The Purge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
The Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
The Hierarchy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-cHBQf5z_M
The Spying Game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-Gpmfajp8
Printable View
The Purge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
The Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
The Hierarchy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-cHBQf5z_M
The Spying Game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-Gpmfajp8
Al Jazeera is state owned media of Qatar that has previously put out a video denying the Holocaust only to retract it when people in the west started to notice. The British Press probably is not reporting on this because it's a propaganda piece. The clown show is over except some of the clowns are still hanging around. Chris Williamson still appears on Press Tv in provocative shows about the "Zionist stranglehold on the music industry." Peter Willsman is still around, accusing random British men of working for Mossad on twitter.
Anyhow, you can see this from Al Jazeera. I remember when their account tweeted this out. Al Jazeera Apologizes For ‘Mistaken’ Anti-Semitic Tweet (forward.com) . You may think this and the video I mentioned above are mistakes any media outlet could make but they're not.
Anyhow, Corbyn said he thinks the west should not arm Ukraine. This is a guy you wanted to be Prime Minister? It's over dude. The clowns lost.
So there are videos by Al Jazeera trying to support the Corbyn faction of the Labour party and then there's the actual people involved. Jeremy Corbyn defended Chris Williamson when he had made numerous antisemitic statements.
This is literally what Chris Williamson is up to right now https://twitter.com/PDeclassified/st...08577975365632
The funny thing about the Al Jazeera video is that all of this stuff aged even worse for Labour but Corbyn's not in power so people have tried to move on. The Williamson/David Miller antics would not be out of place in early 1930s Germany.
The Labour Party is not, and has never been a Revolutionary party. It has been the chosen vehicle of revolutionaries since the 1920s, most of them refugees from the reality that since the 1920s, Marxist, Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyists have spent most of their time arguing with and plotting, indeed organizing each other rather than 'leading the Working Class', which they have assumed is their mission in life.
Labour has been an Establishment party since the 1920s and 1930s when Ramsay MacDonald went into coalition with the Conservatives because of a financial crisis he couldn't control. Attlee was without doubt one of the most reforming and indeed, radical Prime Ministers of the 20th century along with Lloyd-George and Margaret Thatcher. He was also a decorated war hero from Gallipoli and the Western Front, and in spite of scurrilous and wholly inaccurate claims, Churchill never said anything bad about Clem. And if you see the footage of Elizabeth, now Queen, returning from Kenya after her father died, there greeting her at the airport was Prime Minister Churchill -and Attlee.
In the 1950s after Labour lost power, the party was split between the supporters of Aneurin Bevan on the left, and Hugh Gaitskill on the right, as Harold Wilson, a Liberal at University before switching the Labour positioned himself between them, taking advantage of Gaitskill's sudden death to become leader. The only true Republican in the Wilson Govts I can immediately recall was Tony Benn, most of the top tier of Labour being wholly committed to the Establishment, by which one means the Monarchy, the Military, the Church of England, the Judiciary and Parliament. So committed to Parliament was Benn, that he went to the funeral of Enoch Powell because he admired Powell's own commitment to Parliamentary democracy. I can't imagine Jeremy Corbyn doing anything similar.
Corbyn's failure was due to his naive approach to institutional politics, drunk as he was on the support he had from the 'base' where for reasons unknown and contrary to party tradition, he became a 'mantra' with people chanting 'O Jeremy Corbyn' as if he were the Second Coming. From a personal point of view, as I have stated before, my connection to Target '82 which involved Corbyn, Livingstone and John MacDonnell in 'transforming' London politics, means I am biased against them, not just because of their student-style politics, but because of the corruption in local politics I was witness to. I did remain a member until leaving London for good in 1987 and I did vote Labour in 1997, but Blair did what even Neil Kinnock did not do -and Kinnock expelled Militant from the party- and trash most of Labour's legacy. Corbyn was on a hiding to nothing, he had no control over the machinery of the party and made little attempt to do so, believing 'the message' would secure 'the Parliamentary Road to Socialism'.
I won't go into the Palestinian thing again, suffice to say that both wings of the party have failed to address the issue with any reasonable policy options, snagged as they are by their heritage in either the Labour Friends of Israel -founded when Israel was a Socialist Democracy and led by the Israel Labour Party, a fraternal party in the Socialist International- or by the automatic support Corbyn has given every revolutionary movement from Vietnam to Cuba to Ireland and Palestine because they claimed to be revolutionaries, with no regard for their actual politics.
One is mystified by any Socialist supporting a Nationalist cause, the fundamental contradiction in Corbyn's politics he has never addressed.
So there we are, more or the same old left-right split in Labour, a party so committed to Brexit that Starmer says only Labour can 'Make Brexit Work' when Brexit has decimated trade between the UK and the EU with a devastating impact on revenue and profit, undermining any hope Liz Truss or Keir Starmer can have to preside over something called 'Economic Growth' that the experts say is not going to happen, as the UK economy is in reverse gear.
Brexit has corrupted Labour as well as the Conservatives. Miliband was leader when Labour marched into the Aye lobby with the Conservatives to vote for the Referendum Bill in 2015. It was Labour led by Corbyn that refused to take an official position on either Leave or Remain because Corbyn had loathed the EU since the UK joined it in 1973. It was Labour led by Corbyn that marched into the Aye lobby to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, it was Labour led by Corbyn that marched into the Aye lobby with the Conservatives to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as it was Labour led by Corbyn that committed the party to 'honouring the result of the Referendum', thus completing a sequence of monstrous betrayals of the British people for some cockeyed commitment to the Parliamentary Road to Socialism aka Socialism in One Country, and we know where that came from.
Brexit is in the process of destroying the UK and there is little Starmer can do about it, unless on the proverbial Road to Damascus, or Dunstable he is struck by lightning and decides the UK needs to re-engage with the Single Market of the EU.
Which antisemitic statements was that by Chris Williams?
Whilst you'll have no arguments from me about brexit, that has little to do with the internal subterfuges employed within the administrative arm of the party PLP. A bit more than a few "trots and marxists" having a dingdong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Not that you're still, though, eh!
Didn't Zelensky just call for a 'pre-emptive strike" against Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
And long with him, NATO will fight till the last Ukranian
Tell me about clowns again?
A for Al Jazera, shoot the messenger if you like, but how many news outlets are there who've never made a retraction?
But what is the message? If it were purely hard fact you would not have to link hours worth of video. And what I find strange about the whole thing is that the Corbyn cult complains about the media but suddenly a network that is owned by a government that treats migrants so badly it's been called modern slavery is trustworthy.
Al Jazeera is more moderate than say Press Tv or Russia Today but again, most networks do not have to issue retractions because they released a video saying that the Holocaust was exaggerated. Most networks have not released memes that are caricatures of Jews, complete with an enlarged nose, and other gdawful, dehumanizing features. Generally, Al Jazeera has done better than that, but it is notable that those things happened.
What makes it all the more mysterious is that Jews are accused of having the most tenuous links to Israel and it's considered damaging, but someone in the Corbyn cult can appear on Press TV, which is the State media organ of a country that hangs gay men by cranes and is now murdering women and it's considered no big deal.
Chris Williamson has a show on Press Tv! Shall we talk about why somebody who is not antisemitic would not take a full time job with Press TV?
Press TV has accused Jews of having developed a strain of coronavirus that is deadlier than the original and weaponizing it against Iran, have claimed Jews committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that Jews were responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attacks, their Holocaust denial is routine, and they have American neo-nazis on to talk about the Jews including David Duke. Then there's the content of Chris' show, which it strains credulity that anyone would have to explain why it's antisemitic to basically repackage every idea about Jews with respect to the media and global power but use the word Zionist. To accuse the Zionists of causing British comedy to be racist, to accuse the Zionists of having a "stranglehold" on the music industry. Not only did Jeremy Corbyn defend this guy but 10,000 Labour members signed a petition for him to be readmitted to the party. He hosts a show on Press TV! What makes the content above that Press TV has released over the years different from the antisemitism of Neo-Nazis?
So I guess my question is, why does something that Al Jazeera packaged and put together to express their viewpoint mean more than the actual things that members of the party have done. I could just screenshot this stuff and save it if it's really that important to do. I don't think it is, because the guy is gone. As for the Ukraine stuff, you're on weaker ground there.
At some point it doesn't matter what his reasons for adopting these positions is, because we know what the effect of it is. Ukraine was attacked by a country it posed no threat to. Russia has murdered dissidents on British soil, has tampered with elections, and has now launched a war that has killed tens of thousands. The state is run like a totalitarian state. When people point out that this group of Corbynites has not even supported Ukraine symbolically or is careful to avoid condemning Russia someone maybe will point to some milquetoast criticism of Russia. But the fact is, Corbyn was against arming Ukraine very early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
What negotiating position would Ukraine have if it did not put up any resistance? None. It would cease to exist as a state. This claim that people want to fight to the last Ukrainian belies what is going on in the country. Do Ukrainians not want to fight? Have they not asked for weapons to do exactly that? Have they not been doing that very bravely?
We could see the same thing happen during the Skripal case. Corbyn wanted to send the Russians their novichok. At what point did he say what Russia did was unacceptable? Or has he still not concluded it was their actions? It's also just a coincidence that Russians fall out of windows, get poisoned with nuclear material, and get shot?
The Zelensky attacks have also been rather insane. Nobody is perfect but this is someone who could have fled his country and was encouraged to by many world leaders to save himself. He said he would not do that while his people were in peril and has helped direct a resistance effort that has so far defied all odds. Could I imagine Corbyn doing the same? No. And he would obtain the worst result possible and blame somebody for it.
And about the Press TV thing I said above. What does it matter what attracts someone to become an employee for that network. If a person chooses to ignore what they've broadcast for whatever reason, they should not be trusted.
It's amazing how many old lefties still seem to reflexively sympathise with the Russian position just because it is anti-Western. Have they not noticed that Russia is now pretty close to a fascist regime? To the extent the regime has any ideology other than enhancing the power and wealth of the ruling elite, it is obviously Russian (white Orthodox christian) nationalism. Have they not asked themselves why Putin to so popular with the far right?
Putin's anti-Western imperialist rhetoric is just risible. Russia is about the most brutal imperialist regime around, and has been for the past three centuries or so.