Alt Left: Standard Antisemitism Is Rightwing and Has Nothing to Offer Me or Any Other Liberal or Progressive Person

Other than the role of Israel in US politics and foreign policy, which is truly malign, as far as any other beefs against Jews that antisemites have, I’m not really into them. Those arguments just don’t resonate with me. I don’t particularly care what Jews do in my country outside of the Israel thing. Who cares!

Antisemitism is rightwing anyway. I get annoyed at Jews’ bullshit, and I like to talk about how they annoy me, but that’s not a matter of hatred. I don’t hate annoying people. They’re not contemptible; they’re just annoying. Two different things.

But as far as the Jews’ bullshit, games, and scams, that’s just them being silly.  All of the rest of us are morons for falling for these silly ethnic games they are playing on us. And if we are falling for their crap, oh well. We deserve whatever we get.

I’m not into Jews’ Endless Victim trip, which is really just Jewish Identity Politics. And I’ll bash Jewish IP on here like I bash any other IP. But I bash all retarded IP’s. Jewish IP isn’t anymore idiotic and nonsensical than all the others. All the IP’s are really the same at the end of the day.

Anyway I don’t hate professional victims. I just think they are complete idiots, and I laugh at them. What sort of a moron spends his whole life wailing about what a victim he is? I hate to use the word, but that’s what a loser does. So all the victim addicts are losers in a sense. They lack the basic pride needed to love themselves enough to not fall into the pathetic victim trap.

Now if your people really are getting fucked over, ok, well, you don’t have much choice. The victim role has been shoved upon you, and owning it is just facing facts.

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

I will go over the standard anti-Semitic line as it has been forged for the last 150 years or so, but first I will discuss other things. Prior to that, antisemitism was based on other things.

Some were silly things like Jews killed Jesus. Except Jesus himself was a Jew, and Christians are literally worshiping this Jewish dude as their hero, but never mind that. It’s really sad how many Jews were probably killed for this BS.

Another silly reason was that Jews refused to convert to Christianity. I don’t understand why that’s important at all much, less a reason to kill a man. Obviously this doesn’t resonate with me.

Others were tragic lies like Jews being accused of poisoning village wells during the plague. That’s just made-up BS; it’s not even true. Sadly, many Jews were murdered for this nasty lie.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were often persecuted due to being the visible face of feudal rule. No one saw the feudal lords. The only face of feudal rule your average serf saw were Jewish tax collectors.

Logically, Jews tended to get killed when the usual peasant rebellions took place, except they pretty much deserved it for collecting taxes for the lords, although the Jewish women, children,  old men, and those who were not working for the lords should have been spared. Anti-Jewish pogroms were very ugly things. You don’t even want to know the details.

The modern form of antisemitism is a racial antisemitism which was founded by a German man named Marr in the 1870’s  who founded the Anti-Semitic League. Yep, that’s where we get the term that everyone likes to take apart as being irrational.

Except words and phrases get to be irrational in terms of etymology. Does “You’re pulling my leg literally mean that?” No? Ok, then why say it? In Spanish, you say, “You’re pulling my hair?” Does that make any more sense? Of course not. See what I mean? Words and phrases don’t have to literally make sense. They only have to mean whatever the people who use them say that they mean. #1 rule of a subfield of Linguistics called Semantics.

Oddly enough, Marr had previously married and divorced three separate wives, all Jewish. Hell, that’s probably why he hated Jews right there, ha ha. The general argument of these “new antisemites” or “modern antisemites” was that Jews are anti-nationalists and basically traitors to the homeland. I’m not sure how valid that argument was or is. The Dreyfus Affair is a case in point of this argument.

A lot of Jews fought nobly in World War 1. During Kristallnacht, many Jews put on their WW1 uniforms and went out and stood in front of their shops to try to protect them on the grounds that people would respect the fact that they were patriots. It didn’t work. They got beat up and their stores got burned down anyway. That’s so sad.

There was an argument that a lot of Jews tried to get out of World War 2, but I’m not sure how valid that is. That’s rather low if they did considering that in Europe anyway, we fought on their behalf.

But my father had two close Jewish friends who he met during World War 2.

One man served in the Pacific with my father in Okinawa and then went to China with him after the war. That trip to China was one of the peaks of my father’s life. He talked about it a lot. It was like this wild adventure.

Another served on the European front in Italy and then in Germany with the Liberation. He was there when the death camps were liberated. The US military said that Jewish soldiers didn’t have to go see the death camps if they didn’t want to, but my father’s friend went anyway. It was bad, real bad. No words to describe how bad it was. So two of my father’s Jewish friends served in the war. Doesn’t sound like a lot of them got out of it.

Later, other forms of rightwing antisemitism formed in the 20th Century with these basic arguments.

  1. Jews are Communists and Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution that killed 90 million billion zillion gazillion Russian Christians!!

This one is funny. I supported the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m practically a Goddamned Commie. Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution? Ha ha, thank you very much, Jews! Jews are a bunch of Commies? It’s not true anyway but if it’s true, thank you very much, Jews!

2. Jews push racemixing and are trying to genocide the White race. There’s actually some truth to this. Jews in the US have indeed been trying to make Whites a minority in the US,  or at least some of them have. Some of them have anyway. As one Jew said, “When we get Whites down below 50%, a Nazi government can never come to rise in the US.” See what they are doing? It’s all about self-preservation. They’re not just doing it be evil.

I don’t particularly care about this either than to note that the Jews are engaging in sleazy double standards as usual.

1. Jews all have to marry other Jews and no mixing is allowed or they go extinct.

2. But Whites need panmixia!

So promote racial fidelity for your own group while promoting racial suicide and mixture for  your enemies. Sleazy. But hey, that’s the way they are.

I figure that if Whites are so stupid as to be conned by this by pissant little tribe of humans called Jews (who are no more important than any other pissant tribe like Chechens, Burushaski, Dinka, Tuareg, or what have you) then we deserve whatever they con us into. I have no sympathy for morons. And if we Whites want to mix away and go extinct out of own own free will, which is apparently the case, well then, that’s own choice.

3. Jews promote racial hatred against Whites,  make Whites out to be the bad guys, and promote non-Whites as glorious, perfect people while promoting Whites as devils. Well, that’s awful rich of the Jews to do that considering that they’re obviously White themselves, except they lie as usual and say they’re not.

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

We’re not White (though we are), and we are non-Whites (except we’re not) along with the glorious Browns, Blacks, and Yellows, all fighting the evil White oppressor (which is actually us because we’re White). Except that Jews won’t date or marry these glorious non-Whites they throw themselves in with. Hell, they won’t even live in the same neighborhood with them.

It doesn’t even make sense logically, but a lot of Jewish arguments are like that.

So, more Jewish scamming, double standards, tribal thinking  – the usual crap. But this game is so stupid. I mean if we Whites really cared, we could probably raise a fuss about all this anti-White hatred, except the Jews and their non-White pals call us Nazis when we Whites ask people to please, pretty please not be racist against us.

Well, the Jews are definitely playing a real low game here all right, but I don’t particularly care about White-bashing and anti-White racism. I hardly deal with it, and I just laugh at any non-White who acts racist towards me because, I hate to say it, I actually do feel superior to them deep down inside at that point when they are bashing my race.

But I can see why any racially aware White person, certainly a White nationalist, would have a huge beef against Jews. They have a right to that beef because from these Whites’ POV, Jews are definitely screwing over their people.

Except I’m not a racially aware White or a White nationalist, so I don’t care.

4. Jews promote civil rights, feminism, gay rights, tranny rights, and all sorts of other civil rights stuff to weaken the moral fiber of White society so the Jews can take over and out-compete the Whites. Well, all of those movements were good ideas at least in  theory, so good on the Jews. And I doubt if they did it to weaken us. They probably just did it out of a strong sense of social justice, which Jews have had for a long time now, and that is very noble of them.

The argument also says that Jews promote these divide and conquer movements among Whites while sparing their own kind. Well, that’s not true. Jewish society is full of some of the worst feminists of them all. And it didn’t use to be, but gay and lesbian Jews are on just about every corner. I assume there are plenty of Jewish trannies too, as Jews seem to go in for anything sexually perverse for some reason.

But then you have (((George Soros))) who goes around to White Gentile countries promoting all of these rights moments, including a truly insane feminist group called Femen, which is his baby. Femen is raising the usual Hell that femikooks anywhere raise, mostly in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when Femen tried to set up a chapter in Israel, (((Soros))) refused to fund it.

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

White Gentile societies need the most divisive radical feminism to turn the men and women against each other (Why do they need this?), while we Jews wouldn’t dare subject our own people to this divisive bullshit.

Ok, this is the sort of thing that the Elders of Zion do in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Promote all this junk for their enemies to divide them while sparing their own kind.

So congratulations Mr. (((Soros)))! You succeeded in being a living example of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes of all! In fact, you appear to have walked right out of the pages of the Protocols, one of the most anti-Jewish books ever written! Brilliant!

Jews act out the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes and then they are shocked! Shocked! When antisemitism logically follows that. They create antisemitism, then they scream and yell about it. That’s dumb, but that’s not a reason to hate them. That’s just these foolish Jews bringing in down on themselves. Why should I hate someone for being self-destructive?

In general, I don’t care that Jews push all these SJW movements, but Mr. (((Soros)))’ behavior is extremely uncool. At any rate, (((Soros))) is not even good for the Jews. The guy’s a one man Antisemitism Manufacturing Plant in the form of a human.

Another thing I want to point out is that the SJW’s are on autopilot now. I doubt if feminism, gay rights, civil rights, tranny rights, and whatever else rights need Jews to push their causes anymore. All the US Jews could take off for Israel or the moon tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that these movements would charge right ahead. That’s because the leadership and bases of these movements is swarming with Gentiles.

5. Jews own the media. Yeah, they do, sort of. And they took it over on purpose. Not to be evil but to protect themselves. And the consequence of this Jewish media is…? What? Other than the Israel-firster stuff, not much.

Further, I do not think the media needs Jews anymore either. The other day, I saw a Canadian paper formerly owned by (((Izzy Asper))), an Israel-firster billionaire who was also a real ratfuck, as you might expect. The paper, The  National Post, is now run by Gentiles.

Well, if you go read that paper, you would think that (((Asper))) never left because the paper reads exactly like it did when (((Asper))) ran it. Still a full-blown Israel-firster paper, but now the Israel-firster articles are all written by Gentiles!

I have seen other papers go from Jewish to Gentile ownership, and not one single thing changes. So I think there is just a “media elite” politics in North America which is shared by all owners, editors, and writers for the MSM, Jews and  Gentiles both. They both push wild SJWism, bash Whites, uphold non-Whites as glorious, and are fanatical Israel-firsters.

6. Jews own Hollywood. Yes, and? Granted, it’s not very democratic, but Hollywood is not nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Many directors and producers now are Gentiles. The Jews still own a lot of the studios, but Gentiles have been forming their own studios lately – Coppola is an excellent example.

Supposedly Jews use Hollywood movies and TV (which is still very Jewish, granted) to push the same stuff – SJWism, anti-White propaganda, reverence for glorious non-Whites, etc. Except Hollywood doesn’t really go along with the Israel-firster stuff, and a number of directors don’t even go along with US imperialism.

And once again, the Gentile directors and producers push all the same themes that the Jewish ones do.  There is a Hollywood elite that has a similar politics shared by both  Jews and Gentiles.

7. Jews make porn. They do. But there are an awful lot of Gentiles making porn now too, right? The industry used to be extremely Jewish in the 1970’s and 80’s – now it is much less so.

But let’s try a thought experiment. All the  US Jews take off for Israel, the moon, Atlantis, wherever. No more Jews. You think the porn industry will go under? Hell no. All the outlets owned by sleazy Jews will be immediately taken over by sleazy Gentiles. Isn’t that obvious? And the Gentiles in porn push all the same sleazy crap: racemixing, Blacks cucking Whites, or whatever.

7. Jews are aggressive, rude, tight, and don’t like non-Jews. A lot of them are. This is particularly the case with the Orthodox and Super Jews like you find in Israel. The more “Jewish” the person is, the more they act in this “Jewy” way. The more assimilated the Jew is, the less they act that way. A lot of Jewish men can definitely be pretty aggressive. The women seem to be less so. After all, they are females.

But that’s not really important. Anyway, exactly how many people actually hate Jews because they are like this? Hell, I know wild Judeophiles who laugh and openly admit that the Jews are obnoxious. And these are people who love Jews.

I’ve also read thousands of antisemites on the web over the years. I haven’t found one yet who actually hated Jews because a lot of them are not real nice. So few if any people are actual antisemites for that reason. I’m sure Jews will call these people antisemites, but they all everyone that.

As far as my opinion goes, at the end of the day, this is just not important. That’s just the petty sociological behavior of a single ethnic group.

Lots of ethnic groups have funny ways of behaving, both good and bad. In many cases, ethnic behavior isn’t important as long as they don’t break the law or seriously disrupt society. Being annoying is nothing. I’m not going to hate some whole race of humans because a lot of them act annoying. That’s a petty issue. It’s hardly a reason to hate a whole ethnic group or race. I imagine most people who feel that Jews act this way feel the same way.

It should be clear now that standard antisemitism is rightwing and has always been rightwing. There’s nothing here for liberals, Leftists, or progressive people.

Alt Left: Life Is a Conspiracy Theory

Now that I am making meaning of life posts, I thought I would toss this one out there. I’m not sure if it has always been this way, but the only way to analyze much of modern life is via the lens of conspiracy theory. But before you go down that rabbit hole, beware. Much conspiracy theory is out and out absurdity and nonsense, and much of the rest is just wrong. But of the remainder – oh yeah, it definitely seems to be correct.

The explanations of the world, foreign policy in particular, we are given by our government and news media are mostly fake news and propaganda. In order to search for the truth is this disgusting blizzard of lies and bullshit, one must employ conspiracy theory because a lot of the facts of modern life are only explainable for conspiracy theory.

As I’ve gotten deeper and deeper into this explanation of modern life, fake news, and media propaganda, I’ve started to wonder what exactly conspiracy theory encompasses.

For instance, we are now into an era where false flags, fake attacks, and provocations are simply normal. I’m not sure if they’ve always been normal, but it seemed that in the past we didn’t do this as much, but in the last 20 years, it’s been one US-sponsored false flag, fake attack, or provocation after another.

Perhaps this is a symptom of a fading empire lashing out in a wild hail of lies, theft, and cheating. After all, lying, cheating, and stealing is not only the way humans do business and politics, but it’s also part of the toolkit of the desperate man. How many film noir movies do you have to watch to figure that out?

When a man is at the end of his rope, he’s thinking of survival, not getting murdered, staying out of prison, keeping his job, whatever. And all morality tends to go right out the window when faced with avoiding alternatives like that. You can hardly blame a man. But just as a desperate man must be looked at with suspicion, the state equivalent of a desperate man – a fading empire – requires an extremely dubious eye, to say the least.

Anyway, as I chewed this over more and more, I started realizing how deep conspiracy theory seemed to pervade so many things. You would think that the world of business would be immune to this, but you will never see so many devious conspiracies and blizzards of lying, cheating, and stealing as you will see in the world of business and especially corporations.

I am not entirely sure if conspiracy theory pervades human relations that much, but on the other hand, once you figure out that a lot of what  people say and do means something quite a bit different from what they literally say and do, even that starts to make sense.

Human relations are soaked into subterfuge, lying, defenses, and hidden meanings. I spend a good part of my time trying to figure out the hidden meanings in the behavior of my fellow men. I often have to run it by others. Of course, a world where many literal (think “official”) meanings are false and hidden meanings are often true is conspiracy theory in a nutshell.

At some point it hit me. Oh, the Hell with it!

Life itself is a damned conspiracy theory. 

Not completely of course, but enough of it is that this odd aphorism makes sense a lot of the time. Put that idea in your head “life is a conspiracy theory” and go about your daily life. Notice how so many things start making a Hell of a lot more sense when you are plugged into that horrible key to the universe.

At the very least, let’s face it, it’s a damned devious conspiracy to kill us all off when none of either agreed to that fate or wants to die.

In that way, death is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

Death is the last, best practical joke God will ever play on your life.

Alt Left: The Deep State of the US Is All-Encompassing and Surrounds US All of Our Lives

What is the Deep State? Everyone talks about it but no one seems to know what it is. A lot of people say it doesn’t exist. They’re wrong. And I know they’re wrong. I’ve been studying this for decades, and my answer to the question of what the Deep State is, which is both maddeningly complex and ridiculously simple, is the answer I have arrived at after many years of deep study

Most of the US Executive Branch dealing with foreign policy is Deep State.

All of the many intelligence agencies with their $30 billion black budgets are Deep State.

The Pentagon is completely Deep State.

Most all of Congress is Deep State, with a few bright new exceptions.

And most importantly, all of the large corporations of America are part of the Deep State. If you have worked for the CIA, you can walk in the door of almost any corporation in the US and get hired for a serious position. CIA and other intelligence and foreign policy types cycle in and out of the corporate sector and vice versa all the time. It’s all connected, dammit.

In fact, the intelligence agencies are simply the hired intelligence agencies of the rich and the corporations. The Pentagon is simply the hired military of the rich and the corporations. The foreign policy establishment in the Executive and Legislative branches are simply the state structures of the rich and the corporations.

Obviously all of the US MSM is Deep State. Most large US media outlets have long been infiltrated by the CIA. It’s a good guess that many of the top editors in the US media are on the CIA payroll. It was revealed recently that many of the top journalists in the US were actually on the CIA payroll.

This is a result of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird initiated in the 1960’s. It resulted in the infiltration of most if not all of the US MSM by the CIA. The reforms of the Church Committee in the mid-70’s were said to put a stop to that, but the truth is that Operation Mockingbird was never shut down and continues to this very day. It just went underground is all.

By this view the Deep State is all around us all the time. It’s omnipresent in this country. You can’t escape it.

The Deep State is nothing other than the Foreign Policy Establishment of the United States. 

As such, it includes:

  • All of the MSM
  • The foreign policy aspects of the Executive Branch
  • The foreign policy aspects of the Legislative Branch
  • The Pentagon.
  • The three letter agencies and the US intelligence agency complex, much of which is “black” or underground and unaccountable
  • All of the large corporations of the US, including all of the Silicon Valley “cool” corporations
  • Most of the rich of the US
  • Most but not all of Hollywood
  • Wall Street

I believe that this theory of an all-encompassing Deep State that surrounds us every minute of our lives is the best definition of the Deep State. Think about it if it doesn’t make sense. If you find the question interesting, keep on thinking about it. After you think for a while, I believe you might just come around to a definition of the Deep State that is not far from mine.

Alt Left: All of the MSM and all of Silicon Valley Is Deep State

It’s painfully obvious that there is no free press at all anywhere in the West. There is only Fake News MSM completely controlled by the US government and NATO.

There is some real news on the Internet but the Deep State is now going after all of that too. Twitter and (((Facebook))) are mass-banning any pages or users that publish anything that goes against the Deep State/CIA line.

Twitter and (((Facebook))) are both absolutely part of the Deep State now.

So is (((Google))). (((Google))) partnered with the Atlantic Council (NATO Deep State) to downgrade most leftwing outlets critical of US foreign policy as “fake news.” The Atlantic Council issued reports showing all the “fake news” or “Russian” sites.

Any site critical of US foreign policy is not only fake news but it is also always Russian. Hundreds of Americans were banned from Twitter when Jack Dorsey (Deep State) said they were “Russian propaganda bots.” (((Mark Zuckerberg))) (Deep State) also banned many pages from (((Facebook))) as either “fake news” or “controlled by Russia.”

The leadership of (((Google))) is absolutely Deep State. Not only did they bury most leftwing sites on their search engine, they have also removed many videos from (((Youtube))) on the grounds that they are “fake news” or “Russian propaganda.” Quite a few of these accounts were left up, but (((Youtube))) required them to carry warning messages saying that the creators of the video had links to Russia.

I’ve been telling people for a long time that there is nothing groovy or cool about these bitchin’ new capitalists in Silicon Valley. They’re the same old capitalist ratfucks, except possibly they’re even worse than the old kind we sort of got used to. Like any corporation on Earth, the Silicon Valley corporations are not progressive in any serious way and are in fact conservatives and reactionaries like all corporations are.

These corporations are said to be “progressive” because in addition to being rightwing corporations on anything important, they have also adopted leftwing SJWism as it’s no threat to their bottom line.

And in answer to the question I assume you are getting ready to ask me, no, supporting degenerate nonsense like Drag Queen Story Hour at your local library, perverted gay pride parades, and transsexual bathhouses for all ages does not make you a progressive because those are not progressive issues.

They fall into another category called Moral/Traditional versus Immoral/Degenerate. Supporting sick nonsense like the above doesn’t make you left wing at all. It just makes you a degenerate. You SJW degenerates proud of yourselves?

 

Alt Left: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Is Just an American Lap Dog, by Scott Ritter

The piece should be self-explanatory. As I probably noted earlier, there was neither a sarin nor a chlorine attack on Douma by the Syrian Army. It simply never happened. No sarin was found, and chlorine was only found at trace levels below what you normally find in a household kitchen.

None of the victims had symptoms of chlorine poisoning. The OPCW team declined to dig up the bodies because the lack of chlorine poisoning symptoms rendered body examination moot. The victims shown had soot on their faces and bodies. There were said to have been killed by a Syrian Army bomb that penetrated a house and set it on fire. The people sheltering in the basement were killed by smoke inhalation.

Further, chlorine is not particularly toxic. There were said to be 20-40 dead in this attack, but in a chlorine attack, you will have ~100 wounded for every death. In a typical huge attack, you might have ~five deaths and ~500 wounded. It’s just not that toxic.

The chlorine cylinders said to have been dropped by the Syrian Army were instead placed there by the rebels. The engineering team was able to determine this by analysis of the weapons.

Anyway, chlorine is not dropped from bombs. Neither is sarin. That’s why all the reports of Assad dropping chemical weapons from planes are fake. No one does that. Poison gas comes in shells that are fired by an artillery gun. There’s no such thing as a chemical weapons bomb, and no one drops artillery shells from an airplane.

After reporters went into Douma after the attack, they found many residents testifying that the rebels had told them two days before that they were going to do a fake chemical weapons attack.

The scene at the hospital where the rebels burst in with hoses and hosed down everyone in the hospital was said to have been rehearsed and faked by those at the scene. Physicians at the government-run hospital in the rebel area said that no patients appeared with symptoms of chlorine poisoning.

The media of course refused to report any of this.

Now we have a scandal whereby the OPCW edited and faked their own report which showed there was no chlorine attack at Douma to show that there had in fact been a chlorine attack at Douma.

They did this by hiding the technical report that said that there was no attack and that the attack was apparently faked by the rebels. The technical report was later leaked, and some of the OPCW inspectors who went to the site met with a team of international lawyers and another team of investigative journalists.

A former top editor of the Guardian named Johnathon Steele interviewed one of the whisteblowers in Switzerland. So far, two or three whistleblowers have come forward saying that the attack was faked. The Fake News MSM  has refused to cover the story. It was only covered by the Daily Mirror in the UK and La Republica in Italy.

It was blacked out of all of the rest of the “free press” in the West.

Eventually they could contain the controversy no longer and the Western Fake News MSM ran a few articles quoting the head of the OPCW standing by his fake lying report saying that there had been a chlorine gas attack at Douma.

Trump heard about this attack and he and the French poodles who suck up to the US launched a number of cruise missiles at Syria. Most were shot down by the Syrians. The weapons they used to shoot them down were rather old school, but the Russians helped the Syrians with electronic warfare directed at the cruise missiles which enabled the Syrians to shoot most of them down.

The US currently has no defenses whatsover against Russian electronic warfare, which is far more advanced than ours. We don’t even know what it is or how it works. Even if we start trying to catch up to the Russians in electronic warfare tomorrow, we will not catch up for 5-10 years because we sat on our haunches too long and got too far behind.

Chemical Weapons Watchdog Is Just an American Lap Dog

A spate of leaks from within the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international inspectorate created for the purpose of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, has raised serious questions about the institution’s integrity, objectivity and credibility.

The leaks address issues pertaining to the OPCW investigation into allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to attack civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7, 2018.

These allegations, which originated from such anti-Assad organizations as the Syrian Civil Defense (the so-called White Helmets) and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), were immediately embraced as credible by the OPCW and were used by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom to justify punitive military strikes against facilities inside Syria assessed by these nations as having been involved in chemical weapons-related activities before the OPCW initiated any on-site investigation.

The Douma incident was initially described by the White Helmets, SAMS and the U.S., U.K., and French governments as involving both sarin nerve agent and chlorine gas. However, this narrative was altered when OPCW inspectors released, on July 6, 2018, interim findings of their investigation that found no evidence of the use of sarin.

The focus of the investigation quickly shifted to a pair of chlorine cylinders claimed by the White Helmets to have been dropped onto apartment buildings in Douma by the Syrian Air Force, resulting in the release of a cloud of chlorine gas that killed dozens of Syrian civilians.

In March, the OPCW released its final report on the Douma incident, noting that it had “reasonable grounds” to believe “that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018,” that “this toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine,” and that “the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.”

Much has been written about the OPCW inspection process in Syria, and particularly the methodology used by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), an inspection body created by the OPCW in 2014 “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

The FFM was created under the direction of Ahmet Üzümcü, a career Turkish diplomat with extensive experience in multinational organizations, including service as Turkey’s ambassador to NATO.

Üzümcü was the OPCW’s third director general, having been selected from a field of seven candidates by its executive council to replace Argentine diplomat Rogelio Pfirter. Pfirter had held the position since being nominated to replace the OPCW’s first director general, José Maurício Bustani.

Bustani’s tenure was marred by controversy that saw the OPCW transition away from its intended role as an independent implementer of the Chemical Weapons Convention to that of a tool of unilateral U.S. policy, a role that continues to mar the OPCW’s work in Syria today, especially when it comes to its investigation of the alleged use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians in Douma in April 2018.

Bustani was removed from his position in 2002, following an unprecedented campaign led by John Bolton, who at the time was serving as the undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the U.S. State Department.

What was Bustani’s crime? In 2001, he had dared to enter negotiations with the government of Iraq to secure that nation’s entry into the OPCW, thereby setting the stage for OPCW inspectors to visit Iraq and bring its chemical weapons capability under OPCW control. As director general, there was nothing untoward about Bustani’s action.

But Iraq circa 2001 was not a typical recruitment target. In the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution under Chapter VII requiring Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including its chemical weapons capability, to be “removed, destroyed or rendered harmless” under the supervision of inspectors working on behalf of the United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM.

The pursuit of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to a series of confrontations with Iraq that culminated in inspectors being ordered out of the country by the U.S. in 1998, prior to a 72-hour aerial attack—Operation Desert Fox.

Iraq refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors to return, rightfully claiming that the U.S. had infiltrated the ranks of the inspectors and was using the inspection process to spy on Iraqi leadership for the purposes of facilitating regime change. The lack of inspectors in Iraq allowed the U.S. and others to engage in wild speculation regarding Iraqi rearmament activities, including in the field of chemical weapons.

This speculation was used to fuel a call for military action against Iraq citing the threat of a reconstituted WMD capability as the justification. Bustani sought to defuse this situation by bringing Iraq into the OPCW, an act that, if completed, would have derailed the U.S. case for military intervention in Iraq.

Bolton’s intervention included threats to Bustani and his family, as well as threats to withhold U.S. dues to the OPCW accounting for some 22% of that organization’s budget; had the latter threat been implemented, it would have resulted in OPCW’s disbandment.

Bustani’s departure marked the end of the OPCW as an independent organization. Pfirter, Bolton’s hand-picked replacement, vowed to keep the OPCW out of Iraq.

In an interview with U.S. media shortly after his appointment, Pfirter noted that while all nations should be encouraged to join the OPCW, “We should be very aware that there are United Nations resolutions in effect” that precluded Iraqi membership “at the expense” of its obligations to the Security Council.

Under the threat of military action, Iraq allowed UNMOVIC inspectors to return in 2002; by February 2003, no WMD had been found, a result that did not meet with U.S. satisfaction. In March 2003, UNMOVIC inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq under orders of the U.S., paving the way for the subsequent invasion and occupation of that nation that same month (the CIA later concluded that Iraq had been disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction by the summer of 1991).

Under Pfirter’s leadership, the OPCW became a compliant tool of U.S. foreign policy objectives. By completely subordinating OPCW operations through the constant threat of fiscal ruin, the U.S. engaged in a continuous quid pro quo arrangement, trading the financial solvency of an ostensible multilateral organization for complicity in operating as a de facto extension of American unilateral policy.

Bolton’s actions in 2002 put the OPCW and its employees on notice: Cross the U.S., and you will pay a terminal price.

When Üzümcü took over the OPCW’s reins in 2010, the organization was very much the model of multinational consensus; which, in the case of any multilateral organization in which the U.S. plays a critical role, meant that nothing transpired without the express approval of the U.S. and its European NATO allies, in particular the United Kingdom and France.

Shortly after he took office, Üzümcü was joined by Robert Fairweather, a career British diplomat who served as Üzümcü’s chief of Cabinet. While Üzümcü was the ostensible head of the OPCW, the daily task of managing the functioning of the OPCW was that of the chief of Cabinet. In short, nothing transpired within the OPCW without Fairweather’s knowledge and concurrence.

Üzümcü and Fairweather’s tenure at the OPCW was dominated by Syria where, since 2011, the government of President Bashar Assad had been engaged in a full-scale conflict with a foreign-funded and -equipped insurgency whose purpose was regime change.

By 2013, allegations emerged from both the Syrian government and rebel forces concerning the use of chemical weapons by the other side.

In August 2013, the OPCW dispatched an inspection team into Syria as part of a U.N.-led effort, which included specialists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N. itself, to investigate allegations that sarin had been used in attack on civilians in the town of Ghouta.

While the mission found conclusive evidence that sarin nerve agent had been used, it did not assign blame for the attack. Despite the lack of causality, the U.S. and its NATO allies quickly assigned blame for the sarin attacks on the Syrian government.

To forestall U.S. military action against Syria, the Russian government helped broker a deal whereby the U.S. agreed to refrain from undertaking military action if the Syrian government joined the OPCW and subjected the totality of its chemical weapons stockpile to elimination.

In October 2013, the OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission, created under the authority of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118 (2103), began the process of identifying, cataloging, removing, and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons. This process was completed in September 2014 (in December 2013, the OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its disarmament work in Syria).

If the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons was an example of the OPCW at its best, what followed was a case study of just the opposite. In May 2014, the OPCW created the Fact-Finding Mission, or FFM, charged with establishing “facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

The FFM was headed by Malik Ellahi, who served as head of the OPCW’s government relations and political affairs branch. The appointment of someone lacking both technical and operational experience suggests that Ellahi’s primary role was political. Under his leadership, the FFM established a close working relationship with the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, including the White Helmets and SAMS.

In 2015, responsibility for coordinating the work of the FFM with the anti-Assad opposition was transferred to a British inspector named Len Phillips (another element of the FFM, led by a different inspector, was responsible for coordinating with the Syrian government). Phillips developed a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS and played a key role in OPCW’s investigation of the April 2017 chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun.

By April 2018, the FFM had undergone a leadership transition, with Phillips replaced by a Tunisian inspector named Sami Barrek. It was Barrek who led the FFM into Syria in April 2018 to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use at Douma. Like Phillips, Barrek maintained a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS.

Once the FFM wrapped up its investigation in Douma however, it became apparent to Fairweather that it had a problem. There were serious questions about whether sarin had, in fact, been used as a weapon. The solution, brokered by Fairweather, was to release an interim report that ruled out sarin altogether, but left the door open regarding chlorine.

This report was released on July 6, 2018. Later that month, both Üzümcü and Fairweather were gone, replaced by a Spaniard named Fernando Arias and a French diplomat named Sébastien Braha. It would be up to them to clean up the Douma situation. The situation Braha inherited from Fairweather was unenviable.

According to an unnamed OPCW official who spoke with the media after the fact, two days prior to the publication of the interim report, on July 4, 2018, Fairweather had been paid a visit by a trio of U.S. officials, who indicated to Fairweather and the members of the FFM responsible for writing the report that it was the U.S. position that the chlorine canisters in question had been used to dispense chlorine gas at Douma, an assertion that could not be backed up by the evidence.

Despite this, the message that Fairweather left with the OPCW personnel was that there had to be a “smoking gun.” It was now Braha’s job to manufacture one.

Braha did this by dispatching OPCW inspectors to Turkey in September 2018 to interview new witnesses identified by the White Helmets and by commissioning new engineering studies that better explained the presence of the two chlorine canisters found in Douma. By March, Braha had assembled enough information to enable the technical directorate to issue its final report.

Almost immediately, dissent appeared in the ranks of the OPCW. An engineering report that contradicted the findings published by Braha was leaked, setting off a firestorm of controversy derived from its conclusion that the chlorine canisters found in Douma had most likely been staged by the White Helmets.

The OPCW, while eventually acknowledging that the leaked report was genuine, explained its exclusion from the final report on the grounds that it attributed blame, something the FFM was not mandated to do. According to the OPCW, the engineering report in question had been submitted to the investigation and identification team, a newly created body within the OPCW mandated to make such determinations.

Moreover, Director General Arias stood by the report’s conclusion that it had “reasonable grounds” to believe “that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018.”

Arias’ explanation came under attack in November, when WikiLeaks published an email sent by a member of the FFM team that had participated in the Douma investigation. In this email, which was sent on June 22, 2018, and addressed to Robert Fairweather, the author noted that, when it came to the Douma incident, “[p]urposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous.”

The author of the email, who had participated in drafting the original interim report, noted that the original text had emphasized that there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion and that the new text represented “a major deviation from the original report.” Moreover, the author took umbrage at the new report’s conclusions, which claimed to be “based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives detected in environmental samples.”

According to email’s author “They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.” In short, the OPCW had cooked the books, manufacturing evidence from thin air that it then used to draw conclusions that sustained the U.S. position that chlorine gas had been used by the Syrian government at Douma.

Arias, while not addressing the specifics of the allegations set forth in the leaked email, recently declared that it is “the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team to express subjective views,” noting that “I stand by the independent, professional conclusion” presented by the OPCW about the Douma incident. This explanation, however, does not fly in the face of the evidence.

The OPCW’s credibility as an investigative body has been brought into question through these leaks, as has its independent character. If an organization like the OPCW can be used at will by the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France to trigger military attacks intended to support regime-change activities in member states, then it no longer serves a useful purpose to the international community it ostensibly serves.

To survive as a credible entity, the OPCW must open itself to a full-scale audit of its activities in Syria by an independent authority with inspector general-like investigatory powers. Anything short of this leaves the OPCW, an organization that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its contributions to world peace, permanently stained by the reality that it is little more than a lap dog of the United States, used to promote the very conflicts it was designed to prevent.

Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion level.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Alt Left: Why Conservatism Is Inherently Dishonest and Undemocratic

Wisdom and knowledge are not on the side of the rich. The economics and politics of the rich is a fool’s errand – great for the rich but disastrous for everyone else. This is why the rich buy up all the media and the state and use both to push 24-7 propaganda lies about how the economics of the rich is the best thing for your everyday person.

They have to lie about this all the time because it is so manifestly untrue. This is why conservatism, at least the political economic variety, is always undemocratic and completely dishonest.

If the rich were honest about this matter, they would say, “The political economy that we push is great for us but terrible for most of the rest of you. But you all should support because reasons.” Incredibly enough, many ordinary Americans more or less believe this, but they see their non-wealthy status as a failure for which they blame themselves, and they tell themselves their whole lives that they are going to be rich too one day.

Alt Left: Bolivia’s Russiagate Scandal. Alleged Moscow “Meddling” in Bolivia Election, by Andrew Korybko

Pretty much self-explanatory. More fake news about Russia helping Morales win the election designed to further cast doubt on Morales’ clear and obvious win. The US is up to their necks in this bullshit. This shows you exactly what sort of a sleazy country we are. If nations were humans, the US would be a ratfuck.

Bolivia’s Russiagate Scandal. Alleged Moscow “Meddling” in Bolivia Election

The fake news allegations that Russia “meddled” in Bolivia’s recent election in order to help (“former”) President Morales win and the more recent claims late last month that its soldiers are supposedly “waiting for his return” in order to presumably help restore him to power are nothing more than provocations designed to manufacture the “plausible pretext” for the coup “authorities” to renege on their country’s previously agreed-upon deals with Moscow unless the latter possibly concedes to renegotiating “better” (lopsided) terms, but even then, some of the most strategic projects might still be canceled under heavy US pressure.

Russia’s always being blamed for everything that goes wrong across the world, and the Hybrid War on Bolivia is no different.

Even before this asymmetrical warfare campaign succeeded in carrying out regime change against democratically elected and legitimate (now-“former”) President Morales, there were accusations that Moscow “meddled” in its recent election in order to help him win, which with the knowledge of hindsight in recognizing that the coup against him was planned well in advance, it seems obvious that such claims were being made in order to discredit his victory and therefore “legitimize” the Color Revolution against him.

Having served its purpose, a new infowar narrative about Russia is conveniently being cooked up, and it’s that its soldiers are supposedly waiting for Morales’ return in order to presumably help restore him to power, an audacious allegation that President Morales felt compelled to debunk on Twitter late last month.

This hysteria also contributed to preconditioning the “international community” to accept the removal of RT’s Spanish broadcasts from the air on the contextually implied basis that the outlet was “meddling” in its “domestic affairs”.

Framing Russia as the bogeyman in Bolivia accomplishes more than just inciting anti-Morales riots and distracting global attention from the US’ support for the coup since it can also be exploited as the “plausible pretext” to “justify” the coup “authorities’” possible decision to renege on their country’s previously agreed-upon deals with Moscow, especially seeing as how this latest American-backed regime change threatens some of its geostrategic interests in South America.

Most of the media never paid much attention to it, but Russia and Bolivia signed agreements in the nuclear energyhydrocarbonlithium, and military spheres over the years, with the last-mentioned being particularly important because President Morales said over the summer that he was interested in replacing the American military equipment that he inherited from his predecessors over a decade ago with modern Russian wares. Altogether, these agreements pose a challenge to the US’ historical hegemony.

It’s therefore unsurprising that the US-installed coup “authorities” might be considering “publicly plausible” options to renege on their previously agreed-upon deals with Russia without attracting too much flak for doing so and making it entirely obvious that this is being done at Washington’s behest, hence the reason for propagating fake news narratives about Russia’s allegedly secret political and military interventions in the country in parallel with expressing likely insincere interest in expanding energy projects with Moscow.

The scenario is progressively unfolding whereby the coup “authorities” might declare those deals null and void on the basis that Moscow is supposedly behaving “aggressively” towards them and in alleged “violation” of international law unless it concedes to renegotiating “better” (lopsided) terms, but even then, the future of its projects isn’t guaranteed since some of the most strategic ones might still get canceled under heavy US pressure.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Russia is guilty of the meddling that’s being implied as the “legal” basis for advancing this scenario, which makes these scandalous claims a remix of the same ones that were made earlier in the year about alleged Russian activities in Venezuela.

Back then, it was falsely alleged by both the Mainstream and Alternative Media that Russia was setting up a base in the Caribbean country, the rumors of which were driven by the temporary presence of Russian servicemen who were there to train their Venezuelan counterparts per a preplanned mission to accompany the delivery of new military equipment.

There were also claims that Russians were physically involved in responding to the Color Revolution riots at the time, none of which ever happened.

This time, however, there aren’t even any Russian servicemen in Bolivia on training missions to lend even a little “credibility” to the claims of a secret military intervention there, though the very fact that such a scenario is being suggested proves that those who are propagating it believe that their intended audience will unquestionably believe them because they regard the narrative preconditioning over the past year to have been successful in facilitating this.

Nevertheless, it really doesn’t matter whether the average Bolivian or whoever else is being targeted by this fake news narrative of supposedly secret Russian political and military interventions in the heart of South America believes it or not since the coup “authorities’” US patrons mostly only want to craft the headlines that could used in the event that their proxies go through with the expectation that they’ll eventually renege on their country’s previously agreed-upon deals with Russia.

Anything being said about alleged Russian activities in Bolivia at this point should therefore be taken for granted as agenda-driven fake news. The only foreign force that’s meddling in Bolivia is the US, which wants to see Croatian-style ethnic cleansing and South African-like apartheid there, ergo why it’s ordered its surrogates to scream so loudly about Russia in order to distract global scrutiny from this unsavory fact.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Alt Left: “CIA Installed Dictatorship Replaces Democracy in Bolivia,” by Stephen Lendman

If you have been paying attention, there has been a fascist coup sponsored by the US of course (CIA) in Bolivia. The two point men for the fascist coup were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. The coup was run out of the US Embassy in La Paz. The Western media are all lying like maniacs like they always do.

Background: There has been a presidential election underway in Bolivia. This was the first round, and it featured Maduro, his competitor Mesa, and nine other.

If one party got more than 50% of the vote, they would win the election.

If neither party got more than 50% but one got at least 40% of the vote and ten percentage points more than the other one, the person who got 40% and the ten point lead would win.

If neither party got more than 50% and no one was up by 10 points over the election, the election would go to a final round.

The counting stopped for a day at 85% with Morales ahead by ~8 points. Then it started up again and Morales gained enough votes in the remaining 15% of precints to put him over the 10 point margin. This set off wild, destructive riots all over the country by the opposition who screamed fraud because the last 15 points put Morales over.

Lie #1: Evo Morales, the leftwing leader who won the free and fair election and was removed via a CIA fascist coup, defied the Constitution in running for a fourth term as the Constitution says he can only run for three terms. Keep in mind that he won all three previous elections handily.

There was a ruling that said that Morales could not run for President a fourth time, and Morales appealed that ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. For some reason or other, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Morales to run for a fourth term. That’s the official ruling of the court. That’s democracy in action, folks. You can’t blame Morales for that.

It was the Supreme Court’s ruling, not his. Rulings by Supreme Courts anywhere are legitimate and must be followed by all parties. I don’t have any information about whether the Supreme Court is allied with Morales or whether he put pro-Morales people.

But what if he did? Didn’t the Republican Party just in defiance of all tradition stack the Supreme Court in their favor, including stealing a Democratic justice who was appointed by Obama. Can someone tell me why a Supreme Court ruling in any country justifies a fascist coup? Please explain.

Lie #2: It was very suspicious that the counting stopped for a day and then when it started up again, there were enough votes to push Morales over. This smells like fraud. Not true. Bolivia counted the election in precisely the way that the US-supported OAS wanted them to.

This was the OAS-designed system. The OAS system had a preliminary count of 85% of the votes, followed a day later by a final count of the remaining 15% of votes. Just to show you how sleazy the US is, Morales used the counting system demanded by the US, and then when he did just that, the US screamed fraud for using the system that the US itself had designed. Sleazy or what? So the pause in vote counting had a perfectly innocent explanation.

Lie #3: The OAS conducted an investigation of the election that proved electoral fraud by Morales. Not so. The OAS indeed issued a very sleazy report saying that the election was fraudulent, but if you read the report, it presented absolutely no evidence of this fraud whatsoever. It claimed fraud while presenting no evidence of such. Once again, this is typical of how the US acts all over the world all the time, year in and year out. America is one of the sleaziest countries on Earth.

Lie #4: The OAS report proved that it was statistically unlikely that Morales got enough in the final 15% of votes to push him over. Figures don’t lie but liars sure do figure. Once again, not true. Another statistical analysis showed that it was indeed quite likely that Morales got enough votes in the last 15% to push himself over. This is because the last 15% of voting districts consisted heavily of pro-Morales rural districts.

Lie #5: Pre-election polls showed that Morales would not get enough votes to win. Yep, one election poll done by the opposition that found results completely opposite to every other election poll. Actually, election polls were excellent evidence that there was no fraud, but election polls predicted a Morales win by 10 points precisely. Can someone please show me how it is possible for pre-election polls to predict fraud? I’m all ears.

Lie #6: Since Morales committed fraud, there was no choice but for the military to replace him in a coup. Not true. Amidst all the violence and rioting, Morales called for international observers to do a monitored audit or recount of all of the votes. If Morales deliberately committed fraud, why would he ask confidently for a recount.

Lie #7: Morales is a crook. Not so. There have been a number of presidential, constitutional, and legislative elections since Morales came in. Morales has never been proven to have stolen a single vote in any election, so Morales has never engaged in election fraud in the past. One wonders why he would start now. Further, even if Morales only got a 9 point lead (which is a lie), why would he commit fraud? He could just go to a runoff which he would obviously win handily.

Lie #8: The fascist coup was a win for democracy. Many US politicians and all of the US and Western media are proclaiming the fascist coup which overthrew a democratically elected leader in a 100% free and fair election to be a win for democracy. This is typical American lying.

The CIA has overthrown more governments than I can count. It’s always a leftwing government that gets overthrown and it’s always a far right or fascist government that gets installed. Every time the CIA conducts a fascist coup against a democratically elected leftwing leader, US politicians and the entire Western media all scream that this is a victory for democracy.

This is Orwellian. It is also a grotesque abuse of language itself. How are fascist coups that overthrow democratically elected leaders ever victories for democracy? That’s a bizarre doublespeak lie right out of 1984. America specializes in doublespeak and bizarre Orwellian language. That’s what those stars and stripes represent.

I would also like to point out the US (and the rest of the West) are extreme supporters of fascism all over the globe. We supported fascism before WW2 and then we supported it again after WW2.

In fact, WW2 was the only time in our nation’s history that our nation went to war against fascism or rightwing military dictatorships. I guess those particular fascists got a bit out of hand.

Although supporting fascism doesn’t mean that America is a fascist country, we are definitely one of the world’s biggest supporters of fascism and rightwing dictatorships and we have been for 120 years. That flag of yours represents support for fascism for over a century. Are you Americans ok with that? If so, why?

Just to show that this was not a win for democracy, the military installed opposition government is basically a dictatorship. The putschist regime has shut down freedom of the press. The coup government is threatening all pro-Morales journalists with arrests.

In addition, the opposition has been banned from running for office for all time.

Morales has been banned from running for office. On what grounds?

Many members of the MAS, his party, have been placed under arrest. On what charges?

When members of the MAS showed up in the legislature to take their seats, uniformed soldiers prevented them from taking their seats. Why?

Morales’ home, the homes of his relatives, and the homes of many MAS legislators were burned to the ground by the rioters. How on Earth was that justified?

In addition, martial law has been declared in Bolivia and soldiers and police are fanning out through the country, raiding homes of opposition members from east to west, smashing up their homes and arresting opposition party members. How is it that police and the army rampaging all over the land arresting thousands of opposition supporters (on what charges?) could possibly be justified?

This is the “death squad” type crackdown that follows every CIA coup. After the coup, there is typically a “reign of terror” run by the CIA and the fascist coup regime in which significant numbers of opposition supporters are rounded up, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or out and out murdered. It happened in Guatemala, Haiti, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, Greece and Turkey.

The reason for this is to make people think: if we elect another leftwing government, there’s going to be another fascist coup followed by a reign of death squad terror in which I might just get killed. See how that works?

That’s democracy?

Ban the opposition party, arrest the lawmakers of the opposition, refuse to let opposition lawmakers seat themselves in the Legislature, burn the homes of the opposition political leaders to the ground, and send security forces all over the land arresting opposition supporters?

That’s how democracy works? According to the Western media, this is democracy in action.

Keep in mind that the opposition seized power when by any accounting, they lost the last election. They either lost it by nine or 10 points, but what difference does it make? They lost.

So the opposition lost by 9-10 points, and the US overthrew the obvious winner of the election and installed the party that lost the election badly. Overthrowing winners of elections and installing losers of elections is a victory for democracy? What the Hell’s the matter with Americans? Why do they fall for these crazy lies?

CIA Installed Dictatorship Replaces Democracy in Bolivia

Evo Morales is Bolivia’s democratically elected and three-times reelected Bolivian president.

In cahoots with Bolivian fascists, military, and police along with US imperial tool Organization of American States (OAS), CIA forces toppled Morales for not subordinating the country’s sovereign rights to US interests.

Morales’ majority Movement for Socialism (MAS) legislators were intimidated and threatened not to interfere with the coup.

In response to the OAS’ Big Lie about electoral fraud (none occurring) Pompeo congratulated the organization for serving US interests over the rights and welfare of Bolivia and its people.

Separately, he thanked self-declared, unelected, illegitimate usurper president Jeanine Anez for “lead(ing) her nation through this democratic transition (sic)” that the Trump regime went all-out to eliminate, with a CIA-installed fascist tyranny replacing it.

An unnamed senior state department official called transition to despotism in Bolivia “a significant moment for…democracy in our hemisphere”, democracy being a notion both extremist right wings of the US one-party state abhor, especially at home.

Anti-Morales Bolivians in the streets post-election, “standing up for (the) legitimacy of their electoral process,” were actually CIA-recruited thugs.

Key Bolivian military and police officials were enlisted to support the coup. At first, majority pro-Morales legislators couldn’t enter parliament because security forces refused to guarantee their safety.

Days later, they formed a legislative quorum, swearing in MP Monico Eva Copa as Senate president and Sergio Choque as lower house Chamber of Deputies president.

Pro-Morales supporters control Bolivia’s Legislative Assembly for now, but that control is tenuous at best without military and police support.

Anez illegally self-declared herself president, breaching the constitutional requirement for a parliamentary quorum to be in session for approval.

She breached articles 161, 169, and 410 of the Constitution.

Article 161 lists the Legislative Assembly’s functions, a quorum required for them to be performed. They include “accept(ing) or reject(ing) the resignation of the president (and) vice president.”

Article 169 states the following:

“In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies.

In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days…In case of temporary absence, the Vice President shall assume the Presidency for a term not to exceed ninety days.”

Article 410 states:

“Every person, natural and legal, as well as public organs, public functions, and institutions, are subject to the present Constitution…The Constitution is the supreme norm of Bolivian law and enjoys supremacy before any other normative disposition.”

Anez is a US-anointed hard-right political nobody, elected to Bolivia’s Senate in 2014 with 91,895 votes – 1.7% of 5,171,428 ballots cast.

Until the CIA coup, most Bolivians knew little or nothing about her. Telesur noted that “Latin America recorded a new ‘self-swearing’ in coup script that, without a doubt, seems familiar,” adding:

“Violence in the country continues by radical opposition groups that have burned indigenous population symbols.”

“Meanwhile in La Paz, (the country’s political capital) thousands of supporters of Evo Morales are being mobilized in rejection of the coup d’etat and its discriminatory and racist acts.”

Telesur reported, citing Menta Communication’s Luciano Galup, adding:

“Over 4,500 Twitter accounts (were) created to legitimize (the illegitimate) coup (with) almost no followers…These action have scant effect on domestic politics…But worldwide they can function as (pro-coup) propaganda…”

…a way for dictatorships and their sponsors to legitimize what’s illegitimate.

Calling Twitter’s action “a scandal,” Galup noted that 3,612 accounts have “between zero and one followers,” adding:

“(T)he most scandalous thing is there are 4,492 accounts that were created between yesterday and today to participate in the (coup). They created 4,492 accounts in two days.”

Images released support his charges.

On Friday, illegitimate coup d’etat regime communications minister Roxana Lizarraga threatened independent journalists reporting accurately on what’s going with “sedition,” saying:

“Law will be fully enforced against those journalists or pseudo-journalists who are seditious, whether they are nationals or foreigners (sic),” warning:

The (illegitimate) interior ministry is compiling a list of journalists opposed to the coup d’etat regime.

Arrests were made, more likely to follow.

The coup d’etat regime cut diplomatic ties to Venezuela and ordered its embassy staff to leave the country one day after Anez usurped power, likely acting on orders from Washington.

Separately, she warned that if Morales returns to Bolivia, his legal right, he’ll face charges, falsely saying:

“He knows he has to answer to justice (sic). There is an electoral crime (sic). Nobody has thrown him out, but yes, there’s a need for him to respond regarding electoral fraud (sic), in addition to many allegations of corruption (sic).”

Earlier she said her (illegitimate) foreign ministry will file an official complaint with Mexico’s Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s government for granting Morales asylum.

Coup d’etat regime foreign minister Karen Longaric announced Bolivia’s withdrawal from the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), established in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba, with other regional nations joining the alliance later. The international organization is intended to foster cooperative social, political, and economic integration of Latin American and Caribbean nations.

Large-scale pro-Morales protests continue in La Paz and elsewhere demanding Anez resign and calling for reinstatement of Morales as Bolivia’s legitimate president.

CIA-installed usurpers control Bolivia. Resistance continues. The US got another imperial trophy if its dark forces can keep it — no guarantee given Bolivia’s long history of resisting tyranny.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

His new book as editor and contributor is titled Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Alt Left: “The Strange Death of White Helmets Founder James Le Mesurier Leaves Many Questions to be Answered,” by Paul Antonopoulos

It’s been obvious for a long time now that this guy was a spy, we only didn’t know for whom, although British intelligence was always suggested. I doubt if the White Helmets never rescued any civilian casualties of Russian and Syrian attacks on rebel areas. These raids cause a lot of civilian casualties, and there is a lot of footage of White Helmets people rescuing civilians injured in bombardments.

On the other hand, it’s long been true that they only operate in Al Qaeda areas. It’s also long been suspected that they were behind the many chemical weapons false flag attacks in Syria. Recently, 40 members of the White Helmets testified in a court in the Netherlands that the Syrian government had not conducted any chemical weapons attacks in this war and that all of the so-called attacks were simply false flags, typically created by their organization, the White Helmets.

About this guy’s death. My understanding is that a fall from his second story balcony would not have killed him. He may have gotten some broken bones. Further, his injuries are not at all consistent with a fall from a balcony. His injuries also are not consistent with suicide.

It looks like he was murdered by persons unknown, possibly another intelligence agency, and his body was left under his balcony in order to make it look like he committed suicide by leaping off his balcony.

Precisely five days before he was apparently murdered, Russia released a statement saying that Mesurier was a long-time intelligence agent in the employ of the horrible British intelligence agency, the MI6. They’re as horrible as the CIA, if you are interested. Pure monsters. They have literally murdered innocent people in order to frame enemy countries with the killings. He was outed as a Western spy, and five days later, he turns up dead. Hmmm.

Despite the conjecture in this article that he was killed by Western intelligence agencies with whom he worked or allied with, I really don’t know at the moment who killed this guy, how or when. We may never know. Spy deaths are like that.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this guy. If you’re selling life insurance policies, I doubt if you would want to sell one to a spy. Spies tend to have a habit of turning up dead under very mysterious circumstances in homicides that are never solved.

Double agents in particular have an extremely short life expectancy. I don’t have much sympathy for double agents at all. To me they are like idiots who climb Everest or jump out of airplanes. They are deliberately engaging in extremely risky behavior with a significant chance of death, so why should I care if they die? I mean they played with fate and lost. Moral: don’t be so stupid.

James Le Mesurier, the founder of the Al-Qaeda affiliated White Helmets, known as an “aid organization” in the West but known everywhere else for fabricating chemical weapon provocations in Syria, was found dead in Istanbul on Monday under dubious and confusing circumstances, and many question marks are being raised about his death. 

Journalist Ramazan Bursa claims that the suspicious death clearly demonstrates the White Helmets’ connection with intelligence organizations, particularly Britain’s MI6.

The connection between the M16 and the White Helmets is often overlooked by the Western media, but on Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry made a startling revelation. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova revealed that

“The White Helmets co-founder, James Le Mesurier, is a former agent of Britain’s MI6 who has been spotted all around the world, including in the Balkans and the Middle East. His connections to terrorist groups were reported back during his mission in Kosovo.”

A few days later he was found dead…

Of course, Karen Pierce, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, denied the Russian allegation, claiming that they were “categorically untrue. He was a British soldier,” before describing the mercenary as a “true hero.” The claim he is a “true hero” is a curious choice of words considering he has a long history of working alongside terrorists, as Zakharova correctly highlighted.

He served in the NATO war against Serbia to defend the ethnic-Albanian terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 2000, who have now turned Kosovo into a heroin ‘smugglers paradise,’ and a hub for human trafficking, organ harvesting, and arms trafficking in the attempt to create an anti-Russian “Greater Albania.” However, it was not in Kosovo where he achieved his fame, but rather his dubious work in Syria.

Not only did he establish and develop the White Helmets, but he secured significant funding from the UK, U.S., Turkish, German, Qatari, Dutch, Danish, and Japanese governments, and helped raise money on Indiegogo.

His deep connections to the British military and his expansive experience as a mercenary serving Gulf dictatorships made him the perfect figure to establish a “rescue group” aimed at legitimizing terrorists operating in Syria and to push for a regime-change intervention.

Along with the White Helmets’ ties to terrorist organizations and faking chemical weapon incidences, the group also has a role in the execution of civilians and using children in their propaganda campaigns. Mesurier was without a doubt a man with deep connections and deep pockets, with every resource available to him from international intelligence agencies and significant experience in supporting terrorists in conflict zones.

The argument that the White Helmets are not a civil defense team, especially as they never operated in government-held areas despite claiming to be neutral in the war, can easily be made.

Despite the constant colonial media claims that the White Helmets are a true civilian rescue organization without terrorist links, Syrian film producer Kareem Abeed was not allowed to attend the Academy Awards to support his movie about the White Helmets, “Last Men in Aleppo,” as his visa application was officially denied by the U.S. government as he was “found ineligible for a visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

The very fact that the U.S. found White Helmets members nominated for the Academy Awards to be a risk in the country shows that the White Helmets are just another classic example of Washington weaponizing terrorists to advance their own agenda, just as the KLA were used against Serbia or the mujaheddin that morphed into Al-Qaeda were used against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

Although the White Helmets played a pivotal role in the propaganda campaign against Syria from 2013 onward, they now have nothing to defend or any purpose to serve, as they only operate in areas that are undeniably controlled by Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and other radical elements, in a very, very small area of Syria. They can no longer portray themselves as an innocent organization that only helps civilians, as there is now endless evidence of their ties to terrorism, foreign intelligence agencies, and doctoring of footage.

If we consider that the founder of the White Helmets and the deceased in Istanbul is a former British intelligence officer, we can clearly see that the White Helmets are is a network of civil defense organizations in which British Intelligence is involved and is supported by other intelligence agencies. The dubious death of a former British intelligence member living in Istanbul with his family is thought-provoking and must raise serious questions.

It is also thought-provoking that this person is based in Istanbul. The death of Mesurier could have been reported as the death of a British citizen or the death of a former member of the British intelligence, however, Turkish media reported it as the death of the founder of the White Helmets.

In other words, the Turkish media seems to have tacitly admitted that White Helmets are not an innocent non-governmental organization. Of course, after Turkey’s invasion of Northern Syria, there were some changes in the Damascus-Ankara relationship. The West’s approach to the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria may have also played a role in changing the attitude towards the White Helmets.

A security source claimed that Mesurier had fallen from the balcony of his home office, with his death being treated as a suspected suicide, with a third person – a diplomat – claiming the circumstances around his death were unclear, according to The Sun.

This also comes as BBC journalist Mark Urban said in a series of now-deleted tweets that it would not “have been possible” to fall from Le Mesurier’s balcony, with him also Tweeting that “there’s a good deal of suspicion it may be murder by a state actor, but others suggest he may have taken his own life.”

Essentially, no one knows just yet whether it was murder, suicide, or an accident. This has not stopped the British media from alluding that there may be a connection between the “Russian smear campaign” made on Friday and his death on Monday.

However when we look at the way the incident took place, there is every suggestion that this incident was murder, given that there were cuts on his face, fractures on his feet, and that he was found dead on the street, according to Turkish media. The probability of murder becomes stronger.

The question then shifts to who might have done it? It is too early to say who did it, and anything can only be considered speculation, but the West does have a rich history of making their assets disappear when they are no longer needed.

The White Helmets no longer have a purpose to serve in Syria with the inevitable victory of government forces over the Western-backed terrorists. Rather, the danger the White Helmets pose is a full-scale revelation on how deep their ties with Western and Gulf intelligence agencies and terrorist organizations go. Although revelations are slowly beginning to emerge, Mesurier no doubt had a wealth of knowledge on many dirty secrets related to Syria and the imperialist war against it.

Alt Left: The Syrian Government Chemical Weapons and Village Massacres Bullshit

In case you are interested, the Syrian government has not conducted a single chemical weapons attack in this war. I know more about this stuff than 99% of people you will ever meet and I have been studying this issue for years.

I have checked into every single so-called chemical weapons attacks and they are all fakes. Even all the chlorine attacks are fakes. Assad’s a monster, but he doesn’t use chemical weapons, even on his enemies. Not even chlorine, which is barely even a chemical weapon.

The reasoning behind people believing that Assad conducted chemical weapons attacks and massacres is simple. Assad is a very bad man and he has killed a lot of people in some pretty horrible ways. That’s clear to anyone who’s awake and paying attention.

Therefore, because Assad is a bad man and a mass murderer who has killed imprisoned and killed 50,000 of his own people, obviously he conducted chemical weapons attacks on his people, and he massacred whole villages full of his own people. Bad people do bad things. Bad people are guilty of every bad accusation made against them simply because they are bad people.

This is particularly stupid logical fallacy. “He’s a bad man who has done many bad things. Therefore all accusations accusing him of doing any particular bad thing are true.” You don’t have to take a logic class to realize how fucktarded that type of thinking is.

Notice that most of the “chemical weapons attacks” happened after Syria had destroyed all of their chemical weapons, as verified many times by the UN?

You might be interested to hear that forty different members of the White Helmets have testified in a court in the Netherlands that the all of the major chemical weapons attacks supposedly done by Syria in this war were faked as false flags by their own group, the White Helmets.

Of course our media is not covering this. I told this to some typical American suckers and their response was that all 40 of these White Helmets men were lying, or that this court case never took place, or that the report is from Russian media so it must be dismissed, or that this has not been covered by the mainstream media yet, and therefore it didn’t happen. Suckers for the US government/MSM lie machine really dig in their heels. It’s so frustrating to talk to them.

I am not saying that Assad is a nice man. Syria deliberately bombs rebel hospitals in rebel areas because these hospitals are “run by the terrorists.” Maybe so, but I am sure that they also serve the needs of the civilians in the area.

There are a lot of civilian casualties in rebel areas, and there’s no reason to assume that the White Helmets are not rescuing these people, often in front of cameras. Just because the White Helmets do a lot of bullshit doesn’t mean everything they do is bad and wrong. To believe that is a logical fallacy – one that almost every pro-Syrian government person believes.

There is persuasive evidence of Syria deliberately targeting civilians in rebel areas. Syria has been using those horrible barrel bombs for many years now. These also disproportionately affect civilians.

In interviews about attacks on civilians in rebel areas, Assad and his supporters say that the civilians are supporting the rebels, so apparently this makes it ok to target them. These is the age-old argument in any insurgency or war between states, but I don’t support it one bit.

Assad is also not responsible for any of the horrific massacres of entire villages that occurred early on in the war. All of those were done by the Free Syrian Army and similar groups. They would go into a village of government supporters and kill everyone there, often in horrific ways reminiscent of how the Islamists in Algeria killed people in their civil war.

All villages attacked were pro-government. They were either Alawite or Christian or pro-government Sunni villages. We really need to ask why the Syrian government would massacre villages of its own supporters.

However, Assad has arrested many enemy fighters and many unarmed dissidents and put them in horrific prisons where they are denied medical care, housed in horrible conditions, routinely beaten and tortured, and poorly fed. The death rate is very high in those prisons.

Many of those not killed by torture or maltreatment were taken out to the prison grounds and hung. And the bodies may well have been incinerated. There is also eyewitness testimony by excellent journalists showing Syrian military forces burying many of the bodies of the executed in mass graves.

Syria may have killed 50,000 enemy fighters and unarmed dissidents in its prisons by torture, maltreatment, or execution.

The famous Cesar photos of people supposedly tortured to death in Syrian prisons are somewhat problematic, as some of the photos appear to be rebels killed in battle. However, many of the badly disfigured faces, often showing signs of extreme torture, shown in those photos are of dissidents who were imprisoned early in the war and tortured to death by the regime.

We know this because a number of the men killed in those photos have been identified as dissidents or enemy fighters who were arrested by the Syrian government, typically early in the war. We know their names, where they were from, when they were arrested, who arrested them, where they were taken, etc.

I’m not saying Assad is a nice guy. He’s a killer, just like his father. But he doesn’t use chemical weapons and he doesn’t massacre whole villages. Those particular methods are simply not his style. He has other monstrous ways to kill people.

Alt Left: The Ghaddafi Shot Down the Lockerbie Jet Bullshit

You know the truth about the downing of the Lockerbie jet in Scotland in 1988, right? Everyone knows that Ghaddafi did it and that he used two Libyan intelligence agents to commit the crime.

Well, you are wrong. That whole story is a massive lie made up by the US government itself, mostly by the our wonderful FBI that we all love so much, in which an innocent state was said to do a crime actually done by two other states.

The jet was downed by Syria via Iran and yet  Ghaddafi was framed for it by the US government.

Yes, the glorious FBI itself who framed Ghaddafi and two of his men for the Lockerbie bombing when we knew full that the plane was downed by a Palestinian group close to Syria called the PFLP-GC. This group was hired by Iran to down the Lockerbie jet and paid $10 million for the job.

Now do you see why I hate the FBI and federal agents in general? They’re not heroes. Actually they’re just pigs like all cops, and they’re actually the worst pigs of them all.

The US knew all of this but went ahead about Iran being behind the crime, but we went ahead and framed Ghaddafi and two of his intelligence agents anyway. A few years later the CIA issued an official report saying that Libya was innocent downing the Lockerbie jet and that the ones who  did it were the PFLP-GC, who were paid by Iran.

There is now a consensus among researchers that Iran downed the plane via the Syrian proxy group and that Libya was framed for the crime. We even know exactly how Libya was framed. The FBI deliberately altered the circuit board of the bomb recovered in the crime to make it look like the circuit boards that were made in Libya by Qaddafi’s government.

In fact the circuit board and bomb were manufactured  by PFLP-GC Palestinians operating out of Germany. We  even know the names of some of the PFLP-GC operatives who did it, and one of them is in prison for some reason.

Yet if you go to CIApedia, I mean Wikipedia, you will see the official US lie that Ghaddafi downed the Lockerbie jet. The true story, that is the real history that Iran did it via the Syrian guerrilla group, is listed as  a loony-tunes conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence.

100% of US media outlets that write about Lockerbie continue to push the lie that Libya did it. The Lockerbie crime was much in the news around the time we attacked Ghaddafi to try to regime change him in 2014.

Shortly before then, Ghaddafi had paid a $4 million fine for the Lockerbie incident even though both he and we knew that he didn’t do it. Unfortunately the fact that he paid the fine is used as evidence of Qaddafi’s guilt. You can see here an example of the fact that innocent people confess to crimes all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Ghaddafi simply paid the money to get the West to shut up about the crime and to hopefully get the sanctions lifted against him, as we made paying a vast amount of money for a crime he never committed as a prerequisite for removing the sanctions.

It’s disgusting that we know the truth about this  incident now, but the US government and the entire US media continue to repeat the lie that Libya did even though we know they were framed.

It’s things like this that sicken me about this country. With all of the false flags, provocations, framings, and other nonsense concocted by the CIA offered as the true actual history for past events, we can  see that the US is waging a war against history itself.

Furthermore, modern historians are completely failing in their job of recording the past by repeating the endless lies of the US government as the truth behind all sorts of famous incidents in the past.

The job of the historian is to search for the unbiased truth. We can see here that historians are participating in a vast effort by the US to destroy and rewrite history itself simply because historians are allergic to the notion that conspiracy theory in some cases is the actual truth about what really happened.

We made a big fuss about how the USSR attacked, destroyed, and altered history in its textbooks, including writing famous people completely out of the picture as if they never existed. The US for the last 20 years minimum is doing the exact same thing that Stalin did in the 1930’s. So in that sense the US government and media is as bad as Stalin.

Alt Left: The Road to Crimea: Return to Russia: Crimeans Tell the Real Story of the 2014 Referendum and Their Lives Since

Excellent story. The story you hear about Crimea in the entire West is nothing but a huge made-up lie. The referendum was free and fair, and the vote represented the opinion of the people, although some opposing the referendum may have boycotted it. Two separate surveys of Crimeans were done in the wake of the referendum.

The results of the two surveys were that 83 and 86% of Crimeans supported the referendum. That is an average of 84.5%, which is not far from the 96% result of the referendum. Anyway it is obvious that the vast majority of Crimeans support rejoining Russia.

The Road to Crimea: Return to Russia: Crimeans Tell the Real Story of the 2014 Referendum and Their Lives Since

Eva Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see firsthand out how Crimeans have fared since 2014 when their country reunited with Russia, and what the referendum was really like.

SIMFEROPOL, CRIMEA — In early August I traveled to Russia for the first time, partly out of interest in seeing some of the vast country with a tourist’s eyes and partly to do some journalism in the region. It also transpired that while in Moscow I was able to interview Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry.

High on my travel list however was to visit Crimea and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) — the former a part of Russia, the latter an autonomous republic in the east of Ukraine, neither accurately depicted in Western reporting. Or at least that was my sense looking at independent journalists’ reports and those in Russian media.

Both regions are native Russian-speaking areas; both opted out of Ukraine in 2014. In the case of Crimea, joining Russia (or actually rejoining, as most I spoke to in Crimea phrased it) was something people overwhelmingly supported. In the case of the Donbass region, the turmoil of Ukraine’s Maidan coup in 2014 set things in motion for the people in the region to declare independence and form the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

In March 2014, Crimeans held a referendum during which 96 percent of voters chose to join Russia. This has been heavily disputed in Western media with claims that Crimeans were forced to hold the referendum and claims of Russian troops on the streets “occupying” the peninsula.

Because Western media insisted the referendum was a sham held under duress, and because they bandy about the term “pro-Russian separatists” for the people of the DPR, I decided to go and speak to people in these areas to hear what they actually want and feel.

From the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula

From St. Petersburg where I spend a few touristy days, I book a flight to Simferopol, the capital of Crimea, and on August 22 I land at the attractive new airport. A Russian-American friend, Vlad, flies in from Moscow and together we rent a car and drive to Alushta, a tourist-packed seaside area to the south.

As we drive from the airport, Vlad can’t get over the changes in the airport, which had been dank and barely functional when he last visited:

When I came here at the end of 2014, Simferopol Airport was very dated: small and stuffy, low ceilings, small windows; the bathrooms didn’t work, there was a constant stench in the air, and many facilities weren’t working — even the baggage carousels didn’t work properly. There were no restaurants or cafes and no places to rent taxis. Now it’s a world-class international airport.

We drive south along smooth roads, passing endless vineyards on either side flanked by low mountains. As Vlad drives, he comments on the condition of the roads, which five years prior were so rough “you had to swerve to dodge the potholes.”

Descending to the coast along cypress tree-lined streets, we arrive in the hub of Alushta Park and stroll along the seaside. The beach scenes could be anywhere: people sunbathing and swimming, jet-skiing, drinking beer, and eating. In the touristy hub before the beach, a carnival sort of feel and smell, a man playing the accordion, children’s rides, upscale restaurants, and fast-food stalls.

Alushta beach Crimea

Revelers enjoy the pristine Black Sea waters of Alushta. Photo | Eva Bartlett

As it happens, we arrive on Russia’s National Flag Day, and while walking we come across a small event celebrating this with singers on stage and a crowd that, when we pass by again some hours later, has grown in size and enthusiasm.

I remark on how kind and gentle people are here, just as in Russia. Vlad replies:

It shouldn’t be surprising — people are people anywhere. But Western media conditions us with stereotypes of Russians as cold and hard, vilifying an entire nation.

The coastal city of Yalta lies further west along the peninsula. The drive there the following day is more beautiful still – the road flanked by mountains to one side, hills cascading down to the Black Sea on the other, endless wineries and, before Yalta itself, the stunning clifftop castle known as “Swallow’s Nest.”

In the evening, we stay in the home of Vlad’s friend Tata, a Russian woman who moved to Crimea in 2012.

Since there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time? Tata replied:

I never saw so many people in my life go out to vote of their own free will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23.

Normally, people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum.

There were military tents in the city, yet they were not erected by the military but instead by local men. They would stand there every day, and people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum.

I went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign it. This was the fair way to do it.

At that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia.

The local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta, anchored their ships off the coast, and made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other ships could come and attack.

But I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of that in the city.

Yalta Crimea

Young boys enjoy a local skate park in Sevastopool. Photo | Eva Bartlett

I asked Tata about how life had changed after the referendum:

When I came here in December 2012, everything was dilapidated and rundown. The nice roads you were driving on, they didn’t exist when we were a part of Ukraine. I didn’t understand why Crimea was still a part of Ukraine. It was Russian land ever since the Tsars, the imperial time of Russia. This is where the Russian soul is and the soul of the Russian navy.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn’t the will of the Crimean people to join Ukraine. People were always Russian here; they always identified as Russian. Ukraine understood this well and put nothing into Crimea as punishment. Ukraine didn’t build any hospitals, kindergartens, or roads.

In the past four years, the Crimean government has built 200 new kindergartens. This is the most obvious example of how things have improved. They also built the new Simferopol airport.

I worked in aviation. It took three years to build an airport of this standard in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It took half a year in Simferopol.

International Jazz Festival

On my third day in Crimea, we drive eastward anew, driving for hours through the gorgeous countryside along winding and rolling roads flanked by jagged mountains, past an exceptionally beautiful church (Nicholas Church Lighthouse) overlooking the coast, and down along the sea through more touristy seaside towns and past lines of day tents along the beach. The local FM radio plays a variety of both Russian and Western songs.

Finally, after night falls, we drive into the city of Koktebel where an annual Jazz Festival is starting.

Koktebel, Crimea

Buskers entertain passersby at the annual Koktebel Jazz Festival. Photo | Eva Bartlett

During all these hours of driving, the roads are smooth and well-trafficked, and I don’t see a single Russian military vehicle.

The next day, I walk through Koktebel, taking in the local markets brimming with produce, cheeses, and other goods, and every so often come across a streetside stand laden with fresh fruits.

In the late afternoon, I walk along the sea, past packed beaches, and meet with a Crimean woman, Yaroslava, who lives in Austria but every summer returns to her beloved Crimea. She is ardently supportive of the decision to have joined Russia and spends much of her time back in Austria trying to educate people on why Crimeans wanted to be a part of Russia.

These are reasons I hear throughout my travels in Crimea:

  • We wanted to be able to speak our native language [Russian] and be educated in that language.
  • We wanted to be able to practice our cultural traditions.
  • We have always been a part of Russia, and we wanted to return.

Yaroslava is busy helping out with the Jazz Festival and wants to use the rest of our short time talking to help me arrange future meetings with people in Crimea. We decided to do a proper interview via Skype in the future when time allows.

I drift on to the Jazz Festival, where a talented pianist and band play beach-side to an enthusiastic crowd. Some songs later, I drift back along the beach, passing numerous musicians busking and a pulsing nightlife that isn’t going to bed any time soon.

Construction Everywhere

On the fifth day, we drive back to Simferopol; Vlad is heading back to Moscow. As we drive, we see road work repeatedly just as we had when driving from Simferopol south to Alushta: roads being widened, repaved; bridges being repaired or newly built. This is something I observed throughout my travels around Crimea. I remember Tata’s words about “everything being dilapidated” and have a hard time imagining that now with what I see.

Vlad departs for Moscow, and I’m on my own now, traveling from the airport via public bus and minibus. At one point I ask a young couple, using Yandex translate, for directions. They get me on the right minibus and, following my route via Yandex maps, I get myself to Simferopol’s rail station and walk the half-hour to my nondescript hotel. I again need to ask locals for directions, as the unmarked hotel is in some parking lot behind a supermarket.

I retrace my steps to the train station the next day and repeat the routine to buy a ticket for Sevastopol. The ticket is 119 rubles (just under $2). Over the next two hours on a slow train with wooden seats, I watch as more beautiful scenery and construction slide by.

Sevastopol Crimea

Construction dots the train ride to Sevastopol. Photo | Eva Bartlett

Arriving in Sevastopol, I leave the train station and hope to find some cafe where I can charge my phone, as I need it to navigate to the guesthouse where I’ve theoretically reserved a room online.

As I stand to orient the map route and zoom in to look for any signs of cafes, a woman walks by me and says with a smile something with the word “shto,” which I think means “what.” When I reply in English, she laughs and flags down another woman, Yana, who speaks English well and insists she and her husband drive me.

As we drive, we chat. I ask her about the referendum, mentioning that many in the West have the notion that it was done under duress, with a heavy military presence to influence the vote.

She laughs, saying: “There were no troops, no military, around us during the referendum.” She speaks of the joy of Crimeans to vote, says that maybe 98 percent of Sevastopol voters had voted in favor [it was apparently 96 percent, but close enough], and adds, “We are now under the wing of Russia.”

I ask about developments since then. She mentions the improvements in roads, also the modern trolley-buses and regular buses, the opening of kindergartens and schools, and free courses (like music) for children.

We arrive at the remote guesthouse where we realize that no one is home to give me a room. Yana mentions her parents have a guesthouse just outside the city and overlooking the bay. We drive to it, and I meet the owners, charming people who set me up in a little apartment surrounded by fig and pear trees and with a small swimming pool to cool off in.

They invite me for dinner, but I have to politely decline in order to get back to work, though I do take a few minutes to enjoy their pool, the stars, the silence, and the incredible fragrance of some night blossoms.

Sevastopol Crimea

The stunning view of the bay in Malorichenske. Photo | Eva Bartlett

The next few days, when not working on my laptop, I go for walks in the area, take in Sevastopol Bay, and one day take a minibus into the city and walk for hours around it, seeing some of the key sights.

When I finally need to leave Sevastopol for Simferopol again, the couple refuses to take my money, insists I am their guest and drives me to the bus station, stopping en route at a market where they search for ten minutes until they find the traditional Armenian treats they want to give me: walnuts covered in the syrup of various fruits (pomegranate, peach, currant, grape) and a box of walnut-stuffed dried figs.

Ukrainians in Crimea

In Simferopol anew, I meet Anastasiya Gridchina, the Chair of the Ukrainian Community of Crimea, an organization formed in 2015 whose main goals, she tells me, “are to have friendly relations between two great peoples: Ukrainians and Russians — not the politicians but the people. The second goal is to preserve interethnic peace in the Republic between different nationalities.”

Gridchina explains that in Crimea there are more than 175 nationalities, just 20 less than in all of Russia, but in a very small territory. Hence the importance of preserving interethnic peace. After Russians, Ukrainians comprise the second largest population in Crimea.

I asked Anastasiya whether she supported, much less participated, in the referendum.

I worked very hard in order that we could have a referendum. I live in Perevalne, the last settlement in the mountains above Alushta. There was a Ukrainian military detachment which did surrender.

In February 2014, I was among a line of people standing between the Ukrainian and Russian military detachment, to prevent any bloodshed. The fear that prevailed at that time was that nationalists from Ukraine would come here, and we would have massacres.

In February, there was a confrontation outside the Parliament here in Simferopol. It was organized by leaders of the Mejlis — the Crimeans Tatars. On the other side, there were some pro-Russia organizations who were protecting the Parliament. They were far less [numerous] than the Mejlis. The Mejlis were armed with sticks and knives. There were clashes and two people were killed, but thankfully it didn’t escalate beyond that.

When the news came that there would be a referendum, people relaxed. They had a chance to express their point of view, and 96 percent of the population of Crimea voted for Crimea to return to Russia.”

Since she is Ukrainian, I asked Anastasiya why she wanted Crimea to join Russia:

I’ve lived in Crimea all my life, and my language is Russian. And I know the history of Crimea, which has always been Russian territory and has a history beginning with the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. So, it is Russian-speaking territory, first of all. That’s why I believe it should be in the Russian Federation, not in Ukraine.

Crimea National Flag Day

Singer entertain a crowd in Alushta on Russia’s National Flag Day. Photo | Eva Bartlett

I asked about the claims that Russian soldiers invaded Crimea:

Whatever they might have said about Russian soldiers forcing people to participate in the referendum, it was all lies, pure lies. We did not see any soldiers on the streets, especially on the day of the referendum.

I gave an interview to foreign journalists before the referendum. But when they published it, they changed my words. I said we were very thankful to the Russian troops that were here that protected us from the attacks of Ukrainian nationalists prior to the referendum. But they translated it that I said ‘Please, we want Ukrainian soldiers to defend us from those Russian soldiers.’

The Russian troops that were here were not on the streets on the day of the referendum but, at the time in general, they were there to protect civilians from an attack by Ukrainians.

On the day of the referendum, there were no soldiers, no military. The only security were there to prevent any illegal actions. No military people were there, no arms, no armored personnel carriers, no military equipment, nothing. Only members of the election commission and the people voting.

I asked whether many Ukrainian Crimeans left following the referendum:

There were those who immediately after the referendum left Crimea for Ukraine because it was their personal wish. Nobody prevented them from going. Even the soldiers had an option: to stay and continue military service here or to leave.

There were also some people who didn’t like that Crimea joined Russia but didn’t leave for pragmatic reasons because the quality of life in Russia is much higher than in Ukraine. So they continue living in Crimea.

Finally, Anastasiya gave me a message for the people outside of Crimea:

I’d like to tell people around the world, welcome to Crimea, come here yourselves and see and hear with your own eyes and ears to understand that all the lies you hear about Crimea, that we are oppressed or under pressure from the military…this is all lies, this is all not true.

Also that we are not allowed to speak Ukrainian is a lie. One of the state languages is Ukrainian. Russian and Tatar are also state languages.”

As she leaves to go to the Ukrainian festival she has helped organize, she notes that the government allotted part of its budget towards financing the festival. She invites me to join. “You can see us singing Ukrainian songs, see our culture and traditions preserved.”

Next, I speak to Yuri Gempel, a member of Parliament and the chairman of the Standard Commission on Inter-Ethnic Relations of the Parliament of Crimea.

Yuri Gempel Crimea

Yuri Gempel gestures to the location of clashes that broke out in 2014 between pro and anti-Russian protesters. Photo | Eva Bartlett

“Crimea, under Ukraine, was robbed,” Gempel says. He continues:

Everything was taken by the government and representatives of the ruling elite of Ukraine. For the 23 years Crimea was a part of Ukraine, they robbed Crimea. Not a single kindergarten was built in Crimea during those years. Kindergartens built during Soviet times stopped functioning.

But the main issue is that during that time, the people still felt themselves to be in Russian territory, not Ukrainian, in language, culture, and in spirit. Under Ukrainian rule, Crimeans were made to speak Ukrainian, although Crimeans’ native language is Russian. People were deprived of the right to be in state service if they did not speak Ukrainian.

I ask Yuri how things changed after the referendum:

After Crimea returned to Russia, an electric line exploded in Ukrainian territory and Crimeans were without electricity. Russia very quickly repaired and improved the electricity situation.

We were also cut from water and food supplies immediately after Crimea returned to Russia. As a result of the water shortage, we had to reform our agricultural production. We don’t produce rice now because we don’t have enough water. But we grow wheat and other grains. And we introduced modern agricultural technologies like drip irrigation.

Now the economic situation has improved, and in some respects is much better than it was before.”

I then inquire about the 2014 clashes outside the Parliament, which Anastasiya Gridchina had mentioned:

I know the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Refat Chubarov, personally. I was there at the confrontation between the Mejlis people and pro-Russian groups at the entrance of the Parliament.

I’m absolutely sure that Chubarov and his colleagues provoked the confrontations in which seventy were wounded and two were killed. It is their fault that anyone was wounded and killed. The main goal of the confrontation was to prevent the session in Parliament from happening; the points of the agenda of that session were about the referendum.

I ask Yuri about another issue Western media refers to in its Crimea coverage: the alleged discrimination against the ethnic Tatars. Gempel imparts to me a history lesson:

In 1944, 190,000 Crimean Tatars were deported from Crimea; this was the largest ethnic group deported. Also Armenians, Germans, Greeks, and Bulgarians.

In the over 23 years Crimea was in Ukraine, the various ethnic groups demanded the government issue a decree to rehabilitate those deported people. In April 2014, after Crimea joined Russia, President Putin immediately issued a decree regarding the deported people.

After the decree was issued, a federal program was adopted with a budget of 10 billion rubles, which included building multi-story buildings and improving the infrastructure in the areas returned deportees live in. The amount of money is much more than what was given by Ukraine in the 23 years that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

Tatars make up around 11 percent of the population, Gempel tells me, but “have representatives in all branches of power in Crimea, including legislative and in the Parliament.” As Anastasiya Gridchina mentioned, Tatar is one of the three state languages, after a resolution on this was adopted by Parliament.

Standing outside the Parliament where the 2014 clashes occurred, Gempel explains where he was at the time and says there were no Russian soldiers or tanks. Then, laughing, he points toward a tank monument in a park nearby: “There was only that tank. It’s been here since 1944.”

Although I want to stay for the Ukrainian festival, I’m heading to the Donetsk People’s Republic in the coming days, so instead I take yet another bus ride, this one a four-hour-long ride eastward to Kerch, the city from which the next day I am to cross the Crimean bridge back to the mainland.

I decide to use a ride-share program and arrange to join a car going early the next morning from Kerch and on to Rostov-on-Don, from where I will go westward to Donetsk.

We cross the impressive 17 km-long bridge. It is early morning and is also the day before children return to school, so the bridge isn’t busy. However, by early October, 6.6 million tourists have already visited Crimea, said to be a 10 percent increase from last year, and I can see why.

Crimean Bridge

The nearly 11-mile long Crimean Bridge was completed in 2018. Photo | Eva Bartlett

Having spent over a week traveling by car and local transport in this utterly beautiful setting, I know I will be returning to Crimea when the opportunity affords itself.

As for the claims that Russia invaded Crimea and of Russian forces intimidating voters, I believe the many people I met who denounced those claims and articulated very clearly why they wanted to join Russia or as they say, “return to Russia.”

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine, where she lived for nearly four years.

She is a recipient of the 2017 International Journalism Award for International Reporting, granted by the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club (founded in 1951), was the first recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism and was short-listed in 2017 for the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. See her extended bio on her blog In Gaza

Alt Left: Fake News: Iran Attacked Two Tankers in the Gulf with Sea Mines

I am sure you heard about this nonsense. All of us were shocked when we heard about this because we didn’t believe that Iran would do something so insane. It shocked us to our bones. Turns out of course that Iran, being stable and sane, never did anything of the sort.

First we heard almost immediately that the ships were attacked by limpet mines, which are sea mines. Then photos mysteriously showed up showing a hole in one ship and a “limpet mine” stuck to the hull of the same ship on the opposite end of the ship.

The US claimed that this was evidence that Iran had attacked the tankers with sea mines. Next a grainy video showed up showing an Iranian boat that was said to be removing the “limpet mine” from the hull of the ship.

There were many problems with this analysis. First of all, no one but no one but no one ever bombs a ship with limpet mines above the surface of the hull.

Limpet mines are always placed below the hull underwater because that is the only way that they work. I believe that if you put the mine above the hull above water the mine doesn’t even work – people say it just pops out of its place on the ship instead of blowing up.

That is because limpet mines work on wave action. So only a retarded person would put a limpet mine above the hull line above water. Apparently Iranians are all retarded.

Next the video indeed showed an Iranian ship removing the object – supposedly the limpet mine – from the ship. However, this ship was a rescue ship that had come to rescue the people on the attacked ship. Why would the Iranians attack the ship and then rescue the people from the very ship that they had attacked? Who ever does that? No one, ever.

Next no rescue ship would ever remove a sea mine like that. There is only one man removing the mine. There is a standard protocol for removing sea mines. It involves several men operating at once and a variety of procedures meant to keep the mine from blowing up and killing the men. None of these procedures were being followed and any Iranian rescue ship would know to follow standard procedure when removing a sea mine.

It appears that the object was not a sea mine at all. Instead it was probably just some decoy that the US stuck on the ship.

Furthermore, the fact that Iran quickly came to rescue the men on the attacked ship implies that Iran didn’t attack the ship – someone else did. Who attacks a ship and then sends a rescue ship to save the men on the very ship that they just attacked? No one does that.

Next we have the testimony of the men on the ship. Two ships were attacked – one Norwegian and one Japanese. The Japanese ship was supposedly attacked at the very moment when the Japanese premier was in Iran discussing how Iran-Japan relations and trade could be improved.

Why on Earth would Iran attack a Japanese ship at the very moment when the Japanese leader was in Iran discussing improving ties? Makes no sense at all!

The Norwegian ship that was attacked was owned by a very wealthy man who is known as Iran’s best friend in Norway. His company conducts much of Norway’s trade with Iran and he has a very close relationship with the Iranian regime. Why would Iran attack the ship of their best friend in Norway? It makes no sense.

Next we get to the witnesses. We have no testimony from the men on the Norwegian ship,  but the men on the Japanese ship said that they saw “flying objects” flying towards their ship that flew towards the ship and then exploded when they hit the ship.

So they said that the weapons that hit the ship were flying objects or flying weapons of some sort. They observed these flying objects flying in towards the ship and then hitting the ship! Well there is your first hand testimony.

I have some news for you. Mines don’t fly. Land mines don’t fly. Sea mines or limpet mines don’t fly. No mines fly. The fact that the very witnesses to the attack said they were hit with flying objects means that at least that ship was not hit with limpet mines.

And this was the same ship that had the apparently fake limpet mine stuck to its hull that got removed by the Iranian rescue ship. The Japanese premier later stated that he did not think his ship was attacked by mines. Instead it was attacked by some sort of flying objects.

However, US experts kept popping out of the woodwork insisting that the damage was obviously done by limpet mines because that was the sort of damage that limpet mines do.

And more lying allies of the US, mostly the European poodles, were saying that the US was right and Iran bombed those ships with mines. All while the witnesses were saying that they were hit with flying objects! These experts seemed to be lying to me.

Intrigued, I looked up damage from sea mines, including limpet mines. Sea mine damage to a ship has a characteristic appearance that is broadly similar across all types of mines, including limpet mines. I also looked at limpet mine damage. One thing was painfully obvious. The available damage photos of the attacked ships looked nothing whatsoever like any sort of sea mine, limpet or otherwise.

A post on a Russian forum pointed to a video where a US ship was shot up as part of US Navy target practice. The are holes in the ship that the video says were caused by drone missiles, in this case Hellfire missiles. The drone missile damage looks precisely like the damage shown on the ship “attacked by Iranian mines.”

The witnesses said that the ship was hit by flying objects. The damage assessment looks more like a drone missile hit than anything else. A logical conclusion is that the ships were hit by drone missiles. But whose?

It just so happens that there was a US drone hovering right over both of the ships at the time that they were attacked. The presence of this drone is idiotically being used to explain away the Japanese eyewitnesses.

Apparently there was a drone overhead so this caused the eyewitnesses to mistake the drone overheard for flying objects that flew towards their ship, hit the ship, and exploded! US news articles were actually using this nonsense to explain away the eyewitness statements that the ships were hit by flying objects.

And at that very time, Iranian boats fired on the US drone overhead. The US made a big deal of this, screaming that Iran had attacked our drone. However, this  made me think. Suppose that US drone had fired missiles that hit those ships, part of a false flag attack to posit a sea mine attack and blame Iran?

It fit in perfectly with the flying objects and the damage assessment that looked like a drone missile hit. Not only that but there was a US drone conveniently right in that exact area at the time of the attack for no obvious reason at all.

The solution was simple. The US drone attacked both ships with drone missiles. The US then, or previously, placed stupid fake limpet mines idiotically above the hull on one of the ships.  The mine on the  ship was fake.  That was why the Iranian ship could remove it so easily with no harm. Iran never attacked those ships. That’s why they sent a rescue ship – because they were not the attacker!

No we come to the other part of the mystery – Iran firing on the US drone overhead. Consider this. Iran sees the US drone overhead fire drone missiles at both tankers. Iran was alarmed – remember they even sent a rescue ship – so alarmed that they fired on the attacking drone to protect the ships or retaliate against the drone for the attack.

It all fits together quite nicely, doesn’t it?

Of course the entire US media continues to lie and say that Iran bombed both of those tankers with limpet mines, even though we have just proven here that that did not happen.

Alt Left: There Is No Opposition Press in the West: All Press is NATO-controlled

The various lies exposed in these posts go to show you that during this entire US-Iran mess, the US and its media has been lying almost constantly. The US media has never missed a beat and has repeated every single lie verbatim without even the tiniest bit of fact-checking.

Out of 63 major US media outlets, not even one of them calls the US state on a single one of its endless lies. In other words, we do not have a free press in this country. Instead we have a state-controlled press on foreign policy matters exactly as Noam Chomsky has written about.

The rest of the West is the same. There is almost no opposition media against US-NATO foreign policy anywhere in the West. Almost all of the media in the West is apparently 100% NATO-controlled.

There is one outlet from the former East Germany (formerly an East German Communist press) which has written a few pieces exposing the lies of the West and NATO. But I can’t think of any others. Really no state anywhere in Europe has a free press. On foreign policy matters, the press in all of Europe is completely controlled by NATO. For all intents and purposes there is no opposition press anywhere in Europe. That’s so pathetic.

Alt Left: Fake News: The US Shot Down an Iranian Drone over the Persian Gulf

Soon after the fake news about Iranian shooting down a US drone over international waters (we lied – it was over Iranian waters), the US lied and created more fake news.  This time the US government crowed and said it had shot down an Iranian drone over the Persian Gulf.

The drone was behaving in a threatening manner towards a US ship, so we shot it down. Iran quickly denied that the US had shot down one of its drones. Iran and the US both operate drones over the Persian Gulf all the time so the fact that a drone was in the area is not important.

However, Iran soon released footage by that very  same drone that was shot two hours after the time the drone was suppossedly shot down. The footage is of the ship that supposedly shot down the drone, however, the footage was shot two hours after the supposed shootdown. So apparently this drone shot footage of the US ship that shot it down two full hours after the drone itself was shot down by that very ship.

Alt Left: The US Tried to Get 36 American Troops Killed to Start a War with Iran

In the incident described here, the US, in addition to flying a drone over Iranian waters, also flew a spy plane with 36 men aboard behind the drone. The idea was to get either the drone or the spy plane or both shot down over Iranian waters and then lie and say they were shot down over international waters and use the lie and provocation to start a war.

However, Iranian intelligence was superb. Iran had followed the launch of both of these aircraft perfectly; either that or they had superb intelligence. Because after Iran shot down the drone, they noticed that there was a spy plane behind the drone. The spy plane had refused a number of warnings to leave Iranian waters.

However, somehow or other the Iranians knew that there were 36 intelligence officers aboard that plane, and they decided that if they killed 36 US troops (who very much deserved to be killed by the way for invading another nation’s territory with an air force plane of a hostile power), the US would surely use that as an excuse to start a war with Iran.

Hence, Iran decided not to shoot down the plane even though they had every right to do so, so that they could avoid starting a war. Later we heard that there were indeed 36 intelligence officers on board that plane. Whether this plane always carries a crew of 36 or whether the Iranians figured that out somehow is not known, but it was superb intelligence on their part.

Now how do you readers feel about the fact that the US deliberately tried to get 36 of our own troops killed by Iran in order to start a war? Are you ok with that?

Of course there has never been any mention of this plane by the lying US government and media and there never will be.

Praise be to Iran for not falling for this fake bullshit.

Alt Left: Fake News: North Korea Has a Nuclear Missile That Can Hit the Mainland US

Almost every single thing you read in the US or Western media about North Korea is  straight up fake news. That’s not to say that everything is peachy and rosy in the Hermit Kingdom. The treatment of political prisoners in North Korea is atrocious.

But I will give North Korea one thing – they have locked down that state how hard that almost no enemies can get in. The CIA has admitted that it can’t get any spies into North Korea. Any spies that the CIA gets in or sets up get arrested and executed almost immediately. The price you pay for a locked-down state is massive human rights abuses, I suppose.

Just about everything about North Korea’s nuclear program is a big fat lie – almost nothing you read about it in the West is true.

Recently there have been a lot of articles about North Korea has a missile that can hit the mainland US. These articles have come with the usual fearmongering about how North Korea wants to launch an aggressive attack on the US mainland for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except I guess for the fact that North Korea is simply stone evil.

I assure you that North Korea has absolutely no intention whatsoever of launching an unprovoked attack on the US. That would be the end of North Korea as we know it. The regime knows this as well as anyone, and they want to survive just as anyone does.

Their nuclear program is strictly defensive, and why not? We have been threatening them with nuclear weapons since even before the Korean War even ended when MacArthur’s plan to nuke North Korea and China was narrowly overruled by the US government. According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, any nation being threatened with nuclear weapons has a right to develop its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  So North Korea isn’t even violating the NPT.

Although North Korea has fired a missile that has a long enough range to hit the West Coast of the US, that not the whole story. The truth is that that missile has the range to hit the US, but that does not mean it can hit the US.

Actually, North Korea does not have the re-entry down on its nuclear missiles. I do not completely understand it but the re-entry is a phase of a nuclear missile launch that is very hard to get down.

It has a number of specific problems that must be overcome, and North Korea has not overcome these problems at all. If you don’t get the re-entry correct, the missile just burns up in space before it lands. And North Korea has definitely not got the re-entry module down at all yet. Experts say it will not get the re-entry down until 2021 or 2022 in two or three years at the very earliest.

So, no, North Korea cannot hit the Western US coast with a nuclear missile, not yet anyway. And the entire US media that is telling you that North Korea can hit the Western US coast with a nuclear missile is lying, as usual.

Alt Left: Fake News: Iran Shot Down a US Drone over International Waters

If you recall a while back there was an incident where Iran shot down one of our drones. The drone was clearly over Iranian waters or at least Iranian waters as claimed by Iran, which covers half the Gulf.  But the US only recognizes a three-mile limit for Iranian waters. The shootdown immediately caused a huge international incident as the US state and media immediately lied and said that Iran shot it down over international waters. But that didn’t happen.

First of all, the US flies drones over international waters in the Gulf constantly. Why not shoot them all down? None have ever been shot down? Why shoot one down and start an incident. Second, Iran provided exquisitely detailed radar data showing the position of the drone virtually every minute of its flight. The charts were very detailed and would have been  hard to fake. The Iranians noted that the drone crossed into Iranian waters twice and only on the second tresspass was it shot down. Iran also posted evidence that the drone had been warned repeatedly to leave Iranian airspace before it was shot down. The drone had ignored the evidence, hence it was shot down. I  would like to point out that the US has been flying drones over Iran for years now. There’s nothing shocking about that. In fact, the US recently disgustingly bragged about how we flew a drone over Iran and how it was never spotted. So do we fly drones over Iran or not? We do fly drones over Iran, except when we don’t. We fly drones over Iran when we want to brag about it but when they get shot down, suddenly they were over international waters. The US quickly stated that Iran had made up its exquisitely detailed evidence. The US also promised to show its own evidence showing that the drone was over international waters. Of course that never showed up. But the US media kept insisting that the drone was over international waters, an insistence that they maintain to this very day. Sickeningly this repulsive lie almost started a war as Trump almost attacked Iran over this lie only to call it off at the last minute.

For further evidence Iran posted photos and graphs showing the wreckage of the drone in Iranian waters off the shore of Iran. In fact, the wreckage was found by Iranian fishermen and recovered by the Iranian Navy.

I assure you that if that drone went down in international waters, the US Navy would have been right on top of it right away. The reason the Navy did not recover the drone was because it was in Iranian waters and the US did not want to go into Iranian waters to recover it.

Also the fact that Iranian fisherman found it quickly implied that it landed in Iranian waters, as those fishermen mostly fish close to shore. If the drone landed in Iranian waters,  then it was flying over Iranian waters when it was shot down. That’s obvious.

There is one more thing. Iran would never shoot  down a US drone in international waters in these difficult times. Iran does not want a war and will do anything to avoid one. People who say that Iran did this attack have no idea of how Iran operates. They don’t get it. They would never do something as reckless and suicidal as shoot down a drone in international waters.

There is another important aspect to this. This incident in a sense was similar to a false flag. It was a provocation. The US constantly uses false flags, lies, and provocations to start wars and in fact many states also do so nowadays. False flags, lies and provocations are now the typical ways that most all wars are started and have probably been the  way most wars have started for 75 years now ever since we developed laws of war that banned wars of aggression.

The US flew a drone over Iranian waters deliberately, taunting Iran to shoot it down in order to try to start a war.  When it got shot down, we lied and said it was over international waters in order to blame Iran for a crime and try to start a war.

Every liberal Democrat I know still insists that this is an open case. They think it is stupid and insane because apparently no one can figure out who is telling the truth. US liberal Democrats are some of the most worthless people on Earth. Truly hopeless.

The incident is still listed as “controversial” on CIApedia, I mean Wikipedia. On every article you go to on Wikipedia, it’s just the voice of the US government, the US media and especially the CIA. In almost all cases, the true story (not the CIA lie) is listed and ridiculed as “conspiracy theory.” Wikipedia is a joke.

Increasingly, history itself is being destroyed as the truth of any given time is described in terms of CIA lies and not what really happened. The fact that US historians are going along with CIA lies and not trying to find out the truth shows that history itself in danger of dying. We are entering into a post-truth era.

Alt Left: Container Theory: The Intersection of Nation-State Culture and Propaganda

I think I will just leave this beautiful comment as it is. That’s how perfect it is.

Found on the Net:

It needs to be understood what happens when a human is trapped inside one of the Nation-state Containers.

Why? Because understanding Container Theory is necessary in order to attempt to transcend the Nation-state Containers worldwide. The victim of propaganda lives in a nation- state controlled-information environment – a controlled reward environment not much different from a rat in a cage.

To illustrate my point, consider the children exchanged at birth scenario.

A child born to a NYC Jewish parent is exchanged with a child born in Iran to Shia Muslin parents and both children grow up in their adopted nation-states ignorant of where they were born or their parentage. So the biological parents do not raise their own child, and the children do not visit either the other child or their true biological parents – in fact, they do not even know they exist.

The child is not told they are adopted, and 24 years later, the two children exchanged at birth don’t know each other and cannot speak each other’s language, and in short, the children consider each other to be enemies. This is the result of Container programming, and Container Theory suggests that when done properly, it can keep the wars going for ever.

It seems to me the media is the one factor that allows leaders of nation-states to engage in personally-enhancing crimes and to inflict human rights damage on the people in foreign nations.

How can the problem of media support for lies, propaganda, and so on be framed into a proper thesis?

Via Container Theory, that’s how.

Few inside of the containers know the media-fed propaganda is not only false or misleading but is also psychologically engineered to insure that the propaganda victim does not discover the malicious
nature of the psycho-engineered contents they see on available media.

Nothing comes to the victim’s attention that suggests the media is telling a fib or supporting a crime. In short only a few ever get a chance to look outside the Container walls to see or even look for the truth.

Most of those who do seek out the truth discover the same thing in every country – non-truthful propaganda is media-controlled and protected by law in every nation-state Container that the truth seeker peers into.

Those few humans who do understand the predicament of 24/7 information content control as delivered on media are blacklisted, treated as spies or traitors, shunned from workplaces, or denied access to jobs, etc. That’s not when they are simply out and out murdered by their own nation-state.

The two objects above in NYC, one born of Jewish race and religion vs. the other born of Iranian race and Shia Muslim religion, are presently opposite polar objects in our global society. The point being that opposite mindsets are man-made, not inborn. Human behavior (mindset-driven) is a result of information available in the cage (propaganda).

Teaching, a reward system, and propaganda in the caged environment allows the human rat to be made into whatever the those in charge of the the nation-state desire. When criminals are in charge of the information, teaching, and reward system, they can use those systems to mold the innocent minds of those contained.

Establishing control over the thought processes via directed learning (education), and a reward system allows propaganda to establish for the masses a belief system. The rule of law, award system, and directed learning are control systems which can be varied and modified by properly engineered propaganda.

If criminals gain control of the nation-state system (a Container full of humans), they can use propaganda to polarize the people in one Container against the people in another Container, getting the people of one nation-state to hate the people or ways of a targeted nation-state.

It is this Container Effect that allows criminals or crazies in charge to use the national resources and the people of a Container (nation-state) to conduct their wars for profit, power, and prestige.

Some suggest bombing several cities in America to stop the USA from its behaviors. But Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both prove propaganda can use these events to activate the masses against those that the containerized populations have been polarized to hate.

The invasion of Iraq is a prime case in point – no facts showed that Iraq did the 9/11 event, but private media (92% owned by 6 huge corporations (MSM) managed to engineer propaganda to suggest that Iraq was responsible. A similar thing occurred when the Houthis bombed Saudi oil infrastructure. The media, without a fact at its fingertips, immediately pointed to Iran.

After 9/11, millions joined the government military to help avenge the atrocity. But what these avengers actually did was put billions of dollars of profits into the pockets of the privateers who used it to organize the invasion of Iraq.

When it comes to foreign policy, most Americans believe the official story because it can be quite painful not too. In addition, Americans are so media-encapsulated that they believe anything the MS media distributes to be the truth. American’s have no history of questioning their media, and the government usually ends up taking the blame for the media’s mistakes, while media in most Western nations is privately owned.

Propaganda + reward system + education + social conditioning + directed creation of mindsets by positions of power = The Container Effect.

Basically humans are information sponges, absorbing from the societies in which they reside or are raised:

1) information and knowledge

2) how to engage only in normative and acceptable behaviors

The biology of the parents matters not, as the biology is merely a system of construction and maintenance that maintains a physical structure (the body) able to support the molding of one’s mind to maximize accommodation to the system.

It’s only the mindset that the psycho-engineers designs into the propaganda that counts. Container-trapped humans adopt by osmosis the psycho-engineered propaganda taught to the newborn. In that case, the physical structure of any human is not important; it’s the mind that creates the mindset controlled behavior that counts.

The most pressing need of humanity worldwide is to break out of these Containers and gain access to truthful media everyday in every place.

I say again to stop the wars, it is first necessary first so overcome the Container Effect.

Alt Left: The Latest Lies about the Attack on the Saudi Oilfields

Here.

Some complete nonsense here coming out of the US and Saudi Arabia.

In one of the most dramatic acts in the four-year war between the rebels and the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry on 14 September.

The attacks on Saudi Aramco’s plants in Abqaiq and Khurais, some of the kingdom’s biggest, caused raging fires and significant damage that halved the crude output of the world’s top oil exporter by shutting down 5.7 million barrels per day of production.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.

Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.

The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.

First of all, it’s staggering that this publication Middle East Eye publication is even reporting this  garbage. This publication is known to be anti-Saudi, anti-UAE, pro-Qatar and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE and Saudi Arabia both absolutely hate the MB, not for doctrinal reasons necessarily but more for mundane political ones.

The MB, the Saudis, and the UAE are all hardline Islamists and there’s not much light between their positions. But the MB wants to seize power in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Saudis and the UAE hate Iran but so does MEE, so that’s not a motive. Qatar has good relations with Iran, so that part doesn’t make sense.

But I am sure that the Muslim Brotherhood absolutely despises the Shia, as the MB are hardline Arab Sunnis from Arabia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt

So it’s possible that this being a MB publication is why they are printing this outrageous anti-Iran nonsense – because they hate Iran as much as the Saudis and UAE do.

You want to know where all those cray ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. Islamist rebels in Syria came from? They all came out of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, the genesis of Al Qaeda occurred in the 1980’s when MB preachers and teachers came from Syria and Egypt to work in Saudi Arabia. Many worked in schools. Their ideology mixed with the already toxic but relatively quietist Wahhabism of the Kingdom, and the result was explosive – Al Qaeda.

The Syrian MB was behind the rebellion in Hama in 1983 that was put down viciously by Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez. The US had no problems with this crackdown at the time as, we were not anti-Syria yet.

The crackdown lasted a month or more, levelled an entire city, and killed 30,000 people, mostly civilians and MB fighters. The fighting went underground into tunnels and sewers, and it got absolutely brutal. There were reports of the state resorting to mass executions and even the use of poison gas.

That may well be true – Hafez Assad was one brutal SOB, and he would definitely resort to poison gas. On the contrary, Bashar Assad, to my knowledge, has never used poison gas a single time in this war. All of the “Assad chemical attacks” were false flag attacks by the rebels.

Bashar is not a very nice guy, and he has been utterly vicious in how he fought this war, but he doesn’t use chemical weapons. He has other ways of killing people, mostly by arrest, torture and execution in military prisons. Chemical weapons are just not his style.

Anyway let’s break this garbage down here.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

Background. The European countries are the three American stooges called UK, France, and Germany.

  • Simple fact. All of these US vassals are lying their fool’s heads off. This is disinformation straight from the CIA. It’s hard to believe that the UK, France, and Germany fell in with this, or maybe not.
  • The UK is now ruled by the Tories who follow the US Republicans on foreign policy, so no surprises there.
  • France has a government led by Macron, a hardcore neoliberal Zionist who was actually installed by the Rothschild Jewish billionaires and world-controllers in the UK. He’s made France much more pro-Israel and pro-US. He’s not even on the Left – he’s more of a Centrist, and he is to the right of most European Social Democratic parties who themselves are already cucked by neoliberalism to the hilt. Macron’s cucked even worse than they are.
  • Germany is probably the most Jewish-cucked country on Earth, maybe even worse than our benighted land. Merkel is not on the Left. She’s not a Social Democrat. She is a Christian Democrat, and the CD’s have never been progressive anywhere. In Latin America, they have been either fascists (the AD in  Venezuela) or “let’s split the difference with the fascists and give them half of what they want” (Duarte in El Salvador in  the mid -80’s) types. In Europe they have been the most conservative ruling parties on the Continent, particularly in terms of economics.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

About the idea that the Houthis had neither the weaponry nor sophistication to carry out the attack – that’s not true! The operation was carried out via 10 drones, not 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles as the CIA is lying. The Houthis’ drones have already proven to be within range of those refineries.

How did the Houthis pull this off? I read journalists who are very close to the ruling elites in Iran, especially the IRGC and Iranian intelligence. Their reports on Iran can be reliably taken as the truth about Iran’s beliefs,  behaviors, and objectives.

Via these posts, I can tell you how they did it:

How about if I told you that all Houthi weapons are developed from Iranian prototypes and then modified somewhat? How about if I told you that Hezbollah – master engineers, experts and rockets, missiles, and drones, help the Houthis build these weapons?

How about if I told you that Iran ramped up its support to the Houthis four months ago and poured a lot of resources into planning this attack with the Houthis? How about if I told you that at the same time, Iran dramatically ramped up its technology transfer to the Houthis, resulting in a shocking improvement of Houthi weaponry in a very short time?

Now does it make sense?

According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

First, the Wall Street Journal is as kosher as a news organ gets. It’s has close to New York Times-level of Jews on its staff. The ownership used to be Jewish, and a very large number of the editors and writers are Jews. And they’re all conservative Republican Israel-firster Jews too.

Look, there was no rift between the Houthis and Iran. The Iranian sources above reiterated that the attacks were fired by the Houthis from Yemen but said that Iran had helped plan the attack over a period of months. They also said that not only were the Houthis sending their own obvious message to the Saudis, but the Iranians were too. Iran’s message in this attack was clear: There will be no peace in the region until the sanctions on Iran are lifted.

There are no pro-Iran and anti-Iran factions among the Houthis. Originally they were not even closely tied to Iran, but no one else would support them, so they turned to Iran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

These mysterious Saudi officials are simply the Saudi intelligence agency, which planted this fake story – this disinformation – in the media. Notice how all these “officials”, “diplomats”, “sources within X country’s intelligence”, “administration officials”, etc. are always anonymous?

Any time you see BS sources like that combined with an unlikely story that smells like it was made up you are dealing with disinformation that is being planted in the media by one or more intelligence agencies.

If Iran really did this attack, my Iranian sources above would have heard about it by now and written about it. After all, these journalists affirmed the first tanker attacks, and so did internal IRGC organs.

But the information from the Iranian Deep State is that while indeed the Houthis did conduct this attack from Yemen with their own equipment (albeit made with Iranian models), Iran was absolutely involved in the detailed, months-long planning and preparation for the attack.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

This is some dangerous nonsense. This is also disinformation planted by an intelligence agency, probably the CIA.

The diplomats are anonymous, obviously. They have to be. Most US diplomats are more or less spies and employees of the CIA anyway. In any US Embassy in any hot part of the world, ~50% of the embassy employees are actually connected to the CIA in one way or another. Of course they have their fake cover jobs at the embassy to cover up their spying.

An earlier version of this CIA tall tale said that Iran was planning a second attack, and they planned to blame it on the Houthis. Well, Iran did not do the first one, so how is it going to do a second one? It can’t. This story only makes sense if you buy the “Iran shot the flying weapons from Iran” CIA lie. But that didn’t happen. It’s just disinfo BS. So if the first part of this story was a lie, clearly the second part is a lie also.

Now the part about Iran’s plans to do the attack and then blame it on the Houthis. In my lifetime I have never encountered a state that conducts its attacks from its own soil and then has allied guerillas in another country claim the attack. Guerrillas don’t claim attacks that they don’t do.

Those wicked Iranians are going to do another attack from Iran and then get the Houthis to idiotically take the blame again! How dastardly! Of course the Houthis are starting to rebel against this Wicked Witch of the West level of evil! Oh, poor Houthis!

This is nonsense. States don’t order guerrillas do claim attacks that they didn’t do so the state can do the attack and then blame it on the guerrilla. Sure, it’s plausible, but I have never heard of a single case in my life.

The underlying message of this latest CIA lie is ominous. If there’s another attack, obviously the Houthis are going to do it. Sure, Iran might help them, but it will be launched from Yemen with Houthi weaponry, not from Iran with Iranian weaponry.

But look at how the story sets up the future. The message from the US and the Saudis is telling Iran that any future Houthi attacks similar in scale and targeting are going to be blamed on Iran no matter who does it.

So if the Houthis attack another oil refinery, the US and Saudi Arabia will accuse Iran of a second attack. The message? Any future large-scale Houthi attack on the Saudis will seriously endanger Iran, as it will be blamed on Iran no matter who did it, and Iran may well be attacked on the basis of this attack.

The logical move for the Houthis? Don’t do anymore large scale attacks on the Saudis. Their Iranian patron will be blamed and may well be attacked on the basis of Houthi attack.

The logical move for Iran? Tell the Houthis to not do any more large scale attacks on the Saudis. The next attack will be blamed on Iran and Iran may well get attacked. Iran doesn’t want to get attacked.

In other words, the Houthis and Iran are being set up ahead of time for any future attacks. Get it?

See how sneaky these American and Saudi rats are?

Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.

This is laughable. Why on Earth would the Houthis contact their deadly enemy, Saudi Arabia, and warn them that the Houthis’ ally, Iran, was going to attack the Saudis? So in war you typically contact the enemy to warn them that one of your allies is going to attack them, right? When has that ever happened? It’s insane right out of the dugout.

Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.

Well, Iran does arm the Houthis, but not many arms get in. I discussed this in a previous post. The seas are so well patrolled that the Iranians cannot get much weaponry in there. Instead Iran can give them Iranian technology and Iranian expertise in planning attacks because that doesn’t have to be smuggled in. The IRGC is already in Yemen advising the Houthis. They’re the ones who give the Houthis Iranian tech and help the Houthis plan attacks.

The part about the Houthis being Iranian puppets shows that this is a hit piece coming from the Iran-haters.

The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.

And why respond to some outrageous bullshit lie? When you respond to this sort of thing, you give the lie and the liars publicity and in defending yourself, your opponent just twists your words around so you end up digging yourself even deeper in the hole you are in. It’s like protesting that you don’t beat your wife or molest children. The denial sounds suspicious because if you were innocent, why would anyone ever accuse you of such a thing in the first place?

Alt Left: The Truth Is a Conspiracy Theory

Just to show you how crazy the media, state, and ruling class (call it the Establishment) are about what they believe in, see this survey here.

Among seven nutty, just plain wrong, or probably wrong ideas that are pretty much conspiracy theories, we have a doozy:

The US invasion of Iraq was not part of a campaign to fight terrorism but was driven by oil companies and the Jews in the US and Israel.

At first I thought this was some kind of a joke or that the authors of the survey had gotten mixed up because clearly in this case it was the conspiracy that was true and the official “non-conspiracy theory” line was an utter lie made up out of whole cloth by the Bush Administration. So here the Truth is actually a Lie and Conspiracy Theory is True. This brings me to something else.

With all of the incessant lying we have to deal with in this stupid country day in and day out, obviously the only solution to some many questions about US government conduct is a conspiracy theory. Because on foreign policy, just about every American will tell you that what the government and media say is true and that any stories saying the government is lying and really another hidden version of what happened is the truth.

In that case it is obvious that this late date in our besieged republic, the Truth is Conspiracy Theory. Even worse, the lying is getting so extreme that I am starting to think along the lines of Life is a Conspiracy Theory.

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Alt Left: The Lockerbie Shootdown: Libya Is Completely Innocent of This Crime

Like almost all Americans, I bet you believe that Libya’s Ghaddafi plotted to have that Lockerbie jet shot down, killing 190 innocent people, right?  Well you can hardly be blamed. Your government and media have never told you anything else. Except you got played. You got taken. They lied to you. And you believed. Sucker.

The FBI framed Libya’s Ghaddafi and an intelligence agent in his government for the Lockerbie jet shootdown.

A subsequent, many-years investigation concluded that the plane was shot down cadre of the Palestinian guerrilla group PFLP-GC, who have a close relationship with the Syrian government. The PFLP-GC cadre were based on Germany. That was where the suitcase bomb was constructed and where the suitcase was sneaked onto the luggage rack.

Ultimately, it was Iran that blew up that plane. They paid the PFLP-GC $10 million to blow up the plane. It was all payback for the incident where our Vincennes ship accidentally shot down an Iranian jetliner, killing everyone aboard. Lockerbie was payback.

An expert witness later stated he caught the FBI deliberately tampering with evidence in the remains of the suitcase bomb. They deliberately altered evidence to frame Libya and Ghaddafi when they knew full well it was really the PFLP-GC and Iran.

In the 30 years since, almost all experts who study the Lockerbie case have concluded that it was Iran and the PFLP-GC  and that the US government and the FBI framed Ghaddafi and his agent for geopolitical reasons. In fact, the CIA itself issued a report that stated that Libya did not blow up the Lockerbie plane and that instead it was done by Iran.

But the CIA’s perfectly happy that the fake news is out there I guess. The CIApedia, I mean Wikipedia page on the Lockerbie incident still points the finger to the framed party, Libya, and it lists the Iran / PFLP-GC theory as “conspiracy theory.” This when almost all experts now agree that Iran shot down the plane.

One thing that is interesting is that the despicable US media also has no interest in correcting the story or probably any story for that matter. For a while there they were running articles along these lines, but then they dropped it.

When we overthrew Ghaddafi, all of the Western press in utter unison chanted that Ghaddafi was the evil madman who blew up the Lockerbie jet. Didn’t they realize that the case was settled by now and nearly everyone agreed that Iran did it? Didn’t they care?

I don’t think they did. The media hates to admit that it got some story utterly wrong even though it prints fake news, lies, and propaganda day in and day out nonstop. The media never goes back and tells the true story even when the truth comes out. Instead the truth is usually blacked out.

It may also be the case that the media still wants the fake news story that they originally created to continue to be the official lie that goes down in the record. In addition, Ghaddafi is a designated scumbag. He’s a designated enemy of America, though he’s done almost nothing to deserve it except talking smack about us, smack we richly deserved. He’s a useful idiot to frame. A sucker. A patsy. A chump. A fall guy. The guy you leave holding the bag after you do the crime.

Alt Left: The US Is Trying to Destroy a Foreign Company for Having the Gall to Out-compete Our Companies

It’s appalling that the US has even enlisted the Justice Department and the FBI in geopolitics and its disgusting squabbles with foreign countries in pursuit of our wicked and malign foreign policy. But it won’t be the first time.

For instance, the FBI has been enlisted in a war against Huawei. Huawei’s crime is that it is beating the crap out of our similar technology companies. Why is it beating our companies?  Because our companies are crap? I have no idea but they are. They’re beating us. Badly. Very badly. So badly that it’s pathetic.

Because a foreign company is badly outcompeting one of our industries, we have appallingly decided that this company is an enemy of the United States! I knew the government worked for the corporations, but I had no idea it was that bad.

We placed sanctions on this company for no damned reason at all and also put sanctions on any of our allies should they do business with this company. And we arrested one of their executives on utterly fake charges of violating sanctions against Iran. I had no idea that US law extended to Canada and China!  We have banned the use and sale of this company’s products in the US in spite of the fact that its products are the best in the field, far better than our garbage.

The fake news lie that’s been put out there by the lying US government and the lying media is that Huawei is a security risk because it is tied in with the Chinese government. And there might be security holes in Huawei’s software and hardware, just as there might be security holes in everything, especially our very own lives if you think about. Nothing’s secure in this world or life.

Yeah. There might be security holes in their stuff, but no one’s ever found any, but one might show up any day just the same. And a unicorn might show up any day too. So what? Absence of evidence isn’t proof of jack. So because their stuff might have security holes and because if these mysterious holes exist, the Chinese government might use them to spy on us, we have to ban our entire nation and all of our allies from using their technology.

A sick joke, right? Well, Americans are so retarded that everyone fell for this bullshit, especially 100% of the lying “experts” in the media and government, who you shouldn’t be listening to anyway.

Hauwei’s technology is insecure (actually it might be insecure)! The evil ChiComs might use it to spy on us! Right. And tomorrow the sky might fall. I might not even be typing this. Perhaps this is all a dream. Perhaps this isn’t even real; it’s just a simulation in some matrix. Perhaps I am really dead but someone typing this anyway. Perhaps this. Perhaps that. Maybe anything. We can play this game forever.

And never mind that all Microsoft software has a huge back door in it for the National Security Agency super-spooks to come spying on your computer anytime they fancy, no matter what folly reason they may dream up.

Because some spook decided you were an “enemy combatant”, except no one even knows what an enemy combatant even is, and there’s no such definition as “enemy combatant” in international law. It’s an illegal term for an illegal offense for an illegal category you can be charge under by the state illegally. Not that any of that law stuff matters anyway. The state does what it wants. Leviathan never sleeps.

Because some fed decided you provided material support to a terrorist group”except no one even knows what that even means. How do I not provide material support to a terrorist group. I haven’t the faintest idea.

This sordid Huawei saga is pathetic and sickening. It’s like if I am losing a footrace to some guy and in order to stop him from beating me fair and square, I arrange to have his knees broken as he approaches the finish line so I can claim my fake title. That’s not how honest sportsmen, or fair, decent, or honorable men operate.  That’s how thugs, gangsters, criminals, psychopaths and dictators operate.

“He’s beating  me, so I am going  to break his legs!”

Alt Left: Quit Listening to the Experts, Dammit

Let us settle ourselves and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, til we come to hard bottom and rocks in place, which we call reality, and say, “This is, and no mistake.”

Henry David Thoreau, “Walden”

Quit listening to the experts, dammit!

Especially when they are spokespeople for a government or corporation or from a body that is allied with a state or corporation, and especially when it comes to politics or geopolitics, your average “expert” is just a psychopathic presstitute who earns his salary based on how big of a liar he is.

His work consists of mostly of lies, sophistry, biased statements and concocting propaganda.  He has the same personality of your average prison inmate. For instance, he’s a pathological liar with little conscience.

I can’t believe how many Americans keep believing what their government and  media tell them. Especially when it comes to geopolitics, trust me, our government lies like a damned rug. And the media is simply the puppet of the state, utterly failing its purpose as a Fourth Estate as it simply forms a state propaganda system.

Your government, the  American government, is lying to you. It lies to you all the time. I would not say that everything it says is a lie, and Democrats lie somewhat less than Republicans. This current administration is utterly astounding in  the quantity and quality of its lies. Especially when it comes to geopolitics! The CIA lies. The “intelligence community” lies quite a bit too.

The State Department almost always lies. In fact, that is its very job. Diplomats are pathological liars.

Even the Pentagon lies way more than you think, something I just discovered only recently that punched a hole in my heart.

And even the Justice Department and the FBI are not exactly straightforward with the truth. Appallingly the Justice Department and the FBI are now attempting to prosecute foreign individuals because they are designated as enemies by the US state.

Alt Left: 53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

It’s disgusting how the minute you say the phrase false flag, people grab their foreheads and start groaning. All false flags are automatically conspiracy theories and they’re all pathetic nonsense made up by the tinfoil hat crowd. Granted a lot of so-called false flags never happened and instead were actual attacks carried out by whoever claimed responsibility for them. This is particularly true with Islamist terrorist groups.

Their attacks often terribly brutal and aimed directly at civilians. Many of their attacks in the West have been called false flags, but none of them were. It has also been common for a long time to ascribe most of the worst Palestinian terrorist attacks to Israeli false flags.

The truth is that the Palestinians, like the Islamists, are quite depraved enough to do their own horrific terrorist attacks. Their attacks are depraved enough that Israel has no need to fake depraved attacks to frame the Palestinians.

But as you can see, false flags definitely occur. I never thought that the US government did these attacks very much, but we and the rest of the West (NATO) have been going on a wild false flag spree ever since NATO’s war on Russia started heating up.

It’s been one false flag after another and one attempt to blame Russia and pro-Russians for atrocities willfully committed by the other side. This is different from a false flag. In this case, Party A attacks the enemy, typically enemy civilians, or a shell goes astray and there’s an atrocity. 

Instead of admitting that they did it, they blame the enemy who they are fighting, usually for committing an atrocity against their own supporters, which of course makes no sense.

There were many such attacks like this in the Syrian Civil War when the Free Syrian Army committed massacre after massacre of villagers who supported Assad and then turned around and blamed Assad for each and every one of these crimes. 

As it turns out, Assad did not commit any of these civilian massacres because that’s just not his style. His forces don’t rampage into villages, even of rebel supporters, and slaughter civilians in brutal fashion one by one.

If they think a civilian needs to be dealt with, Assad’s forces simply arrest them and may well put them in a military prison, where they could well be tortured and mistreated until death or executed. I’m not saying Assad is a nice guy; it’s more that his style simply does not include savage massacres of entire villages or chemical weapons attacks for that matter.  When it comes to depravity, Assad has his own style.

I can’t believe that number of attacks falsely blamed on the enemy and out and out false flag and fake attacks that the US did in Ukraine and Syria. We seem to be entering into a new era of warfare where false flags are the normal ways to fight wars.

It’s appalling and terrifying because foolish Americans insist that these attacks never happen. By believing that they give their own government carte blanche to do as many false flags and false blaming of the enemy of allied attacks as they wish. And the government knows that in any fake blames or false flags the US or its allies pull off, they know that they can count on the support of every corporate media outlet in the US to go right along.

In fact, every mainstream media outlet in the West period is on board with any false blaming or false flags the West wishes to pull off. In that sense the entire media of the West is completely controlled by the states of the West, their militaries, state departments and intelligence services. It’s downright terrifying.

53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published in February 2015.

Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following 53 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admitted to it, either orally or in writing:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931 and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident.”

The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that under orders from the chief of the Gestapo, he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi General Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933 and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 while blaming the attack on Finland as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian President Putin, and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940 and falsely blame it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that between 1946 and 1948 it bombed five ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the pseudo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see thisthis and this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece, also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey, and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11-21) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO with the help of the Pentagon and CIA carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this).

Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred. And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include by way of example only the murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960), bombings in Portugal (1966), the Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969), terror attacks in Turkey (1971), the Peteano bombing in Italy (1972), shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974), shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977), the Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977), the abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978), the bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980), and shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985).

(22) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro].”

(23) Official State Department documents show that in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(24) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes) and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(25) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(26) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(27) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964… manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(28) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign, the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(29) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look, the general said, “I am giving an example.”

(30) The German government admitted (and see this) that in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(31) A Mossad agent admits that in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya, which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(32) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force), approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident,” thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(33) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, “French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit against Author”).

(34)    The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces  updated in 2004 recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars.” And see this.

(35) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998 and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked.”

(36) Senior Russian military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(37) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(38) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(39) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered seven innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police in order to join the “War on Terror.”

(40) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that in July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa they planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(41) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks as shown by a memo from the defense secretary as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq War.

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties.

Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq War was really launched for oil…not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government.  

(42) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the White House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(43) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(44) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers.

Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(45) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(46) Quebec police admitted that in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(47) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plainclothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(48) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(49) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(50) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, says that the head of Saudi intelligence Prince Bandar recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(51) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government, and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(52) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(53) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

So Common…There’s a Name for It

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s Strategy of Tension.

The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago. The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for navalair and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war… But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.”
– Josef Stalin


Alt Left: Nothing Worse Than a Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat sites I am banned from:

I am banned from Democratic Underground. I have been banned from Daily Kos twice. I am usually banned the very first day I register there, typically within 24 hours. I am banned from Mother Jones. I am banned from Media Matters. I got banned from Alternet but got a new name and came back and am now safe for a while. I was banned once from (((Daily Kos))) for attacking Israel. They called me anti-Semite and banned me. All the other places banned me for attacking the Cultural Left.

Suffice to say that these are all liberal Democrat sites except for Alternet, which is more Leftist.

In other words, I am usually very quickly banned from all liberal Democrat sites, usually amidst screams that I am a Republican! Except that I’m not a Republican. I think Democrats are too rightwing. I’m a flaming out and out Leftist.

There are few things more awful than an American liberal Democrat, mostly because there is almost nothing liberal about them.

They all support US foreign policy to the hilt. They all believe every lie the media ever shoved down their throat and every lie the foreign policy wing of the state ever told them. They’re flag waving patriotards.

At the moment, they are frothing with hatred against the evil Russia and the evil Putin. They all supported the Nazi Maidan coup and think Russia shot down that M-17 jet. They all hate Assad and support arming the jihadis and Al Qaeda against him and think think Assad gassed his people. And nowadays they all really hate China.

No matter what lie the state and media shove down their throat, they swallow it right up.

They reject all alternative explanations to US propaganda because it comes from Iran, Russia, etc. And they don’t believe one word those nations say because those countries lie.

You throw evidence at them, like people on videotape confessing their CIA-induced nefarious acts or even actual CIA statements (for instance, half of the CIA says Ukraine shot down that M-1 7 jet), and they shoot it all down. They say that everyone that says anything that goes against the US government/corporate media one party propaganda line is lying.

Anything other evidence is unproven. It’s “state your sources” and then all sources other than the US state and media are not credible. Any theories against US government and media propaganda lies are called conspiracy theories that must be subjected to the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” rubric, evidence which, of course, is never enough.

The Democrats are always right and never wrong. And the Republicans, of course, are never right and always wrong. If you dare to admit that the Republicans might be right once in a blue moon, then that means that you’re a Republican, and they insist that you now support Trump and are voting for him. It’s pure political tribalism of the most insipid kind.

Oh, and I forgot one more thing. One thing they really, really hate, probably even more than they hate Republicans, is the Left. You know, people like me. And the Squad. And Bernie. I’ve always said that the Democratic Party hates the Left more than anything, more than Republicans, Hell, more than out and out fascism.

A liberal Democrat will support a Nazi before he  supports a socialist. Look at how they reacted to Ukraine (supporting Nazis) and Venezuela (attacking socialists).

Bottom line is they will never admit they were wrong. And they will never change their mind, ever, about anything.

Liberal Democrats are some of the most rigid- minded, hopelessly brainwashed people I have ever met.

Alt Left: Assad Never Gassed His Own People: A Summary of the False Flag “Chemical Weapons Attacks” in the Syrian Civil War

Assad is not a very nice man, but he never gassed his own people.

Every single one of those gas attacks were false flags and little gas was released and nobody killed or even injured in any of the attacks. The dead were civilian hostages that the Islamists took from Assad supporting villages. They then murdered them, apparently with carbon monoxide, and presented their bodies as gas attack victims.

As far as the first attack in Ghouta in Damascus that everybody talks about, none other than the US CIA says that Assad did not carry out that attack. They got that information from the British MI5. That’s why Obama blinked on the crossing the red line thing and did not attack Syria.

The US DIA helped plan that attack and John Kerry knew it was in the works before it happened and even said so on video. Only a few people had sarin in their system, and the levels were so low that they would not even hurt the person.

Also no one saw the supposed gas canisters launched. Despite our own CIA stating that Assad did not do this attack (really there was no chemical attack at all, as in all cases), the media continues to rant about Assad doing this attack.

The Khan Sheikhoun attack was also a false flag. The US military believes that Syria bombed a warehouse where various chemicals, possibly chemical weapons, were stored. We have direct quotes from the military on that.

The bomb hole supposedly caused by the gas cylinder has been proven to be caused by a bomb from a bombing raid. Also gas attacks are never carried out by aircraft. Also the CIA told Trump that the gas attack never happened, but Trump went ahead and attacked Syria anyway! Despite the CIA telling Trump that the gas attacks were faked, the US media continues to rant on and on about this gas attack.

As far as the latest East Ghouta attack, it is now proven to be a false flag. Scott Ritter also says it was a false flag. British intelligence helped carry out that attack with the Islamists. The dead were killed in a Syrian bombing raid.

We have many interviews of civilians who were there at the time saying that they were forced by the Islamists to participate in a false flag gas attack and that the Islamists had been planning the attack for days beforehand.

Also a report by the UN’s Office on Chemical Weapons Control which visited the site proves that the attack was faked. However, this corrupt organization said Assad did a gas attack even though their own report shows that it was faked! That’s how corrupt the UN is! Despite the fact that the UN report proves the attack was faked, the media continues to rant on about it being real.

We now have ~40 White Helmets members stating on video that they faked all of those gas attacks as false flags. You can go check it out yourself.

The other sarin attacks also never happened.

No “gas victims” have ever shown any signs of sarin poisoning. Instead they were either murdered, gassed with carbon monoxide, or they were killed in bombing raids.

The many chlorine gas attacks also never happened. No chlorine has ever been found at these sites and the victims never show signs of chlorine poisoning. Instead they are always infants and they appear to have been shot up with some opiate morphine like substance.

Alt Left: Everything You Have Been Told By the Western Media about the Ukraine Conflict is a Complete Lie

This is a summary of the Ukraine conflict from Maidan to the present day.

The US media has been lying about Ukraine from day one. They have never said one single thing about this matter that was true in any way.

Why pay attention to what I say? For one thing, I know more about this than just about anyone you will ever meet. I was close to people who were deeply allied with the Russian separatists in the East. That doesn’t make right but maybe it makes me someone you ought to listen  to.

50% of Ukrainians speak Russian and 50% speak Ukrainian. This has been the main fault line in  the  country since independence.

After being put into power by the US and NATO coup, the Ukrainian Nazid started killing people. In fact they started murdering people even before they got into power in their murderous Maidan Color Revolution, when NATO snipers from Lithuania and Georgia holed up in a building where they shot both protesters and the Berkut police.

The US media then immediately blamed the Berkut police, who never killed one person in those riots. We now have the Georgian snipers on videotape saying that they were hired by NATO to fire on people, but they had no idea what they were really doing, and now they feel bad about it.

The old Ukrainian government was fine. It was elected in a democratic election. It was not illegitimate in any way. The overthrow of Yanukovitch was a plot by the US and NATO.

There are two big groups in Ukraine – Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers. The Russians are allied with Russia and the East, and the Ukrainians are allied with NATO and the West. Both groups have ~50% support.

The pro-Western groups tried to push through a measure allowing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU which was sponsored by the US and NATO. They had a vote and it lost by a narrow margin. The President opposed the measure as he was pro-Russian.

Since they lost, the pro-Ukrainians tried to seize power by force. This coup was plotted by the US, specifically by US diplomat Victoria Nuland, who is the brains behind the putsch and gave the Ukies $5 billion to stage this coup. Demonstrations went on for a while, but they lacked majority support.

Finally there was violence at the end as noted above when NATO snipers shot many people in a false flag operation which was immediately blamed on the government’s police, most of whom had no guns at all.

Yes, the president who was removed by the violent coup was corrupt, but all Ukrainian governments before and since have been corrupt, and the US-supported ones are the worst ones of all.

The new government immediately declared war on labor unions, gay rights activists, feminist groups, human rights groups, independent journalists, etc. because they were neo-Nazi fascists and these are first groups that fascists go after – labor unions, liberals, Leftists, and Communists. They particularly declared war on  the members of the Opposition party supported by Russian speakers, the Party of Regions, which had support of ~50% of the population.

The new Ukrainians were radical Ukrainian nationalists who are all essentially Nazis. They  immediately set about building statues and making holidays for Ukrainian Nazi independence fighters under Stepan Bandera who had fought alongside the Nazis and murdered many Jews and Poles during the Nazi occupation of Ukraine in World War 2.

The government started harassing and murdering prominent figures of the Party of Regions. Fights broke out in Parliament when the Ukrainians tried to beat up POR people. The also murdered many union members, calling them Communists, as the government was now ruled by radical anti-Communist fascists.

In a building in Kiev, up to a score of labor leaders were chained to a heater, and then the building was set on fire. A whole building full of Party of Regions people was assaulted by Nazis in Odessa. They were tortured, strangled, and set on fire. About 80 people died. The US media barely covered it and described as some sort of fight between two groups while assigning no blame.

The new Ukrainian government immediately said it was joining NATO and the EU. They also said they were taking over the Russian navy port in Crimea at Sevastopol. This port is crucial to Russia’s national security. Russia was alarmed and said they would not permit Ukraine to join NATO, as that is a severe threat to their national security.

Crimeans began agitating for independence. Crimea has always been a part of Russia. It was only added on to Ukraine in 1950 by Khrushchev because he was a Ukrainian himself. When Ukraine declared its independence in 1991, Crimea refused to go along with it, saying they wanted no part of the new state. They had to be put down by force.

So the little green men came to Crimea and restored it to Russia. Crimea had a vote on independence, and ~90% voted for joining Russia. Repeated opinion polls since found that 85-90% of Crimeans support joining Russia.

The new government also declared total war on Russian speakers by removing the Russian language  as a national language and even banning it from all official communications. The Russian language was more or less made illegal. The new government regularly made incendiary comments against Russia and the Russians in their country, who they viewed as traitors.

A completely grassroots citizen’s rebellion started slowly in the East where common people started seizing police stations and army bases. Most of the police and a lot of the army simply went over to their rioters. Russia had nothing to do with any of this, and in fact they very much opposed it.

These people soon declared their independence and became separatists. They voted on independence in the separatist region, and they got ~90% support. Subsequent opinion polls showed that that was correct, with 85-90% support. I believe the separatists had 80% support, but it soon went to 100%. The US and the West said the elections were fraudulent, but actually they were free and fair.

A low level guerrilla war started in the East. Supplies started coming in from Russia via the “Army Surplus Store,” as it was called. A lot of soldiers and citizen veterans got roused up nationalistically about the separatist matter. They were given permission to take Russian military weaponry and vehicles and move them into Ukraine to support the rebels.

Putin didn’t want anything to do with this clandestine support for the separatists, but he turned a blind eye to this amateur effort to arm the fighters. He still wanted federalism and autonomy for the East within Ukraine. The US and Ukraine were adamant that there would be no autonomy or federalism in the separatist region.

The separatists had mass support, ~80% of the population. The Ukrainian army started conquering a lot of the region, and when they went in to towns, ~20% of the people would come out and greet them.

There were guerrillas fighting an extremely dirty war in all the towns and villages, but they were very hard to find, as they were dressed like civilians and hid in the population. So these separatist guerrillas were operating far behind enemy lines. They could not be defeated.

After a while of occupation, the 20% pro- Ukrainians all went over to the separatists due to the abuses of the occupiers.

There were a number of atrocities via shelling in the area. Most of them were behind separatist lines. Quite a few civilians were killed, and there was a lot of outrage. The US and the media blamed the separatists for each of these atrocities, but they were all done by the Ukrainian, whether on purpose or not, I have no idea.

The OCSE is the armed police and “peacekeeper” wing of the EU, and they were cruising all over this warring region lying everywhere, making up stories, and blaming the rebels for all atrocities which were all done by the Ukrainian.

At one point, the Ukrainian gained momentum, and it seemed like they were going to conquer the region. The separatists were retreating and everyone said they were going to lose.

At that point, yes, Putin did invade with ~10,000 troops to rescue the separatists. He never admitted it but they pushed the Ukrainian way back, recovered most of their territory, and even started easily conquering new territory where most people also supported the rebels. Russia lost 200 men in this fighting.

However the Ukrainians got massacred and at the moment, they have suffered 12,000 killed in action. The Ukie government lied and said they were “missing,” and I believe that is still their official status.

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120