Between 2016-2020, right-wingers like Nigel Farage were fond of accusing the left of being ‘easily offended’. At some point, however, these same people realised that being offended was great for driving attention and they dove in both feet first.

Abolish the BBC licence fee. pic.twitter.com/y6pWf4VR5C

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) May 31, 2026

The first thing we should note is that the Canary has a long, long history of criticising the BBC. This year alone, we’ve published the following:

• Former BBC Middle East correspondent: broadcaster was central to ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam
• BBC shamefully plays politics with vile racism in the NHS
• Lebanon war correspondent accuses BBC of complicity in ethnic cleansing
• BBC publishes misinformation about small boat crossings
• BBC ran quote from Iranian claiming to be ‘fine’ with nuclear destruction of Iran

The difference between us and Farage is our criticism doesn’t boil down to ‘the BBC dislikes me personally ‘.

Now, on to the Desert Island Discs dilemma.

A Reform spokesperson told the Times:

We approached the BBC as we thought it would be a no-brainer with Keir and Kemi going on, but it would appear they have a ban on Reform — the party has led in the opinion polls for well over a year. This is the typical BBC bias we have come to expect.

The BBC responded:

We do not ban any individuals from appearing on Desert Island Discs and that includes Mr Farage.

Perpetual victim. https://t.co/A1VO9VNVoF

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) May 31, 2026

Rupert Lowe of Restore Britain is also making similar threats, by the way.

The BBC have run a sneering attack piece insulting both myself and Elon Musk…

A Restore Britain Government will defund the BBC, day one.

Let's see who's laughing then.

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) May 31, 2026

Advertisement

Lowe spends all day writing long screeds about how much he hates his political enemies. What is it they say about not giving it if you can’t take it?

Farage snubbed

If BBC Radio 4 did snub Farage, it probably wasn’t over immigration, because he, Starmer, and Badenoch have had nearly identical policy platforms at times.

When it comes to Farage, though, there are definitely things which make him more poisonous to a general audience than Badenoch or Starmer. Specifically, we’re talking about Farage’s history of the most extreme racism, as his Jewish ex-classmate, Peter Ettedgui, reported:

I’d never experienced antisemitism growing up, so the first time that this vicious verbal abuse came out of Farage’s mouth was deeply shocking. But I wasn’t his only target. I’d hear him calling other students ‘Paki’ or ‘Wog’, and urging them to ‘go home’.

Farage is also more closely linked to Donald Trump than any other UK politician — a man the UK public has no time for.

Forgot about this. After Bannon was corralling Farage and Johnson to topple Theresa May, his former boss Trump chips in to get Farage to do a deal with Johnson in the 2019 election.

A stitch up. https://t.co/ZhXPvcnhkE

— Peter Jukes (@peterjukes) May 31, 2026

Advertisement

The accusations of foreign interference don’t end there, as Skwawkbox reported for the Canary:

Former Reform UK in Wales leader Nathan Gill has today been sentenced to ten and a half years in prison after admitting taking bribes to make positive statements about Russia.

Farage is also facing a great deal of scrutiny for the £5 million gift he accepted from a foreign-based crypto billionaire.

Here are the facts as laid down by Derbyshire:
1) Farage says he won’t run
2) crypto billionaire pays him £5mill
3) Farage U-turns and runs
4) Farage hides the donation
5) Farage announces if he wins the election he will slash capital gains tax for crypto firms

Same old same old https://t.co/ViEIFZkf3A

— Alonso Gurmendi (@Alonso_GD) May 6, 2026

If we ran Desert Island Discs, we wouldn’t have any of these politicians on. At the same time, we can see why BBC Radio 4 and its audience might consider Farage to be an entirely different beast to Badenoch or Starmer.

Free press

There’s a real irony in that the BBC clearly doesn’t hate Farage or Reform. If anything, they’ve given him and his party far more attention than they deserve.

Nigel Farage has appeared on BBC's Question Time at least 38 times. His supporters are complaining that he hasn't been invited on Desert Island Discs…

(image: @newsthump) https://t.co/fqthrcfQ9u pic.twitter.com/KUrEEMMKk7

— Nick : Data + Independent Politics (@nick_pope) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

And while Farage is all over the media, he’s largely absent from the job he was elected to perform.

Nigel Farage hasn't voted in Parliament for the last 11 weeks and has now missed 77 votes in a row, according to official records. The last time he turned up was to vote against adraft regulations for the Employment Rights Act, and that says it all.

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) May 31, 2026

Advertisement

Moan alone

Farage has sold himself as an antidote to the British establishment. That’s fine, but the price you pay is you don’t get to sip iced tea and discuss Duran Duran with Lauren Laverne.

In other words, Nigel, pick a lane, and stop moaning.

Featured image via Ian Forsyth/ Getty Images

By Willem Moore

Source link

We’re hurtling towards more wars and greater global instability, with the governments of Europe responding with massive rearmament programmes and increasing moves towards conscription. So we urgently need a mass movement for peace to break with the worldview of the likes of Donald Trump and Tony Blair.

The International Conference Against War on 20 June in central London will be a unique and historic step to building it.

Over 1,700 people from the UK and across Europe have bought tickets so far and, with international speakers, this will be a truly world-wide solidarity conference. Speakers are coming from France, Palestine, Belgium, the UK, the US, Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain and Sweden.

They include (all in person):

• Mustafa Barghouti, General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative.
• Medea Benjamin, American political activist Code Pink.
• Mothin Ali, Green Party deputy leader.
• Lorena Delgado Varas, Swedish MP.
• UK MPs Richard Burgon, Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Jon Trickett.
• Jérôme Lagavre, French Assembly member.
• Fran Heathcote, PCS general secretary.
• José Nivoi, Genoa docker.
• Tariq Ali, author and activist.
• Felix Kreklow Rojas, German anti-conscription student campaigner.
• Andrew Feinstein, former ANC MP.
• And many more.

John Rees, Stop the War national officer and one of the organisers of the conference, said:

The wolf is at the door. Donald Trump is setting fires he has no intention and no capacity to extinguish.

European political leaders have begun a continent-wide rearmament programme on a scale not seen since World War Two. They’re making arms companies rich and the rest of us poor.

Every day another politician or army chief tells us we have to accept austerity and prepare for war. Conscription has returned in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Keir Starmer is threatening the same here.

The International Anti-War conference in London on 20 June is the response from trade unionists and anti-war activists. It could not come at a more vital time. Together we will demand welfare, not warfare, wages not weapons.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

Forty years after its sole World Cup appearance, Iraq returns to the world stage carrying the dreams of an entire generation that never experienced Mexico 1986.

Between memories of the past and aspirations for the future, the Lions of Mesopotamia enter the 2026 World Cup with ambitions that go beyond simply making an appearance. The squad hopes to prove their return was no fluke and that Iraqi soccer is capable of regaining its place among the elite.

Qualifying for the World Cup was a historic milestone that brought the team back to the forefront of international football after many years of challenges. The question that arises today is: will Iraq be content with simply fulfilling the dream of a comeback or does it possess enough quality to pull off an upset in the tournament?

Iraq’s new generation carries a heavy legacy

Iraq enters the 2026 World Cup with a squad that blends experience and ambition, led by a number of players who have gained significant professional experience both within and outside Asia.

Ayman Hussein, the striker who has become the team’s offensive icon, leads the way alongside Zidan Iqbal, who brings technical flair to the midfield and enhances the team’s ability to retain possession and build attacks.

The national team also boasts promising young players such as Youssef Amin, Ali Jassim, and Mirhas Doski—names that represent the generation on which Iraqis are counting to lead a new era of development. This group is characterised by speed, energy and a desire to prove themselves on the world’s biggest football stage.

Nevertheless, limited World Cup experience remains one of the biggest challenges facing Iraq. Its players will face levels of pressure and competition they have never experienced before, against teams accustomed to competing for the title in every World Cup, such as France.

New World Cup format could give an advantage

The new World Cup format gives emerging teams greater opportunities to compete for spots in the knockout stages, which could work in Iraq’s favor. The gaps between teams are no longer what they were in past decades, and the ability to organise and maintain tactical discipline has become a decisive factor in achieving results.

Realistically speaking, advancing past the group stage would be an unprecedented historic achievement for  Iraq, which has never won a single match in its only previous appearance in 1986. Reaching round 16 or beyond, however, will require an exceptional performance and the ability to capitalise on small details against more experienced teams.

But what gives Iraq hope is its competitive spirit, which it has consistently demonstrated in continental tournaments.

More than just participation

Iraqis do not view the 2026 World Cup merely as a soccer tournament but as a national event with implications that extend far beyond the pitch. The national team, which has become a symbol of unity and hope at many historic junctures, enters the tournament representing the aspirations of millions of fans who have waited decades for this moment.

Iraq may not be among the favorites to win the title, but its presence in the World Cup alone confirms the return of Iraqi soccer to the international stage. Between the dream of advancing to the second round and the ambition to pull off another upset, Iraq has a chance to write a new chapter in their soccer history.

Iraq kicks off its World Cup campaign against Norway on 16 June, before facing France on 22 June. Players will wrap up the group stage against Senegal – the 2018 World Cup champions and one of Africa’s strongest teams. The inclusion of Norway, led by star Erling Haaland, also makes this one of the tournament’s toughest groups.

Featured image via Azael Rodriguez/ Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

250 delegates representing Your Party branches and former branches across England, Scotland and Wales met in an online conference on 31 May and launched the Socialist Federation.

Delegates included representatives of groups in London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Essex, North Devon, Dundee, Newcastle and Cumbria.

Attendees said they’d comprehensively lost patience with Jeremy Corbyn and his close-knit entourage, who failed to build on the promise of the mass signups to a new party initiative in summer 2025.

And the assembled members and ex members of Your Party agreed to create an initial federal organisation with the aim of rallying forces to establish a new socialist and working class party, independent of Labour and the Greens.

Socialist Federation spokesperson Joseph O’Connor Meldau (aka Raz O’Connor) said:

The Socialist Federation brings together people from all over the country who have been building socialist groups in their local areas.

Some did so as part of the wave of enthusiasm that met the announcement of Your Party last year, when 800,000 people expressed an interest in a new political force that was explicitly socialist.

The enthusiasm around Your Party was ruined by the actions of Jeremy Corbyn and his allies, but we have learned we don’t need celebrity politicians to organise things for us.

It is the grassroots activists building power in working class communities and workplaces that have always been the heart of the socialist movement, not bureaucratic leaders.

Advertisement

The Socialist Federation plans a further national conference on 28 June to finalise its structure and policy proposals, prior to an in-person Congress in the Midlands in the autumn.

Featured image via Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Chevron CEO, Mike Wirth, who is the money behind Donald Trump, said his company would not pay a toll to enter the Strait of Hormuz, claiming it is “international waters”.

Trump recently threatened to blow up Oman if it, along with Iran, were to charge a toll on the ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Alongside Wirth, Trump also alleged the strait is international waters.

The question is: do these Americans really have a choice?

Chevron has six vessels under charter in the strait

Iran has said:

The process of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is NOT a temporary process and Iran will not back down from it.

Fox News called Oman “a country that has spent decades quietly serving as America’s backchannel to Iran”.

The news agency, which rarely criticises Trump, also quoted an expert saying that though the president had an unconventional style, his comment was still shocking. It shows Iran has cornered the US.

Trump and his cronies are still looking at how to spin a victory narrative, however impossible such a narrative may seem.

US magazine Foreign Affairs noted:

Hegseth’s bluster could not hide the fact that the core objectives of Operation Epic Fury—notably, effecting regime change and eradicating Iran’s nuclear program—had not been achieved. And with Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the overall situation was worse than it had been before the start of the operation.

Ships attacked, CEO claims

Wirth himself, in the interview where he says he won’t pay a toll, admitted that Iranian authorities “have been successful” in collecting fees.

He also boasted about US sanctions, noting that the Treasury had recently “sanctioned the new authority that has been put in place to oversee transit through the strait”. When asked if he knows how people are paying the toll, he replied:

I’ve heard reports of people using cryptocurrency in various countries.

Meanwhile, he confirmed that Chevron has “six ships inside the strait right now with our cargoes”, all chartered and all stuck. The decision to risk transiting, he said, ultimately belongs to the ship owners, not Chevron.

He added:

There still has been kinetic activity this week, some of which has been reported in the media, some of which has not. We see risks very real still in that environment.

There have been vessels that have been in transit that have suffered attacks. They’re maybe not every day, but there have been multiple incidents that have occurred.

Trump backers’ disdain for Iran

Wirth is not the only Trump backer squirming at the capitulation to Iran.

After calling Iran “evil”, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said that NATO allies should have gotten together 25 years ago and gathered 500,000 troops together to attack Iran.

Of course, the billionaire or his friends would not have been in troops.

He chastised those criticising the war on Iran, saying that a threat doesn’t need to be imminent for it to be a threat.

Dimon also warned that Iran getting a nuclear weapon “may be the biggest threat facing mankind” because allied nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Japan would then seek their own. His argument is that military and economic dominance are both needed for the US dollar to remain the world’s reserve currency.

Wirth and Dimon both accrue massive rents from the dollar being the reserve currency.

Wirth through owning oil and selling it in dollars. Dimon, through financing the American empire and, with his new security and resiliency initiative, which is massively investing in rearming the United States.

But Iran is not capitulating. It holds the chokepoint, it has US ships stuck, and it has proven that sanctions, bluster and fantasies of a half-million troops cannot break its resolve. You can see exactly why Wirth and Dimon are squirming.

Featured image via Anna Moneymaker/ Getty Images

By Nandita Lal

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

On 7 May 1915, the pristine waters off the old head of Kinsale became a graveyard. Within just eighteen minutes of being struck by a single German torpedo, the RMS Lusitania – the world’s most celebrated luxury liner – vanished beneath the Atlantic, taking 1,198 lives with her. Historically, this tragedy is framed as a shocking turning point; a brutal act of piracy that shattered American isolationism and catalysed a moral crusade against imperial tyranny.

Yet, when we peel back the layers of standard textbook narratives, the fate of the Lusitania emerges as something far more calculated. Beneath the murky depths of this disaster lies a masterclass in crisis engineering – an intricate nexus of resource warfare, strategic maritime blockades, and the brutal leverage of financial markets.

It was an event transformed behind the scenes by architects of power, including the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, into a mass intelligence test. By deconstructing the chasm between the overt humanitarian narrative and covert geopolitical determinants, we can decode the hidden mechanics of more contemporary conflicts.<

War as an Engineered Industry

In classical political philosophy, war is often defined as an extension of politics by other means. However, a critical reading of political economy suggests a more chilling reality: modern total wars do not break out spontaneously; they are deliberately designed.

For any state to transition from peacetime into total war, it must first break the instinctive social contract of its citizenry. Democratic societies do not willingly sacrifice their youth, wealth, and liberties without an acute, existential provocation. This necessitates a “shock event” – or what strategic literature brands a “false flag” operation. By executing an attack or deliberately manufacturing a vulnerability, ruling elites can fabricate evidence to frame an adversary, thereby legitimising military aggression in the eyes of an outraged public.

The First World War (1914–1918) served as the premier laboratory for this brand of total mobilisation. It was not merely an escalation of armies, but a systemic restructuring. Entire civil institutions and societies were weaponised under totalitarian state control, all masked by the collective war effort. In this grand theatre, the entry of the United States in 1917 represented the ultimate geopolitical pivot.

The war dismantled three great empires – the Russian, German, and Ottoman – leaving millions dead and mutilated in its wake. Crucially, the Russian and German empires stood defiantly outside the orbit of western ‘Money Powers’ – non-elected, transnational network of central banks, Wall Street cartels, and mega asset management firms that controls the global reserve currency and uses sovereign debt to dictate international policies and conflicts to preserve its financial hegemony – whilst the Ottoman Empire occupied a Levant targeted for oil colonization and strategic British realignment.

Yet, this monumental American intervention would never have materialised without the psychological and political groundwork engineered through the wreckage of the Lusitania two years prior.

Geopolitical Background and the Ethnic Context

Prior to the disaster, President Woodrow Wilson’s administration faced a complex domestic quandary. London was desperate for American intervention; the British economy was utterly exhausted, and the Western Front was consuming human lives at an unsustainable rate. For decision-makers in Whitehall, dragging Washington into the trenches was a matter of sheer survival.

However, American public opinion leaned overwhelmingly towards isolationism, viewing the European conflagration as a distant imperialist squabble. Furthermore, Wilson faced a profound demographic dilemma: a relative majority of the American populace was of German descent, with the German language deeply embedded in local schools, press, and communities.

To shatter this domestic deadlock, British political planners recognized that they needed something louder than diplomacy. They required a direct assault on American sovereignty or dignity – an event so emotionally devastating that it would rewrite the collective consciousness and morph into an undeniable moral justification for total war.

Deconstructing the Incident: Myth versus Reality

When the German U-20 boat targeted the Lusitania, claiming 1,198 lives – including 128 American citizens – the Allied media machine instantly weaponised the tragedy. It was branded a savage German war crime against defenceless civilians. However, a century of maritime exploration and declassified documentation has exposed a truth entirely at odds with the official narrative.

1. The Auxiliary Cruiser

The Lusitania was never a purely civilian vessel. She was officially registered on the British Admiralty’s auxiliary warship rosters, designed from her very inception to specifications that allowed immediate conversion into an armed cruiser during wartime. In fact, her construction had been heavily subsidised by military loans from the British Government on the explicit condition that the Navy could claim her when required.

2. The Cargo

Despite vehement denials from British political circles, subsequent investigations and physical expeditions to the wreck proved that the ship’s holds were packed with massive shipments of military supplies destined for the British Army, including millions of rifle rounds, shrapnel shells, and fuses shipped out of New York.

Paradoxically, this lethal ammunition was loaded quite openly. This explains the mysterious, massive secondary explosion that ripped through the vessel immediately after the single German torpedo strike, causing her to sink in a mere 18 minutes. Under international maritime law at the time, the Lusitania was an entirely legitimate military target.

3. The Suppressed Warnings

Operating within strict maritime protocols, the German Chancellery saw through the British plot to use civilians as human shields for weapons transport. In an extraordinary move, the German Embassy in Washington purchased advertising space in major American newspapers – including prominent New York broadsheets – explicitly warning passengers that boarding the Lusitania was a high-risk venture, as she would pass through a designated war zone carrying military material.

Tragically, pro-British interest groups within the United States successfully suppressed the publication of these warning advertisements in several pivotal cities, leaving the civilian passengers entirely in the dark – disposable pawns in a high-stakes geopolitical chess game.

Winston Churchill and Engineered Risk Management

At the very centre of this web sits Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Declassified records reveal that Britain’s legendary naval intelligence hub, Room 40, had successfully cracked the German military wireless codes. Consequently, the Admiralty possessed precise, real-time tracking of German U-boats patrolling the Irish coast.

The profound suspicion surrounding the incident lies not just in the sudden withdrawal of a military escort for the Lusitania, but in a sequence of direct, highly irregular directives emanating from Churchill’s personal office:

Step 1: A secret, direct order is issued from the personal office of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill.

Step 2: The order is relayed past standard naval command straight to the Captain of the Lusitania as she approaches British waters.

Step 3: The luxury liner is commanded to reduce her speed off the Irish coast, placing her precisely within the active U-boat nexus.

This final directive flew in the face of all established naval protocols, which dictated that fast vessels must maintain maximum speed and zigzag to evade torpedoes. Internal Admiralty testimonies indicate that Churchill’s own aides confronted him, warning that slowing the ship would drastically increase the probability of an attack. His stern, unyielding reply was:

The order is mine; pass it on.

By confirming the military cargo, suppressing public warnings, intercepting the intelligence codes, and actively slowing the ship into the path of a known submarine, the incident shifts from the realm of tragic military negligence into the territory of deliberate facilitation – the engineering of a catastrophic trap.

Propaganda Mechanisms and the Dehumanisation of the Adversary

The moment the ship sank, the Allied media apparatus executed a meticulously prepared crisis management plan. Empirical military facts were instantly replaced with highly emotional, weaponised vocabulary. Overnight, headlines coalesced into a unified, thunderous battle cry: “The Barbarians Dare Again” and “The Hun Butchers Murder Mothers and Children”.

This wartime propaganda went far beyond mere reporting; it sought the total dehumanisation of the adversary – a psychological prerequisite required to prepare ordinary citizens to kill without guilt. The campaign succeeded brilliantly in shattering American isolationism. While Washington delayed its official declaration of war until 1917, the ghost of the Lusitania served as the emotional fuel and political legitimacy that President Wilson required to successfully market total war to Congress and an outraged American public.

From the Lusitania to the Twenty-First Century: Continuity of the Model

Deconstructing this history is not an exercise in mourning the ruins of the past, but an effort to extract the immutable structural rules of crisis engineering. It reveals that central planners and ruling elites treat mass casualties as mere cost variables in equations of global hegemony. This exact political blueprint has repeated itself across subsequent, well-documented historical milestones:

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident(1964): Washington claimed that an American destroyer fell victim to an unprovoked North Vietnamese assault. Declassified documents later exposed the attack as entirely fabricated and illusory, yet it served as the official pretext granted by Congress to launch full-scale military intervention in the Vietnam War.

The 9/11 Attacks (2001): Irrespective of the details heavily classified under absolute state secrecy, these attacks represented the ultimate modern “shock event.” It cleared the path for totalitarian domestic legislation like the Patriot Act and launched two decades of pre-emptive wars that redrew global energy maps and geopolitical borders at the cost of millions of lives.

The Economic Reality of Systematic Warfare

The ultimate umbilical cord linking engineered conflicts to the global order is forged in finance and credit. During the First World War, Great Britain funded its astronomical war effort by borrowing heavily from Wall Street, specifically the J.P. Morgan banking group. By 1916, British military debts to American banks had ballooned to exceed 10% of the entire United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

This massive financial exposure created an unyielding economic chain of events. The accumulation of military debts to the point of exceeding the 10% threshold automatically rendered an Allied victory an absolute matter of domestic national security for the United States. This was essential to protect the banking and financial system from total systemic collapse.

Consequently, America’s entry into the trenches was not a spontaneous, idealistic crusade to protect global democracy. It was an intervention emotionally brokered by the tragedy of the Lusitania to safeguard the investments of the financial elite on Wall Street and secure the ultimate repayment of British sovereign bonds.

Wars as Mass Intelligence Tests

Parroting official political narratives without subjecting them to rigorous geopolitical and critical analysis constitutes a failure of a collective intelligence test. The global financial and monetary elites who steer the international order do not view the world through the lens of sentimentality, national borders, or human cost; they view it through the prism of centralised control and the restructuring of financial systems via the controlled shocks of total war.

Reading the Lusitania incident provides the necessary lens to decipher our current global landscape. The very same archetypes that deployed print propaganda in 1915 are utilizing digital simulation models, viral pandemic narratives, climate emergency rhetoric, and modern energy blockades today to usher in a highly centralized financial and social order. As history repeatedly warns us, the capitulation of the masses to emotional propaganda is a blank cheque signed by the victims for their executioners, ensuring the repetition of the catastrophe in every age.

Featured image via Three Lions/Getty Images

By Mohammad Fakih

Source link