Jeremy Corbyn 'figurehead for anti-semitism'

[Aexodus]

‘It never ends there’ is a fear fallacy

what were the ‘anti-semitic statements’?

Why is whataboutery more important to you?

[Ludicus]

‘It never ends there’ is a fear fallacy

Say that to Martin Niemöller. Many decades ago, his most famous poem "First they came" (reread a previous post) was a well-worn standard in any sort of Jewish education.
In fact, with far right-wing political extremism on the rise in central and eastern Europe, where will it end? a pertinent question.

‘what were the ‘anti-semitic statements’?

Let me see if I've understood you correctly. Here?
Anti-Semitism Watch | Germany's Far-Right Is Changing the Political ...
Read the article. It's quite explicit. "Judensau, hau ab aus Deutschland"

Why is whataboutery more important to you?

I'm listening you. It occured to me Mathews 7:5 , "You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"- what I mean - regarding the far right hysteria on anti-Semitism in Corbyn's Labour, check my previous links.
Thinking about it -whataboutery- sometimes it matters. The white nationalist Trump has suggested Muslim Americans are complicit in terrorist attacks - and even introduced a Muslim ban.
The white nationalist Trump claimed "Islam hates us". The white nationalist Trump poses a threat to the existence of American Muslims.
The white nationalist Orban is poses an existential threat to the Muslims.
I ask you: does Labour/Corbyn pose a threat to the existence of British Jewry?

...
Edit- more "whataboutism",

Sou judeu e brasileiro. E brado ao mundo: Bolsonaro e Netanyahu . Jean Goldenbaum

I’m Jewish and Brazilian. And I shout to the world: Bolsonaro and Netanyahu do not represent me!

...In the country where I live, Germany, the neo-Nazi party (AfD) focuses its hatred on those it regards as its main enemies at the moment, the Muslims.
This is because the immigration of Muslims in Europe has been immense in recent years and thus the old Nazi formula ‘They will destroy our country and steal our place!’ could be triggered again (for more information on this immigration, I suggest this 2016 article of mine).
Combining this with the fact that, thanks to the Holocaust, public opinion today would not accept absolutely any type of open attack against Jews in Germany, AfD adopts this position: pro-Israel and against Muslims. Of course, the fact that Israel is now led by right-wing leaders also works perfectly with this equation.

1. A Message from conscious and good Jews to the Fascists: we do not accept your “friendship” for two reasons: firstly because we know that fascism always walks alongside anti-Semitism. The Fascist hates the Jew in the same way that he hates the Muslim, even though in the present day he opens widely hatred to one and disguise hatred to the other according to his momentary convenience...

Read the full article.

[Prodromos]

Hmmm

https://twitter.com/TheGolem_/status...86725906493440

EXCLUSIVE – In 2011 @JeremyCorbyn spoke at a conference in London where he attacked the BBC, condemned British voters and gave support to the destruction of Israel alongside individuals who have since been kicked out of @UKLabour for antisemitism.

Attending the event were a number of prominent individuals with a less than admirable record on antisemitism. One of those individuals was 'Rabbi' Yisrael Dovid Weiss, an extremist belonging to the ultra-orthodox Neturei Karta sect.

In footage captured by the blogger Richard Millet, during the event Rabbi Weiss went on an extreme anti-Israel rant in which he calls for the “dismantlement” of the state of Israel. Corbyn (head just in view) lends his support for this statement by applauding his outburst:

Weiss is an extremist who in 2006 attended the Iranian organised 'International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust'. Attending the conference were a number of Holocaust deniers. Weiss himself said that "The Zionists use the Holocaust issue to their benefit”.

You may also notice a couple of individuals in the background of Weiss’s rant. One of them is Sameh Habeeb who last year was kicked out of @UKLabour for publishing antisemitic conspiracy theories

Another one of the individuals is Raza Kazim of the Iranian backed Islamic Human Rights Commission, the organisation that arrange the annual hate-filled Al-Quds day that lends support to Hezbollah and the ‘resistance’ against Israel.

[Aexodus]

The Fascist hates the Jew in the same way that he hates the Muslim

Hitler didn’t get that memo

[Prodromos]

Or Mussolini.

Seriously.

The Sword of Islam (Arabic: سيف الإسلام‎, translit. Sayf al-Islām) was a ceremonial melee weapon given in 1937 to Benito Mussolini, who was pronounced as the Protector of Islam (Arabic: حامي الإسلام‎, translit. Hāmī al-Islām).

In 1934, after the creation of Italian Libya, Mussolini adopted a policy for encouraging comparisons with Islam, calling the local population "Italian Muslims of the fourth shore of Italy", building or restoring mosques and Koranic schools, preparing service facilities for the pilgrims going to Mecca and even making a High School of Islamic Culture in Tripoli. Behind the apparent humanitarian intent, fascists and some sectors of the Islamic world were recognizing France and the United Kingdom as common enemies and Mussolini wanted to exploit this to his advantage.[1][2] These common interests were generated from the aversion to the agreements of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, dominated by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, which had neither fully satisfied the requests brought forth by Italy, nor the requests from this part of the Islamic world.[1]

In order to earn the favor of the Arabs and to seal himself the alliance, Mussolini, although a signatory of the Lateran Treaty with the Holy See, decided to have bestowed on him the title of Protector of Islam.[3] According to the interpretation of Mussolini, with the Italian government taking over the place of the Ottomans in Libya, such a title was up to him concerning law since, in some manner, he was heir of the authority of the caliph.[4] On March 20, 1937, in the outskirts of Tripoli, Mussolini received the Sword of Islam from Iusuf Kerisc, a leading Berber supporter of the Italian occupation against the Libyan resistance, during a lavish ceremony. After entering Tripoli among salutes of cannons and at the head of a rank of 2,600 cavalrymen, Mussolini reaffirmed his closeness to the Muslim population, guaranteeing "peace, justice, wellness and respect for the laws of the Prophet."[5]

[I_Damian]

Or Mussolini.

Seriously.

What you just posted is one of the biggest hypocrisies of the modern left. One of the biggest thorns in their side. Hitler and Mussolini weren't right-wing. They were far-left Socialists. Both of them (but especially Hitler) admired Islam. If you compare Communism and Fascism throughout the 1930's and 40's they're basically identical. The only real difference is that one is hyper nationalist, the other is not.

[mongrel]

I wonder if Hitler and Mussolini admired all those British Indian and French North African divisions fighting in the Desert and Italy more than the British did. I don't have to be Basil Liddel-Hart to work that one out.I might add that Hitler was obsessed with modernism, perticular drawing inspiration from America, mass production techniques and racial hygeine/eugenics being the most promenent ideas he grasped . You are clueless about politics that's for sure.

[I_Damian]

and racial hygeine/eugenics being the most promenent ideas he grasped

Fun fact, these racial hygiene and eugenics theories came from the left and were even supported by the British newspaper The Guardian. Gotta hand it to them though, they've done an excellent job of keeping this under wraps and pretending it was someone else.

[mongrel]

Fun fact, these racial hygiene and eugenics theories came from the left and were even supported by the British newspaper The Guardian. Gotta hand it to them though, they've done an excellent job of keeping this under wraps and pretending it was someone else.

No they did not, It was Sir Francis Galton, an upper class anthropologist who suggested eugenics as a way of improving the racial stock . Shamefully it gained widespread support throughout the Western World, until Hitler applied the obvious application of this obscene pseudo-science.

In the UK it was all about selective breeding for positive traits and discouraging poor people from breeding, coz poor people were seen as genetic failures, so didn't have any. The Marie Stopes clinics are a relic of that time.

Mind you Britain had eliminated all of its so-called genetic defectives, we wouldn't have the Muslim Ray Gunz video

When it moved to the States eugenics focused on negative traits, so the disabled were targets, and being racist s so were racial minorities. Thus the disabled , particularly the mentally disabled were forcibly sterilsed as were many black people and strict laws against mixed relationships enforced. It was that latter version that Hitler observed and adopted.

Again you have displayed a remarkable level of political ignorance. When will it end?

[The Gurkhan]

Fun fact, these racial hygiene and eugenics theories came from the left and were even supported by the British newspaper The Guardian. Gotta hand it to them though, they've done an excellent job of keeping this under wraps and pretending it was someone else.

Libwuls are da weal Nazis.

[Aexodus]

Libwuls are da weal Nazis.

No need for mockery. Damian is not incorrect, eugenics is a skeleton that rattles loudest in the Left’s closet.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".

Such thinking was not alien to the great Liberal titan and mastermind of the welfare state, William Beveridge, who argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood". Indeed, a desire to limit the numbers of the inferior was written into modern notions of birth control from the start. That great pioneer of contraception, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – was a hardline eugenicist, determined that the "hordes of defectives" be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit". Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild.

Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That's Untermenschen in German.

I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.

...Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too "drunken and ignorant" to keep its numbers down.

...Except this was no accident. The Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their ilk were not attracted to eugenics because they briefly forgot their leftwing principles. The harder truth is that they were drawn to eugenics for what were then good, leftwing reasons.

They believed in science and progress, and nothing was more cutting edge and modern than social Darwinism. Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best? If the state was going to plan the production of motor cars in the national interest, why should it not do the same for the production of babies? The aim was to do what was best for society, and society would clearly be better off if there were more of the strong to carry fewer of the weak.

What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom, even the most basic freedom of a human being to have a child. The middle class and privileged felt quite ready to remove that right from those they deemed unworthy of it.

The article notes the tendency of progressives to view people as means to implement ideas, rather than ends in themselves. It highlights the complete lack of individuality in socialism, and the problems when you take collectivism to its logical conclusion as the Nazis did.

Anyway, anti-semitism is not the preserve of the far right as people keep trying to say.

Edit: let’s read this together shall we. https://www.newstatesman.com/society...s-disabled#amp

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."

Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".

Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.

None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.

And lastly, an argument that I myself have heard multiple times on this very forum in regards to abortion in defense of pro-choice movements.

During a House of Commons debate on abortion in 1985, an MP asserted that to abort a "handicapped" foetus could save the country £1 million over the course of a lifetime.

[95thrifleman]

It's strange to me that political idealogists are so desperate to score points they are ignoring real issues to blame historical blame tennis.

[Ludicus]

Hitler didn’t get that memo

I stand by what I said. It was a transitory, opportunistic unholy alliance. For Hitler, Arabs were half monkeys, members of an inferior non-Aryan race.
Inversely, that's what's happening today. There is another unholy alliance between the far-right racist governments and the state of Israel. Not with the "filthy"the Jews (see below).
Corbyn, UN and EU they all oppose the continuous occupation of Palestine. A capital sin, according to the Israeli government.
I repeat ad nauseam: the racist, xenophobic far right is the worst enemy of the Jews, and the Jews are learning it the hard way.In some cases, pictures conveys information more effectively than words. For example Fascism is rising in right wing Italy,

"Auschwitz is your country,the ovens are your home"




---
A Roma manifesti antisemiti: "Lazio-Napoli-Israele stessi colori" - DIRE.it

"Lazio, Napoli and Israel, same colors, same flags. Same .”






Roma is said to be the "Jewish" club of Italy. "Enjoy" the antisemitic chants in the stadium: "Giallorosso jew". "Anne Frank is from Rome".

Look, an anemic Roman she-wolf suckling "fat Jews"



---
In fact, there is an increase in various manifestations of right wing anti-Semitism in Europe, Before our eyes, Italy is becoming a fascist state | The Independent

Belgian soccer fans celebrate victory with chants of 'Jews burn the best"

My father was in the commandos, my mother was in the SS, together they burned Jews ’cause Jews burn the best.

-----

On a side note, read The Origins and Development of Racial Anti-Semitism in Fascist Italy.

[Aexodus]

I stand by what I said. It was a transitory, opportunistic unholy alliance. For Hitler, Arabs were half monkeys, members of an inferior non-Aryan race.

That’s entirely irrelevant to his views on Islam as a religion, and his preference for Germans to have been Muslim instead of Christian, for Tours to have ended differently.

Also Fascism isn’t inherently anti-semitic, that’s instead a trait of Nazism. It’s one of the subtle differences. However Nazism is a branch of Fascism as much as anything, but it can be implemented differently from Germany to Italy to Portugal.

Italy becoming a fascist state?

You seem to have an inability to discuss left wing anti semitism preferring to change the subject.

[mongrel]

That’s entirely irrelevant to his views on Islam as a religion, and his preference for Germans to have been Muslim instead of Christian, for Tours to have ended differently.

Which is utterly unrelated to either Jeremy Corbyn or anti-semitism. Breathless hypocrisy.

[Aexodus]

His views on Islam were likely influenced by his ardent anti-semitism.

[Papay]

That’s entirely irrelevant to his views on Islam as a religion, and his preference for Germans to have been Muslim instead of Christian, for Tours to have ended differently.

Also Fascism isn’t inherently anti-semitic, that’s instead a trait of Nazism. It’s one of the subtle differences. However Nazism is a branch of Fascism as much as anything, but it can be implemented differently from Germany to Italy to Portugal.

Italy becoming a fascist state?

You seem to have an inability to discuss left wing anti semitism preferring to change the subject.

Αlso Hitler loved dogs. Take that you filthy dog lovers

[Aexodus]

For Hitler, Arabs were half monkeys, members of an inferior non-Aryan race.

Perhaps, but he explicitly exempted Turks, Iranians, and Arabs from amy official racial discrimination in the 1930s.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

/offtopic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rela...the_Arab_world

Similarly, Hitler was transcribed as saying: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."

[95thrifleman]

Perhaps, but he explicitly exempted Turks, Iranians, and Arabs from amy official racial discrimination in the 1930s.

Hitler wasn't stupid, he courted Iran in the knowledge that he'd need influence and allies in the Middle East. Also the nazi regime was selectively racist as Hitler's views on the Chinese and Japanese indicate:

"Pride in one's own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."

[Aexodus]

Indeed, he also saw Iran as an ally against Britain in the region.