#this man had an agenda with the “authorised” biography

[napoleondienamite]

#angery >:( #this man had an agenda with the “authorised” biography #and yes it was about sexuality any hint of a close relationship with a male is dismissed in that book

[no-reply95]

“While Davies did not attempt to chronicle the group’s post-1968 lives in great detail, there was new primary source material in the 1982 re-edition. Six months after Lennon’s death, Davies received a phone call from a hurt and defensive McCartney, upset with some of Ono’s recent comments- “John said that no one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him”- in an interview with Norman. Davies and McCartney considered themselves friends, and McCartney engaged in a far more open and revealing conversation with Davies than any he ever had given to the press, before or after. McCartney always has maintained that, despite Davies’ occupation as a journalist, he meant it as a private conversation, and criticised Davies several times over the years for transcribing it when they were talking and later publishing it as part of the 1982 edition of the authorised biography.

The revealing nature of McCartney’s words (in particular, their demonstration of vulnerability, something very out of character for the musician) support McCartney’s claim that he never intended for the conversation to become public. As what McCartney believed to be a private conversation, the phone call offers the most credible account of McCartney’s genuine state of mind in the aftermath of Lennon’s murder. Davies’ transcripts reveal a McCartney questioning the intimacy of his friendship with Lennon- “I realise now we never got to the bottom of each other’s souls. We didn’t know the truth,” and casting blame back at his old partner- “No one ever goes on about the times John hurt me” McCartney railed against Lennon’s elevation: since the other man’s death, McCartney believed he had been unfairly cast as the villain: “John is now the nice guy and I’m the bastard. It gets repeated all the time.” He labelled his former partner as both someone he had initially hero-worshipped and as a “manoeuvring swine,” and revealed his concern about how Beatles history was being written, mentioning Shout! in particular: “But people are printing facts about me and John. They’re not facts. They will go in the records. It will become part of history. It will be there for always. People will believe it all… in history books, I’m the one who broke up the Beatles.” McCartney’s preoccupation with how history would view him, which he revealed in his conversation with Davies, is a key element to understanding many of his later actions and statements. McCartney’s deliberate efforts to revise the Lennon Remembers and Shout! narratives must be taken into account when determining the agenda behind his statements, interviews and retrospective testimony.”

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

#the beatles #paul mccartney #john lennon #john and paul #hunter davies #authorised biography #erin torkelson weber #the beatles and the historians

[ingek73]

Exiting the vampires' palace: The tabloids are angry because Harry revealed how it works

You're not meant to explain how the gossip gets made.

Mic Wright

7 hr ago

The British Royal Family, the Captain Renault in Casablanca of repressed and repressive families, is shocked! shocked! to find out that bad parenting was going on in there. Prince Harry’s decision to talk about parenting — his experience of it and approach to it — on the Armchair Expert podcast has sent the firm and its frenemies in the tabloid press into a frenzy.

But the real issue is not that Harry discussed his relationship with his father or the fact that coldness permeates the parenting style of the royal family from top to bottom, it’s that he continues to unpick the devil’s bargain between the monarchy and tabloid press. It’s a deal that’s epitomised by the headline and sub-deck over pictures of William and Kate in yesterday’s Daily Mail:

Here’s how to do it, Harry!

William and Kate get stuck in with a day of play — and pets — for Mental Health Awareness Week…

On the previous page, the paper castigates Harry for choosing to “broadcast his pain again”. So there’s how you do it to get the approval of the tabloid press:

Don’t actually talk about mental health issues, just goon around for the cameras and make sure you tolerate The Mail on Sunday publishing creepy calendars full of pictures of your children. That’s the deal.

[Twitter avatar for @arusbridger

alan rusbridger

@arusbridger

Sometimes, when Prince Harry says sensible things (eg this morning about parenting), it would be nice if journalists discussed what he said rather than whether he has pissed off the Royals or Meghan put him up to it

May 14th 2021

866 Retweets6,723 Likes]

The quote that’s really angered the newspapers is not one you see plastered in the headlines or dropped into huge pull quotes. It’s the moment early on in the Armchair Expert episode when Harry says:

I used to be fearful of it. Now, it’s almost like the same groups of people that come at it so negatively or try to turn it against you or weaponise it, and therefore prevent so many millions of people from doing so, actually encourages me to speak out more… I’m going to be vulnerable, if I get attacked for it, let’s see who’s actually attacking me and what’s their story? What’s their agenda? Who do they work for?

The tabloids — and I do include The Daily Mail among their number — are particularly aggrieved because Harry is refuting their claim that he was ‘turned’ against them and the monarchy by Meghan. He says he wanted out long before he met her and that the British press was a huge cause of that:

It’s the job, right? Grin and bear it. Get on with it. I was in my early twenties and I was thinking, ‘I don’t want this job. I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be doing this. Look what it did to my mum. How am I ever going to settle down and have a wife and family, when I know it’s going to happen again?’ I’ve seen behind the curtain, I’ve seen the business model, and seen how this whole thing works and I don’t want to be a part of this.

It’s those words that are driving the tabloids even more deranged than usual. The business of celebrity gossip — and royal reporting is just celebrity gossip about one family — requires the people playing the game to pretend there is no game.

In the most privileged professional wrestling ever, Prince Harry has broken kayfabe; he is consistently choosing to tell the story behind the story, to point at the paparazzi, the columnists, the palace flunkies, and the press barons and say, “Who are they working for? And what is their agenda?”

It’s one of the things a prince is categorically not allowed to do.

That’s why a softly spoken line about how he’s trying to be a different kind of parent than his own parents and grandparents becomes “a broadside”, “a bitter attack” and “a parenting bombshell” in the hands of the tabloids.

[Twitter avatar for @nazirafzal

nazir afzal

@nazirafzal

Having listened to Prince Harry on @ArmchairExpPod I urge you to ignore the faux Royalists (some might say Racists) who want to criticise him & through him their real target, Meghan

This is a man comfortable taking about mental health, masculinity & parenting

Essential listening Image

May 14th 2021

352 Retweets1,799 Likes]

Just look at how Harry’s words were trailed in yesterday’s Daily Mail:

Prince Harry yesterday launched another broadside at the Royal Family in which he appeared to suggest both his father and the Queen failed as parents.

But what did Prince Harry actually say? Well, substantial quotes — even then partial and cherry-picked — didn’t feature on the front page of the paper. You had to go digging inside to find them. Harry said:

“Isn’t life about breaking the cycle? there’s no blame. I don’t think we should be pointing the finger or blaming anybody. But…when it comes to parenting, I’ve experienced some form of pain or suffering because of the pain or suffering that perhaps my father or my parents had suffered…

… For me it comes down to awareness like I never, I never saw it, I never knew about it, and then suddenly I started to piece it all together and go, okay, so this is where he went to school, this is what happened, I know this bit about his life. I also know that’s connected to his parents, so that means that he’s treating me this way that he was treated which means, how can I change that for my own kids? And, well, here I am.”

It hardly reads as a broadside or a condemnation of his parents or grandparents. It comes across even less like that if you listen to the podcast to hear the tone of Harry’s words and place them within the context of the conversation. But context isn’t king for the tabloids, it’s not even allowed into the palace. Context lives out the back, milks the cows, and waits for a regime change.

In 1994, when Prince Charles was 46, 10 years old than Prince Harry is now, he spoke to Jonathan Dimbleby for an authorised biography and a notorious documentary. As The Independent reported at the time:

It is abundantly clear that Prince Charles did not feel the affect of a loving father and mother, and that he considers his parents, in the words of the child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, to have been not 'good enough'.

Dimbleby, with Prince Charles's approval, accuses the Queen of being physically and emotionally distant. But his deepest anger is reserved for the Duke of Edinburgh, who is described as 'harsh', 'hectoring' and deeply irked by his son's solemn and over-sensitive nature.

Prince Charles blames his father for sending him to Gordonstoun, the Scottish public school, where he was beaten up, bullied and abused, and he accuses Prince Philip of forcing him into marriage with a woman he scarcely knew and never loved.

But with Prince Philip now dead, the Queen in her final years, and Prince Charles set to succeed her as King Charles, all that stuff is meant to be stuffed back into the wardrobe. The story is that Harry and Meghan are bad and William and Kate are good and anything that complicates that picture is ignored.

[Twitter avatar for @KaindeB

Resilient

@KaindeB

@brokenbottleboy This is Penny talking about Philip bullying Charles. 😳 Image

May 14th 2021

5 Retweets16 Likes]

So instead we get stories about how shocking! Prince Harry’s mild comments actually are and outraged stories from places like The Sun about swearing:

TURN THE HEIR BLUE

Prince Harry SWEARS on podcast as he asks Dax Shepard about ‘s*** load of drugs’ and ‘getting s*** done’

Yes, The Sun that leers over women daily and writes lasciviously about “romps” is too chickens*** to write the word “shit” out in full and pretends that the Royal Family themselves don’t swear like navvies when they’re in private.

Meanwhile, in The Daily Telegraph, Royal Family sources — the same family who forced Prince Harry to walk in public beside his mother’s coffin when he was just 12, remember — decry him for his “woeful lack of compassion”. And, of course, the issue of swearing is brought up:

And aside from the highly personal content, royal sources suggested that the family was disappointed by the foul language used during the expletive-strewn 90-minute interview.

There’s nothing but compassion in the interview, but focusing on the ‘rude’ words and implying criticisms that simply aren’t there is just part of the tabloid game. They are livid with Prince Harry for making it clear that the dirty deal with the press was a huge part of what made him leave.

It’s not that Prince Harry is talking that so angers the tabloids, but that he is talking about them and the things they do; that one of his examples of times he felt helpless is being in a car with his mother and being chased by paparazzi. Royals saying quotable things is part of “the business model” but royals talking frankly about the poisonous role of the British press in public life is not.

[Twitter avatar for @Jasamgurlie

BLACKLIVESMATTER

@Jasamgurlie

Yep, Meghan, The Duchess Of Sussex made him say it all. 😂

The way I can keep pulling out these clips… Image

May 14th 2021

71 Retweets304 Likes]

Sarah Vine, deploying the industrial-strength feigned ignorance which is one of her great superpowers as a columnist, wrote in The Daily Mail yesterday:

It’s clear now that Harry is someone who, for whatever reason, has come to loathe the very fabric of royal life and managed to convince himself, for all the privilege and status afforded him, his upbringing was a prolonged torture. And that is very sad and destructive…

… Far from exorcising his demons, Harry’s newfound freedom seems only to be feeding the monsters. He talks about his shoulders dropping and a weight lifting since he moved to America; but all the evidence seems to point to him becoming more, not less, unhappy.

As ever, it’s The Daily Mail delighting in gaslighting and a partial retelling of the facts, cutting itself and its rivals from the frame. What could possibly have made Prince Harry feel he was trapped in a golden cage? The media looks around and conveniently spies no mirrors. And, even if it was a cage, Sarah Vine argues, this songbird should have been grateful for the accommodation.

Curiously Vine and The Mail don’t include the section about it taking pictures of people’s children or when Prince Harry says…

…because of the way the UK media are they feel an ownership over you. Literally, a full-on ownership, and then they give an impression to… most of their readers that that is the case.

… your saying that the moment we step out of our house that it’s open season and free game, what because of public interest? There’s no public interest in you taking your kids for a walk down the beach.

… it’s this rabid feeding frenzy.

[Twitter avatar for @MsAlishia83

Alishia A

@MsAlishia83

Help me to understand why some of you all act like Prince Harry broke up with you personally.

May 13th 2021

309 Retweets2,793 Likes]

I’m a republican — I don’t believe the UK should have a monarchy at all — so I don’t believe the golden cage should exist. But while it does, the tabloids benefit from it and they cannot allow anyone to get away with disparaging the system. They exist not to criticise it but to defend it and feed on it.

Prince Harry cannot ‘be normal’ now or simply shut up because even if he did, the tabloid press would not respect that silence. They would tell their own stories of why he wasn’t speaking, filling the void with fictions and half-truths. In talking about parenting and pain — even from the extraordinarily unusual situation he finds himself in — Harry will help others.

And while he’s a little too fond of Californian therapy speak, the fact that he’s talking about how we can parent differently to the way our parents or grandparents did it is an unquestionably good thing.

If you only read his words pushed through the prism of the tabloid press, you’ll think he was ranting and raving about his families failings but actually, he’s saying — he knows they did their best but he wants to do better for his own children. In the abnormal world of the royals, that’s one of the most normal things anyone has said in ages…

#prince harry #duke of sussex #meghan markle #brokenbottleboy #tabloids #prince charles #royal reporters

[inesbuterminerva]

A woman in the men's room: when will the art world recognise the real artist behind Duchamp's Fountain?

“Evidence suggests the famous urinal Fountain, attributed to Marcel Duchamp, was actually created by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Why haven’t we heard of her, asks Siri Hustvedt

Paintings, novels and philosophy made by men feel more elevated somehow, more serious, while works by women feel flimsier and more emotional. Masculinity has a purifying effect, femininity a polluting one. The chain of associations that infect our thought dates back to the Greeks in the west: male, mind-intellect, high, hard, spirit, culture as opposed to female, body, emotion, soft, low, flesh, nature. The chains are hierarchical, man on top and woman on bottom. They are often subliminal, and they are emotionally charged. Ironically, these enduring associations become all the more important when the artwork in question is a urinal – a pee pot for men.

Advertisement

The story goes like this: Marcel Duchamp, brilliant inventor of the “ready-made” and “anti-retinal art”, submitted Fountain, a urinal signed R Mutt, to the American Society of Independent Artists in 1917. The piece was rejected. Duchamp, a member of the board, resigned. Alfred Stieglitz photographed it. The thing vanished, but conceptual art was born. In 2004 it was voted the most influential modern artwork of all time.

But what if the person behind the urinal was not Duchamp, but the German-born poet and artist Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven (1874-1927)? She appears in my most recent novel, Memories of the Future, as an insurrectionist inspiration for my narrator. One reviewer of the novel described the baroness as “a marginal figure in art history who was a raucous ‘proto-punk’ poet from whom Duchamp allegedly stole the concept for his urinal”. It is true that she was part of the Dada movement, published in the Little Review with Ezra Pound, Djuna Barnes, TS Eliot, Mina Loy and James Joyce and has been marginalised in art history, but the case made in my book, derived from scholarly sources enumerated in the acknowledgements, is not that Duchamp “allegedly stole the concept for his urinal” from Von Freytag-Loringhoven, but rather that she was the one who found the object, inscribed it with the name R Mutt, and that this “seminal” artwork rightly belongs to her.

In the novel, I quote a 1917 letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Susanne. I took the translation directly from Irene Gammel’s excellent biography of Von Freytag-Loringhoven, Baroness Elsa: “One of my female friends who had adopted the masculine pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture.” I got it wrong. Glyn Thompson, an art scholar and indefatigable champion of the baroness as the brain behind the urinal, pointed out to me that Duchamp wrote “avait envoyé” not “m’a envoyé” – “sent in”, not “sent me”. R Mutt was identified as an artist living in Philadelphia, which is where she was living at the time. In 1935 André Breton attributed the urinal to Duchamp, but it wasn’t until 1950, long after the baroness had died and four years after Stieglitz’s death, that Duchamp began to take credit for the piece and authorise replicas.

Duchamp said he had purchased the urinal from JL Mott Ironworks Company, adapting Mutt from Mott, but the company did not manufacture the model in the photograph, so his story cannot be true. Von Freytag-Loringhoven loved dogs. She paraded her mutts on the sidewalks of Greenwich Village. She collected pipes and spouts and drains. She relished scatological jokes and made frequent references to plumbing in her poems: “Iron – my soul – cast iron!” “Marcel Dushit”. She poked fun at William Carlos Williams by calling him WC. She created God, a plumbing trap as artwork, once attributed to Morton Schamberg, now to both of them. Gammel notes in her book that R Mutt sounds like Armut, the word for poverty in German, and when the name is reversed it reads Mutter – mother. The baroness’s devout mother died of uterine cancer. She was convinced her mother died because her tyrannical father failed to treat his venereal disease. (The uterine character of the upside-down urinal has long been noted.) And the handwriting on the urinal matches the handwriting Von Freytag-Loringhoven used for her poems.

All this and more appears in Gammel’s biography. All this and more reappears in my novel. All the evidence has been painstakingly reiterated in numerous articles and, as part of the Edinburgh festival fringe, Glyn Thompson and Julian Spalding, a former director of Glasgow Museums, mounted the 2015 exhibition A Lady’s Not a Gent’s, which presented the factual and circumstantial evidence for reattribution of the urinal to Von Freytag-Loringhoven.

The museums, including the Tate, have not budged. The standard Fountain narrative with Duchamp as hero goes on. I am convinced that if the urinal had been attributed to the baroness from the beginning, it would never have soared into the stratosphere as a work of consummate genius. Women are rarely granted such status, but the present reputation of Fountain, one that was hardly instantaneous but grew slowly over the course of many decades, has made the truth embarrassing, not to speak of the money involved and the urgent need to rewrite history. The evidence is there. They can’t or won’t see it. Why?

Expectation is the better part of perception, most of it unconscious. Past experience determines how we confront the world in the present. Prejudgment and stereotyping are part of cognition, but those preordained ideas – authority is masculine, for example – are cultural. Most people know about implicit bias. The media are full of it. Take the implicit association test to see if you are a racist or sexist. But as Perry Hinton put it: “The implicit stereotypical associations picked up by an individual do not reflect a cognitive bias but the associations prevalent in their culture – evidence of ‘culture in mind’.” We need “gut feelings”, but we also devise post hoc explanations for them: “Certainly, Freytag-Loringhoven had created broadly similar scatological works but nothing that held the thinking expressed in Duchamp’s piece.” I lifted this sentence from an online article at Phaidon.com called The Fascinating Tale of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. I quote it in the novel. The writer does not explain what he means by “thinking” or why works by the baroness lack thought.

To open oneself to any work – a sculpture, a book of literature or philosophy – is to acknowledge the authority behind it. When the spectator or reader is a man and the artist or thinker is a woman, this simple act of recognition can give rise to bad feelings of emasculation, what I call “the yuck factor” – the unpleasant sensation of being dragged down into fleshy feminine muck. But because the feelings are automatic, they may never be identified and can easily be explained away: she couldn’t think. She was a wild woman who wore tin cans for a bra. She turned her body into Dada. In 1913, she picked a rusted ring off the street, a found object, and named it Enduring Ornament, a year before Duchamp’s first readymade, Bottle Rack, but she wasn’t thinking. She couldn’t have influenced him. She was emotional, out of control – crazy. Duchamp, on the other hand, was dry, witty, a chess-playing genius of pure conceptual mind, a hero of high culture.

The baroness called herself “art aggressive.” She celebrated and elevated bodily machinery, rejoiced in verbal hijinks, and pitied Duchamp for devolving into “cheap, bluff, giggle frivolity”. She played with the outrage, contempt and disgust she incited. She wrote: “You forget, madame – that we are the masters – go by our rules.” She broke the rules. The evidence is there. She sent in the urinal. It’s time to rewrite the story.

Memories of the Future by Siri Hustvedt is published by Hodder & Stoughton at £18.99. Buy it for £16.71 at guardianbookshop.com.

This article was amended on 1 April 2019 to replace the main image, which due to a captioning error wrongly claimed to show Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.

... as you join us today from the Netherlands, we have a small favour to ask. Through these turbulent and challenging times, millions rely on the Guardian for independent journalism that stands for truth and integrity. Readers chose to support us financially more than 1.5 million times in 2020, joining existing supporters in 180 countries.

With your help, we will continue to provide high-impact reporting that can counter misinformation and offer an authoritative, trustworthy source of news for everyone. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we set our own agenda and provide truth-seeking journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

Unlike many others, we have maintained our choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality, where everyone deserves to read accurate news and thoughtful analysis. Greater numbers of people are staying well-informed on world events, and being inspired to take meaningful action.

We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new American administration, Brexit, and the world's slow emergence from a global pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.” - Siri Hustvedt, Fri 29 Mar 2019 13.00, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/29/marcel-duchamp-fountain-women-art-history

Interessant artikel over het beroemde werk van marcel duchamp, en of dit werk wel echt van hem is.

[gyrlversion]

Dangerous extremists’ Corbyn and McDonnell are fooling the country

Theresa May has performed a miracle. Her imploding premiership has allowed Jeremy Corbyn to undertake a skilful make-over. 

Over the past days, the bedraggled Marxist fanatic has been morphing into an elegant statesman smoothly preaching goodwill to end the Brexit crisis.

If the Government’s meltdown continues and Corbyn’s astute transformation gains traction, Britain faces the prospect of sleepwalking into disaster – heralding the most extreme Left-wing government in the nation’s history. 

Overnight, as John McDonnell has promised, Corbyn and his comrades would ‘irreversibly’ change the country – soaking the middle classes, punishing business and opening Britain’s doors to unlimited immigration.

These two men could be leading the country if the Government’s disastrous management of Brexit continues

In contrast to May’s sinking Government, Corbyn and McDonnell have in the past week presented themselves as the reasonable leaders of a united party, despite Labour’s own bitter divisions.

Dressed in his new uniform – blue suit, white shirt and red tie – Corbyn offers compromise while McDonnell utters platitudinous concern in a bank manager’s honey-toned voice. 

‘Put aside politics,’ McDonnell said last week on BBC radio – even though in reality he thinks about nothing else.

Their latest disguise is dangerously convincing. Listening to them now, few could imagine how Corbyn and McDonnell have plotted all their lives – through purges, plots and coups – for the chance to seize power.

Alarmingly, amid the aggressive politics unleashed by politicians on both sides of Brexit, Corbyn has positioned himself above the toxic atmosphere. In the Commons and in soft TV interviews, he presents himself as the moderate candidate to be Britain’s next Prime Minister. 

Cleverly, he camouflages the menace of his extremist policies – a far, far bigger threat to Britain than any No Deal Brexit.

Mistakenly, many Tories delude themselves that Corbyn’s popularity ratings are so low that he could not win a General Election and is therefore a manageable risk. 

They could hardly be more wrong. A Survation poll published yesterday, for example, puts Labour four percentage points ahead of the Conservatives.

And no one should underestimate the Queen’s position if the Government disintegrated and the Tory party disagreed about a new leader and the next Prime Minister – all of which now seem extremely possible. 

In that hiatus, the Queen might be obliged to ask Corbyn to form another minority government and he would immediately call for an Election – one in which many disillusioned voters would grasp the appeal of a man promising respite from dishonest politicians.

Many Tories do not see Jeremy Corbyn as a serious risk to their Government, but they could hardly be more wrong

Posing as Mr Reasonable, Corbyn would offer a compassionate vision of relief from austerity and cut-throat capitalism, the construction of millions of new homes, huge wage rises for public servants and the abolition of student loans. 

Pitifully, the Tories would be incapable of campaigning to save the country from Corbyn’s other agenda – mass nationalisation, confiscation of private property, legalised squatting, open borders and crippling tax increases propelling an exodus of wealth creators and talent. 

Eighteen months ago, I realised the danger of Corbyn’s cultivated ‘good bloke’ image. Anticipating the Brexit crisis, I set out to discover whether his authorised biography was true. 

After all, nothing is more important than establishing the character and honesty of a future prime minister.

My resulting book – Dangerous Hero, serialised in The Mail on Sunday – tarnished Corbyn’s halo, revealing how he had deliberately lied about his past. 

Dangerous Hero shows how Corbyn deliberately lied about his past

Among the most serious lies was the missing seven months in his youth. Corbyn has always said that he spent two years as a volunteer teacher in Jamaica in the late 1960s.

I discovered that he had left the island after 15 months and gone to Guyana, a centre of Marxist agitation across South America. 

During that period, Corbyn became a communist and embarked on his voyage of supporting violent and anti-Semitic groups.

Another lie was his claim that the break-up of his second marriage in 1996 was due to a disagreement about the private education of a son. 

In fact, Claudia Bracchitta left him because he had neglected his family and was utterly incompetent with his money.

A third lie was his claim never to resort to personal abuse. Innumerable members of the Labour Party in Hornsey and fellow councillors in Haringey described the hostile language, purges and persecution orchestrated by Corbyn against them during the 1970s. A fourth lie was his claim to be a pacifist. 

In truth, Corbyn has supported a succession of brutal terrorists in Africa, South America and especially the virulently anti-Semitic Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East. And of course, he worshipped the IRA.

Then there are the persistent allegations of anti-Semitism – of which his backing for a vile mural caricaturing Jewish bankers and his warning that Jews need to understand British irony are just two of countless supporting examples.

Naturally after Dangerous Hero was published, the Corbynistas at large unleashed a wave of lies and abuse against me – identical to the smears hurled at Luciana Berger and other Labour MPs who resigned from their party not least because Corbyn failed to protect them from his supporters’ hostility.

Long ago, the team of conspirators in Corbyn’s office recognised the opportunity offered by the Tory’s civil war. 

Diligently, they stoked the internecine flames. Only belatedly did they recognise one obstacle to success – anti-Semitism. A torrent of ugly revelations has provoked a crisis serious enough to damage Labour’s election chances.

Corbyn has supported a succession of brutal terrorists in Africa, South America and especially the virulently anti-Semitic Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East

So Corbyn’s office will have been delighted to see the London-based Middle East Eye, which some have claimed is a pro-Hamas ‘news’ group and which is financed according to the Saudis by Qatar, publishing an attack on my book.

Peter Oborne, the author of the attack, is on record as being an admirer of Corbyn. In 2015, Oborne wrote that he was ‘cheering for Corbyn… a hero of democracy’. Corbyn, Oborne assured his readers, would not ‘jeopardise our national security’ and ‘brings a welcome integrity back to the heart of our politics’.

Oborne acknowledged he called Corbyn’s office for information for his attack and posed 16 questions to me for Middle East Eye, including about my reference to Naz Shah, the Labour MP who applauded the idea of Israel being ‘transported’ to America. 

He ignored that Shah had written ‘problem solved’ about such a transport ‘solution’, and posted ‘#ApartheidIsrael’ above the words ‘never forget that everything Hitler did was legal’.

Corbyn had initially appeared to equivocate over Shah’s anti-Semitism when it was exposed in 2016. 

Indeed, he appeared to show some sympathy for her. Echoing his Marxist advisers, such as spin doctor Seumas Milne, Corbyn seems to show solidarity with those who believe that Jews have been engaged for centuries in a global conspiracy to exploit the oppressed. 

Spin doctor Seumas Milne has been instrumental behind the scenes of Corbyn’s plot for power

Wall Street, Labour’s anti-Semites argue, is a plot to steal the workers’ wealth – led by Jewish bankers.

Importantly, that is the reason why Labour’s anti-Semitism is not just about Jews. In the wider picture, their prejudice fires their dream to ‘irreversibly’ change Britain. 

As prime minister, Corbyn has pledged, he would decimate the City and the private ownership of property.

Fulfilling his dream to create a communist society, he would follow the ambitions of his hero, Hugo Chavez, the architect of Venezuela’s self-destruction. Rather than Britain being a country of equal opportunity, he would strive for equality of poverty.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the Tory civil war is that the battle of ideologies between the virtues of capitalism and the horrors of communism has been buried.

The most effective Tory allegation against Corbyn remains Amber Rudd’s swipe in a TV debate prior to the 2017 Election. ‘We have to stop thinking there’s a magic money tree,’ she said – hardly a killer blow.

In the days ahead, as Corbyn and McDonnell speak about ‘compromise’, Britons would do well to recall Vladimir Lenin’s sermon that any capitalist’s civil war should be exploited to ‘crush democracy’ and, in its bid to create a genuinely revolutionary state, the leaders’ objective should be to ‘put an end to compromise’.

Britain’s fate is imperilled. Serious politicians need to stop their self-indulgence and join the battle against a group of determined revolutionaries.

The post Dangerous extremists’ Corbyn and McDonnell are fooling the country appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/dangerous-extremists-corbyn-and-mcdonnell-are-fooling-the-country/

#Entertainment News