The Right-Wing Populism That Drove Brexit Can Only Be Fought With a
Genuinely Radical Alternative
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_right-wing_populism_that_drove_brexi
t_20160703/
Posted on Jul 3, 2016
By Arun Kundnani / AlterNet
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks in London in 2013. (YouTube /
RevolutionBahrainMC)
For the first time in British political history, a far-right political
movement, fueled by Islamophobia and nativism, has won in a national poll.
Yet more than a week after the Brexit vote, Britains mainstream political
commentators have been unable to state that simple fact. Instead, they see
the vote as either a legitimate protest against mass immigration or a class
rebellion by globalizations losers.
No wonder the elite liberals who ran the campaign to remain in the European
Union (EU) failed. They fatally underestimated the power of the Islamophobic
and anti-immigrant sentiments they were up against. Even when faced with the
unprecedented assassination of a Labour Party member of parliament,
allegedly by a far-Right activist, wishful thinking got in the way of
acknowledging the reality of a mass racist mobilization.
Following the Brexit vote, racist violence has risen dramatically, the
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is facing a leadership contest that is
partly a reaction to his refusal to adopt an anti-immigrant politics, and an
unbridled nativism looks likely to dominate British politics as it becomes
apparent the reduction in immigration promised by Brexit is unattainable.
But the Brexit vote was more than two decades in the making, the culmination
of a nativist campaign waged by conservative politicians and journalists,
and enabled by liberals who wrongly thought the best way to oppose racism
was to concede to some of its claims.
Back in the mid-1990s, racism in Britain meant the racism born of
colonialism in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. It was directed at
immigrants from those parts of the world and their British-born descendants.
But it faced strong opposition from grassroots movements led by people of
color, especially families of Black and South Asian young people who had
been killed in racist attacks. In response, Britains culture of racism
adjusted itself to new circumstances. The search for new enemies after the
Cold War suggested Islam as a new racial threat, while the fall of the
Berlin Wall pointed to migration from the east of Europe.
When Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU in 2004, Britains most popular
newspapers warned that hordes of Gypsies would be coming to scrounge welfare
benefits. Earlier a small number of Gypsies had settled in Dover on
Englands south coast, fleeing neo-Nazi gangs in the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. The best-selling Sun newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdochs News
Corporation, called them Slovak Spongers and Giro Czechs (a pun on a
common term for welfare payments) and suggested teaching the gipsies two
words, the second one being off. The Daily Express ran the headline 1.6
million gipsies ready to flood in on its front cover, accompanied by
graphics depicting a foreign invasion. An editorial stated Gypsies were
heading to Britain to leech on us. Thereafter, eastern European immigrants
were white enough to provide an alibi against accusations of racism but not
white enough to be welcomed.
Britains liberals enamored with Tony Blairs celebration of a vapid
consumerist multiculturalism paid little attention to this openly racist
campaign waged on the pages of newspapers they never read. But the movement
against Britains membership of the EU did notice. It had found its perfect
populist weapon. The preposterously-named UK Independence Party (UKIP)
formed to campaign for a referendum on EU membership made opposition to
eastern European immigration central to its campaign. Conservative Party
leader William Hague had already claimed in an election speech in March 2001
that Britain was now a foreign land due to immigration and membership of
the EU.
Rupert Murdoch and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who between them dominate
the British press and set the agenda for the rest of the media, were both
opposed to EU membership and used their media power to associate the EU with
excessive immigration. Impoverished eastern European migrants were
increasingly framed by their newspapers as threats to a British way of life
that had actually been destroyed by the Thatcherism the same papers had
earlier hailed. Few pointed out that public provisions, such as benefits and
social housing, were reduced, not because of immigration, but because the
Thatcherism of the 1980s broke the old post-war social democratic consensus
which had earlier legitimized the welfare system.
The ten years of Tony Blairs Labour government, beginning in 1997, did
little to reverse this. Worse, in its efforts to gentrify itself, the Labour
Party left working-class communities without a political voice. Predictably,
various strains of far-Right politics entered the spaces opened up by
Labours flight to middle England. But middle England was also on the march:
in the early 2000s, tens of thousands of not-in-my-backyard protesters
opposed the construction of reception centers for refugees in the affluent
counties surrounding London. By 2010, when David Camerons austerity
policies stripped away even more of the social safety net, and real wages
and job security plummeted further, it had become fully acceptable in the
mainstream to hold mass immigration responsible for all manner of evil.
As I wrote at the time in my book The End of Tolerance, newspapers and
politicians were blaming immigrants for the spread of TB, AIDS, and SARS;
for failing schools and hospitals; for falling house prices and for rising
house prices; for low wages, rising crime, prostitution and road accidents.
They were even to blame for the dwindling number of fish in Britains
rivers, the declining number of swans and the disappearance of donkeys.
They had not only achieved all this but also held onto a reputation for
laziness.
Britain has indeed experienced relatively high levels of immigration for two
decades, both from within and without the EU. However, the driving force of
this increased migration is not freedom of movement within the EU. After
all, this increase began in the 1990s, before the EUs eastward expansion.
Rather, the migration increase is the result of the ongoing casualization of
Britains labour market.
From the 1990s, the lower levels of Britains economy became increasingly
centred upon short-term, non-binding, sub-contracted, peripatetic workforces
that could be hired and fired at will and were constantly threatened with
replacement by cheaper labor from elsewhere. This transformation of
Britains labor market, which led to increased demand for rightless migrant
workers to exploit, occurred at the same time as free-market globalization
generated the conditions for large-scale emigration from many regions of the
world, throwing up the migrant populations needed in post-industrial
economies like Britain.
The lie of anti-immigrant campaigns is that these deeper structural
processes can be overturned through more heavily policed borders. But the
only outcome of tightening border controls is the immiseration of the
immigrant worker, not a reduction in their number. These circumstances in
turn foster the conspiratorial thinking that cosmopolitan politicians have
abandoned the national interest and given up on controlling immigration;
hence the demand to take back control the slogan that won the Brexit
vote.
It is also true that the impacts of immigration have not been distributed
evenly in Britain. The rich have accrued the economic gains while the poor
have faced the social fallout. The burdens on public services of an
increasing population have been over-stated but there are some neighborhoods
where strains are real. So too in some sectors of the labor market has wage
inflation been kept down through the exploitation of new workforces in
eastern Europe, whether through immigration or capital flight. The problem
is not immigration per se but the way it becomes a focal point for deeper
processes of dispossession.
At the same time, institutions that should have enabled such tensions to be
worked through and negotiated instead pitted against each other the poor and
the still poorer. The BBCs mandate for public service broadcasting ought to
have made it a bulwark against the calumny of tabloid racism. But having
patronized or ignored working-class political life since the 1980s, it
discovered in the new century a shallow fascination with the white working
class, whose self-appointed representatives got air time so long as they
fitted the stereotype of the uneducated bigot.
A similar dynamic plagued the Labour Party. Unable to offer much of a
political programme to the Partys working-class base, its leaders instead
substituted crude nationalist slogans. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown
spoke of British jobs for British workers, borrowing a line from the far
Right that he knew was meaningless. His successor as party leader Ed
Miliband raised money for the 2015 general election campaign by selling mugs
with the slogan, Controls on immigration.
Britains liberal elites assumed that the best way to respond to the
anti-immigrant mobilization was to absorb a little of its energy. This
tactic, dressed up as responding to legitimate concerns on immigration,
seemed eminently pragmatic but was strategically counter-productive. It
tried to make a distinction between a rational anti-immigrant sentiment and
an irrational racism, the former to be absorbed into the mainstream, the
latter to be marginalized. In fact, no such distinction existed and acting
as if it did had the effect of further legitimizing racism in the political
mainstream. To believe the anti-immigrant mobilization, aided by the power
of the right-wing press and politicians, could be mollified with sprinklings
of liberal reassurance was wishful thinking. Instead, its appetite grew
stronger the more it was fed.
By 2015, when David Cameron pledged to hold a referendum on EU membership,
the stage was set for a populist upsurge. That, combined with the prime
ministers 2010 pledge to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands,
sealed his fate. He utterly failed to lower immigration to anywhere near his
target. Indeed, there was no way he could have done so without stemming the
demand for docile migrant workers at the bottom of the economy, which was
impossible to achieve within the free-market consensus. But the Leave the EU
campaign argued, with a superficial plausibility, that free movement across
the EU, a condition of membership, was the real reason Cameron had failed to
reduce immigration. Inevitably, the dominant theme in the referendum contest
was whether withdrawal from the EU would be necessary to reduce the number
of immigrants entering Britain.
In the last few weeks before the vote, the Leave campaign stepped up its
focus on immigration, especially from the Middle East, garnering itself a
bump in the polls. Defence minister Penny Mordaunt went on the main Sunday
morning political TV show to warn that Turkey was set to join the EU and
would present a security risk because of its problems with gangs and
terror cells and its land border with Syria, Iraq and Iran. The intended
implication was clear: only by leaving the EU could Britain avoid millions
of refugees and migrants arriving from the Middle East.
The official Leave campaign backed this message with an online video
entitled Paving The Road From Ankara, which showed invading arrows tracing
a path across Europe from Turkey to Britain. Meanwhile Justice Secretary
Michael Gove claimed that staying in the EU would overwhelm public services
with migrants from Turkey. Gove, a key figure in the Leave campaign, is a
committed neoconservative and close ally of Rupert Murdoch, and is now in a
strong position to replace Cameron as prime minister.
A week before the vote, it fell to UKIP leader Nigel Farage to present the
Leave message without its veneer of civility, with the launch of an
Islamophobic poster showing a crowd of desperate Middle Eastern refugees
emblazoned with the slogan, Breaking point. The pro-EU camp countered with
vague clichés about immigration bringing economic prosperity a claim that
would have sounded hollow to anyone struggling under austerity. But the
anti-EU message proved as attractive in leafy, affluent small towns such as
Aylesbury and Chichester as it did in former industrial northern and Welsh
towns that had been wasted by Thatcherism, making possible a cross-class
nativist victory.
Of course, the motives of those who voted for Brexit were complex and
varied. Racism, Islamophobia, or anti-immigrant sentiment were not the only
reasons to vote to leave the EU. But the Brexit campaign anchored itself on
the claim that English life is being destroyed by immigration. It was a
fantasy but it had its kernel of truth. The post-war social fabric was
indeed being destroyed.
In fact, the culprits were not Muslim or eastern European immigrants and
their alleged enablers in Brussels. The real responsibility lay with
Britains ruling political and economic class, who had imposed thirty years
of Thatcherism and thereby tied English society to the whims of global
capitalism. Alas, instead of rebelling against the globalization of capital,
Britain rebelled against the globalization of labor, finding in the
immigrant a suitable object of displaced resentment. Following the Brexit
vote, that resentment released itself through a celebratory racism with
abuse and violence against migrants and anyone not white at levels not seen
since the 1990s.
The far-right has realized its fantasy of a British Independence Day and
has proven powerful enough to shake the world. The country has been plunged
into its deepest political crisis since World War Two. The collapsing United
Kingdom now stands as an example of what can befall any society trapped in a
free-market economy flailing in its death throes. In the US presidential
election this year, Donald Trump will rely on exactly the same energies that
powered the Brexit victory.
The lesson for the US is that right-wing populism cannot be fought by trying
to shore up a discredited political center ground or by conceding to
nativism and Islamophobia. Nor will a purely economic appeal work in
societies where race is a deep part of the social structure.
Instead, we must reject the free-market Reagan-Thatcher consensus as
forcefully as the far-right appears to do, while demanding in its place a
genuinely radical social and political alternative. As the free-market model
continues to unravel, it will be replaced either by new visions of social
progress or by new forms of racism and authoritarianism. The words uttered a
century ago by Rosa Luxemburg resonate as strongly as ever: Socialism or
barbarism.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
The Right-Wing Populism That Drove Brexit Can Only Be Fought With a
Genuinely Radical Alternative
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_right-wing_populism_that_drove_brexi
t_20160703/
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share
optionsShare to Email
Posted on Jul 3, 2016
By Arun Kundnani / AlterNet
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks in London in 2013. (YouTube /
RevolutionBahrainMC)
For the first time in British political history, a far-right political
movement, fueled by Islamophobia and nativism, has won in a national poll.
Yet more than a week after the Brexit vote, Britains mainstream political
commentators have been unable to state that simple fact. Instead, they see
the vote as either a legitimate protest against mass immigration or a class
rebellion by globalizations losers.
No wonder the elite liberals who ran the campaign to remain in the European
Union (EU) failed. They fatally underestimated the power of the Islamophobic
and anti-immigrant sentiments they were up against. Even when faced with the
unprecedented assassination of a Labour Party member of parliament,
allegedly by a far-Right activist, wishful thinking got in the way of
acknowledging the reality of a mass racist mobilization.
Following the Brexit vote, racist violence has risen dramatically, the
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is facing a leadership contest that is
partly a reaction to his refusal to adopt an anti-immigrant politics, and an
unbridled nativism looks likely to dominate British politics as it becomes
apparent the reduction in immigration promised by Brexit is unattainable.
But the Brexit vote was more than two decades in the making, the culmination
of a nativist campaign waged by conservative politicians and journalists,
and enabled by liberals who wrongly thought the best way to oppose racism
was to concede to some of its claims.
Back in the mid-1990s, racism in Britain meant the racism born of
colonialism in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. It was directed at
immigrants from those parts of the world and their British-born descendants.
But it faced strong opposition from grassroots movements led by people of
color, especially families of Black and South Asian young people who had
been killed in racist attacks. In response, Britains culture of racism
adjusted itself to new circumstances. The search for new enemies after the
Cold War suggested Islam as a new racial threat, while the fall of the
Berlin Wall pointed to migration from the east of Europe.
When Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU in 2004, Britains most popular
newspapers warned that hordes of Gypsies would be coming to scrounge welfare
benefits. Earlier a small number of Gypsies had settled in Dover on
Englands south coast, fleeing neo-Nazi gangs in the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. The best-selling Sun newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdochs News
Corporation, called them Slovak Spongers and Giro Czechs (a pun on a
common term for welfare payments) and suggested teaching the gipsies two
words, the second one being off. The Daily Express ran the headline 1.6
million gipsies ready to flood in on its front cover, accompanied by
graphics depicting a foreign invasion. An editorial stated Gypsies were
heading to Britain to leech on us. Thereafter, eastern European immigrants
were white enough to provide an alibi against accusations of racism but not
white enough to be welcomed.
Britains liberals enamored with Tony Blairs celebration of a vapid
consumerist multiculturalism paid little attention to this openly racist
campaign waged on the pages of newspapers they never read. But the movement
against Britains membership of the EU did notice. It had found its perfect
populist weapon. The preposterously-named UK Independence Party (UKIP)
formed to campaign for a referendum on EU membership made opposition to
eastern European immigration central to its campaign. Conservative Party
leader William Hague had already claimed in an election speech in March 2001
that Britain was now a foreign land due to immigration and membership of
the EU.
Rupert Murdoch and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who between them dominate
the British press and set the agenda for the rest of the media, were both
opposed to EU membership and used their media power to associate the EU with
excessive immigration. Impoverished eastern European migrants were
increasingly framed by their newspapers as threats to a British way of life
that had actually been destroyed by the Thatcherism the same papers had
earlier hailed. Few pointed out that public provisions, such as benefits and
social housing, were reduced, not because of immigration, but because the
Thatcherism of the 1980s broke the old post-war social democratic consensus
which had earlier legitimized the welfare system.
The ten years of Tony Blairs Labour government, beginning in 1997, did
little to reverse this. Worse, in its efforts to gentrify itself, the Labour
Party left working-class communities without a political voice. Predictably,
various strains of far-Right politics entered the spaces opened up by
Labours flight to middle England. But middle England was also on the march:
in the early 2000s, tens of thousands of not-in-my-backyard protesters
opposed the construction of reception centers for refugees in the affluent
counties surrounding London. By 2010, when David Camerons austerity
policies stripped away even more of the social safety net, and real wages
and job security plummeted further, it had become fully acceptable in the
mainstream to hold mass immigration responsible for all manner of evil.
As I wrote at the time in my book The End of Tolerance, newspapers and
politicians were blaming immigrants for the spread of TB, AIDS, and SARS;
for failing schools and hospitals; for falling house prices and for rising
house prices; for low wages, rising crime, prostitution and road accidents.
They were even to blame for the dwindling number of fish in Britains
rivers, the declining number of swans and the disappearance of donkeys.
They had not only achieved all this but also held onto a reputation for
laziness.
Britain has indeed experienced relatively high levels of immigration for two
decades, both from within and without the EU. However, the driving force of
this increased migration is not freedom of movement within the EU. After
all, this increase began in the 1990s, before the EUs eastward expansion.
Rather, the migration increase is the result of the ongoing casualization of
Britains labour market.
From the 1990s, the lower levels of Britains economy became increasingly
centred upon short-term, non-binding, sub-contracted, peripatetic workforces
that could be hired and fired at will and were constantly threatened with
replacement by cheaper labor from elsewhere. This transformation of
Britains labor market, which led to increased demand for rightless migrant
workers to exploit, occurred at the same time as free-market globalization
generated the conditions for large-scale emigration from many regions of the
world, throwing up the migrant populations needed in post-industrial
economies like Britain.
The lie of anti-immigrant campaigns is that these deeper structural
processes can be overturned through more heavily policed borders. But the
only outcome of tightening border controls is the immiseration of the
immigrant worker, not a reduction in their number. These circumstances in
turn foster the conspiratorial thinking that cosmopolitan politicians have
abandoned the national interest and given up on controlling immigration;
hence the demand to take back control the slogan that won the Brexit
vote.
It is also true that the impacts of immigration have not been distributed
evenly in Britain. The rich have accrued the economic gains while the poor
have faced the social fallout. The burdens on public services of an
increasing population have been over-stated but there are some neighborhoods
where strains are real. So too in some sectors of the labor market has wage
inflation been kept down through the exploitation of new workforces in
eastern Europe, whether through immigration or capital flight. The problem
is not immigration per se but the way it becomes a focal point for deeper
processes of dispossession.
At the same time, institutions that should have enabled such tensions to be
worked through and negotiated instead pitted against each other the poor and
the still poorer. The BBCs mandate for public service broadcasting ought to
have made it a bulwark against the calumny of tabloid racism. But having
patronized or ignored working-class political life since the 1980s, it
discovered in the new century a shallow fascination with the white working
class, whose self-appointed representatives got air time so long as they
fitted the stereotype of the uneducated bigot.
A similar dynamic plagued the Labour Party. Unable to offer much of a
political programme to the Partys working-class base, its leaders instead
substituted crude nationalist slogans. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown
spoke of British jobs for British workers, borrowing a line from the far
Right that he knew was meaningless. His successor as party leader Ed
Miliband raised money for the 2015 general election campaign by selling mugs
with the slogan, Controls on immigration.
Britains liberal elites assumed that the best way to respond to the
anti-immigrant mobilization was to absorb a little of its energy. This
tactic, dressed up as responding to legitimate concerns on immigration,
seemed eminently pragmatic but was strategically counter-productive. It
tried to make a distinction between a rational anti-immigrant sentiment and
an irrational racism, the former to be absorbed into the mainstream, the
latter to be marginalized. In fact, no such distinction existed and acting
as if it did had the effect of further legitimizing racism in the political
mainstream. To believe the anti-immigrant mobilization, aided by the power
of the right-wing press and politicians, could be mollified with sprinklings
of liberal reassurance was wishful thinking. Instead, its appetite grew
stronger the more it was fed.
By 2015, when David Cameron pledged to hold a referendum on EU membership,
the stage was set for a populist upsurge. That, combined with the prime
ministers 2010 pledge to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands,
sealed his fate. He utterly failed to lower immigration to anywhere near his
target. Indeed, there was no way he could have done so without stemming the
demand for docile migrant workers at the bottom of the economy, which was
impossible to achieve within the free-market consensus. But the Leave the EU
campaign argued, with a superficial plausibility, that free movement across
the EU, a condition of membership, was the real reason Cameron had failed to
reduce immigration. Inevitably, the dominant theme in the referendum contest
was whether withdrawal from the EU would be necessary to reduce the number
of immigrants entering Britain.
In the last few weeks before the vote, the Leave campaign stepped up its
focus on immigration, especially from the Middle East, garnering itself a
bump in the polls. Defence minister Penny Mordaunt went on the main Sunday
morning political TV show to warn that Turkey was set to join the EU and
would present a security risk because of its problems with gangs and
terror cells and its land border with Syria, Iraq and Iran. The intended
implication was clear: only by leaving the EU could Britain avoid millions
of refugees and migrants arriving from the Middle East.
The official Leave campaign backed this message with an online video
entitled Paving The Road From Ankara, which showed invading arrows tracing
a path across Europe from Turkey to Britain. Meanwhile Justice Secretary
Michael Gove claimed that staying in the EU would overwhelm public services
with migrants from Turkey. Gove, a key figure in the Leave campaign, is a
committed neoconservative and close ally of Rupert Murdoch, and is now in a
strong position to replace Cameron as prime minister.
A week before the vote, it fell to UKIP leader Nigel Farage to present the
Leave message without its veneer of civility, with the launch of an
Islamophobic poster showing a crowd of desperate Middle Eastern refugees
emblazoned with the slogan, Breaking point. The pro-EU camp countered with
vague clichés about immigration bringing economic prosperity a claim that
would have sounded hollow to anyone struggling under austerity. But the
anti-EU message proved as attractive in leafy, affluent small towns such as
Aylesbury and Chichester as it did in former industrial northern and Welsh
towns that had been wasted by Thatcherism, making possible a cross-class
nativist victory.
Of course, the motives of those who voted for Brexit were complex and
varied. Racism, Islamophobia, or anti-immigrant sentiment were not the only
reasons to vote to leave the EU. But the Brexit campaign anchored itself on
the claim that English life is being destroyed by immigration. It was a
fantasy but it had its kernel of truth. The post-war social fabric was
indeed being destroyed.
In fact, the culprits were not Muslim or eastern European immigrants and
their alleged enablers in Brussels. The real responsibility lay with
Britains ruling political and economic class, who had imposed thirty years
of Thatcherism and thereby tied English society to the whims of global
capitalism. Alas, instead of rebelling against the globalization of capital,
Britain rebelled against the globalization of labor, finding in the
immigrant a suitable object of displaced resentment. Following the Brexit
vote, that resentment released itself through a celebratory racism with
abuse and violence against migrants and anyone not white at levels not seen
since the 1990s.
The far-right has realized its fantasy of a British Independence Day and
has proven powerful enough to shake the world. The country has been plunged
into its deepest political crisis since World War Two. The collapsing United
Kingdom now stands as an example of what can befall any society trapped in a
free-market economy flailing in its death throes. In the US presidential
election this year, Donald Trump will rely on exactly the same energies that
powered the Brexit victory.
The lesson for the US is that right-wing populism cannot be fought by trying
to shore up a discredited political center ground or by conceding to
nativism and Islamophobia. Nor will a purely economic appeal work in
societies where race is a deep part of the social structure.
Instead, we must reject the free-market Reagan-Thatcher consensus as
forcefully as the far-right appears to do, while demanding in its place a
genuinely radical social and political alternative. As the free-market model
continues to unravel, it will be replaced either by new visions of social
progress or by new forms of racism and authoritarianism. The words uttered a
century ago by Rosa Luxemburg resonate as strongly as ever: Socialism or
barbarism.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/will_we_grieve_islamic_states_vi
ctims_in_baghdad_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/will_we_grieve_islamic_states_vi
ctims_in_baghdad_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/will_we_grieve_islamic_states_vi
ctims_in_baghdad_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/garrison_keillors_prophecy_and_apostasy_
20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/garrison_keillors_prophecy_and_apostasy_
20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/garrison_keillors_prophecy_and_apostasy_
20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/brexit_champion_nigel_farage_ste
ps_down_as_ukip_leader_video_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/brexit_champion_nigel_farage_ste
ps_down_as_ukip_leader_video_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/brexit_champion_nigel_farage_ste
ps_down_as_ukip_leader_video_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sanders_organizing_grassroots_push_again
st_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sanders_organizing_grassroots_push_again
st_20160704/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sanders_organizing_grassroots_push_again
st_20160704/ http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
© 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
