Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth Is Officially Here! & We All Signed Up For It…..

Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth Is Officially Here! & We All Signed Up For It…..

According to The Intercept, Facebook has all but admitted that it is deleting accounts at the command of the US state department.

The move marks just the latest attempt by the state to use social media to censor and silence dissenting voices, in the style of Facebook’s ongoing attempt to crackdown on ‘fake news’ .

We can assume then, that the (anti) social media giant is also deleting accounts, posts, and so on, at the behest of the British Government as well (given the even greater authoritarian nature of our own state.)

Last week, the excellent ‘Crimes of Britain‘ (COB) Facebook page was removed for ‘violating terms of use’.

COB is dedicated to highlighting the many historical (not to mention current) crimes carried out by the British state and is thoroughly researched and well sourced—a valuable source of information on the various atrocities carried out by our government throughout modern history.

COB’s Facebook page was unflinchingly honest and brutal in their coverage of the colonialist and neocolonialist crimes of Britain across the globe. The only hate speech they praticed was a healthy hatred against the crimes of our state, you know, the atrocities we fund, pay for, and elect so-called leaders to carry out in our name.

Here is an example of their coverage from their still (thankfully) active Twitter account:

The page does noes take a particular left-right political stance, but rather covers the crimes of the British state simply for what they are: crimes.

Recently, I have also been affected by Facebook’s clampdown on free speech for similar reasons….

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about the Harry & Markle wedding, and also covered Prince redhead’s previous form as a racist who, once upon a time, dressed in a Nazi outfit (as a joke, apparently).

To support the controversy that the article produced (sadly, an inevitability for such a post—even though the Harry-Nazi outfit scandal is well-documented), I posted the actual picture of him wearing the NAZI outfit onto Facebook itself in response to those who simply wouldn’t accept that Harry had worn the outfit.

Harry Nazi

The next day I was informed that Facebook had removed the picture of Harry wearing his Nazi outfit—the reason?

Prince Harry edited —JUST TEXT

Quite who I was attacking here remains a mystery, other than Harry that is, of course.

The image was clearly posted to show Harry in a negative light (as that’s what this kind action deserves) not to promote Nazism or something (unless you think that’s what Harry was doing, of course).

This image has been widely publicised by both national and international news across the world: pretty much everybody has seen it and I would imagine all major outlets (including the BBC) have shown it numerous times.

Now, there is no doubt that this picture is offensive (it’s supposed to be—that’s the reason why I posted it, to prove that Harry has clear form when it comes to being offensive.)

However, that doesn’t mean it should be removed by the Facebook Ministry of Truth judges.

Why should they get to decide what is and isn’t offensive? And who does and doesn’t get to be offended?

As well as ignoring the context as to why it is offensive, and why I posted it in the first place?

Facebook is clearly under the influence of the state, and potentially vice versa as well.

In 2016 it was widely reported that Facebook enjoyed a £11.3million tax credit from us (THE BRITISH TAXPAYER) for their previous years ‘losses’—depite the fact that globally, that year, they made a £4.97bn profit. And in 2017 the company was estimated to be worth over half a trillion dollars.

Given this astoundingly huge profit and net worth, surely Facebook is in little need of massive state handouts?

Well, if money buys influence in politics (and I think we can all agree it does) then Facebook’s political censorship shows us quite categorically that there may well be more to these tax-payer handouts than just another scheme to make yet more money from us.

Facebook purports to be a free service, but this isn’t true: in reality, we sell ourselves and our lives to them and in return, we get to use the service: this is how they’ve made their money—and this has built the company’s success and grotesque wealth.

One of the web’s leading financial trading websites, Investopedia.com, sums it up best when explaining how Facebook makes so much money, they say that:

If you’re not paying for the product, the product is you. The real transaction here isn’t you receiving enjoyment in the form of a free temporary distraction created by a media company at great expense, but rather, that media company renting your eyeballs to its advertisers

Every minute of the day Facebook makes around $13,000 from us by selling our data and advertising back to us (that’s just the stuff we know about—they are a private company after all, so in reality, we have no idea what they are really doing with our data to make all this money.)

This website, called rather strangely, Happier, has produced a real time infographic that shows you how much money massive tech companies make from us every second of the day—here’s Facebook’s data for a whole 60 seconds:

Facebook earning per minute

The point is when we sign up for an account on Facebook we are making a deal with them: they have my private information and in return the service will help me to stay in touch with people, meet new people, share interests and hobbies, advertise my self, advertise my page, my website, etc and all without parting with a single penny.

That’s the tradeoff: you are the product but in exchange you get to use the service in multiple ways for your own ends.

All of that requires a certain level of freedom: that freedom is being erradicated by state power for its own ends. Without freedom to express on the platform the whole thing becomes completely pointless, in fact, it becomes hugely damaging to free speech itself.

There may not seem like major issues right now—but it is clear that this kind of censorship is becoming increasingly overt and authoritrian.

Facebook is becoming yet another tool used by the elites to silence the dissenting voices of the majority, as well as attempting to control their opinions, the news they receive, and the views they are exposed too.

The inevitible conclusion is that people will simple stop saying or posting anything that is deemed to be controversial in the eyes of Facebook and therefore the state.

That the state should be allowed to restrict public speech and action in this manner is more akin to Soviet Russia than an alleged democracy.

Alas–this is how censorship really works in our so-called freedom loving Western democracy: not under the threat of the Gulag or assassination, but under the imposing dominating reality of the corporate-state, working together to silence any dissent in a relentless bid to create the world they would like to see.

One that is free from any real challenge: where debates and controversy are heavily managed by pre-approved state-corporate authorities: so as to prevent any meaningful debate.

One where everybody talks about only the most mundane of issues in the belief that this is non-offensive free speech.

Once speech is censored, once knowledge and facts are simply written out then thought is going to be controlled.

If one cannot discuss honestly and factually, then how can your mind grow? How can your thoughts and opinions be clearly and honestly formed in any meaningful way?

The answer is they can’t—and that’s the whole point of this.

There is, no doubt, some cases where posts or pages should be removed and deleted (for instance, child pornography, animal abuse, etc) but the Crimes of Britain page certainly wasn’t one of those cases.

Nor was my Prince Harry post.

These are just factual statements about the world we live in: the offense they may cause is justified to make the points that we all need to pay attention too if we are to change things for the better.

Facebook for me is a love/hate relationship: on the one hand, I’ve used it to build a small audience and promote my work to people who otherwise likely be impossible to reach (all without spending a penny).

On the other hand, I am all too aware of the increasing censorship and the effect this has on my posts: who they reach, and what they see from me in the future, etc.

That’s the sad reality here.

Facebook is a platform built not by Forbes’ 3rd richest man in 2017, who is estimated to be worth $74.2B, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, but by the people who use it the service: us.

As such it should be our voices that are heard: not the deceptive and damaging narratives endlessly parroted by our Ministry of Truth state overlords.

Thanks for reading—if you found this post through Facebook itself please let me know by leaving a comment as I’d be interested to see the kind of reach this article is actually getting, given the latest censorship.

And please help fight back against Facebook’s attack on independent alternative media and news by sharing this article and posts by other indy outlets—even if you don’t always like or always agree with the outlets themselves: it sure will piss off Facebook’s Ministry robots of divinity.

Once again, thank you for reading and your support.







LBC Windbag Ferrari Awarded ‘Journalist Of The Year 2017’ For Starting Campaign Of Media Abuse Against Abbott & Other Absurd “Highlights” From This Year’s Glitzy Show….

LBC Windbag Ferrari Awarded ‘Journalist Of The Year 2017’ For Starting Campaign Of Media Abuse Against Abbott & Other Absurd “Highlights” From This Year’s Glitzy Show….

The British Journalism Awards 2017 took place a few days ago at this rather grand building in Central London:

Connaught 2Connaught 1

Unsurprisingly, yours truly wasn’t invited (sad face! Nah, just kidding…).

Perhaps, even more, unsurprising and rather telling about the state of the industry was the winners….

Get ready people this is likely to make your blood pressure increase by a factor of a gazzilion!

Last year, the BBC’s ever-intrepid political ‘journalist’, Laura Kuenssberg, won the Heineken sponsored journalist of the year award, in what was a clear testament to the dire state of the industry.

The fact she’s been in trouble with the BBC itself for misreporting on Corbyn, adding weight to the fact that giving her such an award was nothing short of an insult to journalism itself.

This year, the judges have perhaps gone one better: handing the award to none other than LBC Radio’s bloated right-wing, talking point mechanised windbag Nick Ferrari.

Partly for his outstandingly good work interviewing Dianne Abbott during the General Election (GE). For this achievement, he also received the award for Popular Journalism.

The Press Gazette—who hosted the event says:

The judges were impressed with the calm and methodical way he interviews politicians, most notably shadow home secretary Diane Abbott ahead of this year’s general election.


The judges said: “Nick will be most remembered most this year for an interview with shadow home secretary Diane Abbott which proved to be a pivotal moment in the 2017 general election. Through calm and detailed questioning he created the ‘where were you’ moment of the election.


The judges said: “Eschewing the hectoring style often associated with heavy-hitting political interviews, Nick Ferrari’s focus on the facts, ability to think on his feet and lightness of touch secured his status as a star performer during the 2017 election campaign. As well as his famous encounter with Diane Abbott he also secured headline-grabbing interviews with Theresa May and Tim Farron.

The headlines he grabbed certainly, the way he grabbed them though is genuinely grotesque.

Readers will, no doubt, remember the endless mocking—much of it clearly grounded in racism, mysognoy and the fact she’s representing the left—directed at Abbott over the course of the GE.



Abbott Mailexpress _ abbottAbbott — YahooThe SUN Abbott

Abbott did have a series of what were relatively minor car crash interviews:

On the spectrum though she was certainly no worse than many.

Chancellor Phillip Hammond had an equally, if not, far worse car crash interview whilst being grilled by John Humphrys on Radio 4’s Today programme, in which he forgot the cost of the High Speed 2 rail project and demonstrated the fact he’s unable to separate capital spending from current spending.

Alas, the media barely spoke about it—the fact that Hammond actually is the Chancellor and should know basic figures about public spending and investment better than anybody else in the country, compared to Abbott who was only acting as Shadow Home Secretary, shows you just how biased the media is. The fact that the industry thinks that Ferrari deserves an award for this kind of thing really tells you all you need to know.

In July this year, Abbott made it clear during a Parliamentary debate, that she suffers a daily torrent of horrendous racial abuse:

Following this, she has also written about how racial hatred and violence is fuelled by those in power—citing the Tories as being particularly callous and reckless in their usage of anti-immigrant, racist rhetoric and policies.

Exactly the kind of thing then, that Nick’s entire career is dedicated to, it seems.

However, Nick is far from a one trick pony: he also received the awards for his work surrounding a few other areas as the Gazette explains here:

In 2017 he launched the Guard Our Emergency Staff campaign which prompted a 100,000 signature petition and helped bring about the Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill.

As the Grenfell Fire still smoldered he interviewed former Chief Fire officer Ronnie King who revealed the government’s failure to act on safety recommendations following the Lakanal House fire in 2009. Nick Ferrari is quite simply the 2017 journalist of the year.

I wouldn’t call this outstanding journalism personally—would you? I mean it’s all pretty basic stuff, isn’t it? The most striking aspect of the Grenfell inferno was not so much the regulation, but the layers and layers and layers of endless and clear corruption behind the regulation and neglect. Aside from the other obvious underpinning factors such as Tory austerity, privatization, and the so-called regeneration project in the area.

Ferrari winner

The list of atrocities in the case of Grenfell frankly never ends….

The establishment: Ferrari’s award embodying this—always attempts to defend itself by claiming that they do some good work as in this case of Grenfell, as if that somehow makes up for the fact 90% of the time they are just spreading right-wing propaganda about immigrants, imperial war, disabled “benefit scroungers”, how evil and deluded the left is, etc, etc, etc…

Please ignore the title of the video below, it should read:

Ferrari Defends Daily Mail Immigrant Bashing & Demonization Against Man With More Than One Brain Cell & FAILS.

It’s all well and good to point out some of the basic issues that caused the blaze after the fire, but what about the fact that residents had been warning about these factors for years and years and years and years? And were totally ignored by the mainstream media—both before and very shortly after the blaze?

That’s the real issue here, again, this shows you how chronically dysfunctional journalism has become.

Another award, this time for ‘politics’ went to none other than Channel 4’s Dispatches for their delightful, meaningful and groundbreaking undercover documentary on Momentum, Corbyn, and Labour:

Over a period of six months, Chanel 4’s undercover reporter attended meetings at Momentum’s headquarters in London uncovering new evidence of how it was being influenced by the hard left.

The judges said: “Of all this year’s entries the story this investigation uncovered was the most momentous for the future of British politics. The others might have been great scoops or great insights but they won’t have as much long-term impact as the undercover account of the transformation of a great political party.

Kind of astonishing on multiple levels: the first one being that the documentary was actually broadcast in 2016, so why they’ve awarded them this now, a year later, is really beyond me….

The documentary sparked an uproar at the time it was broadcast for multiple reasons—no need to go into them all again right now, suffice to say that it was yet another hackey attempt by the establishment to portray Corbyn supporters and Momentum members as a bunch of Stalinists zombies all hell-bent on taking over the Labour Party, and slaughtering Blairites in the process.

You’d think that such an amazing and now award-winning documentary would take pride of place on Channel 4’s On Demand website so that we can all view it again and again…However, strangely enough, I can’t actually find a copy of it anywhere, including C4’s website.

The documentary was so good, it seems, that C4 doesn’t want us to see it again!

That’s how award-winning it is—unbelievable, yet true.


Channel 4 Dispatches Award
The proud journalists receive their well-deserved award. Image Credit: Press Gazette

Perhaps the last award that truly raised my, by now, highly elevated eyebrows was the one for Business, Finance, and Economics, this time sponsored by TSB, which went to that well-known giant of financial reporting expertise Bloombe…sorry I mean BuzzFeed (am I reading this right?) no, that’s what it says BUZZFEED.


This investigation revealed how Britain’s biggest taxpayer-owned bank deliberately killed or crippled thousands of businesses during the recession in order to add billions of pounds to its balance sheet. The judges said: “This was stunning work which made your stomach churn. It was a forensic investigation based on thousands of leaked documents brought to life through interviews with the victims of this scandal.

The award is all the more ironic as TSB was one of the banks bailed out by us during the financial crash—in fact, taxpayer money was used to buy a 43.4% stake in its parent company Lloyds Banking Group in 2009.

Honestly, what can you say? BuzzFeed…..financial, business, and economics expertise….let’s all just let that sink in for a moment shall we?

Not, the Financial Times (FT), or Bloomberg—which by the way actually have some of the best news, information, and interviews going—mainly because, unlike the mainstream media these specialist outfits actually trust their readers with the truth, as their readers are essentailly the business class: these people need the truth to make decisions, and as such there is a marked difference in the way the FT reports and the way the MSM does—highly recommend the FT if you want to find out what’s really going on the world.

There were some worthy winners on the night—as is always the case with these things—such as the one for ‘Specialist Journalism’ which went to Inside Housing for their work highlighting the dangers of flammable cladding before Grenfell:

When flames tore through a tower block in Shepherd’s Bush in August 2016, Pete Apps was the only journalist who recognised the need to dig further – and in doing so uncovered a secret report that warned of the threat to tower blocks from external cladding weeks before the Grenfell disaster.

The judges said: “Simply outstanding investigative journalism covering one of the most shocking stories of our era. A strong understanding of traditional public interest value combined with the adoption of the latest technology in multi-media reporting.

Read the full list of winners here.

However, for the most part, it is clear that any industry that decides Nick Ferrari is their best and brightest is clearly going through a crisis of epic proportions.

If journalism had anything to do with speaking truth to power in this day and age, then Ferrari wouldn’t have a job, let alone an award, and the C4 Documentary would’ve never made it past the pitch stage—that’s just a simple fact.

What these people are actually receiving awards for is, often times, the complete opposite to the central tenants on which the fourth estate is supposed to be built.

As Edmund Burke is famously reported to have said way back in the late 18th century, there’s:

Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.

Hence the origin of the term journalists are so fond of: the fourth estate—well, they may be fond of the term, but totally fail to understand its meaning, it seems.

These journalists are the ones who speak and amplify the lies of the powerful and distort the truth to the powerless masses, to protect the powerful.

And this is where the whole thing gets really disturbing: unlike the paid-up and self-aware propagandists of the past—whether they be Goebbels for the Nazis or those of so-called communists regimes such as China, or former Soviet Russia—unlike those people, these people really do believe they are speaking truth to power: they really do believe their own hype, and self-righteousness.

They have all absorbed the doctrine that they are the fourth estate—a noble truth-seeking pillar of objective justice—self-justifying because occasionally they do some good, noble and impressive work.

In fact, any mainstream journalists who I’ve ever actually dealt with—I must admit this hasn’t happened often—have always been completely deluded. It’s almost painful talking to them—they simply don’t seem to understand the world they’re supposed to be reporting on.

They have no sense of history, nor even basic morals—they have no real sense of justice, they have no interest in listening to victims of injustice, of helping them. They have no interest in any of these basic things: they are empty and dead inside—yet somehow, through indoctrination, I assume, they all believe the very opposite of themselves.

The examples of just how woefully out of touch the industry is with the public have become so glaringly obvious that is beyond embarrassing at this point in time.

The most recent example, perhaps, being the GE itself. At the beginning, as May called the snap GE the media literally called it a Tory landslide right there and then:

Healines comparisons MSM 1
Comparing my headlines to those of the mainstream media over the course of the GE….

At the same time as they were doing this I wrote the following:

Healines comparisons Enemy 1

This hatred of the centrist status quo has recently expressed itself in various forms across the west: from Brexit to Sander’s and Trump in the US to the unexpected rise of the socialist candidate in the upcoming French elections, we are seeing the (supposedly) unpredictable destruction of centrist politics — it may not seem like it right now, but this state of affairs is the new normal — and may well lead to the election of Corbyn as PM. This seems unthinkable — a glance at any of the polls tells you that it is — yet given the crumbling of the establishment — a crumbling which the political elites themselves fail to acknowledge the existence of  — we should all seriously start to think about the “unthinkable.”

For once the unthinkable isn’t a bad thing, it actually offers some hope and optimism for the future.


Whether or not Corbyn wins the fundamental nature of centrist politics is falling apart — that doesn’t stop just if Corbyn loses the next general election. Everywhere we look we see the same thing happening. This makes the current political climate unpredictable, not just now, but well into the future.

The future is in reality in the hands not of the baby boomers, or the gray vote much relied on by the Tories to win — but in the hands of the young: those of us who have grown up entirely under the neo-liberal system, those who want something more than this eternal misery.

We are also the ones leading the fightback against the neo-liberal assault — from Sander’s supporters in the US, to Corbyn’s here: it is no accident that these old school new deal style socialists gain the support of the young: it’s the first time in our lives that anybody has actually challenged the neo-liberal orthodoxy.

Therefore it follows that eventually, our generation will take over, and therefore we have the greatest chance of actually ending this nightmare. Whether it be through Corbyn, or means yet to be realized.

For now though, let’s all focus on the fight ahead — focus on the issues that are tearing this country apart, and make it clear that we want more than the scraps and torment the Tories give us year after year.

The sad thing is we’ve been conditioned into believing there is no alternative — this isn’t true, nor was it ever, and now is the chance to demonstrate that.

Remember the mainstream media continued to insist that May would decimate Corbyn in a landslide right up until the exit polling on the night of the election.


Healines comparisons MSM 2
More comparisons between my headlines and the MSMs all taken from the same time.

Healines comparisons Enemy 2


Healines comparisons Enemy 3Healines comparisons Enemy 4Healines comparisons MSM 3Healines comparisons Enemy 5

Healines comparisons Enemy 7Healines comparisons MSM 4

The same happened with Brexit—again I predicted that Leave would win—the majority of the MSM wouldn’t accept or even entertain such an idea: again, they were wrong.

They were also wrong about Trump in the same way (I didn’t make a prediction about Trump, although I did believe the establishment was underestimating the man.)

I’m not alone in making these points, nor the ones about Corbyn, Brexit etc, far from it, in fact, many people outside of the mainstream spectrum said exactly the same kinds of things, using the same kinds of evidence to support their points.

I doubt that a single one of the 400 industry professionals in attendance at this swanky award show even gave Corbyn a fighting chance—let alone any of those who won awards.

What does that say about journalism in this country?

It tells you that mainstream journalism is dead—and the journalists themselves are the ones with masses of blood on their hands.

In an odd way, the bloated and old LBC windbag who fuels the flames of racism and bigotry is perfectly representative of the state of journalism in this country: what his award symbolizes though is not a breathtaking success, but a series abject depressing, wilful, and systemic failures.

[Watch] Today’s Inspiring Corbyn UN Speech About ‘Grotesque’ Levels Of Wealth Inequality, The Climate Crisis, Imperial War, May’s Attack On Human Rights & Much More, Ignored By MSM: So Watch It Here….

[Watch] Today’s Inspiring Corbyn UN Speech About ‘Grotesque’ Levels Of Wealth Inequality, The Climate Crisis, Imperial War, May’s Attack On Human Rights & Much More, Ignored By MSM: So Watch It Here….

Jeremy Corbyn today gave an uplifting and deeply thought-provoking speech at the United Nation’s (UN) Geneva Headquaters: unsurprisingly and very tellingly the mainstream media (MSM) have so far basically ignored it.

Or as in the case of The Independent, who did, at least, bother to cover it,  immediately tried to discredit it.

Topics covered include tax evasion, the destruction caused by neoliberalism, climate destruction, Trump, May’s threat to human rights, imperial war, the loss of the use of diplomacy in favor of such war and therefore the current meaninglessness of international law (among many other things).

As the MSM has basically ignored it, I include here the full video and transcript.

Thank you to Imajsa Claimant on Youtube for uploading this.


Full transcript:

Thank you Paul for that introduction.

And let me give a special thanks to the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Your work gives an important platform to marginalised voices for social justice to challenge policy makers and campaign for change.

I welcome pressure both on my party the British Labour Party and on my leadership to put social justice front and centre stage in everything we do.

So thank you for inviting me to speak here in this historic setting at the Palais des Nations in Geneva a city that has been a place of refuge and philosophy since the time of Rousseau.

The headquarters before the Second World War of the ill-fated League of Nations, which now houses the United Nations.

It’s a particular privilege to be speaking here because the constitution of our party includes a commitment to support the United Nations. A promise “to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all”.

I’d also like to thank my fellow panellists, Arancha Gonzalez and Nikhil Seth, and Labour’s Shadow Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti, who has accompanied me here.

She has been a remarkable campaigner and a great asset to the international movement for human rights.

And lastly let me thank you all for being here today.

I would like to use this opportunity in the run- up to International Human Rights Day to focus on the greatest threats to our common humanity.

And why states need to throw their weight behind genuine international cooperation and human rights both individual and collective, social and economic, as well as legal and constitutional at home and abroad if we are to meet and overcome those threats.

My own country is at a crossroads. The decision by the British people to leave the European Union in last year’s referendum means we have to rethink our role in the world.

Some want to use Brexit to turn Britain in on itself, rejecting the outside world, viewing everyone as a feared competitor.

Others want to use Brexit to put rocket boosters under our current economic system’s insecurities and inequalities, turning Britain into a deregulated corporate tax haven, with low wages, limited rights, and cut-price public services in a destructive race to the bottom.

My party stands for a completely different future when we leave the EU, drawing on the best internationalist traditions of the labour movement and our country.

We want to see close and cooperative relationships with our European neighbours, outside the EU, based on solidarity as well as mutual benefit and fair trade, along with a wider proactive internationalism across the globe.

We are proud that Britain was an original signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and our 1998 Human Rights Act enshrined it in our law.

So Labour will continue to work with other European states and progressive parties and movements, through the Council of Europe to ensure our country and others uphold our international obligations.

Just as the work of the UN Human Rights Council helps to ensure countries like ours live up to our commitments, such as on disability rights, where this year’s report found us to be failing.

International cooperation, solidarity, collective action are the values we are determined to project in our foreign policy.

Those values will inform everything the next Labour government does on the world stage, using diplomacy to expand a progressive, rules-based international system, which provides justice and security for all.

They must be genuinely universal and apply to the strong as much as the weak if they are to command global support and confidence.

They cannot be used to discipline the weak, while the strong do as they please, or they will be discredited as a tool of power, not justice.

That’s why we must ensure that the powerful uphold and respect international rules and international law.

If we don’t, the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 will remain an aspiration, rather than a reality and international rules will be seen as a pick and mix menu for the global powers that call the international shots.

Most urgently we must work with other countries to advance the cause of human rights, to confront the four greatest and interconnected threats facing our common humanity.

First, the growing concentration of unaccountable wealth and power in the hands of a tiny corporate elite, a system many call neoliberalism, which has sharply increased inequality, marginalisation, insecurity and anger across the world.

Second, climate change, which is creating instability, fuelling conflict across the world and threatening all our futures.

Third, the unprecedented numbers of people fleeing conflict, persecution, human rights abuses, social breakdown and climate disasters.

And finally, the use of unilateral military action and intervention, rather than diplomacy and negotiation, to resolve disputes and change governments.

The dominant global economic system is broken.

It is producing a world where a wealthy few control 90 percent of global resources.

Of growing insecurity and grotesque levels of inequality within and between nations, where more than 100 billion dollars a year are estimated to be lost to developing countries from corporate tax avoidance.

Where $1 trillion dollars a year are sucked out of the Global South through illicit financial flows.

This is a global scandal.

The most powerful international corporations must not be allowed to continue to dictate how and for whom our world is run.

Thirty years after structural adjustment programmes first ravaged so much of the world, and a decade after the financial crash of 2008, the neoliberal orthodoxy that delivered them is breaking down.

This moment, a crisis of confidence in a bankrupt economic system and social order, presents us with a once in a generation opportunity to build a new economic and social consensus which puts the interests of the majority first.

But the crumbling of the global elite’s system and their prerogative to call the shots unchallenged has led some politicians to stoke fear and division. And deride international cooperation as national capitulation.

President Trump’s disgraceful Muslim ban and his anti-Mexican rhetoric have fuelled racist incitement and misogyny and shift the focus away from what his Wall Street-dominated administration is actually doing.

In Britain, where wages have actually fallen for most people over the last decade as the corporations and the richest have been handed billions in tax cuts, our Prime Minister has followed a less extreme approach but one that also aims to divert attention from her Government’s failures and real agenda.

She threatens to scrap the Human Rights Act, which guarantees all of our people’s civil and political rights and has actually benefited everyone in our country. And she has insisted “if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere”.

There is an alternative to this damaging and bankrupt order. The world’s largest corporations and banks cannot be left to write the rules and rig the system for themselves.

The world’s economy can and must deliver for the common good and the majority of its people. But that is going to demand real and fundamental structural change on an international level.

The UN has a pivotal role to play, in advancing a new consensus and common ground based on solidarity, respect for human rights and international regulation and cooperation.

That includes as a platform for democratic leaders to speak truth about unaccountable power.

One such moment took place on 4 December 1972, when President Salvador Allende of Chile, elected despite huge opposition and US interference, took the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in New York.

He called for global action against the threat from transnational corporations, that do not answer to any state, any parliament or any organisation representing the common interest.

Nine months later, Allende was killed in General Augusto Pinochet’s coup, which ushered in a brutal 17-year dictatorship and turned Chile into a laboratory of free market fundamentalism.

But 44 years on, all over the world people are standing up and saying enough to the unchained power of multinational companies to dodge taxes, grab land and resources on the cheap and rip the heart out of workforces and communities.

That’s why I make the commitment to you today that the next Labour government in Britain will actively support the efforts of the UN Human Rights Council to create a legally binding treaty to regulate transnational corporations under international human rights law.

Genuine corporate accountability must apply to all of the activities of their subsidiaries and suppliers.

Impunity for corporations that violate human rights or wreck our environment, as in the mineral-driven conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, must be brought to an end.

For too long, development has been driven by the unfounded dogma that unfettered markets and unaccountable multinational companies are the key to solving global problems.

So under the next Labour Government the Department for International Development will have the twin mission of not only eradicating poverty but also reducing inequality across the world.

To achieve this goal we must act against the global scandal of tax dodging and trade mis-invoicing – robbing developing countries and draining resources from our own public services.

In Africa alone an estimated 35 billion dollars is lost each year to tax dodging, and 50 billion to illicit financial flows, vastly exceeding the 30 billion dollars that enters the continent as aid.

As the Paradise and Panama Papers have shown the super-rich and the powerful can’t be trusted to regulate themselves.

Multinational companies must be required to undertake country-by-country reporting, while countries in the Global South need support now to keep hold of the billions being stolen from their people.

So the next Labour government will seek to work with tax authorities in developing countries, as Zambia has with NORAD – the Norwegian aid agency – to help them stop the looting.

Tomorrow is International Anti-Corruption Day. Corruption isn’t something that happens ‘over there’. Our government has played a central role in enabling the corruption that undermines democracy and violates human rights. It is a global issue that requires a global response.

When people are kept in poverty, while politicians funnel public funds into tax havens, that is corruption, and a Labour government will act decisively on tax havens: introducing strict standards of transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories including a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners … for all companies and trusts.

Climate change is the second great threat to our common humanity. Our planet is in jeopardy. Global warming is undeniable; the number of natural disasters has quadrupled since 1970.

Hurricanes like the ones that recently hit the Caribbean are bigger because they are absorbing moisture from warmer seas.

It is climate change that is warming the seas, mainly caused by emissions from the world’s richer countries.

And yet the least polluting countries, more often than not the developing nations, are at the sharp end of the havoc climate change unleashes – with environmental damage fuelling food insecurity and social dislocation.

We must stand with them in solidarity. Two months ago, I promised the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Browne, that I would use this platform to make this message clear.

The international community must mobilise resources and the world’s biggest polluters shoulder the biggest burden.

So I ask governments in the most polluting countries, including in the UK:

First, to expand their capacity to respond to disasters around the world. Our armed forces, some of the best trained and most highly skilled in the world, should be allowed to use their experience to respond to humanitarian emergencies. Italy is among those leading the way with its navy becoming a more versatile and multi-role force.

Second, to factor the costs of environmental degradation into financial forecasting as Labour has pledged to do with Britain’s Office of Budget Responsibility.

Third, to stand very firmly behind the historic Paris Climate Accords.

And finally, take serious and urgent steps on debt relief and cancellation.
We need to act as an international community against the injustice of countries trying to recover from climate crises they did not create while struggling to repay international debts.

It’s worth remembering the words of Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso, delivered to the Organisation of African Unity in 1987 a few months before he too was assassinated in a coup.

“The debt cannot be repaid“ he said, “first because if we don’t repay lenders will not die. But if we repay… we are going to die.”

The growing climate crisis exacerbates the already unparalleled numbers of people escaping conflict and desperation.

There are now more refugees and displaced people around the world than at any time since the Second World War.

Refugees are people like us.

But unlike us they have been forced by violence, persecution and climate chaos to flee their homes.

One of the biggest moral tests of our time is how we live up to the spirit and letter of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Its core principle was simple: to protect refugees.

Yet ten countries, which account for just 2.5 percent of the global economy, are hosting more than half the world’s refugees.

It is time for the world’s richer countries to step up and show our common humanity.

Failure means millions of Syrians internally displaced within their destroyed homeland or refugees outside it. Rohingya refugees returned to Myanmar without guarantees of citizenship or protection from state violence and refugees held in indefinite detention in camps unfit for human habitation as in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. And African refugees sold into slavery in war-ravaged Libya.

This reality should offend our sense of humanity and human solidarity.

European countries can, and must, do more as the death rate of migrants and refugees crossing the Mediterranean continues to rise.

And we need to take more effective action against human traffickers.

But let us be clear: the long-term answer is genuine international cooperation based on human rights, which confronts the root causes of conflict, persecution and inequality.

I’ve spent most of my life, with many others, making the case for diplomacy and dialogue… over war and conflict, often in the face of hostility.

But I remain convinced that is the only way to deliver genuine and lasting security for all.

And even after the disastrous invasions and occupations of recent years there is again renewed pressure to opt for military force, America First or Empire 2.0 as the path to global security.

I know the people of Britain are neither insensitive to the sufferings of others nor blind to the impact and blowback from our country’s reckless foreign wars.

Regime change wars, invasions, interventions and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and Somalia have failed on their own terms, devastated the countries and regions and made Britain and the world a more dangerous place.
And while the UK government champions some human rights issues on others it is silent, if not complicit, in their violation.

Too many have turned a wilfully blind eye to the flagrant and large-scale human rights abuses now taking place in Yemen, fuelled by arms sales to Saudi Arabia worth billions of pounds.

The see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach undermines our credibility and ability to act over other human rights abuses.

Total British government aid to Yemen last year was under £150 million – less than the profits made by British arms companies selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. What does that say about our country’s priorities, or our government’s role in the humanitarian disaster now gripping Yemen?

Our credibility to speak out against the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims is severely undermined when the British Government has been providing support to Myanmar’s military.

And our Governments pay lip service to a comprehensive settlement and two state solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict but do nothing to use the leverage they have to end the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

70 years after the UN General Assembly voted to create a Palestinian state alongside what would become Israel, and half a century since Israel occupied the whole of historic Palestine, they should take a lead from Israeli peace campaigners such as Gush Shalom and Peace Now and demand an end to the multiple human rights abuses Palestinians face on a daily basis. The continued occupation and illegal settlements are violations of international law and are a barrier to peace.

The US president’s announcement that his administration will recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, including occupied Palestinian territory, is a threat to peace that has rightly been met with overwhelming international condemnation.

The decision is not only reckless and provocative – it risks setting back any prospect of a political settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

President Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September signalled a wider threat to peace. His attack on multilateralism, human rights and international law should deeply trouble us all.

And this is no time to reject the Iran Nuclear Deal, a significant achievement agreed between Iran and a group of world power to reduce tensions.

That threatens not just the Middle East but also the Korean Peninsula. What incentives are there for Pyongyang to believe disarmament will bring benefits when the US dumps its nuclear agreement with Tehran?

Trump and Kim Jong-un threaten a terrifying nuclear confrontation with their absurd and bellicose insults.

In common with almost the whole of humanity, I say to the two leaders: this is not a game, step back from the brink now.

It is a commonplace that war and violence do not solve the world’s problems. Violence breeds violence. In 2016 nearly three quarters of all deaths from terrorism were in five states; Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria and Somalia.

So let us stand up for the victims of war and terrorism and make international justice a reality.

And demand that the biggest arms exporters ensure all arms exports are consistent, not legally, but with their moral obligations too.

That means no more arms export licences when there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit human rights abuses or crimes against humanity.

The UK is one of the world’s largest arms exporters so we must live up to our international obligations while we explore ways to convert arms production into other socially useful, high-skill, high-tech industry.

Which is why I welcome the recent bipartisan U.S. House of Representatives resolution which does two unprecedented things.

First, it acknowledges the U.S. role in the destruction of Yemen, including the mid-air refuelling of the Saudi-led coalition planes essential to their bombing campaign and helping in selecting targets.

Second, it makes plain that Congress has not authorised this military involvement.

Yemen is a desperate humanitarian catastrophe with the worst cholera outbreak in history.

The weight of international community opinion needs to be brought to bear on those supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, including Theresa May’s Government, to meet our legal and moral obligations on arms sales and to negotiate an urgent ceasefire and settlement of this devastating conflict.

If we’re serious about supporting peace we must strengthen international cooperation and peacekeeping.  Britain has an important role to play after failing to contribute significant troop numbers in recent years.

We are determined to seize the opportunity to be a force for good in peacekeeping, diplomacy and support for human rights.

Labour is committed to invest in our diplomatic capabilities and consular services and we will reintroduce human rights advisers in our embassies around the world.

Human rights and justice will be at the heart of our foreign policy along with a commitment to support the United Nations.

The UN provides a unique platform for international cooperation and action. And to be effective, we need member states to get behind the reform agenda set out by Secretary General Guterres.

The world demands the UN Security Council responds, becomes more representative and plays the role it was set up to on peace and security.

We can live in a more peaceful world. The desire to help create a better life for all burns within us.

Governments, civil society, social movements and international organisations can all help realise that goal.

We need to redouble our efforts to create a global rules based system that applies to all and works for the many, not the few.

No more bomb first and think and talk later.

No more double standards in foreign policy.

No more scapegoating of global institutions for the sake of scoring political points at home.

Instead: solidarity, calm leadership and cooperation. Together we can:

Build a new social and economic system with human rights and justice at its core.

Deliver climate justice and a better way to live together on this planet.

Recognise the humanity of refugees and offer them a place of safety.

Work for peace, security and understanding.

The survival of our common humanity requires nothing less.

We need to recognise and pay tribute to human rights defenders the world over, putting their lives on the line for others – our voice must be their voice.

Thank you.


Don’t Give A F*ck About The Latest Royal Wedding? You’re Not Alone, Over Half The Country Agrees With You Says New YouGov Poll

Don’t Give A F*ck About The Latest Royal Wedding? You’re Not Alone, Over Half The Country Agrees With You Says New YouGov Poll

The chiming bells of unrestrained joy have been ringing throughout our humble nation upon hearing the latest Royal proclamation that Henry Charles Albert David  (the redhead formally known as Prince) is due to wed Rachel Meghan Markle.

The wedding is set to cost taxpayers at least £22 million, and that’s just for police and security to protect the couple. A price definitely worth paying just for the sheer joy of it all, I am sure you are all thinking.

Yet, it seems despite the wall to wall propaganda and sycophancy trumpeted by the mainstream media, the majority of the country couldn’t care less.

In fact, according to a recent YouGov poll, 52% of Brits say they are “indifferent” to the latest Royal blowout, while 4% say they are “disappointed” and 6% of the country say they “don’t know” how to feel about it.
YouGive Harry poll 1YouGive Harry poll 2

However, that leaves 39% of the country – almost 4 in 10 – saying they are pleased with the news.

To be fair, whether or not you’re ecstatic or angry about the whole bloated charade makes no real difference: you’ll still have no choice but to foot the bill for the whole thing anyway.

Unsurprisingly, it was older Tory voters who showed the greatest blind enthusiasm:

YouGive Harry poll 3 tories love dem some Royals

Although, even then only 48% of Tory voters were ‘pleased’, leaving quite a large number: 46% who couldn’t care less.

Much has been made of the fact that Markle is mixed-race by the media – arguably one of the reasons for many Tory voters’ disinterest.

No doubt, this was one the key reasons she was chosen by Royal’s incredibly strong public relations (PR) team as they are trying to rebrand the family by increasingly focusing on the younger members.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Harry’s overt racism — seen here when he called a fellow serviceman who is Asian:

our little Paki friend

And refers to another officer as a “rag-head” — is something the Royal’s PR machine would like us all to forget.


I guess they’d also like us to forget Harry’s slightly outrageous dress sense.

Harry Nazi
Credit: The Sun

To be fair, he was only carrying on the proud family tradition.

Former King Edward who held the title of Duke of Winsor after abducting the throne a year before this photo was taken meets Hitler with his wife in Munich in 1937. Image credit: PA.

The Queen, her mother and sister, and the future King Edward salute the Nazis in this delightful home video from 1933.




Sadly, and in my view bafflingly, polls generally show that overall the Royal family remains quite popular:

monrachy good for britain?

And the younger members are the most popular:

Most popular royals

So the PR really does pay off here: this is the reason for the endless media focus on the younger ones.

Desperately they try to make the archaic institution of monarchy seem like it’s some sort of modern and hip thing so that people keep supporting it.

Trying to rebrand the Queen as progressive is just too much of a stretch. The younger ones, on the other hand, well slap on some stuff about mental health issues, make them look like a normal-ish family, add in a mixed race marriage and hey ho! Now it’s progressive and modern!

However, for Republicans there are some reasons to be optomistic: polling also shows that the majority of Brits would like the Royal family to be slimmed down vastly:

Slim down Royal fanmily 1

Slim down Royal fanmily 2

Even Harry was borderline on the question of whether or not these millionaire scroungers should receive our money.

So for those who think we shouldn’t have a Monarchy in the first place, we should probably start with the fact that the public agrees with us at least partly, and work from there.

Camilla and Charles’ comically low popularity provides yet more opportunity to illustrate how unfair Monarchy is in a day and age of alleged democracy and supposed meritocracy.

We might like to mock the US for electing Trump, but say what you want about the US — at least their head of state is democratically (well sort off) elected by the people (again sort off).

The reality is the Monarchy makes us an international laughing stock — literally, we submit through our own public opinion polls to archaic belief in Kings and Queens and Princes, Dukes and Princesses, long after the time when most countries long abandoned such nonsense.

The argument that the Monarchy is good for the economy is such a weak one it barely requires adult debate, alas though, I’m sure some will use this defense in all sincerity.

Let’s just think about this for a quick second, shall we? Tourists come to look a bunch of buildings built on the blood and wealth by the enslaved of the nation and in fact the world: they don’t actually come to look at the Queen — perhaps if she was performing some sort of mildly entertaining street performance style act outside Buck house on the regular then this line of defense would make sense. But she doesn’t — she just hides in one of her many mansions keeping hundreds of rooms to herself and her family.

If she was doing something useful, like I don’t know, cleaning my toilet, then perhaps we could justify the expense of the Royals.

How about that as a compromise? Let’s start an app like Uber where you can just order the Queen to come and fucking earn her money, just like everybody else — need your toilet cleaning? Need someone to mow your lawn?

You have to make sure the tasks are relatively low skilled, as obviously, the Queen has no actual skill to sell through our beloved capitalist markets.

In the same way that millions of tourists still visit the King’s former palace of Versailles in France, long after they improved the country by ridding themselves of Monarchy, I suspect the same would happen here: the tourists would still come — alas, no argument beyond implementing stringent class divides on us really exists for Monarchy — a 6-year-old of average intelligence could tell you that.

On Versailles Wikipedia tells us that:

The Palace of Versailles (French: Château de Versailles), or simply Versailles is a royal château in Versailles in the Île-de-France region of France. It is now open as a museum and is a very popular tourist attraction.

There you have it — a museum and tourist attraction based on Royalty, long after the Royals have been ousted.

Guess it can be done then, after all…

At a time when millions live in poverty in this country, and we’ve had the longest wage stagnation/decreases since the Napoleonic wars, austerity has killed thousands and decimated millions of lives: the Royal wedding is rightly seen as being meaningless by over half of the country.

I would like to go one further here and say that not only is it meaningless: it’s a fucking insulting waste of money.

£22 million sounds like it might just be enough to feed more than one of the at least 4 million children who live in poverty in this country…

What this and Monarchy in general really boils down to is who is important and who matters in a society: some lives are worth millions, the majority of lives though, they are worth nothing at all.

That’s the question YouGov should really ask the people of this country: would you rather £22 million went towards child poverty or towards a bunch of tax avoiding millionaires who have done nothing to earn their fabulous wealth?

Given the results of this latest poll, I think we can all guess the answer.

British Army Gets ‘Public Service’ Award At Major Advertising Event For Latest Propaganda Campaign

British Army Gets ‘Public Service’ Award At Major Advertising Event For Latest Propaganda Campaign

Last night the Public Relations and Advertising (propaganda) industry had yet another glitzy award show: The Campaign Big Awards—one the winners was the British Army for this stunning peice of propaganda.

‘Creative’ agency Karmarama was handed the award for ‘best public service’ campaign. According to these emotive adverts ‘this is belonging’.

The idea that anybody belongs in the Army in this way is a clear play on the fact that we live in a day and age of increasing social exclusion and isolation: come and join the Army kids! Where you can always belong...Disgusting.

Karmarama describe themselves on thier website as: 

the UK’s most progressive creative agency….We combine creative excellence with technology-inspired solutions.This means we can help clients with their business challenges now, as well as plan for their business opportunities next.
We think it’s a more progressive, more effective way of working.

Outlining the corporation’s ‘ethos’ they claim that:

Good Works is based on good karma, that what goes around comes around. It guides the way we work and behave. Meaning that if we do the right thing for our people, clients and the wider world, good things will happen to us.

An ethos that seems to have paid off for them….good things such as getting industry awards for selling death certainly have happened for them….how ‘karmic’.

The reason for the award is explained on the Big Campaign website:

Big campaign

The Army which purposely targets the deprived and those who have no education now advertises to people’s emotions to get recruits: the chance to “Find Where You Belong”…..

Picture from the award show

Once again the Ad industry weaponizes normal human emotions for exploitation and manipulation. Belonging is a central and innate human need. The Ad industry and the state combine to weaponsise this innate human trait against the population for thier own ends.

Unsurprisingly, left out of the campaigns are the number of veterans sleeping on the streets: commiting suicide and the thousands who have a lifelong serious illness as a result of service.

Left out of the campaign is the fact we are in multiple illegal conflicts right now—as I type—and we have killed thousands in these illegal wars: essentially creating IS as a result.

This is the kind of thing that people get awards for in this country? Making propaganda to send young people out who have no education, to go and die, and slaughter at the command of the elites who see them as nothing more than slabs of meat to be used to defend their vast wealth and property.

Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels may have lost world war 2, but no doubt, they’d be proud to see that their techniques for manipulating the masses are still being applauded and awarded by the elites in this country.

Remember we paid for this campaign, no doubt, it cost the taxpayer millions to sell death back to us—says it all about this country, doesn’t it?

The Real Reason For The Hasty £50 Billion Tory EU Divorce Bill? Cry Baby Bankers & Their Beloved Nanny State

The Real Reason For The Hasty £50 Billion Tory EU Divorce Bill? Cry Baby Bankers & Their Beloved Nanny State

Much talked about of late has been the so-called £50 billion Brexit divorce bill.

The usual minutely relevant mainstream media left-right paradigms dictate that one side—right-wing Brexiteers—are strongly against the settlement—protesting in their usual grown-up, diplomatic, sensible and coherent way at the cost of the bill.

Priti Patel, the recently disgraced Tory MP, Whip and former Ex-International Development Secretary and Vote Leave figurehead, recently expressed the standrad negotiation sentiments we’ve come to expect from the hardcore right-wing Brexiteer camp.

Following her recent resignation scandal, speaking at a Tory-porn Spectator event, Patel spewed:

My views on money are pretty clear, I don’t like spending money so I would have told the EU in particular to sod off with their excessive financial demands.

Indeed Patel’s views on money are pretty clear: her former position as International Development Secretary involved going around the third world securing billions of pounds in handouts for British businesses, such as Guinness, and “consultancy firms” who have all used the foreign aid budget to line their own pockets.

The sad reality is that the foreign aid budget is all too often used for this purpose: in many cases, the way it is spent likely does more harm than good. Unlike the right-whingers who seem to detest the very concept of aid, I do support the concept, and would like to see more aid if anything: but it must go to the right places….corporations who use the money to further impoverish people in the third world, enslave them and steal their resources are not the right places.

Global Justice Now reports that:

More and more aid is channelled through financial intermediaries like big banks, insurance companies and opaque investment funds. For example, 88 per cent of the portfolio of the CDC Group, which is a UK government-owned institution that delivers aid, is channelled through the financial sector, which then goes on to ‘invest’ in projects aimed at creating economic growth. That’s why British aid ends up in dubious (but profitable) projects such as luxury housing and shopping malls in Kenya. In 2006, the CDC even invested in Nigerian companies that were later proven to be used by corrupt politician James Ibori to launder stolen money.

These institutions also make heavy use of secretive tax havens, which ensures that much of their activity is shielded from public scrutiny. Of the 157 ‘aid’ investments made by the UK’s CDC Group in 2013, 118 were channelled through tax havens.

Large proportions of aid also go towards cleaning up the mess caused by previous UK government policy. We only need climate finance because the UK has emitted such a large amount of carbon dioxide. Much of the money that went to Afghanistan and Iraq is only necessary because of the UK’s military involvement in those countries.

Sorry to digress, but honestly, the issue just doesn’t get any attention normally….


What is it with these hardcore Brexiteers? Are they able to do anything other than telling people they disagree with to “sod off” or “jog on”? What kind of mad attitude is that towards negotiation and diplomacy?

Would they approach any other aspect of their lives like this?

Would they go into a shop and upon being told the price of something they liked, feeling it too expensive, tell the shopkeeper to “sod off! and jog on!”

To be fair, looking at the state of the hardcore right-wing Brexiters, they probably would do exactly that: and then proceed to pull down their trousers and take a massive shit right there on the floor, whilst looking the shopkeeper directly in the eyes. No doubt, if the shopkeeper was to protest they would proceed to call them a “whiny crybaby moaner!” and mock them for protesting the shittings.

Anyway, I digress (again)…..

The mainstream left is, of course, more pro-the extortionate settlement…still though, the questions that should be raised as usual haven’t been by either side of the MSM.

So, casting aside the various political narratives designed to distract us from the real reasons that these things are happening—who is really pulling the levers of power around here, that is—we can see the actual reason the Tories are coughing up £50 billion to the EU without much attempt at negotiation (if any).

Financial industry newspaper City AM, ran on Monday’s front page, the fat cats latest demand on the public purse and nanny state.

City AM 27 Nov front page hl

Yes, that’s right, the City wants us to just get on with it—cough up and pay so they can make even more money.

Haven’t you noticed all those CEO’s lining the streets in their cardboard boxes during these freezing cold winter nights? There’s more and more by the hour don’t you know! The poor babies! Won’t somebody please think of the real victims here? Honestly, it would be selfish not to.

City AM 27 Nov excerpt 1

City AM 27 Nov excerpt 2

The City we are told doesn’t want the Government to “penny pinch” over this—heaven forbid it should affect their poverty wages after all.

The City would have us believe on its front page—and in the braoder mainstream coverage—that they truly fear Brexit will lead to the Apocolypse.

By page 25 of City AM, however, sanity and truth manage to miraculously appear.

In an article by Sam Smith, Chief Executive of finnCapp we are told that:

Sam Smith excerpt — Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg, of course, being a man who is worth around US$ 47.8 billion and owns Bloomberg financial news and a host of other banking services.

So, then, as usual, the City cry babies get what they want and we all have to foot the bill for their gold-plated dummies and Mercedes-Benz brand prams.

The City knows all too well that they are far from collapse or peril—with or without Brexit, however, clearly they would prefer that we just pay the massive bill for thier own benefit.

Another example of how the bankers rely on the nanny state—taxpayer—us—to survive.

Great “free-market” capitalist system this, isn’t it? How we fund the bankers and their every plutocratic whim and bail them out when their crooked gambles go catastrophically bollocks up.

Apparently, that’s free market capitalism….

The only time we actually have what resembles a free-market capitalist system in this country is when it comes to the working class-poor.

If you’re just a penny short in Tesco paying for a loaf of bread—boom! fuck off! They’d throw you in prison for 6 years just for asking them to let you have it for a penny cheaper.

What a sick joke.

The real threat of Brexit is from de-regulation to our food, banks and other consumer safety protections—things like pharmaceuticals, a whole range of rights and safety standards that are currently protected under EU treaties.

As well as this, we have the obvious issues over human rights, and worker rights, data protection, etc.

The farming out of NHS services to bloated US healthcare giants….the list of real threats from Brexit is no joke….yet does any of this even get a column inch in the mainstream media?

Global Justice Now produced a report earlier this year highlighting the fact that corporations are essentially lobbying the Tories to get the Brexit they want—and keeping the public excluding in the process.

Global Justice reports that:


Brexit GJN lobbying

  • The DexEU list of lobby meetings includes several actors who have previously made financial contributions to the UK Conservative Party’s head office, as well as corporations with revolving door links to senior party figures.
  • The corporate bias in the lobby meetings of DexEU mirrors the pattern of lobbying seen at the UK Department for International Trade. The ministers developing the UK’s post-Brexit trade relationships with the rest of the world have been holding 90 per cent of their lobby meetings with representatives of business interests, previous research showed.

If things continue as they are on track to, we’ll end up with a Brexit that costs billions and leaves us, as Corbyn has said many times before as:

bargain basement Britain, a low-pay tax haven on the shores of Europe

We’re already forking out 50 billion because the City demands it—YAY!!!

That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t pay settlements and come to an aggreement—obviously, we should honor our legal obligations and do our best to settle amicably.

But to just rush head first into these things, with no public control or oversight says it all about the true nature of Brexit.

Staunch Brexiteers who were all too happy to declare what a great day for democracy the referendum was—alas, those same Brexiteers have been strangely quiet about the multiple ways in which the public—and indeed the opposition—has all but been excluded from the Brexit negotiations…..

As usual, it will be the poorest who voted for Brexit who will suffer the most as a result of all this.

As usual, the left-wing Guardianista commentariats will call them all racists and bigots when they find new scapegoats to blame their often justified economic-social rage on.

Short film examining the religious nature of Brexit

Apparently, that’s democracy? Apparently, this is capitalism?

Can somebody please learn how to use a dictionary in this country?

Preferably before I go totally insane.





No! Nazi-Punching Isn’t ‘OK’, It’s Immoral & Can Endanger You—Here’s Why

No! Nazi-Punching Isn’t ‘OK’, It’s Immoral & Can Endanger You—Here’s Why

The Nazi-punching “debate’ has quietened down somewhat of late…however, I recently stumbled across this post applauding it and was reminded of a few things that nobody ever speaks about regarding Nazi-punching.

aamer pic

Not only is it immoral to go around punching people in the face who are not directly attacking or threatening you with violence—it is also incredibly dangerous: you’re literally putting your own, and those around you—lives at risk.

These are just elementary and basic points, outside of the moral or legal framework which I have previously written about.

To summarise the moral question: violence is only acceptable as a means of self-defense: as a response to a direct, overt threat of violence towards you, or people around you.

This can be the only acceptable form of violence in my opinion—the law generally reflects this….not that it applies to state violence, carried out by the Police, etc (but that’s a matter for another day.)

Which brings me on to my next point—the Australian stand-up comedian, Aamer Rahman, recently performed a routine dealing with Nazi-punching.

Certainly, the topic has many opportunities for a skilled comedian—unfortunately, though Rahman seems to be promoting Nazi-punching…..

And mocking white liberals (I suppose I am one) for making the simple point that we shouldn’t go around punching people in the face just because they have abhorrent views.

Rahman, speaking about the unprovoked punching of the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer said:

And then every white liberal came out of the woodwork and started going: (Rahman imitates a soppy sounding white liberal)

“Mmmmm I don’t know…I don’t know if that’s what we should be doing….should we really be appluading someone for punching a Nazi?”

“Is that how we want to have political conversations?”

“Shouldn’t we hear people out?”

“If you punch a Nazi does that make you as bad as one?”

“You know what we should do with Nazis? We should debate them and we should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas”

Rahman then steps out of his imitation of the classic cappuccino sipping white liberal and, referring to the “marketplace of ideas”, responds:

Erm yeah, I don’t really know where that is. I would like to defeat Nazis on planet earth first, and then after we eradicate them here, you can fight them in the marketplace of ideas, fucking Narnia, Mordor, whatever imaginary realm it is—that you think Nazis can be constructively debated in, go for it, right?

Now, here’s the thing—this isn’t just immoral and silly, and a terrible tactic designed to backfire, it is also as Chomsky noted a “a major gift to the right”-wing themselves: essentially helping them to justify their own Nazi idealogy—who are the violent ones here?

Rahman then goes on to justify Nazi-punching by saying:

Do I support political violence?

We’re talking about punching fascists in the face—not suicide bombing, OK, relax!

The answer is still yes though Mr Rahman, and isn’t there a word for violence carried out for a political cause? Hmmm…..oh yeah!


Just apply this logic to any other aspect of life, or in fact politics:

For instance, the Tories, not to mention the majority of the Labour party have all carried out massive atrocities all over the world: just look at the weapons we are currently selling to the Saudia Arabian Government who are creating, according to Oxfam, “one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises” through the Yemen “civil war”.

Essentially they are war criminals: does that mean I should go up and punch Theresa May in the face? Or Hammond, or Tony Blair?

You may think they deserve it—but what good does it do? Does it stop the Saudi bombing?

I think we all know the answer: we all know that even the suggestion is absurd, for obvious reasons.

But here’s the part that nobody ever speaks about or thinks of, it seems, not only is Nazi-punching an awful tactic….


I speak as somebody who has trained in various martial arts since the age of 10—that’s over 20 years of my life spent learning how to fight.

But that’s exactly the point of training—not learning to fight, but how to avoid, or end a fight (in case you ever have to).

That’s the first lesson that any instructor worth their salt will teach you. There is a joke within the martial arts that crystalizes this:

The best form of self-defense training is a pair of Nikes and a racetrack.

The reason is that fighting is incredibly dangerous in multiple ways: violence once unleashed is so unpredictable that it can only ever be a last resort—when all other options have been exhausted.

The only predictable thing about violence is that it is unpredictable.

I have had my nose broken, more black eyes than I can remember: I’ve sparred with trained with guys who are built like brick shit houses who went on to compete in MMA—highly skilled fighters—but still, accidents happen….. I’ve seen a guy have his tooth knocked—it flew across my eyeline in slow motion…..

These are the kinds of things that happen under tightly controlled circumstances with people who are training together and are not trying to actually hurt each other.

Now, imagine what happens when you have people who are actually trying to hurt each other? It doesn’t even look anything like a cage fight—Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)—that is.

Even so-called “No-Holds-Barred” MMA fights are far more controlled than any real fight could ever be.

In a real fight there are no rules of engagement and no referee: meaning the most logical thing to do to win is to rip the enemy’s bollocks off, stab them with your keys in their throat, blind them by spitting in their eyes and clawing them, rip out the hair, and so on….none of which anybody can ever train for as it’s just too dangerous, but that’s how real fights look: but it gets far more dangerous than this.

An example of what can happen outside of the ring….chaos

There is an infinite number of things that can happen: first of all you could punch and miss or the punch has no effect: as soon as you’ve thrown that punch you are committed to action.

An example of when to hit/defend: self-defense: This man, I believe, from the movements and way he handles the aggressor, is a martial artsist—and as such tries to calm the situation first, only when the aggressor persists, and starts to throw punches, and throw his property around, does he defend himself: and only then with enough force to send me a message to the aggressor: This is how it’s done. The defender you will notice remains calm and relaxed: this is not just to try and descale the aggresor’s violence, it is also so as to allow him to think rationally, and move loosely:

So what happens when the Nazi hits you back? What happens if they grab you, pull out a blade and slit your throat? What happens if you hit them so hard they fall over, hit their head on the concrete and you’ve killed them?

What happens if they do they do same to you? What happens if they throw acid at you?

What happens if their pals are around and join in? what happens if the Police see you wailing on a guy?

Do you think any of this would hold in court? On a manslaughter or even murder charge?

Why did you hit him?

Well, he was a Nazi, your honor.

OK, so did he threaten to hit you?

No, he was just standing there talking to somebody—but he’s a Nazi….

Right, so you just went up and killed a man because he’s a Nazi, but he didn’t actually do anything to you?

But he’s a Nazi, your honor!

You think that’ll hold up in court?

I don’t think these guys—Rahman et al, realize just how dangerous fighting actually is.

You don’t get into a fight unless you really have to, and if that happens you do your best to get the fuck out of there.

Otherwise, you could get killed, your friends could get killed and so on.

This isn’t child’s play, this isn’t a school playground brawl—when you’re dealing with the real world, especially in the case of neo-Nazi’s you’ve no idea what they will do back to you and those around you.

In the US this is all the worse as guns are so freely and easily available, and and I don’t know if anybody else has noticed this, but it seems to be the white males—nationalists often—who do open fire killing many innocent people: now think about that, give them a reason and you could get killed and God knows who else could be killed or injured as well.

You just don’t play games like this—think about it. Think about how reckless it is to just go around punching people—again unless it’s the last resort purely for self-defense.

It may be all well and good to justify this violence under the guise of fighting fascism, but how is that any different to the Neo-Nazis going around punching Muslim hate preachers?

Is it now justifiable? again, the same issue, unless there is a direct threat of violence towards you—clear aggression—then neither is justifiable: both are exceptionally dangerous for the reasons I’ve stated above.

You can call me a sanctimonious white liberal if you want Mr Rahman, but frankly, I’d rather be that than somebody who endangers people and helps inadvertently spread the fascist agenda.

Some neo-Nazis have been reformed—some people do change their ways through debate..it does happen.

Debates and conversations about complex issues with people you (rightly) despise may be dead-ends sometimes, but the alternative you’re presenting here: punching people in the face is far worse.

Violence is a last resort unless you are a thug or a terrorist: I’m sorry if you don’t like that simple fact: but it’s the truth.

The last thing the left needs is a bunch of people going around throwing punches at neo-Nazis who are already hell-bent on looking for every reason to have a fight.

Trust me, many neo-Nazis—unlike Spencer—will not just stand there and take a blow to the face—they’ll hit you back, they’ll hit you hard and they may kill you, your family, your friends, other people around: who knows….

Violence is always unpredictable. Always.

At the risk of repeating myself again: such acts of violence can and must only be used as self-defense, and only when all other options have been exhausted.

One final note; I understand that Rahman is a comedian and as such, I hope I’m not missing out on the context here; from what I can gather though, the context is quite clear…

If you would like to answer to the points I’ve made Mr Rahman, please do: I certainly would welcome a debate in the much-loathed marketplace of ideas with you