How the Establishment Functions 423

I suggested in my last post that the British Establishment may be looking for a way out of the terrible Assange debacle without raising difficult truths about the United States justice and penal system. The functioning of the Establishment, the way it forms a collective view and how that view is transmitted, is a mystery to many. Some imagine instructions must be transmitted by formal cabals meeting as Freemasons or Bilderbergers or some such grouping. It is not really like that, although different fora of course do provide venues for the powerful to gather and discuss.

I have a bit of a feel for it all, having been a diplomat for twenty years and member of the Senior Civil Service for six. And if I was advising someone who wanted to think of it seriously, I would say human nature doesn’t change; read Thackeray and Trollope, Harold Nicolson and watch the amazing Brian Cox in Succession. All these sources give genuine glimpses of insight.

Former foreign office minister Alan Duncan appears to fancy himself as something of a Harold Nicolson, though sadly lacking the wit or writing ability. Duncan has published his diaries. Duncan is the former FCO minister “for the Americas”, who cooperated with attempts to have Julian Assange removed from the Ecuadorean Embassy, and was the point man for the CIA’s various illegal schemes around Assange. Duncan referred to Assange in parliament as a “miserable little worm”.

And who was Alan Duncan’s best friend at Oxford? Why, none other than Ian Duncan Burnett, now Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the judge who heard Assange’s High Court appeals. As Alan Duncan’s diary entry for 14 July 2017 tells us:

“At Oxford we always called him “the judge” and they always called me “Prime Minister” but Ian’s the one who got there.”

On Alan Duncan’s birthday on 7 June 2017 Ian Burnett and his wife were part of the dinner celebration, alongside former Tory leader William Hague, and the arms dealer Wafic Said and wife. Wafic Said was central to the largest bribery scandal in British history, the Al-Yamamah BAE contract for arms to Saudi Arabia, where an eighty billion pound contract involved hundreds of millions in corrupt bribery payments swirling around Wafic Said and his friend Mark Thatcher.

The only reason several very rich people did not go to prison is that Tony Blair – another Oxford University man – and Jack Straw, the recipient himself of BAE largesse, made a historic decision that the Serious Fraud Office investigation must be stopped “in the public interest”. The Serious Fraud Office subsequently “lost” all the thousands of documents proving the corruption. Thus enabling the central fixer, arms dealer Said, to enjoy a jolly dinner and banter with the new Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, rather than eat his dinner in Ford open prison.

That, my friends, is how the British Establishment functions. It also of course enabled the continuing relationship that means British planes, missiles, bombs, mechanics, trainers and special forces are every single day involved in eviscerating women and children in Yemen. I do hope they are proud.

On 27 May 2018 Lord Chief Justice Burnett and Alan Duncan were at Chequers having lunch with Prime Minister Theresa May, Michael Gove and “journalist” Sarah Vine and – to quote Duncan – “two financier couples”. Thus do politics, the law, the media and big money mix, dear reader. These are not special events. It is the everyday milieu. Nobody needs to phone a judge and tell him what to think; they know what their circle thinks from constant experience and interaction, and they can extrapolate from the general to the particular.

The judges know what they are expected to think about Assange. The Scottish judges certainly know what they are expected to think about me.

The politicians freeload – Duncan’s birthday bash had been paid for by Tory party donor, Carphone Warehouse’s David Ross, whose unethical business practices I outlined two years ago. Some of us may feel distaste at the idea of having, or attending, birthday parties gifted by a businessman; but we are not politicians. Or judges.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Savile’s ability to mingle freely at precisely these kind of social gatherings, hosted by royalty and prime ministers down, provided him with the cloak of Establishment protection which enabled his decades of crime. To deny it is ridiculous. It is also very interesting how unanimously the Establishment has decided to protect Keir Starmer. They faced a real danger for a few years with one of England’s two main parties under the control of genuinely radical figures. Having managed to get the big money friendly Sir Keir Starmer into place and neutralise any possible threat to their wealth, the ferocity of the Establishment’s defence of Starmer is fascinating.

There is no doubt that Starmer was indeed Director of Public Prosecution and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when it was decided that credible allegations against Jimmy Savile should not be prosecuted (after they had reached that stage already decades too late). Of course the Director of Public Prosecutions does not handle the individual cases, which are assigned to lawyers under them. But the Director most certainly is then consulted on the decisions in the high profile and important cases.

That is why they are there. It is unthinkable that Starmer was not consulted on the decision to shelve the Savile case – what do they expect us to believe his role was, as head of the office, ordering the paperclips?

When the public outcry reached a peak in 2012, Starmer played the go-to trick in the Establishment book. He commissioned an “independent” lawyer he knew to write a report exonerating him. Mistakes have been made at lower levels, lessons will be learnt… you know what it says. Mishcon de Reya, money launderers to the oligarchs, provided the lawyer to do the whitewash. Once he retired from the post of DPP, Starmer went to work at, umm,

It is remarkable that the media has never got as excited about any of the lies told by Johnson, as they have done about what is in fact a rare example of Johnson saying an interesting truth. Starmer was indeed, as Director of Public Prosecutions, responsible for the non-prosecution of Savile.

But just as Savile was to be protected over actual sex crime, Starmer knew that Assange was to be persecuted over fake sex crime. Starmer’s conduct of the Assange case was entirely corrupt.

It is important for you to understand that Assange was never charged with any sex crime in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning, after Stockholm’s chief prosecutor had decided there was no case to answer, but a prosecutor from another district had taken up the case. Assange always believed the entire thing was a ruse to get him sent from Sweden to the United States. His legal team had offered the Swedish prosecutors the chance to interview him in the Swedish Embassy back in 2011, which should have enabled the case to be closed.

Under Starmer, the Crown Prosecution Service told the Swedish prosecutors not to come to London. The emails in which they did this were destroyed, and only recovered by an FOI request at the Swedish end. You will recall that, when after a further seven long years Swedish prosecutors finally did interview Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy, it resulted in the Swedish investigation being dropped.

Had Starmer not prevented it, the Swedish investigation could have been closed in January 2011 following interview.

Then in October 2013, while Starmer was still DPP, his staff emailed Swedish prosecutors in response to reports that they wished to drop the case, saying “Don’t you dare get cold feet”. The Swedes responded explaining they did indeed wish to drop it. The Crown Prosecution Service again dissuaded them.

Why was Starmer intervening to insist a foreign state continue an investigation that state itself wished to stop, and which involved no British nationals?

I am very confident there is no other example of the British DPP interfering in an overseas investigation in this way. It certainly was nothing to do with the ostensible subject matter of the Swedish investigation, which doesn’t rate a mention in the email correspondence. There can be no doubt that Starmer’s motive was entirely ulterior to the Swedish investigation, and almost certainly is related to the illegal CIA activity against Assange and the current US extradition effort. Starmer is revealed as a highly unscrupulous and mendacious character.

That has of course been confirmed by the downright lies Starmer told in seeking election by the Labour Party membership, when he stated he would maintain Corbyn’s popular left wing economic policies, particularly on rail and utility nationalisation. Once in power Starmer simply ditched these pledges in favour of billionaire-enabling policies, and started a purge of the left of the party on an epic scale.

The British Establishment likes Starmer. They can’t allow Boris Johnson – who is fast becoming a liability to them – saying true things about Starmer which they wish to be buried. Watching their propaganda apparatus act in unison to defend Starmer, and reconfirm in the popular mind the binary choice between their blue puppet and their red puppet, has been fascinating viewing.

As I frequently state, I don’t mind if you agree or do not agree, and I certainly want everybody to think for themselves. My aim is to point out facts that are insufficiently considered and project a different perspective to that commonly promoted in the mainstream media. I am not always right about everything. But I hope that you found reading this gave you some ideas to think through.

Correction: The 2011 offer by Assange was an interview in the Swedish, not Ecuadorean, Embassy. This has been corrected,


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

423 thoughts on “How the Establishment Functions

1 2 3 4
  • frankywiggles

    “Watching their propaganda apparatus act in unison to defend Starmer … has been fascinating viewing”

    It has been a textbook Establishment “propaganda blitz”, the tried and tested technique highlighted by Media Lens. As long as the media and politicians all speak with one voice they can make the public believe the impossible. The poor and disabled were responsible for the deficit in public finances, not the bailed-out bankers; Jeremy Corbyn is a vile racist; the head of the Crown Prosecution Service knew nothing of Jimmy Savile’s crimes when the case was disappeared. The wall of received wisdom is made so tall and impenetrable that it is futile to resist. Even somebody as confident and as part of the club as Boris Johnson is cowed into obedient silence in the face of the mountain of confected outrage. You would hope that in this instance a good proportion of the public have the native commonsense to question why so many Tories are anxious to defend the leader of the supposed “worker’s party”. Unfortunately experience tells us this will not be the case. Other perhaps than the US election in 2016, there has been virtually no example of a watertight propaganda blitz not succeeding in its objective, which is why they will continue to be inflicted on us by the Establishment.

    • M.J.

      I didn’t see Munira Mirza’s resignation as propaganda, though I hadn’t heard of her till her resignation was in the news. It seemed like a sincere act of protest to me. Whether such acts will lead to the PM falling is another matter, because we only know of about a third of the numbers required to trigger a no-confidence vote.

      • Stevie Boy

        Rats and sinking ships come to mind. I expect over the next few days/weeks to see the rats scurrying around their preferred candidates for regime head. Like Saville, I also expect them to be saying BS like “we all knew he was a wrong ‘un”.
        The political/establishment class are so obvious and transparent it’s sickening and yet people believe them.

        • S

          I know. Head of No 10 policy unit throughout, she helped with proroguiging parliament and everything else. She’s quite happy to party while directing the rest of the country to lock down. And we’re supposed to believe that this Savile claim was the last straw?

          That said, there were reports of someone in No 10 asking him not to say it. Possibly that was her; then if Johnson went on to say it after assuring her that he wouldn’t, I can understand that it would be exasperating. But that’s heavy speculation.

      • frankywiggles

        I wouldn’t be surprised if you believe sincerity is a characteristic feature of British public life.

    • M.J.

      “Jeremy Corbyn is a vile racist”

      If you’re referring to his reaction to Mear One’s mural, I always thought myself that it was basically anti-capitalist, though Corbyn eventually recognised it as anti-semitic and agreed with the decision to remove it.
      But that’s one mistake arising from hasty judgment. Do you have any other evidence of racist behaviour by Corbyn?

        • M.J.

          Fair enough; frankywiggles, my apologies; moderator, please strike out my comment of Feb 5, 2022 at 15:10

          [ Mod: Sorry, retrospectively modifying an argument after someone has been persuaded to change their mind is not a duty of moderation; indeed it would be an abuse.

          We also don’t need continual prompting from you to correct obvious typos. Kindly stop asking for so many revisions to your earlier comments. ]

          • M.J.

            Mod: I don’t think that implementing a retraction in response to an objection is an abuse, but be that as it may.
            I’ll leave the correction of typos to you, as you wish.

            [ Mod: There’s no problem with retracting a claim, as you’ve just done. With respect, asking moderators to amend your earlier comments retrospectively to strike out the original claim is the issue here. ]

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        Jeremy Corbyn was undoubtedly smeared. He is a decent man trying to swim against a very powerful current. If he is guilty of anything it was to underestimate rhe infinite well of spite and malice directed at anyperson who threatens the ‘order’ of the country. In many countries he would have been eliminated in much less survivable ways.

        • Giyane


          I live in several different establishments , who each demand conformity to different values and rules. British Law and Shari’ah Law ; Construction rules ; Conservation of historical objects rules; Craig Murray blog rules ; family rules, mad mullah rules.

          My English teacher taught me that incongruity is the source of humour. I had to laugh the other day when I took my two front tyres to the Taliban supporting brothers to be changed. I normally get roundly despised for being White and English under Mad mullah rules. Then a young black customer drove in , impatient and wanting to move things forward. He went to talk with the brother doing my tyres about his tyres.
          “What size are they brother? ”
          ” 17s”
          ” they won’t be 17s on your car . Have a look on the tyre sides”
          ” I.looked and it said 17 ”
          No brother, that’s your size. That’s not the tyre size.

          By and large, the construction rules and shariah rules are bypassed in everyday working life. Accountants and builders bend all the rules all the time. Etc. Which is why Boris ain’t going nowhere for breaking lockdown rules. The more the public are outraged, the more smug satisfaction his clique get for having socially boozed.

      • Squeeth

        Corbyn always believed the foulest lies told about him; that mural was about as antisemitic as a pomegranate.

        • Tom Welsh

          Maybe it depends upon whether one believes reality is objective, or a product of “social consensus”.

    • Lysias

      The media’s unfavorable coverage of the truckers’ Freedom Convoy in Canada seems to be failing.

    • Johnny Conspiranoid

      “You would hope that in this instance a good proportion of the public have the native commonsense to question why so many Tories are anxious to defend the leader of the supposed “worker’s party”. Unfortunately experience tells us this will not be the case.”
      Propaganda doesn’t exist to convince you of anything, its there to tell you what your allowes to say. We have no way of telling how people internally rate the probability of what the media says being true.

  • TonyT12

    One thing I think is extraordinary is that no-one has pointed out so far that it was Johnson’s much revered previous Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher who got on terribly well with Jimmy Savile and through her offices made him a Sir.

    Plenty of people knew that Savile was dodgy, especially those who worked with or close to him. The only reason he was never outed by the mainstream press was the powerful legal team Savile retained – it was much easier (and cheaper) to pick on someone else.

    • Tatyana

      Da f*ck! We have invaded on Friday afternoon! Damn, I was busy and stupidly missed the most anticipated event of recent months!
      Any live reports? The opening ceremony was spectacular, I hope?

        • Tatyana

          Well, they said it’s Ukraine’s sovereign right to choose military alliance to join in. Now, let’s see if Latin American countries are sovereign and have the same right.
          Actually, Ryabkov said ‘they may find russian weapons stationed in unexpected places’. Latin America is not an unexpected place, I suppose. And, Lavrov announced it.
          I’ll wait for real surprise.
          Btw, do you know that Israel warned Baltic states to not bring israeli weapons to Ukraine?

          • Republicofscotland

            “Btw, do you know that Israel warned Baltic states to not bring israeli weapons to Ukraine?”

            I’m not surprised by that with some Ukrainians lauding Nazism in the country, and the like of Chrystia Freeland of Canada, who’s family history has links with Nazism stopping Zelensky from arresting Poroshenko who has arrived back in Ukraine, Canadian premier Justin Trudeau also had a hand in stopping Zelensky.

    • Pigeon English

      So everything is prepared in advance (headline and I guess the whole story). Out of curiosity I would like to know when and by whom ??
      Must be in December!

  • Ebeneezer Scroggie

    To see how the Establishment (or Deep State, if you prefer) works, one need only look at a few examples.

    The two Libyan guys who were stitched up, one of them almost unto death; Wee Eck, the one who got away, albeit at vast personal expense in fukknlawyers fees; Julian Assange, the Voodoo doll; and Craig Murray.

    Notice the pattern? Notice the odd man out?

    They ‘did’ Craig Murray in a particular way for a particular reason. Contempt of Court is a very serious criminal offence, with hefty penalties including penal servitude. Why didn’t they prosecute Craig criminally in the normal way if they genuinely felt that he’d broken the law? They did so because they knew that a jury of 15 men and women, picked pretty much at random from the public, would have acquitted him. That’s why.

    Julian Assange committed the criminal offence of jumping bail. He was sentenced to a spell in prison and he has served his sentence in full and a lot more. He’s still in prison. Notice that he’s not in prison as a result of any jury trial. That’s important, that bit.

    Wee Eck won a court case in the highest civil court in the land. That court doesn’t have a jury system, so that one is moot in what I’m saying here. He also won a court case in the highest criminal court in the land where a jury system does prevail. That’s very significant.

    The two Libyan suckers, neither of whom had anything to do with the bombing of PA103 which was actually perpetrated by the PFLP-GC under contract to the Iranian Government and in which Libya was not involved, were prosecuted under an absurd arrangement whereby three judges (and a spare) were personally appointed by the Chief Prosecutor himself as safe pairs of hands who he knew he could rely upon to deliver to him his preferred verdict.

    Other than Nazi Germany, no European country in the 20th century allowed the Prosecutor to appoint the judges in a juryless trial in which he himself was the Chief Prosecutor. Google “Scotland’s worst Judge” to see his name. No names; no packdrills here.

    The indictment, which was written in America, claimed that the two defendants (defenders, in Scottish legal parlance) “conspired together” to cause the explosion of PA103 over Dumfriesshire. One of the “conspirators” was found not guilty (note: not ‘not proven’) of conspiring with one while the other one was found guilty of conspiring with him. That takes some pretty serious mental gymnastics to get one’s head around. Kinda like the sound of one hand clapping, but with consequences.

    No jury of 15 men and women would have gone along with that one. Anyway, a jury would have spotted the fact that there was no thread of evidence linking Malta to the bomb.

    Now do you you see my point here?

    It’s only the jury system, which is what cricketers call a ‘long stop’, which can prevent absurdities such as the imprisonment of the likes of of Assange and Murray and Salmond and Megrahi.

    Craig Murray would have been given a cricketer’s save by the Establishment (or ‘Deep State’ if you insist) by a jury. That’s why they didn’t give him that “out”.

    • Goose

      Sturgeon has an article in the guardian demanding a crackdown on London’s Russian oligarchs. Clearly she feels the need to restate her support for the US/UK worldview defining who our adversaries are, while flashing her pro-NATO credentials. The SNP only scrapped it’s anti-NATO stance in a close vote (394-365) in Oct 2012, a margin of just 29 votes! Not that you’d know it now, listening to hawkish SNP spokespeople.

      This call by UK politicians to seize the assets of those with suspected ‘links to the Kremlin and Putin ‘ seems incredibly dubious, legally, imho. Given how the Russian state operates and its recent post-USSR history, there are probably very few extremely wealthy Russians who haven’t crossed paths with and/or at least tried to maintain cordial relations with the Russian govt. If you’re a wealthy Russian it’s no doubt seen as sensible course, not making enemies for the sake of making enemies. Just as Chinese billionaires who value their lifestyles don’t openly critique the CCP.

      Are we any better? Western billionaires, big tech CEOs and newspaper proprietors don’t go around questioning the CIA or MI6 and their narratives, do they? They tend to cooperate fully behind the scenes – that is unless they want their companies investigated and possible antitrust cases – if monopolistic. It’s done differently in the west admittedly, but the consequences for wealthy individuals for opposing western political/security elites do exist and act as a deterrent, even if not formally acknowledged. Sturgeon and her SNP colleagues would no doubt argue that’s nonsense and we’re just morally superior.

      • Tatyana

        in fact, many wealthy Russian Londoners are wanted by Russian justice for fraud and corruption. London’s stance on non-extradition to Russia makes this city an ideal laundry and refuge for them. So Ms Sturgeon risks being branded as the Kremlin’s best friend if she tries to move towards a real investigation.
        Ms Theresa May was just about to do the same, just before she retired. And the fact that Boris Johnson recently instructed Ms. Truss to say this threat aloud, I understood that Boris wants to get rid of the most likely candidate for his own chair.
        Also, given the ethnicity of most of these Russians, it is difficult to investigate them for fear of accusations of anti-Semitism. And because of the influence of the diaspora, it would be a completely hopeless escapade.

        • Courtenay Barnett

          It is a conscious choice on the part of subsequent British governments that the City of London and the banking industry will ensure that global illicit money is embraced.
          The London property market is buoyed and fully facilitative of accepting illicit money from Russia and anywhere.

        • Goose

          For a wealthy Russian in the UK it must feel a bit like living in the Lion’s den given all the mysterious deaths of fellow oligarchs.

          Most are Putin-critics, and have cooperated extensively with UK authorities, often getting themselves entangled in the murky world of spooks and espionage. There’s the Russian govt with the ‘motive’ to go after these critics, or possibly western intel operatives, if they are seen as liabilities – people who know too much – then possibly subject to ‘tidying up’ exercises.

          Who’d want to be a Russian oligarch in Britain? Certainly not Roman Abramovich; he sensibly upped sticks and moved to Israel.

          • Tatyana

            A question that bothers me for long, I hope there are some commentators here who may expertly explain.
            Imagine, a Russian oligarch flees to London with all the money. He says he hates Putin and applies for political asylum. London grants him non-extradition status, ignores Russian court enquiries, and the man with money stays in Britain.
            The question is, what happens to all this money, if the oligarch is unexpectedly killed?

          • Goose

            Normal laws apply I presume; namely, If there is a will, it’s in the hands of the executor – usually someone nominated in the will. If not (unlikely), it goes to the Crown, or State if unclaimed.

            Q. What do Russians make of former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev? He seems to defy all the normal rules. He’s apparently popular in Russia. He publicly supported the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. As recently as 2017 he held a media symposium in his hotel complex in Alushta, Crimea “to correct an impression of Crimea put out by a biased western media”.

            He seems to defy orthodoxy and seemingly has no enemies in the west allowing him to build on media ownership and businesses. His son Evgeny was recently nominated for a life peerage by PM Boris Johnson here in the UK.

          • Goose

            A ‘life peerage’ means he can sit in the Second chamber – the House of Lords, for life, i.e. he was made a UK legislator, akin to a Senator, without any democratic input from the voters whatsoever.

            It’s a ridiculous anachronistic practice, but for some reason remains highly resistant to democratic reform.

          • Ebeneezer Scroggie

            >>>>A question that bothers me for long, I hope there are some commentators here who may expertly explain.
            Imagine, a Russian oligarch flees to London with all the money. He says he hates Putin and applies for political asylum. London grants him non-extradition status, ignores Russian court enquiries, and the man with money stays in Britain.

            The money would stay in Britain. Not in London. Edinburgh.

            Edinburgh would become the den of thieves that Edinburgh lawyers crave it to be.

    • Mark Parker

      That’s very well pointed out Eb. There are cases that can never have justice without a jury trial. They chanted ‘no one is above the law’ when Assange was arrested. Yet Tony Blair and his accomplices were placed far above just law by the ruling of the high court.

      True British justice cannot exist with rulings from the high court or supreme court not being decided by unbiased Juries made up of the common people. Juries are especially difficult to compromise and ordinary citizens have a far greater understanding of right and wrong. Which is wy in these mock courts they are excluded.

      To fix this it requires High court magistrates who are so exposed over the Blair case and his protection, and the Assange case rulings, to be prosecuted. Even if it’s simply for Julian’s lost earnings. Placing them in a real court before a real jury to justify their rulings means many questions they could not possibly answer. Then their rulings would be overturned and both cases heard by an unbiased jury.

      This is the law of Britain it belongs to the people, it must serve them and be applied equally and as fairly as possible, they just need to understand how it’s being perverted by the mischief of the High Court Magistrates which is so plain to be seen. The population need to see what is wrong, and this is simple to show in these two cases.

      But it requires putting High Court magistrates in a witness-box. Because with these two cases they have tied themselves to the tracks.

      Love your articles Craig.

      • John Cleary

        “The laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof…”

        Act of Settlement 1701

    • DunGroanin

      ES excellent analysis thanks.

      You say ‘ there was no thread of evidence linking Malta to the bomb.’ Doesn’t a certain mysterious bird going by the name Mifsud originate from there… \sarc> ?

  • Athanasius

    What you seem to be describing, Craig, is a group of people — I would term them a caste rather than a class because “caste” implies a hereditary element — who have a perfect knowledge of what corruption and dishonesty is, but don’t recognize it when it appears in their circle because, well, it’s different when it’s “people like us”. It’s only going to get worse as the western world moves further away from its Christian foundations since there is no “magnetic north” of morality, so to speak, for people to gauge their actions against.

    • Courtenay Barnett


      “The question is, what happens to all this money, if the oligarch is unexpectedly killed?”

      Simple – if he has left a will it goes to the identified beneficiaries; if he dies intestate it goes to the statutorily named next of kin. Failing either solution of inheritance – it goes ‘bona vacantia’ (i.e. no claimant for the property and it thus reverts to the state).

        • Courtenay Barnett


          No – the money would not go to the Russian state.

          There is no extradition treaty between the UK and Russia – so the ‘culprit’ remains in London with his money.

          Thus, the UK state takes the money if the ‘culprit’ did not have foresight to specify where he wanted his money to go after his death.

          • Courtenay Barnett



            “…wanted his ‘stolen’ money to go after his death.”

  • Fwl

    Goose: interesting question re Lebedev & son.

    Tatayana: Oligarch wealth is likely to be settled in trusts in several jurisdictions such as Liechtenstein and so on death trust just continues. The legal owners are the trustees. There will be other family members who are beneficiaries.

  • Fwl

    Interesting thing about offshore trusts is that when you think about it what Oligarch or other Alpha type successful billionaire is going to put his wealth on trust (to mitigate tax and protect from governments, sharks, spouse etc) without being pretty damn sure they can still exercise some invisible influence either possibly properly through the trust instrument or in some jurisdictions through a Settlor concept or because trustees are just willing to routinely take orders from the beneficiaries and rubber stamp the suggestion and call it an exercise of their discretionary powers. These trustees charge handsomely for their services and discretion and can be trusted not to rob.

    Of late other categories of financiers who hold smaller sums of money for smaller retail customers eg spread betting companies and retail bankers have begun to notice that they have taken funds without having carried out sufficient KYC/AML checks and then refuse to release the funds until they are satisfied.

    What if the offshore custodians begin to do this and lock up trust assets until they are satisfied that funds are not the proceeds of any crime or tax evasion in any country. Probably this has been happening of late in some offshore jurisdictions to some unlucky trusts, but trustees would have to be pretty gutsy with certain “beneficiaries”.

    Many US states are now offshore jurisdictions with what are basically offshore asset protection trusts. They have done well out of the Panama Papers because US is obviously respectable and on shore. In U.K. and our dependent territories tax evasion in any country will count as money laundering. The US though is only concerned with local tax evasion and not foreign tax evasion. An interesting dynamic.

    • Courtenay Barnett


      If you examine things with an honest and open mind – you shall quickly find that when it comes on to applicable standards in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man – versus offshore territories – it is one law for you and another for me – so far as regulatory standards are concerned.

      You are correct in what you have stated about trusts and at the end of the day – the establishment orders that the money still centers around the City of London -and – as you again correctly pointed out the US has its own internal ‘offshore’ states – Nevada, Delaware etc. Always offshore and parent banks. Where are the parent banks located?

      • Tatyana

        When I asked to explain expertly, I should have added ‘in simple language’ 🙂 hardly understand most of the answers, sorry!
        The concept of off-shore I get it’s some legislation that allows to hide money from state, tax agency, spouse, etc. It’s often mentioned in Russian media, that corrupt people steal money in Russia and hide it in off-shores.

        Now I’m interested where do this off-shored money go if the owner gets killed? Does it stay there? Where? And, if money placed there in rather secret manner, then how can a spouse, a tax agency or state know about it?

        • Fwl

          If the trust is genuine and not a sham ie if it was not set up to hide proceeds of crime or avoid creditors in circumstances where settlor is insolvent then legal ownership has transferred to the trustee and there is probably nothing the spouse or creditor can do, but if the trust is shown to be a sham or contains proceeds of crime or was set up in an insolvency context there is potentially quite a lot the spouse or creditor or state can do. But only if they have the information, the resources and the patience and then it depends on the local law & courts but also on where the assets are based. So if an offshore asset is located in say London then a third party may be able to freeze it and enforce against it through the English Courts. All very expensive.

          • Fwl

            Trusts can be for proper reasons. If you are going abroad or to war or into government you might have a good reason to give your money to someone to hold on trust for you. Or you might want to set up a trust for your extended family or for charitable purposes. To understand what happens to the funds after the death of the person who put funds into the trust you need to see the terms of the trust and understand the local law. If it’s a charitable trust or for your family etc maybe nothing happens but if it was just for the settlor whilst he was away at war or in a monastery etc then it’s probably going to come to his estate or go to someone named in the trust deed.

          • Tatyana

            I have never had so much money as to invest it, or put into a trust.
            My interest is about stolen state budget money. I understand that this is the same money that we pay as taxes. It’s especially offensive when it’s tax on personal income.
            Until 2009 I was working for companies. In our taxation system, the employer pays income tax for each employee. So we usually only operate with salary after tax, what we get on hand.
            After I became an entrepreneur, I learned to pay taxes on my own. An unpleasant discovery was the obligatory contribution to the Pension Fund. Of the amount paid, they take a part for themselves, and only the rest goes to my savings account!
            Pension provision in Russia sucks. A huge bureaucracy and luxurious buildings for them, along with miserable pensions for the population. So, Boris Mintz’s moving to London I percieved as an attempt to hide the stolen money abroad.
            I appreciate the recent changes for entrepreneurs. Our new Prime Minister Mishustin comes from the tax service and he seems to understand well how to properly fill the state’s budget. I submitted my small business under the new system, and now I’m just delighted. No bureaucracy, everything I need is digitized and requires from me nothing more than pressing a couple of buttons on my smartphone when selling. There is no obligation to pay into a pension fund. No papers, absolutely no one single paper to fill in, or to mail, or to get properly stamped by proper official, nothing like calculating my figures and them checking my calculations and fine me for miscalculations. The tax rate on my income is 4%. If a company contracts me to work for them, then my tax rate on that income would be 6%.

          • DunGroanin

            Tatyana , the joys of taxation and magic money creation await your wonderment and realisation.

            There is much to learn. I’ll gladly point you in the right direction to find for yourself – otherwise you will not believe it.

            As a starter ‘tax’ paid for pension funds – generally there is no pot of money called pension fund that grows in the Treasury! The funds paid by employees today for their future pension go directly straight out to pay TODAY’S pensioners (it has always been so in every country with a state pension).

            Secondly I point you to the creation of the first ever ‘national bank’, the Bank of England – which was NOT owned by the nation but PRIVATE BANKERS OF EUROPE.

            These ancient private bankers have very little to do with religion but plenty to do with ancient trade routes and slavery and loans to the petty Caesars of history.

            The Great Game is a proxy to regain their ancient lands from the Russians ever since the 14th century as the Kazhar peoples they are. All of what is central and Eastern Europe – Poland, Hungary, Ukraine … etc are bits that have been detached through the centuries.

            It is all there to be learnt and remembered and TAXES are part of it all – but taxes can also do good – by reducing the wealth gap in society and making sure that money created by the state doesn’t end up in the hands of a very few who set up the system to achieve that end!

            To show how old and covered up history this is all about, remember Napoleon? When he finally realised how he and European peoples were manipulated he stated: “Terrorism, War and Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest “- he cancelled debt and interest in France – hence the Battle of Waterloo, where the bankers ganged up on him and brought in many mercenaries to aid Wellington and they made a killing on that news.

          • Tatyana

            Yes, the meaning of some taxes eludes me.
            For example, I understand the tax on car ownership, this money should go to provide the appropriate infrastructure. But the meaning of the property tax is not clear to me. I bought this on my own, the state does not subsidize me in any way either for the purchase, or for the maintenance of this housing. Why should I annually pay tax?

            On the other side of the border is an equally strange tax law. I see that the marketplace includes tax in my buyer’s invoice. It’s strange, isn’t it, that a Mary in Texas pays for socks that a Masha in Russia knits, but the US government wants to have some of the money in this deal?

          • DunGroanin

            ? I knew you’d ask. But as I say it is best to study this by oneself with experts. So start with this short video by Professor Richard Murphy who writes daily sense about financial issues.

            What is the role of tax in Modern Monetary Theory? – by Richard J. Murphy (11 Aug 2020) – YouTube, 4m 30s

            He has a wiki site linked from his blog here

            I believe understanding the myths and fairytales of Money will set us free from manipulation by these wizards and priests who tell us lies from the day we are born.

          • Tatyana

            Thanks, DunGroanin, most interesting. I need to learn about inflation from there.
            My friend from Cincinnati was discussing with her compatriots how they are doing today with inflation. They said a small cauliflower is $4, when it used to be $2.5, they said they buy at Aldi more often, and some said they visit a food bank twice a week.
            What they described, the impact on their daily lives, made me very sorry for them, reminded me of the 90’s in Russia.
            Yet, yesterday I listened to some opinions from USA too. The reporter stated that people leave their homes and move to other states, Texas is #1 most new settlers, then Florida. He said that people flee from too weird legislation, also they believe the life is easier in the Southern states.

          • Bayard

            “But the meaning of the property tax is not clear to me. I bought this on my own, the state does not subsidize me in any way either for the purchase, or for the maintenance of this housing. Why should I annually pay tax?”

            What the state is providing in return for your tax, is your ability to call your property your own. If the state wasn’t there, no police, no laws, no justice system, and a van rolls up and three large armed men walk into your house and say “this is ours now”, what do you do? You give them the keys and leave, if you’re sensible. That’s what you are paying for with your property tax, that sort of thing not being able to happen.

  • Janis Garbutt

    Wow what a fantastic man you are. I will come back with a donation. I need help from my son as I have a problem with memory which has left me worried about doing some things on my own.

  • John Cleary

    How the Establishment Function…


    I have long been warning of how they will try to put the Parker-Bowles woman onto the throne as Queen.


    Queen wants Camilla to be Queen Consort when Charles becomes king
    Monarch expresses ‘sincere wish’ in candid message marking 70th anniversary of her accession
    by Caroline Davies
    Sat 5 Feb 2022 22.00 GMT

    The Queen has expressed her “sincere wish” that the Duchess of Cornwall becomes Queen Consort when Charles becomes king.

    In a candid message marking the 70th anniversary of her accession, the monarch made clear her desire, unambiguously paving the way for Queen Camilla.

    When the duchess married the Prince of Wales in 2005, it was made clear by Clarence House that she would carry the title of HRH The Princess Consort.

    It has long been speculated that this was a title of convenience at a time when the duchess was seen to be less popular in the polls, due to her relationship with Charles when he was married to Diana, Princess of Wales.

    Charles is understood to have long harboured a firm desire his wife should carry the title of Queen Consort, and be thus crowned and anointed, when he becomes king.

    The Queen made clear she supported this in a written message released on Saturday before Sunday’s Accession Day.

    In it, the Queen thanked the nation for the “loyalty and affection” she had received over her long reign.

    She added: “And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife, Camilla, the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.”

    The British Constitution centres around a single law that has been fully abused since the times of Queen Victoria, and every queen thereafter – Alexandra, Mary, Elizabeth and Elizabeth.

    That law is the Treason Felony Act, which states:

    3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies

    …If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, …from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, …within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her… to change her… measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty… and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, …or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, …to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.

    It is long, and convoluted, and needs careful parsing, but if you do that you will see that this law prevents anybody from opposing the acts of the queen. It is unlawful to put any force or constraint upon her.

    Even if she is breaking the law.

    The whole of the dictatorship pivots upon a law which allows the named party to do anything, whether through her secret societies, or her orders of chivalry or whatever. It is she that has brought her country, and the West as a whole, to the brink of absolute ruin. BE WARNED.

    Now look at this:

    The Commonwealth parliament of Australia has not legislated on the subject of high treason, which is in Australia governed by the laws of the constituent states, i.e. by the law of England as it stood when they were colonized, subject to local legislation. In the codes of Queensland (1899) and West Australia (1902) the offence is defined in a form which is little more than a redrafting of the English statutes. The provisions of the Treason Felony Act 1848 have been adapted by legislation to New South Wales (1900), Queensland (1899), Western Australia (1902) and Tasmania (1868).

    Queen Victoria, for whom the Treason Felony Act was passed in 1848, died on 22 January 1901.

    So WHY did they pass this law in Western Australia the year AFTER she died?

    The only logical answer is that the new queen, Queen Alexandra, intended to continue using this law for her own purposes.

    And so it has continued for the last 121 years.

    And now, if this evil old woman gets her way, his mistress will become queen.

    With the blessing of the Established Church, she will rule in the name of God.

    Dieu et mon droit
    Honi soit qui mal y pense

    So I say to William and to Harry: do you understand now why they HAD TO murder your mum?

    • fonso

      Do you not understand that “William and Harry” and Co view you as less than a cockroach?

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      There have been a couple of interesting articles in the current and last editions of Lobster that sure look like the dear old Queen mum (gawd bless her heart) was up to her neck in the whole Rudolph Hess plot to stage a coup against Churchill’s unity government and put a Nazi sympathising puppet in No.10.

      • John Cleary

        Yes Vivian.

        And that ties back to the enormous service Savile performed at the end of the war.

      • Goose

        I find the old cinema News footage and BBC reports they are digging out to mark the Platinum Jubilee slightly hilarious.

        Those cut-class RP English accents…

        ‘As the crowds excitedly gather to catch a glimpse of this living deity, the queen blows a kiss’

        The peasants then return to their mundane lives, in awe and wonder after being in close proximity to her Majesty. A day they will no doubt remember forever.’

        I exaggerate, but it’s not far… orf. And we think UK Establishment conditioning/ brainwashing is new.

        I remember Huw Edwards or it was possibly Dimbleby, one of them, fawning over how the queen could wave with regal serenity, like no one else can.


    • M.J.

      “Queen wants Camilla to be Queen Consort”.

      Then it must be a good idea. Best wishes and congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on the 70th anniversary of her accession!

  • TonyT12

    Interesting reading this morning.

    Are we to believe that Blinken has approval from the EU to make these warlike statements of intent? Have they been agreed by Germany, France, Italy, etc. individually? We know that the UK will agree, because we always do, however badly things turned out in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq.

    Blinken, Nuland and their pals want war with Russia – but expect two pre-conditions so it looks good at home in the USA. First that on the West’s side there shall be no Americans in bodybags, only Ukrainians. And it has to appear in American media that Russia started the war – viz. the fake news that Russia started the war two days ago, which was released incompetently earlier than planned.

  • Bruce

    Craig spoils his article (as so often) by calling the Swedish Assange allegations “fake sex crime” to make a rhetorical impact. Whether they were true or not is sub judice or perhaps super judice. To call any sex crime fake is deeply damaging to actual victims. Craig should retract & apologise.

    • nevermind

      Read the facts Bruce, no need to divert attentions here. Our actions to a falsely employed EAW was to accept it, knowing full well that it would not be rescinded due to the embarrasment it would cause.

      Another wee point is the employment of a past CIA mole as the ‘victim’. Get real.

    • bevin

      When a ‘sex crime’ is fake, the only victim is the person falsely accused. The person making the false accusation is ‘bearing false witness”, a perjuror and liable to the damage exposure of the truth might cause.
      In this particular case the person who made the false accusation seems to have had suspiciously close relations with a non Swedish three letter intelligence agency.

  • Goose

    From the guardian today: Sweden returns to cold war tactics to battle fake news – Fears of poll meddling by Russia prompt new ‘psychological defence’ – by Miranda Bryant (The Guardian, 6 Feb 2022)

    Depressing stuff for a country like Sweden with its long proud, tradition of transparency, open debate and free speech. This increasing trend for states to use unaccountable psy-op teams operating without any transparency, voter consent or clear boundaries, risks becoming a modern era Gladio-sized misjudgement. What opinion are they promoting and what views are they suppressing? Didn’t the ludicrous ‘cui bono?’ basis for identifying bad actors, show them how paranoid and silly this escapade can quickly become?< The main driver appears to be the European Council on Foreign Relations. From Wikispooks quote :

    Founded in 2007, the ECFR is a think-tank trying to copy its hugely influential US counterpart, the Council on Foreign Relations. The ECFR has a significant crossover with the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative.

    The guardian piece finishes with this gem from Mats Engström, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations:

    ‘There were, he said, fears about how the new agency could impact free speech. “It will have to tread very carefully on controversial issues not to create the impression of the state trying to stifle critical views. Even if it is stated in the instructions that the new agency shall promote free speech, the line is not easy to draw.”

    Is that it? So he acknowledges the line is not easy to draw, but they want to draw it anyway? These unaccountable psychological defence agency efforts across Europe risk being the subject of future inquiries. It’s modern-era McCarthyism masquerading as protection of democracy; it’s not opposing communism now; there is no threat of citizens demanding we copy China’s authoritarianism is there, it’s opposing ‘wrongthink’ among EU ‘Oceania citizens’ about NATO and unelected officials who wield great power over us, people like President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde and current NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg. In the US the Joe Rogan ‘wrongspeak’ cancel efforts are driven by a similar mindset.

    Lots of talk of Russia influencing this, that and the other online, but beyond their RT TV channel – which has to comply with UK & European TV regulators – very little by way of evidence. My own view is that the EU and US are undergoing a crisis of confidence, and military folks being military folks + murky NATO-types – funded by the arms industry, they’re seeing every problem as a nail that needs to be hammered

    • Goose

      This sort of stuff begs the question: What ‘values’ are we defending?

      Total information control has long been the dream of authoritarian types in the west; people who envy the power of autocratic leaders have; specifically their ability to limit & control political dissent. Russia is just the scapegoat and a catalyst to facilitate long-craved dystopian measures. It’s easy to persuade already nervous, internet-wary western politicians, their re-election chances are facing some grave threat via social media from an invisible enemy *cue: X-files music*, especially when those asserting that are not required to produce evidence.

      On evidence. Where are all these Russians we keep being told about? Stories flow across our MSM, but post on any comment forum under said articles, asking for proof, and you’ll be downvoted to hell by obvious western sockpuppets: expect to have your patriotism questioned, and be called a traitor by some anonymous spotty moron tasked with judging you. As if in a police state in a time of war. Not a single up-vote will come your way, which suggests does it not, that the west is accusing others of doing that which it is already doing itself, only a thousandfold?

      I notice twitter is considering implementing ‘downvotes’ too, this no doubt is a result of their tie-in with an organisation linked to the military complex, and will surely be used (abused) by western sockpuppets to suppress opinion that fall outside official and MSM narratives.

      Apologies for the rant. But I think we risk sleepwalking into dystopia.

    • Henry Smith

      The US Government will issue a memo to all its allies/puppets/sycophants/useful fools telling them what the truth is, at any moment in time. Any divergent views can be assumed to be false and any requests for evidence will be construed as the work of enemy states.
      Social media providers are currently working with the US to provide drop down lists identifying True articles for the ease and convenience of the public.

      • Goose

        The recent heated exchange between Ned Price of the State Department and Matthew Lee of The AP was refreshing. Maybe Lee had had his Weetabix that morning, idk? Regardless, I hope he does it again and starts a trend. If all journalists shared that level of scepticism, we’d have much better, more accountable governments.

        At one point in that exchange Price accused Lee of ‘taking solace’ in Russian information. Sadly, that’s the sort of puerile response you’d expect , to perfectly reasonable questions about what were really quite wild assertions involving ‘crisis actors’ and ‘faked military deaths’. Lee rightfully compared them to Alex Jones’ Infowars output.

          • Goose


            Ned Price was almost glaring at Lee at one point. He even said, “you know how this works” i.e. he said the quiet part loud.

            It’s reported (in the Mail) Matthew Lee has since telephoned Ned Price to apologise for his behaviour, and has all but admitted he overstepped. Which, if true, is a bit of a downer.

          • pretzelattack

            damn the reporter apologised for being a journalist? must have violated the stenographer code of conduct.

        • Tatyana

          Can you imagine that such an exchange could take place in Russia? A journalist would ask about the evidence, and get the answer “we are sorry that you don’t trust the information of the Russian government”

          I would be the first to raise a howl to the skies here in Russia! It’s just unthinkable! It’s not their f*cking business to hand out assessments of the information reliability!
          You’ve been hired to do the job, so, mister spokesman, please open your mouth paid for out of my pocket! And please answer the question put on my behalf! Otherwise, I don’t authorize my government to act in my name! Who the f*ck cares how do you estimate the verability of the information?

  • Sikunder Smoulders

    3 thoughts:

    1. Craig has just spent 4 months in a hellhole, & probably is a bit reluctant to spend a further ( possibly indefinite ) spell of same at Her Majesty’s pleasure. So it’s quite forgivable that he omits (quite deliberately I’m certain) perhaps that which is most damning : all those papers, all those emails, all those memos pertaining to the ‘mysterious’ non prosecution which so conveniently, & so effectively disappeared from public scrutiny. Probably enough material to feed the boiler at the CPS burning for weeks .
      The ‘pour encourager les autres’ purpose of Craig’s sentence is also vindicated: virtually nobody dares to publicly challenge the almost total reverence shown by the MSM for the soon to be anointed Starmer. ( I used to think him a dud, but his skills are forensically Machiavellian).
      Anyway have decided to double my miserable £5 a month to Craig’s support fund , & hope he’ll start looking at means to protect against the concoctions brewed at Porton Down.
    2. Have supported CND for 5 decades, but starting to feel relieved that Russia & China have advanced nukes. Even the most stupid of the warmongers know that if they emerge from luxuriously kitted out bunkers in the Cotswolds & the Upper Hudson, their billions will count for nothing. So they’ll just have to settle for a few more billions from arms manufacture & dealing, & a bit of skirmishing in the Donbas.
    3. Does Tatyana run an independent blog? Her commentary is wonderful.
    • Tatyana

      3. Tatyana doesn’t 🙂 thanks for your compliment!
      This is exclusive place on the Internet that keeps to the principles of free speech for everyone. My views often do not coincide with Mr. Murray’s, actually, often mine are quite opposite. So, the very fact that I’m not banned *so far* makes this site a precious pearl among many others.
      Also, there are clever and informed commentors here, bringing interesting news and valuable historical background detail. And the Moderation Team are true professionals and good people.
      Please, subscribe and visit often. This site may become your favourite source to get news on what’s going on.

      • Sikunder Smoulders

        You’re welcome.
        Can’t imagine Craig would ban anyone for expressing an honestly held & relevant opinion.
        The reason I suggest a blog is that very few people ever get to ‘hear’ *any* kind of voice from a Russian citizen, & the propaganda war is intent on superheating the default Russophobia which has been a consistent theme of British culture, except for brief moments in WW1& WW2..
        Regarding Craig’s journalism, we are in agreement . It is regrettably only through radical internet bloggers that we can keep track of the lies , manipulation, & interconnections previously only revealed decades later in the memoirs & biographies of those who dominate us.
        It is why they want to emasculate, suppress, & censor independent journalism.

  • John O'Dowd

    Goose writes:

    “My own view is that the EU and US are undergoing a crisis of confidence, and military folks being military folks + murky NATO-types – funded by the arms industry, they’re seeing every problem as a nail that needs to be hammered”.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. It seems to me that NATO et al are still playing the Anglo-American Establishment game originally expoused by Halford MacKinder over 100 years ago:

    In his 1904 paper “The Geographical Pivot of History,” in which Russia and China had to be prevented from dominating the “World Island” (Eurasia linked to Africa).

    Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory thus:

    Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
    who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
    who rules the World-Island commands the world.
    — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150

    If you want to lean more about US/NATO strategy for world domination get a hold of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s

    Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1998/2016)

    The boastful, arrogant Brzezinski couldn’t help himself spilling the beans about US/NATO’s continuing plan to hem in Russia and China – and their ultimate aim to overthrow their governments – mad though that may seem – that is still their aim. You need only look at US bases encircling and occupying parts of the former Soviet Union.

    And if you think that China is not in the sights read this by US Foreign Policy insider, Francis Sempa – who helpfully references Halford MacKinder in this madly dangerous piece:

    China and the World-Island: Today’s strategists should keep Mackinder in mind when looking at China’s efforts across Eurasia and Africa – by Francis P. Sempa (The Diplomat, 26 Jan 2016)

    Naturally, he inverts reality to ascribe to Russia and China, what the US/NATO Dr Strangeloves are actually about.

    They used to tell us it was to stop “Godless Communism” – but now that that’s gone, their real aims now shine through. And the UK vassal-state tags along.

    Do not underestimate how mad these people are.

    • Tatyana

      Maria is intelligent woman, but she should fire her imagemaker. Who on earth would advise her to wear this shade of blue dress??? I don’t even mention this blond tone of her hair, that makes her look cheap.
      She’s got to embrace her own beauty type, with the biggest part of North.
      Her look reminds me of the new russian fashion brand for academic women. It has its certain mission but it doesn’t suit her.
      We get most of info via visual channel, so it’s important.

        • Tatyana

          Of course, it’s true. But I believe that, one can get much further with a kind word and an elegant dress, than with a kind word alone ?

          • Goose


            Maria Zakharova comes across as quite feisty. But …Russia has a terrible image in the west because there is no one speaking English, putting Russia’s arguments across. You are leaving it for your western opponents to define i.e. US/UK neocons and assorted warmongering organisations. Russia is losing/lost the propaganda war without a shot being fired.

            That invariably means leaving it to those who argue, falsely, Putin is obsessed with recreating or reimposing the USSR by force on eastern European countries. That largely unchallenged perception is almost an article of faith among western journos and politicians, even serious broadsheet journos, it someone says it on TV, no one even questions it.

            Compare and contrast Russia’s western PR to that of Israel. We all know Israel has an egregious human rights record with its long history of brutal oppression/subjugation of the Palestinians, but in Mark Regev they had a tireless advocate/apologist touring UK TV/Radio studios. His claims wouldn’t stand up to any serious scrutiny, but he was always there at least making them forcefully.

            RT presenter Oksana Boyko in Maria’s job would achieve far more than Maria Z in changing western perceptions on Russia’s perfectly legitimate security concerns about NATO expansionism. Russia’s main tormentors are the US and UK. Speaking English seems an essential prerequisite for any Russian spokesman / woman in these times.

          • Tatyana

            Yes, I agree. Our Foreign Office would do well to provide information in English. I don’t know why it hasn’t been done yet.

            A foreign language, sometimes two languages, is a compulsory subject of the school programme, and it’s English more often than others. Most Russians are able to say a couple of words in English.

  • DunGroanin

    To hopefully add to how the The Establishment and Crown are one and the same. It is no secret. It just isn’t reported by the presstitutes.
    As this from now nearly 40 years ago outsider found out during the precursor Gulf escapades. From ‘My experiences, the Scott Inquiry, the British Legal System’ by Gerald Reaveley James:

    “In the course of my own experiences I took considerable note and interest in parallel cases like Matrix Churchill, Ordtec, Euromac, Atlantic Commercial, BNJ, SRC, Forgemasters, Walter Somers, Polly Peck, Foxley Ferranti/ISC, BCCI, Maxwell etc.
    All these cases and others and the Astra case involved the gross abuse of power by Government and its agencies and servants, concealment of key evidence, intimidation, threats, false and selective prosecutions, manipulation of evidence, perversion of the course of justice. It has also been clearly demonstrated that there is no separation of powers within the United Kingdom. Key legal appointments like Lord Chancellor and attorney General, Solicitor General are wholly political. It has also been clearly demonstrated that Parliament has no control of knowledge of events and that a vast apparatus of permanent unelected Government exists. This permanent Government consists of senior civil servants, intelligence and security officers, key figures in certain city and financial institutions (including Lloyds of London), key industrialists and directors of major monopolistic companies, senior politicians. The Lord Chancellors Office which is responsible for the appointment of Judges, Clerks of the House of Commons select Committees and approval of Chairmen of such committees and the approval of the Queen’s Counsel, holds a total control of the legal administrative framework and has strong connections to the security and intelligence services. The last Clerk to the Crown in Chancery was Sir Thomas Legg, KCB QC who had strong links to the intelligence and security establishment and who was responsible for allocating Judges to controversial trials of a political nature where the “national interest” and “national security” (those much abused phrases) were involved, ie the Ponting Case. Legg’s successor will have a similar role…”

    There is plenty more detail and NAMES but I don’t have a link just a copy on my hard drive from some notes years ago.

    • DunGroanin

      A further example today’s announcement of the replacement resovoir dogs at Downing Street. One of whom is the ‘safe pair of hands’ Guto Harri, ‘a former BBC journalist turned PR professional who helped Rupert Murdoch’s News UK after the phone-hacking scandal and worked alongside Johnson during his first term as London mayor in City Hall.‘

      The chap who fronted the disgraceful disrespect of the work, investigation and judgement of the only Judicial Inquiry that did what it was supposed to do and then got shelved! So died the last attempt at proper independent media regulation that would have guaranteed a clear check and balance on the moguls who control what we think.
      He has also worked the latest Murdoch venture GB News, the Fox wannabee facist platform. For the same Billionaires that he has been a praetorian for all his life.

      Harri and co are the Mr Wolfs sent into sanitise and put to bed the legacy of Bozo the clown.
      Hurry up Harri to the rescue – he reported to work and his ‘boss’ jumped up to salute him! Lols – hurry up harri.

      • DunGroanin

        Pete, That’s the one thanks – please all read – it clearly shows that we are dysfunctional religious hereditary monarchy pretending to have a parliamentary system with a lie about it being democratically elected – not without PR and it with a Privy Council

  • Anthony

    It is patently obvious now that Keir Starmer is their chosen one. The golden calf of the extreme centre. Boris Johnson served a purpose in defeating the spectre of Corbynism. But his odious “populism” (ie honouring the Brexit vote and mild nods towards social democracy) were as intolerable to the elite as the Trumpshow’s daily embarrassment of the empire. So the Tories are now under intense pressure to find a sober, doctrinaire neoliberal in the Osborne mould. If they fail then the overlords of our hollowed-out democracy have made it clear they will sanction a “Labour” victory. Something that would probably be celebrated bý a few of your readers.

    • TonyT12

      Do you not think that Johnson’s role was primarily that of neutralising Farage and UKIP not just defeating Corbyn?

      Sadly, Johnson integrating the Farage/UKIP zone of politics on board shifted the centre of gravity of the Tory party to the right and into the domain of the Daily Express right. Much as Corbyn shifted Labour unelectably towards the loonie left.

      Using Johnson’s gift of the gab managed to bury UKIP in tactics similar to (and quicker than) how they buried the LibDems in the Coalition by 2015. Now we have incompetents like Truss, Raab, Rees-Mogg and Dorries in No.10 which has become a madhouse. Johnson is a journalist-cum-Lothario pretending to be a serious politician. To have seen him as anything else in the longer term was a grave error of judgment.

      The problem is not really Johnson, it is the smartasses Craig describes playing these games.

      • Anthony

        I thought “loonie left” was a Daily Express anachronism in 2022 not a term bandied about by fans of Craig Murray. What does it mean? Being anti-austerity? Anti-war? And who precisely do you consider to be “a serious politician”? Name names, Tony T12, and name policies.

        • TonyT12

          I am a great fan of Craig Murray. I wish he were in No.10 with a competent team around him if he could bear the prospect.

          Being a pragmatist is part of how changes are made. My experience of the Left was defined by attending a weekend of events in East London with my daughter. In order to inspire ourselves we went to several presentations and debates and the overall impression was that the Left is so suicidally factional. We came away disheartened. The factionalisation resulted in the perception of a “loonie left”.

          When politics was debated there, there was a lot too much backbiting and custard-pie throwing between factions. Each believed its own analysis of a way forward was better than anyone else’s. With this level of division there is tenuous way forward, especially if you need so many people in the big wide country to get off their bottoms to vote for change in a general election. The scariness of these factions is enough to put off nearly everyone down at my local village pub, and their response is to run to the Tories for cover.

          Conversely the Right in our politics is every bit as divided – look at Brexit. However they get whipped together into shape and we are where we are today. They are useless – but in power.

          I believe that does not mean we have to have a quasi-Labour government with a Tory lookalike P.M. and executive to entice voters. However it requires the Left to want to be in government as a single grownup entity and not just shouting in permanent protest mode. Getting into No.10 is a lot more effective than standing on trains or gluing yourself to the M25.

          The Labour Party has a lot of talent already and it needs some serious management to get it into shape for government. That the Establishment looks to encourage Keir Starmer is interesting, but he is still unlikely to turn many heads down my local village pub. The public does like charisma in a leader and Johnson has it – and little else unfortunately.

          I am a great fan of Rayner, Lammy, Phillips, Thornberry to name four straight off.

          • Anthony

            Quite a foursome! At risk of being labled a factionalist loony purist or some such, this is what I think of when I hear those names ..

          • DunGroanin


            What has been achieved by Bozo, Starmer and the media Narratives is the dragging of the Overton Window back to the fascist corporate direction because Corbynite leadership showed that many voters wanted a return to the postwar social contract that put the majority ahead of the minority. A mighty lurch that scared the shit out the international cabal – so that the US sec of state had to promise a Gauntlet to interfere in the U.K. elections that special interest groups in the US! Real election meddling instead of fake Russian fiction.
            Where is the outrage? Why isn’t Pompeo charged with a crime? Why has the media and more importantly YOU ignored it?

            It took decades and a generation to infiltrate the post-war Labour Party machinery and destroy its mission from inside by the forces described clearly in my post above .

            The loony left and right you partially described are mostly agit prop deep state operations. Their initial purpose was to create the extremists such as Red Robo and Militant on the one hand and the ‘sensible rightists’ on the other who then led the breakup of the great party as SDP splitters spectacularly before a general election giving Maggie her second term, which even her arranged tinpot war with Argentina couldn’t deliver – which divided the actual traditional Labour to enable that continuing reversal of the post-war covenant.

            The loony right had always been there the Mossleyites didn’t disappear from the upper echelons and they never liked universal suffrage. They want to restore the ancient rights of rule by Toffs and serfs do as they are told – make up an army to go die in foreign parts and conduct mass murder of civilians there for the interests of the Financiers and their servant Aristos and mercenaries.

            The fake left and right are marshalled by the agit prophets to create a Red-Brown Bridge that allow them to combine in irrational self-harming politics of the Owners who live up there over the rainbow ? in their great wizard palaces. Hence we get Fartage and New Robo, Yaxley-Lenon to stir up xenophobia to create the conditions for BrexShit support; orchestrated by the media elites to form that bridge for a ‘common patriotic cause of sovereignty’!!!
            Dumb fucks believe it is their own idea as they run the razor blades across our collective wrists – dooming the young to a detachment from European family.

            The 4 labour figures you mention are just the latest lot of invaders to the traditional labour, cut from the same class as these traitorous SDP grandees and bastard spawn of NuLabInc.

            You cite ‘knife in the front’ can’t ‘keep a straight face’ Jess Phillips and the recently outed Zionist Lammy? The grandee Thornberry?
            Why not demand the return of these others who failed and moved to pastures new who denigrated the purpose of the traditional Labour – who all went stomping off crying wolf to be the new SDP types Leslie, Chukka, Berger and the rest of that poisonous insidious crew hothoused from private school, university, Spad to parachuted candidates in safe seats?

            It is interesting to see that same messaging is still being undertaken even as Starmer and the controlled NeoLibCon merchants NuLabInc are supposedly ‘back’ purging all the new trad labour members and MPs and burying the cause of that renewed optimism in the young voters.

            They must still be scared by the hugely popular resurging grassroots and their demands that they should choose their own local candidates and not have them imposed by the NEC and the spooks and Knights of the Realm to return the Establishment to its pre-war status quo sold as any number of aristo-worshipping cultural hagemony to the dumbing Downton abbey fodder.

          • Pigeon English

            What I do not understand is why people like you don’t vote for Lib Dems? I read similar comments so many times and
            I always ask myself that question. Shouldn’t Cons be Right, Lib Dems Centre and Labour Left.

            What’s wrong with discussing different ways forward? Most of us here like discussion instead of slogans repeated ad nauseam.

            Problem is if in government you do the same, what is the point? (BJ’s hair is better than Sir KS or ED. Not sure who is the best singer … )

          • bevin

            “…I am a great fan of Rayner, Lammy, Phillips, Thornberry to name four straight off.”

            Four of the most dishonest, shallow, unprincipled members of a faction of the Labour Party which consists almost entirely of careerists who would sell their own parents for a kind word by The Establishment media, and have made a living out of selling the working class’ living standards and security. All are supporters of the most vicious imperial adventures and promoters of fascism in the Ukraine.
            To be called a member of the ‘Loony Left’ by anyone of them would be an honour to cherish.

      • Coldish

        TonyT12: the fatal problem for Corbyn was that he was all too electable. He really put the wind up the establishment. Luckily for them, they already had their man Starmer in place to lead the counter-revolution.

        • Squeeth

          Corbyn had the spine of a jellyfish and did more to sabotage himself than all the zionist antisemites in the world.

      • Johnny Conspiranoid

        “Much as Corbyn shifted Labour unelectably towards the loonie left.”

        I thought Corbyn was elected.

      • DunGroanin

        But It did somehow manage to create a NHS, a welfare state, Free Education and Social Housing in a single postwar government and then led to the greatest reduction in the wealth gap – and you squeeking against these who want the same doesn’t change these facts. Does it?

        • Bayard

          D, It’s interesting that the only time when Britain had a really socialist government was when a significant proportion of the working population had been trained to kill and had killed, plus there were a lot of arms kicking around as “souvenirs of the war”.

          • DunGroanin

            There were soldiers Parliaments before demobilisation – Churchill expected they would carry on following orders. But yes because these enrolled had seen the world for what it was, they weren’t going to go back to status quo. Unlike their great-grandkids who are so dumbed down they are sleepwalking back to servitude.

        • Squeeth

          The 1940 NHS had no more money spent on it than the pre-war patchwork. It took until the early 70s for state spending on poor people to return to the level of 1929.

  • BrianFujisan

    Maria Z –

    “The well-known psychedelic phobias by Western media about the ‘Russian aggression against Ukraine’ are under development in the forthcoming composition. However, time marches on and Russia is not attacking Ukraine. The calculation by the US who ordered this ‘tune’ and the British who joined the bandwagon is clear; they cooked up ‘the Russian threat’ themselves, they braced themselves for a ‘heroic fight’ against it, in order to commit a provocation and loudly declare their ‘victory.”

    “Here you’ve got both an opportunity to divert attention away from their own political crises and a chance to pour billions into arming ‘immature democracies,’ and a way of reviving the image of the ‘invincible’ after the Afghan fiasco.”
    The diplomat also pointed out Kiev’s financial losses from “the ‘patriot games’ that unfolded over recent months,” reiterating remarks by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky who stated that the country has already lost $12.5 bln.

    “As they say, you don’t need enemies with friends like this. Then again, we repeatedly said that the West is not concerned at all about Ukrainian interests,” the spokeswoman concluded.”

    • Fat Jon

      Is there not a parallel here, with events in May 1938?

      Newspaper and radio articles began to suggest that large numbers of Nazis were marching towards the Czech border. The majority opinion was that these reports originated with the British security services.

      This resulted in much British political macho posturing, with threats of dire consequences; and apparently some form of ‘physical’ exchange occurred between the British Ambassador and Von Ribbentrop.

      When no Nazi troops appeared in Czechoslovakia, the British proclaimed that this was certainly because their threats of severe retaliation had frightened off the Nazi high command. (Later examination of Nazi war records showed that the original reports were completely false).

      I presume the NATO verbal response will be similar, when there is no invasion of Ukraine?

  • Natasha

    Any one noticed the deafening silence – practically nothing from US or US mainstream media?

    On 4th February China and Russia declared a “no limits” partnership in a 5,600 word Joint Statement backing each other over stand-offs on Ukraine and Taiwan with a promise to collaborate more against the West, and would work together on space, climate change, artificial intelligence and control of the internet.

    “Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation,” the two countries said in a joint statement.

    China, Russia partner up against West at Olympics summit – by Tony Munroe, Andrew Osborn and Humeyra Pamuk (Reuters, 4 Feb 2022)

    Russia and China issue joint statement declaring opposition to any Nato expansion (, 4 Feb 2022)

  • Peter Hargreaves

    Starmer was head of the CPS when it decided not to prosecute Savile. I tend to agree that Starmer would have been (at very least) aware that a prosecution was under consideration. After all, Savile was a high profile individual who would have undoubtedly defended any charge by using the very best lawyers available. Impossible to imagine that a DPP would not be told about such a possible case. Having said that, it does appear that the alleged victims were unwilling to testify in court. (According to the Levitt report). Starmer did apologise for the CPS decision-making processes in place at the time and new guidance was issued).

    • Reza

      All the establishment outrage was at the mere suggestion the DPP may have helped Savile escape justice. They never allowed it to get anywhere near the stage of asking why he did so.

    • DunGroanin

      Many of the victims were paraplegic or actually dead before being victimised as I understand it.
      The BBC under the ‘sainted’ Esther Rantzen and her elderly boyfriend did a great job of collecting all the kiddy complainants through their Childline and made sure not a single complaint was made. Yes I say that! Jonathan King was the only one to get a wrist slap he went to prison laughing and came out laughing knowing it was just a charade.

  • TonyT12


    If the two of us met one to one I doubt if there would be much, possibly nothing, we would disagree over.

    How the Labour Party has allowed itself to be subjugated by the occupants of No.10 is staggering. How many years now? Wide open goals every single day for weeks and weeks, and we still are way off the woodwork – without the goalkeeper having to do anything except shouting. That Johnson is still securely in place is gobsmacking. The only foreseeable possibility of moving him out is for the Tories to kick him out.

    We still have a democratic system capable of kicking the junk out – as Tony Benn reminded a good few times. That’s the quickest start – May 2022 will be a good opportunity. Then we have time to prepare thoroughly for the next general election. Where we live I have not heard a peep from Labour about the May elections, in fact nothing as long as I can remember. Only a generic looking whingy pamphlet from the LibDems – and a convincingly very sincere knock on the door from the Greens candidate and her agent.

    If you want to join the power game and to fight for it, you have to understand the rules and make them work for you. Otherwise you might as well settle for getting red in the face and/or finding something more rewarding and less frustrating to occupy your time.

    Divide and Conquer is how the power game works. Brexit nearly did it for the Tories, but didn’t quite because they understand the rules. Boris Johnson is the divide & conquer opportunity of all time as the Red Wall newbie MPs correctly get more and more nervous about retaining their seats. If the only divide & conquer the Left knows is to beat each other over the head, then Johnson will be there until 2029 as he wants.

    • Anthony

      Starmerites are no different to the old Blairites: ideologues masquerading as pragmatists. Let’s be honest they are actually the same people. But it is the 2020s now and not many outside the commentariat and pensioner cohort are going to be enthused by Starmer’s doctrinaire neoliberalism ..

      • Support for private health
      • Support for continued privatisation of energy
      • Only supporting a 50p pay rise during a cost of living crisis
      • Opposing wealth taxes
      • Opposing corporate tax hike
      • Opposing real pay rise for NHS in midst of pandemic

      Maybe Dungroanin does share your appetite for it. I must have misinterpreted all his comments.

    • Tatyana

      Wait a bit. His Excellency the Prince of Andorra and French President Monsieur Macron is visiting the Kremlin.
      I hope that Putin may ask in a clear and straightforward simpleton’s manner how his excellency is going to implement the Minsk agreement. France is one of the signatories and Normandy negotiator. I’m curious to know for what reason another Ukrainian government is still violating the UN Security Council resolution. There’s agreement and there’s Stanmeier formula, Poroshenko and Zelensky both put their signatures under it, but it’s 8 years already that they cannot fulfil it.

      • Tatyana

        I recently mentioned Arestovich. He is the speaker of the Ukrainian delegation on Minsk agreement, he is authorized to speak out the Ukraine’s position.
        There’s a video of his interview, where he says: “We won’t do anything, we won’t implement it. Because the implementation will lead to mass riots inside Ukraine.”
        source in russian

        He says it as an aswer to the interviewer’s question “What do we do with the Steinmeier formula?”
        To the next question of the host “But our president signed this,” Arestovich replies, “He was naive.”

      • Tatyana

        And also note that the interview was made in July 2021 and already Arestovich talks about 100,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian borders.
        I strongly suspect that this formulaic phrase is used to refer to Russian troops in the Crimea. Recently, this phrase has become heavily pedaled and sung in different ways everywhere in Western media.
        My opinion is that this noise in the media creates a background for the future refusal of Ukraine from the implementation of the Minsk agreements.
        Indeed, if they gave the Donbass and Lughansk the right to choose their own mayors and governors, then other regions may want the same. At such a moment it may turn out obvious that Ukraine is a Frankenstein, artificially created by the USSR. Its western territories belonged to Poland and Lithuania, the population may want to join these European states. Other parts feel Russian, and they have already indicated their desire to be with Russia. Another part may want to identify themselves as Belarusians. What would be left of modern Ukraine then? Kiev? Again, Kiev is the Mother of all Russian cities, our history started there as Kievan Rus.

        • Rhys Jaggar

          Tatyana, part of the ancient UK history centres on the town of Colchester. There are a lot of UK people who have never heard of it, let alone honest Russian ladies like you!

          Colchester was, as Camulodunum, the first capital of Roman Britain way back before your part of the world had organised itself into vast territories like Mother Russia. It was suitably close to the coast, allowing the Romans to come by boat fairly harmlessly, but far enough inland not to be susceptible to high tide floods.

          To this day, it plays host to part of the UK Armed Forces, as it has done since time immemorial.

          But in the modern world? A market town, a commuter town for London (direct service to London by train and on the A12 main highway into town too).

          It is in no way a major tourist attraction, long having ceded such to York (the ancient Northern seat of church power) and is, to most UK citizens, somewhere they have never been to, barely heard of and unworried about either of those two either.

          But I suspect Kyiv is rather larger, rather more significant and infinitely more worthwhile for tourists to visit!!

          Perhaps it could emulate Monaco and become a City State??!!

  • John Cleary

    A couple of photos of Savile:

    The first of these is a newspaper clipping from 1951.

    “Oscar Savile Age 24. Company Director Leeds Olympic, 2nd Edinburgh – Newcastle 1950, 4th Ayr – Carlisle 1951. Known as “The Duke”.

    The second is an undated photograph which looks to be from around the same time. Savile is stood astride his bike in front of his Rolls-Royce registration number JS 954.

    Clearly, by the early 1950’s Jimmy Savile had made his fortune already.

    Now, let’s try a little imagination. Imagine that you are Queen Elizabeth, wife of King George VI. It is the Spring of 1945 and you know everything about the progress of the war effort. And you are terrified.

    Why? Because with victory, all of Adolf Hitler’s private correspondence will become public. All of those things you wrote to Hitler when you believed he would win the war. The deals you offered when you were competing against that horrible trollop Wallis Simpson for the affections of the Fuerher. People will not understand the circumstances. If that correspondence becomes public you are finished.

    So the question is, can you retrieve those documents from Berlin, very quietly?

    Can you see where I’m going here? It would explain a great deal that otherwise does not make sense.

      • Rhys Jaggar

        He’s saying Jimmy Savile went and got the documents and was to be rewarded for life by HM Regina….but perhaps he made a few photographs, photocopies? You know, ultimate bargaining chips for squeaky bum times in future??

        Whether there’s any truth it whatsoever, who knows…..

  • John Monro

    Re Starmer and protest by anti-vaxxers.

    Just to add, again, to an earlier comment, when I strongly supported the idea that Starmer, being in charge of the CPS, that he did “fail” his job. He mayn’t have truly known anything about this, while I reserve the right to have doubts about this, but his subsequent apology did confirm major failings in that organisation of which he was responsible. I also stated it was seriously wrong of Johnson to make this claim as a below the belt attack on Starmer, which was irrelevant, and just truly nasty.

    What I hadn’t realised at the time was that this “failure” of Starmer had for some time become an extreme right wing trope repeated in social media, claiming that he actively supported this paedophile, and being used as an aggressive verbal weapon against him. We see the danger of this now, with the attack on Starmer during an anti-vax protest, when at least one person is reported to have shouted out “paedophile defender” or something like this. Perhaps there’s a lesson for us all here, including for Craig. You do have to be extremely careful what you say, and when you make assertions like the one that Starmer has failed, one way or the other, to prosecute Savile when he should have or that one appears to support the scurrilous Johnson attack on him.

    I don’t like Starmer, for many cogent and rational reasons, I believe he is nothing less than a traitor to socialism and the Labour movement, his uncritical support of Israel, his inability to even suggest how Labour might counter the decay of the UK in its economy and its politics, his ruthless purge of the left wing and activism, but I will in future leave my criticisms of Starmer in these realms, rather than the more dubious, and ultimately diversionary, one around Jimmy Savile – his role in the former being debatable, whereas his dire role in the Julian Assange case has to have been major. I should not confuse or conflate the two.

    • John Monro

      OTOH if such an attack on Starmer is indeed, as claimed, baseless, then perhaps Starmer now knows how it feels to be attacked by such distressing accusations – paedophile supporter for one, anti-Semite for the other.

  • DunGroanin

    Honestly you believe that I could be brought round to let the wronguns back in in my name?
    There is a way. But it requires a revolutionary action by the populace, a populist one, like supposedly voting for BrexShit but this time for REAL.
    It would take just a little spark and popular simple action at the next general election, so that not even the mighty Wurlitzer and the fake wizards could ignore it.

  • squirrel

    “Some imagine instructions must be transmitted by formal cabals meeting as Freemasons or Bilderbergers or some such grouping. It is not really like that, although different fora of course do provide venues for the powerful to gather and discuss.”

    But Craig you actually describe just how powerful a masonic network could be: you say that the real decisions are made not by instruction, or people honestly doing their job properly, but by collective will of a peer group, and then everything else follows from that.

    The secret societies have a formal structure of a pyramid and people want to rise up the ranks. Members of one layer are therefore obviously going to want to ingratiate themselves with the members of the layers above.

    So then if a few members in the uppermost layers want something to happen, they will chat informally with the layer below. And then what happens? they have the layer below onside. What happens then, that layer then informally chats to the layer below that. And thus by downpropagation, the entire membership is brought to the bidding of the few.

    Then if those members use their influence (the freemasons take oaths to themselves which overrides those of their country) they can easily corrupt the processes of just about every institution.

    This is why they have their pyramid symbolism (the dollar bill being the classic example, but you can find them everywhere, many company logos for instance)

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.