"This is our moment to be that true global player once more – and I think the armed forces play a really important role as part of that.” Mr Williamson said that Brexit would allow the UK to change the 1960s policy of withdrawal from regions “east of Suez”.
That's right folks. Behold the true mindset behind Brexit. Real life Bond villain Gavin Williamson, the former Tory whip, now Defence Secretary, who keeps a tarantula named Cronus on his desk to scare people, who told Russia to "shut-up and go away", wants to return to the glory days of the British Empire and somehow "re-write" the calamity of Suez Canal.
If you don't quite know what that means, the catastrophe of Suez in 1956 was essentially a geopolitical turning point: when it finally became proven Britain was no longer boss in the world.
It's a little known truth that the first ever United Nations peace-keeping force was dispatched not to monitor some far-off Middle Eastern/African butcher in a war zone, but to rein in the actions of the British. See, Britain has a bit of a history of disliking being told it CAN'T do what it likes: particularly when it comes to war and conquest, and fleecing its own people. (And if you need the relevance of Brexit explaining at this point, there's little hope for you.)
In 1956 Britain almost started another World War. Britain, France and Israel tried to invade the Suez Canal in Egypt: but were forced to stop, and withdraw - due to pressure from the international community, the U.N, and ironically, pressure from then US President Dwight Eisenhower. But arguably more importantly, back in Britain, it created a major backlash against right-wing mindsets and warmongering Tory governments: paving the way for all the "love and peace" vibes of the 1960s. It was virtually the birth of modern liberalism in Britain - an ethos it's taken the Tories until 2016 to almost reverse entirely. Little over half a century for the Tories to get the "rank & file" back to detesting foreigners, and clamouring for confrontation.
Wrong. 1956 was only 63 years ago, in living memory. Take a moment also to consider how relatively soon this was after WWII, ending in 1945. Eleven years. Which countries were first to show they'd learned nothing from the human catastrophes of WWII?? Britain, France, and Israel: still trying to play at Imperialism. And it's definitely not "history" for some: it's unfinished business.
Brexit is part of that unfinished business. And these are the people who want it most: deplorable specimens who exhibit all that's wrong with humankind - people like Gavin Williamson. People who view the point in history Britain was told it couldn't just invade foreign countries any more, as a "regrettable change of policy in the 1960s".
Hope you're all looking forward to the prospect of conscription for our children, in the future Tory vision of Brexit Britain.
Where do you think people like Williamson plan on getting their ground troops from, to enable this "reemergence of empire"? And how do you make conscription/service in the Armed Forces (eg: throwing your life away as a dispensable pawn in someone else's chess game) seem like a good thing, or at very least, "not so bad"? How do you rejuvenate the ranks of "meat shield" infantry, when natural human instinct is for freedom and to avoid needless death? When Western notions of valour/basic humanity have spent the past 70+ years selling the idea war is a bad thing?
ANSWER: You make life for average civilians so shit, mundane and deprived, by comparison, military service seems an attractive option - and the only feasible avenue for betterment. Eg: the way it worked for thousands of years.
Eg: Kinda what Brexit may realistically do in Britain.
It's all part of a giant puzzle. Give populaces too much freedom and choice, and they'll no longer be willing to needlessly fight and die for you. Brexit is one step in reversing that.
It's like an onion with never-ending layers, each one making you weep.
I winced considerably at Mark Carney's offering of a "worst case scenario" yesterday, warning that a No-Deal Brexit could result in UK house prices collapsing by as much as a third. Not only as a homeowner myself, enslaved to a sizeable mortgage I'll be paying off for the next twenty plus years (regardless of whether my home becomes worth less than plywood). But also because I literally visualised the thousands of people who'd greet the news with untold joy, and even smug satisfaction.
To those who desperately want to get onto the property ladder, but can't currently afford to, it must seem like a tantalising proposition. Contrary to bad news, a price crash would be a cause for their celebration: an end to justify the means in some cases. Worse still, to my mind, it will likely confirm (or reignite) for some the idea that this Brexit calamity is a good thing.
It's really not, and I'd like to try and debunk that particular theory.
Fake carrots for would-be home owners
(a real stick for existing ones)
A housing price crash is very much a symbiotic part of the "Disaster Capitalist" plan: a term now widely recognised, and virtually coined/alluded to by author and activist Naomi Klein in her book 'The Shock Doctrine'.
All a crash will do is drag the middle class - arguably the bedrock of a healthy economy - down to the status of being impoverished too. And that "middle class" wealth... where does it go? Well, it's transferred to the coffers of the financial elite. That's quite literally the whole point. The poor won't get squat.
In other words, the one group I virtually guarantee will not benefit in the slightest, are the poor and fiscally unstable. The cold harsh reality is if you haven't got a decent job and can't afford a sizeable enough deposit to purchase a home now, mortgage lenders are not going to suddenly be hurling mortgages at people absent that collateral, even if they are considerably cheaper.
But the poor will be somewhat placated, as they'll see all the middle class people around them falling like dominoes. They won't see or care how the gap between rich and poor has been vastly increased overall, because it won't have affected them. A neat ruse.
Owning a home is not simply "slightly" out of reach for millions in difficulty - it's nigh on a pipe dream. Even a price crash won't change that; it's other economic issues and priorities that need to be addressed, such as wage and job security, wages rising with inflation, lending criteria and priorities for banks, lower interest rates, day-to-day living costs for exorbitantly priced services... there's a whole load of things we could look at before just demolishing the housing market, and ruining millions of people.
A surprisingly courteous conversation on Twitter revealed to me all too clearly that some folks simply don't get HOW a simple price crash can, and will, ruin average people. And that curious little financial trap, unnoticed by any other than those who've borrowed to purchase a home or business, is the lynch-pin of the Disaster Capitalist's plan.
This was the argument presented to me:
"People with mortgages were going to have to pay back that loan amount any way, so it makes no difference - and their next home will be incrementally cheaper too. Meanwhile, the young and first time buyers will be able to get on the ladder."
That overlooks so many technicalities, it's unreal.
Bricks and Mortar
The first thing to understand, the most fundamental thing, is the ONLY homeowners who get screwed by a housing crash are those who owe considerable amounts, and have mortgages on them. People who've bought into, and relied upon the financial system. The truly rich, the super-rich and elite percentile everyone's always referring to, don't need mortgages.
If you buy a home for cash outright, exclusively to rent out, and it plummets in value... no, it doesn't matter all that much, as your yield will likely be unchanged. You just ride it out, making as much as you can in the process. If you hold on to it long enough, it will - eventually - return the monies paid out. And if you simply bought it as a holiday/alternate home, again, it makes no difference. It was money you could afford to splash out, after all.
The super-rich deal in cold hard cash. Whereas you or I might buy a home, or even a property investment to let if we're so fortunate, the super-rich property mogul buys up whole portfolios and estates... sometimes whole housing projects. It's arguably the best place for hordes of money, and will always provide a return from rental. "People will always need bricks and mortar" is the saying: no other investment pays for itself in quite the same way, and is usually also worth vastly more after decades of bringing in a reliable, stable yield.
Middle class people with mortgages live in perpetual fear of losing their jobs, and possibly as a consequence, their homes. Whereas the super-rich are also the only ones shielded from a tempestuous, faltering economy. You don't have to worry about your job, or physically being given a mortgage by a bank if you already have more money than average people would earn in several lifetimes. It's simple maths.
And that element of physically being "given" the mortgage, is where it all gets messy - and the Disaster Capitalism really kicks in.
Number Crunching
The actual value of a property matters little to a bank in the long run. If prices are lower universally, they can always offset that hit to their profits, by raising the interest rate for borrowers. Yes prices seem lower, but customers may well pay around the same. Simply a greater portion goes to the "Disaster Capitalists" - the banks, who are the middlemen rubbing their hands with glee.
A £250K loan over 20 years at 1.99% pays the lender £53,246 in interest. Total cost to borrower: £303,246. (Not including product fees, legals etc.)
A smaller loan of £150K over 20 years, but at 5.99% for example, is £107,708 in interest. Total cost to borrower: £257,708.
What's happened there? The buyer saved less than £50K on a property that seemed much cheaper, the banks take over double in interest charges, and the only person who loses out is the poor schmuck who bought it at £300K, and has lost all equity. Yes you got your house a bit cheaper, but at what expense... and who do you think is laughing?
Nobody thinks so much about that bit, as after all... a price drop from £300K to £200K seems far more significant than a couple of percentiles being shifted in favour of the banks.
I always wistfully smirk at discussion of interest rates, and Bank of England adjustments etc. I'm no qualified economist, and would not proclaim to be so - merely an interested civilian. But my general and admittedly simplified take on interest rates is "who shall we tip the scales in favour of today?" Low rates are in favour of borrowers, people with loans/mortgages etc, who need credit to survive. Higher rates are in favour of those who lend the money, who are sitting on pots of it, and the wealthier segments of society who have it tied up everywhere from high street banks to the Cayman Islands.
The Scourge of Negative Equity
The banks will literally take your home or business if you can't pay your mortgage, and they're also the ones who decide whether you get that mortgage renewed in the future. What a neat set up, eh?
Most deals have to be renewed and swapped over several times during the course of a lifetime mortgage, otherwise they roll over onto extortionate rates nobody can afford. ('Wonga' territory.)
So when your house you owe £250K on is suddenly only worth £200K, new lenders are going to say "no". Simple as that. The borrower is stuck with whatever terms and interest rates the existing lender has decreed: usually a "variable rate" (eg: the Wonga rate) vastly higher than they paid when they had a good deal, and their property wasn't in negative equity. The unfortunate borrower then either has to pay those exorbitantly hiked interest charges, interminably, or sell the home and possibly lose everything - including the equity they spent years accruing.
That "Loan To Value" category a borrower falls into is critical, eg: the more equity you own, the lower interest rate you'll pay. So even those who escape negative equity and financial ruin will still have that share reduced in the event of a price crash, and will be paying substantially more interest to the banks too. (Would you look at that? They win again.)
The Fattened Calf
When those homes and businesses are repossessed, who hoovers them up? Who do the banks sell them to, to recoup? Is it the poor first-time buyer, desperate to get on the ladder, who needs a loan? Or the super-rich guy and property mogul with a cheque book potent enough to buy a Caribbean island? (Who just happens to be mates with the bank manager.)
That is the mantra of Disaster Capitalism. The idea that when economic disaster hits - or rather, is engineered - those with the most resources and wealth close ranks, and are able to take advantage ruthlessly. Thousands, if not millions of people are ruined, and the super-rich take their assets at cut-price. The Disaster Capitalists' wealth and position, their very inherent and overt superiority is assured for yet another generation.
Then they "fatten up the calf" all over again, for a decade or two. They build a strong economy, pay well, and feed an emergent and wealthy middle-class. Until another disaster/financial crash hits, and the cycle repeats. It's quite literally a sowing and harvesting process that's occurred continuously in Western societies, whether "coincidental" or not, ever since the birth of Twentieth Century Capitalism. Let's just say the "Great Depression" of 1929-39 wasn't so depressing for the wealthy Wall Street types, banks, and landowners of America.
On the contrary, as it always is for a small minority, a time of housing price crash and economic collapse is "party time".
Just as Brexit will be for the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Crispin Odey, and probably anyone loosely connected to the ERG. (For any who don't know, that's the 'European Research Group'. Eg: the hand up the puppet of Brexit, and this Tory government.)
And what nobody seems to want to mention, conveniently, is that a housing crash is usually precipitated by an economic slump. And if the entire UK economy has fallen off a cliff, nobody but the very richest will have the money to buy property any way.
Ah yes... isn't it funny?!? Hilarious! A Monty Python-like skirmish between French and English fishermen in the English Channel. The French probably shouted that the English mothers were hamsters, and their fathers stank of elderberries.
Actually... no. It's NOT funny. This is the first warning sign, regarding the brave new world we're headed into.
To those of us who've opposed Brexit with every fibre of our being, among the countless economic reasons why it's the most colossal self-harm a nation's ever inflicted upon itself, there's also the small matter of the cohesion of Europe. That tiny, almost insignificant detail, eg: that the European Union was specifically set up in the wake of WWII to ensure the powers of Europe were forever tied together and bonded as one community - exactly so such calamity could never happen again. That larger picture was almost more important than anything else.
Hey, but that's just "libtard", "remainer" whinging, isn't it?
Actually, again... no. Say what you want, the fragmentation of that ethic and union is a human catastrophe. A complete disaster for the peoples of Europe. You only need to look at history to know, almost with certainty, that it's only a matter of time now before countries in Europe turn on one another once again. More so, impoverishment, economic shocks and hardship, and the "resentment" of foreign neighbours generally precipitates wars, in the same way taking a hit on a bong precipitates the munchies.
I used to think the emergent gammon of Britain didn't get it; or simply didn't believe the significance. Whereas now I think I realise the truth. Which is that aggressive nationalism in Britain is breeding an active desire for confrontation. Those regressed human beings adore violence: it's part of their DNA. And again make no mistake, Brextremists will love this. It's the actual first visualisation of the "war" they've had in their heads this whole time.
No, not all Brexit voters are "gammon", but certainly, all "gammon" voted for Brexit. (I know some abhor use of the term, which is almost exclusively why I like to use it.)
Of course, some will shout that "the French started it". That may be true, though I'm loathed to trust our media's reporting of it alone. Either way, the key detail here is that the British have always enjoyed preferential treatment and specifically tailored/negotiated arrangements with the EU: we literally WERE allowed to have our cake and eat it too, to some degree. We had the best of both worlds, and still that wasn't enough for some.
Yes, it seems the British fishers were abiding by those previously agreed rules. But in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've said "bollocks" to those agreements. And it seems some French fishermen have, as a consequence, said "bollocks" to those rules and the existing British monopoly. Who could blame them? You reap what you sow, and all that.
Dangerous Melting Pot
Nowhere else in the world is quite like Europe; nowhere else are there so many rich, successful and proud, competing nations - all with so much history, different cultures and languages, living side by side and on top of one another. Which makes it a particularly dangerous melting pot for war and hostility, unless they are bound together somehow. Not to mention, larger continents outside Europe are essentially the descendants of Europeans: colonialism may have ended, but its legacy endures, which is why what happens in Europe affects the entire world. It always has.
FUN FACT: To this day, England and France were at war with one another, longer and more continuously than pretty much any other adversaries in world history. The famous 'Hundred Years War' was actually rounding down, didn't give account of stops and starts, and was even before Napoleon reared his head centuries later! You're a fool if you think that sort of cultural enmity entirely disappears. (Stop by at a few pubs in Glasgow, and ask locals whether they're still cross about stuff the English did centuries ago.)
This "skirmish" is the beginning. A cynic might say, it's pretty much the first dead canary in the coal mine.
I don't quite know how that happened, as I still feel like a big kid who's really only just left home, and moved out into the big wide world to seek his fortune. The years have whizzed by in a heartbeat. It's a cliche, but it's true.
But what blows my mind even more, thinking about it, is if you go back to the year of my birth, 1979, and then go back before that "another me" (eg: 39 years), this country was in the middle of World War II. When I was young, and was taught about the World Wars etc, they always seemed this far-off and distant event from history, and I genuinely grew up believing such things could never happen again.
Today we commemorate 100 years since the Battle of Amiens in World War I. And the truth is, it's not so long ago: it's not some distant event from another time. And the events of World War II, even less so. My own mum was born in 1939, the year it started, and my grandfather, William McNamara, was a doctor in the Armed Forces.
Which is why (surplus to the added dimension of Britain being cast back economically to Victorian Times), for any student of history, Brexit is such an utter tragedy. We are quite literally in the process of dismantling the organisations/treaties and bonds specifically set up to prevent such horrors taking place, ever, ever again.
To deny that the European Union itself was the lynch-pin in that, or to glibly assume that countries in Europe could and never would return to hostilities, is ignorance and naivety off the scale. And simply put, there is nothing in this world that was worth risking that, not for our children's futures.
Oh God. It's one of those moments I'm going to dare to argue something that overtly seems to contradict the values I normally espouse. It causes me physical pain to agree with right-wing pundits over anything, even loosely, but if nothing else I guess it shows I dare to think for myself, and refuse to bow to tribalism.
I f**king detest Boris Johnson, and everything he stands for.
Indeed, anyone who follows my blog would know I oppose these Tories and 'Brextremists' virulently, with every fibre of my being. But of all the incomprehensibly stupid and offensive stuff he's said, saying "no burkas shouldn't be banned, but they look ridiculous, it makes them look like bank robbers... it's like talking to a letter-box"?
Well... it's remarkably small-fry. And people getting so up-in-arms is EXACTLY what the far-right want. And it's EXACTLY why he did it.
Why? Because the brouhaha IS oppressing free speech; no two ways about it. It may have been a distasteful comment that someone in his position shouldn't have made, and it may well have been used to rile up those who are prejudiced. But an observational comparison with an inanimate piece of clothing, is not in any way racist. It's just not.
What all these "offended" people are doing, is actually giving credence and legitimacy to arguments the right-wing would have us believe are the reason they feel the way they do. (Which is bollocks, they're mostly just racist and hateful.) We're giving them moral justification and high-ground. In fact, Johnson's comments were most likely deliberately cooked up by him and Bannon as a deliberate ploy, exactly to 'split the chamber'. To divide the left (yet again) between moral do-gooders clinging to a virtue-signalling bandwagon, and more reasonable types who'll dare to say "hang on a minute."
EG: it was another trap to fuel right-wing support, and the liberal-leaning/well-intending British public, as usual, fell right into it.
The end goal? We've just made Boris even more of a flaming hero, to some. Check the Sky News data polls if in any doubt, support for him has come out of the woodwork, from every corner. We've made him relevant again, and given him a new slogan - one with painfully reminiscent overtones of what put Trump where he is today. It's all a calculated chess game, and we just handed him greater control of the board.
Like the whole debacle with Tommy Robinson, and countless fascist/populist rabble-rousers before him, allowing them the opportunity to play on the whole "being censored" thing, is a grave mistake.
Is Johnson a dangerous liar and hypocrite? Yes. Was it an inappropriate thing for a statesman to say? Yes.
Is Johnson most likely a racist, cut from the same cloth as Steve Bannon and Trump etc? Yes. Should we be terrified he's in cahoots with them? Yes. Was this a dog-whistle to racists, Tommy Robinson supporters, and general scumbags? YES.
But the comment itself was about a piece of clothing. When we start censoring observational humour and free speech to such degree, it's a slippery slope. I wouldn't think twice about joking that a Catholic/Orthodox priest or Jewish Rabbi looks like some kind of dodgy wizard, and I'm no racist. (Just an atheist/agnostic, who finds all religion ridiculous.)
So while I agree Johnson undoubtedly did this for nefarious reasons, I'm most concerned that free speech and observational humour - the likes of which we hear from people like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr all the time - should not get caught in the crossfire. That is definitely not cool. I defy anyone to say what should or shouldn't be considered funny. You just have to reap the consequences if it's not, and run the risk of being considered a hateful bigot if your jokes go too far. (Which used to be a deterrent in itself.)
I've been all over this globe, and truly believe the cultural differences between men and women, and between people from different parts of the world... the stereotypes and funny quirks, endearing and not-so endearing traits etc: our ability to laugh and joke about them is what makes us free. When we can't, we're not.
True equality, true liberalism, is saying "you can believe in whatever you want, be whatever you want to be, dress however you want to dress etc - just as it's equally my right to take the piss and say you're talking nonsense, or to say you look ridiculous."
Sometimes, I do try to pause to take a breath, and chill.Honest.
I genuinely do try to tell myself that maybe it won't be as bad as some of us fear, that maybe Britain will somehow come out of this alright. That my family won't be doomed to live in a needlessly impoverished nation, ruled by the worst kind of bullies. But then... facts kick in. See, that's the problem, isn't it? Some of us simply cannot "compartmentalise" facts, or fail to look at the reality of the situation. We just can't.
Chequers is dead. It's taken the Tory government more than two years to work out their plans to have all the cake and eat it too, are doomed. Britain now simply has to acknowledge facts. That starts with accepting the EU is not going to play ball, and/or just roll over. They never had any reason to, but erstwhile had hundreds to remain firm and protect the integrity of their union.
Eg: exactly what "remoaners" have been saying from Day One.
FACT:
Economists/politicians and journalists the world over are saying Britain could be headed for the most extraordinary crash. In terms of services, jobs, investment, not least that most of our food and medical supplies have come from our European neighbours next door, for decades.
FACT:
If Brexit goes ahead, Britain WILL be behest to Trump's America. Subject to the whims of a madman who contradicts himself from minute to minute.
Brexiters seem to think that the "ambiguity" of these quandaries, or the chance they're exaggerated and/or may not turn out to be quite as bad, is a justification to go ahead with it any way. Almost as a point of principle.
No... no it's definitely not.
Naive, unrealistic people languishing in fairy-tales have zero right to risk OUR families, OUR happiness, OUR prosperity, OUR careers, all in the name of a nationalist experiment. Even if there is a small chance it "might" not be Armageddon! If you stand in the middle of the M25, you might just survive it, but that doesn't mean it's a risk most of us would deem acceptable.
We have a stark choice now. None of this needs to happen. So we either upset the Gammon... doing the sensible thing and reversing the whole process, though admittedly risking some sort of epic right-wing tantrum, OR, all but the richest among us get tipped into potential economic catastrophe.
I was pretty much glued to the television yesterday. Trump's visit to the UK was, of course, the categorical circus one might have expected.
From insulting our Prime Minister, then denying it and calling it "fake news" the very next day, leading a ludicrous press conference singing the praises of Britain's biggest buffoon Boris Johnson, to keeping our 92 year old Queen waiting in baking sun for nearly fifteen minutes. (She was wearing layers for God's sake.)
But then the clown prince of America compounded that, turning his back on her...even walking ahead of her. Hell, I'm no royalist, but even I found myself seething at Donald Trump's typically blissfully ignorant lack of awareness. So obtuse was he, he literally made our Queen dance around him.
Just who the hell is arrogant enough to keep the Queen of England waiting, live on national TV any way?
That's just 'who Donald Trump is', right?
That's what groups in the UK now supporting this ludicrous man would have us believe. People and political groups, factions and media publications, who just over two years ago were as appalled by the notion of Donald Trump being President of the United States as the rest of us, now try to argue why he's a great guy doing a great job. Even though he has the lowest approval rating of any American President in history, both domestically within the US, and internationally.
It takes the term 'fickle' to a whole new level.
Genuinely take a moment to briefly recall how ridiculous the proposition of Trump's presidency once seemed. Remember how absolutely anyone even vaguely masquerading as a decent human being used to decry the very idea. Even newspapers like The Sun and Daily Express were jovial and lighthearted regarding what once seemed a big joke, to all of us. As for high-brow right-wing publications like The Times and Telegraph - though they share many of his values - they too looked down on his embarrassing lack of intelligence, and vaunted egotism. He was beneath them.
As he should be all of us.
There's no better example than Boris Johnson, our very own insidious chameleon of British politics. The former Foreign Secretary vocally opposed Trump to the hilt back when he thought it made him popular, back when he was Mayor of London. He even openly referred to Trump as "out of his mind", and
"betraying a quite stupefying ignorance that makes him frankly unfit to hold the office of President of the United States".
-Boris Johnson on Trump, in 2015
Yet look at the weasel now... openly betraying his leader, and shamelessly humping Trump's leg on the world stage. Only occasionally 'beaten to the hump' by Nigel Farage (another villain who at least used to be openly recognised as a villain).
Happily for Johnson, Trump - like the benevolent kennel-master he is (as long as you don't bark) - now publicly pats his good doggie on the head at any given opportunity. Doing it on his official state visit? That'll have buoyed Boris to a degree that made me feel nauseous. He's back writing for The Telegraph on Monday by the way. Boris wasted no time returning to his megaphone, where he can whip up a frenzy absent any real responsibility, and how I bet he can't wait to crow.
Honestly, I didn't know it was physically possible for me to feel sorry for Theresa May. But watching her stand there on live television, while the tangerine hell-beast aside her postured about the talents of Boris Johnson and how he'd make a "great Prime Minister", after the week she'd already had - directly as a result of the very same louse? Wow. You can't really languish in the schadenfreude of someone unpleasant's fall from grace, if it's to facilitate someone even worse. (Well... you can, but it's pretty senseless.)
Ironically, that was the speech where Trump was trying to make Theresa look good. Not the one the night before, when he deliberately trashed her.
The subjugation of our leader was just painful - even for someone who opposes her on most, if not all things. She's still our Prime Minister, and she was reduced to a laughing stock on social media, and around the world. Strangely, the British commentators complaining about the "embarrassment" of the Trump balloon, didn't seem to mind too much about May's humiliation.
One of the most extraordinary satirical images I saw expressing this, among the memes of loving gazes and hand-holding, was this visceral parody of 'The Handmaid's Tale':
Brutal... just brutal, and deservedly so.
No genuine 'patriot' could be pleased to see Britain's status mocked in such a way. I almost chuckle to think of the fundamental quandary it'll have caused for British Nationalists. The Queen, and the respectability of our country are usually top of the 'gammon list of favourite things', yet here was their poster child insulting and disrespecting both.
But on the whole, they're taking the side of the US President. Tell me, who are the "traitors" again?
The 250,000 "Rent-a-Leftie mob"
I can honestly say I feel considerable pride at the vast number of people who showed up to demonstrate against Trump yesterday, Friday 13th July 2018. A number now reported to be in the region of a quarter of a million people:
To a degree, the turnout restored my faith in Britain to distinguish right from wrong. Without wanting to stir any still overly raw emotions, it gave me endlessly more pride in my country than winning ten World Cups.
But again, according to the insidious forces relentlessly trying to force Britain down this road of isolationism and fascism, all the marvellous people fighting for decency yesterday were nothing but "Corbyn's rent-a-Leftie mob", and the "worst of Britain":
Countless among those 250,000 people won't have been Corbyn supporters, or even necessarily left-wing. Just decent. Even many Conservative politicians and supporters recognise the danger this man represents to our world, it's not exclusive to socialists. The Daily Mail are simply once again trying to divide our society - creating an entirely absolutist, black and white, 'us and them' situation. Because The Daily Mail still adhere to their mantra that simply by saying something, they can make it so. It's like they're trying to actively persuade the UK populace that supporting Trump is now more than acceptable - it's desirable, and eminently patriotic.
The same was true on Sky News on the day, with Kay Burley relentlessly hammering statistics allegedly proving roundabout half of Britain are now on board with Trump, believe him trustworthy, and that we should form closer ties with him in a post-Brexit world. Which I don't believe for a second. I generally favour what I see with my own eyes, like 250,000 people on the march - not what overtly biased factions 'tell me' is the case.
And what was it that made those marching "the worst of Britain" any way? The significantly large demonstration through London was marked by joy, music, and peaceful protest. Democratically voiced and indignant opposition to values we should all abhor: different people were there for a variety of reasons (there's a glorious pick'n'mix to choose from with Trump). There was none of the violence and venom we've come to expect from his rallies, and the Tommy Robinson rallies etc. In fact, the only pockets of conflict on the day were apparently caused by Trump supporters determined to stir anger, and cause a ruckus.
You only need eyes to see their entire attitude and body language are different:
Trump supporters goad demonstrators in London, photo c/o Rex Features.
And if you want more proof, check out what happened when the "Welcome Trump" mob joined forces with the Tommy Robinson mob on the day, here.
On the contrary, rather than feeling embarrassed, I am thankful peaceful protest is alive and well in Britain. Because what comes next, if and when that fails, does not bear thinking about. (As Nigel Farage and Brextremists continuously warn us, albeit with more relish, and conscious belief some kind of civil war is justified and desirable.)
That is what people really mean when they say we "cannot abandon Brexit", begrudgingly or otherwise; when they say "the damage to our democracy would be catastrophic". What they mean is that Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, and their assorted goons will orchestrate some kind of civil war and widespread insurrection that'll turn Britain into the premise of a dystopic action film.
The 'Whataboutery' is embarrassing
What truly amazes me is the sheer number of groups in Britain who now try to argue in favour of Donald Trump, even though doing so flies in the face of values and ethics they (at least ostensibly) cling to. After all, nobody's surprised to hear the openly racist and 'gammon' appropriated members of our society doing so, but when it's people who try to appear as virtuous, informed and rational, it's an equation that doesn't quite balance out.
The one argument I heard over and over again on news reports and social media, even from those who'd have once been considered responsible journalists and politicians, was "why weren't they out there protesting Obama? He enforced similar policies." And "why aren't they out there protesting against dictators in China, Russia, and Iran?"
'Whatboutery' at its absolute finest. "It's ok for me to steal that kid's money, because that other guy who did it didn't get into trouble." Pathetic.
But if right-wing journalists and commentators really need it explaining, please allow me to. It's because no other Western leader has ever openly fed and encouraged racism... misogyny... xenophobia... violence... prejudice... dishonour... lies... or downright stupidity. Not in the same unapologetic and shameless way as Donald Trump, and not in recent times. He's legitimised pond-life everywhere, and changed the world for every one of us. The man's launched a wrecking ball at former values of our society; laid waste to notions of 'manners', 'honour', and 'mutual respect'.
In short, he must be challenged, because there's never been anyone quite like Trump in a post WWII western democracy. No one so deserving of demonstration.
It's also exactly because America was supposed to stand for something better. Generations in the West have grown up with the idea America is the peace-keeper of the world; that it's the 'land of the free, and the home of the brave'. The Statue of Liberty - the iconic symbol of America itself - was specifically supposed to be an everlasting testament to its welcoming of all peoples, and the nation's desire to be free of tyranny.
Britain too was once supposed to stand for inherent 'nobility', and decency. (At least post-empire, when it required a new marketing slogan.)
Dear friends in government and right-wing media: it's exactly when the greatest among us falls openly to corruption and nefarious intent, and no longer even tries to disguise it, that we're all in real trouble. Something beautiful besmirched, is more tragic than something already broken.
Respecting the Office
The other chestnut, paraded from the likes of Nick Ferrari to Nigel Farage, from Brendan O'Neill to Piers Morgan, was "whether we like it or not, he's the President of the United States: an office that must be respected." That's apparently why demonstrating was such an awful faux pas.
No. Having respect for someone's office doesn't mean disassociating from who is in that office and/or what they do, giving them a 'free pass'. That way lies the road to ruin, and dictatorship. A road Trump's well and truly galloping down, even managing to have brought back nepotism (something most of us thought consigned to history).
Certainly, the outrage concerning the Trump balloon was laughable. It seems the Trumpeters and Tommy Robinson supporters are all for 'free speech' - unless it happens to be a considerable amount of people disagreeing with them.
The best thing about the ridiculous Trump balloon isn't the protest itself, its how much its pissing off the right people. The same people who routinely say people are too offended these days, are losing their shit, over a floating bag of air.
I'm not one of those arguing Trump shouldn't have been allowed to come. That's simply not pragmatic. He is the POTUS after all, however bizarre that fact is. A level of diplomacy must of course be observed. Even with tyrants. So by all means, come here Donald. Exactly so we can tell you exactly how much we despise you; so we can show you our disappointment at how you've defiled one of the greatest nations on Earth. THAT is the very essence of democratic protest, and thereby, democracy. We demonstrated it beautifully.
Let's face it... I think deep down, most in Britain acknowledge Trump is a dangerous, babbling moron. It's just that for Brexit-supporting factions, the moron happens to be babbling rationale in their favour. It doesn't matter how much odious stuff or gobbledegook he comes out with, or how much damage filling the Brexit vacuum with subjugation to America will cause our NHS, our health and safety standards, our worker rights, our media, our food and medicine standards, or anything in fact. As long as Brexiters can argue it somehow pivotal to the whole 'escape from Brussels'.
But to those among us still sane? We see only too clearly that to jump ship from a union of mutually respectful nations of equals - where we were valued and afforded numerous privileges - into being a very junior partner at the whims of a boastful egotist who contradicts himself from moment to moment, is clearly madness off the scale.
Anyone who's spent any considerable length of time in America (at anything less than diplomat tier hotels, any way) will tell you, we definitely don't want their general food/medicine produce taking over, over here. For me personally, as someone who toured the US extensively for many years, the idea my shelves at home will soon be emptied of fine European and Mediterranean produce, instead to be stocked with the simply awful stuff I encountered in America, makes me feel truly depressed. As for medicine, and health supplements etc? Christ. In America, you could probably sell reconstituted cat's teeth as medicine if you bought off the right people, and put enough small print on the bottle.
Not to mention, it looks like the Tories have finally allowed Rupert Murdoch to take over British Sky Broadcasting, something he's been trying to do for decades. So we can also look forward to the equivalent of Fox News over here sometime soon, as part of the 'Great American Subjugation' (unless something is done). Thought Britain was dumb and spoon-fed already? Just wait.
If anything ever proved how much we need to remain united with our neighbours in Europe, it was the pantomime of Trump's state visit. And how much Brexiters are actually the ones willing to 'betray' their country - only too happy to see us vassal to an untrustworthy tyrant and liar, rather than admit they made a mistake.
Good to see they’ve got the important things in hand.
Good grief. When are governments going to realise that outlawing and prohibiting practices that cater to generic human desires, such as drugs and prostitution, forcing those who provide them into 'criminality', is a simply massive own goal?? (Pardon the World Cup-related pun.)
You'd think governments who've based their entire ethos on 'free market capitalism' would appreciate the power of 'market driven commodities'. Meanwhile, western rulers have spent decades fighting an unwinnable war to stamp out supposedly carnal desires from the human psyche: something that will never never EVER be achievable. You may as well yell at the sky for being blue.
But only certain carnal desires, and for certain people.
Hell, I can take a trip to Africa and go shoot a giraffe, if I pay enough. I can invest my money in companies that finance cluster bombs and military coups, and somehow be considered a pillar of my local community. I can spend my life through a haze of alcohol fuelled idiocy, as long as I don't hurt anyone else in the process. But apparently, according to Western values, wanting to have sex with someone beautiful (easing the hideous futility of life for a few brief passing moments) or being one of those beautiful people and wanting to use my God-given charms for fiscal advantage, is worse than wanting to murder and maim.
Not in my book.
Similarly, wanting to take a drug to ease the mundaneness of existence, or to stifle the emotional agony that often comes with the turf? Well that’s OK in the West, even actively encouraged: as long as it's the right drugs, that fund the right people.
Mobster rule
Ergo, all prohibition does is force otherwise law-abiding citizens under the umbrella of being supposed 'criminals'. And if they get caught and go to prison, what happens then? Not only do they then mix with other 'real' criminals, guilty of far more nefarious crimes, but their future prospects are so hampered by the black mark on their record, that the need for them to resort to criminal enterprise in the future is multiplied by almost infinite amount. It's a senseless cycle, and again, it’s unwinnable.
By making these commodities illegal, by definition that creates the need for a 'criminal underworld'. Eg: genuinely immoral and nefarious types creating order out of chaos, usually using violence and intimidation to enforce their status quo. Criminal king-pins who then in turn corrupt politicians and police by paying them off, to turn a blind eye. It's just another form of cliquey elitism, underneath the layers of onion.
When the U.S briefly tried the same prohibition with alcohol (eg: the white man's drug of choice), it gave rise to one of the most powerful criminal underworlds in modern history: that of Al Capone. Not a coincidence. The Americans quickly worked out it was a bad idea. And a bit before that, they trifled with Puritanism (which surprisingly also turned out to be a rather big no-no too).
Whereas, look what happens if you legalise drugs and prostitution.
Criminal underworld? What criminal underworld. Wiped out in a heart beat. There's no need for it. Sex workers would be protected, have rights. The quality of drugs and their strength could be regulated, and monitored. No more dirty hovels, dirty needles, no more exploitation, no more pimps and trafficking, no drugs gangs. It would protect people: people who are gonna do what they want any way. And instead of funding criminals, the proceeds of industries we all know are there (and thrive in every single country of the world) could then be taxed and streamed back into our public services. It would create countless jobs. It could literally revolutionise the funding of our society, and change countless lives for the better. It's nothing short of a win/win proposition.
And just imagine how much more effective our police would be, if their time was freed up from petty offences, and they were able to solely pursue serious criminals? (A notion I have no doubt many in the police would agree with.) It would be a force motivated by ethics and protecting society, rather than meeting targets and numbers.
Refilling Britain’s coffers
I'll be bold enough to say (not that I think a Tory government would ever do anything so wise and non-judgemental), if this Brexsh*t malarkey goes ahead, and our country plummets into economic isolation and greater poverty... for those absent trust funds any way... legalisation and regulation of the cannabis industry could well be one of the few things that'd save our asses.
Not only will millions of people probably and justifiably need the stress relief, trapped on the island of Little England, but a thriving and regulated 'coffee shop' scene (like that of the Netherlands and in Canada etc) would undoubtedly fill the UK government's coffers faster than you could say "pass me the bong".
“How deplorable!” some will cry. “What a totally unethical way to raise revenue.” No… no it’s not. And certainly far less so than a nation clinging to fiscal solvency by selling weapons to brutal murderous regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Guff.
It’s amusing how supposed 'decent types' look down their nose at demographics who might smoke a joint, or visit/be an escort etc, affecting nobody really but themselves - but are happy hobnobbing with those who support political groups starving and marginalising vulnerable people. Groups that quite literally take money from the poorest among us, our children, and the disabled. But lo and behold, when it comes to matters such as prohibited drugs or the sex trade etc, watch them jump upon their moral high horse with the vim of a Frankish crusader. It's laughable hypocrisy. (Like Trump arguing he wants to “protect the children of Syria” by dropping bombs on them, and concurrently putting the unwanted Mexican ones in cages.)
“Chill Winston!”
One final thought. If half the rowdy drinkers in Britain switched to cannabis instead, I don't think it can be overstated how much of a ridiculously calmer and less volatile place Britain would be. Anyone who’s visited Amsterdam will tell you that. The only rowdy people in Amsterdam are generally the British lager louts in the bars. Prior to them getting stoned and/or laid.
OK, it’d arguably be a less productive place maybe, or slower paced. But only if you think the yobs I’m talking about are out there curing cancer. And/or that everyone in Britain is gonna start magically taking a drug overnight just because they can. (By that logic, I could potentially become a Viagra addict tomorrow! *Cough, splutter... I don’t need it of course.)
Or how’s about the fact that many don’t drink alcohol, even though it’s available in every crevice of Britain and the western world?
ANOTHER ROYAL WEDDING, sprayed at us from every possible angle. Jammed down our throats. Average citizens blindly applauding and eating it up are, in my opinion, pretty much like a cult. Why? Because generally only in a cult do people readily accept being slaves, and actually applaud and revere the leaders who've persuaded them their being held hostage and/or committing ritual suicide is a desirable state of affairs. At very least, it's arguably a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
The same could be said of Tory voters who lack a property portfolio, a six figure salary, and/or an offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands: they're turkeys applauding Christmas.
I swear the biggest success (and arguable genius) of neo-liberal capitalism, the heir of colonialism, is that in countries like the UK and US, average struggling people actively vote for and support the individuals/groups who've actively taken all the resources from them. If you look at it objectively, it's sheer madness. But quite a feat on their part, no doubt.
Somehow the upper echelons have successfully propagated the idea that only the super-rich and established political classes can, and should, govern. That huge portions of society's wealth should belong to them alone, cordoned off. That 'order' and colonial notions of 'propriety' are a worthy pursuit over and above the common good, decency, or even basic humanity.
Millionaires-in-waiting
Indeed, financially disadvantaged Brits and Americans don't see themselves as 'poor': they see themselves as millionaires-in-waiting: just a promotion, a reality show or lottery win away from being part of the club themselves. It's as if the very existence of super-rich elites who exploit society are a beacon of inspiration for them. That is what they want for themselves and their families: the big mansion house with gates to keep all the little people out. They care far less for the happiness and concerns of wider society, only the aspirations of their OWN elevation. It's every man and woman for himself: that was Thatcher's 'gift' to us.
Millions of people live and die dreaming of wealth and comfort just around the corner, never realising they deserved a bigger piece of the pie any way: just by merit of being born into free societies and wealthy economies. They live and die never realising, if they'd actually stood alongside the 'little people' they were so desperate to avoid identifying with, due to a warped sense of egotism, they may very well have led a happier and more comfortable existence. Instead, they lived as fodder for their 'betters'. In the interim, while millions continue voting for these bastards and continue the dog-eat-dog mentality, demonising socialism and 'freeloader' types (thinking themselves so much 'better'), our society and welfare state is being firebombed. The rights of average people, are being firebombed. Our jobs and industries are disappearing one by one, going online and becoming automated, and soon, certainly in decades ahead, unemployment will spiral out of control. Little people will have nothing left.
A society in which everyone is better off, with more disposable income - especially those at the more vulnerable end of the scale - would make for a much happier nation. A far less angry, hostile, bitter and resentful nation. It would be a better residence for every last one of us. There will always be rich and poor, that is the way of things, but the gap between the two, and the disproportion in volume, has become far too wide. That simply has to be addressed, before it explodes like the ticking time bomb it is. Either society will have to eventually move to a model of Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, or those of means will have to adopt increasingly hostile and totalitarian methods to keep an ever increasing starving majority at bay. You don't need to be Nostradamus to look down the road and see that isn't going to end well, or that extreme measures will eventually be resorted to. It's an equation that simply has to balance out, one way or another, sooner or later.
Harry Windsor seems a decent enough bloke, and Meghan Markle seems alright too. But I for one cannot celebrate the vaunted wealth/superiority of princes and TV stars; certainly not while growing numbers of homeless people in the UK are veritably rounded up in skips, just to make way for their idyllic day. Not while we sit beneath the boot of a government corrupt to the core, isolating our country and forcing our economy down the toilet. (I almost got through a whole article without mentioning Brexit!) And not while our society and amenities crumble to dust, and Nationalism rises before our very eyes.
Sort all that out: then I'll cheer the bloody royal wedding. Otherwise, I'll view it as the paltry and rather insulting distraction it is.
I truly despair. Objectivity is dead; people only see what they want to see in news stories - the version that fits their 'team'. As a species, I think we're lost. And maybe, just maybe, this was the final master-stroke and checkmate move the right-wing in Britain and America needed.
I've never ever been intimidated and insulted by Remainers before. On the contrary, I have pages and pages of messages from them thanking me for my efforts; they're the only team I've really 100% identified with since this whole shit-storm began. And for nearly two years I've flown our flag; it's fair to say it was that disastrous referendum that tipped me into writing. I've ranted and raved against it since the day it happened. But now, because I refuse to accept that Russia and Syria are the international bogeymen, that they're guilty of every crime, because I smell a rat the size of Tower Hamlets, and because I know full well the UK and US governments in office at present are as corrupt as any? Well, I'm apparently now a traitor to the Remain cause... and am "dumb", and "naive", and I am Putin's "useful idiot".
Apparently daring to speak inconvenient details and/or arguing on behalf of a party being accused, is "playing into Putin's and the Brexiter's hands". What a pity so many Remainers are too short-sighted to recognise the right are unmoved in support of their despots, and it's actually the left/centre and Remain camps that have been split by this little bombing. They don't seem to notice they're now coincidentally championing and arguing in favour of Theresa May and Boris Johnson: the leaders who until recently were their adversaries "dragging Britain to ruin". And just before local council elections no less. How very neat.
Not only that, I've even heard Remainers - the group who proudly stood against xenophobia, glibly coming out with comments like "never trust a Russian". Substitute that with 'Muslims', Jews', 'Indians' etc, and anyone else with a clear head might call that racial prejudice.
Becoming that which you despise
In short, Remainers are now mostly being as pig-headed and as absolutist as the Brexiters ever were. We're ignoring common sense, and blindly following any corroborating tit-bit thrown at us by the news... exactly like Brexiters did. The critical analysis skills we formerly demonstrated have flown out the window, and the 'propaganda machines' we continuously called out (like the BBC) are now apparently absolute beacons of journalistic integrity - but only because they're telling us what we want to hear.
We pedantically quote theories like 'Occam's Razor' (eg: the simplest answer is usually the right one), apparently oblivious to the fact that very theory suggests a nation wouldn't do the one and only categorical thing inviting the wrath of the West, reopening a war they'd only just won. As I retorted to one such person, perhaps they need to look up the concept of 'Confirmation Bias', and the idea of 'Cui Bono' as a basis for criminal investigation.
The poisoning? Just as a cute analogy, imagine this was a gun crime, for instance. Assuming Russian guilt because of the agent used, is like assuming a perpetrator's guilt because the gun was registered in their name, but incontrovertibly ignoring the fact there are no gun residues or bullet holes in the right places at the scene of the alleged crime, and the alleged perpetrator lacked an entirely feasible reason to do it. Not smart, or prudent. The initial assumption isn't necessarily wrong, but you have a duty of care to at least consider the alternative.
Not only that, there is clearly confusion surrounding chemical reports and deliberately ambiguous phrasing by the Spiez lab, who Sergei Lavrov quoted. Again, everyone is soooo quick to assume Russia are either f**king stupid, or evil incarnate! Why the hell would Russia say to the world's media "the Spiez lab have said it's not Novachok, it's BZ", if that can be refuted in seconds, and dismissed as nonsense by both the international community and the lab itself?? (As it was, only a day later.) They look either idiots, or categorical liars! Not exactly helping their cause, is it? Yes, they may in fact be just that, but again, you absolutely HAVE to consider the possibility they're being set up to look like chumps.
Not to mention, we the British (eg: Boris Johnson) categorically lied when it suited us too. That's an incontrovertible fact. So at very best, it's one strike a piece.
Convenient Scapegoating
Russian interference in elections? Newsflash. The UK and US didn't vote for Brexit and Trump because of Russian meddling: they did so because they're thick as mince, and fell for the crap our own right wing medias were feeding us. The same right wing medias all the liberals and leftists now demonising Russia are inadvertently supporting. (Another 'coincidence' no doubt.) They didn't need any help from Russia.
In fact, it was (and is) the Russian owned Independent newspaper in Britain that was one of the very few to include pro-Remain viewpoints and assertions, while Murdoch and Dacre etc were (and are) busy talking us off a cliff. How does that one tally up in this absurdly absolutist scenario?
Why in the name of God are people so quick to assume everything is black and white?? That there is only right and wrong, goodies and baddies... that their team alone are morally superior and righteous?? To me, it is the most simplistic and rudimentary mistake one can make when examining such situations. At what point do we acknowledge the lines sometimes become blurry?
I abhor Russia, its politics, and its treatment of dissenters and the LGBT community etc. Truly. But you don't defeat lies with lies. People who've already decided the outcome of an unfolding investigation have no moral authority over those willing to keep an open mind, and hear both sides of an argument. You don't turn your face away from evidence and inconvenient details just because it happens to suit your cause, and those you ally with. You don't switch off common sense and pursuit of truth just because it's to your benefit. You don't risk incorrectly vilifying others, because it helps you out. You don't just assume a group or person is guilty because they've committed other crimes or offences. That is prejudice. And if you do, you are just as corrupt as any you'd claim to oppose. #TruthBomb
At the same time, I just got accused of 'helping Theresa May' myself on a Labour Party forum, for refusing to accept there is ANY evidence at all implicating Russia, or that there's any possibility Russia are anything other than entirely innocent. Having dared to go out on a limb, and getting slagged off from all corners for daring to say something is wrong with this, the other team harangue me too, because I won't categorically say they're unequivocally right either.
They're all as bad as each other. Tribalism has taken over.
Theresa May, looking as happy & relaxed as she's been since she came to office.
You wicked, evil woman. How dare you do this.
The most greedy and corrupt government/Prime Minister in UK history: a government with no majority, propped up by bribery and illegal over-spending, now side-stepping our constitution to act unlawfully, again, and risking WWIII. Hand in hand with the most dangerous and insentient lunatic to occupy the White House, ever.
It didn't even occur to Theresa May to ask the British people and parliament. No, she turned to Donald Trump. (A sentence that if you'd uttered aloud even a couple of years ago, would probably have got you sectioned.)
Democracy is officially dead folks. It ain't even a Plutocracy so much any more, as much as a straight up dictatorship.
God damn you Theresa, and your whole cabal. And God damn every naive, blind fool who believes for a minute that Donald J. Trump and his vassals give the least of shits about kids attacked with chemical weapons. Their allies in Saudi Arabia do just as bad and worse, all the time. You've got their best bud Duterte in the Philippines, openly using police as assassination squads. You've got atrocities like this going on routinely in Africa, and in Yemen, genocides and mass rapes, and the West doesn't so much as blink. They're in Syria for profit and geopolitical manoeuvring, that is all, and they've been planning it for a long time.
Even if you know nothing else of the situation, the proxy wars, or the murky background of the UK funded 'White Helmets' - those angels of mercy who show up every time there's an atrocity with video cameras rolling... the same White Helmets who've literally been filmed rehearsing and staging similar 'attacks'.
This video from “rebels’” held area in Syria is one of the reasons why you don’t rush into war based on YouTube videos pic.twitter.com/OB2aGXQP4y
How do you distract an entire country, and blind them to all the other crap you're doing and messing up behind the scenes? How do you dilute growing public dissent and discourse? How do you make a populace fearful and in need of 'authoritative' government? You start a war. A political ruse as old as civilisation itself.
Our media manages to convince half the people of this country that Jeremy Corbyn, the most ethical man in UK politics, is a communist spy/traitor/antisemite, a threat to democracy/misogynist/dictator etc. That's a guy who's literally in our faces and on our screens all the time, who everybody knows, who always behaves decently and is 100% reasonable. Yet STILL he is misquoted and demonised to suit right wing agenda - to the point of it being ridiculous. They spin bullshit out of thin air.
Yes, well now imagine how much easier it is to do with a leader half a continent away, in a controlled media environment and war-torn country, who speaks a different language and nobody in Britain knows, when the British people don't get to hear their account of things. It would be a whitewash.
One last interesting aspect to this is, as usual, it will mostly divide the political left and centre. The right: the supporters of May and Trump? They love a war with anyone, and will march blindly behind them into oblivion. But the left and centre is where 'moral outrage' at the alleged behaviour of Bashar al-Assad will split the chamber entirely. It's after all a natural reaction to be appalled by crimes against humanity: exactly the reason western governments know they're the only thing that'll get us behind war. Some on the left and centre will question these events, others will not, or cannot. In other words, the whole thing will also create a clear divide between those who've finally come to realise our mainstream media cannot be trusted, and those who simply can't let go or accept the notion they would lie to us in such a potentially catastrophic manner.
Divide and conquer: rinse, and repeat.
NB: A final side-note, Russia's the only country I've ever been, and worked in, that I really did not like: it felt a very hostile and cold place, and their hatred of westerners was obvious. (And that was back in 2013.) I am no fan of Russia, or Vladimir Putin. But being able and willing to stand up for those you don't like and/or disagree with, acknowledging when they make a fair point, is what distinguishes ACTUAL truth and justice from mere tribalism.
We will be incredibly lucky if this doesn't spiral out of control. I doubt anyone will be talking about Brexit for a while, mind.
