The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)
This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Friday, 2 June 2017

On Jeremy Corbyn's Own Words




On the 9th of June, 2017, Jeremy Corbyn may well be the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Mr Corbyn is - as most of his supporters put it - a radical socialist. He has also said that he much admires Marx. However, Corbyn isn't a Marxist revolutionary and it would be silly to say that he is. He's not, strictly speaking, a revolutionary for the simple reason that he's been embedded in Britain's parliamentary system since 1983. In other words, Corbyn isn't agitating for a violent revolution..

On the theme of violence. In the 1970s and 80s, Corbyn was a very strong supporter of the IRA. Corbyn also - until very recently (2016) - led the Stop the War Coalition; whose other leaders and activists are all Trotskyists or communists. (The StWC also has strong links to Iran's theocracy via Iran's state-owned Press TV and in various other ways.)

Corbyn has always been on the Left of the Labour Party. He sees most - or even all - “Tories” as evil beings; though, as a radical socialist, he'll rarely use the word “evil”. He's also been fighting against capitalism for over fifty years.

In terms of what follows. All the sections below are based on quotations from Corbyn himself. They date date back to the early 1980s and forward to 2017. Many quotes are from Hansard's records of House of Commons speeches. Many of the other quotes aren't as detailed as Corbyn's speeches. (Some are off-the-cuff.) What they all show is that Corbyn believes more or less exactly the same today as he believed back in 1984. Indeed his very strong and deeply embedded socialist beliefs can be traced back to 1966; when he was only 16 years old.

This is the main reason why Corbyn's supporters say that he is “principled”. Presumably that's because Corbyn has more or less the same beliefs today as he had in the 1970s and 1980s. Others, and for exactly the same reason, would see him as being deeply dogmatic and rigidly ideological.

The following sections can be found in this piece:

I) Corbyn on What's Radical
II) Corbyn on the Common Good
III) Corbyn on Collectivism
IV) Corbyn on Democracy
V) Corbyn on His Socialist Utopia
VI) Corbyn on Clause Four/State Ownership
VII) Corbyn on Immigration
VIII) Corbyn on War and Nuclear Weapons
IX) Corbyn on the IRA
X) Corbyn on Karl Marx
XI) Corbyn on Fidel Castro
XII) Corbyn on Donald Trump
XIII) Corbyn on the Soviet Union

Jeremy Corbyn on What's Radical


In August 2015, Jeremy Corbyn said that “[w]e can win an awful lot of people into the political spectrum, by offering something that is radical”.

A Labour leader using the word “radical” is nothing new. It's been used many times before by virtually every Labour Party – usually just before an election. It was even used by Tony Blair and his supporters. Mr Blair (in 1997), for example, said: “I am going to be a lot more radical in government than people think.” And even the Telegraph once had the following as a headline: 'Margaret Thatcher: Radical visionary who rescued Britain'.

Of course many socialists think that socialism is by definition radical; rather than the outdated 19th-century political religion (with totalitarian components added to it in the first half of the 20th century) that it is.

It's also strange that Corbyn believes that he'll “win an awful lot of people into the political spectrum” by being radical. I would say that the exact opposite is largely the case. Corbyn attracts mainly middle-class/professional Marxists, Trotskyists and communists with his talk of being radical. Most other people are frightened off by his words. And that includes the average Labour Party supporter. They know, as do many others, that radicalism and revolution usually lead to hell – to oppression, poverty, bread-cues, a police state and a (universal and strengthened) “no platform” policy.

In any case, you can take a radical position on almost anything. (You can have a radical position on the price of bread.) It's therefore meaningless to talk of being radical in the abstract. So that means that Corbyn is radical in very specific ways. That is, he's offering the British public radical socialism. And isn't radical socialism another name for communism?

Corbyn on the Common Good

In September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn sermonised to a socialist congregation and told it that he believed that “the common good is the aspiration of all of us”. Actually, Corbyn most definitely does not believe that. He doesn't believe, for example, that Tory supporters and leaders believe “the common good is the aspiration of all of us”. ( As he's stated countless times!) He doesn't believe that any right-winger believes this.

In any case, the phrase the common good is so damn vague. (“Soundbite” - that cliché from the Tony Blair era - aptly describes it.) It's like saying, “Peace and love is the aspiration of all us.” Or, “Not killing little children is the aspiration of us all.”

Virtually every political party has favoured the common good. Tories favour the common good. Corbyn's socialists, of course, tell us that Tories favour the common bad. Even the Nazis favoured the common good. Sure, many sections of society were excluded from the National Socialist common good; yet exactly is the same is true of Corbyn's International Socialist common good. That means that, in all cases, the common good is always bad for some - or even many - sections of society. In Corbyn's case, it will be good for socialists, immigrants, Muslims, “innocent” terrorists, and whatnot. It'll be bad for conservatives, “Tories”, Ukip supporters, capitalists, “bigots”, patriots, “reactionaries”, nationalists, the entire white (“right-wing”?) working class, businesses, "racists", "neoliberals", fox-hunters, Britain First, the EDL, etc.

Corbyn also said, “Let's defend the principle of a society that cares for everyone and everyone cares for everyone else.” Who could argue with that? (It's like the well-known phrase “all for one and one for all”.) Not even Corbyn's evil Tories would disagree with it – at least not out loud. Indeed Pol Pot or Jack the Ripper would never have said, Let's defend the principle of a society that doesn't care for anyone and no one cares for anyone else. However, Corbyn and socialists do believe that Tories and literally all right-wingers only care for themselves. How do I know that? Partly because I've heard it stated very many times by many pious Corbynites.

CORBYN ON SOCIALIST COLLECTIVISM


As a result of all this, Jeremy Corbyn certainly doesn't deny that he's an old-style collectivist. He says, for example, that the “narrative that only the individual matters” is wrong. It's also wrong to believe that “the collective is irrelevant”. Talk of “the collective” isn't a bad thing because it's all about “the common good”; which, as we've seen, is an “aspiration of all of us”.

Not many people in politics have ever claimed that “only the individual matters” - not even Tories or capitalists. There's a huge difference between believing that individuals (as individuals) matter; and also believing that only the individual matters. You can believe that the individual (as an individual) matters and also believe that individuals (taken in groups) matter. Of course there are indeed people who believe that only the individual matters. (Some people are egoists or even solipsists.) However, stressing the importance of the individual (as opposed to the often inhuman and abstract Collective) is a political position based on personal freedom, dignity and individuality. It's not part of “neoliberalism's self-serving creed” or an example of unholy (i.e., non-socialist) “selfishness”.

When Margaret Thatcher said (in an 1987 interview in Women's Own that “society doesn't exist”; she added that “personal responsibility and hard work” also exist. (As you'll know, other statements in that “infamous interview” are rarely – if ever - quoted.) More relevantly, she also said that “there are individual men and women and there are families”. In other words, socialists talk of society as if it's an abstract (platonic) object – namely, Society.

Many critics of society (whatever they take it to be) more or less imply - though don't out-rightly say - the following:

Society isn't me. It's something out there and it should solve all my problems!

If Thatcher's take on society is still deemed to be “selfish” or “neoliberal”, then that's fair enough. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that her position isn't the one that's advanced by socialists. That's because the socialist position on Thatcher's words is absurd and rhetorical. After all, if taken literally, the idea that society doesn't exist doesn't even makes sense! And a position that's effectively meaningless, can't be deemed to be either immoral or moral. Thatcher, after all, did believe in society. She believed in churches, families, local and national institutions, voluntary groups, charities, etc. (Yes, these are many of the things that socialists hate simply because they're not under their political control.) It's just that she didn't believe in the socialist state and the socialist control of society. It was socialism she was arguing against – not society. Consequently, it's well to realise that socialists fuse society with (state) socialism; as well as with socialist control.

To socialists, society means the socialist state, socialist councils, socialist parties, socialist MPs, socialist activists, socialist ideology, socialist values, socialist history and socialist institutions. In other words:

i) Jeremy Corbyn's “the collective” glides smoothly and quickly into political collectivism.

ii) Political collectivism (as embodied in the socialist state) glides smoothly and quickly into totalitarianism, censorship, a national/total “no platform” policy against all political dissidents, a police state, the Gulag, psychiatric treatment for political heretics. (That is, for all “bigots”, “racists”, “fascists”, “Nazis”, “neoliberals”, “far Right”, “Tory scum”, “Blairite vermin”, the “populist Right”, the “alt-Right”, “knuckle-draggers”, “Nazis in suits”, “xenophobes”, “Islamophobes”, “haters”, and so on.)

The possible end of this is that the Leader, State and the Party are seen to personify the Collective. And considering the sycophancy of Corbyn's fans, one can see him achieving sainthood (like Stalin, Chairmen Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and so on before him) were he too to become leader.

Corbyn on Democracy

In addition, whenever Corbyn talks about democracy, you can guarantee that he means socialist democracy; or his very particular socialist version of democracy. He also has very specific socialist beneficiaries of democracy in mind. But that's not democracy, is it? Like free speech, it's got to be for everyone – even for the evil Right. Not so with Corbyn and the Trotskyist/communist Left generally.

Let's take a specific example of the Corbynite take on democracy. Corbyn said:

The overwhelming and overriding demand is for greater democracy, and some form of public accountability and control of the police force in London.”

Corbyn meant that socialist councils and activists should have control over the police; not the “25,000 people” he referred to. Of course Marxist/socialist graduates and professionals would be the Voice (or Vanguard) of those 25,000 people. So that's the same thing, isn't it? At least it was according to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

Corbyn also said that “the most important matter is to have democratic control of the police forces in this country”. What he meant is socialist control; or, once in power, socialist state control. That is, he didn't mean the “people's control” or “people power”. He wants the socialist Vanguard (of the people) to have control. That's a very different thing; as can be seen when looking at every socialist regime that ever existed in the 20th century. (By the way, Scandinavian countries aren't socialist countries, as many Corbynites claim; they're “social democracies” with very large segments of private enterprise.)

Corbyn also talked about “his Government and this kind of attack on democracy”. Here again it must be stressed that Marxist socialists like Corbyn have an extremely specific take on democracy. Corbyn then explained that this socialist position on democracy “will lead to the election of a Labour Government committed to the restoration of genuine local democracy”. It must be said that “genuine local democracy” simply means socialist councils carrying out socialist measures which are obediently in line with socialist political theology.

Corbyn on His Socialist Utopia



Many of Corbyn's speeches in the House of Commons could have been given by Lenin or Trotsky (minus a few local details). They have all the Manichean demagoguery of these communists. Clearly, Corbyn, as a socialist, has always been at war with “capitalist democracy” - even if he uses non-socialist democracy to advance socialism (as a kind of Gramscian). Take this example of Corbyn's socialist rhetoric:

The Government, in their obsession with market forces and the triumph of the rich over the poor, are creating a hobo society. That is all they are trying to do with their housing policies... nothing but homelessness and exploitation for the unemployed, the poor and the homeless.”

You can rewrite this in a manner which would also befit Corbyn:

The socialist Government, in their obsession with radical socialism and the triumph of the workers over the capitalists, has created a collectivised and conformist society. It's proposing a return to the socialism of the Soviet Union or Chairman Mao's China.... nothing but state power and the exploitation for the unemployed and the poor to advance the socialist Party and socialist State.

The quote from Corbyn is Manichean. Indeed there's been a Manichean strain running through the entire history of socialism; though this is even truer of Marxist socialism. It's all about Good versus Evil. Socialists versus everyone else.

In addition, implicit in almost everything Jeremy Corbyn says are two promises – both of which are largely unstated. One, Corbyn is promising a Year Zero. Two, after that Year Zero, there will be a socialist Utopia. Of course a 21st century socialist using the word “utopia” would be embarrassing; as would be using the words “class war” or even the words “Clause Four”.

Thus, on the 11th of September, 2015 (in his “victory speech”), Jeremy Corbyn said:

... it doesn't have to be unfair, poverty isn't inevitable, things can and they will change. Thank you very much.”

It's true that, in terms of necessity, society doesn't “have to be unfair”. Nonetheless, every society that's ever existed (especially socialist ones) has been unfair. Now statements such as that usually evoke the accusation that the person who states them is a “defender of the status quo” or a “reactionary”. Not at all: I'm all for change in the right direction. What I'm very much against is the promise that a society can be created in which there is no unfairness, no (relative) poverty, etc. Utopianism is what I'm against. And I'm against it because it's dangerous. All sorts of demagogues have promised utopia in the past. Sure, hardly any of them used the exact word “utopia” (or even “workers' paradise”). Nonetheless, utopia and its possibility were always the hidden subtext of what they had to say.

Before a political party or leader has power, of course, it can literally promise anything. After power, things are very different. Reality kicks in. The boundless number of variables that impact on one's promises make themselves known. And then politicians, as Corbyn will inevitably do, start to backtrack on some of their promises. Either that or disregard them altogether without so much as an apology.

Corbyn on Clause Four/State Ownership


In 2015 Corbyn was explicit about brining back Clause Four. That is, the “state ownership of the means of production” (not Corbyn's own words). He said:

I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that's restoring the Clause Four as it was originally written or it's a different one, but I think we shouldn't shy away from public participation, public investment in industry, I would want us to have a set of objectives which does include public ownership of some necessary things such as rail.”

Notice how Corbyn cleverly uses the word “public” when he really means “state”. Actually, he means a “socialist state” run by none other than Corbyn himself. After all, how, exactly, is there “public investment in industry”? It's true that the public pays the taxes and then the government invests those taxes. But the words “public investment in industry” sound so much better, don't they? It's a cross between “workers' control” and Corbyn's “public participation”. It's neither of these things. What would Corbyn's public participation amount to? Paying taxes and nothing more? “Having a say” exclusively through a socialist MP and then through a socialist Prime Minister? Is that all public participation amounts to?

Corbyn rounds of his state-control fest by saying that he's talking about the “public ownership of some necessary things such as rail”. Now what, exactly, are “necessary things”? He includes rail; though what about water, electricity, housing, etc.? They're equally necessary things. No less necessary than rail. In addition, a list of what's deemed necessary before an election would expand after Corbyn's election. A small list of necessary things will soon become a large list of state-owned things. So what about “the media”, so hated by Corbyn and all socialists? Will he take control of some or even all of the media? What about taking private schools into state ownership? What about state ownership of the human mind itself?

Corbyn on Immigration

As with everything else, Jeremy Corbyn believes that literally everything bad is the fault of “capitalist democracy”. Or, in this case, with “unscrupulous employers”. Mass immigration and even open borders don't create any problems whatsoever – only “capitalism's failures” do.

Thus when Corbyn (in June 2016) was asked about the problems of immigration, he had this to say on the virtues of staying in the European Union:

Let's not turn this into blaming people who travel, work and migrate around Europe, let's instead ensure governments respond to the needs of all communities and that unscrupulous employers that are grossly exploiting migrant workers and trying to limit their rights need to be dealt with.”

In other words, with some very neat steps, he completely changed the subject. The subject for Corbyn and other socialists (as ever) isn't mass immigration, dozens of Muslim ghettos, frequent terrorism in Europe, indigenous unemployment, Muslim rape-gangs, possible civil war in the future and falling wages because of immigrants. The problems are “unscrupulous employers” and the lack of “rights” for immigrants. Indeed, as an International Socialist and therefore a person who believes in open borders, how can there ever be a problem with immigrants? There can only be a problem with our political system, closed borders and employers.

Like the anti-white racist Diane Abbott, Corbyn believes that to simply open one's mouth about immigration is to be a racist. Or, in Corbyn's own words, “the usual racist pap about immigration causing problems and pretending that the unemployment figures... were caused by immigration”.

If racists are dumb because they argue that all things bad are created by immigration. Then are socialists also dumb when they say that nothing bad can come from (mass) immigration? Take your pick and make sure you base it on your political biases.

Corbyn also becomes more extreme and generalised. He said that there are no “cultural changes that have taken place because of immigration [which are] are unacceptable”. Really? Where does Corbyn live? Where did he live as a kid?

And then - when responding to someone who dared to bring up immigration - Corbyn swoons in his own piety and grandstanding anti-racism when he tells us:

I find his remarks offensive and unacceptable, as do people... who are not prepared to put up with that kind of bigotry.”

Corbyn on War and Nuclear Weapons


Jeremy Corbyn feigns pacifism. As a fan of Marx, Lenin, Castro, Mao, the Soviet Union, Che Guevara, Chairman Mao, Venezuelan socialism (he praised Hugo Chavez), the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, we should doubt his words.

As a socialist, he obviously believes that capitalism is literally the cause of all wars. And that's why he moved from saying the following (to CNN): “Going to war creates a , legacy of bitterness and problems...” To saying this:

... with grotesque levels of global inequality, grotesque threats to our environment all around the world.... those people don't end up in poverty, in refugee camps, wasting their lives away.”

The utopian solution to all wars is, of course, global socialism. In other words, the dismantling of capitalism and parliamentary democracy. Sure, Corbyn utilises parliamentary democracy today; though considering his fierce criticisms of it (alongside his collectivist and supposedly worker-led models of democracy), he would like to fundamentally alter it.

Corbyn also says that “[n]uclear weapons are not a defence”. Yet it can be argued that they have been a defence for the last 65 years or so. No state has attacked the United Kingdom in that time. Some on the Left (though not Corbyn!) say that the European Union and United Nations have “secured the peace”. That's not the case in Europe since we only joined the Common Market in 1973/5. (The Single European Act dates back to 1987.) And, in global terms, the UN has often been a complete failure.

In any case, there's a very good chance that Corbyn hasn't always been against nuclear weapons. For example, many Leftists/Marxists/communists like Corbyn weren't against the Soviet Union having nuclear weapons in the past. Indeed, infamously, many socialist/communist members of CND - during the 1950s, 60s and beyond - weren't against nuclear weapons at all. They were against Western “capitalist states” having them. They were all in favour of the Soviet Union having them.

Like the Stop the War Coalition (StWC), which Corbyn led until 2016 (even after he became Deputy Prime Minister): it isn't against war either. It's against wars fought by Western “capitalist states” for “imperialist ends”. The StWC, and therefore Corbyn, is in favour of wars fought by socialists or communist states and wars fought by “national liberation movements” (such as, in the past, the IRA). Thus it's who's doing the fighting that determines Corbyn and StWC's position on war.

To repeat, Corbyn isn't necessarily – or at all – against nuclear weapons. He's against a capitalist state - the United Kingdom - having them. That's not a pacifist position. That's not the position of a “man of peace”.

So Corbyn also said that he

would not take a decision that kills millions of people, I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with international relations”.

Corbyn is missing the point about nuclear weapons. That is, because of mutually-assured destruction, and nuclear deterrence generally, no leader has ever needed to “kill millions of people”; at least not for the last 60 years or so. Thus his words are cheap rhetoric under the guise of pacifism. And from a Marxist socialist, this stuff about peace really is rich.

Jeremy Corbyn on the IRA



Most - though not all! - of Jeremy Corbyn's supporters say that Corbyn didn't support the IRA. They say that he was simply “attempting to facilitate peace”. They don't really believe that, of course. Though to have a potential Prime Minister who out-rightly supported a terrorist organisation which blew dozens of civilians to pieces wouldn't really work - would it? (The IRA killed 115 people in England alone.) Thus they talk about Corbyn's role as a “peace maker”.

The fact is that Corbyn supported the IRA in every conceivable way; as did his communist friend (who's even more extreme than Corbyn) and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - John “Mac the Knife” McDonnell. (John McDonnell is a fan of Chairman Mao. He also once believed that IRA terrorists should be honoured for their part in the “armed struggle” against Great Britain.)

For example, on the 27 November 1985, when talking about the Anglo-Irish Agreement (which gave the Irish government an advisory role in Northern Ireland's government), he explicitly said “those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement”. Thus not only was Corbyn not involved in any peace process. He was explicitly against it!

None of this is remotely surprising. The IRA was against what it and Corbyn called “British imperialism”. It also had very strong Marxist elements. These things alone titillated Corbyn's leftwing fancy.

Like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the same time, Corbyn's position would have been one of “unconditional but critical support” for the IRA. (This position has also been applied to Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) Though this position hardly makes sense. If support for Group X is “unconditional”, then it's hard to make any sense of it also being “critical”. If such support is unconditional, then even if you're critical, you'll still end up supporting the group you're criticising. Despite that, from Corbyn and the SWP there was no substantive criticism of the IRA anyway!

I suppose the phrase unconditional and uncritical support of the IRA would have been too much even for Corbyn to use. It would have made him sound like mere British tool of the IRA.

Despite all the above, Corbyn supporters say that we shouldn't go back to the 1980s in order to “discredit Corbyn”. They also say that the great thing about Corbyn is that he “sticks to his principles”. Yes; that's true. He's stuck to his principle since the 1970s. That must surely mean that he still believes exactly the same about the IRA in 2017 as he did in, say, 1985. Some would call that bone-headedness or ideological obsession. What's so wrong with changing one's positions in view of contradictory information or a moral/political reassessment?

In any case, it isn't of ultimate importance that Corbyn supported the IRA in the 1970s and 80s. It's that he would still support the IRA (or an equivalent group) today if the same situation were to arise. (Though, as a Prime Minister, things would no doubt be a little different.) After all, this man has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, Fidel Castro, Chairman Mao, the Soviet Union, and, if he's in tune with the group he once led (the Stop the War Coalition), he also supports/defends Iran's theocracy.

Thus Corbyn is certainly not a pacifist and he's certainly not against violence. The fact that communists/socialists like Corbyn slaughtered tens of millions of people in the 20th century may give the game away. What Corbyn is against is wars fought by “capitalist democracies”. What Corbyn is against is violence carried out by white right-wingers (though not by white Leftists). So not only is he not against violence and war, he's also a supreme hypocrite for pretending that he is!

Finally, let's face facts here. If Jeremy Corbyn MP were to still out-rightly support the IRA's former “struggle against British imperialism”, he wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being elected by the British people. That explains why (in 2017) he doesn't still out-rightly support the IRA. Instead, he obfuscates and he dissimulates about his former support of that terror group.

Corbyn on Karl Marx


Of course it's true that someone could say that Marx was an “essentially a fascinating figure.. from whom we can learn a great deal” and not be a fan - politically or ideologically - of the dead German. But if that someone is Jeremy Corbyn saying these things, then that's something else entirely.

What is it, anyway, that Corbyn thinks we can learn from Marx? If he were specific, what would Corbyn say? Most people now think that as a futurologist or prophet, Marx proved to be a joke. (Socialists don't think that.) Most people believe that Marx's economics are stuck in the 19th century. (Socialists don't think that.) Politically, most people think that Marxism is very dangerous and indeed deadly. (Socialists don't think that.) Though as a prophet of a future utopia and a stern moral critic of capitalism and capitalists, even Marx's critics can see the religious appeal. (So can socialists.)

The Islington North MP also said: “Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way and the philosophy around Marx is fascinating.”

And as a Marxist socialist, I suppose that it's almost inevitable than Corbyn will think of capitalism in 19th century terms. After all, that's when Marx was writing. Thus when Corbyn also said that “[t]he [Conservative] Government's policies... are a return to the workhouse” he was being a gross rhetorician – as Marx himself was.

Corbyn on Fidel Castro


What about Fidel Castro? During a visit to Oxford, Corbyn said.

"Fidel Castro was a massive figure in the history of the whole planet, ever since the revolution in 1959. He to all the people of Cuba and, of course, he had a foreign policy which was global..."

Corbyn also told the Press Association that “history will show that Castro was such a key figure, it seems he has been with us forever”. Yes Corbyn, he has “been with us forever” because he ran a dictatorship in which he was the sole ruler for fifty years.

He was also a dictator who used torture; though he “managed to bring good quality health services to all the people of Cuba, good quality education”. He was also a man who showed “his heroism while living in Mexico in exile and then the boat to Cuba, the march to Havana and the revolution in 1959”. Clearly Corbyn knows his Castro very well.

What socialists like Corbyn believe is that if “equality” and “social justice” are brought about, then the Gulag, mass imprisonment of gays, nepotist dictatorships, etc. are a worthy price to pay. This is also what they think about Stalin and Chairman Mao. They don't think it about Hitler because he was a National Socialist; not an International Socialist. Yet Hitler also provided health care, maternity leave, high wages, animal rights legislation, the autobahn, improved hospital-care and green/environmental laws. So, in Hitler's case, dictatorship wasn't a price worth paying. Yet, in terms of the body count, Hitler killed less Germans than Stalin killed people in the Soviet Union or Chairman Mao killed Chinese.

Surely this must mean, to Corbyn, that it's not dictatorship or war he's against. He needs to know who the dictator is and who's fighting the war. If the dictator is a socialist, then he can't be that bad. If the dictator is a National Socialist or fascist, then he's bad. Similarly, if the war is fought by a “capitalist state”, then that war is bad. If, on the other hand, the war is fought by a socialist/communist state, a “national liberation movement”, or Muslims, then that war may well be good thing.

Corbyn on Donald Trump


Now Marx, Castro, Lenin, Che Guevara, etc. are some people that Jeremy Corbyn loves. What about the people he hates? I don't mean the entire right-wing white working class: I'm talking individuals here. Forget Margaret Thatcher too. We know that Corbyn had a deep hate for her. What about President Trump?

Donald Trump was classed as a dictator - by people like Corbyn - less than a week after he became President. (That's strange anyway because Corbyn and other socialists love dictators; as long as they're socialists.) Since then, Americans much like Corbyn have been showing us - in a multitude of different ways - what they think of democracy. They don't like it! Or, at the least, they like it only when it goes the way they want it to go.

The following long quote (on Trump) has Corbyn sounding like the smug member of London's metropolitan elite that he is. He said:

I decided to invite Donald Trump on his visit to Britain to come with me to my constituency because he has problems with Mexicans and he has problems with Muslims, as you know my wife is Mexican and my constituency is very, very multi-cultural so what I was going to do was go down to the mosque with him and let him talk to people there.”

No, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump has a problem with some Mexicans – the Mexican illegal immigrants and criminals within America's borders. Trump also has trouble with some Muslims. That's why he didn't ban all Muslims from every Muslim country. He has a problem with those Muslims who want to blow civilians up. He also has a problem with those Muslims who want to “destroy America and the West”. Does Corbyn have a problem with that?

Instead of taking Trump to the leafy professional, middle-class and largely Left-Liberal London suburb in which he lives, perhaps Corbyn can take him to the Muslim ghettoes of Birmingham, Bradford, Rotherham, Luton, etc. Perhaps he can show Trump the dozens of state schools which have been ethically cleansed of all whites. Perhaps he can take Trump to meet the hundreds of families that have been deeply effected by the Muslim sexual-grooming crisis – which is still ongoing. Perhaps he can take him to the many city mosques in which radical preachers spread their violent Islamic doctrines.

By the way, Trump's wife is foreign too – she's Slovenian. So Corbyn's Leftist smugness on this front leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Corbyn on the Soviet Union



Many people say “a man is known by the company he keeps”. That's not always true. However, it becomes truer when the person you're discussing appoints one of his friends the Executive Director of Strategy and Communications and another friend the Campaign Chief of his own political party; as Corbyn did. Both these friends are self-described communists and former fans of the Soviet Union.

His Campaign (Election) Chief is Andrew Philip Drummond-Murray; who dropped his double-barrelled name to disguise his “class origins”. (He's now named Andrew Murray.) He was a a member of the Communist Party of Britain until he joined the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership. (He's also became Chair of the Stop the War Coalition after Corbyn himself stepped down.) He only joined the Labour Party only at the end of 2016. That's less than half-a-year ago. He's already Campaign Chief.

Seumus Milne is now Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party. His “communist tendencies” are well-known.

I don't usually go into detail about the “class origins” of people. However, Marxist socialists do. (Especially if they're discussing Tories.) Class has been everything for Marxist socialists since Marx. Indeed Corbyn himself is still a fierce fighter in the class war. So why can't I too carry out a “class analysis” of the many Marxist public-schoolboys in Corbyn's Labour Party? After all, if “class determines consciousness”, then how did Corbyn's, Milne's and Murray's class determine their own consciousnesses? Despite saying that, I'll just include class details here; with no class analysis.

Anyway, these very posh Marxists are right at the top of the Labour Party... Where else would they be?

Corbyn himself went to Castle House Preparatory School, an independent school in Shropshire. He was brought up in a seven-bedroomed house in that charming county.

Andrew Murray (Campaign Chief of the Labour Party) is the son of Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, a stockbroker and banker. His dad was also Slains Pursuivant (a private officer of arms) from 1981 to 2009. Andrew Murray was educated at Worth School, a Benedictine independent boarding school in Sussex. From 1986 to 1987, Murray worked for the Soviet Novosti news agency. He has also expressed “solidarity” with North Korea.

Seumus Milne (Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party) is also a public-schoolboy, like Andrew Murray. He's the younger son of former BBC Director General Alasdair Milne. He attended the private Winchester College and read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Balliol College, Oxford.

In terms of politics, Milne has been a systematic fan of Stalin and the Soviet Union. Milne once claimed that “history has been unkind to” Joseph Stalin. He also gave the lowest number I've ever seen for the number of people killed by the Soviet socialist regime.

Milne is now Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party.

So let's get back to Corbyn and the Soviet Union. Take the following speech:

... I had an interesting meeting with an environmental campaigning group from the Soviet Union.... those people felt that they had the power to change the policies to stop the destruction of their own environment. The policies of free-market economies... have led to the pollution of the North sea and the Irish sea...”

So Corbyn believed that environmental activists had more political power in the Soviet Union than their equivalents did in the Western democracies? What's more, Corbyn seems to have thought this simply because of what was said to him during a single meeting.

In retrospect, it's ironic that Corbyn said the above just two years before the fall of the Soviet Union. This isn't a surprise. Corbyn, at that time, had a more favourable opinion of the Soviet Union than he had of the United Kingdom - at least under Margaret Thatcher.

Corbyn's friend George Galloway (also of the Stop the War Coalition) mourned the death of the Soviet Union. I wonder if Corbyn did too. He'd never admit that today – just before the General Election. After all, large sections of the Labour Party (before Corbyn's rule) have always been strongly against communism and Marxism – and not only since Tony Blair!

Of course the official Leftist mythology (though not for Seumus Milne and Andrew Murray!) is that the Stalinism - and sometimes the Soviet Union itself - weren't true theological examples of socialism/communism. All true examples of socialism will, of course, come in the future. All past examples of socialism/communism have been false examples. One true example of socialism will come to pass on the 9th of June, 2017; if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime Minster. Corbyn's socialist country will only become false socialism when it fails; which it will do because every other socialist state (dozens of them) have failed in the past.

In 1988 Corbyn also took his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. It must have been then that Corbyn called for a “complete rehabilitation” of Trotsky; which some socialists will say shows the doubters that he isn't, after all, a fan of either Stalinism or the Soviet Union.

A Labour source, in response, said:

"Jeremy Corbyn has clearly been fixated by the political ideology and tactics of Leon Trotsky for some time, but perhaps he could now focus on the rehabilitation of the Labour Party, which has been performing very poorly in the polls since he became leader. Trotsky didn't have to worry about the troublesome business of winning elections, but the Labour Party does."

Trotsky has a glowing name in many socialist circles simply because his name isn't Stalin. Unlike Stalin, however, he never had massive state power. Thus it was impossible for Trotsky to have done as much damage to the masses, people and workers as Stalin did. Had Trotsky gained state power, however, he would quite possibly have been even worse than Stalin.

For example, in 1918 Trotsky was the first Bolshevik to agitate for concentration camps (the Gulag) for political prisoners and the “bourgeoisie”. Before Lenin's death (in 1924) there were hundreds of Bolsheviks concentration camps in the USSR (i..e, before Stalin's rule). Trotsky is also well-known for having slaughtered thousands of anarchists and the wrong kinds of socialist in Kronstadt. In any case, Trotsky was much more ideologically obsessive than Stalin and thus, perhaps, he would have potentially been far more dangerous and bloodthirsty (i.e., had he gained power) than Stalin.

Conclusion

I believe that the case against Jeremy Corbyn (i.e., that he's an ideologically rigid and radical new-style Marxist) is pretty conclusive. Though is all the above entirely a case against Corbyn? After all, Corbyn classes himself as a radical socialist. He's also openly praised Castro and Marx; said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends”; and so on. In the case of some of things Corbyn has been accused of (such as support for the IRA) he's been a little bit more tactical and circumspect (or evasive). Then again, he's a skilled politician who's been a Member of Parliament for over forty years. That means that any explicitness about his support for the IRA, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. would have proved to have been his downfall. Thus, instead, he's often been obfuscatory and a master of dissimulation on these subjects.

To Corbyn, socialism is essentially a political religion. He has a deep faith in that political religion. Not only that: he also has a deep faith in the heaven (or Workers' Utopia) which that religion promises. And that's mainly why he has refused to move and inch when it comes to his religion and its many catechisms. Such religious zealotry and obsessiveness will of course be very dangerous were Corbyn to become Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Despite that, as a pupil of Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky, Corbyn would have been well aware (at least since the late 1970s) that a revolution won't be forthcoming in the United Kingdom (as mentioned in the introduction). Thus, as Gramsci himself suggested, Corbyn must surely have believed in “taking over the institutions” and radicalising them from the inside. And what better institution is there to take over than the Labour Party itself?


No comments:

Post a Comment