US Supported Japan – Not North Korea – is the Greatest Threat to Peace in Asia!


The state of play. Any sane person would agree that warfare is legalised murder and an efficient and insane use of technology. Most, I think, would also agree that it is not in the best interests of human-beings as a species, to routinely kill and main one another in the name of political and economic gain, or the control of natural resources – and yet warfare is viewed under most national and international legal codes as ‘legitimate’ if a consensus prevails, or certain conditions prevail. Therefore, those in power maintain that power through the ‘threat’ of the use of lethal force. This leads to a situation where ‘bullying’ countries – such as the USA (and her cronies) conspire to control countries that are deemed ‘weaker’ through the ‘threat’ and ‘actualisation’ of military action, which can vary in intensity from murdering small numbers, to destroying sovereign governments, murdering hundreds of thousands whilst initiating regime change. This imperialist attitude and behaviour happens to the ‘bullied’ countries of the world. Currently, North Korea is continuously bullied by the US because its people have chosen the path of Socialism – that is the only reason. In this endeavour, the US is assisted by its colonies of South Korea and Taiwan, and its capitalistic ally of Japan. By way of contrast, North Korea is protected by the might of Communist China (through a 1961 ‘mutual assistance’ treaty). Every year the US (and her allies) play ‘war-games’ off the coast of North Korea – training for a full-scale invasion of that country. Whilst this real and present danger is unfolding, North Korea is expected to sit-back and allow it to happen – effectively being complicit in its own eventual down-fall. However, Kim Jong Un has not allowed this passive attitude to prevail – and whilst continuously calling for ‘peace’, and the US to stop its ‘war-like’ activities, he has embarked on a modest self-defence programme of building and testing medium to long-range missiles within North Korea’s geographical borders – a fully legal activity. Occasionally, unarmed prototype missiles have been test-fired harmlessly into the sea around North Korea. This is the kind of missile-testing the US carries-out all the time – but which the world treats as ‘normal’. China also carries-out this kind of testing – and the US knows full well that China could destroy US targets in minutes if the US ever attacked North Korea or China, etc. So where does this leave us? The Socialist countries – whilst calling for international peace and co-operation – are forced to build weapons of self-defence in a bid to fend-off the imperialist (capitalist) countries currently led by the US. Until these capitalist countries ‘renounce’ war (and sanity prevails) – North Korea has every right to defend itself. Moreover, whilst ‘capitalist’ Japan complains about the North Korean missile that landed harmlessly in waters off it coast (according to the bourgeois press), perhaps the government of Japan would like to issue an ‘official’ apology for the hundreds of thousands (even ‘millions’) of innocent Chinese, Korean, Russian, Burmese, Indian, Filipino, Indonesian and Western men, women and children its military murdered across Asia from 1931 – 1945! Japan has gotten away without acknowledging its War Crimes because it too – has become just another ‘cheap’ version of the United States – this time in Asia. It is Japanese nationalism and militarism (supported by the US) that is the biggest threat for security in the region – and not North Korean efforts to defend itself against such a threat!

Cuba’s Martial Arts Link with China (2015)


Cuban Delegation – With Master Shi (far-left) & Master Wang (far-right)

Original Article & Photographs By: Chen Peishi (陈佩诗)

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

On the morning of May 29th, 2015, Consul General Isabel Perez and Consul Julio – as official representatives of the Consulate of the Republic of Cuba (situated in Guangzhou) – paid a visit to the (Guangdong) Ch’an Martial Study Centre (禅武中心 – Ch’an Wu Zhong Xin), accompanied by Li Rongfu (李荣富) – the President of the Cuban Wushu Association together with one other visitor). This group of four was met by Chief Instructor (Master) Wang Zhenglang (王正浪) and the Deputy Director – the esteemed teacher – Shi Fangyuan (史方园).


Consul General Isabel Perez and the Cuban delegation were very impressed with the Centre and demonstrated the utmost respect and concern for Chinese culture, asking poignant and intelligent questions regarding the teaching of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, the rules and regulations ascribed to its practice, and how this training of the inner mind relates to the training of the outer body (when practising Chinese martial arts). Whilst being shown around the interior of the Centre, the Cuban delegation took careful note of all the historical information, and listened carefully to every explanation of each point of interest raised.


Of particular interest to the Cuban delegation were the traditional Chinese weapons on display, and the manner in which these weapons are used during traditional Chinese martial arts practice. The Cuban delegation praised the Ch’an Martial Study Centre – and stated that it was important for traditional Chinese martial arts to be preserved and passed-on from one generation to the next.


Mr Li Rongfu further commented that it was very rare to encounter such traditional Chinese meditational and martial teachings, coupled with a deep knowledge of their practice and usage.


This was all expertly explained by Master Wang and Master Shi – and Consul General Isabel Perez stated that on behalf of the Cuban people, she was very impressed with the rich and profound level of traditional cultural preservation in Mainland China – and was particularly impressed with what she had seen at the Ch’an Martial Study Centre.


Master Wang (left) – and Cuba’s Li Rongfu (right)

(Chinese Language Source Article


发布时间:2015.05.29 来源:中国南粤禅武文化网 [浏览次数: ]



India’s Embrace of (Eurocentric) Anti-China Racism and the Dalai Lama


Friends: 14th Dalai Lama (left) and Fascist Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded North-East India in late 1962 and successfully annexed a disputed geographical border area (set under the British imperialist rule of India), but which had been historically considered part of China. This was a consequence of India’s government siding with European racism and US imperialism in the Tibetan area of China. Following the CIA’s infiltration of the Tibetan area of Communist China – the 14th Dalai Lama – a man who had been personal friends with a number of Nazi German fugitives hiding-out in Tibet during WWII – took the side of Eurocentric racism and US imperialism, and despite being given every freedom and aspect of material support for the Tibet people – he allowed the CIA to mislead a large number of Buddhist monks (who had taken vows of non-violence) – and train these monastics in the use of fire-arms with the intention of murdering Tibetan governmental officials, any Tibetans who supported China, any Tibetans married to Chinese people (together with their ‘mixed race’ families), any and all Chinese officials, anyone with any association with China, or who held any leftwing political views. This CIA infiltration broke-out into overt violence in 1959 and was immediately put-down by the local Tibetan Authorities (who did not view the 14th Dalai Lama as the ‘leader’ of Tibet), and elements of the PLA (requested by the local Tibetan Authorities). By and large, ordinary Tibetans were not involved, and there was no popular support for the 14th Dalai Lama or his small group of dissident lamas. In fact, so unpopular was his antics that he had to leave the country (assisted by the CIA), being granted refugee status in a pro-Western India – that with US backing started agitating on the India-China border – trying to take land with the probable intention of invading China on behalf of the US (and re-establishing capitalist oppression in that country). Although India had gained its Independence from Britain in 1947 (where it became a highly oppressive ‘capitalist’ liberal democracy in its own right – riddle with crime, religious bigotry, caste discrimination and abject poverty) – its military structure (and its command and control system) remained distinctly ‘British’ for decades and was considered at the time to be a force to be recommend with. This is why the CIA made the mistake of entrusting the Indian Army with the objective of de-stabilising China and bringing-down its Communist System. As matters transpired, China’s PLA swept aside the Indian Army with a relative ease – attaining all its military objectives in around one month of military activity. The PLA suffered only 722 casualties – whilst the Indian Army suffered around 10,000 casualties (including those listed as ‘missing’). This humiliating defeat put an end to the CIA considering the use of the Indian Army as being a viable option for attacking Communist China. In the 1990’s, India signed a number of agreements with China ‘stabilising’ the disputed border region.

Generally speaking, Mao Zedong was against any war with India on the grounds that the ordinary Indian people (just like the ordinary Chinese people) had been the victims of Eurocentric racism and imperialism for centuries prior to Independence. The 1962 Sino-Indian War had to be fought not between the ordinary Chinese people and the ordinary Indian people (which collectively form substantial sections of the International Working Class) – but between the Chinese section of the proletariat (which had successfully ceased control of the means of production) and the Indian bourgeoisie which had took-over control of the governance of the Indian masses from the British – and had continued to pursue purely capitalist and regressive social, cultural, economic, religious, military and political objectives in the region. This still remains the situation today (with the exception of the successful Communist government in the Kerala area of South India, and leftist influences in one or two other areas), with millions of ordinary Indian people living in abject poverty. This situation went from dire to disastrous in 2016, when the rightwing and fascistic ‘Bharatiya Janata Party’ (BJP) was elected to power in India. Like any liberal democracy, many working class people feel alienated from the bourgeois political system and therefore do not participate in it as a means of ‘resistance’ to it. This often results in the better educated bourgeoisie (who understand the power of the ‘vote’) continuously electing governments that represent their own – greed-orientated – class interests. The BJP added to all this bourgeois hypocrisy with their own particular brand of religious (i.e. ‘Brahmanic’) bigotry and caste discrimination. The BJP considers the wealth of the higher castes to be ‘god given’, and the poverty of the masses to also be ‘god give’ – so from the BJP perspective, India’s massive disparity in wealth (and grinding poverty) is perfectly natural and there is no need to alter it. Furthermore, the BJP very much associates itself with the Western ‘capitalist’ system and social inequality – which includes the embracing of racial hierarchies. This is why the BJP is a staunch ally of the US and has initiated a ‘new’ epoch of anti-China racism and pro-Tibetan antagonism. The official media of India is full of ‘fake’ anti-China stories that have taken-on a life of their own within Indian social media. I have been astonished (on more than one occasion). to witness intelligent Indian people that I know on social media – trumpeting BJP anti-China racism – and repeating news stories that are obviously ‘false’! Much of the anti-China film footage from these fake news stories is filmed in the US colony of Taiwan – where the Chinese language dialogue is different to that expected on the Mainland, the uniforms of the military are inaccurate, and the behaviour of the officials (or soldiers shown) is distinctly ‘non-Chinese’! Of course, lurking in the background to this nonsense is the duplicitous 14th Dalai Lama and his billionaire Hollywood chums – but I expected more from the ordinary Indian people.

Chinese Language References:



Trotskyite Origins of ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ – Bodleian Library (2017)


Karl Marx stated that the working class must throw-off the shackles of a ‘false consciousness’ as enforced upon it by the controlling masters of capital – the bourgeoisie. What is this ‘false consciousness’? It is defined by Marx as the ‘inverted’ (and non-scientific’) use of the mind, which justifies a theistic religious oppression, and the mythology that an ‘unseen’ and ‘non-material’ world lurks behind the very real material world (of suffering and oppression), and controls it through the equally unseen hand of a theistic entity. The implications of this ‘inverted’ mind-set are tremendous, because through the perpetuation of theistic religion (even in its secular form), the capitalist system is maintained and justified through a bourgeoisie which presents itself as the ‘natural’ choice (decreed by god) to run society. Karl Marx (and VI Lenin) begged to differ, but not so Leon Trotsky – but more about him in a moment. Marx suggested that once the ‘inverted’ mind is recognised for what it is, abandoned and rectified, then a ‘true consciousness’ is adopted and developed. This views the material world correctly without recourse to fearing a non-material world that does not exist ‘behind the scenes’ as it where. Whatever evolutionary conscious awareness maybe – according to Marx – it is certainly not theistic or religious in nature. As the working class is taught to view things the wrong way around from birth, everything in that reality must be ruthlessly questioned and criticised to establish a grasp of reality as it is. Of course, like all great intellectual undertakings, this process is a matter of dialectical assessment and application of the mind. Opposites must be correctly assessed, and the correct dialectical action taken. As Marxist-Leninist Socialism is Scientific, this means applying a ‘scientific’ mind to all things working class – so as to benefit that class in its totality from the cradle to the grave. This signifies a radical improvement for each individual on a personal and public level – with a Socialist Society providing the optimum material conditions for an enhanced human existence. This is what the Scientific Socialism of Marxist-Leninism strives to achieve.

The book in question – ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ was published in 2017 by the Bodleian Library (Oxford), probably in anticipation of the 100th anniversary of the Russian ‘October Revolution’ that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Generally speaking, the bourgeois press is either openly hostile to this Socialist Revolution (perpetuating all kinds of ahistorical disinformation), or more or less indifferent. This book is undoubtedly ‘bourgeois’, but whilst presenting the surface idea that the work of VI Lenin is being impartially conveyed, it is in fact pursuing quite a different agenda. This book is not anti-Socialist per se, and whilst in its brief Introduction it claims to have referenced the Marxist Internet Archive, there is an issue with the type of quotes selected, the presentation of those quotes without a proper historical context, an incorrect criticism of Joseph Stalin, and a complete omission of any of the substantial and continuous criticisms Lenin made about the thinking of Leon Trotsky for probably over ten year period (or more) prior to Lenin’s death in 1924. What this book does include, however, is an ‘edited’ quote that appears to show Lenin heaping praise upon Trotsky (something that Lenin never did – as we shall see).  This is the page from the book (which proves the ‘Trotskyite’ intentions of the authors):


This single (and altered) quote from VI Lenin proves the true Trotskyite nature of this book. This quote has two defining sentences missing, which when included confirms that Lenin is being sarcastic about Trotsky’s tendency to ‘disrupt’ routine Communistic planning and direction of policy (despite his organisational abilities which he later deployed in a world-wide attempt to bring-down the Soviet Union). The full quote can be accessed here Letter to the Congress and reads:

‘Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People’s Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.’

If this book was genuinely about VI Lenin, the authors would have included the fact that Lenin made serious criticism about Trotsky’s thinking – effectively accusing him of being bourgeois in his assessment of the principle of revolution and the needs of the peasants and workers, etc. Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, was constructively criticised by Lenin in an attempt to mould him into a better leader. This policy of Lenin’s must have worked, as Stalin’s Collected Works are fully inaccordance with the thinking of Marx-Engels and Marx-Lenin – even though Stalin had to guide the USSR through its early development and very tumultuous times (such as the Great Patriotic War – 1941-1945). Trotsky’s work, on the other hand, reads like a mimicry of Socialism – a bourgeois mirage or smoke-screen designed to mislead the workers down a dark ally from which they cannot escape. The camouflage employed by the authors to cover their Trotskyite tendencies is that of occasionally supplying a well-known Lenin quote between one or two suspicious or misleading ones, but it is this dubious use of quotes which is designed to do much damage to Lenin in the mind of the general reader. For instance, there are a number of non-contextualised quotes which give the impression that Lenin advocated the use of ‘terrorism’ – this is untrue. Both Marx and Lenin (and Stalin for that matter), where against the use of anarchic or indiscriminate violence, as its victims were often innocent members of the working class, who were further punished by a vengeful Bourgeois State! This is the type of ‘terror’ that is seen in the West today – usually of a religious nature. This is very different to the entire working class rising-up together and taking control of the means of production. This book makes no attempt to convey the true Marxist-Leninist attitude against terrorism, but instead conveys the false idea that Lenin supported indiscriminate terrorism – he did not.  A typical and non-contextual quote from this book reads:


This book is very poorly referenced, and one gets the impression that it is because the authors do not want the general reader to find-out for themselves the true context of such quotes – which when presented out of historical context – are designed to make Lenin seem monstrous. I have had to research each quote separately – so poor is this book’s referencing system. The full quote can be accessed here On Combating The Famine and actually reads:

‘Vladimirov’s data indicate that the old ration should not be changed. Measures must be taken to find what there is available in Petrograd.

All these data show that the workers of Petrograd are monstrously inactive. The Petrograd workers and soldiers must understand that they have no one to look to but themselves. The facts of abuse are glaring, the speculation, monstrous; but what have the mass of soldiers and workers done about it? You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action. A plenary meeting of the Soviet must be called to decide on mass searches in Petrograd and the goods stations. To carry out these searches, each factory and company must form contingents, not on a voluntary basis: it must be the duty of everyone to take part in these searches under the threat of being deprived of his bread card. We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.

The rich section of the population must be left without bread for three days because they have stocks of other foodstuns and can afford to pay the speculators the higher price.’

Not only was Revolutionary Russia invaded by fourteen countries from around the world (including the UK, USA, Germany, the Republic of China and Japan), but there was much turmoil within Russian as all foreign money and trade was immediately withdrawn in an attempt to punish the Russian working class for daring to stand-up to bourgeois tyranny, and quite literally ‘starve’ them out. Like any leader in such a position, Lenin takes control. He tells the workers to strive for their own survival and welfare – and in this time of warfare and hardship, the proletariat is to defend itself against class enemies at every turn. The combined interventionist forces were eventually defeated by 1921 under Lenin’s leadership – so that the ‘Soviet Union’ could be declared in late 1922. The so-called ‘Russian Civil War’ was in fact a mass invasion of Socialist Russia by the reactionary forces of the world in support of capitalism. None of this is made clear in this book because the Trotskyite author’s want to paint Lenin in a bad light, and make him appear to be thinking and acting like a contemporary ‘terrorist’ – whilst proper research shows clearly that as a great leader of a country – Lenin certainly was not a ‘terrorist’, driven by a misplaced religious zeal. This book attempts to disparage the Russian Revolution by sullying the good name of its leader – VI Lenin – and his successor JV Stalin. the authors do this to elevate the name of their hero Leon Trotsky – the true traitor to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and the true disparager of Scientific Socialism. This is typical of the dishonest Trotskyite tactic of ‘entryism’, whereby lies and deceptions are used to mislead the people. Whereas the authors contend that Stalin was ‘untrustworthy’, he was apparently trustworthy enough for Lenin to allow him to become Secretary-General of the Communist Party. The positives of this book are the well-known and inspirational sayings uttered by VI Lenin – but these are out-weighed by the ambiguous nature of many of the less well-known sayings (quoted out of context), which appear deliberately chosen to mislead the general reader along a negative path. This book gives ‘glimpses’ of the brilliance of VI Lenin – which the discerning reader might research further – but is designed to make the USSR appear to be premised upon Lenin’s ‘terrorism’, distorted by Stalin’s fanaticism, and saved by Trotsky’s intelligence – all three assumptions being completely wrong! Lenin was dialectically correct. Stalin was dialectically correct. Trotsky was dialectically incorrect – and Trotskyites would do well to recognise this fact! However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Trotskyite authors can be out-manoeuvred simply by ‘acknowledging’ and ‘ignoring’ their ‘entryism’ and attempts at deception. The discerning reader should use the legitimate sayings of Lenin contained in this book to over-throw both capitalism and its bourgeois lackey Trotskyism!


Tank Museum (Dorset) – Soviet and Other Relevant Tanks (26.8.2017)

Tank Museum (Dorset)

This place is huge and designed for a family to spend an entire day enjoying the facilities and learning about the history, technical design and purpose of each exhibit as it is presented within its particular epoch and/or theatre of action, etc. As our time was limited, we focused upon the WWII section, and we did this because of our family’s interest in Soviet (and other Communist) tanks and their use in the war against International Fascism (which includes the imperial Japanese military action in North-east China from 1931 [ending only with the Japanese surrender to the USSR in that theatre 1945], the Spanish Civil War [1936-1939], the Soviet-Japanese War [1938-1939], the Soviet-Finnish War [1938-1939], and the UK, US and USSR against Nazi Germany and her Axis supporters [1939-1945]). This should not forget the fact that the UK government (and others) did not officially support the Spanish Civil War and were for years indifferent to the suffering in China, or the fact that Adolf Hitler was handed Czechoslovakia by the European Allies as early as 1938, as an act of attempted appeasement (without the knowledge or agreement of the Czech peoples). This complex situated included a Poland entering into a ‘non-aggression’ pact with Nazi Germany in 1934, before Hitler invaded the eastern or ‘Germanic’ part that country in 1939 (with the USSR annexing the ‘Slavic’ western part of Poland at the sometime in a bid to protect the Slavic people living in that part of the country from the genocidal and racist policies of Hitler’s Nazi regime – a point often [and deliberately] omitted by many anti-Soviet historians). The Western Allies (led by the UK) declared war on Nazi Germany with that regime’s invasion of Poland in 1939 – but not because of the defensive actions of the USSR at the time. Of course, it is no secret that both before, during and after WWII, the US, UK and other European Allies conspired behind the scenes to ‘bring-down’ the Socialist regime of the USSR – a policing ending in the Cold War and the eventual collapse of that regime in 1991. Finally, Finland was originally a part of Czarist Russia – but was granted sovereignty and independence in December, 1917, by VI Lenin immediately following the success of the Russian Revolution. From that moment onward, Finland operated as a base for rightwing and pro-capitalist forces attempting to over-throw the ‘Soviet’ regime, and became a staunch ally of Hitler’s Nazi Germany from 1933 until its demise in 1945 (where Finland escaped any ramifications for its support for Nazi German genocide in the USSR). In 1938, the USSR proposed that Finland be given a large tract of land in exchange for a much smaller tract of land that Soviet forces could defend more easily, should non-Socialist forces attack the USSR from the direction of Finland. As Finland was receiving military and economic aid from both the capitalist West and Nazi Germany in 1938 and 1939 (as a possible corridor for an invasion and destruction of the USSR), The Finnish government refused the Soviet offer (considered ‘fair’ by most historians), and a brutal but short-lived war ensued which saw the defeat of ‘fascist’ Finland (which routinely marked its tanks with a version of the Nazi German swastika), with the USSR prevailing in 1939. In 1941, the fascist-supporting regime of Finland joined Nazi Germany and its Axis allies (i.e. including troops from Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Croatia and Slovakia – whilst receiving vital [natural] resources from countries such as Sweden and Portugal, etc). Although WWII came to an ‘official’ end in May, 1945 in Europe (and in August-September, 1945 in the Far-East), the USSR had to fight a neo-Nazi insurgency in the Ukraine from 1945-1947 (led by non-surrendered Nazi German officers and their ethnic Ukrainian supporters), which flared-up on occasion to at least 1955, as well as a major neo-Nazi uprising in Hungary in 1956 (which was crushed by the Soviet Red Army), but presented in the then anti-Soviet West, as a ‘fight for freedom’.  Obviously, neither myself nor my family support (or ‘eulogise’) any imperialist wars (whilst regretting and respecting every death), but we do believe that the working class has a right to defend itself against fascism – which is a product of capitalism in decay. Of course, we also thoroughly ‘reject’ the current tendency in he capitalist West to equate fascism with Scientific Socialism, and to attempt to remove the ‘guilt’ for fascism from the capitalist camp. Fascism (and racism) grow-out of the inherent inequalities operating within capitalism, whilst the teachings of Communism – whilst advocating ‘internationalism’ and ‘anti-racism’ is obviously its antithesis. To its credit, although the Tank Museum is in no way pro-Communist, and is fully supportive of the ‘rightness’ of ‘bourgeois’ and ‘imperialist’ wars, (a position my family firmly reject), nevertheless, I would say that the technical assessment of Soviet (or Communist tank) technology was ‘fair’ and certainly far from the usual misrepresentation associated with Cold War rhetoric. We teach our children that war is wrong – but that sometimes wars need to be thought in ‘self-defence’ – until humanity evolves beyond this stupid and disastrous manner of interacting. It is also important for the younger generation to realise the sacrifices and destruction endured by China, the USSR and Europe in the 20th century fight against the forces of International Fascism. Of particular note amongst the relevant tanks we found were the Soviet T26 Model 1933 Light Infantry Tank – a copy and improvement (with official permission) of the British Vickers-Armstrong Marl I Tank, the captured Soviet T34/76 Tank (replete with Finnish Swastikas), and the Japanese Light Tank 95 Ha-Go (bearing a striking resemblance to a Dalek from the science-fiction show Dr Who – which gave the Imperial Japanese Army an edge over lightly armed peasant or guerilla resistance, or poorly armed European colonial troops as it successfully advanced across Asia both prior to, and during WWII, but which was no match (ans virtually useless) against a Soviet armour which had evolved in the European theatre to fight the might of Nazi German ingenuity.

























Tolpuddle Martyr’s Museum (27.8.2017)


Tolpuddle Martyr’s Museum


























The Real Reason Blairite Sadiq Khan Will Not Cut the Cost of London Travelcards


Like many Londoners – I rejoiced at the election of Sadiq Khan as London Mayor. However, as time has gone on, I have come to realise the nature of his tenure in the capital. The current Mayor of London represents the rightwing of the Labour Party – and because of this is termed a ‘Blairite’ – or follower of Tony Blair’s neo-conservative political values. As such, Sadiq Khan’s policies in London support not the Socialist vision of the current Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn (despite Sadiq Khan’s lip-service to the contrary), but rather is in full accordance with Tory policy, whereby he supports the middle class. What I can only describe as Tory propaganda is encompassed in the reply I received on behalf of Sadiq Khan’s Office yesterday, which rather shockingly (and uncritically) states that more and more people are working ‘part-time’ in London – with no acknowledgement of the injustice of zero-hours contracts, the dismantling of London’s NHS System, or the sudden, dramatic and cruel effects of the withdrawal of Benefits from the disabled, the poor, vulnerable, aged and unemployed, etc. No one can live in London on a ‘part-time’ wage and not be in some state of distress. Even nurses working for London’s NHS hospitals are having to visit food-banks just to survive! I asked Sadiq Khan why he does not cut the price of a travelcard across the board to help the ‘ordinary’ people who are still suffering under Tory ‘Austerity’ – and the following verbal garbage is the reply furnished on his behalf. The vital piece of information missing from this ‘answer’ below is that the maintenance and upgrading of Britain’s public transport system is paid for many times over through income tax and local council tax – so why does Sadiq Khan claim to rely upon the ‘cost’ of each individual travel ticket to finance these changes? What the London Mayor does not want to be known, or at least broadcast, is that ‘Transport for London’ (TFL) is now ‘privatised’ and run by a number of private companies – the share-holders of which expect a profitable return for their investment. This profit is paid for through the current outrageous cost of a travelcard! As Sadiq Khan is not a Socialist, he does not want to ‘offend’ his middle class friends in the City – and exercise the power he has as London Mayor to initiate a blanket ‘cut’ in the cost of travelcards. It seems to be that those in power have learned nothing from the Grenfell disaster, and that for Blairites like Sadiq Khan – the current Mayor of London – it is business as usual exploiting the masses.

24 August 2017

Dear Mr Chan-Wyles

Thanks for your email of 5 July to the Mayor about the price of Travelcards.

Your email was passed to us to reply on the Mayor’s behalf as we’re responsible for implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. I’m sorry for the delay in replying.

I appreciate your concerns about the cost of fares which you feel are high. As you’re aware, we’re undertaking massive improvement works to improve services across the transport network, refurbishing our old stations and rebuilding Tube tracks on all lines. The fares charged will help protect the reinvestment to deliver greater capacity and more reliable services.

Most of our ongoing work is focussed on improvements to signals, trains and track, and on new approaches and technologies that can help us continue reducing delays to customers. Major improvements have already been completed, including the installation of new signalling on some lines. The process of rebuilding and renewing is ongoing with further improvements planned and major projects on other lines already well underway or being planned.

Some fares increase while others remain unchanged.

To support the change in London’s workforce where over 20 per cent of Londoners now work part time, we cut pay as you go daily caps to become one fifth of the cost of a 7 day Travelcard to zone 1 in January 2015.  This was ‘all day cap’ gave a much fairer commuting cost for many part-time workers.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy outlines the key proposals of transforming the Tube network.

The Mayor would like to hear your views on the key parts of the Strategy in his current Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy. You can submit your views by email at:; or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS. The consultation closes on 2 October.

Thanks again for contacting the Mayor. If there’s anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can speak to one of our Customer Service Advisers on 0343 222 1234.

Kind regards


Maria La Tegola

Customer Service Adviser

Transport for London Customer Services

Loyal Muslims in China


An elderly Chinese Muslim man comes to the local medical clinical for his ‘free’ weekly check-up and treatments. The Communist Party of China (CPC) supports all religious groups with free education, housing and healthcare. All the religious groups have to do is assist the CPC is building Socialism for EVERYONE – religious or not. The CPC dos not blame China’s religious people for extremism – but rather the infiltration of the motherland by ‘foreign’ influences designed specifically to disrupt the internal peace an harmony of China herself. By and large, China Muslim populations are Chinese first – Islamic second – and completely loyal to the Chinese State. This applies even to the Uighurs – who are of Turkic origination – despite the fact that a small minority (influenced by Western and Middle Eastern terrorist forces) have carried-out atrocities against the Chinese population. The Chinese population has no hatred or anger toward these terrorists – even though such misled people have caused tremendous sorrow and loss to other innocent Chinese families who never did anything wrong toward Muslims. This is because China’s Socialist education system emphasises ‘Internationalism’ over ‘nationalism’, or backward ethnic enclaves. People have the right to be different, and not to be attacked for that difference, but the problems arise when certain members of these religious groups listen to the hate-filled rhetoric of the West (which is a priori anti-Communist), and take it upon themselves to attack the very Socialist System that nurtures their belief system and protects them from external attack. Regardless of how many ‘foreign’ inspired terrorist atrocities occur in China, the West does not possess the power or influence to dislodge the CPC – which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other government in the history of the world!

Complaining About the Dangerous Falun Gong Cult in London’s Chinatown


Dear Mr Sadiq Khan – Mayor of London

I would be very grateful if your Office could instruct the City of Westminster Police to investigate the presence and activities of the out-lawed group entitled the ‘Falun Gong’ which is allowed a continuous presence in London’s Gerrard Street – also known as Chinatown. This group has been acknowledged as a dangerous cult by many Human Rights groups in the West, and due to its dangerous and life-threatening activities, has been banned in Mainland China for a number of years. The leaders of this group now operate out of the United States, and their many branches – such as the one operated out of London’s China – not only ensnare vulnerable individuals and take their money, possessions, health and freedom of thought, the Falun Gong also continuously calls for the downfall and destruction of the sovereign, legal and lawful government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – a policy that is illegal under both UK and International Law. The Falun Gong erect large billboards in both the Chinese and English languages that spread lies and disinformation about the PRC – usually to the right of the two famous stone lions (around halfway down Gerrard Street), broadcast anti-PRC propaganda through loud-hailers and speakers, and have operatives that continuously stop and harass tourists, shoppers and passers-by as they try to go peacefully about their business. Many of the photo-shopped images are not suitable for children, and the brain-washing and violence the Falun Gong both represents and advocates is not suitable for a peaceful, democratic society like the UK. Of course, the Falun Gong does not only operate in Gerrard Street, and can be seen in other areas of London that attract a high volume of tourists. None of the false accusations aimed at the PRC by the Falun Gong have any basis in reality – a point proven by the fact that none have ever been substantiated in a court of law anywhere in the world. Finally, if the Falun Gong was an Islamic group calling for the destruction of the sovereign governments of the UK or USA – I am sure that Authorities of both countries would take swift and decisive action. This is why I (and many others) are calling for either a complete ‘ban’ of the Falun Gong and its divisive cult-like propaganda – or at the very least, a firm curtailing its destructive activities in the UK.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Yours sincerely


Adrian Chan-Wyles

This is a link to the Chinese-language translation of my above letter – which has been translated into Chinese and published by the Chinese government across Mainland China:


Appreciating Revolutionary Beauty


Artist: Su Zihan (苏梓寒) – 

To my mind, commenting on ‘beauty’ (wherever it manifests) is a Revolutionary act that breaks-up the control of racism through society and the world. A woman (or man for that matter), may be ‘beautiful’ in many ways, but this acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that there should be an element of ‘possession; involved. For me, beauty exists for beauty’s sake – free and freeing – for everyone to benefit from. Of course, I am talking not just about physical beauty (which is a matter of opinion anyway), but also about inner beauty – or perhaps the beauty associated with pure ‘ordinariness’. At the sametime I am certainly not denying the beauty of the female form – but would add that the net allows for a kind of ‘art gallery’ appreciation of another’s manifestation. Generally speaking, when you leave an art gallery – you generally do not take the exhibits home with you! The natural ‘distance’ the net creates prevents an appreciation of beauty falling into ordinary lust and desire – which are absolutely fine within their proper context. Beauty has many levels of appreciation that can be obscured by the immediacy of sexual desire – which necessarily exists to perpetuate the species!

Photograph Extracted From:

%d bloggers like this: