GLOBALISATION OR FINANCE CAPITALIST TROTSKYISM?

Now, of course, there have been countless works written on this complex and often enigmatic world system – some good, some bad. Without a doubt, all of the more competent works highlight the incontrovertible fact that the world system commonly known as “Globalisation” is actually Atlanticist in origin, which is to say Anglo-Saxon, and it is championed and promoted most viciously by the United States via its primary political-economic-cultural nerve centres (i.e. the Pentagon, Wall Street and Hollywood).

Needless to say, it is not too often that the fundamental roots of this hellish monster are either explored or revealed by even the best or most famous writers. In many cases, the so-called “conspiracy” authors (or those labelled “conspiracists” by the mainstream media) do a much better job of exposing the Globalist golem for what it actually is: a leftover and yet greatly strengthened form of Trotskyite Internationalism, or more specifically: Finance Capitalist Trotskyism. In other words, Globalisation is best defined as a postmodern/post-industrial phenomenon which is: economically Financialist, culturally Capitalist, and politically/socially Trotskyite. These three highlighted words represent the unholy trinity of Globalisation.

To understand the historical roots of Globalisation, its component parts and its goals, one must first go back to the height of the Cold War and enquire as to what ideological values were in dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union. This is to say, one must first understand the deepest spiritual impetuses for the geopolitical tensions that existed during the “hottest” years of the USA – USSR rivalry. And so, the following question must be posed:
What primary ideological values of Marxism were openly opposed by the United States?

Answer: materialism, anti-traditionalism, ethno-socio-cultural mass-leveling, gender equality, internationalism (the eradication of national borders), and anti-classism (socialism).

It is more than ironic that out of all of the principles of orthodox Marxism cited above, only the last (anti-classism) was prevented from taking root in American society. In all other respects, the United States and its NATO vassals were far more successful than the Soviet bloc countries in implementing these anti-traditional goals – and long before the Cold War had officially ended.

Indeed, all throughout the twentieth century the U.S. government poured vast amounts of money into the radical mass-levelling of American society – a fact that has become increasingly obvious since the famous counter-cultural upheavals of the late 1960s. What resulted was a profoundly liberal American worldview (accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike) which actually stood firmly against the professed “human rights” which were claimed to be upheld by the most radical voices of the counter culture. There developed a great paradox of ethnic and gender “equality” which only highlighted the multidimensional problems affecting the innately hypocritical American society – a society which is indeed multicultural and multiracial, yet which was also founded on the genocide, slavery and oppression of the same groups it now provides with a paternalistic “pat on the back.” And so, as the Trotskyite/Neocon Nathan Glazer proudly boasted in the title of his 1998 book: we are all Multiculturalists now.

Whether Democrat, Republican or so-called “Independent” – all of the American political elites have accepted the socio-political dimensions of the international communist ideology or what can be termed mass-levelling or mass-hyper-egalitarianism, i.e. Trotskyism. Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology, every denizen of the planet possesses the same rights so long as the dogma of liberalism (or hyper-individualism) is never brought into question. For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal” in the purest sense of the term – meaning, in the eyes of liberals all human beings are cut from the same American mold, they are all considered equally worthless as atomised pieces of consumerist cannon fodder who must readily serve the liberal Atlanticist elites. They must jump when the commissars in Washington and New York tell them to jump, they must go to war when the commissars in London and Brussels tell them to go to war, they must die when the commissars in Hollywood tell them it is “heroic” or culturally acceptable to do so. This is Globalisation. This is Death.

If one should visibly rebel against the liberal worldview at any time, what follows is his or her branding as a “racist,” even though liberalism has fomented more ethnic and cultural chauvinism than any other creed known to man. Nevertheless, the heretic crusaders against liberalism will undoubtedly be called “racists.” Public censuring and total social alienation – loss of friends, livelihood and even one’s own family – inevitably come next. This is Trotskyism plain and simple. This is the legacy of Trotsky’s liberal Left Opposition. In fact it was Trotsky himself who first coined the term “racist” in 1927. Needless to say, Cultural Marxism or so-called “political correctness” falls clearly within the schema of Trotskyism. For those who are not familiar with Leon Trotsky and his connection to liberal Globalisation, I will provide a concise historical background.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was the chief proponent of International Socialism/Communism in the USSR – he represented the anti-Leninist interests of the so-called Left Opposition, or more precisely: the liberal internationalist communists. What can only be described as the “National Bolshevik” tendency (or centrist position) of the Bolshevik Party was championed by Joseph Stalin who happened also to be the originator and proud exponent of the “Socialism in One Country” doctrine, not to mention the rightful political heir to Lenin.

In February of 1929 Stalin effectively banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union on account of his subversive liberal-internationalist propaganda which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the Soviet Union at the most critical period of its development after the great human tragedies of the First World War (1914-17) and the subsequent Russian Civil War (1917-1922). What the Soviet people needed more than ever during this period (in the absence of Lenin who died in 1924) was a strong man in the Kremlin who represented the great bulk of the Russian and Soviet masses. They needed a great man of steel who represented the humble class origins of the peasantry and yet also embodied the combined supra-national aspirations of the people. The man the Soviet people needed was Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili: Stalin.

Certainly, volumes can be written on the subject of the Stalin-Trotsky rivalry, however the main reason for the dispute and Trotsky’s eventual exile (along with the famous trials against the Left and Right Opposition members) can be summed up thus: Stalin was a National Bolshevik (not ideologically but in his deeds) – he restored greatness not only to the Russian folk, but to all the other Eurasian ethnic groups who comprised the former Tsarist and then Soviet peoples. Stalin brought back order, hierarchy, patriarchy, religious tolerance, national patriotism, civic pride, as well as a renewed interest in the arts and sciences. Most importantly, all of these achievements were accomplished within a national or supra-national context; i.e. they were accomplished for the Soviet people and the Soviet people alone. The liberal-internationalist Trotskyites, on the other hand, spoke in terms of a world revolution. They promoted the view that nations and cultures do not exist – that an inorganic world community of workers must have the unique Soviet experiment foisted upon them mercilessly for the sake of internationalism. Does any of this sound familiar to the reader? If not, perhaps I should replace the word “internationalism” with “globalization.”

At any rate, the Stalin-Trotsky feud is absolutely crucial if one is to understand the ideological mechanics (if not the roots) of postmodern Globalisation. It is also important to recall Stalin’s chief accusation against the Trotskyites: that they were the paid agents of international capitalism. The validity of Stalin’s claim is glaringly clear if one conducts the proper research, particularly the well-documented collusion between Monopoly Capitalism, the Federal Reserve Bank and Leon Trotsky – three of the foremost pawns of the Atlanticist-American elites.

For example, it is a fact of history that Leon Trotsky (real name: Lev Bronshtein) was admitted into the United States during World War I, and welcomed with open arms by his fellow radical internationalists in New York City. Yet far from living the meagre lifestyle of a “comrade worker,” Trotsky lived an extravagant lifestyle, owning one of the city’s first refrigerators and frequently being chauffeured around in a limousine. Even more disconcerting, President Woodrow Wilson provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to advance the cause of international revolution. This is not at all surprising when considering the fact that Wilson had one of the most liberal administrations in U.S. history. Some of Wilson’s most influential and trusted advisers were: Paul Warburg, Henry Morgenthau, Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, and Stephen Wise (just to name a few). These same folks were instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Other names which directly funded Trotsky’s cause include: William Boyce Thompson – director of the Federal Reserve Bank and a large stockholder in the Rockefeller/Rothschild-controlled Chase Bank; Thompson donated 1 million dollars to Trotsky for propaganda purposes. Eugene Boissevain – a prominent New York banker connected to the Guaranty Trust Company. Alexander Gumberg – a Wall Street businessman who also had connections to Chase Bank. All in all, most of the pro-Trotskyite support originated from one single address: 120 Broadway, New York City.

When one investigates the matter thoroughly, one thing becomes perfectly clear: the so-called “red menace” turns out to be much more of a green menace, due to the vast amount of U.S. greenbacks which funded the cause of Trotsky’s failed International Revolution. A sufficient primer for those who might be new to the subject would be: Antony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. While not an entirely accurate work, it does highlight the early twentieth century roots of Globalisation quite convincingly, along with Sutton’s other works such as Wall Street & FDR, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

And so, a clear picture emerges from a rigorous investigation of the facts: Big Business, the Federal Reserve Bank, and Leon Trotsky – all firmly under the control of the Atlanticist elites – worked in collusion to bring about an international communist regime inside Russia with two ultimately liberal goals: (1) the neutralisation of all business competition that could pose a threat to the monopolistic hegemony of the United States and Britain, and (2) the promotion of a radical social world agenda. Needless to say, there is a plenitude of corroborating evidence behind the latter point, as it has always been the richest members of the economic and political classes (the robber barons and their political capos – the “bosses”) who have supported the most outlandish forms of social experimentation. Typically, the more outrageous the cause, the more funding it received. Thus, the ideology of International Communism may well have been born in 1848 – the year Marx published his famous work. But as a viable political force International Communism was created and bankrolled in the midst of World War I by the wealthiest one-percent of the banking class, their political lackeys and the radical agitator “hitmen” of Trotskyism.

By the 1930s, mass droves of the latter group – the radical agitator Trotskyites – immigrated to the United States where they were welcomed with open arms by the Roosevelt administration. Immediately the disciples of Bronshtein burrowed like plague-bearing rats into positions of power within the Democratic Party. Many – like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, and Irving Howe – found the Republican Party to be just as easy to infiltrate, yet under the guise of “Neoconservatism.” In time, the GOP was successfully commandeered by the sons of these “former” card-carrying Trotskyites – by second generation Neocons like William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz, et al. This second generation would go on to form the backbone of the Neoconservative Movement of the 1990s and 2000s – a rabid group of liberal free-market radicals whose political trademark can be found in virtually every one of their works and speeches through the recurrent use of the word “Globalization.” This conspicuous trademark of theirs is simply another way of saying “Internationalism.”

The Finance Capitalist world system created by the abovementioned second-generation Trotskyites is the same one that emerged victorious from the Cold War. It currently poses the greatest existential threat to every living person on this planet simply because it is depriving entire nations, peoples, and cultures of their inherent right to pursue their own traditional and unique ways of life independent of American control. This is unipolar Globalisation in the proverbial “nutshell.” It is an attack on true autonomy – since true autonomy can only exist within a multipolar context – and thus it is an affront to the collective dignity of all mankind.

Globalisation must therefore be destroyed by any means possible. And when the usurious banking industry and the power of stock companies and the U.S. military industrial complex – which provides the armed muscle for the first two – are all finally destroyed, the Atlanticist cobra will no longer have any venom in his fangs. (And what threat is a cobra if it is deprived of its only means of attack?)

Finance Capitalist Trotskyism (i.e. Globalisation) is the venom that is currently poisoning the world. It is being employed by whites and non-whites alike, by Christians and non-Christians, Jews and non-Jews, left-wing and right-wing; by members of every race, confession and political creed on the planet – but all for the benefit of one select group: the wealthiest one-percent of the liberal Atlanticist power elites. To put it another way: for the benefit of the Anti-Christs.

And so, to conclude, it could rightly be said that the Cold War was eventually won neither by Capitalism (Thesis) nor Communism (Antithesis), but by Finance Capitalist Trotskyites – the deceptive International Synthesis of the two. The Neo-Eurasianist worldview is therefore vehemently opposed to the diabolical synthesis – the unholy union – of both systems, i.e. the Atlanticist/Anglo-American extortionist racket which currently runs the world under the guise of “Globalization.” And peace-loving people all over the world ought to be against this racket too!

Reproduced with thanks to Christopher Pisarenko, Katehon

British Working Class Socialism is the Answer to Globalism

If one had to ponder what is the greatest lie of the 'Multi-culti Politically Correct' era, one would be hard-pressed to do so, as every aspect of Political Correctness is a lie.  From the 'Feminism' which speaks of liberating women from the 'chore' of Motherhood, and into the servitude of the wage slave, to the anti-Racism which promotes the notion that we must cherish our equal opportunities to become slaves in a materialistic Hell-on-Earth, political correctness leads invariably to economic bondage and loss of humanity.

For many people, the conquest of Europe (at home and overseas) by those with ideologies diametrically opposed to the well-being of the people, has led to the conclusion that Europe and much of the European world has succumbed to socialism.  This is perhaps the greatest lie of all.  What people tend to view as Socialism is nothing of the sort; it is Trotskyism, and the greatest deception of those who misrule us is that Trotskyism and Socialism are one and the same.  In truth, they are opposites.

What is Socialism?

Socialism is the natural desire to protect one's own.  It is identical with Working Class Nationalism.  Those who call themselves Socialists, but argue against sovereignty and borders, are not Socialists, but Globalists.  Likewise those who profess to fight for the people, yet endorse Free Market Capitalism, are but another variety of Globalist.  Free Market Capitalism and Open Borders Socialism belong in one camp; they both embrace the central pillars of the cosmopolitan materialistic ideology, and whether they call themselves left or right is really of no consequence.  By virtue of refusing to face up to the reality that the Nation is the People, and that the economy must serve the people, rather than the people serve it, they cannot in any way justify using the interchangeable terms of Nationalism and Socialism, which define everything they stand against.

Socialism is an ideology which by its very goes beyond mere economics.  The essence of Socialism is the belief that people matter, and that the economic system under which they live, must be tailored so as to give them the greatest practicable amount of freedom and contentment.  To this end, Socialism is the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and mutual support; it is not a belief in an all-powerful State directing the lives of the people, which, of course is what the corruption known as Fabian Socialism is all about.

The great confusion concerning the use of the term Socialism for its ideological opposite, arose with the Marxist takeover of the joint French and British Trades Union initiative, known as the International Working Men's Association, aka, the First International.  That organisation was set up with the sole purpose of preventing employers in France and Britain importing cheap foreign labour in order to lower wage demands.  The IWMA would today be labelled by modern-day Marxists as a 'fascistic' and 'xenophobic' organisation due to its demand that people in and of the respective nations, should be given absolute priority in the workplace.  Ironically, Marx himself was the General Secretary of the IWMA, although it was only after he successfully expelled his main rival, Mikhail Bakunin, that the rot set in.

Socialism is a belief that the Nation is the People, and that only that which is good for the people is permissible in the nation.  To this end, the economy of the country must be fully nationalised.  Again, the liberals and trots have used linguistic chicanery to impose their agenda whilst hiding behind the label which means its exact opposite.  The 'Socialisation of the Means of Production' has to be the transfer of power from the obscenely wealthy to the people as a whole - as the term implies -  but for the trots, it is Globalisation through bureaucratic control; giving more power, not less to the Usurers.  True Socialism unifies the Nation.  Fabianism and Trotskyism in no way undermine the Ruling Class, who retain their grip on power behind the scenes.  State Capitalism abolishes private property, giving absolute control to the State.  Socialism, in contrast, supports private property at the lowest practicable scale, and for the larger concerns employs profit-sharing amongst the workers and management, as a means of encouraging productivity.  Distributism, Syndicalism, Social Credit etc are all Socialist.

The goal of Fabianism and Trotskyism is for a Global State in which all the workers are equal; having lost their symbolic chains and having gained total servitude in their place.  For the Middle Class 'book socialists', there is no such thing as Culture, Nation, etc, only the 'right' to work as a part of the global slave plantation.  This is Capitalism.  The abolition of Trade Tariffs, the end to restrictions on the movement of labour, and the steady demise of other elements of national sovereignty are all under way in order to create more wealth for the Ruling Class, and to reduce the masses to absolute servitude.  That is not Socialism, but unbridled Capitalism, and the Trotskyite fake socialism has exactly the same aims.

Globalism is Capitalism

Karl Marx's friend and sponsor, Engels, was so sincere in his Feminism, that not only did he have servants to do his every bidding; he even raped them.  Far from liberating the oppressed classes, Engels and his cabal oppressed all who they could.  Capitalism garners wealth and power for the self-Chosen 'elite'; the Trotskyite interpretation of Marxism ensures that the masses are kept so impoverished that they cannot see through the political lies and liberate themselves. 

Liberalism walks hand-in-hand with Capitalism.  Liberalism destroys the building blocks of society, and in its wake leaves total individualists who cannot comprehend the need for a strong society, let alone take their place in it.  Margaret Thatcher notoriously stated that 'there is no such thing as society, only the individual'.  This perverse thinking is political correctness in practice and would be applauded by all who believe in the unrestricted hedonism and self-important materialism which has wrecked Europe.  Trotsky would not have used such a hideous phrase, but his ideology has led directly to that diseased view of the world becoming the norm for many people.

Freedom comes with a restoration of National Freedom, and Social Justice.  Socialism is Nationalism and Nationalism is Socialism.  Anything else is a fraud concocted to keep us in fear of our only hope of salvation.  Don't let the enemy confuse you or scare you away from ideas which will free us all.   If these ideas were not so dangerous to the global enemy, they would bother attacking them at every opportunity.

Marxism is of another time

One important thing to remember is that Marxism, at least in its original form, was a nineteenth century ideology. Much has changed in terms of living standards since the nineteenth century. We have far better standards today, at least in the West. In other parts of the world, there is still some desperate poverty. Look at this video:

Would you like to be one of those boys? It's still similar to child labour in Britain during the nineteenth century, in coal mines and so on, in the form that it takes.

British Socialism

We need to get away from the strait jacket of seeing Socialism as Marxism or derivatives of Marxism.

In Britain the first place to raise the Red flag was Merthyr in 1831: it was a symbol for 'Caws a bara' (cheese and bread) and 'I lawr â'r Brenin' (Republicanism - down with the king).  At that time the men of Wales were raising the Red Flag, Marx was a mere 13-year old! Socialism is Society-ism; what is good for the people, not what is good for the moneyed oppressors.  As Socialists fighting for the best for the Motherland of the British Isles, we can learn much by looking at our own people. We can - of course - look at examples of ideologies further afield, but nothing speaks to the soul of the British Working Class more than the British Working Class itself.

Wat Tyler on the Bourgeois SWP

by Wat Tyler

The Socialist Workers Party are the product of the British education system and the media. Their obsession with the trials and tribulations of the Soviet Union in the 20th century. The Good Communist versus the Bad Nazi mantra used by our media and education system has its base in WW2.

In the 1920 - 1935 period the British establishment was far more likely to wipe out the Soviet Union than subservient Germany. The spread of Soviet influence was a threat to British trade, capitalism and empire. However a strong Germany arming for the very same reason, to wipe out the Soviet aggression and reclaim a pre Versaille balance of power in the east, a balance they believed they had rightly won in WW1, was sold to the British working class as Germany wanting world domination. Yes, by the British ruling class that HAD world domination with their Imperial Empire.

WW2 should have been German Nationalism v Soviet Nationalism, a German ruling class fighting a Russian ruling class over post WW1 issues. But the British ruling class feared whichever side it thought the stronger.

The post WW2 British middle class and media love of good Soviet communism, no matter how many of the working class it actually killed had to be reasoned with a hate of the alternative in their view, bad nazi. OUR British Empire war with German nationalism had to be GOOD V BAD. Soviet nationalism, which was all Soviet communism had become by WW2, had to be defended and praise as a saviour to mankind, as our British Empire war had to be portrayed as Good v Bad.  The World dominating British Empire fighting to save the world from little Germany.

All wars are the wars of the ruling class and the bankers. Your Grandad fought and died for the British ruling class who had declared war against the German ruling class. The British working class are still being sold 1939 lies. Soviet Trotsky communism that had marched on the west pre WW2 only to be stopped at Warsaw and Brutal Stalinism are still the darlings of the British middle class from Corbyn, momentum and the Socialist Workers Party.

We are the British Working Class - Stop this nonsense now. It is now being used by globalist capitalism and liberal multiculturalism to kill the British working class once again. Thank you SMBPI for offering a true British Working class socialist option. You have my full support.


Editor's comment:

Thank You Wat Tyler!  It is good to have a reminder of the fact that the likes of the SWP are student-types (actual students, or those who have never progressed from the student mindset of idolising texts and historical figures), who have a distorted and obsessive view of history, and no grip on the reality of the present.  Most annoyingly, these 'crusaders for the Working Class' are nearly in every case, trendy middle class egomaniacs, who actually hate the Working Class, and see us as a threat to their globalist utopia of open borders and endless cheap labour to supply their exotic coffees as they pontificate about the importance of what Trotsky said to his man-servant on a wet afternoon in Mexico!  We don't need these pretentious toffs.  We need Working Class solidarity, and to do things our own way.

SMPBI, formerly SWPE, Never SWP

SMPBI has come under criticism for being a Trotskyite-Fascist organisation, like its parent, the SWP!  This is nonsense.  The SMPBI was previously called the SWPE (Socialist Workers' Party of England), but it has at no time been a part of, or splinter from, the SWP (Socialist Workers Party).  The confusion with the name isn't helped by the main website and some of the others still having the SWPE name.  This is something which admittedly we do need to sort out.

In the UK, there is a political party which is always present at industrial disputes and protest gatherings.  This party is the SWP. 

Laughingly claiming to be against the Establishment, the Socialist Workers Party is very much a part of the Establishment.  It has front groups such as United Against Fascism which exist for the sole purpose of libelling all opponents as Nazis, and thereby silencing criticism.  The SWP, far from being a party for the 'Workers' is a party which advances the interests of international finance, and uses the genuine grievances of the people as an excuse to push its globalist agenda.

The Socialist Worker is always a good source for anyone who cares to look into the damaged mind of the trotskyite materialistic pseudo-anti-Capitalists.  The underlying opposition to economic deprivation is laudable, however, the solutions offered only bolster the stranglehold of the common enemy.

Immigration is touted as a solution to the economic problems of the world.  According to the ideology of the SWP, the exploitation of the poorer nations by the richer ones has created the economic hardship the people therein endure. So far so good; global imperialism is indeed a key factor in the destruction of the conquered nations (is rather than was, because it still goes on under corporate rather than national banners).  However, the ideology then falters by ignoring the fact that migration away from the conquered nations has been a result of economic imperialism, and goes on to argue that the movement of people is a good thing.

In the SWP's 'Where We Stand' section, can be found the following pearls of wisdom:

• Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.

Yes, the people do create the wealth, but it is the materialist system itself which has to be overturned.  As the people of China can testify to, the replacement of a monopoly of private owners by a monopoly of bureaucrats has not made their plight any easier.  The increased efficiency of the means of production has allowed for the creation of ever more junk products, by an army of slaves.  The SWP argue that this is due to the Chinese states being State Capitalist, but this is a purely semantic argument.  The refusal to respect culture, tradition, race and faith, inevitably leads to the depersonalisation of the people.  This is one of the inherent flaws of Trotskyism.

• We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. 

How exactly are the people to gain, when they have to compete for resources with unlimited immigration?  The SWP would doubtless claim that there would be no need for immigration controls after the global revolution; this in itself highlights their failure to get beyond academic theories and deal with the real world.  Certainly supporting all people who strive for freedom is vital, but the SWP are not fighting for freedom, but for economic control; they seek to replace the corporate despots with themselves, and that has nothing to do with freedom.

• We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence and we support all genuine national liberation movements. 

This point betrays the mentality of the SWP.  They view Black people as oppressed in a way that White people are not.  For all the talk of being anti-racist, the SWP do treat the races differently.  It is interesting that Blacks and 'other oppressed groups' are encouraged to organise separately.  So the SWP envisage Black groups, homosexual groups, and all manner of exclusive groups, but Heterosexual Whites must be organised as parts of mixed groups (mixed with whom, remains a mystery!) 

The notion of 'genuine' national liberation movements is also one which we share.  However, as supporters of borders, SMPBI accepts the right of individual nations to exist, and to work together Inter-Nationally as free sovereign entities.  The issue is problematic for the SWP as their borders-abolishing globalism does not support a future in which any nations exist.

• We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.

The 'right to work' is a common theme of the SWP.  This is because, production is the sole purpose of the individual in the Trotskyite mind.  Social equality is simply globalist multi-cultural dogma; Economic equality means the right to work.  Women are especially singled out due to a fanatical hatred of the family structure.  To the SWP, it is a woman's right to be a part of the servile labour force.  The traditional role of women as the principle child nurturers is viewed as patriarchal tyranny; indeed the idea of families raising their own children is a threat to the State.  Women have the right to have their children raised by the State whilst they work to produce and consume as good wage-slave robots.  The lumping together of women and people separated due to sexuality is a variation of the more common linking of women and 'ethnic minorities', but continues the theme of splitting women away from their menfolk.  Men and women together form a strong natural bond which the SWP seeks to break apart.  The horrific protection of the rapist, 'Comrade Delta' Martin Smith, was only possible due to this unhealthy obsession with treating women as being a special class of Comrades - sadly, a class which can be patronised, objectified and abused.  SMPBI has a membership requirement that all prospective members declare any sex offences - these automatically bar anyone from membership.  The SWP could do well to adopt a similar policy.

The Socialist Worker presents itself as fighting for the workers.  As can be seen in their Where We Stand summary, their policies, if ever implemented, would reduce the worker to the level of a slave.  The attack on everything wholesome and natural is identical to the tactics of the Capitalist entity they purport to oppose.  The objective of the people who control the SWP is to establish a single global materialist State in which all people are the same; a State in which there is no place for culture, family, sovereignty, tradition, customs, or indeed any of the many aspects of humanity which make us more than economic producer-consumers.  They claim to oppose the current drive to a global State ruled by a financial oligarchy, but only because they do not understand that the people who control them ARE the financiers they protest against.

The SWP exist to herd anti-Capitalists into fighting for the very oppressors they instinctively oppose.  Social Justice cannot exist except within a strong and free nation.  A nation is more than an economy; it is a people unified by experience and by kinship.  To ignore the bonds of land and people is to ignore nature.  Genuine Socialists put their own people first; globalism is anti-society, and therefore anti-Socialist.

Supporters of the SWP have been lied to by their leaders.  They have swallowed all manner of trotskyite drivel, but just as humanity as a whole is awakening to the lunacy of globalism, so too will the genuine and decent Socialists awaken to the lies of those who would lead them.  SMPBI has no dealings with the SWP, other than to hold out a hand to Working Class SWP members and ex-members who know deep inside that Socialism Needs Borders; it serves us well to exploit those doubts and break the good few away from the middle class trotskyite enemy.  To be classed alongside the bourgeois trots is not helpful, and we have to work on ways of making it clear that this lumping together is counter-productive.

To Stop the Mass Migration from Africa, Stop the Exploitation of Capitalism

Africa is a troubled continent.  From the time of the recent European Empires, it has been economically ravaged.  Much has been written of the African Slave Trade, with blame for the human suffering being laid squarely at the feet of Europeans - all Europeans, not just the Ruling Class! - but as with most contemporary propaganda, the truth is somewhat different.

At the time of the Black Slave Trade, ordinary Europeans were also subjected to unspeakable horrors.  There is a tendency to blame all British people for the suffering endured by the African Slaves, but this is inappropriate.  Even if it was acceptable to blame people for crimes committed by their ancestors (which it is not), the Slave Owners were not Working Class people, but people from the Ruling Class and especially the financial class of banking parasites, and those who caught and enslaved them in the first place, were despotic Africans, many of whom have descendants today who still profit from the cruelty of enslaving human beings.. 

Those who say that the British should feel guilt and shame for the Slave Trade, conveniently forget that the same people who treated the Africans as sub-humans, also treated Working Class British and Irish people in the same way.  Indentured Service, Press-ganging, Child-labour, Starvation etc were all common place in Europe, and all to the benefit of the same tyrants who raped Africa. 

The Slave Trade contributed to an economic enfeebling of parts of Africa.  The greed of some of the rulers was sufficient to allow them to sell their own people with no care for their welfare.  This attitude was helpful to the gradual occupation of the continent by regimes based across Europe, and not just in the British Isles.  In the case of Great Britain especially, it was easy for the ruling class to treat the people in their charge as less than human.  It must not be forgotten that the entire class structure in the UK was created to prevent the dilution of the ruling class bloodlines with that of the lowly oppressed peasantry.  The arrogance of the bourgeois mindset made the denigration of African culture, tradition and way of life, almost inevitable.

As Imperialism gave way to Globalism (the same thing but differently dressed) puppet regimes were created to administer a fake home rule in the place of open dictatorship.

Africa is rich in minerals.  If the nations were ruled by and for Working Class Africans, the continent could be wholly self-sufficient.  Much of the land is abundantly fertile, and there is no logical reason why anyone should go without food.  In a free and Socialist world, Africa left to flourish, could be a shining example to the rest of us, and her people would have no desire to emigrate from their homelands.  This natural situation is quite the reverse of the contrived reality, and this is deliberate.

The administrative division of Africa into the imperial territories paid no heed to cultural, linguistic, tribal or any other authentic natural divisions.  The imperialists had as much regard for Africa as the globalists have for Europe - lines drawn on a map replaced natural territorial divisions which mattered to the people, and this crime is still having repercussions. Forcing incompatible people to live in the same space, sharing the same resources, goes against nature.  Hostility is inevitable, and when the resources are so scarce that sharing with an outsider means your own kin going without even the most basic commodities, such as food, violence is not only understandable, but right.  The transfer of power to servile and corrupt despots ensured that the natural wealth of Africa was kept away from the people.  For the successor to imperialism, Globalism, to work, the breakdown of countries was the first stage, with the free movement of people a vital part of the plan, and nothing encourages people to move, more than to escape hardship.

In Africa, war and poverty were (indeed still are) used to drive people from their lands, and coupled with the fantasy of the European Union being a rich land which literally owes them a living, the conditions for mass migration were set. 

By supporting despotic regimes which would put greed above people, the internationalists engineered the unthinkable; mass starvation in the most fertile land in the world.  The best educated Africans were driven to emigrate, thus depriving their home nations of the best minds.  Military hardware was poured into the continent to ensure that war was a constant danger, and of course to enrich the war manufacturers.  When starvation came, the response was to televise the suffering and to ram home the propaganda that this was the fault of Europeans because centuries ago the transatlantic slavery industry had existed.  Never mind that the Working Class of all races were butchered by the ruling class parasites.  The SJW trots successfully used the lie of racism as a means of making people accept that people fleeing the destruction of Africa should of course be welcomed into Europe.  Of course the bourgeois bastards made sure that they kept themselves away from the newcomers, proving their hatred for the Working Class both new and old.

In 1985, the images of starvation in Africa prompted the Live Aid concerts.  Millions were raised to provide food and healthcare, but the underlying reasons for the starvation were not addressed; those being the greed and corruption at the heart of the regimes put in place by the corporate entities fronting for the globalised ruling class.  As a result, most of the money donated by sympathetic people from across the globe, was syphoned off by the governments in Africa, and by their globalist overlords.  Contrary to the vile anti-European propaganda of the SJW trots, vast numbers of Europeans contributed to the cause of helping Africans.  Live Aid essentially achieved very little, and the manufactured hunger continued.

The light at the end of the tunnel came for the people of Africa with the great works of Muammar Al Gaddafi.  After turning Libya into the richest nation in Africa, with the highest standard of living, and such riches as free energy for all, Gaddafi turned his attention to helping the rest of the continent.  His plan to use the vast reserves of gold built up from oil sales to produce a single currency for Africa, would have freed the continent from the stranglehold of international finance.  To prevent the Gold Dinar, which would have killed the hated IMF and World Bank, Libya was invaded and the potential saviour of Africa was martyred.  Death and debt are big business and the capitalist menace is more than happy to murder millions to hold onto power.  Sadly the treacherous Arab League are also only too happy to aid their Jewish paymasters, as they proved when they refused to help Libya; they have been equally despicable in their inaction and effective selling out of Syria.

If the Libyan plan had not been bombed into oblivion, Africa would have become self-sufficient.  The exodus of Africans would have been reversed as all reasons for living outside the homeland would have faded into insignificance.  This would have ended the nightmare of mass migration which has wreaked so much havoc on the ordinary people of Europe.  The momentum towards self-sufficient regions would have been unstoppable, and the entire globalist criminal enterprise would have fallen.  With the murder of Gaddafi, our strongest chance for freedom died in cold blood.

The irrational hatred of foreigners which has increased as a result of the mass  migration from Africa (the so-called 'Syrian' 'refugees') is a part of the globalist agenda being fulfilled.  Immigrants are treated as the cause of all our ills, not as victims of the globalist despots, who have been brought into our lands by our common enemy.  This thinking only aids the enemy, by focusing our anger on symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

For the British Isles to be free, it is vital that we struggle for all people to be free: not in the way of open borders globalists, but as free Inter-Nationalist Socialists who respect the right of everyone to self-determination, and the sanctity of closed borders.  The rape of Africa took a new turn with the American imperialist occupation spearheaded by AFRICOM.  Yet again, African culture is being stamped on, war is being escalated, hunger is being spread, and more people are fleeing for the chance of any life, even a harsh one in Europe. 

The Mass Migration which is crippling the NHS, the Housing and Transport Infrastructure, destroying the Green Belt and seeing Law and Order, Education and all areas of Society crumbling, is contrived.  We need to see beyond the migrants to the cause of their migration.  Ending the suffering of the Working Class in Africa is the only solution to the suffering of the Working Class here.  Populist calls for the migrants to be sent back, which do not call for the People of Africa to become truly self-governing, are not real solutions.  The longer Capitalism survives, the more all of us will suffer. We have to attack the problem, not the symptoms, and stand by our Working Class brothers and sisters worldwide in a fight to permanently destroy the global ruling class and their economic system - a system which is slavery for the twentyfirst century for everyone.

THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA: A DELIBERATE PLAN BY THERESA MAY, JEAN CLAUDE JUNCKER AND THE EU ESTABLISHMENT TO DERAIL BREXIT.

by Pietro

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTMINSTER AND BRUSSELS NEVER ACCEPTED THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM SINCE THE MORNING OF THE 24th OF JUNE 2016. DAVID CAMERON RESIGNED AND GOT REPLACED BY THERESA MAY.

AFTER JUST REPEATING "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT" LIKE A PARROT SHE IS TRYING HER BEST TO BE IN THE EU IN ALL BUT NAME.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE KREMLIN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ATTEMPTED MURDERING OF A SPY AND HIS DAUGHTER IN SALISBURY (IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AGAINST THEIR INTEREST) THE ENTIRE WESTERN ESTABLISHMENT AND THE SOROSES OF THIS WORLD ARE PUSHING REALLY HARD TO START A NEW WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN ORDER TO KEEP NATO, THE UN AND THE EU ALIVE AND KICKING.

WITH THE EXEMPTION OF AUSTRIA, BULGARIA AND HUNGARY (And even these have sent home a token Russian in support of this lunacy) EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY STARTED THE MAD WITCH HUNT AGAINST RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS.

THERESA MAY, EMANUEL MACRON AND ANGELA MERKEL HAVE HAD A JOINT CONFERENCE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE HOSTILITY. UNLIKE IN 2014 WHEN CRIMEA RETURNED HOME THIS TIME THE EU IS EVEN MORE WARMONGERING THAN THE US

IN A MOMENT IN WHICH ALL THE MAINSTREAM POLITICAL PARTIES IN BRITAIN ARE AGAINST BREXIT: I MEAN THE FAKE SOCIALISTS (IN FACT GLOBOS) OF PLAID CYMRU, THE STRASBOURG NATIONAL PARTY, LABOUR (JEREMY CORBYN DITCHED HIS PREVIOUS EUROSCEPTICISM), MOST OF THE TORY PARTY AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE LIB DEMS - ALL WANTED TO REMAIN. THE GOVERNMENT ARE YET AGAIN TRYING TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP INSIDE THE EU.

THE 2017 SNAP GENERAL ELECTION WAS IN FACT AIMING AT UKIP. THEY WANTED TO BRING UKIP DOWN BECAUSE AT LEAST ON BREXIT AND ON IMMIGRATION THEY HAD SOMEONE TO ANSWER TO.

UKIP HAS AT THE MOMENT GOT NO CHANCE AS LONG AS THIS CLOWN (HENRY BOLTON) IS IN CHARGE OF THE PARTY.

NOW THERESA MAY AND HER CORRUPTED CABAL ARE USING THE SCARE-MONGERING OF THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT BRITAIN CAN'T HAVE IT'S FREEDOM AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BACK.

THE EU IS NOTHING FOR THE EUROPEANS. IT WAS SET BY A GROUP OF AMERICANS DURING THE COLD WAR IN ORDER TO OCCUPY ALL THE NATION STATES THAT FELL UNDER IT AND IS THE ECONOMIC WING OF NATO.

NOW THIS GLOBALIST INSTITUTION IS ALLOWING THE MASSES OF THE THIRD WORLD IN EUROPE IN ORDER TO CREATE IT'S OWN ELECTORATE, IT'S OWN "europeans" AND GENOCIDE ALL THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BY CREATING A GLOBALISED MAN.
...... WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE TROTZ, THE SJWs, THE MULTINATIONALS AND THE MISSIONARIES USEFUL IDIOTS.

WE NEED TO EXPOSE THE EU FOR WHAT IT IS, BRING IT DOWN TOGETHER WITH NATO AND THE UN, AND CREATE AN ALLIANCE OF FREE SOVEREIGN AND IDENTITARIAN NATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND BELARUS.

DOWN WITH GLOBALISATION!
DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!
DOWN WITH THE KALERGY PLAN!

SAY NO TO THE WHITE GENOCIDE (the first blow in a war for total ethnic genocide)!


note:
MAY AND JUNCKER ARE IN COLLUSION.THEY PRETEND TO BE BICKERING AGAINST EACH OTHER BUT IT'S ALL PART OF THE SHOW! EVEN IF JUNCKER IS NOT AS OUTSPOKEN THE ���� IS PART OF THE GLOBALIST PROJECT. MAIDAN IS THE FINEST EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSOPHOBIC ATTACK. THERESA MAY EVERYONE CAN TELL SHE FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE IN BRUSSELS THAN IN BRITAIN, AS SHE WAS A REMAINER IN THE REFERENDUM.

Harry Haywood on Trotskyism, by Comrade Zero

"Trotskyism is taking action now in order to discredit Bolshevism and to undermine its foundations. It is the duty of the Party to bury Trotskyism as an ideological trend." - J. V. Stalin, "Trotskyism or Leninism?"

The great African American Marxist-Leninist theorist Harry Haywood is particularly known for his work on the African American national question, but he made contributions on other issues and was involved in the other struggles of the day. Here's what Harry Haywood, who lived in the Soviet Union for four and half years as a member of the Comintern, said in the chapter of his autobiography, Black Bolshevik, entitled "Trotsky's Day in Court" regarding Trotskyism.

First, he says that "[Trotsky's] writings were readily available throughout the school [KUTVA, where Haywood and others were studying], and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collectives. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country" (p. 182).

He goes on to say that "The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky's works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin's control of the Party apparatus - as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities. He was doomed to defeat because his ideas were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people" (ibid).

Haywood describes the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in 1926:

"Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor about three hours.

"Otto said it was the greates display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn't accept Trotsky's view that socialism in one country was a betrayl of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution. (...)

"The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin. The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky's opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside of Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses - all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.

"At the Tenth Anniversary, Trosky's followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and oraters appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of 'Down with Stalin.'

"They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.

"During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled - along with seventy-four of their chief supporters." (pp. 183-184).

Other helpful articles on Trotskyism are here:

"Preface to Trotskyism or Leninism?" by Harpal Brar of the CPGB-ML.
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm

Similar but more concise:"Trotskyism or Leninism?: An Historical Outline" by Tim Logan (CPGB-ML) to the Stalin Society (UK)
http://leftspot.com/blog/?q=node/255

See also:"Critiques of Contemporary Trotskyism" - a collection
http://leftspot.com/blog/?q=trotskyism

On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History by Kostas Mavrakis
http://marx2mao.com/Other/OT73NB.html

"Trotskyism or Leninism?" by J. V. Stalin
http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/TL24.html

"The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now" by J. V. Stalin
http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/TO27.html

Report of Court Proceedings: The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre: Heard Before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R.
http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/law/1936/moscow-trials/index.htm

Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Comrade Zero's site can be found at the following link: https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/
The site hasn't been updated for some time, but is worth visiting for more information on the sickness of the Revisionists (Trotskyites) who like to parade as Socialists and to lie about Stalin and the doctrine of Socialism in One Country