A Whip and a Prod

[DJA]

Rudolph Rocker arrived in London in 1895,after first coming in contact with Jewish anarchism in Paris,1893.

After losing his union job in 1897,he moved to New York.

He was not Jewish and did not speak Yiddish during those years.

[DJA]

Nonetheless,more Rocky and Bullwinkle than Boris and Natasha

[Michael W Richards]

>>BEYOND THE CLUB DOOR <<

and

>> In Graphic (London), 30 July 1892, in the article The Anarchist at Play: <<

It is important to remember the Berner Street club described in those articles was a very different one from the club as it existed in 1888.


Re: Membership, that was both a revenue raising device and an enticement to join, designed to be able to sell tobacco and and alcohol outside normal hours.

I don't believe that was accurate Dr. The Arbeter Fraint already had the reputation of supporting the more anarchist elements of Socialism through its support of the immigrant tailors in the area, and was supportive of the strike the held the next year. There are quotes from local police at the time of the murders that refer to the club as an Anarchist Club, this was something that had been established before they were widely recognized as such. I saw this in an excerpt by an article by a Dr Sarah J Young who has a PHD in Russian Literature, History and Culture, and it reads....

"At the same time, there was socialist and anarchist activity among immigrants from Eastern Europe, for fairly obvious reasons. It reflects the growth of labour and working class movements at the time, and the fact that new arrivals, whatever their profession or status at home, usually found themselves destitute and had to turn to sweatshop work to survive; ‘badly paid and half-starved’ and living in an ‘unsavoury part of London’ that had once been a ‘notorious criminal quarter’ (Rocker, pp. 26-7), the newcomers provided a ready audience for the activists and propagandists who, after all, shared their language."

The cross-over from benign Socialist to more active members for change was already taking place.

[DJA]

Just Chinese whisper reporting about Packer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Irish Times, 26 Nov '88: Two of the men who described at the time the man believed to have committed the Berners street and other murders, have to-day reported that they have again seen him, but that, though they followed him he disappeared, suddenly down an unfrequented turning.

This snippet implies multiple men saw the Berner Street murderer, gave a description of him at the time, and believed he had committed other murders.

No wonder Israel Schwartz didn't want to appear at the inquest.

[Michael W Richards]

Robert you mentioned that only club members or sponsored guests would be allowed into the club and then surmised that Stride was neither. I would suggest that Liz Stride may well have been a sponsored guest, after all she is in the passageway when she is attacked. I personally believe she was there to meet someone, or to assist in cleaning the club after a large meeting. She had been at work locally "among the Jews" in recent weeks and that club was full of local Jews and in need of cleaning. She could have had a family she worked for recommending her to the club. The other possibility is what I lean to though...the flower arrangement and the cachous. The fact she intended to be out all night. Her newfound single status and as Kidney himself hints at, her pattern of being drawn to other men even while with still with someone. She apparently liked men. So, on this Saturday night, with her long skirt on, an evening jacket with a maidenfern pinned to it, her scarf, her desire to have her skirt lint brushed...preening, is she meeting a new beau, or getting ready to make some money cleaning all night. I think one clue is in the piece of fabric she left with a doss house friend. It must have had some value for her, and yet she wasn't sure when she would be back for it. That indicates to me that she really didn't know for sure she would be back the next day.

If she was there to clean, she would have a reasonable idea what time she would be finished, and she would likely then return to where she was staying for some rest. I don't get the sense she thought for sure she would be coming back there on Sunday.

[drstrange169]

>> ... the Knights of Liberty were holding their meetings at The Sugar Loaf on Hanbury Street while IWMEC was meeting at 40 Berners Street ...<<

Yes, indeed.

[drstrange169]

>>BEYOND THE CLUB DOOR <<

and

>> In Graphic (London), 30 July 1892, in the article The Anarchist at Play: <<

It is important to remember the Berner Street club described in those articles was a very different one from the club as it existed in 1888.


Re: Membership, that was both a revenue raising device and an enticement to join, designed to be able to sell tobacco and and alcohol outside normal hours.

[DJA]

I saw an advert in Freedom (London) that the Knights of Liberty were holding their meetings at The Sugar Loaf on Hanbury Street while IWMEC was meeting at 40 Berners Street, E.

One of two hotels in Hanbury Street associated with the Cooney family.

[Robert St Devil]

The Synagogue and IWMEC were poles apart.

Pretty much Orthodox under Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler vs Markism which was inspired,in part, by Baruch Spinoza.

In between the multilayered mess were people like Ben Disraeli's son.

Ironically less then 60 years later 75% of Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust.

From what I have been reading lately, I take it that London Anarchists were not comparative to their continental radical counterparts found in Spain, France, &c. In fact, the quip exists that UK Anarchists suffered from "too much talk" and that there wasn't sufficient "oppression" within London for their group to radicalize themselves. In fact, one Anarchist states [para] that he had no serious complaints about his time in London. About the most that I have gathered is that Anarchy within London was more of a political identity rather than a subversive community. They championed the abolishment of authority, the bourgeoisie, and governmental structure but not largely to the extent of conspiratorial measures; and, one journalist in Freedom (London) writes that the Anarchist's endeavor [para] was through trying to convince others of their stance rather than eradicating their opposition. Were they socially intolerable? Possibly; I read of an exchange about one IWMEC member challenging a constable on why he would subject himself to working for 'the man' and the constable responding that he had 'a family to feed'. (*Following the lead of your statement of Dutch Jews perishing in the Holocaust, DJA, I did note one aspect that may have lent itself to the upcoming world wars, that being, Anarchists rejected the idea of military service as a wholly capitalistic endeavor; leading me to wonder whether this belief was generalized on Jews as a whole). And, I did find an article on Anarchist Morality by Kropotkine who stated "if we met Jack the Ripper the day when he murdered that woman who asked him for three pence for slum-lodging we should have put a bullet through his head", which offers a perspective that the aims of an anti-bourgeoisie party were more than likely not set against unfortunates.

[Robert St Devil]

In 1888 the Berner Street club was a maelstrom of two competing factions, the Socialists and the Anarchists. A few years later the Anarchists ( the so called Knights of Liberty) eventually won out with the arrival of the likes of Rudolf Rocker and dedicated themselves to Anarchism.

Interesting stuff, but irrelevant during Mrs Stride's murder, as the we know from the debate upstairs the Socialists held sway that particular night.

I saw an advert in Freedom (London) that the Knights of Liberty were holding their meetings at The Sugar Loaf on Hanbury Street while IWMEC was meeting at 40 Berners Street, E.

[Robert St Devil]

BEYOND THE CLUB DOOR
I have "my few", that being, those remarkable essays that I return to read for the purpose of an immersion into perspective. Of that short list is The Texture of Politics: London's Anarchist Clubs 1884 - 1914 written by Jonathan Moses, Royal Holloway University London [RIBA President's Awards for Research Shortlisted 2016]. It is a noteworthy essay that is well worth the read for any Ripperologist who wants to venture beyond the club side-door at 40 Berner Steet, E. and within the political aesthetics that shaped the International Working-Men's Education Club. The essay summarizes on the architectural designs of the Autonomie Club and the IWMEC, the IWMEC's time in the "Wilderness" [1892 - 1906], and their "New Beginnings" on Jubilee Street. The essay reasons beyond the functional purpose of the club's dilapidated furniture [ie. deal tables, ruddy benches, &c.] and endeavors to explain how the member's particular political ideologies [anarchicm, socialism, nihilism, fenianism, anarcho-communism. &c.] crafted the very nature of their club environment. For instance, the members rejected those lavish adornments found in other clubs (such as curtains and carpeting) because they reasoned that these were token aspects of capitalistic wealth, and did not wholly represent the laboring Anarchist or Socialist who was opposed to the materialistic natures of the bourgeoisie. Even in this context, the term "represent(ative)" is frowned upon by these Anarchists and Socialists as the true democracy which they idealized was pursued without any forms of representative authority. For this reason, there was no podium because this "lecture-box" would loft one member over the others. At most, the only lavish "decorations" of the IWMEC were: the piano; the humble stage; portraits of 'Marx, Proudhon, Lasalle, and Louise Michelle' (Moses, 2016); red banners of "Remember Chicago" and "Down with Authority"; the Chinese lanterns hanging from the rafters; and, the polka dances... while not understating the presence of the fiddler and the beer! {for this reason, Michael, I have my doubts that a clock was present within the club}.

MEMBERS ONLY??
In the afore-mentioned essay, Jonathan Moses writes about the Jubilee Street Club (1906):

In a departure from previous clubs it was decided not to serve alcoholic drinks, thereby bypassing the obligation to issue membership cards, allowing anybody to come inside. This also made the atmosphere more congenial. {Rudolf] Rocker [editor of Arbeter Fraint] claimed that participation rose considerably as a result, and by removing drunken behaviour, it perhaps went some way to increasing the presence of women – something which, according to Nellie, increased as the years went by.

In Graphic (London), 30 July 1892, in the article The Anarchist at Play:

BERNERS STREET, E., Sunday evening, guest night... the roofbeams are hung with Chinese lanterns and the gas-brackets are pink with twisted paper... the company is scattered about the room, children are playing over benches, mothers are comparing their babies, and groups of budding Anarchists are discussing propaganda... "Now then, ladies and gentleman, your partner for the polka, if you please!" The piano gets a fair start of the fiddle in the tune... Two by two, everyone is suited... More and more, people join in... One or two people drop out furtively into the next room,... where you may sustain yourself with lager-beer and hard boiled eggs

In terms of Elizabeth Stride and any relation to the IWMEC, this aspect raises the possibility that a membership card was required to enter the club -or- that a policy ["obligation"] was in existence that mandated that only club members or sponsored individuals could be allowed access within the IWMEC (Elizabeth Stride meeting neither qualification).

~All emphasis my own~

[DJA]

I just find the subplot between the Synagogue and the IWMEC interesting in this Jack the Ripper casebook.

The Synagogue and IWMEC were poles apart.

Pretty much Orthodox under Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler vs Markism which was inspired,in part, by Baruch Spinoza.

In between the multilayered mess were people like Ben Disraeli's son.

Ironically less then 60 years later 75% of Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust.

[Michael W Richards]

As 3 of the 4 are club members, in what sense are these 3 witnesses, independent?

The 3 club members were not employed by the club. Nor was Spooner, nor was Fanny who was at her door until 1am.

Your theory seems more 'single event', than 'double event'.

Over 10 years ago I started a thread here entitled "Singular Occurrence's/The Double Event", so yeah, I see Liz Strides murder as being unconnected to the second murder that night, and to all the other alleged Ripper murders.

Though many accuse me of the exact opposite, anything Ive proposed can be supported by some existing known evidence. In Liz Strides case the evidence suggest another hand and knife did the handiwork not the ones used to kill Annie, that there was no other visible interest in the body after the single throat cut, that Unfortunates were known to have been spying for the local police on places and people just like the ones in that club, and Stride may well have been mistaken for one...and that she was dressed decently, and had likely spent the money she earned cleaning that afternoon on the flower and cashous instead of drinking it, that she intended to stay away from her normal residence for the entire night....not just long enough to earn some doss, ..there are many bits of circumstantial evidence that along with the overtly obvious fact within the physical evidence that she isn't ripped in any way shape or form, leads to a conclusion that her murder was a brief end to an aggressive encounter.

That evidence also suggests, along with any evidence as to the state of the street, that her murderer came from that property. Ive never assumed or suggested that a club member did it, or that the club covered up for such a member, I have suggested a hired thug as security for that night, likely employed when it was planned to have William Morris speak that night. And, as Robert's post touched upon, he was a polarizing figure in the community of Jews. There had been threats made if he was allowed to speak there. He had responded in writing to an invitation by Wess to speak there at some point, and he was troubled by the potential for people to assume he favored anarchist ideals. He didn't. He was just a Socialist.

I think a thug questioned Liz, either thinking she was selling or wondering if she was spying...and a brief interaction with the woman who by historical record could be aggressive herself ended in his losing his self control. For 2 seconds. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that alcohol was involved on his part. I don't think he left either. Unless the shooed him off once they found out what he'd done, they could have unlocked and let him out the main door. He might have dumped his knife later.

Constable Joseph Drage, 282 H, " At 12:30 on Monday morning I was on fixed-point duty in the Whitechapel-road, opposite Great Garden-street. I saw the last witness stooping down at a doorway opposite No. 253. I was going towards him when he rose up and beckoned me with his finger. He then said, "Policeman, there is a knife down here." I turned on my light and saw a long-bladed knife lying on the doorstep. I picked up the knife and found it was smothered with blood. The blood was dry. There was a handkerchief bound round the handle and tied with string. The handkerchief also had blood-stains on it. I asked the last witness how he came to see it. He said, "I was looking down, when I saw something white." The knife and handkerchief produced are the same."

No big story really. Stupid little argument that ended in violence in one of the most crime ridden and densely populated areas in the modern world at that time. Not a surprising event, considering the environment. The ONLY remarkable thing about it is the timing of it....like people don't want to imagine individual unconnected murders occurring on the same night. Like the 3rd throat slitting that night, Mrs Browns.

[Robert St Devil]

The above quotes are from a 1888 event? The event I mentioned is this, in 1889..."Lewis Diemschitz [Louis Diemschutz], 27, and Isaac Kozebrodski, 19, surrendered to their bail to answer an indictment for making a riot and rout, and for assaulting various persons. A third man, Samuel Friedman, who was indicted with the defendants did not surrender to his bail when called. Mr. Gill and Mr. Partridge prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; and Mr. W. M. Thompson represented the defendants. The alleged disturbance occurred on March 16, on which day there had been a procession of the Jewish unemployed in the East-end. After the dispersal of the procession, many of those composing it returned to the International Workmen's Club, Berner-street, Commercial-road, E., of which they were members, and from which the procession had started. A crowd of some 200 or 300 persons, who had been following the procession, assembled outside the club, and began to annoy those inside by throwing stones, hooting, and knocking at the door. The defendant Diemschitz, steward of the club, sent for the police, but when they arrived those inside the club assumed the defensive, and, rushing out in a body, attacked the crowd with broom sticks, walking sticks, and umbrellas. It was stated that the defendants bore a prominent part in the fight, and that Diemschitz struck and kicked plain clothes constable Frost, who interfered. Frost attempted to arrest Diemschitz, but was dragged into the club, where he was beaten and kicked. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Gill abandoned the count for riot. A number of witnesses were called for the defence, who gave evidence to the effect that the police had made an entirely unprovoked attack on the defendants and their companions. The jury found the defendants Guilty of assaulting two constables, but Acquitted them on the other counts. The Chairman said they had greatly aggravated their offence by the defence they had set up. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on his liberation to be bound over and to find sureties to keep the peace for 12 months. Kosebrodski was sentenced to pay a fine of £4, or to be imprisoned for one month.

From The Times April 26th 1889.

Notable to the entire mythos of this story was that the IWMEC procession that very day was against The Great Synagogue of Duke Street; and, they [the Socialists] were "at odds" with the capitalist gains of this particular set of Juwes. Whether those who attended The Great Synagogue were Dutch or not, I don't rightly know, but I have read that their was a discord between Dutch Jews and Eastern European Jews and to what extent is beyond me. I'm dodging implying anything subversive or conspiratorial in this entire byline between The Great Synagogue and the IWMEC, only furthering the point that there were several internal division within the Jewish community (beyond socialism and anarchism). How close the IWMEC achieved their goals against The Great Synagogue that day, dunno, but I do know they made their procession "over that way", set up an ad hoc speech, and returned to their club (when and where the "festivities" began).

* I just find the subplot between the Synagogue and the IWMEC interesting in this Jack the Ripper casebook.