Politics
JD Vance vows to terrorise global economy
On 12 April, Donald Trump announced his latest plan to open up the Strait of Hormuz. As he said, if Iran wouldn’t un-block the strait, the US would…
…implement a blockade of its own.
So double-blocking it, essentially.
He planned to unblock it by double blocking it.
This was always a ridiculous plan, and now vice president JD Vance has made things worse:
Does he realize what he just admitted lol https://t.co/MXimzOk08k
— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) April 13, 2026
JD Vance announces United States of Terror
As HG reported for the Canary on 12 April:
Iran has blamed the US for the failure of the ceasefire talks in Islamabad, Pakistan. In response, and in true toddler fashion, ‘President’ Trump threatened a naval blockade if “Iran wont bend”.
How many global powers does it take to blockade the same strait?
That isn’t a joke; it’s a serious question we apparently need to ask.
The new move from trump against our country is so comical that we don’t even have a meme for it.
— Iran Embassy in Thailand ☫ (@IranInThailand) April 12, 2026
Why did the ceasefire fail?
Because it was supposed to be a ceasefire across the Middle East, including Lebanon.
Israel ignored this, however, and intensified the attacks on their northern neighbour.
In the clip above, Vance says:
When it comes to weapons of war, what they have done is engage in this act of economic terrorism against the entire world. They basically threaten any ship that’s moving through the Straits of Hormuz.
The US appears to be struggling to understand the consequences of their unprovoked attack on Iran – Iran retaliating via a blockade.
The US and Israel launched an illegal war against them, and now they’re doing what they can to prevent Iran collapsing in on itself like Libya or Syria.
Vance continued:
Well, as the President of the United States showed, two can play at that game. And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we’re going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.
If the US can understand this logic, they can understand why Iran closed the strait in the first place.
There’s a simple pathway to ending all this, and it’s to end the hostilities now.
That includes the hostilities carried out by Israel.
What’s going on?
The allegiance between the US and Israel is coming at increasingly greater costs – a staggering amount of money sent the way of the genocidaires, unending support, and a humiliating extended defeat to Iran.
At some point, America needs to tell them no.
According to vice president JD Vance, however, that day is not today.
And we’re all going to suffer as a result.
Featured image via Fox News
We live in profoundly risk-averse times. And this has had a tremendous impact on individual freedom. Every aspect is increasingly overshadowed by a concern over the seemingly adverse consequences of our actions. Every potential decision, right down to what we choose to eat or drink, is increasingly regulated by officialdom.
In this context, how do we start to re-make the case for individual freedom? The answer lies not in denying but in embracing the risks and the responsibilities that come with freedom.
There’s certainly a straightforward way to argue for the freedom to take risks, especially risks that don’t directly affect anyone else, and that is to see risk as a form of harm to the risk-taker. If smoking, or drinking excessively, or eating too many pies, harms me by increasing my long-term health risks, that’s my own business. If I bet my rent on a spin of the roulette wheel, and end up eating cold baked beans for a month, how does that harm anyone else? If I take up mountaineering, or motorcycle racing, or lion taming, and suffer life-changing injuries, I am the one who suffers harm, and therefore I should be free to do what I think best.
I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument taken from classic liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’, especially in this puritanical age. It’s important to defend our freedom to make choices about our own lives, small as well as large, even when others think they’re bad choices and not in our own interests.
Yet the negative impacts of an individual’s actions or even just their bad luck do extend beyond that individual. Financially, practically or emotionally, it’s almost impossible to think of a risk that doesn’t resonate somehow along the social bonds tying us together. To live as if each of us is, in John Donne’s words, ‘an island’ is neither possible nor, I would suggest, desirable. We are human by virtue of growing up in human society – our lives interwoven with other humans.
To argue that the authorities should keep their noses out of our riskier actions is not to deny this inescapable web of human connection. The question is not whether our actions have effects on others, but who should have the authority to criticise or constrain those actions. Is it those who are involved with us – practically, or emotionally – or public bodies with a blueprint for desirable lifestyles that we’re all urged to follow?
Governments and campaign groups may claim to have our best interests at heart, but they don’t in the way our family and friends do. People who know us understand that there is more to life than being healthy, safe and solvent. They can see positive, as well as negative, aspects of risk-taking – the potential rewards as well as the possible harms.
Public bodies, by contrast, tend to have population-level targets for us, the public, that don’t take into account harder-to-measure values such as pleasure, altruism, curiosity or autonomy. Preserving bodily health, financial stability and safety in general are almost moral imperatives in themselves today. The scope of Bessie Smith’s ‘Tain’t Nobody’s Bizness if I Do’ has shrunk so far that we can’t even be trusted to choose what we look at online, let alone what we do in the real world.
Putting oneself at risk is framed as an invitation to harm: at best, reckless and feckless; at worst, wantonly self-destructive. To take a risk is seen as irresponsible. I want to turn this argument around. Far from being irresponsible, taking risks is the only way to be a truly responsible adult. To live a life devoted to constraining uncertainty, minimising bad possibilities and maximising predictability, is to live as a child. It’s not only permissible to take risks – in fact, it’s intrinsic to being a moral agent.
There is a school of moral philosophy that is focussed entirely on the consequences of one’s actions: consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. To decide what to do, a good utilitarian tries to predict the outcomes of different courses of action, choosing the one that will probably lead to the best state of affairs for the greatest number of people affected.
I say ‘probably’, because it’s impossible to predict exactly how things will turn out. This leads to arguments about whether it’s better to minimise the worst harm that can happen, maximise the best possible outcome or calculate the ‘expected’ (average) outcome and follow the numbers. Then comes the question of what we mean by the ‘best’ state of affairs. Who gets to decide the measure of ‘best’? Utilitarianism, while neat in theory, is very tricky in practice.
Another school of moral philosophy, intentionalism, avoids these tricky questions by judging the intentions of the person who acts. If the intentions are good, but the action turns out to result in a bad state of affairs, the agent is still a good person. The German 18th-century philosophy Immanuel Kant is often credited with formalising this approach, by asserting that what matters most is a ‘good will’. Kant distinguished the moral universe from the cause-and-effect physical universe of our everyday experience. In the physical world, we are governed by physical laws, but in the moral universe individuals are capable of governing themselves, by choosing to act according to moral laws.
This idea of ‘pure’ agency – that we should be judged only by our intentions, not the outcomes of our actions – doesn’t quite match our everyday moral instincts. We can sympathise with the well-meaning person whose well-intentioned actions go wrong, but we don’t necessarily think that their ‘good will’ lets them off the hook.
Suppose you borrow my car to drive somebody to hospital. Unfortunately for you – and for me – when you bring it back you hit the gatepost. Who should be responsible for getting the car (and possibly the gatepost) repaired? Surely it’s you, because you were driving. Not only that, when you decided to take the car, you took on responsibility for its safe return.
Real life is full of examples like this: we take on projects, large and small, with varying degrees of uncertainty about how they will turn out. By initiating something new, we take on responsibility for seeing it through. This may involve unforeseen challenges. It may mean learning new skills we didn’t expect to need. It may bring new obligations that we didn’t anticipate.
I took a show about risk to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019. Early in the show, I would ask a random audience member, ‘What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?’. Several people answered, ‘getting married’. This always got a laugh (especially as that person was usually sitting with their spouse and sometimes children) followed by reflective silence.
Is getting married the same as a spin of the roulette wheel? That’s a cheeky thing to say about your life partner. Did you get lucky? Or have you tied yourself to a lifetime of snoring and being talked over at dinner? But marriage is not a spin of the roulette wheel. It’s not a single decision after which there is nothing to be done but sit back and wait for fate to take its course.
Marriage is an open-ended commitment to another person, ‘for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health’, without knowing what challenges the future will bring. You may acquire new obligations to children. You may have to find new strengths you didn’t know were in you, to cope with what life throws at you. Hopefully, you will also find new possibilities open to you, new opportunities that you could not have foreseen when you first said, ‘I do’.
Marriage is, in short, the kind of risk that responsible adults take, because we recognise that responsibility extends beyond our intentions, beyond what we can predict and beyond what we explicitly agree to take on.
Having children is another example. So is starting a business, setting in motion a political campaign, leading an expedition – anything new which needs others to make it happen is not a single risk, but an unfolding, branching series of risks that cascade from the first decision, committing you to a path that can’t be retraced if you regret choosing it. More decisions, more risks, more actions will be required of you along the way, each one causing outcomes you couldn’t predict but now can’t rewind.
Hannah Arendt, writing in The Human Condition (1958), calls this ‘the burden of irreversibility and unpredictability’, which is an inescapable part of human action. It’s inevitable that ‘he who acts never quite knows what he is doing… he always becomes “guilty” of consequences he never intended or even foresaw… no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of his deed, he can never undo it’.
Philosophical discussion of moral responsibility often includes the ‘control condition’ – the idea that one’s responsibility extends only as far as one’s control. Philosophers Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel introduced the idea of ‘moral luck’ to challenge this idea. Luck can, and does, affect our moral judgment of individuals and actions. A ‘good will’ is not enough: we judge people differently if their actions turn out to have better or worse consequences due to things beyond their control. The drunk driver who kills is condemned more harshly than the equally drunk driver who is lucky enough to encounter no pedestrian on the way home.
But, as Arendt points out, every worthwhile human enterprise involves factors beyond an individual’s control. Not only the vagaries of nature and the unknowability of the complex physical world, but the fundamental unpredictability of other people. ‘The fact that man is capable of the unexpected means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.’ Not even the most sophisticated computer imaginable could predict the future of the human world, because humans are free to transcend the deterministic laws of nature. We have a unique capacity to defy statistical probability with unprecedented actions that set new things in motion.
Because every significant project – from a marriage to a political campaign – needs more than one person to make it happen, it can never be under the control of a single individual, not even the person who set it in motion. This means that to act in any significant way, to set in motion anything that could influence the world, is to take a risk.
Freedom is not liberation from responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, but freedom to act in full acceptance of that responsibility. Freedom to act, that is, without being able to know for what, exactly, one will turn out to be responsible.
This is what philosopher Margaret Urban Walker calls ‘impure’ agency. We are human agents, ‘agents of, rather than outside, the world of space, time, and causality’, and our responsibilities outrun our capacity to control the world around us. If ‘pure agents’ really existed, says Urban Walker, and insisted that their responsibilities – moral and practical – ended at the limit of their control, they would be able to walk away from all unforeseen, unplanned or uncontrolled outcomes of their actions. ‘Relationships, situations and encounters in which emerge uncontrolled and uninvited needs, demands and opportunities to enable or harm’ would be no grounds for moral claims upon such ‘pure agents’.
We could not live together, trusting each other to assume the burdens of our web of human commitments, if everyone insisted on thus limiting their obligations to others. Dependability may not seem to be an especially glorious virtue, but, without it, society rapidly falls apart. Moral luck, far from being a curious paradox of interest only to philosophers, is ‘a fact of our moral situation and our human kind of agency’, Urban Walker writes. Recognising the reality of this situation is itself part of being a moral agent.
To children who act without understanding we say, ‘it wasn’t your fault, you didn’t know’, even when their actions have terrible consequences. Adults are expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, no matter how unforeseen. In our current, risk-averse society, our knowledge of this fact turns out to be a constraint on our willingness to act, to start new things, and to take on open-ended responsibilities.
All sorts of things that previous generations regarded as normal parts of life – relationships, children, starting a business or a voluntary community group – are now understood less as exciting opportunities but more as risky Pandora’s boxes of potential harm. Uncertainty about how things will turn out is regarded as a reason not to do them, in case they turn out badly.
When we do begin new things, we’re encouraged to do them in ways that minimise that uncertainty. Dating apps, for example, feel more controllable than just talking to strangers in a bar; potential partners are viewed through a screen and communication can be carefully crafted before sending. In person, spontaneous looks and words might betray our feelings and leave us emotionally vulnerable to another person’s actions.
There is a deep pessimism in this tendency to think about risk mainly in terms of harm, rather than opportunity. Embarking on a risky project is generally something we do because we hope for good outcomes, not bad. Underlying this pessimism is a lack of faith in our human ability to cope with uncertainty, to follow through with our responsibilities in unforeseen situations. This is consistent with the general trend to see adults more and more like children: too emotionally fragile to act rationally in upsetting situations; too immature to be relied upon when the going gets tough; vulnerable, not dependable.
No wonder we’re inclined to discuss risk as a state of impending harm from which we should all be protected, and not as a way of understanding action, as an integral part of human life.
What, then, should an adult who values freedom do about risk? It’s not a question of taking risks for the sake of danger. If you feel that doing more risky things will build your habit of courage, fine, but suddenly taking up mountaineering will do little to shift the infantilising, risk-averse mood in our society.
Instead, we need to take on the inherent risk that any worthwhile human enterprise entails, wholeheartedly, and with full acceptance of the moral responsibility that brings. As much as one can – and should – prepare for any project, plan ahead for potential problems and anticipate the unexpected, there will always be unforeseen challenges.
These are, what Urban Walker calls, ‘the decisive moral tests one did not invite… the faulty or horrifying results that one invited but did not control and that one is expected to find resources to address or redress without taking refuge in denial, demoralisation, or paralysis’.
It is our willingness to live up to our responsibilities at such times that is the real test of our integrity as moral agents. But that willingness to commit to a project in full knowledge of the risks involved, and live up to our responsibilities when the going gets tough, is also what constitutes real freedom to act in, and on, the world.
Timandra Harkness is a writer, performer and broadcaster. She is the author most recently of Technology is Not the Problem, published by HQ.
This is an edited version of a Letters on Liberty pamphlet, Risk and Responsibility, which can be purchased in full here. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for this and more.
Rupert Lowe launched his party Restore Britain earlier this year (Alamy)
5 min read
The University of York’s Restore Britain society is the first to be ratified at a Russell Group institution. PoliticsHome speaks to its president about how society hopes to help Rupert Lowe and why billionaire Elon Musk’s support for the party could be a “double-edged sword”.
When former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe launched his own party, Restore Britain, in February after falling out with Nigel Farage, there was scepticism that it could have a meaningful electoral impact. There was a belief that there was limited space for a right-wing, fringe party to have an impact as long as Nigel Farage’s Reform continues to lead the polls.
However, at this month’s local elections, there were signs that Restore Britain could prove to be a headache for Farage. Lowe’s party, which has hard-right policies like the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants and shutting down universities that “brainwash students into hating their own culture”, helped deny Reform a majority on Norfolk County Council by winning all 10 seats they contested in Great Yarmouth.
Looking ahead to next month’s crucial by-election in Makerfield, Labour activists in the northwest told The House magazine this weekend that Reform would be on course to defeat Andy Burnham were it not for Restore Britain’s participation. A Survation poll this week put Labour candidate Burnham in the lead on 43 per cent, with Reform’s Robert Kenyon close behind on 40 per cent. Restore Britain candidate Rebecca Shepherd was on 7 per cent.
Lowe, who has cultivated large followings on social media, is now seemingly building support at campus level.
Jared Allman, a second-year philosophy student at the University of York (UoY), is president of the university’s newly ratified Restore Britain society. The society was originally set up by Nye Gollings, who was previously president of UoY’s Reform UK society.
Allman, 22, whose favourite historical figure is French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (“he is the best military commander of all time”), told PoliticsHome that his support for Restore Britain comes from the belief that British people must “come back together and reaffirm their national identity”.
Other members of the society name Henry VIII’s executed chancellor Thomas More, Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, William the Conqueror and ancient copper merchant Ea-nāṣir as their favourite historical figures.
When asked whether it would not be more appropriate for his favourite historical figure to be British, Allman said: “That does make absolute sense, but if there were one that I thought was better than him, then I would have put him down.”
Currently, the society has about 25-30 members, the majority of whom, Allman admitted, are men, apart from “two or three female members”. In terms of the ethnicity of the group, Allman reckoned about five or six are “ethnic members”.
On the lack of women, Allman said: “That end of politics probably has a bad rap to it, and I feel like people perhaps just are intimidated…especially a woman, but I would absolutely love to get more female members, and that could be really beneficial to the society.”
York’s Student Union (SU) anticipated that the ratification, which gives a group training and funding opportunities, access to resources, and support from student union staff, would be so contentious that it published a full explainer on why the decision had been made, insisting it was “not an endorsement” and the organisation was “legally bound” to do so.
Unlike his predecessor, Gollings, Allman is not a former Reform UK member. He described Reform leader Farage as a “chameleon” who has done “nothing whatsoever” for his parliamentary constituency of Clacton since he was elected almost two years ago.
“I just like how Rupert Lowe’s not afraid to say it, and there really aren’t a lot of people that have a backbone and stand firm with what they say,” he told PoliticsHome.
“On the whole, the greatest issue facing our country is the cultural decline of England and its native people,” Allman told PoliticsHome, but insists he does not have a problem with international students on campus, as they have come to the country through legal routes.
York St John University, on the other side of the city, also has a ratified Restore Britain society. While other societies exist at universities across the country in Warwick, Durham, Bristol and London, they are not yet ratified. Allman said the society leaders keep in touch via a group chat.
Following the ratification, the SU received backlash from other university societies, culminating in a protest outside the SU building against the decision on 22 May. “I expected there to be more people,” Allman said, but described the atmosphere as “hostile”.
“I just find it ridiculous, not only the fact that they think they can suppress a view they disagree with, but also that they think the best way to go about that is to mob up and basically use intimidation tactics, lots of screaming through a megaphone, like lots of loud, sharp noise.”
Going forward, Allman told PoliticsHome he wants to take the society towards putting on “more intellectually-based activities” and bringing speakers and guests to the university. The group also has plans to travel to Makerfield to campaign for their candidate, Shepherd.
Musk, the controversial billionaire owner of X, has indicated support for Restore Britain in his inflammatory online commentary on British politics. Allman admitted that Musk’s support is a bit of a “double-edged sword”, telling PoliticsHome: “He’s got quite a bad reputation”.
“It’s good that he’s endorsing Restore, because he has got a large following, and he is the richest man on the planet, but he also has been accused of meddling with foreign affairs and foreign politics,” he said.
Portugal’s national team coach, Roberto Martínez, affirmed that Cristiano Ronaldo could be present at the 2030 World Cup, stressing that “no one should doubt” the team captain’s ability to appear in the next edition of the tournament.
Martínez’s remarks came during an interview with the Spanish radio station “Cadena SER“, where he explained that Ronaldo is currently preparing for the 2026 World Cup. This will be his sixth appearance in the history of the World Cup, a record he shares with Argentina’s Lionel Messi.
No one should doubt that. He deserves this,” Martínez said in his statement, referring to the possibility of the Portuguese star continuing until the 2030 edition, which will be co-hosted by Morocco, Spain, and Portugal.
On the international stage, the Portuguese captain has scored over 130 goals for his national team, cementing his status as the all-time top scorer in national team history, an unprecedented record.
The Portugal coach added that Ronaldo serves as an inspiring role model for young players, confirming that the technical staff sees him as an example of professional mentality and longevity, not just physical fitness.
Martínez continued, stating that Ronaldo is defined not by the titles he achieves or his daily routine, but by his constant “hunger” for development, noting that despite his great accomplishments, he maintains the same drive and desire to compete.
The legend of Ronaldo
Ronaldo holds a historic position in the World Cup, as he is the player with the most appearances in the tournament’s history, and he is the only player to have scored in five different editions of the World Cup, which further strengthens his exceptional international record.
Debate continues regarding the Portuguese star’s future with the national team, given that he is turning 41. However, Martínez’s statements reopen the door to the possibility of his career extending until the 2030 World Cup, by which time he will be 45 years old.
Cristiano Ronaldo has played 22 matches in his World Cup history, scoring 8 goals. The Portuguese star is looking to continue his career in the tournament to boost his tally of international appearances and pursue the record held by Argentina’s Lionel Messi, who tops the list of most World Cup appearances with 26 matches, in addition to scoring 13 goals across five editions of the tournament.
Featured image via Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
The 2026 World Cup will not just be another milestone in the history of the game; it could become the final chapter for some of the greatest stars who have left their mark on global football over the last two decades. While all eyes will be on the race for the title in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the tournament will also be an exceptional occasion to bid farewell to an entire generation of legends who built glory for their national teams and cemented their names in the history books.
The average age of these stars is about 37, and most have already participated in more than one World Cup, giving the upcoming tournament an exceptional character as a final opportunity to add a new achievement to their international careers. This sentiment was addressed by FIFA in an official report titled “The Last Dance”.
Messi and Ronaldo: Chasing the historic World Cup record
Leading the list of stars who might make their final World Cup appearance are Argentina’s Lionel Messi (aged 39) and Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo (aged 41). Both have participated in five previous editions: 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022.
Should the duo participate in the 2026 World Cup, they will reach their sixth tournament appearance, a nearly unprecedented historical record in the competition. This same milestone could also be achieved by Mexican goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa (aged 41), who has five previous appearances with his national team.
Close behind them is Croatia’s Luka Modrić (aged 40), who is preparing for his fifth participation after featuring in the 2006, 2014, 2018, and 2022 editions. Similarly, Germany’s Manuel Neuer (aged 40) will enter the tournament for the fifth time, having been one of the key stars in Germany’s 2014 title victory.
While Messi successfully completed his journey to global glory by winning the World Cup in Qatar 2022, Ronaldo is still searching for a major World Cup achievement to add to his exceptional career, which lends an extra historical dimension to their potential participation.
A golden generation closes its final chapter
The 2026 World Cup holds special significance for several stars from Europe and South America who have formed the backbone of their national teams in recent years.
Prominent on this list is Belgium’s Kevin De Bruyne (aged 35), who has played in three previous World Cup editions, and the Netherlands’ Virgil van Dijk (aged 35), who appeared in the 2022 edition and is preparing for his second participation.
Brazil’s Neymar (aged 34) will also enter the tournament after three previous appearances, and he is his national team’s all-time top scorer. Meanwhile, his compatriots Casemiro (aged 34) and Alisson Becker (aged 34) are preparing for their third participation, having featured in the 2018 and 2022 editions.
The list also includes Switzerland’s Granit Xhaka (aged 34) and South Korea’s Son Heung-min (aged 34), both of whom have participated in three previous editions. In addition, Colombia’s James Rodríguez (aged 35), the top scorer of the 2014 World Cup, is preparing for his third career appearance.
As for Bosnia’s Edin Džeko (aged 40), his national team’s all-time top scorer, he stands before a rare opportunity to appear in the World Cup again after his sole participation in 2014, marking one of the final major stops in his international career.
Salah and Mané: The last appearance for two African icons
On the African side, the upcoming tournament appears to be the last chance for two of the continent’s most prominent modern-era stars: Egypt’s Mohamed Salah (aged 34) and Senegal’s Sadio Mané (aged 34).
Salah is preparing for his second World Cup appearance after his debut in Russia 2018, having become one of the most prominent Arab and African football stars on the global stage in recent years.
Mané, conversely, enters the tournament after two previous appearances with the Senegalese national team. He was one of the key members of the generation that led the “Lions of Teranga” to win the Africa Cup of Nations title for the first time in the country’s history.
The participation of the duo lends a special dimension to the tournament, representing the continuation of an era that saw the rise of African football to the global forefront thanks to their achievements with their national teams and clubs.
With three players chasing a historic sixth appearance, two preparing for their fifth, and a large number of captains and top scorers who are past their mid-thirties or have reached forty, the 2026 edition is poised to be more than just a fight for the Golden Trophy. It is a tournament that may witness the curtain closing on the careers of an entire generation of stars who shaped the memory of modern football and left a legacy that will endure for many years.
Featured image via Luke Hales/Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
The Met Police is investigating a clip of an anti-genocide protester criticising actor Helen Mirren’s Zionism as a hate crime. Mirren is a supporter of Israel and who wants it to last “for eternity”, but is not Jewish. Zionism is a political ideology – one that is intrinsically racist, ethno-supremacist and, as shown everywhere around Israel, murderous.
View this post on Instagram
Mirren is not ethnically Jewish and is on record describing herself as an atheist. Contrary to media and pro-Israel narratives, many Jews are not Zionist. In fact, within a few years a majority of UK Jews will belong to communities that vehemently reject it, even leaving aside the horrors of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Met Police: See no evil — but call good ‘hate’
Meanwhile, the Met Police continues to ignore hate crimes against Muslims and Palestinians and their supporters — and even actual war crimes by British supporters of Israel. The force actively “peddles falsehoods” about the anti-genocide movement while turning a blind eye to the foulest racism spouted by far-right hate-marchers. Met Commissioner Mark Rowley has still not withdrawn his outright lies about peace march organisers trying to march near synagogues.
In the UK under politicians, lobbyists and enforcers that adhere to racist ideologies, good and evil all too easily – in fact routinely – have become inverted. White, privileged actors suffer ‘hate’, while actual hate directed at oppressed and murdered minorities drifts by ignored. And those who try to turn reality the right way up again are demonised as the problem.
Featured image via Leon Neal/Getty Images
By Skwawkbox
Politics
New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to boycott largest Zionist gathering in world outside of Israel
Mamdani — New York’s (NY) annual Israel Day Parade on Fifth Avenue is the largest gathering of Zionists in the world outside of “Israel”. It has been held annually in the city for more than 60 years, and will take place on 31 May.
Mamdani: “I’ve made my views on the Israeli government abundantly clear”
Tens of thousands are expected to attend the event as New York has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel. But for the first time in its history, the parade will go ahead without the City’s mayor attending. Zohran Mamdani is honouring the pledge he made last year on his campaign trail, and is boycotting the event.
The Socialist Muslim mayor said at a press conference on 28 May:
I said on the campaign trail that I wouldn’t be attending the parade, and I’ve made my views on the Israeli government abundantly clear.
The event is organised by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York (JCRC). They describe it as “a proud expression of Jewish identity and our enduring connection to the people of the State of Israel.” The Israeli occupation will send three ministers and 13 Knesset members to the parade. This, they say, will “send a message to New York’s Jewish community that the State of Israel is by their side.”
Mamdani says the Palestinian cause is central to his identity. He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. He also openly speaks out against the genocide in Gaza, and the Israeli occupation’s apartheid in the West Bank.
We pay our electeds with our tax $$$ to represent us but they go on paid-for trips to Israel.
We have 3 letters for them: #BDS
Every elected must be pressured to stand with Palestinians, oppose Apartheid & assert that the fight for dignity knows no exception.#FreePalestine pic.twitter.com/xczCuhTnyn — Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) May 12, 2021
Mamdani also said he would arrest war criminal Netanyahu should he ever set foot in New York while he is mayor.
Mamdani accused of antisemitism for choosing not to attend Israel Day Parade
Predictably, following Mamdani’s election win, Zionists in New York accused him of antisemitism. This was because he called out Israeli occupation crimes, and US involvement in these. He has demanded an end to “New York’s subsidies of settler crimes” — crimes which are carried out to forcibly displace Palestinians and ethnically cleanse the West Bank. And he has spoken of US “law enforcement” learning counterterrorism tactics from the Israeli occupation military and police. These exchange programmes are often initiated by Jewish Zionist organisations.
Protest group End Jew Hatred recently held a demonstration outside Mamdani’s home. They held placards which read:
“AntiZionism is not a political position. AntiZionism is a hate movement”
Mamdani is now being called antisemitic, due to his refusal to take part in the Israel Day Parade.
VIDEO: Thousands gather outside Gracie Mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, protesting New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The protest is organized by the End Jew Hatred organization. pic.twitter.com/pX3HEOyPJU — Breaking 4 News (@Breaking_4_News) May 27, 2026
New York State Assembly member, Michael Novakhov, spoke at the rally. He said:
We will not stay silent in the face of antisemitism, Communism, and the dangerous pro-terrorist rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani.
Estimated 30 million Christian Zionists in US
The NY Israel Day Parade 2026 theme is “Proud Americans, proud Zionists”. Christian Zionists in the US are thought to number around 30 million. This figure is higher than the number of Jews throughout the world. Most Zionists in the US are conservative Evangelical Christians, the American religious group most likely to favour “Israel”. This is because they view Jewish presence there and the rebuilding of the temple in occupied Jerusalem as essential for the second coming of Jesus.
A powerful network of billionaire-funded Zionist lobbying groups and religious extremists drives America’s devastating role in oppressing Palestinians. They are dedicated to the advancement of political Zionism. And by weaponising millions of dollars they ensure the US government remains complicit in apartheid and war crimes against Palestinians.
One of these Zionist lobby groups is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It wields huge legislative and political influence.
During the 2024 campaign trail, AIPAC, through its affiliated United Democracy Project, poured $100 million into supporting pro-Israel candidates and systematically targeting anti-Zionist ones. Those who spoke out for Palestinian liberation, called for a weapons embargo on the Israeli occupation, or opposed Zionist colonial expansion were targeted, smeared, and unseated.
By holding US politicians hostage to campaign donations, AIPAC guarantees a continuous flow of multibillion-dollar weapon shipments to “Israel”. These are then used in its countless war crimes around the Middle East, including occupied Palestine.
But public opinion about the terrorist state of Israel is changing in the US, as in the rest of the world. AIPAC’s role in American politics is becoming deeply controversial, especially with younger voters. Socialist, AIPAC critic, and Palestine rights advocate, Chris Rabb, was an outsider in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. But has just won, with 45 percent of the vote.
60 percent of US adults have an unfavourable view of “Israel”, up seven percent since 2025
A March 2025 poll from Gallup highlighted that only 46 percent of Americans support “Israel”. This is the lowest figure in 25 years of tracking. 33 percent expressed sympathy for Palestinians, a record high.
Recent polls confirm American support for the Zionist regime has fallen to historic lows. According to the Pew Research Centre, 60 percent of US adults have an unfavourable view of “Israel”. This figure is up from 53 percent in 2025. In those under the age of 50 the figure was 70 percent.
Another poll, from 2025, indicates that only 47 percent of Americans believe supporting Israel serves the US national interest. This figure has dropped from 69 percent in late 2023.
For decades, the political, financial, and ideological influence of Zionist advocacy went unquestioned in the US. And politicians showed unwavering support and loyalty to “Israel”. But the occupation’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, and apartheid system in the West Bank, has opened eyes. The blatant atrocities, lies, greed, and arrogance of the Zionist occupation are changing public consciousness.
Americans are now refusing to stay silent despite the influence of Zionist lobby groups such as AIPAC, and the inevitable “antisemitic” smear campaigns. This gives Palestinians hope for the future.
Featured image via Adam Gray/Getty Images
By Charlie Jaay
Now that Nicola Sturgeon is finally free of her gruelling MSP workload, which could give her anything up to two extra hours of spare time a week, she might like to start making a proper dent in the contents of her fully-loaded bookshelves.
(At least until they’re seized and sold under the Proceeds Of Crime Act.)
So we thought we’d offer up a few suggestions.
Sturgeon was of course always keen to promote Scottish authors (well, at least one Scottish author, anyway), and we’ve always been massive fans of thriller writer and big independence supporter Chris Brookmyre.
And as luck would have it, his catalogue covers a lot of her interests.
This one might remind her of her careful scrutiny of SNP finances.
This one rather speaks for itself.
She’s probably already familiar with this one.
And this one.
This one, named after the idea of failing to notice a slowly-developing perilous situation, features a secretly gay Scottish political figure called Peter, scandal in the Scottish Parliament and one of the protagonists going to prison. Fun!
This one will remind her of the exciting period in her life from 2010 to 2026.
Although now she’s got her licence she might want to take a break and get away from it all on the open road (just not in the campervan or the Jag).
But it’s probably safe to say she’ll identify most with this one.
And as for how this one turns out, we’ll all have to wait and see.
Have a lovely summer, Nicola. Try not to sweat too much. And remember – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Commanders of the UK military’s most elite special forces didn’t refer war crimes allegations to police, an inquiry has heard. The reasons they decided not to may astound our readers: an anonymous senior officer said that there were fears doing so might upset SAS troops.
The inquiry has been going on for several years. Current and former Special Air Service (SAS) personnel have been granted anonymity to give evidence. The inquiry concerns allegations that innocent Afghan civilians were murdered in 2011.
Some allegations suggest detainees were handcuffed before being executed. And that weapons seized elsewhere were placed on their bodies to frame the dead as terrorists.
As the Canary has reported:
One SAS squadron may have murdered up to 54 people in a single tour in 2011. The Unredacted website has a useful briefing on cover-up culture within special forces. Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) have also followed the inquiry closely.
New testimony emerged on 28 May. The BBC reported:
A former chief of staff of UK Special Forces has told a public inquiry he believed war crimes allegations against the SAS were not referred to military police out of concern an investigation could disrupt operations and negatively affect morale.
The former officer said that the fact allegations had come from a rival unit, the Special Boat Service (SBS), also shaped decision-making:
The officer, the second highest ranking in special forces at the time, said another factor in the decision was that evidence had in part come via a rival special forces regiment.
The BBC said the decision not to refer the allegations meant:
military police did not learn for years of special forces concerns that the SAS was carrying out extra-judicial killings and submitting falsified reports.
SAS — Internal review instead of police referral
The BBC reported:
Despite the severity of the allegations, the then-director of UK Special Forces decided in 2011 not to refer them to the Royal Military Police, instead commissioning an internal review into the tactics being used by the SAS.
The decision was controversial because every commanding officer in the British military has a legal obligation to alert military police if they become aware that someone under their command may have committed a war crime.
Details of that review beggar belief. It was led:
by a UKSF officer close to the SAS unit responsible for the raids under scrutiny and signed off by the commanding officer of the unit.
The SAS deemed the review completed in:
just a week and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The officer, known as N2252, said:
he believed the director had felt a military police investigation would take too long to deliver results, and that an internal review “could be done quickly” and would “send a signal” to those responsible for the troubling operations.
N2252 also told the inquiry that:
alerting the Royal Military Police to these concerns in 2011 would have interfered with the high tempo of SAS operations, at a time when the regiment was tasked with going after Taliban operatives and bombmakers responsible for laying IEDs.
The officer said:
You would take the sub-unit out, you would conduct the investigation and they would be thinking about the investigation and not on planning the next operation.
The outlet reported that N2252 felt that:
applying that kind of scrutiny to the SAS’s operations could have undermined trust within UK Special Forces, telling the inquiry that if headquarters had questioned the accounts given by troops “the message that will have gone back to them is ‘we don’t believe you’.”
Kay…
British military exceptionalism
Another former officer, known as N889, did concede to the inquiry that he had been naive about alleged false reports from the raids:
I totally accept, you know, all these years later looking back that perhaps one should have taken a slight harder view.
I maybe naively read this stuff, believed it and carried on.
The absolute cream of the British officer class right there.
As the Canary has reported:
Allegedly special forces chiefs blocked asylum claims for allies because they may have witnessed war crimes. In May, “files, disclosed by the Ministry of Defence in court on Thursday, show the unnamed UKSF officer rejected every application referred to him in the summer of 2023”. There were 1,585 cases.
The latest tranche of evidence suggests up to 80 people may have been killed. The then-president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai even intervened at one point. And Afghan troops allegedly refused to work with the British due to the allegations.
You can read more about the inquiry and allegations of UK special forces war crimes at Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) and Unredacted UK. Declassified UK have also reported on the issue — one allegation claims that SAS troops shot toddlers.
The inquiry, led by Judge Haddon-Cave, has no legal power. And its frame of reference is typically narrow. It is not clear when or what it will report. What does seem clearer by the day is that a culture of barbarism, impunity and cover-up came to exist in UK and allied special forces in Afghanistan.
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images
By Joe Glenton
COLUMBIA, S.C. — President Donald Trump endorsed three Republican gubernatorial candidates Friday, wading into contests in South Carolina, Iowa and Oklahoma that have pitted allies against each other in a fierce competition for their party leader’s blessing.
In a trio of social media posts, Trump gave his backing to South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra and former Oklahoma state senator Mike Mazzei as primary elections approach.
Iowa’s primary is Tuesday, South Carolina’s is on June 9 and Oklahoma’s is on June 16. All three states are having their first competitive Republican gubernatorial primaries in years.
For two terms, Evette has served alongside Gov. Henry McMaster, one of Trump’s earliest backers during his first presidential campaign. Earlier this year, the long-serving governor endorsed his No. 2, telegraphing to some that Trump’s backing could be next.
On Friday, Trump expressed both appreciation for Evette and the state she represents, noting that she stumped for him in 2024. He also said “A BIG added plus” for her campaign is that Henry McMaster Jr. — the sitting governor’s son — may be Evette’s running mate.
In the deep red state of South Carolina, the competition for the president’s support has been the most intense part of the primary race.
In a separate post, Trump described Feenstra as “MAGA all the way” and said he would “fight tirelessly” for the state on issues including the economy, border security and support of law enforcement.
Evette and Feenstra have been vocal about wanting Trump’s endorsement, in the hopes that it would carry weight in states that helped propel Trump’s return to office in 2024. Feenstra said earlier this year that he asked for Trump’s support, and much of Evette’s campaign media has featured photos of her next to Trump.
Along with Feenstra, four other Republicans — state Rep. Eddie Andrews, businessman and former conservative political director Zach Lahn, former state Rep. Brad Sherman and former director of the state Department of Administrative Services Adam Steen — are in the primary to replace outgoing Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who opted out of a third bid.
Evette is competing for the South Carolina nomination against Rep. Nancy Mace, Rep. Ralph Norman and state Attorney General Alan Wilson.
Mazzei is running to replace Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is finishing his second term. He’s competing against state Attorney General Gentner Drummond, former state House Speaker Charles McCall and former state public safety secretary Chip Keating.
“Mike Mazzei has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Governor of Oklahoma — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote on social media.
One privately-owned water company left thousands of people in south-east England dry and thirsty this week. This comes amid one of Britain’s hottest-ever May heatwaves.
South East Water, which covers much of Kent, left over 8,000 people without any tap water. The company claimed that nearby reservoirs at Whitstable were at a “critical level” due to “extremely high demand”.
The company’s six-figure CEO David Hinton stepped down from his position in early May over consistent failures, shortages and outages but will remain in-post
to allow an orderly transition over the summer period.
That and, presumably, to keep earning a slice of his lucrative £457,000 salary a wee bit longer.
In late December 2025, the Tunbridge Wells MP called for the CEO of South East Water to resign over further water shortages. So it’s clearly not just the heat that’s the problem.
Tragically, at least 11 people drowned whilst attempting to cool off this week at open bodies of water. This alone demonstrates just how devastatingly unprepared Britain is for climate shocks.
Sold debt-free in 1989. Today: £72bn in debt, ~£85bn extracted in dividends (FT/Ofwat), sewage in every river.
There’s a word for borrowing against an asset to pay yourself, then walking away from the wreckage. In ex-Soviet states we called it tunneling. In the UK we call it…
— Rory Wilmer (@inkbyteltd) May 27, 2026
Water privatisation: UK’s biggest scam
Since Margaret Thatcher’s governments privatised the majority of our water infrastructure, private water companies have paid out over £85b in shareholder dividends. They’ve invested relatively fuck-all.
By fuck-all, I mean a real-terms drop on investment of £5.5b. Meanwhile, corporate asset managers have piled debt onto the companies at over £60b. (See ‘Take Back Water’ for more info.)
They’ve liquidised our once-public assets, leveraged debt onto them, then often resold at immense profits. What do we have to show for it? Only recurrent national sewage scandals and misery.
Oh, but who could forget the rage-inducing TV drama!
Labour MP Clive Lewis rightly points out that water privatisation was a complete scam with no tangible benefits to the English and Welsh public. Scottish water, like most countries, remains publicly owned.
However, the man Lewis wished to sacrifice his own seat for — before journalist intimidator Josh Simons beat him to it — Andy Burnham has ruled out renationalising water. Burnham now wants to be PM.
Labour might be complacent, but Manchester Green Party has had enough of this:
Nationalisation.
No compensation! https://t.co/IcjasM8rju
— Manchester Green Party
(@McrGreenParty) May 28, 2026
So too has Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who’s regularly made scathing remarks about the sorry state of water privatisation. It’s a clear case study for insane capitalist profiteering at great public expense.
The Green Party supports re-nationalisation of water and major energy infrastructures. Alongside, of course, a speedy and just transition to renewable energy. (Ideally without the new green resource imperialism.)
That’s what’s needed to avert more unmanageable weather events and ensuing climate collapse. And these corporate pirate water companies deserve not a penny of compensation.
BBC panel speechless as Zack Polanski nails the utter state of the water companies
Compounding crises: heatwave capitalism
The heatwaves dominated the airwaves this week as Britain sweltered in intense sunshine. Many rightly pointed out that these temperatures were obscene for May, including the Canary.
Doubtless central to these intense, shifting temperature patterns is the decades-long breakdown of normal weather due to ongoing climate collapse. This is caused largely by vast quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion.
Meanwhile, No.10 squanders precious time for action suppressing studies on climate collapse and Tony Blair — backed by oily Gulf States and AI monopolists — urges Labour to “abandon net zero.” Too woke for Blair.
Likewise funded by fossil fuel lobbyists, hardcore anti-net zero Reform UK are wildly out of touch with public opinion on this urgent matter. Can anyone really be surprised? It is well hot, after all.
View this post on Instagram
Fossil fuels are overwhelmingly consumed by the world’s wealthiest percentile. Meanwhile, the working class and especially the Global South consume a fraction of their fuel, yet suffer the worst consequences.
This disaster, combined with the hyper-capitalistic exploitation of our invaluable water supplies for corporate profits, combines to create the problems we confront today. This week shows how clearly linked they are.
Add to these problems massive energy-hungry and water-thirsty AI data centres being erected around the UK and the world and you’ve got serious crises compounding. Will politicians assure us that data centres will be first to lose their access to clean water, before humans? Yeah, right.
The only way to confront these intertwined crises of water shortages, AI and the climate breakdown is to confront their root cause. Capitalist profiteering at common people’s expense must be ended. End of.
View this post on Instagram
No 10 suppressed key intelligence report on climate collapse
Featured image via Getty Images
Why We Should Walk Downhill More Often As We Age
Savannah Guthrie Reportedly Spends $500K on Private Investigators in Search for Nancy
Dare to be free – spiked
-
Business7 days agoNYT Strands Answers May 24 2026 Revealed for Puzzle No. 812 Theme Summer Essentials
-
NewsBeat4 days agoIsrael says it has killed new Hamas military leader in Gaza City airstrikes
-
Tech4 days agoNASA taps Blue Origin to deliver lunar rovers for Moon Base initiative
-
Politics6 days agoBridgerton Season 5: Cast, Release Date And Everything We Know So Far
-
News Videos4 days agoXRP *JUST* SUCCEEDED!!!! CLARITY ACT EXPOSED!!! (SHE EXPOSED IT)
-
Sports5 days ago2026 NBA Finals schedule, odds: Knicks await Thunder or Spurs after winning East
-
Business4 days agoSelena Gomez Reportedly Upset Over Benny Blanco’s Comments on Her ‘Terrible’ Diet
-
Crypto World4 days agoMicron Crosses $1 Trillion Market Cap as AI Demand Reshapes Memory Sector
-
Business6 days agoBTS Sells Out Four Las Vegas Shows at Allegiant Stadium for ARIRANG World Tour
-
Tech5 days agoChina assigns ID codes to 28,000+ humanoid robots
-
News Videos2 days agoThis is BROKEN! INSANE 5x MONEY CAR WASH WEEK! The NEW GTA Online UPDATE Today! (GTA5 New Update)
-
NewsBeat6 days agoHottest May day ever as London hits 34.8C in 2C leap from previous records
-
Tech6 days agoMicrosoft’s quiet Claude Code retreat and the real cost of enterprise AI
-
Crypto World6 days ago
Brian Armstrong Outlines Crypto Vision for the Future Financial System
-
Tech2 days agoWaymo dominates autonomous vehicle registrations as Tesla trails behind
-
Business5 days agoNikkei 225 Surges Past 65,000 for First Time as Iran Peace Hopes Fuel Record Rally
-
Tech4 days ago
The Samsung pay deal is the moment Korean unions changed register
-
Tech6 days agoWestone Audio and Etymotic Acquired by Fidelity Collective in Major IEM Market Move
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘Breaking Bad’ Star’s Easy-to-Binge 6-Part Crime Series Spin-Off Is Finally Heading to Free Streaming
-
Tech4 days agoMillions of AI agents imperiled by critical vulnerability in open source package
You must be logged in to post a comment Login