Chief Rabbi Condemns Labour

Britain's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has said that Corbyn-led Labour is a threat to Jews.

This man has previously stated, during the 2014 Israeli bombing of Gaza, that killed 2,250 Palestinians:

‘Israel has no choice but to use force in Gaza'.

Corbyn‘s Labour Party would recognise the Palestinian state and stand in solidarity with Palestinians as they resist brutal Israeli aggression/expansion. It would put an end to U.K. arms sales to the Israeli regime, thus hindering their ability to use the murderous ‘force’ that Mirvis thinks is so necessary.
‪So it is hardly a surprise that he isn’t a fan.‬

Mirvis has previously congratulated Boris Johnson—the most openly racist Prime Minister in recent times—upon his election as leader of the Conservative Party.

All stats indicate, unsurprisingly, that racism of all kinds, is far more prevalent in the Tory Party than in the Labour Party, (and I imagine this will have increased since Johnson became leader).

Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, as there is in all parts of society, and it should always be fought, but that there has been an ‘antisemitism crisis’ since Corbyn became leader, is a total media creation.

YouGov data indicates that antisemitism in the party has actually reduced since Corbyn became leader. And it is less prevalent in Labour than in wider society.

Under the leadership of a lifelong anti-racist, Labour is now more of an anti-racist party than it has ever been. And racists can't stand it.

Hong Kong - what is the solution?

Having been colonised by the British Empire 150+ years ago, and thus raised in a western ‘culture’, the majority of Hong Kongers (57% vs 41% according to these elections) clearly prefer western neoliberal rule, to the prospect of living under China’s system. (And, from what I've seen of the protests, it seems that many are discriminatory, and sometimes extremely violent, towards mainlanders; and openly supportive of far-right western leaders, like Trump).

The US/UK and allies have long been backing the 'pro-democracy', anti-mainland China movement in Hong Kong, via NED funding, and now via the passing of the 'Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act', in US Congress.

To what extent this effort has fueled the movement, and the fear of reintegration with China, is impossible to know. But for sure, the west has a long track record of engineering this kind of thing - and it does seem odd that they hate mainland China so much, but love the west, despite the fact that it is the west that has imposed an exploitative, neoliberal system on them which has resulted in the same kind of grievances there, as in any other neoliberal state - for example, there is only 50% homeownership, (compared to 90% in China).

Obviously, western foreign policy has very little to do with protecting and advancing human rights - any country not under the control of western capitalists, is a target for regime change, for purposes of exploitation and profiteering. Ultimately, they'd like to see the Chinese government toppled, just like they do the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Venezuelan government, etc, so that neoliberal puppet governments can be installed, to privatize resources, for the benefit of western corporations.

They are simply using Hong Kongers in their hybrid war against China, (and to protect their financial interests in Hong Kong itself).

What is the solution here?

There is surely no possibility that China will ever allow self-determination. This will enable the continuation and expansion of western influence over the islands.

So, it seems likely that what will happen is that the west will continue to meddle, in support of the 'pro-democracy' movement, and the situation will become increasingly tense, between east and west - between nuclear armed powers.

Surely the only peaceful solution is for the west to offer full citizenship rights to all Hong Kongers who oppose reintegration with China, so that they have the option of re-locating to the west?

In my view, this is what we should be demanding from our governments. We should surely NOT be demanding that they interfere in Hong Kong/Chinese affairs even more than they already are - we must strongly oppose this, because it potentially puts us on a path to catastrophe.

Russiagate Comes to the UK

Boris Johnson has previously argued in favor of EU sanctions against Russia, and compared the World Cup in Russia (in 2018) to Hitler's 1936 Olympics.

But now, the media is suggesting that he is ‘Putin’s puppet’.

Please god can we not bring the deranged Russiagate conspiracy theory to the UK?

Sure, the ‘Russia report’ should be released.

But chances are, it involves corruption with anti-Putin Russian elites - the oligarchs who became extortionately rich and powerful in the 90s after the west imposed neoliberal shock therapy on Russia, and who were then tamed/prosecuted when Putin came to power.

And the constant insinuation that all corruption emanates from Russia is absurd, and Russophobic.

There’s loads of powerful people who want Russia to be our enemy, for all kinds of reasons - none of them good. Yes, Tory corruption should obviously be made public, but let’s just be careful not to encourage the new cold war and push us closer to nuclear catastrophe!

Bolivia becoming military dictatorship

Following 13 years of western support for the neoliberal far-right in Bolivia, the socialist president was removed from power in a military coup, and those far-right fascists took control. And now, predictably, they seem to be creating a full on military dictatorship - dissidents are being killed, politicians arrested, media banned, etc.

We must all oppose this.

Jeremy Corbyn is one of the only UK politicians to publicly do so.

Vote Labour to stand with the indigenous people of Bolivia, and all people of the world, against western terrorism!

Putin wants to end western imperialism? Awesome.

Imperialist 'liberal', Guy Verhofstadt, banging on about Russia again here.

God forbid the west be divided and lose its power and hegemony over the world.

It might mean countries like Bolivia won’t be taken over by west-backed fascists! Can’t have that.

(I do obviously think the report should be released, but chances are it involves anti-Putin oligarchs, rather than the Kremlin. And the focus on Russia, as if all corrupt activity emanates from there, is extremely Russophobic, and also kinda sick, given that it was west-imposed neoliberal shock therapy in the 90s that created those corrupt oligarchs).

Western Powers and Western Media Continue to Back Bolivian Fascists

There is still not proof of any fraud in the Bolivian elections.

Despite this - the UK, EU, Human Rights Watch, entire MSM, all insist the election was probably fraudulent, and have eagerly recognized the far-right coup regime.

Isn’t it amazing how so many can disinform so uniformly on such a mass scale? Ugh.

The US/UK/EU-backed fascists have now announced that they are going to begin arresting legislators (all indigenous) from Evo Morale’s party - the party that won the recent election.

I’d have thought, even for some of those western powers, and their media, that this might be going a bit far, surely?! Sickening.

To think some people still believe western foreign policy is pro-human rights! It is and always has been unbelievably violent, exploitative, extractive, destructive, and fascist. Millions killed. Planet ruined.

And the media has always enabled it.

We need change!!!!

NYT - what a rag

She took power after a military coup, which followed an election in which her party got 4.2% of the vote.

She thinks Evo Morales, who won that election with 47% of the vote but has now fled to Mexico, should be prosecuted.

She has given permission to security forces to 're-establish internal order' by any means necessary.

She thinks indigenous people like Morales are ‘satanic’.

Her security forces are now massacring those indigenous people (8 killed yesterday).

She is considering criminalising the political party that represents them (Morale’s party).

And she is an ally of Luis Camacho, an unambiguously fascist, religious extremist.

But what does the New York Times call her? Racist? Fascist? Brutal dictator?

Nah, she is just a ‘conservative’.

Disgusting propaganda rag.

Bolivians are being massacred and no one cares

Bolivians are being massacred.

But no one cares, because a neoliberal regime has taken power and that's great for western corporations.

Capitalism is hell.

Money = Happiness: A Big Lie

The media constantly sells us a lie, that money equals happiness.

Once you see through this lie, and realise, that beyond a certain point, personal wealth doesn't bring happiness, it becomes very easy to support socialism!

Unfortunately, most people are prevented from reaching that point, and thus from coming to that realisation, so they continue voting for the capitalist system... that is preventing them from reaching that point!

Capitalist Media Loves Fascism

The Economist backed the fascist dictator, Pinochet, and claimed any suggestion of US involvement ‘absurd’, as he overthrew the social democratic government of Allende, in the 1973, CIA-orchestrated, military coup in Chile.

They described Pinochet’s fascist regime as a ‘military technocratic government that will try to knit the social fabric that the Allende government tore apart’.

Today, The Economist, and the rest of the media, does similar re Bolivia, where a left-wing government has just been ousted in a US-backed coup, replaced by a far-right, neoliberal, racist regime.

Fascism is a means by which capitalism can be enforced, and capitalist media will invert the truth and support it when necessary.

To Save The Planet We Must Realize We Are One

Paraphrasing, from this talk by Charles Eisenstein:

When anything or anyone in the world suffers, something is suffering in me.

When there are millions of people in poverty, I am in poverty in some way, even if I have enough of everything I can measure.

The world is not just a thing. The world is a self. The world is alive. We are all one being.

Environmentalism MUST be anti-capitalist

We need to massively alter how we consume, if we're to have any chance of ensuring a sustainable future.

This is not possible under the current system, which requires perpetual growth, with corporations continuously plundering the planet's resources, so that they can produce poor quality products, and products that we don't really need, which they can they manipulate us into purchasing, so that they can constantly increase their profits.

It is this system that is at the root of imperialism. For hundreds of years, western foreign policy has been about extracting resources, for the benefit of corporations, to maintain economic growth, and enrich an elite few.

Now, with decarbonization on the agenda, this will likely continue, but they will now wage military and economic wars for lithium, rather than just oil.

Any environmental movement needs to focus on opposing the capitalist system and the imperialism that it fuels and requires. If it does not do this, it is just calling for the exploitation, plunder and consumption to continue, but in a less carbon-intensive manner.

Lithium Wars the New Oil Wars?

As we decarbonize, will lithium become the new oil?

Will capitalists wage wars for lithium, as they have done for oil?

This seems highly likely.

Is the coup in Bolivia - where the largest untapped lithium reserve in the world is located - just the beginning?

We desperately need socialist leaders in power in the capitalist western world, to prevent this.

Solution for war!

How about, instead of starting a Cold War with China, which can only end in disaster, the west offers full citizenship to Hong Kongers who oppose reintegration, so that they can relocate to the US and experience true freedom (lol)?

Seriously though, this seems sensible to me.

Of course, as we all know, this will never happen, because western foreign policy is about $ and has absolutely nothing to do with human rights - if it did, we'd never wage a single war. Instead, we would simply offer citizenship (and transport/housing etc) to all victims of conflict and oppression.

Want to nationalize your resources and fight poverty? Empire says no.

‪If you’re in the global south and you want to nationalise your resources, as Bolivia did, so that profits go towards ending poverty, rather than to elites/western corporations, you will be attacked, one way or another, by the US Empire.‬ It is the same story, over and over again.

(If you don’t yet understand why socialist countries targeted by far-right elites and the US Empire often have to become ‘authoritarian’. THIS IS WHY).

Military Coup in Bolivia Removes Anti-Imperialist, Evo Morales, from Power

Despite winning the recent election, Bolivian President Evo Morales has been forced to step down, in a military coup, despite him agreeing to demands from the opposition for a new election. He now faces arrest, as the right-wing coup plotters take over the country.

(Link to my last post about Bolivia - I recommend reading all the links included).

The world has lost a great leader - the first indigenous leader of a country that has, like the rest of Latin America, been colonized and plundered by westerners for centuries. Most recently, it is the US that has committed all kinds of atrocities throughout the continent - installing fascist dictators, arming death squads, and so on; all to force the privatisation of resources, and advance the interests of western corporations and elites.

Under Evo's leadership, however, Bolivia liberated itself from the grip of the US and, to a significant extent, from the grip of the capitalist elite within the country. He was thus able to carry out a socialistic agenda, leading to a huge reduction in poverty and inequality, and to the empowerment of indigenous people, who had previously been persecuted by the white minority who previously ruled. (He has also been able to speak out about climate change, and boldly call out US imperialism, on the world stage).

Of course there are fair criticisms of Evo, as there are of any leader, but the criticisms that have most widely been leveled at him in the run up to this coup, from protestors, from right-wing Latin American regimes, from western powers, and from western media, are highly contestable.

Firstly, they argue that he won the election on October 20th fraudulently. Despite western media uniformly reporting this to be the case, there appears to be no evidence for this allegation. The Organization of American States, which made the unfounded allegation, is 60% US-funded, and openly boasts about being a vehicle to advance US interests. Most notably, the organization has made no statement about extreme authoritarianism from the right-wing, US-backed governments of Honduras and Chile. Nor did they do anything when the leftist former president of Brazil, Lula, was wrongly imprisoned, enabling the rise of neo-fascist, Bolsonaro.

Secondly, they point to the 2016 referendum on presidential term limits, which Evo called, hoping to overturn a law that was preventing him running for another term. Evo lost the referendum, by 2%, ruling him out of running in this year's election. However, he and his supporters argued that his loss was as a result of right-wing propaganda and US funding. And last year, the democratically-elected supreme court in Bolivia ruled that Evo could indeed run for the presidency.

Is the Supreme Court biased towards Evo's ruling party? Inevitably, this is what his opponents say, but there seems to be no evidence for this - as mentioned, the judges in the court have been democratically elected. And in any case, given that the US has indeed long been meddling in Bolivia, including during that referendum campaign, it hardly seems unreasonable to assume that he would otherwise have won, given the narrow margin by which he lost. (And, we should note that many democratic countries do not have term limits).

As for other criticisms, it should be taken into consideration that there was no Cuba-style revolution in Bolivia - Evo's government took some of the power away from the capitalist class, but did not overthrow them and totally abolish the private sector. They remained, always supported by the US, and constantly working against Evo and his socialistic policies. He has had an extremely difficult task in having to deal with that, whilst transforming the economy into an economy that works for all citizens, (which he has to a very large extent, succeeded in doing).

As mentioned, the US has been meddling in Bolivian affairs, in support of the capitalist class, since Evo came to power in 2006, and it seems as though the current opposition leader (and now likely future President) - Carlos Mesa - is their man. He is a member of a Washington-based think tank, that is run by a former employee of the National Endowment for Democracy (an off shoot of the CIA). The think tank is funded by an array of western corporations, foundations, and agencies - all eager for privatization and profit. (As we move towards decarbonization in the west, are these corporations hoping to exploit Bolivia's lithium? The world's largest untapped lithium reserve is located at the Uyuni Salt Flat, in Bolivia's Andes mountains).

The think tank is also funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department subsidiary that was exposed in WikiLeak's cables directing millions of dollars to opposition groups in Bolivia, including those "opposed to Evo Morale's vision for indigenous communities".

Mesa was previously Vice President, in 2003, when 71 indigenous protestors were killed as they tried to resist US exploitation of their resources. Evo, who took part in these protests, came to power a few years later thanks to a mass social movement, and began his agenda to liberate the country, first by nationalising some of the country's resources. As ever, the business elites within Bolivia (mainly based in Santa Cruz), and the western capitalist powers, who had been exploiting the resources, were angered by this - and by the general leftist/pro-sovereignty agenda of Evo's government - and thus have been trying to topple him ever since. This WikiLeaks cable reveals that Mesa has been in regular contact with American officials, in their efforts to destabilize Evo's government.

Whether or not it is justified to accuse Evo of any authoritarianism, in terms of what happened with the 2016 referendum - it doesn't seem so to me - we must remember what is at stake here. This is a successfully developing country that has, under Evo's leadership, been significantly liberated from neo-colonial exploitation and persecution. It is not surprising that Evo and his supporters have been incredibly fearful of his reign coming to an end. And if you do deem him to have been authoritarian, please note that he still has the support (according to the October election results) of 47% of the voting public. This is a significantly larger mandate than most western leaders have. And most importantly, we must remember that there is no greater authoritarianism than western hegemonic aggression. To resist it, as Bolivia has been doing, whilst remaining democratic, is not easy - as this coup demonstrates! And then of course there is the argument as to what exactly constitutes 'democracy'. Should a system that allows for the election of a foreign-backed, right-wing government, that exploits and persecutes poor and indigenous people, really be viewed as democratic? (Also, unlike the west, Bolivia is not developing by colonizing and plundering the world!).

Bolivia has long been a divided country, with a significant proportion of the population - generally the upper classes - unhappy with Evo's Movement For Socialism, and it is now, seemingly, more divided than ever. We must hope that whatever happens now, the huge gains made under Evo's leadership, in terms of social justice-oriented economic growth, in terms of regaining sovereignty, and in terms of indigenous rights, are not lost. Signs do not look remotely hopeful, especially given what happened under Mesa's vice presidency, and given his affiliation with a think tank that is funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil. Under a US-backed neoliberal regime, the rights of indigenous people will always come second to these capitalist interests, as they did before Evo came to power, and as they do in countries across Latin America (and the world) that are still run by such oligarchical regimes.

It seems likely that a Carlos Mesa-led coup regime will turn to IMF loans (enslavement), and to privatisation, meaning that the country will once again become an exploited puppet state of the west.

All good people of the world must resist this destructive, imperialist system. Thankfully, we now have a chance, in the heart of the empire, to elect two socialist leaders - Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Via twitter, both have expressed solidarity with Evo and Bolivia, (and also with Lula in Brazil, who was released last week). It is essential that we get socialist leaders like these into government, if we are to have any hope of ending capitalist imperialism.

(I thoroughly recommend watching these two documentaries to get an idea of how the west advances its interests around the world, often extremely unnoticeably).

.....................

Updates:

• Evo has escaped Bolivia to Mexico, after the leftist government of Lopez Obrador offered him asylum.

• It seems that the coup has lurched significantly to the right, with support for the neoliberal, Carlos Mesa, waning, as the unambiguously extremist and fascistic, Luis Fernando Camacho, takes advantage of the situation. This article about Camacho is a must read.

• These are extremely dangerous times - there are many reports of violence (resulting in casualties) against Evo's supporters, including indigenous groups, who have been resisting the coup. 

• Jeanine Anez has taken over as interim leader of Bolivia. Here are some old tweets of hers, condemning Chavismo in Venezuela (which lifted millions out of poverty in that country), and praising the neo-fascist Venezuela politician, Henrique Capriles - who, along with others, like Leopoldo Lopez, supported the 2002 coup in Venezuela to topple Hugo Chavez and abolish the democratically-created constitution. There is no doubt that what is happening in Bolivia is a far-right coup, just like that (short-lived) 2002 coup in Venezuela. 

• In another tweet by Anez, she called the Aymara - Bolivia's largest indiginous group - 'satanic'. 

• Are people being paid by coup leaders to support the coup?

• Commanders of Bolivia’s military and police helped plot the coup and guaranteed its success. This investigation reveals that they were educated for insurrection through notorious US military and FBI training programs.

• Vicious aggression against Senator Adriana Salvatierra, president of Bolivia's Senate, first in line of succession to Evo Morales. She's the legitimate interim president, not the coup leaders. So they are beating her and using force to prevent her from entering the Parliament.

• Good twitter thread about how leftist criticism of Morales is unfair

• Western media continues to once again prove itself as a total propaganda machine for the western-domination of the world and its resources

• Anez has recognized Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela. The US has been trying, unsuccessfully, to install the neoliberal Guaido as president of Venezuela all year.

• Interview with Orlando Gutierrez, Chief Executive of the Federation of Miners of Bolivia.

• Unsurprisingly, Anez has not one single indigenous person. It is a 'cabinet' dominated by the business elite of Santa Cruz. 

• The OAS was promoting Anez as a leader three years ago.

• The coup regime is now rounding up and detaining Cuban doctors.

• The coup regime is now implying that it will block Evo Morale's party, Movement for Socialism, from participating in elections.

• Six months ago, a group of Bolivian politicians wrote to Donald Trump, asking him to interfere in the elections.

• Bolivians are rising up against the coup regime, and are being massacred.

• The new Bolivian coup government has pre-exonerated all security and military forces from any crimes in the "re-establishment of internal order".

Liberal 'Democracy'

Liberal ‘democracy’ really is a load of nonsense; a charade to make us feel like we have some power.

The only reason we were given this much ‘democracy’ is because those at the top knew that they could easily corrupt the politicians to work in their interests, and, via propaganda, easily get an overworked, badly-educated populace to vote against their interests.

Stealing Syria's Oil - Media Doesn't Care

The US is currently brazenly occupying a foreign country (Syria) and stealing their oil. Trump has boasted that this is what they're doing.

But there is no outrage in the media. It's barely even reported.

We do not have a 'free press'. We have a propaganda machine for the 1%.

Hillary Clinton's Monstrous Hypocrisy

Hillary Clinton says Facebook is ‘destroying democracy’.

What monstrous hypocrisy.

People like her destroy democracy, (and entire countries - see Libya) all around the world!

Her ilk are responsible for imposing neoliberalism from Iraq to Honduras to Haiti, etc, resulting in millions of deaths and the mass exploitation of people for the benefit of western corporations.

Here’s one of her many victims.

These modern day Roman Emperors want social media censored because it’s enabling people to expose and spread awareness re their immense criminality.

Saudi backer becomes 'special envoy on counter terrorism'. Orwellian!

Orwellian news of the day:

Blairite former Labour MP, John Woodcock, who likes going on all-expenses-paid trips to al Qaeda-supporting Saudi Arabia, and then doing PR for the regime (including justifying their genocidal war on Yemen), has just been appointed 'special envoy on counter terrorism' for the Tories.

(Oh, and he does this for Erdogan's Turkey too).

Our system really is entirely corrupt!

Should billionaires exist?

Is it okay if a system produces billionaires, providing there is a way of ensuring that those billionaires cannot corrupt the government and cannot avoid paying tax? And providing their business is doing something positive for society, and that they are treating all their workers well - including paying them at least a living wage?

China is the most unequal country on the planet, but they have lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, and are doing great things in terms of building infrastructure and job creation; in terms of reforestation, investment in renewable energy, etc. But they are not 'free market' capitalist - they have a huge amount of state ownership and central control. And capital controls. This, and being a one-party state, perhaps makes it easier to ensure that everyone is benefiting from the wealth creation, (even if the workers aren't getting the wealth, that many would argue, they truly deserve).

In general, I just don’t think it’s particularly healthy for anyone to be that rich. This study concluded that wealth beyond a certain amount (around $100k in the US), does not lead to greater happiness, and many other studies have concluded that great wealth actually leads to unhappiness.

And I guess whichever way you look it, it is exploitation of the worker, if that worker isn't getting the wealth that their labour is creating for the business.

Radio show host Emma Barnett says here that those of us on the left who question the existence of billionaires, shouldn't do so, because they pay a lot of tax. But this is an extremely flawed argument. With great wealth, comes great power, including the ability to corrupt the government (and the media) to operate in your interests; the ability to funnel money to offshore tax havens, etc. And if the profits were shared fairly, the workers would be paying the tax, and they would not have such powers to avoid doing so.

Another argument leveled at the left is that condemning billionaires is paramount to condemning aspiration. I imagine that, surely, the existence of billionaires, with their domination of society and the market, results in detrimental effects for those at the bottom who want to start a business? And also, it surely is not healthy for society to encourage and value such immense personal wealth? Given that it leads to unhappiness, and given that we know that 'trickle-down' economics does not work?

So it seems to me that we either need a one-party state, with capital controls, like they have in China, where the super rich are unable to so easily corrupt the government, avoid paying tax, and send their profits oversees, or we need to suitably regulate corporations, so that power and wealth are redistributed fairly and, eventually, billionaires are eradicated!

So many hopeful signs - but we need a government that is on our side!

There’s so many hopeful signs these days - recognition of what neoliberal capitalism/consumerism is doing to the environment, movements towards localism rather than globalism, people consuming more responsibly (buying organic produce and eating less meat), etc.

This is all great stuff.

But imagine how helpful it would be if we had a government that was on our side in this? Instead of having a government that is on the side of the transnational corporations that we’re trying to resist?

It is so sad, that over recent decades, we have been so convinced by the notion that the state must only have a limited role. And it is even more sad, given that it is a great big lie - the state has a huge role! But their role has tended to be on the side of the elites, rather than on the side of the people, and the planet. Socialism for the 1%.

We need a radical, leftist governments to direct and regulate the system so that it supports us in this movement away from neoliberal globalization.

VOTE LABOUR. VOTE BERNIE SANDERS.