Red Ken suspended

[Halb]

desolate said:

Since when did the truth matter in politics?
If he had kept is trap shut, no story.
Politics is a political game and he was rubbish at it today.
Andrew Neil was practically falling off his chair in incredulity at what he was hearing.
As for the facts of the matter, it's not really my area and I don't know. Hitler was a bit of . Anyone using him in modern day political argument is on a sticky wicket.
But I do know the there is an enormous difference between hating jews and hating what the government of Israel oes.

With regards to truth, if I see someone getting hammered for being correct on something, I'll say so. I'm not a fan of Ken, I'm not a fan of Labour, I'm not a fan of the Palestinians. But the stuf currently going on about Ken and that lot is just madness. It's the twisting of reality and language. And it behoves anyone to just stop and listen rather than rant on about what they think they heard.
Ken was rubbish today because he was honest...never honest in politics!
Hitler was a , and Ken agrees with you, he made it very clear today, calling Hitler a monster twice amongst other titles. That anyone can infer anti-Semitism from that is insidious in my opinion.
Has politics now become the net, where the first person to mention Hitler will get lambasted for the rest of the thread/day?
Brillo can be OK sometimes, but he too can be guilty of simply going for cheap zingers. I watched the DP, brillo was a bit of a prick today.

[saaby93]

RottenIcons said:

ignoramus
commie-rats

Let's keep it civil

[Halb]

avinalarf said:

P.S. Just noticed that you've edited out your comment " you silly little anti-semite" ....thanks for that......appreciated.

Edited by avinalarf on Friday 29th April 00:10

I was just trying to be silly, but thought it might be misconstrued!!

[SWoll]

saaby93 said:

Joey Ramone said:

Right, once more for the hard of thinking. The Haavara settlement only applied to German Jews, of which in the mid 1930's numbered around 500,000. It did not apply to the millions of Jews that resided in the lands to the East that were earmarked for conquest.

Indeed, it could never have done, because the Haavara settlement was an economic transaction that was related to the ability of German Jews, and no-one else. It was designed so that German Jews would make payments into a fund in Berlin that would provide them with sufficient credits to gain a visa into Palestine. None of this ever applied to Jews in Poland, Eastern Europe, or the Soviet Union, where the majority of the victims of the holocaust resided.

Who said otherwise?

I was wondering the same thing?

avinalarf said:

Halb said:

What am I doing again? Please explain.
What Ken said was accurate, as has been shown quite clearly. And yes, you do not know this area of history, do not assume that the Jews in question were nasty you silly anti-Semite, read the other article I posted, money was put forward not for greedy purposes but to create new lives in Palestine.

You may have intentionally or otherwise misconstrued the content of my post.
I may also have misconstrued your post.
My point was that whether Livingstone was,or was not,accurate in this point his long standing critisicm of Israel over many years and of Israeli governments of varying political colours has allowed the Jew haters,under the pretence of debate of thre Israel / Palestine problem legitimacy,to spew their bile.
My other point was that most Jews are no better or worse than most other human beings.
Anyway I'm going to bed now......good night.

I'm still not understanding how this has anything to do with the topic being discussed? And why is it that any criticism of Israel, no matter whether it be based in fact or not, appears to be met with such ire? I'm genuinely interested in this as at present have very little knowledge of the situation and would like to understand it better.

Halb said:

With regards to truth, if I see someone getting hammered for being correct on something, I'll say so. I'm not a fan of Ken, I'm not a fan of Labour, I'm not a fan of the Palestinians. But the stuf currently going on about Ken and that lot is just madness. It's the twisting of reality and language. And it behoves anyone to just stop and listen rather than rant on about what they think they heard.
Ken was rubbish today because he was honest...never honest in politics!
Hitler was a , and Ken agrees with you, he made it very clear today, calling Hitler a monster twice amongst other titles. That anyone can infer anti-Semitism from that is insidious in my opinion.
Has politics now become the net, where the first person to mention Hitler will get lambasted for the rest of the thread/day?
Brillo can be OK sometimes, but he too can be guilty of simply going for cheap zingers. I watched the DP, brillo was a bit of a prick today.

Exactly my thoughts. Thanks for that Halb.

Edited by SWoll on Friday 29th April 00:19

[Joey Ramone]

saaby93 said:

Who said otherwise?

Those who believe Hitler was in favour of creating some sort of Jewish homeland, rather than exterminating the entire race in large part. Whatever Hitlers attitudes were to a number of German jews in 1934, that was not an accurate representation of his views as to the proper antidote to world jewry i.e. destruction. So the notion that Hitler favoured the 'export' of jews misses the point that he exported 50,000 of them, but killed 6 million

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

With regards to truth, if I see someone getting hammered for being correct on something, I'll say so. I'm not a fan of Ken, I'm not a fan of Labour, I'm not a fan of the Palestinians. But the stuf currently going on about Ken and that lot is just madness. It's the twisting of reality and language. And it behoves anyone to just stop and listen rather than rant on about what they think they heard.
Ken was rubbish today because he was honest...never honest in politics!
Hitler was a , and Ken agrees with you, he made it very clear today, calling Hitler a monster twice amongst other titles. That anyone can infer anti-Semitism from that is insidious in my opinion.
Has politics now become the net, where the first person to mention Hitler will get lambasted for the rest of the thread/day?
Brillo can be OK sometimes, but he too can be guilty of simply going for cheap zingers. I watched the DP, brillo was a bit of a prick today.

This Week has just reminded me the Ken said that all this happened "before Hitler went mad" - I cant see how he can expect to get away with that in political terms.

Between him and Mann they have given the Tories yet another free ride.

[Joey Ramone]

RottenIcons said:

The biggest piece of forgetfulness in this thread is that the First Solution was a voluntary repatriation, with all assistance given, it's not any sort of testicular insult. It's a matter of historical fact. Like it or not, none of us has a say, it happened. You are wrong with regard to being marked down for extermination from day one. History damns your assertion. Again none of us has a say, that's how it was.

Direct from Mein Kampf, 1924. What exactly do you think Hitler means when he writes the following:

In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here we are dealing with aphenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood: namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize the kind of attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the same goal but with different, though at bottom similar, means. The kind of effort which the Jew puts forth springs from the deepest roots in the nature of his being. A people does not of itself renounce the impulse to increase its stock and power. Only external circumstances or senile impotence can force them to renounce this urge. In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.

I'm voting for extermination. Not cuddles and a boat ticket elsewhere.

[saaby93]

Joey Ramone said:

saaby93 said:

Who said otherwise?

Those who believe Hitler was in favour of creating some sort of Jewish homeland, rather than exterminating the entire race in large part. Whatever Hitlers attitudes were to a number of German jews in 1934, that was not an accurate representation of his views as to the proper antidote to world jewry i.e. destruction. So the notion that Hitler favoured the 'export' of jews misses the point that he exported 50,000 of them, but killed 6 million

Doesn't your previous post show those as separate issues ?


Can someone explain why semitism and anti semitism are the opposite way around to other 'isms?

[anonymous-user]

Joey Ramone said:

Direct from Mein Kampf, 1924.....

I'm voting for extermination. Not cuddles and a boat ticket elsewhere.

And according to Ken that was "before he went mad!"

Shame as I quite like him.

[Halb]

desolate said:

This Week has just reminded me the Ken said that all this happened "before Hitler went mad" - I cant see how he can expect to get away with that in political terms.

Between him and Mann they have given the Tories yet another free ride.

Brillo and the other guy had a lil chuckle at that, enjoying their joke. But in history everyone (like is not the right word) accepted Hitler; Yanks, Brits, French, because he wasn't Stalin. No-one knew what evil Hitler could have unleashed, his plans at the time were unseemly, but not hideous beyond measure.
But in political terms, I guess the axiom, never be too honest (or factual or logical) must rule, because system 1 (gut) thinking will always will out. Scott Adams chats about this in his blog.

[Joey Ramone]

saaby93 said:

Doesn't your previous post show those as separate issues ?

But the jews are an homogenous entity, according to Hitler's writings. So which of the actions that he undertook (export/genocide) best reflected his views on the Jewish issue, in your opinion? And then apply that logic to what Livingstone said.

[avinalarf]

Put off going to bed to say this....
Livingstone like Galloway has got "form" on the subject of the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
I absolutely understand that the Palestinians have been given a bad deal out of the situation and have a justifiable grievance.
However we are where we are.
Throughout the past 60 odd years the Palestinians,with the help of their Arab neighbour's,have said and still say that their
Intention is to push all the Israelis into the sea.
Several wars have been fought,many lives lost on both sides.
Their have been attempts by some Israeli governments to forge a peace settlement but these were,rightly or wrongly,rebuffed by the Palestinians.
This is the reason why I believe Livingstone and Galloway are such divisive figures to many Jews when they only always present one side of the debate.
To use a trite phrase "it takes two to tango".
Israel/ Palestine is a tiny country,I believe about the size of Wales.
With help and goodwill from the surrounding Arab nations it might have been possible to reach an equitable solution.
I realise that most of you know all this and apologise for the crude summary but I am just trying to explain why most Jews are sensitive to the constant barrage of one sided criticism of Livingstone and his ilk.
The Jews are a tiny minority in the World and feel vulnerable with the echoes of the Holocaust still recent history.
If push comes to shove they have in Israel a sanctuary of last resort.

[popeyewhite]

desolate said:

And according to Ken that was "before he went mad!"

Shame as I quite like him.

Are you unaware of the context in which Livingstone made the comment?

[INWB]

Three things -

1) I find it odd that Corbyn / Labour suspended Ken so quickly when they have a track record of acting rather slowly/not at all when Labour members make troubling comments either about Zionism/Jewish issues/Israel or other controversial issues. Although KLs suspension is likely welcome by most it does leave Corbyn in a bit of a predicament. He doesn't have many allies and he has just suspended his main one. Was he bounced into a decision?

2) Where does it leave the running sore that is the balanced and evidence led (arf) policy review into Trident? This is likely to be on the agenda over summer and it has just lost it's head.

3) Coming a week before elections that will likely batter Labour it makes you wonder if Corbyns get out of jail card, the election of Khan to Chief Terrorist Platform Sharer/Mayor of London will be affected by all this.

[BlackLabel]

Too many people hide behind the "I dislike zionists/Israelis and not Jews" excuse when in fact they are anti Jewish bigots.

And then there are just as many people who play the antisemitism card in order to shut down genuine criticism of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism.

As a result it's very difficult to have a proper debate, especially publicly, about topics such as the one Livingstone raised.

[VolvoT5]

Having listened / read what Ken said........ he sounds a bit off his trolley but I'm struggling with the cries of racism and anti-Semitism. What he said was insensitive perhaps but I don't think backing up a colleague that criticised Israel is the same thing as being anti-Semitic.

All the MPs lining up to call him names and demand he be suspended were extremely organised in their attack and most of them just happen to be those on the 'right' of the Labour party and some of the biggest opponents of Corbyn. I can't help but wonder if this is not the start of a coup to get rid of Corbyn. A proxy war I guess.

It is all a bit silly really. They are going to damage the Labour 'brand' so much that it becomes unelectable under any leader.

[RottenIcons]

desolate said:

And according to Ken that was "before he went mad!"

Shame as I quite like him.

No, he wrote that in 1924, it was at the time just propaganda and rhetoric.

The test is whether when he came to power almost 10 years later his actions matched his words. They did not, I dare say some of what you wrote almost 10yrs ago would be manifestly different to what you actually accomplished. Actions define a man, not his meanderings whilst locked in a prison cell feeling angry.

Joey Ramone said:

Direct from Mein Kampf, 1924. What exactly do you think Hitler means when he writes the following:

In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here we are dealing with aphenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood: namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize the kind of attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the same goal but with different, though at bottom similar, means. The kind of effort which the Jew puts forth springs from the deepest roots in the nature of his being. A people does not of itself renounce the impulse to increase its stock and power. Only external circumstances or senile impotence can force them to renounce this urge. In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.

I'm voting for extermination. Not cuddles and a boat ticket elsewhere.

See my above to desolate, look at the actions, Hitlers 'first' solution was benign, there is no doubting that. It's a matter of historical record held by the victors and never disputed. I know the iconography of Hitler as a pure unrelenting devil with no redeeming features of any shape or kind is a comforting one for many but it is fundamentally wrong and by continuing to deny the fact just sends more people who have the inkling something is amiss toward the right.

I don't mind that as it suits my agenda, so although I will try to persuade you (on commonsense grounds) to realise the truth, I find my writings on virtues of Low Aspect National Socialism more popular than ever. My articles have seen an increase in downloads of over 200% since yesterday courtesy of Google, Ken and the idiots denying historical truth, year on year since 2010 my downloads have quadrupled across Europe every 6 months then 3 months then every month, they likely will quadruple again this week alone. denying the truth is a really really dumb way to hide it, in fact I'd say it was the dumbest. The vile commie Ken and the hysterical Mann further my McCarthyite agenda better than anything I could ever have hoped for.

Edited by RottenIcons on Friday 29th April 07:47

[williamp]

The guardian, of all places has a valid point kn what is criicism of israel and what is anti semitism

"... Here’s a clue, for those confused about how to champion Palestinian rights or condemn an oppressive regime without overstepping the line: just treat Israel as you would any other country guilty of human rights abuses.

There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about seeking economic sanctions against Israel, supporting an oppressed minority’s right to self determination, condemning a government, or anything else you’d do if this was Burma.

But calling for its people to be swept into the sea, or forcibly transplanted somewhere else, or in any other way denying Israel’s right to exist, is crossing a line because that simply doesn’t happen to other countries no matter how oppressive their regime. No other nation state on the planet is constantly asked to prove itself morally worthy merely of being allowed to exist.

We don’t argue that the civilian population of Syria, or 1930s Germany for that matter, should have been forcibly removed from their homes and their nation states obliterated because of abuses committed by governments and condoned by some if not all of their citizens. Activists direct their fire at governments and political movements, people with the power to change. But there’s an uglier name for those who single out and target a race, religion or group of people; who talk about “the Jews” in a way they’d never talk about “the blacks”...."

Top tip: read the guardian at the moment, its great fun reading whilst comrades destroy themselves and the guardian tries to justify it allwhilsg saying how bad the tories are.

[skyrover]

avinalarf said:

Put off going to bed to say this....
Livingstone like Galloway has got "form" on the subject of the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
I absolutely understand that the Palestinians have been given a bad deal out of the situation and have a justifiable grievance.
However we are where we are.
Throughout the past 60 odd years the Palestinians,with the help of their Arab neighbour's,have said and still say that their
Intention is to push all the Israelis into the sea.
Several wars have been fought,many lives lost on both sides.
Their have been attempts by some Israeli governments to forge a peace settlement but these were,rightly or wrongly,rebuffed by the Palestinians.
This is the reason why I believe Livingstone and Galloway are such divisive figures to many Jews when they only always present one side of the debate.
To use a trite phrase "it takes two to tango".
Israel/ Palestine is a tiny country,I believe about the size of Wales.
With help and goodwill from the surrounding Arab nations it might have been possible to reach an equitable solution.
I realise that most of you know all this and apologise for the crude summary but I am just trying to explain why most Jews are sensitive to the constant barrage of one sided criticism of Livingstone and his ilk.
The Jews are a tiny minority in the World and feel vulnerable with the echoes of the Holocaust still recent history.
If push comes to shove they have in Israel a sanctuary of last resort.

This is the way I see it.

In 60 years have the Palestinians tried to build a better country?

How many successful progressive, democracies can you count in the middle east?

Israel is going nowhere, however the root problem here is not the Jews or Palestinians, it's the complete and utter intolerance of the Islamic faith.

[RottenIcons]

saaby93 said:

RottenIcons said:

ignoramus
commie-rats

Let's keep it civil

Compared to foul language and seething, gritted teeth insultarama I have seen here, that barely passes muster as mild rebukes.

The only time I have fallen foul of the swear filter here was when I mentioned Shorpe... ...and that still makes me chuckle.