Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Palestine. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Palestine. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, 15 April 2016

Criticism of Israeli policy ≠ anti-Semitism


In April 2016 I was accused of having anti-Semitic views after posting a clip of the Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders talking about Israel.

The sheer irony of getting accused of anti-Semitism by an Israel apologist for daring to share a clip of a Jewish man (Bernie Sanders) criticising Israel's deadly bombardment of Gaza in 2014 is quite staggering. 


If I really was an anti-Semite would I really be so impressed with Bernie Sanders' mediating language that I'd share it on my Facebook page? Would a bigoted Jew-hater really approve of Bernie Sanders so much that they'd like to see him become the first ever Jewish President of the United States (as I would)?

Here's what Bernie Sanders said in the clip I shared:

"If we are ever going to bring peace we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity ... I believe it [Israel's bombardment of Gaza in 2014] was [disproportionate] ... We had in the Gaza area some ten thousand civilians who were wounded, and some 1,500 who were killed."
If I'm apparently an "anti-Semite" simply for expressing agreement with Bernie Sanders' views, does that mean Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite by extension? Will partisan Israel apologists call him a "self-hating Jew" because he dares to express an opinion that not everything the Israeli state has ever done is perfect?

In my view the only way the Israel-Palestine conflict will ever be resolved is if the US government stops supporting the worst excesses of the Israelis, and accepts the proposition that Palestinians are people too. Bernie Sanders apparently shares this view, and I applaud him for it. As a Jewish man his sympathies are obviously going to be drawn towards the people of the Jewish state, so it obviously takes a great deal of humanity for him to be able to see things from both sides of the conflict, and to want to mediate in an even-handed manner.

If that kind of approach makes Bernie Sanders a "self-hating Jew"  
in the eyes of some, and me an "anti-Semite" for agreeing with him, then so be it. I'm not going to shut up and say silent simply because some highly partisan Israel apologists are going to smear me for daring to express an opinion they don't like. 

It doesn't seem to matter how often it is pointed out to "anti-Semitism" wielding Israel apologists that


Criticism of Israeli policy ≠ anti-Semitism

they keep on using this outrageous "anti-Semite" smear to try to shut down legitimate criticism of atrocities committed by the Israeli state.

It doesn't matter how legitimate or even handed the criticism of Israeli policy, time and again these people - who know no better debating tactics than slinging ugly smears in order to try to silence dissent - turn up to spew their ugly partisan bile.

The really awful thing is that this disgusting bad faith debating tactic is very effective. Fear of being hit with this kind of toxic smear is enough to scare off a lot of people from expressing their opinions on the Israel-Palestine situation, because nobody ever likes to be called a disgusting bigot on a public forum (even if the accusation is completely unfounded).

This tactic of using "anti-Semite" smears to scare moderate people away from contributing to the Israel-Palestine debate is very effective in polarising the debate so that in many cases the vast majority of people left contributing are people expressing extremely partisan views in favour of one side or another, which is absolutely no recipe for a mediated settlement to be achieved.

I'm not sure if keeping the debate as polarised as possible in order to diminish the chances of a fair negotiated settlement is the objective of people who use these "anti-Semite" smears. I guess probably not, most of them probably just see it as a convenient way of shutting down legitimate criticism that they don't want to hear. However, whatever the intention of this kind of appalling smear tactic, it's clear that by hounding anyone who expresses anything other than undiluted praise for Israel, extreme polarisation of the debate is a logical consequence.




 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR


Wednesday, 29 August 2018

How the Enoch Powell Corbyn smear spread from the New Statesman to the hard-right propaganda rags


If you ever needed an example of how 'centrists' and the hard-right work together in order to attack and undermine democratic socialism, look no further than the way coverage of the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' scandalous comparison of the lifelong anti-racism campaigner Jeremy Corbyn with the anti-immigrant fearmongerer Enoch Powell spread from the supposedly left-leaning New Statesman to the front pages of the hard-right propaganda rags.

Jonathan Sacks

Anyone who already knows who Jonathan Sacks should be familiar with his history of attending controversial Zionist extremist marches organised by the pro-settler Mizrachi Olami organisation, where chants of "death to Arabs" and vandalism of Palestinian property are commonplace

The same Mizrachi Olami organisation supports illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and organises marches through the occupied Palestinian settlement of Hebron, which is basically a much more extreme version of the sectarian Orange Order mob organising inflammatory marches through Catholic areas of Northern Ireland.


It's also worth pointing out that Sacks comparison between Jeremy Corbyn and Enoch Powell is more than a bit hypocritical given that he publicly recommended the anti-immigrant anti-Muslim Douglas Murray book "The Strange Death of Europe" as one of his best books of 2017, which contains glowing references to Enoch Powell, and chapter after chapter of xenophobic and anti-Muslim fear-mongering.

Is someone who attends extreme Zionist marches and promotes xenophobic Enoch Powell-praising books really in a position to smear a lifelong anti-racist campaigner with comparisons to Enoch Powell?

Origin of the smear

The origin of the hyperbolic comparison between Jeremy Corbyn and Enoch Powell was made in a New Statesman interview conducted by George Eaton, when Jonathan Sacks described Corbyn's "no sense of irony" comments about a specific group of rude and disruptive Zionist extremists with Enoch Powell's 1968 anti-immigrant "rivers of blood" speech.

Unsurprisingly the New Statesman ran with the smear as the headline for their article for its clickbait potential, but at no point did Eaton try to hold Sacks to account by questioning his justification for making such an extreme statement.

It's beyond doubt that Eaton know that the Corbyn "irony" comment was aimed at a small group of extreme Zionists who regularly disrupt meetings on the Israel-Palestine issue.

When Corbyn criticised them for having no sense of irony, they had been rudely berating and insulting the Palestinian ambassador.

On a previous occasion they turned up to an anti-genocide meeting to repeatedly shout "boring" at every non-Jewish genocide survivor who spoke at the event.

On another occasion the Zionist extremists turned up to disrupt a meeting that the anti-Corbyn pro-Israel Labour MP Wes Streeting was involved with, resulting in him calling them "rude yobs".

Interestingly nobody from the mainstream press attempted to misleadingly turn Streeting's criticism of the very same people as "rude yobs" into a criticism of all Zionists, or even all Jews as "rude yobs".


If these extreme Zionists are so exasperating that even an extremely pro-Israeli MP like Wes Streeting ends up calling them "rude yobs", perhaps criticising their sense of irony isn't quite as bad as "rivers of blood".

It's also worth noting that deliberately conflating Zionists with Jews is considered by many to be anti-Semitism because Zionism is a political choice, and not all Jews are Zionists (especially not the kind of extreme Zionists who habitually interrupt Israel-Palestine meetings to shout abuse at people that Corbyn and Streeting were criticising).

In their desperation to attack Corbyn by conflating a specific group of Zionist extremists with all Jews quite a few of Corbyn's fiercest critics have actually exposed themselves as being prone to anti-Semitic speech.

Anyhow, George Eaton didn't bother to point out any of this important context in the article.

Israeli apartheid

Despite failing to call Jonathan Sacks out on his hyperbolic smear, Eaton did attempt to challenge Sacks on the Israeli government's recent introduction of the Apartheid-style Nation State law. Sacks' response was absolutely dismal. Instead of criticising the racist Jewish-supremacism of the hard-right Israeli government, he made an evasive comment claiming ignorance of the significance of the law, followed by a second had assertion via his brother claiming that there was nothing Apartheid about the Nation State law, and that it was just "correcting a lacuna".

So according to Sacks, a hotly disputed and vehemently debated Jewish supremacist law that strips Arabic of its official language status in Israel is just filling a space, not because he's thought about the issue himself, but because his brother told him so - but in the very same interview he's publicly accusing someone else of being "low, dishonest and dangerous"!

Spread

After the New Statesman article was published, the context-free "Enoch Powell" comparison was churnalised onto the front pages of the hard-right Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

You would have thought that the editor of a left-leaning political magazine would have been horrified that his article had been used as the basis of yet another right-wing effort to damage the appeal of democratic socialism by smearing Jeremy Corbyn, but you'd be wrong.

Eaton was so giddy with delight that his article was the basis of two front page Corbyn smears in the right-wing propaganda rags that he sent out a gloating Tweet about it. 

Presumably he eventually thought better of this outrageous gloating because the Tweet is now gone, but not before I grabbed a screen shot of it (see image).

Way-hay, my anti-Corbyn smear story has gone viral in the hard-right press is certainly not a great look for the editor of a supposedly left-leaning publication, but it is indicative of the way that the supposedly left-leaning 'centrist' types are often more than happy to work with the hard-right to undermine democratic socialism.

Left-leaning publications like the New Statesman, Guardian, Mirror, and Independent are significantly better than the right-wing propaganda rags because they occasionally give voice to democratic socialists, and often hold the Tory government to account on issues where most of the mainstream media turn a blind eye. 

However, they're also home to plenty of people who are more than happy to amplify the right-wing anti-Corbyn smear campaigns by lazily churnalising smears from the right-wing propaganda rags into their own articles, and even feeding new smears back to the right-wing press and then gloating about it like Eaton did.

Conclusions


Whether you agree with Corbyn or not on his democratic socialist policies, or his efforts to combat bigotry within the Labour Party, it's impossible to deny the way his criticism of a specific group of extremely rude and disruptive Zionist extremists has been misleadingly warped into a supposed attack on all Jews, and that Jonathan Sacks went even further by using these out-of-context remarks to accuse Corbyn of being worse than the likes of Nigel Farage, the vile xenophobic Leave.EU campaign, Boris Johnson, and other bigoted race-baiters in mainstream politics

Perhaps it's unsurprising that a guy who actually recommends a far-right book that promotes xenophobia, anti-Muslim sentiments, clash of civilisations type fearmongering, and the lionisation of Enoch Powell, doesn't see the likes of Farage and Leave.EU as problematic?

It's impossible not to note the hypocrisy of a man who one day publicises an anti-Muslim diatribe of a book that glorifies Enoch Powell, then the next uses a comparison with Enoch Powell to attack someone simply because they've got a history of arguing against the Israeli occupation and the brutal repression of the Palestinian people.

It's hardly surprising that a man who supports pro-occupation pro-settler movement in Israel would use his position to attack a vocal critic of the occupation, but what is truly shocking is that the journalist who interviewed him didn't just fail to call him out on this hyperbolic smear over some deliberately out-of-context remarks, but actually gloated when his uncritical interview was used as the basis for another round of anti-Corbyn front page smears in the right-wing propaganda rags.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

Why you should use your critical thinking skills, whatever the information source

  
I'll begin this article with an admission that I made a mistake. I always try to be careful that the infographics I create for social media are completely accurate (or clearly marked as satire when they're jokes), however on Sunday 30th of November 2014 I shared an infographic made by someone else without properly fact checking it (the one in the article header).

It turns out that the image I shared was slightly misleading. The nine images of incredibly sparsely attended debates in parliament were perfectly accurate, but the two below claiming to be debates about MPs pay and expenses were just stock images of the House of Commons. The infographic in question was then cited in a Spectator article by Isabel Hardman entitled "The menace of Memes: How pictures can paint a thousand lies".

I apologised as soon as I realised that I'd made a mistake in sharing a partially inaccurate image, but also took note of the fact that Isabel Hardman's article was also misleading for the fact that that it implied that the image was deliberately inaccurate (made in bad faith), rather than the result of a quite obvious mistake (made in good faith), and also because it made the ludicrous argument that so few MPs bother to turn up to some debates because "it is more constructive to be outside the Chamber during those sessions". The author casually dismissed all of the perfectly accurate pictures of incredibly sparsely attended parliamentary sessions (on the war in Afghanistan, child sex abuse, preventing knife crime, drugs laws, the effects of Iain Duncan Smith's brutal welfare "reforms" on disabled people, the living wage, recognition of Palestine, tenancy reform, and Syrian refugees) as if they were probably just unconstructive waste-of-time type debates that might have been better had nobody bothered to attend them at all!

Had Isabel Hardman done the vaguest research on how someone might have mistakenly concluded that the two stock images were what they were claimed to be, she would have easily found this article on the BBC News website, and this article on the Daily Telegraph website which both lazily used old stock images to illustrate their articles about parliamentary debates on MPs pay and MPs expenses.

The following day Isabel Hardman was invited to participate in a BBC Politics "debate" on social media images. I use the word "debate" in inverted commas because the "debate" consisted of Isabel Hardman, three MPs (the subject of the criticism) and the host, who showed her own bias by incessantly repeating the word "misleading" over and again. There were five individuals lined up against social media, and not a single representative to stand up for social media. It's hardly possible to conceive a less balanced "debate".

The BBC Daily Politics "debate" didn't make the slightest effort to draw any kind of contrast between "misleading" social media content and accurate social media content (of which there is lots), and neither did it admit that the source for one of the "misleading" images was almost certainly a misleadingly illustrated article about an MPs expenses debate on the BBC's own website!

The general tone of the whole "debate" was that social media is untrustworthy compared to politicians and paid journalists. Isabel Hardman even complained that "people trust the Internet more than they trust newspapers or politicians".

After stuff like the Hillsborough lies and cover-up, the "sexed up" Iraq dossier, the countless parliamemtary expenses scamming scandals, phone hacking, David Cameron's countless lies about the NHS and the national debt, the "misplaced" dossier about the Westminster paedophile ring, and the shockingly biased mainstream media campaign against Scottish independence - is it any wonder that people are more inclined to assume good faith when it comes to a picture their friend has shared on Facebook, than the utterances of a career politician or a paid journalist?

Isabel Hardman came across as a lot less condescending in the BBC interview than she did in her Spectator article, and she freely admitted that "the [9] pictures at the top did actually represent the debates", so it's clear that nine out of the eleven images used in the infographic were perfectly fair representations. The problem was that (like the Daily Politics presenter) she fell into the trap of assuming bad faith. She assumed that the creator of the image had deliberately set out to mislead, when the truth is self-evident: The creator of the infographic was clearly a bit naive in assuming that the mainstream press articles about the MPs pay and expenses debates were accurately illustrated, rather than lazily blathered with old stock images of completely unrelated parliamentary debates.

Even though the Daily Politics debate was so one-sided and openly hostile to social media I'm glad I watched it for the fact that the intensely smug Labour MP Jamie Reed made a truly remarkable admission that just goes to show how the current crop of career politicians consider their roles in our society. He said "you get business done on the telephone, you get business done face-to-face, you really don't achieve much in the chamber". Essentially this is an admission of what many people already know: Virtually all of the important decisions in our so-called democracy are made without democratic scrutiny in unrecorded "chats" between government ministers, civil servants, unelected lords, professional consultants, corporate lobbyists and the like, while the House of Commons serves only as an anachronistic rubber-stamping process, where MPs are free to completely ignore the actual debate then flood into the chamber at the end to cast their votes in the way they have been instructed to by their parties.

In my view MPs should have to sit through at least 80% of the actual debate if they are to be allowed to vote on the issue, and all "chats" between politicians and people like professional consultants and corporate lobbyists should be recorded so that they can be subjected to democratic scrutiny. Politicians and their friends in the media certainly won't be earning back any public trust simply by conducting a hopelessly biased and one-sided attack against social media, instead of fundamentally reforming the way they go about their own business.

After cautioning against making bad faith assumptions it would be wrong of me to state categorically that the reason for this hopelessly one-sided "debate" on social media was the journalists' abject fear that social media is allowing citizen journalists to spring up and provide competition to the professional journalists of the mainstream media like them, and the politicians' fear that social media can be used as a tool to hold corrupt/lazy/incompetent politicians to account. Let's assume the best and say that the BBC has simply strayed so far from it's public service remit that there wasn't anyone at all within the entire Daily Politics production team capable of thinking that an effort should have been made to find someone to represent social media in order to add a bit of balance to the "debate".

The fact that a debate about social media without a single representative of social media is considered acceptable output by the mainstream media just goes to show how unfit they are to be moral arbiters of anything. At least when you follow someone on Twitter or follow a page like mine on Facebook, you know we're opinionated, but at least we're not trying to hide our biases behind a reputation for neutrality that has long since been burned like a pile of old tyres that a farmer can't be arsed to get rid of properly.


To conclude I'll return to my admission of my mistake at the beginning of this article, and the fact that I made a public apology for it on my Facebook page as soon as I could. I think this is where a clear distinction can be made. The BBC were totally unprepared to admit their role in misleadingly attributing a completely unrelated stock image to a debate on MPs expenses (which would have changed the nature of the debate from "misleading social media to the lazy use of stock images on BBC News articles). Career politicians are notoriously unwilling to admit their mistakes (best evidenced by the typical politician's apology where they apologise for "any offense that may have been caused", rather than actually apologising for the offensive thing they've said/done). If it was the Spectator, or any other mainstream media publication making the mistake, we all know the apology would be hidden away in minuscule text on page 94 in a tiny box underneath an advert for dishwasher tablets that appears weeks or months later, not in a high profile statement that is posted as soon as the person becomes aware that they've made a mistake.

Perhaps one of the great things about social media is that it frees the individual to follow news from people they have learned to trust, rather than allowing a single newspaper or broadcaster to drip-feed their biased new agenda to them. Hence huge numbers of people have been made aware of things like the TTIP corporate power grab, the WCA disability witch hunt or the Tory "gagging law" through social media sources like my Another Angry Voice page, 38 Degrees or Atos Miracles, not through the biased and agenda driven coverage presented by the mainstream media.

Of course mistakes will be made on social media, but it is how people deal with their mistakes that is a true indicator of their trustworthiness, not the slickness of their presentation or the unanimity of their so-called "debates"



 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 sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.


Flattr this

Update: Two things have come to my attention. The Spectator journalist is actually called Isabel Hardman, not Hartman - I have updated the article to correct this spelling error (apologies to her for the spelling mistake). It has also come to my attention that Isabel Hardman is a BBC employee who has actually worked on the Daily Politics show, something that was not mentioned at any point during the (2 BBC journalists and 3 establishment politicians vs 0 social media representatives) "debate".




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
Why I want you to question everything - even me
           
Tommy Sheridan and the biased BBC interview
                     
Priti Patel and the ludicrously hypocritical 50% turnout rule for Trade Unions
       

12 reasons the Green party should be included in the pre-election debates
                             
The mainstream media oligopoly 
                                         
Rupert Murdoch's evil empire
                          
12 things you should know about the Daily Mail slurs against Ralph Miliband
                
The case for .. proportional pay for MPs
                      



Tuesday, 16 July 2013

The AAV political stance


Because I am occasionally asked about my political affiliation (and more often have it crudely straw-manned as "communist" or "Labour party propagandist") I've decided to write this article in order to clearly define my political stance.

The first and most important thing to state is that I am not affiliated to any specific party. I would obviously never claim to be politically neutral, since I believe that the only true form of political neutrality is actually absolute apathy.

I'm not politically neutral, because I have (and promote) very strong political views.


Just as I refuse to constrain myself by assigning my political allegiance to one particular political party, I also try to avoid labeling myself as an adherent of any particular political ideology. Since I'm trying to explain my political views in a reasonably concise manner here, I will make an exception and crudely define myself as some kind of free-thinking, left-libertarian, social democrat.

I strongly oppose the three orthodox neoliberal parties (the blue meanie tories, the red neo-labour tories, and the yellow illiberal tories), which are clustered together in the opposite quadrant of the political compass to my own. I believe in equality of opportunity, individual liberty, democratic control over natural monopolies and strong regulation of markets in order to maximise competition and efficiency and minimise corruption and anti-competitive practices.

The three establishment parties have all enacted legislation that demonstrates their commitment to reduce equality of opportunity, to curtail individual liberties, to allow private interests to seize control of natural monopolies and to deregulate markets enabling all kinds of anti-competitive practices and economic inefficiencies.


The neoliberal policy of privatisation (supported by all three Tory parties) has nothing to do with reducing the size of the state, and everything to do with transferring as much taxpayers' cash as possible to unaccountable private sector interests, whilst ensuring that all of the risks are still borne by the taxpayer.

The Conservative party
The Conservative party are the worst of the three tory parties. They are led by a brazen liar and many of the current Tory ministers are the most malicious and incompetent people ever hold such positions, the worst examples being George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith.

The Tory party is almost entirely funded by a small cabal of super-wealthy individuals, and the policies they pursue are quite clearly aimed at serving interests of the wealthy establishment, whilst financially oppressing the poor and ordinary. Not only do they have a rotten agenda to serve the interests of the wealthy minority at the expense of the majority, they also use a lot of grotesquely misleading propaganda to justify it.


Another thing that is intensely irritating about the Tories is the pretence that they are adherents of the libertarian / small-state ideology. They are just as illiberal and authoritarian as the last Labour government (secret courts, internet snoopers charter, attacks on human rights, attacks on press freedom, gagging laws, ideological prohibitionism), if not more so.

The Tory party has always been the party of the establishment, and expecting anything other than a serve the rich, smash the poor agenda from them would be as naive as expecting a fair and balanced appraisal of the Israel-Palestine situation from the Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips.

It is incontestable that the Tory party are traditionally the the party of the establishment, however New Labour and the Illiberal Democrats are now almost indistinguishable in their desperation to serve corporate and establishment interests above the interests of the general public.

New Labour
The Labour party is now a hollowed out husk of the party it is supposed to be. After nearly two decades of Neo-Labourism, virtually all of the genuinely left-wing politicians have been cleared out, to be replaced by a bunch of  self-serving orthodox neoliberal career politicians. The Labour party no longer even pretends to fight for workers rights or social justice, instead adopting the Tory-lite position on virtually every conceivable issue. During their period in government they set in motion many of the coalition government's most unpopular policies. The origins of the privatisation of the NHS, Workfare, the privatisation of state education (academification), the horrific Atos Work Capacity Assessment regime, lumbering university students from poor and ordinary backgrounds with ludicrous debts, and the privatisation of the Royal Mail can all be traced directly back to Neo-Labour legislation.

The job they are doing as opposition to the Tory led government can't be described as inadequate, since in order to do the job of opposition inadequately, they'd actually have to oppose Tory policy, instead of mindlessly mimicking the Tories on nearly everything (and even deliberately colluding with Tories in order to retroactively penalise the innocent victims of Iain Duncan Smith's unlawful persecution campaigns).

The left-wing people and trade unions that still support and fund the Labour party are delusional. The party hierarchy has been usurped by people that actively oppose socialism, workers rights, social justice and equality of opportunity. That these labour voters and organisations keep on supporting and funding a party that works directly against their own interests can only be put down political tribalism so extreme that it is pretty much the same as political illiteracy.

Liberal Democrats
A good reason to never again believe
anything a Lib-Dem promises.
There really isn't much to say about this bunch of quislings other than "roll on 2015".

By lying to the electorate and then colluding with the Tories to bring some of the most illiberal and anti-democratic legislation imaginable (secret courts,  the gagging law, attacks on press freedom, absurd immigration rules that openly discriminate against British families), most of them have signed their own political death warrants. A measure of their own credulity is that if even half of their MPs survive the rout that is coming in 2015, the party leadership will desperately try to describe it as some kind of stunning electoral success.


The Lib-Dems are clearly their own worst enemies. Jumping into coalition with the Tories (instead of making them form a minority administration and then gleefully shooting down all of their rotten legislation) was a ludicrous strategic error.

Another marker of the mindblowing stupidity of the Lib-Dem leadership is the treatment of what used to be one of their core demographics, the student lobby. Not only did they break their pledge to oppose any hikes in tuition fees, they actually voted through imposition of the highest tuition fees in the entire world for study at public universities! They've also signed off on huge higher education funding cuts and they've agreed to let the Tories financially oppress millions of ex-students by retroactively hiking the interest rates on their outstanding student loans, so that the student loan book can be sold off to their corporate mates (at a significant loss to the taxpayer).


If they're willing to attack probably their main demographic in return for a tiny taste of second hand Tory power, this just goes to show how utterly unfit they are to be given any responsibilities at all. The sooner they return to the status of hopeless unelectable also-rans the better.

UKIP
UKIP are right about one thing. The EU is a vastly inefficient, anti-democratic technocracy. The danger of course is that loads of people will vote for them on the basis that they are right about the EU without bothering to research any of their other policies, or the way the party is funded.

UKIP are as mad as a box of frogs and so right-wing that they make fringe Tory party lunatics like John Redwood appear almost normal. Their manifesto is crammed full insane right-wing fantasies, and their representatives (including sleazebags like Neil Hamilton) are a bunch of raving nutjobs.


The idea that supporting UKIP is some kind of "protest vote" against the orthodox neoliberal establishment is mindless idiocy. UKIP are like the orthodox neoliberal establishment, but on steroids.

If you are not the kind of person that is so right-wing that the Tory party look like a bunch of "commies" in your delusional worldview, please (for the sake of the rest of us, if not yourself) do some cursory research into UKIP policies (such as a flat tax so that millionaires pay the same income tax rate as ordinary people, the abolition of inheritance tax for children of millionaires, a bribery scheme so that the wealthy can push in at the front of NHS queues, mass privatisation of NHS services, doubling of the already enormous amount spent on keeping people in jail, spending countless billions on new nuclear weapons systems, introduction of state censorship in schools...) before you go out and vote for them.


SNP and Plaid Cymru
I'm not a resident of Scotland or Wales, so I can't vote for either of these parties. However, they occupy territory a lot closer to my own on the political compass, so I'd endorse voting for them as preferable to voting for the extreme-right authoritarian parties of the Westminster political establishment.

The Green Party
The Green party are the only left-libertarian party with a representative in parliament. The Green MP Caroline Lucas is brilliant, she works tirelessly and always votes on the side of social justice. The Green Party manifesto is actually pretty good, and is probably pretty much what I imagine the Labour party manifesto would have looked like, had they not been infiltrated and usurped by a bunch of self-serving orthodox neoliberal corporate shills.

Green Party


The new left
I am interested in "new left" developments such as Left Unity and The People's Assembly. Anything that improves political engagement as these campaigns are doing, can't be all bad. If you are sick of the lack of political diversity offered by the neoliberal pseudo-economics fixated establishment parties, I suggest you try and get involved with some of these grass-roots movements.

I think that the various left groups (including the Greens) desperately need to affiliate into a broad anti-neoliberalism, anti-austerity coalition (something like Syriza in Greece) in order to give the electorate a single alternative to the cosy establishment orthodoxy.

Defining the common ground amongst these disparate groups is obviously easier said than done though!

Useful links:
People's Assembly
Left Unity
Socialist party
Individual politicians
Although I endorse no particular political party, I will endorse some specific politicians judged on their work rate and their voting record. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Green MP Caroline Lucas is brilliant, tireless and full of integrity; an embodiment of what all politicians should be. There are a few decent Labour MPs remaining, including Dennis Skinner, John McDonnell, Iain Mearns, Grahame Morris and Michael Meacher.

If I had to pick a Tory MP I don't utterly despise it would be David Davis, who does seem to have some very strong libertarian principles (he was one of just five Tory MPs to rebel against the party leadership to vote against the introduction of secret courts).

Voting Advice
If after this you're still confused about my political stance, I'll boil it down a bit further into some voting advice.

If you are dissatisfied with the current political system (expenses scamming, out-of-touch politicians, lack of integrity, brazen lies, corporate backhanders, dodgy donations...) then don't vote for any of the three establishment parties that have turned a blind eye, or even actively encouraged this revolting behaviour (unless you strongly approve of their candidate as an individual MP).

UKIP are certainly not an alternative, they are like the current lot but even worse. If you are a tiny-minded reactionary, that believes that arguably the most right-wing Tory party in history is too "leftie", and wants to vote for a shockingly right-wing party, don't go in for half measures and vote UKIP, just bite the bullet, admit to yourself that you're a raving extremist, and vote for the BNP.

If you want to see the system changed for the better, you should vote for an alternative party of which there are many. I understand that the current anachronism of an electoral system is hopelessly rigged against minor parties. However if you refuse to vote, or you vote for one of the establishment parties, you're essentially endorsing the status quo. Unless millions of us start to vote alternative, we'll be stuck indefinitely with the current bunch of self-serving, expenses scamming, orthodox neoliberalism fixated corporate shills.




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.




Monday, 13 March 2017

I didn't send out a Tweet!


An awful lot of politicians tell lies, but very few of them are as brazen about it as the disgraced Liam Fox. In an interview with Sophy Ridge he denied sending a controversial Tweet despite sitting in front of a giant picture of it.

The man

The disgraced Liam Fox was one of the very few people David Cameron ever had to expel from his cabinet. Cameron had an extraordinary tolerance for corruption and ineptitude (how else is it possible to explain his refusal to ever sack total incompetents like George Osborne, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith), but even Cameron's lax attitude couldn't save the disgraced Liam Fox from the treasonous mess of his own making.

The disgraced Liam Fox invited his special friend/fake security adviser Adam Werritty to sit in on all kinds of classified meetings, despite the fact that he had no official position and no security clearance.

Somehow the disgraced Liam Fox avoided the jail sentence that an ordinary soldier would have received for wilfully disclosing classified information to their friends, and he even kept his seat in parliament. All he had to do was resign in disgrace, and then pop back as a government minister a few years later.

The controversy

The idea that Britain has no disgraceful 20th Century history to bury is absolutely ridiculous. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head: The use of chemical weapons in Iraq and concentration camps in South Africa; the brutal repression of the Easter Rising in Ireland, the Amritsar massacre in India; the gifting of all of Iran's oilfields to a single private company; the 1943 Bengal Famine (over 1.5 million dead); the ethnic cleansing of Palestine; the brutal repression of the Mau Mau in Kenya; Support for the racist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa; and the expulsion of the Chagos Islanders.

Of course Britain left many of the ex-colonies with improved ports, roads and rail networks, because they were necessary infrastructure in order carry out the vast scale of resource extraction that the empire was all about, but this infrastructure is hardly adequate compensation for the resource theft and the crimes against humanity listed above.


The backwardsness of it

School children in countries like Germany and Austria are taught about the horrors of Nazism, but British school kids are drip-fed a very sanitised Anglocentric version of history, where the horrors of the British Empire are rarely or never mentioned.

The consequence of this is that only a small minority of Germans and Austrians look back to the Third Reich with fondness and nostalgia, but astounding numbers of British people consider Britain's brutal imperialist history as something to be intensely proud of!

Liam Fox's Tweet was extraordinarily wrong because Britain is actually one of the worst offenders at burying the worst aspects of it's 20th Century history.

The denial

The astoundingly smug look that flashes across the disgraced Liam Fox's face as he says "As a point of clarification, I didn't send out a Tweet" illustrates just how comfortable he is telling lies.

Of course we're all familiar with the fact that lots of politicians tell lies and expect to get away with it, but very few of them have the absolute brazenness to lie to the public in front of a giant screen displaying the evidence that what they're saying is an outright lie.

The conspiracy theory
After denying that he sent out the Tweet the disgraced Liam Fox then outlined a conspiracy theory about how the Guardian were to blame for the controversy for supposedly Tweeting an out of context and incomplete extract from one of his speeches.

The disgraced Liam Fox's own Tweet continued to be displayed behind him as he detailed his bizarre conspiracy theory about how the nasty left-wing press were to blame for the whole thing.

The dupes
Despite getting caught red handed at giving away classified information to his special friend, the disgraced Liam Fox was reelected to his North Somerset parliamentary seat with an increased share of the vote in 2015!

It seems that it doesn't matter how corrupt the individual has proven to be, there are people in certain parts of England who would vote Tory without a second thought.

These are the kinds of people who could look at the disgraced Liam Fox smugly lying about how he never sent out the Tweet while sitting in front of a giant picture of it, and conclude that the Tory is absolutely right to pin the blame on the nasty leftie Guardian for the whole thing.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR