The Economist calls
Yellow Vests 'racist, anti-Semitic'; and comes out against AOC
Newsletter published on February 21, 2019
(1) The Economist
comes out against Populism of both Left & Right
(2) The Economist
calls Yellow Vests 'racist, anti-Semitic'
(3) The Economist
calls Corbyn anti-Semitic (2018)
(4) Jeremy Corbyn
ally suggests Labour splitters were secretly funded by Israel
(5) Andrew Bolt
brands Corbyn anti-Semitic
(6) Mark Latham
(former ALP leader) says British Labour & Australian Labor are
anti-semitic
(7) The Economist
comes out against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Millennial socialism
(1) The Economist
comes out against Populism of both Left & Right
- Peter Myers, February 21, 2019
The Economist is owned by the Rothschilds, the richest family
on earth. They and the Rockefellers have managed to keep themselves out of the
Forbes Rich List. The Rothschilds' political line has a huge impact; yet, unlike
George Soros, they avoid the limelight. Soros is said to be the visible face of
their empire.
The Economist is advocating for Margaret Thatcher's
demolition of socialism at home, and the 'third way' pioneered by Tony Blair and
Bill Clinton. This amounted to a betrayal of the working class, and increasingly
the middle class too, in favour of elite rule.
In place of the old socialism, which was based on common
ownership of the means of production, the 'third way' offered a new definition
of socialism, in terms of Feminism, anti-Racism, Gay Rights and Immigrant
Rights.
Hillary's dismissal of the working class as 'depolrables' is
matched by The Economist's dismissal of the Yellow Vests, and of Corbyn's
campaign to put the clock back.
The Economist also came out against Corbyn's 'anti-Semitism',
his attempt to achieve fairness for Palestinians. This may indicate a difference
between Lord Rothschild and Soros on this issue.
It's heart-breaking to see Andrew Bolt and Mark Latham jump
on the anti-Corbyn wagon. They have sold their souls to the Israel Lobby.
The Economist has also come out against Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, despite her Green credentials (The Economist makes much of
Climate Change).
AOC is the Trump of the Left:
- both AOC and Trump propose large-scale infrastructure
projects. Hers would be funded by public banks.
- both are isolationists who oppose trade pacts
- both oppose entanglement in Israel's Mid-East wars, AOC
more than Trump.
AOC calls the system of campaign donations, whereby Wall St
& The Lobby buy Congress, 'Corruption'. What a brave woman. I say that even
though on cultural issues (Gay Marriage, Trans), I am on the other side of the
fence from her.
(2) The Economist
calls Yellow Vests 'racist, anti-Semitic'
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/02/20/anti-Semitism-racism-and-anti-elitism-are-creating-a-toxic-brew-in-france
A climate of hatred is spreading in France Anti-Semitism, racism and anti-elitism
are creating a toxic brew in France The level of publicly expressed loathing harks back to the 1930s
Feb 20th 2019 | PARIS
WHEN HERVÉ BERVILLE was growing up in rural Brittany, he was
often the only black child around. But, he says, he encountered scarcely any
racism. Adopted by a French couple during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the
lanky economist went on to be elected in 2017 to the National Assembly, for
President Emmanuel Macron’s party. Last year, when Mr Berville received a typed
death threat by post at his parliamentary office, he ignored it and threw it in
the bin. When another arrived last month regretting the fact that he had
"escaped the machetes", the deputy decided to speak out. "It was so violent," he
says, and the atmosphere had shifted. "The border between threats, and acting on
those threats, is shrinking."
A climate of hate is emerging in France. The targets are
varied, apparently unconnected and shifting: Jews, journalists, the rich,
policemen, members of parliament, the president. Sometimes violence is only
threatened, as in Mr Berville’s case; two of his (black) parliamentary
colleagues received the same letter. At other moments violence has been
perpetrated, against symbols (a ministry, luxury cars) as well as people,
usually in connection with the gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) protests. That
movement, three months old, has radicalised as it has shrunk. Some 1,700 people
and 1,000 policemen have been wounded since the protests began.
When the gilets jaunes movement emerged last November, it was
broadly a social protest and fiscal
revolt. But the infiltration of
ultra-left and extreme-right agitators, and the determination of a radical
core to seek the overthrow of Mr Macron, has hardened the movement’s edge.
Weekly scenes of violent clashes with riot police fill French television screens
and plumes of tear gas fill the air on the streets of Paris and other cities.
This relentless backdrop seems to have legitimised a form of violent hate. What
was once confined to the unhinged ramblings of social-media groups has erupted
into public.
Earlier this month month the Brittany home of Richard
Ferrand, speaker of the National Assembly, was torched. Last week the
constituency office in Le Mans of Damien Pichereau, another deputy from Mr
Macron’s La République en Marche (LREM), was destroyed. Mr Berville says that
100 deputies from his party have been the victims of warnings or attacks of some
sort. Among them are many women. Aurore Bergé, another LREM deputy, was the
recipient of a particularly crude threat. During one protest, an effigy of Mr
Macron was decapitated. Christophe Chalençon, a gilet jaunes organiser, recently
warned that "if they put a bullet in my head, Macron will end up on the
guillotine".
Anti-Semitism is
mixed into the brew. After falling for two successive years, the number of
anti-Semitic acts in France surged by 74% in 2018. On February 19th 80 graves in
a Jewish cemetery in eastern France were sprayed with swastikas. Christophe
Castaner, the interior minister, says that anti-Semitism is "spreading like
poison". In recent days, a bagel shop in
Paris was defaced with the word "Juden", swastikas were painted on to street
art depicting Simone Veil, a former minister and Auschwitz survivor, and "Macron Jews’ bitch" was found sprayed on a
garage door in the capital. Any link to the gilets jaunes is unproven. But
last weekend gilets jaunes marchers were
caught on video yelling "dirty Zionist shit" and "go back to Tel Aviv" at Alain
Finkielkraut, a French philosopher of Polish origin, who was walking in the
street near his left-bank home in Paris.
Threats of death and intimidation are nothing new to
politics. And anti-Semitism has deep
roots in the country, reaching back beyond Vichy France to the publication of
Edouard Drumont’s "La France Juive", a popular anti-Semitic text, in 1886. Nor
is France a stranger to periodic spasms of violence, such as the May ’68
uprising or the banlieue riots in 2005. "The specificity of the current period",
wrote Alain Duhamel in Libération, a newspaper, "is not the violence but the hatred."
There is no precedent under the Fifth Republic for the
current level of publicly expressed loathing, says Jean Garrigues, a
historian at the University of Orléans. He compares today’s toxic mix of
anti-parliamentarianism and anti-Semitism to the 1930s. If there is
a link between these different strands it seems to be that those targeted are
all regarded, rightly or wrongly, as part of the elite—or, more accurately, part
of an illegitimate, undeserving elite which is cheating the people. And those
doing the most to promote this divide, at a time of eroding ideological
attachments, are the country’s populists.
Ever since Mr Macron upended the mainstream political parties
at elections in 2017, political opposition in France has shifted to the
extremes. "You are hated, you are hated," declared François Ruffin, a deputy
from the far left Unsubmissive France to the president in an open letter shortly
after he was elected. Marine Le Pen, on the far right, blames the "agitators,
revolutionaries, anarchists" of the far left for the gilets jaunes violence. But
she just as often lays into the self-serving political elite. Her campaign
slogan reads simply: "Power to the people".
In protest at the current mood, a march against anti-Semitism on February 19th drew a
cross-party collection of politicians and some 20,000 people in Paris. Even Ms
Le Pen laid flowers to victims of anti-Semitism; she has tried to
distance her party from its anti-Semitic past even as she trades on identity
politics. Ahead of a visit to the desecrated Jewish cemetery this week, Mr
Macron described anti-Semitism as
"the antithesis of all that is France". He is hoping that his "great national
debate", a countrywide series of consultations and town-hall meetings, will
counterbalance the hateful voices. But as the country prepares for elections to
the European Parliament in May, at which Mr Macron and Ms Le Pen are the leading
contenders, the tone is unlikely to soften.
(3) The Economist
calls Corbyn anti-Semitic (2018)
ttps://www.economist.com/britain/2018/08/11/the-surreal-strength-of-jeremy-Corbyns-party
The Labour Party
The surreal strength of Jeremy Corbyn’s party
Labour still has a shot at power despite a litany of woes
Print edition | Britain
Aug 9th 2018
[...] A row over anti-Semitism entered its most poisonous phase, with the shadow
cabinet in open revolt against Jeremy
Corbyn, Labour’s far-left leader.
...
Anti-Semitism has
brought the sharpest blow during this drunken descent. Labour has added the
definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance (IHRA) to its code of
conduct, but omitted some of its suggested examples. The party insists that this is to allow legitimate criticism of Israel.
Yet many Labour MPs, as well as
Jewish groups across the country, virulently disagree, accusing Mr Corbyn of turning a blind eye to
offensive statements made by his own
allies about Israel that crossed into anti-Semitism. Margaret Hodge, a long-serving and
respected backbencher with a Jewish
background, has labelled Mr Corbyn a “racist” and an “anti-Semite”. But rather than put out the fire, Mr
Corbyn’s allies poured petrol on it. Ms Hodge found herself being
investigated by the party.
This is a strange hill for the leadership to plant its flag
on. In other areas Mr Corbyn has shown remarkable ideological
flexibility. The long-standing
critic of NATO has gone quiet. The former vice-chairman of the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament campaigned on a
manifesto pledge to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Yet when it comes to anti-Semitism, the campaigner for
Palestinian rights has reached his
limit.
(4) Jeremy Corbyn
ally suggests Labour splitters were secretly funded by Israel
From: "diogenesquest diogenesquest@gmail.com
[shamireaders]"
Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 20th February 2019
by Asa Bennett, Anna
Mikhailova Political Correspondent, Harry Yorke Political Correspondent
A Jeremy Corbyn ally has suggested that a group of seven MPs
who quit Labour are being secretly funded by Israel.
Ruth George, a Labour MP, said it was “possible” that Israel
is a financial backer of the breakaway Independent Group of MPs.
It came after the breakaway group of MPs accused Labour of
“institutional” anti-Semitism and racism. Tom Watson, Labour's Deputy Leader,
said that a “virulent form of identity politics” had seized the party, as he
rallied behind Luciana Berger, a pregnant Jewish MP, who he said had become the
“first casualty” of anti-Jewish hatred.
Ms George was asked on Facebook if she endorsed the position
of a Labour councillor who had liked a post describing the independent MPs as
“Israelis”, she said:
“The comment appears not to refer to the independent MPs but
to their financial backers.
“Support from the State of Israel, which supports both
Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’ of which Luciana was chair is
possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it, especially when the
group’s financial backers are not being revealed. It’s important for democracy
to know the financial backers for any political group or policy.”
Ms George later released a statement, saying:
“I unreservedly and wholeheartedly apologise for my comment.
I had no intention of invoking a conspiracy theory and I am deeply sorry that my
ill-thought out and poorly worded comment did this. I withdraw it completely.”
[!!! Did Corbyn make her do this or his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell?]
...
(5) Andrew Bolt
brands Corbyn anti-Semitic
THE LEFT IS NOW HOME OF THE ANTI-SEMITE
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun - Melbourne
February 21, 2019 8:44am
The Left today is now the natural home of the anti-Semite and
proto-dictator.
YOUTUBE
I’ve given hundreds of examples, but now it’s not only
conservatives sounding the warning.
Seven MPs quit the UK Labour Party this week and not just
because they disagreed with leader Jeremy Corbyn on Brexit.
“I cannot remain in a party that I have come to the sickening
conclusion that is sickeningly anti-Semitic,” declared Luciana Berger, who was
shadow health minister.
Berger is Jewish and last year needed a police escort at
Labour’s national conference.
Another MP, Mike Gapes, said: “I am sickened that the Labour
Party is now a racist, anti-Semitic party.”
(6) Mark Latham
(former ALP leader) says British Labour & Australian Labor are
anti-semitic
@RealMarkLatham
Tim Soutphommasane has done lots of paid work for the British
Labour Party yet has been SILENT about the racism and anti-Semitism within.
What's happening @timsout: when you've taken money from them all your outrage
and moralising about 'racism' goes out the window??
6:00 AM - 19 Feb 2019
@RealMarkLatham
Will Bill Shorten cut all ties between ALP and British Labour
Party, given the racism and 'institutional anti-Semitism' of his British
counterparts? Or will he allow them to remain as fraternal parties, de facto
endorsing political attacks on Jewish MPs like Luciana Berger?Real Mark Latham
added,
MP Luciana Berger says she has come to "sickening conclusion"
that Labour is "institutionally anti-Semitic", as she joins six other MPs in
quitting party
Latest: http://trib.al/0NV2Dgj
(7) The Economist
comes out against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Millennial socialism
The resurgent left
Millennial socialism
A new kind of left-wing doctrine is emerging. It is not the
answer to capitalism’s problems
Print edition | Leaders
Feb 14th 2019
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 20th
century’s ideological contest seemed over. Capitalism had won and socialism
became a byword for economic failure and political oppression. It limped on in
fringe meetings, failing states and the turgid liturgy of the Chinese Communist
Party. Today, 30 years on, socialism is back in fashion. In America Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected congresswoman who calls herself a democratic
socialist, has become a sensation even as the growing field of Democratic
presidential candidates for 2020 veers left. In Britain Jeremy Corbyn, the
hardline leader of the Labour Party, could yet win the keys to 10 Downing
Street.
Socialism is storming
back because it has formed an incisive critique of what has gone wrong in
Western societies. Whereas politicians on the right have all too often given up
the battle of ideas and retreated towards chauvinism and nostalgia, the left has focused on inequality, the
environment, and how to vest power in citizens rather than elites (see
article). Yet, although the reborn left gets some things right, its pessimism
about the modern world goes too far. Its policies suffer from naivety about
budgets, bureaucracies and businesses.
Socialism’s renewed vitality is remarkable. In the 1990s
left-leaning parties shifted to the centre. As leaders of Britain and America,
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton claimed
to have found a "third way", an accommodation between state and market. "This is
my socialism," Mr Blair declared in 1994 while abolishing Labour’s commitment to
the state ownership of firms. Nobody was fooled, especially not socialists.
The left today sees the third way as a dead end. Many of the new socialists are
millennials. Some 51% of Americans aged 18-29 have a positive view of
socialism, says Gallup. In the primaries in 2016 more young folk voted for Bernie Sanders
than for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined. Almost a third of French
voters under 24 in the presidential election in 2017 voted for the hard-left
candidate. But millennial socialists do not have to be young. Many of Mr Corbyn’s keenest fans are as old as he
is.
Not all millennial socialist goals are especially radical. In
America one policy is universal health care, which is normal elsewhere in the
rich world, and desirable. Radicals on the left say they want to preserve the
advantages of the market economy. And in both Europe and America the left is a
broad, fluid coalition, as movements with a ferment of ideas usually are.
Nonetheless there are common themes. The millennial
socialists think that inequality has
spiralled out of control and that the economy is rigged in favour of vested
interests. They believe that the public yearns for income and power to be
redistributed by the state to balance the scales. They think that myopia and
lobbying have led governments to ignore the increasing likelihood of climate
catastrophe. And they believe that the hierarchies which govern society and the
economy—regulators, bureaucracies and companies—no longer serve the interests of
ordinary folk and must be "democratised".
Some of this is beyond dispute, including the curse of
lobbying and neglect of the environment. Inequality in the West has indeed
soared over the past 40 years. In America the average income of the top 1% has
risen by 242%, about six times the rise for middle-earners. But the new new left
also gets important bits of its diagnosis wrong, and most of its prescriptions,
too.
Start with the diagnosis. It is wrong to think that
inequality must go on rising inexorably. American income inequality fell between
2005 and 2015, after adjusting for taxes and transfers. Median household income
rose by 10% in real terms in the three years to 2017. A common refrain is that
jobs are precarious. But in 2017 there were 97 traditional full-time employees
for every 100 Americans aged 25-54, compared with only 89 in 2005. The biggest
source of precariousness is not a lack of steady jobs but the economic risk of
another downturn.
Millennial socialists also misdiagnose public opinion. They
are right that people feel they have lost control over their lives and that
opportunities have shrivelled. The public also resents inequality. Taxes on the
rich are more popular than taxes on everybody. Nonetheless there is not a
widespread desire for radical redistribution. Americans’ support for
redistribution is no higher than it was in 1990, and the country recently
elected a billionaire promising corporate-tax cuts. By some measures Britons are
more relaxed about the rich than Americans are.
If the left’s diagnosis is too pessimistic, the real problem
lies with its prescriptions, which are profligate and politically dangerous.
Take fiscal policy. Some on the left peddle the myth that vast expansions of
government services can be paid for primarily by higher taxes on the rich. In reality,
as populations age it will be hard to maintain existing services without raising
taxes on middle-earners. Ms Ocasio-Cortez has floated a tax rate of 70% on the
highest incomes, but one plausible estimate puts the extra revenue at just
$12bn, or 0.3% of the total tax take. Some radicals go further, supporting
"modern monetary theory" which says that governments can borrow freely to fund
new spending while keeping interest rates low. Even if governments have recently
been able to borrow more than many policymakers expected, the notion that
unlimited borrowing does not eventually catch up with an economy is a form of
quackery.
A mistrust of markets leads millennial socialists to the
wrong conclusions about the environment, too. They reject revenue-neutral carbon
taxes as the single best way to stimulate private-sector innovation and combat
climate change. They prefer central planning and massive public spending on
green energy.
The millennial socialist vision of a "democratised" economy
spreads regulatory power around rather than concentrating it. That holds some
appeal to localists like this newspaper, but localism needs transparency and
accountability, not the easily manipulated committees favoured by the British
left. If England’s water utilities were renationalised as Mr Corbyn intends,
they would be unlikely to be shining examples of local democracy. In America,
too, local control often leads to capture. Witness the power of licensing boards
to lock outsiders out of jobs or of Nimbys to stop housing developments.
Bureaucracy at any level provides opportunities for special interests to capture
influence. The purest delegation of power is to individuals in a free
market.
The urge to democratise extends to business. The millennial
left want more workers on boards and, in Labour’s case, to seize shares in
companies and hand them to workers. Countries such as Germany have a tradition
of employee participation. But the socialists’ urge for greater control of the
firm is rooted in a suspicion of the remote forces unleashed by globalisation.
Empowering workers to resist change would ossify the economy. Less dynamism is
the opposite of what is needed for the revival of economic opportunity.
Rather than shield firms and jobs from change, the state
should ensure markets are efficient and that workers, not jobs, are the focus of
policy. Rather than obsess about redistribution, governments would do better to
reduce rent-seeking, improve education and boost competition. Climate change can
be fought with a mix of market instruments and public investment. Millennial
socialism has a refreshing willingness to challenge the status quo. But like the
socialism of old, it suffers from a faith in the incorruptibility of collective
action and an unwarranted suspicion of individual vim. Liberals should oppose
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.