Who was Paul Pawlowski?>Paul Pawlowski (born 1926/1927) was a Polish-born immigrant, Hellenic polytheist and English republican who, from the late 1970s until his resignation in 1996, served as the leader and only member of the Republican Party of England and the English People’s Liberation Army (EPLA).What was the EPLA?<The EPLA originated as a split from the Maoist Working People's Party of England. The Army's ideology called for the independence of England from "Judeo-fascist" forces.<According to the "Dictionary of Terrorism", it was "extremely weak" but had "undertaken isolated bomb attacks". In 1983, it claimed responsibility for a parcel bomb sent to the headquarters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<Barberis et al claim that the organisation may have had links to the Oliver Cromwell Republican Party, founded in 1977. This minor organisation, also led by Paul Pawlowski, later renamed the Republican Party of England, is best known for its leader's demonstration against the wedding of Charles and Diana in 1981The revolutionary career of Pawlowski, in his own words:"
In 1960s I read the Iliad in HMP Brixton.Why! Thats polytheism – thats my religion i decided.in 1970s I opened Temple of Aphrodite Pandemos in my one room in Tooting. Landlord told me to get out – evicted.I moved to empty house in Charington Road squat.There was Banner books shop nearby in Camden High street.The shopwindow was Red with little red books bust of chairman Mao in the middle. Indian man Bijour was the shopkeeper.I am having lunch in Cypriot restaurant with my lady when Bijour comes in sits with us at our table and we talk. Bijour says What Britain needs is British peoples liberation army.I took on his idea and improved itWhat Britain needs is English republican ideology – Republican party of England – English peoples liberation army.The monarch abdicate – Republican England is born.I bought a house in Accrington – turned it into HQ of English Peoples Liberation Army. Got raided by Special Branch.What is the strength of the English Peoples Liberation Army? the SB officer asked. Military secret I replied. I think you are regimental Number One he said.I drafted a petition for the Queen to abdicate let England be Republic. Went with it to meeting in Birmingham. It was leftwingers rally – about 200 signed my petition for the Queen to abdicate.Encouraged by the response I convened a meeting at the Rising Sun pub near Victoria coach station. Five comrades came – we drunk pint and talked English Republic.Encouraged - I drafted English Republican leaflet – published by Paul Pawlowski, Secretary, Republican Party of England.The feedback was abusive – To saltmines in Siberia with you you foreigner!They didn't like the name …ski. Printed another leaflet – same text only this time published by Thomas Smith, Secretary of Republican Party of England. Now the feedback was normal – some agreed – some asking for more info – some supported some against – normal.Went with it to Camden Town Hall where the Daily Worker had a fete. The police at the entrance took notice of the name Thomas Smith – the police was on the lookout for that Thomas Smith – got raided by Special Branch officersI continued with placard and leaflet calling for England to be Republic. Got arrested for it in the street in Accrington – the magistrate said Three months. With Clenched Fist salute I cried out Victory to the English Peoples Liberation Army!Local newspaper carried report about it.In HMP Strangeways prison officers were asking me "Tell us where is the English Peoples Liberation Army and we all go there and join it."HMP prison officers were the first recruits to EPLA.HMP Strangeways was burned down – it was burning for many days."
https://web.archive.org/web/20110116045112/http://indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/10039.html?1252331010Last thread:
>>2282435 Anyone else had an issue like this?
I've had a friend that I have been very close with for years. Probably someone I've been able to be more 'myself' with than anyone else. Whilst I'm left-wing and he's right-wing, we were able to get on despite these differences - discussing the perspectives, making jokes etc. The one exception is that after things kicked off on Oct 7, he was adamently in favour of Israel whilst I supported Palestine. As it became glaringly obvious this was becoming a genocide, his opinion didn't change, and by 6 months we effectively stopped talking about it (I felt so frustrated with his views, I don't know how he felt about mine).
I can't understand why he does seem to be so pro-Israel, given he's not actually got any links to the country. We didn't talk about the war for a year but he's sent me a message that seems to show he still remains supportive of Israel.
I wonder if it's worth ending the friendship with him. It really paints him in a terrible light. Though in a way, is ending things any more than virtue signalling - it won't help Palestinians, and he knows my views on it. It also seems unwise to do so when we share a friend group (who likely don't know his views). I find value in the friendship outside of political views, but I wonder how far should that separation be tested.
Ultimately, can you be friends with someone who would spend a long semester in a re-education camp if you had your way?
>>2308337>>2308430>>2308435Found this guy a while back
https://www.instagram.com/republican_action/ has some sound ideas. There is a space for "Cromwellism" as a popular movement.
>>2309256historically, conflict in the region has been between muslims and christians.
jews typically sided with the muslims because they were more tolerant.
israel/palestine is a national conflict rooted in the era of New Imperialism from the late 19th century to early 20th century
>>2309325patriotism is a meme anyway
in the least far-right way possible, only nationalism is real. patriotism is gordon brown proposing a national day or an anodyne statement of "british values" that comes out as meaningless drivel:
"Democracy, the Rule of Law, Individual Liberty, Mutual Respect, and Tolerance of Different Faiths and Beliefs" (these fundamental values surely, distinguish Britain from
literally every western Liberal democracy)
because English nationalism can't yet credibly distinguish itself from British nationalism, and because British nationalism cannot even recognize itself as a nationalism (instead, it's "anti-nationalism", because "Nationalism" is the celtic fringe trying to leave), Britain cannot engage in the kind of nation-building project necessary to inspire anything whatsoever. to develop shared
contestable values that distinguish Britain - even superficially - from other countries.
>>2309644'african state'
lol the reading level the BBC aims at is so low now
>>2310327I don't know what point you are trying to make here. This isn't a trivial conflict, it is ingrained in their very identities and religion. We don't need either side of that shit coming here thank you very much.
Islam is not tolerant.
jews are not to be trusted.
>>2311432anyone who says such things should be pressed on what these values, principles and standards are.
>>2311484nothing more british than pledging allegiance to our flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for y'all….
>>2311554What's even worse is that the charity member I'm liaising with on behalf of the council is a single 40 year old woman who still suffers from psychosis and won't stop giving me signals left right and centre.
The moment she puts an x at the end of one of her texts it's fucking on.
>>2311434who gives a fuck tbh
I would assume mostly muslim, some hardcore christians that bear little resemblance to the weak-tea version that is on death's door over here, and maybe a few others. They all think the holy land belongs to them and this feud is never going to end.
>>2311637>First SouthportIt didn't start in Southport, it started in Knowsley.
As for "educating them", you don't educate the proletariat; you organise them, win them material gains, then you reveal the nature of the capitalist system in that struggle. This is why liberalism fundamentally fails to deal with fascism, reaction, and vulgar ethnonationalism; because it relies on some belief that people are only violent reactionaries because they are "Misinformed".
Lots of Eastenders joined the BUF in the wake of Cable Street, most left a couple years later after the Communist PARty organised a rent strike there (they realised their landlords weren't jewish and who their real class enemy is). We need to clearly identify the class enemy, domestic and foreign, and organise people against it. Tenant Unionism is especially salient in this regard, but overall that is the role and purpose of the modern socialist.
Issue is that we should have done this since 15 years ago. It is possible we might just need to go through a phase of "stove-touching" when porkies like Rupert Lowe and Farage have the run of the show and continue to fuck over the working class.
>>2312165Mass migration
Migration as a weapon
Migration as revenge
"Look at the fucking state of it" migration
>>2312155He was just protecting the oppressed anglican
settlers asylum seekers from being attacked by bigoted white Irish natives.
>>2312170first is numbers. too many foreigners in a place at once causes ghettoisation and so strife with a community.
second is legitimacy. the claim of asylum for refugees has its conditions which may not be met. one may then claim to be a refugee, when instead being an "economic migrant" and so a false cause is given. this amounts to illegal or illegitimate immigration.
third is economic exploitation. if those who extract resources without paying into the system predominate, then the funds are depleted.
fourth is a lack of democratic consent. if the majority of a population do not want what is happening to happen, then power acts against the will of the people.
fifith is crime and a lack of social contract. a foreigner may not undetstand the codes of conduct in a country and so may violate the law in different respects. flytipping for example seems like a big issue for foreigners, where there is no expectation to put away rubbish correctly. this leads to further tension and division in communities, as two separate laws or codes appear to be in operation, rather than one.
>>2312401the same thing in britain. all bark no bite.
you could have a million brits with union jacks standing at the gates of parliament and still, no.one would throw the first punch to get something done.
>>2312170mass migration isn't happening
they want no migration at all, they have messaged this already and starting to role it out
it's like arguing about "why do you support dinosaurs eating llamas" or some other nonsense irrelevant shit
>>2312202>if the majority of a population do not want what is happening to happenthey majority are okay with mass amnesty, more so than mass deportations
>a foreigner may not undetstand the codes of conduct in a country and so may violate the law in different respectthey can't integrate but said wokely
>>2314850I'm here to make you uncomfortable.
You can call me whatever you like, just make sure you can back it up darling.
>>2314795>they majority are okay with mass amnesty, more so than mass deportations the same way its easier to let a shoplifter get away than to call the police to arrest him. or the same way its easier to litter than to put rubbish in a bin. but anyway, if your claim holds, there should be no problem putting migration issues to a vote.
>they can't integrate but said wokelyghettos form a country within a country. this is the opposite of integration; its segregation. immigrants can integrate, but only when they are able to belong to the majority population, rather than bring insulated within a minority, or elsewise, becoming their own majority, at which point, segregation is self-sufficient.
>>2314866the marxist point would be that immigration is a bourgepis conspiracy to lower national wages. should i have brought that up?
according to engels this text (1845):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm>The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness. The temptation is great, he cannot resist it, and so when he has money he gets rid of it down his throat. What else should he do? How can society blame him when it places him in a position in which he almost of necessity becomes a drunkard; when it leaves him to himself, to his savagery? With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many. All such as demand little or no skill are open to the Irish. For work which requires long training or regular, pertinacious application, the dissolute, unsteady, drunken Irishman is on too low a plane.he is saying that immigration lowers the wages of a national working class by a general decline of the standards of living.
marx also wrote this in a letter (1870):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm>Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself … But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class. And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life.offering similar sentiments. to marx and engels then, there seems to be a ruling class interest in immigration, which leads to antagonisms in the working class.
is this "marxist" enough?
>>2314881when white people do it:
>patriotswhen black people do it:
<rioters >>2312202>second is legitimacy. the claim of asylum for refugees has its conditions which may not be met. one may then claim to be a refugee, when instead being an "economic migrant" and so a false cause is given. this amounts to illegal or illegitimate immigration.the refugee/economic migrant distinction is such a fucking meme.
want to leave because the economic system can't provide you enough food? economic refugee, just starve, subhuman!
want to leave because the government won't give you food? political refugee! completely different case! come on in!
(well, not really. our refugee system is set up as a kafkaesque nightmare. what if we made it so that you can only apply for refuge in britain, but if you enter britain illegally you're not eligible, and also "i'm entering to apply for refugee status" is not a valid reason for getting a visa? it's genius, then no matter how persecuted someone is, you've always got an out to tell them to fuck off - maybe with a little "doesn't apply to ukranians or hong kongers or other honorary aryans" rider.)
>>2314864no issues go to a vote in this country.
this is a place where keir starmer, has-been will hutton, and the water companies are caught
before the election colluding on ways to avoid nationalisation, only for basically nobody to comment on it, certainly no political consequences to result, and for
hutton to publish the article shilling the "public benefit corporation" scam anywaythis is a managed democracy. the managers fucking love talking about immigration. keir starmer will spend all day talking about how he's going to stop the boats, smash the gangs, crack down on refugees, arrest everyone who fails the cricket test, send everyone who doesn't pass the one drop rule to st. helena, etc. nobody will believe him, of course, and then reform will ask why we don't just send all the orcs to papeete and invite the french to test another nuke on it. (can't use Trident, it hasn't passed a firing test in about 15 years lol.)
>>2314868quote-mining marx is the most unmarxist thing one can do, assuming "marxist" means "in the tradition of marx" and not "LARPer pretending to be acting in that tradition"
(most are the latter)
>>2314889>the refugee/economic migrant distinction is such a fucking meme. a refugee claims asylum based on them fleeing war or conflict. just say that you support economic migration instead of devaluing the struggle of refugees. also, many migrants come directly from france, amd french authorities allow it. is this fleeing from war, or fleeing toward benefits? and look, i dont blame them at all. i would do the same thing. theyre not evil because theyre desparate; but all criminals are desparate. if youre caught, you still have to pay the piper. my advice to any criminal is to not get caught, but if youre caught, you knew what was coming.
>no issues go to a vote in this countryyes, because that would disrupt our managed decline
>quote-mining marxare you implying that what i quoted can be read differently? do immigrants raise wages, and why didnt marx or engels say that?
>>2314897it's not that i "support" economic migration, it's that i can't abide a nonsense distinction. "no refugees, no migrants" is a perfectly valid way of resolving my objection. (and without any real policy change!) it does mean, however, that as a politician you've got to accept you've got no interest in the universal dignity of man or basic human rights or anything like that - but this is, of course, true in any case. what sticks in my throat is seeing some cunt go out and talk like britain is a kind and welcoming country that's being put upon by all these foreign bastards, rather than a sociopathic shithole that'll do all it can to conclude that if you're trying to leave Uganda because you're gay, it's probably because you want to steal people's phones and sell them on ebay, and besides, does fucking men really make you gay? application rejected.
again: if a centrally planned economy refuses to feed you, that's "political persecution", but if a market economy can't-or-won't feed you (perhaps even due to political decisions like concentrating all investment in another region), that's nobody's fault. are you seriously telling me that's not an arbitrary distinction and that the latter should just suck it up?
let's not forget that actual policy - stuff more like "we can't let this person on the Taliban's to-kill list come to Britain because they saw British soldiers doing war crimes, and if they were in Britain they could be compelled to testify at a war-crimes trial, but they can't do that if they're dead, so we'll just refuse them refuge lol" - clearly has less than zero respect for "the struggle of refugees".
take what i have written. quote only "no refugees, no migrants", and look, you've suddenly transmuted me into the EDL. you can quickly translate exasperation with the lies and hypocrisies that come out after the death of liberal universalism into a celebration of that death. clever, eh? but i'm just some dickhead (all my friends are dickheads too), it's a bit harder with Marx, one of the best known thinkers on the planet.
>>2314913>i can't abide a nonsense distinctionhere's the distinction:
- a palestinian flees gaza to comes to england
- a somalian in france gets a dingy to england
to me, there is a difference. a boat full of women and children is also different from a boat full of young men.
>no refugees, no migrantsso to you, its all or nothing? either you allow millions of foreigners into your country or you are "sociopathic"?
>marxhe saw that immigration lowers wages. thoughts?
>>2314919i bet you think you're really clever, don't you.
the policy is to let neither of them in. it's not "all or nothing" to think that, given this is the policy, this should be the stated policy. politicians should not pat themselves on the back for helping "real" refugees.
(uhh, hong kongers and ukranians, apparently.)
weird how when ukranians want to flee war, they're very welcome, but when sudanese or congolese want to do the same thing, uhh, they're clearly fleeing the
economic consequences of war, that's different…
btw marx said i'm right:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/>This remarkable anonymous work… is… celebrated… as the substance… is… self-evident. >>2314928>weird how when ukranians want to flee war, they're very welcome, but when sudanese or congolese want to do the same thing, uhh, they're clearly fleeing the economic consequences of war, that's different…youre the one who said that theres no meaningful distinction between regugees and economic migrants, not me. you are the one lumping them all together into opportunists, when i am saying that there are in fact, real refugees, who we should support.
>marxyou made no point about marx to be correct on. you complained that no one was being "marxist". i quote marx, now you refuse to accept marx's words. weird, that. anyway, since you hold marx's words to be gospel, you must think that immigration lowers wages, and is therefore, antagonistic to the working class.
>>2314868>the marxist point would be that immigration is a bourgepis conspiracy to lower national wages. should i have brought that up?Marx at no point states that immigration is a "conspiracy", rather it is an inevitable outcome of systemic capitalist forces. Show me where Marx's solution to this is capitulation and collaboration with the bourgeoisie state in an effort to remove or stifle immigration, as opposed to the organizing of labour so as to make the question of wages a non-sequitor, and push the workers to revolution? When Engels speaks of the conditions of the English working class, none of his comments on the Irish are prescriptive in regards to doing away with them. On the contrary, Marx states openly thus:
<And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.<This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.<But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.<England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.Something you have conveniently left out from your quote mining.
>offering similar sentiments. to marx and engels then, there seems to be a ruling class interest in immigration, which leads to antagonisms in the working class.is this "marxist" enough?
Critically, and which you continue to dodge and obfuscate, they do not fall into the double blackmail you so enthusiastically leap towards. They utterly reject the idea of the working class going hand and hand with the bourgeoisie state to take the "fight" to the immigrant worker. Rather, they understand that this is the failure of the English working class, that by refusing to understand the plight of the Irishman, and by being content in their station above him, they commit not only a betrayal to socialism but to themselves. They handcuff themselves wholly to the bourgeoisie, to their permissions and levers, and so neuter true working class gains wholly. Engels in his later works makes an additional point, that it is the "native" working class that constitutes the greater failure, as they associate themselves with the status of the bourgeoisie of the their country:
<The Jones business is most distasteful. He held a meeting here and the speech he made was entirely in the spirit of the new alliance. After that affair one might almost believe that the English proletarian movement in its old traditional Chartist form must perish utterly before it can evolve in a new and viable form. And yet it is not possible to foresee what the new form will look like. It seems to me, by the way, that there is in fact a connection between Jones’ new move, seen in conjunction with previous more or less successful attempts at such an alliance, and the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. Only a couple of thoroughly bad years might help here, but after the discoveries of gold these are no longer so easy to engineer. For the rest it is a complete mystery to me how the massive overproduction which caused the crisis has been absorbed; never before has such heavy flooding drained away so rapidly.https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm >>2314931there are more people from Ukraine in this country than there are from Reading, Norwich, Bolton, Swindon, Southend, Oxford…
(and they're allowed to take their families too. weird.)
>>2314932i never said they were opportunists. i said the idea that economic migration is opportunism is laughable.
again: if you're dying in a famine, is it opportunism to want to go somewhere with food? does that make you a bastard? is it morally right to just go "ha ha, too bad, so sad, die" because this is an
economic problem and not a
political one. (how, pray tell, does a marx-enjoyer draw a distinction between the economic and the political?)
marx personally agrees with me. he used dialectics to foresee my post and he clearly included his agreement, right there in the text:
>This remarkable anonymous work… is… celebrated… as the substance… is… self-evident.there in the black and white. you can't argue with marx, mate, you've not got the balls.
>>2314933>its not a conspiracy<"As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account. But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class."lets not call it a "conspiracy", but a "plot" taken by the mutual interests of the ruling classes to lower wages in england.
>rather it is an inevitable outcome of systemic capitalist forcesmarx's point is that immigration into ireland comes from the aristocracy privatising land and lack of development. its not the capitalist bourgeoisie doing this, but the landed aristocracy, who benefit the bourgeoisie, by forcing immigration. this is why marx says:
<"After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland."this is otherwise to say that the irish must kick out the landed aristocracy and so to cultivate their own national labour force. or as you quote:
<The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent [.] It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation."this is to imply as i put it, that immigration means being forced into england, while irish independence means remigration.
>They utterly reject the idea of the working class going hand and hand with the bourgeoisie state to take the "fight" to the immigrant workerthey want to undo the conditions which cause immigration in the first place. but why? because immigration lowers national wages.
>>2314937are the dingies from france escaping famine?
>marx personally agrees with meright, so you must believe that immigration lowers wages. now i understand your position.
>>2314949the french are reduced to eating frogs and snails and other vermin, so yes, i should assume they're famished.
anyway, you see how i'm writing much more text than you? that's too obvious a tell that you're not really engaging in good faith. anything that doesn't neatly slot into telling you that you're right and that i'm going to join Reform or the CPB or whatever other gaggle of please-please-please-tell-me-my-prejudices-are-working-class losers your kokoro goes doki doki for is discarded. too obvious, not interesting.
(for the love of god do not "rectify" this with copy and pasted walls of quotes. that just makes it
dull as well as obvious. only original text will do. you could probably slip chatGPT past people once or twice if you need filler.)
Greetings and fraternity!
Karl Marx
>>2314948>lets not call it a "conspiracy", but a "plot" taken by the mutual interests of the ruling classes to lower wages in england.Where are you reading this? The focus is not itself the lowering of wages in England, rather it is an inevitable outcome of the landlording across Ireland, with the exportation of labour being an outcome which the bourgeoisie seize upon.
>marx's point is that immigration into ireland comes from the aristocracy privatising land and lack of development. its not the capitalist bourgeoisie doing this, but the landed aristocracy, who benefit the bourgeoisie, by forcing immigration. This is not the only reason, and the capitalist is not exempt. Marx makes the point that it is the bourgeoisie who firstly benefit from Ireland being turned into a pasture, and who secondly benefit from immigration after the fact. Marx did not separate the actions of the aristocracy from that of the bourgeoisie; after all, land privatized for who?
>this is otherwise to say that the irish must kick out the landed aristocracy and so to cultivate their own national labour force. or as you quote:No, it does not. Marx is clear that the Irish and English working class must work together, he is not pushing for a purely nationalist program, and rejects such in his critiques of Fenian policy. Clearly in the quote it is stated:
<It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation."The working class of England, in the context of English colonial activity, is stripped of it's revolutionary potential. It perceives itself in a privileged position above the Irish workers, obtains material benefits from the dominion of England over Ireland, and as Engels alludes to, is made more "bourgeois" because of it. Only by the liberation of Ireland can the English working class be made to understand their place as working class proletarians, and unite with their fellow Irish workers.
>this is to imply as i put it, that immigration means being forced into england, while irish independence means remigration.There is nothing in the quote that implies remigration, only national emancipation. I challenge you to find a clear statement made by either for a program of Irish remigration, particularly in terms of supporting the bourgeoisie state in anti-immigration policy.
>they want to undo the conditions which cause immigration in the first place. but why? because immigration lowers national wages.No, it's more poignant then something so shallow. It's because the English working class will continually exist in a state of reaction and bourgeoisie alliance so long as they benefit from the colonization of Ireland and are capable of perceiving themselves above the Irish worker. And the wage is only one part, a Marxist program is not merely the acceptance of higher wages, but rather the rejection of wage labour outright. Higher wages are only demanded with the understanding that doing so brings the proletariat in further conflict with the bourgeoisie.
>>2314984>protoctols of elders of zionAgreed but what does this have to do with the IDF, in your eyes,
not being murders? This is a sectarian discussion more than an ethnic one. We are discussing the Israeli fist, also known as the Israeli Defense Forces, who on the regular slaughter men, women, and children, nothing to do with Judaism.
>>2315002just say you support economic migration and your pathos resolves itself into intelligibility.
>do we believe in society?i suppose not, mrs. thatcher
>>2314983>The focus is not itself the lowering of wages in Englandthat is the ultimate outcome which benefits the english bourgeoisie
>Marx is clear that the Irish and English working class must work together…to bring irish independence! that is the conclusion, which he begins his premise with.
>It perceives itself in a privileged position above the Irish workersthey are in an objectively superior position. thats why the irish lower wages, to bring an equality of decriptude, for which there is antagonism. the english are not merely driven by colonial prejudice, but diminishing returns on labour.
>Only by the liberation of Ireland can the English working class be made to understand their place as working class proletarianswhich means the irish living in ireland rather than being forced into england, no?
>There is nothing in the quote that implies remigration, only national emancipationnational emancipation for whom!? people who DONT live in ireland?
>It's because the English working class will continually exist in a state of reaction and bourgeoisie alliance so long as they benefit from the colonization of Ireland and are capable of perceiving themselves above the Irish workeraccording to marx and engels, the irish worker lowers the standard of living for the english. this attitude is then based in material reality.
>a Marxist program is not merely the acceptance of higher wages, but rather the rejection of wage labour outrightwhich are better, higher or lower wages?
if higher wages, should the causes of lower wages be stamped out?
>>2315084david starkey in a GB news interview recently compared cromwell to napoleon, since both were military dictators. the difference, he points out, is that napoleon was a true imperialist and so held legitimacy (and absolutism in his heritage), while cromwell denied the crown. this then produces an inverse relationship in support. cromwell represented the bourgeoisie (the commoners of parliament) against the aristocracy, while napoleon represented the "nation" (all classes). cromwell then was generally unpopular while napoleon had popular right to rule. as others also comment, the english civil war represented an immanent radicalism (in the diggers and levelers), but cromwell repressed these by his own bourgeois loyalties. he is like martin luther in this respect then, where he brings rebellion, but represses a peasant uprising. the deeds of the civil war were brought into completion decades later with "the glorious revolution", where the crown become constitutional, and so rights were given to parliament. democracy in britain has this crooked path.
>>2315124why is it a ridiculous question?
anyway, i already rephrased it.
would you be happier with a stoned or sober bus driver?
>>2315129youre just avoiding the question.
>drowsinesswould you say that if you are sleep-deprived, weed makes you more alert or drowsy? weed is typically cayegorised as a depressant, like alcohol. what would you say?
an overview of some UK public services:
- 10,000 bin workers (£24-30k pp)
- 30,000 firefighters (£28-42k pp)
- 150,000 police officers (£30-48k pp)
this must mean that police officers have the highest demand, so are most efficient and necessary:
>5% rate of all crimes being solvedhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1402586/crimes-solved-england-and-wales/>About 89% of [violent and sexual] crimes closed without a suspect being caught or charged in the year to June 2024https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/13/most-violent-or-sexual-offences-went-unsolved-in-uk-hotspots-last-yearwhere are resources being focused then?
>The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/>Three appeal court judges this week ruled the 31-month sentence was not "manifestly excessive" [for sending a tweet]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6othis must mean theres room in prisons
>There are fewer than 100 available spaces left across the male prison estate in England and Waleshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rw48nj282othis must mean only the worst criminals are kept inside then…
>Criminals, including sex offenders and domestic abusers, could be released from prison after serving a third of their sentence to free up space in overcrowded jails, according to proposals in a sentencing policy review.https://news.sky.com/story/criminals-including-sex-offenders-could-be-released-from-prison-early-13372068i see.
>>2314860>I'm here to make you uncomfortable.topkek. Is that what you tell yourself?
What a sorry indictment of the National Health Service.
>>2314922The gloating, delighted reactions to the devastating crash of Air India Flight 171 in Ahmedabad are exactly what Israelis experienced after October 7. Who are these nasty people?
India and Israel share the same evil enemies, and they should work together to defeat them.🇮🇳🇮🇱
>>2316375There is a funny (and by funny I mean horrific) thing that catholic Czechs and Poles are posting loyalist shit for the same reasons.
Also there are little to no catholic irish taking part in this. That myth has been made up by the irish far right to justify their support for it.
>>2315034>just say you support economic migration and your pathos resolves itself into intelligibility.Can you say where I support or oppose economic migration? It simply is under capitalism, and the solution to the issues of the working class is to unite workers, not put by working class in a double blackmail.
>i suppose not, mrs. thatcherWhere did I state society does not exist?
>that is the ultimate outcome which benefits the english bourgeoisieLet's assume this, why then is the solution in your mind to collaborate with the bourgeoisie in anti-immigration policy? All you have done is put the working class in a permanent bind where they are dependent on said bourgeoisie for said policy, while placing the working class in an ineffectual conflict against immigrant workers that is unresolvable and distrationary.
must work together…
>to bring irish independence! that is the conclusion, which he begins his premise with.For what reason? He is not arguing Irish independence for the sake of Irish independence, he make this clear in vast majority of his works on the Irish question. As he ends his letter:
<You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.Marx has clearly stated in all his works the need for international cooperation of the workers and the need for unity and revolution against the bourgeoisie. Can you show me where his policy of unity is only in regards to national liberation, and nothing more?
>they are in an objectively superior position. thats why the irish lower wages, to bring an equality of decriptude, for which there is antagonism. the english are not merely driven by colonial prejudice, but diminishing returns on labour.Marc and Engels, especially in their later works, have no sympathy for this idea that the English working class is the greater victim in this. The English working class is at every opportunity given the option of organizing labour, which would in turn prevent any possible lowering of wages among either the English or Irish. Instead, their "bourgified" colonial position, in a way similar to maybe an Israeli, causes and caused them to largely resist revolution due to the material benefits they received and the status they held over the Irish. Even if they suffered a reduction in wage (which Engels noted was largely untrue as colonialism and imperialism in Ireland ramped up), the national benefits made up for it in a way that unconsciously mellowed them towards the bourgeoisie line.
>which means the irish living in ireland rather than being forced into england, no?Where does it say this? Would mass exodus perhaps stop? Yes, but the modern equivalent of that would be an end to western imperialism abroad, and Europes and the United States support of it thereof. It does not equal, however, measures to collaborate with the bourgeoisie to obstruct and suppress migrants. There is no equivocating the two.
>national emancipation for whom!? people who DONT live in ireland?National emancipation for Ireland, which both the local and migrant worker must unite to achieve within England. Having done so, and the yoke of England thrown off, the local and migrant worker are now free to take the fight to the English bourgeoisie itself, with Ireland no longer capable of being used to placate and mollify the English proletariat by means of material benefit or economic caste.
>according to marx and engels, the irish worker lowers the standard of living for the english. this attitude is then based in material reality.Let's assume this, despite Engels correcting himself on this and not in that the English worker benefits greatly from the imperialism of the British Empire, creating a dynamic of there only being liberal radical and conservatives. As he states:
<You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies. In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied by a European population, Canada, the Cape, Australia, will all become independent; on the other hand the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply subjugated, India, Algiers, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions, must be taken over for the time being by the proletariat and led as rapidly as possible towards independence.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htmEven assuming that Irish worker reduces the wages of the English worker, it is clear that the path forward is anti-imperialism, unionization, and opposition to the bourgeoisie. If the solution that Marx and Engels believed in was bourgeoisie collaboration to obstruct and deport the migrant, surely they would have clearly prescribed it? Surely Lenin would have clearly stated as such, having built upon them? The answer is that in no point in history has immigration "oppostion" ever produced a revolutionary proletariet, and has only ever delivered the "local" worker into the hands of the bourgeoisie, who now dominates him by lever. All while said laws mean to make the migrants position worse, to make his status questionable, and so more easily abused and exploited with the country by said bourgeoisie. It leads nowhere but the same old system, buy under levers and double blackmail.
>which are better, higher or lower wages?Higher wages are something to "strive" for politically, but they are not the goal or the end point, merely a way to put the working class in direct confrontation with the bourgeoisie. If "higher wages" were simply all we demanded, rather then worker emancipation, we are easily the victim and perpetuator of opportunism and talism. Why not argue that half the population should be forced to stay home? Why not make the case that all people of a given orientation, race, or belief, should be rounded up and "dealt with", so as to have the remaining sum benefit from "higher wages" by means of a lower quantity of labour? It is a pit, and is shown in the inevitable ineptitude of all "yellow" unions.
>if higher wages, should the causes of lower wages be stamped out?Not if it means the bodies of the proletariat fighting over one another in an ineffectual struggle towards revolutionary stagnation and oblivion. The cause is capitalism and the bourgeoisie, distractions from this only put power in the hands of the bourgeoisie once again. "Pro"-immigration and "anti"-immigration rhetoric live in a false dichotomy, as both fail to tackle the main issue and place the bourgeoisie at the levers of control. The liberal "pro"-immigration crowd may exploit immigrant labour, but nothing else has allowed the deepest levels of that exploitation then "anti"-immigration policy, which gives the bourgeoisie the weapons, by visa or direct threat, to chain the migrant worker into accepting worse and worse conditions, and has the local worker cheer for such out of fear of the migrant and associate himself with the pedestal of the bourgeoisie. All while the rate of profit continues to lower regardless, which in turn will always inevitably apply pressure to wages.
>>2316490>Can you say where I support or oppose economic migration? so you dont support it then? give a clear answer instead of this circular rhetoric. you are like a politician.
>Where did I state society does not exist? tell me this, what is a society? it is at least something exclusive; something which begins by boundaries. your point is that we shouldnt believe in borders because thats apartheid (you should leave your front door open then, since that is creating barriers from the world). you support the global movements of capital over the local concerns of labour.
>why then is the solution in your mind to collaborate with the bourgeoisie in anti-immigration policy?the bourgeoisie are pro-immigration. the unheard masses are anti-immigration. thats why any critic is immediately smeared by bourgeois spokespersons.
>the need for international cooperation inter-nationalism entails nations cooperating.
>The English working class is at every opportunity given the option of organizing labour, which would in turn prevent any possible lowering of wages among either the English or Irishperhaps you fail to grasp the idea in the text that the lowering of the value of wages comes from the lowering of the standard of life itself. what good do higher wages offer if they are still worth less? the english working class suffer from the "savagery" of the irishman himself. that is expressed very clearly. and its funny that you are such a vulgar economist in this regard, that you think more money means more value. why is it the englishman's responsibility to correct the disposition of the irishman, and why does he have to suffer the evils of his class enemy in such a way? now, an irishman in ireland poses no antagonism; this is marx's meaning. if there is an irish nation itself, there may be irish labour, rather than merely immigrant labour.
>Even if they suffered a reduction in wage (which Engels noted was largely untrue as colonialism and imperialism in Ireland ramped up)he says the wage is objectively lowered in value by english labour's share woth the irishman. you are making shit up now.
>There is no equivocating the two. so national liberation for ireland doesnt actually apply to irishmen? good to know. you fail to answer this in the subsequent paragraph also. national liberation undoes the need for irish immigration, therefore reversing the movement of labour.
>Even assuming that Irish worker reduces the wages of the English worker, it is clear that the path forward is anti-imperialism, unionization, and opposition to the bourgeoisie.yes… and? i dont deny this, do i?
>If the solution that Marx and Engels believed in was bourgeoisie collaboration to obstruct and deport the migrant, surely they would have clearly prescribed it? marx and engels want to approach the cause of immigration itself. that is their systematic critique. its like when people say that there sould be no refugees in the west if it wasnt for the wars caused by the west itself; therefore, the influx of refugees and economic migrants must be an effect from a prior cause. marx and engels oppose the cause, and subsequent effect.
>The answer is that in no point in history has immigration "oppostion" ever produced a revolutionary proletariet, and has only ever delivered the "local" worker into the hands of the bourgeoisie, who now dominates him by lever.and allowing millions of foreigners into his country which lower the standard of living and social contract is a "revolutionary" alternative? marx and engels call this alternative a bourgeois plot set out by the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to gain more power. are you from the school of thought that if workers dont do what you like, they should be punished?
>cant say that higher (value) wages are better than lower wagesmore pussyfooting and evasion. im fatigued in talking to people like you.
>"Pro"-immigration and "anti"-immigration rhetoric live in a false dichotomy, as both fail to tackle the main issue and place the bourgeoisie at the levers of control.do you think im avoiding the responsibility of the bourgeoisie in this? how am i bourgeois when i am blaming the bourgeoisie for causing such chaos?
>>2316848Shit, he's an Ajin.
Time to hide bro, i hope you get good at killing cops.
the dark truth is that by 2035 you will be nostalgic for neoliberalism. you will look back at Gordon Brown as a what-could-have-been, like Callaghan in 1976, where contemporary observers already knew in some way that they were the handmaidens of death. if only Gordon had moved an inch left, if only he'd pulled off a coalition of absolutely everyone in 2010… Blair is too tainted by war-crimes to be a Wilson figure, a neoliberal era entirely without heroes, and still, what comes next will be worse.
one wonders: will the left stay shadow-boxing the corpse, insisting that whatever comes next is really just neoliberalism, continuing to pray they can revive the postwar consensus, or will they take a step forward and imagine they can revive the corpse of neoliberalism against post-neoliberal nightmares?
either way, bleak bleak bleak.
>>2318849blair is astroturfed incredibly hard by a press and media class who love him and still not really
liked even as 2000s nostalgia is on the rise. (though i wouldn't rule out left opinion softening. it's easy to see and document just how awful starmer is, it's easy to fall for the lies that Blair was a social liberal and liberalizer, rather than a comical bigot.)
i will confess, as self criticism, that (without diminishing my hate for him one iota) i catch myself thinking "at least blair…" a lot these days. at least blair had
some kind of vision, even if it changed throughout his term. at least blair could speak… if not normally, than like tony blair, not like an unloved substitute teacher. at least blair, in his inhuman way, had human flaws: that reflexive little smirk that always dug him out of trouble in the 1990s, emerging now as he unsuccessfully tries to defend himself from killing a million iraqis. the trick that doesn't work anymore. starmer's got none of that, a man interesting only for the study of how a system picks such a complete and utter loser.
fortunately for continued loathing of blair, he didn't die some time before chilcot came out. if he'd walked out in front of a bus in 2011 he'd have become a great what-if. if he'd walked out in front of a bus in 2016, he'd have been a reviled war criminal with a history of advising dictators for cash, "but still…", but here we are in 2025 he's still with us, still demanding we hand the NHS over to ChatGPT, drill-baby-drill and bugger the climate, and ID cards, oh how baby really wants his fucking ID cards, and because of that he just looks ridiculous. a has been. a rich, corrupt, out of touch old man with a bad haircut. what more can you say?
i would summarize that in the future, we may pine for pre-9/11 market liberal UN responsibility-to-protect deregulatory euro-optimist globalist utopia, "britain as a young country" etc of the early Blair era (with all the caveats and warts removed), but i don't think anyone but fascists will care for post-9/11 illegal oil war security theater bollocks or its successor, the 2012 olympics "walked away from the car crash apparently fine only to suddenly fall over dead" @soverybritish liberalism.
>>2318599>so you dont support it then? give a clear answer instead of this circular rhetoric. you are like a politician.This is like asking what side I support in WW1, or if I support conservative liberal policy or social liberal policy. It's like asking if I support privatized prisons or murderers on the street, or if I support the US intervention or ISIS beheadings. It's a false dichotomy, the entire struggle of being pro- one bourgeoisie camp or anti- the other is playing into both. Pro-immigration policy completely ignores the reality of why that immigration exists while also maintaining systems that supress migrant labour, while anti-immigration policy provides the tools to suppress said migrants and control the flow in a way which benefits the bourgeoise. Notice how it's never wealthy migrants which suffer in such circumstances, rather only the poorest who cannot enter by standard means.
>tell me this, what is a society? it is at least something exclusive; something which begins by boundaries. your point is that we shouldnt believe in borders because thats apartheid (you should leave your front door open then, since that is creating barriers from the world). you support the global movements of capital over the local concerns of labour.Not that we shouldn't "believe" in borders, believe has nothing to do with their existence. Borders are simply what they are in the context of capitalist society, and in that context they are fundamentally a system of apartheid. What is the difference, in a global context, from the US and Europe engaging in imperialism in other nations, while said migrants end up at their walls seeking escape or better opportunities, and the domestic apartheid of nations like Israel? One is seemingly more direct, but when zoomed out, it is clear that the benefits of the west are walled off from those they exploited. Or are said people leaving for no reason in particular? You have once again created a false dichotomy; you treat migrants as a global movement of capital, and the local population as labour. But those migrants are as much labour as the local population, there use in capital no different then the local population in the mechanisms of capital itself. This dichotomy is one of favoritism, because like a social democrat, you perceive the issues of labour as merely a national question, only solved nationally by capitalist reform, as opposed to an international question in an international system, which requires the unity of a global proletariet against a global bourgeoisie.
>the bourgeoisie are pro-immigration. the unheard masses are anti-immigration. thats why any critic is immediately smeared by bourgeois spokespersons.The bourgeoisie are both, because the system necessitates both. It's ignorant to argue that there are no bourgeoisie that advocate for anti-immigrant policy, otherwise there would be no such policy argued for in government. What the masses have come to believe has little to do with the truth, otherwise you or I would be liberals, adopting a liberal framework of history and society, as this is what the masses believe. We are not tailists, we state clearly and openly the analysis available to us, and analysis built upon from Marx to Lenin to the various theorists of today who resist the cries of opportunists and "modernizers".
This is also historically ignorant and shows either youth or amnesia. When Europe and the various European bourgeoisie paid various Middle Eastern leaders in the 2000s to stop refugees from their wars in third world from crossing into the West, had them disappeared and jailed, was this a case of the bourgeoisie being "pro-immigration"? Was it pro-immigration when the various conservative and liberal parties of Europe, funded massively by the national bourgeoisie, stripped visas, denied asylum, and tightened up the borders during said conflicts? Is it pro-immigration when the various so called "pro-immigrant" parties of today use the same visa laws passed by "anti-immigrant" parties to string along immigrants and use their labour while under threat of deportation or expiration? Or do you only investigate history when convenient?
>inter-nationalism entails nations cooperating.Internationalism is both, as nations are not limited to states. Internationalism, as used by both Marx and Lenin, entails workers standing beside the struggle of other workers for emancipation, regardless of the origin of said workers.
>perhaps you fail to grasp the idea in the text that the lowering of the value of wages comes from the lowering of the standard of life itself. what good do higher wages offer if they are still worth less? The standard of life in the West steadily increased at the time, as Marx and Engels both noted later how colonialism provided a higher standard for the English workers that mollified him. Wages will always be worth less in the long run with the falling rate of profit, and with general price increases. Your statement makes no sense as well, as the lowering of the standard of living generally increases the purchasing power of the wage, so long as the wage itself stays the same. The low cost of places which maintain a low standard of living is why imperialism is so lucrative, the purchasing power of the imperialist bourgeoisie is so much higher and the potential rate of profit so much greater. The issue is that generally wages in places with a low standard of living are pushed low by the bourgeoisie as they take advantage of the lower cost of reproduction, not that a low standard of living creates low wages.
>the english working class suffer from the "savagery" of the irishman himself. that is expressed very clearly. and its funny that you are such a vulgar economist in this regard, that you think more money means more value. Where did I say more money equals more value? I use value as Marx uses it, not in whatever strange liberal way you are using it. Value is the socially necessary labour time around which the price of something fluctuates, and I did not bring that up. Nor did I bring up use-value.
>why is it the englishman's responsibility to correct the disposition of the irishman, and why does he have to suffer the evils of his class enemy in such a way? now, an irishman in ireland poses no antagonism; this is marx's meaning. if there is an irish nation itself, there may be irish labour, rather than merely immigrant labour.The Irishman is in no way the class enemy of the English worker, Marx and Engels state no such thing. The idea the proletariat is the class enemy of the proletariat is absurd and backwards. You are projecting your existing disposition against migrants onto Marx himself, as nowhere does he state that the working class struggle is only possible by ensuring that the Irishman is sent back to Ireland, that the Irishman constitutes some "antagonism". He and Engels later works are clear, that it is the failure of the English working class and it's incapabililty to work with the Irishman by means of its colonial "benefits" that turns any potential for revolutionary sentiment into mere radical liberalism or conservatism. Marx and Engels are relatively lax on the Irish migrant, particularly later on. Even when they see him as culturally backwards, they understand that as a consequence of his position, and that they are less "guilty" of revolutionary ineptitude and reactionary bourgeoisie sympathizing then many English workingman organizations. It's why they sympathized heavily with Fenian movement, and praised the revolutionary gall of the Irishman and the worker unity they pushed for. As Engels states in 1872:
<The Irish, who represent the most revolutionary element of the population, were not men to display such weakness. The committee unanimously decided to act as if it did not know of the existence of this regulation and to hold their meeting in defiance of the government’s decree.<This is the first time an Irish demonstration has been held in Hyde Park; it was very successful and even the London bourgeois press cannot deny this. It is also the first time the English and Irish sections of our population have united in friendship. These two elements of the working class, whose enmity towards each other was so much in the interests of the government and wealthy classes, are now offering one another the hand of friendship; this gratifying fact is due principally to the influence of the last General Council of the International,[307] which has always directed all its efforts to unite the workers of both peoples on a basis of complete equality. This meeting, of the 3rd November, will usher in a new era in the history of London’s working-class movement.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/11/17.htm#n307Now where in this do they ask the English proletariat to collaborate with the bourgeoisie, to argue for bourgeoisie policy, and state revolution to only be possible with the removal of the Irish migrant?
>he says the wage is objectively lowered in value by english labour's share woth the irishman. you are making shit up now.He states when discussing the bourgeoisification of the English working class that the benefits of colonialism has created a scenario where the monetary status of the English working class has mollified them. How would that be possible if their wages were perpetually in the gutter due to the Irishman?
>so national liberation for ireland doesnt actually apply to irishmen? good to know. you fail to answer this in the subsequent paragraph also. national liberation undoes the need for irish immigration, therefore reversing the movement of labour.National liberation may very well reduce migration, I never contested this. This does not "reverse" the movement of labour however. The Irishman in England, who have built lives and made generations upon the island, will not suddenly all disappear from it. When I speak of equivocation, I mean in terms of supporting and collaborating with the bourgeoisie to fight against the migrant laborer. This is not at all equivalent to fighting for the national liberation of Ireland.
>yes… and? i dont deny this, do i?You do, by means of advocacy for bourgeoisie collaboration and support for anti-migrant policies, playing into the manufactured false dicotomy of the bourgeoisie. If you truely wished to get to the heart of it, you would advocate for anti-imperialism with the migrant, not ineffectually fight against the migrant on behalf of bourgeoisie policy.
>marx and engels want to approach the cause of immigration itself. that is their systematic critique. its like when people say that there sould be no refugees in the west if it wasnt for the wars caused by the west itself; therefore, the influx of refugees and economic migrants must be an effect from a prior cause. marx and engels oppose the cause, and subsequent effect.They oppose the cause, but do not not care for "addressing" the effect, as the effect is already here. It is inept and ineffective to try and "fight" the migrant, as the migrant is not the enemy. Their larger analysis is that of capitalism, immigration is just one part of that, and not even the most important part to them. They are not making an analysis of capitalism so that they can better fight immigration, rather they make an analysis of immigration in their larger analysis of capitalism, noting it as an inevitable by product. It's like saying that they analyze capitalism so as to prevent the immiseration proletariat, so that the proletariet can continue as proles, but wealthier. It misses the depth of their analysis and makes it social democrat hogwash.
>and allowing millions of foreigners into his country which lower the standard of living and social contract is a "revolutionary" alternative?Who stated this to be a "revolutionary" alternative? I am not like you, I do not buy into or support the false dichotomy you enthusiastically indulge in. The foreigners are here, now what will you do? Will you work with them against capital, or will you ineffectually fight them into oblivion?
>marx and engels call this alternative a bourgeois plot set out by the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to gain more power. are you from the school of thought that if workers dont do what you like, they should be punished?Again, it's not a plot, it just is. It's a consequence of their actions elsewhere, and capitalism abhores to waste and opportunity to profit. It's no different than when the bourgeoisie creates the conditions for homelessness by landlording and retail speculation, then profit again from said reserve army of labour. Will you then work with the homeless, or support the bourgeoisie who once again profit in the removal of them? I'm not for "punishing" the working class, but I am not a tailist or an opportunist. Unlike you, my career is that of a tradesman. I am as critical of my colleagues as I am of you, because I do not patronizingly treat them like children whom exist to be appeased as opposed to being helped, even when that help is a bitter medicine and not a sweet.
>more pussyfooting and evasion. im fatigued in talking to people like you.In no way am I pussyfooting, I stated clearly the traditional Marxist position. You provide false dichotomies, and argue in terms that would only satisfy a social democrat. Address what I stated, because it is universally applicable beyond your hyper focus on migrants. If higher wages, as opposed to workers emancipation, is our focus, our greater "good", why not remove woman from the workforce? Why not liquidate every queer and non-white, and give the sum benefit to the white working class, who no longer have to compete with them? Why not support colonial policy, and have the slithering bourgeoisie "labour" governments give some portion of the gains to the social "good", even directly into the pockets of the worker themselves? Why not support every yellow union, every manner of program and labour cutter, every liberal that screams of the "middle class"? Is this a fight against capitalism, or to line your pockets, now and into the future, at the expense of all else?
>do you think im avoiding the responsibility of the bourgeoisie in this? how am i bourgeois when i am blaming the bourgeoisie for causing such chaos?You are bourgeoisie because your analysis and reasoning is bourgeoisie, and because you happily make demand and advocate a program to ally with one imperial bourgeoisie "camp" against the other, to the benefit of both. You do not work with the cards dealt to fight against the bourgeoisie, rather you opportunistically work with them under the illusion of one day obtaining better cards, and not even to fight for revolution, but to better benefit yourself. And if you come to respond by stating in some fashion:
<No, I am revolutionary! I do fight for the end capitalism!Then how brittle this must be, when you can't even swallow your own shallow particularism to work with the migrant against the oppressor of you both.
>>2322351>economic migrationdo you know the difference between empathy and sympathy? as i have already expressed, i have empathy for economic migrants, but not sympathy. that is to say, i understand their position, but i cant support it. if they are caught, justice has inevitably caught up to them, like with any criminal. what is the alternative? supporting economic migration, which you apparently refuse to do, so you are overtaken by all sides.
>But those migrants are as much labour as the local population, there use in capital no different then the local population in the mechanisms of capital itself.except that they will be more willing to accept lower wages, which is the plot of capital in its war against labour. did you see that trump is giving exception to low-paid migrants on farms in the US? the bourgeoisie actively support illegal immigration because it facilitates low wages, as a general trend - the same way marx and engels saw it in the 19th century.
>Is it pro-immigration when the various so called "pro-immigrant" parties of today use the same visa laws passed by "anti-immigrant" parties to string along immigrants and use their labour while under threat of deportation or expiration?YES. that is the entire point of importing immigrants. to further exploit labour.
>Internationalism is both, as nations are not limited to stateswhat defines a nation, then?
>The standard of life in the West steadily increased at the timein SPITE of its devaluation
>Wages will always be worth less in the long run with the falling rate of profit, and with general price increases😂😂 this is how i know youre ignorant. the lowering of the value of commodities to marx is in direct proportion to the output of use-values (i.e. "wealth"), so a lower rate of profit means more wealth (or as adam smith says, the rate of profit is highest in poor countries and lowest in rich countries). profit is antithetical to the rate of wages, since it is an extraction from potential wages. also, what trend makes prices go up except a greater rate of profit from a lower rate of production? you are describing opposite trends. a lower value means a lower price.
>The issue is that generally wages in places with a low standard of living are pushed low [.] not that a low standard of living creates low wages. marx and engels say the opposite, or do you think value is determined by rate of wages? the poorest areas are typically the least productive - thats how it goes.
>Where did I say more money equals more value?your argument is that the standard of living drops because the entitled english working class dont fight for higher wages - i say that this is immaterial to the value of the wage, which is not determined by its quantity, but its purchasing power.
>The Irishman is in no way the class enemy of the English worker, Marx and Engels state no such thing.>nowhere does he state that the working class struggle is only possible by ensuring that the Irishman is sent back to Irelandinterpret this for me:
<As to the Irish question….The way I shall put forward the matter next Tuesday is this: that quite apart from all phrases about "international" and "humane" justice for Ireland – which are to be taken for granted in the International Council – it is in the direct and absolute interest of the English working class to get rid of their present connection with Ireland. And this is my most complete conviction, and for reasons which in part I cannot tell the English workers themselves. For a long time I believed that it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working class ascendancy. I always expressed this point of view in the New York Tribune. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htm>How would that be possible if their wages were perpetually in the gutter due to the Irishman? so your claim is contradictory to what has been stated, that the irish did not lower wages? or that the english working class ought to suffer with a proportional loss in wages to house the irishman?
>This does not "reverse" the movement of labour however.why not? they were only forced out of their land because of its exploitation in the first place. this is the same issue of refugees. once war has ended, will they be returning home? if not, then they were never temporary guests, but potential settlers.
>You do, by means of [.] anti-migrant policiesthen i naturally ask you if these means one should be "pro" migration, and you refuse to answer it. thats why your charge against me is ineffectual, since you have no actual position.
>The foreigners are here, now what will you do? i cant do anything since its the ruling class who brought them here
>Will you then work with the homeless, or support the bourgeoisie who once again profit in the removal of them? how do i work with the homeless when all they want is my money? they have no political potential. also, i have helped homeless people, but then they ended up dying anyway. its not my job.
>Is this a fight against capitalism, or to line your pockets, now and into the future, at the expense of all else? every association you give for higher wages is negative, so i'll concude that you like lower wages for the selfish workers who just want to "line their own pockets".
>when you can't even swallow your own shallow particularism to work with the migrant against the oppressor of you both.how do i work with people who dont speak my language? you are living in a fantasy. they dont want my help either. they want a middle class lifestyle like everyone else. theyre not the revolutionary cannonfodder you expect them to be. how do you "organise" with our new arrivals?
>>2322631>do you know the difference between empathy and sympathy? as i have already expressed, i have empathy for economic migrants, but not sympathy. that is to say, i understand their position, but i cant support it. if they are caught, justice has inevitably caught up to them, like with any criminal. what is the alternative? supporting economic migration, which you apparently refuse to do, so you are overtaken by all sides.I care little if you "support" the reality of economic migrants, or your meaningless distinction between empathy or sympathy (which is merely a difference of understanding or pity), what I care for is your enthusiastic support of the bourgeoisie and their treatment of migrants and your delusional faith in liberal "justice". You refuse to understand my rejection of both positions, and that is to your own detriment. It's patently clear that both positions, that of pro-immigrant liberals speaking "highly" of migration in terms of filling undesirable jobs or of adding to the "economy", and that of anti-immigrant liberals who place the working class in conflict among itself so as to exploit both, are not that of a Marxist. I care little if that means I'm "overtaken" in this, if both paths are to a final ruin for the working class and chains both migrant and local to the fate of capitalism.
>except that they will be more willing to accept lower wages, which is the plot of capital in its war against labour. did you see that trump is giving exception to low-paid migrants on farms in the US? the bourgeoisie actively support illegal immigration because it facilitates low wages, as a general trend - the same way marx and engels saw it in the 19th century.Again, less a plot, and more not letting even the consequences of their actions be a missed opportunity for profit. You are making my argument for me as well, which is that anti-immigration rhetoric is ineffectual, it merely provides the tools to further exploit migrants by the visa and the "whip", and places the working class a whole into the hands of the bourgeoisie and their levers of control. Therefore, the only path forward that isn't ineptly allying oneself with the bourgeoisie in anti-immigrant policy, is to by necessity ally with the migrant and turn what the bourgeoisie would try to take advantage of against it. By uniting labour, by revolutionary union or otherwise, the bourgeoisie is stripped of its power to pit one worker against another, to even utilize a difference in wage. In an ironic twist, the emancipation of the migrant is the emancipation of the local worker, as when the migrant is provided the same and is incapable of being leveraged against, the bourgeoisie loses any possibility of leveraging against the local worker as well.
>YES. that is the entire point of importing immigrants. to further exploit labour.So you agree, bourgeoisie anti-immigration policy is ineffective and only exists in codependency with pro-immigrant policy, and that it traps the working class into a meaningless struggle of worker against worker?
>what defines a nation, then?You can Google this, a nation is a certain self-identifying collective of people who share some degree of features. The nation-state is a development out of this, with the state being based upon a certain nation or nations.
>in SPITE of its devaluationYou can't argue for "devaluation" when that devaluation has no real observable effect in regards to what we are discussing.
>😂😂 this is how i know youre ignorant. the lowering of the value of commodities to marx is in direct proportion to the output of use-values (i.e. "wealth"), so a lower rate of profit means more wealth (or as adam smith says, the rate of profit is highest in poor countries and lowest in rich countries). You were discussing buying power and wages. Wages in the country with the lowering rate of profit, ignoring all else, will inevitably necessitate the lowering of wages and the increase of "real prices" in relation to those wages. The prices may seemingly go down or even remain the same, but the capacity for the proletariat to purchase said goods in a capacity which maintains capitalist production will decrease, which will in turn push the bourgeoisie to counter this by lowering wages or laying off workers. Wealth has nothing to do with it, and this does not also stop spikes in prices while wages remain low.
>profit is antithetical to the rate of wages, since it is an extraction from potential wages. also, what trend makes prices go up except a greater rate of profit from a lower rate of production? you are describing opposite trends. a lower value means a lower price.Its relative real prices that increase. The bourgeoisie will also attempt price increases to offset and counter the falling rate of profit, same with wage reduction and layoffs.
>marx and engels say the opposite, or do you think value is determined by rate of wages? the poorest areas are typically the least productive - thats how it goes.Where does Marx and Engles states the opposite? Wages are the cost to reproduce the worker.
>your argument is that the standard of living drops because the entitled english working class dont fight for higher wages - I didn't say this, not in regards to how you refer to a drop in the standard of living relative to migrants.
>i say that this is immaterial to the value of the wage, which is not determined by its quantity, but its purchasing power.And again, your argument about purchasing power in nonsensical. A drop in the standard of living doesn't necessitate a reduction in the purchasing power of the wage, assuming the wage and prices stay the same.
>interpret this for me:<As to the Irish question….The way I shall put forward the matter next Tuesday is this: that quite apart from all phrases about "international" and "humane" justice for Ireland – which are to be taken for granted in the International Council – it is in the direct and absolute interest of the English working class to get rid of their present connection with Ireland. And this is my most complete conviction, and for reasons which in part I cannot tell the English workers themselves. For a long time I believed that it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working class ascendancy. I always expressed this point of view in the New York Tribune. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.I don't understand why you thought this was an argument, in no place does he state the need to send back the Irishman, only the need to free Ireland from England. This is done by both the Irish and English workers in Ireland, and the Irish and English workers in England. It's similar in prescription to what Lenin states workers in imperialist countries must do, and he too did not prescribe fighting against migrants.
>so your claim is contradictory to what has been stated, that the irish did not lower wages? or that the english working class ought to suffer with a proportional loss in wages to house the irishman?I'm saying that the later works of Engels and Marx show that this is in fact the opposite, in regards to the particular situation of the English and Irish as things developed.
>why not? they were only forced out of their land because of its exploitation in the first place. this is the same issue of refugees. once war has ended, will they be returning home? if not, then they were never temporary guests, but potential settlers.They aren't "settlers", you know the conotation of that term. People make lives in the places they move to. Some may go back, but many may not. Jamaicans moved into England before independence, but they didn't all leave after Jamaica gained it. Should they all be forced out?
>then i naturally ask you if these means one should be "pro" migration, and you refuse to answer it. thats why your charge against me is ineffectual, since you have no actual position.I do have one, that of the traditional Marxist position, of revolutionary unionization (and not yellow) unionization, and the unity of migrant and worker against the antagonizing methods of bourgeoisie. I reject the false liberal dicotomy, and work within conditions as they are against capitalism. I do not advocate "support" for the liberals of either camp, who exploit the worker either way by co-dependent means. Not a future of migrants as "toilet cleaners" or a future of migrants as manufactured "enemy", but a future in which the migrant is treated like me, paid like me, and is seen as worker like me. A future where neither of our fates are placed in the hands of bourgeoisie, but where we as a class take our fate into our own hands. The alternative is a mass of bodies, eternally heaped upon on another is a cycle of manufactured conflict until the day of our oblivion.
>i cant do anything since its the ruling class who brought them hereYou can do something, and you make my point. They are already here, that is something you can do nothing of. So what is the path forward? The answer is obvious, to work with them.
>how do i work with the homeless when all they want is my money? they have no political potential. also, i have helped homeless people, but then they ended up dying anyway. its not my job. If you can't even tolerate the idea of trying to work with the reserve army of labour towards revolutionary means, then the idea of revolution itself, a more daunting but necessary task, is far beyond your reach.
>every association you give for higher wages is negative, so i'll concude that you like lower wages for the selfish workers who just want to "line their own pockets".I see higher wages as a means towards further antagonization with the bourgeoisie, not as an end goal. Notice how the only way you can argue with me is to claim things I never say. You have to actively ignore the nuance of my position. It makes me empathize more with Lenin, as he had to deal with similar liberal false dichotomies in his discussions on imperialism.
>how do i work with people who dont speak my language?How do you talk with people who don't speak your social language? You learn it, or teach them yours.
>you are living in a fantasy. they dont want my help either. they want a middle class lifestyle like everyone else. Good, then they're just of the same difficulty and potential as everyone else. Or have you also given up on the non-migrant working class too? It's not about "want" or "preference", it's about necessity.
>theyre not the revolutionary cannonfodder you expect them to be. how do you "organise" with our new arrivals?Same way every other communist in history did. Same way Lenin spoke to two dozen different ethnicities of half a dozen different languages and inspired them to fight for a better future, despite being at each other's throats not even a decade before. Same way Marx inspired people he never even lived to see. By talking. By taking risk, failing, and taking risk again. By speaking of mutual interest, by sitting down with anyone who will bother to listen, by telling what you know to be true even when some might gawk and dismiss it, if only because one mother, or father, or child might hear and understand and see what your eyes see. Not because of fantasy and nativity, but because of necessity. Because it must be done if we are to survive. Because the alternative is the fate of the worker, migrant or local, being left in the hands of bourgeoisie, who drives us to damnation. Because we have a world to win, not a nation to settle for.
>>2325453>You refuse to understand my rejection of both positions, and that is to your own detrimentyou dont simply refuse two given positions, you fail to provide your own alternative, so at the moment, you profess to believe in nothing.
>it merely provides the tools to further exploit migrants by the visa what a shame! foreigners actually have to qualify their stay in a country.
>ally with the migrant and turn what the bourgeoisie would try to take advantage of against itand HOW do you do that without taking a pro-immigration position? see the issue?
>the emancipation of the migrant is the emancipation of the local workerand HOW is the migrant emancipated??
>So you agree, bourgeoisie anti-immigration policy is ineffectiveYES!!! you ignorant plonker! you think im some bloody farage fanboy or reform UK nonce? i brought up trump to say that the bourgeoisie is entirely selective in regards to immigration, because to them, its not a patriotic issue; the bourgeoisie have no nation. my alternative is to say that foreign capital gives a claim to foreign labour - therefore, the only way to legitimise an anti [ILLEGAL] immigration policy is to have a concept of the nation. in my previous laments, i see the way in which the british crown ammounts to a "tourist attraction"; a gift shop, and not a tradition. this is not a nation, but a commercial centre. i oppose this, but dont stoop to uncritical racism either. i dont just want a "white" capitalism, such as you accuse me of.
>a nation is a certain self-identifying collective of people who share some degree of featuresso if i "self-identify" as nigerian, i become nigerian? is this like gender identity?
>Wages in the country with the lowering rate of profit, ignoring all else, will inevitably necessitate the lowering of wages and the increase of "real prices" in relation to those wages.why? again, you entirely misunderstand. the lowering of the rate of profit is due to the advancement of productive techniques taken by a ratio of "constant capital" to "variable capital". marx describes this ratio as "the organic composition of capital". in simpler terms, the more automation means lower profits due to lower prices. a lowering of profit outside of these factors doesnt make sense, since the value (price) of goods for less developed sectors are higher, so profits are higher, relatively. thats why profits accumulate for a start-up company, then inevitably plateau, and finally decrease, based on its relative size.
>The prices may seemingly go down or even remain the same, but the capacity for the proletariat to purchase said goods in a capacity which maintains capitalist production will decreasewhy? this could only happen due to unemployment, but we have unemployment benefits, so purchase would continue, as a device to circulate profits back to capital. a capitalist would rather have potential customers than workers, thats why they automate labour. they cant automate exchange, however.
>A drop in the standard of living doesn't necessitate a reduction in the purchasing power of the wage, assuming the wage and prices stay the same. a lowering in the standard of living is either a decrease in wages or the raising of prices. thats why, as i said, the poorest areas (i.e. those with the lowest wages) are typically the least productive.
>in no place does he state the need to send back the Irishman, only the need to free Ireland from Englandand what is this spectre of ireland he's invoking? the presence in ireland is the english aristocracy. he also says that the removal of ireland is necessary for the "english working class" specifically.
>I'm saying that the later works of Engels and Marx show that this is in fact the oppositeso immigration raises wages? can you cite this source, please?
>People make lives in the places they move toyes, they settle in a territory.
>Jamaicans moved into England before independencethe big difference between our african and carribean immigrants from the 20th century is that they were subjects of the british empire, so had a claim for a right to stay in the homeland. this was a decree given during the dissolution of the empire, so i have zero issues with this. take the demographic statistics of 1999, and i am in complete alignment. the difference in the 21st century, is that in the past 25 years, those who illegally or falsely enter the country have no right of stay. we also see with the "boris wave" of the early 2020's, UNPRECEDENTED numbers. this is not a predictable trend or a "natural rate", then. how can it be defended? thats why people dont defend it, they just talk around it.
>Not a future of migrants as "toilet cleaners" or a future of migrants as manufactured "enemy", but a future in which the migrant is treated like me, paid like me, and is seen as worker like meis toilet cleaning a job below human dignity? (you are a tradesmen so you naturally look down on us wage slaves, i forgot). i always recall marx's comments on the "prostitution" of labour in his 1844 manuscripts. we need more toilet cleaners in fact. i was in the train station yesterday and it was absolutely abominable how terrible the public toilets are managed. i wish i could volunteer for an hour or two sorting it out for a bit of extra pay. also, "toilet cleaner" is more of an american example. its deliveroo drivers in the UK.
>manufactured conflict until the day of our oblivion. so its impossible that there is a natural or civic conflict between different people?
>They are already here, that is something you can do nothing of. So what is the path forward?i played ping pong with some migrants the other day and football with one the other week. i am not a revolutionary larper, but a civilian. i like to make small talk and see integration. my only goal is to have welcoming communities, so thats my meagre work. i gave a tenner to some palestinian girl. i gave £30 to a homeless man the other day so he could get a tent. thats my activity, but its not political, its civil. this is the difference i think. you are imagining a political struggle, but im not a vanguard party member, just a concerned citizen. maybe you dont get it because you think toilet cleaners are scum, but everyone has their own station in life. im not the next lenin, but maybe you can be.
>If you can't even tolerate the idea of trying to work with the reserve army of labour towards revolutionary means😂 what should i do? tell a homeless man about marx's capital? i help where i can, so dont presume political leadership over a fella who just wants to have a drink. thats why i ask homeless people if they want beer from the home bargains or tesco, cos thats reality on the ground level. what "revolutionary" organising do you do with the smackheads? 😂
>How do you talk with people who don't speak your social language? You learn it, or teach them yours. should i take a few year to learn arabic? 😂 if someone is in "england", shouldnt they speak "english"?
>Good, then they're just of the same difficulty and potential as everyone elseyes, theyre human beings, not political pawns.
>Because we have a world to win, not a nation to settle for.i dont know "the world", i know britain. i love britain and its people and its history. why is that a bad thing?
>>2325453>How do you talk with people who don't speak your social language? You learn it, or teach them yours. I work with a large number of immigrants and the issue is that most just don't want to learn English. They see no reason to do so. They only socialise within their ethnic group and live in essentially a parallel society by their own choice.
I'm not even going to address the point about "learning their language" because that makes no sense outside of maybe Wales where there is an official language other than English.
>>2326491the idea of the twee local baker is nice. the reality that they cost much more than lidl and - because they're run by some rando - are as much a social interaction as a commercial one, with all the potential awkwardness british people socially interacting entails, serve to put people off.
people want to live in a society where everyone else shops at the local baker so the highstreet is pretty, so that they can enjoy the discounts supermarkets offer. it's not an individual moral failing so much as one of the structural tyrannies of convenience.
>>2326605it's called a coordination problem
(although that's only a subset of the wider problem that nobody can avoid sounding insane advocating for
inconvenience.)
>>2334362do rightoids honestly believe that child trafficking in the UK has only been a problem since rotherham? don't you remember elm house? savile? prince andrew? operation ore?
>[WRT operation ore] Detective Chief Inspector Bob McLachlan, the former head of Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit, told the Sunday Herald, “the lack of urgency in making arrests will lead to suspects destroying evidence…before they are arrested.” McLachlan also told the Herald that claims made by police chiefs and the government that they are prioritizing pedophile crime are nothing but “smoke and mirrors.” The final line of the Sunday Herald article revealed that, according to police, there were enough “rich and famous Operation Ore suspects [to] fill newspaper front pages for an entire year.” According to The Register and the Sunday Times (which reportedly obtained, but did not publish, all 7,272 names), the list of suspects included “at least 20 senior executives,…services personnel from at least five military bases, GPs, university academics and civil servants.” Also on the list were a “famous newspaper columnist…along with a songwriter for a legendary pop band and a member of another chart-topping 1980s cult pop group, along with an official with the Church of England.” It is unlikely that any of those suspects, nor the “high-profile former Labour Cabinet minister” mentioned by the Sunday Herald, will ever be prosecuted. In August 2003, Scotland on Sunday reported that the Scottish arm of the “massive internet child pornography investigation Operation Ore has ended…without anybody being charged with sex abuse.” An unnamed Scottish police chief said that that outcome “would not trouble us if we thought that all the men who were looking at child porn on their computer were just sad creeps who did not pose a risk to the children in their lives, but that is not the conclusion that was drawn from every raid.” To the contrary, what investigators repeatedly encountered was evidence that suspects were engaged in the ongoing abuse of children. >>2334378>do rightoids honestly believe that child trafficking in the UK has only been a problem since rotherham?Nobody made that arguement. You're arguing with people who don't exist.
By all indications the grooming gangs scandal involved more people (including perps, victims and collaborators) than all of the sandals you mentioned put together. The scale is unprecedented and it was happening in dozens of towns across the country.
>>2334434>Yemeni getting 2% out of nowhereThe sample size is 42 so 2% would mean one Yemeni. It's possible he was just mates with the Pakis from the mosque or something.
>this is a class division in which upper class child trafficking are able to get away with it.If it was purely a class division why are Pakistanis so overrepresented? They make up 4% of the population for that region but 64% of those suspected of child sexual abuse.
>>2334392>Nobody made that arguement.except you when you started off claiming "durr do liberals and leftists think they could honestly keep this quiet?"
>The scale is unprecedented and it was happening in dozens of towns across the country.not even close lmao, operation ore was an extension of the FBI's operation avalanche, which started as an investigation of an international child-trafficking, snuff-film & CSAM distribution ring based in the U.S.
>In late March 2001, yet another interlinked, global pedophile network was exposed. That month, the Independent reported, “US authorities announced thearrest of four American citizens for involvement in an international child-porn ring called Blue Orchid.” The Los Angeles Times added further details: “the United States and Russia have shut down a Moscow-based international pornography ring that used the Internet to sell videotapes of children engaged in sexual acts.” These tapes were said to sell for “between $200 and $300.” As an Associated Press release revealed, “police seized some 600 videotapes, 200 digital video disks and many boxes of photographs.” Video duplication equipment and sales and shipping records were also seized, leading to “criminal inquiries in 24 nations…Many of the tapes were bought by people in the United States; others went to Germany, Britain, France, Denmark, China, Kuwait, Mexico and scores of other countries.” The Times reported that nine people had been arrested and fifteen search warrants had been issued in the case. The AP report noted that four of those arrests were in Russia, where two suspects, alas, had “committed suicide.” The ring was also said by the Times to offer what were cryptically referred to as “custom-made videos” for the hefty price of $5,000 each. The contents of these videos were not revealed, but it was revealed that the “prevalence of child pornography has increased dramatically with the growth of the Internet. There are approximately 100,000 web sites worldwide associated with child pornography.”
so, a MULTIPLE international child-trafficking rings spanning multiple countries, covered up by the highest echelons of the British state, the royalty, and the most affluential of our bourgeois, many suspects of whom that were identified by authorities were never sentenced or even named publically, happening since ATLEAST the early 70s involves more people that a single child trafficking front.
>involved more people than all of the sandals you mentioned put togetherthat's just an outright lie, these aren't just disconnected sandals happening in a vacuum, these sandals are indicative of a larger network at work. so instead of "dozens of towns across the country" try dozens of countries across the world.
unfortunately, while blaming the institutionalized paedophilia and child-trafficking in our country on the pakistanis would be an incredible boon to whatever ideological nonsense it is you believe in, that's not the case and the child-trafficking in this country is widespread and multinational by its nature and not limited to one specific cultural/ethnic group.
who do you think the main clientele of child traffickers are? i'll tell you; the same exact clientele that bought from the Landslide front, the Wonderland front, Epstein, Elm House, et al.
instead of basing your analysis of the child-trafficking and paedophilia problem in this country on vibes, a wikipedia article, and a pie-chart from a single inquiry, try and read these and gather a fuller picture.
deleted and reposted because i fucked the greentext formatting
>>2334492 (You) (Me) (I)
i fucked it again but cba to re-do it. whoops!
>>2334362>>2334378broke: its the pakis
woke: its the royals
bespoke: its the pakis and the royals
>>2338852Yes because the lawyer is supremely based.
fdpd
>>2339153They aren't… the graph just shows that they are more polarized. Also it lumps 16 - 34 year olds into the same bracked, if it were 16-25 I guarantee there would be almost nobody pro-abortion.
The real question is why are so many young (in the graph's category) men anti-abortion?
>>2339768Wearing a keffiyah means you want to RAPE CHILDREN didnt you hear???
Also tbh apparently all you need to be to face his "fury" is his misses or 70.
>>2339773youre acting like im defending charlie. he's a twat, as ive explained. 🙂
also, missus*
Unique IPs: 96