With Donald Trump's campaign mostly revolving around immigration, it would be nice if we could have a Democratic challenger who is a true opponent, a 'Donald Alien' if you will.
Otherwise, the election sounds quite bad when you make noise about it. Donald Trump, an alleged fascist, defeats 'Hillary Clinton' after she beat the Jew Bernie Sanders who had relatives involved in the Holocaust and was spurred by this in their liberal politics. It sounds like a joke made by Adolf. Meanwhile, Trump is a candidate whose name resembles 'alone,' and who continually talks about isolating the country. This, though admirable, would not have passed in much of the 2000s, when people still found such things alarming. It reminds one of the following charming painting by Hitler, that Zanthorus would no doubt admire:
"Have you read Marx?"
One can see that some objects there have imbibed the lessons of Soviet exercise so thoroughly that they have gleefully broken down and lain down unresisting.
To welcome back the returning comrade Zanthorus, we issued this stunning condemnation:
"Welcome back, Zanthorus!
"We're sorry this is slightly late. We'll put up a post calling you out because you have an amazing name. For one thing, it starts with a 'z.' It also has an 'n,' 'o' and 'h' in it. Any profound thoughts on the emasculation of the West and the tyranny of the matriarchy?
"You just said that a journalist had small balls. I'm invoking the fifth. I accuse you, sir, of choosing an easy target. This is a most heinous crime. Nonetheless I shall follow your advice and pursue the true path of archery, and in the process no doubt found several dystopian states until they form a genre. They shall then brainwash young adult minds, until they can no longer feel pessimism. They shall then inform them that human nature is an enemy to these states, and must be eradicated wherever it is found.
"The capital shall be in Egypt, which has a history of worshipping cats.
"We appreciate your posting, and the subtle yet poetic entrance. You did not clarify whether the rugby was league, union, etc., which some might find offensive and to suggest a support of slavery. In addition, the Labour Party might take issue with your perceived support for Ken Livingstone, and would request that you change your name to 'Zionthorus' to repent. What Zionism has to do with Thor might be uncertain to them, but nobody said that Christians' doctrine of salvation had to coherent. However, other than a list of possible offence your post has caused (other than to journalists, who are a sub-human race anyway), which is as obligatory in 'leftist' dialogue as 'Heil Hitler' in Nazi Germany, welcome back. I'm sure the online left could do with a resurgence of reasonable discussions, as opposed to most (dead and dying) fora and the occasional and hated dissident commenter."
We appreciate you see the sheer cutting and critical nature of this, without us annotating the whole passage with exclamation marks at the appropriate points. Nonetheless, we shall do so anyway, for the first paragraph. This shall hopefully give readers a hang of how to go on:
"We're sorry this is slightly late." (!) (Sorry? Of course we're not sorry! We hate the scoundrel. This sets a trap. They expect us to be taking on a favourable tone, and are unprepared for the following zingers.) "We'll put up a post calling you out because you have an amazing name." (!) "For one thing, it starts with a 'z.' It also has" (!) (refer to the Economic Manuscripts of 1844 for details) "an 'n,' 'o' and 'h' in it. Any" (!) "profound thoughts" (!) "on the emasculation of the West" (!) "and the tyranny" (!) "of the matriarchy?" (!)
Verily as destructive an attack as if you dropped the Tsarina Alexandra on a country and they all died of fright. You may have watched Wrestlemania recently, yet you may easily forget that: this is the real thing.
Now, you may be asking, what does all of this have to do with Georg Friedrich? Well, it might not be clear at first. We might seem initially to have just unleashed a devastating attack on a perfectly civil commenter who did not mention Hegel. However, do not be fooled. They speak of 'mastering the art of archery,' by going from small to large targets. However, Hegel mastered German philosophy, did they not? And did so by going from basic and abstract categories to more complex ones. So you see again that 'if the essences of things correspond to appearances, all science would be superfluous.' Their comment is still offensive, although this is veiled.
I am sure that, had Marx lived, they would have ended Das Kapital with that very sentence.
However, we shall also welcome back Zanthorus. We shall welcome them back as Lottie Moss - the eternal enemy of I, ZeroNowhere - welcomed back Alex Mytton after a drunk tiff. With an amicable disposition, but also trepidation and the poignance it holds. However, rather than being as "stately as a slot machine," we shall offer a courteous but refined reception. And besides, taking advantage of Kate Moss being our relative would tarnish our name. And what is the result of sounding like a lotus, when this lotus would be incredibly out of place in a Made In Chelsea context? It is a mere painkiller in a degenerate scene.
We shall conclude this post with this fervent attack on Thor, who 'Zanthorus' no doubt worships. By attacking that which they hold sacred, we bring this highly critical post to a fitting crescendo. After this, they may face the world with 'sober senses,' and all welcome each other generously.
Finally, we would like to note that the 'Rosa' mentioned was not Rosa Luxemburg. Just in case anyone thought this was some other blog, where Rosa Luxemburg might be highlighted in any way whatsoever. I am sure a few of our readers will catch the reference, and I exhort them to consider in good humour what others less so will make of it. The tone might help these others to get the gist of it. On that note, we would like to end this condemnatory post with the following sentence.
We'd like to bring readers' attention to this article by Matthew Turner, which is along similar lines to our last post. It is recent, dating to Monday the 6th of March. It deals with ways that Jeremy Corbyn can clarify the Party's message and consolidate the position of their politics by dispelling the prominent 'moderate' dissenters. While all of this sounds harsh, due to the risk of continually being undermined by their own Party it is merely an attempt to restore some direction to the organisation. This is especially the case where the Party can be held hostage by notable financial backers and those more reluctant who fund other Parties, who see an opposition to Corbyn that might often attempt more to placate them. While this is merely an obvious manner in which money can easily dominate 'politics,' and Parties are punished for avoiding this, it does nonetheless allow even an often scattered opposition to take on a locus of strength and act to threaten the leadership. When Hamlet fought Laertes, even if it was an even fight Laertes had only to prick him at some point to kill him. Hamlet would have a more difficult time killing Laertes, if they attacked without poison. Likewise, Corbyn's campaign can easily come up against a 'wall' of sorts - despite resisting opponents within the Party, this dissent can easily rear its head again and expects to regain control of the Party as well. Hence, their opponent can seem to simply appear 'unscathed' every time it is mown down. As such, the article's suggestion, that of preventing the opposition to Corbyn from establishing firm footholds in the Party, need not be taken as that left-field if you like. The 'wall' that the Corbynites have encountered has played an important part in recent coverage and reception of them. Coverage of the Corbynites has continually assumed that a negative remark - say attacks on his position on Israel and the Queen - would be taken further and extrapolated into damning statements by members of his own Party. The Conservatives have generally just sat back and taunted Corbyn about the disunity and so on, hoping to encourage anti-Corbyn talking points within his Party. Outside of this they have been remarkably 'placid' around a radicalism which they should be going out of their way to denounce, suggesting that they might be too shaken by their own internal divisions to put up a serious political front. If their politics are different from Corbyn's, they don't seem to feel like mentioning it or caring. Hence, it seems necessary that these voices within the Party certainly not be given further influence, but also that they be removed from the spot-light they currently occupy. In an economic system which is hostile to such a political trend, especially as it is fragile after years of being attacked, it would hence be important to not allow for hostility to easily surround the Party leadership. From there, the task is simplified as the Party can at least present itself in a clear manner. Turner urges the following to ensure coherence in the Party: "For the first time during Corbyn’s tenure, Labour would have a bold, unified and coherent party message that isn’t being contradicted every other hour by figures from their own party. The harsh reality is that the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party." This is supplemented by measures such as the following: "In short, Corbyn must fight back. He needs to take control of the party before he can take control of the country, otherwise he is nothing but a sitting duck. One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates, and organising in order to ensure that young, up and coming, “fire in the belly” left wingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn." While attempting to saturate the Party with people who will attempt to further their political strand would be worthwhile, and give them a further advantage in organisation, some of the means suggested by the article could of course be potentially double-edged. Relying on approaches which draw too much on circumstances is dangerous, as it could endanger their political trend if these alter. Nonetheless, the general policy of trying to ensure further influence through the Labour Party is by all means a decent one. In addition, the recent Labour Party election set in process things which should be continued despite the lack of such elections, such as using the Labour Party apparatus to win the rank-and-file over and hence further secure the Party. While the opposition, which we may call the 'Blair Witch Project' after two of its major participants, can be loud, ultimately Corbyn's Labour can attempt to under-cut them by presenting a picture of politics in which that known as 'Corbynism' plays an integral role. If it is hard to see a politics without them, then they gain an ability to more easily under-cut their opponent. Corbyn framing his views in terms of opposition to a 'rigged economic system' does go in this direction, however it also leads to the more troubling portrayal of a Party where other members work in harmony with this 'rigged economic system' - a treacherous position to be sure. Nonetheless, it does display the ability of Corbyn's movement to take on current political themes and use them for a more radical agenda, which suggests that they have little reason to not continue the movement. Hence, the aim of unifying the Labour Party in Corbyn's situation is in the right direction. However, we do have a few qualms with the article. Firstly, while it claims that Corbyn has not shown strict or authoritarian trappings, their stubbornness during the resignations saga leading up to their re-election would seem to suggest otherwise. They could stand to act in a more authoritarian manner over their Party, in certain aspects, but it isn't something that they have neglected. They have often allowed others to leave or be removed if they don't comply with the direction of the leadership and movement. Further, the focus of the article is more immediate than the movement need expect: while Corbyn's movement are reviving from a highly hostile political climate, and continue to experience issues with this, their aim should hence be consolidation rather than fanfare. They must attempt to avoid further episodes of political relegation so far as they are given space to do so. Having gained time, they can certainly look to various events - but the risk of staking too many expectations on an event and then experiencing troubles is a looming danger. The Mahabharata famously involves gambling things away in a distinctly uneven context - this is something that the movement should avoid. Hence, clarifying the Party's stance is not only a question of immediate 'momentum,' but a policy that is by itself advisable by this point. The article is hence worth reading for those interested in this issue or in Britain. Alternatively, you can turn to the Daily Mail for exciting news on Theresa May, and Prince Harry's (no relation to certain others called Harry) relationship with Meghan Markle. You would assume that whether or not Harry is indeed a bespectacled character from a novel, Meghan Markle sounds eerily similar to recent reality show drop-out Megan Marx. Does this confirm a secret Marxist plot to rule England? In any case, as in the elections, you can really figure out whom you'd rather focus on.
The current Labour Party is compromised by what you could call an acute case of 'false friends.' While many in the Party, and especially those like the Iraq war's promoter Tony Blair, have closer ties to the Conservatives than to Jeremy Corbyn, they can still freely pretend to be 'allied' spokemen who care about the 'Labour Party.' To be frank, they would not care at all for Corbyn's Labour Party, preferring the more securely bourgeois 'adversary' in the Conservative Party. But this is the only 'Labour Party' and Labour Party authority structure that currently exists. Many in the Labour Party still support the monarchy and showing obeisance to them, for what it's worth. Hence, the attempt to portray this all as one, coherent Party is actually just to allow the Party to undermine itself 'from the inside.' And many of the Party's participants, politicians, 'celeb' backers, and sources of funding, would much prefer to avoid even the possibility of targeting the 'rigged economic system.' Nonetheless, if all of these can claim some sort of artificial unity with little political basis, it means that the Party's stance is compromised and it is subject to continual internal obstacles. When this is the case, going further to tackle other obstacles can be difficult - at least before settling down.
Corbyn's position is often acknowledged to be insecure - the Party apparatus has been heading in a different direction for a while. Hence, they increasingly find themselves having to carve out some sort of niche to secure their politics. In addition, they have unsurprisingly faced attack from their own Party and the corporate or state media, and hence taken on a slightly isolationist tendency which has kept them secure. It can be difficult to write a sentence when, during the latter half, the pen takes on a will of its own and 'like a creature by love possessed' starts spewing out attacks on what you just wrote. At the least you could reserve a paragraph for yourself, as the radical elements of the Corbyn campaign have attempted, but then the rest is left free to contextualise and attack this. At the least they can get across their message and preserve it in a hostile political climate, hence opening the door to this for more radical tendencies if they'd like.
However, by resigning their opposition have at least allowed them the chance of consolidating their political place. The opposition to Corbyn cannot simply manifest, but would need notable re-organisation due to the indiscipline of its representatives. This hence allows for the task of Corbyn's movement, along with holding fort, also to involve utilising their organised nucleus to promote their politics' continuity while other tendencies are forced to remain disorganised. This is hence an era where the emphasis should be on aggressively carving out a place in British politics, and not on hoping for success when anything near radical politics has been sermonised against for decades. Needless to say, a somewhat marginalised and subversive political view should not condone the situation of allowing every major organisation to attack it. That would be suicidal, and hence Corbyn - who associates with such ideas in part because they have become important to his setting up a siege mentality - is really under no pressure to leave. Their campaign is subject to constant adversity from even 'moderate' liberal areas, and this adversity will press radical elements to consolidate themselves. Others, such as Owen Jones, who are only pseudo-radicals and media figures, will of course turn aside in the name of 'labour' requiring yet further bourgeois illusions hampering them. That is their vocation, after all.
In the post-Trump era, then, the US left is perhaps worse placed than ever to formulate its movement. The more they express their generic outrage at Trump's election, the more they pick up unwanted allies extending even to Hillary Clinton. The more the outrage, the more they express a clear preference for the Democratic alternative - and become appendages of the avowedly moderate, liberal Democratic Party. Hence, they can easily be undermined, or are if you like held on a strict leash. As such, it will take clarity to return to a task which is not that different under Trump to recent periods of interference in the Middle East and various cuts at home. As for those who find Trump a shocking new phenomenon, but consider Blair and the Iraq War leaders to be leftist saints, we need only observe that their stance on this issue can seem cheap.
