EU referendum are you in or out

[zip accident]

Being anri-racist doesn't just mean not being against any races, it also means not being in favour of any races.

[VNVObit]

Those articles highlight the exact problem with the reporting, though. The Luciana Berger case wasn't backed with any publicly-viewable evidence (or even anecdotes). The "673 cases investigated" thing still doesn't include any *actual* examples. Neither does the Owen Jones piece. They're borderline non-stories.

The graffiti incident is a bit more tangible, but "liking" a dodgy piece of media or art isn't in itself an endorsement in a belief system.

Compare with cases where (sticking with Labour) Dianne Abbott has very publicly "outed"racists by sharing their letters, tweets, FB messages. Or with gay MPs who took part in this documentary.

I'm not saying that the Labour Party doesn't have anti-Semites amongst its ranks, and maybe they've felt emboldened by JC's anti-Israel stance. But it's all so... vaporware. And where there's no actual evidence on display, it's really easy to wander down the "maybe there's something else behind all this?" path.

if you share evidence then you potentially undermine the cases so people do not tend to do that
Whether Corbyn liked the artwork or not wasn't the issue. He supported the protest that wanted the artwork restored following its removal by the local authority on the grounds that it was racist (a labour authority who were behaving appropriately )

from another article here

One of the local party’s members faces an investigation by the party after it emerged he branded Ms Berger a "disruptive Zionist" on Facebook.

or what about this - hardly vaporware

and then there's Labour's own investigation into the matter

If the party admit they have a problem then it's fair to say they have a problem. Some of the leadership have faced up to that fact while others have compounded the issue by questioning the critics' loyalty (McDonnell) or preventing a quick resolution (Corbyn).

It is quite telling that Corbyn has not treated the Lexiteers (such as Hoey and Fields) who have gone against the party whip the same way he has treated others who have criticised him or his handling of the antisemitism within Labour- it almost feels as if some are more equal than others (Orwell reference intended)

[zip accident]

Those articles highlight the exact problem with the reporting, though. The Luciana Berger case wasn't backed with any publicly-viewable evidence (or even anecdotes). The "673 cases investigated" thing still doesn't include any *actual* examples. Neither does the Owen Jones piece. They're borderline non-stories.

The graffiti incident is a bit more tangible, but "liking" a dodgy piece of media or art isn't in itself an endorsement in a belief system.

Compare with cases where (sticking with Labour) Dianne Abbott has very publicly "outed"racists by sharing their letters, tweets, FB messages. Or with gay MPs who took part in this documentary.

I'm not saying that the Labour Party doesn't have anti-Semites amongst its ranks, and maybe they've felt emboldened by JC's anti-Israel stance. But it's all so... vaporware. And where there's no actual evidence on display, it's really easy to wander down the "maybe there's something else behind all this?" path.

if you share evidence then you potentially undermine the cases so people do not tend to do that
Whether Corbyn liked the artwork or not wasn't the issue. He supported the protest that wanted the artwork restored following its removal by the local authority on the grounds that it was racist (a labour authority who were behaving appropriately )

from another article here

One of the local party’s members faces an investigation by the party after it emerged he branded Ms Berger a "disruptive Zionist" on Facebook.

There needs to be a lot more detail on who said what and why, which details may not be obtainable. There are anti-zionist jews, and to say that all anti-zionism is anti-semitic is incorrect.

or what about this - hardly vaporware

That one appears to be a virus. It puts up a "click to continue" "our adverts only track you a bit" notice before you can read the article, and it doesn't let you back out, I had to kill and reload firefox to get back to Yakyak.

and then there's Labour's own investigation into the matter

That one's a PDF, not a link.

If the party admit they have a problem then it's fair to say they have a problem. Some of the leadership have faced up to that fact while others have compounded the issue by questioning the critics' loyalty (McDonnell) or preventing a quick resolution (Corbyn).

It is quite telling that Corbyn has not treated the Lexiteers (such as Hoey and Fields) who have gone against the party whip the same way he has treated others who have criticised him or his handling of the antisemitism within Labour- it almost feels as if some are more equal than others (Orwell reference intended)

The problem the labour party has is that some jews don't see them as being pro-jewish enough. As I wrote above, being anti-racist is never about being for any particular race.

[Absolute_Zero]

There was an e.g. on Tuesday.

Foot, aim, FIRE!
Ruth George sorry for claiming ex-Labour MPs may have Israeli backing.

The optics of that being your reflex rationale isn't a good look.

It's not impossible of course... but Joo conspiracy theories/ideation comes with a particular history.

[merman]

Just to point out...
The Independent Group is NOT a political party yet.
It is a business group, established in Panama and does not have to declare its backers in the same way as a political party.

And if just four more Tories quit, May's majority (even with the DUP bribe) is gone. Of course she is now making overtures to get TIG to support her deal...

[Little stoned kiwi]

This seems relevant to the Israel tangent: Comment: We are anti-Zionist Jews, we are not anti-semitic

When Defence Minister Ron Mark met Israel's Prime Minister on January 27, Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as asking New Zealand to change its definition of anti-semitism so that it includes political opposition to Zionism.

[PFVA]

EU has announced EU Citizen ID Cards. Rather than the individual countries having our own ID cards like we do now we all we'll have EU Citizen cards in the same way as we have EU passports.

[VNVObit]

or what about this - hardly vaporware

That one appears to be a virus. It puts up a "click to continue" "our adverts only track you a bit" notice before you can read the article, and it doesn't let you back out, I had to kill and reload firefox to get back to Yakyak.

worked fine as a link to huffington post on my machine (use safari)

and then there's Labour's own investigation into the matter

That one's a PDF, not a link.

you can link to a pdf it's not exclusively for HTML - PDF is labour report on its investigation


Will leave final word to Jeremy Corbyn who admits (in this video) that there has been antisemitism abuse within the Labour Party and that Labour have been slow to respond

[Rhythm]

Just to point out...
The Independent Group is NOT a political party yet.

True

It is a business group, established in Panama

Not true. The group's site is protected by WhoIsGuard, who are based in Panama.

[Absolute_Zero]

Labour MP Ian Austin quits party

Mr Austin told the Express and Star newspaper that he was quitting because of the party's "lurch to the left" under Jeremy Corbyn and the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party.

But he said he had no plans to join the new Independent Group of former Labour and Tory MPs

[Rhythm]

Labour MP Ian Austin quits party

Mr Austin told the Express and Star newspaper that he was quitting because of the party's "lurch to the left" under Jeremy Corbyn and the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party.

But he said he had no plans to join the new Independent Group of former Labour and Tory MPs

Another one who openly admits he has a problem with Corbyn and who had done since the start.

Something interesting in the "673 claims" article you linked, was the note that "we investigated these AS comments and often found the offender had 'some link' to the Labour Party". That, to me, is a different thing than saying "the Labour Party are inherently AS". And not to get too whataboutist about this, but if you start looking at "comments made by people with 'links' to the Labour Party", then would AS even be the number one issue that needed addressing?

Again, I'm not trying to say these things aren't happening (because I don't know either way, frankly) and I'm in no way a Corbyn defender (I voted Labour once, years ago, and regretted it deeply) but these AS comments appear like people are raising an excuse to leave that's easier than saying "I don't like Corbyn".

[Absolute_Zero]

Something interesting in the "673 claims" article you linked,

That was VNVObit... unless you mean the link within the BBC article I linked? That was added after I posted.

I prefer evidence that exposes the less-guarded underlying mindset. At considerable risk of repeating myself, see my post dated 21-Feb-19 19:50

That Corbyn was blind to these obvious 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' type tropes *almost* beggars belief.


That shouldn't be possible... but tellingly, it is.

[Rhythm]

Something interesting in the "673 claims" article you linked,

That was VNVObit... unless you mean the link within the BBC article I linked? That was added after I posted.

Ah, sorry, tricky thread to follow :-)

[KlaxonCow]

That Corbyn was blind to these obvious 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' type tropes *almost* beggars belief.

What exactly in this image tells us that these folks are Jewish?

I mean, "the Eye of Providence" - the pyramid with an eye - directly comes from an American dollar bill. It's commonly associated with "the Illuminati" and Freemasonry - which are both Christian, not Jewish.

The historical Illuminati were a Bavarian order, reacting to the Catholic Church's encouragement for an edict that banned secret societies, like the Freemasons, "rebelled in secret" against this, refusing to be kow-towed to such theocracy.

And, to be honest, that's it. There's zero evidence that the Illuminati didn't just naturally die off. Conspiracy theorists link the Eye of Providence to the Illuminati, based on the idea that they've just kept going until today, controlling the world in secret. But none of that has any actual evidence to back it up.

And it's entirely Christian in origin. The Eye of Providence is a Christian symbol - it's the all-seeing eye of God.

The Illuminati means "the Enlightened". The whole point being that they were children of the Enlightenment. These were deists - just like the many who founded the United States of America - that were opposing the reigning theocracy of the Catholic Church. They were founded to "oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life, and abuses of state power".

Though the Catholic propaganda against them painted this as "occultism" and "Satanism", that's the polar opposite of what it was all about.

Indeed, under the Eye of Providence on the dollar bill are the words "Novus Ordo Seculorum". Conspiracy theorists read this as "New World Order", but you can see the word "Seculorum" in there, it's actually "the New Secular Order". In other words, the new not-religious, not-theocratically controlled order. And it says nothing about the world. There's no claim there that it's about world domination.

No, it's just symbolism to confirm what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The clause that bans theocracy in America, basically. The government is not legally allowed to force people to, or from, their own chosen beliefs. And, implicitly, therefore, the law remains secular in nature, now and forever more.

This is an old battle between the Catholic Church losing its theocratic control over Europe with the rise of the Enlightenment and folks no longer believing in the Christian God (though deists, which most of the folks around then were, do still believe in some kind of deity - they were not atheists exactly - but rejected organised religion and certainly the "revelation by proxy" of authoritarian religion, in an age where science was all about people doubting and discovering things for themselves, so they were just further applying that train of thought to their religious beliefs. The Pope doesn't tell me how the universe and its Creator works - the universe itself tells us that).

Yes, as an atheist myself, I know well the Christian trick of labelling atheism as "Satanism". Even though, you know, it's not believing in any supernatural being - or just the general concept of "worship" of anyone or anything - and is a ridiculous misrepresentation. It stems, I feel, from Christian dualism. The idea that if you're not worshipping God then you're helping Satan and, thus, are a Satanist.

They see this "good and evil" binary, so if someone says "I'm not a believer in that thing you consider to be 'good'" then they auto-presume this means that you're all for evil - and the Lord of Evil, Lucifer - and so on and so forth.

Which is, of course, a false dichotomy. Atheists are not "against God", per se, as they just don't reckon any gods - or their opposite numbers, the evil gods or demons or devils or djinn or whatever - were ever a real thing.

Anyway, my point is that the thing which is front and center of that mural - the Eye of Providence - has ZERO connection to Jews. It's a Christian symbol that, through an internal battle in Christian nations between theocracy and secularism, has been linked to "the Illuminati". Which literally means "the Enlightened" - as in those who follow the Enlightenment and are all about science and secularism, not religious bollocks - so if they Illuminati do still exist (of which there is ZERO evidence) then they're not the "Satanists" of Catholic propganda anyway, but are secularists fighting to get rid of theocracy.

So I'm just trying to find the thing that's in this image that tells us that these folks are Jewish, and therefore this is related to that silly "Elders of the Protocols of Zion" hoax.

The Illuminati Eye. Behind that, we have "the dark satanic mills" of industry - cooling towers and chimneys. A Monopoly board - and, of course, Monopoly was created as an objection to monopolistic capitalism, by showing that all it ultimately does is break down and ruin social cohesion. And there's money in the centre of the table. And the Monopoly board is held up on the backs of the faceless workers. There are also cog wheels - but that has no Jewish symbolism, as far as I know.

What tells us that these people are Jewish? That they've got "Jewish noses"? Well, no, as look at that guy in the green tie. His nose is nothing like the guy on the far left. There's an array of different noses here and, come on, we're claiming "anti-semitism" on the basis of a nose, when it's all drawn in a cartoon style anyway?

Yes, this could be read as "Elders of the Protocols of Zion" tropes. But it could also be read as simple anti-capitalism "New World Order" conspiracy theorism too. That's - I stress again - an "Illuminati" symbol (of originally Christian origin) right there in the front and centre of the image. The symbol that's on the American dollar bill.

I'm looking at the evidence - "Nullius in Verba" - and I'm looking for the thing that absolutely 100% confirms this as Jewish, to make it "Elders of the Protocols of Zion", rather than just a more generic "fuck capitalism, fuck the bankers" New-World-Order conspiracy theorist bit of nonsense instead.

[Dio]

Doing a multipage analysis of that one image is missing the point by so much you kind of prove the real point.

It's not about white and black. It's about endless shades of grey, and so many people who have an interest are deliberately trying to make it worse, whether the right-wingers' now-old, now-more-widely-used tricks of dog whistles and redefining language or the people supporting the less palatable parts of the Israeli government's actions trying to nudge all criticism of Israel within the definition of antisemitism or who knows how many others.

It's not about proof as much as perception. Which makes it easier to see when it's not there - and also perniciously hard to stamp out when it is, because this stuff it's quite deliberately designed to be short of the burden of 'reasonable doubt' on which much of our justice is supposedly based.