The Great ‘Reset’ (of Capitalism)

12 July 2020 — Investigating Imperialism

By William Bowles

Why can’t I shake the feeling that the Virus is really the back story, a story that diverts us from something far deeper and much more threatening than the much-maligned Virus? The social distancing; the masks; the lockdown; the shutdown; all designed to distract? And the glue that cements it all together? Fear.

There are so many colliding stories coexisting in the history of the Great Global Lockdown, that serve to confuse and misdirect investigations, that figuring out what’s actually going on, is very, very difficult. Conflicts of interest abound, hidden agendas can be briefly glimpsed, then vanish under the waves of state-directed propaganda. But if there’s one overriding aspect to this event it’s fear. Fear engendered in the populations and the fear the ruling classes are experiencing that their rule might be coming to an end, either through environmental collapse or (praise be) revolution.

Global Heating and the Crisis of Capital, two earth-shattering issues. One threatens the future of Humanity and the other, the future of Capitalism. That the two are intimately interconnected, is surely obvious to all who care to look. And then we have the Virus. Taken together, the perfect storm?

Once more, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist economy are manifesting themselves, also in the usual manner; a falling rate of profit leading to reduced investment leading to bankruptcies and the meltdown of the economy, leading to, as before, mass unemployment and ultimately of course, war. At least, that’s how it used to be. But is war on a global scale now possible, or indeed even necessary to solve the crisis of the over-accumulation of capital and the falling rate of profit and all the other paradoxes and contradictions that capitalism creates for itself?

Enter the Virus

The ruling classes of the Anglo-American Empire have concluded that the coming environmental collapse will deal with the ‘problem’ of surplus labour and the propitious arrival of the virus will between them, take care of these twin problems and the problem of the falling rate of profit but without recourse to turning the planet into a radioactive cinder first. Well that’s the theory.  As they say, a ‘global reset’ is in order, that is to say, a reset of the major capitalist economies. The weak and unprofitable will be eliminated, the losers absorbed by the survivors. A global fire sale of bankrupt corporations will take place. An even vaster concentration of capital will take place.

This is not to say, that it was planned, the ruling class are nothing if not opportunists and in any case, are they really masters of their own destiny, driven as they are by forces that most are, at best, only dimly aware of? You need proof? Dominic Cummings. Donald Trump. Boris Johnson.

The virus is merely the catalyst, the global lockdown will take care of the ‘surplus’ population as it already is. Predictions of a billion starving people, virtually all in the Global South, are already coming to pass. But we, in the so-called developed world have, for the most part, been well-insulated from the reality of a planet in lockdown. Fear rules us and makes us impotent.

The run-up to the Reset

Back in February, the doomsayer of the British state, Neil Ferguson, told us that his ancient software predicted half-million deaths from the virus. Fear ruled us and in that moment, the Coronavirus Bill was ushered through Parliament with nary a dissenting voice. The Lockdown State was upon us. Within weeks millions were made redundant. Small to- medium-sized businesses make up 80% of the real economy and the High Street died, probably never to recover. But note that the major supermarkets that control the bulk of purchases were allowed to remain open. As was Amazon. Make no mistake, this is all about Big Business.

Then Ferguson revised his Nostradamus-like predictions downwards, from 500,000 to 20,000 and still got it wrong but for an entirely different reason. Having set the virus of fear loose, it was vital to take back control of the narrative. But the half million served its purpose. Time to move on to the real business of saving capitalism, from itself.

There is some kind of insane logic to the way the Tory government operates, I believe it’s called ‘flying by the seat of your pants’. The British capitalist class has a bunch of total incompetents trying to run the state on their behalf as if it were merely outsourcing business opportunities to some very flaky ‘entrepreneurs’. Corruption and incompetence rules. A crew of nasty imperialist racists who can’t see beyond the current ripoff, that’s who is pretending to run Great Britain. Churchill must be revolving slowly in in his grave.

What appeared to be the government’s apparent indifference to the arrival of the Virus was in fact a thinly disguised Fascism in the shape of ‘Herd Immunity’, itself a variant of the theory of Eugenics or Social Darwinism or survival of the fittest, an idea that first surfaced in the 19th century and was enthusiastically adopted by the ruling classes of Britain, Germany and the USA. Let the Virus spread and the ‘weak’ will die and the ‘strong’ will survive, best exemplified when the virus was given free reign to spread through care homes and the proof is in the numbers, and although it’s proving difficult to find accurate figures, it’s estimated that at the very least 16,000 people died in care homes who needn’t have had their lives cut short and so brutally, about half of the total number of deaths, so far, though because of changes made to how deaths are recorded by the Coronavirus Bill, making accurate estimates is now all but impossible.

About 3,500 people died in care homes in Germany compared with more than 16,000 in the UK, despite Germany having a care home population twice as large. Its test-and-trace system and 14-day quarantine for people leaving hospital have been credited with protecting homes from outbreaks. – The Guardian, 28 June 2020

Benign neglect? I don’t think so. Discharging people sick from the Virus back into care homes, turned them into modern versions of Typhoid Mary. Care home workers were given no protection whatsoever, guaranteeing that their carers would both spread the virus and get infected by it, from those they cared for!

Hospitals were emptied for a flood of patients that never materialised! The so-called Nightingale Hospitals, 17,000 beds in total and launched with great fanfare had a total 60 patients and those were moved from regular hospitals. People were discouraged from visiting their local doctors, operations were cancelled, examinations were cancelled. Will we ever know the real death toll, not from the Virus but from the denial of needed care or from those too afraid to go to hospital? I’m prepared to wager that the total number of these ‘excess’ deaths will far outnumber the deaths from the Virus.

And of course, the destruction of vital social services by the Tory government fed into how the government responded to the Virus and it was directly expressed in the propaganda blitz; ‘Protect the NHS’, ‘Save Lives’, an NHS that had been emasculated by the very government that now claimed it wanted to protect it! Worse still, the same propaganda assault, blamed the public for the government’s failures in stemming the spread of the Virus.

But lest we forget, because the government’s initial reaction was to ‘let the virus rip’ through our communities, all the subsequent ‘social distancing’, ‘lockdowns’ and ‘face masking’ was rendered useless (if any of it ever worked in the first place) as the virus had been allowed to spread throughout the entire British population! It’s this initial event that was the single cause of the UK having one of the highest death rates, per capita, in the so-called developed world.

And to this engineered disaster, we haves the destruction of our social services after 10 years of Austerity as part of the neoliberal agenda of privatising everything! 50% fewer hospital beds than 10 years ago; a shortage of 40,000 nursing staff; the closure of hospitals and Accident & Emergency departments, as the state gears up for the total privatisation of health care in the UK. No doubt, the profitable bits will be fire-saled to US investors and the public will pick up the costs of the unprofitable bits left behind, after being raped by international capital. Again, the irony is not lost on the writer, of a former empire that ripped off the planet, now being picked clean by its successors. But it’s no justice to the millions of people the NHS still tries to serve, or to the millions who work for the NHS, the biggest employer in the UK.


After all, the virus and the methods chosen to allegedly, ‘deal’ with it, do not affect the rich, for them life goes on, no need of a ‘furlough’ for the 1%. Yes, it is an inconvenience but nothing that the ruling classes haven’t dealt with before eg, World Wars I and II come to mind. And indeed, as we have seen over the past three months, specific sections of the capitalist economy have made vast profits from the virus, especially the new digital industries. And for the most part, the professional middle classes have been only minimally affected by lockdowns and closures, so the core of neoliberal Britain, finance and consumption, appears, bizarrely, to continue as if everything is hunky-dory! Watching tv commercials brings it all home, to me at least. A parallel universe in garish colours, close-up, where people play out fantasy consumption roles for an imprisoned audience.

I predicate this view on the fact that the capitalist class knew quite well that its predations of the natural world would, at some time lead to ‘novel’ diseases, they even carried out a ‘dry run’ just prior to the appearance of the Virus and shortly thereafter produced the Coronavirus Bill here in the UK, consisting of hundreds of pages that had obviously had been in preparation, if not already written, well before the Virus’ arrival. Precognition? I don’t think so. More importantly, the Bill handed the state ever more draconian powers over our liberties, powers that as I write, are being further extended. We are now living in a de facto police state. Except the rich.

It’s also obvious that the government knew quite well the consequences of its actions, whilst at the same time, proved totally incapable of acting on the basis of all the studies and dry runs that the government had conducted prior to the arrival of the Virus. Incapable or unwilling, or both?

In other words, the government is a ‘ship of fools’ and this is probably the most dangerous thing about the this Tory regime when you add their incompetence to their bankrupt, neoliberal ideology.

Giving the state ‘permission’ to Imprison us

A lot of the mystery of the British state’s use of the Virus as a means of social control, became much clearer after I’d read the UK Cabinet Office’s document called ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy. Engineering opinion so that the public ‘gives its permission’ to be herded like cattle, locked up, pauperised and deprived of a future. The tools used are called Behavioural Psychology and involve evoking Pavlovian responses in the populace, which is how they get us to ‘give the state’ our permission, to do stuff:

This report is not just an overview of theory; it addresses the needs of policy-makers by:

  • Condensing the relevant evidence into a manageable “checklist”, to ensure policy-makers take account of the most robust effects on our behaviour
  • Demonstrating how behavioural theory can help meet current policy challenges, including full case studies of its application in the UK
  • Showing how government can build behavioural theory into its current policy-making practices
  • Exploring important issues around the need for public permission and the role of personal responsibility [my emph. WB]

The Report continues:

But when applying MINDSPACE in practice, it should not simply be seen as an alternative to existing methods. “Behaviour Change” is part of policy-making, rather than a novel alternative that can be bolted onto policies. Therefore, civil servants need to better understand the behavioural dimension of their policies and actions. MINDSPACE can help them do so in three different ways:

  • Enhance. MINDSPACE can help policy-makers understand how current attempts to change behaviour could be improved, for example through a better understanding of how people respond to incentives and which types of information are salient. The logic here is that if government is already attempting to shape behaviour, it should do so as effectively as possible.
  • Introduce. Some of the elements in MINDSPACE are not used extensively by policy-makers, yet may have a considerable impact. For example, there is room for more innovative use of social norms and commitment devices in policies. Of course, introducing new measures in this way may require significant efforts to ensure there is public permission for the approach.
  • Reassess. Government needs to understand the ways it may be changing the behaviour of citizens unintentionally. It is quite possible that government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.

MINDSPACE builds on existing methods of policy-making government produces unintended – and possibly unwanted – changes in behaviour. The insights from MINDSPACE offer a rigorous way of analysing whether and how government is shaping the behaviour of its citizens.


The use of MINDSPACE (or other “nudge‟ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. [my emph. WB] – ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy.

At the same time, this kind of approach to ruling people has a downside. The state can’t keep people in a state of fear indefinitely, any more than it can curtail economic activity indefinitely. The irony of the situation is that trade unions are demanding no return to work for fear of the Virus, even if for the vast majority the virus poses no threat.

[T]he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:

Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens. – Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, 11 May, 2020

Whitty spilled the beans, almost at the beginning of this nightmare, which may explain why we see so little of him these days.

The mindbenders are hard at work invoking the ‘Spirit of WWII’, Churchillian rhetoric, kindof, Spitfires, the Blitz and Sacrifice, which translates as more and even worse Austerity for us all. After all, somebody has to pay for this mess and it won’t be the political class or its masters, the ruling class. As usual, it will be the poor what gets the blame and pays the price.

So it would seem that we are all in for a wild ride into an uncertain future, with the state pressing our buttons – fear then less fear, then more fear then back to less fear again. The affects are already apparent with a rise in mind injury, especially amongst the young. Fear keeps us from resisting this outrageous assault on what’s left of our liberties and all to preserve the rule of BIg Capital.

Rerun: The New Imperialism or the Iron Heel By William Bowles

16 March 2003 — Investigating Imperialism

Welcome to the World of Double Standards

“The challenge to the post-modern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself.

Continue reading

MINDSPACE – Influencing behaviour through public policy

12 May 2020 — The New Dark Age

A must read (and frightening) document that details the UK government’s programme to control our thoughts and opinions (see also )

From the Executive Summary:

Influencing behaviour is central to public policy. Recently, there have been major advances in understanding the influences on our behaviours, and government needs to take notice of them. This report aims to make that happen.


Continue reading

UK Covid-19: We are NOT Cattle

17 March 2020 • 18:00 — Investigating Imperialism

Barbarian Britain

This is a work-in-progress, I’ll add/take away as the ideas/events emerge. What the government is doing is monstrous beyond words, dressed up with slick slogans – ‘Wash often for 20 seconds’, to hide the essentially benign neglect approach to the nation’s health. This is a national emergency. Banks should be nationalised, private healthcare taken over, the people mobilised. Those forced to cease work must be paid, but it’s clear, from the very beginning that business comes first (even if they’ll be no business left). The government hasn’t made it an official emergency, hence businesses can’t claim insurance (apparently, this has just changed, though the details escape me).

It’s also clear that the government is using us, the people, in a vast experiment called ‘Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)’, because the NHS simply doesn’t have the capacity, having been starved to death for the past ten years. The fancy graphs they show us, actually  hide the reality, that the only way the NHS can cope, is to slow the spread of the disease, one ‘stage ‘at a time. So you ‘suppress it’ for awhile using for example, ‘social distancing’ then you let the disease rip for awhile (more old and sick die), then suppress it again, and so on, until their ‘herd immunity’ kicks in and we can go back to being cattle once more. Nobody has ever tried to do this before, anywhere, that’s why I call it a gigantic, whole society experiment. So not only are we being treated as cattle, we are also being used as guinea pigs. Quite a menagerie this tory goverment has made for us.

Something else also changed today; the government, probably under pressure from the medical profession, is restarting the testing of people for the virus. This is vital. What I find odd though, is why is there no App available so that the infected can be tracked (voluntary of course)? This is something that epidemiologists do all the time when tracking the progress of a disease.

The following extracts are from the government’s raison d’etre that supports the government’s (non) handling of the crisis. Although dated 16 March 2020, clearly its major proposals  were articulated well before Boris Johnson’s press conference last week with his two government lackeys, sorry scientists, who articulated the ‘herd immunity’ concept of disease control [sic], that is to say, sacrifice the old and the sick so that the survivors (hopefully the majority) acquire immunity.

Essentially, the report articulates the Eugenicist approach to ‘dealing’ with the crisis; sacrifice the old and the sick so that the young and healthy survive. (You can download the full report at the end of the article).

All quotes are from the report.

Continue reading

Is Corbyn a socialist and does it (no longer) matter if he isn’t?

19 November 2019 — InvestigatingImperialism

By William Bowles

Is this our last chance before the darkness falls?

This is probably the most difficult piece I’ve ever had to write, at least about the Labour Party. My feelings about Corbyn and the Labour Party are on record, here, here, here and here, to name a few. The Labour Party is a party of Imperialism and always has been since its inception, well over a century ago. Even its high point in 1945, with the creation of the welfare state, occurred through pressure from below and just as today, capitalism was bankrupt and in crisis. The Labour government, in return for the Welfare state, saved capitalism from revolution (or collapse). The gains made during that critical period following WWII lasted about thirty years before the lords of capital started taking back what ‘we’ had tried to take from them and by 1975 we were clearly not equipped to resist. In part, the Labour Party was directly responsible, in fact it was party to the attacks on the Welfare state and the working class.

But is this election different? Can we expect a Corbyn-led government to turn back the tide? Can we even expect an attempt at turning back the tide? Frankly, I don’t think we have much choice, after all, what else is there? The left, such as it is, is bankrupt and devoid of revolutionary ideas so the Labour Party, at this critical juncture, is all we have.

Does Corbyn have a socialist programme? Of course not. At best it’s a rehash of 1945 but minus most of the reformist stuff, so the same old social democracy then, the one that was effectively neutralised ages ago. But desperate times require desperate measures.

The question is, if by some chance we do get a Labour government on December 13, what kind of government will it be? What kind of space will Corbyn and his (not very reliable) team be able to carve out of our rank neoliberal, Victorian times? In a word, what are we voting for and what are the chances of getting any of Corbyn’s diluted reforms, carried through?

If Labour’s 2017 election manifesto is anything to go by (not the leaked, draft manifesto), then we may see some minor changes for example, ending zero hours contracts and maybe a rollback of some of the NHS privatisation. But the real question to ask is whether even these limited reforms will be possible in the current climate? The hysterical climate of fear that’s been created about Corbyn’s alleged views on pretty much everything he touches now or has in the past, makes it virtually impossible for a Corbyn-led government to function as it would want to.

Of course, the first hurdle would be the size of the Labour majority. To be potentially effective, it will have to be able to survive alliances in opposition and given the politics of the Lib-Dems, the Greens and the SNP, anything is possible, especially getting stabbed in the back.

Politics, such as it is, is so poisonous, so corrupt and driven by personal ambition and sheer greed for power and/or money, that frankly, will it make any difference to most of us which party gets elected? Well that’s the hope isn’t it, that Corbyn will attempt at least to reverse or ameliorate the worst of the neoliberal destruction of the gains made since 1945. That’s what inspired so many to support Corbyn and put an end to this reactionary attack on the working class and the gains that have been made.

All of my lefty/liberal friends are desperate for a Labour victory, the thought of more Bojo and the backward and reactionary Tories is more than they can bear and who can argue with that!

Capitalism is in crisis, a crisis like no other, compounded by the environmental catastrophe that capitalism has unleashed on our planet. So you would think that extraordinary times would demand extraordinary measures.

So where does the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn sit in all this mess? In a way, they’re all of a kind. Everyone is in denial about something. Corbyn’s earnestness, his sincerity in the face of the atrocious red-baiting and slander he has put up with contrasts with the ‘cosiness’ of Extinction Rebellion and the almost masochistic enjoyment in how it deals with the arrests of its members. In contrast, Corbyn turns the other cheek whenever these slanderous lies are hurled at him.

In the name of maintaining “party unity” with the Blairites, he has presided over the NEC’s expulsion of Livingstone, Jacqui Walker and Marc Wadsworth. Just last week, while Corbyn stayed silent, Chris Williamson was told by the party’s pro-Corbyn NEC that he would not be able to stand as an MP in his Derby North constituency. Williamson, like Sultana, had merely pointed out that the anti-Semitism campaign is “proxy wars and bullshit”—the “weaponisation of antisemitism for political ends.” – ‘Corbyn refuses to fight ramped-up bogus “anti-Semitism” witch-hunt’, WSWS, 12 November 2019

Are we to ignore Corbyn’s vacillations simply in order to get Labour elected? It’s the lack of response by Corbyn over the witch hunt against him and other anti-Zionists that raises questions about Corbyn’s ability, once in power, to pursue the agenda that has made him so popular. Many who support Corbyn, will no doubt put these questions to one side, just as Corbyn, in pursuit of ‘party unity’, ignores the Israeli-funded attacks made on him but frankly, it doesn’t give me much confidence in Corbyn’s ability to ‘stay the course’ once elected.

We live, or try to, by rules that no longer apply. Labour’s nostalgia about 1945 exemplifies the paradox. And it’s arguable that the left as whole, lives by rules that probably have never applied. Much is wishful thinking and wishful thinking, just like moralising, will get us nowhere.

Somehow, thinking about who (or what) to vote for on December 12, seems ludicrous, yet just as with the totally unnecessary Brexit Referendum, ludicrous votes do serve a purpose, of a sort anyway. They give us the illusion of control over events, when it’s obvious that the opposite prevails. We are neither informed nor equipped with the necessary knowledge or skills to do much of anything, let alone possess the political will to see things through.

But in spite of this, you would think that choosing between Corbyn and Johnson would be a no-brainer for any decent, progressive person, and you would be correct. Clearly, if you put Corbyn next to Johnson it’s obviously a no-brainer except of course (I think I said this in 2017), you’re not voting for Corbyn, you’re voting for the Labour Party. It’s a Labour Party that’s divided between its base and its superstructure. In reality, there are two Labour Parties and it’s a bit of irony that the superstructure, the Parliamentary Party and the Party’s bureaucracy are firmly a part of the political class that runs (or pretends to) the country but it’s supported by the base, the Constituency Party and its tens of thousands of members, and these two entities couldn’t be further apart.

So really the question a would-be Labour voter needs to ask is what to expect from a Labour government with Corbyn at its (titular) head but in reality, run by the same old political elite? What could we expect it to do when confronted with for example, some of the quite radical proposals passed at the Labour Party conference in September?

The grassroots

It was obvious, to me at least, that Corbyn’s best bet for moving the Labour Party to the left and away from its Blairite, neoliberal reality, was to mobilise the tens of thousands that grassroots organising had brought onboard with Corbyn as its figurehead. After all, the Labour Party was suddenly the biggest political party in Europe! But it created a dilemma for the Labour Party bureaucracy and the majority of the PLP. Mobilising the Constituency Labour Parties would have created a mass base with which to challenge the power of the bureaucracy and the PLP. But this never happened. Instead, the Right mounted a disinformation campaign using the ‘anti-semitism’ tag (amongst others, notably the ‘unelectable’ tag), to vilify and marginalise Corbyn and others on the left of the Labour Party in the eyes of the public. How successful the campaign has been will no doubt be revealed come election time.

The second objective should have been to dump the right-wing MPs by changing the selection rules for candidates but again, this wasn’t done either. The Blairites maintained their control of Parliamentary Party and the Party’s bureaucracy. They write (and therefore enforce) the rules.

Then came the coup de grace, Momentum, a key tool for reaching the marginalised and the young who never voted, and primarily the work of John Lansman, Corbyn’s former election agent, was taken ‘in-house’. No longer could it reach out to potential supporters unless you first joined the Labour Party. The key tool that mobilised the thousands who joined the Labour Party was effectively sidelined. The centre reasserted control.

Yet what choice do I have? The alternative is to abstain as there’s no other party worth voting for as far as I’m concerned. So assuming a Labour victory, what are the chances of a grassroots mobilisation bringing pressure to bear on a Labour government to enact even a few of the policies voted for at the Labour Party conference?

Back in 2017 in a piece I wrote about the then snap general election, I quoted from a piece on the WSWS Website which highlighted the contradictions between what Corbyn wanted as laid out in his draft manifesto and what the final, published manifesto stated. By the time the real power in the bureaucracy had finished ‘editing’ Corbyn’s draft, very little was left of the original. Opposition to Austerity had been watered down to some reforms but leaving the body of Austerity in place. So too with Corbyn’s opposition to Trident nuclear weapons and his ‘reluctance’ to start a nuclear conflagration.

I’m minded to say, this time, so what? Yes, the arguments WSWS presents are true, the Labour Party is an imperialist party but can Corbyn, if supported by a grassroots movement, move beyond its imperialist past and its Blairite present? Is the situation so dire that Corbyn, aka the Labour Party is all we have got and we’ll just have to make the best of a bad bunch?

Maybe it’s the last chance we have to halt the headlong rush into barbarism but only if we mobilise the masses of Corbyn supporters, which of course, if successful, runs the risk of splitting the Labour Party in two which, just like the Conservative Party, has passed its sell-by date and splitting the Labour Party could be the best thing we’ll ever do for British politics.

Some like it hot (updated) by William Bowles

18 July 2019 — Investigating Imperialism

I am nothing if not an optimist, a trait that most on the Left seem to share. A belief in the future, that there is one that includes us. That things, eventually, get better, if we fight for it. ‘Unrealistic’, I hear you say, what is there to be optimistic about? The planet is going to hell and taking us all with it, and there’s nothing we can do about it! Well, maybe so, then this happened, a small event, minute even, in the scheme of things but somehow it triggered a response in me that I could not ignore and which I had to address:

Continue reading

The $5,000,000,000,000,000 Question? By William Bowles

28 June 2019 — InvestigatingImperialism

Apparently, if we add up all the ‘values’ that make up Planet Earth, we arrive at the figure of $5 quadrillion [1]! We’ve reduced the irreducible to the level of an accountant’s spreadsheet. Yet, it’s exactly this kind of thinking that’s created the disaster that, forget 10 years, it’s already with us and it’s been building to this since the start of the Industrial Revolution approximately 200 years ago.

Continue reading

‘K’ Metamorphoses into ‘G’ By William Bowles

19 February 2019 — Investigating Imperialism

[I think it’s time to republish a piece I wrote 15 years ago, in 2004, though clearly very few took notice of it then, will it be any different this time? I doubt it, it’s probably already too late to do anything about it. What the Labour government initiated in 2004 has now reached, not only fruition but is now sweeping the ‘democratic’ West as the crisis of capital intensifies and opposition to neoliberalism intensifies. I call it what it is, Fascism. Maybe not the Fascism of Hitler or Mussolini, there are no jackboots, they don’t need them this time, they have built the corporate-security state, a state that has us all on file, a state that records our movements, a state that knows what we read, who we see,  a state that now works in tandem with its corporate masters just as Mussolini’s Fascism did, a state that makes Orwell’s 1984 amateurish by comparison.  Reading through it, I don’t think I need to alter one word. WB.]

24 April 2004

“Someone must have slandered Joseph K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.” – Franz Kafka, ‘The Trial’

Continue reading

Why I defend Jeremy Corbyn but don’t support him By William Bowles

6 February 2019 — Investigating Imperialism

In defence of Jeremy Corbyn

First off, let me get the ‘defending Corbyn’ bit out of the way. I do defend Corbyn’s defence of the downtrodden and the dispossessed, a rare quality in Britain’s despicable, dishonest and hypocritical political class. The attacks on him accusing him of anti-semitism are reprehensible and fundamentally originate with the Zionist entity, Israel, launched by Israel’s supporters inside the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and reinforced by that other supporter of Israel, the BBC (with the able assistance from the rest of the corporate media).[1]

Continue reading

The Institute for Statecraft Exposed

26 November 2018 —

Update 9 December 2018

I came across the graphic below released by the ‘Integrity Initiative’ [sic]  which I think is worth adding in here. BTW, apparently, according to this graphic, this and other lefty websites are now part of the Russian ‘propaganda’ offensive.

And it since emerged that same duo of Institute for Statecraft/Integrity Initiative has been putting out disinfo on Jeremy Corbyn as well! This from The Canary:

The Conservative government is funding a ‘monitoring group’ that’s carrying out disinformation attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. The foreign office has now admitted providing £1.96m of public money to the Institute for Statecraft’s Integrity Initiative in the 2018/19 year. Military specialists run the unit, which has posted smears about Jeremy Corbyn and his team on social media. ‘The Canary‘, 9th December 2018

A number of documents from the Institute for Statecraft and its propaganda machine, ‘Integrity Initiative’ [sic] have been uncovered by ‘Anonymous’ (whoever they are) that reveal the objectives and the scale of this sophisticated enterprise. But already I read that some individuals are questioning the validity of these documents, that they are some kind of ‘plant’ designed I’m told, to confuse and neutralise Russian propaganda, but you be the judge (all in PDF format). For myself, it’s clear that they are real and not bogus.

Continue reading