UK: The Left's Little Antisemitism Problem

• Within a week, Britain's Labour party leadership was forced to suspend one of its newest MPs and one of its oldest grandees -- and both for the same reason.
  
• Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone both say that they condemn anti-Semitism. They always tend to add that they also condemn "Islamophobia and all other forms of racism," a disclaimer that always seems a deliberate attempt to hide a hatred of Jews under the skirts of any and all criticism of Islam. What is most fascinating is that all the while they are saying this, they stoke the very thing they claim to condemn.
  
• They pretend that the Jewish state does such things for no reason. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other Islamist groups rain down on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The comment turns a highly-targeted set of retaliatory strikes by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Strip into a "brutal" attack "on the Palestinians" as a whole. While mentioning those death-tolls, Livingstone has no interest in explaining that the State of Israel builds bunkers for its citizens to shelter in, while Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields and useful dead bodies for the television cameras, to help Hamas appear as an aggrieved "victim."
  
• It is the narrative of the "left" on Israel that is causing the resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is not coming from nowhere. It is coming from them. If the left wants to deal with it, they first have to deal with themselves.
  

Every time anyone thinks Britain's Labour party has reached a new low of anti-Semitism, entirely new depths seems to open. In September, I wrote here about how the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party constituted a "mainstreaming" of racism in the UK. Although Mr. Corbyn claims he does not have any tolerance for any hatred of anyone, he is a man who has spent his political life cosying up to anti-Semites and terrorist groups that express genocidal intent against the Jewish people. He has worked closely with Holocaust deniers, praised anti-Semitic extremists and described Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends. During his leadership so far, it is clear that the lead he is given is being followed farther down the party hierarchy. In March, I described how the party appeared to be rotting from the head down, with the discovery that the Labour Club at Oxford University had become an entity rife with anti-Semitic insults. Yet anyone who thought that the party could fall no farther had not imagined its turns of the past week.

In 2009, Jeremy Corbyn (left, posing before a Hezbollah flag) said: "It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well." Pictured in the middle is Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Pictured at right is Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

At the start of the week, the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, was found to have posted on Facebook threads such ideas as the deportation of all the Jews from Israel over to America; the caption read, "problem solved." Elsewhere she wrote on a discussion thread, "The Jews are rallying." Ms. Shah happens to be a Muslim and represents a constituency which, until the last election, was represented by George Galloway. Other luminaries of the area include the former Liberal Democrat MP and David Ward. So it is fair to say that among her peers, what Ms. Shah said was not unusual. The posts are from 2014, a year before she became an MP, and during the latest of Israel's engagements in Gaza. In her apology, once she was found out, Ms. Shah talked of the fact that it was period in which "feelings were running high." Of course, not everyone during a period of heightened feelings calls for the destruction of a UN member state, but Ms. Shah did, and within a day of the exposé of these messages, and an appropriate political outcry, she was suspended from the Labour party, pending a full investigation.

Labour's week had barely begun. Within hours, another Labour MP, Rupa Huq, tried to come to Ms. Shah's rescue. In a BBC interview, Ms. Huq tried to compare calls to eradicate the State of Israel with any other "amusing" thing one might find on Twitter. After a swift U-turn, Ms. Huq managed to restrain herself and remained in the party. Next, from stage far-left, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, currently on Labour's National Executive Committee, made his intervention. Mr. Livingstone has been in the Labour party for almost five decades and in the same trenches as the party's current leader all of his political life. They have marched together for many a terrible cause and stood shoulder-to-shoulder on many a forsaken platform. But as Ken Livingstone went on several BBC programs, he probably did not expect that within hours, his own Labour party membership would be suspended, as was Ms. Shah's. Livingstone had used his media opportunities to start talking about Hitler -- specifically to claim, that Zionism was an early policy of Hitler's. Perhaps sensing that he had got himself onto unfortunate ground, Livingstone then stressed that this was all before Hitler "went mad" and killed six million Jews.

So within a week, the Labour party leadership was forced to suspend one of its newest MPs and one of its oldest grandees -- and both for the same reason. Presently, Jeremy Corbyn and his spinners are desperately trying to pretend that they have cut out the problem and are dealing with it appropriately. But there are reasons why they cannot do this with the problem that the Labour party -- and the wider left in Europe and America -- now has when it comes to Jews and the State of Israel. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone say that they condemn anti-Semitism. They always tend to add that they also condemn "Islamophobia and all other forms of racism," a disclaimer that always seems a deliberate attempt to hide a hatred of Jews under the skirts of any and all criticism of Islam. But doubtless on one level they believe it. What is most fascinating is that all the while they are saying this, they stoke the very thing they claim to condemn.

There was much outcry to one answer Ken Livingstone gave this week when he tried to excuse Naz Shah's original comments by saying that they were "over the top and rude." But it was what he said earlier and has so far gone uncommented upon that was far more revealing and points to the left's central problem here. In an earlier interview that morning with BBC London, Livingstone had said:

"The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians.
"And there's one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes but it's like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government."

That right there is what is at the centre of Labour's anti-Semitism problem. It pretends that the Jewish state does such things for no reason. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other Islamist groups rain down on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The comment turns a highly-targeted set of retaliatory strikes by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Strip into a "brutal" attack "on the Palestinians" as a whole. While mentioning those death-tolls, Livingstone has no interest in explaining that the State of Israel builds bunkers for its citizens to shelter in, while Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields and useful dead bodies for the television cameras, to help Hamas appear as an aggrieved "victim." In pretending that a state, Israel, in protecting itself from a rain of rockets, stabbings and car-rammings in the best way it possibly can, is, instead, committing war-crimes, not only is there a perpetuation of one lie; there is the subtle placing of a kernel of a thought. Why, a naïf might wonder, do these double-standards exist only in regard to Israel, and not to, say, Iran, China, Sudan, North Korea or Russia? Might it be because some people just hate Jews?

Such a comment is also the reason why even if the party pretends to "root it out," it no longer can. What Livingstone said there passed without comment because it is the sort of thing which many MPs in the party and countless members of the party believe. Yet every time they say it, they are propagating a lie. Excusing Naz Shah's comments by saying that they came "at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians" parcels a whole pack of lies into one. That is the problem. It is the narrative of the "left" on Israel that is causing the resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is not coming from nowhere. It is coming from them. If the left wants to deal with it, they first have to deal with themselves.




http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7937/uk-labour-antisemitism





Excellent article
Right am off out.
So catch you all later,

The lefties hate jews and love Muslims... just like the Nazis...

Tommy Monk wrote:The lefties hate jews and love Muslims... just like the Nazis...

The right hates everyone, including themselves.

Waffle ..

Erm, i'm what you would call r/w and I don't hate anyone. That was a wild sweeping statement Ben,
and shows up your l/w hate!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The lefties hate jews and love Muslims... just like the Nazis...

The right hates everyone, including themselves.

Tried to give you a greenie but all used up this am. Yes, so true. It's the bane of selfish people that they end up hating everyone, including the guy in the mirror.

nicko wrote:Erm,   i'm what you would call r/w  and I don't hate anyone.   That was a wild sweeping statement Ben,
and shows up your l/w hate!

Crissake, nicko.  Shouldn't have to point out that you are the ultimate hater.  You hate them so much you're out there shootin' 'em, throwin' grenades, shit like that...

The point is that RW ers are inevitably opposed to anything that would help anyone, everyone, any where.  Abortion.  Healthcare.  Food stamps.  Education.  Voter participation.  Health, safety and welfare.  The list goes on...

American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

I think it's bullhsit to say that all RW's hate themselves

It's a sweeping generalisation, and we all hate those don't we?

See three more suspended from the Labour party

Tommy Monk wrote:American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

I don't believe that. It's common to mention that the US is generally to the right of European countries in most political and economic trends. From there, Europeans generally argue that Americans are generally to the right in everything.

It's simply not true. American was simply the first of the western nations to embrace democracy and freedom from aristocratic influences. But that simply allowed the tyranny of the majority to settle in earlier...so America looks conservative.

While America side-stepped the age of socialism that engulfed Europe in the mid-1800's (the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, was published in 1848)--probably due to the endless frontier thesis in the American west--it received, and never gave up those fundamental political and human rights presently ensconced in our US Constitution. So, you Europeans freely give up, for example, your freedom of speech, while here in the US it is one of the most inviolable rights going. Same with freedom, association, and things like religion and right to redress the government. You guys are waaaay to the right when it comes to such things.

eddie wrote:I think it's bullhsit to say that all RW's hate themselves

It's a sweeping generalisation, and we all hate those don't we?

Though it may be a sweeping generalization, there's nothing wrong with sweeping generalizations.  So are gravity, oxygen and water, sweeping generalizations.

When you delve into core beliefs you find that RW ideology is steeped in the 17th- and 18th-century political and economic theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Adam Smith.  All of them premise the individual as auto-individualistic.  So the definition of man, for RW ers, is individualistic and egoistic.  With such a core definition of existence, one can only go to egoistic motives for political and economic theories.  Hence, RW ideologies are rooted in emphasis on the self, which in other words, is selfishness.

It's no secret that RW ers habitually dislike any legislation that moves away from such egoism.  We've all seen conservatives try to preserve profit-motives, and privatization, and oppose any laws that regulate profit-making, or enhance healthcare, provisions of food, housing, education or welfare.  Hence the generalization that RW ers hate people (other than themselves).  It's the inevitable 'flip-side' of theories of selfishness.

I think the discussion between Ben and myself about RW self-hatred, has to do with how theories built on selfishness are really a denial of social reality, and in a reflexive way, a hatred of your own social self.  These are really social-psychological theories, and it gets complicated here.  Hence, we are tentative.  But, never-the-less, it is a fascinating inquiry for political theorists.

Yes yes, but you're still making a sweeping generalisation about millions of people.

Your Democrats argue for things that can only be considered as socialist... and which we already have here in uk and are supported by our so called rw conservatives govt!!!

nicko wrote:Erm,   i'm what you would call r/w  and I don't hate anyone.   That was a wild sweeping statement Ben,
and shows up your l/w hate!

So Tommy's wild sweeping statement is fine, but I get called out for mine?

Oh, I remember. It's because liberals are always expected to behave better than conservatives.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/on_scandals_obama_held_to_higher_standard_than_bush/

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

I don't believe that.  It's common to mention that the US is generally to the right of European countries in most political and economic trends.  From there, Europeans generally argue that Americans are generally to the right in everything.

It's simply not true.  American was simply the first of the western nations to embrace democracy and freedom from aristocratic influences.   But that simply allowed the tyranny of the majority to settle in earlier...so America looks conservative.  

While America side-stepped the age of socialism that engulfed Europe in the mid-1800's (the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, was published in 1848)--probably due to the endless frontier thesis in the American west--it received, and never gave up those fundamental political and human rights presently ensconced in our US Constitution.  So, you Europeans freely give up, for example, your freedom of speech, while here in the US it is one of the most inviolable rights going.  Same with freedom, association, and things like religion and right to redress the government.  You guys are waaaay to the right when it comes to such things.

Well put, sir. As Irn would put it, a bunch of cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

I don't believe that.  It's common to mention that the US is generally to the right of European countries in most political and economic trends.  From there, Europeans generally argue that Americans are generally to the right in everything.

It's simply not true.  American was simply the first of the western nations to embrace democracy and freedom from aristocratic influences.   But that simply allowed the tyranny of the majority to settle in earlier...so America looks conservative.  

While America side-stepped the age of socialism that engulfed Europe in the mid-1800's (the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, was published in 1848)--probably due to the endless frontier thesis in the American west--it received, and never gave up those fundamental political and human rights presently ensconced in our US Constitution.  So, you Europeans freely give up, for example, your freedom of speech, while here in the US it is one of the most inviolable rights going.  Same with freedom, association, and things like religion and right to redress the government.  You guys are waaaay to the right when it comes to such things.

Well put, sir. As Irn would put it, a bunch of cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The lefties hate jews and love Muslims... just like the Nazis...

YOU really are full of bullshit, piss and vinegar today, aren't you Tommy...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Waffles ..

... go well with treacle, honey or golden syrup, Tommy !

Tommy Monk wrote:

American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Erm,   i'm what you would call r/w  and I don't hate anyone.   That was a wild sweeping statement Ben,
and shows up your l/w hate!

So Tommy's wild sweeping statement is fine, but I get called out for mine?

Oh, I remember. It's because liberals are always expected to behave better than conservatives.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/on_scandals_obama_held_to_higher_standard_than_bush/

All sweeping generalisations are bullshit.
And people who make sweeping generalisations are all frogturd-lickers and that's a fact

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:American Democrats are further r w than our conservatives...

I don't believe that.  It's common to mention that the US is generally to the right of European countries in most political and economic trends.  From there, Europeans generally argue that Americans are generally to the right in everything.

It's simply not true.  American was simply the first of the western nations to embrace democracy and freedom from aristocratic influences.   But that simply allowed the tyranny of the majority to settle in earlier...so America looks conservative.  

While America side-stepped the age of socialism that engulfed Europe in the mid-1800's (the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, was published in 1848)--probably due to the endless frontier thesis in the American west... never gave up those fundamental political and human rights presently ensconced in our US Constitution.  So, you Europeans freely give up, for example, your freedom of speech, while here in the US it is one of the most inviolable rights going.  Same with freedom, association, and things like religion and right to redress the government.  You guys are waaaay to the right when it comes to such things.

You are contradicting your whole left/right arguments here...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The whites hate Blacks and love Christians... just like the KKK...

Blacks hates everyone, including themselves.

I changed both posts for a valid reason.
On a thread about racism, to then see the same methods, generalization, prejudice, that poorly is also done so in racism There are many Black majority and white majority nations, diverse with different cultures, languages beliefs etc
Where there countless many varied political beliefs, that all make people being placed on countless different areas with the Political spectrrum,  that is all rendered  nullify by both camps here. Now you are either right pr left wing. In other words, either Black or White. It will not matter if you hold liberal views on social issues. Or also many black people are not criminals. As a label and stereotype has been invented to now claim, all Black people are criminals and that all RW hate everyone,. Which clearly that view to claiming then that RW hate everyone. Is not even basing a centralized position and understanding pf conservatism, but I guess place RW in the Trump area of the Political spectrum. Now more problems have been created where no further accusations can be made simple by guilt and association

Its then very easy to understand why racism is gowning again, that we see the same illogical falsehoods and associations being made right on here

Thanks to news, for people the only poster who made the only pont in relevance to the actual article

have to agree with Tommy on the USA being right and extreme right. at no point is the US gov't either party suggestign to directly fund services, the key to Left wing economics

and the Op is Zionist
Hama or IDF either is equal thus what corbyn said is a perfectly valid opinion (regardless of agreeing with it or not) and not anti-Semitic at all, just disagreeing with Israel is not anti-Semitic.

And Unless Israel is a Theocracy it cannot even claim anti-Semitic for policies against it because for that claim to have any validity they would have to Theocratic Judaism

AND if they are theocratic Judaism than Secular nations SHOULD hate them

there is not viable position for any sane non hypocrite to allow Claims of anti-Semitism by Israel towards anyone because they favour Palestine in the conflict

Now veya says usa is right and far right... 


Quill said usa embraced freedom and democracy which makes it conservative... after allowing 'the tyranny of the majority to settle in'...!!!

I always say that always have
I argued it to ben before any Brits came to newsfix

i have explained before that there is a critical difference the way Australia or the UK provide and fund services compared to the USA that means that the USA is always to the right of our nations on economic policy due to this structural difference.

the best example is Obamacare one of the USA most left policies of recent years, provides rules around the sale of Private health Insurance for use in privately owned hospitals.

Our Right wing is still talking about Gov't funding for Gov't owned hospitals. The critical difference is the 'means of production' in this case a hospital, is owned by the state not private enterprise.

Labour has secretly suspended 50 of its members over anti-Semitic and racist comments as officials struggle to cope with the crisis engulfing the party. Senior sources reveal that Labour's compliance unit has been swamped by the influx of hard-left supporters following Jeremy Corbyn's election.

The suspensions that have been made public so far are said to be just the tip of the iceberg.

On Monday night Mr Corbyn appeared to acknowledge there was a problem for the first time, while insisting it was "not huge". He told the Daily Mirror: "What there is is a very small number of people that have said things that they should not have done. We have therefore said they will be suspended and investigated."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/labour-has-secretly-suspended-50-members-for-anti-semitic-and-ra/

After a thoughtful contribution by Owen Jones and an excellent interview with Mark Regev the Andrew Marr show turned to guest Diane Abbott. Typically, she repeatedly asserted her deep commitment to fighting antisemitism – and repeatedly refused to engage with actual concrete examples of antisemitism on the left.

Deflection was her key strategy. First she responded to Andrew Marr’s question with ludicrous straw man hyperbole.

‘You know yourself a number of Labour Party members, some of them in your immediate family. Have they turned into antisemites overnight?

She then accused Andrew Marr of smearing ordinary Labour Party members for simply raising the possibility that the LP might have a problem with antisemitism. When he countered that if there was no problem, why was an inquiry being set up to deal with the issue, she answered that the problem was simply one of ‘process’. She then, by way of further deflection, insisted that antisemitism was a problem everywhere. Andrew Marr quite rightly pressed her on the relationship between some sections of the left and antisemitism. To illustrate this point he showed her a cartoon depicting Menachem Begin as a Nazi officer. This appeared in the Labour Herald, a publication edited by Ken Livingstone in the 1980s. Abbott simply refused to engage with this question, and responded, irrelevantly, that she had joined the Labour Party because it was full of good people fighting racism.

At the beginning and end of the interview she invoked the security concerns of the Jewish community in her constituency. This reflects a common pattern when dealing with antisemitism – only its most serious and extreme manifestations are truly acknowledged. It is apparently outrageous to suggest that someone just might be antisemitic unless they demonstrate a personal, conscious, hatred of (all) Jews. For other forms of prejudice the bar is set much lower, and there is discussion of ‘implicit racism’ and other more subtle manifestations of a problem. And someone accused of sexism isn’t assumed to personally loathe all women.

One of Abbott’s most disgraceful deflections was prompted by a question about Corbyn’s cosy tea with Raed Salah.

‘Its all too easy to take remarks out of context.’

Again, there’s a real double standard here I think. Salah’s views are comparable with the most vile extremes on the spectrum of any form of bigotry. Would evidence of hobnobbing with an out and out racist of any other type be brushed aside in this away?

However there’s one point on which – to take her own remark out of context – I’m in full agreement with Diane Abbott.

“It’s not fair on ordinary Labour Party members who must be shocked.”

Alec adds: Indeed it is too easy to take remarks out of context. That said, it does look as if television critic Euan Ferguson of the Observer and Arthur Dent were suggested Adolf was a Zionist. No, the other Adolf.
Dunno if it were before he went mad.
In recognition of the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz:

Eichmann was, I mention, an avowed Zionist: his solution of choice would have been an entirely new land, outside Europe, for all Jews: it was only after 1942, and Wannsee, and after he’d relinquished his deluded fantasy of transporting all Jews to Madagascar, that he was given responsibility for otherwise expediting matters.
“Exactly!” says Freeman. “It had got to the point where: hmm, that’s not working, they’re not leaving quickly enough, ha, let’s think of something else. But to my mind there are not enough things that show the Nazis as human, as smart people, charismatic people, who are not inhuman naturally. But who are able to be fantastically inhuman when they choose to be.”

What a pair of fumpdumbles.


http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/01/diane-abbott-on-the-andrew-marr-show/




Indeed, what a pair of idiots and this is the continued point I keep making over how invented history revisionism, just makes things up as they go along. In order to dehumanize the Jews. Love that word though fumbdumples. lol

Britain’s Labour Party suspended a city councilman on Monday after a British political watchdog produced Facebook posts in which he said Israel should have been created in the United States and it was not too late to move Israeli Jews there.

Hours later it suspended a second city councilman for anti-Israel posts.

Ilyas Aziz, a lawmaker in Nottingham in north-central England, was suspended hours after the Guido Fawkes website posted screenshots of his Facebook posts, including the one in July 2014 during the Israel-Hamas war calling for the relocation of Israeli Jews.

Other of Aziz’s posts shown on Guido Fawkes included one comparing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazis’ treatment of Jews and another perpetuating the blood libel myth that reads “Stop drinking Gaza’s blood.” Another post shows an Israeli flag with the words “God didn’t give you the land – the UK did … Illegally” superimposed on it.

Later on Monday, the former mayor of Blackburn in Lancashire, Salim Mulla, was suspended less than an hour after his anti-Israel posts were outed, also by Guido Fawkes.

Mulla, whose Twitter profile said he was born in India, charged in an August 2015 Facebook post that Israel is behind ISIS. A month earlier he posted a conspiracy theory video blaming Israel for the Sandy Hook elementary school murders in Connecticut, adding his own comment that “He is talking facts.” A June 2015 post s”Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity.”

Mulla told Guido Fawkes that “I don’t agree with Zionism at all. I have very, very many Jewish friends.”

The suspensions come days after Labour suspended a British Parliament member, Naz Shah, for a 2014 Facebook post calling for relocating the entire State of Israel to the United States.

On Thursday, the party suspended former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for saying that Adolf Hitler was a Zionist for advocating in 1932 a policy of moving Europe’s Jews to Israel.

The following day, Labour said it would launch an investigation into anti-Semitism in the party. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn also said in a statement that he would propose a new party code of conduct, that would “make explicitly clear for the first time that Labour will not tolerate any form of racism, including anti-Semitism, in the party.”

The latest suspension comes days before local elections, including for mayor of London, in a race that Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, is favored to win, which would make him the first Muslim mayor of a major Western city. Khan, who is running against Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith, is part of a growing chorus of Labour politicians calling for Livingstone’s expulsion.

Corbyn, a harsh critic of Israel who has called Hezbollah and Hamas activists “friends,” has been criticized for not doing enough to curb the rising anti-Semitic rhetoric in his party.


http://www.jta.org/2016/05/02/news-opinion/world/uks-labour-suspends-another-lawmaker-for-anti-semitic-posts?utm_source=Newsletter+subscribers&utm_campaign=2c7b2330de-JTA_Daily_Briefing_5_2_20165_2_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-2c7b2330de-25343725

Lefties love Muslims and hate jews... just like the Nazi socialist lefties...

Tommy Monk wrote:Lefties love Muslims and hate jews... just like the Nazi socialist lefties...

And the above comments exposes your complete lack of understanding of history
It also shows you are also the same in creating revisionist pseudo history based on an agenda of bigotry.

Ww1 and ww2...


Muslims on the Germans side both times...

Tommy Monk wrote:Ww1 and ww2...


Muslims on the Germans side both times...

Misleading information
Did you miss out the fact many Muslims fought on the allied side in both WW1 and WW2.
So why did you omit those facts Tommy?

To paint a false picture by any chance?

Tommy Monk wrote:Now veya says usa is right and far right... 


Quill said usa embraced freedom and democracy which makes it conservative... after allowing 'the tyranny of the majority to settle in'...!!!

Tommy...I think it is a thought or two too deep for you, but I thought you might get it seeing as how we have discussed Alixis de Toqueville in these threads.

Let me try a different approach: just as economists have found that free-market competition is unstable and inevitably deteriorates into monopoly, so psychologists and social theorists have found that freedom of ideas (and speech) inevitably deteriorates into ironclad belief systems which give off the appearance of ironclad conservatism.  Herbert Marcuse, sometimes called the father of the New Left, and the man who made Berkeley into the campus of radicalism, picked up on this idea in the 20th-century.

Whereas, Toqueville was a French aristocrat writing in 1834 (Democracy in America, in which the operative chapter was called, "The Tyranny of the Majority"), and so came at the notion from the right, in fact it was the left that was cheated by the lack of acceptance of new ideas.   Marcuse picked up on the idea of pure tolerance being the issue: Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (1961).  His real expression was found in an essay that he wrote for a collection, collected with Robert Paul Wolff and Barrington Moore, Jr, titled A Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965), which essay he called "Repressive Tolerance".  In this essay, he proposed the radical idea that we need to suppress popular ideas in order the counterbalance the emerging 'new ideas'.  This was the radical doctrine of the new left, and has led to radical ideas, particularly in European communities, that we need to suppress particularly Nazi and racially prejudicial speech.

As much as I admire Marcuse (he was a professor at Berkeley where I was a student), I am opposed to his notion of repression in the marketplace of ideas.  Even he said in his writings that he could think of no feasible way to enable such a provision.  

Nevertheless, there is no denying the problem: lack of restraint in the marketplace of ideas, inevitable leads to the ascendancy of the established notions.  Advertisers have long recognized this, as they use TV and media to establish brand recognition...sometimes using media to leap-frog older brands to create a newly  established.

To summarize, a free and open marketplace of ideas, such as was established in the US by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, has led to a median opinion overall that appears, and generally is conservative. This makes the US appear conservative in European circles, and leads to the conclusion that the US is behind-times. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a different kind of chemistry creates American public opinion, and that accounts for the difference. The US still has the more brilliant, and more creative minds.

All very interesting... but did not explain what you were claiming in your earlier quote above...

Newport councillor Miqdad Al-Nuaimi and Renfrewshire councillor Terry Kelly have both been suspended by the party pending an investigation. In the latest case, disclosed on the Guido Fawkes website, Mr Al-Nuaimi used tweets to compare Israel to the Nazis and to make connections between Israel and so-called IS.

Mr Kelly used his blog to speak out about the "Jewish lobby" in the US, claiming it influenced foreign policy and even tried to rig the Oscars.

It brings the number of Labour members suspended for anti-Semitism and racism since Jeremy Corbyn took over as leader to 18.

The party reached crisis point last week when Mr Corbyn was forced to suspend close ally Ken Livingstone for his comments claiming Hitler supported Zionism and Jewish nationalism, as well and Bradford West MP Naz Shah.


http://news.sky.com/story/1689983/pm-and-corbyn-exchange-blows-over-anti-semitism

Its only a few.....

Lefties are just like Nazis... they love Muslims and hate jews!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:All very interesting... but did not explain what you were claiming in your earlier quote above...

Pretty through explanation of "the Tyranny of the Majority", and how it leads to a conservative perception. Maybe you need to read more, tommy...gain a little facility in the world of ideas.