He was pro-Palestine in the Israel Palestine conflict. Labour is the natural home for Britain’s sizeable muzzie and paki communities, and it’s not hard to find a few of them saying awful things/telling the blatantly obvious truth about die juden. They found some examples of some rag head Labour members speaking about jews, challenged Corbyn to fix these immediately, held Corbyn personally responsible for the existence of these views and ultimately had him removed as Labour leader and replaced by the more moderate Keir Starmer.
How big a role the kikery played in Corbyn’s failures and removal is however debatable. Corbyn was very unpopular in certain circles in the U.K., had a history of cavorting with and even supporting the IRA campaign against Britain, and was a communist.
How big a role the kikery played in Corbyn’s failures and removal is however debatable. Corbyn was very unpopular in certain circles in the U.K., had a history of cavorting with and even supporting the IRA campaign against Britain, and was a communist.
Come on. If they wanted Corbyn in office he'd be "elected". It doesn't matter how many people vote for Johnson there'd be a massive showing for Corbyn at the last minute and the press would declare him the victor. The fact that the press were softballing Johnson and giving Corbyn lukewarm coverage made it clear who had been chosen.
Some truth to that but this runs a lot deeper than just the press choice for office. Remember when the membership elected him leader initially? The Labour parliamentary party almost to a man turned on him immediately. And they wouldn’t back down in their opposition to him even after the membership re-confirmed him as leader. I don’t know if it was the friends of Israel in Labour that organised such strong opposition, or whether it was just the Blairites as was claimed at the time, but I remember thinking it astonishing for a parliamentary party to so strongly oppose the choice of their membership (although Miliband throwing open the membership in the way he did obviously did leave Labour quite vulnerable to infiltration by momentum and the like).
Some truth to that but this runs a lot deeper than just the press choice for office
I was not for a moment implying that the press are some kind of independent fourth estate, they work for the same people everyone else does.
The Labour parliamentary party almost to a man turned on him immediately. And they wouldn’t back down in their opposition to him even after the membership re-confirmed him as leader. I don’t know if it was the friends of Israel in Labour that organised such strong opposition, or whether it was just the Blairites as was claimed at the time, but I remember thinking it astonishing for a parliamentary party to so strongly oppose the choice of their membership (although Miliband throwing open the membership in the way he did obviously did leave Labour quite vulnerable to infiltration by momentum and the like).
That's what I meant. The decision that he would not be elected was very obviously centrally decided. I would imagine that around the time he started becoming popular someone he didn't realise was very powerful indeed approached him and gently sounded him out on Israel. Despite all the hints and hand-holding he refused to be lead, so from that moment on he was marked for failure.
(post is archived)