Perfidious Albion’s road of deception and underhand scheming to global war in “The WWI Conspiracy – Part One: To Start A War”

James Corbett, “The Corbett Report (Episode 347: The WWI Conspiracy – Part One: To Start A War)” (November 2018)

At this time of writing, a century has passed since World War I ended, and swept with it into history beliefs in never-ending scientific and technological advancement and empires in Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia). An entire generation of young men was brutally destroyed with grave repercussions for societies across the world that would last for decades to come (and which may still do, in the form of politically conservative societies and cultures with mediocre political cultures and leaders). Yet the ultimate causes of that war remain as puzzling and controversial as they did one hundred years ago.

The conventional narrative of what led to World War I – the various alliances formed by the major European powers that eventually fell into two opposed sides, each jealous of their own political, economic and military power; the competition among these powers for more resources and hence more territory; the nationalism of various ethnic groups in central and southeast Europe, governed by a weak Ottoman empire, which could be exploited by its enemies; the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, and his wife by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo in 1914 – is well known but does not explain why an incident in a small provincial town should have been the tinderbox event that set off a series of chain-reaction events resulting in all-out war. This documentary, the first of a three-episode series made by The Corbett Report, looks at the background of historical events and trends beginning in the early 1890s, when in 1891, three men – the diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes, newspaper editor William T Stead and aristocrat Lord Esher (Reginald Brett), a confidant to Queen Victoria and later King Edward VII and George V, met to discuss and form a plan to extend British rule throughout the world and reclaim the United States as an integral part of the British empire.

The plan which also involves the formation of a secret society (the Round Table Movement / Milner Group) , complete with an inner circle privy to esoteric knowledge and an outer circle of helpers who will be allowed to know only what is necessary for them to be of value, sounds completely outlandish but as the documentary outlines, it is carried out very cleverly and progressively, spanning two decades, co-opting Russia and France as allies against Germany, Britain’s main political, military and economic rival, and with the collusion of the British press. Firstly, the funding of the plan is secured by the British waging war against the Boers in southern Africa that results in the separate colonies and republics in that region becoming one unit (South Africa) under British control, and the gold wealth of that unit coming under the control of the British South Africa Company. The Boer War was incredibly brutal, with over 66,000 civilian casualties of whom 26,000 were Boer women and children who died in concentration camps along with another 20,000+ black Africans out of some 115,000 also interred in concentration camps. Secondly, British news propaganda increasingly paints Germany as a hostile and malevolent enemy seeking to stir up trouble in different parts of the world, even in areas where the British are the actual trouble-makers. Third, the British assist Japan against Russia when war breaks out between those two powers in 1905 by denying the use of the Suez Canal to the Russian naval fleet and forcing it to travel around Africa and through the Indian Ocean up towards Japan; Japan was able to crush an exhausted Russian fleet. In this way, Japan becomes a valuable ally to the British in the Far East.

The documentary presents its case well, that a Deep State formed within the British political establishment in the later 19th century and schemed to create conflicts, even wars, to achieve its goal of isolating Germany and targeting that nation for war. The voice-over narrative is delivered at a fairly leisurely pace and interviews with historians back up the documentary’s premise. Archival film footage, photographs and maps of the period help to delineate the world in which European imperial powers dominated all continents.

I would add only that the British desire to put the United States into its proper place as a colony within its empire preceded the machinations of Cecil Rhodes and his fellow conspirators; the British are known to have assisted the Confederate States of America during the US Civil War (1861 – 1865) to ensure the break-up of the US into two weak states that could easily be dominated by a foreign power.

Though the events covered by the documentary occurred over 100 years ago, they are worth viewing as the strategy used by the British to demonise Germany is much the same as the current British-American strategy to demonise and isolate Russia. Again, the English-language news media is being used to suppress truth and to incite public hostility against Russia and its allies in Asia and the Middle East.

The Lobby (Episode 4: The Takedown): exposing a brazen suggestion to get rid of a politician

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 4: The Takedown)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In the last episode of Qatar TV station Al Jazeera’s series on Israeli infiltration of British politics and in particular the British Labour Party, Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter Robin is being urged by Shai Masot, senior political officer with the Israeli embassy to form a new activist lobby group called the Young Labour Friends of Israel. Viewers can assume, from information in previous episodes, that Masot will assist Robin financially and direct him to people who will advise Robin on what to do and on details of the pro-Israeli agenda the YLFI will be adopting – as long as Robin and the rest of the organisation he will be chairing stay mum on any connections the YLFI will have with the Israeli embassy. Indeed, Masot goes to considerable length to explain to Robin that he (Masot) cannot be seen to be linked to the new organisation in any way – because such a connection violates British law.

From here on, we hear no more of the YLFI or of Robin’s activities for or with that organisation but the episode picks up where Episode 3 left off in pursuing what happens to Jean Fitzpatrick after her unpleasant encounter with Joan Ryan who reports her to senior Labour Party officials for making “anti-Semitic” statements. Fitzpatrick is subjected to an investigation which eventually clears her name but not before causing her considerable distress.

The rest of Episode 4 focuses on Robin’s meetings with British public servant Maria Strizzolo and Shai Masot. Strizzolo, an aide to MP Robert Halfon, happily admits that the Israeli embassy tries to influence and direct British political culture by insinuating itself with party whips who keep order and discipline within their respective parties and alert MPs to attend parliamentary sessions when debating and voting on legislation is taking place. Robin also attends a meeting held by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israeli political lobby organisation in Washington DC, in London. AIPAC’s aim is to encourage and ensure that the UK’s policy on Israeli affairs matches that of the US. What is most alarming though is that at one of Robin’s meetings with Masot, Masot proposes setting up a front company to fight the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement and to “take down” British politicians known for supporting the rights of Palestinians. Masot mentions the name of one particular politician whom he would like to see gone.

That the Israeli embassy would employ people who not only seek to influence and direct British politics but also try to get rid of politicians and members of political parties is astonishingly brazen and makes Israel a major threat to British national security. When this episode aired in Britain, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn complained in an open letter to the Prime Minister and urged her to open an inquiry into the incident. The Israeli ambassador to the UK apologised for Masot’s remark. Masot himself resigned from the embassy and was recalled to Israel. Strizzolo also resigned from the UK civil service. That Theresa May’s government took no further action against Israeli embassy staff or Israel – yet is happy to throw out Russian embassy staff over a poisoning incident involving a Russian traitor spy and his innocent daughter for which it has no proof of Moscow’s culpability – demonstrates its stupidity and incompetence.

At this point, viewers learn nothing more about Robin or the group he was supposed to have set up. Being the final episode, “The Takedown” might reasonably be supposed to clear up most loose ends of what had been begun in earlier episodes. Googling for information on the Young Labour Friends of Israel, I found nothing so that particular abomination presumably stays stillborn.

The entire series has been informative, even if on a fairly superficial and somewhat confusing level. It does not claim to be the definitive summary of how Israel seeks to influence and mould British politics and political culture to its liking. Doubtless there may be other ways the Israeli government tries to inveigle its way into Westminster. At the very least, a scalp has been claimed – but this does not mean the Israelis will not be deterred from what they are doing.

The Lobby (Episode 3: An Anti-Semite Trope): how small-minded cult-like behaviour threatens democracy and citizens’ rights to free speech

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 3: An Anti-Semite Trope)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In this third episode of the four-part series focusing on the Israeli government’s infiltration of political parties and grassroots political movements in Britain, the emphasis shifts away from Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter Robin (who is posing as a pro-Israeli activist ingratiating himself with activists in the pro-Israeli lobby) and to UK Labour Party member Jean Fitzpatrick who is attending the UK Labour Party conference in Liverpool. She strikes up a conversation with people at a Labour Friends of Israel booth at the conference and asks two LFI representatives on how Israel will implement a two-state solution that will suit both Israel and the Palestinians. The representatives either avoid the question or spout tired old rubbish about how the security situation in Israel must improve before work can begin on the two-state solution or how Israel has the issue in hand and is proceeding slowly but steadily. No answer satisfies Fitzpatrick so she repeatedly presses the issue. At last one LFI booth representative (and British Labour Party politician) Joan Ryan cuts off Fitzpatrick and refuses to debate any more with her. Fitzpatrick drifts away and Ryan decides to report their exchange to LFI and other associated pro-Israeli flacks as “anti-Semitic”. One things leads to another and yet another, and it’s not long before Fitzpatrick discovers she is under investigation from her own party for supposedly “anti-Semitic” behaviour at an information stall at the Labour Party conference.

The way in which an argument (about whether the Israeli government is dragging its heels over developing a two-state solution that helps all parties involved in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians) is deliberately exaggerated and blown up into an insidious and ridiculous “anti-Semitic” rant would be deserving only of egg-throwing derision and scorn were it not real. The reactions of Ryan and her fellow pro-Israeli activists (including the Israeli embassy’s senior political officer Shai Masot) can only be described as stupid, deranged and cruel. Fitzpatrick had not expressed a personal opinion about Jewish people or individuals and her initial question had concerned only the Israeli government’s deliberate delay in carrying out the two-state solution. The fact that Ryan could exaggerate aspects of her exchange with Fitzpatrick, twist those aspects into a fairy-tale and then expect her fellow LFI members and others who support her to accept her lies uncritically and without demanding proof shows the depth of deranged idiocy and the narrow-minded and uninformed viewpoints of her intended audience. Ryan and her pals in LFI and other pro-Israel groups repeatedly turn over her exchange with Jean Fitzpatrick among themselves and in their own minds to the point where the reality and actual subject matter of that exchange disappear in their feverish imaginings, to be replaced by their own small-minded fantasies about how Jewish people are continually being harassed and hounded out of whichever communities they live in, in countries where by and large Jewish people and communities rarely suffer discrimination at present.

Robin attends and records other events at the conference but few have the fire of Fitzpatrick and Ryan’s debate. As usual the oily Shai Masot works his crowd by appearing to offer support or money, or bringing together people from different pro-Israeli organisations. In further interviews, Fitzpatrick expresses concern that her encounter with Ryan is endangering her party membership and her fear that other consequences that might threaten her personal affairs may also follow.

This episode demonstrates the real menace that Israeli penetration of political and grassroots activist organisations and movements poses to democracy (or whatever is left of it in Britain) and to ordinary Britons’ right to free speech. Distressingly, when Al Jazeera later asks Joan Ryan about her argument with Fitzpatrick, Ryan continues to assert that any form of “anti-Semitism”, which in her mind covers any criticism or opinion that suggests the Israeli government is less than squeaky-clean angelic in whatever it does, is unacceptable and she will continue to speak out against it at the risk of inviting other people’s judgements on her intelligence. Ryan’s behaviour and the way in which other pro-Israeli activists collude and encourage that behaviour, and exaggerate incidents, building them into something outrageous and entirely untrue, suggest a cult-like mind-set cut off from reality and reason.

The Lobby (Episode 2: The Training Session): undercover investigation reveals fanaticism and sociopathy

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 2: The Training Session)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

Continuing on from Episode 1 “Young Friends of Israel”, in this episode Al Jazeera’s undercover investigator Robin discovers more about how far the Israeli government seeks to influence and mould British political policy to favour its own policies with regard to how it treats Palestinians in the territories it occupies and its ambitions and agenda in the Middle East, through the Israeli embassy’s meddling in the affairs of the Labour Party (UK) and in particular the youth organisations and other movements connected to it. Here, the focus is on the party conference held in Liverpool and the activities the Israeli embassy (through its senior political officer) engages in with various activists already embedded in organisations like Labour Friends of Israel and We Believe In Israel to lobby Labour Party attendees. Having already ingratiated himself with these activists, Robin is tasked with setting up a new youth movement, the Young Labour Friends of Israel (what an imaginative name), attached to the Labour Party and to liaise with other pro-Israeli activists to help promote the movement.

The narrative tends to jump and chop around, making viewing hard to follow, and Robin’s task in forming the new group is mentioned no further. Enough other things happen during this episode that are sure to stun viewers harder than cows being hit and shocked in abattoirs. One pro-Israeli activist admits to accepting help and funding from the Israeli embassy and then goes on to say that his organisation goes to great lengths to distance itself from Israel to appear “independent”. In another part of the film, several people discuss a plan to form a new group in the UK that will link up with the main pro-Israeli lobby group in the US, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee aka AIPAC. Much of the film is taken up with a training session at the Labour Party conference which is more or less dominated by pro-Israeli activists lecturing the audience on anti-Semitism: a few attendees are shocked at what they hear and protest that opposition to Israeli government policy and actions and elements of current Zionist ideology does not constitute anti-Semitism. One of these attendees is Jackie Walker, vice-chair of Momentum, and herself of mixed Jewish and black ancestry, who is later interviewed at length in the film.

A truly disturbing moment in the film comes when pro-Israeli activist Ella Rose, director of the Jewish Labour Movement, is rumbled by Electronic Intifada for having held a job with the Israeli Embassy; for this, she is criticised by Jackie Walker on social media (for presumably not having revealed her full work background before applying for the post). Rose’s reaction to Walker’s criticism is to threaten the diminutive Momentum vice-chair with violence. Walker’s shocked response to Rose’s vindictive threat can only be imagined.

The deliberate secrecy and duplicity with which the Israeli embassy representative and his pro-Israeli activist pals plan to infiltrate the Labour Party conference with their propaganda and money (amounting to one million pounds), the evasiveness of the various organisations when later questioned by Al Jazeera over their connections with the Israeli embassy, and the thuggish and hostile response of Ella Rose over her exposure by Electronic Intifada reveal the sociopathic and fanatical mindset these people share and the danger they pose to the Labour Party and British politics generally. Unfortunately, the actions of these pro-Israeli activists and the government that feeds and funds them make this documentary necessary for the rest of us to watch, to remind ourselves of the extremes they may well be prepared to go to, to succeed in their quest.

The Lobby (Episode 1: Young Friends of Israel): how Israel infiltrates youth groups and organisations in Britain

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 1: Young Friends of Israel)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In recent years, a movement known as the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement has grown – especially among young people – to protest the Israeli government’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. To counter the BDS movement’s popularity in the United Kingdom, the Israeli government has resorted to penetrating university student unions, grassroots activist movements, think-tanks and youth groups allied to major political parties with propaganda, money and offers of trips to Israel. This first episode of a four-part series focused on the pro-Israeli lobby in the UK follows an undercover reporter, known as Robin, who ingratiates himself with activists in several of these groups and the contacts they have with the Israeli embassy in London.

For a 25-minute documentary, running at a brisk pace, this film is very dense with information on various groups, several of which are connected directly or indirectly to the British Labour Party – the film does not follow equivalent groups affiliated with the Conservative Party which already has a pro-Israeli platform – and in which a number of activists are working with a contact from the Israeli embassy to present a more benevolent and favourable view of Israel and its policies, and to push back “anti-Semitism”, as they define it. Astonishingly, most of these activists know one another and the Israeli embassy contact very well, and have also done some work at the Israeli embassy. Robin is encouraged not only to set up a pro-Israeli group but also to accept a job at the Israeli embassy, which is also interested in recruiting him. This perhaps suggests that these activists form a very small, cliquish network, and their work is likely to be cut out for them trying to convince others to join them. Unfortunately, due perhaps to Robin’s need to keep the real nature of his investigations secret, he does not ask these people how successful they have been so far.

One disturbing aspect of the film comes when two vice-presidents of the National Union of Students (NUS) talk to Robin about getting rid of President Malia Bouattia for supporting the BDS movement and criticising Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians. One of the vice-presidents is revealed as having accepted a free trip to Israel through the Union of Jewish Students, which itself has received money from the Israeli embassy.

This film sheds a light on how Israel attempts through underhanded ways to influence political discourse on issues affecting not just its own politics but on the politics of other Middle Eastern states. It is worth following to get an overview of how far it will go to advance its own interests by infiltrating student organisations in universities and branches of political parties aimed at encouraging young people to enter politics.

The Real Manchurian Candidate: a meandering set of interviews on the Robert F Kennedy assassination and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan’s role in it

Shane O’Sullivan, “The Real Manchurian Candidate” (e2 films, 2018)

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan is notorious as the man who fatally shot Senator Robert F Kennedy, the younger brother of the 35th President of the United States John F Kennedy, in Los Angeles in June 1968, while the senator was campaigning for the Democratic Party nomination for presidential elections later in the year. In this documentary, Dr Daniel Brown, a lecturer in hypnotherapy at Harvard Medical School, and Sirhan’s lawyer Laurie Dusek discuss their observations of Sirhan’s behaviours and their conversations with him in trying to recover his memories of what he did on that night in 1968, and both raise quite credible information that suggests that Sirhan had been hypnotised by other people into being a distraction for the real assassin and to take the blame for the murder. In particular, both Dr Brown and Dusek assert that Sirhan had been hypnotised and trained to respond to cues in his environment that would send him into “range mode” (a trance mode) during which he would shoot at certain targets, and of which he would later have no memories.

The film takes the form of two continuous interviews of Dr Brown and Dusek running in parallel, the camera switching from one to the other and back again, with archival film material of RFK (photographic stills) and of Sirhan being questioned inserted into the film at particular points. Film of Sirhan applying for parole is also shown. The flow of information can be haphazard, as interviews are wont to be, and the discussion jumps from details of the cues that Sirhan had been trained under several episodes of hypnosis to respond to (by falling into a trance state) and Sirhan’s belief that he was at a shooting range when in fact he was close to RFK, to Sirhan’s background and personality at the time he was selected to be the patsy to distract the crowds around RFK and the scapegoat for the crime. Viewers not familiar with the assassination or the hypnosis methods that were used on Sirhan may like to watch Episode 1 “The Assassin” of “Derren Brown: The Experiments”, made in 2011, in which host Derren Brown (no relation to Dr Brown) uses some of the hypnosis techniques and cues employed by the people who used Sirhan to hypnotise and train a subject to “assassinate” the actor Stephen Fry.

Near the end of the film, Dusek talks about the appalling treatment meted out to Sirhan in prison and how he bears up under bullying and intimation from the prison adminisation. Dusek vows to continue to defend Sirhan, recognising that his family has suffered and continues to suffer from the RFK assassination as Kennedy’s own family does. Dr Brown refers to the intimidation he has been subjected to by the US government but vows to continue assisting Sirhan and Dusek as part of his contribution to defending American democracy.

Perhaps the interviews could have been broken up and restructured so that parts could be regrouped under specific topic areas, such as those aspects of Sirhan’s personality and background that made him an ideal hypnosis subject, the cues that set him off (in particular, the woman in the blue dress with white polka dots) and the various MK-ULTRA experiments carried out by the CIA  on mind control in the 1960s and 1970s. This would have made the film a little more accessible to people not familiar with hypnosis or psychology. The information given is very dense and viewers may need repeated viewings to fully absorb what Dr Brown and Dusek say about Sirhan and the implications of what they say: that Sirhan may be innocent, that there may have been a real conspiracy (which could have involved the then head of the FBI J Edgar Hoover) to get rid of RFK and that other political assassinations in the US could also have been carried out by hypnotised scapegoats.

The Syria Deception (Part 1: Al Qaeda Goes to Hollywood): a blunt examination of the cynicism of Western propaganda

Dan Cohen, “The Syria Deception (Part 1: Al Qaeda Goes to Hollywood)” (2018)

This first part of a two-part series is a blunt and uncompromising examination of how Hollywood collaborates with the US government and its agencies in creating propaganda films that misrepresent the war in Syria and demonise the Syrian government and President Bashar al Assad. Narrated by Dan Cohen, the program uses the recent HBO documentary “Cries From Syria” (screened at the Sundance Film Festival and available on Netflix) as an example of the propaganda being promoted by Western news media outlets.

The incredible and cynical lengths to which the Western media and entertainment industry goes in creating such propaganda to convince Western audiences to support an invasion of Syria and the overthrow of its government are illustrated in the exploitation of the 7-year-old girl Bana Alabed, through a Twitter account under her name in which she constantly calls for war in English, a language she actually barely understands; and in the supposed adventures of “journalist” Hadi al Abdullah, in reality a propagandist friendly with jihadists, providing “updates” on the supposed “civil war” being fought by “moderate rebels” against the government.

In the film’s second half, Cohen follows the efforts of American politicians, media outlets and self-styled “activist” propagandists like Nora Barre to talk up public support for a US-led intervention in Syria after a screening of “Cries From Syria” in Congress. Barre makes emotional appeals to people’s compassion, reminding one and all of the helpless women and children held hostage by both jihadis and the government (but emphasising the ferocity of the government much more); while the unpleasant Charles Lister, resident fellow with the Middle East Institute, a neoconservative US think-tank, openly advocates the assassination of Assad. In the waning moments of the film, Cohen accosts the film director who made a documentary about the false humanitarian aid group the Syrian White Helmets, made up of jihadis who film themselves pulling children and babies out of rubble, racing through alleys while carrying the youngsters, and flinging them into empty ambulances without so much as checking their breathing or stabilising them in case of internal injuries.

Featuring stills of media reports, excerpts of videos, films and interviews with propaganda shills like Barre, the documentary pulls no punches in showing how distasteful, abhorrent and, above all, extremely manipulative and exploitative the Western propaganda machine is in trying to convince people of the need to remove Assad, over and above the wishes of the Syrian public. At times the documentary can be a bit confusing in the speed that it pursues its topics, jumping from Hadi al Abdullah to Bana Alabed to Barre and Lister. Each topic (Bana Alabed in particular) is investigated in some depth though the documentary provides no analysis, however brief it would have to be, as to why the exploitation of children has become essential in the making of modern propaganda and who the most likely targets of this propaganda would be.

Though the documentary is aimed at a mainly American audience, it is relevant to overseas audiences as well. Even if it skims over subject matter like the White Helmets, and the purpose behind their creation, the documentary flows with passion, energy and indignation. I’m already looking forward to the second part.

Undercover in Idlib: secret snapshot of jihadi-held Idlib province in northwestern Syria

Jenan Moussa, “Undercover in Idlib” (2017)

Presented and narrated by Jenan Moussa, a reporter for Al Aan TV in Dubai, this 22-minute documentary on the situation in Idlib province, in northwestern Syria, as of 2015 – 2016 reveals facts that Western news media outlets have never shown: that a number of towns in the province including Jisr al Shugur are dominated by jihadis and their families from China and Central Asia, and that the whole region is controlled by extremist groups like Jabhat al Nusra, the Syrian offshoot of Al Qaeda. The documentary was secretly filmed by Moussa’s informants (all pro-opposition) on cellphones; had they been discovered to be filming, they would have been imprisoned, even put to death. Even filmed in secret however, and with all the other limitations such filming involved (such as the use of cellphones), the documentary is clear and enough film footage was taken by Moussa’s sources to support a clear narrative.

Filming took place in Idlib city, Jisr al Shugur – revealed as a complete wreck – and other towns in the province. Film footage shows huge amounts of graffiti scrawled on walls and buildings quoting pronouncements by Al Qaeda leader Ayman Mohammed Rabie al Zawahiri. Houses and buildings abandoned by pre-2011 Idlib households and businesses have been seized by extremist groups and auctioned off to their followers; even crops have been seized and auctioned off. Christian churches have been defaced or converted into mosques and in one town a statue of the Virgin Mary was replaced by an al Nusra flag.

Of the various checkpoints in and out of Idlib province, mostly with Turkey, the vast majority are controlled by Jabhat al Nusra and the rest controlled by other extremist groups allied with them. If any so-called “moderate” anti-government rebel groups exist in Idlib province, their presence was confined to their headquarters.

The most amazing revelation is that all of Moussa’s sources agree that huge numbers of ethnic Uyghur jihadis from China, plus Uzbek jihadis and “Turkistani” jihads and their families have settled in Idlib province and number from 10,000 to 20,000 people. All made their way to Syria from China and Central Asia for jihad. Moussa does not say how they managed to travel long distances from their original countries or on what passports they travelled on.

Since the documentary was first made, Jabhat al Nusra changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) so Moussa asked her contacts to return to Idlib province to take note of any changes made. They reported that the propaganda had been softened and made more colourful and appealing to the local people. Al Zawahiri’s name was scrubbed off from walls where his quotations had been scrawled on and any references to HTS or its predecessor had disappeared, to give the area a more generic look.

Moussa reveals her sympathies with pro-opposition / anti-government forces (if they exist) in Syria by stating at the end of the documentary that everyone in Idlib province fears what may happen once Syrian government forces and their Russian allies begin their offensive to drive out the extremists in the province. Apart from this bias, which I disagree with, the film is a sobering survey of the reality of Idlib province: a permanent resettlement policy is under way in this part of Syria which I fear is intended to lay the foundation for a new invasion of the rest of the country by religious extremists supported by Syria’s enemies.

Adam Ruins Everything (Season 2, Episode 4: Adam Ruins Dating): everything else except the institution of dating put under the spotlight

Tim Wilkime, “Adam Ruins Everything (Season 2, Episode 4: Adam Ruins Dating)” (2017)

If ever there were profitable scams preying on people’s insecurities in finding lasting and fulfilling relationships, the ones on offer in this episode of “Adam Ruins Everything” qualify as three of the more outrageous. Our hero Adam Conover turns up to a date with Sarah (Emily Althaus) who’s under the impression that he must be the perfect date for her – even if he strikes her as super-geeky – because the dating website she consulted and which matched her up with Adam used apparently scientific methods and algorithms to do so. As it turns out, dating websites like eHarmony and others are no better than allowing chance to determine whether two strangers matched together will stay together, for the reason that among other things the criteria used (personality characteristics or shared likes and dislikes) are poor, even irrelevant guides to a couple’s compatibility.

Having disabused Sarah of her misconceptions about dating websites, Adam proceeds to demolish the myth of the alpha male – based in part on research done by L David Mech on the social lives of wolves in the 1970s which the scientist later found he could not replicate two decades later and which (to his credit) he disavowed and tried to warn other researchers not to repeat – and the credibility of the Myer-Briggs psychological questionnaire, the related Keirsey Temperament Sorter and other personality tests based on fixed personality stereotypes. Wolves are now known to form family groups consisting of a male-female adult pair accompanied by two sets of offspring, one set older than the younger; the older offspring usually help teach the younger cubs to hunt. Only in very exceptional circumstances (if the animals’ environment has restrictions that don’t permit wolves to roam freely, or the prey species are experiencing a population boom) would wolves form large packs in which the animals observe  strict social hierarchy and bully others. The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator lacks scientific rigour and depends largely on self-reporting questionnaires; in the way it assigns up to 16 personality types to people, it resembles astrology.

The episode is very entertaining with just enough slapstick to hold young viewers’ attention. It can be buffoonish in parts but the breathless pace sweeps scenes out of sight before they become too silly. As in most episodes, Adam’s companion becomes despondent and Adam has to try to cheer her up without becoming too upset himself.

What the episode has no time for, given that it’s only about 25 minutes and has to deal with three more or less unrelated popular myths, is the issue of dating itself and the cultural assumptions and expectations that accompany it. How did dating arise in Western society as an institution and why does Western society regard the notion of two strangers meeting and being swept off their feet emotionally by one another as the best way for love and families to develop? What is implied about the nature of Western society that the institution of dating attracts dodgy schemes and practitioners like dating websites or match-makers of one sort or another to exploit people’s uncertainties and credulity for profit?

Those Who Said No: a slickly made and polished film that is less than honest about the politics of the activists it champions

Nima Sarvestani, “Those Who Said No” (2015)

A very polished film, complete with stereotypical mournful droning music in parts, this Iranian / Swedish documentary follows proceedings of the Iran Tribunal, a people’s court hosted at The Hague, in its investigation of alleged violations of human rights and crimes against humanity committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1988. According to a cleric, Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, between 2,800 and 3,800 political prisoners were executed or disappeared by the Khomeini government. These massacres began in mid-July 1988 and went on for several months.

The documentary does a very good job recording the testimonies of people who had been arrested, imprisoned and tortured by Iranian prison authorities. One witness after another takes the stand to answer questions from stony-faced (and often bored-looking) judges about their time and experiences in prison. This constant narrative is broken up by a minor story of a man who survived the tortures and mistreatment, and who travels to Japan to confront Mostafa Pourmohammadi, a former representative of the Iranian court system in the 1980s, in Tokyo.

Where the documentary fails is in providing a full political context to the arrests, the imprisonment, torture and execution of the political prisoners by the Iranian government in 1988: why were these people arrested and for what crimes, and what were the organisations or groups they belonged to – these are details that are not mentioned in the film. Having to do my own research, I discovered that the majority of the prisoners who were executed were members of a radical leftist organisation known as the People’s Mojahedin of Iran or Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) which among other things it did during the 1980s carried out bomb attacks against and assassinations of various clerics in the government and sided with the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s forces, even going so far as to set up its headquarters in Iraq: a move regarded by most Iranians as a grave betrayal since Iraq and Iran were at war. After 1985, MEK became a full-fledged fruitcake terrorist cult centred around Massoud Rajavi and his wife Maryam, and spends a great deal of its money on organising propaganda campaigns, using computer bots to spread disinformation on social media platforms and lobbying politicians in the US government. New recruits to MEK are subjected to intense indoctrination and bizarre rituals that may include sexual abuse with the aim of breaking down their sense of identity in an environment that deliberately isolates them from the outside world and makes them dependent on MEK members. The organisation has carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Iran and some other countries since the early 1970s and most people in Iran shun the organisation.

After discovering the MEK connection, I am not surprised then that the Iranian government cracked down severely on political prisoners and tortured and executed thousands. Political prisoners belonging to the Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh) and other leftist groups were also arrested and jailed, and many of them were killed; unfortunately the film does not identify these people who were swept up in the killings. What the film omits to mention lessens the impact it wants to make, and moreover makes the film less than honest as a crusading vehicle for political activism.