Imagine laying a wreath for British soldiers when you supported a terrorist organisation whose purpose was to murder them.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Have you now reversed your decision just like Boris did his promise at the leadership election about an enquiry into islamophobia in the Tory party?
Isn't remembrance day mostly about WW1(Armistice Day is on 11 November and is also known as Remembrance Day. It marks the day World War One ended, at 11am on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918)?
It's only recently been a tribute to these blokes and
and people dressing up as poppies.
Isn't remembrance day mostly about WW1 ? It's only recently been a tribute to these blokes
If they’re Jews on the ground then it’s OK.
will you give it a rest
What absolute fecking bullshit!
No
Anyway since you ignored my post, its completely possible to lay a wreath on Remembrance Day to remember the millions of working class men who lost their lives in WW1 and also be against British imperialism. It's really not a difficult stance to have unless of course British nationalism has caused some sort of brain rot.
If I was around someone who kept making ironic gay jokes(A pretty lazy ones as well, I mean there's no effort going on here), I would start thinking this person might actually be a bit of homophobe.
Although, admittedly, becoming more difficult thanks to the increasing mission creep of the poppy.
not even controversial
Your blatant weaponizing of antisemitism against political enemies is pathetic and it distracts from actual anti-semitism, especially when someone with a similar bad faith reading of your comments could misconstrue them the way you to do to others.
How do I misconstrue Corbyn’s actions?
you've compared him to hitler* and said he wants to kill jews. if this was satire it would have stopped being funny a while back.
* who knows though, that might be a positive comparison for you
I don’t think I have? Or if I have I cannot remember doing so.
Do I believe Corbyn wants to kill Jews? Of course not. Does he call terrorist organisations who kill Jews and want Israel wiped from the map his friends? Yes he does. To add to a whole host of other questionable behaviour and opinions over Israel and Jews.
Whether or not Corbyn himself is antisemitic is largely irrelevant though. It’s how he’s allowed a culture of antisemitic views to infest the Labour Party whilst he’s stood by and allowed it to reach a point where the EHRC deem it necessary to open an investigation into whether the party is institutionally racist.
Last edited:
@esmufc07
Imagine talking about political parties that are institutionally racist but not talking about the Tory party. Also Elvis what the feck is it with you and Israel? Dont you think the Israeli state (another great British "triumph" btw) and the massively over funded IDF are quite capable of looking after themselves? I mean they have almost killed off the pesky indigenous population of Palestine and in the middle of JCB bulldozing all the land for themselves. I am sure they can handle a few lefty politicians calling them names. But no lets get our Etonian school shorts in a twist over this but not talk about literally centuries of Empire building which cost millions in lives through war, famine and forced emigration. Dont fecking start with me on this bollocks lad.
Imagine talking about political parties that are institutionally racist but not talking about the Tory party. Also Elvis what the feck is it with you and Israel? Dont you think the Israeli state (another great British "triumph" btw) and the massively over funded IDF are quite capable of looking after themselves? I mean they have almost killed off the pesky indigenous population of Palestine and in the middle of JCB bulldozing all the land for themselves. I am sure they can handle a few lefty politicians calling them names. But no lets get our Etonian school shorts in a twist over this but not talk about literally centuries of Empire building which cost millions in lives through war, famine and forced emigration. Dont fecking start with me on this bollocks lad.
Yes, you and Colin have made endless remarks to either Hitler directly, "30s Germany", and I don't think you're talking about the SPD or KPD (and I don't think Colin knows what they are). Just on this page you implied that dead Jews would excite Corbyn.
He has said (and acted) similarly with the IRA, which wanted to kill people exactly like him.
You know the stats about anti-semitism in the party and the broader left, and before and after Corbyn, but here they are anyway:
So this fostering of anti-semitism has seen ... less anti-semitism in his party than in the ruling party.
It is a bit much to criticise him for praising Hezbollah when you literally, repeatedly praise Hitler.
I believe the Tory party are racist aswell. We don’t have to pick a side.
Not going to get into an Israel/Palestine debate because it’s been done to death and this isn’t the thread for it.
Yes, you and Colin have made endless remarks to either Hitler directly, "30s Germany", and I don't think you're talking about the SPD or KPD (and I don't think Colin knows what they are). Just on this page you implied that dead Jews would excite Corbyn.
He has said (and acted) similarly with the IRA, which wanted to kill people exactly like him.
You know the stats about anti-semitism in the party and the broader left, and before and after Corbyn, but here they are anyway:
So this fostering of anti-semitism has seen ... less anti-semitism in his party than in the ruling party.
It is a bit much to criticise him for praising Hezbollah when you literally, repeatedly praise Hitler.
You must have me confused with somebody else because I cannot remember ever referring to 30s Germany with regards to Corbyn, or comparing him to Hitler.
Yet you never comment or post about theirs.
I do, just not as much, because it’s a left wing forum so why preach to the choir? And it’s more to do with how angry I am at Corbyn and the Labour Leadership for turning it into a party who I cannot in good conscience vote for.
Yet to see much at all.
This is hardly a pro Corbyn forum, so you are preaching to the choir.
Well it seems you have picked a side in the end anyway.
i cant find the posts so i'm guessing either you deleted them or i was mixing up the corbyn responses from you, sun-tzu, and colin.
there's a post on this very page where you say corbyn would be happy with dead jews. how do you expect people to take you seriously?
besides, there's still the standing question of this missing anti-semitism - the labour membership, which, after all, surged when corbyn joined the party, is markedly less anti-semitic than the tory membership, even as the labour leader has been fostering it.
and finally, if you applied to yourself a tenth of the standards you apply to him, you'd never speak about any -ism again.
Because most people are in agreement about racism within the Tory Party...
I don’t delete posts so you must have me confused, as slanderous as it is I’ll let it lie.
So are you saying there is no issue of antisemtism in the Labour Party and that the EHRC and all the Jews are wrong? I can get on board with the idea of antisemtism being overplayed in the media to attack Corbyn and the Labour Party, whilst also criminally under reporting racism within the Conservatives. I just cannot fathom people like yourself who deny it’s even an issue.
Please try and understand that for the EHRC to launch an investigation they have to actively suspect illegal activity to have taken place. This is serious and should not be dismissed just because people like some of Corbyn’s policies.
@2cents
You said that leftists can't understand labour anti-semitism properly. And i think that is correct, at least for me.
My introduction to politics at home was from my mother, a journalist who covers hindu-muslim relations. The hindu nationalist and fascist parties would talk about muslim birth rates, trickery, rapes, etc. Their cadre would kill or beat up or rape muslims during times of communal tension. The leaders would then talk about their actions being a justified response to muslim provocation. They used phrases like hindu nation.
The exclusively-muslim political party, which did not have any influence in mumbai earlier, came around 2010 and started harkening back to the times when they were kings, about the anti-muslim nature of the indian state, about the need to protect muslims by voting for muslim parties. Sometimes after a particularly poisonous speech there would be violence including some murders.
Looking at US politics, there was an added layer of abstraction. For every republican who openly spoke disparagingly about some minority, 10 others would say nothing. But they would campaign for policies that hurt blacks and poor people, particularly their right to vote. Going back in history, the right-wing was much more open about what they thought of civil rights, or even the notion of the humanity of black people. Corresponding with their words is a long history of violence - lynchings which were communal gatherings and denial of basic rights. This was all in the open.
I've read about anti-semitism a little bit in the context of tsarist russian pogroms, and then in the obvious context of 30s germany. In both cases very obviously the language and policies/actions were intertwined. In the case of the stalinist doctors' plot, you have a paraonoid monster who had previously ordered "polish filth" and other minorities to be dealth with, turning his attention to jews, thankfully quite close to his own death. More abstract is the recent invocation of soros, which has been used to win some votes and close down some university departments in hungary.
In all these cases you can tie prejudice and rhetoric and policy/action.
I don't see this mechanism with corbyn. He's run an election in 2017, and in the campaign he didn't mention jews or make an indirect reference to them or single out a particular jew (like soros). In terms of policy there was no program of political disenfranchisement (like in the us) or anything worse or the suggestion of any such thing.
Outside the campaign, there is one remark (regarding british irony), which is bad, but is qualified by the fact the he referred to both british zionists and non-zionists within that speech. And there is his foreign policy, where as i said above, is a continuation of his policy towards ireland and i'm guessing many other places. But regardles of those details, i still have no idea the mechanism by which a hypothetical corbyn government is going to enact anti-semitic policies or spread anti-semitic sentiment, because that is how i understand political prejudice works. He has been called, by serious outlets, "an existential threat to Jewish life in UK."
edit- missed the obvious case of trump, with the rapist mexicans and the wall and the kids in jail, and any number of similar things from anti-immigrant politicians.
You said that leftists can't understand labour anti-semitism properly. And i think that is correct, at least for me.
My introduction to politics at home was from my mother, a journalist who covers hindu-muslim relations. The hindu nationalist and fascist parties would talk about muslim birth rates, trickery, rapes, etc. Their cadre would kill or beat up or rape muslims during times of communal tension. The leaders would then talk about their actions being a justified response to muslim provocation. They used phrases like hindu nation.
The exclusively-muslim political party, which did not have any influence in mumbai earlier, came around 2010 and started harkening back to the times when they were kings, about the anti-muslim nature of the indian state, about the need to protect muslims by voting for muslim parties. Sometimes after a particularly poisonous speech there would be violence including some murders.
Looking at US politics, there was an added layer of abstraction. For every republican who openly spoke disparagingly about some minority, 10 others would say nothing. But they would campaign for policies that hurt blacks and poor people, particularly their right to vote. Going back in history, the right-wing was much more open about what they thought of civil rights, or even the notion of the humanity of black people. Corresponding with their words is a long history of violence - lynchings which were communal gatherings and denial of basic rights. This was all in the open.
I've read about anti-semitism a little bit in the context of tsarist russian pogroms, and then in the obvious context of 30s germany. In both cases very obviously the language and policies/actions were intertwined. In the case of the stalinist doctors' plot, you have a paraonoid monster who had previously ordered "polish filth" and other minorities to be dealth with, turning his attention to jews, thankfully quite close to his own death. More abstract is the recent invocation of soros, which has been used to win some votes and close down some university departments in hungary.
In all these cases you can tie prejudice and rhetoric and policy/action.
I don't see this mechanism with corbyn. He's run an election in 2017, and in the campaign he didn't mention jews or make an indirect reference to them or single out a particular jew (like soros). In terms of policy there was no program of political disenfranchisement (like in the us) or anything worse or the suggestion of any such thing.
Outside the campaign, there is one remark (regarding british irony), which is bad, but is qualified by the fact the he referred to both british zionists and non-zionists within that speech. And there is his foreign policy, where as i said above, is a continuation of his policy towards ireland and i'm guessing many other places. But regardles of those details, i still have no idea the mechanism by which a hypothetical corbyn government is going to enact anti-semitic policies or spread anti-semitic sentiment, because that is how i understand political prejudice works. He has been called, by serious outlets, "an existential threat to Jewish life in UK."
edit- missed the obvious case of trump, with the rapist mexicans and the wall and the kids in jail, and any number of similar things from anti-immigrant politicians.
Last edited:
David Graeber as usual is spot on.
Did I? I think the post you're referring to is one where I argued that Corbyn doesn't understand it. If Corbyn = The Left for you, then I can can see how you'd come to this conclusion, although I'd see that as an extremely narrow lens through which to view the left, one which would exclude many of those who I believe have offered the most compelling critiques of Corbyn. But perhaps I'm a bit out of touch with contemporary leftist sectarianism.If the “British irony” incident is the only problematic example you can think of, then I suspect we’re way too far apart on this topic for this response to make any difference. For example in the post I think you’re referring to above, I mentioned two other episodes which I find equally troublesome. And there are a host of others. And that is only referring to Corbyn himself, never mind the wider institutional problem within the Labour Party. It’s actually exhausting going through each individual case over and over, so I'll try to be as brief as possible here by referring just to those two other examples and their wider significance.
One was the reflexive defence of Raed Salah, an example both of the general solidarity and legitimacy often offered by Corbyn to (sometimes violent) Islamist antisemitic organizations and individuals, and his tendency to double-down in the face of legitimate criticism. Islamist antisemitism constitutes a direct threat to Jewish lives globally (the gravest such threat IMO), so any such legitimatization accompanied by such obfuscation may help facilitate the spread of antisemitic sentiment and contribute to an atmosphere in which Jews become targets from Buenos Aires, to Paris, to Mumbai. Yet the reality of Islamist antisemitism tends to get completely brushed aside/unaccounted for/explained away within those leftist circles which identify with Corbyn (the article posted above by @Sweet Square being a good example - in this case only far-right antisemitism warrants a mention).
The second example I gave was the “Hands of Israel” comment, which is an example of the conspiracism by which Corbyn conceptualizes Israel and Zionism, and their status in the broader critique of imperialism as he understands it. You mentioned Soros-conspiracism above, so I find it hard to understand how you fail to see (correct me if I’m wrong) that in this example Corbyn is reflexively employing the Israeli bogeyman in precisely the same manner that the conspiratorial right employ the Soros bogeyman. Without getting into the implications of the fact that these comments were made on Press TV of all places, this is an approach to understanding Israel which reflects antisemitic tropes and thus contributes to the mystification of Israel’s role in its region, which in turn lends itself to antisemitic conspiracism. At this extremity of the conspiratorial left, with its false flags and Rothschilds, the lines with far-right conspiracism are very much blurred and over-lap in some ways, and it is at this point that you get the likes of David Duke and Nick Griffin nodding their heads along in agreement.
So in general, I don’t accept that an abstract, sharp distinction of “benign” (to quote another Corbyn-supporting Cafe member in this thread) leftist antisemitism as opposed to the supposedly uniquely mechanical/functional antisemitism of the right is a reliable or relevant way to categorize what we’re trying to understand here. The various forms of antisemitism don’t exist in vacuums, they feed on/inform/legitimize each other and all contribute to a general sense of Jewish otherness/mystification and ultimately vilification which puts Jewish lives in danger.
There is more to be said about Corbyn’s understanding of Zionism and how it produces ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews to be employed as he deems fit. But right now that is a problem common across the board on this debate (including unfortunately within the Jewish community itself).
Interesting and complex points made there.
Problem for Daily Mail readers is that it cant be turned into a headline.
Jesus fecking Christ Elvis
There is so much wrong with that article that trying to even challenge it would give it undeserving credence. Lets just say it reads like the ramblings of a leftist apologist.
I'm just astounded at how anti-semitic rhetoric is routinely disregarded as "crying wolf", but the same people would be rightly apoplectic if slurs against the black community were on the rise within any group. Could you imagine the furore if this were said regarding the "N" word:
"For almost all my black friends the weaponisation of the "N" word by the likes of *insert centrist Tory name* against Johnson is causing them greater anxiety than Naziism"
"One could argue that none of this matters too much, since, as far as dangers to the black community is concerned, internal right politics will always be a bit of a sideshow.There is no conceivable scenario in which Thatcherites are going to start shooting up African churches, or making black people use segregated public transport"
"The very last thing we need regarding use of the "N" word is to leave the public with the impression the black community are a bunch of hypersensitive alarmists"
"It's crazy to cry wolf against the casual use of the "N" word, while real wolves in the form of KKK members are baying at the door"
"Opening the floor to everyone, will necessarily mean a lot of angry people with no training are going to be placed in front of microphones. The reason Labour members aren't routinely caught saying the "N" word is no one without media training gets anywhere near a microphone"
"How is it, then, that our political class has come to a consensus that the greatest threat to Britain's black community is a lifelong anti-racist in Johnson accused of not being assiduous enough in disciplining party members who make "N" word comments on the internet?"
"If one is actually interested in purging racist views from society, one is also aware that opening the floor to people who routinely use the "N" word is not ultimately a bad thing. It's only by bringing forms of unrecognized racism out in the open that they can be challenged and minds changed."
The fact that you are using this imagery in the way that you do and don't actually give a shit about the visible suffering is a great look there pal. Sickening.
That's likely because he seems to support it based on his earlier post in this thread.
Yep, Elvis is by his own standards a bigot and if he's a part of any political party then that party has a racism and homophobia problem. Hopefully it's not Labour!
Sweet Square was using that imagery as if it represents the British Army as a whole.
I do not support racism. Those posts Eboue dragged up are from as far back as 2008 when I was clearly a bit of an idiot, and I’m surprised and saddened that I ever used such language.
Why are you going by the oldest and not the newest. This is some spin.
Yeah and you completely shat on the actual suffering happening there to make a sick joke about anti-semitism. Clearly you haven't changed that much since 2008 (or whenever your most recent bigotted post was).
It wasn’t a joke. Corbyn is happy to refer to groups who’s sole aim is to massacre Jews as his friends.
Isn’t the whole IRA sympathiser thing just something concocted to slur him and he was actually working for peace in Northern Ireland?
I’m not sure if this relates to what’s being discussed but although I’ve never been his biggest fan I do think he has been unfairly and almost relentlessly tarred by the media.
I’m not sure if this relates to what’s being discussed but although I’ve never been his biggest fan I do think he has been unfairly and almost relentlessly tarred by the media.
This is some Boris Johnson level lying. We can all see what you posted and aren't stupid.