Verbal

Well, well, well. It is interesting. And you have completely misunderstood it. Stern's point, even in the selected quotes, is that the IHRA definition was never intended to chill free speech. He was NOT advocating amending the definition but rather protesting against the way some University campuses in the US and the UK have used it to ban certain ideas. The example he gives - equating the Israeli state with apartheid ideology - is indeed not 'banned' by the definition, even though it's been interpreted that way by a few. To get the full sense of what Stern is saying, in a very nuanced and well argued submission, you need to read it in full. Here it is: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Stern-Testimony-11.07.17.pdf But the essence of it is this: You also seem to be a little lost on what the IHRA definition actually is. Here it is: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism And yes, the Corbynista 'redefinition' makes adjustments to get the most common form of Corbynist anti-Semitism off the hook - especially the accusation that Jews have a greater loyalty to Israel than to their own country.

Given the content of this thread, you might want to look up the meaning of 'libel'.

Yet that's exactly what he did, with his longest stint in a first team, at Fulham. He played very successfully in a back four that tightened up when he was added to it. He was a key ingredient in the 23-game winning streak that started when he and Mitrovic joined.

The initial idea for giving his new 'some Jews are fine' speech was to do it at the Jewish Museum on Friday night. Brilliant.

It is anti-Semitic, plain and simple, and it's worrying, but utterly predictable, that you don't see that. I happen to know the JLM well. As an organisation, it's one of the longest-affiliated of groups to the Labour party and can date its commitment to socialist internationalism back to the 1930s. It has long supported the two-state solution, the Oslo Accords, and protested violence and human rights abuses directed at Palestinians. It's also the organisation that had this said about it in the official minutes of the Birkenhead CLP “Diversity and equality training to be offered by the NEC. The proposed training by the Jewish Labour Group is not going ahead due to possible links with ISIS and the Israeli government." These kinds of anti-Semitic slurs are so common now, but to attack the JLM in particular - and it's been the target of abuse of months now by Labour activists - is not just anti-Semitic. It's deeply corrosive within the Labour party itself. Anyone looking in from the outside would think that the real Trojan horses were occupied by the anti-Semites in Labour. They are destroying the party from within, while they cling to their Jew-hating fantasies about how fellow Labour activists are Israeli government agents and apologists for ISIS. Have the balls to face up to this, instead of using weasel words about how all parties have a problem. Start with this: how do you justify equating the JLM with 'Israeli lobby groups'? My reading of this is that you clearly need some of that equality and diversity training from the ISIS/Mossad agents of JLM.

Here's the problem in a hilarious (and depressing) nutshell. A bunch of Momentum supporters in Liverpool (where else?) got together last night and got all riled up about the 'ruling class's' smears and how it's all to do St Jeremy down. The anti-Semitism charge is a 'sinister', the chief rabbler Chris Williamson (A Corbyn loyalist MP) told them. 'Activists in the Labour party,' he said, 'I don't believe...are anti-Semites.' At which point one of the rabble got up and complained about Jews being, I quote, 'Israeli foot soldiers.' Brilliant. So maybe fanboy and Bexy can offer a word of advice to their fellow Corbynistas. When complaining about the 'smear' of anti-Semitism, don't express it anti-Semitically. Oh, and the source for this story is the Jewish Chronicle. Fire away anti-Semites....I mean, Labour party activists! https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-ally-chris-williamson-defends-labour-members-language-antisemitic-1.467849

I watched him quite a bit too (Craven Cottage is just round the corner.) He played well throughout the half-season, with a few MoM awards. He worked really effectively with Sessignon ahead of him - probably he's the sort of player who thrives with this kind of partner. The main feature of his time at Fulham was his excellent - often very inventive - final ball (the nutmeg pass for the second goal yesterday reminded me of the sorts of clever things he worked with RS.)

I’m not going to go through your whole list because it would make for a post that would be even more tediously long than this already is… But as for the first one on your list, it genuinely astonishes me that you appear to think that might not be anti-Semitic. That accusation, in only a slightly modified way, was at the heart of Hitler’s loathing of the Jews after the first world war. Israel didn’t exist then, but loyalty to their ‘own kind’ to the exclusion of good and true, ethnically pure Germans was at the heart of a paranoiac rage that led all the way to the gas chambers. In its more literal sense, the ‘greater loyalty to Israel’ accusation is the core of anti-Semitism on the Left. This is rooted in Stalinism but has become generalised among the Left, especially in the bad-faith form of ‘there’s a difference between being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic’. Throughout his rule, Stalin had shown plenty of evidence of wild paranoia directed at Jews and in particular Jewish rivals (such as Trotsky) for leadership. But after the formation of Israel, his Jew-thing went into overdrive. He was the first to coin the term ‘anti-Zionist’, and he used it to describe Jews he hated. He did this to level the accusation at them that they had a greater loyalty to Israel than to the USSR. They were enemies of the people and, and anyone labelled a ‘Zionist’ was inevitably destroyed. The result was a pogrom in the early 1950s that wiped out thousands of Russian Jews – all ‘Zionists’, so all traitors to the cause, deserving of death. Ironically, this idea of divided loyalties as a code for Jew-hatred morphed over to other parts of the radical left, including Troskyists, and it exists today, in its most virulent form, on the Corbynist left. This is why you can have a Corbynista like the proudly ‘anti-Zionist’ Damien Enticott calling for the execution of all Jews, and Corbynistas like our friend fanboy call it merely ‘minging’ (you’ll never hear him – or many other Corbynistas – concede examples of anti-Semitism, because they hug their comfort blanket of ‘it’s all smears’ as if there were no tomorrow). That’s history, this is politics: if you’re forced into saying that your argument is anti-Zionist not anti-Semitic, then it’s not just that you don’t see the problem. You are the problem. ‘Zionism’ is so broad an ideology that only a very tiny number of the world’s Jewish population would accept the label of anti-Zionist. To be anti-Zionist is to be against the idea – the very idea – of a Jewish homeland. And it’s not just Jews who’s be covered by the ‘Zionist’ label. Anyone – including Fatah – who advances the idea of the two-state solution is acknowledging that right to exist, and is therefore in the strictest sense ‘Zionist’. So when someone says they are ‘anti-Zionist’ they are ‘anti’ practically all Jews, and millions of others besides. Which is why there’s often a close affinity between saying one is ‘anti-Zionist’ and actually being ‘anti-Semitic’. Now you might say: who cares? The reality is that a solution to the Palestinian question cannot be accomplished without support from large numbers of Israelis, and many others. So why demonise them – especially as many in Israel are thoroughly opposed to the actions of their government. You surely want to enlist their support, not push them away with coded Jew-hating rhetoric. Does this mean you can’t criticise Israel? This is the claim of the most dim-witted of Corbynistas. But it’s complete bullsh it. You can, for example, do exactly as Gerald Kaufman did, in the quote that fanboy wanted to show was somehow anti-Semitic. It’s not, because it attacks the Israeli government, and not some amorphous, widely held belief in a right to exist. But Corbynistas can’t help themselves. They always want to insist on inserting the terms ‘Zionist’ or ‘anti-Zionist’ into every insult they launch at the Israeli state. They do this because it makes themselves feel good. But in doing it, they move a settlement for the Palestinians that little bit further away. Actual, effective critics of the Netanyahu regime call it that; they don’t drape anti-Jewish code-phrases around it. It’s perfectly possible, and justified, to criticise Netanyahu’s gang for the terrible atrocities it’s committed, and for the overtly racist recent changes to citizenship, which in a single act has constitutionally redefined a fifth of Israel’s population as second-class citizens. But no, Corbynistas will continue to believe the self-regarding conspiracy theory that the whole anti-Semitism charge is a total fake – a ‘smear’ to stop St Jeremy ascending to the throne. Even when some of their number are caught out calling for the extermination of Jews! (Remember: ‘minging’, not actually anti-Semitic.) That they co-opt the plight of the Palestinians into this narcissistic argument says everything you need to know about a corrupted and brain-dead politics.

No, it isn't. I wonder if, as a rabid Corbynista, you can see why it isn't? I've highlighted a rather large clue. (Pop the word 'Jews' in there instead and Bob's your uncle). And no, for the same reason which I doubt you can spot, it isn't at odds with the IHRA definition. Which - despite your swivel-eyed fantasies - does not grant the actions of the Israeli state, especially against the Palestinians, any protections from criticism.

And so it goes on and on. Even St Jeremy's closest allies are saying his feeble handling of rampant Jew-hating in the Labour party has got to stop.

I bet you do.

I can only imagine the seething rage you must feel if you need to get that absurdly personal. My 'paranoia' about anti-Semitism is no doubt fed by the daily diet of anti-Semitic rants emerging from your Corbynista and other Labour bedfellows. Like this one, picked up today, from a Labour councillor called Damien Enticott. He's commenting approvingly on a viciously Jew-hating meme about the 'Jewish ritual' of drinking blood and sucking babies' co cks. Fortunately for you, he qualifies this sickening bullsh it: "This is done only by Talmud Jews. Talmud Jews are parasites! They also believe any child over the 3 years old that isn't a Jew should be treated like a parasite, they believe it is on to even rape that child because it is worthless. To treat a non-Jew decently means that you are as bad as them. All Talmuds need executing!" https://twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/1022795563539095552 Of course, when uproar followed, he denied it all and claimed his account was hacked - but then said this to the Huffington Post: Commenting about “Talmud Jews”, he added: “I share views against some of the stuff that they do, but it’s not something I would express on things like that and it’s not the way that I would express it either.” https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/damien-enticott-labour-facebook-post_uk_5b5b0bfee4b0fd5c73ce9c31 So you tell me. Is this my 'paranoia' - in which case I'll assume you are at least an apologist for this hateful garbage? Or is it something the Labour party should really do something about? Or do you, like Billy Bragg, think it should be the other way around - that Jews 'have work to do' to regain the trust of Saint Jeremy Corbyn? https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1022381509402157061

Or they'll do that weird ad hominem thing. Or look at the list of specialist advisors at the end of article and rage against 'experts'. Or say nobody voted Leave to be better off. Or list 'traitors' who've betrayed the shining glory of Brexit. Anything but address the detail of the arguments themselves. There. A prediction.

For any waverers who think that the label 'jihadists' is invalid for Brexiteer extremists who advocate a 'no deal' scenario, here's a devastating account of what that 'no deal' will actually look like, from the first days after its imposition, to the following weeks and months. Note that these are not predictions in the normal sense of the word. They are a straightforward account of what happens when you apply the rules - or lack of them - implicit in the 'no deal' fantasy. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like

No, fanboy, there are plenty of conspiracies. Just not the ones that pre-conclude with the coordinated hivemind of 'MSM', 'deep state' and rich Jews. But I can see why, as a Cobynista, you don't understand that.

You can't really argue with conspiracy theorists of any kind, or in this case a regurgitative acolyte of conspiracy theorists. Trust me, I've tried. They're protected by a hard shell of single-mindedness (dressed up, falsely, as 'open-mindedness'), which at root is an unshakable conviction that major outrages are conducted by a 'deep state' on home soil (9/11 was Americans; 7/7 was Brits; Lee Rigby was - according to the stupidest acolyte - a death faked in collaboration with his own family; the Novichok attack is Porton Down gone rogue, etc). The only exception to the deep state/home soil guff is when the 'Israelis' (code for stinking Jews) are the ultimate culprits. The other key feature is the ranting about the 'MSM', as if it were some sort of coordinated 'establishment'-protecting hivemind - a charge that has led directly to Trump's full-on assault on the news media with his charge of 'fake news'. The attacks on the 'MSM' are invariably made by 'investigators' whose actual investigations take place entirely in their back bedrooms, where incidents and characters are strung together in ways that palely resemble the wall decorations of John Nash's office. But you can't just ignore conspiracy acolytes, sadly. They were once on the marginal fringes of sentience, but now one of them occupies the White House. I see that Trump's most trusted journalist, Alex Jones, is accusing Robert Mueller of being a child rapist, and is making gun-fingers at the screen at the mention of his name. You can bet this accusation will find itself into Trumpworld very soon. 'Pizzagate' - a Trump favourite - led to another 'self-investigating' acolyte loosing off an assault rifle in a falsely accused restaurant in Washington. And journalists now routinely run a gauntlet of vicious abuse at Trump rallies. Here, conspiro-loons also occupy the political left, but the patterns and arguments are exactly the same, down to the relentless scapegoating of what one Corbynista today called 'the Jewish world view'.

This is just out-and-out fabulous. A Tory MEP - a distinctly un-self-aware Brexit Jihadist - has been given space in the Torygraph to propose an update of the Treason Act. https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1022044869081083905 Entertainingly, the Jihadists are really losing their minds over their own failures to implement Brexit, and are descending into a level of bobble-headed, lock-em-all-up extremism no one could possibly have imagined before 23 June 2016.

I'm absolutely not a member of the Labour party JJ.

Thank you Moses. When will that be then, when we start writing history?

Yep. Forgot that one, and there must be dozens more. It's so hard to keep up with all the bullsh it.

A potted history of Brexit Jihadism: 1. Believe the Bus! 2. No one's saying we have the single market! 3. (Let's not even mention the customs union) 4. You'll be swamped by Turkish hordes!! 5. Cake and eat it. 6. Sunny uplands. 7. Project Fear!! 8. To hell with all experts 9. To hell with the Good Friday agreement 10. To hell with the single market 11. To hell with the customs union 12. **** business! 13. Remoaning traitors! With this overflow of rage, I dread to think what happens next.

I've often wondered when a TV programme would be made that would be a 21st century Cathy Come Home. This is it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p067bmlh/killed-by-my-debt

What? So your view is that the CIA/FBI/NSA assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election and since is 'laughable' - meaning untrue - and that Putin's non-denial denial is credible? I just want to be clear, so that I fully understand how far over the precipice you've actually gone.

In the end it doesn't matter what we think of him - he's going to Fulham.

Good attempt, but is it really better than wan_kpuffin? Can we have a poll please, mods, on a new moniker for GM?