Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Chin
Labour & Anti-Semitism.
- Thread starter cantsin
- Start date
Chin
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
So this ‘fuckton of self hating jew comments’...?
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
I take your point and I don’t know the extent or depth.
Treacle Toes
Time
oryx It's a childish way of calling me a liar.
I don't care. 
The allegations I referred to were all over social media at the time. Yes, there was a fuckton of abuse levelled at JW and yes it did come in all of the forms I listed in my post above. Even a quick google brings up loads of stuff and first hand reports about what happened at the training session for example and how horribly it was manipulated into something to attack JW with.
Of of all the things in my post that was the only thing questioned and responded to in such a snidey, childish way? Meh.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
oryx It's a childish way of calling me a liar.
The allegations I referred to were all over social media at the time. Yes, there was a fuckton of abuse levelled at JW and yes it did come in all of the forms I listed in my post above. Even a quick google brings up loads of stuff and first hand reports about what happened at the training session for example and how horribly it was manipulated into something to attack JW with.
Of of all the things in my post that was the only thing questioned and responded to in such a snidey, childish way? Meh.
Pretty much everything in your post is shite. Happy to expand when I have the time.
This ‘fuckton of ‘self hating jew’ comments’ though. Can you cite where she was called a ‘self hating jew’?
Oh and walker isn’t Jewish in a hakachic sense, nor is a practicing Jew, and I’m not aware of her even referencing her Jewishness until fairly recently. Not that I’m fussed in and and itself, but if she’s going to go jew-face for the purpose of gaslightinging those who complain about antisemitism (sadly she’s not the first) then she can’t expect people not to question (snidely or otherwise) her ‘Jewish identity’
Last edited:
Riklet
procrastinación
She might have just got away with it if she had shown any understanding of the political damage of her various repeatedly offensive comments. Or apologised at all. Or not turned the whole thing into me me me. Or not created that documentary Witchhunt which explains it all as an attack against those who defend the Palestinians in the Labour Party (clearly not true).
Personally I don't think people should 'not be allowed to say' what she's said, but she's not an average person in an average position, she was high up in the party and more subject to to scrutiny requiring the setting of a good example at very least.
It's a shame Labour didnt sort this mess out properly and with some political education 3 years ago too, because plenty on the left, who define themselves by being anti this and that with endless whataboutery still just don't get it.
Personally I don't think people should 'not be allowed to say' what she's said, but she's not an average person in an average position, she was high up in the party and more subject to to scrutiny requiring the setting of a good example at very least.
It's a shame Labour didnt sort this mess out properly and with some political education 3 years ago too, because plenty on the left, who define themselves by being anti this and that with endless whataboutery still just don't get it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Maybe this is a sign that the party has finally decided that these people are never going to 'get it' and simply moving them on is the better bet, even in the short term.
Riklet
procrastinación
What's your take on why they are never going to get it? How did things get like this? I'm interested in your take on it because tbh I only started following it all relatively recently.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's a big big question that i'll have to come back to in more detail later, but i think for a lot them it's to do with not having the disciplining effect of a labour movement with deep functional roots in communities any more (though i note walker has been in the party since '81 - maybe a telling year on reflection). A sort of secondary social alienation after the first one that warps often well meaning other-people directed instincts into this hateful shit.
Last night at Sheffield CLP, a motion of solidarity with Jewish Labour Party members/community, saw an amendent which stated 'all members of the party, not just Jewish members'*, with proposers claiming they were under attack for supporting Palestine and it was making them feel uncomfortable in the party, then others going on about Palestine, which had nothing to do with the motion, it failed but only by a handful of votes, many of the endorsers were PSC members. Main motion then went through unanimous, following on from Hallam's(one the weathiest constituencies) near unanimous vote in support of Chris Williamson, not looking too good in Sheff.
ska invita
back on the other side
Interesting post on Facebook from a friend.
People who have read my postings regularly will know that I am not a big fan of Ken Livingstone, for all sorts of reasons. I'll happily send anyone who wants it a copy of a long posting I wrote about him. I was not exactly weeping and wailing when he resigned from the Labour Party. Clear?
So that is the background to this comment on the Jewish Chronicle. If you Google "Jewish Chronicle Ken Livingstone" you will find the top two Jewish Chronicle links having been first posted eight hours ago. They lead to to the same article in the JC, the first says "Ken Livingstone says it's not antisemitic to hate the Jews of Israel..." while the second says "Ken Livinstone calls Labour anti-semitism allegations 'lies and..."
[**Sure enough....]
Jewish Chronicle Ken Livingstone - Google Search
So why would the JC post two article headings around the same time leading to the same article?
There's a link in the JC article to something in the Mail on Sunday which says "Former Mayor of London added: ‘It’s not anti-Semitic to hate the Jews of Israel.'"
Well in a sense he did as he was recorded at a meeting actually saying, describing quotes ascribed to him, "And it wasn’t just that, soon you could see it all over on the internet that I said, ‘Jews are like Nazis’ and ‘It’s not anti-Semitic to hate the Jews of Israel.’" Livingstone's prediction came truer than he thought, thanks to the Mail on Sunday and the Jewish Chronicle.
The Jerusalem Post - not exactly the most left wing of papers - has just posted "The Daily Mail originally reported that Livingstone said during his speech that “‘It’s not antisemitic to hate the Jews of Israel,” but the comment was taken out of context, and Livingstone was in fact quoting what he had been accused of saying."
The Mail was not quoting Livingstone out of context. It was deliberately *creating* a context to falsely show Livingstone making a clearly antisemitic statement when he had not. The verbatim report of what he actually said is easy to find, I found it in seconds. Unless of course their reporters are just completely inadequate at their job.
The Mail has not corrected the quote, whereas the JC has simply deleted their heading within the article, reposting as shown, but Google is smarter than them and screenshots exist of their first article even when things are taken down. It's not just the continuing link to a falsehood not yet deleted, the JC created a falsehood and then try to pretend it did not happen. Unless of course their reporters are just completely inadequate at their job. Who else would take anything the Mail said at face value without checking?
The question is, was the editor of the JC disgusted by that first report of what Livingstone did not actually say, or so pleased to find another example of "left wing" antisemitism that judgement went out the window?
I also want to make it clear (forgive me using a Maybot term) that I do believe there is a level of antisemitism on the left, more than I originally thought, and, yes, I have seen examples of it. But this action of the Jewish Chronicle and the Mail on Sunday - creating an example of antisemitism - is as awful as antisemitism itself.
People who have read my postings regularly will know that I am not a big fan of Ken Livingstone, for all sorts of reasons. I'll happily send anyone who wants it a copy of a long posting I wrote about him. I was not exactly weeping and wailing when he resigned from the Labour Party. Clear?
So that is the background to this comment on the Jewish Chronicle. If you Google "Jewish Chronicle Ken Livingstone" you will find the top two Jewish Chronicle links having been first posted eight hours ago. They lead to to the same article in the JC, the first says "Ken Livingstone says it's not antisemitic to hate the Jews of Israel..." while the second says "Ken Livinstone calls Labour anti-semitism allegations 'lies and..."
[**Sure enough....]
Jewish Chronicle Ken Livingstone - Google Search
So why would the JC post two article headings around the same time leading to the same article?
There's a link in the JC article to something in the Mail on Sunday which says "Former Mayor of London added: ‘It’s not anti-Semitic to hate the Jews of Israel.'"
Well in a sense he did as he was recorded at a meeting actually saying, describing quotes ascribed to him, "And it wasn’t just that, soon you could see it all over on the internet that I said, ‘Jews are like Nazis’ and ‘It’s not anti-Semitic to hate the Jews of Israel.’" Livingstone's prediction came truer than he thought, thanks to the Mail on Sunday and the Jewish Chronicle.
The Jerusalem Post - not exactly the most left wing of papers - has just posted "The Daily Mail originally reported that Livingstone said during his speech that “‘It’s not antisemitic to hate the Jews of Israel,” but the comment was taken out of context, and Livingstone was in fact quoting what he had been accused of saying."
The Mail was not quoting Livingstone out of context. It was deliberately *creating* a context to falsely show Livingstone making a clearly antisemitic statement when he had not. The verbatim report of what he actually said is easy to find, I found it in seconds. Unless of course their reporters are just completely inadequate at their job.
The Mail has not corrected the quote, whereas the JC has simply deleted their heading within the article, reposting as shown, but Google is smarter than them and screenshots exist of their first article even when things are taken down. It's not just the continuing link to a falsehood not yet deleted, the JC created a falsehood and then try to pretend it did not happen. Unless of course their reporters are just completely inadequate at their job. Who else would take anything the Mail said at face value without checking?
The question is, was the editor of the JC disgusted by that first report of what Livingstone did not actually say, or so pleased to find another example of "left wing" antisemitism that judgement went out the window?
I also want to make it clear (forgive me using a Maybot term) that I do believe there is a level of antisemitism on the left, more than I originally thought, and, yes, I have seen examples of it. But this action of the Jewish Chronicle and the Mail on Sunday - creating an example of antisemitism - is as awful as antisemitism itself.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
I see Corbyn’s support for Salah (the hate-preacher, not the footballer) is in the news again.
Damn smears eh
Damn smears eh
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Myself, I blame the Jews 
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Fucking hell that Twitter is full of it. Approvingly re-Tweeting Syria conspiracies as well I note.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Winstanley was posting Syria loon shit on electronic intifada since the start nearly. His/their lies had a real effect.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
By their friend's shall ye know them.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Yes that article clearly uses an anti semitic trope. But MIB, did you really have to put that horrible anti semitic image in your post?
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Yes. Because it’s horrible. We should look at it. Isn’t that the point of being a revolutionary - we look at horrible stuff.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
No. We fight against horrible stuff.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I don't think 99% of the population would see any connection between the well known phrase and a century old bit of propaganda that is barely taught. I suspect most people would connect the phrase more with Caesar.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Yes, 99% of the population may well see it that way, but do you think the Labour Representation Committee are ignorant of the stab in the back myth? It's kind of up there with "cultural Marxism".
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
By looking away from it?
There’s a lot of horrible stuff that revolutionaries don’t fight against. It also tends to be the stuff they don’t want to look at.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Quite. It’s a dog whistle for scum.
Similar threads
