#JamesAlexFieldsJr is a registered #Democrat. #Charlottesville #FalseFlag #CharlottesvilleFalseFlag

So why would a registered Democrat use a car to run over anti-Trump counterprotestors?

James Alex Fields Jr., 20, Registered Democrat Party has been identified as the man who murdered one and injured 19 people in Charlottesville, Virginia today. From August to December, 2015, he was listed as an Active Duty Service Member in the United States Army but discharged.

#Virginia governor #TerryMcAuliffe declares #FirstAmendment does not apply to #conservatives.


Using megaphones, police declared an unlawful assembly at about 11:40 a.m., and gave a five-minute warning to leave Emancipation Park, where hundreds of neoNazis, Ku Klux Klans members and other white nationalists had gathered to protest the removal of a Confederate statue. They were met by equal numbers of “counterprotesters,” including Black Lives Matter activists and Princeton professor Cornel West.

Yet you have no problem allowing Antifa goons and Black Lives Matter retards remaining and chanting “FUCK THE POLICE” you fucking man-cunt.

Get the fuck out of my country, you fucking traitor. I wish George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would come back to life and stab you with bayonette rifles, you seditionist piece of shit.

The #Soros Distraction. #GeorgeSoros

Soros, ‘Globalism,’ and Grassroots Revolt: How the Right Uses Conspiracy Theories to Appear Revolutionary

In the 1990s and into the early 2000s, a global movement against corporate globalization and neoliberal capitalism developed, with anti-authoritarian and anarchist politics at it’s head. In 1994, the Zapatista insurrection in Chiapas, Mexico against NAFTA made the world sit up, as indigenous people began self-organizing their communities after taking land back from the State in an armed uprising, blending indigenous Zapatismo with Mexican anarchism. Soon, a tidal wave of actions, indymedia projects, and grassroots groups began to be formed across the US, which fed into the growing anarchist movement. When the protests in Seattle of 1999 hit in November against the World Trade Organization, they famously popularized the black bloc tactic, however in truth the anarchist movement in North America had already been growing for years and exploded within the ascending anti-globalization movement, and was much bigger than simply one single tactic. Regardless, along with the anti-globalization movement, anarchism and its ideas grew. 

Paid terrorists attack volunteer revolutionaries in the service of global capitalists.

The anti-globalization movement became in many regards, de-facto anarchist; from the ways that people made decisions to how people organized themselves to take action. Moreover, the mobilizations in Seattle were also important because it saw thousands of people join in confrontational demonstrations that disobeyed the leadership of union bureaucrats and NGOs, to say nothing of the Democrats in power or the police. As the government called for a curfew on demonstrations and even brought in massive amounts of body bags, and President Clinton demonized the black bloc as only wanting to attack “small businesses,” the riots grew into popular revolts as whole neighborhoods stood up against the police and began looting stores. Moreover, the combination of street clashes and blockades shut down the WTO meeting; the protesters won. Seattle set in motion a chain of events, as the anti-globalization upheavals continued, not only in size and scale, but also as popular confrontations between the State, it’s security forces, and the general population. While the events of September 11th in many ways sunk the movement, it remains a high point of anarchist organizing in recent memory.

Ironically, when large scale demonstrations like this break out across the social terrain in today’s world, as they often have in the last several years under another Democratic President, Obama, the far-Right simply writes them off. But how and why the write them off is very telling. Generally this first takes the path of conspiracy, as one section of the Right dismisses any kind of popular uprising or resistance as the work of “paid protesters,” almost always under the direction of billionaire George Soros. Another section of the Right will take this even further, and claim that those facing felonies and military grade police weapons are in fact soldiers of the “Zionists,” and are the foot soldiers of the “globalist” order.

But the far-Right did not always see things this way.

As the riots of 1999 in Seattle against the WTO played out, many on the far-Right actually saw what was happening in a favorable light. Beyond that, they even chastised their own movement for failing to live up to the same standard as the people that rioted and shut down the WTO meetings. Although the far-Right framed these actions in terms of conspiracies of the “Zionist Occupied Government, or “New World Order,” they still strangely enough, supported it. Matthew Hale, then the leader of the World Church of the Creator,  stated in an essay after the riots:

What happened in Seattle is a precursor for the future—when White people in droves protest the actions of world Jewry not by ‘writing to congressmen’, ‘voting’, or other nonsense like that, but by taking to the streets and throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of the enemy’s machine.

Did the right wing hinder the WTO? No. They were too busy ‘writing their congressmen’—congressmen who were bought off a long time ago, or waiting for their ‘great white hope’ in shining armor who they can miraculously vote into office.No, it was the left wing, by and large, which stymied the WTO to the point where their meeting was practically worthless, and we should concentrate on these zealots, not the ‘ meet, eat, and retreat’ crowd of the right wing who are so worried about ‘offending’ the enemy that all too often, they are a nice Trojan Horse for the enemy’s designs.

Others agreed. Louis Beam, a former member of the Ku-Klux-Klan, and an almost a Subcomandante Marcos figure on the racist far-Right, as well as the person who popularized the concept of ‘leaderless resistance’ wrote:

…My heart goes out to those brave souls in Seattle who turned out in the thousands from both Canada and the U.S. to go up against the thugs of Clinton and those who put him in office. I appreciate their bravery. I admire their courage. And I thank them for fighting my battle…“Soon, however, there will be millions in this country of every political persuasion confronting the police state on streets throughout America. When you are being kicked, gassed, beaten and shot at by the police enforcers of the NWO you will not be asking, nor giving a rat’s tail, what the other freedom lovers’ politics ‘used to be’—for the new politics of America is liberty from the NWO Police State and nothing more.

We mention this history, just as Don Hammerquist did in Fascism and Anti-Fascism, not to imply that there can be some sort of ‘unity’ between white supremacists and anarchists, but simply to point out that the far-Right, at this time, recognized that one of their enemies – anarchists, were actually political agents in a battle against the State and the economic system it is designed to protect. They also understood that this struggle made their own movement appear weak due to inaction and reformism. Also, keep in mind that this was happening at a time of increased anti-fascist organizing, mostly under the banner of Anti-Racist Action (ARA), the very group that were breaking up meetings and beating the shit out of Matt Hale’s Nazi supporters, so these comments were not made without hesitation or reflection.

Things are much different now. For instance, when the African-American community of Ferguson rose in revolt against the police in the summer of 2014, the far-Right across the board condemned the uprising as the work of paid Soros protesters, or an example of the black threat to white civilization. One far-Right group actually even went to Ferguson to help put down the rebellion, the Oath Keepers, a Patriot/militia group, and attempted to act as an auxiliary force to the police. However, upon arrival, some in the group decided they instead wanted to march with guns with the protesters in order to show the police that the citizens were not afraid of them. This about face in position among some members, from wanting to support the State to wanting to support the black citizens of Ferguson, caused a split in the group. Needless to say, the march never happened, but the point remains clear: stand up to the State and its police, especially if you’re black, and the far-Right does not support you. In fact, it demonizes you as the enemy for doing so, or portrays you as a stooge to powers far beyond your control.

The current myths around Soros as the “Puppet Master” mirror the previous views of groups such as the John Birch Society and the American Nazi Party.

These extreme simplifications go back to the 1950s on the far-Right, where anti-communist groups like the John Birch Society painted a world where communists in the service of the USSR infiltrated every group with sizeable influence that was trying to change conditions for poor, working-class, and oppressed people. Moreover, they strongly opposed the civil-rights movement because they saw it as a stepping stone to socialism. Neo-Nazis like George Lincoln Rockwell took these ideas a step further, and proclaimed that civil-rights groups such as the NAACP were actually run by the Jews. African-Americans, Rockwell argued, were not smart enough to organize their own organizations, and thus had to have Jewish leadership. Such leadership, he went on, was proof of Jewish communist plans to ‘race-mix’ white people out of existence. Such ideas continue today on the far-Right, as Neo-Nazis like Matthew Heimbach repeat the same tired lines, while also heralding black nationalist groups such as the Nation of Islam. For the Right it seems, black struggle and organization is always dismissed, unless those involved have anti-Semitic and nationalist politics which mirror their own.

Despite downplaying grassroots resistance, community organizing, and revolt of any kind, the far-Right in the past 8 years has growly increasingly militant and at times, even insurrectionary. It called for Obama to be tried as a traitor. It called for Hillary to be fired and jailed as well. In an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, a far-Right militia occupation in Oregon called for the end of the federal government and the replacing of the State with the power of the Sheriff and the opening up of all federal lands to mining, ranching, and resource extraction. At the same time, the racist far-Right grew in street militancy, clashing with anarchist and left-wing demonstrators, leaving several people injured, and in some cases, even attempting to kill them.

Throughout it all, if the far-Right was sure of one thing, it was the illegitimacy of any resistance that did not come from the Right itself. Any grassroots mobilization, any strike action, occupation of land, or insurrection against State authority was seen as suspect; written off as the act of provocateurs in the service of globalist elites. While it is easy to laugh off these ideas as the fantasy of twitter warriors, or tin-foil hat Alex Jones fans ranting about “the Lizards,” with Trump now echoing many of these positions, they become less easy to dismiss with a slight of hand.

From Globalization to “Globalism”

“Globalism” has now replaced “communism” and even Islam, as the boogeyman of the Right, while at the same time, still encapsulating both of them as threats within its worldview. The far-Right, and the Right in general is very good at taking very complex systems and reducing them down to simple problems caused by a select group of people. As we will show, the idea of globalism both seeks to attempt to appear populist or even revolutionary, while at the same time, singling out select groups of people who the Right claims further the ‘globalist agenda.’

But where did the idea of globalism come from and what the hell does it mean? After NAFTA was passed, and globalization allowed capital to move freely across national borders while locking workers behind them, as structural adjustment programs slashed social services, took away land, and restructured economies in the service of international capital, the mood began to change in the US among everyday workers against globalization. This anger helped feed into the anti-globalization movement, as large segments of labor joined the fight against free-trade deals. But it wasn’t long until sections of the right began to bring critiques of globalization into their talking points as well, Pat Buchanan being a key example.

On the Right, discussion of global capitalism was turned on its head; into a conversation on the problem of “the globalists.” In short, the problem wasn’t a system, but a set of people, and this problem is almost always described along the lines of a conspiracy. In short, those on the far-Right framed the problem in terms of American nationalism, sovereignty, and power, pitted against the “globalist agenda.” Furthermore, the far-Right, of whatever stripe, always described the elite globalist system as being supported and maintained by a set of non-State actors, which work in it’s service to destabilize sovereignty and attack the ‘Native’ population. For some this is immigrants, for others Muslims, for the racist far-Right, it means black people being controlled by Jews, among others. But for all, it means anti-capitalists and grassroots communities in struggle which fight against the dominant social order and power structure. As Liam Stack wrote:

Globalism is often used as a synonym for globalization, the system of global economic interconnection that has been critiqued for decades by liberal groups like labor unions, environmental organizations and opponents of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But for the far right, the term encapsulates a conspiratorial worldview based on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism…

The term also often explicitly rejects any sort of anti-capitalist analysis of the systems of power and moreover, and instead replaces a class analysis with racial and national overtones:

Lauren Southern, a host on the right-wing Canadian media site Rebel Media, explicitly rejected its use as a synonym for globalization in a video she posted online in September. She said the word meant rule by autocrats — such as President Obama, former President George W. Bush and the United Nations — who value “the false flag of diversity” and “unchecked immigration from the third world.”

Hope Hicks, Trump’s spokesperson defined globalism as such:

An economic and political ideology which puts allegiance to international institutions ahead of the nation-state; seeks the unrestricted movement of goods, labor and people across borders; and rejects the principle that the citizens of a country are entitled to preference for jobs and other economic considerations as a virtue of their citizenship.

For the ‘anti-globalists’ then, the major problems facing everyday people are not pollution, repression, or poverty, but the pooling of State power into umbrella organizations, such as the United Nations, and “the flooding” of countries by immigration. For the Right, this results in a perceived attack on Western Civilization.

And for some on the far-Right, these ideas take extreme forms. For example, Alex Jones (who called globalism “the ultimate form of slavery”) contends that the globalists ultimate plan is a one world government and that they use immigration to flood sovereign States in order to destroy them and rig elections. Jones then goes on to contend that globalist elites also have plans to kill off a massive amount of the population through genocide and extermination for the sake of consolidating their power. Jones also preaches a set of even more hardcore conspiracy theories, some of which are paranormal in character and outright fucking crazy. But in the last year, Jones has crossed over as a Trump supporter, having Trump on his show, and we’ve even watched as Trump has parroted much of what Jones says in his radio broadcasts. It’s easy to laugh Jones off, but clearly his myth of ‘globalism’ is selling.

An image of George Soros from InfoWars’ article on globalism.

The Oath Keepers, one of the biggest Patriot groups also label globalism and globalists as their chief enemy. From the Oath Keeper page:

Arising out of the writings of Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (the Hegelian dialectic), and even further back to Plato, Globalism is a belief in a Utopian world run by wise men who care for the masses with a kind, benevolent hand. This we know is a bunch of crap, because those who are leading, (and have led), the world into this collective dystopia have murdered, “collectively”, hundreds of millions of people, through wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing and eugenics.

Fascism, socialism, communism and crony capitalism are all globalist at their core. meaning the collective is supreme over the individual. It is the battle between collectivism and individualism that we should be focused on, not left versus right,republican versus democrat, or fascist versus communist, but, rather, the collectivists vs. the individual, for collectivists hide in all the political persuasions. If someone wants to take your Creator-given, natural rights from you “for the greater good”, you can be assured they are collectivists. Those who would create the New World Order, are collectivists.

In many ways this critique of globalism simply continues cold-war opposition to communism, or inserts new enemies, such as immigrants or Islam, to make it fit into this idea of globalism as anything that threatens American nationalism and ‘sovereignty.’ The Conservativpedia post on globalism again makes this point:

Globalism is the failed liberalauthoritarian desire for a “one world” view that rejects the important role of nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a “world view” rather than an “American view.”

Globalists oppose nationalism and national sovereignty, and instead tend to favor on open borders, free trade, interventionalism, and foreign aid. Globalists virulently opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Instead, globalists preferred Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for the nomination, both of whom have voted in favor of the globalist agenda as senators.

Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. It is far easier for liberals to persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than it is for liberals to push their agenda on a decentralized form of government.

The conspiracy theories of Alex Jones and his critique of “globalism” has been mainstreamed by Trump, who not only came on Jones’ show, but parrots much of his talking points.

This is why immigration is such a huge point on the far-Right, because they see it as “a tool of the globalists” to destroy State sovereignty. Of course, this myth hides the fact that mass migration of people is caused largely by the globalization of the capitalist economy, US involvement in the drug war and foreign policy, and now, climate change and lack of access to water. As The National Interest expands the far-Right position clearly:

Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected borders, otherwise it isn’t really a nation. They also believe that their nation’s cultural heritage is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine the national commitment to that heritage. Globalists don’t care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states. Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders.

The overall logic of those opposed to globalism can best be reiterated and understood in simplicity by the Neo-Nazi Matthew Heimbach, who stated that the coming period will be defined by a war between globalism and nationalism, where nationalists of all stripes will fight against the globalist elites, which in Heimbach view, are manifested as a racialized Jewish global ruling class. If the nationalists are successful Heimbach contends, they will then create fascist States for each of their own races. While Heimbach’s position would be seen as extreme even on the Right, in many ways, this is just the logical conclusion on an idea founded on anti-Semitism. As Stack wrote:

Far-right groups in the United States began to refer to globalism at the end of the Cold War, when it replaced communism as an idea that was an ever-present danger to the nation, Mr. Pitcavage said. They have also referred to it as the New World Order, and soon they saw its tentacles everywhere.

The shape of that conspiracy had distinctly anti-Semitic overtones, in part because many of communism’s foes had historically seen communism as inextricably linked to Judaism, Mr. Pitcavage said. Members of the far right became fixated on prominent Jews like the businessman and philanthropist George Soros.

Those conspiratorial beliefs were bolstered when former President George Bush celebrated the end of the Cold War in a 1991 speech by saying it was the dawn of a “new world order.” His use of the phrase was taken as proof by many that a globalist conspiracy really was afoot.

The problem with all of this talk of ‘globalism’ vs nationalism is that it holds half-truths and full lies. Neoliberal finance capitalism is a global system. Neoliberalism and globalization have left behind billions of people, destroyed the environment, and attacked the living standards of the majority of people at the benefit of a small set of elites. However this is not conspiracy, it is not the creation of a cabal of Jews, and moreover, globalization is not designed to destroy the power of national States in order to create a one world government, nor is it the project of ideological liberal/Jewish/Islamics/Communists, or ‘globalists.’ Globalization and capitalism in general needs States. It needs them to manage and control their populations and lock them in place, even as capital and goods move freely. Finally, States are needed by elites on a variety of levels in order to bring about stability and prevent revolution when revolt and crisis break out. Moreover, just because capital is more globalized, does not mean that there are not competing visions among elites themselves.

But while the myth of globalism exists to explain the world in a way that allows the Right to actually make sense to people, and moreover, to make themselves appear to actually have political agency, it has other myths to describe everyone who resists in the here and now.

The Myth and Reality of George Soros

If there’s one thing Right loves to throw around, it’s the idea that George Soros is behind any sort of social movement, organized protest, or dissent in general against the status-quo. This is something that is held dear by all parts of the far-Right and even the center right-wing. It seeks to make sense of popular struggles and dismiss them as simply the work of people who are paid off by an evil financial capitalist. The myth has links back to anti-Semitic works such as the original fake news piece, The Protocols of Zion, and Soros being Jewish only adds icing to the far-Right’s cake. Moreover, it also side steps the issue of the very real stranglehold that non-profits and foundation money does play in resistance movements, which is negative, that seeks to channel social movements back into politics and the State, as opposed to building autonomous power on a community level.

But who is Soros? George Soros is the chairman of Soros Fund Management and is one of the 30 richest people in the world, making billions on hedge funds and currency speculation. Far from being an anti-capitalist or revolutionary, he’s most known for as “the man that broke the bank of England,” after he neted over $1 billion in currency speculation. Along with being one of the richest capitalists alive, Soros also donates to and funds many liberal non-profits that promote the Democratic Party and it’s bureaucrats. Soros has also backed many Democratic candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 1984, Soros set up the Open Society Foundation that acts as a grantmaking network, further expanding the amount of non-profits who took on the role of providing social services; filling gaps that were created after Reagan began slashing various programs.

Because Soros does have expansive wealth, donates to what the far-Right describes as “left-wing” groups such as MoveOn.org (a front for the Democratic Party), the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and MediaMatters.org (a large liberal non-profit), along with Democratic career politicians, on top of coming from a Jewish background, those on the Right love to use the image of Soros as a wealthy Jewish elitist to further a wide range of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and in the eyes of the far-Right, every riot, strike, occupation, and disruption ultimately has one man behind it: Soros. 

This is also a myth that like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or shows like Ancient Aliens, gets ratings, clicks, and votes. One of Donald Trump’s last campaign adds attacked Soros, along with the head of Goldman Sachs (where ironically Trump’s top advisor Steve Bannon formerly of Brietbart used to work), and the Federal Reserve, along with Clinton, in what many described as having anti-Semitic undertones. In 2010, Glenn Beck released a two part series on Soros, calling him “The Puppet Master,” claiming that he wanted a one world government and for himself to rule it. Again, this reduction of struggle, dissent, and unrest boils down complex situations into easy solutions; and Soros as a wealthy Jew makes an easy devil for the far-Right.


The far-Right portrays Soros as behind the organic struggles of poor, especially black people, as a way to demonize and downplay them. This plays into the myth that a Jewish cabal controls the world and moreover, that black people are unable to organize themselves without “puppet masters.”

For instance, during the fall of 2014, the far-Right again used the myth of Soros to claim that he was behind the Ferguson riots, and paid people tens of millions of protesters to “riot” in the wake of police murder of Mike Brown, Jr. Later, as black insurgency spread to Baltimore, the far-Right again pushed the line that Soros was bank-rolling the Black Lives Matter movement, which many on the Right simply equated part and parcel with the self-organized uprisings that were organically coming from the black community itselves. As the Movement for Black Lives (in many ways the “official” Black Lives Matter organization) tried to reign in the expanding movement that was becoming more and more militant, it also became awash in grants from the Ford Foundation as Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Not surprisingly, some of the leaders of the official organizations of Black Lives Matter, and its push for policy reforms, Campaign Zero, and ended up endorsing Clinton.

For those on the far-Right, this is evidence that the entire movement was itself funded by Soros, and that the rebellions, protests, mass organizing, and uprisings were all his doing. But what this really shows is that wealthy liberals and powerful non-profits were trying to bring popular and self-organized movements back into politics; to smother them of any revolutionary potential. For instance, in a recent article on Left Voice by Julia Wallace and Juan Ferre argues that this relationship between wealthy donors (like Soros) and non-profits actually moved revolt out of the streets and back into more ‘acceptable forms’:

We may ask ourselves, how did a platform of a movement that swept the streets throughout the US become a set of policy briefs meant to lobby Congress? The undersigned names and organizational affiliations give us a hint: most belong to the world of nonprofits, many are sponsored by the Ford Foundation, George Soros, the Black-Led Movement Fund, and other capitalist funders.

Wealthy philanthropists like George Soros are not friends of popular struggles, foolishly bankrolling their own demise. Organizations like the Ford Foundation are not interested in “liberation,” but rather, appeasement and co-optation. There is a long history of US capitalists intervening in social movements (ie., the Civil Rights movement) with the effect of steering them away from militancy and towards compromise. Philanthropy is a strategy of the rich, who may give up some wealth to fund progressive projects in order to quell social unrest, maintain their position of power, and maintain the capitalist order.

Many organizations that form part of the M4BL have taken donations from corporations, including a $500,000 grant from Google (Ella Baker Foundation). There is plenty of lip service to opposing capitalism, but how much challenge is really being made when the same organizations are accepting money from millionaire capitalists and billion-dollar corporations?

The ever-burgeoning nonprofit industry has a key role to play in contemporary US society. It contains the outrage of the disenfranchised, the most exploited and oppressed. It diverts the thrust of militant activism from disruption to civic procedures. The money and logistics funneled into these movements have a determining influence. In exchange for precious resources, they shape the demands and methods of the organizations they fund to fit the likes of the funders. As progressive as it may seem, the generous influx of money into these movements causes terrible harm. A significant layer of activists becomes “professionalized,” embraces the modus operandi in these settings and reproduces a strategic framework and discourse that leads nowhere.

The far-Right portrays Soros as behind popular revolt because it wants to paint grassroots organizing and resistance as illegitimate.

In short, Soros along with a host of other wealthy and powerful liberals were part of a push to pacify and contain Black Lives Matter and bring it back into the Democratic Party, but had nothing to do with “funding riots,” as the far-Right likes to imagine. The elites that attempt to control social movements with money want them to be political not disruptive. 

But these are also myths that aren’t going away anytime soon. Recently, far-Right social media accounts proclaimed that Soros would “use black hate groups to bring down America.” Not surprisingly, these quotes were quickly shown to be completely made up and false. Most recently, the far-Right claimed that Soros owned various electronic voting machines in a variety of states, and thus was possibly rigging the election, while these myths were quickly exposed as simply “fake news.”

Why the Right Needs These Myths

At the end of the day, the myth of Soros and the globalists is helpful to the far-Right because quite simply it explains why people revolt; for the Right, it’s simple: they are paid to and on their own, are too dumb or incapable of organizing anything. This myth goes back to the anti-Semitic and racist views of old, and the anti-communist lines held by the John Birch Society that a select group of puppet masters are playing the good workers and poor in an elaborate scheme for world domination.

But most importantly, the Right has a direct and real need to explain why revolt comes out of human communities because by attacking and discrediting it, it makes itself appear to be revolutionary and at the forefront of a worldwide struggle against “globalism” and overall, justifies themselves taking State power (or supporting it). This combination of dismissal of the capacity of human beings to run their own affairs and struggles, especially the poor and the colonized, while at the same time valorizing one’s own need to rule over those people, runs throughout both the authoritarian Left and the Right, and should recognized as the filth that it is and attacked.

In fighting the far-Right we can’t simply dismiss these ideas, we need to confront them head on.

@prisonplanet #PaulJosephWatson is an #MI6 chode.

Why else would Watson make videos saying “So-and-so is a Complete Idiot” in order to make all freedom lovers look like retards who resort to childish name-calling?

Why else would Watson refer to leftist women who disagrees with him as “twats” and “cunts” in order to make all freedom lovers look like hateful sexists? (For what it’s worth, MeMe Roth and her 13 year old daughter don’t count because they are not human beings.)

And why else would Watson portray a stereotype of a transgendered woman – while making crude jokes about transgendered people – in order to discredit all freedom lovers as transophobes and hateful cishets?

The answer?

Paul Joseph Watson is paid by MI6 to be a hateful chode. Why else would Watson’s Facebook be banned only for it to be magically unbanned? MI6 probably told Facebook “Watson works for us, so either unban him or we will hack into your servers and take Facebook down”.

#Zionist blog says I’m #antisemitic for exposing #CocaCola’s ties to #NaziGermany and being anti-#GMO. #Bilderberg #Monsanto #50Cent #Fiddy

The title of the blog? “Jew Haters”.

Let me make this clear, you ziotwat. I hate leftist Jews who shill for a global government. I love conservative Jews who want to live in peace.

So why does this blog imply I’m anti-semitic for exposing Coca-Cola’s ties to Nazi Germany? Maybe it has to do with the fact that the CEO of Coca-Cola is a member of the Bilderberg Group which the ADL and SPLC says is the favorite target of “anti-semitic conspiracy theories”?

And why does the blog insinuate that I’m anti-semitic for my opposition to GMOs? Because Monsanto is a “favorite target” of….you guessed it, “anti-semitic conspiracy theories”.

Coca Cola Nazi Madness

#Vice implies that #whistleblowing is extremist activity. #UniversityOfLondon

Comment: Notice how Vice uses the words “radical” and “radicalism” to describe the whistleblowers and their activities.

Corporations legally get away with firing whistleblowers by setting up whistleblowers so whistleblowers will violate company policy and use that as an excuse to fire whistleblowers for the slightest infractions.

Schools do the same to students. Student whistleblowers are routinely suspended or expelled for the slightest infractions.

Meet the Radical Student Whistleblowers Taking On the University of London

These guys broke into their vice chancellor’s office and passed stolen documents on to the press.

A sweary note left to University of London Vice Chancellor Adrian Smith by the students who entered his office

Exhilarating though the procedural motions being discussed at the NUS annual conference – which started yesterday and ends tomorrow – may be, there are some other documents circulating around the world of acedemia that could prove more significant in the short term.

VICE has seen a draft of a letter calling for a demonstration on International Workers’ Day, the 1st of May, at the University of London (UoL). The march calls for full sick pay, holiday pay and pensions for outsourced workers, a reversal of the plan to shut down the University of London Union and demands that police and the UK Border Agency shouldn’t be allowed on campuses without the permission of elected student representatives. So, basically, all the stuff students spent last year shouting about while they were being punched by police and ramming wheelie-bins into university property.

A number of elected student representatives from around the country are readying their biros to sign the motion, which comes shortly after a tumblr called Mayday Carnival posted a call-out for a demonstration along the same lines. At this stage, it’s hard to say if a few people will turn up and get distracted by the sound system that the call-out promised, or if students from across the country will turn up and ignite another round of radicalism.

Some of the Vice Chancellor’s documents stolen by students.

The last time students protested in London, on the 28th of February, it didn’t seem like there was a lot of momentum left. Only about 100 people turned up to the protest against University of London (UoL) Vice Chancellor Adrian Smith, who earns £153,000 per year, while some of his outsourced workers end up with about £9,000 after tax. But those who were there managed to pull off what, in hindsight, turned out to be a pretty successful piece of protest action.

Climbing through windows and edging along a balcony to get into Smith’s office, the student activists borrowed several folders full of the vice chancellor’s confidential documents. Occupy Senate House, the group behind the action, passed copies on to the Guardian, which then published a report about two of the documents’ contents.

The information within showed UoL management admitting that its policy of outsourcing workers has managed to pull off the neat trick of making services both worse and more expensive. The documents also revealed that that the trade union Unison had apparently colluded with the university in trying to hamper the outsourced cleaners’ “3Cosas” campaign, which called for sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. If you need an idea of how absurd that is, imagine Nigel Farage selling his house to an extended family of Bulgarian immigrants and you’ll be in the right kind of region.

Prior to the Guardian’s story, the London Student had revealed that UoL IT staff were unhappy at management’s plans to partner their jobs up with a business, basically making them a commercial operation. Which isn’t all that shocking, of course – but it was interesting that it was admitted in an internal UoL document, which also stated that many of the staff didn’t feel comfortable talking to management due to a “lack of trust”.

Protesters force their way past security into a university building

Before Christmas, UoL accused student protesters of being “violent and intimidating”. But the revelations paint a picture of a university pushing changes that nobody seems to want, and engaging in underhand tactics to get its way. UoL have stated that nothing “of massive confidentiality” was taken and called protesters a “mild irritant”. We spoke to a couple of the mild irritators involved in the document robbery to get their take on the significance of the revelations. Obviously they didn’t want us to mention their real names, so the ones you see below are pseudonyms.

VICE: Right – first things first; these documents were nicked. How do you justify that?
Sam: It’s a confusing time. What people did by taking the documents – by this heist – has led to some good. No, I don’t think it’s entirely democratic, but when management start acting democratically, we will be able to.
Alex: Students are the university – we’re entitled to see these documents. They belong to us and should be available for everybody to see. If the management were entirely above board, it wouldn’t matter to them anyway. And if all documents were available to everybody they would have to be better behaved.

What do you make of how the university has behaved?
Sam: The actions of administrative staff are totally illegitimate. People are being made to pay to study for jobs they might not get, and this is all being overseen by people who have little to no experience of the educational process. They’re screwing lecturers, as demonstrated by UCU [lecturers’ union] strikes, and support staff, as demonstrated by the 3Cosas and J4C [SOAS cleaners] strikes. And they’re screwing students by taking on lucrative courses and more lucrative international students.

Students sneak into the vice chancellor’s office

Do you feel like there’s a lack of resistance to this? Even at the end of 2013 there were way fewer protesters than in 2010.
It’s almost farcical how some people don’t want to look beyond the personal and look a tiny bit above to what’s happening in their departments and in their college as a whole. On the picket line at a recent cleaners’ strike, I had a guy saying he was breaking the strike because he was trying to get out of “the hood”. But all those cleaners striking for fair pay were trying to get out of the hood as well – it was silly, but that’s what happens when people think of themselves as individual customers trying to get value for money.

How does the idea of students as customers play out?
Alex: It’s self-perpetuating. Making the university a business, effectively by force – with protesters being beaten down and fees being put up in 2010 – is forcing out people who disagree and changing the culture. Lots of students think of themselves as customers now, and although they make demands of the university, which they see as selling them a service, they do this in a different way. They don’t see themselves as part of the institution in the same way.
Sam: Sure, people go to classes, they do their essays, they get their degrees. But it’s more about training, about getting ready for the next thing. It’s just become functionary. Blame who you want – the Tories for hiking fees, New Labour for making university a middle-class rite of passage.

A student exiting through the window of the vice chancellor’s office

Are the university taking any of the student discontent into account?
Alex: Rather than changing the things people are unhappy about, they’re trying to think of ways to change the culture of students and lecturers [of seeing universities as more than businesses], which they deem as backward. They’re trying to suppress the discontent and bend the culture to suit their aims, rather than listening to our opinions.

What do you think the revelations mean, in terms of the protests that have been happening?
The documents prove that the trends we have been protesting against – of unaccountable management acting with their own agenda for profit at the expense of students, lecturers and support staff – are real.

Did the behaviour of Unison – a trade union trying to ruin a workers’ rights campaign – surprise you?
Unison might be undermining this because it undermines their monolithic status. If things are brought down to a smaller level it makes them harder to negotiate: it’s better for the workers and worse for the companies. I don’t understand the intricacies of union politics, but this is how I see it – Unison were not prepared to fight for the little guy.

Does the way things are going mean there will be further protests?
The university don’t talk to people; the only way to get them to talk is to piss them off, to be a gadfly. The extent to which they don’t talk to us is insane. It’s all governed by this corporate communications strategy. They’re fucking people, we’re fucking people – why can’t we sit down to talk? But if they’re not going to do that, and instead just get the pigs out on the street, what choice do we have? I don’t like doing it this way, I don’t like putting myself and my friends in danger and being called ridiculous and deluded. I never thought I’d have to do this to get the attention of the management of my university.

Thanks, guys. Stay out of trouble.

Follow (@SimonChilds13) and Charlotte (@charlottengland) on Twitter.

Why #leftist #Jews such as #SarahSilverman are allowed to promote #hatespeech. #Hitler #Nazis #ChelseaHandler

Way to mock the Nazis’ execution of millions of Jews, you vile Nazi cunt.


So will Chelsea Handler call for Sarah Silverman to be arrested for this?

Of course not because leftist Jews are allowed to openly mock the Holocaust (as seen with PETA’s “Holocaust on Your Plate” which was created by a Zionist Jew), while conservative Jews are threatened with arrest for equating PETA’s execution of dogs and cats with the Nazis’ execution of Jews.

Now you know why leftist Jews are in bed with radical Muslims and the ISIS cause. Because the leftist Jews funded the Nazi Party and helped the Nazis kill conservative Jews who wanted nothing but peace.

See, conservative Jews did not want a bloody world war. Conservative Jews wanted freedom. But leftist Jews wanted a bloody world war so they could set up their New World Order.

Conservative Jews are Jews. Leftist Jews are Nazis.

I'm libertarian, anti-GMO, and vegan. Freelee The Banana Girl, VeganGMO Unnatural Vegan, PETA, and HSUS are pro-GMO fake vegans.