table for two?

from the admirable Anarchist media project.

undercover anarchist- Silver Bullet

For all our comrades who are keeping their heads down at the moment.

Some Thoughts On The Stop The War Coalition’s “10 Reasons To Say No To Western Intervention In Libya”.

By Stan Cullen Grant
taken with thanks from the excellent Norfolk unaligned community action website
http://norfolknonaligned.wordpress.com/
Some thoughts for discussion by Stan on yesterdays statement by the Stop The War Coalition on international involvement in Libya. The ‘left’ in the UK once again deem themselves to know what’s best for the people in foreign lands. There’s something slightly ‘imperialist’ about that isn’t there?
While we would never support international intervention that would likely be used for hidden agenda, we also would never stoop so low as to treat the oppressed of any nation to a lecture on whats best for them while they are screaming out for assistance.
Marching against military intervention while Free Libyans are fighting for their lives is nothing short of disgraceful, but we’ve come to expect that from the British ‘left’. They should be thrown out with the rest of last centuries trash.


http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2299/27/


1. Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty. This is not just a legalistic point – although the importance of observing international law should not be discounted if the big powers in the world are not to be given the green light run amok. As soon as NATO starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.
The rebels are in the process of trying to establish a more democratic form of government-Libya’s ‘soverignty’ is already in question. If the rebels have a right to sovereignty and have requested aid through an apparatus of provisional government their soverignty is NOT being violated.


2. Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war. “No-fly zones” will not be able to halt the conflict and will lead to more bloodshed, not less.The civil war will only be perpetuated in so far as it will not be ended by a swift and brutal massacre of rebel forces but a consolidation of their power, which will take longer than exterminating them and it seems more pertinent to assess the scale of violence rather than its length.


3. Intervention will lead to escalation. Because the measures being advocated today cannot bring an end to the civil war, the next demand will be for a full-scale armed presence in Libya, as in Iraq – and meeting the same continuing resistance. That way lies decades of conflict.
The rebels have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the deployment of ground forces, and only by violating their wishes will their soverignty be violated. Perhaps the STWC should send a delegate to Benghazi and give them advice?


4. This is not Spain in 1936, when non-intervention meant helping the fascist side which, if victorious in the conflict, would only encourage the instigators of a wider war – as it did. Here, the powers clamouring for military action are the ones already fighting a wider war across the Middle East and looking to preserve their power even as they lose their autocratic allies. Respecting Libya’s sovereignty is the cause of peace, not is enemy.
Whilst Gadaffii’s rump state has access to superior technology and more resources non-intevention will aid his regime. (Or is that precisely what the British Left want? If so come out and say it.)


5. It is more like Iraq in the 1990s, after the First Gulf War. Then, the US, Britain and France imposed no-fly zones which did not lead to peace – the two parties in protected Iraqi Kurdistan fought a bitter civil war under the protection of the no-fly zone – and did prepare the ground for the invasion of 2003. Intervention may partition Libya and institutionalise conflict for decades.

To replace oppression with conflict is an attempt to liberate oneself. Do the STWC know better than the people of Libya what is good for them? Sounds like old school colonialism…


6. Or it is more like the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia. NATO interference has not lead to peace, reconciliation or genuine freedom in the Balkans, just to endless corrupt occupations.
To oppose one action under the assumption that it will inevitably lead to another assumes too much, especially as there is merit to the former, independent of the later.


7. Yes, it is about oil. Why the talk of intervening in Libya, but not the Congo, for example? Ask BP.
Ofcourse its about oil and futhering corporate and national interests, but to the rebels its also about averting their impending deaths.
As one Benghazian put it on Al Jazeera
“Thankfully we have the oil so the West will come to our aid but we pity our brothers in the Middle East who have none…”


8. It is also about pressure on Egyptian revolution – the biggest threat to imperial interests in the region. A NATO garrison next door would be a base for pressure at least, and intervention at worst, if Egyptian freedom flowers to the point where it challenges western interests in the region.
The spread of revolution across the Middle East and North Africa must surely pose a greater threat to western hegemony than one ‘successful’ revolution alone.


9. The hypocrisy gives the game away. When the people of Bahrain rose against their US-backed monarchy and were cut down in the streets, there was no talk of action, even though the US sixth fleet is based there and could doubtless have imposed a solution in short order. As top US republican Senator Lindsey Graham observed last month “there are regimes we want to change, and those we don’t”. NATO will only ever intervene to strangle genuine social revolution, never to support it.
It is indeed hypocritical but to allow people to die for the sake of consistency seems somewhat inhumane, unless the people of Libya are nothing other than faceless individuals playing out a caricature in history…


10. Military aggression in Libya – to give it the righty name – will be used to revive the blood-soaked policy of ‘liberal interventionism’. That beast cannot be allowed to rise from the graves of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A lot of people will die if this does not happen, and if the left wing opposes UN intereference but understands the need for Libya to be liberated where exactly are the ‘International Brigades’ running to their assistance?

this is not the demo I was looking for...

Saturday morning I finished my night shift and caught the bus into the town to join the anti EDL protest.
When I arrived at the meeting point I discovered that, due to the cancellation of the birmingham demo, instead of the 20-30 turn out of Berkshire Division which were expected, some two hundred or so EDLers from all over the South had come to the town.
The 30 or so local activists gathered in the park suddenly seemed somewhat less than adequate! (the grey beards, walking frames and wheelchairs also did not shout 'fighting wedge' either).
Feeeling tired and jaded, I heard a conversation out of the corner of my ear:
"Is there a football match today?" "I do not Know" I turned and said, "We are away this weekend, to Barnsley."
and old fellow, with a long somewhat eccentric grey beard looked at me and said"'We'? who is 'we'?" I replied: "Reading are playing Barnsley this afternoon. at football"
he sniffed and said "anyone who plays football is always 'Them' to me, everyone who supports football is 'They' to me"
As I pondered this, four riot vans parked up outside the court and a pig strolled over.
"we wish to facilitate your 'right to protest'"
the crowd were falling over themselves to be voluntarily kettled even before he had walked away, in their haste voting even before the vote was called.
I decided that this was not the demo I was looking for.
I went home.
And watched the football.

Big Butts and little buts (gratuitous rap video levered into a post on Anti Imperialism)

Now that the UN have eventually finished the internable to and thro' horsetrading (that made me wonder whether a 'no fly zone' would be established before, or after, Gaddaffi had turned Benghazi into a Charnel house), the left can heave a collective sigh of relief.
Having for a brief period been in the the uncomfortable position of having to been seen supporting real life revolutions, as opposed to the endless repetitions of the Russian Revolution that usually infest their fevered brows, the UN resolution has allowed the left to return to its usual position; Raising the cankered, blood drenched banner of 'anti Imperialism' above their heads the comrades rally to defence of Tyrants and repression.
But things ain't what they used to be. with the noble exception of mad maoists and the last remnant of the WRP ( who prove that they at least hold to the true values of British business- once bought and paid for, they stay stalwart) very few are declaring their support for Gaddaffi outright.
Instead we have the Butters

"Of course we support the right of the Libyan People but the intervention of Imperialism Changes the situation Blah Blah Blood for oil Blah blah "
the same old bull shit to defend the indefencable, to justify the betrayal of the Libyan revolution, just as in the past the left has betrayed the Kurds and the Marsh arabs in Iraq, the Tibetans and the Chinese democrats, the Bosnians and the Kosovans etc. etc.
Whatever the dangers of intervention may bring, the truth is that without it the rebels in Beghazi were doomed, with the bulk of Gaddaffi's trained forces, and mercenary troops staying loyal to the regime, they were being slowly forced back and were calling increasingly desperately for western support. In reply the left seemed content to lecture them on how they should be doing it and condemn them for not being willing to die heroically.
Every left wing account of the Spanish Civil war begins with a condemnation of the
democracies- Britain and France- for their failiure to come to aid of Republican Spain. This was when both nations had real empires! by the logic of todays left, they should not only have condemned republican spain, but, if the aid had come, they would have become supporters of Franco!

Smiley Culture- Yet another dies at the hands of the police

Rest in Peace.
whats the betting that no copper is ever held to account for this?

Marinus van der Lubbe: nazi terror and stalinist slander

In honour of Marinus Van Der Lubbe, anti fascist.
This article from last weeks Weekly Worker deserves to be more widely read:
Lies that refuse to be buried
On the anniversary of the 1933 Reichstag fire, Bob Potter looks back at the trial of Marinus van der Lubbe and Georgi Dimitrov


Watching a history programme on TV’s digital channels can be both irritating and frustrating. For me, a repeat broadcast of films, comments and discussion related to the Reichstag fire trial proved a case in point. Stalinist misrepresentations, manufactured at the time, continue to be presented as ‘possible options’ ...

In the early evening of February 27 1933, less than a month after Hitler’s appointment as German chancellor, the debating chamber of the Reichstag burst into flames - an event destined to find a prominent place in world history. There was no great mystery about the fire: soon after the blaze was spotted, firemen and police entered the building and promptly arrested a young man attempting to escape. He was searched and found in possession of three items - a pocket-knife, a wallet and a passport. “Why did you do it?” he was asked. “As a protest,” replied the Dutch bricklayer, Marinus van der Lubbe, who gave the arresting officers a coherent account of his actions during that night - purchasing firelighters in a local store, several unsuccessful attempts to start fires in four public buildings, succeeding only when he broke a window and entered the deserted Reichstag.

Here are extracts from van der Lubbe’s statement to the police of March 3 1933:

“In Holland I read that the National Socialists had come to power in Germany. I have always followed German politics with keen interest ... when Hitler took over I expected much enthusiasm for him, but also much tension ... I myself am a leftist and was a member of the Communist Party until 1929. What I did not like about the party is the way they lord it over the workers, instead of letting the workers decide for themselves ... The masses themselves must decide what they ought to do and what they ought not to do.

“In Germany a national coalition has now been formed, and I think it holds two dangers: (1) it oppresses the workers, and (2) ... it is bound to lead to war. I watched on for a few days and then I decided to go to Germany and see for myself .... I started in Düsseldorf, where I spoke to workers in the street. I did the same thing in other towns. In Berlin, I also studied the pamphlets of the various parties and then went to the welfare offices in Lichtenberg, Wedding and Neukölln. I also went to the labour exchange ... I found out that, whereas the national coalition has complete freedom in Germany, the workers have not.

“Now, what the workers’ organisations are doing is not likely to rouse the workers to the struggle for freedom ... that is the reason why I asked the workers to demonstrate. But all I was told was to take the matter to the party ... But I heard that a Communist Party demonstration was disbanded by the leaders on the approach of the police, and that the people listened to these leaders instead of carrying out their own resolutions. I realised then that the workers will do nothing by themselves, that they will do nothing against a system which grants freedom to one side and metes out oppression to the other. In my opinion something absolutely had to be done in protest against this system.

“Since the workers would do nothing, I had to do something by myself. I considered arson a suitable method ... something that belonged to the system itself: official buildings - the welfare office for example, for that is a building in which the workers come together; or the city hall, because it is a building belonging to the system; and further the palace, because it lies in the centre of the city, and if it goes up, the huge flames can be seen from far away ... When these three fires failed to come off - that is to say, when my protest did not come off - I decided on the Reichstag as the centre of the whole system ... As to the question whether I acted alone, I declare emphatically that this was the case. No-one at all helped me, nor did I meet a single person in the Reichstag.”

The chief police investigator, detective-inspector Dr Walter Zirpins, added his own observations to the final report:

“He is endowed with a great deal of (admittedly very one-sided) intelligence and, appearances to the contrary, he is a very bright fellow. His grasp of the German language is so good that he can follow even finer shades of meanings, though his own speech is slurred. Thus he could not only follow the examination but remember entire sentences and repeat them word for word. Especially during the discussion of his motives he kept correcting those phrases which, he thought, did not fully reflect his real meaning ... in short he had no need of an interpreter.”

The prisoner willingly accompanied the police officers back to the Reichstag to re-enact his earlier visit, leading them all the way. His ‘journey’ at the crime scene was monitored by stopwatch, leaving his companions convinced he was telling the truth in every detail. (Van der Lubbe told police his ‘detailed memory’ developed consequential to his very poor eyesight - worthy of mention, as he was deprived of his glasses for early court sessions!).

Nazi stooge?
Although his account made good sense to the investigators, his insistence on ‘acting alone’ throughout suited neither Nazis nor communists. Foreign reporters present at the burning building when Hitler arrived were convinced the fuhrer had been caught completely by surprise: he immediately declared his “suspicion” it was the “opening phase” of a planned communist uprising; Ernst Torgler, leader of the KPD in the Reichstag, and three Bulgarian communists were promptly arrested (Georgi Dimitrov, chief European representative of the Comintern being amongst them, although the Nazis were unaware of his international role).

The arrested communists insisted the fire had been instigated and orchestrated by the Nazis themselves, to justify police raids on the offices of opposition parties, along with wider excesses by their brown-shirted thugs, aimed at anti-fascist groupings and trades union; and prompt repressive legislation (the ‘enabling acts’ - the first promulgated the day following the fire). It was inevitable the German Communist Party would view the Dutch bricklayer as a “Nazi stooge”. In those ‘third period’ days, any leftist not within the Stalinist orbit was a ‘social fascist’, objectively a Nazi ally. The Stalinist press consoled their readers with glib assurances that Hitlerism was no more than the “death rattle of expiring capitalism” - soon the victorious working class would sweep away excrescences under the leadership of the ‘vanguard of the proletariat’ - the KPD - so laying the foundations for the future socialist society.

Today, probably the majority of people believe van der Lubbe was a congenital delinquent in the service of the Nazis. All attempts to describe the real van der Lubbe come up against two books published, at the time, by Comintern propagandists, based in Paris: The brown book of the Hitler terror and the burning of the Reichstag (1933) and The second brown book of the Hitler terror (1934) - both ‘proving’ the Reichstag was ignited by the Nazis, a version made ‘credible’ by fabricated evidence to transform van der Lubbe into an occasional ‘speaker at Nazi meetings’, a degenerate homosexual or simply a Nazi stooge. The anonymous author of these texts was Otto Katz, a full time Comintern official based in Paris - ironically, 20 years later he was to be hanged in Prague as one of the accused in the Slánský trial.[1]

Within a few weeks, the first book appeared in 17 languages with millions of copies in worldwide circulation - becoming the bible of the anti-fascist crusade. Details of relevant behind-the-scenes activities in the books’ creation are described in Arthur Koestler’s autobiographical The invisible writing (1954). Koestler worked for Willi Münzenberg, who had escaped from Germany on the night of the fire and set up office in Paris as western propaganda chief of the Comintern. As a record of the trial events, Koestler’s book has little value, presenting only the official ‘party line’, which the author admits comprises “ a unique feat in the history of propaganda ... producing international committees, congresses and movements as a conjurer produces rabbits out of his hat ... Münzenberg organised the Reichstag counter-trial, the public hearings in Paris and London in 1933 ... We had no direct proof, no access to witnesses, only underground communications with Germany ... We had to rely on guesswork, on bluffing and on intuitive knowledge of the methods and minds of our opposite numbers in totalitarian conspiracy.”

It is time these Stalinist falsifications are buried once and for all. Much of what follows is culled from the work of Fritz Tobias, who in 1946 joined the Hanover Denazification Court and later the German State Denazification Commission. He carried out a thorough examination of all existing evidence relating to the fire and subsequent trial, held in Leipzig, September-December 1933. There was little ‘new’ evidence: rather a re-examination of all the material that had been available. In the summer of 1956, Tobias was asked by the Federal Information Office to publish his findings; cautiously he agreed to send extracts to Der Spiegel. The howls of rage that followed their publication were the consequence of the recent proximity of the Hitler regime - the Stalinist version of the Reichstag fire had become the generally accepted ‘official’ history - the Nazis had fired the building! People were less interested in learning the truth than their fear these later ‘findings’ might be perceived as an attempt to ‘whitewash the Nazis’. The English edition of Tobias’s book, The Reichstag fire (1964), was introduced by AJP Taylor, who apologised for having been duped by the Stalinist lies.

Independent
An active revolutionary from his teenage years, a member of the Young Communist League, Marinus van der Lubbe soon proved his ability to influence others. A studious youth, he was well known at the Leyden public library, where he first studied Marx’s Capital, although his hatred of capitalism was based less on Marxist science than on youthful enthusiasm and utopian dreams. Although a childish prank had severely damaged both his eyes (from which he never fully recovered his eyesight - he was awarded a small disability pension), he was of good physique, and started work on building sites.

Well known by the local police as chair of the local Communist Youth, he rented an empty storeroom, baptising it ‘Lenin House’; it became the meeting place for the Communist Youth, and he busied himself there writing leaflets, and editing factory and school pamphlets, increasingly centred on the unemployed movement; he became well known at the head of processions through the streets of Leyden.

His break with the Dutch Communist Party was inevitable. His independent attitude and spontaneous identification with broad self-activity of the working class made it increasingly difficult for him to accept the discipline of the sectarian Stalinist party; he drifted into associations with ‘left deviationists’ (Left Workers Opposition) and finally the Party of International Communists (or Rade Communists). With only a handful of members in Holland, these ‘council communists’ and their supporters solidly defended van der Lubbe when the Leipzig trial got under way, publishing the Red Book, which demolished the slanders of his being a Nazi agent. Marinus perceived Hitler’s triumph as a possible “tinder point” for revolution. While the communist press consoled readers with glib assurances that Hitlerism was merely the “death rattle” of expiring capitalism, van der Lubbe hoped the situation might be quite different in Germany. Following heated meetings with friends and comrades about revolutionary possibilities bound to happen across the border, he set out on foot for Berlin.

He spent his first night in a men’s hostel; the following day saw a concert organised by the Social Democrats closed down by the police without explanation - yes, his arrival in the German capital soon disillusioned him. Nowhere any resolution to fight against the brown ‘mercenaries of capitalism’. He visited labour exchanges, welfare offices, mingled with the locals, suggested protest marches (which he had found so successful back home). Nobody was interested in his suggestions; indeed he was treated with suspicion or as a ‘foreign’ busybody. He quickly realised there was no hope of any ‘mass revolutionary action’.

The final straw was his attending a communist mass meeting at the Sportpalast, addressed by communist deputy Wilhelm Pieck. Van der Lubbe prepared notes, hoping for the opportunity to express a point of view, but the meeting was closed by the police as soon as it started - again, no protest or resistance on the part of the audience! The great Communist Party of Germany had gone into voluntary liquidation! Completely disgusted, van der Lubbe returned to his hostel, seething with impotent rage and unable to fall asleep for a long time. One can readily imagine his distress, irritation and frustration. It became apparent to him, if anything was going to happen, he would have to initiate it himself. He decided to set a number of public buildings on fire, hoping that once the intimidated masses saw these strongholds of capitalism going up in flames, they might, even at this late hour, shake off their lethargy.

The final police report, submitted to the court by detective-inspector Zirpins, encapsulated everything about van der Lubbe’s individual actions on the evening of February 27 1933:

“There is no doubt that van der Lubbe committed the crime entirely by himself. This conclusion follows from the investigations, the objective facts and the precise answers of the suspect ... the scene of the crime and his activities there were described by van der Lubbe right from the start (ie, before the official reconstruction of the crime on the spot) in such detail - seats of fire, damage caused, trails left and paths taken - as only the incendiary himself could have supplied. Had he not been there himself, he could not possibly have described and later demonstrated on the spot all these facts and especially the smaller fires which he had lit at random. The reconstruction of the crime proved that all the details he gave were absolutely correct.”

Lies
Both Moscow communists and Nazi publicists presented the main defendant as a congenital idiot, a juvenile delinquent, a pathological vagrant, a pathological liar, incorrigible boaster and homosexual call-boy in the service of Nazis/communists. Here is Koestler’s version:

“Lubbe was a horrifying apparition, half man, half beast. Saliva was dribbling from his mouth, and mucus from his nostrils down on to the floor. From time to time his counsel wiped his face with a paper handkerchief. When standing, Lubbe’s hands were dangling down and his head bent on his chest like a chimpanzee’s. When sitting, his head hung between his knees like a broken puppet’s.”

Koestler was not present at the hearings he described - van der Lubbe had spent seven months in heavy, painful chains, impeding the blood circulation and leaving visible sores on his feet. Indeed his general appearance caused a tremendous stir among observers, especially towards the end of the trial. While police witnesses described Marinus as mentally alert and quick to respond, now he appeared completely broken and dull-witted.

Contrary to the assertion of Koestler and others, there is no reason to believe he had been drugged; had he yielded to Nazi pressure to ‘confess’ to being part of a ‘communist plot’, his gaolers might well have drugged him to keep his mouth shut in public. A much more likely explanation is that after many months of consistently repeating the same simple truth, he eventually gave up in despair when he realised the presiding judge was far less interested in facts than in his own pet theory. Unlike the other defendants, with the world Stalinist movement supporting them, Marinus remained isolated and alone, unaware even of the tiny (if growing) band of supporters, largely in Holland. (There is evidence that from the beginning of the trial, Dimitrov knew a secret agreement had been concluded between the Soviet state security GPU and the Gestapo, according to which, whatever the outcome of the trial, he would reach Moscow in safety.) Alone in the dock, without a single friend or colleague, is it is not possible van der Lubbe finally cracked from exhaustion and suffered a total nervous breakdown? Perhaps it is possible to pinpoint the final breaking point? On the 43rd day of the trial, van der Lubbe stood up and asked if he might ask a question. He was told he could - here is a portion of the transcripts:

Van der Lubbe: “I should like to know when the verdict will be pronounced and executed.”

President: “I can’t tell you that yet. It all depends on you, on your naming your accomplices.”

Van der Lubbe: “But that has all been cleared up. I fired the Reichstag by myself, and there must be a verdict. The thing has gone on for eight months and I cannot agree with all this at all.”

President: “Tell us then who your accomplices were.”

Van der Lubbe: My fellow defendants have all admitted they had nothing to do with the fire, were not even in the Reichstag, and did not fire it.”

President: “I have told you repeatedly that the court cannot accept your statement that you were alone. You simply must tell us with whom you did it and who helped you.”

Van der Lubbe: “I can only repeat that I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself. After all, it has been shown during this trial that Dimitrov and the others were not there. They are in the trial, that is quite true, but they were not in the Reichstag. The court does not believe me, but it’s true all the same.”

President: “You have confessed to the crime and there is therefore no argument on that point. But it remains a fact that other persons have been accused and that the court must now decide whether or not these people are guilty. It would help us greatly if you now admit with whom you committed the crime.”

Van der Lubbe: “I can only admit that I started the fire by myself; for the rest I cannot agree with what this court is trying to do. I now demand a verdict. What you are doing is a betrayal of humanity, of the police, and of the Communist and National Socialist Party. All I ask for is a verdict.”

Here, by contrast, are extracts from Dimitrov’s address to the open court:

“Van der Lubbe has by no means told the truth in this court and he remains persistently silent. Although he did have accomplices, this fact does not decide the fate of the other accused ... While the representative of political insanity sits today in the dock, the representative of provocation has disappeared! Whilst this fool, van der Lubbe, was carrying out his clumsy attempts at arson in the corridors and cloakrooms, were not other unknown persons preparing the conflagration in the sessions chamber ...”.

At this point van der Lubbe began to laugh silently. His whole body was shaken with spasms of laughter. Dimitrov continued, pointing at van der Lubbe as he spoke: “What is van der Lubbe? A communist? Inconceivable! An anarchist? No! He is a declassed worker, a rebellious member of the scum of society ... he is the misused tool of fascism ... he should be condemned to death for having worked against the proletariat ... the Reichstag fire had nothing whatever to do with any activity of the German Communist Party - not only nothing to do with an insurrection, but nothing to do with a strike, a demonstration or anything of that nature ... the Reichstag fire was not regarded by anyone - I exclude criminals and the mentally deranged - as the signal for insurrection.”

Infamy
What a revealing comparison! The Dutchman courageously persisted throughout the proceedings in absolving his co-defendants, while the Bulgarian communist referred to the Hollander as “belonging to the class of criminals” and “mentally deranged”. For revolutionaries, Dimitrov and his fellows deserve to be remembered in infamy for his unbridled slanders directed at a comrade who had sought to stimulate the kinds of action that could have become the opening shots of resistance to the Nazi tide enveloping them - acts that might have aroused the German people to accept the challenge.

Dimitrov and his three associates were adjudged ‘not guilty’ - Marinus van der Lubbe was sentenced to death ... despite appeals and countless petitions from all over the world, the executioner, in top hat and tails, called for him on January 10 1934. Van der Lubbe was calm and peaceful, no tears, no belated confession. He was decapitated - executed by virtue of a special law, made retrospective for his case; his capital crime was not to have set fire to the Reichstag, but to have had accomplices in doing so!

Most Marxists appreciate that protest actions such as van der Lubbe’s only have meaningful revolutionary significance when integrated with a prevailing political consciousness; as part of a mass movement, a personal act can be of the greatest significance. Van der Lubbe’s tragedy was that, as opposed to his actions at home, in Germany he stood alone, far removed from any ‘movement’.

Revolutionaries should make a point of reading the Fritz Tobias book - a full analysis of the documentary evidence that not only vindicates Marinus van der Lubbe from the slanders thrown at him by his co-accused and the world’s Moscow communists, but also reveals the equally despicable manner by which the Nazis attempted to force van der Lubbe to implicate his cowardly co-accused, and who executed him because of his refusal to do so.

Notes

1.Rudolf Slánský, general secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and 13 others (11 of them Jews) were convicted of participating in “Trotskyite-Titoist-Zionist activities in the service of American imperialism” in December 1952. Eleven were executed after having confessed in court and requested to be sentenced to death

there is nothing between us but a river of blood

the Bizarre Socialist unity Blog is at it again; from defending the Butchers of Tianamen Square and delighting in the murderous antics of Islamists, to ignoring repression and maligning human rights campaigners who dare to criticise any so-called 'anti-imperialist' dictatorship, and even wallowing in the bigotry of all and every religious bigot on Earth (except, of course Jews!), that arch crony of Galloway and apologist for dictators and thugs the world over, Andy Newman has been driven to distraction by a few Anarchists heckling and chucking the odd egg at Brendan Barber during a trot infested 'anti cuts' meeting, and has launched a witchhunting attack on anarchists who refuse to kowtow slavishly to the 'leaders' of the Tuc and 'bland labour.

The comments that follow his blog are racing into meltdown as all the bile of the stalinotrots against anarchists comes pouring out. Swappies and counterfirers, respecters and labourists all finding at last a point to unite over- hatred of Anarchism!
Long I have argued against the old lie that somehow despite our differences we are on the same side, taking different paths to the same essential promised land, that leninists are comrades too, if misguided.
They are not. They are our implacable enemies, who whenever they gain even the slightest taste of power turn their guns immediately upon those who refuse to put the struggle for liberty and human dignity under the iron grip of their party dictatorship.

addendum: In the midst of this witchhunting language against anarchists Newman includes details of how one may sign up as a steward with the TUC, clearly in order to 'deal' with us 'enemies of the working class'; it will be nice to know that alongside the pigs attempting to attack demonstrators will be the orange vested wannabe Stasi. Trotskyists are cops in waiting


James has done a sterling job of painstakingly attempting to reply to each of the nasty lies in the post point by point his comments are below

Well no doubt your take this down for being long. But I’ll reply on behave of the anarchist movement- I have no authority to do so, except myself.

I’m an enemy of the Labour party and Brendan Barber anyone who conflates that to being an enemy of the labour movement is the real enemy of the labour movement.

If Andy had wanted to have a decent critique of the Anarchists at Goldsmiths, I’d have started by poring cold water on the use of WRP slogan of calling for a general strike at the moment. It’s silly fantasy stuff. Or maybe he could could have tried defending the legalism of the trade unions- good job that such legalism isn’t respected in the middle east or Wisconsin. Some folk may think that the workers movement should be as sedate as a country club or nice cucumber sandwiches at Labour central office or number 10, I think that is a load of bourgeois values that should be dumped into the dustbin of history. Seems like you want TUC to a bunch of cops for ‘middle England’ respectability. Respectability will get you nowhere when the rich can be making money. As the torrent of individualist abuse on the comments prove the anarchists at was political and how does a little fracas at a meeting weaken the campaign? Tying your self to legalism and respectability is what fundamentally weakens any campaign against the establishment. But then again, the labour party are part of the establishment and so Brendan Barber and far too many in the trade union movement want to join him at that table or better called trough.

As to the infantile comments.
Point 2. OK lets talk substance abuse. We could talk about how about 50% of local trade union officials seem to be alcoholic gin soaked billy no mates, who use their position to hide from work and their ‘co-workers’ that their meant to represent. It just seems to be about having an office so they can recover before going back to their binge drinking. We could talk about the disgraceful behaviour at a friends union conference when drunken delegates abuse the catering staff. Anyway in my town we always left the glue sniffing to the lumpen proletariat and members of the SWP. Though the SWP have moved on to being just alcoholics now.

Point 3- Throwing stuff and booing is as near as a debate as is allowed at such rallies. Such speeches are no different than the bullshit of a stage managed rally the Americans get stereo typed for, but this country is no different except for less dancing girls. It showed commendable politics that they showed respect to the survivor of Hiroshima. As far as remember the feelings of the 150K audience was- why are these boring bastards droning on. Someone pushed in front of you at a bugger van (at least they weren’t veggies)- get over it, that is nothing to the rudeness and condescension that people like you talk at the public.

Point 4- is that disgraced Porter of the NUS talking? Lol- the misbehaviour was the greatest thing about that demo- it’s not like they where as cool as the French or Greeks, they know how to protest- the meek inherent nothing.

The Jarrow March was rightfully condemned by the CPGB at the time as cap in hand nonsense that achieved fuck all. A real march was the sort that burnt Luton town hall to the ground. That sentence he wrote says everything about the loyalist disingenuous rewriting of history that the labour party is all about.

Point 7- Neil Kinnock there is a real enemy of the Labour movement and the working class- now doing very well as part of the establishment gravy train. The miners had the right idea- except hanging may be too good for him.
So this prick has read a book about the Durruti Column, what a wanker. I could go on about the nonsense I’ve faced when selling class war from certain trots or how certain trots didn’t want to discuss there parties position on religious schools etc when I was on the anti state popes visit to London march, no doubt that will be counted as anarchist harassment as well.

Point 8. Some prick who doesn’t like people smoking and/or drinking. Your tea totalism is no threat to the state Mr Daily Mail. Where’s your great counter organisation of revolutionary over throw, lol.
You’d go down with out even a scuffle.

Point 9. No debate allowed. This poster wants to violently impose no debate as well. Copper of the movement, go buy yourself a brown shirt.

Point 10. Where is this ‘broad based movement’. You seem to want us to just follow the TUC like where their dumb soldiers (being lead to the slaughter). I want a movement like the anti poll tax campaign and miner support groups. As do all the ‘anarchists’ I know.

Point 12. Shall we have a look at the class background of the Labour Party- like Ed for starters. I think we should. Most of your sort stink of BO in my experience.

Point 14. As point 12. I can tell you Class War was when I was a member far less middle class than the Labour party or any other Left group. We could discuss the history of under cover cops in the trade union movement , it is thought that something like 1/3 of the NUM central committee was reporting to police during the miners strike.

Point 17- all ready covered- meek shit. How the labour Party always wants to disarm resistance.

Point 18- just to confirm that what they are mainly doing in Luton. I’ll give the GMB tops have tried doing a little outside that box, but the local official are bloody spineless useless non entities. The local PCS official has been good and one of the rail unions official has at least tried to some extent – that’s out of a town of 250,000.

point 20. Where is your credible alternative policy? Labour implementing 2/3 of the cuts the Tories propose? I have an alternative policy, it’s called socialism and full employment.

Point 21. What are you on? You ain’t going to do any fighting ever! And I bet you never have. Your a support of the Labour Party the loyal opposition that believes in caving in to the bosses law. What a craven two faced bastard.

Point 22- Very weak and not what you said at the time. Also point 14 called people coppers.

Point 26- My God! Something sensible. I could debate the finer points.

Point 28- we’re quite aware of your attitude- that’s why you won’t even be waking up in the morning come the revolution.

Point 29. Another labour Party dick. Notice how the Labour Party supports don’t even want to mention the history of the poll Tax, the miners strike, 1926 and militant marches against unemployment.

Point 30- clearly doesn’t understand what a flash mob is.

Point 31. I was a member of CW from about 93 to about 2007. I can say he’s talking shit for that period. How about some evidence- that wasn’t even credible hearsay. I do know a certain Union official in Norwich behaving like a nark and some evidence of a trot doing so in Luton. The whole relationship of Luton UAF and the police is very unhealthy. I do not know Ian very well but this sounds complete bollocks.

Point 32. Coalition of resistance is Counter-Fire not the SWP. Nice to see such well informed contributors to this blog. Lol.

Point 38. A ‘work makes you free’ merchant writes. Off to the Gulag comrades.

Point 40. Well it’s a rather self fulling definition of the importance of the TUC. Most union members are badly organised if at all, not surprising when the union tells you that membership is all about legal cover and cheap insurance. If the unions where organised they wouldn’t have need 6 months to organise a demonstration.

The last sentence is a moderately good point. But I’d think that’s one of those at Goldsmiths main criticisms. To a certain extent I agree with the unions that we should have been keeping our power dry and use the time to organise. I can say that Anarchists have been doing far more work , proportionally towards using that time to get organised and put over the message. The only ’socialist’ group who seems to have put any real effort in has been Counter Fire the rest have just been posing round the edges.

Point 41. Vote Labour- haha- that really saved us from the depression. It was a Communist front ( and all the better for that) that is usually called leadership which is something you don’t really offer.

Point 42- great point – I wish I was as concise. So do most others.

Point 44. Your point? South Africa- it is meet the new boss same as the old boss- unless your one of the tops. Which may tell where your coming from.

I always hate going to London specially when I’m going to droned at my some boring bastards. Maybe you should organise some legal and TV cover against the police if you feel people are afraid.

Point 45. I agree partly. I don’t think the unions are stopping the class fighting back. But there structure has disarmed the people .

Point 48. I agree- it’s a bit of a misnomer of a title. Unless you think socialist unity is about shooting anarchists, druggies and the work shy come the counter revolution.

Point 51. Aunt sally.

Point 52. labour mythologising again- Just repeating just makes you more wrong but does clearly show your role in trying to rewrite a pro loyalist history of Britain which is just make believe bullshit.

Point 52- What a patronising dick. That wasn’t a ‘working class’ view point. That was the view point of a labour party supporting pub bore.

Point 55- The Greeks have a real Communist Party- lucky sods! Not the meek yellow trud that claims to be in that tradition in this country.

Point 57/59. 2 million??- lol. Seems point 59 and most of those from the it’s ilk seem to believe in the propaganda value of a non deed.

Point 63. Socialists? Social workers with Gulags?
Point 67. She stood against independent workers control and for the control of the loyal opposition. Like most of the posters hear who miss call themselves socialist. Your party has just been in power for 13 years- and they where horrible. That’s being very over polite.

Point 70. What have the TUC done against the Bankers, I know what the Labour Party did- it gave them a bundle of cash hot of the presses. Anarchists have been active in the campaigns against the Banks and Tax avoidance of the rich something which I Think Bone’s blog often referees to. Your talking out the back of your head.

Point 72. I agree. Of course it’s a little more complex but still true. My old man was a leading trade unionist and half the time plus, he was sorting out the poor management of the bosses and doing their job for them. I guess you could say he was making the world a more human place but it certainly wasn’t revolutionary.

Point 74/77. Unity mongering is just another way of saying shut up your not allowed to criticise the ‘leadership’. Leadership just seems to mean who can get on the BBC and has bundles of cash. Both show that speakers at meetings they like are not about debate or even argument but for a few sound bites on TV and we are no more than non-payed extras.

Point 78. Now has a problem with white boys- fuck off you pinko social worker.

Point 80- let’s look nice for the BBC & daily Mail- get real- twat.

Point 79/83. Think that was some other tit from the EdL not Robinson. Coming from supporters of UAF who have offered to the liberal police against racism – I guess that’s where the Edl learned such talk. It’s the likes of these two posters who are offering to smash a real left of the street- but first they want to silence dissenting voices by not letting them speak and then they moan when they get heckled and call for a Stalinist policing of left criticism.
Yeah we’ve seen your sort before- wasn’t pretty was it and still isn’t with your sort of guy in charge in Libya.

I am sure that comrades may wish to discuss some of the finer points of cmde Newman's opinion in person, If they should see him at the march 26th demo

World leaders condemn Gaddafi...

cock

There are no shortcuts

There is a bit of an internet flutter at the moment amongst activists. Inspired by the example of the Arab revolutionary movements and determined that opposition to the cuts will not become yet another succession of A to B processions to listen to Tony Benn, there is a campaign to stay on in Hyde park to act as a focus for resistance.
I think that, laudable as it sounds, this is actually a really wrong headed attempt at short cutting the long process of building the anti condem movement.
The focus of public protest in Egypt and other arab/north african rebellions on the holding of public space reflects the reality of state repression in those nations; holding these central squares was simultaniusly a direct challenge to the state, a point of attraction for other protesters, a safe place for demonstraters to gather in the glare of international press, providing protection for demonstrators throuth strength of numbers.
None of these criteria apply here:
Hyde park is not a central hub, protesters gathering and remaining there are not a direct challenge to the police and state- they can be easily ignored until the pressures of climate, hunger and economics disperse all but the most committed.
It is not as if this has not been tried before:

Brian Haw has occupied parliament square for the past 7 years, at times accompanied by quite large numbers of people, at no time has he been more than a mere, somewhat embarressing, irritant.
Like the poll tax protests, the only way in which to defeat the cuts agenda is to make the rich fear, make continuing their strategy too risky in the face of mass direct action, bring the spectre of the Mob to the leafy boulevards of the Bourgeoisie.

Pope takes Mass...

some bears in a wood.


....The latest research from the Bureau details for the first time the full extent of Square Mile donations given to the Tories. It reveals that the percentage of donations from companies and individuals connected to the financial services industry has now reached more than half.

Last year City money made up 50.8% of all Conservative Party donations, a leap from 25% five years previously, when Cameron and Osborne took over the helm.

The City has donated a total of £42.76m since 2005. Last year City money accounted for £11.4m, compared with £2.75m when Cameron took over.

The revelation comes as the Chancellor’s move to increase a levy on banks was criticised for being inadequate....

children: a lifestyle choice?

On ITV this morning the odious Katie Hopkins railed against parents who complained at the rapid increase in chilodcare costs- "Children are an investment for your future, one makes a choice, one can have an Austin Martin or a baby, one can't always have both."

Let it be clear, I love my children dearly. But nobody ever told me 19 years ago that there was a choice.

From The streets of Petrograd to the squares of Cairo

In his History of the Russian revolution Leon Trotsky described the how in February 1917, when the police were unable to cope with rising wave of protests, the cossacks were called onto the streets, Trotsky described how when the protesters approached the army lines rather than charge them down the soldiers allowed the demonstrators to squeeze under the bellies of the cavalry horses and continue on their protests.
on the BBC the Egyptian army can now be seen in Cairo, their tanks and armoured cars forming a wall blocking off Liberation Square; and the soldiers allowing the demonstrators to slip between the wheels and tracks of them.
The revolution continues!
Updates
Paul makes some telling points of caution about the events in Egypt on his blog, in the face of some severe provocation from his resident troll.
whilst James on facebook rants at the hypocrisy of a left gaining hard ons at the heroics of people struggling far away whilst neglecting the bread and butter struggles of the working class here

"I'm fucking piss off with shitheads who just expect or hope for something to happen. Go and wank off - watching Gaza or Eygpt andd then moan about why nothing happens here. Shit doesn't happen unless some people make it happen- you fucking bozo's might as well be watching Britains got talent- the news to you is just another soap opera. Society of spectale."

absolutely spot on.
a friend on facebook asked me to explain what is the cause of these north african rebellions?

"I think that each nation has different reasons for the revolts, one might even say that each individual taking part has their own reasons!, however, it is clear that there are some common factors that cut across the entire region-
firstly t...he depth of the economic crisis, we are used to thinking trather parochially about the banking crisis, as if it only exists within the advanced western world; the truth is far from this, for millions across the world this latest squeeze on lending and downturn in the world economy mean a massive rise in food and fuel prices that mean hunger and penury are real prospects.
secondly the inability of the increasingly elderly and distant dictatorships of the region to understand and respond to the needs and organisation ability of a young and angry population.
thirdly nothing succeeds like success! the victory of the protests in Tunisia have inspired people across the region to believe that its is not only possible to protest but to protest and WIN!
We have become used to seeing the middle east as filled with men in beards do unspeakable things in the name of a 'peaceful' god; the joy of these protests is that what motivates them are the same as what motivates and angers us here- what has happened there is just as likely in Western Europe. The forces of reaction, whjether the stalwarts of the old regime or the bigots of the Muslim Brotherhood are completely sidelined by a youth who see through their bull."

Gaza Youth Manifesto

I may be the last anarchist to reproduce this, but it deserves repeating.


Fuck Hamas. Fuck Israel. Fuck Fatah. Fuck UN. Fuck UNWRA. Fuck USA! We, the youth in Gaza, are so fed up with Israel, Hamas, the occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community! We want to scream and break this wall of silence, injustice and indifference like the Israeli F16’s breaking the wall of sound; scream with all the power in our souls in order to release this immense frustration that consumes us because of this fucking situation we live in; we are like lice between two nails living a nightmare inside a nightmare, no room for hope, no space for freedom. We are sick of being caught in this political struggle; sick of coal dark nights with airplanes circling above our homes; sick of innocent farmers getting shot in the buffer zone because they are taking care of their lands; sick of bearded guys walking around with their guns abusing their power, beating up or incarcerating young people demonstrating for what they believe in; sick of the wall of shame that separates us from the rest of our country and keeps us imprisoned in a stamp-sized piece of land; sick of being portrayed as terrorists, homemade fanatics with explosives in our pockets and evil in our eyes; sick of the indifference we meet from the international community, the so-called experts in expressing concerns and drafting resolutions but cowards in enforcing anything they agree on; we are sick and tired of living a shitty life, being kept in jail by Israel, beaten up by Hamas and completely ignored by the rest of the world.

There is a revolution growing inside of us, an immense dissatisfaction and frustration that will destroy us unless we find a way of canalizing this energy into something that can challenge the status quo and give us some kind of hope. The final drop that made our hearts tremble with frustration and hopelessness happened 30th November, when Hamas’ officers came to Sharek Youth Forum, a leading youth organization (www.sharek.ps) with their guns, lies and aggressiveness, throwing everybody outside, incarcerating some and prohibiting Sharek from working. A few days later, demonstrators in front of Sharek were beaten and some incarcerated. We are really living a nightmare inside a nightmare. It is difficult to find words for the pressure we are under. We barely survived the Operation Cast Lead, where Israel very effectively bombed the shit out of us, destroying thousands of homes and even more lives and dreams. They did not get rid of Hamas, as they intended, but they sure scared us forever and distributed post traumatic stress syndrome to everybody, as there was nowhere to run.

We are youth with heavy hearts. We carry in ourselves a heaviness so immense that it makes it difficult to us to enjoy the sunset. How to enjoy it when dark clouds paint the horizon and bleak memories run past our eyes every time we close them? We smile in order to hide the pain. We laugh in order to forget the war. We hope in order not to commit suicide here and now. During the war we got the unmistakable feeling that Israel wanted to erase us from the face of the earth. During the last years Hamas has been doing all they can to control our thoughts, behaviour and aspirations. We are a generation of young people used to face missiles, carrying what seems to be a impossible mission of living a normal and healthy life, and only barely tolerated by a massive organization that has spread in our society as a malicious cancer disease, causing mayhem and effectively killing all living cells, thoughts and dreams on its way as well as paralyzing people with its terror regime. Not to mention the prison we live in, a prison sustained by a so-called democratic country.

History is repeating itself in its most cruel way and nobody seems to care. We are scared. Here in Gaza we are scared of being incarcerated, interrogated, hit, tortured, bombed, killed. We are afraid of living, because every single step we take has to be considered and well-thought, there are limitations everywhere, we cannot move as we want, say what we want, do what we want, sometimes we even cant think what we want because the occupation has occupied our brains and hearts so terrible that it hurts and it makes us want to shed endless tears of frustration and rage!

We do not want to hate, we do not want to feel all of this feelings, we do not want to be victims anymore. ENOUGH! Enough pain, enough tears, enough suffering, enough control, limitations, unjust justifications, terror, torture, excuses, bombings, sleepless nights, dead civilians, black memories, bleak future, heart aching present, disturbed politics, fanatic politicians, religious bullshit, enough incarceration! WE SAY STOP! This is not the future we want!

We want three things. We want to be free. We want to be able to live a normal life. We want peace. Is that too much to ask? We are a peace movement consistent of young people in Gaza and supporters elsewhere that will not rest until the truth about Gaza is known by everybody in this whole world and in such a degree that no more silent consent or loud indifference will be accepted.

This is the Gazan youth’s manifesto for change!

We will start by destroying the occupation that surrounds ourselves, we will break free from this mental incarceration and regain our dignity and self respect. We will carry our heads high even though we will face resistance. We will work day and night in order to change these miserable conditions we are living under. We will build dreams where we meet walls.

We only hope that you – yes, you reading this statement right now! – can support us. In order to find out how, please write on our wall or contact us directly: freegazayouth@hotmail.com

We want to be free, we want to live, we want peace.

FREE GAZA YOUTH!

see gaza youth break out on facebook

the origins of Mosley's Anti Semitism

In both popular consciousness and memory by far the most dramatic and defining feature of Britain’s Fascist movement of the 1930s was the series of deliberately provocative marches which the BUF attempted to mount through the heart of Britain’s largest Jewish community in London’s East End. The image of Mosley in his black shirt, accompanied by ranks of paramilitary storm troops with marching bands, and a virulent anti Semitic invective which, for historians and political analysts’ of the immediate post war period, placed him in direct affinity with the fascist dictators of Europe, a potential Quisling, and directly associated to the horrors of Hitler’s Holocaust.
Since the late 1970s many historians have followed a narrative which was set by Skidelsky and also by Mosley himself; which argued that Mosley’s original conception of Fascism was not racist at all but modelled on the example set by Mussolini’s Italy and was thus free of Anti Semitism, and that Mosley had Anti Semitism enforced upon him in response to, according to Mosley and Skidelsky, the organised hostility of the Jews themselves towards Mosley and the BUF. Fascist anti Semitism was therefore made inevitable as a defensive measure. Historians with far less sympathy with Mosley than Skidelsky, have also continued to respect the Mosley/ Skidelsky narrative; Lebzelter agrees with Mosley’s old comrade John Strachey that “his (Mosley’s) Jew Hatred was 100% insincere”(1) and that Mosley became a prisoner of the logic of the ideology that he adopted(2). Mandle argued that Anti Semitism became essential for Mosley, as an explanation of, and excuse for, his own ineptitude: By no means could Mosley made mistakes, there was always someone else to blame; in 1930 the timorous and ignorance of the Labour leadership, in 1932 the ‘old gang’ at the heart of the British political system. By 1934, with Fascism’s forward march faltering after Olympia and Rothermere’s enthusiasm rapidly cooling he could not admit that he had “misjudged the possibilities of fascism in England and had bungled his campaign. Rather than blame himself, he acted in his customary fashion by conflating a minor opponent into a major cause of failure.”(3). Even Dorril, who provides much evidence for the presence of anti Semitism in the New Party and early BUF, suggests that Mosley increased his anti Semitism to pander for Nazi support(4)

Whether it was a result of the weight of Jewish antipathy towards the BUF, or the need to reinvigorate a faltering movement, or as a sop to attract funding from Nazi Germany all these explanations share a common failing, in that they relieve Mosley from being the instigator of his actions and instead make him passively reacting to circumstances beyond his control.
This essay will attempt to challenge the use of this narrative, which in accepting a chronology dictated by Mosley, has the effect, even when used by historians hostile to Mosley and ascribing motivations which he would not accept, of relieving Mosley of full responsibility for his actions.

Mosley’s adoption of fascism in 1931 made him a late comer to the ideology: By 1931 Fascism was a mature creature, it’s character was well defined both ideologically; in the writings of Sorel and Malaparte, and Hitler and Spengler, and practically; in the Corporate State of Mussolini, which had been in power for a decade, and in Germany, where Hitler’s National Socialists were the largest party in the Reichstag and controlled large swathes of local and regional government, and where Hitler was preparing to challenge Hindenburg for Reichspräsident. Fascist movements were growing in influence throughout Europe, and Anti Semitism was a common platform for all of them. Even Italian fascism, so often cited as an exception (most commonly with a note about the membership of the Fascisti of the chief Rabbi of Rome) was a deeply racist ideology, with, as Giorgio Fabre has shown, a distinctly Anti Semitic wing(5) (among which was Mussolini) .

Historians have tended to accept Mosley’s assertion that he gained most inspiration from the practical application of the Italian experiment, however during the months leading up to the formation of the British Union of Fascists Mosley and his confidents spent as much among the Hitlerites as they did as guests of Il Duce.

Mosley late adoption of fascism meant of course that he was not even the first to adopt Fascism in Britain; the earlier incarnations of British Fascism, the British Fascists and especially the Imperial Fascist League, were intensely anti Semitic.
Given the international character of fascism and how Fascism had been presented domestically, in Britain in 1932, for someone to declare themselves a Fascist was to unavoidably be associated with a political anti Semitism,
Mosley did nothing to prevent or discourage Anti Semitism within the NUPA, nor the BUF, on the 27th April 1932 he chaired a meeting at its HQ where Arnold Leese was invited to speak on ‘The blindness of British Politics under the Jewish Money power’. Nor did he impede the recruitment of open anti Semites into the NUPA nor the new union; From its formation ,the New Party had attracted significant recruits from both the BF and the IFL who provided the fledgling Fascists with a continuity of a fascism which placed the Jewish Question at the heart of its politics. When Mosley formed the BUF he approached the other fascist group inviting them to absorb themselves into the Union without qualification, Mosley is happy to accept into his, allegedly non anti Semitic, Union of Fascists the pathological Jew haters of the Imperial Fascist League.

Mosley’s BUF was therefore imbued with Anti Semitism as a fundamental part of its ideology from its foundation. The decision not to openly declare the BUF so, was a political one, derived from the necessity of courting, and maintaining the support of those, like Rothermere, who were willing to support Fascist methods, but would baulk at a nakedly anti Semitic BUF.
In this period the reports and articles in Action point designed to create a case for the adoption of an openly anti Jewish position- in publishing the Jewish names of those arrested protesting against fascist meetings, whilst repeatedly asserting that the BUF has no interest in attacking the Jews, they sought to present the Fascists as victims rather than perpetrators of violence, and thus to justify an aggressive anti Semitic polity once Mosley considered the time right.
This also explained Mosley’s “Rational Anti Semitism”, and his rejection of the strident Jew hatred of Arnold Leese, Mosley adopted the historic empiricism of the British Politician to anti Semitism: He was no blind accepter of foreign ideology, it was his own experience that informed his attitude toward Jews; no matter that Mosley’s version of anti Semitism included every facet of the modern anti Jewish conspiracy theory, Jewish financiers controlling governments and media in concert with Jewish communists, he did so whilst still claiming that he did not oppose Jews as Jews but instead for their actions and was therefore not an anti Semite.

From our vantage point as historians we look back at Mosley’s relationship with anti Semitism through the prism of the Nazis and the Holocaust and it is inevitable that we see it as being a movement which is derived from the political/ Volkische Right. However anti Semitism was a hatred that was not peculiar to the political right and neither was it a German import. It was in fact a common feature within English socialism(6) and especially amongst the Fabian and ILP intellectuals with whom Mosley had mixed with whilst a member of the Independent Labour Party.
Many, especially middle and upper class, individuals were attracted to socialism as a remedy to the damage that they saw modern industrial capitalism was doing to Society and Nation. They considered socialism to be a moral renewing crusade, in which under the enlightened leadership of the socialist intelligencia both the worker and the boss would benefit through working together for the good of society and nation.

Rejecting the rhetoric of class war at the heart of Marxism as being divisive and destructive, they sought to find an opposition to capitalism which would mean the reinvigoration of the nation without the risk of the class war and revolution. And by finding a common cause with the good, patriotic and socially concerned capitalist boss the crimes of capitalism become not the impersonal and uncontrollable results of an anarchic economic system but instead a conspiracy of evil men, bad bosses, with an international rather than a national loyalty. Jews, as the personification of, non productive, financial capitalism, were considered the natural enemy of socialism. The young Fabian, Beatrice Potter, wrote;"The love of profit distinct from other forms of money earning" is "the strongest impelling motive of the Jewish race" and that working class Jews, "Have neither the desire nor the capacity for labour combination".(7)
The SDF leaderships opposition to the Boer war was based upon it’s belief that that conflict was instigated by “Jew financial cliques and their hangers- on"(8) and supported by a “Jew-jingo press”(9)
One of the foremost theoreticians of Imperialism in the British socialist movement was John Hobson, whose major work was to form the basis for Lenin’s Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism who also blamed Jewish finance capital for the Boer war “leaving their economic fangs in the carcasses of their prey. They fastened on the Rand … as they are prepared to fasten upon any other spot on the globe”(10)
Within the left was a conviction of the immense power of Jewish money power Justice, the paper of the SDF claimed that "Jew moneylenders now control every Foreign Office in Europe"(11) that the press and the government were pawns of Jewish power: "Our leading statesmen do not care to offend the great banking houses or money kings"(12)

Long before the distribution of the Tsarist forgery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion the British Left had in place all the essential features of modern anti- Semitic conspiracy theory.

Alongside such anti capitalist anti Semitism was the embracing by the left of the necessity of eugenics, Of the need to regenerate the human stock which Industrial capitalism had enfeebled. The arrival of many hundreds of thousands of east European Jewish refugees in the last years of the 19th century were an immediate threat to the maintenance of a sturdy race. Blatchford’s Clarion could declare that Jewish immigrants were: "a poison injected into the national veins", they were the "unsavoury children of the ghetto", their numbers were "appalling" and their attitudes "unclean"(13) while Bruce Glasier of the I.L.P. argued in Labour Leader that: "Neither the principle of the brotherhood of man nor the principle of social equality implies that brother nations or brother men may crowd upon us in such numbers as to abuse our hospitality, overturn our institutions or violate our customs.(14)

At the heart of anti Capitalist anti Semitism was the link between Jews and usury. In the medieval world Jews were both persecuted and valued; The early Catholic church had deemed usury, the charging of interest for lending money, a sin and banned Christians from doing it, Jews, free from such injunctions, became highly prized by the nobility, who were increasingly in need of converting their landed wealth into cash. The Jews were prevented by statute from most professions in order to ensure that they maintained their role as financiers. So valuable were the Jews that they were declared the personal property of the King, who heavily taxed the incomes that they gained through loan interest from the nobility:
“The system was one of Grandiose simplicity. The Jews despoiled the lords and the king fleeced the Jews. But in order to fleece them it was necessary to keep them there. That is why the king protected the Jews and encouraged their ventures with all the means in the royal power.
But while the King, in his capacity as representative of the state, was interested in protecting the Jews, we must not forget that he was, at the same time, a great lord and consequently one of their great debtors”(15)

Jews lived in constant threat that the servicing of the loans forced from them would become too onerous and their royal patrons decided to do away with them, pocket their wealth, and destroy their ledgers, which happened in England in 1290.
The rising cost for the nobility of the later Middle ages of maintaining a courtly presence resulted in ever greater need for cash which led to the increasing practise of nobles of pawning their tax revenues; thus was the image of the avaricious and greedy Jew added to the demonology of the ordinary peasant and burgher of the medieval world, who previously had only known the Jew as the ‘Killers of Christ’. The greater distance from the land of the aristocracy, increasingly absent from their domains attending court in the Capital, transferred popular discontent off the shoulders of the nobility and onto those representatives of power whom the peasant might actually come into contact and conflict with, the Tax collector, the Jew.

It is an impossible task to truly assess what spurred Mosley to adopt anti Semitism without attempting the type of cod psychology that a historian should try to avoid, however, it isn‘t pushing the psychobabble too far to see that someone with as clear and firm a sense of his destiny to lead as Mosley could only have been thwarted by a most dastardly and powerful conspiracy; what is clear is that Mosley did so far earlier than the present, generally accepted, chronology has accepted was the case. It is also appears clear that Mosley was sincere in his adoption of anti Semitism, and remained an anti Semite until his death(16). Mosley adopted anti Semitism when he took on Fascism, and then found that the Jew hatred that the BUF espoused gained them a constituency in the East End. It was not an attempt to shore up or enlarge the following of a movement that had run out of steam, but an essential core of the ideology which he had chosen to follow.
Fascism found in the Jew an enemy that was both easily to defeat in the detail and also never truly defeatable, the conspiracy theory was infinitely adaptable, and did not even need the presence of actual Jews to maintain it.
notes
1.Strachey, J. Cited by Lebzelter, G. Political Anti Semitism in England 1918-1939 Oxford 1978 p.104
2. Ibid. p.104
3. Mandle, W.F. Anti Semitism and the British union of Fascists Michigan 1968 p. 34
4 Dorril, S. Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism London 2007 p. 341
5. Fabre, G. Mussolini and the Jews on the Eve of the March on Rome in Zimmerman, J. D. (Ed.) Jews in Italy Under Fascist and Nazi Rule 1922-45 Cambridge 2005 pp.55-70
6. Cohen, S. That’s funny you don’t look anti Semitic: an anti racist analysis of left anti Semitism. London 1984 online version at http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html last accessed on 15/03/10
7. Potter, B. cited in Cohen. 1984.
8. Crick, M. the history of the social democratic federation Edinburgh 1994 p.159
9. Crick 1994 p.159
10. Hirschfield, C. The Anglo-Boer War and the Issue of Jewish Culpability in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 619-631
11. Cohen 1984
12. Ben Tillett quoted in Cohen 1984.
13. Cohen 1984
14. Cohen 1984
15. Leon, Abram, The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation New York 1986 p. 157.
16. Dorril p.642

Bibliography

Cohen, S. That’s funny you don’t look anti Semitic: an anti racist analysis of left anti Semitism. London 1984 online version at http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html last accessed on 15/03/10
Crick, M. the history of the social democratic federation Edinburgh 1994
Dorril, S. Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism London 2007
Holmes, C. Anti- Semitism in British society 1876-1939 London 1979
Hirschfield, C. The Anglo-Boer War and the Issue of Jewish Culpability in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 619-631
Lebzelter, G. Political Anti Semitism in England 1918-1939 Oxford 1978
Leon, Abram, The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation New York
Linehan, Thomas, P. British Fascism 1918-39: Parties ideology and culture Manchester 2000
Mandle, W.F. Anti Semitism and the British union of Fascists Michigan 1968
Zimmerman, J. D. (Ed.) Jews in Italy Under Fascist and Nazi Rule 1922-45 Cambridge 2005

No shit, Sherlock!

at the insistence of Simon I believe that it should be mentioned that I am no longer a member of the Labour Party.
I have previously explained why I joined in the first place; Labour's defeat in the election wiped out that reason, however I did not leave, reasoning that there were grounds to believe that opposition to the condems might be found from within Labour; that proved to be an illusion.

I had thought about a grandstanding letter of resignation, as if my actions or beliefs would have the slightest influence over 'Bland and the hard hitting parliamentary opposition that he leads(?) so well(?).
instead I simply allowed my membership lapse and got on with the business of opposing the Condemmers.
There was no actual "right, thats enough I'm out!" moment, in fact the total absence of anything at all from the Labour party throughout the summer and autumn in terms of oppostion was the largest factor in my decision. Once the autumn came and the local council cuts were being announced our local party's response was: a fully worked out proposal for an alternative agenda of cuts.
the failure of Labour to do anything but condemn the student protests was unsurprising, but their alibiing of Liberals (in the hope of enticing some across to their ranks) as prisoners of the conservatives rather than as the enthusiastic instigators of the cuts agenda stinks of cynical helplessness.
The student protesters, and especially the EMA kids, have done more in a few weeks to break the Coalition than 'Bland Labour has in 9 months.

scaring the horses

OH! pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!--Oh! times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!
When Reason seemed the most to assert her rights,
When most intent on making of herself
A prime Enchantress--to assist the work,
Which then was going forward in her name!
Not favoured spots alone, but the whole earth,
The beauty wore of promise, that which sets
(As at some moment might not be unfelt
Among the bowers of paradise itself)
The budding rose above the rose full blown.
What temper at the prospect did not wake
To happiness unthought of? The inert
Were roused, and lively natures rapt away!
They who had fed their childhood upon dreams,
The playfellows of fancy, who had made
All powers of swiftness, subtilty, and strength
Their ministers,--who in lordly wise had stirred
Among the grandest objects of the sense,
And dealt with whatsoever they found there
As if they had within some lurking right
To wield it;--they, too, who, of gentle mood,
Had watched all gentle motions, and to these
Had fitted their own thoughts, schemers more mild,
And in the region of their peaceful selves;--
Now was it that both found, the meek and lofty
Did both find, helpers to their heart's desire,
And stuff at hand, plastic as they could wish;
Were called upon to exercise their skill,
Not in Utopia, subterranean fields,
Or some secreted island, Heaven knows where!
But in the very world, which is the world
Of all of us,--the place where in the end
We find our happiness, or not at all!

Muriel Morris is our friend, is our friend.. she makes sarnies

hats off to Muriel Morris, who has single handed put off the streets and into the kharzi 50 of Birmingham police's finest porkies.
as the PA reports:

A pensioner whose sandwiches poisoned 47 police officers has been given a suspended jail sentence and ordered to obey a one-month night-time curfew.


Food safety officials said 70-year-old Muriel Morris received a four-month jail term, suspended for a year, and was ordered to pay £16,482.70p in costs.

Birmingham City Council, which prosecuted Morris for four breaches of food hygiene law, launched an investigation into the poisoning outbreak after nine officers were taken to hospital during an English Defence League demonstration near New Street station in July 2009.

The city's magistrates' court heard that tests conducted on the sandwiches established they had been provided by Morris, of Dorrington Green, Great Barr, Birmingham.

Morris pleaded guilty to four offences relating to the Meal Machine cafe in Nechells, which she no longer runs.

An investigation by the council's food safety team established that officers were given sandwiches provided by Meal Machine at three briefings during the EDL protest and a counter-demonstration.

A West Midlands Police spokesman confirmed that 47 officers experienced the effects of sickness, with several requiring hospital treatment for dehydration.

"Contingency planning measures were implemented to ensure that normal policing business could continue as the protest came to an end," the spokesman said.

Commenting on the prosecution, Neil Eustace, chairman of Birmingham's Public Protection Committee, said officers had been left extremely ill by the serious offences.

"Environmental health officers were rightly appalled by the lack of regard for the health of customers shown by Ms Morris and moved quickly to shut the premises," he said.

nice one. And Bon Appetit!
thanks to mrs redstar who still doesn't trust Tuna

Fitwatch 1 MET 0

Fitwatch is back, better and secure from arbitary state repression
check it out here: http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/