At The Financial Times: Macron’s plan for Europe, while the Gilets Jaunes control France. Old Socialist comments

While Macron’s Napoleonic Ambition never seems to be in contact with the wholesale rebellion that is tearing France apart: his Neo-Liberalization of France has met defiance by the seeming leaderless ‘The Great Unwashed’:

In lieu of National Leadership Macron’s propaganda campaign concentrates on the Leadership of the EU. Unable to lead his home country, he puts his energy to leading a Mythical Europe. With a Plan

The Brexit ‘trap’ — but no contentious eurozone reforms

Sharing refugee burden in exchange for stronger borders

Olive branch to UK on security

‘Buy European’ idea is back — again

Treaty changes

Macron presents himself as The Leader of Europe, while he has proved that he is incapable of leading France, except by police violence. His popularity ratings Jan. 2019, 28%, 32 % as of Feb 2019.

Old Socialist

March 05,2019 attempted to post this in the comments section of The Financial Times, but the link for The New Left Review is designated as ‘malformed content’


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Macron attempts a political self-rescue, by misdirection! Almost Marx comments

That Macron was ‘elected’ with a 36.5% of the voters, in the final round, rendering their ballots ‘spoiled’ or otherwise uncountable was the beginning of the end for Macron.His ‘Jupertarian Politics’ , the coded language for authoritarianism, and his ‘La République En Marche’ that began with ‘Rule by Decree’ .
Even now as his Finance Minister Muriel Pénicaud announces to Financial Time, of January 22, 2019 the House Organ of a collapsed Neo-Liberalism, the headline & sub-headline describe the intransigence of the ideologues:

Headline: Paris vows to extend labour reforms despite ‘gilets jaunes’

Sub-headline:Macron aides say protests have spurred government to redouble liberalisation efforts

According to Ms Pénicaud, between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs in France cannot be filled because of a lack of qualified applicants — 80,000 of them in the information technology sector.

“Our challenge is upskilling the nation,” she said, adding that entrepreneurs and employers appreciated last year’s reforms to simplify the labour code but that half of companies complained of recruitment problems. “They say: ‘We are no longer scared of hiring but we can’t find the skills’,” she added.

In Mr Macron’s overall programme, Ms Pénicaud said, “in order to reform France to give it a future, to give it economic and social momentum, one of the big priorities is the step-by-step transformation of the labour market”.

There will be no social peace in France for the foreseeable future, because of the gilets jaunes, but what better way to deflect attention away from this internal crisis, prefigured by that 36.5 % of ‘spoiled ballots’, than to engage in a campaign of misdirection, factoring in the verbal attack on the notorious Neo-Conservative Alain Finkielkraut in Paris, as proof that there is an Anti-Semitism crisis in France that needs to be addressed by the force of Law. But how are these prophets of political virtue to handle the fact that Netnayahu is embracing Orban?

Headline:Anti-Semitism doesn’t bother Benjamin Netanyahu if it comes from his political allies

Sub-headline: Why Israel is cozying up to Viktor Orban’s Hungary and overlooking Poland’s Holocaust law

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now joined the likes of his sworn enemies, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by engaging in Holocaust revisionism to promote his own political interests. The leader of the Jewish state signed an agreement with Poland late last month that absolves Poland of its role in the extermination of its Jewish population during World War II, despite ample evidence of passive and active collaboration — as was the case throughout Europe.

Netanyahu spun the accord as a sign that he had forced Poland to soften its law about the country’s role in the Holocaust, but it really shows that maintaining power matters more to Netanyahu than fighting anti-Semitism.





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Second Referendum’ leaves the Financial Times unimpressed. Old Socialist comments

Headline:Labour party to back second referendum on Brexit

Sub-headline: UK opposition party favours public vote ‘to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit’

After years of political hysterics, coming from this newspaper, and all the other publications of whatever political persuasion i.e. bourgeouise respectability is the key issue, The Second Referendum should have been the headline of this issue @FT, but Mrs. May’s vain attempt at self-rescue, demonstrates the politics of this newspaper’s attempt at producing unconvincing propaganda.

Mrs. Thatcher is still the ghost that haunts British politics, with her penchant for passing out Road to Serfdom like a party favor, and declaring that ‘there is no such thing as ‘Society’ , a concept out of Hayek’s ‘evolution’ from Economist to Social Theorist, such was her political nihilism. Markets and Prices , Social Darwinism masquerading as Economics, were/are the measure of the Human Endeavor. Thatcher even fought with her male hirelings! Mrs. May has all of Thatcher’s arrogance and hauteur, not to speak of mean-spiritedness, but remains unconvincing as political actor. While Cameron was just another Posh Boy given to the expression of ugly snobbery, , as a political position against Labour’s Left Wing Social Democracy.

Old Socialist



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Sunday Times & biographer Tom Bower exposes Corbyn as an ‘academic failure’, ‘fanatical Marxist’ , in sum , the politically toxic admixture of Lenin, Stalin & Mao ! Almost Marx takes the measure of this expression of political hysteria.

Headline: Tom Bower on Jeremy Corbyn: he left for Jamaica an academic failure and came back a fanatical Marxist

Sub-headline;  Throughout his career the Labour leader has used tactics learnt from the communist playbook. His biographer Tom Bower charts his cultivation of a ‘good guy’ image — and ruthless elimination of moderate rivals

This is a condensation of Mr. Bower’s book, for easier consumption by the Sunday Times readership, who already believe that Corbyn is Satan! Corbyn is here portrayed as a ‘fanatic’, ‘academic failure’ a political purist in the mode of Lenin or Stalin, in his ruthless elimination of his rivals, while not resorting to murder. (Yet the complete absence of the vexing question of Anti-Semitism remains where? in this biography.) Corbyn

Headline:  Review: Dangerous Hero: Corbyn’s Ruthless Plot for Power by Tom Bower — portrait of a monomaniac

Sub-headline: If Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister, he would easily be the most dangerous, most indolent and least intelligent holder of the office in history

This is one of the most depressing books I have ever read. It is a forensically detailed portrait of a man with no inner life, a monomaniac suffused with an overwhelming sense of his own righteousness, a private schoolboy who failed one A-level and got two Es in the others, a polytechnic dropout whose first wife never knew him to read a book.

It is the story of a man who does not appear to have gone to the cinema or listened to music, takes no interest in art or fashion and refused to visit Vienna’s magnificent Schönbrunn Palace because it was “royal”. It tells how he bitterly opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, deeply regretted the fall of the Berlin Wall and praised the men who attacked New York on September 11, 2001, for showing an “enormous amount of skill”. In some parallel universe, this man would currently be living in well-deserved obscurity. In reality, Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition and the bookmakers’ favourite to become our next prime minister.

For the veteran biographer Tom Bower, whose previous subjects include Mohamed al-Fayed, Richard Branson, Simon Cowell, Tony Blair and Prince Charles, Corbyn is the easiest target imaginable. The details of his life are well known. Born in 1949, the son of a skilled engineer and a maths teacher, he was brought up in a large 17th-century farmhouse in Shropshire called Yew Tree Manor. At school he was a loner and an underachiever, so lazy that his headmaster told him: “You’ll never make anything of your life.”

In this political moment when May’s  policy/governmental incompetence are on full display, this held together by a slim majority:  Corbyn is about to become Prime Minister, which precipitates panic in both the Tories and New Labour. This book  condensation, and its review in The Good Grey Times is a clear demonstration of that political panic. The Independent Group that has taken shape in the last week, whose majority comes from The Labour Friends of Israel, is also indicative of that panic and trades on the lie that Corbyn is an Anti-Semite. Look to Jonathan Freedland’s Guardian essay as the titular beginning point of  the concerted defamation of Corbyn, by the Blairite New Labour faction.

Almost Marx






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Franklin Foer’s selective polemic on ‘This Week in Anti-Semitism’. Political Observer comments

Mr. Foer collects a series of Newspaper Headlines, but he mixes reports on Police Records and Ben Judah: Europe’s ubiquitous anti-Semitism,  Mr Judah a member of a ‘Think Tank’ funded by perpetual bad actor George Soros: one of the coterie of callbos that brought about the Ukrainian Coup of 2014.  That has since installed the fascist Azov Battalion as its National Guard, not to speak of the active participation of  Right Sector and Svoboda in the Coup. With the help of American Neo-Con Diplomat Victoria Nuland.

On the ‘victim’ Alan Finkielkraut: Neo-Con, Racist and defender of Roman Polanski:


His interview published in the Haaretz magazine in November 2005 in which he gave his opinion about the 2005 French riots stirred up much controversy. Finkielkraut’s remarks that the France national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (as opposed to the expression black-blanc-beur—meaning “Black, White, Arab”—coined after the 1998 World Cup victory to honor the African and Afro Caribbean, European and North African origins of the players) were seen as “racially insensitive”.

Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan took legal action against Finkielkraut after the Frenchman said Sivan “is, if you will, one of the actors in this particularly painful, particularly alarming reality, the Jewish anti-Semitism that rages today.”[5]

60 researchers and professors at the École Polytechnique signed a petition in 2006 to protest his alleged colonial views.[6]

In 2009, he was criticized for his strong defence of Roman Polanski, arrested in Switzerland for the rape of a 13-year-old girl. Finkielkraut claimed that she was a “teenager”, “not a child”.[7]

On 16 February 2019, Finkielkraut was verbally assaulted on the street by a group of yellow vest protesters in Paris when they chanced on him in Boulevard du Montparnasse.[8][9] He previously expressed his sympathy for the yellow vest movement.

No one should suffer attacks about who they are, but Mr. Finkielkraut is hardly an innocent in the matter! The gilets jaunes are a politically diverse opposition to the Macron’s Neo-Liberalization of France.  As a Neo-Con Finkielkraut cultivates controversy, it is his reason d’etre, and some anonymous members of this political collective used this demonstration to attack this polemicist with Anti-Semitic slurs. Its called political opportunism.

Monday, February 18

“Seven Lawmakers Quit Britain’s Labour Party Over Brexit and Anti-Semitism” (The Washington Post)

In order to read this, the reader must be a subscriber to The Washington Post.  But a reader, who has followed this concerted attack on Jeremy Corbyn, and ‘The Left’ (BDS) only need to look to the original accusation of Anti-Semitism made in the Guardian (2016), by Anti-Semitic fabulist Jonathan Freedland, as an operative of the Blairite faction of New Labour. In a concerted effort to defame Corbyn, that backfired, even with the Labour Friends of Israel consistent defamation, succeed by the the ‘Independent Group’ :

Headline:Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem

Sub-headline: Under Jeremy Corbyn the party has attracted many activists with views hostile to Jews. Its leaders must see why this matters


Headline:The Independent Group needs to call by-elections, though it will lose them

Sub-headline: Beyond the loss of Luciana Berger, the rest of The Independent Group launch consisted of vapid snipes and an absence of policy. The right thing to do would be to call by-elections, which it will inevitably lose, argues Michael Segalov

I hadn’t expected the fundamental message of this morning’s Labour splinter group press conference to unify those from all corners of the party, which, until this morning, the assembled seven MPs called their political home. Lined up on a stage in London’s County Hall, Westminster’s worst-kept secret was finally confirmed to the nation: a small handful of “centrist” MPs – most of whom you’ve probably never heard of – were leaving the party once and for all. The basis of their decision? Labour had changed beyond recognition from the party it was when they each joined. But that is in and of itself by no means a bad thing, as its 500,000-plus members supportive of a radically progressive policy platform would no doubt confirm.

In what was quite a dull event for something billed as marking a seismic shift in British politics, the seven now independent MPs – Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker, Angela Smith, Chris Leslie, Mike Gapes and Ann Coffey – each set out their positions and said their goodbyes.

Beyond well-crafted assaults on Corbyn (which, let’s be honest, most have spent years practising), the whole affair was somewhat vapid. There was much talk of “values” and “change” and the need for a “better future”, but beyond the buzzwords there was little more than hot air and fluff.

This quotation from Highbrow Magazine from February 23, 2019 gives a vital clue as to the paternalist thinking, that aptly describes Mr. Foer’s uncritical polemic made entirely of headlines, that suggest crisis, some very real, others politically manufactured :

… following a Lippman-esque model of shaping public discourse (Lippman believed the masses were a “bewildered herd,” and that their views should be shaped by experts and elites – the types of people who worked at The New Republic – people who could, in Lippman’s own words, tell readers “what to think about”)

But Foer ignores the actions of Netanyahu in exacerbating ‘Anti-Semitism’ :

Headline:Netanyahu’s flirtation with the far right

Sub-headline: As the extreme right continues its rise across Europe, Israel’s prime minister has decided to get closer. This decision, in the name of the fight against Islamism, means turning a blind eye to his new friends’ antisemitism.

The guiding principle of Netanyahu’s ostentatious seduction campaign among rightwing populist and neo-fascist circles in Europe is ‘their antisemitism doesn’t matter so long as they are Zionists’. All this cannot be dismissed as just realpolitik: it is part of Netanyahu’s personal and political DNA. Personal, because his father, Benzion Netanyahu, had always been close to Zeev Jabotinsky, leader of rightwing revisionist Zionism, and was in fact his assistant. Political, because the precursors of Likud — the Irgun, Betar and Lehi (‘Stern Gang’) – were already involved with fascism and Nazism. With much-publicised reminders of the deeds of the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who had travelled (alone) to Berlin and created two (Bosniac) SS legions there, it’s easy to forget that the Lehi itself offered to ally itself with the Third Reich in 1941. And that the Betar, then the Irgun, in the early 1920s, had the political support of Benito Mussolini, who admired Jabotinsky: ‘In order for Zionism to achieve its goal,’ said il Duce, ‘you’ll need a Jewish state with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. And the person who understands that best is your fascist, Jabotinsky.’

What is abundantly clear is that Foer exploits real manifestations of Anti-Semitism, while ignoring other manufactured propaganda, in an American Political Culture awash in paranoia of many varieties: Trumpism, Anti-Russian hysterics, recited at once respectable Newspapers,TV Networks and the Internet.  And a rampant Xenophobia: this framed by two of Samuel P. Huntington’s books, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ and ‘Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity’ .In sum, American Anglo-Protestant Virtue is under threat from a world made of ubiquitous enemies.

Political Observer















Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment : attempts to rehabilitate The Clash of Civilizations. Philosophical Apprentice comments

For a country of genocidal, land and mineral stealing Immigrants ,not to speak of racists, to have produced an Imperialist Operative  like Samuel P. Huntington is no surprises. The fact that he wrote ‘Clash‘ in a Post Cold War environment, that needed a New Enemy, Huntington’s paranoia writ large was made to order!

See Edward Said’s withering examination of the Clash:



The identification of Western Civilization with the Western Christianity (Catholic-Protestant) was not Huntington’s original idea, it was rather the traditional Western opinion and subdivision before the Cold War era.[15] 

Critics (for example articles in Le Monde Diplomatique) call The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order the theoretical legitimization of American-caused Western aggression against China and the world’s Islamic and Orthodox cultures. Other critics argue that Huntington’s taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations. Furthermore, critics argue that Huntington neglects ideological mobilization by elites and unfulfilled socioeconomic needs of the population as the real causal factors driving conflict, that he ignores conflicts that do not fit well with the civilizational borders identified by him, and they charge that his new paradigm is nothing but realist thinking in which “states” became replaced by “civilizations”.[16] Huntington’s influence upon U.S. policy has been likened to that of British historian Arnold Toynbee’s controversial religious theories about Asian leaders during the early twentieth century.

And his racist tract  Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity’ a polemic that sounded the alarm about the Mestizo Hordes about to engulf America’s Anglo-Protestant Virtue. But not to forget his Political Order in Changing Societies:

Huntington argues that, as societies modernize, they become more complex and disordered. If the process of social modernization that produces this disorder is not matched by a process of political and institutional modernization—a process which produces political institutions capable of managing the stress of modernization—the result may be violence. 

The honest writer would mention Mr. Huntington’s status as ‘a valued advisor to the South African regime’

During the 1980s, he became a valued adviser to the South African regime, which used his ideas on political order to craft its “total strategy” to reform apartheid and suppress growing resistance. He assured South Africa’s rulers that increasing the repressive power of the state (which at that time included police violence, detention without trial, and torture) can be necessary to effect reform. The reform process, he told his South African audience, often requires “duplicity, deceit, faulty assumptions and purposeful blindness.” He thus gave his imprimatur to his hosts’ project of “reforming” apartheid rather than eliminating it.[11]

The Idea that the vexing questions that Mr. Rachman raises in his essay- that are somehow answered by Huntington’s ‘Clash’, is to say the least problematic, even if the reader takes them as simply descriptive of a problem, or set of problems that are solved, explained under the rubric of the ‘Clash’! But those problems are not solved by resort to the explanatory frame of the ‘Clash’!  Like another utterly passe essay published in a Foreign Policy Journal, Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’: both in their own way seemed to answer the questions raised by the end of the Cold War, and then became bloated best selling books, Fukuyama’s a monument to Starussian historical mendacity,that have since become irrelevant museum pieces. Except to columnists in need of a rhetorical framing devises for their Political/Cultural animadversions. Edward Said’s lecture might be a beginning for Mr. Rachman’s reappraisal?  

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were endless discussions about a “clash of civilizations” between the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds. It is no longer quite so fashionable to discuss the concept. But something that looks strikingly like a “clash of civilizations” is emerging nonetheless.

Political Observer



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Financial Times proclaims the Anti-Semitic abuse of the gilets jaunes! Almost Marx comments

Headline:French anger at anti-Semitic abuse during ‘gilets jaunes’ protests

Sub-headline Writer Alain Finkielkraut verbally assaulted on fringes of Saturday march in Paris

The perfect marriage Macron and Neo-Conservative, i.e. Zionist Apologist, Alain Finkielkraut, a union made in the 9Th Circle! Look to the desperation, or better yet the political hysteria of these Defenders of Zionism, in sum, a European Settler State which practices Genocide-on-the-Installment-Plan against the indigenous Palestinians, while the world watches!
Even New Historian Benny Morris in his notorious Haaretz interview of 2004, and a more recent one defends Israel’s ‘ethnic cleansing’:

2004 first:

This is almost an identical repeat of what he said to Ari Shavit in a 2004 interview. There, he said:

If [David Ben-Gurion] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.

But notice – Morris is changing his euphemisms. He used to call the ethnic cleansing of Palestine “transfer” (although he had a Freudian slip on “cleanse” with Shavit) but now, with Aderet, he’s calling it “separation of populations”. This is precious, really. It also points a dark and sinister finger at the notion of “separation” which has become a very central code-word for Zionist leftists and centrists. This “separation”, suggested also by other more colorful euphemisms such as “divorce”, has also been a central talking point for people like the late Amos Oz. So here, Morris, who also wants to somehow be known as a leftist, is making clear that “separation” is part of a genocidal scheme. He would not call it genocidal, and he denies that what he’s describing is ethnic cleansing, but that’s what it really is.

From 2019

In a long interview with Ofer Aderet in Haaretz (published in English today), Morris says:

If the War of Independence had ended with an absolute separation of populations – the Palestinian Arabs on the east side of the Jordan River and the Jews on the west side – the Middle East would be less volatile and both peoples would have suffered less over the past 70 years. They would have been satisfied with a state of their own, not exactly what they wanted, and we would have received the whole Land of Israel.

It looks like the complainants are Macron, Finkielkraut, Zaki Laïdi and anonymous  ‘Paris prosecutors’ with the help of the editors of The Financial Times. What shall the reader make of these News Stories?

Headline: Anti-Semitism doesn’t bother Benjamin Netanyahu if it comes from his political allies

Sub-headline:Why Israel is cozying up to Viktor Orban’s Hungary and overlooking Poland’s Holocaust law

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now joined the likes of his sworn enemies, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by engaging in Holocaust revisionism to promote his own political interests. The leader of the Jewish state signed an agreement with Poland late last month that absolves Poland of its role in the extermination of its Jewish population during World War II, despite ample evidence of passive and active collaboration — as was the case throughout Europe.

Netanyahu spun the accord as a sign that he had forced Poland to soften its law about the country’s role in the Holocaust, but it really shows that maintaining power matters more to Netanyahu than fighting anti-Semitism.

And it’s only the latest example.


Headline: An unlikely union: Israel and the European far right

Sub-headline: Israel has been engaging far-right groups and parties across Europe, ignoring their anti-Semitism. 

In November 2017, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) hosted a gala dinner in New York City honouring Stephen Bannon, US President Donald Trump‘s then-chief strategist.

That Bannon and his media outlet Breitbart News were, and still are, seen by many as anti-Semitic was of no consequence to Zionist leaders from the US and Israel, who were in attendance.

There were, however, some critical voices from within the Jewish community who denounced the ZOA for its decision to invite Bannon. One of them was former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens, who dedicated a column in the New York Times on the issue.

“Just as there are anti-Zionist Jews, there are also anti-Semitic Zionists,” Stephens wrote. He then went on to condemn Bannon’s indirect link to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer who, according to Stephens, advocates a “factitious theory that Israel is the sort of ethno-nationalist state he’d like to see America become.”

While Stephens was right to be outraged about the gala dinner, he is wrong to claim that Israel is not an ethnonationalist state.

Just recently, the Israeli government endorsed the Nation-State Bill, which among many racist provisions, calls for the establishment of Jewish-only towns. This bill alone should be enough to settle the silly debate on whether Israel can be both a Jewish nation-state and a democracy.

But relations between Israel and its lobby groups and racist, neo-Nazi and fascist organisations go way deeper than a one-off gala dinner with Steve Bannon. In fact, in Europe, Israel is actively pursuing alliances with far-right groups and parties as a state policy.

There is no ‘French Anger over Anti-Semitic Abuse’ but the manufactured propaganda supplied by the hysterical Neo-Con Finkielkraut, fellow traveler Macron and academic Zaki Laïdi, with help from anonymous ‘Paris prosecutors’ and the editors of The Financial Times: all inveigh against the Anti-Semitism of the gilets jaunes, while Netanyahu makes alliances with the most notorious of European Neo-Nazis!

Almost Marx





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment