Syrian Solidarity UK describes itself as 'a network of activists committed to solidarity with the Syrian Revolution'. In practice this means making the case for greater UK involvement in Syria, above all a no-fly zone. SSUK claimed a large part of the credit for the March:
The protest was organized by Stop the War in conjunction with groups created or funded by George Soros, such as Avaaz.
George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has been playing an active role in regime change wars and coups since the 1980s. At the same time he is the major force behind the European refugee crisis and is the presumed architect of the Merkel Plan. (See also F. William Engdahl, Soros Plays Both Ends in Syrian Refugee Crisis). 'Solidarity with refugees' in Soros terms means using war to create as many refugees as possible; 'Syria solidarity' means facilitating those wars.
Thus Corbyn's first act as leader of the Labour Party was to lend moral support to George Soros's most ambitious projects: externally created regime change and mass migration.
Corbyn and Syria
Corbyn as a leading anti-war activist has been vocal in his opposition to active interventions such as the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Syria. That he was sharing a platform with people demanding a Libya-style no-fly zone, and with a flag associated with some of the most vicious actions of the Syrian war, should have given Corbyn pause.
It could be argued that Corbyn arrived late; maybe he did not notice the FSA flag, or realize its significance; maybe he did not know about Connolly's demand for a no-fly zone.
However Corbyn already had a murky history when it comes to regime change wars. In 2011, he was instrumental as chairman of Stop the War Coalition in suppressing debate and dissent about STW policies regarding Libya and Syria. In the same role he shares responsibility for the deplatforming of Mother Agnes Mariam, bullied by no-fly zone proponents out of speaking to a STW conference in 2013 about the war in Syria .
Also on Corban's watch, STW continued its affiliation with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), the British representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered to be the parent or mother lode of all terrorist organizations in the Middle East. The Brotherhood is sponsored by George Soros, with a recent study showing that Soros donated over $1.4 million to the Brotherhood from 2011 onwards.
In December 2015, in his speech to the debate about air-strikes on Syria, Corbyn made a most revealing statement about what he terms 'the Syrian Civil War'. (Full speech here), this clip taken from 18:20)
By suggesting that Assad is worse than ISIS, Corbyn is buying into the NATO narrative on Syria, heavily dependent on the myth of the genocidal Bashar al Assad, which has been created in order to justify the goal on regime change, in preference to actually stopping ISIS or other terrorist groups in Syria. So while ostensibly opposing overt intervention in Syria, Corbyn is underwriting the reasons given for that intervention, and thus facilitating it.
In December 2016 Corbyn wrote a public letter to Theresa May over Syria bloodshed:
"The rules of war are being broken on all sides. Labour has long condemned all attacks on civilian targets, including those by Russian and pro-Syrian government forces in Aleppo, for which there can be no excuse. We strongly believe that those responsible for violations of International Humanitarian Law in Aleppo and more widely in Syria should be held to account. [...]The letter pushes culpability for the war onto Syria and Russia, rather than onto those responsible:
"Would you set out exactly how the government will boost Foreign and Commonwealth Office resources to aid [efforts to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Syria], engaging all sides, including regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran?"
- Corbyn once again assumes the veracity of the NATO narrative with regard to Syrian, and now Russian, warcrimes, even though allegations of such crimes are never backed up by fact. There is no evidence that either Syria or Russia have ever deliberately attacked civilian targets. On the other hand there was good reason for driving out the gangs terrorizing both eastern and western Aleppo, the result being a free Aleppo now occupied with rebuilding lives and infrastructure.
- Corbyn's only reference to the Foreign Office is to assume that they could play a positive role in Syria. Corbyn is blithely ignoring the huge sums the FCO and other government departments have spent on promoting the war in Syria - the UK government is involved in activities ranging from funding terrorist groups ('non-humanitarian intervention') to orchestrating propaganda, including openly creating the fake humanitarian propaganda construct the White Helmets and being almost certainly behind the equally fraudulent @AlabedBana account.
He should go to Moscow, have a very strong and very robust conversation with the Russian government about their support for Assad and what they're doing there, but have that conversation.Corbyn's position on Syria is virtually identical to that of the Stop the War Coalition, explored in Syria Has Shown That Stop the War UK is Unfit for Purpose.
Corbyn, Jo Cox and the White Helmets
Jo Cox was a British MP who was assassinated just before the Brexit referendum, due, it is claimed, to her opposition to Brexit. Aside from her untimely death, she was most notable for her support for the war on Syria, urging British military intervention and a no-fly zone, if necessary one imposed unilaterally by Britain. In her Time to Enforce Syria's Ceasefire to Save Lives she expresses her admiration for Obama's leadership 'on everything' (including presumably the destruction of Libya), asserting 'Obama and Cameron did not intend to cause harm in Syria but containment has been a disaster - for Jo Cox failure to wage more war was the greatest crime. Before the vote on Syrian airstrikes Cox declared that she would abstain, because the proposed measures did not go far enough.
Like Corbyn, Cox equated Syria's president, Bashar Assad, with ISIS, asserting:
Jo Cox was a powerful spokesperson for the Foreign Office's propaganda construct the White Helmets, a supposed first responders outfit staffed by members of vicious terrorist groups in Aleppo, such as Nour al-Din al-Zinki, who cut off the head of Palestinian child Abdullah Issa. Cox nominated the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize.
There is extensive proof of the fraudulent and obnoxious nature of the White Helmets, emanating from the tireless research carried out by Vanessa Beeley and other independent researchers.
As John Pilger pointed out, the White Helmets are a "complete propaganda construct":
The White Helmets are partially funded by George Soros, via Open Society and the Syria Campaign.
Jo Cox and her husband Brendan met when they both worked for the Soros-funded NGO Oxfam. Brendan went on to work for Save the Children, likewise funded by Soros, but left under a cloud in November 2015. On Jo Cox's death, her grieving husband smartly set up the Jo Cox Fund, now the Jo Cox Foundation. The first £1.5m raised was earmarked from the beginning for the three charities deemed by Brendan Cox to be closest to his wife's heart : the Royal Voluntary Service, Hope Not Hate and the White Helmets.
Jeremy Corbyn, like STW, takes no official position on the White Helmets, neither supporting them nor questioning Boris Johnson about their funding. A search of his twitter account @jeremycorbyn, which he regularly uses to convey his position on issues, reveals no mention of the White Helmets at all.
What he has done is heavily promote Jo Cox: as well as speaking upon her death, as he should, he paid tribute to her on the anniversary of her maiden speech, at Labour's National Women's Conference in September 2016, and again when her killer was sentenced in November. In May, Theresa May and Corbyn agreed on a one day election truce in Cox's memory.
Cox's murder was a tragedy for her two children, in particular, and has implications for democracy itself, as Corbyn properly pointed out at the time. Morally, however, Jo Cox is in the same camp as Tony Blair, in that she was a warmonger and to that end underwrote an obvious fraud, i.e. the White Helmets. For a self-proclaimed anti-war activist to continue to sing her praises without reservation is therefore inappropriate.
Jeremy Corbyn has openly supported, in Parliament, the Jo Cox Foundation, which publicly earmarked money for the White helmets. In December 2016 Corbyn invited Theresa May to join with him in urging the public to buy a record to support the Foundation. Corbyn was therefore asking people to donate money to the White Helmets and support al Qaeda in the war on Syria.
Corbyn, in his relentless promotion of Jo Cox and her enterprises, is careful not to refer to the White Helmets directly. A search of Jeremy Corbyn's twitter shows no tweets regarding the White Helmets at all, let alone their funding by the Foreign Office. Thus, after Boris Johnson, Corbyn is arguably Westminster's most dedicated supporter of the White Helmets, without ever mentioning them by name.
The eulogies for Jo Cox do not look like stopping any time soon: the anniversary of Cox's death has elicited tweets from both Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequor John McDonnell. It is hard to argue with their choice of hashtag.
The Great Get Together was a three day event to celebrate the life of Jo Cox, initiated by her 'family and friends'. It boasts more than a 100 partners: those cited include Avaaz, ActionAid and 38 Degrees, as well as others that enjoy Soros funding, such as Amnesty International.
Soros, Trump and The Women's March
Like him or loathe him, it is undeniable that during the run-up to the US presidential election Donald Trump was seen as an outsider, unpredictable, someone not owned by the system. For that reason many people opposed to NATO's regime change wars hoped Trump might be less dangerous than Clinton, and certainly believed he could not possible be worse.
Trumps's policies as then stated were a direct threat to the plans of George Soros: on the one hand he wanted to reduce uncontrolled immigration, and on the other he proposed working with Russia to combat ISIS, and move away from 'interventions', i.e. regime change wars.
Having failed in his goal to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, George Soros set out to undermine Donald Trump, by funding enormous protests within the US and around the world. For many it seemed as though Soros, having been so successful at forced regime change abroad, was going to achieve the same thing in the United States. The demonstrations were directed squarely at Trump per se - while also protesting his polices on abortion and immigration they were careful not to address the question of war.
The anti-Trump Women's March on London was planned to coincide with the equivalent in Washington. There is no question that Soros was behind the Marches: with one researcher estimating that at least 130 organizations linked to Soros were partners in the Women's March on Washington. Sponsors of the London March included many organizations known to be funded by Soros, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace, ActionAid UK and Oxfam, as well as Stop the War Coalition. STW's Lindsey German was among those leading the March.
The organizers of the London march 'called on people of all genders to march in London as part of an international day of action in solidarity'. Although issues like abortion were mentioned, the primary intention of the March was to oppose Trump in principle and support Soros's interests by attacking Trump's refugee policy and avoid all reference to war. The women wore hats or costumes representing vaginas, placards undermined the male sex and children were ruthlessly exploited.
Despite its supposedly feminist orientation, the Washington March was led by 'civil rights activist' Linda Sarsour, who has defended sharia law and is an outspoken supporter of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
In 2015 Linda Sarsour founded MPower Change, which claims to be a grass roots Muslim movement, in conjunction with Citizens' Engagement Laboratory (CEL). CEL is an Open Society Foundation, which makes George Soros (as Open Society founder) a primary funder of MPower Change.
Corbyn and the Anti-Trump Campaign
Corbyn supporters who loathed the selective morality, exploitation and sheer bad taste of the Women's March breathed a sigh of relief when Corbyn chose to spend that day far away in Brighton talking about the beleaguered NHS. The relief was premature, as Corbyn subsequently gave his seal of approval to the Women's March, without qualification, in a most revealing interview with Channel 4. Corbyn's wording is totally hostile and condemnatory of Trump, devoid of all concession:
Several of Corbyn's positions are ones that many decent people would agree with, such as opposition to torture and the right of women to abortions, though they may be less impressed with Corbyn's confidence that opposition to torture is a British value, given the criticism of British forces in Iraq.
Corbyn is on record as opposing both the TPP and the TTIP, so one might have expected Corbyn to congratulate Trump on his canning of the egregious TPP agreement, but no: instead we get a reference to 'trade arrangements that are solely beneficial to the US and nobody else', thereby casting aspersions on all the socialist countries who apply trade restrictions to protect their workers are immoral. Free trade is another cause that is dear to the heart of George Soros but which is threatened by the rise of Trump:
The TPP and the TTIP do not work in the interest of the nation-state of the USA and the American people, but in the interest of the globalist corporations who were involved in drawing up these agreements and ensuring that Obama and later Clinton who they supported for the White House would carry through their implementation. (Katherine Frisk, Why George Soros Wants To Bring Down Donald Trump)What is most interesting is what Corbyn didn't say. Trump has proposed working with Russia and, at least by implication, Syria, in order to fight terrorist groups in Syria. He has talked of ceasing to fund terrorists, reducing nuclear weapons, and reducing external interventions. Indeed, only a couple of months earlier US Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein had argued that peace was more likely under Trump than under Hillary Clinton (which did not stop her asking for a recount on Clinton's behalf after the election). On the other hand Trump attitude to Iran has been hawkish from the beginning. Corbyn has nothing to say either about the more conciliatory signals coming from Trump or, on the other hand, about Trump's threats of war and sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea.
The primary interest of a statesman in the activities of another country should be directed to that country's foreign policy, above all vis-a-vis one's own. In the linked article, as elsewhere, Corbyn is totally absorbed with US internal affairs and the persona of Trump - there is no mention of war or sanctions.
Regardless of whether Trump meant what he says, or could achieve his goals, and regardless of whatever else he might plan to do, any anti-war activist with an ounce of integrity should have acknowledged the positive implications of his (then) cooperative approach to Russia, and the negative ones of his attitude to Iran.
At a new anti-Trump rally in London, 4 February 2017, in response to Trumps new travel restrictions, a pre-recorded speech relayed Corbyn's support to the protesters. Corbyn's priorities as set out here are not what one would expect from a socialist and an anti-war campaigner. They do however mirror exactly those of Stop the War, the Women's March, and George Soros, who could have penned the speech himself.
This flabby speech, like that given to Channel 4, stands in stark contrast to the dynamic, fact-filled speeches Corbyn has made in parliament on austerity and the NHS, relying on feel-good cliche and buzz words such as solidarity and hope versus fear, hate and hatred; solidarity is mentioned some eight times.
Once again Corbyn ducks the issue of Trump's foreign policy and their implications for peace, in the same way as he always ducks the question of British sponsoring of funding of terrorism in Syria. While this may be odd for a supposed anti-war campaigner, it does mean that Corbyn is less vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy - he was more than happy to meet with Barack Obama in 2016.
Hope and Hate
All Corbyn's buzz words - hate, hatred, fear, solidarity, hope - are those much loved by the Soros machine. Just a few days before Corbyn's anti-Trump speech, Soros himself tweeted a photo of a placard which claimed that 'hatred's greatest weapon is complacency'.
Soros in fact funds an organization called Hope not Hate , which supports Jeremy Corbyn, and been termed a Labour Party front group. The hope versus hate dichotomy is a favorite with Corbyn:
Hope not Hate is at present suing Nigel Farage, who has accused the organization of pursuing 'violent and undemocratic means'. It is difficult to investigate the truth of Farage's allegation, as HNH appear to have deleted all the relevant archives, but others have suggested that Hope not Hate thrives on hate.
The Soros Marches, with all their dishonest feel-good language, are designed, not to promote tolerance and solidarity, but to create resentment and fear in a large sector of the population. Anyone who supports Brexit, or opposes the war on Syria, or opposes mass migration, or questions received wisdom on issues like 9/11 or vaccination, or is uncomfortable with the idea of grown men being able to use the same toilet as little girls, is deemed to be racist, fascist, a neo-Nazi, hateful. And should be afraid.
It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). (Tony Cartalucci, Soros Criminal Conviction Exposes 'Human Rights' Scam)The Complicity of Corbyn Supporters
Corbyn is seen as a return to Labour values and priorities. His opposition to Tory austerity and defense of the NHS, along with his reputation as an anti-war activist, have huge appeal, so that many see that supporting him is a no-brainer.
The desperation for a 'real' Labour government after the years of Tory and Blairite administrations has had the effect of stifling all criticism of Corbyn amongst his supporters. The campaign against Corbyn by the corporate media was virulent - no-one wanted to give it more fuel. The outcome has been a deafening silence regarding Corbyn's position on the UK's war on Syria in particular.
When Corbyn is criticized for links with the suppposed terrorist organization Hezbollah, his supporters do not feel that it is for them to point out the very real support he has offered the Muslim Association of Britain. In Britain's Real Terror Apologists, Finian Cunningham rightly points out the validity of sympathy with Irish aspirations or support for Hezbollah, and the hypocrisy of the British government given its own record of supporting terrorist groups from Ireland to Asia. He does not, however, mention Corbyn's own support for groups aligned with ISIS and al Qaeda via his fundraising for the White Helmets.
Likewise when Corbyn is condemned for not wanting to bomb Syria, genuine anti-war activists are loathe to argue that in fact he is offering the UK government strong support for their intervention in Syria by parroting their lies about Bashar al Assad and the Syrian and Russian forces. Hence we have Alexander Mercouris enthusing post-election about Corbyn's success in the British election ends Britain's involvement in regime-change wars, 'Corbyn has staunchly opposed all the regime change wars - in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria'.
And certainly no-one is talking about Soros. No-one is mentioning Corbyn's open support for far too many of the Soros projects, from mass migration to the anti-Trump campaign, to supporting the Women's March, and his indirect support for the war on Syria. No-one is talking about Corbyn's wholesale adoption of Soros buzz-words. There is no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is controlled by Soros. The only question is whether he knows it.
Those of Corbyn's supporters on social media who also feel strongly about the UK's war on Syria have been determined that he should not be held to scrutiny. They have clearly hoped that 'blips' such as his claim about the Syrian government killing more people than ISIS, his support for Jo Cox and thus the White Helmets, and his backing for Soros's Women's March, will sink without trace.
As a consequence there has been no pressure on Corbyn to be an effective voice in parliament against the UK's Middle East ventures. The only pressure on Corbyn has come from the Israel lobby, Blairite and Conservative opponents, and their friends in the corporate media.
Some months ago I wrote an article about it called The Gatekeepers. I proposed that a gatekeeper in the context of Syria was one who ostensibly opposed intervention in Syria, while simultaneously facilitating that intervention by keeping faithfully to the NATO narrative on Syria, i.e. the fiction of a popular uprising, moderate rebels and a genocidal dictator. At the same time, gatekeepers endeavor to create an impermeable barrier between the public and the facts about Syria, by blanking all research which questions that narrative.
It is in the nature of politicians to seek moral and intellectual compromise, so it is no surprise that peace specialist Jeremy Corbyn should fit the definition of gatekeeper. What is more troubling is the role played by pro-Syria activists. In order not to be seen to be attacking the already beleaguered Corbyn, they have made no attempt to force him to call Boris Johnson out for his support for terrorists in Syria, nor to persuade Corbyn to distance himself from Jo Cox and the White Helmets. They have, therefore, contributed to the barrier between serious research on Syria and public discourse.
Whether his anti-war devotees have actually done Corbyn any favors is debatable. If many of them were repelled by the Women's March, then many less politically engaged voters in the UK will have felt the same way. Moreover, the links between the UK government, the White Helmets and vicious extremists are becoming harder to deny. It may well have worked to Labour's advantage if Corbyn had endeavored to expose the scam of the White Helmets instead of underwriting it through his excessive support for Jo Cox.
As leader of the opposition, Corbyn has chosen to ignore unpalatable truths about UK interventions abroad. It would be interesting to see what compromises he is prepared to make should he become prime minister of Great Britain. Not everyone is optimistic:
Only time will tell whether those of his supporters who oppose UK interventions in the Middle East will continue to give Corbyn a free pass.
Reader Comments
Yet still, Blairite Labour has a lot to answer for. It is a test of the new Labour regime that they use their new powers to see that due process occurs. Which means, hanging the rats from lamposts.
The British political class is still pre-internet, pre-21st century, that's why they're forced to reframe every event that comes along, i.e. Brexit, Trump, Isis, etc in terms of the symbolism of old, irrelevant worn out grooves like Thatcherism, Anti-Thatcherism, Blairism, etc.
"He's a walking talking contradiction, thrown into the melting pot of excrement to confuse and divide, to continue the agenda of polarity."
It seems clear to me that the British public, who do actually live in the 21st Century, have far more political savvy than these idiots, largely see the Left/Right paradigm as irrelevant. They want decent public services, a good deal out of Europe, and don't see any of those issues in terms of said paradigm.
That's digging quite deep... I'm not saying it's wrong.
Also with regards to the connections to Soros... I think, and I could be wrong, you'll find that multiple organisations are funded by billionaires either on the left or right... it therefore follows that pretty much any politician who is active and high profile can be linked to whatever billionaires agenda through either the organisations they support, positions they take or funding they receive. Linking Corbyn to Soros therefore in my view doesn't necessarily mean he's a trojan horse... Corbyn is quite left... Soros funds and deals with a lot of left issues... making a link between the 2 is not exactly going to be impossible.
Corbyn, to survive as a politician will probably have to be pragmatic and pick/choose his battles... we all know the establishment hate him... his support comes from his supporters, his supporters in turn will believe certain things that Corbyn can't really challenge to a great degree e.g. Corbyn will have to support feminism because that issue is important to his supporters, he'll have to support refugees for the same reason... he can't really cosy up to Russia, because as hard as it is to hear this, most of the British public, either left or right think Russia and Putin in particular are quite evil. In short, Corbyn, having been alienated by the media/establishment can't also alienate himself from his own support base... if he does, that's when he retires.
In short, the article is saying he may be a trojan horse, but I think these connections can be explained away... at the end of the day, we have a man who has been in office for decades and whose record speaks for itself. Out of all the options of politicians we have, he's the best....
#notoapathy
We become apathetic, that's essentially letting the Torys grow stronger... they want apathy. Expect more articles like this... to make you feel frustrated, overwhelmed and the like. The effect of it is to numb and confuse you to inaction... in return, you won't turn up to vote and the right UKIP and Tory fanatics will!
I agree with this comment "Reading this artical leads to believe that the author has more to do with Soros than corbyn"
With politicians, it's often possible to detect 'info residue'.
As for Corbyn, whether he's just adopting a 1980's CND version of 'The Columbo effect', it's difficult to tell. I've certainly seen him give some dumb assed interviews (the Trump one f'rinstance), but he's obviously quite a talented individual.
As per the possibility of nefarious hidden helping hands, I wouldn't like to guess.