sidcow Posted March 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted March 31, 2018 13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Shawcross out, Izzard in Izzard confirms the hat has not been 'shopped If Eddie Izzard becomes Prime Minister he must use his James Mason voice at all public appearances. I must insist on this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 On 29/03/2018 at 10:00, snowychap said: The mural that is the centre of the row (facebook posts by Corbyn, &c.) didn't 'make fun of holocaust', did it? It obviously pursued the stupid, anti-semitic trope that Jews somehow control the world by depicting a group of obviously Jewish looking old men (which the artist later admitted were to represent the 'Rothschilds' et al) sat around a monopoly board on the backs of some (naked?) others. That is the basis of the (quite correct, in my opinion) accusation of anti-semitism against the artist and the mural itself. It portayed six real people, all of whom were bankers and two of whom were Jewish. The artist has said it's about capitalism and bankers. I suppose if it was about Jews, he would have portrayed the exploiters as all being Jews. Since he didn't, it's hard to understand why he should be thought to have sought to do so. I have struggled to understand why it is regarded as anti-semitic. I have come across three arguments (are there others?). 1. The portrayal of the noses of the bankers in the opinion of some people echoes historic portrayals of Jews, and so even if most of them are identifiably non-Jewish, there is some kind of subliminal slur. 2. The style of the imagery is reminiscent of some Nazi propaganda. Nazis are well known for hating Jews, therefore something in a similar style is likely to be antisemitic. 3. The all-seing eye in the picture is a reference to Judaism. (In fact it's about Freemasonry, and I gather there is little is any overlap between Judaism and Freemasony). The first of these is presumably what the Jewish Chronicle had in mind when commenting that the mural may have antisemitic undertones, some years ago. The second and third don't require comment. We now seem to have leapt from this tentative assessment, to believing that the mural is obviously, screamingly, unmistakably antisemitic, and Corbyn is at fault for not immediately seeing this more promptly than the Jewish Chronicle. Oh dear. It is so plainly part of the long game where Regev and other Israeli agents seek to undermine and discredit opponents of the apartheid Israeli state, by seeking to yoke together antizionism and antisemitism, to silence criticism of the murderous regime by people like Corbyn. Elements of the Labour right wing have eagerly leapt on this as a stick to beat him with, cynically and entirely for their own ends. People who don't have a fraction of the antiracist track record of Corbyn. It is so crude, so transparent. But it seems to have the Guardian on board. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, peterms said: It portayed six real people Which six real people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Crowley, Morgan, Carnegie, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 minute ago, peterms said: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Crowley, Morgan, Carnegie, apparently. Where did these names appear from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: 5 minutes ago, peterms said: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Crowley, Morgan, Carnegie, apparently. Where did these names appear from? It wouldn't happen to be from a response to David Icke a few days ago, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, snowychap said: Where did these names appear from? Those are the people the artist says he is depicting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Just now, peterms said: Those are the people the artist says he is depicting. Now he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, snowychap said: It wouldn't happen to be from a response to David Icke a few days ago, would it? Jonathan Cook is where I saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: Now he does. Well, simple test, do the depictions look anything like the people named? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Which one does he 'claim' to be Aleister Crowley? Edited March 31, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 22 minutes ago, snowychap said: Which one does he 'claim' to be Aleister Crowley? I've no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, peterms said: I've no idea. I'd take a punt that no one, including the artist himself, does. Edited March 31, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'd take a punt that no one, including the artist himself, does. His artistic style seems to draw heavily on 70s album covers. Any thoughts on the substantive points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, peterms said: Any thoughts on the substantive points? What substantive points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, snowychap said: Which one does he 'claim' to be Aleister Crowley? If memory serves, I believe it was the guy fourth from left (though I may be misremembering) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: If memory serves, I believe it was the guy fourth from left (though I may be misremembering) Ta. I've had a look and I'm not convinced. Edited April 1, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 7 hours ago, snowychap said: What substantive points? That the basis for thinking the mural is antisemitic is a mistaken assumption that the people portrayed are generic "Jewish bankers" rather than real bankers, most of whom were not Jewish, and possibly also a misunderstanding that the Freemason imagery shown was about Jewish symbols; and that the episode is a synthetic and manufactured event aimed at undermining Corbyn for political reasons, using the claim of antisemitism as a cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted April 1, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, peterms said: That the basis for thinking the mural is antisemitic is a mistaken assumption that the people portrayed are generic "Jewish bankers" rather than real bankers I believe I've already implied that I think this claim lacks credibility. 4 hours ago, peterms said: the episode is a synthetic and manufactured event aimed at undermining Corbyn for political reasons, using the claim of antisemitism as a cover I don't doubt that there are people weighing in on the subject for purely political reasons - that would seem to be thoroughly expected. I also have no doubt that there are people who do try and shut down criticism of the actions of the Israeli state by conflating these criticisms with a general accusation of anti-semitism (yokeing the two together as you eloquently put it). What I don't accept is the trotting out of the 'they're trying to shut up the critics of Israel' as the counter to any and all questions about whether something is anti-semitic or not. Whether it's this mural, or the bloke who apparently posted a 'holocaust hoax' story just to start a debate that defence appears to be the go to when things aren't looking good and it's as bad a conflation on behalf of the people formulating or using that defence as it is when the people advocating on behalf of the Israeli state and its actions do it. I've made clear my position on a number of things over and again in this thread and other threads but I'll try and repeat them for you so that, if you wish to criticize the Grauniad or the Jewish Chronicle or a non-existant 'we' that you claim to have gone on a particular journey (' leapt from this tentative assessment...'), you can direct your thoughts to an appropriate audience, i.e. not me: I have often been very critical of the Israeli state and its action, the actions of the IDF, and, very often, the words of the likes of Regev when they come out to defend each and every action taken by them; People conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism much too readily and it's often used as a shield by proponents of Israel when discussing the actions of the Israeli state and its defence forces; People are often too keen to make a blanket claim that criticisms of anti-semitism are simply a means of shutting down criticism of Israel; People love to conflate issues on all sides of this debate - accusations of holocaust denial are thrown about left right and centre, for example - and this makes sensible discussions of the topic(s) much the tougher, which is often the intention; People are far too partisan and find themselves on the same platform (metaphorically or literally) as some pretty grim characters and views because of this; I don't think Corbyn's an anti-semite but simply knowing that himself when he may have put himself in a position where he has associated with those who are (or who may more clearly be accused of being) is not enough. It wasn't a problem really when he was on the periphery of politics and his positions on things weren't examined too closely but as Leader of the Opposition he isn't afforded that grace and his history will be looked at more closely, often by people not in the least sympathetic to any cause he may have espoused, and he needs to have answers. Proper ones not that it's all 'plainly' part of an Israeli conspiracy against critics of the Israeli state. To bring this more firmly back on topic, i.e. to that of the Labour party, he and his team have had two and a half years (time containing a number of the types of stories that people were predicting would be trotted out) since his election to come up with a decently efficient riposte to accusations which attach themselves to the leader and to the party more widely and they haven't done so. In that situation, political opponents (inside and outside of his party) are going to return to the well - time and time again. None of this means accusations and allegations should be written off as plainly synthetic and doing so makes future criticisms all the more likely. Edited April 1, 2018 by snowychap 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 It only took several years Momentum - but you've finally realised that you've got a problem.. Labour antisemitism more widespread than thought, Momentum says Quote Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”. The group accused the party of failing to deal satisfactorily with the problem and said it had begun a process with external groups of developing antisemitism awareness training for Labour members. The highest governing body of the grassroots group, a key force behind Jeremy Corbyn, agreed the statement over the weekend by email, the Guardian understands. It says political opponents of the Labour leader have been using the problem opportunistically, but that should not be an excuse not to tackle it... It would probably help if they weren't so coloured by their undying support for Hamas and other groups they deem morally "right". Both the EDF and Hamas are at fault in Israel but as long as no one can make a clear cut plan to end the conflict this is going to keep going around in circles taking politicians with it in the maelstrom. Corbyn as the leader of the opposition needs to realise that he can't be so partisan. It's easy to demonstrate on the lawn outside your uni or in the fringes of a large party but it's another thing entirely to try to be nuanced when you're trying to actually offer up a decent alternative for a whole nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts