The
Establishment have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent people seeing Jeremy Corbyn – The Big Lie. The
attempts to ban it were first
started by Keir Starmer – the Labour Liar who banned
Labour councillors from seeing it.
The cudgels
were then taken up by Paul
Mason, the spook who wants to wage war on anti-imperialist academics and
all manner of socialists with his MI5 friends. The British Establishment – which
is all in favour of free speech when it comes to racists, homophobes and other
assorted bigots of the right – condemned the film, in Mason’s words because it
allegedly
presents a full-blown conspiracy theory about
Corbyn’s opponents, conflating Zionists, Jews and Israel as part of a force
that “orchestrated” his overthrow.
There were many conspiracies by
state forces, Israeli, British and American, to undermine andbring down Jeremy Corbyn. The Campaign Against
Anti-Semitism admitted as much after Corbyn lost the 2019 General Election. But
there’s all the difference in the world between conspiracy theories and
conspiracies.
Of course it’s not the exposing of
the plots and machinations by the press, BBC, Tory and Labour politicians that
bothers them it is the truth of what happened between 2015 and 2019.
The desperate attempts of Starmer,
Mason and co. to prevent the film screening is not because it is a conspiracy
film but because they don’t want people being exposed to the truth of what
happened.
The film is being put on by Brighton’s
Unite SE/6246 branch despite the scabby role of Sharon Graham who has become
desperate of late to suck up to Starmer and the Labour Right.
If you live in the Brighton and
Hove area come and see the film. Register here
to get a free ticket and find out why it is that under Keir Starmer Jews are up
to 9 times more likely to be expelled as part of the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’
Is there anyone sane left on the planet who seriously believes that US/NATO support for Ukraine is motivated by a concern for self-determination?
If there is anyone who believes that NATO,
i.e. US support for Ukraine and its supply of advanced weaponry
to the Zelensky regime, is on account of its support for that country’s self-determination,
then I can only suggest that they consult a psychiatrist.
How can the United States, which launched a war
of aggression against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 and which supports Israel’s
war crimes against the Palestinians, be seriously concerned with the principle
of self-determination?
To those who have any doubts about what is
happening and the threat it poses to the survival of humanity, I recommend that
you watch the video below of a speech by Max Blumenthall of the Grayzone, which was targeted
by Paul Mason on behalf of British Intelligence. I’m not sure how Max managed to address them
but the video is well worth watching.
Below the video I have included a transcript of
the speech. Please watch and share.
To those who don’t understand the background to
what is happening in Ukraine or the possible consequences of provoking a nuclear
war, I recommend the two following videos of talks and interviews with John
Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at Chicago University and a member
of the realist school of thought.
Tony Greenstein
Max Blumenthal addresses UN
Security Council on Ukraine aid
Thank you to Wyatt Reed, Alex Rubinstein and
Anya Parampil for helping me prepare this presentation. Wyatt has first hand
experience with the subject as a journalist whose hotel in Donetsk was targeted
with a US-made howitzer by the Ukrainian military in October 2022. He was
100 meters away when the strike hit, and was nearly killed.
My friend, the civil rights activist Randy
Credico, is also here with me today. He was in Donetsk more recently, and
was able to witness regular HIMARS attacks by the Ukrainian military on
civilian targets.
I’m here not only as a journalist
with over 20 years of experience covering politics and conflict on several
continents, but as an American dragooned by my own government into funding a
proxy war that has become a threat to regional and international stability at
the expense of the welfare of my fellow countrymen and women.
The West's neo-Nazi friends in Ukraine who are also fighting for freedom!
This June 28, as emergency crews
worked to clean up yet another toxic train derailment in the United States,
this time on the Montana River, that further exposed our nation’s chronically
underfunded infrastructure and its threats to our health, the Pentagon
announced plans to send an additional $500 million worth of
military aid to Ukraine.
The development came as Ukraine’s
army enters the third week of a vaunted counter-offensive that CNN describes as
“not meeting expectations,”
and which even Volodymyr Zelensky says is “going slower than desired.”
As Ukraine’s military failed to
breach Russia’s primary defense line, CNN reported that by June 12, Kiev
quote “lost” 16 US-made armored
vehicles sent to the country.
So what did the Pentagon do? It
simply passed that bill down to average US taxpayers like myself, charging us
another $325 million to replace
Ukraine’s squandered military stock. There was zero effort to consult the US
public’s position on the matter; and the vast majority of Americans likely did
not even know the exchange took place.
The US policy I just described —
which sees Washington prioritize unrestrained funding for a proxy war with a
nuclear power in a foreign land while our own domestic infrastructure falls
apart before our eyes — exposes a disturbing dynamic at the heart of the
Ukraine conflict: an international Ponzi scheme that enables Western elites to
seize hard earned wealth out of the hands of average US citizens and funnel itI
into the coffers of a foreign government that even the Western-sponsored Transparency
International ranks as one of the most corrupt in Europe.
The US government has yet to conduct
an official audit of its funding for Ukraine. The American public has no idea
where their tax dollars have gone.
That is why this week, The Grayzone
published an independent audit of US
tax dollar allocation to Ukraine throughout fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Our
investigation was led by Heather Kaiser, a former military intelligence officer
and veteran of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We found a $4.48 million payment
from the US Social Security Admin to the Kiev government.
We found $4.5 billion worth of
payments from the United States Agency for International Development to pay off
Ukraine’s sovereign debt, much of which is owned by the global investment firm
BlackRock.
That alone amounts to $30 taken from
every single US citizen at a time when 4 in 10 Americans are
unable to afford a $400 emergency.
We found tax dollars earmarked for
Ukraine padding the budgets of a television station in Toronto, a pro-NATO
think tank in Poland, and, believe it or not, rural farmers in Kenya.
We found tens of millions to private
equity firms, including one in the Republic of Georgia, as well as a million
dollar payment to a single private entrepreneur in Kiev.
Our audit also revealed the
Pentagon’s $4.5 million contract with a company called “Atlantic Diving Supply”
to provide Ukraine with unspecified explosives equipment. This is a notoriously
corrupt company that Thom Tillis, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, previously lambasted for its “history of fraud.”
Yet once again, Congress has failed
to ensure these shady payments and massive arms deals are properly tracked.
In fact, much of the military and
humanitarian aid shipped to Ukraine has simply vanished. Last year, CBS News quoted the director of a
pro-Zelensky non-profit in Ukraine who reported that only around 30% of aid was
reaching the front lines in Ukraine.
The embezzlement of funds and
supplies is at least as troubling as the potential consequences of the illicit
transfer and sales of military-grade weapons. Last June, the head of Interpol warned that the massive
transfers of arms into Ukraine means “we can expect an influx of weapons in
Europe and beyond,” and that “criminals are even now, as we speak, focusing on
them.”
This May, a group of anti-Kremlin
Russian neo-Nazis outfitted with gear supplied by the Ukrainian government,
was hailed by Western politicians for carrying out terrorist attacks in Russian
territory using American-made
Humvees. Although the group, the so-called “Russian
Volunteer Corps,” is led by a man who calls himself the “White King” and
includes numerous open admirers of Adolf Hitler, the Western weaponization of
this militia against Russian forces has not prompted any outcry from Congress.
And while the Biden administration
has promised that it’s keeping tabs on the weapons sent, a State Department
cable leaked last December conceded that “kinetic
activity and active combat between Ukrainian and Russian forces create an
environment in which standard verification measures are sometimes impracticable
or impossible.”
The Biden administration not only
knows that it can not track the weapons it is shipping to Ukraine, it knows it
is escalating a proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear power, and is
daring it to respond in kind.
We know they know this because back
in 2014, President Barack Obama rejected demands to send lethal offensive
weaponry to Kiev because, as the Wall Street Journal put it, he had a
“long-standing concern that arming Ukraine would provoke Moscow into a further
escalation that could drag Washington into a proxy war.”
When Donald Trump entered office in
2017, he attempted to hold the line on Obama’s policy, but was soon branded
a Russian puppet by the Washington press corps and Democratic Party for
refusing to send Raytheon’s Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian military. Trump’s
reluctance to send the Javelins became part of the basis for his impeachment.
He unsurprisingly relented.
As the US-made offensive weaponry
began to reach the front lines of the Donbas, the collective West exploited the
Minsk Accords to “give Ukraine time” to arm up, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel
put it.
In January 2022, the US announced a $200 million arms package
to Ukraine. By the 18th of February, observers from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe reported a doubling in ceasefire
violations, with OSCE maps showing the overwhelming majority of targeted sites
on the side of the pro-Russian separatist population in Donetsk and Lugansk.
Five days later, Russia invaded Ukraine.
And since then, the US and its
allies have been scurrying up the escalation ladder at every opportunity.
“Things we couldn’t give in January
because it was escalatory were given in February,” a former State Department
official complained after meeting
with Ukrainian counterparts. “And things we couldn’t give in February we can in
April. That has been the distinct pattern, starting with, for crying out loud,
Stingers,” they said, referring to shoulder mounted missiles.
President Joe Biden himself said in
March 2022, “The idea that we’re gonna send in offensive equipment and have
planes and tanks… don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say, that’s called World War III.”
It would only take two months from
receiving HIMARs systems from the US for the Ukrainian military to begin
targeting critical infrastructure, using them to strike the Antonovsky
Bridge over the Dnipro river, and again, two months later in a test strike on
the Kakhovka Dam “to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to
stymie Russian crossings,” as the Washington Post reported.
Three weeks ago, the Kakhovka Dam
was destroyed, triggering a major environmental catastrophe that caused mass
flooding and contamination of the local water supply. Ukraine, of course,
blames Russia for the attack, but has produced no evidence.
Around this time, Ukraine also
baselessly accused Russia of planning
a provocation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. This triggered a resolution by
Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal (no relation to me) calling for
NATO to intervene directly in Ukraine and attack Russia if such an incident
occurred.
The move by Blumenthal and Graham
thus established a de facto red line for initiating US military action, much
like the one set down in Syria which, as a former US diplomat commented to journalist
Charles Glass, “was an open invitation to a false flag.”
Will we see another Douma deception,
but this time in Zaporizhzhia?
Why are we doing this? Why are we
tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and
sabotaging negotiations at every turn?
We have been told by people like
Sen. Dick Durbin that Ukraine is “literally in a battle for freedom and
democracy themselves,” and we must therefore supply it with weapons “for as
long as it takes,” as President Biden said. Anyone who opposes
military aid to Ukraine opposes the defense of democracy, according to this
logic.
So where is the democracy in
Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision
to ban opposition parties, criminalize the media outlets of his legitimate
political opponents, to jail
his top political rival, round up his top deputies, raid Orthodox
Churches and arrest clergymen?
Where is the democracy in the
Ukrainian government’s imprisonment
of Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen, for questioning the official narrative of
their war effort?
And where is the democracy in
Zelensky’s recent decision to suspend
elections in 2024 on the grounds that martial law has been declared? Well,
it seems that Ukraine’s democracy is harder to find these days than its
military’s suddenly
inconspicuous commander-in-chief, Valeriy Zaluzhny.
Senator Graham has
offered a much more grim – and on-the-mark – rationale for supplying Ukraine
with billions in weapons. As the
senator boasted during a recent
visit with Zelensky in Kiev, “The Russians are dying…it’s the best money we’ve
ever spent.”
Graham, we should remember, has also
said that we, the US, must fight this war to the last Ukrainian. While official
casualty numbers are strictly classified, we must worry that Ukraine is well on
its way to fulfilling the senator’s ghoulish fantasies.
As a Ukrainian
soldier complained this month to Vice News, we don’t know
what Zelensky’s “plans are, but it
looks like extermination of its own population — like of the combat-ready and
working-age population. That’s it.”
Indeed, military cemeteries in
Ukraine are expanding almost as rapidly as the Northern Virginia McMansions and
beachfront estates of executives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and assorted
Beltway contractors benefitting from the second highest level of military spending
since World War Two.
These are the real winners of the
Ukraine proxy war. Not average Ukrainians or Americans. Or Russians or even
Western Europeans.
The winners are people like
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who spent his time between the Obama and Biden
administrations launching a consulting firm called WestExec advisors which
secured lucrative government contracts for intelligence firms and the arms
industry. Blinken’s former partners at WestExec advisors include Director of
National Intelligence Avril Haines, CIA deputy director David Cohen, former White
House press secretary Jen Psaki, and almost a dozen current and former members
of Biden’s national security team.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for
his part, is a former and possibly future
board member of Raytheon, and ex-partner of the Pine
Island Capital investment firm that collaborates with WestExec and which Blinken
has advised.
Meanwhile, the current US ambassador
to the UN, Linda Thomas Greenfield, is listed as a senior counsel at the Albright Stonebridge
Group, a self-described “commercial diplomacy firm” that also
finesses contracts for the intelligence sector and arms industry. This firm was
founded by the late Madeleine Albright, who infamously declared that the deaths
of half-a-million Iraqi children under the US sanctions regime was “worth it.”
So while middle-aged Ukrainian men
are ripped off streets
by military police and sent to the front lines, the financially and politically
connected architects of this proxy war are planning to walk through the
revolving door to reap unimaginable profits once their time in the Biden
administration is over.
For them, a negotiated settlement to
this territorial dispute means an end to the cash cow of close to $150 billion
in US aid to Ukraine.
When the United States, a permanent
member of this council, has fallen under the control of a government which
seeks to perpetuate a proxy war for “as long as it takes,” which considers
diplomacy synonymous with unilateral coercive measures to “turn the ruble to
rubble,” as Biden has pledged to do; whose leadership subverts negotiations in
order to pursue profit while refusing to properly inform its own citizens what
they are paying for, and which pushes the sons and brothers of its supposed
Ukrainian partners out onto a killing field in order to bludgeon a geopolitical
rival; when both Zelensky and members of the US Congress are calling for preemptive
strikes on Russia which contravene the spirit of Article 51 of the UN
charter, this council must take action to enforce that charter.
Articles 33 – 38 of Chapter VI of that Charter are clear that the
security council must use its authority to guarantee a pacific settlement of
dispute, particularly when it threatens international security. That should not
only apply to Russia and Ukraine. This council has an obligation to strictly
monitor and restrain the US and the illegal military formation known as NATO.
John Mearsheimer: The West is playing Russian
roulette
Review
of Benjamin Pogrund and Patrick McGuire’s Left
Out and Owen Jones This Land
[PM]Reference
to book by Pogrund and McGuire
[OJ]Reference
to book by Owen Jones
There
has been a marked reluctance by the Labour left to ask simple questions in the
wake of Labour’s defeat at the General Election about where the Corbyn Project
went wrong. They seem to fear asking the questions even more than they fear the
answers.
Betrayed by Laura Pidcock and Corbyn
Take
the Labour Representation Committee, whose
President is John McDonnell. On 12th January it held a meeting Learning
the Lessons and Rebuilding the Labour Left. Admirable objectives. I
attended and asked in the chat why the Campaign Group hadn’t opposed the fake
‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. I also asked why Laura Pidcock, one of the speakers, instead
of defending Chris Williamson had asked him not to attend meetings of the
CG.
You
won’t be surprised to hear that despite putting my hand up first, the Chair
Bisi Williams decided to call me last and then found out that as the meeting
had run out of time I wouldn’t be called at all!
If
the LRC are scared of holding elected Labour representatives to account then
clearly they won’t learn many lessons. My letter to Chair Matt Wrack, Chair of
the LRC, is here.
Since
the defeat of Labour in the General Election two books have appeared which offer
different explanations as to why Labour was defeated. One is by journalists
from The Times and Sunday Times, Benjamin Pogrund and
Patrick MacGuire, and the other is from the Guardian’s
licensed radical, Owen Jones.
The
analysis in both books is not substantively different. Both concentrate on the
internal politics and dysfunctional state of LOTO (Leader of the Opposition’s
Office) though Jones lays greater stress on the hostility that Corbyn faced,
not least from the feral members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Jones
also sets out to correct the narrative that the Corbyn Project was solely defeated
by sabotage within the Labour Party coupled with a vicious onslaught from a
hostile media. To him the damage was done by internal conflict within the
Project. [OJ3/5] What Jones doesn’t mention is that the campaign against Corbyn
was led by his own newspaper, The Guardian, and that he had a hand in it.
Jones
also believes that an additional cause was the failure to deal with
anti-Semitism and reach out to Jews who (except for anti-Zionist Jews) had
experienced a ‘collective trauma from two
millennia of persecution.’ [OJ6]
I also intend to do a
separate article on Jones and ‘anti-Semitism’ since Jones played a key part in
spreading the idea that Labour had a problem with anti-Semitism. Jones made a
significant contribution to the defeat of Corbyn when he had ‘a period of disillusionment before the
general election’. [OJ8] In March 2017 he wrote an article
‘Jeremy Corbyn says
he’s staying. That’s not good enough’.
Tom Watson
Both books detail the
treachery of Labour’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson, who when elected as Deputy
Leader promised to back Corbyn 100%, saying that ‘only through unity comes the strength we need to fight the Tories’.
It was one more lie from a man who had every quality of a dog
except loyalty.
Watson
was in league with Labour’s treacherous staff, ‘many of whom craved electoral disaster’ [OJ135]. When Sam Matthews,
head of GLU was forced out, he stole hundreds of files and emails. On 27
February 2019 he met Danny Adilypour, Watson’s closest advisor, to hand over
hundreds of documents. The Zionist lobby and Hodge arranged for them to obtain
legal representation. It was clearly a criminal offence of theft and breach of
Data Protection Regulations. [PM241] These files were the basis of the BBC
Panorama hatchet job by John Ware presenting Matthews as a ‘whistleblower’.
It
is some measure of the Corbyn’s inability to face down his enemies that he offered
peerages to both Watson and Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary who
tried to prevent him standing when Owen Smith challenged him for the
leadership.
Watson
was only prevented
from becoming Baron Watson by the House of Lords’s Appointment’s Commission because
he sponsored
Carl Beech’s false allegations of child abuse.
Jones
lays emphasis on the Leaked
Labour Report and the war of attrition waged by Labour’s permanent staff
whereas Pogrund and MacGuire play the issue down as might be expected from the
Murdoch school of journalism. However Jones draws all the wrong conclusions
about the existence of anti-Semitism in Labour.
Shortly
before Labour’s 2019 Conference Jon Lansman, proposed to the NEC that the
Deputy Leadership post should be abolished and with it Watson. Although it
would have been better for the Left to have challenged Watson it was a reasonable
proposal. Corbyn was the originator of the proposal shouting ‘I want him out of the Shadow Cabinet and I
want to abolish the deputy role’. [PM235-237]. Yet, when it came to it, Corbyn
backed out. It was another example of Corbyn’s spinelessness. Naturally
McDonnell the Appeaser was opposed to it. [OJ266-268]
The Failure to Devise a Political
Strategy
One
of the most remarkable things about the Corbyn leadership was the complete lack
of any political strategy. Corbyn was buffeted by the political winds and failed
to take the initiative. Within a year he had been subject to a no confidence
vote by Labour MPs, which he lost by 172-40. It
is to his credit that Corbyn refused to be bullied by the PLP into standing
down despite, in Dianne Abbot’s words, the attempts to break him as a man.
[OJ84] A major reason for his clinging on and forcing Owen Smith to challenge
him was the fact that Momentum called
a massive 10,000 demonstration on Parliament Green (Jones places the demo in
Trafalgar Square, thus proving that he for one wasn’t there – OJ83).
Having
won
against Smith by an even larger majority than the first time, despite the
suspension of thousands of members by McNicol, Corbyn was at the height of his
power. At this point Corbyn should have called on McNicol to resign. Indeed
Corbyn should have accepted McNicol’s offer to resign when he was first elected.
Even
after the near election victory of June 2017 when, in anticipation of a coup,
McNicol had the passes of Corbyn’s staff to Southside cancelled, Corbyn failed
to call for the dismissal of McNicol.[PM21] [OJ160]
The
only political strategy that Corbyn had was appeasing the Right, yet it should
have been obvious that a hard core of at least 50 MPs would never accept Corbyn
as Prime Minister and in the event that he had won the General Election they would
not have voted for him as Prime Minister.
There
had to be a strategy of deselecting these MPs yet not only did Corbyn fail to embrace
such a strategy but he persuaded Len McCluskey to break UNITE’s mandate in 2018
and oppose Open Selection. With Open Selection disloyal Labour MPs could have
been deselected en masse. This was the key failure of Corbyn.
Corbyn
had a strategic director in the form of Seamus Milne, the former Guardian
Comment Editor. Milne was the son of former BBC Director-General Alisdair
Milne. He came from the womb of the British Establishment. I don’t know
whether or not Milne was an MI5 operative but of one thing I am sure. He could
not have served British Intelligence better if he had been a paid agent.
Both
books report Milne as someone whose only contribution, apart from coming late
into the office with a coffee in one hand and pastries in another, was to lead
Corbyn into Labour’s disastrous Brexit strategy, if one can call it that.
On
the question of the fake anti-Semitism campaign, Milne had little to contribute
or suggest. His failure to devise a strategy and stick to it, instead of
firefighting as the latest Zionist attack was mounted, is as incomprehensible
now as it was at the time.
A Dysfunctional Office
When
Corbyn was elected leader they found the cupboard was bare. LOTO had been
stripped of its furniture and computers. Even the keys to the door didn’t work!
Not surprisingly it took some time to get everything in order.
However
with the help of what is called Short money from the Treasury LOTO soon
employed a considerable number of staff.I estimate at least 30-40.
Far
from getting their act together, LOTO degenerated into squabbles, personality
conflicts, empire building and ego trips. Karie Murphy was brought in to sort
things out as Chief of Staff but rather than ensuring a smooth running office
she became part of the problem. ‘Often
chaotic, under Murphy’s aegis the atmosphere of the leader’s office had become
poisonous.’ [OJ271] Laura Murray, the Stakeholder, led the charge to the
right over ‘anti-Semitism’.
Murphy
forced Corbyn to sack the Chief Whip Rosie Winton, although Corbyn was unable
to tell her outright her fate. [OJ122] But who was her replacement? Nick Brown,
Gordon Brown’s boot boy, the man who is now demanding an unconditional apology
in return for the restoration of the Whip. If someone like Ian Lavery had been
appointed he could have removed the whip from a dozen Blairites and saved their
parties the need to deselect them. It took Boris Johnson, who dispatched
21 rebels at one go, to demonstrate what effective political management is
about.
Murphy
provoked two staff rebellions over her bullying and intimidation including
hounding out Corbyn’s Asian PA Iram Chamberlain because she was held guilty
over MI5’s refusal to give her a parliamentary pass. She also had the audacity
to attend a meeting at MI5 HQ with Corbyn where she raised the issue of their
lack of interest in the far-Right (as opposed to hounding Muslims). A close
friend of hers had been murdered by neo-Nazis.
Perfectly
proper issues to have raised yet Murphy became incandescent and with Milne’s
agreement she was forced out. [PM157] Corbyn behaved in a spineless fashion yet
again. Murphy regularly attacked female staff for not dressing appropriately
like any traditional employer.
In
August 2019 as the days of the Project drew to a close staff submitted a collective
grievance against Murphy.[PM273] The outcome was that Murphy was effectively
sacked and forced to work at Labour Party HQ with a new glorified title. As was
so often the case Corbyn could not bring himself to do the deed.
Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy
Corbyn was perhaps the only person who was capable of gaining the magical
number of PLP nominations (15%) to be elected. It was not just an accident of
fate but the result of mass lobbying on social media that caused enough MPs to
nominate him. I know because my 13 year old son was one of thousands furiously
lobbyingMPs! Corbyn became leader as a
result of a spontaneous insurgency and rebellion against the Labour Right.
Unfortunately he failed to live up to the task of facing down the Right, not
that you would know it from these 2 books.
Corbyn
was incapable of standing up to his detractors and challenging their
‘anti-Semitism’ narrative. In interviews he simply became incoherent and angry.
He was loathe to make decisions such as sacking Shadow Cabinet ministers,
directing staff and taking the lead. According to Pogrund and Maguire he became
a captive of his own staff, ‘protected’ by Murphy. The qualities that led to
the 2017 surprise were the same ones that led to the catastrophe of 2019.
For
example he was accused of supporting ‘terrorism’ by calling Hamas and Hezbollah
speakers his ‘friends’ in an interview before being
elected, with Krishna Guru Murphy of Channel 4. Instead of getting angry and
defensive (& later apologising) he should have stuck to what he had previously
said. Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t terrorists. They are the victims of terrorism,
the offspring of massive Israeli violence. If terrorism means anything then it
is the Israeli state violence. The problem is that Corbyn bought into an acceptance
of the British state and with that comes a definition of terrorism which is that
what the State does is never terrorism. It is only your enemies who are
terrorists.
Corbyn and Anti-Semitism
Even the title of the
chapter about anti-Semitism For the Many
not the Jew, which adorned Zionist placards at the March 2018 demonstration
outside the House of Commons was anti-Semitic. It assumed that all Jews were
part of the few. But then Zionism and anti-Semitism have always been Siamese
twins.
Pogrund and McGuire report
how the Right believed that Corbyn’s support for anti-imperialism blinded him
to anti-Semitism. [99] The idea that anti-imperialists are also racists is only
something the press and Labour’s Right could seriously believe.
Siobhan McDonagh, one of
the most stupid of right-wing MPs, believed
that because most Jews were capitalists, socialism and anti-capitalism were anti-Semitic!
The ‘anti-Semitism’
campaign was based on disinformation. Pogrund states that for decades the
Labour Party had been ‘the natural
political home of Britain’s Jews.’ [PM320] Utter nonsense, since the 1960s,
with a blip during the Blair years, British Jews had voted solidly for the
Tories. This kind of nonsense permeates their book.
Corbyn’s major failure was
his inability to understand the nature
of the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks. Corbyn took the attacks on him as an
anti-Semite personally. For someone who had devoted his life to fighting racism
it was the nastiest blow that the Zionists could make. If Corbyn had been a
racist then it would not have bothered him.
One cannot imagine Tom
Watson, who was a genuine racist, taking offence or losing sleep over
accusations of racism. Watson, who was instrumental in the ‘anti-Semitism’ affair,
played the race card in the 2004 Hodge Hill byelection, producing a leaflet
which declared
‘"Labour is on your side, the Lib
Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers."
Watson declared that he
had ‘lost
sleep’ over ‘poor Phil’ when
the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas was ejected
from the House of Commons by the High Court for having lied about his opponent
during the 2010 General Election. Woolas had run a campaign which was
explicitly about ‘making the white folk
angry’ i.e. stirring up racial discord.
It is inexplicable why
Corbyn, who had been involved for 30+ years in Palestine solidarity work did
not get it that ‘anti-Semitism’ is the first resort of the Zionists. When
Zionists say ‘anti-Semite’ they mean ‘anti-Zionist’. That Corbyn and Milne
did not get this is bewildering.
Corbyn became an automaton
He went into a routine of stressing how much he opposed anti-Semitism. It was absurd
as the anti-Semitism that the Zionist Board of Deputies was talking about was hatred
of Israeli racism not hatred of Jews. Milne, if he had not spent all day
loafing around, would have realised this.
Corbyn took to parroting
the line that those who denied that Labour had a problem with anti-Semitism
were ‘part of the problem’. It was
called ‘denialism’. It was a form of cognitive dissonance. Corbyn did not
relate the false allegations of anti-Semitism against him to the fact that
other people too were falsely accused of anti-Semitism.
It should not have been
difficult to understand why the charge of ‘anti-Semite’ is made at opponents of
Zionism. Israel finds it difficult to justify the torture
and sexual abuse of Palestinian children or the demolition of Palestinian
homes. It is easier to attack the messenger than the message. This was the
context of Corbyn’s failure.
When the ‘anti-Semitism’
crisis took on a momentum of its own, Corbyn should have made one or more big
speeches in which he declared that of course he opposed anti-Semitism but at the same time he opposed those who
weaponised anti-Semitism in order to defend Israel. Corbyn should have called
out all those Labour MPs, from Ian Austin to Watson, who were so concerned
about ‘anti-Semitism’ yet had failed
to oppose the 2014 Immigration Act which had introduced the hostile environment
policy and thus the Windrush Scandal. Just 6 Labour MPs had voted
against the Act.
Corbyn came into the
leadership determined to appease the Right. No one seems to have told him that
the Right could not be appeased. They could be fought, they could be
deselected, but you could no more appease Austin or John Woodcock than you could
pat a rabid dog on the head and get away unscathed.
Austin openly declared ‘I want to do everything I can to stop him
getting into government.’ [PM162] Likewise Mandelson ‘I work every day I some small way to bring an end to his tenure in
office.’ [OJ]
Of course there were a few
anti-Semites in a party of 600,000. There were also a few paedophiles.But no one said that Labour was overrun with
paedophiles. It was a wholly contrived controversy.
Anti-Semitism is hostility
to or prejudice against Jews according to the Oxford
English Dictionary. Yet Corbyn, of
his own volition, adopted the 38 word IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism. In September 2018 Labour’s NEC adopted the 11
examples attached to the IHRA, 7 of which refer to Israel. The IHRA definition read:
“Antisemitism
is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward
Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community
institutions and religious facilities.”
Anti-Semitism isn’t a
perception it is also a practice. And what is this certain perception? What
else may it be expressed as?This wasn’t
a definition but a ramble. It is difficult to know what went through Corbyn’s
mind when he adopted it but he made a rod for his own back. The definition is a
model of obfuscation.In the words
of Professor David Feldman the IHRA was ‘bewilderingly
imprecise.’
The sole purpose of the IHRA
was to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. When Theresa May adopted it in
December 20016 Corbyn felt the need to follow suit.
Corbyn,who had long been friends with Jewish
anti-Zionists like Mike Marquesee, must have been aware of the record of the Zionist
Board which has never fought
anti-Semitism. In the 30s the Board advocated Jews staying at home during the Battle
of Cable Street against Moseley’s fascists. During the 1970s as the
National Front gained over 100,000 votes during the 1977 GLC elections the Board
chose to attack the Anti-Nazi League not
the NF. AsMaurice Ludmer, editor of the
anti-fascist Searchlight magazine
wrote :
In the face of mounting attacks against
the Jewish
community both ideologically and
physically, we have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching
an attack on the Anti Nazi League with
all the fervour of Kamikaze
pilots... It was as though they were watching a time capsule rerunof the 1930's, in the form of a flickering old movie, with a grim determination to repeat every mistake of that era." (Issue 41, November 1978)
It should have been
obvious that the Board, which has support for Israel embedded in its Constitution,
was concerned with Zionism not anti-Semitism. When Corbyn met the Board in
April 2018 he left ‘with one request
ringing louder in his ear than any other’ [PM105]. They wanted the IHRA
adopted in full. To Pogrund /MGuire this was ‘relatively uncontroversial’.
Yet the same Board said nothing
about Boris Johnson’s 72 Virgins book
which depicts
Jews as controlling the media or Jacob Rees-Mogg’s references to the
‘illuminati’ – an anti-Semitic
trope.
The Board of Deputies never
raised the issue of Tory MEPs sitting
in the Conservative Reform Group as anti-Semitic MEPs from Poland, Latvia and
Sweden. The same is true with the European Council. Boris Johnson sacked
Lord Balfe who complained about these people. The Board remained silent. The
Board also said nothing as Tory MEPs voted alongside fascists to
support Hungary’s anti-Semitic Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
When Labour’s NEC endorsed
an anti-Semitism code largely based on the IHRA, the Board threw a fit.It wanted the whole IHRA adopted. Starmer
weighed in to support them. [PM111]
Yet when the Chair of the
Jewish Labour Movement Ivor Caplin met with Jennie Formby he agreed to the Anti-Semitism
Code that amended the IHRA without any objection. [PM110-111] When the JLM
Executive heard they threw a fit (Caplin was heavily defeated at the following
AGM). Why? The answer was supplied by Len McCluskey in an article
for Huff Post headed ‘Jewish Community
Leaders Refuse to Take Yes for an Answer’. [123PM]
In other words the Zionist
demands were not intended to be met and if they were then new ones would be
made. This makes sense if your real objective is removing Corbyn.
Corbyn initially tried to
woo the Zionists. At a hustings with Owen Smith Corbyn was asked what he most
liked about Israel. Instead of responding that he liked their censorship of the
press and their locking up and torture of Palestinian children he replied the
separation of powers between Israel’s Supreme Court and the government.
The neutrality of Israel’s
Supreme Court is a myth. It has totally disregarded international law and
sanctioned the theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza. It has
never questioned the ‘security arguments that are the favourite excuse for
Israeli racism.
Intellectually Corbyn is
lazy. He never once bothered to understand the racist, Jewish supremacist
nature of Zionism. He was simply content to give bland support to Palestinian
rights.
The Witchhunt
What
was most galling was the way Corbyn was prepared to throw his friends under the
bus.There were a whole series of people
he betrayed, such as Christine Shawcroft a left wing member of the NEC who was ambushed
by Labour staff when she became Chair of the Disputes Committee. Corbyn asked
her personally to resign from the NEC. Chris Williamson, loyal to a fault, was suspended on the
basis of a speech to Sheffield Momentum where he attacked both anti-Semitism
and the making of false allegations of anti-Semitism. His words were twisted to
mean their opposite.
Corbyn
stated that he wished Chris Williamson would ‘shut his fucking mouth’. [OJ253] When Chris was readmitted by the
NEC there was a petition of 150 Labour scabs organised by Watson calling for
him to be suspended again. Corbyn’s reaction was to ‘angrily aske(d) his aides why the decision had been made; with his
support, Williamson was resuspended
two days later.’ If true then Corbyn should hang his head in shame.
By
throwing his friends overboard Corbyn guaranteed his own demise. Corbyn introduced
‘fast track’ expulsions at the 2019 Labour Party Conference to deal with ‘egregious’
cases of anti-Semitism. It has been used since then for allsuch cases,
including that of Corbyn!
When
Labour’s
report on the treachery of full-time staff was leaked I read it very carefully.
On page 306 it reported that:
Well we were all expelled.
Was trust rebuilt? Of course not. The Zionists just made more demands and
Formby and Corbyn rushed to fulfill them. And when they came for Corbyn there
was no one left.
Jones says that LOTO ‘was unhappy with the NCC panel’s decision
to suspend Ken Livingstone for another year rather than expel him.’ Ken said
nothing that could remotely be termed anti-Semitic. Likewise Marc Wadsworth who
introduced Nelson Mandela to the Steve Lawrence campaign. It was sad and
shameful. Corbyn brought about his own suspension by bringing Sturmer back into
the Shadow Cabinet despite him having walked out in the chicken coup.
How John McDonnell Stabbed Corbyn in
the Back
When John McDonnell said
of Corbyn that he was his best friend in the Commons, his wife Cynthia joked
that he was his only friend! [PM13] That friendship was sorely tried.
From being a hard line IRA supporter who refused to adopt a budget under Ken
Livingstone at the GLC, McDonnell went on to become the appeaser-in-chief.
When Margaret Hodge accused
Corbyn of being a ‘fucking anti-Semite’
Karie Murphy insisted on disciplinary action and Jennie Formby issued a Notice of
Investigation. If any other member of the Labour Party had spoken in these
terms they would have been suspended if not expelled.
I was expelled for calling
Louise Ellman MP a supporter of Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children, which
is documented by Defence
of Children International – Palestine and UNICEF.
Yet McDonnell declared that Hodge had a ‘good
heart’ (OJ242). This tax-dodging, millionairess had a long record as a
racist. She had even been praised
by the BNP for her support for a ‘whites only’ housing policy.
In his determination to
appease the Right McDonnell betrayed Corbyn. It caused ‘the most profound breach between Corbyn and McDonnell the Project
would ever experience’ [PM115]Corbyn wanted to see disciplinary action
taken. According to both books it led to a complete breakdown between the two for
6 months.
McDonnell also spoke
out in support of reinstating Alistair Campbell after he admitted voting
Lib-Dem in the European elections.
Campbell was treated no
differently to thousands of others. Campbell and Mcdonnell had ‘forged an improbable alliance’. [PM195/284]
‘The defining difference between the two [was that] McDonnell obsessed over the pursuit of
power.’ [PM84] There was no right-winger that McDonnell wouldn’t appease.
Not once did he consider that the more he appeased the Right the stronger they
became and the less likely he’d ever sit in a ministerial limousine.
When it came to
international affairs McDonnell went out of his way to ‘prove’ that he was as
loyal to the British state as any jingoist. When Corbyn doubted Russian
involvement in the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, McDonnell made his
disagreement clear, even going so far as to Boycott RT the Russian radio station. Presumably the BBC, with its support
for British imperialism, posed fewer problems.
McDonnell was quoted as ‘tearing his hair out’ over ‘anti-Semitism’
saying that
Jewish people ‘were really suffering out
there’. Total drivel. It is Black and Muslim people not British Jews who
were suffering. Yet this man is still President of the LRC.
BREXIT
Brexit and its fall out
dominate both books. The more that Corbyn and LOTO struggled to come to terms
with it the more intractable the problem became. Labour ended up with a policy
which repelled both supporters of Leave and Remain. It was a struggle of
Sisyphus. Corbyn bowed to pressure from Starmer and Andrew Fisher, amongst
others, to accede to the demand for a second referendum but it was never clear
what the Party’s position would be in that referendum.
McDonnell had bowed down
to the Right and Alistair Campbell and had become a Remainer without
conditions. With McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Andrew Fisher pushing one way
and Milne, Lavery, McLuskey and Murphy pushing the other way, Corbyn came to
resemble nothing so much as a cork bobbing on the water.
The problem of Brexit was
approached purely from an electoralist calculus. A Marxist approach would have
been to ask why so many in the northern working class supported Brexit. The
clear and obvious answer was that it was a consequence of deindustrialisation
and the succession of working class defeats over the past 30 years symbolised
by the defeat of the miners.
Those who voted for Brexit
weren’t racists but they were motivated by the belief that migrant workers were
responsible for taking their jobs and undermining their wages and conditions.
The fact that there was no basis to these fears made no difference. ‘Taking back control’ for Johnson meant
British bosses taking back control from Europe in order that they could lower
wages and conditions as we can now see with the abolition
of the Working Time Directive being discussed.
It pains me to say it but
Tony Blair was right when he said that Corbyn and Labour should have pressed
for a referendum before an election.
[PM283] As it is Johnson, against all expectations, obtained a deal and with it
went on to win an election. Johnson had calculated, unlike Theresa May, that
Europe and in particular German capitalism, did not want to see no deal with all
the disruption. Johnson faced them down. Instead it was Burgon and Carden from
the left who ‘harried their leader for an
election.’ [PM291] They were turkeys urging an early Xmas, which is exactly
what they got.
Thanks in no good measure
to the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis Corbyn was at the election as ‘weak, indecisive and a flip flopper.’ [OJ209]
The End
When Andrew Fisher
resigned during the 2019 conference he predicted that Labour would be defeated
at the forthcoming election. Internal Labour polls had forecast that Labour would
do worse than at any time since 1918.By
the time of the election the Corbyn Project ‘was barely a coherent entity’. McDonnell had ‘sowed a corrosive distrust’. [PM359]
It was no surprise that Keir
Starmer became leader. He had the support of many ex-Momentum supporters like
Laura Parker and Paul Mason. As Pogrund says, ‘Keir Starmer won power by embracing Corbynism rather than repudiating
it.’ [360PM] It speaks volumes that Starmer’s record as Director of Public
Prosecutions and his voting
against an inquiry into the Iraq War were not part of the campaign against
him. See the blog I wrote in February 2019 Keir
Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British Establishment
want you to vote for
No sooner had Starmer become
Leader then he gave Formby her marching orders and installed Blair’s adviser
David Evans as the new General Secretary. It was a marked contrast to Corbyn
who had embraced those out to destroy him.
Part
of the problem with the Corbyn Project was that he was elected when the class
struggle was at its lowest. That meant being honest with workers and telling
them that Labour would fight neo-liberalism in the EU but at the same time the
proposal to hand back control to British bosses who, like Dyson, were busy
exporting their factories abroad anyway, made no sense.Unfortunately there doesn’t ever seem to have
been such a discussion and Corbyn’s Strategic Adviser Milne was incapable of
framing the issue in class terms.
Owen
Jones believes that McDonnell would have been a better leader. I disagree.
McDonnell has already shown that he would bow down to the demands of British capitalism.
The Labour Left is incapable of critiquing the British state. That is why the
Left doesn’t attack Starmer the way that the Right attacked Corbyn.
The
problem today is that the left in the Labour Party is incapable of analyzing where
it went wrong and without that it has no chance of regaining the leadership.
That is the truth that Momentum and the LRC are trying to avoid.
