Monday, 27 June 2016

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!

Thursday, 16 June 2016

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 na├»ve 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.