Every year at Yuletide, the State owned UK television station, Channel 4, mirrors the State owned BBC, with an exercise in propaganda and mind pollution, known as the Queen's Speech. The BBC airs the pathetic piffle of the head of the Windsor family, whilst Channel 4 has an alternative queen airing more of the same.
This year's drivel from the head of state, and owner of the people of the UK (we are Subjects, not Citizens, we are her property), was as follows:
At this time of year, few sights evoke more feelings of cheer and goodwill than the twinkling lights of a Christmas tree....The popularity of a tree at Christmas is due in part to my great-great grandparents, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. After this touching picture was published, many families wanted a Christmas tree of their own, and the custom soon spread....In 1949, I spent Christmas in Malta as a newly-married naval wife. We have returned to that island over the years, including last month for a meeting of Commonwealth leaders; and this year I met another group of leaders: The Queen's Young Leaders, an inspirational group, each of them a symbol of hope in their own Commonwealth communities....Gathering round the tree gives us a chance to think about the year ahead - I am looking forward to a busy 2016, though I have been warned I may have Happy Birthday sung to me more than once or twice. It also allows us to reflect on the year that has passed, as we think of those who are far away or no longer with us. Many people say the first Christmas after losing a loved one is particularly hard. But it's also a time to remember all that we have to be thankful for.
It is true that the world has had to confront moments of darkness this year, but the Gospel of John contains a verse of great hope, often read at Christmas carol services: 'The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it'.
One cause for thankfulness this summer was marking 70 years since the end of the Second World War. On VJ Day, we honoured the remaining veterans of that terrible conflict in the Far East, as well as remembering the thousands who never returned.
The procession from Horse Guards Parade to Westminster Abbey must have been one of the slowest ever, because so many people wanted to say 'thank you' to them.
At the end of that war, the people of Oslo began sending an annual gift of a Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square. It has 500 light bulbs and is enjoyed not just by Christians but by people of all faiths, and of none. At the very top sits a bright star, to represent the Star of Bethlehem....The custom of topping a tree also goes back to Prince Albert's time. For his family's tree, he chose an angel, helping to remind us that the focus of the Christmas story is on one particular family.
For Joseph and Mary, the circumstances of Jesus's birth - in a stable - were far from ideal, but worse was to come as the family was forced to flee the country. It's no surprise that such a human story still captures our imagination and continues to inspire all of us who are Christians, the world over.
Despite being displaced and persecuted throughout his short life, Christ's unchanging message was not one of revenge or violence but simply that we should love one another.
Although it is not an easy message to follow, we shouldn't be discouraged; rather, it inspires us to try harder: to be thankful for the people who bring love and happiness into our own lives, and to look for ways of spreading that love to others, whenever and wherever we can.
One of the joys of living a long life is watching one's children, then grandchildren, then great grandchildren, help decorate the Christmas tree. And this year my family has a new member to join in the fun!...The customary decorations have changed little in the years since that picture of Victoria and Albert's tree first appeared, although of course electric lights have replaced the candles....There's an old saying that 'it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness'....There are millions of people lighting candles of hope in our world today. Christmas is a good time to be thankful for them, and for all that brings light to our lives....I wish you a very happy Christmas.
The propaganda is there for all to see. The usual irrelevant rubbish about what the queen and her parasitic family have been doing is of no interest to anyone other than a sycophantic monarchist who enjoys living at the mercy of the Ruling Class and taking scraps from the table while even the queen's dogs eat better than most native people.
The queen stated that the infant Jesus had to flee for his life. This is according to the Jewish authors of the New Testament, and is fantasy. The alleged massacre of the first born simply didn't happen. There are no historical records for it. The point of this part of the queen's piffle is to make us feel sad for the fake refugees who are destroying Europe and being aided and abetted by the Christian church.
Now, accepting for a moment that Jesus was a refugee (which is nonsense), he was taken to safety (so the story goes) by his parents. The military-aged men entering Europe are leaving their women and children behind them. To compare the Jesus story of a family making their way to safety, with aggressive foot-soldiers of the globalists conquest of the Middle East, now being used to destabilise Europe to as to soften it up for its turn in global subservience, is clearly disingenuous.
The queen continues with drivel about how Jesus preached love and help for others, clearly planting the idea that we must throw open our borders, must what little we have in the way of job security and housing for them to enjoy, must pay taxes through the nose and betray our wildlife by allowing the countryside to be built over - it's what Jesus would have wanted, apparently.
The mention of the Second World War ties in with this. The rationale is that we must let our homelands be invaded because to do otherwise is to be like the Nazis of Germany who gassed 6 million Jews. The idea goes like this - not loving your enemies leads to racism, racism leads to gas chambers. Well, there were no gas chambers, 6 million Jews were not murdered. 60 million non-Jews were killed at the command of the international finance parasites, almost exclusively headed by Jews, and our countries were then opened to population replacement and total capitalism - which is something that we are supposed to be grateful for.
Racism is a nonsense word used to describe any belief by the present population that it is not a good thing to be submitted to loss of work, loss of home, loss of land, loss of family, loss of childhood for those whose lands are irrevocably changed. It is racist to be anti-globalist.
Abdullah Kurdi is a consummate liar. He claims that he fled Syria, entered Turkey, then almost immediately left for Greece by boat. In reality, he was in Turkey for years. He lived in a safe country, free from war, and his family were safe. He decided to go to Greece because he wanted new teeth and he knew that he could get whatever he wanted from the generous welfare states of Europe. Like most of the so-called refugees coming to Europe by this route, he did not need to leave the safe nation of Turkey to cross the Mediterranean to achieve safety - he already had safety where he was.
Kurdi was (and probably still is) a people smuggler. He earned money arranging for fake refugees to get to Europe. He put his family on an unsafe boat, knowing that the soft Europeans would allow him to be reunited with them once they arrived in one of our countries. The pathetic excuse for a human being risked the lives of his family, including his son, to secure an easy life for himself. The risk paid off - even though his family are dead - and he got everything he wanted. He is typical of the scum of the Earth entering Europe.
Channel 4 has joined with their fellow state-owned colleagues in the BBC, in producing propaganda to tug on the heart strings of Europeans befuddled by decades of liberal mind pollution and centuries of weak Christianity. We are supposed to treat terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, mohammedan fanatics and all manner of criminal scum who are flooding in to Europe as our equals, and the constant coverage of the 'poor immigrants' in Calais, who 'only want a better life' is a part of the attack on our senses. The Christmas Messages reinforce this.
An excellent picture showing free loading military age parasites sipping coffee while European soldiers go off to fight wars for them, really does sum up what is going on here. They will not lift a finger to help their women and children, but they will cross a continent to get whatever free stuff they can lay their hands on. Many are sleeper terrorists, all are active promoters of the global mohammedan genocide of free humanity. The mass migration is the will of the Ruling Class who have always sought to destroy our people.
SWPE is a party of action. Prior to the unification of the FWL and BSP, the FWL was a movement founded on an urge to get into the real world and make a difference. It is gratifying to see that those who came from the BSP prior to the merger have fully joined in the struggle to push for real change now, rather than theorising about how change can be fomented in an unspecified future. Of course, that is not to devalue the importance of ideology and vision. The unified SWPE has the best of the qualities of the organisations which came together to form it.
December has been a month with a definite purpose. Our activists have taken to the streets to fight the plague of paedophilia. The destruction of childhood by predators who lack even the most basic appreciation of humanity is such an outrage that it was decided that we should leave our banners at home and fight as individuals alongside communities impacted by the presence of child rapists. Unlike the self promoting liberal fools of the SWP, who latch on to any issue in order to push their propaganda and name, SWPE activists are motivated by a desire to save our people and to build a future in which the problems facing us become memories of a horrific past. We stand with anyone who seeks an end to the corrupt order, and we value victory on an issue by issue basis above gaining media attention and waving placards.
Activists across England have joined in peaceful protests to get paedophiles moved from neighbourhoods with children. Joining with residents groups, helping with printed material, joining the pickets of paedophile occupied properties, researching the child rapists so that they can be exposed at their places of work, doing anything within the law which can make the lives of paedophiles as miserable as possible, all this helps to let the scum who prey on children know that they will not be tolerated. If they decide to take the coward's way out, then that at least makes our children safe.
We have found that the paedophiles themselves are not the only problem. They are protected by the police to make sure that good people do not get hold of them and destroy them. They are given CCTV at our expense. It could be argued that the law has to protect the community from violence, but when people take the decision to attack the community (especially the children of the community), they no longer deserve to be counted as part of it, and should be exempt from protection. In a post Globalist society, the scum who destroy children will be destroyed by the people. We are gathering information at the same time as we are protesting.
The sickest people of all are those who protect the paedophiles, not because they are ordered to do so, but because they want to. We have found a sick unity of liberals and paedophiles, with an excess of non natives in both categories. We know that Mohammedans worship a child rapist who they emulate, and we do not allow that to be an excuse for indulging in the violation of children (they choose to be Mohammedans so they choose to support/defend/engage in paedophilia). We have come across a number of Christians who 'forgive' the paedophiles and allow them to hide in their homes when we come to get them evicted. We don't care what justification they have for 'turning the other cheek' and 'loving their enemies', we don't give a damn about the insanity which motivates them. They too must be punished for enabling paedophiles to hide from justice, making them willing accomplices in the brutal attack upon our children and our society. We make no distinction between paedophiles and those who voluntarily protect them.
Our members are active fighting for animal welfare, human welfare and for the defence of our people, land and the non human population. In the past, we have helped to wreck animal testing institutions, we have been active hunt saboteurs, we have forced heroin dealers off the streets. We continue our actions in our commitment to not fall into the trap of the walking political activists who go on demos and chant, then rest until the next jolly boys outing.
The hated Capitalist traitors have declared that they will allow fracking to begin under our National Parks, ruining the environment which our wildlife needs to survive. They have declared that they will build on Green Belt land to accommodate the masses of the Third World who are illegally entering our beloved homeland. We will not tolerate this. Companies motivated by profit will halt their operations when it becomes obvious that they will lose financially as equipment is ruined and as employees refuse to go to work for nature rapers because they understand that to do so is wrong, or that to do so is dangerous. We work within the law, but when the law is an act of treason, we no longer accept its rule. We obey the Law of Nature, the Law of Tradition, the Law of Survival.
Illegal immigrants (many of them rapists, all of them criminals and enemies of the People) are being housed at our expense, while homelessness among the native population continues to explode. Protesting against refugee centres won't make them go away, but removing them will. The existence of organisations and premises for the assistance of illegal immigrant invaders, is contrary to the need for the native people to survive and have a home of our own. We obey the Laws of Nature and we reject the laws of the State. Invader Barracks are burning across Europe - they will burn here also, preferably with all the invader scum present.
Congratulations to all who have done their bit and continue to do so. This is what SWPE is about - bringing change right now and helping our people/land/wildlife right now. Keep active, Comrades. We are making more of a difference than all the members of the democratic parties who fly their banners, fear to break the false laws of the oppressor class, and talk well but do nothing. We are gaining members by this approach. We are building the Counter Power. We are attacking our enemies wherever we can. We do engage in the democratic process when we can see a point to it, and as we help rip the mask from the enemy liberal bigots and finance serving traitors, we will do so more often. Action achieves change. The Ballot Box reflects power, it doesn't create it - that is what we must do right now, using every means necessary and every opportunity.
Socialism is an idea. It is an idea founded on a desire. The idea is to create a society which fulfills the desire of the people to live according to the inner spirit of the people. Liberalism is also founded on a similar desire, and that is where the problem of liberals infiltrating and corrupting socialism stems. Liberals believe in a semi-religious notion of 'equality', an equality of all humanity, which sees any differences as 'social constructs', rather than accepting them as natural and worthy of protection. Herein lies the problem - liberals do not understand reality and prefer to live in their fantasies than to accept that we are all a product of nature and that our differences are real and matter.
Liberals do not operate with a logical mind. They are controlled by negative emotions. Those who clamour for open borders do not genuinely care about the plight of people in countries ravaged by war or economic turmoil. They demand borders are opened because they hate the natives of their own lands. The ongoing invasion of Europe by terrorists and thieves under the cover of 'refugees' is being aided and abetted by liberals.
The real solution to the plight of those fleeing war is to stop arming the terrorists on the ground and to stop using NATO to destabilise sovereign nations. The wars which are underway are all wars for the imposition of finance capitalist central banks. The typical liberal knee-jerk reaction to the ISrael destruction of Syria, is that 'we' (meaning the armed forces they constantly abuse, but hide behind when it suits them) need to eliminate IS (Islamic State, Isis Ra El).
Liberals claim that Islamists do not represent Islam and that 'we' (meaning the people of native Working Class neighbourhoods which they would love to annihilate) must open our borders to let the poor unradicalised Mohammedans in, to enrich our obviously pathetic culture with all manner of animal cruelty, sexual depravity and all round criminality. They fail to notice that the people who are coming to Europe are the ones who won't lifting a finger to oppose the terrorists (making them cowardly and solely motivated by what they can get at our expense). Not only this, but the fake refugees are in fact leaving their women and children behind at the mercy of the terrorists as they come to Europe to enjoy the ability to turn our countries into mirrors of those they are leaving - complete with shariah hocup pocus, sexism which includes murdering victims of rape, homophobia, halal, heroin dealing and parasitism. Of course this is to generalise - not all of the rapeugees are cowardly parasites, many of them are fully trained maniacal terrorist sleepers waiting for the time to become active and slaughter us.
Was it not for the capitalist rape of free nations, there would be no excuse for people to leave their own countries in search of a better life at someone else's expense. Libya was a rich nation when the Libyan people ran it, but it was also an obstacle to the IMF. Africa is a poor continent because of the debts imposed by the Rothschilds and their servants. Liberals who campaign for open borders are aiding the destruction of Africa at the same time as they are helping to destroy Europe. A world without borders is a paradise in the minds of deranged liberals. The reality is that borders are a check on globalisation. A world without borders is a world of Capitalist tyranny, with people moved about as commodities, with debt universalised, with the power of the bankers made absolute, with freedom crushed.
The UK government has admitted that for Capitalism to continue, the population has to be increased. Marx wrote in Capital, Critique of Political Economy, of the inevitability of Capitalism collapsing due to the inherent contradictions which would ultimately bring the system to an end as there were more goods to buy than people to buy them. The deliberate butchery of Africa and Asia has provided millions of extra people to come to our countries to buy the worthless shit that the Capitalist economy creates. The irony that the UK manufacturing base no longer exists and that almost everything is imported from allegedly Communist China, adds the interesting point that the global economy has become specialised with alienation reaching new depths as the means of production has become centred in east Asia. The global economy thrives on theft from the poorest nations by the IMF, endless war for the benefit of the armaments industry, cultural genocide and rootlessness through contrived mass migration, and it is no borders liberal morons who not only allow this to happen, but campaign against people who try to stop it.
We need more borders, not fewer. But what we need most of all is to deprogramme the liberals and make them see reality for what it is. Gender, Sexuality, Ethnicity, all are inborn, all are important, they are not social constructs, they cannot be changed. Nations are real and are an anchor which we need to keep us sane. Globalisation - whether economic (Capitalist/Trotskyite Communism), religious (Islamification, Christian), physical (mass migration/invasion) - has to be stopped, and those who encourage it have to be stopped from doing so. We tolerate too much. The time for tolerance of mind -polluted and mind-polluting liberals is over.
The mother of all anti-democratic parliaments voted against the wishes of the people, to attack Syria, extending the UK involvement in wars which are nothing to do with us and have no benefit to us. The odious MPs of the Labour Party voted for the terror strikes against the legitimate government of Syria, in defiance of the near consensus of ordinary members of that party (including their own leader) against the UK joining the US terrorist attacks.
SWPE has always been against UK involvement in wars which do not directly involve the interests of our people. We have always campaigned for the total withdrawal of British forces from foreign adventures and for their deployment solely across the islands which make up the UK. We campaigned against the UK involvement in both Gulf Wars. We exposed the lies against Serbia in the wars which accompanied the dissolution of Yugoslavia. We campaigned against the NATO destruction of Free Kosovo which resulted in the creation of the present terrorist state which is a bridgehead for the Islamic invasion of Europe. Our most successful campaign in terms of reaching large numbers of ordinary people, was our defence of Libya and the fact that the NATO / Al Qaeda war of aggression was indefensible. Throughout the existence of the party we have campaigned against wars for finance capitalism and globalisation. We maintain this position.
The criminal war against Syria is a capitalist war of aggression (as all wars are). The war is yet another war for the establishment of a central bank which will serve the interests of international finance, and in particular of the banking cartels centred on the Rothschild dynasty. The UK government is not acting in the interests of the people, but in the interests of the bankers who own them and can dismiss them with a manufactured scandal the moment they step out of line.
Since the infamous false flag attack of 9-11, country after country has been attacked, and Rothschild banks imposed. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, the method has been the same. The legitimate governments have been libeled as tyrants, and puppet rebels have been created to assist in their removal. The same method has been applied to the Ukraine, making the point that this is not an ongoing war against Islam, but a war for finance imperialism.
The legitimate government of Syria is that of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and the elected president, Bashar Al-Assad. The government has maintained order and peace in one of the most volatile regions of the world, keeping the murderous ambitions of rival Islamic factions in check. The horror stories of Assad's regime butchering the people are pure fiction, which merit no more respect than the ludicrous 'dirty dossier' which was used to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq on the lie that the government had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' which they were going to use on their own people. The creation of the bankers' Free Syrian Army is a clone of the operation in Libya which created the bankers' Free Libyan Army - both were created outside the countries they claim to fight for, both were transported by countries under the control of the bankers, both were lauded by the terrorist organisation, NATO, as rebels fighting for freedom.
The legitimate government of Libya was on the verge of overthrowing the IMF in Africa and restoring freedom to that long-suffering continent. The reasons why Libya was deliberately destabilised and ultimately invaded, are summarised in this excellent video from 2011, before the murder of the legitimate government and the start of the ongoing criminal control by finance capitalism and its terrorist stooges:
The situation on Syria isn't vastly different from the criminal invasion of Libya. In both cases, US-backed terrorists have been used to wage war against a sovereign nation, until such time as the loss of life and the chaos resulting from the barbarity of the US proxies has become such that it can be used as justification for invasion on humanitarian grounds.
SWPE stands with the right of the Syrian people to govern their own country in their own way. We oppose all economics based on usury. Rather than support a terrorist invasion of a sovereign nation in order to make it submit to the global tyranny of the Rothschilds banking system, we propose that all nations break free from that system and refound their economies as debt-free credit-based systems. We would not bomb for the banks, we would bomb the banks!
Islamic State was created as a mercenary army to destroy countries which stood in the way of globalisation. ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State used to be called Al Qaeda, before that it was the pre-Taliban Mujahideen in Afghanistan which was destabilise the USSR. The names change. Al Qaeda, NTC, Boko Haram, FSA, ISIS, Hizb ut-tahrir, Moslem Brotherhood - all mohammedan, all hell-bent on creating a global mohammedan state, all fanatical about imposing Shariah on the world, all aided or cast aside by the global finance capitalists as suits their agenda. SWPE says No to Capitalism, No to Globalism and No to the Semitic religions of Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the liberal spin-off, Trotskyite Marxism/Liberalism.
The ongoing invasion of Europe by Third Worlders is a direct result of the NATO/ISIS slaughter of the peoples of too many countries to list. The vast majority of so-called refugees are economic parasites, but among them are a substantial number of terrorists who seek to impose their insane religious-political views by murdering ordinary Working Class people who cannot afford the safety of gated communities such as enjoyed by the bankers, politicians and stock-brokers who encourage them to leave their own countries by attacking them financially and/or militarily. To stop the invasion, we need to stop the cause. We need to wipe out finance capitalism and punish those who have betrayed the people and campaigned for world without borders - whether through economic greed or through blind liberal stupidity, or through the promotion of globalising ideologies/religions. Only borders can protect us from tyranny. Only borders can protect us from economic exploitation. Only borders can ensure that our own ways are protected and our external enemies kept at bay, while our internal enemies and dealt with in a manner which keeps us safe from them for all time.
We should never allow terrorists the last word, so it is only fitting that the democratically elected President of Syria is given space to tell the truth about what the criminals of NATO and their financial controllers in the US-EU-Turkish-Saudi-Israeli axis of deception are doing to the once prosperous and peaceful secular Arab nation which has suffered so greatly in order to advance the interests of finance capitalism.
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to The Sunday Times in which he said Britain and France have neither the will nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism and their airstrikes against ISIS will yield no results, but will rather be illegal and harmful in that they will help in spreading terrorism. The following is the full text of the interview:
Question 1: Thank you for seeing us Mr President. As you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change? President Assad: If I want to let’s say, evaluate a book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate the whole book. I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book. So, what we are talking about is only an isolated phrase. If we want to go back to the headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.” We know from the very beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict. We know that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the interference or participation to be legal. It is legal only when the participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria. So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the vision on how to defeat terrorism. And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts. Let’s go back to the reality on the ground. Since that coalition started its operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely. What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting terrorism directly? ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking. So I would say, first they will not give any results. Second, it will be harmful and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a cancer. You cannot cut the cancer. You have to extract it. This kind of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the body faster. Question 2: Are you saying, just to clarify two things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law perspective? President Assad: Definitely, definitely, we are a sovereign country. Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else. Then they started discussing the same issue with other governments. Then they came. So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the world. Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region Question 3: You say that France and Britain are responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a harsh accusation? President Assad:Let’s start from what Blair said. He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi. He was killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him. So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in Syria because of the chaos that happened. So, they confess. British officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region. Question 4: In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron, going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of going after al-Nusra. President Assad:The whole question is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of the organization. It is about their ideology. They do not base their actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated ideology. So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology. This is one aspect. The other aspect, if we want to talk about their grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to another. And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for their vested interests, on a local and small scale. But in reality they are cooperating with each other on every level. So, you cannot tell which is more dangerous because this is one mentality. It is like if you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida. The difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things. Question 5: Last week, a key part of Cameron’s argument for extending UK airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used – 70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate rebels in Syria? President Assad:Let me be frank and blunt about this. This is a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank. This is not acceptable. Where are they? Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking about? That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria. This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts. The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their participation two months ago. They have said: where are those moderates? No one gave them an answer. Actually, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria. All of them were extremists. And in order not to say I am just giving excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social networking sites. They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures, with their faces and their rhetoric. They use swords, they do beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so on. And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible fact. So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is taking about. It is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11th of September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition. That is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand, there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those. Question 6: Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army? President Assad:The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas. Question 7: But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight … President Assad: Mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents. We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism. We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria. So, it is not only the Kurds. Many other Syrians are doing the same. Question 8:U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power. Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave. Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should step down before it but there should be future insurances. My question: Do you intend to complete your presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What can influence your decision? President Assad: The answer depends on the context of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the civil society groups in Syria. Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as you know, this process was not agreed upon yet. Question 9: Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone? You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground President Assad: Did the coalition defeat them by airstrikes during the last year or so? It didn’t. Did the Americans achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan? They achieved nothing. Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003? Nothing. You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without cooperation with forces on the ground. You cannot defeat them if you do not have buy-in from the general public and the government. They cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again. The reality is telling. Question 10: If the international coalition refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan? I mean do you have a plan B beyond what is going on? How do you plan to end this war? President Assad: This coalition is illusive, it’s virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism on the ground in Syria. Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not waste time with the ‘before and after.’ From the very beginning we started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers. Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we are going to continue. This is our plan. It is the only plan we have and we will not change it. Question 11: Are you calling on them to ask the Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists? President Assad: We are very realistic. We know that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will. This is more about international law than anything else. Is it possible that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign state or that they haven’t read the UN Charter? They have no respect for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation. Question 12: But would you like them to? President Assad: If they are ready – serious and genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any political effort. In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic. Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent further bloodshed. That is our mission. So, it’s not about love or hate, accepting or not, it is about reality. Are they truly ready to help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through their surrogate governments in our region, or not? That is the real question. If they are ready, we will welcome them. This is not personal. Question 13: Do you think it is possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how long do you think it might take? President Assad: The answer is based on two factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the terrorists receive on the other. From our perspective, if you were to remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our mission. It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to us. However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries, which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder to resolve. This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians. Question 14: But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed. President Assad: You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to. Question 15: But a lot of it is also blamed on the Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large number of people killed. How do you respond to that? President Assad: First, all wars are bad. There is no such thing as a good war. In every war there are always too many innocent casualties. These are only avoidable by bringing that war to an end. So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will result in loss of life. But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa. As a government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight them. There is no other choice. We cannot stop fighting the terrorists who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using force. Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia. How important has the role of Russia been? Was Syria about to fall had Russia not intervened when it did at the time? Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism President Assad: The Russian role is very important. It has had a significant impact on both the military and political arena in Syria. But to say that without this role, the government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical. Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the collapse of the government. First it was a few weeks, then it was a few months and then a few years. Every time it was the same wishful thinking. What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism. Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention? President Assad: No, the whole support; it is not only about their participation. Their support from the very beginning in all aspects: political, military and economic. Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement come about now? And can you give us some details of the discussions between you and President Putin that brought it about? Who took the first step? Did you ask, or did they offer? The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe President Assad: You will have to ask the Russians why they got involved. But from our perspective, since the Western coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new territory in Syria and Iraq. The Russians clearly saw how this posed a threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia and the rest of the world. We can see this as a reality in Europe today. If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will realize something very important. How many extremists cells now exist in Europe? How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria? This is where the danger lies. The danger is in the incubator. The Russians can see this very clearly. They want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe. I am not exaggerating by saying they are protecting Europe today. Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us? President Assad: It was an accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them having another. As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in Syria: call them experts or by any other name. This cooperation accelerated and increased during the crisis. Their teams are here and can see the situation real-time with us. This kind of decision doesn’t start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. There is a daily political and military discussion between our two countries. When it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the decision to be made quickly. Question 20:But there must have been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think that we should actually now physically get involved. President Assad:Again, this was started at the lower levels. These officials jointly agreed that it was necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their leaders. When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how. Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s impossible to discuss these issues on the phone. It was mediated through senior officials from both sides. That is what happened. In terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an invitation for their forces to participate. Question 21: So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials. President Assad: Exactly, after we reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our efforts. Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the step when he said he was willing to create a coalition. My response to this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to participate. Question 22: So, what forces have been deployed? I am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example, of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well? President Assad: No, so far there is no such thing. There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and that is natural. They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian forces at all. Question 23: And there is no plan for that? President Assad: We have not discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are moving in the right direction. The Russians may consider it with time or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been discussed. Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example, that Syria will use against the US-led coalition’s air force, even if Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground? We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace President Assad: That is our right and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from violating our airspace. That is completely legal. We are going to use any means available to us to protect our airspace. It is not about that armament in particular. Any air defense we have is for that reason. Question 25: Do you have that defense at the moment? President Assad: No. So far we don’t have it. Question 26: If you get that defense? President Assad: Any defense systems we are going to have are for that purpose. If we are not going to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first place? That is self-evident. Question 27: And if you get it … President Assad:Not at the moment; it is not our priority now. Our priority is fighting the terrorists on the ground. This is the most important danger now. Of course we are keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our internal affairs, militarily or other. But the priority now is to defeat the terrorists. By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from foreigners. It is a matter of priorities. Question 28: But I meant about the actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So, that is not a priority either at the moment? President Assad: No, not at the moment. At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism. Question 29: If Saudi Arabia were to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that? President Assad: No, there is nothing impossible in politics. It is not about whether I accept or not, but rather about the policies of each government. What are their policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in Syria, Yemen and other places? If they are ready and willing to change their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem meeting with them. So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria. Question 30: Do you expect any results from the talks in Vienna? And what would be the shape of any possible deal that you see coming out of Vienna? President Assad: The most important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should come together to discuss the future of Syria. Everything else is an accessory. If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no use. So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians. Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual process of siting down and discussing the future. So, the question is not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to achieve when we sit down together. Question 31: But do you realize that some of the opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened to others. President Assad: No, it has never happened. There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want. Question 32: No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back. President Assad: We have clearly stated that when there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee that they will not be arrested or held. We have said this many times. We don’t have any problems in this regard. Question 33: Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures, including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen, religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition. Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any consensus with them? President Assad: We have direct channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that control them. From our perspective, we are open for discussions with every peaceful opposition party. We don’t have any problems. With regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting terrorism directly, publically and explicitly. That meeting will not change anything on the ground. Before the meeting and after the meeting Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do so. It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss. It will not change anything. Question 34: Do you see that anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well for the future? President Assad: We already have; since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were in Syria or not. We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their armaments, and return to normal life. These negotiations led to many amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several areas. Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army and are now fighting with our forces. So yes, we are sitting down with those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up their arms and return to normal life. This doesn’t mean that we negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others. This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret their choices and want to have their lives back. Question 35: The rebels call them barrel bombs. You refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name, these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians? President Assad: Let us suppose that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t. But for the sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf war in 1990. How many civilians and innocent people were killed by those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles? They killed more civilians than terrorists. So, the issue is not these so-called barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are fighting for freedom. This romantic image is not the case. It is about how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so called barrel bombs and high precision missiles. It is about how you use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your intention. Do we have the will to kill innocent people? How is that possible when the state is defending them? By doing so, we are pushing them towards the terrorists. If we want to kill people, for any reason, innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of the terrorists. And this is against our interests. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical. This propaganda cannot be sold anymore. Question 36:Mr President, the final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria? President Assad:I’ve been asked this question many times especially by western media and journalists. The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how can you not be responsible. Question 37: Because you are the head, like in a family … President Assad: Let me continue, that was only an introduction to my answer. It is very simple. Since the very beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria. Now, if you want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult and dire situation in Syria. If I am to claim responsibility, do I also claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists money? Or for the Saudis to fund their activities? Or for western governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria? Do I claim responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates? Or for the western embargos on the Syrian people? This is how we have to discuss it. We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not. We have to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics. So, it is very complicated to evaluate it. Additionally, if you want to evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and after. Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. Source of interview: http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558
Fight the real enemy. We are expected to trust a man who has sex with dead pigs and puts money above all else. The below picture questions Obama's sexuality, but that is not the point, the point is that Obama, Cameron, Erdogan, Merkel and the rest of them, all serve their own financial interests, are all guilty of mass murder, and are all unfit to hold any public office and only do so because they are wholly owned by the globalising bankers.
Sunday the 29th November may well prove to have been a historic day in UK politics. In the Lancashire seaside town of Southport, a gathering was held of activists from across the political and religious spectrum. Organised by the umbrella organisation, British Renaissance, the meeting was billed as a gathering of key figures in the nationalist movement, and although that was certainly the case, in addition those assembled included people who would not long ago have been classed as left-wing extremists and enemies of 'nationalism'.
British Renaissance brought together members of the leadership of the British Democratic Party, British National Party, British Unity, National Front and other organisations belonging to the far-right in the UK. These were joined by high-ranking members of the mainstream political parties, including the UK Independence Party. Alongside representatives of parties, were representatives of Western Spring, the Daily Stormer, Heritage and Destiny, the IONA London Forum, Yorkshire Forum, and others.
The British Renaissance event was not a coalition of the centre right and far right. SWPE sent a delegate to broach the question of total unity across the spectrum. It had been proposed that a comrade from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist) would attend in an informal capacity, but due to unforeseen problems, this did not come about. Hopefully at a future event, it may be possible to add the CPGB(ML) to the growing number of alliances which are stamping down the false divisions of left and right, and in place creating a genuine unity of the forces of freedom against the forces of globalism, liberalism, decadence and reaction.
The politic dimension was not the only one of note. The meeting paid host to productive discussions between Christians, Heathens and Militant Atheists, with Catholic Traditionalists rubbing shoulders with Identitarians, Protestants, Odinists and Creators. SWPE has a policy of working with all who oppose the Semitic trio, and it was interesting to find that our Heathen position is not incompatible with people who follow a pre-Semitic Druidic faith which may well have been the basis for the 'Christian' faith which was manipulated into existence in order to bury ancient European traditions under an avalanche of Semitic lies.
The people present at the British Renaissance event included Nationalists, Socialists, Anarchists, Traditionalists, Heathens, Identitarians, non-Semitic Christians, Creativity Atheists and anti-Capitalists/anti-Globalists of many hues. The meeting was notable for the near balance of men and women, and for the representation of all age ranges. This genuine unity was beyond the unity of nationalists which was the intention of the organisers. This depth of unity across such a broad spectrum is indicative of the fragility of the current orthodoxy and the eagerness of a diverse range of people to bring about its demise. This first step could mark the dawning of a new era of cooperation of all who oppose the liberal death wish.
The emergence of unity of Left and Right is something we can all take pride in. What was achieved on this day would have been unthinkable prior to the onset of the mass invasion of Europe, and we must build upon this first success. If we stand together only until we have saved our people from the genocidal mania of the liberal Ruling Class, then we will have achieved a great deal. We cannot build a Socialist England if England has been wiped away in a flood of anti-native invasion and economic tyranny.
SWPE would like to thank all who attended, the organisers, the excellent security, the staff of the venue who provided outstanding hospitality and meals, and those who could not attend but provided support in other ways.
The speeches of former MEP, Andrew Brons and of organiser of the IONA London Forum, Jez Turner, can be found at this link.
Video of the speeches will be uploaded to youtube in due course. A preview of what to expect can be seen below
