Tony Blair’s Saudi regime corruption


This 24 July 2018 video from the USA says about itself:

Saudis Buy Former UK Prime Minister Blair for $12 Million

Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK and an architect of the Iraq War, is a mercenary that Saudi Arabia hired to present themselves as modernizers and cover for their invasion of Yemen, says Medea Benjamin, the author of Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection.

By Joe Gill in Britain:

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Tony Blair is a mercenary for Saudi and oil-gas interests. He can’t be taken seriously

REMARKABLY, for an instigator of a war in Iraq that was declared illegal by the UN, former prime minister Tony Blair is still treated as an elder statesman in Britain.

The former Labour leader was recently given a fawning interview on BBC Radio 4’s flagship morning Today programme in which he had free rein to attack current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, describing him as “existential threat” to the party.

What was not revealed in that interview is that Blair’s Institute has received £9 million from the Saudi tyrant Mohammed bin Salman, making him effectively a mouthpiece for the Gulf regime in Britain. Blair, not surprisingly, has lavishly praised the Saudi crown prince’s so-called reform policies and his brutal war in Yemen.

In a Financial Times report on the Tony Blair Institute’s first annual accounts, it confirmed the receipt of millions from Media Investment Limited (MIL), which is a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group, registered in Guernsey. Its former chair was Saudi Culture Minister Badr bin Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Farhan.

Blair’s institute “was set up in late 2016 after Blair announced that he was wrapping up his controversial business empire in order to focus on philanthropy”, reported the FT.

Blair is a very rich man and declares that he does not take any of the money as income for himself. Nevertheless he can hardly be treated seriously as a commentator on British politics when his entire post-politics career has been built on forging business links with Gulf and other oil-gas interests.

Blair chairs the US financial group JP Morgan’s international council and is on the advisory panel to the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline.

The latter is a $40 billion project to bring gas from the Caspian Sea [Azerbaijan dictatorship] to western Europe via Georgia, Turkey and Albania and, not coincidentally, is probably the most significant threat to Russia’s dominance of Europe’s gas market.

His meeting last week with Italy’s far-right Home Minister Matteo Salvini was mainly to discuss the Adriatic end of the gas pipeline, which is supposed to reach Italy if it can overcome opposition to its environmental impact.

Blair’s other big funder is Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk who is close to the pro-Nato government of fellow billionaire Petro Poroshenko. Pinchuk has been funding Blair’s Faith Foundation since 2011.

Blair seems to have a finger in every pie related to Western energy interests in the Middle East and the former Soviet sphere. He is like a British Henry Kissinger, if not as intellectually respected.

Since he first became party leader, Blair always linked himself to the most neoconservative leaders and power brokers in the Western elite, from Margaret Thatcher to Rupert Murdoch and George W Bush.

Following his disastrous role in the Iraq war, he has become a bagman for the oil-gas sector across the wider Middle East, with powerful friends from Dubai to Astana.

Blair has consistently been hawkishly pro-war since he left office, backing military action across the Middle East and favouring a hard line against Iran. He is close to the far-right Israeli government as well as to the rulers of the United Arab Emirates.

However, Today’s presenter Nick Robinson preferred to describe him as Labour’s most successful politician and left it to left-wing commentator Owen Jones to point out his links with “murderous dictatorships”.

Should Corbyn have been found to be in the pay of any Middle Eastern authoritarian regime, we can be sure it would be the top political story of the day. Not so for Blair.

Blairite MPs have spent all summer alleging anti-semitism in the party was out of control and making slanderous attacks on Corbyn. Despite this, Labour is ahead of the Tories in the polls.

The crisis in the party is really about a large group of MPs who can’t stand the leadership and despise the new mass membership that backs its socialist agenda.

Since the manufactured anti-semitism crisis has failed to topple Corbyn, it now falls to Blair to take up the baton of trying to split the party and prevent a left-wing Labour government coming to power.

However, he is a discredited figure politically. No matter how much airtime he gets, he will not be able to reverse history and turn Labour back into the pro-war, pro-business party it was under him.

But, if he does encourage a parliamentary breakaway to form a new centre party, the risk to Labour’s chances of forming a government is real and present.

No to Trump’s, Blair’s warmongering


This video from the USA says about itself:

Syria War Being Justified By Same Type of Propaganda As Iraq; Stop Believing the Lies

12 December 2016

LONG Source List Below

After decades of the United States rationalizing war and regime change on lies, the American people no longer get a pass to blindly accept more of the same in Syria. JUST like it was ENTIRELY possible to know in real time that the justifications for war in Iraq were predicated on lies, so it is with Syria. We stand on the edge of escalating a conflict which could trigger a much wider war, and the corporate FAKE news media AGAIN acts as stenographers for lies. SHAMEFUL.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Friday, April 13, 2018

We must not be bulldozed into another war by Blair and co

THERESA MAY has no mandate to order Britain’s air force to take part in any bombing spree against Syria, which would not only be illegal but fraught with danger.

Securing a Cabinet majority for tailing behind whatever decision is taken across the Atlantic will confer neither legality nor justification for further death and destruction in Syria.

Those who advocate bombing Syria don’t even justify their stance militarily, talking airily about “punishing” or “sending a message to” Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin or both of them.

This is typical of the woolly thinking that passes for rigorous debate among the political elite in Parliament and mass media.

It is confused, dishonest and potentially dangerous for all bar those who prattle on about the need for military action, especially in central Asia, the Middle East and north Africa, from the safety of their cosy Westminster benches.

Surely it beggars belief that disgraced former prime minister and serial war criminal Tony Blair is again parading through media news rooms to share his opinion that he supports military action in Syria.

“If the US are taking action, we should be prepared to be alongside them”, he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme as though we’ve all drawn a line under the lies he told to cajole pliable Labour MPs to back the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.

While Labour’s membership has moved on from the Blair years — and has swollen manyfold in response to the election of a consistent peace campaigner as leaderits parliamentary ranks remain blighted by too many armchair generals.

Labour Party organisations and constituents should act quickly to contact all MPs — not only the usual violence fetishists — to demand that they oppose the drive to war and insist that May does not go behind the back of Parliament to approve military action.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent voice for sanity in this crisis, following the same principled approach he has adopted in similar circumstances when warmongers, backed by the mass media, have tried to intimidate peace forces into silence.

If Russian or US planes are shot down or troops on the ground are attacked, escalation can be all but guaranteed.

Moscow has indicated that it will not withdraw its forces from defensive positions around airfields and other key installations to give the US air force a free run to hit the Syrian army or its Iranian, Lebanese and other allies.

Russia has drawn a line between international law and imperialist piracy and is unlikely to retreat from this position.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has already declared its intention to send investigation teams to Douma to seek evidence of the chemical attack that jihadist-linked groups insist took place and which is denied by both Damascus and Moscow.

The May government approached OPCW for confirmation of the agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Why not wait to see what it reports on Douma?

Britain has already been bulldozed by Blair and company into one mass bloodletting on the basis of false evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We don’t need another just 15 years later.

Corbyn is not alone in demanding that Parliament should have the final say on military action.

The Liberal Democrats and Scottish nationalists also want a vote but have not spoken out against the Tories’ war fever, raising fears that they will back air raids amid inconsequential nitpicking.

They and the government must be told unmistakably that people in Britain don’t want another war.

Don’t take us into another illegal war. As May summons her cabinet to discuss military action in Syria, MPs warn against doing so without giving Parliament a say: here.

Tony Blair against Brexit, Ramones parody song


This 21 February 2018 parody music video from Britain is called The Remoans – “Britsleave Bop”.

It is a parody of the song Blitzkrieg Bop by the Ramones.

Tony Blair takes lead vocal duties on this new Brexit-bashing single from The Remoans.’

The lyrics are:

They’re foaming at the mouth now
Their eyes are swivelling round
Devaluing the pound
The Britsleave Bop

They’re scoffing at the experts
Not listening to lectures
Endangering the sectors
The Britsleave Bop

Ho hey, let’s stay
Stop them in their tracks now
What they want, I don’t know
As long as it’s hard and we definitely go

They’re foaming at the mouth now
Their eyes are swivelling round
Devaluing the pound
The Britsleave Bop

Tony Blair promotes Islamophobia


This January 2015 video from Britain is called Tony Blair Not In Jail? I Literally Don’t Understand: Russell Brand The Trews (E235).

From RT.com:

Tony Blair warns of populist uprisings & collapse of EU if Muslim immigration not addressed

5 Jan, 2018 10:19

More countries could break away from the EU in a wave of populist revolts, says Tony Blair.

The same wrong use of the word ‘populist’ as many others. ‘Populism’ is often used wrongly by journalists who are too cowardly to call racist political parties ‘racist’. For Tony Blair, it is a term of abuse without meaning, lumping together all sorts of political tendencies which have nothing in common except not being liked by Tony Blair; like present Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and other leftist critics of Blair’s war crimes.

The former UK PM has called on EU countries to “seize the moment” and to deal with underlying Muslim migration issues.

Blair told [right-wing] German newspaper Die Welt that the same migration concerns that sparked Brexit aren’t issues faced solely by the UK, and other EU countries could face backlashes down the line.

Contrary to Blair, Brexit was not just ‘sparked’ by xenophobia. The pro-Brexit referendum campaign by a minority of Conservative MPs and Ukip was xenophobic (so was the Conservative ‘remainer’ campaign of Cameron, Theresa May, etc.; supported by the most racist head of government in Europe, Orban of Hungary; Blair is now basically saying the same as Orban, that European Union harsh anti-refugee policies should become harsher still to ‘save’ the European Union).

But some voters did not like the European Union because they opposed its anti-refugee policies. And/or its pro-Big Business policies. Or its militarisation. Etc. These voters contributed to the pro-Brexit majority vote as well.

Blair made a clear distinction between EU migration – a problem that he believes is only an issue in certain areas of the UK – and non-EU migration.

He said tensions occur from non-EU migration “when people aren’t sure the people coming are sharing our values” – particularly from majority-Muslim countries.

Blair believes this is already an issue in Holland, Denmark and Sweden.

No, Tony War Criminal Blair. Migration in itself is not a problem; xenophobic reactions to it are. And, eg, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands may be best known for his racism against non-EU Moroccans and other Muslims. But Wilders promotes bigotry against Poles and against Romanians as well. Scratch an Islamophobe, and you will usually discover a supporter of anti-Semitism (maybe for the time being excepting the extreme right in Israeli politics), of bigotry against Africans, homophobia, misogyny and all other kinds of bigotry. Blair‘s suggestion of Islamophobia without other bigotry is a lie. The United States neonazi site The Daily Stormer praises Blair for his Islamophobia, and says anti-Semitism should be the next step in the ‘right’ direction.

And why, Tony Blair, is there immigration ‘from majority-Muslim countries’? Because you and your pal George W Bush killed over a million people in Iraq and made over four million people refugees. Because you and your pal George W Bush are the godfathers of ISIS, from whom so many Muslims (and non-Muslims) fled. Because you and your pal George W Bush killed so many people in, and made so many people refugees from Afghanistan. Because your pal David Cameron, egged on, eg, by you, started bombing Syria, which still continues. Because you flip-flopped on Libya, from pal of Colonel Gaddafi to promoter of war on Libyan civilians, murder of Gaddafi and making Libya (and other African countries) a hell of bloodshed, slavery, child abuse, etc. Because your royal pals in Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc. are butchering the people of Yemen.

Blair has also called for a second referendum, once the details of the Brexit agreement have been thrashed out, so the people of the United Kingdom can have a say on whether they still want to leave the EU or not.

And if the British voters would vote for Brexit a second time, then Tony Blair would demand a third referendum, and a fourth … till the ‘stupid’ ‘peasant’ voters would at last obey Tony Blair. Tony Blair both in his words and in practice has shown he does not like democracy.

United States author Michael Wolff claims in his new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House that Mr Blair tried to land a role as a Middle East adviser to Mr Trump: here. Plausible, as Blair for a long time was a pal of right-winger Rupert Murdoch, he might become a pal of right-winger Trump as well. Probably, the reason he was turned down was that to become United States presidential adviser one needs a US passport.

Anti-Muslim groups are influencing world leaders to help push Islamophobia, research reveals: here.

British Labourite poet banned by Blairites for satiric Blair poems


This video from Ireland says about itself:

Kevin Higgins – An Introduction with two poems from Revival

Launch of the Revival Poetry Journal issue 7, recorded in The Whitehouse, O’Connell St., Limerick, on Wednesday the 9th April 2008.

By Steve Sweeney in Britain, Tuesday, January 2, 2018:

Calls grow for Kevin Higgins to be reinstated into the Labour Party

A letter signed by over 30 people in today’s Star brands the poet’s 18 month suspension ‘absurd’

POET Kevin Higgins remains suspended by the Labour Party 18 months after writing a satire about critics of party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

A letter printed in today’s Morning Star, signed by more than 30 people, has called on Labour to reinstate Mr Higgins’s membership, branding his continued suspension from the party “absurd.”

Mr Higgins was one of the many to receive letters from Labour’s compliance unit suspending him from the party after the Labour right organised a failed attempt to dislodge Mr Corbyn as leader in the fallout of the EU referendum vote in 2016.

Included in the list of accusations against Mr Higgins was that he had refashioned German writer Bertolt Brecht’s poem Ballad of the Soldier’s Wife as a satire about Tony and Cherie Blair.

The poet lives in Ireland but campaigned for Labour during a visit to Britain and has continued to pay his membership fee as an overseas member.

He has been a member of the party since the age of 15 and was active in the anti-poll tax movement.

In 2015 he wrote the satirical poem Blair’s Advice on hearing that the former prime minister had written a column in the Observer saying Labour would only be successful by occupying the “centre ground”.

He tweeted at the time: “Tony Blair needs to just go away. I hear he has an article in today’s Observer. I’d rather make love to John Prescott than read it.”

Mr Higgins’s supporters wrote: “We think it absurd that someone can remain suspended from the UK Labour Party for 18 months for the supposed crime of writing satirical poems.”

They called on the party to “immediately clarify this situation.”

Here is the 2015 poem about the failed Blairite coup attempt:

BLAIR’S ADVICE (On hearing tell of his column in Sunday’s Observer)

Easy to say,
you’d rather make loud love
to Lord Prescott, or have
your face smashed between
Sir Cyril Smith’s quivering cheeks
than read Tony Blair on how
the motorway to the mountaintop
he envisages lies
through the centre ground;
when you know neither
gentleman’s available, right
here right now, to take you.
We need to make voting Labour
as pleasurable
for call centre managers and
estate agents of a certain age
as lowering their roasting
menopausal testicles
into a nice cold bath.

To this end, we need a leader
with ideas thrilling as a dripping cistern,
a man (or woman) likely conceived during a Conservative Association dinner
somewhere in darkest Buckinghamshire;
who, while his or her fellow students
were thoughtlessly dancing the blues,
bravely danced the beige;
a person of exemplary character apart
from that one conviction for stealing
the brass handles off
their own father’s coffin.
We must offer hope
to those who aspire to shop
for gourmet sausage meat
at Waitrose, and not
waste time on people who perspire
as they rifle through packets
of past-their-use-by-date
picnic ham at Aldi.

KEVIN HIGGINS

– Kevin Higgins’s poetry features in the generation-defining anthology Identity Parade — New British and Irish Poets (Ed. Roddy Lumsden, Bloodaxe, 2010) and in the recent anthology The Hundred Years’ War: Modern War Poems (Ed. Neil Astley, Bloodaxe, 2014). The Ghost In The Lobby (Salmon, 2014) is Kevin’s fourth collection of poems. His
blog is at mentioningthewar.blogspot.com.

This video from the USA says about itself:

New Report Finds Tony Blair Schemed With Bush To Invade Iraq

8 July 2016

An official investigation known as The Chilcot Report into how Tony Blair led Great Britain into war reveals that he and George W Bush conspired to bring their countries to a war of aggression based on faulty intelligence, lies and assumptions. Blair sent Bush a note promising loyalty.

And here is Kevin Higgins poem on Tony and Cherie Blair, based on Brecht’s Ballad of the soldier’s wife:

And what did she get, the girlfriend,
from the student union meeting
at which he rose to his feet
and realised he could speak?
From that meeting she got
the Snickers bar he forgot to eat
so busy was he watching them listen;
and that speech, unabridged,
every other night for thirty five years.

And what did she get, his new wife,
from the time he first used a party
conference microphone to agree with both sides?
Those okay with the Moslems/Mexicans/Gypsies being here,
and those who want them kept over there.
From that microphone she took away their
invitation to dine with the Deputy Mayor
and his not new wife.

And what did she get, his no longer new wife,
when, at the second attempt,
he won that seat on the City Council?
From his election she got to drink Pinot Noir
and go swimming in their private club
with the not-so-new wives
of those who got the contracts
to make the paving stones and install
the pay-and-display ticket machines
during his years as Chairman
of the relevant committee.

And what did she get, his well-maintained wife,
the night he was elected to the big shiny
parliament? From that night she took away
an architect to re-design their new three storey pad
in the priciest possible part of the capital,
and an article about herself
in the Daily Express lifestyle pages.

And what did she get, the no longer new MP’s
no longer new wife, the morning
they made him Minister?
That morning she got to go horse riding
with the Leader of the House of Lords’
fourth (or fifth) wife.

And what did she get, the no longer new
Cabinet Minister’s wife, the night the landslide
made him Prime Minister? That night
she got to hold to her breast
invitations to break foie gras
with the Sultan of Brunei, the President of China;
and the chance to write husband’s speech
announcing the crackdown on beggars
who accost hard working
families who stop to ask for directions
en route to the nearest funeral parlour

And what did she get, the ex-Prime Minister’s
no longer new wife, from all the depleted uranium shells
he had dropped during the Battle of Basra, all the soldiers
he sent to meet improvised explosive
devices
in far Mesopotamia in the hope
of getting rid of something bigger
than the beggars and prostitutes
at Kings Cross. For these she got
white night terrors
of him on trial for all their crimes,
and the desire to never again
look out the front window of their fine
Connaught Square house
at the tree from which, it’s said,
they used to once string
traitors.

While the Blairite Labour party bureaucrats keep banning Kevin Higgins for poetry, they apparently never even thought of banning Tony Blair for war crimes, torture, money grabbing or his expressed preference for the Conservative party over the Labour party.

Mr Wolff also claims in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House that Mr Blair tried to land a role as a Middle East adviser to Mr Trump: here.

Tony Blair, enemy of democracy


This video says about itself:

The Killing$ of Tony Blair | Trailer | Available Now

21 December 2016

Some people make a living, others make a killing.

Many believe Tony Blair should be charged for taking the UK to war in Iraq. Former Labour MP George Galloway has made a career out of challenging Blair: in this film he deftly makes his case. What emerges is a tale of Blair‘s malfeasance whilst in power and power-broking whilst not. Cosying up to dictators and media moguls, Blair has made a string of questionable friends in high places; In the process, he has also made a personal fortune.

Tony Blair Associates is a very secretive operation that makes a very large amount of money from a large number of governments – some of them you might regard as less than respectable,” relates Francis Beckett, who investigated Tony Blair’s lucrative consultancy firm. One such ‘less than respectable’ government is Nazarbayev’s dictatorship in Kazakhstan, accused of many abuses, including the suppression of a miners’ strike in which sixty people were shot. Tony Blair, however, publicly defended this important and well-paying client. The hypocrisy of such relationships is not lost on critics; as Craig Murray, former British Ambassador, wryly states: “Blair was sustained by a coal-mining district throughout his parliamentary career and now he’s taking massive cheques from somebody who shoots miners if they go on strike.” However, it is not just since leaving office that Blair has turned to Machievellian means. Alleged scandals and counts of corruption plague his term, which was built on propensity for deceit and double-dealing. As he supposedly advised David Miliband on life in public office: “smile at everybody and get someone else to stab their back.”

By Callum Alexander Scott in Britain:

Since when did Tony Blair care about ‘the will of the people’?

Tuesday 12th December 2017

With Blair expostulating over Brexit again, CALLUM ALEXANDER SCOTT reminds us that the former PM had a very loose acquaintance with the concept of democracy

WAR criminal extraordinaire Tony Blair has once again been waxing lyrical over Brexit.

When asked by a journalist recently if his mission is to reverse Brexit, he replied with uncharacteristic honesty and clarity: “Yes, exactly so.”

In a slight change of tone from earlier statements where he emphasised that “the will of the people should prevail,” this time around he emphasised that “the will of the people is not something immutable” and that “people can change their mind.”

Of course, there would be nothing wrong with this statement if it weren’t for the simple fact that Blair is not, and has never been, a supporter of “the will of the people.”

To the contrary, he and his centrist disciples have always preferred operating as Blair himself described in an article for the New York Times earlier this year, like self-entitled “managers of the status quo.”

Indeed, ever the champion of the “will of the people,” he even revealed in 2015 his belief that a “government taking effective decisions” is more important than democracy itself.

This no doubt explains his unwavering support for, and dodgy dealings with, numerous dictators around the globe and why he and corporate media dictator Rupert Murdoch always had good time for each other. Blair is, after all, godfather to Murdoch’s daughter.

Here we should recall how, as British prime minister, Blair had zero care for the will of millions of people — specifically Britons and Iraqis but also the international community — who opposed the Iraq war, which we now know he sold to the public on false pretences.

Likewise, he cared little for the will of his own Cabinet. As his former minister for international development Clare Short has said, “No decisions were made in the Cabinet. It didn’t operate in the way that constitutional theory says that it should … He [Blair] didn’t want any clashing or discussion of ideas.” See also Short’s testimony to the Iraq Inquiry Panel in 2010, where she explains this in greater detail.

Former mayor of London and longstanding Labour politician Ken Livingstone has also spoken of how Blair’s party was one in which “dissent really wasn’t tolerated,” while the writer and professor Will Self has said that Blair used “the kind of tactics that one associates with emperors or rulers … who are not democratic.”

It is in fact well documented by politicians, journalists and analysts that under Blair the traditional machinery of party democracy was sidelined. Key decision-making was centralised and representative democracy was effectively replaced by what has been described as government by a “technocratic, managerial elite” who formed policy based largely on information drawn from focus groups and polling.

As one professor of politics has written, the key role of MPs during the Blair era became “simply to secure formal consent from their constituents for the government’s legislative programme by winning elections, by appearing publicly and in the media to be as generically inoffensive as possible to a broad cross-section of the public and above all by appearing unthreatening to key media outlets.” For a good account of all this, see episode 4 of Adam Curtis’s 2002 documentary The Century of the Self.

Blair’s autocratic approach to government is also well documented by scholars for its unprecedented use of information management, PR and spin.

Andrew Marr called Blair’s New Labour the “most media-obsessed government” of modern times, and there is by now a vast body of literature on the relationship between Blair, New Labour and the media, with many commentators and academics likening the extent of the information control and opinion management to a Gramscian project of unsettling proportions.

The effects of all this were to vastly reshape British politics and politicians, and indeed the media’s relationship to them, for decades.

Accordingly, David Cameron would later describe himself as the “heir to Blair”, while he and George Osborne would openly refer to Blair as “the master,” asking in times of difficulty: “What would the master have done?”

And as former Conservative MP Ken Clarke revealed in his memoirs last year, Cameron was a “PR-obsessed control freak.

“Media handling and public relations are now regarded as the key elements of governing,” he wrote, while “a small army of … PR experts … have far too big a role in policy-making … Next week’s headlines are given more priority than serious policy development and the long-term consequences.”

While Blair has many legacies, it is perhaps one of his most pernicious to have reduced Britain’s already limited form of representative democracy to what is effectively a centralised, “top-down” government of managerial elites who perpetually seek to maintain power by controlling information and public opinion.

Certainly Blair is no champion of the will of the people unless, of course, their will happens to align with his.

As the renowned US theologian Reinhold Neibhur wrote, “Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith and the naive faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which are provided by the myth-maker to keep [the] ordinary person on course.”

This is Blair’s political philosophy in a nutshell. He sees himself as the rational myth-maker, keeping the ordinary people in check, and his penchant for fostering “necessary illusions” and “emotionally potent oversimplifications” is precisely why he’s acquired the nicknames “Tony Blur,” “Phoney Tony,” “Tony Bliar” and “Teflon Tony” (because dirt never sticks to him).

It’s also why he’s managed to convince the world for so long that he’s left-wing. With remarkable self-delusion he’s even managed to convince himself.

But he’s not left-wing. He is in many respects ultra right-wing, not least because of his disdain for the will of the people.

We should always remember that Margaret Thatcher was asked at a banquet in 2002 what she thought her greatest achievement was. She replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”

As Blair himself put it, “On a personal level she [Thatcher] was immensely kind and generous to me when I was prime minister … I always thought my job was to build on some of the things she had done.”

Chief among these things was of course New Labour’s extension of the neoliberal economic model, which has not only done immense harm to the social and economic fabric of British society but has also led to the huge transfer of power from the public to the unaccountable private sphere.

Renowned British sociologist and political scientist Professor Colin Crouch has coined the term “post-democracy” to describe our current political situation.

He writes that, while elections are held, governments fall and a degree of free speech exists, the collective will of the population is mostly ignored by “small circles of a politico-economic elite” that overwhelmingly control the levers of power.

This is the way that Blair likes. It’s the system he’s helped to construct and, as a member of the super-rich, borderless global elite, it suits him just fine.

Tony Blair, satiric video


This video from Britain says about itself:

21 September 2017

Tony Blair launches his new centrist party, The Central Centrocrats, at Britain’s central point: a field in Fenny Dreyton, Leicestershire.

How right-wing parties win elections


This video from the USA says about itself:

How Politicians and Academics Lie: Misinformation, Public Relations, and Public Opinion (2005)

Academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal academic exercise. It can include

Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment.

Fabrication: The falsification of data, information, or citations in any formal academic exercise.

Deception: Providing false information to an instructor concerning a formal academic exercise—e.g., giving a false excuse for missing a deadline or falsely claiming to have submitted work.

Cheating: Any attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise (like an examination) without due acknowledgment.

Bribery: or paid services. Giving assignment answers or test answers for money.

Sabotage: Acting to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others.

Professorial misconduct: Professorial acts that are academically fraudulent equate to academic fraud and/or grade fraud.

Impersonation: assuming a student’s identity with intent to provide an advantage for the student.

Academic dishonesty has been documented in most every type of educational setting from elementary school to graduate school. Throughout history this type of dishonesty has been met with varying degrees of approbation. Today, those who are a part of an educated society tend to take a very negative view of academic dishonesty.

The extent to which the US government was guilty of propaganda aimed at its own people is a matter of discussion. The book Selling Intervention & War by Jon Western argued that president Bush was “selling the war” to the public.

President George W. Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. About halfway through the event Bush said, “See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

People had their initial reactions to the War on Terror, but with more biased and persuading information, Iraq as a whole has been negatively targeted. America’s goal was to remove Saddam Hussein’s power in Iraq with allegations of possible weapons of mass destruction related to Osama Bin Laden. Video and picture coverage in the news has shown shocking and disturbing images of torture and other evils being done under the Iraqi government.

By Suranjit Saha in Wales:

How do right-wing parties win elections in our capitalist democracies?

Saturday 16th September 2017

SURANJIT SAHA offers an explanation as to why so many politicians opposed to people’s own interests find themselves in the world’s top jobs

THE battle cry of “We are the 99 per cent”, highlighting the fact that the top 1 per cent of the wealthiest people in society own a disproportionate share of wealth and political influence, is now well known.

But the paradox is this: no political party anywhere can win an election on the basis of the support of just 1 per cent of population.

And yet, in almost all major democracies of the world today, the governing parties or coalitions are the parties of the right or centre-right, whose core policies are to promote the interests of the rich. How does this happen?

The 1 per cent is, of course, a notional and arbitrary slice of society. For the sake of tidiness, let us call this dynamics “the top 10 per cent versus the remaining 90 per cent.”

The top 10 per cent does need the votes of a big chunk of the other 90 per cent in order to govern.

Immediately after the end of the second world war, the Labour Party under the leadership of Clement Attlee had won the election and formed Britain’s first post-war government.

At a time when the British economy was nearly bankrupt under the pressure of fighting a destructive five-year war, the party had the courage to establish the three strong pillars of a modern welfare state: a National Health Service, a social housing programme and free access to university education to all.

It did not hide behind the standard excuse of the rich: “The economy cannot afford it.”

For such a party to begin to lose faith in its core principle of social justice was probably among the worst regressions in the political culture of the 20th century.

The long period of uninterrupted Conservative rule from 1979 to 1997 had created an atmosphere of unremitting hopelessness among the working class in Britain and it was in that atmosphere that Tony Blair came to be elected as the leader of the Labour Party in July 1994.

During his years as prime minister, he had firmly repositioned his party to the right of the political spectrum, at times further to the right than the Conservative Party.

The lasting damage to the mid and long-term political prospects of the left was done by the social engineering that he practised.

Blair drummed the message across in all his speeches that it was impossible to win an election in Britain by focusing on social justice.

He ruptured the traditional Labour politics of building a social coalition with the poorer and middle classes and replaced that with a new alliance of middle and richer classes.

This social engineering was in fact a bold gambit of beating the Conservatives at their own game by becoming more like them.

In this, a small minority of the top elite, using its better education and other forms of accumulated social capital, successfully divides the society beneath it into a hierarchy of an infinite number of narrowly defined classes, each class disdainfully regarding the ones below it as parasites and constantly aspiring to rise to the ranks of those above it. It functions by constantly harping on the virtues of hard work as a route to upward mobility.

What the elite-controlled media does not say is that any amount of hard work will not allow ordinary people to enter the magic circle of the small coterie of the privileged, most of them educated at Eton/Harrow and Oxford/Cambridge and bound together by the strong bonds of self-interest.

The positions that these people hold in the state and corporate apparatus are not because of hard work or inherent talent, but because their families had the resources to buy them access to privileged private education and had the ability to place them into the orbit of those proverbial old boys’ clubs, which in most cases control access to these positions.

Until the end of the second world war, university education in general, and not only at Oxford and Cambridge, had of course remained an exclusive preserve of the rich and privileged, a narrow top layer of the British society.

Nobody without a university degree could reasonably aspire to secure a “salaried job” in a responsible position and nobody outside that circle could aspire to have a university degree.

It was only after the Labour government headed by Attlee opened up university education to all that a degree of social mobility came to exist in this country, opening up a small space of justice in its atrophied class structure.

In 1989 the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher started the process of rolling back the slow forward movement of social mobility which Labour had set in motion a quarter of a century earlier when it all but abolished maintenance grants.

Over the next 28 years, Britain regressed to its pre-1945 situation of an atrophied class division with regard to access to the university education.

All students other than those belonging to the top 10 per cent of the income pyramid will now leave university with a debt of around £60,000. Most will feel extremely intimidated to take on such a gamble at the threshold of their adult lives.

Limiting the access to higher education to all but the top elite is just one part of the power game. Taking recourse to various forms of dissembling and doublespeak to win votes of the common man and woman was the other necessary part.

A form of dissembling quite popular with the Conservatives is this constant refrain about how good and necessary the “wealth creators” are for the society.

By wealth creators, they mean corporate bosses, real estate developers, bankers, stockbrokers and the rich in general.

They alone are the creators of employment. Therefore, they must not be unfairly taxed, regulated or disadvantaged in any other way and left free to make money.

In any real economy, however, the creation of the final social product, or the aggregate value added, which the right calls the creation of wealth, actually happens through the joint enterprise and creativity of the bosses and the workers.

However, the rules of a capitalist economy about distributing this final product is such that the bosses receive a disproportionately larger share than the workers.

And within the group of workers in most organisations the gap between the highest and the lowest earners is huge.

It is difficult to see any valid reason why the chief executive officers of companies should need to earn, on average, 262 times more than the lowest-paid employees, as was reported in a research publication of the Equality Trust in 2011.

This has no connection with any form of rationality. What is at play here are capitalist values, which say that it is all right for some to earn multi-million-pound bonuses and for the low-paid workers doing full-time hard work to struggle to make ends meet.

It is the brutality of these kinds of values that a party of the left has to make clear to the bottom 90 per cent of the population and not pander to the limitless greed of the top 10 per cent.

Suranjit Saha retired as a senior lecturer in development studies at the University of Swansea.

Tony Blair anti-immigrant workers, anti-Brexit voters’ decision


This video from the USA says about itself:

New Report Finds Tony Blair Schemed With Bush To Invade Iraq

8 July 2016

An official investigation known as The Chilcot Report into how Tony Blair led Great Britain into war reveals that he and George W Bush conspired to bring their countries to a war of aggression based on faulty intelligence, lies and assumptions. Blair sent Bush a note promising loyalty.

Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

By Peter Lazenby in Britain:

Blair rebuked over Brexit nonsense

Monday 11th September 2017

McCluskey attacks ‘out of touch’ ex-PM over immigration stance

TONY BLAIR stuck his nose into the Brexit debate yesterday, saying the referendum result should be ignored and demanding a clampdown on immigration.

The former prime minister also called for unemployed immigrants to be denied NHS treatment.

His comments brought a swift rebuke from Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, who said Mr Blair “misses the point” about immigrant workers, whose abuse by “greedy bosses” leads to the undercutting of wages and working conditions.

Mr McCluskey argued that only a proper regulation of the jobs market could stop the abuse when Britain leaves the European Union.

He also described Mr Blair as “yesterday’s man,” adding: “He’s as out of touch now as he was in 2004.

“He doesn’t address the idea because what Tony Blair and the New Labour government were a part of, and certainly what the Conservatives have continued, is creating this race-to-the-bottom culture within our society rather than a rate-for-the-job society.”

Mr Blair spoke after publishing a paper calling for tough new rules which would give Britain more control over immigration without leaving the EU — disregarding the referendum result.

He claimed that the only way to make a success of Brexit was to turn Britain into a low-tax, low-regulation country competing with the EU.

And he attacked Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, asserting that a Corbyn-led government would be a “serious problem” for Britain.

He said: “And the risk is actually that we have a Brexit followed by, I’m afraid, an unreconstructed leftist programme from Labour, and if you combine those two things together, in my view we will be in a very serious situation as a country.”

Mr Blair commended the way Mr Corbyn fought the general election, but added: “That doesn’t make that programme right.”

Communist Party of Britain general secretary Rob Griffiths said: “This is yet another ruse to block and reverse the democratic referendum result.

Blair and his big-business allies refuse to recognise that for many people, leaving the EU is more an issue of national sovereignty than of immigration.”

UK: Tony Blair calls for anti-immigration policies to stop Brexit: here.

The exclusive survey for The Independent by BMG Research showed some 60 per cent of people believe “important domestic issues” are being ignored by ministers as Brexit relentlessly diverts their attention, with problems faced by the NHS and the housing market consistently appearing in surveys of voter concerns: here.

Tony Blair’s Iraq war crimes


This 5 August 2015 video from Britain is called Jeremy Corbyn on Tony Blair and ‘war crimes’ – Newsnight.

By Steve Sweeney in Britain:

Tony Blair: Guilty In The Eyes Of The Public

Tuesday 1ST August 2017

TEFLON Tony Blair escaped justice yet again yesterday after High Court judges blocked a private prosecution against the former PM for war crimes over the invasion of Iraq.

Campaigners accused the Establishment of a “concerted and coordinated effort” to exonerate Mr Blair for his role in the Iraq war in which one million people were killed.

Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German branded Mr Blair “the most protected war criminal in the world.”

However, she said: “In the court of public opinion he has long been found guilty.”

Iraqi General Abdul Wahed Shannan al-Rabbat had sought a private prosecution against Mr Blair, along with then foreign secretary Jack Straw and attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

He accused Mr Blair of committing a “crime of aggression” by invading Iraq in 2003 and his lawyers asked permission from the High Court to seek judicial review to get the Supreme Court to overturn a 2006 House of Lords ruling that there is no such crime under the law of England and Wales.

Gen al-Rabbat brought the case after Westminster magistrates refused to issue summonses in November last year claiming the trio had immunity from prosecution for decisions taken while in government.

However the appeal was dismissed yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice as having “no prospect” of succeeding.

But Michael Mansfield QC said that the findings of the Chilcot Report justified the prosecution of Mr Blair.

He said that the inquiry showed Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction had been presented with “unwarranted certainty.”

The QC said that as the international crime of a war of aggression had been accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials of nazi war crimes, it was the duty of British courts to follow the example and prosecute those responsible for the Iraq war.

The Nuremberg judges had said that war “is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament general secretary Kate Hudson branded the decision “hugely disappointing” and that “justice had been left undone.”

She said: “Last year’s Chilcot report showed that Blair had no respect for Cabinet procedure, no respect for Parliament and no respect for international law.

“Iraq was devastated by the war Blair led Britain into, millions of innocent Iraqis were killed, British soldiers were killed and terrorism has spread across the Middle East.

“Chilcot revealed the evidence that must now be used to bring Blair to justice. Only when justice is served can we prevent disasters like the Iraq war from happening again.”

US Navy SEAL Chief Special Warfare Operator Edward Gallagher, 39, is facing a general court martial and stands accused of multiple war crimes following his latest deployment to Iraq. The most serious charge is premeditated murder, which carries with it an automatic life sentence in the military justice system. Gallagher, a medic, sniper and SEAL since 2004, is accused of stabbing an Iraqi child in the throat and body while he was being treated for wounds he suffered from a US airstrike. The child’s age is unknown, but it is estimated he was 15 years old. Along with premeditated murder, Gallagher, who has pled not guilty to all charges, is also accused of attempted murder, obstruction of justice, aggravated assault and bringing “discredit upon the armed forces”: here.