The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Don't know this organisation so can't help you there.

I think in all these cases any Labour supporter (myself included if they present a probable party programme) should ask themselves "How would I react if BoJo hang out with a holocaust denier or demanded that we change the name of the holocaust memorial day?" Most people would go nuts. Understandably so.

Yet with JC an awful lot of people who call themselves progressive have waded into a grey area between their hatred of Israel and antisemitism. Shouting "ZIOOO" at anyone with a different view to them has become the new golden star for a lot of people who admit to being a Jew in the outer left circles of Labour.

 

I struggle to square the circle of constantly being told by one group of Jewish representatives that Corbyn is clearly anti Semitic and then by another group that he clearly isn’t. With both groups claiming the other group is not representative.

You don’t have to ‘know’ that organisation, simply acknowledge that they exist and have a very different opinion to yourself.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Well, for one he attacked the whistleblowers from their own disciplinary board, whom Labour have now settled with in court, calling their stories "false and malicious". I've been to momentum rallies where Lansman several times over have questioned the loyalty of British Jews - the sort of dross you hear Nigel Farage say about anyone not white and clearly defined as AS. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There is quite a list of people against whom @magnkarl has levelled the accusation of 'holocaust denier'on VT, almost universally without any evidence to support the accusation(s). Surviving the holocaust, having parents/relatives who did or even making statements which obviously contradict the accusation is no barrier to the accusation.

Hopefully, in this case, he willl give a clear example demonstrating that the man in question denies that the holocaust occurred.

 

While we're asking for evidence, I would also like evidence of Lansman 'questioning the loyalty of British Jews' at Momentum rallies - rallies plural! - because that seems like a pretty big accusation as well.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

It's the definition of not looking closely enough, not a blind spot to antisemitism

OK. So he didn't look closely enough and didn't see what he later called, when all this became public knowledge, deeply disturbing and blatant anti-semitism. Not a blind spot at all, just not looking closely enough. Tomato/tomato.

Sitting in an Iranian TV station studio hosting a broadcast while the man next to him spouted the most vile anti-Semitic tripe and murmuring not a word of dissent or condemnation? perhaps a "deaf spot", or just a failure to listen closely?

There's a long and disturbing list of this kind of stuff. But this thread has gone over it all probably several times, already. So I'm gonna leave it there. I don't suppose anyone's gonna change their mind on him anyway - lovely kindly ol' feller with not a racist bone in his body/one dimensional 1970s idiot.

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I struggle to square the circle of constantly being told by one group of Jewish representatives that Corbyn is clearly anti Semitic and then by another group that he clearly isn’t. With both groups claiming the other group is not representative.

You don’t have to ‘know’ that organisation, simply acknowledge that they exist and have a very different opinion to yourself.

Well, I didn't know they existed until you posted it. I'm not quite sure what you want here? I don't generally wade into the Labour right\left Jewish thing, it's a minefield.

Labour has a set of Jewish groups, one to the right of the party and one set to the left of the party. You decide where on the spectrum you are and judge what either group says with a grain of salt. There's screaming Hodge on the right and JLM with their almost blind faith to call any critic Zionist to the left, either choice is bad in my opinion.

What isn't so hard for me to understand is that JC has done some things that are antisemitic in his life, shared platforms with people who are clearly very antisemitic in his life, and not put a stop to racism when he's quite obviously heard it amongst his friends (like Blandy says above). I don't know why it's so hard to see this, everything isn't an Israeli conspiracy. If Israel paid everyone who's critical of Corbyn I'm still waiting for my money.

[OutByEaster?]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't generally wade into the Labour right\left Jewish thing.

Erm...

 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I was asking the question. It's one I've long grappled with because I'm not Jewish and I don't know anyone who is so I have to learn from people who would suffer from this type of racism. 

You mentioning Hajo Meyer for example. Said many things which could be considered antisemitic. But was a holocaust survivor. Shouldn't he have had more freedom to say to what he thinks? I don't remember Meyer ever being accused of being a holocaust denier, especially as he was actually in Auschwitz.

The wreath laying was to honour 100 Palestinian kids killed on a bus. If you attend a graveyard do you automatically agree with the view's of the names of everyone on a plaque there?

With the questions, I assume you're referring to Jonathan Hoffman and Richard Millet? Both well known troublemakers at Palestinian events who had been barred from parliament after being ejected by police previously? And by loyalties, I assume you're referring to Corbyn saying they 'didn't understand English irony despite living here all their lives' in comparison to Palestinian ambassador Manuel Hassassian, who hasn't?

In 2012, Corbyn said a terrorist attack had 'the hand of Israel' involved. That was antisemitic.

Here's the official wording of what holocaust denial is according to the IHRC.

Quote

1. Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany;
2. Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources;
3. Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide;
4. Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event. Those statements are not Holocaust denial but are closely connected to it as a radical form of antisemitism.  They may suggest that the Holocaust did not go far enough in accomplishing its goal of “the Final Solution of the Jewish Question”;
5. Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups.

Hajo Meyer is often critised of being in bracket number one along with Norman Finkelstein (also used extensively by Corbyn and Momentum in talks). They both twist and turn their works and talks to suit the agenda of their politics, often referring Israel to Nazi-Germany and Gaza to a concentration camp/the Holocaust. Both allegations can be put squarely into both number 1 and 2. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by magnkarl

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

It's the definition of not looking closely enough at an image, not a blind spot to antisemitism.

With the Harry Potter stuff. It's quite blatantly antisemitic. It's in full view, people like facebook posts, love the movies, and are big fans. Do they all have blind spots for antisemitism?

Please elaborate for those of us with 'blind spots' to Harry Potter.

[chrisp65]

29 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Well, I didn't know they existed until you posted it. I'm not quite sure what you want here? I don't generally wade into the Labour right\left Jewish thing, it's a minefield.

Labour has a set of Jewish groups, one to the right of the party and one set to the left of the party. You decide where on the spectrum you are and judge what either group says with a grain of salt. There's screaming Hodge on the right and JLM with their almost blind faith to call any critic Zionist to the left, either choice is bad in my opinion.

What isn't so hard for me to understand is that JC has done some things that are antisemitic in his life, shared platforms with people who are clearly very antisemitic in his life, and not put a stop to racism when he's quite obviously heard it amongst his friends (like Blandy says above). I don't know why it's so hard to see this, everything isn't an Israeli conspiracy. If Israel paid everyone who's critical of Corbyn I'm still waiting for my money.

I’m not Labour left or Labour right, so I’m nowhere on their spectrum.

But that’s exactly my point, there is a spectrum, with all of them saying they are correct and the others aren’t.

Yes Corbyn has shared platforms with unpleasant people, as has every single other political leader. The difference is these particular ones, you don’t like so there is absolute guilt and blood on his hands.

I haven’t claimed everything is an Israeli conspiracy, quite the opposite, I’m saying their are multiple viewpoints. I’ve said there are multiple viewpoints and you’re shouting about not being paid by Israel. All getting a bit ranty to be honest. Which is kind of the problem. It feels like its designed to close down discussion. 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Please elaborate for those of us with 'blind spots' to Harry Potter.

The Jewish Chronicle

Quote

It is not often that I am stopped in my tracks. But the press photography from the new Gringotts wing of Warner Bros’ Harry Potter Studio tour positively shrieked with antisemitic tropes; the long-nosed goblin, his natty suit, clawed fingers caressing a pile of gold coins. When I positioned a Gringotts shot alongside a series of cartoons from Nazi Germany’s Der Stürmer, it did not seem out of place.

 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Please elaborate for those of us with 'blind spots' to Harry Potter.

I've just disappeared down a huge Rabbit Hole of Harry Potter / Political Alegories

My conclusion: People can claim it is anything they want it to be

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Please elaborate for those of us with 'blind spots' to Harry Potter.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/harry-potter-is-gringotts-picture-antisemitic-1.482785

Quote

the press photography from the new Gringotts wing of Warner Bros’ Harry Potter Studio tour positively shrieked with antisemitic tropes; the long-nosed goblin, his natty suit, clawed fingers caressing a pile of gold coins. When I positioned a Gringotts shot alongside a series of cartoons from Nazi Germany’s Der Stürmer, it did not seem out of place.

http://www.treefrogid.com/potter.htm

Quote

 

Compare a 12th century English  anti-Semitic cartoon depiction of money changers (bankers) with a 21st century depiction of some bankers.   It seems this viewpoint hasn't really changed all that much in 800 years. 

And then compare 20th century Nazi anti-Semitic cartoons which happens to resemble some of the other bankers in the Harry Potter film. 

Curious how there are two different physiques of the bankers within this film which coincidentally resembles both anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews. 

 

https://www.heyalma.com/are-the-goblins-in-j-k-rowlings-harry-potter-anti-semitic/

Quote

Greedy, hook-nosed, bank-controlling people? Doesn’t sound great. Not only does it not sound great, it sounds like a super anti-Semitic stereotype.

https://forward.com/schmooze/449187/caroline-calloway-says-harry-potter-taught-her-anti-semitic-stereotypes/

Quote

“As a lover of Harry Potter, and a girl who was raised on Disney, I’ve been really desensitized to the idea of hook-nosed villains, whether it was a Disney witch or the goblins at Gringotts,” she said. Calloway was referring to the unsettling creatures who control the banking world in J.K. Rowling’s beloved series, who do indeed have hooked noses and care primarily about money

 

For context, the hook nosed imagery trope is what was antisemitic about the mural Corbyn liked a Facebook post about. You'll find plenty of people saying Rowling herself can't be antisemitic because she's always called out antisemitism and has always been antifascist. Corbyn also has a list as long as your arm of calling out antisemitism* and is pretty much the central public figure for antifascism so the same logic should apply.

* 

 

[Chindie]

The Harry Potter goblins are laughably anti-Semitic. Nobody really cares though.

Anti-Semitism can be an awkward one to navigate at times. There was a kerfuffle recently after a Labour MP referred to Richard Desmond as the puppet master of the Cabinet. Desmond, 'best known' (as vanishingly few people will even know who he is) as the head of a porn empire, is Jewish, not that many would know. However the term puppet master used in context with a Jewish person is considered an anti-Semitic slur because of the old propaganda connotations. The MP apologised and the care was curiously ignored otherwise. Said MP wasn't closely linked to Corbyn though, so hadn't got a price on his head. 

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The Harry Potter goblins are laughably anti-Semitic. Nobody really cares though.

Anti-Semitism can be an awkward one to navigate at times. There was a kerfuffle recently after a Labour MP referred to Richard Desmond as the puppet master of the Cabinet. Desmond, 'best known' (as vanishingly few people will even know who he is) as the head of a porn empire, is Jewish, not that many would know. However the term puppet master used in context with a Jewish person is considered an anti-Semitic slur because of the old propaganda connotations. The MP apologised and the care was curiously ignored otherwise. Said MP wasn't closely linked to Corbyn though, so hadn't got a price on his head. 

Yes, it turns out that that doesn't meet the criteria of 'zero tolerance for anti-semitism' but tweeting a link to a long interview article in which there is one line making a mistaken claim about Israeli policing does meet the criteria.

If they were trying to convince me that they weren't making it up as they go along as a political tool, then they would have failed. However, at the end of the day I'm not the target audience.

[Chindie]

I could make a sardonic comment about either deeply cynical weaponisation of a heinous prejudice, or something about if you squint at it right, it's a purge. But why bother. It's so laughably self evident you can't add any more humour to it.

The thing that has always annoyed me most about this whole farce is Corbyn, for his many faults, is clearly a good bloke on the whole prejudice/racism front, and has been for literally decades. The attack is so clearly nasty, underhand and wrong, it kinda morally infuriates me. And there was no arguing against it, because it was s useful tool against someone many unerringly hate for many reasons, and for some they just heard the never ending attacks and that was enough. 

It is a really, really grim moment in our current time and should cast trust in an awful lot of organisations, people, powers etc into the fire forever more. A person rose to power that they didn't like, and after a series of botched attempts there wasn't a bar too low to stab at.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I could make a sardonic comment about either deeply cynical weaponisation of a heinous prejudice, or something about if you squint at it right, it's a purge. But why bother. It's so laughably self evident you can't add any more humour to it.

The thing that has always annoyed me most about this whole farce is Corbyn, for his many faults, is clearly a good bloke on the whole prejudice/racism front, and has been for literally decades. The attack is so clearly nasty, underhand and wrong, it kinda morally infuriates me. And there was no arguing against it, because it was s useful tool against someone many unerringly hate for many reasons, and for some they just heard the never ending attacks and that was enough. 

It is a really, really grim moment in our current time and should cast trust in an awful lot of organisations, people, powers etc into the fire forever more. A person rose to power that they didn't like, and after a series of botched attempts there wasn't a bar too low to stab at.

Well put.

[snowychap]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

While we're asking for evidence, I would also like evidence of Lansman 'questioning the loyalty of British Jews' at Momentum rallies - rallies plural! - because that seems like a pretty big accusation as well.

I hope you weren't holding your breath when you put in your request.

 

[snowychap]

17 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Hajo Meyer is often critised of being in bracket number one along with Norman Finkelstein (also used extensively by Corbyn and Momentum in talks). They both twist and turn their works and talks to suit the agenda of their politics, often referring Israel to Nazi-Germany and Gaza to a concentration camp/the Holocaust. Both allegations can be put squarely into both number 1 and 2. 

Ah, yes - I remember this technique from its deployment a couple of years ago.

Allege someone is a 'holocaust denier' and, when questioned on this, reply with some pretty broad brush 'so and so is often criticised as...' without actually quoting what they've said and analysing what was actually said.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I hope you weren't holding your breath when you put in your request.

 

It's astounding really. It would be libellous if any of us were worth suing.

[magnkarl]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

I could make a sardonic comment about either deeply cynical weaponisation of a heinous prejudice, or something about if you squint at it right, it's a purge. But why bother. It's so laughably self evident you can't add any more humour to it.

The thing that has always annoyed me most about this whole farce is Corbyn, for his many faults, is clearly a good bloke on the whole prejudice/racism front, and has been for literally decades. The attack is so clearly nasty, underhand and wrong, it kinda morally infuriates me. And there was no arguing against it, because it was s useful tool against someone many unerringly hate for many reasons, and for some they just heard the never ending attacks and that was enough. 

It is a really, really grim moment in our current time and should cast trust in an awful lot of organisations, people, powers etc into the fire forever more. A person rose to power that they didn't like, and after a series of botched attempts there wasn't a bar too low to stab at.

By all means, you are more than welcome to your opinion. The community that I am part of is not of the same opinion. Most of us have family and relatives that have been through pogroms, genocide, evictions and confiscations. For someone who has never experienced this I can see why someone like the leader of one of the two parties that matter in our country being 'a tad stupid' and pandering to people who have really nasty agendas around race and religion is not a big thing. It gets a lot of us right in the gut when perfectly intelligent people will defend, rather than object to, someone like JC when he bumbles around issues that he should be crystal clear about. You may not realise but hate crime against us is at an all time high, the same goes with violent race-fueled attacks. The attacks aren't only from neo-nazi's anymore, they are from people who claim to be fighting for equality, from the political historical home of British Jews - the left.

224 of the recorded 1805 attacks came from within Labour. You can give me all sort of defense speeches about the stats being rigged and whatnot, however the stats aren't recorded by Hodge or Corbyn dissidents - they are recorded by the Community Security Trust who records all hate crime in the UK against Jews and have been for a long time. The incidents are rising also within Labour, clearly fueled by people like Chris Williamson, Livingstone, JC and emboldened by a system that did not punish them quickly enough or at all.

So while you want to swat away any attempt at cleaning up a muddied wing of Labour and its ringleader JC, I will keep using whatever means I have at my disposal to try to expose even the slightest hint of antisemitism in all of our political parties. History shows that if attitudes become apologetic to people who use tropes towards my group bad things happen. Both left and right wing populism is on the rise, and generally this is not good for those of us who try to keep history from repeating itself. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by magnkarl

[blandy]

11 hours ago, Chindie said:

The attack is so clearly nasty, underhand and wrong, it kinda morally infuriates me.

What morally infuriates me is this type of post and interpretation.

“Any and all mentions of AS are nasty, underhand and wrong and a vexatious attack on a wonderful man. The mentions and allegations are automatically untrue because Jeremy”

And then none of it gets considered, because it’s been predetermined and locked in that whatever is presented is summarily false, automatically malicious, and if, somehow, a few see it’s not, then the next stage is “look over there” or “I see you’ve dug up that old thing, that was ages ago and an apology was given, the matter is closed, move on and what about her over there....”

Then there’s the list of all the times he wasn’t being anti Semitic and was helpful to Jewish people.

M’lud, my client, Officer White, can’t be guilty of murdering the suspect because here’s a list of times he didn’t kill anyone and actually did his job as a Police..

if that reads like an attack on you, it’s not meant to be. Loads of people seem to see it the same as you. How did it get like that is interesting thing. In part because some of the allegations have been vexatious. Some of them have been preposterous, some of them have been purely political.

so what I’m saying is it’s genuinely sad and infuriating that minds are closed, made up. Any allegations of anti semitism or of a blind spot on it are simply “nasty and wrong”.

Its fine for an individual to hold whatever view. Trouble is when a section of a political party holds that view, it’s Institutionally incapable of dealing with complaints.. Simply unwilling to consider them. Dismissing them out of hand. Jeremy is innocent, the accusers are guilty.