Socialism is the past, Socialism is the future.
It is an aberration that Socialism is not the present.
We are here to correct this tragedy.
We fight for a Free British Isles: a Socialist British Isles.
Our vision is the British Isles of Social Justice: the British Isles of National Freedom.
It is the British Isles freed from Capitalism, Liberalism & Trotskyism.
Every year at Yuletide, the State owned UK television station, Channel 4, mirrors the State owned BBC, with an exercise in propaganda and mind pollution, known as the Queen's Speech. The BBC airs the pathetic piffle of the head of the Windsor family, whilst Channel 4 has an alternative queen airing more of the same.
This year's drivel from the head of state, and owner of the people of the UK (we are Subjects, not Citizens, we are her property), was as follows:
At this time of year, few sights evoke more feelings of cheer and goodwill than the twinkling lights of a Christmas tree....The
popularity of a tree at Christmas is due in part to my great-great
grandparents, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. After this touching
picture was published, many families wanted a Christmas tree of their
own, and the custom soon spread....In
1949, I spent Christmas in Malta as a newly-married naval wife. We have
returned to that island over the years, including last month for a
meeting of Commonwealth leaders; and this year I met another group of
leaders: The Queen's Young Leaders, an inspirational group, each of them
a symbol of hope in their own Commonwealth communities....Gathering
round the tree gives us a chance to think about the year ahead - I am
looking forward to a busy 2016, though I have been warned I may have
Happy Birthday sung to me more than once or twice. It also allows us to
reflect on the year that has passed, as we think of those who are far
away or no longer with us. Many people say the first Christmas after
losing a loved one is particularly hard. But it's also a time to
remember all that we have to be thankful for.
It
is true that the world has had to confront moments of darkness this
year, but the Gospel of John contains a verse of great hope, often read
at Christmas carol services: 'The light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness has not overcome it'.
One
cause for thankfulness this summer was marking 70 years since the end
of the Second World War. On VJ Day, we honoured the remaining veterans
of that terrible conflict in the Far East, as well as remembering the
thousands who never returned.
The
procession from Horse Guards Parade to Westminster Abbey must have been
one of the slowest ever, because so many people wanted to say 'thank
you' to them.
At
the end of that war, the people of Oslo began sending an annual gift of
a Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square. It has 500 light bulbs and is
enjoyed not just by Christians but by people of all faiths, and of none.
At the very top sits a bright star, to represent the Star of Bethlehem....The
custom of topping a tree also goes back to Prince Albert's time. For
his family's tree, he chose an angel, helping to remind us that the
focus of the Christmas story is on one particular family.
For
Joseph and Mary, the circumstances of Jesus's birth - in a stable -
were far from ideal, but worse was to come as the family was forced to
flee the country. It's no surprise that such a human story still
captures our imagination and continues to inspire all of us who are
Christians, the world over.
Despite
being displaced and persecuted throughout his short life, Christ's
unchanging message was not one of revenge or violence but simply that we
should love one another.
Although
it is not an easy message to follow, we shouldn't be discouraged;
rather, it inspires us to try harder: to be thankful for the people who
bring love and happiness into our own lives, and to look for ways of
spreading that love to others, whenever and wherever we can.
One
of the joys of living a long life is watching one's children, then
grandchildren, then great grandchildren, help decorate the Christmas
tree. And this year my family has a new member to join in the fun!...The
customary decorations have changed little in the years since that
picture of Victoria and Albert's tree first appeared, although of course
electric lights have replaced the candles....There's an old saying that 'it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness'....There
are millions of people lighting candles of hope in our world today.
Christmas is a good time to be thankful for them, and for all that
brings light to our lives....I wish you a very happy Christmas.
The propaganda is there for all to see. The usual irrelevant rubbish about what the queen and her parasitic family have been doing is of no interest to anyone other than a sycophantic monarchist who enjoys living at the mercy of the Ruling Class and taking scraps from the table while even the queen's dogs eat better than most native people.
The queen stated that the infant Jesus had to flee for his life. This is according to the Jewish authors of the New Testament, and is fantasy. The alleged massacre of the first born simply didn't happen. There are no historical records for it. The point of this part of the queen's piffle is to make us feel sad for the fake refugees who are destroying Europe and being aided and abetted by the Christian church.
Now, accepting for a moment that Jesus was a refugee (which is nonsense), he was taken to safety (so the story goes) by his parents. The military-aged men entering Europe are leaving their women and children behind them. To compare the Jesus story of a family making their way to safety, with aggressive foot-soldiers of the globalists conquest of the Middle East, now being used to destabilise Europe to as to soften it up for its turn in global subservience, is clearly disingenuous.
The queen continues with drivel about how Jesus preached love and help for others, clearly planting the idea that we must throw open our borders, must what little we have in the way of job security and housing for them to enjoy, must pay taxes through the nose and betray our wildlife by allowing the countryside to be built over - it's what Jesus would have wanted, apparently.
The mention of the Second World War ties in with this. The rationale is that we must let our homelands be invaded because to do otherwise is to be like the Nazis of Germany who gassed 6 million Jews. The idea goes like this - not loving your enemies leads to racism, racism leads to gas chambers. Well, there were no gas chambers, 6 million Jews were not murdered. 60 million non-Jews were killed at the command of the international finance parasites, almost exclusively headed by Jews, and our countries were then opened to population replacement and total capitalism - which is something that we are supposed to be grateful for.
Racism is a nonsense word used to describe any belief by the present population that it is not a good thing to be submitted to loss of work, loss of home, loss of land, loss of family, loss of childhood for those whose lands are irrevocably changed. It is racist to be anti-globalist.
Abdullah Kurdi is a consummate liar. He claims that he fled Syria, entered Turkey, then almost immediately left for Greece by boat. In reality, he was in Turkey for years. He lived in a safe country, free from war, and his family were safe. He decided to go to Greece because he wanted new teeth and he knew that he could get whatever he wanted from the generous welfare states of Europe. Like most of the so-called refugees coming to Europe by this route, he did not need to leave the safe nation of Turkey to cross the Mediterranean to achieve safety - he already had safety where he was.
Kurdi was (and probably still is) a people smuggler. He earned money arranging for fake refugees to get to Europe. He put his family on an unsafe boat, knowing that the soft Europeans would allow him to be reunited with them once they arrived in one of our countries. The pathetic excuse for a human being risked the lives of his family, including his son, to secure an easy life for himself. The risk paid off - even though his family are dead - and he got everything he wanted. He is typical of the scum of the Earth entering Europe.
Channel 4 has joined with their fellow state-owned colleagues in the BBC, in producing propaganda to tug on the heart strings of Europeans befuddled by decades of liberal mind pollution and centuries of weak Christianity. We are supposed to treat terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, mohammedan fanatics and all manner of criminal scum who are flooding in to Europe as our equals, and the constant coverage of the 'poor immigrants' in Calais, who 'only want a better life' is a part of the attack on our senses. The Christmas Messages reinforce this.
An excellent picture showing free loading military age parasites sipping coffee while European soldiers go off to fight wars for them, really does sum up what is going on here. They will not lift a finger to help their women and children, but they will cross a continent to get whatever free stuff they can lay their hands on. Many are sleeper terrorists, all are active promoters of the global mohammedan genocide of free humanity. The mass migration is the will of the Ruling Class who have always sought to destroy our people.
SWPE is a party of action. Prior to the unification of the FWL and BSP, the FWL was a movement founded on an urge to get into the real world and make a difference. It is gratifying to see that those who came from the BSP prior to the merger have fully joined in the struggle to push for real change now, rather than theorising about how change can be fomented in an unspecified future. Of course, that is not to devalue the importance of ideology and vision. The unified SWPE has the best of the qualities of the organisations which came together to form it.
December has been a month with a definite purpose. Our activists have taken to the streets to fight the plague of paedophilia. The destruction of childhood by predators who lack even the most basic appreciation of humanity is such an outrage that it was decided that we should leave our banners at home and fight as individuals alongside communities impacted by the presence of child rapists. Unlike the self promoting liberal fools of the SWP, who latch on to any issue in order to push their propaganda and name, SWPE activists are motivated by a desire to save our people and to build a future in which the problems facing us become memories of a horrific past. We stand with anyone who seeks an end to the corrupt order, and we value victory on an issue by issue basis above gaining media attention and waving placards.
Activists across England have joined in peaceful protests to get paedophiles moved from neighbourhoods with children. Joining with residents groups, helping with printed material, joining the pickets of paedophile occupied properties, researching the child rapists so that they can be exposed at their places of work, doing anything within the law which can make the lives of paedophiles as miserable as possible, all this helps to let the scum who prey on children know that they will not be tolerated. If they decide to take the coward's way out, then that at least makes our children safe.
We have found that the paedophiles themselves are not the only problem. They are protected by the police to make sure that good people do not get hold of them and destroy them. They are given CCTV at our expense. It could be argued that the law has to protect the community from violence, but when people take the decision to attack the community (especially the children of the community), they no longer deserve to be counted as part of it, and should be exempt from protection. In a post Globalist society, the scum who destroy children will be destroyed by the people. We are gathering information at the same time as we are protesting.
The sickest people of all are those who protect the paedophiles, not because they are ordered to do so, but because they want to. We have found a sick unity of liberals and paedophiles, with an excess of non natives in both categories. We know that Mohammedans worship a child rapist who they emulate, and we do not allow that to be an excuse for indulging in the violation of children (they choose to be Mohammedans so they choose to support/defend/engage in paedophilia). We have come across a number of Christians who 'forgive' the paedophiles and allow them to hide in their homes when we come to get them evicted. We don't care what justification they have for 'turning the other cheek' and 'loving their enemies', we don't give a damn about the insanity which motivates them. They too must be punished for enabling paedophiles to hide from justice, making them willing accomplices in the brutal attack upon our children and our society. We make no distinction between paedophiles and those who voluntarily protect them.
Our members are active fighting for animal welfare, human welfare and for the defence of our people, land and the non human population. In the past, we have helped to wreck animal testing institutions, we have been active hunt saboteurs, we have forced heroin dealers off the streets. We continue our actions in our commitment to not fall into the trap of the walking political activists who go on demos and chant, then rest until the next jolly boys outing.
The hated Capitalist traitors have declared that they will allow fracking to begin under our National Parks, ruining the environment which our wildlife needs to survive. They have declared that they will build on Green Belt land to accommodate the masses of the Third World who are illegally entering our beloved homeland. We will not tolerate this. Companies motivated by profit will halt their operations when it becomes obvious that they will lose financially as equipment is ruined and as employees refuse to go to work for nature rapers because they understand that to do so is wrong, or that to do so is dangerous. We work within the law, but when the law is an act of treason, we no longer accept its rule. We obey the Law of Nature, the Law of Tradition, the Law of Survival.
Illegal immigrants (many of them rapists, all of them criminals and enemies of the People) are being housed at our expense, while homelessness among the native population continues to explode. Protesting against refugee centres won't make them go away, but removing them will. The existence of organisations and premises for the assistance of illegal immigrant invaders, is contrary to the need for the native people to survive and have a home of our own. We obey the Laws of Nature and we reject the laws of the State. Invader Barracks are burning across Europe - they will burn here also, preferably with all the invader scum present.
Congratulations to all who have done their bit and continue to do so. This is what SWPE is about - bringing change right now and helping our people/land/wildlife right now. Keep active, Comrades. We are making more of a difference than all the members of the democratic parties who fly their banners, fear to break the false laws of the oppressor class, and talk well but do nothing. We are gaining members by this approach. We are building the Counter Power. We are attacking our enemies wherever we can. We do engage in the democratic process when we can see a point to it, and as we help rip the mask from the enemy liberal bigots and finance serving traitors, we will do so more often. Action achieves change. The Ballot Box reflects power, it doesn't create it - that is what we must do right now, using every means necessary and every opportunity.
Socialism is an idea. It is an idea founded on a desire.
The idea is to create a society which fulfills the desire of the people to live according to the inner spirit
of the people. Liberalism is also founded on a similar desire, and that
is where the problem of liberals infiltrating and corrupting socialism
stems. Liberals believe in a semi-religious notion of 'equality', an
equality of all humanity, which sees any differences as 'social
constructs', rather than accepting them as natural and worthy of protection. Herein lies the problem - liberals do not understand reality and prefer to live in their fantasies than to accept that we are all a product of nature and that our differences are real and matter.
Liberals do not operate with a logical mind. They are controlled by negative emotions. Those who clamour for open borders do not genuinely care about the plight of people in countries ravaged by war or economic turmoil. They demand borders are opened because they hate the natives of their own lands. The ongoing invasion of Europe by terrorists and thieves under the cover of 'refugees' is being aided and abetted by liberals.
The real solution to the plight of those fleeing war is to stop arming the terrorists on the ground and to stop using NATO to destabilise sovereign nations. The wars which are underway are all wars for the imposition of finance capitalist central banks. The typical liberal knee-jerk reaction to the ISrael destruction of Syria, is that 'we' (meaning the armed forces they constantly abuse, but hide behind when it suits them) need to eliminate IS (Islamic State, Isis Ra El).
Liberals claim that Islamists do not represent Islam and that 'we' (meaning the people of native Working Class neighbourhoods which they would love to annihilate) must open our borders to let the poor unradicalised Mohammedans in, to enrich our obviously pathetic culture with all manner of animal cruelty, sexual depravity and all round criminality. They fail to notice that the people who are coming to Europe are the ones who won't lifting a finger to oppose the terrorists (making them cowardly and solely motivated by what they can get at our expense). Not only this, but the fake refugees are in fact leaving their women and children behind at the mercy of the terrorists as they come to Europe to enjoy the ability to turn our countries into mirrors of those they are leaving - complete with shariah hocup pocus, sexism which includes murdering victims of rape, homophobia, halal, heroin dealing and parasitism. Of course this is to generalise - not all of the rapeugees are cowardly parasites, many of them are fully trained maniacal terrorist sleepers waiting for the time to become active and slaughter us.
Was it not for the capitalist rape of free nations, there would be no excuse for people to leave their own countries in search of a better life at someone else's expense. Libya was a rich nation when the Libyan people ran it, but it was also an obstacle to the IMF. Africa is a poor continent because of the debts imposed by the Rothschilds and their servants. Liberals who campaign for open borders are aiding the destruction of Africa at the same time as they are helping to destroy Europe. A world without borders is a paradise in the minds of deranged liberals. The reality is that borders are a check on globalisation. A world without borders is a world of Capitalist tyranny, with people moved about as commodities, with debt universalised, with the power of the bankers made absolute, with freedom crushed.
The UK government has admitted that for Capitalism to continue, the population has to be increased. Marx wrote in Capital, Critique of Political Economy, of the inevitability of Capitalism collapsing due to the inherent contradictions which would ultimately bring the system to an end as there were more goods to buy than people to buy them. The deliberate butchery of Africa and Asia has provided millions of extra people to come to our countries to buy the worthless shit that the Capitalist economy creates. The irony that the UK manufacturing base no longer exists and that almost everything is imported from allegedly Communist China, adds the interesting point that the global economy has become specialised with alienation reaching new depths as the means of production has become centred in east Asia. The global economy thrives on theft from the poorest nations by the IMF, endless war for the benefit of the armaments industry, cultural genocide and rootlessness through contrived mass migration, and it is no borders liberal morons who not only allow this to happen, but campaign against people who try to stop it.
We need more borders, not fewer. But what we need most of all is to deprogramme the liberals and make them see reality for what it is. Gender, Sexuality, Ethnicity, all are inborn, all are important, they are not social constructs, they cannot be changed. Nations are real and are an anchor which we need to keep us sane. Globalisation - whether economic (Capitalist/Trotskyite Communism), religious (Islamification, Christian), physical (mass migration/invasion) - has to be stopped, and those who encourage it have to be stopped from doing so. We tolerate too much. The time for tolerance of mind -polluted and mind-polluting liberals is over.
The mother of all anti-democratic parliaments voted against the wishes of the people, to attack Syria, extending the UK involvement in wars which are nothing to do with us and have no benefit to us. The odious MPs of the Labour Party voted for the terror strikes against the legitimate government of Syria, in defiance of the near consensus of ordinary members of that party (including their own leader) against the UK joining the US terrorist attacks.
SWPE has always been against UK involvement in wars which do not directly involve the interests of our people. We have always campaigned for the total withdrawal of British forces from foreign adventures and for their deployment solely across the islands which make up the UK. We campaigned against the UK involvement in both Gulf Wars. We exposed the lies against Serbia in the wars which accompanied the dissolution of Yugoslavia. We campaigned against the NATO destruction of Free Kosovo which resulted in the creation of the present terrorist state which is a bridgehead for the Islamic invasion of Europe. Our most successful campaign in terms of reaching large numbers of ordinary people, was our defence of Libya and the fact that the NATO / Al Qaeda war of aggression was indefensible. Throughout the existence of the party we have campaigned against wars for finance capitalism and globalisation. We maintain this position.
The criminal war against Syria is a capitalist war of aggression (as all wars are). The war is yet another war for the establishment of a central bank which will serve the interests of international finance, and in particular of the banking cartels centred on the Rothschild dynasty. The UK government is not acting in the interests of the people, but in the interests of the bankers who own them and can dismiss them with a manufactured scandal the moment they step out of line.
Since the infamous false flag attack of 9-11, country after country has been attacked, and Rothschild banks imposed. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, the method has been the same. The legitimate governments have been libeled as tyrants, and puppet rebels have been created to assist in their removal. The same method has been applied to the Ukraine, making the point that this is not an ongoing war against Islam, but a war for finance imperialism.
The legitimate government of Syria is that of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and the elected president, Bashar Al-Assad. The government has maintained order and peace in one of the most volatile regions of the world, keeping the murderous ambitions of rival Islamic factions in check. The horror stories of Assad's regime butchering the people are pure fiction, which merit no more respect than the ludicrous 'dirty dossier' which was used to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq on the lie that the government had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' which they were going to use on their own people. The creation of the bankers' Free Syrian Army is a clone of the operation in Libya which created the bankers' Free Libyan Army - both were created outside the countries they claim to fight for, both were transported by countries under the control of the bankers, both were lauded by the terrorist organisation, NATO, as rebels fighting for freedom.
The legitimate government of Libya was on the verge of overthrowing the IMF in Africa and restoring freedom to that long-suffering continent. The reasons why Libya was deliberately destabilised and ultimately invaded, are summarised in this excellent video from 2011, before the murder of the legitimate government and the start of the ongoing criminal control by finance capitalism and its terrorist stooges:
The situation on Syria isn't vastly different from the criminal invasion of Libya. In both cases, US-backed terrorists have been used to wage war against a sovereign nation, until such time as the loss of life and the chaos resulting from the barbarity of the US proxies has become such that it can be used as justification for invasion on humanitarian grounds.
SWPE stands with the right of the Syrian people to govern their own country in their own way. We oppose all economics based on usury. Rather than support a terrorist invasion of a sovereign nation in order to make it submit to the global tyranny of the Rothschilds banking system, we propose that all nations break free from that system and refound their economies as debt-free credit-based systems. We would not bomb for the banks, we would bomb the banks!
Islamic State was created as a mercenary army to destroy countries which stood in the way of globalisation. ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State used to be called Al Qaeda, before that it was the pre-Taliban Mujahideen in Afghanistan which was destabilise the USSR. The names change. Al Qaeda, NTC, Boko Haram, FSA, ISIS, Hizb ut-tahrir, Moslem Brotherhood - all mohammedan, all hell-bent on creating a global mohammedan state, all fanatical about imposing Shariah on the world, all aided or cast aside by the global finance capitalists as suits their agenda. SWPE says No to Capitalism, No to Globalism and No to the Semitic religions of Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the liberal spin-off, Trotskyite Marxism/Liberalism.
The ongoing invasion of Europe by Third Worlders is a direct result of the NATO/ISIS slaughter of the peoples of too many countries to list. The vast majority of so-called refugees are economic parasites, but among them are a substantial number of terrorists who seek to impose their insane religious-political views by murdering ordinary Working Class people who cannot afford the safety of gated communities such as enjoyed by the bankers, politicians and stock-brokers who encourage them to leave their own countries by attacking them financially and/or militarily. To stop the invasion, we need to stop the cause. We need to wipe out finance capitalism and punish those who have betrayed the people and campaigned for world without borders - whether through economic greed or through blind liberal stupidity, or through the promotion of globalising ideologies/religions. Only borders can protect us from tyranny. Only borders can protect us from economic exploitation. Only borders can ensure that our own ways are protected and our external enemies kept at bay, while our internal enemies and dealt with in a manner which keeps us safe from them for all time.
We should never allow terrorists the last word, so it is only fitting that the democratically elected President of Syria is given space to tell the truth about what the criminals of NATO and their financial controllers in the US-EU-Turkish-Saudi-Israeli axis of deception are doing to the once prosperous and peaceful secular Arab nation which has suffered so greatly in order to advance the interests of finance capitalism.
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to The
Sunday Times in which he said Britain and France have neither the will
nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism and their airstrikes against
ISIS will yield no results, but will rather be illegal and harmful in
that they will help in spreading terrorism. The following is the full text of the interview:
Question 1: Thank you for seeing us Mr President. As
you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it
will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to
join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its
involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change? President Assad: If I want to let’s say, evaluate a
book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate
the whole book. I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the
chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book. So, what we are
talking about is only an isolated phrase. If we want to go back to the
headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.” We know from the very
beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the
terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict. We know
that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the
chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be
comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have
cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the
interference or participation to be legal. It is legal only when the
participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria.
So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the
vision on how to defeat terrorism.
And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts. Let’s go
back to the reality on the ground. Since that coalition started its
operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other
like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely.
What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting
terrorism directly? ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking. So I would
say, first they will not give any results. Second, it will be harmful
and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the
coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a
cancer. You cannot cut the cancer. You have to extract it. This kind
of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the
body faster. Question 2: Are you saying, just to clarify two
things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the
intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that
intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law
perspective? President Assad: Definitely, definitely, we are a
sovereign country. Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this
alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started
discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else. Then they
started discussing the same issue with other governments. Then they
came. So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the
world.
Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region Question 3: You say that France and Britain are
responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not
responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a
harsh accusation? President Assad:Let’s start from
what Blair said. He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS.
And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state
in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi. He was
killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him.
So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had
existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in
Syria because of the chaos that happened. So, they confess. British
officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they
helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region. Question 4: In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in
Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to
the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron,
going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of
going after al-Nusra. President Assad:The whole question
is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of
the organization. It is about their ideology. They do not base their
actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated
ideology. So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between
the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology.
This is one aspect. The other aspect, if we want to talk about their
grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this
distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to
another. And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for
their vested interests, on a local and small scale. But in reality they
are cooperating with each other on every level. So, you cannot tell
which is more dangerous because this is one mentality. It is like if
you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida. The
difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things. Question 5: Last week, a key part of Cameron’s
argument for extending UK airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used –
70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to
extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use
to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are
included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate
rebels in Syria? President Assad:Let me be frank
and blunt about this. This is a new episode in a long series of David
Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank. This is not acceptable.
Where are they? Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking
about? That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria.
This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts.
The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their
participation two months ago. They have said: where are those
moderates? No one gave them an answer. Actually, since the beginning
of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria.
All of them were extremists. And in order not to say I am just giving
excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social
networking sites. They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures,
with their faces and their rhetoric. They use swords, they do
beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so
on.
And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible
fact. So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is taking about. It
is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris
recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK
nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11th of
September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition. That
is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand,
there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those. Question 6: Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army? President Assad:The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas. Question 7: But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight … President Assad: Mainly by the Syrian army, and we
have the documents. We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian
citizens, and they want to fight terrorism. We do the same with many
other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of
Syria. So, it is not only the Kurds. Many other Syrians are doing the
same. Question 8:U.S. Secretary of state
John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate
with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is
still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the
opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t
have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power.
Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave.
Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres
Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s
departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding
that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should
step down before it but there should be future insurances. My question: Do you intend to complete your
presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or
presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these
elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if
they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What
can influence your decision? President Assad: The answer depends on the context
of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early
elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only
happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support
for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a
comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the
civil society groups in Syria.
Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will
of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is
agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other
Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to
deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the
Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as
you know, this process was not agreed upon yet. Question 9: Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone?
You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground President Assad: Did the coalition defeat them by
airstrikes during the last year or so? It didn’t. Did the Americans
achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan? They achieved
nothing. Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003?
Nothing. You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without
cooperation with forces on the ground. You cannot defeat them if you do
not have buy-in from the general public and the government. They
cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again. The
reality is telling. Question 10: If the international coalition
refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with
the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan? I mean do you
have a plan B beyond what is going on? How do you plan to end this war? President Assad: This coalition is illusive, it’s
virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism
on the ground in Syria. Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not
waste time with the ‘before and after.’ From the very beginning we
started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers.
Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we
are going to continue. This is our plan. It is the only plan we have
and we will not change it. Question 11: Are you calling on them to ask the
Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and
the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists? President Assad: We are very realistic. We know
that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will.
This is more about international law than anything else. Is it possible
that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of
international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign
state or that they haven’t read the UN Charter? They have no respect
for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation. Question 12: But would you like them to? President Assad: If they are ready – serious and
genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any
political effort. In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic.
Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent
further bloodshed. That is our mission. So, it’s not about love or
hate, accepting or not, it is about reality. Are they truly ready to
help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through
their surrogate governments in our region, or not? That is the real
question. If they are ready, we will welcome them. This is not
personal. Question 13: Do you think it is
possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran,
Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how
long do you think it might take? President Assad: The answer is based on two
factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the
terrorists receive on the other. From our perspective, if you were to
remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region
and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our
mission. It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to
us. However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries,
which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder
to resolve. This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher
price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians. Question 14: But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed. President Assad: You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to. Question 15: But a lot of it is also blamed on the
Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate
or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large
number of people killed. How do you respond to that? President Assad: First, all wars are bad. There is
no such thing as a good war. In every war there are always too many
innocent casualties. These are only avoidable by bringing that war to
an end. So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will
result in loss of life. But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the
West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were
killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the
people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa. As a
government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight
them. There is no other choice. We cannot stop fighting the terrorists
who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using
force. Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia.
How important has the role of Russia been? Was Syria about to fall had
Russia not intervened when it did at the time?
Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism President Assad: The Russian role is very
important. It has had a significant impact on both the military and
political arena in Syria. But to say that without this role, the
government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical. Since
the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the
collapse of the government. First it was a few weeks, then it was a few
months and then a few years. Every time it was the same wishful
thinking. What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian
people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and
staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the
steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism. Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention? President Assad: No, the whole support; it is not
only about their participation. Their support from the very beginning
in all aspects: political, military and economic. Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement
come about now? And can you give us some details of the discussions
between you and President Putin that brought it about? Who took the
first step? Did you ask, or did they offer?
The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe President Assad: You will have to ask the Russians
why they got involved. But from our perspective, since the Western
coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and
every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new
territory in Syria and Iraq. The Russians clearly saw how this posed a
threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia
and the rest of the world. We can see this as a reality in Europe
today. If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at
Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will
realize something very important. How many extremists cells now exist
in Europe? How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria?
This is where the danger lies. The danger is in the incubator. The
Russians can see this very clearly. They want to protect Syria, Iraq,
the region, themselves and even Europe. I am not exaggerating by saying
they are protecting Europe today. Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us? President Assad: It was an
accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them
having another. As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes
back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in
Syria: call them experts or by any other name. This cooperation
accelerated and increased during the crisis. Their teams are here and
can see the situation real-time with us. This kind of decision doesn’t
start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. There is a
daily political and military discussion between our two countries. When
it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the
decision to be made quickly. Question 20:But there must have
been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think
that we should actually now physically get involved. President Assad:Again, this was
started at the lower levels. These officials jointly agreed that it was
necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their
leaders. When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean
between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how.
Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s
impossible to discuss these issues on the phone. It was mediated
through senior officials from both sides. That is what happened. In
terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an
invitation for their forces to participate. Question 21: So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials. President Assad: Exactly, after we
reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we
released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our
efforts. Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the
step when he said he was willing to create a coalition. My response to
this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to
participate. Question 22: So, what forces have been deployed? I
am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example,
of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is
there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in
Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well? President Assad: No, so far there is no such
thing. There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they
send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and
that is natural. They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian
forces at all. Question 23: And there is no plan for that? President Assad: We have not
discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are
moving in the right direction. The Russians may consider it with time
or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been
discussed. Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that
Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will
allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example,
that Syria will use against the US-led coalition’s air force, even if
Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you
said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will
receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection
of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to
actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground?
We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace President Assad: That is our right
and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from
violating our airspace. That is completely legal. We are going to use
any means available to us to protect our airspace. It is not about that
armament in particular. Any air defense we have is for that reason. Question 25: Do you have that defense at the moment? President Assad: No. So far we don’t have it. Question 26: If you get that defense? President Assad: Any defense
systems we are going to have are for that purpose. If we are not going
to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first
place? That is self-evident. Question 27: And if you get it … President Assad:Not at the moment;
it is not our priority now. Our priority is fighting the terrorists on
the ground. This is the most important danger now. Of course we are
keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our
internal affairs, militarily or other. But the priority now is to
defeat the terrorists. By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are
Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from
foreigners. It is a matter of priorities. Question 28: But I meant about the
actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So,
that is not a priority either at the moment? President Assad: No, not at the moment. At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism. Question 29: If Saudi Arabia were
to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you
accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi
Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that? President Assad: No, there is
nothing impossible in politics. It is not about whether I accept or
not, but rather about the policies of each government. What are their
policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists
or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in
Syria, Yemen and other places? If they are ready and willing to change
their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem
meeting with them. So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or
not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria. Question 30: Do you expect any results from the
talks in Vienna? And what would be the shape of any possible deal that
you see coming out of Vienna? President Assad: The most
important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should
come together to discuss the future of Syria. Everything else is an
accessory. If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no
use. So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians.
Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual
process of siting down and discussing the future. So, the question is
not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to
achieve when we sit down together. Question 31: But do you realize that some of the
opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have
been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of
coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be
arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened
to others. President Assad: No, it has never happened. There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want. Question 32: No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back. President Assad: We have clearly stated that when
there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee
that they will not be arrested or held. We have said this many times.
We don’t have any problems in this regard. Question 33: Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures,
including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen,
religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united
front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian
government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the
future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition.
Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any
consensus with them? President Assad: We have direct
channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with
us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that
control them. From our perspective, we are open for discussions with
every peaceful opposition party. We don’t have any problems. With
regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting
terrorism directly, publically and explicitly. That meeting will not
change anything on the ground. Before the meeting and after the meeting
Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do
so. It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss. It will
not change anything. Question 34: Do you see that
anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to
save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see
yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that
perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible
that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well
for the future? President Assad: We already have;
since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a
dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were
in Syria or not. We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not
organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their
armaments, and return to normal life. These negotiations led to many
amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several
areas. Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army
and are now fighting with our forces. So yes, we are sitting down with
those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or
military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up
their arms and return to normal life. This doesn’t mean that we
negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others.
This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret
their choices and want to have their lives back. Question 35: The rebels call them barrel bombs. You
refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name,
these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate
bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians? President Assad: Let us suppose
that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t. But for the
sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different
attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their
state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not
only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf
war in 1990. How many civilians and innocent people were killed by
those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles? They killed
more civilians than terrorists. So, the issue is not these so-called
barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are
fighting for freedom. This romantic image is not the case. It is about
how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so
called barrel bombs and high precision missiles. It is about how you
use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your
intention. Do we have the will to kill innocent people? How is that
possible when the state is defending them? By doing so, we are pushing
them towards the terrorists. If we want to kill people, for any reason,
innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of
the terrorists. And this is against our interests. Are we going to
shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical.
This propaganda cannot be sold anymore. Question 36:Mr President, the
final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the
military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear
responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria? President Assad:I’ve been asked
this question many times especially by western media and journalists.
The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were
to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears
responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not
responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how
can you not be responsible. Question 37: Because you are the head, like in a family … President Assad: Let me continue, that was only an
introduction to my answer. It is very simple. Since the very
beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue
with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria. Now, if you
want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects
of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult
and dire situation in Syria. If I am to claim responsibility, do I also
claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists
money? Or for the Saudis to fund their activities? Or for western
governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria? Do I claim
responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political
umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates? Or for the
western embargos on the Syrian people? This is how we have to discuss
it. We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not. We have
to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy
decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics. So,
it is very complicated to evaluate it. Additionally, if you want to
evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end
of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and
after. Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much.
Source of interview: http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558
Fight the real enemy. We are expected to trust a man who has sex with dead pigs and puts money above all else. The below picture questions Obama's sexuality, but that is not the point, the point is that Obama, Cameron, Erdogan, Merkel and the rest of them, all serve their own financial interests, are all guilty of mass murder, and are all unfit to hold any public office and only do so because they are wholly owned by the globalising bankers.
Sunday the 29th November may well prove to have been a historic day in UK politics. In the Lancashire seaside town of Southport, a gathering was held of activists from across the political and religious spectrum. Organised by the umbrella organisation, British Renaissance, the meeting was billed as a gathering of key figures in the nationalist movement, and although that was certainly the case, in addition those assembled included people who would not long ago have been classed as left-wing extremists and enemies of 'nationalism'.
British Renaissance brought together members of the leadership of the British Democratic Party, British National Party, British Unity, National Front and other organisations belonging to the far-right in the UK. These were joined by high-ranking members of the mainstream political parties, including the UK Independence Party. Alongside representatives of parties, were representatives of Western Spring, the Daily Stormer, Heritage and Destiny, the IONA London Forum, Yorkshire Forum, and others.
The British Renaissance event was not a coalition of the centre right and far right. SWPE sent a delegate to broach the question of total unity across the spectrum. It had been proposed that a comrade from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist) would attend in an informal capacity, but due to unforeseen problems, this did not come about. Hopefully at a future event, it may be possible to add the CPGB(ML) to the growing number of alliances which are stamping down the false divisions of left and right, and in place creating a genuine unity of the forces of freedom against the forces of globalism, liberalism, decadence and reaction.
The politic dimension was not the only one of note. The meeting paid host to productive discussions between Christians, Heathens and Militant Atheists, with Catholic Traditionalists rubbing shoulders with Identitarians, Protestants, Odinists and Creators. SWPE has a policy of working with all who oppose the Semitic trio, and it was interesting to find that our Heathen position is not incompatible with people who follow a pre-Semitic Druidic faith which may well have been the basis for the 'Christian' faith which was manipulated into existence in order to bury ancient European traditions under an avalanche of Semitic lies.
The people present at the British Renaissance event included Nationalists, Socialists, Anarchists, Traditionalists, Heathens, Identitarians, non-Semitic Christians, Creativity Atheists and anti-Capitalists/anti-Globalists of many hues. The meeting was notable for the near balance of men and women, and for the representation of all age ranges. This genuine unity was beyond the unity of nationalists which was the intention of the organisers. This depth of unity across such a broad spectrum is indicative of the fragility of the current orthodoxy and the eagerness of a diverse range of people to bring about its demise. This first step could mark the dawning of a new era of cooperation of
all who oppose the liberal death wish.
The emergence of unity of Left
and Right is something we can all take pride in. What was achieved on
this day would have been unthinkable prior to the onset of the mass
invasion of Europe, and we must build upon this first success. If we
stand together only until we have saved our people from the genocidal
mania of the liberal Ruling Class, then we will have achieved a great
deal. We cannot build a Socialist England if England has been wiped
away in a flood of anti-native invasion and economic tyranny.
SWPE would like to thank all who attended, the organisers, the excellent security, the staff of the venue who provided outstanding hospitality and meals, and those who could not attend but provided support in other ways.
The speeches of former MEP, Andrew Brons and of organiser of the IONA London Forum, Jez Turner, can be found at this link.
Video of the speeches will be uploaded to youtube in due course. A preview of what to expect can be seen below
SWPE is not an atheist organisation. We oppose the Semitic trio because we understand that they have no place in our culture and our inimical to the well being of our people. Real Socialism is anchored in creating and preserving the best conditions for the advancement of the people, and having a sense of purpose which transcends the physical realm, is a central pillar of our ideology.
Today is Ullr's festival. Ullr/Wuldor/Wulþusis an ancient god of the northern European people, from whom many English people are descended. He was a principle deity, of whom little is really known, and may have been a great leader who has passed into mythology, with the mythology sadly becoming diluted. As such, whether a deity or an esteemed ancestor, it is right to remember him this night.
As our people are squeezed by the globalists of all political and religious points of view, as the despicable David Cameron pushes for another war of aggression to depose the rightful government of Syria and in its place put a puppet regime and a central bank owned by the Rothschilds (using the Israeli/Saudi/Turkish golem, ISIS as an excuse to destroy Assad's legitimate leadership), it is appropriate that we look to all who can aid us in our struggle for survival.
As Europe is invaded by millions of terrorists who cry out to the demon, allah, for help in annihilating every native living creature (human and animal) in our troubled homeland (and as the enemy politicians do all they can to assist them), perhaps it is right to call to the god Ullr to help us by making life unbearable for the invaders from the hot south. May they freeze in the cold inhospitable outdoors; may they retreat into their own countries, leaving us able to deal with those who have arrived and gained comfort at the expense of the native population who are financially raped to pay for their pampered lifestyles (and not only financially).
ISIS use power tools to destroy 3000 year old monuments before blowing the entire site up.
*Written back in April on a previous blog. Still relevant today.*
Today
is a sad day for world history as it appears that ISIS have attacked
and destroyed the ancient city of Nimrud in an act of pure religious
fanaticism. In videos shown across the world, images showed Islamists
attacking the Assyrian city ruins which still contained priceless
artifacts, some of which were over 3000 years old. Those
taking part are apparently inspired by their prophet Mohammed's
violent behavior as documented in the Quran, in tales where he is said
to have torn down pagan idols in Mecca "with his bare hands". (I know right, this guy must have been strong, huh!)
The issue seems
to be more widespread than just ISIS though, so this isn't an issue of
just one group of extremists. It seems that there is an inherent issue
within Islam over protection of historically important sites. In Saudi
Arabia for example the Government there has completely turned a blind
eye to even Mecca's heritage, with one Time Magazine article saying as much as 98% of the heritage sites there have been bulldozed for modern development.
There were even calls last month from ISIS and extremist Islamic preachers to destroy what is left of the Sphinx and the pyramids in Giza. Of course this wouldn't be the first time as the nose of the Sphinx and many statues across Palestine and Turkey were defaced (quite literally) by
religious nutters throughout history. They weren't just Muslim though,
as Iconoclasm has been used quite extensively across history as a method
of erasing the cultural stamp of a previous civilization
when conquering land or subjugating a group of people.
Whilst the practice has been used since the dawn of time, the main offenders across history have tended to be those from an Abrahamic religious persuasion,
and although we might think of these acts as occurring in exotic
locations in the middle-east or on some isolated Mediterranean island,
it may shock some to hear that similar practices happened in England.
And fairly recently too.
There
is also a fairly lax account of that religious extremism
that occurred in England too, the last bout started during the reign of
Puritanism. From as far back as the late 1500's during Elizabeth I's
reign, Puritans had tried to steer the Church of England in a certain
direction. For around hundred and fifty years or so they pushed for
extreme reform. Although they never appeared to achieve
full domination of the religious and political fabric of the nation,
they got pretty close to it with the Parliamentarian victory of the
second Civil War. Cromwell was an unabated Puritan who even sought to
ban Christmas celebrations. Because of histories bias towards Cromwell (the reasons of which must wait for another time,) most of this has been mostly forgotten.
Whilst the
overall story of Puritans and English-come-British history is obviously a
little too complex for a few paragraphs, the overall image is of a
fragmented society split between three pillars of Traditionalism,
'Enlightenment' and Religious Extremism expressed by some elements in
English society.
So what is it that I've dubbed "England's Nimrud"?
Well
it sits approximately twenty-odd miles north of Stonehenge and despite
being a World Heritage Site (and the entire area being in the region of
twenty times the size of stonehenge,) its actually fairly unheard of.
Avebury: a neolithic monument of such epic proportions that it pretty
much contains an entire village quite comfortably within its ditches.
Like Stonehenge, nobody is one hundred per cent sure of its purpose (I have my own theories like every other Tom, Dick and Harry,) but
one thing that we do know is that throughout the years the huge sarsen
stones were broken up for use in construction on farm walls and
buildings. Now despite what I've suggested previously about the
Puritans, the method of using the stones for building material was not
something new, and this is obvious when you look at the villages
architecture. The sites destruction seemed to accelerate around the late
1600's though for a brief time.
That
been said, a vast amount of damage had already been done to the
monument through the 14th century when the population was more or less
fully converted to Christianity. The population were brainwashed into
associating the once sacred monuments with the Christian concept of
Satan, and this is still evident today with many neolithic
sites bearing a daemonic name. This ideological obsession (spurred on by
clergy) convinced men to go out and dig the stones foundations out, and
bury or burn them. Fortunately (or perhaps with some divine influence from the land wights) one man taking part in the destruction of the henge was crushed under a falling stone and may have
been the reason why the destruction stopped for some time. The tales
have it that he was a barber by trade, and his death was seen as an omen
by many so the sarsens were left alone. As it happens, an excavation in
the early 20th century actually proved this old tale as being
historically correct, when a skeleton was found under a buried sarsen
with a coin dating to the 1300's and with his scissors still in a
pouch.
Today,
a fair amount of the monument still exists, however the magnitude of
its grandeur would not be possible today without the illustrations made
by John Aubrey and by William Stukeley during the 17th and early 18th
century. The full extent and size of the monument far exceeded what we
see today, as much of the existing stone avenue was destroyed, along
with two inner-rings and a large 'phallic' monolith which was destroyed
apparently when Stukeley was present. Credit where it's due, there would
be nothing there today at all had it not been for John Lubbock who
purchased the estates in 1871 an attempt to preserve the site, or had it
not been for the efforts of Alexander Keiller during the 1930's to dig
up and re-erect the buried stones.
Artist impression of the henge in it's original state
One of the 'accepted views' about
the destruction of this site during the 1600's is that this was not
religious in nature, and was merely due to an increasing population in
the village. They support the theory that in many cases, villagers
wanted the stones removed in order to make ploughing fields easier, or
to use the huge stones as building material for new homes. The main
reason that I would object to this idea is because of Stukeley's own
words:
Just
before I visited this place... the inhabitants were fallen into the
custom of demolishing the stones, chiefly out of covetousness of the
little area of ground, each stood on. First they dug great pits in the
earth, and buried them. The expence of digging the grave, was more than
30 years purchase of the spot they possessed, when standing. After this,
they found out the kanck of burning them, which has made most miserable
havock of this famous temple. One Tom
Robinson the Herostratus of Abury,* is particularly eminent for this
kind of execution, and he very much glories in it. The method is, to dig
a pit by the side of the stone, till it falls down, then to burn many
loads of straw under it. They draw lines of water along it when heated,
and then with smart strokes of a great sledge hammer, its prodigious
bulk is divided into many lesser parts. But this Atto de fe** commonly
costs thirty shillings in fire and labour, sometimes twice as much. They
own too 'tis excessive hard work, for these stones are often 18 foot
long, 13 broad, and 6 thick, that their weight crushes the stones in
pieces, which they lay under them to make them lie hollow for burning,
and for this purpose they raise them with timbers of 20 foot long, and
more, by the help of twenty men, but often the timbers were rent to
pieces. Stukeley
goes on to write that a single stone could provide enough pieces to
build an ordinary house, but that because of the nature of the stone,
such a house "is always moist and dewy in winter, which proves damp
and unwholesome, and rots the furniture. The custom of thus destroying
them is so late, that I could easily trace the obit of
every stone; who did it, for what purpose, and when, and by what
method, what house or wall was built out of it, and the like." Now
reading that passage, to me it looks like the method is out of date for
even the 1600s. It is clearly labour intensive, expensive and produced
homes of inferior quality which remained cold and damp. Religious
reasons have to come into this in some way or another. Lets not forget
that at the same time that this was occurring, we had issues with the
puritans in Government and even the Witchfinder General wandering around
the land in search of commission. They gained very little land in
destroying the stones, and as Stukeley states, this has more to do with Tom Robinson'sideological beliefs than for any practical reasoning. In
any case, I think its safe to say that the monument at Avebury has
received a second wind. It is now a vibrant place to visit with a deep
spiritual and cultural connection for hundreds of thousands of people.
It receives a huge number of visitors, and is a destination for a
worldwide pagan pilgrimage, which is something we can only dream of for
Nimrud which was spectacularly blown up with plastic explosives in the
last few weeks.
Avebury today.
Whilst
there are calls to judge Islam and its more extreme elements for the
damage done to historically invaluable monuments across the Middle East,
we have to remember that it is only through the chance of time that the
same fate did not also befall some of Europe's most treasured sites.
The true enemy of civilization and culture is unshakable religious
dogma. It has been shown time and time again to turn back humanities
development, and ISIS is just another reverberation of that repeating
history. Avebury survived by the skin of its teeth and through the hard
work of conservationists spanning a hundred years or more. It's new
position as a culturally important destination today is good luck.
Unfortunately, Nimrud's ran out.
