Labour Against the Witch Hunt “cannot retain any credibility if it includes a group whose positions are anti-Semitic”

December 15, 2017 at 10:00 am (anti-semitism, apologists and collaborators, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, CPGB, labour party, posted by JD, wankers)


Above: August Bebel: “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”

By Tony Greenstein in the present issue of the Weekly Worker (and it should go without saying that whilst we welcome Mr Greenstein’s belated recognition that anti-Semitism exists on the left and – specifically – within his and the CPGB’s ‘Labour Against the Witch Hunt’ outfit, we regard much of the rest of this piece as incoherent nonsense):

On December 2 a Labour Against the Witchhunt meeting was effectively ambushed by a small Trotskyist grouping, Socialist Fight. A series of close votes was taken, the result of which meant that the previous decision of the steering committee, that Socialist Fight should no longer participate in meetings of LAW, was overturned.

Stan Keable, the secretary of LAW, had written to inform SF that it was no longer welcome at our meetings, but despite this their comrades turned up. For various reasons – not least that most people were unaware of the full extent of the anti-Semitic positions of Socialist Fight – those present voted against the steering committee position.

It is now incumbent upon LAW to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it wants to have nothing to do with Socialist Fight. Not only because its positions are anti-Semitic, but because a campaign whose purpose is to reject the false anti-Semitism campaign of Iain McNicol, the compliance unit and the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement cannot retain any credibility if it includes a group whose positions are anti-Semitic.

I was not aware, at the time of the last meeting, that Ian Donovan – a ‘left’ supporter of the overtly anti-Semitic Gilad Atzmon – had penned an obnoxious and anti-Semitic article the day before, entitled ‘Third-camp Stalinoids bring witchhunt into Labour Against the Witchhunt’.

There is no future for Labour Against the Witchhunt if Socialist Fight and its members remain an integral part of the organisation. For that reason I believe that it is essential that the next meeting, on January 6 should overturn the previous decision. If my views do not prevail, then I will resign from the organisation – as I believe will Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth of Grassroots Black Left.

It may seem incongruous to have an anti-witchhunt group itself excluding people, but we have no choice. It is a fact that the Labour Party’s witchhunt primarily takes the form of the weaponisation of anti-Semitism – the smearing of people as anti-Semitic for no other reason than their support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism.

It therefore flows, as night follows day, that LAW cannot include in its ranks people who advocate politics which are anti-Semitic. To include Socialist Fight or its members within LAW, given their stated policies, would be to concede that the Zionist attack on the left as anti-Semitic has some substance. It would be political suicide.

It is extremely unfortunate that a socialist group believes that in the age of modern capitalism the Jewish question survives. It was primarily a question of the social and economic role in the feudal era of Jews as what Abram Leon termed a “people-class”. It only survived politically in the capitalist era as a result of the memory of that role, combined with the delayed and arrested development of capitalism in eastern Europe.

It is noticeable that even today in countries like Poland and Hungary there is still considerable anti-Semitism because of their underdevelopment compared to western Europe. The Pew global attitudes survey shows the difference in anti-Semitic attitudes very clearly between western Europe and eastern Europe (leaving aside Greece and Italy). In France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Britain, anti-Semitic attitudes can be found in 10% or less of the population.

Permalink 11 Comments

Labour Against the Witchhunt admits anti-Semites -“but let that not detract from the useful role that LAW intends to play”

December 8, 2017 at 9:02 am (anti-semitism, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, CPGB, labour party, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", wankers)

Above: Gerry Downing of the anti-Semitic ‘Socialist Fight’ on the BBC’s Daily Politics last year, following his expulsion from Labour

Extracted from the current issue of the Weekly Worker:

The meeting included a discussion on the participation within LAW of Socialist Fight. The steering committee had taken the decision to exclude SF from the campaign because of the group’s position on Jews, which can only be described as anti-Semitic (my emphasis – JD).

SF declares that Jewish “overrepresentation” amongst the bourgeoisie is a major factor explaining imperialist backing for Israel. At the meeting itself SF’s Ian Donovan stated that, while this “overrepresentation” “doesn’t determine everything”, it “determines quite a lot”. He also talked about the undue influence of “Jewish communalist politics”, while the SF leaflet handed out at the meeting stated that “Jews” today have become “an oppressor people”.

The SC sought approval from the meeting for its decision to exclude SF from LAW – on the basis that a campaign which places a large emphasis on its opposition to the disgraceful, knowingly false accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ wielded by the right against principled anti-racists should not itself tolerate individuals whose public pronouncements are clearly anti-Semitic. To do otherwise opens us up to claims that we cannot be taken seriously when we say the right’s accusations are nothing but smears – after all, it would then appear that we ourselves cannot tell the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Labour Party Marxists put forward a motion, directed against not only Socialist Fight, but also the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty:

LAW does not wish to be associated with those who excuse the ongoing witch-hunt in the Labour Party: ie, support the expulsion of Ken Livingstone. Nor do we wish to associate with those who advocate anti-Semitism: ie, those who explain US and other imperialist countries’ foreign policy on the basis of the number of Jews in the ruling class.

Unfortunately neither this motion nor one from the steering committee, which called for its decision to exclude SF to be endorsed, was successful. Only nine comrades were in favour of endorsing the SC position, with 12 against, plus a number of abstentions; as for the LPM motion, there were 12 votes in favour and 12 against, and so it was not carried either.

One of the arguments that carried a good deal of weight amongst those who voted against was the claim that an organisation set up to oppose exclusions should not itself exclude people. SF’s own motion quoted the official (but largely ignored) Labour Party position that “the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions” should not be grounds for exclusion.

This is at best a highly naive position. Should we welcome into LAW out-and-out reactionaries and open racists? (I am not, obviously, including SF in this category, whose comrades seem to sincerely believe that their line is not anti-Semitic!). There is also a difference between a specific campaign like LAW and a party like Labour, which today contains all manner of viewpoints, not least warmongers such as Tony Blair.

At least the SF motion – which not only favoured ‘free expression’ (including for anti-Semites) within LAW, but also called on the campaign to invite George Galloway to “play the role of our honorary president” – was also defeated. It received five votes, while eight comrades opposed it – the clear winners on this occasion were the abstainers.

While, of course, we in LPM accept LAW’s right to make democratic decisions, the participation of Socialist Fight remains in our view a problem that might well have to be revisited.

But let that not detract from the useful role that LAW intends to play – now is the time to really step up the campaign.

  • Coatsey’s view, here

Permalink 5 Comments

That UK-Irish border problem: the zeppelin solution

November 28, 2017 at 9:33 am (Beyond parody, Brexit, comedy, Europe, fantasy, Ireland, Jim D)

Above: one possible drawback

Zeppelins are part of a proposed solution to the UK-Ireland border problem after Brexit.

An influential British think tank has suggested that drones or airships could be used to monitor the Irish border after Brexit.

The Legatum Institute raised the possibility of patrolling the skies in a paper entitled “Mutual Interest: How the UK and EU can resolve the Irish border issue after Brexit”. In the paper, they also suggest ground-based solutions, such as unattended ground sensors, cameras, and ground-wave radar. The think tank is considered influential with some government ministers, according to the BBC.

It states that “persistent surveillance of the border region” could be achieved through patrols by unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) or deployment of aerostats (airships or hot air balloons).

But it concedes “that these solutions are subject to a number of limitations, not least weather and cost”.

Still, it remains the most practical solution yet put forward by the British side, who after all, created the problem in the first place.

Other possible solutions include fairies.

H/t: Marina Hyde of the Graun (for the Zepplins) and Colin O’Driscoll (for the fairies)

Permalink 7 Comments

Tony Greenstein: sexual harassment allegations are a right-wing conspiracy (just like anti-Semitism)

November 6, 2017 at 9:30 pm (A sick man, anti-semitism, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, crime, Jim D, labour party, misogyny)

Mr Tony Greenstein has seen through the right wing (and, no doubt, Zionist) conspiracy.

Sexual harassment in the Labour party? It’s all been got up by the right wing, and the “BBC’s Tory Kuenssberg” says Mr Greenstein – just like “anti-Semitism.”

He’s especially upset about poor Kelvin Hopkins – and just look at the photos of the woman making the allegations!

Here’s Mr Greenstein’s blog-post, complete with comments about Ava Etemadzadeh’s dress and appearance (written by him, not me, I should emphasise):

Sunday, 5 November 2017

The Framing of Kelvin Hopkins MP

First it was ‘anti-Semitism’ now the Labour Right (& the BBC’s Tory Kuenssberg) are weaponising Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is much like anti-Semitism.  No one wants to be accused of it and the immediate thought when faced with the accusations made against Kelvin Hopkins is that there is no smoke without fire.

Kelvin Hopkins

The use by a man of pressure, by virtue of an economic or other relationship of dependancy, because it is nearly always a man, on a women to gain sexual favours is by definition despicable.  That was why George Bernard Shaw described marriage as a legalised form of prostitution.

I know this because in my Momentum group in Brighton for the first few months a number of people thought that I must be guilty if I was suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’.  It was only after people like Jackie Walker and others began to be accused of the same crime that it dawned on people that this was a cynical ploy by the Right to divide the Left.  And because the Left has a conscience, because socialists as opposed to the neo-liberals of the Right don’t act like cynical automatons, people do take these things seriously.  The same is true of sexual harassment.

Perhaps more so with sexual harassment because all men are, to a greater or lesser degree, guilty of possessing power in relationships and using that power.  I doubt if there is any man who can honestly say they haven’t, at some point in their life been guilty of some form of sexual harassment or coercion or pressure.  You live in this world and are part of it, a world framed by patriarchal relations.  You can’t live outside the social relations that you are a part of.

Ava dressed up as a schoolgirl by her Telegraph minders for her interview

That is why just like anti-Semitism has been weaponised, so sexual harassment can be and it would appear is being weaponised at this moment.  It is clear that the Tories epitomised by the monstrous lech Michael Fallon are clearly guilty of gross acts of abuse and worse.  However there is a determined effort by the BBC and the Tory press to turn the attention on Labour.  The Right are doing all they can to encourage this and the Left should stand up and ask where the proof is, because apart from Ivan Lewis MP there seems none.

It is almost certain that Kelvin Hopkins is innocent of the charges against him. I must confess that when I first saw Etemadzadeh I rubbed my eyes. Why is she dressed up as a schoolgirl? Is this to try and suggest she is young, virginal and innocent? She must be at least 23-24, what is this school girl image for?  And the poppy?  No socialist activist would be seen dead wearing a symbol to British military imperialism.

A very different Ava E in her Linkedin profile

 I confess on Friday night, after just coming out of hospital, I had BBC News 24 on and the news goes round in cycles and Etemadzadeh seemed to be on interminably as I half listened, and got on with writing and posting a blog.  Perhaps because I listened to her more than once it gradually occurred to me that she had been very carefully coached – her interview seemed incredibly staged and even forced.  At the end she described an alleged conversation where Kelvin said that if he were young, he would have been proud to have her as her lover and then she said ‘and if he was young he would be happy to have her as a lover’ and then the killer punch ‘but he’s not’ made me feel that this was not spontaneous.  It now appears that it was a put up job with John Pina.

More details have come about concerning Ava.  She is a member of Progress and she has been working with the Telegraph, hardly a Labour paper.  She seems to have been put up to it by a Progress MP (Wes Streeting?) just as the Jewish Labour Movement have constantly run to the Times and Mail when they wanted an anti-Labour story printed.

Too much of this story doesn’t hang together. The one conflict of evidence is where Etemadzadeh says that Hopkins rubbed his crotch against her when saying goodbye at Essex.  If that is the case, then why the hell did she go out of her way to make further contact with him?  It’s not as if she had to.  There was no financial or contractual or employer-employee relationship between them.

There were 3 separate messages sent by Etemadzadeh to Kelvin Hopkins, none of which square with his alleged behaviour.  And why wait 3 years if indeed all this transpired?  It may well be the case that Hopkins told her that if he was young he would happily fall in love with her.  That is no more than saying that he found her a nice woman.  Certainly you can question his appalling sense of judgement but it hardly constitutes sexual harassment.  She doesn’t allege that there was any further alleged physical or sexual contact.

She was also an intern with Michael Dugher, who was special adviser to the most right-wing of all Labour MPs, John Spellar, an old associate of the Electrical Trades Union and its anti-communist leadership.  Dugher was also a special adviser to Geoff Hoon, Blair’s Defence Minister and latterly he worked as a corporate lobbyist for American multinational Electronic Data Systems (EDS), one of the government’s largest IT contractors.

Left-wing men of course feel very queasy about standing up to this and that is precisely the problem.  The Labour Right, both men and especially women, are unscrupulous in using peoples’ abhorrence of sexual harassment or racism for their own devious political purposes.  Taking out left-wing men is a game to these people.

I am referring to people like Jess Phillips who is quite happy to say she’d stab Jeremy Corbyn in the front rather than the back or who tells Dianne Abbot, who unlike her has a record of standing up to oppression racist bullying, to ‘fuck off’, without of course meriting any punishment from Labour Party HQ.

Phillips is the archetypal right-wing feminist, a woman who attacks left-wing men as the ‘enemy’ but seems more than happy to be friends with the backwoodsman Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man who believes that a woman who is raped should be denied an abortion.  His chivalry apparently bowls the simpleton over.

No self-respecting woman could count a misogynist like Rees-Mogg, the man who never changed a nappy, as a friend.  Phillips is a fraud and a fake as are most right-wing feminists, precisely because they see their liberation as taking place at the expense of the most oppressed women.  That is why some of the vilest Zionists happen to be women on the Labour Right.  We have a good example of that in Brighton Labour Party where the execrable racist Progress Councillor, the mad and bad ‘Poison’ Penn, willingly use scurrilous allegations against socialist men, in order to pursue a far-Right Zionist and racist politics.

I include Hattie Harman in this, a woman whose feminism didn’t prevent her cutting benefits for single parents as soon as she became a Cabinet Minister in 1997. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 25 Comments

How do we get rid of sexual abuse and violence? Ask the SWP!

October 25, 2017 at 2:30 pm (Beyond parody, crime, cults, Human rights, Jim D, misogyny, sexism, SWP, thuggery, women)

“Men can behave in dreadful ways towards women,” Socialist Worker argues this week, in an article on how to get rid of sexual abuse and violence. Actually, it’s not a bad article, except that it comes from the SWP …

Socialist Worker:

Recent revelations about Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s abuse and rape of women have exposed the sexism at the heart of society.
Many people knew about Weinstein’s behaviour, yet it continued for decades.
Several women have said they didn’t come forward because they felt Weinstein was so powerful he would destroy their lives.
The violence and harassment he is accused of are all too common for women and girls across the world. But why does it happen?

Well, the SWP should know …

Above: Martin Smith aka ‘Comrade Delta’

H/t: David Osland

Permalink 2 Comments

Morning Star letters page: a “total waste of space”

October 9, 2017 at 7:42 pm (Beyond parody, Brexit, comedy, conspiracy theories, CPB, Europe, Jim D, nationalism, plonker, publications, stalinism)

Image result for picture Morning Star EU

The letters page of the Morning Star is not somewhere I’d normally recommend for either political enlightenment or a good laugh.

But following the super-patriotic Daily Mail of the Left‘s  decision to publish a token anti-Brexit letter last week, various rancid old Stalinists and Little-Britain nationalists have been spluttering with rage. One Mike Magee, for instance, fulminated in hilarious cod-Marxiese against the publication of any such “ignorant and ill-founded” letters from unbelievers (I personally just love the claim that such letters might “confuse” those who are “already unsure of which line is correct”).

As letters do not appear on the M Star‘s website, I feel it’s a public service to republish Mr Magee’s stern missive, followed by a straight-faced riposte from a splendid husband-and-wife team, who (not for the first time) bring some much-needed sanity and decency to the paper’s letter page.

Don’t add to the EU confusion
MANY readers will want to reply to Alan Yearsley’s letter (M Star October 4) criticising the Star for not giving equal coverage to the Remainers protesting at the Tory conference that Brexit is a monstrosity. I would direct a contrary criticism to the Star.

The paper’s editorial line is based on sound factual evidence as exemplified by left-wing anti-EU campaign Lexit, including now the referendum result, whereas Mr Yearsley and his Remainers simply “believe” (imagine, presume or surmise without credible evidence) we can reform the EU from inside.

 He cites a couple of “benefits” which do not require membership of the capitalist club, and there are many more such examples of collaboration across borders that do not require a corporate state to exist.

 The EU is an oversized homunculus which no amount of reforming surgery can beautify – 45 years inside prove it.
The Star’s editorial line is Marxist even though the rest of its content is directed at a wider left-leaning readership. Marxism is a scientific outlook formed from careful study and analysis of human society throughout history, and our modern day observation and experience of it.

 Neither science nor Marxism relies on human hopes and fancies but on human experience.

 My point is that publishing ignorant and ill-founded letters is not part of the Star’s remit. It only serves to confuse further those who are already unsure of which line is correct.

 An aim of the capitalist media is to obfuscate reality and thereby confuse the mass of the people. It is not the function of our paper to add to that confusion.
MIKE MAGEE Frome

The Star’s letters page is total waste of space
Mike Magee is absolutely right (M Star October 8-9), and Alan Yearsley is quite wrong (M Star October 4) in his criticism of our paper

There is no place in it for ignorant and ill-founded letters, which only serve to confuse.

In fact, discussion of difficult and complicated political questions like Brexit is best avoided altogether.

Our paper’s editorial line is there to be followed. What else is it for?

Come to think of it, do we really need a letters page? It merely provides space for arrogant readers who think they have all the answers to lay down the law to the rest of us.

If we scrap the letters page, that would allow more space for news reports and the all-important Star comment, which tells us what to think and saves us the trouble of thinking for ourselves.

Of course a paper like the one were are suggesting would lose a lot of its present readers, so a very much larger Fighting Fund would be needed. We are sending a small cheque to help.
BETTY AND CHRIS BIRCH London SW6

Permalink 2 Comments

Tories in chaos, Daily Mail in despair

October 2, 2017 at 7:43 am (Beyond parody, Daily Mail, Tory scum, wankers)

Excellent news from Conservative Home:

Newslinks

“Senior figures” urge removal of Boris as Foreign Secretary

“Infighting dominated the start of the Tory conference yesterday as Theresa May came under pressure to rein in Boris Johnson. Her attempt to reach out to younger voters was overshadowed by the Foreign Secretary’s second high-profile intervention on Brexit in a fortnight. Still weakened by the fallout from her election disaster, the Prime Minister was urged by some in her party yesterday to silence Mr Johnson, or remove him from her Cabinet.” – Daily Mail

  • Boris accused of “posturing” by setting out “red lines” on Brexit – Daily Telegraph
  • May swerves question of whether he is unsackable – The Sun
  • Foreign Secretary’s Conference speech expected to be loyal – The Times
  • Cabinet split is harming business says the British Chamber of Commerce – BBC
  • Foreign Office in “power grab” to take control of Aid budget – The Sun
  • Ruth backs Boris – The Sun
  • Trade talks to begin by Christmas – Daily Express

>Today: ToryDiary: He’s back! From his lowest total ever, Johnson springs to the top of our Next Tory Leader survey

>Yesterday: ToryDiary: Help to Buy, and unruly ministers, leave the Tory conference underwhelmed on Day One

Permalink 2 Comments

Morning Star or Daily Mail? Spot the difference

August 31, 2017 at 1:11 pm (apologists and collaborators, Beyond parody, class collaboration, conspiracy theories, CPB, Daily Mail, Europe, Jim D, language, nationalism, populism, publications, Racism, stalinism)

Image result for picture Morning Star EU

OK, the picture above is a bit of a giveaway, but pretend you haven’t seen it and play the game. Guess which national newspaper has recently used the following wording in editorials about Brexit:

  • “‘Soft Brexit’  would represent contempt for democracy”
  • “Irrespective of what governments in Dublin and London or the people of Ireland and Britain may want, others in the EU will disregard these views and impose their own”
  • “Such unsubtle pressure is surely intended to encourage British MPs unreconciled to the referendum result”
  • “…misrepresenting the 17 million-plus people who voted to leave the EU as racists or xenophobes”
  • “…an elite institution that does not represent them – undermining popular sovereignty in Britain”
  • “Starmer’s deluded hope … running up the white flag”
  • “…agreeing to remain in the customs union … will weaken Britain’s negotiating position”
  • “… further evidence that there is a ‘fifth column’ in British political, business and media circles”
  • “…continuing subjugation to EU diktat”
  • “The alternative is to stand up to EU bureaucrats”
  • “Britain given the runaround” (headline)
  • “[Barnier] has briefed, leaked, grandstanded and stonewalled in his efforts to maximise the pressure on … David Davis to capitulate”
  • “[Barnier] has … rejected all proposals put forward by the British government so far on post-Brexit residency rights”
  • “Those [EU] proposals would make even the greediest gold-digger in a divorce court blush with embarrassment”
  • “Yet it is the EU which insists that there must be customs controls between the EU and the United Kingdom”
  • ” … the ECJ or its puppet European Free Trade Association”
  • “in Britain, we can unelect our negotiators. The Irish people have no such option”

Yes, all this borderline-racist anti-Europe conspiratorial rhetoric and de facto support for the British government against Johnny Foreigner appeared in various editorials in the same newspaper … and it wasn’t the Daily Mail.

  • See also: Coatesy on other recent pronouncements from the pro-Bexit “left”, here

Permalink 7 Comments

Ten days that Mooched the world

August 2, 2017 at 1:53 pm (Asshole, Beyond parody, gloating, parasites, populism, posted by JD, profiteers, Trump, United States)

From the US Socialistworker.org  (nothing to do – these days – with the UK SWP):

Elizabeth Schulte documents the not-so-amazing rise and fall of Donald Trump’s favorite communicator, Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci.

August 2, 2017

Trump's ex-communications director Anthony Scaramucci

IT SEEMED like the perfect match when Donald Trump hired Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director in July.

Consider the qualifications of the man known as “The Mooch”: Arrogant, wealthy Wall Street financier who made a career out of business failure. Author of how-to books like Hopping over the Rabbit Hole: How Entrepreneurs Turn Failure into Success and Goodbye Gordon Gekko: How to Find Your Fortune Without Losing Your Soul. Avid Tweeter, prone to curse-filled fits of rage. Unflinching in his ignorance of what his job actually was.

No man was better prepared to serve Donald Trump.

But it was not to be. The Mooch was fired after just 10 days on the job–by incoming Chief of Staff and former Gen. John Kelly, who had just replaced Reince Priebus, the man Scaramucci sent his brief tenure chasing out of the White House.

Talk about your fucking ironies, huh?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

TRUMP’S NEW communications director hit the ground running, doing what he does best: communi-fucking-cating.

One of the first orders of business was calling journalist Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker to go on a rant in which he, among other things, called Priebus “a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” while accusing Lizza of getting “leaked” information from said “paranoiac.”

Just to make sure everyone knew there was a new sheriff in town, Scaramucci hurled profanity at White House adviser Steve Bannon, too.

By most accounts, Priebus’ days in the Trump White House were already numbered–his conventional right-wing fanaticism had always disturbed the crackpot vibe preferred by alt-right true believers like Bannon.

Scaramucci’s tirade was just the very public push that sent Priebus off the White House plank he had been walking for a while. But it’s some nice poetic justice–the enemy of my enemy is the guy who fired me.

As he cleared out his barely inhabited desk, Scaramucci probably thought back to the early days of his White House career, one week before.

He spent the bright dawn of his West Wing career vowing loyalty to the president–after video of a 2015 Fox Business interview resurfaced, in which Scaramucci, then a supporter of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for the Republican presidential nomination, called Trump a “political hack” and “un-American.”

After he got the White House gig, the Mooch was quick to delete past tweets complimenting Hillary Clinton and assure reporters “I love the president.” He then clarified: “But I love the president and I’m very, very loyal to the president. And I love the mission that the president has.” Before repeating: “I love the president.” And then: “But here’s what I will tell you, okay? I love the president.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THE MOOCH’S first–and as it turns out, only–mission was declaring a no-tolerance policy on his and the president’s personal obsession: “leakers.” Threatening to “pare down” the communications staff, Scaramucci told CBS’s Face the Nation, “If you’re going to keep leaking, I’m going to fire everybody. It’s just very binary.”

The leaks that the White House communications director was up in arms about weren’t exactly leaks. They were more like…what is it called again?…oh yeah, reporting.

The Mooch went ballistic when Politico reported his financial holdings in the SkyBridge Capital investment firm, accusing Priebus of leaking the information to the press and threatening an FBI investigation.

“In light of the leak of my financial disclosure info which is a felony, I will be contacting @FBI and the @JusticeDept #swamp @Reince45,” tweeted Scaramucci.

Politico reporter Lorraine Wollert explained that her so-called “illegal” method of obtaining the Mooch’s financial information was a public document: a financial disclosure form Scaramucci submitted to the Office of Government Ethics.

In another attempt to go after the White House’s leak problem, the Mooch quickly responded to a Politico article reporting that he planned to fire White House press aide Michael Short. Short resigned after the article came out.

“This is the problem with the leaking,” Scaramucci told reporters in the White House driveway. “This is actually a terrible thing. Let’s say I’m firing Michael Short today. The fact that you guys know about it before he does really upsets me as a human being and as a Roman Catholic.” (Both!)

One problem–if Scaramucci told Politico about the firing, then doesn’t that make him the leaker?

This isn’t to say that there aren’t leaks in the Trump administration–a boss so petulant surely inspires a lot of frustration and acts of “disloyalty” every day. But the Mooch’s definition of a “leak” says a lot about what the Trump administration considers the real threat: facts.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

REPORTING THE news isn’t leaking. And as long as we’re on the subject, leaking information the public ought to know isn’t actually a disservice to democracy, but the exact opposite. In a “democracy” as undemocratic as the U.S., “leakers” are an absolute necessity.

We need more people like Chelsea Manning, who put her career and her freedom on the line to expose the U.S. military’s war crimes. Or military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked “secret documents” during Vietnam War to show how the U.S. government lied to the public to justify imperial crimes.

Likewise, we need more journalists who investigate and seek out the truth.

For the press that has covered the White House for years, the Trump administration has been a big adjustment. For one thing, major policy decisions aren’t always announced in press briefings, but instead tweeted at random at any hour of the day or night.

Wall Streeters like the Mooch are already accustomed to working the press to shape what is reported. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Heidi Moore, who covered Wall Street for 18 years, described the obstacles that the financial industry puts in the way of reporting the facts–employing the friendly approach at times, but also a not-so-friendly one that includes the threat of firing.

Reportedly, one of the reasons that Trump liked the Mooch for the communications director job was the way he forced three CNN reporters out of work in June.

But while Wall Street influence over the media has always been a reality, they’ve had to do it in the shadows. With Scaramucci on board, it looked like all the ugly dealings to get the media to say what Trump wanted was going to be acted out in the light of day.

All of this is new for the corporate media, which have become more accustomed to sitting in White House press briefings, taking notes and then parroting whatever line the administration dictates to them.

Thus, in the lead-up to the Bush administration’s 2003 war on Iraq, the cheerleaders for war concocted a story about Saddam Hussein creating a program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction–and got the corporate media to broadcast their lies, partly through leaks to sympathetic and/or ambitious reporters.

The New York Times loyally ran front-page stories about the false evidence–and amped up the urgency by referencing anonymous administration officials saying, “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”

Today, there may not be the same friendly and orderly relations between the press corps and the White House, but that doesn’t mean the media won’t snap to attention. With a hawk and former general like John Kelly taking the reins as chief of staff, it seems altogether possible that the disgruntled media will be tamed somewhat.

It’s nice when bad things happen to bad people–especially when there are so many bad people in charge. Everybody deserves some time to celebrate the Mooch’s misfortune.

It’s also true that there are probably more Mooches ahead of us. And underneath all of his gibbering about leaks, loyalty and “un-American” behavior, Scaramucci revealed something serious about the climate of suspicion and intimidation created by the Trump administration.

Permalink Leave a Comment

But the SWP *is* a joke

May 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm (Beyond parody, comedy, Jim D, SWP)

Unlike some people, us Shiraz’ers can usually spot a joke.

But….

… is this a joke?

The SWP are asking people to sign a petition to kick the Tories out!

Who does that petition go to? The government? The Labour Party?

Ah! (thanks to Jason Hill, in btl comments) it goes to Corbyn – he needs to be told,  by the SWP,  of the importance of kicking out the Tories…

The petition’s on the SWP website.
https://www.swp.org.uk/resource/1726

Permalink 16 Comments

Next page »