Corbyn ‘One Of Least Racist MPs We Have’ Says Times Of Israel Blogger—Points To Tories As Being The Real Bigots….

Corbyn ‘One Of Least Racist MPs We Have’ Says Times Of Israel Blogger—Points To Tories As Being The Real Bigots….

Bizarrely, seemingly out of nowhere — again springs the old “Corbyn is a raging anti-semite, as is basically anybody else who supports him” smear.

This is the first major appearance this smear has made since the four-part undercover documentary by Al Jazeera, which revealed just how much of the Labour-Corbyn-anti-semitism scandal has been manufactured by the Israeli Lobby in London.

The reason, unsurprisingly, is to attack Corbyn/supporters/anybody who is against the illegal and barbaric (western-funded, founded and supported) Israeli “occupation” of Palestine.

Interestingly, this documentary and the clear facts it uncovers, including widespread Israeli government “meddling” in our democracy has been ignored by the mainstream (MSM) as if never happened.

I guess the MSM must just be anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Al Jazeera, and pro-war crimes (in fairness, yes they are all those things).

Also interesting is the fact that the US Israel lobby is fighting against the broadcast of a similar documentary (again by AL Jazeera) into Israeli government interference in American democracy.

The anti-semite smear is an exceptionally powerful tool — as the well-known Jewish, Palestinian rights supporting, left-wing activist and political scientist, Noam Chomsky, has previously noted, such labels are so damaging and so despicable that they are almost impossible to recover from — especially when dished out at somebody who is innocent of the act.

Contrary to MSM devotion to the smear, much of the Jewish community expresses the opposite sentiments to those blasted by the MSM (but who cares what a significant majority of the Jewish community says when what they are saying doesn’t fit the pre-determined narrative.)

And so, writing a blog post for Jewish News – The Times of Israel, Joseph Finlay, former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly and co-founder of a range of grassroots Jewish organisations, has written an inciteful piece defending Corbyn as a committed anti-racist and making it clear that he, for one, is not buying the story.

Jewish News HeaderJewish News Header 2

The piece is perhaps even more notable as the source of publication appears to be filled with articles promoting the Corbyn smear lines and narratives.

As Finlay makes clear, Corbyn is actually at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to racism:

Jeremy Corbyn is one of the leading anti-racists in parliament – I would go so far to say that he is one of the least racist MPs we have. So naturally Corbyn signed numerous Early Day motions in Parliament condemning antisemitism, years before he became leader and backed the campaign to stop Neo-Nazis from meeting in Golders Green in 2015.

Finlay also makes it clear who he believes the real political racists are, adding:

Antisemitism is always beyond the pale. Labour, now a party of over half a million members, has a small minority of antisemites in its ranks, and it suspends then whenever it discovers them. I expect nothing less from an anti-racist party and an anti-racist leader. If the Conservatives took the same approach to racism they would have to suspend their own foreign secretary, who has described Africans as ‘Picanninies’ and described Barack Obama as ‘The part-Kenyan President [with an] ancestral dislike of the British Empire’. From the Monday club, linked to the National Front, to MP Aidan Burley dressing up a  Nazi, to Lynton Crosby’s dogwhistle portrayl of Ed Miliband as a nasal North London intellectual it is the Conservative Party that is deeply tainted by racism and antisemitism.

This is also supported by recent polling showing Labour voters and members (the young, in particular) to actually be the least anti-semitic people in politics.

Older Tory voters on the other hand, well, sadly unsurprisingly perhaps were found to be the most likely to hold anti-semitic views.

The Jewish community has really shown a great solidarity for Corbyn during this latest smear by the Blairites (to name just one group).

Findlay’s short piece is a testament to the many sane and fair voices who fight for justice for all people, and are not afraid to express outrage at the crime of state violence against the innocent.

The full piece deserves to be read in full, and shared widely — it can be found here [archived here.]

Of course, the sad fact is that anti-semitism is abhorrent, and should be challenged by us all, but by branding Corbyn as anti-semitic and his supporters the same — mainly, it seems for being opposed to the Israeli occupation and brutalities — undermines genuine anti-semitism — trivializing it at the same time, and reducing the words to nothing more than soulless emptiness.

One can’t help but feel slightly bemused by the fact that Prince Harry, not so long ago, wore a full-on Nazi outfit to a party, in a photo widely shared, and blasted across every tabloid front page in the land.

Yet, this is all but forgotten today it seems, and the media instead focuses on smearing Corbyn as an anti-semite, parroting the line of the Israeli-Western governments who would very much like to see the man gone, and replaced by another occupation friendly neoliberal Blairbot.

Business as usual then in Britain.



Oxfam Scandal Will Be Used To Take Help Away From Those Who Need It Most

Oxfam Scandal Will Be Used To Take Help Away From Those Who Need It Most

The Oxfam-Haiti scandal has confirmed what many of us already knew, or suspected about ‘big charity’: that sometimes money given in good faith due to our innate desire to help other people is sometimes misused and abused.

That sometimes those who are supposed to be helping — trusted in positions of authority and power in doing so — abuse that power and authority.

That huge charitable organizations — such as Oxfam — are also able to breed cultures in which abuse happens — and cover it up.

However, given the current rhetoric, it is clear that the scandal is being ruthlessly exploited by those who have much to gain as they attempt to manufacture public consent for an end to taxpayer’s money being used to fund charity at all.

Think of it like this: the Catholic church was for many centuries — and still is in many parts of the world — entrusted to run large social provisions, such as schools, hospitals, and orphanages.

The endless scandals and abuses involving the Catholic church will not need repeating here (unless you’ve had the privilege of living on the moon for last 40 years, that is.)

However, despite these abuses and scandals, nobody claimed that the Catholic church itself needed abolishing altogether: rather the institution had to be reformed so that the good work they do can continue and the atrocities ceased.

This is how we should really look at the Oxfam scandal — with clarity, honesty and above else: sensibly and practically rather than reactionary and hysterically.

The Haiti scandal then is yet another example of the worst of human behavior and the vulture mindset in-built into some .

Organised, large-scale multi-national charities that resemble brands more than actual charities have always made me feel uneasy at best.

Having volunteered in an Oxfam charity shop many years ago it became apparent to me that even on this small scale, and in minor ways, there are many inbuilt systemic flaws into the entire set-up of big charity.

People would leave bags and bags of clothes and other items at our front door overnight: the donations. We would then have to price up these items and sell them….however, one major thing really troubled me:

We would also have to make sure that nobody would steal any of the stock from the shop — yet the only logical reason to steal from a charity shop would be because you’re in poverty yourself.

Oxfam — we were told — was dedicated to fighting poverty: but we consistently had to stop people in poverty from stealing goods that the shop hadn’t paid a penny for in the first place.

That’s just a small example, but it always struck me as seeming morally wrong — not to mention backwards — worse than this it seemed as if we were doing little to actually help tackle the root causes of poverty that lead to people trying to steal from us in the first place.

I was told to send thieves or potential thieves to clothes banks some three miles away, where they would have to prove their poverty before getting any help — it felt wrong on pretty much every level.

In short: it was depressing as it was ridiculous. But overall, it seemed that at least we were doing something, and hopefully, someone somewhere was actually being helped.

Now, that’s just one small-scale example of how charity is a paradox and filled with uneasy contradictions: on one hand, charity can do a lot of good, on the other it can also be abused.

Another consistently negative aspect is that it can also be used as a way for the very rich to feel morally superior despite their multiplicities of evil.

It should not surprise us that Harvey Weinstein’s initial response to the torrent of rape and sexual harassment allegations was to cite his “work” raising money for a charity that helps women get scholarships at The University of Southern California (USC) — as if he had somehow morally balanced out the universe…..

His response kind of typifies how charity exists within the minds of elites: as if they can do whatever they want, so long as they give just a little back. A bizarre and scary mindset — yet an all too common one.

It should also not surprise us that many charities are patronized by members of the Royal family and other such Oligarchal breeds: by doing this these elites make it seem as if they part of the solution, whilst actually being in great part the core of the problem itself.

The Queen charity 1

Oxfam then, within this context — and this sad reality — has not done anything that unusual or even that scandalous (again on the spectrum).

We should perhaps wonder then exactly why Oxfam is being persecuted in this way? and ask ourselves: what the end game is? Who out of all of this actually benefits? And: who is likely to lose the most?

The outrage about taxpayer’s money and government aid being abused is apparently only used very selectively by the media and the political elite.

The attacks on aid spending are focused solely on charities and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) rather than the multiplicity of private corporations who receive government aid and often use it to line their own pockets and loot the people of the third world in the process.

Yet, this never seems to make it into the mainstream “debate” over aid spending, which essentially ranges from between these two intensely limited positions:

Left: Aid is good, we need more, we have a duty to the third world, etc…

Right: Aid is a waste of money, help our own first! etc….

As usual, there is little room to debate the actual issues around the subject in question, but rather an incoherent mess of uninformed opinions perpetuated by the MSM and political elites.

Little if any attention is ever paid to where aid goes, who gets it, how it is used, if it is effectively used, if it helps the intended, etc, etc.

No, we don’t have that debate because then we might end up with a public who actually knows something about where their money goes — and they might decide that even if they support the idea of government aid, they don’t support it propping up the profits of Guinness and other large multinationals….

Global Justice Now reports on the way that aid is currently being misused and abused for corporate gain, saying:

Aid isn’t working. Instead of helping to rectify injustice, aid is being used to support multinational corporations, build shopping centres and force poor countries to privatise their public services. Aid urgently needs to stop being a corporate cash cow and start being used as a radical tool for real justice and social change.

In a report in which they highlight who is abusing aid, how and why: the offenses range from tax avoidance, to corporate welfare cheques for massive corporations, to climate change, to increasing poverty, and so on….

The world extracts $192 billion from Africa every year through things like corporate profit, debt repayments and tax evasion – while giving only $30 billion in aid. Even if you add together other inflows of money into Africa, such as loans and private investment, the total flow of money from the world into Africa is still just $134 billion…..

…..So, far from giving African countries a lot of aid, the world takes $58 billion more than it puts in……

….Amid all the self-congratulation, few people question whether this is generous in the first place….

….The language of charity and generosity conceals the fact that UK policy actively contributes to the poverty which aid is supposedly trying to solve.

The business community for this reason, of course, is heavily in favour of government aid.

But any threat to this — such as aid actually going towards a charity that might do some good, that might actually be fighting in some way against their corporate interests, well that, that doesn’t sit quite right with them.

In short: they want their hands on all of the aid money — and charities and NGOs are the major barriers to total domination.

Although the amount of government money that Oxfam recieves is actually miniscule, as the BBC reported:

The charity, which had a total income of £409m last year, received £31.7m from the government in 2016, accounting for about 8% of the charity’s income.

The amount also represents about a quarter of a percent of the government’s annual foreign aid spending.

It is still a considerable threat to corporate domination.

Oxfam is well-known for investigating global inequality and poverty and yes, sometimes actually trying to do something about it….

oxfam report 1

In other words, they are literally the enemy writ large of many of the corporations.

Oxfam’s anti-neoliberalism sheds light on the global destruction caused by the neoliberal system.

Not to mention the fact they actually do some reporting and work from our many war zones across the world. Yemen, for example, a conflict the state would rather nobody ever speaks about, for fear that the arms industry and our Army might make not maximum bloodsoaked billions out of it.

And we can’t have that now, can we?

So as flawed as Oxfam can be — the latest scandal being just another example — they are at least fighting in the right direction sometimes…..

It should be clear that the same elites and MSM who are so outraged by Oxfam apparently didn’t care too much about Hilary and Bill Clinton’s multiple Haiti scandals — many of which are far worse than Oxfam’s.

clinton foundation hAITI

The Clinton Foundation’s Haiti scandals — which also involve serious allegations of child trafficking and prostitution — apparently, well, they just don’t really matter in this case.

The MSM didn’t call for an outraged end to the Clinton Foundation, and for donors to stop giving millions of dollars to the Foundation — no, it doesn’t seem to matter at all in this case.

I guess it might have something to do with the fact that the elite donors are usually connected to corporations or leading government figures themselves (usually from tyranical and brutally repressive regimes) — better to leave them to commit their scandals and abuse alone then..(wouldn’t want to bother the little angels now, would we?)

It seems then that the Haiti-Oxfam scandal is clearly being used as a way to manufacture the consent of the public to have government aid taken away from charities and NGOs.

The tactic already appears to be working: Oxfam has already made it clear that they will not be bidding for new contracts until the government has decided they meet “sufficient ethical standards”.

Oxfam’s chief executive, Mark Goldring, has said the attacks on Oxfam are out of proportion, the BBC reports that Goldring said:

The intensity and the ferocity of the attack makes you wonder, what did we do?

We murdered babies in their cots?

Goldring also said that he believed the attacks were waged by those with an anti-aid agenda, adding:

anything we say is being manipulated… even apologies only make matters worse.


what I felt really clearly is many people haven’t wanted to listen to explanations

And I must admit I think he’s right.

The Haiti scandal should be learned from, punished, and the institution should be reformed as is needed to prevent such things.

The response so far by both the charity and the elites has been disproportionate and irrational: and this quick analysis of the situation has attempted to address why that is.

The problems with charity run much deeper than the Oxfam scandal: they are fundamental to the premise of charities in the first place.

However, despite all of this, we mustn’t let the Tories, the MSM, the corporations take away from those who have the least (yet again) — this time using Oxfam as the cover-story.

One thing is certain here: if the Tories stop funding charities then the people who they actually help will be left with nothing.

Already other major charities are being put under the spotlight, no doubt, they too will have at least one scandal to revealed, the BBC reports that:

Another charity – Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) – has now come under question as the president of Haiti called for an investigation into the activities of aid agencies working in his country.

Jovenel Moise, asked why the medical charity MSF had repatriated 17 of its staff members.

He told the Reuters news agency: “The Oxfam case is the visible part of the iceberg,

“It is not only Oxfam, there are other NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in the same situation, but they hide the information internally.”

MSF said it took reports of staff misconduct seriously and was seeking to clarify questions raised by the president.

In the coming weeks and months, no doubt, the attack against charity will intensify and more and more incoherent and unconstructive outrage will be blasted around by those want to see an end to the government aid spending that might actually go towards helping people who actually need helping….

That is what’s really at stake here, and that’s the debate we should really be having right now.

Thank you for reading! Please share if you agree & share if you don’t agree — explaining why! or just leave a comment, or don’t….


BTW, if anybody in the mainstream media would like to give me some free publicity by labbeling me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ please do so. As you will be aware unlike yourselves I am unable to afford libel proceedings, so please do feel free to make up any shit you want about me and this miniscule website.

And if you’d like to go record for record on my predications and analysis compared to yours, I assure you, I am more than happy to do so anytime.




What We Can Learn About Mainstream Media Radicalisation From The Finsbury Attack

What We Can Learn About Mainstream Media Radicalisation From The Finsbury Attack

The Finsbury Park terror attack shows us how the mainstream media helps to radicalize terrorists. Extreme conspiracy and crazy, hate-filled website, Infowars, has been reported as being a source of Osborne’s radicalisation, however, this conveniently negates the role that mainstream media has clearly played in this attack — surely now it is time for the mainstream media to take some responsibility for the lies they print, and the lying politicians whose hate they amplify in doing so.

Until we demand more from the media — whether left or right — we can go expect more and more suffering, tragedy and horror as innocent people get caught up in the games of the power-elite who always seek to divide us.

Darren Osborne, the terrorist responsible for killing 1 and injuring 9 others victims — mowing them down with a van outside a Mosque in Finsbury Park, has been sentenced to 43 years in prison for his rampage of violence.

 His trial has also revealed that he was planning to kill Jeremy Corbyn, Osborne told the court that:
it would be one less terrorist off our streets.
And also referred to Corbyn as:
Mr terrorist sympathiser

Echoing the many lies and smears directed at Corbyn by the right-wing over the last couple of years, and showing that their propaganda can quickly turn into tragedy.

Osborne’s trial has revealed that he was greatly influenced, motivated and radicalized by far-right propaganda — sources such the as conspiracy and extreme right-wing “news” website, Infowars.

Its hosts, the increasingly deranged, Alex Jones and professional shouter, Paul Joseph Watson were named during the trial as sources of radicalisation. It was also revealed that Osborne was in contact with Britain First’s Jayda Fransen and that he had received emails from neo-Nazi, Tommy Robinson.

Paul Joseph Watson’s vile response to the Westminster terror attack.

However, absolutely no attention has been paid to the fact that much of the same kind of extreme right-wing narratives and far-right hate preaching can also be found in the vast majority of mainstream media news — which reached a fever pitch of lies and hatred around the time of the attack in June.

 And, of course, absolutely no attention has been paid to the fact that many of these motivating narratives — lies — were spouted by Theresa May and the Tories in a bid to defeat Corbyn during the general election.


Just a few weeks before the attack, on the day of the snap GE The Daily Mail and The Sun proudly displayed these jaw-dropping headlines formed of lies, smear, hatred and utter contempt for humanity itself:


Front Pages The Sun Daily Mail
The Sun and Daily Mail, 7 June 2017

These disgraceful headlines followed months and months of targeted attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott in which they had been smeared as being “threats to national security” — a narrative first spouted by former prime minister David Cameron.

Mail header

Mail Corbyn Jihadist BULLSHIT
The Daily Mail started their campaign of smear on Corbyn long before Infowars

This outrageous lie was also echoed time and time again by Theresa May — especially during the GE.

Following the Manchester terror attack in May last year, with the election campaigns in full swing, Corbyn responded by saying that we need to look at our foreign policy in response to these kinds of attacks by Islamic radicals — making the obvious link between our illegal wars and terrorism, Corbyn said:

Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

Following this response Labour jumped in the polls, illustrating strong public support for this very elementary points and highlighting the need for a change in foreign policy.

May, however, responded to Corbyn by attempting to twist the narrative — painting Corbyn, yet again, as a threat to national security.

May said:

At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn has said that terror attacks in Britain are our own fault – and he has chosen to do that just a few days after one of the worst terrorist atrocities we have experienced in the United Kingdom.


I want to make one thing very clear to Jeremy Corbyn – and it is that there can never be an excuse for terrorism – there can be no excuse for what happened in Manchester.

May, in a shameless display to pick up votes went on to say:

The choice that people face at the general election has just become starker.


It’s a choice between me, working constantly to protect the national interest and to protect our security – and Jeremy Corbyn , who frankly isn’t up to the job.

Osborne, we now know, was on also planning to attack Jeremy Corbyn himself — his “hate letter’ gives a clear insight into what motivated his bloodthirsty rampage.

Transcript of the letter written by Darren Osborne, read out in court by Jonathan Rees QC:

Why are their terrorists on our streets today? Weve had 3 Recent terror attacks, our children splattered against the walls of concerts, part n parcel by all accounts, Mr Sadiq Khan, no it isn’t how you can let this happen, terrorists marching through our capital city, you’re a disgrace where was the public outrage after 1400 of our white british none muslim girls?
Where were you in Rotherham Lily allen Jeremy Corby nowhere to be seen, Just thinking about how many more inbred migrants you can bring into the country, the local harbour map of Rotherham mr Hussain wrote of character Reference For one of the rapists in court, really now, hang on a minute am I missing something here, where was you all, Jez & lil?

Don’t you fancy getting involved in that the only protest within the muslim community were when taxi drivers were asked to put cctv in their cars, seriously your taking the piss, mr Hussain has been promoted.

Don’t people get it, this is happening up and down our Green and pleasant land, Ferrel inbred raping muslim men hunting in packs preying on our children, this will be coming to a town near you soon, it most probably has, get back to the desert, you raping inbred bastards & climb back on ya camels. people don’t be swayed by corbyn & his Free packed lunch, & uni fees think of your childrens future, islams ideology doesn’t belong here & neither does Sharia law.
So mr Sadiq Khan how are you this morning?
I’d imagine your gonna have a hard job keeping your happy go lucky vibrant city in order, Part n parcel of living in a big city, carry on as normal, bk to ya day Jobs, what about you Jez?

Osborne concludes, most tellingly, by calling Corbyn…:

Mr terrorist sympathiser, or should I call you harold, “you dirty old man” put that in ya pipe, & have some sympathy for me, well Folkes gotta go busy day today.
Remember peaceful vigils only & please dont look back in anger, God Save the Queen.

It is clear from Osborne’s letter that he also considered to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to be a threat to the country as well (another common theme of right-wing propaganda).

Even the reference to Corbyn as “Harold” from the 1960’s sitcom, Steptoe and Son, calling him a “dirty old man” is a smear job directly lifted from mainstream right-wing media.

Both The Sun and The Daily Mail have repeatedly made this “joke” over the years.

Corbyn Steptoe DM 1Corbyn Steptoe DM 2

For the record, Harold is the name of the younger Steptoe, not old man Steptoe, whose name is Albert.

The court also released a timeline of Osborne’s internet activity, showing what kind of material he was likely to be looking at and thus what drove this kind of bizarre thinking and extreme hatred: essentially this is a timeline of the radicalization process itself:

Timeline of social media activity linked to Osborne in weeks before attack from Press Association:

May 16, 17, 18
Three episodes of the BBC drama Three Girls are aired.
Osborne’s estranged partner tells the court in a statement that he became “obsessed” with Muslims after watching the programme, which made them both “angry”.
She says it is possible the pair watched the episodes on catch-up at a later date.

May 22
Manchester terror attack.
Some 22 people die after Salman Abedi detonates a bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena.

June 3
Osborne receives an email from Twitter inviting him to confirm his account.
7.15pm – Britain First deputy leader Jayda Fransen sends a direct message to Osborne on Twitter. The content of this message is not known.
Late evening – London Bridge terror attack. Eight people die in the knife and van atrocity.

June 4
12.48am–12.49am – A number of web searches for Jayda Fransen carried out on an iPad.
Views a number of tweets from her, including breaking news on London Bridge.
1.11pm–1.24pm – A number of Google searches for Britain First leader Paul Golding carried out on an iPad, followed by further searches for Jayda Fransen and Tommy Robinson, English Defence League founder.
Osborne receives an email welcoming him after joining Twitter.
10.36pm–10.38pm – Google searches for “syria bus bombing”, “manchester bombing”, “lee rigby” and “westminster bombing” carried out on an iPhone.

June 6
3.09pm–3.22pm – A number of Google searches for a variant of “muslim celebrating usis in tunnel” carried out on an iPhone.
Accesses Infowars article: “Proof: Muslims celebrated terror attack in London.”
9.09pm – Google search for “which party want to bring back the death penalty” carried out on an iPhone.


June 7
6.21pm – Google search for “bad things about labour” carried out on an iPhone.
6.22pm – Google search for “mayor of rochdale” and “local MP of Rochdale” carried out on an iPhone.
6.34pm – Google search for “sadiq khan” carried out on an iPhone.


June 9
Screenshot of an image captured on an iPhone of an email, probably a circular, from “Tommy Robinson” to “Darren Osborne”, inviting him to a rally in Manchester.
It says: “What Salman Abedi did is not the beginning and it won’t be the end. There is a nation within a nation forming just beneath the surface of the UK. It is a nation built on hatred, on violence and on Islam.”
The message is signed “Yours Truly, Tommy Robinson.”

June 14
Early hours – Grenfell Tower fire. Some 71 people die in the London tower block blaze.
9.01am–10.23am – A number of Google searches for Tommy Robinson carried out on an iPad.
6.16pm – iPhone screenshot shows a second email from “Tommy Robinson” to “Darren Osborne” on seeking justice for Chelsey Wright, of Sunderland.

June 17
10.10am – Osborne rents a Citroen van from Pontyclun Van Hire in Mid Glamorgan, Wales.
1.23pm–1.30pm – More Google searches for Tommy Robinson carried out on an iPad.
A tweet by Tommy Robinson – “Anger? When a Muslim bombed our kids we were told not to look back in anger?” – is viewed.
1.35pm – Google search for “sadiq khan says part and parcel” is carried out on an iPad.
1.37pm – Google search for ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ is carried out on an iPad.
3.22pm–3.37pm – A number of Google searches for Tommy Robinson carried out on iPad.
3.31pm – A tweet by Tommy Robinson – “Where was the day of rage after the terrorist attacks. All I saw was lighting candles” – is viewed on an iPad.
3.37pm – Google search for “sadiq khan carry on as normal” is carried out on iPad.
7.30pm–9.30pm – Osborne goes to the Hollybush pub, where he composes a handwritten letter said to have been found in the van used in the attack and is accused of “preaching racial hatred” by another customer.

June 18
Osborne travels to London.

June 19
12.15am – Osborne drives van into a group of Muslims tending to a man who has fallen ill.

Infowars Proof muslims PJW

Infowars Proof muslims PJW 2
The Infowars article by loudmouth hate preacher, Paul Joseph Watson, that Osborne is referenced to have accessed.

There can be no doubt that Osborne was also accessing vast amounts of mainstream media whilst carrying out these searches. It is easy to just blame the far-right hate preachers here, but honestly, how much more extreme is Paul Joseph Watson than The Sun, or Mail in their coverage of Corbyn, terrorism, or Muslims?

How much more extreme are the sick and disturbing narratives parroted by the Britain First hate preachers, than those parroted by May in response to terrorism in which she, once again, tried to blame Corbyn and smear him as terrorist sympathiser and national security threat?

A very clear link has been shown here between far-right hate preachers and actual terrorism with leading figures, Tommy Robinson, Paul Golding, and Jayda Fransen all mentioned by name as being in contact one way or another with Osborne.

Why then are these people not being investigated for inciting or inspiring terror?

If it was an Islamic terrorist such clear links would almost certainly be investigated, likely leading to detentions and prosecutions under the terrorism act.

Theresa May has always been quick to stress the need to clamp down on internet freedom following Islamic terror attacks, after the London Bridge attack in June, May was quick to blame the internet, saying:

We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed


Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.

And declaring that:

We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.

Yet, oddly enough May and the right-wing media have been strangely silent when it comes to the kind of right-wing extremist propaganda that clearly helped to motivate, radicalize and inspire Osborne.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are clearly part of the vile propaganda that does radicalise people and leads to such violent atrocities?

None of this is to say that the internet should be regulated by the nanny state, with May and co deciding what we can and can’t access, but rather this about the responsibility that the media, journalists, and above all else politicians should take for acts of terrorism, and the kind of language and information they put out there in doing so.

The right-wing press has become so vile and twisted over the years that much of it can be considered extremist hate preaching: and simply put propaganda to radicalize potential terrorists.

Yet, the mainstream media has not taken one shred of responsibility for this. Both they and the Tories spent their time and energy doing as much they could to smear Corbyn with a raft of ridiculous smears, endlessly repeating the doctrine that he is a threat to national security and a terrorist sympathizer who adored the IRA, and hates our country.

Such bile does have an effect — Osborne is testament to that fact, as was Jo Cox’s killer, Thomas Mair, and sadly many others.

As Corbyn said, we must understand and tackle the root causes of terrorism above all else, but the power establishment, of course, does nothing but create endless distraction from those root causes.

Writing their own versions of reality that have become hate-filled fantasy lands which feul more and more terrorism, and thus creates more and more innocent victims.

The mainstream media is the source of radicalization we should really be worried about,  and we should expect more from them, we should expect that their journalism isn’t likely to endanger people’s lives and that they should have a basic duty to balance and facts and some form sanity.

Whether left or right, the media and politicians must take responsibility for their actions.

Unless we force them to do so, it is impossible to imagine a world in which we can ever seriously tackle terrorist atrocities.

[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.


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?

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 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

Davis Cracks ‘Gag’ About Patel Scandal During Glitzy City Fat Cat Awards Show

Davis Cracks ‘Gag’ About Patel Scandal During Glitzy City Fat Cat Awards Show

The plutocrats awards season is in full swing! On Wednesday night, just hours after Priti Patel was forced to resign from her cabinet position (although it’s worth remembering she’s still an MP, a fact rarely mentioned in the media), our beloved Prime Minister treated herself to a lavish banquet with none of other than the Torie’s Chief Propaganda Minister, Daily Mail Editor, Paul Dacre to “celebrate” his 25-year-long reign of terror at the “newspaper”

Continuing this theme of the excessively rich and evil congratulating each other on how great they are at awards shows, last night, another Daily Mail political “journalist”, Julia Hartley-Brewer hosted the City AM Awards show.

A stunning event, designed to congratulate and reward those hard-working, underappreciated, poor deserving bankers and CEOs who have given so much to society—let them have fun! They’ve earned it!

And who else should be giving a speech at the event? well, none other than Mr Brexit Minister himself: David Davis!

Unfortunately, as the event was held in private we do not know what Davis said about Brexit to the corporate elites, but I think we can at least gather from this that he was there to reassure those dainty and fearful fat cat darlings over their Brexit fears….

However, we do know at least one thing that old DD said last night—in classic Tory tradition he just couldn’t resist the urge to make another classic Tory joke—this time about the Priti Patel corruption scandal-forced resignation.

James Bethel, Director of Westbourne a “reputation, advocacy and engagement strategies, content and delivery” agency, was in attendance and just so happened to tweet out what was, no doubt, one of the highlights of the night—another Tory clanger:

James Bethel Twitter —who does DD gags 2?

Apparently, it’s hilarious that our politicians are so corrupt!

Or perhaps this isn’t so much a joke as a statement of fact by Davis…..

It is a good question though, who does write DD’s ‘gags’? HSBC maybe? Who knows….

We still haven’t found out who wrote Micheal Gove’s ‘rib-tickler’ about Harvey Weinstein a few weeks ago on Radio 4—it had us all in stitches didn’t it?

It’s one thing to joke about these kinds of topics, but it’s quite another when publicly elected and paid representatives—lawmakers make jokes that wouldn’t be out of place at a Roy Chubby Brown stand-up show on the end of Blackpool Pier—in public!

And that’s the real problem here, they just can’t help themselves: they really just can’t—this is what they think is funny….

Corruption, sexual abuse…..

If this is what they openly joke about in front of massive audiences, just imagine what they joke about in private?

It kind of makes you wonder: do these people think that, I, Daniel Blake was actually a laugh-a-second Ealing comedy?

Now, I’ll lay my cards on the table and say that I believe nothing is really off limits for comedy: it’s all about context and the skill of the comedian-or writer, or whoever is making the joke.

And that’s why this is so sick—what’s the joke here? Other than women were abused by a powerful sleazeball and it was covered up, and Patel is corrupt (as is Davis and the people he was surrounded by at the award show.)

It really is astounding that they’re so open about how hilarious they find all of this.

Of course, let us not lose sight of the fact that politicians and media barons such as May going to Dacre’s banquet—and politicians attending awards shows with City fat cats are all opportunities for these elites to mix as Davis says with “dealmakers”.

And we have absolutely no public record of what is said, or what deals may be made at these kinds of events…..nice democracy we’ve got here, isn’t it?

That’s the really worrying aspect to all of this…..the corruption is just so in your face in this country you don’t know where to look, or even where to start when it comes to tackling it.

In my opinion, Patel’s meeting was no worse than what she was doing in her role as Secretary of State for International Development anyway…

Let’s be real here: her job was going around giving billions in foreign aid to corporations who use the aid money purely to build their own business empires: not to help the people in the third world.

That’s not to say that foreign aid is a bad thing, but we seriously need to start looking at just where this money is going and how it is being used: I support foreign aid, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s currently going to the right people.

That’s far worse than some off the books meeting in Isreal. The real reason Patel was forced to resign was because she stepped out of line in her department—essentuially she broke the rules and that pissed off the rest of the Government and civil service. Just like anybody breaking the rules in their workplace…this is no different, there’s no moral aspect to this….or coherent principle to her resignation.

The Al Jazeera undercover investigation into the manufactured anti-semitism scandal in Labour—the concoction of the Isreali embassy and related lobbying groups in London, already showed widespread commonplace interference—likely illegal—by the Isreali government in our democracy…And nobody in the mainstream media even batted an eyelid about that.

That’s the sad about all of this, Patel was forced to resign for a crime that is far less significant than the crimes she was being paid to do in her role: paid and rewarded for.

When somebody steps out of line in an institution like government and breaks the rules, that’s when they might actually get punished—it has nothing to do with scandal or corruption itself: so long as that corruption and scandal is considered acceptable within the institution.

That’s British politics for you: symbolized quite nice by DD joking and laughing about Priti and corruption with a bunch of other corrupt oligarchs in the Square Mile, while they all give themselves awards as a celebration of how fucking great they are….