Henry Kissinger

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).

RT America’s Lee Camp Raises Questions about Starmer’s Connection to British Deep State

Mike’s put up a number of pieces discussing and criticising Starmer’s demand that Labour MPs abstain on the wretched ‘Spycops’ bill. If passed, this would allow members of the police and security services to commit serious offences while undercover. Twenty Labour MPs initially defied him and voted against it, with several resigning in protest from the shadow cabinet. The Labour whips’ office has also broken party protocol to issue written reprimands to the rebels. If they defy party discipline, they will face a reprimand period of six months, which will be extended to twelve if they continue to break the whip. These letters have also been shared with the parliamentary committee, a group of backbench MPs elected by the parliamentary Labour party and currently dominated by the right. This committee will decide whether or not to inform the rebel MPs’ constituency parties and the NEC. The information could then be considered if an MP seeks reselection in preparation for a general election. As one MP has said, it’s intimidation, pure and simple. And a number of those MPs, who received the letters, are talking to union officials.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/10/17/starmers-tory-supporting-crackdown-on-his-own-party-makes-him-a-danger-to-people-with-disabilities/

Starmer’s conduct shouldn’t really be a surprise. He’s a Blairite, and Blair’s tenure of the Labour leadership was marked by control freakery as he centralised power around himself and his faction away from the party’s ordinary members and grassroots. But Starmer is also very much an establishment figure. He was, after all, the director of public prosecutions. In this video below, comedian and presenter Lee Camp raises important and very provocative questions about Starmer’s connections to the British establishment and the deep state. Camp’s the presenter of a number of shows on RT America, which are deeply critical of the corporate establishment, and American militarism and imperialism. The video’s from their programme, Moment of Clarity. The questions asked about Starmer are those posed by Mac Kennard in an article in The Gray Zone. RT is owned by the Russian state, as it points out on the blurbs for its videos on YouTube. Putin is an authoritarian thug and kleptocrat, who has opposition journalists, politicos, activists and businessmen beaten and killed. But that doesn’t mean that RT’s programmes exposing and criticising western capitalism and imperialism and the corrupt activities and policies of our governments aren’t accurate and justified.

Camp begins the video by explaining how there was a comparable battle in the Labour party over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership as there was in the American Democrat party over Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the presidency. Just as Sanders was opposed by the Democrats’ corporate leadership and smeared as a Communist in a neo-McCarthyite witch hunt, so Jeremy Corbyn – a real progressive – was opposed by the corporatists in the Labour party. He was subjected to the same smears, as well as accusations of anti-Semitism because he supported Palestine. Camp states that there are leaked texts showing that leading figures in the Labour party were actively working to undermine him. Jeremy Corbyn has now gone and been replaced by Keir Starmer, about whom Kennard asks the following questions:

1. why did he meet the head of MI5 for drinks a year after his decision not to prosecute the intelligence agency for its role in torture?

Camp uses the term ‘deep state’ for the secret services, and realises that some of his viewers may be uncomfortable with the term because of its use by Trump. He tries to reassure them that the deep state, and the term itself, existed long before Trump. It’s just something the Orange Generalissimo has latched onto. Camp’s not wrong – the term was used for the network of covert intelligence and state law enforcement and security services long before Trump was elected. Lobster has been using the term for years in its articles exposing their grubby activities. More controversially, Camp believes that the deep state was responsible for the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. JFK was supposedly assassinated because he was about to divulge publicly the deep state’s nefarious activities. This is obviously controversial because the JFK assassination is one of the classic conspiracy theories, and one that many critics of the British and American secret states don’t believe in. It may actually be that JFK really was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone gunman. But Camp’s belief in this conspiracy theory doesn’t on its own disqualify his other allegations and criticisms about the secret state.

2. When and why did Starmer join the Trilateral Commission?

The Trilateral Commission was set up in 1973 by elite banker David Rockefeller as a discussion group to foster greater cooperation between Japan, the US and western Europe. According to Camp, it was really founded to roll back the advances of the hippy era as the corporate elite were horrified that ordinary people were being heard by governments instead of big businessmen. They looked back to the days when President Truman could listen to a couple of businessmen and no-one else. The Commission published a paper, ‘The Crisis of Democracy’, which claimed that democracy was in crisis because too many people were being heard. Ordinary people were making demands and getting them acted upon. This, the Commission decided, was anti-business. They made a series of recommendations themselves, which have since been implemented. These included the demand that the media should be aligned with business interests. Camp states that this doesn’t mean that there is uniformity of opinion amongst the mainstream media. The various media outlets do disagree with each other over policies and politicians. But it does mean that if the media decides that a story doesn’t fit with business interests, it doesn’t get published. The Commission also wanted the universities purged of left-wing progressives. The Commission’s members including such shining examples of humanity and decency as Henry Kissinger and the former director general of US National Intelligence, John Negroponte.

3. What did Starmer discuss with US attorney general Eric Holder when he met him on November 9th, 2011 in Washington D.C.?

Starmer was the director of public prosecutions at the time, and met not just Holder, but also five others from the Department of Justice. This was at the same time the Swedes were trying to extradite Julian Assange of Wikileaks infamy. Except that further leaked documents have shown that the Swedes were prepared to drop the case. But Britain wanted him extradited and tried, and successfully put pressure on the Swedes to do just that.

4. Why did Starmer develop such a close relationship with the Times newspaper?

Starmer held social gatherings with the Times’ staff, which is remarkable, as Camp points out, because it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch like Fox News in America.

Camp goes on to conclude that, at the very least, this all shows that Starmer is very much a member of the corporate establishment, and that the deep state has been working to assure that same corporate elite that he’s safe, just as they worked to reassure Wall Street about Obama. At the time Obama had only been senator for a couple of years, but nevertheless he succeeded in getting a meeting with a former treasury secretary. But now the corporate establishment in the Democrats and the Labour party has won. Jeremy Corbyn has been ousted and replaced with Starmer, while Sanders can’t even get a platform with the Democrats. This is because the Democrats have surrendered the platform to the Republicans because Trump contradicts himself so much they just can’t follow him.

While these are just questions and speculation, they do strongly indicate that Starmer is very much part of the establishment and has their interests at heart, not those of the traditional Labour party. His closeness to the Times shows just why he was willing to write articles for the Tory press behind paywalls. His role in the British state’s attempt to extradite Julian Assange and meetings with Holder also show why Starmer’s so determined not to oppose the ‘spycops’ bill. He is very much part of the British state establishment, and sees it has his role and duty to protect it and its secrets, and not the British public from the secret state.

As for the Trilateral Commission, they’re at the heart of any number of dodgy conspiracy theories, including those claiming that the American government has made covert pacts with evil aliens from Zeta Reticuli. However, as Camp says, his membership of the Commission does indeed show that he is very much a member of the global corporate elite. An elite that wanted to reduce democracy in order to promote the interests of big business.

As a corporate, establishment figure, Starmer very definitely should not be the head of a party founded to represent and defend ordinary people against exploitation and deprivation by business and the state. Dissatisfaction with his leadership inside the Labour party is growing. Hopefully it won’t be too long before he’s ousted in his turn, and the leadership taken by someone who genuinely represents the party, its history and its real mission to work for Britain’s working people.

As Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, Here Are Some of Its Worst Winners

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2020 - 2:52am in

Donald Trump has been nominated for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. The President of the United States was put forward by the far-right Norwegian member of parliament, Christian Tybring-Gjedde, who insists he is “not a big Trump supporter,” despite nominating him last year as well. Tybring-Gjedde’s stated reason for nominating Trump is for his work in the UAE-Israel deal signed last month, which normalizes relations between the two nations.

While there have been a number of people and organizations already nominated for the award, Trump is immediately considered among the favorites to win, his odds drastically shortening with bookmakers today.

The announcement was predictably applauded by supporters of the president, who voiced their approval online. Meanwhile, His detractors were unsurprisingly shocked and dismayed by the news. “Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by far-right anti-immigration nut job Christian Tybring-Gjedde is like getting a letter of recommendation to be a firefighter by a pyromaniac,” wrote Dr. Eugene Gu, one of the president’s most vocal online opponents.

The prize is often considered among the most esteemed awards any individual can win; a recognition of a supreme commitment to someone who has given “the greatest benefit to humankind,” in the organization’s own words. But while there have been some worthy winners in its 119-year history, the prize (and its ~$1 million cash reward) has very often been handed to some of the world’s most reprehensible individuals, including the following examples.

Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi received the award in 1991 “for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights.” For much of the time between 1989 and 2010, she was kept under house arrest by the ruling military junta. Time magazine labeled her a “child of Gandhi” for her supposed commitment to pacifism. Yet since her ascension to the office of state counselor (the Burmese version of prime minister), she has overseen the Burmese army’s genocide of Rohingya Muslims in her own country, defending and supporting the same military who used to keep her locked up. In 2017 she insisted that even ethnic cleansing was “too strong a word” to describe events, claiming that “it is Muslims killing Muslims,” but denying visas to United Nations officials who wished to investigate the atrocities. The violence is known to have killed at least 24,000 people and forced more than 730,000 Muslims to flee to neighboring Bangladesh.

A host of Israeli leaders, including Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, have also won the prize for their supposed efforts in bringing peace to the Middle East, even though Israel has militarily occupied much of Palestine and parts of Syria for decades, continually breaking ceasefires to attack its neighbors. In 1996, for instance, Peres ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath, the most notorious chapter of which was the Qana massacre, where 106 Lebanese civilians were killed. Peres appeared proud of his actions; “Everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way,” he said. Meanwhile, in 1967, troops under Rabin’s command are thought to have killed around 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war en masse.

Barack Obama was surprisingly given the award in 2009, after only a few months in office, the Nobel Institute claiming that he was helping rid the planet of nuclear weapons, bringing peace to the world, and to tackle climate change, all of which in 2020 appear rather questionable claims. Much of the Institute’s justification for the award is in the future tense. “Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened,” they wrote, suggesting the prize-givers were awarding him for his promises rather than his actions. In reality, Obama expanded the American war machine, bombing seven countries simultaneously, earning the moniker the “Drone King.” According to U.S. government documents, nearly 90 percent of those he killed were civilians. Other estimates put that number much higher.

Perhaps the most egregious Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time was American war planner Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was one of the chief architects of the U.S. attack on Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, actively sabotaging President Johnson’s peace talks with the Viet Minh resistance. He also delivered the infamous orders for the massive bombing of Cambodia; “Anything that flies on anything that moves,” he instructed. He also supported Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor and the Pakistani crackdown against Bangladesh’s independence movement. Kissinger was the mastermind behind the attacks on Salvador Allende’s Chile, attempting to “make the economy scream,” also supporting and abetting the fascist coup that resulted in the end of democracy in the South American nation.

While Kissinger gratefully accepted his prize, his co-recipient, Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho, is the only individual to reject the prize, doing so on the grounds that peace had not been achieved. “Once the Paris accord on Vietnam is respected, the arms are silenced and a real peace is established in South Vietnam, I will be able to consider accepting this prize,” he said. The U.S. would not stop bombing for another two years.

While there has been a great deal of consternation at the idea of Trump receiving the prize, the reality is that it has already drifted so far from Alfred Nobel’s original intention of awarding it to individuals who spend their lives “challenging militarism” that it as often as not awarded to infamous warmongers. Trump would merely be joining a select rogue’s gallery if he were to win.

Feature photo | Secretary of State Henry Kissinger being congratulated October 16, 1973 by President Richard Nixon in the Oval office of the White House, following the announcement that Kissinger was a winner of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. Photo | AP

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

The post As Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, Here Are Some of Its Worst Winners appeared first on MintPress News.