Left and Right, Unite and Fight against the Global Menace

Revolutionary Patriotic Socialism is attacked by Globalists as being outside the Left-wing of politics due to being fervently supportive of Borders.  This attack is nonsense.  Stalin, Hoxha, Ceaucescu, Tito and many others firmly believed in the right of a nation to have control of is borders.  Were they all anti-left?  To the idiot new-left, they were!  This highlights the lunacy of the left and right labels, which are becoming more obsolete as the Globalisers take control of the leading parties from both camps, and those of us who oppose Globalism find ourselves standing shoulder-to-shoulder with people with whom we are supposed to 'no platform'.

The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' were popularised in France to denote the distinction between republicans and monarchists.  They have since become manipulated to herd people - like cattle - into rival camps; fighting one another, rather than focusing upon achieving liberation from our common plight.  In the modern world, the terms are absolutely useless, and we would be well-advised to stop using them at all.

The idea pushed by the mainstream media and establishment parties that Globalisation is inevitable, is an idea which is wholly unacceptable.  Certainly we are in a dire position, but as long as we have the resolve to turn resistance into uprising, then the certainty of our victory becomes more apparent.  We only have to look at the history of the world to see the successful restoration of freedom to peoples who would have been considered as hopelessly lost to the rule of despots.

The people of Moorish-occupied Spain withstood eight centuries of rule by hostile outsiders.  Ultimately the Spanish people were able to throw off the yoke of the alien oppressors and regain control of their country.  During those eight long centuries, how many people would have taken the view that there was nothing which could be done to oust the enemy of the nation?  How many people would have simply collaborated with the Ruling Class who held positions of power over them?  For the occupation of Spain to continue for such a long time, it can be surmised that the majority of people took the easy option of embracing the orthodoxy of the rulers (or in modern parlance of kowtowing to political correctness).  The people who did not collaborate may have been few in number, but it was they who laid the foundations for a return to freedom which culminated in the expulsion of the Moors and the restoration of Spain.  Ironically, the current Spanish regime, with its open borders self-destruction fetishism, is doing more to harm the country now, than the Moors did in all that time.  Globalisation is far more dangerous than imperial occupation, but the solution is the same - Close The Borders, and bring Justice to the Enemy.

Until the middle of the twentieth century, the continent of Africa was controlled by tyrants using the nations of Europe as fronts for their tyranny.  Although the overt control of Africa by the occupied governments of Europe was replaced by the covert occupation via multinational corporations, the end of the imperial system was a step towards the total liberation of the continent.  The misnamed 'British Empire' was an economic system which exploited all who were subjected to it - Britons included.  The majority of people who lived under the dark rule of the Empire had no idea that the despotism would evaporate almost overnight once its usefulness had been exhausted.  The current situation in Africa is far from ideal, but the end of open imperialism at least paves the way for a rebirth of Africa.

A success story which is often overlooked is the Republic of Malawi.  Malawi achieved freedom in the 1950s and has since adopted an immigration policy which limits residency to people who can prove they are of sub-Saharan descent.  This policy can be compared to the Israeli Law of Return, and has ensured that only Africans can have any place in Malawian society.   Malawi is one of the very few countries which has a sensible immigration policy which can effectively stand against the globalist policy of transferring peoples across the globe.  The nation of Malawi belongs to the people resident in it.  Before home-rule, Malawi was at the mercy of foreign rulers, who treated the territory in the same manner as all imperialist despots have treated countries they occupy.  The victory of Malawi shows that with the resolve to overcome the globalising menace, we too can win.

Those who argue that we can do nothing, ignore the fact that countless peoples have been subjected to rule by despots, and that in many instances the despots have been displaced, and those who were once powerless have regained control.  Those who believe that all hope is lost and that our demise is 'inevitable' ignore the examples of history.  We have to ensure that we build the foundations for a restoration of freedom for those who come after us; we also have to ensure that we are ready to expose all weaknesses in the enemy so that we can hasten the end of their misrule.  The occupation of Spain continued for hundreds of years, but was eventually ended.  We have access to methods of transmitting information which the Spanish did not have.  We no longer live in awe of the Establishment and we have replaced our subservience to authority with a healthy mistrust of all who hold positions of authority; religious, political, legal et al.  Our plight is no harder than that of those who came before us, and our opportunities to build an effective and active resistance are much better.

Those who take the defeatist attitude that we cannot win, and thus should not try, are either ignorant of human nature and the cyclical reality of economic and political tyranny, or they are agents of the enemy we fight against, whose purpose is to undermine the growing opposition by spreading self-defeating apathy.  In either case, they cannot be allowed to plant their poison into our minds.  There have always been collaborators - usually well paid for their treachery - and there always will be.  They must not be allowed to conduct their dirty work unopposed.  They may have the upper hand at present, but they will not be victorious in the long term.  Resistance is not futile; resistance is vital.  As can be seen throughout history, those who oppress us will be overthrown, and we will rise again.

It is time for people to make a stand for what matters, and to throw off the globalist poison.  It took the Spanish eight centuries.  In the British Isles, the anti-Working Class system would have fallen many times before, had it not been for the manipulation of phantom threats into wars for the survival of the Ruling Class.  The system has survived on the blood of those killed in the Napoleonic. Boer, First and Second World Wars and more wars besides.  We are in a good position to kick down the teetering wreck of the British and Irish 'democracy' and usher in a Socialist Republic of the Isles as a bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for other countries who must also throw off the Globalisers.  The SMPBI is linking with groups across the irrelevant Left-Right divide, to build a mass of connected people who can fight the Ruling Class and their bourgeois partners-in-crime.  If you are not already a part fo the fight, you need to join with us.  Together, we will be victorious, and our People will be free.

Contact: jointhesmpbi@gmail.com

Wilberg on Wednesday - The Illness Is The Cure pt 8/46

Automated Diagnosis and 

the Future of Biomedicine

Have you ever wondered what is going on in your doctor’s mind during a consultation? A large part of it is likely to be a process of observation, data gathering and analysis based – more or less accurately – on what you say. I emphasise the ‘more or less’ because many patients are surprised to see how often what they say to doctors is ignored or just plain misrepresented in their medical reports. And if, as Einstein noted in relation to physics, “Theory determines what is observed”, then in the case of the ‘observations’ and ‘data’ gathered by the doctor in listening to you the same applies. Indeed it is often the case, paraphrasing Einstein, that in the case of biomedical practice ‘Theory’ determines not just what is ‘observed’ but even what is heard by doctors. The biomedical practitioner’s chief aim is, like a radio, to distinguish ‘signals’ from ‘noise’ – ‘noise’ being anything the doctor regards as scientifically irrelevant to exercising his diagnostic skills – such as the larger life story behind a patient’s illness, their emotional experience of illness – and of its effect on their life.

Yet what if what doctors are chiefly doing while listening to you is merely functioning as a human ‘black box’ between what theyregard as significant ‘input’ and giving what they regard as all-important ‘output’, i.e. probable diagnoses, suggested treatments, prescriptions, referrals for further tests or to specialists? As this ‘black box’, what is really going on in your doctor’s mind is comparable to them going through a type of predetermined computer ‘algorithm’ or ‘decision tree’ in order to arrive at the most likely or statistically probable ‘diagnoses’ from the ‘observations’ and ‘data’ he or she is collecting from you. In which case, however, the doctor is effectively functioning as nothing more than a sort of human computer – and therefore could just as well be ultimately replaced bya computer – one fitted out with what is called ‘automated diagnostic software’. If you think this is a wild, futuristic idea – then think again. For ‘Computer-Assisted Diagnosis’ is already a reality – and is even used to get a ‘second opinion’ by the most highly revered of biomedical diagnosticians.

“At last he spoke. “Lymphoma with secondary hemophagocytic syndrome,” he said. The crowd erupted in applause. Professionals in every field revere their superstars, and in medicine the best diagnosticians are held in particularly high esteem. Dr. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, 39, a self-effacing associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, is considered one of the most skilful clinical diagnosticians in practice today… Since medical school, he has been an insatiable reader of case reports in medical journals, and case conferences from other hospitals.To observe him at work is like watching Steven Spielberg tackle a script or Rory McIlroy a golf course. He was given new information bit by bit – lab, imaging and biopsy results. Over the course of the session, he drew on an encyclopedic familiarity with thousands of syndromes. He deftly dismissed red herrings while picking up on clues that others might ignore, gradually homing in on the accurate diagnosis.”

Nevertheless the same New York Times report asked: “Just how special is Dr Dhaliwal’s talent? More to the point, what can he do that a computer cannot?”. It also acknowledged that even the famous Dr Dhaliwal “…occasionally uses a diagnostic checklist program called Isabel, just to make certain he hasn’t forgotten something.” It adds that the program has yet to offer a diagnosis that Dr Dhaliwal missed” – without saying whether this program could actually have done the same job as Dr Dhaliwal, and that in even less than the 45-minutes he is given at medical conferences to display his showman-like skills in diagnosing “vexingly difficult cases”.

Yet aside from a small number of diagnostic ‘geniuses’ and ‘gurus’ of the sort represented by Dr Dhaliwal (as well as in the fictional American TV series ‘Dr House’ – a doctor with similarly encyclopaedic knowledge of biomedicine and insatiable interest in the latest medical research), today there is not a doctor in the world, whether generalist or specialist, with a mental ‘storage’ space of enough encyclopaedic capacity or ‘Gigabyte’ equivalents to remember even what he or she learnt in their medical training – let alone find the motivation or time to keep up with the latest biomedical research. So we end up with a system whereby, reaching the limits of his or her knowledge, your doctor will refer you to a specialist of one sort or another – even though the knowledge of specialists too, is not encyclopaedic – and is no less innately limited by the interest in and time they have in keeping up with the latest research and developments in their field. Hence also the often diametrically opposed opinions that find expression among researchers and/or clinical practitioners in the same specialty – one hardly compatible with the smug complacency of doctors or specialists each of whom generally claim their own personal viewpoints, diagnoses or clinical judgements to be the most accurate or ‘objective’.

The sad fact that comes to light here is that it is precisely becausemedical practice and the functioning of the medical mind takes data accumulated in the form of impersonal biomedical ‘science’, ‘research ’, ‘evidence’ and ‘observations’ as its diagnostic foundation, there is nothing that sophisticated diagnostic software with ever-larger databases of biomedical knowledge could not in fact do betterthan any human doctor – generalist or specialist. Given also that biomedicine effectively treats the human body as no more than a biological machine, much like a car, that may be in need of repair, it comes as no surprise to read the following arguments for a new ‘Automated Medical Diagnosis System’ – the aim of which is to eliminate “human bias” of any sort – even in using current forms of ‘Computer Assisted Diagnosis’:

“Cars can be plugged in at the mechanics for electronic diagnosis, customer issues logged in enterprise support systems receive immediate potential solutions to their issue prior to a customer service representative looking at it, and computers send error reports when an application crashes. In industries across the world automated diagnostics becomes more and more prevalent leveraging continually advancing algorithms that become increasingly intelligent in identifying solutions to known problems. Yet in the health care industry Doctors have outdated and limited access to potential solutions… Enter symptom, disease type, test name or coderequests one physician diagnosis database. As with any human search that begins with keywords chosen by the user, bias inherently influences the results. If a Doctor has an assumed diagnosis, they will immediately begin searching for further evidence that their assumption can be validated. And if it isn’t, then they will have missed other potential diagnoses. Additionally, if the Doctor begins searching by symptoms, while these may be accurate, the order or weight given to any one symptom will give a bias toward related diagnosis when in fact, there may be a symptom not given any credit and thus not included in the search. Regardless of whether you consider today’s databases or the older process of researching in books, the results are always influenced by the bias of the researchers’ initial assumptions. What is needed instead is an approach that minimizes human bias and considers all relevant and irrelevant data in determining a diagnosis. Computer software does this well.”

“With an automated medical diagnosis system, Doctors could be presented with multiple potential diagnoses based on all of the patient’s current and past details. Such a system could be designed for automated medical diagnosis that is based on probability, utility and decision theory.”

“Essentially, the computer software could be fed human observations of symptoms, test results, and any machine data collected such as blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen levels, etc. The software would then compare these observations with a database of potential diseases and external agents (e.g. viruses, bacteria) to determine the most probable diagnosis. These results would then be presented back to the doctor along with a probability rating indicating which ones are likely most relevant or accurate. Each diagnosis could also then be presented with additional direction to the doctor to further explore for additional symptoms and/or order an additional test. These additional observations and/or test results would again then be fed into the system where it could re-evaluate the probable diagnoses cancelling out some while raising the probability of others. In addition to immediate interactions with the software, Intensive Care Unit’s machine observation data (e.g., oxygen levels, heart monitors) could be constantly fed into the system to allow the software to be looking for patterns that match other known diagnosis that would never be able to be caught by a human as it would take too much time to evaluate the data.”

What we are presented with here is indeed a futuristic image – albeit a dystopic one. Already hospitals and large clinical surgeries with multiple doctors have become, as Dr David Zigmond notes, more like airports than the so-called ‘old-fashioned’ surgeries run by family doctors – who knew their patients and their lives intimately. In contrast, in our clinical ‘airports’ you check in, go through a gate to see to see a doctor and check out with a prescription or referral for a further test of some sort or a consultation with a specialist.

For decades now, employment in manufacturing industries such as car-making has fallen through the introduction of robots that are pre-programmed to do the job required of them more precisely than any human worker could. Now however, we are confronted with the prospect of human beings, all seen as anonymous body-machines to be processed in automated high-tech hospital ‘repair stations’, and, as in some futuristic science fiction movie – conveyed on a factory-like medical conveyor belt. Stop one on the belt: patients’ bodies are CCTV’d and perhaps even scanned in different ways while what they look like and say is digitally recorded to be searched for diagnostic signs, keywords and patterns. Stop 2: they are sent on a second conveyor line where blood tests or further scans are conducted automatically. Stop 3: they are either discharged from this fully automated hi-tech hospital ‘garage’ – where they are given any necessary drugs, a dose of radiotherapy, are either then conveyed to a stationary ‘cubicle’ for further processing – or else to an operating theatre ‘manned’ entirely by robots. And all this with the whole technological process merely supervised by a handful of technicians and actual human doctors. Finally, Stop 4: either a crematorium or a bill to be paid – as in coming to the exit barrier of a car park.

Not only is this science fantasy prospect a conceivable one – it is also an entirely rational one in the framework of biomedicine. Which only goes to show how totally irrationalmedical ‘rationality’ can be. For what this picture essentially lacks is what is most essential, not just to healing (as opposed to mere ‘medicine ’) but to human health as such – namely the care and care-giving of other human beings – not to mention truly humaninsight, observation, empathy, as well as human life experience and life understanding. On the other hand, it is no less conceivable that the development and refinement of ‘automated medical diagnosis’ could serve precisely to freedoctors of the future from their current role as human computers, allowing them instead to devote most of their time and awareness to their human role as healer, care-giver or ‘life doctor’ – there to explore the patient’s experience of illness and its meaningin the context of their lives and relationships – something no computer software or database will ever be able to do. In this way biomedical knowledge would find its true place as a tool subordinate to the art of healing – rather than becoming a substitute for that art. And since the terminology of biomedical science itself is as rich in metaphor as in ‘fact’, more precise and accurate biomedical diagnoses would also allow for more accurate and penetrating analyses of their own symbolic dimensions of meaning.

Until we reach this point however, next time you see a doctor bear in mind the question posed at the start – what is actually going on in the doctor’s mind and what is he or she actually therefor? For it will make a world of difference to your health whether the doctor is only there for a specific ‘what’ (for example, to go through a quasi-automated mental-diagnostic process and then refer you on for further medical processing) or whether the doctor is there for a very specific human being or ‘who’ – foryou.

Reference:

Zigmond, David If you want good personal Healthcare see a Vet

Christianity is Pagan. The pope wants to jettison the Pagan. Pagans must jettison the pope

With the 'pope' befouling the streets of Ireland, what better time than to look into the cult of the Church of Rome, and the broader christian ideology which has come from it.  This pope has overseen massive changes in dogma, but so have the previous ones over the past century.  When the Church changed a series of 'set-in-stone' rituals (such as penance for confession), that made many sit up and notice that what they had been told was an institution created by God, was very much one ruled by Men and subject to change as politics, fashion and other factors dictated.  The rapid shift of direction which has made the policy-makers in the Church of Rome almost indistinguishable from their counterparts in the Protestant sects must raise questions about the entire faith of Christianity.  Roman Catholicism is a mixture of indigenous and alien mythology, weaved together in a web of fabrication, with truths embedded in a great tissue of fiction.  The Pagan aspects are the strength of the religion, but without them, Catholicism becomes just another branch of the fantasy of the ancient Hebrews, and totally alien to the British mindset.

The Ancient Druids knew a spirituality which included many aspects of the Christianity which was to follow. The Druids believed in a Holy Trinity of Creator of the Past (Beli), Saviour of the Present (Taran) and Recreator of the Future (Yesu); these three were as one and were the ways in which the Supreme Higher Power was understood by humanity.  The Hebrews of Palestine/Judæa/Israel traded with the peoples of Europe and so would have come into contact with the Druidic traditions.  The theory that the Druids adopted Christianity because of the similarities such as the Trinity, is one which Christian Israelites hold dear.  It is a desperate argument of a cult of people absolutely obsessed with the Bible, to the point that they will twist and distort history to 'prove' that the Israelites settled in the west of Europe, becoming the Celts, and thus took to Christianity because of the similarities it had with their own faith.   This ideology, which borders on insanity, can be dismissed by simply pointing out that the Trinity of the Druids predated that which the Roman Church sanctified many centuries after the time of Christ, when the Gospels were voted upon (and rewritten) for inclusion in the Bible by the Imperial Church of Rome.

We now know for a fact that the Ten Commandments were a part of the Code Law of King Hammurabi in Babylon and that it is obviously from this man-made legal system that the authors of the Old Testament/Torah stole the 'Commandments' of their god.  The falsification of the entire Jewish 'religion' insofar as the person of Moses is concerned, is such that only the blindly faithful will deny it.  According to the Jewish mythology, 'Moses' led 600,000 Jews out of Egypt, after his 'god' massacred the first born of that land and brought great suffering to the common people.  This drivel is taught as fact, yet nowhere is it recorded except in the Jewish supremacist propaganda sheets of the Torah/Talmud/Old Testament.  One would have thought that the plagues and the scarpering of 6,000,000 600,000 workers would have merited some comment by Egyptian historians, but apparently it wasn't important enough for that!  The idea that the Jewish 'slaves' (to use their own pity-seeking word) built the pyramids is laughable, considering that they are far older than the entire 'history' of the Jewish people and were long finished before the mythical figure of Moses is supposed to have walked the Earth.  We know that the Elders of Organised Jewry made up the story of Moses and his amazing travels across the Sinai and his spectacular walks up and down the mountain with great slabs of rock after chatting with his god, so it really isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that the similarities of Christianity and the Trinitarian branch of Druidism are more than likely the result of more Rabbinical theft of other peoples' ideas and ways.

The theft of ideas doesn't make the ideas themselves wrong.  The Code of Hammurabi is a valid document, protecting people from the selfish and vile behaviour of all too many people.  Realising that it was not crafted by the diabolical entity, Jehovallah - a deity whose adherents happily claim ordered the destruction of new born children because they didn't bow and scrape to its chosen pet people - if anything gives the document more credibility, not less.

The concept of the Trinity is one which is found in nature.  The Earth is divided into land, sea and air; the very essence of everything can be expressed by the trinity of space, time and matter.  These can be broken down into three more trinities:

• Space: Depth, Width, Height
• Time: Past, Present, Future
• Matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas

The idea of a Higher Being existing in the form of a Trinity, is one which predates Christianity and could very easily have been 'borrowed' from the Europeans who the authors of the Bible came in contact with.  In the Asatru/Odinist faith, there is a pantheon of deities, but they exist in a subordinate position to the Creator, just as the lower divine beings in Christianity are subordinated to the Creator.  The Christian Trinity very much resembles the Asatru one: Father, Son and Holy Spirit equate to the Jaffnharr, Harr and Thridi.  Indeed, the Three Spheres in the Angelic Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite's work, 'De Coelesti Hierarchia' (with each of the three spheres subdivided by three), make yet another trinity of trinities.  It could be argued that the far earlier Asatru concept of the Nine Worlds fits this pattern.

Wherever we look in Christianity, we see Pagan spiritualism with the toxic addition of Judaism.  As the Church is now hell-bent on removing the ancient spiritualism of Christianity and stripping it of all that is palatable, isn't it time for Christians to consider that the attraction to the religion is due to it being based upon our ancient ways?  The Christian Israel movement is right to see links between Paganism and Christianity, but they are looking in the wrong direction.  The Trinitarian Odin of Asatru may have inspired the Church to write of the Trinitarian Holy Father/Son/Spirit.

It is wonderful to see the Church discrediting itself by cosying up to Judaism and Islam, preaching a globalist universalism which erases the Pagan core of itself.  This gives us the opportunity to reunite with our own ways; to look back to the Golden Age before the coming of the infiltrators who have lied to us about our own spirituality and have made us persecute those of our own kin who have held true to the forbidden beliefs.

If everything good that exists in Christianity also existed in pre-Christianity, then what purpose does Christianity serve!? Paganism is closer to the golden age we seek than Christianity is, and Christianity has overseen the destruction of Europe where Paganism had protected it.

Stripped of the middle eastern Hebraic toxin, Christianity is Pagan.  Let the Church of Rome and the Organised Protestant Churches forge ahead with their descent into a global religion where Bible, Talmud and Koran sit side-by-side as indisputable books of lies.  Let us reject these outlandish works of propaganda, enforced on us by a Ruling Caste which despises us in every aspect, and return to the ways of our ancestors; to a time before the liberal disease, when we would not tolerate those who attack us spiritually, mentally or physically.  Wake Up all Britons on both sides of the Irish Sea, and cast off the cult of Christianity, returning instead to our Pagan roots.  The reign of the proto-Zionist Roman system is more obvious than at any prior time; now we must ensure it falls.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 25

......................

"Such theoreticians in France, inside and outside the Communist Party, could have no idea of the value of art based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism. The purpose of these elements was to separate art and literature from politics and ideology, of course, proletarian politics and the Marxist ideology. They struggled to clear the way for the spread of bourgeois ideology and politics, for the development of decadent art, psychoanalysis, sexual and crime novels, so that the markets, bookshops, show-cases, theaters and cinemas would be filled with such works." - Enver Hoxha (Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism)

........................

”It is interesting to note that the "sexual revolution" was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word "household" suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.”

Michel Houellebecq, The Elementary Particles

.......................

The only thing that kept this „ressentiment criticism‟2 from becoming cynical was its self-annulling aversion from practical life and power. This changes with second generation Kritische Theorie, in which the demoralizing self-interest in the rat race of career critics prevails over the cultivation of a feeling of injustice. (CCR xxxv-vi) The real object of Sloterdijk‟s diagnosis is therefore the pragmatic nihilism of a „pseudo-critique‟ which has wilfully lost its innocence and compensates for its own bad conscience with an ever higher level of reflectivity or artfulness. Its point of view remains that of unhappy consciousness, but its ressentiment is now „reflexively buffered‟ (CCR 5), such that, in the form of a cynical alliance of rationalism and ressentiment typical of „Christian-bourgeois-capitalist schizophrenias‟ (CCR 107), it effectively perverts the imperative of sapere aude: „Only in the form of derision and renunciation do references to the ideals of a humane culture still seem bearable. Cynicism, as enlightened false consciousness, has become a hard-boiled, shadowy cleverness that has split courage off from itself, holds anything positive to be fraud, and is intent only on somehow getting through life.‟3

Sloterdijk.

Home Schooling: An Act of Revolution

It is a sad fact that the world we live in is not what we have been taught to accept it to be.  The democratic system ensures that power is kept from the people (just look at the Referendum on EU membership, which is not only being ignored, but overturned); the Health Service keeps people sick (look at the promotion of Trans-gender surgery, rather than mental health care for what is in many cases a fad), whilst legally pushing drugs on us which only benefit the pharmaceutical corporations; the Law protects the real criminals; the Police are the most violent corrupt scum in all of society; liberalism enforces illiberal thought; and the Education System exists to keep knowledge away from the people, leaving those exposed to it equipped only to serve as fodder for the economic system and its military apparatus.

In place of the toxic health service, there is alternative medicine and decent non-GM, non-doctored food.  In place of the tyranny of liberalism, there is freedom of thought and the will to say no to the harmonising bigots.  In place of the Law and its Police thugs, there is community cooperation and street level discipline.  But above all, the most important part of our struggle, is to keep our children free from the mendacious poison of the School System.

Home Schooling requires dedication.  Sending a child to school opens up time for oneself, and for the day-to-day tasks of housework, shopping etc.  Having a child to teach, reduces the time, and opportunity, to complete everyday chores; having more than one child, of course, reduces time further.  Home Schooling is not easy.  Home Schooling is tiring, and requires a shift in attitude and focus.  Education Inspectors have to be satisfied that the child is being educated to a level appropriate to age, and this requires the collation of a vast amount of evidence.  Lessons have to be structured, although they do not have to be restricted to a classroom, and of course the factory-focused rigid time slots of conventional schooling do not have to be adopted.

Home Schooling is hard, but rewarding.  Your child does not have to be exposed to paedophile pro-trans, pro-promiscuous sex education.  You can teach your child to question all information, and to seek real knowledge, rather than to accept the lies which are presented as 'history', 'citizenship' and other subjects.  You can arm your child with knowledge from which he or she can see the world through his or her own eyes, and not the blinkers of the Establishment.  One of the greatest advantages is that you can spend quality time with your child and not hand him or her over to a liberal indoctrinator whose aim is to turn your child into an obedient producer-consumer, with no individuality or sense of self respect and purpose.

We are fighting for a future in which the Working Class are free.  What is the point in fighting for freedom, if we fail to protect our children from the enemy in the Establishment?  Home Schooling has become an act of Revolution in these dark times.  We must keep our children safe from the harm of the liberal nightmare, so that when we overthrow it entirely, they are already prepared for the freedom which will come in the new Socialist Republic of the Isles.  We are but a link in a chain, and that chain is under threat.  Protect the chain by taking responsibility for your own flesh and blood.  Do not let the enemy poison your kin.

Home Schooling is one of the most important weapons in our arsenal.  Let us use it to our fullest and build a future Britain of our choosing, not of the globalists.  It isn't an easy path, but its rewards are immeasurable.  Our children are worth the struggle.  Isn't it, after all, for them that we fight?

Building the network: Maintaining borders, across borders

SMPBI has steadily been connecting with groups and parties inside and outside the British Isles.  This is a work in progress, and we will be publishing formal list shortly, with a mutually acceptable umbrella name for all of us working together.  More to follow...

In the meantime, we invite those who have been following us from a distance, who would like to join in this venture, to get in touch at our contact address:

jointhesmpbi@gmail.com

Together, we can build a better future...

Defend Children: Defend Childhood

The duty of a Socialist Republic is to defend the most vulnerable, and to do all that can be done to protect the future - the next generation.  Capitalism takes the exact opposite approach, and we have to stop that damage ourselves, and do it now.

Childhood ends as soon as children enter high/secondary school, and parents hand over power to the state and the media. Turn on any radio station which plays 'pop' music, and one finds oneself bombarded with foul lyrics focused on the need to have sex, to be pretty, and to be 'popular' - itself a term used euphemistically to encourage promiscuity.  Television and the film industry ridicule virginity, and promote experimental sex with as many people as possible of both sexes.  Sex education in schools bombards children with pornographic material, backed up with a politically correct message that it is 'healthy' and 'natural' to behave in a manner which totally destroys all self respect and turns the individual into a sexual commodity.

With the constant barrage of propaganda promoting sex as a be-all and end-all for everyone, is it any wonder that children see the act of sex as a way to prove that they are 'grown-ups'?  Pop music aimed at children is replete with lyrics which are often so obscene that cds are accompanied by ludicrous 'parent advisory' warnings; warnings which only serve to make the so-called music more desirable to children who feel the need to rebel.  This, of course, is the whole idea.  The school system condemns children who do not wish to engage in sex acts with anyone and everyone, as bigots.  Children should not be encouraged to have sex with anyone! 

For the hypocrites of the media to gasp in horror at the sexualisation of children, then in the very next moment, promote a film or piece of music which encourages children to adopt the lifestyle of prostitutes, is hypocrisy of such an extreme that it explains how the serial pædophile, Jimmy Savile, was able to go about his evil trade for his entire adult life, with no opposition.

As any parent knows, children copy adults; this is how they learn.  When adults abdicate their responsibilities, leaving children at the mercy of the State and the media, it does not take a genius to know that they will mimic the attitudes and behaviours of those who are presented to them as role models.  Teachers are effectively commissars of liberalism; inculcating the young with the diseased thought of political and social extremists.  Sex education lessons cannot but create a desire to put into practice all which is taught; when lessons teach that transgenderism is real, children will feel compelled to play about with lunatic ideas which cannot lead anywhere except the road to insanity and physical injury. 

Children in the West are under a relentless assault from the media, education system and of course their equally embattled peers, to abandon the innocence of childhood and become depraved sexual beasts.  The only chance for our children to get through this minefield unscathed, is for parents - indeed for all adults - to take responsibility for them.  Children learn to dress inappropriately through watching pop stars on the television - take the television away and should they express a desire to dress in a way which sick paedophiles will take as a green light to attack them, don't let them!  Children become obsessed with sex through listening to degrading music - don't let them!

If possible, home school your children.  Abandoning your children to the Establishment's education system, is tantamount to acquiescing in their brain-washing.  For those who cannot home school, every opportunity must be taken to learn exactly what they are being taught by the mis-educators, and doing everything possible to reverse the damage.

Childhood matters.  Children are the most important people in our society, because they are the future.  Childhood does not end at 12; it is being destroyed by design.  Identifying the instruments of destruction (the State, the media, pop culture, fashion et al) is the key to saving our children.  Once we can see who is damaging our children we can stop them.  There are parents who allow their children to watch television unsupervised, and who do not know what their children are listening to.  This is an outrage and is inexcusable.  If we do not defend our children, then the battle is already lost.

Turn off the television!  Turn off the radio!  Throw the magazines in the bin!  Take responsibility for your children; guiding them away from all harmful influences.  If childhood ends at 12, that is the fault of the parents who have failed to protect their own.  If there is only one aspect of our lives which we refuse to hand over to the enemy, it has to be this one.

Wilberg on Wednesday - The Illness Is The Cure pt 7/46

Empathy – a Foreign Language for Doctors?

(see also appendix 5)

It seems that most doctors literally cannot bring themselves to utter even the most basic and commonplace empathic phrasesin response to a patient’s presentation of his or her symptoms –even though these can have an immediately beneficial and healing impact. Indeed they are even taught in their medical training empathy as such is a hindrance to maintaining clinical ‘objectivity’ in doctor-patient communication. In reality it can be the magic key to affirming – rather than defending themselves against – the patient’s lived, subjective experience of illness. In this way it can give an immediate sense of being recognised as a human being and with it an immediately enhance sense of well-being. In contrast, maintaining a stance of ‘clinical distance’ is a form of communicative pathology in the most literal sense– a ‘sick’ (pathos) use of language (logos). Yet since empathy is clearly a ‘foreign language’ for most biomedical doctors and clinicians what follows can be likened to a elementary language phrasebook, not in ‘English as a Foreign Language’ (EFL) but in ‘Empathy as a Foreign Language’ (EFL) one so basic it is quite extraordinary that it should be needed at all.Note: feel free to distribute or put a copy of it up for doctors in your local clinical practice or hospital!

1. Opening empathic phrases in response to patient’s presentation:

For example, how about simple phrases like:

I’m sorry to hear that. / I’m sorry to hear you’ve been feeling that way/so bad.

That sounds very unpleasant/distressing/painful.

How has that been making you feel?

I can understand why you feel so worried/upset/concerned/distressed.

I can understand why you wanted to see me.

How have you been coping?

2. Some simple closing phrases to end a consultation:

How are you feeling now?

How do you think you will cope?

Do you have any other worries?

Is there anything else that you’d like to tell me about/ that is bothering you?

Do let me know how things go.(which the patient could do by leaving a note for their doctor by phone)

The common failure to use this type of empathic language is itselfsymptomatic of a larger problem – namely the almost total lack of interest on the part of clinicians in the patient's lived experience of illness and its effects ontheir life rather than justtheir presenting symptoms.

“One unintended outcome of the modern transformation of the medical care system is that it does just about everything to drive the practitioner’s attention away from the experienceof illness. The system thereby contributes importantly to the alienation of the chronically ill from their professional care-givers and, paradoxically, to the relinquishment by the practitioner of that aspect of the healer’s art that is most ancient, most powerful and most existentially rewarding.”

Arthur Kleinman M.D. The Illness Narrative: suffering, healing and the human condition

The Fight Against Trans-Fascism is a Fight For Decency

Trans-Fascism is a serious danger to Society.  Lesbians have rightly pointed out that the obscene 'Cotton Ceiling' ideology is a misogynistic (potentially rapist) attack on Women who do not want to have sex with Men - putting pressure on them to do so with the threat of accusation of 'transphobia'.  Transphobia is a nonsense word, but like so many before it, is destined to become a punishable 'hate crime' in the liberal dystopia we live under.  There is a very real possibility that Lesbians who do not submit to sex with men in dresses, could be hounded from jobs, and even arrested as hate criminals for not allowing themselves to be raped.

Children are the target of Trans-Fascists, with the liberal indoctrination system of 'school' sending in trans terrorists to corrupt their minds, and the media pumping brainwashing propaganda into their minds via the TV and 'music' industry - all of which, of cause, is designed to create more confused individuals, who declare themselves to be 'non-binary' (another nonsense term) and ready for genital mutilation.

Effeminate Gay Men are Men, just as Butch Lesbians are Women.  To say that people with traits associated with the opposite sex are trapped in the wrong body and need surgery to become aligned with the right one, is profoundly homophobic.

Men suffering from autogynephilia get aroused by cross-dressing, and/or fantasise about having sex as a woman.  This fetishism usually is expressed as transvestism, and it harms no-one.  The Trans-Fascists have appropriated Transvestites into their 'spectrum' of 'transgenders', promoting the idea that if a man likes to dress as a woman (usually in clothing associated with prostitutes, and hardly flattering to women), then he IS a woman, and needs surgery to align him to the right body!

Lesbians, Gays, Transvestites, Children - all are under attack.  The sexualisation of children to make profits in surgery and for hormone companies is a form of paedophilia.  Adults are being bombarded with so much propaganda that it has become normal for people to say 'they' and 'their' when speaking of a single individual.  For children, the impact of the Trans-Fascist agenda, is to break their mental health and make them easy prey to the Trans Industry - an industry which has the full cooperation of the music industry, news and entertainment media, school system, law, government, and more besides, in grooming them just as all paedophiles groom their victims.

Fight back. Educate yourself, your friends, your family, about the Trans-Fascists and what they are doing.  Stop the Trans-Fascist Paedophile Terror.

Below is a good source of literature for you to study. The folder contains a range of printable stickers and leaflets aimed at fighting the Trans-terrorists.  The UK Thought Police do not want these stickers placed in Women's spaces (Toilets, Make-up Shops, Women's Changing Rooms in Clothes Shops, Women's Refuges/Shelters, Women's Changing Rooms in Swimming Baths/Gyms) or in places such as Schools, Council Offices, Shopping Centres, Bus/Rail Stations/Shelters, or in fact anywhere at all (especially places with CCTV).  The police state mentality has now made it dangerous to distribute literature in the form of stickers, unless you are wearing a hoodie and finger-print protecting gloves and carry bottled water to apply stickers rather than DNA-rich saliva. The information below is for your own education, so with that in mind, download and make use of the material for your own interest:

Download Printable Arsenal for Education

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 24

.....................

Another realistic reason why the omnipotence of 'wealth' is more certain in a democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it. - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution)

"Multi-millionaire Julian Dunkerton said he was backing the People's Vote campaign because "we have a genuine chance to turn this around".

Mr Dunkerton said he believes his brand, which he left earlier this year, "would never have become the global success that it did" if Brexit had happened 20 years earlier. His donation, the largest received by the People's Vote, will go towards funding opinion polls.

He added: "I will be paying for one of the most detailed polling exercises ever undertaken by a campaign so that more and more people have the confidence to demand the democratic right for their voice to be heard."
- Donald Perkins

..............................

"Nationalism emerged as a progressive idea along with the formation and development of each nation. However, it was understood in the past as an ideology that defends bourgeois interests. It is true that in the days of the nationalist movement against feudalism, the newly-emergent bourgeoisie, upholding the banner of nationalism, stood in the van of the movement.
At that time, the interests of both the masses of the people and the newly-emergent bourgeoisie were basically coincident in their struggle against feudalism. Therefore, the banner of nationalism seemed to reflect the common interests of the nation. As capitalism developed and the bourgeoisie became the reactionary ruling class after victorious bourgeois revolutions in various countries, nationalism was used as a means of defending the interests of the bourgeois class.

The bourgeoisie disguised their class interests as national interests, and used nationalism as an ideological instrument for solidifying their class domination. This led nationalism to be understood, among the people, as a bourgeois ideology that runs counter to the national interests. We should distinguish clearly between true nationalism that loves the nation and defends its interests and bourgeois nationalism that advocates the interests of the bourgeois class. Bourgeois nationalism reveals itself as national egoism, national exclusivism and big-power chauvinism in the relationship between countries and nations; it is reactionary in that it creates antagonism and disagreement between countries and nations, and checks the development of friendly relations between the various peoples of the world.

The original revolutionary theory of the working class failed to give a correct explanation of nationalism. It paid major attention to strengthening the international unity and solidarity of the working class all over the world-the fundamental problem in the then socialist movement-failing to pay due attention to the national problem. It went so far as to regard nationalism as an anti-socialist ideological trend, because bourgeois nationalism was doing great harm to the socialist movement. This is why progressive people in the past rejected nationalism, considering it incompatible with communism.
It is wrong to view communism as incompatible with nationalism. Communism does not advocate only the interests of the working class; it also advocates the interests of the nation-hence it is an ideology of loving the country and the people. Nationalism is also an ideology of loving the country and the people, as it defends the interests of the country and the nation. Love of the country and the people is an ideological emotion common to communism and nationalism; herein lies the ideological basis on which they can ally with one another. Therefore, there is no reason or ground to pit one against the other, and reject nationalism.

Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations-this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism.
Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation.

For the first time in history, the great leader President Kim Il Sung gave a correct explanation of nationalism, and elucidated the relationship between communism and nationalism and between communists and nationalists in his revolutionary practice of carving out the destiny of his country and people. He said that in order to be a true communist one must first become a true nationalist. With a determination to devote his life to his country and fellow-countrymen, he embarked on the road of revolution in his early years and created the immortal Juche idea, on the basis of which he established a Juche-oriented outlook on the nation, and scientifically expounded the essence and progressive character of nationalism. Through a correct combination of class character with national character and of the destiny of socialism with that of the nation, he realized an alliance between communists and nationalists, cemented the class and national positions of our socialism and led the nationalists to join the efforts for socialist construction and national reunification. Attracted by his broad magnanimity and noble personality, many nationalists took the patriotic road to national unity and national reunification, making a clean break with their erroneous pasts. Kim Ku, a life-long anti-communist, allied with communists, a patriotic changeover, in the twilight of his life, and Choe Tok Sin, a nationalist, was able to find salvation as a patriot in the leader’s embrace. The great leader treasured and championed the independence not only of our nation but also of the peoples of the rest of the world. He devoted all his efforts to the cause of making the whole world independent, as well as to the Korean revolution. We can say that there has been no man in the world as great as him, who devoted his whole life to the nation’s independence and prosperity, and a bright future for mankind. He was the most steadfast communist and, at the same time, a peerless patriot, true nationalist and paragon among internationalists.

I also assert, as the leader instructed, that one must be an ardent patriot, a true nationalist, in order to become a genuine revolutionary, a communist. The communist who fights for the realization of the independence of the masses of the people must first of all be a true nationalist. Those who fight for their people, their country and their homeland are genuine communists, true nationalists and ardent patriots. Those who do not love their own parents, brothers and sisters cannot love their country and compatriots. Likewise, those who do not love their own homeland and people cannot become communists.

We are inheriting with fidelity the great leader’s noble idea of loving the country, the nation and the people, and making every effort to rally all the sections of the nation by dint of all-embracing politics, and lead them to the road of patriotism.

It is not communists but imperialists who oppose nationalism and place obstacles in the way of the independent development of nations at present. The imperialists are manoeuvring cunningly to realize their dominationist ambition on the plea of “globalization” and “integration.” They claim that the ideal of building a sovereign nation-state or the love for country and nation is a “national prejudice lagging behind the times,” and “globalization” and “integration” are the trend of the times in the present situation, when science and technology are developing rapidly and economic exchanges between countries are being conducted briskly on an international scale. Today, when every country and nation is carving out its own destiny with its own ideology, system and culture, there can never be a political, economic, ideological and cultural “integration” of the world. The manoeuvres of the US imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are aimed at turning the world into what they call a “free” and “democratic” world styled after the United States, and thus bringing all countries and nations under their domination and subordination. The present era is one of independence. Human history is propelled by the struggle of the masses of the people for independence, not by the dominationist ambition and aggressive policy of the imperialists. The manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are doomed to failure, as they are opposed by the vigorous efforts of the world’s peoples aspiring after independence.

We should resolutely oppose and reject the manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration,” and staunchly fight to preserve the excellent characteristics of our nation and safeguard its independence. We frequently emphasize the Korean-nation-first principle so as to preserve the national character and defend the independence of the nation."

- Kim Jong Il, On Having a Correct Understanding of Nationalism

...........................

.......................

For many people, and I believe that we observe it in public politics, the principal frontier that divides our societies, is not the frontier that separates social-democrats and conservatives, but the frontier that separates those on top from the rest of society, the remainder of society that suffers from the neoliberal consensus, from technocratic policies and budget cuts, sometimes applied by the left, sometimes by the right. [...] What’s at stake in our European societies is not so much knowing if the policies of our government will orient themselves a bit to the left or to the right. It’s about a fundamental combat between democracy and oligarchy. And this combat can rally many people who traditionally associate with the values of the right, or conservative values, but who are beginning to see that there’s nothing to hope for from the traditional elites of their countries. [...] Presently, the frontier between democracy and oligarchy is a more radical frontier, which furthermore allows for a much larger majority than the left alone.

« Pour beaucoup de gens, et je crois qu’on l’observe bien dans les politiques publiques, la principale frontière qui divise nos sociétés n’est pas celle qui sépare les sociaux-démocrates et les conservateurs, mais celle qui sépare ceux d’en haut du reste de la société, reste de la société qui souffre du consensus néolibéral, des politiques technocratiques et des coupes budgétaires, appliquées tantôt par la gauche, tantôt par la droite. [...] Ce qui est en jeu dans nos sociétés européennes n’est pas tant de savoir si les politiques de nos gouvernements vont s’orienter un peu plus à gauche ou à droite. Il s’agit d’un combat fondamental entre démocratie et oligarchie. Et ce combat peut rassembler beaucoup de gens qui s’associent traditionnellement aux valeurs de la droite, ou à des valeurs conservatrices, mais qui commencent à percevoir qu’il n’y a rien à espérer des élites traditionnelles de leurs pays. [...] Actuellement, la frontière fondamentale entre démocratie et oligarchie est une frontière plus radicale, qui laisse par ailleurs entrevoir la possibilité d’une majorité bien plus large que celle de la seule gauche. »

(Inigo Errejon, entretien, Le Vent se lève, 16 août 2017)

..........................

“Mussolini is a riddle to me. Many of his reforms attract me. He seems to have done much for the peasant class. I admit an iron hand is there. But as violence is the basis of Western society, Mussolini’s reforms deserve an impartial study. His care of the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about co-ordination between capital and labour, seem to me to demand special attention. … My own fundamental objection is that these reforms are compulsory. But it is the same in all democratic institutions. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini’s implacability is a desire to serve his people. Even behind his emphatic speeches there is a nucleus of sincerity and of passionate love for his people. It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini.”

— Mahatma Ghandi, December 20, 1931

....................................

Otto Strasser on Race:

"Reconstruction, to our minds, could only be brought about on the basis of a new order which would re-establish harmony between capital and labor and between the individual and the community. The word 'harmony' excluded any idea of dictatorship. There would be no dictatorship, either of class or of race." (Hitler and I)

"This advocacy of the idea of the People logically implied the disavowal of any valuation of peoples or nations as good or bad, as better or worse, since they all have equal rights, equal needs, and equal duties, in accordance with the will of the Creator, who gave each of them its own kind, its own nature, and its own tasks. This profound respect for organic life and the fact that it is necessary for us and incumbent on us to recognize and maintain human dignity imply that it will be a non-conditional part of the social and political organization of New Germany to maintain the equal rights of all human beings." (Germany Tomorrow)

Otto Strasser on Anti-Semitism:

"In various parts of my Deutsche Revolution and in numerous articles in the international press I have expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterized the Hitler System; and I may also mention that as early as 1928 in a party periodical, I protested editorially against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of the People!" (Germany Tomorrow)

............................

.........................

The right of self-determination is a way of respecting a nation’s right to live the way it chooses to. Lenin states that this right applied even to the most ‘extreme’ options, including the ‘right to secession’. For this reason, the right of nations to self-determination forms the ‘right to establish a separate state’. This means that even if a majority of a nation now calls to ‘break off from’, i.e. ‘secession’, this right must be recognised. However, Lenin did not want this right because he wanted a separation, but because he wanted to advocate a genuine fraternity and unity among peoples. According to the programme of the Bolsheviks, the solution to the national question was to recognise the right of self-determination, and through this, removing all national privileges under a single state framework as a voluntary union based on equal rights. In order for the peoples to live together, the ‘right to secession’ must be recognised. Prohibition of this right encourages separation. For example, the more the demand of Turkey’s Kurds to have autonomous life is repressed, the more the Kurdish people gain a sense of need for ‘separation’. Therefore, the right of nations to self-determination does not mean to advocate separation but to defend the removal of national privileges and the conditions of voluntary unity.
- Arif KOŞAR, http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/

Who are the Terrorists? Mark Rowley knows...

Establishment mouthpiece, Mark Rowley (former chief of thought police at the London Metropolitan police force), has taken to the UK regime's BBC propaganda service, to declare that childish fantasists who like to meet in secret and talk about Hitler, are a threat to the UK!  Childish sad little boys with a Hitler fetish are not terrorists - they are as dangerous to the UK as Steam Railway enthusiasts, or Bird Watchers.  Their hobby is just a hobby, and the former Met Terror Chief (Terrorist Chief?) is trying to make them appear more than they are.  He is an expert in Terrorism, because he has worked for an organisation which thrives on it...

If terrorism can be defined as actions and threats which cause an individual to live in fear, terrified of what may happen, then perhaps rather than looking at people obsessed with a period of history in a far away land, we should look closer to home to find who the terrorists are.

At school we were told horror stories of the Gestapo coming for people when there were no witnesses, and spiriting them away to be held whilst systematically abusing them with threatening questions.  Is not the notorious Nacht und Nebel but a historical form of the Police's preferred method of pulling people from their beds at 3 o'clock in the morning, and taken them against their will for interrogation using a form of torture which relies on intimidation and sleep deprivation?

No, apparently, that is British democracy in action.

The Surveillance State with its highly visible CCTV, and paid informers does not deter criminals, but rather alongside boosting the sale of hoodies and sun glasses, makes the people acutely aware that they are being watched.  This is tantamount to imprisonment without charge, and the supposition that every one is 'up to something'.  Isn't this destruction of freedom a form of terrorism?

No, it is a tool for keeping us safe.  How thoughtful!

Spy planes and military drones overhead, ready to attack at a moment's notice.  Surely this is terrifying if one cares to think of the damage these drones are capable of.  The recent attempt to murder the President of Venezuela in a drone attack, highlights the potential of these new weapons.  The British State is quite happy to murder the common people, such as was the case at the Peterloo Massacre two centuries ago, in the Irish Famine, or in the deaths of over 1400 people at the hands of the Metropolitan Police alone in recent years.  The uniformed and plain clothes thugs of the State do not think twice about beating ordinary UK subjects, and are more than happy to shoot people dead in cold blood.  The taser-armed, cs-equipped, more frequently fully armed violent thugs of the UK Police do not inspire respect, they breed fear (terror).

According to the Establishment's propaganda wing, the BBC, Big Brother loves us, and we should love him, her, it (better not be 'transist', lest using the word 'Brother' brings the Thought Police a knocking).  The Police only beat us because we have been naughty children and dared to ask for more than the scraps of the table, whilst the ruling class get richer by squeezing the people into absolute penury.

If we are fighting a war against terrorism in countries which didn't have any problems with us until the Government which claims to represent us started bombing them, then surely we must live in much freer countries thanks to our military efforts?

No?  Then surely, the surveillance and draconian policing which now extends to incarcerating people for comments left on Twitter and Facebook, must have improved our lives somehow?

It has not.

The real terrorists are the ones reading posts like this from their desks in Menwith Hill and Rugby.  They are the ones who silence free speech in order to ensure no-one offends anyone by having any opinion whatsoever which hasn't been officially sanctioned in Whitehall and the City.  They are the ones who impose taxation and fines for behaviour which harms no-one, isn't immoral, and is only criminal thanks to their deciding it is.  Putting the wrong rubbish in a recycling bin is a serious offence you know.

If the real terrorists are in the service of the Crown (which they are), then just what the hell are our military doing in the Middle East, Asia and Africa?  'Our' military are training foreigners to become new terrorists in the service of the Crown and global finance.  'Our' government are making the world a more dangerous place for everyone including ourselves by a combined strategy of terrorist warfare and total surveillance and restriction on thought.  Terror at home goes hand in glove with terror abroad.

If this is true (which it is) then by doing nothing, we are accomplices to terror.  We have to say no to the Police State, NATO, and the City of London.  The horrors committed by the State which dares to use our name to hide behind, will only get worse as the enemy gains more control.  We have to fight back, using all peaceful means at our disposal.

We need to stop supporting our enemies by silently accepting their rule.  The real terrorists sit in Whitehall and the City.  If we are to escape a life of fear we have to root-out those who misrule this country.  Then the world will be a safer place, and life will be better for everyone.  Even if motivated by improving only our own lives, we have to do something.

So what can we do?

Join the SMPBI and build the Revolutionary Patriotic Socialist Movement.  Don't let gobshites like Mark Rowley get away with their lies.

The Met is pushing nonsense that hobbyists are dangerous, all the while undermining resistance to the imminent arrival of real terrorists who have been murdering in Syria for global finance imperialism.  The Al Qaeda front, White Helmets, are being brought to our shores, with the fresh blood of Syrians murdered on the orders of people who Rowley has supped tea with, still on their boots.

The terrorists we have to fear, sit behind desks in government and police stations. It is the task of Revolutionaries to clean them out and build a Socialist future where their memories will be spat upon, and where their like will never again be allowed to occupy the soil of the British Isles.

Keep Britain out of the Free Trade trap - CPBML, Workers

Source: https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/keep-britain-out-free-trade-trap

Chinese manufactures waiting for export at a Shanghai container port – the world’s busiest. Photo chuyuss/shutterstock.com

Siren voices are telling us that we should be negotiating Free Trade Agreements with the US, with the EU, with just about anybody…

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels declared in the Communist Manifesto that capitalism had “resolved personal worth into exchange value” and wiped out all previous freedoms to establish just the one: “Free Trade”. And “Free Trade”, as we have learnt, is the opposite of freedom for a sovereign country.

Both a means and an end, trade is the “heavy artillery” of capitalism, they said, the weapon with which it batters down the “Chinese walls” protecting nations. “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst; i.e., to become bourgeois themselves.”

That was 170 years ago. And it’s as true as ever today. But capitalism has not had everything its own way, and its dream – for us a nightmare vision – of a world where free trade rules unhindered is not yet reality.

World domination

Britain adopted free trade – trade with few or no tariffs, quotas or restrictions – for much of the economy around 1840. It was a conscious rejection of a strategy (known as mercantilism) of protecting trade with the empire. India, Australia, Canada, South Africa – these were no longer enough. British capital was out to take over the world.

In this struggle, as in all its struggles, it sought to enlist the support of the working class, promising workers cheap bread. The Chartists, at least, were too savvy for this, pointing out that if the price of bread came down, so too would wages, the price of labour. Cheap food, usually poor quality and produced under dubious conditions, always means cheap labour and is therefore good for the employer.

The first salvos in this new trade war came when Britain forced China to import opium. How’s that for ethical capitalism? Opium smoking had been illegal in China since 1729. In order to break down China’s control over exports through Canton (now Guandong) and get its hands on the country’s silver, the East India Company started auctioning opium grown in India to independent Chinese merchants.

In 1839, concerned at the growing number of addicts, the Chinese government seized 20,000 chests of opium – over a million kilograms, and easily the biggest drugs haul in history. Britain responded by sending the Royal Navy, which humiliated the Chinese fleet and forced a settlement favourable to the East India Company. “Gunboat diplomacy” had arrived.

‘WE ALREADY HAVE AMPLE EXPERIENCE OF FREE TRADE: IT’S CALLED THE EUROPEAN UNION.’

Then, between 1846 and 1849, the government abolished the Corn Laws, which it was claimed kept the price of bread artificially high by effectively banning imports from abroad. The price of grain was initially unaffected, but when good harvests and cheap steamship transport kicked in around 20 years later, imports soared. In the 1830s just 2 per cent of Britain’s grain was imported. By the 1880s that figure had risen to 45 per cent (65 per cent for wheat).

Fast forward to 1939, and Britain was importing 70 per cent of its food. Over the course of World War II more than 36,000 merchant seamen and women and roughly as many Allied sailors died plugging that gap and similar gaps in strategic materials.

In 2018, with trade an object of everyday political debate and disinformation in the context of the Brexit negotiations, workers are being urged to back free trade once again. Where do the interests of workers lie?

Single market

Not with free trade. We already have ample experience of that: it’s called the European Union, which operates on the basis of the “free” (for the employer) movement of goods,capital, services and workers.

And free trade has moved on since the 19th century, when the idea related exclusively to trade in goods. The modern free trade agreements are hardly about goods at all: they are about services, especially financial services and investment, and even free movement of labour. What’s more, most modern free trade deals target “restrictions” such as legislation on workers’ rights, environment laws and consumer protection.

Free trade means countries that seek to protect industries and services are bound in legal chains. Capital is free to invest in privatised companies, but countries are told what can and can’t be in public ownership.

It’s excellent for capital and bad for workers, which is why workers rejected that model in the referendum of 2016.

The free traders say they don’t want to be restricted by the EU, but their aim is a whole planet built in the image of the EU. They want a world where capital can move seamlessly from country to country, one where nation states cede control to multinationals and – in the event of any dispute – their lawyers. They call it “globalisation” and present it as inevitable and immutable.

The argument is often portrayed as a battle between those who favour trading with the US and those who favour ties with the EU. But that ignores the fact that the greatest supporters of EU integration are the US multinationals themselves.

You need look no further than the lobby group they set up to influence Brussels policy, the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, or AmCham EU for short. Its agenda is clear: the EU needs to take powers over investment policy and services away from its member states.

In July 2017 it welcomed EU’s Court of Justice ruling on the EU/Singapore Free Trade Agreement. That ruling clarified the Commission’s sphere of competence in signing such agreements but said that at present the bits relating to portfolio investment and disputes settlement need agreement from member states. But moving forward, added AmCham EU, “the EU needs to establish a new tradition of seeking political and legal acceptance of EU trade policy.”

The language is coded, but it couldn’t be clearer, coming as it does from the body with the tag-line “Speaking for American Business in Europe”.

To the world’s multinationals and finance capitalists, sovereign states are thoroughly undesirable, an obstacle to profit. Worst of all are nation states, where sovereignty is supported by shared culture and history.

‘WE DON’T WANT FREE TRADE: WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TRADE FREELY.’

Nation states may have grown up in Europe along with the rise of the bourgeoisie, but now they stand as the last bulwark against the domination of finance capital. The bourgeoisie has split – some still need the nation, most have abandoned it – but workers know that if we can’t control our own country we have no chance at all.

The EU’s historic mission has been to sew up an entire continent and deliver it into the hands of the multinational corporations through the medium of free trade.

Our referendum vote has dented that strategy, but it still stands. The latest tactic is to tell us – as the Japanese ambassador did on 8 February – that the multinationals will abandon Britain if we don’t have free trade with the EU.

The modern kind of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was piloted in 1987 with the deal between the US and Canada, later expanded to take in Mexico and become NAFTA. With the World Trade Organization’s push to “liberalise” trade stalling (see Box 1), the US went hunting for new agreements, starting with Guatemala.

Then it went for a big one: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, between the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

China was pointedly excluded. The aim was to bypass the World Trade Organization and present China with the fait accompli of a new world trading order, new rules for everyone. Once again, capitalism was using trade to try to batter down a Chinese wall. Barack Obama was explicit:  “If we don’t pass this agreement – if America doesn’t write those rules – then countries like China will.”

But there was opposition, not least in the US itself. The TPP agreement was signed in 2016, but it has never been implemented – strangled at birth when Donald Trump withdrew the US from it saying it put American jobs at risk.

The EU was not far behind, setting off to negotiate FTAs with Canada, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and so on. Progress has been snail-like. But the big prize has been an FTA with the US – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP.

‘IF WE JUST SIT AND DO NOTHING, THERE’S NOTHING TO PROTECT US FROM TTIP.’

Negotiations started in 2013, but were still only halfway through the list of topics when Trump was elected and everything ground to a halt. The US would, it appears, like to restart the negotiations, but has been waiting for a government to be formed in Germany. (After all, no one can lift a finger in the EU without German approval.)

During the referendum campaign Obama warned that if Britain voted to leave we would go to “the back of the queue” when it came to negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The threat backfired: the reaction of many people was, “Really? Can we have that in writing?”

Now we have Trump saying an FTA with Britain could be sewn up “very, very quickly”. Leaving aside the Trump hype (“very quickly” and “trade deals” are two phrases that should never figure in the same sentence), the threat is real.

What do we want?

Some supporters of the EU here are prone to shouting loudly that leaving won’t protect us from TTIP. Like all good lies, it’s based on a half-truth. If we just sit and do nothing, then of course there’s nothing to protect us from TTIP and similar trade agreements.

But sitting and doing nothing is precisely what these EU fans suggest: that parliament should overturn the people’s referendum decision. If that happens, then we know exactly where we will be: stuck in the EU and banned from making a trade agreement of any kind with any country.

Only outside of the EU – and therefore outside the customs union – will the UK be able to take up its seat at the World Trade Organization. It’s still a member, formally, but it gave up its independent voice when it joined the European Economic Community and its customs union in 1973.

Outside the EU Britain will be able to make its own trade agreements. Workers must make it clear that we don’t want free trade: we want to be able to trade freely, which is quite another thing.

Against the freedom of the multinationals and finance capital, we must assert the freedom to protect our industries, services, agriculture and fisheries.

The last thing we want is to see the country flooded with cheap agricultural imports that knock a few pennies off the cost but lay waste to British farms and make us dependent on imports.

Nor do we want to be a dumping ground for German steel, or Chinese steel for that matter. We should insist that British steel is used on the new railways such as HS2 – and that British-made locomotives and carriages run on the new lines as well.

And if the politicians really screw up their courage, they might even insist that pharmaceutical multinationals like Pfizer that want to sell their overpriced drugs to the NHS manufacture them in Britain. Which is what a (Conservative) government forced Pfizer to do in 1952!

• Related article: 1: The road from the WTO to Free Trade Agreements

• Related article: 2: The EU's new colonialism