Political censorship by Reddit community host that revealed itself as pro-genocide

This blog describes my experience with moderators of a Reddit community message board.  It is incidental that the events involved myself.  It is useful to see how prevailing political bias regarding genocide of people of Gaza is present everywhere with similar dishonest and dehumanising arguments.
–
Reddit community UKPolitics states clearly in its rules for participation that “political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here.”  Like any online community or social media platform, Reddit is not necessarily expected to uphold high standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism, but UKPolitics community has over 470,000 members and it hosts Q&As with well-known people including politicians and so it is reasonable to expect UKPolitics to operate within realms of respectable and fair behaviour; in particular, it is reasonable to expect it to not operate with political bias.
–
On 12th January (2024) in a thread entitled Sunak authorises British airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Red Sea, in which the lead post was just a link to an article on The Times website (Britain and US launch airstrikes on Houthi targets), I posted the following comment.
“Everybody who supports the people of Gaza and who is opposed to the genocide should be fully supportive of the actions of Yemen and fully opposed to the military attacks conducted by UK and USA.  No caveats, no conditions, no murmuring about Iran.  Support Yemen.  If you are, as any person with any concept of humanity would be, on the side of the Palestinian people in Gaza then it is entirely consistent to support Yemen without any criticism of its tactics.  Support Yemen.”
–
On the same day I was notified by the moderator team of UKPolitics that I was banned permanently from posting in the community.  (The ban applies to UKPolitics only and not other Reddit communities.)  Initially, no reason was given for the ban.  I checked the rules for participation in the community.  Only one rule includes an immediate and permanent ban for a single post.  That rule (listed as number 14 but described as Rule 21) is headed “Inciting violence or threatening behaviour” and states
“Comments or submissions which call for/incite violence or threaten direct-action against political figures, journalists, commentators and media personalities in a way that constitutes illegal harassment or intimidation may result in a permanent ban and may be reported to the authorities.”
–
I replied to the moderator team and referred to the rule mentioned above because it is the only one that allows an immediate permanent ban.
“I checked your rules for participation in UKPolitics and I cannot see any reason why you think my post violates any of them.  The only rule that states an immediate ban is imposed if violated is rule 14 ‘Inciting violence or threatening behaviour.’  The post in question has no threatening behaviour and did not incite violence.  It was a clear POLITICAL opinion and among your rules is the assertion that ‘Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here.’  I hope my ban was an error rather than political censorship.  Please state exactly which rule my post caused a ban and why you think the post violates the rule.”
–
The moderator team responded:
“The Houthi movement is a political and military group which controls a large part of Yemen and says it is supporting Hamas by targeting ships heading to Israel.
Membership and expressing support for Hamas is an illegal act in the UK, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.  Dozens of countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, as well as the European Union, have designated it a terrorist group.”
–
Yemen’s actions in Red Sea are in support of the people of Gaza.  Tens of thousands of people in Gaza have been killed by Israeli military action and millions are without shelter, food, water and medical care.  Most of Gaza is destroyed: Homes, municipal buildings, hospitals, schools, universities, water supply facilities, bakeries, farms.  Aid convoys, ambulances, journalists and medical staff are targetted by drones and by snipers.
–
Yemen is not “supporting Hamas by targeting ships heading to Israel,” it is supporting the people of Gaza.  UKPolitics moderator team chose to equate the people of Gaza with Hamas.  Israel government’s single reason it gives for its genocide is that it equates the people of Gaza with Hamas.  The moderator team said support for Yemen’s actions is “expressing support for Hamas.”  That was an entirely politically biased comment.  The “dozens of countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, as well as the European Union” are the counties that are actively involved in assisting Israel’s genocide of the people of Gaza.
–
The key points about the behaviour of the moderator team are

1. They included Yemen within its categorisation of Hamas
2. They equated the population of Gaza with Hamas

The first point is political bias that aligns precisely with the political standpoint of the UK government.
The second point is exactly Israel government’s justification for its genocide of the people of Gaza.
–
As noted earlier, it is irrelevant if I am banned from a Reddit community.  I give the above as an example of insidious support for Israel’s genocide.

John Healey loves war

If Labour win 2024 general election John Healey is likely to be Defence Secretary.  The difference between him and recent Tory Defence Secretaries is the latter perceive war as merely an opportunity to enrich the already wealthy via arms spending, theft of land and property, and contracts for “reconstruction” whereas although Healey recognises the advantages of death and destruction for exploiters to further enrich themselves, and he is certainly keen to help them, his greatest motivator for war is the sheer pleasure of it.
–
At Labour’s drab party conference in Liverpool in October 2023 Healey delivered a short delirious speech that emphasised his commitment to channelling public money to the arms industry and to fighting whoever was up for it.  He expressed his desire for the war in Ukraine to continue in perpetuity.  “There will be no change to Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine and confront Russian aggression.  We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win.” 
–
The conflict in Ukraine is without progression.  Both sides are losing.  Russia failed to attain any of its aims but its troops remain in Ukraine.  Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and there is massive destruction of buildings and infrastructure.  The war is stuck.  It is going nowhere.  Ukrainian people, whatever their political preferences, are surrounded by corpses, their homes and towns destroyed and their lives at a standstill.  Healey’s assurance that Labour will continue to send arms and assistance to Ukraine “for as long as it takes to win” is a death sentence for Ukrainian people.  It is not the assurance of a supporter of humanity.
–
There are some winners.  Disaster capitalists are salivating in anticipation of all the land, property and public services handed to them by Zelensky who, magically, became a multi-millionaire during the war.
–
Healey is aware of his obligation to enabling disaster capitalism and he knows that, eventually, the war must subside to allow wealth gatherers to grab what they can.  However, the daily insanity of war appeals to him.  A lot of the conflict in Ukraine is infantry and artillery in direct opposition including tanks and hand-held rocket-launchers.  Drones and guided missiles play their part but soldiers fighting closely over small pockets of land is commonplace.  It is a war that unhinged romanticists fantasise over.  It pleases Healey and he’d like more of it.
–
To that end he promised attendees at Labour’s conference he will ensure more public money will be spent on destroying Ukraine and its population.  “Labour in Government will spend £2 billion to rearm Britain, resupply Ukraine [maintain death and destruction] and boost British industry [welfare system for arms industry].  We will ensure our NATO obligations are fulfilled in full.”
–
He didn’t explain how spending “£2 billion” can align with [likely Labour government Chancellor] Rachel Reeves’ determination that no money will be spent until her magic “growth” materialises.  It might be reasonable to infer that, just like Tories, Labour will have severe spending restrictions except for funding arms industry.
–
Healey delivered his speech a few days into Israel’s campaign of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and after civilian homes had been carpet bombed.  In that context he began his speech by stating non-caveated support for Israel’s actions.  “We [Labour party] support Israel’s right to defend itself.”  His total support for Israel’s government was followed by a different perspective on Russia’s government.
–
“Ukrainians are fighting a tyrant ready to redraw borders by force.  Who murders his own people, targets our democracy, disregards UN law.  Ukrainians are fighting for the values we share – freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of international law.”
“There will be no change to Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.”
–

Healey (left) with Keir Starmer in Estonia. “They can’t see us can they John?” “No, Sir Keir, we are camouflaged.”

–
On 7th February 2023 Healey spoke at Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).  Created by Arthur Wellesley in 1831 RUSI is a pro-war imperialist think-tank funded by government departments, by financial institutions and by arms industry and its positions of president, vice-presidents, chair and vice-chair are filled with royals, politicians and military personnel.  Erroneously, it exists as a charity to avoid tax.  Its literature is purposefully resistant to facts.
–
Thereat Healey did his best General Decker tribute.  Much of his rhetoric complained that Tory government (at the time of the speech led by Liz Truss) did not spend enough public money on funding arms industry.  Similar to a speech by Chief Of The General Staff Patrick Sanders in July 2022 (also at RUSI) Healy ramped up fear to provide an excuse for further enhancing profit margins of arms industry.
–
Sanders: “I stand here as the first Chief of the General Staff since 1941 to take up this position in the shadow of a major state on state land war in Europe.”
Healey: “A new era of systemic competition has blown up into the largest war in Europe since 1945.”
–
Similar to Sanders he chose to depict China as a military threat.
–
Sanders: “Defence cannot ignore the exponential rise and chronic challenge of China, not just within the South China Sea but through its sub-threshold activities across the globe.“
Healey: “We have a Chinese build-up around Taiwan.  Integrated Review [Tory review of UK defence] identified China as a ‘systemic competitor’.  This designation given to China should stand.  Some of our strongest and most reliable allies are in the Asia Pacific.  We share their concerns about China’s growing military power and assertiveness.  We can support them with UK technology, capability, diplomacy.  And of course, closer defence industrial cooperation like AUKUS and the Tempest future fighter programme.“
–
China is not and will not be a military threat to UK, to NATO or to anyone else.  China’s threat is to hegemony of Western financial domination and exploitation around the world.  Corporate and financial exploiters steal land, property, goods, public services and natural resources including gas and oil reserves and precious metals reserves from countries throughout Asia, Central and South America and Africa and they are assisted by NATO troops and by financial institutions World Bank and International Monetary Fund.  Trade deals with China help countries to dampen capability of exploiters and that is why politicians (like Healey) and senior military personnel (like Sanders) are keen to present China as an enemy.
–
For Healey, NATO must exert its power.  “Britain’s security strategy must be ‘NATO first’.  The first priority for Britain’s armed forces must be where the threats are greatest.  This is in the NATO area – Europe, the North Atlantic, Arctic.  A Labour mission in government will be to secure Britain as NATO’s leading European nation.  […] outline the contribution the UK will make to NATO as it focuses on future Russian aggression, the Arctic opening up with climate change and a strategy to challenge and compete with China.”  He sees only conflict and potential war because that is what he wants to see.  Sanders said similar: “We are mobilising the Army to help prevent war in Europe by being ready to fight and win alongside our NATO allies and partners.”
–
Healy perceives NATO as an organisation looking for a fight.   He might be correct to think that.  It certainly is an organisation that some countries use as an excuse to interfere and as an excuse to invent enemies.
–
He mentioned Russia’s “contempt for international institutions, humanitarian law and rules of military conflict” and said a Labour government will “pursue Putin’s crimes.”  As noted above, he made similar comments in his conference speech, and he did so again on 12th January this year: “There may be a change in government to Labour this year, but there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.”
–
Reassertions of Labour’s political stance on Russia stood diametrically to comments on Israel’s attacks on Gaza.  In Ukraine both sides targetted homes, hospitals, schools and other public buildings and infrastructure but not close to scale of destruction and loss of civilian life in Gaza.  Healy offered only woolly comments on Gaza; for example “we demand Israel meet its duties under international law and end siege conditions in Gaza.” (20th November)
–
Earlier (October) he said “Labour backs these military moves [royal navy ships assisting Israel] as part of the UK’s wider response to Hamas’s terror attack on Israel.  We stand in solidarity with Israel at this dark hour.  These Navy ships and surveillance flights will provide reassurance to Israel, the UK’s important ally, and help strengthen security and stability in the region.  We fully support Israel’s right to defend itself.”  He made those comments more than a week after the slaughter of Palestinians and destruction of Gaza began; by then intent of the Israeli government was clear – genocide.
–
It was no surprise that his assessment of whether a country engages in war crimes depends solely on whether that country is an “ally” of UK.
–

Standing, l-r: Labour peer Ruth Anderson, Labour MPs Margaret Hodge and Christian Wakeford, with President Of Israel Isaac Herzog (seated, right) in Israel on 10th January 2024

–
Healey is a threat to peace.  He is a threat to sufficient money available for public services and other necessities because of his demand for massive “defence” spending.  He perceives the world as divided between “allies” and “enemies.”  He deludes himself into believing that UK possesses the same worldwide power it had in the 19th century.  He is an imperialist.  He is an anachronism.  He is the opposite of what Britain needs in government.
–

Rod Steiger as General Decker in ‘Mars Attacks!’ “Kill! Kill! Kill!”

–
Notes
Transcript of Healey speech at Labour conference
Transcript of Healey speech at RUSI
Transcript of Sanders speech at RUSI

The Hague: Complicit UK news channels censor by omission

There are two UK-based twenty-four hours a day free-to-air news channels.  BBC is a British publicly-owned broadcaster and Sky News is a commercial broadcaster owned by USA company Comcast.  Both channels routinely broadcast extended (and largely uninterrupted) live coverage of hearings – for example, parliamentary committee hearings and court hearings – and inquiries.  In The Hague last week (11th/12th January 2024) International Court Of Justice (ICJ) began a hearing of charges of genocide against the government of Israel by the government of South Africa.  Legal representatives for South Africa spoke at the hearing on Thursday (11th January) and Israel’s representatives spoke on Friday.  Both presentations were fewer than three hours each and both were in the morning UK time.
–
BBC and Sky made the same decision to broadcast Israel’s presentation in full and to not broadcast South Africa’s presentation at all.  There was no major news event on Thursday that necessitated full live rolling news coverage instead of broadcasting South Africa’s presentation.  There were no technical issues preventing its broadcast.  The presentation by South Africa did not include videos of the effects of war that might be difficult for a broadcaster to show in the morning.  Neither BBC nor Sky had a logical reason to choose to show the second day of the hearing and not the first.
–
(Comcast is a persistent and generous donor to USA politicians and political organisations, both Democrat and Republican.  Recent BBC appointees included former Tory party parliamentary candidate Tim Davie (Director-General), former Director Of Communications for Theresa May when she was Prime Minister Robbie Gibb (BBC Board member), and former Director of News and Programmes at conservative Dubai-owned faux “news” TV channel GB News John McAndrew (Director of News Programmes).)
–
Intelligent observers predicted, when South Africa’s presentation to ICJ was not broadcast by BBC and Sky on Thursday, that Israel’s presentation would be broadcast in full by both broadcasters, and it was.  This gross bias was unsurprising.  It was expected.
–
Bias in established broadcasting is rarely blatant and it is not partisan to particular political parties.  Political bias in UK news channels is expressed as favouring prevailing control with emphasis on assigning considerably more confidence in establishment perspectives as sources of facts and as deciders of remits of debate and discussion.  Interviewers and reporters almost always communicate within bounds set by establishment bodies.  Their criticisms are self-constrained by the latter’s preferences.
–
Sky and BBC’s reporting of the slaughter of civilians in Gaza and of the destruction of vital infrastructure has fallen well short of what was required.  Channel 4 News and ITN committed similar failures.  All downplay the extent of the genocide.  All persist in doubting accuracy of visible accounts from people in Gaza and persist with ridiculous caveats like “Iran-backed Hamas health service.”  All allow propagandists for Israel government (both Israeli and British) to proclaim relentless lies, to deliver endless libellous comments and to praise genocide; often, more broadcast time is allocated to pro-genocide remarks than to reports of events.  All downplay genocide with absurd phraseology like “premature babies died,” “a journalist died in an explosion at his home,” “there was an explosion at a hospital,” “power was cut off at a hospital.”  Any viewer who takes all their news from UK-based news broadcasters might assume that bad things keep happening randomly to people in Gaza and that passive voice is the norm for broadcasting.
–

BBC Director-General Tim Davie (left) and Sky News Executive Editor and Managing Director Jonathan Levy

–
Sky and BBC knew presentation from South Africa’s legal team would be devastating and would condemn the government of Israel.  That is why both made the same prior decision to not broadcast it.  There was no other reason.  Censorship by omission.  Bias by omission.  Kowtowing to establishment perspectives by omission.
–
Most newspapers in UK are rabidly biased in favour of Israel as are most (not all) members of House Of Commons.  Soon after the genocide began in October last year there was a rush among the latter group to proclaim unambiguous support for anything Israel did or was about to do.  Newspapers and MPs attack opponents of genocide regularly with deluges of libel and false accusations of criminal behaviour, and repeatedly demand changes to law or changes to police procedure to clamp down on political protests against the genocide.  BBC News and Sky News are less dramatic and less obvious with their biases than newspapers and MPs.  They like to carry pretence of balance with them and they claim to want verification of facts.  They are no less biased.  The only difference is style.  BBC’s Verify module published a report on 6th January on social media discourse about Gaza that was PR for “counter terror” police actions.
–
Complicity is an accusation used often and sometimes without just cause.  So, who is definitely complicit in the genocide of people in Gaza?  USA and UK government are direct participants (and thus obviously complicit) via their military and financial assistance to Israel including bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Yemen.  Other governments (a long list but including in particular Germany and Canada) are complicit via decisions made and by statements made.  Other governments (for example, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) are complicit by their lack of action.  News outlet proprietors are complicit by their outlets’ promotion of genocide and denigration of its opponents.  Social media networks are complicit by political censorship of accounts.  In UK, so-called “opposition” politicians are complicit by their statements.  BBC News and Sky News are complicit by their purposefully warped presentation of balance as described above.
–
It is difficult for broadcasters, newspapers and politicians to direct all public opinion given the connected online world accessible to most people, but they continue to try.  Some sappy liberals bemoan the public’s declining trust in politicians, in journalism and in legal systems.  Trust needs to be earned.  At present, it would be a dereliction of support for humanity and for intelligence to be trusting.

Yemen: UK government on a bombing spree again, to protect corporate financial interests again

In the early hours of Friday 12th January (2024) UK’s Royal Navy began a bombing campaign against Yemen in partnership with USA.  The campaign is an attempt to dissuade Yemen from blockading ships headed to Israel using Red Sea access to Suez Canal or to its southern coast.
–
Yemen acted as a means of trying to interfere with Israel’s genocide in Gaza.  Its actions have not led to any casualties.  Prior to the start of the bombing campaign UK government issued a false statement that claimed drones from Yemen attacked HMS Diamond, a UK ship close to Yemen.  The drones did not attack the ship but were destroyed by weaponry on the ship.
–

Bridge of HMS Diamond as it destroys a drone

–
Palestinians in Gaza have received next to no help from any country.  Over thirty thousand civilians, nearly half of them children, have been killed by Israeli military action.  Many more are expected to be killed by bombs, by lack of water, by starvation, by lack of medical supplies and by disease, all of which are direct and deliberate tactics of Israel government’s policy.  Yemen chose to help the people of Gaza by restricting flow of goods to Israel and it did so in a structured and calm manner.
–
It is not surprising that USA and UK governments, both beholden to corporate control, are trying to stop interference in flow of goods to Israel.  Their response to a blockade designed to protect lives was to spend millions upon millions of dollars and pounds on destroying infrastructure in Yemen with inevitable casualties.
–
USA and UK governments are committed to supporting and enabling Israel’s removal of Palestinians, whether that is physical removal from Gaza or removal from living.  Both countries assist Israel militarily with supply of weaponry and with surveillance flights to help with intelligence gathering.  Bombing Yemen is part of that assistance but it also a demonstration that USA and UK governments value corporate income vastly higher than they value human lives.  From a military perspective, Yemen’s actions against ships could be prevented without needing to bomb the country because USA and UK navies are superior in size and capability.  The bombing is additional and is motivated by grotesque need to display power and capacity for violence by corporate-directed governments.
–
Some reactions to the bombing campaign complained that UK government did not consult parliament and, similarly, USA government did not consult congress before the campaign began.  Whether or not such consultations happened is irrelevant.  The decisions would have not changed because most MPs in parliament and most members of congress would support the bombing.  It would have been a pantomime and would have attached a smidgeon of false legitimacy to the resultant actions.
–
USA and UK governments are, by their own admission, parties to the genocide of the people of Gaza.  The governments are now taking that further by killing Yemenis as punishment for trying to interfere with the genocide.  Anyone who supports Palestinians, anyone who opposes Israel’s genocidal acts, must be opposed without condition to USA and UK bombing of Yemen.

Support Yemen

Today (12th January 2024), UK joined USA in military attacks against Yemen to protect financial stability of Israel.  UK government did not seek parliamentary approval for military action.  Yemen military had not taken any action against or on British territory prior to UK launching attacks.  
–
In recent weeks Yemen sea patrols close to its shoreline prevented suppliers to Israel from using Suez Canal.  Consequently, most supply ships changed their route to avoid the canal.  Lack of supply of goods to Israel has affected both its private and fiscal economies.  UK naval vessel HMS Diamond interfered with Yemen’s actions by destroying military drones – UK government lied about that incident and claimed the Diamond was attacked by drones and defended itself.
–
Government of Yemen, with support of the people of the country, took action, and continues to do so, to try to hamper the ability of the Israeli government to pursue its policy of genocide of people of Gaza.
–

People in Yemen supporting Palestinians.

–
Many countries could have taken action against Israel to stifle its supply of goods including countries with superior military capabilities to Yemen.  They chose not to.  Yemen took action to help the people of Gaza.  That action succeeded.  In response, UK and USA is spending billions of pounds and dollars on attacking Yemen while both countries continue to directly assist Israel via supply of weaponry and via intelligence gathering.
–
Everybody who supports the people of Gaza and who is opposed to the genocide should be fully supportive of the actions of Yemen and fully opposed to the military attacks conducted by UK and USA.  No caveats, no conditions, no murmuring about Iran.  Support Yemen.  If you are, as any person with any concept of humanity would be, on the side of the Palestinian people in Gaza then it is entirely consistent to support Yemen without any criticism of its tactics.
–
Support Yemen.
–

Liberalism

Liberalism battered: Martin Wolf’s misdirection

Liberalism battered: Martin Wolf’s misdirection

In ‘Western’ “democracies” differences between a liberal government and a conservative government are inconsequential for the people.  Both are deeply bound to capitalist exploitation to the same degree.  Both are fully supportive of “freedom” of a few to make money out of the many; both perceive “ownership” with spiritual fervour; both are keen to use control, including violence, to quell revolutionary actions.
–
Liberalism is in decline because it has been found out as conservatism in a slightly better-fitted suit.  It has always been as it has now but, often, managed to con the public in various countries that it was different.  General elections in “democracies” are, invariably, a choice of management not a choice of politics, and presentation by two cheeks of the same backside follows a similar pattern of divisive strategy of conservatives with pathetic appeals to patriotism versus blandness and declarations of being less reckless by liberals.  ‘Western’ “democracy” is a sham.
–
Defence of liberalism as a supposed valid and viable form of government is, invariably, flaccid.  Financial Times published Liberalism is battered but not yet broken by liberal grifter Martin Wolf on 9th January (2024) that began with “the underlying idea of democracy – that governments are accountable to the governed – is still valued in large parts of the world.  How else is one to explain the fact that more than half the world’s population will be voting this year?”  Immediately, he equated “democracy” with existence of universal suffrage.  That sleight-of-hand trick is a key component of the liberal/conservative scam against the public.  In ‘Western’ “democracies” the “underlying idea of democracy – that governments are accountable to the governed” does not exist.  An election every four of five years is not “accountability.”  An election where all parties are bank-rolled by enemies of democracy is not “accountability.”  An election where offshore-based news outlet proprietors promote relentless lies in newspapers and on radio and TV during an election campaign is not “accountability.”  The concept of democracy that Wolf described is not practiced.  To equate upcoming elections in UK and USA as demonstrations of democracy was a disgusting lie by him.
–

Martin Wolf promoting his book

–
His analysis deteriorated.  Presented as a contrast to his mendacious description of “democracies” he said “the power of autocratic China has risen.”  How much is Chinese government “accountable to the governed” compared to, say, UK?  Or, more importantly, how much is Chinese government acting in interests of the public compared to UK?
–
His concern regarding public “loss of confidence” with liberalism extended to “core constraining institutions” – “courts, non-partisan bureaucracies and independent media.”  He stepped in the realms of fantasy by bemoaning public’s lack of confidence in “independent media.”  Media’s “independence” from politics is actually its direction of politics.  Confidence in justice systems depreciated due to their political bias in favour of established perspectives.  The public is absolutely right to not have confidence in “courts” or “independent media.”  Its refusal to be confident in them is a strong example of the public exercising its right to democratic thought.
–
Wolf, again, tried to compare his illusions to an other.  “We are seeing a loss of confidence in liberalism, the set of beliefs that seemed so triumphant after the fall of the Soviet Union.”  He didn’t mention that the immediate aftermath of “the fall of the Soviet Union” was handover of public property, land and services to criminals.
–
He decided to define “liberalism” but defined capitalism instead because, as a liberal, he saw no difference.  He said that liberalism needs “possession of economic rights” and it “depends on markets.”  The liberty to exploit.  He added that it required “political parties, to organise politics.”  The sham of elections needs at least two political parties to pretend there is a choice.
–
Like all liberals Wolf is a committed believer is superiority of occidentals.  He used Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a pretext to separate the world.  “Russia’s invasion galvanised support for Ukraine among western liberal democracies.  But the opposite has happened in much of the rest of the world.”  It would be accurate to state Russia’s invasion galvanised support among ‘Western’ governments who saw opportunities to feed the arms industry and, with the assistance of Zelensky, saw opportunities for exploitative international businesses to acquire Ukrainian land and public services.  Disinclination to be galvanised in “much of the rest of the world” wasn’t due to illiberalism and wasn’t due to support for Russia but borne of a lack of interest in battles between NATO and Russia or between competing financial powers – Russia and EU/USA.  Why should people (and governments) in Asia, South America and Africa take sides in a European conflict?
–
His superioccidentalty encouraged him to separate the world between liberal and illiberal that, coincidently, matched a separation between ‘The West’ and the rest of world much of which was, in earlier epochs, colonies of the former’s states.  “Differences in values are profound,” he chose to observe, between “western Europe and English-speaking countries” and “African-Islamic countries and ‘Confucian’ societies.”  He borrowed the word “Confuchian” from “the ‘Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map’ ” that he used as a tool to de-opine his comments.  He depicted the non-occidental world as not having what his liberal countries have: “values and norms of behaviour: a sense of citizenship.”
–
In recent years many countries on many continents chose to align economically with China.  Their decisions were unconnected to political philosophy; the systems of governments in the countries vary.  Economic decisions to sign trade agreements and similar were China were motivated by a desire, and a need, to extricate from exploitative arrangements with capitalist ‘West.’
–
Capitalists, liberal and conservative, fear China’s increasing economic connections because they know detachment from capitalist hegemony means wealth gatherers will have less wealth to extort.  They cannot express the reason for their fear honestly and, so, they cast it in other, necessarily spurious, debates.  Wolf’s liberal versus illiberal argument was clumsy, absurd and rabidly dishonest.  He meant imperialist capitalist exploitation versus systems that tend toward equitable wealth.
–
He elucidated his concern about liberalism being “battered” as a fear of increase in “authoritarian politics” but implied that applied to not only “appeal of the ‘great leader’ ” but also “charisma of the revolutionary prophet.”
–
“Freedom is precious.  It must be defended, however difficult that task might be” was a plaintive appeal from someone who knows the game is almost up, the con is exposed, and control of the world by disreputable wealth-gathering anti-democratic charlatans is receding.

BBC Verify, counter-terrorism and social media

Marianna Spring, public face of BBC Verify, used her position to promote political propaganda of Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU).  In Young Britons exposed to online radicalisation following Hamas attack, published 6th January 2024, she admitted her report was a PR campaign for the unit.  She acted as its spokesperson.  The title of the BBC article exposed extreme political bias: Users’ social media comments being “investigated” by CTIRU were allegedly reaction to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and but the title said “following Hamas attack [on 7th October 2023].”
–
As Spring is aware, conservative and pro-Israeli organisations routinely make false reports to police and other investigative bodies as a ruse to censor political opposition.  It is common for political activists to be harassed by police, often under the guise of the Prevent scheme, and online censorship, including suspension of accounts, is a frequent occurrence following mendacious complaints by professional complainants.
–
The third paragraph of her appalling article (a single sentence in common with BBC practice of insulting the capabilities of its readers) is worth noting in full:  “The team [CTIRU] says it has received more than 2,700 referrals from the public – shared via an online form – since Hamas attacked Israel, and Israel launched waves of air strikes on the Gaza Strip in return.”
–
Were all “referrals” from “the public?”  How many were from professional political organisations?
How many of the “referrals” were bogus?
The phrase “waves of air strikes” failed to mention that all strikes were targetted deliberately at civilians in their homes, in schools and in hospitals, and failed to mention that tens of thousands of civilians have been slaughtered including over ten thousand children with tens of thousands more injured, and failed to mention water, food, fuel and medical supplies have been prevented from entering Gaza, and failed to mention people were told by Israeli military to gather in certain areas and then those areas were targetted, and failed to mention deliberate targetting and executions of journalists and their families, and failed to mention destruction of cemeteries and removal of bodies, and failed to mention military attacks, theft of Palestinian homes and theft of money from Palestinian money exchanges in West Bank, and failed to mention abduction of thousands of people some of whom were killed and all tortured.
“In return” sought to justify Israel’s genocide of people in Gaza.
–
The purpose of the article, or, more precisely, the purpose of the CTIRU propaganda that Spring was merely transcribing as an obedient servant, was to encourage more political censorship of social media content.  “Matt Jukes, head of Counter Terror Policing, fears that while his team is tasked with tackling the most extreme content, there is a failure by social media companies to deal with the ‘overall climate’ of hate.”  Jukes did not mean the armies of paid bots who attack every pro-Palestinian commentator.
–
“Officers told me they are being referred mainly antisemitic content being posted and shared by young Britons who have not been on their radar before.”  “Referred” by whom?  Are there any examples?  (There were none given.)  Antisemitism is a criminal matter not a “counter terror” matter.  “Officers told me” but “the BBC is not naming the officers because of the nature of their work.”
–
The main theme of CTIRU’S promo piece, compiled by Spring, was development of a scare regarding use of social media to acquire, disseminate and share information and political analysis.  In keeping with traditional authoritarian censorious strategy CTIRU depicted social media users writing “posts [that] are often reckless, reactive and emotional – made by youngsters very comfortable using these social media sites,” a comment by “one officer [unnamed]” according to Spring.  “They [CTIRF] believe unsuspecting people are becoming ‘swept up‘ in sharing ‘naked antisemitism’.”  The purpose of this tactic is to devalue the analytical prowess of social media users while also preparing a false excuse to demand more censorship of social media.
–
Spring admitted that social media platforms do not necessarily always enact the censorship demanded by police: “The officers [unnamed] say its been trickier with more borderline posts, where its unclear whether they’re in breach of the social media sites’ guidelines.  ‘A lot of what we’re dealing with sits right on the threshold,’ one officer [unnamed] says.”  He [unnamed] continued: “You’ve got this space where there might be content and commentary and material that is very unpalatable.  At which point does that tip into a criminal space?  It’s this team who are having to make these judgments.”
–
The last sentence quoted by Spring above is a false description of the law.
–
With the help of some comments by Jukes, Spring engaged in a haughty dismissal of the intelligence, powers of critical thinking and analytical skillset of “younger people.”  As an older person I can appreciate the usefulness of cross-border social media interactions to educate, to express solidarity and to organise.  “Younger people” can acquire knowledge and engage in dialogue so easily and do so outside of the censorious and biased theatre of mainstream newspapers, radio and TV.  “Younger people” do not need nor want a BBC department led by someone with connections to intelligence services telling them what may or what may not be verifiable.
–

Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Matthew Jukes (left) and BBC Verify’s Marianna Spring

–
Jukes performed the usual twist of truth by calling solidarity an “echo chamber.”  Like-minded people agreeing, reinforcing their knowledge and then, possibly, organising together – that is anathema to his type and his PR team at BBC Verify.
–
Spring, unsurprisingly, expressed support for the anti-democratic Online Safety Act, a recent product of Tory government’s attack on freedoms.  “Responsibility for dealing with hateful posts lies with the social media companies.  It also lies, to some extent, with policy makers looking to regulate the sites.  New legislation like the Online Safety Act does force the social media companies to take responsibility for illegal content.”
–
Her final comment (below) was a declaration of fear.  Political status quo fears public knowledge.  It fears public access to knowledge that is not filtered through politicians’ statements or through conservative media outlets.  The gap between accurate reporting on events, causes and consequences in Gaza and the disgustingly warped presentation in UK media outlets (including BBC news) is huge.  Without access to social media – youtube, tiktok, facebook, instagram, X, etc. – the public’s knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Gaza would be reduced massively.
–
Spring’s fear: “These polarised and toxic conversations – which don’t cross any legal threshold – risk having a serious impact on public discourse.  Not just in relation to this war as it rages on, but on the many elections happening across the world this year.”  Politicians’ statements and media coverage of this year’s elections, including in UK and USA, will be packed with lies and misdirection.  It is significant that conservative politicians use various contricks online (for example, by marketing firm Topham Guerin) to try to persuade (mostly younger) people to support them.  That isn’t what Spring and CTIRU are fearful of; they fear facts.
–
BBC Verify offers nothing new or additional regarding factual accuracy.  It routinely uses state bodies to confirm veracity.  It is untrustworthy.

Starmer speech January 4th 2024 – Nothing

Most politicians deliver what is expected of them.  Donald Trump is expected to be vulgar, petulant and extremely dishonest; Joe Biden is expected to be incoherent and extremely dishonest; Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to utter rabid raving demands for genocide and be extremely dishonest; Rishi Sunak is expected to direct public money into his family’s bank accounts and be extremely dishonest.
–
Keir Starmer is expected to be embodiment of a vacuum and be extremely dishonest.  Nothing is expected of him and nothing is heard.  His speeches and declarations of excruciatingly vague intent are always formless and signify nothing – his only strategy.  He has no policies.  He has no plan.  He has no aims and no objectives.  Labour’s vacancy of proposals for government is the epitome of late stage capitalism.  There are two options for voters in most “democracies.”  One option is authoritarian corporate fascism – for example, Javier Milei in Argentina – and the other option is sneaky pretend-liberal corporate control defined by nothingness – for example, France and Canada.  Starmer considers him and his party to be the second option but some of his behaviour while failing as Director Of Public Prosecutions suggested he has fondness for the first option.
–
Its questionable whether he will last as leader of Labour up to 2024’s (expected) general election.  If he does he will be an easy target for every other political party due to his lack of aptitude to repeat lies shamelessly and confidently.  He gets flustered as he tries to remember which lies to use and in what order, and his evasive manœuvres are too obvious.
–

Keir Starmer, 4th January 2024

–
Last week (4th January 2024), at a location in Gloucestershire kept secret in advance because he is too cowardly to encounter protesters, Starmer delivered another contentless speech that had the single noteworthiness of being utterly flaccid.  (Transcript of speech: Starmer speech)
–
For a third of the way in he repeated the same point in dozens of different forms: He (correctly) noted Tory failure to govern and asked for an ‘Halleluja’ that there is an election this year to change the government.  If he had content prepared to fill his speech then a single sentence such as “it’s fine that there’s a general election this year so people can remove the Tories”  would be all that was needed.  But, because there was nothing to describe and explain in his speech, he kept repeating himself.  He sounded like a salesperson who was keen to not reveal that his product was inadequate.
–
“A chance to change Britain.”
“A clock that is ticking on this government“
“That moment is getting closer by the second.”
“This is your year.  The opportunity to shape our country’s future rests in your hands.”
“The hope of democracy.”
“The power of the vote.”
“The potential for national renewal.”
“The chance, finally, to turn the page, lift the weight off our shoulders, unite as a country, and get our future back.”
–
The meaningless pointless statements above followed each other directly; they were not interspersed with content about policy, plans or aims.
–
Starmer’s style of repetition of nothingness is more than filler to hide the fact he has no content.  It also acts as a mind-duller.  The last reaction he wants from the public is engagement in critical thinking, inquisitiveness, and analysis.  He seeks mass lobotomy.
–
Since his election as leader he focussed on removing socialism from the party.  Via smears, manipulation of internal elections and gross abuse of procedure he got rid of, and continues to strive to remove, all MPs, councillors and members who expressed support for socialism.  Labour’s breadth across the Overton Window has narrowed markedly.  He is the most divisive leader Labour has had but in his speech he asserted that “we [a Labour government] have to bring the country together, nurture a spirit of national unity.  We must crush their [Tories’] politics of divide.”
–
Bad slogans and hollow appellations in multiples of five are Starmer’s speciality.  He gave us five “pledges,” ten “principles” and five “missions.”  In his speech he abandoned the number five and offered one item: “Project Hope.”  Hope is a strange concept for a political party to present as its main attraction for voters.  Voters have hope if they think a government will make their lives better.  It is up to a potential government to describe their plans so that voters fell hopeful.   If a political party describes its strategy as Project Hope it is an admittance of offering no guarantee at all that, if in government, it will do anything to help the public.  That admittance of uselessness of his party’s aims was clarified by Starmer: “[the public] need credible hope, a frank hope, a hope that levels with you about the hard road ahead.”
–
For the ears of Labour supporters he said “if we aren’t successful with our Project Hope, the Tories will subtly seek to exploit.”  Undoubtedly.  If Labour’s offer of sod all except a plea for people to be “hopeful” then any political opponent will “exploit.”
–
For the ears of voters he said “Britain must come together and that means we will need you.”  What did he elucidate to convince voters that Labour will elevate the lives of people?  Firstly, he had several different ways of saying nothing: “I promise a new purpose.  To drag politics in this country back to service, tilt our economy back towards the interests of working people.  Reward their efforts fairly, once again.  I promise a new plan with new priorities, five national missions that will sweep away the era of Tory division, a plan for the long-term.”  Starmer introduced his Missions in July (2023), a tepid list of five intents including “the highest growth in the G7.”  Starmer’s and Reeves’ “growth” is merely an excuse to deny improvements to people’s lives until “growth” is attained.  Being best in G7 is a unambitious target as economic power of BRICS expands and dominates.  All his Missions are dependent on “growth.”
–
He said there will be “expert teachers in every classroom, paid for by removing tax breaks on private schools” but on the day after the speech during his radio show on LBC he clarified that private schools would not lose their charitable status if Labour was in government.
–
He descended into riddles.  “I promise a total overhaul in how we approach the economy and government.  On government, it means a new level of ambition and focus.  So I promise this: a new mindset – mission government.  An understanding at the core of everything we do, that it is our job to tackle tomorrow’s challenges – today.  On the economy it means a deeper argument about who growth should serve, where it comes from, who it comes from.  And the answer to every one of those questions, the Labour answer, working people.”  His words were like those of a very wonky AI chat program.  If he thought he was making points, he failed.  The substance of his criticisms of Tory intent were as opaque as his declarations of Labour intent.
–
N.B. I haven’t omitted key points from his speech and I haven’t glossed over details or explanations.  There were no points, no details and no explanations.
–
Repetitions of empty assertions ran after each other, seemingly leading somewhere but never arriving or finding the way and then “and finally.”  Surely, if there was a final point to make there should have been previous points.  Did thirty minutes of the speech get erased?  The part where he actually said what Labour will do if in government, and how it will do it, and how people will be impacted.
–
Labour government will be “a party of service with a plan.”  And, the plan is?  “We have a plan to…[mentions his ‘Missions’].”  And, the plan is?  Well, it’s that “growth” again, is it?  “We will grow every corner of our country.”  All that is known about Labour’s “plan” for “growth” is free (public) money for “investors.”
–
He concluded with the assertion “the value of hard work – restored.”  What the hell is the “value” of “hard work?”  It is certain Starmer did not mean Marx’s “value of labour power^[1].”  So, life might improve under Labour if everybody worked “hard?”  Work sets you free?
–
Starmer delivered what was expected of him: Nothing.  This year’s general election will not be a democratic event.
–
[1] See Marx’s Economic Doctrine: Value by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

A few obvious points on Tory government’s ‘levelling up’

A few obvious points about “levelling up“:

1. Lack of jobs, homes and facilities in UK is due to fourteen years of deliberate Tory policy
2. Removal by Tories of central government funding for councils caused massive cuts to local services
3. Provision of fiscal spending where needed is what a government is supposed to do  
4. Tories present access to levelling up funding as a competition
5. Tories congratulate themselves after funding is confirmed as if they bestowed a gift
6. A large proportion of the money is handed to privateers who “create jobs” and it disappears into offshore profit pools
7. There is bias toward allocating funding to constituencies with Tory MPs and/or swing seats
8. “Levelling up” is a cover for erasure of local democracy
9. “Levelling up” is a preamble to imposition of charter territories
10. “Levelling up” is a distraction from Tory-imposed cost of living crisis

There is no intent within “levelling up” policy to improve lives of people who reside in regions where projects are created or funded.  Its motivation includes clear electioneering in the form of bribes to voters in swing seats and as ‘thank yous’ to voters in Tory seats.  As a distraction from Tory-imposed cost of living crisis it works as a goto topic to fill up airtime, parliament time and column inches.  Utterly fraudulently, it is a pretence of Tory government doing something to help people. 
–
Erasing democracy
In a speech in 2021 on “levelling up” then Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke gleefully of the removal of local democracy.
–
“For many decades we relentlessly crushed local leadership and we must be honest about why this was necessary, it was because we were in the grip of a real ideological conflict in which irresponsible municipal socialist governments were bankrupting cities and were so genuinely hostile to business in such a way that government was forced to intervene.  Now, with some notable exceptions that argument is now over and most of the big metro mayors know that private sector investment is crucial.” – The Prime Minister’s Levelling Up speech: 15 July 2021
–
“Metro” mayors, “elected” once every four years with low turnout in gerrymandered pseudo constituencies, suit Tories.  Councils can change, in the sense of which party is in control, in local elections held three times every four years and via council by-elections.  Many cities and large towns do not have Tory majority councils but, given the extent of areas included in “metro” mayor regions, there is a higher possibility of a Tory winner in a mayoral election.  
–
Once “elected” the “metro” mayors’ objective is enablement of corporate control.  Read Ann Moody’s exposition of their role in Zahawi’s behaviour is inevitable in a country on the brink of a corporate takeover:
“The levelling up bill and an accompanying ‘development corporation reform’ technical consultation document, outline how the country will be divided up into large combined authorities headed by mayors who, if they prefer, can describe themselves as a ‘governor’ or ‘county commissioner.’
“The bulk of the planning powers for the town centre will in future be in the hands of the corporation and it will be able to more easily acquire, develop, and dispose of land.
“The administrative state could thus, in theory, be transferred to the private sector who will not be accountable to what’s left of the elected government, and who will acquire significant economic leverage over the population they govern.”
–
Invention of “metro” mayors and their implementation were designed to erase democracy.  “Election” of “metro” mayors is an example of right-to-vote acting against democracy.
–

Tees Valley Tory Mayor Ben Houchen explains how he gave away public land to vultures

–
Charter territories
“Levelling up” and (mis-)use of “metro” mayors are a precursor of and accompaniment to imposition of “free ports” (a.k.a. “investment zones“) which are charter territories.  These territories are states within a state where “owners” are in control.  There are no rights, there is no independent justice system and there is no democracy. 
–
Charter territories creator Shanker Singham described how they work in Shanker Singham in his own words: Part 1.  He explained how land is handed over to “investors” with little or no risk to their finances and how they and businesses on the land operate untaxed, how all rules, regulations and laws (workers’ rights, tenants’ rights, human rights) are erased to ensure maximum income, how the justice system is structured to suit “investors” and how democracy is absent, all set out in “regulatory frameworks.”  Singham has advised (or directed) Tory governments since 2010.
–
Levelling down
Everything Tory government does is a scam, a con and a distraction and hides real intent.  “Levelling up” is levelling down of rights, of ownership, of public services, of justice and of democracy.
–
In 2024 elected councils will continue to struggle to balance income against necessary expenditure. The primary cause is deliberate underfunding by Tory government.  The main purpose of the underfunding is not reduction in fiscal expenditure; the reason Tories slashed central funding for councils was 1) to force them to hand property, land and services to racketeer privateer vultures, and 2) to create severe financial problems for councils leading to bankruptcy so that undemocratic administrations could be installed who will act entirely in the interests of corporate profit.
–
The second point above is the key motivator for “levelling up.”  It is replacement of locally elected administrations with anti-democratic corporate entities as part of imposition of charter territories.
–
Like all Tory policy “levelling up” was devised at libertarian think-tanks.  Proposals for it exist throughout think-tank literature and rhetoric.  For example, in 2021 Institute Of Economic Affairs published Ten Ways To Supercharge Left Behind Britain, with an introduction by Tory MP Dehenna Davison, that contained ten short essays by libertarians on what needs to be done to destroy public services and democracy in Britain for the benefit of vultures.
–
Tory government’s “levelling up” policy is a con and a distraction.  More importantly, it is a tool to enable removal of local democracy.  People do not need Tories’ “levelling up” scam; they do want want to be levelled down.  The only levelling that is required is levelling of conservatism.