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

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

[Editor's note:
SMPBI is a Party in which differing views are not stifled - unless of course they are put forward by pro-Capitalist pro-Globalist infilTRAITORS!  In this reply to Pietro's post, Peter offers an alternative analysis. The media circus, (controlled official and controlled opposition) have painted varied accounts which both muddy the facts.  To get as close to the truth as we are likely to, it is important to be open-minded. The lengthy response is published in full with the intention of creating a debate.

Theresa May is the enemy of the UK. She is backed by all manner of scum in the USA, UN, EU, NATO, IMF and other Globalist entities.  The confrontation between the West and Russia is a contrived piece of propaganda with no basis in reality - the UK, not Russia, is responsible for any nerve gas attack (if there even was one) - but what is the purpose?

Responses by comment, or by email are welcome. The situation is serious, and it requires serious thought.]



“The confrontation between the West and Russia: a deliberate plan by Theresa May, Jean Claude Juncker and the EU Establishment to Derail Brexit”.

Really? Deliberate plan by May and JUNCKER of all people?

Point 1: Juncker is the man who has always just insisted to May that “Brexit means Brexit”.

Point 2: If May and Juncker are in collusion then why has Juncker been vilified for NOT supporting “the confrontation between the West and Russia”?

“European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker has been criticised after his "nauseating" letter of congratulations to Russia's Vladimir Putin failed to mention the Salisbury nerve agent attack. The European Commission President wrote to Mr Putin on Tuesday to congratulate the Russian leader on his recent re-election. However, the top Brussels official immediately was attacked for NEGLECTING TO INCLUDE a reference to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using the chemical weapon Novichok.

In his letter, Mr Juncker sent Mr Putin his "congratulations on your re-election as President of the Russian Federation". "I have always argued that positive relations between the European Union and the Russian Federation are crucial to the security of our continent," he wrote.  "Our common objective should be to re-establish a cooperative pan-European security order. I hope that you will use your fourth term in office to pursue this goal. I will always be a partner in this endeavour. I wish you every success in carrying out your high responsibilities."

However, the leader of Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, Ashley Fox, branded the letter "disgraceful" as he accused Mr Juncker of "appeasing" the Russian President. "To congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election victory without referring to the clear ballot rigging that took place is bad enough," he said.

"But his failure to mention Russia's responsibility for a military nerve agent attack on innocent people in my constituency is nauseating.”

"The European Commission President is appeasing a man who poses a clear threat to Western security.” Tory MP Sarah Wollaston

“Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed Mr Juncker had not referred to the Salisbury attack in his letter to Mr Putin, Theresa May's official spokesman said: "What I would point to is the strong response which you have seen from across the EU, from leaders in condemning what happened in Salisbury and standing with the UK." Wishful thinking from Theresa May. Whilst many in the EU are nodding politely to May, much more is going on behind the scenes in the EU. Just a few ‘minor’ points:

Millions of Euros are being spent by the EU to prevent Libya being used as a principal migrant route to Europe via Italy.

There are those in the EU who see a united European Defence Force as a way of disentangle Europe from NATO and the U.S.

The EU is also working behind the scenes to block predatory ‘inward investment’ from the USA - which Britain will be WIDE OPEN TO after Brexit.

Europe has no interest in paying for high-priced gas from the US - and Germany has just approved the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia.

KEYPOINT: the EU is NOT the monolith it is made out to be. There are even those in the EU ‘Establishment’ as well as the EU Member States who are against anti-Russian sanctions - or even wish Europe to have the united military and economic power to stand up to the US Atlanticist Empire and its Anglo-Zionist and Polish lapdogs. There is much more that could be written on this subject. We must just learn to research thoroughly,  ‘read between the lines’ - and see those current and future trajectories of geopolitical development in Europe and Eurasia which defy simplistic readings.
For a stronger Europe - a union of autonomous European nations free of U.S. hegemony!

EU Member States in favor of lifting Russian sanctions:
Bulgaria: Bulgaria considers the sanctions regime against Russia an obstacle to its own economy. 72% of Bulgarians have a positive view of Russia.
Cyprus: The Cyprian government has opposed sanctions against Russia, especially on the basis of the two countries’ economic ties, although the actual economic impact of the sanctions has been limited.
Czech Republic: The stance of the Czech Republic towards Russia changed significantly following the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea. Despite the ambivalent positions of some individual politicians, as well as a high dependence on imports from Russia. President Miloš Zeman has repeatedly criticized the EU sanctions against Russia. Zeman also retains strong ties to Russian business.
Greece: Greece has historically been one of Russia’s advocate within the EU, advocating for the Kremlin’s interests in Brussels.  The current Greek government maintains exceptionally close ties with the Kremlin and other prominent Russian figures. Greece has typically expressed opposition to any EU measures that could alienate Russia. Greece is best described as one of the EU’s three ‘Kremlin friendlies’, together with Italy and Cyprus. 66% of Greeks have a positive view of Russia.
Italy: Though traditionally a country with deep economic ties to Russia, Italy has shown strong support for a common EU and NATO stance on Russia. At the same time, Italy does not wish to completely alienate Russia, and continues to believe that a dialogue is possible. Italian politics is full of pro Russian elements and many politicians believe that the EU sanctions are harmful to Italy and should therefore be lifted.
Slovenia: After the annexation of Crimea, Slovenia fully supported Ukrainian integrity and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements, but it has also maintained pragmatic energy-focussed economic ties with Russia. For this reason, Slovenia supports lifting the sanctions against the Russian Federation
Hungary: The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban uses good relations with Russia as leverage in Hungary’s relations with Brussels, and in order to support his own domestic . After the annexation of Crimea, the Prime Minister sought to weaken European sanctions against Russia.
EU Member States in favor of Dialogue and Compromise
Austria: Austria’s bilateral relationship with Russia is between ‘friendly pragmatist’ and ‘strategic partner’  Austria’s most successful far-right political party, the FPÖ, has exceptionally close ties to Russia . Austrian relations with Russia have not suffered significantly due to the conflict in Ukraine. In particular, energy interests continue to shape the two countries’ relationship and remain a cornerstone of Austrian diplomacy with Russia. For this reason, Austria is skeptical about the EU sanctions regime against Russia .
Finland: Finland is the one Nordic country that has always sought to find compromise with Russia due to its dependence on Russian fossil fuels and deep economic ties with Russia. Finland still sees hope in rebuilding EU-Russian relations.
Luxembourg: Luxembourg has close economic and financial ties to Russia, and is therefore reluctant to alienate Russia with punitive measures. Due to high levels of investment from Russia (and vice versa), Luxembourg is reluctant to implement EU measures aimed at restricting financials from Russia.
Netherlands: The major dimension of Russo-Dutch relations is economic.  The Netherlands did raise concerns that Russia’s behavior threatens international order and the integrity of the EU.  Furthermore, the Netherlands are hesitant but generally supportive of the common EU stance on Russia.
Spain: Being located far away from Russia and not affected by the same fears as the easternmost EU member states, Spain remains focused on engaging in dialogue with Russia. Spain remains skeptical about possible European expansion, and Russia’s status as a strategic partner in the fight against terrorism has marked Spain’s attitude of hesitance in making strong moves to counter perceived Russian threats. Economy wise, Russia does not play a significant role in Spanish energy imports, but Russian tourism plays a big role in the Spanish economy. Thus, Spain was one of the several countries to voice criticism against anti-Russian sanctions.
Other types of analysis: http://press.ecpr.eu/documents/sampleChapters/9781785522796.pdf

Call this a Transition?

(Republished with thanks to our Comrades in the CPB-ML - http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/call-transition)

The media is heralding a triumphant Brexit “transition” agreement. It is, of course, nothing of the kind.

There’s no transition, simply a delay. Britain will stay inside the EU until December 2020, paying out billions, subject to its laws, but without any say in its decisions.

What has Theresa May negotiated in return? The EU’s agreement that during the transition we can negotiate trade deals – as if a country leaving the EU did not have a natural right to make international arrangements to come into effect when it leaves. Thanks for nothing.

It’s as close as makes no difference to the “vassal state” that some in government had been saying was unacceptable. No matter, they say now, keep your “eyes on the prize”.

Further away

But that prize is getting further away, not closer. And on 27 March May hinted that timetables for leaving the EU’s customs union “might need to be revised” – in other words, extended.

When we voted to leave in June 2016 it was in the expectation – Cameron even promised it – that Article 50 would be invoked the next day. Yet come June 2018 we will be even more than two years away from leaving EU control over our borders, our laws, our economy.

Employers can continue to freely import cheap labour until December 2020 – a further 21 months – so that they can put off having to invest in technology and training British workers.

And as the fishermen point out, the EU can squeeze British fishing out of existence, and the government won’t be able to lift a finger.

The battle continues

The battle for Brexit is not over. The forces opposing us have more than two years to turn delay into the denial of democracy that they seek.

Expect more and more “reports” from corporate interests seeking to maintain the status quo.

Expect more and more moans from parts of the the civil service that everything is really too complicated and they need more time.

Expect more delaying tactics from our unrepresentative parliament.

Speak out

We warned of this in November 2017. We said the people must speak out, that the campaigns left dormant after the referendum will have to be reactivated. That’s becoming more and more urgent.

The outcry against the transition agreement has begun, in the fishing communities. It must spread across the whole of Britain.


Related Content
'Strength in workplace' matters most, admits Unite
Fishing fury at transition 'betrayal'
Aerospace demands plans for Brexit
Corbyn's speech: cynical, disingenuous, reckless
May Day 2018. Take Control for an Independent Britain! London

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.

New World Order’? ‘Globalisation’? A Marxian-Heideggerian Analysis - Wilberg on Wednesday

‘New World Order’? ‘Globalisation? What, in essence, are they? A conspiracy on the part of global elites? The final stage of capitalism? The work of extraterrestrial beings or dark hidden powers lurking in other dimensions - the David Icke phantasy? According to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, they are none of these things - and nor are they reducible merely to any type of human conspiracy to create a World Government, army, currency etc. Instead their essence is what Heidegger understood as the hidden essence of technology itself - namely a purely calculative and exploitative mode of thinking of the sort which idealises the total orderability, exploitability, surveillability, controllability, plannability, exploitability, manipulability, commodifiability, and monetisation of all things - including human beings and the earth itself.

In Heidegger’s terms, all things are, through this purely “calculative thinking”, reduced to what he called “standing reserve” (Bestand). Forests become a ‘standing reserve’ for the supply of timber, the sea becomes a standing reserve for the fishing industry, the soil a standing reserve for mechanised agriculture, the earth becomes a standing reserve for the forced extraction of minerals and energy sources, rivers become a standing reserve for hydroelectric power production etc. But in this process man too becomes ‘standing reserve’. Thus the accumulation of technology weapons is not merely a standing reserve for engagement in war - for governments, leaders and armies become, in turn, a standing reserve for the manufacturing of wars which realise the power of such weaponry. Similarly, oil and gas engineers become a standing reserve for the employment of surveying, prospecting, and resource extraction technologies such as drilling and fracking. IT workers become a standing reserve for the creation of ever more advanced forms of Artificial Intelligence. Workers in general become a standing reserve for the production, distribution and sale of technological devices to a standing reserve of consumers. Even capitalist corporations serve as a standing reserve of ‘human resources’ - and this not just for the exploitation of workers but for the unrestricted utilisation of the very technologies they employ. The transformation of human beings into ‘standing reserve’ can be nothing than what Marx saw as the inevitable creation of a globally homogeneous proletarian slave class - but one in which the human being is also reduced to a biological machine - a mere tool-making and tool-using tool of the very technological tools he uses - and in this way their slave rather than their master. In this context, the seemingly radically divergent modes of thinking of Marx and Heidegger actually converge - for Marx also recognised the decisive role of new types of tools and technological developments in generating different modes and relations production - including the capitalist mode of production itself - and all the new forms of social and economic relations that arose with it. Few Marxists, however, recognise that Marx did not associate what he called the ‘alienation’ or ‘estrangement’ of labour only with the capitalist mode of production, but with the way in which, through the very activity of labour, the product of human labour comes to appear as an object external and alien to the labourer, i.e. as an ‘alien’ or ‘foreign’ object or power.

“If the product of labor is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong? To a being other than myself. Who is this being? The gods? To be sure, in the earliest times the principal production (for example, the building of temples, etc., in Egypt, India and Mexico) appears to be in the service of the gods, and the product belongs to the gods… Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man.

Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object … an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man … The relationship of the worker to labor creates the relationship to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.”

What Marx calls here an “external relation of the worker to nature” corresponds also with the essence of technology as Heidegger saw it - a relation to nature in which it is “challenged forth”, i.e. forced to reveal itself only in the terms that science itself constructs - and forced also to make itself available as “standing reserve” for technological exploitation. In contrast, neither windmills, wave power nor the natural seeding of the soil force nature to reveal herself and become manipulable in the way that leads to the production of GM seeds and foods, fracking, the plundering of the earth and the products of nuclear sciences and technologies.

From both a Heideggerian and a Marxist frame of reference, the distinction between capitalism on the one hand, and the command economy of Soviet-style ‘socialism’ collapses. This is because, irrespective of property relations, both relate to nature and humanity in a purely “external way” - reducing them to a standing reserve for calculative thinking and technological exploitation. Capitalist corporations of course, have always themselves been command economies. The only difference between capitalism and Soviet command economies lay (1) in the nature of the elites whose function it is to act as a dominant and coercive “master of labour”(Marx), and (2) the nature of the cultures and ideologies who maintain the illusion that technology is something that man has complete mastery over. The great paradox of the USSR was that an expanded and enslaved ‘proletariat’ became a mere standing reserve of forced labour to enable a rapid technological industrialisation of the sort thought necessary to prevent the proletariat from being enslaved by capitalism! The official religion of ‘Marxism-Leninism’ was also and essentially a soulless, radically atheistic worship of science and industrial technology applied on a giganticist scale. But in almost all respects, conditions for workers and farmers in the ‘socialist’ USSR paralleled those that prevailed during the miserable centuries of capitalist industrialisation in England - not least through the disastrous fall in agricultural production through forced ‘collectivisation’ of the traditional peasant communes that were so much praised by Marx. And in contrast, under Putin, Russia has become the world’s leading exporter of wheat.

Heidegger saw the essential ‘religion’ of both atheistic Soviet-socialism and ‘Christian’ Western-capitalism as science. He saw also that this seemingly secular religion was essentially Judaic - its principle being that man is destined to command nature as God commands man - and as the human ego is commanded in Judaism to rule strictly over the human body and soul. As for today’s ‘liberal’ West, it is now ‘identity politics’ and its worship of superficial cultural ‘diversity’ that is the new religious ‘opium of the masses’ - one which tolerates no politically incorrect ‘enemies of the people’. Paradoxically however, this ideal of identity diversity both serves and conceals (as it did in the multi-ethnic Soviet Union) a complete ideological homogenisation of a slave proletariat. The difference is only that in the West today, individuals can replace an authentic sense of self with any self-identification of their choice - identity as such having been reduced to a cultural or political ‘brand’ and become an exchangeable commodity - whilst the real, concrete individual remains a slave to their own forced capitalist labour. Identity politics therefore does nothing to prevent the individual being reduced to a mere indivisible quantitative unit or ‘atom’ of capitalist production and consumption. It reduces individuals to a homogenous mass bound only by the sacrifice of their individuality to diverse and divisive forms of narrow group or collective identification.

“Liberal society, which puts itself in opposition to the collective societies of socialism and fascism, has itself become a collective, a standardised and stereotypical one. The more an individual aspires to be unique with the liberal paradigm, the more he becomes similar to everyone else.” Dugin

New technologies exercise the same powerful, driving role in this process as they did in the process of industrialisation. To take but one example, social media such as Twitter have become a veritable hive of discrete identity-political echo chambers in which each individual can be fed with bytes of highly selective and filtered ‘information’, all of which - far from genuinely educating people or expanding the horizons of their thought and consciousness - merely echo, confirm and amplify a set of narrowed down opinions and political identities. People think they are expressing themselves freely or even radically - when in fact their thinking is actually and increasingly imprisoned in such technologically created online echo chambers. Symbols, usernames and online ‘profiles’ become empty ‘avatars’ of individuality and a vehicle for purely ‘virtual’ association with others. At the same time, a new type of mass illiteracy has become the norm. For after all, who needs to read books or even be able to write more than a line or two of text when, even if they had the time to do so, all they need to do is tweet some shallow opinionating or retweet a piece of totally decontextualised journalistic ‘news’. But then ‘globalisation’ does not in any way require a broadly or deeply educated proletariat - only a standing reserve of people who are at best ‘trained’ in narrow technological ‘skills’ all of which need only purely calculative forms of thinking - even in medicine and science. The only real job of a proletariat is thus to remain mindless and unthinking wage slaves - whether by performing unskilled or skilled labour, sitting in front of a computer all day in corporate offices, acting as man-machines giving manual assistance to robotic production lines - or just serving and servicing the continued output of coffee machines in Starbucks.

Yes to Assimilation, No to Invasion

Immigration is an emotive issue. Amongst the indigenous peoples of Europe, the rapid influx of non-Europeans as a result of the EU's porous borders encouraging people to flee from the terrorist atrocities of NATO and the IMF, has become an issue which has created a lot of anger - both on the part of those who oppose immigration, and those who welcome the newcomers.

Immigration has resulted in the break-down of social cohesion as wholly different cultures have arrived en masse. A common argument by the defenders of immigration is that countries such as the UK and Ireland were built of waves of immigration. This is true. However, the immigrants arriving from the European mainland tended to arrive in small enough numbers to be absorbed by the country as a whole. That is not to say that they did not impact upon the culture of the British Isles.  One only has to look at the regional differences across and within every part of the Isles to see the result of the blending of the original Britons with the European mainlanders.  However there is a unity which binds us all together. We are descended from different branches of the same European stock. The people of the British Isles were moulded over centuries of limited incursions, gradually adapting and building upon the new influences.

Immigration post World war Two has none of the qualities of the productive immigration which preceded it. Whereas the immigration of the past was gradual, the immigrants since the 1950s have come in huge numbers. The make-up of the immigrants has also been radically different. Whereas in the past the invaders shared a common European culture and common religion (Pagan or Christian), the new immigrants have none of this commonality. They come from across the globe, having their own distinct cultures, identities and religions. Another difference is that due to the scale of the new types of immigration, the newcomers have had no need to adapt to the country to which they have come; they establish self contained communities which do not integrate or even attempt to assimilate with the host population.

Why has this come to pass? Is mass immigration proof of how wonderful the Capitalist system is in the British Isles that everyone wants to live here?  Hardly! Is life that hard outside Europe that people are fleeing to wherever they can? No, that isn't the case either. Certainly there are countries where life is tough, but as can be seen with many of the so-called refugees who divide their time between living in the British Isles and in their hoe countries, fleeing from destitution, war or persecution is not the reason for the majority of those who come to our shores. What is it then?

Money! The reason immigrants are coming to our lands in their millions is financial. How can this be? Quite simply, the Governments of Europe (the UK and Ireland included) are subsidising the invasion. Newcomers are given preferential treatment in housing. They are allowed to work within their own communities, paying less tax then the indigenous population, in some case no tax at all and claiming benefits as well as working. Not all of the newcomers indulge in tax-dodging and benefit fraud, but a sizable proportion do. This is not because they are 'dishonest thieving tax-dodging scroungers', as the hysterical media would have one believe; it is because they are allowed by government to live that way.

The media are happy to sell their 'news'papers by putting stories of immigrants taking advantage of the good-will of the nation. This fuels feelings of hostility in the indigenous population. This in turn creates protest. How do the government deal with this? They enact legislation forbidding people to question the presence of alien ghettos. They classify anyone who objects to the breakdown of societal cultural cohesion as a 'racist', then using manufactured and controlled 'Nationalist' Parties they focus upon how evil are those who do not want their country to be balkanised. The likes of Globalist billionaire, George Soros fund faux anti-racist groups (AFA) to fight the fake Nationalists created to discredit resistance to Government manipulation of immigration as a means of destroying services and cutting living standards. Using the tired propaganda of the Holocaust, they whip the anti-racist groupings into wild hatred of anyone who declares him/herself an opponent of the cuddly one-world agenda. When people point to the fact that the Holocaust is as big a piece of state propaganda as the 9/11 lie, the government have them arrested and incarcerated. On top of this, they radicalise the newcomers to manufacture race-riots.

Why would the Government do this? Why do the British Government fund, train and arm the Islamic State / Al Qaeda terrorists who they then let back into the country after ensuring they are practised killers?  Why did the Government of the USA murder 3,000 Americans in New York, 11/09/01? Why did Zionists orchestrate the bombing of supply lines to the Concentration Camps in war-time Europe to kill interned Jews by starvation and disease? Why did Israel create Hamas to murder ordinary Jews going about their daily business? The answer is, to further the agenda of Open Borders Globalisation.

When there were individual free nations of Europe, the populations had a common identity and an instinctive national pride. National Pride is a safeguard against globalism. The Zionist elite orchestrated the World Wars to break the cultures of the individual nations.  They created a feeling of guilt for the days of Empire, even though the people at home were as oppressed, if not more so, than the people in the colonies. Then they used all the false guilt of Empire and Holocaust to make the indigenous populations accept mass immigration. Anyone who objects, we are told, is a Nazi and an Imperialist.

The new immigrants to Europe were brought here by government deliberately to be used to create social disunity. Colonies of culturally distinct people being seen to be given preferential treatment over the tax-paying indigenous people, have been used as pawns in a global chess game. Nationalists and Anti-Fascists have been duped into attacking one another over the presence of these colonies. All the while, legislation upon legislation has been passed to restrict freedom of speech. Ostensibly this has been to protect 'minorities' from 'discrimination'. In reality it has been to condition the population to understanding that the Government has a right to dictate what one is allowed to say or think.

For the Reactionary Racist Right, Immigration is about 'Johnny Foreigner' coming to our shores to steal our women and our wealth.  This is fantasy.  Immigration is really is about dividing the people and rendering them unable to defend themselves against Globalism. The immigrants are not to blame for taking advantage of circumstances which allow them to live better in our countries than at home.  This is especially the case when the terrorists of NATO/Al Qaeda/Islamic State are destroying the countries they leave behind. It is the Ruling Class who have used them who are behind the problems immigration has contributed to. The presence of culturally distinct in our midst is dangerous. The anti-Islamic red-herring is being used to whip the Muslim communities into a murderous frenzy against the non-Muslim host. When the bombs drop in Pakistan, the blood of Muslims and non-Muslims alike will flow in the streets in Europe. This is already occurring with the rape epidemic, which is really a culturally-charged assault of people who are deemed inferior and deserving of such sickening abuse.  The ideology of multiculturalism ensures that the foot-soldiers of Antifa and their children will suffer the same fate as the Nationalists and theirs.

We must stop the Globalists. The solution to Globalism is Social Nationalism/Patriotic Socialism  This is a world apart from the skinhead racist stereotype which is used against all who believe in Sovereignty.  Racial hatred is a tool of the Globalists, used to make opposition to their goal appear to come from hatred of others, not love of freedom.

Gradual immigration leads to assimilation and to newcomers adding to the culture of the motherland they come to join.  Mass immigration creates distinct colonies which sit physically in our lands but act as barracks of an invading force which if allowed to grow becomes capable of undermining our culture and potentially wiping us away.  We cannot and will not tolerate the manipulation of immigration by Global Capitalists and liberal idiots as a means of breaking down Sovereignty and making the creation of profit for the Ruling Class the be-all and end-all of existence.

We must help the masses of the alien colonies in Europe cannot assimilate to resettle in their own homelands.  Gradual Immigration is a natural thing which can be genuinely beneficial, but until the mass immigration invasion has been reversed, the borders must be closed.  We must reject all those who would encourage hatred due to differences. The Global Diversity of Free Sovereign Nations is the only cure for the disease of anti-culturalism /multi-culturalism.  Only Socialism in One Country can bring Freedom to us all.

Support Our Military - Bring Them Home

The British and Irish militaries have been working ever more closely together since the 2015 signing of the 'Memorandum of Understanding'.  The Memorandum in itself was not such a bad thing, drawing as it does the military forces together in areas of defence for the Isles.  SMPBI would like to go further and create a Military of the Isles, with all Service Men and Women united under one banner, and all stationed in our territory, for the defence of the Isles, and for that purpose alone.

Unfortunately, British and Irish military personnel serve as part of NATO.  Ireland is officially neutral, but despite this does supply the NATO Terrorists with soldiers and trainers.  They have been in place in Afghanistan since the fraudulent 'September 11th' bombing, which was blamed on country after country as a pretext for invasion, occupation and theft of oil and other valuable commodities and resources.

The death toll of people whose countries NATO has devastated is staggering.  The North Atlantic Terror Organisation has murdered over 20 million people since 2001.  The criminals have attacked 37 countries, making their atrocities cover an area which would justify this being called a World War - which it is, although the puppet media won't label it as such, so officially we live in an era of peace!

NATO routinely engage in their immoral action with illegal weaponry. They are routinely using munitions which have depleted uranium incorporated into them. This means the levels of cancer caused by radiation will be phenomenal. For the Iraqis, birth defects are now commonplace. Military action is turning whole swathes of Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear wastelands.  NATO are the greatest hypocrites alive. They slander the Syrian Government as using Chemical Weapons on civilian, while they actually do so themselves (including in Syria, where the Chemical attacks have been undertaken by NATO proxies to justify more NATO brutality).

The wars across the globe are not about confronting 'terror', whatever that may be. They are about expanding the military occupation of the Global usurious elite into strategic areas. The staged atrocity of 9/11 was used as an excuse to 'get' Osama Bin Laden. In truth he was never a target. The wars are about building bases, increasing opium/heroin supplies and taking control of oil reserves. They are not just wars of liberation. They are wars of occupation and aggression.

The military in the present conflicts are being encouraged to commit all manner of atrocities against the indigenous peoples. By doing this they are becoming desensitised to the suffering of humanity. Having got used to torturing, raping and murdering civilians in one region, they will be able to do it anywhere.  Of course, US forces have been raping civilians for decades. The My Lai Massacre in Vietnam (16.3.68) has become widely known, but it was not the first such atrocity.  The US military in particular has a long history of raping and murdering civilians. That our militaries fight alongside these people is shameful.  There are good servicemen and women in the US military - people who refuse to obey orders which are insane. Sadly, there are all too many who will look the other way as atrocities occur, and a frightening number who will happily partake in such actions.

Our military have earned the respect of the people for defending our nations from external threats. These wars are destroying the high standards of the military. The Globalists are trying to turn the best of the nation into blood-thirsty animals. They are sadly having a measure of success.

Support the Troops. Protect the decency of the men and women who put themselves forward to defend our nations. Save them from the insane and cruel leaders who view them as 'dumb stupid animals' and cannon fodder. Put an end to war for global profit. Restore the cherished honourable name of our Men and Women in uniform.  Make Defence the only legitimate use of the Military.  In a Socialist British Isles, our armed forces will be the best trained, best equipped, and fiercest of warriors. But they will not be butchers in the pay of Capitalism, murdering and plundering sovereign nations to maximise the profits of the global criminals.

Support the Troops. Bring them home.  After 69 years of tyranny, it is time to say enough is enough and to close down NATO and the UN and restore Sovereignty and Freedom to the World.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 3

"Gorky, the future pope of socialist realism, was already at the beginning of the 20th century one of the great names of Russian literature. He was also genuinely popular and famous for his revolutionary feats. According to a contemporary survey, even workers widely read Gorky. Tolstoy and Gorky were the two most popular writers several years before the Bolshevik Revolution (Read 1990:31).
(...)
For Gorky, ‘Man’, with a capital M was no utilitarian. He was both the divine creator and the paragon of virtues. In his novel ‘The Mother’ (Mat’) (1906), Gorky depicted conscious proletarians as the intelligenty of a new era, as non-philistine heroes, who forsake the petty-bourgeois life and dedicate everything to the great cause of the liberation of Man.

Gorky expected that the rising proletarian ‘Man’ would bring about a renaissance of morals, which the bourgeois philistines had destroyed. Gorky considered that not only greed and fraudulence, but also any kind of excessive or queer sexuality, were signs of bourgeois decadence. They belonged to the bourgeoisie, which was to cede its place in world history to the proletariat.

The worst element in Russian society, from Gorky’s point of view, however, was the peasantry. In his opinion, peasants were the quintessential philistines, who cared only for their petty property. They were the very opposite of culture. The torch of culture was born by the proletariat. No wonder that Gorky hailed collectivization, which would emancipate the peasantry by liberating them from the burden of petty property. Peasants cannot be equated with consumers, rather the contrary. In Gorky’s eyes, however, they belonged essentially to the same category because of their allegedly excessive interest for the material sphere of life.

The ethos of this ‘anti-materialist’ moralizing, which was so typical for the early Marxists and, later, for the Bolsheviks, can also be found in other moral teachers and writers of the late 19th and early 20th century."

Timo Vihavainen, "The Spirit of Consumerism in Russia and the West" in "Communism and Consumerism: The Soviet Alternative to the Affluent Society", pp. 23-26

..........

"The Russian Left is Different.

Grudinin has the support of the left and of the right; of workers and of managers; of communists and of nationalists. How could this happen? The main reason is that the Russian Left is quite different from the European Left. The Russians are Bolsheviks. The Western Left is predominantly Menshevik.

Historically, the Russian Social Democrats were divided into Bolsheviks, the Majorites, and Mensheviks, the Minorites. The actual argument that divided the Social Democrats into these majority and minority groups is of little importance now and of even less relevance. Nowadays, the Majorites are the Left for the Majority, while Minorites are the Left for Minorities.

The Russian Left is the force for the majority, for the workers, for the natives. The Western Left is for gender, ethnic, religious minorities. If you’d ask a Western worker about the Left, he will probably tell you: the Left is not for us, they care only for gays and migrants who take our jobs."
 Israel Shamir

Counter Power - Resistence is Fertile

Counter power is an idea which has periodically been discussed by those who are opposed to the global capitalist system. The system continues for all the discussion, and grows stronger. This doesn't have to be so. Just as it is possible to break free from the mind control of the establishment and commercial media, it is possible to break free from other areas of social control. Remember - the power our oppressors use to keep us down, is power we have given them - without our complicity, they have no power at all. We have to stop slavishly allowing the establishment to steal from us and use what they have stolen against us. We have to take our power back.

So what is Counter Power? Counter Power is power in the hands of individuals who are not a part of the Establishment apparatus. It is, in essence, the opposite of establishment control. We have been conditioned to believe that we are powerless to do anything, but this simply isn't true. The first step towards dismantling the nightmare system which keeps us in servitude is to break free from the mind controlling media which hypnotises us with its lies, and to realise that the establishment needs us to survive. Once this realisation is met, then we can begin to make concrete steps to build an alternative way of life which doesn't involve the establishment at all.

Ditch Technology which hinders rather than helps.

We have become slaves to technology. A century ago, people would have washed by hand, and cooked and cleaned without modern gadgets and appliances - they certainly wouldn't have become reliant on TVs, game systems, and computers for entertainment. This reliance upon technology has become somewhat of a missed blessing. It is true that modern devices are labour-saving, however, they can become a crutch without which people cannot adequately function. Consider the impact of microwave ovens on a generation of people who now find the most basic cooking impossible. We have to consider which of the modern devices we really would be better off abandoning all together.

Get off the Grid

The Global Warming hoax is designed to terrify people into submitting to ever harsher taxation in order to 'save the world'. In reality, Climate Change is generated by the Sun, and other natural factors, with human influence being negligible. The hoax is yet another fleecing technique to part the ordinary people from their money and property, and in turn to build a Global State which will further control everyone. Alarming as this is, the Global Warming farce also offers us opportunities to escape the prison being built for us.

Virtually everyone is reliant upon the energy suppliers. Certainly some people live a nomadic lifestyle, but for most of us this is impracticable. The Global Warming fear mongers have inadvertently been helpful in that alternative energy sources have now become viable for many people. Solar panels are becoming cheaper, and even should the initial investment be costly, the long term savings make the investment worthwhile. Wind power is also an option. Obviously not everyone is in a position to utilise these options, but for those who are, the chance to get off the grid is a reality. This would mean not having to abandon modern technology but not being held prisoner to the whims of the utility companies.

As a method of reducing water bills, water butts can be used to provide water for flushing the toilet, and for uses other than cooking and drinking. For personal consumption, a filtration system would have to be used, but the long term benefits of this would include having access to a water supply not poisoned by industrial waste (fluoride). Again not everyone could have a water butt. Many people could though.

Getting off the grid takes imagination, financial effort and work. For some it will be easy, for others without massive upheavals, impossible. Those who are able to, should make every effort to break free and by doing so deny their financial support to the corporations who are a part of the globalist network.

Grow your own

Food is a weapon. Those who control the food supply control its quality and availability. Everyone, regardless of type of accommodation, can help to undermine the power of the tyrants of agribusiness. For a start, we can all support our local farmers, rather than supermarkets. This may cost a little more, but for the benefit of helping to cut the stranglehold of international commerce, it is worth it. We can also reduce the money we give to internationalists by growing our own food. For people without gardens, this can mean growing our own tomatoes, herbs, garlic and other food which doesn't require much space. For those with gardens, potatoes and other veg can be grown. For people with allotments or substantial land, the range can be extended - extended even in some cases to include some livestock. By specialising in certain crops, and trading with friends and neighbours who are growing other crops, we can get a substantial amount of our vegetables, herbs etc in a manner which bypasses the supermarkets thus reducing their power over us, by reducing the impact of the internationalist criminals removing food from the shelves. And of course, the food will be freer from contaminants.
Barter and trade with goods and services.

There are many Local Exchange Trading Systems in operation. The concept of trading goods for services is one we should embrace. If, for example, person A needs some plumbing doing but doesn't have the knowledge or tools to do the job, person B who does, can do the plumbing for credit which can be spent with person C for material goods, who in turn uses the credit to purchase reikki healing from person A. This not only eliminates money and the opportunity for the financial parasites to extract taxation, it also develops a network of people who are ideologically separate from the establishment. This can be developed into an operational opposition, building an alternative network as the basis for a post-internationalist society.  These areas are fertile grounds for recruitment. People who are part of the LETS are there because they understand that Capitalism is despotic and unacceptable. It is worth joining to support this practical Socialism and to meet people who are already ideologically sympathetic towards us.

Home School

In some countries Home Schooling is illegal. Why? Because the Global mafia want the minds of the children so they can turn them into consuming family-rejecting wage slave robots. For parents, the most important thing is the welfare of your child/children. Giving your child over to the Globalist child abusers is the worst of all crimes. For those who are not legally compelled to send their children to school, home schooling is essential. Your child deserves your protection. Would you hand your child over to a stranger to mentally destroy him/her, and to teach him/her that he/she can choose his/her 'gender' and encourage the child to undergo politically-motivated genital mutilation?  Are you happy to put your child into a system which will destroy all sense of morality, culture, intelligence and ideals for the future? If you send your child to school, that is what you are doing. No matter what sacrifice you must make, you must take your child out of the clutches of the social, psychological, and all too often physical paedophiles who masquerade as educators. The system is designed to destroy your child. You cannot allow this.

Counter Power

So, you may ask, how does this tie in with the idea of counter power? It ties in by the fact that every penny denied to the global capitalists is a penny which cannot be used to justify their system. We must disengage in every area we are able to. The globalist cabal rely on us to obey and unquestioningly cooperate with them. We don't have to do this. Taking charge of our own lives, in a manner which is free from their taxes, their surveillance, and their authority, will give us the confidence to reject more and more of the imposed establishment control. we must come to realise our own strength. By taking practical steps to disengage, by putting in the effort and not relying on the powers-that-be to tell us how to live, we will become conscious of the fact that We have reached this sorry state with the parasitic rulers governing every aspect of our lives, because We have let them. We can reverse this despotism. Living by example will encourage others to do likewise. One man or woman can have a great influence on his or her peers.  Organised as members of the SMPBI amplifies this and gives people somewhere to turn to.

We have been conditioned to consider ourselves powerless by swallowing the lies of the enemy. It is they who are powerless - they rule by fear. Once we reject their fear-mongering and refuse to play their game, they have no power over us. The only power they have is that which they have sucked from us in the manner of the spiritual vampires they are. In order to gain freedom, we have to awaken others so they too escape the death grip of the capitalist state. This takes the courage to lead by example and to endure the smears and ridicule of those who are still trapped in the illusion. The prize is freedom for all of us. It is worth the work and the apparent sacrifices. The alternative is to do nothing, and accept an ever harsher, ever more banal and tedious serfdom for you and for your children.

If you haven't already, it is time to join the SMPBI and build an alternative to the decadent and decaying order which holds on to power through ever more naked tyranny.  Together we are strong. By growing in numbers we can have a greater impact, and we can bring down this rotting system which casts fear into those who have not learnt to fight against it, and in its place build a Free Sovereign Socially-Just British Isles which our children will be proud to live in



Resources:
http://www.schoolexpress.com/create.php
https://www.usborne.com/veryfirstreading/resources/resources.aspx
Google - Home school, LETS, Self Sufficiency

A Question of Administrative Organisation for the Isles

Question
What about Parliaments and Assemblies will you abolish them or will England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own Parliaments?

Answer
The entire administrative organisation of the British Isles is a mess. Tinkering with the structure is pointless.  What is required for the old system to be junked and a new system put in its place.

So what are the alternatives?

• Devolution with overall authority resting in London
• A Yugoslav-style Rotation of Capitals
• Syndicalist Popular Assemblies feeding into a Central Government

Devolution

Devolution is the current system.  This method has seen the rise of separatists in Scotland and of wannabe separatists in Wales.  It has also encouraged the anti-English bigotry of the ridiculous Mebyon Kernow fanatics.

Devolution weakens the centre and creates divisions based on geography.  In the British Isles there has long been a toing and froing across areas which were historically distinct nations. 

The people of Ireland were once known as the Scotti, and through their migration the land of Alba became known as Scotland.  Of course the Picts remained and became intermingled, making it futile to claim that there is a 'pure' Scotsman, whether of Pictish descent of of Irish. 

The border between England and Scotland has shifted many times. Edinburgh was once a city in the old country of Northumbria, akin it a part of the north of England. The old country of Strathclyde stretched through the Lake District and included an area which is now called Lancashire.  Try telling Edinburgh folk they are really English!  Try telling Lancastrians they are not! 

Wales as it is today includes areas which were populated by the Irish (ironically the anti-English fanatics in Plaid Cymru's northern strongholds have more in common with the Irish who came before the English, than the Welsh to the south of them). Chunks of Wales were populated by the Normans.

In the areas known as England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, people have intermingled so that if any such thing as a 'pure' angle, saxon, jute, norman, norseman, pict, briton existed, that is no longer the case.  We are all inter-related.  To divide us by geography is pointless, yet that is exactly what Devolution does.


A Revolving Yugoslav-style Administration.

In Yugoslavia, the Presidium ruled.  There was no single President - although in practise under Tito, it was he - and the leadership moved from region to region, with each part taking its turn to be the centre.

Kosovo was one of the regions (the others were Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vojvodina, Serbia, Macedonia). Kosovo was always a flash-point, and following the death of Tito, it became a place plagued by riots. The structure of Yugoslavia held together only for as long as there was no opportunity for it to change. When Slovenia split away, the other regions quickly followed, with the resulting wars and the NATO interference which wrecked that part of Europe.  Yugoslavia was organised in a manner not dis-similar to Devolution, and it fell apart rapidly when the bonds of unity were finally dissolved. 

A Yugoslav style system for the Isles, with the capital shifting from city to city, would be Devolution on a higher scale, and would inevitably see the country fall apart.


Syndicalist Popular Assemblies - Our Preferred Option

A system is possible in which the people select one from amongst them at street level, to act as delegates to represent them all. The delegates at that level form the next tier of representation as district/parish level, and from these a delegate is represented to go to the next level; the process repeated until a National Popular Assembly is formed in which the system of delegated representation means that the people at street level from everywhere, have a say.  At every level, a delegate who does not represent the people, but acts for himself, can be removed instantly.  This can be considered Syndicalism outside the Workplace and of course would be joined by Workers' Councils set up in the same manner.  A Centrally-focused Syndicalist Popular Assembly constructed in such a way could be the embodiment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat which we need to banish exploitation and division.

This model does not allow for divisive regionalism. Every area has the same worth as every other. The idea of the people of Gwynedd demanding from government at the expense of the people of Lincolnshire, or the politicians of Ulster getting more due to a corrupt deal with London, becomes unthinkable.  The people work as one, each contributing according to ability, each receiving as according to need.

But where would the Capital be?

Regionalism has created many problems. The people of Ireland would not tolerate the Capital of the Isles being London. For that matter, to close down the Assemblies in London, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Parliaments in Dublin and Edinburgh, but leave the Parliament in Westminster in operation, would be unacceptable to everyone.  People outside London resent all the wealth and power being concentrated in the southeastern corner of the country. People in the very southeast (Kent) resent their county being impoverished even as it sits next to the capital.  Government in London has to be ended.

Oddly, the administrative centres of Scotland (Edinburgh) and Wales (Cardiff) are in the southeast of each region, and in Ireland Dublin sits on the eastern coast, as indeed does Belfast. Coincidental of course, but still odd.  What is not a matter of irrelevance, is that the people of England resent London, the people of Wales despise the concentration of wealth in Cardiff Bay, and the same goes for the others.  None of these places are suitable for an Administrative Centre for the region they sit it, let alone for the Isles.

The system of Assemblies requires a centre - a single centre, not a rotating one, not a collection of devolved ones.  As we have seen, the current cities which have Assemblies or Parliaments are no good as locations for a central administration. They are resented locally and to give them more authority would be a grave injustice.

We propose that the Central People's Assembly be located in an area which is geographically central for all the peoples of the Isles.  That area is the Isle of Man.  The Island sits between England, Scotland and Ireland, and is only a short trip from Wales.  The Island would benefit from having the Administration of all the Isles moved there, and no-one in the Isles across the sea in any direction has any problem with that area.

A Further Clarification on our Language Policy

A Question relating to our Policy Outline has come in, which merits a full response.

In the Isles, Language is being used to divide us. This assault of our unity has to be exposed, confronted and ended.

The Welsh Language Issue

In Wales, the divisive Welsh Assembly has weaponised language, barring non-Welsh speakers from many jobs.  This is an attack on English language speakers, and the attack is more than a petty nationalist tantrum, it is one which denies able people work.  Everyone in Wales speaks English, so there is no need to have employment restricted to those who are fluent in Welsh.

The east of Wales is almost bereft of people who speak Welsh on a daily basis. Only in the west, in large parts of Gwynedd and in some areas of Ceredigion is Welsh the first language of choice for conversation.  Even in these areas the standard of Welsh varies, with the language used invariably being a hybrid of Welsh and English.  Those who speak a purer form of Welsh are mocked as 'book Welsh' speakers, and tellingly of speaking in the Southern dialect. The hostility to 'South Waleians' outstrips the hostility to the English.

The anti-English nonsense is such that the largest town in the north - Wrecsam - is regarded as 'foreign', with people in Gwynedd mocking the folk of Wrecsam as 'scousers'.  To the unaccustomed ear, the Wecsam accent is similar to the Liverpool one, but to people who are familiar with both, the difference is quite clear.

There are whole swathes of Wales where Welsh is learnt in schools as a second language, in the same way as French is taught across the UK.  The majority of people in the East and South learn Welsh in school, never use it outside classes, and promptly forget all but a few phrases when they no longer have to use it in education.  The Welsh Language Fanatics in the Assembly, by pushing through requirements to work in the medium of Welsh in many local and regional authority jobs, are denying people born and bred in Wales, work.  This is an outrage and is motivated not by Welsh Patriotism, but anti-English xenophobia - a xenophobia which extends to Welsh People who live their lives through the medium of the English language.

Languages across the British Isles

English is spoken by everyone from across the Isles.  Just as in Wales, in Ireland, Irish Gaelic is taught in schools, but only a minority of people use it as the daily language.  Again just as with Welsh in Wales, Irish Gaelic in Ireland does tend to be a language studied in school then forgotten.

There are Cornish speakers in Cornwall - although this is a matter of controversy, due to the language dying out, making all those who speak it now do so as a deliberate act, rather than a natural one.  The likes of Mebyon Kernow are divisive bigots who use the language as a means of attacking the 'English' of whom they refuse to consider themselves a family member.

In Scotland the lowland Scots dialect is a variation of the Germanic tongue known as English.  The differences between Scots and English are differences which are to be expected region to region.  The fanatical separatists in the SNP are keen to create artificial divisions between the peoples north and south of the River Tweed.  They have misused their powers when in Government to promote Scottish Gaelic in schools, even though the percentage of people who speak it in Scotland is minute.  Just like in Welsh in Wales, Gaelic in Scotland is largely confined to the fringes (particularly the Outer Hebrides), and even there is usually a bastardised language.

Languages Groups in the Isles

• Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic and Manx are distinct, but close enough for a speaker of one to converse with a speaker of another.
• Scots and English are interchangeable, with only accents and dialects needing attuning to
• Welsh in its various forms is understandable to any Welsh speaker, again with dialect differences taken into account.

Language as a form of Unity, not Division

Across the Isles, we ALL understand and speak English.  There should be no barriers to English speakers gaining employment anywhere, and actions such as the Welsh Assembly's bigoted Welsh Only aka 'English Not', policies must be ended.

The weaponisation of language is being used to divide us. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Teaching multiple languages at once leads to an imperfect knowledge of all. English must be taught first, then other languages after.  By this method, languages with different letter sounds can be better understood.  Keeping English as the official tongue would actually increase the proficiency in the other languages by making mastery of the basics in one come first.  The current bilingual approach in Wales brings unrealistic demands to the learner and the un-necessary confusion of trying to learn different vowel sounds at once. 

(The letter U in the Welsh word 'un' sounds like the English double e in the English word 'seen', and conversely the letter U in the English word 'bus' is pronounced like the Welsh letter w in the Welsh word 'bws'.  With these and many other contradictions thrown at children in Welsh schools, it is no wonder that both languages suffer.) 

We propose that the education system in the Isles stops teaching foreign languages in schools, and starts teaching our own.  We want to see a standardised version of Gaelic which is understandable and usable as a gateway to Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic, to be developed which is then taught across the Isles as a means of breaking down regional barriers which pit different language groups against each other.  

Likewise we want a standardised version of Welsh acceptable to the varied dialect groups, to be taught across the Isles so that everyone can enjoy the folklore of our past and enjoy what really is a challenging language to get to grips with.

We want those who wish to explore other indigenous tongues to do so, within the framework of a broadening of our shared experience, rather than a form of division.  Englisc, Norn, Cumbric, Yola, Pictish - these have their place in our common heritage.

What we propose is that English as the standard official language keeps its place across the Isles and that there is an end to discrimination against people who only speak that and no other indigenous language.  We also propose that Gaelic and Welsh be taught across the Isles to bring our People closer by allowing us all to enjoy the rich diversity of the languages of the Isles. Further we propose that even languages which have died out be examined by those who wish to do so.  We are no poorer for Manx and Cornish being revived. Why not revive others?  If we do this in a spirit of cultural exploration, we all benefit. It is only when language is used as a weapon to pit us one against the other and to create false regional division that problems arise.

SMPBI members are encouraged to set an example by looking into our indigenous tongues and at making an attempt at learning at least one more of the languages of the Isles.

Resources:

https://leornendeealdenglisc.wordpress.com

https://www.saysomethingin.com/welsh/level1/intro

https://www.learngaelic.net

What is a Philosopher? - Wilberg on Wednesday

What is a Philosopher?

A philosopher is someone for whom the separation of science and life is an absurdity. “The idea of one basis for Science and another for Life is, from the very outset, a lie.” (Karl Marx)

A philosopher is someone who not only questions life, but for whom every life situation, feeling or experience IS a question.

A philosopher is someone for whom identification with wordless FEELING awareness is the deepest, most fundamental form of knowing (‘gnosis’) and so also both the true source and ‘measure’ (‘ratio’) of all deep intellectual insight or ‘wisdom’ (‘sophia’).

A philosopher is also someone who, in relation to every possible variety of life question, constantly feels and LIVES just one single question. That one single and most singular question is “What is the real, most FUNDAMENTAL question here?”

A philosopher is someone with an acute awareness of how questions themselves may be posed in a way that is itself highly QUESTIONABLE - full of UNQUESTIONED assumptions.

A philosopher is someone for whom a question like ‘Does God exist?’ is no true question at all. That is because the question already assumes that God, to truly exist, must be an existing BEING of some sort - something that ‘is’. The question also fails to question what it means for any thing or any being to ‘be’ or ‘exist’, or why it is that there IS any thing or being at all - including any ‘God’ - rather than nothing?

A philosopher is someone for whom “Questioning is the piety of thinking.” (Heidegger)

A philosopher is someone for whom “All EXPLANATION can only reach so far as the EXPLICATION of what it is we are seeking to explain”.

A philosopher is someone who is therefore not blinded or brainwashed by what is thought of as ‘science’ and its ‘explanations’ of reality and of life. For even the most sophisticated physicists, for all their complex quantum-mechanical theories of ‘energy’ and ‘matter’, cannot actually say what ‘matter’ or ‘energy’ essentially ARE.

In contrast, as Heidegger pointed out in the Zollikon seminars, scientific ‘explanations’ of, for example, the possible genetic ‘causes’ or ‘cures’ of ‘illness’ do not even begin to question or seek to explicate what ‘illness’ and ‘health’ essentially ARE - thus denying them any deeper existential or life meaning.

A philosopher is someone necessarily feared by modern scientists. For whereas scientists tend to see philosophy as scientifically illiterate garbage or nonsense, the philosopher can show how what passes as scientific ‘theory’ or ‘explanation’ is itself PHILOSOPHICAL garbage or nonsense - philosophical ILLITERACY.

A philosopher is someone who necessarily questions the very foundations of modern science, exposing them as not only lacking in the most elementary forms of rationality and logical consistency, but ALSO as lacking any truly ‘empirical’ basis - because science sees its own IDEAS, its own purely mental  or mathematical CONSTRUCTS as more fundamentally REAL than any actual ‘empirical’ experience of life or reality.

A philosopher is someone who recognises that our entire perception of the world is shaped not by any properties or dynamics of ‘matter’ or ‘energy’ but consists entirely of  IDEA CONSTRUCTIONS.

 A philosopher is someone who understands that it is Idea Constructions which pervade pure sense perceptions (such as light and darkness, warmth and coolness, lightness and heaviness, softness and hardness, shape and colour etc) and replace them with ‘sense conceptions’ - with IDEAS of what things are and IDEAS of how they work (for example an IDEA of ‘light’ or ‘colour’ as composed of intangible ‘wavelengths’ or ‘frequencies’ of ‘electromagnetism’).

A philosopher is someone who recognises that it is Ideas that ‘con-struct ‘or STRUCTURE our experience into recognisable perceptual forms and also into predictable patterns that are seen as unchanging ‘laws’ of nature.

A philosopher is someone who recognises that all experiencing is essentially subjective in nature - that there is no ‘thing in itself’, no ‘substance’ or ‘energy’ that is outside, underneath or ‘behind’ our conscious subjective experiencing of reality - EXCEPT for  OTHER CONSCIOUSNESSES and the perceptual patterns or IDEAS which shape our perception of them.

A philosopher is someone who recognises all possible systems of reality as inter-subjective creations - and not as worlds of already given and existing ‘objects’.

A philosopher is someone for whom the entire world of today’s ‘advanced’ man-made TECHNOLOGIES is therefore not in any way a ‘proof’ of the ‘truth’ of modern science - and certainly not in any way based on ‘empirical’ scientific ‘laws’ of nature ‘discovered’ by the sciences.

A philosopher is someone for whom the functioning or ‘working’ of modern scientific technologies, equipment and gadgets  is nothing but the working on and transformation of our perception by ever more sophisticated complexes of IDEAS about reality evolved BY the sciences themselves and turned into perceptually manifest and working IDEA CONSTRUCTIONS.

A philosopher sees nothing more ‘advanced’ about today’s technological sciences than the religious ART-SCIENCES of earlier civilisations such as that of ancient Egypt, which rested on wholly different arts and complexes of IDEA CONSTRUCTION - of which the pyramids are a prime example.

A philosopher is someone who recognises that the essence of ‘technology’ (from the Greek ‘techne’ - ‘art’ or ‘craft’) lies in nothing but the art and craft of evolving  interrelated  IDEA systems to the point at which their own working becomes perceptually manifest as IDEA CONSTRUCTIONS.

A philosopher is therefore someone who is bound to recognise, sooner or later, that there is no such ‘objective’ thing as ‘matter’ or ‘energy’ as modern physics has conceived or reconceived them. What is called ‘energy’ is simply the ‘working’ (Greek ‘energein’) of IDEAS and idea complexes within and upon our perception of reality.

A philosopher is someone who recognises that philosophy is not only the forgotten mother of the sciences but remains ‘the science of sciences’ - the most ‘primordial’ or ‘fundamental’ science of all.

A  philosopher is someone who recognises that no mathematical theory, formula or equation, however sophisticated, can solve even a single PHILOSOPHICAL question - and nor can any science based on or defined by its mathematics.

A philosopher is someone for whom a true dialogue takes place ‘through the word’ (‘dia-logos’) and not just ‘in words’.  A philosopher is someone for whom a philosophical dialogue also has the single aim of seeking the most fitting words to say what it is that the dialogue is essentially about - and what the most fundamental QUESTIONS are that it is really addressing.

A philosopher is someone who not only questions accepted IDEAS but sees through and beyond the particular systems of reality - both the modes of perception and modes of life - that are shaped or constructed by them.

A philosopher is someone for whom IDEAS themselves are not true or false, sense or nonsense. Instead they literally ‘make’ sense: making, shaping or ‘constructing’ our sensory perception of reality in the form of perceptually manifest IDEA CONSTRUCTIONS. This ‘making’ went under the Greek name of ‘poiesis’, from which the word ‘poetry’ derives.

A philosopher - a true philosopher - is a modern ‘shaman’ or ‘sorcerer’; able to perceive and shape other realities through a heightened awareness of and mastery of the art of IDEA CONSTRUCTION.

“A philosopher: that is a human being who constantly experiences, sees, hears, suspects, hopes, dreams extraordinary things.” Friedrich Nietzsche

“The man of science is a poor philosopher.” Albert Einstein

Reclaim the Ideological Labels which have been Corrupted by our Enemies

Resist Those Who Use Our Own Ideological Labels Against Us.
by LJ Barnes

One of the most tragic and pernicious identity thefts in history has been the hijacking of the word Liberalism by the forces of Trotskyism.

Classical Liberalism was predicated on a respect for individual rights and economic freedom under the rule of law. Trotskyism had no respect for any of these concepts. Yet the heirs of Trotsky under the aegis of Multi-Cultural ideology have managed to obscure the roots of their ideology via subsuming the name of Liberalism.

Therefore in order to assist the destruction of Trotskyism we must continually point out that what is wrongfully designated as Liberalism in contemporary political vernacular is nothing of the sort. As Social Nationalists we must start to reclaim Classical Liberalism as an ideology in order to reassert the ideas upon which it rests, but also to refute the charge that we are the authoritarians.

Classical Liberalism did not undermine civil liberties such as freedom of speech or seek to use the power of the state to repress dissent and impose laws on society that subvert democracy and individual rights. It is Liberalism like its Trotskyist antecedent that has created a society based on race, religion, sex and sexual identities predicated collective identities. Ironically enough Liberalism has at the same time overseen the destruction of the Working Class and the industrial base via Global Capitalism that once defined the Communist Dialectic.

Trotskyism has imposed a new race based Master Class over society, whose privileged elites regard every non-European group as racially oppressed ( regardless of any objective evidence exists on which to assert such a proposition ) yet at the same time perpetually racially oppresses only one group in society, that of European people.  Individual rights are constantly removed so that the interests of collective identities can imposed upon society.   

Trotskyite Multi-Culturalism has also undermined economic freedom. During the era of Multi-Culturalism we have witnessed the destruction of the Working class as the industrial base of the United Kingdom has been off-shored to nations like China. At the same time much of the managerial Middle Class jobs such as accounting staff and call centre operations have been off-shored to nations like India. There is no economic freedom when there are no jobs. Economic freedom rests upon the ability to work, to earn a good wage and have a decent standard of living. All these have vanished during the era of Liberalism. Poverty rates, homelessness and job insecurity have escalated, to the point that the Zero Hour Contract has reduced workers to the state of Neo-Feudal era vassals of the global corporations.

Civil rights are eroded every day. Freedom of speech has been replaced by the tyranny of political correctness. Thought and speech crimes are criminalised at a rate that even Stalin would have been impressed by.

In order for Social Nationalists to obtain power we must begin a Social Nationalist Cultural Counter Revolution, for all political revolutions are preceded by cultural changes that way for new political ideas to take root and grow amongst society and the masses.  By reclaiming the legacy of Classical Liberalism from Liberalism, and explaining to the masses how they have been deliberately misled by those claiming to be Liberals, we pave the way for a change in the cultural consciousness of the masses.

Another aspect of the Multi-Cultural war on liberty in the guise of Liberalism has been to undermine the rule of law itself. Whilst Liberalism has used the law to impose ever more restriction on liberty in areas such as free speech, at the same time it has done nothing to prevent the growth of groups like Anti-Fascist Action who use violence and terrorism to silence their opponents. Public institutions such as the police have been cowed and ordered to no longer impose the law of the land equally amongst all citizens.

We all know the stories of mass rapes, grooming gangs and the endemic sexual exploitation of poor, British, Working Class children amongst vast swathes of British towns and cities that have been transformed into ethnic ghettos where natives are left virtually defenceless from violence and abuse both the by grooming gangs and the authorities.

The rule of law that once ensured the children of the Working Class were once protected from such abuse, is instead being used to threaten and silence those amongst them who dare speak out about the systematic and widespread racial and sexual persecution of our people.

A Social Nationalist movement must actively campaign to win these abandoned Working Class communities over to our side.

Historically the Social Nationalist movement was predicated on regarding both Trotskyism and Capitalism as its enemies. Social Nationalism historically recruited both from the Left who opposed International Trotskyism and from the Right who opposed Global Capitalism. It is our struggle to do the same today, to create a political force and social model that melds the best of the Left & Right to achieve a political union that offers our nation and people true liberation.

For the last fifty years the Right Wing movement has been dominated by Right Wing Conservative Reactionaries. What we need today and for the future is a Social Nationalist movement predicated on a revolutionary form of Social Nationalism which projects its political vision fifty years into the future not fifty years into the past.

Both Left & Right in this country are undergoing a crisis of confidence. Brexit has shattered the status quo of politics forever. At the same time it has removed one of most powerful of the many yokes of foreign tyranny from our necks via our withdrawal from the EU. Now we have to remove the yoke of tyranny placed upon our people by the traitorous political elites that have misruled our nation for generations.

Brexit is a moment of tremendous historical, social, cultural, political and national importance. It offers the opportunity for revolutionary political change. We must act to ensure that we offer our people a revolutionary vision of change, not that we retreat into the same stagnant pond of left and right wing variations of the same reactionary identity politics that has poisoned social nationalist politics for decades.

Congratulations Russia on Trashing the Western Puppets in the Election

An Analysis of the Russian Election
by Pietro

AS RUSSIA GOES TO THE POLLS TODAY AND WITH THE WEST (EU EVEN HARSHER THAN THE US UNLIKE IN 2014) ONCE AGAIN PLAYING THE GAME OF WAR WITH RUSSIA THE MSM IS WASTING NO TIME IN PROMOTING THE SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC "OPPOSITION" AGAINST THE SUPPOSEDLY AUTHORITARIAN PUTIN'S REGIME.

THERE HAS BEEN AN INSTITUTIONALISED RUSSOPHOBIA FOR A LONG TIME IN THE WEST. WHEN IT WAS TSARIST IT WAS BAD BECAUSE IT WAS TOO AUTOCRATIC, THE USSR WAS BAD BECAUSE IT WAS COMMUNIST AND NOW IT IS STILL BAD BECAUSE OF PUTIN, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COUNTRY IS A FULL ON DEMOCRACY; DARE I SAY THAT RUSSIA IS MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN THE WEST.

PUTIN IS NOT PERFECT (HE EVEN ADMITS IT HIMSELF) BUT THE REASON WHY IS SO POPULAR ATM IS BECAUSE HE DID TURN THE COUNTRY AROUND ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE DARK DAYS OF BORIS YELSTIN. PRIVATISED MAIN COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RE-NATIONALISED, FEWER OLIGARCHS AROUND (THE MOST POWERFUL ARE EITHER IN PRISON OR IN "exile" IN THE WEST) AND HE STOPPED WESTERN GLOBALISTS TO LOOT/RAPE HIS COUNTRY.

THE AMERICANISATION WHICH STARTED WITH PERESTROIKA IN 1985 UNDER THE PUPPET GORBACHEV AND INTENSIFIED IN THE 1990s HAS IN RECENT YEARS TAKEN A STEP BACK TO BE REPLACED WITH A REDISCOVERED RUSSIAN NATIONAL PRIDE OF RUSSIAN CULTURE AND TRADITIONS.

THE RUSSIAN NATION IS STANDING AGAINST GLOBALIST IMPERIALISM.
THEY SAVED SYRIA FROM FALLING TO THE SAUDI/ZIONISTS SALAFISTS, CRIMEA DEMOCRATICALLY CHOSE TO COME BACK HOME BUT HOWEVER THE COUNTRY IS UNDER SIEGE.

IF THE RUSSIA OF 1999 WAS THE RUSSIA OF 2018 THERE WOULD BE NO AGGRESSIVE BOMBING ON SERBIA AS IT HAPPENED.   THE GLOBALISTS CLEARLY WANT TO GET RID OF THIS REBEL AND THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING.  FROM THE COUP AND A VIOLENT WAR IN THE UKRAINE TO THE EXPANSION OF NATO EASTWARD TO SURROUNDING RUSSIA WITH AMERICAN MILITARY BASES ALL AROUND IT AND EVEN TRYING TO INTRODUCE YET AGAIN ANOTHER COLOURED "revolution"/COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN NEIGHBOURING BELARUS IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE PATRIOTIC SOCIALIST AND FELLOW ANTI-GLOBALIST ALLIED PRESIDENT LUKASHENKA.

NOT SATISFIED, THE GLOBOS HAVE USED THE RUSSIAN GENERAL ELECTIONS TO TRY TO ENTER AND RECONQUER THE COUNTRY AND BRING IT BACK TO THE 1990s.
THE MOST RUTHLESS TYPES OF OLIGARCHS ARE PORTRAYED AS FREEDOM LOVERS AND THE EVERYONE BUT PUTIN TYPE OF CHARACTERS ARE PORTRAYED AS VICTIMS BY THE MSM.

LOOK ALSO AT THE CANDIDATES STANDING. WITH THE EXEMPTION OF GENNADY ZUIGANOV OF THE CPRF (COMMUNIST) WHICH HE CRITICISES THE GOVERNMENT WHERE HE DOESN'T AGREE BUT PRAGMATICALLY APPLAUDS IT WHEN HE IS RIGHT (SUCH AS IN FOREIGN POLICY), THERE ARE LITERALLY ALL SORTS OF CHARACTERS: FROM CORRUPTED OLIGARCHS TO OPENLY WESTERN PUPPETS TO ZIONISTS.
KSCENIA SCHOPACK IS ONE OF THEM.
THE WESTERN PUPPET WHO WENT TO PUBLICLY APOLOGISE FOR INTERFERING AND HELPING TRUMP EVEN THOUGH THERE IS CLEARLY NO RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN IT. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A HOAX.

FINALLY, WE ARE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT THE WEST IS THE BEACON OF FREEDOM AND RUSSIA IS A BRUTAL AND AUTHORITARIAN REGIME.
BUT IS IT REALLY THE CASE? WELL LET'S LOOK AT THE "DEMOCRATIC" WESTERN EUROPE THAN:

IN SWEDEN YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE MULTICULTURAL HELL-HOLE THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT FORCED UPON IT'S PEOPLE AS YOU FACE PRISON OR YOU GET ASSASSINATED. THERE ARE VAST AREAS IN MALMO WHERE EVEN THE POLICE IS AFRAID TO GO TO FOR EXAMPLE. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEE HOW THEIR COMING GENERAL ELECTIONS WILL GO THIS AUTUMN.

IN GERMANY YOU CAN'T CRITICISE ANGELA MERKEL'S MADNESS OF ALLOWING THE MASSES OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE COUNTRY. YOU ALSO GET SEVERELY PERSECUTED IF YOU EVEN QUESTION THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
LET ALONE THE HOLOHOAX.

IN NORWAY THE IMMIGRATION MINISTER IS BEING PERSECUTED JUST FOR SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO JOIN ISIS AND THE JIHAD SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY STRIPPED OF NORWEGIAN CITIZENSHIP. SHE IS ALSO CRITICAL OF IMMIGRATION SO YOU CAN IMAGINE.  HER NAME IS SILVY LYSTAUG OF THE NORWEGIAN PROGRESS PARTY (UKIP TYPES) IN COALITION AT THE MOMENT.
THE WHOLE THING IS UNBELIEVABLE.

IN BRITAIN A FEW MONTHS AGO THE TORY HOME SECRETARY AMBER RUDD SPOKE ABOUT GIVING 15 YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR EVEN WATCHING "FAR RIGHT" MATERIAL ON THE INTERNET. FOR FAR RIGHT SHE MEANT ANYTHING THAT IS CRITICAL OF THE MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT.
IS SHE INSANE?

ALSO, I DON'T SUPPORT BRITAIN FIRST  HOWEVER THEY ARE A POLITICAL PARTY NOT A TERRORIST GROUP. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION DE-REGISTERED THEM AND NOW PAUL GOULDING AND JAYDA FRANSEN ARE IN PRISON FOR A LONG TIME. EVEN A DAY IS UNBELIEVABLE FOR THE LEADERS OF A REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTY.
IF SMPBI WAS ELECTORALLY SUCCESSFUL I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE THAT THE AUTHORITIES WOULD START LOCKING US UP.
EXPECIALLY WITH AMBER RUDD ON THE LOOSE.

THE LIST IS COUNTLESS NO MATTER WHAT WESTERN COUNTY YOU GO.
SO BEFORE PEOPLE JUDGE RUSSIA THEY NEED TO LOOK CLOSER TO HOME, HERE IN THE WEST.

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR WINNING THE ELECTIONS WITH 76% OF THE VOTES!

IN SECOND PLACE CAME THE COMMUNIST  PARTY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH ABOUT 12%.
THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE A SECURED PORTION OF THE RUSSIAN ELECTORATE. LONG TERM LEADER GENNADY ZYUGANOV DIDN'T RUN. HE WAS INSTEAD REPLACED BY A FORMER UNITED RUSSIA FORMER MEMBER OF THE DUMA CALLED PAVEL GRUDININ.

HE IS AN INTERESTING CHARACTER.
HE IS THE SUPERVISOR OF A STRAWBERRY  KOLCHOZ (COLLECTIVE FARM). ONE OF THE FEW STILL AROUND. THEY LOOK AFTER NOT ONLY IT'S FARMERS BUT ALSO THEIR FAMILIES.

VLADIMIR ZYRINOVSKY OF THE LDRP (UKIP TYPES) GOT 5%.
HE HAS SOME GOOD POLICIES ESPECIALLY BEING STRONGLY FOR RESISTING THE WESTERNISATION OF RUSSIA. HE IS A VERY INTERESTING CHARACTER.

KSENIA SOBCHAK IS THE WESTERN PUPPET/TRAITOR WITH THE LARGEST SHARE OF VOTE: 1,5%. LOL!
MEANING ALL THE OTHER SELL OUTS GOT 0% OF THE VOTE!

IT'S GREAT THAT THEY ALL THE FAVOURITE CANDIDATES OF THE
EU/USA GLOBALIST IMPERIALISM (PROMOTED BY THE WESTERN MSM) GOT TRASHED.

I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 2

"Patriotism is not an abstract concept. It begins from one's own home. It buds out from the love for one's parents, spouses and children, the love for one's own home, village and workplace, and further develops into the love for one's country and fellow people."

- Kim Jong-un, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) and supreme leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).

....................

"By 'Conservative Revolution' we mean the return to respect for all those elementary laws and values without which the individual is alienated from nature and God and left incapable of establishing any true order. In the place of equality comes the inner value of the individual; in the place of socialist convictions, the just integration of people into their place in a society of rank; in place of mechanical selection, the organic growth of leadership; in place of bureaucratic compulsion, the inner responsibility of genuine self-governance; in place of mass happiness, the rights of the personality formed by the nation."
--Edgar Julius Jung, "Germany and the Conservative Revolution," 1932
.................

"The story told in this book is the story of the British empire, which by 1900, fearing the rising power of the young German Reich, contrived in secrecy a plan for a giant encirclement of the Eurasian landmass. The main objective of this titanic siege was the prevention of an alliance between Germany and Russia: if these two powers could have fused into an ‘embrace,’ so reasoned the British stewards, they would have come to surround themselves with a fortress of resources, men, knowledge and military might such as to endanger the survival of the British empire in the new century.
(…)
By 1890 (…) Bismarck himself, who was now being dismissed by the new Emperor, Wilhelm II, had been capable of identifying a ‘new course’ for Germany. He clearly comprehended, as will be emphasized hereafter, the importance of not antagonizing Russia.
(…)
By 1900 it was clear to the British that the Reich could indeed ‘pull it off’ (...) British cauchemar would come true: if Germany and Russia united in one form or another, the Eurasian Embrace would come into existence: that is, a concrete Eurasian empire at the center of the continental landmass, which would come to rest on an enormous Slav army and German technological mastery. And that, the British elite sentenced, was never to be, for it would have mortally threatened the supremacy of the British empire.
(…)
By 1922 Hitler was growing increasingly deaf to any score of Eurasian harmony: conservative ideologue Moeller van den Bruck, who longed to witness a blending of the Occident with ‘the great human poetry of the Orient’, encountered the Nazi leader and engaged him in a long discussion, at the end of which, exhausted, he confided to a friend: ‘The fellow never comprehends.’
(…)
The Strasser brothers incarnated the anti-capitalist current of Germany’s petty bourgeoisie, a movement that hearkened back to late-Renaissance German utopianism, for which land was conceived as inalienable and protected by a ‘peasant aristocracy,’ industry segmented into guilds, and national union achieved by a federation of self-governed cantons. A federated Germany, in the view of the Strassers, meant a federated Europe, and an anti-British alliance of free workers across Eurasia. There was no trace of the religious racialism of the Hitlerites in the Strassers’ outlook.
(…)
The present geopolitical policy of the United States is a direct and wholly consistent continuation of the old imperial strategy of Britain. It is that unmistakable cocktail of aggression, subversion and mass murder waged at the vital nodes of the landmass, from Palestine and Central Asia to the gates of China, in Taiwan and Korea, that seeks to undermine any movement towards a confederation of nations capable of turning the continental base into a Eurasian league of socio-political cooperation and defense against Anglo-American assault."

G.G. Preparata, "Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich", pp. XVII, 5-8, 135-136, 187-188 & 263

H/t Arslan Akhtar

................

From James Connolly’s Irish Socialist Republic - To the Irish People:

The struggle for Irish freedom has two aspects: it is national and it is social. Its national ideal can never be realized until Ireland stands forth before the world, a nation free and independent. It is social and economic; because no matter what the form of government may be, as long as one class own as their private property the land and instruments of labor, from which all mankind derive their subsistence, that class will always have it in their power to plunder and enslave the remainder of their fellow creatures. Its social ideal, therefore, requires the public ownership by the Irish people of the land and instruments of production, distribution, and exchange to be held and controlled by a democratic state in the interests of the entire community. But every Irish movement of the last 200 years has neglected one or the other of these equally necessary aspects of the national struggle. They have either been agrarian and social, and in the hunt after some temporary abatement of agricultural distress have been juggled into forgetfulness of the vital principles which lie at the base of the claim for National Independence, or else they have been national and under the guidance of middle-class and aristocratic leaders, who either did not understand the economic basis of oppression, and so neglected the strongest weapon in their armory, or, understanding it, were selfish enough to see in the national movement little else than a means whereby, if successful, they might intercept and divert into the pockets of the Irish middle-class a greater share of that plunder of the Irish worker which at present flows across the channel. The failure of our so-called ‘leaders’ to grasp the grave significance of this two-fold character of the “Irish Question” is the real explanation of that paralysis which at constantly recurring periods falls like a blight upon Irish politics. The party which would aspire to lead the Irish people from bondage to freedom must then recognize both aspects of the long-continued struggle of the Irish Nation. Such a party is the newly-formed Irish Socialist Republican Party. In its resolve to win complete separation from all connection with the British Empire, and the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic, it embodies to the full the true Irish ideal – an independent nation with a social-democratic organization of society, thus adapting to the altered environment of the nineteenth century the vital principle of common ownership of the means of life which inspired the Brehon laws of our ancient forefathers. In its program of immediately practical reforms will be found the only feasible proposals yet formulated, either for averting from Irish farming the ruin with which it is threatened by the competition of the mammoth farms and scientifically equipped agriculture of America and Australia, for lessening the tide of emigration or for using the political power of the Irish people with potent effect in paving the way for the realization of a revolutionary ideal. We ask you then to join our ranks; to spread our ideas; to work for our success, which means your emancipation; to help us to blend the twin streams of National and Industrial Freedom into one irresistible torrent, sweeping all obstacles before it, and bearing grandly onward on its bosom the toiling millions of the Irish race, proudly enthusiastic in their desire to join the mighty ocean of lovers of Humanity who in every clime under the sun are working and hoping for the time when oppression and privilege will be no more; when “every man will be a Kaiser, every woman be a queen.”

...................

“Capitalistic economy is deeply anti-personal: it dehumanizes economic life and makes man a thing. This is expressed in the present period of decline by the fact that it is becoming constantly more anonymous. Capitalism is itself breaking down the principle of private property: it is difficult to know who is a proprietor and just what he owns. The power of the banks is a faceless, anonymous power. The trusts are anonymous, impersonal institutions. It is even uncertain who is responsible for the misery under which the world is now suffering: there is no culprit, for he has no name. The unemployed do not know who is to blame for their bitter lot. Man is crushed by a vast shapeless, faceless, and nameless power, money.” - Nicolas Berdyaev, The Fate of Man in the Modern World

.................

[50th anniversary of the My Lai massacre]

"Sometimes there were even too many civilian corpses, leading to a different sort of statistical manipulation: body-count deflation. After the My Lai massacre, the American Division claimed only 128 enemy dead, when in actuality more than 500 civilians had been slaughtered.
(...)
Soldiers realized that small groups of civilians could be killed with impunity and logged as enemy dead, but larger numbers might raise red flags if there were no U.S. casualties or few weapons captured. To avoid uncomfortable questions about skewed kills-to-weapons ratios, many patrols planted grenades, rifles, or other arms on dead civilians as a matter of standard operating procedure. They obtained these from weapons caches they discovered, or by taking arms from prisoners or enemy dead carrying more than one weapon, or sometimes even by repurposing U.S. weapons as enemy matériel. As one marine explained, “When civilians got killed, no problem, just stick a chicom [Chinese communist] grenade on ’em, or an AK[-47 assault rifle], they become VC.“
(...)
At My Lai, a number of soldiers became “double veterans,” as the GIs referred to men who raped and then murdered women. As the writers Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim reported, “Many women [at My Lai] were raped and sodomized, mutilated, and had their vaginas ripped open with knives or bayonets. One woman was killed when the muzzle of a rifle barrel was inserted into her vagina and the trigger was pulled.” In one sexual assault, three men held a teenage girl to the ground and violated her. Afterward, the girl was shot in the head and killed.

As the record of the war indicates in copious fashion, however, such crimes were hardly confined to My Lai. A marine who had served in Quang Tin Province, for example, testified that a nine-man squad entered a village ostensibly to capture “a Viet Cong whore.” The men located a woman, then serially raped her. The last one of them shot her through the head.
(...)
As with other crimes in Vietnam, the documentary record of detainee torture is sparse but exceptionally suggestive. For example, the files of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group—the secret Pentagon task force set up to monitor war crimes in the wake of the My Lai massacre—describe 141 substantiated instances in which U.S. soldiers tortured civilian detainees or enemy prisoners of war with fists, sticks, bats, water, or electric shock. But this is the merest tip of the iceberg: most of these cases came from just one investigation of the 172nd Military Intelligence Detatchment, a single unit of fifty to a hundred men, one of many such American units in Vietnam.”

Nick Turse, "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam"