Scottish anti-Semitic Blairite Murphy’s hypocrisy


This video from Britain says about itself:

The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British Neoconservatism

21 June 2015

The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British Neoconservatism: Liberal Interventionism, Islamophobia and the ‘War On Terror‘.

The reports examines the history, activities and politics of the Henry Jackson Society, a leading exponent of neoconservatism in the UK that is grounded in a transatlantic tradition deeply influenced by Islamophobia and an open embrace of the ‘War on Terror‘.

By Conrad Landin in Scotland:

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Jim Murphy pops up from the dead

SOME years ago at a Labour Party conference, I stumbled into a trade union leader brandishing a coconut on the terrace of Brighton’s Grand Hotel. “This one’s for Jim Murphy”, the general secretary growled.

Just what is it about the former Scottish Labour leader that provokes such passions?

Mr Murphy is a member of the right-wing Henry Jackson Society. Like the United States senator, nicknamed ‘the gentleman from Boeing‘ after which it was named, it stands for racism, warmongering, torture and corruption.

However, there is at least one difference between the late Senator Jackson and the present Society. While Henry Jackson’s racism was especially against Japanese American civilians, whose internment in camps he supported strongly, the Henry Jackson Society of today, according to the (Rupert Murdoch owned) London Times and other sources, gets paid by the militarist right-wing Japanese government to make anti-Chinese propaganda for it.

I should really be praising him, as he’s clearly been reading Landin in Scotland. Last week, I documented the efforts of several “ghosts of Scottish Labour past” to cling onto their influence.

One can only assume Murphy was rather hurt to be left out, for he made a spectacular return from the dead on Monday. He said the “way in which anti-semitism has been normalised in the darker recesses of the Labour Party” was “the one thing above all else that makes me angry about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”

Anti-semitism is of course disgusting, and the uncomfortable truth is that there are indeed a small number who see no contradiction between their vile racism and Labour membership. The fight to eradicate this menace is not helped by a larger number of socialists who deny the presence of anti-semitism.

There is something quite audacious about Murphy’s outburst, however. And I’m not just talking about his involvement in plans for Tony Blair’s charities to collect “high-quality data” on mosques and schools, to supply to torturous regimes.

As even the right-wing London Times writes.

Next week is the second anniversary of one of the most disgraceful episodes Scottish politics has ever seen.

Back in 2016, Labour’s national executive committee had a rule — since overturned — that candidates must be nominated by their home constituency party. For Rhea Wolfson, this was the Eastwood party, in the Glasgow suburb from which she hails.

At the meeting where she sought nomination, she was asked to leave the room. And who should then pop up but local ex-MP Jim Murphy. According to Wolfson’s statement at the time, Murphy then said it “would not be appropriate to nominate me due to my endorsement by Momentum, which he claimed has a problem with anti-semitism.”

He was clearly not bothered by the fact he was effectively blocking the only Jewish NEC candidate.

Momentum (left wing of Labour) leader Jon Lansman, and many Momentum activists, are Jewish as well.

“Needless to say, I do not believe Murphy can speak with credibility on this issue,” Wolfson said this week. “Call out Murphy, continue to challenge anti-semitism — one without the other is hypocrisy.” Words well worth heeding.

Advertisements

British Conservative Telegraph discusses anti-Labour military coup


This video from Britain says about itself:

26 September 2015

As one military general waves an anonymous fist at a potential Corbyn government in 2020, much to the indifference of the mainstream media, secret service and government, Aaron Bastani asks isn’t it time to propose far more substantial cuts to defence and build a people’s GCHQ to investigate these sinister threats.

By Robert Stevens in Britain:

Military coup against a Corbyn Labour government discussed by Daily Telegraph

15 May 2018

On May 8, the Daily Telegraph asked, “Could an Army coup remove Jeremy Corbyn—just as it almost toppled Harold Wilson?”

Written by Paul Carter for the de facto house organ of the Conservative Party,

The paper is often called the Daily Torygraph

the article makes clear that discussions on such a course of action in the event of a Labour victory under Corbyn are ongoing.

The article begins by noting, “Only one week after Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader, a serving general of the Army warned of a direct and public challenge if a future Prime Minister Corbyn jeopardised the country’s security: ‘The army wouldn’t stand for it … people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.’”

Carter refers to an article published by the [Rupert Murdoch owned] Sunday Times in September 2015, after Corbyn had routed his Blairite leadership opponent with the backing of hundreds of thousands of Labour members and supporters. The newspaper cited an anonymous “senior serving general” that in the event of Corbyn becoming prime minister, there would be “the very real prospect” of “a mutiny.” Elements within the military would be prepared to use “whatever means possible, fair or foul”, the officer declared. He warned, “You would see a major break in convention with senior generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over vital important policy decisions such as Trident, pulling out of NATO and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”

The Sunday Times said that the general “served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s.”

At the time, a Ministry of Defence source said that it was unacceptable for a serving officer to make political comments about a potential “future government”, but rejected mounting any investigation, claiming there were too many generals to investigate. As the World Socialist Web Site noted, there are only around 100 generals currently serving in the British Army, and not all of them served in Northern Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s.

Moreover, the week prior to the interview the then Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Houghton, spoke before the military think tank Chatham House of the “worrying constraints” of parliamentary consent that led MPs to reject military intervention following the Iraq debacle. Houghton was a company commander in, and commanding officer of, the 1st Battalion in the Mechanised and Air Mobile Roles and, in Northern Ireland, commanded the 39th Infantry Brigade in Belfast during the period leading up to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

The following November, asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr about Corbyn’s statement that he would never authorise the use of nuclear weapons, Houghton replied, “Well, it would worry me if that thought was translated into power.”

Carter raises none of this, but notes, “The idea of a military coup against an elected Prime Minister Corbyn may seem fanciful. Yet, fifty years ago this week, this almost happened to [Labour’s] Harold Wilson, a prime minister regarded by many as Left-wing and anti-establishment, who had also been accused of consorting with communist spies.”

He reports that on May 8, 1968, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, a member of the Royal Family and the great-grandson of Queen Victoria, held a meeting at his London home attended by “Cecil King, Chairman of the International Publishing Corporation, which owned the Daily Mirror; its editor, Hugh Cudlipp; and at Mountbatten’s invitation, his longstanding friend, Sir Solly Zuckerman, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser…

“Astonishingly, the-68-year-old Mountbatten was invited by King to head up a government of national emergency, whereby certain members of the armed forces, businessmen and other City figures would take over and replace the unpopular and mistrusted Wilson and his cabinet. So, could history repeat itself under a Jeremy Corbyn premiership?”

Carter then proceeds to rewrite history to diminish the significance of what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His message is that a coup against Wilson was not carried out then and that there is even less chance of a coup against Corbyn today.

He writes, “The so-called military coup of 1968 faded and failed and was blamed on a ‘pretty loony crew’ motivated by ‘loose talk from gin-sodden generals.” However, King’s apocalyptic vision of Britain’s economic breakdown did not occur—democracy was allowed to run its course.”

Democratic rule was not allowed to merely “run its course” at all. There were ongoing discussions of a coup for years after the events cited by Carter.

The years from 1968 to 1975 were characterised by an acute crisis for British and world capitalism that posed the threat of socialist revolution. The Mountbatten meeting took place just six days after the beginning of the May–June 1968 events in France, which culminated in a general strike of over 10 million workers—the largest and most extended in history, with red flags flown over factories and President General Charles De Gaulle leaving the country.

The ultimate concern of the coup plotters was not Wilson, or the Labour Party, but the challenge posed by an increasingly combative working class.

From 1970 to 1974, the period when Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath was in power, senior UK intelligence and military figures repeatedly discussed a military coup.

Heath’s period in office saw the greatest eruption of industrial action since the 1926 General Strike, and his calling of no less than five states of national emergency. During the seven-week-long miners’ strike in 1972, plans for a scab transport force were laid involving 600 drivers to be organised from a Royal Airforce Base. Afterwards, the COBRA national emergency cabinet committee was established. This came to a head in 1974 in a second miners’ strike, during which Heath placed responsibility for emergency powers under the control of the Civil Contingencies Unit. The police and the Ministry of Defence were secretly placed on an alert procedure and military manoeuvres were carried out at Heathrow airport and other strategic locations.

Heath called a general election for February 28, 1974, under the slogan, “Who runs Britain, the government or the unions?” Despite government threats and a vicious media witch-hunt, the miners stayed out on strike for the duration of the election campaign. As a result, Heath failed to secure a majority but refused to leave Number 10 for four days, during which time the then-chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Carver, admitted that discussions about military intervention had taken place among “fairly senior officers.”

In the end, the ruling elite decided to entrust a Labour government with stabilising the situation. But even then, continual plots were hatched against Wilson and he was smeared as a Soviet agent—just as Corbyn has been denounced as a stooge of the Czechoslovakian Stalinist regime during the 1980s.

Within two years of Wilson taking office in 1974, his opponents in ruling circles and the military had engineered his removal under conditions in which military operations were still taking place in Whitehall that were visible from Downing Street itself. His replacement, James Callaghan, was a trusted figure in ruling circles, who had served as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. These events were the subject of a BBC documentary, “The Plot against Harold Wilson”, in 2006, which included interviews with Wilson and his private secretary from the 1950s, Marcia Williams, now Baroness Falkender.

Segments of taped discussions with BBC journalists Barry Penrose and Roger Courtiour, given to them by Wilson and Williams shortly after he resigned, were aired. Williams recalled of the airport operation, “I still believe that operation they mounted at the airport … was a rehearsal, nothing more. There was all the terrific mobilisation, the alert was on, there was—all through Whitehall—along the airport road, up and down, landing and getting out.”

In the 1970s, the only political tendency that sought to warn the working class of the dangers posed to the working class were the Socialist Labour League and its successor organisation, the Workers Revolutionary Party—then the British section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Dismissed as political paranoia by the pseudo-left groups, the ruling elite took these exposures seriously. In a House of Lords debate on “subversive and extremist elements”, held in February 1975, with the moves against the Wilson government in full swing, Lord Chalfont noted, “At the last Election, one of the candidates was a prominent member of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. Miss Vanessa Redgrave, who claimed that the Government were preparing concentration camps in Britain and that the Army was being prepared to repress the workers in Great Britain as it had done in Northern Ireland.”

In the same debate, the Earl of Kimberley stated that the “Workers’ Revolutionary Party or the Socialist Labour League, must not be dismissed as just another fringe movement. It is by far the most dangerous of the Trotskyist organisations in this country. It is larger, better organised, and, from the point of view of industrial agitation, more intelligently led than its rivals.”

If anything, the danger of a military coup is greater today than it was in the 1970s. …

In March, for example, the Times gave substantial coverage to demands by military leaders for a “strategic surge” in defence spending, with the Times editorialising against the “pernicious idea that defence spending is a mere footnote to the chunky health and welfare budgets.”

In 2016, in its congress resolution, “Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: The strategic lessons,” the Socialist Equality Party explained:

“These threats mark a milestone in the degeneration of British democracy. As someone involved in politics throughout the 1970s, at a time of rising industrial militancy that culminated in the bringing down of the Conservative government of Edward Heath in 1974, Corbyn is well aware of their implications. This was the period in which the civil service, the police and the Ministry of Defence were secretly placed on alert and military manoeuvres were carried out at Heathrow airport and other strategic locations. Moreover, he is of a generation for whom the 1973 CIA-backed coup against the Chilean government of Salvador Allende was a formative experience. But rather than alerting the working class and insisting on Houghton’s removal, Corbyn sent a polite letter to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stating, ‘It is essential in a democracy that the military remains politically neutral at all times.’”

Corbyn lists Allende as one of his heroes.

Another warning arises from the Telegraph article. One of Carter’s more significant observations regarding a possible coup is when he asks, “Even assuming a plausible unelected leader was found … would they really want to challenge Corbyn’s 1.4 million Facebook followers with a depleted army of less than 80,000 soldiers?…

“In 1968, talk amongst some army officers was that Wilson would be held at the Tower of London, with the Shetland Islands designated an internment camp for up to 5,000 Left-wing and trade union detainees. A lack of social media and mobile phones makes such a round-up easy.”

This comment is telling. Masses of often young people, who are offered no future except social misery and war, have turned to social media to discuss ways of fighting back. Under the guise of combating “fake news” and Russian meddling, the ruling class is intent on censoring, restricting and even shutting down social media services.

Carter’s statements confirm that through such measures, the ruling elite are actively preparing for the brutal suppression of social opposition. The call by the WSWS for the formation of an International Coalition of Socialist, Anti-War and Progressive Websites in defence of free speech and democratic rights seeks to mobilise the working class in a political struggle against this.

The author also recommends:

The UK military, Jeremy Corbyn and the threat of dictatorship
[11 November 2015]

Britain: Documentary reveals plan for coup against Wilson Labour government—Part 1
[19 April 2006]

Britain: Documentary reveals plan for coup against Wilson Labour government—Part 2
[20 April 2006]

Murdoch media smear British Labour as ‘Russian tools’


This 2014 video is called The Murdoch Empire: Phone Hacking Exposed – The Listening Post (Full).

By Steve James and Laura Tiernan in Britain:

Sunday Times Insight team: Propagandists for Internet censorship and war

7 May 2018

The Insight team at the Sunday Times were pioneers in investigative journalism. In 1963, the group’s first efforts exposed slum landlord Peter Rachman and gave a new word, Rachmanism, to the English language.

Yes; but back in 1963, the (Sunday) Times was not yet part of the empire of phone-hacker-in-chief, burglar-in brief, police-corrupter-in chief, racist-in-chief, homo-and-transphobe-in-chief and warmonger-in-chief Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch got his hands on the Times later, with ‘a little’ help from Consevative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

How the mighty are fallen. Last week’s Insight report into alleged “Russian meddling” in the British general election of 2017 marked a low point in the collapse of bourgeois journalism into state propaganda.

“Exposed: Russian Twitter bots tried to swing the general election for Jeremy Corbyn” was the newspaper’s frontpage headline. Inside, the results of an investigation, “How Russian bots invaded Twitter to fight in Jeremy Corbyn’s army,” ran across pages eight and nine.

For more than 18 months the New York Times, the Democratic Party and powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus have alleged Russian “fake news” interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. The aim of this anti-Russia campaign has been twofold: (1) to install, via the methods of palace intrigue and coup, a regime prepared to militarily confront Russia and (2) to justify sweeping Internet censorship and other dictatorial measures on the grounds that the population is being indoctrinated by the Kremlin.

The Sunday Times feature published April 29 confirms that a similar campaign has begun in Britain. This version is directed against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the millions of people who have registered their opposition—on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs and memes—to the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May’s agenda of war and austerity.

The Insight Research Team—George Arbuthnott, Jonathan Calvert, Krystina Shveda, Louis Goddard, Mary O’Connor, Katie Weston, Malik Ouzia, Rebecca Gualandi and Rosie Bradbury—raked over Corbyn’s higher than expected vote.

“The causes of the result are still being debated. Was it the galvanisation of the youth vote, did May run a lacklustre campaign or were the polls wrong from the beginning?” they asked.

Not one of these possibilities was investigated. Instead the team aimed their sights on … “Russians in the ranks”.

“One question has been largely overlooked, until now. Did Moscow attempt to influence the British general election by using social media …?”

Insight reported their “ground breaking investigation” with Swansea University academic Oleksandr Talavera had uncovered 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts supporting Corbyn.

Most of the 6,500 accounts, Insight claimed, were bots—automated accounts that retweet posts from other accounts, posting links or comments from external sources. These were “mass-produced to bombard the public with orchestrated political messages,” claimed Rupert Murdoch’s investigative team, who are certainly experts on the topic.

In fact, such bots are routinely used by media outlets, celebrities, businesses and individuals to boost their social media reach and influence—but the Times, it seems, has only just discovered these dastardly bots and their evil ways.

Its real aim is to criminalise any attempt by the public at large to promote views that challenge the financial oligarchy and its state machine.

During the snap poll May launched on April 18, Corbyn’s support rose from 25 percent to 40 percent, reducing the Conservative government to minority status and shocking the political establishment. According to the Insight team, this could not be explained with reference to objectively rooted socioeconomic processes. Instead, it was attributed to Russian bots whose shady influence is somehow linked to Corbyn’s own repeated failure “to strongly condemn Vladimir Putin.”

The Times investigation cited “key points” during the general election when Russian Twitter accounts “swung into action” with apparently devastating effect.

These key points included May’s disastrous campaign launch on May 18, the Manchester bombing on May 22, her repeated refusal to hold a leaders’ debate with Corbyn, and the mass rallies Corbyn addressed that were a feature of the campaign. To add insult to injury, “At the times when the bots spread positivity for Labour, they would also spread almost equal amounts of negativity for the Conservatives.”

To cite just one example of Insight’s shoddy methodology and conclusions: “In early June, ‘Lillian Morgan’ retweeted a message from the pro-Kremlin broadcaster Russia Today inviting people to watch Corbyn’s speech in Reading. The event drew comment in the newspapers because a surprisingly large crowd attended during a workday lunchtime.”

All this proves is that the “newspapers” are a million times removed from the mass of the population. The Times journalists are shocked by “a surprisingly large crowd” and can only conclude that the population has been “manipulated” by a Kremlin-backed Twitter conspiracy. Such is the police mentality that now dominates the editorial offices of the British press.

Lillian turns out to have been bot @sMzNFVr7wWkTW04 created in Russia. No evidence has been supplied as to Lillian’s true identity, so no conclusions can be drawn. The British media does not have a great track record when it comes to outing Russian trolls and bots. Only last month, the owner of an alleged Russian bot account—an English retiree who opposes the bombing of Syria— spoke out publicly to expose the media’s anti-Russia witch-hunt. Ian56 successfully faced down a hostile line of questioning from Sky News “journalists”.

The entire Times investigation is based on just 20,000 tweets. As Wired magazine pointed out, in the month before the general election, 1.067 million accounts tweeted around 10 million times, using terms such as theresamay, #Conservatives, nicolasturgeon, paulnuttall, ukip, #Labour (to name a few).

Talevera’s academic research therefore “investigated” 20,000 out of 10 million tweets, a grand total of 0.2 percent.

The British media campaign over Russian interference is rank hypocrisy. A relative handful of Russian-backed Twitter accounts is child’s play compared to the routine and violent political interference of the imperialist powers in countries all over the world. The British ruling class has carried out criminal wars of occupation and illegal regime change across the Middle East and North Africa that have claimed the lives of over a million people since 2003 alone, turning millions more into stateless refugees.

The desperate and crude methods of the Sunday Times must serve as a warning. Owned by the billionaire Rupert Murdoch, the Sunday Times speaks for powerful sections of the British ruling class. If Corbyn owes his popularity to Kremlin interference, the implications are clear: preparations must be made for his removal.

These moves are not primarily aimed against Corbyn … They are aimed against the working class.

Three years ago, the Sunday Times quoted an unnamed serving general threatening mutiny by “fair means or foul” against a Corbyn government. The intervening years have seen an immense deepening of the crisis of British imperialism which has responded, like all the major powers, by stepped-up preparations for war and a build-up of the state.

The Sunday Times article begins and ends with calls for sweeping Internet censorship. It cites Matt Hancock, digital and culture secretary in May’s government, insisting, “It is absolutely unacceptable for any nation to attempt to interfere in the democratic elections of another country. The social media companies need to act to safeguard our democratic discourse and reveal what they know.”

If you want to find Russian links in Britain, don’t look to Corbyn – look to the Tories: here.

British Blairite-Erdoganite Woodcock suspended for sexual harassment


This 26 March 2018 video from the British parliament says about itself:

[Labour MP] Chris Williamson tells Blairite John Woodcock to go sit ‘on the Tory benches‘ after attacking Corbyn.

By Lamiat Sabin in Britain:

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Labour’s suspension of John Woodcock welcomed by Kurdish campaigners

KURDISH campaigners welcomed Labour’s suspension of John Woodcock yesterday as he faces an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, claiming that it is not an isolated case of his inappropriate behaviour.

An outspoken opponent of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn within the party, Mr Woodcock said he did not accept the charge brought against him.

On Saturday the Daily Mirror reported that a former aide had made a complaint in November alleging that the MP had sent her inappropriate texts and emails between 2014 and 2016 after she had left her job. An investigation is pending.

Kurdistan Solidarity Campaign co-chair Rosa Gilbert said the group welcomes his suspension because of his critical comments about the Kurdish-Syrian defence force the YPG and his visits to the King of Saudi Arabia and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Ms Gilbert said: “His now-deleted ‘handjob’ tweet was unbecoming of the office he holds.”

In reply to BBC journalist Nina Warhurst’s tweet about having to pay £12.60 for two pints and a packet of crisps in London last August, Mr Woodcock had replied: “To be fair I’ve paid that much in Barrow, but it does come with a hand job.”

Ms Gilbert said: “His willingness to propagandise for regimes based on the subjugation of women and sexual violence, including his defence of Turkey’s invasion of Afrin, which has paved the way for the kidnapping and mass rape of Yazidi women, betrays the very proud history of the British labour movement, that of international solidarity with women and men facing untold oppression.

“There must be no space in the party for sexual harassment and misogyny. It is vital too that Woodcock must not be allowed to further bring the party into disrepute.”