The plot to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power
Jonathan Cook on July 5, 2019 Jeremy Corbyn. (Photo: Dan Kitwood) Jeremy
Corbyn. (Photo: Dan Kitwood)
In the latest of the interminable media "furores" about Jeremy Corbyn's
supposed unfitness to lead Britain's Labour party - let alone become prime
minister - it is easy to forget where we were shortly before he won the
support of an overwhelming majority of Labour members to head the party.
In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell
Brand, a comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after
years of battling addiction, as a spiritual guru-cum-political
revolutionary.
Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political
order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was
greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media
establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge
Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings
winner with younger audiences.
But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have
imagined. He took on supposed media heavyweights like the BBC's Jeremy
Paxman and Channel 4's Jon Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission
- both with his compassion and his thoughtful radicalism. Even in the
gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV, he made these
titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch.
Videos of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of
thousands of new followers.
Then he overstepped the mark.
Democracy as charade
Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was
in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western
democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless. Our votes were
simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there
to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations.
Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money.
Our voices had become irrelevant.
Brand didn't just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He
shamed our do-nothing politicians and corporate media - the devastating
Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen - by helping to gain attention for a
group of poor tenants in London who were taking on the might of a
corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to
develop their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand's revolutionary words
had turned into revolutionary action.
But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a
wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly
elected Labour leader, offering for the first time in living memory a
politics that listened to people before money, Brand's style of rejectionism
looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.
While Corbyn's victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however,
that it occurred only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The Corbyn accident
First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership
contest, scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper.
Most backed him only because they wanted to give the impression of an
election that was fair and open. After his victory, some loudly regretted
having assisted him. None had thought a representative of the tiny and
besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a chance of winning -
not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades
remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any
vestiges of socialism in the party. These "New Labour" MPs were there, just
as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not
ordinary people.
Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years
he had broken with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and
again in parliamentary votes, consistently taking a minority view that later
proved to be on the right side of history. He alone among the leadership
contenders spoke unequivocally against austerity, regarding it as a way to
leech away more public money to enrich the corporations and banks that had
already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers - so much so that by 2008
they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party's rulebook -
one now much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system
gave more weight to the votes of ordinary members than the parliamentary
party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted Corbyn.
Corbyn's success didn't really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed
systems have flaws, especially when the maintenance of the system's image as
benevolent is considered vitally important. It wasn't that Corbyn's election
had shown Britain's political system was representative and accountable. It
was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a
potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to
maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
'Brainwashing under freedom'
Corbyn's success also wasn't evidence that the power structure he challenged
had weakened. The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on
the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests.
Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn
and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous "accident", such as
his becoming prime minister.
Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn
would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these
media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this
kind of "brainwashing under freedom" since birth.
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist,
unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy - relentless,
unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever
faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously
propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but
backfired - not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to
make the party the largest in Europe.
As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more
urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks.
Redefining anti-semitism
Corbyn was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party
within sight of power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived modestly.
Ideologically he was resolutely against the thrust of four decades of a
turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by Thatcher and Reagan in the
early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars for empire, fashionable
"humanitarian interventions" whose real goal was to attack other sovereign
states either to control their resources, usually oil, or line the pockets
of the military-industrial complex.
It was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There was
the danger that they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn was seen to
have an Achilles' heel. He was a life-long anti-racism activist and well
known for his support for the rights of the long-suffering Palestinians. The
political and media establishments quickly learnt that they could
recharacterise his support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel as
anti-semitism. He was soon being presented as a leader happy to preside over
an "institutionally" anti-semitic party.
Under pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and highly
controversial definition of anti-semitism - one rejected by leading jurists
and later repudiated by the lawyer who devised it - that expressly conflates
criticism of Israel, and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred. One by one Corbyn's
few ideological allies in the party - those outside the Blairite consensus -
have been picked off as anti-semites. They have either fallen foul of this
conflation or, as with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred and
feathered for trying to defend Labour's record against the accusations of a
supposed endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.
The bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in
relation to Williamson. The comment that plunged him into so much trouble -
now leading twice to his suspension - was videoed. In it he can be heard
calling anti-semitism a "scourge" that must be confronted. But also, in line
with all evidence, Williamson denied that Labour had any particular
anti-semitism problem. In part he blamed the party for being too ready to
concede unwarranted ground to critics, further stoking the attacks and
smears. He noted that Labour had been "demonised as a racist, bigoted
party", adding: "Our party's response has been partly responsible for that
because in my opinion . we've backed off far too much, we have given too
much ground, we've been too apologetic."
The Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson's remarks not
once but each time it has covered developments in his case. Every Guardian
report has stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour
was "too apologetic about anti-semitism". In short, the Guardian and the
rest of the media have insinuated that Williamson approves of anti-semitism.
But what he actually said was that Labour was "too apologetic" when dealing
with unfair or unreasonable allegations of anti-semitism, that it had too
willingly accepted the unfounded premise of its critics that the party
condoned racism.
Like the Salem witch-hunts
The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by
association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish
party members who have defended Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears,
voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a founder of the Momentum
group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL calling them "part of
the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the Labour
Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added:
"Neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation
itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community."
In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess
that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from
Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to
deny the accusation is, as in the Salem witch-hunts, treated as proof of
guilt.
The anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the
narrow corporate media "spectrum", even though they are unsupported by any
actual evidence of an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one
representative of wider British society. The allegations have reached such
fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria by the media, that the party is now
under investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission - the only
party apart from the neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an
investigation.
These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the
Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago,
when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the
claim that anti-Zionism - opposition to Israel as a state privileging Jews
over non-Jews - was the same as anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous.
It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel.
Now, however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian's
Jonathan Freedland claiming not only that Israel is integral to their Jewish
identity but that they speak for all other Jews in making such an
identification. To criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by
implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this
consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who
supports Corbyn - and there are many, even if they are largely ignored - are
denounced, in line wth Lansman, as the "wrong kind of Jews". It may be
absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be unremarkable.
In fact, the weaponisation of anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so
normal that, even while I was writing this post, a new nadir was reached.
Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who hopes to defeat Boris Johnson in the
upcoming Tory leadership race, as good as accused Corbyn of being a new
Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews to be exterminated,
just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Too 'frail' to be PM
Although anti-semitism has become the favoured stick with which to beat
Corbyn, other forms of attack regularly surface. The latest are comments by
unnamed "senior civil servants" reported in the Times alleging that Corbyn
is too physically frail and mentally ill-equipped to grasp the details
necessary to serve as prime minister. It barely matters whether the comment
was actually made by a senior official or simply concocted by the Times. It
is yet further evidence of the political and media establishments'
anti-democratic efforts to discredit Corbyn as a general election looms.
One of the ironies is that media critics of Corbyn regularly accuse him of
failing to make any political capital from the shambolic disarray of the
ruling Conservative party, which is eating itself alive over the terms of
Brexit, Britain's imminent departure from the European Union. But it is the
corporate media - which serves both as society's main forum of debate and as
a supposed watchdog on power - that is starkly failing to hold the Tories to
account. While the media obsess about Corbyn's supposed mental deficiencies,
they have smoothed the path of Boris Johnson, a man who personifies the word
"buffoon" like no one else in political life, to become the new leader of
the Conservative party and therefore by default - and without an election -
the next prime minister.
An indication of how the relentless character assassination of Corbyn is
being coordinated was hinted at early on, months after his election as
Labour leader in 2015. A British military general told the Times, again
anonymously, that there would be "direct action" - what he also termed a
"mutiny" - by the armed forces should Corbyn ever get in sight of power. The
generals, he said, regarded Corbyn as a national security threat and would
use any means, "fair or foul", to prevent him implementing his political
programme.
Running the gauntlet
But this campaign of domestic attacks on Corbyn needs to be understood in a
still wider framework, which relates to Britain's abiding Transatlantic
"special relationship", one that in reality means that the UK serves as
Robin to the United States' Batman, or as a very junior partner to the
global hegemon.
Last month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US secretary
of state, Mike Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of rightwing American
Jewish organisations was leaked. Contrary to the refrain of the UK corporate
media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure that he could never win an election,
the fear expressed on both sides of that Washington conversation was that
the Labour leader might soon become Britain's prime minister.
Framing Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be
heard asking Pompeo if he would be "willing to work with us to take on
actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK". Pompeo responded
that it was possible "Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected"
- a telling phrase that attracted remarkably little attention, as did the
story itself, given that it revealed one of the most senior Trump
administration officials explicitly talking about meddling directly in the
outcome of a UK election.
Here is the dictionary definition of "run the gauntlet": to take part in a
form of corporal punishment in which the party judged guilty is forced to
run between two rows of soldiers, who strike out and attack him.
So Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet - systematic and
organised blows and strikes against Corbyn - that he is being made to run
through. In fact, "running the gauntlet" precisely describes the experience
Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour leader - from the corporate
media, from the dominant Blairite faction of his own party, from rightwing,
pro-Israel Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from
anonymous generals and senior civil servants.
'We cheated, we stole'
Pompeo continued: "You should know, we won't wait for him to do those things
to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too
important and too hard once it's already happened."
So, Washington's view is that action must be taken before Corbyn reaches a
position of power. To avoid any danger he might become the UK's next prime
minister, the US will do its "level best" to "push back". Assuming that this
hasn't suddenly become the US administration's priority, how much time does
the US think it has before Corbyn might win power? How close is a UK
election?
As everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has been a
distinct possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority goverment two
years ago with the help of fickle, hardline Ulster loyalists. Elections have
been looming ever since, as the UK ruling party has torn itself apart over
Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating their own leader, prime minister Theresa
May, in parliamentary votes.
So if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do whatever it
can to make sure Corbyn doesn't win an election well before that election
takes place, it means the US is already deeply mired in anti-Corbyn
activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US is ready to meddle in the
UK's election, which is bad enough; he is hinting that it is already
meddling in UK politics to make sure the will of the British people does not
bring to power the wrong leader.
Remember that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America's spy
chief, was unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he was in
charge. He observed: "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.
It's - it was like - we had entire training courses."
One would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the CIA's
culture during his short tenure. He simply became the figurehead of the
world's most powerful spying outfit, one that had spent decades developing
the principles of US exceptionalism, that had lied its way to recent wars in
Iraq and Libya, as it had done earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not
invented by Pompeo. They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.
An eroding consensus
It takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear pattern
here.
Brand was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media
elites are captured, and that the power structure of our societies will
defend itself by all means possible, "fair or foul". Corbyn is far from
alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged to stop a democratic
socialist like Bernie Sanders - though not a rich businessman like Donald
Trump - winning the nomination for the US presidential race. It is also
rigged to silence real journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to
overturn the access journalism prized by the corporate media - with its
reliance on official sources and insiders for stories - to divulge the
secrets of the national security states we live in.
There is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned
by critics: a small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of our
societies. The conspiracy operates at an institutional level, one that has
evolved over time to create structures and refine and entrench values that
keep power and wealth in the hands of the few. In that sense we are all part
of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that embraces us every time we
unquestioningly accept the "consensual" narratives laid out for us by our
education systems, politicians and media. Our minds have been occupied with
myths, fears and narratives that turned us into the turkeys that keep voting
for Christmas.
That system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully
constructed over many decades is rapidly breaking down as the power
structure that underpins it is forced to grapple with real-world problems it
is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual collapse of western
economies premised on infinite growth and a climate that is fighting back
against our insatiable appetite for the planet's resources.
As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies,
the system operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply
ideological system destroying the planet was treated as if it was natural,
immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of history. Those times are
over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme
climate events and economic crises. The power structures in place to prevent
such accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent,
less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that a
system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our
children's future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise
our voices and loudly say: "No!"
