Wednesday, 28 June 2017

WHILE GRENFELL MURDERERS WALK FREE, POLICE ARREST SUKANT

I am the second person arrested for Grenfell, someone who is totally and militantly supportive of the Grenfell martyrs against those in local government and scam housing and landlord organisations and the national government set our people up for the massacre. I was arrested yesterday for 24 hours including a home raid at midnight against my family of ten family members including little babies under 2 and 1yrs old and their mothers. Watch this whole clip to see the whole story.

Massive thanks to my family who stood so steadfast proud and resistant, and all my comrades and friends who rallied in support and solidarity. We are opening up slowly a new wave of independent black and brown and migrant self organisation towards liberation.

#MANCHESTERATTACK #GRENFELL #JUSTICE4EDSON - LINK THE DOTS

Due to the nature of imperialist media, news and 'social' media many have a tendency to jump from one issue to another day by day or hour by hour which can often push against connecting these issues together. In the last month and year we have serious high profile racist attacks on Jo Cox, Arek Jozwik, Samsam Haji Ali, the terrorist attacks especially at Manchester and London Bridge whereby Salman Abedi and Radwouan perpetrators acts point to collusion from the British state in relation to Libya and Syria; we have the police murders against Mohammad Yassar Yaqub, more recently Edir Frederico Da Costa AKA Edson and of course the Grenfell state massacre. Much of this rise of racism is through the prism of brexit that encapsulates and promotes contemporary British racism and fascist ideas and mass communities. And there are many many other examples of serious incidents of oppressions.

Then we have the British state conducting even more massive acts and projects of oppression in scale, depth and reach in Libya, Syria, Yemen and dozens of other counties more covertly.

Too many of us are just failing to connect the dots, and failing to do so directly means we don't gather the people together more effectively and in greater numbers because people are failing to see the direct connections.

While some people will be more motivated to mobilise on one or two things, on a practical level this is understandable but on a level of strategy, critical analysis and struggle, there is a problem of ghettoising issues when they should be "uniting the many against the few " (Mao) against the common enemy.

It's a bit heartbreaking to see people move away from Grenfell to something else now, or people not even focusing on British state Islamophobia and collusion with terrorism, and so on.

The British state is a colonial, capitalism and imperialist system, it exploits and oppresses people and the planet, it moves against everything in one singular project of Britishness and Britain, why are we in endless divisions and not building serious bridges to unite people and issues against the common enemy?

I understand these developments are happening fast and it tends to be a bit dizzying, bit frankly we need serious people working hard in the struggle because these incidents have been and going to continue to increase because the imperialist system is in deepening crises and can only create more crises as an 'answer' to its crises because it is predicated on a viciously genocidal capitalism colonial system.

OPPOSE CORBYN's CELEBRATION OF ORGANISED COLONIAL MURDERERS - THE ARMY

If you want a corbyn and Labour Party that's not a pro British militarism leader, as all labour leaders have been, then perhaps people should really struggle to ensure the arguments against this type of low and dirty celebration of brit colonial genocide are had and won in the public domain. Too many are being corrupted in supporting so much imperialist stuff. And that's what the Labour Party and imperialist social democrat has always done, drag the liberal left into supporting imperialism when they think they are fighting for 'socialism' or/and the welfare state etc.

To quote my comrade Gerard McNamara: "Today is 'Armed Forces Day' in Britain, a celebration of the British Army's bloodlust. Britain's paid killers up and down their country put on a show for the general public in an attempt to woo them about Britain's imperial wars. The British armed forces are the biggest gang of mass murderers the world has ever seen."

THE WHITE LEFT HAS GONE MAD AT ME OVER GRENFELL


#Grenfell #WhiteLeft The English white left / white controlled left has gone utterly mad at me for saying that the fire 'fighters' who conducted their operation at #Grenfell failed our peoples criminally and massively, literally hundreds of our people have been killed and it's clear from the obviousness of the death toll and the many first hand accounts of the fire men holding people back from saving more lives and instead ordering and bullying people to stay away and stay in their flats who then in their many hundreds burned alive. Not one firemen seemed to have been injured or killed while up to 500 of our people have been burnt alive. It's common for firemen to be injured or even die trying to save people. But not here. Put very simply, an emergency service was called to a job at Grenfell and the result of their efforts is many many hundreds dead. Simple and obvious. The victims and their supporters have every right to hold the fire service and the team and team leader of those firemen at Grenfell.

The white left deny there has been any grave errors by the firemen at Grenfell and instead have shouted and bullied people to ask no questions in this regard and have said there is nothing that they have done wrong, that really thy are heroes, and it's all the fault of Tory cuts. As Anna said to me just now if NHS staff result in considerable if not like in this case massive error leading to a victim led campaign against the NHS and the staff concerned, Tory cuts (and Labour govt cuts) are not a reason not to fight for anti racist and anti classist sexist nonsense, as was the case with the woman who bled to death after birth. Of course the Tory state and govt now and Labour govts before have all contributed to the housing scam and the seniors in local government and national govt responsible for the massacre at Grenfell all need to be held to account, but so do those who were the emergency response on the scene.

The white left have gone mad at me because they helped go cover-up this massive issue, because the firemen have been too long held up as some untouchable angelic service. They are as fallible to racism and classism as any other British state service. The white left have gone mad because I said a very obvious thing and got nearly 100 likes for saying it from mostly African and Asian people, and thus the white left have been totally exposed and are embarrassed by it. In their arrogance and conceit they have abused me for days and started social media campaigns against me leading to a 30 day block on my other account. The campaign continues to this minute. But in so doing they don't realise their racialised supremacism has been exposed to many more and opened up this very important debate further.

This whole thing has opened up a really primarily important issue of the white left and migrant communities; the white left lionise the organised unionised workers over and above the unorganised and especially black and brown migrant communities. Grenfell is black and brown migrant communities the fire men are the organised workers mostly white and a body be it the fire brigade union or the fire service that are both clearly institutionally racist. The white left will and are patronising the Grenfell survivors and martyrs and are helping in the cover up in many ways but clearly in the way they have told me and the issues I am raising to shut up and to be forced to shut up. This is exactly the same dynamic and this actually part of their white colonisation of the Grenfell issue.

As with so many other issues, I think it's a case of me stating the obvious and embarrassing the white left and those loyal to them and collaborating with them, and instead of opening up the conversation and listening, they have blindly jumped to expose their racist patronising and frankly racist bullying nature. Like other issues they abuse me for, it will come out that yes indeed there was massive grave errors and criminal level mistakes that the fire men did that led to our peoples deaths. EVERYONE who is directly responsible and and is a powerful figure that set up Grenfell for this massacre must see immediate justice by any means necessary. Me and my comrades and supporters are loyal to no one but our dead at Grenfell. We are determined to assist in this quest for resistance and justice. Thank you white left and their minions, you have inadvertently opened up this debate much bigger than I alone could, for those reading and loyal to anti racism and Black and Brown Liberation, please see carefully the fault lines of racism in the usual bullshit of white left and white left colonial politics and arrogance.

Saturday, 17 June 2017

#GRENFELL NO TO INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES, JUSTICE NOW!

FIRE 'FIGHTERS' CRIMINAL FAILS AT #GRENFELL

Not one fucking fire fighter died in that blaze, your lefties' beloved heroic working class fire fighters were utterly utterly shit and frankly some of them if not dozens of them should have died fighting that inferno trying to save our people; pieces of shit told our people to stay in their flats to be incinerated alive. Here we go as we hear stupid lefties bleat: 'but poor mr firefighter has his goodies cut by big bad tories'. Stfu. They couldn't organise nets to catch our falling people?? Told our people to stay and get burnt alive??? Fuck them all. Fuck. Them. All. The fire fighters are all alive and well, not even ONE was hospitalised! Not even one! But up to 500 of our people are dead.

Btw, the Fire Brigade Union and then leader Andy Gilchrist also walked away from a massive historical fire in 2003; in the lead-up to the British and usa war of invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq the FBU were on strike, the then labour government put troops into dire services to put pressure on the FBU to sell out so the British state and army could conduct their war without disturbance. Gilchrist and the FBU *could* have had a good chance of winning that dispute, protecting the wages, conditions and equipment of the Fire Service *and* been a massive strategic anti war force. But no, they sold out themselves and sold out our Iraqi people and went back to work for the state faithfully while we all watched Baghdad get totally bombed and destroyed and put on fire by the dirty brits and yanks.

#GRENFELL AND RIOTS AND UPRISINGS



#Grenfell #Riots #Uprising 

I am very surprised Kensington Town Hall and other bodies like Ryder responsible for the deaths of our people are not seeing their buildings being burnt down considering the anger and extent of this crime. At the moment the families are still in shock, many still have not identified / found their loved ones, intense shock and trauma is gradually turning into anger and rage.
Many are talking of riots in response. I frankly on a level of ethics would not negatively judge anyone for any act directed at those in power responsible for this.

The crime is too grave, the breadth of the crime is too wide, the depth of the anger is too deep. However, justness and ethics does not necessarily equate to strategy and wisdom. We have had the August 2011 uprising of Black & Brown and working class youth, it was just in response to the police killing of a Black brother Mark Duggan, but it's strategic impact was backwards, our struggle was wiped out by the lack of organisation and strategy of the uprisers and supporters, some 5,000 saw punitive sentences in the criminal justice system with nearly no political campaign and defence campaigns etc. Perhaps we haven't even recovered from that fallout until Grenfell.

Like I said, I am not into narrow judgements on whatever people want to do as long as it is directed at the oppressor enemy responsible, but whatever the forms of more direct action I would argue for it not to result in a regression of struggle but to up the struggle which means educating further organising further our peoples with a view of single minded strategic political targeting of the enemy forces.

The MXM allied with London Black Revs after the British state worked with Byron burgers to entrap and deport scores of our people conducted a direct action against Byron shutting down three stores for the Friday and Saturday business. No one was hurt, no one was arrested, the direct action resulted in people all across the world knowing about the disgusting work of Byron, although the sectarian colonial identity crowd circuit sniped at the action, the action responded efficiently to a oppressive move, the action defended those targeted, the action took away Byron's marketing strategy by attacking tens of thousands of cockroaches to it, the world found out about the oppressive act and the act of resistance.

The direct action failed to really bring in further forces into an organised struggle which was a limitation of it but that's more related to the depressed state of political struggle in general. However, Grenfell has many thousands of family members directly impacted and 100,000s if not millions angry and ready to support a really militant struggle for justice. Let's hope infiltrators and sell outs from either Labour Party and the left don't sell out our people, this is the biggest danger along with the direct enemy sabotaging us, the sell outs and the enemy always work together.

COLONIAL IDENTITY POLITICS AND #GRENFELL

 #IdentityPolitics #GeneralElection & #GrenfellTowerFire

The mass turn against the tories at the elections and the #Grenfell tragedy has done much to wash away what passes as identity politics ('#IDpols), its brought Black and Brown migrant working class communities together while the identity politics crowd would be policing peoples blackness and ethnicities, driving their ridiculous colonial wedges and divisions between all communities and within increasingly narrowly defined communities. Some IDpolitics when it is not based on colonial oppression olympics is useful and necessary, but what we have coming out of large swathes of what is the left is ideologies of very nasty middle / upper class or aspiring to be middle class selfish and greedy and usually hyper careerist or/and hyper divisive people who play out they internalised hate and insecurities on other oppressed communities.

The elections had many problematics, migrants especially east European and new African, Asian and 'latin' American migrants were invisibilised, however people gathered and galvanised together against a common enemy; Grenfell much more than the elections shows Black & Brown poorer peoples uniting together for their common interests and against common enemies.

When people relatively move politically, they tend to push against enemy divide and rule ideologies of which identity politics is a very effective one, and that's what we have seen. Important to continue to develop that into a real internationalist outlook that breaks out of our London-centricism/England-centricisn/British-centrism (be it so called 'Black British', 'British Asian' and other colonial sell-out labels) and Eurocentrism and Westcentrism.

Thursday, 8 June 2017

WHAT IF THE TORIES WIN? / WHAT IF LABOUR WIN?

What if Tories win? / What if Labour win? 

If the tories win outright majority, which overwhelming polls state is going to happen, there are some complications: whatever the contradictions its clear that in this country due to the SNP and Corbyn/Labour that people are very desperate for the Tories to be defeated, the desperation is connected to the growing political and social instability over recent years and decades, but having been politically active for 25 years while there is a repeat of the recent past left hype failures (Scargill's SLP was creating a similar hype in the late 1990s, as did the Socialist Alliance, as did then the Peoples Assembly, all fell flat on their face cos they couldnt break out of the eurocentricism), but now its bigger and the yearning for people is clearly much greater but there are the same fundamental flaws. BUT, there are some factors to consider:

What if Tories win?

1, people are talking about 'revolution' if the Tories win. On the one hand the left havent even been able to get right the absolute basic things on anti-racism and anti-war in this last six years, they have championed and help to send off terrorists to Syria and Libya who have come back and massacred. However, this talk of revolution is not a bad thing despite, its a good thing to get into peoples heads. Revolution is a very serious and bloody thing, you have to be able to infiltrate and neutralise the armed forces and police. Obviously no chances of that. But if the tories win I hope people take to the streets with great anger and determination.

2, Riots. If the tories win and there is mass anger, it could easily be the case that the state sets up people to riot and uses that as an excuse to really come down hard. This is a very tricky one, cos a situation similar to some level of rioting could feed a general upsurge of rebelliousness, or it could really sabotage it.

3, Voting irregularities. 1.5 new people have registered to vote. That's not small. Many people are complaining their registration has not gone through and have even been turned away at the polling booths. This could have the impact that people really get angry and take to the streets on the issue issue feeding into the points 1 and 2 above.

BUT, it very well might be none of this really happens, and more or less people accept the tory win lying down. Unless Corbyn really sees the Tories get a lot more seats than they did when Milliband stood last time and Kinnock stood in 1987, he will look to hold onto the LP leadership, not sure if the rest of the LP will accept that and what will happen. I am not sure *anyone* in the LP is willing to split the party. If they did they would ALL lose out badly, and money and power is a sure thing to keep the second party of british imperialism together.

If the tories win tomorrow, its a dark day, a massive day of triumphalism for all the most right wing uk and british colonial madness, the state will be ready to really go for people and really escalate their wars against our Homelands. Remember the far right provocations in Edinburgh in the streets when the colonial union won? We need to watch out for each other big time.

What if Labour win? 

Ha. The the sh** really hits the fan. Now the army leadership said when Corbyn won the leadership of the LP that if he became PM they would oust him in a military coup. So we got that! ūüėā Bmessut considering Corbyn/LP has said they are loyal to Queen, army and the police, these bodies of the state might continue to mould Corbyn into a shape they prefer as has happened in these ways. However, if Corbyn wins first we have to consider the right / far right anger at that the victory of the brit left. There might be nothing on the streets from the right, but its a real possibility.

If Corbyn wins we are going to go into a very messy situation, its too complex to even go into now. But Corbyn/LP's position on major *uk* nationalist social economic reforms (nationalisation, is a strange one, very uk nationalist) will be met with probably total hostility, and also Corbyn on brexit will be seen by anti brexit forces as a chance to have much more influence.

We will see what happens, but people really need to be thinking way beyond the confines of Corbyn, LP and the narrow colonial framework of this system if they even want to win the absolute basic demands for themselves and peace for our Homelands from british imperialism. The capitalist-imperialist system has nothing to offer you, it will not bed to your will even if you have Corbyn as PM, the system destroys whole countries in our Homelands, its not going to give you anything but the tiniest of crumbs perhaps, but even then, the system and its leadership is being really wild and violent increasingly to keep everyone off-balance and weak.

Be safe, look out for each other. Don't let the right/far right forces hurt or aggress anyone of us. Be vigilant, be proactively vigilant. Peace and justice and liberation.

[video] SUKANT ON CONTRASTING COUNTER TERRORISM IN IRAN AND BRITAIN #TehranAttacks

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

BLACK PANTHERS IN ALGERIA AND DPRK / NORTH KOREA

Diary

Elaine Mokhtefi

[source]

In 1951 I left the US for Europe. I was working as a translator and interpreter in the new postwar world of international organisations: UN agencies, trade-union bodies, student and youth associations. My plan was to visit France briefly, but I stayed nearly ten years. For anyone living in Paris, the Algerian war was inescapable. Where did your sympathies lie? Which side were you on? In 1960 at an international youth conference in Accra, I struck up a friendship with the two Algerian representatives: Frantz Fanon, a roving ambassador for the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, and Mohamed Sahnoun of the exiled Algerian student movement. After the conference, I flew to New York, where I met Abdelkader Chanderli, the head of the Algerian Office, as the unofficial Algerian mission at the UN was known. Chanderli invited me to join his team, lobbying UN member states to support Algerian independence.

In 1962, with independence declared, I went back to Algeria. Vacancies left by close to a million fleeing Europeans meant that jobs were on offer in every ministry and sector. Before long, I found myself working in President Ahmed Ben Bella’s press and information office, where I received foreign journalists, scheduled appointments and dished out information to the reporters from Europe and the US who were streaming in. I even learned to fake Ben Bella’s signature for his admirers.

I stayed on after the coup that brought Houari Boumediene to power in 1965. I had made a home in Algeria; I was happy with my life and my work in the national press. In 1969, events took an extraordinary turn. Late one night I received a call from Charles Chikerema, the representative of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union, one of many African liberation movements with an office in the city. He told me that the Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver was in town and needed help.

It was June. I remember it very clearly. I can see myself walking down a side street between the Casbah and the European sector of Algiers towards the Victoria, a small, third-rate hotel. I climbed four flights of stairs and knocked. The door opened and there was Cleaver, and beyond him, flat out on the bed, his wife, Kathleen, eight months pregnant. The sense of awe I felt that day never left me. The shortcomings of the Black Panther Party are clear enough in retrospect, but they took the battle to the streets, demanded justice and were prepared to bear arms to protect their community. Their slogans – ‘The sky’s the limit’, ‘Power to the People’ – resounded through black ghettoes across the US. They denounced American imperialism as the war in Vietnam gathered pace.

Cleaver had arrived secretly in Algiers using Cuban travel documents. After ambushing a police car in Oakland, he had jumped bail and headed for Havana, where he spent six months as a clandestine guest before he was ‘discovered’ by a journalist. The Cubans had put him on a plane to Algiers without informing the Algerians. Cleaver felt his life hung in the balance. He had been assured in Havana that everything had been cleared with the Algerian government, that he’d be received with open arms and allowed to resume the political activities denied him in Cuba. But his handlers at the Cuban embassy in Algiers were now telling him the Algerians weren’t willing to offer him asylum.

I’d never known the authorities to refuse asylum seekers, whatever their nationality. Since I was the only American the local officials knew, I was often called on to interpret and explain, and to take responsibility for Americans who arrived without realising that hardly anyone in Algeria spoke English. Later that day I talked to the official in charge of liberation movements, Commandant Slimane Hoffman, a tank specialist who had deserted from the French army to join the Arm√©e de Lib√©ration Nationale (ALN) and was close to Boumediene. I explained that Cleaver wished to remain in the country and to hold an international press conference. Hoffman agreed straightaway, but insisted that Cleaver’s presence be announced by the Algerian Press Service. ‘You saved my life,’ Cleaver told me repeatedly; he was convinced the Cubans had set him up.

The press conference went ahead, in a hall packed with students, members of the local and international press, diplomats and representatives from the world’s liberation movements. Julia Herv√©, the daughter of Richard Wright, came from Paris to interpret from English into French. I did the same, into English, for the Cleavers. ‘We are an integral part of Africa’s history,’ Cleaver said at the conference. ‘White America teaches us that our history begins on the plantations, that we have no other past. We have to take back our culture!’

From then on, we were a team. Cleaver was tall – he seemed to me towering – and sexy, with a perfectly developed sense of humour and expressive green eyes. He and I had a rapport, no sex but much sharing of confidences. When the Cleavers arrived, I was working at the Ministry of Information organising the first Pan-African Cultural Festival, which was to bring together musicians, dancers, actors and intellectuals from every country in Africa and the black diaspora, including members of the Panthers from the US. For more than a week, the streets of Algiers overflowed, performances filled the day and carried on into the small hours. Among the performers were Archie Shepp, Miriam Makeba, Oscar Peterson, and Nina Simone, whose first performance we had to cancel after Miriam Makeba and I found her dead drunk in her hotel room. The local stagehands were shocked: they had never seen a drunk woman. The Panther delegation stayed at the Aletti, the best hotel in downtown Algiers, and were provided with a storefront – they called it the Afro-American Centre – on rue Didouche Mourad, one of the city’s two main commercial thoroughfares, where they distributed party literature and screened films late into the night. Cleaver and his companions – most of them also refugees from US justice – were quickly integrated into the cosmopolitan community of liberation movements. The Panthers may not have noticed, or perhaps didn’t care, that Algeria itself was a conservative, closed society, that women were not really free, that a form of anti-black racism existed among the population, and that the Algerian establishment’s generosity required certain codes of conduct and reciprocity on the part of their guests. The Panthers ignored whatever they didn’t want to deal with. After the festival, the delegation returned to California, while the exiles got down to business. I received invitations for Cleaver to meet the ambassadors of North Vietnam, China and North Korea, as well as representatives of the Palestinian liberation movement and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (the Vietcong). I accompanied him on these visits: he was dignified and lucid, performing like a seasoned diplomat, despite his past as a school dropout, rapist and convict. He could also close down, and retreat to an inaccessible place.

Shortly after Cleaver’s arrival, the ambassador of North Korea invited him to Pyongyang to attend an ‘international conference of journalists against American imperialism’. Cleaver was the star of the conference and stayed on for more than a month. One morning, shortly after his return, he showed up at the Ministry of Information, where I was part of a small team working on a political magazine for international distribution. He was wearing shades and slumped down on a chair next to my desk. Then, without any preamble he lowered his voice: ‘I killed Rahim last night.’ I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Rahim, aka Clinton Smith, had escaped from prison in California with a fellow inmate, Byron Booth, in January 1969. They had hijacked a plane to Cuba and joined up with Cleaver. Not long after sending Cleaver off to Algiers, the Cubans packed off Rahim and Booth too.

Cleaver told me that Rahim had stolen the Panthers’ money and was planning to ‘split’. He and Booth, who witnessed the murder, had buried the body on a wooded hillside a little way out of town, near the sea. Once he’d finished telling me this he put on the cap he’d been playing with and strolled out of the office. I couldn’t get Rahim’s face out of my mind. I was angry with Cleaver for imagining I needed to know any of this. Did he think I could help him if the Algerian authorities got wind of the murder and decided to take action? Several days later a French friend told me that he had seen Rahim and Kathleen Cleaver ‘smooching’ in a cabaret when Cleaver was in North Korea. My friend didn’t know that Rahim had ‘disappeared’. When I next saw Cleaver he told me that the hastily buried remains had been discovered, and added that it must have been obvious from the afro and the tattoos that the victim was an African-American. By then Booth had left the country. A French friend of the Panthers was summoned to police headquarters to identify the body but no one from the Algerian authorities ever got in touch with the Panthers or with me, though I was sure the killing had gone on record.

The Panthers financed themselves thanks to donations from supporters and Cleaver’s advances on book projects. His royalties from Soul on Ice, the defiant confession that had made him famous, were blocked by the US government. Over lunch one day in the spring of 1970, Cleaver pleaded with me to find a way for what the Panthers were now calling the ‘International Section of the BPP’ to be recognised as a sponsored liberation movement, allowing it access to a range of privileges, and a monthly stipend. I turned the problem over to M’hamed Yazid, who’d been the Algerian provisional government’s first representative in New York. He spoke fluent English and was married to Olive LaGuardia, niece of the former mayor of New York City.


M’hamed invited us to lunch at his house outside Algiers, built in the Ottoman period. We sat at a table in the garden, the Cleavers, Don Cox – the former military leader of the BPP, known as ‘DC’ or ‘the field marshal’ – and myself. M’hamed charmed us with stories of his life in New York, all the while sizing up his guests. The interview went well and soon afterwards he called to say the Panthers had been assigned a villa formerly occupied by the Vietcong delegation in the El Biar sector of the city. They would be provided with telephone and telex connections and Algerian ID cards; they wouldn’t need entry or exit visas; and they would receive a monthly cash allocation.

Why did the authorities decide to support the Panthers more openly? Perhaps they would serve as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington over Algeria’s oil and gas reserves. There were ideological reasons too. It was obvious to everyone living there that Algeria was not neutral in the struggle between the superpowers. Ties with the Soviet Union dated back to the liberation war and the Eastern bloc’s generosity in providing weapons, training and education.

Cleaver was on top of the world after receiving formal recognition. In May, he shipped his pregnant wife off to give birth in North Korea. The wonders of the Korean health system, it was thought, were unsurpassed, and the decision would strengthen the BPP’s ties with Pyongyang. Meanwhile Cleaver had met a gorgeous young Algerian called Malika Ziri who was constantly at his side. Attaching herself publicly to a black American at least 15 years older than her in a society where discretion was the rule would have required immense self-confidence. The Panthers were stars in Algiers, but their flamboyance was also looked on critically. They helped themselves to scarce resources – basic entitlements in American eyes – that other liberation movements didn’t have access to: houses, cars, media coverage, visiting celebrities. They openly dated attractive women, both Algerian and foreign. I can still picture Sekou Odinga, an exile from the New York branch of the Panthers, swooping along the rue Didouche in a shiny red convertible with the top down, a lovely auburn-haired American at the wheel.

The official opening of the headquarters of the International Section took place on 13 September 1970. ‘This is the first time in the struggle of the black people in America that they have established representation abroad,’ Cleaver told the crowd at the ‘embassy’. A few weeks later Sanche de Gramont, a French-American journalist, published a cover story in the New York Times Magazine entitled ‘Our Other Man in Algiers’.

Soon after the opening of the embassy Timothy Leary, the high priest of LSD (‘turn on, tune in, drop out’), and his wife arrived in town. Leary had been sprung from a US prison by the Weather Underground, who’d been paid $25,000 (some say $50,000) by the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a California hippy group that manufactured and distributed high-grade marijuana and LSD. Nixon had called Leary ‘the most dangerous man in America’. Cleaver and I gave Slimane Hoffman a toned-down version of Leary’s story, emphasising his career as a Harvard professor. Cleaver assured Hoffman that he was capable of controlling Leary’s drug use and his bouts of nonsensical eloquence. The commandant wished us well.

My first impression was that the Learys were elderly hipsters. I don’t know what I expected: something crazier, more flamboyant and exciting. In the name of the revolution Cleaver decided that Leary had to denounce drugs, and Leary agreed to take part in a BPP film session aimed at US audiences. Cleaver opened the interview by saying that the idea that drugs were a way to liberation was an invention by ‘illusionary guys’: the real path was through organisations like the Weathermen and the BPP who were involved in direct action. Leary’s reply was cagey. ‘If taking any drug postpones for ten minutes the revolution, the liberation of our sisters and brothers, our comrades, then taking drugs must be postponed for ten minutes … However, if one hundred FBI agents agreed to take LSD, thirty would certainly drop out.’

The Panthers decided Leary should join a delegation invited to the Levant by Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s party, then the dominant force in the PLO. Leary should break cover there, it was argued, not in Algeria. The group, headed by Don Cox, landed in Cairo in October without incident, then went on to Beirut, where they were put up in a hotel frequented by the Western press. Leary was spotted and the hotel was besieged. The delegation was followed everywhere and it became impossible for them to visit Fatah’s training camps in Jordan and Syria as planned. They returned instead to Cairo, where Leary, paranoid and hysterical, became ‘uncontrollable’, DC reported, scaling walls, hiding behind buildings, raising his arms and screaming in the streets. The Algerian ambassador put them on a plane back to Algiers.

From there, they hired a car and began spending time in Bou-Saada, an oasis in the Sahara where, at their ease on handloom carpets, they partied with LSD. Algeria is an immense country, four-fifths desert, but one is never quite alone. The Learys would smile blissfully and wave to the astonished shepherds who came across them. The Panthers didn’t approve of these escapades and in January 1971 ‘arrested’ the Learys, putting them under guard for several days. Cleaver filmed the prisoners and issued a press release that was distributed in the US: ‘Something’s wrong with Leary’s brain … We want people to gather their wits, sober up and get down to the serious business of destroying the Babylonian empire … To all those of you who looked to Dr Leary for inspiration and leadership, we want to say to you that your god is dead because his mind has been blown by acid.’

When he was freed, Leary complained to the Algerian authorities and we were summoned by Hoffman. The atmosphere was heavy until Cleaver and DC produced bags of drugs recovered from Leary and his visitors – enough for 20,000 hits. Hoffman’s jaw dropped. Tim was tired of us and wanted to move on. He no longer hid his dislike of DC and me; we felt the same way about him. Early in 1971, he left without saying goodbye.


There must have been thirty Panthers, men, women and children, in the International Section. They operated in military style with strict regulations, daily worksheets and activity reports. They maintained contact with support groups in Europe and other liberation organisations in Algiers. They ran training sessions in self-defence and weapons instruction. Just before the embassy opened Huey Newton, the legendary BPP leader who had spent almost three years in prison on a manslaughter charge for killing a policeman, was granted parole, awaiting a new trial. When he was released from jail ten thousand people turned out to greet him. But the man who took back the leadership of the BPP was not prepared for the transformation that had taken place in his absence. The party had become a powerhouse that the FBI was bent on destroying, waging war against its members, attacking chapter headquarters, letting loose an army of paid informers and circulating fake information. Newton’s reaction was to demand total control, dismissing groups and condemning individuals who failed to fall in line.

With the attempt at containment came self-aggrandisement. He was living in a penthouse, had taken over a nightclub and was walking with a swagger stick. At the start of 1971 he was due to appear on a morning TV show in San Francisco and asked Cleaver to join him to demonstrate their alliance and dissipate the rising tension. The International Section met and decided unanimously to use the occasion to confront Newton. When Cleaver appeared onscreen he demanded that Newton overturn his expulsion edicts and called for the removal of Newton’s lieutenant David Hilliard. Newton cut short the broadcast, then called Cleaver. ‘You’re a punk,’ he said and expelled him from the BPP. Chapters and members across the US took sides.

Cleaver had taped the broadcast and the phone call. He asked me to come and listen to the recording, worried about the Algerian reaction. I didn’t think they would get involved: ‘It’s not their problem, it’s yours, Eldridge.’ The Panthers took down the BPP plaque at the entrance to their embassy and started to call themselves the Revolutionary People’s Communications Network. They hoped to enable information exchange between left-wing groups around the world and to produce a newspaper for distribution in the US and Europe. To take the measure of the damage caused by the Newton/Cleaver split, and launch the network, Kathleen and I headed for the US in October 1971 on a month-long cross-country speaking tour. We soon realised that the party was collapsing.

The group in Algiers plodded on. There was no reaction from the Algerians, no sign that they were following events in the BPP, though Newton had sent a formal message to Boumediene denouncing Cleaver. Then, on 3 June 1972, I received a call from the head of the FLN telling me that a plane had been hijacked in Los Angeles and was heading for Algiers. The hijackers had demanded that Cleaver meet them at the airport. They were holding $500,000 in ransom money, which they’d obtained in exchange for letting the passengers go. We stood on the tarmac, Cleaver, DC, Pete O’Neal (the former head of the Kansas City Panthers) and myself, and watched Roger Holder, a young African-American, and his white companion, Cathy Kerkow, slowly come down the steps from the aircraft. All were in high spirits until we realised that the Algerians had taken the moneybags and were not about to put them into Cleaver’s eager hands. The money was returned to the US; Roger and Cathy were granted asylum and became part of the local community of US exiles.

On 1 August another hijacked plane arrived, this one from Detroit. The hijackers, black but again not Panthers, had been paid $1 million by Delta Airlines for releasing the plane’s passengers in Miami. This time the authorities in Algiers kept the Panthers at a distance, and once again sent the money back to the US. The Panthers were furious: they were ‘vibrating to the overtones of dollar bills’, Cleaver would later admit. They wrote an open letter to Boumediene: ‘Those who deprive us of this finance are depriving us of our freedom.’ DC told his comrades they were crazy and resigned from the organisation: ‘The government is not going to risk the future of their country for a handful of niggas and a million dollars. There’s gonna be trouble.’ He was right. Reproaching Algeria’s head of state in public showed a lack of respect. The police invaded the embassy, confiscated the Panthers’ weapons, cut the telephone and telex connections, and closed it down for 48 hours. When the guard was lifted, Cleaver was called in by a senior official and severely reprimanded. The atmosphere cleared within a few days: Algeria wasn’t ready to abandon them.

Cleaver and his colleagues knew little of the country that had taken them in. They never ventured beyond Algiers. They didn’t read the local press or listen to the radio. Except for women friends, they knew few Algerians and never visited Algerian homes. They knew little of Algeria’s colonial past, the ravages of the war, or the under-development the regime was attempting to tackle. They saw themselves as free agents, able to protest and use the media at will. Some of them even proposed organising a demonstration in front of Boumediene’s offices. Cleaver had to remind them that this was Algiers, not Harlem. They had no real understanding of their hosts, their politics or their reservations about their American guests, and they underestimated them.

The Algerians, for their part, weren’t sure how to deal with the Panthers. Algeria was a leading light in the Third World, active in the non-aligned group of nations. It was hosting and training liberation movements from Latin America, Africa and Asia. There was too much at stake for the FLN to let itself be pushed around by these American exiles. And it couldn’t allow international hijackers to make Algeria look like a nation that didn’t abide by international rules.

With a dying organisation in the US and international support fast slipping away, the Algiers Panthers were close to stateless. ‘The International Section,’ Cleaver later wrote, ‘had become a sinking ship.’ He left the embassy. Malika had been replaced by a series of Algerian women. One of them, to my astonishment, was a veiled neighbour of mine who never left our building unaccompanied. He had wooed her as she hung out the laundry on her balcony and had been meeting her in my apartment while Kathleen was in Europe, seeking asylum for the whole family.

‘To each his own’ was a formula Cleaver used on many occasions. When he used it now, he was signalling his withdrawal from the organised left. The community of exiles began to look to their individual survival. They started leaving Algeria towards the end of 1972. Some settled in sub-Saharan Africa, a few attempted an underground existence inside the US; others, Cleaver included, left for France on forged passports: within a few years he would be back in the US, a born-again Christian. No one was ejected from Algeria. The group of Detroit hijackers left in mid-1973; Roger and Cathy were the last to go in January 1974. Cox, the field marshal, returned to Algiers that year and lived and worked there for another four years. The arrival of the Panthers in Algeria had been more than an education or an experience for me. I believed in them, I loved them and shared their goals. I hated to see them go.

I had made the arrangements for Cleaver’s departure: I found the passport he would travel on, the passeurs who would see him safely across national frontiers, the hideout in southern France, and the apartments in Paris. Before long, he was taken up by influential people there. His French residency and legal immunity were sorted out by the minister of finance, Val√©ry Giscard d’Estaing, shortly before he became president. Then I stopped hearing from him. To each his own, I reminded myself.

HOW THE CHINESE KILLED OFF YANKEE SPIES IN 2010

Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations

[source]

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.

The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before a well-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.

At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.

The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. both declined to comment.

Details about the investigation have been tightly held. Ten current and former American officials described the investigation on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing the information.

The first signs of trouble emerged in 2010. At the time, the quality of the C.I.A.’s information about the inner workings of the Chinese government was the best it had been for years, the result of recruiting sources deep inside the bureaucracy in Beijing, four former officials said. Some were Chinese nationals who the C.I.A. believed had become disillusioned with the Chinese government’s corruption.

But by the end of the year, the flow of information began to dry up. By early 2011, senior agency officers realized they had a problem: Assets in China, one of their most precious resources, were disappearing.

The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. opened a joint investigation run by top counterintelligence officials at both agencies. Working out of a secret office in Northern Virginia, they began analyzing every operation being run in Beijing. One former senior American official said the investigation had been code-named Honey Badger.

As more and more sources vanished, the operation took on increased urgency. Nearly every employee at the American Embassy was scrutinized, no matter how high ranking. Some investigators believed the Chinese had cracked the encrypted method that the C.I.A. used to communicate with its assets. Others suspected a traitor in the C.I.A., a theory that agency officials were at first reluctant to embrace — and that some in both agencies still do not believe.

Their debates were punctuated with macabre phone calls — “We lost another one” — and urgent questions from the Obama administration wondering why intelligence about the Chinese had slowed.

The mole hunt eventually zeroed in on a former agency operative who had worked in the C.I.A.’s division overseeing China, believing he was most likely responsible for the crippling disclosures. But efforts to gather enough evidence to arrest him failed, and he is now living in another Asian country, current and former officials said.

There was good reason to suspect an insider, some former officials say. Around that time, Chinese spies compromised National Security Agency surveillance in Taiwan — an island Beijing claims is part of China — by infiltrating Taiwanese intelligence, an American partner, according to two former officials. And the C.I.A. had discovered Chinese operatives in the agency’s hiring pipeline, according to officials and court documents.

But the C.I.A.’s top spy hunter, Mark Kelton, resisted the mole theory, at least initially, former officials say. Mr. Kelton had been close friends with Brian J. Kelley, a C.I.A. officer who in the 1990s was wrongly suspected by the F.B.I. of being a Russian spy. The real traitor, it turned out, was Mr. Hanssen. Mr. Kelton often mentioned Mr. Kelley’s mistreatment in meetings during the China episode, former colleagues say, and said he would not accuse someone without ironclad evidence.

Those who rejected the mole theory attributed the losses to sloppy American tradecraft at a time when the Chinese were becoming better at monitoring American espionage activities in the country. Some F.B.I. agents became convinced that C.I.A. handlers in Beijing too often traveled the same routes to the same meeting points, which would have helped China’s vast surveillance network identify the spies in its midst.


Some officers met their sources at a restaurant where Chinese agents had planted listening devices, former officials said, and even the waiters worked for Chinese intelligence.

This carelessness, coupled with the possibility that the Chinese had hacked the covert communications channel, would explain many, if not all, of the disappearances and deaths, some former officials said. Some in the agency, particularly those who had helped build the spy network, resisted this theory and believed they had been caught in the middle of a turf war within the C.I.A.

Still, the Chinese picked off more and more of the agency’s spies, continuing through 2011 and into 2012. As investigators narrowed the list of suspects with access to the information, they started focusing on a Chinese-American who had left the C.I.A. shortly before the intelligence losses began. Some investigators believed he had become disgruntled and had begun spying for China. One official said the man had access to the identities of C.I.A. informants and fit all the indicators on a matrix used to identify espionage threats.

After leaving the C.I.A., the man decided to remain in Asia with his family and pursue a business opportunity, which some officials suspect that Chinese intelligence agents had arranged.

Officials said the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. lured the man back to the United States around 2012 with a ruse about a possible contract with the agency, an arrangement common among former officers. Agents questioned the man, asking why he had decided to stay in Asia, concerned that he possessed a number of secrets that would be valuable to the Chinese. It’s not clear whether agents confronted the man about whether he had spied for China.

The man defended his reasons for living in Asia and did not admit any wrongdoing, an official said. He then returned to Asia.

By 2013, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded that China’s success in identifying C.I.A. agents had been blunted — it is not clear how — but the damage had been done.

The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.

China has been particularly aggressive in its espionage in recent years, beyond the breach of the Office of Personnel Management records in 2015, American officials said. Last year, an F.B.I. employee pleaded guilty to acting as a Chinese agent for years, passing sensitive technology information to Beijing in exchange for cash, lavish hotel rooms during foreign travel and prostitutes.

In March, prosecutors announced the arrest of a longtime State Department employee, Candace Marie Claiborne, accused of lying to investigators about her contacts with Chinese officials. According to the criminal complaint against Ms. Claiborne, who pleaded not guilty, Chinese agents wired cash into her bank account and showered her with gifts that included an iPhone, a laptop and tuition at a Chinese fashion school. In addition, according to the complaint, she received a fully furnished apartment and a stipend.

[video] GLAZEBROOK ON THERESA MAY's *PERSONAL* ROLE ON TERRORISM

Friday, 2 June 2017

10 POINT PROGRAM FOR CRITICAL SUPPORT TO CORBYN; VOTE CORBYN/LABOUR, PREPARE FOR GREATER CHALLENGES

Sons of Malcolm's 10 Point Program for Critical Support to Corbyn/LP

There has been a surge of people rejecting the right and far-right and wanting left, pro-peace, pro decent jobs and housing politics. Corbyn has been attacked repeatedly for being pro IRA and a communist. People especially younger people don't care and that doesn't faze them. That's an important new generation development, younger people who are not tied to the imperialist prejudices against the Irish struggle or the communist states who led global resistance against colonialism and racism. As many know, I have not until now come out in explicit support in any way to Corbyn and the Labour Party, I have found it too problematic for many reasons, not least its pro brexit turn, however due to changed circumstances and my analysis of this, I will be supporting peoples vote for Corbyn and advocating we put pressure on Corbyn and even be ready to go beyond the Labour Party. Therefore, I have thought long and hard, discussed and taken advice and criticism from comrades here and across the world and I have adjusted and updated my position, which can be broadly summed up in the slogan: 

Support Young Peoples Demands of Corbyn / Labour Party, Vote Corbyn, but Prepare for Worse to Come

1. Support the *peoples* progressive surge, the people want Corbyn. Let them have him:

There is a surge of people in Britain who reject racism, division, war, austerity, rich elites, and who want more peace, who don't want an imperialist military industrial complex, who want to welcome refugees and immigrants and see them rightly as positive contributions. This surge of people is historical, its a response to growing crises of the capitalist-imperialist system, its relatively unsophisticated, unorganised, confused and messy on so many levels and still imbued with many imperialist prejudices and eurocentricism, HOWEVER, this is an important political and historical surge that has relatively raised the political struggle and people have only Corbyn and the Labour Party as the only option in front of them to represent their demands. I support the peoples demands, and I will walk with them in that including if it means they will see if Corbyn/LP delivers anything for them.


2. I support the peoples more radical demands, support Corbyn and demand he goes further:

In many ways the recent progressive surge has already gone beyond Corbyn: the surge is led by a younger population who have been disgusted by Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, who want something much more radical than even Corbyn has to offer, but they only have Corbyn on offer and are going for that for the time being, and I stand with them in this process but will also argue that while I stand in support of their support for Corbyn/LP that our politics and organising has to also go beyond that.


3. Demand Corbyn fight Brexit support immigration along with Greens, SNP & Plaid: 

I will be championing many peoples demand especially younger people who don't want Brexit, who support immigration and migrants and refugees, they want brexit smashed. One of the biggest let downs of Corbyn has been his Brexit support and his anti immigration position. I will be supporting peoples demands that Corbyn should join the invitation of the SNP, Plaid and Greens in an anti-Tory anti-brexit alliance, imagine after June 8 Corbyn decided to join that alliance, it would electrify the country and we would have a real strategic struggle with migrant communities against the right and far right.


4. Support the masses against war, terrorism and collusion, Corbyn should expose collusion:

After the Manchester attack, masses of people just don't believe a word of the Tories and Theresa May, they saw clearly that the government supported terrorists in their Nato war against Libya in 2011 and these same people killed 22 people in Manchester. The masses are clamouring for British state collusion with terrorism to be exposed, they perceive Corbyn being supportive of their position when he says 'British foreign policy is partially responsible for terrorism', Corbyn actually does not support the campaign to expose collusion, but once again this is a nuance atd complexity lost in mass politics, and the masses think Corbyn is supportive of their views and both the masses and Corbyn despite the nuanced differences are pushing in the same direction against a Tory narrative that seeks to white wash their own deep involvement in collusion. I support the people demanding exposing collusion, I support their support of Corbyn going in this direction, and I will be encouraging people demanding this of Corbyn and the LP.


5. Support youth participation: 

Youth registration drive has seen more than a million more *registered* to vote. A voter registration drive that can influence the result of elections requires many years of political organising in communities with many activists, what we have seen is a sudden surge over weeks an a few months, it is not organised at all, and there are great dangers that much if not most of these young people who have registered won't actually come out to vote: I will be doing all that I can to ensure people actually get to the polling booth, and they cast their vote correctly. I have already called my local Labour Party team and offered my services every day until and especially on the the election day.


6. Develop conversations, ideas, initiatives to develop capacity to pressure Corbyn/LP: 

Too many have allowed these two years of Corbyn-led LP to pass without any constructive criticism and engagement, too many have succumbed to narrow personality politics, it would be better to develop critical organisations of people so they can be more informed in their pursuit of their political demands and aims in relation to Corbyn/LP.


7. Support people demanding Corbyn pursue proper justice for institutional child sex abuse:

For decades victims and families of victims of many perpetrators from parliament and in the bbc and other state institutions in child sex abuse had been silenced, finally the truth has started to come out. However, of course the state and government was going to ensure it protected its own perpetrators and have developed dead-end processes leaving people without and path towards justice. This is one of the biggest scandals involving this state and its institutions: people know what's happened and demand justice for it, Corbyn/LP should support peoples demands and support and assist their organising towards this.


8. Assist people learn about the LP and its history: 

People are supporting Corbyn as one person, but people know very little about the history of the Labour Party in and out of power since the start of the 20th century, its not a pretty history but a history that has to be told. Corbyn is one man, the LP is an institution that in many ways is set against delivering what Corbyn and his followers want. The history of the welfare state is also important for people to understand how the NHS and welfare state broadly was financed by colonial exploitation. This understanding of Labour Party history will equip people better to understand this organisation and to seek out routes and paths to move it away from its embedded-nature to imperialism and towards a more just relationship with the global victims of the British state. Many people especially younger people don't want social reforms based on polluting, bombing and destroying other peoples countries.


9. Encourage a non-military, non-policing politics: 

Corbyn and the LP manifesto is committed to tens of thousands of more police on the streets, more resources for the already very well resources intelligence services, a total commitment to Nato and trident and the British imperialist military industrial complex. Many of us know how oppressive and racist the police are, they are not friends of ours, they are friends of the rich and the elites. Policing of the kind we have attached to the kind of oppressive state we have is not to our benefit, I support our people demanding colonial policing is not the answer to our problems. Many people who are supporting Corbyn also do not think the army, nuclear weapons, nato and the intelligence services are anything but the war arms of a violent and genocidal system. We reject these, I support the peoples demand that Corbyn/LP moves away from this militarism and oppressive policing to exposing the corrupt nature of the police and intelligence services and the murderous role of the British armed forces who through British foreign policy have brought death and destruction to so many millions of our people in our Homelands across Africa and Asia. We know that Corbyn sympathises by what we say, we want to build the capacity so Corbyn engages positively with our demands.


10. Ally with Corbyn, but prepare for worse to come: 

I will be encouraging people in their support for Corbyn but also clearly stating and forewarning that much greater challenges are upon us very very soon (including post June 8 wether Corbyn wins or not), racism will continue to surge, the state will continue to become more repressive, it will conduct more wars whoever is in government, and this state is going into a disgusting conflict with the rest of Europe while allied closely with Trump. Even in Corbyn's own words it is not enough for him to be elected and he says himself how important it is people are organised and put pressure on him. This has hardly happened however, but I am committed to this critical engagement with Corbyn and beyond Corbyn with the people as much as possible. Massive challenges are afoot, we need to prepare and work hard for them, hardly anyone is doing that but the current peoples progressive surge is potentially an opening towards meeting these challenges.  

DEFENDING DIANE ABBOTT

#DianeAbbott I am really saddened by what is happening towards Diane recently, particularly disappointing has been the response of some of the Black n Brown left/radicals. Diane is not my favourite political person, I am not a supporter of the institutionally racist and imperialist Labour Party, Diane doesn't have the populist style, but would you if basically EVERY day of your life for decades you face *increasing* horrific racist abuse with disgusting people calling you things like "fat ugly black gorilla" day after day in your life. Indeed, I think Diane is probably the most abused and reviled political figure in our country, and why is that? It's not because of some of our political differences with her around many things, its because she is a independent-minded, strong, dark skinned, not physically small *BLACK* *WOMAN*. I wonder of all those joining in with the racists in mocking and laughing at her wether they could walk a day or two in her shoes, if they could deal with the all day every day and night receiving racist abuse and worse.

Like I said, I am no big fan of her, but that's not the point. Even in perhaps an ultra-left moment I even stood against her (she had a very safe seat) in parliamentary elections at the start of the 2000s! Madness. And I apologise to her, however perhaps a mitigating thing: I did stand on a platform that was explicitly anti-imperialist explicitly opposed the 'f-type' isolation prison cells against Kurdish and Turkish leftist (esp DHKC) political prisoners, for that I got thousands of votes from the Kurdish and Turkish communities, and I got that with little campaigning as these communities are already politicised and it goes to show that if someone actually bothered to try to get together a real anti-imperialist anti-racist independent political party with hard and consistent work you would within a few years get councillors elected and a few years later have a good go at parliamentary elections, but I digress.

Diane is a proud successful career politician who has consistently been treated as a bit of a second class citizen by the Labour leadership, she got humiliated LIVE on news TV by the former Labour leader for saying basic and correct things about historical colonialism and racism. That's one example of many that show that Diane has had to put up with this kind of discrimination even by her own colleagues in her own political party.

Diane makes mistakes, but the mistakes Diane makes several days ago are still mocked today, whereas Corbyn makes all kinds of stupid mistakes and when he makes the exact same mistake that Diane made, he makes the mistake in the morning and literally by the afternoon its all forgiven and forgotten. Can people see the way in which Corbyn gets a non-critical pass by the LP/Corbyn camp, and Diane gets totally drubbed? Why do you think that is? Corbyn is a posh white man, Diane is a north London older dark-skinned Black woman.

Finally, some are cussing Diane and saying Dawn Butler is so amazing. Dawn comparitvely to Diane is very young, she is more conventionally attractive, she is relatively new to career politics, she has a different softer personality and speaking style. Let Dawn spend a couple decades of politics let along 40 years like Diane and let's hope she doesn't get the intensity of abuse that Diane has, but tragically she will get that abuse and it will be taxing. Maybe she will deal with it better than Diane and not become hard headed like Diane, maybe she won't? Isn't it deeply problematic to put up two Black woman against each other in this way, shouldn't we encourage unity between Black people and Diane and Dawn? Both receive racist abuse, albeit Diane received it a lot more, a lot nastier and for a lot longer. Why are some pitting an older Black woman against a more prettier younger Black woman?

To conclude, I encourage people to stand IN FRONT of any women and especially Black or Brown women who is attacked and abused by the racists. These women are on the frontline, and they are the first victims of abuse. If we are to push back the racist tsunami currently riding on the Brexit uk nationalist bandwagon, we have to gather 'the many against the few' (that's Mao, not corbyn btw), and develop maximum unity against racism/brexit.