Jack Whitehall’s ‘Bad Education’ Really is ‘Bad’ (2012-2015)


Bad Education was commissioned by BBC3 between 2012-2014 and even spawned a film in 2015. Although universally panned (even by the racist Daily Mail), it has received good ratings upon screening, and has sustained reasonable DVD sales. The problem is that this series as a concept is entirely premised upon its creator – Jack Whitehall’s – middle class stereotypes of the working class and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, its depiction of homosexuality is entirely homophobic in nature, but disguised as ‘inclusion’. In fact, all of Whitehall’s characters are nothing but negative gender, ethnic and class stereotypes that are demeaning and disemporing. This should not be surprising, as Whitehall is the product of his own bourgeois socio-economic conditioning. For a responsible parent, the idea of a teacher like Jack Whitehall’s character is distressing and alarming. Failing schools are not funny, and social inequality is not a laughing matter for those not living in a middle class utopia. When a society fails its children due to an asymmetric distribution of wealth and resources, this is ‘child abuse’ and not humour. Ignorant working class children with no responsible adult role models should not be the cannon fodder the Whitehall’s flagging career, but the class prejudice he displays runs much deeper than this. The assistant head master is depicted in an entirely misogynistic manner. This character is made to appear like a male fascist hell-bent on world domination. She is sexually aggressive (whilst depicted as ‘repulsive’), and her sexual preference appears to change with the wind. although Nazi-esque in attitude, Whitehall avoids all mention of Hitler and Nazi Germany, but instead has a Soviet education poster hanging on her office wall. At this point all is implied but nothing is said. Obviously Whitehall is so poorly educated in reality, that he accepts and perpetuates US Cold War propaganda that equates Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union (despite the fact that the USSR was an ally of the UK during WWII, and lost between 27-40 million people fighting Nazi Germany). In a later episode which features the sub-plot that the deputy head has committed suicide, Whitehall has one of his working class thugs stating that she is probably in hell with Stalin – as if Joseph Stalin was a bad person! Again, Whitehall does his best to demonize the Soviet Union whilst protecting the reputation of Nazi Germany. As for disability, Whitehall seems to think that everyone with a disability possesses legs that do not function – that is it.  Probably the most outrageously ‘racist’ element of this ‘comedy’ is the character of Jing Hua – a supposedly Mainland Chinese teenager attending school for some unknown reason in Watford. Whitehall does not seem to understand that Britain possesses its own indigenous Chinese community of children born in the UK. By depicting Jing Hua as he does, he omits from British history the historical Chinese presence in this country – a country that has forcibly deported its Chinese populations twice – once in 1919 and again in 1946 – due to White British racist and xenophobic attitudes. Even if it is argued that there are Mainland Chinese students in the UK (which there undoubtedly are), Whitehall is entirely wrong to cast a Japanese actress (Kae Alexander) in the role of Jing Hua, when there are many fine and capable British born Chinese actresses to choice from. Furthermore, Japan committed atrocities in China during WWIi (and before), killing millions of Chinese men, women and children, crimes that the Japanese government will neither admit to, or apologise for.  The character of Jing Hua appears to have been created by Whitehall for his character to attack Communist China, and make an apparently ‘Chinese’ student the butt of all his racially motivated ‘jokes’. Bad Education is a disgrace in the 21st century, and reminds me of a modern re-make of the notoriously ‘racist’ Mind Your Language from the 1970’s. Jack Whitehall and BBC3 demonstrate that prejudice and racism survives the changing times by adapting the manner in which they manifest.

George Orwell: Trotskyite and Arch Traitor to the Left!


George Orwell was a middle class White man born into the heart of British imperialism in India – as his father was an official who managed the the export of opium grown in India – which was exported to the British Authorities stationed in China, where it was distributed throughout the population of China. Of course, as a member of a privileged class he went to Eton – an exclusive ‘Public’ school for the children of the rich and powerful in the UK. Following this, and acting fully inaccordance with his bourgeois leanings, George Orwell became a Colonial Police Officer – whose job it was to enforce the British imperialist presence in that country. As his family possessed wealth, he was able to live a life of leisure – writing here and there – after leaving the Colonial Police Force. During the Spanish Civil War, he joined a Trotskyite militia whose main function was to combat the Soviet International Brigades – whilst pretending to be fighting the fascists. The (Socialist) Republican government disbanded this militia for proven collaboration with General Franco’s fascist forces – but of course, George Orwell denies this real function. In fact, in 1938, Leon Trotsky called upon his followers to actively collaborate with the forces of International Fascism as a means of over-throwing the democratic, capitalist countries – and the Soviet Union. When returning to the UK – Orwell embarked upon an embittered anti-Soviet tirade with his ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ books being attempted ‘ahistorical’ Trotskyite critiques of the Soviet Union. As a White bourgeois male who had benefited from his class and colour, Orwell possessed a turn of phrase that has captivated many – but beware of exactly what it is that you are admiring! Like all Trotskyites – Orwell’s leftism is a charade behind which a true rightwing agenda is hidden. His mission was to attack and bring down the Soviet Union (for Trotsky), whilst undermining through misrepresentation, the Scientific Socialism of Marxist-Leninism. As his establishment-friendly rhetoric matched perfectly with the developing anti-Soviet Cold War ideology of post-WWII, Orwell became an establishment figure in the UK and across the capitalist world. Instead of being scene as he truly was – as an opportunistic Trotskyite – George Orwell is often (and mistakenly) interpreted to be some kind of political and literary genius! In reality, like all Trotskyites, Orwell strove to support the racist and oppressive bourgeois establishment. His books are nothing but Cold War trash written for brain-washing small children!

Down With Winston Churchill – Racist, Fascist Sympathiser and Mass Murderer!


The pro-Winston Churchill propaganda that exists throughout British society has to stop. He was an ardent racist and had derogatory attitudes toward the Working Class – whom he twice herded into World Wars. In the 1930’s, he wrote glowingly about Adolf Hitler, expressing that the British Working Class should be controlled through fascistic forms of governance, and whilst that very same Working Class was being bombed by the Luftwaffe – Churchill lived in a luxurious bomb-proof bunker under Whitehall drinking champagne, eating caviare and puffing on Cuban cigars! As WWII came to a close, Winston Churchill campaigned on an anti-Socialist ticket – opposing the Labour Party plans to bring in a comprehensive Welfare System and National Health Service – stating that the Working Class (that had died for his middle class values en masse) did not deserve ‘something for nothing’, and should be compelled to work through the threat o starvation. Furthermore, whilst allying himself with the Soviet Union – and encouraging that country to expend the lives of its men and women soldiers in their millions fighting Nazi Germany – recently de-classified papers reveal that Churchill actively worked behind the scenes (together with the US President) to bring-down the Soviet Union at the earliest possible time following the defeat of Hitler, (thus cultivating the roots of the Cold War even before WWII had come to an end). Meanwhile, whilst in India, the British Army (fending off a concerted Japanese invasion) had stripped the countryside around Bengal of all its food (to feed the troops) at Churchill’s orders in 1943, an act which led to a famine that killed around 2 million Indian people. In reality, Winston Churchill was not a hero, but he is continuously presented as such by a British middle class establishment that thinks it sees an idealised version of itself in his behaviour. The bourgeoisie is indeed seeing itself in Churchill’s behaviour – but fails to recognise that this is a horrific image of their own racism, narrow-mindedness, greed and disregard for the suffering of others. Winston Churchill was a pompous incarnation of the bourgeoisie who sat safely at home during WWII, reading speeches written by others (always taking credit for their content), whilst the war was fought and won by the British Working Class. No – Winston Churchill is definitely not a person I would want my children to idolise and follow as an example.

No Gay Concentration Camps in Chetnya


When Lenin came to power in 1917, he abolished the entire body of oppressive Czarist law and replaced it with a progressive Socialist system conducive to the well-being of the the ordinary people. The Czar – following virtually every European legal code – overtly ‘banned’ homosexuality, and had strict punishments for anyone caught practising it (like in Victorian England, this proscription applied only to men – as female homosexuality was not considered a ‘real’ phenomenon). By abolishing the Czarist legal code, Lenin became one of the first leaders in the world to ‘decriminalise’ homosexuality. This is a point often ignored by bourgeois gay movements that support capitalism and do not want to accredit Soviet Communism with any progressive achievements in the area of LGBTQ rights. This was a vital step forward for gay rights, and it was initiated by a Russian system applying the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This was followed in 1926 with legislation protecting children from paedophilia, and any men (but not women) that sexually prayed upon children. In 1934, no anti-gay laws were passed in the USSR, but the 1926 legislation was confirmed (as a means to protect children). Bourgeois rhetoric on this matter often (deliberately) mistranslates the nuance of the original Russian language, and try to import an imagined ‘anti-gay’ agenda. This Cold War misrepresentation was further applied to modern Russia following the 1991 Western-inspired ‘collapse’ of the USSR – when Boris Yeltsin overtly ‘legalised’ homosexuality inaccordance with bourgeois law. However, as the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed to yet again interfere in State politics following 1991, this church’s anti-gay theology began to make its presence felt throughout Russia. Of course, the religiously friendly Western powers conveniently ‘ignore’ this fact, as to criticise the bigotry of the Christian church is thought to be a Marxist attitude (and against the interests of capitalism).

As the US and EU unleash a rightwing and racially motivated offensive against Russia, the latest ‘false flag’ attack involves allegations of ‘gay concentration camps’ in Chetnya. Interestingly, these stories originated in the rightwing (and anti-Muslim) Russian newspaper ‘Novaya Gazeta’ which was founded in 1990 by the traitor Mikhail Gorbachev as a means to directly attack the Soviet system along bourgeois, capitalist lines. This newspaper allowed the anti-Communist attitudes of the capitalist West to infiltrate every corner of Soviet life, and assisted in the collapse of Soviet social cohesion. Today, Novaya Gazeta represents the current attitude of the US and is therefore, pursuing an anti-Putin agenda. The ultimate aim of Novaya Gazeta is for Russia to lose its sovereignty and independence, and become a subservient part of the European Union. As the West is currently Islamophobic, Novaya Gazeta has launched an attack of Islamic Chetnya – using ‘false’ allegations of gay oppression in that small country. As usual, there are no independent Russian or Chetnyan language reports, and no substantiating evidence whatsoever. Chetnya is being picked upon because it is Islamic, whilst the Russian Orthodox Church – the real home of anti-gay attitudes – remains untouched. Novaya Gazeta is part-owned today by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev, who propagates his neo-liberal agenda (with his son Evgeny Lebedev) through the British newspaper the pair joint-own – The Independent and The London Evening Standard, This is how the false stories of anti-gay oppression has spread into the West through the British media. The Lebedev family are deceptively described as ‘liberals’, but this is a front for their rightwing, anti-Islamic, racist agenda, which is designed to ferment war between Russia and the West.


American Racism Destroys London


London Has Fallen – into a US neo-con delusion. The Independent called it ‘Terrorploitation’ and everyone else ‘racist’. The US producers couldn’t understand British cinema audiences cheering everytime a major landmark was destroyed! If George Bush and Tony Blair mated, and their off-spring was a film – this would be it. The only terrorists in this film are the Americans – the only believable part of it! Those who should be ashamed of themselves – all the Black and Asian actors (including Morgan Freeman) who willingly played White racist stereotypes of their own people, and the Scotsmen Gerard Butler whose racially motivated violence in the name of US imperialism is an insult to Scotland. This film is a catalogue of rightwing historical distortion. Britain is described as the ‘oldest ally’ of the US – when in fact the original ‘Americans’ were rebellious British citizens living in the colony that resorted to ‘terrorism’ to severe the link between themselves and their legitimate government in London. By definition, Britain is in fact the ‘oldest enemy’ of the US, but in typical bourgeois fashion, history is inverted to justify Eurocentric racism, and build a false image of all White people acting together against an ‘imagined ‘non-White’ enemy – in other words, nasty Black, Brown and Yellow people must die for White Europe (and the USA) to survive. I also think this film is racist toward British people as it fundamentally misrepresents British culture (not to mention landmarks – as a Tube entrance to the Barbican had the sign ‘Charring Cross’ affixed to it). For instance, after the 911 terror attacks in New York, and before the media-led hysteria linking the UK to the USA – many British people were of the opinion that America had brought these attacks upon themselves. Now that’s a film I would like to see.

Palestine and the Asymmetric Value of Life


Criticism of the behaviour of the modern nation state of Israel is hampered by history and the political domination of the rightwing. Modern Israel pursues a rampant nationalism, (i.e. ‘Zionism’), which is – like all variants of bourgeois nationalism – racially motivated and culturally bias. Anti-Semitism, of course, that is the irrational hatred of a race of people, existed prior to the rise of the Christian movement, but has been encapsulated and preserved in that theology, down to the present day. Anti-Semitism, as a manifestation of a bourgeois sham (designed to separate the international working class and make it fight amongst itself), should not be confused with the legitimate criticism of the political, cultural, and military behaviour of the modern state of Israel. The behaviour of Israel, is not the behaviour of all Jewish people that live in the world, but is rather the historically conditioned unfolding of brutal oppression as developed and perpetuated by the international bourgeoisie. Modern Israel behaves in a thoroughly rightwing and intolerant manner, whilst people of the Jewish religion, often face a continuous anti-Semitism from the Christian right (and its supporters), which is in reality simply another branch of the international bourgeoisie. This apparent contradiction and disunity amongst the ruling classes signifies a conflict premised entirely upon the myth of religion. The contradiction and paradox mounts up when it is understood that Christianity is historically a branch of Judaism, and has strove to artificially distance itself from its mother-religion by embracing anti-Semitism. Early Christians were counted as Jews, until their behaviour resulted in their expulsion from the Jewish religion. Whereas at one point these Jewish-Christians would have been the victims of anti-Semitism, following their systemic break with Judaic officialdom, the Christians deliberately aligned themselves with anti-Semitic racism, and this perspective of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance, has served as a foundation for the development of theology and church policy to the present day. This racist mind-set has been compounded by the Christian pursuance of the Judaic belief in the god-given ‘specialness’ of its adherents. Judaic adherents believe that they form the ‘chosen people’, as do the Christians – who were rejected out of this ‘specialness’. Christianity has had to re-define its ‘specialness’ by making it available to anyone (Judaism does not proselytise), through the socio-psychological and cultural pressure of ‘conversion’. Whereas within Judaism it is believed that only those born ‘Jewish’ are saved, Christianity has developed the counter-myth that only those who ‘convert’ to Christianity will be ‘saved’.

The problems that the modern state of Israel represents, does not require the use of anti-Semitism to convey. From a purely dialectical perspective, the situation is clear-cut, particularly when the words of Marx are remembered, and religion is taken as the basis for all ignorance oppression. The history of religion, that is the history of imagined realities, is the unfolding of mythology mistaken as fact, throughout human society, and which influences its continued development. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are all facets of the same theological mythology. The Jewish Rabbis had reduced polytheism to monotheism, and created the notion that those who were born as ‘Jews’, were simultaneously born ‘special’, and that all those not born within Judaism, were subsequently ‘not special’, and by implication, ‘not blessed by god’. The founders of Christianity and Islam – Yeshua Ben Yoseph (Greek: Jesus Christ), and Mohammed – were both Jewish reformers who took-on the collective ‘specialness’ applied to the Jewish people, firmly onto themselves as individuals. This megalomania led to obsessive faith in select individuals, by followers who fought one another to prove that their particular ‘prophet’ was the most ‘special’, or indeed the ‘only’ special human communicator with a god that no one else could see. Judaism rejects Christianity and Islam as false teachings perpetuated by rebel Jews who attempted to distort the ‘true’ teachings of Judaism into nothing less than a personal fetish. In other words, the fetish of group religion is reduced to the fetish of individual religion, and this irony remains unobserved by the ‘faithful’ in both camps. Jewish resistance and antagonism toward the adherents of Christianity and Islam, is premised solely upon the foundation that these two religious pathways distort rabbinical and biblical teaching. It is an attack on other religions justified through the theology of a vengeful god. It is interesting to note that Christianity attacks both Judaism and Islam for exactly the same reason, as does Islam in its attacks upon Judaism and Christianity. Each of these three inter-related religions all advocate an exclusive ‘specialness’ for their own adherents, that due to its intolerant core, ensures that each generation either completely intellectually dismisses the relevance and validity of the other religions, or openly attacks and destroys their physical presence in the world – quite often both responses are pursued simultaneously. As theology represents a psychological cul-de-sac of an imaginary take on the world, it’s totalitarian and hierarchical statements can never be proven as ‘real’, but which can be continuously fought over by one generation to the next. The conflict and violence is real, whilst the theology that causes it is false.

Modern Israel is a direct product of European – specifically British – imperialism. Following WWII, and the subsequent shock of the Nazi German holocaust against European Jewry, the British bourgeoisie that ruled Palestine, without taking into account the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, arbitrarily separated the country in half and allowed the modern state of Israel to be established in a predominantly Islamic country. Due to the situation in war-torn Europe, people of Jewish origin migrated in their thousands to this newly founded state – this included survivors of the Nazi death-camps. Almost immediately the Islamic population protested and was ignored by the Western powers of the international community. The modern state of Israel, in the meantime, was financially and militarily supported by the USA and Western Europe, and would eventually be given nuclear weapons. The Palestinians, supported by the Soviet Union and other Middle Eastern countries, gathered arms and periodically launched campaigns of open warfare against Israel, but failed to achieve the objective of reuniting their country, Israel, after-all, was materially supported by the advanced capitalist countries, whilst Palestinians lived in a state of abject poverty, having to face the daily presence of heavily armed and aggressive Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and on street corners. Israeli and Palestinian relations have more or less continued in a spiral of death and destruction which has seen the routine exchange of tit for tat torture, kidnap, and murder. The impoverished Palestinians struggle to retain a grip on their own country, whilst Israel continues to build settler-homes (exclusively for Jews) upon Palestinian land.

Young Palestinian children, and youths are routinely maimed and killed by the Israeli military forces. The Western bourgeois media virtually ignores these regular occurrences – deeming them unworthy of reporting. However, whenever an Israeli child or youth is maimed or killed, the Western bourgeois media immediately springs into action with an indepth analysis of the situation and the people involved. The Palestinians are always presented as ‘terrorists’ and the Israelis as otherwise ‘pure’ and ‘innocent’ victims of a pointless violence carried-out by members of a morally bankrupt religion. The tragedy of the three Israeli youths found dead recently, has initiated this sentimentalist response from the Western media, which has begrudgingly, and as an after-thought, also reported that the body a dead Palestinian youth has also been discovered. The message is clear – the value of life ascribed to an Israeli is greater than the value of life ascribed to a Palestinian. Although it is exactly the same ignorant religiosity that underlies all bourgeois thinking and behaviour, the matter is complicated by racism and political expediency. Sixty years ago, political policy was openly dictated by anti-Semitism, which was the norm throughout Europe. Today, the political policy of the USA and Europe is dictated through the auspices of Islamophobia. The lurking religiosity of Christianity can be seen to be behind these two policies of hatred. When all the historical issues surrounding imperialism and colonisation are taken into account, it is the Judeo-Christian mythos of ‘specialness’ that fuels religious and secular nationalism and racism. As Islam (Palestine), is a threat to the hegemony of Judaism (Israel), the life of an Israeli will always be viewed as significantly more valuable to that of a Palestinian.

With the religious notion of ‘specialness’ comes the inevitable shadow of ‘victimhood’. When the notion of religiously inspired specialness is criticised, deconstructed, or condemned for whatever reason, those who believe that they are divinely ‘lifted up’, through its auspices, immediately and habitually condemn the criticism as an ‘attack’ and resort to the counter-strategy of assumed ‘victimhood’. Victimhood and specialness form two-sides of the religiously minted coin – one can not exist without the other. Physical and psychological suffering, imagined or otherwise, is unnecessarily fed through the Judeo-Christian religious filter (including Islam), so that even the assumed mantle of ‘victimhood’ becomes yet another manifestation of religious inspired ‘specialness’. It is a cycle of irrationality preserved and conveyed within the structure of theological teaching. The Judeo-Christian religionist is of the opinion that his ‘specialness’ is greater than any other distinguishing mark in life, and that his suffering is more authentic, worthwhile and legitimate than that experienced by any other individual or group. Indeed, as the bible conveys, to be ‘special’, is to be a ‘victim’, and although Israel is undoubtedly an imperialist presence which oppresses the Palestinians (with the complicity and aid of the bourgeois West), nevertheless, it is equally true that both the Jewish Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians both perpetuate religious ignorance as legitimate aspects of national characteristics. The impoverished and disadvantaged Palestinian Muslim stands in stark contrast to the privileged and all-powerful Israeli Jew – whilst both sets of religionists continue to claim a special divine rite, whilst simultaneously asserting that each is a ‘victim’ of history and circumstance.

Any attack upon Israel, or Israeli interests, is automatically interpreted by the Israeli state as being motivated by ‘anti-Semitic’ sentiment, and no distinction is made between these acts, and those that are genuinely ‘revolutionary’ in nature. This is how the propaganda of the Israeli state deliberately conflates and confuses genuine anti-Semitism with genuine revolution. This is a prime example of bourgeois conservatism at work, which reduces all progressive criticism and action against it, to the level of blatant anti-Israeli racism. This appeals to the contradictory nature of Western Bourgeois sentiment that since the end of WWII has officially followed the line of condemning racism, whilst actually continuing to perpetuate it around the world, through the vehicle of Christian theology, or its secular form as found within modern politics and commercial interests. As the Western bourgeoisie reject the excesses of its Nazi German branch, it behaves in a manner where it feels it must continuously support the victims of those excesses – namely the followers of Judaism and the modern state of Israel. This unconditional bourgeois support may be broadly described as ‘rightwing’, and noted for the fact that it varies to a considerable degree in its sincerity. This unconditioned support is countered (on the right) by various racist, nationalist, and Christian fundamentalist groups, (which for one reason or another) oppose the existence of Judaism and the Israeli state, etc. Although the unconditioned support for the modern state of Israel from prominent factors of the bourgeois right is politically and militarily powerful, such support, however, is not unanimous. This situation may be juxtaposed with the progressive and bourgeois political left, which more or less unconditionally supports the Palestinian cause. The left views the Palestinian people as being the victims of imperialism and colonialism, and varies in its proposed solutions to the problem. At one end of the scale there is the establishment of a peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine, possibly with geographical area that is now left of Palestine recognised as a sovereign state, and its people protected by international law. At the other end of the scale there is the idea that Israel as a state should be severely economically, politically, and militarily punished for its behaviour in the Occupied Territories, and even that the state of Israel itself should be dissolved and the Israeli population moved elsewhere. It is interesting to note the similarity in many of these policies between left and right – policies which not unjustifyingly, often attract the accusation of anti-Semitism as a motivating force. If Israel was removed as an influencing factor in Palestine, the immediate issue of Palestinian freedom would be solved. However, a Palestine free of Judaism is a Palestine full of Islam. The Palestinian people may be politically free in one sense, as they may pursue self-determination, but remain entirely shackled to the self-limiting theology of Islam, that has its roots within Judeo-Christian religiosity. Without the Marxist transcendence of religiosity in Palestine – and the equal freeing of Jewish and Muslim workers – replacing one religion with another does not solve the issue of historical oppression of the international bourgeois over the international proletariat. As long as religion rules the roost, the worth of human life will always be asymmetric in Palestine, and religious hatred will ensure that one massacre always follows on from another without end. This is the price humanity has to pay for a contrived ‘specialness’ on earth that only ever exists within the human imagination.

The modern state of Israel, although geographically small, (around half the size of Wales), is significant for the West as it represents a symbolic European presence in a predominantly Arabic area. Anti-Bolshevik, British imperialism created the conditions for the migration of millions of Jews from Soviet Russia, who were adamantly opposed to Marxist-Leninism, and the establishment of a Socialist state in pursuance of the development of Communism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 set the agenda for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, a British plan which was implemented from 1917 onwards, but which received official government backing in the early 1920’s via the so-called ‘Mandate of Palestine’, which was nothing other than the League of Nation’s attempt to define and justify European imperialism. The Arab authorities in Palestine continuously refused to grant permission for the mass migration of Jewish settlers into their country, and were never consulted in the eventual partition of Palestine by Britain and the United Nations in 1948. The wishes of the Arab population of Palestine were completely ignored by the UN in their planning to establish an Israeli state premised upon the Israeli nationalism (Zionism). As the USSR supported the Palestinians as an ‘oppressed population’, the USA supported the state of Israel as a representative of European capitalism in the Middle East. Any opposition to the establishment of what amounts to a Western backed pro-capitalist, and highly militarised colony in Palestine, is immediately equated with anti-Semitism in the USA and Israel, even though such a criticism is based upon the legitimate observation and interpretation of historical fact, and is not, in anyway, premised upon racial or religious bigotry. In fact the establishment of the state of Israel by the United Nations can be viewed as the continuation of the anti-Semitic policy of removing otherwise integrated Jewish populations from mainstream European life, and ghettoising these populations in a single, small state in an obscure part of the world. Creating the modern state of Israel in Palestine also ensures that the transplanted Jewish populations are under continuous cultural and military pressure. This precarious situation is ‘balanced’ by every illegal act carried-out by the Israeli state being ignored and going unpunished, whilst the West throws limitless amounts of money and arms, whilst a priori supporting every action the Israeli authorities take against a terribly impoverished, Palestinian population. The existence of Israel also serves as a great ‘de-stabiliser’ in the Middle East, which is designed to create doubt and insecurity in the area, and serve as a platform for European foreign policy. Despite the pretence of secularism, Western religiously inspired imperialism can be clearly perceived in the case of the relationship between the West and Israel. When the bible is used to justify and interpret reality, conflict between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ is the inevitable result.

Britain First – UK Christian Terrorism Exposed


On the face of it, the far-right in the UK has not only run-out of ideas, but has only ever really pursued the same singular idea during its inglorious history – namely the policy of hate filled intolerance that covers a wide range of prejudicial attitudes and discriminative behaviours. This base hatred is re-invented time and again, to re-emerge in the various economic circumstances that define the continuous cycle of capitalist expansion and contraction. Europe at the moment is in the grip of an economic contraction that sees the disempowered workers forced to pay the price of their manager’s deliberate incompetence and greed. The economic over-lords must retain the privileges they enjoy at the expense of the workers, regardless of how good or bad the economy is performing. In good times, the far-right attacks ethnic minorities, asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants, stating that it is ‘morally’ wrong that these people come to the UK and share in its affluence – an affluence the far-right believes they have not contributed to, and should not benefit from. In times of economic downturn, the far-right wheels out exactly the same rhetoric, albeit slightly modified for effect. In times of economic contraction, the far-right claim that ethnic minorities, asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants, should not come to the UK, and certainly shouldn’t stay, as they are a burden on the already over-stretched system. This simplistic view of the world omits the crucial fact that if it wasn’t for exploited foreign workers in the UK, Britain would not enjoy the economic prevalence that it does, as these people are forced to endure atrocious working conditions at the hands of unscrupulous managers who know the law, but choose to ignore it. It is the greedy bourgeois that threaten the prosperity of the UK, and not the exploited workers who generate the wealth through their labour, but enjoy none of its benefits. In reality, oppressed foreign workers are proletariats through and through, and form a marginalised and peripheral aspect of the British working class. The far-right of the UK targets workers because it is their intention to attack and destroy the international working class, and migrant workers are an easy target.

The discrimination does not stop with the workers, but is extended to include the perpetuation of hatred towards women, disabled people, national minorities, prominent leftwingers, naturalised UK citizens, and the British born descendents of those who originally migrated from countries that once comprised the odious British empire. The bourgeois state has always been aided and abetted by the Catholic and Protestant churches, indeed, Marx stated that all criticism of the bourgeois state begins with the criticism of religion – the Judeo-Christian tradition to be exact. The rise of the far-right is not a mystery but a product of deliberate political policy pursued in the UK, particularly by the neo-conservative administration of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’, which presented the ignorance of racism as an expression of legitimate thought, and freedom of speech. This lurch to the right prepared the ground for the current rightwing administration of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition. The demonization of the working class, the disabled, women, and migrants, has not only continued, but has intensified as the current government sets about dismantling the Welfare State (depriving millions of State Benefit), and privatising the National Health Service, so that treatment free at the point of use, will soon become a thing of the past. The government is assisted in its hate campaign by all the media outlets who routinely trumpet the latest irrational statement emanating from 10 Downing Street as if it where a statement from god himself!

These are the circumstances that have led to an intensification of far-right rhetoric on the streets of Britain. The Church of England – which is funded by the British taxpayer – continues to peddle the silly and bizarre imaginations of theology to anyone stupid enough to listen, whilst simultaneously supporting far-right movements such as the British National Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and lately the newly formed ‘Britain First’ movement which is currently engaged in an intensive internet offensive through public media websites such as Twitter and Facebook, amongst many others. A recent anti-fascist led investigation has revealed that this far-right faction is in fact a Christian fundamentalist movement, which draws its inspiration for the hatred it peddles from the teachings of Judeo-Christian theology and the bible. This movement has wide-spread support through the length and breadth of the UK, primarily from the many hundreds of churches that still attract congregations in cities, towns and villages. Support is particularly strong in rural areas where education standards are low and social development stunted through years of governmental neglect. The Church of England authorities refuse to censure its individual vicars who use their churches (and influence amongst local people), to openly support the far-right in its many different forms. Whilst their priests perpetuate race hatred and ignorance from the pulpit, the Church of England justifies this defiance of the very theology they claim to follow (Jesus supposedly taught peace and love amongst humanity), by taking the position that their vicars are exercising ‘freedom of speech’, and that they can not interfere. This obviously pretentious statement is from a vicious, monolithic, feudalistic, hierarchical, and top down institution, which otherwise ruthlessly controls every aspect of the lives of its ecclesiastical employees. This level of hypocrisy should not be surprising as it is well known that the Church of England holds shares in the industrial military complex that specialises in the development of ever more destructive weaponry, etc.

It is no coincidence that Britain First shares the English Defence League’s obsession with attacking mosques in the UK. Christianity has always been antagonistic toward the religion of its founder – Judaism – whilst perpetuating and sustaining anti-Semitism, and also toward Islam, a religion that recognises Jesus Christ as a prophet, if not actually the son of god, etc. The pure racial hatred that has always defined the far-right is being directed and targeted in the UK against obvious migrants, which attacks even those people born in the UK and who live quietly and peacefully. Britain First magnifies race hate through the filter of religious intolerance, whilst appealing to the mythology of British nationalism and patriotism. Britain First recently used a photograph of Princess Diana on their Facebook page which carried the message ‘If you love Princess Diana – donate at this link’. The ‘link’ was to a paypal account that asked for donations so that Britain First could continue its important work of eradicating migrants from the UK and destroy their heathen religions. This statement of far-right stupidity was accompanied by a photograph of over-weight British football supporters performing the straight-arm Hitler salute, whilst wearing ill-fitting jeans and Union Jack T-shirts probably made in China. Britain First, in its attempts to be popular, has even infiltrated animal rights websites and pretended to be interested in the well-being of animals, when in fact many of its members are pro-hunt and linked to the Countryside Alliance. Britain First is co-ordinated by Paul Golding who has openly broken UK law by storming mosques in Bradford, Glasgow, and Luton, as well as organising aggressive street gangs of rabid Christians who apparently ‘patrol’ the Tower Hamlets area of London. Despite the apparent illegality of Britain First, to date the UK police have refused to arrest or prosecute any of its members. This is because of the current atmosphere of intimidation and fear which exists in the UK which does not originate within the peaceful and tolerant migrant communities, but which has been generated by the current far-right government and its Christian lackeys. Britain First proves that it is Christianity that is out of control in the UK, and not the law abiding Islamic community.

The Western Obsession with a ‘Greater Ukraine’


(This article appeared in the New Worker – the newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain – No. 1778, dated the 8.6.14, Pages 6-7)

The United States of America (and her bourgeois allies) has been involved in an attack on modern Russia over the last 6 months that has mimicked Nazi Germany’s military aggression against the Soviet Union in 1941. Both capitalist countries – the USA and Hitler’s Germany – attacked Russia through the Ukraine in an attempt to gain control of her natural resources, and reduce or completely nullify Russian political influence outside of her geographical area. Neither attack has been successful due to the character and strength of the Ukrainians and the Russians (and the implicit character weaknesses of the greedy bourgeois), but it is remarkable how history repeats itself – ‘first as tragedy, second as farce’ – as Marx correctly stated. It is ironic that just after the 69th anniversary of the defeat of fascism by the Soviet Red Army and her Western allies, the USA and UK are actively encouraging and supporting a neo-Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine that has usurped the legitimate government and replaced it with a junta bent on annexing the country permanently to the capitalist and liberal bourgeois politics of Europe and the West. This situation has developed primarily due to the fact that the USA, after successfully working to undermine the USSR in 1991, has continued to pursue a policy of political, economic, and cultural destabilisation in Russia and its surrounding countries. As Russia refuses to outlaw Communism as a political movement, and to distance itself from its Soviet past, the USA (and the UK) live in perpetual fear of a resurgent Communist state, and constantly works to undermine such a development through a relentless propaganda programme coupled with both overt and covert political and military initiatives, etc. The USA would prefer to see an annexed Ukraine as a junior partner member of the European Union (EU), which is nothing more than an extension of US foreign policy designed to dismantle any Socialist welfare provisions within European countries, and in their place instigate the ruthless implementation of free market economics.

Following Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930’s, his book of rightwing delirium entitled Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was extensively published throughout Europe and the world. Hitler, however, made sure that each edition was carefully edited and altered to suit the mentality of its intended audience. This policy was deliberately designed to minimise the offense it would cause if the intended audience really understood what Hitler thought about them, and the inferior place they would occupy when his racialised utopia was eventually established in Europe and the rest of the world. As a consequence, the editions of Mein Kampf available in the UK and the USA omitted the sections containing the strongest and most obvious offensive remarks which lead many prominent intellectuals and leaders to view Hitler in a positive light, assuming that he was a moderate politician trying to make the best of Germany’s bad situation. In 1935, for instance, Winston Churchill (in his book entitled Great Contemporaries) referred to Adolf Hitler as a ‘Genius born of the miseries of Germany’, and went on to say ‘We may yet live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age.’ This book was republished in 1937 with no alterations. Such was Hitler’s plan to deceive, that he ensured that his policy of ‘lebensraum’ (or ‘living space’) was virtually unknown in the West – and yet it served as the basis of his military plans to conquer Europe and was the single motivating force behind his 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler believed that his racially pure German armies would sweep the inferior races out and away from their homelands and that millions of German people would consequently move in and occupy this new space, presumably with no thought whatsoever to how the land was acquired by Nazi Germany, or came to be free of its original inhabitants. Part of this policy, of course, involved the mass transportation of undesirable populations to Concentration Camps for ‘Processing’, a pseudonym for mass murder and eradication.

In 1935, Pierre Laval signed a mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union on behalf of the French government in an attempt to present a united front against Hitler’s aggressive rhetoric and rapid militarisation of Nazi Germany. This action appeared to be half-hearted on behalf of the French who refused to follow this agreement with the usual military convention, thus rendering the agreement with the Soviet Union virtually useless. The situation was compounded by the fact that Pierre Laval was sympathetic toward the rightwing cause, and actively sought a bona fide alliance with Mussolini’s fascist Italy. This situation had come about because the previous French Foreign Minister – Louis Barthou – who was in favour of a broad and functioning Grand Alliance across Europe and the USSR against Nazi Germany – was assassinated in October 1934, and the rightwing Pierre Laval had taken his place. Laval felt compelled to appease the leftwing momentum that had been built through Barthou’s efforts and signed the treaty with the USSR knowing full well that he would never allow France to come to the aid of the USSR in time of war. In the meantime the Western powers developed the policy of appeasement toward Hitler (and Mussolini) and their fascist armies (together with the forces of Imperial Japan) continued their march across the globe.

By 1938, the Nazi German representative Ribbentrop was being invited to Paris for high level diplomatic talks regarding the position France would take if Germany turned her armies eastward, and invaded the USSR. The French failed to condemn the intended Nazi military aggression against the Soviet Union, and in a matter of weeks, influential national newspapers (such as Le Matin and Le Temps) were strongly expressing their support in favour of the formation of a ‘Greater Ukraine’, which would be administered by Ukrainian pro-Nazi sympathisers, and into which large German populations would be allowed to migrate, effectively ethnically cleansing the area of indigenous Ukrainians and destroying the legitimate Communist regime. France did not invent the policy of ‘Greater Ukraine’; indeed Hitler had been working on this idea (and many like it) for years, and was busy experimenting with which particular formulation of fascist intent elicited the least resistance from his potential enemies. It is, however, alarming how the French (and British) press seized upon the opportunity to vigorously support the idea of enhancing the prestige of Nazi Germany whilst simultaneously diminishing that of the Soviet Union. A year later, and now fearing the Nazi German build-up along its borders, France protested Hitler’s apparent preparations for invasion. German negotiators simply pointed out that France had allowed this build-up to develop through its attitude toward the ‘friendship talks’ with Ribbentrop the previous year.

As events transpired, the Nazi war machine invaded the Ukraine in 1941, and laid waste to its vast geographical area, whilst systematically murdering and exterminating large sections of its populations. This devastation also included the encirclement and destruction of vast Soviet military formations, which were, in the early days, unable to prevent the German advance. Out of the Ukrainian population, many traitors and collaborators emerged to assist the Nazi regime and act as local instigators of Nazi atrocities. Sixty-nine years on, the descendents of those collaborators, encouraged by the USA, have taken up arms again in the name of totalitarian hatred, intolerance, and genocide. What is happening today is not new. The Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union – with its resultant 27 million casualties – was most definitely a tragedy of massive proportions, but now history is repeating itself as farce, with the USA trying to force the true pro-Russian Ukrainians to change their historical allegiances away from mother Russia and toward an illusionary capitalist political entity, called the ‘European Union’. Sixty-nine years ago Western Europe envisioned the annexing of the Ukraine into a ‘Greater Ukraine’, which is ironically, nothing less than a radically diminished Ukraine – a Ukraine in name only destined to become the dustbin of Europe. The capitalist West is attempting to make this dream a reality and is financing and arming neo-Nazi thugs to maim and kill the true freedom fighters of the Ukraine – the real descendents of the Soviet Red Army.



%d bloggers like this: