Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘Conspiracies’ Category

The Independent Backs Referendum on Brexit Deal.

with 3 comments

Image result for Left anti-=Brexit tour

 

Britain in the EU is the best chance to constrain the power of big money and big business.

Amongst continuing chaos on the Brexit right and left this is worth flagging up: how some of the leading ideologues of Leave are now becoming disaster theorists.

In the Great Deception (643 pages long, long) Christopher Booker (who is also a climate change denier) and Richard North argued that that British membership in the EU is a “slow-motion coup d’etat” with an “agenda of subordination” to invasive centralised regulation that is economically harmful to the UK. “an entirely new form of government, one which was supra-national’ beyond the control of national governments, politicians or electorates” Everything else would become subordinate to this entity.

Those who have plodded through its weary pages, and bothered to retain more than the name of Jean Monnet (there are 3 other apocalyptic horsemen, Arthur Salter, Altero Spinelli and Paul-Henri Spaak), will probably remember only that the project the authors refer to was a United States of Europe. 

And that it was doomed, “…like the vision of Le Corbusier and a much grander scale, it would eventually leave a great devastation behind it: wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emergence.”

The Great Deception, Can the European Union survive? Christopher Booker. Richard North. 2017 ‘Referendum’ Edition (First published 2005).

It seems, nevertheless, that now it’s the Brexit victory that can claim to have created a desert and called it their peaceful victory.

As both authors now say.

Theresa May’s Brexit proposal is so detached from reality that it can only end in disaster. CHRISTOPHER BOOKER (1)

It is this context which makes the Independent’s call today make sense.

The referendum gave sovereignty to the British people, so now they deserve a final say on the Brexit deal

Independent.

Morally, emotionally even, another referendum is needed to help bind up the wounds of the past two years

The Independent today launches a campaign to win for the British people the right to a final say on Brexit. Come what may in the months ahead, we maintain our commitment to our readers to retain balance and present many different points of view. But on this subject we believe a referendum on the final deal is right. We do so for three reasons.

First, amid the chaos of recent months, one thing has become increasingly clear: Theresa May’s approach – and indeed the chaos in parliament – is not working. We are simply not close enough to resolving so many big issues about which people care so much. The enormity of the task, the contradictions in both major parties and the ferocious divisions in their ranks have now stretched our parliament to its limits, to the point where the impasse leads us ever closer to an “accidental” Brexit, as foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt most recently acknowledged, without a deal.

Second, sovereignty rests with the people – the people should have the opportunity to finish what they began, to pause and consider whether they still want to go ahead with the Brexit course we’re on, just as they would any other major decision in their lives.

Third, while there are questions about the validity of another referendum – shouldn’t the original outcome be delivered? – we clearly know more now than we did in 2016, amid such deeply flawed campaigns on both sides. Ignoring these shortcomings and ploughing on regardless is a far bigger problem for democracy. Faced with the current turmoil in our politics, and with dangers ahead coming into focus, it is surely undemocratic to deny people a chance to express their opinion afresh.

The Independent also publishes this important commentary on Corbyn’s Labour Brexit speech by Nick Dearden, director of UK campaigning organisation Global Justice Now.

It makes many of the points those backing The Left Against Brexit would make, but is too sanguine about the lingering influence amongst the Labour leadership of the view that Parliament, embodying Popular Sovereignty, can effectively work socialist wonders free from the kind of pooled sovereignty the EU works with. Those Corbyn listens to include influential voices from the ‘British Road to Socialism’ tradition which believes not only that, but that the EU is a particularly hard form of what used to be known (pre-Trump) as “neo-liberalism”.

Corbyn was brave enough to tackle the reasons why people voted for Brexit – and now he’s being savaged for it.

Nick Dearden

The real criticism you might make of Corbyn’s speech is that it’s not radical enough. After all, much of this analysis is common sense in many parts of Northern Europe where “industrial strategy” and “economic intervention” have not been dirty words for the past four decades. But Corbyn pushes the envelope, for instance insisting that those businesses who benefit from government intervention must be held to account for their levels of pay equality, for their climate impacts, for what happens in their supply chain.

This couldn’t be further from Donald Trump’s vision of the world. In fact, Corbyn explicitly eschews Trump’s protectionist trade wars. But, as economist Dani Rodrik consistently argues, if you want low tariffs and an open economy without high levels of inequality and poverty, you must have strong regulation on big business, coupled with high levels of investment and welfare. The alternative is a free-for-all for big money.

That’s what we’ve lived through in Britain – a “market knows best” approach in which all that mattered was slashing regulation and liberalising the economy. That’s what drove Brexit, and indeed it’s what is driving far-right votes in the US and elsewhere. Sadly, it’s not being listened to by the government because the hard Brexit being successfully pushed by Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg would turbocharge this model.

I want the EU to survive because I believe it can fulfil the dream of some of its founders to promote peace and equality. I want Britain in the EU because I believe it’s the best chance to constrain the power of big money and big business, to fight climate change, and to offer an alternative to the rise of Trumpism. That’s why I’m speaking at the Left Against Brexit tour in Liverpool tonight.

But it is a fantasy to think the EU can do any of this without serious top-to-bottom transformation. The EU has embraced far too much of the “market knows best” philosophy – often pushed by the British government. As a result it is coming apart at the seams, and before too long, Brexit will be the least of Brussel’s worries.

That’s why the policy direction Corbyn announced yesterday should not be seen as an attack on the EU. Rather it gives much-needed direction for the union as a whole. Only a Europe which embraces some of the changes set out by Corbyn yesterday has a hope of surviving. There is no going back to the day before the EU referendum— we either embrace fundamental economic reform, or we lose to the false promises of the growing far right.

John Rogan  signals this useful thread on the issues the speech dealt with.

Advertisements

European Far-Right Sovereigntists to be led by US Steve Bannon’s The Movement.

with one comment

Image result for Raheem Kassam, Tommy Robinson

Raheem Kassam, Bannon’s Man in the UK.

The Daily Beast reports,

LONDON—Steve Bannon plans to go toe-to-toe with George Soros and spark a right-wing revolution in Europe.

Trump’s former White House chief advisor told The Daily Beast that he is setting up a foundation in Europe called The Movement which he hopes will lead a right-wing populist revolt across the continent starting with the European Parliament elections next spring.

The non-profit will be a central source of polling, advice on messaging, data targeting, and think-tank research for a ragtag band of right-wingers who are surging all over Europe, in many cases without professional political structures or significant budgets.

Bannon’s ambition is for his organization ultimately to rival the impact of Soros’s Open Society, which has given away $32 billion to largely liberal causes since it was established in 1984.

Over the past year, Bannon has held talks with right-wing groups across the continent from Nigel Farage and members of Marine Le Pen’s Front National (recently renamed Rassemblement National) in the West, to Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the Polish populists in the East.

He envisions a right-wing “supergroup” within the European Parliament that could attract as many as a third of the lawmakers after next May’s Europe-wide elections. A united populist bloc of that size would have the ability to seriously disrupt parliamentary proceedings, potentially granting Bannon huge power within the populist movement.

….

After being forced out of the White House following internal wranglings that would later surface in the book Fire and Fury, Bannon is now reveling in the opportunity to plot his new European empire. “I’d rather reign in hell, than serve in heaven,” he said, paraphrasing John Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost.

The Movement’s headquarters are expected to be located in Brussels, Belgium, where they will start hiring staff in coming months. It is expected that there will be fewer than 10 full-time staff ahead of the 2019 elections, with a polling expert, a communications person, an office manager and a researcher among the positions. The plan is to ramp that up to more like 25 people post-2019 if the project has been a success.

Bannon plans to spend 50 percent of his time in Europe—mostly in the field rather than the Brussels office—once the midterm elections in the U.S. are over in November.

The operation is also supposed to serve as a link between Europe’s right-wing movements and the pro-Trump Freedom Caucus in the U.S. This week Paul Gosar (R-AZ) was its envoy to Bannon’s operation in London.

Bannon and Raheem Kassam, a former Farage staffer and Breitbart editor, set up shop in a five-star Mayfair hotel for a week while Donald Trump was visiting Europe. Between TV appearances as Trump surrogates, they hosted a raft of Europe’s leading right-wingers at the hotel.

This comes as the Sunday Times reports,

Theresa May is facing an unprecedented political crisis, according to a new poll that reveals voters are implacably opposed to her Brexit plan and are prepared to turn to Ukip or parties of the far right.

In a survey that will spark unease in Downing Street, the YouGov poll found that the public believes Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, is better placed to negotiate with Brussels and lead the Conservatives into the next election.

It highlights how voters are polarising, with growing numbers alienated from the two main parties. About 38% would vote for a new party on the right that was committed to Brexit, while 24% are prepared to support an explicitly far-right anti-immigrant, anti-Islam party.

One in three voters are prepared to back a new anti-Brexit centrist party.

Tory donors and allies of Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, are now plotting to raise £10m to set up a new hard-Brexit party — a move that could make it impossible for the Tories to win the next election.

A close ally of Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, told The Sunday Times he aimed to raise £1m from British and US sources to create a right-wing “mass movement” to rival Momentum on the left.

It can also be revealed that Sir Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leader, was holding talks on the creation of a new centrist party when he failed to turn up for a crunch vote last week.

The poll will prompt Tory MPs to demand changes to May’s Brexit proposal thrashed out at Chequers earlier this month. Just one in nine voters (11%) would support her plan in a new referendum and only 12% think it would be good for Britain, while 43% disagree.

By more than two to one, voters do not believe her plan keeps faith with the referendum result.

May’s position will be further eroded by public support for Johnson, who resigned to oppose the Chequers deal, which would lead to the UK permanently accepting EU rules on the sale of goods. Just 16% of voters think the prime minister is handling Brexit well; more than twice as many (34%) think Johnson would do a better job (!!!!!!! – or sarcasm….)

With the Tories on 38%, a point behind Labour, a Conservative party led by Johnson would be neck and neck with Labour, while his main leadership rivals — Sajid Javid, Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt — would all be trailing Jeremy Corbyn’s party by between 10 and 12 percentage points.

Johnson’s support is likely to grow if he is seen by MPs as someone who could prevent votes leaching to populist parties.

Bannon said yesterday he was setting up a foundation called the Movement, to lead a right-wing revolt at next spring’s European elections. He held meetings in a Mayfair hotel last week with senior figures on the European hard right and far right, including Farage and the vice-president of the French National Rally, formerly the National Front.

Raheem Kassam, a former adviser to Farage and employee of Bannon’s, said the post-Chequers chaos was “massively an opening for the right”.

Hardline Eurosceptics warned Tory whips last week that they would vote to bring down the government in a confidence vote if May watered down Brexit.

The only good news for May in the poll is that, while voters as a whole would like to see her resign, Tory voters still think she should fight on by a margin of 58% to 32%.

The prime minister has ruled out a new EU referendum on the grounds that it would be undemocratic to revisit the 2016 vote. The poll shows that if voters were offered a new vote they would overturn the referendum result, with remaining in the EU beating leaving with no deal by 54% to 46%.

 

RT (Russia Today) is a willing megaphone for Bannon.

Its French language site states today,

Un Soros du populisme ? Steve Bannon, l’homme qui voulait mener la révolte de droite en Europe.

Banon, they state, has meet the following people already, “Depuis un an, Steve Bannon a rencontré de nombreuses personnalités de droite sur le Vieux continent, de Nigel Farage, l’ancien dirigeant de l’UKIP et fer de lance de la campagne pour le Brexit, au Premier ministre hongrois Viktor Orban dont les positions anti-immigration en font un opposant de premier ordre à George Soros, en passant par la présidente du Rassemblement national (RN) Marine Le Pen.”

RT in Spanish repeats the same message but manages to call his movement’s allies the “far right”.

Un exestratega de Trump planea crear una fundación para impulsar la extrema derecha en Europa

Dutch media also reports on the move:

Steve Bannon wil met ‘rechtspopulistische supergroep’ derde van Europees parlement innemen

And German: (Deutschlandfunk).

Bannon will Einfluss auf Europawahl nehmen.

Der Spiegel:

‘The Movement’ Steve Bannon plant offenbar rechtspopulistische Revolte in Europa

And Italian:

Bannon lancia l’internazionale populista europea. Si chiamerà “The Movement”

Written by Andrew Coates

July 22, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Trump and the Implosion of Neoliberalism.

with 13 comments

Image result for trump brexit cartoon

“Trump is trying to subvert the political institutions of neoliberal capitalism”

“the neoliberal order continues to implode.” “..Trump has proved to be deadly serious about undermining the post-war liberal international order.”

Alex Callinicos. Darkening prospects. International Socialism. Issue: 159 June 2018

Trump’s chaos tour will unleash far right. Alex Callinicos. 17th of July.

Trump had in his sights precisely the European extreme centre, and more particularly the centre right that currently dominates the European Union (EU).

…….

His attacks on Merkel were semi-orchestrated with the far right governments that have taken office in Europe. They are Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Sebastian Kurz in collaboration with the Nazi Freedom Party in Austria and Matteo Salvini in Italy.

Similarly, Trump’s intervention in the Tory factional struggle over the terms of Brexit was intended to bolster Boris Johnson and other Brexiteers in rebellion against May.

As the Financial Times newspaper put it, “The US president is clearly intent on forming a new kind of transatlantic alliance with insurgent political forces.”

Luckily Johnson is probably too lazy and cowardly to take full advantage of Trump’s support.

But Orbán, Kurz, and Salvini are no clowns. They already have Merkel and other leaders of the European extreme centre such as Emmanuel Macron in a headlock.

The SWP leader continues,

So Trump is trying to subvert the political institutions of neoliberal capitalism on both sides of the Atlantic by promoting the forces of the far right. This is very dangerous.

In the first place, neither he nor his European allies have a real economic alternative to neoliberalism. Their most potent weapon is anti-migrant racism, and the extreme centre is adapting to their demands.

Secondly, Trump is giving confidence to genuinely fascist forces, as we’ve seen on British streets in recent weeks.

Trump has been successful in undermining the “political institutions” of what Callinicos calls ‘neoliberalism’. IN the last week alone he has ridden roughshod over liberal democracy, beginning with all normal forms of inter-state protocol.

He and his allies have equally boosted the European far-right. We just seen this work in the open with Steve Bannon’s support for Tommy Robinson. he has railed about ‘immigration’ in ways that recall Enoch Powell. In his Brexit and Helsinki interventions, it by acting as if his Gang wishes to make real the Russia Today vision of ‘Chaos Europe. Domestically his contempt for his own legal agencies such as the FBI has created unprecedented turmoil.

Iy well be that Trump’s intervention were ‘semi-orchestrated’ (which half we are not clear on) with the European populist right.Whether he will also achieve the weakening of the “extreme centre” is less certain. Callinicos adopts the term from a little read book by Tariq Ali (The Extreme Centre: A Warning 2015, now reissued., It described a period in which a ‘consensus’ of free-market social ‘reforming’ dominated European politics, centre left to centre right, from Germany to the UK. Ali was concerned to rescue the radical left from the ‘sealed tomb’ of this period.

The time of the Extreme Centre is already long past. Ali’s jibes at the “indistinguishable  political elite” have a different, more sour taste, when we realise that  far-right radicals, many with electoral success in their hands, now use that language. But it is not confined to these forces. The intense battles inside Britain’s Conservatives also show the rise of the national-populist right inside the former ‘centre’.

Chancellor Merkel  has shifted clearly to the right, the result of pressure not just from the AfD but the CDU. Some commentators suggest German Christian Democracy  may have its own alliances with the central European populists at hand.

Post World Cup, Macron’s ‘deadlock’, over issues such as EU immigration policy, does not mean that the French president’s wider politics are going to be thwarted by any “semi-orchestration”from outside.

Those who gamble on “Insurgent forces”, such as Italy’s Salvini,  take great risks.

Can a coalition around a populist-nationalist right emerge to dominate Europe?

There are many reasons to doubt such an outcome.

This is not just because (as Callinicos states) they have no economic alternative to neo-liberalism, but because they have no serious economic policies at all.

And, far-right ‘internationals’ – riven with differences too obvious to detail – have proved in the past more ephemeral than any Trotskyist splinter.

How can this be fought?

Alliances against the nationalist-populists (notably without the very pro-Brexit ‘left’ which helps the Trump strategy) can be built but one thing is missing.

We are still without an in-depth  explanation of why the rise of neoliberal “globalisation” is now coming undone.

America has been the global Leader not by acquiring ownership of other sovereign countries, but by being the ‘guardian’ of geopolitical and economic stability. If Trump is not longer a pillar of a world order, if he abandons even the pretence of humanitarianism and human rights in favour of nation state sovereignty, what are the economic drives behind his shift?

One of the main themes of globalisation theory from the 1990s till the financial crash of 2008 is an account of financial, production and distribution flows have become ‘deterrorialised’.

Trump can, provoking serious crises along the way, “re-territorialise” international politics around  what he and his team take to be the interests of the US Homeland.

It remains to be seen how he can bring economics under national political control.

No doubt the sovereigntist left who, rarely in public, but sotto voce, rather admire Trump for standing up for ‘his’ folk against the WTO and globalisation, will also be following this with interest.

 Rudolf Steiner: Marx and Engels “reincarnations” of 9th century feuding Landowners out to “set right what they had done to one another.”

with 2 comments

Image result for marx and engels

Marx-Engels, “metamorphosed in the course of the long journey between death and a new birth into an impulse and urge to balance out and set right what they had done to one another ” (Rudolph Steiner)

In the latest Le Monde Diplomatique there is a long article by Jean-Baptiste Malet  about Rudolf Steiner and the tightly run, wealthy, and influential cadre movement that continues to propagate his esoteric doctrine ( L’anthroposophie, discrète multinationale de l’ésotérisme).

That the followers of Steiner are very odd, and their various ‘educational (including their schools one of which is state funded in the UK)’ ‘biodynamic farming’, the Threefold Social Order, and a raft of alternative medical practices, including lucrative medicine ventures  and the rest are part of a religious cult is well known.

There has been controversy about their schools in the UK: (2017) Top Steiner school ordered to close by Government over child safety fears

Rudolf Steiner School

To recap on a few points:

Steiner Fact 1: Steiner’s esoteric belief system, which determines the nature of Steiner Education, is a religion.

Steiner’s set of esoteric beliefs, which he called Anthroposophy (to distinguish it from Theosophy, of which it is an off-shoot) clearly constitutes a religion. The legal definition of a religion in Australia was given by the High Court in 1983 in the Scientology case:

… for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, …

Steiner and the Anthroposophists believe in a range of supernatural beings, including the Christian Trinity:

… the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit … is a reality deeply bound up with the whole evolution of the cosmos;

Rudolf Steiner: ‘The Mystery of Golgotha’, Oxford, 27 October, 1922

the four Archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel); two evil spirits, Lucifer and Ahriman:

These two figures — Lucifer and Ahriman — must be clearly distinguished from each other. For Lucifer is a Being who detached himself from the spiritual hosts of heaven after the separation of the sun, whereas Ahriman had already broken away before the separation of the sun and is an embodiment of quite different powers.

Rudolf Steiner: An Outline of Occult Science

and many other spirit beings.

Moreover, the practices of Steiner’s followers in education, agriculture, medicine and art are undoubtedly intended to give effect to those beliefs.

..

The Steiner movement has some of the characteristics of a cult

Newcomers to Steiner are generally not told about the cult-like group of chosen initiates at the heart of the Anthroposophy movement, or if they are it is only in very general terms. The group is called the School of Spiritual Science or ‘First Class’ as it is often called. The Australian website describes it as follows:

After two years or more [of involvement in Anthroposophy] you can apply to join the School of Spiritual Science. … [B]y joining the School of Spiritual Science a member now commits to represent Anthroposophy in the world at large. … [This] involves working with certain meditations and mantra, which were given by Rudolf Steiner.                             [http://anthroposophy.org.au/membership.htm]

What they don’t say is that the activities of the School of Spiritual Science/First Class are secret and known only to initiates. The only independent but relatively sympathetic book-length study of the Steiner system describes it as follows:

… the door of the First Class is by no means opened to all who knock. Somewhere between 10 to 30 per cent of General Society members probably also belong to this inner society, which, to outsiders, appears mysterious. At least two years’ affiliation to the General Society is a pre-condition for joining. Also, ‘inner responsibility’ for Anthroposophy has to be accepted. Rudolf Steiner, who was distressed at the state of Anthroposophy, founded the First Class in 1923 as a regenerating organ.

The First Class adapts Steiner’s meditative path for individuals; the latter is generally available in publications such as Occult Science And Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.

More here: 6 Facts You Need to Know About Steiner Education.

What I did not know, and which Jean-Baptiste Malet helpfully brings to a wide audience, is that Steiner had discovered that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were reincarnations of two 8th/9th century feuding landowners, Engels the robber, and Marx the robbed. 

Karmic Relationships:
Esoteric Studies – Volume II

 Rudolf Steiner Archive 

These events also took place in the 8th–9th century — a little later, however, than the time of which we were just now speaking. It was before the formation of large States, in the days when events took place more within smaller circles of people.

In the region, then, which to-day we should call the north-east of France, lived a personality who was full of ambitions. He had a large estate and he governed it remarkably well, quite unusually systematically for the time in which he lived. He knew what he wanted; there was a strange mixture of adventurousness and conscious purpose in him. And he made expeditions, some of which were more and some less successful; he would gather soldiers and make predatory expeditions, minor campaigns carried out with a small troop of men with the object of plunder.

……..

With such a band of men he once set out from north-east France. Now it happened that during his absence another personality, somewhat less of an adventurer than himself, but full of energy, took possession of all his land and property. — It sounds fictitious to-day, but such things actually happened in those days. — And when the owner returned home — he was all alone — he found another man in possession of his estate. In the situation that developed he was no match for the man who had seized his property. The new possessor was more powerful; he had more men, more soldiers. The rightful owner was no match for him.

In all these people who were now serfs where formerly they had been masters, a certain attitude of mind began to assert itself, an attitude of mind most derogatory to the principle of overlordship. On many a night in those well wooded parts, fires were burning, and round the fires these men came together and hatched all manner of plots against those who had taken possession of their property.

In point of fact, the dispossessed owner, who from being the master of a large estate had become a serf, more or less a slave, filled all the rest of his life — as much of it as he was not compelled to give to his work — with making plans for regaining his property. He hated the man who had seized it from him.

And then, when these two personalities passed through the gate of death, they experienced in the spiritual world between death and rebirth, all that souls have been able to experience since that time, shared in it all, and came again to earth in the 19th century. The man who had lost home and property and had become a kind of slave, appeared as Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism. And the man who had seized his estate appeared as his friend Engels. The actions which had brought them into conflict were metamorphosed in the course of the long journey between death and a new birth into an impulse and urge to balance out and set right what they had done to one another.

Read what went on between Marx and Engels, observe the peculiar configuration of Marx’s mind, and remember at the same time what I have told you of the relationship between these two individuals in the 8th–9th century, and you will find a new light falling upon every sentence written by Marx and Engels. You will not be in danger of saying, in abstract fashion: This thing in history is due to this cause, and the other to the other cause. Rather will you see the human beings who carry over the past into another age, in such a way that although admittedly it appears in a somewhat different form, there is nevertheless a certain similarity.

And what else could be expected? In the 8th–9th century, when men sat together at night around a fire in the forest, they spoke in quite a different style from that customary in the 19th century, when Hegel had lived, when things were settled by dialectic. Try all the same to picture to yourselves the forest in north-eastern France in the 9th century. There sit the conspirators, cursing, railing in the language of the period. Translate it into the mathematical-dialectical mode of speech of the 19th century, and you have what comes to expression in Marx and Engels.

I hope that’s cleared a few things up..

Written by Andrew Coates

June 28, 2018 at 4:55 pm

Solidarity with Lush Campaign Against Spy Cops!

with 7 comments

Image result for Lush sp[ycops

Tell Lush They Are Right and Have Support!

We are ex-wives of undercover police officers who had relationships with other women without our knowledge, while we were married with families, and write with regard to the Lush campaign and reaction to it (Report, 5 June). We trusted our husbands (and their managers) and now feel betrayed. Although we have been recognised as core participants in the undercover policing inquiry, our voices have yet to be heard in public or within the public inquiry.

When she was home secretary, Theresa May set up a public inquiry to investigate undercover policing and the related concerns of significant malpractice. It was due to report back within three years. Three years on, the inquiry has yet to hear any evidence, including our own. Although the events in question took place many years ago, they continue to have a profound effect, and we are still waiting for the officers concerned (as well as their chain of command) to give an account in public. These officers, together with the Metropolitan police, have spent a significant part of the last three years seeking both anonymity and continuing secrecy as to their conduct within the inquiry. While this process continues and the evidence stage is further delayed, our view is that the amount of public money spent to date for such little progress is of far greater concern than the Lush campaign.

In bringing this issue to the attention of the general public, Lush has achieved far more in a weekend than the inquiry has in three years. Its campaign has not only drawn attention to the plight of some of the victims, but has also brought into focus legitimate concerns about how the inquiry is proceeding, which we also share. We would like supporters of the police who are criticising Lush to be aware that we, as affected police ex-wives, endorse the points that Lush are now publicising.

Although we are not involved in the Lush campaign, we recognise that it draws attention to legitimate concerns about how the inquiry is proceeding. Lush’s campaign is not an attack on hard-working police officers and we ask critics of the campaign to hold an open mind, look into the facts of this issue (which relate to a specific unit of undercover officers only – see uk.lush.com/article/spycops-statement) and to note that the families of undercover officers are also victims of this scandal. Together with other core participants, we still await answers.
“S” and “HAB”
Core participants in the undercover policing inquiry

Guardian

This Blog covered the case of Bob Lambert from when it first broke.

Sack Bob Lambert! – Police spy, agent provocateur, exploiter of women.  2014.

Bob Lambert, Police Spy, Sex Infiltrator, State Adviser on Islamism: The Met Pays Out.

Bob Lambert, Police Spy, Resurfaces to Offer to Advise Government on Islamists.

Today his name figures in this excellent article in the ‘I’:

Lush ‘Spycops scandal’ has real PTSD truths for every day life too

Deborah Orr

The cosmetics group, Lush, has been condemned for using what has become known as the “Spycops scandal” in an advertising campaign. Critics say that it was a cynical and exploitative stunt, and all just to flog bath bombs. Victims are considerably more enthusiastic about the attention it has drawn to the horrific psychological crimes they were subjected to, or suspect that they may have been subjected to. No one knows how many people were targeted in a protracted undercover operation run by Scotland Yard, which involved police posing for years as the lovers of women involved in political, environmental and animal rights campaigns that the government didn’t like, even going as far as marriage and children in the service of their false identities. They were called the Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS).

One name now in the public domain is Jim Boyling, who married and had two children with one of the women he spied on. Another is Bob Lambert, who had a son with a woman in her early 20s and left without trace when the child was two years old. He had a “real family” with someone else, and continued to have relationships with other women while secretly investigating their lives in their various protest groups.

The promiscuity of Lambert’s investigations allowed various women to put two and two together. The mother of his son didn’t realise what had happened until Lambert was outed by others. The woman had suffered psychological distress significant enough to call for psychiatric treatment. She took legal action and was awarded a compensation payout by the Metropolitan Police. Still, they refused to confirm or deny that Lambert had been a detective working for the SDS until a high court ruling forced them to. There has not been a great deal of progress since all this happened four years ago. The Lush campaign sought to highlight the need for a full public inquiry into the operation, particularly so that victims can ascertain whether they were deceived in this deeply intimate way. Many people involved in these groups, who met and had relationships with men they later lost touch with, have no idea at all whether they were duped.

Go to Lush and Back their Campaign for our Comrades!

Written by Andrew Coates

June 7, 2018 at 5:38 pm

Fall out from Anti-Semitism and Barnet, from Morning Star to Conspiracy Site Skwawkbox .

with 5 comments

Image result for Barnet anti=-semitism

Owen Jones Talks Sense.

Hat-tip Jim D.

Letter in today’s Morning Star:

Before the idea takes root among Star readers that the Barnet Labour group of councillors is a nest of “hard-core of the Labour right” determined to “attack the left and their own party” (M Star May 5-6), I can assure anyone that is willing to listen that that is far from being the case.

On the electoral impact of perceptions of anti-Semitism, as on other issues, denouncing the messenger does not change the truth of the message. Group leader Cllr Barry Rawlings and ex-councillor Adam Langleben just told it as it is – the great majority of of Labour-inclined Jewish voters in Barnet are horrified at the national party’s response to incidents of anti-Semitism in the party and far too many have withdrawn their support, while Jewish Tories are far more certain to turn out against us.

And not voting for Jeremy Corbyn as leader does not put any of us in the “hardcore of the Labour right” or make us some sort of traitors to the party. Apparently the Star’s contributor Kevin Ovendon has belonged to more than one party opposed to Labour, unlike Jeremy Corbyn who, like me, has fought the party’s cause under a variety of national leaders.

Belatedly, Jeremy has acknowledged that we have to do better on anti-Semitism and, yes, it has been weaponised against him.

Weaponising issues is mainstream activity in politics. It is time that all the left recognised, as Momentum has done on this issue, that your opponents raising an issue does not imply in itself that the issue is fabricated or exaggerated.
GEOF COOKE
Chief Whip, Barnet Labour group and Morning Star reader.

Cooke is restrained.

Kevin Ovendon is the former bag-man for Gorge Galloway’s Respect party. He stood by when there were calls to make the organisation, “Zionist free” – to cite one of the many anti-Semitic incidents that marked the organisation’s career (Respect Party:Wikipedia)

This is what Ovendon wrote in the Morning Star.

The furore about “Labour anti-semitism” doubtless had an impact. How could it not? It is not only that it has been weaponised by the Tories. It has been adopted for two years by a hardcore of the Labour right to attack the left and their own party.

And that includes by Labour councillors in Barnet — all but two of whom backed rivals to Corbyn in the leadership elections. Far from helping to deal with the issue, they’ve taken up the claims emanating from the Tories.

So the leader of the Labour group Barry Rawlings says it all should have been dealt with two years ago, but it was the Labour general secretary supported by the right over those two years who failed to do so or to implement the comprehensive recommendations of the Chakrabarti report dealing with the matter.

Unsurprisingly, that has not stopped anti-Corbyn elements of the Labour Party, in collaboration with the Tories, trying to use the result not to seek the implementation of that report but to reheat the political assault.

Ovendon appears to think that concern on the issue of anti-Semitism is “weaponised” – he later talks of  “sabotage”.

What words does he have for the Morning Star’s opposition to Labour policy on Europe, its backing for Brexit, and its support for the Arron Banks funded Trade Unionists Against the EU?

More fall out has appeared in the shape of Skwawkbox.

Labour Has Betrayed Jewish Voters – Corbyn Must Take Action Now

Tonight I will ask that Corbyn comes to Barnet and apologises to the Jewish community.

Adam Langleben

Former Labour councillor for West Hendon

Chalutzim’ means ‘pioneers’ in Hebrew. Many of the early founders of the Labour Movement were Chalutzim from the mainstream Jewish community. That is why what happened last Thursday in the local elections is so distressing. It was the first complete electoral collapse of Jewish voters for Labour.

……

But some wish to paint a different picture. The alt-left blog Skwawkbox, which has a record of spreading fake news, claims that because Labour increased its share of the vote in Barnet and in Gateshead, there is no problem.

In response, and to his credit, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, messaged me and asked for a meeting to discuss this issue and the wider issue of Labour antisemitism and its impact on Barnet. I am seeing him tonight and what I will be telling him is that fake news, conspiracy theory websites such as Skwawkbox provide a dark place for antisemitism to fester and be nurtured. Antisemitism’s dark past started with conspiracy, ending in gas chambers. History has taught us this. He and others should come out and say clearly that such websites are not part of our Labour movement’s discourse and that they are detrimental to our success and to our anti-racist, evidence-based Enlightenment values.

I look forward to talking to John. I am going to tell him hard truths: that there was rarely a canvass session over the past month in Barnet where we did not lose votes over antisemitism. And I am going to ask that he, Jeremy and the Shadow Cabinet come to Barnet as soon as possible to apologise to our activists and the Jewish community. The issues raised by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council remain outstanding. The Party can no longer hide behind process.

Huff Post.

Previously  Langleben had said in the Huff Post.

As I am filming this, an alternative left-wing news website called Skwawkbox is going through all of the tweets attacking me, as a Jewish Labour Party member, now former councillor, that accuses me of being a Mossad agent, that accuses me of trying to undermine the leadership, accuses me of all sort of things and it is propagating this bollocks, propagating anti-Semitism.”

He added: “The Labour leadership can do something very simple and easy and say that these alternative fake news websites do not speak for them.

This pouting does not seem to have impressed the Labour Party.

I was a Jewish Labour councillor in Barnet – and I warned Jeremy Corbyn what was coming.

 ADAM LANGLEBEN.

On the doorstep I heard lifelong Labour voters say anti-Semitism was driving them from the party. When I told Labour HQ, I was ignored.

We were asked about Jackie Walker’s views on Jews and the slave trade. We were asked about Ken Loach’s Jew-splaining. We were asked about Ken Livingstone’s Holocaust revisionism.

….

Ken Livingstone’s repeated outrageous ramblings on Zionism, Hitler, the Holocaust and Jews – and the party’s lack of action – compounds the situation. The more I think of his words, the more I hear implication of what he says – which is that Jews were complicit in their own genocide. Nothing is more offensive than that. Surely that cannot be compatible with membership of the Labour Party?

Since we lost in Barnet, our Labour candidates have had lots of support from MPs, Momentum supporters, members and others who are desperate to fight anti-Semitism. However, there is a small but very vocal hard-left group within the party – certainly not the majority even within Momentum – within which this sickness festers, and it is to these people that Jeremy Corbyn needs to clearly state: this is not in my name.

 

Here.

Ayn Rand Cultist – New Home Secretary Sajid Javid.

with 7 comments

Image result for ayn rand the virtue of selfishness

Sajid Javid is Ayn Rand Cultist.

Ayn Rand

A thousand years from today…one 20th Century name will stand out as being unique in the most startling and positive way – the name, that is, of the onlyoriginal thinker of this century: Ayn Rand.

When all the government-manipulating looters of our time, in company with all the left-wing, state-worshipping reactionaries – the blind followers of the ever-running gospel of Plato, Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Saint Simon, Proudhon, Marx and Marcuse – who have turned so much of the world into a collectivist cesspool, are rotten and forgotten in their graves, one name will still be as bright as the brightest star: Ayn Rand.

NICHOLAS CARTER

Palm Desert

Who is Sajid Javid, the UK’s new home secretary?

His other hero apart from Thatcher is Ayn Rand – he recounted once that he regularly rereads the courtroom scene from her novel The Fountainhead, telling the Spectator he admired its description of “the power of the individual … sticking up for your beliefs, against popular opinion”.

Javid,

Just before Christmas, Sajid Javid performed a ritual he has observed twice a year throughout his adult life: he read the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead. To Ayn Rand fans, it’s famous: the hero declares his principles and his willingness to be imprisoned for them if need be. As a student, Javid read the passage to his now-wife, but only once — she told him she’d have nothing more to do with him if he tried it again. ‘It’s about the power of the individual,’ he says. ‘About sticking up for your beliefs, against popular opinion. Being that individual that really believes in something and goes for it.’

Spectator.

Cde Michael Ezra says,

Ayn Rand Worship

While not official doctrine, Objectivists were nonetheless expected to believe that (1) Ayn Rand is the greatest mind since Aristotle and the greatest human being who ever lived; (2) [Ayn Rand’s novel] Atlas Shrugged is not just the greatest novel of all time, but the greatest achievement in human history; (3) Rand is the ultimate authority on what thoughts, feelings, and aesthetic tastes are appropriate to human beings.

Written by Andrew Coates

May 1, 2018 at 12:30 pm