Zionism versus Bolshevism.


A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.

Good and Bad Jews

The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

‘National’ Jews

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.

At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

‘Protector of the Jews’

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.

A Home for the Jews

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Duty of Loyal Jews

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.

But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.


Churchill’s 1937 warnings about ‘Hebrew bloodsuckers’ revealed: “the Jew is ‘different’. He looks different. He thinks differently” | “… they are inviting persecution … partly responsible” for their sufferings
Breitbart comments
Our dossier on the anti-semitism of famous names in history
Our dossier on the origins of anti-semitism

Imperialism, the highest stage of agrarianism

Hobbesian Politics

Hobbes’ state of nature was an unsafe place because everyone had about equal power – no-one was so secure as to be invulnerable to attack, and anyone might kill anyone else at any moment – whether for resources, for glory, for revenge, or simply as a precautionairy measure. The neolithic was a bit like that, because everyone had access to sticks and stones, and everyone knew how to use them. Petty tribal war was a fact of life, hard to avoid except by hiding as far away from other tribes as possible.

The Bronze Age changed things. Those who mastered the art of making bronze tools soon found they had overwhelming superiority in weapons and armour over those who didn’t.

Imperialism began in the Bronze Age. The first empire is usually said to be the Akkadian, though other candidates for the title exist. Sargon of Akkad (and other warrior kings…

View original post 796 more words

Ukip’s conspiracy theorists must stop dividing the party


In the past there has been good reason for many in Ukip to feel there has been plotting and scheming within the party, to topple the leader or prominent members. But in the last week, some in the conspiracy theorist wing of the party began falsely playing on that feeling to try and abolish the party’s NEC, since it took the unavoidable decision to exclude Steven Woolfe from the list of leadership candidates.

Could the democratically elected board of members really be scrapped over one single decision? Worryingly it looks like a very real possibility. And what’s really galling is that it would be as a result of doing what it’s supposed to do, uphold the party rules, and making sure the membership retains an influence in the running of the party.

UKIP leadership contest become pantomime and has no credibility whatsoever needs to be stopped till after EGM for all of our sakes

If the NEC had allowed Steven Woolfe to stand, it would have been ignoring its own rules. The rules gave all leadership candidates a clear deadline for the submission of nomination papers and Woolfe’s explanation for his failure to meet said deadline is nonsensical. Party officials proactively contacted Woolfe on Sunday morning to remind him about the deadline. The first stage of the submission process, which had been open for twenty days was to pay the candidate deposit. This was not paid until 11.35am twenty five minutes before nominations closed. Woolfe protested to the media that he had to call his bank to get a payment to go through. That may well be the case; anyone making a £5,000 payment will often trigger a bank’s anti-fraud mechanism. The other candidates were sensible enough to pay their deposits earlier.

Watch | Ukip: Cameron fooling public over immigration


After the deposit was collected he had to complete the online form, upload a copy of his identification documents and his 500 word statement file. He had to declare any previous criminal convictions and provide an explanation. There is zero evidence that there was any fault on the part of Ukip or its website servers. We did due diligence on this. The servers did not drop at any point. Steven Woolfe blamed the party’s administration instead of taking responsibility for his own mistake in failing to get his application in on time. His paperwork eventually arrived at 12.17pm.

“I did feel like I was in a scene from Little Britain’s ‘computer says no’”
Steven Woolfe MEP

The rules were clear, however some people on the NEC wanted to turn a blind eye to this rule breach, but the NEC collectively couldn’t. The NEC knew that if rules were broken, the Party most likely would have faced court proceedings within 24 hours and an injunction would have been sought to keep Steven Woolfe off the ballot paper. I believe that a legal challenge would have succeeded. Steven Woolfe would still have not been allowed to stand, but we would have been dragged through the courts first. The party has one class of member. All members have to be treated equally.  It doesn’t have a celebrity class.

The party’s NEC is already a membership elected body. Of its 15 votes 12 are held by the members’ elected representatives. If members don’t like what the NEC is doing, then they can vote members off it. Nominations for the next NEC election close in less than 40 days’ time. Seven of the twelve seats will be up for grabs this year.

Let’s also deal with this nonsense that Neil Hamilton, Suzanne Evans and Douglas Carswell are controlling the NEC and forcing it to do their “evil bidding”. Members of the NEC were on the disciplinary panel which suspended Suzanne Evans.

Watch | Suzanne Evans has ‘given up hope’ of being Ukip leader


We get a lot of flak from some members who claim we’re victimising Suzanne Evans for that, whilst others now accuse us of being her puppet. Total nonsense. Neil Hamilton was on the NEC until May. He is no longer on the NEC. His name hasn’t been mentioned in any discussion except when brought up by one of the three NEC members who have just resigned. They have sought to drag Neil Hamilton into this. We have not.

Douglas Carswell has a vote at the NEC once every two months as the Party’s only elected MP. Because of his Parliamentary role he takes very little part in NEC discussions and has not commented on most of the ongoing issues.

Here’s a question for : how many young activists do the NEC/Hamilton/Carswell/Evans disgraces think will ever campaign for them again?

Any suggestion that the NEC is controlled by Hamilton, Evans or Carswell is utterly laughable, pure Goebbels. Hamilton, Evans and Carswell are being presented as hate figures, pantomime villains that UKIP members are expected to despise. Then there’s guilt by association, used to smear some of the leadership candidates. Suzanne Evans will vote for Lisa Duffy? Why then are we told Lisa Duffy must be part of the plot too! She’s receiving abuse online on a daily basis. Online abuse is a new worrying trend that has crept into our party.

So what’s next? Will Bill Etheridge be attacked for working with Neil Hamilton on the policy committee? It is insane. And now the NEC are derided too. It is a ruse designed to destabilise the party to suit a cabal who have ambitions to wrest control of the party from its members.

“It is a ruse designed to destabilise the party to suit a cabal who have ambitions to wrest control of the party from its members.”
John Bickley

We have to stop this manufactured bickering right now. I understand that a lot of members wanted Steven Woolfe to be on the ballot. It’s not the NEC’s fault that he didn’t meet the deadline. If you are looking for someone to blame for Steven Woolfe handing his papers in late, you don’t need to look any further than Woolfe himself. Instead they want to abolish the NEC.

The NEC is the highest governing body of the party. You can’t abolish it unless you replace it with something else. Its members are the Company Directors and meet a statutory role. It’s the party’s oversight body. It updates the party rulebook. It is the only major constitutional check on the authority of the party leader.

If UKIP’s NEC deny a fair vote, they are as anti-democratic as the political union they have fought to leave.

Whatever the NEC does it will get criticised. Leave Steven Woolfe off the ballot paper and it’s criticised for it. If the NEC had let him on, and then been made to look very foolish when a court of law overturned that decision, the criticism would have been just as bad.

If anyone submitted a job application after the deadline they wouldn’t be getting the job. There is a lot more that I could say, but I have a 12pm train to catch. If I arrive at the station at 12.17pm I’ll have missed it, no matter how much I argue with the station manager!

John Bickley is a Ukip parliamentary candidate, who nearly took Heywood and Middleton from Labour in 2014, member of the party’s NEC and its treasurer. He is writing in a personal capacity.

Theresa May is delivering the Ukip 2015 manifesto


The prime minister is committed to leaving the EU, stopping immigration, bringing back grammar schools, and other familiar policies.

If you thought Theresa May’s government was Ukip-lite in rhetoric, just take a look at its policies. The Prime Minister is essentially delivering the top lines of the Ukip 2015 manifesto.

A source involved in writing Ukip’s general election manifesto admits to me that the Prime Minister has “very much shot the Ukip fox” – citing grammar schools, and her “direct approach to the markets and controlling immigration.”

Can that be true? And, if so, does it explain why Ukip foundered in Stoke? When visiting the constituency ahead of the by-election, it was clear that rerunning the EU referendum was central to the party’s campaign – and it didn’t work. Ukip appears to be losing traction with voters because the Conservative government is already delivering its key policies. Why vote for a party pledging policies that are already being implemented?

I looked back at Ukip’s 2015 manifesto to find out how much the Tories have borrowed:

The EU

What Ukip pledged:

“Leave the EU.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

She is taking Britain out of the EU.


What Ukip pledged:

“Take back control of our borders.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

Immigration control is a “red line” for the Prime Minister, who, by taking the UK out of the single market, is clearly prepared to take the financial hit in order to bring down the number of migrants.

What Ukip pledged:

“End welfare tourism with a five-year embargo on benefits for migrants.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

The Prime Minister is using Brexit to pursue the idea, first mooted by David Cameron, of stopping newly arrived migrants from the EU claiming tax credits and other in-work benefits. This would bring them into line with the welfare rights of non-EU migrants.

What Ukip pledged:

“Introduce a new visa system for workers, visitors, students, families and asylum seekers.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

In October last year, May ordered a cabinet taskforce to draw up plans for a new “targeted visa system”, tasking ministers with coming up with a scheme to cut migration numbers but ensure the UK isn’t left with a shortage of workers.


What Ukip pledged:

“End ‘health tourism’ by making sure those ineligible for free NHS care pay for treatment.”

What Theresa May is doing:

Jeremy Hunt’s new law forces hospitals to deny non-emergency treatment to any “foreign patient” who cannot produce identity documents proving their right to free care. Such patients who are not eligible for free, non-emergency treatment will be charged upfront – NHS staff will be issued with credit card readers to take payments before beginning treatment.


What Ukip pledged:

“Bring back grammar schools.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

She’s bringing back grammar schools. In his Budget, the Chancellor Philip Hammond is setting aside £320m for expanding the government’s free school programme, which can now include selective education.


What Ukip pledged:

“End subsidies for wind farms.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

Because of lack of government funding, investment in renewables looks to fall 95 per cent over the next three years.

It wasn’t May’s policy, but she is carrying on with the decision to end onshore wind subsidies, and also slashing subsidies for other renewable energy sources. She even nearly pulled the plug on the Hinkley C nuclear power project.

What Ukip pledged:

“Support ‘fracking’ for shale gas.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

Theresa May was already a fracking fan before she became PM, having voted against an 18-month fracking ban and additional regulation. Indeed, she has changed fracking policy to include a new fund that could deliver as much as £10m to each community where wells are sited. A policy leading to accusations that she’s trying to “bribe and silence” the public into accepting fracking.


What Ukip pledged:

“Allow British businesses to choose to employ British workers first.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

The Home Secretary Amber Rudd tried to bring in a law by which businesses would have to publish lists of their foreign-born workers, but it was met with such hostility from employers that the government u-turned on the idea.

What Ukip pledged:

“Raise the personal tax allowance to at least £13,000, taking those on minimum wage out of tax altogether.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

This one dates back to the Lib Dems in coalition, but the Prime Minister is continuing it with gusto – Hammond increased the tax-free income threshold in the Autumn Statement last year; the personal allowance will rise £500 to £11,500 for the 2017-18 tax year.

Foreign affairs

What Ukip pledged:

“Foster closer ties with the Anglosphere.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

The Prime Minister’s lack of criticism of Donald Trump, particularly the Muslim travel ban, caused dismay among many who believe she is appeasing the authoritarian and racist policies of the new US President.


What Ukip pledged:

“Insist on there being one law for all – British law.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

She has vowed to take the UK out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.


What Ukip pledged:

“Limit child benefit to two children for new claimants.”

What Theresa May’s doing:

OK, again, not her policy, but she’s carrying on with it – child tax credits and the child benefit through universal credit is now capped at two children for any new claimant after 6 April 2017.


There are plenty more proposals in that manifesto that have not yet found a home in government. Policies Theresa May could yet nick include:

Abolishing inheritance tax.

An Australian-style points-based system for immigration.

All migrants and foreign visitors to have their own health insurance.

Stopping child benefit being paid to children who don’t live here permanently.

Ending sex education in primary schools.

Restrict the Right-to-Buy and Help-to-Buy schemes to British nationals.

Repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act.

Scrapping our opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant.

Give a national referendum on the issue of greatest importance to the British public every two years on the most popular petition with over two million signatures.

Ending the use of multilingual formatting on official documents.

Pulling funding from public bodies promoting multiculturalism.

It seems both the country and Ukip would benefit from May finding a different source for her policy-making.

Why I Left the Left


This past Saturday I drove down to the local gun store in my quaint mountain town to pick up some bismuth shells, just in time for an early morning Sunday hunt. As I perused the impressive selection of bird bashers, a small fracas in my periphery began rising to a twangy crescendo. I rounded a rack of turkey calls to investigate, and found a few grizzled local woodsmen huddled around a fuzzy monitor bolted to the ceiling, barking the ghostly specter of Sean Hannity through its pixelated display. The men stirred.

“Paid Protesters!” One grumbled.

“George Soros!” Exclaimed another.

Arguments against the state were shelved more often than not in favor of presentations on a seemingly endless parade of ‘passive’ social injustices.

I winced and felt the hot flush of embarrassment creep across my face as the screen danced with black-clad anarchists, gleefully smashing windows and tossing trash cans. Overpowered with nostalgia, I thought back to the sparse coffee shops and dimly-lit dish pits where my comrades and I would plot our insidious coups, against the oppression of plate glass windows and aluminum trash cans, and couldn’t help but laugh at the idea that global billionaires were somehow tugging on the puppet strings. I’m afraid the truth is far more desperate.

I spent nearly a decade of my young life in ‘hard’ left movements. I spent my teens printing zines, organizing, squatting, and worshipping the ironically “bourgeois” intelligentsia that pandered to our leftist sensibilities. At the core of my ideology was a burning desire for liberty and an intense distrust of the state. In the beginning, I might saunter into the local cooperative and find an impassioned debate over the legitimacy of insurrectionary movements abroad, or the most practical way to pirate electricity without being discovered. Over time, the fiery rhetoric became dogma, penetrating my psyche right down to its id. I saw the state’s oppression in everything and everyone. I noticed behavioral patterns of violence and subjugation that seemed to reproduce to infinity. And through this new countenance, the changing face of leftism was obscured to me.

The New Social Justice

Social Justice was always a welcome addendum to anti-statist leftism for me. I gladly assumed the mantle and answered the call to march for police accountability, for women’s rights, for the ethical treatment of gays. The concept of ‘intersectional Social Justice’ was then a contentious one among many left-wing radicals, seen by many as a willful distraction from the core anti-statist message of our ideology, and worthy of only a small devotion. To focus too heavily on social issues was said to the be the resting place of sleepy liberals. And liberals, perhaps even as much as skinheads or the police, were the bane of the radical left. They meant to co-opt our movement and reacquaint us with their ineffective and self-aggrandizing brand of sedition and hoped to lasso a few of us back into the electoral process (abstaining from which was radical dharma at the time). They were, in short, a generally unwelcome addition to our ranks, and would usually turn their backs at the first mention of truly anti-statist politik.

I had more exposure than most to the left-wing radical “scene,” as it were, traveling to convergence spaces and conferences, worker-owned collectives and the like. I noticed a shift in the demographic makeup of the movement that became more pronounced with time. Character archetypes abound in the radical sphere, from crusty professors to dreadlocked primitivists, (and that leftist holy grail, the disaffected executive, living, perhaps, in a yurt or some otherwise subversive structure on some land that probably doesn’t belong to him), became more and more sparse. There was a new contingent of leftists, a new archetype that had seemingly appeared out of nowhere. (The radical space was not exactly adept at coalition-building, keep in mind). These new figures were polished, soft-speaking, and shied away from the hardline agitprop of resistance. Gone were the ‘zines adorned with flaming police cars, replaced by new editorials that opined the importance of gender fluidity and other obtuse concepts. A new language began to congeal, an especially elitist dialectic that almost required translation to English.

The left was consumed by this new drive to expose the innate bigotry of the majority.

The new language was accompanied by new tactics. Affinity meetings that were once hotbeds of dissent began to seem more like kangaroo courts. Arguments began to spring from the nascent well of discontent, and “accountability” hearings were the new norm, a process more often than not designed to elucidate the accused’s latent homophobia or racism. Arguments against the state were shelved more often than not in favor of presentations on a seemingly endless parade of ‘passive’ social injustices.

The old radical paradigm, in rudiment, went like this: “America was founded upon slavery, therefore America is racist, We are here because we disagree with racism.” The implied understanding was that because we had all found each other through our mutual disgust with what we had determined was a racist system that unfairly penalized minority populations, then we had already rejected a racist worldview. Thus our deliverance and rebirth occurred. It was understood to be innate to our shared ideology, and therefore our collective will could be focused and our mutual intent had been decided. This formed the basis for an arguably unified front that could be assembled and directed at will. But this mutual understanding was being corroded by a new, pernicious force that had infested every corner of the space. Anti-fascist organizers were no longer satisfied by directing their ire towards governmental institutions or hate groups and instead turned the looking glass inward. The toxic rancor of racism was found in our own ranks, by God!

Racism was found by the New Left to be inherent in all “whites.” (Racism is now said in the left to be a confluence of power and bigotry. Minorities, lacking the key ingredient of power, are exempt from this distinction.) Cis-gendered people (those of us who identify with our birth sex) were asked to “make space” for those that were not. Special privileges to be heard were conferred to the most oppressed within the group. This led to a bizarre new struggle within the movement over who might lay claim to being the most truly oppressed. The left was consumed by this new drive to expose the innate bigotry of the majority, especially within our own sphere. Where activists were once excommunicated over allegations of collusion with the authorities, they were now cast out frequently by accusations of complacent prejudice.

Friend and Foe in the New Left

Truth be told, I do not disagree with many of these indictments of mainstream culture. Inequities are certainly rampant in our society and must be illustrated and corrected. But the new face of the radical left seemed to be devouring itself. Where we had once in unison identified the state as the malevolent genesis of our oppression, our peers were now the true oppressors. The state apparently had not been oppressing us nearly as much as we had been oppressing one another. Anecdote became empirical, and experiences became the radical eucharist. Personal accounts of bigotry were now to be equivalent to universal and incontrovertible truth. A culture of martyrdom arose wherein victimhood was conflated with benevolence.

The left has lost its traction by alienating average people.

In the time before this new left, the directive was crystal clear: to illustrate the oppression of the state as it occurs to most everyone in the country, in the form of endemic poverty, uncorrected sickness, bankrupt free trade agreements, and the formation of a global police state. Organizers could mobilize radicals en masse to demonstrate against these societal evils, recalling the controlled chaos of the Seattle WTO demonstrations, or the significant uprising in Miami against the FTAA in 2003. The scene had now become almost entirely disjointed, and the former amalgamation of radicals ceased to exist. The radical left had become an especially tiresome arm of the progressive centrists, now content to lobby the state for greater societal controls rather than demand its abolishment.

There was only a small faction of anti-statist minded radicals left in the fray, and it was in them (and me) that the responsibility to carry on the tradition of rejecting the state and fighting for liberty. Instead, they clung to the antique tactics of property destruction and rock-tossing. The problem being, these tactics were complementary ones, meant only to supplement a coherent and organized radical left movement that had ceased to exist. They were to be an organ of outrage designed to counterbalance a cogent and heady vanguard of intellectual radicals. These radicals have become dinosaurs, defecting for the higher moral ground of the new left lest they fall victim to the witch hunt.

A Wayward Movement

The left has lost its traction by alienating average people and turning its intent towards social issues that are codified for inclusion. And of course, their argument is no longer to abolish the state, but to beg for benevolence at the feet of a corrupt government. I could not fathom how a group of people could move in a linear fashion from the idea that the central state was incorrigibly corrupt to the notion that we could somehow force it to provide for our interests. In a time of endemic poverty, I could no longer bear the guilt of selfishly aligning myself with a movement that seemed less concerned with exposing a secret war in the Middle East than it was with exposing my friends and peers as patriarchal villains.

In my last dark days with the left, I pleaded for objectivity, reason, rationale. These requests fell on deaf ears and nearly always resulted in a collective tongue lashing against my perceived ignorance. Why, they demanded, could I not accept that my perspective was being undermined by my ‘whiteness’? Why, if I was so committed to change and righteousness, could I not separate the evil archonic male desire from my true self? My positions, they would argue, had become tainted, infected by my hetero-ness, my maleness, my caucasian-ness. The whole world was a giant quagmire.

It occurs to me from time to time, usually in the throes of insomnia, that the state may have supplanted these contentious narratives within the space to misdirect and discredit the radical left, although this possibility has ceased to be relevant. The sad truth to behold is that the last actors in the space took to the streets to smash Starbucks’ windows and foolishly posture when they should have been pleading with their peers to reconsider a truly anti-statist perspective. In a last hurrah of hedonistic self-satisfaction, they have delivered the final blow to the radical left.

Class politics are vital to understand Trump and the EU


Layout 1

Communist Party statement

‘The most powerful big business circles in the USA are determined to promote their interests aggressively against China, Russia and the European Union’, Communist Party chair Liz Payne told the party’s Political Committee on Wednesday evening (February 15).

But at the same time, she pointed out that the conflicts within the country’s state apparatus reflected differences of tactics and strategy within the US ruling class.

‘Some US corporations such as Exxon Mobile are involved in exploiting Russian oil and gas resources, or in the case of tobacco and soft drink giants see the market potential in China – while others resent Chinese competition at home and abroad or put geo-political and factors first in order to complete the provocative military encirclement of Russia and China’, she declared.

As a key base for US imperialism in the Middle East, Israel would receive unequivocal support from Trump, as it…

View original post 901 more words

Bill Warner a notorious Islamophobe hate monger lying about Islam


Bill Warner a notorious Islamophobe hate monger lying about Islam


Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy

Some arrogant people will never admit that the Koran is the Word of Allah. Out of hatred to Islam they deliberately take the verses out of their context and arrive at blasphemous conclusions just to prove that the Koran is false and is the invention of Muhammad. Based on a vicious agenda aiming at tarnishing the religion of Islam and enticing the grudge of the people against it, these hired Islamophobe hate mongers established sites attacking Islam day and night without cessation. As an example of theses sites I mention “Middle East Forum” of Daniel Pipes; “Political Islam” of Bill Warner; Answering Islam of Sam Shamon; Jihad Watch of Robert Spencer and several others. The 700 club of Pat Robertson is also another hateful platform diffusing hatred against Islam. Let alone women astray like Pamela Geller…

View original post 44,607 more words