It’s not just Corbyn lavishing praise on violent thugs. It’s a Great British political tradition.


Long before the cheers from the Labour faithful rang out upon learning of Jeremy Corbyn’s fast rise to the leadership of the Party, a bizarre fight for a moral high ground emerged between Labour’s left, and Labour’s centrists, both of whom absolutely can not claim to occupy it in any sense.

Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, genuinely referred to Hamas – one of the most anti-Semitic, homophobic, theocratic groups of thugs on the planet – as ‘dedicated to social justice‘. It wasn’t taken out of context, it wasn’t an evil ‘tabloid’ press that made it up. He said it. No amount of bad excuses can change that declaration. A Hamas that emerged out of the links between 20th century European Nazism, and the Muslim Brotherhood, that includes Nazi propaganda in its charter, and seeks to establish an IS-like caliphate in the entire region, hates Jews, promotes homophobia, cannot be referred to as ‘dedicated to social justice’ by anyone claiming to be a liberal, or a defender of human rights. I suspect if David Cameron had announced that his ‘friends’ in the KKK were ‘dedicated to social justice’, the Corbyn-left would have a meltdown. Naturally, and rightly, Labour’s centrists picked up on this and ran with it. As did we liberals (including myself). But here’s the problem; whilst those New Labourites indeed share my condemnation of Corbyn’s excusing religious fascists, they stayed eerily silent when Blair himself said of the passing of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia:

“I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah. I knew him well and admired him greatly.”

– We are told that a Labour Leader lavishing grotesque praise on Hamas is an unthinkable crime, whilst in the same sentence, we hear that Labour should seek to listen to and emulate a Labour Leader who lavished grotesque praise on the King of Saudi Arabia.

Blair then went on to praise Abdullah for his dedication to interfaith relations. So dedicated was he, that the public practice of non-Islamic religions is strictly forbidden, atheism is now a ‘terrorist’ idea, and in 2009, the ‘religious police’ created an ‘anti-witchcraft’ team that included the beheading of Mustafa Ibrahim for ‘sorcery’. This man was a monster. But it’s unsurprising that Labour’s centre-left stayed silent when Blair lavished sycophantic praise upon Abdullah, given that ten years earlier they made not a peep when Blair signed an extension to the al-Yamamah arms deal originally forged by Thatcher and King Fahd, that exchanged Eurofighter Typhoons, for oil. A year later, the Saudi’s threatened to cut ties with the UK, if an investigation into fraud relating to the deal. Of course, the investigation was dropped. When it came to the original deal back in 1985, Thatcher said that she was indeed:

“…a great admirer of Saudi Arabia and the leadership of King Fahd.”

Along with his love for Abdullah, Blair wrote a friendly letter to Colonel Gaddafi in 2007, apologising for the UK failing to deport two Islamists, finishing the letter in a very Corbyn-esque ‘friends in Hamas’ way:

“Best wishes yours ever, Tony”

– This was a few years prior to Blair sharing publicity tips with Nursultan Nazarbayev, a man currently on a mission to close down as many dissenting media voices in Kazakhstan as possible. But it isn’t just the Blairites who are walking the hypocrisy tightrope recently. Today, the Tories released this image:

11053243_10153398101849279_4527380974954595684_n
– Whilst Corbyn can absolutely be condemned for his hideous assertion that Hamas are social justice warriors, dedicated to the ‘good’ of the Palestinian people, he didn’t imply that Bin Laden’s death was a tragedy, simply the abandoning of the rule of law for the sake of an assassination I happen to disagree with him on that, though I understand the argument, but I wont claim or imply for the sake of political point scoring, that he mourns the death of Osama Bin Laden. The same cannot be said for the Prime Minister (or Prince Charles), when again, King Abdullah died. When the King of a nation renowned for funding and exporting Salafi Jihadism, flogging blasphemers, banning atheism, beheading opponents, and slaughtering gays died, the Prime Minister said:

“I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of the custodian of the two holy mosques, His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abd Al Aziz Al Saud.
“He will be remembered for his long years of service to the kingdom, for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths.
“My thoughts and prayers are with the Saudi royal family and the people of the kingdom at this sad time.

– You wouldn’t know from this tale of woe, that former CIA director James Woolsey believes the Saudi’s sponsorship of Islamism is:

“…the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing.”

– It is eternally mystifying to me that Tories are willing to accuse Corbyn of putting the UK’s security at risk, whilst they arm and defend one of the World’s biggest exporters and sponsors of Islamism. Interestingly, whilst the Tories and Prince Charles were out visiting Saudi Arabia with The Defence and Security Equipment International, Corbyn was demanding answers from the government on our unjustifiable relationship with Saudi Arabia.

There is a well-established tradition of Tories falling desperately in love with monsters. In 1999, long after leaving office as Prime Minister, Thatcher visited Pinochet in the home where he was held under house arrest, and told him:

“I know how much we owed to you for your help.”

“I’m also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile, you set up a constitution suitable for democracy, you put it into effect, elections were held, and then, in accordance with the result, you stepped down.”

– So much was Pinochet dedicated to bringing ‘a constitution suitable for democracy’ to Chile, that The Commission of Truth and Reconciliation found that Pinochet’s terror regime resulted in 28,000 tortured using electric shock and sexual abuse among other forms, 2,279 executed mainly for being socialists, and 1,248 “disappeared.” In fact, several detention centres were created in Chile with the sole purpose of raping prisoners. Prisoners later recalled how animals were used in the sexual torture of inmates, with female inmates also reporting how they had been forced to have sex with their brothers and fathers. This was Pinochet’s Chile. This is what a Tory Prime Minister praised.

These past two weeks – and I expect to see it more often now – has seen tribalism and anti-Corbyn dogma pushing normally rational human beings, to condemn the praising and excusing of violent, illiberal thugs, if the one who did the praising was Jeremy Corbyn, whilst acting as if the same isn’t true of New Labour politicians, and Tories. I see no politician at the front-line of British politics adhering to liberal, secular, democratic principles. I see hypocrites and sycophants. Cameron is one of those, Blair is another, Corbyn is a third.

Advertisements

6 Responses to It’s not just Corbyn lavishing praise on violent thugs. It’s a Great British political tradition.

  1. John says:

    Parts of your diatribe are clearly a reflection of the fact that you are a sore loser. You are wrong to categorise Corbyn with Cameron and Blair – as you will eventually understand.

  2. How so? I want to know why Hamas are “dedicated to social justice”. Feel free to offer an answer…

  3. John says:

    What you need to do is specify their actual actions which conflict with the concept of social justice in relation to the area in which they are located.
    For example, did they murder more than 2,200 people in Gaza last summer, of which around 520 were children?
    Israel did that.
    Not Hamas.
    They only killed around 70 Israelis.
    That means that Israel murdered 97 per cent of all those killed.
    Does that equate with your concept of social justice?

  4. Wonderful deflection. Do you believe Hamas are dedicated to social justice?

  5. John M says:

    HAMAS was in part started by Israeli intelligence, hard core Zionists, to have an effective boogyman. It has long been controlled by them and they have said as much. It is similar to the funding and assistance to radical groups inside Syria: get rid of Assad, then have all the pretence necessary to expand Greater Israel, of which Syrian territory is inside of. They believe their territory extends southwest to the Nile: that is why their embassy is on the west side of the Nile, while everyone else’s is on the east. Why build an embassy on your own territory?

    As far as this threadbare NSDAP tie-in to Hamas: when the nascent NSDAP merged with the Zionismus Partei, it became the NaZi Partei. [That, by the way, is how many german abbreviations are formed: the first two letters of each significantly pronounced word, e.g. BaFoGe]. Both wanted the jews out of europe, and the NSDAP was a front in part, to gain and focus popular support for the idea. It was dissolved when no longer needed: the destruction of Germany was finished, and non-zionist jews had been weeded-out and sent to former training camps for pro-Zionists. Now, merely concentration camps, where the well-know affects of widespread head lice (typhus) and starvation (non-pharma treatment of typhus requires increased food) could take effect, creating cordwood of people. At the same time ‘Allies’.. – all lies – were bombing civilian food production and transportation routes, ensuring the camps isolation. Finally, U.S. Army Psyops, under the direct supervision of the ‘dirty jew’ Eisenhower and his meatpuppet masters, arrived with their shrunked heads, skin lamp, and bars of soap allegedly made from inmates. British operations fed inmates full rations, which, after over 30 days of starvation, killed twice as many per week as before.

    I bring it up, because like many of the undereducated and ill-informed, you waggle the word NaZi around when mentioning Hamas, which is pure Israeli Zionist propaganda.. hasbara.

  6. geya says:

    One reason it’s unfair to compare Corbyn to Blair and Cameron is that they’ve both had to deal with the reality and responsibility of being in power, and face the inevitable compromises resulting, while Corbyn’s entire political career has been a self-indulgent, adolescent posture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: