Ongelofelijk
maar waar: nadat Labour de Britse verkiezingen heeft overgedragen aan
de Tories, door de leider van Labour voorafgaand aan die
verkiezingen van antisemtisme te beschuldigen, een uiterst smerige
leugen, heeft de huidige Labour voorzitter Keir Starmer Corbyn uit de
partij gezet…….
Niet
alleen de top van Labour heeft zich schuldig gemaakt aan het
besmeuren van Corbyn, maar ook de reguliere media, inclusief de
zogenaamd onafhankelijke BBC beschuldigde zich met volle inzet aan deze anti-Corbyn
campagne……
Corbyn
heeft zich juist z’n politieke leven lang verzet tegen antisemitisme en racisme, voorts was
hij o.a. bevriend met Hajo Meijer, een concentratiekamp overlevende
en lid van ‘Een ander Joods geluid’, ook had hij een paar
mensen van Joodse komaf in zijn team…….
Corbyn
had en heeft volkomen terecht kritiek op de bloedige politiek van de fascistische
apartheidsstaat Israël tegen het verdrukte Palestijnse volk, echter dat heeft totaal niets met
antisemitisme te maken, elk land dat als Israël zo met minderheden
omgaat, kon en kan rekenen op zware kritiek van Corbyn……
Overigens
ook de media buiten Groot-Brittannië hebben zich beschuldigd aan
deze smerige campagne tegen Corbyn, ook de Nederlandse media,
waaronder de zogenaamd onafhankelijke NOS…….
Eén
ding is zeker: politici met een duidelijk linkse inslag mogen in de meeste westerse landen de
verkiezingen niet winnen, of je het nu over Jeremy Corbyn hebt, dan wel
over Bernie Sanders (of de SP) zij mogen simpelweg niet aan de macht komen en
daarvoor haalt men alles uit de kast, zie hoe Sanders verslagen werd
door Hillary Clinton in 2016 en dat op een heel smerige manier, toen
dit uitkwam via haar geopenbaarde e-mails, werd Russiagate verzonnen en verdween
haar uiterst misdadig gedrag onder het tapijt……
Hier
eerst een een artikel en video van Aaron Maté gepubliceerd op The
Greyzone, waarin het uit de partij zetten van Corbyn wordt
besproken en daarna een artikel en video over deze zaak van Ben
Chacko gepubliceerd op Information Clearing House:
UK
Labour civil war? Jeremy Corbyn suspended even as report vindicates
him on anti-Semitism smears
The UK Labour
Party has suspended former leader Jeremy Corbyn, even as a new report
underscores that anti-Semitism allegations were a smear campaign
against him. Former Labour MP Chris Williamson responds.
Former UK
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended by his successor,
neoliberal Blairite Keir Starmer, even as a new report confirms that
claims of a Labour “anti-Semitism crisis” under Corbyn’s watch
were without merit. Former UK Labour MP Chris Williamson, a Corbyn
ally who has denounced the anti-Semitism allegations as a smear
campaign, discusses the report and the Blairite wing’s ongoing war
on the Corbyn movement.
Guest:
Chris Williamson, former UK Member of Parliament for the Labour
Party.
‘Corbyn
as much a racist as Nelson Mandela,’ former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein
tells online rally
By
Ben Chacko
November 03, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– JEREMY CORBYN “is as much a racist or anti-semite as my former
boss Nelson Mandela” and must be restored to membership of the
Labour Party, former South African MP Andrew Feinstein told a rally
in defence of the ex-Labour leader on Sunday night.
Mr Feinstein, the son
of a Holocaust survivor who lost 39 relatives in the Nazi camps of
Auschwitz and Theresienstadt, stressed that the Labour left must have
“zero tolerance” for anti-semitism.
But he denounced “an
attempt by the mainstream media and the Labour Party leadership to
wish away left-wing Jews” who supported Mr Corbyn, “to behave as
if we do not exist … an attempt to do away with an extraordinary
tradition of Jewish socialism and support for liberation movements
from Pretoria to Palestine.”
The former MP spoke at
a Defend Jeremy Corbyn, Fight Racism, Build Socialism rally called by
the Radical Alliance, a group of Labour and non-Labour socialists,
alongside MPs including John McDonnell and Ian Lavery, trade
unionists and socialist and anti-racist campaigners and activists.
Unison assistant
general secretary Roger McKenzie, speaking in a personal capacity,
said that he would not walk away from his friend Mr Corbyn, having
“stood side by side with him on picket lines and at anti-racist
demonstrations. This is someone who hasn’t flinched from the
anti-racist struggle in the 30-plus years I’ve known him.”
Unite’s Howard
Beckett said that Britain could have a Labour government now,
potentially avoiding the Tories’ disastrous mishandling of the
coronavirus pandemic, had Mr Corbyn not been undermined by Labour MPs
and staff and by “a shadow cabinet, Keir Starmer foremost among
them, who betrayed our class over Brexit and allowed it to divide us
to the extent that we failed to win an election.”
Julia Bard of the
Jewish Socialists Group warned that the entanglement of anti-semitism
in Labour’s left-right struggle in recent years had “made
anti-semitism on the left much more difficult to challenge.”
But when minorities
including Jews are under attack around the world, “who should we go
to for support — institutions that have declared support for Trump
like the Board of Deputies, that refuse to criticise the Tories for
their close links to fascists across Europe, or to people like
Jeremy, who has anti-racism woven through his political being?”
I
Lost 39 Members of My Family in the Holocaust, Jeremy Corbyn is No
Antisemite
Nog
steeds ongelofelijk dat de Labour top liever de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië verloor
dan Corbyn deze te laten winnen. De smeercampagne van een aantal Labourleden tegen Corbyn en
zijn zogenaamde antisemitisme, kostte hem vorig jaar de Britse verkiezingen, een campagne gesteund door het Britse leger, de pro-Israëlische lobby en de reguliere (massa-) media, inclusief de zogenaamde onafhankelijke BBC……
De
nieuwe voorzitter van Labour, Keir Starmer, heeft van meet af aan
alle pogingen om Corbyn alsnog te rehabiliteren gesaboteerd en heeft
rapporten laten verdwijnen die e.e.a. aantoonden……. De zogenaamde
klokkenluiders, prominente Labour politici die de partij zouden
hebben verlaten vanwege het antisemitische gehalte, wordt nog steeds
de hand boven het hoofd gehouden, ook al konden zij totaal geen
bewijs geven voor Corbyns antisemitisme, anders dan kritiek van
Corbyn op de bloedige terreur van Israël tegen de Palestijnen als antisemitisch af te doen……..
Alsof
het antisemitisch is als je een land aanklaagt voor het vervolgen van
een minderheid, zoals de Joden werden vervolgd door
nazi-Duitsland….. Corbyn was juist een anti-fascist en heeft
meermaals de holocaust als een beestachtige massamoord
neergezet……(hij was zelfs bevriend met Hajo Meijer, een Joodse concentratiekamp overlevende, die jarenlang bestuurslid was van Een Ander Joods Geluid……)
De psychopathische neoliberale opperschoft Keir Starmer
De holocaust is geen excuus voor de slachtoffers om andere volkeren
te vervolgen, hen hun land af te nemen en middels bruut geweld en massamoord te
verjagen, gevolgd door het afknijpen van het Palestijnse volk door Israël met: -moord op vooral ongewapende Palestijnse burgers en hun kinderen, -het
onleefbaar maken van hun overgebleven woongebieden door het creëren van een groot watertekort en een zelfde tekort aan elektriciteit, -deze gebieden
onbereikbaar maken voor boeren en -de continue vernedering van deze
mensen bij de Israëlische blokkades op de West Bank…… Om over de vreselijke situatie in de openluchtgevangenis Gazastrook nog maar te zwijgen….. Oh en dan vergeet ik nog het vernietigen van ontwikkelingsprojecten voor de Palestijnen door Israël, projecten bekostigd door de EU en haar lidstaten (zoals Nederland..)…..
Lees het
volgende artikel dat ik overnam van Information Clearing House,
waarin uitgebreid wordt aangetoond dat Corbyn en leden van zijn team
op een schunnige manier zijn gedemoniseerd, zonder enige
bewijsvoering…. Het ging veel te goed met Corbyn en men wilde koste
wat kost voorkomen dat Labour een meer sociaal karakter zou
krijgen….. Het is nu zelfs zover dat Starmer, de opvolger van Corbyn, echte antisemieten in
zijn team heeft aangesteld…… Fascisten als Rachel Reeves die Nancy
Astor prees in een Twitterbericht, Astor was een bewonderaar van
Hitler en daarmee een bekende antisemitische fascist, Reeves weigerde botweg de ‘tweet’ te
verwijderen…… Ongelofelijk dat de reguliere westerse media (ook in Nederland) die zo op de antisemitische trom roffelden als het over Corbyn ging, er in dit overduidelijke geval van antisemitisme totaal het zwijgen toe doen……
UK
Labour party teeters on brink of civil war over antisemitism New
leader Keir Starmer spurns two chances to clear Jeremy Corbyn’s
name, preferring instead to pay damages to former staffBy
Jonathan Cook
July 31, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– Jeremy Corbyn, the former left-wing leader of Britain’s Labour
party, is once again making headlines over an “antisemitism
problem” he supposedly oversaw during his five years at the head of
the party.
This time, however,
the assault on his reputation is being led not by the usual suspects
– pro-Israel lobbyists and a billionaire-owned media – but by
Keir Starmer, the man who succeeded him.
Since becoming Labour
leader in April, Starmer has helped to bolster the evidence-free
narrative of a party plagued by antisemitism under Corbyn. That has
included Starmer’s refusal to exploit two major opportunities to
challenge that narrative.
Had those chances been
grasped, Labour might have been able to demonstrate that Corbyn was
the victim of an underhand campaign to prevent him from reaching
power.
Starmer, had he chosen
to, could have shown that Corbyn’s long history as an anti-racism
campaigner was twisted to discredit him. His decades of vocal support
for Palestinian rights were publicly recast as a supposed irrational
hatred of Israel based on an antipathy to Jews.
But instead Starmer
chose to sacrifice his predecessor rather than risk being tarred with
the same brush.
As a result, Labour
now appears to be on the brink of open war. Competing rumors suggest
Corbyn may be preparing to battle former staff through the courts,
while Starmer may exile his predecessor from the party.
Rocketing
membership
Corbyn’s troubles
were inevitable the moment the mass membership elected him Labour
leader in 2015 in defiance of the party bureaucracy and most Labour
MPs. Corbyn was determined to revive the party as a vehicle for
democratic socialism and end Britain’s role meddling overseas as a
junior partner to the global hegemon of the United States.
That required breaking
with Labour’s capture decades earlier, under Tony Blair, as a party
of neoliberal orthodoxy at home and neoconservative orthodoxy
abroad.
Until Corbyn arrived
on the scene, Labour had become effectively a second party of capital
alongside Britain’s ruling Conservative party, replicating the
situation in the US with the Democratic and Republican parties.
His attempts to push
the party back towards democratic socialism attracted hundreds of
thousands of new members, quickly making Labour the largest party in
Europe. But it also ensured a wide-ranging alliance of establishment
interests was arrayed against him, including
the British military, the corporate media, and the pro-Israel
lobby.
Politicized
investigation
Unlike Corbyn, Starmer
has not previously shown any inclination to take on the might of the
establishment. In fact, he had previously proven himself its willing
servant.
As head of Britain’s
prosecution service in 2013, for example, his department issued thinly
veiled threats to Sweden to continue its legal pursuit of
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who had sought political asylum in
London’s Ecuadorean embassy, even as Swedish interest in the case
waned.
With his background in
realpolitik, Starmer appears to have grasped quickly the danger of
being seen to share any common ground with Corbyn – not only should
he pursue significant elements of his predecessor’s program, but by
challenging the carefully crafted establishment narrative around
Corbyn.
For this reason, he
has refused to seize either of the two chances presented to him to
demonstrate that Labour had no more of an antisemitism problem than
the relatively
marginal one that exists more generally in British society.
That failure is likely
to prove all the more significant given that in a matter of weeks
Labour is expected to face the findings of an investigation
by the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The highly
politicized watchdog body, which took on the probe into Labour
while refusing
to investigate plentiful evidence of an Islamophobia problem in
the Conservative party, is expected to shore up the
Corbyn-antisemitism narrative.
Labour has said
it will readily accept the Commission’s findings, whatever they
are. The watchdog body is likely to echo the prevailing narrative
that Corbyn attracted left-wingers to the party who were
ideologically tainted with antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.
As a result, or so the argument goes, Jew hatred flourished on his
watch.
Starmer has already
declared “zero
tolerance” of antisemitism, but he has appeared willing – in
line with pro-Israel lobbyists in his party – to conflate
Jew hatred with trenchant criticism of Israel.
The barely veiled
intention is to drive Corbynite members out of Labour – either
actively through suspensions or passively as their growing
disillusionment leads to a mass exodus.
By distancing himself
from his predecessor, Starmer knows no dirt will stick to him even as
the Equality Commission drags Corbyn’s name through the mud.
Sabotaged
from within
Starmer rejected the
first chance to salvage the reputations of Corbyn and the wider
Labour membership days after he became leader.
In mid-April, an
850-page internal party report was leaked, stuffed with the text of
lengthy email exchanges and WhatsApp chats by senior party staff.
They showed that, as had long been suspected, Corbyn’s own
officials worked hard to sabotage
his leadership from within.
Staff at headquarters
still loyal to the Blair vision of the party even went so far as to
actively throw the 2017 general election, when Labour was a
hair’s-breadth away from ousting the Conservatives from government.
These officials hoped a crushing defeat would lead to Corbyn’s
removal from office.
The report described a
“hyper-factional atmosphere”, with officials, including
then-deputy leader Tom Watson, regularly referring to Corbyn and his
supporters as “Trots”
– a reference to Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of a violent
Communist revolution in Russia more than a century ago.
Corbynites were thrown
out of the party on the flimsiest
pretexts, such as describing those like Blair who led the 2003
attack on Iraq as “warmongers”.
But one early, favored
tactic by staff in the disciplinary unit was to publicize
antisemitism cases and then drag out their resolution to create the
impression that the party under Corbyn was not taking the issue
seriously.
These officials also
loosened the definition of antisemitism to pursue cases against
Corbyn’s supporters who, like him, were vocal in defending
Palestinian rights or critical of Israeli policies.
This led to the
preposterous situation where Labour was suspending and expelling anti-Zionist
Jews who supported Corbyn on the grounds that they were
supposedly antisemites, while action was delayed
on dealing with a Holocaust denier.
The narrative against
Corbyn being crafted by his own officials was eagerly picked up and
amplified by the strong contingent of Blairites among Labour legislators
in the parliament, as well as by the corporate media and by Israel
lobbyists both inside and outside Labour.
Effort
to bury report
The parties
responsible for leaking the report in April did so because Labour,
now led by Starmer, had no intention of publicizing it.
In fact, the report
had been originally compiled as part of Labour’s submission to the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, effectively giving Corbyn’s
side of the story against his opponents.
But once Corbyn
stepped down, the party bureaucracy under Starmer preferred
to shelve it. That decision meant there would be no case for the
defense, and Corbyn’s opponents’ claims would go unchallenged.
Once leaked, Starmer
stuck to his position. Rather than use the report as an opportunity
to expose the ugly campaign against Corbyn and thereby question the
antisemitism narrative, Starmer did his level best to bury it from
sight.
He vowed
to investigate “the circumstances in which the report was put
into the public domain”. That sounded ominously like a threat to
hound those who had tried to bring to light the party’s betrayal of
its previous leader.
Rather than accept the
evidence presented in the leaked report of internal corruption and
the misuse of party funds, Starmer set
up an inquiry under QC Martin Forde to investigate the earlier
investigation.
The Forde inquiry
looked like Starmer’s effort to kick the damaging revelations into
the long grass.
The British media gave
the leaked report – despite its earth-shattering revelations of
Labour officials sabotaging an election campaign – little more than
perfunctory coverage.
Labour
‘whistleblowers’
A second, related
chance to challenge the Corbyn-antisemitism narrative reached its
conclusion last week. And again, Starmer threw in Labour’s hand.
In July last year –
long before the report had been leaked – the BBC’s prestige news
investigation show Panorama set out to answer a question it posed in
the episode’s title: “Is
Labour Antisemitic?”
The program presented
eight former staff as “whistleblowers”, their testimonies
supposedly exposing Corbyn’s indulgence of antisemitism. They
included those who would soon be revealed in the leaked report as
intractable ideological enemies of the Corbyn project and others who
oversaw the dysfunctional complaints process that dragged its heels
on resolving antisemitism cases.
The Panorama program
was dismal even by the low standards of political reporting set by
the BBC in the Corbyn era.
The show made much of
the testimony of pro-Israel lobbyists inside the Labour party
belonging to a group called the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). They were not
identified – either by name or by affiliation – despite being
given the freedom to make anecdotal and unspecified claims of
antisemitism against Corbyn and his supporters.
The BBC’s decision
not to name these participants had nothing to do with protecting
their identities, even though that was doubtless the impression
conveyed to the audience.
Most were
already known as Israel partisans because they had been exposed in a
2017 four-part al-Jazeera undercover documentary called The Lobby.
They were filmed colluding with an Israeli embassy official, Shai
Masot, to bring down Corbyn. The BBC did not identify these
pro-Israel activists presumably because they had zero credibility as
witnesses.
One-sided
coverage
Nonetheless, a
seemingly stronger case – at least, at the time – was made by the
eight former Labour staff. Their testimonies to the BBC suggested
they had been hampered and bullied by Corbyn’s team as they tried
to stamp out antisemitism.
Panorama allowed these
claims to go unchallenged, even though with a little digging it could
have tapped sources inside Labour who were already compiling what
would become the leaked report, presenting a very different view of
these self-styled “whistleblowers”.
The BBC also failed to
talk to Jewish
Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of Labour party members supportive of
Corbyn who challenged the way the Jewish Labour Movement had
manipulated the definition of antisemitism in the party to harm
Palestinian solidarity activists.
And the BBC did not
call as counter-witnesses any of the anti-Zionist Jews who were among
the earliest victims of the
purge of supposed antisemites by Labour’s apparent
“whistleblowers”.
Instead, it
selectively quoted from an email by Seumas Milne, Corbyn’s chief
adviser, to suggest that he had interfered in the disciplinary
process to help antisemites avoid suspension.
Proper context from
the BBC would have revealed that Milne had simply expressed
concern at how the rule book was being interpreted when several
Jews had been suspended for antisemitism – and that he had
proffered his view only because a staff member now claiming to be a
whistleblower had asked for it.
This section of the
Panorama show looked suspiciously like entrapment of Milne by Labour
staff, followed by collusion from the BBC in promoting their false
narrative.
Flawed
reporting
Despite these and many
other serious
flaws in the Panorama episode, it set the tone for subsequent
discussion of the “antisemitism problem” in Labour.
The program aired a
few months before a general election, last December, that Corbyn lost
to Boris Johnson and the ruling Conservative party.
One of the key
damaging, “gotcha” moments of the campaign was an interview with
the veteran BBC interviewer Andrew Neil in which he repeatedly asked
Corbyn to apologize for antisemitism in the party, as had been
supposedly exposed by Panorama. Corbyn’s refusal to respond
directly to the question left him looking evasive and guilty.
With the rest of the
media amplifying the Panorama claims rather than testing them, it has
become the accepted benchmark for judging the Corbyn era. The show
has even been nominated
for a Bafta award, the British equivalent to an Oscar.
Shortly after the
program aired, Corbyn’s team disputed
the Panorama narrative, saying it had contained “deliberate and
malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”. They
also described the “whistleblowers” as disaffected former staff
with “political axes to grind”.
Ware and seven of the
former staff members who appeared in the program launched a defamation
action against the Labour party.
After the internal
report was leaked in April, the legal scales tipped decisively in
Labour’s favor. Starmer was reportedly
advised by lawyers that the party would be well-positioned to defeat
the legal action and clear Corbyn and the party’s name.
But again Starmer
preferred to fold. Before the case could be tested in court, Starmer issued an
apology last week to the ex-staff members and Ware, and paid them
a six-figure sum in damages.
Admitting that
“antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent
years”, the statement accepted the claims of the ex-staff to be
“whistleblowers”, even capitalizing the word to aggrandize their
status.
It said:
“We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service
that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party … We
unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and
lying.”
Threat
of bankruptcy
With typical
understatement, Corbyn said he was “disappointed” at the
settlement, calling
it a “political decision, not a legal one”. He added that it
“risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations
about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour party in
recent years.”
Starmer’s decision
also preempted – and effectively nullified – the Forde inquiry,
which was due to submit its own findings on antisemitism in Labour
later in the year.
Many in the party were
infuriated that their membership dues had been used to pay off a
group of ex-staff who, according to the leaked report, had undermined
the party’s elected leader and helped to throw a general election.
But in what looked
disturbingly like a move to silence Corbyn, Ware said he was consulting
lawyers once again about launching a legal battle, personally
against the former Labour leader, over his criticism of the
settlement.
Mark Lewis, the
solicitor acting for Ware and the whistleblowers, has said he is also preparing
an action for damages against Labour on behalf of 32 individuals
named in the leaked report. Among them is Lord Iain McNichol, who
served as the party’s general secretary at the time.
Lewis reportedly
intends to focus
on staff privacy breaches under the Data Protection Act,
disclosure of private information and alleged violations of
employment law.
Conversely, Mark
Howell, a Labour party member, has initiated an action against Labour
and McNichol seeking
damages for “breach of contract”. He demands that those named
in the leaked report be expelled from the party.
He is also reported to
be considering referring named staff members to the Crown Prosecution
Service under the 2006 Fraud Act for their failure to uphold the
interests of party members who paid staff salaries.
This spate of cases
threatens to hemorrhage money from the party. There have been
warnings that financial settlements, as well as members deserting the
party in droves, could ultimately
bankrupt Labour.
Corbyn
to be expelled?
Within days of the
apology, a crowdfunding
campaign raised more than £280,000 for Corbyn to clear his name
in any future legal actions.
Given his own
self-serving strategy, Starmer would doubtless be embarrassed by such
a move. There are already rumors
that he is considering withdrawing the party whip from Corbyn – a
form of exile from the party.
Pressure on him to do
so is mounting. At the weekend it was reported
that ex-staff might drop the threatened case over the embarrassing
revelations contained in the leaked report should Starmer expel
Corbyn.
Quoting someone it
described as a “well-placed source”, the Mail
on Sunday
newspaper set out the new stakes. “Labour says they have zero
tolerance to anti-Semitism. Zero tolerance means no Corbyn and no
Corbynistas,” the source said.
Starmer has committed
to upholding “10
Pledges” produced by the Board of Deputies – a conservative
Jewish leadership organization hostile to Corbyn and the left –
that places it and the pro-Israel lobbyists of the Jewish Labour
Movement in charge of deciding what constitutes antisemitism in the
party.
Selective
concern
Starmer’s decision
about who can serve in his shadow cabinet is a reminder that the
storm over Corbyn was never about real antisemitism – the kind that
targets Jews for being Jews.
It was a pretext to be rid of the Corbyn
project and democratic socialism.
Starmer quickly pushed
out the last two prominent Corbynites
in his shadow cabinet – both on matters related to criticism of
Israel.
By contrast, he has
happily indulged the kind of antisemitism that harms Jews as long as
it comes from members of his shadow cabinet who are not associated
with Corbyn.
Starmer picked
Rachel Reeves for his team, even though earlier this year she tweeted
a tribute to Nancy Astor, a supporter of Hitler and notorious
antisemite. Reeves has refused to delete the tweet.
And Steve Reed is
still the shadow communities secretary, even though this month he
referred to a Jewish newspaper tycoon, Richard Desmond, as a “puppet
master” – the very definition of an antisemitic trope.
Starmer’s “zero
tolerance” appears to be highly selective – more concerned about
harsh criticism of a state, Israel, than the othering of Jews.
Tellingly, Starmer has been under no serious pressure from the Jewish
Labour Movement, or from the media or from Jewish leadership
organizations such as the Board of Deputies to take any action
against either Reeves or Reed.
He has moved swiftly
against leftists in his party who criticize Israel but has shrugged
his shoulders at supposed “moderates” who, it could be argued,
have encouraged or glorified hatred and suspicion of Jews.
But then the
antisemitism furor was never about safeguarding Jews. It was about
creating a cover story as the establishment protected itself from
democratic socialism.
Jonathan
Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books
include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the
Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing
Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.(vreemd genoeg kom je door klikken uit op de site van Middle East Online >> MEO, door daar eerst op de ‘knop’ home te klikken en daarna op de volgende pagina zijn naam op het zoekvlak in te voeren, krijg je artikeln van Cook te zien, echter niet het bovenstaande artikel, hier de directe link naar de site van Jonathan Cook, waar je dit artikel wel kan vinden)
Ondanks alle dappere retoriek van de
Britse regering, nu weer aangevuld met het kak-gemonkel van de inhumane schoft Boris
Johnson, stapelt ook deze regering de ene op de andere blunder….
Johnson die eerder het Coronavirus bagatelliseerde is intussen op de
harde manier bij de les getrokken en heeft besmet en al in het
ziekenhuis gelegen (belachelijk overigens de enorme aandacht die andere
landen als Nederland, Duitsland en België aan de
ziekte van Johnson en daarna aan zijn beter zijn hebben besteed, als
was hij een held en kampioen Coronabestrijder die was ‘gesneefd in de
strijd……’)
Boris Johnson en zijn Tory Party zijn verantwoordelijk voor het totaal onverantwoord uitkleden van de NHS (National Health Service), een organisatie die het grootste deel van de ziekenhuizen in GB bevolkt en bestuurt.
Als in Nederland is er in Groot-Brittannië (GB) een tekort aan
beschermende kleding enz. voor verplegend personeel, idem als hier is
er daarbovenop een tekort aan testen zodat besmet verplegend
personeel met gemak (zwakke en oude) mensen met het virus kunnen aansteken…… (vergeet niet dat je het virus al overdraaagt voordat de eerste verschijnselen daarvan zich openbaren….) Voorts zijn door de grote tekorten aan beschermende kleding enz., plus het niet testen van dit personeel, in GB intussen al meer dan 100 werknemers van ziekenhuizen en verpleegtehuizen overleden…….
Ontluisterend te lezen dat de Britse
regering zelfs niet reageert als firma’s beschermende kleding voor
verplegend personeel aanbieden…..
Verder probeert de Britse regering het
aantal Coronabesmettingen en -doden naar beneden bij te stellen en
heeft zelfs geprobeerd om verplegend personeel de mond te snoeren
over die besmettingen en doden…… Terwijl media als de zogenaamde onafhankelijke BBC
het aantal doden en besmettingen zoveel mogelijk uit het nieuws
probeerden en proberen te houden (hetzelfde gebeurt hier overigens
ook)
Het volgende artikel werd op TheCanary gepubliceerd en werd geschreven door Ed Sykes, waarin volkomen terecht veel kritiek op de regering Johnson, die niet alleen veel te laat heeft gereageerd op de Coronacrisis, maar die zoals gezegd samen met zijn partij verantwoordelijk is voor het uitkleden van de NHS, van wie hij het personeel nog bedankte voor het redden van zijn leven…… Terecht stelt men dat wanneer Jeremy Corbyn zo had gefaald dit waarschijnlijk al tot zijn opstappen had geleid, waar de media en ‘opiniemakers’ en politicologen geen kritiek op Johnson velen en daarvoor bijvoorbeeld Corbyn hebben aangevallen….. (tssssss….)
Beetje rommelig artikel, maar verder prima:
MP makes shocking PPE revelation that the
government won’t want you to hear
On 21 April, Labour MP
Bill Esterson made a shocking revelation about personal protective
equipment (PPE).
And it seems to represent one more brick in the wall of evidence
showing government incompetence and inaction amid the coronavirus
(Covid-19) pandemic.
One of my constituents offered to make 10 million masks on 27 March and has never had a reply. I wrote to the government and also have not had a reply. This is putting lives at risk. It is shambolic. It needs to be fixed.
The NHS has been
struggling so far with a lack
of PPE. And despite grave
warnings about the danger to staff from such a shortage,
government action has been slow. Numerous UK manufacturers, for
example, have reportedly
faced the same situation as Esterson’s constituent, with the
government failing to respond to PPE offers. Many, meanwhile, have
reacted to this reality by sending
PPE to other countries in Europe instead.
The government is also
facing scrutiny over a recent PPE order from Turkey. Because there
are allegations that it only placed the order after saying the PPE
was already on its way (and it has still not
arrived).
On 21 April, the
Trades Union Congress (TUC) called
for an independent public inquiry into the “grotesque” shortage
of PPE by the end of the year. This comes as at
least 100 workers in the health service have died after
contracting coronavirus.
The same situation was
apparently true with testing too. Because experts who offered
help to the government on this front also waited weeks
for a response. And testing rates are still shockingly low.
The government has promised
100,000 tests a day by the end of April, but there were only around
20,000 done between 19 April and 20 April, although capacity is
greater.
Downing
Street sources tell the Telegraph that Matt Hancock’s promise of
100,000 coronavirus tests a day was “irrational” and “arbitrary” and
will “come back to bite him.”
In other news, here’s Johnson this time last month.
Meanwhile,
the quality of the tests that have existed has come into question:
At
least 17,337
people have died so far in the UK during the coronavirus outbreak.
And with the government reporting “hospital-only figures”, the
real number of fatalities is likely to be much higher – especially
as a result of care
home deaths.
There is also ongoing
work on allegations,
which the Department of Health and Social Care is vigorously denying,
of ‘fake NHS staff accounts’ putting out pro-government
propaganda.
Keep.
Holding. Them. To. Account.
Some experts have called
the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic a “national
scandal”. But the scandal hasn’t just been in recent weeks. It’s
been years in the making. Because Boris Johnson’s party
has decimated
the NHS in the last decade via its ideological
austerity policies. And in doing so, it has left the service struggling
to cope with this pandemic:
Read this investigation and understand that Boris Johnson didn’t ‘take one for the team’. He took a gun and played Russian roulette with his own life and the lives of many thousands of others. He had a choice – they didn’t
1) UK governments had known for nearly two decades that pandemic was the No 1 threat facing the country. But Tory austerity policies progressively undercut the resources needed to cope
7) Suppliers who could have made up the shortfall of protective gear were mostly in China. By the time the UK approached them they were already struggling to deal with China’s urgent need for more PPE. Offers from UK firms to supply PPE were ignored by the government till April 1
8) A Health Department insider: ‘A pandemic was always at the top of our national risk register – always – but when it came we just slowly watched. We could have been Germany but instead we were doomed by our incompetence, our hubris and our austerity’
The former Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King, argues that austerity and Number 10’s communications policies have hindered the UK’s reaction to the pandemic.
Much
of Britain’s corporate media, meanwhile, has put out pro-government propaganda,
criticising people who dare to call out the government’s
incompetent response. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, for
example, faced much hostility
for holding
Johnson’s team to
account in real time. He was right to do so. But as some have
pointed out, the decks have long been stacked
in favour of the Tories and against progressives:
The Sunday Times report ought to be the end of Johnson, but it won’t be. Windrush, Grenfell, Cambridge Analytica, the failure of post-crash austerity – all should have locked the Tories out of power.
Media bias, FPTP and imperial nostagia make Britain very, very hard to change.
Today, it’s perhaps
more important than ever to hold the government to account. Because
its response has been appalling. And we need to demand better. Lives
depend on it.
Alsof de
BBC links is en onafhankelijk bericht, zo zou je de nieuwe stap van
opperploert Boris Johnson kunnen zien: de BBC moet afslanken en wordt
in feite gedwongen om op een andere manier aan geld te komen dan de
‘kijk- en luistergelden’ die men nu in Groot-Brittannië moet
betalen.
Het is
duidelijk dat e.e.a. is ingegeven door het verzet van de BBC tegen de
Brexit, iets dat Johnson blijkbaar flink heeft gestoken en zoals het
psychopathische kleuterpolitici als hemzelf en Trump betaamt: wraak
nemen op degenen die het tegen hen heeft durven opnemen…….
In feite
een nogal domme zet van Johnson, daar de BBC is verworden tot een
rechtse omroep die volkomen afhankelijk zowel de neoliberale status quo, als
de illegale oorlogen steunt die de VS onderneemt, waarbij
Groot-Brittannië deze oorlogen (grootschalige terreur) meestal van meet af aan politiek steunt en
waaraan het land bovendien deelneemt…… Kortom de BBC brengt vooral nieuws en actualiteiten in het belang van Johnson en de
rest van de zogenaamde Conservatieve Partij (een inhumaan neoliberaal
grofgraai zootje)
Maar aan
deze zaak zitten meerdere kanten, immers als de BBC de commercie moet
binnenhalen, zal het ook op die manier rekening moeten houden met de
grote reclame kopers en bedrijven die programma’s helpen aan
financiering. Bedrijven die belang hebben bij het behoud van de
neoliberale ‘waarden’ en bij het voeren van oorlog…… Wat betreft oorlog, daarin hebben een groot aantal bedrijven een belang: als eerste de
wapenindustrie in de ruimste zin van het woord, dus inclusief de
fabricage van rollend, varend en vliegend oorlogstuig. Dan zijn er nog de
oliemaatschappijen, immers door oorlog stijgt de behoefte aan brandstoffen……..
Daarnaast zijn er nog te toeleveranciers van de voornoemde takken van industrie, maar zijn er nog meer
bedrijven te bedenken die belang hebben bij oorlog, zoals aannemers
die de in elkaar geschoten boel moeten herbouwen of herstellen,
deze bedrijven moeten dan vaak weer een beroep doen op de financiële
wereld voor investeringen…….. Kijk en daarbij hebben banken e.d. weer een groot belang…… Daarover gesproken, de
financiële wereld: uiteraard hebben ook een enorm aantal (groot-) aandeelhouders belang bij oorlog, zoals ze ook ‘belang hebben bij het verkankeren’ van ons aller aarde (en bij zo min mogelijk personeel in bedrijven….)….
De
meeste westerse mediaorganen klagen ach en wee over het voorstel van
Johnson t.a.v. de BBC, alsof de BBC niet al lang afhankelijk is van
de Britse regering en een gigantisch aantal fake news (nepnieuws) berichten heeft gebracht waarmee het publiek werd en wordt
belazerd en/of gemanipuleerd, neem alleen al de berichtgeving over de illegale
oorlogen van de VS, die zoals gezegd keer op keer door de Britten zowel politiek
els militair worden gesteund……
Eén ding is zeker: de Britten hebben het verlies van (socialist) Jeremy Corbyn één op één te danken aan de BBC, die al een paar jaar lang bij voortduring negatieve artikelen/berichten over hem heeft gepubliceerd/uitgezonden en dat voor 99,9% gebaseerd op leugens en andere desinformatie, zoals de smerige leugen dat Corbyn een antisemiet zou zijn……
Het volgende bericht komt van The Canary en werd geschreven door Ed Sykes, hij gaat verder in op de verrechtsing van de BBC (ten tijde van publicatie was nog niet bekend dat de BBC moet verzelfstandigen en fiks moet afslanken):
Veteran
reporter shows exactly why the BBC is so close to imploding
John Simpson has been
with the BBC
for around 53 years.
And one comment from him helps us to see why the BBC
is facing potential destruction.
People
now see through the BBC‘s
subtle bias
The BBC‘s
anti-left bias
has gone into overdrive in recent years. Sometimes it’s right in
your face. Sometimes it’s more subtle.
But it’s there. And now, there may
be an even greater shift to the right at the public broadcaster
with the replacement of its director-general. This potential
right-wing coup would come at a time of intensifying criticism
and action from the left, and after analysis
has shown only
44% of Britons now trust BBC
News reporters
to tell the truth.
Simpson’s comment
helped to sum up the ‘pro-establishment’ mindset at the
organisation that has brought the BBC
to this point.
Speaking
about the impressive breakthrough
of the left in Ireland’s recent election, Simpson seemed to lament
the downfall of the right-wing establishment:
Apart from positively
calling the previous situation in the country “politically stable”
(despite a number of significant, ongoing crises), he suggested the
left was ‘populist’ and Ireland had “succumbed”
to it. Both of these words have negative connotations. The BBC
itself pointed out
previously that the word ‘populism’ is usually a “shorthand
political insult”.
The reality was that
Irish voters simply saw
housing and healthcare crises
and wanted
sufficient funding to deal with them.
BBC
vs moderate progressive change?
The BBC
may think that sitting on the fence is an impartial approach. But
it’s not. Because being consistently in
favour of the status quo is also a form of bias. And it has a
dangerous, limiting impact on British democracy.
Britain has suffered
from decades of right-wing ideological
dominance, which has created extreme
inequality. The share of national income that the UK’s ultra-rich
receive, for example, has increased
significantly since the 1980s. And today, people
in the top 1% are “disproportionately male, middle-aged and
London-based”.
Under Jeremy Corbyn,
the Labour Party promotedmoderatecentre-left
policies. One expert called
them “common-sense economics”. 163 economists, meanwhile,
proudly signed
an open letter in 2019 saying the “UK economy needs reform” and
that Labour “deserves to form the next government” because
it has “serious proposals for dealing with” Britain’s “deep
problems”.
The 2019 general
election yet again highlighted the generational divide in Britain.
Voters over the age of 39 were more likely to vote Tory, and a massive
67% of over-70s opted for Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.
Britain has now lived
through four
decades of Thatcherism and Thatcherism-lite. And while younger
people feel the worst effects of this, older generations benefited
from free
higher education and greater economic equality.
Older generations also
had a much better chance of owning their own homes. They didn’t
feel the brunt of the collapse
of social housing and the worsening housing crisis. In 2016, for
example, home ownership in England was at its lowest
level in 30 years – as house prices soared while wage growth
was weak and new housing was scarce. As the Bank of England has revealed:
Real house
prices in the UK have almost quadrupled over the past 40 years,
substantially outpacing real income growth.
Today, people over 65
own around
half of the UK’s housing wealth.
It’s hard to believe
the BBC
represents all Britons when it implicitly favours this status quo.
GE2019:
the liberal establishment sank Labour just as much as the Tory Brexit
message
Britain’s electoral
system is terrible
and undemocratic. And Labour has for too long failed to forge an
alliance of non-Tories in favour of electoral reform – which could
see a ‘progressive majority’ in Britain. Only now do Labour
members seem to be waking
up to this.
Parties entered the
2019 election under the current electoral system, however. And this
favoured the Tories, leaving their opponents on the back foot. As
University of East London professor Jeremy Gilbert has written,
many centrists preferred not to back Corbyn’s Labour – allowing
the united right a landslide victory. Centrist politicians lost
in 2019. But many centrist
voters “could not be persuaded to accept a compromise on Brexit
in order to prevent a Johnson landslide”. The constant media
propaganda against Corbyn and his party didn’t help, either. In the
end, opposing the hard-right Tory agenda simply wasn’t important
enough to the extreme
centre.
Labour’s economic policies
were very
popular across Britain. But in an election where Brexit
dominated, Labour’s compromise policy was a mistake. And a
mixture of our putrid electoral system and elitist media
establishment sealed
the deal.
The BBC
cannot escape responsibility for the 2019 result. Impartiality is a
noble goal; but the BBC
failed miserably on that measure. An objective, public-owned media,
where the facts do all the talking, is massively important for a
democracy to succeed. That’s not the BBC today,
though. And John Simpson’s latest comment is a perfect example of
how the broadcaster is currently stuck in a destructive,
pro-establishment quagmire. Without urgent change, the BBC
won’t survive much longer.
Na 2
jaar de zaak te hebben tegengehouden heeft de Britse regering
eindelijk een geheim rapport over schaliegas- en oliewinning
‘vrijgegeven….’ Dat laatste tussen aanhalingstekens daar het
grootste deel van het rapport onleesbaar is gemaakt door diezelfde
Britse regering, ronduit een schandaal en het zet bovendien nog eens
extra vraagtekens bij de mate van democratie die de Britten
‘genieten……’
Ronduit
onbeschoft zoals het geteisem in Londen omgaat met haar burgers,
immers de schaliegas- en oliewinning kent net als de aardgaswinning
slachtoffers, bovendien wordt met deze vorm van winning (van fossiele
‘brandstof’), hele gebieden vervuild, evenals het grondwater……..
Waar deze winningen hebben plaatsgevonden, blijft een maanlandschap
achter……
Voorts moeten chemicaliën ten behoeve van hetfracken worden afgevoerd en dat betekent in de praktijk, zoals in de VS gebeurt, dat men het vervuilde water ‘gewoon’ laat weglopen in rivieren of zeeën en het zou me niet eens verbazen als men het ter plekke gewoon
de bodem in laat verdwijnen….. Als deze afvalstoffen netjes vernietigd zouden moeten worden, zou alleen daarmee de prijs van schaliegas al fiks stijgen….. Daarover gesproken: er gaat een enorme bak subsidie naar de oliemaatschappijen die deze manier van winning in de VS en GB gebruiken…. Het laten weglopen van de troep richt veel schade aan, schade die amper is te herstellen, terwijl de gevolgen van deze schade in de nabije toekomst een enorme bak belastinggeld zal kosten…….
Verder komen bij het fracken grote hoeveelheden methaangas vrij, gas behorend tot de sterkste broeikasgassen op onze aarde en is een veel sterkere aanjager van de klimaatverandering dan CO2, daarmee is fracken een extra aanjager van die verandering in temperatuur….. (de kosten om de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering tegen te gaan en de schade te herstellen die ermee gepaard gaat, zijn al helemaal niet te berekenen…..)
Schaliegas-
en oliewinning zou als men alle milieuregels zou handhaven, veel te
duur zijn… Ach gelul, deze uitermate vervuilende methode van
winning is een gevaar voor mens, dier en natuur, dus gewoon niet doen, beter nog: verbieden!
Lees het
volgende artikel van Jasmine en dat werd geplaatst op Unearthed
(Greenpeace) en zie de arrogantie van de machthebbers….. Dit
rapport zou voldoende moeten zijn om een regering te laten vallen en
als dat niet gebeurt zou de kiezer de Tory Party moeten
afstraffen….. Helaas werkt het niet zo, de BBC maakt vooral veel
reclame voor de regering en gevaarlijke gekken als Boris Johnson en Nigel Farage, die het volk vertellen dat de klimaatverandering een sprookje is en dat we vooral
alles uit de bodem moeten slepen om te verbranden…….
Overigens is het bij ons niet veel beter, zie wat hufter Menno Snel van D66
heeft geflikt met de schunnige terugvordering van kosten voor de kinderopvang door de Belastingdienst en dan zo onbeschoft zijn te blijven zitten*, de
‘vent’ zou zich de oren van de kop moeten schamen!!! (terwijl de klokkenluider van de Belastingdienst die e.e.a. aan het licht bracht op non-actief is gesteld….)
Government
finally releases secret fracking report
The
still-censored document reveals details of huge Whitehall effort to
support development of shale gas industry in the UK
The
Cabinet Office has finally released its – still heavily redacted –
secret report on the fracking industry, following a 22-month Freedom
of Information battle with Unearthed.
The
document – produced by the Cabinet Office in 2016 but never
published – confirms government and industry players were privately
downbeat about the prospects for a UK shale boom, even as they talked
up the sector’s potential.
Unearthedfirst
discovered the
existence of the report in early 2018, but its information request
was rejected because the government claimed it
“could call into question the industry’s viability.”
Following
a hearing in July this year, the information tribunal ordered the
government to release key extracts of the report. The
government failed
to comply with
the order to publish on 25 November, but finally released the report
late on Friday afternoon.
Though
sections of the document have been unredacted, it remains heavily
censored.
Jon
Trickett, shadow minister for the Cabinet Office,
told Unearthed: “This report clearly shows that
the Tories have bent over backwards to serve the interests of big
business, especially the oil and gas industry.
“The
Conservatives have taken money from oil executives, trashed the
rights of communities and enabled fracking companies to threaten
their local environment.
“The
fact they have tried to cover this up by redacting pages of critical
information – like with their talks with the US over selling off
parts of our NHS – further illustrates this Government’s contempt
for the public.”
He
added that a Labour government would ban fracking, expand the Freedom
of Information act, and “introduce tough new transparency rules”.
The
Conservative Party failed to respond to requests for comment.
(For PDF of this report see original article – you should rotate the page, if you use a laptop or other computer)
Ken
Cronin, chief executive of trade group UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), said:
“This 2016 report reveals no new information of interest. It is
true that shale gas development in the UK has progressed at a steady
pace, although this is commensurate with the exploratory and highly
regulated nature of the industry.
“Since
this report was [produced], the first hydraulic fracturing since 2011
has taken place, several sites have been constructed and tested
across North Nottinghamshire and multiple planning applications have
been submitted for further exploratory work across Derbyshire and
Lancashire.
“As
with any industry that involves development, our progress has been
slowed by the local planning system. This is not a unique problem to
shale within the energy sector. Onshore wind and solar have met with
comparable delays where applications have been filed.”
The
report’s release comes as the government has placed
a pause on fracking,
though activists fear the moratorium could be lifted by a
Conservative government after the election.
Business
Secretary Andrea Leadsom said the moratorium would remain in effect
until “new compelling evidence is provided” regarding the serious
seismic incidents drilling has triggered in the north of England.
The
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) was unable to
comment due to pre-election ‘purdah’.
‘Pro-shale
narratives’
The
Cabinet Office’s report, which is based on interviews with 28
industry stakeholders, identifies “low public acceptance of shale”
as the primary barrier to the industry’s progress.
This
is described in the report as “public opposition driven by concerns
re: local quality of life and safety, environmental protection,
crowding out of renewables.”
Rather
than address these concerns, however, the officials appeared to
regard them as a communications problem.
The
report notes that the now-defunct Department for Energy and Climate
Change (DECC) was “already undertaking crucial work on
communications to increase public acceptability of shale” such as
the “development of pro-shale national/regional narrative” and
“shale champions.”
Messages
from companies were even fed into the government’s “longer term
national communications efforts”.
This
public opposition, the report claims, led to “a set of more
practical ‘symptom’ barriers” that the Cabinet Office
deliberated on how to lift.
Industry
lobbying
It
said: “Operators highlight that the most significant barriers by
far are the long decision timelines and uncertainty experienced in
local planning system.”
“Current
and future operators stress that they will only bring forward large
sites if current long planning times and perceived uncertainty is
reduced – ie unless this can be resolved, UK shale will not take
off even if geology proven.”
In
response, the report discusses a range of possible measures to smooth
and speed-up the permitting process for would-be frackers, including:
improving
“incentives to process application[s] in [the] 16 week statutory
timeframe”.
possibly
“moving shale from local planning into national planning regime”
reviewing
“scope for accelerating planned DECC work on developing options
for the settlement of shale long-term liabilities, to prevent this
becoming a potential source of further delays in the local planning
system in the future”
pressuring
independent regulator the Environment Agency to speed up permitting
process “without increasing risk of judicial review.”
exploring
ways to make public consultations and the planning process “more
predictable,” including receiving advice on whether they can “time
out” statutory consultees who are late in submitting input and
even “reducing resources [for local authorities] invested to
request additional information from industry.”
Questions
over viability
Unearthed’s discovery of
the report nearly 2 years ago related to government’s internal
projections for the the growth of UK fracking, which turned out to be
far more conservative than the vast number of wells and wealth the
industry had predicted.
There
is much in the Cabinet Office’s report that indicates government
and industry players understood these growth forecasts could well be
overblown, and the long-term viability of UK fracking remained
unproven.
“The
development of the UK shale industry over the next 5-10 years is
subject to great uncertainty – most importantly because the
viability of the UK shale reserves is not yet proven,” the report
states.
It
goes on to reference interviews with operators and industry experts
that “suggest that the industry could close down quickly if early
sites are unsuccessful. Developments in the next 5-10 years are
therefore crucial to establish long-term viability of the industry.”
The
extent of the detail provided in the report is that government
expected 5-10 horizontal wells could by fracking by 2020, “with a
realistic expectation being significantly closer to 5 than 20.”
With
less than a month to go before 2020, we now know that even the
government’s “realistic expectation” was excessively
optimistic. There are currently no fracking sites producing gas in
the UK, and the government has announced that it will not support
future projects.
A
far cry from the 4,000 wells by 2032 forecast in 2014, which still
underpins industry
projections 6 years later.
(voor de video in dit Twitterbericht, zie origineel)
Redactions
remain
The
revelations scattered through the report, however, should not
distract from the fact that the Cabinet Office’s report remains
heavily redacted.
37
of the 48 pages are fully censored and many of the others contain
significant redactions.
The
‘background’ page is effectively free to read and so to are major
extracts of the executive summary, and the occasional line from the
report’s body.
Na alle
hysterie over Rusland dat de verkiezingen in de VS zou hebben
gemanipuleerd met een bedrag dat die claim totaal ongeloofwaardig
maakt, zijn er voorbeelden te over van werkelijke beïnvloeding van
verkiezingen door landen als vooral de VS en Israël, maar ook door
grote bedrijven en uiteraard de reguliere media die leugen na leugen blijven
herhalen, bijvoorbeeld over het hiervoor aangehaalde geval van
Rusland, maar ook de meer dan leugenachtige haatzaaicampagne tegen de
Britse Labour leider Jeremy Corbyn…….
Uiteraard
is het iedereen die een beetje geschiedenis heeft gevolgd op school,
duidelijk dat ook religies zich telkens weer mengen in verkiezingen
door volgelingen voor te houden niet op bepaalde partijen te
stemmen….. In Nederland is deze beïnvloeding eigenlijk alleen nog
als zaak van formaat te vinden op de Bijbelgordel, waar de
fundamentalistische gereformeerden de volgelingen voorhouden op de
SGP te stemmen (en wie weet de ChristenUnie), maar dat alle andere
partijen de stem van de duivel volgen……
Nu heeft
dus een opperrabbijn het gore lef gehad om Corbyn en zijn Labour Partij
te beschuldigen van antisemitisme…. De antisemitisme storm die over
Labour ging was al redelijk geluwd nadat de BBC en andere reguliere
mediaorganen in GB Corbyn en zijn partij hadden besmeurd met deze
smerige en overigens onterechte beschuldiging……
Corbyn
heeft zoals zovelen in het westen zijn leven lang gevochten tegen
antisemitisme, echter dat betekent niet dat je niets over de Israëlische terreur tegen het verdrukte Palestijnse volk mag zeggen
en juist dat wordt vertaald als antisemitisme…. Te zot
voor woorden!
De
werkelijke angst voor Corbyn is zijn linkse politieke agenda, een
echte linkse agenda en niet de ‘sociaaldemocratische’ leugen van
de partijen die zich van hun socialistische veren hebben ontdaan en daar een kale
neoliberale vogel van maakten (zie Blair, de PvdA oplichters Kok en Bos
en ga nog maar een half uur door met deze ‘sociaaldemocratische’ partijen in binnen- en buitenland…..)
Vooral
de neoliberale politici van Labour, de conservatieve Tories en de
eerder genoemde reguliere media in GB hebben om dit ‘rode gevaar’ te
keren de antisemitische kaart gespeeld en dat werd zonder vraagtekens
overgenomen door andere reguliere westerse media en politici….
Veronderstel dat een partij gaat regeren die laat zien dat je wel
een socialistisch beleid kan voeren dat succesvol is……
Als je
Corbyn een antisemiet noemt, moet je ook mensen als Hajo Meijer,
een Joodse man die de holocaust in een dodenkamp overleefde,
antisemitisch noemen (en Hajo Meijer was bepaald niet de enige Joodse dodenkampen overlevende, die zich verzette tegen de terreur die Israël uitoefent op de Palestijnen….. Hajo Meijer was voorts de spreekbuis van Een Ander Joods Geluid en was daarnaast overigens bevriend met Corbyn…)
Het is
meer dan schunnig om mensen te vergelijken met fascisten die de Joden
wensten uit te roeien, alleen omdat ze het opnemen voor een verdrukt
volk, dat zou een plicht voor elk mens moeten zijn, wie de
onderdrukkende regering ook is, of uit welke etnische achtergrond die
regering of haar slachtoffers ook bestaat!!
De
politiek van Corbyn is van groot belang voor het enorm grote deel van
de Britse bevolking die al decennia in armoede moeten leven en
waardoor dagelijks meer dan 4 miljoen kinderen met honger naar school
moeten in Groot-Brittannië…… Een zaak die zowel het oude (neoliberale) Labour,
als de conservatieve (lees: neoliberale) Tories als ook de Liberal Democrats (al evenzo neoliberaal) zien als een gegeven, waar ze de ouders van die
kinderen zelfs niet meer wensen te betalen, of de minimumlonen te verhogen, zodat deze mensen zelf hun
kinderen kunnen voeden, daar ze deze burgers niet vertrouwen, een
godgeklaaagd schandaal!!!
Hier een
artikel van Information Clearing House, waar men vooral ingaat op die
beschuldiging van antisemitisme en dat met een paar video’s en de link naar een film van een uur:
Senior
Religious ‘Leader Interferes In UK Election
By
ICH & Agencies
November
27, 2019 “Information
Clearing House” –Britain’s
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis took an unprecedented stand against the
Labour party ahead of next month’s election, urging voters to see
the “new poison” that has taken root in the party, and expressing
fear for the fate of Jews in the country should Jeremy Corbyn become
prime minister.
“The way in which the leadership of the Labour Party has dealt with anti-Jewish racism is incompatible with the British values of which we are so proud – of dignity and respect for all people. It has left many decent Labour members and parliamentarians, both Jewish and non-Jewish, ashamed of what has transpired.” Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said.
Labour
responded, rejecting the chief rabbi’s claims and insisting:
“Jeremy Corbyn is a lifelong campaigner against anti-semitism
and has made absolutely clear it has no place in our party and
society and that no one who engages in it, does so in his name.”
Corbyn
compared plight of Gaza with ‘siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad’ in
2010 speech
Are
Corybn and the labor party considered a danger to the apartheid state
of Israel because of statements highlighting the continuing torture
and imprisonment of the Palestinian people? An example
from 2010 speech. ‘I was in Gaza three months ago. I saw … the
psychological damage to a whole generation, who’ve been imprisoned
for as long as the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad took place.’
Perhaps
the accusations of anti-Semitism against Corbyn, arises out of fear
that the Zionism will be held to account for it’s crimes against the
Palestinian people.
Perhaps
the lies and propaganda are a result of Corbyn’s refusal to cower
under the onslaught of abuse that try’s to paint him as a person of
vile character, for that is surely a definition of anyone who would
condemn others, because of their beliefs or accident of birth.
Perhaps
its because of these words from Corbyn: ‘We
will recognize a Palestinian state when we take office’. Can
you imagine what effect those few words have on racist, Zionism.
Is
being pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic?
The
idea of a pro-Palestinian, pro-justice British Prime Minister is
anathema to certain groups of people, Israel and it’s supporter’s
most prominently
Jewish
leaders who call national self-determination a universal right are
quite comfortable denying it to Palestinians. When we strip away the
propaganda, lies and distortions, most will agree that all people are
equally entitled to respect, dignity and justice, regardless of their
place of birth, religion, color or political views.
Who
is the chief rabbi and who does he represent?
Ephraim
Mirvis’ full title is chief rabbi of the United Kingdom and
Commonwealth.
He
heads, for starters, the United Synagogue (US), which represents
64 currently active congregations.
It’s the biggest Jewish denominational body in the UK and the
biggest organisation of its kind in Europe.
The
US is part of the wider modern or “central” orthodox branch of
Judaism, to which 52% of all UK synagogue members adhere.
According
to the US’ annual accounts for 2018, membership
of this organisation is about 38,660 –
a significant proportion of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish
people in the UK (estimates are around the 290,000 mark).
Nonetheless,
not all Jews recognize the chief rabbi as their spiritual leader. The
chief rabbi does not represent those who identify as Jewish but do
not belong to a synagogue. According to the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, the centuries-old national advocacy group,
approximately half of all Jews in the UK fall under this category.
Perhaps Benjamin
Franklin was correct when he said, “Justice
will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as
those who are.” If you want peace, treat others with respect.
I am Jewish, the son of a Holocaust survivor who lost 39 of her family in the camps. I was the 1st MP to introduce a motion on the Holocaust in the SA Parliament. I’ve lectured at Auschwitz on genocide prevention. I unequivocally support Jeremy Corbyn & want him as the next PM
Voor meer berichten over de smerige beschuldigingen tegen Corbyn en zijn partij, of antisemitisme in het algemeen, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
Afgelopen dinsdagavond vond het verkiezingsdebat plaats tussen de Britse premier Boris Johnson van de ‘conservatieve Tories’ (lees een inhumane neoliberale partij) en de leider van de Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Een dag later was op de BBC vooral te horen dat Corbyn het debat had verloren, ook op Radio1 (Boonman) en BNR (Hammelburg) werd vooral Corbyn afgekamd en als verliezer aangewezen, echter daar valt nog wel het één en ander over te zeggen…… Johnson zou het goed hebben gedaan op het gebied van de Brexit en dat vindt deze mafketel zelf ook, de Brexit zou ‘oven ready’ zijn, echter daar denkt men in de EU anders over, geen probleem: men ziet Johnson al als de winnaar van de Brexit……
Het kijkerspubliek van het debat wees geen echte winnaar aan, 49% voor Corbyn en 51% voor Johnson. Ofwel: in feite heeft Corbyn fiks gewonnen, daar hij en zijn partij al als de verliezers werden gezien in de peilingen en het overgrote deel van de Britten niet zou stemmen op Corbyn (inderdaad een ‘dramatische verandering’ voor Johnson)……
Niet zo vreemd als je de lastercampagnes van de reguliere media tegen Corbyn ziet en hoort, ook de wereldvreemde verslaggevers van bijvoorbeeld de Nederlandse reguliere media spreken nooit over de enorme ellende waar het grootste deel van de Britten in moet leven, alleen al het feit dat meer dan 4 miljoen Britse kinderen dagelijks met honger naar school gaan, wordt nooit genoemd en ook de ellende als gevolg van de bezuinigingen op de nationale gezondheidszorg (NHS), is amper of nooit onderwerp van gesprek….. Dit terwijl Johnson na een verkiezingsoverwinning op 12 december a.s. van zins is om de VS toegang te geven tot de Britse volksgezondheid, een onzalig plan als je de gezondheidszorg in de VS ziet, enorme winsten voor de verzekeraars, hun managers, de specialisten en de farmaceuten, waar miljoenen VS burgers onder lijden en miljoenen niet eens verzekerd zijn…. Je had het waarschijnlijk al begrepen, op gebied van de gezondheidszorg was Corbyn de grote winnaar…..
Gezien het debat kan ik niet anders concluderen dan dat Corbyn deels de vloer heeft aangeveegd met Johnson, wat mij betreft is hij dan ook de winnaar van het debat……
Zoals gezegd, de BBC en de andere reguliere media hebben de laatste paar jaar een heel smerig spel gespeeld als het gaat om Corbyn en zijn Labour Party: Corbyn zou een stroman van Putin zijn, Corbyn en de rest van Labour zouden antisemitisch zijn, zo kan ik nog wel even doorgaan, niet vreemd dus dat Labour voor het debat op zwaar verlies stond…..
De meest lullige en ronduit agressieve woorden kwamen een dag later van Kaye Adams, een presentator op BBC Scotland, deze woorden spraken boekdelen: ze begon nog net niet te kokhalzen als ze de naam Corbyn in de mond nam, maar het scheelde niet veel….. Terwijl een groot deel van haar luisteraars te lijden hebben van het wanbeleid dat in Londen wordt gevoerd….. Vooral de opmerking van Corbyn dat we naar een 4 daagse werkweek moeten, stak haar, waar deze huppeltrut zelf zo’n 3,5 dag in de week werkt……..
Jackie
Walker, een Joods journalist, wordt al een paar jaar in de pers
neergezet als antisemiet…… Het feit dat je er al vanaf
het begin bij moet vertellen dat ze Joods is, is een teken aan de
wand…. Walker was eerder lid van Labour, maar heeft haar
lidmaatschap opgezegd, ze ziet de partij als zionistisch en stelt dat het neoliberalisme van Blair de boel nog steeds verziekt in de partij…. (moet je
nagaan, de reguliere pers, ook in Nederland, heeft Labour een paar jaar lang voor antisemitisch uitgemaakt….)
Zelf is
Walker zoals gezegd meermaals beschuldigd antisemitisch te zijn, het
voorbeeld dat de campagne tegen Corbyn een zeer valse campagne was en
is, deze politicus is alles behalve een antisemiet en toch kan de
reguliere pers in GB en de rest van het westen er maar geen genoeg
van krijgen hem dit etiket op te drukken….. ‘
Ach ja, men is als de
dood dat Corbyn de verkiezingen wint, waarna mensen voldoende geld
krijgen om zelf eten voor de kinderen te kopen, zodat niet dagelijks meer dan 4 miljoen kinderen hongerig naar school moeten (dat was ook al het geval onder Labour schoften Blair en Brown)
Zoals gewoonlijk spelen de reguliere media weer een heel smerig spel in deze, hetzij door zonder bewijzen politici te beschuldigen van antisemitisme, dan wel door zaken te verzwijgen die duidelijk het tegenovergestelde laten zien…. Ook smerige verbale aanvallen op de groep Jewish Voice for Labour, die zich verzet tegen het met antisemitisme etiketten beplakken van politici, worden gewoon niet genoemd in diezelfde media…..
De
heksenjacht met beschuldigingen van antisemitisme doet vreemd genoeg denken aan de
campagnes van de nazi’s in Duitsland voor de machtsovername door
opper-psychopaat Hitler en zijn smerige misdadigersbende….. Alleen
werden de mensen er toen van beschuldigd Joods, Roma, Sinti, homo of links te zijn en als je als niet
Jood commentaar had op dat beleid, was je een Jodenvriend die het licht in de ogen
niet verdiende….. Lullig genoeg worden nu dus ook Joden als Walker en de hiervoor genoemde Jewish Voice for Labour aangevallen….. Aangevallen daar deze (Joodse) mensen het zat zijn dat men Labour wegzet als antisemitisch en dat je geen commentaar mag leveren op bijvoorbeeld de massamoorden die Israël onder de Palestijnen aanricht……
Ongelofelijk!!
Het volgende artikel werd geschreven door Slava Silber en werd eerder geplaatst op TheCanary:
Jewish
anti-racist Jackie Walker speaks about resisting ‘a major witch
hunt’
Jackie
Walker is
a Jewish supporter of Palestinian rights who has faced off
allegations of antisemitism in recent years. And she recently spoke
to me about her ordeal.
A
‘professional anti-racist’
She
began by explaining her background, saying:
I’m
not just an activist… I was also professionally an anti-racist. So
I was an adviser/teacher on anti-racism as well as going on
demonstrations etc about anti-racist practice, because the reason my
parents were together was because of the civil rights movement. And
in the 1950s, if you even think about America, which is where I was
born at that point, which was at the height of McCarthyism, and you
had a white man and a black woman having a long-term relationship
which produced two children – they were obviously very conscious of
the barriers they were crossing. And the reason my mother was
deported from America was because of her political activities…
So
I’ve got these two identities, both Ashkenazi Jewish and Black,
from the African diaspora, from Jamaica. And the coincidence of those
two things means that… I feel I have to speak up.
“A
major witch hunt”
She
continued by highlighting what she considers a “major” attack on
left-wingers who support Palestinian rights:
We’re
in the stranglehold of a major witch hunt in British politics. We’ve
never seen anything like it. If you want to talk about existential
threats, we are having the most dangerous existential threat to the
left that there’s been in modern history, and I’m not
exaggerating that.
[At]
the Labour Party conference, there was a
bomb threat where
he said – whoever the person was said – that they were going to
kill a lot of people. Now, of course, nobody in the media reported
that. Extraordinary. I mean I just want you to consider what would
have happened if this show was being put on by a Zionist group, a
Jewish Zionist group. It would have been all over the papers.
This
show was being put on by a non-Zionist Jewish group, and it wasn’t
mentioned, at all. At the same time, a member of a group that I’m…
partly in…, Jewish Voice for Labour, was actually attacked on the
streets. There, we have had threats of rape and murder. And again,
the extraordinary thing is the fact that this has not been reported,
at all, … in any media.
Media
bias
Speaking
about how media outlets have treated the allegations against her, she
said:
They
have no interest in balance. They have a total agenda. So for
example, you take the Guardian, that
used to be a liberal newspaper. We can see what their agenda is and
has been right from the start. And they will write article after
article after article, and certainly Jessica Elgot, who is the person
– she was originally a reporter for the Jewish
Chronicle,
then was employed by the Guardian –
and she has written, I don’t even know how many. Maybe 20 articles
have referred to me, maybe more…
Not once, not once has she come to
me to check her story. Not once. And I wrote her a very, very polite
invitation, maybe about six months ago, saying ‘perhaps it would be
a good idea, as you seem to have focused so much of your work on me,
for us to meet’. I didn’t even get a response. So… a decision
has been made, somewhere, that normal practice does not apply against
Jackie Walker.
Another
example – Panorama. …
I was sitting there, watching it… and up I came again. And all the
kind of tricks of the documentary trade were used. So there was
spooky music when I came on, there was a kind of sickle moon, and
there was trembling of the beats, of the rhythm, that happened as
well. So I find it quite extraordinary.
Blair’s
legacy remains in the Labour Party…
Asked
if she regrets no longer being in the Labour Party, Walker stressed:
I
feel that actually I’m really freed up. I mean, I can say things
about what’s happening in the party that I couldn’t possibly say
as a Labour Party member. And that is difficult for a lot of members.
I mean, I think the structures of the Labour Party are the leftovers
of the… Blair structures that were put into place to silence
members, and to keep them kind of on a particular track which
included being Zionist, which included being neoconservative, you
know, that whole sort of economic agenda. And I think a lot of us
during those years sort of held our nose and voted Labour.
Speaking
about the situation today, she said:
So
what you’ve got is, you’ve got a left which has been under huge
amounts of pressure, and not unified on this subject. There
have been some groups and some individuals who decided that the witch
hunt had a basis to it. Not in terms of any evidence, not in terms of
any data. But they felt they had to respond to it in a very
particular way. And that has meant that the response from the left
has not been unified.…
You
have the bulk of the members on one side, bulk of the activists on
one side, and on the other side you have the parliamentary Labour
Party. You have the leadership, who was so busy trying to keep the
media and the parliamentary Labour Party happy – an impossible
task, of course – … that they are not really taking account of
what’s happening to the membership.
(Op deze plek staat een video, die ik helaas niet kan overnemen, zie daarvoor het origineel. Hieronder 2 video’s [overgenomen van YouTube] over de heksenjacht in GB tegen zogenaamd antisemitisme…. Commentaar leveren op het bloedige handelen van de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël, wordt als antisemitisme weggezet, zelfs als je niet één keer het woord ‘Jood’ hebt gebruikt….)
Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking en dat ‘kunnen we uiteraard niet hebben in de huidige ijskoude, inhumane neoliberale maatschappij….’ Vandaar dat de politiek in samenwerking met de reguliere Britse (en ook buitenlandse) media Corbyn op alle mogelijke manieren belasteren en demoniseren met leugens en andere achterklap……
Jonathan
Cook schreef een uitgebreid en prima artikel over de krachten die
alles op alles zetten om Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider, ten
val te brengen en te voorkomen dat hij de volgende landelijke
verkiezingen zal winnen…..
Cook
wijst op de politieke gang van zaken in Groot-Brittannië, al voordat
Trump in de VS aan het bewind kwam. Een groot deel van het volk zag en ziet volkomen terecht de politiek als vooropgezette lobby ten gunste van de bedrijven en de
welgestelden, zaken waaraan eerdere Labourleiders meededen en die zoals gezegd werden gesteund door de reguliere media…. Het neoliberalisme had
immers ‘het communisme’ overwonnen, ‘het communisme’ dat nooit
werkelijk heeft bestaan op onze aarde, althans voor zover bekend is (gezien de voorhanden zijnde en niet gemanipuleerde geschiedenis*).
De reguliere westerse media en politici zijn zelfs zover gegaan dat ze Corbyn durfden te beschuldigen van
antisemitisme, terwijl Corbyn in zijn partij o.a. wordt bijgestaan
door politici die Joods zijn, voorts was hij bevriend met Hajo Meijer, het intussen overleden bestuurslid van Een Ander
Joods Geluid….. En waarom die beschuldiging van antisemitisme? Omdat Corbyn regelmatig
volledig terecht het Israëlische terreurbeleid t.a.v. de Palestijnen
heeft bekritiseerd, zeker als Israël weer een zoveelste bloedbad aanrichtte
onder de Palestijnen…. De Palestijnen, als de Joden voor en tijdens
WOII, het vervolgde volk, niet in Duitsland maar in Israël, NB een illegaal gestichte
staat waar o.a. Joden naar toe vluchten om zaken te voorkomen, die Israël tegen de Palestijnen gebruikt……
Jeremy Hunt, een psychopathische mafketel van de Tories, durfde Corbyn af te schilderen als de nieuwe Hitler…… Te ernstig om over te lachen, daar er voldoende figuren zijn die een tweede Hitler met veel plezier om zouden leggen, zeker voordat deze politieke macht krijgt….. Ofwel Hunt heeft Corbyn een schietschijf omgehangen en dat met een bewering die kant nog wal raakt…..
Nogmaals: nooit heeft Corbyn anti-Joodse geluiden laten horen, het gaat uitsluitend om kritiek op de staat Israël, iets dat volkomen legitiem is en niets met antisemitisme te maken heeft…..
In de VS
heeft men een grote bek over de ‘door de Russen gemanipuleerde
presidentsverkiezingen van 2016’, waar geen flinter aan bewijs voor
werd geleverd, anders dan een aantal advertenties die qua kosten niet eens in
de schaduw kunnen staan van de bedragen waarmee die verkiezingen
worden gekocht……. Terwijl diezelfde VS in persoon van o.a. Pompeo
heeft gesteld dat Corbyn de volgende landelijke verkiezingen in GB
niet mag winnen….. De VS zou nu zelfs al actief in GB bezig zijn met het
demoniseren van Corbyn…… Zo geeft Pompeo toe (waarschijnlijk ongewild, het is bepaald geen intellect) dat de VS overal en nergens de
verkiezingen manipuleert, als men de idee heeft dat belangrijke figuren als politici op belangrijke posities niet in het belang van de VS en/of Israël zullen werken…..
Lees het
volgende artikel van Cook (eerder gepubliceerd op Common Dreams en overgenomen van Anti-Media) en zegt het voort, er moet een eind komen aan de smerige campagne tegen Corbyn, een campagne waar ook Nederlandse media aan meewerken…..
As
the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more
urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks
(CD Op-Ed) — In
the latest of the interminable media “furores” about Jeremy
Corbyn’s supposed unfitness to lead Britain’s Labour party –
let alone become prime minister – it is easy to forget where we
were shortly before he won the support of an overwhelming majority of
Labour members to head the party.
In
the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of
Russell Brand, a comedian and minor film star who had reinvented
himself, after years of battling addiction, as a spiritual
guru-cum-political revolutionary.
Brand’s
fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political
order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative,
was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media
establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to
indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might
prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.
But
Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have
imagined. He took on supposed media heavyweights like the
BBC’s Jeremy
Paxman and
Channel 4’s Jon
Snow and
charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion
and his thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle
of wits so beloved of modern TV, he made these titans of the
political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of
thousands of new followers.
Then
he overstepped the mark.
Democracy
as charade
Instead
of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was
in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that
western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless.
Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our
political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of
globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been
captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become
irrelevant.
Brand
didn’t just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action.
He shamed our
do-nothing politicians and corporate media – the devastating
Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen – by helping to gain
attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted
to evict them to develop their homes for a much richer clientele.
Brand’s revolutionary words had turned into revolutionary action
But
just as Brand’s rejection of the old politics began to articulate a
wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was
unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the first time in
living memory a politics that listened to people before money,
Brand’s style of rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at
least premature.
Ideologically
he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a
turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism. (Photo: Anthony
Devlin/Getty Images)
While
Corbyn’s victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling,
however, that it occurred only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The
Corbyn accident
First,
a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership
contest, scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot
paper. Most backed him only because they wanted to give the
impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly regretted having
assisted him. None had thought a representative of the tiny and
besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a chance of
winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than
two decades remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to
eradicate any vestiges of socialism in the party. These “New
Labour” MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.
Corbyn
had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years
he had broken with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction
time and again in parliamentary votes, consistently taking a minority
view that later proved to be on the right
side of history.
He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally against
austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to
enrich the corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums
from the public coffers – so much so that by 2008 they had nearly
bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And
second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party’s
rulebook – one now much regretted by party managers. A new internal
balloting system gave more weight to the votes of ordinary members
than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine,
wanted Corbyn.
Corbyn’s
success didn’t really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed
systems have flaws, especially when the maintenance of the system’s
image as benevolent is considered vitally important. It wasn’t that
Corbyn’s election had shown Britain’s political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate
power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by
preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the
illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
‘Brainwashing
under freedom’
Corbyn’s
success also wasn’t evidence that the power structure he challenged
had weakened. The system was still in place and it still had a
chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to
uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further,
even more disastrous “accident”, such as his becoming prime
minister.
Listing
the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn
would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these
media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed
to this kind of “brainwashing
under freedom”
since birth.
The
initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist,
unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy –
relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party
leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only
failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership
rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe.
As
the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more
urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks.
Redefining
anti-semitism
Corbyn
was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party
within sight of power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived
modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four
decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by
Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars
for empire, fashionable “humanitarian interventions” whose real
goal was to attack other sovereign states either to control their
resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the
military-industrial complex.
It
was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There
was the danger that they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn
was seen to have an Achilles’ heel. He was a life-long anti-racism
activist and well known for his support for the rights of the
long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments
quickly learnt that they could recharacterise his support for the
Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. He was soon
being presented as a leader happy to preside over an
“institutionally” anti-semitic party.
Under
pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and
highly controversial definition of anti-semitism – one rejected by
leading jurists and later repudiated by
the lawyer who devised it – that expressly conflates criticism of
Israel, and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred.
One
by one Corbyn’s few ideological allies in the party – those
outside the Blairite consensus – have been picked off as
anti-semites. They have either fallen foul of this conflation or, as
with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred and feathered
for trying to defend Labour’s record against the accusations of a
supposed endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.
The
bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in
relation to Williamson. The comment that plunged him into so much
trouble – now leading twice to his suspension – was videoed. In
it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a “scourge” that must be
confronted. But also, in line with all evidence,
Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism
problem. In part he blamed the party for being too ready to concede
unwarranted ground to critics, further stoking the attacks and
smears. He noted that Labour had been “demonised as a racist,
bigoted party”, adding: “Our party’s response has been partly
responsible for that because in my opinion … we’ve backed off far
too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too
apologetic.”
The
Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson’s remarks
not once but each time it has covered developments in his case. Every
Guardian report has
stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was
“too apologetic about anti-semitism”. In short, the Guardian and
the rest of the media have insinuated that Williamson approves of
anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour was “too
apologetic” when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of
anti-semitism, that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded
premise of its critics that the party condoned racism.
Like
the Salem witch-hunts
The
McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by
association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of
Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the
anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon
Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn,
turned on the JVL calling them
“part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism
in the Labour Party”. In an additional, ugly but increasingly
normalised remark, he added: “Neither the vast majority of
individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be
said to be part of the Jewish community.”
In
this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn’s allies have been required to
confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance
themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training.
To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem
witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt.
The
anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the
narrow corporate media “spectrum”, even though they are
unsupported by any actual
evidenceof
an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one
representative of wider British society. The allegations have reached
such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria by the media, that the party
is now under investigation by
the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the only party apart
from the neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an
investigation.
These
attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel,
the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20
years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel
as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews – was the same as
anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted
only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel.
Now,
however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian’s
Jonathan Freedland claiming not
only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they
speak for all other Jews in making such an identification. To
criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to
attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this
consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who
supports Corbyn – and there are many, even if they are largely
ignored – are denounced, in line wth Lansman, as the “wrong kind
of Jews”. It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so
commonplace as to be unremarkable.
In
fact, the weaponisation of anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so
normal that, even while I was writing this post, a new nadir was
reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who hopes to defeat Boris
Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good
as accused Corbyn
of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews
to be exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Too
‘frail’ to be PM
Although
anti-semitism has become the favoured stick with which to beat
Corbyn, other forms of attack regularly surface. The latest are
comments by unnamed “senior civil servants” reported in the
Times alleging that
Corbyn is too physically frail and mentally ill-equipped to grasp the
details necessary to serve as prime minister. It barely matters
whether the comment was actually made by a senior official or simply
concocted by the Times. It is yet further evidence of the political
and media establishments’ anti-democratic efforts to discredit
Corbyn as a general election looms.
One
of the ironies is that media critics of Corbyn regularly accuse him
of failing to make any political capital from the shambolic disarray
of the ruling Conservative party, which is eating itself alive over
the terms of Brexit, Britain’s imminent departure from the European
Union. But it is the corporate media – which serves both as
society’s main forum of debate and as a supposed watchdog on power
– that is starkly failing to hold the Tories to account. While the
media obsess about Corbyn’s supposed mental deficiencies, they have
smoothed the path of Boris Johnson, a man who personifies the word
“buffoon” like no one else in political life, to become the new
leader of the Conservative party and therefore by default – and
without an election – the next prime minister.
An
indication of how the relentless character assassination of Corbyn is
being coordinated was hinted at early on, months after his election
as Labour leader in 2015. A British military general told
the Times,
again anonymously, that there would be “direct action” – what
he also termed a “mutiny” – by the armed forces should Corbyn
ever get in sight of power. The generals, he said, regarded Corbyn as
a national security threat and would use any means, “fair or foul”,
to prevent him implementing his political programme.
Running
the gauntlet
But
this campaign of domestic attacks on Corbyn needs to be understood in
a still wider framework, which relates to Britain’s abiding
Transatlantic “special relationship”, one that in reality means
that the UK serves as Robin to the United States’ Batman, or as a
very junior partner to the global hegemon.
Last
month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US
secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of
rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked. Contrary to the
refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure
that he could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides
of that Washington conversation was that the Labour leader might soon
become Britain’s prime minister.
Framing
Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard
asking Pompeo if he would be “willing to work with us to take on
actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK”.
Pompeo responded that
it was possible “Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get
elected” – a telling phrase that attracted remarkably little
attention, as did the story itself, given that it revealed one of the
most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about
meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election
Here
is the dictionary definition of “run the gauntlet”: to take part
in a form of corporal punishment in which the party judged guilty is
forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who strike out and attack
him.
So
Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet – systematic
and organised blows and strikes against Corbyn – that he is being
made to run through. In fact, “running the gauntlet” precisely
describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour
leader – from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite
faction of his own party, from rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish
organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous generals
and senior civil servants.
‘We
cheated, we stole’
Pompeo
continued: “You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those
things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too
risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”
So,
Washington’s view is that action must be taken before Corbyn
reaches a position of power. To avoid any danger he might become the
UK’s next prime minister, the US will do its “level best” to
“push back”. Assuming that this hasn’t suddenly become the US
administration’s priority, how much time does the US think it has
before Corbyn might win power? How close is a UK election?
As
everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has
been a distinct possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority
goverment two years ago with the help of fickle, hardline Ulster
loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling
party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating
their own leader, prime minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.
So
if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do
whatever it can to make sure Corbyn doesn’t win an election well
before that election takes place, it means the US is already deeply
mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US
is ready to meddle in the UK’s election, which is bad enough; he is
hinting that it is already meddling in UK politics to make sure the
will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong leader.
Remember
that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America’s spy
chief, was unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he
was in charge. He observed:
“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s –
it was like – we had entire training courses.”
One
would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the
CIA’s culture during his short tenure. He simply became the
figurehead of the world’s most powerful spying outfit, one that had
spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that
had lied its way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done
earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the nuclear bombing of
Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by
Pompeo. They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.
An
eroding consensus
It
takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear
pattern here.
Brand
was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media
elites are captured, and that the power structure of our societies
will defend itself by all means possible, “fair or foul.” Corbyn
is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged
to stop a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders – though not a
rich businessman like Donald Trump – winning the nomination for the
US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real journalists
like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism
prized by the corporate media – with its reliance on official
sources and insiders for stories – to divulge the secrets of the
national security states we live in.
There
is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned
by critics: a small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of
our societies. The conspiracy operates at an institutional level, one
that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and
entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few.
In that sense we are all part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy
that embraces us every time we unquestioningly accept the
“consensual” narratives laid out for us by our education systems,
politicians and media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears
and narratives that turned us into the turkeys that keep voting for
Christmas.
That
system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully
constructed over many decades is rapidly breaking down as the power
structure that underpins it is forced to grapple with real-world
problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual
collapse of western economies premised on infinite growth and a
climate that is fighting back against our insatiable appetite for the
planet’s resources.
As
long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western
societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful
dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was
treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human
progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like
Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events
and economic crises. The power structures in place to prevent such
accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent,
less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that
a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense
of our children’s future and our own does not have to continue.
That we can raise our voices and loudly say: “No!”
* Je zou
de eerste christengemeenschappen kunnen zien als communistisch, daar
iedereen er gelijk was en men samen besliste over de dagelijkse gang
van zaken. Echter gegarandeerd dat die gemeenschappen in
werkelijkheid meer weg hadden van een sekte, daar de enige echte
autoriteit het godsgeloof was en twijfelen aan die autoriteit zou
tot onmiddellijke verstoting/uitstoting hebben geleid…..
Tijdens
een discussie over scholen in GB brak Labour politicus Laura Pidkock
in en vestigde de aandacht op een VN rapport dat woensdag 22 mei,
een dag voor de EU verkiezingen werd gepubliceerd en waarin te lezen
is dat 14 miljoen Britten in diepe armoede leven*, waar velen van hen
dakloos zijn, uiteraard gaat dit ook over de kinderen in arme
gezinnen…..
Zo is
het al veel langer bekend dat dagelijks 4 miljoen kinderen in GB met
honger naar school gaan, waar ze vervolgens hun ontbijt krijgen, de ouders krijgen geen cent extra om zelf
hun kinderen te kunnen voeden, men vertrouwt de ouders gewoonweg
niet (zonder enige grond daarvoor…)….. Veel van dit alles is te danken aan de bezuinigingen die
onder Cameron en May werden doorgevoerd….. Als in ons land is de
toegang tot het recht voor de arme Britse bevolking ook nog eens zwaar ingeperkt……
De
presentator van het programma, de neoliberale ploert Jo Coburn,
probeerde Pidkock het woord te ontnemen door de opmerking te maken
dat men in de studio was om over scholing in GB te spreken, maar
Pidkock stelde volkomen terecht dat dit nieuws het belangrijkste van
de dag was en dat een organisatie als de BBC (zou onafhankelijk
zijn…) dit prominent had moeten brengen….
Helaas
voor Pidkock, maar de BBC is al lang haar onafhankelijkheid kwijt en
probeert zoveel mogelijk de zittende regering te verdedigen, wat deze ook flikt…….
Het is
een schande zoals men meer en meer met mensen omgaat zoals in de VS
en GB, blijkbaar voorbeelden voor de rest van de westerse landen,
daar men naarstig hetzelfde doet: mensen afschrijven en hen afschepen
met veel te weinig om van rond te komen, een schande van formaat……
Het voorgaande terwijl tegelijkertijd bedrijven miljarden naar het buitenland sluizen en steunt men
het militair-industrieel complex met enorme kapitalen aan belastinggeld, pompt men expres spanningen op, of veroorzaakt ze zelfs, waardoor arme bevolkingen elders massaal op de vlucht slaan…..
Men doet dit alles, ook al mocht daardoor uiteindelijk een
wereldoorlog uitbreken, blijkbaar denkt een fiks aantal politici deze wel te kunnen overleven…… Zoals de westerse landen die in regio als het Midden-Oosten, waar ze niets te zoeken hebben, grof geweld gebruiken, of beter gezegd grootschalige terreur uitoefenen, waar deze westerse landen geen verantwoording willen dragen voor de opvang van de mensen die zoals gezegd op de vlucht zijn geslagen voor die westerse terreur….. Ook voor de terreur op de Europese straten, die ze met de eigen terreur elders hebben uitgelokt, wensen de westerse regeringen niet verantwoordelijk te worden gesteld…..
Het
wordt de hoogste tijd dat politici worden afgerekend op het willens
en wetens uitbuiten van de arme bevolking en hen de goot in te
schoppen, alsof we weert terug zijn in de 19de eeuw……. Natuurlijk zou het westen, met de VS voorop, zich met haar agressieve legermacht terug moeten trekken uit landen waar dit westen niets te zoeken heeft…..
Wat betreft de BBC: weer gaat deze zogenaamd onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde door met het besmeuren van Labour, de reden ook dat Labour het onlangs slecht heeft gedaan in de EU verkiezingen……. Men heeft de leider Jeremy Corbyn zelfs antisemiet genoemd, terwijl hij dat niet is, integendeel!! Nee, Corbyn heeft volkomen terecht kritiek op de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël en de verdrukking van het Palestijnse volk door deze in feite illegale staat, alleen daarom wordt hij uitgemaakt voor antisemiet….
Op 25 april jl. weigerde de BBC te discussiëren over Labour politiek……. (zie: ‘Fresh BBC row kicks off after the Today programme ‘refuses’ to discuss Labour policy‘) Kortom de BBC is bezig om een verkiezingsoverwinning van Labour bij de volgende landelijke verkiezingen te voorkomen, het is nu al zo dat andere vooraanstaande Labourleden wel geciteerd worden, terwijl berichtgeving over Corbyn voor 99,99% anti-propaganda is, waarbij men laatdunkend over hem spreekt…..
Het
volgende artikel verscheen eerder op The Canary en werd
geschreven door James Wright:
Appalled
MP takes down BBC on air after host claims UK poverty ‘must be’
Labour’s fault
BBC
Politics Live host
Jo Coburn tried to blame the Labour Party for the Conservatives’
record on UK poverty on 22 May.
“Must
be your fault”
Shadow
business minister Laura Pidcock put a newly published UN
report showing the
“tragic social consequences” of Tory-led austerity on
the Politics
Live agenda.
In response, Coburn first tried to
switch the topic away from the UN report:
“Let’s
stick to schools because you’re moving onto something slightly
different here”
While Westminster media obsess about the disintegration of the Tories, 14m are described as being in poverty by a UN report, 1.5m are destitute. It even talked about the “DWP** designing a digital & sanitized version of the 19th century workhouse”. We have to be talking about this.
The
UN report is scathing. According to UN special rapporteur on extreme
poverty Philip
Alston,
austerity, which the Lib Dems enabled in
the coalition government, has “crystal
clear” results:
14
million people living in poverty, record levels of hunger and
homelessness, falling life expectancy for some groups, ever fewer
community services, and greatly reduced policing, while access to the
courts for lower-income groups has been dramatically rolled back by
cuts to legal aid.
Alston
also said that
“UK standards of well-being have descended precipitately in a
remarkably short period of time, as a result of deliberate policy
choices made when many other options were available”.
Nonetheless,
on the BBC,
Coburn seemed preoccupied with the affairs of the ruling class –
like the spectacle of a spiralling Conservative Party. It took
Pidcock to bring the UN report onto the Politics
Live agenda.
And even then, Coburn had the cheek to put blame onto her party for
an unaccountable government.
We
know you don’t need a lecture. You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t
care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the
rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and
thrive. Support
The Canary
