Archives‎ > ‎

The Economist calls Yellow Vests 'racist, anti-Semitic'; and comes out against AOC, from P. Myers

(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 'deplorables' 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'

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)


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 formervice-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 [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


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.


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


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


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



(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.

-- Peter Myerswebsite: