Boris Johnson, Tommy Robinson: Smoke and Mirrors Merchants Deflecting from the Real Danger to the People

If anyone has any doubts at all about the demise of the nation, one need look no further than the pathetic morons who support the ex-leader of the English Defence League. Comprised every conceivable type of brain-dead reactionary, the EDL was a gift to those who wish to see all opposition to globalism silenced. Far from existing to defend Englishness, these malcontents were the epitome of everything which is wrong with England.  Tommy Robinson is a hero to the people who think that people who follow the Koran are the greatest threat to the UK.  The EDL is now a mere shadow of what it was in its heyday, but even though small in numbers, its influence continues, as can be seen by Boris the toff Johnson's public statement that Women in Islamic dress resemble bank robbers.  The spirit of the EDL is still worthy of attention.

The EDL claim to oppose Sharia Law. Their opposition to Islam is a mindless unthinking hatred of a religion they have no understanding of. The reactionaries of the EDL get their information about Islam from the war-mongering tabloids. Following the Establishment propaganda that there is a War on Terror as a result of Muslims destroying the World Trade Centre, these 9/11 devotees are little more than boot-boys for the Crown and the globalists who seek to destroy all sovereign nations so to more easily rape them financially and culturally. That the EDL believe the 9/11 lie should be adequate evidence of their sub-normal level of intelligence.

The EDL do not exist to defend England, but rather to attack Islam. They argue that Sharia Law denies women the right to dress as they wish. The EDL's propaganda features women dressed as whores. The notion that it is a good thing for a woman to dress like a prostitute and behave as one (albeit having anonymous sex for free) highlights the mental illness of the EDL - and, one would suspect, indicates that these 'men' are unable to maintain a relationship with a woman and so due to sexual inadequacy and lack of respect for women, these verminous excuses for men seek to turn all women into whores in the hope that they may procure sex from the women who have absolutely no standards, and will stoop so low as to have sex with even the lowest of all low lifes.

Is Islam really the enemy of the British way of life? Traditional British society is founded on the supremacy of the family - Women are respected and motherhood is honoured. One of the most fundamental aspects of Britishness is a belief that women are to be protected and that sex is something to be cherished within marriage, not something which is cheap and to be considered with as much thought one would afford the choice of sauce on a fast food takeaway meal. Women have always been valued as the cornerstone of the family, and thus of society. To this end, in order to protect women from predatory ego-centric materialistic males, it has been a requirement that women dress modestly. This requirement is borne of a desire to protect women from those who see them as nothing more than sex objects - people such as the cretinous materialists of the EDL.

The EDL tenet that women should go around dressed in the manner of prostitutes is anti-British. The sexual revolution of the 1960s which overturned the natural decency of society was ushered in by globalists opposed to the all culture. It was not Muslims who smashed our families and turned our people into sex-crazed lunatics. Muslims did not push a toxic liberal belief system into our schools and public sector, creating an anti-society of respectless and valueless consumer-producers. No, this atrocity was instigated at the behest of a minority group which has been striving to take over the entire economic system of the world: the Ruling & Corporate Class are to blame, most of whom are not in fact Muslim!  The EDL take pride in supporting the architects of the destruction of Tradition. The moronic EDL are complicit in the destruction of Britain, which they blame on Islam. Traditional Christianity and Islam are almost identical as regards the protection of women through dressing modestly. Dressing as whores is not the British way, but rather the anti-British way of the people who view Money and Power as everything.

Christianity and Islam are based on the primacy of the spirit, as they see it. The EDL despise the notion of faith in a higher power than humanity. Christianity and Islam are opposed to promiscuity, abortion, and all manner of sexual degeneracy. The two religions are ardent defenders of the individuals right to live without the fear of having one's possessions taken away by the State of by thieves. Real Christianity enforces the Ten Commandments with a vigour which equals that of so-called fundamental Islam. Christianity and Islam differ in respect of how Jesus and Mohamed are considered. The EDL are not campaigning to have Jesus honoured as more than a Prophet, nor are they campaigning for the status of Mohamed to be reduced from such. The EDL attack Islam without examining it. Their ignorance of the true nature of Christianity is astounding. If the EDL were to examine the religious influences impacting upon life in Britain they would realise that the perverted liberalism which is breaking the back of our country comes from a diabolical cult which is dedicated to the overthrowal of Christianity as well as Islam.

The EDL are fervent supporters of the Israeli occupation and brutalisation of Palestine. A true patriot has no choice but to support the Palestinians in their struggle for sovereignty. Freedom from the globalist menace can only be accomplished by mutual support for all who are under the yoke of globalism. The EDL are simply following the Establishment agenda by labelling as terrorists and extremists anyone who takes a stand against Zionism. The greatest menace in Britain is the financial oppression of the banking and financial system and the elite who sit atop it. When the EDL chant 'God save the Queen' they are chanting for one of the financial elite and a key enemy of our nation, and in fact of all nations.

The British Isles ARE in danger, but the likes of the EDL are aiding those who are brutalising our way of life. Multi-culturalism (anti-culturalism), Liberal Feminism (anti-Female-ism!), Trans-Fascism (child abuse/denial of nature), Sexual Liberation (promiscuity/abortion), and all the other ills which afflict our nation are liberal in origin, not Christian nor Islamic. The EDL are too stupid to see that they are being used to further that cause. If they were to look back at the impact of Islam in Europe they would see that countries such as Spain fell to Islam but later freed themselves. Nations which fall under the heel of the culture destroyers never recover. If the EDL really wanted to defend Britain they would campaign against banks, rather than mosques, and they would support Gaza rather than insult the victims of Zionism. If Britain was to adopt Sharia Law it would not remain Islamic for ever. If the British Isles fail to stop the liberal globalism so favoured by the EDL we will lose everything and never return to sanity.

Britain does not need the EDL. We do not need Islam either. However, with analysis, the danger of the creed being pushed by the EDL is far more dangerous than Islam. The Islamic posters which demand that those who insult Islam be beheaded may appear extreme, but in reality it is not long ago that Christianity was of a similar vein. SMPBI calls for a return to Tradition which throws off all the Abrahamic faiths. SMPBI takes no sides in the Judaeo-Christian / Islamic power struggle - we oppose them all.

Wilberg on Wednesday - The Illness Is The Cure pt 6/46

The Medical Consultation as a ‘Set Up’

A patient wishes to make sense of his or her symptoms and arranges to see a doctor. So an appointment is duly made. Yet what remains unspoken in the consultation is that it is tacitly expected to take as its starting point certain unquestioned assumptions which serve as expected ‘points of departure’ for all doctor-patient communication. Below I list some of the most basic tacit assumptions that ‘enframe’ the medical consultation and constitute expected points of departure for all communication that occurs within it.

1. It is tacitly understood that we all know what ‘illness’ and ‘health’ are, that they are opposites, and that ‘illness’ is something ‘bad’ and ‘health’ something ‘good’.

2. It is tacitly understood and agreed that the patient arranges the consultation because he is suffering symptoms of a possible ‘illness’ which he wishes to have identified and which he or she is therefore prepared to have diagnosed through examination and testing and be prescribed treatment for.

3. It is tacitly understood and agreed that the patient will describe their symptoms and that the physician will, directly or through further tests, arrive at a medical diagnosis of the disease, recommend a course of biomedical treatment aimed at relieving their symptoms or ‘curing’ the disease – based on knowledge of its biological ‘causes’.

4. It is tacitly understood and agreed that the patient has just happened to fall victim to their symptoms ‘out of the blue’ – in other words that there is no meaning to be attached to the specific timing of their appearance in the larger context of the patient’s life and life history.

5. It is tacitly understood and agreed therefore, that symptoms have no meaning at all beyond being mere signs of a possible biological disease or dysfunction.

6. It is tacitly understood and agreed therefore that ‘making sense’ of symptoms means nothing more than taking them as possible signs of some biomedical disease – and that in no case can a biological illness or disease be itself taken as a symptom of a life-disease – a hidden life problem that manifests in the patient feeling ‘ill-at-ease’ with their lives.

7. It is tacitly understood and agreed that the patient’s suffering – their felt pain, discomfort or ‘dis-ease’ – is a mere secondary and subjective ‘effect’ of an organic disorder or ‘disease’. The contrary notion, namely that symptoms, illness and disease may be a symbol ic embodiment of a subjectively felt dis-ease’ – and of particular ways in which the patient is ‘ill-at-ease’ with their life – is ruled out in advance. Indeed such a notion constitutes sheer heresy in terms of the unquestioned dogmas of biomedical ‘science’.

Should a patient reject any or all of these assumptions, or depart from any of the unspoken rules or points of departure in their communication with a doctor, the patient will be immediately classed as a ‘difficult’ or ‘incompliant’ patient or even as deluded. Yet together these tacitly agreed assumptions and points of departure for a biomedical consultation effectively constitute an unspoken ‘set up’ or ‘frame up’ – a framework the patient is expected to compliantly adhere to. The aim of this ‘frame up’ is to enframe the meaning of the patient’s symptoms in the terms of one framework only – that of biomedicine – excluding any other possible ways of making sense of those symptoms. Any attempt by a patient to question this framework – even if only by not immediately accepting certain types of routine biomedical tests or courses of treatment – will arouse indignation and bewilderment, be seen as a threat to the authority of biomedically trained doctors and a waste of the limited time they give to their patients. Instead it could be seen as an opportunity to give themselves more time to learn about the lives of their patients as human beings, to understand their symptoms in the larger context of their life and life world.

What Most Doctors Don’t Ask

What follows is a list of some of the questions that most doctors don’t ask – and yet which are key questions for both doctor and patient in coming to understand the life meaning of particular symptoms or a particular illness. They are the sort of questions central to Life Medicine and those that a Life Doctor will ask and discuss with you.

When did your symptoms first occur?

Is there anything else in your life that is bothering/distressing you right now?

What was going on in your life in the hours, days, weeks, months or years preceding the onset of your symptoms?

What were the most significant life encounters, events, experiences, dilemmas and decisions that faced you in the period preceding the onset of your symptoms?

What was the underlying mood you experienced in this period and how would you describe it?

What were the most dominant thoughts and emotions you experienced in this period?

What do you tend to think about most when you are most aware of your symptoms?

What feelings accompany these thoughts?

What do you do with those thoughts and feelings when you have them?

What do you tend to do in response to your symptoms themselves?

At what specific times or in what specific life situations do your symptoms tend to occur or intensify?

At what times or in what situations do your symptoms tend to disappear or diminish?

Have you experienced similar symptoms in the past, and if so at what times and in what circumstances?

How do your symptoms – and the thoughts you have around them – affect your emotional life, work and relationships?

What do your symptoms either force you to do or stop you from doing?

Is there any positive benefit you can see from the way your symptoms affect your life?

How would you describe the overall or underlying mood or state of consciousness accompanying your symptoms and/or the thoughts and emotions around them?

How do your symptoms make you feel? In what way does the mood that accompanies them affect not only what you think and how you feel but also who you are – your sense of ‘you’?

Is there any positive side to the different mood and sense of self accompanying your symptoms?

Are there any other ways you could give expression to it in your way of relating to life and other people?

Alternatively, what changes in your way of relating to life and other people do you feel would most help to alter this underlying mood and/or alleviate your symptoms?

What are the most important types of experience you miss or have missed in your life and relationships?

What are the most important potentials or abilities you feel are not or have not been fulfilled or realised in your life?

What are the biggest fears or concerns you have about your symptoms, your illness or its treatment?

What would make you most happy or content in your life – independently of any improvement in your condition?

Marx on Judaism and Christianity (from 'On the Jewish Question')

From Marx’s essay ‘On the Jewish Question’

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.

On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but ALSO because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the CHRISTIAN nations.

The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have BECOME JEWS.

Captain Hamilton, for example, reports:

“The devout and politically free inhabitant of New England ... makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbor. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.”

Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.

“The man who you see at the head of a respectable congregation began as a trader; his business having failed, he became a minister. The other began as a priest but as soon as he had some money at his disposal he left the pulpit to become a trader. In the eyes of very many people, the religious ministry is a veritable business career.” (Beaumont, op. cit., pp. 185,186)

Christianity sprang from Judaism. It has merged again in Judaism.

From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become a Jew again.

Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies.

Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity, but this application could only become general after Christianity as a developed religion had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature.

Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading.

Selling [verausserung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entausserung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity – money – on them.

In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest. We explain the tenacity of the Jew not by his religion, but, on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion – egoism.

The groundless Law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself.

Here, too, man’s supreme relation is the legal one, his relation to laws that are valid for him not because they are laws of his own will and nature, but because they are the dominant laws and because departure from them is avenged.

Karl Marx: On the Jewish Question PDF

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 23

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

In his work ‘Stalin: The Enduring Legacy’ Kerry Bolton highlights the cultural policy of the USSR under Stalin and Zhadanov:

“Andrei Zhadanov, the primary theoretician on culture in Stalinist Russia, was an inveterate opponent of ‘formalism’ and modernism in the arts. ‘Socialist realism’, as Soviet culture was termed from 1932, was formulated that year by Maxim Gorky, head of the Union of Soviet writers. It was heroic, folkish and organic. The individual artist was the conveyor of the folk-soul, in contrast to the art of Western decline, dismissively described in the USSR as ‘bourgeoisie formalism’.”

“While in the West the extreme left and its wealthy patrons championed various forms of modernism, in the USSR they were marginalized at best, resulting in the suicide for example of the Russian ‘Constructivist’ Mayakovsky. The revitalisation of Russian-Soviet art received its primary impetus in 1946 with the launching of Zhadanovschina.”

“The classical composers from the Czarist era, such as Tchaikovsky, Glinka and Borodin, were revived, after being sidelined in the early years of Bolshevism in favour of modernism, as were great non-Russian composers such as Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert…Modernists who had been feted in the early days of Bolshevism, such as the playwright, Nikolai Erdman, were relegated to irrelevance by the 1930’s. Jazz and the Associated types of dancing were condemned as bourgeoisie degeneracy.”

“Zhadanov’s speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) intended primarily to lay the foundations of Soviet music, represents one of the most cogent recent attempts to define culture…the Zhadanov speech should rank alongside T.S. Elliot’s Notes Towards a Definintion of Culture as a seminal conservative statement on culture.”

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

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

We do not understand democracy in its bourgeois meaning--of babbling, lack of discipline, anarchy. We understand democracy as the active participation of the citizens in formulating and implementing the Party's policy.

Nicolae Ceausescu

The Advance of Technology is a Danger to Freedom

Two centuries ago, men in England began to organise to protest against the destructive influence of technology.  These men became known as the Luddites; a name which has passed into common usage as a pejorative term to silence all who are critical of the deepening reliance upon technology.

The Luddite movement had an understanding of the harmful impact of mechanisation.  In 1811 the industrialisation of production had already begun the debilitating process of transferring skills away from the people; weakening their ability to fend for themselves.  When confronted by protesters who disagreed with the dehumanisation of production, the Establishment reacted by using their control of the media to libel the protesters as dangerous and stupid.  Following staged events in which people were killed by agents provocateur, the Luddites were murdered or deported to the prison colonies in Australia.  The modus operandi of the State hasn't changed to this day.

So were the Luddites really the irrational technophobes and terrorists that the Establishment media painted them to be?  To answer this question one must consider whether the consequences of the mechanisation they feared proved unfounded, or have become a part of our every day reality as a result of the victory of the despots in London.

Has technology really distanced people from the essential self-sufficiency required for survival?  Life in the British Isles before the Industrial Revolution was very different to life during and after the industrial phase.  The despotism of London still impacted upon the lives of the ordinary people, but it was less intrusive than today.  There is a tendency to romanticise the pre-Industrial era and ignore the harshness of a life tied to the soil, but in comparison with the suffering endured by urban-dwelling common people during the nineteenth century, life was better even in feudal times.  Legislation to improve working conditions and abolish child labour and slavery are cited as proof that the tragedy of the industrial era has become merely a sad chapter in our history, and that life is better now than ever.  But is this true?

The massive explosion in population over recent history is a direct consequence of the technological encroachment on human existence.  People tend to live longer and this is heralded as the greatest benefit of technology,.  However, accepting that there is a statistically verifiable increase in longevity, does not automatically equate to an improvement in the quality of life experienced today.  Those who look at everything in terms of materialist facts and figures, and thus fail to understand the supremacy of Quality over Quantity, underscore their failure to appreciate the negative effect of making people live longer lives which are essentially devoid of all the non-material factors which make life worth living.  An economic slave may exist into old age, but does he or she ever live in a manner fitting the term?

The advance of technology has distanced humanity from nature.  The Luddites knew that technology would destroy age-old trades, wrecking the last gasp of the Guilds, but the harm goes further; reliance on technology erodes the very essence of humanity.  The people who were most keen on embedding technology in daily life were also the most ardent advocates of the surveillance society.  Technological progress goes hand-in-hand with suppression of freedom, and is often used to rationalise tyranny.

Look around your own home to see the benefits that technology has bestowed upon your life: a growing number of people are aware that Television dictates which opinions we may have, and filters information to present the Establishment's views as reality; an awareness of the fact that Microwave ovens may save time but at the price of irradiating our food and slowly killing us; these devices are easy to remove from our homes, but what of the other advances, which are not so easy to stop using?

Supermarkets are stacked high with processed food which is sold at a price significantly lower than natural food.  A Comrade who worked in the food industry was employed in the ingredients room, mixing the ingredients at the start of the assembly line process.  So dangerous were some of the ingredients that he had to wear breathing apparatus whilst handling sacks of chemicals used to extend the shelf-life of the 'food'.  Materialistic progress has led to the point where sacks of chemicals marked as dangerous toxins are added to food aimed at children, yet no-one protests.  When one considers that some of the so-called natural ingredients will have been Genetically Modified, the impact on health is bound to be profound. We live longer lives than in known history; longer, but sicker lives.

Reliance upon technology had created a situation wherein the UK no longer produces enough food to feed the population.  Should the import of food be interrupted for even a relatively short period, for any reason, mass starvation would result.

Living longer than is natural incurs all manner of ill-health.  In a society which values its elders, this is not such a problem, but in the UK where human beings exist solely to fill the coffers of the Establishment, old age has become something to fear.  The majority of old people are dumped in old folks' homes where they are left to rot by relatives who are so preoccupied with buying the latest gadgets and luxuries that they have no time to look after their own kin.  Pre-technological society would rightly look at this situation with disgust.

The BBC is the voice of the Establishment, so it is no surprise that it should wax lyrical about 'IoT' (Internet of Things). Now, not only are we bombarded with poor quality goods which are created in factories which are anti-human in terms of using machines instead of people, or are sweat-shops in which people are slaves in all but name; these same goods now come with electronic tracking devices which transmit information regarding their location, and therefore ours.

Reliance on technology has made us lazy and vulnerable.  In the UK it is becoming ever-rarer for people to be able to cook complete meals using raw ingredients.  It is even possible to buy microwaveable cheese on toast!  This lazy attitude encourages the atomised individual to live selfishly, and is evidence of the successful destabilisation of the family.  The natural family home in which the two parents cook and the whole family sit down at the table together to eat and talk, is in retreat.  The more common occurrence is of the individual or one parent set-up, eating in front of the television and absorbing the propaganda of the State.

Technology has provided labour-saving devices which create leisure opportunities; invariably consisting of activities which involve playing video games, watching television, or other anti-social mind-rotting behaviour.  Rather than liberate the individual from work, labour-saving devices open the door to the surveillance society and the forces which destroy culture and society.

It is said that possessions possess.  In the worship of material goods this truth can plainly be seen.  Technological advances have spawned nations in which materialism is god; the pollution of the seas and the genocide of nature is a result of the quest for material wealth.  Technology can be made to serve the people, but under Capitalism, it becomes the master.  All the ills afflicting the world stem from the greed of the Capitalists and the subjugation of the Working Class who struggle to live in an era when  the worship of wealth is pushed as a virtue, and as 'normal'.

The Luddites were right.  People cannot live without a sense of purpose and an understanding of our place in nature.  The entire globalist order is both a symptom and generator of the technocratic ideology.  Technology has enabled the establishment to enslave the people and force us to produce and consume for the profit of the ruling class.  The over-population thus resulting has been met by more technological innovations, such as genocidal warfare and the mass butchery of civilians. 

The genocide of the twentieth century was driven by technological ability making possible the industrial scale slaughter of the people.  The advances of the present century will enable, nay require, economic murder which makes the butchery of the previous century pale in comparison.  We have allowed ourselves to become cogs in the Establishment's machine, and will continue to be treated as less than human until we refuse to play the Establishment game and we restore the natural order.  We can have the latest gadgets, permanent war, the surveillance state and total dehumanisation in the service of capitalism; or we can have freedom, culture, honest labour and life worth living.  We cannot have it both ways. 

Remember the Luddite martyrs:

Samuel Hartley, John Booth (1812), George Mellor, William Thorpe, Thomas Smith (1813), and the many un-named others murdered or otherwise punished by the London cabal for daring to question the capitalist sickness which has wrecked our world.

The dangers the Luddites feared have come to fruition, and it is unlikely that the break from nature we endure daily featured in even their most vivid nightmares.  We do not have to tolerate this technological servitude; we do not need the latest gadgets and gimmicks.  What we do need is the courage to disengage from the machinery which has 'liberated' us from natural living and turned us into slaves of the technocrats and their capitalist overlords.

It is not too late to reverse the 'progress' away from the natural society and to restore humanity to our rightful place as cultural, social and natural beings; rather than decadent materialists with no purpose other than to serve the machinery which has enslaved so many of our people.

To paraphrase GK Chesterton, people who say that we can't turn back time, know nothing about clocks.

Smash Political Correctness and the Forces of Globalism behind it

Political Correctness was designed by a man so vile that his former Comrades had no choice but to snuff out his miserable existence.  Trotsky created the terms 'politically corect' and 'racist' to control how people express themselves, and by extension, how they think. The theory is quite simple - control what words people are allowed to use, manipulate the meanings attached to individual terms, and by so doing, limit the possible linguistic expression available, thus preventing dissent by removing the ability of the individual to put into words any feelings of opposition to the establishment agenda. By controlling language, the theory maintains that the ability to think in a manner which is dangerous to the ruling regime, will become impossible, and thus opposition in any tangible form will become impossible.

This is, of course, complete nonsense! People do not think with words, but with images (consider your memories - they are like films inside your head and not akin to the words in a book). However, the politically correct mafia have such faith in their ideology that they undertake their assault on language with the zeal of unbridled fanaticism. The liberal fanatics have out-Trotted the Trotskyites with their devotion to the destruction of all which does not suit their own agenda - and all, lamentably, behind the banner of 'democrcay' and such slogans as 'hope, not hate'.  They are damaging our language, and in fact every language which has come under their scrutiny. With regards to English in particular, they are so distorting the meaning of words as to make the language barely intelligible to those who are not fully cognisant of the language as it should be used. Whether it is the niggling use of the word 'they' (plural) in place of he or she (singular), or the use of 'she' to refer to a man who has a mental illness and has had himself castrated (or not!) in the bizarre belief that by having no penis (or even just wearing make-up!) he will magically become a woman, (rather than a mutilated man/man in make-up, which is what he is), the English language in its every day use is becoming absurd. Foreigners trying to learn English must find this corruption of the language confusing and irritating.

A serious result of the politicisation of the language is the perceived danger of being ridiculed for having opinions which are out of fashion (i.e. forbidden by the media manipulators), or being unpopular and seen as an elitist for using English in a manner which doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. It has become a badge of honour to speak and act in the way of a mental defective. Using words of more than one syllable invites reactions such as "what's up wiv you mate, dya swallow a dickshunairee?" suggesting that it is a bad thing to seek self-improvement through the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to effectively communicate using the vocabulary suited to an adult level. This, of course, is the whole point of political correctness - to 'dumb down' the population to the point where they are barely human and are thus more easily controlled, like the cattle they have become.

It is routine for the commissars of political correctness to claim that not only does political correctness not exist(!), but if it did, it would be a benevolent phenomenon, which only 'haters' and bigots could object to. By this simple ploy, all criticism of the manipulation of society is silenced - well, that is the idea at any rate. Anyone who is not totally submersed in the propaganda system which passes for the news and entertainment media cannot fail to see that the way ideas and events are presented is highly controlled, and nothing at all is left to chance which the media manipulators can control.

The English language, like all living languages, goes through changes, with some words reversing their meanings over and over. With regards to everyday words which have no real cultural value, this is of little importance. The natural development of the language contrasts with the PC agenda in that it is orchestrated by the establishment and pushed at every level. The only comparable example, (in times other than those of conquest), of the high level distortion of English in our past is that of the Elizabethan era, in which Francis Bacon created a whole array of new words, to knit together the various dialects of England into a unified national language. At the time, 'English' spoken in the North of England was as different as the Welsh in the Gogledd to that in De Cymru in our day: understandable, but perceptibly different. Bacon's deeds helped forge a national culture, in place of the regional cultures which preceded it. Whether one considers this a good or bad thing is an issue in itself. At some levels, it can be considered abhorrent that organic cultures were trampled upon in the service of the imperialism of the ruling elite, but in Bacon's defence, the vocabulary of the enhanced language was greatly increased. Try as one may, it is impossible to find any positive consequences of the modern Political Correctness sickness.

Alongside the twisting of words and the attack on basic grammar used by the PC mafia, is the assault on intelligence, with the focus upon trivia as a new source of wisdom. Turn on the TV or Radio or read a 'Newspaper' and you will be bombarded with stories of which 'celebrity' is having sex with which 'sports star', or some other such nonsense. People shout and scream like inmates of a lunatic asylum at contestants on game shows, and is if that isn't bad enough, they congratulate one another and take pride in the fact that they have learnt every tiny piece of irrelevant information that the mass media have chosen to spoon feed them. Never mind that they are sleep-walking slaves trapped in an economic system which could destroy their lives in an instant, no, they can repeat the tedious details which they have swallowed form years of obediently devouring what their masters have provided for them in the circus of TV living. This 'pride' should be a sense of pride for the establishment as it indicates just how successful they have become at controlling the masses.

The 'news' media is full of propaganda in support of the criminal wars of aggression being fought by the unthinking robots who are labelled as soldiers, on behalf of the globalist elite. There are decent soldiers who are refusing to fight and are quitting the Armed Forces in disgust at being used not to protect their nations, but to destroy obstacles to the Global Superstate which is step-by-step absorbing ALL nations. These men and women who refuse to serve are the true heroes, not the scum who blindly obey orders and murder civilians of all ages and foreign soldiers and members of the Resistance protecting their own people in their own lands. Ask any flag-waving drooling TV viewer what is going on in the world, and the reaction will be a repetition of whatever that dumbed-down individual has been exposed to. Even those who can see that politicians lie will still parrot support for 'our boys' - stating that we have to support the troops even though they are butchering the people of foreign lands and paving the way for their international counterparts to do the same to us, right here. Sickeningly, people cheer in the streets when these paid psychopaths march in the streets freshly returned from their tours of occupied lands, their flesh only recently scrubbed clean of the blood of the innocents they have hacked to pieces for the Global leadership. Such is the power of the media to make otherwise intelligent people speak and act as morons.

The greatest victory of the pushers of the Political Correctness machine is that people see the ridiculous examples of men in frocks being called women, or quota systems giving work to people unsuited to particular jobs solely because they fit a stereotype which the PC mafia maintain doesn't matter! The liberal extremists are political crackpots. They are puppets in a pantomime show and we have been directed to watch them, whilst all the while the global Ruling Class are sending their agents amongst us to pilfer from our pockets and steal us of our heritage, our present, and our future.

We have to stop the madness of political correctness, but we have to make sure that in so doing, we do not allow ourselves to become distracted into an obsession with the liberal lunatics, winning the localed battles as the likes of George Soros and the global capitalist system win the global war.

Judaism is not a Race, it is a Religion - its Secular form is Capitalism

A response to the post: http://socialistworkerspartyengland.blogspot.com/2018/08/zionism-is-anti-semitic-zionism-is-pure.html



Some historical comments

1. “Our Party is opposed to the racism which targets people because of their origins or origins of their forebears.” An important and necessary statement which I entirely agree with.

2. “We identify Global Zionism as an ideology of terror, built on a sickening appropriation of a religious system which is ardently ethno-nationalist, turning it into a dogma of supremacist hatred.”

To talk about Zionists “turning” Judaism into a “dogma of supremacist hatred” is historically incorrect. Jewish holy books, the Talmud and Torah both contain “a dogma of supremacist hatred”. Hence not only demanding interest on loans (...but only on loans to Gentiles) but also killing, robbing and even committing acts of genocide and paedophilia against Gentile “cattle” are NOT considered to be against Jewish Law. It is also clearly stated in the Jewish scriptures stated that Jews are destined by God to rule over all non-Jewish peoples, who will serve as their slaves. Judaism provided the very model of Hitler’s supremacist biological racism.

3. Long before Zionism became a powerful movement, Jews played a central role in the development of modern capitalism - arguably even more so that Lutheranism or Calvinism. For a thorough account and analysis of this role (which contains not one iota of racism) see Werner Sombart’s classic work entitled The Jews and Modern Capitalism.

NB Friedrich Engels himself stated that Sombart was the only economist who had fully understood Marx’s Capital. Sombart’s book should absolutely be a part of the SMPBI literature page.

4. Why no reference to Marx’s own essay “On the Jewish Question” - which makes no reference to Zionism at all? Or to the views of Disraeli - who believed in both a Jewish and an Aryan ‘master race’.

5. “Would the Zionist elite take a natural hostility of Europeans to usury and turn it into a vehicle of repression and discrimination against the Working Class Jews of Europe, in order to achieve their long sought after goal of the creation of Israel as a base to gain mastery of the world?”

Question: just how many “Working Class Jews” were there - if by this is meant proletarians? Not that many. Their preferred trades were petit-bourgeois mercantilism, tax collection for rich landowners, wholesaling and retailing, banking and the professions. But the Zionists explicitly encouraged Hitler to increase repression of the Jewish population of a whole, following Herzl’s maxim that “Our best friends are the anti-Semites” (i.e. they serve our purposes best).

6. “German Socialism under leaders such as the Strassers, was the ideology of a radical republican workers movement.” I suggest doing a bit more research about the Strasser brothers - both of whom were members of the Freikorps - which fought to bring down Germany’s first workers’ republic (the Munich Council Republic). They were also both anti-semitic, albeit for anti-capitalist rather than racist reasons. But their opposition to usury and Jewish finance capitalism was completely shared with Hitler - who was the first leader in modern history to nationalise the country’s central bank and pay workers with labour certificates - an idea supported by Marx. Nevertheless, it is of course true that there were those in the NSDAP who wanted to go further in a socialist direction and nationalise the big industrial concerns.

7. Reference is made to the Hitler’s “National Capitalist NSDAP war machine”. A ‘war machine’ that was massively outnumbered by Germany’s neighbours, and even more so by its combined war enemies (...by a factor or 97 to 1) can hardly have been intended for aggressive purposes. See the important video by Gerd Schultze Rhonhof based on his book: 1939 - The War That Had Many Fathers Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof

8. “After the 1934 murders of the Socialist leaders, the NSDAP moved from a movement for the social well-being of the people into a military formation.” In fact Hitler accomplished, in just 4 years, the most massive and rapid improvement in the “social well-being of the people” in history. But faced with an army whose loyalty could not be relied upon, an SA that wanted to replace it with street fighters who picked on Reds and Jews - but were seen as wholly ill-equipped to fill important military functions, Hitler saw no alternative but to create a high-quality “military formation” - the SS. The SS were regarded with absolute contempt by both the army and SA alike - but proved to have such necessary loyalty and soldierly qualities to defeat vastly superior enemy forces, saved the German army from numerous defeats - and whose officers always went first in battle. Yet since the SA were three times bigger than the standing army and more politically conscious, it can be hypothertically argued that Hitler was wrong to block Röhm’s attempt to take it over - and also to reject Strasserist demands for a ‘second revolution’ of a more socialist nature. But all this would have been difficult in practice and is a bit to easy to say in retrospect - given that the economic blockade of Germany had already begun and war preparations against it were already in motion. In this sense Germany at that time can in this sense be compared to Russia today - simply resisting Imperialism. And World Jewry had already declared war on and imposed trade boycotts on Germany good and shops in 1933 - resulting in counter-boycotts of Jewish businesses.

9. Ernst Jünger was neither a socialist, National Bolshevik or a Nazi, but a uniquely original thinker and writer whose main value - despite his anti-liberalism, but like that of Marx - was “free individuality”. He also had a close relationship with Martin Heidegger. I recommend also his novel Eumeswil for the literary section of the SMPBI site.

10. “Corbyn has spoken about the machinations of Zionism. Now the Zionists are coming for him. They are liars who are scared of a Labour Leader who is willing to discuss the Zionist deals with the Hitlerist Nazis.”

Note: Hitler ended up seeing exactly where Zionism would lead, broke his ‘deal’ with the Zionists - and instead enlisted Arabs into the SS.

“The Zionists WILL destroy Corbyn. His weakness will see to that. When he is gone, a neo-Blairite will be put in charge and Zionist rule will be back with a vengeance.”

Agreed.

My main point. I believe it is just as important - if not more important - to distinguish individual Jews from Judaism as it is to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. For without the total assimilation of Jews, which Marx argued for (and which many German Jews wanted in opposition to the Zionists) Zionism is a natural outgrowth of Judaism - and correctly understands itself as such (a tiny and irrelevant minority of eccentric rabbis notwithstanding).

Marx himself was the very epitome of a decidedly anti-Judaic ‘Jew’ - and was also not innocent of making ‘anti-Semitic’ remarks of such a ‘politically incorrect’ nature that today they would have him hauled before a court. And anti-Judaism - like anti-Zionism - is no more a form of ‘racism’ than being anti-Islamic or anti-Christian. Judaism, like Islam or Christianity, is not a race but a religion, albeit one whose secular form - as Marx pointed out - is capitalism itself.


First Comment:

Thank you Peter.  This raises a lot of good points.  The idea that it is 'racist' to oppose the RELIGION of Judaism, is of the same level of lunacy as the argument that it is 'racist' to oppose Islam.  One might as well throw in the other Desert Superstition, Christianity, and call criticism of that RELIGION, 'racist' (although, for some reason that one doesn't fit the pattern!)  According to political correctness, anything which goes against globalism, is racist, and anything which supports nature is inherently evil - eugenics (not wanting to create life which suffers when gene theraphy can cure the ailment before it takes effect); the fact that having a Penis is a pretty strong indiction you are a Man, no mater how much make-up you put on; the extended family etc.  We fall into their traps at our peril....