Showing posts with label Sinn Fein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sinn Fein. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

QUEEN OF ENGLAND ORDERS SINN FEIN MEET PRINCE

SEE BOTTOM STORY FOR BACKGROUND


Queen insisted on Prince Charles meeting Sinn Fein chief Gerry Adams during Ireland visit




The body of Lord Mountbatten is brought ashore




BY STEVEN ALEXANDER – 19 MAY 2015
A meeting in the Republic between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams today is only going ahead because the Queen insisted, the Belfast Telegraph can reveal.


The main political parties in the Republic had strongly objected to the behind-closed-doors meeting on the campus of the National University of Ireland, Galway.


But they were forced to back down at the 11th hour after Buckingham Palace officials insisted that it went ahead.


One senior London source familiar with the negotiations said: "The resistance of the southern Irish Government was eventually broken by the enthusiastic support of the Queen and Prince Charles.








A meeting in the Republic between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams today is only going ahead because the Queen insisted

"The other party leaders will get a private five-minute meeting to provide political cover."

The historic meeting, which also involves Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, will be held away from cameras, making a handshake more likely between the republican leader and the royal whose favourite uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten was blown up by the IRA.

With Dail elections to take place next year, and TDs concerned about Sinn Fein 'hijacking' Easter Rising centenary events, the parties in Dublin had fiercely opposed Mr Adams being portrayed as a peacemaker in the south.

However, sources said that after her groundbreaking handshake with former IRA commander Mr McGuinness at Belfast's Lyric Theatre in 2011, the Queen wanted to make another political gesture. A Buckingham Palace source said: "The past is the past. It is time to move forward."

And Sinn Fein chairman Declan Kearney said: "This was agreed to promote the process of resolving past injustices and promoting reconciliation and healing."

The meeting with Mr Adams comes ahead of a visit to the Sligo site of his great-uncle's murder and is widely seen as the next phase in ever deepening relations, friendships and bonds between the UK and Ireland.


Paul Maxwell with his sister Lisa, who was murdered with Lord Louis Mountbatten by an IRA bomb while sailing near his holiday home in County Sligo, Ireland, on 27th August, 1979




Charles, who will be accompanied by wife Camilla on his first official visit to Ireland in 13 years, will make an emotional trip to Mullaghmore tomorrow where 79-year-old Mountbatten was killed in a 1979 IRA bomb attack as he set off in a boat with others to check lobster pots.


The royal couple will arrive in Northern Ireland on Thursday.


A spokesman for the Queen said: "As with all official overseas visits undertaken by Members of the Royal Family, The Queen was consulted, but the programme was drawn up on the advice of Government".


Prince Philip: Is this the sickest man in the UK?



November 14, 2012

Respectful: Britain’s Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh visits the Field of Remembrance in the grounds of Westminster Abbey in central London on Thursday



Look at the photograph below? This picture will fill Millions of Brits with pride, nostalgia and patronism. Women, old and young will inevitably coo. Men, no doubt with a look of steely determination on their faces will give a quick nod at the photo and say to themselves; “Yes mate, you know”. I look at it and want to wring the hypocrites scrawny neck. The mere sight of him makes me want to puke.


You will not spot a single tear in this abomination’s eye. And for the Daily Mail newspaper and no doubt the vast majority of others to even suggest it, is tantamount to fraud. Worse still, it officially costs the tax payer nearly half a million pound a year to view propaganda like this. Unofficially, the true cost is in the millions.


You have no idea how hard I find it to write about The Duck of Edinburgh and his family of parasitic in-breeds without descending into a torrent of foul mouthed abuse.


Strange, that I cannot recall the old fart, pictured here all dressed up in his sailor suit so as to con the gullible nation into thinking he is some kind of battled hardened war hero, doing the same last year. Well certainly not with the same amount of press exposure as we see in the Daily Mail today. I may be wrong of course, but I doubt it.


In truth this is nothing more than a fake photo opportunity, staged by a nervous Royal family, who are acutely aware that if they are not very careful, their house of cards could quickly come tumbling down right about now. In fact, there is as much sincerity on show as there are tears in the perverted old git’s eyes. Cry for our heroic war dead? Don’t make me laugh. The old pervert is doing nothing more than trying to get the nation on side before the truth comes out about him and his odious family.


Why on Earth would the Lizard looking old bastard cry for our war dead? If he was going to cry for any war dead, it would be those who spoke German, not English. Not that he would do. The Duck of Edinburgh along with the other Royal Monsters despise us.





They despise all commoners, whatever their nationality, however they die. We are nothing more than an irritation to be endured while they fleece us for all they can get. Why would the man… I use the term very loosely, shed a tear when the people he is pretending to respect are exactly how he wants them and the rest of us, i.e. Dead.


Let me tell you about this racist old pervert. Phil the Greek as he is commonly known, should in fact be called Phil the Nazi. He has no affinity with the British people what so ever, let alone our war dead. To understand why, we need to go back as far as Queen Victoria, whom some refer to as the last English queen… Even though she was half German. Victoria, according to historians was hated by her countryman, some even say she was spat upon… Can’t imagine that amused her much.


Queen Vicky, as she wasn’t known, married the German Prince Albert:


Albert was born on August 26, 1819 in Rosenau, Germany. He was the second son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and was greatly influenced by his uncle Leopold, who became the king of Belgium in 1831. As a teenager Albert travelled to Britain and met the Princess Victoria, who was his COUSIN and nearly the same age as Albert. (Source- About.com)


Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was our Royal family’s name then, until Sticky Vicky’s grandson, King George V, who was married to the German Queen Mary, changed it to Windsor in 1917. This was only because there was a good deal of anti German sentiment in Britain before the First World War which became almost hysterical after 1916. There were in fact, anti German riots with shops owned by people with German names or German sounding names being smashed up. This also happened in other parts of the Empire such as Johannesburg in South Africa.


So there you have another case of this closely interbred, dysfunctional family pulling out all the stops to save their own necks… But I digress.


Now, as well as the name changing King George V being the grandson of Sticky Vicky, so was our German opponent in the first world war, Kaiser Wilhelm II… Getting the picture yet? No? Fair enough, I will continue.


Our present Queen, Bizzy Lizzy and her husband Phil the Sauerkraut are both the great, great grandchildren of Queen StickyVicky. Or put another way, they are 2nd cousins, once removed… By then it was surprising that the in-breeds didn’t resemble the cast of ‘the Hills have eyes’. They did, and still do however, behave like them.


Further more, madness and genetic problems are common place within the Royal family, thanks entirely to their in-breeding. Everyone knows about King George the III. He was mad as a hatter. Sticky Vicky herself was a Haemophiliac, which resulted in the death of her son Prince Leopold at the age of 30. The Duck’s own mother was mad as a hatter and had to be sectioned, which might explain a lot.


However, the more modern day Royal family tend to do what all Monsters do with their mad relations. Lock them away and pretend they don’t exist. That is what happened with the Queen’s first cousins,Nerissa and Katherine, who were both nieces of the Queer Mother:


The Queen’s cousin Nerissa was 22 and the Queen’s look-alike cousin Katherine was 15 when they were sent to the grim Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital. Both were severely handicapped and virtually unable to speak. They were said to have a mental age of six.


Cousin Nerissa is now deceased but cousin Katherine, aged 86, is still alive as of 2012, although severely mentally retarded. She is neglected and never visited.


Burke’s Peerage which records the “who’s who” lineage of the British aristocracy, recorded false information that the first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II died in 1940 and 1961.


Despite the Queen’s fabulous wealth, she spent not one penny on cousin Nerissa’s burial. Nerissa was buried like a pauper in an unceremounious grave marked by a 6-inch-high plastic tag bearing a serial number and the name ”Bowes-Lyon”.


Cousin Katherine who spent decades in the Royal Earlswood Asylum, was moved to Ketwin House for the mentally disabled. Following allegations that male staff members were washing female patients, Ketwin House was forced to shut down. Witnesses found bruises on Katherine’s hand and hip.


Despite the Queen’s fabulous wealth, she spent not one penny to keep her cousin Katherine at Ketwin House. The cost ? About 770 pounds per patient per year. According to a former staff member, Katherine is alert, understands what she’s being told and communicates by pointing and smiling. Not one member of the Royal family has visited her in 60 years.


It turns out that the Queen’s mother also had cousins who were locked away in the same mental institution on the same day in 1941 as Nerissa and Katherine.


An ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach to family members with “embarrassing” problems like mental illness and epilepcy is nothing new in the royal household.


In 1905, George V(Of name change fame) and Queen Mary had a son, Prince John. Until the age of four, Prince John was just as much in the spotlight then as Prince William was in 1986 at the age of four.


When Prince John suffered his first epileptic fit, his royal parents excluded him from official family photographs.He wasn’t even allowed to attend his own father’s coronation as King of England in 1911. In 1917, the King hid his epileptic son by sending him to die in an isolated farmhouse. John never saw his parents again. He died two years later – reportedly in his sleep.


Another propaganda Oscar winner, The Kings’ Speech, focused on the Queen’s father and his speech impediment. There was no mention in the movie that the cause may have been from generations of royal inbreeding.


Monarchy blockbusters are designed to sell the image of the filthy rich royals as sensitive, caring, human and deserving of adoration and taxpayer support. No one would dare make a Hollywood movie about the King’s nazi brother, Edward VIII who abdicated.


Alice Battenberg was the mother of the Queen’s husband – Prince Philip. Alice was near deaf and a religious zealot. As the years went by, she began to have visions that she was Christ’s bride. She was declared a paranoid schizophrenic and committed to an asylum by force in 1930. Alice is Prince William’s great grandmother.


(Source T. Stokes)


Now, moving on, Queen Bizzy Lizzy’s uncle Eddie the Duke of Windsor, the one who married the American slut Wallis Simpson (I believe Homer was her nephew, but I may be wrong), was great friends with Adolf Hitler. The fact Eddie did marry Wallis was much to the annoyance of Bizzy Lizzy’s Alcoholic, Paedophile, mother (Various Sources such as Bill Maloney), who also wanted him. Never the less, in the end the Queer Mother was forced to settle for the younger brother… Affectionately referred to as ‘the backward one’.


In fact, according to files released in 2003, high ranking Nazi officials considered Rock steady Eddie to be “no enemy to Germany”. They also considered him to be the “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”.


Eddie, who was also a paedophile and part time bum bandit, gave up the million pound hat to marry the much passed around slapper Simpson. I cannot imagine why, unless it was the fact that she would indulge Ed the Ball in his passion for being pushed around in a pram while dressed only in a nappy… I kid you not.


So, is it just a coincidence then, that Willie and Kate got married on the 29th of April 2011, sixty six years to the day that Hitler married Eva Braun? Remember, dates and numbers are extremely important to these freaks. Willie was in fact induced so as his birthday fell on the Summer Solstice, although the official line is that he was induced so as not to interfere with his father, Prince Big ears’ Polo Tournament.


Course, according to the Help Free the Earth website, the Royal family didn’t just offer moral support to those who were killing the British soldiers Philip is pictured shedding Crocodile tears over. That moral support also stretched to financial:


The British monarchy, and the City of London’s leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Fuhrer’s election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain’s planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia. Support for Nazi-style genocide has always been at the heart of the House of Windsor policy. Long after the abdication of King Edward VIII, the Windsors maintained their direct Nazi links.


Meanwhile, Phil the Duck was sent to a German boarding school that specialised in bringing up mini Adolfs. In fact, as Phil put it himself, there was much heel clicking and Heil Hitlering. At the same time, his 4 sisters all married members of the Nazi Party.


His sister Sophie in fact, went on to marry Prince Christoph of Hesse, a colonel in the SS on Himmler’s personal staff and head of the Forschungsamt, an elite intelligence operation controlled by Hermann Goering.


Christoph, as coincidence would have it was also the great grandson of Queen Victoria and a paedophile… I’m lying. It wasn’t really a coincidence, but the other two facts are true. The 30 year old Christoph had become engaged to Prince Phillips sister, Sophie when she had only just turned 15 – Hmmm.


Mind you, Filthy Phil began dating the queen when she was only 13 years old. Then again, the Royals like to keep everything within the family. But I digress.


Now, as I have just said, what eventually happens when families are continually polluting their own gene pool is madness begins to occur and that is what happened to Phil’s mum, Slack Alice. So when she was carted off to the mad house and his father fucked off with some old sort, Philip, much to his delight, was left in the care of his uncle Lord Louie Mountbatten. The Mountbatten’s were also German’s who changed their name from Battenberg… As in the Marzipan cake that people pretend to like, but don’t really… Much in keeping with the way people feel about the Royals in general really.


Now, pay attention here. Lord Louis the Cake was also the Great Grandson of Sticky Fuckin’ Vicky and 2nd cousin of the name changing King George V. Louis was also a predatory paedophile.


The Authors of the controversial book ‘The War of the Windsor’s’ which was serialised in the Daily Mail state:


“Lord Louis Mountbatten had the nickname “Dickie” …and for good reason. Philip’s uncle Dickie was the last viceroy in India where he was a known paedophile who sexually exploited young working class Indian peasant boys”.


Mountbatten is also linked to the paedophile ring who abused boys living at the Kincora Care Home in Belfast Northern Ireland. An excellent website, dedicated to exposing the Royal Family http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/index.html, have this to say about a book written on that paedophile ring entitled ‘The Kincora Scandal’:


“The Kincora Scandal connects Lord Dickie Mountbatten to a child prostitution vice ring in Belfast, Ireland. Authorities failed to intervene at the Kincora care home for boys until 1981, despite reports over the years of child sexual abuse”.


The operators of the Kincora child prostitution ring were eventually convicted in 1981 of the RITUAL sexual abuse of defenceless young boys who were sold like prostitutes. No charges were ever brought against the VIP customers made up of Royals, Politicians, lawyers, and Judges. However, Belfast citizens finally had reason to celebrate when Prince Philip’s paedophile uncle was killed by an IRA bomb planted in his boat”.


It is alleged by many that Louis the Cake had at least two boys on the boat, possibly three, when they were all blown to kingdom come. It is further alleged by many, that Phil got his first taste of Cock, courtesy of Uncle Louis, who was almost certainly also shagging Bizzy Lizzy’s Uncle, Ed the Baby.


Other members of the ohhh sooo British Royal family, but who are in reality closet Nazi’s include; Marie Christine Reibnitz AKA Princess Michael of Kent. Then there is the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, who was a Nazi and said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job”.


Princess Michael of Kent’s (Sounds like a tranny doesn’t she) father, was Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, who just so happened to be a member of the Nazi party and an honorary member of the SS.


Slightly diverting away from the main topic, but relevant none the less, Princess Michael, who is married to the Queens Cousin Prince Michael of Kent was caught out shagging a toy-boy in 2006. As it happens, Prince Michael also looks extremely like my friend Terry from Cyprus. But I’m fairly sure that is just a coincidence.


Never the less, having his wife publicly identified as shagging about obviously pissed Prince Mick off. Now everyone knows, cept my good self of course, that you shouldn’t upset a Freemason. Especially not the highest wanking Freemason in the country, which is apparently who Prince Micky Boy is (Sorry about the speech impediment in that sentence. I was just trying out my impression of Bizzy Lizzy’s old man). He is also the Grandson of the name changing, half German King George V and the full German Queen Mary, don’t cha know.


Having said that, any inference you draw from the following is strictly down to your own over active imaginations. You see, this toy-boy Mikhail Kravchenko, who shared a 4 day break in a Venice hotel with Mick’s slapper wife Princess Michael, met a very sticky end when he was machine gunned to death while sat in his Mercedes. Not that he was the only one whom the Royal family had the hump with, to die in a Mercedes.


Anyway, an actress called Marina Golub who was a close friend of Mikhail Kravchenko started asking questions about his death and after getting too near to the truth, she was apparently warned off. Whether or not she took any notice of the warnings is unknown, but she did claim to have uncovered startling new details about the murder. However, before she could reveal what she knew she was killed in a ‘car crash’… Just saying.


Right, getting back onto the main thread. All these people, who were and are supposedly part of the English Royal family, were in reality aligned with the German War Machine. As an example of just how deep that involvement was, consider the following also taken from the Help Free The earth website:


Prince Philip’s uncle and sponsor, Lord Louis Mountbatten (originally, Battenberg of the House of Hesse) was a central figure in the 1930s Nazi-British channel. Until he was forced to abdicate, King Edward VIII enjoyed the full backing of Dickie Mountbatten. Through much of World War II, secret channels of communication were maintained between the British royal family and their pro-Hitler cousins in Germany, by Lord Mountbatten, through his sister Louise, who was crown princess of pro-Nazi Sweden. Louise was Prince Philip’s aunt.


DAMAGE CONTROL


The spin doctors at Buckingham Palace have tried to depict the wartime collaboration of the British royal family with the Nazi enemy as just family correspondence but the messages from Prince Philip’s secret ally, the Duke of Windsor (former King Edward VIII) are impossible to cover up. On Nov. 20, 1995, the Washington Times reported that the Duke of Windsor had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, that would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne.


Starting with an exchange between King George VI and President Eisenhower, the House of Windsor has been desperate to keep incriminating documents collected from Kronberg Castle classified. The incriminating documents fell into American Army hands.


With that in mind, now take a look at the photo below. This is Phil the Duck in his Nazi Sister Cecile’s funeral cortège. In the row behind and slightly to the left is Louis The Cake, wearing an old style sailor hat. This was taken a couple of years before the War. Jews were already being persecuted and slaughtered. Philip admitted himself that his family had a problem with Jews. That leaves me to wonder how he feels about his grand-daughter in law Kate, who is Jewish.


Another senior Royal who was apparently racist was Bizzy Lizzy’s sister, Princess Margaret . I deal with Slaggy Maggie in detail in Monsters Inc, but here is what is said about her on the Scandalous Woman website:


Princess Margaret was a spoiled, vain, racist, promiscuous waster who never worked a day in her life, called the Irish people “Pigs, all pigs”, was an adulteress, who also, most insidiously, sponged tens of MILLIONS from the people of Great Britain through the civil list at a time when most British “subjects” were near starving due to rationing.


Her Uncle was an unrepentant Nazi sympathizer and friend of Oswald mosley who would have (if given the chance) allowed the perptrators of the holocaust a foothold in Britain.


Course, as I have already said, Phil the Nazi is well known for being racist. According to the book The Duke of Hazard: The Wit & Wisdom of Prince Philip, Famous gaffe’s include:


• During a state visit to China in 1986, the duke told a group of British students: “If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.”


• Another jab to the Chinese came at a World Wildlife Fund dinner: “If it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Chinese will eat it.”


• To an Australian Aborigine he met in 2002, Philip asked: “Still throwing spears?”


• When a Kenyan woman gave Philip a gift, he was perplexed at her appearance. “You’re a woman, aren’t you?” he asked.


• When he met Lord Taylor of Warwick, who is black and comes from Birmingham, “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”


• When he saw an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh, the duke said: “It looks as if it was put in by an Indian.”


• When he met a group of deaf people in Cardiff in1999, Philip referred to the school’s steel band: “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.”


• “Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?” Philip asked someone from the Cayman Islands in 1994.


• When he met the president of Nigeria, who was dressed in a traditional robe, Philip said: “You look like you’re ready for bed!”


So don’t even try to tell me that the Nazi Bastard shed any tears over our war dead. The very fact that the MSM take his photograph any where near a tribute to those who died in the war is a gross insult to their memory.


Worse still, when you know that he is only doing it in order to gain support for his yokel family in case the nation find out that these piss takers, who do not give a fuck for anyone but themselves are up to their perverted necks in the Jimmy Savile cesspit, your blood begins to boil.





Not convinced? No? Then I will carry on.


That the Duck of Edinburgh didn’t know about Louis the letch’s preference for boys is inconcievable. As I said, the chances are Louis was abusing Philip anyway. Never the less, that didn’t stop him leaving his eldest son, Prince Big Ears in his care:


“Mountbatten was a strong influence in the upbringing of his grand-nephew, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and later as a mentor—”Honorary Grandfather” and “Honorary Grandson”, they fondly called each other according to the Jonathan Dimbleby biography of the Prince”.


Now you tell me what kind of sick fuck leaves their child in the capable hands of a predatory Paedophile? The answer can only be someone who views paedophilia as being normal. Just look at their history. It is littered with child molesters. Child Molesting is not the same as being Gay. A person has no choice as to whether they are gay or not. A child molester on the other hand does have a choice.


However, as we have already seen. Many of the Royals do seem to be gay. That said, I do not believe that to be true. I do however believe that many of them take part in same sex, sex. Princess Diana, for instance, hinted that her ex husband used to have a merry old time forcibly sodomising his male staff.


Talking of Paedophiles and the Prince of Wales, I feel that I must mention another Royal paedophile Prince Albert Victor, who was also known as Prince Eddy. You can tell how in-bred these monsters are. They all have the same fucking name, don’t cha know. Anyway Prince Eddy was the eldest son of Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales. Here’s what the author John Hamer wrote about him:


Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence otherwise known by his colloquial name of ‘Prince Eddy was the eldest son of Albert Edward the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and Princess Alexandra (later Queen Alexandra), the grandson of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria and older brother of the future king of England, King George V and as such would have been first in line to the throne.


Unfortunately, due to centuries of Royal in-breeding, Eddy was partially deaf and of well below average intelligence and was thus shunned by the majority of his cold-hearted family.


Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time was a great supporter and patron of Freemasonry as were all the Royal males of the age (and as they still are today). Indeed it was the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family (the current British royals) who had sponsored the rise of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, originally a Freemasonry offshoot, in Bavaria in the 18th century. Weishaupt was indeed born and raised in the Bavarian town of Gotha.


There are several Masonic lodges in the Royal palaces of Britain, the most significant one perhaps being the Royal Alpha Lodge in Kensington Palace (where Prince and Princess Mick live. I’m getting good at this history lark – Spivey). In 1885 Prince Eddy was initiated into the Royal Alpha Lodge at the behest of his father.


As well as his membership of the lodge, Eddy was also a regular ‘customer’ at a homosexual-paedophile brothel in Cleveland Street, London and indiscreetly instigated a series of explicit love-letters with a young boy employed at these most vile of premises.


In the meantime, Prince Eddy, his mental health by now completely shattered, was given into the care of the Earl of Strathmore who owned Glamis Castle in Scotland. The royal family then blatantly lied to the world and announced that Eddy had sadly passed away at the age of only 28, on the 14th January 1892 due to influenza, but of course Eddy was still alive and being held in Balmoral Castle having not yet made the final move to Glamis.


Balmoral is approximately 1000 feet (300 metres) above sea-level and as such is partly surrounded by steep cliffs. This was the intended site for the planned murder of Eddy to be undertaken by Randolph Churchill (Winstons old man – Spivey) and John Netley the coachman. The prince was pushed from the cliff-top but somehow managed to survive his fall and after the passage of two days had endeavoured to crawl all the way back to Balmoral where he was found at the door by his disbelieving hosts.


It was decided after this that the best option would be to just incarcerate him at Glamis for the rest of his life and the Earl of Strathmore agreed to undertake this task on behalf of the royals in return for one simple favour. The favour he stipulated was that one of his daughters be allowed to marry a future king of England.


Poor Eddy died in 1933, forty one years after his ‘official’ death date and during this time, his mother visited him only once, but took a photograph of him which she apparently sent to her cousin. This photograph is still in existence and shows a much older Eddy thoughtfully painting a picture which would sadly never be seen by anyone outside the walls of Glamis Castle.


The pact between Strathmore and the royal family was eventually fulfilled in 1923 when Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (his daughter, b. 1900) married the future King George VI of England after originally being betrothed to his brother, the former King Edward VIII (he of abdication fame) (Told ya she had the hots for him – Spivey).


In 1936 George ascended the throne upon his elder brother’s abdication and Elizabeth became his queen consort. Elizabeth of course was more commonly known as the Queen Mother and the mother of the current incumbent of the family firm, Queen Elizabeth the second. She went to her grave in 2002 without ever revealing the secret and thus the world was never aware of this unholy pact.


There you have a perfect example of our Royal family; inherently Mad, Paedophile tendency’s, happy to murder their own and extremely conniving… Lets give them a few more millions of pounds. Prince Charles is always lobbying for more anyway. So is Prince Randy Andy. He wants his daughters, one of whom had a tendency to run around her school naked, added to the Civil list… The greedy bastards.


Mind you, what with the likes of Paul Burrell and Paul Kidd working for the perverted family, I don’t imagine Prince Charles had to force himself on the staff too violently.


I have documented the sexual exploits of Paul Burrell, who appointed himself Princess Diana’s Rock, in my forth coming expose of Diana’s murder. So you will just have to wait to read them. However, I will say that Burrell swore never to reveal Diana’s secrets, but has since made millions writing books about them and by just trading off her name in general.


Paul Kidd is a different kettle of fish all together. He was apparently charged at Manchetser crown court with sexually abusing a large number of boys over a 30 year period. Manchester also just so happened to be the hang out of Jimmy Savile. The Daily Mail had this to say about Paul Kidd:


A former Buckingham Palace butler has been unmasked as a sexual predator who ran a paedophile ring while serving the Royal Family.


Bachelor Paul Kidd, 55, groomed at least one of his teenage victims for sex by taking him for tea with the Queen Mother at Clarence House, it has emerged. To the public, he had been the urbane gent who waited on the Royals for nine years – first the Queen at the Palace and then her mother.


You can take any inference you like from that, but as I said in my article ‘Parliamentary Paedophiles’ , the MSM like to drop hints. You may also like to Google Bill Maloney and hear what he has to say about the Queer Mother. The nickelinthemachine.com website also says the following about Kidd:


Paul Kidd claimed he walked the same corridors as Sir Anthony Blunt the Rothschild gopher who betrayed Britain to the Soviets in W W II for £20,000.


Now Anthony Blunt was a Russian Spy. He was also a notorious paedophile… Surprised? Nah, course your not. He was also definitely related to the Queen in some way or another. Some historians have him down as a cousin, others say he was in fact Bizzy Lizzy’s half brother. The MSM laughingly had an article out just the other week that said the Queer Mother, had cottoned on to Blunt the …. What rhymes with Blunt? Runt… The Queer Mother had cottoned on to Blunt the Runt a long time before the security services’s did.


Are the MSM for real? It is a very dangerous game they play. They, like myself and many others know the truth yet they print bollocks like that in order to give the Royals an alter ego. Do these journalists not realise that they are just as expendable as the rest of us?


Course the Queer Mother knew about Blunt. You only need read the following, which is taken from the website United Nations on Film to realise that:


At the end of the war, in June 1945, the British King, George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth and puppet of the Queen Mother, sent the former MI5 officer, Anthony Blunt, to the Kronberg Castle of Prince Philip’s sister Sophie, and her Nazi husband Prince Christoph of Hesse, to recover correspondence between the British Royal Family and their Nazi relatives, for propaganda aimed at convincing the aristocrats of Britain they had not been in contact all along. Blunt was the ‘surveyor of the Queens Pictures’ and a world expert in the paintings of Poussin, the initiate who painted pictures called ‘The Shepherds of Arcadia’ which related to the Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries. Blunt was named as a member of a KGB unit inside British Intelligence along with Burgess, MacLean, and Philby, the fifth man was never named, but was in fact, Lord Victor Rothschild.


Course, the Duck of Edinburgh also used Blunts services. It seems that Filthy Phil was caught up in the Perfumo Scandal of the early 1960′s via his connection with Stephen Ward, the society pimp, Artist and Satanist who was heavily implicated in the Scandal. Ward was good friends with Phil and had been a frequent visitor to the palace where he did some, ahemm ahemm, ‘Drawings’ of The Duck and ‘other members of the family.


Ward later died under very mysterious circumstances, while supposedly on trial, but who was in fact in hospital after trying to top himself. Whatever was contained in the drawings of Ward’s obviously worried Phil greatly as he sent Blunt to retrieve them at any cost.


Course, by then even Bizzy Lizzy was fed up with her oversexed, deviant of a husband and as such had sworn never to sleep with him again. This claim was repeated in a book written by Nicholas Davies and revealed “a shocking world of royal adultery, passion and betrayal”


The book stated – as fact, not surmise – that the Duke of Edinburgh’s liaisons with his cousin, Princess Alexandra and the film star Merle Oberon, not to mention his former Daughter in Laws mother, Susan Barrantes (among others!)- as the reason “why the Queen banned her husband from her bed”.


More damming still, the Telegraph reported in an article on the 5th of September 2004, about how Philip had sat “impassively, incensed but silent” when a Journalist from a “Sunday broadsheet” had suggested to the Duke that he might have a raft of illegitimate children and had enjoyed a homosexual liaison with Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former President of France. Do I need to go on? Yes? Ok.


If you want to know who had Diana murdered, the trail would appear to lead firmly to Phil the Sauerkraut’s door. Course, for the benefit of the Royal Lawyer’s, I should tell you that I base that claim on the omitted evidence from the Paget report and subsequent inquest, Claims by Mohammed Al Fayed and the book by Jon King.


Now, what kind of man deprives his grandchildren of their mother? The answer can only be the same kind of man who grossly insults our war dead by sickeningly pretending to shed a tear while cynically saluting them… God that family nauseate me.


One of my dearest wishes is that he is still alive when his family are finally exposed for the greedy, robbing, murdering, parasitic monsters that they are. Perhaps, before we hang them for mass genocide and countless other crimes against humanity, he along with his equally obnoxious wife – a woman rich enough to end world poverty and still have an un-spendable fortune left – will tell the world what they did with the 10 Canadian orphans they took away with them, never ever to be seen again.


Course, the 3 children lucky enough not to be chosen as one of the ten would testify that they were made to kiss the queens foot first before her and the Duck fucked off with the 10 unlucky ones. Or at least they would if they too had lived long enough to testify.


To far fetched for you? It would be for me too, if I hadn’t spent countless hours researching the nonces and the afore mentioned incident wasn’t so well documented. Here is just one example of that, which was reproduced on the Help Free The Earth website:


Star Eyewitness Dies Suddenly. Written by Rev. Kevin Annett


Monday, 28 February 2011 20:39


William Combes was the sole survivor of a group of three aboriginal boys who claim to have witnessed the abduction of ten children during a royal visit to the Kamloops residential school in mid October, 1964, when both the Queen and Prince Philip were in British Columbia, Canada.


“They took away those ten kids and nobody ever saw them again.” – William Combes, Eyewitness.


William Combes, age 59 and in good health, was scheduled to be a primary witness at the opening session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) on September 12, 2011 in London, England.


Combes, an aboriginal man, claimed to witness the abduction of ten fellow residential school children by the Queen of England and her husband in October, 1964 at the Catholic school in Kamloops, British Columbia.


According to his partner Mae, William was in stable health when he was assigned a new doctor at St. Paul’s Hospital where he was committed for “tests”. His health began to immediately deteriorate. He died suddenly of a still-undisclosed cause.


The Vancouver Coroner’s Office refused to comment on William’s recent death.


The Royal Abductions.


William was the sole survivor of a group of three aboriginal witnesses to the royal abductions. In his public statements made during a Vancouver Co-op radio program and also in the following signed and witnessed declaration made on February 3, 2010 Combes said:


“I am an Interior Salish spirit dancer and am 58 years old. I live in Vancouver, Canada. I am a survivor of the Kamloops and Mission Indian residential schools, both run by the Roman Catholic church. I suffered terrible tortures there especially at the hands of Brother Murphy, who killed at least two children. I witnessed him throw a child off a three story balcony to her death. He put me on a rack and broke some of my bones, in the Kamloop school basement, after I tried running away. I also saw him and another priest burying a child in the school orchard one night.


In October, 1964 when I was 12 years old, I was an inmate at the Kamloops school and we were visited by the Queen of England and Prince Phillip. I remember it was strange because they came by themselves, no big fanfare or nothing. But I recognized them and the school principal told us it was the Queen and we all got given new clothes and good food for the first time in months the day before she arrived.


The day the Queen got to the school, I was part of a group of kids that went on a picnic with her and her husband and some of the priests, down to a meadow near Dead Man’s Creek. I remember it was weird because we all had to bend down and kiss her foot, a white laced boot. After a while, I saw the Queen leave the picnic with ten children from the school, and those kids never returned. We never heard anything more about them and never met them again even when we were older. They were all from around there but they all vanished.


The group that disappeared was seven boys and three girls, in age from six to fourteen years old. They were all from the smart group in class. Two of the boys were brothers and they were Metis from Quesnel. Their last name was Arnuse or Arnold. I don’t remember the others, just an occasional first name like Cecilia and there was an Edward. What happened was also witnessed by my friend George Adolph, who was 11 years old at the time and a student there too. But he’s dead now.”


Foul Play


Rev. Kevin Annett (note Reverend, and not just any old Joe Bloggs – Spivey) believes that William Combes died of foul play and that his murder was arranged to prevent him from his speaking out about the child abductions and other crimes of murder and torture that he witnessed at the Catholic Indian residential schools.


Arnett is writing a soon to be issued eulogy for William Arnold Combes. William’s videotaped statements, including his witness report of the 1964 abductions, have been registered in the archives of the ITCCS, and will be made public at the opening session on September 12, 2011.


Five other aboriginal members and activists have also died since December, and a sixth is missing and presumed dead. All were public critics of the Roman Catholic church’s killing of residential school children, and had participated in protests against this church and the Anglican Church and the United Church of Canada.


Their names are: Johnny Dawson, died December 8, 2009 after a severe beating by three Vancouver policemen. Mike Wickson, died February, 2010, cause unknown. Elder Phillipa Ryan, died April 26, 2010 from “cancer” in less than a month. Norma Jean Baptiste, died early May, 2010, apparent heart attack. Chief Louis Daniels, died May 16, 2010 in a Winnipeg hospital, cause unknown.


The Squamish nation believes that these activists and eyewitnesses were murdered, now that the Catholic church is facing criminal charges for the Pope’s personal complicity in the rape and torture of children. Canada and its churches may be censured and investigated by European politicians and human rights groups.


For more information on the ITCCS go to: http://itccs.org/


Now, while that is shocking, it is very much in keeping with the Royal Family’s less publicised life. The Duck hates people… Absolutely despises them… The very same people who he and his family leech off. Piss taking bastard. Here is what Alex Jones and Steve Watson had to say about the idiot:


In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”


Borrowing the idea from American scientists who pioneered the field in the 1930′s, the Nazis advanced the pseudo-science of eugenics and incorporated it into Adolf Hitler’s dream of the Aryan super-race. Bearing in mind Philip’s Nazi connections, his views on the subject of overpopulation are unsurprising, but shocking nonetheless.


Just last year he reiterated these views, announcing that there are too many people in the world, and attacking large families in a television interview, despite the fact that Prince Philip himself has four children and eight grandchildren. (Debatable, especially if you have read Monsters Inc – Spivey)


His son, Charles, the next King of England, has continued such ideology as he tours the world in private jets lecturing about the impact of climate change and how too many people are killing the planet.


Charles, who has inherited the entire Duchy of Cornwall estate, which stretches over 135,000 acres across 23 counties mainly in the south-west of England, is also a “patron” of the genocidal Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.


Charles’ fellow patrons at the OPT include Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock, who recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.


Charles and the OPT are closely affiliated with The Royal Society, a 350 year old elitist institution granted royal charter status by King Charles II. The Royal Society is also crawling with eugenics enthusiasts and depopulation fanatics.


Prince Philip Care about the war dead? … Don’t make me laugh. The old bastard wants us all dead.


Before the Duck appeared in yesterdays Daily Mail, acting like he gives a fuck, I had in fact wondered how long it would be before the Palace began to distance themselves from Jimmy So-vile. Apparently, that day was the 1st of November when most of the MSM newspapers carried a story which would have us believe that there was some concerns about So-vile’s behaviour when he visited his mate Prince Big Ears at St James’ Palace.


Strangely enough however, these concerns were never officially addressed, which I suppose would be the excuse as to why the Heir to the Throne continued to socialise with the Paedophile. The same fairy tale would also have us believe that So-vile acted as a kind of marriage counsellor for the Prince and Diana… What a load of old bollocks.


Little wonder then, that people are turning to the ‘alternative’ media for information.


Now, the question you have to ask yourself is: Why would a man like The Duck, want to be friends with Jimmy Savile, because they were in fact very good friends. That is till they fell out spectacularly. That further begs the question: Why on earth would Savile and Phil have the need to fall out to the extent that they no longer spoke? For that to happen it must have been one hell of a close friendship.





I am in fact amazed that Savile had the time to be friends with anyone since he seemed to spend all his spare abusing Children… Still, perhaps the Police will ask Phil about it? … Nahhhh course they won’t.


Furthermore, police chiefs have known about So-vile since at least the early 1970’s if not before, so for the parasites to now try and distance themselves from the sicko DJ with the old “we didn’t know” routine, just doesn’t hold water.


The Duck’s eldest son Big Ears on the other hand, managed to remain great friends with Savile right up until his death. Hell, the future King of England even took the time out to go for a meal at Saviles Poky, out of the way highland cottage. The very same cottage that the Police raided the other week after suspecting Savile of raping some of his young victims there… Two fact’s that the MSM even linked in a headline… Is there another one of those MSM hints there?


I would imagine that the Christmas Card that Big Ears sent the Vile, bleach Blonde Necrophile, which said;“Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.” was a reference to the Scottish Cottage. Then again, for the benefit of the Royal Legal Eagles, that is just my opinion.


Never the less, anyone, and I mean anyone, who is in contact with the Royal family is closely vetted. The security services would be woefully failing in their duty if they failed to do so. Predictably, the true cost of protecting the in-breeds is impossible to find out. However, realistic estimates put the yearly bill somewhere between £120 Million – £200 Million. Personally, I strongly suspect the cost as being a lot higher.


Now, if you read the ‘Alternative Media’ regularly, you will know that So-vile was known to be a supplier of children to the rich and famous. Most noteable of those was the Paedophile, child killer and Satanist, Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister of England.


It has also be reported in the MSM recently that So-vile was implicated in the Yorkshire Ripper murders. So much so in fact, that the Police even took a mould of his teeth in order to compare them with bite marks found on the murder victims bodies.


Couple that with the other things the Police knew about Savile and you quickly come to the conclusion that there is not a cat in hells chance that the Security Services – assigned to Royal protection – had not made the in-breeds aware of So-viles sexual preferences. Yet they still associated with him, as did just about every other high powered Establishment figure over the past 30 or 40 years or so.


Now, why is that? There can only be one reason unless you are one of those who is still living in cloud cuckoo land.


Course,The Monarchy, who have a long tradition of entertaining mass murderers and deviants of all persuasions, recently invited charity worker and convicted sex offender, Harbinder Singh aboard the Royal barge during the Diamond Jubilee pageant. Why?


Big Ears and Paedo Jim were in fact such good mates, that, looking at the many, many photos of the pair, I cannot recall Big Ears having any where near the the same level of intimacy as he and So-vile appeared to share… And that includes his wives… Why?


Some Royal watchers have suggested that Diana was murdered because she was going to tell the world about her ex husband and his family’s sexual preferences… Note Royal Lawyer’s, I’m not one of those.


Never the less, Princess Diana did refer to Savile as being her husbands mentor. A mentor, according to the Cambridge on-line dictionary is: A person who gives another person help and advice over a period of time and often also teaches them how to do their job.


That claim of Diana’s takes on an even more sinister twist when you consider who arranged for So-vile to mentor Big Ears:


Prince Philip’s uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten ‘fixed it’ for Savile to mentor Prince Charles and they became lifelong friends. Savile invited the Prince of Wales to his cottage in Glencoe, which he hoped to turn into a home for disabled and disadvantaged children, called Jimmy’s Place! Uncle Dickie, with his predilection for ‘peasant’ boys, was linked to the Kincora Boy’s Home vice-ring, which allegedly sent Belfast orphans to Birr Castle in the Irish Republic, the home of Lord Snowdon’s stepbrother, for ritual abuse at the Hellfire Club. Snowdon was Princess Margaret’s ex-husband (You couldn’t make this shit up, don’t cha know – Spivey).


Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, a yachting enthusiast, was also a visitor at Kincora Boy’s Home and it’s claimed that Savile supplied him with victims from Haute de la Garenne in Jersey to misuse aboard his boat. Another of Savile’s close friends, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, often played host to him at Chequers and her successors, Major, Blair and Brown were all “fans” deaf to the ‘open secret’ which everyone knew. Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, friend of the billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, sent Christmas cards to Savile right up until he died and Charles led the tributes after his death in 2011 saying, how “saddened” he was… the Prince has not issued a statement about his sadness over the allegations…[…]


(Source – infounderground.com)


Now surely Savile wasn’t teaching Big Ears how to be king? So what was he teaching him and once again, why were they such close friends. I cant imagine Big Ears getting on down to ‘Rock and Roll part 1′ by Gary Glitter, can you?


Perhaps the police will ask the future king why he was such good friends with a man who was particularly fond of fucking dead bodies?… Nahhh, they wont ask him either, will they?


Course, the Duck’s 2nd son Andrew, who is in fact more likely to be the son of Randy Lord Porchester (see my article Monsters Inc http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/?p=3786) also has paedophile tendencies. That is at least according to the excellent website Help Free the Earth:


Andrew, who 4th in line to the British throne, has been exposed in the news as a paedophile. His buddy, Jeffrey Epstein, is a convicted paedophile who served up underage girls to Prince Andrew like lolly pops.


Photos published in the British media show Andrew strolling in a park with Epstein — the New York billionaire jailed for soliciting child prostitutes in Florida. A photograph has also emerged showing Andrew with his arm around the waist of the child prostitute who is at the centre of that case. It has emerged that Andrew allegedly enjoyed massages at the Florida mansion where the Epstein child sexual abuse went on.


Epstein also gave Andrew $30,000 to help pay off his ex-wife Fergie’s massive debts that she was blackmailing him for. Andrew was finally forced to step down as Britain’s trade ambassador because of #1 – his criminal behaviour with underage girls. Two – a six million dollar tax evasion charge. Three – conflicts of interest from friendships with a convicted paedophile and with Libyan leader Gadafi’s son whose country was being bombed by the British military.


Do I need to carry on? No? I didn’t think so. But believe me I could… In fact I could go on and on and on. But all the other information I have will keep… For now.


However, as a foot note to this article, I will leave you with the following story that just about sum’s the Queens attitude up.


A few weeks ago, I was left a comment on an article about Jimmy Savile by a man calling himself Frank Jackson. I have since been in contact with Frank and now know his real identity.


In his comment, Frank had urged me to look into the background of two St John Ambulance men from New Zealand who are both in line to be decorated sometime this month, in honour of their service. New Zealand is of course owned by the current UK Monarch and as such, the honours that these two men are having bestowed on them by the Governor General have been sanctioned by the Queen.


The two men in question are Karl Berghan and Sam Brens. However, far from receiving top awards, sanctioned by our Queen, the pair of pond life should both be strung up by their bollocks. You see, Berghan and Brens are both prolific paedophiles who groomed Franks 14 year old daughter and persuaded her into having a regular threesome with them. Franks daughter was just one of 5 similar girls these two men, along with another man, laid their grubby little hands on.


However, that is only the beginning of what, had I not seen the proof, would have been a totally unbelievable story. That the Queen is unaware of these two monsters crimes just isn’t possible, as you will see once you read the full story.


Never the less, the award ceremony is still going ahead. Sadly, I cannot say that I am surprised since I am aware of the many, many people who have received awards sanctioned by the Queen and who have subsequently been convicted of crimes relating to child sex abuse.


You can read Franks horrific story and the devastating toll it has taken on his family – courtesy of the NZ government, Police, judiciary, and Social Services, all of whom are every bit as corrupt as ours – at the following link: http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience


So, that just leaves you to now enjoy the Daily Mails twisted take on a man they would have you believe, has selflessly devoted his life to Royal duty. If after reading the above, the article below doesn’t get your gag reflex going… You are either brain dead, or part of the problem.


Until the next time.


Much love,


Chris.


Saturday, 9 May 2015

DIALECTIC OF DIRTY TALK & DIRTY WAR




Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one, however, we would all be full of crap without them. Neither has anyone a monopoly on the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, as Oscar Wilde stated. When I first came across the subject of the Dialectic, I responded that it sounded too complicated for me but it was pointed out to me, that it was my resposnibility to educate myself about it, if I ever wanted to contribute anything progessive to the future. I found it hard to stomach, coming from an English woman, but I learned in subsequent years, there was much, that is useful, I could learn from the English. 


They tend to be always prepared, before they go into battle, they are organized and they stick together, so it would be foolish with our own history, to ignore this, aside from the Dialectics of Materialism. Being raised a Catholic, I was taught concepts, like the Pope was infallible and while I have a certain respect for the present incumbent, I have learned from experience, that no one is infallibe, especially myself. What I have learned to trust, is the commonsense of experience, both personally and historically, with the proviso of finding truthellers, which are rare. I believe Truth is the most powerful thing on the face of this earth but to find truth and commonsense, I need to have the patience and tolerance,  to listen through the many talking heads that abound. 

This most certainly also applies to what I read or observe on virtual reality screens, which are a far cry from reality. I present below what I believe, are some very important articles, on contemporary political events. I have a lot of respect for political prisoners, who have done time for their community and country, but I also have learned from bitter, bitter, experience, to put no one on a pedestal and I share this health warning, to include everyone, including myself. Ireland desperately needs an honest Dialectic, unrestricted by censorship, disinformation or time constraints It is being currently being poisoned, restricted, censored and interned by low intensity British Dirty War in all of Ireland.




THE PENSIVE QUILL

Censor Offender



Republican Sinn Féin North Armagh Combat Scourge Of Drugs In Community


A press release from Republican Sinn Féin about a drugs issue in North Armagh.

Over the May bank holiday weekend a member of the public handed over a quantity of drugs to a member of Sinn Fein Poblachtach which had been found in the Lurgan/Craigavon area.

These were then in turn handed to a local clergyman to arrange for safe disposal. Daire Mac Cionnaith, Leas Uachtarain, Shinn Fein Poblachtach commended the person who handed over the drugs for their civic mindedness.

He said that:
North Armagh is awash with drugs of all sorts, with drug dealers openly dealing on street corners and driving around in high-performance cars. The only response to this crisis must be a community based response. The Republican and nationalist people must work together to combat the scourge of drugs and those who deal them.

It is quite evident that the RUC/PSNI has no intention of dealing with this issue; on the contrary, they seem happy to see our children hooked on drugs and to take advantage of those addicted to use as informers.

We call on all within our community, who are aware of drug dealing to make it known to local activists and work together as a community to rid ourselves of this scourge.

frankie white said...

I know unionists and shinners often use malicious rumours about republican involvement in the drugs trade, but as a resident of North Lurgan I can categorically state RSF are in no place to combat the scourge of Drugs in working class communities, several members of RSF I know for a fact are involved in the drugs trade, some of the old guard have members of their families who are well known drug users and hoods, and the main supplier of drugs in North Armagh, his father was previously associated with RSF.

It may seem like the sort of Sunday World sensationalism that we all rightly scoff at but anyone who lives in Kilwilke or Drumbeg knows exactly who I am talking about.

1:26 PM, May 08, 2015 Daire Mac Cionnaith said...

Frankie as a member of RSF in North Armagh I can state that no member of RSF is involved in the drug Trade and the old guard as you call them also have no association with RSF there blind protection of their family members involved in drugs is a total Disgrace, if you had any evidence of this I would urge you to bring it forward, but like all those who hide behind fake profile's on social media I wouldn't hold out much hope of you producing evidence,

6:10 PM, May 08, 2015

kearney said...

I have been a member of RSF for the past ten year in north lurgan ,and as a member I have never been associated with drugs / drug dealers during this time. I also can assure the people of lurgan that my associates have also never been involved in any such dealings. The people of lurgan know who the drug dealers are. It's easy for people like Mr white to muddy the water by spreading lies and rumours. It is a well known fact that RSF have openly challenged these drug dealers and will continue to do so. There has never bein anyone associated with drugs or drug dealing in RSF and never will . Being apart of RSF means openly challenging these issues that our young people face therefore i strongly suggest that Mr white take into great consideration the consequences that can arise from pointing fingers at the wrong people. Drug abuse and drug dealings will continue if the real culprits are not dealt with.11:38 PM, May 08, 2015

larry hughes said...

Accusations are the easiest thing to sling around. Sadly people love it and thrive on it. I don't live in Lurgan but I have family there and 3 grown up 'kids' so I have an idea of what is going on now and then. I have never even heard the suggestion republicans were dabbling in drugs. So personally I'm inclined to throw that story over my shoulder like a pinch of salt and walk on.9:15 AM, May 09, 2015




Irish republican socialists call on Real IRA to end 'armed struggle'


Internal paper from political wing of Irish group that assassinated Airey Neave is made public, calling armed republican actions ‘self-defeating’


Members of the Real IRA at a republican Easter commemoration ceremony in 2010. The new paper says armed actions are hampering the republican movement. Photograph: Niall Carson/P

Henry McDonald Ireland correspondent


Monday 4 May 2015 18.26 BSTLast modified on Monday 4 May 201519.54 BST


An internal document from the political wing of the Irish terror group that assassinated one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest allies calling on the Real IRA, also known as New IRA, and other dissident republicans to end their “armed struggle” has been made public.


The Irish Republican Socialist party discussion paper describes the hardline republicans’ ongoing armed campaigns as a “self-defeating dynamic”.


The IRSP are the political allies of the Irish National Liberation Army, which in 1979 exploded a booby trap bomb under the car belonging to the Conservative party’s Northern Ireland spokesman and second world war hero Airey Neave in Westminster. The Colditz escapee’s murder in the House of Commons car park catapulted the INLA, then a small splinter organisation, into international infamy. Neave, a strong supporter of unionism, was a close adviser and personal friend to Thatcher, who was elected prime minister a few months after his death.


The intervention in the debate over the future of republican armed struggle is significant because dissidents opposed to the peace process remain on friendly terms with and respect many IRSP and INLA veterans.


In its discussion paper, the IRSP refers to the continued New IRA, Continuity IRA and Óghlaigh na hÉireann: “Sporadic armed actions are not working; they are placing zero pressure upon either the British/Stormont or Free State regimes nor upon the capitalist economic systems which underwrite all of those states.”


Former INLA hunger striker Willie Gallagher said he hoped that the publication of the document on the republican website The Pensive Quill would add to the debate about the efficacy of ”armed struggle”.


Gallagher said: “We are hoping that at the very least the paper will produce some discussion among all the anti-Good Friday Agreement republican family. It’s the first time it’s been made public and no longer behind closed doors ... the debate can be conducted in a comradely fashion.”


In their document, the IRSP claim the continued campaigns of violence are now counterproductive.


The republican socialist movement said the infrequent attacks on police, army and some symbolic targets are simply “...bolstering the budgets of British military intelligence and handing a monthly propaganda victory to those who wish to make partition, capitalism, austerity and overt security measures appear to the general public as the rational state of affairs in Ireland; rational in comparison to actions which only achieve a temporary sense of personal achievement for the individuals involved and their supporters on the ground.”



The wreckage of a car hit by an INLA bomb killing the Tory spokesman on Northern Ireland, Airey Neave, in 1979.


The continuation of the armed campaigns were also hampering the growth of a broad-based leftwing republican alternative to Sinn Féin, the IRSP said.


“Just as advocates of current armed actions assert that they have a right to bear arms in the name of Irish freedom; in the spirit of comradeship we must urge them to consider what duties come with that right. Not least the duty to consider the logistical limitations which come with practicing armed struggle perpetually in a woefully unsuitable environment. And the very real costs of that decision, both to you personally and to the cause of building a capable revolutionary momentum, which the Irish people so dearly need and deserve,” the IRSP document continues.


It noted the increasing number of New IRA, CIRA and ONH members that were arrested and imprisoned in thwarted terror attacks.


“The imprisonment of so many political activists has been a godsend to the state and to opponents of popular political struggle in Ireland and not only in terms of bodies lost on the ground.

“In addition to locking up scores of republicans; Britain has seized the opportunity to tie down remaining activists in an endless cycle of prison-based campaigns; ensuring that the time, resources and energies of militantly minded republicans are eternally deflected from the vital task of building a viable street-based alternative to the corrupt political and economic setup which now exists in Ireland.”


This is the latest critique of armed struggle within the broad-based and often factional wing of republicanism that opposes the Good Friday Agreement and Sinn Féin’s participation in the devolved power-sharing executive in Belfast funded by the UK treasury.


In 2014 Gerard Hodgins, a former Provisional IRA hunger striker and now one of Sinn Féin’s harshest critics in West Belfast, called on the dissident groups to declare ceasefires. Hodgins said that the British state had the surveillance technology to watch the armed organisations “24/7” and that the conditions were not right for continuing armed campaigns.


Earlier this year Hodgins’ warning was echoed by the hardline Irish-American critic of the peace process Martin Galvin, whom the Thatcher government once banned from Northern Ireland in the 1980s.


The Pensive Quill is run by former IRA prisoner Anthony McIntyre. It gives a voice to republicans and republican socialists opposed to Sinn Féin’s peace strategy and opposes any return to violence.



UK: Election 2015: The Horror

By Matt Carr

May 08, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - I didn’t stay up to watch the nightmare unfold last night. The exit polls filled me with such shock, outrage, and disgust that I knew my blood pressure wouldn’t be able to cope with it. After eleven o’clock there was no way I was going to spend any more time in the company of Michael Gove and Andrew Neil and the endlessly cheery and upbeat BBC journalists with their gimmicky nausea-inducing BBC graphics showing the House of Commons filled with virtual reality politicians.


I have never been impressed by Miliband either before the campaign or during it, but the things that this government have done – and which it promises to do – have been so brutal, so dishonest and so horrendous, that I believed that even an electorate that too often seems all too willing to believe anything and accept anything could not give the Tories a mandate. Regardless of the coming Labour meltdown in Scotland, I thought there would be a close result overall, possibly a narrow Labour victory and most likely a hung parliament that would have stymied the Tories and forced Miliband into some kind of progressive, anti-austerity coalition.


After all, you don’t need to be particularly radical to think that proposals like abolishing non-dom status or imposing an energy freeze might appeal even to people whose political passions are as lukewarm as the Labour Party leadership’s, especially when compared with the prospect of five more years of a government poised to introduce the most savage cuts to social welfare since the 1930s. But nope, even those little social democratic sweeties couldn’t bring the electorate round. Instead British – I mean English – voters chose to reward one of the most vicious rightwing governments in British history with a near majority.


It’s a result that was made possible by a sheeplike, frightened and rancorous population that appears increasingly disposed to believe all the lies that it is told by its vile newspapers. It is an irrational, stupid and fearful vote by an electorate that doesn’t even recognize its own self-interest, let alone the interests of others, that has abandoned any commitment to even the most elementary principles of social justice; that didn’t couldn’t even see that Miliband’s tepid, focus-group-manufactured One Nation ‘fairness’ was still preferable to the dismal social cruelty that the government has already inflicted and which is certain to intensify in the next five years.


In doing so the English have demonstrated extraordinary political cowardice. Lacking the gumption to challenge the powerful, they have preferred to elect a government that victimizes the powerless. This is a population that prefers to doff the cap than bite the hand that it thinks feeds; that expresses its digusts with politicians by voting in the worst of them; that drapes itself in the Union Jack and doffs its collective hat to its masters in the hope that it can be like them; that would rather blame the Scots who want to fight austerity than fight it themselves.


I know that this vote doesn’t represent majority opinion either in England or in the UK as a whole; the British voting system ensures that few votes ever do. But the Tories have so far picked up some 30 percent of the vote share. Equally alarmingly, UKip have gained more than 3 million votes even though they have so far only won one seat, and they even managed to increase their vote share in Wales by ten percent.


So we are witnessing an extraordinary disaster for the majority of the population that is not and never will be Conservative, and a catastrophe for the Labour Party in particular. Now as Ed Miliband prepares to depart, the Blairites are sharpening their knives, and there are rumours that David Miliband is flying back to the country. So Miliband will be replaced by Miliband, and they wonder why so few people were convinced by Labour.


Miliband has said that his party was ‘overwhelmed’ by a ‘surge of nationalism’ in Scotland. This is rubbish. Labour could still have won even without the seats it lost to the SNP. Miliband’s pseudo-explanation doesn’t explain why that ‘surge’ took place, or what it was in the SNP’s ‘nationalism’ that led so many former Labour voters in Scotland came to regard Labour as ‘Red Tories.’


Even in Gordon Brown’s constituency, the SNP won with with a 10,000 swing. So much for the big clunking fist who ‘saved the union.’ Labour’s fate was clearly sealed in Scotland long before the election, through years of taking its electorate for granted and through its alliance with the Tories over the referendum campaign. But even during this campaign Nicola Sturgeon continually put forward the idea of a ‘progressive anti-austerity alliance’ on both sides of the border, which Miliband continually rejected.


What a coward and what a fool. Instead he tried to convince the electorate that Labour was the party of social justice, even as he remained committed to an austerity programme of unspecified cuts that was essentially a ‘softer’ version of what the Tories were already planning. He tried to please all the people and ended up pleasing very few of them. He didn’t convince left-leaning voters that he would ‘change the way the country is run’ and he didn’t convince those who already believe in Tory economic ‘competence’ that he could run it more effeciently.


In the end the head boy failed to become PM. He failed to offer a convincing, compelling and inspiring vision of the future to counter the Tories’ crude but effective choice between ‘stability’ and ‘chaos’ or the notion that Labour would damage the fledgling ‘recovery’ that is already faltering. This message was rammed relentlessly home by the rightwing press and even by the Independent, which declared itself in favour of Tory/Lib Dem ‘stability.


The Cameron/Crosby team didn’t just convince a timid electorate that the status quo was better than the future that Labour was offering; they also appealed directly to English nationalism, with a ‘Vote Labour – Get Sturgeon/Salmond’ mantra that will always have traction in a country that always believes it is being unfairly treated and taken advantage of by foreigners of some kind or another, even if those ‘foreigners’ are Scots.


Whatever you think of the SNP’s ability to deliver on its social democratic credentials, its appeal to the Scots electorate is clearly based on very different premises than the beligerent, rancorous, flagwaving, royal baby worshipping, foreigner-hating nativism that is driving English nationalism in its current manifestation.


In Scotland, ‘nationalism’ produced a movement in which a 20-year-old student can overturn a Labour majority of 16,000 in Paisley and Renfrewshire South. In her victory speech Mhairi Black promised that she would fight to end austerity cuts that are hurting communities ‘ both north and south of the border.’


God only knows what might have happened if we had had more people of her age and with her passion and commitment down here in darkest England. Black, and the voters who elected her, have been inspired by a new and postive vision of Scotland’s collective future to take a gigantic leap into the political unknown. Here we have the rancid pseudo-rebellion of Ukip, and a population that is too terrified of its own shadow to abandon a spurious ‘stability’ which promises nothing but the demise of many of the things that it claims to hold dear.


Ironically, voters who may have seen a Tory mandate as a vote for the Union may have helped to bring its demise closer, since it is difficult to imagine how a government like this can keep the Scots on board, when Cameron and his gang of millionaires set about imposing the next swathe of cuts in a country where they no longer hold any mandate at all.


There were some consolations in this debacle; the well-deserved humiliation of the Lib Dems, whose opportunism and ambition for power did so much to make this outcome possible, by keeping in place a government that should never have made it out of 2010. There will hopefully, be the defeat of Nigel Farage in South Thanet.


But these are small crumbs of schadenfreude that cannot compensate for the monumental disaster for progressive politics that took place yesterday. Maybe something positive will come from it. But right now I can’t think what it can be. And I feel ashamed of my country and disgusted with it.

Matt Carr is a writer and journalist, living in Derbyshire England.http://infernalmachine.co.uk



Seamus Costello


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seamus Costello


Wicklow County Councillor


In office

March 1967 – October 1977


Constituency

Bray


Personal details


Born

1939

Old Connaught Avenue, Bray, County Wicklow


Died

5 October 1977 (aged 38)


Nationality

Irish


Political party

Irish Republican Socialist Party


Other political

affiliations

Sinn Féin (1955–1970)

Official Sinn Féin (1970–1974)


Spouse(s)

Maeliosa Costello



Seamus Costello (Irish:Séamus Mac Coisdealbha, 1939 – 5 October 1977) was a leader of Official Sinn Féin and the Official Irish Republican Army and latterly of the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).


He argued for a combination of socialist politics on economic issues and traditional physical force Irish republicanism. He is best remembered for the founding of the IRSP and the INLA. He was a victim of a feud with his former comrades in the Official IRA.

Early life and IRA Border Campaign


Born into a middle-class family in Bray,County Wicklow, he was educated at Christian Brothers College, Monkstown. He left school at 15 and became a mechanic and later car salesman in Dublin.


At the age of 16 he joined Sinn Féin and theIrish Republican Army. Within a year, he was commanding an active service unit in southCounty Londonderry during the Border Campaign, where his leadership skills and burning down of the courthouse in Magherafeltearned him the nickname of "the Boy General".[1] The unit's most publicised actions included the destruction of bridges.


He was arrested in Glencree, County Wicklow, in 1957 and sentenced to six months in Mountjoy Prison. On his release, he was immediately interned in the Curragh prison camp for two years.[3]


He spent his time in prison studying. He was particularly inspired by his studies of the Vietnamese struggle for independence. He became a member of the escape committee which engineered the successful escapes of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill, among others. Costello would later refer to this time as his "university days".
Political activism


After his release, Costello worked to rebuild the republican movement, beginning by building a local base of support in County Wicklow as Sinn Féin's local organiser. Costello strongly supported the movement's left-wing orientation of these years – especially its emphasis on grassroots political activism. He helped found a strong tenants' association in Bray, and also became involved with the credit unionmovement and various farmers' organisations. During this period, he found time to marry a Tipperary woman, Maeliosa, who also became active in the republican movement. Costello was elected to both Bray Urban District Counciland Wicklow County Council in 1966.


After the Troubles broke out in Northern Irelandin 1969, the IRA and Sinn Féin squabbled overabstentionism and the left-wing faction's socialist politics. The Republican Movement divided into Official and Provisional movements in 1969, but Costello remained with the Officials, owing to a greater commitment to left-wing politics. He served as Vice-President of Official Sinn Féin and as a staff officer in the Official IRA.


Costello was opposed to the 1972 ceasefire, started to clash openly with the leadership and with Eoin O'Murchú. Costello was subjected to court martial in 1974. Brigid Makowski, who was called to testify at his court martial in Mornington in County Louth, remarked that "Jesus could have testified on Costello's behalf and it wouldn't have changed the verdict."[5]He was dismissed from OSF in 1974 after the OSF leadership blocked his supporters from attending the party convention.


He enjoyed considerable political support, being elected as chairman of Bray Town Council and topping the poll in his Bray constituency for Wicklow County Council.
Founds INLA and IRSP


At a meeting in the Lucan Spa Hotel nearDublin, on 10 December 1974, the Irish Republican Socialist Party was formed by republicans, socialists, and trade unionists with Costello as the Chairperson.


At a private meeting later the same day, the Irish National Liberation Army was formed with Costello as the Chief of Staff, although its existence was to be kept secret for a time. The new grouping intended to combine left-wing politics with the "armed struggle" against British security forces in Northern Ireland.


Within days of its founding, the fledgling Irish Republican Socialist Movement was embroiled in a bitter feud with the Official IRA. The feud resulted in the attempted assassination of Official IRA leader Sean Garland who was wounded in an IRSP attack near his home in the Ballymun area of Dublin (Garland was wounded six times but survived the attack). Before a truce was reached, three members of the IRSP were dead. Later that same year, Bernadette McAliskey resigned from the IRSP over the failure of a motion that would have brought the INLA under IRSP control, taking over half of the Árd Chomhairle members with her.


In July 1976 Costello was replaced as INLA chief-of-staff by South Derry man Eddy McNicholl, although he still wielded considerable influence within the movement, retaining his position as chairman of the IRSP.
Death


Despite the truce, Costello was shot dead as he sat in his car on the North Strand Road in Dublin on 5 October 1977 by a member of the Official IRA, Jim Flynn, who happened to be in the area at the time.[6] The Official and Provisional IRAs both denied responsibility and Sinn Féin/The Workers' Party issued a statement condemning the killing. Members of an opposing INLA faction in Belfast also denied the killing. However, the INLA eventually deemed Flynn the person responsible, and he was shot dead in June 1982 in the North Strand, Dublin, very close to the spot where Costello died.


Costello is the only leader of an Irish political party murdered to date.


At the time of his death, he was a member of the following bodies:
Wicklow County Council
County Wicklow Committee of Agriculture
General Council of Committees of Agriculture
Eastern Regional Development Organisation
National Museum Development Committee
Bray Urban District Council
Bray Branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union
Bray and District Trade Unions Council (of which he was president 1976–77)
Cualann Historical Society


as well as still holding the positions of
Chairperson of the IRSP and
Chief of Staff of the INLA.


His funeral was attended by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, the then president of Sinn Féin, Michael O'Riordan of the Communist Party of Ireland,Bernadette McAliskey and local Wicklow TDsLiam Kavanagh (Labour), Ciarán Murphy(Fianna Fáil) and Godfrey Timmins (Fine Gael). At his funeral, Senator Nora Connolly O'Brien, daughter of the Easter Rising leader James Connolly, gave the oration.



Of all the politicians and political people with whom I have had conversations, and whom I have had conversations, and who called themselves followers of Connolly, he was the only one who truly understood what James Connolly meant when he spoke of his vision of the freedom of the Irish people



Nora Connolly O'Brien



Dialectical Materialism


Dialectical Materialism is a way of understanding reality; whether thoughts, emotions, or the material world. Simply stated, this methodology is the combination of Dialectics and Materialism. The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism (while being communist is the practice of Marxism).


"It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of being conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation. A cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes.


Fredrick Engels
Dialectics of Nature
Introduction


"Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, or motion without matter, nor can there be."


"Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition).


"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature."


Fredrick Engels
Dialectics of Nature


But dialectical materialism insists on the approximate relative character of every scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties; it insists on the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the transformation of moving matter from one state into another, that from our point of view [may be] apparently irreconcilable with it, and so forth.


Vladimir Lenin
Materialism and Empirio-criticism


With each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form; and after history was also subjected to materialistic treatment, a new avenue of development has opened here, too. [Ch. 2, The End of Classical German Philosophy]


"For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher."


Fredrick Engels
The End of Classical German Philosophy


An example of dialectical materialism applied is the materialist conception of history .


'Dialectical Materialism' was coined by Karl Kautsky and popularised in the Second International after the death of Marx and Engels.


See also: dialectics, materialism, Historical Materialism and Political Economy.






Dialectics


Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity.


Dialectics is opposed to the formal, metaphysical mode of thought of ordinary understanding which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes. For example formal thought would explain: ‘a fish is something with no legs which lives in the water’.


Darwin however, considered fish dialectically: some of the animals living in the water were not fish, and some of the fish had legs, but it was the genesis of all the animals as part of a whole interconnected process which explained the nature of a fish: they came from something and are evolving intosomething else.


Darwin went behind the appearance of fish to get to their essence. For ordinary understanding there is no difference between the appearance of a thing and its essence, but for dialectics the form and contentof something can be quite contradictory – parliamentary democracy being the prime example: democracy in form, but dictatorship in content!


And for dialectics, things can be contradictory not just in appearance, but in essence. For formal thinking, light must be either a wave or a particle; but the truth turned out to be dialectical – light is both wave and particle. (See the principle of excluded middle)


We are aware of countless ways of understanding the world; each of which makes the claim to be theabsolute truth, which leads us to think that, after all, “It’s all relative!”. For dialectics the truth is thewhole picture, of which each view is a more or less one-sided, partial aspect.


At times, people complain in frustration that they lack the Means to achieve their Ends, or alternatively, that they can justify their corrupt methods of work by the lofty aims they pursue. For dialectics, Means and Ends are a unity of opposites and in the final analysis, there can be no contradiction between means and ends – when the objective is rightly understood, "the material conditions [means] for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation" (Marx, Preface of Contribution to a Political Economy)


An example of dialectical reasoning can be seen in Lenin's slogan: “All Power to the Soviets” spoken when the Soviets were against the Bolsheviks. Lenin understood, however, that the impasse could only be resolved by workers’ power. Since the Soviets were organs of workers’ power, a revolutionary initiative by the Bolsheviks would inevitably bring the Soviets to their side: the form of the Soviets during the time (lead by Mensheviks and SRs) were at odds with the content of the Soviets as Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Councils.


Formal thinking often has trouble understanding the causes of events – something has to be a cause and something else the effect – and people are surprised when they irrigate land and 20 years later – due to salination of the land, silting of the waterways, etc – they have a desert! Dialectics on the other hand understands that cause and effect are just one and another side of a whole network of relations such as we have in an ecosystem, and one thing cannot be changed without changing the whole system.


These are different aspect of Dialectics, and there are many others, because dialectics is the method of thinking in which concepts are flexible and mobile, constrained only by the imperative of comprehending the movement of the object itself, however contradictory, however transient.


History: Dialectics has its origins in ancient society, both among the Chinese and the Greeks, where thinkers sought to understand Nature as a whole, and saw that everything is fluid, constantly changing, coming into being and passing away. It was only when the piecemeal method of observing Nature in bits and pieces, practiced in Western thinking in the 17th and 18th century, had accumulated enough positive knowledge for the interconnections, the transitions, the genesis of things to become comprehensible, that conditions became ripe for modern dialectics to make its appearance. It was Hegel who was able to sum up this picture of universal interconnection and mutability of things in a system of Logic which is the foundation of what we today call Dialectics.


As Engels put it:


“the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process – i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development.” [Socialism: Utopian & Scientific]


It was in the decade after Hegel’s death – the 1840s – when Hegel’s popularity was at its peak in Germany, that Marx and Engels met and worked out the foundations of their critique of bourgeois society.


Hegel’s radical young followers had in their hands a powerful critical tool with which they ruthlessly criticised Christianity, the dominant doctrine of the day. However, one of these Young Hegelians, Ludwig Feuerbach, pointed out that Holy Family was after all only a Heavenly image of the Earthly family, and said that by criticising theology with philosophy, the Young Hegelians were only doing the same as the Christians – Hegel’s Absolute Idea was just another name for God! For Feuerbach, ideas were areflection of the material world and he held it to be ridiculous that an Idea could determine the world. Feuerbach had declared himself a materialist.


Marx and Engels began as supporters of Feuerbach. However, very soon they took up an opposition to Feuerbach to restore the Hegelian dialectic which had been abandoned by Feuerbach, and to free it from the rigidity of the idealistic Hegelian system and place the method on a materialist basis:


“Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the ‘Idea’, existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. ” [Fredrick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific]


Thus, for Marx and Engels, thoughts were not passive and independent reflections of the material world, but products of human labour, and the contradictory nature of our thoughts had their origin in the contradictions within human society. This meant that Dialectics was not something imposed on to the world from outside which could be discovered by the activity of pure Reason, but was a product of human labour changing the world; its form was changed and developed by people, and could only be understood by the practical struggle to overcome these contradictions – not just in thought, but inpractice.


Further Reading: [The Science of Dialectics], by Fredrick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, by Fredrick Engels, an example of dialectics in: The Metaphysics of Political Economy, by Karl Marx; The ABC of Materialist Dialectics, by Leon Trotsky; Lenin's Summary of Dialectics.


See also the Sampler for multiple definitions; Dialectics Subject Section. For examples of Dialectics: references to Examples from History and Society and Examples from Personal Life in Hegel’s Logic; and see the definition on Taoism for a look at an ancient process of dialectics.






Dictatorship


Dictatorship means the imposition of a rule on others who do not consent to it. Sometimes ‘dictatorship’ is wrongly used in contrast to ‘democracy’, but ‘democracy’ implies the imposition of the will of a majority, i.e., a dictatorship, on a minority.


The word originates from the dictatura of the ancient Roman Republic, an important institution that lasted for over three centuries. The Dictatura provided for an emergency exercise of power by a trusted citizen for temporary and limited purposes, for six months at the most. Its aim was to preserve the republican status quo, and in the event of a foreign attack or internal subversion of the constitution.Dictatura, thus had much the same meaning as “state of emergency” has today. Julius Caesar gave thedictatura a “bad name” by declaring himself dictator for life.


Right into the nineteenth century, ‘dictatorship’ was used in the sense of the management of power in a state of emergency, outside of the norms of legality, sometimes, but not always, implying one-man rule, and sometimes in reference to the dominance of an elected government over traditional figures of authority.


The French Revolution was frequently referred to by friends and foes alike as a dictatorship. Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals” advocated a dictatorship exercised by a group of revolutionaries, having the task of defending the revolution against the reactionary peasants, and educating the masses up to the eventual level of a democracy, a transitional period of presumably many decades. It was this notion of ‘dictatorship’ that was in the minds of Auguste Blanqui and his followers who actively advocated communist ideas in the 1830s and ’40s.


In general political discourse in the nineteenth century, however, it was quite routine to describe, for example, the British Parliament as a ‘dictatorship’. Given that in most countries the franchise was restricted to property-owners, this usage was quite appropriate, but it was also used to attack proposals for universal suffrage, which, it was held, would institute a dictatorship over the property owners.


Modern usage of the term begins to appear in connection with the Revolutions which swept Europe in 1848. The Left, including its most moderate elements, talked of a dictatorship, by which they meant nothing more than imposing the will of an majority-elected government over a minority of counter-revolutionaries. Terrified by the uprising of the Parisian workers in June 1848, the Provisional Government handed over absolute power to the dictatorship of General Cavaignac, who used his powers to massacre the workers of Paris. Subsequently, a state-of-siege provision was inserted into the French Constitution to provide for such exigencies, and this law became the model for other nations who wrote such emergency provisions into their constitutions. From the middle of the nineteenth century, the word ‘dictatorship’ was associated with this institution, still more or less faithful to the original Roman meaning — an extra-legal institution for the defence of the constitution.


It was only gradually, during the 1880s, that ‘dictatorship’ came to be routinely used to mean a form of government in contrast to ‘democracy’ and by the 1890s was generally used in that way. Prior to that time, throughout the life-time of Karl Marx for example, it was never associated with any particular form of government, everyone understanding that popular suffrage was as much an instrument of dictatorship as martial law.






Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie


The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.


Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic "freedom of assembly" is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants – the overwhelming majority of the population – are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, "equality", i.e., "pure democracy", is a fraud.


"Freedom of the press" is another of the principal slogans of "pure democracy". And here, too, the workers know – and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times – that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains – a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically – the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example...


The capitalists have always use the term "freedom" to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of "pure democracy" prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement.


V.I. Lenin
First Congress of the Communist International


See Also: The same government: Bourgeois Democracy, save put in the perspective of the ruling class; and Democracy in general.






Dictatorship of the Proletariat


Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part IV


This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination,but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.


Rosa Luxemburg
The Russian Revolution
Democracy and Dictatorship


What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?


We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.


The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.


V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State


The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production - which includes the production of information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation.


Leon Trotsky
Freedom of the Press and Working Class


See Also: The same government: Proletarian Democracy, save put in the perspective of the ruling (working) class; and Democracy in general.






Difference


Difference is part of the very first stage of Essence in the genesis of a Notion in the grade of Reflection. Difference is the negation of Identity. The identity of something is defined by what is deemed to be not-equal to it, different. But Difference soon cancels itself through the discovery that 'everything is different', which is the "maxim of Diversity" (inessential difference). Difference is only meaningful where the objects considered are also in some sense identical, and thus passes over into Opposition (essential difference) and Contradiction, the unity of identity and difference.


In recent European philosophy, especially Derrida, quite of lot is made of Difference, but it is noteworthy that Difference is given a systematic development by Hegel in the earliest, most abstract part of the Logic. Marx can be seen developing the concept of Difference in Chapter 3 of Capital.


Further Reading: Hegel on Difference in the Shorter Logic.






Direct Struggle


A theory set out by the People's Will party in Russia. The theory stipulated that revolution could be instigated through terrorism, called a "direct struggle" against the government apparatus. Direct Struggle aimed to show, through terrorism, an "uninterrupted demonstration of the possibility of struggling against the government, in this manner lifting the revolutionary spirit of the people and its faith in the success of the cause, and organising those capable of fighting." (from the Programme of the People's Will, 1879)






Discrete


Discrete is a synonym for discontinuous, denoting breaks in development, "leaps" in Nature, matter in the form of distinct objects or particles, counting-numbers as opposed to indefinitely divisible magnitudes.


See Also: Continuity and Discontinuity.


Distribution and Exchange


Distribution is the process whereby the total social product is divided up among the population.


Exchange is the practice of trading of different products of equal value, between different individuals or organisations.


In this relation, distribution is determined by the community, exchange by the individual, but the individual is able to exchange only what has been allocated to her in the process of distribution.


Distribution and exchange only arise on the basis of a division of labour which creates a separationbetween production and consumption, and requires a socially determined means of mediating between the two.


But distribution and exchange do not only mediate between production and consumption: they are themselves forces of production. For example, it is the system of distribution which creates the propertyless labourers and it is the system of distribution which is then needed to realise the surplus value acquired by exploiting them.


Thus, the system of distribution and exchange is inseparably bound up with the development of the productive forces themselves. Distribution and exchange are not just external appendages of the labour process, but its life blood.


A system of distribution which provides for the concentration of a social surplus is the fundamental precondition for the development of civilisation; a system of distribution which creates a class of people who have nothing to sell but their labour power and a class of people who own the means of production as their private property is the fundamental pre-condition for the development of bourgeois society. Socialist society, on the other hand, implies a system of distribution which eradicates social inequality and transcends the need for exchange.


Exchange begins as a marginal and incidental practice at the periphery of self-sufficient communities based on Collaboration, and gives rise to the genesis of the form of value which takes on an independent form in money, and on the basis of money arises a developed system of distribution as well as an elaborate social division of labour which is the foundation for the development of all modern forces of production.


The exchange relation is the essential relation of bourgeois society, and Marx takes it as the starting point of Capital in terms of the commodity. Increasingly relations of exchange, and even distribution, penetrate into the labour process itself as a result of the process of socialisation.


See Exchange.










Diversity, the maxim of


The maxim of Diversity – ‘There are no two things completely like each other’ is attributed toLeibnitz.


This maxim is dealt with in Hegel's Doctrine of Essence as part of a series of “Laws” beginning with the Law of identity - ‘everything is equal to itself’, the Maxim of Diversity (or Variety), Opposition, Contradiction and Ground, in which understanding of the essentially contradictory sides of a concept is successively deepened.


Further Reading: Hegel on the Law of Identity in the Science of Logic and Trotsky's ABC of Materialist Dialectics; and Essential Identity.






Division of Labour


The division of labour is a specific mode of cooperation wherein different tasks are assigned to different people. Division of labour is as old as labour itself, stretching back to the birth of the human race.


“This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products.


“... In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.


“... Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. [Capital, Chapter 1]


More than anything else, human history is characterised by the ever-increasing complexity of the division of labour. The form of the division of labour changes however, passing through a number of distinct phases.


“The various stages of development in the division of labour are just so many different forms of ownership, i.e. the existing stage in the division of labour determines also the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labour.” [German Ideology]


Prior to the rupture of society into classes, the social division of labour was almost exclusively based on kinship relations, within a relatively closed circle, wherein the character of an individual’s labour was determined by their age, sex and position within the family. This division of labour based on kinship relations continues up to the present day, but with the collapse of tribal society and the formation of social classes there began a new kind of division of labour, based on class relations, including the division between mental and manual labour.


The division of labour has the most profound effect on the forms of consciousness predominating in a given society since such forms can only be, after all the internalised forms of social activity.


During the whole feudal period, the division of labour is still determined along kinship lines, but now on a much wider class encompassing social classes.


With the development of manufacture however, division of labour takes a big step upwards:


“That co-operation which is based on division of labour, assumes its typical form in manufacture, and is the prevalent characteristic form of the capitalist process of production throughout the manufacturing period properly so called. That period, roughly speaking, extends from the middle of the 16th to the last third of the 18th century.


“Manufacture takes its rise in two ways:


“(1.) By the assemblage, in one workshop under the control of a single capitalist, of labourers belonging to various independent handicrafts, but through whose hands a given article must pass on its way to completion. ...


“(2.) Manufacture also arises in a way exactly the reverse of this namely, by one capitalist employing simultaneously in one workshop a number of artificers, who all do the same, or the same kind of work [Capital, Chapter 14]


All subsequent developments in the forces of production correspond to qualitative changes in the social division of labour. In the last hundred years, the most significant markers in the development of the social division of labour are the successive management ideologies which achieved dominance: Taylorism,Fordism and Toyotism.


Up till the present time, the development of the social division of labour has tended to channel individuals into narrowly defined occupations, situating them in a well-defined position in the social division of labour for a life-time. That is to say, no-one is a person, she is rather a labourer in this or thatoccupation. Nowadays however, in the developed capitalist countries, it is rare for someone to work in a specific line of work for more than a decade without being obliged, if not by their own will, to change occupation.


In a socialist society of the future, there would remain of course a highly developed social division of labour, but it is likely that a person who is one day an artist, will be on another a tourist guide, on another a teacher and on another a machinist. It is in this sense that Marx and Engels said:


“In the present epoch, the domination of material relations over individuals, and the suppression of individuality by fortuitous circumstances, has assumed its sharpest and most universal form, thereby setting existing individuals a very definite task. It has set them the task of replacing the domination of circumstances and of chance over individuals by the domination of individuals over chance and circumstances. .... This task, dictated by present-day relations, coincides with the task of organising society in a communist way.


“... the abolition of a state of affairs in which relations become independent of individuals, in which individuality is subservient to chance and the personal relations of individuals are subordinated to general class relations, etc. - that the abolition of this state of affairs is determined in the final analysis by the abolition of division of labour. We have also shown that the abolition of division of labour is determined by the development of intercourse and productive forces to such a degree of universality that private property and division of labour become fetters on them. We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse.” [German Ideology]


Further Reading:


[In the Iron Age] the second great division of labor took place: handicraft separated from agriculture. The continuous increase of production and simultaneously of the productivity of labor heightened the value of human labor-power. Slavery, which during the preceding period was still in its beginnings and sporadic, now becomes an essential constituent part of the social system; slaves no longer merely help with production -- they are driven by dozens to work in the fields and the workshops. With the splitting up of production into the two great main branches, agriculture and handicrafts, arises production directly for exchange, commodity production; with it came commerce, not only in the interior and on the tribal boundaries, but also already overseas. All this, however, was still very undeveloped; the precious metals were beginning to be the predominant and general money commodity, but still uncoined, exchanging simply by their naked weight.


The distinction of rich and poor appears beside that of freemen and slaves -- with the new division of labor, a new cleavage of society into classes. The inequalities of property among the individual heads of families break up the old communal household communities wherever they had still managed to survive, and with them the common cultivation of the soil by and for these communities. The cultivated land is allotted for use to single families, at first temporarily, later permanently. The transition to full private property is gradually accomplished, parallel with the transition of the pairing marriage into monogamy. The single family is becoming the economic unit of society....


[In overview:] At the lowest stage of barbarism men produced only directly for their own needs; any acts of exchange were isolated occurrences, the object of exchange merely some fortuitous surplus. In the middle stage of barbarism we already find among the pastoral peoples a possession in the form of cattle which, once the herd has attained a certain size, regularly produces a surplus over and above the tribe's own requirements, leading to a division of labor between pastoral peoples and backward tribes without herds, and hence to the existence of two different levels of production side by side with one another and the conditions necessary for regular exchange. The upper stage of barbarism brings us the further division of labor between agriculture and handicrafts, hence the production of a continually increasing portion of the products of labor directly for exchange, so that exchange between individual producers assumes the importance of a vital social function.


Civilization consolidates and intensifies all these existing divisions of labor, particularly by sharpening the opposition between town and country (the town may economically dominate the country, as in antiquity, or the country the town, as in the middle ages), and it adds a third division of labor, peculiar to itself and of decisive importance: it creates a class which no longer concerns itself with production, but only with the exchange of the products -- the merchants. Hitherto whenever classes had begun to form, it had always been exclusively in the field of production; the persons engaged in production were separated into those who directed and those who executed, or else into large-scale and small-scale producers. Now for the first time a class appears which, without in any way participating in production, captures the direction of production as a whole and economically subjugates the producers; which makes itself into an indispensable middleman between any two producers and exploits them both. Under the pretext that they save the producers the trouble and risk of exchange, extend the sale of their products to distant markets and are therefore the most useful class of the population, a class of parasites comes into being, "genuine social icbneumons," who, as a reward for their actually very insignificant services, skim all the cream off production at home and abroad, rapidly amass enormous wealth and correspondingly social influence, and for that reason receive under civilization ever higher honors and ever greater control of production, until at last they also bring forth a product of their own -- the periodical trade crises....


Fredrick Engels
Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State


With commerce the prerogative of a particular class, with the extension of trade through the merchants beyond the immediate surroundings of the town, there immediately appears a reciprocal action between production and commerce. The towns enter into relations with one another, new tools are brought from one town into the other, and the separation between production and commerce soon calls forth a new division of production between the individual towns, each of which is soon exploiting a predominant branch of industry. The local restrictions of earlier times begin gradually to be broken down....


The existence of the town implies, at the same time, the necessity of administration, police, taxes, etc.; in short, of the municipality, and thus of politics in general. Here first became manifest the division of the population into two great classes, which is directly based on the division of labour and on the instruments of production. The town already is in actual fact the concentration of the population, of the instruments of production, of capital, of pleasures, of needs, while the country demonstrates just the opposite fact, isolation and separation. The antagonism between town and country can only exist within the framework of private property. It is the most crass expression of the subjection of the individual under the division of labour, under a definite activity forced upon him -- a subjection which makes one man into a restricted town-animal, the other into a restricted country-animal, and daily creates anew the conflict between their interests. Labour is here again the chief thing, power over individuals, and as long as the latter exists, private property must exist. The abolition of the antagonism between town and country is one of the first conditions of communal life, a condition which again depends on a mass of material premises and which cannot be fulfilled by the mere will, as anyone can see at the first glance.....


Marx and Engels
German Ideology -- Section 3


How far the productive forces of a nation are developed is shown most manifestly by the degree to which the division of labour has been carried. Each new productive force, insofar as it is not merely a quantitative extension of productive forces already known (for instance the bringing into cultivation of fresh land), causes a further development of the division of labour....


Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the "general interest", but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man's own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.


Marx and Engels
German Ideology -- Section 1


The great progress of the division of labor began in England after the invention of machinery. Thus, the weavers and spinners were for the most part peasants like those one still meets in backward countries. The invention of machinery brought about the separation of manufacturing industry from agricultural industry. The weaver and the spinner, united but lately in a single family, were separated by the machine. Thanks to the machine, the spinner can live in England while the weaver resides in the East Indies. Before the invention of machinery, the industry of a country was carried on chiefly with raw materials that were the products of its own soil; in England, wool, in Germany, flax, in France, silks and flax, in the East Indies and the Levant, cottons, etc. Thanks to the application of machinery and of steam, the division of labor was about to assume such dimensions that large-scale industry, detached from the national soil, depends entirely on the world market, on international exchange, on an international division of labor. In short, the machine has so great an influence on the division of labor, that when, in the manufacture of some object, a means has been found to produce parts of it mechanically, the manufacture splits up immediately into two works independent of each other.


Karl Marx
The Poverty of Philosophy