Matthew d’Ancona and his fake news

Philip Roddis from Steel City Scribblings

Matthew d’Ancona, in yesterday’s Guardian, is concerned about the threat to democracy from fake news. He wants to see ‘social media giants’ …

…legally redefined in a new, third category that radically enhances their accountability for the content they host, without imperilling free political discourse. Striking the right balance in this jurisprudential task will not be easy. But who expected it to be?

He also wants…

…a new system of “credible annotation of standards, so that people can see, at a glance, the level of verification of a site” – essentially, kitemarking of the sort that is standard in almost every other sector of consumption.

I am less sure that the government should “initiate a working group of experts” to oversee this process. If there is one thing worse than what the committee describes as the “wild west” of today’s digital prairies, it is anything that even resembles a Ministry of Truth, or an Oftruth regulator. Better that independent charitable bodies perform this grading task – gaining the public’s trust incrementally, as the admirable Full Fact and other fact-checking organisations have done in recent years.

Matthew d’Ancona being on the liberal wing of British Conservatism, that last paragraph is to be expected. He sees the dangers, earnest democrat that he is, of state censorship but believes, credulous liberal that he is, these can be averted by a few judicious mechanisms of the classic ‘checks and balances’ sort. I’m not going to argue with him on that. With bigger fish to fry, I’ll confine myself to pointing out that his ‘admirable’ Full Fact is led by Mayborn Group CEO and Tory Party donor Michael Samuel, while so many of those ‘other fact-checking organisations’ have on closer inspection proved to be at best self righteous – and self appointed – custodians of truth; at worst risibly tainted.[1]

d’Ancona’s complacency is neither the inevitable nor exclusive product of a costly education and privileged lifestyle, but is nurtured and at every turn reinforced by both. How do you think the man would respond to the question put to one similarly placed, the BBC’s Andrew Marr, in a 1996 interview with Noam Chomsky?

The media are selling privileged audiences. These are big businesses, big corporations selling privileged audiences to other corporations. Now what picture of the world would a rational person expect to come out of such a structure?

Marr had no answer and I don’t suppose d’Ancona has either. Neither man is a liar; both are the successful products of an ideological matrix upheld, confirmed and reaffirmed in those myriads of conversations and everyday acts which define – if we don’t ask about the nature of power – ‘common sense’ and what is ‘moderate’. It’s through such conversations and acts that normality is most thoroughly demarked, lines most durably drawn between ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’. But those conversations and acts do not take place in a vacuum. They arise within particular social relations of class division, their heavy ideological lifting done in the education, entertainment[2] and news industries.

Specifically here, many read a superficially broad spectrum of media views on small to middling matters – Mail at one end, Guardian at the other – as proof of an ‘open’ society whose forms of democracy they take at face value. Others call that spectrum a slit-window view on the world, a painfully limited vista constrained not by Truth – though that can’t be entirely bypassed: it has in normal times to be accommodated – nor yet by blunt censorship. Liberal media do indulge in crude onslaughts of the kind directed at Corbyn, Assad and Putin.

They do not, however, make a habit of telling outright lies. To do so entails risks only undertaken when the alternatives pose an unusually stubborn impediment to ruling class[3] interests. In the main, liberal media lie by omission. (When did you last read a Guardian or Independent piece on how those who took the decision to invade Iraq and demolish Libya have profited from their reconstruction? When did such media last run a piece on the extent of Syria’s privatisation? Come to that, when will we get a fearless Guardian investigation of the implications, as ad revenues fall, of growing donor dependence on American liberals well to the right of Britain’s?) And they spin with scant regard for consequence, as with the demonisation of Assad and Putin by daily repetition of unproven allegations to the point where inflammatory claim [4] can no longer be distinguished – ‘no smoke without fire’ – from proven fact.

Chomsky, with his gift for framing subtle truths and complex observations in simple but never simplistic terms, raises the issue of that ideological matrix more than once in his BBC interview with Andrew Marr. When Marr asks with incredulity if Chomsky supposes he and his colleagues profess beliefs not sincerely held but calculated to advance their careers, Chomsky responds:

No, I am sure you believe everything you say. What I am saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sat in that chair interviewing me.

Neatly put. Similarly, the owlish Mr d’Ancona wouldn’t be sat where he is but for his touching faith that the core aim of his various media employers is to pursue truth, as opposed to selling privileged audiences to other big corporations. To be a useful idiot you have to be, well, useful.


  • 1. See for instance this Spiked piece, which asks “Who exactly will judge which news is ‘real’ and what’s ‘fake’, and decide whether the world’s citizens are ‘properly informed’? While ensuring ‘those in positions of power are held accountable’ is a laudable aim, the question remains: accountable to whom? The people in a democratic system? Or our self-appointed ‘fact-checkers’ in a software package. And perhaps most pointedly – who will the fact-checkers be accountable to?”
  • 2. While education and news media are routinely and rightly decried by capitalism’s critics, I’m coming firmly to the view that the cumulative effect of decades of soft propaganda from TV and cinema is every bit as vital to its ideological underpinnings. That near infinite accumulation of subtexts, seldom intended as propaganda – rather, as Giving The Public What it Wants – is all the more effective for that ‘innocence of intent’ in its nurturing of deeply orientalist assumptions of Western and especially American beneficence. And of Arab and Slavic villainy for villainy’s sake.
  • 3. My concise definition of a ruling class is its monopoly ownership of some essential of wealth creation. Under capitalism this is the big money and production infrastructure without which wealth cannot be produced. Of course there is far more to say, but all else derives from this one central reality.
  • 4. Of all the charges to be laid at the doors of BBC, Guardian and Independent, none is graver than that their coverage of Russia, Syria and Ukraine – and mix, on Yemen, of near silence with unsubstantiated claims of Iranian backed Houthis – has the effect, regardless of intent, of promoting the high tech and highly lucrative delivery of death to the near defenceless peoples of the global south.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

In July I published a study of MuralGate that alleged a conspiracy; here I analyse the data on those who viewed the essay. It shows how a dozen or so around the world (and two in particular) took my investigation very seriously, tried to limit its influence, but inadvertently widened its scope insofar as the reception of MuralGaga led to further discoveries. Please share.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I accuse the British Press of complicity in the atrocities – just two pages. Please share:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

The issue of the smear campaign has not been resolved. My work in the last 100 days:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

And do please retweet, share – especially at the Labour Party Conference.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

On the fascist tendencies of the “centre” despite itself:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

More about Sauron, I’m afraid. A review of a review:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I take another look at that mural off Brick Lane. I do so in the context of (a) local identity politics, (b) global geopolitics and the “clash of civilizations.” I do so because I have detected the “all seeing Eye of Sauron” observing both battles.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

If anyone wants a clue as to what has been going on in UK politics, look at this. It shows how from 2015 Cohen had shown himself hostile to Corbyn, yet surprisingly, the accusation of antisemitism was not made, despite the fact that Cohen had been told of Corbyn’s infamous mural comment shortly after he was elected leader. More significantly, the Twitter trail indicates that Cohen was instrumental in that comment becoming weaponised. 2 pages 5 minutes.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

And further to this on the hawks – who never, actually, used to think of Corbyn as antisemitic.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

Wrote this today. In my opinion the Israel Lobby needs some careful thought.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

Some moderate Jews are worried about the irony statement – as if Corbyn was proposing a cricket test (Tebbit) for English Zionists. I give a short defense of Corbyn here:

A Benge
A Benge

I’ve just tried twice to provide a link for your work so far in the Politica Live thread of the Graun.
No luck. It got modded immediately.(along with four other quite innocuous and truthful comments)
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought. are now distant memories.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I defend Corbyn from the attack of Rabbi Sacks. I look at true and false prophecy in the light of the smear campaign. I give detail – but just 15 minute read:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

D’Ancona has been attacking Corbyn for those irony comments. I take a one page look at the person involved based on his own tweets:

A Benge
A Benge

Such a disgusting article full of deliberate distortions.
And we’re not allowed to question him, or point out the lies.
Having just read the latest Jonathan Cook on the witch hunt, utterly depressing to
realise how successful they’ve been at the brainwashing. They are actually EVIL.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I extend my analysis of the smears on Corbyn with two pages written this morning on IronyGate:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I have a short piece comparing the strategy and tactics behind two smear campaigns, MuralGate and CemeteryGate. I call for an investigative journalist to look into the “usual suspects.”

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

In praise of ambiguity … and Peacemakers:


Matthew D’Ancona is couching his – possibly unconscious – desire for censorship in comfortable terms.

The danger is that people like him may be quite sincere in their desires for genuine news reporting, but like many liberals he mistakenly believes that his views are the only ones that are valid. Thus if he gets his way the news will be censored. He won’t view it that way though.

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

The Jewish Chronicle under Stephen Pollard has been in the forefront of the anti-Corbyn smears, a recent example being the recording and coverage of Peter Willsman. In their article, however, he is grossly mis-represented and this distortion is put into the mouth of the well-respected progressive Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. When I showed her a screen-shot of her “words” she was aghast, and told me she had said no such thing. I then complained to Pollard who dismissed my complaint as ridiculous and refused further correspondence. A summary of my complaint to IPSO can be found at:

Chris Friel (@ChrisFriel7)

I wrote a reply to Alex Sobel and Hannah Weisfeld who advocated the full IHRA. I argued that they were naive to ignore the concerted anti-Corbyn campaign going on:


An interesting little parallel I noticed in the linked article in which Andrew Marr interviews Chomsky: Chomsky states that New York Times journalist Anthony Lewis claimed that the Vietnam war “began with blundering efforts to do good”.

This is exactly the same response I got in a private email from the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour when I questioned his utterly one-sided (anti-Russian, pro-bombings) article following the alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma.

I asked Wintour if he was aware of why the West is even in Syria, and if he was aware of the wider geopolitical context of the war, the role of the Saudis and the Israelis, US/UK funding for terrorist groups, the proposed pipeline, and the oil/gas supply war involving the Russians and the Gulf States.
I said that it was common knowledge that the West is in Syria primarily because of oil, but he disagreed, replying thus:
“Main point of disagreement is the belief the West is involved in Syria
due to oil. Think the initial aim was to support a democratic revolution.”

There you have it. A 64-year-old veteran journalist, and the Guardian’s Diplomatic Editor, no less, apparently has the political savvy of my conservative grandma, who also believes that we are just helping those poor Arabs to fight that nasty man. Alternatively, he’s a lying, opportunistic sleazebag hack like Anthony Lewis, who will change his views whenever his bosses tell him to. The main thing is, he gets to send his kids to Oxford so they too can watch our post-colonial bloody wars from the privileged sidelines like all the other Guardian journalists.


I seem to have got myself confused about the state of the IHRA definition and working examples. Judging by the apoplectic reaction: I thought that after a vote by the PLP: all eleven working examples had been rejected – which I took as a positive stand for communicative dialogue and the inclusive right to freedom of speech. Then I realised that seven had been retained, word for word. Now from Jeremy Corbyn (in the Fraudian): I read that ten and a half have been adopted (beyond the seven, adopted in the essence of the IHRA): and through a discourse with the Oppressors (I presume the BoD; embassy front JLM; LFI?), a final wording for the last one is to be agreed (he does not make clear which one of the free speech ending ‘definitions’ is to be reworded by the Oppression commission – I presume it is the “racist endeavour” clause?). So it appears we have ten and three-quarters of a quasi-legal charter of oppression and dialogue extirpation. To be violently and undemocratically imposed? The NEC has had the final say.

I view this as a major capitulation, that is in itself, a charter of freedom for racist hate-speech. Many legal commentators (notably, former Appeal Court Judge, Stephen Sedley), and 40 Jewish organisations worldwide [according to Asa Winstanley] had urged they not be adopted. The definition and examples lack the rigour of legal definitions. They employ woolly concepts and fuzzy logic which is relatively definable only by the Oppressors. That they are not ‘legally binding’, and therefore not subject to such rigour, is a classic, violent, and thus dictatorially oppressive strawman. They are the basis of the Code of Conduct for all members, and so have assumed quasi-legal status. Many have, and will, as the result of due process, be expelled on the basis of this Code. There is no appeal. Thus, they have the basis and finality of a Law within the confines of the Labour movement.

That they are the basis of hate-free speech within Labour’s discourse is thus a contradiction in terms. They have given an assumed authority to the Oppressor: who alone can (subliminally) define their own terms. What is hateful is not for debate, or for you and I to decide and define through discourse (the basis of dialogue) …the terminology is loaded and emotively charged in favour of the reactionary reactivity of a conferred victim status. The right to self-reflexively claim that an opposing point of view is hateful and hurtful is enshrined in these quasi-legal dictatorial and disciplinarian ‘working examples’. If I do not like you or what you say: I cry and turn to the waiting press and cameras, and claim to have been insulted …knowing that my actions will lead to expulsion (i.e. of Marc Wadsworth: see below). But I can only do this if I am Jewish and thus covered by the IHRA indefinable? Being a lifelong anti-black racism and antisemitism campaigner is no defence.

True hate-speech is intolerable: but creating an atmosphere for the manufacture and proliferation of supposed hate-speech is equally intolerable. It is a regression to the darkest days of the twentieth century. I can’t say when because that would be construed as hate-speech! The definition and examples are woolly enough to be a virtual discriminatory catch-all. Bad enough as they are on their own: they are intentionally ill-defined and variable enough to allow ‘concept creep’ or leached meaning transference to the even more inimical non-existent category of the ‘new left antisemitism’. What is this? Talk of ‘shadowy elites’, ‘oligarchies’, ‘shady bankers’, and a worrying addition ‘conspiracy theories of Israeli involvement in 9/11’. To mention ‘Lucky’ Larry Siverstein; or the dual nationality of the PNACers; as probable ‘persons of interest’ is now antisemitic hate-speech? Free-speech debate of 9/11 is now cause for expulsion.

Speak of such as “sinister global forces” and the supplemental meanings are implied for you. It is dictated that one must mean ‘Jewish’. This is a violent subversion of free speech and extirpation of truth-seeking. It is purely racist to impute that I am racist according to projected pre-loaded values – construed from a pre-manufactured code: a dictatorial code itself crafted from indefinable and unalterable terminology. Or with subliminal reference to a third party deliberately undecidable ‘IHRA definition’. One could manufacture almost anything with such fuzzy logic? And they probably will.

So anti-capitalism is antisemitism: or at least the dictatorial meaning can be stretched to include such an inference? 9/11 will be thus blanketed by a crudely manufactured antisemitism. Constructs such as ‘apartheid state’ or ‘Zionist entity’, well, its obvious. What can one say within such an emotive and one sided discourse? Well, one can blame the death of 60 Palestinians (including seven children) on themselves, or Hamas (as LFI did): and this is not antisemitism? Or I can call JC a “fucking antisemite and racist” to his face and I will be defended: not suspended? Well, I couldn’t, because I am not Jewish …but Hodge can? Well, fuck this definition of antisemitism then.

Labour has manufactured its own climate of hatred and suspicion. That the result of a perceived transgression is pre-determined came to light from Marcs expulsion. The NCC ‘kangaroo court’ is predominantly right-wing. If you are accused, you will be expelled, with no right of appeal. No wonder Labour has a worsening problem with antisemitism: they have imploded into their own self-created miasma of a Zionist witch-hunt. Jeremy Corbyn need look at the historic implications of his own article if he wants to understand where the dialectic of hatred has come from? Racists have been handed eleven (or ten and three-quarters) inscribed stone tablets; that sanction their right to denounce non-racist anti-racists (and black-activists) as racist. And this is supposed to end the racism?



Racism and bigotry, I hope we all agree, are bad. But racism and bigotry are not that difficult to define. We are dealing with an expression of hatred or discrimination against X for being X (X might be Black, a Woman, a Jew, a Gay person, or a member of any other such group). This definition is universal and sufficient to tackle any form of racism including anti Jewish bigotry. In contrast, the IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism suggests that Jews are actually not people like all other people. We have yet to see an international working definition of racism against Blacks or a working definition that addresses anti Muslim bigotry. The IHRA’s working definition confirms that Jews, at least in their eyes, are somehow chosen. The fact that British institutions have adopted such an exclusivist definition may suggest that Britain is drifting away from its universal heritage. This is, obviously, an alarming news for everyone including Jews.


Gilad’s reference to the Athens/ Jerusalem analogy I think is really helpful: the holy writ of the IHRA ‘definition’ seeks to replace any and all attempts at reasoned discourse (- as if racism cannot be defeated by reason!).
Skripal, Douma, 7/7, 9/11, JFK etc. etc. We are told to reject Socrates and accept the word of a ‘priesthood’ or face damnation.

Big B
Big B

Mog: it is not only the Socratic Method, but Paulo Freire also advocated meaningful dialogue in the classic “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. A pre-requisite for this is for the oppressor and oppressed to be free of their discriminatory categories: then they can meet within the openness of their essential humanity. So, within a 21st century socio-political discourse, it would be progressive to break down the racist and ethno-religious barriers to dialogue – not concretise them for another century of hate?

Whilst seemingly compatible within a socio-political discourse: elsewhere, race, and thus racial identity, has long been regarded as a socio-cultural constructivism. We should be circumspect of how we continue to define race (and for what purpose), as perpetuating race as a discriminatory category also perpetuates the basis for racism. This is an insurmountable barrier to meaningful dialogue. So, if race is not a scientifically grounded Absolute: just who are the Semites that Labour seems culturally determined to keep hating?

It seems to me the full ‘IHRA+10.75’ Code generates two valences of Semitic construct: both predicated on race, and dialectically dependent on each other. The dominant is the ‘Chosen Oppressor Semitic Group’ (COSG) – with its conferred rights and impunity: its naturally subordinate corollary is a ‘contingent oppressed semitic group’ (cosg) – whose autonomy, sovereignty, and self-determination are contingent or denied. The capitalisation is purely demonstrative and in no way implies actual dominance outside of the linguistic constructions. No need to define which pertains to whom?

If you agree that these constructs follow from my own and Gilad’s reasoning, there is no need to labour my point – the actual dominance dynamics are self-evident? The ‘Chosen’ group’s right to self-determination comes at the cost of escalated subjugation. Thus, if it is stated that Labour supports the ‘Two State’ solution: in fact, these dynamics reveal that they are supporting the ‘Nation State’ solution instead?

So self evident are the dynamics, in fact, that reduced to an essentialised humanitarian level: the obvious criminality has no justification or legitimation and no racist shield to hide behind. A clear assessment of morality is lucidly apparent – to both oppressor and oppressed – and meaningful dialogue toward an essentially human resolution can progress.

All of this is lost within the definition of the IHRA ‘Code’. Centuries of baggage are Absolutised and meaningful dialogue is dead. To be explicit, yes, I did just frame the Holocaust as ‘baggage’: because any event, however monumental and traumatic, that is in turn used to anchor, internalise, and perpetuate the Oppression is ‘baggage’ toward the progress and evolution of lasting peace. The only way to honour the Holocaust and end the centuries of being oppressed, is to end forever the cycle of Oppression?

If, instead, the oppressed intentionally internalise the values of the Oppressor there is self-generating dialectic of hatred …enshrined in the new Code? Progress and peace are born of the oppressed meeting the oppressed in open-ended humanity? There can be no end to Oppression until this is achievable through the openness and essential humanity of the dialogical method?

“The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.” [Freire: p29]


It’s telling that Gilad is criticised (demonised ?) as an anti-Semite (in the racist sense) when he goes to great lengths to make clear a distinciton between ‘Jewishness’ (identitarian), Judaism (religious ideas) and ‘the Jews’ (a specific but contested race)..
For me, race is a psuedoscientific construct. The issue is one of ideas and principles : universalism vs. exceptionalism (however demarcated).
By not standing up for the principles of Socrates or Freire, the Labour leadership are betraying their supporters and the traditions of socialism which carried the impulse of universalism into the modern world.

I fully agree with you, that the only way out is that of forgiveness. Sadly forgiveness is often distorted into capitulation.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain

I’m rather afraid that if you study the Talmudic, Rabbinical, Judaism that dominates religious affairs in Israel through the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox hegemony in religious matters, and their pivotal role in hard Right political coalitions, and which also underlies much of the absolutism of Zionist demands, you will see that the ‘dialectic of hate’ is the very essence of the creed. There is no escaping it, and the bitter fruits of that essential fear and hatred of the Other (we’re all Palestinians as far as they are concerned)are there for all to see, in mangled Gazan children’s bodies, the inhuman devastation of Gaza, the devastation of south Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc, and in the destruction of Corbyn and UK Labour and the criminalisation of BDS and all support for the Palestinians throughout the slave-states of the West.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain

The Zionist elite in the UK have re-asserted their TOTAL control over the UK Labour Party, after the brief apostasy of the Corbyn eruption, with ease. The utter COWARDICE, the groveling, the back-stabbing betrayal of Labour giants like Livingstone, lynched for TELLING THE TRUTH, has ended, for decades, probably forever, any prospect of a ‘Left’ Labour Party attempting to undo the vicious social savagery and outright pillaging parasitism of the last forty years. And it was SO easy-just run amuk, hissing and spitting lies, slanders, foul abuse, with that hate-crazed ardour that the Palestinians know so much worse, and the cravens capitulate, as they always do.
This surrender just feeds the Zionists’ Brobdingnagian self-regard, narcissism and drive for power. If Corbyn thinks that by surrendering to the Zionist lynch-mob that he will placate them, he’s insane. The next time the Zionazi regime decides to obliterate a few hundred or thousand Gazan children, or attack Lebanon again, or pass more outright fascistic, racist, legislation, any goy who dares criticise it will be out of the Labour Party. In fact, the appetite for great demands only ever growing among these creatures who do firmly believe themselves ‘Gods Upon the Earth’, with souls more different from that of a goy than a goy’s soul differs from that of an animal, and the ‘most intelligent’ people on Earth, perhaps the day is in sight when they will demand David Milliband as Labour leader, or that all Labour members must convert to Judaism, (didn’t Nick Cohen once suggest something similar?)or that the entire organisation simply be wound up, and its leaders locked up for the Universal Crime of ‘antisemitism’. Don’t laugh.


I am wondering if the Labour party has served its purpose, and will now be destroyed.


Anti semites used to be people who hated or disliked Jews.
Now anti semites are anyone who extreme Zionist Jews and Gentiles dislike, or claim to have offended them.
Apparently, unlike Moslems and everybody else, they have an inalienable right not to be offended.



Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain

Even for one of your fellow Chinese-hating, Zionist, racists, that was a load of the filthiest, most Streicherian lies imaginable. ‘Millions’ of Uighurs ‘imprisoned’??!! At least it is typical Zionist hatred, crazed and hyperbolically extreme, like your loathsome fantasies of ‘Mongol maps’ for world conquest, that the Chinese are supposedly following, so readily dismissed as the ravings of a crazed, hate-driven, psyche.
One easily figures out why the Zionist hate China with that familiar Talmudic fury. Having gained total control over Western politics and the media, plus the heights of finance and the Internet, mass surveillance etc, and having Israel, as a consequence, be granted TOTAL immunity to all International Law in its brutality, barbarism and aggression as a result, only one fly remains in the ointment of Zionist ambition. China. The one great power and civilization that will never grovel to the Jews because they are ‘Gods Upon the Earth’ or some such narcissistic insanity. The Chinese have the audacity to see Jews as just fellow human beings, and Israel as simply a state like any other. THAT explains the Zionist hatred, bordering, as ever, on insanity, for China, and their relentless propaganda efforts to demonise it. Why, they even invented The Clash of Civilizations’ to justify their ferocious hatred of all cultures that do not place them at the apex of humanity, but just down in the ruck with the rest of us.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain

This diatribe is directed at Antonyl, far, far, below, and his pile of ordure from one of the Yankee hate-rags.