About an hour after a group of self-important Tories visited our street in Sutton (Southwest London), espousing their neo-liberal nonsense, a very much welcomed ‘Vote Labour’ leaflet fell through our letterbox! The Tories are privatising the NHS and dismantling the British Welfare System – only Jeremy Corbyn has promised to prevent this and returns things to a much better state. In the Sutton Council Election on the 3rd of May – Labour can win seats and Labour can take control of the Council! Ordinary, working class people must register to vote, and then vote for the Labour Party Council candidates. Remember – the Tory and LibDems Government of 2010-2015 was found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity by the United Nations (UN), because ‘Austerity’ killed around 10,000 people with disabilities through welfare and health-cuts.



All European Countries Should Leave the EU!


Why do some leftists think the EU is progressive and in the best interests of the workers? This is because of the Trotskyite left which dominates Labour. This inverted view holds that masses of disempowered workers being shunted from one economic zone to another (dependent upon the whim of the middle classes) equates to ‘internationalism’ and ‘multiculturalism’, when in fact it is the worst form of worker oppression. The dominant middle classes do not move en mass around Europe because they own the means of production, it is only the ‘de-Unionised’ workers that are forced to leave their homes and families in search of poorly paid work, long hours and no security. This is why the EU is nothing but a capitalist charter that advocates the abolishment of any and all national Welfare States and National Health Services. A worker can only be forced to migrate for work if there is no local unemployment benefit or Socialised healthcare available. Migratory workers arrive at their destination not as friends, students or inquisitive travellers, but rather as aggressive competitors conditioned to fight for every paid job and scrap of food. This destroys local economies, drives down wages, and reduces once habitable areas into barracks or dominators for migrant workers. This invariably effects working class areas which lose their distinctiveness, sense of community and economic stability, but does not affect the gated communities of the middle class who are protected from the effects of the system that they have established to enrich themselves further. What the working class must understand is that the enemy is the EU and not fellow workers from other countries (despite local pressures and conflicts). This situation has come about because the EU has destroyed strong Unions and pro-Union laws throughout Europe, and is attempting to turn Europe into the US. Racism is not the answer, but rather correct dialectical analysis and the exercising of good political judgement. Workers need to build their Unions domestically, and secure a future for their families wherever they happen to have been born. Ripping families apart is a terrible consequence of EU policy, and part of the desperate plight the workers are being placed within. The good news is that more and more international workers are becoming aware of what the EU is doing and are starting to oppose it. The only reason the anti-EU stance has become associated with racism is because that is exactly what the EU wants everyone to think. When the BBC (and media in general) use the fascistic UKIP as the only opposition to EU membership – excluding the Communist and Socialist left from the debate – the stage is set to brain-wash the workers into thinking that their comprehensive exploitation is the best path available to them, and to question the validity of the EU is tantamount to embracing neo-Nazism! The irony is that the EU historically grew-out of the US post-WWII meddling in European affairs, and the anti-Soviet, anti-Communist nature of that meddling. The EU is aggressively anti-working class and exercises the greatest racial exclusion of any political entity since the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act in the US. This is because the EU is an exclusive rich White man’s club that does not want to see migrants from India, Africa, or China entering the EU Zone to compete for jobs. Those people who mistakenly believe that the EU is multicultural because it allows lots of different ‘White’ people to ‘mix’ should think again. The EU has a level of racism within its legislation the likes of which has not been seen since the times of Nazi Germany! Finally, in the Ukraine the EU is actively supporting the neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ regime and seeks to spread EU domination into Russia.

Cheddar Man – a View from China (科学家还原出最古老的英国人 皮肤竟是黑色)


Recently, researchers synthesized a face for one of Britain’s oldest modern humans – from the Cheddar Man skeletal remains (found within Gough Cave, Cheddar Gorge in 1903), which is 10,000 years of age – and found that his eyes were blue, and his skin and hair were Black.

Researchers at the Museum of Natural History in London released a newly restored model of what it is believed to be the actual appearance of Cheddar Man. They said that a scientific paper will be published later this month. According to their scientific study, the ancient DNA extracted from intact bones showed that he lacks the genetic variants of the light-colored skin inherited in many Europeans.

Researchers already know that some Europeans were dark-skinned and blue-eyed during this period, but Cheddar Man revealed that the assumptions previously made about the lighter complexions of the skin and hair of the early British Isles were wrong – and that around 4800 years ago, dark-skin was very much the norm in the UK.

Original Chinese Language Source:

科学家还原出最古老的英国人 皮肤竟是黑色

来源:封面新闻  发表时间:2018-02-11 13:59
近日,研究人员给英国最古老的现代人之一合成了一张脸——来自Cheddar峡谷Gough’s Cave年龄有10000岁的“Cheddar Man”——他们发现他的眼睛是蓝色的,皮肤和头发是黑色的。


研究人员已经知道,这一时期的一些欧洲人皮肤黝黑,眼睛蓝蓝的,但是Cheddar Man揭示了以前关于不列颠群岛早期居民皮肤和头发颜色较淡的假设是错误的——这些特征直到4800年前才在英国流行开来。

Gun Control Laws in the USSR


Original Russian Language Article:

(Research and Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Translator’s Note: Although workers may defend themselves during Revolutionary periods within history, they do so as a ‘collective’ and once the Revolution is achieved, arms are removed from within civil society. Individuals using fire-arms to defend themselves from one is merely a bourgeois deception. Whilst killing one another over stupid things, the working class is prevented from uniting and over-throwing the bourgeoisie. I have translated here, only an extract of this modern, Russian language text regarding the history of weapon ownership from 1649 until the present time (post-1991). It concludes by stating that in 2000, Russia joined the European Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Storage of Firearms by Individuals, but since it has not been ratified by the State Duma, the convention does not yet apply. The State Duma has been ratified due to te EU, US and UK actively encouraging and supporting neo-Nazism in Eastern Ukraine, and throughout Eastern Europe as a means to encroach upon Russian sovereignty and to attack and destroy Socialism throughout the Russian sphere of influence. However, this article argues that prior to the USSR, the ownership of weaponry in feudal Russia was far more liberal. This is true, but it has to be taken into account that only the nobility could afford to own proper weaponry, and as that nobility owned all the land, controlled the legal system, police and military, a rich person could kill an ordinary person with little legal consequence, whereas if a poor person killed a rich person, the State would apply torture and public execution as a punishment. Weapon ownership in pre-Soviet Russia was a direct result of class privilege used to oppress the masses. Following the 1917 October Revolution, the Bolsheviks took steps to control weapon ownership and remove most weapons from civil society. This action was carried-out to remove any and all weaponry from the hands of counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, class enemies and foreign enemies. A Socialist Society uses science to develop a peaceful and safe civil society for all citizens to develop their psychological and physical abilities without fear of attack, injury or death. The defence of a Socialist Society lies with the State and the properly trained and disciplined Red Army. As a Socialist State only acts in the favour of the Working Class, and given that bourgeois notions of antagonistic individualism are no longer relevant or encouraged, there is no need for Soviet citizens to be armed to defend themselves from one another (as is the case in the capitalist USA). When the people needed to defend their Socialist Society from fascist attack, the Soviet State provided weaponry for use outside the Red Army (as seen with the Partizan Movement). Although gun-control legislation developed over many decades, the August 1st, 1983 ‘Criminal Code of the RSFSR’ gives Article 218 as stating:

‘Article 218: Illegal Carrying, Keeping, Acquisition, Making, or Marketing of Weapons, Ammunition, or Explosives.

The carrying, keeping, acquisition, making, or marketing of a firearm (except a smooth-bore hunting piece), ammunition, or explosives without the respective authorisation, shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years.

A person who has voluntarily surrendered a firearm, ammunition, oe explosives which he has kept without the respective authorisation shall be relieved from criminal responsibility.

The carrying, making, or marketing of daggers, Finnish daggers, or other sidearms without the respective authorisation, except for those localities where the carrying of a sidearm is an appurtenance of national costume or connected with the hunting trade, shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years, or by correctional tasks for the same term (as amended 11th July, 1974 and 3rd December, 1982.’

Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System, by WE Butler, Oceana Publications, (1983), Pages 376-377

It is interesting to note that the UK and much of Europe retains a civil society free of fire-arm ownership, but retains the problem of bourgeois oppression through governmental agency such as the police and military, etc. Even in the UK – where it is a stereo-type to assume British police are unarmed – it is more and more a common sight to see heavily armed police officers patrolling the streets as part of the dubious US ‘War on Terror’. This observation must be interpreted as a spread of the violence inherent within US capitalism. ACW 19.2.2018

Gun Control Laws in the USSR

Already in the first days of Soviet power, one of the main tasks of the new regime was the complete withdrawal of weapons from private individual ownership. On December 10th, 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars issued a decree on the surrender of all arms, in which stated:

“1. As a means to benefit the entire population, all institutions within civil society, are to hand over all the serviceable and faulty rifles, machine guns and revolvers of all types, including cartridges and ammunition of any pattern;

2. For concealment of weapons, failure to surrender or opposition to the surrender of any guilty persons will result in imprisonment for a period of from one year to ten … ”

By this decree, all previously issued weapons storage permits were declared invalid, and persons who had weapons were required to surrender them. The weapons were not confiscated from members of the RCP (B.), but not more than one rifle and one revolver per person was allowed to be owned. In this case, the weapon was assigned to a specific owner.

According to the instructions in this decree, the right to store and carry weapons was given to ordinary party members. Thus, in Soviet Russia the right to arms acquired party affiliation.

On July 28, 1920, the decree “On hunting” limited the circle of persons entitled to possession of a hunting rifle. The issuance of certificates for the right to hunt was carried out by the organs of the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture, and the registration of weapons and the registration of cartridges to it – by the NKVD. In 1922, the first Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was adopted, which criminalized (up to 1 year) the possession of firearms without proper authorization (Article 220). The duty to issue permits for the storage of weapons, including hunting, was entrusted to the NKVD.

Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR of 12 December 1924 “On the procedure for the production, trade, storage, use, recording and transportation of weapons, firearms, explosive shells and explosives”, all weapons were classified and divided into categories. From then on, the object of buying and selling for ordinary citizens was limited only to smooth-bore hunting weapons. The remaining categories of weapons became the prerogative of those who were put on various types of guard duty.

Illegal possession of weapons was severely punished. From March 1933, the manufacture, storage, purchase, sale of firearms (except hunting weapons) without proper authorization was punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. In 1935, a similar punishment was imposed for the storage of bladed weapons.

At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, all citizens were invited to surrender the rifled and smoothbore firearms, as well as cold steel available for personal use to the police and local Soviets. With regards to trophy weapons seized by citizens living in the settlements liberated by the Red Army units, these were obliged to be “handed in within 24 hours to military units, NKVD organs or local authorities”. Persons who did not hand over weapons and ammunition in time were subject to criminal prosecution.

On August 17, 1953, by decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, citizens were granted the right to freely acquire hunting smooth-bore weapons. Prior to that, citizens were required to show hunting permits when buying. However, this order lasted only for a short time – less than 6 years – and by the decision of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on May 11, 1959, the free sale of hunting smooth-bore guns was canceled. Henceforth, the sale of hunting rifles could once again only be made upon presentation of membership cards of the hunters’ society.

During the same period, a draft law was planned, according to which it was intended to allow trustworthy citizens (mainly members of the CPSU and Komsomol) to acquire short-barreled firearms as their personal property. However, this law was not enacted.

In 1960, a new Criminal Code of the RSFSR was adopted. Article 218 was significantly relaxed: for illegally carrying, storing, manufacturing or selling firearms, a sentence of imprisonment of up to 2 years was determined. Storage of bladed weapons was excluded from the crime.

In 1974, Article 218 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was again tightened (up to 5 years of imprisonment). True, a note appeared: “A person who voluntarily surrenders firearms is released from criminal liability”.

China’s Governmental Position Regarding the Tobacco Industry


Original Chinese Language Article: ‘烟草业’ (Tobacco Industry)

(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles)

Translator’s Note: I came across an American Youtube video that presented the idea that China possessed a vibrant tobacco industry, and that this was ‘stupid’ and ‘deceitful’. The implication was that China has a duplicitous political system that does not have the best interests of the Chinese people at its heart. The European imperial presence in China from 17th – 20th century introduced the Western habit of modern smoking to China. This was particularly intense during the pro-Western Nationalist Government Era which lasted from 1912 – 1949. Today, the Communist Government of China has inherited a bad habit from the West that has now been transformed into an advantage for the Chinese people. China has developed its own unique tobacco industry, even though the rate of smokers in China remains half of that found in the West. The tobacco industry in China is State Owned and pays substantial amounts in taxes and other forms of finance. It provides jobs for millions of people, and has helped impoverished areas to become affluent. So robust is this industry that it voluntarily finances projects such as the building of schools and advanced scientific facilities. Despite this, whilst developing new types of risk-free cigarettes, the Government of China continuously warns its citizens of the health risks associated with smoking conventional cigarettes. The following article explains why the Communist Party of China allows the tobacco industry to exist, when Chinese culture generally advocates healthy living. The tobacco industry in China is highly developed from a scientific and TCM point of view, which means cigarettes are being developed in China not only with minimal health risks, but also with some health benefits. ACW 18.2.2018

The Tobacco Industry in China

As the community realizes that smoking is harmful to health, the tobacco industry constantly makes use of science and technology to reduce the harm caused by cigarettes. This effort has not only achieved remarkable results, but is an ongoing process. One may wonder why the tobacco industry still exists and continues to develop in China today, when the unhealthy aspects of smoking have yet to be solved. This is because, fundamentally, the tobacco industry as it exists outweighs the disadvantages that a) already exist within society, or b) it might cause to society.

The social benefits generated by the tobacco industry outweigh the disadvantages – this is the standard that must be used. Three points must be clarified: First, the tobacco industry’s advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Society is an organic whole formed by multiple elements that are based upon interrelated material production activities. The angle of view should be multidimensional. Second, the tobacco industry’s social benefits outweigh the disadvantages within existential space-time conditions, that is, the tobacco industry is neither good nor bad. Its usefulness should be interpreted in a country-specific manner, through the stage of socio-economic development within which it is located. We hold that we should evaluate our country’s tobacco industry from the material reality of our country and oppose empty generalities. Thirdly, starting from the material reality of our country, we can measure whether an act, process or product outweighs any disadvantages. The most fundamental consideration depends upon whether it is conducive to the development of social productive forces, whether it is conducive to raising the overall national strength, and whether it is conducive to raising the living standards of the people. In our country, the tobacco industry has the function of accelerating the accumulation of funds and increasing the financial capacity of the country, whilst also supporting other industries. Why do governments in all countries promote tobacco cessation without canceling the tobacco industry at the same time? This is because all development costs money and the tobacco industry generates substantial income. The development of our country is now at an urgent period. We cannot let any chance go by for development of the economy. The tobacco industry accumulates large amounts of funds for the promotion of China’s economic construction, and as such represents a firm material reality.

Our country is a developing country. The tobacco industry’s tax revenue accounts for about one-ninth of our country’s tax revenue. Without this one-ninth revenue, there would be shortage of basic industries and infrastructural development, and local businesses would suffer.  This means that the gross national product of our country, the development of our country, and the improvement of our people’s living standard would all be seriously affected. This is by no means alarmist. There are 1.3 million tobacco farmers, 500,000 tobacco workers in the tobacco industry, and 5 million merchants who sell cigarettes. People as statistics in society are also people in reality. Only when we look at people from the position of social reality, can we determine the pros and cons, and assess the best direction of travel. What is good for society, in fact, is good for the people. Our country aims not only at developing economic strength, but also enhancing national power. The material reality which is the basis of society can only be strengthened through economic development.

First, smoking is harmful to our health. However, any disease has a multi-cause. It is unscientific and unfair to blame the loss caused by the disease on the tobacco industry. Smoking may cause cancer, but smoking is not the only cause of cancer.

Second, the economic benefits created by the tobacco industry are by no means limited to taxes and profits turned over to the State. For example, during the period of the 7th Five-Year Plan, more than 2 billion yuan of the peasants’ income in our country came from the cultivation of tobacco. In many places, poverty has been lifted by relying on the production of tobacco leaves.

Thirdly, 1.3 million peasants in our country farm tobacco and there are over hundreds of thousands of people closely linked with the tobacco industry. This is an unavoidable objective reality in our country. If the conclusion was reached that the tobacco industry was doing more harm than good to our society and it was abolished, then the jobs of 1.3 million farmers wuold be lost, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people would be directly and negatively affected. As matters stand, the existence of the tobacco industry in China at this present time contributes to both the social and economic stability of the country.

Fourthly, there are nearly 300 million people smoking in our country. In view of the fact that smoking is harmful to health, and that the Government of China cannot get rid of smoking habits simply through issuing administrative orders, our government reminds smokers that this habit is bad for their health. On the other hand, the tobacco industry has been ordered to use scientific development to make cigarettes as harmless as possible.

At present, China’s per capita consumption of cigarettes is low, less than half of that in Western countries. Rural population accounts for 80% of the country’s consumption, and its sales of cigarettes account for 60% of the national total. There are a lot of handmade cigarettes and other forms of smoke consumption in rural areas. As people’s incomes continue to grow, they will be able to afford good quality filtered cigarettes.  As smoking certainly has negative health related issues associated with it, the tobacco industry in China has been transformed into a facility seeking healthier methods of smoking. This technical transformation has three aspects:

1) Gradually adopt internationally accepted approaches to research. For example: increase the filter, improve the roll paper, improve tobacco quality, tobacco sheets, ventilation and dilution, and reduce the amount of cigarette tar.

2) Explore a selective focus on ways to reduce harmful substances in tar. For example, in 1986, Huazhong Institute of Technology and Wuhan Cigarette Factory carried-out research into trace elements within tobacco additives. According to foreign data, low incidences of lung cancer has been linked to 0.46ppm of selenium content in cigarettes, whilst high incidences of lung cancer linked to 0.16ppm of selenium content in cigarette. The tobacco used in the Wuhan Factory has a selenium content of 0.22ppm. According to the advice of China’s nutritionists, the intake of selenium for Chinese adults should be 70 micrograms / person · per day, whilst the actual average intake is deficient and stands at 30 grams / person · per day. This shows that adding an appropriate amount of selenium is beneficial.

3) Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has a long history and is a treasure trove of knowledge. The tobacco industry has been working with TCM experts to develop a distinctly Chinese cigarette that does not contain any of the health risks associated with its foreign counter-part. At the moment, hybrid cigarettes are being developed that will eventually evolve away from all harmful health implications. Thanks to the joint efforts of experts and scholars from the medical and health sector and the tobacco industry, some new mixed cigarette products have successively been put on the market and exported through a series of tests and accreditation, which have been well received by consumers. New hybrid cigarettes have to go through extensive clinical trials within medical and health departments, to test the pharmacology and toxicity of drugs and chemicals used, and to further analyse and review procedures. China’s medicinal resources are very rich. The Ming Dynasty Pharmacist Li Shizhen compiled a ‘Compendium of Native Chinese Medicinal Plants’, containing up to 1892 different kinds of medicinal plants, used to generate 11000 prescriptions. Different drugs are used to treat different conditions, and today there are currently more than 40 cigarette factories in China producing more than 50 kinds of TCM-derived cigarettes, containing different natural TCM ingredients.

At present, the tobacco industry is facing new situations and challenges. As people’s living standards improve, the effects of smoking upon people’s health is gaining more attention. Although there are different opinions, most countries are promoting cessation of smoking, with May 31st of each year being designated as ‘World No Tobacco Day,’ This general trend around the world restricts smoking in public places, with some countries passing laws prohibiting smoking altogether, and causing huge losses to tobacco companies (often settled with compensation payouts). Even the world’s largest tobacco company – Philip Morris of the United States – also recognises the harm caused by smoking. with the numbers of smokers in the United States and Britain has been reduced by more than 20%, and Singapore seeking to become a completely non-smoking country. Smoking being harmful to health seems to be the conclusion. Smoking is harmful to health because of the tar content produced during the combustion process of tobacco. This negatively affects the human trachea and is linked to lung carcinogens. In order to protect people’s health there must be produced low-tar cigarettes. Improving the safety of smoking has swept the countries in the world and is the direction of development for the tobacco industry in the future. Flue-cured tobacco tar content is high, drying tobacco tar content is low. If flue-cured tobacco leaves are mixed with 30% to 40% of sun-cured tobacco, then an effective hybrid cigarette is produced. This is one of the more effective measures to produce low tar cigarettes. Foreign hybrid cigarettes have been developed earlier, with faster progress, containing more brands and better quality. The tar content has dropped below 12mg / per cigarette, accounting for more than 70% of the total cigarette market. Ultra-low tar cigarettes (below 6mg / cigarette) are also being developed. The gap between our country and this foreign development is substantial, as the development of blended cigarettes is relatively new, whilst there is less brands, a poorer quality, and poorer sales, accounting for only 5% of the market. Tobacco-fueled cigarettes still dominate the market with less than 15 mg / of tar, implying poorer safety. After China’s accession to the WTO, foreign low-tar hybrid cigarettes will surely enter China in large quantities, and the cigarette market in China will be seriously affected. Vigorously developing low tar cigarettes to improve the safety of smoking and enhance the competitiveness with foreign cigarettes to keep the domestic market and prevent financial outflows is China’s direction of movement.

Original Chinese Language Article:烟草业/752153

UK: A Tale of Two Disappearances Under New Labour

When Socialist structures such as the Welfare State and National Health Service (NHS) are initiated within a society that retains its predatory capitalist nature, then the fundamental inequalities of the capitalist system are retained. People may be prevented from starving, dying of disease, and receive a rudimentary education, but still occupy an ‘alienated’ position within society that can lead to social isolation and exclusion from the mainstream. This is the reality of capitalism and not any weaknesses of the Socialist System. If capitalism is allowed to continue so as to enrich and empower the middle and upper classes, many are born into a working class that has projected upon it, highly dysfunctional psychological and behavioural modes of existence. It is exactly this dysfunctionality that people Jeremy Kyle (and others in the entertainment industry) encourage and take advantage of. Yes, individuals are responsible for their actions, but it would be incorrect to ignore the effect of social conditioning upon character formation, or the responsibility that the capitalist system must take for much aberrant behaviour. The following BBC Panorama programme aired in 2008 during the times of the New Labour attacks on the Welfare State and NHS. Notice how police officers are allowed to voice highly rightwing attitudes about the Welfare State – and be allowed to package these views as being part of effecting policing. This unsympathetic ‘working class’ disappearance (and deception) about Shannon Matthews may be compared to the highly sympathetic manner in which the White, middle class McCann family are treated.

Portuguese police are of the opinion that the McCanns killed their daughter and hid the body. However, because of their association with the New Labour Government, Tony Blair had diplomatic passports issued that allowed the McCanns to leave Portugal and escape arrest and prosecution – despite the fact that both parents lied to the police. In the UK, there has been nothing but official praise for the McCanns who were so distraught about their daughter’s disappearance that they felt they had to sell their story to the rightwing and racist Sun newspaper. The British Government basically set the stage for every doubt and inconsistency in the McCann’s story to be ignored and replaced with an overly sentimental sympathy that obliterates logic and reason. These two examples demonstrate ‘class’ within British society and show how even in 2007 and  2008 journalistic standards were slipping at the BBC.

Following the Shannon Matthews case, the rightwing and racist Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph newspapers initiated a wide=spread attack upon the principle of the Welfare State – linking the receipt of benefits with ‘greed’ and ‘criminality’ (without ever providing any reliable academic evidence). The rightwing press never addressed the inequalities within capitalist society, but instead attacked the very Socialist principles designed to alleviate such social problems. As soon as New Labour had come into power in 1997, disabled people were attacked for receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA). This attack upon the vulnerable within British society was extended into all areas, and a colleague of mine who worked for the Audit Commission, attended a meeting in 2009 with a New Labour Minister, and was informed that the Labour Party was going to abolish the Welfare State and privatize the NHS over a 15 year period – providing they won all the subsequent elections. Of course, Gordon Brown lost the 2010 General Election, and the Tory-LibDems Coalition took power and immediately set about putting the New Labour policies into practice. The BBC Panorama documentary about Shannon Matthews looks very much like New Labour anti-Welfare State propaganda.

Wing Yip (Purley Way): Tai Tung Restaurant Nepotism and Discrimination (16.2.2018)


Wing Yip Supermarket

As an Anglo-Chinese family living in Sutton – Southwest London – we used to frequent the Tai Tung Restaurant nearly every weekend when the older relatives were alive, but this activity lessened around 2008, when the prices were doubled overnight, and the portions halved. It made much better economic sense to catch the Tube to Leicester Square (a journey free of the traffic congestion in and around the Croydon area), and eat in a cheap and well run Yun Cha (Dim Sum) restaurant in Gerrard Street (i.e. London’s Chinatown. We had not visited the Wing Yip Supermarket in Purley Way for around ten years, but today, my partner Gee and myself, decided to take our two young daughters to experience the local Chinese community. Bear in mind that for over a decade we have been socializing with Mainland Chinese people from Communist China, and had gotten used to their modern and civilised attitudes. Thinking back, we used to eat in the Tai Tung Restaurant (situated within the Wing Yip complex in Purley Way) in large groups of extended family members. We even took my mother – Diane Wyles – there when she was visiting from Devon around 2001, but I do remember certain issues. Once, whilst waiting for a table to take our Chinese grandmother for a meal, it took over two hours to be seated. Another time, we were seated in the restaurant and were not approached by a waitress for over 45 minutes – and then it was to be asked whether we wanted our bill!

The Wing Yip family are very successful members of the British Chinese community, and they cannot be faulted for their hard-work and dedication. They are British citizens and unlike many corporations in the UK – Wing Yip actually pays its fair share of tax. They also originate from a Hong Kong that was a British imperialist colony. Up until 1997, this part of China had been more or less immune from the Socialist transformation that occurred on the Mainland from 1949 onwards. These Chinese people were subjected to a brutal British colonial administration that made it clear that Whites were superior to Chinese, but that Chinese were better than Asians or Africans, etc. For many from the older generations in Hong Kong, it was taught that the only way to survive was by conforming to, and accepting this British imperialist attitude of racial discrimination. What this has meant for pockets of Chinese people from the old Hong Kong, is that these outdated attitudes are applied in an inverse manner in the UK. The manager of the Tai Tung Restaurant practises these discriminative attitudes when allotting tables to queuing members of the public, during times of high density eating. Our experience today serves to confirm what others have told me in the past, but which I was not paying attention to prior 2008.

This is how British colonial attitudes are applied at the Tai Tung Restaurant:

  1. Chinese people who are known are privileged over Chinese people who are not known.
  2. Chinese people who are not known are privileged over non-Chinese people who are known or not known.
  3. Mixed ethnicity couples involving an ethnic Chinese partner are treated as ‘non-Chinese’ and pushed to the back of the queue.

Furthermore, Wing Yip has provided in the past small bursaries for British born Chinese people, but on the application form, the applicant must provide proof that they are ‘ethnic Chinese’, and that neither of their parents are of ‘non-Chinese’ origin. As far as I am aware, this is ‘illegal’ in the UK under racial discrimination laws. When we arrived at Wing Yip today (to celebrate Chinese New Year), we received number ’55’ and joined to queue of around ten people who were waiting. Soon about another 20 odd people arrived and numbers were being given-out into the 70’s. however, after waiting 30 minutes, we noticed that the group of people around us (all mixed ethnicity families involving an ethnic Chinese partner and a Black, Asian or White partner and children) were being ignored, and instead people who had just arrived holding numbers like ’68’, ’71’ and ’75’, etc, were being called in front of use because a) they were ethnic Chinese, and b) know the owner! Our group started to complain about what was happening in front of our eyes, only to be told the ‘right kind of table’ is not ready. Most of the mixed ethnicity groups involved families of four members – and yet groups of four were being allowed in who had only just arrived!  This is a sickening display on two counts. 1) ethnic Chinese people should know better than to racially discriminate in the UK, and 2) what we are seeing here is British colonial rule being applied to Hong Kong businesses in the UK. I would suggest boycotting Wing Yip and spending your money elsewhere. Gerrard Street has many wonderful eateries that have well-mannered staff and reasonably priced food, but having said this, there are now many very good Mainland Chinese restaurants all over the UK. The Tai Tung Restaurant in Wing Yip (Purely Way) brings shame down upon the Chinese people, and insults all those people of other ethnicities who would otherwise like to interact with ethnic Chinese people.


Rightwing and Anti-Russia Agenda of ‘’


StopFake.Org is a fairly obvious rightwing attempt in the West to manufacture support for the ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi regime currently active in Western Ukraine. It pursues an anti-Russian agenda and is responsible for generating ‘disinformation’ disguised as unmasking ‘fake’ news. It strives to protect neo-Nazi Western Ukraine by attempting to down-play news articles that reveal the fascist nature of this regime, but never addresses the ‘fake’ nature of news article written in the West that ‘deny’ the ‘Maidan’ regime is neo-Nazi. obviously, for ‘’, the apparent ‘revealing’ of fake news is a one-way street, favouring the rightwing over the leftwing. This is a pro neo-Nazi site very much hidden in plain view, which attempts to mislead the public through its self-proclaimed sense of self-righteous morality – as if it has the public interest at heart. Its articles need to be assessed and debunked as rightwing propaganda disguised as mainstream ‘liberal’ commentary, when it is nothing of the kind. Whilst attempting to reduce all Nazi German swastikas flown in Maidan Ukraine to films made in the Ukraine that depict the Nazi German occupation of the USSR during WWII, ‘’ says nothing about these films ‘glorifying’ this terrible event in history, or that many citizens of Maidan Ukraine openly fly Nazi German swastikas or the modern Maidan equivalent. This is because those nefarious individuals behind ‘’ know full well that support for German Nazism in the West is a touchy subject at best, and if the general public truly understood the nature of the neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ regime, protests could bring-down the US and UK governments and cause discontent throughout the EU. StopFake,org, through its actions, wants to protect neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ Ukraine, but does not want the truth about that fascist regime spreading throughout Europe or the US – as this would undermine diplomatic support, as well as financial and military aid. Of course, ‘’ is absolutely ‘silent’ about the massacres committed by ‘Maidan’ supporters against Ukrainian Socialists. Use critical thought against this website and think clearly for yourselves.

Further Thoughts on Ukrainian ‘Maidan’ Neo-Nazism (12.2.2018)


Ukrainian Embassy – Holland Park – London (YCL Anti-Neo-Nazi Protest)

Every true Socialist and Communist opposes all forms of fascism, which includes neo-Nazism. As Lenin stated, fascism in capitalism in decline, and represents the most destructive aspect of the capitalist system. By opposing, combatting and defeating fascism, the transition of capitalism into Socialism is brought ever nearer. Although Trotskyite Socialists have collaborated with fascism ever since 1938 (when Trotsky called upon his ‘Socialist’ followers to assist fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to ‘over-throw’ the USSR), Marxist-Leninists are duty-bound to resist fascism in every way possible. This involves the resistance of emotion, thought and action. When a Soviet Red Army soldier was being photographed whilst being shot in the head by a Finnish fascist – he looked at the camera and ‘smiled’. Although murdered moments later, his smile ‘resist’ fascism down through the ages.


The neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ regime is a neo-Nazi movement historically linked to the Nazi German invasion of the Ukraine during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). It could not have come to power, however, without financial and material support from President Obama in the US, and Prime Minister Cameron in the UK. Of course, once endorsed by the ‘Anglo-Saxons’, the EU was quick to support it and initiate a ruthless anti-Socialist and anti-Russian campaign. Then the ‘purges’ began as neo-Nazi death squads spread-out through Western Ukraine arresting, torturing and murdering anyone who got in their way, or opposed their fascism. The noble people of Eastern Ukraine have formed Socialist Republics and are currently fighting a war of self-defence against this ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi offensive. Statues of Lenin have been pulled-down and replaced with images of Adolf Hitler or other Nazi German War Criminals now revered by the ‘Maidan’ regime. Twice on marches in the UK I have been approached by Ukrainian students demanding  take my Red Flag down because the ‘Communist Party’ is outlawed in the Ukraine. Although the Ukraine was not in the EU – David Cameron set in place a facility whereby Ukrainian students can come to the UK at the British taxpayer’s expense, and attend university ‘free of charge’, at a time when British students are being charged tens of thousands of pounds to study! My partner (Gee) and myself have families that have fought fascism in Europe and China, and we are proud to continue this resistance today. We teach our children to be independently minded and physically free, and to afford every other human-being these freedoms. After the protest was completed on Saturday (10.2.2018) outside the Ukrainian Embassy, the British police approached the area with sirens screeching. As we can never be sure how the British police will behave (after-all, they are protecting the ‘neo-Nazi’ Ukrainian Embassy), we took our two young children and made a discreet exist from the area. This is how we involve (and protect) our children during political activism and live to protest another day!


Deficient Individualism: How the Police Operate


As an institute, the concept of the ‘modern’ police developed in Scotland in 1800, and spread throughout the British Isles. This model of policing now exists all over the world. During the Industrial Revolution (form around 1750 onwards), immense wealth was generated for the middle class which possessed the means of production. The middle class possessed the wealth and social status which granted it the economic, political and cultural power to put its ideas into practice (a further product of receiving a good education). The middle class designed and had built the machines which were placed into the buildings (i.e. ‘factories’) that it owned, and ran these establishments continuously over a 24hr period. The machines were operated by the peasantry whose cottage industries had been destroyed by the industrialisation process. The peasants headed en mass into the cities and towns to be employed in very bad conditions and long hours, as a means to prevent death from hunger and destitution. The middle class treated this ‘new’ working class in a despicable manner and paid them little in return for their long hours of dangerous work (this included the exploitation of young children). The middle class paid probably about 10% of the profit generated to the working class, and amassed the other 90% for themselves. This process of production and exploitation continued day in and day out, year after year. The middle class became overly abundant with their accumulated wealth, whilst the workers who made the profit sunk ever deeper into abject poverty, illness, injury and early death. As the workers started to agitate for better working conditions, and as certain elements of the working class took it upon themselves to ‘steal’ back the profit already stolen from them by the middle class, the middle class representatives in Parliament (the workers could not vote), started to heed calls for a body of government representatives at all levels of society, from he village to city and beyond. The Greek word the ‘city state’ and its authority is ‘Polis’, therefore the British government put forth the idea that the middle class would be protected from the working class by a government body empowered to ‘arrest’ and ‘prosecute’ with impunity. This is how the middle class British ‘invented’ the ‘police’. The police exist to protect the middle class interests in society (such as private property and wealth), and oppress and suppress the working class population so that it cannot a) band together and over-throw the middle class, or b) attain any type of independent political or cultural power (other than the ‘token’ representation granted by the middle class). The police are trained a priori to behave like a stern Victorian-type ‘father figure’ whose authority cannot be questioned by his underlings without the fear of arbitrary and/or violent reproach. The police are paid to reduce society to the status of single individuals ensnared in the all-powerful presence of the police. This represents the middle class view of the world, where ‘individuals’ are already empowered by wealth and status. This explains why the police employ two distinct methods for dealing with the general public. For a wealthy, land-owning middle class person, the police approach carefully and with respect (as such people have access to effective lawyers). In this scenario, the police effectively ‘negotiate’ with middle class people of interest, because such people represent the class that created the police to protect their own best class interests. This represents the police responding to ’empowered’ individualism. As the working class band together into ‘unions’ for self-defence and collective bargaining, the police refuse to acknowledge this ‘Socialist’ outlook. The police do not negotiate with working class people of interest, and have no interest in contacting union leaders. Instead, each working class person is reduced to the level of bourgeois individualism, but as each working class person does not possess wealth or property, the police interpret this individualism as ‘deficient’, and act accordingly. With every encounter, the historical dynamic of the 19th century is played-out yet again in the present. The potentially dangerous working class must be kept in its place by any number of legal or lawful sophistries, so as to prevent the middle class losing its wealth, power and property. When it is obvious that a police officer has broken the law he or she is paid to uphold – the State simply declares such a suspect ‘not guilty’. The suspect is then congratulated and promoted as a demonstration of who holds the power within bourgeois society. The working class does not want bourgeois individualism and is alienated by its concept. This is exactly why the police project this concept upon the working class as an intimidatory tactic. As many officers are recruited from working class backgrounds, these workers become individuals who are granted ‘limited’ access to the middle class world they would usually remain permanently excluded from. This is the reward they are granted for turning upon their own class.

%d bloggers like this: