A Very British False Flag

A Very British False Flag


A Very British False Flag

The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Historically, the term «false flag» has its origins in naval warfare and operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, can (by extension) also be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.

Within the last 24 hours in the UK there was a terrorist attack in Manchester on a pop concert venue. This incident comes just a little over two weeks before voters in Britain decide on the next Government.

Just before the Manchester attack the Conservative Party had been experiencing a sharp decline in the opinion polls. Their lead has been cut in half in the space of a few weeks and with the roll out of their «Dementia Tax» it looked as if they were really headed on to the rocks. Then events took a dreadful turn in Manchester with many innocent people losing their lives. It would appear, on the surface, to have been the work of a British born individual of Libyan descent. With a stroke the news agenda has been completely changed from stories of declining Tory opinion poll leads; Tory melt downs over the monstrous «Dementia Tax» and replaced by non-stop coverage of the appalling attack in Manchester as well as the Prime Minister Theresa May playing up to her self-styled image of the second coming of the Iron Lady. Campaigning in the General Election has been suspended. Curiously just before the attack took place the anti-Jeremy Corbyn media had been attempting to regurgitate issues surrounding Mr. Corbyn and the IRA, seeking to portray him as «soft» on terrorism and some how supportive of terrorists. Then came the Manchester terrorist attack.

It is hard to overstate the hatred and loathing there is for Jeremy Corbyn at the highest levels of the British Establishment and State because he represents a fundamental rejection of and break with many of their outdated, backwards and reactionary practices, mind-sets and policies of the English elites. From the military to the domestic security service MI5 to the hedge funds, «wealth management» funds, off shore tax havens (with 1/3 of the planet’s controlled by the UK) and investment banks to the Monarchy, the public school educated upper-middle classes and aristocracy to virtually nearly all of the London media both print and television they loath and fear what a Jeremy Corbyn Government would for mean for them, their vested interests and how he would fundamentally remake Britain. The anti-Corbyn campaign to portray him as even worse than Joseph Stalin has been unprecedented and disgusting. Mr. Corbyn is actually a very decent, thoughtful, calm, intelligent and compassionate man. He may not be the greatest of Leaders or the most exciting and charismatic but he is a deep thinker and has been right on a lot of issues including one of the biggest foreign policy disasters the UK has been involved with in decades that of the Iraq War.

Over the last few weeks as Labour have rolled out policy after policy designed to enhance the standard of living and quality of life for the vast majority of working middle class people and not just a minority of the ultra-rich and powerful who sit at the very top, something has been shifting within British politics. Suddenly, by cutting through the traditional London media and with a Parliamentary Party finally focused on taking the fight to the Tory Party rather than at war with itself, voters began to think perhaps this man Corbyn is not so bad and perhaps a Labour Government under him would make life easier. The standard of living and quality of life in the so-called United Kingdom ranks as one of the worst in the developed Western world and has one of the lowest rates of social mobility. Just as Churchill won the war for the British but then was rejected at the July 1945 General Election in favour of the socialist Labour Party and its unflappable Leader Clement Attlee because British people wanted a better life after the misery of the Great Depression of the 1930s and then the World War of the early 1940s, and did not want a return to the cruel and callous policies of the Tories. So while Churchill won the war, so to speak, it was the Labour Party of Clement Attlee who the British people turned to secure the peace. Perhaps something similar was at work in the decline in the Tory opinion poll lead with people perhaps sensing that they have got their Brexit and now it is time for some Jam and Honey in the form of a social democratic, progressive Labour Government taking the country through Brexit.

It still remains to be seen what impact the attack in Manchester will have on the final result. But the current regime of Theresa May has wasted no time in trotting out all the old Blairite/Bushite «war on terror» psychological control techniques. The terror threat level has been raised to its highest. The truly ghastly Home Secretary Amber Rudd has been telling the public that more attacks are imminent. The military are to be deployed around the country and a heavy police presence. Does one not remember Mr. Blair shortly before the Iraq War in February 2003 deploying armoured tanks at Heathrow and talking about the rising threat level? I feel as though I have seen this film before. These kind of «shock and awe» or «shock and unnerve» tactics reek of the psychological operations carried out by British intelligence services. By creating a climate of fear and panic, by replacing the emphasis in the media on issues of national security and terrorism rather than domestic quality of life matters this will no doubt help stabilise and reinvigorate the Conservative Party lead. Or perhaps not. There have been a number of terrorist related incidents under the tenure of Theresa May both as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister. The last three major terrorist attacks to occur in Britain the individuals involved had been already known to MI5 and had been under surveillance. Some of them such as the murderers of Lee Rigby had been previously working for MI5 and had been under surveillance only three days before the killing. And there was such strange reporting by the BBC in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Manchester. For instance, the BBC carried a newsline in one of its first reports which stated: ««Unconfirmed reports from two unnamed US officials suggested the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber.» What where these «unconfirmed reports»? Who were these two «unnamed US officials» and how did they know before the Greater Manchester Police had confirmed the facts?

The Prime Minister is well known to be deeply involved with Britain’s domestic security service, colloquially known as MI5, which she as Home Secretary was ultimately responsible for. During her time at the Home Office she developed very close connections, perhaps too close for a democratic politician, with the Whitehall leadership of MI5. She employs many of their number within her Downing Street team. Theresa May is nothing if not MI5’s woman in Downing Street. She has backed them all the way giving them as much «investigatory» powers as they ask for and giving them free reign to do whatever they want. They in turn have and will back her all the way and will do all they can to protect her political position, not something a so-called security agency should really be doing, but there you have it. MI5 is more than just a security service and has a deep anti-Labour bias as evidenced by the conspiracy theory propagated by MI5 that British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was really a KGB sleeper agent, which was complete nonsense.

Meanwhile the latest puppet and mouthpiece for MI5, the harsh and severe looking Amber Rudd, has said an «uplift» in PREVENT, the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, will occur after June. This had already been planned before Monday’s attack, she added. The PREVENT Strategy has come in for considerable criticism from many political figures from across the divide that it is wholly counter-productive and seeks to spy on every single Muslim in Britain treating each one and their communities as hotbeds of terrorists. The Conservative Peer Baroness Warsi has called it «toxic». As with most policies carried out by the British State – they are not very well and rigorously thought through, planned and implemented – which is a hallmark of the English way of doing things – rather than decreasing the problem at hand PREVENT has actually increased it, who knows, perhaps deliberately for a certain warped political agenda.

A favoured tactic of the British State throughout the ages has been «divide and rule». They did it between India and Pakistan; between Northern and Southern Ireland; in Africa; in Palestine; in Asia – where ever they have inserted themselves through their disgusting practice known as Imperialism where they actually had no business ever being. The British State is just not that good at a lot of matters but it likes to project an image that it is. Yet people should ask themselves a very hard question: if British intelligence in collusion with the politicians were willing to tell such lies and fabricate such nonsense to get the UK into the Iraq War with the untold destruction and death that has wrought, what else are they capable of doing? To the cold, psychotic men in grey suits of the MI5 Whitehall Establishment – people – particularly working class people are merely useful idiots to be manipulated like pieces on a chess board. They do not value human life the way people who have empathy do. Indeed, Mrs. May recently said she herself: «does not do empathy.» To some of their number certain people are expendable if it will help them achieve their sordid, perverted objectives.

WATCH: Rabbi celebrates at Manchester False Flag

Rabbi Shneur Cohen of Chabad Manchester city was spotted serving coffee and donuts to cops after the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester arena on May 21, which resulted in the death of 22 people and sending another 59 to hospital. Chabad is Jewish supremacist group with ties to Israel Mossad.

The attack came ahead of June 8 general election which Jewish lobby fears anti-Israel Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leader might win.

US officials claimed within hours of the incident that the perpetrator Salman Abedi, 22, was a suicide bomber belonging to ISIS terrorist group created by the US, Israel and Britain in the first place in order to provide humanitarian excuse to invade and destroy anti-Israel governments in region.

The UK’s Zionist-controlled mainstream media has already started blaming Muslims without any proof. Considering that Britain is the most heavily surveilled state in the world, one can only ponder.

Salman like all the false flag Muslim pasties was under observation by the British intelligence agency and London police – but was not considered as threat to the White or Jewish communities.

As happens in false flags, the security services held a counter-terrorist drill before the incident (watch below).

British pop singer Steve Brookstein, who became the first Jew to win the X-Factor award in 2005, irked his tribe by tweeting on May 23: Theresa May has a terrible day. Awful press and guess what an explosion in Manchester. Can’t make this S**t up.

Recently elected Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham just visited the Zionist entity – all expenses paid by Labour Friends of Israel. He believes that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to curb antisemitism in his party. Manchester is home to second largest Jewish community after London.

Britain is home to Europe’s second largest Muslim community (2.1 million) after France (7-9 million). a great majority of Brit Muslims supports Corbyn.

American academic and author Kevin Barrett, PhD, also claimed on May 22 that Manchester carnage was a false flag operation by the British and Israeli intelligence agencies.

Understanding Brits – A Post-Political Analysis

May 19, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

The current election has made understanding Brits pretty easy.

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph published some statistics that suggest that Brits are just ordinary people, not much different from the Americans or the French – they are born communists but die hard-core conservatives.

The above data suggest that British youngsters overwhelmingly supportCorbyn’s dream. But this changes once they hit political puberty which is apparently around the age of 25. Adults seem to run away from Labour and Corbyn.

Why are the Tories leading with each age group over 25?

While youngsters are happy to share other people’s possessions, grownups are reluctant to share the little they have. People become more greedy and possessive of what they have managed to accumulate, however small, as they get older. This tendency is not a ‘British’symptom, it is actually embedded in the human condition.

There is also another reason behind Corbyn unpopularity amongst grownups. Adults understand that politicians’ promises mean little and they are always attached to a tax bill.

.Corbyn has been astonishingly successful in energizing young support.  Theresa May, on the other hand, understands that it is the homeowners, the workers and especially the elders that she has to communicate with. As a calculated populist, she promises to be tough on immigration and protect possessions. Seemingly, this is what most Brits care about.

The outcome should be devastating for the British Left.  In Britain, the Labour Party is primarily a juvenile adventure. The ‘party of the workers’ is led by a person who has not worked a single day in his life (I mean a proper job). People who do not work are often detached from the human experience.  Whether or not we like to admit it, Corbyn is paying for his detachment. Despite his genuine appealing message about a country that delivers “for the many, not the few”, he has somehow failed to buy the necessary trust to make his candidacy a meaningful political event. This is indeed painful to watch.

As the statistics above show, the older Brits get, the less they trust Corbyn and the Labour party.  Labour enthusiasts may tell us that youngsters and sensible people support Corbyn because they dream of a new future, a prospect of change. This is probably true. However, the elder Brits do not support Labour because they have a memory- they just do not trust ‘socialists.’

The Workless Class

If Labour once dominated the worker’s vote, this is clearly not the case anymore.


As the above statistics reveal, even the workers do not trust ‘their’ party.

In contrast, Theresa May has managed to buy herself the name of  ‘Red Tory’ by saying she wants the Conservative party to be the “voice of ordinary working people once again.” The statistics above suggest that many members of the British working class seem to buy into May’s populism. Again, not surprising. The Americans and the French have fallen into the same trap.

Why do the working people prefer to believe bankers, mammonites, and Tories rather than their ‘own’ union leaders? Probably because they are working people rather than Guardian readers.

The working people are dependent upon production, trade and manufacturing. They know that it is the capitalists, the bankers and the mammonites and not the union leaders who put bread and butter on their tables.  This is why they vote for Trump, Macron and May.

The tragedy is that Trump is not going to make America great again. Macron didn’t even intend to make France great and May will forget she was once a ‘Red Tory’ by the early hours of June 9th.

To pre-order Being in Time- A Post Political Manifesto: 

Amazon.co.uk  or Amazon.com

The book is now available on this site

Trump is a Danger to the World, says Jeremy Corbyn


‘The US is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility to use its power with care and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully,’ Mr Corbyn said

Donald Trump risks making the world a more dangerous place, Jeremy Corbyn has said, as he cited the US President’s increasingly hard-line rhetoric in relation to North Korea.

Posted May 15, 2017

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. ”

Full Transcript

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

BBC left red-faced after a desperate hunt for anti-Corbyn Labour voters leads directly into a trap @KatieHile @BBC bias

BBC left red-faced after a desperate hunt for anti-Corbyn Labour voters leads directly into a trap

Kerry-Anne Mendoza – The Canary May 10, 2017

The BBC has joined the wider media in amplifying the voice of anyone who claims to be a former Labour voter but refuses to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. But in a desperate hunt to find such voices, the BBC fell into a trap.

The ‘Silly Hat’ trap

It started with a voter from Manchester named Elliot (@langho), who sent a tweet parodying those ‘former’ Labour voters. He wrote that he would only vote Labour if Corbyn “wears a multicoloured cap with a propellor on top”.

But someone didn’t get the joke. Because very soon, he was approached by BBC Business and Economics Producer Katie Hile.

bbc email

Despite Elliot ratcheting up the parody in the messages, it was seemingly lost on Hile.

bbc email1

Click to enlarge

bbc email2bbc email3

Finally, after he could take it no more, Elliot filled Hile in on the joke.

bbc email4

According to her Linkedin profile, Hile has been Business Producer at the BBC‘s Business and Economics unit since November 2014. And she has served with the BBC since 2007. This was not a mistake by an eager newbie, but instead an example of how far the corporation is willing to push to support its narrative of Labour voters abandoning the party over Corbyn.

This is despite Labour’s membership rising to its highest levels, adding up to more than the membership of the other Westminster parties combined. And despite Labour winning by-elections and mayoral contests since Corbyn’s election as leader. But that may come as a surprise to the majority of voters, dependent on the BBC and other powerful outlets for their view.

BBC Bias

The problems with the BBC start at the top. The Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC is James Harding, a former employee of the Murdoch press. He was editor of The Times newspaper when it exposed the identity of police blogger ‘NightJack’ by hacking the blogger’s email accounts. His legal team then covered up the hacking during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel‘.

Harding has presided over some of the worst years of BBC bias. When the BBC Trust found its own chief political editor Laura Kuenssberg guilty of misreporting on Jeremy Corbyn, Harding responded:

While we respect the Trust and the people who work there, we disagree with this finding.

And he went on to praise Kuenssberg as:

an outstanding journalist and political editor with the utmost integrity and professionalism.

Beyond Harding and Kuenssberg, multiple studies have supported the assertion that this bias exists. A 2013 content analysis of the BBC by Cardiff University found that:

  • The BBC consistently grants more airtime to the Conservatives, whichever party is in power.
  • On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespeople by more than 5:1 in 2007 and by 19:1 in 2012.
  • BBC coverage of the 2008 financial crisis was dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators critical of the finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.

Studies by the London School of Economics and the Media Reform Coalition have since found serious imbalance in reporting of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Turn it off

Such coverage has real-world impacts. It encourages vast swathes of the UK electorate to vote against their own interests; and against the interests of their loved ones and communities. Skewed coverage distorts our view of ourselves, each other, and what’s possible for us as a country. And that’s why it’s time to turn it off.


British Political Parties and Foreign Policy

British Political Parties and Foreign Policy


British Political Parties and Foreign Policy

With the United Kingdom in the grip of another General Election, it is worth looking at what the British political parties are offering for their vision of Britain in the world, if such vision exists, and what the foreign policies are of the two main British political parties – the Conservative Party led by Theresa May and the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

Firstly, it is important to put Britain’s place on the world stage and position in the pecking order of nations in proper context. Large elements of the British Political Establishment, the political parties, the media and population still think Britain is an extremely important country in world affairs when in reality it is a minor player in the great global issues of the 21st century. The Britain of 2017 is a deeply insular, parochial country consumed within its own trivia. What groups such as The Henry Jackson Society; elements of the Tory Party; the British media and sections of the public fail to grasp is that what goes on and happens in Britain is largely irrelevant to the outside world.

The UK may be absorbed with Brexit and that is largely all you here about in the news and political discourse and once Britain’s impending departure from the European Union comes into full force the country’s weight and voice in international affairs will become even more diminished. Yet the rest of the world, including the EU, is not engulfed with the issue of Brexit (thankfully) and regards it as a typically peculiar, self-generated British nonsense and silly distraction from greater international challenges.

There really is no British foreign policy to speak of or overarching Grand Strategy for Britain’s engagement with the rest of the planet beyond doing whatever the United States asks of it; banging on about the EU non-stop or pretending it still has some post-imperial grip on the nations of what it quaintly calls the «Commonwealth». This is a great shame and terribly limiting for the UK in this highly interconnected, interdependent, global age. Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, started off her Premiership largely as a «domestic» Prime Minister but by the end of it she was immersed in international relations; a force to be reckoned with on the World Stage and became a foreign policy supremo, her very own Foreign Secretary, assisted greatly by her brilliant Foreign Affairs advisor, the real «Deputy Prime Minister» Foreign Office diplomat/MI6 agent Sir Charles Powell. Mrs. Thatcher also grew increasingly frustrated with her sheepish Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe who she berated in Cabinet for speaking in such a quiet, mumbling voice typical of many British people who speak in almost hushed, conspiratorial voices. As she said of Sir Geoffrey’s oratorical delivery: «He spoke so quietly that sometimes I could barely hear what he was saying and had to ask him to speak up. And his delivery was not exactly scintillating».

With regards to the current Tory Prime Minister and pale imitation of Margaret Thatcher – Theresa May – she and her Tory Party are offering up a very two dimensional, simplistic, positively provincial foreign policy (if one can even call it a foreign policy). Her main advisors know nothing of foreign policy, international relations and global affairs having no academic credentials and intellectual training in this field; having never worked in the foreign policy community and largely having spent their working lives almost exclusively in the UK either as a football journalist such as Fiona Hill, her co-Chief of Staff, or as a domestic political apparatchik in the backrooms of the propaganda department at Conservative Central Office on «home» affairs such as Nick Timothy. Hill and Timothy’s limited understanding of the world beyond Britain; their lack of professional work experience in the worlds of foreign policy and international relations; their lack of knowledge, erudition and intellectual firepower in understanding global geopolitics, other cultures and foreign policy matters combined with their provincialism, lack of cosmopolitan urbane sophistication shines through in Mrs. May’s policies and speeches.

As Phillip Stevens writing in the Financial Times makes clear: «In Whitehall code Mrs. May is more 5 than 6». It was said she was frustrated with discussions in Whitehall regarding selecting bombing targets in Libya or Syria and more concerned with domestic counter-terrorism. To her credit Mrs. May is correct in that Britain should stop pretending that it is a force in world affairs and stop believing it’s military can make a difference in some kind of post-imperial neoconservative interventionism akin to Mr. Blair’s deeply misguided foreign policy. Britain can’t and should cease wasting any time, energy or resources on thinking it can make a difference in places like Libya and Syria. The only countries which have the power, strength and competence to really shape world affairs are the United States, China, Russia and perhaps collectively the European Union if it pulls itself together with a European army and single European foreign and defence policy.

Instead, Britain should largely give up any pretensions to being a global power and instead focus on putting its own domestic house in order and improving the quality of life for its own citizens at home. Her new National Security Advisor Mark Sedwill attempts to straddle both MI5, which is in essence the Home Office, where he was Permanent Secretary and MI6 which is in essence the Foreign Office were he previously served as British Ambassador to Afghanistan. Whether or not Mr. Sedwill will be able to pull off this balancing act remains to be seen given how engrossed in the Home Office/MI5 the Prime Minister and her top advisors are. There really is no need to go into great depth or analysis of what the Conservative Party’s foreign policy platform is at the 2017 General Election for it has no real depth or multi-dimensional complexity to it a GCSE student could grasp it in a couple of minutes. It can be summed up in a few sentences: hostile to all things EU related and largely anti-European shaped by a Little England, provincial, Home Office/MI5 outlook on the world which is deeply xenophobic, ignorant and prejudiced Hostile to anyone who does not hail from the «Anglosphere».

Subservient to the United States under President Trump backing him and his administration 100% and willing to do anything the Americans ask of Britain. And that is pretty much it. There is no one in the Conservative Party policy making machinery or even in Whitehall who really do foreign policy or have great expertise on these complex subjects. As the Tory MP and former Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee Rory Stewart pointed there were only two people working on Ukraine within the Foreign Office at the start of 2014. Meanwhile when it comes to the second largest economy in the world and the second Super-Power of the 21st century, the People’s Republic of China as one former UK Government official put it: «There’s no one in the government who gets out of bed and thinks China. It’s a very old fashioned, almost Victorian view of the world». Quite. This is largely to the detriment of the British. If they think the world will come to them instead of going out into the world as part of the European Union, they are in for a very rude awakening.

Then we have the Labour Party. Before the advent of Tony Blair the Labour Party had historically been cool towards American global leadership. The Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam War much to the chagrin of President Johnson. From Clement Attlee right up to Michael Foot it had also traditionally been the most Eurosceptic of the British political parties. From the Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin to the Labour Leader Hugh Gaitskell, the Labour Party foreign policy regarding the burgeoning European Community had been to oppose British membership. Harold Wilson nearly split his party by applying to join in 1967 and had to offer a Referendum on continued British membership in 1975 with freedom of his party to campaign which ever way they liked. The Europhiles were led by the likes of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams while the anti-EEC brigade was led by Tony Benn and Barbara Castle.

Ironically, it was the Labour Party of Michael Foot at the 1983 General Election which pledged to end British membership of the European Community while it was Mrs. Thatcher’s Conservatives which fiercely campaigned to protect Britain’s place in the European Community. Also during the 1980s the Labour Party under Michael Foot and for a period under Neil Kinnock supported unilateral nuclear disarmament and were in lock step with the CND. All this changed under Tony Blair. Mr. Blair ditched the anti-Americanism; the policy of unilateral disarmament; the hostility towards European integration and embraced a pro-American; militaristic, interventionist foreign policy which climaxed with the disastrous decision to follow the Bush administration into invading Iraq and toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Blair, unlike previous Labour Prime Ministers, also became fixated – some would say obsessed – with Middle Eastern issues and was staunchly, unflinchingly pro-Israel. If one were into conspiracy theories one would hazard a guess that perhaps Mr. Blair was a plant within the Labour Party courtesy of the CIA and Mossad!?!

Under the present leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, no Blairite and a traditional socialist, there has been a certain convergence ironically between himself and Mrs. May in that both are rightly sceptical of British military adventurism abroad. But there such convergence ends. While Mr. Corbyn may be moderately Eurosceptic he is not an ultra-Brexiteer and has intimated he may stop Brexit if elected. Mr. Corbyn has rightly opposed British military involvement in airstrikes in Syria knowing full well that it is simply window dressing and superficial symbolism for Britain to pretend it can make any kind of difference through military power in that part of the world.

Mr. Corbyn himself is also rightly sceptical of the continuing maintenance of a horrendously expensive British nuclear deterrent when the money could be better spent on pressing domestic priorities such as health, education, infrastructure, p[pensions et al. There really is no need for Britain to possess nuclear weapons. It is simply a vanity project to maintain the veneer of pretensions to great power status. Germany has no nuclear weapons and feels perfectly fine sheltering under the NATO/American nuclear umbrella. Indeed, we as an international community should be reducing the amount of countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons not maintaining an over-inflated nuclear weapons state status quo. There is an argument that, while nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented, their possession should be limited to a handful of truly Great Powers such as the United States, Russia, China and one European country say France. One day human kind will hopefully evolve to a higher, more enlightened level of consciousness and think to themselves why on earth did our ancestors waste so much money on building and maintaining weapons that had the potential to wipe out every single life on earth a thousand times over.

The Labour Party foreign policy, like the Conservatives, is not terribly well thought out; sophisticated and deep. Under a Corbyn Premiership Britain would probably become more independent of the United States, most certainly since it is now under the leadership of Donald Trump, and Mr. Corbyn could be relied upon to stand up to Donald Trump unlike Mrs. May who is quite content to be his lap dog. Brexit might be stopped in its tracks but the Labour leadership have been vague and inconsistent on this; one minute stating they will go through with it but deliver a softer Brexit; the next minute intimating that the whole process could be stopped. One matter which is clear – under a Jeremy Corbyn Labour Government foreign policy – there would be no repeat of the Blairite neoconservative military adventurism abroad and a more realist approach to Britain’s place in world affairs befitting of the true power status of the country in international relations. Mr. Corbyn’s foreign policy would probably focus instead on utilizing Britain’s soft power for international development purposes in Africa and he would seek to repair relations with Russia.

His policy with regards to China remains opague given his support for Tibetan independence and the Dalai Lama, though here again I think Mr. Corbyn as a realist recognising that Britain with it’s dwindling resources, dwindling wealth, and dwindling influence in Europe and the wider world will need good relations with the second largest (perhaps soon to be first largest economy on the planet) and that post-Brexit Britain most certainly needs China a great deal more than China needs Britain. I think Mr. Corbyn would be willing to work with the Chinese realising that a strong Sino-British strategic relationship can yield great benefits for Britain based on the principles of mutual trust and mutual respect leading to win-win cooperation. This is something Mrs. May and her Home Office/MI5 crew simply do not understand. But all in all, both major parties whether they the Conservatives or the Labour Party or the very minor fringe party the Liberal Democrats offer very little in the way of an intellectually rigorous, deep, profound, creative and imaginative British foreign policy and Grand Strategy, which is to the detriment of the country at large and the opportunities it could harness for improving the quality of life in Britain.

UK Election: Journalists as State Functionaries. Blatant bias on @BBCNews @ITVnews

UK Election: Journalists as State Functionaries

By Craig Murray,

There was a brief moment of truth on Sky News this morning (9th May), where there was a brief discussion of disquiet among journalists that Theresa May will only take questions that have been pre-vetted and selected in advance by the Tory Party. The Sky reporter even gave the detail that the journalists are not allowed to hold the microphone, which is controlled by a Tory Party functionary so it can be switched off if the journalist strays from the script.

This has been the case right from the start, something I highlighted a few days ago.

But the overall treatment on Sky was that this was not really important, and was simply a matter of ensuring “fairness” in distributing questions between journalists.

This is a desperate situation. I do not know any genuine democracy in the world which would accept this. I have just spent two months in Ghana, where there would be a commendable roar of outrage if the President tried to limit what questions can be asked of him – and he would never dream of doing so. Nowhere in the European Union, not even in authoritarian Hungary, are journalists’ questions pre-vetted.

The idea that the head of the government both gets to choose what they have asked, and gets advance warning of every question so they can look sharp with their answer, is totally antithetical to every notion of democratic accountability. If we had anything approaching a genuine free media, there would be absolute outrage. All genuine media organisations would react by boycotting such events and simply refusing to cover them at all.

The media know perfectly well that the reason May needs protection from difficult questions – and even advance notice of soft ones – is that she is hopeless. Her refusal to debate Corbyn and her car crash interview with Marr illustrate that. But our servile media cover up for her by colluding in entirely fake events.

I learn from a BBC source that in the special Question Time the BBC have organised for May in lieu of a debate, questioners will be selected in advance and May will see the questions in time to prepare.

My observation that the Conservative platform is in its essentials identical to the BNP manifesto of 2005 has received widespread social media coverage. I simply cannot conceive that the UK can have become so right wing. Now add to that, it has become so authoritarian there is no reaction to advance vetting of journalists questions – something Vladimir Putin does not do. And very few people seem to care.

I understand that Theresa May has succeeded in going so far to the right she hoovers up all of UKIP votes. In some ways she has gone further to the right than UKIP ever did. For all his faults, Nigel Farage would be quite genuinely horrified at the idea of pre-vetting of which questions from journalists are permitted. The thing I do not understand, is that it appears that there is no lurch too far into right-wing authoritarianism which causes more liberal conservatives to desert.

I suspect many are deluding themselves she has the ability to control the far right forces to which her every word and action pander. They delude themselves. Firstly, May really is that right wing and illiberal. Secondly it has gone beyond control. Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society has a major article in The Sun today in which he forecasts violence (“deeds not words”) by “the people” if immigration specifically from Muslim countries is not curtailed. He does not state what form precisely these deeds not words by the people would take, but it is hard to see anything he can mean except violence against Muslims. People like Murray are now the mainstream Conservatives.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was also British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Visit his books page HERE.

%d bloggers like this: