Category: Jeremy Corbyn

About Jeremy Corbyn

Subscribe Feeds

Anti-Corbyn boek valt door de mand als valse aanklacht >> schrijver duikt onder…….

Posted on by Telmo Claro

In het hieronder door Tracy Keeling geschreven artikel, eerder verschenen op The Canary, vertelt ze over Tom Bower, een bekende anti-Corbyn fantast, die een boek schreef over Corbyn, genaamd ‘Corbyn’s Ruthless Plot For Power’. Colomnist Peter Oborne van The Daily Mail schreef een artikel op Middle East Eye over dit boek, waarin hij o.a. stelt dat het boek diverse onwaarheden bevat, verder dat Bower systematisch belangrijke feiten weglaat en op catastrofale manier de standaard mist voor politieke berichtgeving……..

Oborne stelt voorts dat hij Bowen meermaals heeft gevraagd te reageren op zijn kritiek, alvorens tot publicatie over te gaan, maar dat hij geen antwoord kreeg van Bowen……
Mensen je gelooft je ogen niet als je leest hoe belachelijk Bowen zijn beweringen doet, zoals die over een extreme speech, die in de 80er jaren werd geschreven, maar sindsdien door elke Labour leider werd genegeerd, behalve door Corbyn….. Oborne nam contact op met de schrijver van de speech, Richard Heller en deze bevestigde dat geen Labour-leider contact met hem had opgenomen over deze speech, inclusief Jeremy Corbyn……..
Echt smerig zijn uiteraard de aantijgingen dat Corbyn een antisemiet is, waar een paar Britse mediaorganen hem zelfs al uitmaken voor fascist……*
De reguliere westerse media en het grootste deel van de westerse politiek zijn als de dood dat Corbyn de volgende verkiezingen wint en dan een radicaal ander (socialistisch) politiek beleid zal voeren, een beleid voor de burgers en niet voor oorlogsvoering en het welzijn van de rijke bevolking en de grote bedrijven en banken…. Alleen daarom beschuldigt men Corbyn van antisemitisme!

Bovendien zijn dit soort beschuldigingen door politici en de zogenaamde onafhankelijke massamedia, een trap na voor de slachtoffers van de holocaust*, daar men hun dood misbruikt voor het belasteren van mensen, die niets hebben met antisemitisme, maar wel met de vervolging van het Palestijnse volk door de nu officieel fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël….. Nogmaals: verzet tegen de uiterst bloedige onderdrukking van Palestijnen heeft niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets met antisemitisme te maken!!

Lees het volgende artikel en zegt het voort, ook de Nederlandse media berichten keer op keer dat Labour met een zwaar antisemitisch probleem zit, pure nonsens zoals je begrijpt:

An anti-Corbyn author goes into hiding after his book is exposed as an utter sham

Tracy Keeling
11th March 2019
Afbeeldingsresultaat voor An anti-Corbyn author goes into hiding after his book is exposed as an utter sham
An anti-Corbyn author appears to have gone into hiding after a journalist exposed his book as an utter sham.
Writing in Middle East Eye on 9 March, Peter Oborne dismantled Tom Bower’s Dangerous Hero: Corbyn’s Ruthless Plot For Power. The Daily Mail columnist says the book “contains numerous falsehoods”, “systematically omits relevant facts” and “catastrophically” fails to meet the standards for political reporting.
Oborne also says that, prior to publishing, he made numerous attempts to contact Bower “in order to give him the chance to defend himself”. But his efforts via email, text and phone were to no avail.
Here are a few examples of Oborne’s research into the book’s claims about Jeremy Corbyn. They may help explain why Bower isn’t eagerly stepping up to face the music.
The “extreme” speech
In his book, Bower asserts that Corbyn adopted a speech written by freelance speechwriter Richard Heller for the 2015 party conference. Bower said Heller wrote the speech in the 1980s and that it:

had been repeatedly offered to every Labour leader since Michael Foot, and always rejected as too extreme

Oborne contacted Heller about this claim. He confirmed that he did offer the speech to previous Labour leaders. But, contrary to Bower’s assertion about its rejection, Heller toldOborne:

None of the previous leaders replied to me at all.

So, no Labour leader appears to have branded the speech “extreme”. It’s Bower that does so – and conveniently gives his readers the idea that Corbyn leans towards the “extreme” in the process.
“The enemy of the [Jewish] working class”
Trying to suggest that Corbyn is antisemitic, Bower also writes:

For Corbyn, Jews were automatically assumed to be rich capitalist financiers and bankers backed by Wall Street, and were all undoubted swindlers. They were not victims of racism, but the enemy of the working class.

As Oborne argues, Bower ignores the fact that Corbyn has “a long record of opposing anti-semitism” in his book. But he even disproves his own propaganda on this supposed prejudice. Bower asserts that Corbyn:

conjured a tale of a brave personal fight against exploitative Jewish employers of sweatshop labour. Parochialism and fantasy fed the original source of his anti-Semitism – namely, as he saw it, the malign collective power of Jews. Corbyn was immersed in an unfamiliar world. The union was dealing with struggling, overworked, self-employed Jews

So, he highlights the Labour leader’s time as a trade union official ‘railing’ against largely Jewish employers in the garment industry as an example of antisemitism. But, as Oborne notes, in the next sentence Bower admits that Corbyn was fighting for Jewish workers.
Bower’s own bias
Meanwhile, Bower’s book reveals a lot about his own prejudices and his capacity for hypocrisy. As Oborne explains:

Bower’s concern with anti-semitism is clear. However, he talks of other minority groups with a language which he would be unlikely to tolerate if used about Jews.

One such passage, about Corbyn’s constituents in the 1990s, reads:

By 1998, new arrivals from Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh had packed into Islington North. Queues of migrants and asylum seekers at the Red Rose sought Corbyn’s help to obtain homes, welfare benefits, character references for bail, help to reduce their sentences after criminal convictions, and intercession to avoid deportation.

Bower is suggesting that these “new arrivals” to Islington are scroungers and criminals. But, as immigration lawyer Colin Yeo told Oborne:

The casual conflation of immigration with crime is extremely unfortunate. I seriously doubt there was much call for his assistance with bail, benefits, character references or criminal appeals, more like help with family members and refugee claims.

Clearly, Bower’s offensive description of these immigrants speaks much more about him than it does about them.
“Ugly hatchet job”
Through these examples, and many more, Oborne proves that Bower’s book is nothing more than an “ugly hatchet job”. But it’s one which has received rave reviews from the mainstream press. For Oborne, this begs a question:

Are British journalists allowing hostility to Corbyn to get in the way of telling the truth?

The incessant smears against Corbyn – including in Oborne’s Daily Mail – since he put himself up for Labour leader in 2015 provide the answer to that. This “ugly hatchet job” of a book is just the nail in the British media’s reputational coffin. Yes, if UK journalists still feel under any obligation to tell the truth (it’s clearly not a high priority), that completely goes out of the window with Corbyn.
Featured image via YouTube – GMB and YouTube – Sky News

Zie ook:
‘Corbyn als schietschijf voor het Britse leger, reactie Tories: Corbyn is een groot gevaar voor Brittannië……‘


‘Antisemitische heksenjacht in GB bedoeld om pro-Palestijnse Labour politici de mond te snoeren‘

‘Esther Voet (Nieuw Israëlitisch Weekblad) ‘maakt grap’: ze vertrekt naar Israël vanwege groeiend antisemitisme……‘

 ‘The Guardian weigert brief van meer dan 200 Joodse vrouwen, waar dit medium loog en blijft liegen over ‘antisemitisme’ Corbyn‘

 ‘Jeremy Corbyn weggezet als nazi in fake news ‘antisemitisme schandaal’ >> haatzaaien met een ‘groter doel’‘

‘Israël bewijst nogmaals fascistisch te zijn >> journalist met kritiek wacht gevangenisstraf……‘

 ‘Esther Voet (hoofdredacteur Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad) over ‘antisemitisme’‘

 ‘Jeremy Corbyn (Labour en oppositie leider GB) veegt de vloer aan met vertrekkende ‘centrum’ Labour fractieleden‘







Daar Corbyn vooral voor antisemiet wordt uitgemaakt, nog wat links naar dat onderwerp:

‘Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten‘

‘Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….‘

‘Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart‘

‘De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………‘

‘Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek‘

‘Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen‘

Jeremy Corbyn weggezet als nazi in fake news ‘antisemitisme schandaal’ >> haatzaaien met een ‘groter doel’

Posted on by Telmo Claro
De voortdurende demonisering van Corbyn in de Britse reguliere media kent werkelijk geen grenzen meer, dagelijks wordt Corbyn door de stront gesleurd en afgezeken als antisemiet……. Niet dat daar ook maar één direct bewijs voor geleverd kan worden, sterker nog: Corbyn onderhoudt aantoonbaar goede relaties met joodse mensen en niet de minste, neem de intussen overleden van joodse komaf Nederlandse Hajo Meijer, een overlever van de nazi-dodenkampen, met wie hij een goede relatie had……
In het hieronder opgenomen artikel nog veel meer joodse mensen die het opnemen voor Corbyn, de Labour leider die in zijn team zelfs drie mensen van joodse komaf heeft, allen joden die allesbehalve vinden dat Corbyn een antisemiet is…..
Men is dan ook totaal niet bang dat met Corbyn de nazi’s over de Britse straten zullen marcheren, maar dat Corbyn na zoveel decennia neoliberaal wanbeleid gevoerd door opvolgende regeringen, ja zelfs door zijn eigen Labour Partij, een sociaal regeringsbeleid zal voeren……. Corbyn is te populair en dat dit zeker ook veel jongeren aanspreekt, is velen in het verkeerde keelgat geschoten…..

De schrijver van het artikel stelt terecht dat een deel van de Labour politici het beleid van Blair willen doorzetten, van Labour een tweede Tory partij maken* dit t.b.v. het inhumane, ijskoude neoliberalisme en de voortdurende Britse steun voor en deelname aan illegale oorlogen van de VS, waarmee deze Labour politici ook fungeren als lobbyisten van het militair-industrieel complex, een complex waar men vindt dat er niet lang en vaak genoeg oorlog gevoerd kan worden…….

Het sterkste pleidooi in het volgende artikel is wel de vaststelling dat het misbruik van het woord ‘antisemitisme’ in feite een trap na is voor de slachtoffers van de holocaust (een te korte samenvatting, lees het artikel)
De schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, dat eerder op MediaLens werd gepubliceerd (nam het over van Information Clearing House), neemt ook de opgestapte Labour leden onder de loep en geeft daarbij aan dat deze figuren een allesbehalve fris verleden hebben…….
Lees het volgende uiterst verontrustende, maar prima artikel en geeft het door, ook de Nederlandse media nemen de lulkoek van de Britse media over en stellen dat Labour een probleem heeft met antisemitisme, terwijl een groot aantal Britse joden lid is van Corbyns Labour Partij……. Intussen heeft de eerste aanval op Corbyn, n.a.v. het haatzaaien in de Britse media al plaatsgevonden……
The Fake News Nazi – Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal
By Editor Media Lens

March 08, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – One of us had a discussion with an elderly relative:

‘He can’t be allowed to become Prime Minister.’

‘Why not?’

‘It’s so awful…’

‘What is?’

‘The way he hates the Jews.’

The last comment was spoken with real anguish, the result of continuous exposure to just two main news sources: the Daily Mail and the BBC.

 What is astonishing is that, just four years ago, essentially no-one held this view of Jeremy Corbyn.

 Corbyn first became an MP in 1983. He stood for the Labour leadership 32 years later, in May 2015. We searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

‘Jeremy Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

‘Jeremy Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 11,251 hits

None of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. For his first 32 years as an MP, it just wasn’t a theme associated with him.

 We also searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

‘Labour Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 5,347 hits

‘Labour Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 13,921 hits

The archive begins in 1980, which means that more than twice as many articles have included these terms in the last four years than in the 35 years from 1980 until May 2015 when Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership. A standard response to these findings runs along these lines:

‘Irrelevant backbencher gets less Press attention than Leader of The Opposition SHOCKER. What’s your next scoop, Water Wet, Sky Blue?’

But in fact, Corbyn was not an irrelevant backbencher. We found 3,662 hits for articles mentioning Corbyn before May 2015. Many of these are mentions in passing, but he had also long been a high-profile anti-war MP at a time of numerous wars. And he was frequently smeared, only not about his supposed anti-semitism. Consider, for example, an article that appeared in The Sun in 1999, under a typically cruel title:

‘Why did it take you so long to dump him, Mrs Corbyn?’ (Ally Ross, The Sun, 13 May 1999)

The story:

‘EXTREME Left MP Jeremy Corbyn has been dumped by his missus after an amazing bust-up over their son’s education.’

The key issue, according to The Sun:

‘Now the question on everyone’s lips is: Why did it take her so long to leave the loathsome Lefty, and more importantly, why is she only moaning about his choice of schools?’

Because there was, apparently, plenty to moan about. The Sun described Corbyn as ‘class crusader Jeremy – a rabid IRA sympathiser’ who ‘not only looks and dresses like a third-rate Open University lecturer, he thinks like one too. In 1984 the Provo stooge invited twice-convicted terrorist and bomber Linda Quigley to the House of Commons just 13 days after the IRA’s murderous attack on Tories staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton’.

 This was pretty brutal stuff. The Sun added of Corbyn’s ex-wife:

‘Claudia’s saviour of the masses also suffers incredible delusions of grandeur. Communist states may be falling like dominoes, but raving Red Jeremy still believes his outdated views are relevant to modern-day Britain.’

And:

‘Not only is Jeremy a political coward who backs terrorists, he is also a self-confessed big girl’s blouse.’

And:

‘Jeremy’s mis-shapen suits, lumpy jumpers and nylon shirts are not exactly what the well-dressed radical is wearing in 1999… Claudia should be aware her ex is irredeemably, unforgivably, annoyingly stupid.’

Given the no-holds-barred nature of the smear, it is amazing that The Sun made no mention at all of Corbyn’s vile anti-semitism, viewed as his most obvious and dangerous defect now.
The reason is that, as this shows, not even his worst enemies viewed him as an anti-semite. The extreme Tory press aside, the accepted view of Corbyn pre-2015 is indicated by a long, admiring piece in which Jewish journalist Deborah Ross, whose family members were murdered in Polish pogroms even before the Nazi Holocaust was unleashed, interviewed him for the Independent in 2005. Ross commented:

‘He is also, it is generally agreed, an exemplary constituency MP. Even my friend Rebecca, who recently sought his help on a local issue, and never usually has a nice word to say about anybody, which is why I like her, describes him as a “totally genuine mensch”.’

Ross added:

‘As The Sun would have it, Mr Corbyn is a “beardy Bolshevik” and “loathsome lefty” but he does not come across as either. He has strong opinions but does not demand you listen to them, if you don’t want to.

‘He is scandal free, unless you count the hoo-ha a few years back when it was revealed that Jeremy’s oldest son would be attending a grammar school outside the borough.’

Joseph Finlay is a former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly, who co-founded a range of grassroots Jewish organisations such as Moishe House London, Wandering Jews, Jewdas and The Open Talmud Project. On 2 March 2018, Finlay wrote in his blog under the title, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-racist, not an anti-Semite’:

‘Firstly we need to restore some perspective. The Labour party has thousands of Jewish members, many Jewish councillors, a number of prominent Jewish MPs and several Jewish members of its ruling council. Many people at the heart of the Corbyn team, such as Jon Lansman, James Schneider and Rhea Wolfson are also Jewish. Ed Miliband, the previous party leader, was Jewish (and suffered antisemitism at the hands of the press and the Conservatives). I have been a member for five years and, as a Jew, have had only positive experiences.’

Finlay added:

‘Jeremy Corbyn has been MP for Islington North since 1983 – a constituency with a significant Jewish population. Given that he has regularly polled over 60% of the vote (73% in 2017) it seems likely that a sizeable number of Jewish constituents voted for him. As a constituency MP he regularly visited synagogues and has appeared at many Jewish religious and cultural events. He is close friends with the leaders of the Jewish Socialist Group, from whom he has gained a rich knowledge of the history of the Jewish Labour Bund, and he has named the defeat of Mosley’s Fascists at the Battle of Cable as a key historical moment for him. His 2017 Holocaust Memorial Day statement talked about Shmuel Zygielboym, the Polish Bund leader exiled to London who committed suicide in an attempt to awaken the world to the Nazi genocide. How many British politicians have that level of knowledge of modern Jewish history?’

Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook notes that a recent Labour Party report ‘decisively undercut’ the claims of Corbyn’s critics ‘not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all’. Cook summarised:

‘Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.

‘The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly “endemic” or “institutional”, it seems.’

He added:

‘That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was “no reliable, empirical evidence” that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.’

In ‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel’ by the Jewish Institute for Policy Research, L. Daniel Staetsky found:

‘Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the “slightly left-of-centre,” the “fairly left-wing” and the “very left-wing” – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared to the general population.’

The report notes that ‘the prevalence of antisemitism on the far right is considerably higher than on the left and in the political centre’.

 Noam Chomsky has commented:

‘The charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are without merit, an underhanded contribution to the disgraceful efforts to fend off the threat that a political party might emerge that is led by an admirable and decent human being, a party that is actually committed to the interests and just demands of its popular constituency and the great majority of the population generally, while also authentically concerned with the rights of suffering and oppressed people throughout the world. Plainly an intolerable threat to order.’ (Noam Chomsky, email to Media Lens, 9 September 2018)

Suspending Chris Williamson

On February 27, a propaganda blitz was launched against anti-war Labour MP Chris Williamson who had been filmed saying that Labour Party responses to claims of anti-semitism had exacerbated the crisis:

‘I’ve got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible… Because, in my opinion, we’ve backed off far too much, we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic.’

Williamson added:

‘We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-semitism than any political party.’

It is clear that Williamson was strongly endorsing the fight against anti-semitism and was proud of the Labour Party’s record. Actual anti-semites talk of ‘the scourge of Judaism’, Williamson talked of ‘the scourge of anti-semitism’. He was suggesting that the party had been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign attempting to destroy Corbyn by exploiting the issue of anti-semitism.

 Others chose to see it differently. Guardian columnist Owen Jones responded to Williamson’s comments:

‘This is utterly out of order. When does the left ever say we’ve been “too apologetic” about fighting racism or bigotry? Why is he, a non-Jew, right and Jon Lansman – a Jewish socialist who founded Momentum and ran Corbyn’s second leadership campaign – wrong about anti-Semitism?’

We replied:

‘”When does the left ever say we’ve been “too apologetic” about fighting racism or bigotry?'”

‘He’s *endorsing* the fight against racism and bigotry. He’s saying Labour has been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign to destroy Corbyn in the name of anti-racism.’

Ash Sharkar of Novara Media tweeted:

‘Chris Williamson has been had the Labour whip suspended pending investigation, which I think is the right decision. But much more work must be done to proactively confront and dismantle conspiratorial and antisemitic thinking on the left, and it goes much further than expulsions.’

Aaron Bastani, also of Novara Media, wrote:

‘I think media coverage of the “Labour anti-semitism crisis” is completely disproportionate – primarily because it underplays problem more broadly across society.

‘Equally, hearing & reading the things I have in recent days I wouldn’t feel welcome in the party as a Jewish person.’

In our latest book, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, we noted a key factor driving home these smear blitzes:

‘while a demonising propaganda blitz may arise from rightist politics and media, the propaganda coup de grace ending public doubt often comes from the “left-liberal” journalists at the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC and Channel 4; and also from non-corporate journalists who crave acceptance by these media. Again, the logic is clear: if even celebrity progressive journalists – people famous for their principled stands, and colourful socks and ties – join the denunciations, then there must be something to the claims. At this point, it actually becomes difficult to doubt it’. (David Edwards and David Cromwell, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, Pluto Press, 2018, pp.8-9)

Foreign Wars – Racism Versus Speciesism

The truth of the corporate media’s ‘ethical concern’ becomes clearer when we consider Corbyn’s record on foreign wars. While the UK affects to care deeply about racism, Chomsky has noted that the West’s endless ‘interventions’ – all reflexively supported by the same media damning Corbyn now – are manifestations of a prejudice, beyond even racism, that is a kind of speciesism:

‘Namely, knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don’t regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you don’t even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I’ll probably kill lots of ants, but I don’t intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters. There are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants. Same in the case of tens of millions of others.’ (Chomsky ZNet blog, ‘Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism,’ 31 July 2007)

Even if Corbyn was an anti-semite, a racist, he would still be a far safer ethical choice than Tory and Blairite speciesists who value human beings on the level of ants. After all, we find that Jeremy Corbyn:

‘Consistently voted against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

‘Consistently voted against the Iraq war.’

‘… voted to say that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established’.

‘… voted against a motion stating the Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Support for the motion by the majority of MPs led to the UK joining the US invasion of Iraq two days later’.

‘Generally voted for investigations into the Iraq war.’

‘… acted as teller for a vote on UK Air Strikes Against ISIL in Iraq’.

‘… voted against the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya’.

‘… voted against the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan’.

‘… voted to decline to authorise UK military action in Syria’.

‘… voted against UK airstrikes against ISIL in Syria’.

‘Generally voted against replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system.’

Consider, by contrast, the record of the Labour MPs who have left the Labour Party, supposedly in protest at the rise of anti-semitism, to form The Independent Group:

 Chuka Umunna ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Angela Smith ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Mike Gapes ‘Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Chris Leslie ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Luciana Berger ‘Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Joan Ryan: ‘Consistently voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas’, ‘Consistently voted for the Iraq war’, ‘Consistently voted against investigations into the Iraq war.’

 Ann Coffey ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Gavin Shuker ‘Voted a mixture of for and against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

 Not even his most extreme critics are suggesting that Corbyn is offering the kind of threat to Jewish people consistently offered by Tory and Blairite MPs to millions of people in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and Yemen. Even if Corbyn had erred in failing to perceive the ugliness of a mural declared antisemitic by the press; even if had been lax in taking action against party racists, and so on, how do these failings compare to the destruction of whole countries in lie-based wars of aggression?

 Why do corporate media never make this moral comparison? Because they are incapable of perceiving US-UK crimes against humanity as crimes; a wilful moral blindness that renders them completely unfit to pass judgement on Corbyn. Especially as they are themselves, of course, complicit in these same war crimes.

Conclusion

The claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite presiding over a surge in Labour Party anti-semitism is fake news; it is a scam of the utmost cynicism and brutality. It should be viewed as the latest in a long line of attempts to destroy Corbyn by all necessary means. He has been smeared for not bowing low enough, for not singing loudly enough, for hating women, for disrespecting gay people, for consorting with terrorists, for refusing to unleash a nuclear holocaust, for being a shambolic leader, for being a shambolic dresser, for leading Labour towards certain electoral disaster, for being a Putinite stooge, for aping Trump, and so on. Now, finally, someone widely admired for thirty years as a decent, socialist MP, has been transformed into an anti-semite; or as game show assistant and political commentator Rachel Riley implies, a ‘Nazi’.

 Anti-semitism does exist in the Labour Party, as it exists throughout UK society, and of course these delusions should be resisted and exposed. But the smear campaign against Corbyn is not rooted in concern for the welfare of Jewish people; it is not even about blocking a political leader who cares about Palestinian rights. It is about preventing Corbyn from undoing Tony Blair’s great achievement of transforming the Labour Party into a second Tory Party, thus ensuring voters have no option challenging corporate domination, including the ‘humanitarian interventions’ for oil and other resources. The goal is to stop Corbyn letting democracy out of its box.

 Stephen Law of Heythrop College, University of London, warns that cavalier accusations made ‘on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence’ are ‘disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust’. But in fact, it is worse than that. State propagandists and their corporate media allies are exploiting the suffering of these millions as part of an attack on British democracy. This is obscene. But it is not particularly shocking after the campaigns of deceit which, as discussed, knowingly risked and then shattered the lives of millions of innocent human beings in US-UK wars of aggression.

 One thing is certain, if Corbyn and his style of socialism can be made to disappear, we’ll hear no more about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, just as we heard no more about Iraqi democracy after Saddam Hussein, or human rights in Libya after Gaddafi; just as we will hear no more about press freedom in Venezuela, if Maduro is overthrown.

 As this alert was being written, news emerged that Corbyn had been subjected to a physical assault in London, to muted concern from almost all corporate media and journalists (compare ‘mainstream’ reaction to news that Conservative MP Anna Soubry had been called a ‘Nazi’). Journalists claimed Corbyn had merely had an egg thrown at him. Labour MP Diane Abbott tweeted:

‘I was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible’

Perhaps journalists couldn’t bear to express concern for a person they have so completely reviled for almost four years. Or perhaps they knew their smears of a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned man would be thrown back at them. More likely, they just didn’t care. And that, finally, is the truth of their ‘ethical concern’ – they don’t care.


 This article was originally published by “Media Lens” –
================================================
* Ook onder de Labour regeringen in het begin van deze eeuw, de regeringen van opperploert Blair en oplichter Brown, gingen miljoenen kinderen met honger naar school……..

Zie ook:
‘Corbyn als schietschijf voor het Britse leger, reactie Tories: Corbyn is een groot gevaar voor Brittannië……‘

‘Antisemitische heksenjacht in GB bedoeld om pro-Palestijnse Labour politici de mond te snoeren‘

‘Esther Voet (Nieuw Israëlitisch Weekblad) ‘maakt grap’: ze vertrekt naar Israël vanwege groeiend antisemitisme……‘

‘The Guardian weigert brief van meer dan 200 Joodse vrouwen, waar dit medium loog en blijft liegen over ‘antisemitisme’ Corbyn‘

‘Anti-Corbyn boek valt door de mand als valse aanklacht >> schrijver duikt onder……‘

‘Esther Voet (hoofdredacteur Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad) over ‘antisemitisme’‘

‘Jeremy Corbyn (Labour en oppositie leider GB) veegt de vloer aan met vertrekkende ‘centrum’ Labour fractieleden‘







Daar Corbyn vooral voor antisemiet wordt uitgemaakt, nog wat links naar dat onderwerp:

‘Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten‘

‘Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….‘

‘Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart‘

‘De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………‘

‘Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek‘

‘Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen‘

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour en oppositie leider GB) veegt de vloer aan met vertrekkende ‘centrum’ Labour fractieleden

Posted on by Telmo Claro

De 7 zogenaamd geëmotioneerde Labour leden, die de ‘moeilijke keus’ moesten maken te vertrekken daar ze het niet eens zijn met Corbyns meer socialistische benadering van sociaaldemocratische politiek bedrijven, werden met een figuurlijke openbare schop onder de bips door Corbyn fijntjes gedag gezegd.

Volkomen terecht wijst Corbyn op de desastreuze situatie waar enorm veel Britten in verkeren, vergeet bijvoorbeeld niet dat dagelijks zo’n 4 miljoen Britse kinderen met honger naar school gaan, waar ze hun eerste maaltijd ontvangen, daar de neoliberale schoftenclub May (‘de dancing queen…’ ha! ha! ha!), die veel van het werkloos maakte, de ouders niet meer geld wensen te geven, zodat ze hun kinderen zelf kunnen voeden, daar men die ouders niet vertrouwt……..
Corbyn wijst er voorts fijntjes op dat Labour onder hem in 2017 een verkiezingswinst behaalde die voor het laatst in 1945 werd gehaald. Een teken dat de kiezers achter het gekozen beleid van Corbyn staan, ofwel deze 7 griezels stellen geen belang in het volk dat voor Labour koos in 2017….. (o.a. veel jongeren; bemoedigend)
Baantjes jagers, zoals deze 7 ex-Labour leden, die uit zijn op persoonlijke zaken als macht en geld, horen niet in een partij die zegt de belangen van het volk te behartigen…..

Vanmiddag sprak men op Radio1, in een achterlijk programma van BNNVARA, al over een splitsing in de Labour Party, dit daar er 7 leden van een enorme fractie opstapten en een eigen partij gaan opzetten, er blijven dan ook nog 249 Labour fractieleden over in het Lagerhuis…… Wat een splitsing……..
Tot slot nog dit: de massamedia in GB van de commerciëlen tot de publieke zendgemachtigden zien het als hun taak Corbyn zo zwart mogelijk te maken, tja veronderstel dat men eens echt gaat regeren als volksvertegenwoordiging, daaraan hebben de regering voor de publieke zendgemachtigden en de eigenaren van de commerciële media en bedrijven die via hun medium reclame maken, bepaald geen behoefte……. Vandaar ook de hysterie rond ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws) waarvan men de alternatieve media beschuldigd, immers deze media hebben al lang geleden gezien dat de reguliere media hun onafhankelijkheid kwijt zijn en er geen moeite mee hebben fake news en andere desinformatie te verspreiden…….

Het volgende artikel werd eerder gepubliceerd door The Canary en werd geschreven door Tracy Keeling:

In just four lines, Jeremy Corbyn blows the lid off the ‘tough choice’ made by Labour’s quitters

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor In just four lines, Jeremy Corbyn blows the lid off the ‘tough choice’ made by Labour’s quitters

Tracy Keeling
18th February 2019
Afbeeldingsresultaat voor In just four lines, Jeremy Corbyn blows the lid off the ‘tough choice’ made by Labour’s quitters
Seven Labour MPs made the ‘tough choice’ to resign from their party on 18 February. As one of them, Chris Leslie, explained, they can no longer “in all conscience… support a government led by Jeremy Corbyn or the team around him”.
Corbyn’s response, however, provided some important context to their exit. Because it shows exactly what, and who, this small group of MPs is really turning its back on.
United we stand
The Labour leader began by reminding the MPs why they’re even in the position to resign:

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

I am disappointed that these MPs have felt unable to continue to work together for the Labour policies that inspired millions at the last election and saw us increase our vote by the largest share since 1945.

10.8K

11:49 – 18 Feb 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy

As Corbyn said, Labour saw its biggest voteshare increase since 1945 in the 2017 general election. The support Corbyn’s Labour attracted, which defied early predictions, resulted in a hung parliament. So, by turning their backs on Labour at this moment, these MPs are also rejecting the will of the people who put them in their current position.
Meanwhile, as the Labour leader stated, these Labour leavers are effectively renouncing the policies that garnered people’s votes. Corbyn laid out what some of these are:

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

·

I am disappointed that these MPs have felt unable to continue to work together for the Labour policies that inspired millions at the last election and saw us increase our vote by the largest share since 1945.

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

Labour won people over on a programme for the many not the few – redistributing wealth and power, taking vital resources into public ownership, investing in every region and nation, and tackling climate change.

However, although they’re in parliament on the back of a manifesto which promised such things, it’s not surprising that this group isn’t sticking around to secure them. One of the leavers, Chuka Umunna, for example, has a reputation for flip-flopping on policy in the interests of his own career. In fact, the group is largely made up of so-called ‘centrists’ – meaning they don’t veer far from the status quo – rather than supporters of the socialist programme Corbyn’s Labour is offering.
Finally, Corbyn highlighted the importance of unity in the current UK climate:

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

·

Replying to @jeremycorbyn
Labour won people over on a programme for the many not the few – redistributing wealth and power, taking vital resources into public ownership, investing in every region and nation, and tackling climate change.

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

The Tories are bungling Brexit while Labour has set out a unifying and credible alternative plan. When millions face the misery of Universal Credit, rising crime, homelessness and poverty, now more than ever is the time to bring people together to build a better future for us all

5,678

11:49 – 18 Feb 2019

Of course, since Corbyn became leader in 2015, ‘togetherness’ hasn’t appeared a priority for a number of Labour MPs. In fact, MPs like Umunna and Leslie have regularly attacked their own leadership. That’s despite the fact there are lots of issues they should unite behind, like tackling homelessness and poverty, as Corbyn said.
God speed, mo-fos
So, there you have it. These seven MPs can claim they’re taking a stand against Corbyn with these resignations. But in quitting the party, they’re turning their backs on the millions who voted for Labour; the manifesto that attracted those votes; and the people who need these MPs to spend their energies fighting ‘for the many’ right now.
That’s not so much a ‘tough choice’ but a selfish one and it’s the foundation of their political futures. Good luck attracting support for that at the next election they face.

Featured image via YouTube – Owen Jones

Since you’re here …

We know you don’t need a lecture. You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t care. Now, more than ever, The Canary needs your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive. Support The Canary!
==========================================

‘Antisemitische heksenjacht in GB bedoeld om pro-Palestijnse Labour politici de mond te snoeren‘

‘Esther Voet (Nieuw Israëlitisch Weekblad) ‘maakt grap’: ze vertrekt naar Israël vanwege groeiend antisemitisme……‘

 ‘The Guardian weigert brief van meer dan 200 Joodse vrouwen, waar dit medium loog en blijft liegen over ‘antisemitisme’ Corbyn‘

 ‘Jeremy Corbyn weggezet als nazi in fake news ‘antisemitisme schandaal’ >> haatzaaien met een ‘groter doel’‘

 ‘Anti-Corbyn boek valt door de mand als valse aanklacht >> schrijver duikt onder……‘

 ‘Esther Voet (hoofdredacteur Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad) over ‘antisemitisme’‘

 ‘Labour politicus Joan Ryan, die gisteren uit de partij stapte, werd op video betrapt met leugens om critici van Israël te belasteren‘








Daar Corbyn vooral voor antisemiet wordt uitgemaakt, nog wat links naar dat onderwerp:

‘Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten‘

‘Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….‘

‘Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart‘

‘De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………‘

‘Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek‘

‘Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen‘

Mijn excuus voor de vormgeving, krijg het niet op orde.

AIPAC, een pro-Israël lobbygroep, koopt leden van het VS congres om met 4 miljoen dollar per jaar

Posted on by Telmo Claro
Ilhan Omar en Rashida Tlaib* zijn de eerste vrouwelijke moslim leden van het VS congres en deze 2 timmeren nogal aan de weg. Zo heeft Omar een berg stront over zich heen gekregen voor het openbaren van het feit dat AIPAC, een pro-Israëlische lobbygroep, ieder jaar weer congresleden omkoopt met 4 miljoen dollar voor politici die ‘de goede zaak’ dienen, ofwel die zonder enige kritiek pal staan voor de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël en alle enorme oorlogsmisdaden (om niet te zeggen misdaden tegen de menselijkheid) die dit gestolen land begaat tegen de Palestijnen…..
Het gaat overigens niet alleen om het pal staan voor Israël, maar ook elke kritiek die op deze terreurstaat wordt geuit afdoen als antisemitisme, behoort tot de taak van deze omgekochte congresleden en dat heeft Omar gemerkt zoals je al kon lezen. Het feit dat Omar kritiek durft te hebben op AIPAC is al reden genoeg om haar als antisemiet weg te zetten……
De schrijver van dit artikel is Alexander Rubinstein en werd eerder gepubliceerd op MintPress News, door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media. Verbaas je zoals ik over de hysterische manier waarop men in de VS elke komma kritiek op Israël afdoet als antisemitisch, datzelfde geldt overigens voor alle westerse landen, neem de kritiek op Jeremy Corbyn, Labour en oppositieleider in GB….**

Laten we hopen dat Omar en Tlaib zich uiteindelijk niet de mond laten snoeren, de invloed van Israël op de politiek in de VS is ongeëvenaard en zelfs al zou het Russiagate sprookje waar zijn (wat het niet is), zou die beïnvloeding niet in de schaduw kunnen staan van de enorme invloed die Israël heeft op de politiek in de VS…… Zo sprak de zwaar corrupte oorlogsmisdadiger Netanyahu in 2015 het VS congres toe, waar hij de richting wilde bepalen van de politiek die de leden zouden moeten volgen inzake Iran, dit daar hij het niet eens was met Obama…) Daarmee schoffeerde deze Palestijnenslachter niet alleen Obama, maar schopte hij zelfs tegen het kleine beetje democratie dat nog over is in de VS…..

Ilhan Omar is Right: AIPAC Influences Congress With $4 Million Every Year

February 11, 2019 at 10:04 pm
(MPN) — What unites Republicans and Democrats, a former Jewish terrorist, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Nikki Haley, Chelsea Clinton and Liz Cheney? A Muslim lady with a mouth and some opinions, apparently. Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has been the subject of bipartisan bullying that has reached a fever pitch since the lawmaker explicitly called out the number one Israeli lobby group in the U.S. — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Earlier this year, Omar made heads explode in the halls of power after she denounced the U.S.-backed coup attempt in Venezuela. Now, even the leader of her own party in her own chamber of Congress – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – is joining a chorus of detractors accusing Omar of anti-Semitism for correctly characterizing the business of lobbying.
While this is not the first time that Omar has come under fire for criticizing Israel, the current saga began on Sunday when journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted an article by the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz that trumpeted calls from House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to “take action” against Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). McCarthy did not specify which statements he opposed, but called the situation “equal” or worse than that of Rep. Steve King (R-IA) who was removed from his committee assignments by his party after he questioned when “white supremacy” had become “offensive.”
Tlaib and Omar are the first two Muslim women in Congress, while Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American. Both have supported the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a nonviolent campaign to economically pressure Israel into compliance with international and humanitarian law.

Glenn Greenwald

✔@ggreenwald

·

Replying to @ggreenwald
Equating @IlhanMN & @RashidaTlaib‘s criticism of Israel to Steve King’s long defense of white supremacy is obscene (McCarthy said it’s worse). In the US, we’re allowed to criticize our own government: certainly foreign governments. The GOP House Leader’s priorities are warped.

Glenn Greenwald

✔@ggreenwald

Sorry, but you’re not going to turn the two first Muslim women to serve in the US Congress into overnight Jew-haters because of their criticisms of Israel. What’s actually anti-Semitic is conflating the Government of Israel with Jews, so those of you doing that should stop.

9,741

1:48 AM – Feb 11, 2019

MintPress News has previously covered dubious accusations of anti-Semitism against Tlaib after she took a stand against a free-speech-crushing bill favored by — you guessed it — the Israel lobby. Meanwhile, other lawmakers are attempting to block Tlaib’s planned delegation to the illegally occupied West Bank.
In response to the attack from the Republican House leader, ACLU Human Rights Director Jamil Dakwar quipped that Congressman McCarthy may “want to revive McCarthyism.”
McCarthy himself received $33,000 from NorPAC, “an AIPAC affiliate, in the last election cycle,” reportedthe online publication Jewish Worker. Meanwhile, McCarthy himself has been accused of spreading anti-Semitic tropes, warning that three Jewish, liberal mega-donors, including George Soros, were trying to “buy” the midterm elections, which were to take place the following day. That tweet has since been deleted.

Kevin McCarthy

✔@GOPLeader

·

One of my greatest honors is leading new members on a bipartisan trip to Israel to showcase the shared values and unbreakable bond between our countries.

Kevin McCarthy

✔@GOPLeader

Anti-Semitic tropes have no place in the halls of Congress. It is dangerous for Democrat leadership to stay silent on this reckless language.

4,809

Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,881 people are talking about this

Kevin McCarthy

✔@GOPLeader

·

Replying to @GOPLeader
Anti-Semitic tropes have no place in the halls of Congress. It is dangerous for Democrat leadership to stay silent on this reckless language.

District Sentinel@TheDCSentinel

Weird you would tie trips to Israel with antisemitism. Equating Zionism to Judaism is antisemitic. Almost like you are a disingenuous weasel

45

Twitter Ads info and privacy

About the Benjamins
Upon seeing the report, Omar did not pull any punches. In an apparent pun on a slang term for $100 bills and the prime minister of Israel’s first name, she tweeted that “it’s all about the Benjamins baby,” which is a quote from a 1990’s Puff Daddy song.
Then, an opinion editor at the Jewish magazine The Forward, Batya Ungar-Sargon, reposted the tweet, telling her followers that she’d “love to know who Ilhan Omar thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess.”

Mnar A. Muhawesh ⌛@MnarMuh

In 2018 spent ~ $4 Million lobbying our elected officials to support Israel, including quashing Americans first amend right to support BDS.@IlhanMN pointing out how Congress is bought to represent a foreign government over Americans isn’t antisemitic it’s stating facts.

521

9:41 PM – Feb 11, 2019

Omar clapped back with just six characters, tweeting “AIPAC!” — the acronym for the largest and most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the United States. In fact, AIPAC spends more than $3.5 million every year to influence Congress to be more favorable towards Israel.

Eli Valley

✔@elivalley

This is a disgusting. By the same token one can say “The Forward has won the approval of the KKK.”

674

7:07 PM – Feb 11, 2019

Ungar-Sargon then attempted to speak on behalf of all American Jews, responding to Omar that she should “learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way.” Anti-Zionist American Jews promptly shut her down in replies.

Sam@halaljew

I know she’s still a Democrat and you should never put too much faith in anyone who’s a member of the Democratic Party, but I like Ilhan Omar. She’s had the balls to stand against the Washington consensus on Israel and on regime change in Venezuela. I’m glad she’s in the House.

809

3:58 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

89 people are talking about this
But some powerful people with Twitter accounts took exception the the congresswoman’s identification of a pro-Israel lobby group as an entity that “is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel.” One is left to wonder what causes AIPAC doles out the contents of its propaganda war-chest for if not to influence lawmakers on Israel. The takeaway from this line of analysis is that money has no influence in politics, which is patently absurd.
Yet AIPAC’s own mission statement claims “AIPAC urges all members of Congress to support Israel through foreign aid, government partnerships, joint anti-terrorism efforts.”

Eli Clifton

✔@EliClifton

Kudos to @IlhanMN for calling out the role of the GOP’s donors in influencing US foreign policy.

The GOP’s biggest donors, the Adelsons, are hawkishly pro-Israel and advocate using nukes on Iran!

The GOP’s biggest fundraiser, Norm Coleman, is a paid lobbyist for Saudi Arabia!

546

3:00 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Here, those that charge Omar with anti-Semitism reveal their own. By leveling charges of bigotry against critics of the Israel lobby, Israel’s defenders equate Jewishness with allegiance to Israel, or Zionism. In keeping with this estimation, Jews that do not condone the apartheid project underway in Palestine are branded “self-hating.”

Rania Khalek

✔@RaniaKhalek

Here is Chelsea Clinton accusing Ilhan Omar of anti-semitism for critiquing AIPAC. You hear that? Being anti-AIPAC is now anti-semitism.

Chelsea Clinton

✔@ChelseaClinton

Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.

6,193

8:44 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Despite Rep. Omar’s statement about AIPAC being self-evident, the remark riled the likes of former Trump Administration Ambassador to the UN and pro- Israel Nikki Haley, who once said, “When I come to AIPAC, I am with friends.” Haley’s pro-Israel track record at the international body prompted an Israeli cartoonist to satirize her departure with an image of a United Nations handyman telling Haley, who is packing her bags, that she forgot her “second flag” — an Israeli one. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin even called Haley a “true ambassador” for Israel.

Nikki Haley

✔@NikkiHaley

To see this at the UN was a fight every day. This CANNOT be tolerated in our own Congress by anyone of either party. In a time of increased anti semitism, we all must be held to account. No excuses. ❤️🇺🇸

Ilhan Omar

✔@IlhanMN

AIPAC! https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/1094756291803791360 …

26.3K

4:22 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

A major Washington pile-on
Lawmakers who pounced on Omar include: Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL), Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY), Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ), Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), who are trying to shore up support for a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hailing Israel as a “proud and stable democracy with robust protections for minorities” and calling for “swift action” to address the “recent rhetoric.”
Pelosi responded hours later with a joint statement with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) “condemning anti-Semitic comments made over Twitter by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.”
Also included in the D.C. dogpiling were the Republican Jewish Coalition, the American Jewish Committee (which painted AIPAC as a “Jewish” organization), and Dov Hikind, whom journalist Dan Cohen pointed out is a former member of the Jewish Defense League terrorist organization. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea also “co-signed” Ungar-Sargon’s smears of Omar’s rhetoric as “anti-Semitic.”

Judah Fishmonger@praisegodbarbon

In all seriousness though I am a young Jew who has never more represented on this issue than seeing @IlhanMN be brave enough to call out AIPAC and the Israel Lobby in its efforts to cement anti-Palestinian racism as a litmus test for Congress. She speaks for me, they don’t.

722

6:35 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Chelsea Clinton assured several on Twitter that she would “reach out to Omar.” When Omar agreed, saying “we must call out smears from the GOP and their allies,” Clinton agreed. That was until Ashley Goldberg stepped in, tweeting that Clinton “outright said there is a problem with antisemitism [sic] on both sides and Ilhan Omar clearly said she only cares about what she can do to depict it as only a problem with the GOP.”

Max Blumenthal

✔@MaxBlumenthal

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have earned over $3.5 million in paid speeches to pro-Israeli apartheid groups. At a $1000 a plate dinner, Bill Clinton said he would “grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die” for Israel. https://www.alternet.org/2016/02/clintons-earned-over-35-million-paid-addresses-pro-israel-organizations/amp/ …

Chelsea Clinton

✔@ChelseaClinton

Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.

4,088

3:06 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

But the conversation took a turn, culminating in Clinton’s vowing to “google people” before engaging with them from then on out, after journalist Hannah Gais pointed out that Goldberg was photographed at a white supremacist conference in 2016 hosted by Richard Spencer. Goldberg, an anti-communist Jewish media personality, also used to date Neo-Nazi leader Matthew Heimbach, the founder of the now-defunct Traditionalist Workers Party.

Mairav Zonszein מרב זונשיין

✔@MairavZ

Yes but Omar did not talk about Jews, she talked about money and it’s influence on American policy on Israel. What does it say about her accusers that any mention of money and power=Jews?

Michelle Goldberg

✔@michelleinbklyn

FYI, it’s possible to believe both that AIPAC has a pernicious effect on American politics and that Ilhan Omar’s tweet invoked clear anti-Semitic stereotypes about how Jews buy influence.

“AIPAC’s non-influence in Congress”
Not everyone bought it hook-line-and-sinker, however. Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Brookings Institution, tweeted that he was “in the market for a bridge,” and asked The Forward editor Ungar-Sargon to “please enlighten us on AIPAC’s non-influence in Congress.”
A spokesperson for Omar told Politico in response to the firestorm caused by the representative’s
tweets that the remarks “speak for themselves.”

Rafillionaire

✔@RafiLetzter

·

Replying to @RafiLetzter
She has consistently handled it with grace, even in the face of overt racism from GOP congressmen (which has somehow never been a scandal). What she gets in return is “serious reporters” parroting the smears.

Rafillionaire

✔@RafiLetzter

Things that are vastly more antisemitic than Ilhan Omar’s tweets:
– The belief that AIPAC represents American Jews
– The belief that Israel represents American Jews
– The median American Christian Zionist’s views on Jews
– The president
– All 7 of the Harry Potter Novels

1,496

5:15 AM – Feb 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

But a cursory examination of the legacy AIPAC has left since it opened shop the DC speak even greater volumes. The lobby group is not itself run by Israel, allowing it to avoid registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law that forces foreign lobby groups to be more transparent. That’s because I.L. Kenen, the founder of AIPAC, created a “legal loophole by which AIPAC is defined not as a lobby for a foreign state but for Americans who support that state. It’s a critical distinction that makes AIPAC’s dominance over U.S. Middle East policy possible,” according to former AIPAC employee M.J. Rosenberg.
AIPAC continues its practice of using loopholes to further its agenda today. A recent documentaryproduced by Al Jazeera but censored by Qatar, which funds the outlet, showed how one fundraiser for a congressional candidate, organized by an unofficial “AIPAC group,” circumvented laws on maximum individual political contributions by pooling donors’ grants together and doling out the official donations evenly among participants.
And the organization’s sway over Congress is difficult to dispute. Promotional literature for the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington has touted the idea that it would be “attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event.” Steve Rosen, a former AIPAC executive, would tell people that he “could take out a napkin at any Senate hangout and get signatures of support for one issue or another from scores of senators,” according to Connie Bruck in The New Yorker.
As AIPAC’s former policy director, Rosen and “Iran specialist” at AIPAC Keith Weissman met with Larry Franklin, a top Pentagon analyst working on Iran, prior to Franklin leaking a draft presidential directive “that proposed a tougher policy on Iran, which included consideration of covert action towards regime change,” according to Democracy Now. That document made its way into AIPAC’s hands, which passed it on to Israeli officials.
Former AIPAC President David Steiner was even forced to resign after audio was leaked of him bragging about how he was negotiating with Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign to appoint people to key posts in his administration. Steiner ultimately recanted and apologized to both AIPAC and Bill Clinton.
====================================
Nogmaals: dan te bedenken dat men Rusland op valse gronden beschuldigt van inmenging in de VS politiek….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
* Ilhan Omar, heeft sinds 2017 een zetel in het lagerhuis van Minnesota voor de Minnesota Demcratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Rashida Tlaib is van de Democratische Partij voor wie zij de vertegenwoordiger is van het 13de (congressionele) district van Michigan. (toevoeging ter verduidelijking gemaakt op 10 maart 2019)

Ignorethe mainstream media, Jeremy Corbyn just played a winning move.

Westerse massamedia lopen aan de leiband van plutocraten, de neoliberale politiek en geheime diensten

Posted on by Telmo Claro
Caitlin Johnstone heeft zich over de berichtgeving van de massamedia gebogen en zet een aantal feiten wat betreft de reguliere (massa-) media op een rij, waarbij ze tot verrassende inzichten komt.
Als eerste buigt Johnstone zich over de vraag waarom journalisten van de reguliere media in ‘vrije democratieën’ (‘een beetje dubbelop’) zich gedragen als hun collega’s van staatsmedia propagandisten. Waarom gedragen ze zich als betrouwbare vertegenwoordigers van de gevestigde orde en waarom wordt elk idee gemarginaliseerd dat niet past in wat op een bepaald moment als een correcte gedachte wordt gezien? (en dat kan op zeer grove manier gebeuren, zie de smerige en uiterst valse berichtgeving over de Britse Labour leider Jeremy Corbyn door de reguliere media waar ook de BBC deel van uitmaakt, al kan je die ‘onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde’ als staatsomroep onder een dictatuur zien)

Waarom worden mensen die de gevestigde orde bekritiseren altijd door de media veroordeeld? Waarom worden ‘fouten’ in een land dat buiten de invloedssfeer en de macht van de gecentraliseerde VS-alliantie valt, zo kritisch becommentarieerd door de reguliere (westerse) media, terwijl fouten binnen die alliantie worden vergeven, of veelal zelfs niet worden genoemd?
Volgens Johnstone zijn er maar twee verklaringen voor die unanieme instemming van de reguliere media op die onderwerpen:
Die instemming bestaat omdat die media altijd de waarheid zouden vertellen, of die instemming bestaat omdat er een systeem is ontstaan, waarin de journalisten van de reguliere media ons voorliegen en een vals beeld schetsen van wat er gebeurt in de wereld.
Volgens Johnstone zijn dit de enige mogelijkheden, waarbij ze de eerste uiteraard afwijst, immers als deze media altijd de waarheid vertellen, zouden deze media niet de leugens herhalen over bijvoorbeeld de oorlogen in Vietnam en Irak, ofwel dan zou het afslachten van miljoenen op grond van leugens niet zijn verdedigd in die media………

Eén en ander betekent overigens niet dat de grote reguliere media alleen maar liegen, immers dan zou men de klanten snel verliezen, nee men brengt natuurlijk ook echt nieuws, naast halve waarheden, verdraaide feiten en de al genoemde leugens.
Lees het artikel van Johnstone, zij legt deze zaak duidelijk uit, waarna de conclusie wordt getrokken dat de media inderdaad aan de leiband lopen van plutocraten of fondsen van aandeelhouders (oké dat was al bekend, maar Johnstone geeft het geheel handen en voeten). Voorts meldt Johnstone ten overvloede nog eens dat de CIA al sinds de 50er jaren van de vorige eeuw bemoeienis heeft met de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS…….
Nogmaals lees het artikel en oordeel zelf:

How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas

Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so consistently marginalize any idea that doesn’t fit within the extremely narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of the nations within it?

AFP news agency

✔@AFP

#UPDATE A total of 1,723 people are arrested across France with 1,220 ordered held in custody, during the latest round of “yellow vest” protests, the interior ministry says

2,837

6:26 PM – Dec 9, 2018

The way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the unanimous consensus in mass media on these issues:

Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all telling the truth all the time.

OR

Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what’s really going on in the world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they’re all describing the same objective reality.
But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive, uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream media gave them about what’s in their best interests.
Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting of the status quo. But we don’t. We see war crimes ignored, oppression justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable fact.
But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This part of a 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and the BBC’s Andrew Marr describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo. Chomsky describes a “filtering system” which ensures that only those loyal to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
”Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.
Marr: How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..
Chomsky: I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting”.
“If you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media is in and of itself a profitable investment, “like having a license to print your own money” as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So when it comes to the news media outlets which form people’s perceptions of the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly wouldn’t make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the foundation of the plutocrat’s dynasty and cause him to lose everything.
Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which challenge the very governmental system they’ve worked so hard to manipulate to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep everyone supporting the status quo?
How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.

531

12:53 AM – Dec 10, 2018

If you’ve ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence agency assertions as fact not because there’s a CIA officer hovering over their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because they’re auditioning for a job. They’re creating a public record of their establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a social media presence to “build their brand”, i.e. their public resume.
So it’s very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is artificially built, and now you’ve got an environment where someone who stands up and says “Uh, hey, so we still haven’t seen any actual hard evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way” or whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe Aaron Maté‘s interactions with other journalists on social media for a good example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.

531

12:53 AM – Dec 10, 2018


Anyone who’s ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who’s ever worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one’s bosses. In any job with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end. You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.

It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they’re expected to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters who’ve ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Mail & Guardian

✔@mailandguardian

Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him. http://bit.ly/2RTa4La

21

10:45 AM – Dec 10, 2018

The six words that got Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN

Hill’s dismissal highlights how pro-Israel lobbying groups control the US discourse on Palestine and Israel

mg.co.za

So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices, which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. Add to this the phenomenon of access journalism, wherein journalists are incentivized to cozy up to power and pitch softball questions to officials in order to gain access to them, and things get even more slanted. It’s easy to understand how all this can create an environment of consensus which has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all those dynamics aren’t the only factors going into making sure a consensus worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned earlier who isn’t actively leaning over every journalist’s shoulder and dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he’s not dictating every word produced by the mass media machine doesn’t mean he’s not involved.

Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been intimately involved in America’s news media since the 1950s, and it remains so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was almost certainly the resultof the outlet’s collaboration with one or more intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback. Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don’t know about.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
This doesn’t mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling me “Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real! That means it’s false!” But it doesn’t work that way; if the TV tells you a celebrity has died then it’s probably true, and if they say it’s about to rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there’s an opportunity to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they have to, and only as much as they need to.
In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people’s narratives about what’s happening in their country and their world. This is the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the publicto buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it’s continuing to plummet. More and more people are waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that there are all these screens in everyone’s lives telling them that real change isn’t needed.
The liars are against the ropes, and they’re starting to look winded. A populist information revolutionis looking more winnable than ever.

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Zie ook:
‘VS Navy SEALs werden gewaarschuwd geen oorlogsmisdaden te melden‘

‘Jan Kuitenbrouwer (‘journalist’): Assange is een charlatan en WikiLeaks heeft beelden van de moord op 2 journalisten gemanipuleerd‘

‘Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten‘

‘Chelsea Manning blijft voor onbepaalde tijd in de gevangenis‘

‘VN heeft eerder de ‘detentie’ van Assange al als onwettig verklaard‘

‘Julian Assange gearresteerd, een flagrante schending van de persvrijheid!‘

‘Arrestatie Julian Assange: een aanfluiting voor internationale regels en een enorme aanval op onafhankelijke journalistiek‘

‘Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega’s voor zot uitgemaakt‘

‘The Guardian: ondanks een enorme misser (fake news) gaat men door met de valse beschuldigingen t.a.v. Assange……‘

‘WikiLeaks belooft The Guardian 1 miljoen dollar als het haar leugens i.z. Assange en Russiagate kan bewijzen…….‘

‘Julian Assange gedemoniseerd door media die hem zouden moeten steunen, waren ze bevolkt geweest door echte journalisten……..‘

‘WikiLeaks toont aan dat VS en GB een gezamenlijke gewelddadige en bedrieglijke buitenlandpolitiek voeren‘

‘De prijs op het hoofd van Julian Assange: 1 miljard dollar…..‘

‘Assange kan niet voor spionage worden vervolgd, immers hij is journalist >> aldus Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) in een video‘

‘Westerse bevolkingen worden bespeeld door regeringen, massamedia, grote bedrijven, financiële instellingen en geheime diensten……‘

‘Media tonen ware gezicht door weigering Julian Assange te verdedigen‘

‘Assange is journalist en zou alleen daarom al niet mogen worden vervolgd, een artikel o.a. voor de huidige ‘journalisten’ van de reguliere media en de gebruikers van die media‘

‘WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum‘

‘Stop de isolatie van Julian Assange!’

‘JulianAssange (Wikileaks) haalt hypocriete Britse regering onderuit voorwijzen op belang van vrije en onafhankelijke media‘

‘Volkskrant en Nieuwsuur Fake News over ‘Russische hacks…..’‘

‘VS waarschuwde regering van Zweden voor Wikileaks in aanloop verkiezingen, Assange ‘moest en zou hangen’, ofwel de zoveelste VS manipulatie van verkiezingen elders……‘

Facebook Removes Page of Ecuador’s Former President on Same Day as Assange’s Arrest

While US Media Play Along, Critics Warn Assange Indictment an ‘Obvious’ Ploy With Deeper Dangers

De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………

Posted on by Telmo Claro

THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA (EI) heeft de 4 delen van ‘The Lobby – USA’ op haar site gezet. In de film is te zien hoe sterk de Israël lobby is in de VS en hoe ongelofelijk smerig dit geteisem handelt. Middels lastercampagnes, spionage en intimidatie van burgers die zich voor Palestijnse rechten uitspreken en die Israël vanwege haar ongebreidelde terreur bekritiseren, probeert men hen de mond te snoeren door hen af te schilderen als antisemieten…….

Ofwel op grond van kritiek op de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël, wil men critici afschilderen als antisemieten, lullig genoeg lukt dit in de meeste gevallen, al is het met behulp van de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici…… Let wel: dat hele label ‘antisemitisch’ is vooral belachelijk als men dit Palestijnen en andere arabieren aanwrijft, daar ook zij semieten zijn!!

Een ‘mooi voorbeeld’ van een lastercampagne is die tegen Jeremy Corbyn de Labour leider, hij wordt al anderhalf jaar lang voor antisemiet uitgemaakt, met hulp van o.a. ‘onafhankelijk zendgemachtigde’ BBC, dit ondanks de band die Corbyn heeft met Joden die kritisch zijn op Israël, zoals de band met onze inmiddels overleden Hajo Meijer, NB een Holocaust overlever, die werkte voor Een Ander Joods Geluid……. In de Britse dagbladen is eveneens amper of geen weerwoord te vinden, Corbyn moet en zal de volgende verkiezingen verliezen, daar zetten zich zelfs collega’s van Corbyn voor in, verraders als opperschoft Tony Blair………

 Ook in ons land zijn pro-Israëlische zionisten fanatiek bezig tegen mensen die kritiek hebben op het moorddadige beleid van Israël, o.a. Stan van Houcke is sinds kort het doelwit van zionisten ofwel fascisten als Leon de Winter…….
Voor het artikel van Durden heb ik zelf de video’s overgenomen van YouTube (die van het originele artikel kan ik niet overnemen), ik geef ze i.t.t. tot het artikel op Zero Hedge wel alle 4 weer, plus nog een video, met de titel: ‘Evidence the Israel Lobby Control the US Government’. Mensen lees en verwonder je hoe machtig de pro-Israël lobby in feite is, verwondering ook hoe men dergelijke haatcampagnes kan voeren en het gore lef heeft mensen die opkomen voor de rechten van Palestijnen, als antisemitisch weg te zetten……
Lees, zie en geeft het door, tijd dat de ogen van de wereldbevolking opengaan en dat Israël wordt aangepakt voor de vreselijke terreur die het in haar illegaal gestichte staat en op de West Bank en de Gazastrook uitoefent, inclusief een enorm aantal massamoorden, niet alleen vlak voor en na de illegale stichting van Israël, maar tot op de dag van vandaag…
Israëlische leiders als Netanyahu en Lieberman hadden in Scheveningen al jaren hun levenslange gevangenisstraf moeten uitzitten, en dat beste bezoeker, heeft totaal niets met antisemitisme te maken, maar alles met gerechtigheid voor de gepleegde oorlogsmisdaden als massamoord en bijvoorbeeld het opsluiten en martelen van Palestijnse mensen en zelfs hun kinderen…….

Voorts zouden deze leiders terecht moeten staan voor zaken als het onthouden van water aan de Palestijnen, dit door vernieling van de bronnen (in de Gazastrook) en afdammingen in de Jordaan, t.b.v. de illegale Israëlische nederzettingen op de West Bank, waar Israël zich overigens totaal illegaal als bezettingsmacht bevindt, zoals nazi-Duitsland zich illegaal in ons land ophield van mei 1940 tot mei 1945
De 4 docu-films in het artikel hieronder werden door Al Jazeera gemaakt, echter deze mochten niet worden uitgezonden van Qatar, dit onder druk van Israël, Saoedi-Arabië en de VS……. De feiten in de documentaire werden o.a. verkregen door infiltratie >> een journalist gaf zich uit als een pro-Israëlische vrijwilliger in Washington.

Over censuur gesproken: ook Facebook doet mee aan pro-Israëlische lobby en het platform heeft al honderden accounts van Palestijnen verwijderd…….

En je weet het: als men een documentaire wil verbieden wil men zaken verborgen houden, ofwel Israël geeft in feite toe dat het een barbaars, inhumaan beleid voert t.a.v. de Palestijnen……. Dit alles (met nog een herhaling: het kan niet genoeg gezegd worden) in een illegaal gestichte staat op het grondgebied van die Palestijnen, dat te boek zou moeten staan als Palestina en niet als Israël!

Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see

The Electronic Intifada 2 November 2018
Update: On 6 November, The Electronic Intifada published the final two episodes of The Lobby – USA. You can watch episodes three and four here.
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.
We are releasing the leaked film simultaneously with France’s Orient XXI and Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar, which have respectively subtitled the episodes in French and Arabic.
The film was made by Al Jazeera during 2016 and was completed in October 2017.
But it was censored after Qatar, the gas-rich Gulf emirate that funds Al Jazeera, came under intense Israel lobby pressure not to air the film.
Although Al Jazeera’s director-general claimed last month that there were outstanding legal issues with the film, his assertions have been flatly contradicted by his own journalists.
In March, The Electronic Intifada was the first to report on any of the film’s specific content. We followed this in August by publishing the first extract of the film, and shortly after Max Blumenthal at the Grayzone Projectreleased others.
Since then, The Electronic Intifada has released three other extracts, and several other journalists have watched the entire film and written about it – including Alain Gresh and Antony Loewenstein.
Now The Electronic Intifada can reveal for the first time that it has obtained all four parts of the film.

You can watch the first two parts in the video embeds above and below. (deel 3 en 4 onder dit artikel van EI)
To get unprecedented access to the Israel lobby’s inner workings, undercover reporter “Tony” posed as a pro-Israel volunteer in Washington.
The resulting film exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear and intimidate US citizens who support Palestinian human rights, especially BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
It shows that Israel’s semi-covert black-ops government agency, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is operating this effort in collusion with an extensive network of US-based organizations.

Censored by Qatar


The film was suppressed after the government of Qatar came under intense pressure not to release it – ironically from the very same lobby whose influence and antics the film exposes.
Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s head of investigations, revealed in an article for The Forward in March that Al Jazeera had sent more than 70 letters to individuals and organizations who appear in or are discussed in the film, providing them with an opportunity to respond.
Only three did so. Instead, pro-Israel groups have endeavored to suppress the film that exposes the lobby’s activities.
In April, Al Jazeera’s management was forced to deny a claim by the hard-right Zionist Organization of America that the film had been canceled altogether.
In June, The Electronic Intifada learned that a high level source in Doha had said the film’s indefinite delay was due to “national security” concerns of the Qatari government.

Covert action


Reifkind – then an Israeli embassy employee – describing her typical work day as “mainly gathering intel, reporting back to Israel … to report back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs.”
She discusses the Israeli government “giving our support” to front groups “in that behind-the-scenes way.”
Reifkind also admits to using fake Facebook profiles to infiltrate the circles of Palestine solidarity activists on campus.
The film also reveals that US-based groups coordinate their efforts directly with the Israeli government, particularly its Ministry of Strategic Affairs.
Run by a former military intelligence officer, the ministry is in charge of Israel’s global campaign of covert sabotage targeting the BDS movement.
The film shows footage of the very same ex-military intelligence officer, Sima Vaknin-Gil, claiming to have mapped Palestinian rights activism “globally. Not just the United States, not just campuses, but campuses and intersectionality and labor unions and churches.”
She promises to use this data for “offense activity” against Palestine activists.
Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, claims in the undercover footage that his organization uses “corporate level, enterprise-grade social media intelligence software” to gather lists of Palestine-related student events on campus, “generally within about 30 seconds or less” of them being posted online.
Baime also admits on hidden camera that his group “coordinates” with the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs.
Baime states that his researchers “issue early warning alerts to our partners” – including Israeli ministries.
Baime’s colleague Ian Hersh admits in the film to adding Israel’s “Ministry of Strategic Affairs to our operations and intelligence brief.”

“Psychological warfare”


Baime describes how his group has used anonymous websites to target activists.
“With the anti-Israel people, what’s most effective, what we’ve found at least in the last year, is you do the opposition research, put up some anonymous website, and then put up targeted Facebook ads,” Baime explains in part three of the film.
“Canary Mission is a good example,” he states. “It’s psychological warfare.”
The film names, for the first time, convicted tax evader Adam Milstein as the multimillionaire funder and mastermind of Canary Mission – an anonymous smear site targeting student activists.
The Electronic Intifada revealed this in a clip in August.
Eric Gallagher, then fundraising director for The Israel Project, is seen in the undercover footage admitting that “Adam Milstein, he’s the guy who funds” Canary Mission.
Milstein also funds The Israel Project, Gallagher states.
Gallagher says that when he was working for AIPAC, Washington’s most powerful Israel lobby group, “I was literally emailing back and forth with [Adam Milstein] while he was in jail.”
Despite not replying to Al Jazeera’s request for comment, Milstein denied that he and his family foundation “are funders of Canary Mission” on the same day The Electronic Intifada published the clip.
Since then, Josh Nathan-Kazis of The Forward has identified several other groups in the US who fund Canary Mission.

Suppressed film


In March, The Electronic Intifada published the first details of what is in the film.
We reported that it showed Sima Vaknin-Gil claiming to have leading neoconservative think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies working for her ministry.
The undercover footage shows Vaknin-Gil claiming that “We have FDD. We have others working on” projects including “data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best.”
As noted in part one of the documentary, the existence of the film and the identity of the undercover reporter became known after footage he had shot for it was used in Al Jazeera’s The Lobby – about Israel’s covert influence campaign in the UK – aired in early 2017.
Since then, Israel lobbyists have heavily pressured Qatar to prevent the US film from airing.

“Foreign agent”


Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s head of investigations, first confirmed in October 2017 that the network had run an undercover reporter in the US Israel lobby at the same time as in the UK.
Swisher promised the film would be released “very soon,” but it never came out.
Multiple Israel lobby sources told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper in February that they had received assurances from Qatari leaders late last year that the documentary would not be aired.
Qatar denied this, but the paper stood by its story.
Swisher’s op-ed in The Forward was his first public comment on the matter since he had announced the documentary.
In it, he refutes Israel lobby allegations about the film and expresses frustration that Al Jazeera had not aired it, apparently due to outside pressure.
Several pro-Israel lawmakers in Washington have piled on more pressure by pushing the
Department of Justice to force Al Jazeera to register as a “foreign agent” under a counterespionage law dating from the 1930s.

The Israel lobby goes to Doha


While the film was delayed, a wave of prominent pro-Israel figures visited Qatar at the invitation of its ruler, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.
They have included some of the most right-wing and extreme figures among Israel’s defenders in the US, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America.
Swisher wrote in The Forward that he ran into Dershowitz at a Doha restaurant during one of these visits, and invited the professor to a private viewing of the film.
“I have no problem with any of the secret filming,” Swisher says Dershowitz told him afterwards.
“And I can even see this being broadcast on PBS” – the US public broadcaster.
Yet it appears that Israel lobby efforts to quash the film were successful – until now.

Deel 3 en 4 van The Lobby – USA

Hier de video ‘Evidence the Israel Lobby Control the US Government’:

Zie ook:
‘Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten‘

‘Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….‘

‘Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart‘

 ‘Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek‘

‘Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet…….‘

‘Britse justitie gaat ‘hate crimes’ van Labour onderzoeken‘

‘Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen‘

Spanje denkt met fascistisch geweld de roep om onafhankelijkheid van Catalonië de kop in te kunnen drukken…….

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Er werd gisteren tijdens het Catalaanse referendum voor onafhankelijkheid, een ongelofelijk staaltje dictatoriaal Spaans geweld opgevoerd……… Met veel geweld onder de regie van de fascistische Guardia Civil, probeerde men het referendum onmogelijk te maken….. Barbaars geweld tegen vreedzame betogers……….Volgens zeggen zijn er zelfs zwaargewonden gevallen door dit geweld tegen vreedzame demonstranten……..

Eindelijk is de EU wakker geworden, lullig dat dit pas gebeurt na veel geweld en sensatie op radio, tv en het internet…………. Lullig ook, dat men nu (internationaal) m.n. wijst op de lage opkomst voor dit referendum….. Vreemd hè, die lage opkomst?? Vreemd dat mensen niet naar de stembus durfden te gaan, nadat de Spaanse overheid de laatste weken niet anders heeft gedaan dan geweld aankondigen, mochten de Catalanen ter stembus trekken……….

Zoals al vaker op deze plek gesteld: met deze manier van handelen bereikt de Spaanse overheid het tegenovergestelde, juist dit schunnige geweld zal een groot aantal Catalanen overhalen zich voor onafhankelijkheid in te zetten en zelfs tegenstanders in het kamp van de voorstanders te trekken…….

Vanmorgen na 9.30 u.op Radio1 de aankondiging van Standpunt NL door hufter Kockelman. Ook hij wees als eerste op de lage opkomst, zonder alle bedreigingen van de Spaanse overheid te noemen……

Te gast in de uitzending Robert van de Roer, ‘diplomatiek deskundige’ (ha! ha! ha!) en zoals verwacht, deze ‘deskundige’ mengde zich in het koor van wolven, die wijst op de lage opkomst in Catalonië, niet representatief…….. Volgens van de Roer ‘komt dit allemaal verkeerd uit….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Het continu hameren op de onrechtmatigheid van het Catalaanse onafhankelijkheidsreferendum (door de premier van Catalonië, Puigdemont bepleit), slaat volgens een inbeller nergens op. Hij wijst op de evolutie in een groot aantal zaken, bijvoorbeeld scheiding. Scheiden was in lang vervlogen tijden zelfs verboden, nu is dit de normaalste zaak van de wereld (jammer genoeg nog lang niet op de hele wereld..). Vandaar dat deze inbeller terecht stelde, dat Spanje feodaal bezig is. Tijdens de paar minuten dat de luisteraar mocht reageren, vond Kockelman het nodig nog even te melden, dat hijzelf ook heeft gesteld er te weinig stemmers waren om het referendum representatief te noemen……..

Als klap op de vuurpijl had Kockelman naast EU-lobbyst van de Roer, ook CDA bedrijven- en EU-lobbyist Knapen in de uitzending, het zal u niet verbazen, dat Knapen het volledig met de Spaanse overheid eens is en het referendum volkomen onwettig noemde……..

Rutte liet vanmorgen weten dat Spanje in haar recht staat (met het tegenhouden van het referendum), alleen de manier waarop is ‘een beetje ongelukkig’, wat hij vertaalde in: niet zo netjes……. Nogmaals wat is er rechtmatig aan om tegen de wil van het volk in te gaan?? Waarom heeft Spanje niet ver voor het referendum geprobeerd de bevolking via een campagne te overtuigen zich niet af te scheiden?? Waarom hebben Rutte en andere EU leiders, inclusief de EU zelf, geen zware kritiek geuit op de Spaanse regering?? Immers het geweld van gisteren ‘kwam bepaald niet uit de lucht vallen’ dat heeft de Spaanse overheid de laatste weken immers keer op keer aangekondigd!!

Het volgende bericht over het Catalaanse onafhankelijkheidsreferendum, kwam ik gisteravond tegen op Anti-Media, daarin een aantal foto’s:

16 Horrific Scenes That Prove All Hell Is Breaking Loose in Spain Right Now


October 1, 2017 at 11:27 am

Written by Aaron Nelson

(ANTIMEDIA) — It has been a very long day in Spain, and it is not over yet. At least 465 people attempting to vote were injured on Sunday by Spanish police trying to prevent Catalonia’s independence referendum.

Violent clashes between Catalans and the Spanish police have led to 216 people injured in Barcelona, 80 in Girona, 64 in Lleida, 53 in Terres de l’Ebre, 27 in Catalunya central and 25 in Tarragona, accordingto the Catalan health ministry. Spanish police have gone so far as to physically attack Catalan firefighters and push back against Catalan police attempting to protect voters.
While many Catalans were able to successfully cast their ballots in the referendum declared illegal by Spanish authorities, police violently prevented hundreds from voting for independence. Barcelona’s mayor is now calling for the Spanish prime minister to resign amid the violence and chaos. Jeremy Corbyn is calling on the Spanish government to end its “shocking” violence used on Catalans who are simply trying to vote.

Jeremy Corbyn

✔@jeremycorbyn

Police violence against citizens in is shocking. The Spanish government must act to end it now.
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Julian Assange 🔹 @JulianAssange

Map of Catalonian polling stations open vs successfully closed by Spanish state police. Green = open. Red = closed.https://fusiontables.googleusercontent.com/embedviz?q=select+col5+from+1bayUidxGGsTkwobpA57SEN7HsbBM24z45_0HLTdU&viz=MAP&h=false&lat=41.78336845474574&lng=1.9974531000000297&t=1&z=8&l=col5&y=3&tmplt=3&hml=ONE_COL_LAT_LNG …

The Catalan government has announced that voting will end at 8pm Spanish time, except for people who are already in line at a polling station.
Here are some scenes* that show Spanish police violently preventing Catalans from voting in the independence referendum:
View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Racó Català @racocatala

Les 3 imatges que estan fent la volta al món.
11:18 AM – Oct 1, 2017

natza farré @natzafarre

així ens han tractat al cap guinardó. imatges de jordi folch
10:22 AM – Oct 1, 2017

Patrice Hardy @MisssPatrice

Powerful image of firefighters acting as human shield to protect Catalonian people from Spanish police
7:22 PM – Oct 1, 2017

Leigh Jones @leighsus

Just been sent this from a friend in Barcelona. The Guardia Civil are just firing rubber bullets randomly at people.
· Walthamstow, London

Jaume Clotet

✔@jaumeclotet

Catalan police try to protect citizens from brutal violence by Spanish military police.
3:39 PM – Oct 1, 2017

Patrice Hardy @MisssPatrice

Powerful image of firefighters acting as human shield to protect Catalonian people from Spanish police
7:22 PM – Oct 1, 2017

* Ik heb een paar Twitterberichten overgenomen, onder de meesten zit een filmpje, waarvan ik bij god niet weet, hoe deze over te nemen. Dus voor alle video’s ga naar het origineel.

Zie voor meer ‘enerverende’ berichten met ploert Knapen, de CDA grofgraaier die de laatste maanden keer op keer werd uitgenodigd door de media, klik op het label met zijn naam, direct onder dit bericht.


May heeft verloren in een verkiezing waarin de Brexit nog eens werd bevestigd als wens van het Britse volk…

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Ondanks de smerige campagne tegen Corbyn door het reguliere deel van de Britse pers, inclusief ‘de onafhankelijke’ BBC, heeft Corbyn gewonnen en hebben de Conservatieven van May dik verloren.

Met deze verkiezingen werden een groot aantal ‘politiek deskundigen’, zoals Lia van Bekhoven en Kees Boonman aan de paal genageld. Corbyn zou alleen extra stemmen trekken van jonge kiezers en May zou een ruime meerderheid halen, al werd dit de laatste weken iets teruggeschroefd, daar tegen alle gelul van deze deskundigen in, Corbyn veel succes oogstte met de Labour campagne.

Waar niemand vanmorgen over spreekt: met deze verkiezingen maken de Britten in feite nog eens duidelijk, dat de meerderheid van het volk voor de Brexit is! Na de Brexit was er een golf aan kritiek op de Brexit voorstemmers in het referendum, zo zouden ze niet hebben begrepen waar het om ging en er zou maar een kleine minderheid zijn, die echt voor de Brexit was……. In Nederland was het wat betreft de media vooral van Bekhoven die de voorstemmers van de Brexit afbrandde…..

Volgens van Bekhoven en vele anderen zouden de jonge stemgerechtigden in GB tegen een Brexit zijn, met de uitslag van de verkiezingen, is ook deze domme veronderstelling (die als feit werd gebracht…) gelogenstraft…… van Bekhovven zei afgelopen woensdag op BNR (rond 16.38 u.) dat May met een grote meerderheid zou winnen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Niet geheel toevallig dat van Bekhoven vanmorgen niet op Radio1 of BNR te horen was over de verkiezingen…….

De BBC had na het Brexit referendum een paar maanden lang een grote anti-Brexit campagne. Toen bleek dat de regering May zich achter de Brexit schaarde, stopte die lastercampagne van de BBC. Het is dan ook niet voor niets, dat er in de BBC verkiezingsdebatten niet werd gevraagd naar de Brexit….. En dan durft men de BBC nog steeds onafhankelijk te noemen……… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Vannacht op BBC World Service radio (rond 1.53 u. CET) een verslaggever die stelde dat het niet noodzakelijker wijs schokkend zou zijn als Labour zou winnen in een bepaalde stad (hoorde net de naam niet). “Not necessary shocking…….” Ongelofelijk!!!

Op Radio1 vanmorgen na 9.30 u., Rem Korteweg, ‘een Groot-Brittannië deskundige’ van Clingendael, het lobbycentrum voor de NAVO en het militair-industrieel complex. Deze flapdrol stelde dat de wedkantoren het mis hadden (zij rekenden allen op een fikse meerderheid voor de conservatieven van premier en oorlogsmisdadiger May). Gisteren was Korteweg te gast in Nieuwsuur waar hij nog een behoorlijke winst t.b.v. May voorspelde…….

In Nieuwsuur zei de zwaar over een paardendrol getilde zakkenwasser Huys, dat vooral jongeren op Corbyn zouden hebben gestemd, het bewijs daarvoor zou te zien zijn in een video waarin Corbyn in het openbaar een toespraak hield. Heb dit filmpje bekeken en kan niet anders concluderen, dat er fiks wat 40 plussers te zien waren onder de toeschouwers……… Korteweg stelde dat er sinds het Brexit-referendum een Engels nationalistische tendens te zien is in GB……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Die ‘nationalistische tendens’ is al ruim meer dan 17 jaar te zien in GB!! Wedden dat Korteweg eerder voorspelde dat de Britten in meerderheid tegen de Brexit zouden stemmen??!!

Kortom: niet alleen May en haar partij hebben verloren, maar ook de zogenaamde deskundigen en de westerse pro-May massamedia hebben dik verloren in deze Britse verkiezingen!!

De Britse grote onderlaag is de ellende meer dan zat, de bezuinigingen die hen op zowat elk gebied treffen, zijn de grote promotor van het fikse verlies dat de conservatieven hebben geleden. Vergeet niet dat dagelijks 4 miljoen kinderen met honger naar school gaan. Daar krijgen die kinderen te eten en nee, geen geld voor de ouders zodat die kinderen thuis kunnen eten, nee die kinderen moeten weten in wat voor laag en armoedig milieu ze opgroeien………. ‘Humaniteit’ anno 2017…….

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.

Jeremy Corbyn en de lastercampagne van de publieke ‘onafhankelijke’ zender BBC in aanloop van de verkiezingen…..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Afgelopen zaterdag ontving ik van The Canary een Twitterbericht met een verwijzing naar een artikel over een optreden van Jeremy Corbyn bij de BBC.

Zoals gewoonlijk wordt er weer grof gelogen op de BBC als het om Jeremy Corbyn gaat……. Laura Kuenssberg van de BBC liegt er (niet erg vrolijk) op los. Corbyn zal en mag de verkiezingen niet winnen. Te zot voor woorden dat het zogenaamde deskundigen als Kees Boonman het laatste jaar niet is opgevallen, dat zelfs de ‘onafhankelijke’ BBC een lastercampagne voerde en voert tegen Corbyn, of hem op andere momenten eenvoudigweg doodzwijgt.

Een beter voorbeeld, als het optreden van Kuenssberg is er bijna niet te vinden, ontluisterend het gore lef waarmee deze oplichter haar leugens met een ‘serieuze’ rotkop op durft te lepelen………. Kuenssberg durft zich journalist te noemen, zoals de BBC zich als ‘onafhankelijk’ durft te afficheren………

Overigens staat er een kapitale fout in het artikel van the Canary, waar wordt beweert, dat de minister van Defensie in april jl. als eerste met de Britse doctrine rond kernwapens zou hebben gebroken en gezegd zou hebben dat GB niet zal aarzelen om als eerste naar het atoomwapen te grijpen…….. Dit deed hare kwaadaardigheid en opperploert May al vrij kort nadat ze vorig jaar als premier aantrad, na het opstappen van Cameron…… May gaf e.e.a. te kennen in navolging van de VS (onder Obama!!)……..

De pers besteedde hier amper of geen aandacht aan, pas toen Putin werd gevraagd wat daarvan te denken en deze antwoordde dat bij een nucleaire aanval op Rusland, hij niet zal twijfelen om dan terug te slaan, stond de reguliere westerse afhankelijke massamedia op de kop van verontwaardiging (over die ‘volkomen normale’ uitlating van Putin..)…….

Hier het bericht van the Canary:

There’s something very wrong with Laura Kuenssberg’s response to Corbyn’s performance on BBC Question Time

There’s something very wrong with Laura Kuenssberg’s response to Corbyn’s performance on BBC Question Time
JUNE 3RD, 2017 TRACY KEELING
Laura Kuenssberg’s response to BBC Question Time’s Leaders’ Debate was extraordinary. Because she completely made up a story about the debate in an apparent attempt to prove her point.
Her point, of course, was to suggest Jeremy Corbyn struggled in the debate. Whereas Theresa May’s performance marked the start of her campaign’s recovery, after “a bumpy few days”. But that point is as much fiction as the story she made up to prove it.

Corbyn cracking?

Kuenssberg reported that the audience “pressed” both leaders in their “areas of vulnerability” on the Question Time special on 2 June. They pushed May on domestic issues. Particularly, on the cuts in the NHS, social care, education and more.
In contrast, Kuenssberg said, the audience confronted Corbyn on security issues, like the use of nuclear weapons. The BBC’s Political Editor said Corbyn’s “unwillingness to use weapons if Britain was under attack” didn’t go down well with the audience. This interpretation is, however, untrue. Corbyn did not say he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. He said there would be “no first use” of them, meaning he wouldn’t start a nuclear war. Also, he said, in terms of a retaliatory attack, he would “decide in the circumstances at the time”.
Kuenssberg then concluded that while May seemed more on the “front foot” in the programme, Corbyn’s experience was less positive:
“In contrast, Jeremy Corbyn who had been lapping up the political attention, and setting much of the momentum, seemed almost irritated by the end.”
The “irritation” Kuenssberg speaks of didn’t exist. In fact, when presenter David Dimbleby told Corbyn it was the end of his Q&A session, he smiled and said:
“But I’ve got so much more to say!”
And he received applause and cheers for his contribution.

Getting real

Importantly, Corbyn’s refusal to use nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity is something that should give us all more security. And this is shown in what would happen in the event of a nuclear tit-for-tat war.
In April, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon broke with UK convention and said he would not hesitate to fire nuclear weapons in a first strike. As a minister who has also increased the chances of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, The Canary looked into what would happen should Fallon act on his first strike rhetoric and carry out a Trident nuclear strike on that country. Here’s what we found:
“There’s limited information about Trident’s force. But commentators say that today’s nuclear weapons are around seven to eight times more powerful than the atomic bomb the US used on Hiroshima in 1945. That bomb killed 140,000 people. And Trident can allegedly travel up to 7,500 miles. So it could reach Russia and kill masses of civilians.
But Russia… has 7,000 nuclear warheads; of which 4,500 are either deployed or stockpiled. That’s around 33 times more warheads than the UK has. And Russia’s weapons will be just as powerful, if not more so. Take the Satan 2 missile as an example. It can allegedly carry up to a dozen warheads and level an area the size of the UK in one hit. The UK has a population of around 65 million people.
And if that sort of nuclear conflict kicked off, the US would surely join the fray, with its 6,800 warheads. The US has just over 4,000 of these deployed or stockpiled.
This would be a global catastrophe.”

QT Winner?

The very real threat of a nuclear war commencing between the world’s larger nuclear powers, and the destruction that would bring, is why the audience gave one particular commentator the biggest applause of the night:

Ian Fraser @Ian_Fraser

Kudos to the young woman who expressed surprise so many in audience are obsessed with genocide
10:57 PM – 2 Jun 2017
(In het bericht op Twitter zat een video, die ik niet kon overnemen, zonder akkoord te gaan met privacy schendende regels van Twitter, het betreft een aantal beelden uit de video die u hieronder kunt afspelen (YouTube).]

The BBC‘s round-up of audience members who ‘stole the show’ listed this woman’s comment last. But that’s more a reflection on the BBC than the country at large. Because most people surely don’t want the catastrophe detailed here to play out. And now they have a politician standing for Prime Minster who’s determined to avoid a conflict that could see the UK lying at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.
If that’s not an option people want, then we’re in a desperate place indeed.

Watch Corbyn’s full appearance here (een eerdere video is intussen ‘verdwenen’, vandaar het hele programma):

(For British readers:) Get Involved
– Get out and vote on 8 June!
– Read more Canary articles on the general election.

=========================

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels die u hieronder terug kan vinden

May (premier Groot-Brittannië): “Israël is een baken van tolerantie….” ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Hare kwaadaardigheid May, premier van GB, gaf onlangs een toespraak voor het Conservative Friends of Israël (CFI), dit i.h.k.v. de komende viering in 2017 van de 100 jarige Balfour-verklaring…… Echt iets om te vieren, een verklaring die zo enorm veel Palestijnen intussen het leven heeft gekost, dit nog naast de diefstal van een enorm gebied aan landbouwgrond van Palestijnse boeren en het verjagen van enorm veel Palestijnen uit hun huizen (wat al voor 1949 op grote schaal gebeurde…)…….

In haar toespraak durfde May Israël een opmerkelijk land en ‘een baken van tolerantie’ te noemen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja mensen, als je zo kwaadaardig bent als May en het gore lef hebt te zeggen, dat Israël een baken van tolerantie is, moet ik naast een paar vloeken, toch vooral heel hard lachen….. Haar toehoorders applaudisseerden hard en lang op de uitspraken van May, die zich al als dictator van het Britse rijk ziet…

British Prime Minister Theresa May addresses a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch, December 12, 2016 (Courtesy CFI)

Opmerkelijk is Israël inderdaad: -tegen VN resoluties in, gewoon het gestolen land uit 1967 behouden; -een apartheidsbewind voeren tegen de Palestijnen en als een dolle fascistische hond tekeer gaan tegen Palestijnse burgers*, die zich niet kunnen verdedigen tegen één van de modernste legers op aarde……….

U had het al begrepen, dat was het nog niet: volgens May is de Balfour-verklaring één van de meest belangrijke verklaringen uit de geschiedenis……….. Een verklaring die in feite de dood van meer dan 100.000 Palestijnen tot gevolg heeft gehad…. Een verklaring die heeft geleid het verdrijven van een groot aantal Palestijnen van land, dat ze al vele generaties bewerkten……. Een verklaring die heeft geleid tot een apartheidsbewind in Israël en een verklaring die de Palestijnen tot derderangs burgers degradeerde……. Inderdaad een belangrijke verklaring, maar dan voor de Palestijnen, een verklaring die het bewijs is, dat GB de hoofdverantwoordelijke is, voor het ontstaan van de fascistische staat Israël……..

May beloofde voorts, dat de bilaterale handelsbetrekkingen met Israël zal versterken…..

Uiteraard moest May de Labour Party nog even van antisemitisme beschuldigen, daar Corbyn het opneemt voor de (mensenrechten van de) Palestijnen. Het zal u niet verbazen, dat May stelde lak te hebben aan de BDS beweging, de beweging die vreedzaam strijd voor de rechten van de Palestijnen. Ze noemde deze beweging zelfs onacceptabel en verkeerd, waarbij ze de mensen die deze beweging steunen, bedreigde met maatregelen van haar regering……….

* Waar ook enorm veel kinderen het dodelijke slachtoffer zijn en Israël zelfs kinderen opsluit zonder vorm van proces………

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.