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.
What if the US had taken this view about helping your country against Germany in WWII? It sounds like the sort of argument the American isolationists were making at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Fair enough, but I think you underestimate the inability Corbyn had to re-structure the party organization at HQ. He would have had to sack most of the staff and appoint people who shared his 'vision', but this would have been depicted as a Stalinist purge and alienated a lot of Constituency PLP's in the process. The cultish way in which Corbyn was treated was a deliberate plan by Momentum to capitalize on the frustrations people have had with Labour since Blair transformed the party. It is somewhat ironic that when Livingstone was leader of the GLC and planning with his lieutenants to de-select Reg Freeson in Brent East, one lefty told me it was essential to get Livingstone into Parliament to give the working class leadership, while another deplored the act as he considered Livingstone to be, in reality a 'one man band' whose personal ambition was actually more important than the Revolution. Guess who was right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I gave up and haven't voted for them since 1997, but others stayed the course, not least those in Momentum I knew when they were Trotskyist activists in my North London constituency. That they had not changed their views after 40 years and losing four elections in the 1980s, and even winning four elections after 1997, shows that they were, and are immune to change. They read the Manifesto, the Transitional Programme, State and Revolution and The Wretched of the Earth when they were at the LSE in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and decided to change the world. One wonders how often they changed their underwear.
But when they got the control of the party they wanted, they couldn't re-arrange the deck chairs in HQ.
You make a good point, and this is also a reply to Broncofan's response to one of my earlier posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The Marxist Social Democratic Federation was one of the founding members of the Labour Party, but had no support from either Marx or Engels when it was formed -largely because Marx took a dislike to Henry Hyndman, and even though his daughter Eleanor was a founding member of what became the SDF in 1881 which then split in 1884, establishing what must be a British tradition of revolutionary parties being formed and then falling apart as its cadres argue with each other until they can't sit in the same room. By coincidence, one of its founders, George Lansbury was the grandfather of Angela Lansbury who died this week.
Needless to say, the Labour Party rescued them (and Lansbury) from irrelevance, but the Marxist legacy in the Labour Party was weak too, until the Bolshevik coup of 1917 and its subsequent success and so-called 'Revolution' -that's the one where the Autocracy of the Tsar was replaced with the Autocracy of the Communist Party, the Orthodoxy of the Church was replaced with the Orthodoxy of Marxism-Leninism, and Russian Nationalism replaced by Russian Nationalism, aka 'Socialism in One Country'.
Whether you trace the lineages through the official Communist Party, or the Balham Group or the immigrant Trotskyists of the 1940s -Ted Grant (South Africa), Gerry Healy (Ireland), or Tony Cliff (aka Yigael Gluckstein, Palestine)-, what they all have in common is a fundamental belief that Revolution is a good thing, and that the Bolshevik Revolution is the model that can't be beaten, as the French and American Revolutions were 'merely' bourgeois affairs. And for some, 'entering' the Labour Party became their only reason to live. It gave them the access to 'the Masses' they otherwise did not have.
The British left become so intoxicated with the Russian, and 'Third World' Revolutions it lost touch with its own past, where Socialism was not a Marxist project but shaped by ideas of fairness at work, with regard to the re-distribution of wealth, and the rights of the citizen which surely is a consequence of the 17th Revolution, though it was not a 'bourgeois' revolution, and the concept of Liberty that it created in the public discourse does not sit well with any version of Leninism that has been the spine of, and the curse of the Left since the 1920s.
It is therefore no surprise if Corbyn is instinctively suspicious of anti-Russian politics, even though the Russia that succeeded the USSR is in political terms the polar opposite of what Corbyn would claim to want, as noted by filghy2 above. When it comes to Russia, they just can't let go of their feelings, or maybe deep down Corbyn wants to see the USSR resurrected?
In addition, there is an anti-American element to Corbyn and the British left's positions on a range of issues, helped by the woeful consequences of the US in Vietnam, which is where Corbyn cut his demo teeth on the streets of London, and yes, so did I, and though I made it to the speeches and the concert by the Social Deviants in Trafalgar Square, I missed out on the Battle of Grosvenor Square a day later. Follow through the (alleged) US involvement in the military coups in South American in the 1970s, the relentless support for Israel -from 1977 no longer a Socialist state worthy of defence by the Left, though in reality Begin's victory split the Labour left re Israel- and you can see how in a perverse way, some on the Left, notably the Spartacists, welcomed the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan and saw yet another American Imperialist adventure to be opposed, ditto Iraq twice over.
It may an obsession with structural politics that has led so many on the left, but I hasten to say not all, to focus on the Geo-Politics without paying attention to the detail. It is possible to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but also critical of the various factions of the PLO who after 1967 and into the 1970s did everything they could through violence to lose the friends and allies they needed, though it was also a demonstration of political failure. One could sympathise with the 'plight' of Catholics in Northern Ireland and want the whole miserable history of Anglo-Irish relations to end, but in the detail why would a Socialist, whose fundamental principle is international, support a Nationalist cause?
If Corbyn never addressed this issue, neither did Livingstone, it was because they saw the 'Troubles' as a continuation of British Imperialism, and were persuaded that Sinn Fein was a Socialist party that was not just going to liberate Northern Ireland but the rest of Ireland too.
And just to give this illusion some Stout, Corbyn was and remains opposed to the very European Union whose membership of the Single Market Ireland has not only benefited from, but enabled it to reduce its dependence on the UK. History thus records that the 'Irish Revolution', if you want to call it that, has been facilitated by the EU rather than Sinn Fein and its military wing. Further proof, dare I say it, of how detached from reality Corbyn has been.
But what is the message? If it were purely hard fact you would not have to link hours worth of video. [/QUOTE]
Not even when there's hours worth of facts?
Subverion of democracy and how it was done.
I don't know, could you fit Watergate into a three minute soundbite?
The message is the almost total lack of mainstream media interest in a political scandal (Even if it's bollox (remember Panorama)?
Here we go, shooting the messenger again.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Aljazeera are about as credible as any other news outfit (take that for what you will).
Though how many of those others are prepared to release the documents on which their investigations are based on?
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.[/QUOTE]
I think you missed out the 'allegedly' there.
Or perhaps after the Corbyn Cult crack, you didn't?
Yeah, 2022, when trying not to promote a war into a nuclear war became a shit-take.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
If you want to play what if, Adolph Hitler would have developed the nuclear bomb, Sony would still be making bicycles and if I wanted a radio, I'd buy American.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
But back to that "premptive strike".
And whilst the conservatives were stuffing their arse pockets with Russian money, and one Tony Blair, was cosying up to Putin, there was one 'old lefty' in Parliament calling it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Wonder who that was?
Trust me, that's the one thing I have absolutely no illusions about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
A while ago I linked some of the evidence for you. I'm not sure it's actually worth talking to you about this. You had a head of disputes at the NEC (Christine Shawcroft) who decided she wanted to defend a Holocaust denier who was running for councilor. You had a councillor who said 'talmud Jews need executing". I linked about fifteen of these cases, one of a councilor saying Hitler is a great man. Here is one I never linked of a guy who said " don't give your soul energy to the parasitical Rothschild Zionist vati lunatic nonce controllers." He was a council candidate. People like this were all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
https://antisemitism.org/labour-selects-billy-wells-who-defends-ken-livingstone-and-says-its-the-super-rich-families-of-the-zionist-lobby-that-control-the-world-as-council-candidate/
What's worse is that when I told you stuff you clearly hadn't heard you didn't say "geez that really is awful. I'm sure this must be very upsetting to Jewish people but I think it's not that common among most members." Instead it's the same old line about how everyone is out to get your party, including your own media, and 90% or so of Jewish people who talk about this. You also had a clp that voted against a motion to to condemn the shooting at Tree of Life synagogue because it focused too much on antisemitism. I actually live two blocks away from the synagogue, 11 of whose congregants were murdered. It still hasn't had a service and I believe it never will again.
I noticed you said nothing about Press TV, which Chris Williamson is on. He is broadcasting on a network that has promoted the view that Jews created covid to target Iran.
But notice that the people you're talking to have actually engaged in political discussion. You've posted videos you can't summarize, you ask why this forum isn't talking about French protesters wearing vests, and once said you can solve antisemitism.
Whatever, your movement failed bc the people in it lacked interest in political issues and fell for cheap demagoguery and worse. Your leaders can't even condemn Russia, think that the only reason Iranian women are protesting their regime is because of Zionists, and you had very little except spite going for you.
But nobody is going to watch 3 hours of video to decide whether they agree with your point just like you wouldn't read a book if I linked it. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to check any external link, video, or article that will take more than 15 or so minutes of a person's time.
It's not a political scandal except in your head. Most people when they see officials praising Hitler, denying the Holocaust, or talking about "lunatic nonce Rothschild" something or other do not try to create a separate conspiracy narrative or go on the attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Did it ever occur to you that the info must have caused some upset to me that I still remember more than a dozen of these cases and their facts years later? Did it occur to you it must mean significantly less to you that you don't remember them or care about them even after I provided you a bunch of links? I can go back to them.
Anyway, everyone in this thread is against nuclear war, but nobody except you thinks Ukrainians would have been fine if they just didn't fight back.
It looks like the 'pre-emptive strike' was a loose choice of words when he really meant measures to discourage Putin from using nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-nu...mptive-1749781
In any case it's just bizarre to be blaming Zelensky for the threat of nuclear warfare. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons and Putin is the one who has been making thinly veiled threats about using them.
What are you actually proposing in relation to Ukraine? Do you seriously believe that if we appease Putin's aggression to buy peace he won't try the same thing elsewhere?
They should at least provide a summary of the argument so people can decide whether to spend the extra time on it. After scanning through this thread I still don't know what the alleged scandal actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I'm more interested in the Ukraine conversation and since filghy is discussing it I will add my two cents.
First Russia took Crimea. Then they made demands for Luhansk and Donetsk. Then they wanted all of Ukraine, made claims that all Ukrainians are Nazis, and lied about the history of the country.
From what I've seen the socialist left was in denial that Putin was going to invade Ukraine. Then when he did they blamed Nato for the invasion. Then there were attempts to call Zelensky a Nazi sympathizer and when told how ridiculous that was, claimed that the Ukraine should accept peace on absurd terms or they are war-mongering.
Corbyn and his faction have been at this relentlessly. So have some American socialists among the Bernie ranks.
What is to keep Russia from engaging in nuclear blackmail elsewhere if opposing a completely arbitrary invasion is seen as escalation? I'm still curious what Jericho thinks Russia was going to do with Ukrainian people once they invaded and took over the country? What kinds of atrocities are we going to learn about Russia having committed when this is over? Will they blame Ukraine for not capitulating?
Why shouldn't Russia have Britain? If the British don't like it and want to fight back they might cause nuclear war. The way that the Corbyn faction reacted to the Skripal case was a gigantic sign that there are certain foreign policy decisions that are entirely decided by who is involved. If you showed me a video of Ukrainians torturing a Russian soldier I would condemn it. But the Corbynites pick a side and do not evaluate what is going on. It's positively sinister.
There's nothing wrong with attaching voluminous stuff even if people just ignore it. But to just post it and say "why is nobody talking about this" is peculiar because I don't know why they should be. To tell you the truth I saw Corbynites talking about this on twitter well before it was released. It was understood by them that it was going to provide smoke so that they could pretend they were victims of a smear campaign regarding antisemitism.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The people in these threads have stuff in their twitter timelines like "ignore the House of Saud. They're Jews." I could not even explain to this woman why claiming someone has Jewish ancestry and is therefore untrustworthy is antisemitic. Yes this is an anecdote but I could have all kinds of screenshots of it. The problem is the people promoting this video don't give a sht.
But yes, if I published a video I would say what it was attempting to prove and what evidence it had to prove it in my own words. Anyhow, for me the ehrc investigation yielded satisfying enough results even though I believe they should have included a compendium of every case of antisemitism by an official, candidate, or party bureaucrat for reference.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mitism-inquiry
Actually what I remembered understated it. This person has more than 4600 followers, profile says they stand with Corbyn. They believe that House of Saud are Jews and that's why they're so evil. That the House of Saud and "Israhell" birthed Isis. Palestinians have more in common with the original Jews than "satanyahu". So this is a replacement ideology where Jews are not real Jews but Palestinians are Jews. "Israhellis get very upset if you point out gypsies were killed during Holocaust." To my knowledge this is not true at all and has no basis in fact and certainly did not need to be said 50 separate times.
There may be some planet where this does not show some derangement about Jews. Where someone mentions the Holocaust dozens of times and only to demonstrate how selfish the "Zionists" are or that writing semite a thousand times to attempt to prove antisemitism isn't just about Jews is normal. But to me this is a crank and while I can't expect this anecdote to confirm what an investigation of the party already showed, it is a good example of why I really don't know why this is a conversation.
Like yes totally normal stuff. When I want to criticize settlements or the occupation I talk about who the real semites are, use the word satan and hell a million times, bring up the Holocaust to attack Israelis, and claim that Saudis are really Jews because how else can we explain their behavior. Like great. Enjoy the videos everyone! I'll talk about anything else.
People, high in Biden's administration, secretly diverting funds to people *actively* hostile to his Presidency....And you think that wouldn't be a bit of a political scandal...Wouldn't rate a mention in the local rag?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Not sure how it works in America, but over here, that *should* be met with something other than near silence in the media (The same media that clowned the Jewish leader of the party with a bacon sandwich)...Maybe if a building had been stormed.....
You arrogant, condescending, bellend!Quote:
But notice that the people you're talking to have actually engaged in political discussion.
So long as it's on topic, I'll post whatever, in whichever, format I choose. This isn't your own personal playground, this is an international forum. Whether you want to engage or not is entirely up to you.
But if you want a synopsis:
Establishment subverts democracy and how they achieved it this time.
How's that, that do you?
I'm well aware, you only care about the Jewish angle of this (Tree of Life. White Supremacist?). As bad as that is, right now, I'm more concerned about the 300k already dead from social murder and the god knows how many more that will follow due to making choices between heating and eating this winter.
And the one's who enabled it, who are sitting in the house of Lords, dressed in ermine. They got their reward
Regarding Williamson, yeah, tbh, I though you were going to rehash the discredited "too apologetic" thing. You're right, new to me. But if you expect me to condemn it out of hand without looking in to it further and the context, on the strength of your link alone, your expectations are going to go unfulfilled.
I've spent far too long following links to find Jeremy Corbyn making Antisemitic jam and working his little socks off to reopen Auschwitz
(without a hint of challenge).
You telling me you aint got your share of fairly abhorrent wingnuts slinging unfounded shit? Or am I weaponizing that for political reasons.
That reminds me, not o fun fact. Under the current leadership, more Jews have been expelled or silenced from the party than under any other leader...But no need to worry about them, they're the wrong sort of Jews (apparently)
As for condemning Russia and Putin. Whilst Tony Blair was cosying up to him and Conservatives were fulling their pockets with Russian cash, one man in parliament condemned him/it constantly. If you choose to ignore that, that's on you.
Everyone eh? Everyone thought the world was flat once.Quote:
Anyway, everyone in this thread is against nuclear war, but nobody except you thinks Ukrainians would have been fine if they just didn't fight back.
But how very kind of you to let me know what I'm thinking.
What I'm *thinking*, is America should have stayed out of Ukraine in 2014. But as usual, you just can't help yourselves, you never learn.
The cow dried up and died in Iraq. The cow dried up and died in Afghanistan. Who can we milk next?....Goooooooodmorning Ukraine.
Well thank heavens for that!Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Imagine how silly that would have looked in the history books, scrawled in chalk upon slate....Yes, we started a nuclear war because of a slip of the tongue.
In any case it's just bizarre to be blaming Zelensky for the threat of nuclear warfare. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons and Putin is the one who has been making thinly veiled threats about using them.
I don't blame the puppet, Zelensky.
I blame the good ole USA.
Dragging us in to yet another proxy war.
Are you going to apply that criteria to all wars waging around the world right now, or just this one?Quote:
What are you actually proposing in relation to Ukraine? Do you seriously believe that if we appease Putin's aggression to buy peace he won't try the same thing elsewhere?
Russia invades Ukraine and you blame the US. That's why your clique is irrelevant. There's simply no arguing about Williamson because the stuff is so noxious and conspiratorial it's embarrassing.
A few points because there's a lot of stupid in your post.
1. We didn't merely have a building stormed. That building was our capitol and it was stormed by people who were trying to kill legislators and the vice president. They did in fact kill police officers. This was an actual attempted coup, that includes the President of the United States trying to convince electors to find votes for him.
2. If your video showed anything of an actual coup, I imagine it would not only be showing on Al Jazeera, unless the Qatari state government is more concerned about the state of your democracy than anyone outside the Corbyn sub-culture. If there were an actual coup, or act of treason, there are legal processes Jeremy could take to try to have the perpetrators prosecuted. We know he won't.
3. You claim one shouldn't blame the messenger but you've done that several times on this site. It seems you prefer news produced by state governments over private news organizations.
4. I've written about more forms of bigotry on this site, from sexism, to racism, to antisemitism and back than you have which is only relevant because you suggest I only care about the Jewish angle. Yes I care about the antisemitism angle but it's because most non-Jews do not. For instance, you tell me about the number of Jews kicked out of the party. Antisemitism is when a Jew faces an adverse consequence BECAUSE they're Jewish. It's not simply because they face an adverse consequence. Otherwise, my heartburn would be antisemitic. You're so disingenuous (to put it politely).
5. Have my examples generally been on the order of making antisemitic jam or have I instead provided examples of serious antisemitism ("Hitler is a great man" "Jews need executing", "Jews have big noses", "the Holocaust didn't happen, "we need to discuss the Jewish question"?). Find me ten examples of this kind of antisemitism in the Democratic party by people running for office. You can't bc it didn't happen. If it did happen, I would want it investigated.
6. The people at Tree of Life who were murdered were murdered because they're Jews. That you had a clp vote down a motion to condemn the act or to show solidarity with them is sad but telling.
7. Yes, the EHRC found your party discriminated against Jews.
Who has said this "wrong sort of Jews" thing? I'm not saying nobody has ever said it but I've never heard a Jewish person say it. It's definitely not a common refrain. You just seem to repeat these weird, ineffective phrases that you picked up from the cult. The Jewish people who agree with your position are not the wrong sort of Jews. They have their viewpoint and the vast majority of Jewish people have a very different one. That doesn't mean that if they face an adverse consequence they're a victim of antisemitism unless they wouldn't have been treated the way they were treated but for their Jewishness or if people don't think they speak for the majority of Jews that they're the wrong sort of Jew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I think one reason that the Corbyn cult resents Zelensky is because he is everything you guys seem not to be. He is smart, he's brave, he's loyal, and he has principles. Your cult is just a group of play actors and pretenders.
I forgot to tell you since you seem underappreciated. Thank you for your contributions to the political discussion. Also, by the way, I mentioned the British press going after Miliband about the bacon sandwich at the time they did it...;
What gets me about the ex-trotsky subculture is that it’s just an inversion of pro-western chauvinism. Instead of applying principles to a situation and deciding right and wrong based on what’s occurring, right or wrong is decided by the identity of the country. Rightwing Americans believe any action by the West can be defended and only atrocities committed by non-Western countries should be condemned. Instead of responding to this with fact-contingent, principle based reasoning, the Trotskyists just decided their team would be anyone who opposes the West. The problem with that is that reality is complex and sometimes states that have previously committed crimes are not wrong in the present and vice versa. But this is why Chris Williamson and other cranks can look at Iranian women being murdered by a theocratic state and think it must be caused by the West. There’s no way religious autocrats would persecute women must be their ingenious reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
You also are the type of person to suggest my being American is a gotcha when I went to protest after protest against the Iraq war. But for Corbynites guilt is decided not by your actions but by your nationality and which side it’s thought to represent in their ideological struggle. It’s about as childish as the politics of right-wing Americans, which is why, paradoxically you occasionally find yourselves with common ground.
But about Ukraine, I'm sure others have plenty to say about why Russia caused the conflict and why Ukraine has a right to fight back.
Bollocks.
I'm not going suck cock in public, But I do apologise to you, Broncofan.
(I haven't read the above yet, I might change my mind about that)
To the rest of the world, your being American is a GotchaQuote:
You also are the type of person to suggest my being American is a gotcha when I went to protest after protest against the Iraq war. But for Corbynites guilt is decided not by your actions but by your nationality and which side it’s thought to represent in their ideological struggle.
You pretested Iraq, good for you.
That and 5 bucks will get you a frothy coffee!
Meanwhile, what happened?
Cause and effect, How did that improve the world?
The British left aligning with the American Right...Have you just had a stroke?Quote:
It’s about as childish as the politics of right-wing Americans, which is why, paradoxically you occasionally find yourselves with common ground.
Do you have a link to that?Quote:
6. The people at Tree of Life who were murdered were murdered because they're Jews. That you had a clp vote down a motion to condemn the act or to show solidarity with them is sad but telling.
7. Yes, the EHRC found your party discriminated against Jews.[/QUOTE]
Now do th Fordd report.
I don't really see how you've insulted me if I haven't also written several insults to you. If I can dish it I should take it too. So I apologize to you as well. Yes I see your next post and it hasn't bothered me. I'll write back in a couple days and be more civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
On the Jewish stuff, why don't we just declare it's a disagreement. We both don't like the bigotry when it occurs, maybe disagree about how often we see it, and interpret things differently.
And you're right that you can post any video you want. If I was that determined to address its merits I could have sat down and watched it. A lot to ask but oh well. Have a good weekend.
Now do th Fordd report.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I haven't read it. I think it was more mixed. That there were aspects Corbyn supporters liked. For instance the claim that some right-wingers made frivolous accusations. But that doesn't mean there weren't also parts of it I would support. Let me look into it.
Why is it impossible for you to utter even a single word of criticism of Putin? Apparently, this war is everyone's fault but the guy who started it. If Putin launches nuclear weapons against Ukraine will you say it's our fault for provoking him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Your "logic" here is no more than Iraq/Afghanistan: therefore other countries should be allowed to do as they like. How exactly is that going to make the world a safer place?
You are evidently a paid-up member of this club (written a few years ago, but still relevant). https://www.thedailybeast.com/putins...british-idiots
On Ukraine they seem to be on a unity ticket - both have tended to echo Putin's lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/po...merican-right/
What puzzles me is why some people on the left think their views are 'left wing'.
It used to be easier, because the fault-line was anti-Imperialist.
And to be anti-Imperialist meant being Anti-American, as it was the Americans who were leading the charge against 'Socialism' in Cuba and the rest of Latin America where -so the narrative goes- they succeeded in installing Military Juntas in the 1970s, in Sub-Saharan Africa where there was a proxy war with the USSR in Angola and Mozambique, and the US supported Mobutu and Apartheid. There was the American Imperialist war against Socialism in South-East Asia, the Gladio network across Europe which was intended to prevent the spread of Communism primarily in Italy, and after 1967 the transformation of Israel from a Socialist Zionist state to partner of American Imperialism in the Middle East.
Perhaps nothing illustrates the structural illusions of the left than the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979, when the Socialist Worker's Party newspaper in the UK ran the headline 'All the Way with the Ayatollahs' -the underlying argument being that because this was a 'People's Revolution' that could be won by the left, the Ayatollah's were the interim tool that had prized open the country, expelled the Shah and thus made it ripe for Revolutionary Socialism.
What happened next with the Americans and the Saudis funding Saddam Hussein's war against Iran at the same time as it was funding the war against the USSR in Afghanistan, was playbook revolutionary politics, just as long as hard questions were not asked about daily life in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan and what the victims of American Imperialism wanted- or delivered: homphobia, misogyny, corruption. By the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. someone I had met in the region where I was at the time, told me in no uncertain terms 'Saddam is Right'. Another laughed at the Kuwaitis 'They have never done a day's work in their life!' And so on, and even when they knew more about the reality of life under Saddam, that old inedible chestnut: He maintained order (no trains to be on time in Iraq), he survived numerous attempts to overthrow him, he was an Arab hero, etc etc. Excuses, not explanations.
The problem with the structural view, is that from one angle it was part of the strategy of the USSR through its proxy Communist Parties in Europe, even including the 'Eurocommunists' of the 1980s, to support whoever the USSR was supporting. From another angle, the Holy Writ -Thou Shalt Support All Revolutionary Movements, made what became the fatal mistake -ignoring what the Revolutionaries wanted, and what they did After the Revolution.
The roll-call is not heart-warming, but sickening: the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea, the Boat People of Vietnam or the Hmong of Laos; the litany of bombings, assassinations and hi-jackings of the PLO, the UK equivalent with the Official and then the Provisional IRA, the actuality of the Islamic Republic in Iran, or the epic levels of corruption in Angola which by the end of the 1970s had abandoned Marxism anyway.
How we got from supporting the downtrodden masses of the 'Third World' to the quite revolting attacks on Jews as a proxy for attacking Israel, I don't know. It was not something that would have lasted five minutes when I was in the Labour Party. Just as supporting Trans issues without criticism seems to have been adopted by some on the left as a non-negotiable policy as if there were no complexities to politics inside Israel or across the range of Trans people with diverse needs and circumstances. In other words, the left has often been more associated with a campaign against something, rather than for it. Or, it has been more coherent when criticising a situation X, than offering an alternative known as situation Y.
And yet, if you take a less revolutionary road, dare I call it the 'centre ground', it is possible in Government to get things done. The most left wing Labour Govt we have had, in 1945, could not have re-built the UK after the Second World War, creating the NHS and a State Education Service, Nationalising Coal and the Railways, beginning the construction of affordable Council Housing -and building an Atom Bomb -without American money.
I make my mind up according to the facts, and when the facts change, I change my mind. So Keynes is often quoted, but it is not something Corbyn can do, because I don't think he thinks the facts have changed. When Labour lost four elections in a row to Thatcher and John Major, it was clear as day that something had gone wrong and the party needed to change, and it did, though I think Blair went too far in ditching Clause 4 and consolidating the Centre Ground where Thatcher left it.
But so too Russia, where in the aftermath of the demise of the USSR, the country began a process of democratization, but where the chaos of the Yeltsin years failed to deliver benefits to enough Russians to help consolidate democracy and enable the development of a robust civil society. What Putin did in his first ten years, was restore a sense of order, but by stealth crush civil society and a free press, and make democracy merely a tool of his party and thus revert to the kind of Autocracy Russia has known since 1917. I don't see what any nostalgia for the Russian Revolution has for today, but for Corbyn it is part of a pseudo-Marxian narrative in which the fundamental driver of history has been a version of Class Struggle that requires fidelity to a cause, even when it is lost. Even when the facts change, and require a change of policy and direction from all concerned.
And what have we been left with? Dictatorship or Democracy, in the US as well as Russia, as if that was even a choice that needed thought.
What, you think im happy about all this? As you said, and i agreed, Putin's just another oligarch.
But you poke a bear....
Some people seem to be incapable of rethinking the frameworks they learnt in their formative years. There's also a sort of reflexive tribalism: whatever the other side is for or against, I must take the opposite stance. I know there's a lot of this on the right as well, but if you are claiming the high moral ground you ought to do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The double standards are glaring. The same people who complain bitterly about poverty and inequality in their own country seem to be indifferent to the suffering of people being killed, tortured or imprisoned on Putin's orders. The same people who complain about subversion of democracy in their own country seem to think that Ukrainians should have no right to determine their own destiny. I know they will offer some grudging disclaimer if pressed, but there's obviously no feeling in it.
The lack of intellectual and moral clarity and consistency is just depressing. If you were opposed to the US invasion of Iraq then surely you should condemn equally other cases of aggression rather than using it as an excuse to avoid doing so. I know Western democracies are far from perfect, but do these people seriously think they are responsible for more oppression than Russia, China, Iran, etc. Do they really believe we would be better off if the US retreated into isolation and let Russia and China have their way?