• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

You have to point me towards the part that says one can't criticise Israel. Might be my memory failing but I don't recall that being a clause at all.


Actually I don't give much of a fudge about what Israel is doing. They have a bunch of terrorists squatting to one side of them and a country that has vowed to wipe them from the map on the other - all because their imaginary friend tells them it's OK to fudge children but not to treat Jews or women like human beings. Under those circumstances I'd be getting pretty handy with the military too.

And there we are, just too conlucde, under stress the right's racism comes right up to the surface. 'terrorists squatting to one side of them' 'fudge children'

Even as an atheist I deplore those racalized overtones in the message you are communicating.

But thank you for proving my point better than I could have hoped to explain myself.

 
Excuses - they wanted out and they need a reason. Other than ‘Corby is a dingdonghead’! Doesn’t look good in mirror headline.

^^^ Kind of what I wanted to say originally but phrased poorly. It's an excuse, a front, and not a particularly good one, to say we cannot win the hearts and minds of labour voters, therefore we split and promote our own elitist neo-liberal Blairite/ Thatcherist politics elsewhere.

One must not ignore the fact that this is a movement from within the elite, and not one that has been borne from ordinary people. Therefore it still carries with it the destructive elements of neoliberalism that led to the global financial crisis a decade ago.

Avoid at all costs I say!
 
And there we are, just too conlucde, under stress the right's racism comes right up to the surface. 'terrorists squatting to one side of them' 'fudge children'
There are a group of people (not a country) who have elected a terrorist organisation to run them. How would you prefer to describe them?

Even as an atheist I deplore those racalized overtones in the message you are communicating.

But thank you for proving my point better than I could have hoped to explain myself.

What racialised overtones? I think the same of all muslamic infidels no matter where they come from or how they look. I also hate institutionalised abuse and subjugation no matter what imaginary friend tells the fudgewit to do so.

I'm not sure how many of my posts in this thread you've read, but I think it would be fair to describe myself as someone with vocal and equal disdain of all religions. If for example, you'd like to know my opinion of Christianity and it's adherents (specifically those who help protect those who abuse children), then I'll leave it in the complex, expansive words of someone far more eloquent than me:
 
^^^ Kind of what I wanted to say originally but phrased poorly. It's an excuse, a front, and not a particularly good one, to say we cannot win the hearts and minds of labour voters, therefore we split and promote our own elitist neo-liberal Blairite/ Thatcherist politics elsewhere.

One must not ignore the fact that this is a movement from within the elite, and not one that has been borne from ordinary people. Therefore it still carries with it the destructive elements of neoliberalism that led to the global financial crisis a decade ago.

Avoid at all costs I say!

Isn’t that a rather dangerous and contradictory tone? I was told Corbyn was all about listening and taking on board members views. To dismiss loyal Labour people who are Jewish and their grievances without a second thought seems bashful and not in the spirit of the Labour Party.

If these MPs feel hounded by the party’s anti Zionism which treads close to a line of anti Semitism, why dismiss them when they flag up racism? To throw around accusations of racism yourself but ignore claims of it in your party seems churlish.

If your leader met and sympathised with a Nazi terrorist group that was engaged in suecide bombings of English people, that in itself would probably make you uncomfortable wouldn’t it?

The ‘undertone’ of your post is that Jews are part of a neoliberal elite? Please tell me that’s not what you are saying.

I’m no expert on this stuff. But I can’t see why loyal labour supporters would make up lies about their own party that they were born into and have invested in for decades, unless there was something to it. The fact you’re unwilling to explore it indicates to me there could be an issue.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
Isn’t that a rather dangerous and contradictory tone? I was told Corbyn was all about listening and taking on board members views. To dismiss loyal Labour people who are Jewish and their grievances without a second thought seems bashful and not in the spirit of the Labour Party.

If these MPs feel hounded by the party’s anti Zionism which treads close to a line of anti Semitism, why dismiss them when they flag up racism? To throw around accusations of racism yourself but ignore claims of it in your party seems churlish.

If your leader met and sympathised with a Nazi terrorist group that was engaged in suecide bombings of English people, that in itself would probably make you uncomfortable wouldn’t it?

The ‘undertone’ of your post is that Jews are part of a neoliberal elite?
Please tell me that’s not what you are saying.

I’m no expert on this stuff. But I can’t see why loyal labour supporters would make up lies about their own party that they were born into and have invested in for decades, unless there was something to it. The fact you’re unwilling to explore it indicates to me there could be an issue.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

The first point I will address my stating that of course you must listen to complanants grievances - the same goes for whether you're running a political party, country or a restaurant. If someone, or a select group, disagrees than of course you must listen. However, listening to a critique does not equate to that critique being correct - particularly if the views that those who are upset do not appear to be their own but that which is widely disseminated through the Murdoch media empire.

As for the second, no. I felt I was clear in separating the two, but if not let me explain again. This group of MPs are leaving under the flimflam guise of unfounded anti-antisemitism and the issue around Europe which will (hopefully) be dead within a year, to further the Blairite neoliberal agenda that was set forth by the governments since my mother was born in the 1970s. It provides a convenient out without saying "look, the ordinary people are too left wing and we believe we should be an exact reflection of the modern day lib-dem and tory parties under the guise of proviiding choice'
 
There are a group of people (not a country) who have elected a terrorist organisation to run them. How would you prefer to describe them?


What racialised overtones? I think the same of all muslamic infidels no matter where they come from or how they look. I also hate institutionalised abuse and subjugation no matter what imaginary friend tells the fudgewit to do so.

I'm not sure how many of my posts in this thread you've read, but I think it would be fair to describe myself as someone with vocal and equal disdain of all religions. If for example, you'd like to know my opinion of Christianity and it's adherents (specifically those who help protect those who abuse children), then I'll leave it in the complex, expansive words of someone far more eloquent than me:

You've just referred to a whole nation that are currently facing ethnic cleansing as a 'bunch of terrorists squatting to one side of them' all whilst saying that any criticism of the nation commiting wide-scale murder is racist. We see again a (mis-represented) focus on the politics of 70 years ago whilst simultaneously neglecting the real politics as lived by millions today. If you do not see the hypocrisy of what you are stating, than (even as a fellow atheist) GHod help you.
 
Also @Craig_J I’m genuinely fascinated by what ‘neoliberal policies’ are (can you outline?) and what an alternative to neoliberal economics looks like in 2019. How would it work in the UK?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

An alternative to neo-liberal politics would involve not criticising the previous government for borrowing too much or unstabilising the economy through borrowing, all of which has been found by countless economists to be unfounded, and focusing on the role that the deregulation set by Brown and Blair (a traditionally neoliberalist policy of deregulation might I add) played in leading us into this crisis that contemporary neoliberals like Cameron and May have sought to resolve through further sales of public industry to the private companies - under the guise that they 'are more efficent' (something which can be debunked through even the most amateurish of research) are cheaper (something which does not conform to the stark rices in prices, even when adjusting for inflation, that has been seen since the privitisation of public utilities, services and transport) and offer the consuer more choice (something which can be debukned through the fact that train companies hold a monopoly on train lines and there is literally no comeptiro what so ever you can turn to, or by exmaining the probably 7 utility companies that exist).

An alternative would be not selling innovative public bodies, like Remploy, a schme to help disabled people overcome barriers to employment and find work - to private companies to become a utility to help force disabled people to accept work at any cost - very often at the cost of real human life.

There are plenty of alternatives to neoliberal policies - as Scandinavia alone demonstrates - but we are told that they will ruin the economy and are instead offered througuhly debunked ideologicall driven trinkle-down economic theory that is presented through the media as 'There is No Alternative' .
 
An alternative to neo-liberal politics would involve not criticising the previous government for borrowing too much or unstabilising the economy through borrowing, all of which has been found by countless economists to be unfounded, and focusing on the role that the deregulation set by Brown and Blair (a traditionally neoliberalist policy of deregulation might I add) played in leading us into this crisis that contemporary neoliberals like Cameron and May have sought to resolve through further sales of public industry to the private companies - under the guise that they 'are more efficent' (something which can be debunked through even the most amateurish of research) are cheaper (something which does not conform to the stark rices in prices, even when adjusting for inflation, that has been seen since the privitisation of public utilities, services and transport) and offer the consuer more choice (something which can be debukned through the fact that train companies hold a monopoly on train lines and there is literally no comeptiro what so ever you can turn to, or by exmaining the probably 7 utility companies that exist).

An alternative would be not selling innovative public bodies, like Remploy, a schme to help disabled people overcome barriers to employment and find work - to private companies to become a utility to help force disabled people to accept work at any cost - very often at the cost of real human life.

There are plenty of alternatives to neoliberal policies - as Scandinavia alone demonstrates - but we are told that they will ruin the economy and are instead offered througuhly debunked ideologicall driven trinkle-down economic theory that is presented through the media as 'There is No Alternative' .

I like your style and agree with some of it. But it’s more complex than your polarised stance - public ownership good, private bad.

You also don’t outline anything as an alternative - is it just the state should own stuff? Or is there more to it?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
I was a card-carrying Labour member for a long time. I left a year ago.

Corbyn is dogmatic, inflexible and incapable of making decisions. He surrounds himself with sycophants (including the Momentum bullies, who stoked my decision to call it a day with the party) and he has made a right pig’s ear of being in opposition to the most inept PM - and most divided government - in living memory. Worst of all, he is entirely unelectable in 21st Century Britain and he is, therefore, ultimately useless as a Labour leader. The fact that we are two years into Brexit negotiations and no one still knows what his views really are on that subject says everything anyone needs to know about the Ditherer-in-Chief.

Aside from that, I rate him. :D
 
You've just referred to a whole nation that are currently facing ethnic cleansing as a 'bunch of terrorists squatting to one side of them' all whilst saying that any criticism of the nation commiting wide-scale murder is racist. We see again a (mis-represented) focus on the politics of 70 years ago whilst simultaneously neglecting the real politics as lived by millions today. If you do not see the hypocrisy of what you are stating, than (even as a fellow atheist) GHod help you.
They're not a nation.
 
They're not a nation.

You are right, Palestine are not a nation. That is the bulk of the problem, of the fact your racism would not be defined as racist, despite the fact that generalisations about the nature of a group of people are clearly so in comparison to statements about actions undertaken by a state's particular policies. And that is part of what Labour's definition of anti-Antisemitism has to consider. A definition of prejudice is not about appeasing a specific state - but instead considers the overarching affects on other groups as well.

A more modern approach to fighting racism might be frightening to some, because it challenges the complacencies that modern bodies have allowed themselves to regress into within the past 30-40 years whilst simultaneously ignoring the real world developments that have taken place.
 
Last edited:
Interesting....

Labour anti-Semitism claims: Jewish group backs Corbyn

_105738085_corbo.jpg

Image copyrightAFP

A network of Jewish Labour members has backed Jeremy Corbyn over claims the party has become "institutionally anti-Semitic" under his leadership.

Some 200 Labour supporters signed a Jewish Voice for Labour letter calling Mr Corbyn's party a "crucial ally in the fight against bigotry".

Anti-Semitism on the left is "abhorrent but relatively rare", it argues.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the view ran "counter to the experiences of Jewish Labour members".

On Wednesday, Labour front-bench MP Barry Gardiner made an emotional apology to Jewish people "let down" by the party.

"We will not stop working until we have once again become a safe and welcoming political home for people from the Jewish community as from every other," Labour's international trade spokesman told the Commons.

Liverpool Wavertree MP Luciana Berger quit the party for the new Independent Group on Monday, saying she had been subjected to "thousands of messages of anti-Semitic abuse and hate".

Telling MPs she had been met with "obfuscation, smears, inaction and denial" after raising the problem, Ms Berger said she arrived at the "sickening conclusion" that the Labour Party was "institutionally anti-Semitic".

But the letter drafted by Jewish Voice for Labour, which describes itself as offering "a space to explore and debate the many questions that are important to us as progressive Labour Jews", rejects the suggestion.

'Formidable' record on campaigning
"The Labour Party under the progressive leadership of Jeremy Corbyn is a crucial ally in the fight against bigotry and reaction," says the letter, published in the Guardian.

"His lifetime record of campaigning for equality and human rights, including consistent support for initiatives against anti-Semitism, is formidable. His involvement strengthens this struggle."

The group says the letter was signed by filmmaker Mike Leigh, writer Michael Rosen and author Gillian Slovo, as well as several academics and Walter Wolfgang, 93, who fled Nazi Germany as a child.

It backs the Labour Party's endorsement of freedom of expression on Israel and on the rights of Palestinians.

However, Board of Deputies President Marie van der Zyl said: "The usual bunch of anti-Semitism deniers have written to the Guardian to declare that anti-Jewish hate in the Labour Party is rare."

She said the letter was "particularly disrespectful" to Ms Berger who had suffered "years of anti-Semitic abuse, much of it from fellow party members".

"This crisis will only be ended once the denial stops and Labour takes this problem seriously. Our community cannot have any confidence in Labour until the leadership commits to action."

Jewish Voice for Labour was formed in 2017 and has consistently backed Mr Corbyn's leadership.

It is separate to the Jewish Labour Movement, formed in 1903, which has called extraordinary general meetings for 6 March, reportedly to discuss ending its 99-year affiliation with the Labour Party.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47322921
 
What’s interesting is that rather than dissect what Labour stands for, explore how a Corbyn government would actually work with nationalisation and the economy, @Craig_J is focused instead on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The other themes are 1. the neoliberal elites (which Jews maybe a part of? Which to me sounds both paranoid and racist) and 2. what shouldn’t be criticised, state borrowing etc.

I love revolutionary ideas. True innovation. Shaking up the establishment. But the above sets out almost nothing fresh. It’s a basic model of national ownership which needs fleshing out and understanding for it to work, and the narrative needs to to be less about ‘what we don’t like’ and instead focusing on what we do. That Jewish MPs don’t feel comfortable when there is gonads about Jews and neoliberal elites flying around doesn’t raise alarm bells and makes Momentum look hypocritical - that you call out others as racist but can’t see the obvious stereotyping in your own narrative.

I am not looking to win an argument but to pull apart peoples set ideologies that put dogma before open analysis. If there was a greater focus on how to structure a society in a more fair progressive manner then Labour would stand for a lot more.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. There were some Jews in the Nazi party and the church has always had lots of closet gay clergy. Weirdly people still seem to be able to support something that hates them.
 
You are right, Palestine are not a nation. That is the bulk of the problem, of the fact your racism would not be defined as racist, despite the fact that generalisations about the nature of a group of people are clearly so in comparison to statements about actions undertaken by a state's particular policies. And that is part of what Labour's definition of anti-Antisemitism has to consider. A definition of prejudice is not about appeasing a specific state - but instead considers the overarching affects on other groups as well.

A more modern approach to fighting racism might be frightening to some, because it challenges the complacencies that modern bodies have allowed themselves to regress into within the past 30-40 years whilst simultaneously ignoring the real world developments that have taken place.
I think Palestinians can be held accountable for the actions of their "government" because they voted to be ruled by known terrorists.

Just as Israelis (note, not Jews) can be held accountable for the actions of theirs and you and I can be for ours.
 
Back