Irexit Freedom: A Party to get behind

From the Irexist Freedom Manifesto:

1. NAME: Irexit Freedom

(in Irish: Eire Amach: Cumann na Saoirse ) Colloquially: Irexit Freedom to Prosper

2. OBJECTIVES:

“Irexit Freedom” is a national movement of the Irish people and a political party with the primary objective of re-establishing the national independence and sovereignty of Ireland and restoring its national democracy by leaving the European Union and thereby taking back control by the Irish People of our law-making, our citizenship, our currency, our trade policy, our borders and immigration policy, our taxation and budget policy, our sea-fisheries and marine resources, our human rights under the Irish Supreme Court, our foreign and security policy and maintaining a meaningful military neutrality.

Irexit Freedom positively desires and supports all democratic endeavours to achieve the consent of the voters of Northern Ireland for a re-united and independent Ireland under the control of the Irish people and not that of London or Brussels.

Irexit is necessary to prevent a second Partition of Ireland being implemented by the addition of new EU dimensions to the North-South border and the consequent creation of major new obstacles in the way of securing consent to future Irish reunification.

The secondary objectives of Irexit Freedom will be contained in the thrust of these principles below:

• We believe in a society of liberty with a free and diverse media which supports free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.
• We believe in reduced taxation on Irish citizens and less wasteful government spending.
• We believe in a progressive tax system rewarding work, initiative and merit.
• We defend the separation of powers in the State and oppose the political / media hegemony that allows political and institutional corruption to flourish.
• As no nation has a future without children, as a patriotic party we are pro-natalist and supportive of stable families for the procreation, education and rearing of children.
• We believe in the equality of all Irish citizens before the law, oppose racism and the dominance of public policy by vested interests and privileged “golden circles”.
• Wishing to tackle corruption in key governmental institutions including the Gardai and our judicial and political systems, we believe that there must be legal and financial sanctions that penalise those involved in a culture of corruption and incompetence.
• As Irish people have no land to call their home but Ireland, we believe in the protection of the Irish language, culture and the natural environment. We hold that Ireland is our home, not an economic hostel, and that the Irish diaspora has a special part to play in building up our country.
• We believe that Ireland’s natural and financial resources should be utilised for the betterment of the life of the Irish people.
• We believe that the Irish people should have the right to control our money, our laws and our borders.
• We believe that no institution or government except Dáil Éireann should make the national laws or approve the budget applicable to the people of Ireland.
• We hold that the power to implement democratic change should be returned to the Irish people from the European Union and we are supportive of direct democracy including referenda for important public decision-making to the greatest practicable extent in our constitutional democracy.

“Irexit Freedom” is a national movement of the Irish people and a political party with the primary objective of re-establishing the national independence and sovereignty of Ireland and restoring its national democracy by leaving the European Union and thereby taking back control by the Irish People of our law-making, our citizenship, our currency, our trade policy, our borders and immigration policy, our taxation and budget policy, our sea-fisheries and marine resources, our human rights under the Irish Supreme Court, our foreign and security policy and maintaining a meaningful military neutrality.

Irexit Freedom positively desires and supports all democratic endeavours to achieve the consent of the voters of Northern Ireland for a re-united and independent Ireland under the control of the Irish people and not that of London or Brussels.

Irexit is necessary to prevent a second Partition of Ireland being implemented by the addition of new EU dimensions to the North-South border and the consequent creation of major new obstacles in the way of securing consent to future Irish reunification.  

Visit: https://www.irexitfreedom.ie/Contact: info@irexitfreedom.ie

The Media Lies: And Does Little Else

The first casualty of war is the Truth.  From this first victim are spawned all the victims which follow.  Every death, every dispossession, every foul destruction of humanity; all stem from the initial lie. But what if the lie should be discovered?  What if the reasons for war are exposed as fictions?  The first casualty must be butchered repeatedly until mere mention of the truth is heresy.  Not only must the Truth be denied in the first instance; it must be defiled to the point where history itself is rewritten to erase any questions as to the validity of the new reality; a reality born of the war-mongers fiction.

In Europe, warfare gradually evolved into a game of the Establishment, with rules of combat and a surreal etiquette concerning the conditions in which human life could and could not be taken.  Of course, the people giving the orders ensured their own safety at all times and let ordinary soldiers do the killing and dying.  Behind the official romantic imagery of gentlemanly war, the reality was very different.  For all the prancing around in military uniform, the days of the Ruler leading his men into battle are but a page in distant history.

Warfare is nothing new.  However, it is only in recent times that the propaganda justifying acts of brutality has become so pervasive.  Before the advent of the printing press, most people could not read.  The extension of literacy to include the majority of people came about through economic necessity.  As the people were reduced to the level of cogs in the machinery of the English, (and later British), Empire, literacy was needed to facilitate efficient commerce across previously unthinkable distances.  The education of the new merchant classes inevitably trickled into the population as a whole, and with this widespread popular ability to read, came the opportunity to shift population control from pure barbaric force, to the more subtle, yet more dangerous level, of mind-control through propaganda.

We are told today that George III alienated the British in the North American colonies, due to being afflicted with porphyria which he may have contracted from his sexually diseased mother.  If this tale is true, then according to the touchy-feely liberals, he cannot really be blamed for the deaths of Britons on both sides during the American Revolutionary War.  The spotlight on George III conveniently absolves the Establishment's pocket media for dehumanising Britons across the Atlantic Ocean, in order to justify incredible acts of terror against ordinary civilians.

Whether George III was mad, or evil (or both), it is now clear that the War for Independence was a farce.  In reality the patriotic movements in the 13 colonies were infiltrated by the Freemasonic Founding Fathers who ensured the continuation of the power of the Crown and the City of London.  Thousands died and outrages against civilians went unreported.  The Establishment media continue to hide the role of the Founding Fathers as tools of the very same Crown which the colonists fought to free themselves from.  Instead they focus on the mental well-being of British Head of State; who we are told was bound by Westminster and therefore had no influence over the actions of Government in the home of liberal democracy!  See how the media fables discredit one another? Yet no one notices.

Following the slaughter of our own people in the American Revolutionary War, focus shifted onto the War to capture Europe - focus, that is, on fake war crimes of the Napoleonic forces.  The modern notion of prosecuting leaders from the losing side came to the fore in the arrest of Napoleon.  The media campaign against Bonaparte was so relentless that even today children are told that if they are bad the Bogeyman will get them.  The term Bogeyman was invented by the British media; Bogey, deriving from Boney as in Bonaparte.  It is amusing, that the great Emperor is now known in the USA as the Boogeyman, conjuring images of a 1970's disco dancer; hardly the child-eating leader of Imperial France!

Victors' Justice does not only apply to those defeated in war; it applies equally to those oppressed by despotic regimes.  Propaganda against the Irish was so successful that the London regime of William Stadholder was able to murder vast numbers of Irishmen in their own country, to the cheer of Working Class Englishmen who had everything to gain by rising up in defence of their Irish cousins and securing freedom for all.  Instead they hailed the persecutions and paved the way for their own suffering; which duly followed.  Two centuries later, the British again butchered the Irish, this time stealing the food of our kin across the Irish Sea, leading to terrible loss of life through deliberate Establishment-created starvation.  The English of the 17th and British of the 19th centuries said nothing about the cruel and unforgivable horror of the Great Hunger.

Persecution of civilians is a tradition of the British Establishment.  One of the most notorious examples of the anti-human policies of the London terrorists came in the War in Southern African, which we know as the Boer War.  Boer is the Afrikaner word for farmer, and should be pronounced to rhyme with fur.  The mispronunciation of the word 'boer' deliberately associates the Dutch farming folk with pigs (boars), and makes them seem less than human.  The atrocities of the British Establishment against the North American Britons and the Irish, must not be seen to be diminished by comparison with the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the London despots against the Dutch farmers in the south of Africa.  The unique aspect of the barbarity in the Afrikaner lands was the total war against men women and children. 

Under the direction of the Kitchener and Baden-Powell (founder of the monarchy-loving Boy Scouts), food, cattle, buildings and land were stolen from the Afrikaners or destroyed; all to maximise their suffering and undermine resistance to the British imperialists.  The media like to harp on about Concentration Camps in Second World War Europe, but never mention that they were an invention of the British Empire.  The Dutch settlers rounded up by the British were beaten, starved, raped and murdered; the victims including old folk and babies.  The media reported the actions of the British in the Boer War as heroic; they were not heroic, they were shameful.

The controlled media is used to push lie after lie,  However, on rare occasions the media dare to speak the truth.  The most recent example of this (and possibly the last) resulted in the closure of the News of the World in 2011.  It was closed by the State for eaves-dropping on the Establishment.  The media continue to tap telephones and intercept emails, letters, isp information etc.  The News of the World made the mistake of tapping the 'wrong' people.  The media is referred to as the fourth estate, but far from being a collection of autonomous entities, the media form a single unit, controlled by the State.  There is no free press in the UK, other than lone activists who operate outside the mainstream and increasingly find themselves squeezed by ever-more draconian censorship.  We may as well 'publish and be damned' if staying wholly within the law requires self-censorship to the point of deception.

The media have excused atrocities, blamed the victims, or simply ignored the crimes of the Establishment.  The following are but a few examples, and many, many more could be added:

• Bloody Sunday - Irish civilians murdered by the State in cold blood; the murderers reported as heroes acting in self-defence.
• General Belgrano - Argentine wounded returning home, sank by Royal navy terrorists; hailed as a glorious victory.
• Sepoy Mutiny - Indians tied to canons and blown to smithereens; reported as necessary to maintain order.
• Great War 'over the top' trench warfare - hundreds of thousand killed for no reason; presented as intelligent strategy, bolstered by lies of non-existent German war crimes.
• Coverage of Israel - made up attack on Israel presented as facts, real massacres of Palestinians by Israel white-washed (and the Racist, Apartheid state referred to unquestioningly as the only democracy in the Middle East)
• 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Central African Republic, Syria, Ukraine, Serbia.....

How much longer will the people swallow the lies of the media?  The Establishment are barbarians who have committed the most unimaginable horrors against humanity, at home and abroad. The media have lied for them, even blaming the victims. 

In the long build up to war against Iran, the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) made the decision that the Iranian TV station, PressTV, had to be taken off air in the UK.  This blatant censorship of information would provoke crocodile tears of outrage if it was carried out by a foreign government.  Yet this proof that we live in a Police State did not become major news in the UK; obviously because the media as a whole are a part of the machinery of the Police State itself. 

It is part of the task of the SMPBI to act as a voice against the censors and the media liars.  The BBC are notorious stooges of the State, but so are the likes of the Huffington Post, Jewish Chronicle, etc, which are even now slandering/libelling Jeremy Corbyn as a racist, for speaking openly against the racism of the Zionist regime in Occupied Palestine.

If anyone questions the need for Revolution, the proof is in the dictatorial nature of government and the willing brutality of the media distorters who wage war on reality every day, even daring to label any trace of truth as 'fake news'.

The Abortion of Ireland's Future is a Crime of Global Capitalism

George Soros is a sick and twisted individual. But more than this, he is the face of the Global Ruling Class.  Wherever there is something wrong on a national and global level, the Soros Foundation is nearly always involved.  The Irish Abortion Referendum is no exception.

In Ireland, the people were given a 'referendum', with the media using every programme, 'news' item etc to create the idea that if the people voted to keep the 8th Amendment, then it would be misery for Women in Ireland, and that if they voted to repeal it, suddenly the world would be a better place.  The 8th Amendment protected unborn Irish children and encouraged men and women to be aware of the consequences of a hedonistic lifestyle. 

The result of the referendum is to 'normalise' abortion in Ireland. Now, just as in the UK, unborn children can be murdered because they are an inconvenience. The justification for killing children is that they get in the way of a 'career', a 'lifestyle' or any other irrelevance.  The despicable Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, is crowing that just like in the UK, Ireland will now be free to slaughter at will, which will reduce the Irish population and allow the likes of Varadkar to use this to globalise the country as the fall in population necessitates an influx of new people: people with no allegiance to Ireland; people who have a global identity; people who are pawns in the capitalist war against sovereignty.

The result today is a disgrace. The Globalist Taoiseach is cock-a-hoop at the fact that Ireland has lost an extremely important defence against Globalism.  Ireland's children have lost their rights to life.  The media on both sides of the Irish Sea are painting this as a 'historic victory' - but for whom is it a victory?  Not for Children, not for Families, not for Women. It is a 'victory' for the destroyers of sovereignty, for the abortion industry, for the cell stem Burke and Hare scientists, for all who can profit from the use of dead babies and from the consumerist lifestyles which require abortion on demand. 

Today is a sad day for Ireland.  The real victories of the 1916 Easter Rising, the formation of Eire, the great patriotism of James Connolly, the Revolutionary zeal of the Irish Citizens Army, the hope for an Irish Future - all these have been betrayed by a regime led by the enemy of Ireland, Leo Varadkar, and those who have paid him well to sell the unborn children of the nation to the butchers of capitalism.

Ireland and Britain need to unite to overthrow the scum in the Dáil and Westminster, and to honour the words and deeds of the Revolutionary Patriots who fought against the Global Ruling Class.  Let Varadkar's victory be short-lived, and a lasting Revolution sweep across the Isles with the blood of the enemies of the Working Class, not the blood of the unborn.

Royal Wedding? A Parasitic Celebration Paid for by Us

Even though the majority of the people of the Isles are bored rigid by the 'royal wedding' of Meghan Markle and Harry Whodunnit, the media are pushing the wedding of a pampered posh-lad and an actress (who is acting the role of her life to get her snout in the trough) as if it matters to the entire world!  The only part of it that matters to the Working Class is the cost - which we will have to pay through taxation, even though the groom is part of the Ruling Class family which has more money than many entire nations.

At this occasion, it is worth re-visiting the great Patriotic Socialist, James Connolly, in a speech he made on the visit of George Windsor (not related to Harry, but Great-great Grandfather of Harry's half brother, William) to Ireland in 1911.

5 years after making the following speech, although mortally wounded fighting for the People, he was judicially murdered by the regime of George V for the 'crime' of wanting to be free.  What he said was correct in 1911, and is correct now; What he did in 1916 was heroic, and even though under the Taosieach, Leo Varadkar, his courage is spat on through the deliberate crushing of the Irish Working Class, it remains an inspiration.  Bring on the Republic!

Fellow-Workers,

As you are aware from reading the daily and weekly newspapers, we are about to be blessed with a visit from King George V.

Knowing from previous experience of Royal Visits, as well as from the Coronation orgies of the past few weeks, that the occasion will be utilised to make propaganda on behalf of royalty and aristocracy against the oncoming forces of democracy and National freedom, we desire to place before you some few reasons why you should unanimously refuse to countenance this visit, or to recognise it by your presence at its attendant processions or demonstrations. We appeal to you as workers, speaking to workers, whether your work be that of the brain or of the hand – manual or mental toil – it is of you and your children we are thinking; it is your cause we wish to safeguard and foster.

The future of the working class requires that all political and social positions should be open to all men and women; that all privileges of birth or wealth be abolished, and that every man or woman born into this land should have an equal opportunity to attain to the proudest position in the land. The Socialist demands that the only birthright necessary to qualify for public office should be the birthright of our common humanity.

Believing as we do that there is nothing on earth more sacred than humanity, we deny all allegiance to this institution of royalty, and hence we can only regard the visit of the King as adding fresh fuel to the fire of hatred with which we regard the plundering institutions of which he is the representative. Let the capitalist and landlord class flock to exalt him; he is theirs; in him they see embodied the idea of caste and class; they glorify him and exalt his importance that they might familiarise the public mind with the conception of political inequality, knowing well that a people mentally poisoned by the  adulation of royalty can never attain to that spirit of self-reliant democracy necessary for the attainment of social freedom. The mind accustomed to political kings can easily be reconciled to social kings – capitalist kings of the workshop, the mill, the railway, the ships and the docks. Thus coronation and king's visits are by our astute never-sleeping masters made into huge Imperialist propagandist campaigns in favour of political and social schemes against democracy. But if our masters and rulers are sleepless in their schemes against us, so we, rebels against their rule, must never sleep in our appeal to our fellows to maintain as publicly our belief in the dignity of our class – in the ultimate sovereignty of those who labour.

What is monarchy? From whence does it derive its sanction? What has been its gift to humanity? Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery upon the human race in the darkest and most ignorant days of our history. It derives its only sanction from the sword of the marauder, and the helplessness of the producer, and its gifts to humanity are unknown, save as they can be measured in the pernicious examples of triumphant and shameless iniquities.

Every class in society save royalty, and especially British royalty, has through some of its members contributed something to the elevation of the race. But neither in science, nor in art, nor in literature, nor in exploration, nor in mechanical invention, nor in humanising of laws, nor in any sphere of human activity has a representative of British royalty helped forward the moral, intellectual or material improvement of mankind. But that royal family has opposed every forward move, fought every reform, persecuted every patriot, and intrigued against every good cause. Slandering every friend of the people, it has befriended every oppressor. Eulogised today by misguided clerics, it has been notorious in history for the revolting nature of its crimes. Murder, treachery, adultery, incest, theft, perjury – every crime known to man has been committed by some one or other of the race of monarchs from whom King George is proud to trace his descent.

We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.

Fellow-workers, stand by the dignity of your class. All these parading royalties, all this insolent aristocracy, all these grovelling, dirt-eating capitalist traitors, all these are but signs of disease in any social state - diseases which a royal visit brings to a head and spews in all its nastiness before our horrified eyes. But as the recognition of the disease is the first stage towards its cure, so that we may rid our social state of its political and social diseases, we must recognise the elements of corruption. Hence, in bringing them all together and exposing their unity, even a royal visit may help us to understand and understanding, help us to know how to destroy the royal, aristocratic and capitalistic classes who live upon our labour. Their workshops, their lands, their mills, their factories, their ships, their railways must be voted into our hands who alone use them, public ownership must take the place of capitalist ownership, social democracy replace political and social inequality, the sovereignty of labour must supersede and destroy the sovereignty of birth and the monarchy of capitalism.

Ours be the task to enlighten the ignorant among our class, to dissipate and destroy the political and social superstitions of the enslaved masses and to hasten the coming day when, in the words of Joseph Brenan, the fearless patriot of '48, all the world will maintain:

'The Right Divine of Labour
To be first of earthly things;
That the Thinker and the Worker
Are Manhood's only Kings.

Some more critical historical questions relating to the Brexit debate - Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections:


Part 1. Some more critical historical questions relating to the Brexit debate

Questions: how would either Brexit or remaining in the EU bring us one millimetre closer to true socialism or even real national sovereignty? Does anyone seriously believe that any party in the UK Parliament, pro- or anti-Brexit, has any more interest in controlling immigration than Germany or the EU? Why was the UK under Blair one of the few EU countries, besides Ireland and Malta, that did NOT impose a transition period before accepting migrants from ex-Soviet states such as Romania or Poland? The answer is ‘the elephant in the room’: Jewish influence and the taboo on talking about it - the ‘Jew taboo’ in talking of Jewish supremacism. Britain is not a democracy: it is an oligarchy. The most influential component of this oligarchy is Jewish, and if Jews opposed Third World immigration it would not be happening. And according to Theresa May “Jewish values will prevail.” But what of Blair’s Jewish immigration Minister - Barbara Roche.

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 in 2011: The most incredible revelations [about New Labour’s conspiracy] concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK. … Like [Jack] Straw, Blair was careful never publicly to mention the rising number of immigrants from India and Pakistan who could now enter Britain. Nor did he consider how to provide housing, schools and healthcare for an additional 300,000 people arriving a year. Least of all did either of them question whether the immigrants would have any effect on the lives of the British working class. (Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that 23 British workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.) Could this chicanery get any worse? It did — with the appointment of Barbara Roche as Junior Immigration Minister. Blair’s only instruction to her was to deport bogus asylum seekers. But Roche wasn’t playing. ‘It was clear Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain,’ recalled Stephen Boys-Smith, the new head of the immigration directorate. ‘She didn’t see her job as controlling entry, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’ Jack Straw never openly contradicted Roche — it simply wasn’t worth the risk of alienating the Labour Party. So she set to work on a speech, in which she outlined the advantages of reducing controls to immigration and portrayed asylum seekers as skilled labour. She didn’t discuss what she was going to say with Straw. …‘Well done, Barbara,’ Blair told Roche soon [after the speech]. Despite its controversial content, her speech passed relatively unnoticed. But migrants quickly grasped its importance and passed the news on to their friends and family across the world. Labour was letting more people in, they told them, and — unlike other European countries — Britain would provide benefits and state housing. … One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most … would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

See also: http://www.unz.com/article/wicked-muslims-innocent-jews/

As regards refugees from Syria, American Jews and Jewish organisations united around the idea that they were victims of some sort of Syrian Hitler - Assad. As a result they encouraged America to eventually let in the grand and generous total of 10,000 Syrian refugees - completing forgetting that it was precisely America and Israel - and not Germany, which is where the majority of refugees ended, who were responsible for their plight.

Eleven Jewish organisations joined another 70 groups in pleading with Congress to keep open the Obama administration’s program, which would allow in 10,000 refugees over the next year from among the 200,000 to 300,000 in Europe. Among the signatories were mainstream bodies like the the Reform movement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the National Council of Jewish Women, as well as HIAS, the lead Jewish body dealing with immigration issues, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for Jewish public policy groups.

If the EU broke down tomorrow and we would have a new ‘Europe of Nations’, each of them imposing strict immigration controls and regulations - as Austria has now also done - how would even this bring us closer to socialism or true national sovereignty? For the fact is that most of the European parties or governments pursuing this goal are:

1. in hock to the Jewish-dominated global monetary system.

2. bow down to and pledge fealty to Israel - whatever it does.

3. pursue neo-liberal economic policies aimed at reducing state spending of the sort and promoted first by the Milton Friedman, and then by Thatcher and Reagan - not the EU.

4. strong supporters, like Poland, of the NATO-Atlanticist alliance which, through the Zionist neocons in the White House, first created the flood of internal and external refugees through US wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Syria.

As well as Hungary and the Czech Republic, the new Austrian government bows to Israel:

During the recent (2017) Austrian election campaign, “the ruling Social Democratic Party of Austria (called SDO for short) imported an Israeli dirty-tricks master, a macher in Yiddish, Tal Silberstein, to besmirch its [anti-immigration] adversary Sebastian Kurz.The idea was that the Austrians will get cold feet and run away from Kurz. Kurz figured this out and asked the Facebook moderators to stop it. Usually you do not have to ask FB twice to stop Nazi stuff. Kurz was lucky as Silberstein had been arrested in Israel for corruption-related offences. After that, the FB unplugged its ears and removed Silberstein’s created pages and groups. This was sheer luck: if he were arrested elsewhere, he would be considered a victim of antisemites, and his nasty web would remain intact. So the attempt of Silberstein to frame Kurz as an antisemite had failed, up to a point. He anyway continued to smear another Austrian politician as a Jew-hater. That was the ‘far right’ FPO [Austrian Freedom Party] leader Heinz-Christian Strache. The end of the story may comfort us: the Austrians preferred these two parties, Kurz List and FPO, despite the alleged antisemitism, and punished SDO, the kosher party. However, before celebrating let us see the downside of this wonderful event. In order to extricate themselves and their parties from the Jewish smear, the two leaders swore loyalty to Israel. They went (separately) to Israel, took photo-op with PM Netanyahu and at the Holocaust memorial, they spoke endlessly how much they adore and appreciate Israel. The antisemitism accusation is a win-win proposition for Jews. If a politician doesn’t do what the Jews want, they call him antisemite, and he (a) does what they want, and/or (b) swears fealty to Israel. In case (a) he is a liberal, in case (b) he is a nationalist. In both cases, Jews win.” from Antisemitism Weaponised www.unz.com

Similarly, although Hungary banned billionaire financier George Soros, it’s still business as usual for the banksters: https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/hungary Viktor Orban went on to promise Netanyahu “zero-tolerance for anti-Semitism”. And according to Netanyahu, “Israel has no better friend in Europe than the Czech Republic”.


Question: What does it mean, besides mere words, for a country to “declare independence” or say that it is “taking back control” - whether through leaving the EU or by plotting a supposedly independent course within it. Does this not beg the basic question: declaring independence or taking back control from what or whom - if not from the parasitic international banking system? And is it any accident that the EU migration chief in 2015 was non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International, and affirmed the Kalergi agenda in no uncertain terms:






Further questions in this context:

What possible reason obligates a Corbyn, like most Tories and many other Labour MPs, to become a ‘Friend of Israel’? Does this not lend credibility to the term ‘ZOG’ - Zionist Occupied Government?

And again, why are those European countries, parties, governments and leaders who most oppose the Islamisation of Europe ‘the best friends of Israel’ - and vice versa? Voltaire’s answer: “Ask whom you cannot criticise and you know who rules you.”

But this question is not asked. Instead opponents of Islamisation in Europe ignore all those facts that point to the main instigator of ‘Islamisation’ being none other than Israel itself.

Fact 1: Israel and its neocon Zionist agents in the White House were chiefly responsible for the US wars of aggression in Iraq and the Middle East which first gave rise to the refugee crisis.

Fact 2: Israel gave and still continues to give military support to Islamic terrorism in the form of ISIS, even to the extent of bombing Damascus and the Syrian army.

Fact 3: Zionist jews actively promote an ‘open borders’ policy in Germany, Sweden, the UK and elsewhere in Europe. See the words of Barbara Lerner Spectre below, who though she is an Israeli national, has the support of the Swedish government in promoting immigration:




See also report on Rabbinical support for the Islamisation of Europe: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

Fact 4: Israel benefits from the rise of ‘anti-Semitism’ stemming from Arab immigration - because this distracts attention from its own genocidal war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, its ambitions for a ‘Greater Israel’ and its warmongering policy toward Iran. Yaron London, an Israeli journalist, wrote that if Trump’s America’s can be made to “hate Arabs more than they hate Jews”, it would be a “good deal”.

Fact 5: rather than using the full force of the law to stop rampant crimes and also sexual attacks on European women in Sweden, Germany and the UK (not a single victim of which has been Jewish) both Britain and Germany are introducing new laws against so-called anti-Semitic ‘ ‘hate crime’.

Fact 6: even if uncontrolled immigration does lead to a rise in anti-Semitism, this would not prevent Jews returning to Israel. But it is more likely to fuel a violent civil war - itself a convenient excuse to impose a form European martial law on the nations of Europe.

Fact 7: Count Kalergi, founder of the Pan-European movement whose 1925 book laid the programmatic basis for the present EU, was funded, with the help of the Rothschild family by the Wall St. banker Max Warburg and believed that Jews would be the new ruling elite in a Europe whose population would be transformed into a mixed “Negroid-Eurasian” race.



Fact 8: Jewish supremacism is not a conspiracy but a fact. Zionist jews control Hollywood, almost all the major US media, the hi-tech internet giants like Google, Wall Street - and, last but not least, the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. As for the EU, Mario Draghi, head of the ECB, was vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs. And Emmanuel Macron was a Rothschild investment banker. And already in the 18th century they had financial control over America, a control they fought ruthlessly to maintain in the face of resistance from both Lincoln and the Southern states - and which culminated in the secret but successful plot to create a Jewish-controlled private central bank - the Federal Reserve - in 1913,

‘Globalisation’ is simply the monetary and political form taken by Jewish supremacism.
How can any country simply ‘declare’ political sovereignty from the global monetary system, for example through Brexit, unless it first of all reasserts - as Lincoln did, as Germany did in the thirties, and as Kennedy tried to do - its sovereign right as a nation to issue its own debt- and interest-free money - rather than getting into mounting debt with the global banksters.

US corporate interests and their controlling Jewish financial interests are therefore the ‘elephant in the room’ of the acrimonious and divisive Brexiteer/Remainer debate which obsesses British politics - a debate which only divert all attention from this Jewish elephant.

Should not Marxists look a little deeper beneath the surface of this simplistic and simplifying debate, which has nothing to do with the real interests - or real enemies of workers - Brexit or no Brexit? It seems that socialists have forgotten or know nothing of the extraordinarily well-researched work of German economist and sociologist Werner Sombart - according to Friedrich Engels the only professor who fully understood Marx’s Das Kapital. It was Sombart’s book on The Jews and Modern Capitalism showed, without the slightest trace of racial or religious malice that without Jews and Judaism capitalism simply would not exist in its present form.

Thus simply demonising or sanctifying the EU forgets that it is part of the U.S.-Zionist-Wall St. imperial project to dominate Europe through TTIP, sanctions on Russia and by employing NATO to encircle and harrass Russia. And yet this US supremacist project is itself in essence a Judaic one through and through, whether led by Jews or not. For it is above all Jews who are happy to see Europe crumble and - once again - see Russia submit to Jewish oligarchical power, as it did to the genocidal violence of Communist Jews, from Trotsky to Yagoda, against ethnic Russians and Ukrainians - particularly the peasantry, whom Lenin himself despised, believing that if any Russian had intelligence they would most likely have a Jewish element in their ancestry.

Leave or Remain? In itself is this not a question which has proved to be perhaps the most effective form of divide and rule - one which has not become almost neurotic political obsession - obscuring all other and larger issues - but is perhaps the most divisive political civil war that Britain has seen since Cromwell - he whom Dutch Jews veritably praised as their Messiah - and through whom they gained re-admittance to England. Later the reign of William III created conditions for the establishment of the first - and notoriously usurious - ‘Bank of England’. William himself was dedicated to Calvinism - a Christian reinvention of Judaism that sanctioned usury. And even before the accession to power of the Jewish Tory Prime Minister Disraeli, the unholy alliance of British Imperialism and ‘proto-Zionism’ had already been forged. See also: Disraeli and the Imperial Anglo-Zionist Alliance

Additional notes:

The CPBML in particular seem to see Brexit as a sort of fuse lighting the way to socialism. Yet they admit that: “Leaving the EU will only mean an independent Britain if we make it so. Above all, we need control over our economy.” By “control over our economy” they then go on to list a set of traditional Corbynesque style socialist policies. Yet they have the naivety to insist that Brexit negotiations themselves “must” be conducted in this with these aims - by the Tories!!! And their idea of “control over the economy” includes everything except what is most essential to implement any socialist policies - the creation of a sovereign money supply independent of the banks and the debt-based global monetary system.

The oldest and biggest immigration wave still visible in Britain today began before the European Common Market even existed - resulting from the catastrophic and totally arbitrary British-drawn partition of India and Pakistan in 1948, which, along with a huge post-war need for labour, resulted in the 1948 Act allowing the immigration of Commonwealth citizens. Many hundreds of thousands came from India, Pakistan and the West Indies to Britain through the 1950s, not just for short-term work, but settling for good. Immigration has continued and widened ever since, resulting in an ethnic and cultural diversity that would have been unthinkable in 1945.

It was not Angela Merkel but Winston Churchill, who, already in 1946, promoted the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’ launched by Count Kalergi, whose “International Paneuropean Union, also referred to as the Paneuropean Movement and the Pan-Europa Movement, is the oldest European unification movement, beginning with the publishing of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's manifesto Paneuropa (1923), which presented the idea of a unified European State.”

Lenin believed that “in the civilised world….the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identity with the advanced movements of the epoch … the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population.”

In the end it makes no difference whatsoever how many Russians were or were not murdered under Soviet rule, even if it were tens of millions. Why? Because the mythos of Auschwitz and the identification of Germany and National Socialism as the embodiment of Absolute Evil has long cemented itself. Hence also the 1943 Hooton plan for population replacement in Germany through the mass immigration of non-white males and their forced intercourse with native German women (sound familiar?).

The Soviet Union under Stalin was the first country to recognise the State of Israel - only after which did Stalin gradually begin to see hidden Jewish tribalism and nationalism as a problem - resulting in a plan for the world’s first Anti-Zionist Congress - something still long overdue! NB Stalin had 3 Jewish wives, the last of which was the sister of the Jew Lazar Kaganovich.

It is interesting to note also that, from 1967 to 1994, 43% of all the heirs of previously 'loyal', solid Soviet and Communist citizens and apparatchiks of Jewish ethnicity had emigrated to Israel and the USA. Those that went to America became the arch neo-cons and today's Clintonite Russophobes. Those that remained included the oligarchs and key, Western-backed players in undermining Russia from within.

Jewish bankers had their grip on America already from the 18th century onward: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=640

A most interesting critical review by Keven MacDonald of “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mYBcq78yIvKOHaRJEH6hPqOZAsryPQpC/view?usp=sharing This reveals the immense and disproportionate influence of Jews in the institutions of the USSR right up until the immediate years before Stalin’s death.

Socialism without Nationalism is a Fraud and a Failure

Trotskyites and their modern descendants - the SJWs - are the enemies of Socialism.  Socialism is the reordering of Society for the betterment of the Nation.  Those who go to great pains to show that they are concerned with the plight of peoples far across the globe, and that this concern requires the compete ending of borders so that the entire world can make its ways to our shores - these people are not Socialists, they are lunatics, parasites and traitors.  It is the Working Class who suffer when mass immigration is used by the Capitalists to break organised labour power, to drive down wages, to undermine hard fought for Workers' Rights.  The globalists who want to see our borders gone, do not care about the damage they do to the Working Class.  They only care about how their Middle Class chums respond to their pathetic virtue signalling.  They are a menace which a Socialist society would have to sweep away.

True Socialism is Nationalist.  It isn't racist, chauvinistic or supremacist - it puts the Nation first, as a foundation stone for  better world of International Cooperation, in which free sovereign nations live side by side.  Nationalism in the Socialist understanding is anti-Globalist.  Capitalism and liberal/Trotskyism are two sides of the same coin - and we reject both.

The great Irish patriot, and Socialist Revolutionary, James Connolly wrote (in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897):

In Ireland at the present time there are at work a variety of agencies seeking to preserve the national sentiment in the hearts of the people.

These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people.

Nevertheless, there is a danger that by too strict an adherence to their present methods of propaganda, and consequent neglect of vital living issues, they may only succeed in stereotyping our historical studies into a worship of the past, or crystallising nationalism into a tradition – glorious and heroic indeed, but still only a tradition.

Now traditions may, and frequently do, provide materials for a glorious martyrdom, but can never be strong enough to ride the storm of a successful revolution.

If the national movement of our day is not merely to re-enact the old sad tragedies of our past history, it must show itself capable of rising to the exigencies of the moment.

It must demonstrate to the people of Ireland that our nationalism is not merely a morbid idealising of the past, but is also capable of formulating a distinct and definite answer to the problems of the present and a political and economic creed capable of adjustment to the wants of the future.

This concrete political and social ideal will best be supplied, I believe, by the frank acceptance on the part of ail earnest nationalists of the Republic as their goal.

Not a Republic, as in France, where a capitalist monarchy with an elective head parodies the constitutional abortions of England, and in open alliance with the Muscovite despotism brazenly flaunts its apostasy to the traditions of the Revolution.

Not a Republic as in the United States, where the power of the purse has established a new tyranny under the forms of freedom; where, one hundred years after the feet of the last British red-coat polluted the streets of Boston, British landlords and financiers impose upon American citizens a servitude compared with which the tax of pre-Revolution days was a mere trifle.

No! the Republic I would wish our fellow-countrymen to set before them as their ideal should be of such a character that the mere mention of its name would at all times serve as a beacon-light to the oppressed of every land, at all times holding forth promise of freedom and plenteousness as the reward of their efforts on its behalf.

To the tenant farmer, ground between landlordism on the one hand and American competition on the other, as between the upper and the nether millstone; to the wage-workers in the towns, suffering from the exactions of the slave-driving capitalist to the agricultural labourer, toiling away his life for a wage barely sufficient to keep body and soul together; in fact to every one of the toiling millions upon whose misery the outwardly-splendid fabric of our modern civilisation is reared, the Irish Republic might be made a word to conjure with – a rallying point for the disaffected, a haven for the oppressed, a point of departure for the Socialist, enthusiastic in the cause of human freedom.

This linking together of our national aspirations with the hopes of the men and women who have raised the standard of revolt against that system of capitalism and landlordism, of which the British Empire is the most aggressive type and resolute defender, should not, in any sense, import an element of discord into the ranks of earnest nationalists, and would serve to place us in touch with fresh reservoirs of moral and physical strength sufficient to lift the cause of Ireland to a more commanding position than it has occupied since the day of Benburb.

It may be pleaded that the ideal of a Socialist Republic, implying, as it does, a complete political and economic revolution would be sure to alienate all our middle-class and aristocratic supporters, who would dread the loss of their property and privileges.

What does this objection mean? That we must conciliate the privileged classes in Ireland!

But you can only disarm their hostility by assuring them that in a free Ireland their ‘privileges␁ will not be interfered with. That is to say, you must guarantee that when Ireland is free of foreign domination, the green-coated Irish soldiers will guard the fraudulent gains of capitalist and landlord from ‘the thin hands of the poor’ just as remorselessly and just as effectually as the scarlet-coated emissaries of England do today.

On no other basis will the classes unite with you. Do you expect the masses to fight for this ideal?

When you talk of freeing Ireland, do you only mean the chemical elements which compose the soil of Ireland? Or is it the Irish people you mean? If the latter, from what do you propose to free them? From the rule of England?

But all systems of political administration or governmental machinery are but the reflex of the economic forms which underlie them.

English rule in England is but the symbol of the fact that English conquerors in the past forced upon this country a property system founded upon spoliation, fraud and murder: that, as the present-day exercise of the ‘rights of property’ so originated involves the continual practice of legalised spoliation and fraud, English rule is found to be the most suitable form of government by which the spoliation can be protected, and an English army the most pliant tool with which to execute judicial murder when the fears of the propertied classes demand it.

The Socialist who would destroy, root and branch, the whole brutally materialistic system of civilisation, which like the English language we have adopted as our own, is, I hold, a far more deadly foe to English rule and tutelage, than the superficial thinker who imagines it possible to reconcile Irish freedom with those insidious but disastrous forms of economic subjection – landlord tyranny, capitalist fraud and unclean usury; baneful fruits of the Norman Conquest, the unholy trinity, of which Strongbow and Diarmuid MacMurchadha – Norman thief and Irish traitor – were the fitting precursors and apostles.

If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.

Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy.

It would be tantamount to a public declaration that our oppressors had so far succeeded in inoculating us with their perverted conceptions of justice and morality that we had finally decided to accept those conceptions as our own, and no longer needed an alien army to force them upon us.

As a Socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage – independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline.

Such action would be neither honourable nor feasible. Let us never forget that he never reaches Heaven who marches thither in the company of the Devil. Let us openly proclaim our faith: the logic of events is with us.

These words were true 121 years ago, and can be seen as having been prophetic - for the modern Irish state is bourgeois, decadent and a celebration of degeneracy.  Connolly tried to warn the Irish people, but his words went unheeded.

A more recent voice of reason comes from Kim Jong Il, who stated (February 2017):

It is important to have a correct understanding of nationalism. Only when they have such an understanding can people achieve national unity, champion the interests of the nation and contribute to the shaping of its destiny.

Nationalism came into being as an ideology for defending the interests of a nation in the course of the latter’s formation and development. Although nations differ from one another in the period of their formation, every nation is a social community which has been formed and consolidated historically on the basis of a common kinship descent, language, residential area and culture, and is composed of various classes and strata. There is no person in any country or in any society who exists outside his or her nation, separate from it. Every person belongs to a class or stratum, and at the same time to a nation, endowing that person with both a national and a class character. Class character and national character and the demands of classes and nation are inseparable from each other. As a matter of fact, the classes and strata of a nation entertain different demands and interests owing to their different social and economic functions. However, all the members of a nation have the same stake in championing the independence and character of the nation and attaining national prosperity without distinction of the interests of their classes and strata. This is because the destiny of a nation is precisely the destiny of its individual members; in other words, the latter is dependent on the former. None will be happy with the sovereignty and honour of his or her nation being trampled upon and national character disregarded. It is the common ideological feeling and psychology of the members of a nation to love their nation, cherish its characteristics and interests, and yearn for its prosperity. Nationalism reflects this feeling and psychology. In other words, nationalism is an ideology that advocates love for the nation and defence of its interests. Since people carve out their destiny while living within the nation-state as a unit, genuine nationalism constitutes patriotism. The progressive nature of nationalism lies in the fact that it is a patriotic ideology which advocates the defence of national interests.

Nationalism emerged as a progressive idea along with the formation and development of each nation. However, it was understood in the past as an ideology that defends bourgeois interests. It is true that in the days of the nationalist movement against feudalism, the newly-emergent bourgeoisie, upholding the banner of nationalism, stood in the van of the movement.

At that time, the interests of both the masses of the people and the newly-emergent bourgeoisie were basically coincident in their struggle against feudalism. Therefore, the banner of nationalism seemed to reflect the common interests of the nation. As capitalism developed and the bourgeoisie became the reactionary ruling class after victorious bourgeois revolutions in various countries, nationalism was used as a means of defending the interests of the bourgeois class.

The bourgeoisie disguised their class interests as national interests, and used nationalism as an ideological instrument for solidifying their class domination. This led nationalism to be understood, among the people, as a bourgeois ideology that runs counter to the national interests. We should distinguish clearly between true nationalism that loves the nation and defends its interests and bourgeois nationalism that advocates the interests of the bourgeois class. Bourgeois nationalism reveals itself as national egoism, national exclusivism and big-power chauvinism in the relationship between countries and nations; it is reactionary in that it creates antagonism and disagreement between countries and nations, and checks the development of friendly relations between the various peoples of the world.

The original revolutionary theory of the working class failed to give a correct explanation of nationalism. It paid major attention to strengthening the international unity and solidarity of the working class all over the world-the fundamental problem in the then socialist movement-failing to pay due attention to the national problem. It went so far as to regard nationalism as an anti-socialist ideological trend, because bourgeois nationalism was doing great harm to the socialist movement. This is why progressive people in the past rejected nationalism, considering it incompatible with communism.

It is wrong to view communism as incompatible with nationalism. Communism does not advocate only the interests of the working class; it also advocates the interests of the nation-hence it is an ideology of loving the country and the people. Nationalism is also an ideology of loving the country and the people, as it defends the interests of the country and the nation. Love of the country and the people is an ideological emotion common to communism and nationalism; herein lies the ideological basis on which they can ally with one another. Therefore, there is no reason or ground to pit one against the other, and reject nationalism.

Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations-this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism.

Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation.

For the first time in history, the great leader President Kim Il Sung gave a correct explanation of nationalism, and elucidated the relationship between communism and nationalism and between communists and nationalists in his revolutionary practice of carving out the destiny of his country and people. He said that in order to be a true communist one must first become a true nationalist. With a determination to devote his life to his country and fellow-countrymen, he embarked on the road of revolution in his early years and created the immortal Juche idea, on the basis of which he established a Juche-oriented outlook on the nation, and scientifically expounded the essence and progressive character of nationalism. Through a correct combination of class character with national character and of the destiny of socialism with that of the nation, he realised an alliance between communists and nationalists, cemented the class and national positions of our socialism and led the nationalists to join the efforts for socialist construction and national reunification. Attracted by his broad magnanimity and noble personality, many nationalists took the patriotic road to national unity and national reunification, making a clean break with their erroneous pasts. Kim Ku, a life-long anti-communist, allied with communists, a patriotic changeover, in the twilight of his life, and Choe Tok Sin, a nationalist, was able to find salvation as a patriot in the leader’s embrace. The great leader treasured and championed the independence not only of our nation but also of the peoples of the rest of the world. He devoted all his efforts to the cause of making the whole world independent, as well as to the Korean revolution. We can say that there has been no man in the world as great as him, who devoted his whole life to the nation’s independence and prosperity, and a bright future for mankind. He was the most steadfast communist and, at the same time, a peerless patriot, true nationalist and paragon among internationalists.

I also assert, as the leader instructed, that one must be an ardent patriot, a true nationalist, in order to become a genuine revolutionary, a communist. The communist who fights for the realisation of the independence of the masses of the people must first of all be a true nationalist. Those who fight for their people, their country and their homeland are genuine communists, true nationalists and ardent patriots. Those who do not love their own parents, brothers and sisters cannot love their country and compatriots. Likewise, those who do not love their own homeland and people cannot become communists.

We are inheriting with fidelity the great leader’s noble idea of loving the country, the nation and the people, and making every effort to rally all the sections of the nation by dint of all-embracing politics, and lead them to the road of patriotism.

It is not communists but imperialists who oppose nationalism and place obstacles in the way of the independent development of nations at present. The imperialists are manoeuvring cunningly to realise their dominationist ambition on the plea of “globalization” and “integration.” They claim that the ideal of building a sovereign nation-state or the love for country and nation is a “national prejudice lagging behind the times,” and “globalization” and “integration” are the trend of the times in the present situation, when science and technology are developing rapidly and economic exchanges between countries are being conducted briskly on an international scale. Today, when every country and nation is carving out its own destiny with its own ideology, system and culture, there can never be a political, economic, ideological and cultural “integration” of the world. The manoeuvres of the US imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are aimed at turning the world into what they call a “free” and “democratic” world styled after the United States, and thus bringing all countries and nations under their domination and subordination. The present era is one of independence. Human history is propelled by the struggle of the masses of the people for independence, not by the dominationist ambition and aggressive policy of the imperialists. The manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are doomed to failure, as they are opposed by the vigorous efforts of the world’s peoples aspiring after independence.

We should resolutely oppose and reject the manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration,” and staunchly fight to preserve the excellent characteristics of our nation and safeguard its independence. We frequently emphasise the Korean-nation-first principle so as to preserve the national character and defend the independence of the nation.

We in SWPE are Left-wing Nationalists.  We love our country, we love our People.  This love is what makes us Socialists, it is what makes us Internationalists against Globalisation and Imperialism. 

There is no contradiction between Patriotism and Socialism.  Indeed the two are so intertwined that the absence of either makes an ideology of absurdity.

For Class and Nation.  For Closed Borders and an Internationalism built on Mutual Respect and Clearly-defined Immutable Sovereignty.

Remember Remember, the Heroic Revolutionary, Guy Fawkes

Bonfire Night / Guy Fawkes night is a ritual in the UK to commemorate the attempt in 1605 by Guy Fawkes to bomb the Houses of Parliament and destroy the parasites within - the Royals, Lords, Clergy and MPs.  The State created the tradition as means of enforcing its rule upon the people; making the ordinary people of the country celebrate the capture of a band of Revolutionaries who would have liberated the country from the tyrants in charge, had it not been for their own excessive concern for innocents who would have been caught up in the carnage.

The Russian leader, VI Lenin, is associated with the traditional phrase that 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs'. Sadly, Guy Fawkes and his Comrades, suffered from a typical English affliction, of compassion for our enemies, which led them to warn people in Parliament of the plan to burn that den of liars to the ground, with the Ruling Class rats sat inside.  It is this reluctance to accept collateral damage as a price of uprising, which has kept our people in servitude.

There is even a degree of false class consciousness in the tragedy of the 5th of November: The Revolutionaries were under the illusion that there were decent people in Parliament who were worthy of saving, and who were kindred spirits who could help rebuild England after the despots had been put down.  This error led to the capture of the Revolutionaries, as those they put trust in, used the tip offs about the 'plot' to have them captured and murdered. Even if a few decent people had been in Parliament, it would have been far better to have let them perish with the rest, than to prioritise saving them and thus putting the entire plan in jeopardy - which as we know from history, is what happened.

What would have happened if the great Yorkshireman and his Comrades had succeeded in ridding the world of the Ruling Class of King James?  The King was the Monarch of England and Ireland (James I) as well as Scotland (James VI), so his demise may have halted the rush to the unification of those countries.  Even if the process had continued, the obliteration of the Church of England would have removed the religious excuses for the injustices in Ireland under English rule, leaving the Ruling Class exposed as tyrants with no mumbo jumbo to hide behind.  For those who ask whether there would there have still been injustices if the whole of the British Isles had been restored to Catholicism, the answer is of course yes.  As long as a Ruling Class exists which rules over the Proletariat, there will always be tyranny.

The greatest benefit of the destruction of Westminster would have been to weaken the Protestants, and by so doing to slow the process of Capitalism.  For all its ills (which are many), the Catholic variant of Christianity in its traditional form, was in many ways Socialist, with great emphasis on Charity and the need for the Poor and Needy to be looked after.  Protestantism has always been associated with Greed, and for this reason is the backbone of Capitalism.  A Catholic England as a part of a Catholic British Isles, would have been more in tune with nature.  The loathsome Industrial Revolution and British Empire were products of Protestantism.

It is unlikely that the evils of the British Ruling Class would have ended with a victorious Revolution against King James and his Church of England criminals.  What would have been achieved is the unity of the British peoples on both sides of the Irish Sea.  With no religious division to keep us at each others throats, our people would have been able to see the class enemy.  Who knows?  Maybe without the distraction of 'religion', we would have risen up and thrown off our oppressors, and our country would have become a shining example of Freedom, rather than a dire and depressing source of exploitation and servitude.

Guy Fawkes lived in a time when the people who ruled the country could have been eliminated with the bombing of Parliament. Sadly that rotting institution is now nothing but a window display, with the real power residing in the City of London (an enemy country located inside our capital).  SWPE celebrates Guy Fawkes, but only as a figure involved in a historical event.  We do not advocate anyone trying to replicate his work!  Destroying Parliament made sense in 1605, whereas now it would make no difference to the Ruling Class who control it from behind the scenes.  It would be amusing to see the hypocrites blown to smithereens, but it would achieve nothing other than to justify even more draconian rule over us.

An England freed from Protestantism would be an England freed from Greed and Self as the motivating force.  The post-Fawkes England we know is one in which liberal excess is everywhere, in which Trotskyite/liberal/SJW Identity Politics is rampant, in which the most insane selfishness is not only tolerated but encouraged (with those who refuse to bow down to the ethos that everything is subjective and that all behaviour is equally acceptable, punished by the thought police and the courts of decadence).  Fawkes was motivated by a hatred of the religion/philosophy which gave birth to Capitalism, liberalism, Trotskyism, Identity Politics.  His ideology was more Society-centred, and once cleansed of the trappings of priestcraft, would have fitted very well as a foundation for a coming Socialist Republic.  It is a tragedy that he failed, and we salute his efforts, and those of his Comrades.

On this unseasonably warm 5th of November, we Remember the heroes of the Gunpowder Plot:  Revolutionaries who could have made England a better place, had they only had the sense to keep their plans secret, and had been ready to sacrifice the few good men in Parliament (if any existed) in order to save the country as a whole.

Happy Ireland Day - not saint Patrick's - and not just to our Irish Comrades!

 

Today is the day which christians refers to as 'saint' Patrick's Day.  SWPE is not a christian organisation, so we will not refer to the National Day of Ireland by such an offensive term.  We have good Comrades of Irish stock and we join with them in recognising today as Ireland Day, a day to celebrate Irishness and to remember all the disgusting and barbaric atrocities committed against the Irish People by financial and religious imperialists.

The so-called 'saint' who people refer to when they call today "'saint Patrick's Day", was a symbolic figure representing the invasion of Ireland by followers of the Semitic Cult of Christianity.  Patrick is known for throwing the Snakes out of Ireland.  The Snake (like the Dragon) is a sacred representation of the defenders of the Celtic People, the Druids.  Patrick was just one of many members of the tyrannical depotism of christianity, so his name is of little significance, and it is questionable if he (like the figure his religion is named after) even existed at all.

There were never any physical snakes in Ireland, so the so-called saint could not have cast them out.  The Druids wore serpent tattoos and it was these people who fought to keep the hate-filled genocidal lunacy of christianity away from our people.  Just as the newest branch of the Semitic faith, mohammedanism, spread through murder, rape and economic butchery, so did the christian version.

The arrival of christianity as a major force in Europe, was the reason for the Dark Ages, for the loss of culture, freedom, native Socialism and all that was wholesome.  The assault on the Feminine, the imposition of a Ruling Class with the power to murder free thinkers, the arrival of proto-Capitalism, all these came with the brutal take-over of the savage alien creed of christianity.  The 'Snakes' cast out by 'saint' Patrick, were the heroic protectors of the People, murdered by the newcomers for refusing to accept a 'religion' based on obedience to the Ruling Class.

The Ruling Class handbook, known as the bible, tells people that the god of the christians will deal with people who are unjust, so the sheep don't need to attempt to defend themselves, and rather than act in Revolution to overthrow the parasites, they must grovel, obey whatever laws are imposed on them and subject themselves to slavery.  Swivel-eyed christians believe that their god will save them and that it isn't a bad thing to be oppressed, it's a really good thing!  Have a look at this piece of drivel, from Romans 13:

13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. ² So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged. ³ If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers. But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don’t want to be afraid of those in authority, do you? Then do what is right, and you will be praised. ⁴ The one in authority serves God for your good. But if you do wrong, watch out! Rulers don’t carry a sword for no reason at all. They serve God. And God is carrying out his anger through them. The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong. ⁵ You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.

⁶ That’s also why you pay taxes. The authorities serve God. Ruling takes up all their time. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them. Do you owe taxes? Then pay them. Do you owe anything else to the government? Then pay it. Do you owe respect? Then give it. Do you owe honor? Then show it.

Wow!  The Ruling Class destroyed Free Europe and turned our people into Slaves by writing a book in which the fictional main character, known as jesus, tells everyone that we must obey our oppressors, subject ourselves to financial and physical servitude, know our place, be good chattel, all because in the end, the great christian god will give us rewards in some mythical afterlife when he condemns all but 144,000 people to eternal pain in a special place called Hell, where Revolutionaries, Radicals, Women, anti-Capitalists, anti-Globalists, anyone who doesn't enthusiastically  support the Ruling Class and all who don't swallow the drivel of the three headed Semitic faith must go.  So-called 'saint' Pat is celebrated for bringing Ireland under the yoke of oppression.

The Triskelion was dishonored by Patrick who subverted its meaning and brought into being the Shamrock analogy with its Semitic focus.   Nothing of the Patrick story is worthy of celebration.  The entire christian story is one of lies, theft, murder, despotism and imposition of alien rule and an economic Ruling Class kept in place by scare-mongering clergy and a violent governing/legal system. That is why SWPE say Happy Ireland Day, and not paddy day.

Jeremy Corbyn: Kosher Socialist and Enemy of the People

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as leader of the UK Labour Party by 60% of the voters in that party.  The media is hailing him as a Socialist, but does the man really stand for the Working Class of the UK?  His politics have been compared with those of Syriza in Greece.  Considering that the ruling party in Greece has betrayed the people, giving them a free vote (overwhelmingly taken up) against austerity which was followed up by more of the same, the comparison does not bode well for the UK.

What does Corbyn stand for?

• No renewal of Trident Nuclear Weaponry
• An end to NATO expansionism in the east of Europe
• An end to UK involvement in the wars in the Middle East
• Open Borders to allow refugees to enter the UK at will
• Education to be tailored to the procurement of work
• Palestine to be recognised as a nation-state
• People's Quantitative Easing, using the Bank of England to print money for massive construction programmes
• Building millions more houses
• Nationalising the Bank of Scotland
• Taxing the rich and introducing a National Maximum Wage 
• Increasing the Welfare State
• Creating a National Education Service for all from toddlers to the very aged
• Abolition of the charitable status of private schools
• Abolition of University Tuition Fees
• Nationalisation of the Energy companies
• Staying in the EU in order to expand the Social Charter 
• Rent control to allow people to stay in London
• Continuation of the monarchy, in spite of being a Republican
• Protection of the BBC
• Promotion of the Arts
• Reuniting the province of Ulster inside the Irish Republic
• Reversing the privatisation of the NHS
• Nationalising the Railways
• Provision of Universal Childcare to encourage Women into the workplace
• Introducing Women only railway carriages
• Guaranteeing that Men and Women receive Equal Pay for Equal Jobs

So where does SWPE stand with regards to the new direction which the Labour Party will take under Corbyn?  Firstly, we do not expect an Establishment party to move far from the managed flow which all the controlled parties are subject to.  But if we allow ourselves to accept that Corbyn will be more than just controlled opposition and that there is a chance that his ideas will go beyond rhetoric, then we have to say that his leadership is a mixture of positives and negative.

The positive aspects of Corbyn's ideology and how they fit with SWPE ideology:

Nationalisation (Socialisation) of the Railways, Energy companies and the Bank of Scotland: It is obscene that private companies are allowed to make profits from the provision of essential services.  SWPE would go further than Corbyn and demand the immediate Socialisation of the entire transport network (Railways, Airports, Ports, Buses, Taxis, all public travel involving land, sea or air in which the individual is not the driver/pilot).

The negative aspects of Corbyn's ideology and how they contrast with SWPE ideology

The NHS / Welfare State: Both would be fully re-nationalised by SWPE and importantly made for the native population only.  Corbyn would happily see immigrant tourism increase and would allow for non-medical treatments to continue, we would not.  The Welfare State is too large as it stands, and although we support its protection in general, we would erode the Nanny State, which has become a safety net for the Capitalist system.  We want a country of proud, self reliant people, not of lazy lumpenproletarian parasites, the likes of whom joined Labour in their droves to promote a man who sees no problem in people exploiting other people, whether it is his chums in the Ruling Class, or his supporters in the immigrant occupied ghettos.

Protection of the BBC:  The BBC is the propaganda machine of globalism and liberalism.  It is funded by a tax which is extracted from the people with the threat of prison for those who do not pay it.  The extortion racket is not the worst thing about the BBC, but rather its blatant anti-native bias and its emotional programming to instil guilt in the people if they do anything short of embracing the globalist destruction of the country.  The BBC is too far gone to be saved.  The BBC is rotten to the very core.  SWPE policy towards the BBC is that its programmes be sold commercially to the highest bidder, returning some money to the people, that all its equipment be sold off, that all its buildings be transferred to the ownership of the people (for use in the promotion of native culture or in the service of the native economy) and that once it is thoroughly stripped, it is closed down forever, with everyone who has ever worked for it forbidden from ever having any role in the cultural development of the country, with legal action taken to punish those who have damaged the people of the country by aiding the Ruling Class and the immigrant invaders.

Education (and art) policies:  His National Education Service would at first sight appear to be very much like the SWPE Community Education Programme, which would give all people of all ages the right to pursue education in their own towns, to the highest level attainable.  However, with further scrutiny, Corbyn's education strategy is one which serves the interests of capitalism, not the people.  SWPE would abolish Universities, seeing them as remote factories of liberal elitism, which is of course why the liberal globalist, Corbyn, wants to protect them.  Our education system would see every town in every region made into a place of excellence for real education in the pursuit of cultural greatness (including real art and not the 'modern' decadent art favoured by the liberal Corbyn), Corbyn's would see education reduced to that which serves the economy and keeps the people shackled to the slave mentality (keeping the status quo, with a little financial tinkering to appease those who think that dragging the masses into the elitist system will benefit anyone).  Removing the charitable status of Private (so-called Public) Schools would make them liable to taxation.  It would do nothing to weaken the Class System.  We would abolish all Private education and create a single unified system of Community Education, in which the concept of Class would be eroded.  If Corbyn really was a Socialist, he would call for the destruction of the Ruling Class, not for financial tinkering.  This ties in with his outspoken Republicanism, but his acceptance of the Monarchy.  We are not hypocrites!  We would expel the entire Ruling Class from our shores, and not baulk at the use of capital punishment for traitors to the people such as the royal family.

Women's policies:  Corbyn is a reductionist liberal.  He sees women as different from men only in terms of anatomy.  His idea that there should be Universal Childcare is based solely on the idea that women have the right to be enslaved in the same manner as men.  SWPE seeks a better England in which every family has a home, enough land to grow food, a workshop to create goods for barter, access to free energy / utilities and in other ways is removed from the necessity to work.  Removed from Wage Slavery, the people will have the freedom to explore their potential.  Corbyn is trapped in the Slave Master mentality.  He espouses freedom on some levels, but betrays his inner capitalist by demanding that children be handed over to strangers in order that their mothers can be enslaved.  Women are NOT men.  Women have a natural role in the stability and growth of the nation.  That role is motherhood.  SWPE would elevate motherhood to the highest position in society.  Corbyn would have us believe that motherhood is a burden which prevents women from entering the system of serfdom and exploitation which men have been forced to endure for centuries.  The idea of equal pay for men and women is fair enough, but it still rests in the wage slave mentality in which all people are producer-consumers and cogs in the wheel of the economy.  Corbyn's anti-male policy of women only carriages on trains is pandering to Shariah immigrants, it is accepting that men have the right to rape women if they are not kept separate from them, it defames the entire male gender as rapists.  Corbyn is an apologist for Islam.  If he was not, he would see that it is not native men who are culturally and religiously predisposed to rape, but immigrants from outside Europe, who should not only be in separate railway carriages to mative families, but in separate countries.

Military policies:  Corbyn is opposed to NATO expansionism, as are we.  However, his idea is for the creation of a European Defence Force, which would essentially be NATO without the USA (but of course with moslem Turkey).  SWPE stands for an end to NATO and the UN, not for a strengthening of a regional military force for Europe as a building bloc of a global army and a one world government.  Corbyn is anti-war, which so are we.  Corbyn is motivated by the desire to protect moslems and to allow for the spread of Shariah.  We are motivated by the desire to defend our people and to allow others to do things in their own way, killing each other if they so desire, but without any of our blood being spilled.  Corbyn would see the military involved overseas as global policemen.  His anti-militarism is a smoke screen for his globalism.  His inter-nationalism is a lie.  Inter-nationalism demands the existence of free sovereign nations, but Corbyn's ideology would see all nations ended and replaced with an all powerful global state.  On Trident, we agree, but only because what we have is enough, not because we wish to leave our country defenceless.

Class War / Money:  As previously stated, unlike the hypocrite Corbyn who speaks of a Republic but accepts the monarchy as figure head of the Ruling Class, we would annihilate class divisions.  We would not tolerate Private schools, elitist Universities or anything else which allowed the Ruling Class to remain in power.  We would abolish the aristocracy and make their titles obsolete.  We would not tax the rich and put a ceiling on their highest possible wages, we would create a system of guaranteed wages and prices for all , wiping out in a single stroke the wage disparity between the Working and Middle Classes and also ending the existence of inflation.  We would aim to gradually abolish currency, forever terminating the Capitalist mentality.  Corbyn has betrayed himself as a Champagne Socialist and is clearly a part of the enemy camp, not of the camp of the revolutionaries.  His People's Quantitative Easing is Capitalist economics.

Housing / the Environment:  Corbyn claims to be an Environmentalist, but he wants to build millions of new houses, borrowing money from the Bank of England and thus creating debt which will be pushed onto the Working Class.  You cannot protect the Environment when you are building on the land!  You cannot defend nature when you are destroying the habitats of the wildlife.  You cannot maintain the healthy link of the land and people when you are building new cities on the dead land which was once the countryside!  Corbyn is NOT an Environmentalist, he is a liberal globalising materialist.

Open Borders / Palestine:  Corbyn needs to build millions of house on the corpse of the English land, because he envisions a world without borders in which millions of his animal torturing, child raping moslem friends will be welcomed into England and will have to be housed (at our expense).  His love of Palestine is a part of this toadying to Islam.  Corbyn is as much an Islamophile as his equally sickening liberal partner in crime, George Galloway.  His support for Turkey in NATO fits this pattern.  SWPE would expel all moslems, close the borders and make England a safe haven for the native English and related peoples.  We would not recognise Palestine because we have no interest in the politics of Islam and Judaism which we find equally abhorrent.

Ulster:  Corbyn wants to create a United Ireland.  We see Ulster as a distinct region, in the same way as Connacht, Leinster or Munster.  The future of Ulster is for the people of Ulster to decide.  We seek an independent England, which would necessarily end the UK, but that doesn't mean forcing the north of Ireland into becoming a part of the Irish Republic.  Let the people of Ulster decide their own fate, not politicians in Dublin, London or elsewhere

European Union: Corbyn wants to keep the UK inside the EU.  He wants to do this so that he can unite with his fellow liberal globalisers, such as the hated Syriza of Greece.  Corbyn is not content with creating a liberal hell on earth in the UK, he wishes to spread the misery across the EU and to then link with comparable anti-humans across the globe to create a single global slave state in which he is a part of the bureaucratic Ruling Class

Our verdict of Corbyn should be quite clear.  He is a danger to the people of the UK.  He is a friend of moslem terrorists, of financial immigrants masquerading as refugees, of the exploiters of the Ruling Class, of the parasites of the lumpenproletariat.  We will not be working in support of this man.  According to the mainstream media, the ability of a dyed in wool Trotskyite to become head of the official opposition has turned it instantly into a vehicle of his own Trotskyite lunacy.  There is only one answer to likes of Trotsky, and that is Stalin!  Ice Picks to the fore comrades!