Corbyn has 'unconscious bias' claims Baddiel, neatly encapsulating the sheer absurdity of the hate campaign against Corbyn.
How does Baddiel know what's in Corbyn's head?
It's almost as if Baddiel has 'unconscious bias' against Corbyn...
It all just gets sillier and sillier.
Baddiel's nonsensical claim of knowledge of Corbyn's 'unconscious thoughts' precisely mimics 'Sideshow Lou' Ellman's 'antisemitic thoughts' hilarity, in which she solemnly 'suspects' she can read Corbyn's mind.
The 'antisemitism crisis' foghorns are reduced to these patently ridiculous formulations because they've dredged decades-worth of Corbyn's public statements and actions and found nothing but consistent and unwavering support for Jewish people and Jewish causes.
So they have to invent 'unconscious bias', 'antisemitic thoughts', intangible, wholly subjective, with no evidence or possibility of any evidence. They've been forced down this absurd route by the simple fact that Corbyn has never done or said anything antisemitic.
That's because Corbyn is not and has never been an antisemite, though that grudging negative doesn't begin to cover his wholehearted and vocal support for Jewish people and Jewish causes his entire political life. He's the exact opposite of an antisemite. They know that.
The desperation and obvious absurdity of Baddiel's 'unconscious bias' and Ellman's 'antisemitic thoughts' speaks to the fact that the campaign against Corbyn is itself composed of nothing except hate, nothing except 'bias', nothing except prejudice, nothing except bigotry.
The bias, the hate, is all on their side, and no matter how they try to dress it up in this hilarious pseudo-psychological patter, their rancid bigotry can't be disguised.
They out themselves as simple-minded hate-mongers with every utterance.
Jig's up. #ItWasAScam
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I may not be bothering so much with #ItWasAScam from now. The evidence is clear, consistent and damning: Starmer and his bloodless assassins performed one of the most brutal political executions in UK history, and we will all be paying for it for generations.
Our media were willing helpers, dishonest, hateful and speaking with one voice, the bludgeoning voice of the UK state.
No-one who witnessed this and knew what they witnessed will ever trust anything our media tells us again. Those days of innocence are over.
UK is damaged, perhaps permanently, by it. Democracy is shown to be a comforting sham, and those who so desperately needed the changes Corbyn promised were betrayed. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. It leaves millions without hope of any kind.
Everyone knows the story: Corbyn was an antisemite. There was that mural, wasn’t there, and some business about a wreath? And didn’t Ken Livingstone say something about Hitler?
The echoes and ripples of this story are confused now, like old memories. Was it Ken Livingstone who said the thing about Hitler or Chris Williamson? Did Corbyn say it was Jews or Zionists who don’t get irony? And didn’t someone say Jews controlled the slave trade or something?
The details barely matter anymore, though of course every one of these claims has been robustly and comprehensively exposed as a crude fraud.
Obviously, as adults, we understand that journalists work for businesses which have editorial agendas, and are not free to just say anything they please.
Journalists have careers, mortgages, commitments. They’re not going to jeopardise all that.
But they’re now in an unenviable position, the honest ones I mean (if such exotica exist at all). In being required to peddle a narrative that has been wholly discredited, they’re being required to sacrifice their integrity: their self-respect.
Only the most hardened and cynical will be able to do this without some internal disquiet. The rest must, surely, be horribly aware of what they’re doing: denying the evidence, not just of their own eyes and ears, but of the eyes and ears of those who read and hear what they say.
The comment by Chris Mason that one of Starmer’s tasks is ‘getting rid of hostility to Jewish people’ is false.
There is no evidence Corbyn’s Labour Party showed any ‘hostility to Jewish people.’ The claims made by you in this regard have been comprehensively falsified.
One example of this falsification is the Al Jazeera documentary series ‘The Labour Files’. This contains hard evidence of fraud in your Ware Panorama.
This, for instance, where a Labour activist, Rica Bird, asking a Labour Party investigator, Ben Westerman, ‘Which branch are you from?’ becomes the question ’Are you from Israel?’
I watched an old episode of Twilight Zone last night. The story was a man who starts to notice people using words wrongly - 'dinosaur' instead of 'lunch', for instance - which accelerates until he can understand no-one and no-one can understand him.
UK politics is like this now. Nothing actually makes any sense, and those attempting to make it make sense are using language that means nothing.
‘Got the big calls right,’ for instance, means literally nothing. Johnson blundered his way through covid, slaughtering tens of thousands of our elderly as casually as he would order a bottle of champagne, and flinging tens of billions of pounds away in corrupt deals.
'Far more powerful is Berger’s chilling account... of buckling under the weight of anti-Semitic abuse as an MP in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.'
Come on here and try that old cobblers, @FionaLondonarts. See how far you get. Dare you. #ItWasAScam inews.co.uk/culture/arts/j…
That whole 'Labour antisemitism crisis' narrative beloved of Freedland and Oberman and the rest - and, apparently, you also - has been so comprehensively debunked that clinging ono it starts to look pathological.
Here's some hard, cold evidence of fraud:
There's plenty more where that came from.
Here are ten more, including Freedland's 'irony' smear, which is *right there in the Royal Court blurb*.