jeremy-corbyn

OK, I apologise for the shamelessly attention-seeking headline. But not a day goes by without some attention-seeking newspaper headline or ‘story’ concerning Jeremy Corbyn.

Not since Princess Diana has a single individual in Britain taken up so much newspaper space on a daily basis (and it didn’t end well  for her when she was assassinated by MI5 died in an accidental car crash in Paris).

The absolute panic attack that seems to be occurring in the Establishment, including parts of the Labour Party, is fascinating to observe. He hasn’t won the Labour leadership yet and isn’t guaranteed to do so, but an all-out propaganda campaign by the Establishment and by the Establishment-owned media went into overdrive almost the moment Corbyn announced his entering the leadership race. Sensationalist headline after sensationalist headline appears every day, (the one below, for example), with various Establishment figures queuing up to insist that Corbyn is some kind of Putin-loving, ISIS-supporting Socialist Anti-Christ who might bring about the Apocalypse. Some of the headlines are getting more ridiculous; ‘Jeremy Corbyn Ate My Hamster’ hasn’t arrived yet, but it must be near.

Concerns that Corbyn would be a threat to the status of the monarchy are also probably unfounded. Although he is entirely a Republican, Mr Corbyn told the New Statesman that anti-monarchy activity is “not the fight I’m going to fight: it’s not the fight I’m interested in.”

Constant character assassinations and attempted fear-mongering strategies are employed at a relentless level, all because someone outside of the Club is trying to run for high office and appears to be winning support at the grassroots level.

Most of the time, the newspapers and Corbyn’s political rivals seem to be clutching at straws, just to find some unflattering or potentially damaging angle to thwart him with (such as the recent claim that he regarded Osama bin Laden’s death a “tragedy”). Some of the other concerns, perhaps, are more valid. Tony Blair says Labour will be annihilated if Corbyn takes the leadership. He may be right; but at least there will be an ideological opposition to the Conservatives and to the Establishment – which there currently isn’t. Corbyn’s bid has very quickly drawn a lot of otherwise apathetic and disenfranchised people back towards Labour and moreover has drawn otherwise disinterested elements of the electorate back to politics in general.

 

jeremy-corbyn-telegraph

 

Jeremy Corbyn, unlike Blair, is that rare thing in modern politics: a politician of principle and not one operating by (or relying on) spin. And it is very difficult to find anything about him, anything in his past, that contradicts that. He seems to have always stood for the same principles and ideals and not for corporate interests, Elitist agendas, horrendous geo-politics, or for the agendas of the ‘New (Anglo) American Century’.

Had someone like Corbyn been in office at the time, the UK would not have contributed to the destruction of Iraq and the rise of the ‘Islamic State’, nor to the destruction of Libya and the glorious victory of Al-Qaeda, nor to the expansion of NATO into Russia’s sphere of influence (which has been directly in breach of promises Washington had made to Moscow at the end of the Cold War). And we would not be living in a society so fully and firmly in the grip of a corporate class and Establishment elite that clearly regards the common people with thinly-veiled contempt.

We’re now told that Corbyn poses ‘a threat to National Security’, according to George Osborne. The same George Osborne who, like most of his party, was all in favour of the arming of terrorists and the bombing of Libya, which contributed enormously to the spread of terrorism and the current migrant crisis, and the same Osborne who, with most of his party, has been all for aiding terrorists in Syria.

So who is the bigger threat to national security? Someone who opposed the illegal wars and the spread of terrorists or the people who were all in favor of it? Corbyn wants to mend relations with Russia, which is something else cited by his opponents and detractors as a danger to security. How so? Surely all this constant antagonising of Russia would be the bigger danger in the long run? They also call him a ‘friend’ of terrorists because he expresses views seen to be sympathetic to the IRA, to Hamas and the PLO or to Hezbollah. Yet Hezbollah is the main force that is, unlike the British government, actually engaged against the ISIS/Daesh fighters, who themselves are a direct outcome of Western wars and policies that were conducted by all the same people who are now criticising Corbyn.

Who are the real ‘friends’ of terrorists? People like Corbyn or the people who armed, funded or aided the terrorists – a list of people that would of course include David Cameron, Tony Blair, William Hague and much of the Establishment?

Corbyn, it is clear, would also be that even rarer thing in politics: a Western politician willing to break from the mass-media silence on that great elephant in the room: Israel, Zionism and the plight of the Palestinians. Corbyn as PM – however unlikely that is to happen – would be the first Western leader in most of our lifetimes to break from the pre-approved Zionist script everyone else (the likes of Tony Benn and Robin Cook notwithstanding) reads from. It seems very evident that any prospective foreign policy under Corbyn would be centered on peace-making, bridge-building and fence-mending all across the board. After over a decade of illegal wars, catastrophic regime-changes and the arming and funding of terrorists, this country stands sorely in need of exactly that: a peace-maker and bridge-builder and someone looking to establish a principled foreign policy.

 

jeremy-corbyn-aparteid

 

Not to mention principled domestic policies, which more and more people are entirely convinced someone like Corbyn could and would bring about. His ideas of nationalising the railways and energy companies, introducing caps on rent in London, are all things no other front-line politician in this country is discussing or going to discuss. There would, Corbyn says, be an end to austerity measures, an implementation of higher taxes for the most wealthy and protection for vulnerable people on welfare, a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion and on the tax breaks for big companies. After years of government by and for an unelected Corportaucracy, Corbyn is set on government of principle and for the people. And despite his opponents’ attempts to portray him as some sort of naïve, wide-eyed, pie-in-the-sky type hippie candidate, Corbyn isn’t a newcomer to Westminster; he has been involved in Westminster and in British politics for decades.

What Tony Blair and others fear in Corbyn is a reversion to old-style Labour Party ideals and ideas – which is also what this country needs now more than ever, even if it isn’t a case of Corbyn being in actual government but simply in opposition. The virtual annihilation of the Liberal Democrats in this year’s General Election means once again that only the Conservatives and Labour will be contesting the next election; but ‘New Labour’ or ‘Blairism’ is simply Tory-lite, and in essence whoever wins any given election – Tories or New Labour – the same basic Establishment forces retain control and the Thatcher/Reagan inspired programme rolls on: the only point at which that system can be interrupted is when there is an actual ideological difference between the parties.

And that ideological difference is now Jeremy Corbyn. And if Corbyn was to win the leadership of Labour, and moreover if his Labour Party was then to win the next General Election, there might actually be a real, radical shift in policy and politics in this country. And that shift would occur regardless of whether Labour actually wins the next election; and in a year that has seen the unprecedented routing of the Left in the General Election, as well as the untimely and tragic death of Charles Kennedy, that shift is necessary.

And that possibility terrifies the Establishment, the bankers and corporate cartels, the arms dealers, the war profiteers, and the whole damn mafia – because the one thing they’re scared of (and not used to) is an argument based on moral and ideological opposition. Hence, the daily, relentless attacks on Mr Corbyn, even this early in affairs. There’s going to be weeks and months of this; if he wins the leadership of the party, then there will be years of it.

Trust me, ‘Jeremy Corbyn Ate My Hamster’ is coming; it may even hit the papers tomorrow.

election2015-nickclegg

The UK in 2015: The Establishment Coup and Decimation of the Left…

yemen_iraqsyria

UK Airstrikes and the Longstanding Plan to Invade SYRIA…

Advertisements
Comments
  1. D MacDonald says:

    Don’t be fooled between Corby’ns loony left and Cameron’s Rabid right there is no difference,they are 2 sides of the same coin with no choice in the middle, they are all on board with the agenda of breaking up the UK and City states which is bang in line with EU policy so as to more easily absorb the UK in pieces if necessary into the EU. Note the SNP have already said they would ignore any OUT vote in the referendum. The only reason there has been no further calls for independence in Scotland is the oil price crash which makes self sufficiency impossible, expect the matter to rise again with the oil price. So the In/Out referendum provides another opportunity for division within the UK. Who would make the laws and control the currency in a so called “Independent” Scotland? Why Brussels of course, the lapdog of the vatican.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s