The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Rachel Riley Libel Ruling Is the Latest Judicial Attack on Political Speech
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Assaults on the right to speak, and to think, are coming thick and fast. But the significance – and coordination – of all these developments is being largely missed.

Those who try to open up a little space – in politics, academia, and journalism – to think critically about our society and how power is misused are the chief targets. Western establishments have grown increasingly concerned about the expansion of popular freedoms that arrived with social media a decade or so ago, which have allowed us to analyze and critique elite interests and strategies. This has posed a very obvious threat to the establishment’s continuing ability to propagandize us and has led to far more unpredictable and unstable social and political landscapes.

Our increased ability to bypass corporate, billionaire-owned media has led to inevitable polarization. We have seen the emergence of three antagonistic tribes, based largely on the way each consumes media.

Liberals and the traditional right tend to show little interest in the wealth of new critical information, regarding as authoritative only those outlets that belong to the corporate media. As a result, liberals and the traditional right tend to assume either that the system works relatively well or that, at least, it works in their favor. They favor mainstream political parties that protect elite interests.

The populist left has slowly understood that the institutions and networks of power that rule over us are systematically corrupt, and that they will continue on the current ecocidal path to maintain their power. This left is internally divided – and largely ineffective – because it cannot agree on whether the remedy is to be more assertive in seeking reform or to work towards overthrowing the corrupt system.

The populist right also appreciates that the system is corrupt but struggles to see this corruption as anything more than a temporary problem. It is easily triggered by the obsessive focus of liberals on divisive social issues, premised on identity politics. Importantly, it believes a charismatic leader can reverse course by sweeping away the liberal elites who occupy what they see as otherwise-well-intentioned institutions.

Fog of propaganda

Both of these last two groups are a potential threat to Western establishments, especially if they can more effectively break through the fog of propaganda to see clearly what we are really up against.

In consequence, we have been witnessing a concerted backlash from the establishment against the digital freedoms that recent technological innovations have inadvertently unleashed. The establishment has, of course, dressed up this assault on the right to know what is really going on as “democracy defending itself.”

Journalism has become a key battleground. New kinds of popular journalism have emerged over the last decade, made possible by the leveling-up role of digital technology. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks – which made it safer for whistleblowers to get information out to the public about the crimes being committed, and the lies being told, by our elites – is now in a London high-security jail charged with “espionage” for revealing U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. His prolonged confinement and psychological torture have sent a powerful message to other journalists about the dangers inherent in scrutinizing elite interests.

But much of the effort to crush the new critical thinking happens more covertly. All criticism of elites – whether of the informed variety based on the leaks published by groups such as WikiLeaks, or of the deluded variety typified by the Pizzagate-style conspiracies of the disaffected right – is being bundled together as “fake news.” Algorithms are being gradually manipulated to disappear critical voices of both kinds, while social media companies are taking advantage of the new censorious mood among the public – whipped up by the elites – to justify social media bans, even of a sitting U.S. president. In these Orwellian times, free speech is presented as a threat to freedom.

Power shielded

Efforts to course-correct have been evident in politics too.

Populists have been able to ride the groundswell of opposition to elites – whether authentically in the case of leftwingers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, or inauthentically by rightwingers such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro.

The technocratic, Western “democracies” that had become so expert at concealing the exercise of power in the interests of a narrow elite have found themselves in trouble. On the one hand, the concentration of power and wealth, and the continuing imperial wars of resource theft overseas and inaction on the climate emergency at home, have been substantively challenged by the populist left. And on the other, the plutocratic nature of the structures the elites have built to shield their power have been made uncomfortably explicit, even to liberals, by the transparent, power-hungry, narcissistic politics of the populist right.

Just as critical, power-scrutinizing journalism is now classified as espionage and disinformation, populist politics has been declared antisemitic, a threat to national security, and treasonous.

Judicial lawfare

But one feature of this assault on our freedoms to think, speak, and act has gone largely unremarked. And that is the clear cooption of the judicial establishment to provide a veneer of legality – due process – as these freedoms are hollowed out. In tandem with discourses about “fake news” and “disinformation,” elites are waging lawfare through the judiciary against our right to discover truths they are determined to keep concealed.

This policy has been particularly evident in the U.K. The Assange case has already been referenced. A series of increasingly senior British judges have agreed with self-serving efforts by U.S. elites to define journalism that holds power to account as “espionage.” The U.K. government has been formulating legislation to give its own stamp of approval to this smearing of power-scrutinizing journalism.


Using slightly different tools, a judge recently jailed the prominent blogger Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, for his own truth-telling. This time she did not rely on the pretext of “espionage.” She selectively used instead “contempt of court” – making the collusion between the state and the judiciary even more explicit.

In innovating a crime of “jigsaw identification” (the idea being that some journalists could be held accountable for contributing pieces of a jigsaw that identified plaintiffs in a trial while other journalists who contributed different pieces of the jigsaw were not to be held accountable), the judge even went so far as to create two classes of journalist, each offered different protections under the law. Those salaried employees of the billionaire-owned media are presumed to be incapable of jigsaw identification, while independent journalists – those free of corporate pressures – risk the full weight of a vengeful penal code if they upset powerful interests. The judge alone gets to decide what constitutes, and who is guilty of, “jigsaw identification.”

By drawing on his insider knowledge of the workings of the British establishment, Murray has been at the forefront of critiquing issues considered central to the U.K. security state’s interests. For example, he regularly highlighted the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the resuscitated Cold War narrative surrounding the poisoning of the Skripals back in 2018. He was one of the very few journalists to scrutinize the glaring judicial improprieties in the proceedings to extradite Assange. And he has been a relentless thorn in the side of a glaringly corrupt Scottish elite as they not only continue to evade their promise to pursue independence but seek to demonize anyone who might try to hold them to account.

Defamation weaponized

Despite the obvious significance of these judicial rulings that have severely curtailed the right of journalists to monitor the centers of power, neither the Assange nor Murray cases received even a tiny fraction of the coverage they deserved. The corporate media – the supposedly “free press” – colluded through its silence in the judiciary’s own silencing of independent journalism.

But a separate legal case that reached its conclusion shortly before Christmas also needs highlighting as yet another front in this judicial attack on the right to speak — one with severe implications for the public as well as journalists. After espionage and contempt, we can now add “defamation” to the list of legal tools that are being weaponized to crush critical thinking.

So draconian is this undermining of a basic right to speech that I will have to be extremely cautious in how I write about this ruling. The defamation case was brought by Rachel Riley, a TV-show host who, during Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour Party, harnessed her minor celebrity status to promote a strongly anti-Corbyn line.

Riley regularly took to social media to bolster the establishment’s “antisemitism” narrative against Corbyn: that he and the party he led were a threat to British Jews. As I and others have pointed out endless times before, this narrative was both entirely evidence-free and McCarthyite in nature.

The narrative fueled a classic witch hunt: anyone who followed the evidence and denied that Labour suffered from an especial antisemitism problem – mainly those who identified with the anti-racism, anti-imperialist, democratic socialist politics of Corbyn – was burnt at the stake.

It was treated as a confirmation of Jew-hatred to note that all the evidence indicated Labour had less of a problem with racism than both the Conservative Party and wider British society – or that, as a result, it seemed likely antisemitism was being weaponized to vilify a socialist politician who had unexpectedly risen to a position from which he could challenge for power.

Trend of violence

Rachel Riley via Twitter
Rachel Riley via Twitter

Riley resorted to incendiary language and imagery against Corbyn and his supporters, stirring the passions of her followers on the subject. (In the photo, above, she altered the text of a protest placard Corbyn carried against apartheid South Africa, at a time when the U.K. government was a close ally of Pretoria. She thereby twisted Corbyn’s anti-racism into evidence of his racism.)

Her campaign against Corbyn has, of course, assisted the establishment narrative rather than challenging it. For that reason, she was exempt from the criticism faced by those sympathetic to Corbyn, who often responded to her in equally vehement terms. Riley, like many others, was able to exploit the fact that the discourse playing-field about Corbyn and his supporters, policed by traditional and new media alike, was far from level.

This inequity was at the heart of a legal defamation suit Riley launched in 2019 against Laura Murray, then an assistant to Corbyn. Riley had effectively initiated the online encounter by making a post on Twitter in March of that year after Corbyn was attacked, during a visit to a London mosque, by an ardent Brexit supporter who lunged at him and hit him on the head with an egg.

The incident came in the wake of other serious attacks on MPs, including the murder of Labour politician Jo Cox three years earlier, and was a part of a continuing trend of violence towards MPs that led recently to the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess – all disturbing evidence of the growing polarization of British politics.

But for Riley, the attack on Corbyn appeared to offer another opportunity to amplify her long-running insinuations that Corbyn was an antisemite. She recycled an old tweet from Owen Jones, a Labour activist and Guardian columnist, who had previously observed: “If you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” Jones was referring to an incident back in 2009 when eggs were thrown at Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right, racist British National Party. Riley observed: “Good advice.”

Serious harm


Given the timing, context, and her prior statements about Corbyn, many people who read Riley’s tweet believed she was implying that Corbyn was a Nazi or harbored Nazi-like views, such as antisemitism. She was also castigated for normalizing physical violence against a senior politician in a wider political climate in which passions were intensifying and violence was a real threat. Some on the thread considered that dangerously irresponsible and said so.

One was Laura Murray. She responded:

Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”

Murray’s lawyers appeared to have assumed they had a rock-solid defense against Riley’s action.

There are three major defenses against a defamation suit. The first is “privilege,” which typically protects journalists when they quote otherwise defamatory statements made by officials in parliament or the courts to allow for full reporting of issues of public interest. The second is “truth,” which protects the person being sued if they can show that what they said was true. And the third is “honest opinion,” which applies if an opinion was expressed and that opinion was held reasonably and expressed honestly rather than out of malice or to harm someone’s reputation.

Murray’s lawyers believed they could defend their client using not just one but two of the defenses: truth and honest opinion. Was Murray not justified in inferring that Riley was equating Corbyn to a Nazi when she implied that the two cases were similar, especially in the context of Riley’s earlier statements? Was Riley’s comment not agreeing with Jones’s approval of a previous attack and suggesting it was deserved this time too? And was Murray’s view not expressed honestly and with the intention chiefly to defend Corbyn’s reputation rather than harm Riley’s? (Calling someone “stupid” in a heated exchange on Twitter is not usually considered defamatory, otherwise we’d have many tens of thousands of people facing enormous fines.)

To Murray’s lawyers, the case presumably looked cut and dried. But not to Mr. Justice Nicklin. He awarded Riley £10,000 and in the process left Murray, according to the Jewish Chronicle, with costs amounting to £500,000.

The judge accepted Riley’s argument that her tweet against Corbyn was sarcastic, and that Murray’s criticism of Riley had done serious harm to the TV presenter’s reputation.

Rich person’s game

I cannot express an opinion on the exchange between Riley and Murray without risking provoking another defamation suit from Riley. And given the fact that the judge found in Riley’s favor, warning Murray that she should have expressed her views more carefully, it is unclear to me how one could express any opinion criticizing Riley for her tweet without risking bankruptcy. So let’s set all of that aside.

Instead, I want to focus on how this ruling sweeps away what most lawyers would assume are normal legal protections on speech, even for a defamation suit.

Remember defamation is a rich person’s game. Had Riley lost, as many lawyers might have advised her she risked doing, she would have picked up the bill instead. Presumably, either Riley herself or her friends have very deep pockets.

Further, defamation cases are decided by a judge – the very personification of establishment interests – rather than a jury of ordinary people. Which is strange because the traditional test of whether someone has been defamed – the sexist one I was taught in my journalism course – is: What would a “reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus” think of what was said or written? But that “reasonable man” doesn’t get to speak for himself in a defamation case. Invariably, a privately educated, Oxbridge-groomed judge gets to decide in his name.

For this reason, defamation cases in the U.K. are largely rigged. Rich people or corporations sue much poorer people and usually win because they have better lawyers, or because the judge cares more about rich people’s reputations (just as they care more about their property), or because poorer people lose their nerve and settle on craven terms.

Or – and this is equally damaging – cases are avoided through prior censorship. Corporate media are often particularly careful in the ways they report on rich people. To take a relatively trivial example, if you or I find ourselves accused of breaking the law, we are reported simply to have denied the allegations. If Prince Andrew or Ghislaine Maxwell are accused, they get to “strongly,” “strenuously,” and “vehemently” deny the allegations.

Malicious plot?

But even with these provisos, this ruling is a disturbing low. Murray pursued the case to the bitter end, apparently had family wealth to fund her defense properly, and mounted strong legal arguments against the defamation charge. Finding against her seems to turn normal judicial considerations about defamation, and free speech, on their head.

First, it entirely ignores the fact that many other people on social media read Riley’s tweet in exactly the same way as Murray. Right or wrong, many of those “reasonable men on the Clapham omnibus” also understood Riley’s comment to be calling Corbyn a Nazi and as an endorsement of a physical attack on him. Is this not significant, given that what the “reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus” thinks is the main yardstick in determining how a defamation case is settled?

It seems that – unless Murray was part of some covert, collective, malicious plot against Riley, along with many other random people on Twitter – her and their interpretation of Riley’s comment was at the very least honestly reached and a plausible inference from Riley’s post.

Second, the ruling gave Riley a defense for her comments that it denied Murray. Why was Riley allowed to claim in mitigation that her post was written sarcastically, thereby depriving Murray of a right to interpret it literally? Murray’s honesty, and obviously genuine upset at Riley’s post, appear to have counted against her. By contrast, Riley’s sarcasm and flippancy – a tone that might readily be understood to risk contributing to inflaming passions in the context of violence against politicians – appear to have counted in her favor.

Third, the ruling presupposes that Murray did more harm to Riley’s reputation by suggesting Riley was calling Corbyn a Nazi and that he deserved to be attacked than Riley did by contributing – whether intentionally or not, whether fairly or not – to the apparently widepread impression she was calling Corbyn a Nazi and doing so in the context of an inflamed political climate that has seen politicians murdered. Murray, after all, was defending Corbyn’s reputation from what she and many others saw as a dangerous slur – a slur that damaged her too because she worked with Corbyn.

Taking sides

Given that context, the ruling against Murray for expressing disgust at Riley’s comment effectively weaponizes defamation, making this an entirely political verdict. It is not about what was said. It is not about where harm occurred. It is not about whether either party was acting in bad faith – each clearly believed her own assessment of the attack on Corbyn was the right one.

The ruling seems to boil down to the judge’s unconscious bias – one he did not think to examine because it so closely mirrors the wider bias of the rest of the establishment – that prioritized the reputation of one party (Riley) over the other party (Murray/Corbyn).

That is precisely the reason that politically charged exchanges on social media, even angry and rude ones, should never be an area for adjudication by judges. The law formally reserves a right to interfere when such exchanges tip over into threats, trade in verifiable falsehoods or try to harm someone’s reputation maliciously. Patently, Murray did none of those things. To suggest otherwise is to take sides. It amounts to an attack on political speech.

None of this is to suggest the judge himself acted maliciously, or even consciously. He is aligned to the establishment – and perceives its interests as society’s – because if he thought any differently he wouldn’t be sitting in a judge’s chair. (Noam Chomsky famously made precisely this same point in relation to senior journalists employed by the corporate media.)

Giving judges the power to settle quite unremarkable, daily political speech confrontations on social media is a recipe for hollowing out the right to express a critical opinion in the main public squares of the digital age. It will chill speech to make it all but impossible to criticize the views of already prominent and powerful individuals who uphold establishment narratives. It will allow the judiciary to wield enormous influence over our daily speech – and in ways that guarantee elite interests are served and our interests crushed.

In line with establishment interests, judges are already dangerously expanding the law’s reach into new areas, as the Assange and Murray cases illustrate only too clearly. The judiciary does not need any more weapons to intimidate and silence critical political speech. But with the Rachel Riley verdict, they just gained an important and terrifying new blunderbuss.

(Republished from Mintpress News by permission of author or representative)
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. lloyd says: • Website

    To confirm it I checked on wikipedia. Rachel Riley is Jewish. “My family came over in the pogroms.” Old Testament first names are either Jewish or coloured since World War Two. In the coloured case, they haven’t heard of Anti-Semitism. Neurotically incapable of separating actual threat or defamation from hurt feelings. Perfectly happy to dish it out to someone else. Elevated beyond her natural talent.

  2. Why would you say that leftwing populists such as Bernie Sanders are “authentic” while right-wing ones are not?

    What defines “authenticity” in this argument other than which side you’re more sympathetic to?

  3. So, is Judge Nicklin a Jew? As for Riley, in my opinion she is pure Evil, and a slandering Judeofascist thug. So much for the ‘Rule of Law’. Moreover, it only tends, in my opinion, to add further wood to the fire of anti-Jewish feeling. If I was the victim of this legal lynching and life upending bias and relentless vengefulness, I would find it very hard to ‘turn the other cheek’, but that, after all, is not at all Judaic.And, as a footnote, if this is what they can do in the UK, imagine the Hell of living under their jackboots in Palestine.

    • Agree: Richard B, JWalters
  4. @lloyd

    She has, in my opinion, a true talent for hatred and vengefulness. Whether genetic, learned, or both, I cannot say.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  5. Remember defamation is a rich person’s game. Had Riley lost, as many lawyers might have advised her she risked doing, she would have picked up the bill instead. Presumably, either Riley herself or her friends have very deep pockets.

    Now this. A take-off on an old saying comes to mind.

    “UK Justice” is to Justice as “UK Cooking” is to Cooking.

    And here I thought the control of the US by the Apartheid state was bad!

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  6. @Zachary Smith

    The behaviour of the ‘judges’ in the Assange lynching, the Murray lynching and here, in my opinion, just shows how cynically ludicrous is the Western assertion that they possess the ‘Rule of Law’. I wish I was rich so that I could finance anyone who has been slandered by Zionazis and Judeofascists in the UK. That they can use ‘lawfare’ to silence and ruin decent human beings is, in my opinion, simply Evil.

    • Agree: Irish Savant, JWalters
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  7. @mulga mumblebrain

    She has, in my opinion, a true talent for hatred and vengefulness. Whether genetic, learned, or both, I cannot say.

    She is a woman. What more need be said? This is the first lesson a boy learns by the second grade.

  8. Our increased ability to bypass corporate, billionaire-owned media

    This ability sounds good to have. Where can I get some?

  9. The issue is much deeper because libel is a foundational element of English civil law procedure.

    When a bank forecloses on a mortgage, for example, its lawyer will file an action claiming that the bank loaned money to the issuer of the mortgage (nominal / pretended borrower), which is a provable lie. At this point, both the bank and its lawyer have committed a crime themselves by making a claim based on a false-accusation and libel.

    But if you try to go there or pursue it to its logical conclusion, you will discover that the bank and its lawyer have merely been following procedure.

    Originally it was very difficult for the owner of a ship / vessel damaged by another ship to seek damages from the owners of the at-fault ship (and crew normally) because of difficulties in determining who the actual owner of it was.

    By whatever process or reasoning, the practice developed of libelling the ship as a legal-person to claim that that legal-person had – of its own volition – damaged the claimant’s ship. And this in turn compelled the real owners to come forward and defend themselves and their property which had caused the damage.

    The New International Encyclopædia

    Edition of 1905. See also Libel (admiralty law) on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.

    LIBEL (OF. libel, libelle, libeau, Fr. libelle, from Lat. libellus, diminutive of liber, book, inner bark of a tree). In admiralty practice, the first pleading of the complainant, which is filed in the office of the clerk of the court to commence the action. It is in the form of a petition addressed to the judge of the court by name, setting forth the nature and facts of the claim and containing a prayer that process issue in the proper manner. If the action is against an individual, a citation (q.v.) will issue directing him to appear and answer; if against a vessel [a commercial entity], a writ issues to an officer of the court directing him to attach it, which is considered sufficient notice to the owners. The libel must be verified by the libellant, as the claimant is called, or his agent if he is without the jurisdiction.

    The name was borrowed from the Roman law where a pleading known as the libellus conventionis was employed to commence an action. The word libel continued to designate the first pleading in an action under the civil law. It corresponds to a complaint or declaration in other actions. See Admiralty Law.

    In other words, and to paraphrase Martin Sheen’s Captain Willard in the film Apocalypse Now – Charging a lawyer with libel in the U.K. (or anywhere in the broadly-defined English law system) is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

    It’s all lies and deceit normalized to maximize profits and to harvest the wealth and productive capacity of the working masses.

    The issue in this present case is, for want of a better term, a circus sideshow.

    • Agree: frontier
  10. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    No, Jonathan, not Three Tribes.

    Just One.

    You know those Devils well.


    So, name them. And their crimes.

    End the nonsense.

    Truth should prevail.

    Tell it.

  11. @Jim Christian

    Dear me-a misogynist. Incel, perhaps.

    • Troll: Vinnyvette
    • Replies: @Richard B
  12. I tvied to varn you. –Funny Mustache Man

  13. frankie p says:

    At this point, any “populist” goy, from the left or the right who is not antisemitic according to the definitions of the day is not worth a cup of stale piss. Chew on that, Jonathan Cook. The two populist wings in the English speaking world need to be joined together in a functional bird that flies like Equality and Reconciliation in France, and intellectual leaders need to speak out honestly about how the “corporate, billionaire-owned media” is largely owned, run and controlled by the Jews for the Jews. The “corrupt system”, the “elite interests”, and the “judiciary” that is silencing independent journalism are all top heavy with Jews and acting on the behalf of other wealthy Jews. You, Jonathan Cook, have been programmed since childhood to be unable to express these truths, but the calcification in your brain that prevents you from seeing these truths is cracking and crumbling as you investigate and examine.

    Keep it up. I hope you find the courage the break free and become a complete truth teller.

    • Replies: @JWalters
  14. Petermx says:

    An uncensored social media, which we had for some years, is apparently a threat to those in power. The owner(s) of a media corporation can exercise their own influence over the content that company puts out directly or indirectly. They can hire writers that will write articles the owners agree with. An uncensored social media website allows people with controversial views to present their views. This probably allows a lot of garbage to be posted but it also allows extremely knowledgeable and talented people to present controversial ideas who don’t need the approval of anyone else to present those ideas.

    Just as an example. If Holocaust revisionism was to take off and those views became the popularly accepted views around the world, I think this would have a major impact on the world, including international relations between countries. It would certainly be contrary to the interests to one of the most powerful ethnic groups in the world and contrary to the interests of the nuclear armed, world power Israel. This is just one example. There are many people that might want to control content for many different reasons.

    • Agree: W, JWalters
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  15. Saxon says:

    Why do you think? This is a man who has a book called Disappearing Palestine who would balk at the idea of a disappearing England, despite seeing it first hand where he lives.

  16. Altai says:

    It’s telling how Countdown and 8/10 Cats Countdown just go on without any of the largely pro-Corbyn comedians on it making a pip about all this and without even the slightest suggestion that she be cancelled for any of this.

    Total immunity from criticism or even ridicule. This despite her histrionic and crazy public behaviour. It was like a meltdown.

    It’s also telling that she has a histrionic assault on Corbyn for the mere crime of his almost only implied tepidness about the warmongering settler-colonist state of Israel despite being only half Jewish. That’s some strong ethnocentric right-wing nationalism on her part all considered. I doubt she has the same concern for England or Ireland.

    Stephen Fry got away with the same.

    Shameless and telling. I thought these people were supposed to be universalist turbo-progressives?

    • Agree: JWalters
  17. Shpalone says:

    I remember the first time I read in a newspaper that free speech is actually bad for society. That was maybe about 5-6 years ago.
    These people are not even hiding their intent anymore.

  18. RobinG says:

    Jonathan, have you signed this?

    Peace and Justice Organizations call for Freedom for Julian Assange

  19. Obviously the Riley/Murray verdict is appalling. I do find it funny though how Cook accepts elements of the Establishment narrative without question, eg “inaction on the climate emergency” – if there actually was a ‘climate emergency’ the establishment might well suppress the news, but surely it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that ‘climate emergency’ is an establishment-pushed narrative?

    • Agree: Bro43rd, Lurker
  20. anonymous[165] • Disclaimer says:

    “Plunder is organised by law for the profit of those who make the law”
    – Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

  21. Miro23 says:

    None of this is to suggest the judge himself acted maliciously, or even consciously. He is aligned to the establishment – and perceives its interests as society’s – because if he thought any differently he wouldn’t be sitting in a judge’s chair.

    That’s totalitarianism. Everyone knows the rules and speech codes – and self censors to avoid trouble. The UK is already far gone down this road with its Jewish/woke elite cracking down harder every year.

    Like the US, the end game seems to be the collapse of these sclerotic and dysfunctional societies. The totalitarian WEF/Davos idea that a few (or the state) can own everything while the rest have nothing isn’t a formula for success.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  22. @Jim Christian

    Second grade? I found out in the first!

  23. Miro23 says:

    The judiciary does not need any more weapons to intimidate and silence critical political speech. But with the Rachel Riley verdict, they just gained an important and terrifying new blunderbuss.

    The UK needs a change of power at the top. Same as the 1936 Spanish Republican/Bolshevik government was totalitarian beyond repair – and it took Franco’s revolution to restore sanity. Also the US, where their corrupt so called democracy is no longer capable of fixing anything.

  24. Richard B says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Dear me-a misogynist. Incel, perhaps.

    Or one of millions who grew up in a family run by a narcissistic mother and learned as a child what you can’t face as an adult.

    • Agree: Ed Case
  25. As I and others have pointed out endless times before, this narrative [i.e., that Corbyn was an anti-Semite] was both entirely evidence-free and McCarthyite in nature.

    On the basis of what I have read in this article by Mr. Cook, Rachel Riley seems to be even more contemptible than Jeremy Corbyn—and that’s no easy trick to turn.

    Yet as is already known by anyone who has read Blacklisted by History, Stan Evans’s magisterial biography of Joseph McCarthy, there is a problem with the reflexively dismissive use of “McCarthyite” as a shorthand way of saying that the charges or claims being referred to are both scattershot and unsubstantiated. Specifically, the problem is that Evans demonstrates that McCarthy’s charges and claims were on target and well substantiated more than 90 percent of the time. Evidently, the same can hardly be said of Rachel Riley’s claims.

    • Thanks: W
  26. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The populist left has slowly understood that the institutions and networks of power that rule over us are systematically corrupt”

    Maybe, but they don’t understand that these institutions are _systemically_ corrupt. There’s a difference, don’t ya know?

    The main objective of the left appears not to be the complete elimination of the current systemically corrupt system, buts it’s replacement with an even bigger, more centralized version of the exact same systemically corrupt system.

    Makes ” sense” to me. 😂😆😎

    “The populist right also appreciates that the system is corrupt but struggles to see this corruption as anything more than a temporary problem…….. it believes a charismatic leader can reverse course by sweeping away the liberal elites who occupy what they see as otherwise-well-intentioned institutions.”

    The right wing idiots are essentially no different from the left wing idiots.

    Both, er, “sides” believe in charismatic figures who will magically turn things around; the left idiots have their Obamas, Biden’s etc. and the right idiots have their Trumps and De Santis’s etc.

    No differently from the left, the right believe that a charismatic figure can somehow make the government _none_ – systemically corrupt, which they can’t ; the only practical thing to do, if and when the true, entirely unchangeable nature of all government is understood, is to entirely eliminate government or, at the very least (in the case of the US government ) to reduce the government’s ( federal, state and local) to their absolute minimum size and powers.

    However no such elimination, or even drastic downsizing of governments will ever occur until enough people of both left and right come to understand the true, entirely unchangeable nature of all governments. To whit:

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    ……and (therefor) that:

    “The State is, and always has been, the great single enemy of the human race, its liberty, happiness, and progress.” Murray Rothbard

    As Albert J. Nock astutely observed:

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  27. gotmituns says:

    No one should ever worry about what a woman says unless she happens to be your wife (I mean that only in the best way). As to a man’s wife, every so often a wife comes out with something so astoundingly smart that she almost causes an accident. Just the other day my wife did that and caught me in the middle of a step and I almost tripped and fell. I wonder if she did that to get back at me for telling her she couldn’t park her car worth a shit.
    In the case of this nitwit, Rachel Riley, at least she’s not hard to look at.

    • Replies: @Mother Theresa
  28. cranc says:

    All criticism of elites – whether of the informed variety based on the leaks published by groups such as WikiLeaks, or of the deluded variety typified by the Pizzagate-style conspiracies of the disaffected right – is being bundled together as “fake news.”
    We all now know about Epstein, Maxwell, the MEGA group and Mossad, so this dismissive approach to ‘Pizzagate-style conspiracies’ demonstrates a kind of intellectual bankruptcy or plain denial.

    Populists have been able to ride the groundswell of opposition to elites – whether authentically in the case of leftwingers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, or inauthentically by rightwingers such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro.

    The analysis drops off any kind of honesty path here through recourse to political tribalism. Trump was not authentic, but was Sanders ? Of course he wasn’t, he backed Killary and then Biden. And nor was Project Corbyn if anyone bothers to look deeply and dispassionately. Corbyn himself actively blocked the essential motion to democratise the Parliamentary Labour Party, and he kind of facilitated the removal of anti-zionists from his party by abandoning them to the dogs and grovelling all the while. It was a Lansman project.

    populist politics has been declared antisemitic, a threat to national security, and treasonous.

    Why is that Cook? Why is Trump labelled a ‘Hitler’ and Corbyn too ? By whom ? (does that matter to you ?).
    Can we discuss or dismiss the actual veridical nature of Jewish Power ?
    No? Have you even looked at the backgrounds of who runs Wall Street, ‘Madison Avenue’, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and DC ? No ?
    Oh well, that leaves your baseless virtue politics shot to shit doesn’t it ?
    But you don’t give a damn about truth. The biggest occurrences in your era as professional journalist, you know next to nothing about. You would not stand 5 minutes of scrutiny and exchange with a genuinely informed person on subjects like 9/11, Covid or WWII. You don’t know jack about the origins of the ‘populist Right’ or even your own radical Left with regards to ‘antisemitism’.
    Cooked, burnt, thrown away.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride, W
  29. profnasty says:

    We’re all limey’s now.

    • LOL: Ned kelly
  30. Mike Tre says:

    This author’s credibility is suspect when he refers to Donald Trump as a “right-winger.”

    But this following statement confirms it:

    “I and others have pointed out endless times before, this narrative was both entirely evidence-free and McCarthyite in nature.”

    The sole difference being, of course, that Joseph McCarthy was 100% correct in his accusations and efforts. He was made out to be a lunatic by the same ethnic cabal he fought then that controls the narrative this author complains about now. Mr. Cook, can you say cognitive dissonance?

  31. UK is perhaps the world’s premier Jewish-Masonic country.

    Following Menasseh ben Israel’s bribing Oliver Cromwell, King Edward I’s 1290 Edict of Expulsion was de facto overturned in 1656.
    Within a couple months a synagogue and burial ground were established.
    Cromwell died two years later, not before ensuring the vilification then execution of King Charles; Bank of England opened in 1694 and global plundering (aka Empire) followed. By mid-1800’s there was a Jewish Prime Minister, into 1900’s Jews got recognition of judeo-bolshevism in Russia and the British to destroy themselves in attacking the Jews enemies, plus establish the pirate State of Israel. London today remains a haven for Jewish “Russian” criminals who buy property and football teams.
    There are good historic reasons why it is called Perfidious Albion. But “journalists” do not allude to how their country has been taken over, as this piece shows.

    For the Sceptered Isle it has been and is a Catastrophe.
    Or Naqba if you prefer it in Arabic.

  32. Mike Tre says:
    @Richard B

    Ignore the 3 incher. He gets high on gutter oil before he makes comments here.

    • LOL: Richard B, W
  33. Anon[407] • Disclaimer says:

    To learn what happens next, study the arch of the Jacobians and read the first Volume of The Gulag. What we are experiencing is a well trodden path.

    What’s to be done ?

    1) leave if you can; escape to a Christian oriented country where you‘ll be treated much better. Or if that’s impossible

    2) starve the beast – homeschool the kids or grandkids; don‘t consume any of their media/entertainment; spend less money which equals less tax revenue; join a church that provides like minded community; and never vote.

  34. God send death and misery to enemies of freedom.

  35. @onebornfree

    Mate, whatever you’re selling, nobody’s buying.

  36. usNthem says:
    @Jim Christian

    And she’s got the crazy eyes as well.

  37. Che Guava says:

    I will read this some time. Cook has never lost the spoilt spirit of the Grauniad, I am very sure (from his own recent writing) that he has no trouble with muzzling those he sees as political enemies.

    It seems that he has married a Palestinian Christian woman, and is honest about the Israeli crimes. That is great.

    At the same time, not to mention Moslem actions also to eliminate the Christian population is in bad faith. The Israelis may be first and worst, but even though the P.L.O. was IIRC founded or co-founded by a Palestinian Christian, Moslems have been even more active in driving them out than the ‘Jewish’ Israelis.

    • Replies: @Anon
  38. @lloyd

    Mother Jewish, father Irish. Hence the looks.

    • Replies: @Kurt Knispel
    , @lloyd
  39. anon[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard B

    Sorry for the childhood abuses you endured . Mind tries to create same reality repeatedly long after the original location and context and the perpetrators have disappeared . Mind feels :It’s a known zone, a zone of comfort . The thermostat elevated and changed by the yearlong abuse always reset to old distorted mindset itself anytime the situation improves ,whenever people seen around found to be are normal ,healthy, just and positive, and welcoming non judgmental .Mind itself achieves this by creating and recreating the abusive patterns to elicit negative reaction from the new different neutral and normal human around .

    It seems your abuse is still haunting you and taunting you . Focus on your mind and see if you can disrupt its thermostat .You dont need to stay within the comfort zone of familiar childhood abuse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. The article is tightly written, yet easy to follow in plain English. Not a paragraph is wasted. Well done.

    • Agree: Badger Down
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  41. Thank you Mr Cook for laying bare the nexus between power and judiciary. Not that we were unaware but your article just reinforces it. Those that have followed the Julian Assange saga know it all very well.
    My only quibble with you is On the one hand, the concentration of power and wealth, and the continuing imperial wars of resource theft overseas and inaction on the climate emergency at home.”
    I truly believe that you should educate yourself more about Climate sciences. It’s an hoax like many others.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  42. I’m sorry, but did you characterize Pizzagate as a deluded variety of conspiracy? John Podesta’s emails, released by Assange, and his dear brother Tony’s artwork suggest pedophilia at high levels in government. “Obama flew in \$50,000 worth of pizza and hotdogs from Chicago”. I’m sorry Mr Cook, but I’m going to dismiss your dismissiveness. Noam Chomsky? Fully in sink with the official explanation for 911? Bigger load of horseshit was never shoveled. Chomsky is a Jew and Jews don’t fare well in the 911 story. The 5 dancing Israelis arrested by officer Scott DeCarlo? Cook and Chomsky – ignore them.

  43. @Sollipsist

    Why would you say that leftwing populists such as Bernie Sanders are “authentic” while right-wing ones are not?

    What defines “authenticity” in this argument other than which side you’re more sympathetic to?

    The more interesting question is whether the author has defined all right-wing populists as in-authentic (in which case they are staking out an ideological claim) or whether they are making the
    lesser claim that the named right-wing populists are in-authentic. In that case the author presumably could name right-wing populists they believe to be authentic.

    There is no way to tell from reading the article.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
  44. Dystopian says:

    What do you expect from a urnalnist who quotes Chomsky?

    • Disagree: Gidoutahere
    • Replies: @Gidoutahere
  45. Us citizens in countries based on imperialist plunder, resource wars and right-wing corporatist coups d’etat for the last several decades, and swimming in the materialist and cultural filth and degeneration that has inevitably resulted, should not be surprised that the extra-judicial tactics we used to silence, loot and destroy nascent representative democracies across the global South have come home to roost. We were warned about it quite explicitly by our founders and then again periodically over the years, including at last by the three K’s taken out from 1963-1968, and comforted ourselves with bread and circuses and cheap plastic garbage instead of reclaiming our government.

    And now we face the consequences. Including a delusional ruling elite and media who want to kill us all with dangerous experimental drugs and/or nuclear war with Russia, while we prattle on about what a shame it is our judges are craven idiots. LOL.

    And may God have mercy on us all.

  46. @Irish Savant

    Jewy + Pat = Mongrel; poor bastard looking for unity – oneness.

    Bastards are always a problem (to themself & others).

    In nature only disturbed habitats / populations produce bastards (rarely).

  47. Marcion says:

    Good writing style, but no credibility.

    Cook is forever blinded to his one-sided liberalism. His sort of liberalism for fair treatment of leftists is never extended to those in the center or right.
    Libtards, every one of them, believe in Climate Hoaxing, Big Food, Big Everything: they ever grab for power.

    Libtards like Cook will never go to bat for anyone who is not aligned with their politics.

  48. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    No ,It’s a lie .You are misinformed by Israelis . Unfortunately , they do to have to work hard because you want to believe the lies

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  49. lloyd says: • Website
    @Irish Savant

    She would be gorgeous if she was harmless. She should be confined to street politics where she might do some good.

    • Replies: @Irish Savant
  50. chrimony says:

    None of this is to suggest the judge himself acted maliciously, or even consciously.

    Disagree. I dislike Corbyn because he is a Marxist and Muslim ass kisser (both positions being disastrous to Western civilization), but even I can set that aside and see how obviously wrong this decision is. Either this judge is so completely incompetent and self-absorbed that he can’t afford a hint of objectivity, or he allows himself to be ruled by his political leanings. These judges have to be consciously aware of what they are doing at some level. Of course they rationalize their bias to themselves, but it is a choice.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  51. By mid-1800’s there was a Jewish Prime Minister,

    Disraeli converted to Christianity and was first and foremost in trying to warn his beloved England of the danger of the “secret societies.” He even “named the Jew.” He was a remarkable human being.

  52. Henchmn says:

    I was wondering who this Rachel Riley is but I still don’t know after slogging through about three quarters of this essay. Dunno who Jonathan Cook is either but he sure is a windy bastard.

  53. @Altai

    Corbyn is the most notable anti-racist in a Parliament full of racists, including ‘antisemites’. Real ones, if keeping it to themselves. Corbyn was a life-long, even hereditary, friend of Jews, many of whom defended him, only to be ignored or smeared themselves by the Zionazis and Judeofascists, who still continue the witch-hunt against Corbynistas to today.
    What was Corbyn’s true crime? In my opinion it was plainly his defence of the Palestinians, subject for generations to the most appalling and brutal oppression by an extreme racist, terror, apartheid State. In the Zionazi controlled West the Palestinians may ONLY be detested, or ignored entirely, simply because a fraction of the Judaic power elites DEMAND that it be so. Even those Jews who oppose Israeli State terror are ignored or slandered themselves, and this state of affairs grows directly from an ineluctable and hate-crazed Judaic power structure that was mobilised to destroy Corbyn with FILTHY lies and concoctions, and, in the process destroy the largest mass membership Party in Europe and any hope of being released from the Hell of Tory misrule.
    So, as in most countries controlled by the Judaic corruption of politics through straight bribery, threats and blackmail, not the sole such malignant influence but plainly the most potent one, any decent human being has NO place in politics other than as a toady of a vengeful, infinitely demanding, hostile minority, whose first, or shared, loyalties are to an apartheid State that shits on International Law EVERY day, that threatens humanity with the ‘Samson Option’ through its nukes, and fosters and foments and facilitates terror throughout its region and far abroad. And THIS is ‘democracy’, would you fecking believe. Why does a creature like Riley, a person that, in my opinion, is plainly either utterly stupid regarding Corbyn, or infinitely malicious, act as she does? Because she can get away with it.

    • Agree: JWalters, Ned kelly, Nodwink
  54. On Monday, I’ll be filing this with the US Supreme Court.

    It’s a petition in an effort now in its fourth year, Nelsen v. SPLC

    I think, if you read the 39-page petition, it is clear that my cause is just, the SPLC committed actionable defamation, and that I’ve proved it.

    In the United States, a very harmful precedent from 1964, New York Times v. Sullivan, has played a large role in bringing us to the place where you describe England is. Several Justices (Thomas, Gorsuch, and, before she was a Supreme Court justice, Kagan) have recognized the destructive impact of that 9-0 decision.

    The decision marked the “constitutionalizing” of defamation law, which had always been a common law tort regulated by the state courts. There were two problems with the decision.

    The first problem was the introduction of the “actual malice” standard into American defamation law. Actual malice requires, for liability, the plaintiff to prove the defamer knew the defamatory statement was false when they published it. That standard reduces the importance of the role of truth in the social regulation of punishable speech. It raises the importance of what was the condition inside the writer’s head at the time the challenged statement was written. The actual malice standard has greatly increased a judge’s power to dismiss cases before they ever get to a jury, which, as you correctly point out, is, in defamation litigation, crucial.

    The second problem was the introduction of the “public figure” distinction. The 1964 decision imposed the actual malice standard only on “public officials,” arguing that the benefit to society of the freedom to criticize those in power–even recklessly or inaccurately–was so great that a public official couldn’t prevail on a defamation claim unless they proved the statement was made with actual malice. This makes some sense, especially given the immunity public officials enjoy from liability for their own defamatory statements.

    Unfortunately, as these things go, “public figure” has expanded to the point it includes even me, possibly the least powerful person in the country, to shield from liability the Southern Poverty Law Center, a contemptible, dangerous crew of grifters driven by foaming-at-the-mouth race hatred, and one of the most powerful organizations in the country.

    If there is a spot where there is a glimmer of hope in DC, it is the Supreme Court. On the other hand, they grant only about one percent of the petitions they receive.

    • Thanks: Marcion
  55. @chrimony

    In my opinion when one considers the behaviour of the judicial bullies in the Assange, Murray and now this case, it is impossible to draw any other conclusion but that malice is at work. A vile system attacking its enemies-the vaunted ‘Rule of Law’.

  56. @Rev. Spooner

    That there still remain climate destabilisation deniers of the most moronic type, even as weather and climate disasters grow, as changes in biospheres rapidly accelerate, and as ecological systems begin to collapse around the world, is proof of one possible explanation of the Fermi Paradox. The cretins take over, and all is lost. You gotta love the good Reverend, a Dunning-Krugerite to his bootstraps, urging someone to ‘educate themselves’. The pompous irony is priceless.

    • LOL: Vinnyvette
    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  57. @lloyd

    Or better again to the kitchen and bedroom. Kind of Kuchen, Kinder und Kirche.

  58. @lloyd

    the Riley @

    if you hit the joogle block, just let the counter-clockwise revolving circle at upper left settle on the little hourglass; then rapidly multi-click in a random pattern for a few seconds and the circle will get going clockwise until the site comes up. These Jews are nefarious, just


  59. Ace says:

    Exactly. Somehow it’s a given that Trump is/was crass, “obnoxious” (Cook), or “inauthentic” (Cook). However, it was indeed crass of him to launch an attack on Syria in the midst of a state dinner with Chairman Xi. Did Trump otherwise blow his nose on his tie?

    JFK used to pick up hookers on 13th Street with his limo and banged young women in the WH pool while Jacquie was away. Lyndon’s disgusting behavior is a thing of legend. Clinton raped at least one woman in Arkansas and got blow jobs in the parking lot of Chelsea’s school there. Can his later behavior in the Oval Office also be considered crass?

    And what was particularly “authentic” about Hillary’s leaving our guys to be slaughtered in Benghazi? Or about Obama’s starting his political career in the living room of two communist terrorists?

    Bernie was so pusillanimous that he got shouldered aside by some young POCs while campaigning but maybe that was excusable as “authentic” behavior when young Negro women desired to take over the mike.

    Boris is a buffoon but he’s not an inauthentic conservative. He’s simply not a conservative.

    PS – What climate emergency?

    • Agree: Marcion
  60. The far left doesn’t hate Jews, many far leftists are Jews, it hates Israel. Whether you support Israel or oppose it, you can’t deny that it’s a nationalistic country that stands up for itself – which is the reason why the left hates it. The left hates all nationalistic countries that aren’t hard core socialist.

    Only in the deluded minds of far right conspiracy theorists are “anti-Semitic” leftists allies of right-wing nationalists.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  61. @Altai

    Its clear at this point that every mayour egalitarian movement born from judaism was only an oportunistic response of the overwhelming supremacy of european civilization .

    Christianity was born in a moment when romans conquered palestine and any mayour military rebellion was virtually imposible , thats why some jews started to spread hippiesque love your enemy mantras

    Comunism was adopted by the jews confined in the pale settlement by russians tzars when it was evident that the only options were asimilation or death .

    And ” cultural marxism” a secularized version of christianity that inverted every noble value that made the european civilization great was manufactured in the time of the rise of the nazis and spread all across the west after the war to finally end with european dominium allying thenselfs with the non europeans.

    Its clear that the biggest “sin” of europeans and the reason jews have hates us with burning passion throw history is that we obligued the self declared chosenites to forcefully identify with the lowliest slaves of roman era , the peasants of russia or the gypsies of the nazi regime trasforming them in the schizophrenic lunatic they are now.

    The incredible thing is how we have fall again and again for the same trick

  62. JWalters says:

    Rachel Riley looks like an agent of the stealth Zionist Empire, sent forth on a mission to further destroy the liberties of the people this Jewish supremacist empire is busy subjugating. She appears to feel no kinship or loyalty to the British people, but only to this predatory stealth empire.

    The details of this case just add to the evidence that the former British Empire was taken over by a stealth Zionist Empire. From the financial heart of the British East India company, dealing in drugs and wars, it extended its tentacles to include the media and the government. The template was established in the UK and then applied in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and eventually the other Western (former) democracies.

    Israel is its pet Jewish supremacist project, and anyone who seriously threatens to pull back the curtain on Israel, like Jeremy Corbyn, could also pull back the curtain on their whole rotten, criminal enterprise. So they treat people like Corbyn and Assange mercilessly, because they know that if the public ever finds out how these stealth predators are destroying democracies and economies, their heads will be on the block.

    For Unz Review readers who haven’t seen it, a sketch of the history of this stealth empire is in “War Profiteers and Israel’s Bank”

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Thanks: Miro23
    • Replies: @Pheasant
  63. R.C. says:

    We moved from California to Florida around 1965 when I was about 6. Except for about four years living in SoCal in the late 70’s and 80’s, since then I’ve lived here exclusively. I never thought though that I would find myself living in the vestigial remnant of the last free country on this earth. Time for all others to move here or to Russia.
    Any other suggested locations are welcomed.

  64. Ghali says:

    Many people often compare Jewish Zionist Israel to Nazi Germany. This is very misleading because there is very minor comparisons. Israel and its Zionist supporters and servants of Zionism are much more global and powerful. Zionist Jews and their supporters have complete control over the global mainstream media and world’s finances. Unlike Nazi Germany, one hears and read nothing critical of Israel and its Jews, and their daily crimes around the world. In fact, Israel, the nuclear-armed barbaric terrorist entity, is portrayed in Western media as a civilised and progressive entity killing defenceless Palestinians for self-defence.

  65. JWalters says:
    @frankie p

    I appreciate your point. My estimate is that virtually all reasonably well-known public figures know those things. They are trying to inch the Overton window toward including those things in the public discussion. My sense is that a lot of people are itching to speak out on this, but they are still at this point afraid of being murdered if they push the envelop too far. Remember, Murder Incorporated was a Jewish organization set up by Meyer Lansky, boss of the Jewish mob in America and friend of Israel.

    Ron Unz has a fine article on the Zionist use of assassinations. “American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations”

    We can help shift the Overton window by speaking about these things here and elsewhere.

  66. Ned kelly says:

    Great news! Justice served! But it will probably take Jeremy ( you know he couldn’t have his Aid pay) some time to pay off 10,000 quid… If the new recycling laws take effect that will greatly help… Let’s see, 20p for every plastic bottle… That take him at least a month!
    Jeremy Corbyn is the most dangerous, insidious, pathological anti-Semite in Britain’s history! Don’t let his mild manner, unassuming demeanor and all that goody two-shoes stuff he peddles, fool you. When he’s out of earshot, he spews curses at Jews at would make Hitler blush! How many Jews has he personally tried to run down on his bicycle? Please don’t mention Israel! He’ll start foaming at the mouth! His motto is: For the many not the Jew!

  67. HVM says:

    Were I in Britain, I would join the NF. Mosley was right.

  68. Corvinus says:

    “An uncensored social media, which we had for some years, is apparently a threat to those in power.”

    It’s a threat when someone says something that is completely false. Thus the social media company as a private entity can make those decisions. Now, of course, there are social media companies you can seek who will allow those falsehoods to be disseminated. Feel free to use it.

  69. @mulga mumblebrain

    That they can use ‘lawfare’ to silence and ruin decent human beings is, in my opinion, simply Evil.”

    Although not a religious man myself, your quote is what I’d expect satan to crave for. And very much so, while at it.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  70. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s a threat when someone says something that is completely false.

    Or something partially false. Or partially true. Or even entirely true. Someone is always threatened by something.

    Plus who decides what is “false,” much less completely so? Goebbels? Google?

    “Those in power” always feel threatened, sometimes by their own shadows. They shouldn’t be allowed to control words and/or the thoughts words generate.

    Look how investigations of the the Holocaust get treated. One is damned for merely SUGGESTING that 6 gorillion didn’t die, much less by gassing.

    No one minds people gathering to discuss the Earth being flat or Bigfoot being a vegan. But challenge anything about Shoah Business and BOOM: the Tribe goes bonkers!


    Because the Holycost myth allows Juden to get rich and ever-more powerful. They can commit crimes against Palestinians with impunity because, well, they were to “traumatized” back in-the-day.

    Zionists are like the poseur living large in a house not his own. He tells police they can’t see the deed because merely asking for it suggests he’s squatting.

    Language is important. That’s why Juden shouldn’t be allowed to “own” words like Pogrom and Holocaust. They make “Jew suffering” seem sui generis”…which it’s not. Every group has suffered. Yet the myth is needed to keep shekels flowing.

    More Christians died in Armenia and Ukraine than Jews in WWII. Yet Holodomor museums don’t dot the USA. Nor do “Never Again!” history courses slam Jews for their criminality.

    Everywhere and always, Jews get passes. Why? Hundreds of Christian churches burn. Millions of whites are collectively blamed for this or that. Yet headlines scream about a Williamsburg Jew getting his beard tweaked.

    <blockquotesocial media company as a private entity can make those decisions.

    Like private stores can refuse to serve Juden?

    Like the Reich made the decision to boot Jew women under 45 from maid services?

    there are social media companies you can seek who will allow those falsehoods to be disseminated.

    Yes, we know: NYT. YouTube. Twitter. CNN. MSNBC. WaPo. Etc.

    • Thanks: Robjil
    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  71. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    Mind tries to create same reality repeatedly long after the original location and context and the perpetrators have disappeared.

    Because the toxic reality was survived…but at a cost.

    The re-creation is not meant to repeat the earlier suffering, but end it. Repetition brings a person back to the place where s/he got “stuck…so new ways of coping can be tried.

    The solution usually isn’t “mindfulness.” If anything, people in pain are usually overly “cognitive.” Their brains work overtime to keep unwanted feelings at bay. Those feelings, felt early enough, meant death.

    A supportive environment is often needed in adulthood to get “free.” Folks need to feel safe enough to, well, feel. And act. Being around people who “unstuck” themselves helps. They know grieving is not only NOT counter-productive, but often healing.

    They also know the 40-year-old is trying to reconnect with his/her Inner 4-year-old. So some healing is non-verbal. Like when your dog dies and words don’t help. You need to cry.

    It’s hard for men wounded in the West. They’re trained early on to not emote publicly. By age 40, most don’t know what they feel.

  72. @Sollipsist

    Because Jonathan Cook is a leftist.

  73. Pheasant says:

    ‘To confirm it I checked on wikipedia. Rachel Riley is Jewish. “My family came over in the pogroms.” Old Testament first names are either Jewish or coloured since World War Two. In the coloured case, they haven’t heard of Anti-Semitism. Neurotically incapable of separating actual threat or defamation from hurt feelings. Perfectly happy to dish it out to someone else. Elevated beyond her natural talent.’

    Agree completely. she also has an Irish surname without having even a trace of Irish dna (she posted her 23andme to twitter). can anyone say crypsis? The previous countdown host was Carol Vorderman a Jewess posing as a catholic welsh lady.

    • Replies: @Ned kelly
  74. Pheasant says:

    ‘. She appears to feel no kinship or loyalty to the British people, but only to this predatory stealth empire.’

    The same could be said for so many of them. Dual loyalty would be a drastic improvement.

  75. @Daniel Rich

    Could you speak English? Not your native tongue, I suppose.

  76. @Alt Right Moderate

    Israel is a racist terror State that ceaselessly attacks its neighbours and has kept millions of Palestinians in Hell for seventy years. If you call that, ‘..standing up for itself’, then I suspect you are a racist terrorist, or a sympathiser at least. Israel’s barbarity will cause its destruction -is that what you really desire?

  77. @Richard B

    I’m sorry that you suffered as a child, but, feck me, why tar an entire sex, without whom we cannot exist or reach self-fulfillment, with her tar-brush.

  78. Ned kelly says:

    She’s Jewish! Of course… that explains it all… Except Jews pathological hatred of Jeremy Corbyn.. Its so freeky I’m starting to think some kind of Jesus thing is going on… As sad and infuriating as it is, one has to admit it is funny… And the silver lining–many people who would never imagine being anti-Semitic must be seeking help because they are having some very dark thoughts about those people… But she’s one nasty yenta! She illegally manipulated a picture to make an absurd accusation… Then when she got the reaction she hoped for… She claimed she was being harassed… and has the chutzpah to sue… and wins! The Judge needs to be disbarred for pandering…

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  79. Alan Sugar is equally paranoid over Corbyn. Selective breeding was designed to outwit goyim. Instead it ended up amplifying mental disorders in the gene pool.

    Kebab is neither cream nor rightwing. He is just sly like Chomsky. That’s why he was chosen by cuckservatives and corporate housecarls after feckless Sharia May did badly in 2017.

    Greg Dyke, former BBC head, predicted this on Sky. Now normies might get a Hussein “diversity max” Obama replica Hindu bankster. Anyway even Sadiq Khan, another alien, had to “change” his mind on BDS to become London’s mayor via Margaret Hodge.

    El Trumpo had noble intentions but is woefully ignorant of the “force” behind the swamp plus was compromised by certain donors and family. At least he is still alive. Jörg Haider wasn’t so fortunate.

  80. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    @mulga mumblebrain #11

    “Dear me-a misogynist.”

    There are homicide and “justifiable homicide.” Then there is misogyny, all of which is justifiable.

  81. @Ned kelly

    The process of Judaic mass hysteria is well-known. They choose a victim, and once the hate campaign begins, any who do not join in are suspected of being ‘antisemites’ or ‘self-hating Jews’ themselves. Those who attempted to defend Corbyn from the campaign of vicious lies and fabrications were themselves attacked and purged as ‘antisemites’.
    The mere act of defending oneself against an accusation, even if plainly false. of ‘antisemitism’ is itself an ‘antisemitic’ act. The process goes nowhere without TOTAL MSM complicity. The situation has been reached in the West where NO-ONE can have a public life WITHOUT groveling to the ENTIRE Judaic collective, even those who are most plainly no advertisement for Jewry or humanity. But, I err-saying that Jews are part of humanity is contrary to Judaic religious belief that Jews are separate from and above the mere goyim. I’ve committed ‘antisemitism’. I must report myself.

  82. @mulga mumblebrain

    Amazing , all this while I thought you were well aware Mulga Numbbrain.
    1. The earth’s climate always flucatates and has done throughout its existance.
    2. The level of CO2 is not that relevent to the rise or fall of the temperature. CO2 levels have been much higher before and flora and fauna have flourished.
    You will own nothing and be happy. Bow down to your overlord.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  83. Interestingly, when Tutu died in South Africa, I heard a France 24 correspondent somewhat tremulously report that Tutu’s family had asked mourners to protest the unending imprisonment of the Palestinians while mourning Tutu, the horror of the Palestinian suffering having long been a concern of Tutu, and Mandela before him. There’s a career ended.
    No other MSM cur that I saw or heard repeated that call. On the other hand numerous Judeofascists and Zionazis expressed their condolences by spewing hatred at Tutu as an ‘antisemite’ and friend of terrorists, including Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘friend’ and customer, Alan Dershowitz. The MSM did NOT of course, dare report this touching display of Judaic empathy.
    And JK Rowling, a groveling toady of Israel and opponent of BDS, has, despite her brown-nosing, been denounced as an ‘antisemite’, too. Nobody is safe-even Jews, as we well know. The ‘antisemitism’ industry has reached some level of hysterical over-reach, facilitated by TOTAL impunity and complete MSM complicity (imagine any presstitute daring to defend any so-called ‘antisemite’)where the resistance to Israeli barbarity, and perhaps, at last, to diaspora arrogance and political control, has grown so great that they see their control weakening somewhat, and they are going barking mad. Even more so than before, of course. Who will be next? The Queen?

  84. @Rev. Spooner

    Yeah, Spooner-I knew you were a moron, brainwashed easily by the denialist industry. The Earth’s climate generally fluctuates over millennia, not DECADES you cretin. The higher levels in the past were reached in centuries and millennia, giving creatures the time to adapt and devolve, you moron. Were you born this stupid, or did you achieve this level of malignant imbecility yourself?

  85. @mulga mumblebrain

    If you are trying to make the case that climate change causes an epidemic of ad hominem rants and finger pointing, you are very persuasive in that effort.


    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  86. @Justvisiting

    A suitably vacuous observation. What do you propose we do with ignorant morons whose imbecile lies have helped thwart any attempts to avert the greatest catastrophe, and the last, in human history? Kiss their backsides?

  87. @Anonymous

    That’s why Juden shouldn’t be allowed to “own” words like Pogrom and Holocaust.

    Few people nowadays remember and fewer still ever knew that “Holocaust,” in the capital-H form, is a term stolen by the Jews from Christian theology, wherein it has from Apostolic times been used to refer to the most complete, most perfect sacrificial offering that could be made to God: the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross. The brief article on this topic in the Catholic Encyclopedia, an article now more than a century old, ends with this sentence: “The holocausts of the Old Law foreshadowed the great and perfect sacrifice which Jesus, the High Priest of the New Law and the true Lamb of God, was to offer in fulfillment of all the bloody sacrifices of the first covenant (Hebrews 9:12, sqq.; etc.).”

    It is hardly a coincidence that the (((mass media))) began using the term Holocaust with its current primary signification only in the mid-sixties—that is to say, after Jewish leaders and their double agents within the Catholic Church had “persuaded” the backstage managers of the Second Vatican Council to put a formal end to the church’s nineteen-hundred-year-long campaign to expose the Jews’ perfidy by including an official conciliar document to that effect, Nostra ætate, among the council’s papally approved publications.

  88. @mulga mumblebrain

    Your’e hitting the bottle too hard, moderation is the key.

  89. Che Guava says:

    You are moronic to post as ‘Anon’, sure I also have done so twice or thrice, but only with reason, to avoid a too personal statement.

    From my reading, Israeli Jews are far worse for hating Christians, but Moslem Palestinians have been more active in driving them out, at least in the recent decades.

  90. @Jim Christian

    The pissed off feminists are out today.

  91. @V. K. Ovelund

    So. There are lots of writing styles that can be employed in the service of obfuscation.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV