Politics, recent

The Ideology of Corbynism

The stereotype attached to the British of prudence and sobriety has taken a beating in the struggle to hash out a Brexit deal. There is quiet talk of another general election, and the options currently on offer are a chaotic government that has lost two Brexit ministers because they couldn’t agree with the Prime Minister who appointed them, and a Labour opposition led by Jeremy Corbyn. Now is a perfect time, then, for a critical examination of Corbyn’s ideology. Matt Bolton and Frederick Harry Pitts’s Corbyn: A Critical Approach analyses Corbynism using what they term “a critical Marxist approach.” As they say in the preface, “This is the first book that sets out to take Corbynism seriously and critically as a semi-coherent set of ideas.” Their final verdict does not paint a rosy picture. Three aspects of their critique, in particular, offer an illuminating perspective on Corbynism: the notion of “two campism,” the moral mythology surrounding the person of Corbyn, and the relationship between Corbynism and conspiracy theories.

Corbyn’s foreign policy views are flatly inconsistent with any claim to a universalist moral ethos. He vehemently denounces Saudi Arabia’s many appalling human rights abuses but has happily accepted money from the propaganda arm of the Iranian regime. His ostensible opposition to violence and racism and oppression, meanwhile, does not extend to genocidal terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, the former of which he has implausibly described as “dedicated to the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long term peace and social justice and political justice in the region.” Nor does it extend to individuals such as Raed Salah, a blood libeller who blamed Jews for 9/11, but who Corbyn nevertheless described as a “honoured citizen” and who he invited to take tea with him on the parliamentary terrace.

Bolton and Pitts explain this inconsistency as the product of an ideology they call “two-campism”—a foreign policy philosophy underpinned by the spurious assumption that my enemy’s enemy is necessarily my friend. “The ‘West’—primarily the ‘imperialists’ of the USA, Israel, the UK, the EU—falls squarely in the enemy camp,” they explain. “Whoever styles themselves as opponents of the ‘West’ are in turn considered ‘friends,’ comrades in the anti-imperialist struggle, regardless of the content of this wider political programme.” What matters, ultimately, is not what these groups and nations propose, but the fact they are antagonistic to the West. Prior to becoming leader of the Labour Party, Corbyn was a chair of the “Stop the War Coalition,” a supposedly pacifist organisation that has published, inter alia, a defence of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. The ‘W’ in StWC should more accurately stand for the “West” than for “War.” It is in this ideological and institutional context that Corbyn was infamously moved to describe Hamas and Hezbollah as “our friends.”

But incidents like these have scarcely dented Corbyn’s support among his base. A significant reason Corbyn’s disciples appear uninterested in his inconsistency is their non-negotiable belief in his unimpeachable moral integrity. Corbyn, they aver, is a good man; criticisms of him therefore constitute either “smears,” or else his wrongdoing indicates errors made in pursuit of noble intentions rather than malice. As Bolton and Pitts remind us, earlier this year Corbyn’s acknowledgement that antisemitic attitudes had seeped into the Labour Party were “rejected by a sizeable chunk of his own base.” They conclude from this that “Corbyn’s symbolic representation thus takes precedence over words from his mouth.” All political ideologies involve narratives, and the Corbynite narrative is one in which Corbyn is a virtuous man maligned by a coterie of special interests. This is despite the aggressive posturing he displays during interviews when questioned about his previous affiliations, and the sneering contempt with which he dismisses even fairly charitable critiques of his positions. See, for example, his dismissal of Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland in this Vice documentary.

Irrespective of the particular context, Corbyn is always presented by his followers as the victim of a malign plot. This paranoid article of faith brings us to the third salient aspect of Corbynism: conspiratorial thinking.

“There is something very specific,” write Bolton and Pitts, “about the description of a system or an economy as rigged in its entirety.” This is because such a critique, they add, “implies that capitalist social relations are consciously and covertly designed by a minority of individuals or groups in order to exploit everyone else.” We can see where this is going: “Personalising critiques of class and capitalism contain an implicit, though by no means inevitable, tendency towards conspiracy theory and, more dangerously, antisemitism.” If we suppose that society is rigged in favour of special interests, we are inevitably invited to wonder who these malevolent actors are. And, historically speaking, there seems to be one particular group that always happens to occupy such a position.

This mindset doesn’t just offer a totalizing theory of society; it also operates as a defence of Corbyn himself. As Bolton and Pitts point out, after Jewish activists and mainstream Jewish organisations gathered outside Parliament this year to protest the cascade of antisemitic scandals within the Labour Party, “a group of academics wrote a letter to the Guardian arguing that antisemitism had been ‘weaponized just ahead of local council elections,’ while more than 200 Corbyn supporters signed a letter portraying the protest as the work of a ‘very powerful special interest group.’” Any objection to Corbyn’s close relationship to antisemitic forces is thus perceived by many of his supporters as itself evidence of a nefarious plot. One of the central ironies of this debacle is that charges of antisemitism are often repudiated by directly invoking the classic tropes of that racist malady.

Many of Corbyn’s most ardent defenders, such as the activist and commentator Owen Jones, ignore the opinions of mainstream Jewish people and organisations in favour of marginal anarchist groups such as Jewdas, whose anti-Zionism makes them more palatable to the radical anti-colonialist:

A poll by Survation found that 85 percent of Jews in the UK believe that Corbyn himself is antisemitic. This followed the emergence of a video in which Corbyn described British Zionists as not understanding “history” and not “understanding English irony, either.” If the same percentage of black people considered Corbyn to be racist, or if he was recorded making similar disparaging comments about, say, Muslims, it is inconceivable that he would have risen to the pinnacle of British progressive politics.

And yet here we are. Not only is Corbyn leading the British Labour Party, but the convulsions of Brexit have placed him on the threshold of Prime Ministerial power. Bolton and Pitts offer a valuable and thoughtful analysis of Corbynite ideology, but it is unlikely that any account can adequately capture the bizarre spectacle of convinced anti-racists passionately embracing the oldest hatred in our civilization.


Tomiwa Owolade is a post-graduate English Literature student at University College London. You can follow him on Twitter @Owolade21


  1. E. Olson says

    What a run the UK has had of weak leadership. No. 10 has had nobody with constructive policy and any real stature or integrity since Thatcher, and arguably nobody before her since WWII Churchill. May has proven to be a real lightweight, and I have to think the only thing keeping her in charge is the fear that Corbyn would be the likely alternative.

    • Hugh Jarse says

      Please. Move. Anywhere else. You have a right to your views, but it would be best if you exercised them somewhere other than America. The notion that any religious/ethnic group is “striving almost unanimously” toward something nefarious is social and intellectual scatology, the source location of which I suggest you shove your antisemitism – exponentially. It is antithetical to America’s founding, where America’s Jews certainly had a place at the table. Please subject yourself to anywhere else, or anywhere else to you.

      • “….but it would be best if you exercised them somewhere other than America.”

        But didn’t I just say I was thinking of relocating to Britain?

        • Lili Millar says

          No don’t come here!!! Anyway they’ll arrest you for hate speech soon. In your case, justified.

    • northernobserver says

      It’s not Jews that are doing this, its liberal ideas that have hijacked and are manipulating Jews and Judaism for their own purpose, much like liberal ideas have subverted the Protestant mainline churches.

    • Stephanie says

      @ Tito, your conspiracy theories would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous. I second the notion you move on to somewhere where people share your beliefs. Like hell 🙂

      Seriously, kill yourself. Your family and community will be relieved.

      • xyz and such says

        @ stephanie – I’m Jewish and I find Tito’s comment profoundly frightening and dangerous, as you said. But I also think that telling ANYONE at ANY time and for ANY reason to ‘kill themselves’ is just as dangerous and horrific. Anyone that thinks that kind of comment online (or anywhere else) is OK, or that it’s justified because of what they have said is as much a part of the problem as someone spouting off ridiculous conspiracy theories. It’s the same kind of rationalizations that you have for saying it that are used by people like Tito to justify their cruelty.

        • Oh come on. Dude is a self described white supremacist. Surely someone so supreme wouldnt slit their wrists over an internet put down.

        • Geneticists have described how the DNA of Jews is extraordinarily alike, so much so that some have said that Jews are a race of clones. Perhaps this explains the unanimity of Jewish opinion. Possessed of a hive mind like that of bees, they have no choice but to detest white people and seek our minoritization.
          Together with the unanimity of black, emigrant, white liberal and feminist anti-white opinion, I foresee our white percentage falling below 20% by century’s end.
          But even that won’t satisfy America’s Jews, who wish us extinct.


      • “Tito, your conspiracy theories would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous.”

        My views are dangerous? God, that makes me tumescent! Say it again.

        • Ray Andrews says

          A genuine anti-Semite! The charge is so over used, but here we have the genuine article. Tell me, what would you do with me? I’m only half Jewish and politically I’m rather conservative and totally opposed to the undermining of the white race, of which I consider myself to be a member. A great number of the intellectuals who are likewise coming to the defense of the West are also Jews.

    • ModerateRadical says

      Please leave befoee you embarrass yourself anymore buddy.

    • Assuming you are the public author, why I wonder, have you waited so long in life before being openly anti-Semitic? Put another way Mr Perdue, why vomit now?

    • This organ had represented itself as a venue for free expression, a lie. It doesn’t matter how well argued my submissions may be, they are not allowed as long as I describe myself, (truthfully) as a racist. Racists are to be excluded from polite debate?

  2. Corbyn’s ideology is entirely defined by what he is against which as the authour says is broadly the liberal democratic west. I believe what is going on is an and an avoidance of the need to make decisions which have morally mixed consequences. In thsi sense he does not exist in the real world. The decisions made in the west many of which defintely do have some negative conseuences are condemmed those by convenient opponents of the west are simply ignored. The resulting political philosphy is profoundly amoral not because of any of the ndividual causes supported or opposed but because the real moral decisions, difficult decisions which balance positive and negative consequences along with a knowledge that outcomes are uncertain are simply avioided in a simplistic and one sided black and white view.

    It is basically a position of simultaneous moral cowardice and sanctimoniousness.

    • “He does not exist in the real world”. Close. Perhaps “he does not live in the real world” is closer; in the sense that his way of perceiving and understanding things is pretty remote from how things actually are. He’s batty; an eccentric of perhaps a particularly English kind, whose views on life would in previous times not have attracted sufficient interest for people to realise how vile they are.

      But he does exist in the real world, and is a vote or three away from exercising power in one of the world’s most significant nations. One wonders how that can be, but remembers that Rome and Byzantium were ruled in their decline by serial nutters.

      Still, congratulations to Bolton, Pitts and Owolade for calling the antisemitic wee bastard out.

      • “….one of the world’s most significant nations.”

        Many of today’s visitors to London no longer view Britain a “nation.” They say it resembles a taxonomic experiment conducted by anti-white racists.

    • A C Harper says

      Many years ago I used to act as secretary for a regular joint (multiple) union and management meeting. One particular representative appeared to see the world as workers vs bosses no matter what was being discussed, what other union representatives said, or even reality. He would often realise he had adopted a foolish position sometime later and ask for the previous minutes to be amended in his favour – as if his previous views had never existed.

      I suspect Corbyn is the same. Home politics is the workers vs the bosses, and international politics (as the article suggests) the oppressed vs the West. A further similarity is how Venezuela was once held up as an example of successful socialism by Corbyn and the Labour Party, and now… silence.

    • Larry Mc Cann says

      Very naive! Lacking in historical experience and critical thinking!

  3. Terence Roushers says

    It is impossible to understand Corbyn without understanding Momentum; the movement which simultaneously buoys and imprisons him.

    • A C Harper says

      I’ve often though of Corbyn as the reluctant man strapped to the front of the Mad Max Momentum vehicle. He is the figure head, he can’t step down, but he goes where the engine of his support drives him.

      If it’s any consolation I always though David Cameron was the suave figurehead of the Conservative Party, all bling and no bottom. Not a real leader.

  4. Morgan Foster says

    “He vehemently denounces Saudi Arabia’s many appalling human rights abuses but has happily accepted money from the propaganda arm of the Iranian regime.”

    He chose the winning side: Shia over Sunni.

    But he’s owned, now.

  5. MagnusMino says

    This article is a hatchet piece. A sad affirmation that zionists are afraid of a true progressive being leader of a major country, which would be a first, since, oh, maybe Jimmy Carter. I suspect the author is a paid zionist shill and war-crimes apologist, or maybe he just believes that the UK is a vassal state of Israel which cannot be allowed to discuss, let alone criticize, the master race. Either way, it’s sad that Quillette is allowing itself to be used for such overt electoral propaganda purposes.

    Corbyn’s been under constant attack by right-wing zionists for years, who know he will recognize Palestine on Day 1 of his assuming the role of Prime Minister.

    I look forward to your salty tears. Slandering an honest and fair-minded, anti-war statesman who was right about the Iraq war and the UK’s nefarious role in helping oppressive regimes around the world, is par for the course for the Hasbara trolls, who’ve obviously been pre-emptively poisoning the well against Corbyn before the next election. This article is fearmongering drivel, timed suspiciously before upcoming elections. It is a complete lie that he’s an anti-semite and a weak, lame attempt at character assassination. But expected.

    Too bad for the racist / colonialist enterprise: Corbyn as popular as ever with true liberals (those who are against apartheid, that is), and most of the planet supports Palestinian statehood and is aghast at constant land theft (a war crime) by the Israelis. We know what you’re up to and your constant cries of “Hitler-Wolf” aren’t working any more.

    Inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are illegal in Israel, and Jews are the only recognized race who legally belong there, per the “Nation State of the Jews” law. Meanwhile Netanyahu is going down and he won’t get the chance to start a war with Iran after all. Poor boy. The ICC is coming after all these war criminals.

    BDS is working, and articles like these popping up everywhere only prove how desperate the zionists are getting. Netanyahu’s going down soon, and he’s killed thousands of defenseless civilians. One day he may even pay for this real crimes, not just bribery. Apparently the only crimes which matter in Israel are those committed by Jews against other Jews. This is no surprise. But neither is this article, full of falsehoods and slander. Typical drivel.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @ MagnusMino

      “Inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are illegal in Israel”

      Are they legal in the Palestinian territories?

      • ga gamba says

        He over-eggs the assertion. Civil marriage doesn’t exist fully in Israeli law, nor in many other countries for that matter, with marriage and divorce possible only through the established religious institutions. Each religious community has jurisdiction over its own members in matters of marriage, burial, and divorce. Civil marriage is registered by the state when neither party is a member of a religion.

        Jewish couples marry through the Chief Rabbinate, which is Orthodox, whereas Christians, Druze, Baha’is, and Muslims all wed through their own religious legal systems. None of these perform interfaith marriages nor gay ones. A wedding of two Jews performed by a Reform or Conservative rabbi is not a wedding, and the couple cannot be registered in the population registry as married. Marriage of gays performed abroad are registered by the state.

        Many Israeli couples have taken to signing cohabitation agreements, which are similar to contracts such as prenuptial ones that address numerous issues including the division of assets in case of separation. Further, by international agreements the state is required to recognize marriages performed abroad that are recognized by those jurisdictions. These interfaith marriages, which may be between any race, are recognised by the state.

        You’ll find Magnus makes accusations of racism often when the subject is Israel, but this requires a person accept a religion is a race too. As we know the three major Abrahamic faiths as well as most others don’t restrict belief and membership to the faith by race. They do have their own conversion requirements, some more onerous than others. Even Orthodox Jews do not recognise conversions by non-Orthodox rabbis, though both Conservative and Reform rabbis and synagogues exist in Israel. It’s generally minor religions such as the Parsis of India that don’t accept converts, and thus one must be born into the faith. In Israel its citizens, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. may convert to other religions. Not may do though.

        An Israeli Jew who converts to Islam, which is not a difficult process under Islamic law, would be allowed by the Muslim religious authorities to wed an Israeli Muslim. A Muslim or Christian who converts to Judaism, and does under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbi and a rabbinical court, would be allowed to wed an Israeli Jew. Conversion to Orthodox Judaism is a much more difficult process because one is required to know Judaic law, history, etc. in depth.

        Israel does not have a constitution, but that’s true for other countries such as Britain, so Israel relies on the Basic Law, common law, conventions, and court rulings. For issues it deems religious, which I mentioned above, the government punted it to the religious authorities to govern.

        The problem with people such as Magnus who provide one-sentence sweeping generalisations such as “Inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are illegal in Israel” usually have other axes to grind. I presume their rationale follows this line of thought: “By providing this simple-dimple assertion, one that doesn’t convey any understanding of a complex subject but can be chanted ad infinitum at a protest or written on a placard, I can convince other simple-minded people to dislike the Jews as much as I do.”

        Of course, I’m not a mind reader, and I may be wrong, but given I’ve provided him an explanation of the complexity previously, and he has the internet at his fingertips to research this, that he continues on with “Inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are illegal in Israel” isn’t about conveying understanding but simply an endeavour to malign Israel, Jews, or both. That he’s not making similar assertions about the Indonesians and Lebanese, two of the many countries similar to Israel in their handing of marriage, has me strongly suspect there are other motivations at work here. Further, we don’t see any movement comparable to BDS being organised by activists against Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc. which tells me this really isn’t about justice but rather perpetrating an injustice.

        One wonders whether the Palestinian Authority’s laws on marriage are similar Israel’s. Any of the BDS activist want to take a stab at answering this? Anyone reading here attend a gay wedding in Gaza City recently? How was the interfaith marriage ceremony in Hebron?

      • MagnusMino says

        “Are they legal in the Palestinian territories?”

        Inter-racial marriage is, but gay marriage isn’t, but that’s only because Islam copied the Old Testament, so I find this tu quoque deflection rather amusing.

        The misogyny and homophobia in Islam and Christianity were lifted whole cloth from the OT.

        The main point I’m making is that Israelis have no leg to stand on to point fingers at Islam, where bigotry is concerned. They were caught sterilizing Ethiopian Jews only a few years ago. And don’t forget how poorly Ashkenazim treat their Sephardi cousins.

        Zionism is a form of settler colonialism, and all settler colonialism is fundamentally racist by nature. You don’t settle on land owned by your own kind, that’s called immigration. You only settle land belonging to other races, people who don’t want you there because you’re foreign invaders.

        How can one rationalize stealing people’s land and beating, torturing, murdering them when they resist, if you don’t first dehumanize them and consider them fundamentally inferior?

        I’ve seen several posts on Quillette openly stating that Arabs or Muslims are inherently inferior to Jews, or implying so, so it’s ok to take their land.

        This is open racial supremacy and no mistake, I’m going to call people out on it.

        It’s sickening, but 100% typical of this “manifest destiny” mindset. Kudos on Quillette for not censoring me, maybe I was wrong thinking their devotion to heterodox thinking and fact-based rationalism was a ruse. We’ll see.

        • Stephanie says

          @ MagnusMino, “colonialization” implies Jews are not from Israel, which erases 3000 years of continuous Jewish existence in Israel. As someone who seems keen to invoke the Old Testament to condemn Jews, you’re happy to ignore the detailed written history of the Jewish people in Israel described therein. You’re motivated by hate, not logic.

    • MagnusMino says

      Calling me a homo is a sure sign you’re won the debate here, congrats.

      I marvel at the depths of your profundity.

    • @Magnus. Yawn. You. Are. A Racist.

      I won’t catalogue your delusions and lies – others have here anyway – because you obviously believe in them in the same way every anti-semite believes their lies.

      What would be awesome is for you to at least admit you hate Jews and want us to disappear. But the progressive anti-semite wants to feel righteous rage, wants to be Good and Right; so he thumps his chest with his righteousness…and then spews the same drivel & hate like all anti-Semites throughout history. You can put lipstick on a pig….

      Just admit you are a racist. At least you’d be honest.

    • Yes because someone disagrees with you that makes them a paid zionist shill. Great work detective.

    • Rehdon says

      “This article is a hatchet piece. A sad affirmation that zionists […]”

      I stopped right there.

    • Andio says

      Hey, looks who’s back! it’s @ MagnusMino, Quillette’s local jew hating troll.

  6. The conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control the world is ancient (see “Anti Judaism” by David Nirenberg). It appears in left-wing thinking, as is noted in this article, and also on the far-right, as can be seen in the stated beliefs of today’s U.S. White Nationalists (see “Rising Out of Hatred” by Eli Saslow).
    Conspiracy theories are embraced by those who eschew rational, evidence-based arguments. They are ubiquitous and exceedingly dangerous.

    • Jack B. Nimble says

      @True Wolff

      Populist movements tend to encourage or support anti-Semitic beliefs, which is one reason [among many] for not being a populist.

      It is worth noting that Corbyn’s policies are a type of left-wing populism that most Americans are totally unfamiliar with, since left-wing populism died out over here about a century ago.

      Right-wing populism, on the other hand, continues to thrive, both in the US and in continental Europe:

      ‘…Has anti-Semitism been emboldened by Europe’s populist swing?

      Europe has seen a swing towards populist parties in the last decade with Italy the most recent example where they took more than 50% of the vote and now govern in a coalition.

      This move to the extremes of the political spectrum across the continent has led some to suggest that it is fuelling anti-Semitism.

      “I think there’s been a drift to the right, not just in Britain, not just in Europe but globally,” said Dr [Brendan] McGeever. “There’s Italy, there’s Hungary, there’s Poland. But also we can see it in Modi’s India, Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America.

      “Racisms in all forms have been emboldened by this hard right drift.

      “The rise of anti-Semitism, unquestionably, can partly be explained by these developments

      “It’s different from country-to-country, and the extent of anti-Semitism is uneven. Certainly, the intensification of anti-Semitism in eastern and central Europe is connected to this drift to the political right.

      “So in this respect, the situation in the British Labour Party is unique and not a direct outgrowth of what is happening elsewhere.”….’

      • ga gamba says

        since left-wing populism died out over here about a century ago.

        You’re off by decades. Here’s an article written in ’91, and that’s not 1891, about the prairie populist Tom Harkin, https://www.newsweek.com/liberal-and-proud-it-iowas-prairie-populist-203118.

        Twelve years later, USA Today wrote: Sen. Tom Harkin can reel off a long list of Midwestern populists he’s served with in Congress: Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Sen. Tom Eagleton of Missouri. Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, Rep. Jim Symington of Missouri.

        Of course, he’s the only one left in office. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/prairie-populists-fading-harkin-midwest/2377883/

        I won’t dispute left-wing populism has been in decline, but it didn’t die a century ago. Was not the New Deal populist? How about Johnson’s Great Society?

        If one recalls H. Ross Perot’s independent run for the White House in ’92, one that won 19 per cent of the popular vote against two solid candidates despite Perot doing his best to sabotage his own campaign, there is certainly a want for populism by a large segment of the electorate. I recall Cher, who certainly is no fan of Trump, calling the Larry King Live show on CNN and pleading with Perot to announce his candidacy.

        KING: We have one more caller coming in from Los Angeles. Hello.

        Q: Hello. Ross. It’s Cher. I’ve been trying to get you for days, and I guess this is the only way I’m going to be able to get you.

        KING: Is this Cher? Hi Cher.

        Q: Hi Larry, how are you?

        KING: How are you?

        PEROT: Good to hear your voice.

        Q: I want to tell you something. I’m so passionate about what you’re doing, and I feel so strong. I love my country so much. It’s done so much for me. I would be willing to give up everything I’m doing and come and be one of the volunteers as long as I know that if I got into it, you wouldn’t quit and that we could really do something.

        There’s no way in good conscience I could endorse President Bush or Bill Clinton, because I do not believe that either one of them either knows or cares what’s best for the country. I think they just talk good talk and I don’t believe that they are going to do anything. And I’m
        frightened for our country, I’m frightened for my children. […]

        It’s not adjusting and shifting that I worry about, it’s that whether you like it or not, you are the focus. It’s like you are the father of this patriot movement. Whether you like it or not, you have to be there. It’s like every small movement, every child movement, every infant movement needs a father. And you have to be it, whether you like it or not. […]

        I’ll tell you something: My country, this country has made – It’s not – It’s like I’ve made everything out of myself that I’ve wanted to make and it’s no good for me to go on with seeing other people not being able to–you know, other people walking homeless in my town and people not being able to have a college education, and people of different races and cultures not loving one another and not wanting to help one another. And I swear to God, it’s the most important thing. I know our country’s in a terrible way, and I know economically we’re at a place that’s like being at the edge of a cliff. And if something doesn’t happen, then I can’t imagine what’s going to happen to the rest of my children’s future, and their children’s future.

        I mention this not to claim Cher is an important political thinker, but notice she connects patriotism, which is typically the cause of the right, and economic equality issues, commonly the left’s cause, and begs a billionaire businessman to be the father of the grassroots movement.

        Perot was an economic nationalist opposed to NAFTA and outsourcing of jobs to Asia. The Mexicans were going to suck giantly and loudly all the jobs south of the border.

        The first thing you ought to do is get all these folks who’ve got these one-way trade agreements that we’ve negotiated over the years and say, “Fellows, we’ll take the same deal we gave you.” And they’ll gridlock right at that point because, for example, we’ve got international competitors who simply could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply — you see, if it was a two-way street — just couldn’t do it. We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.


        We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It’s pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,…have no health care—that’s the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south…when [Mexico’s] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it’s leveled again. But in the meantime, you’ve wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.


        Under no circumstances can we lower the standard of living of the working American. Therefore, any trade agreement we enter into must require a social tariff, I would say, that makes it an even playing field, then gives Mexico an incentive to raise the standard of living with those people, which it does not have now.

        He was upset with US defence of allies who were not paying their burden, and this was when they still had Cold War defence budgets.

        If I’m poor and you’re rich, and I can get you to defend me that’s good. But when the tables get turned, I would do my share. Right now we spend about 300$ Billion dollars a year on defense, Japanese spend around $30 billion in Asia, the Germans spend about $30 billion in Europe. For example, Germany will spend about a trillion dollars building infrastructure over the next 10 years. That’s kinda easy to do if you don’t have to pick up $30 billion dollar tab to defend your country. The European community is in a position to pay a lot more than they have in the past. Now that they can, they should.

        Understand that his rejecting the orthodoxy of both open US markets and the defence of allies he was rejecting central tenets of both the Republicans and Democrats. Perot was espousing an America First / MAGA platform, though not as bombastically as Trump.

        Perot, the charismatic populist, who was neither right nor left, was a harbinger.

        • Jack B. Nimble says

          @ga gamba

          Populism combines elements of American-style liberalism and conservatism: traditional and nativist on social questions and liberal or even socialistic on economic matters. So not every liberal Democrat in the US is a populist, even if they adopt the label.

          I date the end of American populism to the death of William Jennings Bryan in 1925, just after he had argued the anti-evolution case in the Scopes trial in Tennessee (social conservatism). But as a presidential candidate, Bryan ran as the nominee of both the Democratic Party AND the Populist Party on an anti-capitalist platform. In his 1896 acceptance speech, he said:

          “…….Upon which side will the Democratic Party fight; upon the side of “the idle holders of idle capital” or upon the side of “the struggling masses”? That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses….”

          Historical purists might date the end of populism in the US to the assassination of Huey P. Long in 1935. However, Long called himself ‘sui generis,’ and that pretty much sums up American-style populism. After Long’s death, populism survived only in a few places in the rural South and West.

  7. Andrew Leonard says

    Britain is a lost cause. By 2030, Once Great Britain will be an Islamo-police state – a combination of the worst aspects of Iran and the former Soviet Union. What forces exist within Britain to prevent this outcome? Obviously, Jeremy Corbyn is not one.

    Just for fun, thought I would write down all the ‘state’ designations that apply to Britain.

    • Welfare State – government spends half the economy, massive welfare dependency, huge waiting lists for mediocre nationalized health system services (regardless, NHS has near-religious levels of support from public)

    • Monetary State – government has total control of currency, money supply, and interest rates

    • Regulatory State – massive levels of regulation controlling all aspects of life and economy, growing exponentially

    • Surveillance state – CCTV cameras on every corner and building, mandatory Internet history logging and reporting

    • Military State – major Iraq war involvement, regardless of anti-war protest by 1 million citizens

    • Morality State – ‘nationalization’ of right & wrong, dissemination of government defined morality through public propaganda (most notably the BBC) and education system

    • Multiculturalist State – long term, high rate immigration, much of it from semi/incompatible cultures, little or no effort towards assimilation, ethnic quasi-colonies established and no-go zones expanding in size and number

    • Wellbeing State (aka Happiness State) – government tries to ensure everyone is happy, not feeling lonely

    • Police State – deliberately vague and subjective ‘hate speech’ laws with arbitrary capture criteria (hate or prejudice in the eyes/ears of ‘victim’ and/or observer), policing of non-crime ‘hate’ incidents (understood as criticism of Islam and/or immigrants), policing of mean and nasty Tweets plus politically incorrect humor and stand-up comedy, especially that which might hurt feelings, criticism of a politician deemed to be trolling (not defined), plenty of help from public – unofficial informants encouraged

    • Islamic State – creeping Islamism, implicit blasphemy laws, effective banning of criticism of Muslims and their religion, parallel legal system – Sharia law alongside British law, acceptance of FGM and paedophilic rape gangs – opponents dismissed as racists, Islamophobes and bigots (including moderate Muslims), probable change of official state religion (Christianity to Islam) within a few decades

    • European State (membership) – legally locked-in integration with the EU. Governance of Britain increasingly in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Establishment of European Army to defend against dangerous Nationalist states, most notably China, Russia and the United States

    • Democratic State – in theory, but democratic ideal (“will of the people”) had to be re-prioritized (downwards) to thwart Brexit. No big deal, as leavers widely known by their social betters as ignorant xenophobes

    Just so you’re clear, anyone who opposes any of these states is a Fascist.

    • Jonny Sclerosis says

      It’s nothing like that. Lived in the UK for 25 years, the US for 10. Britain is a moderate place. ‘Wellbeing State’ is a term this Andrew Leonard fellow has made up and it still sounds about as frightening as an unexpected burp. Government tries to ensure people are happy and not lonely? Ooh how evil.

      • Andrew Leonard says

        ‘Wellbeing State’ is a better match than ‘Nanny State’.

        So the concept of top-down happiness and togetherness doesn’t bother you?

        If Corbyn and Labour gets their way, Britain will also be a Socialist State.

      • Circuses and Bread ?? says

        @Johnny Sclerosis

        In the UK people are being arrested and charged for offensive social media posts. Apparently teaching a dog to give a fascist salute or transcribing rap music lyrics onto social media are matters of high concern for the authorities. So what is meant by a “moderate?” As compared to Romania in 1980?

        • Johnny Sclerosis says

          This thinking only works if you’re coming from an ideology of state action = bad. In the late 90s, after the Dunblane massacre, the government held a gun amnesty. There have been no mass shootings since, and the British public is quite happy about that. It’s simply not a political issue. Nobody frames it as state creep. Regular cops don’t carry guns, and neither do civilians. Yet here in the USA, nobody ever concludes that cops carrying guns is government overreach. Funny that. Everyone’s happy with state control when it suits them.

          So no, there’s no need to compare the UK to Romania in 1980. I’m comparing it to this crazy country in 2018. Give me over-zealous hate speech laws over wound up, licensed-to-kill, armed public servants any day of the week.

      • @Jonny Sclerosis
        Regardless if well-being state is a made-up term. Is that the business of the government? Are there no bounds?

      • Sean L says

        I’ve lived in London for 40 years and can assure you it’s become very much like that in recent years. Hardly surprising given non-EU immigration has been increasing in recent years, and indigenous people were already an ethnic minority in the capital according to the 2011 census. Not to mention other areas. The election of Corbyn as Leader of Opposition and a Muslim apologist for extremism as Mayor of London by the bloc vote.

    • Andrew Leonard says

      No, no Vicki. Why do allow men to stand up when women can’t?
      Urinals are sexist, and they are sexist because human biology/anatomy is sexist (the patriarchy socially constructed it that way).

    • Andrew Leonard says

      This thinking only works if you’re coming from an ideology of state action = bad.

      According to the left, the right are Fascists and Nazis, who simultaneously come from an ideology of state action = bad.

      The left is just a big joke, and no longer contributes to meaningful debate. There is plenty of scope and breadth of opinions across the center and right to continue constructive dialog with no input from the left whatsoever.

      In fact the left now senses they are being left out of the cultural loop. Consider the Alternative Influence Network study, funded by the heavyweights of the left and almost universally pilloried for the guilt by association crap that it is (or should i say, ‘was’ – it has apparently sunk without a trace).

      The author of the study clearly senses the world is dividing into two camps – the calm, thoughtful and articulate center + right on one hand, and the emotionalized name-calling left on the other. The author fears the left’s growing irrelevance. She’s right to fear.

  8. MagnusMino says

    Do Quillette editors read the comments here?

    I was wondering if they’d like to comment on the clear double standard of their editorial policy here.

    I thought that Quillette was pro-free speech? In academia, social networks, media, and elsewhere.

    This article’s purpose is to stifle debate about Israeli war crimes, by way of a smear-job against Corbyn by weaponinzing spurious claims of anti-semitism against him. His pro-Palestine stance has British Jewry up in hysterics and in a panic, who fear the UK recognizing Palestine officially. This is the real reason for these hatchet pieces.

    Meanwhile, countless articles about academic freedom being curtailed by left-wing protesters are being published here, rightly, while glaringly omitting eggregious right-wing attacks on free speech, for example the calls to get Marc Lamont fired from his job as tenured professor at Temple U.

    What is going on here with Quillette? Are you for free speech, or only for speech that you agree with? I.e. pro-Zionist views.

    The reckless abuse of the slur of “anti-semite” is used as a weapon to silence people constantly, on campus and in elections and in the media:



    If this site’s purpose is to be yet another pro-Zionist rag where you ignore threats to free speech by their efforts, then you need to be clear about it. It would be a pity for you to remain so closed to what’s really going on out there. So far your support of free speech is terribly one-sided.

    You seem in favour of silencing speech that’s anti-Occupation (which most of the planet agrees with), but are outraged (rightly) when left-wing students and twitter social justice warriors get papers on evolution censored or Orwellian pronoun use dictated by the state. (Peterson)

    Pick a side: is this site pro-free speech or anti? Because from where I’m sitting, it appears as though you’re letting yourself be used by war crimes apologists who spew constant hate-speech against the muslim world, while acting like cry-bullies when people take exception to them using white phosphorous on school children in Gaza or sniping 500 unarmed protesters this summer.

    Calling someone a racist when they criticize you is the epitome of snowflakery. Israel, though, is indeed a racist country. It doesn’t permit inter-racial marriage. Name one other country in the world where that is the case. I can’t think of a single one, actually. Jews actually have less rights to marry whom they chose in Israel than any other country on the planet, which is ironic since 3/4 of Jews marry outside of their race / religion, thus must leave the “Jewish State” to get married. What a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment! Any criticism of such a place must be due to rabid anti-semitism, right? Please.

    • George G says


      can you spare some tin foil from your hat? I need to wrap a chicken im roasting

      • Skallagrimsen says

        @ George G Snarky “tiny foil hat” put downs are embarrassingly lazy and lame. If Magnus Milo is so contemptibly off base, it should be easy to easy to address and dismantle his actual claims.

        • George G says


          the article is a book review of Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to prominence, anti-Semitism is raised because of JC’s history of words and actions in support of anti “Zionist” groups, incidentally the labour party since November 2018 is under a formal police investigation for anti-Semitism. I think the above piece gives a pretty reasoned explanation for it: the enemy of the west is my friend…

          @MagnusMino has written several thousand words in this comment thread detailing without evidence about Zionist conspiracies in response to the article, his Alex Jones style frothing at the mouth conspiracy rant is entirely worthy of mockery. I apologise that you are so thin skinned this has caused you to be embarrassed, perhaps you could try man’ing up? and if Magnus claims are not so contemptibly off base maybe you’ve got evidence to back them up?

    • So what’s the name for people who suggest you’re a sock puppet for the world-wide zionist conspiracy if you say that you think the leader of the Labour party (and some party members) are prepared to tolerate anti-semitism from those who’s causes they espouse?

    • Alex P says

      MagnusMino, you spew so many blatant lies in this comment that even bothering to count them is giving me a headache.

      You say that Quillette aims to “stifle debate” and “silence speech”, which is obviously a ludicrous charge. Quillette is an online magazine, not a government, not even a social media platform. Obviously Quillette does not have any ability to stifle or silence anyone or anything. Obviously no magazine has the ability to stifle or silence anyone. Why on earth would you say something that is blatantly untrue?

      You accuse Israel of war crimes. This is a lie. If it were true, you would provide a citation showing which Israelis have been convicted of war crimes. You cannot do so because no israeli has ever been convicted of war crimes.

      You say that Israel shot 500 unarmed protesters this summer. This is a lie. Israel did not shoot a single unarmed protester last summer. On May 14th, a group of violent, heavily armed Islamic terrorists from the Gaza Strip attempt to invade Israel and slaughter as many Jewish civilians as possible. The Isareli army killed some of them, which is what an army is supposed to do when facing an invading army. However, the death toll was about 50, not 500 as you claim.

      “[Israel] doesn’t permit inter-racial marriage.” Another blatant lie. There are many interracial marriages in Israel. If you’re looking for countries where people don’t have the freedom to marry as they choose, you’ll find such countries in the Muslim world.

      You are correct that racism and genocide is driving the Israel-Palestine conflict. You’re just confused by which side is racist and genocidal: the Palestinians are. In 2006 the Palestinians held their first free election and they elected Hamas, a group whose charter explicitly calls for the violent extermination of all Jews on the planet.

      • Jack B. Nimble says

        @Alex P

        “……You say that Israel shot 500 unarmed protesters this summer. This is a lie. Israel did not shoot a single unarmed protester last summer…..”

        Open-minded readers should visit this website for the facts:


        An excerpt:
        “…..Since the protests by the Gaza perimeter fence began on 30 March 2018, Israeli security forces have fatally shot over 180 demonstrators – including 31 minors – and injured over 5,800 demonstrators with live gunfire. The vast majority of casualties were unarmed, and were fatally shot from a distance while in the Gaza Strip itself. As a general rule, the protectively clad troops sniping at them from other side of the fence were not in any real danger. Some protesters threw stones, some damaged the fence, and a small number crossed it or threw hand grenades, IEDs and Molotov cocktails at the troops.

        According to figures by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), over 12,700 casualties have required treatment in Gaza hospitals. This number includes the over 5,800 who suffered live gunshot wounds as well as some 1,900 who suffered teargas inhalation injuries, and some 480 who were hit by rubber-coated metal bullets. Approximately 2,300 of the casualties are minors. Doctors have had to perform amputations on 90 protesters, including 17 minors and one woman. In the majority of cases (82), the amputations were of lower limbs….”

        • MagnusMino says

          Thank you for injecting some facts and sanity here, Jack.

          Quillette comment sections is indeed full of people who think they’re such informed, free thinkers, but are laughable dupes, mindlessly parroting easily refuted propaganda drilled 24 / 7 into their weak minds by thralls working as war propagandists in the media.

          Propaganda is so effective that, despite showing people irrefutable proof of actual daily war crimes.

          The Occupation itself is a war crime, Section 2 or Article 49 of the UN charter. Which Israel signed, by the way. And regardless, are subject to, due to universal jurisdiction, and now, since 2014, crimes in the territories. Which brings us back to Corbyn.

          He is going to recognize a Palestinian state along the 67 borders if he becomes PM. Watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth. We shall see a temper tantrum in the media the likes we have never seen. He will be called the literal reincarnation of Hitler, daily. This article is but a taste of the histrionics we have in store for us.

        • Alex P says

          Jack B. Nimble: I would say that if the “protesters” in Gaza don’t want to be shot by Israeli troops, perhaps they should stop trying to invade Israel and kill Israeli civilians.

          When they had the chance to elect a government, they elected Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group–they’re on the State Dept.’s official list of terrorist groups–and the charter of Hamas specifically says that all Jews should be killed. Not all Zionists. Not all Israelis. All Jews. Read the charter yourself if you want to know what these people actually believe.

          The website that you linked to is obviously a highly biased source. It reports survey data from those injured in Gaza, and expects us to take this data at face value. For example, two-thirds self-report that they were injured while not committing violence (which means that one third readily admit they were committing violence) but why on earth would anyone take such a claim at face value?

          The hypocrisy of the world community on this issue is stunning. When terrorists attacked the USA on 9/11/2001, everyone agreed that we had the right to defend our nation and kill those who were attacking us. When Britain, or France, or Egypt, or India gets attacked by terrorists, there’s total agreement that they have the right to defend themselves. But when Israel is attacked by mobs of Hamas terrorists, for some reason they’re the only nation that’s not allowed to defend themselves.

          • MagnusMino says

            Sniping clearly identified, unarmed journalists and medics, and blowing up schools and water supplires and killing children playing soccer on the beach using missiles shot from remote-operated drones is “defending onesself” how, exactly?

            After 9/11 happened, the US invaded a country which had nothing to do with it, at the behest of Israel!

            Iraq was a war of choice, a war aggression subject to the Nuremberg treatment. It wasn’t self-defense at all. Iraq was no threat to the US and had no involvement. Israel pressured the US into murdering 2.4 million innocent Iraqis and bombing a total of 7 muslim countries since.

            The Yinon Plan is not “self-defense”.

            And besides, the occupied have a legal right to use force to defend themselves against the occupying country. Not against civilians, no, but Netanyahu makes no distinction. Any soldier who invades Gaza and is killed is called a “victim of terror”, which is an Orwellian abuse of the English language. Soldiers dying while securing illegally occupied territories DO NOT have a legal right to self-defense. That is absolutely not true. Call it what you want, but defending an occupation is not self-defense.

            And before we get into random toy rockets fired by Hamas, every time there is a cease fire it’s Israel that violates it, deliberately, including in 2009 and 2014. Israel often provokes a retaliation which it then responds to using overwhelming, disproportionate force (also illegal), and then says “who, me?” when asked who started it. We know who started all these wars, Israel did. It’s the Palestinians defending themselves, and they actually have a legal right to use force to do so, per international law. It’s a fact. No, not to kill civilians indiscriminately, but they are absolutely allowed by law to kill Israeli soldiers without any legal repercussions whatsoever. They are under siege. Look it up. The Occupied are allowed to use force. By law. Which the US and Israel agreed to and signed, by the way. It’s called the Geneva Conventions. Everybody’s gotta play by the same rules.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @Alex P

            It’s possible to criticize Israel without defending Hamas. See, e.g., this article I quoted in a different thread a few months ago:


            If the link I provided is biased, where are the unbiased sources? The IDF? The Likud Party? Supporters of Israel don’t help themselves [or their cause] by claiming that negative reporting and opinions about Israel must mean that the writer is biased or hostile toward Jews.

    • northernobserver says

      Israel’s crimes pale in comparison to the crimes of Islam, its followers and the states controlled by the religion of pieces. It’s really that simple. Until that changes there is no point tearing ones shirt in half over a people that would rather resist and die than admit defeat and live. Until the cultural theological reasons for not admitting defeat are removed there is no hope for the Arabs of Judea except conversion or immigration. Unlimited resistance will only make the Israelis increasingly genocidal towards them. Gaza could have been a Dubai on the Mediterranean but Hezbollah can not get over its theological commitments to Islam and hence the war continues. In three ground wars the Arabs lost most of the lands of their grandfathers birth, tell me, what is continued resistance supposed to get them? – it is nothing more than a death wish, better to die martyrs than admit defeat. If that is what you want mohammed, we will give it to you. Deus Vault.

      • MagnusMino says

        “Israel’s crimes pale in comparison to the crimes of Islam, its followers and the states controlled by the religion of pieces. It’s really that simple. ”

        Recent tallies estimate 2.4 million Iraqis are dead due to the Iraq invasion, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and was promoted 24/7 in 2002 by Netanyahu, AIPAC and other lobby cronies in various think tanks.

        Barney Frank admitted that without the prodding to vote for the Iraq war by the Lobby, it wouldn’t have happened. They were “making the rounds” in Congress, and making sure everybody knew they’d be primaries if they didn’t vote for the war on the flimsiest pretext. Iraq was 100% for the benefit of Halliburton profits and Israeli aggression and expansion.

        Let’s be clear, most neocons are Zionist Jews, and without their constant beating of the war drum, those 2.4 innocent people, who happen to be mostly muslims, would still be alive today. Your craven dismissal and lack of empathy for their deaths is notable. Blame the victims, indeed. Iraqis didn’t do 9/11, so why did they deserve to die? Because Israel wanted them to.

        Hillary Clinton famously didn’t even read the Iraq War Authorization Act before voting for it, because her handlers told her to. And she thought it would help her win the White House in 2008. Damn Arabs, too many of them died on TV for it to be a popular stance for a Democrat to try to out-right-flank John McCain or Donald Trump in a general election. Failed both times.

        Invading Iraq is one domino in the Yinon Plan, concocted in the 1980s. Its basic purpose is to get the US to bomb and invade all of Israel’s neighbours and reduce them to ruin, in order to establish Eretz Israel. From the Nile to the Euphrates!

        Or get them to fight each other by giving weapons to both sides, e.g. Iran / Iraq war. Same thing, but even better. Let them kill each other. Savages, right? While profiting from arms sales, of course. Millions of muslims died. America had nothing to do with it, right?

        Ben Gurion famously admitted to a reporter once, who asked what Israel’s borders were, and he replied “where the army is”.

        This is the mentality of a man whose purpose is stealing land and building a country atop land that doesn’t belong to him. He admitted as much. “Why would the Arabs make peace with us. I wouldn’t. We have stolen their land.” I’m paraphrasing here, but the actual quote is easy to find.

        There are dozens of such quotes from every single Israeli PM. The war of ’67 was started by choice, by Israel, under cover of Johnson, who gave Israel the go-ahead to launch an attack to take chunks of its neighbours and a guarantee that daddy US would come to their rescue if they got into serious trouble (which all reports showed they were massively militarily superior, thus under zero threat whatsoever). Bad, bad Jimmy Carter made them give it back. Well, most of it.

        So I agree the M-E is simple, but not for the reason you think. If it weren’t for zionists pushing the US into invading and bombing Israel’s enemies, and funding petty tyrants and despots like Mubarrak and the Saudis, the M-E probably wouldn’t be in rubble right now. Millions would still be alive. And Corbyn, a thoroughly decent man, wouldn’t be daily compared to Hitler, in the most obnoxious way possible. Israel has started a dozen wars, and Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in 400 years. The US has been bombing 7 muslim countries, as Obama bragged, and is a nuclear superpower. Islam might not be a religion of peace, but Zionism is certainly a cult of aggressive war-mongering and land grabs justified by self-fullfilling persecution complex by racial supremacists who see themselves as victims, despite only a handful of soldiers dying during each “conflict”.

        You can all lie to yourselves about reasons but not facts. The facts are clear.

        • Alex P says

          MagnusMino, I think you’re really doing us a favor here. While some people insist or pretending that Corbyn-style hatred of Israel is not motivated by anti-Semitism, you make your anti-Semitism and racism so blatant that the real motivation for hatred of Israel is obvious.

          The oldest anti-Semitic canard in the book is the claim that the Jews secretly pull the strings behind world governments to start wars. You accuse the Israelis of starting the Iraq War, which is factually false, and needless to say you don’t provide any evidence to back up that claim because there is none. You say that the war was for Israeli “expansion”, though of course that’s a lie an Israel did not get a single square inch of land from Iraq. How on earth do you come up with this farcical stuff? If you put your talents to use writing fantasy novels, you would be praised for your creativity.

          Anyone who reads your posts will immediately notice how you make claims but not references. “Barney Frank admitted…” When and where?

          “He admitted as much. ‘Why would the Arabs make peace with us. I wouldn’t. We have stolen their land.’ I’m paraphrasing here, but the actual quote is easy to find.” I did look up the quote. It’s a fabrication.

          “The Yinon plan”. Heh. “Eretz Israel”. Why don’t you tell us about the latest goings on in Oz and Wonderland, as long as your discoursing on fictitious things?

          • MagnusMino says

            Alex, many in Congress recalled being lobbied by AIPAC to support the Iraq war, not only Barney Frank:


            “Tempers flared even more, they said, when Frank claimed that Israel and AIPAC had lobbied members of Congress a decade ago to support the war in Iraq.”

            I suppose you’ll call The Forward an anti-semetic rag now, or maybe Barney Frank too (who voted against the war). Many Congressmen have also reported on this lobbying drive, he’s not the only one.

    • MagnusMino says

      Ah the old “might-makes-right” canard.

      There is a thing called international law, ever heard of it?

      It prevents countries from invading and stealing other countries’ land and then keeping it, legally at least.

      That’s the reason Israel annexing East Jerusalem and putting in settlements on Palestinian land is illegal, it is literally the same war crime that the Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg.

      And you all ask what war crimes has Israel committed? Laughable. The only reason they haven’t been yet is because of US veto at the UN. But now that Palestine is a member state since 2014, investigations are under way and eventually Israelis will start being charged, and hopefully punished, for their various massacres and ongoing atrocities. Justice is coming.

      Even Israeli politicians are calling it Apartheid now, openly.

      p.s. Putting . between . your . words . is. childish . and . obnoxious . so . spare . me . these . non-sequiturs . war . crimes . arrests . are . coming.

      • northernobserver says

        Might Makes Right. But that’s the entire theological underpinning and lived history of Islam and its empires. How can the expansionist imperialist atrocities of the Arabs and Turks from 620 to today be given a pass in all this? Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Arabs and Turks lived by the sword for as long as they could, until their atavistic culture could no longer overwhelm and terrorize their neighbors on their borders.
        And we are supposed to feel righteous injustice at the creation and success of Israel in light of this history?
        Seems more like comeuppance to me.

      • MagnusMino says

        I shouldn’t have to say this, but I absolutely don’t hate Jews.

        It’s hilarious that you call me delusional for calling out the Lobby’s insane and awesome power to silence critics and activists. Just today, a new anti-boycott measure is being snuck in the back door into an appropriations bill.

        Imagine any other group in the US with this kind of power, this kind of clout, that they can pass obviously unconstitutional legislation aimed at preventing criticism of a foreign country!


        It’s not Putin which controls the US government, it’s Netanyahu. Obviously. Sorry if that offends, it’s the plain truth. Indisputable facts can’t anti-Semitic, and even if they could, too bad. The truth must be told.

        Our rights are under assault and Quillette’s readership, by denying reality, seems firmly on the side of government censorship on this issue. Which just reeks of hypocrisy, given all the incessant articles whining about campus activists heckling right wingers (and some genuine old school liberals and scientists, too) off their soap-boxes.

        It’s odious no matter who does it, but the US government is far more powerful than any group of students, and the ability to influence the US government to violate its own Constitution so blatantly, is Exhibit A that I am 100% correct.

    • Andio says

      @ MagnusMino

      Quillette lets you spew your uber jew hating troll jabber all day. What are you griping about?

  9. Bubblecar says

    This mouldy old idiot has wrecked the Labour Party. Sooner or later those on the centre-left of UK politics are going to have to accept that they need a new party to represent them. In the meantime, a vote for Labour means a vote for all the Old Left anti-Western hatred and hypocrisy this man and his comrades have embraced for the past thirty years or more.

  10. Maryanne says

    I have met many liberal hypocrites in my long career, but none as aggressively hypocrites as Mr. Corbyn. He is a disgrace to humanity. Period.

  11. She was amazing, but not so much of a mother IMO (any more than Randolph was a father), Ma and Pa outsourced the upbringing of their sprog to a nanny before packing him off to a succession of boarding schools from the age of 7.

    If there was a single dominant woman in Churchill’s childhood it was probably Mrs Everest…

    • Peter from Oz says

      They made a whole mini-series about Jennie Churchill. I think it was in the early 80s.

  12. You don’t have to believe in most conspiracies to know that government serving special interests over the common good is real and typical.

  13. TheSnark says

    Corbyn believes that Leon Trotsky was the pinnacle of the Western Enlightenment, and that Stalin’s only crime was that he had Trotsky killed. He is a nut case, whatever his views on Israel or Jews.

    And the UK’s main alternative to Corbyn seems to be Boris Johnson, the court jester who wants to be king. The UK’s only hope right now is to keep Theresa May in office. She lack most political skills, but is at least will to face reality and work hard to make the best of it.

    • Peter from Oz says

      I have have been harsh on you in the past, but on this thread you have been superb.
      Boris indeed the best choice for Britain.

  14. Farris says

    Corbyn and his antisemitic views are nothing new or particularly unusual. The Left, Socialist and Communists have a long history (over 100 years) of antisemitism.

    • MagnusMino says

      “And another thing, if they had asked Balfour for Alaska we all wouldn’t be held hostage to the infighting Armageddon loving family feud of the Abrahamics”

      Balfour got Rothchild to convince US Jewry to support the UK’s war efforts by offering up Palestine as a prize in return for America joining the war. This is a fact. It was a quid pro quo, where the UK gave Palestine’s land to the Jews without any consultation of the native inhabitants whatsoever. How did they have a moral right to do this? Nobody knows. Might makes right, of course, zionists like you always fall back on. Except, what other nations’ actions does that philosophy rationalize? Hmm…

      Balfour also said “treat the Arabs with respect after you take their land from them”, with his fingers crossed behind his back, of course. Chuckles. Silly Arabs, expecting the British Empire to treat untermenschen like they matter. Philosophically, Zionists see nothing wrong in this, of course, because they believe in manifest destiny.

      We all know to what degree the Jews treated the Arabs, Bedouins, Druze with the utmost dignity and respect since displacing them off their land at gunpoint. Thanks for bringing up Balfour, as if that supports your argument (let alone convinces anyone of you having any ethics).

  15. MagnusMino says

    “Well after all, you keep telling us how you have been uniquely persecuted and how smart you all are… you’re used to moving into wastelands and making sumpin of it, amiright?”

    Another myth trotted out blindly. 90% of Palestine was already cultivated by 1948. I’ve heard all these “old classics” since high school, my Jewish friends used to repeat them ad nauseam.

    As if being better farmers than Palestinians, even if it were true, gave you a right to steal all their land and shove them into open air prisons for a century while beating and abusing and tormenting them constantly, for having the temerity of being born on land that you covet due to a bronze-age fairy tale telling you are above pesky things like International Law and treating your fellow man as you yourselves would be treated.

    If you want to make a moral claim to be awarded land anywhere, as restitution for WWII, it should be a chunk of Germany, not Palestine. Unless you’re like Netanyahu and think the Grand Mufti was the one pulling the levers in the gas chambers. Sigh. So many falsehoods and myths, Vicki, try a bit harder. ps Nobody cares that you’re a queer white lady.

  16. Farris says

    “If you want to make a moral claim to be awarded land anywhere, as restitution for WWII, it should be a chunk of Germany, not Palestine.“

    Palestinians support Nazis Germany and Fascist Italy. They picked the wrong side and lost.

    • Ironically David Ben Gurion attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis to attack the British in Palestine. Perhaps as shockingly he tried to discourage Jews from fleeing from Germany and europe tunless they fled to Palestine. People motivated by strong believes or even desperation often justify to themselves morally dubious choices and history is written by the victors.

      The reality is that the foundation of Israel was a brutal exercise in ethnic cleansing in order to create a Jewish majority in an area within which were at the time a relatively small minority. It was not a consequence of Palestinian support for Germany but of a zionist movement which was determined to form a Jewish state and recognised that this would require force to displace the existing inhabitants. The official Palestinian position was a continuation of the status quo a single state which had citizens of all religions. This is the normal ‘liberal’ western position.

      Having suceeeded in the ethnic cleansing and creating a Jewish majority state it would be equally wrong to perform an ethnic cleansing in the other direction to set things ‘right’. The reason the Grand Mufti and some Palestinians supported the facists was because at the time they were being subject to attacks by violent Jewish terrorists whose goals were to expel them from their own lands. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is not good morality but it makes pragmatic sense. Britain and America allied with Stalinist Russie which was at least as bad as Germany yet few claim that the allied leaders were morally bakrupt for doing so.

      This discussion is about Jeremy Corbyn. The evidence he is anti-semitic as opposed to anti-zionist, or indiscriminately anti-western is weak to non-existent. What has changed is that the definition of anti-semitism widely promoted in the British media as internationally accepted explicitly equates anti-zionism with antisemitism. Arguing that Israel is a racist state is classified as anti-semitic. I have absolutely no respect for Corbyn and I am sure that his attitude towards Israel suffers from the same issues as his attitude to everything else but characterising him as an antisemite is wrong.

  17. northernobserver says

    Corbynism is moral blindness couple with historical ignorance and self loathing. The culture of the West is going to change so fast in the face is this far left absurdity that the ‘radical” professoriate of today will see it in their life times – a Western World that rejects their revolutionary bullshit and respects its past and traditions, warts and all. The ultimate rebuke to the bizarro elite we now live under.

  18. TheSnark says

    This thread seems to have wondered off into a discussion of Israel, so I’ll follow along. First off, I don’t seem much moral difference between the Israelis and Palestinians (or at least their political leaderships): both advocate the ethnic cleaning of the other. Israel, being stronger, is in a position to enforce their policy, but the Palestinians would happily do the same to them if they get half a chance.

    In practical terms, Israel is the only country in the region with a modern economy and they develop a lot of cutting edge technology, so it makes sense to sta friendly with them. It does not, however, make sense to blindly support them the way the US does.

    The great irony is that the most fervently religious Christians, who historically have been the biggest persecutors of Jews, and now the strongest supporters of Israel. The American Jews, who used to be Israel’s main overseas cheerleaders, are largely disgusted with its drift towards xenophobic nationalism.

    Corbyn, as the author rightly points out, is merely against anything the US is in favor of.

  19. Morgan Foster says


    “I don’t seem much moral difference between the Israelis and Palestinians”

    I don’t believe that a majority of Palestinians will ever accept the existence of Israel in any form, under any circumstances. And if ending the existence of Israel means ending the lives of those Jews who live there, or most of them, with the survivors departing from the region forever, I believe the Palestinians would pay just about any blood price, given a realistic chance for success.

    I don’t believe that a majority of Israeli Jews want to kill all or most of the Palestinians.

    Big moral difference there, I think.

    That said, I suspect that with the help of Iran and the passive consent of the EU, the Palestinians will have their way in our lifetime, and there will be a new Jewish diaspora to Europe and the Western Hemisphere. What’s left of them.

    • TheSnark says

      Mr Foster: The Palestinians would be perfectly happy to have all the Israelis peacefully move to Europe or the US, with nobody getting hurt. The Israelis would be quite happy to have all the Palestinians peacefully move the the East Bank of the Jordan, or anywhere else, with nobody getting hurt. But neither side is remotely interested in leaving voluntarily.

      Both sides claim the same land. Both sides want the other side off of “their” land. And both sides have been quite willing to do whatever it takes to run the other off of “their” land. If you can see the difference in the moral claim of one side versus other’s, you have better eyes than I do.

  20. Mark Beal says

    Either the book is incomplete, or this article is not a very comprehensive reflection of it. Much attention is paid (rightly) to the question of anti-semitism (witness the comments thread), but where are the insights into Corbyn’s policies on the economy, law and order, immigration, etc?

    In important respects, Corbyn is something of an enigma. He’s spent his political life being opposed to the EU, while the majority of the party’s voters wish they could overturn the referendum – leading him to obfuscate. Bizarrely, it would be impossible for Corbyn to implement large chunks of his economic policy if Britain remained within the EU.

    It’s also the case that Corbyn leads a Labour party, whose support has drifted away from the working class to the middle-class, university-educated, self-styled “progressives” who largely make up Momentum. It’s not entirely clear to what extent Corbyn agrees with the people to whom he owes his leadership, but the fact that he is beholden to them should give everyone pause for thought. (That said, there is something oddly satisfying about hoards of “progressives” fawning over a white, middle-aged, heterosexual man.)

    This is not unimportant, because while it’s hard to perceive the “progressive” wing of the Labour Party as anything but anti-western in their general opposition to Enlightenment values, anti-western is not automatically synonymous with anti-imperialist. While it’s certainly true that Corbyn has associated with (and continues to associate with) some unsavoury characters, the charitable view would be that this is a misguided expression of anti-imperialism rather than an anti-western bias per se. There is, after all, something endearingly and quintessentially English about Corbyn’s interest in manhole covers and cultivating marrows. Or maybe he just fits the observation David Thompson made in “England in the Twentieth Century” about an earlier generation of leftists: “Sensitivity to human suffering and courage in attacking injustice were the strength of the new [1920’s] ‘Left’: A claim to monopolize righteousness and an undiscriminating ‘underdoggery’ were its failings.”

    I remain unsure if there even is such a thing as “Corbynism”. While I would have no confidence in him as a prime-minister, I think the greater worry is actually his supporters and a number of the people in his shadow cabinet, who make the loony left of the 1980’s look like closet conservatives in retrospect. History may come to regard Corbyn himself as a bit of a smokescreen, or even a useful idiot. As wrong-headed as the man himself is on a number of issues, a number of the people limbering up to take the reins at some point in the future really are beyond the pale. That’s the real concern.

  21. Rachid ELAÏDI says

    Vous attachez trop d’importance à des choses de moins d’importances . Vous savez que les arabes sont aussi des sémites . Et le système Corbyn n’est ni raciste, ni antisémites ,ni anti arabes,ni anti musulmans,ni anti-noirs,…Il est tout simple une évolution politique ,comme si vous dites Lepen en France est de même et pourtant, dans les rangs du Front national, il y a des ”harkis” des musulmans ,des juifs , des noirs comme le comédien Dieudonné…et d’un autre côté,, tous les politiques(en majorité) qui accèdent aux affaires de l’État ou ont une chance d’accéder sont corrompus ,à l’exemple de Sarkozy qui touchait de l’argent(en million d’euros!!) de l’émir de Qatar et des rois et des présidents arabes ,Sarkozy a une villa offerte par le Makhzen,à Marrakech pour ne rien faire contre la monarchie marocaine, le printemps arabe était une occasion …

    Et puis d’un autre l’Amérique n’appartient à personne ,ni aux commentateurs de cet article et encore moins à Buffalo Bill.

    Corbyn est un homme politique , ni plus ni moins et toute tractation est dans les arènes politiques. Il me semble qu’il est important de ne pas attaquer les politiques sur tout ce qui est personnel mais d’avoir des idées fortes pour gagner tout combat politique . J’ajouterais que la dose psychologique des bêtises humaines et donc en l’occurrence des politiques est proportionnelle aux idées et aux attaques des politiques .

    Ce qui veut dire , tout le monde a des doses de ce genre d’ excréments et , ”vous chassez le naturel, il vous revient aux galops !” ,qui sont le mal nécessaire pour une démocratie à l’occidental.

    Imaginez un seul instant , les égyptiennes et les égyptiens et les autres citoyens des pays arabes n’ont pas accès à ce libéralisme dont vous jouissez. Sissi comme les autres rois et présidents et émirs ont réduit les degrés de libertés et personne ne peut s’exprimer même en Syrie où il existe une guerre larvée , les syriennes et les syriens n’ont toujours pas ces degrés de libertés sinon, ce sont eux qui changeront la donne politique et pas les étrangers . De même en Égypte, les égyptiennes Ada Ibrahim, Safae Higazi, Abir, Guihane Fawzi, Rania Dib, Yasmine Abdelaziz et j’en passe et des syriennes Khansae, Hala,…vous diront qu’elles subissent beaucoup de souffrances et les égyptiens de même car l’idéologie d’une dictature est celle qui prédomine et tout ce monde cherche perpétuellement un sauveur ,une vraie démocratie où les politiques puissent avoir un droit au chapitre ! ,car Sissi est un dictateur au même titre qu’Assad …Mais Corbyn , à ce que je sache , n’intervient pas auprès du peuple britannique pour limiter les degrés de libertés .

    Il est certain ,que Hitler , était élu démocratiquement . Mais c’est le peuple allemand qui n’en voulait pas des juifs et des communistes et des Roms,mais pas tous ! , car Einstein était le bien venu dans la société allemande de l’époque et tous les juifs et les communistes qui avaient quelque chose à apporter au troisième Reich;Hanna Arendt était liée à un allemand qui travaillait le troisième Reich et puis d’autres scientifiques…

    Donc Corbyn reflète les intentions profonde de toute une société britannique à l’exception de l’Écosse qui aspire à une indépendance, avec d’autres politiques et un peuple ”écossais” ,mais cela ne veut pas dire que Corbyn ,une fois aux affaires de l’État britannique , créerait des Auschwitz et des Dresde,…Mais il peut procéder à une expulsion de masse ,des immigrés chez eux: au Maroc, Algérie,Égypte,…il y a plus de quatre million de marocains et autant d’algériens et d’égyptien et autant d’africains de sub-Sahara et encore plus ,des anciennes colonies à savoir Inde,Pakistan…Seulement voilà, là, les intérêts des États se croisent et le politique Corbyn ou autre ne peut rien ou presque , mission donc impossible ,à l’état actuel des choses…

  22. Pingback: PiS a europejska lewica | Świstblog

Comments are closed.