Jeremy Corbyn and a Case Study for Fascism
You can tell what people truly think, even if they do not publicly express all that they believe in, when you look at their friends and advisers, the events they attend and the organizations they belong to.
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, is an example of an influential “would be” fascist leader who took center stage after a long period during which he maintained a relatively low profile — until his time came to step forward and take advantage of popular but noxious beliefs that for decades were only discussed in quiet corners, too inappropriate for public discussion. But note how even today he is, at least publicly, never unambiguous in his condemnation of antisemitism within the ranks of his own party.
In fact, he makes an excellent case study for fascism.
As leader of the British Labour Party, his cohorts include:
- Press TV – the mouthpiece of the Shia Muslim, theologically antisemitic Islamic Republic of Iran.
- Hamas – the theologically antisemitic, anti-Christian and homophobic, Islamic-fascist ruler of Gaza, which makes a habit of throwing gays off tall buildings.
- Hezbollah – the radical Shia Muslim group that, like Islamic State, has as its main goal the establishment of an Islamic government across the Arab world, and has murdered Lebanese liberals and continues today to destabilize Lebanon.
- Holocaust deniers, such as Paul Eisen.
- Well-known antisemites (such as Paul Eisen, Carlos Latuff, the Reverend [CofE] Stephen Sizer, Raed Salah).
Jeremy Corbyn could have refused their advances and money, listened to what they said and read what they wrote and walked away from them, fast. But when push comes to shove, in fact, “He is remarkably good at proffering apologetics for dictatorship and tyranny” (James Bloodworth. editor of Left Foot Forward).
By embracing them he becomes them.
His common excuse — that dialogue is the only way to resolve conflict — is predicated on the idea that our interlocutors desire a change in their own situation that does not result in our physical destruction. Corbyn will support dictatorial, racist, anti-Western, misogynistic, homophobic, radical, theologically fundamentalist regimes that despise everything we stand for, and then justify his support for them by asking us to believe that somehow we have something in common with them. Does he mean us to believe, perhaps, that even after all that has been mentioned previously, there is still something to talk about?
The problem is that the Corbyns of this world actively provide a fig leaf for fascism.
Jeremy Corbyn’s protestations of virtue are hollow, a sham. At best, he is no more than a political dilettante; at worst, he is a liar who serves to salve the conscience of his supporters.
During World War Two, the Nazis realized that they could commit any atrocity, on any scale, if the public did not have to witness it. Early in their rule, they internalized the lesson that the German people would accept the euthanasia program that took away their “defective” children and their infirm elderly –- as long as a narrative was in place that afforded them the means to deny any knowledge of their loved ones’ fate.
A principle cannot be altered to suit an inconvenient truth. Those who choose to elect the Jeremy Corbyns of this world can argue for an unbroken history of dedication to social democracy with its concern for people, somehow balancing their selective concerns against a predilection for providing support to fascist causes and associating with hate-soaked bigots.
In the light of day it is difficult to tell the difference between what many on today’s progressive Left believe, how they act and how they differ from the good folk of 1930’s Germany who turned a blind eye to Nazism.
We arrived at this point because of our ignorance of global history.
Our knowledge of history’s villains is so poor that we recognize only a small part of the evil that has been committed in the name of the gods. Conquest and slavery are not only a Western malaise, but at least we recognize the errors of our past. We have ignored other colonial enterprises because they were not ours; we have dismissed superstitions and disregarded the prejudices of many nations that are erroneously labeled as third world or developing, because it complicated our guilt and our self-flagellation. Global history is a rich tapestry of good and bad. The terrible atrocities Islamic State has committed were already an acceptable part of a rich Muslim cultural tradition that, throughout history viewed the non-believer as worthy only of subjugation and conquest.
By excluding that tradition, by choosing to side with regimes that reject our way of life, we give them a green light to oppress their own people and to attack us until we submit to them.
This is not a multicultural paradise to which we should all aspire; it is a dystopian vision of hell.