The party is being dragged into the modern world by Corbyn’s anti-racist leadership towards Palestinians, writes Jonathan Cook.
By JonathanCook
Jonathan-Cook.net
An announcement this week by the Jewish Labour Movement that it is considering splitting from the British Labour Party could not have come at a worse moment for Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour leader is already besieged by claims that he is presiding over a party that has become “institutionally anti-Semitic.”
The threats by the JLM should be seen as part of concerted efforts to oust Corbyn from the leadership. They follow on the heels of a decision by a handful of Labour MPs last month to set up a new faction called the Independent Group. They, too, cited anti-Semitismas a major reason for leaving.
On the defensive, Corbyn was prompted to write to the JLM expressing his and the shadow cabinet’s “very strong desire for you to remain a part of our movement”. More than 100 Labour MPs, including members of the front bench, similarly pleaded with the JLM not to disaffiliate. They apologized for “toxic racism” in the party and for “letting our Jewish supporters and members down.”
Corbyn: On defense. (David Holt via Flickr)
Their letter noted that the JLM is “the legitimate and long-standing representative of Jews in the Labour party” and added that the MPs recognized the importance of “calling out those who seek to make solidarity with our Jewish comrades a test of foreign policy.”
That appeared to be a swipe at Corbyn himself, who is the first leader of a British political party to prioritize Palestinian rights over the U.K.’s ties to an Israeli state that has been oppressing Palestinians for decades.
Just this week the Labour leader renewed his call for Britain to halt arms sales to Israel following a UN report that said the Israeli army’s shooting of Palestinian protesters in Gaza’s Great March of Return could amount to war crimes.
Evidence Ignored
Despite the media attention, all the evidence suggests that Labour does not have a problem of “institutional anti-Semitism,” or even a problem of anti-Semitismabove the marginal racism towards Jews found in the wider British population. Figures show only 0.08 percent of Labour members have been disciplined for anti-Semitism.
Also largely ignored by the British media, and Corbyn’s opponents, is the fact that a growing number of Jews are publicly coming out in support for him and discounting the claims of an “endemic” anti-Semitismproblem.
Some 200 prominent Jews signed a letter to The Guardian newspaper calling Corbyn “a crucial ally in the fight against bigotry and reaction. His lifetime record of campaigning for equality and human rights, including consistent support for initiatives against antisemitism, is formidable.”
At the same time, a new organization, Jewish Voice for Labour, has been established to underscore that there are progressive Jews who welcome Corbyn’s leadership.
In the current hysterical climate, however, no one seems interested in the evidence or these dissenting voices. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Corbyn and his supporters are on the back foot as they face losing from Labour an affiliate group of 2,000 members who represent a section of the UK’s Jewish community.
But paradoxically, the loss of the JLM may be inevitable if Labour is serious about becoming a party that opposes racism in all its forms, because the JLM has proved it is incapable of meeting that simple standard.
While the Labour Party has been dragged into an increasingly fractious debate about whether anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel as a Jewish state – equates to anti-Semitism, everyone has been distracted from the elephant in the room. In fact, it is political Zionism, at least in the hardline form adopted by groups such as the JLM, that is racism — towards Palestinians.
Zionism, we should recall, required the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians to engineer a “Jewish state” on the ruins of Palestinians’ homeland. It fueled Israel’s hunger for an enlarged territory that led to it occupying the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and further dispossessing the Palestinians through illegal settlement building.
David Ben-Gurion publicly pronouncing the Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14 1948, Tel Aviv. (Wikimedia)
Zionism has made it impossible for any Israeli government to offer meaningful concessions to Palestinians on statehood to create the conditions necessary for peace. It has justified policies that view “mixing between the races” – between Jews and Palestinians – as dangerous “miscegenation” and “assimilation.”
Furthermore, Zionism has kept Israel’s Palestinian citizens a segregated minority, hemmed up in their own ghettoized communities, denied rights to almost all land in Israel, and corralled into their own separate and massively inferior school system.
Efforts to Oust Corbyn
All of these policies were instituted by Israel’s Labor Party, the sister organization of the JLM in Britain. The JLM not only refuses to oppose these policies, but effectively shields Israel from criticism about them from within Britain’s Labour Party.
The JLM has remained mute on the structural violence of Israel’s occupying army, and the systematic racism – encoded in Israel’s laws – towards the fifth of its population who are Palestinian citizens.
Meanwhile, the JLM’s mother body, the World Zionist Organization, has a division that – to this day – finances the establishment and expansion of settlements in the West Bank, in violation of international law.
Added to this, an Al Jazeera undercover documentary broadcast in 2017 showed that the JLM was covertly working with an Israeli government official, Shai Masot, to damage Corbyn because of his pro-Palestinian positions.
Israel, remember, has for the last decade equated to the ultra-nationalist government of Benjamin Netanyahu. His coalition allies seek not a two-state solution, but the takeover of most of the occupied territories and ultimately their annexation, again in violation of international law.
Ella Rose was appointed director of the JLM in 2016, straight from a post at the Israeli embassy.
Relic of Old Politics
Times – and politics – move on. The JLM is a relic of a period when it was possible to claim to be anti-racist while turning a blind eye to the oppression of the Palestinian people. Social media and Palestinians armed with camera phones – not just Corbyn – have made that evasion no longer possible.
Labour giving pride of place to groups such as the JLM or Labour Friends of Israel – to which 80 of its MPs proudly belong – is, in the current circumstances, as obscene as it would have been 40 years ago for British parties to host their own Friends of South Africa groups.
The Labour Party bureaucracy is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern world by its members, who have felt liberated by Corbyn’s leadership and his history of supporting all kinds of anti-racism struggles, including the Palestinian one.
While Britain has major and pressing issues to tackle, from dealing with its exit from Europe to imminent climate collapse, Labour’s energies have been sidetracked into a civil war about Israel, of all things.
The old guard want to be allowed to support Israel, even as it heads towards full-blown fascism, while much of the membership want to dissociate from what looks increasingly like another apartheid state – and one whose leaders are seeking to stoke conflict across a volatile region.
Redefining anti-Semitism
Israel’s most ardent supporters, and Corbyn’s enemies, in Labour will play dirty to protect Israel and their own role from scrutiny, as they have been doing all along.
The JLM led moves last year intended to divide the party by insisting that Labour redefine anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.
Rumblings of dissatisfaction from the JLM will be cited as further evidence of the membership’s anti-Semitism, because that is the most powerful weapon they have to silence criticism of Israel and deflect attention away from their role in shielding Israel from proper scrutiny within Labour.
Politics is about choices and values. Labour has for many decades sided exclusively with Israel and ignored the rights of Palestinians.
In 1944 – four years before Israel’s creation – Labour’s annual conference recommended that the natives of Palestine, a large majority population, be ethnically cleansed to advance the goals of European Zionists colonizing their land. The resolution declared: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in.”
Jaramana Refugee Camp in Damascus, Syria, established after Nakba, 1948. (Wikimedia)
That is exactly what Israel did by expelling 750,000 Palestinians, more than 80 percent of the Palestinian population, in events we now call the Nakba (Catastrophe).
For decades after Israel’s creation, Labour Party members happily travelled to Israel to toil in agricultural communes, such as the kibbutz, that were built on stolen Palestinian land and which, to this day, refuse to allow any of the country’s 1.7 million Palestinian citizens to live in them.
In a speech in 1972, after Israel seized yet more Palestinian lands, including East Jerusalem, Labour leader Harold Wilson urged Israel to hold on to these conquered territories: “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation.”
This is the dark, dishonorable underbelly of Labour racism, and the party’s decades-long support for colonialism in the Middle East.
Labour created a hierarchy of racisms, in which concern about hatred towards Jews enjoyed star billing while racism towards some other groups, most especially Palestinians, barely registered.
Under Corbyn and a much-expanded membership, these prejudices are being challenged in public for the first time – and that is justifiably making the party an “unsafe” space for groups such as the JLM and Labour Friends of Israel, which hang on to outdated, hardline Zionist positions.
The JLM’s claim to speak for all Jews in Labour has been challenged by anti-racist Jews like those of the Jewish Voice for Labour. Their efforts to defend Corbyn and Labour’s record have been widely ignored by the media or, encouraged by JLM, dismissed as “downplaying” anti-Semitism.
The JLM’s discomfort may be unfortunate, but it cannot be avoided. It is the price to be paid for the continuing battle by progressives to advance universal rights and defeat racism. This battle has been waged since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948 – paradoxically, the year Israel was established by violating the core principles of that declaration.
Israel’s racism towards Palestinians has been indulged by Labour for too long. Now history is catching up with Israel, and with groups such as the JLM.
Labour MPs have a choice. They can stand on the wrong side of history or they can recognize that it is time to fully enter the modern era – and that means embracing a program of anti-racism that encompasses everyone, including Jews and Palestinians.
Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist based in Nazareth. He blogs at https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/.
Arabia for the Arabs. Israel for the Jews. Nothing else will work or bring peace.
By provoking this discussion, Corbyn is accomplishing something good.
The Israelis hide behind the label “semite”.
As a representative of general public I can say Ive learned much about the issue from recent discourse and it has alerted me to the issue and would affect my voting choices. I have gone from being afraid and resentful of muslim immigration to being proud supporter of Illan Omar.
The discomfort Corbyn feels is too some extent a positive sign of healing process. I believe.
Corbyn and the Labour Party will be better off without JLM. Then they can focus on British voters and issues. Labour has lost it’s way and has turned into a minority issues side-show, they need to get back in touch with working people, and the people who aren’t working but would like to be – e.g. the LABOURing constituency including those who are LABOURING on zero-hour contracts, LABOURing under a mountain of debt etc. etc.
Having said that Britain and the UN should take responsibility for their role in the creation of Israel and make some effort to honour the commitments made during the establishment of Israel. A tall order for Britain I know, as they promised different things to different groups. The UN needs to prove they’re not an irrelevant coalescence of impotent meeting attendees who rubber stamp decisions handed to them. There’s a long list of human rights abuses and war-crimes they could take action on, and not just against Israel.
Just shows Jews are as racist as any other group. How any Jews can defend a racist theocracy like Israel just shows how hypocrisy. works.
Lol @ Israel being a theocracy when it operates according to the rule of law and democracy. You must be talking about the several Arab countries that operate under sharia law and operate according to a book that was written 1500 years ago.
Also how dare a people that has been persecuted for thousands of years defend its right to exist in a land where its people can finally live in peace after centuries of persecution and exile.
“its right to exist in a land”
This right is not questioned except by some on the periphery, although the obfuscation of this has been an increasing activity deemed to be necessary to sustain the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The State of Israel” .
The questioning and action accepts this right to exist in a land, but does not accept the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The State of Israel” and the consequences of seeking to sustain these temporary social relations in interactions with others.
Hello Jakd, have you considered that this so-called “persecution” is purely a response to the methods used by the Israelites to clannishly exclude members of the host community from their undertakings and monopolise finances leading to the monopolising of property of the host societies or the involvement in the assassination of political figures to name just three re-current complaints leading to expulsions and pogroms (over a hundred expulsions of Jews in the last two millennia from numerous countries) that have taken them in in the first place? The “persecution” canard doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny… but wait, we’re not allowed to scrutinise anything about “the chosen ones” (according to their 3000 year old book) are we.
I suppose you’re going to try to claim the Israelites are simply poor innocent lambs who never do anything to bring calamity upon themselves?
And there’s little question that Israel is a theocracy, and not only a theocracy an apartheid theocracy.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Benjamin-Netanyahu/Netanyahu-hits-back-at-Israeli-actress-after-she-criticizes-Miri-Regev-582959
It’s intellectually dishonest to say that the making of Israel required the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians. According to Benny Morris that was just the result of the ongoing war, israel never planned to expel the Palestinians, it just happened that way.
Accidents happen. Sometimes 750,000 times.
I don’t feel like expounding my point here but if you’re interested you can learn for yourself and read Righteous Victims or better yet 1948 by Benny Morris. There you will learn that expulsion of the Arabs during the war of independence was never a policy of the Israeli Jews but rather a result of the war itself.
“It’s intellectually dishonest to say that the making of Israel required the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians.”
That the making of Israel required the expulsion of at least part of the Palestinian population was accepted by many Zionist leaders including Mr. Jabotinsky and was practiced and continues to be practiced by various organisations such as the Jewish National Fund.
Palestine was never “A land without people for a people without land” or other obfuscations attempted to facilitate the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The State of Israel” requiring accelerating and widening prescription to maintain the “high”.
Consequently it is not “intellectually dishonest to say that the making of Israel required the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians.” but not saying that the making of Israel required the expulsion of at least a portion of the Palestinian population has consistently been illustrated to be a self-defeating tactic requiring accelerating and widening prescription thereby facilitating preclusion of purpose.
Hmmm
“Intellectually dishonest”? I beg to differ Jakd you have it backward. It is intellectually dishonest to claim to that “Israel” was created without murdering hundreds of thousands and stealing the lands and homes of nearly 3/4 of a Million Palestinian Men women and Children. Your blatant attempt to literally rewrite history, which mirrors the israeli governments equally dishonest and despicable attempts to to the same goes a long way toward explaining why israel is directly responsible for the current violence in Palestine today.
Is it even possible to be pro-Palestinian and yet not anti-Israeli. Where is the middle ground that says both people have the same right to exist, to their own dignity and sovereignty. Thus what they expect for themselves they must be prepared to grant to others. I thought this was a common theme in most religions, and even for thoughtful atheists. Let’s get it together ladies and gentlemen, or, look at another 70 years of middle east blood bath as a slow motion genocide.
Can someone please tell me why you have any subgroup of a political party as the Voice of ant religious or ethnic group? Are there groupls lik Anglicans for Labour? Hindus for the Conservatives? Sri Lankans for the Lib Dems? Whats the purpose of the likes of the JLM or JVL? What makes this group so special?
They are Yahweh’s chosen people – didn’t you know?
the best thing for the labor party would be to have all bigots – like the jewish group – leave the party and then be able to work more strongly to end the bigotry that rules more than labor.
There is a global Zionist campaign to criminalise any and all criticism of Israel, however moderately expressed.
BDS has been quietly criminalised in 26 US states, with virtually zero reporting or public debate.
Support for BDS now carries 20 years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
This is being quietly extended to all states and all public bodies.
Public employees such as teachers have been required to take loyalty oaths to Israel, on pain of dismissal.
As have hurricane victims in the US. As they are trying to rebuild their lives, Zionist loyalty oaths are pushed in front of their faces for them to sign.
One of the first actions of Congress was to push through legislation to give Israel $38 billion (minimum) with zero public discussion, $23,000 per Israeli family per year.
This is part of a protracted Zionist global campaign to extend the definition of anti Semitism to include any criticism of Israel. Even discussing the imprisonment and torture of Palestinian children, the slaughter in Gaza, or the eviction of Palestinian families from homes and land they have occupied for generations, is now “anti Semitism.”
So, apparently, is any criticism of bankers, Wall Street, capitalism, billionaires, or the political activities of figures such as Soros. All this is now “anti Semitism.”
Previously, anti Semitism was defined as hostility or prejudice against Jews.
This has now been extended to include any criticism of Israel by the UN, EU, many western countries and international organisations.
In France, “anti Zionism” is now illegal. So any discussion of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the Nakba is now illegal or “anti semitic.”
In Britain, we have a rabidly Zionist Government and Parliament, with most MPs belonging to the AIPAC style “Friends of Israel.”
There was some opposition to the extended definition of anti Semitism, but this has now been forced through.
We are now in the position of guilty when accused. Anyone who is deemed to have “offended” the Zionist Lobby, public figures like Ken Livingstone, Marc Wadsworth and Chris Williamson, are now being driven out of public life.
The Zionist Lobby openly stated their intention of driving Corbyn out of public life. He has expressed sympathy for Palestinians, and stated his intention of recognising Palestine and banning arms sales to Israel.
Mossad agents from the Israeli embassy have been caught conspiring with Zionist MPs and civil servants to “bring down” Corbyn and any politicians who have criticised Israel. They have a war chest of millions to do so.
Anyone who questions the supposed “epidemic” of anti Semitism is pilloried as further evidence of the problem. The Zionist Thought Police now have free rein to ruin the lives of anyone who displeases them.
In this they are aided and abetted by the mainstream media, spook organisations, City of London, Tories, Deep State, and backstabbing Labour MPs, who are terrified by the prospect of a Labour Government under Corbyn. The current minority Tory Government is deeply divided, lurching from crisis to crisis, and could collapse at any time with the Brexit fiasco. They are terrified by the possibility. There were efforts to characterise Corbyn a communist spy, Russiagate style, then as a terrorist. These didn’t gain much traction, so the anti semitic smears were concocted. Most of the alleged anti semitic incidents relate to criticism of Israel, and 90% were made by members of the public who were not Labour Party members. The aim of all this is to prevent the election of a Labour Government.
The situation in Canada and Australia now is virtually identical.
“There is a global Zionist campaign to criminalise any and all criticism of Israel, however moderately expressed.”
Quite so and perhaps it would benefit from a wider application of why, why now and why in these forms tests as well as a lateral plotting of interactive trajectories to illuminate opportunities of transcendence afforded by the opponents.
Experience suggests that the opponents are still attempting to deflect/focus interaction into linear frames of their own design based on previous efforts.
Experience also suggests that the opponents are still immersed in the can do/must do conflation with a significant increasing assay of hubris faciltated by attempts to bridge doubt by belief based on projection.
Some practices are akin to drug addiction requiring increasing dosage to “achieve” the high whilst undermining the body – examples include but are not restricted to “sanctioning” or “name calling” or “words mean what I mean them to mean-ness”.
Consequently at this moment in the lateral process, as in other contemporaneous related lateral processes, likely the wisest strategy is not to react but to afford the opponents opportunities to over-extend and undermine their purpose whilst contemporaneously continuing related lateral strategies facilitating transcendence.
Historically efforts to enhance “The Jewish Homeland” have included notions that most of the rest of the world is “Anti-Semitic” and hence the continued well-being of the “Jewish people” is dependent on “Return to the Jewish Homeland” thereby facilitating the “Jewish people” becoming human shields for the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The State of Israel”.
The opponents are attempting to iterate linear framing through projection to preclude transcendence.
As Mr. Stalin was reported to quip to Mr. Kaganovich – “The Bolsheviks learned to talk; I learned to listen”.
Has it occurred to you that your excessively polysyllabic and esoteric terminology might render your communication unintelligible except to the cognoscenti?
“Has it occurred to you..”
Has it occurred to you that all do not “share” the same purpose, or “share” strategies to facilitate purpose, or that strategic design, implementation, monitoring, and modulation to facilitate purpose is a function of facility, or that evaluation is a function of purpose and facility, or that facility can benefit from experience ?
Has it occurred to you that the benefits of the opponents’ practices of “dumbing down” don’t accrue solely to the opponents?
Has it occurred to you that “We the people hold these truths to be self-evident” is a necessary facilitator of the opponents rendered with decreasing potency through avoidance of can do/must do conflations as practiced by the opponents ?
Thank you for your data-stream.
Sadly transcendence will not prevent the collapse of what we have as our inheritance in the west. As far as Britain is concerned (my ancestry is mostly British – Irish, English with a bit of French and German blended in although I don’t live in the UK at the moment) the infiltration started in the early 17th century when Cromwell allowed his paymasters to return to England (they had previously been expelled by Edward I [off the top of my head, but either way around his time]). It is now at a terminal stage where there is a possibility Britain, along with every other nation on earth, will be absorbed into one global homogenised entity ruled over by the moneyed “elite”. That won’t be a good option for anyone – except the moneyed “elite”.
Transcendence as a tactic to avoid that catastrophe won’t achieve anything. What is needed is for more people to wake up and simply say “no”. What has been achieved so far in the quest for global conquest has largely been silently acquiesced to by the masses, which is deemed to be consent. Unfortunately too many people don’t read their history, and too many people still rely on the television for information and really crappy movies that warp history and perception for entertainment.
“Sadly transcendence will not prevent the collapse of what we have as our inheritance in the west.”
Like many you appear to be immersed in binaries and conflations hence you apparently fail to understand “transcendence” perceiving such as tactic emulating perceptions of some engaged in the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The State of Israel”.
Transcendence is a lateral process; a lateral process of metamorphosis.
Consequently some have developed a lessening assay of immersion in linear frames through evaluated practice not restricted to “thought experiments”, whilst understanding the benefits of immersion in linear frames of opponents – a component of the reasons why the benefits of the opponents’ efforts of “dumbing down” do not accrue solely to the opponents.
The usage of “collapse” and “inheritance” are indications of belief in constants and indications of levels of immersion in the opponents’ linear frames conflating moments in a lateral process with the continuing lateral process – other examples include but are not limited to losing/winning and war/peace.
Another of the lateral frames evangelised by the opponents is the majoritarian (sometimes given added “status/veracity” by representation as critical mass) illusion of which the opponents have a lesser assay realising that “We the people hold these truths to be self-evident” can be evagelised but best avoided in practice whilst consistently failing to do so.
Many are immersed in this illusion including those believing that “What is needed is for more people to wake up and simply say “no”.”
Some conflate saying with doing, and in some assay hold saying to be sufficient in itself.
This is a reflection of the opponents’ division of labour of doers and sayers, subjects and objects: all indicators of the levels of contempt that the opponents hold “We the people (who) hold these truths to be self-evident” from which the opponents attempt to differentiate themselves with increasing divergence of expectations and outcomes .
To encourage process including lateral process a flexible perception of purpose is required.
Some have the purpose of encouraging the transcendence of social relations from equal but different where but precludes equal ( social relations of competition where difference is used as a weapon of coercion precluding co-operation ) to equal and different (social relations of cooperation where difference is used to preclude coercion – from each according to her/his abilities to each according to her/his needs ) and question such as:
1. Does a drowning man suit our purpose?
2. If not, how to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback?
The opponents attempt to seek to undermine this with ideological constructs such as “human nature” and increased levels of coercion in various forms all with reducing potency.
“What has been achieved so far in the quest for global conquest has largely been silently acquiesced to by the masses, which is deemed to be consent.”
This is another immersion in the saying/doing and subject/object conflations in addition to reliance on assertion/misrepresentation, and seeking to conflate moments in a lateral process with the continuing lateral process, all in emulation of the opponents’ practices which seek to delay and to deny time.
Coercive social relations require acquiescence which in interaction with experience underme social relations, even through encouraging the use of belief to bridge doubt to attain comfort/confirmation and/or “just say no”ing, facilitating the process of transcendence of coercive social relations by a greater assay of cooperative social relations.
An example of this process could be the transcendence of “The Soviet Union” by the Russian Federation a lateral process which continues, if due regard is given to specific contexts, components, trajectories and velocities.
However opponents seek to deny this including through propagating illusions such as “We won the Cold War (which was never cold and never ended)” and “We destroyed the Soviet Union” which others did not comprehensively challenge at moments in the lateral process since not doing so helped facilitate their purpose accelerated by the aquiescence/complicity through hubris of the opponents – an example of others not being immersed in the can do/must do conflation and why some deliberated on if and why to suggest some opponents for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Consequently for those with flexible purpose and facility cui bono is a question posed by spectators facilitating their continued spectatorship.
All of the hypotheses above are shared and added to the petri dish to afford others opportunities to test these hypotheses if so minded.
Thank you for your contribution to the petri dish.
I think you will find your concept of transcending beyond the current control mechanisms in society will be beyond most peoples capabilities. Just saying “no” not so much. It would not be overly difficult to say “no I will not watch the garbage on television”, “no I will not go into debt to buy that widget”, “no I will not go into debt to go on holiday”, “no I do not support your political policy”, “no, I do not accept that I have to accept your lifestyle choices” etc. The way to defeat “coercive social relations” is not to acquiesce to them, but to say “no”, even if it brings you discomfort. Imagine if everyone in Britain had said “no” we will not fight against Germany in 1914, instead they fell for over a decades worth of propaganda in the press, popular novels, sermons from the pulpit and music halls which had softened them up.
I think you’ll also find that if you talk over the top of peoples heads using overly complicated language and concepts that your ideas, no matter how good or relevant they might be will not penetrate further than yourself. I’d be surprised if many people read, let alone comprehend your posts! Therefore the time and thought you put into them are wasted.
Over analysis = paralysis, simple actions can achieve results.
“Tiu
March 12, 2019 at 4:39 pm
I think you..”
Thank you for your illustration of the I think/I believe conflation and acknowledgement of failure to “understand” the “concept” which you apparently believe you are responding to, which like the opponents you may seek to assign to/blame others in emulation of the opponents’ “plans” with inbuilt preparations to facilitate deflection in the expectation of outcomes.
“will not penetrate further than yourself.”
Broadcasts are made on transmission as do penetrations.
The beliefs and prejudgements sometimes rendered as “I can’t imagine” or “I don’t believe” have utility enhanced by immersion in conflation/projection of purpose.
During the Cultural Revolution in China attainment level/immersion in Marxist/Leninist/Maoist thought was held to be sufficient “qualification” to perform surgery.
The outcomes were predicable and achieved – many patients died – since some of “We the people held (believed) these truths to be self-evident” and some could not imagine/achieve any alternatives.
The opponents consistently rely on belief to bridge doubt to attain certainty/confirmation facilitating doubling down with predictable outcomes.
Hence
“All of the hypotheses above are shared and added to the petri dish to afford others opportunities to test these hypotheses if so minded.”
Whether they are minded or not minded merely facilitates different opportunities for those not immersed in categorical imperatives.
Perhaps Mr. Orlov’s contribution to the petri dish will be of some use, although understandably it is flawed partly as functions of perspective and facility in testing.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51271.htm
“I think you will find your concept of transcending beyond the current control mechanisms in society will be beyond most peoples capabilities.”
Like the opponents you seek to deny time.
Enjoy your journey.
Tiu-
He isn’t talking “over the top of” anybody’s head. He is engaging in sophistry. He purposely clouds the issue in an attempt to sound “intellectual”.
Reminds me of an old saying, “If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle e’m with bullshit.”
“T he situation in Canada and Australia now is virtually
identical.”
…….
“OlyaPola
March 9, 2019 at 7:26 am (EST)
“T here is a global Zionist campaign to criminalise
any and all criticism of Israel, however moderately
expressed.”
Quite so and perhaps it would benefit from a wider
application of why, why now and why in these forms
tests as well as a lateral plotting of interactive
trajectories to illuminate opportunities of
transcendence afforded by the opponents.
………….. to
“As Mr. Stalin was reported to quip to Mr.
Kaganovich – “T he Bolsheviks learned to talk; I
learned to listen”.
Among the opportunities of the can do/must do conflation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUEALTJvy8
Among the opportunities of the opponents’ can do/must do conflation.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuelan-civilian-military-union/5670890
Such are among the lateral processes of what you see is what you get mutating into what you get is what you don’t see.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/11/will-trump-hawks-dare-to-risk-israel.html
Hear, hear and good to hear somebody Tell the Truth (and Shame those who adhere to this dark, shadowy, racist side of playing victim while bullying anybody who speaks the obvious meannessof the fascist regime in Israel). This has nothing to do with religion or race really, nor with Jewish, Hindus, Catholics etc. It is about a dominating, bullying, judgmental group of people who wish to oppress and refrain from any self-reflection. Israeli hostorians with any ability to look at the shadowside are hardly read or they would know their own history . Who reads their own prof.Shlomo Sand?
It is time that this whole slur of the word “antisemitism” is seen for what it is: hogwash.
One people oppresses another one and does so with impunity for 7 decades: never mind clever slurs or abuse of guilt feelings in order to score points. See it for what it is: oppression and cruelty of the worst kind.
It is clear that for some Zionists and their allies, anyone who dares to point out the genocidal behavior of some Israelis is to be smeared as an anti-Semite. This is so patently false that one has to ask how it gets any traction at all. That many of the Zionists both within and outside Israel are racists of the most blatant sort towards their Palestinian victims is equally obvious. How is it that so many in America and Great Britain go along with this blatant con job? Could it be the false racist “Christianity” they follow predisposes them to believe these snakes in the “Holy Land”?
Christian and Jewish racists, hand in hand – both exulting in their racial and religious superiority.
Just like in the case of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar where the ‘Jewish Voices for Peace’ came out by defending the battered Congresswoman with their support for her, it is a good thing to hear that Jewish supporters in Britain came out in defense of Jeremy Corbyn. These are the voices that need to be heard. These Jewish people of conscience are what’s needed to bat down the awful Rightwing Zionist inspired idiots who lie a tale of discontent to blind the world of their crimes. This does include the shy of a brick Rightwing Christian Zionist as well, for they are even more supportive of the Greater Israel Project than most Jews. Just like Neo-Nazi’s who side with this Rightwing Israeli regime in the Ukraine the Christian Zionist sides with the Jewish on countless levels that is only until Jesus returns and at that moment of the Rapture if their ally Jew doesn’t convert to Christianity well then it’s death to the Jew (this isn’t Jesus’s rule this is more like the rantings of Rev Hagee or some other Rightwing preacher goofs insane spin)… what an alliance. Taking all of this insanity into consideration I can only say to the Jewish who do speak out against this curtain Israel nightmare that it is long over due that the Jew’s for Peace run the show. (Please read Hannah Arendt for guidance)
Corbyn like Omar needs to be commended and, encouraged to continue on with their selflessly working to reveal the truth. I once along time ago before the internet believed the propaganda coming out of Israel. I was in the US Navy (68-72) and never heard a word about the USS Liberty. I remember reading a comment on Huffington where a reader wrote all about all of those UN USA Veto’s shielding Israel from any consequence of their racist reality. Little by little I read to where I found the once highly regarded Israel to be a despicable territory of the worst kind and, my respect for that Balfour slight of hand was loss forever. So I do applaud the Jewish Voices for Peace and any other Jewish congregation that weds themselfs to such advocacy.
May the Jewish and Palestinian along with any others of Palestine/Israel find their way to live inside of a 1 nation democracy for all. A land where the flowing milk and honey may be enjoyed by all. Peace!
The Tony Blair triangulators want to take back control for neoliberal economics and hawkish foreign policy. That is their problem with Corbyn, and the rest is excuses. In fact, it is using a much-overused excuse that would be transparent even to them if they were interested in looking at it; but they just want power.
This constant refrain at any suggestion that Israel may not be an angel, or that any bankster eg Jamie Dimon is only criticised because he is a Jew, not a felon who has got away with vast billions of other people’s money,or that Israel deserves to be unfairly coddled by the USA (Ilhan Omar spoke of allegiance to a foreign land, obviously true), or Macron in France finding an easy way to demonize working people marching for their rights, show how easy it is to pretend victimhood when the whole point of the accusation is to keep the voices quiet so that the unfair position of power of Zionism in Western societies is not publicised or well known.
“The unfair position of power” or any grouping can easily be determined, I think, by looking at numbers. Representation of a specific group (Jews for example) in this or that field should refect random dispersion and not be much greater or less than other groups in a similar (religious in this instance) category, provided the field isn’t something specific to the over-represented group.
I won’t be voting Labour in the next general election, I won’t be voting Conservative or Liberal either. Having war criminals in their ranks, having “friends of Israel” in their ranks or contributing to the drive towards WW3 against Russia and/or China definitely rules out any support from me. Sadly, Caroline Lucas has also ruled out the Green party with her support for the anti-Russian bullshit, so I’m fast running out of people to vote for.
Mark, your not voting is not a waste. Your voting all these years was a waste of precious time that could have been spent seeking to overthrow the phony system, which has voting as one of it’s games to con the people and make them imagine that they are free, and freely choosing the awful leaders and policies being imposed on them.
Actually I’ve been voting Green since the time Blair took over the Labour party, which I don’t feel was entirely a waste. In general though I’m tending to agree with your point of view these days. Democracy needs a truthfully informed and well educated public in order to function properly and we have neither of those things anymore.
“Democracy needs a truthfully informed and well educated public in order to function properly and we have neither of those things anymore.”
“Representative democracy” needs the acquiesce of others, part of whom may be and wish to continue to choose to be ill informed and ill educated, with a level of aversion to doubt facilitating a reliance on belief.
“Some practices are akin to drug addiction requiring increasing dosage to “achieve” the high whilst undermining the body – examples include but are not restricted to “sanctioning” or “name calling” or “words mean what I mean them to mean-ness”.”
However experience can be a catalyst of change if the can do/must do conflation is avoided thereby accelerating the over-reach of opponents’ efforts in evangelism through various means including “regime change”.
Once again you leave me somewhat mystified. The first part of your post could be read purely as nitpicking and maybe the rest as stuff, unrelated to anything that I said, that you had forgotten to say elsewhere but thought you would include anyway. I have several theories regarding you, your penchant for highly abstracted language and your apparently directionless and opaque word salad :-
1) You might be a prankster seeing just how long you can get by on plausible and agreeable sounding pretentious jargon before someone calls bullshit.
2) You could be a highly intelligent person with some sort of disorder which blinds you to the fact that in order to communicate with a purpose, you have to ensure that your communication is intelligible and that it must be clear what your points are.
3) Someone is testing an AI and using this website as a test site. Frankly there are times when you would not pass the Turing test.
If you are a real person and honestly trying to communicate, with a purpose and with points to make, please try to speak more plainly.
Re MarkU
March 10, 2019 at 8:15 pm
“Once again you leave me somewhat mystified.”
Thank you for your continued illustration of what you see is what you getism facilitating that what you get is what you don’t see, all as functions of framing in emulation of the opponents’ resort to bridge doubt by belief to attain confirmation, fashioning belief through assigning agency (blame) to others or to constructs such as “unexpected consequences”, “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and encouraging “doubling down”.
I’d suggest looking at political organisations that are focused on Britain, and British people. I do know many of them get bad press, but when you consider who owns the press that should dis-spell most of their aspersions. The “Greens” are way too globalist to be a safe option for any country (not to mention that they promote dodgy science like “global warming” and never seem to say anything about geo-engineering.)
Most “democracies” could do with sweeping out the tired-out nags used in the two-horse race. Something radical might just be what is needed, as long as they democratic and don’t seize power and make themselves president-for-life type dictators!
“I’d suggest looking at political organisations that are focused on Britain, and British people.”
Some do not assign the significance to others that others seek to assign to themselves, and restriction of focus facilitates restriction of opportunity as even the Road Runner cartoons suggest.
Euclid understandably was mistaken, the shortest distance is not a straight line since distance is a function of time.
Enjoy your journey.
No OlyaPola, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Any difference in time is purely down to velocity. Euclid lives on, OlyaPola drowns in a cacophony of pointless, irrelevant twaddle.
Re “Tiu
March 14, 2019 at 2:17 am
No OlyaPola, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Any difference in time is purely down to velocity.”
Velocity is a function of time and of distance.
“Euclid lives on”
Euclid does live on in ideological half-life of some but not everywhere thereby facilitating divergence in ballistics including trajectories rendering some subject to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and resort to belief to bridge doubt to attain confirmation such as:
“OlyaPola drowns in a cacophony of pointless, irrelevant twaddle.”
Thank you for your contribution to the petri-dish.
“Something radical might just be what is needed”
“No OlyaPola, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Any difference in time is purely down to velocity.”
“Velocity is a function of time and of distance.”
In illustration of how expanding perspective aids perception, facilitated without focused encouragement of opponents by opponents’ energy for those not blinded by “Euclydian geometry/telemetry”.
https://therealnews.com/stories/class-struggle-over-brexit-lapavitsas-and-jay
Perhaps the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes are functions of the Ides of March?
I’m in exactly the same position as you. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for any of that scum now.
Corbyn would be worthy of your support, I believe. This fake attack on him is an effort to kill two birds with one stone. To get rid of him as a contender for Prime Minister and take down reasonable points of view about Israel and Palestine.
You reside within a tiny minority of impractical but principled persons, which I support. Tangentially, I have always found it desirable, in important ways, to be poor and independent. That way, you can more easily be who you choose to be.
As shown in this article, one aspect of Israel’s long-term punishment of Gaza receives almost no mainstream media coverage:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/punishing-gaza-economic-repercussions.html
Thanks to years of punishment by the Israeli government, Gaza’s economy is under significant threat, an issue that will only further enrage Palestinians.
Hmmm
The implication that “Gaza” which is nothing more than a Prison Camp by every conceivable definition of the word has an “economy” in the traditional sense of the word isn’t just doing the long suffering prisoners of the Gaza Prison a gross injustice, it is patently false. Israel destroyed any chance for the prisoners to even sustain long term life in Gaza many years ago when the IDF instituted a systematic attack on the food and water supplies by poisoning the wells and irradiating the crops and fields with nuclear and biological waste, denying outside food, medicine and basic building materials needed to rebuild the thousands of destroyed buildings in the Prison camp that have resulted from literally weekly bombardment for more than a decade by israel. The victims of israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Gaza Prison camp are slowly but surely being exterminated. In this regard, Hitler had nothing over Benny NutenYahoo and his predecessors in term their crimes and pure evil.
There are always powerful forces manipulating the public mind. As many ‘leaders’ have shown this is not hard to do.
Here is a good video on how a few powerful British men caused about 20 million deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclAbWvBt70&feature=youtu.be
The Church of England deserves much of the blame for manipulating the public mind. Before Henry VIII the average Briton, in “merry England” as it was called, worked 14 weeks of the year which provided enough to live a good life, and on top of that in their leisure time they would donate their services to build many of the massive cathedrals and other public works of that era.
Cromwell and his “Puritans” are also worth a closer look. There’s not that much that is “pure” about them. They opened the door to the modern financial system – Cromwell was financed by Jewish traders in Holland and Germany – which was legalised by William of Orange – an import also from Holland. Since his time Britain’s war related debt has only grown bigger, and bigger and bigger. The whole system is rotten to the core which is why it produced people like Churchill, Asquith, Milner, and the seemingly endless list of others of their ilk. I prefer short comments so I won’t go on and on, although it is tempting. Read history books. Get rid of the television, it’ll give you more time to read and open your mind… and do other stuff too!
Antisemitism is hating someone because they are Jewish although, please note that both the Palestinians and the Jews are Semites. It is not antisemitism to hate someone for cause. Unfortunately, the Jews of Israel have given a lot of people a lot of good reasons to hate them. Calling people you’ve just screwed over antisemites (especially when your victims are Semitic) doesn’t cut it.
Yes, that is the real irony. The Zionists are the ones who are anti-semitic, as the Palestinians are a semitic people. They twist the meaning of the word to suit their nefarious purposes.
RE: Jeff Harrison
Thank you for pointing out that Palestinians are Semites. Jewish people have monopolized Semitism as solely their own because Hebrew is (but one) a Semitic language and it provides the perfect cover to guard against and eliminate any form of criticism against the zionist agenda. Don’t you dare speak out against the colonial settlers in Palestine and their grand design for occupation of the land between the Nile and Euphrates, and eliminating any who are not white European Jews in their racist, supremacist path. The perpetual innocent victim card will be played along with the anti Semite card to silence any possible dissent from the imperial colonial settler project. Zionism is racism and supremacism, but that has been turned into illegal anti Semitism to protect the zionist racist supremacist agenda established in the late 1800s evolving into the global scheme it has now become.
However, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, etc etc., not simply Hebrew, which was virtually extinct until revived in the 1920s and 1930s to assist the zionist agenda with its goal of occupying the land between the Nile and Euphrates for white European Jews only, are Semitic languages. Since the Arabs are Semitic and suffer genocide in Palestine, Golan in Syria, parts of Lebanon, the anti Semites are the zionists. There is no more anti Semitic place I can think of than “the shitty little apartheid state”.
Of course, now I’m an anti Semite for clarying that Noah’s (the ark) middle son Shem is the father of the Semites who spoke numerous languages throughout MENA and Hebrew was one small sect of the larger group of Shemitic peoples. Truly a global ruse ( like your zionist owned central banks). Twisted.
I’m not sure about your definition Jeff. Similar to prejudice as opposed to discrmination, What you do is what the law should be concerned with and not so much what you think and feel. And using the ‘word’ hate is problematic. Hate crimes, for example, are such a bad idea, in my view. They will be, and have been, used by bad people to go after good people. We don’t need thought police. Also, Hate is morally neutral. What can one do about how one feels? (Similarly, I like vanilla. I don’t choose to.) Maybe my hatred for good people needs to be examined, but that’s because those are good people and it shouldn’t be that I hate them. But what I do is the crucial element. I hate all organized religion, but I am anti none. I don’t actively, improperly, work against organized religion, even though I have no problem with explaining why I hate organized religion and recognize that if my arguments in that regard happen to influence religionists to drop their church (or whatever), I could be viewed as anti this or that religion. Regardless, I don’t want my government favoring (for example), in law, my religion or any. And that’s not just because I know that I could be on the receiving end of discrimination that makes you second class or invisible. It just wouldn’t be right. We must not treat each other that way. Let God judge us for our attitude toward him and toward each other. Only he can so so properly.
The deep state, White hall, the Conservatives and big business dread the thought that Corbyn might actually win an election. The Jewish rubbish is just a big stick that they have invented to beat Corbyn with. If it wasn’t the anti Semite drivel it would be something else. Usually its ‘re-nationalization, but this old chestnut has become rather popular with the public of late. Corbyn is really is between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, the media and the Tories will milk the Anti Semite farce for all its worth, but Corbyn has a sizable very nasty gang of traitors in his own party. Long before the non existent anti Semite nonsense, members of his own party were sniping at him and were incensed when he actually won the Labour leader contest and increased his vote by quite a large margin.
Hopefully, as the history repeats, this “big stick” will be recognized as a big shtick.
Labour does not have an anti-semitism problem. It has the problem of having been thoroughly penetrated by agents of a foreign government. And I don’t see how that Party works its way out of that mess without calling out those agents as agents of a foreign power.
“this “big stick” will be recognized as a big shtick.”
When lying on your stomach even a dog can seem tall.
Its a question of perception based upon perspective facilitating “little shtick” as a function of limited facility in stand-upness.
This also applies to other opponents in many areas including but not restricted to “nuclear weapons” as you may have perceived.