offguardian--2020-12-31--Even While It Was Happening, It Wasn’t Happening

You know how it goes : if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it , et cetera… ?
Suppose an entire society goes to smithereens , while our media elites stubbornly refuse to notice .
What then ?
Suppose the reporters and the pundits and the “ experts ” ignore the coup that has trampled our basic freedoms since last March .
Suppose they all assure us that defending democracy is “ anti-science , ” and preach to us that civil rights ( except for Black Lives Matter protests ) are nothing but a “ death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election ” conducted mainly in the press , on the basis of a torrent of worthless propaganda , a notorious corporate whore is about to be installed in the White House as carnival-barker-in-chief for scantily-tested vaccines – drugs being peddled by a gang of profiteers who wouldn ’ t even make the stuff until they were promised complete legal immunity for whatever they do to their victims .
Well ?
Does the murder of our liberties even make a sound ?
Was there really such a year as 2020 ?
In his Nobel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playwright Harold Pinter had this to say about every atrocity concealed by the Western press : And so much never happened this past year !
Four-fifths of the United States of America suspended democracy and declared the Bill of Rights obsolete .
The United Kingdom unleashed a new sort of “ police ” – faces masked , truncheons in their paws – to maul peaceful protesters for the crime of breathing .
In parts of Australia , it became a criminal offense to tell other people the time and place of a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But none of that happened .
It wasn ’ t reported in the mainstream press .
It was of no interest .
In just over nine months , economies in once-wealthy countries were reduced to ruin .
Social media reeled under systematic thought-policing .
Following a wave of “ executive orders ” that shuttered small businesses across the United States , an unprecedented number of Americans began to steal food to survive .
In the U.K. , UNICEF is distributing food to hungry children for the first time in more than 70 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need still can ’ t get medical treatment .
Cultural institutions have been shattered .
The performing arts have been banned .
Singing was deemed a public health risk .
This year , for the first time in history , more than 40 governors in the U.S. awarded themselves quasi-dictatorial powers – on the strength of laws hastily designed less than 20 years ago for massive bioterrorism attacks , pressed into service to counter a medical “ emergency ” that was never an emergency .
By the end of 2020 , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictatorial rule .
That was of no interest .
Huge numbers of people , in Europe as in America , were placed ( without a court order ) under virtual house arrest .
This was called a protective measure – and it was reported as such , though the practice violated civil-rights rulings going back nearly a century .
Tens of millions of people saw their livelihoods snatched from them by officials they never even had the opportunity to confront .
Yes , a handful of states that did not imprison their populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical results as good as – if not better than – neighboring states that did both .
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson went so far as to assert all this on May 5 in the editorial pages of the Washington Post , a main purveyor of coronavirus propaganda .
But those claims were never investigated in the mainstream press .
They didn ’ t matter .
Now the mega-corporations that supported the “ lockdowns ” are sucking the life out of the small-business economy that was once the mainstay of the free world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleak that chef and author Edward Lee calls it “ the end of the independent restaurant era , ” and warns that… Culture is under attack from other directions as well .
London ’ s theatres , heirs to one of the proudest dramatic traditions in the world , are closed for the first time in modern history – and whether they will ever open again depends upon the whims of politicians .
Musicians and other artists have been devastated by “ social distancing ” rules that never made any sense and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In respectable society , it can ’ t even be talked about .
The U.K. Labour Party ’ s Angela Rayner – last seen threatening to expel “ thousands and thousands ” of members who don ’ t think their country should be governed by Israel – is now grousing that… You ’ d never guess that the self-righteous Rayner actually supported the economy-wrecking madness that caused this deepening poverty – in fact , back in May , she wanted even stricter police-state tactics than those the government imposed .
Governments lied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the medical threat we faced , about what they planned to do about it , and about what it was going to cost us .
Formerly-esteemed scientists tried to tell us that the hype made no sense .
“ We ’ re falling into a trap of sensationalism , ” Stanford University ’ s John Ioannidis said as early as March 23 .
“ We have gone into a complete panic state.
” The interview containing those comments was soon banned by Youtube , even though Ioannidis is universally recognized as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologists.
” Prominent scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration suffered a similar fate , smeared as fringe elements promoting “ craven lunacy ” and a “ brutal ” attempt to “ let people die ” – in other words , as Nazis .
But that wasn ’ t name-calling .
And it wasn ’ t censorship , either – even though Reddit ’ s moderators promptly banned the Declaration .
Such facts mustn ’ t be mentioned .
Breathe the word “ censorship ” and you ’ re a right-wing fanatic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18-year-old American college student is behind bars at this moment in the Cayman Islands .
Her crime ?
Watching – by herself – as her boyfriend competed in his last jet-skiing race of the year , after she had received not one but two negative tests for COVID19 .
It seems other people attending the race snitched on the woman , resulting in a four-month prison sentence for cutting short a fourteen-day “ quarantine ” – one that was issued without a court order , of course .
Once upon a time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collaborators , ” if not “ heartless fanatics.
” Now their actions are praised by newspapers and prosecutors alike : after all , they were protecting the public “ health ” by putting a young woman in prison .
New vaccines for COVID19 are another way of protecting the public health , of course – they have nothing whatsoever to do with the billions of dollars pharmaceuticals companies are likely to make from selling them .
Never mind that the Food and Drug Administration had to short-circuit its own rules in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manufacturers had to be promised that “ for the next four years , [ they ] can not be sued for money damages in court over injuries related to the administration or use ” of their new vaccines – a blanket legal immunity that is “ very rare , ” according to a prominent labor attorney .
( Oh , and you can ’ t sue the FDA either . )
None of that matters .
None of that is of interest .
That ’ s why CNN ’ s “ political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently insist that the government ought to prevent Tucker Carlson from stating inconvenient facts about those vaccines on his Fox News program .
The First Amendment doesn ’ t matter any more , you see .
Joe Lockhart says so .
He ’ s a representative of a press outlet calling for government censorship of another press outlet – for expressing an opinion he doesn ’ t agree with .
And ?
Has anyone in the “ free press ” complained about Lockhart ’ s breathtaking treachery – attacking the Constitution ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Thought Police ?
Not as far as I know .
Because , you see , none of it happened .
Just like the rest of the coronavirus coup .
Even while it was happening , it wasn ’ t happening .
It didn ’ t matter that all the recent hysteria about COVID19 “ cases ” was based on the results of a manifestly unreliable testing procedure .
It didn ’ t matter that inexpensive and effective treatment for the disease may already be available , with no serious side effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the highly-credentialed Dr. Pierre Kory tried to interest Congress in the use of these medications – from which no one stands to benefit except those suffering the worst cases of COVID19 – he was the target of an astonishing smear by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee .
That was typical of official reaction , though : after a group of physicians announced the promising results of the same drugs on December 4… …according to one of the rare alternative news sources that bothered to report the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out everywhere ; Big Pharma will get even richer ; poor people will be allowed to die .
As manufactured claims of rising “ case ” numbers stoke renewed hysteria , government after government will subject its citizens to further mass house arrests , even though the experience of Belarus – which did not impose “ lockdowns ” – strongly suggests that the mass-incarceration strategy does more harm than good .
To those in power , all this is of no interest .
It didn ’ t matter .
It never happened .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ That will depend , I suppose , on the steadfastness of people who care more about the truth than about conformity .
Those for whom words still have meaning , and facts still matter .
Those who are not ashamed to touch , nor afraid to stand up .
Those who will not swallow lies nor ingest a fraud .
Those to whom the word “ freedom ” isn ’ t an insult .
Those are the ones who have truly survived the ghastly year 2020 – and on whom our future depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse .
His book Sexual Abuse , Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities ( McFarland & Co. , 2014 ) was the first to focus on sex abuse cover-ups among Orthodox Jews ; his first collection of poetry , Surfaces , was published by The High Window in 2019 .
He is also the author of a memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back : The Personal Journey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published by Lincoln Square Books .

Michael Lesher
You know how it goes: if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, et cetera…?
Suppose an entire society goes to smithereens, while our media elites stubbornly refuse to notice. What then?
Suppose the reporters and the pundits and the “experts” ignore the coup that has trampled our basic freedoms since last March.
Suppose they all assure us that defending democracy is “anti-science,” and preach to us that civil rights (except for Black Lives Matter protests) are nothing but a “death cult.”
Suppose, after an “election” conducted mainly in the press, on the basis of a torrent of worthless propaganda, a notorious corporate whore is about to be installed in the White House as carnival-barker-in-chief for scantily-tested vaccines – drugs being peddled by a gang of profiteers who wouldn’t even make the stuff until they were promised complete legal immunity for whatever they do to their victims.
Well? Does the murder of our liberties even make a sound?
Was there really such a year as 2020?
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 2005, the playwright Harold Pinter had this to say about every atrocity concealed by the Western press:
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.
And so much never happened this past year!
Four-fifths of the United States of America suspended democracy and declared the Bill of Rights obsolete. The United Kingdom unleashed a new sort of “police” – faces masked, truncheons in their paws – to maul peaceful protesters for the crime of breathing. In parts of Australia, it became a criminal offense to tell other people the time and place of a political demonstration. Germany outlawed political protest.
But none of that happened. It wasn’t reported in the mainstream press. It was of no interest.
In just over nine months, economies in once-wealthy countries were reduced to ruin. Social media reeled under systematic thought-policing. Following a wave of “executive orders” that shuttered small businesses across the United States, an unprecedented number of Americans began to steal food to survive. In the U.K., UNICEF is distributing food to hungry children for the first time in more than 70 years. Around the world, people in need still can’t get medical treatment. Cultural institutions have been shattered. The performing arts have been banned. Singing was deemed a public health risk.
It didn’t matter.
This year, for the first time in history, more than 40 governors in the U.S. awarded themselves quasi-dictatorial powers – on the strength of laws hastily designed less than 20 years ago for massive bioterrorism attacks, pressed into service to counter a medical “emergency” that was never an emergency. By the end of 2020, most of the American population was still living under dictatorial rule.
That was of no interest.
Huge numbers of people, in Europe as in America, were placed (without a court order) under virtual house arrest. This was called a protective measure – and it was reported as such, though the practice violated civil-rights rulings going back nearly a century. Tens of millions of people saw their livelihoods snatched from them by officials they never even had the opportunity to confront.
Yes, a handful of states that did not imprison their populations or wreck their economies claimed to have medical results as good as – if not better than – neighboring states that did both. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson went so far as to assert all this on May 5 in the editorial pages of the Washington Post, a main purveyor of coronavirus propaganda. But those claims were never investigated in the mainstream press. They didn’t matter.
Now the mega-corporations that supported the “lockdowns” are sucking the life out of the small-business economy that was once the mainstay of the free world. For restaurants, the picture is so bleak that chef and author Edward Lee calls it “the end of the independent restaurant era,” and warns that…
we will lose the culture of all of our American cities…. [W]e will become a nation of corporate chain restaurants that will look and taste the same in every city.
Culture is under attack from other directions as well. London’s theatres, heirs to one of the proudest dramatic traditions in the world, are closed for the first time in modern history – and whether they will ever open again depends upon the whims of politicians. Musicians and other artists have been devastated by “social distancing” rules that never made any sense and have never been obeyed by the powerful.
That doesn’t matter, either.
In respectable society, it can’t even be talked about.
The U.K. Labour Party’s Angela Rayner – last seen threatening to expel “thousands and thousands” of members who don’t think their country should be governed by Israel – is now grousing that…
[o]ur children should not have to rely on humanitarian charities that are used to operating in war zones and in response to natural disasters.
You’d never guess that the self-righteous Rayner actually supported the economy-wrecking madness that caused this deepening poverty – in fact, back in May, she wanted even stricter police-state tactics than those the government imposed.
Governments lied to us throughout the year about the nature of the medical threat we faced, about what they planned to do about it, and about what it was going to cost us.
Formerly-esteemed scientists tried to tell us that the hype made no sense. “We’re falling into a trap of sensationalism,” Stanford University’s John Ioannidis said as early as March 23. “We have gone into a complete panic state.” The interview containing those comments was soon banned by Youtube, even though Ioannidis is universally recognized as “one of the world’s foremost epidemiologists.”
Prominent scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration suffered a similar fate, smeared as fringe elements promoting “craven lunacy” and a “brutal” attempt to “let people die” – in other words, as Nazis.
But that wasn’t name-calling. And it wasn’t censorship, either – even though Reddit’s moderators promptly banned the Declaration. Such facts mustn’t be mentioned. Breathe the word “censorship” and you’re a right-wing fanatic.
Speaking of fanaticism, though: an 18-year-old American college student is behind bars at this moment in the Cayman Islands. Her crime? Watching – by herself – as her boyfriend competed in his last jet-skiing race of the year, after she had received not one but two negative tests for COVID19. It seems other people attending the race snitched on the woman, resulting in a four-month prison sentence for cutting short a fourteen-day “quarantine” – one that was issued without a court order, of course.
Once upon a time, we would have called those snitches “collaborators,” if not “heartless fanatics.” Now their actions are praised by newspapers and prosecutors alike: after all, they were protecting the public “health” by putting a young woman in prison.
New vaccines for COVID19 are another way of protecting the public health, of course – they have nothing whatsoever to do with the billions of dollars pharmaceuticals companies are likely to make from selling them.
Never mind that the Food and Drug Administration had to short-circuit its own rules in order to authorize their use. Never mind that the manufacturers had to be promised that “for the next four years, [they] cannot be sued for money damages in court over injuries related to the administration or use” of their new vaccines – a blanket legal immunity that is “very rare,” according to a prominent labor attorney. (Oh, and you can’t sue the FDA either.)
None of that matters. None of that is of interest.
That’s why CNN’s “political analyst,” Joe Lockhart, could recently insist that the government ought to prevent Tucker Carlson from stating inconvenient facts about those vaccines on his Fox News program. The First Amendment doesn’t matter any more, you see. Joe Lockhart says so. He’s a representative of a press outlet calling for government censorship of another press outlet – for expressing an opinion he doesn’t agree with.
And? Has anyone in the “free press” complained about Lockhart’s breathtaking treachery – attacking the Constitution’s press protections while handing over a colleague to the Thought Police? Not as far as I know.
Because, you see, none of it happened.
Just like the rest of the coronavirus coup. Even while it was happening, it wasn’t happening.
It didn’t matter that all the recent hysteria about COVID19 “cases” was based on the results of a manifestly unreliable testing procedure. It didn’t matter that inexpensive and effective treatment for the disease may already be available, with no serious side effects, from drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. When the highly-credentialed Dr. Pierre Kory tried to interest Congress in the use of these medications – from which no one stands to benefit except those suffering the worst cases of COVID19 – he was the target of an astonishing smear by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
That was typical of official reaction, though: after a group of physicians announced the promising results of the same drugs on December 4…
no major U.S. media outlets reported [their] pleas for help from the federal government to act… Nor did any representative from the CDC, the NIH or the World Health organization contact them,
…according to one of the rare alternative news sources that bothered to report the story.
So the unproven vaccines will roll out everywhere; Big Pharma will get even richer; poor people will be allowed to die. As manufactured claims of rising “case” numbers stoke renewed hysteria, government after government will subject its citizens to further mass house arrests, even though the experience of Belarus – which did not impose “lockdowns” – strongly suggests that the mass-incarceration strategy does more harm than good.
To those in power, all this is of no interest. It didn’t matter. It never happened.
And to the rest of us?
That will depend, I suppose, on the steadfastness of people who care more about the truth than about conformity.
Those for whom words still have meaning, and facts still matter.
Those who are not ashamed to touch, nor afraid to stand up.
Those who will not swallow lies nor ingest a fraud.
Those to whom the word “freedom” isn’t an insult.
Those are the ones who have truly survived the ghastly year 2020 – and on whom our future depends.
Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. His book Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., 2014) was the first to focus on sex abuse cover-ups among Orthodox Jews; his first collection of poetry, Surfaces, was published by The High Window in 2019. He is also the author of a memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back: The Personal Journey of a “Born-Again” Jew – published by Lincoln Square Books.


offguardian--2020-12-31--Three New Reads – December

Three New Reads – December

What would you do if stuck in a lift with John Pilger ?
Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger , in a new book reviewed here by Media Lens , quotes with approval a fellow journalist saying he ’ d stick pins in his eyes to avoid such a predicament .
Did the drone murders Obama signed off every Tuesday leave you incandescent ?
Are the spy-cam fitted drone fliers descending on our parks and beauty spots giving you the pip ?
You ain ’ t heard the half of it till you read Scott Ritter on how a quantum leap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s proxy , Azerbaijan , a decisive edge over Russia-backed Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh .
What does the word , condor , conjure up ?
A huge raptor ?
A pipe tobacco ?
Branco Marcetic gives the low-down on US complicity , under that code name , with Latin America ’ s death squads and juntas in the second half of the twentieth century – and on why it still matters .
David Cromwell and David Edwards , who make up Media Lens [ 1 ] , know former Guardian editor Rusbridger of old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , the pair had almost collegiate relations [ 2 ] with him .
Drawing on their own pre-freeze exchanges , on Chomsky and Herman ’ s Propaganda Model , on the fact the book they are reviewing makes many references to Media Lens , and on what Rusbridger does – and does not [ 3 ] – say in News And How To Use It , their calmly forensic approach nails all that is wrong with ‘ our ’ media ; even and perhaps especially liberal media .
The first resort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on ‘ narcissism ’ [ 4 ] : … John Pilger .
With his tan , Byronic haircut , trudging priestly delivery and evident self-love , your main instinct is to flip right over to BBC1… ’ Pilger … reports on the crimes of state-corporate power – including ‘ liberal ’ power , including corporate media power .
Pilger tells the unfiltered , uncompromised truth about the foundations of power .
His focus is on speaking up for the victims of power , not on serving power .
Serious analysis of Pilger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to include honest appraisal of his deepest criticisms of power – these are what make Pilger unusual and important .
But this Rusbridger can not do … Instead , he focuses on Pilger ’ s supposed character flaws .
‘ even some of his greatest fans have found him an increasingly difficult , prickly figure shooting first and not always asking questions later ’ .
‘ He is undoubtedly a prickly character … a hero until you know him.
’ ‘ someone I ’ d rather stick needles in my eyes than be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These ad hominem attacks on Pilger are , in fact , a rejection of honest debate .
Reviewing Pilger ’ s 2000 documentary , ‘ Paying the Price : Killing the Children of Iraq ’ , on the UN ’ s assertion that US-UK sanctions had been responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children under five in Iraq , Joe Joseph wrote in The Times : ‘ In his latest , harrowing documentary… the fearless Australian journalist reminds us that – however daunting the odds stacked against him – he is not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make TV programmes with extremely long titles… ’ ‘ His angry , I-want-some-answers-please documentary style , like his haircut , is a hangover from the 1970s ; and like much of the Seventies , he is enjoying a small retro revival .
Pilger is the Prada of TV journalism.
’ This was a review of a documentary exploring highly credible claims that Britain and the US were responsible for the deaths of half a million small children .
[ 5 ] Imagine someone with serious , verifiable evidence interrupting a town hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that moment burning hundreds of children alive in the local school .
Now , we might urgently seek to challenge and check the claims , but what would we make of one who responded by mocking the haircut of the person raising the alarm ?
Would we not find this a morally depraved response ?
Quite .
And a point well made by the two Davids .
As is this one : No informed person doubts that Turkey , though its future orientation and concomitant alliances remain shrouded in uncertainty , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we think of her as enjoying a decisive military edge over premier league imperialisms within the EU ?
Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter is in no doubt on the matter .
In an analysis written for the European Council on Foreign Relations , Gustav Gressel , a senior policy fellow , argues that the extensive ( and successful ) use of military drones by Azerbaijan in its recent conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh holds “ distinct lessons for how well Europe can defend itself.
” Gressel warns that Europe would be doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nagorno-Karabakh fighting as “ a minor war between poor countries.
” In this , Gressel is correct – the military defeat inflicted on Armenia by Azerbaijan was not a fluke , but rather a manifestation of the perfection of the art of drone warfare by Baku ’ s major ally in the fighting , Turkey .
Gressel ’ s conclusion – that “ most of the [ European Union ’ s ] armies… would do as miserably as the Armenian Army ” when faced by such a threat – is spot on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its short but brutal 44-day war with Azerbaijan goes beyond simply losing a war .
It was more about the way Armenia lost and , more specifically , how it lost .
What happened over the skies of Nagorno-Karabakh – where Azerbaijan employed a host of Turkish- and Israeli-made drones not only to surveil and target Armenian positions , but shape and dominate the battlefield throughout – can be likened to a revolution in military affairs .
One akin to the arrival of tanks , mechanised armoured vehicles , and aircraft in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to the demise of horse-mounted cavalry .
The Nagorno-Karabakh war saw largely Sunni Turkey backing largely Shia Azerbaijan against an Armenia under the protection of Russia , with which Ankara ’ s relations are a mixed and unclear picture .
Leaving aside the complexities ( explored here ) of that war , Ritter has this to say of its most telling military aspect … … multiple deployment of drones is only going to expand .
The US Army is working on “ Armed , Fully-Autonomous Drone Swarms ” .
AFADS will – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , identify and attack targets using a “ Cluster Unmanned Airborne System Smart Munition , ” which dispense a swarm of small drones that fan out over the battlefield to locate and destroy targets .
China has likewise tested a system that deploys up to 200 “ suicide drones ” designed to saturate a battlespace and destroy targets by flying into them .
And this September , the Russian military integrated “ drone-swarm ” capabilities for the first time in a large-scale military exercise .
Modern warfare has been forever altered , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drone technology is fully incorporated can expect outcomes similar to that of Armenia : severe losses of men and equipment , defeat , humiliation and likely loss of territory .
This is the reality which , as Gressel notes , should make any nation not fully vested in drone technology “ think – and worry.
” Which last observation sets the tone , if you ’ re not already depressed beyond measure , for my final read … The CIA ’ s Secret Global War Against the Left ( 6114 words ) Back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loved and feared , I read of a comment by Mao Zedong that went like this : Things haven ’ t much changed .
Those likeliest to cry Revolution Now !
seem those least likely to have spent time thinking it through .
That ’ s hot-headed youth for you .
Less forgivable in my view are those Left groups whose theoretical understandings of capitalism I take seriously , but which devote no space to the not insignificant problem of how a revolution can be made in a context of bourgeois states armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurgency – and possessors of surveillance technologies beyond the wildest dreams of 20th century totalitarianisms – which makes the Russian Revolution look like a palace coup .
As one who so often sets out the problems – and insists that capitalism and decency never did co-exist in the world as a whole , and are growing less and less able to do so even in the West – I am painfully aware that I bring no solutions .
As I put it in a recent BTL exchange : I could have added Gramsci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must happen can not happen we are in the age of monsters .
So while I do so hate to be the bearer of bleak news , in the interests of telling it like it is I feel bound to say that this third read , on the atrocities of a CIA in cahoots with fascism under the codename Operation Condor , is as relevant now as when swathes of Central and South America were subject to the vilest oppression , with Condor at its bloodiest .
This – and do feel free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed evidence how and where I ’ m wrong – is what we ’ re up against and this is the true nature of capitalist rule .
Note the final sentence of this extract .
With South America in the grip of military dictatorships and rocked by the same kinds of social and political movements that were demanding change all over the world in the 1960s and ’ 70s , a handful of the continent ’ s governments made a pact to work together to roll back the rising tide of “ subversives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a secret , global campaign of violent repression that spanned not just countries , but continents , and featured everything from abduction and torture to murder .
To say it was known about by the US government , which backed these regimes , is an understatement : though even this simple fact was denied at the time , years of investigations and document releases since then mean that we now know the CIA and top-ranking US officials supported , laid the groundwork for , and were even directly involved in Condor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was hardly some uniquely shocking case of anticommunist paranoia spiraling out of control .
As its connections to anticommunist terror in Europe have become clearer , it looks more like a particularly successful example of the covert war the US national security state had set into motion all over the world against democracy and the Left , a war that saw it get into bed with fascists and that , in some cases , arguably constituted genocide .
It was the system working exactly as intended , in other words , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centers of power will go to keep things the way they are .
As it happens , author Branco Marcetic finishes the piece on a note of optimism I don ’ t share : State and supra-state violence in Latin America had a finite “ shelf life ” not because The People fought back and ultimately prevailed but because , with a few exceptions , it worked .
You don ’ t continue to hammer a nail already driven in , and terror and violence are expensive options for a ruling class – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the imperialists in Washington , London and elsewhere .
The trappings of democracy make better business sense .
Pessimist and gloom merchant ?
Moi ?
If you say so .
But this piece makes salutary and therefore essential reading for those who value the unvarnished truth on what decent folk like you and me are up against .
[ 1 ] [ See my review of the Media Lens book , Propaganda Blitz .
[ 2 ] ‘ … almost collegiate relations … ‘ In a pattern Media Lens have experienced again and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with friendly courtesy ; a spirit which soon evaporates as ML ’ s unfailingly polite probes turn up the heat .
[ 3 ] Rusbridger ’ s silences , like the Guardian ’ s and like those of mainstream media at large , are often more telling than his utterances .
As I keep saying on this site , while all media actively lie when the stakes are high enough , their biggest deceptions are of omission rather than commission .
[ 4 ] Not just Pilger but Assange , Chavez , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were routinely called out as narcissistic .
How convenient that so universally ridiculed a trait should exist in such abundance in those our rulers consider a threat !
How revealing that ‘ our ’ media should give it , like John Pilger ’ s hair cut , centre stage !
How dismaying that an intelligentsia priding itself on critical thinking should fall for this crap every time !
[ 5 ] The claim of half a million Iraqi under fives dying as a result of Bill Clinton ’ s sanctions was given infamous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Madeleine Albright , when she said they were a price worth paying .
Her words merit airing at every opportunity .
While imperialism ’ s hot wars on the global south do impose on our rulers a threshold of justification – however low , and however intelligence-insulting the narratives aimed at crossing it – sanctions like those on Iran , Syria , Venezuela and elsewhere , though equally and indiscriminately murderous , evade scrutiny almost entirely .
Worse , aided by the silences ( at best ) of the Rusbridgers of this world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the target ‘ regime ’ .
Two years ago a liberal pal , a Brit in Columbia and not a stupid person , told me that Venezuelan refugees pouring across the border into her adoptive country were victims of “ failed Chavism ” .

Philip Roddis
What would you do if stuck in a lift with John Pilger? Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, in a new book reviewed here by Media Lens, quotes with approval a fellow journalist saying he’d stick pins in his eyes to avoid such a predicament.
Did the drone murders Obama signed off every Tuesday leave you incandescent? Are the spy-cam fitted drone fliers descending on our parks and beauty spots giving you the pip? You ain’t heard the half of it till you read Scott Ritter on how a quantum leap in military drone use gave Turkey’s proxy, Azerbaijan, a decisive edge over Russia-backed Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh.
What does the word, condor, conjure up? A huge raptor? A pipe tobacco? Branco Marcetic gives the low-down on US complicity, under that code name, with Latin America’s death squads and juntas in the second half of the twentieth century – and on why it still matters.
*
David Cromwell and David Edwards, who make up Media Lens[1], know former Guardian editor Rusbridger of old. Indeed, prior to his blocking them, the pair had almost collegiate relations[2] with him.
Drawing on their own pre-freeze exchanges, on Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model, on the fact the book they are reviewing makes many references to Media Lens, and on what Rusbridger does – and does not[3] – say in News And How To Use It, their calmly forensic approach nails all that is wrong with ‘our’ media; even and perhaps especially liberal media.
Here’s a (slightly abridged) taster:
The first resort of corporate journalists attacking a dissident is to focus on ‘narcissism’ [4]: … John Pilger. With his tan, Byronic haircut, trudging priestly delivery and evident self-love, your main instinct is to flip right over to BBC1…’ Pilger … reports on the crimes of state-corporate power – including ‘liberal’ power, including corporate media power. Pilger tells the unfiltered, uncompromised truth about the foundations of power. His focus is on speaking up for the victims of power, not on serving power. Serious analysis of Pilger’s work, then, has to include honest appraisal of his deepest criticisms of power – these are what make Pilger unusual and important. But this Rusbridger cannot do … Instead, he focuses on Pilger’s supposed character flaws. ‘even some of his greatest fans have found him an increasingly difficult, prickly figure shooting first and not always asking questions later’. ‘He is undoubtedly a prickly character … a hero until you know him.’ ‘someone I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than be stuck in a lift with’. These ad hominem attacks on Pilger are, in fact, a rejection of honest debate. Reviewing Pilger’s 2000 documentary, ‘Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq’, on the UN’s assertion that US-UK sanctions had been responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children under five in Iraq, Joe Joseph wrote in The Times: ‘In his latest, harrowing documentary… the fearless Australian journalist reminds us that – however daunting the odds stacked against him – he is not going to shy away from his lifelong commitment to make TV programmes with extremely long titles…’ ‘His angry, I-want-some-answers-please documentary style, like his haircut, is a hangover from the 1970s; and like much of the Seventies, he is enjoying a small retro revival. Pilger is the Prada of TV journalism.’ This was a review of a documentary exploring highly credible claims that Britain and the US were responsible for the deaths of half a million small children.[5] Imagine someone with serious, verifiable evidence interrupting a town hall meeting to warn that government troops were at that moment burning hundreds of children alive in the local school. Now, we might urgently seek to challenge and check the claims, but what would we make of one who responded by mocking the haircut of the person raising the alarm? Would we not find this a morally depraved response?
Quite. And a point well made by the two Davids. As is this one:
In 2006, Pilger wrote: ‘In reclaiming the honour of our craft, not to mention the truth, we journalists at least need to understand the historic task to which we are assigned – that is, to report the rest of humanity in terms of its usefulness, or otherwise, to “us”, and to soften up the public for rapacious attacks on countries that are no threat to us.’ This is not something Rusbridger could ever honestly discuss. Why? Because it’s exactly the role he performed as editor of the Guardian.
*
No informed person doubts that Turkey, though its future orientation and concomitant alliances remain shrouded in uncertainty, is a formidable military force. But should we think of her as enjoying a decisive military edge over premier league imperialisms within the EU? Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter is in no doubt on the matter.
In an analysis written for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel, a senior policy fellow, argues that the extensive (and successful) use of military drones by Azerbaijan in its recent conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh holds “distinct lessons for how well Europe can defend itself.” Gressel warns that Europe would be doing itself a disservice if it simply dismissed the Nagorno-Karabakh fighting as “a minor war between poor countries.” In this, Gressel is correct – the military defeat inflicted on Armenia by Azerbaijan was not a fluke, but rather a manifestation of the perfection of the art of drone warfare by Baku’s major ally in the fighting, Turkey. Gressel’s conclusion – that “most of the [European Union’s] armies… would do as miserably as the Armenian Army” when faced by such a threat – is spot on. What happened to the Armenian Army in its short but brutal 44-day war with Azerbaijan goes beyond simply losing a war. It was more about the way Armenia lost and, more specifically, how it lost. What happened over the skies of Nagorno-Karabakh – where Azerbaijan employed a host of Turkish- and Israeli-made drones not only to surveil and target Armenian positions, but shape and dominate the battlefield throughout – can be likened to a revolution in military affairs. One akin to the arrival of tanks, mechanised armoured vehicles, and aircraft in the early 20th century, that eventually led to the demise of horse-mounted cavalry.
The Nagorno-Karabakh war saw largely Sunni Turkey backing largely Shia Azerbaijan against an Armenia under the protection of Russia, with which Ankara’s relations are a mixed and unclear picture. Leaving aside the complexities (explored here) of that war, Ritter has this to say of its most telling military aspect …
Turkey was facing some of the best anti-aircraft missile defenses produced by Russia. The reality is that most nations confronted by a Turkish “drone swarm,” would not fare well.
… before concluding that:
… multiple deployment of drones is only going to expand. The US Army is working on “Armed, Fully-Autonomous Drone Swarms”. AFADS will – autonomously, without human intervention – locate, identify and attack targets using a “Cluster Unmanned Airborne System Smart Munition,” which dispense a swarm of small drones that fan out over the battlefield to locate and destroy targets. China has likewise tested a system that deploys up to 200 “suicide drones” designed to saturate a battlespace and destroy targets by flying into them. And this September, the Russian military integrated “drone-swarm” capabilities for the first time in a large-scale military exercise. Modern warfare has been forever altered, and nations not equipped for a battlefield where drone technology is fully incorporated can expect outcomes similar to that of Armenia: severe losses of men and equipment, defeat, humiliation and likely loss of territory. This is the reality which, as Gressel notes, should make any nation not fully vested in drone technology “think – and worry.”
Which last observation sets the tone, if you’re not already depressed beyond measure, for my final read …
*
Back when the man was still alive, loved and feared, I read of a comment by Mao Zedong that went like this:
America’s student protesters amaze me. They aren’t one bit afraid of their government’s tanks and bombs, yet are terrified by the sarcasms of a few reactionary professors.
Things haven’t much changed. Those likeliest to cry Revolution Now! seem those least likely to have spent time thinking it through. That’s hot-headed youth for you. Less forgivable in my view are those Left groups whose theoretical understandings of capitalism I take seriously, but which devote no space to the not insignificant problem of how a revolution can be made in a context of bourgeois states armed to the teeth and skilled in counter insurgency – and possessors of surveillance technologies beyond the wildest dreams of 20th century totalitarianisms – which makes the Russian Revolution look like a palace coup.
As one who so often sets out the problems – and insists that capitalism and decency never did co-exist in the world as a whole, and are growing less and less able to do so even in the West – I am painfully aware that I bring no solutions. As I put it in a recent BTL exchange:
I have faith in neither reformist nor revolutionary roads to what has to happen if barbarism is to be averted. Does that mean I should shut up? I think not. I never saw the logic in insisting that, if we have no solution, we have no business speaking of the problem. I can barely see a yard ahead, but continue to speak to all who’ll listen about the evils I see in that single yard.
I could have added Gramsci’s comment that when that which must happen cannot happen we are in the age of monsters. So while I do so hate to be the bearer of bleak news, in the interests of telling it like it is I feel bound to say that this third read, on the atrocities of a CIA in cahoots with fascism under the codename Operation Condor, is as relevant now as when swathes of Central and South America were subject to the vilest oppression, with Condor at its bloodiest.
This – and do feel free to tell me on the basis of detailed evidence how and where I’m wrong – is what we’re up against and this is the true nature of capitalist rule. Note the final sentence of this extract.
With South America in the grip of military dictatorships and rocked by the same kinds of social and political movements that were demanding change all over the world in the 1960s and ’70s, a handful of the continent’s governments made a pact to work together to roll back the rising tide of “subversives” and “terrorists.” What followed was a secret, global campaign of violent repression that spanned not just countries, but continents, and featured everything from abduction and torture to murder. To say it was known about by the US government, which backed these regimes, is an understatement: though even this simple fact was denied at the time, years of investigations and document releases since then mean that we now know the CIA and top-ranking US officials supported, laid the groundwork for, and were even directly involved in Condor’s crimes. Zooming out, Condor was hardly some uniquely shocking case of anticommunist paranoia spiraling out of control. As its connections to anticommunist terror in Europe have become clearer, it looks more like a particularly successful example of the covert war the US national security state had set into motion all over the world against democracy and the Left, a war that saw it get into bed with fascists and that, in some cases, arguably constituted genocide. It was the system working exactly as intended, in other words, and a stark reminder of the lengths the global centers of power will go to keep things the way they are.
As it happens, author Branco Marcetic finishes the piece on a note of optimism I don’t share:
Examining the legacy of Operation Condor should prompt us to think about which institutions in American life have been most hostile to democracy and, when the time calls for it, eager to align with fascists. But it’s also a reminder that, in the face of popular struggle, even this violence has a shelf life, and impunity doesn’t last forever.
State and supra-state violence in Latin America had a finite “shelf life” not because The People fought back and ultimately prevailed but because, with a few exceptions, it worked. You don’t continue to hammer a nail already driven in, and terror and violence are expensive options for a ruling class – be it a domestic comprador class or the imperialists in Washington, London and elsewhere. The trappings of democracy make better business sense.
Pessimist and gloom merchant? Moi? If you say so. But this piece makes salutary and therefore essential reading for those who value the unvarnished truth on what decent folk like you and me are up against.
*
NOTES:- [1][See my review of the Media Lens book, Propaganda Blitz. [2]‘… almost collegiate relations …‘ In a pattern Media Lens have experienced again and again, initial contact with journalists is met with friendly courtesy; a spirit which soon evaporates as ML’s unfailingly polite probes turn up the heat. [3] Rusbridger’s silences, like the Guardian’s and like those of mainstream media at large, are often more telling than his utterances. As I keep saying on this site, while all media actively lie when the stakes are high enough, their biggest deceptions are of omission rather than commission. [4] Not just Pilger but Assange, Chavez, Corbyn, Putin and Scargill are or were routinely called out as narcissistic. How convenient that so universally ridiculed a trait should exist in such abundance in those our rulers consider a threat! How revealing that ‘our’ media should give it, like John Pilger’s hair cut, centre stage! How dismaying that an intelligentsia priding itself on critical thinking should fall for this crap every time! [5] The claim of half a million Iraqi under fives dying as a result of Bill Clinton’s sanctions was given infamous corroboration by his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when she said they were a price worth paying. Her words merit airing at every opportunity. While imperialism’s hot wars on the global south do impose on our rulers a threshold of justification – however low, and however intelligence-insulting the narratives aimed at crossing it – sanctions like those on Iran, Syria, Venezuela and elsewhere, though equally and indiscriminately murderous, evade scrutiny almost entirely. Worse, aided by the silences (at best) of the Rusbridgers of this world, their lethal effects can be blamed on the target ‘regime’. Two years ago a liberal pal, a Brit in Columbia and not a stupid person, told me that Venezuelan refugees pouring across the border into her adoptive country were victims of “failed Chavism”.


offguardian--2020-04-01--Constitutional reform in Russia and a new infowar

There have been and continue to be changes in Russia regarding the alignment of political forces , reactions to external stimuli and the strategic prospects of the state .
The first signs of change can be found in Vladimir Putin ’ s address to the Federal Assembly , which announced upcoming changes to the country ’ s Constitution .
On January 15th Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced the resignation of his government , which was immediately accepted , he motivated this step by the need to give the President freedom of action to implement his plans .
It became clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Putin to a new candidate , which occupied the minds of Western politicians , had entered the resolution stage .
Russia has long been under sanction pressure and international ostracism , this has not lost its strength despite the absurdity of supporting the Ukrainian-Polish-Baltic bloc which is also dispensing it .
The country has long occupied that conveniently vacant niche of “ the main enemy of Western civilization ” , which the PRC also aims to share – this is the mainstream Western media representation of the situation .
In a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of the leadership of various states , any changes are taken as a chance to weaken the enemy .
As it should be in an era of serious trials , Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse appeared on the horizon : Crisis , Coronavirus , Instability .
The coiled spring of intrigue , in the background of which the preparations for constitutional reform and the referendum are taking place , is twisting more and more .
A number of planned changes to the Constitution have a pronounced social orientation .
The Russian leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social state ” in relation to the country ’ s established system of government in his recent speeches .
These statements declare the primacy of the interests of the people of the Russian Federation and evolve a plan for the further development of social benefits , preferences and institutions .
On the other hand , after some hesitation and maneuvers in the information field and inconsequent statements , Vladimir Putin took a very decisive step .
There is no doubt that cosmonaut Tereshkova ’ s presentation of the proposal to “ reset the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential terms in the context of the reconstruction of the Constitution had been agreed with the Kremlin and was the result of decisions taken there .
With the current realities of the political situation , this part of the political and constitutional reform has come to the fore in the discourse and become the number one topic , not least for Western MSM … but not the procedure for paying maternity capital or the role of the state Council in the architectonics of power in Russia .
There is no doubt that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is generally negative towards modern Russia , now joyfully beat in unison : this is it , this is our new motive for inflating discontent and growing opposition in a rather amorphous and generally monolithic society !
And those horsemen of the Apocalypse… The maneuvers of the Russian delegation at the OPEC+ parley was a shock and led to the release of accumulated negativity in the world economy .
Nothing new : the collapse of world indices , the rapid fall of securities , the disappearance of wealth .
When the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian economy was seriously affected .
And although high-ranking officials explained to Russians that the economic buffer created over the “ good ” years is able to ensure the fulfilment of all obligations for 5-6 years , Russians look at the rapidly increased dollar exchange rate and as before do not tend to believe the hollow statements of the authorities .
The growth of negative economic expectations pales only in the background of anxiety in the face of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic .
This is now a perfect environment for the West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution ” in their fight against objectionable regimes .
This technique , which has nothing to do with the social revolutions of the last century , develops destabilisation in a country on the back of objective difficulties .
There is only one condition for success – sufficient funding .
And there is always enough “ combustible material ” in any capitalist country , you can look , for example , at neighboring Ukraine , where marginal Tonton Macoutes escaped from the state of “ reserve labour ” and imposed the will of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar to right-wing militants – violence .
There is of course “ sufficient funding ” available for the West to attempt such destabilisation in Russia , MSM are focusing on that Presidential term reset to the exclusion of other elements of the reforms .
But a new media strategy is being tested… A source in an international PR agency , which did a job for a clandestine British-American PSYOP unit , forwarded us a curious video from YouTube .
It is disguised as a “ citizen journalism ” vox-pop , is devoted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not give the video itself any exposure here , but present some screenshots instead .
So there ’ s the new strategy : mimic “ citizen media ” and alt-media styles .
Young people with new cameras on the streets in the UK are being weaponised in this cynical new infowar .
The video shocked the agency ’ s employee who couldn ’ t accept that young people were being used and kept in the dark about the motive , and threatened to blow the whistle if the “ channel ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there will be others who won ’ t be so choosy .
Our source says that there is a plan to develop a swarm of such political “ podcasts ” directed towards Russia .
The aim is to have it all picked up by some of Russia ’ s “ new media ” and young globalist “ influencers ” to foment and grow anti-Putin sentiment at home , to present such pods as “ widespread ” international “ condemnation ” or as popular opinion .
It ’ s Russia ’ s current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf ” as Putin called the US Deep State , but the latter plans to get back at him where it hurts most – not in Syria or Ukraine , but at home .
Is it necessary to pursue this constitutional reform in such circumstances ?
Will all this lead to chaos , deterioration of the situation of workers and serious opposition in society ?
Will Putin ’ s power pass the next stress test ?
We ’ ll know very soon .

Alex Herbert
There have been and continue to be changes in Russia regarding the alignment of political forces, reactions to external stimuli and the strategic prospects of the state.
The first signs of change can be found in Vladimir Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly, which announced upcoming changes to the country’s Constitution. On January 15th Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced the resignation of his government, which was immediately accepted, he motivated this step by the need to give the President freedom of action to implement his plans. It became clear that the problem of transferring presidential power from Putin to a new candidate, which occupied the minds of Western politicians, had entered the resolution stage.
Russia has long been under sanction pressure and international ostracism, this has not lost its strength despite the absurdity of supporting the Ukrainian-Polish-Baltic bloc which is also dispensing it. The country has long occupied that conveniently vacant niche of “the main enemy of Western civilization”, which the PRC also aims to share – this is the mainstream Western media representation of the situation.
In a world infused with the idea of opposing the interests of the leadership of various states, any changes are taken as a chance to weaken the enemy. As it should be in an era of serious trials, Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse appeared on the horizon: Crisis, Coronavirus, Instability. The coiled spring of intrigue, in the background of which the preparations for constitutional reform and the referendum are taking place, is twisting more and more.
A number of planned changes to the Constitution have a pronounced social orientation. The Russian leader has been constantly using the term “social state” in relation to the country’s established system of government in his recent speeches. These statements declare the primacy of the interests of the people of the Russian Federation and evolve a plan for the further development of social benefits, preferences and institutions.
On the other hand, after some hesitation and maneuvers in the information field and inconsequent statements, Vladimir Putin took a very decisive step. There is no doubt that cosmonaut Tereshkova’s presentation of the proposal to “reset the counter to zero” for all previous presidential terms in the context of the reconstruction of the Constitution had been agreed with the Kremlin and was the result of decisions taken there.
With the current realities of the political situation, this part of the political and constitutional reform has come to the fore in the discourse and become the number one topic, not least for Western MSM … but not the procedure for paying maternity capital or the role of the state Council in the architectonics of power in Russia.
There is no doubt that the hearts of the Western political community, which is generally negative towards modern Russia, now joyfully beat in unison: this is it, this is our new motive for inflating discontent and growing opposition in a rather amorphous and generally monolithic society!
And those horsemen of the Apocalypse… The maneuvers of the Russian delegation at the OPEC+ parley was a shock and led to the release of accumulated negativity in the world economy. Nothing new: the collapse of world indices, the rapid fall of securities, the disappearance of wealth. When the first wave subsided, it became clear that the Russian economy was seriously affected.
And although high-ranking officials explained to Russians that the economic buffer created over the “good” years is able to ensure the fulfilment of all obligations for 5-6 years, Russians look at the rapidly increased dollar exchange rate and as before do not tend to believe the hollow statements of the authorities. The growth of negative economic expectations pales only in the background of anxiety in the face of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.
This is now a perfect environment for the West to develop new examples of “colour revolution” in their fight against objectionable regimes. This technique, which has nothing to do with the social revolutions of the last century, develops destabilisation in a country on the back of objective difficulties.
There is only one condition for success – sufficient funding. And there is always enough “combustible material” in any capitalist country, you can look, for example, at neighboring Ukraine, where marginal Tonton Macoutes escaped from the state of “reserve labour” and imposed the will of their master-oligarchs on society in the only way familiar to right-wing militants – violence.
There is of course “sufficient funding” available for the West to attempt such destabilisation in Russia, MSM are focusing on that Presidential term reset to the exclusion of other elements of the reforms. But a new media strategy is being tested…
A source in an international PR agency, which did a job for a clandestine British-American PSYOP unit, forwarded us a curious video from YouTube. It is disguised as a “citizen journalism” vox-pop, is devoted to Russia and Putin and asks passers-by…
… the West deal with Russia with restraint and employ continuous dialogue, should we keep that policy or should we get tougher and impose sanctions from hell?”
The responses are predictable.
We will not give the video itself any exposure here, but present some screenshots instead. So there’s the new strategy: mimic “citizen media” and alt-media styles. Young people with new cameras on the streets in the UK are being weaponised in this cynical new infowar.
The video shocked the agency’s employee who couldn’t accept that young people were being used and kept in the dark about the motive, and threatened to blow the whistle if the “channel” was not stopped dead in its tracks. But there will be others who won’t be so choosy. Our source says that there is a plan to develop a swarm of such political “podcasts” directed towards Russia.
The aim is to have it all picked up by some of Russia’s “new media” and young globalist “influencers” to foment and grow anti-Putin sentiment at home, to present such pods as “widespread” international “condemnation” or as popular opinion. It’s Russia’s current international policy that angers the “Comrade Wolf” as Putin called the US Deep State, but the latter plans to get back at him where it hurts most – not in Syria or Ukraine, but at home.
Is it necessary to pursue this constitutional reform in such circumstances? Will all this lead to chaos, deterioration of the situation of workers and serious opposition in society? Will Putin’s power pass the next stress test? We’ll know very soon.


offguardian--2020-03-31--Scotland’s “Sinister” Covid19 Response – Suspend Trial by Jury

The new legal powers sought by Scotland ’ s devolved law-makers undermine ideas of justice in place for hundreds of years , according to the Scottish Criminal Bar Association .
The new Coronavirus ( Scotland ) Bill grants sweeping powers to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament , and makes dramatic changes to the criminal justice system .
Among a long list of changes , the Bill seeks to : • Replace trial by jury with bench trials , presided over by a Judge or local Sheriff • Remove the maximum time of 140 days an accused can await trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges to hear pre-recorded witness statements that are not open to cross-examination The new rules , unlike similar Diplock rules used in Northern Ireland in 1970s , do not guarantee an automatic right of appeal .
The Scottish Judiciary claims these powers are vital to protecting people from potential coronavirus infections , whilst following the European Convention on Human Rights requirements for an “ effective justice system ” .
In a statement on their website , SCBA President Ronnie Renucci QC wrote : The SCBA believes that these draconian measures seeking to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice are premature , disproportionate and ill-advised .
They are at best a knee-jerk reaction to an as yet unquantified problem instigated by panic or at worst , something far more sinister .
A long-form response , going point-by-point through the bill is available here .
Will other countries follow Scotland ’ s example ?
It remains to be seen .
We will no doubt be discussing this unsettling development more in the future .

The new legal powers sought by Scotland’s devolved law-makers undermine ideas of justice in place for hundreds of years, according to the Scottish Criminal Bar Association.
The new Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill grants sweeping powers to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament, and makes dramatic changes to the criminal justice system.
Among a long list of changes, the Bill seeks to:
Replace trial by jury with bench trials, presided over by a Judge or local Sheriff
Remove the maximum time of 140 days an accused can await trial
Relax hearsay evidence law, allowing judges to hear pre-recorded witness statements that are not open to cross-examination
The new rules, unlike similar Diplock rules used in Northern Ireland in 1970s, do not guarantee an automatic right of appeal.
The Scottish Judiciary claims these powers are vital to protecting people from potential coronavirus infections, whilst following the European Convention on Human Rights requirements for an “effective justice system”.
But the Scottish Criminal Bar Association strongly disagrees.
In a statement on their website, SCBA President Ronnie Renucci QC wrote:
The SCBA believes that these draconian measures seeking to bring about seismic changes to our system of justice are premature, disproportionate and ill-advised. They are at best a knee-jerk reaction to an as yet unquantified problem instigated by panic or at worst, something far more sinister.
A long-form response, going point-by-point through the bill is available here.
Will other countries follow Scotland’s example? It remains to be seen. We will no doubt be discussing this unsettling development more in the future.


offguardian--2020-03-31--Labour Shoots Itself in the Head

Labour Shoots Itself in the Head

Beyond the world transformed by Covid-19 – save Brazil , a country according to its maverick president free of the virus – a few scheduled events are still ticking over .
The Labour Party will proceed to unveil a new regime on April 4th .
And it will be making an historic choice .
Barring a major upset , it is going to elect Keir Starmer as its first leader in possession of a knighthood .
Indeed , neither has any leader in all the party ’ s 120 years been created a knight after leaving the leadership , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe , would settle for no title short of Order of Merit and President-for-Life ) .
Margaret Beckett , who was acting leader for two months after the untimely death of John Smith in 1994 , subsequently accepted a damehood ( and , uniquely for a former leader , has already remained an MP thereafter for more than a quarter of a century ) ; several ex-leaders have gone to the Lords , though none since Neil Kinnock .
But there have been no knights .
You can bet that Jeremy Corbyn will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if either were offered .
Meanwhile , the leadership election necessary in the Liberal Democrat Party has been postponed until next year .
In the interim , by convention , the party is co-led by the deputy leader and the ( revolving ) party president .
Sir Ed Davey , runner-up to Jo Swinson in the last leadership election , will hence have been acting co-leader for at least a year and may be considered a shoo-in eventually to succeed Swinson .
Thus is offered the amusing spectacle of both nominally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the realm .
The Conservatives – now repositioned as claiming to be the party most representative of every class stratum , even while being led by an Old Etonian ( though an untitled one ) – has not chosen a leader with a title since Lord Home in 1963 , and he was the last to be appointed by party grandees ; his immediate successor , Edward Heath , was the first to gain the leadership through an internal election .
Home was obliged to renounce his peerage ( following the precedent set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stansgate ) and fight a faintly humiliating by-election as Sir Alec Douglas-Home in a safe Tory seat in Scotland in order to lead the nation from the Commons .
It ’ s an indication of how far in the past is this event that there could have been such a beast as a safe Tory seat in Scotland .
So Labour is apparently no longer concerned to be viewed as a party that foregrounds levelling up and greater social equality .
Though Sir Keir flourishes working class origins , working class people will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Oxford educated whose position prior to becoming an MP – he was Director of Public Prosecutions – carried with it an automatic knighthood .
It ’ s a widely canvassed view , within as well as outside the party , that Labour has progressively lost touch with its grassroots and its traditional base .
Indeed , the most dramatic illustration of this supposed trend was offered by the December election , whereat Labour lost seats all across the North of England and the Midlands , most of them for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parliamentary party being deemed elitist and London-centric , it was also widely perceived as being dominated by those who wished to remain in the European Union , a group led by none other than Sir Keir Starmer .
The loss of support by both Labour – Corbyn having offered a further referendum following a renegotiation of the Brexit deal in an attempt to prevent further departures from the parliamentary party – and the Liberal Democrats – who vowed to stop Brexit altogether and return to the EU , and were rewarded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and the party EU spokesman ’ s seats – confirmed that a large majority outside London wanted the 2016 referendum result ratified as it stood .
Those of us in the party who warned of this outcome had been shouted down .
In view of the evident reassertion of voter distrust towards men in suits , it beggars belief that Labour should seek its salvation under the leadership of a middle-class knight of the realm who sits for a North London seat and who staked his politician reputation on “ saving ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless something very unlikely occurs before the party votes are counted , Sir Keir will be elected leader on the first ballot .
Looking at the platforms on which the three candidates stand , however , there seems precious little to choose between them .
Sir Keir has very deliberately tacked to the left , where the support for Rebecca Long-Bailey is largely rooted .
Lisa Nandy , though more individualist than her rivals and , as a backbencher , feeling less obliged to pay lip service to the 2019 manifesto , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The most noticeable element in what will seem to define the party ’ s immediate future will be that , once again , the party has not entrusted its fate to a woman leader or indeed – an option offered by Nandy – a mixed heritage leader .
The face of the chief party of the left in Britain will be what it has always been : that of a middle-class white man .
None of these candidates is going to win support from the mainstream media .
Long-Bailey is vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the Corbyn continuity candidate ” and hence readily decried as beaten before she starts .
Nandy will be more elusive for the media to get a purchase on , but the outrageous maligning by the Daily Mail of Ed Miliband ’ s father Ralph as “ The Man Who Hated Britain ” will doubtless be rerun about Dipak Nandy , another Marxist immigrant intellectual with an impeccable reputation ripe for besmirching .
Lisa Nandy should ready herself for this , even if she fails to become leader .
For Starmer , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike his rivals , he declines to rule out the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU at some future time .
That is sufficient motivation for the press barons to seek to destroy him .
They will not have to look far into his record as DPP to find material that can be spun to his disadvantage .
As I ’ ve argued on this platform before , the two Tory prime ministers who both lost the support of the Tory press and subsequently lost a general election during the past half-century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most enthusiastic about the European Union : Heath and John Major .
This is not a coincidence .
No other Tory prime minister lost office .
Although the potency of the European issue can be expected to recede , the Tory press will never give a fair ride to a leader of any party , let alone Labour , who is palpably pro-EU .
That ’ s just a fact of life .
Given all the other elements of Labour philosophy that the press barons are fundamentally opposed to , the party will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the least .
At the Dudley hustings on March 7th , Starmer said : I doubt anyone fancied that Labour were cruising to victory .
But to pretend that Brexit wasn ’ t a major determining factor in the Tories ’ win – and it contributed to the votes that the Conservatives took as well as to the votes that Labour shed – is to rewrite history .
As Starmer showed in the Channel 4 debate , he ’ s not prepared to hack retrospective chunks out of Corbyn , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the hundreds of thousands who ( re ) joined the party precisely because of Corbyn ’ s leadership ; b ) understandable because the time for post mortems is past ; but c ) less than candid because nobody believes that he won ’ t jettison some of the policies – yet to be indicated – that Corbyn championed .
And there ’ s a disconnect between Starmer ’ s pose of relative loyalty to the retiring leader and the manifesto and the fact that he ( as indeed do his rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ worst defeat in 85 years ” , as if it ’ s a judgment on the Labour movement and/or its leader and/or its manifesto in isolation from any other contributor to the political debate .
The Brexit issue , its framing and its timing , the mainstream media ’ s relentless mendacity , the global political climate in the time of Trump , the opposition ’ s innate inability to control , dictate or lead events , all these and other factors played into the election result too .
As I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government in Britain are extremely unusual – just twice in 40 years .
Changes of government do not come about by oppositions winning elections , but by governments losing them .
Labour needed to establish that thought in the electorate ’ s collective mind , but what has been conceded already makes that too late .
This is repeating the error that followed the 2010 defeat , when both Harriet Harman as acting leader and her successor left unchallenged the saw that “ Labour crashed the economy ” .
If there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make , it is to revolutionise its propaganda effort .
Starmer has foolishly committed himself to a number of what are deemed to be pledges or guarantees , ten in all .
Politicians can not guarantee anything because of “ events , dear boy , events ” .
Covid-19 changes everything but no one could have foreseen that at the last election .
Rather , politicians should make clear what they exist to do , what are changes that they must make if they humanly can because those changes are the foundations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it can only ever be an undertaking about the direction of travel .
As Jim Callaghan – a wise old bird if ever there was one – once observed : “ you never reach the promised land .
You can march towards it ” .
Undertaking to implement specific policies is a guarantee only of disappointing the electorate .
One of the issues on which Starmer is explicitly critical of his party in recent years is that of anti-Semitism .
In this , he is joined by Nandy and Long-Bailey ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outspoken of the three on the issue .
Invited , in the Channel 4 debate , to give some indication of support for the Palestinians , all three gave voice to the conventional liberal stance but none undertook to recognise the state of Palestine ( which , it may be noted , they were not invited to do ) .
Evidently , under all the leadership options on offer , any party member will be obliged to write in a uniquely treading-on-eggshells manner about anti-Semitism and about Israel .
At grave risk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I venture that Corbyn ’ s undertaking to recognise the state of Palestine in his first week of taking office fuelled a certain amount – I put it no stronger – of the effort both within and without Labour to impede his progress to Downing Street .
Now that the objective has been achieved , I hazard that it will be instructive to observe to what extent the allegations of anti-Semitism in the party go into a decline .
I propose that no fair-minded , unprejudiced reader could construe my argument as either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership candidates subscribe to the astonishingly unBritish view that anyone accused of anti-Semitism ( but not of anything else ) will be deemed guilty until proved innocent , I should probably expect that I have written myself into trouble , despite that palpably nothing here offends against the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism .
Such are the times in which we live .
Starmer , Long-Bailey and Nandy all uttered conventional platitudes about online abuse .
As with all such sentiments , the assumption is that no one associated with the speaker has ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a widespread implication that threats and vile comments on social media are only ever expressed by members of the extreme right and the Corbyn-supporting left .
But three years ago , according to no less an authority than MailOnline , an analysis of MPs ’ Twitter feeds found that no Corbyn supporter registered in the ‘ Top Ten ’ for foul language and abuse , but that six habitual critics of Corbyn did .
Indeed , it ’ s hard to imagine that any MPs receive more online abuse than Corbyn and Diane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is advocating a simple and clearly beneficial control on social media .
No tweet , no post , no text , no email should be untraceable by the regulator of the platform .
The anonymity that trolls hide behind should only apply to what is readily traceable by other platform users .
But the platform should not be permitted to open itself to users whom it can not identify , expel and report to the appropriate authorities .
If the price social media users pay is that the platforms are able to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a price that is worth paying .
But there is a degree of piety about abuse that doesn ’ t bear much scrutiny .
Politics , in a venerable finding , is “ a rough old trade ” .
Smears , dirty tricks , blackmail , parliamentarily protected slander and much else was part of the armoury of political exchange long before anyone invented online abuse .
Under the guise of protesting hurt , politicians sometimes fend off legitimate comment and criticism with claims of abuse .
Grown-ups should know to roll with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect that most of the shit flung at them sticks to the flinger .
If Jeremy Corbyn can calmly face down Dame Margaret Hodge calling him to his face “ a fucking anti-Semite and a racist ” and it not even occur to him that some sort of reprisal might be justified , the rest of us can be a little more broad-shouldered when a maladjusted stranger blows us a raspberry .
Starmer as party leader had better brace himself for a tidal surge of disobliging comment from the press that will feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t possess the evenness of temper and the single-mindedness of purpose that inured his predecessor against despair and doubt , he will find his new role the proverbial poisoned chalice .
I suggest he prepares an arsenal of pre-emptive and reciprocatory ammunition with which to deter his circling enemies .

W Stephen Gilbert
Beyond the world transformed by Covid-19 – save Brazil, a country according to its maverick president free of the virus – a few scheduled events are still ticking over. The Labour Party will proceed to unveil a new regime on April 4th. And it will be making an historic choice.
Barring a major upset, it is going to elect Keir Starmer as its first leader in possession of a knighthood.
Indeed, neither has any leader in all the party’s 120 years been created a knight after leaving the leadership, not even Tony Blair (who, many believe, would settle for no title short of Order of Merit and President-for-Life).
Margaret Beckett, who was acting leader for two months after the untimely death of John Smith in 1994, subsequently accepted a damehood (and, uniquely for a former leader, has already remained an MP thereafter for more than a quarter of a century); several ex-leaders have gone to the Lords, though none since Neil Kinnock. But there have been no knights. You can bet that Jeremy Corbyn will not accept a knighthood or a peerage, even if either were offered.
Meanwhile, the leadership election necessary in the Liberal Democrat Party has been postponed until next year. In the interim, by convention, the party is co-led by the deputy leader and the (revolving) party president.
Sir Ed Davey, runner-up to Jo Swinson in the last leadership election, will hence have been acting co-leader for at least a year and may be considered a shoo-in eventually to succeed Swinson. Thus is offered the amusing spectacle of both nominally left-of-centre parties being led by knights of the realm.
The Conservatives – now repositioned as claiming to be the party most representative of every class stratum, even while being led by an Old Etonian (though an untitled one) – has not chosen a leader with a title since Lord Home in 1963, and he was the last to be appointed by party grandees; his immediate successor, Edward Heath, was the first to gain the leadership through an internal election.
Home was obliged to renounce his peerage (following the precedent set by Tony Benn, the former Viscount Stansgate) and fight a faintly humiliating by-election as Sir Alec Douglas-Home in a safe Tory seat in Scotland in order to lead the nation from the Commons. It’s an indication of how far in the past is this event that there could have been such a beast as a safe Tory seat in Scotland.
So Labour is apparently no longer concerned to be viewed as a party that foregrounds levelling up and greater social equality.
Though Sir Keir flourishes working class origins, working class people will not obviously identify with a chap independent-school and Oxford educated whose position prior to becoming an MP – he was Director of Public Prosecutions – carried with it an automatic knighthood.
It’s a widely canvassed view, within as well as outside the party, that Labour has progressively lost touch with its grassroots and its traditional base. Indeed, the most dramatic illustration of this supposed trend was offered by the December election, whereat Labour lost seats all across the North of England and the Midlands, most of them for the first time in living memory. As well as the parliamentary party being deemed elitist and London-centric, it was also widely perceived as being dominated by those who wished to remain in the European Union, a group led by none other than Sir Keir Starmer.
The loss of support by both Labour – Corbyn having offered a further referendum following a renegotiation of the Brexit deal in an attempt to prevent further departures from the parliamentary party – and the Liberal Democrats – who vowed to stop Brexit altogether and return to the EU, and were rewarded by the loss of both the leader’s and the party EU spokesman’s seats – confirmed that a large majority outside London wanted the 2016 referendum result ratified as it stood. Those of us in the party who warned of this outcome had been shouted down.
In view of the evident reassertion of voter distrust towards men in suits, it beggars belief that Labour should seek its salvation under the leadership of a middle-class knight of the realm who sits for a North London seat and who staked his politician reputation on “saving” the nation from Brexit. Nevertheless, unless something very unlikely occurs before the party votes are counted, Sir Keir will be elected leader on the first ballot.
Looking at the platforms on which the three candidates stand, however, there seems precious little to choose between them. Sir Keir has very deliberately tacked to the left, where the support for Rebecca Long-Bailey is largely rooted. Lisa Nandy, though more individualist than her rivals and, as a backbencher, feeling less obliged to pay lip service to the 2019 manifesto, can be seen as leftish on most issues.
The most noticeable element in what will seem to define the party’s immediate future will be that, once again, the party has not entrusted its fate to a woman leader or indeed – an option offered by Nandy – a mixed heritage leader. The face of the chief party of the left in Britain will be what it has always been: that of a middle-class white man.
None of these candidates is going to win support from the mainstream media. Long-Bailey is vulnerable to being dismissed by the Corbyn-hating press as “the Corbyn continuity candidate” and hence readily decried as beaten before she starts. Nandy will be more elusive for the media to get a purchase on, but the outrageous maligning by the Daily Mail of Ed Miliband’s father Ralph as “The Man Who Hated Britain” will doubtless be rerun about Dipak Nandy, another Marxist immigrant intellectual with an impeccable reputation ripe for besmirching. Lisa Nandy should ready herself for this, even if she fails to become leader.
For Starmer, the Tory press will reserve special venom. Unlike his rivals, he declines to rule out the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU at some future time. That is sufficient motivation for the press barons to seek to destroy him. They will not have to look far into his record as DPP to find material that can be spun to his disadvantage.
As I’ve argued on this platform before, the two Tory prime ministers who both lost the support of the Tory press and subsequently lost a general election during the past half-century were the two prime ministers who were most enthusiastic about the European Union: Heath and John Major. This is not a coincidence. No other Tory prime minister lost office.
Although the potency of the European issue can be expected to recede, the Tory press will never give a fair ride to a leader of any party, let alone Labour, who is palpably pro-EU. That’s just a fact of life. Given all the other elements of Labour philosophy that the press barons are fundamentally opposed to, the party will be doing itself no favours, to say the least.
At the Dudley hustings on March 7th, Starmer said:
If people think we were cruising to victory but for Brexit, then I suggest they weren’t out there campaigning.”
I doubt anyone fancied that Labour were cruising to victory. But to pretend that Brexit wasn’t a major determining factor in the Tories’ win – and it contributed to the votes that the Conservatives took as well as to the votes that Labour shed – is to rewrite history.
As Starmer showed in the Channel 4 debate, he’s not prepared to hack retrospective chunks out of Corbyn, which is a) shrewd because he wants support from the hundreds of thousands who (re)joined the party precisely because of Corbyn’s leadership; b) understandable because the time for post mortems is past; but c) less than candid because nobody believes that he won’t jettison some of the policies – yet to be indicated – that Corbyn championed.
And there’s a disconnect between Starmer’s pose of relative loyalty to the retiring leader and the manifesto and the fact that he (as indeed do his rivals) readily concedes that Labour suffered its “worst defeat in 85 years”, as if it’s a judgment on the Labour movement and/or its leader and/or its manifesto in isolation from any other contributor to the political debate.
The Brexit issue, its framing and its timing, the mainstream media’s relentless mendacity, the global political climate in the time of Trump, the opposition’s innate inability to control, dictate or lead events, all these and other factors played into the election result too.
As I’ve argued here before, changes of government in Britain are extremely unusual – just twice in 40 years. Changes of government do not come about by oppositions winning elections, but by governments losing them. Labour needed to establish that thought in the electorate’s collective mind, but what has been conceded already makes that too late.
This is repeating the error that followed the 2010 defeat, when both Harriet Harman as acting leader and her successor left unchallenged the saw that “Labour crashed the economy”. If there’s one change that Labour sorely needs to make, it is to revolutionise its propaganda effort.
Starmer has foolishly committed himself to a number of what are deemed to be pledges or guarantees, ten in all. Politicians cannot guarantee anything because of “events, dear boy, events”. Covid-19 changes everything but no one could have foreseen that at the last election.
Rather, politicians should make clear what they exist to do, what are changes that they must make if they humanly can because those changes are the foundations of the movement that they lead and represent. But it can only ever be an undertaking about the direction of travel. As Jim Callaghan – a wise old bird if ever there was one – once observed: “you never reach the promised land. You can march towards it”. Undertaking to implement specific policies is a guarantee only of disappointing the electorate.
One of the issues on which Starmer is explicitly critical of his party in recent years is that of anti-Semitism.
In this, he is joined by Nandy and Long-Bailey; indeed, the last is the most outspoken of the three on the issue. Invited, in the Channel 4 debate, to give some indication of support for the Palestinians, all three gave voice to the conventional liberal stance but none undertook to recognise the state of Palestine (which, it may be noted, they were not invited to do).
Evidently, under all the leadership options on offer, any party member will be obliged to write in a uniquely treading-on-eggshells manner about anti-Semitism and about Israel.
At grave risk to myself, I essay this observation: I venture that Corbyn’s undertaking to recognise the state of Palestine in his first week of taking office fuelled a certain amount – I put it no stronger – of the effort both within and without Labour to impede his progress to Downing Street.
Now that the objective has been achieved, I hazard that it will be instructive to observe to what extent the allegations of anti-Semitism in the party go into a decline.
I propose that no fair-minded, unprejudiced reader could construe my argument as either overtly or constructively anti-Semitic.
As all leadership candidates subscribe to the astonishingly unBritish view that anyone accused of anti-Semitism (but not of anything else) will be deemed guilty until proved innocent, I should probably expect that I have written myself into trouble, despite that palpably nothing here offends against the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Such are the times in which we live.
Starmer, Long-Bailey and Nandy all uttered conventional platitudes about online abuse. As with all such sentiments, the assumption is that no one associated with the speaker has ever gone in for abuse. There is a widespread implication that threats and vile comments on social media are only ever expressed by members of the extreme right and the Corbyn-supporting left.
But three years ago, according to no less an authority than MailOnline, an analysis of MPs’ Twitter feeds found that no Corbyn supporter registered in the ‘Top Ten’ for foul language and abuse, but that six habitual critics of Corbyn did. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that any MPs receive more online abuse than Corbyn and Diane Abbott.
None of the putative leaders is advocating a simple and clearly beneficial control on social media. No tweet, no post, no text, no email should be untraceable by the regulator of the platform. The anonymity that trolls hide behind should only apply to what is readily traceable by other platform users. But the platform should not be permitted to open itself to users whom it cannot identify, expel and report to the appropriate authorities. If the price social media users pay is that the platforms are able to send them more adverts, it’s a price that is worth paying.
But there is a degree of piety about abuse that doesn’t bear much scrutiny. Politics, in a venerable finding, is “a rough old trade”.
Smears, dirty tricks, blackmail, parliamentarily protected slander and much else was part of the armoury of political exchange long before anyone invented online abuse.
Under the guise of protesting hurt, politicians sometimes fend off legitimate comment and criticism with claims of abuse. Grown-ups should know to roll with the punches, ignore empty gestures and reflect that most of the shit flung at them sticks to the flinger.
If Jeremy Corbyn can calmly face down Dame Margaret Hodge calling him to his face “a fucking anti-Semite and a racist” and it not even occur to him that some sort of reprisal might be justified, the rest of us can be a little more broad-shouldered when a maladjusted stranger blows us a raspberry.
Starmer as party leader had better brace himself for a tidal surge of disobliging comment from the press that will feel not unlike abuse. If he doesn’t possess the evenness of temper and the single-mindedness of purpose that inured his predecessor against despair and doubt, he will find his new role the proverbial poisoned chalice. I suggest he prepares an arsenal of pre-emptive and reciprocatory ammunition with which to deter his circling enemies.