Anti-United Nations (UN) Protests – Dallas (1963)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

US Ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson Attacked by Angry Crowds

President John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963, whilst driving in a motorcade through Dallas, Texas. This tragic incident is well-known and the subject of intense ongoing investigation. What I find interesting is how the true extent of hate-filled, racist and ‘insane’ public opinion in this area has been air-brushed out of the common historical narrative. This seems strange for a country that prides itself on ‘free speech’, and odd that White supremacist opinions be struck from the public record, when such opinions are common-place in the USA. White racism (and the fascism that generates) is just as strong in the US today as it was in 1963. What many do not realise is that President Kennedy was very unpopular throughout the rightwing State of Texas, and that threats against his life were routine.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

President Kennedy was portrayed as a ‘liberal’ who sided with African-Americans in the ‘Civil Rights’ debate, and was opposed to ‘White’ racism. He was also perceived as being ‘leftwing’, and too soft upon ‘Communism’ in general, and the Soviet Union in particular. Travelling through Dallas was a gamble for President Kennedy. There was no doubt that he was unpopular with the crowds, but his wife – Jackie – being a Southern women – for some reason retained a certain and wide-spread popularity amongst these people. Indeed, her popularity was evident even on the day of her husband’s murder.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

On October 24th, 1963, just under a month before Kennedy’s fateful visit to Texas, Adlai Stevenson – the US ambassador to the United Nations – gave a speech in Dallas celebrating the UN inspired ‘World Peace Day’. Stevenson was jeered and immediately set-upon by a rabid crowd of protestors, with some spitting on him, whilst others pelted him with eggs. At one point police had to intercede to protect Stevenson as he was struck about the head with a billboard. This crowd of people represented a certain type of citizen in the US that view the world through a rightwing, religiously inspired mythology that is ‘fascistic’ in nature, and opposed to all notions of world peace, and any ideas of internationalism. What is strange about this protest is that it is clear that the UN – headquartered as it is in New York – has always been a mouthpiece for US foreign policy. Although the UN refers to itself as ‘independent’, it is obvious that UN policy mirrors US policy. The mind-set of these people in the US is so ignorant that they are willing to attack their own ‘capitalistic’ institutions – accusing those who represent their best interests in the world of  being ‘treasonous’ and practising ‘betrayal’. Following this display of blatant rightwingism, President Kennedy was advised to by-pass Texas (even by FDR jr and his wife), but Kennedy was of the opinion that he was everyone’s President and that he had a duty to meet the people there.

Reference:

These Few Precious Days – The Final Year of Jack and Jackie: By Christopher Anderson, Robson Press, (2013), Pages 287-288

Ruby Ridge – White Washing History (1992) – Eric Gardner RIP (2014)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The bourgeois establishment of the police (and other ‘law enforcement’ agencies), was created historically by the middle class, to protect its wealth, and keep the impoverished working class at a distance. The middle class felt this was required, as it had rapidly generated immense wealth (through the brutal exploitation of the working class) during the Industrial Revolution throughout the 18th and 19th centuries (in the UK). The point of the industrialised working class was to work long hours for low pay, and though ‘surplus value’, generated huge profits (including ‘leisure time’) for their middle class over-lords (who own the means of production). Today, whilst presenting the propaganda that the police enforce the law ‘equally’, in fact exactly the same underlying ideology of protecting the privileged middle class from the working class is upheld. Included in this approach is te concept of ‘imperialism’, where all non-White people (regardless of ‘class’) are automatically treated as ‘potential criminals’ and treated as second class citizens. The bourgeois-serving police are brutal enough toward the White working class, of this there is no doubt, but exactly the same police operate a far greater viciousness and brutality against the non-White working class. Make no mistake, the bourgeois police are trained to perceive the working class as the ‘enemy’, and the middle class as the ‘pay masters’. As the notion of the police began in the UK around 1800, and has since spread across the world in support of the capitalist system. Within non-White countries, the police serve the non-White bourgeoisie over he non-White working class in exactly the same manner. This type of law enforcement prevents working class people ‘taking back’ the wealth that they have earned through collective hard labour, but which has been institutionally ‘stolen’ by the middle class. This status quo of wealth flowing from the workers toward the employers is considered ‘normal’ and ‘peaceful’, and any questioning of this exploitative mode of existence is treated as ‘terrorism’, or ‘disruptive’ of the peace.

In 1992, in the USA, a ‘White’ working class family of Christian far-right, Aryan Brotherhood supporting neo-Nazis (that screeched race-hate and genocide against non-White people), clashed with the US marshalls and the FBI (amongst others), for a minor fire-arms offence. Casualties were suffered on both sides, but the manner in which the US ‘White’ establishment supported this family at the time (the far-right survivors received $3.1 million in compensation), is quite incredible and indicative of the sentimentalizing of ‘White Supremacy’ in the US. These religiously inspired, terroristic racists have had numerous sympathetic books written about them, documentaries  produced giving their point of view, and even feature films that a priori present these White supremacists as ‘victims’ of the State. Undoubtedly, the US law enforcement agencies moved against these people because of their association with extremist associations, but it has been proven time and again that many law enforcement agents in the US adhere to exactly the same extremist ideology, and that this racist view of reality is deployed everyday on the streets of America.

What follows are two videos. The first is a sympathetic film about the happenings on Ruby Ridge in 1992 – with survivors given centre stage and their fascist viewpoints brushed-off as a harmless personal choice:

This second video features Mr Eric Gardner (from 2014), an unarmed African-American man who was committing no crime. Mr Eric Garner was murdered by New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo – a man still employed as a police officer. Officer Daniel Pantaleo illegally stopped, and tried to illegally search Eric Gardner. When Eric Gardner declined to be searched (which was his right), officer Daniel Pantaleo then tried to make an illegal arrest. Officer Daniel Pantaleo applied an illegal choke-hold to Eric Gardner’s neck whilst other officers stood by watching and laughing. The civilian bystander (Ramsey Orta) who took the film, did verbally challenge the police officers behaviour, but after he made the video public, the NYPD persecuted him, and eventually had him imprisoned for daring to confront their corruption. Even the paramedics who attended te scene did not make any attempts to help Eric Gardner – automatically siding with the racist NYPD officers. Despite world-wide protests, officer Daniel Pantaleo was not charged and returned to work. Many of his colleagues celebrated – being members of the rightwing ‘Blue Lives Matter’ protest group. The murder of Eric Gardner is racism and class distinction in action – in other words, exactly the same ideology held by the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge.

Zionism is ‘Racism’ (UN Verdict 1975)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Kenyan Jew Denied Access to Israel

Many people get confused with regards to legitimately opposing ‘Zionism’, whilst simultaneously exposing and resisting the broader far-right and its historical policy of ‘anti-Semitism’. Opposing ‘Zionism’ is not ‘anti-Semitic’, but rather a legitimate act  ofanti-racism opposing the fascist policies of the modern State of Israel. In reality, there should be no confusion, as although sharing a common far-right root, there is a clear historical and dialectical difference between ‘Zionism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’. Whereas ‘anti-Semitism’ is probably thousands of years old and denotes an irrational fear and hatred of anyone of the ‘Semite’ ethnicity (which is composed of both Arabs and Jews), ‘Zionism’ dates back only to the late 19th century, and represents an attempt by a certain strata of ‘White’, middle class, secular Jews (living in Germany and elsewhere in Europe), to create a political alliance with the forces of racial ‘White Supremacy’ as advocated not only by the political far-right, but also as practised in reality by many of Europe’s colonial powers. As the Jews responsible for founding ‘Zionism’ did not participate in any practice of Jewish ritual or tradition, and did not attend the synagogue, they were free to contrive a rhetorical distance between their own Jewish heritage and that of the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’, privileging the latter over the former. This development signified the rejection of Jewish Scripture, and the embracing of the ‘Gentile’ ideology of ‘race-hate’.

What this means is that ‘Zionist’ Jews are ‘racist’. Not only are ‘Zionist’ Jews racist, but the Zionist movement itself is necessarily aligned with the forces of far-rightwing ‘anti-Semitism’, as a means to 1) assert secular Jewish ‘White’ racial identity, and 2) rhetorically ‘distance’ White Jews from the ‘Jewish ethnicity’ that the broader political far-right in Europe finds so repugnant. The modern State of Israel, of course, is not built upon the wisdom contained within Jewish Scripture, but is entirely premised upon the strictures of secular (and racially divisive) ‘Zionism’. In other words, the modern State of Israel is a ‘White Supremacist’ State, whose primary victims of ‘Zionist’ inspired racist torture, abuse and murder, are the ‘non-White’ Palestinians. The ‘White’, European ‘Zionist’ Jews who settled in Palestine (and who stole the land from the indigenous Palestinian people), are very much involved in a blatant act of imperial aggression and genocide. However, the racism does not stop there, any ‘non-White’ person is defined by ‘Zionist’ thinking as ‘racially inferior’, and this includes any and all Jews (White or not), who reject ‘Zionism’, the secular premise of the State of Israel, and the continued Israeli violence aimed toward the Palestinians.

The ‘Zionist’ government of Israel routinely imprisons Israeli citizens who refuse military service, or who oppose the abuse of the Palestinians. It is therefore clear that opposition to ‘Zionism’ is a matter of valid ‘anti-racist’ protest, just as it is equally valid to resist ‘anti-Semitism’. There is no contradiction involved in fighting both distinct aspects of ‘White Supremacist’ ideology. Fighting racist ‘Zionism’ is exactly the same as fighting racist ‘anti-Semitism’ as both have their roots firmly within ‘White Supremacist’ thinking. In an attempt to hide its racism, the government of Israel makes half-hearted attempts to welcome ‘non-White’ Jews to Israel, but as can be seen with the appalling treatment of Ethiopian Jews, life for ‘non-White’ people within the racist, Zionist State is just as bad as life in the US, or perhaps the neo-Nazi regime of Western Ukraine. Finally, Trotskyite supposed ‘anti-racist’ protest groups do not include ‘Zionism’ as a form of ‘racism’ – and never protest the murder of Palestinians by Israeli forces. This is because Leon Trotsky – following his exile from the Soviet Union in 1929 – received financial and moral support from a number of Zionist Movements in the USA, that backed and encouraged his one-man rhetorical campaign against the Soviet Union. Perhaps because of his association with Zionism, in 1938, Trotsky called upon all his adherents to support the forces of International Fascism against the USSR (and the capitalist West).

The Rightwing Limitations of Ken O’Keefe

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I was recently asked what I thought of the rhetoric of the former US Marine (and First Gulf War Veteran) Ken O’Keefe. I must confess that I had not heard of him, and so headed to YouTube to spend a few days listening to his public lectures, speeches and media interviews, coupled with reading articles about him. On the surface, and at the first point of contact, Ken O’keefe appears to be truly ‘revolutionary’, but anyone of the left must show caution here. Ken O’keefe is certainly not leftwing, and quite often espouses an open admiration and association with the far-right neo-Nazi cause, once stating that the only thing Adolf Hitler did wrong was to withdraw Nazi Germany from the world banking system. Ken O’Keefe says this because he believes the Jewish holocaust never happened during WWII – and that Adolf Hitler was a victim of a world Jewish conspiracy. Ken O’Keefe claims to support the Palestinian cause (mimicking the attitude of the political left), but in so doing, he mistakenly equates Zionism (i.e. Jewish White Supremacy racism) with all Jewish people, and the Jewish religion. This is completely wrong. Many Jewish people in Israel ‘reject’ Zionism, as do thousands of Jews around the world. Zionism has nothing to do with the religion of Judaism, but was invented by a small number of White (secular) European Jews in the 19th century, and when combined with terrorism, was used as the justifying ideology underpinning the formation of the modern State of Israel and the subsequent (and ongoing) prosecution of the Palestinian people. In fact, so racist has been many of Ken O’keefe’s outbursts, that even Palestinian groups have stated publically that they reject his ‘anti-Semitism’, because they reject all forms of racism. Furthermore, for a man who makes an ample living by lecturing about how he has purportedly ‘seen through’ the conditionality of society and social programming through the US media, he nevertheless has stated that he believed as ‘true’ the supposed events of ‘Tiananmen Square’ in 1989 (reported by the same US media), apparently unaware that Wikileaks has made public the Reagan government’s diplomatic records (to and from the US Embassy in Beijing) stating that ‘nothing happened’ in Tiananmen Square – but that President Reagan ordered that the US and UK media networks were to (falsely) create a narrative that a ‘massacre’ had occurred (a deception supported by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). Of course, Ken O’Keefe is not alone in believing this nonsense (see Billy Bragg), but the fact that a man who presents himself as a revolutionary maverick fully supports the US establishment’s policy of anti-Chinese racism, is indicative of the limitations of his own perception, and exposes the true rightwing (anarchist) nature of his rhetoric. In reality he does not really support Palestine, but uses this situation to justify and support his anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish attitudes – pretending that he is somehow opposing ‘Zionism’. In reality, Ken O’Keefe is as racist as the Zionism he claims to be fighting. Jewish people are not, and have never been the problem – the problem is Zionist racism! Many groups and associations that invite Ken O’keefe to talk are rightwing and a priori anti-Socialist – again mistakenly associating world Judaism with Marxism – as if the two are the same – or that both are somehow deficient! This is pure neo-Nazi rhetoric which must be clearly discerned when listening to the range of Ken O’Keefe’s otherwise anti-establishment outbursts!

Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim

Anti-Zionist Jewish Network

Palestinian ‘Sandra Solomon’ and the Embracing of Eurocentric (Zionist) Racism

ss1

“We are the Arabs. We occupy the land of the Jews. This [Israel] is Jewish land. It’s going to be there for ever and ever.”

The three monotheistic religions of the world all have a common root – Judaism. Both Jesus and Mohammed were Jews prior to their spiritual awakenings that took them on different paths to the that preferred by the mainstream religions of the day. All three religions share exactly the same belief in a single god concept, but disagree on the name of that god, and on how he should be worshipped. All three religions share a pre-modern theology developed over thousands of years, and premised upon the unproven idea that ‘god’ exists. The Jews reacted with religiously inspired violence against Roman occupation of Palestine and Judea, whilst Mohammed led a ‘holy war’ against non-Muslims as a means to spread the Qur’an. Once Christianity became the State Creed of Rome, the so-called ‘Roman Catholics’ initiated a widespread persecution of non-Christians, and attacked and destroyed other Christian groups that did not adhere to ‘official’ church dogma. With the spread of Christianity across Europe, Muslim and Jews soon became victims of Christian pogroms of genocide and destruction. This stabilisation of a politicised church also involved the destruction of any and all ‘pagan’ religions throughout the West, and more or less the same time as the ‘Crusades’ were unleashed by the West upon the Islamic populations of the Middle East.

Scientific Socialism – as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – reveals that the religious mind-set is premised upon a pre-modern and ‘inverted’ state of mind that mistakes thoughts in the head for material reality in the universe. By throwing-off the shackles of religion, a human-being can adopt a ‘non-inverted’ mind, and proceed on a development path of scientific endeavour (designed to assist the entirety of society). In this regard, religion should not be permitted to ‘politically’ control the direction of any modern society due to the pre-modern nature of its theologically informed attitudes (which generally run-counter to the method and practice associated with modern science). Of course, there are modern scientists that profess a religious faith in their private lives, but keep that faith ‘separate’ to their modern academic work. What someone like Sandra Solomon (or her handlers) need to remember is that the Roman Catholic Church actively collaborated with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945, and was complicit in the Holocaust.

Sandra Solomon is either mentally ill, easily led, or a deliberate ‘plant’. Her attitude is that of a ‘White’ supremacist, with the added twist of ‘White’ supremacist ‘Zionism’. Zionism is a virulent, racist and highly destructive ideology, developed by ‘White’ Jews in 19th century Europe, and designed to convince non-Jewish ‘White’ supremacists that European Jews were just like them, and subscribed to the racist idea that all other races were ‘inferior’. Sandra Solomon (made-up name) is not ‘White’, but her rhetoric is one of pure religious-inspired intolerance toward Islam and the Palestinian people. Without a shadow of irony, this woman appears on White supremacist media programmes and as if working from a script written by a privileged White man, she sets about peddling her particular form of religiously inspired intolerance and bigotry – to the delight of the White racists that surround her. The White supremacists wheel Sandra Solomon out to a predominantly ‘White’ audience, to legitimise White racist rhetoric – which she does to varying degrees of success. The point is that all people who look like her are victims of the very ‘White’ racism she espouses, and although she mouths the pro-Israeli and pro-Eurocentric racist viewpoints, it is difficult to take her seriously. Of course, she might be a CIA-plant with ‘no discernible’ history, or she perhaps a very confused woman who thinks that replacing one monotheistic religion with another, is somehow a radical act.  As matters stand, this odd woman is broadcasting religious intolerance – whilst accusing the victims of her intolerance – Islam – as being the ‘true’ harbinger of this religious hatred. I doubt she really understands Islam, for if she did, she would not confuse diverse Islam culture with a unified theological interpretation of the Qur’an.

Film: Arrival (2016) Racism Disguised as ‘Sci-Fi’

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This film quintessentially defines the Obama-era’s support of neo-Nazism in the Ukraine, and prepared the American public for rise of Donald Trump (who won the US Presidency on a ticket of xenophobia and racism).  The 2016 film ‘Arrival’ (which has met with universal acclaim in the Western world, is rejected in Mainland China, Russia and Africa, as these three geographical areas are depicted as ‘inferior’ to the superior ‘White’ world of Eurocentric culture.  This insular ‘naval gazing’ by the West is typical of its imperial and colonial past, and its a priori assumption that it – and it alone – possesses any culture worth having. What seems surprising on the surface is that the film is premised upon the book ‘Arrival’ penned by American-Chinese author Ted Chiang (姜峯楠 – Jiang Fengnan), who was born in New York, in 1967. However, a cursory investigation into his family background reveals that his parents supported the corrupt Nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-Shek prior to the 1949 Communist Revolution, and fled with the discredited remnants of that shattered movement as it invaded the island of Taiwan and took refuge there (protected by the US Navy). His book ‘Arrival’ is in fact an ‘anti-Communist’ tome cleverly disguised as ‘science fiction’. The problem Chiang has is trying to suggest that the ‘aliens’ communicate in a written language premised upon the roundel symbology prevalent within Chinese Ch’an Buddhism – whilst pursuing a pro-capitalist, and pro-Eurocentric agenda. A contradiction that Chiang (and the directors of the film) achieve with considerable success. China, Russia and Somalia are chosen by Chiang to be his ‘inferior’ counter-balances to his ‘superior’ USA (and by indication the renegade island of Taiwan). The anti-Chinese racism is palpable and the central theme of the book (and film) camouflaged by a plot that appears to evolve around the world attempting to communicate with 12 alien ships that arrive at key locations across the globe.  As the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx interprets politicised Judeo-Christian as the operating of a primitive and ‘inverted’ mind-set from a by-gone age (advocating ‘atheism’ as a consequence of the modem era), one of Chiang’s chapters is entitled ‘Hell is the Absence of God’ – an apparent allusion to Chinese Communist policy. What Chiang fails to understand, is that the Judeo-Christian tradition is historically irrelevant to the people of Mainland China, and has no place in its collective psyche. It is Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism that define Chinese spiritual culture – but Chiang probably has an inkling of this -as he ‘stole’ the culture of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism (which depicts the various stages of ‘enlightenment’ with roundel structures) and attempts to pass them off as his own creation. In the meantime, Chiang revels in portraying ‘White’ European culture as ‘superior’ (aided and abetted by African-American actor Forest Whittaker in the film), and Chinese culture as being the product of corruption and irrationality. The book and film are a masterpiece of Eurocentric racism – but in true missionary fashion – are created by a man whose own ancestry has been brutalised and oppressed by this very same racism he is perpetuating and supporting. The example of Ted Chiang should be studied very carefully, and an understanding gained of how people from the demeaned ethnicities can co-operate with their demeaners – and delude themselves into thinking that this exchange is both ‘equal’ and ‘logical’. Finally, in the UK at the moment, copies of the DVD of ‘Arrival’ are being sold with a ‘free’ copy of the book to ensure that the ‘sci-fi’ ordinance receive the ‘full’ racist message.

How White Racism Sustains the Falun Gong

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Western Falun Gong Practitioner Collapses from Ill-Health! – New York (2016)

The Falun Gong is basically a theological fabrication created in the West, and deployed within Mainland China. The Falun Gong is as alien to the average Chinese person as is Christianity, and comes across as a bizarre ‘racialised’ mimicry of Chinese culture. In this regard, the Falun Gong is a continuation of the racialised, Western misrepresentation of Chinese culture, prevalent throughout Western entertainment and media. The greatest victory for this US (CIA) fabrication is the recruiting of ethnic Chinese frontmen as a means to deliver this perverse collection of Eurocentric imaginings to the Chinese populations around the globe. As a dangerous cult, the Falun Gong operates like any other cult operating in the West. Falun Gong teachings are designed to ‘strip’ an adherent of his or her individuality, and replace it with a ‘blind obedience’ to the whims of the psychopath Li Hongzhi – the ethnic Chinese frontman the CIA chose to represent this delinquent fabrication (in this regard, Li Hongzhi more or less equals the 14th Dalai Lama’s position of serving US foreign policy). With the stripping of individuality, the Falun Gong psychologically and physically ‘enslave’ the adherent and steal their income, savings and any property they might own. These cult victims are coerced into ‘giving-up’ all their previous material property, and to abandon their families and friends (because these people often possess the required influence to extract an individual from the cult). Once reduced to the state of automaton, the Falun Gong adherent (whose critical faculties have been ‘suspended’ through brain-washing) is now ready to do the illegal and immoral bidding of Li Hongzhi and his henchmen.

The ideology of the Falun Gong mimics the theology of Judaism and Christianity with regard to its own self-imposed (and wholly ‘imagined’) status of being ‘special’, and the subject of ‘persecution’ because of that assumed specialness. As Li Hongzhi commits the illegal act of psychologically and physically abusing his ‘disciples’, he is guilty in virtually all legal codes worth their salt, of deliberately ‘grooming’ men, women and children to pursue his perverse political, financial and cultural agendas. This is the first and foremost ‘criminal’ act of the Falun Gong. It is closely followed by these brain-washed foot soldiers being deployed throughout society to recruit new members (to replace those who are arrested and imprisoned, and those who escape or who are rescued) and to commit the further criminal activity of attacking the sovereign State of Mainland China and all its resources. Turning public opinion against Mainland China is one of the foundational aims of Li Hongzhi, who does this by falsely portraying China as ‘evil’ and himself as ‘good’ (again, symbolic of the Judeo-Christian origins of the Falun Gong). This policy is pursued as a means to destroy the ‘Communist’ system in China, and replace it with a US-dominated, free economic capitalist system. Just as Christ’s body was ‘destroyed’ by the Roman authorities, so do the Falun Gong create a similar mythos of persecution. Just as Li Hongzhi propagates the lie of ‘eternal life’, he also manufactures the further non-truth that states that the Falun Gong practitioners are ‘persecuted’ in China, and their organs ‘harvested’ after execution. This lie rings well with Western ears, conditioned as they are by Judeo-Christian theology, but sounds bizarre to Chinese ears. The truth of the matter is that the Falun Gong was never popular in China, and is not popular today. Since its banning in 1999, ordinary Chinese people are vigilant against its destructive presence. Whenever the Falun Gong Infiltrate Mainland China and commit illegal acts, they are tried and imprisoned and never executed (in fact, there is not a single record of any executions involving Falun Gong felons). From a Chinese cultural perspective, organs would never be ‘harvested’ from an ‘executed’ criminal due to the ‘bad’ qi energy associated with the executed individual (which is interpreted as corrupt, dysfunctional and unhealthy). Such an activity is probably more abhorrent in China than in the West – where its notion was first invented and applied to modern China.

Gullible Westerners (and sympathetic diasporic Chinese people), often seek a ‘good cause’ to support, because this is the self-righteous basis of the Judeo-Christian mind-set. The more ‘emotive’ the subject matter of the cause, the better, because such hyperbolic issues attract followers and money, and are more or less self-sustaining. Westerners particularly ‘latch’ onto the mythology of the Falun Gong, because it has its basis within the Western tradition of anti-Chinese racism. Whilst unthinkingly condemning China, these mistaken Westerners are simply perpetuating the racist policies of their fore-fathers – and generally speaking, do not care. Westerners who are racist toward China will support the self-hating Falun Gong to a very high degree (even though such support is obviously illogical), because it is seen as a ‘legitimate’ means to practice anti-Chinese racism in a thoroughly self-righteous and self-justifying manner. This racialisation of China is the Falun Gong’s greatest strength in the West – as without the support of Western racists, the Falun Gong would simply be exposed for the cult that it is, and quietly disappear into the dustbin of history – where it belongs.

Alternative Right – Nazism for the 21st Century

The so-called ‘Alternative Right’ in the US is in fact simply a new wave of populism amongst the White Supremacy Movement (that has been encouraged into the mainstream by the election of Donald Trump – a President that openly expresses racist attitudes and opinons).  This movement has its ideological origination in Adolf Hitler’s book entitled ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle), which is a tome designed to facilitate Hitler’s anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist rants, and make those rants easily accessible to the general public.  This book provides an incoherent ideological framework for the political movement known as ‘National Socialism’, that binds its lack of underlying logic and consistency, with the requirement to ‘lie’ to the masses, as a means to politically manipulate their opinions and choices toward racism and hate. One vital point that must be understood, is that ‘National Socialism’ is not the ‘Scientific Socialism’ as devised by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the 19th century. Hitler identified Marxism as his number one enemy, and his hatred of Marxism led to his disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.  The problem Hitler had when he came to power in 1933, was that Marxism (and Scientific Socialism) was very popular amongst the German working Class.  Hitler had to appeal to the collective instinct of the German working class, whilst quietly moving German society ‘away’ from any and all forms of Marxist influence.  His compromise was to use the word ‘Socialism’ in an entirely new (and anti-Marxist) manner.  Whereas Marxism rejects all forms of racism as a bourgeois sham designed to keep the working class disunited (replacing it with ‘internationalism’), Hitler rejected ‘internationalism’, and instead advocated a blatant ‘nationalism’ premised entirely upon racial identity as defined by the State. National Socialism is not Marxist Scientific Socialism or Communism – it is the exact opposite.  National Socialism (or ‘Nazism’), is in fact simply a form of non-liberal democratic capitalism, whereby a social-military elite take over society and operate a limited re-distribution of wealth toward the general populace, whilst continuing to exploit that populace and deprive it of any real political power.  Nazism is a totalitarian, capitalist dictatorship that oppresses the working class by mobilising the entire population for conquest through war – this is how Hitler transformed Germany and eradicated unemployment.  Originally, Nazi Concentration Camps were places where the German unemployed were sent to work ‘freely’ for the Nazi State prior to being conscripted into the Nazi military – only later were they used as extermination camps for German Jews, Communists, Romany, Gays, the Disabled, and political dissidents, etc.  Mass murder was the preferred method through which Adolf Hitler dealt with the problem of ‘diversity’ within Nazi Germany. Wealth production was solved by invading over countries and ‘stealing’ that country’s wealth, resources and land.  After ethnically cleansing and exterminating millions of racially impure people from the lands surrounding Germany, Hitler then moved racially pure German citizens into these areas, occupying the homes of those who had previously fell victim to Nazi troops. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany existed to solve the problem of ‘diversity’ as Hitler perceived it. For National Socialists, ‘diversity’ is the root of all evil because it feeds into the non-racial ‘internationalism’ advocated by Marxism.  As Nazism is an extreme form of capitalism in decay, Marxism naturally opposes such an ideology – as can be seen by the all-out war the Soviet Union pursued to finally crush it in Europe during WWII (at a terrible price in human life).  Nazism continues the oppression of the working class, and prevents the working class within a particular country, linking-up with other chapters of the working class around the world, and over-throwing the bourgeoisie that exploits it.  Hitler’s ruling elite represented nothing other than militarised adventure capitalism.

Crimes of Cinema: The Soviet Story (Edvins Snore – 2008)

20102232342-47376415

If you had any doubts that the European Union (EU) was a rightwing, totalitarian political entity (and natural successor to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime), look no further than this film. In 2008, the EU sponsored film entitled ‘The Soviet Story’ was issued, with a soundtrack that included its script rendered into 30 different languages (designed to facilitate the spread of its anti-Soviet propaganda throughout the language groups of Europe and beyond).  Specifically, this film was funded by the sinister Union European of Nations (UEN) – a rightwing and far-rightwing grouping of nations within the European Union.  As of June, 2009, the Member States of the EU that were also members of UEN were Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia.  UEN is an EU accommodation of far-right MEP’s from its constituent nations.  The EU has no comparable ‘leftwing’ grouping for MEP’s elected from the Socialist or Communist left.  This is because the EU is essentially an imperialist adventure that manifests the free market economics and anti-Communist politics of the USA (implemented via Berlin and the European Parliament). The ‘Producer’ of this film was one ‘Edvīns Snore’, a member of the far-right Latvian political entity ‘Popular Front of Latvia’ (Latvian: Latvijas Tautas fronte), an ultra-nationalist party premised upon Latvian White Supremacy and the production of anti-Soviet revisionist history.  The Popular Front of Latvia mirrors other similar far-right, fascistic movements that were encouraged and financed by the USA in surrounding countries (such as Estonia and Lithuania, etc), initially as a project to bring-down the Soviet System.  After 1991, these parties (and their political descendents in the region), have been used as a means to attack and de-stabilise modern Russia, and to encourage a neo-Nazi uprising in the Ukraine. This is the historical and political background to the revisionist film ‘The Soviet Story’, which follows the classic far-right policy of conflating Hitler’s Nazi regime with the Soviet Communist System, as a means to turn the international working class away from embracing Scientific Socialism, and to continue within its existence of bourgeois servitude, disunity, and racialised aggression.  A working class that is disunited, is fodder for far-right recruitment.  Instead of blaming the bourgeois class for all the suffering and inequalities the workers suffer (Scientific Socialism), the far-right encourages the workers to blame one another, and to separate into competing ‘nationalist’ or ‘racial’ groups. As long as the workers fight one another, they can never unite long enough to collectively confront the true origin of all their woes – the bourgeoisie.  The Soviet Story is far-right mythology funded by EU (and US) money, and is an ‘ahistorical’ approach to Soviet history.  This is why it has won no ‘real’ or ‘significant’ academic accolades outside of the rightwing regimes of Latvia and Estonia.  It presents a skewed version of history that seeks to ‘distance’ (and therefore ‘legitimise’) the modern political far-right in Europe, from its historical roots within Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime (whilst continuing to pursue the same racist ideology). As the far-right utilises the ‘inverted’ mind-set of the bourgeoisie (because it is a manifestation of capitalism in decline), its approach to its own history is dishonest and illogical. Although the onus is to brutalise and destroy, the far-right also attempts to simultaneously appeal to the bourgeois sense of hypocritical morality – where pogroms within polite society are simply not tolerated (but are otherwise expected to be carried-out behind the scenes). To this end, the far-right misuses the poorly educated and misled working class to commit its ongoing crimes against humanity.  The Soviet Story is such a crime.  It is a crime against the USSR, the Soviet peoples, and the modern Russians who are its descendents.  It is also a project of ‘disrespect’ aimed at all the millions of innocent victims of Adolf Hitler’s regime during WWII.  The Soviet Story is a far-rightwing ‘racist’ lie, perpetuated by Eastern European neo-Nazi White Supremacists that were created in their respective countries by the invading Nazi troops of Adolf Hitler’s destructive regime.  People like Edvins Snore perpetuate the far-rightwing inversion that the Nazi invasions (and subsequent holocausts) committed in Eastern European countries, were in fact acts of ‘liberation’, and that the Soviet Red Army ‘liberations’ of these very same countries, (secured at a terrible price in Soviet troops and civilians), were actually acts of ‘invasion’.  The Soviet re-building of these countries involved the Soviet providing of food, hospitals, schools, libraries, benefit systems, and factories, etc, as well as recreational facilities, and other progressive works, and these progressive and positive Soviet acts of ‘internationalism’ are presented by Edvins Snore as the true ‘holocaust’.  Edvins Snore and his ilk are symbolic of workers historically ‘damaged’ by the constant oppression they live under, as perpetuate by the bourgeois system, which they simply do not possess the progressive education to ‘see’ beyond, and so they fully conform to it. Those who are so inclined may watch this film as a means to understand how the far-right, inverted bourgeois mind-set operates, when given free-rein by the capitalists.  The Soviet Story, of course, is exactly NOT ‘The Soviet Story’, but rather the history of the success of Hitler’s Nazi ideology as it continues to permeate the institutes of the US and the EU, and misrepresent all historical resistance to it.  Make no mistake about it, the Soviet Union was a solid Socialist bulwark against the far-right and highly destructive ideology of Adolf Hitler.  This is reflected in the Soviet casualties for the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) which range between 27 – 40 million dead men, women and children.  This is a shocking price to pay to keep Europe free of fascism, and it is particularly indicative of the moral degradation of the EU that it has to plunge to such depths as openly supporting the far-right, in its pathetic attempts to re-write history.

Why No England Football Team Flags?

download (1)

Probably around 14 years ago, I remember Nick Griffin – the leader of the racist British National Party (BNP) – wish the ‘racially pure’ national Danish team ‘good luck’against the England nation football team – which he viewed as ‘deficient’ due to what he termed its ‘high percentage’ of ‘Black’ players that had rose to prominence in UK professional football.  It is clear that British ‘nationalists’ (which includes UKIP and the odious Britain First), are of course, motivated entirely by ‘racism’, and that although this racism is firmly rooted within the working class support for local football teams (both non-league and league), it does not follow that ‘white’ English racists naturally support the England national squad – due entirely to its multicultural nature.  In South London, for instance, I have routinely witnessed Chelsea football supporters (often out with their children) singing racist songs and intimidating non-white people on the local trains.  Last St George’s Day, whilst taking the family dog (Xena – the German Shepherd) for an early morning walk, I was disturbed to see a round 4 or 5 George Crosses (and a WWII style Union Jack) hanging out of some windows (although by no means everywhere in West Sutton).  I say ‘disturbing’ because to me (and others) these flags are making a ‘racial’ statement of white supremacy premised upon a sham notion of what it means to be ‘English’ (which, of course, in this instance is conflated with being ‘white’).  Although ostensibly a ‘Christian’ symbol, I doubt many of these people have seen the inside of a church for many a year!  This is why the racists in the UK use the notion of St George’s Day not to celebrate British multiculturalism, but to make a statement of exclusionary ‘whiteness’.  I thoroughly reject this definition of ‘Britishness’ defined by the most ignorant and bigoted amongst us.  I find it curious that the England national football team is playing the best I have seen it play for decades, and yet whilst walking down my street recently, I see no George Crosses or Union Jacks hanging from the windows that fervently supported St George earlier in the year!  Why is this?  Could it be that the ‘white’ racists who support the BNP and UKIP, etc, refuse to acknowledge a multicultural England squad simply because of the skin-colour of many of it fine players?

%d bloggers like this: