Update: Tory MP Paul Scully (Sutton & Cheam) States ‘NO’ money Given to DUP! (22.7.2017)


Following Paul Scully’s recent lack of answers to my emailed questions the Tories donating over a £1 billion to the Christian terrorist group DUP – I replied pointing-out that I had reported him to Theresa May’s Office for his lack of parliamentary duty, evasion of questions, and unprofessional attitude. He then provided the following reply stating that Northern Ireland is one of the poorest areas of the UK – and that the Tories have not given any money to the DUP! This is obviously delusional, as the Tories have impoverished the UK through ‘Austerity’ since 2010, to levels of deprivation unknown since the Victorian era! He did not vote to end the 1% pay-cap on public sector workers because such a move would have apparently brought-down the Tory government and let Jeremy Corbyn in!

to Adrian Chan-Wyles PhDS



18:27 (51 minutes a

From: SCULLY, Paul <paul.scully.mp@parliament.uk>
To: Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD <chandao@fastmail.fm>
Subject:Re: Urgent – Tory-DUP Alliance: 
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2017 18:27

Thanks Adrian

I was responding to your original email. However in turn:

  1. It’s not a coalition as I mentioned in my previous email
  2. The government has given no money to the DUP. Money has gone to the NHS, schools and infrastructure in Northern Ireland to the benefit of all who live there in one of the poorest parts of the UK
  3.  The amendment to the Queen’s speech was worded specifically to embarrass the government but would have had no immediate benefit for those in the public sector. Amending the Queen’s speech effectively ‘no confidences’ the government and so risks bringing it down. This would have led to Jeremy Corbyn spending a few weeks failing to gain sufficient support to forma government and then another general election before a budget which may have then brought about a response to the various pay review boards. The government have stated that they will look at the review boards in turn.
Best wishes

Paul Scully MP (Sutton & Cheam) Fails to Answer my Questions but Blames Labour for Tory-DUP Alliance! (22.7.2017)


Paul Scully MP represents a particularly callous incarnation of the Tory Party – one that was found ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’ by the UN in 2016 – for the deaths of between 10,000-80,000 people with disabilities since the 2010 and the instigation of identically led ‘Austerity’ (which is simply an attack on Socialism). Recently, I emailed Mr Paul Scully about his voting habits – particularly where he voted to keep the 1% pay-cap for public sector workers. This should not be surprising, as this the Tory MP who refused to support me in condemning a far-right march in Scotland, and who is personally over-seeing the ‘privatisation of our local St Helier Hospital. As usual, Mr Paul Scully does not reply promptly, and there is always a risk that he will not respond at all (as has been my experience dealing with him in e past). After re-sending my below email no less than three times as the weeks rolled by, I complained directly to Theresa May this morning, and in a matter of two or three hours – Mr Paul Scully issued a miraculous reply (also included below). However, as usual Mr Paul Scully MP has failed to answer my questions.

My Original email:

Subject: Your Support of the Emergency & Public Service Pay Caps & Cuts
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:48:42 +0100
Dear Mr Paul Scully MP for Sutton and Cheam
As one of many of your constituents that is concerned with your voting habits in Parliament, I would be very grateful if you could provide a written answer to this email within a reasonable time, (as is your Parliamentary duty), to the following question(s).
1) Please explain why Theresa May – the Tory Prime Minister – has gifted over £1bn of British tax-payer’s money to the Christian terrorist group of Northern Ireland – the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – which the Conservative Party has entered into ‘Coalition’ with.
2) In the light of the Tory financial support for this Northern Irish terrorist group, please explain why you voted for the continuation of the ‘Austerity’ measures that support the Emergency & Public Service Pay Caps & Cuts.
In this time of the Austerity-led Grenfell disaster – I am sure you will appreciate the ‘alarm’ and ‘concern’ that Tory Party policies are causing throughout the UK (and Ireland), within the minds of all right-minded people.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Adrian Chan-Wyles
Mr Paul Scully MP – Response:



From: SCULLY, Paul <paul.scully.mp@parliament.uk>
To: Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
Subject: Re: Urgent – Tory-DUP Alliance:  Saturday, July 22, 2017 17:05

Dear Adrian

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry for the delay in my response.

The agreement with the DUP is not a coalition but one of ‘confidence and supply’. The DUP play no role in government and have no ministerial positions in contrast with the Liberal Democrats in the 2010-2015 coalition. Rather the agreement is limited to them voting with the government on the Queen’s speech and the Budget; the failure to get either through would effectively bring the government down.

The Labour Party were happy enough to have early coalition talks with the DUP in both 2010 and 2015. Sinn Fein were agreeable to sharing power with the DUP in Stormont for 10 years. Having the DUP in mainstream politics is not new. They bear little resemblance to the party that Ian Paisley founded in 1971.

I don’t share the views of the DUP on abortion or LGBT rights but these are devolved powers and so rights within the rest of the British Isles will not change as a result of the agreement. One positive benefit through a deft move by the Labour MP, Stella Creasy, was the change to ensure that women travelling to the UK from Northern Ireland for abortion services will no longer have to pay.

Thank you once again for taking the time to get in touch.

Best wishes


On Why George Galloway Should be in the Labour Party


As Tony Benn once said, the Labour Party isn’t ‘Socialist’, even though from time to time it may have Socialists in it. I think this has been true of the Labour Party for much of its history, even though one of its key founders was the British Socialist Party. Of course, the BSP transformed into the ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’ (CPGB) in 1920, after the successful Russian Revolution of 1917 – acting in contradiction to the position of the anti-Communist British government of the day, that was acting inaccordance with the USA (and 12 other countries including a recently defeated Germany), by supplying British (working class) troops into Russia, in an attempt to destroy the fledgling ‘Socialist’ regime. It was thought at the time that the BSP could ‘transform’ into the CPGB simply as a matter of procedure, but even as early as 1920, there were dark anti-Socialist forces at work in the Labour Party. The Labour Party, despite its Unionist, working class roots, had been infiltrated by middle class men who brought their own particular brand of capitalist-friendly, bourgeois leftism to bear on the party’s direction. This dominance by the middle class over the working class within the Labour Party at the point of contact, mimicked exactly the situation that existed in broader society outside the Labour Party, and ironically represented the very inequality the Labour Party was originally founded to combat through effective (and collective) social and political action. As a consequence of middle class sophistry (and without as much as a whimper from the working class membership), it was decided that the BSP could not simply transform into the CPGB and retain its central position in the Labour Party. It was further decided that the BSP no longer existed as a legal entity when it transitioned into the CPGB, and that as a consequence, the CPGB was a ‘new’ political entity that would have to apply for ‘association’ with the Labour Party – an application that was swiftly ‘blocked’, and remains blocked to this day. Furthermore, the bourgeois powers that be in the Labour Party added the Communist Party to a proscribed list of potential members – which explains why Communists today are not permitted to hold Labour Party membership. This reality also explains how the Labour Party broke with the working class ideologies of Socialism (both religiously utopic and Marxist-Engels inspired), and with Communism (Marxist-Leninism) quite early on in its development, despite still pursuing a left-leaning rhetoric often misconstrued as being ‘Socialistic’.

Having firmly set the agenda of Labour’s non-Socialist and in many ways anti-working class agenda, it is important to state that the Labour Party has had individual members that have held Socialist or Communist views, but who have not been ‘official’ members of any other political party. Indeed, there has also been, in the early days, Labour MPs who openly described themselves as ‘Communist’, before the proscription against Marxist-Leninism was more robustly enforced. I would add that although a party of the left, the Labour Party as a historical movement has remained alarmingly ‘unprincipled’, despite the good intentions of some of its members. Its generally ‘anti-Soviet’ position, and its routine support for imperialism, coupled with its racist expulsion of over 1,500 Chinese people from London in 1946 (just because they were ‘Chinese’) attest to this fact.

As the Labour Party is experiencing something of a leftwing renaissance at the moment under the left-sounding (and incredibly popular) Jeremy Corbyn, I think the time is right for George Galloway to be re-admitted to the Labour Party with the caveat that he be recognised as a political martyr for the leftwing cause, because he stood-up to the rightwing policies of Tony Blair throughout that former prime minister’s tenure in Office, and is still active in campaigning for Tony Blair to face War Crimes charges for his illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Of course, I do not agree with George Galloway’s eulogising of the anti-working class Winston Churchill, his sentimentalism regarding Britain’s imperialist wars, his leftist nationalism, his sharing of a political platform with the racist Nigel Farage, or his routine anti-Soviet viewpoints – but I do believe his ‘Socialist’ heart is in the right place, and my family very much appreciate his expressed support for Communist China. Politicians often appear inconsistent when in the public eye, particularly when they are trying to achieve the exact opposite effect. George Galloway often says not only what he thinks, but also quite often what he ‘feels’. This is why on occasion he appears to ‘contradict’ himself – at least he is honest – and is one of only a few political figures in the UK that actually takes the time to directly engage the general public on social media. In fact, he is the only mainstream political figure that I have directly communicated with on Twitter, or am likely to communicate with. As I said to him then – I think he should not only be re-admitted into the Labour Party – but I believe the leftwing momentum could be maintained when Jeremy Corbyn eventually steps down (hopefully after being prime minister), if George Galloway were to become Labour Parry leader. His vast experience of the real world is exactly what Labour needs. Finally, the Labour Party cannot be kept on a leftist course if there are no credible leftwing politicians to direct it. In many ways, the wilderness years of George Galloway’s political career (outside the Labour Party) have not only been full of meaning, bravery, tragedy and stunning success, but have preserved his leftism in a pure (but enhanced) form, free from the need to conform to the rigours of Blairite rightism, and general Labour Party duplicity. He has been outside a Labour Party that has lurched so far to the right in recent times, that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish it from the Tory Party it is said to oppose! Jeremy Corbyn would do well to recognise this reality, and bolster the strength of his position by bringing George Galloway back into the Labour Party!

Nazi German ‘Fake’ Photography, Mock Executions and Misrepresentation of the USSR.


(I would to like to pay my utmost respect to the French Resistance Fighter in this photograph named – Mr George Blind – whose ‘ordinary’ bravery is beyond compare, and whose example gave a glimmer of light to millions in the darkest of times!)

Following the end of WWII and the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany, the US Cold War drive sought to re-write history and present the USSR in the worst possible light from any and all directions. One part of this policy was the accusation that the Soviets ludicrously ‘altered’ photographs to make the Nazi Germans to be ‘worse’ than they actually were. These ‘apologists’ for Nazi Germany atrocities created a whole raft of disinformation photographs which accused the Soviet of altering ‘friendly’ Nazi German photographs and thereby misrepresenting Adolf Hitler’s true intentions and realistic actions. These ‘apologists’ would have the world believe that between rounds of mass executions, the Nazi German troops would ‘hang-out’ in a jolly manner with the Soviet Citizens they had pledged to eradicated during ‘Operation Ost’ – because they were thought by Hitler to be an inferior race. However, what follows is a prime example of Nazi German photographic fakery.

The above photograph was presented by the Nazi Germans as the shooting of a member of the French resistance member – named Georges Blind – in the fortress of Belfort (Northwestern France). For a long time it was believed that this execution was ‘staged’ for dramatic purposes by the occupying (and brutal) Nazi German Army in France – using an unknown person (possibly an actor playing along). However, there is no documentary evidence that executions were carried-out in the Belfort Fortress (as no rifle shells were found on or in the ground). Many years after the war, the son of Georges Blind, (Jean Blind), saw this photograph for the first time and immediately recognised his father!  He confirmed that although his father was briefly held in Belfort Fortress after his arrest, he was not shot in Belfort Fortress. In fact, he was subjected to psychological and physical torture – which involved a ‘mock’ execution recorded in this photograph. At the time, George Blind thought he was about to be shot. As he would note talk, he was soon moved to the Concentration Camp in Blechhamer (Upper Silesia) where he died from the effects of ill treatment, torture and slave labour conditions. This photograph is ‘real’ in the sense the situation depicted involved a real person, but is ‘fake’ in the sense that the execution was never carried-out. The Nazi Germans used this photograph to threatened the French population into accepting subjugation. There are countless other ‘fake’ Nazi German photographs in existence, many falsely portraying the hellish conditions of the Nazi German holocaust unleashed on the USSR.

Имитация расстрела члена французского движения Сопротивления Жоржа Блинда (Georges Blind) в крепости Бельфор (Belfort). Долгое время считалось, что на этом фото запечетлена казнь члена движения Сопротивления, но не было известно имя человека на фото, и не было документальных подтверждений того, что в крепости Бельфор проводились расстрелы (в частности, на территории не было найдено ни одной гильзы). Через много лет после войны сын Жоржа Блинда, Жан, впервые увидел эту фотографию и узнал на ней своего отца. Он рассказал, что отец не был расстрелян в Бельфоре. Его арестовали и держали в крепости, а позже перевели в концлагерь в Блеххамере (Blechhamer, Верхняя Силезия) где он погиб. В тюрьме немцы подвергли Жоржа Блинда имитации расстрела, но не добились от него никакой информации, и отправили его в лагерь.

Defending the Red Flag: Rules and Regulations for Official Flag Bearers


Definition: A flag-bearer is anyone – male or female, young or old – who either volunteers to carry the Red Flag (with a golden hammer and sickle, golden star, or any other identifying Marxist-Leninist Communist or Socialist symbols), or who is ordered to carry the Red Flag by an Official of the Communist Party (or another individual – either civil or military – who is suitably empowered to issue such an order). The Red Flag should be affixed to a suitable flag-pole, or hung in a correct manner from a window, door or wall. Whether carried on a pole, or placed on a building or other object (either stationary or movable), generally a single flag-bearer should is responsible for the cleanliness, state of repair and safety of the Red Flag. Secondary flag-bearers are often selected to theoretically take-over these duties, should the primary flag-bearer be incapacitated or otherwise unable to meet these duties. It is an offense of the highest order to wantonly ‘abandon’ a ‘Red Flag’.


Red Flag Defined:

The Red Flag is ‘red’ because it represents the blood of the Workers sacrificed all over the world to secure rights, justice and freedom for the ordinary people. The tradition of a ‘Red Flag’ may have began during the 1871 Paris Commune. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ hammer represents industrial workers, whilst the ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ sickle represents agricultural workers. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ colour represents a ‘New Dawn’ for the International Proletariat. Within the Soviet Union, the Red Flag was ‘red’ with a yellow hammer and sickle emblem on each side – but in 1980 – a new flag was instigated. This Red Flag was ‘red’ on both sides, but only carried the yellow hammer and sickle on one =-side. This 1980 Red Flag did not invalidate the pre-1980 version – with both types being regularly flown.


Rules & Regulations:

  1. Never relinquish control of the Red Flag unless officially ‘relieved’ of this duty by a suitably qualified individual.
  2. The Red Flag must never fall into the hands of the fascists.
  3. When carried in public, the Red Flag must be held high and be easily visible.
  4. The flag-pole must be suitable for both the Red Flag and venue within it is flown.
  5. When marching, the Red Flag must be permanently on display and not ‘wrapped’ around the pole (due to the wind).
  6. The Red Flag must be held either vertically or diagonally and not be allowed to ‘catch’ in surrounding obstacles.
  7. The Red Flag must be kept in good repair and a clean state.
  8. Verbal challenges to the Red Flag must be met with either a crushing silence, or dialectical clarity.
  9. A Red Flag bearer must be progressive of nature and suited to this task.
  10. The Red Flag represents the power of the combined Working Class,
  11. Unless otherwise stated, Red Flag bearers are unarmed.
  12. The Red Flag represents the blood of the Workers spilt in the name of greed by the bourgeoisie.
  13. If a Red Flag is discovered on the ground, it is the duty of every Communist to pick it up and assume responsibility for its welfare until relieved.
  14. The Red Flag represents the power of Marxist-Leninism and the spirit of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong (as well as other Revolutionaries).
  15. The Red Flag represents the International Communist Party (and all its contemporary factions), with impartiality (regardless of any personal allegiance of the Red Flag bearer).
  16. The Red Flag represents Proletariat Unity and rejects Bourgeois Division.
  17. The Red Flag (of the Soviet Union) represents all oppressed people.
  18. The Red Flag symbolises universal hope for the masses.
  19. When the Red Flag is lowered (for whatever reason), it must be folded with respect, and suitably placed in storage for safe keeping.
  20. The Red Flag is imbued with the dialectical power of Socialism and Communism. In times of warfare, unless otherwise ordered, the Red Flag bearer advances upon the enemy positions ‘unarmed’.

“Glory to the Soviet troops, who hoisted the banner of victory over Berlin!”0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

My family have carried the Red Flag for decades – and now it is the duty of myself and my partner:



Mei-An’s First Sports Day (18.7.2017)


sports day cert

We are very proud of our eldest daughter – Mei-An – who first went to school when she was just four years old – and who today – as a confident five year old – excelled in her first Sports Day! When you look back at this Mei-An – know that we love you so much!


























USSR: Systema Bayonet, Spade and Axe Drills for the Red Army


I am involved in an ongoing exploration of the Soviet-Russian martial arts method known in Russian as ‘Systema’ (Система) – literally ‘System’ in English translation. This was developed in the USSR from Russian and other Slavic martial arts – possibly with an influence from Chinese Taijiquan (my theory, as yet unproven), and Japanese Aikido – although ethnic Russians deny these connections as is their right – and they might well be correct. Whatever the case, Soviet ‘Systema’ evolved out of a scientific analysis of fighting under varying but  ‘real’ combat conditions, including police subduing suspects without injury, to Red Army soldiers fighting for their lives and ‘killing’ enemies if called upon to do so in open warfare. This is the practical, and yet ‘advanced’ use of the human mind and body that deals with ‘systemic’ muscular relaxation and skeletal alignment as a means to re-direct and absorb incoming blows, and to create relatively massive amounts of projected force, that is the product of full bodyweight efficiently moving around the skeletal structure – being ’emitted’ as an act of will – through the appropriate limb or body-part, that is nearest to the opponent. As far as I am aware, this is the highest aspects of Taijiquan – divorced from the Chinese movements that define this martial art. Of course, after centuries of fighting in combat, it may well be the case that Russian martial artists arrived independently at exactly the same understanding as the Chinese martial artists that devised the ‘internal’ arts – after-all, an average  human body and mind has exactly the same evolutionary potential, no matter which ethnicity is under discussion. As the USSR rejected superstition and ignorance in all aspects of human existence, a scientific mind-set was brought to bear upon human conflict. Notice that despite the ‘false’ Western propaganda accusing the Soviet Union as being ‘aggressive’, ‘Systema’ is entirely premised upon ‘self-defence’ as a means to prevail. As the Soviet Union preferred ‘peace’ to ‘war’, its method for dealing with conflict utilised the principle of ‘giving way to win’. Furthermore, Soviet Citizens were encouraged to ‘calm’ their minds through whole-some education and progressive learning experiences. In the final analysis, the USSR was very much a society that emphasised ‘strength’ through the establishment of a ‘superior position’ with regards to mind body and spirit. A Russian friend recently provided me with this fascinating video that complements my other ‘Systema’ videos.  During the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), the invading Nazi German troops feared close-quarter combat with Red Army soldiers due to their highly effective ‘Systema’ derived martial arts skills!

Soviet Red Army Liberates Manchuria (North-East China) August-September – 1945


At the behest of the United States under President Roosevelt – the Soviet Red Army Declared War on the fascist Empire of Japan in 9.8.1945 – and fought their way into the Chinese city of Harbin not long after. Although the Japanese Authorities hinted that Japanese Forces (in the form of the 700,000 man Kwantung Army) would offer little resistance, in reality however, Japanese resistance was very strong in places, leading to many Soviet casualties. The Imperial Japanese had been agitating in ‘Manchuria’ (i.e. North-East China) since at least 1931, and their forces had committed continuous atrocities against the local Chinese population, and prisoners of war. The Japanese plan was to eradicate the Chinese presence from North-East China, and use this ‘new’ space to accommodate millions of Japanese migrants. This strategy reflected that of Adolf Hitler and his plans for a ‘Greater Germany’ in the Soviet Union (by eradicating the Slavic race). Following the bloody and brutal Battle of Okinawa, President Roosevelt was not keen on the idea of further large scale conventional battles with the Japanese Imperial Forces, and certainly did not favour the idea of a conventional US military invasion of the Japanese homeland. As he had been discussing with Britain’s Winston Churchill about the possibility of encouraging the destruction of the Soviet Red Army by bleeding it dry against Nazi Germany – a plan was hatched to try and bleed it dry against the Japanese. The problem was that instead of bleeding it dry – the Soviet Red Army grew ever stronger with each campaign and victory! As matters transpired, the Red Army was spectacularly successful in China and the islands off the North-Coast of Japan. The local Chinese population welcomed the Soviets with open arms, and when the campaign was complete, the Soviets handed the captured area over to Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China (together with all its captured Japanese industry and weaponry). This acquisition allowed the CPC to consolidate power in North-East China, and eventually defeat Chiang Kai-Shek in the South. As a consequence, and contrary to the English wikipedia pages that still espouse false US Cold War propaganda as ‘fact’, there were no atrocities committed by the Soviet Red Army in China. There are no Chinese language texts, Japanese language texts, or indeed Russian language texts recording any untoward behaviour. As can be scene from some of these photographs (all gathered from the Russian language internet), there were even Westerners present in Harbin during the Soviet ‘Liberation’ and not one recorded any incidence of bad behaviour on the part of the Soviet Red Army.  It is remarkable today, to witness in the West a pro-fascist mentality developing which attempts to re-write history and present the perpetuators of world fascism as being the ‘victims’ of those who fought back against the real atrocities. The Nazi Germans (who committed the holocaust), and the imperial Japanese that pursued a genocidal policy against the Chinese – are falsely packaged as being the real victims! This is nonsense and nothing but a rightwing attempt at clearing its own conscience that has the deaths of countless millions upon it.  The historical evidence is clear – Nazi Germany and fascist Japan both thought that they could eradicate large swathes of humanity from the earth through military aggression – and both failed due to the strength of the Soviet Red Army and the resistance to invasion Of China by the CPC. I include a documentary with these pictures that clearly describes the Soviet campaign in Manchurian. The Soviets recorded 9 ineffectual Kamikaze attacks – with Japanese troops surrendering en mass after each defeat suffered. Of particular note is the successful use of Soviet paratroops to quickly ‘liberate’ forward areas before being relieved by Soviet infantry and tanks within 24 hours.














Taking Rights Away to ‘Protect’ Citizens is Nothing but Fascism!


Terrorism is a historical issue, emanating from many different and distinct socio-economic conditions. It is also a highly ‘subjective’ issue that is used to demonise particular groups, political movements and religions, by those national governments and State Authorities that view their own military activities around the world to be ‘lawful’ and to exist ‘outside’ of the usual definition of ‘terrorism’. States that do not consider their otherwise highly destructive military actions against other groups to be ‘terrorism’, include the United States, the UK and Israel. Other countries on this list might include Saudi Arabia and (neo-Nazi) Western Ukraine, as well as numerous others. The demarcation appears to be clear – the US and its allies throughout the world can do as it pleases, but any resistance to this militarism is automatically termed ‘terrorism’, even though under International Law, every oppressed political, religious or ethnic group possesses the legal right to wage an armed resistance to that oppression. In this regard, the United Nations has issued various decisions against the USA and Israel, for example, stating that their military actions on numerous occasions have ‘violated’ International Law. The latest wave of terrorist attacks in the West stems directly from Western military action in the Middle East from at least 1991 with the US-led First Gulf War, and culminating in the Invasion and destruction of the sovereign governments of Afghanistan and Iraq around a decade later. This situation has been compounded by the NATO-led invasion and destruction of the sovereign government of Libya, and the attempted destruction of Syria, as well as the Western-backed coup in Egypt, etc. All this Western military aggression in the Middle East has been reflected in Israel’s continuous and intensified brutality against the Palestinian population.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I do not promote or support terrorism. Within the theoretical thinking associated with Scientific Socialism, terrorism is not accepted as a legitimate means to transform a capitalist society into a Socialist society. The Communist Party of Britain (CPB), for example, advocates the ‘peaceful’ transition of the UK into a Socialist State through through the democratic process at the ballet box. Terrorism only hurts the Working Class, because invariably the Workers are over-whelming the victims of it, but terrorism achieves nothing for a ‘consented’ social transformation. This is why Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and virtually every other Communist leader (despite false propaganda to the contrary), rejected it as a means to make Revolution. On the other hand, Marx wrote that the Working Class has a right to ‘collectively’ protect itself, which can be seen as manifested in Britain’s stance against Nazi Germany in WWII, and the Soviet Union’s confrontation of the same fascist foe. This legitimate self-defence is not ‘terrorism’, but a means of collectively ‘protecting’ the country from a destructive and external terrorist threat.

A contemporary issue in the UK, stems from the UK government’s unwillingness to truthfully assess exactly ‘why’ it is that fanatic Islamo-fascist groups are targeting Britain (and other European countries), and why various rightwing (and occasionally ‘Christian’) groups originating within the UK, are resorting to ‘murder’ to make their political point? British foreign policy – which has seen quite literally hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of innocent Middle Eastern people killed by Western military action since 1991. An interesting question is how would British or American people react if their countries were over-run and militarily destroyed by a rampant and all dominating ‘foreign’ force? A foreign force that viewed everything it did as being politically, morally, legally and religiously ‘correct’, whilst its armed forces killed with impunity, often ‘demeaning’ their victims in the process. In the case of the US, a historical answer is readily available. During the War of Independence in the later part of the 18th century, where renegade British Citizens (and their non-British allies), conspired to over-throw the legitimate UK governance of the British Colonies in the Americas. How was this essentially bourgeois ‘Revolution’ to take place? The ‘American’ rebels resorted to armed terrorism against the legitimate British Authorities. This terrorism evolved into a legitimate military movement that was eventually able to field a conventional army (albeit often using ‘unconventional’ methods and tactics), that confronted the British Army. American terrorism advocated the arming of civil society – an idea (and action) that was ‘illegal’ in the UK, and which had been so for hundreds of years. Americans that supported the British were often attacked and killed in broad daylight, and their businesses boycotted and destroyed. So bad was this American use of ‘terrorism’, that the British Authorities decided to ‘free’ any African slave that pledged allegiance to the UK cause – even creating ‘Black’ regiments in the British Army! As this ‘American’ rebellion eventually ‘won’ its fight, the entire affair was viewed through the history as established by the victors. In this history, all the acts of brutal murder and oppression committed by the American rebels are presented as legitimate acts of ‘freedom fighting’. Ironically today, virtually no one in the US (of any ethnic origin), associates the US use of terrorism against the British in the 18th century, with the Middle Eastern terrorism of the 20th and 21st centuries against the UK and the USA. Of course, this is partly a ‘racist’ response that views everything ‘White’ as being superior to everything ‘non-White’, etc.

As matters stand, the UK government responds to terrorist acts not with education, reconciliation, reform and peace-making, but rather uses the ‘threat’ of terrorism as a means to  ‘take away’ our civil liberties. Instead of confronting the ‘actual’ or ‘real’ reasons why terrorism happens, our civil liberties are removed as a means to make it harder for any potential terrorist to commit a violent act. It is obvious that this policy does not work, as terrorists always strike where least expected. In the meantime, the ordinary people of Britain are continuously punished everyday by having their age-old freedoms curtailed and removed as a ‘response’ to terrorism. Surely this is nothing short of allowing the terrorists to alter our way of life, and in a very real sense, is handing these very same terrorists a moral and practical victory. It would be better to ‘strengthen’ and not ‘weaken’ or civil liberties, and for the UK government to ‘change’ the way it behaves overseas, by disassociating its activities from the current alignment with contemporary US neo-imperialist foreign policy. If the UK does not carry-out the actions that attracts a terrorist response – the chances of a terrorist attack would reduce. Furthermore, if the UK pursued a policy of making amends throughout the world by following a compassionate and wise agenda, the chances of a terrorist attack would disappear altogether.

A Glimpse of the Murderous Nature of Capitalism!


Western wikipedia, of course, publishes ‘fake’ history about the Soviet Union that has no bearing to recorded history – but remains absolutely ‘silent’ about the very real and obvious crimes and excesses committed by the economic system we are all brain-washed to follow – called ‘capitalism’. Even though capitalism privileges the few over the many – the many unquestionably accept the lie that the many are privileged over the few, when everyday facts are clear, and speak for themselves. The crimes of capitalism are so immense and wide-ranging that I can only point-out a few aspects here. According to Russian demographic records – 5.8 million Russian people died between 1991-1999 – the first decade of capitalism in modern Russia. Of course, the biased Western media remains silent on this atrocity because ‘greed’ is more powerful than ‘caring’. I have also read that according to stats from the US – 7 million people have died since 2010 in the US due to the economic collapse and the US government’s response of ‘cutting’ budgets to relieve the tax burden on the rich. Of course, in the UK since 2010 (and the imposition of Tory and LibDem ‘Austerity’), the total numbers of poor and vulnerable people who have died remains unrecorded as a distinct category – but the UN Report of 2016 (that found the UK government ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’ for its despicable treatment of British Disabled people) – suggests a number between 10,000 and 80,000 – with the DWP releasing the death figures piece-meal so as to downplay the disastrous effects of this murderous policy and avoid rioting on British streets!

%d bloggers like this: