Posts Tagged ‘George Bush’

Corbyn: Labour Is the Real Party of the Centre

October 5, 2017

I didn’t put up an article about this, when Corbyn made the claim last week at the Labour conference. So I’m doing it now. In his speech to the Labour conference last week, Corbyn proclaimed that Labour is the real party of the centre. This should upset and frighten the Blairites, Lib Dems and Tories, who have been busily screaming that Corbyn and Momentum are Trotskyite entryists, and that Labour has moved to the far left.

Blair did this a little while ago, when he turned up from whichever stone he’s been hiding under since he handed power over to Broon, and flew off, having done his best to finish Maggie’s and the Tories’ goal of privatizing the Health Service in Britain, and aiding George Bush and the Likudniks in their demented project to turn the Middle East into a gigantic charnel house for the sake of big business and the American-Saudi oil companies. He’s trying to set up his own Blairite party, which he claims will represent the true centre ground of British politics.

No. It won’t. Blair and the Tories were never the centre ground. They were right-wing. Indeed, following the victory of Maggie Thatcher and her abandonment of the post-War consensus that advocated a mixed economy and state investment in industry, and comprehensive welfare provision, the Tories and their entryists in the Labour party in the form of Blair, New Labour and Progress, the Tories were far right. They stood for absolute privatization and the dismantlement of the welfare state, aims which Blair, as Thatcher’s political golden boy shared.

The press, Tories and Blairites have been whining ever since Corbyn won the leadership election, however, that Labour is now a party of the far left. And indeed there was a letter repeating that lie in the I newspaper today. But it’s untrue. Under Corbyn, Labour party has become once again a party of the centre-left. It advocates a mixed economy, a properly funded and state-run NHS, and proper welfare provision, so that 100,000 of us don’t have to rely on food banks to stop ourselves from starving, and 7 million of us don’t have to worry about whether we can afford to feed ourselves or pay the utilities bills. And where the trains actually run on time. As they did, or did more regularly, before John Major privatized them.

These are not extreme left-wing policies. They way entirely mainstream policies in the thirty-odd years from Labour’s election victory after the end of the Second World War to Thatcher’s election in 1979. This was a period of economic growth and prosperity and where the difference in wealth between rich and poor was at its narrowest.

This has all been wrecked, thanks to Thatcher and her followers in the Tory party and New Labour. And it is excellent that under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is set to reverse nearly forty years of Thatcherite misgovernment and exploitation, and return politics to its true centre ground.

Advertisements

Jimmy Dore: Pentagon-Backed Rebels Fight CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria

April 20, 2017

Here’s another brilliant little video from the Jimmy Dore Show, which casts further light on the US’ role in spreading the carnage and chaos in Syria. In this clip, the comedian, with his co-hosts Steffi Zamora and Ron Placone, talk about a story which appeared in March, 2016, in the Los Angeles Times. The Pentagon and the CIA are backing different rebel factions in Syria. The Pentagon is backing one bunch as part of their campaign against ISIS, while the CIA is arming another group in order, the paper claimed, to bring Assad to the negotiating table. As Dore points out, this isn’t what the CIA and its government paymasters want. They want to oust Assad altogether. He reminds his viewers how the United States was approached by Saudi Arabia and Qatar several years ago. The two Arab nations offered to pay if America invaded Syria and overthrew Assad. They want to put an oil pipeline from their countries through Syria into Turkey, but Assad, an ally of Russia, is opposing it. This is the real reason behind the concerted military campaign against Assad, loudly supported by the American media. It has absolutely nothing to do with humanitarian atrocities by the Syrian leader. It’s just about oil, and corporate profit.

But the different rebel factions are turning their guns on each other, fighting over the territory between Aleppo and the Turkish border. Not only have they been fighting in the northern suburbs of the city of Aleppo itself, but in February 2016 the Fursan al-Haq, or Knights of Righteousness, a militia backed by the CIA, was thrown out of the town of Marea, 20 miles north of the Aleppo, by the Syrian Democratic Forces advancing from Syria’s Kurdish areas, backed by the Pentagon. The paper stated that this shows how little control US intelligence has over the various factions it funds and arms in the Syrian civil war.

Dore makes the point of comparing this to the chaos of Iraq and Libya. Both are now failed states, and the latter is riddled with terrorist factions. The politicians and military had absolutely no clue how to run these countries, or what to do if they ousted the dictator. And now they’re doing it again. He goes further and states that America shouldn’t be trying to overthrow other governments, when it can’t even supply its own people with clean drinking water in Flint, Michigan.

Dore states that this shows that these stories do get into the news. He was moved to talk about this story because a person he was talking to about the situation in Syria not only didn’t believe him, but called him a conspiracy theorist, like Alex Jones. So Dore decided to present this piece of news, to show how bonkers he must be to get something like this from the mainstream press. He cites the example of another American news commenter, who used to come on his show with a stack of papers to show that the items he was talking about really had happened, and were in the press. However, they weren’t on the front page. They were buried on page 18, and only appeared every one in a while. But as George Bush said, the essence of lying is to keep repeating the lie. So the American press puts on the front page stories about how Assad is a butcher, who must be overthrown. He then goes on to say that if it was up to him, the New York Times would have on its front page the news that 45 million Americans were now living in poverty in the richest country in the world. And 33,000 people every year die from lack of healthcare, although he qualifies this by saying he’s not sure if its the real figure.

Vox Political On Simon Jenkins Lies About Corbyn and NATO

August 24, 2016

Mike also put up an article a few days ago correcting another mendacious article about Jeremy Corbyn, penned by Simon Jenkins in the Observer. According to Jenkins, at the leadership debate in Solihull last week Corbyn had answered ‘No’ to the question of whether he would go to the defence of another NATO country if they were invaded by Russia. Other Blairites had also got the same impression, it seems. One of my friends told me that he had received an email from a Blairite friend telling him in very coarse terms that Corbyn had stated that he would submit to Putin and let the Russians rule us.

But Corbyn didn’t say that at all. He said he would go to war to defend a NATO ally, but explained at length that he would do everything he could to make sure it didn’t come to that. Mike has put up a full transcript of that part of the debate, pointing out that Jenkins’ article, and his conclusion that Corbyn wants us to leave NATO, is a lie.

As for Jenkins’ own personal politics, Mike has a photograph of him speaking at a meeting of Policy Exchange, the ‘intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernizers’. Which shows you how left-wing he is.

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/08/22/no-simon-jenkins-its-your-lie-about-jeremy-corbyn-that-is-a-step-too-far/

In actual fact, it’s not unreasonable to ask what NATO’s real purpose is. William Blum in issue 22 of his Anti-Empire Report, has an article entitled ‘Why Does NATO Exist?’ It’s a fair question. NATO was formed to protect Europe from the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the military pact formed by the countries of the eastern European Soviet bloc, with the exception of Yugoslavia. Blum points out that neither the Soviet Union nor the Warsaw pact exist any more, both having collapsed about 1991. He asks

If NATO hadn’t begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. “Out of area or out of business” it was said.

If NATO had never existed, what argument could be given today in favor of creating such an institution? Other than being a very useful handmaiden of US foreign policy and providing American arms manufacturers with billions of dollars of guaranteed sales.

See: https://williamblum.org/aer/read/22

But there are voices demanding that NATO be disbanded because of the threat it poses to peace. The New York director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and member of the council of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, Alice Slater, two years ago published an in article in Counterpunch stating that with 16,000 of the world’s 17,000 nuclear weapons in the West and Russia, the US should not be working its way towards starting a new Cold War with Russia over events in Ukraine. Instead, she argued that it should honour the agreement it made with Gorby not to expand into the former Soviet bloc in return for his agreement not to block the reunification of Germany, and the entry of the former East Germany into NATO. She goes on to state that we should be working to disband NATO, and remove the US’ weapons from Poland, Romania and Turkey. She also states that the US should agree to the proposal to ban space weapons, made by China and Russia, reinstate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was scrapped by Dubya in 2001, and take up Russia’s offer to negotiate a treaty against cyberwarfare.

She briefly discussed the article in the Washington Post by Jack Matlock, who was the US’ ambassador to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and who described how it is NATO that is provoking Russia with its conduct in eastern Europe. She states that it is ironic that Obama is holding a third ‘Nuclear Security Summit’, without planning to cut back on America’s own huge nuclear arsenal and the $640 billion it plans to spend in the next ten years on two new nuclear bomb factories and new delivery systems – submarines, missiles and planes.

See: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/25/time-to-disband-nato/

This is far more radical than anything Corbyn said. And Corbyn’s statement that he would work to stop a war before it got started is plain commonsense, given that such a conflict could, if not almost certainly would, lead to nuclear Armageddon.

Losing Patience with the Anti-Corbyn Bias in Private Eye

August 7, 2016

I’ve finally lost patience with the persistent bias against Jeremy Corbyn in Private Eye. I read the magazine regularly, and much of it I agree with and admire. It has over the years published some superb pieces attacking privatisation, the dismantling of the welfare state, the privatisation of the NHS, and the persecution of the severely disabled by Atos and its successor Maximus. It has also shown itself quite willing to challenge British foreign policy. For example, it has published numerous pieces rebutting official claims that the Libyans were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, and instead pointed the finger at Syria, who were not accused as George Bush senior needed their help during the first Gulf War. It has also done admirable work defending the bereaved relatives in the Deepcut inquiry, challenging the official story that all of the victims committed suicide and attacking the Army’s and police’s apparent cover-up of what looks very much like murder on an army base that was out of control, with rampant bullying and the sexual abuse of female squaddies.

And yet, despite all this, the magazine has joined the rest of the press pack in attacking Corbyn as ‘unelectable’, mocking, smearing and denigrating his leadership at every turn. For the past few weeks, it has been running a strip, ‘Focus on Fact’, which appears to have been written by the Blairites, and mostly revisits spats with Jeremy Corbyn and the extreme Left back in the 1980s. They’ve also published other pieces firmly showing their pro-Blairite bias. For instance, in this fortnight’s issue, there’s a piece defending Angela Eagle’s claim that Corbynistas threw a brick through her window, and attacking the good folks on the internet that have attempted to refute it as ‘conspiracy theorists’. They’ve also decided to criticise Corbyn because – gasp – he’s dared to appear on RT and Press TV. I intend to blog more deeply about both these issues. However, for now I’ll just say that the story about the brick thrown at Eagle’s office is false. It didn’t come through her window, and the area is marked by vandalism. There’s no evidence linking it to the Corbynites, and the entire accusation just comes from Eagle. As for RT and PressTV, this is more or less a return to the ‘red baiting’ of the Thatcherites in the 1980s, when they attacked Ken Livingstone and his group as Communists. This included members of the left-wing Tribune group, who had written articles for Soviet and Marxist magazines, but were themselves not Communists. RT stands for Russia Today, and is the Russian state broadcaster, while PressTV is run by the Iranian state. Both of these are extremely authoritarian countries which are notorious for their persecution of independent journalists. But I’ve used material from RT, because it gives a genuinely left-wing perspective on politics and events in America and the West, such as American imperialism and the exclusion of radical voices from official American politics. Very few others broadcasters are going to discuss these issues, with the noble exceptions of internet programmes like The Young Turks and Democracy Now. They put on the stuff that you won’t read about in our papers, or see on BBC TV, and increasingly not on Channel 4.

So what has prompted the Eye to attack Corbyn? I can’t be sure, but it strikes me that it’s probably due to the very upper middle class background of the magazine itself, and the fact that, despite its excellent record in many areas, none of its founders were in any sense radicals. Peter Cook, Willie Rushton, Richard Ingrams and John Wells were all stout fellows, but they were very ‘establishment’. They were public schoolboys, a point I can remember being made by the panel at an event on the late Peter Cook one year at the Cheltenham Literary Festival. John Wells, who in my opinion was one of the funniest of British comedians and comic actors, was the former French teacher and headmaster of Eton. You don’t get much more establishment than that. I once heard Humphrey Carpenter describe Auberon Waugh as a ‘Tory anarchist’, presumably meaning he that he was instinctively a man of the Right, but was also acutely aware of their stupidities and failings as well. I think this characterisation probably applies much more to Peter Cook. Cook seemed to me to be resolutely cynical in his politics. When he was at university, he joined all three mainstream political parties so he could laugh at them equally. By contrast, Waugh, who also wrote columns for Private Eye, always struck me as just a sarcastic right-winger sneering at the Left. Ingrams was notorious for having a bitter hatred of gays. After leaving the editorship of Private Eye, he founded the Oldie, a magazine for the elderly. I asked my mother once if she’d read it. She had, but didn’t like it, declaring it to be ‘snobby’. The only genuine left-winger on the team was Paul Foot, and he fitted in because he came from the same privileged background, and had the same very upper-middle class tastes in food and drink as the rest of them.

Ian Hislop, the current editor, is no different. He’s very public school, and his father was some kind of army officer or colonial administrator in Nigeria. And he also shares other parts of the accepted political wisdom. A few years ago on Have I Got News For You he declared that, regardless of the attacks the Tories were getting for their austerity policies, Labour would also be required to cut spending on the welfare state. This is very much the standard view, which is also followed slavishly by Beeb broadcasters. The Kushners attacked it, and the media consensus surrounding it, in their book Who Needs the Cuts?, which contains numerous examples of BBC broadcasters and journos uncritically repeating what is basically Neoliberal propaganda. Hislop wasn’t mentioned, but he was clearly another who had uncritically accepted this view.

And Corbyn isn’t the only Left-wing politician to be have been unfairly attacked by the Eye. Tony Benn was regularly pilloried as a ‘swivel-eyed loon’, despite the fact that the people, who knew him said that he wasn’t a fanatic, but a thoughtful man who carefully considered what the people around him were saying and consulted their opinions before reaching a decision. But the received, Fleet Street wisdom in the 1970s and ’80s was that Benn was a fanatic and a madman.

As was ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone. Livingstone was also attacked as a ‘Communist’, despite the fact that he wasn’t. He used them, and occasionally used the same type of language, but wasn’t, in fact, a Marxist. But hasn’t stopped the Eye from calling him Ken Leninspart. And most of what Livingstone talked about in his interviews with the press when he was head of the GLC was boringly mundane. However, this was routinely ignored, and the only parts of the conversation – which in actual fact were only very small parts of what he said – which were printed and repeated were those which presented him as an extremist – profoundly anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-gay. Which was too much for a Britain that was much more traditional and conservative in its attitudes towards race and gender than today. This was a time when the Black and White Minstrels were mainstream TV with a mass audience, despite being based on 19ith century parodies of Black, slave entertainment.

Benn and Livingstone were both attacked by the media because they were left-wing Socialists. Benn advocated extending nationalisation to a further 25 companies, as recommended in a report by his own party. One journo for the Sunday Times said that this was probably the reason why the press hated him, because editors and proprietors feared that eventually he would nationalise them. And ‘Red’ Ken was similarly reviled because he was in favour of industrial democracy and worker’s control, which shocked and outraged the media. The press did not, however, try to refute their ideas, and so took the tactics of sheer ad hominem abuse. My guess they were afraid to, because either they couldn’t, or they were afraid that simply discussing them would make them popular with the proles.

And I think this is true of the press today and its attacks on Corbyn. They’re motivated by the same fear of genuine Socialism after the neoliberalism and privatisation of the Blairites. And this terror is shared by Hislop and Private Eye, which despite its subversive tradition of satire and exposing abuse of power, isn’t really a radical magazine. Hislop and no doubt many of his contributors come from the upper middle classes, which own industry and continue to expect to take a leading role in British government and society. Jeremy Corbyn threatens them, just as Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone did before him. And so Private Eye joins in the abuse sneering and smearing him.

Vox Political on Chilcot’s Damning Verdict on Blair, and What His Readers Think

July 7, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political has reblogged a piece from the Guardian by Owen Jones, laying out how damning the Chilcot report is of Tony Blair and his decision to lead the country into war. Owen Jones is a fine journalist, who clearly and accurately explains the issues. I’ve read and quoted from his book Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, which is very good, and has rightly received great praise. He also has another book out The Establishment: Who They Are and How They Get Away with it. I’ve been thinking about that one, but have avoided buying it so far on the grounds that it might make me too furious.

Mike also asks what his readers think of the Iraq War. He asks

Do any of you believe the war was justified, as Ann Clwyd still does (apparently)? Have any of you come to believe that? Did you support the war and turn away? Do you think Saddam Hussein had to go, no matter the cost? Do you think the war contributed to the rise of new terrorist groups like Daesh – sometimes called Islamic State – as laid out in the ‘cycle of international stupidity’ (above)? Do you think it didn’t? Do you think Blair wanted a war because they put national politicians on the international stage? Do you think he improved or diminished the UK’s international standing? Do you think the UK has gained from the war, or suffered as a result?

The Issues, Arguments and Demos against the War at its Very Beginning

Okay, at the rest of alienating the many great readers of this blog, I’ll come clean. Back when it first broke out, I did support the war. I can’t be a hypocrite and claim that I didn’t. This was despite many other people around me knowing so much better, and myself having read so much that was against the war. For example, one of the 1.5 million or so people, who marched against the war was my local parish priest. One of my friends was very firmly against the war. I was aware from reading the papers and Lobster that the dodgy dossier was fake, and a piece of propaganda. I also knew from watching Bremner, Bird and Fortune that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’ath regime, which was Arab nationalist, and the militant Islamism of Osama bin Laden, and that absolutely no love was lost between the two. And as the war dragged on, I was aware from reading Private Eye how so much of it was driven by corporate greed. The Eye ran a piece reporting on how Bush had passed legislation, which gave American biotech companies the rights to the country’s biodiversity. The Fertile Crescent in the Middle East in Turkey, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and what is now Israel, as well as Arabia and Iran, was the location for the very first western civilisations. Iraq, Syria and Turkey, I believe, were the very first centres where humans settled down and started domesticating wheat. The ancient grains that supported these primitive communities, like emmer and so on, still exist in abundance in these countries, along with other crops and plants that aren’t grown in the west. They represent a potentially lucrative field for the biotech companies. And so the American biotech corporations took out corporate ownership, meaning that your average Iraqi peasant farmer could be prosecuted for infringing their corporate copyright, if he dared to continue growing the crops he and his forefathers and mothers had done, all the way back to Utnapishtim, Noah and the Flood and beyond. More legal chicanery meant that American corporations could seize Iraqi assets and industries for damages, even if these damages were purely speculative or had not actually occurred. It’s grossly unjust, and aptly illustrates how predatory, rapacious and wicked these multinationals are.

And then there were the hundreds of thousands killed by Islamist militants, Iraqi insurgents, and the bodies of our squaddies coming back in coffins, along with a line of the maimed and mentally scarred.

All this should have been a clear demonstration of how wrong the war was. And it is a clear demonstration of its fundamental wrongness.

Hopes for Democratic Iraq Despite Falsity of Pretext

But I initially supported the war due to a number of factors. Partly it was from the recognition that Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug. We had been amply told how brutal he was around Gulf War I, and in the ten years afterwards he had brutally suppressed further rebellions – gassing the Kurds and murdering the Shi’a. In the aftermath of the invasion, UN human rights teams found the remains of his victims in vast, mass graves. The Financial Times also ran a piece on the massive corruption and brutal suppression of internal dissent within his regime. So it seemed that even if the reason for going to war was wrong, nevertheless it was justified because of the sheer brutality of his regime, and the possibility that a better government, freer and more humane, would emerge afterwards.

That hasn’t happened. Quite the reverse. There is democracy, but the country is sharply riven by ethnic and religious conflict. The American army, rather than acting as liberators, has treated the Iraqi people with contempt, and have aided the Shi’a death squads in their murders and assassinations of Sunnis.

Unwillingness to Criticise Blair and Labour

Some of my support for the war was also based in a persistent, uncritical support for Blair and the Labour party. Many of the war’s critics, at least in the West Country, were Tories. The Spectator was a case in point. It was, at least originally, very much against the war. So much so that one of my left-wing friends began buying it. I was highly suspicious of the Tory opposition to the war, as I thought it was opportunist and driven largely by party politics. When in power, the Tories had been fervently in favour of war and military action, from the Falklands, to Gulf War I and beyond. Given their record, I was reluctant – and still am very reluctant – to believe that they really believed that the war was wrong. I thought they were motivate purely from party interests. That still strikes me as pretty much the case, although I will make an allowance for the right-wing Tory journo, Peter Hitchens. Reading Hitchens, it struck me that his opposition to the war was a matter of genuine principle. He has an abiding hatred of Blair, whom he refers to as ‘the Blair creature’ for sending so many courageous men and women to their deaths. He’s also very much a Tory maverick, who has been censured several times by his bosses at the Mail for what he has said about David Cameron. ‘Mr Slippery’ was one such epithet. Now Hitchen’s doesn’t respect him for liberal reasons. He despises him for his liberal attitudes to sexual morality, including gay marriage. But to be fair to the man, he is independent and prepared to rebel and criticise those from his side of the political spectrum, often bitterly.

The Corrosive Effect of Endemic Political Corruption

My opposition to the war was also dulled by the sheer corruption that had been revealed over the last few decades. John Major’s long administration was notorious for its ‘sleaze’, as ministers and senior civil servants did dirty deals with business and media tycoons. Those mandarins and government officials in charge of privatising Britain’s industries, then promptly left government only to take up positions on the boards of those now private companies. Corporations with a minister or two in their back pocket won massive government contracts, no matter how incompetent they were. And Capita was so often in Private Eye, that the Eye even then was referring to it as ‘Crapita’. Eventually my moral sense was just worn down by it all. The corporate plunder of Iraq just seemed like another case of ‘business as usual’. And if the Tories are just as culpable as Blair and his allies, then there’s no reason to criticise Blair.

The Books and Film that Changed my Attitude to the War

What changed my attitude to the Iraq War was finally seeing Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on Channel 4, and reading Greg Palast’s Armed Madhouse, and the Counterpunch book End Times: The Death of the Fourth Estate, as well as Bushwhacked, a book which exposes the lies and sheer right-wing corruption of George W. Bush’s administration. Palast’s book is particularly devastating, as it shows how the war was solely motivated by corporate greed and the desire of the Neocons to toy with the Iraqi economy in the hope of creating the low tax, free trade utopia they believe in, with precious little thought for the rights and dignity of the Iraqi people themselves. End Times is a series of article cataloguing the mendacity of the American media in selling the war, US politicians for promoting it, and the US army for the possible murder of critical journalists. Other books worth reading on the immorality and stupidity of the Iraq War include Confronting the New Conservativism. This is a series of articles attacking George W. Bush and the Neocons. Much of them come from a broadly left-wing perspective, but there are one or two from traditional Conservatives, such as female colonel in the Pentagon, who notes that Shrub and his coterie knew nothing about the Middle East, and despised the army staff, who did. They had no idea what they were doing, and sacked any commander, who dared to contradict their stupid and asinine ideology.

And so my attitude to war has changed. And I think there are some vital lessons that need to be applied to the broader political culture, if we are to stop others making the same mistakes as I did when I supported the war.

Lessons Learned

Firstly, when it comes to issues like the invasion of Iraq, it’s not a matter of ‘my party, right or wrong’. The Tories might be opposing the war out of opportunism, but that doesn’t mean that supporters of the Labour party are traitors or somehow betraying the party by recognising that it was immoral, and that some of the Tories, who denounced it did have a point.

Secondly, the cynical attitude that all parties are corrupt, so it doesn’t matter if you turn a blind eye to Labour’s corruption, is also wrong and misplaced. Corruption has to be fought, no matter where it occurs. You almost expect it in the Tory party, which has always had a very cosy attitude towards business. It has much less place on the Left, which should be about defending human rights and those of the weak.

Blair: Liar and War Criminal

And so I fully support the Chilcot report, and Jeremy Corbyn’s denunciations of Blair. He was a war criminal, and surely should have known better never to have become embroiled in the Iraq invasion. I’ve heard the excuse that he joined the war only reluctantly and was a restraining force on George Dubya. It’s a lie. He was eager to join the invasion and get whatever he thought Britain could from the spoils. And the result has been 13 years of war, the destruction and occupation of an entire nation, and the spread of further chaos and bloodshed throughout the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton, Laura Kuenssberg and ‘Mobying’

May 11, 2016

Kuenssberg Trollface

Laura Kuenssberg and Trollface: Have her supporters been posting misogynist remarks as her opponents, in order to get them silenced?

Yesterday, Mike over at Vox Political reported that the internet petition to get the BBC to sack their political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, for her egregious Conservative bias, had been taken down. It was removed by the man, who had put it up, who did so out of his strong distaste for misogynist comments put their by trolls. The former politics editor at the Independent also mentioned the sexist comments put up on the petition in an interview published in the Guardian. The comments were supposed to have been put up there by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Mike was sceptical about this, pointing out that it’s very easy for opponents of the petition to post disgusting comments on it, and then complain to the internet hosts or the petition organisers about its content.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, waves to supporters after speaking at a campaign stop in McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, waves to supporters after speaking at a campaign stop in McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

I share Mike’s scepticism, as this seems to be exactly what Hillary Clinton did in her campaign against her rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Saunders. First of all she accused Sanders’ supporters of sexism, because some of them threw money at her in protest of her taking funds from Wall Street. And then about 12 or 25 pro-Bernie Sanders newsgroups and forums were removed from the web in a single evening by the net hosts, because of complaints about disgusting misogynist comments on them. To some, like Kyle Kulinski on Secular Talk, it looked very much like Shrillary and her supporters had been engaging in cyber-sabotage, as the sheer numbers of the groups taken down in such a short space of time makes it highly unlikely that it was an accident.

And Shrillary does have previous in this. She was caught hiring an internet firm, Correct the Record, to go on-line and argue with Sanders’ supporters. Correct the Record is a purely commercial firm, and this was a straightforward business transaction. They were paid to argue with Sanders’ supporters under the guise of Shrillary supporters, despite the fact that they were nothing of the sort, just a company of internet mercenaries carrying out a contract.

According to a website that Is Best Not Mentioned, the tactic of going onto someone else’s political site and posting unpleasant and inflammatory material there in the guise of being that site’s supporters, is known as ‘mobying’. It’s a term from the Conservative part of the Net, used on sites like Little Green Footballs, Red State and Free Republic. The terms supposed to come from the following Moby quote about wrecking George Bush’s chances with his supporters.

No one’s talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day. It’s a lot easier than you think and it doesn’t cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes. You target (Bush’s) natural constituencies. For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.

The site Best Not Mentioned seems to believe that it’s a purely Right-wing phenomenon used by various Conservative groups against each other in the Republican party’s own internal feuds. But looking at the highly suspicious behaviour of Shrillary’s paid trolls on the Net, it looks like it could be used by professed American liberals, and Kuenssberg’s defenders over on this side of the Pond too.

The Empire Files’ Abby Martin on the Real Hillary Clinton

April 24, 2016

With Hillary Clinton looking like she’s going to be the Democrat candidate for the Whitehouse, The Empire File’s Abby Martin takes a good, long look at what Hillary really represents in this video. And it’s ugly. Very ugly.

Hillary’s campaign is heavily backed by corporate donors. These are most notoriously the Wall Street banks she has bailed out, including Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, but also the private prison industry, the pharmaceuticals, private healthcare, private schools and just about every other fat cat big multinational. Contributors to the Clinton Foundation have included the Saudis and Victor Pinchuk, the oligarch now partly responsible for turning Ukraine, the home of Gogol, Mussorgsky, and Nestor Makhno (for the Anarchists out there) into a post-Soviet banana republic. She’s also supported fracking and the NAFTA agreement that has outsourced jobs from America, as well as destroyed the industries of the other countries that have signed it.

While Bernie Sanders is the people’s candidate, Hillary’s been helped out by the system of superdelegates that the Democrats put in place way back in the 1980s to stop popular, populist candidates coming through. The votes of these privileged individuals vastly outweigh those of the ordinary delegates. And 1/3 of Hillary’s are unsurprisingly drawn from big business.

Hillary’s political history may also be described as ‘chequered’. This would be a euphemism. She started out as a Republican, campaigning for Barry Goldwater, the notorious pro-Segregation candidate. She’s tried to shrug this off as a case of personal naivety, but her activism on his behalf came after the initial peaceful protests, the freedom bus rides. She was part of the Republican reaction.

Her career in the Democrats has been untainted with racism either. The Democrats lost the Southern White vote after they embraced a minimal welfare establishment – medicare and Medicaid – and desegregation. Bill and Hillary attempted to reverse this, and win back White voters by launching the New Democrats in the ’70s and ’80s. These had an anti-welfare, pro-death penalty stance, calculate to appeal to White voters. There was also a strong racist undercurrent to her rhetoric. The Clintons attacked ‘welfare queens’ and ranted about urban ‘superpredators’, feral young males, who in the media were almost always identified with Blacks. She’s tried to distance herself from her past there, apologising for what she claims was a poor choice of words. They weren’t poorly chosen. Quite the opposite. She knew precisely what she was doing.

As Bill and her also know what they’re doing to the poor peasants of the world under the guise of charitable assistance. They’ve set up an organisation to provide help to the peasant farmers of the Developing World, such as the people of Africa. But it’s not a charity. Far from it. It’s a for-profit organisations, and the big businesses that back it expect to get something back in return. It’s another way of enslaving the Developing World’s peasant farmers under the guise of assisting them.

The video also documents her hawkish attitudes to defence, from selling arms to the Saudis, helping organise a coup against a democratically elected government in Honduras, and most notoriously, supporting the invasion of Iraq. She also tried to distance herself from this decision, but history shows that she was strongly in favour of the Iraqi invasion and urged her nation to support George Bush. She has also been responsible for the carnage into which Libya has descended through arming the rebels, who overthrew and killed Colonel Gaddafy. She’s shown on TV laughing about Gaddafy’s execution. The result has been what everyone else warned her about – the emergence of an unstable state governed by Islamist militias. She also wants America to ramp up its presence in Afghanistan. Martin states that Hillary stands for perpetual war.

And most chillingly, Hillary has repeatedly stated that she’s in favour of war with Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons. Again, it’s hard to disagree with Martin when she says that this makes Hillary immensely dangerous, as a war with Iran would be much far-reaching than the Iraq invasion. Indeed it would. It’d be a recipe for global chaos, and would mean that America was effectively at war with the whole Shi’a Muslim world.

And Martin makes it very clear, that as a woman she rejects Hillary’s campaign to gain women’s votes, because she leaves out immigrant women, poor women, and the women of the nations she’s bombed. Here’s the video:

Secular Talk on Alex Jones’ ‘Libs Are Demonic Villains Who Want Blood’

March 4, 2016

This is yet another piece from Secular Talk, and I’m reblogging it because it answers some of the accusations the American far right throw at anything even vaguely liberal or left-wing, as well as showing just how peculiar their opposition to Obamacare is.

Kyle Kulinski is here commenting and taking apart an interview on Alex Jones’ Infowars programme with a right-wing documentary film maker, Joel Gilbert, who has produced a movie, No Such Thing as Utopia, attacking the left and its economic and social doctrines. Jones and his guest accuse liberal policies of devastating the economy and deliberately attacking the family, leaving millions of families without fathers. Deprived of paternal guidance, the boys from these broken homes turn to crime. It was liberal policies, of course, that has left Detroit the wrecked, dying city it now is. They claim that liberals are all secret Marxists intent on a entering and corrupting mainstream political parties, like the Democrats. And then Alex Jones goes off on a mocking sneer about how liberals are like ‘gangster-type felons’, extremely bloodthirsty wanting to inflict a genocide, but in public affect a simpering attitude of ‘But I’m so Liberal!’

As for Obama, they claim that his intentions were ‘never good’, and that he only intended to cut the deficit in half.

It’s rubbish, of course. Kulinski challenges them to name one Marxist policy the Democrats have. There isn’t one. They are, in his view, centrist corporatists. As for the devastation of Detroit, that’s often been claimed by the right to be due to ‘socialist’ policies and the trade unions. The simple fact is that it was wrecked by NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The corrupt, corporatist system destroyed middle class, factory jobs that kept people employed. This meant that all the jobs were exported abroad. It wouldn’t have matter, who the people of Detroit would have voted for – Democrat, Republican, Fascist, Centrist, Communist. And the economy’s going to remain like that until another industry comes into to revive Detroit.

He also tears into the Republican accusation that Obamacare is a Marxist policy. In no way is it. This may surprise you – it certainly did me – but it was first suggested by – wait for it! – Richard Nixon. It was also supported by Bob Dole. Newt Gingrich supported it during the Clinton administration. Even the far right, all-American Heritage Foundation made notes on it.

Obama himself has honoured his promise to halve the deficit. Bush left the country with a staggering debt of $1.4 trillion. Under Obama, it’s gone down to $480 – $460 billion. As for Obama’s supposedly evil intentions, Kulinski states that it’s ridiculous, but the stance is also shared by people on the left. Everyone rationalises that what they’re doing is good for the country.George Bush, with whose policies Kulinski radically disagrees, thought he was doing his best for the country. Even Joseph Stalin rationalised his monstrous crimes against the Soviet people and the countries he conquered in this way.

And if you want to point to Detroit as an example of what liberalism does, how about Mississippi as an example of the effects of Conservatism. It is the poorest, most obese state in America, with the lowest levels of education and the highest rates of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. He also adduces the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. They have the best middle classes in the world, best standards of health care, best social safety nets and they’re people all self-report that they are the happiest. And they’re incredibly liberal.

The Young Turks: Alex Jones Freaks Out, Challenges Bill O’Reilly to a Boxing Match

February 28, 2016

I’m putting this piece from The Young Turks up simply as a piece of light relief from some of the more serious issues. It shows some fine, table-pounding ranting from the conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, and from the Turks’ own anchor, Cenk Uygur. Jones was furious because Bill O’Reilly included a clip from Alex Jones’ Infowars programme on a piece he was presenting on hate speech on the internet, and how Facebook was under pressure to take it off. Jones, never one to keep his own anger in check for too long, then begins a long rant about what a bully O’Reilly is, and finally challenges him to a boxing match. In fact, he invites O’Reilly to bring a friend, as with two fighting him he might just keep awake.

The piece also shows Uygur losing his temper big time with USA today. His anger was provoked by that newspaper publishing the lies that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda, and partly responsible for 9/11, thus justifying the western invasion. Uygur makes the point amongst the ranting that 58 per cent of Americans are against the war in Iraq. Or at least, they were when that clip was recorded. Unfortunately, 43 per cent believe that somehow Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He wasn’t. Bremner, Bird and Fortune on their show on Channel 4 pointed out that Hussein wasn’t involved, and that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein loathed and detested each other, not least because Hussein’s Iraq was an officially secular state. In fact, they even played part of a propaganda message from Osama bin Laden threatening Hussein. It was in Arabic, but they supplied an English translation. Bin Laden was ranting about how he’d destroy Hussein in extremely florid tones. At one point he starting going on about how Hussein’s towers would fall. Uygur makes the point amid his own furious shouting that if USA Today had actually done its job, the number of people, who believe the lie about Hussein and bin Laden would be far less, and the number of people opposed to the war would be greater.

Uygur has a point, and while the rant is not quite what you’d expect from a professional news presenter, it’s entirely justified. The war was manufactured through lies, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have died as a result. Not just Iraqis, but also US troopers sent in to fight for the enrichment of America’s leading corporations, the paymasters of the Neo-Cons and their lackeys in the White House and Pentagon. Uygur’s own background is Turkish Muslim, and my guess is that his rage was also partly due to the fact that it hits close to home. He’s very definitely American, but Bush’s war and the devastation it has wreaked on the Middle East and its people is clearly much more immediately painful to him.

I’ve even got some sympathy for Alex Jones. Jones is an extreme right-winger. He’s an opponent of Obamacare, and has made some extremely violent verbal attacks on Bernie Sanders. On the other hand, he does talk about the corporate takeover of America, and he is right when he attacks the globalists plans to subvert and reduce national governments for their own corporate profits. And Bill O’Reilly, one of the main presenters on Fox News, is a paid shill for Murdoch, and so deserves all he gets.

So sit back and enjoy the show!

William Blum on the Real Reason for the Invasion of Afghanistan: Oil

January 3, 2016

Over the Christmas period I’ve reblogged a number of pieces from William Blum, a veteran critic of American foreign policy and the American Empire. In issue 117 of his Anti-Empire Report, Blum has a piece arguing that the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was not the horrific attack on the Twin Towers, or to bring democracy and security to the country. He states that the plot to bring down the Towers could have been done in any country with a table and a room. The Taliban themselves didn’t have any international ambitions, and indeed have fought battles with other Islamist groups, such as al-Qaeda, that do. He states instead that the real reason America and the West invaded was to secure the area as the site for oil pipelines leading from the region of the Caspian Sea.

The only “necessity” that drew the United States to Afghanistan was the desire to establish a military presence in this land that is next door to the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia – reportedly containing the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world – and build oil and gas pipelines from that region running through Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is well situated for such pipelines to serve much of South Asia and even parts of Europe, pipelines that – crucially – can bypass Washington’s bêtes noire, Iran and Russia. If only the Taliban would not attack the lines. Here’s Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, in 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south.”

He notes that there have been schemes for such pipelines since the 1980s. In the 1990s the US government and the American oil company, Unocal, were negotiating with the Taliban for the construction of such a pipeline. These discussions ran into increasing difficulties, until finally they came to an impasse. At this point the US threatened military intervention.

When those talks with the Taliban stalled in 2001, the Bush administration reportedly threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the Afghan government did not go along with American demands. On August 2 in Islamabad, US State Department negotiator Christine Rocca reiterated to the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold [oil], or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”

This, unfortunately, rings all too true. The Capped Crusader, Michael Moore, made a similar point in his documentary, Fahrenheit 9-11. The documentary showed the negotiations between the Taliban regime and the American government, despite protests from senior female American politicians unimpressed with the Taliban’s disgusting maltreatment of women. And he also showed how desperate Bush was to protect the Saudis that they were allowed to leave the country immediately, rather than face investigation for what their countrymen had done.

Blum’s piece can be read at http://williamblum.org/aer/read/117. Go there for more information.