BeforeItsNews only exists through ads. We ask all patriots who appreciate the evil we expose and want to
help us savage the NWO with more Truth to disable your ad-blocker on our site only so we can grow and expose more evil! Funding
gives us more weapons! Thank you patriots! Oh and If you disable the Ad-blocker - on your deathbed you will receive total
consciousness. So you got that going for you...which is nice!
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Yesterday Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com wrote a post about a question he asked on Twitter –
How is history going to judge Mr. Corbyn?
Mr Smithson received a range of replies to what is a tempting but unanswerable question. The question also gives rise to an equally interesting but much more general issue.
Jeremy Corbyn’s elevation to Labour party leader would not have been predicted only a few years ago. Even if his leadership had been suggested as a future possibility it would have attracted widespread ridicule. As it does now of course.
Ed Miliband’s bungled update to the Labour leadership election rules kicked it all off and Ed obviously didn’t predict this outcome or he probably would not have changed anything. A few years ago, Corbyn would not have predicted it either, yet a series of apparently unlikely events changed the course of Labour party history. At least for a time – we can’t predict that either. A lesson for democracy perhaps.
Let us go much further back in time, to the time of Jeremy’s conception. First contact between his mother’s egg and his father’s sperm could have turned out differently and Jeremy could have been Jemima. Such as small matter yet these things change the tide of history. Apply the same thought to any major actor on the political stage and what do we get? We don’t know. We’ll never know. Things are as they are.
