Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: January 2017

John Chuckman



I regret to say he may be right.

The EU was a great idea, but its execution and its administration, especially in recent years, have been disasters.

It did not have to be this way.

But American influence pushed the EU in the direction it has gone, extending itself too far and into countries incapable of meeting the same standards as the traditional anchor states of the EU.

The United States has used the EU in much the same fashion it uses NATO, to control European affairs, to create a wall against Russia (Europe’s natural partner for many resources and projects), and effectively to create one-stop shopping for the State Department in pushing American policies and demands.

Europe’s weak leadership has been complicit, always accommodating American imperial attitudes, and it deserves responsibility for the regrettable events happening.

There are some very short-sighted comments here, especially stuff about traditional borders and sovereignty. That is tiresome stuff which ignores history and stifles much original thinking.

The borders of modern nation states are neither somehow sacred nor are they eternal. Everything about the modern political entities we call states or countries is subject to change over time.

Look, modern Italy only came into existence in 1861.

Modern Germany really only dates to Bismarck.

Tiny Austria was once a great sprawling empire, just before WWI.

America only dates back 225 years, but actually modern America only dates to the 1860s Civil War.

Indeed, parts of America were only added around the turn of the last century with the Spanish-American War and the illegal seizure of Hawaii.

Things change.

Sometimes countries come into being, and sometimes they disappear, as did the USSR just a couple of decades ago.

The EU was a promising experiment in creating a large market with world-scale clout as well as a new force in world affairs to offset the undue influence of a post-Cold War United States.

Emerging China and the BRICS countries are other developments along those lines.

A multi-polar world is far better than a unipolar world, just as surely as representative government is better than a dictatorship in a single country.

But the EU leadership has failed, and it has failed in many ways.

The United States, in the interest of keeping its single-power status in the world, deliberately encouraged much of the destructive nonsense of the EU. America’s establishment – the same folks who gave you Bush and Obama and Clinton – is not looking for competitors nor does it welcome anything which erodes its ability to exert near-dictatorial influence over a good deal of the world.

The United Nations, too, has come under the same increasing American pressure. Essentially, America has been saying to the UN, do it my way or it’s the highway. Progressively weaker Secretaries-General recently culminated in Ban Ki-Moon, a totally ineffective man who failed to speak for the 95% of humanity who are not Americans.

While Trump’s promises to end the terrible excesses of the Bush-Obama Neocons are welcome, antipathy to worthy international organizations is not. This hostility plays to the belly-over-the-belt segment of Trump supporters, and, in the end, if there are no other effective voices in the world, America may easily slide back into Neocon assumption of arrogant and destructive power.


John Chuckman



“Quebec Mosque shooting suspect was a fan of Donald Trump and Marine le Pen”

This is just completely irresponsible, Independent editors.

A man murders people for reasons we know nothing about – although to any well-informed person, such acts first suggest an unbalanced mind at work – and you connect it with his political position!

How about his religion?

Oh, I forget you’ve done that many times before, especially where Muslims are doing the killing.

How about his tastes in literature?

God, for all we know he’s been reading the Bible, especially that Old Testament which is just packed with violence and hatreds.

Maybe he goes to bad movies or plays too many violent computer games?

Then, on the other hand, maybe he just was reading too many confusing newspapers like The Independent?

I really have to say this approach to a horrific crime stinks, and stinks really badly.

John Chuckman



“Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ could be just the beginning

Truly dumb journalism.

“Experts warn”?

What experts?

And in what are they experts?

Did they all take university courses in the mind of Donald Trump?

The Independent these days just repeats shabby trick after shabby trick of what Americans call “yellow journalism.”

This is a complete non-article on a complete non-subject intended only to run a scary headline.

Grow up.


 “Experts warn Donald Trump policy on torture could be ‘catastrophic”

Here we go with “experts warn” ploy again, two of them in one day.

I despise torture, but Trump, if you carefully consider his words, is not saying he will torture people.

Where was all this self-righteousness when Bush tortured people by the thousands in the CIA’s black sites?

When they opened Guantanamo?

When they killed a million people in Iraq and destroyed the country?

When Obama killed at least another half million in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and other places?

There was virtually the complete silence of consent from our press.

John Chuckman


“Pressure grows on May as a million people sign anti-Trump petition over ‘Muslim ban'”

So what?

Please remember, just a while before the filthy Tony Blair committed Britain to the invasion and destruction of Iraq, London saw the biggest peace march ever, more than a million people.

It didn’t do a thing to stop far more terrifying events than a temporary ban on migration.

The plain fact is that if Blair had not joined in on that murderous assault on the Muslim world, generating years of increasing hatreds and violence on all sides, we likely would not be facing what we face today.

And exactly the same goes for a sleazy politician like David Cameron with his secret support for the destruction of Syria. And how about selling cluster bombs to the rotten House of Saud for use on women and children in Yemen?

Western policies in the Neocon Wars have been appalling, and they are responsible for much of what people fear – both massive migrations of people fleeing American-induced horrors and what we loosely call “international terror,” most of which is the response of powerless victims to the destruction of their families and countries.

John Chuckman



“Trump Sets Up 6 Refugee Safe Zones in One Day”

 The problems here are at least two.

One, the US has no business doing things in Syria without approval from the Syrian government.

Two, these “safe zones,” decided without conferring with Russia, have the awful potential of becoming gathering and regrouping places for the various terrorist groups.

You really can’t pull “go it alone” surprises on the other parties involved unless you are returning to discredited Obama policies.

John Chuckman



The letter is, of course, completely sensible.

However, these are all things that those of us who are able to work at being informed on important matters already understood. Nothing here is new.

The problem with the approach of the academics is that “Western media” are treated as though they were something they in fact are not.

Western media, the major broadcasters and newspapers, are actually owned by relatively small group of large corporate interests after years of mergers and take-overs.

Moreover, they have lost some of their most traditional sources of revenue – as, for example, classified advertising in big cities, something which now belongs to the Internet. So, their financial ability to do more extensive or better quality reportage is greatly reduced.

None of them is in any way an independent source of journalism. None.

And they proved that to us overwhelmingly with Trump’s election, during which they lined up like the troops of a foreign power rather than as objective journalists. The case of Syria was even worse, but many ordinary people had no way of fully understanding what was going on. They never saw Syrian or Russian speakers or independent critics the way they saw Trump on the hustings contradicting the corporate press’s claims.

To even expect large corporate interests, who depend on the American government for many things – from permissions and licenses to favors with leaks and interviews – to behave much differently than they have done is actually pretty naïve.

It is only new competition that will stir things up a bit and create some change, and we are very much seeing that happen before our eyes on the Internet.

Alternate media were very influential in Trump’s victory, and he knows it. He has already demonstrated in a few ways that he intends to formalize the changing media situation – from giving accreditation to an alternate media site to asking questions of reporters at the back of the press room and to avoiding the traditional wave to the press corps when he leaves on Air Force One.

One thing is certain, things in the Western press are changing and changing fast.




John Chuckman



“Anti-Semitism rising across West as result of ‘populism and isolationism’, Jewish leader to warn Pope Francis”

I’d swear they were kidding, but I know better.

The Pope is being used as a photo-op or sound-bite opportunity to create publicity for unwarranted charges.

How in the hell does isolationism cause anti-Semitism?

You might, with equal implausibility, say that staying at home causes anti-Semitism.

And where does anyone see isolationism today? What I see are raging wars and destruction in many places, ceaseless interference in the affairs of others – all of it deliberately started and all serving no good purpose.

And populism causes anti-Semitism? How about democratic elections, do they cause anti-Semitism? Just utter nonsense.

And the assertion of rising anti-Semitism is question-begging. Various Jewish groups do keep statistics on anti-Semitic events, but are those statistics of any value when we see events and people regularly being characterized as anti-Semitic which plainly are not?

Just a few examples demonstrate this with frightening clarity. Jimmy Carter, the most decent man to serve as America’s President in a century as well as a man of exceptionally keen intelligence and powers of observation, was widely labelled as anti-Semitic for his words on the oppressive situation in Israel and on the true nature of Hamas.

Jeremy Corbyn, another genuinely decent man, just after being elected as leader of Britain’s Labour Party, faced a months-long firestorm of false accusations over anti-Semitism from Britain’s corporate press driven by a powerful insider group of Tony Blair loyalists in the party. Of course, it just happens that Blair earned that support by having joined America’s illegal and bloody invasion of Iraq, an invasion conducted almost exclusively for Israel’s benefit, one pleaded for by Ariel Sharon many times.

While various Israeli politicians freely express themselves in threatening or prejudiced or even violent terms almost without criticism, anyone of prominence who criticizes what they see in Israel and advocates peaceful measures, such as boycotts, to create pressure to change it is typically called anti-Semitic. Among many efforts by Israel to lobby for protective legislation in Western countries have been efforts for legislation literally equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, a totally self-serving, repressive, and anti-democratic idea.

So, when we hear that anti-Semitism is on the rise all over, we really do have to question the validity of the claim, insulting claims about anti-Semitism being so often used to cover Israel’s own dark acts and to attack the credibility of those who question them.

How is it that among all the cases of injustice in the world, we are effectively told that in the one case of Israel, observers are supposed to suspend their usual ethical standards and that not doing so makes them guilty of some nasty charge? Human nature is such that the basest human instincts are always and everywhere working their way towards power over others. No group with power over others can ever simply be blindly trusted to do the right thing and be exempt from criticism – not prison guards, not police, and not armies of occupation. There is no other way for an informed and ethical person to look at things.

So, what are we to say of charges that anti-Semitism is on the rise, especially, coming as they do, at a time when Israel feels free to simply march in and destroy the homes of others? To build new homes of its own on the property of others, violating time and time again that most basic Western concept of the sanctity of people’s ownership of homes and farms? A time when Israel’s Defense Minister is a former bar-room bouncer who makes outrageous statements which, coming from someone in any other country, we would immediately condemn as hate-filled and violent?

A time when Israel’s Prime Minister is a man who has raged and made threats for years in all directions, someone past presidents of both France and the United States are on record as having called a non-stop liar? A man who killed 2,200 people with complete impunity, people living in what is effectively a giant, open-air refugee camp surrounded by fences and machine-gun towers? And a man who has left the victims and survivors of his savagery just to rot in destroyed homes and public facilities by forbidding the import what they need to rebuild? This is also a man who dropped a million cluster-bomb bomblets in Southern Lebanon some years back, a violation of all international norms and standards for these horrible weapons? A man whose intense drive to start war with Iran was only blunted by Obama’s reportedly telling him that he would shoot down the planes if sent?

Any honest and dispassionate observer would say there is no anti-Semitism to speak of in Western society today. It has no significant influence anywhere in the West. It has no official status anywhere in the West. It is the position of no political party in the West. Its clear expression is even a crime in many places.

However, Israel’s ugly behavior naturally affects people and what they say in response. It cannot be otherwise, and Israel’s unacceptable behavior seems only to increase with time. Can anyone not understand how that would incite both hatreds and behaviors which can be deliberately misinterpreted as hatreds?

The question always remains unanswered, and indeed it is never even asked in our press or by our governments, just what is it that Israel sees itself as doing? In not making peace? In not returning to its own previously-accepted borders? In maintaining an abusive occupation for more than half a century? In marching out regularly and stealing homes?

The answer seems clear, even if all the details remain unclear because Israel’s government always maintains the same kind of ambiguity on this matter that it does on its illegal atomic weapons. Israel is creating what is called Greater Israel, a vague, supposedly Biblically-based and religiously-charged concept that simply should have no validity in today’s world of legal boundaries, treaties and protocols and international standards.

It is conducting ethnic-cleansing in slow motion across an extensive territory. By making the territory’s inhabitants miserable through countless unfair laws and abusive acts and by, bit-by-bit, taking their land.

The intended fate for these millions is completely unclear, whether they will be driven out entirely, as has been advocated by a number of prominent Israelis, whether they will simply be reduced to an existence in South African-style Bantustans under the perpetual authority of an Israel in which they can never enjoy citizenship and rights, or whether they will be made so miserable and hopeless that they will flee to other places?

What other places? Names like Jordan or the Sinai crop up, almost as though they were reasonable suggestions, but what thinking person believes any other state in the region would willing to take millions of refugees? They won’t and they can’t, but no one in authority in Israel appears to care in the least about this. We see in Europe the effects of vast numbers of refugees, and it is not pleasant and its shock waves are affecting many parts of the world, stirring anti-refugee sentiments.

And it is important to note that these terrible refugee problems, stretching as they do from Turkey to Britain, problems which have shaken the foundations of so staid an organization as the European Union, are in fact the result of deliberate and violent American activities in the Mideast.

And for whose benefit have those American activities been taken? Clearly, “the birth of a new Middle East,” as American officials sitting in armchairs casually term the destruction of whole countries, the killing of a couple of millions of people, and the creation of millions of desperate refugees, has a great deal to do with Israel. Its own leaders in the past – notably the monstrous Ariel Sharon – openly advocated for it. The reduction of these places leaves Israel, a land of alien European and American migrants, as the dominant and unquestioned power in the region.

Although there is one other, unintended result of America’s destructive work, as there so often is in dirty affairs, and that is the re-emergence of Iran as a regional power. And that is why we are already hearing new calls against this essentially peaceful country, new calls for sanctions, new calls for military action. It is all very bleak.

I think these men who talked with the Pope know all or much of that, but the charge of “anti-Semitism” is one of Israel’s main weapons for deflecting attention from Israel’s morally repulsive and violent behavior.

Dragging in anti-Semitism as a charge against those rightly upset with Israel’s behavior is rather like shouting out in a court room that the honest witness to a crime is just a prejudiced liar.

John Chuckman



Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more wasteful than military spending.

It consumes huge amounts of resources and produces nothing of economic value.

And when the spending is done in gigantic amounts, as it is the United States, it only provides a machinery with a constant temptation for politicians to use, producing even more waste.

Quite apart from all the human misery generated.

Wars and big armies are consumers and destroyers of resources, but the egos of many politicians love them.

Why? Because it is such a nasty-little-boy pleasure to watch things be crushed and blown-up.

Bad things are done simply because they can be – that is satisfying to some exceptionally large egos, the kind often found in politicians.

This is true of some politicians regardless of their position on the political spectrum. It has nothing to do with Left or Right.

John Chuckman



Well, this the first thing ever from Albright’s mouth for which I have any respect.

Perhaps, she is feeling twinges of guilt over all those Iraqi children she helped kill?

Or is she thinking of the horrors of Rwanda that she assisted Bill Clinton in suppressing wider knowledge of at an early stage when they conceivably could have helped instead?

Her whole record, including as UN Ambassador, is one of working for the forces of darkness.

But on this matter, she is right.

And were I living in America, I absolutely would do the same.

I truly hope Trump, who is sometimes given to knee-jerk responses, avoids making this nasty idea a reality.

John Chuckman



“Defies wishes of Republicans in Congress”

Well, I am glad to learn that he has done something worthwhile.

But let’s put Obama’s gesture into perspective.

$221,000,000 for the genuinely needy Palestinians and $38,000,000,000 just went to the folks who are picking their bones, the Israelis.

That’s just over one-half of one percent.

Really impressive.

And, finally, he gave the little bit of money to the government of the Palestine Authority which does not even represent all of Palestine, has gone without any election for years, and has generally pretty much served as a useful stooge for Israel. The people of Gaza, with their elected government, are allowed to continue sitting in the rubble and pollution Israel created for them in 2014.


Response to a reader comment:

“Obama elected to make the American people the focus of his Presidency and has left them in a far better situation than when he started…”

Oh, yes, indeed.

After all, he dropped more than 100,000 bombs on 7 countries, and there was not a single day of his eight years during which the United States wasn’t killing people.

There’s also his new hi-tech system of extra-judicial killing, something which makes the old Argentine junta’s style of “disappearing” people seem primitive and brings such honor to the name of America and its claims over human and democratic rights.

And, at home, he oversaw record funds for intelligence agencies spying in new ways on their own people.

He topped that all off with having done absolutely nothing to stop creating the greatest debt in human history.

And this was accompanied by no effort to even reform the financial industry whose poor regulation and oversight created a financial crisis we are all still seriously threatened by.

My, that is a genuinely remarkable set of achievements, isn’t it?

The only act making anything better in eight years of this strange murderous man with the big smile is his final departure.

Trump may well prove a disappointment, I am prepared for that distinct possibility, but Obama is perhaps the most disappointing figure in modern history. We all thought he had such promise in 2008, and it all turned literally to ashes.

John Chuckman



Muammar Gaddafi always impressed me with his intelligence and his understanding of the underlying realities of international affairs.

He also proved an exceptional leader for the welfare of his people, having used the oil wealth to provide them everything from free schools and health care to imaginative projects for water supply.

Further, he made important efforts in creating new ties in black Africa.

When asked once in an interview, years ago, about Israel, he astutely answered that it would simply drown in a sea of Arabs.

Is it any wonder he was hated by folks like Hillary Clinton and her close Neocon associates, murderous people like Madeleine Albright or Barbara Nuland?

In the long term, history I believe will have a much more favorable impression of this man than Western public opinion, force-fed by corporate establishment lines, today.

It was such a fine thing America did in Libya, killing a good leader of a stable society and pitching the society into chaos.

Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Hillary.

John Chuckman



“The Women’s March on Washington represents the America I know and love”

 This is just mindless. Much like the “poem” I read about which was recited to a crowd by some air-head celebrity, a poem written by a teen-ager, undoubtedly the product of the miracle of American education, which compared Trump to Hitler and abusively said he had wet-dreams about his daughter.

Indeed, another mindless celebrity at the event, a rather older one perhaps trying to re-ignite a fizzled career, said she has had thoughts of blowing up the White House. High-minded stuff indeed.

It just does not come any shallower or more ignorant than that. In fact, it is downright dangerous to be spouting such stuff and ignoring other terrible matters.

Trump has done nothing yet of which to be afraid.

But Obama leaves office, having, quite literally, killed tens of thousands of women and their families, women just like some of these women demonstrating.

He dropped more than 100,000 bombs.

On seven countries.

Every day of his eight years was marked by war, by America killing people, somewhere.

And this wonderful man created a hi-tech version of the old Argentine junta’s “disappearing” people – a hi-tech version with “kill lists” dropped regularly into his office in-box for an approving signature.

If Trump starts looking anything like the world’s greatest contemporary mass-murderer – Obama having killed more people than any dictator of our day you can name – I will immediately turn against him.

But it is acts, not words, which count.



Response to another reader’s comment:

 Absolutely, and more.

But these kinds of unthinking persons care only about their own kind.

You know, the big turmoil in America’s streets over Vietnam, turmoil which for a time came to resemble civil war, was over (relatively small, in terms of wars) numbers of American caskets coming home for a while. And especially when those caskets contained draftees.

Never mind the estimated 3 million slaughtered in their own homes by America – napalmed, carpet-bombed, and sliced up with early versions of cluster bombs. Americans could have quite happily gone on going to dances and movies and slurping beer, had it not taken a fair number of American lives to achieve the grim task.

Never mind the million who died in Cambodia, the killing fields having been a direct result of America destabilizing a neutral country in its mindless Vietnam crusade.

Americans cry over Americans and ignore the millions they have murdered and maimed in far-flung points on the globe. The dead simply remain invisible in the most immoral behavior to be imagined.



Response to a comment about the number of votes which Hillary actually won by:

Uninformed gibberish.

The Constitution is the Law of the Land – it is indeed called that – and in America it takes legal precedence over all other laws.

In fact, every high official and every member of the armed forces takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The Constitution was deliberately written to be rigid and a number of its provisions are and/or were anti-democratic – eg, until 1913, American Senators were appointed, not elected.

The Founders were not democrats, many of them even said so, and America’s laws refer to that vaguely-defined entity called a republic, not a democracy.

The Constitution can be changed, but it’s an immense task to do so, one that a sound-bite politician like Hillary could never give any time to. She was always too busy running for office or collecting money to run for office to actually do some slogging work changing or improving anything real.

Again, here are the facts:


John Chuckman



“Social media isn’t doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism. Thankfully, Angela Merkel is stepping in”

Oh, please, not more anti-Semitism!

The fact is that the genuine article is virtually non-existent in our society, at least in any public or genuinely influential way, but that does not stop the charge being freely used by lobbyists regularly to leverage either anti-free speech measures or to secure changes in political leadership.

The Independent and other British papers, notably The Guardian, spent months not very long ago attacking so decent a man as Jeremy Corbyn with this McCarthyite-like charge.

Their actual goal in doing so? To replace an independent-minded man with some shabby acolyte of Tony Blair, a man who lied and killed on a massive scale in the service of those who wanted to create “the birth of a new Middle East.”

It’s just horrible.

Lobbyist, too, use the charge to attack supporters of the perfectly peaceful and legitimate tactics for securing human and democratic rights called BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions), a set of tactics which were used to oppose apartheid in Nationalist South Africa and Jim Crow in the Southern United States.

There have actually been intense, shameful efforts by Israel’s government and its apologists to make support of BDS illegal in many jurisdictions. Such backward-looking bills are signed quite regularly in various states and cities all over as a result of the pressure.

As for Angela Merkel, she has been a devastatingly bad leader, a worthy example to no one in anything.

Read this recent analysis of her:


 Response to another reader who said that any unwelcome criticism can be branded as “malicious”. Like “fake news”, what is decided as malicious will be decided by the establishment agenda:


That sums it up.

Another comment below accurately refers to the Stasi, too.

Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany, and it shows in many things.


Response to another reader’s comment:


Well said on the Bible. It is simply full of vile things.

And, as Mark Twain said, upwards of a thousand lies.

Perhaps it should be banned or censored?

As for the notion “Semites,” that is a narrow avenue down which to travel.

The modern rulers and founders of Israel are Ashkenazi, a Germanic, European people.

They follow the same religion as the ancient Hebrews, but they are not the same people.

Adopting the Hebrew language in Israel was an artificial measure, because Yiddish, closely related to German, is the native language of most of these people or their immediate ancestors.

Hebrew studies were of course maintained in religious schools by the Ashkenazi in Europe and America, just as Muslim religious schools maintain Arabic for religious studies, but Hebrew was no one’s actual day-to-day language since ancient days.

DNA studies clearly show the European origins of the Ashkenazi, who arose about 1,000 years ago.

The fact of their embracing the religion of Judaism undoubtedly reflects an unknown historical period when the Hebrew people, some of them, came to be evangelical.

After all, they had the dramatic example of the amazing success of Christianity, which itself had started as a small Jewish sect.

There is some DNA evidence of Semitic origins, too, but this would reflect the intermarriage centuries ago of members from various Jewish communities in a diaspora of evangelical Jews and Hebrews, the generally small size of Jewish communities always having represented a problem for marriage and children.

Of course, the final topper, as it were, is that the Palestinians are almost certainly the main body of what remains of the ancient Hebrews.

They, of course, through two millennia, have changed with conquest and inter-marriage and religious evangelism of other kinds, those of Islam and Christianity.

John Chuckman



First, the silly pope is speaking only for the establishment, something senior levels of the Church have always been an intimate part of.

This pope’s entire term has been characterized very much by his own form of populism.

All the show and publicity over no traditional papal apartment, no fancy cars, etc.

The papacy obviously is not a democracy, but what is wrong with “populism” in a democracy anyway?

Nothing, of course.

What these establishment words really intend to suggest is that we are seeing incipient fascism, and despite that notion being promoted daily by our dishonest and self-interested corporate press, it is utter nonsense with no basis in fact.

This false theme just reflects the establishment lashing out over the seeming loss of its new world order, and, by the way, was there ever a more creepy, fascist-tinged phrase than “new world order”?

Second, Hitler was not elected, and talking this way reflects pure historical ignorance, yet I’ve read it a number of times. So much for the idea of people learning from the past.

Hitler, in his period of trying to be elected, never got more than about 37% of the vote.

He was appointed Chancellor by an aged (some would say, senile) President von Hindenburg, who was tired of the political turmoil in the streets of the time.

Hitler then quickly proceeded to seize absolute power with a wave of measures following the staged Reichstag fire event.

Now, more than a few observers have seen parallels between the Reichstag fire and all the measures which followed 9/11 and the beginning of the effort in earnest by America to establish a “new world order.”

I don’t know and remain open to whatever full evidence would reveal, but it is always true that big, sudden, watershed events in history, plotted ahead by leaders, were accompanied by massive lies.



John Chuckman



I have before called The Guardian, once a broadsheet newspaper of respectable dullness, today’s worst newspaper in the world when it comes to journalism.

As if to further bolster its claims, below is a list of items taken from the front page around noon on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration. The titles – ranging from genuinely childish to asinine – tell the story of a newspaper which has become almost a case study in “fake news,” fake news from the establishment, the most dangerous kind. A paper that was once respectably tedious has become flashily, even garishly, irresponsible, bombastic, and prejudiced.

When it isn’t conducting all-out assaults on someone its editors hate – examples have included Jeremy Corbyn, a thoroughly decent political leader of the British Labour Party, against whom they conducted a months-long McCarthyite campaign over completely unsupported charges of anti-Semitism to comments on his dressing in an unacceptably ugly way, and Donald Trump, who has had everything from the speculated small size of his penis featured to a hundred unsupported claims of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia hurled at him.

When they aren’t furiously attacking someone, they literally are falling over themselves trying to build up someone they do like for whatever reason – examples include proven criminal lowlife and liar, Tony Blair, inept, never-closes-his-mouth politician, Owen Smith, and London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, who does nothing but grant self-promoting interviews. Establishment all, and quite dismally so.

To spice things up and maintain some kind of vague claim about still being a progressive publication, we get a long trail of useless or genuinely rubbishy articles along the lines of what it is like trying to have sex when you have wooden legs or the perils of a vegetarian in a restaurant trying to avoid inhaling the smoke from barbequed meats. Then we have declarations of how someone bravely faces all the waves of misogyny that are crashing over us, or why I am getting a German passport to leave the UK, horrible place that it has become for racism and prejudice. These articles enlighten no one about anything, but they do make loud self-applauded claims of tolerance and allow for eye-catching, trashy headlines to raise readership, and they employ the well-established advertising principle of great repetition keeping a theme on readers’ minds as though it really were something important.

In eight years of Obama’s continuous killing in half a dozen countries, there was never a concern raised, never a doubt expressed over what was going on. More than that, there was very little truth told about those events, the bloody events of Syria’s induced horror, for example, always being blurred over, never explained, and indeed, outright lied about many times, with re-written versions of the official line from Washington being offered as reportage and analysis. Shabby almost beyond belief because, while it is all just what we expect from a Washington Post or New York Times, this is a British paper and one with historic attachments away from the power establishment.

That is because today’s Guardian marches shoulder-to-shoulder not with the ordinary workers of its past, but with the ghastly establishment who brought us the bloodshed, refugees, and terror-blowback of the Neocon Wars. It joined their team, so to speak, some years ago. We see that in everything from its reportage and comment to its regular efforts to rehabilitate an utterly discredited lying killer like Tony Blair and its sycophantic support – and that’s not in the least an exaggeration – of Hillary Clinton, who, without a doubt, would have proved the most duplicitous and murderous President ever.

 Here is The Guardian dump of Trump-hating articles for Inaugural Day:


“The honeymoon is already over for President Trump”

Richard Wolffe     – whom I would like to ask, what honeymoon would that be?


“Late-night hosts on the inauguration: ‘How is that a president?’”

Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers took aim at the inauguration proceedings and shared concern over the future: ‘We’re so fucked’     – note the language declaring how tolerant The Guardian is.


“Women will march against Trump. We may lose, but it’s still worth it”

Suzanne Moore     – who undoubtedly writes from a leather wing chair in a comfortable Mayfair flat.


“Music: this week’s anti-Trump songs reviewed’

Michael Hann     – note that is just “this week’s.”


‘I’m going to speak out as often as I can, otherwise I can’t live with myself’

Paul Auster     – well, I don’t think he has to worry about an outlet: The Guardian will print his every gasp.


“How to Trump-proof your life (in a minute) – video”        – now, there’s assinity, and writ large.


“The Peace Ball: black brilliance and resistance on the eve of the Trump era”

Steven W Thrasher     – who should be asked; resistance to what?


“Why the next four years will be a test for all of us’

Yaa Gyasi     – a test in what? Writing meaningless article titles?


“Why my seat at the inauguration is empty”

 “I will not be celebrating the swearing-in of a president who rode racism, sexism, xenophobia and bigotry to the White House”   

Barbara Lee      – she may have left some name-calling quality out, but I don’t know what it would be.


“Terrified of Trump: What we learned at Davos 2017”       – someone was sent to Davos to learn nothing.

John Chuckman



Headline from 10,000 years ago:

“Mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and giant sloths facing extinction”

Headline from 60,000,000 years ago:

“Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, and Brontosaurus facing extinction”

Well, species do come and go.

Evolution is non-stop, and it destroys as well as creates.

Those who think the world and its species should just be static are simply offering a new secular version of the Old Testament with God in a single stroke creating all the species of an unchanging universe.


John Chuckman



Melania was stunning in her powder blue dress. Wow!

Here is the most beautiful first lady ever. She leaves Jackie Kennedy in the shadows.

Michelle appears to have gone out of her way to look like a frumpy school marm from 1959, with a truly ugly brown dress and her hair parted down the middle.

Was she trying to make a statement?

With her ugly dress and hair parted down the middle, Michelle suggested a member of the White House kitchen staff given the day off to attend the ceremony.

John Chuckman



I don’t understand the concerns over whether Obama’s legacy will be changed.

It simply cannot be changed.

Corpses, hundreds of thousands of them, are susceptible to no change of which I am aware, except rot.

John Chuckman



“We have ‘taken back control’ from the EU – only to give it to President Trump”

Well, if you wanted an example for teaching how to write something utterly meaningless, Mr. William Wallace has obligingly provided it here.

Taken back control?

America runs Europe now, just as It runs Britain. You have no significant freedom of action in foreign policy at all, and you haven’t had for decades.

Do you see Obama’s tanks roaring around Europe pretending to oppose a “newly aggressive ” Russia?

Do you see billions of dollars’ worth of American-imposed sanctions helping cripple Europe’s economy?

Do you see Europe struggling with the massive human migrations American violent policy in the Mideast has generated?

Do you see Britain stuck with paying tens of billions for a new set of American Trident nuclear submarines which cannot even be used without American authority?

Do you see Britain hamstrung buying the costly and badly-designed F-35?

Independent editors, where do you get such writers from? Simply lame.

John Chuckman



“The Left Is The New Right”

I’m sorry, but this is a really dumb idea currently being widely propagated on the Internet.

What is Left In imperial, pounding-fist America?

Hillary Clinton?

George Soros?

Only a person who confuses slogans with substance identifies such people as Left.

They are the wealthy establishment, some of its very heart, and the establishment really has no Left and no Right, only its own narrow interests, often murderous and manipulative interests.

A genuine Left simply does not exist in America, and it has no history. There was a brief time during the Depression that America had a Left, but it faded away with rising prosperity and war and the coming of world empire. And while it existed, it was under constant assault from J. Edgar Hoover – a ferocious man approved by president after president.

As for America’s origins, the Left simply did not exist. Early America was a kind of hinterlands aristocracy, one with boundless greed for expansion westward, real estate speculation with a market of newcomers, and a great and vibrant slave industry. George Washington, far from in any way being a self-sacrificing idealist, was right at the center of such efforts with a reputation for hard-nosed dealing. Even his war service was profitable for him.

America’s “Great Emancipator,” the most beloved president who is much sentimentalized in popular lore, was in many ways a hard man. He worked impossibly hard for his father, a man he came pretty much to hate, on a hardscrabble farm and he became through his own determined efforts a lawyer, eventually quite a successful one, effectively a corporate lawyer for interests like the growing Illinois Central Railroad.

Such connections led to his candidacy for president in the newly-emerged Republican Party. He fought the Civil War, not over slavery, as he himself told us, but over a harsh notion that a state could never be permitted to leave the United States. He created the united and war-forged industrial power that became today’s metropolitan center of world empire.

Today, I think America’s so-called Left could be typified (or is it parodied?) by Michael Moore, multi-millionaire director, a man styling himself as a kind of humble everyman shuffling around in a beat-up baseball cap, but whose actual political choices have run to Hillary Clinton and General Wesley Clark.


John Chuckman



Silly French Finance Minister, speaking, by the way, for a French government literally dead on its feet, much resembling a tired waxworks tableau about to be replaced at Madame Tussaud’s.

Why on earth not?

There have been tons of criticism of Merkel from inside Europe.

She has been pretty close to a disaster as leader.


Response to a comment about how Trump’s criticizing the EU was not how friends act to a country, it is an enemy act.

No, it is not.

And the EU is not a single country, not even close to being one.

You might think someone from Britain would understand that, the country having just agreed to leave the EU.

The last time a state of America’s Union tried what Britain is doing, there was a massive Civil War, which still, by the way, remains the bloodiest war America in which was ever involved, one with about double the deaths America experienced in WWII.

The EU has always refused to go far enough to become a country, always taking half-measures, as with the way the Euro was established with no strong central banking.

The EU is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of zoo organization where both sit side by side.

John Chuckman



This story of Christopher Steele and his dossier on Trump and Russia is as phony as it gets.

Steele, an ex-MI-6 officer now working as a private consultant, was commissioned for a large fee (said to have been £130,000) from a Republican opponent of Trump to dig some dirt out on Trump. My guess would be the extremely sleazy Ted Cruz who had more campaign funds than he knew what to do with.

After Trump won the nomination, payments were continued by a Democratic source. Gee, I wonder who? Perhaps a dishonest candidate who won the Democratic nomination with dirty tricks, who also had more campaign funds than could be used sensibly, and who proceeded to spend $1.2 billion on a failed campaign?

After Trump’s election, Mr. Steele is said to have continued his work for free because he “was so concerned.” Have you ever heard of such wealth-connected operators working for nothing? Out of concern? It’s the equivalent of a top corporate lawyer claiming he worked away on a brief out of pure concern. It just does not happen. It is preposterous.

The public can be so gullible about such matters simply because most of people are honest, and security service people, including former ones earning big livings on commissions from sleazy politicians, are anything but. Many of them are even borderline psychopaths who enjoy throwing monkey wrenches into things, especially when they are paid handsomely for doing so.

Steele’s information supposedly came from “solid gold” contacts in Russia, but please remember that the politics of any large country includes wealthy or influential enemies of its current government. Would it be hard to find such people in America if you were inquiring about the Clintons or Obama? It would not. Such a statement about sources tells us precisely nothing, and we have no supporting evidence at all for this silly dossier just as we had no evidence for claims of Russia’s hacking the DNC.

Steele is said to have given information to MI6 and to have cut his communication with the FBI, to whom he had earlier supplied it, out of frustration with their inaction sometime before the election. Finally, he is said to have turned to the press, to the American magazine, Mother Jones.

For those who don’t know, Mother Jones is a kind of slushily-progressive publication in part supported by a foundation. It is almost certainly one of many publications secretly subsidized by CIA. Virtually any liberal or progressive publication in the United States since the Cold War has been secretly subsidized by them.

Such support arrangements are not even always even known to a magazine’s management. CIA used to secretly finance many progressive publications in the US, such as the old Saturday Review of Literature. It gathered information from them and used them for planting stories.

Other publications, such as those of the former Time-Life, were associated secretly to CIA through family ownership connections, in that case, Henry Luce. It was no accident when Time-Life immediately bought the Zapruder film of Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, and it was kept out of the public domain for years with suggestions, when it finally did surface, of expert editing.

So, we come around full circle back to the CIA associated with some of the original phony stuff about Trump, undoubtedly manufactured under Obama’s direction. This is what they do. They did it for the First Gulf War. They did it for the invasion of Iraq. They did it for the horrors in Syria. More than half a century later, they still are lying about the assassination of a president, as well as a host of other matters.

Please remember that much of what security services, such as MI6 or CIA, do is foment trouble for others, manufacture documents, and create deliberate confusion and dark operations. They are not harmless information collection agencies.

Steele is not some honest information broker handing over his findings a bit late. That is a completely disingenuous, and an unquestionably contrived, description of what has happened with this dossier.

The description plays to the publicity-created image much of the public have of security services like MI6 or CIA being honest public servants. They are not. They have never been. They were not created to be.

The reality is something far closer to a dirty trickster doing what dirty tricksters do, and for big pay.

Why else has Steele run away into the night?

John Chuckman



I actually doubt the author knows much about Martin Luther King, a man whose name has come to be used as a kind of cheap slogan by many.

Just to start with, comparing a non-politician to a politician is always a sign of shallowness in a writer.

“Why can’t you be more like Jesus?” you could say to Tony Blair, but what a waste of breath it would be.

“King’s dignity against Trump’s coarseness…”

I liked Dr. King very much and wept when he died, but studying his life in some detail certainly proved he was a human being and not a walking monument.

He did regularly have liaisons with various women as he travelled on the road, including women who in some cases were little more than the “I did it with a celebrity” type, society types, well-off white women, and others.

Hardly dignified.

There is a kind of deep connection between the two men nevertheless.

King was unquestionably a brave man, and he, in his last days, had switched from just being a civil rights leader to being an opponent of the establishment, especially where the murderous Vietnam War was concerned.

I do think that switch is what cost him his life. The establishment at that time was afraid with less tame leaders like Malcolm X (killed earlier) having taken over some of civil rights and the first thunder of the Black Power movement.

Suddenly, there was King speaking against an American War and lending his support to things like strikes by black workers, and that sent shivers through some. He was supposed to just be just a preacher leading rights marches, after all.

Not only were blacks about a quarter of the bodies they sent to Vietnam – out of all proportion to their share of population, which including just men is around 6% – but the double threat of Black Power and direct opposition to a major American policy and getting mixed up in labor strife was for them scary stuff.

I do believe that King’s assassination was no accident of one semi-retarded man with a rifle deciding to shoot him.

Now, Trump also very much disturbs the establishment, very much, or otherwise someone like Cornwell wouldn’t even be writing this thoughtless nonsense.

Trump has different aims than King, but they not entirely different. He wants to put an end to the insanity of the entire Middle East being in flames – having killed about 2 million in the Bush-Obama era – and to the US being in the business of overthrowing governments on a regular basis.

In its way, it is as radical as King’s stance on the holocaust of Vietnam, a place where the US eventually slaughtered about 3 million people.

And Trump has been threatened with assassination, a number of times by people who support the godawful Neocon Wars.

You know, heroism is about what a person tries doing despite opposition from powerful forces, and Trump may just prove something of a genuine hero.

He definitely has King’s courage, even if he lacks the eloquence, and that’s something the establishment fears too.


John Chuckman



“Julian Assange accuses Barack Obama of trying to ‘delegitimise’ Trump with Russia hacking claims’

Of course, Assange is right.

This is all really shabby stuff coming from Washington.

With the utterly failed Obama leading the charge.

It all serves no legitimate purpose, only pettiness and hiding Obama’s own many gross errors.

The retired Technical Leader of NSA Intelligence, William Binney, has said there is no evidence here. In effect, that is the word of God in such matters.

The NSA are the ones who know, not the FBI or CIA who do not have NSA’s technical capabilities and in fact depend on the NSA for such information.

The stupid report now being messaged into shape is a joke, exactly comparable to Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers.”

The initial version says nothing to anyone with a critical brain who can read.

When the Chief Executive tells you to produce something to support his careless words, you do it, if you value your job. It happened with CIA under Bush, and it happened with British Intelligence under Blair.

But it can have no validity.

Were there real evidence, it could be presented in a flash.

And it would be presented in a flash were there a shred of truth to Obama’s deceitful, self-serving claims.

As it is, they are just sitting around playing with words, trying to come up something that looks at all plausible just to please a foolish President who has made empty claims for his own vain purposes.

This truly is a telling set of events Obama chooses to go out with.

They painfully reveal what a blundering mediocrity he really is.

He hates Putin because Putin has bested him at virtually everything and effectively shown him up for empty husk that he is.

He also hates Putin because Obama has been one of the Pentagon’s most faithful servants ever as President. Indeed, the Pentagon just awarded Obama its Distinguished Public Service Medal for his role as Commander-in-Chief in a silly-looking ceremony with the highly aggressive Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, pinning on the medal.

Oh, yes, Obama can order troops and tanks around and threaten people, but he can’t keep pushing this nonsense. He convinces no one.

The DNC material was a leak, not a hack. And that means it was an insider.

Mad Hillary might like this stupid effort to validate her refusal to believe that nothing less than Satan himself could have caused her to lose.

But  these are dangerous games, and what the Obamas and Clintons are insisting upon only proves how unfit they were for such high office.

John Chuckman



“US Special Forces deployed at Russian border to defend Baltic states”

Defend them from what?

A real concern arises when “special forces” are used.

These guys are in the business of dirty tricks and assassinations and they organize and train trouble makers (as for example in the Syrian horror).

They do not fight invaders at a border.

Is Obama thinking about some sort of provocation? After all, his hacking charges are nonsense. His tanks and guns to the border are nonsense. So, what is he doing?

This is something to watch, carefully.