Hitler’s 25 Point Socialist Plan.

Socialist policies are underlined, The rest range from more general to nationalist to radical nationalist policies.

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people’s right to self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore, we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the State be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The State is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:
1. a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;
2. b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;
3. c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the State so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz). Has also been translated as “The good of the State before the good of the individual.”
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Once upon a time there was a kindly old wizard called Jeremy….

Are we sitting comfortably children, Good. Then let’s begin, shall we?

Once upon a time in a far away land, there lived a kindly old wizard called Jeremy. Now, Jeremy was so wise that people of certain age and income brackets from all over the kingdom would come to listen to him speak. And he spoke of great things – of marrows, of gardening and of manhole covers, but he also spoke wisely about the evil rulers that had reigned uninterrupted for generations.

He spoke of the well-intentionied but foolish sell-out Clement Attlee, who was well beloved of the people of the kingdom, until he decided he wanted to build a terrible world-destroying bomb which he used to threaten the kingdom’s friends and allies in the faraway kingdom of Russia. So stupid old Attlee was sacked by the ordinary people of the kingdom who had had enough of Attlee’s warmongering, and elected Winston Churchill instead.

The people who had come to listen to Jeremy would nod their heads in sadness as the wizard told them of the coming of the evil Harold of House Wilson, who was so devious that even those who once supported the Dark Lords of Toryland followed his banner. Wilson betrayed the ordinary people of the Kingdom, Jeremy said sadly, by winning four general elections – something that an honest, straight-talking politician would never do!

And at this, the crowds who were listening cheered again and started chanting: “No more years! No more years!”

But then a hush would fall over the crowd as Jeremy raised his hands and began to tell of the darkest days of the kingdom. For, after the mischief-maker Wilson had departed the field, he was replaced by yet another puppet of the ruling classes, called Sonny Jim Callaghan. This monster refused to do everything the proud and heroic trade unions told him to (and at these words the crowds in front of Jeremy would boo, shake their heads and use their iPhones to check on the value of their local government pensions) and so they fought him and his minions to the death. Callaghan was defeated, the trade unions cheered (and so did the crowds listening to Jeremy) and the world was again a happy, sunny place. For about seven weeks.

But then, to the horror and mystification of the Labour movement, and against all the principles of democracy, a new leader was elected – one who the true representatives of the people (called “shop stewards”) truly feared. This new Demon Queen, called Thatcher, wrought havoc throughout the land, said Jeremy, dividing the kingdom, raising standards of living, letting more people than ever own their home and reducing the number of working days lost through strikes to a historic low! Shame on her!

(“Burn her!” Shouted someone in the crowd, only to be told he’d better not put that on Twitter or else he’d be suspended!)

The evil Demon Queen not only waged war on Britain’s friends in Russia, where the leaders were kind men who loved their people so much they protected them from capitalism and democracy and consumer goods; she also waged war on the proud Irish patriots who bravely placed bombs in pubs in order to make their case for inclusion in the peace process that would start 20 years later. Instead of honouring such freedom fighters, the Demon Queen fought them! (At this someone in the crowd shouted “Give them OBEs!” and someone else said “I think you’re missing the point, comrade.”) The Demon Queen proved she was protected by dark forces when the proud Irish patriots bombed the Brighton Hotel – a perfectly legitimate target, the wizard pointed out, to much agreement – and yet still she miraculously survived.

Then, as the light was fading over the wise wizard Jeremy’s castle, he would ask for silence. For the true lesson of the day was yet to be learned. In grave tones, he said, “And now I must tell you of the one called…” The crowd stood, breathless, dreading the next words. “… Tony Blair.”

The crowd was in awe, for Jeremy himself had faced Blair in combat many, many times. Blair was even worse than the Demon Queen, for he had worn a guise of friendliness, a smile that had fooled everyone except Jeremy. The Blair had held sway over the country for ten years and the only thing he’d achieved was war, Jeremy told his followers. War with our Taliban friends, war with Uncle Slobodan in Serbia and – worse than all his other crimes combined – war with the strong, courageous and indefatigable Saddam, who had ruled so wisely over the kingdom of Mesopotamia. His government had achieved nothing else. Nothing. Not a jot.

“Even worse among his many crimes,” Jeremy told the crowd, “was that in all those years, never once did the Blair attack the evil empire of America or its Zionist supporters in the Land That Dare Not Speak it’s Name.”

The crowd gasped in disbelief. Women cried. Men cried. Children cried. To sum up: there was a lot of crying.

But there was now hope again. Because ordinary people – ordinary public sector workers and future public sector workers (aka “students”) – had once again taken control of the People’s Party and had appointed the wizard himself to lead it!

And at these words, the crowd shouted with joy! Victory was ours at last! Everything was right with the world!

But one little boy – a very naughty boy indeed! – didn’t understand what all the rejoicing was about. And he asked his mum, “Why is everyone so happy even though ‘Don’t Know’ is ahead of Jeremy in the polls and we’re going to get slaughtered at the next election?”

His Mum got very angry with the little boy and she decided that some kind of democratic forum for children was needed in order to educate stupid children so that they wouldn’t hassle their parents with difficult, disloyal questions.

And that’s why you’re all here, children! Welcome to Momentum Kids, where you will learn all about politics, but in a fun, progressive, diverse, accessible, tolerant way. But without facts. What do we call facts, children? That’s right – elitist constructs.

And they all lived happily ever after in the wonderful, equal society that Jeremy created for them in his mind.

Good night, children. Sweet dreams…

(Tom Harris, 19th September 2016)

The Food Bank Con.

Ask any lefty to explain why food bank usage is on the increase and they’ll respond in a handwringing frenzy of self virtue and hysterical ranting;

“People are literally starving to death, pensioners are freezing to death, frozen solid in their Shackleton’s arm chairs, disabled people have been murdered by the government, people are dying in hospital cupboards and the Tories are running around eating our children.”

Maybe I should ask somebody else, you know, somebody who isn’t in need of some serious couch time or wearing a straitjacket, so now I’ve ruled out every lefty in the U.K. who else could I ask, I know, I’ll ask somebody who has actually done some digging, some investigation work, somebody who appeared in my DMs and openly spoke about what they’d uncovered as an investigative journalist & agreed to meet me to discuss their findings further, so here goes….

The Trussell Trust have a reputation for helping those in need via their extensive network of food banks, indeed, they handed out 1.6 million food parcels to the ‘needy’ between April 2018 & March 2019 but why do food banks seem to be opening up at such an alarming rate?

There are two answers to this question, firstly, more & more people are realising how easy it is to get a weeks worth of free shopping.

Secondly, and this was the wow moment for me, the Trussell Trust, who organise & peddle most of the food bank network, charge a £1500 ‘contribution’ fee and a £360 annual ‘service’ fee to be paid by all those persuaded to set up a food bank. Not only is it very easy to set up a food bank but the Trussell Trust will allow you to do it in any area whether it’s required or not.

Leftists will assert that food banks are strictly controlled and that stringent checks are in place so the system can’t be abused, not true! My contact has on numerous occasions tested this lefty myth and discovered it’s simply a case of using one of the following three lies; a/ their partner had spent all the housekeeping money on booze and they had nothing left to buy food for the children. b/ they had lost their purse/wallet and couldn’t feed the children. c/ their partner had left them for another man/woman and taken all the money to feed the children. Every time one of these lines were used, my contact was given food.

In an effort to see things from the inside, my contact volunteered to work in several food banks. In that time they witnessed people chain smoking, drinking alcohol, many had smartphones and they always left with food packages, one person was overheard discussing with a friend how they went on holiday with the money they’d saved from not buying food.

The truth is that both the food bank operators and the Trussell Trust themselves have a huge vested interest in ensuring these food banks operate to maximum levels because there happens to be an ever expanding industry built on the back of them.

For every food bank open for business, the Trussell Trust receives their £1500 initial payment and £360 on an annual basis. The food bank operators are free to register their individual food bank as a charity and of course can run their own events, fundraiser activities, take donations from local businesses and then decide whether they take a salary and how much. Supermarkets earn kudos and advertising by donating food and encourage their shoppers to donate food. According to the Trussell Trust, in 2017-18 they provided food banks in the Trussell Trust network with £1.3m worth of funding through their partnership with Tesco, £4,552,665 of donated goods and £910,533 of financial grants. These are the latest published figures, so based on the increased usage that we hear so much about you would have to assume the funding has increased also. Take into account the events, fundraiser activities and donations from local businesses for individual food banks and its easy to see how food banks have become such a lucrative cog in the poverty industry.

Because of the fees the Trussell Trust charges and the huge sums of other monies involved, it is in Trussell’s best interests to open as many food banks as it possibly can, needed or not. The fact that anybody can open a food bank anywhere they choose to with Trussell’s assistance, provided the food bank operatives cross Trussell’s palm with the appropriate pieces of silver supports this claim and as with all things that are free, it’s simply a case of opening the doors and waiting for the locals to turn up for their handout. Before the food bank operatives can say “free stuff,” the food bank is operating to capacity, the donations come rolling in and on to the next opening. In the meantime, food bank usage figures increase, the left get to weaponise them, beat the government with a stick and all the time the cash is rolling in. Make no mistake, food banks are here to stay.

Socialism – Equality For The Feckless!

Socialism likes to present a nice, cuddly image. Socialists pretend, in order to gain votes, that their main concern is doing their best for everyone but once voted in, they show their true colours which are the implementation of dogma above all else.

This turns out to be nasty and brutish and in the past has lowered the quality of millions of people’s lives, has cost millions of jobs and makes us all very much poorer. Every time we have had a Labour government in the UK it has been a disaster. Yet, amazingly people have short memories and before too long vote them back in again to repeat what socialists do best, trash the economy.

Socialist dogma says that all people are equal and should be rewarded equally in society (except for socialist politicians who have a long tradition of grabbing every penny they can for themselves, by whatever means) which all sounds fine except that we all know it isn’t true.

Some people are hard working and industrious whilst others are lazy and feckless. Some people study hard and better themselves whilst others are happy to remain ignorant. Some people are enterprising and create wealth for a wider society whilst others go through life doing the minimum to sustain themselves. Some people have principles and believe in an honest days work whilst others are lazy and work shy. Some reinvest their earnings in their enterprises whilst others fritter away every penny, and so on.

The reality is that the only way we will have equality is by dragging everyone down to the same level. By hammering down on the hard working, the studious, the enterprising, the principled, the entrepreneurial and this is what happens under socialism. Merit is not rewarded.

So let’s look at the consequences of this idiotic doctrine of equality by looking at what it has done to our education system.

Britain had a fantastic tradition of Grammar Schools. These were meritocratic places where the brightest, most hard working and most diligent were educated, regardless of class or parental income. They provided the educated elite that allowed Britain to create the world’s greatest empire, to build up a huge industrial base and to lead the world in academia and literature. Prime Ministers came from Grammar Schools.

This was too much inequality for tiny socialist minds to cope with so they did away with the ‘nasty, unfair’ old Grammar School system and replaced it with the comprehensive system where all levels of ability, aptitude and application are thrown in together. Dogma prevailed, all were equal, but of course this act of vandalism meant that the brightest were now dragged down to the level of the most stupid and we were no longer producing the superbly educated elite, viva socialism!

The inevitable result under the law of unintended consequences, was that the families who could afford it took their children out of the state education system and sent them off to be schooled privately. So instead of a good education being a matter of ability and application it now became a matter of parental wealth. Meritocracy and social mobility went out of the window to be replaced with a rigid class system where only the children of those with money could rise to the top. The stupid socialists achieved the exact opposite of what they intended, quelle surprise!

As if this were not bad enough there is another socialist stupidity that damages schools. They see employees as units of labour, all making the same input and all to be strictly treated and rewarded the same. The unions enforce this with a vengeance. Socialists hate the idea of paying someone more money because they are good at what they do and even more they hate the idea of getting rid of useless employees.

In schools it means that the many very good teachers have no motivation to do a more outstanding job of educating our youth. It means that the many very bad teachers are secure in their job, being paid exactly the same as the very good teachers. Now it is obvious that this isn’t fair and it is obvious that it damages the education system but these don’t seem to matter as long as the socialist dogma of equality is being adhered to.

My point about schools applies across every area of public life where socialists were able to enforce their dogma. They did it to the nationalised industries which helped run them into the ground and they have done it to our civil service which employs many people who are just a waste of space, eating up our taxes whilst giving us nothing back.

We need to fix this. Meritocratic countries are, inevitably, outperforming us. We must throw out the socialist dogma and go back to a society where merit is rewarded, where we face up to the reality that there is no such thing as equality and socialists simply want an equal share of other people’s money.

Hitler, Socialism & Idiot Soup!

Hitler frequently described himself as a socialist. He just refused to admit that his socialism was inspired by communism even though it clearly was. His main objection to communism was that he saw it as being Russian; and Russians were sub-human in his eyes; and also that there were Jews involved in the building of the Russian version of socialism and of course he needed to be able to rationalise his plans for building his “lebensraum” by “abolishing” Russia.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Adolf Hitler.

This comment is usually attributed to Gregor Strasser, by socialists who are determined to disown National Socialism and by and neo-fascists who try to deny that their creed is socialist; but Strasser was quoting Hitler directly from Hitler’s 1927 speech in Munich.

“National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.”

Adolf Hitler; Chapter 11: Nation and Race. Mein Kampf.

Interestingly, it is in chapter 11 of Mein Kampf that Hitler also invents what we now know as “intersectional theory” so beloved of campus “social democrats” all over the western world. When “progressivists” are chanting their slogans about the intersections of privilege and oppression, they are paraphrasing Hitler so closely it is frightening. Of course they don’t know that because they are all delusional bed wetters. The pyramid of oppression and privilege; the so called “progressive stack” has been officially adopted to inform policy on the campuses of many “social democratic” countries today; and it is ripped straight out of the pages of Mein Kampf.

If the Neo Nazis were not also delusional bed wetters, they would see just how hilarious it is. Oh and the concept of the “new socialist man” that Hitler was infatuated by, was also a Bolshevik one. But but but — “National Socialism was nationalist and Bolsheivism was internationalist,” says the man in the Che Guevara t-shirt. The man with the “Hitler was Right” t-shirt nods in agreement.

Let’s ask the Poles or the French. Or maybe just ask Hitler –

“National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years.”

Adolf Hitler: To the Reichstag 1938.

“But the Nazis were racists and anti-Semites and the communists were not,” I hear the man in the Che Guevara t-shirt say!

Well actually it is not quite as simple as that. Nazi racism was driven not only by the festering anti-Semitism already present in Germany, but by the socialist principles of the Nazi Party. They were anti-capitalists, just like modern “progressives” and they believed that the Jews were the puppet masters of international capitalism. This was evidence to them that the Bolsheviks were not real socialists, because the Bolsheviks included Jews amongst their number, and the Russian socialists were therefore betraying socialist ideals to the capitalist enemy. Hence the “Jewish / Bolshevik” conspiracy that Hitler was obsessed with.

“The Jew marches arm and arm with the capitalist and the Bolshevik to bring about the destruction of Germany. How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?”

Adolf Hitler. Speech to workers at the Siemens plant in Dusseldorf 1936.

It’s important to remember that whether it’s Socialism, Marxism or Communism, it’s all just a bubbling vat of Idiot soup. (@SkipsterX)

The Threat Of 120,000 Unemployed German Car Workers Would Show The EU We Mean Business.

The only two nett contributors to the EU are the UK and Germany. If we just stopped paying today, the EU would crumble within a month.

The other 26 countries that are nett beneficiaries would be desperate to deal with us on our terms. Those terms could be as simple as you buy our goods, and we’ll buy your goods. The only reason Juncker and co are desperate to derail our leaving of the EU is because we are their pension plan, so cut off the money and the threat will be dead within days.

It was always going to be a hostile negotiation and the first rule of a hostile negotiation is to use words that paint a mental picture for your opponent of their worst possible outcome. We should use the threat of 120,000 German car workers on the dole as an opening gambit and to further show them the seriousness of the situation, Theresa May should pick a small French vineyard whose sales into the UK are the difference between success and failure. The PM should then block their sales into our country until the EU bods stop the threats and posturing. She should then see that vineyard wither and die.

Mrs May should then tell the Chancellor that he was to stick a 300% import levy on all BMW cars, and that unless she informs him otherwise, to do the same with Porsche, Mercedes and VW an hour later, she should then put the phone down, look the opposition straight in the eye and say, “your call!”

The EU have threatened us since June 2016 and the only way to deal with a bully is by greater aggression and showing you’re prepared to go the whole nine yards. To be frank, if we’d been more aggressive, the EU would never have dared make the threats in the first place.

There Is No Such Thing As Poverty In Britain, It’s A Socialist Lie & It Doesn’t Exist!

Socialists always punish successful people and reward the feckless, they call this social justice, which is a gargantuan lie because it is anything but just, it’s also the reason why every single Labour government since the party was formed in 1900 has trashed the British economy and why any future Labour government would do it again.

Let’s look at the two main types of poverty. Firstly there is absolute poverty. 1.1bn of the 7bn people on the planet suffer from this. It is defined as having an income of less than $1.25 per day, there is none of this in Great Britain. Secondly there is relative poverty. In Britain this means only having a 40 inch television and only having an iPhone 5. In reality it means having a better lifestyle than a doctor or lawyer had sixty years ago.

When lefties spout their dribble on television about the number of people in poverty in Britain going up or going down it sounds like serious stuff. But it isn’t. You are being deceived, because the definition of poverty in Britain is having a household income 60% or less than the national median income. In other words poverty in Britain is actually being quite comfortable. Also, remember that the statistics only cover formal economy income, so informal economy income is making these “poor” people even more comfortable. The last time we had genuine poverty in Britain was after WW2 when Clement Attlee starved the British people for six and a half years while there was more than enough food to go around.

This measure of poverty means that if everyone is a millionaire, but some have more millions than others, then we would be referring to millionaires as being poverty stricken, it is ridiculous. During Gordon Brown’s recession the economy retracted by 7%. The brunt of the effect of this was taken by wealthy people, whilst “poor” people on fixed benefits were hardly affected at all. This meant that because the official poverty figure is based on a median and there was a smaller number of wealthy people, statistically there were also far less poor people, yet their income had not increased. Once you understand this you’ll realise that UK poverty figures are utter nonsense.

When it comes to real, absolute poverty, capitalism and world trade are the only solution. We have seen the amazing results that have been achieved in Asia which Africa are now beginning to emulate. From 1990 to 2010, the number in poverty fell by just over fifty percent as a share of the population in developing countries, from forty three percent to twenty one percent, a fantastic achievement, the majority of which came from adopting Thatcherite economics.

When it comes to “poverty” in Britain there are a couple of ways to reduce it. The first is to fix our execrable education system. Forty percent of school leavers are innumerate and twenty percent functionally illiterate, meaning a high number are unfit for the labour market. Our lefty teachers and their “progressive” education methods are largely to blame. The second is to reward strivers and not to reward shirkers, basically the opposite of Labour policy.

People who work and achieve must not be punished and the feckless workshy underclass must be forced into work. The Conservatives have made huge advances in fixing education, but there is still more to do. This government have made great strides in rewarding people who work by making work a more attractive career path than a career on benefits, but any Labour government would quickly undo all of the great progress made by the Conservatives.

Marxism – Jeremy Corbyn’s Dedication To A Murderous Ideology

The most extraordinary thing about the clique who have commandeered the Labour Party isn’t their fantasy spending plans, or their support of the IRA, or their sheer, bumbling ineptitude. It’s something far scarier. Deep down, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and their Momentum thugs regret the outcome of the Cold War. Even now, when the full horror of his legacy is known, they refuse to give up on Karl Marx.

Just think about what that implies. Marx has a genuine claim to have caused more suffering than any other human being. No one else murdered so many with his pen. In Marx’s name, men and women were arrested at night and dragged off to torture chambers, shot into mass graves, starved as deliberate policy and yet, incredibly, the Labour leader won’t condemn the old monster, his Shadow Chancellor praises him, and his chief spokesman and election strategist both continued to take the Soviet line even after the USSR disintegrated.

Any normal election campaign would have been blown apart when John McDonnell appeared on Andrew Marr. Asked whether he was a Marxist, the Shadow Chancellor made a noise somewhere between “yes” and “no” and then quickly said, “I believe there’s a lot to learn from reading Kapital, yes of course there is.” Speaking to Labour activists he was a lot less coy, describing himself as an “unapologetic Marxist”.

Let’s just remind ourselves of what Marxists did during the twentieth century. They carried out a mass slaughter on a scale never previously known. Perhaps 10 million people died in the Atlantic slave trade. The Nazis murdered 17 million. But the Communists killed 100 million. How can that vast number be explained? Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, the dissident Russian novelist, gave a convincing answer. Humanity had known sadists, tyrants and despots before, he wrote, but their cruelty had been limited in scale. Why? “Because they had no ideology. Ideology – that is what gives the evil-doer the necessary steadfastness and determination.”

All Marxist regimes were lethal. Tens of millions died in the Soviet Union and China. There were torture chambers, labour camps and firing squads in every Communist country, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Albania to North Korea. You didn’t have to be an opponent of the regime to be shot. Your crime might be having the wrong parents, or holding a university degree, or attending church. In Communist Cambodia, wearing glasses was enough to condemn you to death: it was taken as a sign that you spent too much time reading instead of working with your hands.

I’m sure McDonnell would argue that these crimes cannot be blamed on the man in whose name they were committed. And it’s true that Marx himself was dead before the first of his followers seized power 100 years ago. Although he was an unattractive man, Marx was not a murderer. He was a drunken egoist who neglected his wife and children. He never forgave Britain, the country that had taken him in and given him refuge, for refusing to have a revolution. He was a shameless sponger, living off his friend Friedrich Engels, despite the money coming from Engels’ father’s factory. But, as far as we know, he never killed anyone.

Still, it isn’t acceptable to separate his words from the actions they inspired. Marx taught that people were machines, or cogs in the great machines that made up the social classes. He believed the ends justified the means. That belief led directly to the gulags. Uneasily aware of this record, Corbyn, like McDonnell, emphasises that he respects Marx as “a great economist”. Frankly, that is rather like saying that you admire Hitler as “a great strategist” or Osama Bin Laden as “a great theologian”. Even if they had been these things, it would be an extraordinary thing to say. But they weren’t. Marx was a hopeless economist. Every prediction he made, every single one, turned out to be false.

Free markets, Marx wrote, would destroy the bourgeoisie, concentrating wealth in the hands of a tiny number of oligarchs. In fact, free markets have enlarged the middle class everywhere they have been allowed to exist. The revolution, he said, would occur when the working class became sufficiently self-aware, something he expected to happen first in Britain and then in Germany. In fact, as working people in those countries became more educated, they became more attached to private property. The revolutions instead happened, calamitously, in the last places he’d have expected: the agrarian societies of Russia and China.

He believed capitalism was doomed and would collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. In fact, when he made that prediction in 1848, markets were already working their magic. During the old cadger’s lifetime, the real income of the average British family increased by an incredible 300 per cent, yet Marx’s disciples, like members of some doomsday cult, continue to fit the facts to their opinions. If anything, they have become even more dogmatic since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

How apt, a hundred years after his followers seized power, that Marx should have become the thing he most loathed: the founder of a false religion. Even more disturbing is the fact that a group of his cultists, led by another bearded prophet, should have captured a major British party

Socialism – Or As Sane People Prefer To Call It, State Theft.

So What is Socialism?

At its core, socialism is a religion, with its God being ‘The State’.

So what is ‘The State’?

The state, at its simplest level, is an organised gang of criminals.

So in what way are these people criminals?

Well, even the youngest child at a playgroup will know what a criminal is. On any given morning, there might be a pile of toys in the corner of said playgroup. At first, all these toys will be available to all. So one child might pick up one toy, and begin to play with it.

Under ‘Natural Law’ (i.e. the law that all humans understand at the most basic level), that child has ‘homesteaded’ that toy. Until the moment that this child puts that toy down, the toy ‘belongs’ to that child. We all know this. So if another child comes along and forces the first ‘owner’ of the toy to relinquish that toy through coercion, physical or otherwise, then that second child is stopped and the toy is returned to the first child. We all know this, too. We all grew up with it. Most of us respect ‘the law’ of which child owns which toy in a shared environment. Except those whom the rest of us later learn to despise.

When the first child cries because the second child has ‘stolen’ their toy, we can all relate to this. We all know, at the most basic human level, that theft has take place. Admittedly, its a wrong that is never usually punished in any way, in fact at this early stage it’s more of a social faux pas, but still, we all recognise that the first child has been wronged.

So we have natural human law. We all know what it is and we all know what it consists of from the very youngest age. This ‘natural’ law is what took us away from the blood-filled realm of being animals into the civilised realm of becoming human beings. Indeed, even with chimpanzee, gorilla, and baboon communities, we can sometimes see examples pertaining to the beginning of ‘natural’ law, though at a much more functionally primitive level.

There is property and theft. We all recognise these related conditions and then there is freedom as opposed to slavery. We all recognise the differences here too. At least when they’re made explicit to us. All of us know what these things are and all of us at least understand these concepts. What is really strange is that except under one peculiar circumstance, even professed socialists recognise and live under these conditions of natural law.

For example, if you were to go up to a socialist and simply take his or her smart phone, merely because it looked nice, then there would be uproar. ‘That’s my phone!’ they would exclaim. They would possibly even use violence against you to retrieve their precious phone and they would be right to do so. It is, after all, their phone. At this point, let us not question how they attained the resources to acquire that phone. That is not what we’re discussing here. At a most basic human level it is their phone and you are wrong to attempt to ‘steal’ it. The natural laws of property and freedom are recognised by everyone at virtually all times.

Then we come to that special exception. That magical exception that drives all of human conflict. There exists a ‘special’ group of people. From where they derive their special status is never clearly explained and is never allowed to be challenged. But the main special right they think they enjoy is to take other people’s stuff, without permission, to better enjoy their own lives.

In a ‘private’ sphere, we all know what to call these people. They are ‘criminals’. What is even stranger, is that even they know that they are criminals. They know that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ at that most primeval level of natural law. But they still do it anyway. We could spend a few hours discussing ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ and so on. However, no matter how much you dress it up, they know that what they’re doing is wrong. However, they still enjoy the short-term expediency of living off other people’s stuff at the long-term price of potential self-loathing or the justifiable fear of well-earned retribution. They are morally vacuous, they are also thieves. They are beyond the pale and unfit to be contained within polite society.

Once we go beyond this ‘private’ realm of basic criminality, we reach a ‘public’ sphere. At this level, more sophisticated criminal people will still take your stuff without your permission but instead of just running into the night and laughing, as the thieves that they are, these ‘higher’ criminals preach to you instead that what they do is ‘for your own good’, or ‘for the good of the community’, or ultimately, that their theft ‘fulfils the basic moral laws of the universe’.

These people have completely lost touch with ‘natural’ law, and are most likely those same children that stole other people’s toys during their early childhood. Or at least wanted to, motivated by one or more of those seven sins. Then there are those sycophants, those delusional people, those ‘socialists’, who praise these criminal thieves. Why do these ‘intellectuals’ do this? Why do they promote this criminal behaviour that breaks the natural law that even a two-year-old can recognise, and that even they themselves recognise when you try to take their own smart phones? Why do they promote this cancerous metaphysical curse that rots society so completely, and which promotes war, violence, crime, and murder? Mainly, because, at the most basic level, they want to enjoy a piece of the action, to eat some of that tax, without risking the harm that might come to them if they were to engage in direct thievery themselves.

Mostly, ‘intellectuals’ are a fairly useless group of people. Where some people choose to work, to produce, and so on, and to serve the needs of others in return for a voluntarily-earned profit, some of the intellectuals merely want to sit about at the tax payers expense while the hardworking tax payer feeds their children, keeps a roof over their head and pays for their clothing. This selfish, consumptive behaviour is not highly valued by the rest of productive society. Indeed, I value a butcher who can prepare my sirloin steaks much more than I value any intellectual who can tell me about the inner intrinsic and motivational issues of Proust.

However, the intellectuals are actually good for one thing. They are often good with words, particularly within the field of persuasion. They can persuade others more productive than themselves to believe in strange ideas, no matter how much these ideas break basic natural law. In the past they were Witch Doctors, Wizards, Priests, and Viziers. In more modern times, they are Policy Technocrats, Philosophy Professors, Anti-Global-Warming Advocates, and EU Bureaucrats.

The productive are often too busy being useful to others to worry too much about other less productive matters. So in return for a portion of the stolen pelf of the state gang, the intellectuals will promote the state-generated religion of ‘socialism’, i.e. that a special self-anointed group of people should be divinely allowed to steal other people’s stuff and as long as they gift a portion of these stolen goods to the intellectuals, then the intellectuals will promote this group via a religion called ‘socialism’.

Socialism comes in many flavours, as best described by Von Mises in his book, ‘Socialism’, but it all amounts to the same thing. All the different versions are based on a solid carpet of organised criminal theft, usually propped up on the cosy cushions of fraud, corruption, and counterfeiting. The intellectuals will become the priests and chief apologists for these higher-level thieves. They will become university professors, mainstream media reporters, Keynesian economists, or whatever, so long as they get a piece of the pie stolen from the productive by the over-arching criminal state gang and their junior lackeys in the local ‘authorities’, or what in Mafia parlance would be described as local families operating under the blessing of an overseeing crime commission.

Where any of these people get their ‘authority’ over the rest of us is never questioned. Censorship, ‘hate’ crimes, and other propaganda techniques, particularly the takeover of all child education, are used to suppress anyone questioning where this ‘authority’ to rob the rest of us comes from and so this cancerous ‘anti-natural law’ system spreads its violent criminal tentacles throughout society leading to moral debasement, and in Hoppe’s words, to decivilisation.

The ‘intellectuals’ become the bagmen, apologists, and the runners of these interconnected organised criminal gangs, collectively known as ‘the state and all so that they can have a fat piece of the stolen pie. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves. In order to protect themselves from this shame, they become holy about the criminality that they seek to inflict second-hand upon the rest of us. So now we have our new religion, socialism, an ideology invented by the state to justify its continual criminality against the rest of us in society.

Then it comes to pass that even when a private criminal steals from us, he can use those self-same mantras of socialism. ‘I stole that Dolce & Gabbana dress and that rare diamond necklace from that vain evil rich person, because they deserved it. They’re rich because they have ‘oppressed’ and ‘looted’ the poor. I am now merely redressing the balance.’

Socialism is a religion of theft. Socialists are its priests.

“It is absolutely crucial that we can discuss the link between grooming gangs and Asian heritage”

A think tank in UK has claimed that 84 per cent of people convicted of child grooming-gang offenses since 2005 were Asian.

In a new study, the Quilliam Foundation says its researchers discovered differences in the way pedophiles from different backgrounds operated. It said white offenders often acted alone, while child abusers from Asian backgrounds were more likely to work in so-called grooming gangs. The foundation, which usually focuses on counter-extremism, said it found 222 of 264, or 84 per cent, of people convicted of specific grooming-gang crimes in the UK since 2005 were Asian.

In a number of cities across the UK, gangs of predominantly British Pakistani men have been convicted for targeting vulnerable white young women and girls. Questions have been raised about the connections between ethnicity and the offenders, and two British-Pakistani researchers from the think tank have said that the link is important, adding its voice to the debate with what it describes as an evidence-based view.

The report’s co-author, Haras Rafiq, is from Rochdale, where 19 British-Pakistani men were jailed between 2012 and 2015 after a grooming ring thought to have abused at least 47 girls was uncovered, report The Independent. Maajid Nawaz said it was absolutely crucial that people could discuss the link between grooming gangs and British South Asian Muslim heritage without being called racist or bigoted. He argued that silencing moderate discussion actually created more space and opportunity for actual Islamophobia that would fill the void created by a lack of rational debate. He said: “Why are we still, despite the years of evidence mounting up, uncomfortable talking about this issue? And accepting that there is a hugely disproportionate number of British South Asian Muslim men involved in what can only be described as a despicable crime?”

Since 2011 these sort of crimes have occurred in cities up and down the UK, and they are spreading. “They have occurred in Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Middlesborough, Peterborough, Bristol, Halifax and Newcastle and only in two of those cases were the men not of British South Asian Muslim heritage. All of the victims, in all of those cities and the list was very long, except three were white teenage girls.” These gang members plied vulnerable women and girls with drink and drugs before assaulting them. In a series of trials over the last few years, juries found the men guilty of a catalogue of nearly 100 offences– including rape, human trafficking, conspiracy to incite prostitution and drug supply – between 2011 and 2014.

In a Sky News interview, Mr Rafiq said “I’m from the heart of where one of the biggest high-profile cases has happened over the last few years, and I’m saying it’s very important that we do talk about it because the problem won’t go away. We didn’t want there to be a pattern of people from our ethnic demographic carrying out these attacks, but unfortunately we were proven wrong. British white men, they tend to work individually. They tend to work online where they groom and they are the majority of perpetrators. When it comes to Asian men or Pakistani men they tend to do it in groups.”

The National Crime Agency’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command (CEOP) identifies two types of group-based child abuse. It says in “Type 1” offenders work in groups such as grooming gangs to target victims based on vulnerability, while “Type 2” offenders form pedophile rings to carry out abuse because of a specific sexual interest in children. A CEOP study released in 2012 found 75 per cent of offenders in grooming-gang cases were from Asian backgrounds, while 100 per cent in pedophile rings were white.