Being European, Doing What They Do

[Kathianne]

I think it was CSM that said something the effect to Noir, 'You deplore guns by individuals and save up the problems to the millions for war.'

It starts with something like this:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/europe-poised-to-put-warning-labels-on-jewish-made-products/



Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products
Legal decision reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jews

Adam Kredo - AUGUST 9, 2019 2:20 PM


The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a "Pandora's box" of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.


The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from "settlements" and "Israeli colonies."


The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.


With the EU court's 15 judge panel now poised to issue its own binding judgment in the case, legal experts are warning that a potential decision mandating such labeling could pave the way for goods from any disputed territory to receive such treatment. The decision also could trigger U.S. anti-boycott laws meant to stop Israeli-made goods from being singled out for unfair treatment on the international market.


Brooke Goldstein, a human rights lawyer and executive director of the Lawfare Project, which is involved in the legal dispute, described the EU court's initial decision as "frankly outrageous."


"The Advocate General's opinion said that goods produced by Muslims are to be labeled from ‘Palestine,' and goods produced by Jews labeled as coming from ‘Israeli colonies,' Goldstein said. "Both people are living in the same geographic location, and yet Jewish goods are being treated differently."


"Could the discrimination be any clearer?" she asked. "If the EU Court justifies this bigotry it will degrade the rule of law in Europe and it will undoubtedly have many unintended consequences for EU traders. My understanding is that certain consumer protection agencies have already filed complaints to demand the similar labeling of goods from other disputed territories. This labeling fiasco will turn into a nightmare for EU importers of goods from any and all countries involved in territorial disputes. I trust the court will maintain that goods must be labeled indicating the geographical location of origin, and reject the push to politicize labeling."


The legal dispute first began after France passed a law mandating that products made in the West Bank territory of Israel be labeled as coming from an "Israeli colony," a label not applied to any other products across the globe.

...

[Drummond]

I think it was @CSM (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=36) that said something the effect to @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517), 'You deplore guns by individuals and save up the problems to the millions for war.'

It starts with something like this:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/europe-poised-to-put-warning-labels-on-jewish-made-products/

This comes from the effects of Left wing propaganda ... and the perception that propaganda insists must be believed in.

The Left (of course) leads this 'initiative', but many are persuaded to buy it as absolute truth ... namely, that Israel is acting as an imperialist power, trampling on the so-called 'rights' of others, those others being victimised underdogs.

That very propagandist effort is heavy on anti-Israeli sentiment and rhetoric, yet remarkably blind to the terrorism and sheer savagery that Israel suffers.

It is from that so-called 'enlightened' standpoint that the prejudices being exercised in the above are born. Propagandist prejudice takes on the appearance of 'truth', to the point where to act against Israeli interests is deemed as serving a 'humanitarian' cause.

Try checking with Noir as to where he thinks the rights and wrongs of this are to be found. Watch as he regards with disdain any contrary opinion. He'll see no parallel with past times and past bigotries. He'll not choose to.

He'll be a victim (an unknowing one) of the stranglehold the Left has in my part of the world over public opinion ... bigotries masquerading as 'enlightened truth' ....

I'm reminded of events of a few years ago. Hamas launched a terrorist assault on Israeli territory, firing hundreds of missiles into Israel. Israel, understandably, responded in defence of its land and people, by using the power they had in an effort to neutralise Hamas's ability to function.

Our Left ... led by the then-leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, was enraged at ISRAEL'S actions. He was strongly and hotly condemnatory of them. He went further ... DEMANDING, no less, that his counterpart in the Conservative Party (David Cameron) issue a comparable public condemnation of Israel.

Mr Cameron refused to, as I recall.

This is the mood prevalent here, and, now, it's a long-standing one.

Don't just take my word for it ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714441/amp/Miliband-PM-war-words-Gaza-conflict-Accused-Cameron-silence-killing-hundreds-innocent-Palestinian-civilians.html


In an outspoken statement, Mr Miliband said Mr Cameron’s ‘silence on the killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians caused by Israel’s military action will be inexplicable to people across Britain and internationally’.

The remarks sparked an angry response from Downing Street, with aides accusing the Labour leader of misrepresenting Mr Cameron’s views.

The No 10 spokesman said: ‘The Prime Minister has been clear that both sides in the conflict need to observe a ceasefire.

'We are shocked that Ed Miliband would seek to misrepresent that position and play politics with such a serious issue.’

Mr Miliband stressed that he was ‘a supporter of Israel’ but branded its military actions in the past two weeks as ‘wrong and unjustifiable’.

He called on the UK Government ‘as a whole’ to condemn the escalating violence on both sides.

Yesterday, in the 26th day of the conflict, Israel carried out fresh attacks on Gaza while militants launched more rockets into Israel as a hunt continues for missing Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin.

Miliband's 'support' of Israel took the form of rounding on Israel because of Palestinian deaths. But strong support for Israel's right to do what it took to neutralise Hamas's terrorism .. that was absent. In Leftie terms, this passes as 'enlightened' thinking ...

Fast-forward to today:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6685017/Labour-activists-4-000-examples-anti-Semitism.html


The ‘terrifying’ scale of Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis was laid bare last night as it emerged 4,000 examples of hatred will be submitted to the party.

Labour Against Anti-Semitism has collected thousands of screenshots of vile comments and images from Labour Facebook groups and Twitter accounts.

They include a member of Momentum’s steering committee who shared a message accusing Saudi Arabia of being in thrall to ‘Zionist masters’.

Apsana Begum acknowledged the original poster used words that were inappropriate after being contacted by the Mail.

Other online posters, who LAAS believe to be Labour members, suggested cases of anti-Semitism were fabricated and insisted Israel was behind a ‘smear’ campaign against Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

The revelation comes days after Labour’s general secretary Jennie Formby was accused of a cover-up after she refused to reveal how many cases of anti-Semitism the party is dealing with. Last night LAAS said they were ‘overwhelmed’ by the scale of Labour’s anti-Semitism and added: ‘It is terrifying how racial hatred towards Jews is now thriving across the Labour movement.’

One member claimed the country is ‘enslaved to the Rothschilds and the Zionist World Bank’.

The party member retweeted a picture of Jimmy Savile and an article saying satanic abuse of children was rife, adding: ‘All part of the Satanic structure behind the Zionist-inspired new world order and one world government.’

LAAS will submit the examples to a disciplinary committee and believes the 4,000 screenshots are likely to relate to around 1,000 separate people, thought to be Labour members or people who comment on Labour Facebook groups.

A Labour spokesman said they take complaints of anti-Semitism ‘extremely seriously’ and will challenge it ‘in all its forms’, and added that some posts turn out not to have involved party members.

The Left is a global cancer. I submit this as increasingly irrefutable truth.

[Elessar]

This exactly what the Nazi's did leading up to and into WWII.

EU had better step lightly...and not step on their D***.

Bad, bad thinking on their part.

I stay away from Euro politics unlike one from there that always injects his
misguided opinions into USA Politics.

Drummond, what think you?

Update....I see Drummond responded!

[Kathianne]

This exactly what the Nazi's did leading up to and into WWII.

EU had better step lightly...and not step on their D***.

Bad, bad thinking on their part.

I stay away from Euro politics unlike one from there that always injects his
misguided opinions into USA Politics.

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), what think you?

Update....I see Drummond responded!

Hitler was able to focus on the Jews for the simple reason that centuries of anti-semitism were ingrained into the continental psyche. They were the ready made boogeymen and they deserved what was coming was most common thinking of the time. Heck, even the US refused one ship of refugees.

I suppose the period between 1946-1970 or so was the safest for European Jews, but for fact, many French Jews have been leaving for 15 years or so. The smart ones, just like those who fled Germany, Austria in the 1930s.

[Drummond]

Hitler was able to focus on the Jews for the simple reason that centuries of anti-semitism were ingrained into the continental psyche. They were the ready made boogeymen and they deserved what was coming was most common thinking of the time. Heck, even the US refused one ship of refugees.

I suppose the period between 1946-1970 or so was the safest for European Jews, but for fact, many French Jews have been leaving for 15 years or so. The smart ones, just like those who fled Germany, Austria in the 1930s.

It's 6AM here, and I think I'd like some sleep now !

But, whether we're talking about the UK's Leftist movement(s), or counterparts to be found in other corners of Europe, the basic truth remains the same. Left-leaning groupings and authorities will side with Israel's enemies, they'll simultaneously deny anti-Semitic biases or prejudices, and sell it all to everyone else as 'humanitarian enlightenment'.

Example:

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hamas-salutes-jeremy-corbyn-for-message-of-support-to-palestinians/


Terror group Hamas has thanked Jeremy Corbyn for a message of support for Palestinians.

The group issued a statement to “salute” the Labour leader for his stance and said it had received his message with “great respect and appreciation”.

The move was in response to a message Mr Corbyn sent to a march in support of Palestinians in London on Saturday.

The Hamas statement said: “We have received with great respect and appreciation the solidarity message sent by the British Labor Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to the participants in the mass rally.”

The statement added: “We also salute Mr Jeremy Corbyn for his principled position in rejecting the so-called Trump Plan for the Middle East or the ‘Deal of the Century’ if it was based on erasing Palestinian rights, primarily the right to an independent state.

“On this occasion we emphasize that no peace plan can succeed at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people, that the Palestinians will not allow this deal to pass, and that it will be doomed to failure.

“We also call on the current British government to stop supporting the Israeli occupation state and to listen to the voice of wisdom and reason and adopt policies in support of the Palestinian legitimate rights that will lead to stability in this vitally important and highly turbulent region.”

Mr Corbyn’s statement in support of the rally said: “We cannot stand by or stay silent at the continuing denial of rights and justice to the Palestinian people.

“The Labour Party is united in condemning the ongoing human rights abuses by Israeli forces, including the shooting of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza – most of them refugees or families of refugees – demanding their rights.”

A Labour spokesman said: “Jeremy has a long and principled record of solidarity with the Palestinian people. That is the right thing to do.”

[Additionally: to show that outright friendship towards terrorists is a long-standing fact of Corbyn's sympathies ...]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html


If Jeremy Corbyn wins, Labour will be in the extraordinary position of having a leader with among the most extensive links in Parliament to terrorists.

Between 2004 and 2008, the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army militia, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, killed at least 70 British soldiers, not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians. Last February, the man who might become the next leader of the Labour Party shared a platform with al-Sadr’s British representative.

Jeremy Corbyn was helping Sayyed Hassan al-Sadr celebrate “the all-encompassing revolution,” the 35th anniversary of the ayatollahs’ takeover in Iran. In his talk, entitled “The Case for Iran,” he called for the immediate scrapping of sanctions on the country, which had not then promised to restrict its nuclear programme, attacked its colonial exploitation by British business and called for an end to its “demonisation” by the West.

With Mr Corbyn now topping the constituency nominations for the Labour leadership, and backed by the Unite union, the party’s biggest donor, most attention has focused on the escapist heritage artefact that is his economic policy, complete with tax rises, an end to all cuts and the expropriation of private landlords’ property through a tenant right-to-buy.

But if he does win, Labour will also be in the extraordinary position of having as its leader a man with among the most extensive links in Parliament to terrorists, extremists and hardline regimes."

Mr Corbyn, The Telegraph can reveal, has taken thousands of pounds in gifts from organisations closely linked to the terror group Hamas, whose operatives he once described as “friends”.

This disgusting little piece of perversity has our Labour leader supporting terrorists, selling it AS A HUMANITARIAN ACT.

See what I mean ??

I don't need to comment further (besides, sleep beckons .....).

[Kathianne]

It's 6AM here, and I think I'd like some sleep now !

But, whether we're talking about the UK's Leftist movement(s), or counterparts to be found in other corners of Europe, the basic truth remains the same. Left-leaning groupings and authorities will side with Israel's enemies, they'll simultaneously deny anti-Semitic biases or prejudices, and sell it all to everyone else as 'humanitarian enlightenment'.

Example:

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hamas-salutes-jeremy-corbyn-for-message-of-support-to-palestinians/



I don't need to comment further (besides, sleep beckons .....).

Have a good night.

[Kathianne]

Drummond, I don't think there was a whole lot of political parties back in Medieval or even the Renaissance? Plenty of anti-semetism in Shakespeare.
Early 1900s saw the rise again, after a brief withdrawal of laws, (much like black codes here) were dropped. In early 1900s The Protocols of the Elders of Zion made a big hit on the continent, coming out of Russia. Lest we forget the pogroms there, including during the white revolution and with Lenin/Stalin.

Like Hitler, these were open secrets.

[Noir]

I think it was @CSM (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=36) that said something the effect to @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517), 'You deplore guns by individuals and save up the problems to the millions for war.'

It starts with something like this:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/europe-poised-to-put-warning-labels-on-jewish-made-products/

What would having guns change about this?

[hjmick]

Next thing you know, they'll be handing out gold stars to the Jews...

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjordandee.files.wordpress.com%2F2 011%2F12%2Fjewish_star_350.jpg&f=1

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I guess there's just a lot of lingering jew hatred left yet in Europe, and it's being fueled to burn hotter now with their hundreds of thousands of new muslim implants.

Had this situation existed when Hitler came to power, he'd have probably won WWII, and it would be hard find a jew anywhere on the planet.

[Kathianne]

I guess there's just a lot of lingering jew hatred left yet in Europe, and it's being fueled to burn hotter now with their hundreds of thousands of new muslim implants.

Had this situation existed when Hitler came to power, he'd have probably won WWII, and it would be hard find a jew anywhere on the planet.

It pretty much did exist before Hitler. It was present for hundreds, even a thousand years before and not just in Germany/Austria. That is part of the equation Hitler used. He gave 'good reasons' for his ramping up to purification, coupling the final solution with his faux scientific purity.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/voices/info/antisemitism/antisemitism.html


What would having guns change about this?

Those who are not able to protect themselves, be it an individual or a country are at the mercies of the strongest amongst them. When it's been multiple countries overrun or confronting a much stronger and better armed-physically and psychologically as happened to Europe with Hitler, their only hope is there is a bigger, stronger ally to come-thus the rise of US and USSR.

[Kathianne]

Hitler was able to focus on the Jews for the simple reason that centuries of anti-semitism were ingrained into the continental psyche. They were the ready made boogeymen and they deserved what was coming was most common thinking of the time. Heck, even the US refused one ship of refugees.

I suppose the period between 1946-1970 or so was the safest for European Jews, but for fact, many French Jews have been leaving for 15 years or so. The smart ones, just like those who fled Germany, Austria in the 1930s.


and why 'the smart Jews' have been leaving France for years now:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/08/09/former-french-intelligence-chief-alleged-to-have-made-secret-pact-with-palestinian-terrorists-behind-1982-kosher-restaurant-massacre/


AUGUST 9, 2019 2:33 PM 5Former French Intelligence Chief Alleged to Have Made Secret Pact With Palestinian Terrorists Behind 1982 Kosher Restaurant Massacre
avatar by Ben Cohen


...


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rise-of-anti-semitism-elevates-fears-in-france

https://www.jta.org/2019/05/01/global/french-jews-say-officials-are-reluctant-to-call-out-anti-semitism-by-muslims

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/middleeast/france-israel-jews-immigration/index.html

and Europe in general:

ft.com/content/a8f26a56-fc62-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/raging-crisis-of-anti-semitism-threatens-europe-s-jews-community-leaders-warn-1.6869784

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It pretty much did exist before Hitler.
Probably, I would't debate it didn't, but there wasn't as many muslims back in 30's and 40's Europe as there is now. As we all know, Merkel absolutely opened the flood gates and allowed muslims to stream in by the hundreds of thousands, unchecked. These are muslims that weren't in Europe pre WWII. Muslims hate jews, and apparently there's many Germans that still hate jews, among others in Europe, so the Hitler Nazi party might be gone, but the jew hatred remains, and now Europe is packed full of new jew hating muslims. It's a toxic situation, and I think it's pretty hard for Europeans to deny their jew hatred at this point. Antisemitism is alive and well in Europe.

[Kathianne]

Probably, I would't debate it didn't, but there wasn't as many muslims back in 30's and 40's Europe as there is now. As we all know, Merkel absolutely opened the flood gates and allowed muslims to stream in by the hundreds of thousands, unchecked. These are muslims that weren't in Europe pre WWII. Muslims hate jews, and apparently there's many Germans that still hate jews, among others in Europe, so the Hitler Nazi party might be gone, but the jew hatred remains, and now Europe is packed full of new jew hating muslims. It's a toxic situation, and I think it's pretty hard for Europeans to deny they're jew hatred at this point. Antisemitism is alive and well in Europe.

Pretty much 'everybody' hates the Jews, the West just slightly less than the Muslims. As Drummond has noted, today that means the 'liberals' who like the Muslims (or fear them), more than the Jews.

Thus the smart Jews are leaving.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Pretty much 'everybody' hates the Jews, the West just slightly less than the Muslims. As Drummond has noted, today that means the 'liberals' who like the Muslims (or fear them), more than the Jews.

Thus the smart Jews are leaving.
I don't understand why everyone hates them... never did.

[Kathianne]

Haters gonna hate, it's their job:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH1e8uZzTaY

[FakeNewsSux]

Don't worry, Crazy Uncle Joe has the solution! Just don't respect national borders:


https://youtu.be/6dXygjohPtg

[Kathianne]

What would having guns change about this?

More like letting the threats grow with impunity. 'Poor x,' we'll defend you against, y. Until you bite us in the ass, then we'll ask y to save ours.

[Drummond]

Those who are not able to protect themselves, be it an individual or a country are at the mercies of the strongest amongst them. When it's been multiple countries overrun or confronting a much stronger and better armed-physically and psychologically as happened to Europe with Hitler, their only hope is there is a bigger, stronger ally to come-thus the rise of US and USSR.

This applies not only within the context of countries being overrun by hostiles, but also within the narrower context of purely domestic social conditions.

I gave the example of England's 2011 riots, which started in Tottenham, north London, spread outwards into nearby Enfield the following day, then began in other cities, lasting for several days. Looting was rife, and in some instances the police were conspicuous by their absence. So it was that stores were looted on a large scale. Effectively unopposed.

Why ?

Because our gun laws are so restrictive that store owners, by and large, cannot own guns. So, the deterrent is missing. Equally, though the police now have armed units, only a small minority of the total police force are so much as gun-trained, much less are armed.

As for the criminal element ... well, it's accepted that there is a great 'cache' of illegal weapons out there in the general population, obtained by criminals and thugs, who obtain them illegally. So much so that police forces, every now and again, grant amnesties within their jurisdictions (sometimes these are also nationwide campaigns) which allow for these weapons to be handed in to the police without fear of prosecution following.

These amnesties are invariably highly effective ! Gun are handed in. AK-47's turn up every now and again. Even rocket launchers ..... !! ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/2992149.stm


A rocket launcher was handed into Devon and Cornwall police in the last hour of the national gun amnesty.
The British Army weapon was no longer capable of firing rockets, but police say it could still have been used to threaten people.

The three-feet-long shoulder-mounted, 66 millimetre weapon came into Charles Cross police station on Wednesday night.

More than 20,000 firearms have been handed in to police around the country as part of the month-long amnesty, which ended at midnight on Wednesday.

Among other weapons handed in to Devon and Cornwall Police was a rare Second World War spy pistol, which firearms experts want to go in to the force museum rather than be destroyed.

The rocket launcher is of a type first used during the Vietnam war and later in the Falklands War.

PC Provan said it was possibly an ex-serviceman's campaign momento.

The amnesty was introduced after two teenagers were shot dead in Birmingham.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-49247301


A rocket launcher has been handed in to police during a two-week gun surrender.

The weapon, handed in to officers in Lymington, Hampshire, was among dozens of firearms left at police stations across the county.

The force said 31 handguns, 12 shotguns, 24 rifles, a deactivated machine gun and ammunition were handed in between 20 July and 4 August.

Two starting cannons from a sailing club and Tasers were also surrendered.

The force said no further information about the person who handed in the rocket launcher would be provided.

There are estimated to be about 15,000 people living the town in the New Forest which is home to Olympic sailor Ben Ainslie.

Those who handed in firearms did not face prosecution for illegal possession and could remain anonymous.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-49261602


A single-use rocket launcher has been surrendered to police during a two-week firearms amnesty.

The deactivated weapon was handed in to Cleveland Police as part of a nationwide campaign.

The force said 15 firearms including air pistols, active AK-47s and shot guns were given up between 20 July and 3 August.

People surrendering the firearms did not face prosecution and could remain anonymous.

Officers will check each live weapons's history for any evidence of use in crime before safely destroying them.

Only criminals (with VERY few exceptions) own guns (& worse) in our society. Everyone's totally dependent on 'the authorities' for their defence. So it is that this psychology is now deeply ingrained in the British.

[Kathianne]

This applies not only within the context of countries being overrun by hostiles, but also within the narrower context of purely domestic social conditions.

I gave the example of England's 2011 riots, which started in Tottenham, north London, spread outwards into nearby Enfield the following day, then began in other cities, lasting for several days. Looting was rife, and in some instances the police were conspicuous by their absence. So it was that stores were looted on a large scale. Effectively unopposed.

Why ?

Because our gun laws are so restrictive that store owners, by and large, cannot own guns. So, the deterrent is missing. Equally, though the police now have armed units, only a small minority of the total police force are so much as gun-trained, much less are armed.

As for the criminal element ... well, it's accepted that there is a great 'cache' of illegal weapons out there in the general population, obtained by criminals and thugs, who obtain them illegally. So much so that police forces, every now and again, grant amnesties within their jurisdictions (sometimes these are also nationwide campaigns) which allow for these weapons to be handed in to the police without fear of prosecution following.

These amnesties are invariably highly effective ! Gun are handed in. AK-47's turn up every now and again. Even rocket launchers ..... !! ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/2992149.stm



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-49247301



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-49261602



Only criminals (with VERY few exceptions) own guns (& worse) in our society. Everyone's totally dependent on 'the authorities' for their defence. So it is that this psychology is now deeply ingrained in the British.

I agree with what you wrote regarding guns, obviously both in the sense of individual, country, and in Europe-the continent.

My point though in the OP was about 'group think' might be the best way to put it. You do not suffer from that, though Noir was obviously raised with it. Gun discussion may play a part or may not.

Those that think like Noir look to the US and point, 'Guns, racism, and just so damn uncouth!' Ok, you may agree with that last one, that's the thing about Americans, we really don't give a damn what others think of us.

The second amendment is part and parcel of our Bill of Rights, we do take that seriously. Some think it needs changing, some not so much.

Racism in this country is overblown thanks mostly to the politicians, media, and professors in those ivory towers. It exists, no doubt. For many it stays in their heads and literally makes no difference to others.

Some get along well and like people different than themselves-races, religions, even gays or muslims-only the ones they know.

Some actually feel it's a social justice thing to 'collect' friends for diversity! Not ever considering that is sort of racist in and of itself.

Some just takes what comes their way, at home, work, school. They don't pretend that differences exist, might learn something or not. Nice people are nice; many aren't; some are haters. Life.

I do think Drummond, what you think of as our left are actually are extreme left for the most part. There are lots of folks that are left of most here, that are not flaky stupid. They don't pay much attention to politics, just like most that vote right. They go to work and raise their kids. They watch tv and beer or soda. Pizza and take out rock their world. A week or two on a vacation and decent holidays make things good.

I do think that our flaky left is growing, certainly influenced by universities. They are working hard at stomping on the 1st and 2nd amendments and indoctrinating that to our kids-those that aren't inoculated by home before being sent there. Truth is, universities have always tried indoctrination-sometimes for good reasons, but mostly for communism and other Utopian ideas-sort of European our universities. In the past though, parents had instilled values well before the kids turned 17 or 18. While most weren't rigorous in church attendance at college, they'd learned the lessons at home and tended to return after college.

Parenting and moral norms have changed, I do think it's leaving the door open to more rapid and complete indoctrination.

[CSM]

I agree with what you wrote regarding guns, obviously both in the sense of individual, country, and in Europe-the continent.

My point though in the OP was about 'group think' might be the best way to put it. You do not suffer from that, though Noir was obviously raised with it. Gun discussion may play a part or may not.

Those that think like Noir look to the US and point, 'Guns, racism, and just so damn uncouth!' Ok, you may agree with that last one, that's the thing about Americans, we really don't give a damn what others think of us.

The second amendment is part and parcel of our Bill of Rights, we do take that seriously. Some think it needs changing, some not so much.

Racism in this country is overblown thanks mostly to the politicians, media, and professors in those ivory towers. It exists, no doubt. For many it stays in their heads and literally makes no difference to others.

Some get along well and like people different than themselves-races, religions, even gays or muslims-only the ones they know.

Some actually feel it's a social justice thing to 'collect' friends for diversity! Not ever considering that is sort of racist in and of itself.

Some just takes what comes their way, at home, work, school. They don't pretend that differences exist, might learn something or not. Nice people are nice; many aren't; some are haters. Life.

I do think Drummond, what you think of as our left are actually are extreme left for the most part. There are lots of folks that are left of most here, that are not flaky stupid. They don't pay much attention to politics, just like most that vote right. They go to work and raise their kids. They watch tv and beer or soda. Pizza and take out rock their world. A week or two on a vacation and decent holidays make things good.

I do think that our flaky left is growing, certainly influenced by universities. They are working hard at stomping on the 1st and 2nd amendments and indoctrinating that to our kids-those that aren't inoculated by home before being sent there. Truth is, universities have always tried indoctrination-sometimes for good reasons, but mostly for communism and other Utopian ideas-sort of European our universities. In the past though, parents had instilled values well before the kids turned 17 or 18. While most weren't rigorous in church attendance at college, they'd learned the lessons at home and tended to return after college.

Parenting and moral norms have changed, I do think it's leaving the door open to more rapid and complete indoctrination.

I do believe you nailed it!

[Drummond]

I agree with what you wrote regarding guns, obviously both in the sense of individual, country, and in Europe-the continent.

My point though in the OP was about 'group think' might be the best way to put it. You do not suffer from that, though Noir was obviously raised with it. Gun discussion may play a part or may not.

Those that think like Noir look to the US and point, 'Guns, racism, and just so damn uncouth!' Ok, you may agree with that last one, that's the thing about Americans, we really don't give a damn what others think of us.

The second amendment is part and parcel of our Bill of Rights, we do take that seriously. Some think it needs changing, some not so much.

Racism in this country is overblown thanks mostly to the politicians, media, and professors in those ivory towers. It exists, no doubt. For many it stays in their heads and literally makes no difference to others.

Some get along well and like people different than themselves-races, religions, even gays or muslims-only the ones they know.

Some actually feel it's a social justice thing to 'collect' friends for diversity! Not ever considering that is sort of racist in and of itself.

Some just takes what comes their way, at home, work, school. They don't pretend that differences exist, might learn something or not. Nice people are nice; many aren't; some are haters. Life.

I do think @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), what you think of as our left are actually are extreme left for the most part. There are lots of folks that are left of most here, that are not flaky stupid. They don't pay much attention to politics, just like most that vote right. They go to work and raise their kids. They watch tv and beer or soda. Pizza and take out rock their world. A week or two on a vacation and decent holidays make things good.

I do think that our flaky left is growing, certainly influenced by universities. They are working hard at stomping on the 1st and 2nd amendments and indoctrinating that to our kids-those that aren't inoculated by home before being sent there. Truth is, universities have always tried indoctrination-sometimes for good reasons, but mostly for communism and other Utopian ideas-sort of European our universities. In the past though, parents had instilled values well before the kids turned 17 or 18. While most weren't rigorous in church attendance at college, they'd learned the lessons at home and tended to return after college.

Parenting and moral norms have changed, I do think it's leaving the door open to more rapid and complete indoctrination.

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.

I rebelled against that hateful reality.

I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).

Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.

My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.

I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.

On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.

If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.

I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. I pray it never does.

You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.

I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they dare not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all.

But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. IF .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it.

This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol.

He's the perfect antidote for their poison.

[Kathianne]

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.

I rebelled against that hateful reality.

I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).

Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.

My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.

I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.

On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.

If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.

I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. I pray it never does.

You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.

I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they dare not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all.

But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. IF .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it.

This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol.

He's the perfect antidote for their poison.

I've no doubt that our extreme left is a clone of your left. None. Not so much the union stuff you refer to, though I do remember when it seemed all your industries and services were on strike-I think I was jr. high or high school.

Our left like yours I presume, is all about 'climate change!!!' and the world ending in 10 or 12 or some years. Along with that are all the people, especially 'children' that we've exploited and need to pay reparations to, after we fix global warming or cooling.

The extreme left like yours, is very rooted now in anti-semitism, somehow thinking that's social justice because of the peaceful Palestinians. The struggle is real! From Stanford to Yale. Thus my remark on the ivory towers, it includes most universities in between.

Perhaps because of the diversity in size and population, our extreme left remains small. Their loudness is big, but it doesn't translate to votes. Even with this messageboard that tends to amplify the left in causing or going to cause so much upheaval, even within the Democrat party, the far left does not carry traction regarding policies or votes. Look at who's leading the pack of candidates to this point; Joe Biden. Certainly a goof, certainly right of center, but far from a socialist and pretty hard to defend as an extreme anything. Like Trump's record, he's been all over issues from left and right and still is.

What we don't have a lot of though are centuries of policies and enemies that developed in Europe. We had slavery, it caused deep problems that we are still addressing and likely won't end anytime soon. We have the nation within for the Native Americans, a group that was displaced like many before, but what happened after displacement was a crime. It goes on today on their nation's lands with alcohol, casinos, corruption...

But we don't have the histories between the religions; the wars of old, that keep rearing; the historical prejudices against the Jews, Gypsies, former serfs, unlanded, etc. Talk about privileges! The whole colonial eras-which were more and longer than the US. So many talk about 'the muslim invasions' without recognizing that many were under European powers for a long time.

Moving into modern years, many countries welcomed 'refugees' it's what Europe does. Then they put them into ghettos and even those that are educated are not allowed to find work that is of their level. Shock, they are rising up to undermine the country.

Again, probably because we are a diverse or mongrel nation if you will, we do tend to let everyone rise as high as they are able with work and fall as far as they like without said work. Our safety nets have never been as good as yours, though many think they are still a tad too rich.

We have so much diversity within the 'right' and the 'left' I think it's hard for others to understand. I'm an older, white, female, educated, most of my life middle-upper middle. Yet many that are right are more or less conservative than I. Some on social issues, some on economic. My concerns do not match up with those of a 20 something on a myriad of topics, though we may have some common ones.

I don't match up with all that are the same age and background and sex. It's part of the reason that the polling is so often outside the measure of error. ;)

On the left, it's the same. Lots of the left define themselves broadly, by terms like 'social justice' or 'the environment, including climate change.' Well these terms can denote those that work for the humane society or rescue pets; do missions; foster children or work in adoptions; eco-terrorists; antifa; or organizing boycotts of Israel.

BTW, lots of people on the right also work on some of those topics listed above for the left. A lot.

Most people aren't caught up with foreign policy; bills that are working their way from one house to the other or for signing; haven't heard of 'the squad'; or could tell you about changes in Afghanistan troop levels or that that ISIS is reemerging in Syria and Iraq. They don't know.

We don't have something like Brexit that would cause a 'one side or the other' type of pull/push. It's tempting to say that 9/11 and wars were that big, but most everyone was on board for that, for a short while. Which is how most big things here seem to evolve-unity that rather quickly devolves into partisanship. Obama's election and more importantly his re-election caused a shift. The last one has continued that trajectory.

Some see the shift as a good thing, I'm not one of them.

[Noir]

Those who are not able to protect themselves, be it an individual or a country are at the mercies of the strongest amongst them. When it's been multiple countries overrun or confronting a much stronger and better armed-physically and psychologically as happened to Europe with Hitler, their only hope is there is a bigger, stronger ally to come-thus the rise of US and USSR.

I am still unclear over what the connection is between owning a gun and product labels.

[Kathianne]

I am still unclear over what the connection is between owning a gun and product labels.
Because the 'product labels' might as well read, "We stand with the Palestinians. Boycott the Jews."

[Kathianne]

Next thing you know, they'll be handing out gold stars to the Jews...

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjordandee.files.wordpress.com%2F2 011%2F12%2Fjewish_star_350.jpg&f=1


I am still unclear over what the connection is between owning a gun and product labels.

Likewise the above could serve as the label.

[Noir]

Because the 'product labels' might as well read, "We stand with the Palestinians. Boycott the Jews."

and if European citizens had guns what would that change?

[Kathianne]

and if European citizens had guns what would that change?
Noir, you are missing the forest through the trees. It's a symptom of what is going on. Every bit as dangerous as a nutter with a gun targeting a group.

The problem with Europe is that it isn't individuals, but acting in concert.

[Noir]

Noir, you are missing the forest through the trees. It's a symptom of what is going on. Every bit as dangerous as a nutter with a gun targeting a group.

The problem with Europe is that it isn't individuals, but acting in concert.

Well there’s clearly something getting lost in translation here - but for the life of me I can’t see what would be different regarding this product packaging if citizens had guns.

[Kathianne]

Well there’s clearly something getting lost in translation here - but for the life of me I can’t see what would be different regarding this product packaging if citizens had guns.

It seems you are unable to look at a bigger vision, outside of a narrow prejudice. I'm not saying that to be snarky, anymore than your comment about 'translation.' It's the problem-the prejudice is causing the inability to understand.

Rising prejudices, now acting on those as a bloc, the certainty of the cause, in the long run you will need more than guns and you will.

[Kathianne]

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.

I rebelled against that hateful reality.

I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).

Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.

My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.

I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.

On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.

If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.

I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. I pray it never does.

You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.

I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they dare not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all.

But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. IF .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it.

This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol.

He's the perfect antidote for their poison.

As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.

Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't. ;)

[Kathianne]

On your 'group think' point ... you describe it well. In fact, back in my teens (before I knew better !) I did suffer from it. I bought all the garbage the Left spoonfed us with, and to an extent I was even passionate about it. But, then ... I observed chaos and destruction, fomented by a REAL manifestation of Left wing politics, filtered into a destructive force courtesy of its incompatability and inevitable clash with human nature. I refer, of course, to Trade Unionism ... and its immense vandalism.<br>
<br>
I rebelled against that hateful reality.<br>
<br>
I've been rebelling ever since, with my evolved hatred for Socialism undimmed by time (if anything, intensified by its passage).<br>
<br>
Noir hasn't rebelled. He swallows propaganda, not even aware that he's doing so, unaware that he's been programmed by societal pressures. I know better than that, which is what separates me from him.<br>
<br>
My society is, in its everyday existence, 'anti-gun'; it doesn't relate to gun ownership at all. Yours does. This is nothing more or less than a difference in evolved culture. You had a 'wild West', a 'pioneering' origin, in a new and hostile land. We had none of that. Different histories ... and NOTHING to get judgmental about. Those who do exhibit ignorance.<br>
<br>
I can't comment on racism in America, all I AM sure about is that you've made great strides in reversing it over decades (the Rosa Parks incident had a pivotal value). To the extent I can even judge, or SHOULD judge, I'd just say 'good for you'.<br>
<br>
On the point of 'Left v extreme Left' ... unless I misunderstand you, I think you may be confirming what I've asserted in the recent past (?) .. which is, our viewpoints around what may or may not constitute 'extreme' Leftieism are markedly different. My understanding of what America has experienced of the Left is decidedly tame compared to the British experience of it, and you may recall I debated with Jim to argue this ... with Jim saying that your Left wasn't so different from ours.<br>
<br>
If I paint you a picture of the Left as Britain has known it (and to varying degrees, right across Europe) .. I think you'd balk at that picture, not recognising the extremes I describe as having a correlation with America's experience of it. Obama's 'ObamaCare', for example, is still a far cry from our far more State-dominated and State run healthcare system. Try enforcing 'presumed consent' on organ donation, where your authorities plunder whatever organs they want from newly-deceased bodies, UNLESS the deceased had made officially recorded provision to prevent it ! Our Left, in Wales, pioneered that reversal in our law ... the rest of the UK is expected to follow suit in the coming years.<br>
<br>
I've barely started to describe what our Left has done, and what it hopes to achieve, after, of course, the Left has done its utmost to indoctrinate everyone into accepting its changes, its social terraforming of our society. America hasn't as yet felt the reality of full-blooded Socialism. <strong>I pray it never does.<br>
</strong><br>
You will see what I describe as 'extreme'. To me, it's everyday life. Why ? Because the Left has got away with far more, and for far longer, than is true in America. We are 'terraformed' to an extent that you, are not.<br>
<br>
<strong>I believe that your Left - in truth - are probably a clone of ours. The difference is that they <em>dare</em> not advertise their very long-term ambitions for America's future, because you're far from ready to swallow it all. <br></strong>
<br>
But Obama gave you the weakest of tastes of it. He merely hinted at what's to come .. <em>IF</em> .. the Right ever offers sufficiently weak opposition to help facilitate it. <br>
<br>
This is why the support Trump has enjoyed is so heartening, certainly to me. With that being true, your Left has a daily reminder of how far they have to go, in order to make their hoped-for inroads. I believe this is part of why they hate Trump with such vitriol. <br>
<br>
He's the perfect antidote for their poison.<br><br>As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.&nbsp;<br><br>Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't. ;)&nbsp;<br>
<br>

https://www.city-journal.org/political-ground-shifting-in-americas-bluest-cities

The differences between 'leaders' and 'practical voters.'

[Drummond]

<br><br>As I stated earlier, the left as the right are along a continuum, the extremes are where violence could break out so currently would guess there are more extremists on left than right. The assumption may well be in error for the simple reason for more violence on the left has to do with the greater youth on the left.&nbsp;<br><br>Anyways, here is one look at the left and leaders v voters. For most Americans are practical. When it comes to politics I'm more idealistic than most on the right or left. Blame it on a lifelong love affair with politics, news. My majors in university simply reflected those. While it's pretty unusual to have a conservative in sociology, political science, even history, I never lost my compass or passion. Still haven't. ;)&nbsp;<br>
<br>

https://www.city-journal.org/political-ground-shifting-in-americas-bluest-cities

The differences between 'leaders' and 'practical voters.'

We have a fundamental disagreement in progress, I think.

You think that both the Left AND the Right have 'extremes'. I disagree.

Your second link, it seems to me, is proposing - if its contents are to be accepted - that extremes need to be blurred, that a 'middle ground' is a 'best solution'. This is a fatal error. The more this blurring effect succeeds, the greater the inability to defeat the Left. Blur distinctions .. lose focus as a result .. lose motivation .. settle for a less-than-comprehensive total victory .. and some form of the Left survives.

That surely isn't the point. You don't defeat just 'bits' of an evil, and expect the fullest good to result out of it !! This is nonsense.

I do not accept that 'the Right' has any extreme. This, too, is nonsense.

What separates the Left from the Right, quite apart from how those philosophies are described, is this: the Left dictates. It's a 'hive mind' philosophy, where the individual is forever subsumed to 'the masses'. Individuals don't ultimately matter, since 'the bigger picture' is (they would believe, as an article of faith) greater than them. Therefore, any manner of subhumanity, any level of societal terraforming, is rendered possible, just so long as it can be defended logically, and so long as a preferred-for end goal can be said to be being advanced towards.

HOW IS THIS TRUE OF THE RIGHT ?

The Right is, definably, the polar opposite. Individuals are all-important to a Rightist philosophy, and this remains its focus. Since that's true ... (1) it's FAR more in line with human nature than the Left ever could be. Also, (2) individualism will always rebel against the Left's true extremes !!

What could EVER be 'extreme' about a philosophy serving human nature, interlocking with it, fully identifying with it, to defeat a force designed to crush individualism ??

Think about it, Kathianne. When you have .. understand that 'a Rightist extreme' is a contradiction in terms. You might as well argue that to be too human is of itself bad.

A human individual values personal freedom. A Leftist hive mind proponent wants to see attitudes pre-determined, dictated, shaping society towards a bigger picture which confers zero worth to any one individual. THIS is an 'extreme'. IT IS A TRULY APPALLING EXTREME. And the Right, by its very nature, must stand in opposition to such moves and intentions.

This is not a process that can profit from a blurring of perceptions. You need to appreciate that ... I suggest.

If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

Have you wondered why the Left favour Muslims, and Islam ? Consider Islam's own nature. Compare the mutual contempt the Left and Islam have for individual human worth (.. how the concept of Jihad can attain divine acceptance, how terrorism interlocks with Islam, how and why Sharia Law is a product of Islam). The Left does not respect individual worth any more than a true, devout, Islamist can.

This is why the Right is a natural opponent of both. Why true, unmitigated opposition will flow far more naturally from the Right than from anyone, or anything, else.

[You don't eradicate a killer disease by applying a medication conferring temporary relief from it. You eradicate it by applying the cure to it. It isn't a process where a fudge, borne of wishing to blur the full truth of the malady and therefore its countering-agent, will serve instead of a full and proper antidote.]

Guess what ? There's nothing extreme about that. Human worth has true meaning to the Right. It is the ultimate liberation, Kath.

Do you see ?

[Kathianne]

We have a fundamental disagreement in progress, I think.

You think that both the Left AND the Right have 'extremes'. I disagree.

Your second link, it seems to me, is proposing - if its contents are to be accepted - that extremes need to be blurred, that a 'middle ground' is a 'best solution'. This is a fatal error. The more this blurring effect succeeds, the greater the inability to defeat the Left. Blur distinctions .. lose focus as a result .. lose motivation .. settle for a less-than-comprehensive total victory .. and some form of the Left survives.

That surely isn't the point. You don't defeat just 'bits' of an evil, and expect the fullest good to result out of it !! This is nonsense.

I do not accept that 'the Right' has any extreme. This, too, is nonsense.

What separates the Left from the Right, quite apart from how those philosophies are described, is this: the Left dictates. It's a 'hive mind' philosophy, where the individual is forever subsumed to 'the masses'. Individuals don't ultimately matter, since 'the bigger picture' is (they would believe, as an article of faith) greater than them. Therefore, any manner of subhumanity, any level of societal terraforming, is rendered possible, just so long as it can be defended logically, and so long as a preferred-for end goal can be said to be being advanced towards.

HOW IS THIS TRUE OF THE RIGHT ?

The Right is, definably, the polar opposite. Individuals are all-important to a Rightist philosophy, and this remains its focus. Since that's true ... (1) it's FAR more in line with human nature than the Left ever could be. Also, (2) individualism will always rebel against the Left's true extremes !!

What could EVER be 'extreme' about a philosophy serving human nature, interlocking with it, fully identifying with it, to defeat a force designed to crush individualism ??

Think about it, Kathianne. When you have .. understand that 'a Rightist extreme' is a contradiction in terms. You might as well argue that to be too human is of itself bad.

A human individual values personal freedom. A Leftist hive mind proponent wants to see attitudes pre-determined, dictated, shaping society towards a bigger picture which confers zero worth to any one individual. THIS is an 'extreme'. IT IS A TRULY APPALLING EXTREME. And the Right, by its very nature, must stand in opposition to such moves and intentions.

This is not a process that can profit from a blurring of perceptions. You need to appreciate that ... I suggest.

If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

Have you wondered why the Left favour Muslims, and Islam ? Consider Islam's own nature. Compare the mutual contempt the Left and Islam have for individual human worth (.. how the concept of Jihad can attain divine acceptance, how terrorism interlocks with Islam, how and why Sharia Law is a product of Islam). The Left does not respect individual worth any more than a true, devout, Islamist can.

This is why the Right is a natural opponent of both. Why true, unmitigated opposition will flow far more naturally from the Right than from anyone, or anything, else.

[You don't eradicate a killer disease by applying a medication conferring temporary relief from it. You eradicate it by applying the cure to it. It isn't a process where a fudge, borne of wishing to blur the full truth of the malady and therefore its countering-agent, will serve instead of a full and proper antidote.]

Guess what ? There's nothing extreme about that. Human worth has true meaning to the Right. It is the ultimate liberation, Kath.

Do you see ?

Actually, your premise is incorrect for the simple assumption you state:
If you haven't lost your compass or passion, then you should - even if it'll take a bit of thought - understand that I'm right about this. The Right CANNOT be too 'extreme', unless fighting for humanity is of itself 'extreme'.

You insist on framing perfected good fighting perfected evil. Man, which in the non-pc lexicon is synonymous to human, the individual, is not perfect. That would be God.

By your definition, which you create off the basis of your own thoughts, anyone not fitting your created definition is incapable of passion or compassion. Yeah, that I will reject as a premise. We join in the community for the survival of all-consciously or not, agreeing to provide and protect the whole body. We do that as individuals-anything else is a Hobbesian choice.

We are individuals, but we are social beings. Anyone subsumed by either is what we'd call 'not quite right.' Those are the psychopaths and they don't know or care about your 'right' and 'left.' We all need to make those basic needs, thus willing take up basic rights which we have more or less defined in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. If scarcity comes, we fail to provide for the whole those basics, then the individual will only use the means of the community to ensure the survival of their own individual. It all falls apart.

There are extreme far right individuals, which you seem incapable of understanding their existence, because with your construct, they cannot exist.

The right is for less government, not an abolishment of such. That would be anarchy-which is also something that is a desire by the far left. Note that. The extremes only sound different, their end game is the same. Both are seeking their definition of 'perfection' which both mean they would control the apparatus to destroy those they deem not.

It's easier to see your 'enemies' as complete evil doers, the terrorists seem able to do that with both individuals, countries, even systems of government.

[Kathianne]

It's not just Europe, though I doubt we'll see it as openly on the East Coast, with all those Jewish Democrat voters:


https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-introduces-radical-anti-semitic-high-school-curriculum/



California Introduces Radical Anti-Semitic High School Curriculum
Outrage in Jewish, pro-Israel community after anti-Israel activists hijack curriculum
Adam Kredo - AUGUST 12, 2019 11:00 AM

The state of California has introduced "blatantly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" lessons into its official high school curriculum, drawing outrage and concern in the state's Jewish and pro-Israel communities, according to multiple sources involved in the controversy.


The California Department of Education is facing backlash after permitting a host of anti-Israel activists to build a statewide educational curriculum that demonizes the Jewish state and is said to be fostering hatred of Jewish and Israeli-American students, sources said.


Already, 83 pro-Israel and anti-discrimination organizations have petitioned the state's education department to reform its Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) to remove multiple instances of what they say is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias.


Multiple sources involved in the fight have described to the Washington Free Beacon anti-Semitic courses that they say are fostering an unsafe environment for Jewish and Israeli-American students. Further information obtained by the Free Beacon reveals that several of the educators involved in pushing the new curriculum have a history of anti-Israel activism that has often spilled into anti-Semitic territory.


"We are aware that many individuals and groups affiliated with the Jewish community have already written to you about the ESMC's shocking omission of information about American Jews and anti-Semitism, its use of classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, and its blatant anti-Israel bias," a coalition of 83 pro-Israel organizations led by the AMCHA Initiative, a watchdog group that combats anti-Semitism in America, wrote to California's Education Department.


"This includes the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, who wrote to you that they ‘cannot support a curriculum that erases the American Jewish experience, fails to discuss anti-Semitism, reinforces negative stereotypes about Jews, singles out Israel for criticism and would institutionalize the teaching of anti-Semitic stereotypes in our public schools,'" the groups wrote.


The curriculum, the organizations claim, is the result of an effort by several leading educators who have expressed both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic viewpoints.


"The anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias of the proposed ESMC curriculum—including its implicit portrayal of Jews and Israel as part of ‘interlocking systems of oppression and privilege' and its endorsement of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as a form of ‘direct action' or ‘resistance' that students are encouraged to engage in—clearly exposes the politically motivated and directed nature of the curriculum and its drafters," the organizations wrote.


"Not surprisingly, more than one-quarter of the Model Curriculum Advisory Committee members, appointed by the State Board of Education to draft the ESMC, have publicly expressed animus towards Israel and its supporters, with some members openly supporting BDS," the letter states. "There is no doubt that these committee members have unconscionably used the state-mandated curriculum as a tool for politically indoctrinating California's high school students with anti-Israel propaganda and encouraging them to engage in political activism against the Jewish state."

...

[Drummond]

Actually, your premise is incorrect for the simple assumption you state:

You insist on framing perfected good fighting perfected evil. Man, which in the non-pc lexicon is synonymous to human, the individual, is not perfect. That would be God.

By your definition, which you create off the basis of your own thoughts, anyone not fitting your created definition is incapable of passion or compassion. Yeah, that I will reject as a premise. We join in the community for the survival of all-consciously or not, agreeing to provide and protect the whole body. We do that as individuals-anything else is a Hobbesian choice.

We are individuals, but we are social beings. Anyone subsumed by either is what we'd call 'not quite right.' Those are the psychopaths and they don't know or care about your 'right' and 'left.' We all need to make those basic needs, thus willing take up basic rights which we have more or less defined in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. If scarcity comes, we fail to provide for the whole those basics, then the individual will only use the means of the community to ensure the survival of their own individual. It all falls apart.

There are extreme far right individuals, which you seem incapable of understanding their existence, because with your construct, they cannot exist.

The right is for less government, not an abolishment of such. That would be anarchy-which is also something that is a desire by the far left. Note that. The extremes only sound different, their end game is the same. Both are seeking their definition of 'perfection' which both mean they would control the apparatus to destroy those they deem not.

It's easier to see your 'enemies' as complete evil doers, the terrorists seem able to do that with both individuals, countries, even systems of government.

If I've learned anything, it's that the Left can use equivocation. They build on it, see it as a basis for making inroads. Me, I'd rather not grant them that advantage.

Human nature is not perfect. I've never said it is. However .. it's completely fundamental to all of us. So, it makes sense to suppose that the best of all political philosophies will be one that works with it, to serve it. Right wing political thought does that.

The Left does pretty much the opposite to that. The Left try to mould human nature to fit their own agenda. They don't serve. They dictate.

The worst dictators this world has ever seen have been creatures of the Left.

You have jumped on a 'good v evil' comparison. I say again: human nature isn't perfect, so why you've inferred a 'good v evil' absolute to my argument ... I don't know. My basic point is one of fitting jigsaw pieces together ... a political philosophy fitting well with that it's meant to serve, will do a better job than will the jigsaw piece which sees Lefties try to reshape the 'fit' so that the one can relate to the other ... but by force and manipulation.

You do the best you can. Right-wing political thought is the best there is. Which is why it needs to succeed.

I've seen the application of its polar opposite. Result ... chaos, misery, destruction. Because Socialism cannot be made to work. Human nature intervenes, always.

You say we're social creatures. I agree. The Left sees that as a means to an end. The Right does not. THAT is the point.

Kath, your tendency towards finding a middle ground, with the natural effect coming from it of equivocation, waters down the inevitable political battle necessary to combat the Left. The British, with our natural cultural inclination of striking balances, has all too often given the Left its opening to influence and gain power. You see where that has led us.

Nothing I can say will convince you I'm right. Which is why I'm not trying too hard to prove the point. I can only say that the path you choose to tread is a familiar one in my society. It has led us to where we are today.

I'll leave you to decide whether it's all been a 'good thing'.

Have I already been proven right ?

Some would say it's in the eye of the beholder. But I know what I believe ... well, I should !!

[Kathianne]

If I've learned anything, it's that the Left can use equivocation. They build on it, see it as a basis for making inroads. Me, I'd rather not grant them that advantage.

Human nature is not perfect. I've never said it is. However .. it's completely fundamental to all of us. So, it makes sense to suppose that the best of all political philosophies will be one that works with it, to serve it. Right wing political thought does that.

The Left does pretty much the opposite to that. The Left try to mould human nature to fit their own agenda. They don't serve. They dictate.

The worst dictators this world has ever seen have been creatures of the Left.

You have jumped on a 'good v evil' comparison. I say again: human nature isn't perfect, so why you've inferred a 'good v evil' absolute to my argument ... I don't know. My basic point is one of fitting jigsaw pieces together ... a political philosophy fitting well with that it's meant to serve, will do a better job than will the jigsaw piece which sees Lefties try to reshape the 'fit' so that the one can relate to the other ... but by force and manipulation.

You do the best you can. Right-wing political thought is the best there is. Which is why it needs to succeed.

I've seen the application of its polar opposite. Result ... chaos, misery, destruction. Because Socialism cannot be made to work. Human nature intervenes, always.

You say we're social creatures. I agree. The Left sees that as a means to an end. The Right does not. THAT is the point.

Kath, your tendency towards finding a middle ground, with the natural effect coming from it of equivocation, waters down the inevitable political battle necessary to combat the Left. The British, with our natural cultural inclination of striking balances, has all too often given the Left its opening to influence and gain power. You see where that has led us.

Nothing I can say will convince you I'm right. Which is why I'm not trying too hard to prove the point. I can only say that the path you choose to tread is a familiar one in my society. It has led us to where we are today.

I'll leave you to decide whether it's all been a 'good thing'.

Have I already been proven right ?

Some would say it's in the eye of the beholder. But I know what I believe ... well, I should !!

Nor will I convince you of any doubt of your beliefs, nor am I trying to.

I too see what is happening between your discussions with Noir. Both of you give no ground and proudly. From what I 'know' of you both, good people.

Yet, you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

[Drummond]

Nor will I convince you of any doubt of your beliefs, nor am I trying to.

I too see what is happening between your discussions with Noir. Both of you give no ground and proudly. From what I 'know' of you both, good people.

Yet, you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

Where Noir is concerned ... I'm not prepared to go so far as to call him 'good people'. He only recently gave me reason to be sharp with him, as a result of a gratuitous remark ... the 'apology' I got back was a sarcastic one, hardly worth reading. All of that was unnecessary .. yet, it happened.

In a sense, though, any 'spats' I may have with Noir are highly impersonal. They are such, because I understand Noir to be a loyal drone to that which he is loyal to. He cannot, ever, give ground, because his entire belief system is an artificial construct with propaganda and predetermined social goals as its basis. There's no room for the giving of ground when wedded to such strictures. He knows it. I know it. When he's bested, I know he'll never, ever, acknowledge it. He doesn't DARE to. So, he'll launch into insults or jibes, or whatever takes the place of actual objective commentary or debate.

Reminds me of another character here who no longer posts ... when bested, along came the put-downs. My years of 'jousting' with him were entirely pointless. I outed him as a Left winger, and he forever denied it .. YET .. he acted classically as one, argued as one, manipulated comments not to his liking (.. better that, than taking them on their merits, you see ..) but thought himself smart enough to deny the obvious and yet have people buy into it.

It was a pathetic performance. I wonder if he fooled anyone ! But, like Noir, he could never give ground, because once he did, the whole edifice that sustained his argumentation would've come crashing down.

Pathetic. Sad, too.

You ask if you misread or misunderstood what you'd read. I'd have to say 'yes' to both.

You said:


.. you speak of an elected leader not following the rules of how your country is governed, because of vote from 2 or 3 years ago. I get that vote. If memory serves it passed or polling shows that the majority still want out of EU, so you think the behavior is justified. Am I misunderstanding or misstating what I've read?

I did think you were speaking of Corbyn, the Labour leader. But you also speak of my thinking 'the behaviour is justified'. I definitely don't think that of Corbyn. So, I'm confused.

If you mean Cameron, the Conservative leader who resigned once the 'Leave' vote came through ... since it was he who offered the Referendum, instituted it, and promised that whatever the vote was, it'd be respected in full .. then he resigned because he wouldn't personally act to honour it (!) ... there's nothing morally justified about that !

So I'm still confused.

Do you mean Theresa May ? She DID do 'her best' to deliver Brexit .. but, it was her specific version of one. Always saying that 'no deal was better than a bad deal', then emerging WITH a bad deal, an unratifiable one, but one she never stopped trying to implement (!!) .. I don't think her behaviour was justified, either. Three attempts at ratification, all failed, then she resigned rather than admit her own personal error. Very hard to justify any of that.

The Referendum majority voted to leave the EU. They said nothing about how, only that it should happen. Boris Johnson has nailed his colours to the mast, and said we'll leave, 'come-what-may', on Halloween. Now, there is a Conservative who is truly dedicated to democratic principle.

Corbyn would disagree, especially if a No Confidence motion happens, Boris loses it, then ignores that. So what. Boris is loyal to a greater democracy ... proper representation of The Peoples' Wishes.

Corbyn would fight that tooth & nail, because he has His Cause to not only fight for, but to DICTATE TO PEOPLE. This is what the Left does. They say .. 'We know best. Be subject to what WE SAY must happen. Tough if you don't like it (and if we have our way, we'll force you to like it, too)'.

You can't ever compromise with that thinking or behaviour. Try, and erosion of freedom and principle is the inevitable outcome. The Left is an extreme that must be uncompromisingly battled against, because there's no choice to it.

There just isn't.

THEIRS is the extreme. All the Right does is to act as an antidote to it; and there is not, nor could there be, anything 'extreme' in what the Right does.

If you think otherwise, you're making a fundamental mistake.

Aggressive cancer is an 'extreme' illness. Curing it is in no way an 'extreme' act, or an act requiring equivocation, or watering down, to find a 'middle ground' (!!!?!!). It's merely the RIGHT action to take; and, the NECESSARY action to take.

[Kathianne]

Where Noir is concerned ... I'm not prepared to go so far as to call him 'good people'. He only recently gave me reason to be sharp with him, as a result of a gratuitous remark ... the 'apology' I got back was a sarcastic one, hardly worth reading. All of that was unnecessary .. yet, it happened.

In a sense, though, any 'spats' I may have with Noir are highly impersonal. They are such, because I understand Noir to be a loyal drone to that which he is loyal to. He cannot, ever, give ground, because his entire belief system is an artificial construct with propaganda and predetermined social goals as its basis. There's no room for the giving of ground when wedded to such strictures. He knows it. I know it. When he's bested, I know he'll never, ever, acknowledge it. He doesn't DARE to. So, he'll launch into insults or jibes, or whatever takes the place of actual objective commentary or debate.

Reminds me of another character here who no longer posts ... when bested, along came the put-downs. My years of 'jousting' with him were entirely pointless. I outed him as a Left winger, and he forever denied it .. YET .. he acted classically as one, argued as one, manipulated comments not to his liking (.. better that, than taking them on their merits, you see ..) but thought himself smart enough to deny the obvious and yet have people buy into it.

It was a pathetic performance. I wonder if he fooled anyone ! But, like Noir, he could never give ground, because once he did, the whole edifice that sustained his argumentation would've come crashing down.

Pathetic. Sad, too.

You ask if you misread or misunderstood what you'd read. I'd have to say 'yes' to both.

You said:



I did think you were speaking of Corbyn, the Labour leader. But you also speak of my thinking 'the behaviour is justified'. I definitely don't think that of Corbyn. So, I'm confused.

If you mean Cameron, the Conservative leader who resigned once the 'Leave' vote came through ... since it was he who offered the Referendum, instituted it, and promised that whatever the vote was, it'd be respected in full .. then he resigned because he wouldn't personally act to honour it (!) ... there's nothing morally justified about that !

So I'm still confused.

Do you mean Theresa May ? She DID do 'her best' to deliver Brexit .. but, it was her specific version of one. Always saying that 'no deal was better than a bad deal', then emerging WITH a bad deal, an unratifiable one, but one she never stopped trying to implement (!!) .. I don't think her behaviour was justified, either. Three attempts at ratification, all failed, then she resigned rather than admit her own personal error. Very hard to justify any of that.

The Referendum majority voted to leave the EU. They said nothing about how, only that it should happen. Boris Johnson has nailed his colours to the mast, and said we'll leave, 'come-what-may', on Halloween. Now, there is a Conservative who is truly dedicated to democratic principle.

Corbyn would disagree, especially if a No Confidence motion happens, Boris loses it, then ignores that. So what. Boris is loyal to a greater democracy ... proper representation of The Peoples' Wishes.

Corbyn would fight that tooth & nail, because he has His Cause to not only fight for, but to DICTATE TO PEOPLE. This is what the Left does. They say .. 'We know best. Be subject to what WE SAY must happen. Tough if you don't like it (and if we have our way, we'll force you to like it, too)'.

You can't ever compromise with that thinking or behaviour. Try, and erosion of freedom and principle is the inevitable outcome. The Left is an extreme that must be uncompromisingly battled against, because there's no choice to it.

There just isn't.

THEIRS is the extreme. All the Right does is to act as an antidote to it; and there is not, nor could there be, anything 'extreme' in what the Right does.

If you think otherwise, you're making a fundamental mistake.

Aggressive cancer is an 'extreme' illness. Curing it is in no way an 'extreme' act, or an act requiring equivocation, or watering down, to find a 'middle ground' (!!!?!!). It's merely the RIGHT action to take; and, the NECESSARY action to take.

Noir may correct my memory, but I thought you said that if Johnson was given a no confidence vote he should ignore it and go forward with Brexit-BECAUSE two or three years ago the British people made clear they wanted Brexit. When asked how you could say something like that, I believe it was answered something to the effect that since the people had been clear then, the behavior would be justified now.

[Drummond]

@Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) may correct my memory, but I thought you said that if Johnson was given a no confidence vote he should ignore it and go forward with Brexit-BECAUSE two or three years ago the British people made clear they wanted Brexit. When asked how you could say something like that, I believe it was answered something to the effect that since the people had been clear then, the behavior would be justified now.

Oh, I see. I stand corrected - thank you.

Ok, all is clear. You're correct. That was, and is, my position. And of course, Noir took his stance that Boris was being disreputable.

But then, he would. What else could he do ? He remains loyal to his Leftie agenda, and it isn't one flexible enough to meet ongoing realities and adjust to them in any truly proper way.

No. What we have, in Boris, is somebody conceding that a direct and democratically arrived-at mandate emanating directly from The People, is THE most important and inviolable expression of democracy that there can be. It (if you'll forgive the word) 'Trumps' all else.

Of course, the Left would never see it that way, and so, therefore, if only out of sheer obedient loyalty, neither does Noir. Labour never offered a Referendum on Brexit in the first place. Its vote always received opposition from Labour (because it didn't go their way!), and never more so than now. Now, they're aiming the strongest attack they can against the Conservative who's determined to honour that Brexit outcome.

Of course they are. Never accuse a Leftie of being uncompromisingly dedicated to free expressions of democracy !! They exist to exert their will, not to heed others' wishes !!

[Kathianne]

Oh, I see. I stand corrected - thank you.

Ok, all is clear. You're correct. That was, and is, my position. And of course, Noir took his stance that Boris was being disreputable.

But then, he would. What else could he do ? He remains loyal to his Leftie agenda, and it isn't one flexible enough to meet ongoing realities and adjust to them in any truly proper way.

No. What we have, in Boris, is somebody conceding that a direct and democratically arrived-at mandate emanating directly from The People, is THE most important and inviolable expression of democracy that there can be. It (if you'll forgive the word) 'Trumps' all else.

Of course, the Left would never see it that way, and so, therefore, if only out of sheer obedient loyalty, neither does Noir. Labour never offered a Referendum on Brexit in the first place. Its vote always received opposition from Labour (because it didn't go their way!), and never more so than now. Now, they're aiming the strongest attack they can against the Conservative who's determined to honour that Brexit outcome.

Of course they are. Never accuse a Leftie of being uncompromisingly dedicated to free expressions of democracy !! They exist to exert their will, not to heed others' wishes !!

Again, I do not pretend to understand your system of government in any comprehensive way. We haven't anything like a 'no confidence' vote for the executive, the only recourse until the term is up would be impeachment for cause. Of course the legislature, (as they have for years and across different presidents), can block any efforts to move forward the executive's plans, but that is it.

So without a direct example, the best I can come up with is it would be like one of our Presidents refused to leave after their term was up and they lost an election? Is that what you are suggesting?

[Drummond]

Again, I do not pretend to understand your system of government in any comprehensive way. We haven't anything like a 'no confidence' vote for the executive, the only recourse until the term is up would be impeachment for cause. Of course the legislature, (as they have for years and across different presidents), can block any efforts to move forward the executive's plans, but that is it.

So without a direct example, the best I can come up with is it would be like one of our Presidents refused to leave after their term was up and they lost an election? Is that what you are suggesting?

Likewise, your own system of government is baffling in certain ways.

Your second paragraph suggests an intended 'parallel' which actually isn't one. It can't qualify as one. Boris Johnson can hardly be refusing to leave after his term is up ... unless his term is expected to last less than a month ? He also hasn't lost an election, not least because he hasn't even called one.

No. Labour want to table their motion of No Confidence simply because they want him, and his Government, ousted. They need enough electoral support from other MP's to succeed with it. If they can get that, then, by normal convention, a General Election is triggered.

But these aren't normal times, very far from it.

A weakness of Labour's position is that they have no way of arguing that any mandate exists, from anywhere, for them to do what they're doing. But winning an election (if with a workable majority) would then give them that mandate.

Then again, their recent talk has been to simply overthrow the present Government if Boris doesn't do what they'd wish him to do, and trigger an election. Power by any means whatever ... eh ?

Bottom line, they just crave power. They're desperate for it. That, and to offer a bargain basement sale for an overstock of jackboots.

[Kathianne]

Likewise, your own system of government is baffling in certain ways.

Your second paragraph suggests an intended 'parallel' which actually isn't one. It can't qualify as one. Boris Johnson can hardly be refusing to leave after his term is up ... unless his term is expected to last less than a month ? He also hasn't lost an election, not least because he hasn't even called one.

No. Labour want to table their motion of No Confidence simply because they want him, and his Government, ousted. They need enough electoral support from other MP's to succeed with it. If they can get that, then, by normal convention, a General Election is triggered.

But these aren't normal times, very far from it.

A weakness of Labour's position is that they have no way of arguing that any mandate exists, from anywhere, for them to do what they're doing. But winning an election (if with a workable majority) would then give them that mandate.

Then again, their recent talk has been to simply overthrow the present Government if Boris doesn't do what they'd wish him to do, and trigger an election. Power by any means whatever ... eh ?

Bottom line, they just crave power. They're desperate for it. That, and to offer a bargain basement sale for an overstock of jackboots.


Ok, I really am trying to understand. Labour is trying for a no confidence vote too quickly, but won't be able to get the number of votes necessary? As I'm understanding it then, Johnson hasn't a problem, Labour failed? So what is it he is to 'ignore?'

[Drummond]

Ok, I really am trying to understand. Labour is trying for a no confidence vote too quickly, but won't be able to get the number of votes necessary? As I'm understanding it then, Johnson hasn't a problem, Labour failed? So what is it he is to 'ignore?'

Parliament is currently in Summer Recess. It won't begin its next session until the beginning of September. Once we see September, things should move quickly.

The 'No Confidence' vote ... nobody can say what will happen with it. Additionally, since what Labour is hoping for is a means of either stopping or at least stalling Brexit, and the default exit date is 31st October ... they'll have to move as quickly as they dare to kickstart any such No Confidence process.

Problem: these are not normal times ! Normally, votes for motions could be expected to run along Party lines, which is how, with a majority Government, Government manages to effectively govern. BUT ... Brexit has fractured the normal 'voting lines'. There are rebels in each Party, some to varying degrees willing to defy their Party's insisted-upon voting direction. Corbyn has a mess on his hands, because he has no way of being sure anything like all of his MP's will be loyal.

Boris has the same problem, to a great extent: his Party, too, has its rebels. As of now, Boris (given a normal voting pattern) could be said to command a majority of ONE MP over the other Parties, but, with the rebel faction, this is rendered meaningless.

Another problem: would a rebel Conservative MP be so determined to defy Boris's leadership on this issue, that s/he would even vote for their own Government to be deposed ?? You'd normally not think so. Then again ... some have already defected from the Conservative Party (Anna Soubry is a notable example, currently now leading a pro-Remain newly-formed Party !).

So we're in an almighty mess. Corbyn will have no idea at all if he can get his No Confidence vote through. His additional problem may be to consider taking time out to marshall all possible support ... BUT ... can he spare any real time in doing that ? With only a 7-8 week window before the end of October, and the prospect that Boris (if he has to) MAY call an election, but time it so that election day is after Brexit (!!!) ...

Bottom line: any attempt at a No Confidence motion may or may not succeed, and there's no way of knowing what calling one will bring. Will he win at his attempt ? Will Boris ignore it ? Will Labour then press to just take over Government, without an election, if he does ?

We've no way of knowing what'll happen. Tight deadlines, fractured voting, these confuse everything. We can only sit back and see what happens.

[Kathianne]

Parliament is currently in Summer Recess. It won't begin its next session until the beginning of September. Once we see September, things should move quickly.

The 'No Confidence' vote ... nobody can say what will happen with it. Additionally, since what Labour is hoping for is a means of either stopping or at least stalling Brexit, and the default exit date is 31st October ... they'll have to move as quickly as they dare to kickstart any such No Confidence process.

Problem: these are not normal times ! Normally, votes for motions could be expected to run along Party lines, which is how, with a majority Government, Government manages to effectively govern. BUT ... Brexit has fractured the normal 'voting lines'. There are rebels in each Party, some to varying degrees willing to defy their Party's insisted-upon voting direction. Corbyn has a mess on his hands, because he has no way of being sure anything like all of his MP's will be loyal.

Boris has the same problem, to a great extent: his Party, too, has its rebels. As of now, Boris (given a normal voting pattern) could be said to command a majority of ONE MP over the other Parties, but, with the rebel faction, this is rendered meaningless.

Another problem: would a rebel Conservative MP be so determined to defy Boris's leadership on this issue, that s/he would even vote for their own Government to be deposed ?? You'd normally not think so. Then again ... some have already defected from the Conservative Party (Anna Soubry is a notable example, currently now leading a pro-Remain newly-formed Party !).

So we're in an almighty mess. Corbyn will have no idea at all if he can get his No Confidence vote through. His additional problem may be to consider taking time out to marshall all possible support ... BUT ... can he spare any real time in doing that ? With only a 7-8 week window before the end of October, and the prospect that Boris (if he has to) MAY call an election, but time it so that election day is after Brexit (!!!) ...

Bottom line: any attempt at a No Confidence motion may or may not succeed, and there's no way of knowing what calling one will bring. Will he win at his attempt ? Will Boris ignore it ? Will Labour then press to just take over Government, without an election, if he does ?

We've no way of knowing what'll happen. Tight deadlines, fractured voting, these confuse everything. We can only sit back and see what happens.


Again, sorry for being ignorant. So, Parliament returns and Labour calls for a no confidence vote-that is an assumption. If it fails, fine, no election and Johnson goes ahead as he planned. If it succeeds, he can still go ahead as planned, just calling for an election after Brexit. No issues with that? Why wouldn't either result in Brexit going through one way or another?

[Drummond]

Again, sorry for being ignorant. So, Parliament returns and Labour calls for a no confidence vote-that is an assumption. If it fails, fine, no election and Johnson goes ahead as he planned. If it succeeds, he can still go ahead as planned, just calling for an election after Brexit. No issues with that? Why wouldn't either result in Brexit going through one way or another?

If it fails .. not necessarily fine at all. We'd be back to seeing the Commons in session.

There was one point during the last session when the Commons voted to order the Prime Minister to go to Brussels to ask for an extension to the Brexit deadline. Duly 'commanded' by that vote, (though in that instance she wanted that extension, herself) ... she 'obeyed' the Parliamentary mandate and made that request of them.

Boris might find himself facing another such vote, whether he wants to or not, and losing it. He'd then be mandated by Parliamentary vote to go to Brussels and totally defy the promise of '31st October, come-what-may' he's already given.

Here's a report of when Mrs May received her Commons 'command':

https://www.9news.com.au/world/brexit-uk-mps-to-vote-on-brexit-delay-theresa-may/73592c99-ebf5-4305-a82c-d72e3993af78


British MPs have voted to delay Brexit beyond the scheduled date of March 29 amid dramatic scenes in the House of Commons.

The vote came after Prime Minister Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement was rejected for the second time on Tuesday and MPs voted the following day to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

A motion in May's name, authorising her request for an extension to the two-year Article 50 negotiation process, was passed by 412 votes to 202 - a majority of 210.

Only a refusal by the leaders of the 27 remaining EU states to grant the UK an extension at a Brussels summit next week could now preserve the totemic date of March 29 as Brexit Day.

May has made clear that she will press her Agreement to a third "meaningful vote" in the Commons by March 20 in the hope of securing the support of MPs who rejected it by 230 votes in January and 149 earlier this week.

If she succeeds, she will go to Brussels next Thursday to request a short delay to a date no later than June 30, to give herself time to get her deal through the UK parliament.

Such a request could be tabled for a vote by any MP, however.

As for your other scenario, one of the No Confidence motion succeeding, an election is called, then the Brexit date passes before the election date ... yes, you'd think that would be the answer. Corbyn has anticipated that outcome, though, and has been trying to fight it, as follows:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/corbyn-johnson-plotting-abuse-of-power-to-force-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAFxv7t?li=AA59G2


Jeremy Corbyn has called on the UK’s most senior civil servant to intervene to stop Boris Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit in the middle of an election campaign, amid rising signs the country is heading for the polls again this autumn.

The Labour leader wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, accusing the prime minister of plotting an “unprecedented, unconstitutional and anti-democratic abuse of power”, after it emerged No 10 would be prepared to delay an election until immediately after 31 October if Johnson loses a no confidence vote among MPs.

In his letter, Corbyn demanded urgent clarification of the rules around purdah, which are meant to prevent the government taking major policy decisions during an election campaign.

I don't know if there's been a decision, one way or the other. It may be that the Summer Recess is delaying publication of the decision reached.

[Kathianne]

If it fails .. not necessarily fine at all. We'd be back to seeing the Commons in session.

There was one point during the last session when the Commons voted to order the Prime Minister to go to Brussels to ask for an extension to the Brexit deadline. Duly 'commanded' by that vote, (though in that instance she wanted that extension, herself) ... she 'obeyed' the Parliamentary mandate and made that request of them.

Boris might find himself facing another such vote, whether he wants to or not, and losing it. He'd then be mandated by Parliamentary vote to go to Brussels and totally defy the promise of '31st October, come-what-may' he's already given.

Here's a report of when Mrs May received her Commons 'command':

https://www.9news.com.au/world/brexit-uk-mps-to-vote-on-brexit-delay-theresa-may/73592c99-ebf5-4305-a82c-d72e3993af78



Such a request could be tabled for a vote by any MP, however.

As for your other scenario, one of the No Confidence motion succeeding, an election is called, then the Brexit date passes before the election date ... yes, you'd think that would be the answer. Corbyn has anticipated that outcome, though, and has been trying to fight it, as follows:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/corbyn-johnson-plotting-abuse-of-power-to-force-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAFxv7t?li=AA59G2



I don't know if there's been a decision, one way or the other. It may be that the Summer Recess is delaying publication of the decision reached.

So is it that your executive is subordinate to Parliament? That seems to be the case. There is no equality of the two?

[Drummond]

So is it that your executive is subordinate to Parliament? That seems to be the case. There is no equality of the two?

You have to remember that these are not normal times.

Normally, the governing Party would have a voting majority. Though, strictly theoretically, MP's can just table motions and have them voted on ... usually you don't have the more maverick phenomenon of everyone (from Party leaders downwards) tabling what they choose, and when they choose, and demanding a vote. There'd be no point, since anything the Government disagreed with, would automatically fail once voted on. Also, the Government would never get anything done !!!

Besides which - again, normally - you'd have Party discipline in place, controlling MP's actions along Party lines.

Therefore, it's normal to see the Government controlling the Parliamentary timetable, since they'd have the power to do it. It's procedurally the 'status quo'.

But these are not normal times. Where there's barely any majority, and it can be wiped out through rebel action at any time, and in any direction, motions tabled stand a chance of success where they wouldn't otherwise. So, Labour could, in theory, table wrecking motions and have them considered, then passed to a vote.

[I believe there's a little more to it than that, though ... the Speaker of the Commons has power of veto, though it can only be exercised on procedural grounds]

This is why Boris approached his job as PM from day one as an upbeat unifying figure. He literally had to. The rebel element in his own Party, if it can be, needs to be neutralised. Because if it isn't, you'll get a Theresa May Mk II situation, where Party discipline is dead, control lost, and MP's adopt the radical step of actually take over the motion timetabling in the Commons.

See this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/watch/commons-rebellion-as-mps-take-over-parliamentary-timetable/vp-BBVf31L


After another chaotic night in the House of Commons, MPs voted on an amendment to take control of the parliamentary timetable, in a move that hasn’t been seen in over a century. There were 29 Tory MPs who rebelled against their party by voting for the amendment. Now a series of votes will be taken in the House of Commons, starting on Wednesday, which will put forward amendments to the withdrawal agreement. They could include a second referendum or a Norway-style deal which would leave the UK in the customs union.

None of this is normal: it's very rare. But such has been the level of disciplinary breakdown and chaos that it happened, recently, thanks to Brexit.

Boris has inherited this potential for chaos from his predecessor. I think that sheer force of personality may see him through these times. We shall have to see.

[Noir]

So without a direct example, the best I can come up with is it would be like one of our Presidents refused to leave after their term was up and they lost an election? Is that what you are suggesting?

Its more like impeachment- the legislature can find the executive unfit to lead the country (quote literally ‘we have no confidence in the government). This should lead to the executive dissolving and then there is a chance for a new executive to be formed if the legislature agrees on who they have confidence to lead a new government then all’s fine. However if no new executive can be made then you go to general election, to vote in a new legislature from which a new executive can be formed.

For some reason Drummond sees the vote of no confidence that would likely lead to a general election as undemocratic, but thinks that the executive ignoring the no-confidence vote result until a time they chose to accept it is grand. (I’m sure you can imagine what Drummond would think of a liberal party were to lose a no-confidence vote, and refuse to accept it, and continue governing until they decided they wanted an election.)

[Noir]

Another option that Boris has (which seems to be a topic of conversation today due to some questionable polling) is that he can shut down parliament until after Brexit has happened. Without parliament sitting they are unable to have a vote and therefore can’t declare no confidence in him.

Again it may seem questionable in a democratic setting to shut down your legislature for a few months so the executive can fulfil their desires unchecked, but it doesn’t seem to be an unpopular option for those supporting Brexit.

[Kathianne]

Another option that Boris has (which seems to be a topic of conversation today due to some questionable polling) is that he can shut down parliament until after Brexit has happened. Without parliament sitting they are unable to have a vote and therefore can’t declare no confidence in him.

Again it may seem questionable in a democratic setting to shut down your legislature for a few months so the executive can fulfil their desires unchecked, but it doesn’t seem to be an unpopular option for those supporting Brexit.

Again, your system seems very difficult to keep in order, but that seems the least disruptive and on its face most legal sounding.

[Noir]

Again, your system seems very difficult to keep in order, but that seems the least disruptive and on its face most legal sounding.

It would certainly be the easiest way to get it all done - but it comes with problems:

Democracy - It’s hardly considerable a democratic move to just remove all power from MPs so you can get what you want.

Current bills - All current bills and legislation passing through parliament, whether at debating stage or with a house committee etc will be scraped.

Future Bills - No further government business can take place until Parliament is brought back, so once that door is closed there can be no more changes can be made for Brexit no matter how much that change could benefit the U.K.

Legality - it’s not totally clear if using these kinds of powers in this way are even legal, and a former conservative prime minister John Major has said he would request a judicial challenge if the call was made (though personally I think the executive would succeed in stamping over both the judiciary and legislature, as they are by far the post powerful branch of our government)

[Kathianne]

Alrighty then, enough of Brexit, which we do have another thread for; returning to rise of anti-Semetism, which is rising on both sides of the pond:
https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/08/12/three-men-attacked-on-their-way-to-synagogue-as-renewed-spate-of-assaults-targets-orthodox-jews-in-brooklyn/




AUGUST 12, 2019 1:48 PM 0
Three Men Attacked On Their Way to Synagogue, As Renewed Spate of Assaults Targets Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn
by David Gerstman

The Hate Crimes Unit of the New York City Police Department confirmed on Monday that it was investigating three assaults on orthodox Jewish men that took place earlier in the day.


The three men were attacked early on Monday morning by unknown assailants in Brooklyn while making their way to synagogue services. Several similar incidents have been reported in recent months, with assailants targeting the increasingly fearful orthodox Jewish communities in the borough.

...

The teenage attackers are still being sought. Video of the alleged assailants released by the Williamsburg Shomrim — a community security organization — showed up to four young black men gathering at a pedestrian crossing.


The NYPD Chief of Detectives, Dermot Shea, urged anyone with information on Monday’s attacks to come forward.


The string of assaults in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn came on the heels of what is being treated as an antisemitic assault on Friday night in Crown Heights for which one man was arrested and charged with a hate crime.

...

The police charged Dean with harassment, hate-crime assault, and criminal possession of a weapon.


The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement on Monday praising the NYPD for “swiftly apprehending” the suspect in the two Friday night assaults.


The statement noted that “in 2018, ADL recorded a 55% increase in anti-Semitic assaults in New York, relative to 2017.”

...

[Drummond]

Its more like impeachment- the legislature can find the executive unfit to lead the country (quote literally ‘we have no confidence in the government). This should lead to the executive dissolving and then there is a chance for a new executive to be formed if the legislature agrees on who they have confidence to lead a new government then all’s fine. However if no new executive can be made then you go to general election, to vote in a new legislature from which a new executive can be formed.

For some reason Drummond sees the vote of no confidence that would likely lead to a general election as undemocratic, but thinks that the executive ignoring the no-confidence vote result until a time they chose to accept it is grand. (I’m sure you can imagine what Drummond would think of a liberal party were to lose a no-confidence vote, and refuse to accept it, and continue governing until they decided they wanted an election.)

What do you mean, 'for some reason' ??

You well know what the reason is.

The most direct expression of democracy imaginable was seen in the UK in 2016. People throughout the UK voted for us to leave the EU !!

The mandate was given, it was clear and uncompromising. Yet, enormous efforts in Parliament have been made to disrupt, sideline, even derail, any moves made which help facilitate our successful exit.

It goes on even now, and will intensify.

Here's the latest example:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49320773


A legal challenge to try to prevent Boris Johnson shutting down parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit has begun in a Scottish court.

A group of MPs and peers wants the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule that suspending parliament to make the UK leave the EU without a deal is "unlawful and unconstitutional".

The prime minister has repeatedly refused to rule out such a move.

Lord Doherty agreed to hear arguments from both sides in September.

However he refused to accelerate the case through the Scottish courts, with the petitioners voicing fears that they may run out of time before the UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

The start of the legal action came as it emerged the UK government expects a group of MPs to try to block a no-deal Brexit by attempting to pass legislation when Parliament returns next month.

A No 10 source said they expected the challenge to come in the second week of September, when MPs are due to debate a report on Northern Ireland.

Many in Parliament are defying the 2016 Brexit vote, by any means they can. Boris is loyal to The Peoples' Wishes, and wants them achieved, with no more delaying of it. His opposition want to frustrate or nullify efforts to carry through what The People have mandated Parliament to do, and they're working flat out to see success in their efforts to achieve that !!

Surprise surprise, a great many of them are forms of Leftie (be it Labour, SNP, the softer version of it offered by the LibDems ...).

Now, here's a shock. I mean, who else would have the gall to claim that measures taken to stop their insult to democratic mandate, were of themselves 'undemocratic' !!

It Takes A Leftie.

... Eh, Noir ?

[Kathianne]

Up too in UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/07/antisemitic-incidents-uk-record-high-third-year-in-row-community-security-trust


Antisemitic incidents in UK at record high for third year in a row
Jewish leaders express dismay at figures showing more than 100 incidents a month in 2018
Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent


Thu 7 Feb 2019 07.58 EST First published on Wed 6 Feb 2019

Jewish community leaders and politicians have condemned a third successive year with a record number of antisemitic incidents.


Last year, 1,652 incidents, a 16% increase on 2017, were logged by the Community Security Trust, which has monitored antisemitism for 35 years and provides security to the UK Jewish community.


The CST said the spread of incidents throughout the year, with more than 100 a month, indicated a general atmosphere of intolerance and prejudice. However, there were also spikes related to events in Gaza and the argument over antisemitism in the Labour party.


The biggest number of incidents were in April and May (151 and 182 respectively), when scores of Palestinians were killed and hundreds injured in protests at the border fence between Gaza and Israel. May was the highest monthly total recorded since August 2014, when there was a major conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.


Advertisement
In total, there were 173 incidents recorded that explicitly showed anti-Israel motivation alongside antisemitism, the CST said.


It also recorded 148 incidents over the year that were explicitly related to arguments over alleged antisemitism in Labour, with 49 in August when there was significant media and political attention on the issue.


Last year, there was a big increase in the proportion of antisemitic incidents that used political or extremist imagery, from 30% to 45%. More than 450 incidents involved language or imagery relating to the far right or the Nazis.


Incidents involving social media made up 23% of the total, up from 18% the previous year. But the CST said the figures understated the scale of the problem as targeted campaigns, often involving hundreds or even thousands of tweets or posts, were logged as a single incident.




Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
The most common type of incident involved verbal antisemitic abuse directed at Jewish people, with 724 incidents. There was a fall of 17% in the number of violent antisemitic assaults, from 149 in 2017 to 123 last year, including one classified by the CST as “extreme violence”. There were 78 incidents of damage or desecration to Jewish property.


Three-quarters of the total number of incidents were recorded in Greater London and Greater Manchester, home to the two largest Jewish communities in the UK.


Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said the figures were very worrying for Jews living in the UK. “Overall, the UK remains a happy place for its Jewish community, but this reports shows that there is no room for complacency,” she said.


“Defeating the evil of antisemitism will take a concerted effort by the country’s political leadership, in all parties, and civil society.”


David Delew, the CST’s chief executive, said the figures reflected “deepening divides in our country and our politics. Jewish people are on the receiving end of this hatred, but it must not be left to us to tackle alone.”


A meeting with Jewish community leaders and the Home Office, chaired by the home secretary, Sajid Javid, is to discuss how to tackle antisemitism.


Javid said: “All acts of antisemitism are utterly despicable and have no place in society … We are doing all we can to rid society of these poisonous views.”


John Mann, the Labour chairman of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, said: “Sadly, these figures are not surprising; indeed, they are predictable … It is now time for everyone in parliament to stand up, be counted and to stand alongside the CST in the fight against antisemitism.”

[Drummond]

Up too in UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/07/antisemitic-incidents-uk-record-high-third-year-in-row-community-security-trust

That last paragraph of your link's text is a joke. That ..


John Mann, the Labour chairman of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, said: “Sadly, these figures are not surprising; indeed, they are predictable … It is now time for everyone in parliament to stand up, be counted and to stand alongside the CST in the fight against antisemitism.”

...... from someone who's part of the LABOUR Party ??

Clearly, Labour are trying to sanitise their image when statements like that one are issued.

Here's just one example of the true nature of Labour (there are, of course, many others !).

https://antisemitism.org.il/en/151132/


London – A Jordanian MP who has made virulently antisemitic comments was welcomed into the Palace of Westminster last week by a Labour Shadow Minister.

Yahya Al-Saud, who is notorious for praising terrorism in Palestine, was greeted at Portcullis House by Labour frontbencher Fabian Hamilton, shadow minister for peace and disarmament.

The controversial Jordanian was ushered into Parliament for a series of meetings, adding fresh fuel to claims that anti-Semitism is not being taken seriously by the party. His visit also prompted campaigners with the Jordanian Opposition Coalition to write to Home Secretary Sajid Javid, questioning why the MP was allowed entry into Britain.

The campaigners detailed a catalogue of antisemitic comments by Mr Al-Saud, including an open letter he sent in 2017 to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In it, he wrote: ‘What pains me is this Arab silence towards your [Netanyahu’s] childish behaviour, even though those Arabs could extract this Jewish tumour [Israel] which has occupied the body of Palestine.

‘Be a tyrant as you like [Netanyahu], I swear to almighty God, I and all Muslims know that God shall liberate Palestine at the hands of jihadis in Jerusalem… we are waiting for the day when trees shall call on us saying, “O you Muslim, here’s a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” ’

After meeting Leeds North East MP Mr Hamilton, Mr Al-Saud also spoke with Lib Dem and Scottish National parliamentarians.

Last night, a Labour party spokesman said: ‘As part of his shadow ministerial role, Fabian Hamilton met with a group of Jordanian MPs to discuss the Middle East peace process and Jordan’s role in the region.’

You invite a 'notorious' TERRORIST SUPPORTER AND ISRAEL-HATER into talks which have, as their focus, a 'Middle East peace process' .. ?? That's like inviting Hitler to speak at a meeting held by, and for, a pacifists' organisation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Note that the SNP and LibDems also took time out to consult with that individual. Lefties, all ......

[Kathianne]

That last paragraph of your link's text is a joke. That ..



...... from someone who's part of the LABOUR Party ??

Clearly, Labour are trying to sanitise their image when statements like that one are issued.

Here's just one example of the true nature of Labour (there are, of course, many others !).

https://antisemitism.org.il/en/151132/

Same here, the most vehement of the anti-semites are from the democrat party.

[Drummond]

Same here, the most vehement of the anti-semites are from the democrat party.

Exactly -- absolutely no surprise there.

I firmly believe that Leftie groupings across the world are just clones of each other. They only appear to have differences because they blend in to the political environments they operate within.

[STTAB]

I don't think anyone is surprised to learn that the Fourth Reich is at heart a Jew hate group.