Tuesday 27 March 2018

More fake antisemitism: Jeremy Corbyn smeared again...

... but he retains a lot of Labour's Jewish supporters too.

Tony Greenstein has the story.

Last week Corbyn was the friend of Putin. This week Corbyn is an anti-Semite. The charge of the false anti-Semitism brigade has been led by Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and various right-wing Labour MPs.

Could this be the same Jonathan Arkush who welcomed Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, his anti-Semitic alt-Right Advisor, to power? As the Jewish Forward in America reported ‘Anti-Semitic incidents, from bomb threats and cemetery desecration to assaults and bullying, have surged in the United States since the election of President Donald Trump.’

Throughout his campaign Trump gave a nod and a wink to blatant anti-Semitic messages and caricatures. As the New Republic observed ‘Donald Trump is doing a very strange pro-Israel, anti-Semitic dance.’ And therein lies the clue. Trump and the alt-Right combine anti-Semitism with vehement support for Zionism. The alt-Right might not like American Jews very much but they love Israel.

Naomi Zeveloff of the Forward wrote,an article, in shock and surprise, in the Jewish Forward, How Steve Bannon and Breitbart News Can Be Pro-Israel — and Anti-Semitic at the Same Time. Historically Zionism and anti-Semitism were two sides of the same racist coin. As the founder of Political Zionism Theodor Herzl wrote:

“In Paris ... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-semitism.”

Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism because it starts from the basis that anti-Semitism is a hereditary disease that all non-Jews possess. That is what makes this false anti-Semitism campaign no nauseating.

[Snip]

We have the phenomenon today of people like Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi founder of the alt-Right declaring that he is a White Zionist. If you are a white supremacist what is there not to like about Israel. It is the ideal ethno-racial state. That is the clue to Arkush’s outbursts – it’s not anti-Semitism that he is concerned with but opposition to Israel. If Corbyn had been like Tony Blair, a supporter of Israel and Zionism then he would not have received such treatment. It is no accident that Arkush demanded today that Jackie Walker, a Black Jewish anti-racist activist be expelled. This is the logic of the false anti-Semitism campaign – it is anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews who are their primary targets. That was why I was expelled.

Read the whole, lengthy exposé, here

53 comments:

  1. The Lord Sugar Tweet with Corbyn in a car with Hitler WAS hilarious though! If Corbyn's not an anti-Semite, why does he keep hanging out with anti-Semites?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilarious? Deeply puerile is how I'd describe it...

      Delete
  2. Name me some of the antisemites JC hangs out with?

    And what about you? FreeStinker is one of the most antisemitic bloggers on the WWW!! Even his 'Da Jooooz should be grateful for Hitler' comment you neither removed nor opposed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. :)

    Jeremy Corbyn is to antiSemitism as most anti-immigration activists are to racism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pffft... calling anti-Zionists 'antisemites' is the oldest trick in the book. It is now as it was thus...

      Delete
    2. So what is the calling of Identitarians 'racist'?

      Delete
  4. Did you mean: "So why is the calling of Identitarians 'racist'?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. If calling anti-Zionists 'antisemites' is the oldest trick in the book, WHAT is the calling of Identitarians 'racist'?

      Delete
    3. You're simply not making any sense at all.

      Please explain why a series of deeply antisemitic comments made by an idiot named FreeThinke at FT are met by you claiming "Ashkenazi Jews are soooo clevah!!!"

      Please eleborate. I won't hold my breath though...

      Delete
    4. Ashkenazi's have the highest IQ of any group around. It's simply a FACT.

      Delete
    5. Is that too antisemitic for you?

      btw - Do you know why the Amish woman was expelled from Amish Farmer's Market? The said she was too Mennonite.

      Delete
  5. Whether AJ are the most intelligent or not is irrelevant to my question re FT.

    "Inspector AIPAC" isn't antisemitic to my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If calling anti-Zionists 'antisemites' is the oldest trick in the book, WHAT is the calling of Identitarians 'racist'?"

    Some identitarians are racist. If you believe 'your group' is the 'best' then logically you won't think much of 'lesser groups' and that can definitely lead to racism (although not necessarily or automatically).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, some identitarians ARE racist. By why try to pass the entire alt-R off as racist? Many are simply "identitarian". Just as many Western Palestinian supporters, like Corbyn, are not anti-semitic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And yes, FT is a tad antisemitic. But he's not "gas the Jews" anti-Semitic. He's more "deport the Jews" anti-Semitic. But given their "protected status since 1945", the "I'm a victim" schtick from one of the smartest and wealthiest groups in America does wear "thin".

    ReplyDelete
  9. So now you know why I didn't "oppose" FT's "grateful for Hitler" post, as it pretty much followed the content of my post.

    Our American reaction to Hitler after the war until today has been to equate racism with the most vile criminality. It disgusts that vast majority of us. But nationalism doesn't HAVE to be racist. It can be identitarian. A desire to protect the citizens, regardless of race, of a nation. And no, illegal immigrants are NOT citizens. They are homo sacer, regardless of "race".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Our American immigration system was evolving into a "lottery system" so as to avoid the impression that we took in more of one race over another. But let's be fair, we do need to "discriminate" with a criteria favorable to social and economic integration. During wartime, we need to close entry to members of beligerant-allied nations. Again, I also favor tailoring our national system to favoring the well being of the "average" American. No more H1B visas. No more temporary worker visas. And immigration quotas dependent upon GNP growth (a lottery based upon a family-based preference system).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also favour the Swiss-canton system of "state" citizenship.

      Delete
  11. "And yes, FT is a tad antisemitic. But he's not "gas the Jews" anti-Semitic. He's more "deport the Jews" anti-Semitic. But given their "protected status since 1945", the "I'm a victim" schtick from one of the smartest and wealthiest groups in America does wear "thin"."

    A tad???? I don't recall in recent times having read anything so off the chart (though I know where to find it if I need to).

    He's also the reason why I don't comment at FJ anymore: life's too short to waste it on mudslinging matches with a racist, hypocritical knownothing like FreeStinker.

    He's not a "gas the Jooooz" type? Well, that makes it alright then!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "By why try to pass the entire alt-R off as racist?"

    Much of the alt-R is deeply and PROUDLY racist. Many are white supremacist and misogynist to boot.

    Sure, not all of'em. And I've never claimed otherwise...

    ReplyDelete
  13. ...and what is the Cntl-L? With is paternalistic "affirmative action" (racism as official public policy)? Sure "not ALL..." Leftists are racists who believe minorities are weak and NEED government protection because otherwise they would be incapable of making it on their own. But there's a HUGE difference between 1 and (N-1) [aka the "not ALL"].

    In the Alt-R, racists and White supremacists are a MINISCULE minority. Its pure smear to claim otherwise, or that the Alt-R is any more racist than the Cntl-L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post, written from deep inside the alt-R, gives a good idea of the level of racism in the alt-R.

      Delete
    2. I haven't claimed that there weren't racists within the Alt-R. Your claim is that they form a "majority", yet you keep citing individual cases. Where's your evidence of "preponderance" of racism? Donald Trump?

      If your contention were even near being true, David Duke would be President, NOT Donald Trump.

      Delete
    3. That he's NOT puts lie to your theory of endemic Alt-R "racism".

      Delete
    4. "Your claim is that they form a "majority", yet you keep citing individual cases."

      I didn't make that claim. I claimed there is much racism in the alt-R. Just how much isn't knowable, IMO, as it depends on subjective definitions (of alt-R and racism).

      I can't really come up with a single alt-R site that isn't racist, though...

      Delete
    5. To claim that there isn't much racism in the alt-R you need to make that tent much larger than it really is and stuff it with people who don't consider themselves to be alt-R.

      Delete
    6. ...which is why you make the claim that the Alt-R's racist. To keep the tent "small". Cuz who would join THAT tent?

      Delete
    7. "...which is why you make the claim that the Alt-R's racist. To keep the tent "small". Cuz who would join THAT tent?"

      I'm not reasoning in bad faith here. I've always believed the alt-R are a fairly small band of fairly disparate Far Right extremists, NOT a broad church on the right.

      Delete
    8. "I've always believed the alt-R are a fairly small band of fairly disparate Far Right extremists, NOT a broad church on the right."

      Please don't tell me that's wishful thinking! ;-)

      Delete
    9. Where does the "Trump" voter fall? They don't fall with the GOPe establishment "never-Trumpers". They don't fall with David Duke. They are the Alt-R.

      Delete
    10. ”Where does the "Trump" voter fall? They don't fall with the GOPe establishment "never-Trumpers". They don't fall with David Duke. They are the Alt-R.”

      I think you’re grossly over-simplifying.

      I’m fairly sure, when push came to shove, most “never Trumpers” will have pushed the Trump ballot button. They may have been NT in name but the prospect of electing that terrible woman must have been terrifying. See also how the GOP swiftly fell in line after the victory.

      Even in your own circle of bloggers I saw scepticism re. Trump evaporate quickly, once victory was declared.

      And what about the many disillusioned/impoverished folk in the various rust/dust belt that voted Trump? These are alt-Right too? Pa-lease.

      It’s a bit like if Tony Blair made a comeback and he was the only hope to avoid a May III, even the Corbynites would probably switch to that clown.

      Delete
    11. That's where you're wrong. The Never-Trumpers (Neo-cons) voted Hillary. She wasn't Romney, but she was a global free-traders gung ho for TPP (despite all protestations to the contrary).

      The Alt-R are economic "nationalists" sick of seeing their jobs off-shored to India and China. That includes those blue collars you claim aren't Alt-R. Nationalism is the unifying theme. It's not racism. It's just anti-immigrant (for economic reasons).

      Delete
    12. ...and I think that if Corbyn was smart, he go Nationalist too. Blair wouldn't have a chance, and the Conservatives party is still too timid to go "full Brexit", so 80% of them would switch to Labour.

      Delete
    13. It's economics, not race and social justice. If Corbyn could just drop the racial aspects of his social justice campaign (and concentrate on CLASS), he'd clean up at the voting booth.

      Delete
    14. "...and I think that if Corbyn was smart, he go Nationalist too."

      Corbyn was a very luke warm Remainer because he sees the danger of the EU as a vector for I'nal neoliberalism.

      Delete
  14. I wouldn’t trust anyone who thinks FS is a mere “tad” anti-Semitic with gauging how racist the alt-R just are.

    And the answer to that latter question depends largely on what you understand by alt-Right. There’s a broad gaggle of well-read and well-linked sites and blogs that claim to have coined that phrase and all are deeply racist and proud of it. My money is on AlterNativeRight as having first used or inspired the use of the term. The racism drips of the pages, mainly directed at Jews and “Dindus”.

    ”Leftists are racists who believe minorities are weak and NEED government protection”

    Sadly, there’s no shortage of minorities that deserve protection from a racist majority (and yet often do not get that protection). The problem isn’t even confined to Xtian or Muslim societies only: see e.g. the Rohingya crisis or the plight of the Roma in various countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then there are all these sites and twitterati that may not be strictly alt-R but certainly sympathise with it: MGTOW, RoK, various Reddits, 'kekistan', shitlordism, cartoonish neo-Nazis etc. Their deep racism is undeniable.

      The American Right has always been more tolerant of racism because many believe that allegation is a ‘Leftist smear’ (see also ‘Cultural Marxism’).

      Duke couldn’t win because too many decent Conservatives/RINOs can’t abide him.

      Delete
    2. The American Right has never been tolerant of racism, which is why it always has and continues to oppose the systemitization and institutionalization of it, which is what the Left has done (ala - Affirmative Action for the public good.) We passed the 13th and 14th Amendments eliminating slavery and discrimination from the Constitution. The Left put discrimination back into federal law with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Delete
    3. ...but then, to oppose Affirmative Action is just "racist" (historized argument). There can be no underlying principle in it...

      Delete
    4. Even WaPo, not exactly a bastion of leftism, seems to disagree with you:

      Fifty-three years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and forcefully challenged “all” Americans to “close the springs of racial poison.”

      The landmark legislation spurred all sorts of racial progress — from desegregating Southern establishments, to driving anti-discrimination lawsuits, to opening the doors of opportunity for the new black middle class.

      But this celebratory history that Americans love has only been part of the story. The other, less popular part of the story is understandably underplayed: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, intended to dismantle racism, also spurred racist progress.

      Racial disparities persisted after the law was passed because discriminatory policies persisted under a patina of colorblindness. The legacy of the Civil Rights Act’s failures abound: America is still hemorrhaging from the racism of police bullets, health disparities and environmental catastrophes. The black unemployment rate has been twice the white unemployment rate for 60 years, segregation is on the rise in public schools across America, and an unprecedented number of black and brown bodies have been mass incarcerated as a result of the war on drugs.


      Source.

      Delete
    5. The Kerner Commission told America that they had a racism problem. The "problem solvers" in DC decided we needed more integration in schools to solve it so they started bussing black kids into white schools. The "racists" responded by fleeing the cities for the suburbs. The government problem solvers responded by forced bussing white kids from the suburbs into the cities. The "racists" responded by sending their kids to private schools.

      Seems that nothing can racially segregate a community faster than having the government write laws mandating integration.

      Delete
    6. The right has their own theory as to the "nature" of the "racism" problem. We frame it as an "IQ problem". IQ explains even better than racism (why orientals seem unaffected by the presence of white racism). So, which is it? Racism or IQ differences?

      Delete
    7. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. He wasn't MY ideal candidate, but he was anti-corporate and wasn't a global free trader. Again, "economics".

      Delete
  15. To enable slavery, Whites were told for very long time that Blacks were uneducated (and uneducable), savages, subhuman, dangerous and needing to be controlled. These memes are still around today, believed and promulgated now mainly by some of the alt-Right.

    Small wonder then you have something like White Flight!

    A long history past discrimination explains why Blacks still rank lower on the socioeconomic ladder (on average).

    Racism is a funny thing: while G-d only knows how many native Indians were massacred, Whites have a strange form of respect, reverence even, for them. Not so for Blacks. Could it be in part because the former were indigenous but the latter ‘imported’?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. The white revolutionaries of 1776 adopted Tammanend as their patron saint. Even the blacks who joined it adopted Tamanend. Iko-iko-un-day! It's a multi-racial "tradition" in which ALL American-born peoples became "indigenous".

      You say racism explains it. I say that a racist majority couldn't possibly elect a "minority" President, and yet America did.

      Delete
    2. But where did I claim there’s a racist majority today? Elements in the majority are racist but that doesn’t make them THE majority

      The election of Obama didn’t herald the end of all racism though.

      Delete
    3. Where did I claim that it ended? I'm just saying that it's a small minority position in BOTH major parties.

      Delete
  16. "The Alt-R are economic "nationalists" sick of seeing their jobs off-shored to India and China. "

    LOL. You seem to be shaping the alt-R into your own image! R-u-God? LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...almost.

      At least I don't worship Tonantzin. :)

      Delete