Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Corbyn vs Old New Labour.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Tony McKenna tells us:

<<

The Labour Party could have enunciated the facts, soberly and conscientiously. On the question of immigration, for example, they might have pointed out that immigrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 (all poorer countries of eastern and central Europe) - contributed £4.96 billion more in taxes to the UK than they took out in public services in the period up to 2011. But they didn't choose to do so. Instead Labour's movers and shakers hit upon a far more adroit and punchy concept - they issued a cup which proclaimed 'Controls on Immigrants - I'm voting Labour'. (On the plus side, every crank and immigration obsessive nationwide now has something from which to sup.)

>>
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: See the full article in the references below, but that's really all we need. Clear proof that Blair and Co are a bunch of lying, cheating morons who fostered the hatred of immigrants in order to bribe their way to electoral victory.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Corbyn, meanwhile, is a scientifically truthful and intellectually honest source who ought to be leading the country (and hopefully will) not just the Labour Party. This is why, above all, people like Blair, lying as we can see from the quote above, lying to appease racists and nazis and anti-semites, goes all out to demonise Corbyn. Unification: More from McKenna:

<<

On the question of immigration he has consistently argued that it is anything but 'a problem', rather we should celebrate the 'enormous contribution to our society' that immigrants make. As a backbencher he had refused to march to the drums of patriotism and war, opposing the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan at every turn. As leader of the Labour Party, he has opposed any military intervention in Syria, while condemning the government and the UK weapons industry for supplying weapons to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel facilitating the ongoing decimation of the Yemeni and Palestinian populations.

So much of this had hitherto fallen beneath the radar, had been smothered by the mainstream consensus. But the Corbyn phenomenon was now amplifying these simple and human truths in the most public of forums. Exposing the grotty and illicit machinations of much of the political class as grounded in elite self-interest hitched to ever more vicious forms of economic exploitation on the domestic front - while at the same time shedding light on the illicit interconnections between government, a booming arms industry and the series of never-ending wars abroad. The Corbyn movement, therefore, emerged as a living, grass-roots critique of elite politics as business-as-usual (with no small emphasis on the word 'business').

For this reason, the reaction of the political establishment to the Corbyn and the politics of 'anti-austerity' was inflamed to baying, hysterical proportions, but more significantly it was the type of response which once again demonstrated how the mainstream media, the state broadcaster, the politicians and political pundits were functioning almost as one - a seamless, coordinated political entity with a uniform voice.

In another lifetime it might almost have been satirical. Corbyn, a social democrat of a reformist bent, something of a pacifist, a genuine but at times muddled speaker, the type of earnest community-minded activist who had his own allotment and made his own jam - this same figure was transfigured by a rabid establishment into successive manifestations of the purest evil; he was a terrorist sympathiser, a threat to national security, a communist spy, a misogynist and a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

The allegations were all false, based on the flimsiest of claims; his commitment to terrorism was gleaned from photos where he appeared shaking hands with Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, but the latter had shaken hands with other politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as part of negotiations toward a peace settlement. Most absurdly of all, the threat Corbyn posed to national security was demonstrated by the fact that he had not bowed sufficiently low at a remembrance ceremony for those killed in war.

It was as though the establishment was trying one smear after the other in order to see which would best stick. In the event, the allegations of anti-Semitism proved most effective. Perhaps because there is a fringe element on the left which does have a problem with anti-Semitism, something that has become more pronounced with the rise in conspiracy theories which followed the events of September 11th and decades of working class defeat. As August Bebel once remarked, 'anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools'. Perhaps because the Corbyn administration was not quick enough to act effectively against some of the cases of genuine anti-Semitism which had emerged within the party. But the facts were still clear. The party received 673 allegations of anti-Semitism toward Labour members from April 2018 to January 2019, which amounted to around 0.1% of the overall party membership (a membership which stood at around 500,000). But reportage which gave a dry and sober account of the statistical facts was simply replaced with the yowling, furious but utterly dogmatic assertion that Corbyn's party was institutionally anti-Semitic and represented an existential threat to the safety of Jews living in the UK.

>>

So you can understand why when the average educated white man or white woman I speak to speaks of Labour's "anti-semitism" I have to ask myself how unintelligent the average white British man or woman has become, over the years. It seems to me that the word which sums up that quantity is "extremely" - no need for a specific number. It's clear that all these white people I meet who are not the ones who actually are annoyed by the anti-semitism smears but are the many self-adulating twats who see themselves as educated and wise and better than those with less education than they - and yet they are visibly very stupid. There is no question about it. To believe Corbyn is 'anti-semitic' is to be a moron. YET if you go through the educated white (and token) members of this society, you will find a majority who demonstrate this cretinous mentality, who are really that stupid. Yes. For example my school, St Paul's school, one of the original 8 public schools, in my year of 150 boys, at a guess, purely a guess, based on how over the last 10+ years I have (despite being, at school, the life and soul of the party, the chairman of various debating societies, the editor of the comedy underground paper, and much acclaimed) been excluded, unfriended, avoided and kept at a distance - and based on all that I'd say that out of 150 boys in my year at St Paul's the number stupid enough to fall for the anti-semitism smears has to be at least 50. Which is disturbingly high. Okay, okay, 'not a majority', as you may assert, since I spoke of a majority - well yes, but my school is rare, one of the most Corbynlike public schools and one of the best schools in Britain. If our monetary and class system is flawed, and structures within it are part of that inherently flawed structure, it doesn't make them useless. I am scientifically, unquestioningly glad I went there and to no other school - had I not, you would not be reading this, I'd bet money. And the nearest I'd get to an algorithm would be the way facebook targets advertising at me! As for that 50 I mention - calculated by simply working out how many in 3 of my facebook friends from St Paul's turned their back on me for being antiwar and against Israel - many surprising ones, not even racists, just not wanting the headache or related fear of being near my activism or encouraging it. 1 in 3. So in 150, perhaps 50. Probably not much higher than that if it exceeds that number, but possibly lower. Obviously St Paul's was not Eton, the latter would call us plebs, and that was because we were definitely closer to a meritocratic model of education than Eton is. In truth if the entire nation's education were as good as St Paul's, we'd be doing well. Whereas if the entire nation's education were as warped as Eton's, someone would nuke us fairly quickly for being basically far far far too fucked up. Just take a look at Mogg for the evidence. Anyway, let's hope that by the end of this week Jeremy Corbyn is the Prime Minister. It's a strong possibility, I'm sure. Perhaps the most likely. St Anne's College Oxford wasn't an entire waste of time but didn't share the quality I mention in St Paul's - which shares the same quality with certain other teachers from my 'preparatory school' and with Arthur Lowe's comedy and Tom Baker's sci-fi. Oxford wasn't useless, but it entirely lacked what made those other places genuine educational experiences I'd be upset at having had to do without, if some weird time travel situation could enable me to have done it, and known what I got out of it, and then go back and not do it. Oxford - I think I'd probably, despite the fact that my 'moral tutor' was also the same kind of educational experience as my school and the others I mentioned, nonetheless, for the sake of being with a better class of student, I'd probably go to a university like Edinburgh or London. And I'd probably wait about 5 or 10 years to do it and be that much younger, if I had this whole time travel malarkey, because in my generation white kids still were only one step beyond the Rigsby generation, so you see - they were a lot more racist, I would guess, and some anecdotal evidence supports, than kids of today. I'd have enjoyed university better with slightly more evolved fellow students, and it's nothing to do with classism or elitism and everything to do with yearning for equality and the capacity to enjoy your day among friends, rather than - well. The way it has been, but the way it will stop being, in our lifetimes. And it doesn't really matter who wins the election, although it would be advantageous and convenient if Corbyn were to win it. But either way, sooner or later, we will win our battles, because these battles are one and the same as our battle to survive millions of years and - indeed - as Feynman and others would be quick to agree - who fecking knows how long or 'what' exactly (I mean there ARE other dimensions you know, once you get past up, left, forwards and six o'clock on the 234rd cycle around the big fire 2014 cycles after point x, which is a point we more or less can partly show measurements all the way back to, or if not that then have a sentimental attachment to it and can actually go back further, but since we're still fairly primitive we haven't had any need to come up with a new 'year' system since we still know as little as we did in the cycle we call '0AD'). It is the same 'battle' - the same flow - the same vibration. I think that last word probably gets closest to a true scientific reference to what it really is. What 'life' is. And I'll tell you this for free. If Mafia Incorporated succeeds in its foul plan to prevent an almost inevitable Labour victory - and if immediately after that anyone tries to remove Corbyn from being able to challenge them again, one election later - I will destroy the party, entirely, democratically and intellectually, of anyone who attempts to do that to Corbyn and succeeds. It's a stalemate. Blair came. We saw what an ass he was. We knocked down Labour. FLAT ON THE GROUND. Corbyn rose, Blair came. WE KNOCKED OUT BLAIR flat on the ground. And now the election has come, we have knocked out Boris, FLAT ON THE GROUND, and every lie and stratagem possible has been mustered to prevent the unthinkable, to prevent democracy in Britain. And no, I don't think they'll win, but I'm just saying - if they do, then the most important thing is making Corbyn 1000 times more powerful before the subsequent election. With all the momentum there is, it can be done. Anyone riding that wave knows, I'm sure, that if you suddenly take Corbyn out of the equation, ALL THE WIND IN YOUR SAILS WILL VANISH. Resignation will not be tolerated. We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams, the rewriters of screenplays, the antiwar activists, the peace makers, and we don't resign. We start at x and end at y. Even Boris Johnson must not resign when/'if' he loses. I sincerely demand that the fat head stick around and play ball and learn the rules of the game. I like him better than the other tories. His policies are disgusting, his attitude is puerile, his personal life is apparently a shambles, but just like Jeremy Corbyn, he has stood tall and seen Blair, Brown, Miliband, Cameron, May and so many other of his enemies fall before him, and he's still standing. If Boris cast off his Tuppy Glossop like habits, his peculiar similarity to at least three, indeed, of the friends of Bertie Wooster who are basically idiots, and try to be a little more like Wodehouse, a man who mocked Lord Kitchener, if Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie's version is accurate, a man who didn't need to pick on the weak and the easily-bullied in order to say something 'funny'. A man who mocked the Roderick Spodes of the world. Do you want to be a Roderick Spode all your life Boris? No of course you don't. Trust me. Corbyn will kick your ass and then you should stick around and kick the asses of all the people who dropped you in it and misguided you. I really do not see why that cannot happen. Human nature is no stranger to me. I think defeatism is the stranger. And my point is that it is a stranger to me, to Jeremy Corbyn and to Boris Johnson. We could get a boat and a dog and a hamper, go up river, have all kinds of crazy experiences and turn into an amusing novel. Whatever you say about Corbyn and whatever you say about Johnson - I take my hat off to them both. My vote, of course, is with Corbyn. Sorry Boris. But as I said, once you are the underdog, I am at your service the same way Rumpole is to anyone needing defence against authority. GO FORTH leader of the opposition. Do your stuff. Whichever you are, I will stand next to you and if necessary do your job for you.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

7 versions:

1. Server time: 15:45:52 on 10/12/2019
2. Server time: 15:46:56 on 10/12/2019
3. Server time: 20:49:16 on 10/12/2019
4. Server time: 20:50:16 on 10/12/2019
5. Server time: 20:51:56 on 10/12/2019
6. Server time: 21:32:15 on 11/12/2019
7. Server time: 21:34:46 on 11/12/2019

Related points:

References:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/the-demonization-of-jeremy-corbyn/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/11/ideology-or-popularity-how-will-britain-vote/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

Corbyn vs Old New Labour.

Tony McKenna tells us:

<<

The Labour Party could have enunciated the facts, soberly and conscientiously. On the question of immigration, for example, they might have pointed out that immigrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 (all poorer countries of eastern and central Europe) - contributed £4.96 billion more in taxes to the UK than they took out in public services in the period up to 2011. But they didn't choose to do so. Instead Labour's movers and shakers hit upon a far more adroit and punchy concept - they issued a cup which proclaimed 'Controls on Immigrants - I'm voting Labour'. (On the plus side, every crank and immigration obsessive nationwide now has something from which to sup.)

>>

See the full article in the references below, but that's really all we need. Clear proof that Blair and Co are a bunch of lying, cheating morons who fostered the hatred of immigrants in order to bribe their way to electoral victory.

Corbyn, meanwhile, is a scientifically truthful and intellectually honest source who ought to be leading the country (and hopefully will) not just the Labour Party. This is why, above all, people like Blair, lying as we can see from the quote above, lying to appease racists and nazis and anti-semites, goes all out to demonise Corbyn.

More from McKenna:

<<

On the question of immigration he has consistently argued that it is anything but 'a problem', rather we should celebrate the 'enormous contribution to our society' that immigrants make. As a backbencher he had refused to march to the drums of patriotism and war, opposing the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan at every turn. As leader of the Labour Party, he has opposed any military intervention in Syria, while condemning the government and the UK weapons industry for supplying weapons to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel facilitating the ongoing decimation of the Yemeni and Palestinian populations.

So much of this had hitherto fallen beneath the radar, had been smothered by the mainstream consensus. But the Corbyn phenomenon was now amplifying these simple and human truths in the most public of forums. Exposing the grotty and illicit machinations of much of the political class as grounded in elite self-interest hitched to ever more vicious forms of economic exploitation on the domestic front - while at the same time shedding light on the illicit interconnections between government, a booming arms industry and the series of never-ending wars abroad. The Corbyn movement, therefore, emerged as a living, grass-roots critique of elite politics as business-as-usual (with no small emphasis on the word 'business').

For this reason, the reaction of the political establishment to the Corbyn and the politics of 'anti-austerity' was inflamed to baying, hysterical proportions, but more significantly it was the type of response which once again demonstrated how the mainstream media, the state broadcaster, the politicians and political pundits were functioning almost as one - a seamless, coordinated political entity with a uniform voice.

In another lifetime it might almost have been satirical. Corbyn, a social democrat of a reformist bent, something of a pacifist, a genuine but at times muddled speaker, the type of earnest community-minded activist who had his own allotment and made his own jam - this same figure was transfigured by a rabid establishment into successive manifestations of the purest evil; he was a terrorist sympathiser, a threat to national security, a communist spy, a misogynist and a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

The allegations were all false, based on the flimsiest of claims; his commitment to terrorism was gleaned from photos where he appeared shaking hands with Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, but the latter had shaken hands with other politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as part of negotiations toward a peace settlement. Most absurdly of all, the threat Corbyn posed to national security was demonstrated by the fact that he had not bowed sufficiently low at a remembrance ceremony for those killed in war.

It was as though the establishment was trying one smear after the other in order to see which would best stick. In the event, the allegations of anti-Semitism proved most effective. Perhaps because there is a fringe element on the left which does have a problem with anti-Semitism, something that has become more pronounced with the rise in conspiracy theories which followed the events of September 11th and decades of working class defeat. As August Bebel once remarked, 'anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools'. Perhaps because the Corbyn administration was not quick enough to act effectively against some of the cases of genuine anti-Semitism which had emerged within the party. But the facts were still clear. The party received 673 allegations of anti-Semitism toward Labour members from April 2018 to January 2019, which amounted to around 0.1% of the overall party membership (a membership which stood at around 500,000). But reportage which gave a dry and sober account of the statistical facts was simply replaced with the yowling, furious but utterly dogmatic assertion that Corbyn's party was institutionally anti-Semitic and represented an existential threat to the safety of Jews living in the UK.

>>

So you can understand why when the average educated white man or white woman I speak to speaks of Labour's "anti-semitism" I have to ask myself how unintelligent the average white British man or woman has become, over the years. It seems to me that the word which sums up that quantity is "extremely" - no need for a specific number. It's clear that all these white people I meet who are not the ones who actually are annoyed by the anti-semitism smears but are the many self-adulating twats who see themselves as educated and wise and better than those with less education than they - and yet they are visibly very stupid. There is no question about it. To believe Corbyn is 'anti-semitic' is to be a moron. YET if you go through the educated white (and token) members of this society, you will find a majority who demonstrate this cretinous mentality, who are really that stupid. Yes. For example my school, St Paul's school, one of the original 8 public schools, in my year of 150 boys, at a guess, purely a guess, based on how over the last 10+ years I have (despite being, at school, the life and soul of the party, the chairman of various debating societies, the editor of the comedy underground paper, and much acclaimed) been excluded, unfriended, avoided and kept at a distance - and based on all that I'd say that out of 150 boys in my year at St Paul's the number stupid enough to fall for the anti-semitism smears has to be at least 50. Which is disturbingly high. Okay, okay, 'not a majority', as you may assert, since I spoke of a majority - well yes, but my school is rare, one of the most Corbynlike public schools and one of the best schools in Britain. If our monetary and class system is flawed, and structures within it are part of that inherently flawed structure, it doesn't make them useless. I am scientifically, unquestioningly glad I went there and to no other school - had I not, you would not be reading this, I'd bet money. And the nearest I'd get to an algorithm would be the way facebook targets advertising at me! As for that 50 I mention - calculated by simply working out how many in 3 of my facebook friends from St Paul's turned their back on me for being antiwar and against Israel - many surprising ones, not even racists, just not wanting the headache or related fear of being near my activism or encouraging it. 1 in 3. So in 150, perhaps 50. Probably not much higher than that if it exceeds that number, but possibly lower. Obviously St Paul's was not Eton, the latter would call us plebs, and that was because we were definitely closer to a meritocratic model of education than Eton is. In truth if the entire nation's education were as good as St Paul's, we'd be doing well. Whereas if the entire nation's education were as warped as Eton's, someone would nuke us fairly quickly for being basically far far far too fucked up. Just take a look at Mogg for the evidence. Anyway, let's hope that by the end of this week Jeremy Corbyn is the Prime Minister. It's a strong possibility, I'm sure. Perhaps the most likely. St Anne's College Oxford wasn't an entire waste of time but didn't share the quality I mention in St Paul's - which shares the same quality with certain other teachers from my 'preparatory school' and with Arthur Lowe's comedy and Tom Baker's sci-fi. Oxford wasn't useless, but it entirely lacked what made those other places genuine educational experiences I'd be upset at having had to do without, if some weird time travel situation could enable me to have done it, and known what I got out of it, and then go back and not do it. Oxford - I think I'd probably, despite the fact that my 'moral tutor' was also the same kind of educational experience as my school and the others I mentioned, nonetheless, for the sake of being with a better class of student, I'd probably go to a university like Edinburgh or London. And I'd probably wait about 5 or 10 years to do it and be that much younger, if I had this whole time travel malarkey, because in my generation white kids still were only one step beyond the Rigsby generation, so you see - they were a lot more racist, I would guess, and some anecdotal evidence supports, than kids of today. I'd have enjoyed university better with slightly more evolved fellow students, and it's nothing to do with classism or elitism and everything to do with yearning for equality and the capacity to enjoy your day among friends, rather than - well. The way it has been, but the way it will stop being, in our lifetimes. And it doesn't really matter who wins the election, although it would be advantageous and convenient if Corbyn were to win it. But either way, sooner or later, we will win our battles, because these battles are one and the same as our battle to survive millions of years and - indeed - as Feynman and others would be quick to agree - who fecking knows how long or 'what' exactly (I mean there ARE other dimensions you know, once you get past up, left, forwards and six o'clock on the 234rd cycle around the big fire 2014 cycles after point x, which is a point we more or less can partly show measurements all the way back to, or if not that then have a sentimental attachment to it and can actually go back further, but since we're still fairly primitive we haven't had any need to come up with a new 'year' system since we still know as little as we did in the cycle we call '0AD'). It is the same 'battle' - the same flow - the same vibration. I think that last word probably gets closest to a true scientific reference to what it really is. What 'life' is. And I'll tell you this for free. If Mafia Incorporated succeeds in its foul plan to prevent an almost inevitable Labour victory - and if immediately after that anyone tries to remove Corbyn from being able to challenge them again, one election later - I will destroy the party, entirely, democratically and intellectually, of anyone who attempts to do that to Corbyn and succeeds. It's a stalemate. Blair came. We saw what an ass he was. We knocked down Labour. FLAT ON THE GROUND. Corbyn rose, Blair came. WE KNOCKED OUT BLAIR flat on the ground. And now the election has come, we have knocked out Boris, FLAT ON THE GROUND, and every lie and stratagem possible has been mustered to prevent the unthinkable, to prevent democracy in Britain. And no, I don't think they'll win, but I'm just saying - if they do, then the most important thing is making Corbyn 1000 times more powerful before the subsequent election. With all the momentum there is, it can be done. Anyone riding that wave knows, I'm sure, that if you suddenly take Corbyn out of the equation, ALL THE WIND IN YOUR SAILS WILL VANISH. Resignation will not be tolerated. We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams, the rewriters of screenplays, the antiwar activists, the peace makers, and we don't resign. We start at x and end at y. Even Boris Johnson must not resign when/'if' he loses. I sincerely demand that the fat head stick around and play ball and learn the rules of the game. I like him better than the other tories. His policies are disgusting, his attitude is puerile, his personal life is apparently a shambles, but just like Jeremy Corbyn, he has stood tall and seen Blair, Brown, Miliband, Cameron, May and so many other of his enemies fall before him, and he's still standing. If Boris cast off his Tuppy Glossop like habits, his peculiar similarity to at least three, indeed, of the friends of Bertie Wooster who are basically idiots, and try to be a little more like Wodehouse, a man who mocked Lord Kitchener, if Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie's version is accurate, a man who didn't need to pick on the weak and the easily-bullied in order to say something 'funny'. A man who mocked the Roderick Spodes of the world. Do you want to be a Roderick Spode all your life Boris? No of course you don't. Trust me. Corbyn will kick your ass and then you should stick around and kick the asses of all the people who dropped you in it and misguided you. I really do not see why that cannot happen. Human nature is no stranger to me. I think defeatism is the stranger. And my point is that it is a stranger to me, to Jeremy Corbyn and to Boris Johnson. We could get a boat and a dog and a hamper, go up river, have all kinds of crazy experiences and turn into an amusing novel. Whatever you say about Corbyn and whatever you say about Johnson - I take my hat off to them both. My vote, of course, is with Corbyn. Sorry Boris. But as I said, once you are the underdog, I am at your service the same way Rumpole is to anyone needing defence against authority. GO FORTH leader of the opposition. Do your stuff. Whichever you are, I will stand next to you and if necessary do your job for you.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/the-demonization-of-jeremy-corbyn/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/11/ideology-or-popularity-how-will-britain-vote/