If only they made a way to not respond to someone. I’ll leave you to your Holocaust denying and telling everyone else on here what they can and can’t do.
You are choosing to ruin this thread.
I post on topic, you launch irrelevant attack.
I ask you to stop, you refuse.
It is you who is at fault.
Horseshit. I said I found British white supremacists worse and you threw a fit.
I didn’t realize saying something negative about white supremacists would launch you into this.
2 Likes
Fun fact: Both the British Labour Party and the BNP have/are being investigated for anti-semitism.
There’s also quite an overlap on the British far left/right with regard to holocaust denial.
Edit: By ‘fun fact’ I very much don’t mean it.
4 Likes
It’s not cool to talk about a minority like that. It’s like inverse racism man.
What is the ‘appropriate’ amount of criticism of Jews that should be allowed exactly, before it becomes ‘anti semitic’? Who decides this?
The EHRC launched this investigation into Labour. Their Chief Executive is Rebecca Hilsenrath, who is a Jew. No doubt, pointing this out is also ‘anti Semitic.’
Labour is ‘anti semitic’ as it does not like Israel’s behaviour toward Palestine. A pretty standard position for a Left wing party to take really, and merely in line with their support of other ‘anti Imperialist’ ideas.
As for your ‘holocaust denial’ claim, “quite an overlap” suggests that there are many voices on the far left and far right in Britain supporting this position. No, there are not. A fairer, more accurate comment would be to claim there are none, zero.
In this post, you have chosen to equate any criticism of Israel at all with anti Semitism, the “far” left and the “far” right, to give the impression that Jews are under some kind of attack in the UK.
This is an utterly laughable notion.
But as usual, any negativity towards Jews is “anti Semitic.”
No I did not.
That’s doesn’t begin to describe the extent of their judophobia.
It would be neither fairer, nor more accurate.
Well, she recused herself from the investigation, so I don’t see what relevance it has.
1 Like
- Yeah, I’m sure the Chief Executive had no say in whether or not such an investigation was appropriate. Come on. Extremely naive.
- There are literally no prominent voices on the Left or Right in the UK who make statements in support of Holocaust Denial. None, zero.
- Yes, you are making an equivalence by connecting a standard opinion (eg Palestine), with an extreme one (HD) in the space of a few sentences. This clearly implies that all criticism of Jews is extreme and due to “anti Semitism.” Shown further in your immediate use of “anti Semitism” rather than simply “criticism of Jews/Israel.”
- “doesn’t begin to describe the extent…” the current Labour party are run by someone with ‘extreme views’ in all directions. Yet you choose to pick out the Jews as being under some form of special attack, when this is not the case.
There have been labour councilors and activists in momentum that have done so. That’s enough for me to say that it is a problem. Jeremy Corbyn rubbing elbows with every west hating group is a separate matter.
No, I am making a statement of fact that, among momentum activists and members of the BNP that there is a non-negligible amount of holocaust denial. This is the case, you’re the one who mentioned Israel.
I agree that he’s an extreme figure on a myriad of policies but my comment was in discussing a similarity between far left and right. The holocaust denialism/ revisionism is something I have encountered from both groups.
I’m sure she may have had some effect in that regard. But ‘Jewish voice for Labour’ had a far greater role, especially when the various whistleblowers appeared.
More on the EHRC, who are investigating “anti Semitism” in the Labour Party.
On 12 May 2016, the Jewish Chronicle wrote:
"There is a strong [Jewish] presence at the top of Britain’s equality watchdog. [David Isaac], new chairman of the [Equality and Human Rights Commission] took up office this week, joining Rebecca Hilsenrath, who was made CEO of the body last Autumn.”
The Jewish Chronicle makes this statement - no issue.
I simply quote them - white Supremacist spouting anti Semitic canards about Jewish influence.
Sure, lol.
As I have not done this, I suspect you are having the argument you want to have, rather than the one I am engaging in. Which you are free to do if you like.
1 Like
- There have been zero Labour Councillors espousing Holocaust Denial. Please name all of them if you disagree.
- The BNP may as well not even exist. They have had less than no influence on anything since Nick Griffin left 5 years ago, and have had no presence, eg TV media, since around 2005. The ‘BNP’ may as well be one man living in Yorkshire somewhere, shouting out of a window.
- I’ve NEVER seen Momentum deny the Holocaust in any manner, but could be wrong. References?
You made some extreme statements, seemingly to denigrate myself as that is who the initial post was directed to.
When asked for specifics, you can provide literally zero evidence. Cheers.
Nope.
Initial post on White Supremacy was directed to me, you joined in.
If I have made a false connection, I sincerely apologise to you. (Written without sarcasm or the like, I mean it).
You were asking about military spending. And there is a way to go totally off the grid legally, where you basically are not a citizen, you don’t technically own anything and you live off the fat of the land as a nomad. I don’t know the particulars because I have never investigated, but if you wanted to go nomad it on public lands through out the U.S. and live like a caveman there is a way to do that legally.
Second, I never linked military spending to UHC, you apparently did. And to have it, wouldn’t make the country totally socialist, but it would be a big step considering the chunk of economy it takes up.
Third, it was not long ago, one of the golden children of socialized medicine in Scandinavia’s Finland government collapsed, because why? Because their welfare medicine out sized their entire budget and the government went splat.
I think, if we want to socialize medicine for a much larger and much more diverse country than Finland, then it needs to be thought of really well.
In the end, government medicine isn’t the answer. This is a new country with new ideas, why bring archaic failing ideas into the fray when their are better ways.
The problem isn’t insurance coverage, the problem is cost of medicine. If you can afford to go to the doctor and get the medicine then you don’t really need insurance save for the most extreme and unavoidably expensive treatments.
We solve the cost of medicine and medical supplies and have a more open and agreeable pharmaceutical system the problem fixes itself.
By hook or crook driving prices down should be the focus. Not try attack the ancillary systems that are the effect of expensive medicine.
You don’t need to drain the river and kill the field to get rid of the elephant, aim strait at the elephant.
You can’t be that devoid of a sense of humor, you know it was said in jest. And I didn’t propose anything resembling genocide even in my musing.
I have been in prior conversations with libertarian types who have gone on at lengths about how it doesn’t work like this.
Would be happy to see how it works, but I’m under the impression nomad living isn’t actually a legal option.
edit: For reference, seems like a hilarious non starter to avoid paying for the military OR UHC. So renouncing and staying was never an option, even if it didn’t undermine your whole argument.
I was simply wondering why military spending isn’t social spending (socialism) in nature, but UHC is.
You made it seem like it’s because military spending is optional. In what scenario is UHC not equally optional?
Widespread Govt based healthcare is archaic? Here I was thinking it was younger than America.
The concept of insurance is such that it covers average costs with a markup for profits. They’re directly tied
Good luck. You have an entire industry (with more buying power) laughing at all attempts. And let’s face is attempts are rare these days. Even the GOP wants nothing to do with healthcare because they have no intent of doing anything.
Sarcasm missed
I appreciate the history being complex and yes there are still some minor boarder compromises to hammer out should an agreement be reached, but the issue is not complex. The Palestinian position requires the destruction of Israel. If we could at least move the needle from demanding the destruction of Israel, to tolerate Israel existing, a peace agreement can be worked out and the border issues are minor in comparison.
The whole problem hinges on the Palestinian position that Israel does not have a right to exist and needs to be destroyed. As complex as the history is, the problem isn’t hard to figure out. The Palestinian position is and always has been that Israel must cease to exist.
It was a candidate, so almost.
Here’s one from a councilor, not holocaust denial, but not far off.
That’s also odd.
This isn’t momentum, but it’s a group Jeremy was ostensibly a member of.
They are a spent force, more or less, I agree with that. But there’s definitely not a singular white power goon in the UK. It may be in the hundreds, or less, but it’s definitely not in the single digits.
Momentum don’t. Momentum members (which is a large group) have. They have also been vicious to Jewish labour members and MP’s who don’t tow the party line. Mind you, they’re like that to everyone.
I was making an observation to H-factor. Not yourself.
Regarding my interpretation of your post - my apologies, again.
Thanks for the links. I hadn’t heard of Smart or Shawcroft.
As far as “white power goons” I would argue that the BNP/Nick Griffin have been proven correct in some of their “extreme” views. The BBC/establishment went to great lengths to silence the BNP, yet they were proven correct.
I must say I find difficulty in white interests always being dismissed as the concerns of knuckle draggers.
Success within society is entirely relative. If whites are benefiting naturally from being white, it means they’re more likely to succeed than non whites. Which means the only people who need to worry about “white interests” are those that won’t be able to succeed.
Knuckle dragger might be harsh. I’d go with below average human. Much more Californian. SF would be proud.
edit: holy phone grammar batman
-
Success in society is not relative. Person A can be objectively more successful within society than Person B. E.g Person A is employed and has a family. Person B is in prison for murder.
-
what do you mean “if whites are benefitting from being white.” Are you talking about white privilege and unconscious bias type arguments?
-
“white interests [only concern] those that won’t be able to succeed.” Ignoring the fact that you have claimed success is relative, this statement is not true.
-
Just as one example - ideas of liberty are quite clearly “white ideas.” A “successful” white person can be concerned with their erosion, without it necessarily even having a direct impact on him, much less his “success.”