Iran: Friend or Foe?

We’re led to believe that Iran represents all manner of evils and antitheses that threaten the very foundations of our civilisation, a mantra that is fiercely championed by Europe’s neoliberal establishment and its cohorts in the mass media industry. But it’s time we put these assertions through some simple tests to see if they hold water, or if they crumble at the first sign of scrutiny.

Advertisements

Ever since the so-called Islamic Revolution of 1979, certain nations and institutions thereof in the West have sought to establish Iran as a perpetual enemy. We’re led to believe that Iran represents all manner of evils and antitheses that threaten the very foundations of our civilisation, a mantra that is fiercely championed by Europe’s neoliberal establishment and its cohorts in the mass media industry. But it’s time we put these assertions through some simple tests to see if they hold water, or if they crumble at the first sign of scrutiny.

First, it’s important to establish exactly to whom Iran poses a threat, real or imagined. This is unequivocally the United States of America. Ever since the regnant theocracy came to power in Iran in 1979, the Americans have been the chief advocates of this “us against them” theory, with administrations of both parties consistently portraying the Middle-Eastern nation as an enemy to the west. Of course, the new regime hardly endeared itself to the United States when it stood by and allowed students to take a number of Americans hostage at the latter’s embassy in a situation that lasted 444 days (1979-1981). As one would expect, this left a sour taste in the mouths of many Americans in terms of their opinion about Iran. Arguably, this set the tone for diplomatic relations between the two nations ever since. However, this is hardly the full story of that particular situation, and most certainly not the only charge America levels at the Iranian state.

The full story of that fateful hostage situation actually begins in 1953, when the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d’état. Usually in US-backed coups abroad, there is some ostensible domestic justification, however in the case of the 1952 Iranian coup, there simply is none. In 2013, to nobody’s surprise, the CIA admitted to being in charge of both the planning and execution of the coup. Events leading up to the coup involved the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), whose activity had been restricted by Prime Minister Mosaddegh’s government in order to restrict its monopoly over oil exports from the country. When these moves were met with a hostile British reaction, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalise the nation’s oil industry – which, by the way, is well within its rights as a democratically elected parliament. Of course, the British government took exception to this, and ordered its agents in the region to undermine the democratic government. These events culminated in the coup of 1953, which allowed opportunistic generals to strengthen the powers of the Shah, who was conveniently a free-marketeer who opposed nationalisation of the oil industry.

An important point to understand is that the Iranian people at no point supported the coup. The reigning Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a deeply unpopular autocratic monarch, whose security forces employed severe repression against political opponents and dissidents. His commitment to Neoliberal economic theory had also failed the nation’s poor, causing widespread relative poverty and discontent amongst the working classes. Indeed, this commitment to free-market policies despite their evident failure led many to view the Shah as an American puppet. Whilst this may be too strong an accusation, it is true that Pahlavi was always careful to toe the US party line and ensure that nothing impeded Anglo-American exploitation of Iran’s oil reserves.

By 1979, discontent with the Shah’s rule reached breaking point. However, the revolution that ensued was like many other revolutions throughout history, in that the end result did not necessarily match the intended aims. It’s referred to, in retrospect, as an Islamic revolution, but in reality, this can best be described as an anti-American, anti-Shah revolution. A disparate group of dissidents joined together to demand the overthrow of the existing order; some were democrats, some communists, some Islamic fundamentalists, some were students and some were simply the working poor. That the end result was a theocratic regime is something of an accident, and a result of the nation’s clerics – historically very powerful – being in the right place at the right time. It’s also in no small part because the Iranian theocrats were one of the most vocal anti-American groups, which enabled them to unite the revolution and channel it through this one specific cause. Ayatollah Khomeini, the nascent Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution, was particularly critical of American interference in Iranian affairs, and he greatly improved his prestige by not intervening when a student group occupied the American Embassy in November 1979.

The embassy hostage situation in itself is not as black and white as the Americans always seek to portray it. The student groups – supporters of the revolution – were greatly angered by the American move to offer asylum to deposed Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, whom they wanted to return to Iran to stand trial for crimes against the people committed during his reign by the secret police (SAVAK). They also feared an American attempt at counter-revolution and the reinstallation of the despised Shah by the CIA – a fear not without foundation, given the events of 1953. Thus, whilst the hostage situation was unfortunate in the extreme, it was not the unprovoked, spontaneous outpouring of anarchy and barbarity that the Americans describe today. Indeed, all Americans taken hostage were eventually freed unharmed.

Whilst this brief history lesson does little to analyse contemporary Iranian relations with the West, it is important in understanding the beginnings of the diplomatic rift. It’s also important in understanding who made the first move, as it were, and who, if anybody, is to blame. It suffices to say that persistent American meddling in the region, particularly the unpopular CIA-instigated 1953 coup, demonstrates that it was the Americans who fired the first shot as it were. Of course, it’s not possible to condone the violations of diplomatic immunity and other related international law implications, but one can understand the anger of the revolutionary students who saw once again the Americans interfering with domestic due process, amongst other things.

Moving on to more contemporary affairs, it’s time to analyse some claims made against the Iranian state and nation. First and foremost, the Americans often describe the Iranian state as terrorist, or at least ‘sponsors of terrorism’, which has become a popular description particularly amongst the George W Bush-style neoconservatives. However, this doesn’t stand up to the mildest of scrutiny. The neoconservative establishment plays on their population’s ignorance of Islamic sects and denominations in order to ensure this claim is believed, yet what people must understand is that the Muslims who took down the World Trade Centre, the Muslims who bombed Madrid and Paris and London, amongst other atrocities, practise Sunni Islam, and in particular Salafist Islam of the kind invented and disseminated by Saudi Arabia. The Iranian nation is 99% Muslim, yet they practise Shia Islam, the kind responsible for absolutely no real terrorist activity – ever. To the Shia, jihad is taken in its original context, to mean the personal struggle against inner demons or as applied to other struggles in public or private life. They absolutely do not interpret this as an instruction to blow up shopping centres like their Sunni counterparts. Indeed, you’re invited to research all incidences of Islamic terror in Europe and the United States since 9/11; you’ll notice that without exception, these were committed by Sunni Muslims who pledge their allegiance to Sunni groups, such as Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Al Nusra and so on. Interestingly, the more extremist Sunnis view the Shia with as much contempt as they view the “infidel”.

Undoubtedly some of you will point to Iran’s creation of Hezbollah as a prime example of the nation sponsoring and supporting terror. Hezbollah is a political and paramilitary organisation created initially with the purpose of influencing domestic politics in Lebanon, a country in which they hold 11 seats in government. It’s also active in Gaza and the West Bank, although the governing group in this part of the world is almost exclusively Hamas. The military wing of Hezbollah has been active in support of President Bashar Al-Assad in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The group is officially designated a terrorist organisation by the world’s major powers, including the USA, UK, France, NATO, the European Union and Israel, despite being responsible for none of the major terrorist atrocities in Europe or America in the last few decades. In fact, Hezbollah’s status in the eyes of the world is defined exclusively by Israel, who deem the group a threat to its existence due to its militant anti-Zionism and Islamic nationalist ideology. However, one could reasonably dispute this classification. An objective analysis would describe Hezbollah’s activity in the wider Israeli-Arab conflict as that of a revolutionary liberation movement, fighting for justice for the Palestinian peoples. It should also be noted that Hezbollah is not an exclusively Islamist organisation – its military wing has Christian battalions and has been known to protect churches in Syria from its Sunni enemies. Indeed, counted amongst Hezbollah’s enemies are Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the Taliban. Whilst the enemy of my enemy is generally a poor methodology, it’s hard to denounce as Islamic terrorists the group whose sworn enemies are radical Islamic terrorists. Thus, as Hezbollah are the only “terrorist” group supported by Iran, it’s unfair to say that the nation is a sponsor of terrorism.

But what of the charge that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to world peace? This is a particular favourite of the Pentagon’s, to decry the Iranian nuclear program as a threat to stability in the Middle-East and, even, to world peace itself. However, a little-known fact regarding this issue is that the Iranian nuclear programme began in the early 1950s as a joint venture… with the Americans! When their friend the Shah was in charge, the Americans were perfectly content with Iran having a nuclear programme. The nation ratified the Non-proliferation Treaty in 1970, yet the Americans cut all ties with Iranian nuclear development after the 1979 revolution. Iran continued to develop this programme independently, reaching agreements with France and Argentina on nuclear cooperation in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It has been alleged that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme was intended for non-peaceful purposes, and an investigation was launched in 2003. However, a further International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation in 2011 found that, whilst Iran’s nuclear activity could have been designed to create a nuclear weapon, any large-scale research of this sort ceased in 2003. In any case, even if Iran was attempting to build nuclear bombs, what business is it of anybody else’s? Nobody is threatening war or insisting on international sanctions on India or Pakistan, despite them being in possession of confirmed nuclear weapons. On the subject of non-NPT recognised nuclear states, it’s an interesting point that Israel is in possession of ‘as many as 400’ nuclear warheads (more than the United Kingdom), yet nobody is even concerned with accurately counting them, let alone restricting their development. But again, this boils down to backroom deals and dodgy alliances. The only reason America has a problem with a nuclear-powered Iran is because its greatest ally, Israel, feels threatened. Why should the whims of the Israeli state dictate who should and should not be able to develop nuclear energy?

Finally, we come to the accusation that the Iranian state does not uphold human rights or the rule of law. Ironically, this is the charge with the most truth attached, for the Iranian state is a theocracy, with very limited democracy and some quite backward and draconian punishments by Western standards. For instance, adultery is still a crime punishable by death on the fourth occurrence, and homosexuality is totally prohibited as per Islamic law. Iran has executed a high number of prisoners in recent years, bringing into question its legal provisions for appeal. There is also the fact to consider that freedom of speech is severely limited. Certain international news sites, as well as television services like Netflix, are completely censored, and any attempts to access these are met with redirection to the government website. Even fashion is restricted, with women having to observe hijab by wearing a headscarf in public at all times. Yet whilst we can all condemn such restrictions, we must bear in mind that every nation has its own customs and peculiarities, and that Western liberalism is not necessarily applicable in the universal sense. Additionally, how can we overlook the rank hypocrisy shown by the major Western powers in this instance? Are we not closely allied with Saudi Arabia, a nation that was most accurately described on a British talk show as ‘ISIS with an embassy’. This is a nation that executes homosexuals in a similar manner to the Islamic State, prevents women from driving – Iran, by the way, has a female Vice-President – and murders Yemeni children with White Phosphorus (sold to them by the United States). Yet this nation of extremists is our ally, apparently, whilst the somewhat more moderate Iran is our mortal enemy. So to conclude this particular section; yes, of course we condemn human rights abuses in Iran, but we cannot seriously use this as a tool to manipulate our own population whilst still maintaining civil relations with the No. 1 exporter of terror Saudi Arabia!

As the title suggests, the question we are asking here is whether the Iranian nation is a friend or foe to the West, and more specifically to Europe. The reality of the situation is that Iran does not export terror to our nations, it does not pose a threat to us militarily, and whilst its human rights record does not match our liberal European sensibilities, this is really none of our business or concern. The only reason for the current rift between Europe and Iran is because of American pressure to maintain it. Being an ally of Moscow, Iran poses a threat to the “New World Order”, or as its more accurately described, US imperialism. This is the true reason for the cold war engineered between Europe and Tehran. And as an additional point, we must not allow Israeli foreign policy to dictate our geopolitical strategy as a continent, because this will drag us into endless and pointless war in the region. War with Iran, in this case, would be incredibly detrimental to our nations, not least because the number of troops who would die for the cause would be staggering. On balance, we can clearly see that Iran is definitely not a foe. Is she a friend? Not particularly, no more so than Moscow or Beijing, but the Iranian state could be a key strategic ally for the West, especially if we come to our senses and move against the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia. One thing’s for certain: the neoconservative sabre rattling of American imperialism against Iran can only have negative outcomes for the rest of the Western world.

The State’s Telford “Damage Limitation” Operation

In a recent interview with Brittany Pettibone, English activist Tommy Robinson explained how, after a stint in prison, operatives from the British intelligence services approached him with a job proposition. They asked him to help them to ‘unite the right’, going on to explain that this would help them ‘control the response to terror attacks’ and grooming gangs – typically piss-poor behaviour by Muslims, in other words.

Whilst nobody likes a crackpot conspiracy theorist, it would be abject naivety to think the state hadn’t approached countless individuals and organisations with a similar proposition. Some, like Tommy, will have declined. Others, however, would have accepted. Additionally, there will be many individuals who by way of ideological coincidence, are already peddling the state’s preferred narrative, and thus are already in position to be manipulated to further that narrative. A great example of this in action is Nigel Farage’s rapid rise to prominence from 2009; after Nick Griffin appeared on BBC Question Time in that year, a massive poll found that 25% of Britons would consider voting for the British National Party. Coincidentally, the BBC and the print media began devoting disproportionate amounts of time and space to Nigel Farage. Why? Because the latter offers the acceptable face of British nationalism – a civic, Thatcherite face, in contrast with the BNP’s ethnic homeland brand.

After listening to Tommy recount the various approaches by the British state, it’s worth questioning everything. It’s now worth repeating our evaluations of certain individuals who are suspected of having an ulterior motive. Again, some may denounce this as conspiratorial, but not asking the question is naivety of the highest order. So when stories like Telford or Rotherham reach the mass media, take a step back and look around at the prominent respondents. Who is carrying the flag, so to speak? And I don’t mean those making noises on Twitter or YouTube, but those invited on radio shows, or primetime television talk shows. Who’s leading the response and, therefore, controlling the volume and ferocity of the response?

A brilliant case study which is almost archetypal it’s so blatant, is that of Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz is head of a British-based counter-extremism thinktank named Quilliam, which works against Islamic (and other) extremism on a domestic level. Now, after the Telford story broke recently, for a few days there was essentially radio silence. Aside from Telford MP Lucy Allen’s calls for an enquiry, nobody said anything. The story wasn’t discussed on the evening news or, when it was, the presenters were in purely fact delivery mode. They didn’t invite any representatives of civil society on to discuss this! Then, yesterday, Maajid Nawaz appeared. After a show on LBC, a clip of Nawaz decrying political correctness’ role in preventing a conversation about Muslim rape gangs went viral. He is leading the response of civil society. And of course, everything he said can be more or less agreed with by those of us concerned with the issue of grooming gangs in our societies. Yet Nawaz is a perfect example of a prominent leader of civil society being manipulated by the state to control the response.

Having Nawaz, a reformed Islamist and obviously a non-native, lead the response against grooming gangs enables the state to pacify those who quite rightly see this as a racial issue that requires a radical response. After all, you couldn’t denounce the presence of Pakistanis in your society after seeing this brave, good-looking, articulate, reformed character all over your Twitter feed, could you? Exactly. He’s your friendly cornershop immigrant who waves the card charge causing you to take the ‘they’re not all bad’ approach. In terms of the grooming gangs, people like Maajid Nawaz are there to ensure an ethnic issue is met with a civic response. Nawaz has been an excellent candidate for this role for a number of years now. Whenever there’s a terrorist attack or another scandal involving non-white immigrants, he’s invariably the face of public more indignation. He’s had columns in the New York Times, Daily Mail, The Guardian, Financial Times and The Wall St Journal, and has appeared on BBC Hardtalk, Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, Newsnight, as well as having his own show on LBC radio. He even lectures at universities and gives talks at the UK Defence Academy! For somebody who was a terrorist until the last decade, that’s pretty remarkable, right?

When I accuse him of ‘controlling the response’ I’m not even particularly convinced that he’s on some government payroll. He might be, but the more likely explanation is that he actually deeply believes in what he’s saying and what he stands for. This is an example of the state’s ideological foundation matching neatly and coincidentally with a suitable candidate from civil society. Unbeknown to Nawaz, the state is acting behind the scenes to ensure that his voice is most prominent in the aftermath of these scandals, so that it’s Nawaz leading the response and not, say, Tommy Robinson, or the National Front. I’m not saying that the latter figures should be leading the response instead, but it would be nice if the state allowed us to choose these figureheads and not have thrust upon us a foreign Muslim who, frankly, doesn’t have the same stake in the past or future of this nation as others might.

More broadly, we must begin to realise that civil society is no longer an organic formation of communities and opinions. Once upon a time, it was, That’s how the people managed to pressure government into passing no less than five laws restricting immigration between 1914-1939, yet just one in the post-war (73 years!) period. We didn’t change, but the state got wise to how public discourse really works. Governments no longer need to impose overt regulations on democracy, when they can simply manipulate civil discourse under the democratic illusion. So every time a scandal like Telford emerges, or a terrorist attack occurs, watch the response. Watch the response on day one, watch it on day three and then again after a week. Who’s the most prominent, most vocal advocate of the seemingly “radical” position? Who’s on the big radio and TV platforms? What are their motives? What does the state gain from their narrative? Most importantly, are they really representative of the Silent Majority?

What Would Churchill Think?

Like many of my fellow Britons, I watched on in utter disbelief over the weekend as the British state adopted Orwell’s 1984 as their unofficial bible (Hello! Guys, it was a warning, not an instruction manual…). Identitäre Bewegung Österreich leader Martin Sellner and his partner, American YouTuber and conservative journalist Brittany Pettibone, were detained on Friday upon arrival in the United Kingdom. They were handcuffed, separated, their phones confiscated, and sent to detention centres amongst criminals and illegal for 48 hours awaiting deportation. Their crimes? Planning a speech which ‘might cause tension between local communities’ and ‘intending to interview Tommy Robinson, an extremist’.

After nervously laughing at the utter absurdity of being denied entry for ‘intent to interview’, I couldn’t help but feel a deep sense of anger. This anger was and remains motivated by what I can only describe as my mind’s inner injustice detector; a mechanism that almost every Briton possesses, which makes us susceptible to supporting the underdog, amongst other things. But the sheer injustice of the situation facing Britons and their European friends today goes beyond any inherent sense of moral righteousness. For the British state is operating under the grossest of double standards, when on the one hand it fails to adequately monitor the 23,000 Jihadists on our streets, fails to investigate Pakistani rape gangs in a multitude of English towns, fails to prevent 400 ISIS fighters from breaching our supposedly porous borders… YET, succeeds in detaining, interrogating and deporting young, law-abiding European citizens who happen to be Right-Wing activists.

This does give us cause for optimism. One should always judge a person, a group or an entity such as the state by its actions, as opposed to what it says. For instance, the British establishment and its left-wing media cohorts ridicules the ideas of the so-called far-right – AKA patriots concerned about their people and nation – yet is so afraid of these ideas that it feels it must prevent them from being heard by its own people at all costs.

However, this silver lining is no consolation in the present. We must face a very uncomfortable reality, namely that the United Kingdom is a totalitarian police state that imprisons and deports European political activists and imprisons dissidents at home. Of course, you can have different opinions (if you can call them that) within very limited confines. You can vote Labour, Liberal or Conservative, and you can cast your ballot in that great illusion of democracy that was the EU referendum, but the slightest noise against the state’s dystopian multi-ethnic project puts you at risk of feeling the full force of the law – or what they say the law is to suit their own ends. Either way, the outcome remains the same; you, a dissident, imprisoned, hauled before the courts and, if you’re lucky, mysteriously suicided in custody.

Now, belatedly I’d like to draw your attention to the subject matter of this article: Winston Churchill. There are as many different opinions about Churchill as there are people available to hold them, and his legacy has the ability to divide opinion on the far-left and the radical right. However, within the confines of establishment politics (Normieville) it’s safe to say that he’s a rather unifying figure. Winston Churchill, to most people, is a symbol of freedom, the man who stood defiant in the face of Nazi tyranny where those before and around him appeased and stood by. In other words, he protected this Anglo-Saxon notion of freedom, most importantly for the English people themselves.

The liberals and leftists currently occupying the annals of power in England should pause for a moment and ask themselves, what would Winston Churchill have made of their imprisonment of political dissidents and Thought Criminals seeking to exercise their freedoms? Indeed, many of them have probably never stopped to think that Churchill himself would have fallen foul of modern “hate speech” laws! After all, it was Churchill who sought to contest the 1955 General Election under the slogan ‘Keep England White’. Certainly, he would not have thanked them for their disgracefully repressive behaviour of late, and he certainly would not have approved of the multi-ethnic dystopia his successors have built in the name of his victories.

Whatever else one may say about Winston Churchill, he certainly held dear the Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom; freedom of thoughts; freedom of speech; freedom of association and freedom of expression. This includes the freedom to criticise, the freedom to harshly reproach and even, yes, the freedom to grossly offend. That there are hostile communities of Muslims in the UK at all would have offended Churchill, let alone that the state is repressing those it fears may incite them to riot on our streets and harm our citizens. And yes, perhaps it can be said that their opposition to fascism is one commonality with the erstwhile Prime Minister, yet those who the state today deems “fascist” were called ordinary moderates in his.

One certainty is that those who invoke Churchill today to impose their views – the “anti-fascists” and liberals – are charlatans who knowingly misuse the memory of a national treasure. This is a cynical ploy, of course, because they know deep down that the man is turning in his grave as Britain’s freedom seeps down into the cemetery next door. He would have been appalled at what Britain has become today, and the flagrant abuse of its citizens rights, and inevitably he would look back and wonder why on earth we fought at all.

Enoch Powell’s Britain: What If?

Enoch Powell is often described as the greatest Prime Minister we never had. That is to say or imply, undoubtedly, that had he been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom he would have surpassed even Winston Churchill in the minds of those debating the greatest Briton of the 20th century. Yet outside the realms of the obvious, many still find it difficult to define ‘Powellism’, and therefore what a Britain led by Mr Powell would have looked like. Some on the right wrongly claim that he represented a more conservative strand of Thatcherism, whilst his detractors on the left claim – also wrongly – that Powell’s brand of politics was more akin to the fascists and Oswald Mosley.

Both views are, clearly, mistaken. It is true that some of Thatcher’s economic policies were inspired by the rhetoric of Enoch Powell vis-a-vis de-nationalisation, and Powell’s view of the empire and romantic nationalism could be compared with similar sentiments uttered by Mosley.  Continue reading “Enoch Powell’s Britain: What If?”

NHS Crisis: Overpopulation On Full Display

Once again, we find ourselves in a bad winter for the National Health Service. The NHS has recently announced that ‘all non-urgent operations are to be cancelled this month’, which, whilst not an unusual move for the service, is far short of ideal. In fact, it suggests that the issues surrounding the NHS that have caused similar announcements in the past are showing no signs of abating, and in fact are only getting worse. The Tories blame mismanagement and economic irresponsibility on the part of the NHS bosses for this crisis, whilst Labour blame (or will do so, predictably) any problem with the health service on a lack of funding. As usual, they are both wrong.

Continue reading “NHS Crisis: Overpopulation On Full Display”

UK Police Force: Freemasonry & Privatisation

I’ve noticed two articles which have surfaced in recent days; firstly, a Guardian article concerning the outgoing chair of the Police Federation Steve White‘s comments on the presence of Freemasonry in the Police Force. According to White, said masons are blocking reform in the force. Secondly, there’s a growing rumour that the Tory government seeks to privatise elements of the police force, which has been expressed in a number of minor publications. I believe both these notions to be incredibly harmful to the police force, and I’m going to briefly set out why.

Whilst the original Guardian article is merely another example of liberals twisting a story to shill for minorities, it does indeed raise an interesting point; namely that freemasonry is a threat to the impartiality and effectiveness of the British Police Force. Those who enforce the law of the land must, absolutely and completely, have no conflicting interests, and it’s quite clear that being a mason would present such a conflict. Masons pledge always to protect fellow masons, come-what-may, thus a police officer who is also a freemason finds himself in a very conflicting position, should a fellow freemason warrant investigation for a crime.

There is evidence that this process has permitted high-profile individuals, both within and without the police force, to be effectively immune from investigation and prosecution. The famous phrase “friends in high places” comes to mind. It permits seemingly respectable members of high society, the McCann family for instance, to avoid due process in the wake of truly chilling crimes. It allows the rich and the powerful, the type of which Freemasonry is almost exclusively open to, to find immunity when the ordinary citizen would face due process for the same misdemeanour. In a society that aspires to be a meritocracy based on equality of opportunity, this is simply unacceptable.

Similarly, the presence of private capital in the law enforcement institutions is equally poisonous. There have been murmurs and whispers of late, to the effect that the current Tory government – itself infested with Freemasons – has intentions to privatise the police force, either partially or in full. This will undoubtedly be billed as a necessary cost-cutting measure, if it ever comes to pass, but the more likely motivation is rather more ideological i.e. the Tories’ unshakeable belief in free market economics.

The introduction of private capital into the law enforcement process would put the independence and impartiality of the police force in a highly perilous position. As we’ve already seen with aspects of NHS privatisation, and with past privatisations of the Mail Service, Prisons, the Railways and basic utilities, when a conflict arises between what’s right and what’s profitable, the latter inevitably emerges victorious. This is because there will always arise a situation whereby a conflict of interest exists between what’s right and what’s profitable. Putting the Police in the hands of those concerned with the latter will simply ensure that all of these conflicts are settled against public moral duty.

And who will lose out as a result of these inevitable victories for profit? Those without power, privilege or money, as usual. Whilst corruption undeniably exists at most levels of government, at least under state ownership this remains a crime, and a seldom practised one at that. Introducing private capital to the administration of the state, including the police force, effectively legalises this process, opening the door for mass corruption without recourse for the ordinary citizen. Is this a leftist view of capital? Unquestionably, but I stand by this assessment of the dangers involved with introducing private capital to matters of state.

More broadly, we can view the continued Freemason influence and the introduction of private capital in the context of Tory/New Labour neo-liberal theory. Since 1979, first with Thatcher, then Major, then Blair, Cameron and now May, Britain has been ruled by those with an un-moving belief in both neo-liberal economics, and the political class as a paternal structure guiding the uneducated masses through the complex, globalised world. Its these attitudes – the fetish for privatisation and the willingness to be steered by small cliques of secretive elites – that have destroyed this country, and given rise to the dire influences in institutions like the Police Force today. Through this neo-liberal approach, all the essential functions of a nation – water, electricity, mail, healthcare and so on – have been willingly delivered into the hands of profiteers, oftentimes foreign profiteers, whose only cause is capital growth, and whose last thought is the wellbeing of the citizen.

Iran Protests: Why I’m Inclined to Support Them

Over the last few days, protests have erupted right across the Iranian nation. From economic hardship to religious conflicts, there are a multiplicity of grievances being aired in Universities, on the streets and in the cities, and this morning we awoke to the news that 10 protesters had been killed overnight by government forces. President Rouhani, to give him his due, has publicly acknowledged some legitimate economic grievances and has reaffirmed his citizens’ constitutional right to protest and criticise the government. However, as his government barred access to social media networks such as Telegram and Instagram, Rouhani warned citizens against “revolutionary action” and defacing public property, with special mention reserved for those who may seek to damage mosques or other religious institutions.

Now on first glance, this appears to be a classic CIA “democracy spreading” operation, the like of which we are accustomed to seeing in the middle-east. Given the United States’ (and Israel’s) open hostility to the current Iranian regime, I’d be more surprised if it transpired that the US weren’t covertly supporting the protesters in some way or another. But, even as President Rouhani has admitted, not all of the protesters are those being supported by a foreign power.

Continue reading “Iran Protests: Why I’m Inclined to Support Them”