All European Countries Should Leave the EU!

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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

UK: A Tale of Two Disappearances Under New Labour

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

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

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

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

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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.

A Warning About Labour

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Although many quite rightly concentrate on Peter Mandelson or Tony Blair as the architects of ‘New’ Labour, in reality these were only frontmen for Philip Gould who preferred to keep just out reach of the limelight. Gould represented a movement within the Labour Party away from the traditional Socialistic policies that cared for working-class – even if those huddled masses refused to vote in local and national elections. The Labour Party had historically taken the Marxist concept of ‘Labour’ as its defining motivation and political direction, and had risen in popularity in the UK as Lenin’s Bolshevik ‘Communist’ Movement moved ever closer to power in Russia (between 1903-1917). Following the October Revolution in 1917, the Labour Party in the UK not only achieved electoral success with MPs sitting in the House of Commons, but looked more and more like a political party ready for national governance. It is one of those ironies of history that saw Labour’s electoral success throughout the industrial heartlands, coincide with its (essentially) middle class leadership moving ever further away from the International Communist Ideal. This was the Labour Party attempting to represent the ordinary working-class people of the UK, whilst trying not to offend or disrupt the bourgeois status quo. For decades Labour advocated Socialistic policies whilst reconfirming its commitment to capitalism and the middle-class domination of the UK. The Philip Gould-era represented a marked reversal of this approach which saw the Labour Party abandon the working-class and embrace the middle-class – the class of its leadership. Out went welfare provision and healthcare ‘free at the point of us’, and in came privatisation, subsistence wages and a resorting to a ruthless Social Darwinism that blamed the ordinary and the poor for their beleaguered birth circumstances. This ‘New’ Labour approach nolonger viewed the working-class as ‘oppressed’ by middle-class power and intrigue, but rather as the victims of its own laziness and malaise. The working-class was condemned to suffer just as long as it collectively refused to conform to middle-class values – regardless of any injustice or inequality that might entail. To this end, Philip Gould barrowed the US Democratic Party’s policies of Bill Clinton (and his adviser David Morris), which had abandoned the working-class in 1996 (cutting welfare and healthcare to secure Clinton’s popularity with the bourgeoisie), and pandered instead to the vagaries of the middle-class floating voter. This neo-liberal and neo-conservative approach had its origins in 1920’s America, through the thinking of Edward Bernays (the nephew of Sigmund Freud), who invented modern consumer capitalism by psychologically manipulating the working-class to purchase through ‘desire’ rather than through the traditional ‘need’. With the help of Anna Freud (Sigmund Freud’s daughter) after WWII, Edward Bernays assisted the US Government in using the techniques of Freudian Psychoanalysis to turn the US working-class away from Socialism, and to associate the Soviet Union with everything that was ‘evil’. This effectively meant that the working-class in the US was brain-washed through media and education to dis-associate itself with the very ideology of Socialism that represented its best class interests. Edward Bernays and Anna Freud managed to convince the US working-class that its best interests lay in being continuously exploited by the middle-class, and that this was normal and beyond question. Although much slower in manifesting in the UK, this approach to mass brain-washing was supported by Matthew Freud (great grandson of Sigmund Freud). It was not until the ascendance of Tony Blair to the Labour Party leadership in 1994 that the thinking of Edward Barneys infiltrated the Labour Party through the influence of Philip Gould. Tony Blair – being a Tory – facilitated this profound and deadly shift in Labour policy. Gordon Brown was no different and in a meeting between Labour Party ministers and members of the Audit Commission in 2009, ‘New Labour revealed its ‘secret’ plans to privatise the NHS and dismantle the Welfare State. This was to be carried-out over a 15-year period, with the Audit Commission tasked with delivering this transformation and selling its dreadful consequences to an unsuspecting general public. The thinking was that everyone in the UK would be legally forced into possessing a government-backed private healthcare insurance plan. Although highly regulated in its initial stage (as a means to ensure everybody received at least basic healthcare), ’New’ Labour had promised the private health industry that eventually all the regulation would be removed once a ‘free’ NHS had been abolished. Before any of this could be initiated, the Tories and LibDems were elected in 2010, and the Audit Commission was abolished. Then ‘New’ Labour’s policy of abolishing welfare and healthcare was embarked upon without restraint by the ‘Coalition’ without any regulation (or care) for its debilitating effects upon the UK’s population. This policy ultimately led to the Tories and LibDems being found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity by the UN in 2016, for the deaths of around 120,000 UK citizens. Today, with the Tories currently forming a minority government, nothing has changed. The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has promised to return the NHS to its former glory should it manage to win an election, through a manifesto that rejects raising taxation or re-instigating a comprehensive Welfare System.

 

What is Fabricated News?

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The mainstream media in the West represents bourgeois political and cultural views which not only exclude the working class, but also serve to portray that class in a negative and underhand manner. The bourgeois media ‘tells’ the working class what to think and how to view events, whilst continuously disempowering that class and preventing the apparatus of the media from being used in a substantive proletariat manner. Where a distinctly leftwing newspaper does exist, it is starved of funds and mainstream exposure, and kept very much on the periphery of the public perception. The irony is that the bourgeois media exists to represent a privileged minority within society that retains political, fiscal and cultural control of society from generation to generation, whilst the leftwing media (although portrayed as a ‘minority’ interest) in fact represents the majority of ordinary people living within a capitalist society. This is the dishonest and topsy-turvy world of the bourgeois media.

The bourgeois media lies all the time as a means to misrepresent what might be called ‘neutral’ events happening in the world, so that these events are presented only from an unquestioned middle class perspective. This might be termed the ‘base lie’ from which all the other dishonesty and sleight of hand emerges. Having established this skewed (and anti-working class) view of reality, it is a simple matter of perceptual manipulation to extend this narrative from a distorted view of material events, to fabrication of immaterial events. Or to describe it another way, the bourgeois practice of ‘inventing’ news stories that have either not existed, not happened as stated, or a combination of both these states. A material fact, for instance, might well be augmented by two immaterial falsehoods, with the falsehoods entirely defining the ‘event’ and steering the minds of those who ‘consume’ the news into a definite direction of interpretation. Of course, another type of reporting involves an entirely fabricated news event, whereby there is no central fact to hang the bourgeois lies from. This type of manipulation has intensified from within the United States since the end of WWII, and usually involves the generation and sustaining of entirely false news narratives designed to interpret world events. Lies for mass consumption issued by the mainstream media, constituting a kind of ‘fact’ religion.

Today, ‘fake’ news refers to the bourgeois practice of issuing entirely ‘false’ news reports, whilst ‘disinformation’ tends to be a ‘misrepresentation’ of a central fact – with both types of distorted news spread more or less instantaneously through social media (via the internet). The Judeo-Christian concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ remains a central tenet of the Bourgeois State, with the idea that the working class must be kept in a position of fear and apprehension by some ‘unseen’ or ‘obscure’ enemy – ‘somewhere’ other ‘there’ – and be ready to ‘fight’ for their country if the need arises (warfare is good for capitlism). This is why racism and nationalism are used hand in hand with religious faith as a means to prevent the working class in one country from developing an ‘Internationalist’ class consciousness, and cognitively ‘linking’ with working class people from around the world. Such a transformation would render the Bourgeois State obsolete, and this is why the middle class must keep an iron grip on the mainstream media and prevent any development of Socialist thought within it. Hatred of all difference, coupled with the deliberate misrepresentation of those differences is not only an unnatural state to maintain, but it is unscientific in the sense that it contradicts the driving force behind human evolution.

 

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.

The Labour Party and Social Fascism in the UK

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Although the British rightwing and far-right political establishment thrives on violence and racism – using the working class to hate, murder and kill both within society and on the battlefield, I want to talk about another type of ‘social fascism’ which emerged with the Labour Party of 1945, and which has manifested throughout the numerous governmental departments that administer the British NHS and Welfare State. This is usually a ‘taboo’ subject, whereby everything the Labour Party does is assumed to be in the best interests of the working class it claims to represent (i.e. ‘labour’), but this is obviously untrue. The ‘new’ Labour Party of 1997-2010, of course, was rightwing and distinctly anti-working class, but the Labour Party has only had a nodding acquaintance with ‘Socialism’ since its inception at the end of the 19th century. As more and more bourgeois intellectuals rose-up through the Labour ranks, it was realised that ‘Marxism’ was a direct threat to their presence and domination, and so Marxists were expelled from the Labour Party. The Labour Party today, despite being supported by the Communist Party of Britain – considers the CPB to be a ‘proscribed’ political party that does not act in the best interests of the Labour Party. The CPB certainly does not behave in a manner that benefits the Labour Party, as it unquestionably supports the coming to power of the working class, and does not support the bourgeoisie.

The Labour Party, wherever it is influenced by Marxism, is generally polluted with ‘Trotskyism’ and not ‘Marxist-Leninism’. There is a distinct opinion that Jeremy Corbyn – the most obviously leftwing Labour Leader for decades – is in fact a Trotskyite (due to his criticisms of Communist China, and his failure to condemn the Trotskyite ‘Militancy’ that once dominated Labour activism). Following the disastrous 2017 General Election – the Tories still hold power, whilst the NHS and Welfare State continue to be dismantled and sold-off. Brexit is unfolding into an exercise with the UK ‘re-defining’ how it remains in the EU. All this is happening whilst the Labour ideologues trumpet vitriolic propaganda that achieves nothing in practical terms. In the meantime, the British working class continues to be oppressed by the DWP and Social Services – both relics from the founding of the 1948 Welfare State. These governmental bodies – under the apparent remit of ‘helping’ the poor and the vulnerable – actually treats these people with an apparent disrespect, and in many cases, a complete disregard for the law. The British working class is routinely oppressed by the very agencies that the Labour Party developed to administer its 1948 re-distribution of wealth. These governmental departments destroy life for individuals and families, and only exist to pressure the vulnerable and the poor to be off of welfaresupport. The Labour Party appears to have established these governmental departments as a means to ‘mirror’ the despicable Church Authorities they replaced. For the workers to be ‘controlled’, they must be humiliated at every turn. Is this not the very definition of ‘social fascism’?

Decoding Bourgeois Science

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Bourgeois science is the product of the controlling class that currently dominates Western society. The bourgeoisie control society and therefore provide the dominant ideas of the age. Bourgeois science emerged out of Judeo-Christian theology, and developed an entirely new way of viewing  the world. This process is generally perceived as a historical extension of ancient and classical Greek thought, although bourgeois science is much more advanced, in as much as it has proven its hypotheses through devising logical experimentation. The problem is that the thought community that preserves, and perpetuates bourgeois science is more or less fully divorced from the real world as experienced by the working class. Bourgeois science exists in a rarefied world that is elitist and exclusive in nature (i.e. ‘alienating’) – designed only to serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system it has established. As a consequence, the pristine logic of bourgeois science has become enshrined in a type of ‘rational’ mysticism that is designed to befuddle and confuse anyone not of a middle class background. This is because bourgeois science, at its core, remains fully ruptured from the material world it seeks to understand, define and explain. In-short, bourgeois science has no direct association with ‘labour’, other than in the fully exploitative sense. Workers may use their labour to produce scientific equipment – but at no time is it explained to the worker what the equipment does, and why it is important. It is assumed a priori that although the worker obviously possesses the ability to manufacture advanced scientific equipment, he or she simultaneously does not possess the intellectual ability to ‘understand’ the bourgeois scientific method. For the worker to ‘decode ‘bourgeois science, its findings, methods and techniques must be re-explained in a practical manner, directly related to the ‘real’ world as the worker experiences it. This is science devoid of its elitist elements and made universal in scope. The working class must find new ways to transcend the bourgeois logical mysticism that permeates that type of science.

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

Tank Museum (Dorset)

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

20170826_133404

20170826_133322

20170826_133337

20170826_133433

20170826_133505

20170826_135255

20170826_134344

20170826_133410

20170826_133814

20170826_133837

20170826_133827

20170826_134027

20170826_134034

20170826_134054

20170826_134136

20170826_134149

20170826_135025

20170826_135036

20170826_135051

20170826_140121

20170826_135750

20170826_135847

20170826_135932

 

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

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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

Customerservice@tfl.gov.uk

24 August 2017

Dear Mr Chan-Wyles

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

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

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

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

Some fares increase while others remain unchanged.

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

 

Maria La Tegola

Customer Service Adviser

Transport for London Customer Services

%d bloggers like this: