Wednesday, 7 June 2017

Scotland and the potential of a Corbyn-led progressive alliance

No predictions. One can only hope now for a Corbyn victory and the pleasure of May's removal. But either an outright win or a close outcome presents us with the exciting potential of a Corbyn-led progressive alliance.
Corbyn's manifesto is no radical socialist blueprint. But it's still a major statement of progressive intent, breaking decisively with Blairism and steering us away from the harshest excesses of neoliberal orthodoxy. A Corbyn victory would be the greatest rebuke to establishment politics since 1945.

As an alarmed elite and poisoned media make their last efforts to stop Corbyn and deny his mass appeal, his popularity and resilience demonstrates the multiple possibilities of a new united politics.

In seeing-off the most brutal media-led assault ever unleashed on a left-Labour leadership - including the BBC's relentless smears and protection of May - the surge for Corbyn represents a landmark achievement in itself.

Even if the final numbers take us into hung parliament territory, it opens the way for a practical progressive alignment, a whole new dynamic for leftist change, driven by Corbyn, the SNP, Plaid and the Greens.

This requires a decisive rejection of Labour in Scotland. Kezia Dugdale's Scottish Labour remains a lamentable impediment both to Corbyn and any such progressive development.

Perversely, in the very place that should have the most left-leaning, Corbyn-approving voice, Labour's garrison is still stuck in its old establishment ways, hunched down in its Union-defending bunker, unable either to advance Corbyn's major leftist agenda or engage the new independence politics.

Part of the failed coup forces, Dugdale and her associates are no friend of Corbyn. No amount of squirming overtures to her leader can disguise that dislocation. Even the undeserved Corbyn boost Scottish Labour is likely to receive doesn't rectify the fundamental problem of a party needing completely taken down and rebuilt as a serious leftist force.

Corbyn's rise has presented something of an existential political problem for many leftists in Scotland still desiring radical independence. Yet while wishing for a Corbyn victory in England and Wales, any temptation towards Scottish Labour only entrenches the very problems noted.

The SNP still has a considerable journey to make towards being a radical force for change. It can be seen as an encouraging work in progress, for many in the wider indy movement a means to an end. 

Yet, for all its flaws, left-leaning minds should still view a vote for the SNP here as both vital in building progressive alliances and holding the line for independence.  A significant bloc of SNP MPs not only helps maintain the independence mandate, it also provides an incentivising effect on Corbyn.

This is no more apparent than the key issue of Trident, opposed outright by the SNP, yet still maintained by deeper Labour forces against Corbyn's wishes. In this and vital other policy-forming areas, the leverage of SNP and Greens on Corbyn can only be of mutual, progressive advantage.

Also, while May still appears resolute in denying Holyrood's recently-secured mandate for a second independence referendum, any SNP dealings with Corbyn, whether he's in power or substantially well placed at Westminster, might prove more fertile. Again, that requires a substantive SNP representation. 

So many intriguing possibilities, so much to play for. Whatever the outcome, we can take great heart from Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and his inspiring part in opening-up these new progressive spaces.    

Monday, 5 June 2017

Corbyn soars high above weathervane Guardian

It's been a pleasure to watch Jeremy Corbyn surge on a wave of rational argument and populist appeal. Whatever happens now, Corbyn has won his party and seen off any further Blairite plots. It's been inspiring to track this astonishing comeback, against everything the establishment could muster, most notably the brutal media onslaught.

In particular, it's been heartening to observe the squirming awkwardness of Corbyn's left-liberal naysayers at the Guardian, following its damning editorials, loaded reportage and columnists of calumny - Jonathan Freedland, Andrew Rawnsley, Owen JonesGeorge Monbiot and others - all now desperately back-tracking. 

As Jonathan Cook writes:
Those journalists who should have been behind Corbyn from the start – who could have been among his few allies as he battled the corporate media for nearly two years as Labour leader – are now starting to eat humble pie. Polls suggest that Corbyn may be gradually turning the election around, to the point where the latest poll, published in the Times, indicates that Britain could be heading for a hung parliament. No one is surprised that the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Times have been relentless in their hatchet jobs on Corbyn. But it has been disconcerting for the left that the Guardian and BBC never gave him a chance either. He was in their gun-sights from day one. Owen Jones, a Labour stalwart and Guardian columnist, should have been Corbyn’s number one ally in the press. And yet he used the invaluable space in his columns not to challenge the media misrepresentations, but to reinforce them. He engaged in endless and morose navel-gazing, contemplating a Labour rout.
After so many visceral Guardian attacks on Corbyn, one might have expected, at least, some kind of humble contrition. Nothing. Despite writing Corbyn's 'obituary', there's been no mea culpa from Freedland or his smug coterie. Someone at the Guardian even thought it necessary to edit the headline in Freedland's 'supportive' article from "extraordinary fightback" to just "fightback". 

The seething resentment of Corbyn permeates such crawling 'approvals' as they scramble to be seen as 'on-side'.

(h/t Ludwig W)
From John Harris to John Crace, the rush of Guardian liberals now affecting praise for Corbyn is almost too embarrassing to read.

Another, Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett - revealing much about subtle Guardian bullying of young reporters - has now declared: "I used to be a shy Corbynite, but I'm over that now."

Disappointingly, when congratulated, yet chided, by Jonathan Cook over her belated 'coming out' for Corbyn, Cosslett could only reduce to: "interesting this man waited for a woman to write something before launching a patronising tirade". Cook replied: "Oh dear! Better read my blog before commenting. Otherwise your special pleading looks very silly. (Try asking Freedland, Monbiot, Jones)." Media Lens, also citing Cook's many previous attacks on Freedland, Jones and Monbiot, asked: "Worst ever attempt to resort to 'sexist male' take?"

The real intention of Cook's comment, as emphasised in his updated piece, was not to target Cosslett, but to highlight the pernicious culture of intimidation at the Guardian, and show how the actual publishing of Cosslett's piece is yet another example of the paper in all-out damage limitation mode.

Now, days before the election, a Guardian editorial has come out with the most grudging, 'endorsement' of Corbyn. Still damned with faint praise, Corbyn is presented as some kind of 'surprisingly improved schoolboy' who, despite not coming up to the Guardian's lofty 'standards', could just, after all, have some 'redeeming grades' for use in seeing-off the Tories.

With Corbyn's poll numbers surging, here was the most cynical and sanctimonious attempt to 're-identify' with Labour's core, and 'walk-back' some of its recent hatchet-job editorial

Whatever the outcome on Thursday, we can be pretty sure the Guardian cabal will be using the same weathervane commentary to keep readers abreast of 'Corbyn's progress'. Pleasingly, many are now deserting its fair-weather pages, having seen through its shrill, pettifogging and hypocritical output.

Corbyn's electoral advancement against everything the Guardian's 'best' warned us about shows just what a crucial impediment the liberal establishment media is to real political progress. 

And its humiliation can give impetus to wider radical aspirations. For example, in conveying the case for a more radical independence politics, Robin McAlpine at Common Space sees great merit in Corbyn's assertive approach, and the need to resist the Guardian's doom-laden mantras: 
I've been following the Guardian's coverage of Corbyn with gritted teeth – the swaggering certainty of most Guardian analysts (many former cheerleaders for Blair) that Corbyn is self-evidently bottled, distilled failure was utterly endemic.
In halting the Blairites and taking his party to this vital point, Corbyn has not only demonstrated the deep potential for a renewed politics, but that it's possible to build such a project without the help and approval of an entirely hostile and system-serving media. That's a massive achievement and message of encouragement to all now seeking real progressive change.            

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Manchester bombing: media fail to probe intelligence-jihadi collusion under May's watch

Amid reports of multiple arrests and the 'immense progress' made by police and the security services in 'rounding-up' the alleged terror network behind the Manchester bombing, a vital piece of the story has been wilfully ignored by the BBC and other leading media.

A key investigation by the reputable Middle East Eye has uncovered damning evidence that British intelligence agencies actively approved and assisted the travel movements of known jihadist individuals between the UK and Libya. In particular, it provides critical insight on the covert dealings between MI5/MI6 and the proscribed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

According to MEE:
The British government operated an "open door" policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders, Middle East Eye can reveal. Several former rebel fighters now back in the UK told MEE that they had been able to travel to Libya with "no questions asked" as authorities continued to investigate the background of a British-Libyan suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Monday's attack in Manchester.
The investigation relates how, for LIFG-linked individuals, it was "no questions asked", with travel "sorted" by MI5:
One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was "shocked" that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said the source, who wished to remain anonymous. He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels. "They didn't have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across," said the source. But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.
British intelligence officers were, in effect, acting as 'travel agents' for known jihadists. 

David Pratt at the Sunday Herald, citing the MEE investigation, offers supportive background:  
Abedi’s parents fled Libya as opponents of Colonel Gaddafi’s regime, the British government only too happy to give them refuge in 'Little Libya' as Manchester became dubbed. Along with Birmingham and London, Manchester became a hub of Libyan opposition politics. It was from these cities that many would return home to fight against Gaddafi as part of a broad opposition, among them Salman Abedi’s father. In some cases though these anti-Gaddafi forces were closely linked to Islamist groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). This Islamist connection is crucial, not least because it has now become clear that the British government operated an “open door” policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that overthrew Gaddafi, even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders. Unpalatable as it might be to consider let alone accept, last week’s Manchester attack is, in part, of Britain’s own making – insofar as the UK government willingly embraced a policy that exacerbated instability and a subsequent power vacuum in Libya that allowed jihadist terror to gain traction. Several foreign fighters now back in the UK and interviewed by the respected online news website Middle East Eye (MEE) confirmed that they had been able to travel to Libya during that time with “no questions asked”.
Alastair Sloan at Al-Jazeera provides another sharp piece on Abedi, the Libyan-Manchester connection and UK duplicity. Writing his column at the Mail, Peter Oborne offers further acknowledgement of the MEE research, valuable insights on the hierarchical culture of MI6, and damning comment on UK collusion.

But where is all this crucial information and analysis from the BBC, ITN and other 'mainstream' outlets? Lamentably, there's been no wider flagging of the MEE story and its vital implications.

These revelations should be leading news, calling into question both the dark conduct of the security agencies and the very competence of Theresa May and her government. A real media would have this on the front pages every day. Indeed, proper reporting of this story should be enough to bring Theresa May down.

Instead, it's all about her 'strong response' to the bombing, depicted for the public by shots of taped-off streets and armed police standing outside smashed doors. 'Breaking news' headlines announce that 'suspects' continue to be arrested - the subsequent release of most more quietly noted. Nominal questions are raised about why Salman Abedi wasn't subject to closer surveillance, all dutifully assumed by 'security correspondents' as a 'procedural failure' to cope with the growing volume of people now on the intelligence radar

Yet, given the security services' long-standing relations with LIFG, is it credible that Abedi and connected others simply 'slipped through the net'? As intelligence chiefs instruct an 'internal inquiry' into such 'failings', how readily the BBC accepts the proposition of MI5 'investigating' itself. How 'laughable' to see the 'all-probing' Guardian report it likewise.    

Media speculation over Abedi's possible motives includes only abbreviated suggestions of 'blowback', the link to UK foreign/war policy framed mainly as an election issue around whether Jeremy Corbyn's proposed security agenda can really be trusted against May's more 'proven record' and 'stronger commitment' to fighting terror. 

While the BBC's Andrew Neil conducted a virulent smear job on Corbyn, spending almost half their interview on spurious 'evidence' of his 'IRA associations', May has been spared any such interrogation by the BBC over her actual part in protecting Libyan-connected terrorists.  

We also hear the usual calls for 'greater Muslim vigilance', and 'need to identify' those elements feeding radicalisation, all coated in supportive liberal messages to the wider Muslim community.  Yet, much more carefully avoided is the possibility of deeper state collusion with those very jihadist individuals and groupings, the issue here again pitched around the 'need for greater sharing of information' and 'lessons to be learned' by MI5.  

Beyond all this token 'analysis' and establishment 'self-inspection', real pressing questions should be exercising serious journalists:

What is the precise connection between the UK security forces, MI5/MI6, and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Manchester and other parts of the UK?

Why, as detailed by the MEE report, was there an 'open-door' arrangement in place for the easy movement of Salman Abedi and other jihadists between the UK and Libya?

Why wasn't Abedi detained, or more closely monitored, by the security agencies despite mosque authorities and others reporting concerns over his conduct?

Why didn't the UK act upon recent US intel warnings about Abedi?

Why were Theresa May, Home Secretary Amber Rudd and the UK intelligence services so aggrieved at the US leaking of Abedi's name and details?

Why aren't the BBC and other 'mainstream' media headlining the MEE story as central context to the Manchester bombing?

Why aren't the media pointing a damning finger at Theresa May, who must have known about this arrangement, not just on becoming PM, but, even more crucially, under her watch as Home Secretary between 2010 and 2016?

How was the UK's regime change decision to oust Gaddafi conveyed by the Home Office to the security agencies, the green light given to assist LIFG and the instruction made to lift control orders on known jihadists?

Where is the investigation of David Cameron's own role in this affair and his bombing of Libya in 2011?

While a few decent efforts to address these questions have been made, most major media either avoid, or merely hint at, the dark extent of UK malfeasance. All told, the negating of this story is a striking example of compliant, boundaried journalism, understanding the limitations of critical enquiry, and the safe, 'dignified' tone to be observed. Much is still to be learned about the actual motives and movements of Abedi and his assumed network. But the absence of serious media coverage and investigation only serves to hide deep state subterfuge and protect those war-promoting politicians responsible for intensifying the terror environment. 

Thursday, 25 May 2017

Manchester: seeking the deeper causes of terrorist violence

If the wicked slaughter of innocents in Manchester leaves us grasping for explanations, the major political and media reactions offer only the same futile repetitions on 'security' and the continuing 'war on terror'.

Imagine a truly concerted political effort dedicated to understanding and limiting terrorist violence. Wouldn't its first, elementary task be to identify the actual reasons for that violence, the core causes? Wouldn't that require honest comprehension of what really spawns, motivates and generates violence? Wouldn't any such uncompromised enquiry want to trace the primary circumstances and founding grievances behind major acts of violence? Wouldn't it, in true enlightenment spirit, dispense immediately with all the tired labels, standard narratives and media pedantry that has only served to obscure, excuse and further encourage terrorist violence? Wouldn't it come to the logical conclusion that the more states, governments and corporations produce, sell, fund, sponsor and promote the instruments, economics, geopolitics and deeper culture of violence, the greater likelihood of a respondent spread of virulent violence?

Even if we're to accept that violence is somehow an intrinsic or inevitable feature of human existence, shouldn't the driving instincts of a truly civilized order be to contain and limit terror through imaginative diplomacy and patient peace initiatives rather than relentless war-seeking 'interventions' and arms proliferation?

Donald Trump has been in Saudi Arabia this week sword-dancing with despots. Yet his buffoonery, readily derided by liberals, got more attention than the staggering $110 billion arms deal being signed-off by these two weapons-addicted states. More planes, bombs and instruments of mass terror to annihilate more suffering children in Yemen. More military and political support from the world's primary exporter of arms for a regime intent on building ISIS in Syria and Iraq and spreading its ideological barbarism across an already war-scorched region. 

As fellow leading arms trader, the UK also continues to back this medievalist tyranny. Given a virtual free ride by the media, Theresa May and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon express no concern over such ugly dealings and the West's wider economy of death. The UK's arms trade with Saudi Arabia, they insist, is in the 'public interest', a 'commercial necessity'. For May, "Gulf security is our security and Gulf prosperity is our prosperity." And this 'vital relationship', she soothes, has "helped to keep people on the streets of Britain safe." Is this claim remotely credible? 

While May and Trump stand in 'resilient defiance' of ISIS-style terrorism, they both uphold a regime that, 9/11 included, has done more than any other to promote, inculcate and export such ideological violence. Yet, rather than blanket media condemnation, an already electorally-wounded May gets the chance to play moral stateswoman. How many mourning the victims in Manchester fully realise that May and the UK state actually back the regime most supportive of ISIS, its offshoots and its proxy executioners? Will the BBC or any of our leading commentariat ever have the guts to highlight and shout-down such blatant hypocrisy?  

We watch bewildered at the actions of a crazed terrorist. How could any person carry out such an act of calculated wickedness? Murdered children, devastated parents. Lives and families wrecked. Yet we remain cocooned and detached from the same human suffering inflicted by our politicians and their deliverance of terrifying weaponry against similar innocents in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. 

The emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and now ISIS in Syria, was the direct product of Western invasion. After Blair and Bush, Cameron, Obama and NATO have also left a trail of human carnage in Libya, giving rise to more jihadist forces, notably the al-Qaeda-derived Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a contingent of which is thought to have been domiciled in Manchester, where suicide bomber Salman Abedi was born to a Libyan family.

Abedi carried out the bombing days after returning from Libya. As Neil Clark asks, not only do we need to understand who turned Abedi, but "who turned Libya - which as recently as July 2010 was being lauded in the British press as one of the top six cruise ship holiday destinations - into an "Daesh stronghold" - and a training ground for terrorists like Abedi?"

That one person, Salman Abedi, is immediately responsible for the horrific killings in Manchester. Others may be party to his terrible act. But, as Trump joins the Western war club with his own murderous assaults on Yemen and Syria, you will wait in vain for 'our' state elites and their corporate-military associates to accept that they hold crucial responsibility for the unleashing and spread of such madness.

As Nafeez Ahmed observes, the mindset of ISIS-drawn 'martyrs' suggests a pathology of the deluded "loser" dangerously detached from social reality, seeking 'inclusion' and 'approval' through acts of 'redemptive' violence. But, as Ahmed shows, that same sick denial of barbaric act and consequence is evident in the words of Trump as he proclaims 'solutions' to the ISIS menace through more mass arms shipments and partnership with the Saudis.

Ahmed goes on to remind us how the US, West and Gulf states funneled arms and support to al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria as part of their common agenda to remove Assad. The CIA and MI6 also facilitated "rat-lines" for jihadist fighters to Syria from Libya, the Caucuses and Balkans. As Ahmed records, all this was approved by the UK authorities, who turned their own blind eye to British jihadists travelling to Syria. Ahmed further notes how NATO and the West were eager partners of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in their common effort to remove Gaddafi.          

It's very likely we may never prevent a deranged individual, bent on whatever ideological crusade, from exploding a bomb, or weaponising a truck, in a public space. But, as the media grant prime ministers and presidents privileged platforms to condemn and denounce, there's a gaping lack of scrutiny over the West's own wicked war and arms agenda - or 'foreign policy' as it's so dutifully called. 

That distortion matches the abject failure of Western 'intelligence' to promote meaningful 'safety on our streets'. What truly intelligent mind, after all, would fail to see, or seek to disguise, the inevitable consequences of so much Western aggression, invasion, proxy warmongering and arms procurement? 

For Nafeez Ahmed, the "deeply uncomfortable reality" here is that:
the domestic leftovers of Britain's military adventures abroad are emboldened networks of extremist sympathisers, which British authorities are literally afraid of prosecuting for fear of embarrassing MI5 and MI6 over their wanton liaisons with Islamist militants for geopolitical aggrandisement.
It is a convenient way of avoiding confrontation with the most inconvenient truth of all time: that since 9/11, the staple tactics of the 'War on Terror' - military interventions, mass surveillance, drone assassinations, torture, rendition - have seen a massive acceleration in terrorist violence. US State Department data shows that since 2001, terror attacks have skyrocketed by 6,500 percent, while the numbers of casualties from terror attacks has increased by 4,500 percent. At what point are we going to wake up to the fact that the institutions of the 'War on Terror', too, have failed? Not just failed, but contributed to the violence we all fear? (Original emphasis.)
Behind all the lofty appeals to 'uphold our way of life', Manchester only confirms how the whole language of 'state intelligence' and 'public security' has been crafted as propaganda in the service of power. Incredibly, we're now asked to believe that May ordering troops onto the streets is a signal of 'strength and reassurance' rather than an admission of the greater dangers we now face as a result of Britain's failed warmongering. As historian Mark Curtis asserts, "the British establishment is putting our lives at risk."    

Lamentably, populist liberal voices lauding our 'resistance to terror' and 'refusal to succumb' also obfuscate the problem by failing to accompany that message with wider explanation of Western crimes.

The admirable, spontaneous care shown by people in Manchester and beyond tells us much about the natural capacity for human compassion and empathy. Yet any serious deterrence and limiting of such suffering, here and elsewhere, requires not just condemnation and pledges of unity, but the specific indictment and exposure of the higher state forces driving terrorist violence.   

Einstein's (supposed) definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - may have become, in itself, a circular-sounding cliche, but, as the same reactive outcries over yet another atrocity on 'our' cities unfolds, how many politicians and journalists have the integrity to confront these issues in their wider, causal context?

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Holyrood passes Section 30, a mandate based on real political authority

While today's Scottish parliamentary vote approving a Section 30 order (to the Scotland Act, 1998) won't hush debate over the justification of a second independence referendum, it does now entrench Scotland's political right to hold one. Even though Westminster retains the final constitutional say on whether that request is granted, the case for preparing and pursuing a referendum is now a legislative reality.

The SNP entered office in 2016 with a manifesto pledge to initiate a referendum should there be a "significant and material" change in constitutional circumstances. Brexit provided that. Even beyond notional polling indications of public support or otherwise for independence, or a referendum on it, the SNP government are clearly entitled to request a new poll on that basis. 

Underwriting the SNP's manifesto claim, the Scottish government, backed by the Greens, have now secured majority Holyrood approval for a second poll. That, remember, is not just any rhetorical 'will of the Scottish people', but the officially-stated will of the Scottish parliament. If Westminster has the sole power to approve the triggering of Article 50, Holyrood has now discharged the same implicit authority to present Section 30.

As Aileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law, concludes, while the legal and constitutional process of Section 30, and Scotland's ultimate right to secede the Union, remains a contested terrain: 
Politically, the Scottish Government appears to have the stronger hand, with the precedent of the 2014 referendum and a clear change of circumstances in the form of Brexit to justify a second vote.
Moreover, she asserts:
Underlying all this is the sense that the constitutional mess in which the UK government finds itself is one entirely of its own making. It is difficult to see how placing obstacles in the way of a second independence referendum can do anything other than make things worse.
Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, also observes that this is primarily a political issue to be worked out between Westminster and Holyrood rather than taken through the courts, a scenario, he warns, that, unlike the Edinburgh Agreement underwriting the 2014 referendum, would drag judges into a deeply contentious area, with even more volatile political consequences.

In effect, any reasonable resolution of this political issue should recognise the kind of political rights underpinning it. And here we see the clear political authority of Holyrood in seeking a second poll.

Theresa May's singular refusal to countenance a Section 30 request tells us all we need to know about the enduring problem of the Westminster-Holyrood relationship. Despite holding a solid mandate for a referendum, an obdurate Tory leader can simply say no, "now is not the time." Whatever one's views on Brexit, however people in Scotland voted, that's a fundamentally undemocratic basis for determining such issues. Not only is Scotland being forced out of the EU against the majority wishes of its electorate, its government and parliament is simply being ignored.

Short of inventive guerrilla politics, Scotland's government and parliament remain subject to this blatant dismissal. Which only intensifies the case for a referendum and support for leaving our 'Union of equals'. Only independence can resolve that glaring democratic deficit.

Those who voted No in 2014 in understandable fear of leaving the 'security' of the Union must now see that the Union itself is a perpetual lock-in to Westminster government, policies and dictates. As with the UK's intention to leave the EU, all major decisions and outcomes continue to be determined by external forces and institutions.

On timing, whether or not we take May at her literal 'Brexit means Brexit', the minutiae and concluding terms are of little importance here. The UK is leaving the EU. That's the material change: the actual exit, not the detail of the exit. Holyrood's presenting of Section 30 is a direct response to the clear, binary option laid out on June 23, and Westminster's vote to enshrine Brexit.

In that vein, the Scottish government can reasonably insist on holding a vote before the signing of a final agreement between Britain and the other 27 EU states in order to widen Scotland's options for any possible transitional dealings with the EU. Professor Michael Keating (Centre of Constitutional Change) cites this as one of the main advantages of a referendum before the UK formally leaves the EU. The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, also insists that any deal with the UK must be concluded by October 2018. Thus, the Autumn 2018 - Spring 2019 schedule proposed by Nicola Sturgeon offers Scotland an obvious starting point for preparing its own arrangements, rather than being detained by the fallout and hubris of an already-determined Brexit.

May's insistence on Scotland waiting till negotiations have concluded look like classic stalling tactics, and the likely contriving of further obstacles beyond that point. Meanwhile, as the No mandarins mobilise, we hear the same appeal to our 'Great Union of Nations', and intimations of beneficent sweeteners, establishment code for 'know your place', and elusive promises of a few more 'devo-treats' if you behave well. How much longer will people indulge such patronising dismissal?  

While the constitutional chess game plays out, the main consideration for now is how best to pitch the new indy case. Some Yes supporters worry that 18 to 24 months may not be enough time to build a winning campaign. Yet, the much greater risk lies in any more protracted one, with Yes activists and backers becoming jaded and disheartened.

Significantly, positions on currency, budgets, borders, trade and other key macro issues are likely to be more coherently presented this time around, with more vigilant scrutiny of media distortion and confident policy work from groups like Common Weal helping to build new awareness.

Obviously, Brexit, the actual material reason for a new poll, is at the political fore here. But it would be a serious error to make this referendum an effective re-run of the Brexit issue. Rather, it should be set as a key contextual example of external control, with independence as the only way to resist all such imposed decisions.

There's also the more immediate risk here of assuming that Scotland's 62 per cent EU remain vote will translate straightforwardly into a majority for independence. The SNP and wider Yes movement already recognise the complex variation of feeling here, not least within the SNP itself. While the party are clear in their desire for Scotland to stay, or rejoin, as a full EU member state (also the Scottish Green Party position) a more prudent pitch may be to leave this as a decision to be resolved post-indy referendum. Unshackled from Westminster, Scotland would then be in a much clearer position to determine its specific relationship with Europe, whether fully in, fully out, partly in as an EEA/EFTA state, or any other variant arrangement.

This should be presented as another model opportunity for democratic participation. Voters who fear leaving the UK must be reminded that they will be ditching not only the last chance for rejoining the EU, if that's their wish, but the abandonment of much wider possibilities. Having secured political independence, we would have the rare and enviable chance to discuss and formulate the kind of dealings we wish to see in the making of a more progressive society.

Even more than 2014, this coming independence argument has to stress to No voters and waverers the calculus of vital opportunities: not just what they would gain, but the crucial realities of what they will certainly lose. They will be throwing away the immediate right to determine their chosen status with Europe, whatever they wish that to be. But they will also lose the chance of securing a much more effective parliament with full powers to enact meaningful change. By remaining within the sclerotic confines of the UK, we forfeit all those political and civil gifts, returning us to the same constitutional dependencies, economic redundancies and social conformities.

The consequences for Scotland of a close-run, yet lost, 2014 indy vote was the imposition in 2015 of another Tory Westminster government, and a 2016 EU referendum driven by internal Tory party and establishment divisions. These are the effects and outcomes of a self-serving Unionist politics. Whatever challenges lie ahead in shaping Scotland as a more radical democracy, moving beyond the still tame policies of a soft-neoliberal SNP, nothing of real change can occur within that all-constraining arrangement.  

Much is being made in Yes circles just now about the need for patient and non-acrimonious persuasion. Quite right. Nor does there seem much point in over-projecting one's own particular political views, hopes or visions.

Rather, in respectful appeal, on the day this Section 30 is ratified, more basic questions may be posed to prospective voters. Why would you opt to be governed by an archaic, undemocratic and, most likely, continually Tory-dominated parliament, rather than a modern-founded, fairly-elected and more-accountable one? Why, given the proven record of that Scottish parliament, and succession of Scottish governments, would you doubt the abilities of Scotland to run all of its own affairs? Whatever your political beliefs and affiliations, is it not better to have your policies and decisions made in a place where you can much better influence and challenge them? Why pass-up on this rare opportunity for greater participatory democracy? As ultimate sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, through its parliament, why not exercise that sovereignty to its fullest extent? Confronted by global forces intent on emasculating real democracy, why not secure as much political control as you possibly can?

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

Guardian's day of shame, and the dark depths of liberal McCarthyism

The liberal 'resistance' to Donald Trump has revealed a service media now plumbing its own dark, reactionary depths.

A Guardian editorial has welcomed back to public prominence none other than George W Bush. Even for the Blair-protecting, war-apologising Guardian, it's a landmark day of shame.

The deaths of 1 million Iraqis, and the staggering madness unleashed by Bush, is brushed aside by the Guardian editors as some historical aberration, another 'past and awkward' chapter in 'overseas adventurism'. Like Blair over Brexit, Bush is now being hailed by the Guardian as a 'welcome voice of reason' against Trump's irrationality.

Yet what kind of 'rational' mind, we must wonder, could write and approve an editorial proclaiming the 'virtues' of a man with so much blood on his hands? From Blair to Obama and now to Bush, note Media Lens, the Guardian are "faithfully providing a service for 'our' war criminals. Sympathetic coverage, endorsement, rehabilitation, gushing praise..." 

The brave Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at Bush, as a statement of deepest Arab disrespect, has just had them, in effect, thrown back at the Iraqi people by the Guardian.

Guardian editor-in-chief Katherine Viner and whoever else oversaw this disgraceful piece are basically saying: you're suffering is not worthy of real recognition, it's excusable, its perpetrators are still 'ours', their actions must be treated differently. Was there ever a clearer example of craven liberal mitigation, of crawling apologetics for mass Western violence? One can only despair at such selectivity, crass insensitivity, and, yes, deep liberal racism.

And the reaction to this ugly editorial from the paper's keynote journalists? Heads down, squirming silence.

Viner should resign. She won't. The paper's crusading columnists, notably Owen Jones and George Monbiot, should denounce their employer. They won't. They will all say nothing, let it pass, ignore criticisms, dismiss challengers as vexatious trolls. Instead, they will continue peddling their righteous denunciations of Trump, urging on the 'resistance', polishing their 'radical' status, protecting their careers. There's nothing quite like watching the contracted left liberal go to ground when such awkwardness arises.    

As is now increasingly evident over the reaction to Trump, this is not only default liberal conformity, but the alarming face of liberal extremism. From approving Deep State subversion to the championing of war criminals as 'rescuers of liberty', we have a 'vanguard' media utterly in thrall to corporate and warmongering authority.

Central to this is a mindset of denial, the rush to blame and scapegoat the 'devilish other', notably Russia and its 'apologists', rather than indict the system itself. For Glenn Greenwald, citing the past warnings of IF Stone, this is the very playbook of liberal McCarthyism.

Adam Johnson has also taken apart a New York Times editorial spluttering with liberal indignation over Trump's apparent 'moral equivalence' between the US and Russia. In recalling some of the genocidal crimes committed by the US, Johnson notes that:
the most important function of major editorial boards is to be gatekeepers of national security orthodoxy. And there is no more axiomatic orthodoxy than American. One can handwring over “mistakes,” even occasionally do harsh reporting on American war crimes—so long as one arrives back at the position of American moral superiority. “Yes, America has made mistakes,” the good liberal insists, “but at least we don’t do this other bad thing that is, unaccountably, uniquely disqualifying.”
Even where liberals might 'acknowledge' some of the West's high crimes, they're still utterly beholden to fundamental notions of the 'good Western state'. Trump is deemed a unique threat and open racist. Yet, where was the great liberal crusade against Obama and Clinton when they were relentlessly bombing, droning and murdering so many foreign 'others'? While Yemen is being annihilated, the UK's vital part in those war crimes, notes Mark Curtis, goes unreported, "an amazing propaganda achievement in a 24/7 media society."

In objecting to Trump's UK visit, Guardian liberals uphold the narrative of 'our state's decency.' In disapproving Trump's right to a formal visit, they give undue legitimacy to a UK state itself dripping in blood, in multiple violation of international laws, "rendering it a rogue state." Again, the vital context of connected Western criminality is airbrushed and ignored.

In more progressive vein, people might actually 'welcome' such visits between mutually-supporting villains, allowing them to get on the street and shout down both criminal states simultaneously. It would also provide an opportunity for exposing our militarist monarchy's part in the great sham.

The Guardian could push to prosecute, rather than embrace, Bush, Blair et al. Both the US and UK could be urged to establish earnest truth commissions to confess their vast, historical crimes against humanity. Instead, guided by the liberal media, the public are in a state of angst over 'honourable state diplomacy', and the 'need to observe' royal protocols. That's pretty smart hegemony.

It corresponds with the dismal truth that a substantial section of the British public still view the British Empire in a positive light. According to a recent YouGov poll, no less than 44% expressed pride in the history of British colonialism. As historian Mark Curtis observes, that's a:
stupendous propaganda success for the UK elite; an indication of extent of both media disinformation and, I would say, mainstream academia
This helps explain why Trump is seen as a 'particular assault' on 'democratic decency'. Trump is presented as the crisis, rather than explained in the fuller context of systematic power and its deepening crisis. It's remarkable, in this regard, how the Guardian's own lauding of Bush will be ignored, or just seen as unremarkable, by most other liberal media.

Some liberal-minded observers give dutiful nods to this bigger picture. In a recent piece, noting a past exchange, Bella Caledonia wrote:
Whilst the game of Trump-bashing must be forged into an actual resistance – and in Scotland a resistance to contagion – there is another problem, as critics of Bella like John Hilley point out.  If we focus solely on Trump’s exceptionalism we miss the continuity of raw US military imperial power and give a free pass to the Obama regime clouded over by a mist of Black Liberal Schmaltz. I’ll buy some of that, US foreign policy didn’t arrive out of the ether, but equally the danger of stressing continuity can be disabling if it just tricks us into thinking “nothing new here”, it’s just the same old USA just with a Lunatic Goofball in charge.
But, as previously argued, continuity doesn't just mean "nothing new here", or that Trump is 'just the same' as Obama. The point is that Trump is the latest manifestation of pernicious US corporate, imperialist power. It's to understand Trump as a product of that system; its inevitable progeny.

In denial of this continuity, patriotic liberals avert their eyes from 'home-grown Trump'. As Adam Johnson points out, rather than the incessant media demonology comparing Trump to the usual panoply of foreign foe dictators, he's actually "a distinctly American phenomenon":
Trump’s agenda is largely the same as the broader Republican Party; his rise, moreover, was the logical manifestation of the xenophobic, “insurgent” tea party movement — funded and supported not by foreign governments, but by entirely domestic billionaires. There’s a reason why Republican senators from John McCain to Marco Rubio have voted to confirm Trump’s nominees: They basically agree with him. How strange, then, that we have zero hot takes drawing parallels between Trump and McCain or Trump and Rubio, and dozens of hot takes drawing parallels between Trump and Latin American leftists. The foreign leader comparison prioritizes style over policy, personality over material effect.
Meanwhile, Obama luxuriates in hallowed liberal light. For the fawning Guardian, he's now even more the world's undisputed Mr Cool. Again, this is the liberal media's rearguard role in maintaining the cultural and political narrative of 'our always decent and benign' leaders. As the same Guardian cabal, like John Harris and Jonathan Freedland, intensify their assault on Jeremy Corbyn, we see how they act as vital protectors of neoliberal 'reality'.

Brexit provides a similar example of how we've been led by elite narratives framed by a righteous liberal commentariat. As Ken Loach argues, this has been a distracting storyline for many leftists, deliberating over how to oppose a neoliberal EU, while showing solidarity with workers, migrants and refugees. Again, it's about seeing through the liberal packaging, as a way of bolstering real movement politics.

Encouragingly, affiliation with socialist groups in the US is growing on the back of the Trump protests. As elected city councillor in Seattle, Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative insists: "Our movement cannot be limited to what's acceptable to the Democratic Party establishment."

Yet, as the smearing of Keith Ellison and securing of Tom Perez as new DNC chairman shows, the liberal establishment will always fight against any form of radical overhaul. Typically, there's been no Guardian editorial lamenting this dire continuation of power.

Whatever the fallout from Trump, the moment has, at least, helped shine a damning new light on our quisling liberal media. As independent journalist Matt Kennard observes, we've come to quite a point when a 'leading left liberal' outlet can castigate Jeremy Corbyn, while championing George W Bush: 

Guardian: hates democratically elected socialist leader of Labour Party. Loves Republican war criminal tyrant 
It's high time real journalists and radical others stood up and exposed this paper's shameful duplicity.  

Thursday, 2 February 2017

Trump protests must see and oppose US crimes in their totality

As global protests continue against Donald Trump, what could be the nucleus of a promising new progressive movement, akin to Occupy, is being compromised by a faux liberal 'resistance'.

It's been encouraging to see people act in a spirit of intuitive solidarity with Muslims in rejection of Trump's discriminatory edicts. But, thanks to the liberal media's veneration of Obama and Hillary, and dismal silence on that administration's own authoritarian policy crimes, the real issue of ongoing US power, and Trump as its latest manifestation, is being neutered. And the convenient effect of this is to paint Obama and previous presidents as, somehow, rational and benign.

How many of those worthy protesters are likely to know that Trump's executive order banning Muslims is actually the continuation of a policy initiated by Obama? How many realise that the seven Muslim countries 'picked out' by Trump are the same seven countries targeted by his predecessor?

Most crucially, how many of those engaged in moral protest against Trump's barring of Muslims are more exercised by Obama's and Clinton's bombing, as well as banning, of people from those countries?

American comedian and commentator Jimmy Dore makes the point with sharp, sardonic effect:
Everybody was cool with bombing them, but banning them? Oh no! That's where I put my foot down. You can bomb the shit out of them, but as soon as you try to bar them from coming into the're a monster, you're a monster.
Citing an article by Seth Frantzman, Dore shows that, in fact, "Obama's administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries." For all his ugly motivations, Trump actually acted upon an existing list underwritten by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and Obama's Terrorist Prevention Act (2015):
The public should be suspicious of Trump’s policies and the media should speak truth to power and demand answers from the administration. But the media should also be truthful with the public and instead of claiming Trump singled out seven countries, it should note that the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries. It should have told us about the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 rather than pretend this list was invented in 2017. Trump’s executive order said “countries of concern,” it didn’t make a list. That list was already made, last year and years before. (Bold text, original.)
Dore's background piece was commended by Glenn Greenwald, who, in response to liberal objections that this is only 'deflecting from Trump', tweeted:
Pointing out that Trump is exploiting the framework that Obama and Bush built isn't an excuse for Trump. It's just fact.
No, I'm not willing to allow Democrats [to] lie about history and what the foundation for policies are.
In an incisive piece, highlighting Obama's own banning policy, Greenwald insists that we must see Trump in full context, as the product of an already repressive and aggressive system:
Beyond U.S. support for the world’s worst regimes, what primarily shapes Trump’s list is U.S. aggression: Five of the seven predominantly Muslim countries on Trump’s list were ones bombed by Obama, while the other two (Iran and Sudan) were punished with heavy sanctions. Thus, Trump is banning immigrants from the very countries that the U.S. government — under both Republicans and Democrats — has played a key role in destabilizing and destroying...
In a further article, Greenwald cites the murders of two members of the same family in Yemen as evidence of the seamless US bombing of that country, from Obama and now to Trump. Again, for Greenwald, you can't see Trump's actions outwith the past and continuing US war machine. He also reminds us that Obama's 'counter-terrorism' agenda on drone killing and Guantanamo, adopted from Bush/Cheney, has enjoyed considerable support among liberals and left Democrats.

Yet, liberal fear and loathing abounds. Anticipating the death-knell of 'liberal democracy', post-Obama, Sunny Hundall, in the Independent, has implored Angela Merkel to step up to the mark as 'true leader of the free world', rather than granting that 'right' to the 'undeserving' Trump.

Other left-liberals are berating 'errant lefties' for 'not seeing' the coming Trump threat. Citing Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's first statement that "As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice", Mehdi Hasan tweeted: "Remember when some lefties thought Hillary would be the hawk, not Trump."

It's highly likely, of course, that Clinton's first action would have been to 'put Russia on notice', intensifying the crisis in Syria, and ramping-up Nato's already dangerous militarism across Eastern Europe. Nor can Hasan, apparently, entertain the more prosaic possibility that both Clinton and Trump could be hawks; a continuity of warmongers.

Hasan also tweeted:

Given past 7 days, everyone who said 'there's no difference between Trump & Clinton' should hang heads in shame & owe rest of us an apology
My reply:
There is. Libya, Syria, Iraq... Trump's a demagogue, Clinton's a crazy war criminal. And it's largely BECAUSE of her, we got him.
Hasan's baitings are the default line of a coy commentariat that refuses to see Trump as the consequence of systemic neoliberal failure, and the liberal class's own complicit part in that crisis.

As Ian Sinclair observes, a service liberal media continue to lambast Trump as beyond the pale, simply "unpresidential", an historical joke when set against Sinclair's own damning list of previous presidential villainy.

Alas, media fear and fury over Trump also seems to be having an insidious effect on much other 'alternative journalism', in its all-too-easy adoption of the same liberal memes. Consider, as illumination, this twitter exchange with pro-Scottish independence site Bella Caledonia over its representations of Trump:

Bella Caledonia:More
Trump is a Dalek, Bannon's his Davros

MoreLook inside your 'Tardis' for the more expansive story on how Trump's Muslim ban is an Obama policy

Moreyes very good, all agreed. Obama's not in office now.

John Hilley:
MoEvasion. Nothing useful learned about Trump and what to do about him without crucial context:

I don't disagree. I'm not sure why I'm the focus of your hostility.

MoreNot "hostility", reasoned comment, drawing attention to what looks like usual liberal omission.

Well I agree with your analysis but articles have to have some focus.

Bella Caledonia:
Some of the 'but what about Hillary'? stuff just sounds like flailing about - posturing 'radicalism'

MoreIsn't it more posturing 'leftism' to dismiss criticism of Clinton's system-serving as 'whataboutery'?

I agree on the need for context, but 'm not sure that Clinton is the issue today?

What Clinton, Obama and the liberal establishment uphold is precisely the key issue for radicals today.

We have written critique of Obama presidency recently

Your narrative often much too Guardian-like. Where's radical context like Pilger, Greenwald, @medialens?

Feel free to submit an article for consideration John.

John Hilley:
No, thanks. Go well.

Bella produces much good work, and, yes, we've had the occasional critique of Obama. As an advocate for Scottish radical independence, I also feel a desire to show common cause. Yet, there's also cause for concern over how this nascent site is already sounding so lamentably 'mainstream' - fearfully, a 'new Guardianista' in the making?      

Bella's lame lines here claiming to have 'looked previously at Obama's presidency', and 'Clinton not being the issue now', are not only token, but highly revealing of the defensive liberal mindset. It's a dismissive reprimand, basically saying: 'that's all past politics, with no bearing on today's key issue, Trump.' And it's highly typical of the ways in which the liberal media selectively pitch Trump as some 'sudden' and 'abnormal' threat, rather than a continuation of vast US policy crimes. 

As argued by Greenwald, Trump is the creation of an already deeply-authoritarian system of corporate power, long propagated by Obama, Clinton and their predecessors. How can any serious, progressive assessment of Trump view his actions outwith that vital frame?

Bella also joined in the liberal media's facile attack on Putin during the great 'Russia hacked the election' uproar. Again, thankfully, we had real, probing journalists like Greenwald and Adam Johnson on hand to confirm Clinton's and the Democratic Party's dark deeds, and the liberal media's system-serving role in that affair. As with other liberal media, Bella resort to lofty denunciations of Putin and Assad, without any serious attempt to represent Syria and other Middle East conflicts in their deeper context. And that involves paying particular attention to 'our' mendacious part in the great imperialist game.

In 'virtue-signalling' their relentless loathing of Russia, and playing to the Guardian gallery, such outlets are as 'radically useful' as Jonathan Freedland on 'Trump the unpresidential', or Timothy Garton-Ash in pitching him as some unprecedented agent of global disorder. Any progressive media worth its salt should be meeting that propaganda head on. As Patrick Cockburn shows, there's been almost total, one-sided establishment 'reporting' of Syria and Iraq. Isn't it the imperative task of real left journalism to correct, rather than amplify, such liberal distortion?

One landmark guide, in these regards, is the recent piece by John Pilger on Obama's "Ascension", the depth of US crimes, and the poverty of liberal journalism in addressing it all. For Pilger:
The obsession with Trump is a cover for many of those calling themselves "left/liberal", as if to claim political decency. They are not "left", neither are they especially "liberal". Much of America's aggression towards the rest of humanity has come from so-called liberal Democratic administrations - such as Obama's.
The same lack of serious critical dissent can be seen in the widely-signed petition stating that Trump:
should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen. Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales. 
Again, while commending the honest rejection of Trump, how many stopped to question the framing of this loaded missive? How very troubling that Trump's misogyny and vulgarity might discomfort our unelected, feudal elite. Did anyone consider the criminal vulgarity of Britain's 'visits' around the globe, past and present? Did indignant liberals stop to wonder about the moral right of this warmongering state to feel queasy about a visit from that warmongering state? What, alone, of the million souls they both took in Iraq? 

Again, how easily our liberal-left jumped to attention. Perversely, just as the anti-Trump protests and petition provide cover for Obama and major US crimes, so does it allow a veil of respectability for Britain's high vulgarians - including Prince Charles, the sword-swinging arms ambassador to a Saudi regime currently slaughtering civilians in Yemen, without much media interest.     

All-too-eager to play-up the UK as some bastion of 'higher values', the BBC gave ready voice to the 'anguished' establishment:

Theresa May's decision to invite Donald Trump to a state visit has put the Queen in a "very difficult position", a former head of the Foreign Office says. In a letter to The Times, Lord Ricketts said the offer had been "premature".
The Guardian, meanwhile, offered a ready platform on the issue to none other than Jack Straw, a man now most likely heading to court over his part in illegal rendition

How easily the liberal class rail against Farage and his cohorts for protecting Trump. How passive they are when the Guardian and other system-serving media indulge and protect people like Obama and Clinton, Blair and Straw.   

As Neil Clark notes:

Liberals, for instance, fawned over the former Secretary of State Madeline Albright when she said she "stands ready" to "register as Muslim" in "solidarity" against Trump. The very same Madeline Albright once declared that the death of half a million (predominantly Muslim) children in Iraq due to sanctions was a price that was "worth it." Will Albright be met with large-scale protests next time she comes to the UK for defending infanticide in Iraq? Don’t hold your breath. She's against 'The Donald' so must be a good ‘un.
Indeed. So often it's 'our good 'uns' that are allowed the benefit of history. Thus, while Hillary tries to appropriate the anti-Trump moment, the media remain oblivious to the human catastrophe she visited on Libya. Ed Miliband, an eager supporter of that wicked intervention, also joined in the great denunciation of Trump. Again, liberal silence. 

Any serious awakening and challenge to power requires us to see the larger canvas. Yet, our liberal media play a crucial part in keeping public concern narrowly framed, the structural causes shielded, the system itself intact.
Take the emergency issue of climate change. As another penetrating analysis from Media Lens shows, the climate calamity cannot be detached from the broader problem of corporate power, rampant neoliberalism and war economics. Yet, as Media Lens note, it's key liberal media like the Guardian, BBC and Channel 4 News that, while reporting the essential science, remain dutifully averse to highlighting these crucial, causal connections. In stark contrast, while Trump is identified by Media Lens as an alarming climate change denier, we also get the much fuller contextual story of US failure on the climate issue, including Obama's lamentable record in office, and the corporate forces controlling it all.       

One of the most pernicious effects of the liberal media is the way in which it obscures any such comprehension of connected power, thus neutralising meaningful action. In the case of Trump, it has led to an outpouring of virtue politics, rather than outrage over systematic US villainy. 

Yet, this is still a protest movement with enormous potential, one that requires a re-kindling of purpose. Beyond so much liberal angst and distraction, I commend the sober and instructive analysis from Stop the War's Andrew Murray, laying out the emerging Trump dynamics, including his possible engagements over Russia, Nato and Syria, his more threatening pivots to China and Iran, the intensification of support for Israel, the implications of his 'America First' economic nationalism, and how all this impacts on the long-standing US/UK aggressive pact, otherwise known as the 'special relationship'. 

As Murray notes, we should be under no illusions about Trump as a new war president, but one already primed by a war-driving system. And it's on that more radical understanding of Trump as the latest product of a pernicious authoritarian order that any broad and effective opposition to it can be built, exposing and resisting US power in its totality.