The RussiaGate hysteria continues as Twitter announces they will be banning Russia Today (RT) & Sputnik news from advertising on the service because they are in part funded by the Kremlin.
We are now nearly a year into the Russian-Trump mainstream media conspiracy theory and we have yet to see any actual evidence that Russian “collusion” (whatever that even means) lead to Trump being elected.
While the MSM and a certain sector of the “left” (liberal-progressive commentariats such as the US’ formely respected Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann) seem hell-bent on this conspiracy theory, the real damage that Trump is doing to the US (and world at large) goes unchallenged by them: tax breaks for the for 1%, destroying the already abysmal US healthcare system, mass deportation of immigrants (he must be trying to beat Obama’s record of deporting more immigrants than any other President), school budget cuts, cuts in social programs, escalation of war in the middle east, increased military spending, essentially tearing up the Paris climate change agreement, this is aside from his tacit support for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamopahobia, and white supremacy (among many other things).
Just like a truther fixated on the belief Bush planned 9/11 whilst ignoring our multiple crimes and atrocities in the Iraq War (the thing you can actually do something about)—these people pursue their paranoia to the detriment of Trump’s real victims.
The situation becomes all the more absurd given the fact that a high-level CNN producer admitted that the Russia collusion story was “mostly bullshit” during an undercover investigation.
As a result you may as well just hand Trump another 4 years from now: believe it or not, most people care more about the damage he is doing in their own lives and communities than your obscure conspiracy theory about Putin, Russian spies, and the Kremlin.
By pursuing—so rabidly—this madness and paranoia the left are further alienating the very people who are at the sharp end of Trump’s policies, the very people who should be voting for a left-wing alternative, sympathetic to thier suffering and prepared to actually do something about it.
The fact we and the US have not only interfered in elections all across the world, we have actually overthrown democratically elected leaders and imposed brutal regimes in their place, apparently, all forgotten about by the RussiaGate fanatics.
They also seem to skip over the fact the US basically installed fromer Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996, heavily funding and supporting his campaign secretly from Washington.
THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN.
Yeltsin would go on to be an incredibly unpopular leader—and is remembered as such to this day.
Much of this has to do with his policies, which essentially carved up the state for the Oligarchs: policies that the West supported and backed fully.
If this isn’t proof of the US interfering and colluding to destroy Russian democracy—then their charges against Russia (even the most severe) have absolutely no bearing or meaning (especially in legal terms).
Twitter’s ban comes as United States authorities are pressuring RT, formerly known as Russia Today, to register as a foreign agent under a World War II-era law intended to curtail Nazi propaganda.
This illustrates just how hysterical the whole thing has gotten—Russia Today and Sputnik now being equated to “Nazi propaganda” and ‘foreign agents”—a form of madness now prevails in the US-West, unseen since the height of the red scare tactics and paranoia of the Cold War.
The simple fact is both RT and Sputnik actually produce a lot of news that isn’t in any way Russian propaganda—it just contains information that the establishment doesn’t like, and doesn’t want you to know about.
Anything the establishment deems to be propaganda is just code for “information we don’t approve of as it’s a threat to our own power”.
Both RT and Sputnik are one of few mainstream (ish) news sources we have left were accurate dissenting voice, facts and opinions can be heard.
The best journalists in the country (and the US) are now all confined to either RT or Sputnik, for instance, John Pilger who regularly appears on both, Neil Clark, and Afshin Rattansi—all powerful dissenting voices against the establishment….
Or to phrase this more precisely: actual journalists who do speak truth to power.
So, the Twitter ban clearly has nothing to do with who is funding it, so much as what the stations cover: any threat to established power or deviations from the norm must always be stamped out and censored in a “free” society such as ours.
We are allowed to have the facade of a “free press” with none of the actual risks or challenge to power such a thing would actually create.
They have absolutely no problem spreading their own propaganda and fake news on a daily basis, whether it be about the Iraq War & WMDs, or how Corbyn is a “national security threat”—the list is endless.
Apparently, we have the right to spread our own propaganda in these countries—yet Russia Today & Sputnik (generally high-quality news services) aren’t even allowed to advertise on Twitter.
If anybody is interfering in democracy here and spreading propaganda: it isn’t Russia, it is actually us.
The RussianGate conspiracy theory has been going on nearly a year now and doesn’t look like it’s going to fizzle out anytime soon.
Perhaps one day the hysteria will all be justified, and the devotees of this theory will present us with concrete evidence of Russian-Trump-Putin collusion…
But until that happens (I don’t think it will be honest) they really are just wasting time at the expense of fighting the real damage that Trump is doing.
But worse than this, they are also being completely reckless: they are goading the Russians into a totally pointless, but potentially catastrophic fight—remembering that Russia is heavily armed with nuclear weapons—as are we—and along the Russian border both sides are escalating tensions and provoking each other.
It doesn’t take much to start a nuclear war under these conditions: the hysteria about Russia adding public support and maufacturing consent for such action to take place.
The “left” who are dedicated to this Trump-Putin insanity need to grow up and take some responsibility for what they are doing and think about how best to oppose Trump.
If they really care about getting rid of Trump, that is precisely what they will do.
If they only care about their own self-righteousness then they will continue to do the same as they are now.
Unfortunately, I suspect the former over the latter…
And then the left-liberal elites wonder why pretty much everybody else hates them?
Universal Credit (UC) is the name given by the government to its latest benefit cuts, assault on social security, the poor and the disabled: the most vulnerable groups in society, who, of course, have the least power.
The Tories have already pissed away billions on a completely pointless and chronically dysfunctional IT system for this “new” benefit.
The benefits UC will be replacing range from Child Tax Credit to other means-tested unemployment and disability benefits.
As many claimants are forced to wait at least 6 weeks (with many waiting far, far longer) for their first payment—pushing families into debt, poverty, starvation and onto the street.
The name changes given to the benefits system over the years by different governments are all part of a wider propaganda campaign employed by the state to change the way we think about the benefits system, unemployment, and disability.
These name changes, along with the system changes they represent are part of a concerted attack on the most vulnerable in society through the use of propaganda that manufactures consent for the dehumanization, demonization, and brutality against the most vulnerable groups in society who have the least power.
The purpose of any name or phrase should be to accurately describe the thing it is trying to describe.
However, much of our modern language, names and phrases are actually used to mask the truth: to make sure we do not see in our minds an accurate description of the thing being described.
This is a well-known technique utilized by the modern propaganda system to great effect.
Edward Bernays, who was essentially the father of the modern Public Relations (PR)-marketing-propaganda industry, wrote in his 1928 book entitled (surprsingly honestly) Propaganda, that:
By playing upon an old cliche, or manipulating a new one, the propagandist can sometimes swing a whole mass of group emotions. In Great Britain, during the war, the evacuation hospitals came in for a considerable amount of criticism because of the summary way in which they handled their wounded.
It was assumed by the public that a hospital gives prolonged and conscientious attention to its patients. When the name was changed to evacuation posts the critical reaction vanished. No one expected more than an adequate emergency treatment from an institution so named.
The cliche hospital was indelibly associated in the public mind with a certain picture. To persuade the public to discriminate between one type of hospital and another, to dissociate the cliche from the picture it evoked, would have been an impossible task. Instead, a new cliche automatically conditioned the public emotion toward these hospitals.
As Bernay’s has made clear here: by changing the name of the evacuation hospitals to evacuation posts during World War 1, the public changed their expectations about these hospitals and the way they treated the wounded soldiers.
This kind of renaming is commonplace in PR and marketing and therefore propaganda and politics.
Universal Credit (UC) is a clear attempt at changing the way people think about benefits, unemployment, disability, poverty etc.
UC is not just a change in the way that benefits are delivered: indebting claimants from day one, decreasing the amounts they entitled too, and forcing them to work for less and less.
It is also about ridding the words that describe the reason for the benefit in the first place.
These are the benefits that Universal Credit is replacing—they are all means tested-income based:
Each one of these benefits to some degree describes (except ESA which we will get into later) why the person is receiving them.
By replacing all of these benefits with the name Universal Credit: you’re essentially ridding the system of the reasons why people are claiming those benefits. Therefore creating a totally different picture of the *social security system in the public’s mind: just as Bernay’s stated.
*The name social security itself was changed by Blair’s government to wefare and the Department of Social Security was changed to the Department for Work and Pensions as part of this propganda campaign.
The fact that you’re unemployed and need to sign-on, now replaced semantically. The fact that you’re ill or disabled and need to claim benefits to live now replaced too, and so on and so on.
Almost as if the Tories are trying to write out unemployment, poverty, and disability itself.
And therefore the way we think about benefits, unemployment, disability, and poverty.
After all, if somebody tells you: “I get universal credit” what does that mean? If somebody tells you: “I get JSA” that means something—that person is unemployed and needs a job.
Of course, this renaming of benefits is nothing new: in fact, the Blair government really started this Orwellian propaganda technique.
Post World War 2 we had Unemployment Benefit which Blair changed to Job Seeker’s Allowance. This was the beginning of the re-labeling: to be unemployed is serious: that person needs a job.
Calling someone a job seeker makes it sound like that person is running around looking far and wide for absolutely any job: a perfect description then of the way that New Labour changed the social security system-economy and how we think about work.
There is no such thing as unemployment within this description—only lazy unemployed people who aren’t motivated to take absolutely any job, for any amount of money, anywhere, doing anything.
Disabled people have been some of the worst hit by this propaganda and renaming.
The name of disability benefits has changed from Invalidity Benefit (1971-1995) to Incapacity Benefit (95-2008) to Employment Support Allowance (2008-2016) and now into Universal Credit for those claiming the means-tested/income based one.
Just think about that: in the space of 40 years: disabled people have gone from being invalids to being incapable to being employed and supported to being universal credits.
You may feel slightly uncomfortable with the word ‘invalid’ to describe a disabled person: but the use of the word invalid, at least, conjures up images of somebody who needs protecting: who is weak, who is sick, who needs help, who deserves help.
Incapacity—while less severe—also conjures up similar images: they are incapable — the person is sick, so they are incapable of work.
Employment and Support Allowance: we are no longer speaking about disability in any way shape or form: if you didn’t know what this benefit was, you wouldn’t be able to guess from the name alone.
And finally into Universal Credit: non-descript and has nothing to do with the reason the claimant getting the benefit.
The same has happened with another disability benefit: In 1992 the Tories introduced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which has now been changed to Personal Independence Payments (2013) (PIP).
Again: disability written out of the name and replaced by “independence”. The fact the PIP system is actually a real term benefit cut for many people with serious disabilities makes the use of the word “independence” all the more sickening.
Along with the name changes has been an increase in the amount of state testing and scrutiny of the severity of disability when people claim for them. Each renaming has also seen an added emphasis on driving disabled people into work.
This name changing and use of propaganda has an impact on the way that all of the events surrounding these benefits, and claimants are portrayed within the media and society at large.
If a newspaper headline says: “OVER 500,000 FAMILIES WORSE OFF FROM UNIVERSAL CREDIT CUTS” and the subsequent story is framed around the term Universal Credit, it is quite different from a headline that says “OVER 500,000 INVALIDS MADE POORER BY BENEFIT CUTS”.
This, of course, forms part of the wider propaganda attack by the state and the media on the poorest and most vulnerable in society itself.
An attack that has become so bad that the UN has actually condemned the Tories on several occasions for their treatment and portrayal of disabled people.
And hate crimes against disabled people have risen since the Tory propaganda campaign was launched in 2010—with many believing that the “benefit scrounger” narrative is responsible.
The techniques of dehumanization, demonization, the name changes—all of this is very much in the vein of the propaganda used by the Nazis when they were targeting the jews.
The Nazis printed and controlled many newspapers in the run-up to the war: spreading their propaganda, bile and hatred:
It should be no surprise then, that both Hitler and his minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels were both great admirers of British propaganda and imitated the techniques pioneered by Bernays and the British state.
Hitler said that his experience with Allied propaganda:
spurred me to take up the question of propaganda even more deeply than before… What we failed to do, the enemy did with amazing skill and really brilliant calculation. I myself learned enormously from this enemy war propaganda
He also praised the skills used by the Allied forces in this propaganda, such as the manipulation of atrocity stories—concluding that Allied propganda was:
a weapon of the first order, while in our country it was the last resort of unemployed politicians and a haven for slackers
Anybody who takes the time to think about the language we use and the propaganda we are surrounded by will be able to see how all of this really does manufacture consent.
It is hard to know the exact amount of benefit claimants— disabled or otherwise who have died as a result of the Tories assault on the benefit system, but we can easily say that the figure at least 4000 disabled people—an exceptionally conservative estimate I am using only because any greater number would likely cause this entire article to be flagged as fake news by the Facebook-Google bots.
These deaths: hundreds of suicides and thousands simply because the system had beaten them down so much they were too sick to fight on, these deaths are the hallmark of a country that has become the most savage and brutal, careless, heartless and cruel of environments.
The deaths are a national outrage and should be a cause for social uprising and change: but the outrage carefully managed by the propaganda system that seeks to turn the needed changes into a defeated sense of inevitibility—these people—we have been conditioned to believe—deserved their fate and suffering.
We really are living in the Bernay’s world of manufactured consent—that accurate and telling phrase that Chomsky used as the title for his famous book in which he analyzed the modern propaganda system, and is taken from a phrase coined by another founding father or the public relations indusrty, Walter Lipman, in his book Public Opinion published in 1922.
The consent they are trying to manufacture here is the taking away of benefits from those that really do need them; rely on them as they have no choice. They are manufacturing the consent of the population for this barbarity and against strength and solidarity.
This is an ideological assault: as Chomsky has also noted previously: the attack on social security is also an attack on ideas and notions of solidarity. The fact that we as a society have a duty to care about people we have never met—just because it’s morally the right thing to do.
The Bush administration wants to “reform” Social Security — meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a “fiscal crisis” that doesn’t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.
Social Security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. The Social Security “reformers” would rather have you concentrate on maximising your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. That’s life. Caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement — that’s just deeply subversive.
Solidarity—caring about other people—the most basic of human instincts have to be driven out of our heads.
The reigning ideology must be—within the neoliberal system—everyman for himself: Fuck you!
This ideology: so far removed from caring nature present in the human species must be beaten out of us.
I don’t care—not my problem—fuck you!
We are taught to see those who are suffering as deserving of that suffering—we have no duty to care—all we have is the duty to blame the victim and ignore the problem.
The homeless man is homeless because he didn’t work hard enough in school and started taking drugs.
I pay my bills, why didn’t he?
The homeless prostitute is homeless because she’s addicted to drugs, irresponsible, etc.
Disabled people, again, have been attacked in the same kind of way.
The propaganda system renames disability and treats it as if it is a choice—not something in which you have no choice over as pretty much any disabled person will tell you.
IF only that disabled person made more effort—like I do!—then they could do some work, couldn’t they?!
Nobody helps me–I make my own money!
Where’s my handouts???!!!
From sufferer to scrounger—the noeliberal propaganda doctrine dictates.
This is the kind of society that such propaganda produces: one populated by selfish beliefs in which nobody must ever care about anybody else.
Luckily: some people see through the propaganda and this is increasingly the case.
BBC News reported on a recent large scale survey of British attitudes which found that:
For the first time in more than 30 years, pensions are not the public’s top priority for extra welfare spending, the survey says, and has been overtaken by support for more spending on benefits for people who are disabled
And the support for Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-austerity platform and his “unpredictable” success at the snap General Election is a testament to the fact that we can overcome the neoliberal-propagandists determination to turn us into the most selfish, heartless, greedy and cruel of beings.
This gives us faith for the future: the state may be determined to pit us all against each other in a neoliberal bloodbath in which the 99% are all losers.
But that doesn’t mean we have to let them.
The greatest rebellion against this system is to act with the basic human nature and decency we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to have and to actually care about the society and world we live in.
When you care about more than yourself: you are more powerful than someone who cares only about themselves: this is how solidarity works and it is the basis for all major social victories over oppressors, tyrants and totalitarian states throughout history.
And that will never change.
The neoliberals though are not the only ones that can change the language they use—we can alter our language to accurately describe who they are.
Rather than calling them “business tycoons”—a more fitting description would Plutocrat, Oligarch, or Corporate Benefit King/Queen—tax-payer funded millionaire scroungers.
Bankers: the professional corporate, tax-payer funded con men. Politicians: the professional corporate, tax-payer funded con men.
Perhaps it is time to start playing them at their own game and start reclaiming the language they are seeking to control our minds with.
A quick note to readers: This WordPress has essentially been blacklisted by Google.
Today at Tory conference, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, announced plans that could see anyone who repeatedly watches “terror material online” imprisoned for up to 15 years—in a bid to stop them from “being radicalized”, theTelegraph reports.
This is, first of all, a strikingly harsh sentence even if the crime has actually been committed, but more worryingly, it is what the government refers to as “terror material” that causes the greatest concern.
This is an example of what the government defines as terror material—you tell me if you think it has anything to do with stopping the spread of terror?
Or if, in fact, the government is just using the label of anti-terrorism to protect its own crimes—crimes that we pay for through taxes and the spilled blood of many innocent civilians: both here and abroad.
Earlier this year, industry journal PR Week reported:
The case concerns Royal Marine, Sgt Alexander Blackman, who was sentenced to life for murder in 2013 after killing a “wounded” Taliban soldier in 2011.
Blackman subsequently had his sentenced reduced down to manslaughter and was released in May to great fanfare by the right-wing press.
While serving in Afghanistan footage recorded on a camera attached to Alexander’s helmet showed, graphically, the extent of brutality during the killing for which he was was sentenced to life.
PR Week reports that the footage:
showed British soldiers verbally abusing the wounded man, dragging him along the ground and throwing him onto his back, before eventually shooting him in the chest at point-blank range.
This is a clear war crime—as well as being a textbook case of state terrorism.
However, the Ministry of Defense (MOD) refused to release clips that showed the killing to the news media.
Many establishment news sources including The BBC, ITN, Times Newspapers, Sky, Guardian News and Media, and Associated Newspapers went to the Court of Appeal, seeking the release of the clips: essentially trying to force the government to hand them over.
Audio of the execution is available online—it is the video that has been banned by the state—this is truly horrific to even listen too.
Most tellingly after administering the fatal shot to the captured Afghan, Blackman says:
I’ve just broke the Geneva Convention.
Along with deeply offensive and disgusting, derotory remarks such as:
There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil you cunt.
After shooting the prisoner at point blank range in the chest.
Shockingly, the media lost their battle for the footage and the MOD won—meaning that the British public will never be able to see the true horror of what our soldiers really get up to in the Middle East.
The graphic brutality of the terror we inflict on others hidden away from the public’s eyes.
The reason for the court’s decision is even more shocking.
PR Week reports that:
Judges upheld the MoD’s decision and specifically referred to evidence given by Peter Wilson, head of the Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) – part of the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism.
In his evidence, Mr Wilson warned: “The presentation of any of this footage will be used as compelling evidence for supporters [of violent Jihad] to act and respond immediately, specifically and violently.”
He added: “They will use it to evidence and justify the claim that the West is at war with Islam and that it operates outside its own legal restraints; it will trigger a tipping point for many sympathisers who may have been on the verge of active response into immediate violent action. It will in short create a real and immediate risk to life.”
In their ruling, judges stated: “The evidence before us from Mr Wilson was clear and compelling as to the threat.
This shows you how the government clearly abuses anti-terror legislation.
The very notion that the media should be banned from showing the footage is already so Orwellian that it is frightening—the fact they have been banned from showing it for “fear” that it may be used to radicalize jihadists is at best laughable, but ultimate deeply concerning and so far beyond Orwellian that I don’t really know how to describe it.
The news of the ruling was, of course, met with sheer delight by the government:
A Home Office spokesperson told PRWeek that the recent judgement demonstrates that the RICU is “considered to have expertise in CT (counter terrorism) related strategic communications”.
They did not elaborate, but it is understood that senior civil servants are delighted with the government comms team’s victory over the mainstream media in preventing the disturbing footage from being shown.
In other words if I, or you, or anybody, the mainstream media, the alternative media—anybody even views, let alone publishes or shares material that shows British troops committing war crimes in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) we too can be considered to be viewing “terrorist material” and responsible for spreading jihadi radicalisation.
And given Rudd’s announcement today—who is to say that we couldn’t be imprisoned for up to 15 years for sharing this information that is vitally in the public’s interests.
The fact we have a long and deeply shameful record of supporting, arming and funding jihadists across the world apparently means nothing.
The ruling is also interesting in one other key way: the government has essentially admitted that the Middle East invasions actually can and do radicalize jihadists.
The government’s own defense is essentially stating that British troops brutality creates more terrorism….rather than the alleged goal of preventing the spread of it.
The fact they not only admit this but use it as a defense that the judge ruled in favor of—honestlty, words cannot describe how absurd this all is.
Clearly, this is completely farcical—the public has every right to know what their taxes are funding: including war crimes committed by our own government’s mass-scale terror campaign.
Of course, the invasion of Middle Eastern countries by the Western-Allied forces is a war crime to begin with.
However, for those who may still support it—showing them what our troops actually get up to could certainly sway their opinion against the wars.
The real radicalisation cannot be found in a media that actually tells the truth about our campaigns of war and terror—it occurs when they do nothing but propagate the lies of the state, and fail to challenge rulings such as this one.
Rudd’s announcement today that you, or I, or anybody could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison for viewing whatever the government deems to be terrorist material is deeply disturbing and shocking.
We need to fight back against this proposal if we are to maintain any form of opposition to state brutality, terrorism, and violence.
If the footage had been released and shown to the public, then certainly it would’ve had an impact on the public: not by turning the country into jihadists overnight, but by waking them up the terror inflicted on so many innocents across the world, carried out in our name, funded by our taxes.
The only radicalization this would cause, is that of a population waking up to the horrors of state terror.
And that’s precisely what the court ruling was really about.
A quick note to readers: This WordPress has essentially been blacklisted by Google.
The establishment’s latest smear-job on Corbyn shows just how desperate they are getting—litterally inventing fake news and then demanding Corbyn apologize over said fake news —in order to try and kill Corbyn’s popularity with young people.
You really couldn’t make this shit up, could you?
The Tories are in a state and it’s frankly embarrassing and pathetic to watch them endlessly slap themselves in the face.
For weeks now the mainstream media (MSM)—from “left” to right has parroted the Tory line that Corbyn lied to young people about abolishing student debt during the general election (GE).
Framing the issue as a sort of “bribe” based on Corbyn “lies” to get young people to go out and vote for him in the GE.
As anybody who has been paying the slightest bit of attention to Labour’s manifesto would know, the proposal to abolish student debt wasn’t in the manifesto.
Corbyn did, however, say that he was planning to deal with the massive problem of burgeoning student debt in an interview with NME during the GE.
However, the Tories and MSM in their endless desperation have decided that this means he lied to young people. Apparently, we are all too stupid to understand the difference between what is in a manifesto (concrete pledges) and issues that Corbyn’s Labour is committed to dealing with in ways yet to be announced.
Yesterday, during an interview on Marr, Corbyn clarified the issue for the sake of the mainstream media dimwits who can’t seem to understand these simple points.
WATCH: The BBC triumphantly declares what we already knew with their headline here.
The Daily Mail then reacted as if something major had happened with this ridiculous headline today.
Tomorrow's Daily Mail front page: Jeremy Corbyn admits he had no idea how much student debt was when he vowed to "deal with it" pic.twitter.com/yUswMTgQiu
The headline may as well read: Corbyn Reminds Dimwits What He Actually Said About Student Debt.
The lunatics at the Sun called this a U-turn—although, at least, they had the decency to keep thier lie to a single column away from the front page, or maybe they were just too embarased to headline this? Whatever the case, it’s still pathetic and desperate.
Front page of tomorrow's The Sun: Jeremy Corbyn makes major U-turn on his pledge to write off student debt pic.twitter.com/QAMgZXOzTU
Clearly, The Sun has lost all touch with reality at this point. How exactly is this a U-turn? Corbyn said he wants to deal with student debt before the GE, he said the same on Marr yesterday, so where is this fucking U-turn? Litterally creating a smear story out of nowhere based on pure lies.
Not content with this utter nonsense and Tory manufactured controversy—Tory HQ are now demanding that Corbyn apologise for breaking promises that he never made.
Many student loans have been sold off on the cheap by the Tories to private companies, meaning that when the bubble does burst the whole thing will be underwritten by the taxpayer, just like the billion pound taxpayer bank bailouts of 2008.
Bailouts which we are still paying for, from a crash that we didn’t cause, for which austerity was imposed us leading to a 14% real-terms decline in wages.
The absolute nerve of the Tories here is truly shocking: they are the ones who literally hate young people, especially young people who want to go into higher education. One of the first things the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition done when they came into power in 2010 was to triple tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 a year and the figure just keeps rising…
Young people are now leaving uni with a debt of around £50,000, essentially imposing us in a life of debt bondage for the crime of wanting to learn.
This to me is the most shocking aspect of all this hatred thrown at Corbyn and young people about the student debt crisis: we are mocked and derided for fighting for an education, something that the whole country should agree is an important and vital part of any civilized country.
Why would you not want people to be highly educated? Why would you not want your children, grand children, yourself—whoever to not be able to receive an education?
It’s a form of insanity to fight against free higher education as it is something we all benefit from as a country.
The Tories who push this anti-education agenda would never, in a million years, apply the same standards to their own children.
They all send their kids to the best universities and schools that money can buy: they know it’s important, they just don’t want anybody else to have the opportunity.
Comparable countries such as Germany and even Scotland have what are essentially free universities—even countries in the third world do—places such as Mexico and Ecuador.
So essentially we are all sitting here waiting for this £100 billion student debt bubble to burst so that the banks can get yet another huge payday from the taxpayer, and until that point, we all have to pretend that nothing can be done about this debt. And then smear the one politician who is taking the issue seriously: absolutely absurd.
The Corbyn student-debt-Tory-lie is a clear and blatant attempt to kill Corbyn’s main support base of young people.
The Tories, of course, completely ignored and dismissed young people as voters: learning their lesson after the general election when we essentially en masse called their bluff.
Now, rather than actually coming up with any policies to appeal to young people the Tories are attempting to smear Corbyn’s policies aimed at helping them.
It is sad, it is desperate, it is pathetic, it is transparently stupid, it won’t work.
Yet, the Tories have nothing else, the MSM has nothing else—this just shows they have literally run out of ideas and have to resort to spending weeks inventing controversy, and then demand that Corbyn apologizes for said controversy.
Let me just end by demanding that the Tories apologize for their many lies: here’s just a few of them.
Yesterday (9 May 2017) on BBC One snooze-athon The One (brain cell) Show our fearless leader Theresa May finally spoke — addressing her adoring populous (the BBC One Show Producers and Hosts) — alongside a man who she claimed was her husband.
May’s appearance was a sad and desperate attempt by her to appear as if she’s an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING.
Of course, the appearance was designed to appeal to middle-aged/middle-England and her raving fanbase of elderly people and Daily Mail fundamentalists — you know — people who CAN ACTUALLY bare to sit through the mind-numbing blandness of the One Show without shooting themselves in the head, or reaching for the “Osborne Special” — gram of extra strong cocaine — just to get through the experience.
Sitting next to her was her husband — a man. Watching the happy couple pretend to be in love was certainly a sight for sore eyes — especially for me as I was sticking forks into mine just to stay awake.
May has generally kept away from the public — for good reason — she has the Hillary Clinton factor (the more people hear, see, or know about her the less they like her.)
This is precisely why she refuses to talk to the public — apart from a select “lucky” few at carefully, stage-managed events.
May is about as likable as smallpox — if it was a choice between the two at the ballot box — it would still be a rough decision.
All she can offer is “strong and stable” a phrase which normally would only be used to describe an antique wooden table. And yet still the table would be preferable, as at least it really is “strong and stable”, making it about a gazillion times more truthful than the notorious bare-faced liar known as May.
In between this extended fluff-piece (fluffers being extras that give blowjobs between takes to porn stars to keep them going), we were treated to an enlightened segment about the peril of “fake news”.
The BBC has decided that fake news is a huge problem — especially with young people. Although, no real evidence could be provided for this claim — as usual the BBC — took it upon themselves to teach the gullible children how to spot fake news.
Turns out the answer according to the BBC was to trust the establishment media, ie: The BBC.
It is in the spirit that I would like to present my own definitive guide to spotting fake news (one of the biggest threats of our time.)
Choose an article (don’t worry it doesn’t matter which one).
Read it carefully.
CONGRATUALTIONS! You’ve now become an expert at spotting fake news!
Whether they be lying about WMD’s in Iraq and sending us into never-ending wars that cause the deaths 100,000’s of innocent people or making up stories about how everyone HATES Jeremy Corbyn or lying about Labour’s financial policy through their corporately funded spokesperson from the IFS — the BBC is the primary place to get your full dose of fake news (even better than this you’re forced to pay for this shit!)
In fact, it would be more surprising to read something actually truthful on the BBC.
You know, with ALL the relevant facts. Not just some that help supports the case they are trying to make — with a tiny amount of counter fact and opinion to give it the illusion of not being bias. But ALL THE FACTS.
A study after the election by Stanford University showed that fake news is unlikely to have been the reason for Trump’s election.
Yet, the mainstream media cannot seem to make up its mind about this: on the one hand we have commentariats like Owen Jones saying that social media alone is not enough to get Corbyn elected. Then we have the BBC claiming that fake news (mainly spread through social media) is the reason Trump got elected.
Surely then, internet news cannot be both powerful enough to get the president of the US elected, and also so useless that it isn’t enough to get Corbyn elected?
My head hurts from this insane “logic”.
The BBC should actually be embarrassed by the fact that they leave so much information out of the “news” they broadcast — yet, they aren’t and won’t ever be.
The fact this segment was nestled nicely into the May’s “interview” makes it all the more ironic.
The Tories endless lies — calling Corbyn a “national security threat” and “terrorist sympathizer” and all the other stupid fake news shite they come out with — parroted, endlessly, gleefully in the echo chamber of the BBC and MSM.
Yes, the irony is painful.
The One Show — The Tories — The BBC — all the same thing in the end: propaganda.
Can’t wait until they have Corbyn on.
Now, Jeremy why do you hate the country, our freedoms, and national security so much?
We hear that you have plans to make every single child in the country read Marx’s communist manifesto 8 times EVERY SINGLE day — in the completely impossible event of you (ahahahahahahahahah!) winning on June 8 *sniggers* and beating the most POPULAR BELOVED POLITICIAN on the face of our planet! And her wonderful, caring, loving, husband.
Was it your love for the IRA’s well-known terrorist praiser Gerry Adams that inspired you to grow your Osama bin Laden like beard?
There you have it kids: how to REALLY spot fake news…..
Labour kicked off their official general election (GE) campaign in Manchester today (9th May 2017).
During his speech at the event, Jeremy Corbyn slammed the “rigged system” of Tory rule — which has seen grotesque levels of wealth inequality rise in this country since they got into power in 2010.
Corbyn directly attacked billionaire media mogul and Mr Burns look alike (and act alike) Rupert Murdoch.
After slamming the Tories for “ holding back” the potential of our country through austerity and privatization, Corbyn said:
Britain is a rich country – the sixth richest in the world.
We caught a glimpse of that wealth only two days ago when Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times published its Rich List.
In the last year, Britain’s 1,000 richest people have seen their wealth rise by 14 per cent to £658 billion – that’s nearly six times the budget of our NHS.
Imagine the outcry if public sector workers put in for a 14 per cent pay rise.
But it’s no surprise that the richest have got even richer after the tens of billions the Tories have handed them in tax cuts.
That’s what we mean when we say the system is rigged for the rich.
So thanks for making that clear, Mr Murdoch – though I imagine it’s the only help you will give us in this campaign.
In fact, we expect hostility. Our challenge to a rigged system is bound to meet hostility.
And warned that:
there is a real danger that the Tories’ fearmongering and spin machine will make some people settle for less than they should. Resign themselves to things the way they are – underestimating just how many more burdens the Tories could impose if their mission to rig the system for the rich isn’t halted.
We now have 30 days in which to save the country. As Corbyn said today at the speech:
We can transform Britain into a country that – instead of being run for the rich – is a one where everyone can lead richer lives.
So — let’s do it! The stakes couldn’t be higher — this really is our chance to end the neo-liberal hell inflicted on us through Tory brutality.