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.
>>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.
>>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.)
>>2314864
no 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 anyway
this 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.)
>>2314868
quote-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)
>>2314897
it'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.
>>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.>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>2318849
blair 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.
>>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 devaluation
You 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 here
You 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>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!
>>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?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/world/europe/pro-palestinian-activists-uk-air-base-raf-brize-norton.html
>In a startling breach of security, activists from a Pro-Palestinian group on Friday broke into Britain’s largest air force base and damaged two aircraft in what they said was a protest against the country’s military support for Israel.>The group, called Palestine Action, posted footage online [ https://x.com/Pal_action/status/1935926198304985569] showing two people using electric scooters to move around the base, R.A.F. Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, which is used for overseas operations.>In a statement, Palestine Action said that two activists had sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyagers and damaged them with crowbars, as well as spraying more red paint on the runway to “symbolize Palestinian bloodshed.” The group said that the two people who carried out the vandalism “managed to evade security and arrest” during the incursion in the early hours of Friday morning.>Thames Valley Police, the force responsible for the area, said in a statement that officers were working with the Ministry of Defense and with the R.A.F. to investigate. Inquiries “are ongoing to locate and arrest those responsible,” the force noted.>In a statement, the Ministry of Defense said, “We strongly condemn this vandalism of Royal Air Force assets. We are working closely with the police who are investigating.”>The ministry did not immediately respond to a question on whether it would open a review of security at the site.>Britain’s largest R.A.F. base, Brize Norton houses about 5,800 service personnel, 300 civilian staff members and 1,200 contractors.>According to its official website, the base “provides rapid global mobility in support of U.K. overseas operations and exercises,” as well as air-to-air support for jets, “both on operations and in support of U.K. homeland defense.” >>2342371ganges kahn?
is that like bibi stockholm?
>>2342374I meant דזונגיס חאן (Dzjengis Khan)
why would I care about those Jewish names
>>2342841The point I'm making is such a dramatic change should not be met with jubilation. After all, it is a solemn subject isn't it?
These changes don't come from the wishes of the common man, if you think otherwise then I say god bless you.
Is that fair enough for you? bleep bleep bloop?
>>2342865bless you
and I suppose you wholeheartedly accept brexit as a democratic endpoint?
I want you to say those words to me. Type them out. Use CAPS for me pleasure.
>>2342873*my
arrrrr jim lad
>>2342873Brexit has been a shitshow, but do you seriously believe Communism can be achieved within the structures of the EU?
Please, I want you to type it out for me in all caps. Tell me the EU would permit a communist revolution within it's borders.
>>2342348"to be banned" really understates it lol, they're being proscribed as a terrorist group.
>>2342778something can be true in principle while having disastrous consequences in practice.
"go campaign for disabled rights/financial support" is a meaningless platitude: this is not a democracy, your campaign will not do anything.
as a simple numbers game: there are more disabled people than people with chronic pain (perhaps tautologically, since chronic pain is surely a subset of disability), if you offer no support for people to live because it's expensive, while offering an out for them to die, you're really stacking the board in death's favor. depending on the exact ratios and just how cheeky doctors are willing to be, there's a non-zero chance more people
not in chronic pain are killed than people who
are in chronic pain.
people actively campaigned for safeguards in this bill and all such changes were rejected. ask yourself, why do you think that happened? do you really think that keir starmer, a man who thrives on human misery, sat here and wink-wink nudge-nudge oversaw a bill to liberalise the law and give people more control over their lives? are you that naive? the fucker couldn't even oversee real railway nationalisation.
>>2344142 (me)
nvm, I couldn't find it on youtube, but I found it on reddit.
>>2347083The Mosley Memorandum was an exceptionally good piece of economic policy which the Labour government should've adopted at the time. It was essentially what Tony Benn and the "hard left" of the party proposed with the 'Alternative Economic Strategy' in the 1970s, so Mosley was way ahead of the curve.
Unfortunately the MacDonald government of 1930 was just so cucked by monetarist brainworms that they rejected Mosley's ideas on the basis of them being too socialistic and radical.
>>2351233most MPs aren't grifters. they're useless and self-interested, yes, but they lack the talent for grifting. they're held up entirely by their party apparatus and they lack the imagination to come up with a swindle. they sit there and collect bribes, sure, but they're more like an inanimate sewage-pipe that transports bribes than the very animate, constantly-seeking-the-limelight grifter. The reduced scale and the increased personal effort (and talents to which it speaks) are what separate the grifter from the common MP or Lord, who's really more of a subsidy-junkie.
Galloway didn't start out a grifter, he became a grifter because he's an opportunist. (and an egotist in a way that would be detrimental to advancement within Labour) With the power of hindsight, being kicked out probably helped him too: remember that if he was a Labour MP he'd definitely have lost his seat in 2015, and without any other enterprises to fall back on.
>>2308311I haven't tried that lol, sounds like it would be hilarious. I don't know about any of that though - will need to do some reading
>>2351107>>2351378I suppose I didn't know his views, certainly the extent of them, prior to becoming friends. Originally became friendly through other friends etc.
https://communist.red/Seen posters around my town from these guys, does anyone know what the deal is with them? Do they glow?
I'm new to the whole socialism thing so I've no idea about any of this stuff.
>>2356629The biggest Trotskyist org in the UK
They're decent people, although they're primarily uni kids handing out newspapers in city centres, who'll mostly become DemSocs shortly after graduation
>>2358975British institutions and history are worthy of contempt. "Britain" doesn't even really have institutions, there's a disparate mish-mash of English institutions occasionally with a sycophantic Scottish wing, a token Welsh appendage grafted on after 1999, and a gaggle of freaks in Northern Ireland who're the only people who actually think of themselves as British. (they're not, they're either Northern Irish or Irish.)
Read Edgerton and tell me I'm wrong. (He is fond of Britain, but recognizes it as past tense. He doesn't quite go so far as I do to draw the conclusion that if Britain is a past-tense entity, attempts to pretend it's here in the present are contemptible.)
>>2359126>your sorti refuse to believe anyone but that guy specifically uses the term nubriton.
sounds like a novelty sex toy.
>>2358975What does that have to do with anything? Just look at how it was written.
>One of these is a network for members of a specific religion (won't mention which one)>members of my religion whom I disavow (if you disavow them you can just mention what that religion is)>they explicitly discuss how to change government policyIf this was real, they would've mentioned the organisation they're a part of and what religion these people are. Since they haven't, the only likely thing is that a chud wrote this as a gotcha. Basically they want people to talk in the comments about how bad it is that we have an ethnic fifth column (whether we do or not I'm not going to discuss) so they can post the replies elsewhere and say "look! the normies hate ethnic fifth columns but hate us when we say it's the jews/muslims and show "proof"! ".
It's 100% fake and gay
>>2359154>What does that have to do with anything?the premise of the post is that nubritons work together to undermine British institutions and implement their own version of it.
I would rely on leftyswine to police such things out of basic righteousness, but, y'know, you can't exactly be trusted when it comes to facing up to race related issues can you.
>>2359175>Novara StatusJoining the Greens
>Owen Jones Statuspicrel
>>2359181I'm not saying it isn't.
But what I would like one of you to acknowledge is that it might very well represent genuine issues held by people. Instead of just reeee-ing it down the toilet and putting your head in the sand. Face up to it.
>>2359184He would, I assume, describe himself as Welsh and English (though probably he would just use the term British)
We are in Britain now, so his heritage is divided between parts of Britain.
Would you like me to bring up the time the Welsh started burning down English holiday homes? No, I thought not.
>>2359199His heritage is British, so no he is not a nubriton.
I gave you too much credit
>a person with a divided identity as a result of a divided heritage (from somewhere other than here because that is where we are now) >>2359204>nubriton = ethnic minorities within BritainWait but this guy said
>>2359180 which is it?? I am so confused I stg 😭😭😭
>>2359216If it is dividing his identity, then yes.
I can't say I trust that old pedo to do what's right by this country. Stop being a pedantic ass and answer the question.
>>2359224by 'do right by' I mean:
to uphold the values, history and heritage of THIS country and its people.
>>2359228Do you think this man has a divided identity? Based on a divided heritage?
I would honestly answer 'no' to that, such is the overriding strength of his mullim heritage.
Do you see this as a problem?
>>2359240YES brudda it was bangin. Dappy should be PM tbh.
>>2359245Happy to answer questions about Dappy all the time.
>>2359249everyone gather round and watch this:
is criticizing israel antisemitic?
>>2359253What's that gotta do with Dappy?
But nah man FUCK Israel they're wastemans.
>>2359268the question is:
is criticizing israel antisemitic?
>>2359281Thanks
We're one step closer.
Why do you think the mop headed twat in this video
>>2344754 avoided saying that?
>>2359283Does that influence extend to protecting other people? (shortcut: yes)
which people?
Nubritons.
>>2358602What pro Palestine work do civil servants ever do??
But it's probably a fake post anyways.
>>2359293most aren't, or simply don't care.
Most israelis are pro nubritons though. Weird you might think?
A divided society is a weak society. We can't decide what a woman is, or indeed if it is wrong to have 4 of them as wives. It's situations like that where the unscrupulous can thrive, and who more so I ask?
>>2359294https://x.com/mythoyookay?lang=en-GBI think I found what it means, some weirdo far right shit
>>2359295But there were plenty of strong multi ethnic/religious countries in history
>>2359276Personally i'd go for the Nubitron 3000. It's rechargeable and comes with a discreet charging station which makes it look indistinguishable from miscellaneous toiletries.
Oh, make sure it's the 3000 Classic and not the Nubitron 3000 XC100 because the latter is an off-brand made out of poor quality plastics and is not certified.
>>2359296>I think I found what it means, some weirdo far right shitA lot of this of this is just quite nice, wholesome content except the guy posting it is inexplicably seething.
All those flavours and salt was chosen, or something.
>>2359301Stop vaguebooking
>>2359309Honestly I kind of feel bad for these people, so much crying over something so pointless
>>2359329I guess many were since having different ethnic groups was often through conquest but I don't think all
>>2359159the question becomes redundant if category errors are involved. all of the key nouns become meaningless: there are no british institutions, there is no british history (except insofar as britain itself is a historical category - carthage is part of history, but there is no carthaginian history in the absence of carthage.), and there are no "nubritons".
your question, correctly parsed, becomes:
you think NULL have anything but contempt for NULL and NULL?the closest to an answer i can give you is:
syntax error on line 1.
>>2359338Not always, not all multi ethnic countries needed 'suppression' like that when the different groups were treated equitably
>>2359347Yeah. It sucks all around I guess
>>2359225this country has no values, heritage, or history. even setting aside that it's an austria-hungary style relic completely unsuited to the modern world, every attempt to define british values devolves into complete and utter farce.
the purported values of this purported "country" (immigrants pay attention, this is on the test!) are "democracy (done better by literally every first world nation), the rule of law (all-but-ibid, we're as crooked as the italians but much quieter), individual liberty (got a license for that? hope you've not been throwing any paint…) , mutual respect (ha!), and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs (your prejudices right now speak to the fact that this is, in fact, incredibly "un-british")"
>>2359345Wait. does OP anon think it is said 'Nubriton' like 'Written', not 'Louis Vuitton'?
No wonder he is so confused all of the time.
>>2359349Trvthnvke
I think the current British civic identity is pretty much just a holdover of the British empire, since it emphasises loyalty to the crown (or the British state in general), and a lot of the justification for the "multiculturalism" is just the fact that we used to have an empire, and that immigrants from commonwealth countries are more likely to assimilate because they were subjects of the empire. English independence is the way forward.
>>2359348>Not always, not all multi ethnic countries needed 'suppression' like that when the different groups were treated equitablyHow many examples are there of that actually happening though? I feel like it'd be very hard for that to actually happen, because some people do just tend to be more ethnocentric than others.
>>2359432must protect the eternal victims.
Does this surprise you in the least?
Is the BBC an institution?
>>2359349of course it does ffs
get a grip you fanny
>>2359330>Stop vaguebookingWhat would you like me to explain?
I can only be so blunt.
>>2359473*Duuurrr define foreign*
That's a NULL post and must be disregarded
>>2307088How's life in britland? Has fucking over transhumanists improved the lives of the average bonglander and sheep shagger? I don't keep up that much. Is the government still doing neoliberal bullshit?
T. American transhumanister
>>2359481Britain has been a dystopia since the 70s, with only a small sliver of hope under Blair, who promptly threw any chance of being a good PM away.
Still love my country though.
>>2359483>who promptly threw any chance of being a good PM away.yeah by being a bad PM.
His idea, among others, was to get 50% of young people hooked up to the money lenders before they even enter the job market. Before they even take on a mortgage. Currently the repayment span will have the student loans company rifling through your paypacket until you are 60 years old.
hey, Brits. How are you coping that your new MI6 intelligence chief boss is the grand daughter of a literal nazi? alias "the butcher".
prepared to integrate nazism strongly into your society?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Metreweli>>2359542>how does it keep happening to me???must be everyone else that's wrong again eh?
yeah must be that.
>>2359542Bob Vylan is often described as a grime-punk fusion duo.
They address themes of leftist/socialist politics, wealth redistribution, racism, police brutality, veganism, Palestinian and Irish liberation.
>>2359568>>2359506Its harder to access trans healthcare or to change legal documents in the UK than basically any other state in Western Europe or South America.
Places like Pakistan have self ID at this point which the the UK sees as some major threat to civilisation
The government has said male officers can grope and strip search trans women who have had bottom surgery and changed legal gender
Every news rag has anti-trans articles on the majority of days of the week
JK Rowling said cis men should patrol women's bathrooms and violently assault trans women inside them and the establishment ignores it or cheers
The Cass review has been debunked as anti-scientific junk by the medical establishments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
The recent repeal of trans rights by the courts was undertaken by a judge with links to hardline evangelical Christian groups and who refuse to meet with or speak to a single trans person or trans supporting org
The leader of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner who is in charge of dictating policy has had most of her staff quit due to her anti-LGBT views and she admitted in an interview that her opposition to trans rights goes against the science but is still good because it's based on her Islamic beliefs.
>>2359572Rape
Pillage
Monarchy
Smugness
>>2359572fuck off
how about that?
Tell you what, write down a bunch of things you dislike about British values, and then tell yourself "if there are distinct things I dislike about British culture then it stands to reason there are things I dislike about other people's and cultures too"
>>2359592You mean like jeremy clarshart?
A lot of people like him though, you know people are allowed to like things that you don't?
>>2359576Great counterargument with many examples.
This is a country where our "human rights commissioner" tells people they need to accept a loss of rights, where our supreme court randomly renders the gender recognition act meaningless based on a spurious interpretation of the equality act which its authors could not possibly have intended, where similar shitehousing took place over Scotland's gender recognition reform, where the press is overwhelmingly anti-trans, and, most notably, where trans healthcare is effectively non-existent. I have been on a waiting list for 5 years and got sweet fuck all. That's keeping it brief.
>>2359584We need to stay and keep fighting. Not everyone can run. We have a job to do here.
>>2359588Die you British colonizer. We need sniper zones all across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to deal with monarchist army scum like you.
>>2359645WHEN I SAY TWO TIER
YOU SAY KEiR
TWO TIER
…
>>2359706oh it's got to be unique now does it?
The end of this discussion is that there is nothing unique about any culture. So fuck it all? Is that where you want to go with this? Bit of a miserable end to it don't you think?
>>2359631None of these are "values", this is arguably worse than the official list of non-british non-values.
>Supporting the underdogThe closest to a value, not unique, very common.
>summer holidaysAlmost universal, not a value.
>Putting up with changeable weatherA cultural trait to the point of cliche, but not a value. Frankly, a tautological one: how do you live here and not put up with the weather? If you can't put up with it, you don't live here. The Germans put up with German weather, the Hawaiians with Hawaiian weather, and the British with (ugh! Typical!) British weather.
>talking about the fucking weatherActivity, not a value.
>Sharing ideas over a drinkActivity, not a value, not uniquely British
>inventing thingsActivity, not a value, not uniquely British.
>curtain twitchingActivity, not a value
>readingActivity, not a value, not uniquely British and indeed if this thread is much to go by, fairly uncommon in Britain. Not something we particularly culturally value either - frankly yanks seem to put more stock in the magical power of books.
>>2359349>this country has no values, heritage, or historyerm…
what? 😂
Re: the new head of mi6
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/links-6-18-2025.html#comment-4231372
<Colonel Smithers June 18, 2025 at 7:29 am >Thank you, Yves.
>Further to the links about MI6 and Canuckistan, please let me recount a chat with dad yesterday night.
>Some readers may recall my mentions of dad working in Saudi Arabia.
>I mentioned the new head of MI6, Blaise Metreveli. That sparked an anecdote. Dad worked in / from Riyadh from late 1992 to early 2015, including at the Armed Forces Hospital. Some years before his arrival, a Metreveli ran and taught radiology there and around the region, not just the kingdom. The professor returned from Hong Kong and London from time to time to lecture in the 1990s and noughties.
>Before the radiologist introduced himself, dad thought he may be of Italian origin. He said he was of Ukrainian origin. However, veterans / older colleagues in Riyadh also remembered him as using the surname Borkovski and saying he was of Polish origin.
>That professor appears to be the father of the chief spook.
>It’s interesting that Yves mentions an organisation in decline when a woman is appointed or runs. That was said a few weeks ago with regard to Kemi Badenoch and the Tories. The glass cliff was used to describe.
<Revenant June 18, 2025 at 8:52 am
>Aye, good to have this confirmed from personal history. It matches the Lord Bebo post.
<“She’s not British (or Georgian as her last name) by origin, she’s from Hong Kong. Her dad, after serving in the British army, was head of the radiology department at the local university, CUHK – here’s a mention in his scientific papers, for example.
<And he’s not Metreveli, he’s Konstantin Dobrovolsky, the naturalization record is available, page 9354, the very top. Before naturalization, her ancestors had a Nansen passport, which they received for taking valuables out of the USSR.
<In general, it’s very clear who and against whom they will work, according to tradition. Congratulations on your appointment, Bella Konstantinovna Dobrovolskaya.”https://nitter.poast.org/MyLordBebo/status/1934692730262741274#m
>It is worrying that she has Ukrainian antecedents rather than Russian. It suggests the UK is going the way of the Vindmans, Nulands and Freelands. As I wrote before, when you know the background and you look at her photograph, shes a beautiful killer Natasha….>>2359749I heard of an old Welsh custom of leaving both the front and back doors of a house open at new years, to let bad spirits pass through.
These are the things. Most have already been lost, but it's completely wrong to be so loathing of our own journey to this point.
>>2359743It doesn't have to be unique, but where the fuck are you comparing it to that doesn't have summer holidays? Antarctica?
If you're talking vague generalities you can say Brits are more introverted than yanks and more extroverted than Finns and it's not pure nonsense, but values are something more than that: purported Australian egalitarianism is a value, American rugged individualism is a value, Other countries could also claim those things, but they are possible values. Britain - really, Scotland and England and the rest - doesn't have a national idea built on values, because it's the bastard result of an ancient monarchy, not a country founded on a purported set of ideals (US, Australia), not a post-revolutionary country (France, China) and not defined against its own warmongering past (Germany). Scotland vaguely tries to set up the idea it can be a normal little country, that's their attempt at a national idea, but England ("Britain") struggles woefully. A past, a glorious, shameful, glorious past, sure, but no future. No value and no values.
>>2359807done it myself look
>categorizeis a yankism
>>2359977remember eurovision?
everyone's got a thumb up the arse
>>2359983*repost
why do migrants come here bud?
just for the money I spose is it?
bit of an awkward one to face up to isn't it. If there is nothing to integrate with, then why is it a problem?
>>2360022I didn't read it
I don't really care what the publication is.
It's an online opinion piece claiming Britain has no values, like I said, fuck yourself with it.
>>2360024blah blah blah
let's just beg to differ on that one. The number of times I get told to read unkle karl's bumper book of hogwash says otherwise.
>>2360024I got a text from Amazon informing me that a delivery was due, and that I should lock my pets away.
Now.
Why do you think that struck me as interesting? Be honest.
>>2360048I'm. not. reading.
Your fucking propaganda shite
OKAY?
>>2361090It has some strong themes of national spirit, though, The Great Escape and so on. I'd say it was very emotive of our national identity.
Of course these days one of the chickens would likely have a turban on, what is the significance of that do you think?
our "national" identity was invented by Labour in 1945 because we'd mortgaged off the empire and needed to re-design the country as a viable national economy. all the postwar nationalisations had basically fuck-all to do with socialism and everything to do with "the private sector are incompetent and imperially integrated in ways that will slow down the pivot to making sure the amount of goods entering this island more or less equal the amount of goods leaving it", and for all the hype around the NHS (the last remaining institution of the former "British nation", hence the blowjobs and the constant attempts to kill it), we spent more on warfare than on welfare (taken broadly, including health and education) until well into the Wilson era. Britain became a coherent national economy and remained so until the 1980s. (even the SNP surge of the 1970s suddenly makes sense in this light: North Sea Oil suddenly offered a potential alternative future for a Scottish national economy. That was ultimately squandered, but ultimately rebounded because by 2007 there was no national economy to speak of "how does Scotland exist outside the British economy" is a nonsense question - there is no British economy, just a global economy, and Scotland's already part of it.)
Thatcher took an island self sufficient in agriculture and about to be self-sufficient in energy and turned it into nothing. Even the once in all-history windfall of North Sea Oil was used purely to fund the destruction of the national economy. As good materialists, good Marxists, I'm sure you all know how down-stream from economics so many superstructural forces are. It does not take a genius to calculate that when you destroy the British economy, fragmenting it into a rich City and a bunch of poor ex-industrial regions, the British nation goes with it. You may say: "oh, but deindustrialisation happened everywhere!" as a cheap counterargument, but consider that Britain is not a "natural" nation, it is 3-5 nations wearing a trench coat. If a United Europe is seen as some kind of neoliberal abomination overlayed on the old Europe, Britain is some kind of former-socdem abomination overlayed on the old British Isles segment of the British Empire.
None of this, in theory, means there cannot be a British nation again. You can create and destroy nations on a whim if you're good at it - what the fuck is a Singaporean? An American? Even the Taiwanese are giving it a good go - But you can't just keep on trucking like nothing has happened after taking a mortal wound like Britain did. Britain is an ex-nation, if you attempt to just bluff as though a national identity already exists you are setting yourself up for ridicule (Gordon Brown - bless his heart - tried!). Only a certain sub-set of English and a chunk of immigrants (how ironic) truthfully think of themselves as British, and it's more a statement of arrogance - of forgetting the other nations exist and treating the terms as synonyms - than of real, felt identity. To their ears "British" is just the respectable middle class way of saying you're English. The celtic periphery is useful only insofar as it lets them ignore the lower-class scum people who really are their countrymen.
(You can also track the decline by watching the disappearing spine of Scottish Unionists, who've gone from standing up for Scottish particularism within Britain to standing up for England's right to crush Scotland because it's bigger, but that's another story.)
>>2361978Do you think it's a coincidence that Churchill spoke so often of England? Did he just prefer the "d" sound to the "n" sound, perhaps? Or do you think he regarded himself as British imperially, and English nationally?
You're the one who wants to wash away thousands of years of messy history and contested identity (did Scots feel "British" when they rioted and burned copies of the treaty of union on finding out their ruling class had sold them out? Did the Welsh feel "British" when conquered? When are the Irish coming back, since surely, they too are just wavering Brits waiting to return to the fold..?) to replace it with some whig nonsense where King Arthur regarded himself as basically the same thing as Charles III.
>>2361976>You can create and destroy nations on a whim if you're good at it soooooo
Africa then? I guess they just don't wanna
>>2361991Why are you obsessing over that half jew?
>Do you think it's a coincidence that Churchill spoke so often of England?no, most people in the U.K at the time were English, like 90+% of them.
History is always deployed in service of the present. If by some act of god you had a socialist Britain, it would pick and choose the best moments from thousands of years of murdering feudal repression and brutal aristocratic theft to show precedent for itself and underscore what it values.
>>2361992Mostly an economic problem - just like Britain, without a coherent national economy it's difficult to have a nation. That said they've actually succeeded reasonably well in some senses: Africa doesn't have many wars that've resulted in changed borders, which is pretty fucking impressive when you contrast Europe. (Who gives a fuck what side of Charlemagne's family Alsace-Lorraine belongs to anyway?)
>>2361995And what of the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish? Remember: we are speaking here of
Britain, not England. If Churchill - and Labour - are to
speak for England then why should we not draw the rational inference: they were English, they were speaking for England, and "Britain" as a damp island nation off the coast of France had yet to really be invented.
(I mean remember, at this time the Scottish Self Government Party - one of two parties that'd become the SNP - just wanted Scotland to be a separate dominion like Canada or Australia or New Zealand, while being perfectly at ease with being British imperially. Remember also, at this time, that NI was a weird case with its own parliament.)
I'm confident that you're English, that your feelings for Britain are really feelings for England, and that your main grievance if the peripheral parts of this island fucked off would be that it made the map uglier and made England look small on the world stage. If they were all widely loathed little countries and their departure would make England look better, you'd be all for it.
>>2361976>britain is oriented around the post-war mythi completely agree, but its not just britain, its the whole western world. thats why "nazi" is synonymous with "satan" in today's "secular" landscape. only nazis commit war crimes; the allies perform their duty (70 million dead europeans later). we support nazi death cultists in ukraine, but dont let that distract you either…
>thatchershe didnt just financialise our national assets but also sold off our social housing to estate agencies, leaving us as feudal dependents to private speculation.
>national identityit is true that as things stand, there is no coherent national identity, because we have no national basis of production. the error of the right is in thinking you can expel foreign labour while importing foreign capital. the only national strategy is re-industrialisation, self-sufficiency and internal markets therefore. there is no MP which stands for this however.
Roll up Roll up
Any takers
>>2361953some government statistics:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2024/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk>Between 2004 and 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, since the second half of 2021, there has been a noticeable increase, reaching a peak of almost 103,000 in the year ending March 2023.>Since 2020, there has been an increase in people arriving in the UK without leave to enter via small boats across the English Channel. Almost all small boat arrivals claim asylum (99% in the year ending September 2024). As shown in Figure 1, 28,050 people claiming asylum in the year ending September 2024 had arrived on a small boat (28% of the total). The remaining claimants will have entered either through other irregular routes (such as lorries or shipping containers); through the common travel area without valid permission to enter; or through regular routes with either valid leave to enter (such as using a visa) or using fraudulent documents. Internally matched data for asylum claims suggests that around 20% of people claiming asylum in 2023 held a valid visa within 7 days of lodging an asylum claim.>Albanian nationals claiming asylum more than tripled (+259%) between the year ending September 2021 and the year ending September 2022, due to a high number of Albanian small boat arrivals in the summer of 2022.>70% of people claiming asylum in the year ending September 2024 were male.>>2362075>refugeesalbanian refugees..?
<Albanian nationals claiming asylum more than tripled (+259%) between the year ending September 2021 and the year ending September 2022, due to a high number of Albanian small boat arrivals in the summer of 2022.a war must have broken out in eastern europe.
>>2362077The CPINS indicate that a large proportion of asylum applications from Albania will be made on the basis of being a victim of trafficking or blood feud, being targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, or domestic violence (the fifth relates to the extent to which those seeking protection can rely on the Albanian state to help them). This is supported by the experience of those working with Albanian asylum seekers.
Trafficking is a significant issue affecting those seeking asylum from Albania. Some young people are trafficked internally within Albania, and then out of the country into mainland Europe or the UK. The reasons for this may relate to sexual, criminal or labour exploitation, or result from family debt to informal lenders linked to organised crime. Other young people seeking to flee serious harm in Albania fall into the control of trafficking gangs as the only route out of Albania to safety, or as they travel alone through Europe to seek asylum.
Some young people find themselves in debt-bondage situations where they are informed by the gang that smuggled them to the UK that they must work to repay the cost of their journey to the UK. Children and young people affected by poverty and other vulnerabilities may be at particular risk of this form of harm[4].
Although much evidence has been provided to show how women are at risk from this form of crime, organisations working on the ground say that boys and young men are also at risk, and that this is under-recognised due to stigma and lack of recognition of male vulnerability to trafficking.
The evidence underpinning the government’s own country guidance on trafficking of boys and young men clearly indicates the risk they face[5], and this is supported by the fact that Albanian boys and men have been recognised as genuine victims of trafficking under the UK National Referral Mechanism for the protection of victims of modern slavery at almost the same rate as females[6].
>>2362079>The CPINS indicate that a large proportion of asylum applications from Albania will be made on the basis of being a victim of traffickinghttps://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/<In 2022, 12% of Albanian citizens arriving via small boat were referred to the UK’s modern slavery system.so not exactly a "large proportion". also, could i get the numbers you acquired from a suitable source, please?
>small boats because of a lack of legal entry>Other young people seeking to flee serious harm in Albania fall into the control of trafficking gangs as the only route out of Albania to safety, or as they travel alone through Europe to seek asylum.yet if we see these statistics:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/<In 2022, the UK received more Albanian asylum applicants than other European countries (Figure 2). Most EU countries received fewer than 20 Albanians claiming asylum in both 2021 and 2022. The rise in Albanian asylum seekers to the UK is thus unusual when compared to the experience of EU member states.we see that asylum is not claimed in the first safe country they arrive in, but they are purposrfully going to the UK. why is that? is it because we are the safest country in europe, or something else? we also see many small boats coming from france into britain. why would refugees quickly flee france for britain?
>>2362116france: 6,735
UK: 15,925
why do you think there is a disparity?
>>2362125looking at the charts abd the claims,
there are 27 EU member countries
and 13 of them took in more than 20 Albanians.
So the statement is true.
>>2362141i do not regard myself as being fleeced. the asylum budget is a small part of our minuscule overseas-development-aid budget (yes, we really do fraudulently consider asylum payments to be "development assistance") and it halved between 2023 and 2024. we spend about £1,200 billion and of that, 2 billion goes to asylum seekers. (and, for scale, about 1 billion goes on the scottish government blundering a regional ferry contract i doubt you've heard of.)
>>2362142i was surprised someone didn't go with that, the idiot pedant option. the purpose of highlighting that "Most EU countries received fewer than 20 Albanians" is to make it seem like everyone else is taking 20 and we're taking 15k, when the reality is that the bigger countries are taking double-digit figures, nobody gives a fuck that luxembourg and san marino aren't taking that many, and it's hardly a shock that no albanians want to live in fucking finland. that disingenuous implication collapses if you include a chart showing that france are taking numbers of roughly the same magnitude. the lying i can take, but not the incompetence.
>>2362145the status quo
is constantly seething about refugees. keir starmer doesn't have a good word to say for them, his predicessor Blair used to coordinate headlines about cracking down on them with The Sun newspaper. i'm not some bleeding heart - i don't give a fuck. if truckload after truckload of albanian mafia are pouring into this country to steal and swindle and turn into gypsies and occupy the local park pissing off homeowners who were just about to sell and now have to wait for them to fuck off, i do not care, it wouldn't add up to the criminality and the waste and the personally-insulting incompetence exuded by the average MP.
>>2362160the graphics are in support of his claim.
You glibly dismissed his claim
>if you're going to try and slip a dodgy implication past the reader, you can't undercut it in the pictures. the pictures support the claim. Take it back.
>>2362164Heard you want your dignity back?
Shut the fuck up
>>2362155>i do not regard myself as being fleeced>2 billion goes to asylum seekersso your internal feelings contradict external reality? as expected. this is not your personal error though, but the nature of epistemology. empirical reality can contradict statistical reality for example, but when statistics come in, we must conform ourselves to the higher truth. for example, an average fella might not experience climate change directly, but when statistically modeled, the facts displays a higher reality of global warming. only lower life forms lack the mode of abstraction so as to be unable to accept statistics.
>Most EU countries received fewer than 20 Albanians" is to make it seem like everyone else is taking 20 and we're taking 15k, when the reality is that the bigger countries are taking double-digit figuresdouble digits vastly differ from pentuple digit figures. and is britain one of the "bigger" countries in europe? it has the biggest purse, which is what you are avoiding saying for some reason.
>france are taking numbers of roughly the same magnitude.😂😂😂 we are taking over DOUBLE the amount of france. do you not know basic arithmetic? ill refresh your memory:
france: 6,735
UK: 15,925
UK is taking around 236% more albanians than france and over 600% more than germany. these countries are bigger than the UK, so whats going on here?
>the status quo is constantly seething about refugees. keir starmer doesn't have a good word to say for themdidnt you see the recent news that he has entirely backtracked on his anti-immigrant comments?
>i'm not some bleeding heart - i don't give a fuck.yes, you dont care about this country. you have already established this.
>if pakistani grooming gangs were raping young english girls i wouldnt careyes, we know, mate. keep your head in the sand, yeah?
>it wouldn't add up to the criminality and the waste and the personally-insulting incompetence exuded by the average MP.i agree. imprison parliament and the deport the illegal immigrants. deal?
>>2362197you print money by creating a deficit, which is paid for by taxes. if you dont tax, you create inflation, whuch as keynes confers, is just another form of taxation.
>>2362195right, so british resources, or british labour.
Unique IPs: 142