Blairism's Greatest Fear Is That Corbyn Wins A General Election.

Which Blairite trait will we marvel at first?

The cowardice (too scared to take on Corbyn in an election)?

The dishonesty (claiming Corbyn is unelectable while knowing he’d beat them)?

The miscalculation (thinking 250,000 party members would roll over)?

The elitism (saying the political class of MPs should overrule the ordinary party members)?

The contempt (ignoring the democratically expressed will of the Labour Party)?

The self-delusion (imagining that they could have improved on Corbyn’s poll performance so far?)

The brutality (threatening to run the party into the dirt with the promise to destroy it rather than accept they are no longer in control)?

We are spoilt for choice.                                       

Blairism claims its fear is that an unelectable Corbyn leads them to a defeat from which they won’t recover. But, actually, losing the election isn’t their greatest fear. Their greatest fear is that Corbyn wins a general election. This will kill their project stone dead, their project being to render the Labour Party nothing more exciting than Tory-lite, thereby creating a base for their inherent and moderately progressive version of Toryism.

See, there was really nothing new about New Labour at all. It was simply Old Toryism. Blairites are simply Tories who didn’t fancy their career chances in a Tory party already crowded by their pals from uni. Too much competition. So, as per the beliefs of the likes of Tristram Hunt (who stated that Labour should be led by the 1%), Blairism’s project was to take over the Labour Party and turn it into a Tory Party-lite. Then they could display pantomime anger at The Tories as they competed to see who were the most efficient Tories, as if it was all a public school sport. Labour has had to counter this entryism since its inception. The ironically named New Labourites were simply the next wave of soft Tories who wanted to tame Labour to make it “electable”, i.e., to render this vehicle for change incapable it.

Now we're are watching the horror of the Blairite zombies trying to devour the newly nursed-back-to-democratic-health Labour Party with its most emphatically elected leader in its history. But Blairism doesn’t know it is dead. It died before a shot was fired in the illegal Iraq war. (Yes, its still The Iraq War, Stupid). It died when two million (mostly Labour-leaning) people felt “engaged” enough to march in the streets against it, but who were then ignored. They then disengaged as did the next generation who’d witnessed that humiliation and political impotency.  

Then the same politicians who brazened out that people’s revolt complained indignantly about the public disengaging. That indignation was feigned though. The last thing elitist Blairism ever wanted was the engagement of the bloody people, other than people who owned newspapers of course, or other opinion formers. The people whose opinions were to be formed, or even farmed, were simply voting cattle. And if the cattle didn’t vote? Even better. Blame their lumpen disengagement.  That was good political husbandry.

Blairism circumvented the people so that some members of the elite could chat with other members of the elite. They understood each other. They talked the same language. They were educated you see. From Blair to Murdoch, from Mandelson to the gossipers posing as objective journalists, from Treasurer ministers to money men in the city and Whitehall. The last thing the political class wanted was the bloody people getting in the way. The poor fools didn’t know what was best for them.

Saying that out loud while you still had some clout was not wise. Your clout? It was what was left of the Labour Party. And, as always, the ordinary folk rushed to its rescue to pull the ravaged carcass of Labour from the clutches of the zombies. They breathed new life into it with a historic engagement which spanned generations, sexes and nationalities and class. This mass is what we call The People. Labour looked like the People’s Party for the first time in decades. I hope we can ensure it still looks like that tomorrow. Power To the People!

What The Hell Were We Bombing?

So, here we are, six months after “war hero” Hilary Benn encouraged the UK ‘Opposition’ not to oppose Tory Cameron’s vote to bomb Syria in order to ‘stop ISIS’.

Some, foaming at the mouth to bomb Syria, disingenuously said that unless I shared their desire to risk 1000s of innocent lives in order to “get ISIS” then I must be soft on ISIS. Bombing ISIS was the only way to stop ISIS, they said.

“So, you want to just do nothing then?” they shouted, looking at me like I was some kind of traitor, or ISIS Fifth columnist, or some naïve Hippy Peacenik without their grasp of the reality of what must be done.

Well, no, I didn’t want to do nothing. Actually, I had rather a long list of things I’d like to do.

I wanted to ensure ISIS supply lines are cut at source (Turkey and Saudi Arabia being the sources). The Warmongers don’t seem to consider this pertinent at all.

I wanted my elected government to put financial and political pressure on our NATO ally Turkey and our Gulf allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to stop providing ISIS with Intelligence, training, materials, rat runs for ISIS fighters. The bombing enthusiasts didn’t seem to have the patience for this ‘soft measure’, as if bombing 1000s of innocent civilians and the resulting rise of a generation of embittered and grief-ridden revengists would somehow nullify the ISIS threat quicker.   

I wanted to ensure their fighters were not treated in Turkish or Israeli hospitals to be repaired and sent back to fight some more. This only further legitimised the ISIS “struggle” in the mind of these murderous fascists.  The pro-war “humanitarians” and 'moderates' seemed not to wish to discuss this at all.

I wanted to ensure that the efforts of people really fighting ISIS, i.e. fighting for their lives against ISIS and actually doing them serious damage on the ground (Kurds in Kobane and others) were supported by the supposed enemies of ISIS.

I wanted the training of car-bombers by Western intelligence operatives and their subsequent sending into civilian areas to cause no-warning terror blasts among women and children to cease immediately.

I wanted the Turkish Special Forces training of ISIS cells to cease.

I wanted Saudi and Qatari funding and supply of arms and men to cease

I wanted to STOP giving ISIS what it wants, i.e. us to bomb their reluctant civilian population to the point that the populace thinks of us as just as bad, thus increasing their passive support for ISIS.

Are you seriously telling me that if all the above had happened that ISIS wouldn’t have immediately struggled to survive? Are you seriously contending that decapitating and burning alive innocent women and children (because, guess what, that’s what bombs actually do) made civilians living under ISIS support us, the killers of their families?

And when the bombing came, we somehow missed all the supply lines - and the bad guys. So, what the hell were we bombing? Clearly Cameron brought the Commons vote to the House of Commons for a reason, other than simply the cosmetics of "appearing" to bomb (thus pleasing our imperial betters, the US). It would appear that our strategy was to impede the progress of the recovering Syrian Army, and wherever possible to promote the interest of NATO's "pet Syrians". It certainly wasn’t to bring ISIS to their knees.

That was left to the Russians. With incredible hypocrisy, NATO mouthpieces like Cameron suddenly discovered humanitarianism and common sense in equal measure, pointing out that Russian bombs were hurting civilians and creating Jihadists, as if our bombs simply had only tickled people gently rather than obliterated babies. The Russians of course had acquired their own expertise in massacring civilians when they slaughtered Chechnya in 1999 and 2000.

So the poor Syrians were trapped amidst a hell of triangular fire as NATO and Russia dropped death on wherever they felt their geopolitical best interest lay; NATO trying to oust Assad, Russia trying to remind The West that they can only carve up Syria if Russia gets a slice, and ISIS trying to spread their fascist insanity to all. Going by the murderous reaction of Western pro-bombing ‘moderates’, ISIS were succeeding in this task beyond their wildest fantasies.

The war of course continues, something that seems to suit the interests of all - all except the civilians of Syria.

The question the pro-bombers need to ask is, did you really want to stop ISIS or did you just want to get your rocks off.   

Newspaper Report on Killing For Britain

Last weekend a newspaper reported the death of an alleged UVF member and further alleged that he was the author of Killing For Britain, by John Black. We will never betray the identity of any source under any circumstances.

The newspaper article contained many errors. It states that Killing For Britain was published “15 years ago”. It was published in 2008.

Also, the article refers to the FRU (Force Research Unit) as being active in 1975. However, the FRU was only formed in 1979. Certainly, it was a later incarnation of what had started as the MRF (Military Reaction Force) formed in late 1971. But, is was not, as has been contended, simply the same organisation under a different badge. The structure of the FRU was different to the MRF and it was more acknowledged within the Army.

It surely performed many of the same types of operations (selecting targets for assassination, assisting Loyalist paramilitaries to execute actions the British Army did not want to be intimately associated with). It also had a similar raison d'etre, namely to discourage the Irish Nationalist community from either supporting or tolerating Irish Republican paramilitaries. FRU contacts however claimed that the FRU did so by targeting known Republican activists as opposed to simply any Catholics. The selection of Catholics for assassination by British Army intelligence and MRF in the early 1970s was mostly random, or if based on “intelligence”, it was based on deeply-flawed “intelligence”. Some MRF operatives, like John Black, believed most of the time the targets of their actions were either IRA men or close supporters and enablers. However, the truth was darker.

Those directing the MRF and other “secret squirrel” operations were using a millennium old strategy; hurt your enemy at home and he can’t come to war. Hitting ordinary uninvolved Catholics in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s was simply the continuation of counter-insurgency techniques used since Roman times, if not before. The intended effect was to put so much pressure on the civilian population that they “gave up” the gunmen or at least stopped “providing succour”. Stating such obvious truths was considered giving voice to republican propaganda – until very recently, when the reality of Collusion became impossible to deny without looking silly.

The FRU’s activities in the mid to late 1980s were described to me by an intelligence officer of the time as “Nearest and Dearest”. By this he meant that they aimed for the “terrorists” but if they were not “at home” then they’d hit the nearest target “by accident” which in turn would put pressure on said “terrorists” to desist for fear of what other “accidents” might befall their family. This was, without any hint of irony, considered by this contact “a refinement” of the early 1970s random target selection.

It should also be noted that many of the targets for assassination were provided by Brian Nelson, a former British soldier who was head of the Loyalist UDA/UFF intelligence and, at the same time, of course, a proven paid British agent handled and directed by the British Amy’s FRU.

When you consider all the above, it puts John Black’s claims (once considered outlandish, but not now) into some sort of logical frame.

Collusion

There's nothing new or unusual about Mainstream Media either undervaluing or even ignoring stories of gigantic interest to the public. Often, incessant pressure from social media has the opposite effect logic might expect it to. For instance, social media is still seen as 'uppity' and too 'unqualified' to comment on issues. And so, the more the clamour for discussion from 'ordinary' people, the more resistant the 'paid' (some might replace 'paid' with 'bought') opinion formers are to 'stoop' to acknowledge.

So, what results is a stand off between the great unqualified and the superannuated. Social media is competition and its competition that often has its finger on the pulse more than MSM does. For MSM  to pick up a major story it previously ignored is seen by MSM as a climb down, an acknowledgment that it was off the pace, behind the pack.

The examples are legion. My lifelong observation is that the media in our supposed democracy, far from being impartial and fearless is riven with self-interest and timidity. There are exceptions of course. But why are they only exceptions? What retards the natural impulse of journalists to forage for stories?

My interest in media coverage of Northern Ireland was inspired by being there for the equivent of three months a year for over 15 years and seeing the biggest story of the Troubles, that of institutionalised Collusion, being ignored by all but a few courageous journalists. The notion that it existed was the preserve of 'extremists', 'IRA propagandists' and the like. Because people on the ground experienced it, and saw it being ignored, this created a disconnect between many people and the media - and the state that the media proported to report on. Such alienation 'inspired' a generation of conflict. Collusion is now universally accepted by all apart from some flatearthers, but so what? The secret of its existence survived long enough for Collusion to serve its purpose. 

Of course, Collusion survives in other theatres; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (there are UK boots on the ground there. MSM might tell you that in like ten years). And of course, there's the gigantic Collusion between Turkey, Saudi and ISIS. Just as in Northern Ireland, those of us who can see clearly the patterns are decried as 'extremists' 'conspiracy theorists' etc etc. But, just in Northern Ireland, our 'extremist' narrative will become the universally accepted one - only after though the Collusion had served its purpose. In this instance, the purpose is regime change in Syria. That will happen under a different guise (the canonisation of Syria into NATO friendly areas, and others, thus threatening the viability of the state).

The question is though, why are the big stories (NATO via Turkey Colluding with ISIS whom we are in theory 'fighting') ignored by the vested-interest ridden MSM? That's answering my own question. Why are gigantic stories left to social media guys, both 'qualified' and 'unqualified' non-beholden types. Answering myself again there.

Then look at the people who swallow the MSM narrative and respond with anything between hysteria and disdain to claims that they are not bring told the whole story and that their innate decency is being played by cynical forces. This is the very essence of unconscious Collusion.

Let's hope that Social Media continues to be a conscience for both MSM journalists and those of wider public who sense something is not adding up here. Don't be afraid to smeared as 'extreme'. 20 years later, they'll be calling you 'right'.

Scottish Media's Hokey Cokey

Anyone else puzzled why SMSM enjoys a weird Hokey Cokey? You put an old club in, you pull a new club out...

Whether you believe Rangers are a new club or not, or whether you care or not, one glaring anomaly stares out at you from this story. How come the Scottish mainstream media uniformly reported in June 2012 that Rangers had died and yet, at some point since, have reversed that view without saying why?

I don’t actually care if Rangers are considered old or new, although the Zombie banter can be hilarious in the right hands. My main interest is in media. This football story is an illustrative microcosm of the challenges media face in reporting controversial stories honestly. What I find fascinating in this story is the media coverage of the insolvency event, the non-coverage prior to the event and the Orwellian exercise of trying to rewrite the front pages since the event.

Now, we all “get” that the papers needed to sell papers. That’s their job. Reporting “the death of the club” and the “end of 140 years of history” sold papers (see references at end of this blog). People wanted to know what was going on, especially the then long-suffering Rangers fans. Pity the papers hadn’t comprehensively reported what was going in the run up to "the ending of 140 years of history".

That was left to Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, the freelance journalist, whose blog achieved literally millions of verified hits as even people who didn’t support his views wanted to find out what was going on. After all, Phil's had been the sole voice predicting correctly what was likely to happen to (oldco) Rangers. What was effectively a near news black-out on the pertinent points of the developing story back in 2011 created a news vacuum which “Internet Bampots” filled. "Internet Bampots" of course was the derisory term coined by mainstream media types, pure affronted that less worthy souls than themselves attempted to tell a story they had decided not to tell. Perhaps that was due to fear of becoming the shot messenger bearing unwelcome news.

That fear turned out to be well-founded as Mac Giolla Bhain received, upon serialisation in The Sun of his book, Downfall - How Rangers FC Self-destructed, vile hate mail, toxic abuse, disgraceful smears - and death threats. Mac Giolla Bhain has been criticised by some fellow NUJ members within the Scottish media for not congratulating them on their efforts to firstly ignore the story and then subsequently rewrite it as if it hadnt happened at all. It’s been claimed a reason some in SMSM took issue with Mac Giolla Bhain was that he “did down” fellow union members. Such a touching allusion to union solidarity seems odd however when one considered how few of these “done down” types came to the aid of fellow NUJ member Mac Giolla Bhain when he was receiving death threats.

Radio phone-ins are notoriously reluctant to even air the notion that Rangers are a new club. Along with the many elements of press they seem determined to omit any reference to the consequences of liquidation of Oldco Rangers. Sure, we understand the fear of losing listeners and readers. But that can’t be the full explanation because debate and controversy sell papers, don’t they? Perhaps they don’t want to tarnish the product they are reporting. Only they can say what the reason for avoiding the debate is, and why the old newspaper front pages from June 2012 are being unwritten.

In summary, I think it would be healthier if the debate (whether Rangers are a new club or not – there are decent arguments on both sides) was allowed to be had, rather than the mere mention of it resulting in hysteria and censorship, two elements which rarely illiminate anything.

References

The Telegraph

“Rangers in crisis: the final whistle sounds on Rangers’ 140 years of history”  12/06/12

The Herald

Air of unreality as 140 years of history is formally ended in less than nine minutes”  15/06/12

The Daily Record

“Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever…They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended… No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.” 13/06/12

New stock of Downfall - How Rangers FC Self Destructed paperback being delivered to Amazon on Tuesday coming after existing stock sold out again.

The Hippy Hippy Shake-Down

Few things gall me more than the kidnap of words, especially precious words. Words like, “humanitarian” “decency” “values” “moderate” “caring” “society” “stability” “peace” “democracy” “freedom” “The People” etc etc.

These are words treasured by real people, people who naturally feel an empathy for other human beings. This isn’t naive hippy time, by the way. It’s clear that the vast majority of human beings possess an empathetic capacity that would surprise the Psychopaths. 

My contention that this is the natural norm of the human condition, not the exception. The problem isn’t the 99%. It’s the 1%, who have either subordinated their empathy to ambition, or who simply never possessed it to begin with. Unfortunately, these are the people who run our “democracies” and look after our “freedom” with their “humanitarian” interventions that slaughter 1000s of innocent children all over the world.

Because it is our kidnapped words they have forced into their service, they commit these horrors in our name, or they supply the means, motive and opportunity for others to commit these crimes in our name. If we “The People” oppose them, we are called “extremists”.

I was called an “extreme pacifist” because I didn’t want my government to bomb innocent babies in Syria or to supply moral camouflage (and weaponry) to the likes of the killer regime in Saudi Arabia. When I raise the issue in comfortable company I’m told I’m “harping on” about it. And that’s the most horrifying element of this.

See, I expect our rulers, whose mission is to protect the wealth of the 1%, to behave as psychopaths. If you believe otherwise then I’m sorry, but you are naïve hippy, not me. Psychopaths behaving like psychopaths is not the true horror. The true horror is that they create conditions whereby resisting their never-ending theft and slaughter, even verbally, is met with anger, irritation or, even worse, a yawn. See, it’s only a short step from kidnapping our most sacred words, language and therefore our voice, to stealing our souls.

And if you are one of these people who wake up wishing people like me would just shut up and care more about a new washing machine, or house prices, or the reg of your car more than about the value of human life in The Yemen (for instance) then, if it’s not too late, check your back pocket just to check if your soul is still there. 

 Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires by Will Black @WillBlackWriter

COLLUSION - Northern Ireland’s own Stay Behind Armies and Strategy of Tension

When “Collusion” between loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army was first suggested it was dismissed as republican propaganda or weird conspiracy material. Indeed, to ask serious questions about it meant that, if you were any kind of investigator or researcher, you could be easily ridiculed and therefore ignored if you had suggested Collusion was real. I remember trying to interest some journalists about this in the early 1990s when I was first in Northern Ireland with a view to doing a book on the subject. I was struck by how determined some were to dismiss the notion. One did suggest that his career would certainly be hurt if he was seen to be pursuing it even if he did believe it was real. As it happened he didn’t believe it was anything other than “rotten apples.” So the subject remained at best on the periphery of mainstream reporting, despite massing evidence that Collusion was not only taking place but had to have some kind of structure and official support.

Rotten Apples

Those involved in creating modern Collusion in Ireland were very careful to cover their tracks. They had experience of doing this all over the world over decades. So, they knew what they were doing. In fact, in this context, you can see that had Collusion NOT occurred in Ireland then that would make Ireland the exception when one looks at Malaya, Kenya, Aden and other theatres.

Should any part of the trail became exposed to public view due to some operational carelessness or some investigative journalist taking his/her role seriously, then the first “explanation” was the Rotten Apples theory, as in, “Yes, there was some co-operation between rogue RUC (or Army) personnel and we’re dealing with that.” Then the inevitable excuses for these rogues’ motivation would be trotted out. “You’ve got to understand that these people have seen their community hurt by terrorists. So, naturally, a rotten apple might let emotion guide him.”

The second line of defence was “Ok, perhaps it was more than one rotten apple in that area. Maybe a few of them there took the law into their own hands.” And there were other lines of defence grudgingly offered but usually only years after any potentially illuminating event. So context would be lost and we’d be left looking at, ostensibly, a series of unconnected events performed by a rogue and/or rogues. But the truth was much darker, much more obscene and, much more horrifying.  One day, it will be commonly accepted Collusion was official military policy.

Strategy Of Tension and Stay Behinds

It is worth reading books like Killing for Britain by UVF man John Black in the context of not only Ireland but also of Western Europe in the post-war Cold War.

Every major NATO country had a contingency plan catering for a successful Soviet Russian invasion of Western Europe, perfectly natural given there was a real fear in the minds of NATO planners that the Communist hordes were intent in invading the West. After all, Russian land forces were the largest on the contentment and had not long defeated the mighty German Wehrmacht. They were literally on the border of Western Europe. And, given the tension between the two power blocks of East and West, it was not inconceivable that one of these blocks might give into itchy trigger syndrome in panic, thus starting a war.

Should that result in Russia overrunning Western Europe, the NATO planners devised what became known as NATO Stay Behind Armies, roughly based on the concept so well executed by the French Resistance and elements of British special forces during the brief Nazi reign of Europe from 1940-45. 

In the ideological context of the time, NATO planners looked specifically for committed pro-state and anti-communist sorts to become operatives in their secret army. All this might still be secret were it not for the statement of Italian Prime Minister GiulioAndreotti revealing it to the Chamber of Deputies on October 24, 1990 which sparked a flurry of investigations which detailed the Italian Operation Gladio.  However, Gulf War One soon blew the story off the world’s media headlines - that and NATO covering the tracks.

This meant NATO getting into bed effectively with many right wing elements, including pro-Nazis who now saw NATO as the best guarantor against the feared Russian invasion. As well as many Nazi scientists and intelligence agents going on to form the nucleus of NATOs nuclear and European intelligence agencies, many more became senior figures in the formation of the Stay Behind Armies whose role would be to become the anti-Soviet resistance in any territories the Soviet armies conquered.

However, in an effort to forestall either a Soviet advance, or the development of sympathy for communism in Western Europe, the NATO Stay Behind Armies often played covert roles in subverting democratic votes in especially Italy and France as well as other countries where Communists had strong democratic mandates.

One key method of reducing public sympathy for Leftist politics was to discredit Communist or socialist groups. This could be by humiliating some leaders with scandals and such like. But a much more horrific modes operandi was to perpetrate no warning terrorist outrages resulting in civilian deaths and then blaming these on leftist groups. The NATO countries intelligence agencies could either tap into the genuine terrorist instincts of some leftist groups, or it could infiltrate these groups and guide them to terrorist actions, or they could simply use their own Stay Behind operatives to place bombs in public places and massacre civilians. This would create fear and panic in the populace and result in people insisting their government implement extreme security measures, thus allowing even easier monitoring of the leftist groups that “threatened” to undermine the state in the hope of gaining power themselves or of instigating a Soviet invasion. The placing of these bombs, which killed scores of civilians in Italy, created a climate of near paralysis. This was a result of the implemented Strategy Of Tension.

Consider then what preparations would the NATO planners of the Stay Behind Armies in continental Europe have made in Northern Ireland – unless you think it too far-fetched for these meticulous chaps to have noticed that Northern Ireland was a potential trouble spot and a security Achilles Heel with its anti-state insurgency potential.

Going by the form established in Germany, Italy, Belgium and others, the NATO planners would have ensured the selection of appropriately pro-state types in Northern Ireland and who could be relied upon to co-operate with covert state forces in order to protect the state and challenge any insurgency.

Killing For Britain by John Black in this context does not seem quite so far-fetched as some would have liked to suggest when it was first published in 2008, especially in the light of the subsequent finding of Mike Norman, thought to be the pivotal “Mike” in John Black’s account of his time as a UVF member working with British Military Intelligence in Belfast in the early 1970s.

Several British Military and Intelligence contacts, who kindly assisted me when writing The Hunger Strikes and when researching other books including SAS Warlord and John Black’s Killing For Britain, emphasised the importance of the Cold War in their thinking regarding “Ulster”. One of these contacts was a senior Military Intelligence operative with strong SIS links. He insisted the Cold War aspect is always underrated as a key factor in British State thinking on Northern Ireland. 

But, when one considers this, and considers NATO Stay Behind Armies - and further considers the whole concept of Collusion between pro-state terrorists and state forces in Northern Ireland and Western Europe - then one can clearly see an important pattern. When studied in this context, it would be remarkable if Northern Ireland was the one potential conflict zone in Western Europe where such collusion was NOT a reality. In fact, any contention that Collusion in Northern Ireland did not take place or that it was not sanctioned at official levels is simply unrealistic.