- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3115 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1331 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 80531
I think it's time for a new Corbyn thread.
The previous thread (>>73072) is reaching critical mass. In combination with the original thread (>>64990) we've had over 4,700 posts on Dear Leader since August last year. That's a lot of shitposting. Keep up the good work, lads.
|>>|| No. 84311
In 1984 the police moved to get rid of a non-stop picket outside of the South African embassy organised by the Anti-Apartheid Movement ahead of the visit by Botha.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement decided to challenge this in the courts. The City of London branch of AAM, which had a reputation for infantile stunts and nasty behaviour that ultimately led them to be expelled from the organisation, decided to demonstrate outside of the embassy whilst the challenge was going through the courts. The AAM made clear to the City of London branch that they didn't want the demo to go ahead, especially as it could undermine the court case, but they went and did it anyway.
The City of London branch at the time was largely populated by the Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein financed Workers Revolutionary Party, later exposed as a cult and of spying on people on behalf of the aforementioned dictators, and the Revolutionary Communist Group who had a penchant for the PAC phrase of "one settler, one bullet".
There you have Jeremy Corbyn in a nutshell. Associating with people with dubious reputations and being more interested in rabble rousing protests than being pragmatic and trying to get things resolved. Judging by his behaviour as leader, giving the impression that he wants to be the party of permanent protest rather than the party of government, he hasn't moved on from his level of sixth form student politics.
|>>|| No. 84313
Actually somewhat impressive that you wrote that much without ever coming close to stating a fact.
For one thing, the non-stop picket didn't start until 1986. The picket ahead of Botha's visit was a different matter, and happened prior to City Group's affiliation with the national Anti-apartheid movement ended (which happened because they staged events outside the boundaries of the city of London).
Also, there was no challenge going through the courts. The national AAM agreed with the police on a ban on protesting outside the embassy in order to avoid confrontation, and they did so without being compelled by legal action. City Group defied the example of the national AAM, staged a picket and had dozens of demonstrators arrested. It was only after one of the City group arrestees (Richard Roques) went to court as a test case that the ban was found to be illegal.
|>>|| No. 84314
new Labour was terrible. not for any of your normal boring policy reasons or because of this or that stupid war or failure to nationalise the trains, you wanna know why it was terrible? because it's an inferior tribute act to Australian Labor in the 80s. We even copy-and-pasted the Kirribilli agreement into the Granita pact. Except while Tony Blair was weird, mildly unsettling and had a spectacular fall from grace, Bob Hawke was actually a cool real person and people still like him, and while Brown was a complete liability Paul Keating went on to deliver A VICTORY FOR THE TRUE BELIEVERS. Once you actually know this story, all the pretence about doing something new, modern and world-leading goes out the window. We didn't produce a third way or any of the nonsense synthesis of rights and responsibilities New Labour tediously tried to signal they were doing. We produced a massively inferior counterfeit of a product from an ex-colony that still exports things they've dug up out of the ground.
>Now what could it be about Israel that sets it apart for particular vitriol?
You're hinting it's the Jew thing, which misses what it really is.
There was a wonderful article somewhere - I'm too lazy to find it since it's probably long gone - which went on about this. The thing is, Israel isn't important in itself but Israel is tied to everything else. Back the unification of Ireland? You're also pro-palestine. Ulster Unionist? You'll also be flying an Israeli flag then. Blairite? Well, naturally you'll be on Israel's side too. Celtic football club supporter? Palestine. Pepsi? Israel. Cola? Palestine. everything.
It's all heuristic politics. Theoretically there's no reason you couldn't think the Iraq War was legal and good while also being a communist, but if you start defending the Iraq war the immediate - and generally accurate assumption - is that you're of a Blair-y-Cameron-y persuasion. Israel is just the contentious centre point for this. (You could even go further - pro-Iraq war? Israel. Anti? Palestine.) Even if you don't hold these views, why would you make a fuss? If I can get people to back my economic policies by ranting about a land dispute a thousand miles away, why wouldn't I do it?
Every party also has a "Friends of Israel" group. You can easily run this the other way and go "Isn't it suspicious there are so many pro-Israel organisations? HMM almost like they DO have unreasonable influence." (And yeah, that's also bad optics, and yeah, that's also tied into heuristic nonsense. Basically it's a worse hill to die on than the Golan Heights)
>Workers Revolutionary Party, later exposed as a cult and of spying on people on behalf of the aforementioned dictators
hahaha, imagine taking a bunch of trotskyist actors LARPing seriously.
>he hasn't moved on from his level of sixth form student politics.
And you'll be a well adjusted bloke who's moved on from 1997, right?
|>>|| No. 84315
> And you'll be a well adjusted bloke who's moved on from 1997, right?
Not him but Blair is my fucking Nixon and I won't sleep until I see the cunt's corpse burnt in a fucking skip.
|>>|| No. 84316
Weird hypocrisy to say speculating about Israel's influence is "bad optics" immediately after an extended essay on how literally every political issue is related to it in some way? What, climate change? Pinochet? The Common Agricultural Policy? The Vietnam War? Transgender rights?
|>>|| No. 84317
None of those issues are actually related. It's just a quick and easy way of getting into a scrap. More likely than Mossad going out and paying people to associate Israel with a chronic inability to realise the 1990s have ended, the connection has evolved organically as people (a) project their own situation onto a foreign conflict, (b) make alliances of convenience, (c) try to attract a wider audience, and so on.
Alright, you've got me. (Although on methods of control, Israel = Market Solutions, Palestine = Ban things.)
Vague apologia oh arresting him is just left revenge fantasy wasn't Allende a bugger: Israel
Under no circumstnaces should he ever have existed Allende should've gone full tankie: Palestine
>The Common Agricultural Policy?
1970s-Early 1980s: Anti = Palestine, Pro = Israel
Now: lol who still talks about the CAP oh no where did all the farms go
>The Vietnam War?
Irrelevant bringing up of haha america got beat: Palestine
tactfully avoiding occasionally TERF-y: Israel
|>>|| No. 84318
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here; you seem to be bringing up the differing opinions of people who live in Israel and Palestine and their supporters, and then concluding that means everything comes back to Israel-Palestine. Isn't it more likely that these are divisions roughly along, oh I don't know, left and right-wing lines?
|>>|| No. 84319
It seems even trying to skirt the issue, Israel/Palestine remains a hill we're obligated to die on.
My conclusion is that because Israel-Palestine is a shibboleth for so many other positions, Israel receives a disproportionate amount of vitriol (And apologia!)
>left and right-wing lines?
Not quite so neatly. Support for Israel is often a boring centrist/"establishment" position. (And perhaps historically, around oil-crisis-y times, pretending to support the Arabs likewise.)
|>>|| No. 84323
Was looking for a definition rather than a video of some teenlad mocking people funnier than him for five minutes.
|>>|| No. 84385
Why is it anti-semetic to compare Israeli policies on Palestinians as similar to those done by the Nazis?
|>>|| No. 84386
>British author Howard Jacobson has suggested that comparisons between conditions faced by Palestinians and those of the Warsaw Ghetto are intended "to wound Jews in their recent and most anguished history and to punish them with their own grief" and are a form of Holocaust denial which accepts the reality of Jewish suffering but accuses Jews "of trying to profit from it". "It is as though," he says, "by a reversal of the usual laws of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming to them yesterday."
Open to debate of course. Not all Jews agree with this.
|>>|| No. 84387
Screenshot_2018-08-01 Gideon Falter ( GideonFalter.png
It's alright, definitely no political bias here, and don't forget any Jews who disagree with this lad aren't really Jews, they're "fringe Jews".
The right wing is killing Corbyn's Labour party for purely political means because they deem his policies unacceptable, and it's nothing to do with the bossman being an "existential threat to Jews". Wall to wall half-truths have completely muddied the waters and now there's carte blanche to call the Labour party anti-semetic.
I'm not voting, ever again, there's no point, the moment a genuine opposition party emerges they're crushed, wholesale, by the media and right wing agitators.
|>>|| No. 84388
It isn't - but conflating the actions of a state with all jewish people is. It isn't a difficult definition to understand, unless you mean to.
|>>|| No. 84389
Well what do you know? The whole "the boundaries favour Labour" argument was bollocks after all.
>Recent polls put both Labour and the Conservatives on 38 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats on 10 per cent. If those numbers were replicated at a general election based on the new constituency boundaries, the Conservatives would gain 285 seats (43 per cent of the total) to Labour’s 245 (38 per cent). The Lib Dems would win 14 seats.
>Without the changes, the same vote shares would give the Tories 21 seats more than Labour, meaning the boundary changes could double the Conservatives’ advantage over their main opponents.
|>>|| No. 84390
>but conflating the actions of a state with all jewish people is
That's not what the definition says, and it's not what the people complained about are doing. Indeed, Corbyn is explicitly not doing this.
|>>|| No. 84468
Will Corbyn actually achieve revolution or will he just refine capitalism with failed Social Democracy like New Labour did?
|>>|| No. 84469
Facts are overrated. It's a fact that after we gave women the vote the global financial crisis struck.
|>>|| No. 84470
That seems like fallacious reasoning. Surely it would be women that are overrated.
|>>|| No. 84477
I like it when someone bumps a thread and someone else ignores their post and decides to try to carry on a week's/month's old argument instead.
|>>|| No. 84486
Who gives a shit at this point? Just get the tories as far away from the controls as possible.
|>>|| No. 84488
If you're piloting a plane with the engines failing, even the most experienced pilot at the rudder can't (and shouldn't) keep it flying.
Similarly, if the goal of the Labour party is to further attempt to prop up and sustain the failed neoliberalist order of the day then it doesn't matter how socialist the leader says he is.
|>>|| No. 84492
Is there just a gene some people have that primes them to find literally any photograph of Ed Miliband hilarious? I know he's just wilfully blinding himself for no good reason, and that's slightly funny, but not like, properly funny, just "heh, dafty" and move on, funny.
|>>|| No. 84494
i sometimes wonder if Miliband could've won if they advertised him as the guy he was, rather than going the kinnock route of going "here we've got a guy who doesn't fit into the mould of a boring statesman in a suit and who cannot be taken seriously if you try to put him in that role... let's make him a boring statesman in a suit, the electorate love those."
you see him on twitter or whatever and he's actually quite funny. if he had teams of advisors writing him jokes and playing off the image of him as Wallace rather than dulling down his every word and making sure they call back to focus groups, it must at the very minimum have been worth a few seats in the marginals.
|>>|| No. 84495
He'd have still lost. He was up against Cameron who was Blair 2.0 and people love that PR style over substance guff; just look at Trudeau or to a lesser extent Obama or Macron.
|>>|| No. 84509
I was asking myself why Labour would be agitating for a General Election but stay silent on possible Brexit alternative strategies outside of the usual waffle.
I figure it's because Jeremy knows that ultimately, the UK will be better off outside the neoliberalist EU but understands that the actual process of Brexiting will cause very bad optics for the government doing it.
But, once we're out we can have a proper socialist order put in place.
|>>|| No. 84511
Yeah, that's kind of my thinking too. I don't reckon he's put this much thought into it, but those who want the "hard Brexit" off a cliff and the schluby second referendum lot both appear to be onboard sinking ships, and I don't think it's doing him too much harm not being tied to either mast.
|>>|| No. 84512
Brexit will happen, which will piss off everyone who didn't want it, but in the same instance it will be a very soft job instead of the HARD BREXIT BURN BRIDGES KILL JUNKER that most of that crowd seem to shout for. Are Jez can turn round after with speil about how those Tory bastards let everyone down, let me fix it!
|>>|| No. 84514
Jeremy Corbyn will trigger Article 49 in his third term.
|>>|| No. 84515
Third term? At the end of which he'll be 85 and the oldest Prime Minister ever?
|>>|| No. 84516
I mean Gladstone got to be 84 and he was living in the age of cholera and pre-anesthetic surgery.
|>>|| No. 84519
It's a shame most British people can probably name more 19th Century American presidents than they can prime ministers.
|>>|| No. 84520
I could probably name Peel, Gladstone, Disraeli, Palmerston and Pitt the Younger off the top of my head. The rest, as far as I can recall, are Duke's, Earl's and Viscount's and are largely remembered by their title.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]