Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking

Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider zal en moet vallen: hij neemt het op voor het arme deel van de bevolking en dat 'kunnen we uiteraard niet hebben in de huidige ijskoude, inhumane neoliberale maatschappij....' Vandaar dat de politiek in samenwerking met de reguliere Britse (en ook buitenlandse) media Corbyn op alle mogelijke manieren belasteren en demoniseren met leugens en andere achterklap......

Jonathan Cook schreef een uitgebreid en prima artikel over de krachten die alles op alles zetten om Jeremy Corbyn, de Britse Labourleider, ten val te brengen en te voorkomen dat hij de volgende landelijke verkiezingen zal winnen.....

Cook wijst op de politieke gang van zaken in Groot-Brittannië, al voordat Trump in de VS aan het bewind kwam. Een groot deel van het volk zag en ziet volkomen terecht de politiek als vooropgezette lobby ten gunste van de bedrijven en de welgestelden, zaken waaraan eerdere Labourleiders meededen en die zoals gezegd werden gesteund door de reguliere media.... Het neoliberalisme had immers 'het communisme' overwonnen, 'het communisme' dat nooit werkelijk heeft bestaan op onze aarde, althans voor zover bekend is (gezien de voorhanden zijnde en niet gemanipuleerde geschiedenis*).

De reguliere westerse media en politici zijn zelfs zover gegaan dat ze Corbyn durfden te beschuldigen van antisemitisme, terwijl Corbyn in zijn partij o.a. wordt bijgestaan door politici die Joods zijn, voorts was hij bevriend met Hajo Meijer, het intussen overleden bestuurslid van Een Ander Joods Geluid..... En waarom die beschuldiging van antisemitisme? Omdat Corbyn regelmatig volledig terecht het Israëlische terreurbeleid t.a.v. de Palestijnen heeft bekritiseerd, zeker als Israël weer een zoveelste bloedbad aanrichtte onder de Palestijnen.... De Palestijnen, als de Joden voor en tijdens WOII, het vervolgde volk, niet in Duitsland maar in Israël, NB een illegaal gestichte staat waar o.a. Joden naar toe vluchten om zaken te voorkomen, die Israël tegen de Palestijnen gebruikt...... 

Jeremy Hunt, een psychopathische mafketel van de Tories, durfde Corbyn af te schilderen als de nieuwe Hitler...... Te ernstig om over te lachen, daar er voldoende figuren zijn die een tweede Hitler met veel plezier om zouden leggen, zeker voordat deze politieke macht krijgt..... Ofwel Hunt heeft Corbyn een schietschijf omgehangen en dat met een bewering die kant nog wal raakt.....

Nogmaals: nooit heeft Corbyn anti-Joodse geluiden laten horen, het gaat uitsluitend om kritiek op de staat Israël, iets dat volkomen legitiem is en niets met antisemitisme te maken heeft.....

In de VS heeft men een grote bek over de 'door de Russen gemanipuleerde presidentsverkiezingen van 2016', waar geen flinter aan bewijs voor werd geleverd, anders dan een aantal advertenties die qua kosten niet eens in de schaduw kunnen staan van de bedragen waarmee die verkiezingen worden gekocht....... Terwijl diezelfde VS in persoon van o.a. Pompeo heeft gesteld dat Corbyn de volgende landelijke verkiezingen in GB niet mag winnen..... De VS zou nu zelfs al actief in GB bezig zijn met het demoniseren van Corbyn...... Zo geeft Pompeo toe (waarschijnlijk ongewild, het is bepaald geen intellect) dat de VS overal en nergens de verkiezingen manipuleert, als men de idee heeft dat belangrijke figuren als politici op belangrijke posities niet in het belang van de VS en/of Israël zullen werken.....

Lees het volgende artikel van Cook (eerder gepubliceerd op Common Dreams en overgenomen van Anti-Media) en zegt het voort, er moet een eind komen aan de smerige campagne tegen Corbyn, een campagne waar ook Nederlandse media aan meewerken.....

The Plot to Keep Jeremy Corbyn Out of Power

July 5, 2019 at 9:24 am

Written by Jonathan Cook

As the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks

(CD Op-Ed) — In the latest of the interminable media “furores” about Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed unfitness to lead Britain’s Labour party – let alone become prime minister – it is easy to forget where we were shortly before he won the support of an overwhelming majority of Labour members to head the party.

In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell Brand, a comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after years of battling addiction, as a spiritual guru-cum-political revolutionary.

Brand’s fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.

But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have imagined. He took on supposed media heavyweights like the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman and Channel 4’s Jon Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion and his thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV, he made these titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of thousands of new followers.

Then he overstepped the mark.

Democracy as charade

Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless. Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant.

Brand didn’t just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He shamed our do-nothing politicians and corporate media – the devastating Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen – by helping to gain attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to develop their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand’s revolutionary words had turned into revolutionary action

But just as Brand’s rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the first time in living memory a politics that listened to people before money, Brand’s style of rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.

Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism. (Photo: Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)

While Corbyn’s victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however, that it occurred only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.

The Corbyn accident

First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership contest, scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper. Most backed him only because they wanted to give the impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory, some loudly regretted having assisted him. None had thought a representative of the tiny and besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a chance of winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any vestiges of socialism in the party. These “New Labour” MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.

Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years he had broken with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and again in parliamentary votes, consistently taking a minority view that later proved to be on the right side of history. He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally against austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to enrich the corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers – so much so that by 2008 they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.

And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party’s rulebook – one now much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system gave more weight to the votes of ordinary members than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted Corbyn.

Corbyn’s success didn’t really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed systems have flaws, especially when the maintenance of the system’s image as benevolent is considered vitally important. It wasn’t that Corbyn’s election had shown Britain’s political system was representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.

‘Brainwashing under freedom’

Corbyn’s success also wasn’t evidence that the power structure he challenged had weakened. The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous “accident”, such as his becoming prime minister.

Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this kind of “brainwashing under freedom” since birth.

The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe.

As the establishment’s need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks.

Redefining anti-semitism

Corbyn was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party within sight of power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars for empire, fashionable “humanitarian interventions” whose real goal was to attack other sovereign states either to control their resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There was the danger that they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn was seen to have an Achilles’ heel. He was a life-long anti-racism activist and well known for his support for the rights of the long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments quickly learnt that they could recharacterise his support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. He was soon being presented as a leader happy to preside over an “institutionally” anti-semitic party.

Under pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and highly controversial definition of anti-semitism – one rejected by leading jurists and later repudiated by the lawyer who devised it – that expressly conflates criticism of Israel, and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred.

One by one Corbyn’s few ideological allies in the party – those outside the Blairite consensus – have been picked off as anti-semites. They have either fallen foul of this conflation or, as with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred and feathered for trying to defend Labour’s record against the accusations of a supposed endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.

The bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in relation to Williamson. The comment that plunged him into so much trouble – now leading twice to his suspension – was videoed. In it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a “scourge” that must be confronted. But also, in line with all evidence, Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism problem. In part he blamed the party for being too ready to concede unwarranted ground to critics, further stoking the attacks and smears. He noted that Labour had been “demonised as a racist, bigoted party”, adding: “Our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion … we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic.”

The Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson’s remarks not once but each time it has covered developments in his case. Every Guardian report has stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was “too apologetic about anti-semitism”. In short, the Guardian and the rest of the media have insinuated that Williamson approves of anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour was “too apologetic” when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of anti-semitism, that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded premise of its critics that the party condoned racism.

Like the Salem witch-hunts

The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL calling them “part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the Labour Party”. In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: “Neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community.”

In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn’s allies have been required to confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt.

The anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the narrow corporate media “spectrum”, even though they are unsupported by any actual evidenceof an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one representative of wider British society. The allegations have reached such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria by the media, that the party is now under investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the only party apart from the neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an investigation.

These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews – was the same as anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel.

Now, however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland claiming not only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they speak for all other Jews in making such an identification. To criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn – and there are many, even if they are largely ignored – are denounced, in line wth Lansman, as the “wrong kind of Jews”. It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be unremarkable.

In fact, the weaponisation of anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so normal that, even while I was writing this post, a new nadir was reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who hopes to defeat Boris Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good as accused Corbyn of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews to be exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.

Too ‘frail’ to be PM

Although anti-semitism has become the favoured stick with which to beat Corbyn, other forms of attack regularly surface. The latest are comments by unnamed “senior civil servants” reported in the Times alleging that Corbyn is too physically frail and mentally ill-equipped to grasp the details necessary to serve as prime minister. It barely matters whether the comment was actually made by a senior official or simply concocted by the Times. It is yet further evidence of the political and media establishments’ anti-democratic efforts to discredit Corbyn as a general election looms.

One of the ironies is that media critics of Corbyn regularly accuse him of failing to make any political capital from the shambolic disarray of the ruling Conservative party, which is eating itself alive over the terms of Brexit, Britain’s imminent departure from the European Union. But it is the corporate media – which serves both as society’s main forum of debate and as a supposed watchdog on power – that is starkly failing to hold the Tories to account. While the media obsess about Corbyn’s supposed mental deficiencies, they have smoothed the path of Boris Johnson, a man who personifies the word “buffoon” like no one else in political life, to become the new leader of the Conservative party and therefore by default – and without an election – the next prime minister.

An indication of how the relentless character assassination of Corbyn is being coordinated was hinted at early on, months after his election as Labour leader in 2015. A British military general told the Times, again anonymously, that there would be “direct action” – what he also termed a “mutiny” – by the armed forces should Corbyn ever get in sight of power. The generals, he said, regarded Corbyn as a national security threat and would use any means, “fair or foul”, to prevent him implementing his political programme.

Running the gauntlet

But this campaign of domestic attacks on Corbyn needs to be understood in a still wider framework, which relates to Britain’s abiding Transatlantic “special relationship”, one that in reality means that the UK serves as Robin to the United States’ Batman, or as a very junior partner to the global hegemon.

Last month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked. Contrary to the refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure that he could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides of that Washington conversation was that the Labour leader might soon become Britain’s prime minister.

Framing Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard asking Pompeo if he would be “willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK”. Pompeo responded that it was possible “Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected” – a telling phrase that attracted remarkably little attention, as did the story itself, given that it revealed one of the most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election

Here is the dictionary definition of “run the gauntlet”: to take part in a form of corporal punishment in which the party judged guilty is forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who strike out and attack him.

So Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet – systematic and organised blows and strikes against Corbyn – that he is being made to run through. In fact, “running the gauntlet” precisely describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour leader – from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite faction of his own party, from rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous generals and senior civil servants.

‘We cheated, we stole’

Pompeo continued: “You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

So, Washington’s view is that action must be taken before Corbyn reaches a position of power. To avoid any danger he might become the UK’s next prime minister, the US will do its “level best” to “push back”. Assuming that this hasn’t suddenly become the US administration’s priority, how much time does the US think it has before Corbyn might win power? How close is a UK election?

As everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has been a distinct possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority goverment two years ago with the help of fickle, hardline Ulster loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating their own leader, prime minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.

So if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do whatever it can to make sure Corbyn doesn’t win an election well before that election takes place, it means the US is already deeply mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US is ready to meddle in the UK’s election, which is bad enough; he is hinting that it is already meddling in UK politics to make sure the will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong leader.

Remember that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America’s spy chief, was unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he was in charge. He observed: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses.”

One would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the CIA’s culture during his short tenure. He simply became the figurehead of the world’s most powerful spying outfit, one that had spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that had lied its way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by Pompeo. They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.

An eroding consensus

It takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear pattern here.

Brand was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media elites are captured, and that the power structure of our societies will defend itself by all means possible, “fair or foul.” Corbyn is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged to stop a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders – though not a rich businessman like Donald Trump – winning the nomination for the US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism prized by the corporate media – with its reliance on official sources and insiders for stories – to divulge the secrets of the national security states we live in.

There is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned by critics: a small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of our societies. The conspiracy operates at an institutional level, one that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few. In that sense we are all part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that embraces us every time we unquestioningly accept the “consensual” narratives laid out for us by our education systems, politicians and media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears and narratives that turned us into the turkeys that keep voting for Christmas.

That system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully constructed over many decades is rapidly breaking down as the power structure that underpins it is forced to grapple with real-world problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual collapse of western economies premised on infinite growth and a climate that is fighting back against our insatiable appetite for the planet’s resources.

As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events and economic crises. The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children’s future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say: “No!”

By Jonathan Cook / Creative Commons / Common Dreams

====================================

* Je zou de eerste christengemeenschappen kunnen zien als communistisch, daar iedereen er gelijk was en men samen besliste over de dagelijkse gang van zaken. Echter gegarandeerd dat die gemeenschappen in werkelijkheid meer weg hadden van een sekte, daar de enige echte autoriteit het godsgeloof was en twijfelen aan die autoriteit zou tot onmiddellijke verstoting/uitstoting hebben geleid.....

Zie ook:
'BBC heeft Corbyn afgemaakt als antisemiet, terwijl het zelf al jaren een racistische serie uitzendt.......'

'Verkiezingen Groot-Brittannië: de lastercampagne van de afhankelijke BBC en andere massamedia tegen Corbyn heeft gewonnen.........'

'Verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië gemanipuleerd door de massamedia'

'Opperrabbijn Mirvis besmeurt Labour vlak voor verkiezingen, over het ongeoorloofd beïnvloeden van verkiezingen gesproken'

'Boris Johnson vs. Jeremy Corbyn en de massamedia'

'Niet Rusland maar Trump beïnvloedt nu al de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië'

'Jackie Walker, een joods journalist, spreekt over de met beschuldigingen van antisemitisme gevoede heksenjacht op Labour en haarzelf'

'Gedreven politicus zet BBC presentator te kakken die Labour de schuld wilde geven van de armoede in GB'

'Honger in GB anno 2019: uitsterfbeleid voor werklozen en andere arme Britten >> velen krijgen geen voedselhulp'

'Britse kinderen lijden anno 2018 honger, vooral in de vakanties.......'

Voor meer berichten over Corbyn, antisemitisme, Israël en of de Palestijnen, klik op de betreffende labels, direct onder dit bericht.

BBC heeft met angstzaaien en propaganda de Schotten hun onafhankelijkheid ontnomen.........

Het volgende artikel komt van the Canary. De BBC wordt stevig te kakken gezet in het artikel, dat is gebaseerd op een documentaire, die eind december op het internet werd gezet.

De BBC is een gezagsgetrouwe zendgemachtigde in Brittannië en in een aantal Gemenebest landen, daarover heeft u op deze plek al vaak kunnen lezen. Het maakt niet uit welk onderwerp er aan de orde wordt gesteld bij de BBC, als daar overheidsbelangen bij komen kijken, vertolkt de BBC die belangen en laat elke onafhankelijkheid varen (onafhankelijkheid voor zover nog aanwezig...).... Ach ja, wiens brood men eet......

Echter het is niet zomaar zaken weglaten, verdraaien dan wel liegen, de BBC maakt zich schuldig aan het hersenspoelen van het publiek, waarbij alle middelen zijn toegestaan. Heeft een persoon kritiek op de regering in Londen en moet deze daarom zonder enige reden worden aangewezen als een nazi? Geen probleem, de BBC regelt het!

Afgelopen jaar heeft de BBC laten zien hoe ver deze zendgemachtigde durft te gaan, dit met het brengen van nepnieuws ('fake news') inzake de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië. Een oorlog die de VS, o.a. met hulp van de Britten voerde en voert in dat land. Feiten werden en worden als leugens afgeschilderd en omgekeerd gebruikt de BBC keiharde leugens*, die het als waarheid brengt, voorts laat de BBC bepaalde feiten als het zo uitkomt 'gewoon' weg uit de berichtgeving.

Daarnaast citeerde de BBC daarbij met grote regelmaat het SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), een 'observatorium' in Coventry (Eng.) dat wordt geleid door een gewezen Syrische crimineel, die de leugens van de 'gematigde rebellen' vertolkt in de reguliere westerse media (ook Radio1 en BNR nemen deze berichten bij tijd en wijle over....).....

Overigens deed de BBC dit (het brengen van nepnieuws) ook al tijdens de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 2003, en in 2011 tijdens eenzelfde illegale oorlog tegen Libië, waarbij beide oorlogen politiek en militair werden gesteund door de Britten........

Deze video gaat met name over het Schotse onafhankelijkheidsreferendum in 2014. Lees het artikel en zie de film, u zult uw ogen en oren niet geloven!!en zie

A documentary exposes how the BBC ‘cheated Scotland of its independence’ [VIDEO]

The documentary London Calling has to be seen to be believed. The film explores BBC bias, and the broadcaster’s alleged manipulation of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Many aspects of the referendum coverage were lesser known in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland due to regional programming variations. The documentary lifts that veil of secrecy. And over the course of 69 minutes, the involvement of the broadcaster begins to look quite shady indeed.

Originally funded through a crowdfunding campaign and shown at events hosted around Scotland by pro-independence activists, London Calling was released online for all to see in late 2016.

Firsthand experience

Craig Murray is a former British ambassador, a historian and writer, and former rector at the University of Dundee. His career as ambassador to Uzbekistan ended after only two years in 2004 when he made allegations concerning MI6’s use of information derived from torture. He continues to be a highly vocal critic of the Britain’s foreign policy, and published a book in 2007 entitled Murder in Samarkand – A British Ambassador’s Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror.

In the documentary, Murray explains that, during the referendum campaign, BBC Scotland ran no less than 18 headlines combining the word “independence” with the word “warning”. He comments:

" Plainly that doesn’t happen by accident" .

Misrepresentation, and membership of the EU

Jean Asselborn is Foreign Minister of Luxembourg. The BBC quoted him strongly warning against Scottish independence. The irony of course being that Luxembourg is a far smaller independent nation, and also highly commercially successful – despite not possessing Scotland’s natural resources. But the Luxembourg Embassy subsequently came forward and issued a statement directly calling out the BBC for its misrepresentation of Asselborn’s comments:

" The BBC failed on this occasion to appreciate the nuance of Minister Asselborn’s quote and position. The quote was not one of opposition, but a call to all member states not to go their separate ways" 

Focus on the man, not the issue

Critics pointed out much of the anti-independence ‘No’ campaign was solely focused upon “demonising” the then First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond.

British intellectual ‘heavyweights’ such as historian David Starkey were wheeled out in the media to describe Salmond as a “Caledonian Hitler”. Salmond was regularly mocked and antagonised in the press. And well before BBC Newsnight was superimposing baseball caps on Jeremy Corbyn’s head, the documentary suggests that the media had already tested the practice on Salmond:

In an interview with Salmond, prominent BBC Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman openly belittles the Scottish First Minister on national television. After initially mocking him by appropriating the name ‘Moses’, Paxman bizarrely links Salmond’s aspiration for Scotland to be a “beacon of progressiveness” to the rhetoric of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. A somewhat bemused Salmond replies “I don’t think, Jeremy, you can do yourself any great favours by comparing Scotland to Zimbabwe”. He instantly snaps back:

"No, I’m comparing you to Mugabe".

By any standards, that cannot be described as ‘impartiality’.

Later, we encounter BBC journalist Nick Robinson telling what has been interpreted by many as a pointblank lie. He claimed Salmond had offered no response to a direct question he’d personally asked him at a press conference. Salmond actually gave a “six-and-half minute answer”. The BBC edited it out of the footage. Robinson has since said he regrets the phrasing of the report.

The concept of ‘Astroturf’, and ‘Vote No Borders’

One of the most telling aspects of the documentary concerns the anti-independence “grassroots” campaign, ‘Vote No Borders‘. A group that seemingly emerged from ‘out of nowhere’ during the later stages of the run-up to the Scottish referendum. The film makes allegations of ‘Astroturfing’.

American author and public affairs correspondent Sharyl Attkisson explains the concept for TedX:

"What is Astroturf? It’s a perversion of grass roots. As in fake grass roots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves, and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grass roots campaign is speaking".

The voice of the British establishment

Craig Murray discusses the BBC‘s “vested interests”:

"As far as the BBC ever was independent, I mean it’s always been the voice of the British establishment, but the British establishment has been in the past a rather wider and more split body than it is now. It is now absolutely focused around a series of neo-con values that nobody’s allowed to question. So it’s not only the survival of unionism and survival of the British state, it’s the continuance of Trident, it’s attacking other countries in the Middle East, or aggressive foreign policy. It’s an austerity agenda when it comes to economics. People who disagree with any of these set tenants of the British establishment are treated by the BBC as idiots or fools".

The film astutely quotes the many key BBC figureheads who have direct links to this ‘British establishment’. Particularly within the Labour Party, which dominated Scotland prior to the success of the SNP. Individuals such as John Boothman, the former Head of News at BBC Scotland, whose partner Susan Deacon is a former Labour MSP and Health Minister. Or Tom Connor, the former Head of Online News for BBC Scotland, who provided training for Labour Party candidates. Sarah Smith, editor of BBC Scotland and daughter of former Labour leader, John Smith. Kirsty Wark, a close personal friend of former Labour First Minister, Jack McConnell.

These affiliations to the pre-Corbyn Labour Party are a conflict of interests, and the furthest thing from impartiality. Politicians and journalists are expected to publicise financial/business interests and investments, but career and familial ties are often overlooked.

These names are simply the tip of the iceberg.

Aggressive nationalism

One part of the film discusses the BBC’s amplification of violence committed by the ‘Yes’ campaign. The painting of enthusiasm for Scottish independence as ‘anti-English’, or even fascist in nature. When in fact, according to many interviewed, the reverse was more commonly the case.

For instance, the BBC reported on the violent confrontations in Glasgow the day after the referendum results, but only as mere “disturbances between supporters of independence and supporters of the union”. According to Paul Kavanagh, another contributor, that was not the case:

"It was fascists who support the union, attacking independence supporters. That’s what happened".

Channel 4 News reported on the same event. But in contrast to BBC News, it reported George Square being charged by “loyalists”, and “people with pro-independence badges” being assaulted. Very different from the BBC slant of both sides being at fault, or what Kavanagh describes as “morally equivalent”.

Scotland paying for its own deception

Mark McNaught is a American lecturer at Rennes University in France. He describes the BBC licence fee as virtually a “mafia racket”. But that, in the case of Scotland, it has an even worse implication:

"For there to be this extortion of money to fund something that people don’t like and many hold in deep deep contempt, in order to force them to pay it? I mean, that sounds pretty totalitarian to me. And then realising, at least in the context of the Scottish independence referendum, this money was going to London to be used to finance this propaganda to the Scots. So they’re using their own money to convince them that they can’t be an independent country."

Craig Murray, meanwhile, again goes on to describe how the BBC bias on the Scottish referendum now has a lasting legacy:

"The Scottish referendum campaign showed up the BBC in its worst possible light for everyone in Scotland to see. And I think trust in the BBC in Scotland is now extremely low. But it did more than that of course, because in Scotland people could see there was a massive gap between what the BBC was reporting and the truth. People then suddenly realised, wow, maybe they’re not actually telling the truth about Israel, or Syria, or anything else? And so I think the scepticism in Scotland about the BBC now goes beyond the issue of independence".

The BBC stated during the referendum:

"The BBC’s coverage of the Scottish referendum debate has been fair and balanced and we will continue to report on the story without fear or favour." (ha! ha! ha! ha!)

Faced with recent accusations of bias in Scotland, the BBC rejected suggestions that its coverage is partial. A spokesperson for BBC Scotland said:

"We reject the suggestion that our coverage is partial…. Reassuringly, audiences continue to tell us that the BBC is still the news provider they trust most, while we take heart from the fact that Reporting Scotland is by far the most watched news programme in Scotland with around half a million viewers tuning in every night".

Devo-Max

Scotland has a right to be angry. When the referendum seemed to be swinging towards independence, MPs from Westminster arrived by the train-load to counteract the momentum. They made promises of “Devo-Max” to the people of Scotland if they voted to remain. They promised independence in all but name.

Many Scottish voters were also concerned at potentially losing status as members of the European Union. The ‘No’ campaign used that fear to great effect. Scotland actively voted to remain in the EU only a year later, but the nation may now be dragged out of it against the will of the majority of Scottish voters, at the behest of England and Wales.

It must be a particularly bitter blow for many. They had a chance to set themselves free of English Tory rule, but now remain tied to the will of Downing Street. Scotland may or may not get another opportunity, but one thing is clear. When the UK government needs British people up and down the country to vote one way or the other, the BBC is its most effective and persuasive weapon.

Watch the full documentary below.

This article was updated on the morning of 22 January to include a quote from the BBC and remove one of the quotes from Craig Murray.

* Zoals met de gasaanvallen 'van het Syrische reguliere leger', die zonder uitzondering na onderzoek later aan 'gematigde rebellen' (lees psychopathische moordenaars) werden toegeschreven. Maakt niet uit, de BBC houdt tot op de dag van vandaag deze leugen 'in de lucht'.

Zie ook: 'BBC anti-Russisch propaganda en verder nepnieuws (of: 'fake news')........'

       en: 'BBC World Service ontkent gekleurde informatie over Brexit te hebben verstrekt..... AUW!!'

       en: 'BBC World Service bol van EU propaganda........'

       en: 'Why The British Said No To Europe'

       en: 'Aleppo, de BBC krijgt de deksel op de propaganda neus!!'

       en: 'BBC kan maar niet ophouden over de Brexit.......'

       en: 'BBC: propaganda-orgaan voor het neoliberalistische beleid van de conservatieven'

       en: 'BBC World Service met anti-Russische propaganda over het 'bombardement aan fake news....' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

Voor (nog) meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Asselborn, McNaught, Paxman, Robinson, Salmond, Starkey,