Archive | November 8th, 2020

Scam Warning – Fake Paypal Emails

WMNow - Stay updated Get involved
Action Fraud is warning people selling items online to be on the lookout for criminals sending fake PayPal emails.
 
Between January 2020 and September 2020, 21,349 crime reports were made to Action Fraud about fake PayPal emails.Victims reported losing a total of £7,891,077.44 during this time.Those targeted included people selling jewellery, furniture and electronics via online marketplaces.

Reports of fake PayPal emails to Action Fraud made up a third of all reports of online shopping and auction fraud during this period.
Action Fraud is warning people selling items online to be on the lookout

How does it happen?

Criminals have been targeting people selling items online, by sending theemails purporting to be from PayPal. The emails trick victims into believing they have received payment for the items they’re selling on the platform.

Typically, after receiving these emails, victims will ship the item to the criminal. This leaves them at a further disadvantage having not received any payment for the item and also no longer being in possession of it.


How can you protect yourself?
Sellers beware:

If you’re selling items on an online marketplace, be aware of the warning signs that your buyer is a scammer. Scammers may have negative feedb- ack history, or may have recently set up a new account to avoid getting poor feedback. Don’t be persuaded into sending anything until you can verify you’ve received the payment.Scam messages: Don’t click on the links or attachments in suspicious emails, and never respond to messag that ask for your personal or financial details.

How to spot the difference:

A PayPal email will address you by your first and last name, or your business name, and will never ask you for your full password, bank account, or credit card details in a message.

If you think you’ve been a victim of fraud, report it to Action Fraud online at:

www.actionfraud.police.uk or by calling 0300 123 2040.

 
Message Sent By
Action Fraud (Action Fraud, Administrator, National)

Posted in UKComments Off on Scam Warning – Fake Paypal Emails

Emirati Aid Convoy to Damascus to Fight Trump Sanctions

By VT Editors 

Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Ruler’s Representative in the Al Dhafra Region, Chairman of the Emirates Red Crescent Authority, a land aid convoy carrying 22 tons of medicines and medical materials arrived in the Syrian capital, Damascus, which the authority had arranged in coordination with the Syrian Red Crescent Society. The aid to curb the outbreak of the new Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the Syrian arena comes as part of the UAE’s global response to address the pandemic, strengthening preventive and precautionary measures, and supporting the Syrian medical sector to face the challenges in this regard.

Thousands of health care workers in Syria benefit from this aid. The Secretary-General of the Emirates Red Crescent, Dr. Muhammad Ateeq Al Falahi, said that this convoy of aid comes within the framework of the initiatives undertaken by the UAE to support international efforts to combat the global spread of the Corona virus, indicating the interest of His Highness Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in the aid it provides In this regard, the authority has a direct impact on limiting the spread of the pandemic in a number of countries, and strengthening the capacity of medical personnel, who represent the first line of defense in these exceptional health conditions, in the field of prevention and protection.

He stressed that the UAE is making great efforts to help brotherly and friendly countries overcome the current health conditions, stand by them, and enhance their health capabilities to face the repercussions of the pandemic.

He said that the Emirates Red Crescent Authority had facilitated this shipment of medical aid in coordination with the Syrian Red Crescent Society, within the framework of joint humanitarian cooperation between the two national societies, and the authority’s keenness to support the capabilities of the Syrian National Society, and to support its efforts in the health field on its local arena. Al-Falahi indicated that the medical aid includes basic materials used to strengthen preventive and precautionary measures to address the Corona pandemic, help medical personnel to perform their role, and support their efforts to contain the spread of the virus in Syria.

He added, “This aid comes as part of the global response to the spread of the (Covid-19) pandemic, and this is the fourth shipment of medical aid to Syria, as three previous shipments arrived by air to the capital, Damascus.”

https://alkhaleejtoday.co/international/5312416/The-arrival-of-an-Emirati-aid-convoy-to-Damascus-to-curb.html

Posted in Politics, Syria, UAEComments Off on Emirati Aid Convoy to Damascus to Fight Trump Sanctions

Naziyahu Terrified: After hours of crying, writes Biden a ‘Deeply Flawed Note’

Netanyahu Terrified: After hours of crying, writes Biden a ‘Deeply Flawed Note’

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor 

If you translate these two tweets from Nuttin’yahoo, you can see how utterly fucked Israel is going to be.

Times of Israel: After a conspicuously long hiatus, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin issued statements early Sunday morning congratulating Joe Biden after his US election win.


Benjamin Netanyahu@netanyahuCongratulations @JoeBiden and @KamalaHarris. Joe, we’ve had a long & warm personal relationship for nearly 40 years, and I know you as a great friend of Israel. I look forward to working with both of you to further strengthen the special alliance between the U.S. and Israel.5:03 AM · Nov 8, 2020

“Congratulations @JoeBiden and @KamalaHarris. Joe, we’ve had a long & warm personal relationship for nearly 40 years, and I know you as a great friend of Israel,” Netanyahu wrote on his personal Twitter account at 7 a.m. in Israel (midnight EST), more than 12 hours after US media networks called the presidency for Biden.

Analysts pointed out that in his tweets and subsequent remarks to the cabinet, Netanyahu did not address Biden as “president-elect” and did not explicitly state that the former vice president and Delaware senator had won the elections.

In a second tweet, he thanked President Donald Trump “for the friendship you have shown the state of Israel and me personally, for recognizing Jerusalem and the Golan, for standing up to Iran, for the historic peace accords and for bringing the American-Israeli alliance to unprecedented heights.”

Later in the day, Netanyahu made nearly identical comments about Biden and Trump at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.

Rivlin issued a lengthy statement sent out by his spokespeople, issued at exactly the same time as Netanyahu’s tweet, and did specify that Biden had won the presidency.

“I send the blessings of the Israeli people and of the State of Israel, to our friend Joe Biden on your election as the 46th President of the United States of America. I also send congratulations and best wishes for your success, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris,” he said.

“Mr. President-elect, as a longstanding friend of Israel, you are now the leader of the free world and of the State of Israel’s closest and most important ally. The strategic alliance between our two countries and peoples is stronger than any political leadership, and is not based solely on friendship. It is rooted deeply in our shared values and in our longstanding commitment to freedom and democracy as the foundations of our societies.”

In his statement, Rivlin also said he wanted to thank the incumbent president for “four years of partnership in strengthening Israel’s security, and to thank the American people for their steadfast support and friendship.”

“I have no doubt that our special relations and multifaceted cooperation will continue to flourish and grow in the future,” he went on.

“On behalf of the Israeli people, I wish you and your future administration great success, and extend my invitation to you to visit Jerusalem as our guest.”

Later on Sunday, Rivlin recorded and posted on his YouTube channel a video with a similar message. He recalled hosting Biden in Jerusalem in 2016, when he was vice president. “As a longstanding friend of Israel, you are now going to be the leader of the free world and of Israel’s closest and most important ally. Our bond is more than friendship. It is based on values, on our shared commitment to freedom and democracy,” he said.

The fact that Netanyahu and Rivlin took 12 hours after all major American networks projected that Biden had beaten Trump — and long after most world leaders had done so — was a source of concern for some.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid, who was the first Israeli politician to congratulate Biden on Saturday evening, said it was “cowardly and shameful” that the country’s top leadership remained silent, and “hurts Israeli interests.”

Lapid added: “If the French president, German chancellor and British prime minister can do it, so can you.”

Former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren said the Americans pay very close attention to what’s being said about developments in their country, warning that a failure by Netanyahu to acknowledge Biden’s win could negatively impact the upcoming administration’s relationship with the Israeli government.

“That will not be forgotten quickly,” he told the i24news television channel on Saturday night, prior to Netanyahu making his comments.

Earlier on Sunday morning, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz became the first senior Israeli leader to congratulate Biden on winning the presidency.

“As the election results become final, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to @JoeBiden, a long-time supporter and friend of Israel, and to his running mate, @KamalaHarris, who has made history as the first woman elected VP.” Gantz tweeted in English at around 4 a.m. Israel time, just as Biden was delivering his victory speech.

“I look forward to continuing to deepen the steadfast bond and strong defense ties between our peoples, as allies in the effort to strengthen democracy, stability, and peace worldwide,” added Gantz, who is alternate prime minister and slated to replace Netanyahu in November 2021, 11 months after Biden is set to take office.

Gantz, the head of the Blue and White party, also thanked Trump for being “committed to [Israel’s] security and invested in its future.”

“The Middle East has taken major steps forward thanks to the president’s bold leadership over these four years, and for that we are immensely grateful,” he wrote.

Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, also from Blue and White, tweeted congratulations to Biden about two hours after Gantz.

He said Biden’s “friendship and distinguished record of support for Israel dates back nearly half a century. I strongly believe that under his leadership the strategic indispensable alliance between our two countries will continue to flourish and prosper.” He did not include a message thanking Trump.

On Saturday evening, congratulations to Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, poured in from all over the world, including from all major European states and most countries in the Arab world.

Netanyahu had built a close relationship with Trump and his administration, which reversed decades of US policy by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and removing opposition to Israeli settlement building in the West Bank. Netanyahu’s close ties with Trump and Republicans in his corner had led to concerns of a loss of bipartisan support for Israel in Washington.

In contrast, Gantz and Trump only met once publicly, for brief talks ahead of the unveiling of the administration’s Middle East peace plan in January, while he was still running against Netanyahu. After entering the government, he was kept out of US-brokered talks about normalization with other Arab states.

A protester holds signs during a demonstration against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. (AP/Ariel Schalit)

Trump has refused to concede defeat, making unsubstantiated allegations of serious fraud and vowing to take his case to the courts.

The Walla news site on Saturday evening quoted unnamed sources close to Netanyahu saying that he was “waiting for the official results,” which may not be finalized for several days as states certify their vote counts.

At the same time, Walla and Kan news reported that the prime minister’s office instructed ministers of his Likud party to convey two messages in press interviews: that Israel can work well with Biden, just as it worked with Trump; and that they hope Biden will continue to push Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel and to stand up to Iran, and won’t reverse the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu, who also has a close personal relationship with Biden, made some effort to stay out of the presidential race. Last month, he deflected a question by Trump about whether his rival would have been able to broker a normalization agreement between Israel and Sudan.

“Do you think Sleepy Joe could have made this deal, Bibi?” Trump asked the prime minister during an October 24 phone call with Sudanese leaders during which the deal was announced. “Somehow, I don’t think so.”

After a few seconds’ pause, Netanyahu replied: “Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you is we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America. And we appreciate what you’ve done enormously.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, PoliticsComments Off on Naziyahu Terrified: After hours of crying, writes Biden a ‘Deeply Flawed Note’

Armenian Defense Collapsed In Central Nagorno-Karabakh. Shusha Is In Hands Of Azerbaijan

By South Front 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0ANnGW8aSrA/hqdefault.jpg

The Armenian defense in the central part of the Nagorno-Karabakh region is in a deep crisis.

Intense clashes in the areas of Martuni and Shusha were ongoing for the entire last week. Nonetheless, on the evening of November 7, Azerbaijani units were able to achieve notable progress in the battle for this key Armenian stronghold by reaching its northeastern countryside and disrupting the road link between Shusha and Stepanakert. Some Azerbaijani units even entered the town itself.

On the morning of November 8, clashes there continued and, in the afternoon, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that Azerbaijani forces had captured the town. Pro-Azerbaijani sources immediately declared that at least 800 Armenian soldiers were killed during the clashes there. These developments came amid the evacuation of civilians from the capital of the Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Stepanakert, which is located just north of Shusha. Nonetheless, local authorities were able to contain the panic. On top of this, the Armenian military declared that the Azerbaijani statement about the capturing of Shusha is untrue and that clashes were still ongoing in the town and its surroundings. According to Armenian sources, a large number of Azerbaijani troops were already killed there.

As of the morning of November 9, the Azerbaijani military has not been able to fully secure Shusha. This allows the Armenian side to declare that the claims of Aliyev and the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry are false. The fact that clashes erupted inside Shusha itself already demonstrate the scale of the troubles faced by the Armenians.

On the afternoon of November 9, the Azerbaijani military released a video confirming its control over the town of Shusha. Therefore, the Armenian resistance is now likely concentrated in its northern countryside. The town is outflanked from at least three sides: from the south, west and east. The only road outside Shusha not under control of the Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc leads to the north, towards Stepanakert. It is under a de-facto fire control of the advancing forces and clashes are ongoing near it.

If Ankara and Baku cut off the road towards Stepanakert, the Armenian forces remaining there will have almost no chance to challenge Azerbaijani control over the town. They will have two main options: The first is to die trying to buy time for the evacuation of civilians from Stepanakert and a possible counter-attack from the north. The second is to retreat from the town via the mountains and try to conduct sabotage and reconnaissance raids against the Turkish-Azerbaijani forces from the gray zone.

The inability of the Armenian side to defend its key stronghold in the center of Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrates that they don’t have not enough means and measures to regain the initiative in the ongoing war and their current main hopes are now concentrated on the nearing winter that should complicate the military activities in the mountains and the intervention of some third party.

The current Armenian leadership has been actively working in an attempt to gain support of the United States and the European Union to pressure Azerbaijan and Turkey to agree on some kind of ceasefire that would allow the Armenian forces to avoid a total defeat. Nonetheless, so far, these efforts have led to no results as the Western world is more concerned regarding the negative tendencies in the US amid the controversial elections that led to the alleged victory of Joe Biden. As to Russia, with which Yerevan had been destroying relations over the previous years, it is not likely to directly intervene in the war on the side of Armenia if there is no direct threat to sovereign Armenian borders or the undeniable evidence of ethnic cleansing of Armenians on the territories captured by the Azerbaijani-Turkish bloc.

Another factor is Iran. Tehran has already concentrated a large group of forces on the border with Karabakh. This group is much larger than that needed to contain some incidents that may appear on the border in the current conditions. Iran as well as Russia are not interested in the further destabilization of the region. Therefore, while the current government in Yerevan cannot be described as being allied to them, they will likely contribute additional diplomatic efforts and pressure to the sides to de-escalate the conflict. The Turks and Azerbaijanis fully understand this situation and thus their current goal is to make as many military achievements as possible in order to set conditions for securing of these gains on the diplomatic scene.

Posted in Armenia, AzerbaijanComments Off on Armenian Defense Collapsed In Central Nagorno-Karabakh. Shusha Is In Hands Of Azerbaijan

Subject: Muslims are under assault in France

Terror attacks in France over Muhammad images spark free speech debate


Dear editor,

Muslims in France fear for their lives as they are being constantly under assault. Their religious rights violated. Women are banned from wearing hijab or niqab, or burkini in public, their faith is maligned, and above all their beloved prophet is mocked. President Macron can not throw a snake into a cradle and then act surprised if the baby gets bit.”

As a result, we heard today the sad and news of the attack in France where a woman was beheaded by an attacker with a knife in the city of Nice. 
Last week, two Muslim women were stabbed repeatedly under the Eiffel Tower by two women who called them “dirty Arabs” One of the victims was stabbed six times and ended up with a punctured lung in the hospital, while the other victim had to undergo surgery on her arm. Macron fanned the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry in France by claiming, ‘Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.’ Since the beginning of 2020, Monsieur Macron has shut down dozens of mosques and religious institutions under the pretext that they promote extremism.

It should be noted here that mutilation is forbidden under Islamic law. It is also forbidden for a Muslim to mutilate a Muslim and a non-Muslim  A Muslim must not, therefore, mutilate another person or participate in such acts in any other way, such as by witnessing the event or approving of it.

When a California man deliberately plowed his car into a crowd of innocent pedestrians in 2019, he targeted the victims because he believed they were Muslims. According to an eyewitness at the scene, he heard the driver saying, ” thank you, Jesus’ again and again. After this tragic incident, No one blames the Bible or Christians on trial. 


Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Posted in France, Human RightsComments Off on Subject: Muslims are under assault in France

Muslims under assault in France


By Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Muslims in France fear for their lives as they are being constantly under assault. Their religious rights violated (women are banned from wearing hijab or niqab, or burkini in public,) their faith is maligned, and above all their beloved prophet is mocked. President Macron can not throw a snaked into a cradle and then act surprised if the baby gets bit.”
As a result, I read today about the sad and shocking news of the horrible attack in France where a woman was beheaded by an attacker with a knife who also killed two other people at a church in the French city of Nice. The mayor of the city described the attack as an act of terrorism. The knife attack took place near Notre Dame and that police shot and detained the attacker.
One week earlier, two Muslim women were stabbed repeatedly under the Eiffel Tower by two white women who called them “dirty Arabs” according to reports. The French police arrested two attackers. One of the Muslim women was stabbed six times and ended up with a punctured lung in the hospital. The other victim had to undergo surgery on her arm according to foreign media reports. Surprisingly, the police released the information only after three days and there was no condemnation expressed by either the French media or by President Macron. Macron fanned the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry in France and around the world by claiming, ‘Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.’ Since the beginning of 2020, Monsieur Macron has shut down 73 mosques and Muslim religious institutions under the pretext that they promote extremism.

Inline image

Not so fast. France has a long and bloody history against Muslims. France has, along with the US and the UK, carried out a series of military strikes involving aircraft and ship-based missiles against multiple targets in Syria during the Syrian Civil War that killed many innocent people. The same happened in Iraq and Libya. Let’s not forget that the French soldiers were recently engaged in gang rape against Muslim women and girls of all ages in Mali and the Central African Republic, not to mention bombing mosques inside Mali while worshippers were inside. France is equally guilty of imposing a sanction on Iraq following the first Gulf War that killed one million children. 

Saying ‘Bismillah’ (in the name of God) before eating pork does not make it permissible for Muslims to eat. Shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is great) before killing innocent people does not make it permissible either. Muslims say the beautiful phrase “Allahu Akbar” all the time. They say it during the five daily prayers and when anything good happens, along with phrases like ‘Alhamdulillah’ (thank God) to show that they credit God with good things. That said, invoking Allah’s name during murder is despicable and killing innocent people is pure evil.

It should be noted here that mutilation is forbidden under Islamic law. It is also forbidden for a Muslim to mutilate a Muslim and a non-Muslim  A Muslim must not, therefore, mutilate another person or participate in such acts in any other way, such as by witnessing the event or approving of it.
On April 23, 2019, a California man Isaiah Peoples, 34, deliberately plowed his car into a crowded intersection sending bodies flying through the air. He targeted the victims because he believed they were Muslim according to Sunnyvale Police Chief Phan Ngo said after the incident. He was arrested after his car slammed into a tree. A news report said peoples suffer from mental illness and forget to take his medications. According to Don Draper, 72, a witness at the scene, he heard the perpetrator saying over and over again, “Thank you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus’ again and again. After this tragic incident, not one Muslims put the Bible or Christians on trial. Muslims should not be a fair game.    Does saying, “Thank you, Jesus” while trying to kill innocent people mean the Bible sanctions the murder of Muslims? Of course not. By the same token, uttering, “Allahu Akbar,” before killing anyone clearly violates Islamic law. After this tragic incident in California, not one Muslim puts the Bible or Christians on Trial. Muslims should not be fair game.

Posted in France, Human RightsComments Off on Muslims under assault in France

The fall of the Western Model

by Thierry Meyssan

The Western model, based on capitalism and democracy, no longer manages to defend the general interest or guarantee popular sovereignty. By accumulating these two failures, it brings together the two ingredients of a generalized revolution.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK 

JPEG - 33.8 kb

The French Revolution was not triggered by royal abuse. The French did not think they would overthrow the monarchy. It was the Parisians, convinced that the capital would be attacked by foreign armies and that the king would not defend it, who seized the weapons that were stored in the Bastille prison.

The crisis of capitalism

Historically, the crisis of the West began with the crisis of American capitalism in 1929. At that time, the majority of books and newspapers claimed that the concentration of capital sterilized the economy by preventing competition in many areas. While famine was raging in the US, three political models were proposed by the press at the time to break the economic deadlock:

– Leninism with the nationalization of all productive goods at the risk of destroying all individual initiative;

– the fascism of Lenin’s former representative in Italy, Benito Mussolini, who planned not to fight against the concentration of capital, but to organize it within corporations, at the risk of making employees lose all possibility of resisting abusive employers;

– Franklin Roosevelt’s progressivism, for whom technology was supposed to revive the economy and provide the solution as long as competition was restored by dismantling large corporations (according to Simon Patten’s doctrine).

It was Lenin himself who noted the failure of his economic theory during the Civil War. He then liberalized foreign trade and even allowed some private enterprises in the Soviet Union (the New Economic Policy – NEP). Fascism could only develop at the price of terrible repression. It was swept away by the Second World War. Progressiveism remained the rule until the 1980s when it was challenged by the deregulation of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

This fourth model is now also challenged by the destruction of the middle classes caused by globalization. President Bush Sr. thought that with the disappearance of the USSR, the search for prosperity should replace the military rivalry between Washington and Moscow. He allowed some US companies to form an alliance with the Chinese Communist Party and to relocate factories to the Chinese coast. Even though Chinese workers were not trained at all, the cost of their labor being twenty times lower in China than in the U.S., these companies accumulated colossal profits that allowed them to impose a much greater concentration in certain sectors than in 1929. Moreover, they made most of their profits not from the production of goods and services, but from the income from their liquid assets. Capitalism changed its nature once again. It was no longer productive, but had become financial.

Chinese workers, having gradually trained themselves, have now become as costly as US workers, so that relocation now affects their own country to the benefit of Vietnam and India this time. We’re back to where we started.

The US companies that have undertaken to relocate their jobs to China and to financialize their activities have managed to amalgamate their ideology of “economic globalization” with the globalization of the use of new techniques; two unrelated things. Indeed, while new techniques can be used everywhere in the world, they cannot be used at the same time, as they require energy and raw materials.

They have therefore convinced Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to divide the world in two: on the one hand a zone of global consumption, around the USA, Russia and China, and on the other a zone of resources to feed the former. The Pentagon then decided to destroy the state structures of the Broader Middle East so that the people of the region would not be able to resist this project; what George W. Bush called the “war without end”. Indeed, eternal wars began in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, each time allegedly for different reasons, but always with the same aggressors, the jihadists.

In 2017, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping decided at the same time to fight against this phenomenon, the former through protectionist nationalism and the latter through economic nationalism. However, Trump’s proposed tax reform was rejected by Congress: the Border Adjustment Act would have liberalized exports and taxed all imports at 20 per cent. For his part, Xi Jinping created a body to monitor the conformity of corporate objectives with those of the nation, the United Front, at the 19th Congress of the CCP. A state representative was introduced into the board of directors of each major company.

Trump’s failure to get his tax plan through led him to try to obtain the same benefits by declaring a customs war against China alone. The CCP responded by trying to both develop its domestic market and direct its overproduction towards Europe. The latter immediately paid the price. As always when governments are not attentive to the plight of their people, the economic problem causes a political crisis.

The crisis of democracy

Contrary to popular belief based on the appearance of things, it is not the choice of a new political regime, but the defense of collective interests that provokes revolutions. In the modern world, it is always about patriotism. In any case, those who revolt think, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers are at the service of foreign interests, that they are no longer allies but enemies.

The international order that was imposed after the Second World War was supposed to serve the general interest, whether through some form of democracy or through some form of dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this system could not function over time in non-sovereign states such as those of NATO or the Warsaw Pact. At one time or another, the rulers of these states were led to betray their people and serve their suzerain, the US or the USSR. This system has been accepted all the time during which, rightly or wrongly, everyone thought it indispensable for living in peace. This reason no longer exists today, but NATO is still there, now without legitimacy.

NATO, a kind of Foreign Legion of the United States and the United Kingdom, thought up and created what has become the European Union. Initially, it was a question of anchoring Western Europe in the Western camp. Today, through treaties, the European Union subordinates its defense to NATO. In practice, for the peoples of the EU, the North Atlantic Alliance is the military component of a whole of which the EU is the civilian component. NATO imposes its standards, builds the infrastructure it needs, and is financed through opaque institutions. All this is hidden from the eyes of its inhabitants, who are explained, for example, that the European Parliament votes on the norms, while it merely ratifies the NATO texts presented by the Commission.

There is no doubt that, although they suffer it without flinching, the citizens do not accept this organization: they have not stopped opposing the idea of a European Constitution.

At the same time, the concept of democracy has been profoundly transformed. It is no longer a question of guaranteeing the “power of the people”, but of submitting to the “rule of law”; two irreconcilable concepts. From now on, magistrates will decide for the people who will have the right to represent them and who will be deprived of this right. This transfer of sovereignty from the peoples to the judicial systems is indispensable to maintain the effective domination of the Anglo-Saxons over the members of the EU. Hence the relentlessness of Brussels to impose the “rule of law” on Poland and Hungary.

The revolt

The collapse of the standard of living of the little people in the USA under Barack Obama led to the election of Donald Trump. The acceleration of relocations from Europe as a result of the customs war between the USA and China provoked the movement of Yellow Vests in France.

This popular revolt materialized in the first weeks of this movement (with the demand for the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum -RIC- by Étienne Chouard). It was in line with the candidacy of the humorist Coluche for the French presidency in 1981 (“All together for their ass”) and the demonstrations of the Italian humorist Beppe Grillo in 2007 (“Vaffanculo”, meaning “Fuck them”). Gradually, the derision is accompanied by ever stronger and more obscene anger.

It must be understood that the question of the rejection of US military domination preceded that of economic globalization, but it was the latter that opened the revolt. In the same way, it is necessary to distinguish the patriotic demands of the Yellow Vests, with the national flag at the head, from those of the Trotskyists who quickly took control of their movement and hijacked it by attacking symbols of the Nation, vandalizing the Arc de Triomphe and the statue of the Marseillaise.

In short, the current revolt is the fruit of both three-quarters of a century of Anglo-Saxon domination over the members of the European Union and the hyper-concentration of globalized capital. Taken together, these two crises form a time bomb that, if not defused, will explode to the detriment of all. This revolt has now reached a real awareness of the problem, but is not yet mature enough not to be subverted by European rulers.

By not even trying to solve the problems posed, they hope to enjoy their privileges for as long as possible, without having to assume their responsibilities. In doing so, they have no choice but to push for war or risk being overthrown with great violence.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The fall of the Western Model

Covid: a curfew for what?

by: Thierry Meyssan

The French were stunned to learn that their government considers a public order measure, a curfew, to be effective in preventing an epidemic. Everyone, having understood that no virus breaks according to schedules set by decree, and given the many previous mistakes, asks the angry question: A curfew for what?

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) 

JPEG - 32.9 kb

President Emmanuel Macron had chosen the star journalists of France2 and TF1, Anne-Sophie Lapix and Gilles Bouleau, to interview him on the Covid-19 epidemic. He announced a curfew to them as a health measure.

Several Western countries think they are facing a new wave of Covid-19 epidemic. Populations that have already suffered a lot, not from the disease, but from the measures taken to protect them from it, find it difficult to accept new public order measures on health grounds. This is an opportunity for us to analyze behaviors.

Governments know that they will have to account for what they have done and what they have not done. In the face of the disease and even more so in the face of this pressure, they have had to act. How did they think about their strategy?

In developing it, they relied on the advice of specialists (doctors, biologists and statisticians). Immediately these were divided in each discipline and opposed each other so that the government could only continue with some of them. But on what criteria did they choose them?

Many uncertainties

While public opinion is persuaded :
 that the virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets;
 that contaminations can be contained by wearing surgical masks and maintaining a distance of at least one meter with one’s interlocutors;
 that it is possible to distinguish healthy people from sick people by the use of PCR tests.

Specialists are much less assertive. On the contrary, some say :
 that the virus is mainly transmitted not through respiratory droplets, but through the air we breathe;
 that, therefore, surgical masks and social distances are useless;
 that the PCR tests that are performed do not measure the same thing in different laboratories and that, therefore, the cumulative statistics are like adding apples and pears together.

Thus, despite the reassuring messages from the authorities, there is still a great deal of confusion about the characteristics of this epidemic.

What can be done about it?

The problem facing the authorities was new. No professional training had prepared them to face it. So they turned to specialists. While the former gave them clear advice, everything became complicated when others came to contradict them. They were overwhelmed.

If the rulers were politicians, they could only react according to their political experience. As they grew older, they learned to propose even better, not 0.5 percent increase in the base salary like their competitors, but 0.6 percent, even if it meant finding an excuse not to have to keep their promises. Caught unawares, they went into a bidding war with their neighbors, making more drastic decisions one after the other to show that they were superior to them. Above all, they masked their incompetence by resorting to authoritarian measures.

If they were technocrats, they could only react according to the experience of their bureaucratic body when faced with large-scale disasters. But it is difficult to adapt to a health crisis the experience gained from fighting floods or earthquakes. As a reflex, they therefore turned to pre-existing public health administrations. However, the political leaders had already invented new structures that duplicated the previous ones, without specifying the distribution of competences. Instead of joining forces, each of them was trying to preserve its own square.

If the rulers had been chosen on the basis of their authority, i.e., both their firmness and their attention to others, they would have approached the problem according to their general culture.

In such a case, they knew that viruses need the people they infect to live. As deadly as Covid-19 was in the first weeks of its outbreak, it did not seek to kill humanity, but would adapt to humans. From then on, its lethality would drop rapidly and there would never be another epidemic peak. The idea of a “second wave” seemed highly unlikely to them. Never since viruses have been distinguished from bacteria has a viral disease been observed in several waves.

The rebounds we are seeing today, in the USA for example, are not small additional waves, but mark the arrival of the virus in new populations to which it has not yet adapted. The national accumulation of the number of sick people masks a geographical and social distribution.

Moreover, unaware of how the virus is transmitted, governments would have assumed that it is transmitted like all other respiratory viral diseases: not through respiratory droplets, but through the air we breathe. Similarly, they would have known that in all viral epidemics, the majority of deaths are not due to the virus itself, but to the opportunistic diseases that occur during them. As a result, they would have decided to recommend that everyone should air their living spaces thoroughly and would have made it mandatory in all jurisdictions. In addition, they would have recommended that everyone should not disinfect their hands, but wash them as often as possible. They would have ensured that points were installed for this purpose as widely as possible.

In fact, these were the two main measures that WHO had advised at the beginning of the epidemic, before hysteria replaced reflection. No wearing of surgical masks, no disinfection, no quarantine, and even less containment of healthy people.

Science does not provide a definitive answer,
it just pushes away questions

The way in which the scientists were staged illustrates a clear misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not an accumulation of knowledge, but a process of knowledge. We have just verified the virtual incompatibility between the scientific spirit and current practice.

It is absurd to demand from scientists, who are just beginning the study of a virus, its propagation and the damage it causes, a remedy for what they do not yet know. It is pretentious for scientists to answer such questions.

A change in society

Some of the measures taken when this virus erupted can be explained by misjudgements. For example, President Macron initiated the practice of generalized containment when he was intoxicated by the catastrophic statistics of Neil Ferguson (Imperial College London) [1] He announced at least 500,000 deaths. There were 14 times fewer, according to official figures that are known to be overestimated. In retrospect, it appears that this serious attack on liberties was not justified.

However, the choice of the curfew, a few months later, when there was a slight rebound in deaths, is incomprehensible in democratic states: everyone could observe that this disease was much less lethal than feared and that its most dangerous period was over. There is no current data to justify such an attack on freedoms.

President Macron himself has justified it by referring to a second wave that does not exist. If he was able to take it on such an unconvincing argument, when will he be able to lift it?

It must be noted that this time it cannot be an assessment error, but rather an authoritarian policy under the guise of a health crisis [2].

Posted in FranceComments Off on Covid: a curfew for what?

Anti-Semitism in the United States: New Facts About (Mostly) Feelings

By: Shmuel Rosner

Last week, the American Jewish Committee released only half of its annual survey of American Jewish opinion. It was mostly about American politics, Trump vs. Biden and Israel. Today, the second half was published — the one that deals with anti-Semitism. A similar survey was taken last year, from which we earned that Jews in America are worried. Today we learn that they are still worried. 88% of those surveyed believe anti-Semitism in America is a problem (37% say it is a serious problem). 82% of them believe this problem is trending up. 43% of them believe that they are less safe today than they were last year.

One cannot look at such numbers without concern. One cannot argue with how people feel. And yet, one ought to wonder about what these numbers truly mean. Many feel unsafe, and still, 97% of respondents say that they were never physically attacked. Many Jews feel that ‘anti-Semitism’ is growing, and still, 75% did not have to cope with an anti-Semitic comment. Not even on the web (77%). And most of those who did encounter such comments did not bother reporting the incident (76%).

Surveys can teach us something about anti-Semitism. They can tell us what people feel and what they experience. They can show us — as in this case — that feelings and experiences aren’t always compatible. They can also reveal puzzling discrepancies. For example, AJC surveyed both Jews and non-Jews. Among the non-Jews, AJC found a significant number of people (46%) who aren’t sure what anti-Semitism is. It also found a significant number of non-Jews (63%) who believe that anti-Semitism is a problem in the United States today.

Where’s the problem? Here it is: according to this survey, there is a not-insignificant share of Americans who 1) Don’t know what anti-Semitism is, and 2) Still think that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in America today. Think about it this way: Do you know what global warming is? “No.” Do you think global warming is a serious problem? “yes.” You get the paradox.

The AJC survey also raises the question about expectations: should everyone know what anti-Semitism means? The AJC press release calls the ignorance of almost half of all non-Jewish Americans “concerning.” I could easily see a reverse argument that this fact is calming. If many Americans do not even know what it is — maybe that’s at least half-proof that anti-Semitism isn’t such a big problem.

So Why do Jews and non-Jews see anti-Semitism as a growing problem? Maybe it is because they are expected to see it as a problem. Maybe it is because there is more talk about it being a problem. Maybe it is still the effect of the murderous Pittsburgh attack exactly two years ago. And of course, there’s the general atmosphere of partisanship and bad feelings. But the survey’s question, “do you think the Democratic/Republican Party holds antisemitic views,” feels awkward. What are they asking: that the platform is anti-Semitic, the leaders of the party, the voters? Regardless of the question’s vagueness, most Jews had an answer. About half of all Americans believe that two main parties hold anti-Semitic views (42% Democratic party, 52% Republican party). Among Jews, the distribution of blame is somewhat more one-sided. About a third believe that the Democratic party is somewhat anti-Semitic (37%), more than two-thirds (69%) see such a problem with the Republican party.

Jews are much more worried about right-wing extremism than about left-wing extremism, even though AJC tries to obfuscate this fact by mixing the responses for “very serious threat,” “serious threat,” and “somewhat of a threat.” In so doing, the AJC presents 88% for the level of threat from the right and 61% for the left. That is different, but not as stark as the result you get if you stick with just “very serious” and “serious.” In such case, it is 75% for the radical right and 32% for the radical left.

What do we learn from all this? When we measure anti-Semitic levels, there are three important layers to consider: what is the actual situation of attacks and discrimination, what non-Jews are feeling towards Jews, and what Jews are feeling. The AJC survey gives us a clear answer on the third component. Jews feel less safe; they feel threatened. About a quarter of them even change their behavior because of it. They will avoid wearing Jewishly-themed jewelry or posting Jewishly-themed content on social media (24%).

As for the first and second layers — what is the actual situation, and how non-Jews feel towards Jews, we get only partial answers. Most Jews were not attacked in any way. Most Jews do not know anyone that was attacked. Most Jews say their institutions were never attacked (59%). Not even with graffiti or a threat. If they are worried, it is maybe because of discrepancies between what they see as anti-Semitism and what other Americans see as anti-Semitism. A clear majority of Jews see a comment such as “the U.S. government only supports Israel because of Jewish money” as anti-Semitic (84%). Many non-Jewish Americans (close to half) do not feel the same.

More from shmuel Rosner about anti-Semitism in the US:

10 Simple Rules for Thinking About Anti-Semitism in America

Let’s Talk About Trump’s Executive Order

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Anti-Semitism in the United States: New Facts About (Mostly) Feelings

Guardian-Friendly Omissions – ‘This Land’

In his latest book, ‘This Land – The Story of a Movement’ (Penguin, ebook version, 2020), the Guardian’s Owen Jones charts the rise and fall of Jeremy Corbyn.

Jones depicts Corbyn as a ‘scruffy,’ (p.8), ‘unkempt’ (p.50), thoroughly shambolic backbench MP, ‘the most unlikely’ (p.50) of contenders for the Labour leadership. In May 2015, Corbyn reluctantly dipped his toe in the water of the leadership contest, saying: ‘You better make fucking sure I don’t get elected’ (p.54), only to be swept away on a tide of popular support.

As this suggests, Jones argues that while Corbyn was indeed relentlessly savaged by forces both inside and outside the Labour Party – including the ‘mainstream’ media, with ‘profound hostility’ from ‘the publicly funded, professedly impartial’ BBC (p.68) – he was out of his depth, his team making constant, massive mistakes from which all progressives must learn. It is not at all inevitable, says Jones, that future leftist movements need suffer the same fate.  

Much of this analysis is interesting and useful; Jones interviewed 170 insiders closest to the action, ‘people at the top of the Labour Party right down to grassroots activists’, who supply important insights on key events.

Jones portrays himself as someone who fundamentally agrees with much that motivated Corbyn, emphasising that his disagreement lies in tactics and strategy. But, once again, we note a remarkable pattern of omissions in the work of Jones, an ostensibly outspoken, unconstrained leftist, and by his serious misreading of the antisemitism furore that engulfed Corbyn.

Jones recognises that people loved Corbyn because, unusually for a UK politician, he was made of flesh rather than PR plastic; he told the truth:

‘While other contenders refused to give direct answers to questions, and were caught squirming between their principles and their political compromises, he spoke with immediacy – sometimes rambling, always authentic, always passionate.’ (p.57)

Ironically, Jones does plenty of his own ‘squirming’ between ‘principles’ and ‘political compromises’ as he airbrushes out of existence facts, views and voices that are consistently and conspicuously Guardian-unfriendly. He writes:

‘Corbynism… was woven together from many disparate strands: from people who marched against the Iraq war in 2003’ to people hit by the ‘trebling of college tuition fees in 2010’ and ‘the millions more frightened by a looming climate emergency’. (p.10)

Above all, of course, ‘Corbyn’s entire career had been devoted to foreign affairs’. (p.29) Andrew Murray of the union, Unite commented: ‘Corbyn was very prominent in the anti-war movement.’ (p.33)

Thus, deep popular outrage at the Iraq war is key in understanding Corbyn’s popularity. And yet, in discussing this central feature of the movement, Jones makes no mention at all of Julian Assange (or WikiLeaks), of Noam Chomsky, or John Pilger – the most important anti-war voices – exactly as he made no mention of them in his previous book, ‘The Establishment’, published in 2014.

Jones has not mentioned Assange in his Guardian column in the last twelve months. Indeed, his sole substantive mention came in April 2019.

Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015, but Jones mentions NATO’s catastrophic, 2011 war on Libya, opposed by Corbyn, once in passing, noting merely that Labour MP Chris Williamson had ‘supported the war in Libya’. (p.251)

Jones’ previous book, ‘The Establishment’, published three years after NATO’s assault, similarly granted ‘Libya’ a single mention, noting that UK voters were ‘Weary of being dragged by their rulers into disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya…’. (Jones, ‘The Establishment – And how they get away with it’, Penguin, ebook version, 2014, p.275. See our discussion.)

The fact that the US-UK assault resulted in mass death, ethnic cleansing, mass displacement for millions of Libyans and the destruction of the entire country was not mentioned in either book.

Elsewhere, Jones has been more forthright. In February 2011, with NATO ‘intervention’ clearly looming, he tweeted:

‘I hope it’s game over for Gaddafi. A savage dictator once tragically embraced by me on left + lately western governments and oil companies.’ (Jones, Twitter, 20 February 2011)

On 20 March 2011, one day after NATO bombing had begun, like someone writing for the ‘Soaraway Sun’, Jones commented:

‘Let’s be clear. Other than a few nutters, we all want Gaddafi overthrown, dead or alive.’ (Jones, ‘The case against bombing Libya’, Left Futures, March 2011)

Similarly, in 2012, Jones reacted to news of the killings of Syrian ministers in a bomb explosion with:

‘Adios, Assad (I hope).’ (Jones, Twitter, 18 July 2012)

After all, Jones tweeted, ‘this is a popular uprising, not arriving on the back of western cruise missiles, tanks and bullets’. (Jones, Twitter, 18 July 2012)

As was very obvious then and indisputable now, Jones was badly mistaken – the West, directly and via regional allies, played a massive role in the violence. The New York Times reported that the US had become embroiled in a dirty war in Syria that constituted ‘one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A’, running to ‘more than $1 billion over the life of the program’. (Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, ‘Behind the sudden death of a $1 billion secret C.I.A. war in Syria’, New York Times, 2 August 2017)

As though tweeting from the NATO playbook, the same Guardian columnist now analysing the peace movement supporting Corbyn, wrote:

‘I’m promoting the overthrow of illegitimate and brutal dictatorships by their own people to establish democracies.’ (Jones, Twitter, 18 July 2012)

In ‘This Land’, Jones mentions Saudi Arabia’s disastrous war in famine-stricken Yemen exactly once, again in passing:

‘…Labour MPs refused to back Corbyn’s call for a UN investigation into alleged Saudi war crimes in Yemen’. (p.81)

There is no mention of the UK’s support for these crimes since 2011, no discussion of the horrors the UK has inflicted (See our discussion). The word ‘Yemen’ was unmentioned in Jones’ previous book in 2014. To his credit, he has written several Guardian pieces on the war in Yemen, the most recent in 2018.

Gaza was mentioned once, in passing, in Jones’ previous book and three times, in passing, in ‘This Land’. Our media database search found that, since he joined the Guardian in March 2014, Jones has made three substantive mentions of Gaza, in 2014 (a philosophical piece focusing on ‘How the occupation of Gaza corrupts the occupier’, with few facts about the situation in Gaza) a brief piece here, and one in 2018 (with a single paragraph on Gaza).

‘This Land’ simply ignores the Western propaganda wars on Iran and Venezuela.

Remarkably, while recognising the role of climate fears in the rise of Corbyn and discussing the UK’s ‘Climate Camp’ in the late 2000s, Jones makes no mention of Extinction Rebellion or of Greta Thunberg, both strongly supported by Corbyn, further fuelling popular support for his cause.

There is no mention of the Guardian’s lead role in destroying Corbyn; although, ironically, Jones does celebrate the fact that, ‘I wrote the first pro-Corbyn column to appear in the mainstream media: a Guardian piece’. (p.53)

The silence is unsurprising. In 2017, Jones tweeted:

‘I’m barred from criticising colleagues in my column.’ (Jones, Twitter, 19 November 2017)

He wasn’t joking:

‘Guardian colleagues aren’t supposed to have these public spats…’

Of his own opposition to Corbyn, in the Guardian and elsewhere, Jones writes:

‘Although I voted for him again in 2016, I had a period of disillusionment before the [June 2017] general election – something which still riles his most ardent supporters.’ (p.14)

In fact, the ‘period of disillusionment’ was extensive and began long before the 2017 election. In July 2016, fully one year earlier, Jones wrote:

‘As Jeremy Corbyn is surrounded by cheering crowds, Labour generally, and the left specifically, are teetering on the edge of looming calamity.’

He added:

‘As things stand, all the evidence suggests that Labour — and the left as a whole — is on the cusp of a total disaster. Many of you won’t thank me now. But what will you say when you see the exit poll at the next general election and Labour is set to be wiped out as a political force?’

Similar comments followed in February, March and April 2017. For example:

‘My passionate and sincere view is Jeremy Corbyn should stand down as soon as possible in exchange for another left-wing MP being allowed to stand on for leadership in his place: all to stop both Labour and the left imploding, which is what is currently on the cards.’ (Jones: ‘“I don’t enjoy protesting – I do it because the stakes are so high”’, Evening Standard, 3 February 2017)

Blaming The Victim – The Great, Fake Antisemitism Scandal

Time and again, Jones criticises the Corbyn leadership for failing to deal adequately with antisemitism claims: ‘there was no coherent strategy within the leader’s office on how to tackle claims of antisemitism’. (p.227)

While Jones accepts that there were ‘bad-faith actors opposed to Corbyn’s policies’, his emphasis is focused elsewhere: ‘ultimately there were severe and repeated errors by the leadership, which resulted from those two characteristic failings: a lack of both strategy and emotional intelligence’. (p.254)

Remarkably, Jones concludes that the crisis ‘need never have happened’. (p.254)

This is nonsense. The crisis had to happen because sufficiently powerful forces within the Labour Party and Conservative Party, and across the corporate media ‘spectrum’, were determined to make it happen.

Compare Jones’ account with that of Norman Finkelstein, whose mother survived the Warsaw Ghetto, the Majdanek concentration camp and two slave labour camps. Finkelstein’s father was a survivor of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Auschwitz concentration camp. In an interview with RT in May, Finkelstein commented:

‘Corbyn, he did not present a threat only to Israel and Israel’s supporters, he posed a threat to the whole British elite. Across the board, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, they all joined in the new anti-semitism campaign. Now that’s unprecedented – the entire British elite, during this whole completely contrived, fabricated, absurd and obscene assault on this alleged Labour anti-semitism, of which there is exactly zero evidence, zero.’

He added:

‘Yeah, there’s some fringe members of Labour who, you know, play the anti-semitic [interrupted by interviewer]… I read the polls, I read the data – it hovers between six and eight per cent are hardened anti-semites in British society. It’s nothing! Yeah, so there are a few crazies, but there’s no “institutionalised” anti-semitism in the British Labour Party. There’s no threat of anti-semitism in British society. I’ve read all the data, I’ve studied it closely. It just doesn’t exist. It’s all being designed and manipulated… I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, as you know, but this is a conspiracy.’

Jones accepts that ‘the former leadership and the vast majority of Labour’s membership abhor antisemitism’, arguing that the problem lay with a ‘small minority’. (p.254) But Jones does not cite an October 2016 report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found:

‘Despite significant press and public attention on the Labour Party, and a number of revelations regarding inappropriate social media content, there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.’

And he does not cite a September 2017 report by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which found:

‘Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population… The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared to the general population.’

Instead, Jones pours scorn on leftists who ‘still were in denial, claiming that the antisemitism crisis had been entirely manufactured by a media “out to get” Corbyn…’ (p.254)

Rational commentators have always accepted that antisemitism exists within the Labour Party. The point is that making that ugly reality a ‘crisis’ specifically for Labour, rather than for other parties and other sectors of society, and above all making it a ‘crisis’ for Corbyn – reviled as a dangerous antisemite – was entirely manufactured.

Jones cites ‘the passionately anti-Corbyn editor of the Jewish Chronicle’, Stephen Pollard, who grotesquely claimed to perceive ‘nudge, nudge’ (p.253) antisemitism in one of Corbyn’s self-evidently anti-capitalist critiques. Such outlandish claims, Jones notes, only encouraged leftists to believe the whole furore was a smear campaign:

‘It was a vicious circle, and it turned to nobody’s benefit – least of all Corbyn’s, while causing more hurt and distress to Jewish people.’ (p.253, our emphasis)

But this is absurd. Quite obviously, the smear campaign was to the very real benefit of the political and media forces trying to crush Corbyn’s version of socialism.

The claims targeting Corbyn were fake and they depended on ignoring as non-existent a mountain of evidence indicating that Corbyn is a passionate, committed and very active anti-racist. What is so outrageous is that this was accepted by essentially everyone before Corbyn stood for the leadership in 2015. As Jones comments:

‘Anti-racism is core to Corbyn’s sense of identity. He believes, proudly, that he has fought oppression all his life, so being labelled a racist was a cause of profound personal trauma to him.’ (p.228)

Corbyn’s chief of staff, Karie Murphy, commented on the impact of the smear campaign:

‘This was a man who was beyond broken-hearted, that, as a proud antiracist campaigner, he was being accused of racism. So he was paralysed… It wasn’t true – no one will convince me that he has an antisemitic bone in his body…’ (p.242)

Genuine racists are not left ‘beyond broken-hearted’ by claims that they are racist. They are not ‘paralysed’ by a sense of injustice and grief.  

Jones comments on Corbyn: ‘no one close to him believes for a moment that he would ever willingly associate with a Holocaust denier’. (p.222) And Corbyn ‘could point to an extensive record opposing antisemitism and showing pro-Jewish solidarity’ (p.221). Jones lists some of Corbyn’s efforts in this regard: helping to organise a counter-mobilisation to a demonstration by National Front fascists in the so-called Battle of Wood Green in 1977; taking part in a campaign to save a Jewish cemetery from being sold off to property developers in 1987, calling on the British government to settle Yemeni Jewish refugees in 2010.

Before the sheer intensity of propaganda caused most commentators to find truth in lies, Corbyn’s deep-rooted opposition to racism was simply unquestioned. Chris Mullin, who did not vote for Corbyn to either become or remain leader, commented:

‘I’ve always liked him as long as I’ve known him. He’s a thoroughly decent human being, almost a saintly man.’ (p.30)

As Jones writes of Corbyn at the time he stood for the leadership in 2015:

‘Corbyn had no personal enemies. Everyone liked him. Relentlessly cheerful, endlessly generous with his opponents, he exuded integrity.’ (pp.50-51)

Despite this, Jones says of the antisemitism crisis:

‘The damage to Corbyn’s Labour was grievous. The crisis led to months of media coverage.’ (p.254)

In fact, the media coverage was the crisis! It was this real crisis that was the cause of the ‘crisis’. The antisemitism ‘crisis’ was just one more fabrication by an awesomely corrupt and immoral media system willing to throw, not just the kitchen sink, but – God help us! – Nazi gas chambers at Corbyn.

The key to understanding the anti-semitism ‘scandal’ was explained by Jones himself:

‘Anybody who knows anything about the British press knows that it is almost unique in the Western world for its level of commitment to aggressively defending and furthering right-wing partisan politics… the media onslaught that greeted his [Corbyn’s] leadership win in 2015 was as predictable as it was unrelentingly hostile.’ (p.67)

Jones lists only a few of the endlessly fabricated stories used to smear Corbyn: he supposedly planned to ‘abolish’ the army, refused to bow his head on Remembrance Day, danced happily on Remembrance Day, didn’t sing the national anthem loudly enough, and so on. The London School of Economics reported in 2016:

‘the British press systematically delegitimised Jeremy Corbyn as a political leader’ through a ‘process of vilification that went beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy’. (p.68)

Corbyn’s great anti-semitism ‘scandal’ was a non-story, a fabricated non-event, a Soviet-style propaganda smear. Sufficient numbers of people wanted it to be true because they wanted to be rid of Corbyn. Everyone else bowed their heads to avoid being subject to the same career-destroying smears.

Jones often mentions Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite Union, in ‘This Land’. McCluskey commented in the New Statesman last week on Corbyn’s press chief Seumas Milne and chief of staff Karie Murphy:

‘Having given a brilliant and detailed polemic of the history of anti-Semitism, he [Jones] veers away to lay blame at the [door of] Milne and Murphy, based on a distorted view of what it was like trying to deal with the constant daily attacks.

‘When you are in a war – and be under no illusion, from day one of his leadership, Corbyn was subjected to an internal and external war – you develop methods of defence and attack that change by necessity almost on a daily, if not hourly basis.  Being in your living room, observing with a typewriter, is a damn sight easier than being in the ditches on the front line, trying to dodge bullets flying at you from all angles, especially from your own side.’

Establishment forces were out to destroy Corbyn with antisemitism, or whatever else they could think of, no matter what he did, how he replied. And it worked. The incompetence of Corbyn’s team may have made things worse, but the truth that matters is that a form of ruthless fascism arose out of British society to crush an attempt to create a more democratic politics.

Needless to say, Jones has not one word to say about the lead role of his employer, the Guardian, in the antisemitism smear campaign.

Conclusion

Why do we focus so intensely on popular progressives like Owen Jones, George Monbiot and loveable, NATO-loving loon Paul Mason?

The reason is that they breathe life into the faded dream that progressive change can be achieved by working within and for profit-maximising corporations that are precisely the cause of so many of our crises. Even the best journalists cannot tell the truth within these undemocratic systems of top-down power. As Jones freely admits, they have to compromise, to self-censor. Guardian colleagues may not be criticised! Ultimately, they have to compromise in ways that allow the state-corporate status quo to thunder on.

Our most celebrated public radicals – almost all of them made famous by corporate media – function as dissident vaccines that inoculate the public against a pandemic of authentic dissent.

Corporate media are careful to incorporate a tiny bit of progressive poison, so that we all hang around for a whole lot of propaganda-drenched news and commentary, and a perma-tsunami of unanswered corporate advertising persuading us that status consumption, status production and paper-thin concern for the problems of our world are all there is.

Ultimately, corporate dissidents are the final nail in the corporate coffin, normalising the blind, patently doomed rush to disaster called ‘business as usual.’

DE

Note From The Editors:

Our work is crucially dependent on our ability to search media databases. If any academics supporting our work are able to donate access to a ProQuest or LexisNexis account, we would be extremely grateful. Please contact us at: editor@medialens.org

Posted in Literature, Politics, UKComments Off on Guardian-Friendly Omissions – ‘This Land’


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk