Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think herein lies the problem:  I can differentiate between a few people belonging to a certain racial heritage and the entire population of that race.

 

Not having that I'm sorry, if the piece was about the Elders of Zion then surely all the men at the board would be Jewish caricatures, this is a point I've made numerous times now and until somebody addresses it adequately instead of making obnoxious passive aggressive remarks which avoid properly explaining the thing that is apparently so obvious then I'm going to continue to believe my interpretation which I've made perfectly clear by now.

 

Having just gone back and looked again, I think you can read it either way, but just because they don't all have exaggerated features doesn't mean it can't be read as a group of Jewish (presumably) business men.

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I've no interest in identity politics. We're all individuals, nobody should be judged on their ethnicity/religion either positively or negatively. Obviously racism still exists and we should all speak out against that.

 

identity politics - a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

 

Imho, Identity politics isn't that bad (although when it dominates all other considerations it can be come a negative force), many of those groups who are complaining are very much steeped in it, but hey, we all have different views.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Webbo said:

What about the Jewish groups saying it is?

I'm not making a point about whether they are right or wrong.

 

But I've always been of the view that how others respond to our words or deeds is not relevant to whether they are wrong or offensive. People simply give a subjective view. The question should be whether, in context and on its own, whether something is objectively wrong or offensive.

[Vardinio'sCat]

48 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 I countered your point a long time ago, multiple times.  Honestly, you are wrong.  A quote from wikipedia below:

 

The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory merges two older strains of conspiracy claims: Anti-Masonic conspiracy claims and Anti-Semitic conspiracy claims. It was heavily influenced by publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,^[3] a forged document that appeared in the Russian Empire purporting to be an expose of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The Protocols claim that the Jews had infiltrated Freemasonry and were using the fraternity to further their aims. Adherents of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy took the claim made by the Protocols to extremes and claimed that the leaders of Freemasonry and the leaders of the Jewish plot were one and the same.

An example was the Spanish priest Juan Tusquets Terrats, whose Orígenes de la revolución española and other works built on the Protocols, which he translated, to claim that Jews used freemasons and communists to undermine Christian and Spanish civilisation, providing a justification for the Franco regime, which expanded the threat to an International Judeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy.

 

So no, not all men around the board have to be Jewish caricatures to invoke an antisemitic image.  The image used represents a judeo-masonic conpiracy theory which unfortunately is wedded in the hard left's anti-capitalist thinking.  As the hard left has always been a minor unimportant fringe, it's never been properly put to scrutiny, so these hideous ideas have been allowed to go about unchecked.  It's only now with Corbyn's rise to leader that these have come under proper scrutiny and identified openly.

 

Although I would agree with your first point, and have posted the same, I think there are plenty of right-wing conspiracy folks who buy into it too (indeed your  Franco point backs this up), and I think that is worth pointing out. Also, I think it has as much to do with the Israel and Palestine, as it is with with anti-capitalism. As far as I am aware, 'The protocols' are widely available in many Middle Eastern countries, and as we know, many of those countries have attacked Israel in previous wars, so I think the roots of the problem come from more than one source.

 

I equate Corbyn with someone like Michael Foot myself, and I would argue that he is more old left than hard left, but I sense we will never agree on that. I don't think it is controversial to say that the political spectrum has moved significantly to the right in my lifetime, and I would call the hard left people like Militant tendency in the 80's, rather than Momentum today. Having said that, I'm sure there have been some hard left ghosts returning to Labour, seeking to exploit the perceived opportunity of Corbyn's leadership and Labour's move back to the left. In a variation on your point, I would say that folks are not used to old-fashioned socialism, we haven't seen that since before Kinnock.

 

I do think the present scrutiny, despite being an opportunity for a bit of a pile on from Corbyn's enemies in his own party and in the ideologically driven press, is helpful in forcing Labour to get a grip on some of these 'bad actors' within the party. They dogged Labour in the 80's, and imho, Labour would be wise to try and avoid a repeat of the same.

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Although I would agree with your first point, and have posted the same, I think there are plenty of right-wing conspiracy folks who buy into it too (indeed your  Franco point backs this up), and I think that is worth pointing out. Also, I think it has as much to do with the Israel and Palestine, as it is with with anti-capitalism. As far as I am aware, 'The protocols' are widely available in many Middle Eastern countries, and as we know, many of those countries have attacked Israel in previous wars, so I think the roots of the problem come from more than one source.

 

I equate Corbyn with someone like Michael Foot myself, and I would argue that he is more old left than hard left, but I sense we will never agree on that. I don't think it is controversial to say that the political spectrum has moved significantly to the right in my lifetime, and I would call the hard left people like Militant tendency in the 80's, rather than Momentum today. Having said that, I'm sure there have been some hard left ghosts returning to Labour, seeking to exploit the perceived opportunity of Corbyn's leadership and Labour's move back to the left. In a variation on your point, I would say that folks are not used to old-fashioned socialism, we haven't seen that since before Kinnock.

 

I do think the present scrutiny, despite being an opportunity for a bit of a pile on from Corbyn's enemies in his own party and in the ideologically driven press, is helpful in forcing Labour to get a grip on some of these 'bad actors' within the party. They dogged Labour in the 80's, and imho, Labour would be wise to try and avoid a repeat of the same.

 

 

 

 

All of this. Especially the part about anti-Semitism and daft conspiracy theories coming from a variety of sources (yes, Greens, GTFO with your anti-vaxxer BS).

 

After all, it wasn't the hard-left that turned the slaughter of six million Jews into a well-practised machine even as their nation was falling apart around them, nor are they in the streets in the present day calling out "Jews will not replace us!"

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

One final post on anti-semitism for now. I found much of this Wiki interesting, it has lots of recent data, and seems very even-handed to me. I give you the final few paragraphs as it seems quite relevant to the present discussion.

 

Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry[edit]

In 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into antisemitism in the UK.^{[326][not in citation given]} The inquiry called David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Angus Robertson and others to give evidence. Its report was critical of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Chakrabarti Inquiry, the Liberal Democrats, the National Union of Students (particularly its president Malia Bouattia), Twitter and police forces for variously exacerbating or failing to address antisemitism. The report endorsed various recommendations including the use of the Macpherson definition of antisemitism.^[52]

The report provided evidence of allegations of antisemitism in the Conservative Party including an alleged "toxic environment" in the UCL Conservative Society. The report found that Jeremy Corbyn had shown a "lack of consistent leadership", which "has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people". The Select Committee found Ken Livingstone’s claims that Adolf Hitler "supported Zionism" unhelpful to the Labour Party, while they found Shami Chakrabarti’s report into antisemitism in the Labour Party to be somewhat lacking in a clear definition of antisemitism.^[52] The report concluded that "...there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party."^[52] The report also found that "The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"^[53]

It found that, although the overt threat that the far right posed to Jews was no longer as great as it once was, nevertheless "Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories remain core elements of far-right ideology", going on to say that the British National Party (BNP) continues to stir up trouble and is damaging to societal cohesion.^[52]

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

Edited 28 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All of this. Especially the part about anti-Semitism and daft conspiracy theories coming from a variety of sources (yes, Greens, GTFO with your anti-vaxxer BS).

 

After all, it wasn't the hard-left that turned the slaughter of six million Jews into a well-practised machine even as their nation was falling apart around them, nor are they in the streets in the present day calling out "Jews will not replace us!"

I think we have to reject all levels of extreme politics, and forget the left, right labels that come with them. It’s as if extreme left belongs to you and extreme right belongs to me because we loosely share some views with them. They don’t belong to either of us and both left, right and centre, liberals and authoritarians of sound mind should be able to reject them, without it betraying their own beliefs.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I think we have to reject all levels of extreme politics, and forget the left, right labels that come with them. It’s as if extreme left belongs to you and extreme right belongs to me because we loosely share some views with them. They don’t belong to either of us and both left, right and centre, liberals and authoritarians of sound mind should be able to reject them, without it betraying their own beliefs.

That's totally fair. Extremis of whatever kind should be rejected.

 

One opinion I might add to that though is that I think that authoritarianism lies at both ends of that spectrum and is at least in part responsible for the heinous acts carried out by each, which is why I'm so leery of it.

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Although I would agree with your first point, and have posted the same, I think there are plenty of right-wing conspiracy folks who buy into it too (indeed your  Franco point backs this up), and I think that is worth pointing out. Also, I think it has as much to do with the Israel and Palestine, as it is with with anti-capitalism. As far as I am aware, 'The protocols' are widely available in many Middle Eastern countries, and as we know, many of those countries have attacked Israel in previous wars, so I think the roots of the problem come from more than one source.

 

I equate Corbyn with someone like Michael Foot myself, and I would argue that he is more old left than hard left, but I sense we will never agree on that. I don't think it is controversial to say that the political spectrum has moved significantly to the right in my lifetime, and I would call the hard left people like Militant tendency in the 80's, rather than Momentum today. Having said that, I'm sure there have been some hard left ghosts returning to Labour, seeking to exploit the perceived opportunity of Corbyn's leadership and Labour's move back to the left. In a variation on your point, I would say that folks are not used to old-fashioned socialism, we haven't seen that since before Kinnock.

 

I do think the present scrutiny, despite being an opportunity for a bit of a pile on from Corbyn's enemies in his own party and in the ideologically driven press, is helpful in forcing Labour to get a grip on some of these 'bad actors' within the party. They dogged Labour in the 80's, and imho, Labour would be wise to try and avoid a repeat of the same.

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree.  The point I was trying to make about the antisemitism on the hard left (or whatever you want to call it) is that it's never really had a light shone on it before, due to the fact that the anti-capitalist side of the Labour party has been a small fringe obscure element.  Now it's gained more power within the party, it's no surprise that there's more media spotlight and attention to it.

 

It's not to say that anti-semitism is a problem unique to one side or the other.  It's clearly not, as you can see with facists groups.  So I'm not trying to suggest this is a problem only of the left, merely that this is why we are now seeing this problem brought to our attention. Ironically, the only thing the extreme left and extreme right seem to agree on is that the world is run by a small group, heavily dominated by Jews/Rothschild/Freemasons.

 

Edited 28 March 2018 by breadandcheese

[breadandcheese]

35 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think we have to reject all levels of extreme politics, and forget the left, right labels that come with them. It’s as if extreme left belongs to you and extreme right belongs to me because we loosely share some views with them. They don’t belong to either of us and both left, right and centre, liberals and authoritarians of sound mind should be able to reject them, without it betraying their own beliefs.

To add to that, I think there are a number of Labour MPs who deserve a lot of credit for protesting on Monday.  The Jewish population is miniscule so it won't win them any votes.  If anything it's pretty much destroyed any ambitions of career advancement, possibly with the threat of deselection.  So fair play to them for standing against the anti-semitism within their own party.    

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

A reason to be glad of the EU.

Who will protect us from the British government in future?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/28/britain-faces-eu-lawsuit-huge-fines-illegal-air-pollution/

This kinda got lost in the antisemitism debate but you're right it's the sort of thing we need if we want the species to avoid triggering its own extinction.

 

2 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

For me, at best it is what is often called dog whistle racism, so those who are steeped in anti-semitism, or those have a sensitivity to it, can read the signs. Strokes also said he didn't see it as that bad (I'm paraphrasing) in itself, so I don't think you are far from alone as not seeing it in the same way as, for example, I do.

 

I genuinely believe that Corbyn didn't look that closely at it, and when he did he realised what it referred to, and how it plays into the old slurs. His mum was at Cable Street, so I think he is someone who is actually well aware of the history of anti-semitism.

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

 I countered your point a long time ago, multiple times.  Honestly, you are wrong.  A quote from wikipedia below:

 

The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory merges two older strains of conspiracy claims: Anti-Masonic conspiracy claims and Anti-Semitic conspiracy claims. It was heavily influenced by publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,^[3] a forged document that appeared in the Russian Empire purporting to be an expose of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The Protocols claim that the Jews had infiltrated Freemasonry and were using the fraternity to further their aims. Adherents of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy took the claim made by the Protocols to extremes and claimed that the leaders of Freemasonry and the leaders of the Jewish plot were one and the same.

An example was the Spanish priest Juan Tusquets Terrats, whose Orígenes de la revolución española and other works built on the Protocols, which he translated, to claim that Jews used freemasons and communists to undermine Christian and Spanish civilisation, providing a justification for the Franco regime, which expanded the threat to an International Judeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy.

 

So no, not all men around the board have to be Jewish caricatures to invoke an antisemitic image.  The image used represents a judeo-masonic conpiracy theory which unfortunately is wedded in the hard left's anti-capitalist thinking.  As the hard left has always been a minor unimportant fringe, it's never been properly put to scrutiny, so these hideous ideas have been allowed to go about unchecked.  It's only now with Corbyn's rise to leader that these have come under proper scrutiny and identified openly.

So to paraphrase the great Anita Sarkeesian:  Everything is antisemitic, everything is racist and you have to point all of it out. 

With the context of the above wiki quote I can better understand why somebody might decide the imagery is blatantly antisemitic but given the artists own words on the topic I'm still dubious it was the intention.

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I don't disagree.  The point I was trying to make about the antisemitism on the hard left (or whatever you want to call it) is that it's never really had a light shone on it before, due to the fact that the anti-capitalist side of the Labour party has been a small fringe obscure element.  Now it's gained more power within the party, it's no surprise that there's more media spotlight and attention to it.

 

It's not to say that anti-semitism is a problem unique to one side or the other.  It's clearly not, as you can see with facists groups.  So I'm not trying to suggest this is a problem only of the left, merely that this is why we are now seeing this problem brought to our attention. Ironically, the only thing the extreme left and extreme right seem to agree on is that the world is run by a small group, heavily dominated by Jews/Rothschild/Freemasons.

 

You appear to be using antisemitism and anti-capitalism as interchangeable terms and that's something that bothers me more than a dubious mural:  I'm no fan of the capitalist system and it would make me very angry if every time I voiced displeasure at negative elements of capitalism I had people try to dismiss that opinion as antisemitism.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

One final post on anti-semitism for now. I found much of this Wiki interesting, it has lots of recent data, and seems very even-handed to me. I give you the final few paragraphs as it seems quite relevant to the present discussion.

 

Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry[edit]

In 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into antisemitism in the UK.^{[326][not in citation given]} The inquiry called David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Angus Robertson and others to give evidence. Its report was critical of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Chakrabarti Inquiry, the Liberal Democrats, the National Union of Students (particularly its president Malia Bouattia), Twitter and police forces for variously exacerbating or failing to address antisemitism. The report endorsed various recommendations including the use of the Macpherson definition of antisemitism.^[52]

The report provided evidence of allegations of antisemitism in the Conservative Party including an alleged "toxic environment" in the UCL Conservative Society. The report found that Jeremy Corbyn had shown a "lack of consistent leadership", which "has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people". The Select Committee found Ken Livingstone’s claims that Adolf Hitler "supported Zionism" unhelpful to the Labour Party, while they found Shami Chakrabarti’s report into antisemitism in the Labour Party to be somewhat lacking in a clear definition of antisemitism.^[52] The report concluded that "...there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party."^[52] The report also found that "The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"^[53]

It found that, although the overt threat that the far right posed to Jews was no longer as great as it once was, nevertheless "Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories remain core elements of far-right ideology", going on to say that the British National Party (BNP) continues to stir up trouble and is damaging to societal cohesion.^[52]

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

 

 

The Conservative Party?

 

Get out of here with your inconvenient facts - this is a Corbyn bashing thread.

Edited 28 March 2018 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

The thing is that as far as I can make out the bit of the mural being defined as "racist" is the inclusion of a couple of caricatures of Jewish people and to me that falls more under "ill advised" than "obviously racist".  If all the Monopoly players were hook-nosed, payot-sporting, yamaka laden men rubbing their hands while grinning maniacally then there'd be no debate about it being a racist depiction of a Jewish conspiracy to run the world, but that's not what the guy drew and I'm not going to defend knee-jerk yelling of "that's racist" until somebody shows me exactly why it's the case but nobody's done better than pointing out that a couple of the noses are disproportionately large while ignoring the inclusion of non-Jewish men.

 

In short I simply struggle to see the picture as encouraging hatred of all Jews instead of the handful of men who happen to be Jewish who are perceived by the artist to be conspirators in a shadow government.  Call it naivety if you like but if you want to push the claim that my interpretation is wrong then the burden of proof rests on your shoulders and "Corbyn said it" is not definitive evidence.

 

2 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Not everyone has such a keen eye for anti-semtitic content as you and I (and one or two others on here) do, many decent people haven't heard of 'The protocols' etc.

 

 

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

 I countered your point a long time ago, multiple times.  Honestly, you are wrong.  A quote from wikipedia below:

 

The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory merges two older strains of conspiracy claims: Anti-Masonic conspiracy claims and Anti-Semitic conspiracy claims. It was heavily influenced by publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,^[3] a forged document that appeared in the Russian Empire purporting to be an expose of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The Protocols claim that the Jews had infiltrated Freemasonry and were using the fraternity to further their aims. Adherents of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy took the claim made by the Protocols to extremes and claimed that the leaders of Freemasonry and the leaders of the Jewish plot were one and the same.

An example was the Spanish priest Juan Tusquets Terrats, whose Orígenes de la revolución española and other works built on the Protocols, which he translated, to claim that Jews used freemasons and communists to undermine Christian and Spanish civilisation, providing a justification for the Franco regime, which expanded the threat to an International Judeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy.

 

So no, not all men around the board have to be Jewish caricatures to invoke an antisemitic image.  The image used represents a judeo-masonic conpiracy theory which unfortunately is wedded in the hard left's anti-capitalist thinking.  As the hard left has always been a minor unimportant fringe, it's never been properly put to scrutiny, so these hideous ideas have been allowed to go about unchecked.  It's only now with Corbyn's rise to leader that these have come under proper scrutiny and identified openly.

 

I'm protecting my sanity by mainly lurking for a fortnight, but a one-off return....

 

While I still agree with a lot of what you say, Carl, my position has shifted a bit precisely because of the point @breadandcheese makes re. combining imagery of Jews (and non-Jews) with a symbol of Masonic conspiracy.

Because of the use of that symbol, I now see why people are justified in seeing the mural as antisemitic - even if some politicians and FT posters make such accusations unthinkingly or for partisan reasons.

 

I still think that the artist probably didn't have any antisemitic intent - and that Corbyn definitely didn't. The artist was indeed seeking to produce an anti-capitalist mural, not an antisemitic one. His world view, call it Hard Left or anti-capitalist fringe, is based on big business (some of it run by Jews, some by non-Jews) conducting a global conspiracy that is ruining the world. Think what you will of that. I'm not into conspiracy theories but find the power of global big business problematic, so find his ideas naive and overblown, but with some grains of truth re. global capital.

 

But, 2 concepts - Intent and Context:

- Intent: The artist intended to depict and denigrate a global capitalist conspiracy, not a Jewish conpiracy, but....

- Context: There's a long history of antisemites (including the Nazis) suggesting that Jews, Freemasons and others are conspiring to control world power, money etc. On his Facebook page, the artist explicitly states that he DID use the pyramid/eye symbol to represent Freemasonry (and not the US/money). Given the history of centuries (millennia?) of antisemitism, including the Holocaust, I now think that people - particularly Jews - seeing that mural as antisemitic are justified. That's despite the fact that only some of the men depicted look Jewish to me and that the artist was attacking capitalist exploitation by Jews and non-Jews. By depicting Jews and others profiting financially alongside a symbol of Masonic conspiracy, the artist WAS guilty of antisemitism (even if out of naivety - though a man of 40+ should know better, if he's going to use such a combination of imagery).

 

Thanks to @Vardinio'sCat for pointing out how the antisemitism isn't obvious to people who've not paid much attention to conspiracy theories or extremist imagery. I'd heard of "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but had no idea what they were - though I was well aware of the history of Nazis and others alleging Jewish/Masonic conspiracies. Likewise, I had no prior awareness of that symbol representing Freemasons.

 

I think the instinct to challenge attempted censorship or groupthink is the right one. It is also important that "wrongdoers" (from the artist's perspective) can be depicted as being of any race or social background - provided that doesn't drift into racism or antisemitism. If the artist hadn't used the Masonic symbol, I might still be arguing that the mural was purely a kneejerk-left anti-capitalist image. But that symbol, combined with images of Jews (at least 1 of them a distasteful image - on left) does justify it being described as antisemitic. I'm sure Corbyn isn't antisemitic, not least as I'm sure he knows lots of people he sees as "good Jews" (e.g. those who oppose often disgraceful conduct by Israel). But the Hard Left inhabit a world of goodies and baddies: Palestine good, Israel bad; United Ireland good, oppressive Unionists bad; workers good, bosses bad (often mirrored on the Right)....or thinking that drifts too close to that - and that sometimes wrongly condemns/supports whole categories of people.

 

To finish, an amusing true story re. Intent & Context:

My brother's partner is black. Some years ago, she joined a family trip to the West of Ireland. They all went to a remote village bar near where my uncle lived. Some old local geezer shuffled over and said to her: "I just want to say that you Blackies are welcome here!". Despite his "wrong" use of language, everyone knew that his intent was to be welcoming, not racist, and the context was that she might have been the first black person he'd ever met so he didn't know the "right-on" words to use. A 40+ artist from LA who combines images of rich, powerful Jews (and others) with symbols of Masonic conspiracy may not intend his work to be antisemitic but may still produce antisemitic work - and his ignorance of context is less understandable.

[Izzy]

A bit of a half arsed attempt at a self imposed ban I’d say @Alf Bentley 

[breadandcheese]

19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You appear to be using antisemitism and anti-capitalism as interchangeable terms and that's something that bothers me more than a dubious mural:  I'm no fan of the capitalist system and it would make me very angry if every time I voiced displeasure at negative elements of capitalism I had people try to dismiss that opinion as antisemitism.

No.  I'm not interchanging the terms. Anti-capitalism is separate from anti-semitism.  Whilst I consider anti-capitalism to be foolish, due to the huge advancement that capitalism as a system has brought over the last 200+ years, I fully accept that anti-capitalism is the basis of a political ideology.  Communism, the polar opposite of Capitalism is not anti-semitic.  Socialism is not anti-semitic.

 

However, once you start believing in a nefarious group of shadowy Jews/Rothschilds/Freemasons working with Jews to control the world, or that the Rothschilds/Zionists own all the central banks, or some other shady conspiracy theory involving Rothschilds/Zionists/Jews then you're borrowing straight out of Mein Kampf and I'm afraid you've crossed the line into anti-semtism.

[Buce]

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped

Leaving aside the £350m for the NHS, Brexit has promised quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, an end to ECJ jurisdiction and free movement, and British control of North Sea fishing. None of this has come to pass. Here are 11 key abandoned claims:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped

 

 

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, breadandcheese said:

No.  I'm not interchanging the terms. Anti-capitalism is separate from anti-semitism.  Whilst I consider anti-capitalism to be foolish, due to the huge advancement that capitalism as a system has brought over the last 200+ years, I fully accept that anti-capitalism is the basis of a political ideology.  Communism, the polar opposite of Capitalism is not anti-semitic.  Socialism is not anti-semitic.

 

However, once you start believing in a nefarious group of shadowy Jews/Rothschilds/Freemasons working with Jews to control the world, or that the Rothschilds/Zionists own all the central banks, or some other shady conspiracy theory involving Rothschilds/Zionists/Jews then you're borrowing straight out of Mein Kampf and I'm afraid you've crossed the line into anti-semtism.

This is where the whole intent debate comes up again though, isn't it?  Those who believe such theories are obviously a bit touched (including this Mear guy) but you must be able to understand that somebody can believe those things without it bearing out an anti-Jewish sentiment, after all being anti-Freemasons doesn't make one racist against all white Europeans and being anti Rothschilds shouldn't be automatically deemed an act of racism against all Jews.  Anyway it's a minor point really, I think we all understand where each other's coming from on this by now.

 

As to your first paragraph I think calling anti-capitalism foolish is a bit silly in its own right.  Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating hard-line, anti-currency stuff because quite frankly I can't offer a better method of mobilising the distribution of goods and services but that isn't the point:  Pure capitalism is little better than pure socialism, generally as a society we've come to understand this which is why we have restrictions and regulations to keep the system from getting too out of control and why although we retain a broad capitalist framework we still hold dear to ideas like socialised healthcare, anti-monopoly and cartel laws, workers' rights, a mandatory minimum wage and so on.  So perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here because to me dismissing anti-capitalism is dismissing the idea of questioning or restraining capitalism at all and to belittle that is to belittle a lot of those advances our society has made in those 200+ years and that obviously isn't your intention (there's that word again ).  Bloody semantics.

[Sharpe's Fox]

In my country there is problem....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that problem is transport

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped

Leaving aside the £350m for the NHS, Brexit has promised quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, an end to ECJ jurisdiction and free movement, and British control of North Sea fishing. None of this has come to pass. Here are 11 key abandoned claims:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped

Leaving aside the £350m for the NHS, Brexit has promised quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, an end to ECJ jurisdiction and free movement, and British control of North Sea fishing. None of this has come to pass. Here are 11 key abandoned claims:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped

 

 

 

 

 

Only 2 if them at best are failed to come promises, the author clearly doesn’t know the difference between opinions, statements and promises.

[Wymsey]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/weve-not-forgotten-leicesters-outer-1386197

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/weve-not-forgotten-leicesters-outer-1386197

Tbf most people wish they could forget new parks.

 

Thank you for not posting about what everybody else is posting about. I was getting bored.

[Guest MattP]

John Woodcock set to resign the whip according to Polhome.

 

Think this week has finally been the tipping point for some of the moderate Labour MP's.

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

John Woodcock set to resign the whip according to Polhome.

 

Think this week has finally been the tipping point for some of the moderate Labour MP's.

Coward. Resign and fight a bielection as an independent if you want to make a point. Even Zac Goldsmith at least he had the balls to do that.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Coward. Resign and fight a bielection as an independent if you want to make a point. Even Zac Goldsmith at least he had the balls to do that.

I agree, that’s what all these moderates should do. Have the courage of your convictions instead of sniping in the background.