Posts Tagged ‘Advertisers’

Novara Media Claims Belief that Israeli State Behind Labour Anti-Semitism Smears ‘Conspiracy Theory’

February 28, 2019

I’m a fan of Novara media and its editor in chief, Ash Sarkar. She’s young, bright and with a very incisive grasp of politics and a firm supporter of the left-wing policies we need to put this country back on its feet, empower ordinary people, and fight real racism. I think the company generally supports Corbyn and the Labour party. But I was immensely disappointed earlier this week by a video in which Sarkar talked to James Butler and Kehinde Andrews, a professor of Black Studies at one of the universities in a piece entitled ‘The Blair Rich Project’. The video’s on YouTube, and is 1 hour and 24 minutes long. I tried watching it, but gave up after about 20 minutes when James Butler declared that the belief that Israel was involved in the anti-Semitism accusations was only held by a minority of Labour supporters, who were themselves anti-Semitic.

This is the establishment narrative, although I dare say that Butler thinks he was countering it by stressing that the people, who hold this belief are only a tiny minority. But the people, who believe that the Israeli state is involved in these smears are absolutely right. The anti-Semitism accusations are part of Israeli hasbara, civilian propaganda. The point has been made again and again by activists and journalists like Tony Greenstein, Glenn Greenwald, Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada. Who was earlier this week in a discussion about this with The Real News alternative news network. The Real News is based in Boston, America. Al-Jazeera, the Arab news agency, and it’s subsidiary channel, AJ+, has unsurprisingly exposed Israeli involved in British, and now American domestic politics. Those making these revelations aren’t anti-Semites either. Greenstein’s Jewish, as is, I think, Greenwald, who writes for the Intercept.

But for some reason Novara Media are ignoring all this. Butler blithely seemed to accept unquestioningly that the Israeli state wasn’t involved, and that the people, who believed it were ‘conspiracy theorists’. Well, genuine conspiracies exist. And Israeli hasbara and state-directed smears of Corbyn are one of them.

But I do wonder why Butler, and his boss, Sarkar, don’t believe this. it might be that, like so many of the British media, they simply have a blind spot about the secret state. Or else they believe that, as anti-racists, they should reject any accusations about a plot by an ethnic minority, even when that plot is real, and the perpetrators don’t represent all of their ethnic group. The Israeli state and lobby claim that they represent all Jews, but they clearly don’t. Not even close, as Jews like Greenstein and Walker, who have been accused of anti-Semitism and self-hatred would attest. Perhaps it’s simply the mainstream academic disdain for parapolitics and conspiracy theories, which are seen only as the province of the stupid, paranoid and hateful.

Or perhaps Butler and Novara are afraid that if they give credence to the idea that the Israeli state is behind these vile smears, they’ll be accused of anti-Semitism in turn, and that the station’s financiers and advertisers will pull out, causing it to go under. It’s a small station, and so is very vulnerable financially.

It could be either or both of the above. Or any number of other explanations. But I’m disappointed that they haven’t realised what is really going on behind these smears, and who is directing and ultimately responsible for them.

Syria Chemical Weapons Attacks Were ‘False Flag’ Operations Intended to Draw America into Civil War

April 8, 2017

Last week there came a report that Assad’s government had attacked its own people, using poison gas. About 60 people had died. After the Syrian president and his government had been condemned for this atrocity, Trump declared that he was not tolerating it and launched a missile attack in reprisal at a Syrian air force base. And the world came one step closer yet again to World War III. Or at least another bloody western invasion of a middle eastern country.

We are being told that such attacks are to defend the Syrian people from a murderous regime. Our governments are also supplying funding, training and arms to a plethora of rebel groups fighting Assad. These are Islamist groups, such as the al-Nusra Front, who are basically the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, we are being assured that these rebels are moderates, who want to create a democratic Syria.

This is all lies. The so-called moderates are no such thing, and the weapons and funding that’s given to them sooner or later gets passed on to their more extreme allies. This includes ISIS, who is also being funded by part of the American military complex. The bland reassurances that this proxy war is being fought to establish democracy is also bogus. The Neocons have been itching to remove Assad since the early days of the century, because he’s an ally of Russia and Iran. And the real reason for the determined campaign to have him removed is because of his opposition to an oil pipeline that would pass from Saudi Arabia, through Qatar, Jordan and Syria, into Turkey and thence into Europe. Assad objects to this as it would damage another pipeline his Russian allies wish to build from Central Asia.

This is not about democracy. This is about the right of massive oil companies and American corporations to butcher and loot another country and its people in the name of big profits, just like they butchered and looted Iraq.

And looked at closely, the chemical weapon attack supposedly launched by Assad in the week starts to look like nothing of the sort. Instead, there is a good evidence that it was deliberately set up by al-Nusra to draw America and the West into the war on their side. The alleged victims of the attack may instead have been people al-Nusra murdered after they kidnapped them from two pro-government towns

The Syrian rebels have previous form on this, as does the American government. In this video below, the American comedian Jimmy Dore reads and comments on the sceptical reports about a similar gas attack four years ago in 2013. The first piece he analyses is by the respected American journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh describes how members of the intelligence services he talked to were frustrated by Obama’s decision that Assad was responsible for the attack, and that he had overstepped the line. They made it clear to Hersh that there was absolutely no evidence that the attack had been launched by Assad. They also informed him that he had altered the timing of the intelligence reports, so that it appeared that the analysis was occurring at the same time as the attacks. This reminded Hersh of the Gulf of Tonkin affair. This was the notorious ‘false flag’ incident which provided the pretext for the Americans to begin bombing North Vietnam right at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

Obama then retreated from his threat to bomb Syria, after Assad offered to relinquish his chemical weapons. Hersh notes that if this was done, then the only people in Syria to possess them would be the rebels – al-Qaeda and its allies. Obama’s sudden volte-face also suggested to Dore that Obama had received convincing information that Assad was not responsible.

He then cites another report, which was reprinted from Counterpunch. Two delegates from the Republican People’s Party, CHP, in the Turkish parliament, Erdem and Seker, had come forward and stated that the gas attack had been staged by the Turkish intelligence services in order to provoke America into entering the war on the rebels’ side.

In this second video, Dore moves on to commenting on this past week’s poison gas attack. He notes how the EU’s High Representative, Federica Mogherini, had declared that it had been launched by Assad even though this claim could not be independently verified. Furthermore, the photograph of the al-Nusra affiliated White Helmets handling the bodies of the victims is highly suspicious. The dead were supposed to have been killed by Sarin nerve gas. The first effects of the gas is to make the victims lose control of their bowels and bladders and begin vomiting. It is so toxic that protective clothing needs to be worn even when handling the victims. Yet the White Helmets were shown using their bare hands, without protective gloves, and with only gas masks for protection. Attacks using this gas kill thousands of people.

Dore also quotes a number of Tweets from people, who smell a rat about the doctor claiming that his hospital was being inundated by the victims of the assault. The doctor was Tweeting and texting this information, and even offering to provide a video about it later. They point out how suspicious it is that he has time to blog about this supposed crisis. Dore also notes that the doctor himself is hardly a trustworthy source. The doctor, Shajul Islam, was ‘disbarred’ in London for ‘semi-terrorism’ actions, according to Dore.

Dore also reports that last week, 250 people from Majdul and Khattab were kidnapped by al-Qaeda terrorists. Local people have said that many of the dead were the terrorists’ kidnapped victims.

The photograph of the location of the attack also looks suspicious. The buildings are carved directly into the rock. This doesn’t look like the area, where the attacks were alleged to have occurred so much as one particular al-Qaeda base. Further evidence that this has all been set up is provided by the opposition television service, Orient TV. This announced that Russian and Syrian planes had launched a gas attack hours before the attack actually happened. Dore also makes the point that, for the attack, the timing of the attack is nonsensical. Assad and the Russians are actually winning. It would therefore be foolish for them to jeopardise their gains through a completely unnecessary gas attack, whose result would only be to strengthen international opposition against them. This is especially true now, on the eve of a conference on Syria in Brussels, and a week before peace negotiations are due to begin. The report on which Dore is commenting states that this looks like another false-flag operation, similar to the 2013 Khan al-Assal attack.

Other cogent observations came from social media. One woman, Partisangirl, asked why the White Helmets would receive Sarin suits only a month before the attack, when Syria did not have any Sarin? Charles Shoebridge, who had been a Scotland Yard detective, counter-terrorism intelligence officer and international politics graduate and lawyer, pointedly observed that the attack had made Trump’s change in attitude towards Assad apparent to the attack’s beneficiaries. By which he meant the various rebel terrorist groups. Dore plays Trump’s response, mocking the hypocrisy behind the president’s outrage that little babies have been killed, when America and its allies have done the same in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the Middle East. Dore also asks if the corporatist Democrats and their shills, like Rachel Maddow, are also happy. They’ve got the war they wanted, a war which will also lead to military confrontation with Russia, because Russian troops are also on Syrian bases. Responding to Mr Shoebridge, Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria, reminds his viewers on Sky that Trump had repudiated Obama’s policy of wanting to unseat Assad. His administration was much more eager to tackle ISIS. Ford states that if the Syrian terrorist groups wanted to prevent Trump’s policy becoming more sensible, ‘they could not have done better than to create a piece of fake news like this.’

Dore makes the point that this information is not going to appear on the mainstream news. And the propaganda effect of the attack is working. He reads out Tweets from people, who are now convinced that America needs to enter the war, as well as from those, who are pointing out how stupid and insane this policy is.

Dore ends the vide with an appeal to his viewers to help fund them through Patreon, as YouTube and its advertisers will demonetise this and other videos. He states that he knew this video would be demonetised even before he began filming it, but he’s doing it anyway because it’s an issue he wants to continue covering. He states that his show is being hit, just like all the other news shows.

Sioux Nation Honours Native American Protestor Against North Dakota Pipeline

September 7, 2016

This is another interesting video from The Young Turks’ reporter, Jordan Cheriton. In it, he covers a ceremony by the Rosebud Sioux tribe to honour one of their members, Happy American Horse, for his courage in protesting against the North Dakota Pipeline. This is an oil pipeline being tunnelled through the tribe’s territory, which threatens to pollute their water. As the chief in this simple ceremony points out, water is life, and ecology is important to Native American spirituality and identity. Mr American Horse is awarded an eagle feather, the traditional Plains Indian mark of a courageous act. The guy chained himself to one of the digging machines and stayed there to stop them digging, despite his understandable fear and calls from the workers to start it up, and so kill or injure him. Also present at the ceremony is Black American activist, who leads a chant of the words of one of the great Black American civil rights leaders, and a Black Jamaican. This last man, who describes himself as from the land of Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley, also unveils the Jamaican flag to honour Mr Horse’s courage. Marcus Garvey was one of the pioneers of Black emancipation in the late 19th and early 20th century. It was his belief that there would be a Black messiah from Ethiopia that laid the foundations for Rastafarianism. There are also a couple of White Green activists present, as well as Cheriton, who also add his words of encouragement.

I’m reblogging this as, although it’s very much an American protest, it’s part of the same struggle that’s going on over here as well in the campaigns against fracking. Quite often, those companies despoiling the awesome beauty of the American countryside are the same people wrecking the awesome beauty of the British environment, and poisoning our water like they’re poisoning those of the poor, the marginalised, and ordinary Americans over the other side of the Atlantic. These are the same companies supported by the Republicans, Shrillary Clinton and the Tories over here.

The coverage of the ceremony is another example of the way YouTube and the internet is transforming politics. Yeah, there’s a lot of rubbish and craziness on there, but it also allows activists to see, talk to and be informed about activism by ordinary people right across the planet. It’s why YouTube has now got frightened of this power, and is issuing stupid restrictive guidelines in case it puts off advertisers. It’s why the Tories want to censor the Net, all under the guise of protecting the vulnerable from Paedophiles, of course.

But at it’s best, the technology does help to fulfil Reith’s dream of bring nations and people’s together. ‘Nation shall speak peace unto nation’ is the quote from the Bible that’s written above the BBC’s entrance. This is also part of it.

The Guardian and the ‘Femsplaining’ of Corbyn

June 7, 2016

On Sunday Mike posted up a piece critiquing an article in the Guardian by Catherine Bennett attacking Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn, she opined, was purely interested in expanding his power base at the expense of winning elections. She also claimed that he was a nasty male chauvinist, who passed over women for important cabinet and political posts, like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown.

Mike described the attack as ‘femsplaining’, a word he coined as the female equivalent to ‘mansplaining’, which is when a man gives a bloking, and usually spurious explanation of an issue. Mike pointed out that the article really wasn’t so much a feminist critique of Corbyn so much as a hit piece by his Blairite rivals in the Labour party.

See the article: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/05/corbyn-femsplained-as-a-blairite-tries-to-put-women-off-the-labour-leader/

The article wasn’t the most bizarre attack on Corbyn from a feminist/ gender politics slant the Groan has published recently. A few weeks ago, it printed a letter from a reader, Val Walsh, who accused Corbyn and Bernie Sanders in America of having suspect and reactionary attitudes to gender and the politics of sexual identity based purely on the fact that they dressed in a style reminiscent of mid-20th century men’s fashions. The letter was so bizarre, it got into the ‘Pseud’s Corner’ section of Private Eye.

Marsh wrote:

Hadley Freeman [29 March] overlooks a key feature of the outfits sported by leftwing male politicians, such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. These represent 1950s ‘manly’ dressing: loose, shapeless and generally dull; designed to make sure men were not mistaken for women or seen as feminine, and at the same time meant to function as both camouflage (of the body) and as sufficiently ‘bloke’. the style pre-dates the impact of young gay men and gay-influenced heterosexual men who started (a long time ago) wearing clothes that fit (not necessarily tightly). Bernie and Jeremy’s outfits are surely a size of two bigger than necessary, and not so much retro, but simply the habit of older white heterosexual men of carrying on a before, as if 1950s western manliness was an exemplar, and pretending their embodiment is not party to their politics.

This tells us they have given little thought to their own sexual identity ande its part in the new ‘old’ politics in 2016. They lack awareness of the problematic part played by hetero-patriarchal masculinities in the politics of left or right, and in this continuity they identify themselves with that old hegemonic masculinity…. [continues] (Private Eye 15-28 April 2016, p. 35).

It’s clearly a bonkers piece, and is an example of someone projecting their own prejudices onto the person they’re writing about, rather than a genuinely reasoned analysis. Bernie Sanders is a case in point. I don’t know whether Sanders has given much thought to his sexuality. It’s immaterial. Sanders is probably the most left-wing of the Democrats, and he was supporting gay rights long before many other people, as far back as the 1970s. That’s just about forty years before Hillary finally decided she was in favour of gay marriage. As for Jeremy Corbyn, I honestly don’t know what he stance on sexuality and gender is, but I think I can guess. If he’s left-wing, ‘Old Labour’, then it’s almost certain that he also supported feminism and gay rights. This was, after all, the stance of the GLC in London as a whole, not just ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone. Also, a few weeks ago Private Eye joked about an article in one of the papers which described Corbyn’s hobbies. One of these was baking bread. Not exactly the most macho of pastimes.

Bennett’s and the other faux-feminist critiques of Sanders and Corbyn constitute attempts to appeal to female voters by smearing their left-wing male rivals as misogynists and sexists in order to try to cover up their preferred candidates’ right-wing, corporate stance as ‘establishment’ candidates. Hillary Clinton’s supporters’ denunciations of Sanders are evidence of that. They decided that Bernie and his supporters must be sexist, because they were standing against Hillary, who was a woman. Clinton is also very much a part of the corporate establishment, a very rich woman, whose policies reflect the interest of the corporate donors financing her against the interests of ordinary, regular blue-collar America. Clinton’s response, when this is pointed out, is to claim that as she’s a woman, she can’t be a member of the establishment. This is complete twaddle, as she manifestly is.

The same with the Blairites and Corbyn. The Blairites represented the ‘aspirational’ working class, and attempted to appeal to them and middle class swing voters. They stood for Thatcherite privatisation and the destruction of the welfare state. They began the privatisation of the NHS, which has accelerated under Lansley, Cameron and the Tories. They have absolutely nothing to offer the working class except misery and poverty.

But they’re determined to hang on to power, and the Guardian’s giving them space because while it’s liberal, it supports the Lib Dems, not Labour. And it’s not a working class paper. I posted up a piece yesterday quoting Mark Hollingworth’s The Press and Political Dissent: A Question of Censorship on the Groan’s extremely affluent readership back in 1979 and ’81, and its need to appeal to these affluent readers and potential advertisers. That was over thirty years ago, but I don’t think anything has changed since. If anything, it’s going to get worse because of the massive losses the Guardian is suffering.

As for Bennett and Hillary Clinton, their spurious feminist attacks on their rivals disguise the fact that they really don’t support or have anything to offer working class women. It’s been pointed out that female workers are those, who have suffered the most from the government’s austerity programmes. They predominately work in the sectors of the economy that have seen the most cuts and lay-offs. They also suffer disproportionately from some of the welfare cuts introduced by the Thatcherites, such as to child benefit.

Ultimately, Hillary and Bennett don’t represent the aspirations of all women. They represent the desires and ambitions of elite, affluent women to succeed, while making sure that working class women, along with the rest of their class, are kept firmly in their place and don’t rock the corporate, establishment boat.

Fascism and Big Business on Man as Predator

February 23, 2015

Historians and political theorists have observed that one of the key features of Fascism is that it views human relationships very much as a kind of Hobbesian ‘war of each against all’, and sees humans really as another form of rapacious predator. Hitler and the Nazis were fond of Nietzsche’s celebration of the ‘blond beasts’, while at the same time censoring the other parts of the philosopher’s oeuvre that directly contradicted the foundations of the regime.

Critics of the Neo-Cons, such as the authors of the book Confronting the New Conservatism, also note that the Neo-Cons have an essentially Hobbesian view of humanity as a collection of alienated social atoms, each competing and struggling with the others. They also observe that the Neo-Cons extend this principle to foreign affairs. All countries are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so there is little point in establishing international alliances. Rather, as superior civilisations, America and the West should be free to impose their will and standards by force.

Brady makes the same point in his book, The Structure of American Fascism. He makes the point that American businessmen have exactly the same views. This has resulted in the invasion and plunder of other countries, in which justification for the military action has been secondary.

The inner face of fascism considers man as a beast of prey. Scientists, artists, the rank and file of the people, may recoil from this doctrine: the leading figures in the business world of Italy, Germany, England, France, and the United States do not. In 1938, Spengler, then approved by the Nazis as a prophet of the New Germany, wrote:

“Man is a beast of prey. I shall say it again and again. All the would-be moralists and social-ethics people who claim or hope to be ‘beyond all that’ are only beasts of prey with their teeth broken, who hate others on account of the attacks which they themselves are wise enough to avoid. Only look at them. They are too weak to read a book on war, but they herd together in the street to see an accident, letting the blood and the screams play on their nerves. And if even that is too much for them, th4ey enjoy it on the film and in the illustrated papers. If I call man a beast of prey, which do I insult: man or beast? For remember, the larger beasts of prey are noble creatures, perfect of their kind, and without the hypocrisy of human morale due to weakness.”

In this view man is arrayed against man. The only code of behaviour which has any real meaning for the species is that “might makes right”. Where only strength counts, the strong are those who have taken; who have the power to have and to hold. The weak are those without holdings – of station, or property, or power. It is a doctrine that human society is nothing but organised “piracy”. Is there any fundamental difference in appreciation of human values or in general outlook on life between a stockbroker and a pirate? So far as the specific activity is concerned there is no difference, not even in the methods of sharing the spoils. What on the open seas is thought of as an outlaw and “piratical” raid of group on group, is in another setting played as a legitimate game in which each man is pitted against every other man for all he can “get by with” short of a snarl with criminal law.

That businessmen in the United States hold this view is beyond question. They hold it axiomatic in describing the character of their own kind, and they hold it to be valid for the human race at large. Anyone who has taken the trouble to interview stockbrokers, captains of industry and finance, advertisers, public relations counsellors, or other participants in, and apologists for, the business system will soon learn that this view of human nature governs their actions and their behaviour in practically all things, and that it is regarded as so obviously true as to require no comment, explanation, or justification.

Thus there is not the slightest objection to using all the armed forces of the state in a war on India, on Morocco, on Manchuria, on Abyssinia, on Nicaragua, Spain, or Mexico. If you are big enough, strong enough to take it, the rule is: take it. Take the country, take its resources, take its wealth, take the lives, health and happiness of all its inhabitants. “Realities rule”; the justification can be concocted later.

Nor, on the other hand, is there the slightest objection to using the troops against strikers, hunger-marchers, share-croppers, or any other group which for any reason whatsoever wants a little of what the insiders may have. All the emphasis on war, all the promotion of the army and the navy, of “national defence,” of that curiously bellicose frame of mind commonly known by the euphemistic term “patriotism,” is born of the same view of life, of human nature, of civilisation and culture.

And this same attitude is very much alive in modern politics. The invasion of Iraq took place not to oust Saddam Hussein as a dictator and threat to world peace. It was so that the Americans and Saudis could control the vast Iraqi oil industry. At the same time, western companies wanted to acquire Iraqi industries, which were to be privatised and sold to them. And the Neo-Cons wished to turn the entire country into a low taxation, free trade utopia. Even more sinister, the GM companies were also lined up to patent the rare crops indigenous to the country, as part of a scheme to force the Iraqi people to use their products.

Back in Britain, we have the Tories passing legislation banning protests and political lobbying close to elections. Just in case these sway the voters and the Tories lose the election. Tebbit has emerged again to urge the government to pick a fight with the unions. And Boris Johnson, the major of London, doesn’t have enough money to pay his firefighters, but he did have enough cash to buy two armoured cars for the police.

As for the character of the international business class, one of Lobster’s contributors wrote that he had asked one of his friends, who had attended a meeting of international financiers, what they were like. ‘Worse than you can possibly imagine’, was the reply.

Northcliffe on the Threat of Coercion by Advertisers

February 21, 2015

Who Runs This Place

I also picked up yesterday a copy of Anthony Sampson’s Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st Century (London: John Murry 2004). This attempts to describe how the country has become less democratic, and government and big business more unaccountable. It’s a very good book, and accurately describes how we have lost power to the governing elites. One of the most immediately significant passages deals with the way newspapers have increasingly come to reflect the interests of their advertisers.

This was brought home most powerfully this last week with the scandal over the suppression of adverse news about HSBC by the Telegraph. HSBC is heavily involved in tax avoidance, and is being investigated by the Swiss, Americans and other nations for money laundering. Yet this was largely kept out of the pages of the Torygraph on the express orders of its chief executive, Murdoch MacLennan. HSBC was the advertiser the newspaper believed it could not afford to lose, and so instructed its journalists to do everything not to offend it. The resulting scandalous lack of coverage, and the suppression of other news stories and their substitution by puff pieces to satisfied other advertisers, so outraged the columnist Peter Oborne that he resigned. Oborne has written a piece on the Net describing his decision and the circumstances that led up to it. Mike has covered this extensively, including linking to Oborne’s piece, on his own blog over at Vox Political.

Sampson notes in his section on the growing power of advertisers that Lord Northcliffe, the press tycoon, was well aware of their power and did everything he could to keep it in check. Northcliffe said in 1922 ‘Do not let the advertisements rule the paper’. Apparently for a brief period he had the hall porter at the Daily Mail censor them. Northcliffe himself was a major pillar of the establishment, but he was absolutely right in this instance. Unfortunately, Murdoch MacLennan and the others weren’t listening.

Farage to Speak at American Republican Convention

February 18, 2015

This is another piece from the Torygraph, though this time not about the corruption of their contents in order to please their advertisers. I found it through the SlatUKIP Facebook page. Entitled, Nigel Farage to join Sarah Palin at CPAC conference for US conservatives it reports that the Fuhrage is due to speak next week at the CPAC Conference next week. This is an annual conference held by the rabidly right wing of the Republican party. Evangelical Christian groups have in the past attended it, and handed out plastic foetuses to those attending to mark their opposition to abortion. The Conference is used as an opportunity for aspiring Republican candidates to meet and gather support in the rest of the party.

Other politicos attending the conference will be Sarah Palin and Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association. Alongside the religious activists are members of the Tea Party, who sometimes dress up in the costume of the American Revolutionaries of 1776.

Amusingly, given the vicious hatred of homosexuality by many in the Duce’s party, the conference is going to be held at the Gaylord Centre.

The Torygraph’s article begins

Nigel Farage will speak alongside Sarah Palin and some of America’s most extreme Right-wing conservatives at a conference in Washington next week.

The Ukip leader will share a stage with a host of gun activists, Tea Party leaders and anti-abortion campaigners at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Visitors to the summit are sometimes handed plastic fetuses by Evangelical Christian activists as a symbol of their opposition to abortion, while some Tea Party supporters walk the halls in uniforms from the 18th-century American Revolutionary War.

Mr Farage’s string of election wins has intrigued some on the American Right and his address at the Gaylord centre is expected to be met with interest by Republicans.

Of his connections to the American Republicans, Farage says:

“There are parts of the American Conservative movement that I get on well with and other parts not so well with.

“We have learned quite a lot from some of them in terms of campaigning techniques, many of which we put into use in Rochester.

“Some of the very hard-line religious stuff is not where I’m going with politics and I often find myself disagreeing about interventionist foreign policies.”

The article’s at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11416352/Nigel-Farage-to-join-Sarah-Palin-at-CPAC-conference-for-US-conservatives.html

Go and read it before one of their advertisers complains and it gets taken down.

I really am not remotely surprised that Farage is due to speak at the Republican Convention. Farage’s links to the Republican extreme right have already been extensively reported. A number of other bloggers have posted the piccie of the Mussolini of the reactionary middle grinning with they major Republican gargoyles, who would like the British government to end the welfare state completely and sell off the NHS to their profit. This is yet more proof that Farage is a danger to the poor, sick and disabled on both sides of the Atlantic.

With friends like these, he is definitely no friend of the working class, no matter what angry Kippers have posted on their vlogs.

He will betray you, and destroy everything that makes our country great.

Don’t give him your vote.