At the final PMQs before the general election, Theresa May managed to both make herself look foolish, and promote a pro-Corbyn anti-Tory website at the same time — offering Corbyn, the opposition, and those who have suffered at the hands of the Tories a wave of free publicity in the process of her cock-up.
May’s latest gaffe follows a string of previous ones — particularly at PMQs — where she has previously called Corbyn’s leadership “incredible” a piece of wordplay which backfired — a few months ago she showed she’s unable to tell the difference between Baldrick from Blackadder, from the actor Tony Robinson who plays the fictional character.
Since launching her election campaign May has made a series of blunders, and found herself in many embarrassing situations on the campaign trail — most of which, of course, have been buried, and ignored by the mainstream media.
As usual, May failed to answer any questions at yesterday’s (26th April) Prime Minister’s Questions. The final one before the general election on June 8th. Corbyn grilled her about the NHS crisis, reading out a question from a concerned, elderly member of the public — Corbyn asked:
Sybil, who witnessed the Labour founding of the national health service, which made healthcare available for the many, not just the few, wrote to me this week, and she says, “I am 88 and have had a wonderful service from the national health service, but nowadays I am scared at the thought of going into hospital.” With more people waiting more than four hours in A&E, more people waiting on trolleys in corridors, and more delayed discharges thanks to the Tory cuts, is not Sybil right to be frightened about the future of our NHS so long as this Government remain in office?
May then responded in her usual manner — by deflecting the question, and failing to answer it — reciting figures which make no sense — probably because they are made up — about “record levels of funding” for the NHS and “more doctors, more nurses, more midwives, more Gps”.
May then deflected away from the Tories abysmal record on the NHS — and tried to discredit Corbyn (as per her usual routine), saying:
“I noted this week that the shadow Home Secretary has been campaigning in her own personal way. She has directed her supporters—her followers—to a website called “I Like Corbyn, But…” which asks:
“how will he pay for all this?”
“But”. It also says:
“I heard he wants to increase taxes”.
“I’ve heard he’s a terrorist sympathiser”.
“his attitudes about defence worry me”.
“But”. They are right to be worried. Unable to defend our country; determined to raise tax on ordinary workers; no plan to manage our economy: even his own supporters know he is not fit to run this country.”
WATCH: May Accidently Promotes Pro-Corbyn Anti-Tory Website
Referring to Dianne Abbott — the Shadow Home Secretary.
If May’s team had have done their research they would be well aware that the website ilikecorbynbut.com, is actually a pro-Corbyn anti-Tory website, written by people in support of Corbyn as a response to the many frequently touted “reasons” and “arguments” — mainly by the mainstream media, commentariats, etc — used to discredit Corbyn.
The website has since received a huge amount of extra traffic following the incident. Unfortunately, they have removed the bulk of their content and replaced it with this simple — but powerfully telling — message on their homepage.
Strangely, the Huff-Po fails to show the message from the I like Corbyn, But website in response to May’s comments.
This is not just shockingly bad journalism — it’s purposely deceitful and damaging. The Huff-Po should be disgusted by itself – but it isn’t and it won’t be.
The sad reality is that this kind of forces people who support Corbyn into being less critical in case it gets used against us — I don’t think we should allow that to happen.
Corbyn should not be above criticism — so long as it’s fair, justified, grounded in fact, and balanced — the same way all scrutiny should be applied to politicians.
The Torie’s dirty tactics often backfire anyway — this being just another case to add to the pile.
Let them continue to make themselves look inept — if we simply start giving Corbyn nothing but glowing praise 24/7 about everything he does then we’ll become as bad as the other side who blindly champion their leader no matter what they do.
As long as the criticism is fair then I have no problem with it — the problem is, and I suspect this is the reason for — I Like Corbyn, But website — in the first place — that most of the scrutiny applied to Corbyn and supporters isn’t fair, and so, therefore, needs to be handled properly, and sanely — something which the I Like Corbyn, But website was attempting to do.
Let’s not let the Tories change how we talk about politics — their nonsense just backfires on them in the end anyway, and even if doesn’t surely it’s a price worth paying for not becoming as obediently sycophantic to the leader as they are?
May’s underhanded tactics almost always come back to bite her in the arse — as has happened here.
Her stupidity led to her sending a whole bunch of people to a strictly anti-Tory pro-Corbyn website that they’d probably never heard of before.
That kind of publicity speaks for itself, and cannot be bought.
Let the Tories continue to inadvertently promote Corbyn. They and the entire establishment have already done so for the last 2 years – there’s no reason to expect them to stop 7 weeks prior to a general election — and if it makes May look even dafter all the better.
If it wasn’t for her establishment cronies then everybody would see the flustered idiot she really is — stuff like this just helps her to undo her own stage-managed persona.
If we had a sane and fair media then she and her manufactured image, endless lying and incompetence wouldn’t last 5 minutes.
Unfortunately, we don’t — but it is nice when the Torie’s stupidity actually benefits us for once, instead of hurting us, isn’t it?
Corbyn’s Labour would win the upcoming general election — if only people under 40 voted, a new YouGov mega-poll has found.
The finding should not come as a surprise – the majority of Corbyn’s support comes from a young base. The finding illustrates the sharp generational divide that runs across British politics — Brexit being yet another example.
The reasons for the divide may well have something to do with the fact that young people have borne the brunt of many of the Tory austerity assaults — frankly this country has become so miserable under Tory rule that any alternative that doesn’t involve racism, xenophobia, and offers some form of a positive future looks appealing at this point.
The mega-poll was conducted by YouGov over a 2 and a half week period (2nd-20th April 2017) and questioned a sample of 13,000 voters. The poll found overwhelmingly that Labour would win the next election if only people between 18-40 voted. The finding is in stark contrast to the between 10, and 25 point lead that the Tories have overall — much of which is clearly down to the voting preference of people over 40.
Labour is particularly popular with women under 40, who favor Corbyn by 42% compared to May who received 27% — Farron received 12% support from this group. Men under 40 also back Labour — but by a much slimmer margin: 32% for Labour and 31% for the Connies — 18% back the Lib Dems.
Polling typically underestimates the voting intentions of young people, because they say they are unlikely to vote when compared to older people. Only 40% of people under 40 say they are likely to vote compared to 63% of the older people questioned for the mega-poll.
This raises an often overlooked question: if young people do decide to go to the polls in droves to support Corbyn — would Labour win?
But, as I wrote about last week — this election does offer an actual choice between the neo-liberal xenophobic and racist nightmare presented by the Tories – and Labour under Corbyn — who wants to put an end to the neo-liberal disaster, austerity, poverty, privatization, etc, etc..
It is particularly telling those young women overwhelmingly support Corbyn — this may well be because women have disproportionately been affected by the Tories austerity knife, of course, this has a knock-on impact on children, families, education, etc.
The impact of the Tories policies has also been heavily felt — and this continues to be amplified — by young people.
Wage stagnation — cuts in working age benefits — university tuition fees through the roof that laden us with debt, for jobs which are either underpaid, insecure, non-existent — or reserved for the privileged few who can afford to undertake 6-month unpaid internships.
The generational difference may also arise from the fact that younger people have far greater access to independent media, websites, such as the Canary, Evolve Politics, Another Angry Voice, Pride’s Purge, (my two-bit operation) and a whole range of other similar outlets have all enabled us to cut through the mainstream media’s nonsense. The older generations, of course, still rely on the BBC for news — we don’t, and we know that it’s clearly biased.
Older people, of course, are kept in a state of fear about the outside world — delusions presented to them as if they are facts by the mainstream media.
“More jobs than ever!” Theresa May announces while The BBC champions the line — forgetting to mention just how badly paid, and insecure these jobs are — forgetting to mention that wage stagnation, forgetting to mention the fact that nobody can save up for a house due to all this, forgetting to mention the ever-growing hours that people are working for less money, forgetting to mention any of this.
Forgetting to mention that fact that what’s counted as employment can mean anything in this day and age — from zero hours contracts to so-called self-employment.
And so older people — frightened by the propaganda against Corbyn from their trusted BBC — who recite the Tory line that Corbyn is some sort of threat to national security — sit there absorbing all of this nonsense.
They could never vote for Corbyn or Labour, could they? No — the BBC keeps telling them he’s a national security threat and the economy is doing just fine!
Why do all these young dreamers keep banging on about Corbyn? These idealistic idiots — do they not realize how silly they are being?
Why is it now considered to make us idealists, just because we don’t want to live in a country in which disabled people die at the hands of the Tories, and so-called welfare reform?
Why does it make us idealists to save the NHS?
The reason I’m ranting about this, is because I’ve already had an older person say this to me in response to this poll — idealistic?
If Corbyn represents idealism then that’s just a statement about how f*cked up your perception of the world is.
The mega-poll illustrates at least 2 important points:
Young people need to register, campaign, and vote.
We need to talk to older people more — as angry as it makes me that so many older people seem determined to vote against, not only our interests, but also their own — I honestly think this is mainly because they don’t realise just how bad things are right now — locked away as they are with the TV for company acting a fictional window to the world with nothing but the lovely trustworthy Huw Edwards and Laua K for company.
That’s unless we are talking about the boomer generation — who for some reason — almost always seem determined to be as selfish as one can imagine.
They are the only generation to have experienced growth throughout their lives, and yet still, they cannot even seem to make the most minor of efforts to help or share in their privilege. The neo-liberal generation if you will…
Of course, let’s not forget the fact that many older people do support Corbyn, or at least are against the Tories — I don’t wish to paint everybody with the same brush here, as polling obviously looks at majorities — not individuals.
I have held to the fact that as the older generation die off, and the younger ones start to take over it is quite likely that neo-liberal policy will start to be reversed, and killed off. The findings from the mega-poll support this claim, and my instinct.
In the meantime, though it seems as if we will all have to live under Tory rule — why? Because a bunch of Daily Mail reading, baby boomer, BBC loyalists all think we have to.
Thanks, old people — jeez if I only had 20 years left to live then I wouldn’t even care about who’s in government.
FFS — you know your pension’s safe! What you need to worry about are your children and grand children’s futures, the local hospital, social care — all of these things.
OF ALL OF WHICH — GUESS WHAT! — LABOUR POLICY IS FAR BETTER THAN THE TORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The PM’s breath-taking election “campaign” continues as the “most popular politician” in the country was greeted by yet another adoring member of the electorate on Saturday (22nd April 2017) – a 73-year-old man from the West Country who refused May permission to walk across his property, and grilled her on a range of issues, such as privatisation and her refusal to take part in TV debates. The man noted that she seemed “nervous” and that she was unable to answer any of his questions — in keeping with her traditional form.
The man managed to conduct a better and more incisive interview with May than Laura K, Andrew Marr, or any of the other so-called political experts and journalists — a telling sign about the state of the mainstream media in this day and age.
May’s latest – and notoriously rare – interaction with the electorate follows an incident a few days ago when another voter in Bolton stuck two fingers up at her cavalcade as she sped out of the city following a stage-managed press conference, in which she refused to answer questions from both the press and the public, after being helicoptered into the exclusive event.
May’s refusal to take part in debates, engage with the electorate and field questions from journalists — including right-wing ones — illustrates just how risk adverse our PM is — very far from the public persona championed by our obedient mainstream media which would have us believe that May is some sort of iron-clad, fearless leader ready to battle the EU for the sake of all of us.
The mainstream media is, of course, all over this rather telling incident — oh wait, no sorry, I mean THEY ARE IGNORING this latest incident.
I suppose if the mainstream press did report such things we might run the risk of having some form of an actual democracy — and May’s persona as fearless and incredibly popular with all might be possibly be destroyed.
And we can’t have that now, can we?
May was on her way to deliver yet another one her uplifting and inspiring messages of hope to the electorate at the members only Netherton Conservative Club on Saturday when something unfortunate happened to her….She actually had to speak to a member of the British public — as you can imagine — given the fact that May is the most popular politician in the country — the impromptu incident went stunningly well for May.
Graham Mills, 73, who lives in Dudley, in the West Country was interrupted by May whilst mowing his lawn.
Speaking about the incident Mr Mills told the Express&Star that he and May got off to a sour foot when he refused her permission to walk across his lawn — Mr Mills explained that:
I was cutting my grass at the time when I saw a load of cars pull up and she came towards me.
Mr Mills continued:
First of all she asked if she could walk across my lawn and I said no, not really, I have just cut it.
Mr Mills then decided to take advantage of the situation and quiz May, asking about her refusal to debate other candidates — Mr Mills said:
I started by asking her why she would not debate the other leaders on the TV and she said ‘well we meet every Wednesday’ and I said that is hardly an answer and asked if she thought she owed it to the public. Again I did not really get an answer.
He also asked her about the Tories campaign “strategy” — and noted the Tories “scare tactics” — Mr Mills said that:
I asked her why she was running the exact same campaign as David Cameron did with Lynton Crosby and employing the same scare tactics by suggesting Labour would form a coalition with the SNP, which she knows they wouldn’t. It is scare tactics.
He noted that May was far from comfortable with the situation — which is strange given the fact is she is presented as some sort of undefeatable political giant – Mr Mills said that:
I was amazed at how nervous she was.
Mr Mill’s also noted May’s deflection and pivoting tactics:
She spoke about Europe saying we had to get things back so I asked her why doesn’t she start at home
And Mr Mill’s noted May’s stock responses:
She kept giving me stock answers every time – which was that it would be worse under Labour.
Mr Mill’s concluded by saying that he:
was really disappointed.
by his meeting with May.
Mr Mills — a 73-year-old man in the middle of cutting his grass on a Saturday morning — managed to conduct a more insightful interview with our PM than pretty much all political pundits and experts — Andrew Marr, Laura K, Andrew Neil, etc…
Of course, May has absolutely no interest in taking any risks when it comes to this election — the mainstream media can cover up for her when it comes to incidents like this — but on national television with millions watching — May runs the risk of PEOPLE ACTUALLY LEARNING ABOUT JUST HOW BAD THIS AWFUL WOMAN IS — May would find her incompetent weakness much harder to hide.
The media image created of May is, of course, juvenile and silly — she couldn’t even handle questions from an elderly gentleman mowing his lawn on a Saturday morning without getting into her usual fluster, unable to answer basic and simple questions — is this really the fearless leader, confident of winning a general election that we are expected to believe she is?
Don’t expect May to take any risks in this election, and by risks I mean ever allowing the electorate to see just how unbearable, incompetent and flustered she always is.
Remind me again — who is the unelectable one here?
WATCH: Corbyn on campaign trail — let’s see him hide from the electorate, shall we?
The man — who has since been labeled as a “yob” by the right-wing press — stuck two fingers up at May as she left the press conference.
As we have all come to accept at this point: May is the most beloved politician in the country — so certainly the man’s actions don’t represent the fact that both she and the Tories are some the most hated people in the country.
The right-wing press — The Sun — in an attempt to explain the man’s OUTRAGEOUS show of disrespect for our beloved PM — have claimed that he is making a gun gesture — yet no evidence of this can be found within the accompanying footage…
But, it’s not like The Sun would ever lie about such a thing, is it? No, I’m sure that we can all trust everything they “report” — Murdoch is, after all, one of the most honest and noble men in the world.
WATCH: Voter sticks two fingers up at May as she starts her election campaign.
Yesterday’s (18th April) announcement by prime minister Theresa May that there will be a snap general election (GE) to be held on June 8th may have come as a surprise – but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in just 6 weeks time we could have a completely new government – one that for the first time in over 30 years would actually give us the opportunity to kill austerity and stop neo-liberal beast. The Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has reacted enthusiastically saying that he welcomes the challenge and looks forward to the upcoming contest.
Just the fact that this election is the first in my lifetime that actually seems to offer some difference in terms of policy with regards to the two major parties, is itself, significant. We are currently witnessing the death of the centrist politics orthodoxy that has held for so long in western politics — people all over are sick of the centrist system, one in which there are no real choices: for so many years we have not had the choice to vote against the banks, against the privatisation of the NHS, against the dismantling of the welfare state, against huge corporations, against war, against poverty, against everything that as a population we have become sick of: in short against the establishment itself.
This hatred of the centrist status quo has recently expressed itself in various forms across the west: from Brexit to Sander’s and Trump in the US to the unexpected rise of the socialist candidate in the upcoming French elections, we are seeing the (supposedly) unpredictable destruction of centrist politics — it may not seem like it right now, but this state of affairs is the new normal — and may well lead to the election of Corbyn as PM. This seems unthinkable — a glance at any of the polls tells you that it is — yet given the crumbling of the establishment — a crumbling which the political elites themselves fail to acknowledge the existence of — we should all seriously start to think about the “unthinkable.”
For once the unthinkable isn’t a bad thing, it actually offers some hope and optimism for the future.
May’s Ambush: Her Victory Is Not Certain — Her Endless Lying & Tory Brutality Is
May’s announcement has been described as “shrewd” and “clever’ and “calculated” perhaps in some ways this is true, but in many ways this is just classic Theresa May, continuing her long and proud record of being a bare-faced liar.
Of course, it wasn’t so long ago that May totally ruled out calling a snap general election — then she announced one yesterday. Furthermore, it will have to be conducted in the space of fewer than two months. The GE falls just after the council elections, meaning that many of the smaller parties will have their resources completely depleted.
This isn’t so much a “shrewd” and “clever” move as the equivalent of being hit with a plank of wood on the back of the head by your opponent after the ref has called time out during a boxing match, and you’re on your way back to the ring corner.
May has demonstrated that she’s just an out and out liar on so many occasions, that it doesn’t bear paying attention to anymore — that’s just what she does — her hubris being what it is, means that she has no problem starting her “campaign” after recently lying about the fact she wouldn’t call a snap GE in the first place.
Furthermore, we have the fact that the Tories are currently being investigated for election fraud from the last GE in 2015 — you couldn’t make this up, could you? — it is a farce that shows just how little the Tories care about anything other than winning and subjecting us all like medieval serfs to their unquestionable rule.
Furthermore, May — in the grand tradition of her predecessor Cameron is also refusing to take part in TV debates — the Tories sure hate debating don’t they? All of this would seem to indicate that they show nothing other than complete disdain and contempt for the electorate — but that could never be the case, could it? Afterall it’s not like the Tories act as if they have some divine right to rule over us, is it?
We are told endlessly — and this is evidenced by consistent polling — that May is a boundlessly popular politician when compared to her competition: Corbyn. It seems then that her victory is assured.
Corbyn is not just fighting against the Tories, he is also fighting against the majority of the establishment, including the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) many of whom clearly hate him, and have made it clear that they will do anything to stop Corbyn. The mainstream media itself — almost uniformly from left to right has also decided that Corbyn needs to go. It seems then that all these forces are going to combine to finally deal the final blow to Corbyn — this illustrates just how hard the fight will be. The deck could literally not be more loaded in favor of the Tories — hence May’s smug self-assured hubris.
Yet, I don’t think May should feel quite so self-assured about her victory, and nor should the establishment such as the mainstream media. By treating her victory as if it is a certainty she is making a huge mistake, and failing to learn from the recent lesson that led to Hillary Clinton losing the US GE. People are not in the mood for being dictated to by self-assured, arrogant and smug political elites at the moment — and polling is not always a reliable predictor of how this will be translated at the ballot box.
The establishment made exactly the same mistake with Brexit, treating it is as if the remain vote was a certainty. It was on this very blog that I predicted that leave would win — on the basis of the fact they were spending more money, and putting more effort into it — well, we all know how both of those events turned out….
The POLLS Spell Doom For Corbyn & Labour — Do They?
A closer look at the polls reveals that the actual gap between Labour and the Conservatives is around 10 points, with many people being undecided voters, and many saying they wouldn’t vote — so that’s quite a lot of people who could go either way.
This is important because that gap can be closed, combine this with the unpredictability of the current climate and May’s victory is far from certain. During the US election, Clinton had a lead of up to 15 points — the day that the US went to the polls the Huffington Post famously declared that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning — a done deal — well, apparently the electorate had different ideas.
But then we get to the crux of the matter — the source of May’s confidence and hubris — according to the polls she tramples Corbyn in terms of who would make the best PM. May is, of course, still riding her honeymoon period, which is likely why she called the GE when she did.
It’s hard to know how to interpret this finding — beyond the honeymoon period, and the fact that Corbyn’s message just doesn’t get out there.
The truth is, unfortunately, the general public doesn’t spend hours writing and researching the ins and outs of politics — mainly because they don’t have the time — they rely on the mainstream media to inform them — and so as a result, much of what I report, and other similar sites do — simply isn’t part of common knowledge.
None the less though, I really do wonder: who are these avid Theresa May fans? I’ve never heard anybody say they like her — I suspect though it’s more about going with what you know, as opposed to Corbyn who is seen as a risk, or the unknown. Whatever the reason, that’s how it is according to the polls, so treat it for what it is. The lesson: clearly more work needs to be done.
As we move into the key policy areas we can see that Labour has some chance of gaining ground in this election — we can see that Labour are more trusted than the Tories with the NHS — we all know about the crisis in the NHS at the moment. This crisis is so widespread that it is also hitting middle England (the Tory heartland) with the closure of hospitals, increasing mortality rates linked to austerity, and the fact that the medical profession itself is now taking on the Tories.
Junior Drs going on strike, an uproar from the profession over the pay freeze inflicted on them by the Tories and a plethora of other ways which the Tories are currently being fought by the medical profession. Nurses using food banks and forced to take out payday loans — the removal of the nursing bursary, all of these things have an impact on the way that people view the Tories: the NHS really is the hot topic of the day — the crisis will clearly not be solved by the Tories who clearly want to privatise our healthcare system — and the British people know that the Tories cannot be trusted with the NHS.
We can also see that Labour is more trusted when it comes to housing – again the ongoing housing crisis affects so many people that this could also translate into support for Corbyn’s Labour. The housing crisis, of course, affects not just those who are homeless (homelessness levels are now the same as they were during Victorian times thanks to the Tories). The housing crisis also hits middle England as their children are also unable to move out and buy their own homes.
The polling also shows that Labour follows the Tories closely when it comes to another key area: education.
Where Labour really fail to gain the trust of the electorate is on issues like the economy, taxation, immigration and law, and order, according to the polls.
This is a testament to the power of the propaganda system above the achievement and record of the Tories on each of those issues. And the fact that Labour — under Corbyn too – has failed to, for instance, make it clear that Labour did not cause the current financial crisis by overspending — this is a real problem.
The fact that this narrative doesn’t even make sense should mean that the left would find it easy to kill — unfortunately, things are never that simple: nobody is even claiming that government spending caused the financial crisis except the Tories — everybody else acknowledges it was the banks, hence why they had to be bailed out by the taxpayer (a decision undertaken by Labour, but it’s hard to imagine a Conservative government making a different decision) to the tune of billions of pounds, thus adding to government debt — not the narrative that the Tories have been getting away with peddling for so long now.
This was, of course, and still, continues to be used as a way to justify austerity/ spending cuts. Austerity is by now a completely discredited form of economics, even the IMF agrees, as does the mainstream economic profession. Not only this, but we can see it doesn’t work right in front of our eyes: government debt has increased by billions and billions since austerity started — by 2020 it is estimated that the Tories will have racked up more government debt than every Labour government combined. Wages have fallen since 2008 — after a brief “recovery” they again fell in real terms again, this is due to austerity. We rank just above Greece in terms of wage growth since the 2008 financial crisis — this barely mentioned fact should’ve been headline news — of course, it wasn’t — instead, the mainstream media prefers to blame inflation, rather than austerity.
Public sector pay freezes which have been on-going and will continue as long as the Tories are in have had the effect that everybody sane said they would — they not only mean that public sector workers get poorer, as they cannot even keep up with inflation which is at very low levels — the pay-freezes also have a knock-on effect on the private sector, which is now rife with low insecure pay, and so-called self-employment.
Companies like Deliveroo and Uber lead this economy — what is now defined as employment can literally mean anything. Any number of hours, doing anything, anywhere with absolutely no guarantee of an income, or work, and prospects of saving for the future, or putting down a deposit for a house — this is the effect of all of the Tories austerity policies. This is why the so-called impressive employment figures that the Tories keep boasting about essentially mean nothing — what is employment defined as? Take a look and it all makes sense.
May and Hammond’s plan to cut corporation tax to 17% by 2020 (the lowest in the G20) is actually not as bad as her original suggestion of cutting it to 15% — a rate so low that even business leaders warned against it.
Away from the fairy tale rhetoric about this creating jobs, and making Britain a leader in competition or whatever rhetorical nonsense the Tories are spouting about this – the truth is this does nothing to help the economy or increase useful and productive investment.
Corporations — motivated solely by profit — sit on the extra profits they gain rather than re-investing it — this sh*t should be obvious, and yet for some reason, people still buy into it. There is a reason that corporate profits are at all time high, government debt is increasing, and social spending is decreasing — and this certainly isn’t helped by austerity and corporate tax cuts.
This is the reality of austerity: I can only assume the reason people think the Tories are good for the economy is because they either don’t know the reality, don’t want to know it, or are part of the 1% themselves.
The facts don’t lie, this isn’t about Labour or the Tories, they are simply the facts of the matter.
Whilst offering these tax cuts to billionaires and corporations the Tories then transfer the cost onto everybody else — through indirect, and direct taxes. They simply shift the tax burden away from those who have all the money and put it onto everybody else – again including middle England.
Law and order — another area where the Tories are supposedly trusted more than Labour — in reality, this just doesn’t make sense. The prison system is crumbling with both staff and inmates suffering — the recent prison riots being a testament to this. The use of fraudulent companies like G4S (one of the biggest welfare leeches in the country) making the situation all the worse. Of course, as well as this the police have also been at the end of the austerity knife — causing fears about the safety of the public and, of course, the police themselves.
I don’t know how they get away with this — all I can say is how often does the mainstream media ever question the Tories on the record on any of this? They report the problems (sort of) but fail to ever link it to the political choices made by this government. If they did then perhaps we would see a change in attitudes — Corbyn needs to amplify this message, this reality as we all should — not just to defeat the Tories, but because people deserve to know that they are taken for a MUG by this government.
The impact of austerity is felt much wider than people realise. The narrative is that it’s just about benefits, and a little bit of necessary pain here and there: the reality is very different — unless you’re at the very top of the income scale austerity will have negatively affected you, someone you know, your community, etc. If you’re the top it will still have impacted you — positively.
If you’re a GP who hasn’t had a real pay rise since the Tories came into power — just think about why that is — if your children can’t afford to buy a house and are living with you — think about why this happening — just think about it.
Corbyn’s Victories — Ignored & Dismissed By The Establishment
Contrary to the mainstream narrative Labour has performed quite well under Corbyn — including securing and increasing the Labour vote share in many areas.
Business Insider pointed out the fact that The Tories lost more seats than Labour during the last local elections, with Labour making significant vote gains.
Labour also — very surprisingly — won seats in the City of London local election — the City of London voting for Labour — really?
All in all, then this election is nowhere as clear cut as it first appears — it is in this spirit that we must make the most of the chance to get rid of the Tories before 2020 — a whole 3 years earlier than expected!
The Tories have decimated our country — millions more living in poverty — nearly a million more children living in poverty due to the Tories — children returning back to school after the holidays suffering from malnutrition — the return of diseases not seen since the victorian age — the humiliating rise and use of food banks — the thousands who have died as result of the DWP — the 100’s (probably more) who have killed themselves because of so-called welfare reform. Schools which are being defunded and run into the ground — parents now expected to pay for their child’s education — teacher’s threatening to go on strike over SATS tests — hospitals being closed — hospitals without enough trollies — pay frozen for all eternity — decreasing living standards with no end in sight — a banking sector which runs this country and decides government policy, leaving the rest of us to rot.
Our own chancellor personally benefitted from his own budget because of his business interests. These people literally take the p*ss out of us — is this not the kind of thing we associate with corrupt third world dictatorships? Election fraud, cutting business tax to benefit your own business, handouts to billionaire and the top 1% — we should feel such a deep shame that these people are anywhere near power, let alone in power.
The list is endless of atrocities is endless.
Is this what you want from your country?
Given this web of evil and chaos weaved and created by the Tories you would think that voting for an alternative would be a no-brainer — yet still May’s hubris shines through, supported as she is by the majority of the establishment who will be happy to sacrifice the rest of us — just to make sure they kill of Corbyn once and for all.
We are told without real reason that Corbyn is unelectable — this is a testament to an establishment mindset that has decided that political elites who proceed over the decimation of our own country are inherently electable — and those who challenge it and fight for the people are not.
Optimism — Snap Election Is Bringing The Left Together
One of the optimistic developments springing forth from May’s announcement is that Labour supporters are being brought together as opposed to fighting among themselves about whether or not Corbyn should be the leader — this is one of the best aspects of the snap GE – a chance to settle the ongoing infighting (for now).
The PLP itself, of course, will not unite behind Corbyn, and neither — in all likelihood — with the so-called left establishment media — such as the Guardian — who may make some limp wristed arguments as to why people should support Corbyn at the polls — no doubt they will be centred mainly around the fact that if he wins they can get rid of him shortly afterwards, or something like that — who knows.
In a way then the GE is quite welcome — sink or swim time — most in the establishment expect Corbyn’s Labour to sink and are willing, gleefully for it to happen. Those who actually have some sort of moral fiber need to realize that if Corbyn sinks he takes down the future of the NHS with him (at least for the short term) and the myriad of other consequences this will have that will damage our country — including Brexit — who’s Brexit would they rather have? May’s or Corbyn’s?
The Death Of The Center — The Future Fight Against Austerity & Neo-Liberalism
Whether or not Corbyn wins the fundamental nature of centrist politics is falling apart — that doesn’t stop just if Corbyn loses the next general election. Everywhere we look we see the same thing happening. This makes the current political climate unpredictable, not just now, but well into the future.
The future is in reality in the hands not of the baby boomers, or the gray vote much relied on by the Tories to win — but in the hands of the young: those of us who have grown up entirely under the neo-liberal system, those who want something more than this eternal misery.
We are also the ones leading the fightback against the neo-liberal assault — from Sander’s supporters in the US, to Corbyn’s here: it is no accident that these old school new deal style socialists gain the support of the young: it’s the first time in our lives that anybody has actually challenged the neo-liberal orthodoxy.
Therefore it follows that eventually, our generation will take over, and therefore we have the greatest chance of actually ending this nightmare. Whether it be through Corbyn, or means yet to be realized.
For now though, let’s all focus on the fight ahead — focus on the issues that are tearing this country apart, and make it clear that we want more than the scraps and torment the Tories give us year after year.
The sad thing is we’ve been conditioned into believing there is no alternative — this isn’t true, nor was it ever, and now is the chance to demonstrate that.
In the words of the hip-hop wisdom dropping group the Roots “it’s now or never”.
Let’s choose now.
WATCH — Corbyn pummels May over her refusal to take part in TV debates, and her consistent track record of bare faced lying.
Last week saw the rapid and frantic unfolding of the Syria crisis, as the country was plunged ever deeper into yet more turmoil, barbarity and chaos. The mainstream media response has, as usual, been to champion the illegal and potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S’ actions, and to use the opportunity to undermine Corbyn, and promote the split between him and the right-wing of the Labour Party.
In the space of less than a week, we saw a horrific chemical weapons attack in Syria — which reportedly killed up to 80 people, allegedly carried out by the Assad regime. This was quickly followed by a U-turn on U.S. foreign policy by President Trump. Previously the Trump administration had made it quite clear that they had no intention of removing Assad from power or involving the U.S. in furthering the war with Syria. And then came the gas attack, and then came the U.S. retaliation strikes — which Reuters reports have killed nine civilians (including four children). The U.S. strike while relatively minor and constrained (by western forces standards) none the less, may have actually benefitted ISIS, who have reportedly attempted to gain in the area since the U.S. strike.
The U.S. action is widely considered to be illegal: with almost all legal experts in agreement that it is both a violation of international and domestic law. The western political reaction to the U.S. strikes has been almost uniform with western leaders and politicians all throwing their weight and support behind the U.S., and the mainstream media generally applauding them too.
It is within this context that Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has urged for a United Nations (UN) led investigation into the gas attack, so as to determine who is most likely to have been responsible for it, and then take appropriate action with the backing and agreement of the international community from there.
This is most likely because Corbyn is aware that both of the two main sides of the Syrian conflict (the Assad regime and ISIS) have previously used chemical weapons according to Human Rights Watch. Therefore without some sort of investigation, it is impossible to know exactly what has happened. Corbyn has called for a diplomatic solution to put an end to the suffering of the Syrians in what has increasingly become a desperate situation.
Corbyn essentially stands as a lone voice of sanity among the political class and in a broader sense the media itself which has paid little attention to the legality of the U.S. actions, or the possibly dire consequences of the U.S.’ haphazard approach.
Rather than discussing the important issues which Corbyn raises, the mainstream media has focused on the split that the situation has caused within the Labour Party itself. The situation illustrates how even the most serious of humanitarian crises are exploited by the mainstream media, and the right-wing of the Labour Party to discredit Corbyn and the principles of international law in general.
On the 5th of April, following the Syrian gas attack in Khan Shaykhun (south of the Syrian city of Idlib) the U.S Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley presented pictures of children killed in the attack to other western diplomats at the United Nations Security Council. It is estimated that between 50 to 80 people died in the attack.
The US, the UK, and France placed a resolution before the security council condemning the attack and asking for an investigation into it. At the time there was no call for armed action as the there was disagreement about who carried out the act.
This is because both the brutal Assad regime and the other side in the war: ISIS have previously used chemical weapons, despite the fact that the Syria government had agreed to not to use chemical weapons following another chemical attack that they allegedly carried out in 2013.
The Russians who are allied with Assad in Syria also called for an independent investigation into the incident the next day at the UN — this was rejected by the U.S., UK, and France — because the two sides could still not agree on the methods by which such an investigation would be carried out — the next day, much to everyone’s surprise the U.S. launched missiles at a Syrian army base in Idlib.
The Russians have since postured and condemned the U.S.’ actions. Russian troops were stationed at the Idlib base the U.S targeted — however, the U.S informed the Russians ahead of the strike, to tell them to evacuate the area. Yet, despite this, it is quite clear that a certain line diplomatic line has been crossed between U.S/western and Russian relations. Given the buildup and increasing tensions between the nuclear-armed Nato forces, and nuclear-armed Russian forces along the Russian border, the situation feels particularly unpredictable in nature.
The one (potentially) decent thing about the Trump presidency was the fact that he didn’t seem to be calling for war with Russia — well, let’s hope that remains the case after last Friday’s surprise attack.
The U.S attack was championed by leaders, politicians and the media in the west — despite the disregard for international law, and despite the fact the only way to ever even possibly know who is behind the attack is to have an independent investigation of some kind — not blunderbuss our way into potentially escalating conflict, and benefiting ISIS in the process.
A spokesperson for Downing Street said:
The UK government fully supports the US action, which we believe was an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime, and is intended to deter further attacks.
This is precisely why Jeremy Corbyn has proven himself to (once again) be the only sane voice — calling for an investigation and for the de-escalation of tensions — within the fevered war madness.
Yet, the media has focused on the split that this has caused within the Labour Party itself, rather than the serious issues which lie behind it.
They have quoted from some of the worst members of the right-wing of the Labour Party, such as former Murdoch employee and current MP Micheal Dugher, who rather disgustingly joked about the Syrian gas attacks.
Stop criticising Corbyn's slow response: it takes time for Seamas to run the draft statement by the Kremlin, Stop the War + the Morning Star
Deputy Leader Tom Watson also joined in the let’s go to war brigade — the BBC reported that Watson told the Birmingham Mail that the strikes:
appear to be a direct and proportionate response
And that and chemical attacks on civilians:
must have consequences.
This kind of disregard for diplomacy, law, and simply put: sanity would be shocking if it wasn’t for the fact we’ve become accustomed to it through the Iraq War debacle.
It feels as if the same script is being repeated by the political class. Let’s just go in and take out the dictator, don’t worry about evidence — just trust us, we need to do this on humanitarian grounds.
It is perhaps the humanitarian argument that is the most laughable of all. When Trump launched his strikes he gave a brief speech in which he said.
Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack.
The “beautiful babies” have also been killed our bombs — in fact, in March this year the U.S. lead coalition (including our forces) killed more civilians in Syria than Assad, the Russians and ISIS. No doubt, babies were among 70 child victims of these attacks.
The U.S. (with our ever obedient support) is also responsible for using depleted uranium (DU), and white phosphorous in both Iraq and more recently Syria. The consequences of which are horrific, causing awful birth defects, and a huge increase in rates of cancer. The use of such weapons is also illegal under international law.
Children of Iraq born with painful deformities due to the U.S.’ use of DU and white phosphorous
The only hope for Syria is to somehow find a diplomatic solution — the Russians will have to be an ally in this — there’s is simply no other viable alternative at this point.
The West has previously rejected an offer by the Russians to broker a peace deal in Syria in 2012 (the beginning of the conflict) which could have seen Assad being replaced. Whether or not this was a serious offer, it still should have been investigated — the civilian death toll has is a testament to that.
Of course, the jihadist opponents of Assad such as Al-Nusra Front (al-Qaida in Syria), ISIS and the other many similar Islamic millitant groups fighting for power in the region have all been largely created, funded and supported by the west, and its allies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc.
The democratic forces in the region, such as the secular Kurdish group the PKK — who have shown themselves to be quite effective at fighting ISIS, remain on the U.S. and British government’s terrorist list (although groups linked to them have been tacitly supported by the U.S.)
All of this gets largely left out of the mainstream debate. Instead, the mainstream media focuses on the split within the Labour Party, and they fail to present the reasons why the split is happening. This isn’t really a matter of objective opinion, it’s about following the law, and trying to avoid escalation of the war.
The mainstream media has failed to even talk about the legality of the U.S’ actions — this should be our starting point, instead, it doesn’t even form part of the “debate”.
President Trump, of course, marketed himself as the “law and order candidate” — not when it comes to basic, or domestic law apparently — then the law can be whatever the power elites want.
Corbyn really shows a strength here, the political wind in the west is blowing in the direction of the U.S.’ illegal actions. Even leaders who were doing the same as Corbyn just a few days ago in calling for an investigation, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Quickly changed their minds after the strikes began — where is the call for an investigation now?
This really is a testament to the moral fiber of Corbyn — and he is right to stand by this very basic principle.
Whether or not you like Corbyn, at least we have somebody in the mainstream political discourse who isn’t afraid to the do the right thing or at least challenge the power structure.
That’s yet another reason to support Corbyn, and of course, another reason why the establishment is determined to terminate him.
The suffering of the Syrian people cannot and will not be solved by more bombs being thrown around by imperial powers — whether it be Russia or the west. It is time to stop the delusional thinking that we can bomb democracy into people whenever we feel like it. The complexities of the Middle East are barely understood by the western forces who bomb them, that’s exactly why Iraq and Afghanistan quickly descended into chaos.
After 6 years of fighting the death count from the Syrian conflict currently stands at 47,000 — of which the majority have been killed by the Assad-Russian coalition and of which 207,000 are said to be civilians, with 24,000 being children and 23,000 being women. This madness cannot go on — but we should not make things worse at the same time.
Let’s hope more leaders take notice of Corbyn — sadly I wouldn’t bank on it.
WATCH: Members of the United Nations Security Council from the international community condemn the U.S. missile strike. The UK and Germany support the attack, as do other middle eastern regimes that we consider to be our allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Others from the international community, such as Bolivia were less enthusiastic….
The mainstream media has once again attempted to terminate and destroy the ever growing rise of independent journalism through new media outlets.
The latest attack — led by the Murdoch-owned Times of London — has dealt a serious blow to all those who challenge the corporate media propaganda system — one which we must all fight back against — unless we wish to live in a world in which only a hand full of corporate moguls and political elites are the ones allowed to decide what we can discuss, how we can discuss it, and what journalists are allowed to report on.
The attack on new alternative media is not just about silencing dissenting voices or differing opinions: it is an attack on freedom of speech itself — the basis of any of form of liberal democracy.
If we cannot at least strive for this ideal, then we may as well just admit that we live in a corporate owned version of a totalitarian state like North Korea, instead of pretending — like gormless and floppy-eyed children — that we don’t.
The latest onslaught, led by the Times — follows earlier attempts to silence independent non-corporate approved news outlets — such as forcing Facebook to clamp down on “fake news” after blaming fake news for the election of Donald Trump as US President — a story which never seemed particularly plausible, and as suspected turned out not be, as is evidenced by this study into the claim fromStanford University.
None the less though, the mainstream media forced Facebook into filtering out content under the guise of stopping the supposed plague of fake news. Now corporations such as the US’ABC, and theBBCare the ones deciding whether independent news is fake or not.
The BBC launched their “Reality Check” series as a response to this “crisis” — I have already fact-checked and debunked one of theirarticles here.
That’s the problem with these fact-checking organizations, they tend to leave out a lot of facts, for some reason…
Of course, the fake news hysteria led by the mainstream media was always about silencing and killing independent media. I wrote an article hypothesizing this as the story unfolded in November of last year forEvolve Politics.
A week after the article was published right-wing Labour cronies Tom Watson and Michael Dugher (a former Murdoch employee) announced they would be leading the charge against fake news — as some sort of crusade for truth — a claim so silly it’s hard not laugh in the process of writing this. Part of this crusade involved directly naming the similar left-leaning independent news outletthe Canary as a target of their campaign.
Following the fake news attack on independent media the corporate mainstream media has concocted yet another way to potentially silence, and bankrupt new independent media: this time by linking advertisers on YouTube and Google Ads to videos about terrorism, ISIS, hate speech, Nazis, etc.
By doing this they have created a wide-reaching clampdown on YouTube and any website using Google Ads that discusses “extremist” political issues.
The Murdoch-owned Times of London lead the attack, launching a so-called investigation into YouTube’s hosting of “extremist content” (such as videos about ISIS) — claiming that big brand advertisers were unwittingly funding extremist views and content.
Beginning in early February this year, the Times ran a series of articles which consistently claimed that:
Dozens of YouTube videos promoting Combat 18, a violent pro-Nazi group, Isis or hate speech from al- Qaeda preachers, all run pop-up ads from reputable brands such as Marie Curie, the hospice charity, and Mercedes-Benz. The adverts play either during or just before the videos and generally pay out between $5-$8 (£4-£6.40) per 1,000 clicks or views, depending on the particular advertiser. Advertising revenue is split 55 per cent to 45 per cent in the poster’s favour, raising the prospect that marketing spending from western brands is finding its way into the pockets of extremists.
They called on YouTube and Google to implement better techniques to remove the ads from these extremist videos — something which YouTube and Google appeared to be doing, saying:
When it comes to content on YouTube, we remove flagged videos that break our rules and have a zero tolerance policy for content that incites violence or hatred.
However, this wasn’t enough for the Times who continued to peruse their agenda and proceeded to force YouTube and Google into clamping down harder.
The Times repeatedly claimed that brands are funding extremist views through YouTube videos.
Apparently, pornographic content was also being funded by these ads on YouTube. How this is even possibly true on a website where the ultimate crime is considered to be showing a glimpse of tit or anything resembling sex, I really don’t know. YouTube is surely the most sex-free place on the internet, and that takes quite a lot of effort in this day and age.
The fact that they and other mainstream publications openly call for wars on nations likeIran, orNorth Korea— that aren’t threatening us in any serious way — and doing their best to ramp up apossible nuclear war with Russia— based on a bunch of allegations that nobody can provide evidence for to justify — apparently that isn’t extremism.
If it was extremist, it would surely mean that the Times has to force its own advertisers to boycott it…..
Following the recent terrorist attack in London, the Times unsurprisingly used it as yet another away to push through their advertising boycott on “extremist” content on YouTube and Google Ads.
Linking the terrorist attack to YouTube — no real evidence is presented, but why should it be? How many people actually watched these videos? If you just type in — as they suggest “ISIS caliphate” — into YouTube’s search engine all you get is a bunch of mainstream news reports — some of which could contain the kinds of violent acts they describe here.
The mainstream media, after all, it seems through articles like this and their endless fevered coverage of ISIS, are the terrorist group’s unwitting chief promoter.
Perhaps further into the search you could find material directly from ISIS or similar, but even so, given the extent to which YouTube manages to remove sexual content, it seems quite unimaginable that it would’ve been some sort of epidemic and widespread problem.
The Daily Mail joined in — attacking YouTube for hosting this video.
The man in the video (most likely a martial artist — apparently making self-defence videos will also be a crime in the future) has absolutely no relationship to ISIS or terrorists — he explained the purpose of this video, saying:
I just want to show that people who wear these vests should not feel invincible
They are still vulnerable. These vests should not be described as stab proof.
The fact that Masood was an ex-con with a record stretching back to the 80’s for crimes such as knife possession, and had spent time in prison — the place where these kinds of things are taught by inmates to other inmates — apparently isn’t even worth considering.
No, it must’ve been YouTube’s fault.
On the 23rd of March (the same day as the London terrorist attack) this year a list of big brand advertisers banded together to boycott YouTube’s “extremist” videos.
Advertisers include the UK government and the BBC. The move appears to have been further justified by the attack, but has clearly been a few months in the making — the date of the advertiser’s boycott, most likely being coincidental to that of the terrorist attack, rather than a reaction to the attack alone…
The result of the boycott and Google’s action has been to vastly demonetise alternative media content that involves any of the extremist topics, such as ISIS, or drug use, religion or just about anything that makes up the content of the increasingly popular alternative media, news, and political commentary outlets available on YouTube, and other Google Adsense platforms.
Both left and right wing alternative political channels hosted on YouTube, such as the US’ Secular Talk, Amazing Atheist, the Jimmy Dore Show, and the UK’s Sargon of Akkad — have all suffered intense and catastrophic revenue plunges as a result of this — reporting an up to 90% decrease in revenue as a result. The move will likely hit any alternative news and media outlets using Adsense to help fund them.
These channels hardly promote “extremist” views about any of the boycotted topics — rather they discuss them outside of the mainstream corporate framework.
Meaning that they challenge, for instance, the atrocities carried out by the US/UK governments in the middle eastern bloodbaths. Whereas the mainstream media politely refers to these wars as strategic blunders or tries to cover up the truth of what is going on, the targeted commentators and channels never fail to speak about them.
Content about less controversial topics — therefore far more boring topics — containing corporately acceptable content, such as makeup tutorials, clothes, and videos of cats falling over — will no doubt remain fully monetised.
Unless Google considers their android-based professional Primark saleswoman Zoella to also be a creator of extremist content, then we can rest assured that she and the many other popular corporate monotonies that already make up about 97% of the YouTube universe will remain fully monetised, promoted, and will continue their ascension of total domination, and therefore total banality on the platform.
Corporate advertisers have no interests in ever funding alternative news media — and the mainstream media sees alternative media as a serious threat to themselves, so, therefore, the two forces have combined to take down those of us who challenge the mainstream narratives, propaganda, and lies.
Corporations, of course, also feel threatened by alternative media as it operates outside of the boundaries of “acceptable” debate that is normally held within the narrow spectrum of the corporate mainstream media. The mainstream media never challenges corporations or their power, quite purposely, partly because they are owned by corporations who have tentacles in all sorts of other ventures, and partly because they rely on money from corporate advertisers themselves — therefore there is no reason for them to ever challenge the status quo, the opposite is true: they are there to maintain it, as it is in their primary interest to do so.
The corporate media uses its power to control and influence the power elite politicians, rather than ever challenging them in the interests of the population, they challenge them in the interests of corporations and the rich and powerful.
The Murdoch press endlessly champions politicians who do nothing but systematically attack the working class — and in a broader sense the rest of the general population, yet rather than ever challenging this, he and the other powerful corporate elites help to maintain this collusion and the propaganda system that sells these politicians as if they are people who somehow care about us — they don’t, it’s obvious, they don’t.
This is a story repeated throughout history — the internet a relatively new invention, that can be easily used to spread information to the mass of the public — has so far been a relatively free area of discussion.
Yet, just as with the invention of printing press which provided a mass of working-class and socialist newspapers and literature in its early days, leading to a rich, intellectual political and social culture of theworking-class during this period, the internet too, must be crushed by corporations.
The working class press became the corporate press. Up until the 1960’s the UK had a widely circulated working class newspaper calledThe Daily Herald— a genuinely working class newspaper, containing general socialist thought, ideas, and discussion — by the mid 60’s the paper was unable to compete against the corporate press, and by the end of the 60’s was owned by Murdoch, under its new name: The Sun.
The deep irony of the mainstream media, and corporations pretending to care about being associated with or fuelling ISIS — they more than anybody act as an unwitting propaganda arm for ISIS — endlessly glorying and martyring ISIS terrorists, giving them more attention than they ever warrant, dressed in a feverish and lurid language that is almost designed to attract a certain type of (unhinged, ex-con, etc) person to the ISIS cause.
The corporations themselves, of course, are most likely buying the oil that ISIS holds. Further to this some of the biggest corporations in existence through their oil buying, investment of so-called petrodollars, and arms sales all make huge wads of cash from the most brutal Islamic fundamentalist regimes on the face of the earth — Saudi Arabia being perhaps the worst of all of them.
This mixed with their complete contempt for the many lives destroyed in the process of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the many other war crimes carried out in the Islamic world to this date — ramping up potential support for ISIS in the process.
The corporations have to own our minds in order to control our thoughts about the world — when they can’t do that as much — they panic, and that’s when we get new forms of censorship, such as the fake news debacle, and this latest attempt.
Labour MPs like Chuka Umunna and Tom Watson have been working for quite some time now at clamping down on alternative media — when asked to comment by the Times about their investigation Umunna — a member of the home affairs select committee said:
This is deeply disturbing
There is no doubt the social media companies could be doing far more to prevent the spread of extremist content.
None of this is true — when these people speak of extremist content they speak of the extremist content they do not approve off: which when translated from politician to plain English means: challenging the status quo — the only form of “extremism” that truly sends fear into their hearts.
They approve of the most widely available extremist content — that which the powerful offer through the mainstream publications. Nuclear war with Russia, Middle-east war brutalities, refugees being locked up and dehumanised, the list of extremist content in the mainstream media is endless — yet that is never under attack from the powerful.
Because they agree with it.
For independent media outlets we have only one solution: to be funded by the people who read/watch/listen to us, and support the work we do. That’s really the only way to ensure any possible survival for alternative news media.
The corporate attacks will keep on coming — like grotesquely bloated, spoiled, greedy brats they clamber for more and more of what they desire — throwing crying hissy fits until they get what they want:
more money, more control.
They could’ve easily just demonitised, and removed the genuinely extreme content. Google may claim it hasn’t the resources: that’s quite hard to believe given how much money they make every year — but the reality is they aren’t interested in saving a portion of their content that doesn’t make much money anyway for them. The fact this content actively challenges the corporate world, means they have no interest in protecting it.
Once again the corporate media has fought back against the growing popularity of those who actively critique the lies, distortion, and nonsense they spout on a daily basis.
Let’s not let them take our media away from us — let’s make sure we keep it in the hands of the people, if that means chipping in a few quid every now, surely that alone is worth it, just to break up the corporate media lies, monotony, and propaganda.
It will be interesting to see if videos about these extremist topics, such as ISIS will be demonetised when they are produced by the BBC, ABC or similar corporate media.
I suspect that no matter what, they will continue to receive advertising revenue through Google for their “work”.
That, in itself, is enough to illustrate just how morally bankrupt the system of corporate media is — the only way the corporate media can make money is from corporations.
The whole point of the media should be to challenge all forms of power, especially corporate — yet, clearly, nothing could be further from the truth.
WATCH — Animation: Noam Chomsky Explains How The Media Is Controlled by Corporations (amongst other things).