Trotskyism Supports Bourgeois Racism & Counter-Revolution

0000000000

I am not that concerned about Leon Trotsky the man – although, of course, I would strive to free him as part of an oppressed humanity, and I wish him personally no ill will.  Leon Trotsky the Jewish person, the Russian, the intellectual, the innovator and the one-time avid supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution and Marxist-Leninism, I treat as any human-being in need of revolutionary freedom from the trap of bourgeois existence.  I would also not have wished him killed, or supported his murder if I had been alive and directly involved in his epoch of activity, but he died 27 years before I was born, and I only became aware of his divisive representation on the Communist left, over a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  My upbringing was implicitly Marxist-Leninist, with a broad support for the USSR and any Socialist or Communist country (including China and Cuba, etc). In fact, when I was young, there was no such thing as ‘anti-capitalism’ outside of the Marxist-Leninist critique.  Today, many White liberals talk about ‘anti-capitalism’, but only from a bourgeois and ‘reformist’ perspective, unaware that capitalism cannot be reformed away from its inherent nature of division and ruthless exploitation.  This is exactly what Trotskyism supports – co-operation with capitalism and the bourgeois class (whilst on the surface espousing anti-capitalist and anti-racist rhetoric).  This is what Trotsky became when he decided to try and wrestle power of off Joseph Stalin, and lead the USSR down a bourgeois reformist path.  This is the Trotsky that I cannot abide and it is signified by a deliberate and malignant intellectual outpouring of his mind against Marxist-Leninism, and consequently the USSR.  Trotskyism is the distorted rhetoric of a failed power-grab, and Trotskyites are the followers of the rhetoric of Leon Trotsky’s failed power-grab.  Trotskyism cannot succeed because its premise is the blue-print of Trotsky’s failure to divert the USSR off of its revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist path.  This is why there has never been a successful Trotskyite revolution anywhere in the world, despite the deceptive and dishonest Trotskyite tactic of ‘entryism’ into the existing Socialist and Communist left.  This is basically access through ‘mimicry’, whereby the Trotskyites use all the key words found on the left, such as ‘anti-fascism’, ‘anti-capitalism’, and ‘anti-sexism’, etc, whilst actually advocating co-operation with fascism, co-operation with capitalism, and co-operation with sexism, as a means to gain ‘entry’ into the bourgeois system (which never happens).  Racism is a major facet of Trotskyism which manifests through that philosophy’s expressed race-hate for China, the Chinese people, and the Chinese Marxist-Leninist Communist Revolution.  Trotskyites, whilst professing an ‘anti-racist’ rhetoric, are prepared to use the very same racist rhetoric to attack and denigrate Communist China, and in so doing are simply aligning themselves with pre-existing anti-Chinese bourgeois racism – which hates all things ‘Chinese’ simply because it is not ‘White’ or ‘Eurocentric’ in origination.  This demonstrates just how far Trotskyism has diverted away not only from Marxist-Leninism, but also from Marxist-Engelism.  Marx would have thoroughly ‘critiqued’ Trotsky and his band of retrogrades, and consigned Trotskyism to the dustbin of history.  The Workers must educate themselves through Marxist-Leninism, and avoid the distortion of Trotskyism at all costs – if the bourgeoisie are to be permanently uprooted through the correct application of Scientific Socialism.

Mozi: Benefitting Others

000000000

‘Therefore when the wise men of ancient times planned for the welfare of the world, they were careful to consider and accord with what is right, and only then did they act.  So there was no uncertainty in their movements, and they achieved speedy success and certain realisation of their desires.  To accord with what benefits Heaven, the spirits, and the common people – this is the way of the wise man.’

Watson, Burton, Translator, Mo Tzu – Basic Writings – Columbia University Press, (1963), Page 52

Gilgul: Jewish Rebirth Theory

images (14)

‘What we find in the New Testament as a self-evident belief in rebirth was by no means familiar to the Jews of earlier times. Hellenistic philosophy had disseminated that view within its sphere of influence. The concept of rebirth (gilgul) only became established in Jewish circles around the start of our millennium.  Talmudists started from the assumption that God had created only a specific number of Jewish souls, which were constantly reborn.  For punishment they returned in animals’ bodies.  According to that view, a human has to live through a prolonged transmigration of souls (gilgul-neschama) until redemption (tikkan – ‘right order, harmony’) is attained.  The idea that redemption only occurs when the goal of earthly development is achieved indicates Indian and Buddhist origins.  These Jewish teachings first arose during the Hellenistic period.’

Gruber, Elmar R & Kersten, Holger, The Original Jesus – The Buddhist Sources of Christianity, Element, (1995) Page 89

Nazi German SS Tibet Expedition (1938-39)

46928ccfxc502caa57f13&690 (1)

Nazi Germany had very good cultural links with a Tibet that had become ever more neglected by a self-serving, and Westward looking Nationalist regime, that if truth be known, was staffed by officials who preferred missionary Christianity to Chinese or Tibetan Buddhism.  Indeed, this Nationalist government, from its very inception in 1912, sought to destroy the Buddhist establishment, and clear Buddhist (and Daoist) temples to make way for Christian churches.  Perhaps one of the greatest crimes of the Nationalist regime in China was its 1928 destruction of the famous Shaolin Temple in Henan  Another was its courting of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany that only abated when the US backed the Nationalists against the imperial Japanese.  Of course, as Germany occupied a number of concessions in China, and given the fact that Hitler had been in power in Germany since 1933, Nazi soldiers – and the dreaded ‘SS’ – were not uncommon sights in 1930’s China.  The Tibetan part of China, remote as it is from the capital Beijing, served as something of a staging post for the Nazi military and its racialised science.  The Tibetan nobility and high lamas generally maintained very good relations with the Nazi Germans – who, for some strange reasoning emanating from the warped mind of Adolf Hitler, assumed that the ‘White’ pure race of Aryans may well have originated in the Tibetan area (part of this madness might well have been to do with the Buddhist use of the swastika).  Later, the 14th Dalai Lama became very a close friend with the exiled Nazi War Criminal Heinrich Harrer, who in return for an amnesty from the Western allies for his war crimes (as a member of the Nazi Party and personal friend of Adolf Hitler), assisted the CIA to concoct a story about Tibet being ‘invaded’ by China.  Brad Pitt even played Harrer in a Hollywood film – eulogising the life of this Nazi.  As Tibet was already part of China, it was imossible for it to be invaded by China.  This would be like a country invading itself.

Flawed Understanding of Ch’an Methods in the West

00000000

‘The gift of the Dhamma excels all gifts;

the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes;

delight in the Dhamma excels all delights.

The eradication of Craving (i.e., attainment of Arhatship)

overcomes all ills (samsara dukkha).’

(Buddha: Dhammapada Verse 354)

The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen, states (incorrectly on page 246), the following explanation of the hua tou method as found within the Chinese Ch’an School:

‘[Hua-t’ou], lit., “word-head” the point, punch line, or key line of a koan, the word or phrase in which the koan resolves itself when one struggles with it as a means of spiritual training…  In the famous koan Chao-chou, Dog, for example, mu is the [hua-t’ou].  Many longer koan have several [hua-t’ou].’

This is a nonsense statement premised upon the confusion between traditional Chinese Ch’an Buddhism and the very different modern Japanese Zen, and the ignorant conflation of the hua tou technique with the gongan method.   A ‘gongan’ (公案) within Chinese Ch’an Buddhism refers to any ‘public record’ of a dialogue that has been recorded (i.e. ‘witnessed’] between an enlightened Ch’an master and his unenlightened Ch’an disciple.  A ‘gongan’, is premised solely upon the use of the ‘language of the uncreate’, and is designed to bring the stream of deluded (and obscuring) thoughts to an abrupt stop, so that the mind is ‘stilled’, and the empty mind ground is immediately perceived.  The use of the term ‘gongan’ within Ch’an Buddhism, probably arises from within ordinary Chinese culture, where ‘gongan’ was used to refer to a ‘legal’ document that has been the consequence of a ‘witnessed’ dialogue between two or more people.  A gongan is a ‘binding’ dialogue that presents a specific outcome – in the case of Ch’an Buddhism, the master expresses an enlightened dialogue using the mind the ‘right way around’, which in-turn is an antidote to the disciple’s ‘deluded’ mind which is working in an ‘inverted’ manner, the ‘wrong way around’.  As the deluded mind cannot understand the enlightened mind, it perceives the ‘language of the uncreate’ as if it where nonsensical.  This is the deluded mind reducing the complexity of the universe to its own limited understanding.  Finally, a ‘gongan’ is not a ‘riddle’ to be ‘solved’ (which denotes an ‘egotistical’ trap), but is an expression of enlightened being, here and now.

A gongan has nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘hua tou’ (話頭).  This is often misunderstood in the West by its ‘literal’ translation of ‘word head’, but which in Chinese conception refers to the ‘beginning’ of a word (or ‘thought’) just prior to its formulation in the mind.  Therefore, the hua tou refers to the ‘empty’ moment before a word or thought is formed (or becomes ‘concretised’ in the mind), as this realisation breaks-up the constant stream of obscuring and deluded thought.  Correct hua tou practice reveals that all the six senses emerge from the empty mind ground.  The hua tou method was introduced into the Chinese Ch’an School when it became obvious that ordinary gongan were nolonger working for most people (although gongan still work for some people) due to the advance in civilisation, and the ever more complex and distracting nature of modern life.  A hua tou does not make use of the ‘language of the uncreate’, and is therefore not a ‘gongan’, and cannot be categorised as a ‘gongan’.  The hua tou uses the questioning device of ‘Who’ to turn the mind (usually, but not always, through the organ of ‘hearing’) back to the empty mind ground from which the six sensory stimuli emerge.  In theory, any of the six senses can be ‘returned’ in this manner, such as ‘Who is seeing?’, or ‘Who is feeling (pain or pleasure)?’, etc, but generally speaking, the preferred method within Chinese Ch’an is ‘Who is hearing?’  Therefore, the ‘hua tou’ arises from the Surangama Sutra, which presents 25 meditation methods that have been known to convey the practitioner to enlightenment.  The Buddha asked Manjushri to assess all 25 methods, and give his opinion upon the method best suited for Ananda to use.  Manjushri, after due consideration, chose the method used by Avalokitesvara of ‘Who is hearing?’  This is designed to disengage the organ of hearing from its object, (i.e. ‘sound’), and then directing that into the stream of consciousness.  When the conception of both sound and stream-entry are successfully transcended (and perceived as ‘empty’).  This wipes all notions of duality, and leads to the integration of form and void at source (i.e. the empty mind ground).  Do not be confused about the difference between ‘gongan’ and ‘hua tou’ practice within the Chinese Ch’an School.

 

Ch’an Master Han Shan Deqing [憨山德清] (1546-1623): Pureland & Ch’an Practice

download

Author’s Note: Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) was believed to be the rebirth of Ch’an Master Han Shan Deqing from the Ming Dynasty.  In fact, Xu Yun’s ordination name was ‘Deqing’ (德清), and like Master Han Shan before him, he travelled around rebuilding temples that had fallen on hard times.  Below, Master Han Shan teaches how a Ch’an Buddhist practises Pureland Buddhism – through the use of the hua tou method.  On the face of it, this seems a little different to chanting the Buddha’s name repeatedly, (such as Namo Amitabha Buddha, or Namo Amituofo), but is rather replacing this with the hua tou ‘Who is repeating the Buddha’s name?’  Master Han Shan’s body still sits-upright in meditation, at the Temple of the Sixth Patriarch, in Guangdong province, people’s Republic of China.  ACW 28.8.2016

‘Those who engage in the (dual practice) of Buddha Recitation and Ch’an should take the name of Amitabha Buddha as a hua-t’ou.  During Buddha Recitation, you should ask “who is it that recites the Buddha’s name?” If you ask again and again, there will come a time when all false thoughts suddenly cease.  No such thoughts can arise, or if they do, they will be quickly suppressed.  You have only a single, clear thought, like a bright sun in the sky, and never engender false thoughts.  The confused mind will reign no more.  Rather, you will experience stillness and awareness.  The Great Master Yung-Chia said:

“Stillness with awareness is right, but stillness without mindfulness is wrong.  Awareness with stillness is right, but awareness with confusion thinking is wrong.”

If stillness does not lead to confusion and lack of mindfulness and awareness does not lead to confused thinking, then awareness and stillness will flow together.  You let go of both ‘sinking’ and ‘floating’ until not a single thought arises in mind, not of past, present or future; then, suddenly the pitch blackness cracks and you see your Original Face.  Body, mind and world are immediately at peace.  Then the flowers in the sky (i.e. the illusionary world) disappear, and everything in the ten directions is bright because a great light is shining everywhere.

When you arrive at this stage, this complete brightness is always present in your daily life and you will no longer have any doubts.  You will believe your own mind, which is intrinsically thus.  Then you are no different from the Buddhas and Patriarchs.  When you reach this level, you will no longer grasp of Emptiness.  If you grasp at Emptiness, you will fall into the evil of heterodox views.  Nor will you grasp at Existence or at the Wonderful.  If you grasp at Existence, you will also fall into evil ways.’

Quoted from Pure Land of the Patriarchs – Zen Master Han Shan on Pure Land Buddhism: Translated by Master Lok To, The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, (1993), Pages 22-23 (with modification).

May Mimicking Major at Lords!

00000000

Pakistan’s Batsman-Wicket-keeper Sarfraz Ahmed scored 105

After a day of house-cleaning and shifting heavy objects from one place to another,I sat down in front of the TV to watch something relaxing.  Channel 5 – a station I seldom watch – was showing the highlights of the 2nd One Day Internationals between England and Pakistan, and I had the good fortune to witness Pakistan’s Batsman-Wicket-keeper Sarfraz Ahmed hit a magnificent century!  However, what I was not prepared for was the disturbing sight of Geoffrey Boycott filmed at a distance (in an obviously ‘contrived’ TV shoot) laughing and joking with the current unelected Tory prime minister of the UK – Theresa May.  It is appalling to consider that as people continue to die of starvation, lack of benefits, and lack of NHS care due entirely to the ideologically-led Tory cuts, a ‘prime minister’ would have the bad taste to be seen in public at a Lords cricket match – laughing and joking a if nothing bad was happening to the British people!  This reminds me of that other ‘unelected’ Tory prime minister – John Major – who was also glad to be seen to attend cricket matches whilst the UK wheeled from a decade of Tory economic mismanagement.  John Major (who was born in St Helier Hospital now ear-marked to be ‘closed’ by the Tories) won the 1992 general election simply because Labour under Neil Kinnock was not able to capitalise upon the chaos.  Labour was far more united and cohesive then, than it is today, with rightwing Blairites attempting to rip-out its Socialist heart, and finish the job Tony Blair started.  Today, ‘current’ Labour is in disarray, and yet again failing to make hay whilst the sun shines.  the Tories are ideologically dead in the water, and are simply continuing the destructive ‘austerity’ policies set in place by the Tory David Cameron, and the LibDem Nick Clegg.  The Tory government has been found guilty of Crimes Against Humanities by the United Nations for the manner in which it initiated wide-spread cuts in benefits, and how this policy led to the deaths of at least 10,000 disabled people.  Furthermore, to placate the racist UKIP and its far-rightwing membership, Cameron promised an EU Referendum at the 2015 general election – which his ‘stay’ vote eventually lost.  The Tories have nothing to offer than destructive policies for the majority of British people, and pointless tax-cuts for the rest. The Tories may well think that due to Labour’s own in-fighting, Theresa May will win the next election by ‘default’, and to do this, they are copying John Major’s style of an apparently relaxed exterior, whilst the Tory government carries-out the ruthless class-led politics of further enriching the middle classes at the perpetual expense of the workers, behind the scenes.  Needless to say, as I couldn’t stomach Geoffrey Boycott making a fool of himself infront of millions – I switched the channel over.

Master Xu Yun: Bringing the Dharma into Modern Times

2015041914404053608

Richard Hunn (1949-2006) often commented how interesting it would have been, if Master Xu Yun had visited the West.  In fact, Master Xu Yun visited many places outside of China, including India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand and Malaysia, as well as Bhutan and Tibet, but circumstances never permitted his further travel Westward, even though on many of those travels in Asia (and China), he did have opportunities to meet a number of Westerners – primarily British and American – as photographic and biographical evidence records.  Charles Luk (1898-1978) came to London in 1935, and had a visit with Christmas Humphreys – founder of the Buddhist Society headquartered there.  Charles Luk requested that the Buddhist Society assist with the preservation of Chinese Buddhism, and perhaps invite Master Xu Yun to the West, but Christmas Humphreys refused on the grounds that the Buddhist Society was committed to supporting Japanese Zen Buddhism.  This is a remarkable position to take by this learned Westerner, when it was well-known in the West that modern Zen (ever since the Meiji Restoration of 1868) had become entwined with militarism and a racist nationalism.  Not only this, but this distorted ’Zen’ was being used throughout the Japanese military as a means to create highly aggressive and amoral soldiers who were encouraged to associate mindless killing, with the state of Zen enlightenment.  Just two years after this meeting, the Japanese formally unleashed an attack on China that has become known as the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, which led to the death of millions of Chinese people, and which spread into the Japanese involvement in WWII.  Of course, once the Japanese engaged the West in open warfare, this amoral Zen was used by its soldiers to kill Westerners in their thousands, and to brutalise prisoners of war, etc.  Incredibly, the stance of the Buddhist Society did not change either during WWII, or in the decades following it, where it remained firmly committed to the dissemination of post-Meiji Japanese Zen ideology in the West (a position it still adheres to).

Richard Hunn was of the opinion that the presence of Master Xu Yun in London’s Eccleston Square, might well have altered the opinion of Christmas Humphreys, and ushered in a whole new generation of interest in Chinese Ch’an Buddhism.  However, this was not to be, and Master Xu Yun had other matters to deal with.  Not only did he have to protect the Chinese people against military forces of imperial Japan, he also had to negotiate with the crumbling Nationalist regime in the 1940’s, whilst keeping cordial relations with the ever more efficient and successful forces of Mao Zedong.  Following the establishment of New China in 1949, Master Xu Yun, at a meeting with government officials in Beijing, was asked his opinion about a group of Chinese monks who had lived in Japan for a time.  These monks had taken the Vinaya Discipline Vows, and had left China on a good will mission as celibate monastics.  However, whilst in Japan they had succumbed to the Japanese habit of abandoning the upholding of the Dharma-vows as specified by the Vinaya Discipline, and had taken to eating meat, drinking wine, and participating in amorous relationships (as all were now married and one or two actually had children!).  The view of these monks was that not to follow the Vinaya Discipline was ‘modern’, and they petitioned the government to pass a law ‘lifting’ the requirement for Chinese Buddhist monastics to have to follow the Vinaya Discipline.  This would have meant that Chinese Buddhism would be reduced to the state of post-Meiji Japanese Buddhism, requiring no moral discipline for its incumbents.  A Buddhist ‘monk’ or ‘nun’ under this Japanese system, would be nothing more than a special type of ‘lay’ person, but one that egotistically took on the airs of a Buddhist monastic (that would normally be adhering to a strict psychological and physical discipline).  In effect, a lay person who wears the Buddhist monastic robes, but who does not follow the Vinaya Discipline, is just a lay person wearing robes, and definitely is not a ‘Buddhist monastic’.  Master Xu Yun patiently listened to the argument of these monks (that he viewed as ‘heretical’), and then banged his hand on the table and firmly stated that without the following of the Vinaya Discipline of Indian Buddhism, there can be no authentic ‘Chinese’ Buddhism.  Master Xu Yun then specified that the new Chinese government should in fact make it a requirement under secular law, that every ordained monk or nun in China must properly follow and uphold the Vinaya Discipline.  The government officials weighed-up both sides of the argument, and decided that Master Xu Yun was right.  This is how Master Xu Yun preserved Chinese Buddhism and brought it into the modern age.

 

Master Xu Yun: Dao of Wu Wei

o0o0o0o

Master Xu Yun (in his 114th year of age) relates the following story in his autobiography:

This method of setting a time-limit for personal experience of the truth is likened to a scholars’ examination. The candidates sit for it and write their compositions according to the subjects, for each of which a time-limit is set. The subject of our Chan week is Chan meditation. For this reason, this hall is called the Chan Hall. Chan is dhyana in Sanskrit and means ‘unperturbed abstraction’. There are various kinds of Chan, such as the Mahayana and Hinayana Chans, the material and immaterial Chans, the Sravakas’ and the Heretics’ Chan. Ours is the unsurpassed Chan. If one succeeds in seeing through the doubt (mentioned yesterday) and sitting on and cracking the life-root,* one will be similar to the Tathagata. For this reason, a Chan Hall is also called a Buddha’s selecting place. It is called a Prajna Hall. The Dharma taught in this hall is the Wu Wei Dharma.** Wu Wei means ‘not doing’. In other words, not a single thing can be gained and not a single thing can be done. If there be doing (samskrta), it will produce birth and death. If there is gain, there will be loss. For this reason, the sutra says: “There are only words and expressions which have no real meaning.’ The recitation of sutras and the holding of confessional services pertain to doing (samskrta) and are only expediencies used in the teaching school. As to our Sect, its teaching consists in the direct self-cognizance for which words and expressions have no room. Formerly a student called on the old Master Nan-quan and asked him: ‘What is Dao?’ Nan-quan replied: ‘The ordinary mind is the truth.’ Every day we wear robes and eat rice; we go out to work and return to rest; all our actions are performed according to the truth.  It is because we bind ourselves in every situation that we fail to realize that the self-mind is Buddha.

(Empty Cloud: Translated by Charles Luk [1988], Page 160)

* Life root – a root or basis for life, or reincarnation, the nexus of Hinayana between two life-periods, accepted by Mahayana as nominal but not real. The Chinese idiom ‘to sit on and to crack’ is equivalent to the Western term ‘to break up’.

**Wu Wei. Asamkrta in Sanskrit – anything not subject to cause, condition or dependence; out of time, external inactive, supramundane.

Home Office: No Action Against Murderous Britain First

00000000

Following thousands of British people signing a petition calling for Britain First to be ‘banned’ as a ‘Terrorist’ extremist organisation, (in response to the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by one of its members), the current unelected Tory Prime Minister – Teresa May – and her Government, has refused to take direct action against Britain First, whilst issuing a broad re-statement of its anti-terror laws (which appear tailored to limit freedom of speech rather than confront legitimate threats).  This legislation bizarrely states that there will be no tolerance of ‘extremism’ – either ‘violent’ or ‘non-violent’ – which begs the question of how can extremism be ‘non-violent’, unless, of course, it is a ‘cure all’ phrase that can be used to ‘prevent’ legitimate and democratic ‘dissent’ against the ‘extremism’ associated with Tory (and LibDem) ‘Austerity’.  Whatever the case, the Tory government does not want to apply its own legislation against a ‘White’ and ‘Christian’ extremist group like the home-grown Britain First, when previous Tory administrations have been quite happy to ‘ban’ UK Muslim groups for criticising the UK wars in the Middle East.  This is the Tory Government’s response to the British nation’s petition to ‘ban’ Britain First:

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Britain First announce militant action against elected Muslims PROSCRIBE NOW!”.

Government responded:

While we keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:
• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;
• prepares for terrorism;
• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or
• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

“Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy addresses all forms of terrorism, including that which is inspired by far right extremism. Preventing terrorism involves challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas which are part of terrorist ideology.

The Government condemns those who seek to spread hate by demonising British Muslims. Those who seek to divide us damage our country by stoking anti-Muslim hatred and who deliberately raise community fears and tensions by bringing disorder and violence to our towns and cities.

The Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy sets out comprehensive measures to defeat all forms of extremism – violent or non-violent, Islamist or far-right extremism, by countering extremist ideology, building partnerships against extremism, disrupting extremists, and building cohesive communities.

Home Office

 

%d bloggers like this: