Opportunists, Liars, Con-Artists: Labour Coup

The Labour elite have been scared of what may follow from Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader since he received on overwhelming mandate last September.  They fear an assault on the financial gangsters who are recipients of public money eagerly handed to them by governments – Labour, coalition or Tory – that exist in order to serve capitalist exploitation.  The Labour elite, supported by the liberal media, have continuously attacked Corbyn since he was elected.  All the attacks have been without substance and dishonest.

Brexit Opportunism

Following the vote to leave the European Union a bucket of slugs manufactured a mass walk-out from the Labour shadow cabinet.  Their single stated reason for doing this is their claim that Corbyn didn’t campaign strongly enough against Brexit.

THEY ARE LYING!

The true points about the walkout by this mob of cowards and con-artists are

• Corbyn is not the reason that Brexit succeeded
• The Labour elite know that Corbyn is not to blame
• The Labour elite know they are using Brexit as a fraudulent excuse to attack Corbyn
• The public voted for Brexit so why be so keen to have an uncompromising pro-EU Labour leader
• Labour elite opposition to Corbyn is solely because they fear he threatens the power of the financial gangsters and the latter’s ability to continue to exploit the British public

Every one of these pieces of shit has written a fraudulent letter of resignation, each letter containing the same unashamed lies.  They lost in September and they continue to lose.  But, as gimps of criminals, they don’t invoke integrity when making decisions.

In the film Tropic Thunder a character player by Tom Cruse has a conversation with a drugs manufacturer during which Cruise’s character offers some advice involving a step back and self-gratification.  I pass on the same advice to all these aforesaid slugs.

 

 

Post-Brexit: Liberal Media Blame Corbyn For Elite’s Defeat

A few days ago the British public voted to leave the European Union.  As John Pilger explains fully in Pilger on EU ref., the reasons that informed the voters’ decision varied and included, for some, a UKIP-style aversion to foreigners but, for many others, it was an opportunity to stick two provocative fingers up in the faces of the ‘establishment.’  The ‘establishment,’ though not precisely defined, can be assumed to include the whole of the House of Commons and the mainstream media.  The up-yours gesture was aimed from both the left and from the right and was imbued with an understanding of a unbridgeable separation between an elite and the public coupled with a perception of the elite’s utter disdain for the public.

One of the bastions of elitism, the Guardian newspaper, is horrified by the result of the EU referendum.  Militant centrist Polly Toynbee lists, accurately, the crimes of the Tories and the pre-vote lies of the main protagonists of the Brexit campaign but then exclaims that “soon those leave voters will find they were swindled.” (Toynbee Guardian)  Thus, the disdain she has for the intelligence of a typical British voter is revealed.  Toynbee assumes the voters are too ignorant to know or too stupid to work out the risks of Brexit.  Further, she thinks the voters are so gullible and easily led that they will unquestionably believe the garbage that was uttered by Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and their fellow campaigners.  Contrary to Toynbee’s assertion, it is because voters don’t believe, trust or have any respect for politicians that many chose to vote to leave the EU.  “When leavers find there’s no money and no exodus, that it was all lies, where does their wrath turn next?” asks Toynbee.  Perhaps, the “wrath” isn’t being re-directed; perhaps, it will remain directed at whatever the public perceive as destructive ‘establishment.’

Toynbee’s low opinion of the British public is a preamble to identifying who she blames for Brexit who is, of course, Jeremy Corbyn.  According to Toynbee, Corbyn was “dismally inadequate, lifeless and spineless, displaying an inability to lead anyone anywhere.”  This is untrue, as she is aware.  Corbyn was of the few politicians to speak informatively and intelligently about the referendum.  Toynbee is also aware that his speeches and comments were under-reported by the media.  One of her criticisms is that Corbyn didn’t join in with the anti-migrant rhetoric:

“What absence of mind to emphasise support for free migration on the eve of a poll where Labour was haemorrhaging support for precisely those metropolitan views.  Here was Labour’s golden chance to make this referendum campaign its own. Voters who blocked their ears to Labour on the doorstep this time may head for Ukip, never to return.“

Above is revealed everything required to understand Toynbee’s political stance.  She denigrates political integrity, honesty and consistency, insults the intelligence and morality of the public, assumes people from beyond some imagined Utopian ‘metropolis’ need to be patronised and advocates opportunism to get what you want, politically.  It is elitist philosophy at its most stringent.  Horrible.

Immediately after berating Corbyn for not being UKIP enough Toynbee praises Labour MP Margaret Hodge for trying to convince voters in her constituency that blaming migrants is wrong.  But, Toynbee had just criticised Corbyn for doing the same!  (Hodge has submitted a no confidence motion to seek to end Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party see Some post-EU Ref consequences.)  

The incoherent drivel ends with “Is there any waking up from this nightmare, a glimmer of light?”  

In the same newspaper Zoe Williams thinks that the sole purpose of Labour should be to protect Britain’s membership of the EU.  In Williams on EU she expresses the bizarre delusion that the EU is anything more than an administrative body.  “The failure to articulate the beauty of international cooperation belongs to every last one of us.”  In response to the European far right’s support for Brexit, Williams says “The principles that underpin internationalism – cooperation, solidarity, unity, empathy, openness – these are all just elements of love.”  Williams applies these ‘principles’ to the EU that has made the Greek people into unpaid servants of the European banking elite and the debt vultures, that started a war in Ukraine and that agreed a deal with dictator-run Turkey to pack off refugees of war back across the Aegean.  The fawning over an administration whose primary role is to protect and enhance the interests of a financial elite is embarrassing.

Given her adulation of the EU, Williams’ complaint against Corbyn is that he wasn’t strong enough in his support for a vote to stay in.  Regarding the possibility of a general election soon she says “if you still want to leave the EU, vote Conservative. If you’ve realised or knew already what an act of vandalism that was, vote Labour. The next Labour leader might wake up with something real to fight for.”  So, support for the EU – just rejected by the British public – should be a policy of Labour, and Williams also thinks that Labour has nothing else to offer the electorate as an alternative to the Tories.

The philosophies and plaintive cries of pain about the EU described above are exactly what many Brexit voters chose to vote against.  But, the bubble-wrapped Guardian elite are so insulated that they cannot comprehend the anger many people direct at what they perceive as an obstructive elite.  The bubblewankers remain (no pun intended) fearful.  Their use of the result of Brexit as a false opportunity to attack Corbyn is dishonest.  They fear change to their safe little elite world where the public stay in line.  Sod ’em

Some post-EU Ref consequences

The fall-out from the decision by the British public to exit the EU is wide-ranging.  As I am not interested in which financial gangsters’ gimp gets the Tory top job, I’ll discuss other consequences.

Opportunist Labour elite’s machinations

Jeremy Corbyn is not to blame for the vote to leave the EU.  The result, achieved partly  by people choosing to vote from an anti-establishment perspective rather than UKIPpy bigotry, enhances the view that there is support among the electorate for politics that challenges the dominance of an elite that only feeds itself.  The turmoil in the Tory party, who need both a new leader and clarity of direction, adds to confidence that a genuine alternative could succeed against the Tories in a possibly early general election.  Corbyn is exactly the right leader for Labour at this time.  

Corbyn’s opponents in Labour know that he is the right leader at the right time but they despise his anti-exploitation politics.  They fear his success.  His politics  is the opposite of what they want.  They want to install a friend of the exploiters who will offer absolutely no alternative to what the Tories offer.

Ann Coffey and Margaret Hodge

Two veteran Labour MPs, above, who supported the hapless Liz Kendall at last year’s Labour leadership contest, have “submitted a no confidence motion” to their party regarding the leader of the party.  Margaret Hodge and Anne Coffey are merely going through a process that they know will fail in order to add to the pressure upon Corbyn from the disruptive elements of the party.  It is a little party trick designed as a distraction, an inconvenience and false indicator of opposition.  In both the original and more modern meaning of the word, their actions are pathetic.

SNP and a second Scottish independence referendum

Rightly, the leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, highlighted that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.  Did she then state equivocally and boldly that Scotland must become an independent state?  No, of course not.  All she uttered were a few woolly words about the possibility of a second independence referendum.  The SNP want to hide behind another drawn-out campaign that will, as binary referendum campaigns always are, be divisive, unpleasant and full of falsehoods and smears.  

What the SNP should be doing, if it was sincere about its intent, would be to prepare for independence.  Such preparation would include clear descriptions of what independence means for currency, law, head of state, armed forces, international partnerships such as NATO, etc.  Preparation would be both internal and external in terms of developing good relationships with other countries independent of UK relationships with such countries.  Prepare exhaustively and consistently and then, with confidence, declare independence.  No faffing around with distracting referenda.  

SNP will not take the bold course because the SNP is an administration not a revolutionary force.  It is the SDP of Scotland.

Martin McGuinness is still on point

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.  The vote was split via the usual divisions in the province.  Speaking to the media after the result – McGuinness speaks to media – Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness managed to avoid any use of phrases such as ‘reunification’ while noting that there could be further calls for Scottish independence and also suggesting the possibility of a “border poll” in Ireland.  Lexicographers are working assiduously to define precisely the meaning of the quoted phrase.  

Gibraltar is out of step

It is bizarre that the lowly taxed inhabitants of a Mediterranean promontory with a small single-road border with Spain should be able to vote in the EU referendum.  Other British territories were unable to.  Gibraltar voted to remain in the EU with a percentage much higher than anywhere in the UK.  The Spanish government quickly offered a helpful perspective on shared sovereignty – Spain on Gibraltar.

It will be quite a political obituary for David Cameron if it includes the loss of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.

EU Ref for Farage: Apotheosis or Disposal?

The referendum this week to continue membership of or to leave the EU will affect the political life of UKIP’s Nigel Farage significantly.  If the British public vote to remain in the EU then Farage will slither back into the background noise, after a few whinges about voting irregularities and media bias, and if they vote to leave the EU then post-referendum turmoil in the Tory party could see Farage wrangle his way to an un-elected pseudo-cabinet position via a peerage.  Ignored or canonised?  The inevitable consequence of focussing on one issue.

As his ascension to power or descent to obscurity approaches Farage had become more shamelessly bigotted.  By posing with a conceited smirk on his face in front of a UKIP poster depicting refugees fleeing war accompanied by the phrase ‘breaking point’ Farage was deliberately re-using WWII propaganda tactics by the German government.  He did this not just because he thought such a tactic would work with his core fanatics but also because the ensuing repulsion felt by others against the propaganda could be used by Farage as an opportunity to fraudulently present himself as anti-establishment; the anti-elite deceit is a common and necessary facet of any right-wing party that seeks power.

A few days after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right activist last week Farage was questioned about the poster.  His response was to describe complaints about it as just a reaction to Mrs. Cox’s murder: Farage Sky interview.  The coherent, balanced and justified criticism of the poster began before her death but Farage never lets a fact obstruct his proclamations.  In a different interview on the same day he claimed he is a ‘victim’ of hatred because of all the criticism of the poster – Farage ITV interview.  So, Jo Cox was murdered and refugees fleeing war are used by UKIP as propaganda but Farage is the ‘victim.’  In a further interview on the same day – busy man – he was challenged by BBC’s John Pienaar on comments he made to the same interviewer last month wherein Farage said “we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the EU, and if people feel voting doesn’t change anything, then violence is the next step.”  Farage’s response to this challenge was to simply deny saying it, despite a BBC recording – Farage BBC interview.

The stance of Farage described above is entirely typical of right-wing political methodology and presentation:

• Constantly push the boundary of your bigotry and xenophobia
• Never apologise or accept criticism of your tactics
• Always be willing to lie shamelessly if confronted with difficulties
• If surrounded, adopt the false victim paradigm.  

Farage knows all the steps to take and when to take them.  

An additional feature of his demeanor during the recent media interviews was an aroma of disappointment.  Within a week of the final push over the top toward his raison d’étre one would expect him to be bullish, confident and haughty with his crooked smirk and his rehearsed end-of-the-pier facial expressions, surely.  No, he almost looked as if he had just lost.  The violent murder of Jo Cox has made it difficult for Farage to storm forward with his normal provocative and divisive rhetoric, particularly given the political affiliations of her killer.  Some of his (temporary) colleagues, such as Michael what-am-I-today Gove, felt compelled to pretend to be alarmed by the aforesaid poster.  Farage’s normal forced smugness was absent.  The gurning will probably return before the vote.

A utopian political objectivity might enquire as to why Farage exists as he does?  That is, how can a slimy unpleasant fool with no apparent applicable knowledge, no obvious political allies and whose party has a reckless attitude to its own finances become a central protagonist in British politics?  This twerp may have the answer:

Farage realised that being an angry obnoxious racist bully, as he was at his posh school, was insufficient as a life-skill if he wanted to get his hands on some money so he took a common route for privileged gits with no obvious talent or skill and who have no ethical or moral restraint: He became a commodities broker.  Farage’s seemingly innate con-artistry suited such an anti-profession and, equally, the anti-profession nurtured the conmanship.  A decade or so later, armed with this enhanced gift of the gobshite, he became a full-time politician.  Farage chose UKIP because its (then) small size gave him a swifter route to leader and because his predilection for offensive xenophobic comments wouldn’t be restricted.  But, why, after two decades of UKIP being a clown-ridden marginal mob did it, and Farage, become popular?

The key elements that have contributed to UKIP’s rise over the last few years are

• Haplessness of successive British governments of various political hue
• The elite’s fear of any possible emergence of a genuine political alternative led to their encouragement of a fake alternative
• The usefulness of UKIP’s promotion of blame-shifting onto immigration to absolve Tory policies as the cause of hardship
• Media obsession with political news and analysis as entertainment rather than usefulness – see Screaming Heads
• Unwillingness of any left-wing alternative to step away from the constricting democracy machine

The bizarre oft-repeated description in the media of Farage having ‘charisma’ and being a ‘good orator,’ despite all of his speeches and interviews being a concoction of lies and incoherent non sequiturs, is a willing contributor to the false presentation of UKIP as an effective and irresistable force.  (He is so inept at the consistency of his arguments that even if he throws a dead cat on the table it can be proven in minutes that he ran over the cat himself.)  Equally, the liberal media’s concern that “working-class” voters are attracted to UKIP is just hope rather than analysis because the liberal media fears a rise of real socialist support much more than it fears ugly right-wing support.  For, example, liberal media commentary ahead of the by-election in Oldham last year (won comfortably by Labour) was shameless cheer-leading for UKIP: Liberal media on UKIP.

Apotheosis or Disposal?
Farage – a poorly educated, blinkered, soulless, gutless opportunist – will either continue his rise to an influential role or else slide back into his clown seat, belching, farting, mumbling about foreigners and worrying about the plethora of impending court summons regarding various financial activities.  

He is a grotesque.  

He has had help from various sources and differing political outlooks and he has been a useful tool for the elite.  His celebrity stature is an indictment of the overwhelming venality of British political culture and of its mirror image in the mainstream media.

Repeat the mantra: The unstable loner did it

Yesterday, Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by a supporter of far-right politics.  

Mrs. Cox, a former Oxfam activist – Oxfam statement, has sought to persuade the government to allow access to Britain for refugee children – Cox Dubs speech – and she had taken part in the counter flotilla on the Thames earlier this week to respond to the UKIP ‘Brexit’ flotilla.

She was an active supporter of the Palestinian people and of the BDS campaign – Friend of Palestine.  

As a visible, and successful, campaigning member of parliament her politics were the antithesis of the hate-filled rhetoric from the bigots and xenophobes whose language has become ever more coercive towards violence against the foreigner, the immigrant, the stranger.  

One man, encouraged and emboldened by such hateful rhetoric, killed her.  A witness to the murder has stated that he heard the killer shout the name of the far-right party Britain First as he killed Mrs. Cox.  But, as swiftly and as relentlessly as possible, the mainstream media has followed the standard paradigm for far-right terrorism: Unstable Loner.

By the rules of mainstream journalism and political commentary, the ‘Unstable Loner’ is white, Christian or atheist, and a fan of far-right politics and his terrorist acts are due to mental health issues.  Whatever he may say or write about his political outlook, whichever far-right groups he may be associated with and however many photographs may be unearthed of him attired with far-right insignia, he will not be described as being primarily motivated by such politics and, thus, he will not be called a terrorist.  

Also, his mental health will be assumed to be the sole cause of his terrorist act regardless of evidence of other causes, regardless of lack of proof of mental health difficulties and with absolute disdain for the irrationality and offence of associating mental health difficulties with violent acts. Author Matt Haig responded succinctly to the stupidity of assuming mental health issues encourage extreme violence.

The Unstable Loner narrative appeared in the media rapidly after Mrs.Cox was slain.  In the Telegraph, three writers worked on an article that attempted to downplay her killer’s political interests and focus on his ‘loner’ attributes – Telegraph loner.  The article quotes an interview he gave to a local newspaper and, craftily, re-produces the quote “I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world” except that in the original article the word used instead of ‘psychotherapy’ is ‘physiotherapy.’  

This tone is repeated elsewhere with the three recurring features:  

1. Emphasis of the killer’s solitude
2. Exaggeration of mental health issues and arbitrary creation of connection between such health issues and a propensity to use of violence
3. Downplaying of influence of right-wing ideology

Jo Cox’s killer’s direct connections to various far-right groups were exposed quickly – Hatewatch account – but the Daily Mail says only “there is unconfirmed evidence Mair supported far-right causes” – Mail account.  “Unconfirmed,” “unclear” and “speculation” are added carefully to any mention of far-right connections in most media accounts.  

Even when the existence of such connections is difficult to deny the media and right-wing politicians describe the connection entirely from the perspective of the ‘unstable loner.’  That is, the narrative is of a person with mental health issues having an almost accidental relationship with far-right politics, thus absolving the politics of all blame.  It is only far-right politics that is permitted to deny any culpability if one of its supporters or activists commits a serious crime.  

The killer of Jo Cox shouted “Britain First” as he murdered her.  That party’s leaders have denied a connection.  In a video message, to which I refuse to provide a link, Britain First leader Paul Golding said “I don’t think it was one of our supporters. We stand in elections and organise protests – we don’t encourage this kind of nonsense.  So this is a very dark day for our country and for our democracy. We do not know what was said. At the moment, it is pure hearsay.”  This is the same Britain First that promotes violence, invades places of worship, holds pseudo-military training courses and has direct links to loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland.

In May this year UKIP leader Nigel Farage told the BBC that violence would follow if anti-migrant politicians did not get what they want: “We have lost control of our borders completely as members of the EU, and if people feel voting doesn’t change anything then violence is the next step.” His comments are quoted here – Farage.  Earlier this week a new UKIP propaganda poster promoted an extreme anti-migrant view: 

and the day before Jo Cox’s murder Farage took part in a mock invasion flotilla up the Thames to Westminster.  (As mentioned above Jo Cox protested against this flotilla in her own boat.)  The increasingly bold and shameless appeals by UKIP to the most base views and Jo Cox’s visible and lucid opposition to such views has made some see her as a target.  

But, the causality described above will not be accepted by mainstream media.  

The ‘unstable loner’ whose attachment to far-right politics is incidental is the prevailing narrative.  

The woolly blame pointed at mental health issues is the prevailing narrative.  

Do not blame the provocateurs, the rabble-rousers, the speeches at rallies.  

Do not blame the liars, frauds, bigots, xenophobes and racists of the far-right.

Blame, with abject ignorance, an unexplained connection to mental health, bereft of evidence and side-stepping any explanation as to why you think mental health issues encourage extreme acts of violence.

The unstable loner did it.

The unstable loner did it. 

The unstable loner did it.

The unstable loner did it. 

THE UNSTABLE LONER DID IT

THE UNSTABLE LONER DID IT!!

Kuenssberg Gets The Boos

BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg is an ordinary competent news reporter and interviewer from the normal media production line that starts in Britain’s private schools.  Although perceived by many as pro Conservative, it would be more accurate to note her entrenchment in the establishment.  Given that Jeremy Corbyn offers a challenge to the capitalist hegemony, by both his words and the ensuing encouragement to those with more revolutionary appetite than he, it is unsurprising that a careerist broadcaster, who was educated to believe in privilege, would take any opportunity and use any tactic to attack him.  She is fulfilling the role that she was trained to do.

There has been a reaction among Corbyn’s supporters to Kuenssberg’s style.  The focus on one broadcaster is probably inappropriate, but it could be argued that her performances are used as an example of what to criticise.  A mild expression of antipathy was displayed on 2nd June when Corbyn was answering media questions following a speech he gave at the Institution of Engineering and Technology as part of the campaign for a ‘Remain’ vote in the EU referendum.  Prior to Kuenssberg asking a question a few of Corbyn’s supporters offered some pantomime boos in her direction that Corbyn silenced with a hand gesture.

But, the dramatic alarm screaming forth from the mouths of fellow hacks and the horror expressed by the usual suspects in the Progress arm of Labour implies that this lot had just surrounded Kuenssberg and emitted their chilling catchphrase.

ITV’s Chris Ship attended the speech.

How dare political activists show disdain for the lofty intellectuals and guardians of truth in the fourth estate.  Speaking of guardians, the same-named newspaper’s Heather Stewart is perturbed.

Indeed, Kate Adie and Alex Crawford have been known to say exactly the same when under fire in a war zone.

The comical and pompous melodrama by the journalists in response to a few pantomime boos sidesteps the question of why should the public automatically respect media that is predominantly owned by tax-dodging scoundrels?  Brave war reporters or brilliant investigative journalists deserve respect but hacks have to earn it.  The gilded conveyor belt from private school to university to undeserved lucrative media post discourages self-awareness and imbues support for a separation of establishment and the general public.  So, sadly, the profession of journalist in Britain has a mixed appreciation.

The non-incident described above prodded the Progress faction of Labour into clumsy expressions of mock shock.  As ubiquitous as slug slime, Wes Streeting was quick to quack out 140 characters of drivel and an obedient Labour councillor was happy to copy his nonsense.

 

The liberal media continues to be upset that the Labour leader isn’t a willing gimp of capitalism and that their hollow views are being ignored.  They are full of fear.  Good.  Be fearful, because your uselessness is becoming ever more visible.