Deep Conviction

How can we understand Corbyn and Antisemitism? Deep conviction - a case study on how to apply pathtivism within the movement.

A snowflake has to be confused about Corbyn and antisemitism. Jews are saying he is antisemitic, the Guardian is saying he is antisemitic, Labour MP's are saying he is antisemitic, Jewish groups within Labour are saying he is antisemitic, Jewish groups outside Labour are saying he is antisemitic. With all this there has to be some truth?????

The pathtivist says no, has the strength to say no, has the conviction to say no.

Of course we could be saying no because of blind acceptance, we need armoury. We need the armoury of understanding and that of conviction. The path gives us the conviction, following the path gives us insight and the strength of understanding that insight gives.

Let us examine the fundamental understandings (axioms in this Corbyn case):-

1%-system is neoliberalism promoting the profits of the 1%.

Labour party establishment is neoliberal first.

Labour's establishment repeatedly tries to remove Corbyn.

Corbyn has a reputation for being a life-long anti-racist.

Israel is expanding into Palestinian territory, and attacks critics of this.

Criticising a government does not mean we are criticising a people.

Based on these convictions (axioms) attacks on Corbyn can be easily dismissed yet some snowflakes are confused because of the vehemence against Corbyn. Basically snowflakes do not have the strength of conviction required to deal with what happens - the way power and influence manipulate the truth. For me this is explained by the lack of deep conviction about themselves and lack of deep conviction concerning political axioms.

Despite my use of the word "snowflake" I am sympathetic to these people. Who wants to turn around and accept that their society fundamentally exploits them, that they are exploited by a system that benefits the 1% at their expense? Everyone wants to believe that we live in a fair and just society where a proper rational explanation should lead to appropriate government change. And least of all we do not want to accept that the level of conditioning in our society turns us into wage-slaves for the accumulation of wealth by the 1%.

Without this degree of discernment and conviction it is hard to assess what is going on. In this case the 1%-establishment has combined in its efforts to ensure Corbyn is not voted in. This requires accepting that the Labour party is neoliberal, and that Margaret Hodge who sponsored the vote against Corbyn in parliament and who was herself brought into question for insults of her party leader is simply a neoliberal puppet - whatever her beliefs are.

Without an understanding of the 1%-establishment it is hard to understand why the Guardian continually attacks Corbyn when normally it is snowflake haven. It has to be understood that the media is establishment-driven even when it appears occasionally liberal.

It is amusing to watch how the humour of "Mock the Week" changes with fashion, however radical comedians can appear they just float with the populousness of humour. I can accept this conditioning whilst enjoying the humour. I was particularly irritated however by Nish Kumar's ignorance this week (s17e07), and because he is Asian many snowflakes are unable to question him when it comes to race. His joke paraphrased "Corbyn supporters lambast that it is all a conspiracy coming from the Rothchilds and George Soros - a Jewish conspiracy". He had developed a theme of "white people", and he got Hugh to pull his strings every time this rationale came up. It is funny and mostly true.

But it breaks down on two levels. Firstly as Bell Hooks says we do not just live in a racist society but we live in an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. To perceive what is happening to Corbyn as just race is limited, capitalist imperialism doesn't want him as well as the racists. And then we have to add the factor of Israel, and here Nish should be listening to left-wing Jews. I repeatedly read that Jewish left-wingers criticise the Jewish Elite for using antisemitism for their own interests, here is an example within a long discussion of the attacks on Corbyn through antisemitism. This elite has promoted the IHRA definition, that has sadly eventually been accepted by the NEC - I hope that will change. From what I understand this will limit Corbyn in his pro-Palestinian rhetoric.

I speak of 1%-land. 1%-land is a global community of the 1% whose interests lie with each other primarily even though they have different nationalities. It cannot be denied that there is a Jewish Elite amongst the 1%, but such powerful people are not indicative of Jews in general. It is accepted as a white man, by most white men, that Amazon workers should not need food aid after earning the full wage Jeff Bezos pays. White people are not all the same, Jews are not all the same.

Finally I throw India's caste system at Nish. Are there not Indian elites who act in an interest that cannot be described as the interests of the Indian people as a whole? A Jewish elite can act with different interests to many (99%)Jews, in the same way an Indian elite can act with different interests to many (99%) of the Indian people.

Nish has taken on an unfair burden, he has accepted the role of race commissar. It would be hard for snowflakes to be critical of him. This is why we need conviction and deep understanding, to avoid unfortunate errors made by people in the limelight. There needs to be pathtivism. There needs to be discernment and a deep conviction that comes from the path, there needs to be an understanding that we are stuck in conditioning and that we need to move beyond it. Existing forms of understanding and education within the movement don't provide this.

PS At no time am I saying that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party, but I am agreeing with the facts raised in the Mondoweiss blog that it is not an issue. It is far more of a problem within the Tories but truth has got nothing to do with what is happening to Corbyn.