• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Jeremy Corbyn: A very old fashioned breath of fresh air?

Is it just me or does all of this anti-Corbyn warnings coming from Tony Blair make Corbyn seem even more desirable?

If Blair hates Corbyn, I love Corbyn. I might even vote Labour again, which I vowed never to do again thanks to our Tony! If Tony hates him, I vote for him!
 
tony hates corbyn because he said on tv that he thinks the war was illegal and blair should be tried for war crimes. which would be good.
 
We're slaves to the central banking system and until we fuck that off then all governments along with most people will be in a state of perpetual debt..

True, but don't expect a bloke called Jeremy, who wears sandals, to effect much in the way of change. If (big if) he's elected at all.

Money is debt. Without debt there's no money.
 
It seems to me that for all the things Blair did once in power which were inconsistent with social democratic principles, the platform he stood on when becoming leader and when being elected PM was a modernising one, but still recognisably Labour.

This is why his recent interventions slagging off people who want a slightly left of centre leader are particularly obnoxious; they betray his trademark narcissism in all its glory -

"I, Tony, kicked away the social democratic ladder I climbed up on and my coruscating legacy will keep it down forever. You're going to have to find a different way up, you idiots."
 
Last edited:
True, but don't expect a bloke called Jeremy, who wears sandals, to effect much in the way of change. If (big if) he's elected at all.

Money is debt. Without debt there's no money.

Experience tells me i should be as cynical as you about him, but it wouldn't be learning if we weren't wrong at some point. I'm searching the horizon for a better candidate...

(i'm pretty sure the 'corbyn people' are on to the money=debt thingy (i'm sure you've already seen richard murphy's blog))
 
The Labour party had clearly reached a crisis point, and a new direction is needed (any direction would be better than the rudderless ship Ed Milliband sent into the unelectable abyss.) None of the other candidates are any different in their policies, even if at least 2 of them would be much better suited to the role of party leader, just in terms of charisma and public persona.

I don't see anything wrong in taking the Labour party back to it's true roots. Even if it may mean the party will split into 2 new camps; a proper Socialist party and a more right wing party that New Labour had become. A leader that really believes in his causes, and has been consistent in them for 30 years or more will probably increase Old Labours popularity.

UKIP and the SNP got so many votes because its' leadership were genuienely passionate about the things that they believed in, and they offered a clear alternative to the drab, all the same, centre right policies everyone else was offering. They succeeded in creating a buzz of excitement about things. I think Corbyn may well romp home with the leadership for the same reasons, because he offers something completely different, that is both brave and radical, and has got everyones attention (at least everyone who follows current affairs.)
 
^(in david attenbourough accent): 'and here we see, that rare beast, the lesser-spotted not-rabidly-anti-corbyn guardian article.'

They wheeled out auld one-eyed-wullie earlier as well, after days of hollywood-style 'coming soon' trailers... And they're gleefully flashing round a single poll which says when asked who would worsen labours election chances corbyn got 31% and burnham got 20% (forgetting to mention that corbyn got more than all the others in the question who would improve the chances) - plus the small fact that the question isn't 'which one's policies do you prefer?', but is aksing them to predict what everyone else will think (whether they factor in media bias or not). There was a poll the other day that showed people prefer corbyn to the other three across the electorate (even a good chunk of UKIPs) - obviously, that polls not as newsworthy.

And in in other news Lez Kindle said something about hard-working families. (i just wanted an excuse to say Lez Kindle really - it's almost as good as Barry Garlow or Rusty Springboard (though 'Live Kendoll' is good too)
 
it's so transparent the way they are wheeling out these widely loathed has beens to spread fear among people and none of them are offering anything other than platitudes and 'not corbyn'. It's almost as if they all have something to lose personally from someone like him breaking concensus and getting people actively involved in politics.

Tony blair I'm sure thought he had gotten away with his crimes until the last few weeks.

The way the media is portraying it all aswell, more than ever shows them up to be little more than PR outlets for the establishment class.
 
The BBC just told me, unbiasedly of course8), that Cooper has got it in the bag.. They even interviewed this little old lady, I don't recall them including the question they asked but anyway, old lady just said, " who is Jeremy Corbyn? I've never heard of him "....

I'm sure she was being flippant seeing as she was sat at a Labour leadership 'pick me, pick me' event. So old lady has an interest in politics and specifically who leads the Labour party so you'd assume with some certainty that she knows damn well who Jeremy is, she just doesn't care much for him.

So why did the BBC see the need to add in this completely useless, unless there's some biased :sus: little titbit??

I think I prefer Fox news actually, at least it's funny..
 
Another question they didn't foreground in that supposedly negative to corbyn poll was which of the leadership candidates you recognise - jeremy corbyn got the highest score - them filling the media with negative-slanted stories has backfired - i reckon the media will pull back a bit now and try and blank him, instead giving us loads of terrible benefits scrouonger/immigrant stories to try and boost the right wing again

(eg story today about the tories will send young people who haven't got a job to a jobseeker bootcamp ("right! fill in that CV again you 'orrible lot") - if they have no job at the end of it they stop benefits (it's insane how some people think that if only everyone could write a CV there'd be no unemployment (the tories don't really think that, they just know that it's better for the boss class if they can blame poorer people for their poverty, rather than a deliberate policy to use unemployment to control inflation/keep wages low))
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
Another question they didn't foreground in that supposedly negative to corbyn poll was which of the leadership candidates you recognise - jeremy corbyn got the highest score - them filling the media with negative-slanted stories has backfired - i reckon the media will pull back a bit now and try and blank him, instead giving us loads of terrible benefits scrouonger/immigrant stories to try and boost the right wing again

Cerys said:
it has warped public perceptions of reality and allowed extreme right wing views to flourish in the UK

terrible stories or extreme reality, make your mind up ladies

Vurtual said:
rather than a deliberate policy to use unemployment to control inflation/keep wages low

ironic, because that - along with destruction of national identity - is the main factor behind the elite's greasing of the bureaucratic wheels beneath this tide of economic and - the problematic portion at least - overwhelmingly islamic-derived immigration into western europe (and the west in general in fact). funny then, how even in this very thread - the left continue to deny any notion of a problem, whilst simultaneously bashing the conservatives for seeking to subjugate the working man (and, apparently - boost the far right, for some reason) by both casually and more covertly - actively encouraging via varying political means, mass unskilled, unwanted immigration into the country. yet another example of the liberal left's complete separation from any notion of actual reality.


to illustrate this i shall embark on a very hasty, very short presentation on the very allegorical case of sweden, the once thriving and happy liberal scandinavian nation is now a media-censored, self-loathing bastion of rape and violence with a rocketing population. dont believe me? look it up - sweden despite the rabid-left media doing its best to obfuscate the embarrassment - has shot up the charts to become the second highest rape capital IN THE WORLD. behind some tiny south african shithole. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our future in corbyn and the rest of the traitorous liberal scum's land of fear and loathing



2006 report by Ann-Christine Hjelm from karlstads university stating that in 2002, 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape in svea hovrätt, a court of appeals, were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.

a 1996 report by the swedish national council for crime prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from north africa (algeria, libya, morocco and tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as swedish men. the figures for men from iraq, bulgaria and romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from iran, peru, ecuador and bolivia, 10 times as prone as swedish men.

the recent tremendous rise of gang rape in sweden is culturally anomalous and again, despite the media censors' and legislators best efforts to obscure - makes sense only when viewed through a paradigm of the immigrant-swelled and modern, brave new sweden. of course, we ourselves have seen, rotherham et al (ad nauseam) this modus operandi utilised by the rapists born of the persuasion of the religion of peace



one infamous case



when a 29yr old woman was raped by eight men in a housing project for asylum seekers, in the small town of mariannelund. the woman; an acquaintance of the man - from Afghanistan - who had lived in sweden for a number of years. he had invited her to go out with him, she obliged. the afghan man took her to a refugee housing project and left her defenseless. during the night, she was raped repeatedly by the asylum seekers and when her "friend" returned, he raped her too. the following morning she managed to call the police - sweden's public prosecutor has called the incident "the worst crime of rape in swedish criminal history"



yet another unsavoury incident occurred in 2013, in the stockholm suburb of tensta. a 15-year-old girl was locked up while six men of foreign extraction had sex with her. the lower court convicted the six men but the court of appeals acquitted them because 'no violence had occurred', and because the court determined that the girl 'had not been in a defenseless position', we begin to see this curious habit of heaping blame on the victim. all in the name of white guilt and a naive determination that everyone in the world thinks just like you



and another;

link in original swedish

translated verbatim;

Six teenage boys previously been convicted of a high-profile gang rape in Tensta in March freed now of the Svea Court of Appeal. The girl was not in a helpless state, according to Svea Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal judgment noted a distinct shift in the perception of the credibility of the parties. Solna District Court found the girl's story entirely credible and boys' stories less credible because they were changed during the proceedings,.

The prosecution felt that the men should be sentenced for aggravated rape.

- I pleaded for a conviction for rape and I felt that there was room for a conviction in this case, says Caroline Eklund prosecutor.

Svea Court of Appeal believes instead that it is not strange that the boys lied initially, claiming that they have not even been in the apartment party where the alleged rape occurred. This is because they knew that one of their friends had already been arrested and that therefore they were afraid that they would be accused of something.

The girl is seen as credible also from the Court of Appeal, which still question how accurate observations she could do in a dark room where people she did not know already came and went. The right therefore calls for caution in assessing the girl's data.

That which frees the boys from crime is commercial reasoning concerning the legal concept helpless state.

The prosecution has argued that the girl was in such due to, among other things, the boys' numerical superiority and pushy behavior.It should have done that the girl was afraid, despite the lack of threat or violence.

- When we brought charges, we felt that there was room in the legal text that would be treated as helpless state. But the Court of Appeal has argued that this is not so in a clear way, says Eklund prosecutor.

But based on what the law was before sharpening 1 July 2013 the Court of Appeal did not find that the girl had been in a helpless state. The Court believes that there is no evidence that she was afraid of being beaten or get hurt in other ways if she said no to the boys. A friend who recently found himself in the same room and "making out on a bed" saying no to sex and got his No. respected.

Auditors writes that the girl "can be said to have been in a very precarious situation," but in the sense of the legal text, it is not enough to judge the five of the boys to rape and the sixth for attempted rape.

The boys can not be tried for milder offense of sexual assault since this requires that the prosecutor could prove that they had "the intent to harass the victim in a way that is likely to violate her sexual integrity"




in february of this year, all major swedish media reported on a brutal gang rape on board the finnish ferry amorella, running between stockholm and abo in finland. glaring headlines told readers that the perpetrators were swedish:

"Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry" (Dagens Nyheter).
"Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin" (Aftonbladet).
"Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry" (Expressen).
"Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry" (TT – the Swedish News Agency).


on closer inspection, however - turns out seven of the eight suspects were somalis and one iraqi. none of them had swedish citizenship, so they were not even swedish in that sense - i.e blatant fabrication by the leftist media intended to deceive and defame those of their own culture. according to witnesses, the group of men had been scouring the ferry looking for sex. police released four of them though they remain suspects. whereas four - all somalis - were detained in custody.

an internet radio station called granskning sverige contacted the mainstream newspapers aftonposten and expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as 'swedish men' when they were in actual fact somalis. the journalists replied 'that is irrelevant' and were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn swedish women to stay away from certain environments and the men within them. one of the journalists asked why that should be their responsibility. the reporter from granskning sverige responded with; 'if the women knew, then perhaps they would have stayed away from these men and avoided being raped," whereupon our nice liberal journalist friend slammed down the phone.

yet depressingly, with the type of bizarrely alarmist media that refers to the uk independence party as the 'far right' - we are very much on the path towards an all too similar predicament.


progress though, eh?
go corbyn
 
further reading from source material for the few that may be interested;


the swedish left's sacrifice of women on the altar of political correctness

Female sacrifice hasn’t ended. It has just been transferred from the altars of pagan gods to that of political correctness, and the rending of bodies takes a back seat to the searing of souls.

If you had to pick a contender for rape capital of the world, Sweden wouldn’t likely come to mind. Yet it now has the second-highest “official” rape rate of any country. It’s 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants is five times the United States’ rate and is only surpassed by Lesotho, a tiny nation in the middle of southern Africa.

It wasn’t always this way. Once an extremely safe land, violent crime in Sweden has increased 300 percent since 1975. That year, write Scandinavian journalists Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard, “421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.” Why is 1975 significant?

Because that’s the year the Swedish government decided to adopt an immigration regime that would transform Sweden into a “multicultural” country.

This is also significant because 77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, “foreigner” is generally synonymous with "immigrant from Muslim country"). And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
Moreover, writes Carlqvist and Hedegaard, “A new trend reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.” The last line gets at a different trend: A refusal to investigate the nature of crime in Sweden for fear that the truth will contradict multiculturalist dogma. This is similar to Baltimore, Maryland, where violent crime is “down” — because the authorities have simply stopped arresting many criminals.

Carlqvist and Hedegaard then reported on a sexual assault that Sweden's public prosecutor called “the worst crime of rape in Swedish criminal history,” a brutal 2012 gang rape of a 30-year old woman by eight "foreign" men. The punishment? Seven of the perpetrators will likely serve just over 3.5 years in prison, Carlqvist and Hedegaard tell us (they provided no information on the eighth).

Yet, incredibly, this might be considered a firm hand in Sweden. The journalists also report, “In cases of gang rape, culprits and victims are most often young and in almost every case, the perpetrators are of immigrant background, mostly from Muslim countries. In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists. Several times the courts have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted sex with six, seven or eight men.”

As an example, after the 2013 gang rape of a 15-year-old girl in a Stockholm suburb, a lower court convicted the six “foreign” perpetrators, but, write Carlqvist and Hedegaard, “the court of appeals acquitted them because no violence had occurred, and because the court determined that the girl ‘had not been in a defenseless position.’”

Such rulings should raise eyebrows and ire anywhere, but they’re especially profound in Sweden. A land of über-feminism, the nation’s Left Party (its actual name) proposed in 2004 what was called the “Man Tax,” a special levy on men to compensate society for the cost of “male violence.” Some years before there was a story about another Swedish feminist crusade: an effort to compel boys and men to sit down while urinating (seriously), in the thinking that standing up during the act was symbolic of male dominance. Before you laugh, know that the urinals had been removed from one elementary school on this basis.

The point is that Sweden is a country where men are now often guilty until proven innocent — except in one situation. There is a politically correct hierarchy of “victim” groups, and, it appears, “Muslim” trumps “female.” This explains why rape in Sweden is both exaggerated and covered up. As to the former, Carlqvist and Hedegaard cite the government’s claim that “the law has been changed so that more sexual offences are now classed as rape” as a specious excuse for the climb in the rape rate. Yet in deference to feminism, Sweden did long ago expand the definition of rape beyond reason. This brings us to the cover-up: This policy change is used to explain away the Muslim factor in sexual attack, which finds its roots, says a critic, “in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings.”

To illustrate the zeal for effecting the cover-up, note that this critic — a local Sweden Democrat Party politician named Michael Hess — was convicted of the hate-speech charge "denigration of ethnic groups" for making his claim. It didn’t matter that he has lived in Muslim countries and that at his trial he presented evidence on the Sharia law position on rape; the court claimed, reports Dispatch International, “that the question of whether or not Michael Hess's pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case.”

In fact, the truth seems very inconvenient for Sweden’s multiculturalist program. So much so, that the nation’s complicit media will tell bold-faced lies to advance it. For example, Carlqvist and Hedegaard point out that a brutal gang rape aboard a Finnish ferry this month was reported by the following newspapers thus:

• "Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry" (Dagens Nyheter).

• "Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin" (Aftonbladet).

• "Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry" (Expressen).

• "Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry" (TT – the Swedish News Agency).

The problem? All the suspects were Muslim — and all were foreign nationals, having no Swedish citizenship. This didn’t stop the media from turning them into “honorary Swedes,” however.

Oh, when journalists from Aftonposten and Expressen were asked by Internet radio station Granskning Sverige about this blatantly dishonest reportage, they said it was “irrelevant” and that they were “offended” at the suggestion they had a responsibility to tell women the truth. As Carlqvist and Hedegaard wrote:

One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.

"If the women knew, then perhaps they would have stayed away from these men and avoided being raped," said the reporter from Granskning Sverige. Whereupon the journalist slammed down the phone.

Perhaps, though, they fear going the way of Ingrid Carlqvist. She left Sweden some years ago. Why? Because when you oppose immigration in her nation, as she explained, others will “point at you and say you are a racist; then you will have no job, no career, you might lose your family. You will have no future.”

And if she ever wants to come back, she may have to play by different rules. After all, as multiculturalist social engineer and Social Democrat politician Mona Sahlin put it in 2001, “the Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”
 
Last edited:
Encouraging mass immigration is neoliberal policy. If the main function of immigration is for people to have to move to where the work is, lowering wages in a race to the bottom, i absolutely don't agree with it. If it's about freedom to move where you want, i do - most people would rather stay in the country they're from, if the economic/political situation allowed it. The obvious answer is - share the wealth of the world better. Is it really the left you're complaining about, or the hollowed out left that actually has power and props up neoliberalism? You know, like the difference between Blair and Corbyn

Neoliberalism plays the right and left against each other: it's the corporate cunts at the top of society (very much not left wing (or traditional conservative)) that want mass immigration and 'globalisation'; mostly to keep downward pressure on wages, but in no small part to wind up the local population, threaten national identities/stir up nationalism and cause division (in the manner many right wing people blame on the so-called 'left' and multiculturalism); it allows the right to use xenophopbia to keep people fighting each other rather than looking up at the randian overlords that actually cause the problems that result in the immigration.

Read up on Bob Crow's attitude to immigration and the EU - that's where i am. As for Corbyn, he's said that we need to work towards improving workers rights across europe and redistribute so people don't need to move around to get a decent wage; and also would work against the international meddling in other people's countries and propping up dictators which is the only way to stop the flow of people from the global south. I won't deny that too much immigration causes social issues - but these can be vastly reduced by creating needed infrastructure as and when it's needed (this goes whether it's immigrants causing the need or not). Either way, surely you could agree it's better to stop the source of the flow (global inequality) - it actually makes better economic sense to share (unless you're an oligarch of course).

I won't bother responding to the anecdotes because they seem to be conflating islam with sex crime (which we could never do with christianity...). (though i will say that while sweden still retains a more social democratic division of resources, the 'left' there is firmly neoliberal (find me a 'left' in europe that isn't (syriza aside (maybe))

...

EDIT: Just for a bit of balance, here's an example of 'islam' not being a bunch of mindless rapist thugs (though maybe you're not as 'advanced' as the islams (or the pope) and you don't believe in climate change (sorry if this stereotype of the right doesn't apply :))

Islamic scholars from around the world have endorsed a declaration calling on nations to phase out greenhouse gas emissions and switch to 100% renewable energy.

The Islamic Declaration on Climate Change will be seen as the religion's major contribution ahead of the UN climate talks in Paris this December.

Released during a two-day symposium on Islam and climate change in Istanbul, the declaration lays out why Muslims should be concerned about the planet, and sets out a series of demands to world leaders and the business community.

It is the second major intervention to have emerged from the faith community this year, after Pope Francis released his encyclical on climate change and the environment in June.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/08/islam-climate-declaration-calls-for-fossil-fuel-phase-out/
 
Last edited:
Jeremy Corbyn launches Scathing Attack on Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has joined the long list of prominent Labour politicians attacking the leadership credentials of Jeremy Corbyn.

“Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t understand big business” said Jeremy Corbyn. “He has no clue how the likes of Amazon, Google, Starbucks can make super profits but pay no tax. He doesn’t get why zero hours contracts and the stripping away people’s self worth are necessary to make the economy function.”

“Corbyn’s financial illiteracy is so great he has the quaint notion banks should prudently serve their customers rather than gamble everything on sub-prime Brazilian coffee derivatives. He naively thinks the government could run trains better than Richard Branson, with less annoying hair. He would squander precious energy resources on keeping pensioners warm.”

“Jeremy just doesn’t make an effort with the media. He’s never attended one of Rupert Murdoch’s parties, much less had a sleepover with Wendi. He misses valuable photo opportunities because he’s wasting time speaking in Town Halls. Jeremy Corbyn can’t even get good press in the Guardian” said Corbyn.

Corbyn concluded by saying he ‘would not serve’ under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

“The man couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery, hell, Jeremy Corbyn probably couldn’t even organise an oil war in the Middle East” said Jeremy Corbyn.
 
I'm not sure if his policies will bode well for the economy.. but what is the economy? Bull crap.

No idea but tend to agree mostly with the latter sentence. Things can't get all that much worse I would think... actually I'm sure they could but definitely worth risking given the way both Tories and "New" Labour have taken the piss and run things into the ground over decades.

It seems "35 economists" like Corbyn's economic ideas enough to have signed an open letter... I presume there are more than 35 economists in the country though so not sure how much that really says.

The Indie has another 15 Good Things about Corbyn for perusal (the above was the 16th). I'm generally in favour of the chap from what I've seen. I'd actually vote Labour if they kept in a reasonable amount of the kinda stuff he's talking about. The other candidates are universally abominable and just more of the same old Blairite horridness I'd frankly written Labour off completely for seemingly being completely enthralled to.
 
If anyone's interested enough, it's worth reading George Monbiot's The Age of Conscent to get a digestible view of the global banking and world business organisation situation as is, and how it affects us, quite pertinently now :|

http://www.monbiot.com/books/the-age-of-consent/

It's a wee book, the first few chapters take a bit of time to get into, but once you realise you are reading a kinda manifesto you'll gobble it up :D




Information for the head %)
 
Cheers, I'll get round to that - i really like monbiots writing style and the content mostly. I disagree strongly with his stance on nuclear power and on branding certain people genocide deniers for (seems to me) accurate reporting (herman and peterson on srebrenica and rwanda; even chomsky in so many words) - even so i love most of his stuff i've read (eg some great articles on the city of london).

His article on corbyn was good. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream
 
Last edited:
He's announced he will officially apologise on labours behalf for the iraq war and the deception around it, if he is elected. This guy is exactly what the country needs right now. I am amazed the leadership contest takes so long though.
 
Top