Posts Tagged ‘Wars’

Richard Seymour on the Dubious Electability of the Blairites

April 20, 2017

I’ve put up a few pieces about Richard Seymour’s criticisms of the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his refutation of them in his book Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics. While I don’t agree with the book’s overall view – that Labour has never been a Socialist party, and has always compromised and taken over establishment economic policies – he does make some excellent points refuting some of the smears directed at the Labour leader – that he and his supporters are misogynists and anti-Semitic. In discussing the ‘Project Fear’ campaign against Corbyn, he also attacks the oft-repeated claim of the Blairite ‘moderates’ that they are far more likely to win an election than Corbyn. Seymour writes

The problem for the ‘moderates’ is this: they aren’t actually anywhere near as good at winning elections as they like to think.

Even in their reputed ‘golden age’, beginning in the bright summer of 1997, New labour was the beneficiary of timing and fortune far more than of the strategic genius of Mandelson and company. The Tories had already decisively lost the support of a stratum of ‘secular’ voters who tend to vote with their wallets. Any general election held after the 1992 ERM crisis would have been Labour’s to lose. (admittedly, that is no surety that they would not have lost it; Mandelson’s savvy did not prevent the loss of the 1992 election.) New Labour’s first term in office, between 1997 and 2001, saw their electoral coalition shrink by 3 million voters, largely from the poorest parts of the country. Were it not for the ongoing crisis wracking the Conservative Party, and the oddities of Britain’s electoral system – two factors over which electoral gurus and spinners have little control – such a haemorrhaging of support could have been fatal; leaving Blair another one-term Labour Prime Minister.

Blair’s third general election victory in 2005 was obtained with just over a third of the popular vote, and a total number of votes (9.5 million) similar to the achieved by Ed Miliband (9.35 million) in the disastrous 2015 election, in which Labour finally lost the majority of Scotland. What was the bid difference between a record third election victory and crushing defeat? The revival of the Conservative vote. The Tories had undergone a detox operation, with a youthful, glabrous-cheeked leader doing his best Blair interpretation. The deranged Right had largely decamped to UKIP. A period in coalition government with the Liberals had persuaded middle-ground voters that the Tories were no longer dominated by rancorous flag-wavers and pound-savers. (one might add, since it has become a psephological commonplace, that the credit crunch was ‘Labour’s ERM crisis’, but this is only partially true: Labour decisively lost this argument in retrospect, and it was by no means inevitable that they should have done so.

What about today? Whatever they think of Corbyn’s electoral chances, the Blairites’ own electoral prospects are not necessarily better. Polls taken of the prospective Labour candidates before the leadership election found that of all the candidates, Corbyn was the favourite. The ‘moderates’, lacking an appealing message, were also about as charismatic as lavatory soap dispensers. Labour’s poll ratings under Corbyn are poor, but hardly worse than before despite the ongoing media feeding frenzy. There is no reason to believe that any of his lacklustre rivals would be doing any better than Corbyn presently is.

Why might this be, and why have the pundits been so easily impressed by the claims of Labour’s right-wing? Thinking through the electoral arithmetic on the Blairites’ own terms, it was never obvious that the electoral bloc comprising people who think the same way they do is even close to 25 per cent. The reason this hasn’t been a problem in the past is that elections in Britain’s first-past-the-post system are usually decided by a few hundred thousand ‘median’ voters based in marginal constituencies. As long as Labour could take the votes of the Left for granted, they could focus on serenading the ‘aspirational’ voters of Nueaton. Even the erosion of ‘heartland’ votes didn’t register, so long as this erosion was happening to mountainous, seemingly unassailable majorities.

What happens, however, when left-leaning electors defect in sufficient numbers and sufficient geographic concentration to pose serious questions about Labour’s medium-term survival? What happens when it is no longer just the odd Labour seat going to George Galloway or Caroline Lucas in sudden unpredictable surges, but the whole of Scotland being lost in a single bloodbath? What happens when votes for left-of-centre rivals surge (the SNP vote trebling, the Green vote quadrupling), millions of potential voters still stay at home, and all of this takes place while the Conservatives reconstitute themselves as a viable centre-right governing party? This is one of the reasons why Corbynism has emerged in the first place: in that circumstance, Blairite triangulation turn out to be as useful as a paper umbrella, only any good until it starts raining.
(Pp. 51-3).

This is a good analysis, and it’s what Mike over at Vox Political, Guy Debord’s cat and others have been saying for a long time: the Blairites actually lost voters by chasing the Tory vote in marginal constituencies. Corbyn has actually won them back to the party. And the electoral success of the Greens and the SNP was based on them presenting themselves as a genuinely left-wing alternative to a Labour party that was determined to turn itself into Conservatives Mark 2. There is one thing which I differ with this article on: the metaphor with lavatory soap dispensers. I think the soap dispensers are actually more charismatic than the Blairites. They perform a useful service for personal hygiene, helping to prevent the spread of disease. This is very different from Blair and his coterie, who have succeeded in doing the precise opposite in Britain and the rest of the world. Thanks to Blair’s pursuit of Thatcherite policies, the way was open for the return of malnutrition and the diseases linked to poverty under the Tories. And by joining Bush in his wars in the Middle East, they have murdered millions, from the violence of the war itself and vicious sectarian and ethnic conflicts that came afterwards, the destruction of these nations’ economies, and malnutrition and disease as sanitation and health services collapsed.

The Blairites’ claim that they are more electable than Corbyn are self-promoting lies. They aren’t, and the policies they pursue are, like the Tories they took them from, actively dangerous.

Alex Jone’s Lawyer Claims Jones Doesn’t Believe Own Conspiracy Theories

April 18, 2017

There have been a number of pieces put up on the alternative American news programmes on YouTube about the latest bizarre claim by Alex Jones. Or in this case, Jones’ lawyer. Jones is a notorious conspiracy theorist with his own YouTube show, Infowars, where he repeats all kinds of extreme rightwing nonsense about ‘the globalists’, the elite – who are, of course, evil shape-changing Reptoid aliens, the United Nations and politicians, mostly leftwing. It’s real tin-foil hat stuff. Amongst the codswallop he’s inflicted on his viewers over the years are rants about juice boxes containing chemicals that turn frogs gay; Hillary Clinton is demonically possessed, as is Barack Obama, and that they are both part of a Satanic paedophile ring operating out of a pizza parlour. Clinton is also a cyborg and the Sandy Hook massacre was staged. This was another terrible school shooting. Odiously, it was seized on by Jones and other members of the same conspiracist right, as a piece of government psychological warfare, designed to make Americans willing to surrender their guns. And despite clear evidence to the contrary, he boosted Donald Trump during the election and after, claiming that he was successfully tackling ‘the globalists’. All when every piece of evidence shows the complete opposite. He also believes that those same globalists sacrifice small children when the American corporate elite meets at Bohemian Grove.

It’s crazy stuff, combining the long-term rightwing fears of the imminent arrival of a Satanic one-world global superstate, with a bitter hatred of the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama and Killary, mixed with David Icke’s bonkers theories about Reptoid aliens.

But now it seems, Jones, or at least his lawyers, are trying to tell everyone that he’s not mad enough to believe all this.

Jones is currently in the middle of a custody battle with Kelly Jones, his ex-wife. She doesn’t want him to have custody of their children, a boy and two girls, between 10 and 14, because Jones’ studio is in their home, and they see him ranting like a maniac. She particularly cites his statements that he’d like to break Alec Baldwin’s neck and would like to see J-Lo raped. She is afraid he’s urging people to take ‘felonious’ action. Which includes threats to a member of congress.

Jones has struck back. His lawyers have released a statement that Jones does not believe any of this, and that it’s just a piece of performance art. His fitness as a father should not be judged on the content of his show for the same reason that Jack Nicholson’s parental worth shouldn’t be judged on the basis of his character as the Joker in the 1990s Batman film.

In this clip from The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola point out that this makes him a fraud, and a joke. But unfortunately, the joke’s on his viewers, who took him seriously. They also point out that even if he isn’t genuine, he’s still having a damaging effect on American politics and society, like Andrew Breitbart. After Breitbart died, people celebrated him as ‘a real player’. But as Uygur points out, this isn’t a game. Jones’ and Breitbart’s actions had terrible, real-world consequences. In Jones’ case, someone took his claims of a paedophile conspiracy in the pizza parlour seriously, and walked in with a sub-machine gun with the intention of freeing the children Jones had claimed were imprisoned in the basement. The grieving parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook were pestered by Jones’ viewers, trying to get them to admit that it was all false and that no-one had been staged.

And as distressing as those specific incidents go, there are worse in his support for Trump. Jones supported Trump’s expansion of Obama’s military actions in the Middle East, and these have had terrible consequences with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Against Jones’ present statements is another he made in 2015, that he was training his son to be ‘a good little knight’, who was going to carry on his struggle. And he has made another statement from a little while ago, which contradicts his lawyers. He once claimed that he believed in all of it.

Uygur and Iadarola state that this gets into the complex issue of whether he is a good father. They accept that he genuinely loves his children, but then, so do murderous religious fanatics and neo-Nazis, but this does not stop them objecting to the way they bring up their children either. Uygur believes that side of it – whether Jones is a fit father or not – should be left private between Jones and his ex-wife. Uygur’s wife is a divorce lawyer, and he’s seen how ugly and nasty divorces and custody battles can be.

Uygur and Iadarola also make the point that if you wanted to discredit belief in genuine conspiracies, then one of the ways you could do it is by creating Alex Jones or someone like him. That way, when evidence of real false-flag operations appeared, you could mock those, trying to alert the public to them by saying that they were just like Alex Jones, and his theories about juice boxes turning frogs gay.

They conclude with the statement that the irony now is that Alex Jones, who has been shouting about fake news for years, has now admitted to having been ‘fake news’.

Incidentally, Jones actually does have a point about chemicals in the water turning frogs gay. Scientists and environmentalists are concerned about certain pollutants, especially in plastics, that do harm the sexual development of amphibians. Frogs and amphibians are more sensitive to these chemicals than other creatures, and so the effects are more pronounced. Frogs are being increasingly found with genital abnormalities, such as male frogs with female characteristics.

This is not quite like the frogs turning gay, and it isn’t being put into the water to make humans homosexual either, no matter what homophobic conspiracy theory Jones or people like him have dreamed up about this. One of Jones’ rants is about how gay rights are a transhumanist space cult to make humans all asexual. Which actually sounds like Jones saw an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which Riker falls in love with a female throwback on a planet, whose inhabitants have no gender. However, the presence of such chemicals is causing birth defects in animals and possibly harming humans. And they are entering the water through industrial activity. So Jones’ is right about the presence of such chemicals, but completely wrong about why they’re there.

The Young Turks on Steve Bannon’s Favourite Viciously Racist Anti-Immigrant Book

March 12, 2017

In this piece from The Young Turks, host Cenk Uygur talks about Steve Bannon’s favourite book, the French racist novel, The Camp of the Saints. It’s a very grim insight into Bannon’s own deeply racist views regarding refugees and non-White immigration, and the racism at the heart of the Trump administration. Bannon is the head of Breitbart and Trump’s leading advisor. Uygur states that there’s some debate over whether Breitbart really is racist and White supremacist. He notes that Bannon boasts that his network has produced the Alt-Right, but that some of them reject the claim that they are racists. They argue instead that they’re ‘Judeo-Christian’ supremacists, or whatever.

Uygur’s report is based on a piece by Paul Blumenthal, another journalist at the Huffington Post, who noticed that Bannon kept referring to The Camp of the Saints. In 2015 and 2016 Bannon made statements, reproduced in the video, comparing the mass influx of refugees from the Middle East into central, northern and southern Europe, to The Camp of the Saints. So Blumenthal followed this up, in order to find out what the book was actually like.

The book was written in 1973 by the French author, Jean Raspail. Cecile Alduy, a professor of French literature at Stanford, states that the book is literally and profoundly racist, in that all the characterisation and motivation comes from race. Reviewing the book in 1975, Kirkus stated that the French publishers were claiming that the book was a publishing event. It was, in the same way that the publication of Mein Kampf by Hitler was a publishing event. Uygur also quotes Linda Chavez, who was a member of successive Republican administrations, beginning with Ronald Reagan’s, who also states that the book is extremely, vehemently racist.

The book is about the landing in France of 800,000 starving refugees from India, whose leader is called ‘Turd-eater’, because he literally eats excrement. They are also hypersexualised, and their migrant boat is described as running with sperm. They have come, not to fit in with French and European society, but as a deliberate plan to overthrow it. Their acceptance by the French authorities will be a sign to the rest of the non-White world that Whites are weak, and ready to be invaded and conquered. As a result, the Chinese flood into Russia, The Queen of England is forced to marry her son to a Pakistani woman, and the president of the USA is forced to put a Black family up at their home, Gracie Mansions. Uygur points out how dated this prediction is, as America have had a Black family put up in the president’s house, clearly referring to the Obamas. This was the president and his family. It may be no big deal to everybody else, but it is a huge matter if you’re deeply racist.

The hero, Calgues, is a young man who murders both the Black and Asian immigrants and those Whites, who seek to help them. He sneers at them because they have never held in their heads the belief in the superiority of their own people, and hated people of other colours. Raspail states that such Whites have been ‘culturally cuckolded’. Uygur states that this may be where the term ‘cuck’, derived from ‘cuckold’, and used by the Alt-Right as a term of abuse, comes from. The book celebrates the White world’s wars of conquest and domination.

Uygur states that much of the book’s characterisation of non-White immigrants is clearly projection, from the hypersexual nature of the Indian immigrants to the fact that their appearance in Europe is part of an organised non-White invasion. Its authors view is coloured by the fact that Europeans invaded and conquered when they immigrated to other countries, and so see the influx of non-White migrants in the same terms.

He then goes on to show how dangerous the book, and the influence it has had over Bannon, is through its influence on the way he views migration from the Middle East. The book celebrates the murder of non-White immigrants. Bannon himself has stated that the current wave of immigration from the Middle East hasn’t happened by accident. Uygur rightly tears into that by making the sarcastic comment that the migrants fleeing from the wars the West has started in their countries couldn’t possibly be doing so for that reason. No, it must be because they want to invade the West.

The book’s readership is tiny, but various extreme right-wing ‘philanthropists’ have kept republishing it, so that it has very much been kept in print. It’s an extremely racist book, and the fact that it is one of Bannon’s favourites does indeed show, as Uygur points out, how racist Bannon and by extension the Trump administration are.

H.P. Lovecraft on Big Business Corroding American Culture

February 8, 2017

I also found this quotation by the American SF/ Horror writer, H.P. Lovecraft, in Fritz Leiber’s A Spectre Is Haunting Texas. The book’s about a skeletally thin actor from a lunar colony, who gets dragged into portraying death on stage to encourage the enslaved Mexican, Black, Indian and poor White populations to rise up against their oppressors in a post-holocaust nuclear America dominated by Texas.

Lovecraft is undoubtedly one of the great writers of his genre, but his political views were extremely unpleasant. He was a racist, and the threat of racial intermixture is a very strong element in his novels. In The Shadow over Innsmouth, he portrays a town, whose inhabitants are no longer entirely human due to generations of breeding with a fish-like undersea race. Several of his stories about families that have mutated or regressed through in-breeding, and the worshippers in the Louisiana swamplands of the dread god, Cthulhu, are described as ‘mongrels’.

The quotation makes it quite clear that Lovecraft was no Socialist, but he thought them far less of a threat than that posed by big business to genuine culture.

One thing I’ll say for labour (the British labor Party); and that is, that it isn’t as offensive as the corresponding mutatory force which now threatens culture in America. I refer to the force of business as a dominative motive in life, and a persistent absorber of the strongest creative energies of the American people. This intensive commercialism is a force more basically dangerous and anti-cultural than labour ever has been, and threatens to build up an arrogant fabric which it will be very hard to overthrow or modify with civilised ideas. (p. 163).

Now my views on what count as ‘civilised ideas’ are probably very different from Lovecraft’s. But he is right in one sense about the corrosive effect of business. Thanks to the massive influence of business on American politics, America is no longer a democracy. The country and its allies are sending their brave troops to fight and die in an ever increasing number of wars for the profit of the military industrial complex and the oil companies in particular.

Boris Johnson Slapped Down by May for Telling Truth about Saudi Militarism

December 10, 2016

Boris Johnson is a grotesque clown, intensely ambitious, untrustworthy, and mendacious. His buffoonish behaviour a clever performance to conceal a very cunning intelligence. But in this case, he’s telling the truth. To the acute of embarrassment of his political mistress, Theresa May.

The I also carried a report by Nigel Morris, Boris to apologise to Saudis for criticism yesterday (9 December 2016) that he had been ordered to apologise to the Saudis by May after he accused them of sponsoring wars for their own benefit in the Middle East. The report ran

Boris Johnson suffered a humiliating slap-down from Theresa May after accusing Saudi Arabia, a key British ally, of “playing proxy wars” in the Middle East.

Downing Street said the Foreign Secretary was expressing personal views. Mrs May’s spokeswoman said: “They are not the Government’s position on Saudi Arabia and its role in the region.”

She signalled that Mr Johnson would apologise in person to the desert kingdom’s rulers.

“He will be in Saudi Arabia on Sunday and will have the opportunity to set out the way the UK sees its relationship with Saudi.”

Mr Johnson found himself in hot water after comments emerged in which he charged Saudi Arabia and Iran with abusing Islam and acting as puppeteers in proxy wars in the region.

He said the two nations were unable to build bridges, across the Sunni-Shi’a divide in the Muslim world.

His comments, at a conference last week in Rome, flouted the Foreign Office’s practice of not publicly criticising the UK’s allies. Mr Johnson said: “There are politicians who are twisting and abusing religion and different strains of the same religion in order to further their own political objectives.

“That’s one of the biggest political problems in the whole region.

“And the tragedy for me – and that’s why you have these proxy wars being fought the whole time in that area – is that there is not strong enough leadership in the countries themselves.”

Mr Johnson’s comments emerged hours after Mrs May returned from a two-day visit tot he gulf where she praised the Saudi royal family. (p.4).

BoJo here is right. The Saudis are fighting proxy wars in the Middle East. They were responsible for 9/11, and solidly behind the Iraq invasion, because they too wanted to get their mitts on the Iraqi oil industry and its reserves, the largest in the region after their own country. A week or so ago the I also carried a report that an Islamist terrorist had told the Americans that a centre in Saudi Arabia, that had supposedly been set up deradicalise Islamist terrorists through a 12 step programme, was doing precisely the opposite. It was aiding and training them. The Saudis support Sunni terrorists in Iraq, who are brutalising and massacring the non-Sunni population – Shi’as, Yezidis and Christians, and Syria. Iran is also doing the same, sending its troops into Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS as they massacre the Shi’a. They’re also staunch supporters of Assad’s regime, whose core is the Alawi Shi’a sect.

But this is precisely what the western authorities really don’t want us to know. The official report on 9/11 was censored so that Congress and the American – and wider public – would not know about the Saudis’ role in 9/11. Just as they don’t want the western public realising that the Iraq invasion wasn’t about combatting Islamist terrorism – how could it, when Osama bin Laden also hated Saddam’s secular Ba’athist regime? – but was all about seizing Iraqi oil. And spreading Wahhabi Islam throughout the region through military violence.

Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, is the world’s biggest oil exporter, and their control over the oil supply has the power to destabilise and overthrow whole regimes. No one wants another energy crisis like the one in the 1970s. And that helped to advance Saudi militant Islamism, by showing them that they had the power to dominate world affairs through their control of the oil supply.

Frankly, the sooner the world moves away from oil and into renewables – solar power, tidal power, even Zero point energy, assuming that isn’t total pseudoscience, and the power of big oil is broken, the better.

Secular Talk: Russia Kicked Off UN Human Rights Commission, Saudis Stay

November 2, 2016

This is another grotesque farce. In this clip from Secular Talk, Kyle Kulinski comments on Russia losing its place on the UN Human Rights Commission. It lost to Croatia by two votes. This was because of Russia’s human rights abuses in the killing of civilians in Syria. However, Russia lost its place due to an orchestrated campaign by America. Saudi Arabia, however, retained its place on the council, despite the fact that this is a hardline theocracy which is actively targeting civilians with all manner of truly horrific weapons in Yemen, and which stages mass executions. Kulinski is rightly unimpressed, and points out that if human rights was really the issue, Saudi Arabia would be kicked off the commission as well, not least for the way it’s also sponsoring terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda. As well as America, because of the way America has started illegal wars and coups. here’s the clip:

You could also add Britain to Kulinski’s list of countries that should lose their place on the Commission. It was supposedly thanks to David Cameron last year or so that the Saudis actually got a place on it. All in return for greater trade links, like buying more arms from us. This is a disgraceful piece of highly hypocritical international posturing. Putin is an autocratic thug, but he’s way better than the Saudis. This has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with the current geopolitical campaign to isolate, marginalise and weaken Russia, for no better reason than to increase western imperial power.

Newzoids: Trump Sings ‘Pratt Out Of Hell’

October 10, 2016

After Donald Trump’s latest misogynist comment about grabbing women by their private parts, and the attempt by the Fuhrage to explain it away as simple alpha male speech – which only makes it worse, when you think about it – the satirical ITV puppet show, Newzoids, parodied him as Meatloaf, singing ‘Pratt out of Hell’. He also sings a line from one of Meatloaf’s other hits, rendered as ‘I would do anything for votes’. But he lives out ‘but I won’t do that’, as obviously, there’s precious little that Trump won’t do for votes.

He’s also got a chorus of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Obama, who are quite horrific warmongers in their own right, though the parody doesn’t cover their wars of terror in aid of compliant Fascist dictatorships. This may well be because Hillary has corporate backing, while Trump doesn’t.

Even so, this is hilarious, and recalls some of the best musical parodies by the late, lamented Spitting Image. Enjoy!

Counterpunch on George Galloway’s Documentary on Tony Blair

August 20, 2016

Counterpunch on Thursday put up an interesting article by David Swanson discussing the release of a documentary by George Galloway about Tony Blair, and arguing that the film’s subject qualified for the title of worst human being alive. The film’s entitled Blair’s Killing$, and shows just how nasty the Islington Generalissimo is. Swanson states that Blair faces some stiff competition, and that, as an American, he feels the title of Worst Person Alive ought to go to someone on his side of the Atlantic. Like Donald Trump, the Cheneys and Rupert Murdoch. Quite apart from the leading role the US is playing in exporting the threat of nuclear Armageddon, start wars and causing climate change.

He notes that Blair has done to the Labour party what Clinton did to the Democrats. He imported the anti-working and lower middle class policies which Jeremy Corbyn is trying to undo, and Shrillary is trying to bury forever. He states that Blair did to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done. But while these have gone off and retired, Blair has carried on in his role as global warmonger. He also makes the point that Blair forced into these wars a nation with a far greater opposition to starting them than America. As a result, he can’t leave the house without a protest gathering. And from starting wars, Blair moved right into promoting corporate corruption and promoting wars. He states that from now on, future prime ministers can rest assured that they can make themselves stinking rich by following the demands of their foreign and corporate paymasters.

He then goes on to describe the contents of Galloway’s film. This is, as he says, ugly. This shows how Blair gave Murdoch monopoly control of the media in return for his papers’ support; accepted bribes from Bernie Ecclestone, the racing mogul, sold British warplanes to Indonesia to carry on its genocide in East Timor, and air traffic systems to Tanzania, which doesn’t even have an air force. He also shut down an investigation into corruption and Saudi Arabia, as well as privatising schools and hospitals. Post-prime minister, Blair also accepts millions from JP Morgan Chase, Petro Saudi and other big businesses for getting them connections with other rich, powerful people. He also hires himself out to a number of dictators in Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Egypt and Libya. He stopped Colonel Gadaffi’s victims from suing him, but did nothing to prevent Hillary bombing and killing the dictator.

But what really clinches him as worst person in the world is the fact that he got the job as Middle East Peace Envoy, before being sacked when people realised it wasn’t a joke.

See: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/18/worst-human-being-alive-tony-blair/

The article has a trailer for the film. I’m not a fan of George Galloway nor the Respect Party. Galloway was too friendly towards Saddam Hussein. There’s that notorious clip of him telling the dictator he saluted his ‘indefatigability’ and so on. But I don’t think he took oil barrels from Hussein, as alleged. But Galloway was right about Blair and the Middle East, and right about Palestine. He’s also not an anti-Semite. Mahmoud Mazher, the fake sheikh, tried to entrap him into saying something vile in support of the Holocaust. Galloway recognised Mazher from his bodyguard, a seven-foot tall bruiser nicknamed ‘Jaws’ because of his gold teeth and similarity to the Bond villain. Galloway refused to be drawn, and instead stated very firmly that the Holocaust was a crime against humanity. He’s an anti-Zionist, but not an anti-Semite. This upset Mazher, who went off minus a story.

The documentary does look interesting, though I’m afraid it’s one of those things you might have to order. Among the talking heads featured is Stephen Fry. Again, I’m not a fan, but here he does make a very good point. He says that when you meet him Blair is very charming, but this hides the fact that he’s a complete b*stard. This is true. Blair did have a smooth charm, rather like Clinton, and so smarmed his way into power. And the result of this has been the legacy of war, corporate corruption, power and death that this film exposes.

Graphic of Angela Eagle’s Right-Wing Voting Record

July 17, 2016

Mike last week posted a graphic from Ian Sinclair of the Open Democracy website on Angela Eagle’s voting record in a post about how the Blairite challenge to Corbyn’s leadership was wrecking Labour’s electoral chances against the Tories. His article’s at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/11/mps-rebellion-could-ruin-labour-as-tories-take-advantage/

The graphic about Eagle is also interesting, as it reveals how right-wing and poisonous her policies really are. She’s another Blairite authoritarian, with a hatred of civil liberties, and a hawkish determination to push Britain further into disastrous, bloody, and counterproductive conflicts in the Middle East. Oh yes, and she wishes to protect her former leader, Blair, from investigation and prosecution for his part in starting these wars, that have destroyed so many lives.

Equally telling are her abstentions. She abstained on the debate about workfare, and again on the question of Tory welfare cuts. There should be absolutely no question about which way to vote on either of these issues. They should have been firmly opposed. Workfare is basically a form of neoliberal forced labour, while the welfare cuts are killing people. But they are popular with the ‘movers and shakers’ – the wealthy elite, and the newspaper barons like Murdoch, Dacre and Desmond, as well as whoever’s now running the Groan and the Absurder. Quite apart from capitalism’s bought and paid for apparatchiks in the Beeb and Channel 4.

Here’s the graphic:

160708-Angela-Eagle

Eagle has been claiming that she is a ‘strong Labour woman’. This is bilge. She is doubtless a strong woman, but her voting record shows that there is nothing ‘Labour’ about her except her membership of the party, a party which she is determined to bully and purge until it is as rightwing as she is.

Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind on the Incompetence of the Tory Leadership Candidates

July 7, 2016

Michelle sent me this link to the news footage, in which Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind make unguarded and highly indiscreet comments about the challengers for the Tory leadership, including Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. Among the various unflattering comments, Clarke said he was glad Gove got rid of Boris Johnson, but thought that if Gove got in he’d have us fighting three wars at the same time. He though Leadsom was wrong in thinking we’d have a glorious future outside the EU, while Theresa May was a ‘difficult woman’, but then, he said to Rifkind, ‘you and I both worked for Margaret Thatcher.’

http://news.sky.com/story/watch-ken-clarke-ridicules-tory-candidates-10423744

Clarke’s right, far more than he knows or would agree to. All of the candidates for the Conservative leadership are appalling – extreme rightists, who do want to privatise the health service, destroy the welfare state, and return this country to the sweatshop conditions of the Victorian factory masters. They would wreck this country’s economy even further than Cameron and Osborne already have, all the while praising each other to the rafters for making Britain more competitive and entrepreneurial. It’s a race where they’re all equally wrong, and ideally should all lose.