Party in its pocket, this was totally unacceptable and had to be reversed.

The subsequent assault has been veiled as an attack on “growing anti-Semitism” which seems to usually manifest itself in the Twitter and Facebook comments of various low-level Muslim activists and councillors.

Labour MPs’ minds will no doubt have been concentrated by being reminded in fairly blunt terms who pays the piper. And just in case the point was missed, a Labour MP called Michael Foster pointed out that private Jewish sources contributed a third of the general election war chest. This funding has all but dried up now. Another former Jewish financial backer called David Abrahams has been reported as linked to an attempted leadership coup to depose Jeremy Corbyn. It would be interesting to see how this goes down with the Muslim bloc vote. One of Corbyn’s Jewish supporters has hit back, suggesting the Board of Deputies of British Jews has dropped its stated political impartiality to organize opposition from behind the scenes.

Wherever you turned in the British media in the last week it seemed impossible to get away from the finger-wagging, scolding and barracking of Jewish columnists from across the political spectrum. Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard even rolled out his tired old story about how his granny kept a suitcase under the bed in case “they” come again.

At some point even the least perceptive are going to be struck by this. At some point people are going to tire of being lectured and ordered around in this condescending way. They might start asking why so much more coverage has been devoted to this issue than to the Muslim child rape gangs in Rotherham and other towns, for example.

Part of this battle is being fought on a semantic front and there is a blatant attempt to widen the definition of anti-Semitism and to narrow the discourse. Non-Jews are to be chastised for repeating what some Jews say openly and the prominent Labour Friend of Israel John Mann wants to place phrases such as the “Jewish lobby” and “dual loyalty” out of bounds.

Labour’s dissidents are all at sea when they try to suggest that the problem is one of “Zionism” as opposed to Jewish ethnic aggression. This video shows how one Labour politician, Gerry Browning, flailing around and completely unable to explain the meaning of the “Jewish question” in non-racial terms.

There is an interesting parallel in which both sides cannot admit the existence of race in this argument. The Jewish lobby cannot admit that the “anti-Semitism” is largely driven by the same Muslims which Jewish organizations have so assiduously conspired to flood into the country.

At the same time the Labour Party cannot admit that it will have eventually to choose between the Muslim mass vote on which it increasingly depends and on Jewish financial clout and media influence which is indispensable if it is to carry on as a mass party.

And where are ordinary Whites in all this? They are nowhere. They were made surplus to requirements a long time ago and if they could all be replaced tomorrow, many in Labour would secretly heave a sigh of relief.

It took an amused Conservative neo-con Douglas Murray to gently slip in a truth.

The modern Labour party claims to be an anti-racist movement, but because of demographic changes in the UK in certain areas it has to run on a covertly racist ticket.

But the racism that Murray wanted to condemn was that anyone supporting Israel would not be able to stand as a Labour candidate in a Muslim constituency. And what of the racism that the indigenous people of this country, the Whites, have to suffer from both Jews and Muslims? There is not a word about that because that is the racism that dare not speak its name.