GCHQ: Spying on on innocent people's cyber sex sessions in order to "protect" them

In late February 2014 it was revealed that GCHQ had used a hacking programme codenamed "Optic Nerve" to spy on Yahoo chat and steal screenshots from millions of conversations between people that were not suspected of committing any crime whatever.

The mainstream press focused on fact that some 11% of all the pictures that GCHQ stole contained nudity, but the bigger story here is not that the UK government spent taxpayers' money harvesting images of hundreds of thousands of innocent people all over the world having cyber sex, it is the fact that they clearly consider absolutely everyone to be a potential target and "fair game" for unwarranted surveillance.

In my view there is a case to be argued that the state has a duty to spy on people that are a clear threat to the rest of society (terrorists, murderers, predatory paedophiles etc) however, there should be a legal framework through which such surveillance operations should be conducted, so that the system cannot be abused.

If the secret services have reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual is a threat to society they should have to apply for a warrant from a judge in order to hack into their communications. Additionally, all secret service activities should be conducted under rigorous democratic scrutiny, so that the intelligence services can't just spy on whoever they like with absolute impunity (until someone eventually leaks details of what they've been doing).

There is a massive difference between this kind of warranted and democratically accountable surveillance, and the invasive and legally dubious mass data trawling exercises that GCHQ have been caught out using.

Just a few days after the news broke that GCHQ had been hacking into hundreds of thousands of kinky webchats in order to steal screenshots, the Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood told the Lib Dem Spring conference that GCHQ has been subjected to "inaccurate criticism" by "people it is seeking to protect" as he attempted to defend this kind of unwarranted mass surveillance.

So presumably GCHQ were "seeking to protect" these people by stealing screenshots of their kinky cyber sex sessions and private personal conversations?

Attempting to dress GCHQ up as the innocent victims in this scenario is an absolutely shameful tactic. GCHQ are not the innocent victims, they are the violators of our right to privacy.

It is a clear demonstration of their out-of-touch arrogance that they can even consider dressing themselves up as the victims, and to create the absurd fiction that the only way to "protect" innocent people is to spy on them.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
           
How NSA overreach is worse than terrorism
                                          

The contrasting fates of Alan Turing and Lord Sempill

                                          
The Tory "War on Justice"
                                          
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
                                            
David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and openness 
                                                 
The forgotten victims of 9/11
                                          
What is... Neoliberalism?
                                          
The "golden hammer" of neoliberalism
                                          

How David Cameron's internet firewall would change the Internet
                                                 
Libeling the evidence, the Iain Duncan Smith fallacy
  

An open letter to David Cameron

This is an open letter to David Cameron from a coalition of 70 of the leading human rights organisations in the world. I don't often appropriate other people's words, but in this case I'll make an exception and quote the letter and the signatories in full before adding my own comment at the end.

                

Dear Prime Minister,

We have joined together as an international coalition of free speech, media freedom and human rights organisations because we believe that the United Kingdom government's response to the revelations of mass surveillance of digital communications is eroding fundamental human rights in the country. The government's response has been to condemn, rather than celebrate, investigative journalism, which plays a crucial role in a healthy democratic society.

We are alarmed at the way in which the UK government has reacted, using national security legislation against those who have helped bring this public interest information to global attention. We are concerned about:

• The use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain the Brazilian media worker, David Miranda on 18 August 2013 at London Heathrow Airport. Miranda was carrying journalistic material on behalf of the UK's Guardian newspaper and is the partner of the journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of mass surveillance of digital communications by the UK and USA
• The sustained pressure against the UK's Guardian newspaper for reporting the disclosures of whistleblower, Edward Snowden, including sending officials to force the Guardian to destroy hard drives allegedly containing information from Snowden
• Your call on 16 October 2013 for a House of Commons Select Committee to review whether the Guardian has damaged national security by publishing material provided by Edward Snowden, and a subsequent announcement that the review will be conducted by the Home Affairs Select Committee as part of their inquiry into anti-terrorism.

We believe these actions clearly violate the right to freedom of expression, which is protected under British, European and international law. Under such laws, the right to freedom of expression includes the protection of both journalists, and those that assist them in the course of their vital work.

The right to freedom of expression and media freedom enable the free flow of information in order for the public to hold their governments to account. While the protection of national security can be a legitimate ground for restricting the right under international law, such restrictions are narrowly defined. Governments must show that a restriction is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate to the aim pursued. The presumption in favour of freedom of expression requires governments to demonstrate that the expression will actually harm national security; it is not sufficient to simply say that it will.

National security should never be used to justify preventing disclosures of illegalities or wrongdoing, no matter how embarrassing such disclosures may be to the UK or other governments. In the case of Snowden and the Guardian, the disclosures have facilitated a much-needed public debate about mass surveillance in a democracy, and exposed the possible violation of the fundamental human rights of millions of people worldwide. As such, no liability should be incurred as the benefit to the public outweighs the demonstrable harm to national security.

We also believe that this use of national security will have dangerous consequences for the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in the UK and beyond, creating a hostile and intimidating environment and discouraging those who could reveal uncomfortable truths and hold those in power to account. We are concerned that this will further create negative consequences for the reputation of the UK as an advocate for the protection and realisation of the right to freedom of expression and media freedom worldwide. States with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices.

The UK has a strong history of democracy, and while targeted surveillance may play an important role in protecting national security, in doing so it should not erode the very values it seeks to protect. We call on you to honour the UK's international obligations to defend and protect the right to freedom of expression and media freedom, and to end the UK government's pressure on the Guardian and those who assist them.

Yours Sincerely,

Gergana Jouleva, Access to Information Programme, Bulgaria
Mircea Toma, ActiveWatch, Romania
Ahmad Quraishi, Afghanistan Journalists Center
Remzi Lani, Albanian Media Institute
Thomas Hughes, ARTICLE 19, international
Zuliana Lainez, Asociacion Nacional de Periodistas del Peru (ANP)
Khaled Amami, Association of Citizenship and Digital Culture (ACCUN), Tunisia
Jasna Milanovic, Association of Independent Electronic Media, Serbia

Hans de Zwart, Bits for Freedom, Netherlands

Guilherme Alpendre, Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism
Yuri Dzhibladze, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Russia
Ramana Sorn, Cambodian Center for Human Rights
Laura Tribe, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Olexandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine
Ioana Avadani, Center for Independent Journalism, Romania
Masjaliza Hamzah, Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Paul Dawnson Formaran, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines
Dr Leila Alieva, Center for National and International Studies, Azerbaijan
Edison Lanza, Centro de Archivos y Acceso a la Información Pública (CAinfo), Uruguay
Cristian Horchert, Chaos Computer Club, Germany

Kate Watters, Crude Accountability, USA

Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, international
Jo Glanville, English PEN
Shiva Gaunle, Federation of Nepali Journalists
Karim Lahidji, FIDH / International Federation for Human Rights
Andres D'Alessandro, Foro de Periodismo Argentino, Argentina
Chiranuch Jiew, Foundation for Community Educational Media (Prachatai), Thailand
Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press Foundation, USA
Ayushjav Tumurbaatar, Globe International Center, Mongolia
Eka Popkhadze, GYLA, Georgia
Artus Sakunts, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Armenia
Avetik Ishkhanyan, Helsinki Committee of Armenia

Danuta Przywara, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

Eldar Zeynalov, Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
Rasul Jafarov, Human Rights Club, Azerbaijan
Robert Ssempala, Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda
Sanar Yurdatapan, Initiative for Freedom of Expression, Turkey
Emin Huseynov, Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS), Azerbaijan
Mayumi Ortecho, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Latin America
Elizabeth Ballantine, Inter American Press Association
Ann-Sofie Nyman, International Partnership for Human Rights, Belgium
Alison Bethel McKenzie, International Press Institute
Yevgeniy Zhovtis, Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law
Mariya Yasenovska, Kharkiv Regional Foundation 'Public Alternative', Ukraine

Alban Muriqi, Kosova Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty, UK
Prof. Amal Jamal, Media Center for Arab Palestinians, Israel
Meri Bekeshova, Media Workers' Trade Union of Kyrgyz Republic
Nani Jansen, Media Legal Defence Initiative, UK
Soe Myint, Mizzima, Myanmar
Ludmilla Alexeeva, Moscow Helsinki Group
Omar Faruk Osman, National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
Andre Loconte, Net Users' Rights Protection Association (NURPA), Belgium
Gunnar M. Ekelove-Slydal, Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Alberto Cerda, ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile
Makereta Komai, Pacific Islands News Association

Owais Aslam Ali, Pakistan Press Foundation

Mousa Rimawi, Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms
Larry Siems, PEN American Center
Tasleem Thawar, PEN Canada
Laura McVeigh and Anders Heger, PEN International
Gus Hosein, Privacy International
Natalia Taubina, Public Verdict, Russia
Christophe Deloire, Reporters Without Borders, international
Oleksandra Sverdlova, No Borders Project, Social Action Center, Ukraine
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Southeast Asian Press Alliance
Nalini Elumalai, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Alison Meston, WAN-IFRA, international

Maria Pia Matta Cerna, World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)

Arthur Gwagwa, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum

This letter makes a number of hugely important points, including the fact that investigative journalism is a vital part of democracy and that it is not sufficient for a government to simply claim that national security has been harmed, it is necessary for them to actually demonstrate it with empirical evidence (something that Cameron and his bully boys have abjectly failed to do). These are very important points, but for me the most important point of all is the assertion that "states with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices". It is utterly appalling that human rights advocacy groups representing citizens suffering under horrific repressive regimes (such as Tunisia, Nepal, Palestine, Myanmar, Zimbabwe) are now pleading for David Cameron to stop his repressive practices because by doing so he's furnishing human rights abusers across the globe with the excuse that "if the UK can do it, then so can we".

I made a number of similar points in reaction to Cameron's efforts to punish the Guardian for daring to reveal the true scale of the NSA / GCHQ mass surveillance operation. You can read those here: David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and openness.

It is also worth noting that this is not the first time a huge international coalition has damned David Cameron's government. In February 2013 an international coalition of civil liberties groups wrote a letter of protest against the introduction of Secret Courts in which they stated that "If the UK Parliament passes this proposal into law it will be a huge setback for those of us fighting to secure truth and fairness from our own governments and within our own justice systems across the world". Not only were the international community appalled by the introduction of secret courts, the UK legal profession was too. More than 700 legal professionals signed this letter which damned Secret Courts as a dangerous attack on fair and open justice.

David Cameron and his revolting allies in the Illiberal Democrats ignored all of these concerns and legislated secret courts into existence regardless. Perhaps the most appalling thing of all is that just a few months after voting secret courts into existence, Nick Clegg and the Illiberal Democrats have decided that they are now going to campaign against the totalitarian measures they themselves voted into existence.

One positive development is that there are a few members of the Tory party that seem to be waking up to the fact that David Cameron is a totalitarian with no regard for justice or human rights. Hopefully when Cameron is ejected as Tory leader, he will be replaced by someone from the (tiny) libertarian faction of the party such as David Davis, Dominic Raab or even Boris Johnson. They may still be Tories, but at least they have more respect for human rights, freedom of the press and individual liberties than the current leader of their party.

I fully endorse the contents of the letter to David Cameron. If you support it too, feel free to add your name in the comments section below and forward a link to this article to your local MP to request that they explain their stance on the issues of mass surveillance and secret courts. Your local MP has a statutory obligation to reply to you as long as you include your full name and address in the correspondence.

Use this link to Find Your MP


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
           
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
                        
David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and opennness
                     
The Tory "war on justice"
                      
The warped Tory definition of rights
                          
George Osborne's economic extremism
                

David Cameron's petulant reaction to defeat
          
What is... Neoliberalism?
           

David Cameron's debt reduction lie

          
How David Cameron's internet firewall would change the Internet
                 
Libeling the evidence, the Iain Duncan Smith fallacy
  

Theresa May, David Miranda and the Guardian Hard Drives

If you haven't heard about Edward Snowden, David Miranda and the Guardian hard drives then you mustn't have been paying much attention to the news this summer.

Just to recap:

Edward Snowden is the American whistleblower that has released lots of information about the massive scale of secret surveillance by the British (GCHQ) and American (NSA) secret services. Some of the things he has revealed include:

• The NSA  have been using a programme called Prism to steal the private communication data of millions of people across the World.
• The NSA have been spying on American citizens, in breech of their constitutional rights.
• The NSA have distributed stolen private information to hundreds of thousands of private security sub-contractors.
• The NSA have compelled companies such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Apple and Facebook to create backdoor access to the private information of their users.
• The NSA directly spied on 38 foreign embassies, as well as several diplomatic missions to the United Nations.
• The NSA have provided GCHQ with access to Prism.
• GCHQ have been spying on the private communications of millions of people across the World.
  GCHQ have been spying on British citizens.
• GCHQ steals data even more invasively than the NSA do.
• GCHQ distribute their stolen private data to the NSA, who then distribute it to their network of hundreds of thousands of private sector sub-contractors.
• GCHQ spied on foreign politicians during the G20 summit.
• The NSA paid GCHQ £100 million and were given operational influence over British intelligence work.

David Miranda is the partner of the Guardian writer Glen Greenwald, who is the lead journalist on the Edward Snowden story. Miranda was detained at Heathrow Airport by the British authorities under anti-terrorism legislation. He was kept in custody for the maximum permissible time of 9 hours (most people detained under section 7 of the Terrorism Act are detained for less than an hour). He than had his personal property confiscated.

The Guardian hard drives were the ones that were destroyed as a result of David Cameron instructing Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood to ensure that the Guardian copies of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden were either handed over to the British government, or destroyed. The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger chose to destroy the drives rather than hand them over to David Cameron.

There is clearly plenty of material here for sufficient chapters to fill a book. Chapters could include: The terrifying scale of the surveillance operations; the impact on international relations; the distribution of stolen private data to hundreds of thousands of private sector operatives, and the likelihood that some of this stolen data has been used corruptly; the American operational influence over British secret services; the constitutional implications of mass surveillance in America; the way the UK surveillance operations have grown through function creep, rather than through due parliamentary process; William Hague's fascistic "nothing to hide, nothing to fear defence"; the collective punishment of family members; the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation; and the direct curtailment of press freedom by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The aspect I am going to concentrate on for the rest of this article is the bizarrely contradictory "operational independence" justifications from the United Kingdom government.

After it was first revealed that David Cameron and Theresa May were both aware of the detention of the journalist David Miranda under anti-terrorism legislation, the government trotted out the age-old, "we don't comment on individual cases" / "it's an operational matter" lines.

The Tories were forced to revise their "no further comment" stance after the former Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer condemned the detention as misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, saying "I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda" and the former Tory prisons minister Crispin Blunt said "Using terrorism powers for something that doesn't appear to be a terrorism issue brings the whole remit of the laws passed by parliament to address terrorism into disrepute".

Even before we begin comparing it with other things, the justification the Tories came up with is utterly absurd. Theresa May's justification for not intervening was twofold. Firstly, she openly approved of the detention of a journalist under anti-terrorism legislation and the confiscation of his personal items, and overtly praised the police for doing it. Secondly, she stated that the police have absolute "operational independence", which is claim that politicians are somehow powerless to intervene in the operation of the legal system. This "operational independence" line was later reiterated by David Cameron's office, before Theresa May went one step further to imply that anyone raising doubts about the tactic of using anti-terrorism legislation to intimidate journalists, is guilty of condoning terrorism.

The "condoning terrorism" line is simply a reiteration of the George W. Bush "you either support us or you support the terrorists" stance and has been rightfully torn to shreds. The former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken MacDonald's described Theresa May's "with us or against us stance" as "ugly and unhelpful" before going on to say that "people who are concerned about these issues are not condoning terrorism. They are asking a perfectly legitimate question, which is: are we striking the balance in the right place between security and liberty?"

In my view the "operational independence" line is just as bad as Theresa May's blatant smear tactics. The thing that is so obviously wrong with the "operational independence" stance is that it creates a "get out of jail free" card for politicians. If this stance is accepted, it means that politicians are exempted from blame, no matter how corruptly, immorally or unlawfully they know that the police of members of the criminal justice system have acted, or how little they did to stop it once they found out.

The claim of absolute operational independence is farcical. Imagine politicians knew about a bunch of corrupt undercover police officers stealing the identities of dead babies, infiltrating protest groups, acting as agent provocateurs, forming sexual relationships and fathering children, before disappearing completely leaving several women with no financial maintenance. Imagine that politicians knew all about a vast police cover-up to hide their culpability in the deaths of 96 innocent football supporters through the mass falsification of statements and a smear campaign against the deceased fans.

OK these things are not at all hard to imagine, they actually happened, and it seems extremely unlikely that no politicians knew about these operations as they were happening.

Let's try considering something even more extreme than the theft of dead baby identities, rape by the state, mass falsification of disaster reports and smear campaigns against the dead:

Imagine that the Argentine dictator Jorge Rafael Videla had been allowed to use the "absolute operational independence" defence to explain away his involvement in the policy of kidnapping pregnant left-wing women, holding them as political prisoners until they gave birth, extrajudicially executing the mothers, then handing the babies over to supporters of his military junta. Even if the prosecution in his trial for crimes against humanity had been able to show that he knew all about, and openly approved of these barbaric practices, he could simply claim that he was "powerless to intervene" due to the sanctity of the "operational independence" of the Argentine Naval taskforce that oversaw these practices. Perhaps this is how Theresa May would like absolute operational independence to work? No matter how despicable the actions of the state, and no matter how much the political class knew about it, or approved of it, in her mind "operational independence" exempts them from all blame.

This "you can't blame us because we were powerless to intervene" stance from Theresa May and David Cameron contrasts quite rudely with David Cameron's words about the the Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond and the Libor rigging scandal. Here's what Cameron said back in 2012: "people have to take responsibility for the actions and show how they're going to be accountable for these actions" and that "it is very important that goes all the way to the top of the organisation". Note how these sentiments are absolutely incompatible with the "we're powerless to intervene because of operational independence" narrative.

The "absolute operational independence" line is absolutely ludicrous because it can quite clearly be used to excuse politician's knowledge of, and refusal to act against corruption, criminality and immorality. It clearly represents a complete abnegation of moral responsibility by the government.

To his credit, the Tory MP David Davis picked up on this attempt to abnegate moral responsibility when he told the BBC that "[the government] didn't direct it, nobody is suggesting they directed it. But they approved it by implication. If the home secretary is told this is going to happen and she doesn't intervene then she is approving it". He is absolutely right. If the home secretary is fully aware that the police are brazenly misusing anti-terrorism legislation in order to intimidate journalists, she has a moral obligation to, at the very least raise some concerns about it. Instead, she did nothing, and then paraded around in front of the press openly praising the police for their action and smearing anyone that dared to ask the questions that she should have been asking herself.

The really damning evidence comes when this "powerless to intervene in legal matters" argument is contrasted with the enforced destruction of the Guardian hard drives. An attack on press freedom by the government so egregious it even drew condemnation from the Americans!

The idea that government ministers are absolutely powerless to intervene in legal matters (even if they suspect that the police are behaving unlawfully) is absolutely blown out of the water by the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom considers himself to have the powers to gave a direct ultimatum to a newspaper to either hand over their source material, or to destroy it. If Cameron's attack on press freedom is not an absolutely clear cut example direct of government intervention in legal matters, I'm not sure what would be.

It is frankly ludicrous that the Tories believe that anyone would accept the idea that the government will intervene to bully a newspaper into destroying their source material, yet later claim to be utterly powerless to ever intervene in legal matters, no matter how unlawfully they believe the police might be behaving. 

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   
   
The warped Tory definition of rights

More Tory attacks on labour rights

What is ... a justification narrative?
              
The Tory "war on justice"
                  
Mark Hoban's totalitarian tendencies

Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
  
The "unpatriotic left" fallacy 
 
Lord Freud: risks, corpses and slums
    
David Cameron's internet censorship plans
    

"Stupid Fuckheadedry" in America and Britain

I recently came across a comment on the Another Angry Voice Facebook page that got me thinking. As I'm in the middle of a writing binge (where the words just flow out of me, rather than having to be painfully drawn out and strung together, as is often the case), I thought I'd write a comprehensive response. I believe that the phenomena alluded to in the quote would have been better referred to using George Orwell's conception of "doublethink", rather than with accusations of general "Stupid Fuckhededry". The use of the former would certainly have reduced the appearance of anti-Americanism.

"[Americans are] conceivably, the world's most messed-up population... They hate paying their taxes, because they're convinced that government wastes all that money on things the country doesn't need. But they don't mind a massive, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance programme, because they're convinced that government wouldn't waste all that money on something the country didn't need. They want to keep their guns because they don't trust the government to respect their freedoms. But they don't mind a massive, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance programme, because they trust the government to respect their freedoms... Stupidest fuckheads on the planet." - Mark Doran

Mark certainly pushes the boundaries of massive over-generalisation to make his point, but the contrast between the public apathy at the shocking NSA spy revelations, as compared to the hysteria over proposed automatic weapons regulation or the Zimmerman verdict is extremely concerning.

Another deeply troubling element is the fact that so many Democrats are willing to spin convoluted justification narratives in defence of the NSA's Prism mass surveillance operation (and the continuation and even expansion of other overtly totalitarian practices such as drone bombings and drone spying). Had the Republicans been caught wiretapping the private communications of the whole nation (and most of the rest of the world), Democrat supporters would surely have been squealing "unconstitutional" and appealing incessantly for impeachment of the President (there is precedent for this, In 1972 Republican President Richard Nixon was caught spying on the Democratic party and in 1974 became the first, and only American President to resign).

Just because this time it their guy wiping his ass (American's have asses, not Arses like us) with the American constitution, the tribalist Democrats are full of excuses. I wonder whether the massive expansion of a near omnipotent surveillance state (to make the powers of the East German Stasi look almost benign in comparison), and a Democratic administration more stuffed full of Wall Street millionaires than ever before in history, was the kind of "change" these people were envisioning as they campaigned so passionately for Obama in the midst of the Wall Street engineered financial collapse of 2007-08?

That so many Democrats are willing to develop these contorted justifications for the Obama administration, bodes extremely badly for when the Republicans get back in. After all of these excuses from tribalist Democrat apologists, the Democratic left is going to have an almost impossible job of making constitutional objections to any right-wing totalitarian lunacy from an extremist Republican administration hellbent on being far more right-wing and authoritarian than the uppity black liberal socialist they see Obama as. It is conceivable that the next Republican President could be so right-wing and authoritarian he'd make George W. Bush look like some kind of lovable chimp. And if this is the case, his Democratic critics will be easily trounced in debate with the accusation of hypocrisy: "You lot supported Obama's attacks on the constitution, so you've got no right to oppose our constitutional amendments".

Anyhow, returning to the quote. I've already mentioned that over-generalisations and accusations of "stupid fuckheadedry" are hardly the linguistic tools I'd use to make the point, especially given the gangrenous state of Westminster politics here in the UK.

I don't think we've got a leg to stand on when it comes to generalising about the intelligence of the American public. Our house is just as rotten as theirs is, and the British inhabitants (taken as a whole) seem just as feckless. I mean how many simple-minded reactionaries have bought into the Tory "scrounger" propaganda? It's been demonstrably shown that these scrounger narratives are based on nothing more than crudely falsified statistics, ideological zeal, enormous public misconceptions, and the ever powerful emotion of perceived injustice, yet millions have allowed themselves to get caught up in it.

At a time when people should be rising up in solidarity against the rotten establishment, the reckless bankers, the corrupt politicians and the greedy corporates, people instead are pointing the finger of blame at those they perceive to be below them on the social ladder, the unemployed, the underpaid, the disabled and the young.

The tiny establishment minority have continued getting ever richer throughout this crisis, whilst the vast majority have borne the burden of austerity. Instead of focusing their anger on those that caused the crisis, and those that continue to profit from it, a vast swathe of the public have turned to blaming the ones feeling the effects of the crisis even worse than they are themselves. The levels of "stupid fuckheadedness" in order to fall for this childishly transparent "divide and conquer" strategy are almost unimaginable. How is it possible for so many people to be so pitifully gullible?

That such large swathes of the British public can be played as fools like this is alarming. When did our nation become to servile and compliant? Didn't our ordinary people show remarkable solidarity and defiance when Oswald Mosely tried to march his blackshirted fascist along Cable Street in 1936? Didn't our population bravely unite against the onslaught of pan-European fascism in during the Second World War? Didn't all of the social classes bond together to rebuild our shattered, debt laden nation as a better, fairer society during the mixed economy post-war consensus? How have we been reduced to such a state of docile compliance, servility and apathy over the passing of just a few decades?

It is justifiable to wonder at how the ever boisterous and constitutionally obsessed American public have meekly accepted the revelation of the most deeply unconstitutional government programme in the entire history of their nation. However the implication that a great mass of British people are somehow less "stupidly fuckheaded" than the generalised American public is hardly justifiable. If anything the British are capable of worse, with countless reactionary voices positively appealing and begging for our basic rights and liberties to be stripped away and discarded in the process of constructing some kind of monstrous neoliberal dystopia built on inequality, inherited privilege, financial sector corruption, spiralling debt, Ponzi property speculation and "I'm alright Jack"-ism, administered by a callous cabal of corrupt crony capitalists.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated. 

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 

The Great Neoliberal Lie
          

What is ... Neoliberalism?
                    
Who is to blame for the financial sector meltdown?
            
What is ... a justification narrative?
                    
What is ... a scrounger narrative?
                     
How can we stop our politicians from lying to us?
                     
Infinite incompetence or Orwellian propaganda?