Tony Blair has sent hundreds of British service men and women to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a coalition that has killed thousands of these countries’ inhabitants on an admittedly false pretext. After official and public investigations into the build up to the Iraq invasion which focussed on a ‘dodgy dossier’, costing yet more tax payer money and ultimately leading to the death (murder) of Dr David Kelly – why on earth are newspapers not calling for Tony Blair’s arrest on their front pages every day?
Instead, the media have acted as Blair’s mouth piece through their quest for ‘objective’ and ‘impartial’ news reporting. They not only allowed him to defend his decision to invade Iraq and to make it almost sound patriotic, the media also allowed him to bash Corbyn, who by chance had himself suggested Blair should be tried as a war criminal.
After all of this, why are the mass media continuing to chastise Jeremy Corbyn, focussing on how risky his supposed reshuffle could be for New Labour. The New Labour that decided to take us to war in secret, and left the next incumbent government penniless. Why is a reshuffle of a discredited party, whose new leader fills up every public hall he speaks at, whose views energise the young to engage in politics, and who offers genuine alternatives to capitalist challenges, the main focus of attack for news sites. The mainstream media have a lot to answer for.
What is even worse is that these opaque attacks on Corbyn are taken seriously by so many people in the United Kingdom. He’s a terrorist sympathiser and doesn’t care for our war dead! Ultimately, not all of Corbyn’s policies may be ideal, but nor are any partys. We must ask ourselves: when has the opposition ever come under so much scrutiny at their very outset? Doesn’t this sustained criticism often wait until election time? Not only do these media attacks eschew the outlook of the population at large, they also empower the opposition within the Labour Party, as well as the leadership in corporations, finance, banking and the military to wittingly or unwittingly replicate anti-Corbyn dialogue. Additionally, the frying pan that Jeremy Corbyn has been thrown into will also pressure the man himself to change his policies which may or may not be a good thing altogether.
Nonetheless, how can the suggestion of a military coup if Corbyn were to scrap Trident by a general be taken less seriously than questions surrounding how low Corbyn did or did not bow at a war memorial service, or whether he wears a piece of fabric around his neck? Much of the media have now normalised Corbyn bashing.
It is indeed likely that Mr Corbyn did not fit the plans of the corporate-financial ‘elites’ who met at the most recent Bilderberg meeting in June 2015. Media representatives included the BBC Trust, the Financial Times, the Economist and others, as well as the usual Council on Foreign Relations and Foundation members. We know this because the group finally decided to release a list of participants and supposed talking points; after years of secrecy. One of these admittedly broad talking points was the United Kingdom which would certainly not have foreseen Corbyn’s rise to prominence and election to Labour Party leader.
There is little doubt that Corbyn’s plans for nationalising certain services used by the public and his focus on trade unions and worker rights will not have gone down well with these members who will get to discuss the topic in this year’s upcoming Bilderberg conference in 2016. But I would be surprised if some of these participants had not discussed it already.