Saturday, 17 June 2017



Not one fucking fire fighter died in that blaze, your lefties' beloved heroic working class fire fighters were utterly utterly shit and frankly some of them if not dozens of them should have died fighting that inferno trying to save our people; pieces of shit told our people to stay in their flats to be incinerated alive. Here we go as we hear stupid lefties bleat: 'but poor mr firefighter has his goodies cut by big bad tories'. Stfu. They couldn't organise nets to catch our falling people?? Told our people to stay and get burnt alive??? Fuck them all. Fuck. Them. All. The fire fighters are all alive and well, not even ONE was hospitalised! Not even one! But up to 500 of our people are dead.

Btw, the Fire Brigade Union and then leader Andy Gilchrist also walked away from a massive historical fire in 2003; in the lead-up to the British and usa war of invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq the FBU were on strike, the then labour government put troops into dire services to put pressure on the FBU to sell out so the British state and army could conduct their war without disturbance. Gilchrist and the FBU *could* have had a good chance of winning that dispute, protecting the wages, conditions and equipment of the Fire Service *and* been a massive strategic anti war force. But no, they sold out themselves and sold out our Iraqi people and went back to work for the state faithfully while we all watched Baghdad get totally bombed and destroyed and put on fire by the dirty brits and yanks.


#Grenfell #Riots #Uprising 

I am very surprised Kensington Town Hall and other bodies like Ryder responsible for the deaths of our people are not seeing their buildings being burnt down considering the anger and extent of this crime. At the moment the families are still in shock, many still have not identified / found their loved ones, intense shock and trauma is gradually turning into anger and rage.
Many are talking of riots in response. I frankly on a level of ethics would not negatively judge anyone for any act directed at those in power responsible for this.

The crime is too grave, the breadth of the crime is too wide, the depth of the anger is too deep. However, justness and ethics does not necessarily equate to strategy and wisdom. We have had the August 2011 uprising of Black & Brown and working class youth, it was just in response to the police killing of a Black brother Mark Duggan, but it's strategic impact was backwards, our struggle was wiped out by the lack of organisation and strategy of the uprisers and supporters, some 5,000 saw punitive sentences in the criminal justice system with nearly no political campaign and defence campaigns etc. Perhaps we haven't even recovered from that fallout until Grenfell.

Like I said, I am not into narrow judgements on whatever people want to do as long as it is directed at the oppressor enemy responsible, but whatever the forms of more direct action I would argue for it not to result in a regression of struggle but to up the struggle which means educating further organising further our peoples with a view of single minded strategic political targeting of the enemy forces.

The MXM allied with London Black Revs after the British state worked with Byron burgers to entrap and deport scores of our people conducted a direct action against Byron shutting down three stores for the Friday and Saturday business. No one was hurt, no one was arrested, the direct action resulted in people all across the world knowing about the disgusting work of Byron, although the sectarian colonial identity crowd circuit sniped at the action, the action responded efficiently to a oppressive move, the action defended those targeted, the action took away Byron's marketing strategy by attacking tens of thousands of cockroaches to it, the world found out about the oppressive act and the act of resistance.

The direct action failed to really bring in further forces into an organised struggle which was a limitation of it but that's more related to the depressed state of political struggle in general. However, Grenfell has many thousands of family members directly impacted and 100,000s if not millions angry and ready to support a really militant struggle for justice. Let's hope infiltrators and sell outs from either Labour Party and the left don't sell out our people, this is the biggest danger along with the direct enemy sabotaging us, the sell outs and the enemy always work together.


 #IdentityPolitics #GeneralElection & #GrenfellTowerFire

The mass turn against the tories at the elections and the #Grenfell tragedy has done much to wash away what passes as identity politics ('#IDpols), its brought Black and Brown migrant working class communities together while the identity politics crowd would be policing peoples blackness and ethnicities, driving their ridiculous colonial wedges and divisions between all communities and within increasingly narrowly defined communities. Some IDpolitics when it is not based on colonial oppression olympics is useful and necessary, but what we have coming out of large swathes of what is the left is ideologies of very nasty middle / upper class or aspiring to be middle class selfish and greedy and usually hyper careerist or/and hyper divisive people who play out they internalised hate and insecurities on other oppressed communities.

The elections had many problematics, migrants especially east European and new African, Asian and 'latin' American migrants were invisibilised, however people gathered and galvanised together against a common enemy; Grenfell much more than the elections shows Black & Brown poorer peoples uniting together for their common interests and against common enemies.

When people relatively move politically, they tend to push against enemy divide and rule ideologies of which identity politics is a very effective one, and that's what we have seen. Important to continue to develop that into a real internationalist outlook that breaks out of our London-centricism/England-centricisn/British-centrism (be it so called 'Black British', 'British Asian' and other colonial sell-out labels) and Eurocentrism and Westcentrism.

Thursday, 8 June 2017


What if Tories win? / What if Labour win? 

If the tories win outright majority, which overwhelming polls state is going to happen, there are some complications: whatever the contradictions its clear that in this country due to the SNP and Corbyn/Labour that people are very desperate for the Tories to be defeated, the desperation is connected to the growing political and social instability over recent years and decades, but having been politically active for 25 years while there is a repeat of the recent past left hype failures (Scargill's SLP was creating a similar hype in the late 1990s, as did the Socialist Alliance, as did then the Peoples Assembly, all fell flat on their face cos they couldnt break out of the eurocentricism), but now its bigger and the yearning for people is clearly much greater but there are the same fundamental flaws. BUT, there are some factors to consider:

What if Tories win?

1, people are talking about 'revolution' if the Tories win. On the one hand the left havent even been able to get right the absolute basic things on anti-racism and anti-war in this last six years, they have championed and help to send off terrorists to Syria and Libya who have come back and massacred. However, this talk of revolution is not a bad thing despite, its a good thing to get into peoples heads. Revolution is a very serious and bloody thing, you have to be able to infiltrate and neutralise the armed forces and police. Obviously no chances of that. But if the tories win I hope people take to the streets with great anger and determination.

2, Riots. If the tories win and there is mass anger, it could easily be the case that the state sets up people to riot and uses that as an excuse to really come down hard. This is a very tricky one, cos a situation similar to some level of rioting could feed a general upsurge of rebelliousness, or it could really sabotage it.

3, Voting irregularities. 1.5 new people have registered to vote. That's not small. Many people are complaining their registration has not gone through and have even been turned away at the polling booths. This could have the impact that people really get angry and take to the streets on the issue issue feeding into the points 1 and 2 above.

BUT, it very well might be none of this really happens, and more or less people accept the tory win lying down. Unless Corbyn really sees the Tories get a lot more seats than they did when Milliband stood last time and Kinnock stood in 1987, he will look to hold onto the LP leadership, not sure if the rest of the LP will accept that and what will happen. I am not sure *anyone* in the LP is willing to split the party. If they did they would ALL lose out badly, and money and power is a sure thing to keep the second party of british imperialism together.

If the tories win tomorrow, its a dark day, a massive day of triumphalism for all the most right wing uk and british colonial madness, the state will be ready to really go for people and really escalate their wars against our Homelands. Remember the far right provocations in Edinburgh in the streets when the colonial union won? We need to watch out for each other big time.

What if Labour win? 

Ha. The the sh** really hits the fan. Now the army leadership said when Corbyn won the leadership of the LP that if he became PM they would oust him in a military coup. So we got that! 😂 Bmessut considering Corbyn/LP has said they are loyal to Queen, army and the police, these bodies of the state might continue to mould Corbyn into a shape they prefer as has happened in these ways. However, if Corbyn wins first we have to consider the right / far right anger at that the victory of the brit left. There might be nothing on the streets from the right, but its a real possibility.

If Corbyn wins we are going to go into a very messy situation, its too complex to even go into now. But Corbyn/LP's position on major *uk* nationalist social economic reforms (nationalisation, is a strange one, very uk nationalist) will be met with probably total hostility, and also Corbyn on brexit will be seen by anti brexit forces as a chance to have much more influence.

We will see what happens, but people really need to be thinking way beyond the confines of Corbyn, LP and the narrow colonial framework of this system if they even want to win the absolute basic demands for themselves and peace for our Homelands from british imperialism. The capitalist-imperialist system has nothing to offer you, it will not bed to your will even if you have Corbyn as PM, the system destroys whole countries in our Homelands, its not going to give you anything but the tiniest of crumbs perhaps, but even then, the system and its leadership is being really wild and violent increasingly to keep everyone off-balance and weak.

Be safe, look out for each other. Don't let the right/far right forces hurt or aggress anyone of us. Be vigilant, be proactively vigilant. Peace and justice and liberation.


Tuesday, 6 June 2017



Elaine Mokhtefi


In 1951 I left the US for Europe. I was working as a translator and interpreter in the new postwar world of international organisations: UN agencies, trade-union bodies, student and youth associations. My plan was to visit France briefly, but I stayed nearly ten years. For anyone living in Paris, the Algerian war was inescapable. Where did your sympathies lie? Which side were you on? In 1960 at an international youth conference in Accra, I struck up a friendship with the two Algerian representatives: Frantz Fanon, a roving ambassador for the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, and Mohamed Sahnoun of the exiled Algerian student movement. After the conference, I flew to New York, where I met Abdelkader Chanderli, the head of the Algerian Office, as the unofficial Algerian mission at the UN was known. Chanderli invited me to join his team, lobbying UN member states to support Algerian independence.

In 1962, with independence declared, I went back to Algeria. Vacancies left by close to a million fleeing Europeans meant that jobs were on offer in every ministry and sector. Before long, I found myself working in President Ahmed Ben Bella’s press and information office, where I received foreign journalists, scheduled appointments and dished out information to the reporters from Europe and the US who were streaming in. I even learned to fake Ben Bella’s signature for his admirers.

I stayed on after the coup that brought Houari Boumediene to power in 1965. I had made a home in Algeria; I was happy with my life and my work in the national press. In 1969, events took an extraordinary turn. Late one night I received a call from Charles Chikerema, the representative of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union, one of many African liberation movements with an office in the city. He told me that the Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver was in town and needed help.

It was June. I remember it very clearly. I can see myself walking down a side street between the Casbah and the European sector of Algiers towards the Victoria, a small, third-rate hotel. I climbed four flights of stairs and knocked. The door opened and there was Cleaver, and beyond him, flat out on the bed, his wife, Kathleen, eight months pregnant. The sense of awe I felt that day never left me. The shortcomings of the Black Panther Party are clear enough in retrospect, but they took the battle to the streets, demanded justice and were prepared to bear arms to protect their community. Their slogans – ‘The sky’s the limit’, ‘Power to the People’ – resounded through black ghettoes across the US. They denounced American imperialism as the war in Vietnam gathered pace.

Cleaver had arrived secretly in Algiers using Cuban travel documents. After ambushing a police car in Oakland, he had jumped bail and headed for Havana, where he spent six months as a clandestine guest before he was ‘discovered’ by a journalist. The Cubans had put him on a plane to Algiers without informing the Algerians. Cleaver felt his life hung in the balance. He had been assured in Havana that everything had been cleared with the Algerian government, that he’d be received with open arms and allowed to resume the political activities denied him in Cuba. But his handlers at the Cuban embassy in Algiers were now telling him the Algerians weren’t willing to offer him asylum.

I’d never known the authorities to refuse asylum seekers, whatever their nationality. Since I was the only American the local officials knew, I was often called on to interpret and explain, and to take responsibility for Americans who arrived without realising that hardly anyone in Algeria spoke English. Later that day I talked to the official in charge of liberation movements, Commandant Slimane Hoffman, a tank specialist who had deserted from the French army to join the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) and was close to Boumediene. I explained that Cleaver wished to remain in the country and to hold an international press conference. Hoffman agreed straightaway, but insisted that Cleaver’s presence be announced by the Algerian Press Service. ‘You saved my life,’ Cleaver told me repeatedly; he was convinced the Cubans had set him up.

The press conference went ahead, in a hall packed with students, members of the local and international press, diplomats and representatives from the world’s liberation movements. Julia Hervé, the daughter of Richard Wright, came from Paris to interpret from English into French. I did the same, into English, for the Cleavers. ‘We are an integral part of Africa’s history,’ Cleaver said at the conference. ‘White America teaches us that our history begins on the plantations, that we have no other past. We have to take back our culture!’

From then on, we were a team. Cleaver was tall – he seemed to me towering – and sexy, with a perfectly developed sense of humour and expressive green eyes. He and I had a rapport, no sex but much sharing of confidences. When the Cleavers arrived, I was working at the Ministry of Information organising the first Pan-African Cultural Festival, which was to bring together musicians, dancers, actors and intellectuals from every country in Africa and the black diaspora, including members of the Panthers from the US. For more than a week, the streets of Algiers overflowed, performances filled the day and carried on into the small hours. Among the performers were Archie Shepp, Miriam Makeba, Oscar Peterson, and Nina Simone, whose first performance we had to cancel after Miriam Makeba and I found her dead drunk in her hotel room. The local stagehands were shocked: they had never seen a drunk woman. The Panther delegation stayed at the Aletti, the best hotel in downtown Algiers, and were provided with a storefront – they called it the Afro-American Centre – on rue Didouche Mourad, one of the city’s two main commercial thoroughfares, where they distributed party literature and screened films late into the night. Cleaver and his companions – most of them also refugees from US justice – were quickly integrated into the cosmopolitan community of liberation movements. The Panthers may not have noticed, or perhaps didn’t care, that Algeria itself was a conservative, closed society, that women were not really free, that a form of anti-black racism existed among the population, and that the Algerian establishment’s generosity required certain codes of conduct and reciprocity on the part of their guests. The Panthers ignored whatever they didn’t want to deal with. After the festival, the delegation returned to California, while the exiles got down to business. I received invitations for Cleaver to meet the ambassadors of North Vietnam, China and North Korea, as well as representatives of the Palestinian liberation movement and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (the Vietcong). I accompanied him on these visits: he was dignified and lucid, performing like a seasoned diplomat, despite his past as a school dropout, rapist and convict. He could also close down, and retreat to an inaccessible place.

Shortly after Cleaver’s arrival, the ambassador of North Korea invited him to Pyongyang to attend an ‘international conference of journalists against American imperialism’. Cleaver was the star of the conference and stayed on for more than a month. One morning, shortly after his return, he showed up at the Ministry of Information, where I was part of a small team working on a political magazine for international distribution. He was wearing shades and slumped down on a chair next to my desk. Then, without any preamble he lowered his voice: ‘I killed Rahim last night.’ I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Rahim, aka Clinton Smith, had escaped from prison in California with a fellow inmate, Byron Booth, in January 1969. They had hijacked a plane to Cuba and joined up with Cleaver. Not long after sending Cleaver off to Algiers, the Cubans packed off Rahim and Booth too.

Cleaver told me that Rahim had stolen the Panthers’ money and was planning to ‘split’. He and Booth, who witnessed the murder, had buried the body on a wooded hillside a little way out of town, near the sea. Once he’d finished telling me this he put on the cap he’d been playing with and strolled out of the office. I couldn’t get Rahim’s face out of my mind. I was angry with Cleaver for imagining I needed to know any of this. Did he think I could help him if the Algerian authorities got wind of the murder and decided to take action? Several days later a French friend told me that he had seen Rahim and Kathleen Cleaver ‘smooching’ in a cabaret when Cleaver was in North Korea. My friend didn’t know that Rahim had ‘disappeared’. When I next saw Cleaver he told me that the hastily buried remains had been discovered, and added that it must have been obvious from the afro and the tattoos that the victim was an African-American. By then Booth had left the country. A French friend of the Panthers was summoned to police headquarters to identify the body but no one from the Algerian authorities ever got in touch with the Panthers or with me, though I was sure the killing had gone on record.

The Panthers financed themselves thanks to donations from supporters and Cleaver’s advances on book projects. His royalties from Soul on Ice, the defiant confession that had made him famous, were blocked by the US government. Over lunch one day in the spring of 1970, Cleaver pleaded with me to find a way for what the Panthers were now calling the ‘International Section of the BPP’ to be recognised as a sponsored liberation movement, allowing it access to a range of privileges, and a monthly stipend. I turned the problem over to M’hamed Yazid, who’d been the Algerian provisional government’s first representative in New York. He spoke fluent English and was married to Olive LaGuardia, niece of the former mayor of New York City.

M’hamed invited us to lunch at his house outside Algiers, built in the Ottoman period. We sat at a table in the garden, the Cleavers, Don Cox – the former military leader of the BPP, known as ‘DC’ or ‘the field marshal’ – and myself. M’hamed charmed us with stories of his life in New York, all the while sizing up his guests. The interview went well and soon afterwards he called to say the Panthers had been assigned a villa formerly occupied by the Vietcong delegation in the El Biar sector of the city. They would be provided with telephone and telex connections and Algerian ID cards; they wouldn’t need entry or exit visas; and they would receive a monthly cash allocation.

Why did the authorities decide to support the Panthers more openly? Perhaps they would serve as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington over Algeria’s oil and gas reserves. There were ideological reasons too. It was obvious to everyone living there that Algeria was not neutral in the struggle between the superpowers. Ties with the Soviet Union dated back to the liberation war and the Eastern bloc’s generosity in providing weapons, training and education.

Cleaver was on top of the world after receiving formal recognition. In May, he shipped his pregnant wife off to give birth in North Korea. The wonders of the Korean health system, it was thought, were unsurpassed, and the decision would strengthen the BPP’s ties with Pyongyang. Meanwhile Cleaver had met a gorgeous young Algerian called Malika Ziri who was constantly at his side. Attaching herself publicly to a black American at least 15 years older than her in a society where discretion was the rule would have required immense self-confidence. The Panthers were stars in Algiers, but their flamboyance was also looked on critically. They helped themselves to scarce resources – basic entitlements in American eyes – that other liberation movements didn’t have access to: houses, cars, media coverage, visiting celebrities. They openly dated attractive women, both Algerian and foreign. I can still picture Sekou Odinga, an exile from the New York branch of the Panthers, swooping along the rue Didouche in a shiny red convertible with the top down, a lovely auburn-haired American at the wheel.

The official opening of the headquarters of the International Section took place on 13 September 1970. ‘This is the first time in the struggle of the black people in America that they have established representation abroad,’ Cleaver told the crowd at the ‘embassy’. A few weeks later Sanche de Gramont, a French-American journalist, published a cover story in the New York Times Magazine entitled ‘Our Other Man in Algiers’.

Soon after the opening of the embassy Timothy Leary, the high priest of LSD (‘turn on, tune in, drop out’), and his wife arrived in town. Leary had been sprung from a US prison by the Weather Underground, who’d been paid $25,000 (some say $50,000) by the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a California hippy group that manufactured and distributed high-grade marijuana and LSD. Nixon had called Leary ‘the most dangerous man in America’. Cleaver and I gave Slimane Hoffman a toned-down version of Leary’s story, emphasising his career as a Harvard professor. Cleaver assured Hoffman that he was capable of controlling Leary’s drug use and his bouts of nonsensical eloquence. The commandant wished us well.

My first impression was that the Learys were elderly hipsters. I don’t know what I expected: something crazier, more flamboyant and exciting. In the name of the revolution Cleaver decided that Leary had to denounce drugs, and Leary agreed to take part in a BPP film session aimed at US audiences. Cleaver opened the interview by saying that the idea that drugs were a way to liberation was an invention by ‘illusionary guys’: the real path was through organisations like the Weathermen and the BPP who were involved in direct action. Leary’s reply was cagey. ‘If taking any drug postpones for ten minutes the revolution, the liberation of our sisters and brothers, our comrades, then taking drugs must be postponed for ten minutes … However, if one hundred FBI agents agreed to take LSD, thirty would certainly drop out.’

The Panthers decided Leary should join a delegation invited to the Levant by Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s party, then the dominant force in the PLO. Leary should break cover there, it was argued, not in Algeria. The group, headed by Don Cox, landed in Cairo in October without incident, then went on to Beirut, where they were put up in a hotel frequented by the Western press. Leary was spotted and the hotel was besieged. The delegation was followed everywhere and it became impossible for them to visit Fatah’s training camps in Jordan and Syria as planned. They returned instead to Cairo, where Leary, paranoid and hysterical, became ‘uncontrollable’, DC reported, scaling walls, hiding behind buildings, raising his arms and screaming in the streets. The Algerian ambassador put them on a plane back to Algiers.

From there, they hired a car and began spending time in Bou-Saada, an oasis in the Sahara where, at their ease on handloom carpets, they partied with LSD. Algeria is an immense country, four-fifths desert, but one is never quite alone. The Learys would smile blissfully and wave to the astonished shepherds who came across them. The Panthers didn’t approve of these escapades and in January 1971 ‘arrested’ the Learys, putting them under guard for several days. Cleaver filmed the prisoners and issued a press release that was distributed in the US: ‘Something’s wrong with Leary’s brain … We want people to gather their wits, sober up and get down to the serious business of destroying the Babylonian empire … To all those of you who looked to Dr Leary for inspiration and leadership, we want to say to you that your god is dead because his mind has been blown by acid.’

When he was freed, Leary complained to the Algerian authorities and we were summoned by Hoffman. The atmosphere was heavy until Cleaver and DC produced bags of drugs recovered from Leary and his visitors – enough for 20,000 hits. Hoffman’s jaw dropped. Tim was tired of us and wanted to move on. He no longer hid his dislike of DC and me; we felt the same way about him. Early in 1971, he left without saying goodbye.

There must have been thirty Panthers, men, women and children, in the International Section. They operated in military style with strict regulations, daily worksheets and activity reports. They maintained contact with support groups in Europe and other liberation organisations in Algiers. They ran training sessions in self-defence and weapons instruction. Just before the embassy opened Huey Newton, the legendary BPP leader who had spent almost three years in prison on a manslaughter charge for killing a policeman, was granted parole, awaiting a new trial. When he was released from jail ten thousand people turned out to greet him. But the man who took back the leadership of the BPP was not prepared for the transformation that had taken place in his absence. The party had become a powerhouse that the FBI was bent on destroying, waging war against its members, attacking chapter headquarters, letting loose an army of paid informers and circulating fake information. Newton’s reaction was to demand total control, dismissing groups and condemning individuals who failed to fall in line.

With the attempt at containment came self-aggrandisement. He was living in a penthouse, had taken over a nightclub and was walking with a swagger stick. At the start of 1971 he was due to appear on a morning TV show in San Francisco and asked Cleaver to join him to demonstrate their alliance and dissipate the rising tension. The International Section met and decided unanimously to use the occasion to confront Newton. When Cleaver appeared onscreen he demanded that Newton overturn his expulsion edicts and called for the removal of Newton’s lieutenant David Hilliard. Newton cut short the broadcast, then called Cleaver. ‘You’re a punk,’ he said and expelled him from the BPP. Chapters and members across the US took sides.

Cleaver had taped the broadcast and the phone call. He asked me to come and listen to the recording, worried about the Algerian reaction. I didn’t think they would get involved: ‘It’s not their problem, it’s yours, Eldridge.’ The Panthers took down the BPP plaque at the entrance to their embassy and started to call themselves the Revolutionary People’s Communications Network. They hoped to enable information exchange between left-wing groups around the world and to produce a newspaper for distribution in the US and Europe. To take the measure of the damage caused by the Newton/Cleaver split, and launch the network, Kathleen and I headed for the US in October 1971 on a month-long cross-country speaking tour. We soon realised that the party was collapsing.

The group in Algiers plodded on. There was no reaction from the Algerians, no sign that they were following events in the BPP, though Newton had sent a formal message to Boumediene denouncing Cleaver. Then, on 3 June 1972, I received a call from the head of the FLN telling me that a plane had been hijacked in Los Angeles and was heading for Algiers. The hijackers had demanded that Cleaver meet them at the airport. They were holding $500,000 in ransom money, which they’d obtained in exchange for letting the passengers go. We stood on the tarmac, Cleaver, DC, Pete O’Neal (the former head of the Kansas City Panthers) and myself, and watched Roger Holder, a young African-American, and his white companion, Cathy Kerkow, slowly come down the steps from the aircraft. All were in high spirits until we realised that the Algerians had taken the moneybags and were not about to put them into Cleaver’s eager hands. The money was returned to the US; Roger and Cathy were granted asylum and became part of the local community of US exiles.

On 1 August another hijacked plane arrived, this one from Detroit. The hijackers, black but again not Panthers, had been paid $1 million by Delta Airlines for releasing the plane’s passengers in Miami. This time the authorities in Algiers kept the Panthers at a distance, and once again sent the money back to the US. The Panthers were furious: they were ‘vibrating to the overtones of dollar bills’, Cleaver would later admit. They wrote an open letter to Boumediene: ‘Those who deprive us of this finance are depriving us of our freedom.’ DC told his comrades they were crazy and resigned from the organisation: ‘The government is not going to risk the future of their country for a handful of niggas and a million dollars. There’s gonna be trouble.’ He was right. Reproaching Algeria’s head of state in public showed a lack of respect. The police invaded the embassy, confiscated the Panthers’ weapons, cut the telephone and telex connections, and closed it down for 48 hours. When the guard was lifted, Cleaver was called in by a senior official and severely reprimanded. The atmosphere cleared within a few days: Algeria wasn’t ready to abandon them.

Cleaver and his colleagues knew little of the country that had taken them in. They never ventured beyond Algiers. They didn’t read the local press or listen to the radio. Except for women friends, they knew few Algerians and never visited Algerian homes. They knew little of Algeria’s colonial past, the ravages of the war, or the under-development the regime was attempting to tackle. They saw themselves as free agents, able to protest and use the media at will. Some of them even proposed organising a demonstration in front of Boumediene’s offices. Cleaver had to remind them that this was Algiers, not Harlem. They had no real understanding of their hosts, their politics or their reservations about their American guests, and they underestimated them.

The Algerians, for their part, weren’t sure how to deal with the Panthers. Algeria was a leading light in the Third World, active in the non-aligned group of nations. It was hosting and training liberation movements from Latin America, Africa and Asia. There was too much at stake for the FLN to let itself be pushed around by these American exiles. And it couldn’t allow international hijackers to make Algeria look like a nation that didn’t abide by international rules.

With a dying organisation in the US and international support fast slipping away, the Algiers Panthers were close to stateless. ‘The International Section,’ Cleaver later wrote, ‘had become a sinking ship.’ He left the embassy. Malika had been replaced by a series of Algerian women. One of them, to my astonishment, was a veiled neighbour of mine who never left our building unaccompanied. He had wooed her as she hung out the laundry on her balcony and had been meeting her in my apartment while Kathleen was in Europe, seeking asylum for the whole family.

‘To each his own’ was a formula Cleaver used on many occasions. When he used it now, he was signalling his withdrawal from the organised left. The community of exiles began to look to their individual survival. They started leaving Algeria towards the end of 1972. Some settled in sub-Saharan Africa, a few attempted an underground existence inside the US; others, Cleaver included, left for France on forged passports: within a few years he would be back in the US, a born-again Christian. No one was ejected from Algeria. The group of Detroit hijackers left in mid-1973; Roger and Cathy were the last to go in January 1974. Cox, the field marshal, returned to Algiers that year and lived and worked there for another four years. The arrival of the Panthers in Algeria had been more than an education or an experience for me. I believed in them, I loved them and shared their goals. I hated to see them go.

I had made the arrangements for Cleaver’s departure: I found the passport he would travel on, the passeurs who would see him safely across national frontiers, the hideout in southern France, and the apartments in Paris. Before long, he was taken up by influential people there. His French residency and legal immunity were sorted out by the minister of finance, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, shortly before he became president. Then I stopped hearing from him. To each his own, I reminded myself.


Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations


The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.

The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before a well-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.

At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.

The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. both declined to comment.

Details about the investigation have been tightly held. Ten current and former American officials described the investigation on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing the information.

The first signs of trouble emerged in 2010. At the time, the quality of the C.I.A.’s information about the inner workings of the Chinese government was the best it had been for years, the result of recruiting sources deep inside the bureaucracy in Beijing, four former officials said. Some were Chinese nationals who the C.I.A. believed had become disillusioned with the Chinese government’s corruption.

But by the end of the year, the flow of information began to dry up. By early 2011, senior agency officers realized they had a problem: Assets in China, one of their most precious resources, were disappearing.

The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. opened a joint investigation run by top counterintelligence officials at both agencies. Working out of a secret office in Northern Virginia, they began analyzing every operation being run in Beijing. One former senior American official said the investigation had been code-named Honey Badger.

As more and more sources vanished, the operation took on increased urgency. Nearly every employee at the American Embassy was scrutinized, no matter how high ranking. Some investigators believed the Chinese had cracked the encrypted method that the C.I.A. used to communicate with its assets. Others suspected a traitor in the C.I.A., a theory that agency officials were at first reluctant to embrace — and that some in both agencies still do not believe.

Their debates were punctuated with macabre phone calls — “We lost another one” — and urgent questions from the Obama administration wondering why intelligence about the Chinese had slowed.

The mole hunt eventually zeroed in on a former agency operative who had worked in the C.I.A.’s division overseeing China, believing he was most likely responsible for the crippling disclosures. But efforts to gather enough evidence to arrest him failed, and he is now living in another Asian country, current and former officials said.

There was good reason to suspect an insider, some former officials say. Around that time, Chinese spies compromised National Security Agency surveillance in Taiwan — an island Beijing claims is part of China — by infiltrating Taiwanese intelligence, an American partner, according to two former officials. And the C.I.A. had discovered Chinese operatives in the agency’s hiring pipeline, according to officials and court documents.

But the C.I.A.’s top spy hunter, Mark Kelton, resisted the mole theory, at least initially, former officials say. Mr. Kelton had been close friends with Brian J. Kelley, a C.I.A. officer who in the 1990s was wrongly suspected by the F.B.I. of being a Russian spy. The real traitor, it turned out, was Mr. Hanssen. Mr. Kelton often mentioned Mr. Kelley’s mistreatment in meetings during the China episode, former colleagues say, and said he would not accuse someone without ironclad evidence.

Those who rejected the mole theory attributed the losses to sloppy American tradecraft at a time when the Chinese were becoming better at monitoring American espionage activities in the country. Some F.B.I. agents became convinced that C.I.A. handlers in Beijing too often traveled the same routes to the same meeting points, which would have helped China’s vast surveillance network identify the spies in its midst.

Some officers met their sources at a restaurant where Chinese agents had planted listening devices, former officials said, and even the waiters worked for Chinese intelligence.

This carelessness, coupled with the possibility that the Chinese had hacked the covert communications channel, would explain many, if not all, of the disappearances and deaths, some former officials said. Some in the agency, particularly those who had helped build the spy network, resisted this theory and believed they had been caught in the middle of a turf war within the C.I.A.

Still, the Chinese picked off more and more of the agency’s spies, continuing through 2011 and into 2012. As investigators narrowed the list of suspects with access to the information, they started focusing on a Chinese-American who had left the C.I.A. shortly before the intelligence losses began. Some investigators believed he had become disgruntled and had begun spying for China. One official said the man had access to the identities of C.I.A. informants and fit all the indicators on a matrix used to identify espionage threats.

After leaving the C.I.A., the man decided to remain in Asia with his family and pursue a business opportunity, which some officials suspect that Chinese intelligence agents had arranged.

Officials said the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. lured the man back to the United States around 2012 with a ruse about a possible contract with the agency, an arrangement common among former officers. Agents questioned the man, asking why he had decided to stay in Asia, concerned that he possessed a number of secrets that would be valuable to the Chinese. It’s not clear whether agents confronted the man about whether he had spied for China.

The man defended his reasons for living in Asia and did not admit any wrongdoing, an official said. He then returned to Asia.

By 2013, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded that China’s success in identifying C.I.A. agents had been blunted — it is not clear how — but the damage had been done.

The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.

China has been particularly aggressive in its espionage in recent years, beyond the breach of the Office of Personnel Management records in 2015, American officials said. Last year, an F.B.I. employee pleaded guilty to acting as a Chinese agent for years, passing sensitive technology information to Beijing in exchange for cash, lavish hotel rooms during foreign travel and prostitutes.

In March, prosecutors announced the arrest of a longtime State Department employee, Candace Marie Claiborne, accused of lying to investigators about her contacts with Chinese officials. According to the criminal complaint against Ms. Claiborne, who pleaded not guilty, Chinese agents wired cash into her bank account and showered her with gifts that included an iPhone, a laptop and tuition at a Chinese fashion school. In addition, according to the complaint, she received a fully furnished apartment and a stipend.


Friday, 2 June 2017


Sons of Malcolm's 10 Point Program for Critical Support to Corbyn/LP

There has been a surge of people rejecting the right and far-right and wanting left, pro-peace, pro decent jobs and housing politics. Corbyn has been attacked repeatedly for being pro IRA and a communist. People especially younger people don't care and that doesn't faze them. That's an important new generation development, younger people who are not tied to the imperialist prejudices against the Irish struggle or the communist states who led global resistance against colonialism and racism. As many know, I have not until now come out in explicit support in any way to Corbyn and the Labour Party, I have found it too problematic for many reasons, not least its pro brexit turn, however due to changed circumstances and my analysis of this, I will be supporting peoples vote for Corbyn and advocating we put pressure on Corbyn and even be ready to go beyond the Labour Party. Therefore, I have thought long and hard, discussed and taken advice and criticism from comrades here and across the world and I have adjusted and updated my position, which can be broadly summed up in the slogan: 

Support Young Peoples Demands of Corbyn / Labour Party, Vote Corbyn, but Prepare for Worse to Come

1. Support the *peoples* progressive surge, the people want Corbyn. Let them have him:

There is a surge of people in Britain who reject racism, division, war, austerity, rich elites, and who want more peace, who don't want an imperialist military industrial complex, who want to welcome refugees and immigrants and see them rightly as positive contributions. This surge of people is historical, its a response to growing crises of the capitalist-imperialist system, its relatively unsophisticated, unorganised, confused and messy on so many levels and still imbued with many imperialist prejudices and eurocentricism, HOWEVER, this is an important political and historical surge that has relatively raised the political struggle and people have only Corbyn and the Labour Party as the only option in front of them to represent their demands. I support the peoples demands, and I will walk with them in that including if it means they will see if Corbyn/LP delivers anything for them.

2. I support the peoples more radical demands, support Corbyn and demand he goes further:

In many ways the recent progressive surge has already gone beyond Corbyn: the surge is led by a younger population who have been disgusted by Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, who want something much more radical than even Corbyn has to offer, but they only have Corbyn on offer and are going for that for the time being, and I stand with them in this process but will also argue that while I stand in support of their support for Corbyn/LP that our politics and organising has to also go beyond that.

3. Demand Corbyn fight Brexit support immigration along with Greens, SNP & Plaid: 

I will be championing many peoples demand especially younger people who don't want Brexit, who support immigration and migrants and refugees, they want brexit smashed. One of the biggest let downs of Corbyn has been his Brexit support and his anti immigration position. I will be supporting peoples demands that Corbyn should join the invitation of the SNP, Plaid and Greens in an anti-Tory anti-brexit alliance, imagine after June 8 Corbyn decided to join that alliance, it would electrify the country and we would have a real strategic struggle with migrant communities against the right and far right.

4. Support the masses against war, terrorism and collusion, Corbyn should expose collusion:

After the Manchester attack, masses of people just don't believe a word of the Tories and Theresa May, they saw clearly that the government supported terrorists in their Nato war against Libya in 2011 and these same people killed 22 people in Manchester. The masses are clamouring for British state collusion with terrorism to be exposed, they perceive Corbyn being supportive of their position when he says 'British foreign policy is partially responsible for terrorism', Corbyn actually does not support the campaign to expose collusion, but once again this is a nuance atd complexity lost in mass politics, and the masses think Corbyn is supportive of their views and both the masses and Corbyn despite the nuanced differences are pushing in the same direction against a Tory narrative that seeks to white wash their own deep involvement in collusion. I support the people demanding exposing collusion, I support their support of Corbyn going in this direction, and I will be encouraging people demanding this of Corbyn and the LP.

5. Support youth participation: 

Youth registration drive has seen more than a million more *registered* to vote. A voter registration drive that can influence the result of elections requires many years of political organising in communities with many activists, what we have seen is a sudden surge over weeks an a few months, it is not organised at all, and there are great dangers that much if not most of these young people who have registered won't actually come out to vote: I will be doing all that I can to ensure people actually get to the polling booth, and they cast their vote correctly. I have already called my local Labour Party team and offered my services every day until and especially on the the election day.

6. Develop conversations, ideas, initiatives to develop capacity to pressure Corbyn/LP: 

Too many have allowed these two years of Corbyn-led LP to pass without any constructive criticism and engagement, too many have succumbed to narrow personality politics, it would be better to develop critical organisations of people so they can be more informed in their pursuit of their political demands and aims in relation to Corbyn/LP.

7. Support people demanding Corbyn pursue proper justice for institutional child sex abuse:

For decades victims and families of victims of many perpetrators from parliament and in the bbc and other state institutions in child sex abuse had been silenced, finally the truth has started to come out. However, of course the state and government was going to ensure it protected its own perpetrators and have developed dead-end processes leaving people without and path towards justice. This is one of the biggest scandals involving this state and its institutions: people know what's happened and demand justice for it, Corbyn/LP should support peoples demands and support and assist their organising towards this.

8. Assist people learn about the LP and its history: 

People are supporting Corbyn as one person, but people know very little about the history of the Labour Party in and out of power since the start of the 20th century, its not a pretty history but a history that has to be told. Corbyn is one man, the LP is an institution that in many ways is set against delivering what Corbyn and his followers want. The history of the welfare state is also important for people to understand how the NHS and welfare state broadly was financed by colonial exploitation. This understanding of Labour Party history will equip people better to understand this organisation and to seek out routes and paths to move it away from its embedded-nature to imperialism and towards a more just relationship with the global victims of the British state. Many people especially younger people don't want social reforms based on polluting, bombing and destroying other peoples countries.

9. Encourage a non-military, non-policing politics: 

Corbyn and the LP manifesto is committed to tens of thousands of more police on the streets, more resources for the already very well resources intelligence services, a total commitment to Nato and trident and the British imperialist military industrial complex. Many of us know how oppressive and racist the police are, they are not friends of ours, they are friends of the rich and the elites. Policing of the kind we have attached to the kind of oppressive state we have is not to our benefit, I support our people demanding colonial policing is not the answer to our problems. Many people who are supporting Corbyn also do not think the army, nuclear weapons, nato and the intelligence services are anything but the war arms of a violent and genocidal system. We reject these, I support the peoples demand that Corbyn/LP moves away from this militarism and oppressive policing to exposing the corrupt nature of the police and intelligence services and the murderous role of the British armed forces who through British foreign policy have brought death and destruction to so many millions of our people in our Homelands across Africa and Asia. We know that Corbyn sympathises by what we say, we want to build the capacity so Corbyn engages positively with our demands.

10. Ally with Corbyn, but prepare for worse to come: 

I will be encouraging people in their support for Corbyn but also clearly stating and forewarning that much greater challenges are upon us very very soon (including post June 8 wether Corbyn wins or not), racism will continue to surge, the state will continue to become more repressive, it will conduct more wars whoever is in government, and this state is going into a disgusting conflict with the rest of Europe while allied closely with Trump. Even in Corbyn's own words it is not enough for him to be elected and he says himself how important it is people are organised and put pressure on him. This has hardly happened however, but I am committed to this critical engagement with Corbyn and beyond Corbyn with the people as much as possible. Massive challenges are afoot, we need to prepare and work hard for them, hardly anyone is doing that but the current peoples progressive surge is potentially an opening towards meeting these challenges.  


#DianeAbbott I am really saddened by what is happening towards Diane recently, particularly disappointing has been the response of some of the Black n Brown left/radicals. Diane is not my favourite political person, I am not a supporter of the institutionally racist and imperialist Labour Party, Diane doesn't have the populist style, but would you if basically EVERY day of your life for decades you face *increasing* horrific racist abuse with disgusting people calling you things like "fat ugly black gorilla" day after day in your life. Indeed, I think Diane is probably the most abused and reviled political figure in our country, and why is that? It's not because of some of our political differences with her around many things, its because she is a independent-minded, strong, dark skinned, not physically small *BLACK* *WOMAN*. I wonder of all those joining in with the racists in mocking and laughing at her wether they could walk a day or two in her shoes, if they could deal with the all day every day and night receiving racist abuse and worse.

Like I said, I am no big fan of her, but that's not the point. Even in perhaps an ultra-left moment I even stood against her (she had a very safe seat) in parliamentary elections at the start of the 2000s! Madness. And I apologise to her, however perhaps a mitigating thing: I did stand on a platform that was explicitly anti-imperialist explicitly opposed the 'f-type' isolation prison cells against Kurdish and Turkish leftist (esp DHKC) political prisoners, for that I got thousands of votes from the Kurdish and Turkish communities, and I got that with little campaigning as these communities are already politicised and it goes to show that if someone actually bothered to try to get together a real anti-imperialist anti-racist independent political party with hard and consistent work you would within a few years get councillors elected and a few years later have a good go at parliamentary elections, but I digress.

Diane is a proud successful career politician who has consistently been treated as a bit of a second class citizen by the Labour leadership, she got humiliated LIVE on news TV by the former Labour leader for saying basic and correct things about historical colonialism and racism. That's one example of many that show that Diane has had to put up with this kind of discrimination even by her own colleagues in her own political party.

Diane makes mistakes, but the mistakes Diane makes several days ago are still mocked today, whereas Corbyn makes all kinds of stupid mistakes and when he makes the exact same mistake that Diane made, he makes the mistake in the morning and literally by the afternoon its all forgiven and forgotten. Can people see the way in which Corbyn gets a non-critical pass by the LP/Corbyn camp, and Diane gets totally drubbed? Why do you think that is? Corbyn is a posh white man, Diane is a north London older dark-skinned Black woman.

Finally, some are cussing Diane and saying Dawn Butler is so amazing. Dawn comparitvely to Diane is very young, she is more conventionally attractive, she is relatively new to career politics, she has a different softer personality and speaking style. Let Dawn spend a couple decades of politics let along 40 years like Diane and let's hope she doesn't get the intensity of abuse that Diane has, but tragically she will get that abuse and it will be taxing. Maybe she will deal with it better than Diane and not become hard headed like Diane, maybe she won't? Isn't it deeply problematic to put up two Black woman against each other in this way, shouldn't we encourage unity between Black people and Diane and Dawn? Both receive racist abuse, albeit Diane received it a lot more, a lot nastier and for a lot longer. Why are some pitting an older Black woman against a more prettier younger Black woman?

To conclude, I encourage people to stand IN FRONT of any women and especially Black or Brown women who is attacked and abused by the racists. These women are on the frontline, and they are the first victims of abuse. If we are to push back the racist tsunami currently riding on the Brexit uk nationalist bandwagon, we have to gather 'the many against the few' (that's Mao, not corbyn btw), and develop maximum unity against racism/brexit.

Friday, 26 May 2017


This is REALLY important in relation to the #ManchesterBombing and I have to be honest and straight with you all because you all should know the truth: Seumas Milne, John Rees, Andrew Murray, Lindsey German (stop the war coalition leaders) and I am sad to say Corbyn too and others have been and continue to COVER-UP collusion by the British state with their junior proxy terrorists in groups like Qaeda, Nusra, LIFG (LIFG is the death squad that Manchester bomber Salman Abedi is a member of). They all covered up the death squad lynching of Black people in Libya throughout ithe war in 2011, they all said and did nothing about all of it and Corbyn and his team are continuing to cover it up today while much of his grassroots following are clamouring to get the Tories over collusion. John Rees is now posting on his facebook posturing that he somehow opposes these terrorists, well look HERE, he was openly supporting them and some of us were arguing against him at the time.

In addition to this, while me and a few people were screaming about the lynching of Black people in Libya that these death squads under Nato were doing, the following left organisations amongst many others openly supported the death squads: Ceasefire, Counterfire, Pulse, SWP, Stop the War Coalition even as they openly marched with pro nato regime-change protests, Chris Nineham a Stop the War Coalition leader marched with them and chanted the slogan of overthrowing Gaddafi and Socialist Libya. Even people who have become high profile spokeperson's for BLMUK also supported the lynching death squads in 2011 despite me pleading and arguing with them not to. To this date they have not stated any different position to the one they had in 2011. The SWP celebrated the lynching of Gaddafi and Libya.

A few of us always warned that British state collusion in Libya (and Syria) was always going to mean that they did and they will continue to collude with death squads who will also target people in Britain, and thats what is happening time and time again. The reason why the left seem to be unable to do much about it is 1, because they supported these terrorists in Libya through 2011, 2, support collusion and help to cover it up, hence 3, they cannot give any credence to a few of us who have worked hard, received massive abuse for it, and worked out better than most what is going on with this collusion. These leftists were willing to go along with the entire destruction of Libya with all the lynching, raping and mutilations, so it isnt that surprising that the massacre of little girls in Manchester also does not jolt them into being honest on collusion. Until today much of the left continues to defend Moazzam Begg who is an open close colleague of LIFG death squad leader Hakim Belhaj, the British authorities allowed Begg to go and visit Belhaj in Tripoli after Nato and Belhaj destroyed the country. Begg has deleted the picture of them meeting from the internet, it used to be on the Cage website. LIFG leader Hakim Belhaj *also* has support from well known left and liberal figures in Britain, he even has all these articles and features in the Guardian, including leading lefties who wrote an article for him in the Guardian.

you all know I went three times to Libya since spring 2011 during the Nato and allied proxy death squad terrorist war of destruction, you all now I stood with the Libyan people and their socialist country against Nato, you all know I been working on the issue of how the British state is colluding with terrorists in Libya since Feb 2011 when the media openly encouraged people like Salman Abedi to go pick up weapons and rape, lynch and kill for them in Libya. You all know I been working on collusion until today along with Dan Glazebrook mostly but also a few others like James Stuart, Saqib Deshmukh and of course the Libyans like Abdal Aziz Ali Alkasih Rajab Shoaib Moussa Ibrahim and others. A lot of you know I have published a book and documentary on Libya and all these issues, and so has Glazebrook.

We are trying to be as honest and hard working and as much integrity as we can on these issues. Tragically our work and investigations and their findings have proven to be true time and time again and especially so with the attack on the girls in Manchester. I hate to bring bad news, but again I have to be honest and engage people with realities so we can prepare for them: These things are going to get worse, and we really need to confront these things head on. Please, support our people in the Homelands who have lost their entire countries to this horror, and in so doing protect and help yourselves against this British imperialist state.

Wednesday, 22 March 2017


London / Westminster violent incident  - Brexit, Scotland, EU, Racism/Islamophobia: First of all: God bless the woman who died today and sympathies for her family. Our Homelands are being wiped out by this british state, we know the price to our Humanity that we have to pay so we understand Humanity. Anyway. 

Context - today to the day is exactly one year on from the violent attack in Brussels, and in a broad historical context of a series of violent incidents in Germany and especially France in recent years. This island too a few years further back saw incidents such as 7/7 and 14/7 and most recently the Lee Rigby attack, also the infamous 'Jihadi John' / Mohammed Emmwazi, all linked to thousands of youth who happen to be Muslim leaving europe to join the supremacist death squad project of in mainly Syria and Iraq joining Daesh and also other factions such as Nusra. The pattern and axis of all of this is the british state, the british state's foriegn policy directly and indirectly uses these same armed militias (called Qaeda/Daesh etc) to achieve their aims, and also domestically to racist strategies of dividing people and hating Islam and Muslims, the british state has openly colluded with people like Omar Bakri, Moazzam Begg (in his own admission), and also those who conducted the lee rigby's death and also Emmwazi are both directly linked to the british intelligence services and the pro death squad organisation called 'Cage'. Will the apparent assailants today also have the usual pattern of connections to Daesh in Iraq/Syria, known by the intel services, connected to Cage or similar? We shall see. Of course I could be wrong, and I hope that this has nothing to do with any Muslim.

I been saying for years observing the political violence in France and Germany that the intel services will eventually make this happen here sooner or later, and it will be done to serve clear political purposes. What is interesting about the timing of the attack today? Apart from being a year on from the Brussels attacks, the most obvious issue of timing for today is the Scottish parliament's official statement to the Tory government that they officially want a second referendum for Scottish independence. This is taking place in relation to the growing war of words, economics, and politics between London and the EU. London is in the biggest crisis it has been in since the second world war. Tory PM Theresa May has said incessantly to the Scots: 'now is not the time' for a 2nd referendum, the english have been further whipped-up into a frenzy of hatred against pro Indy Scots. With this incident today, Tory's/May's position against the referendum will have been strengthened greatly, the media will go into further frenzy against any potential 2nd Scot Indy referendum. What will be pushed is 1, further racism against Muslims and ALL migrants, increase of racism against one section of the community means increase of sexism/racism/classism across ALL sections, 2, Scotland and all the 'uk' need to pull together under the government against terrorism, against indy Scots etc. 3, forget our lives will be degraded by brexit, forget that, remember - hate: migrants, Muslims, Scots and EU. It's going to be harder for the SNP now to push their position. 

James Stuart and I were just discussing in recent weeks that the London govt will be a LOT dirtier in their moves against Scotland, but I wasnt exactly expecting today's move, but it makes a lot of sense in the interests of the London far right brexit regime.

On the incident itself, a few interesting things. I feel a bit weary sharing these thoughts as there is a freaky Jewish conspiracy-obsessed conspiracy nut-job crowd who talk utter shite, but: Although the beginning and end of the incident (from the mowing down people on Westminster Bridge to the assailant being shot/killed at palace yard) must have been only a few minutes, the incident happened in a very congested tourist area, where nearly EVERY tourist have their camera-phones out and clicking and taking footage: no image of the assailants (seems to be 2, one brown-skinned male, one white male) has been shown anywhere on social media, if you are going to get a SUV, and go for an attack where you know you are going to get killed within seconds as you confront groups of armed police, would you go out like this in an attempt at stabbing one police? Just seems so weird and points to me towards some kind of state facilitation to this which is usually they know something is going to happen, they are closely watching the perps in the lead-up, and they just let it through. I know someone senior in radical circles who worked closely with the 7/7 perps' family and closest colleagues who agrees this to be the case. This was the case clearly with 7/7 and Lee Rigby's killing, and similar to the Paris and Brussels attacks. 

This incident marks the escalation of intent by the british state on a number of levels: it is intended to ratchet-up racism even more, targeted especially at the Black n Brown Muslim community, it is intended to squash the demands for a Scottish referendum for independence, it is to keep you meek and quiet as the state makes your life worse through brexit, and intended to keep you meek and quiet while the state goes to increasing wars of destruction against our Homelands and eventually to prepare us for war against Germany and possibly others.

Saturday, 18 February 2017


Ecuador's Correa Calls for Latin American Unity Against Trump

TeleSur English

President Rafael Correa said the region needs to stand together to fight discrimination and human rights violations.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said Monday that Latin America needs to respond with a strong front and united speech against the anti-immigration measures of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Correa said there needs to be "a regional stand to defend the main type of mobility, which is human mobility, the defense of human rights, reminding the United States that they have been a country of migrants," said Correa in an interview with Spain's Cadena Ser.

The president said that the region is "still missing a consolidated and head-on speech to respond to policies" created by Trump.

Correa is in the midst of his last international tour before ending his presidential term in May. Ecuadoreans will choose a new president on Feb. 19, as well as members of the National Assembly.

"It is impressive what is happening, there will be hard times ahead," said Correa, referring to Trump's policies since his arrival in the White House, including the ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and the construction of a border wall with Mexico.

Correa said that “there are also opportunities" in the recent protests against Trump's decrees in the U.S. that "haven’t been seen since the Vietnam War or the civil rights struggle."

Correa signed Saturday a Human Mobility Law that guarantees the rights of migrants and ensures that nobody will be dubbed or treated as "illegal" based solely on their immigration status.

According to the government, there are currently about 200,000 Ecuadoreans who are in an irregular situation in the United States.


How did Corbyn come to be loyal to Brexit? The very short version: 

Corbyn is in an english left group that basically are left british nationalists, this includes most of the trade union leaders he is close to including len mcluskey, it includes his closest political advisers and colleagus people like seamus milne (who I was friends with before), andrew murray and other. for many decades they have campaigned against the EU, played up a 'socialist' version of british nationalism that says that 'migration needs to be controlled', 'british jobs for british workers' etc.

Keep in kind that I was a national student advisor for Arthur Scargill, who, while out of politics in any meaningful way for decades, is nonetheless the greatest left-wing english socialist (nationalist) left, and I campaigned on his party's policies in the early 2000s which was clearly british nationalist, FOR immigration controls, and was basically competing for the far right back then, the northern racists were of course voting for the fascist BNP and increasingly ukip back then, that has come to full fruition with Corbyn competing with the far right for these votes. Of course in such a competition the far right ALWAYS wins.

Now Corbyn was a degree or two outside of this as he was an activist MP who wanted to make everyone, the left nationalists, the liberal nationalists and migrant communities happy. Including supporting head choppers (death squads like Moazzam Begg) and those getting getting head-chopped (Kurds) at the same time!

As Corbyn came into the leadership of the Labour Party, he has decided to go along with this left brit nationalist group.

Only the far left loyalists of Corbyn think he did a good job in the referendum on brexit, everyone else knows that he was 'hedging his bets', its an open secret that him and his group wanted to send a message to their core group - northern racist white working class older men - that they are not really against brexit / anti-EU and they really supported brexit. (By the by: this is why ken loach made a film about older northern white man, and not a film about uniting people with migrants.)

At 6am on the morning of 34 June when brexit won, Corbyn demanded the triggering of article 50, which is an advocacy of the fastest brexit track possible. He finally exposed his political position, but the Corbyn left are still largely in denial while also many of them are indulging themselves in british nationalism and doing so in an attempt of doing it guilt free, they have cuddly corbyn promoting a far right british nationalist project, so nothing to worry about!

Corbyn has gradually since June 24 2016 dropped defending migrants, dropped defending freedom of movement, and now he doesnt even talk about anti-racism anymore.

Brexit is a major political disaster and even sections of the ruling classes know this, hence Blair's comments. We have a similar fall out in the usa amongst the ruling factions over trump fascism.

Blair and Kenneth Clarke understand how disastrous brexit is, from the point of view of a traditional more stability-oriented ruling class faction, hence they are talking up against brexit racism, with Kenneth Clarke comparing in parliament Corbyn's leadership to the politics of Enoch Powell, a infamous far right Tory politician known for his anti-immigrant “Rivers of Blood” speech:

“If he was here he would probably find it amazing to believe that his party had become eurosceptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant in a very strange way in 2016.”


6 years ago today in the midst of a western and Qatari and Saudi media led frenzy of instability against Tunisia and Egypt that has brought nothing but misery, division and near societal collapse to these countries (despite sociopaths calling it something good or a 'spring' even in their twisted morbid minds), Libya saw in Benghazi and Bayda and Derna the start of a NATO led and directed horror story. Supremacist political forces initiated an armed insurrection supported and then led by NATO totally, its first acts were killing Libyan police and armed forces, stealing weapons, and then lynching a load of Black / dark skinned people, literally stringing them up and chopping them up in public squares with hundreds of supremacist supporters cheering it all on, much of it is recorded here.  I have reported on it too in 2011 here

Shortly after British SAS were caught in Eastern Libya, and within weeks Fidel Castro told us that NATO was going to attack Libya, this was Castro's signal to us to mobilise, instead the western left including Andrew Murray, Kate Hudson, Lindsey German, John Rees and Chris Nineham of the so-called 'stop the war coalition' backed NATO's supremacist proxy forces in Libya for that whole year and refused to engage in what the anti NATO Libyan community here in England or in Libya had to say. Here is an exchange with John Rees from 2011 where he openly justifies and supports NATO in Libya.

I was one of the only people based in the west reporting on this from my three trips to Libya during the war and trying to get people to engage with the realities. People were in a drugged yo stupor off the Arab Sting, and most happily championed NATO's lynching head chopping 'revolution'. The Libyan people mobilised in an amazing renewal of revolutionary struggle, however Tripoli was overrun in a bloody offensive by massive NATO special forces and helicopter gunships that mowed down many of our comrades and resistance. 

Aforementioned western lefty sell outs continued to then support the human organ eating death squads in Syria also, but they changed their tune slightly after the 'jihadi john' head chopping was reported in the media and after John Rees sat next to Asim Qureshi from 'Cage' organisation where he called Mohammed Emwazi - 'Jihadi John' so-called - a "beautiful man", you can see Rees squirming somewhat while he says that here.

Until today stop the war leadership still support death squads through supporting 'Cage' organisation leader Moazzam Begg who went to Libya after NATO destroyed it to see his colleague and long time western military intel agent Hakim Belhaj who was a leading lyncher for NATO in Libya throughout 2011, helping NATO in a junior role to overthrow Tripoli, here is Belhaj with an English 'journalist' during Tripoli's overthrow.

Begg went on to go to Syria to assist death squads there in a visit formally green lighted by mi5, something he admits readily, he also sent love letters to Daesh leader Baghdadi in a bid to position himself as some kind of broker in relation to Daesh and their head chopping, no jokes see here from 5p which is a death squad platform.

The destruction of Libya directly through the 'Feb 17' NATO rebellion has led to so much death and collapse right across northern and Sahel and sun Sahara Africa, if has led to many things Gaddafi said it would not lease the proliferation of Daesh and Al Qaeda death squads, and massive plunging poverty for Libyans and others, it was the start of what has led to the growth of fascism in the west with Brexit, Le Pen and Trump, as the NATO wars on Libya and Syria meant that that fascism NATO exported to these countries has returned in so many ways to Europe itself.

And to date NO ONE in the west has made amends for their shameful support of this massive NATO destruction of Africa and their role in either championing it at the time or their complicity with their silence and inaction. For my part and that of my comrades, as ever to every actually existing global struggle against imperialism and NATO: we stay loyal and committed to Libya in its quest for unity, independence, socialism, Pan Africanism and Pan Arabism. 

Wednesday, 15 February 2017


Brief History of Global [but mostly western] Anti-Fascism

Anti-Fascist News 
By Alexander Reid Ross

Fascism, as we know it today, came amid the sweeping nationalism accompanying World War I. Numerous leftists shifting from left to right ported their watchwords of solidarity and insurrection over to militant formations designed to destroy the left and seize power. They were not unopposed in this mobilization of a left and right so-called “revolution.” This is the story of the revolutionaries, renegades, and warriors who broke with the powerful movement toward totalitarianism and continue to struggle as partisans for freedom and equality.

Fascism did not emerge on its own as a full cloth ideology. It developed from a complex history of anti-Semitism, ultranationalism, reactionary Catholicism, and the conditions of economic exploitation of industrial workers and peasants. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Dreyfus Affair marked the flash point for violent confrontations between left and right as ultranationalist anti-Semites framed a Jewish army captain for conspiring with the hated Prussians. The right relied on leagues and sporting clubs through which they could practice for physical confrontation while developing the mannerisms and affectations that would attempt to refine an otherwise blunt and stupid politics. Long at odds over the question of anti-Semitism, the left organized through associations, syndicates, and humanitarian organizations to support Dreyfus, organizing an important consensus that would affect future political positions.

In Germany, a financial crisis led to pogroms against Jews. Pogroms throughout Eastern Europe also led to the strengthening of Jewish workers’ defense organizations like the Jewish Bund. Tough men of the Jewish working class, the Bund stewarded marches for dignity and better wages, organized self-defense trainings, and developed autonomous aid networks within Jewish sectors. While Vladimir Lenin criticized the Bund for representing stop-gap politics, the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party went about building combat groups that would resist the counter-revolutionary forces of the Black Hundreds.[1] The anarchists of Russia went a similar direction, including Voline of the St. Petersburg Soviet, Uncle Vanya who helped organize workers’ insurrections from Samara to Ukraine.

But Fascism emerged through the breakdown in the Dreyfusard consensus, the alliance of ultranationalists and leftists around the notion of destroying liberal parliamentarianism, and in doing so managed to bypass the strongest left-wing resistance in the early stages. Instead, through the aesthetics of futurism, the charismatic leadership of Mussolini, and the syncretic positions of national syndicalism, Fascists presented themselves as marking the radical edge that could finally penetrate the armor of moderate politics. Recognizing the danger, anarchists like Errico Malatesta called for a broad antifascist front that discarded political differences in favor of resisting the vicious hierarchies and empty rhetoric of Fascists. Marxists, under the leadership of Antonio Gramsci, would brook no compromise with the anarchist-supported Arditi del Popolo (Army of the People), hoping instead for a mass insurrection of armed workers. With the resistance internally fragmented and the left under assault by an increasing alliance between the Fascists and the state, Mussolini entered government supported by a mass movement and the Fascist blackshirts continued to assassinate and apprehend leaders like Malatesta and Gramsci.

In Germany, the left stood similarly fractured. World War I ended through a massive revolution that started in a Naval mutiny and resulted in the abdication of the Kaiser, as well as a Bavarian insurrection that deposed the local government and established a “Soviet” led by anarchists and communists. Having voted to enter the war, the Social Democrats rose to power through popular left-wing sentiment and compromises with the far right—in particular, the Freikorps, a paramilitary force of army veterans who the Social Democrats would deploy to brutally crush a Communist uprising in Berlin led by Rosa Luxemberg and Karl Liebknecht and the Bavarian Soviet, as well as a renewed uprising in the industrial Ruhr Valley led by a militant force calling itself the Red Army of the Ruhr. It was only after the defeat of these three significant left-wing revolutionary uprisings that Hitler would rise in a beerhall in Munich and pretend to lead a “national revolution” of Freikorps and other paramilitary rightist factions under Nazi guidance.

The left scrambled to the defensive to set Hitler back on his heels, setting up its own combat groups (Kampfbunds) and attacking Nazi meetings and events. Even the Social Democrats, observing the fearsome rise of the brutal Stormtroopers, set up the militant Reichsbanner, but the leadership had already granted significant powers to the Freikorps and the SA simply heightened the tensions. By the early 1930s, the German Communist Party had adopted a defeatist attitude, marking the Social Democrats as “social fascists” and supporting Nazi strikes and parliamentary efforts like a significant “no confidence” vote in the Reichstagg. Those who risked life and limb in the streets fighting Nazis were placed in vulnerable positions by their own leadership. When Hitler took power, the aspirations of the Communist Party’s “First Hitler, then us!” strategy proved totally foolish, as the Nazis immediately demobilized the Kampfbunds, including Antifaschistische Aktion, and sent the left to concentration camps.

In France and the UK, resistance to fascism also manifested in street battles and strategic competitions over urban space. Famously, the UK antifascists repeatedly broke up the meetings of the pugilistic cad, Oswald Mosley, refusing to yield London’s working class East End to fascist influence by halting a march in an event that came to be known as the Battle of Cable Street. Meanwhile, French fascists asserted that they had created fascism by destroying the Dreyfusard consensus, and paramilitary formations emerged across the far right enlisting, paradoxically, the support of anti-Jewish North African Arabs in exchange for money and services. While members of the French radical left “drifted” toward fascism vis-a-vis the “neo-socialism” of Marcel Dèat and the populism of former Communist Party central committee member, “le Grande Jacques” Doriot, others confronted fascists, blockaded meeting venues, and launched antifascist boycotts. Unlike in Germany and Italy, the French and English left was able to prevent voluntary capitulation to fascism—perhaps in part as a result of the rejection of the defeatist line that “bourgeois socialists” and “radical liberals” and even moderate conservatives should be considered as bad as, if not worse than, fascism.

Perhaps nowhere was fascism more heavily contested, however, than in Spain where fascism had a significant following. In 1930, a military coup by Miguel Primo de Rivera adopted fascism “spiritually,” but generally reproduced the old 19th Century authoritarian conservatism and bare-knuckles corporatism. While General Miguel fell from grace, however, his son José Antonio Primo de Rivera, also known simply as José Antonio, rose to prominence and supported a purer form of fascist dictatorship led by the militant forces of a fascist Falange that would defeat leftism in the streets. Leftists, of course, rose to the challenge and fought tooth and nail against the fascism of Spanish aristocrats that situated itself within the working class through an alliance with the Committees of the National Syndicalist Offensive under the leadership of Ramiro Ledesma Ramos. Street fighting between the left and the Falange-National Syndicalist alliance grew extremely intense, with assassinations and beatings spilling over onto left-wing sympathizers and liberals. Following the election of the left-wing Popular Front, leftist police assassinated a leader of the reactionary Catholic conservatives named Calvo Sotelo, sparking an outcry that led, in no small part, to the invasion of Spain by the colonial military forces of Francisco Franco. Although the Popular Front incarcerated José Antonio, the Falange formed a significant, loyal, and ferocious section of Franco’s army, which met with the valiant opposition of anarchist militias hoping not only to defend the Republic but to further the revolutionary interests of self-determination, land, and liberty. Under the anarchist leader, Buenaventura Durruti, the Iron Column marched against Franco’s invading force along with a quasi-Trotskyist forces of POUM, the liberal fighters under Largo Caballero and the Stalinist-backed Communist Party. However, supplied by corporate powers across the Atlantic and tacitly enabled through Allied neutrality and appeasement, the armies of Franco beat down the antifascist resistance with Hitler and Mussolini’s overt assistance.

When Hitler’s tanks rolled into France the next year, it found relatively little resistance. Partisan forces emerged from Italy to Greece and across the Eastern Front. These partisans worked to sabotage fascist communications and supply lines, assassinate officials, and develop antifascist networks, workers’ associations, and societies to propagandize against their respective repressive regimes. After Mussolini and Hitler invaded Greece in 1941, leftists brokered a tenuous truce with ultranationalist “Hellenic Patriots” who supported parafascist dictator Ioannis Metaxas. Fighting persisted in Ukraine and the Balkans, as well, where Nazi-allied forces committed some of the worst atrocities of the war. When the US invaded Italy and occupied Rome in 1943, the partisans of the North engaged in fierce behind-the-lines struggle against the likes of the Black Prince Borghese who remained faithful to Mussolini’s government-in-exile, the Republic of Salò. Russia marshaled and lost tens of millions of people in the explicitly antifascist war to defeat the Reich and the ideology it represented, while the fascist-friendly Allen Dulles set up the architecture for a post-war insurgency inclusive of fascist “stay-behinds” fighting against Soviet influence in Europe.

The tenuous peace between partisans unravelled after the War and the collapse of the Reich, at which point the British supported the Hellenic forces’ military struggle against the Communist partisans with whom they had fought only months prior. Similarly, in Italy, the US’s Office of Strategic Services, later eclipsed by the CIA, recruited Fascist agents to oppose the left-wing Popular Front in the 1946 elections, continuing over the next decades to support links between Fascist networks within the government and clandestine terrorist groups targeting public infrastructure in a “Strategy of Tension” designed to pull the population toward the security state. These fascist groups like Black Prince Borghese’s Fronte Nazionale, which included the Nuovo Ordine and Avanguardia Nazionale, were schooled by the CIA-supported Greek military dictatorship that took power in 1967, and attempted on at least one occasion the similar overthrow of Italy’s Christian Democratic Party, were opposed in the streets by a mass movement of left-wing workers, students, and women in the tradition of antifascist partisans.

In France, Franco-sympathizer Pierre Poujade extended the street fights of the 1930s into the 1950s with his radical right populist party of the Union de Défense des Commerçants et Artisans, which was heavily contested by the left. The far-right paramilitary group Organisation Armée Secrète emerged out of the far-right hatred of the post-War Fourth Republic and resistance to decolonization in Algeria to plague the left and set the violent standard for fascist militants organized through groupusculeslike Occident and the Groupe Union Défense. These organizations met opposition in Algeria by the militants of the Front de Libération National and in France by militant ultras. A former Poujadist named Jean-Marie Le Pen, who had purportedly lost the use of one eye in a particularly brutal street fight before rising to lead the new National Front in 1972. Some three years later, a bomb blast ripped through Le Pen’s Paris apartment, followed just two years later by a car bomb that killed Le Pen’s close ally, “national revolutionary” François Duprat.

In Italy, the assassinations, fights, and bombings between left and right grew so intense that the period between 1969 and the late 1970s became known as the Years of Lead. The “Hot Summer” of 1969, in which a wave of factory strikes and occupations spread to the general population, sparking the Autonomia movement, was followed by an explosion in Milan’s Piazza Fontana set by fascists to frame the left. Police rounded up anarchists and leftists by the hundreds, including a railroad worker named Giuseppe Pinelli who died in police custody, producing a massive outcry throughout Italy. As fascists persisted in attempting to infiltrate left-wing groups and co-opt the leadership of Autonomia, ongoing clashes and bomb blasts rocked Italy, which spilled into other countries as Italian fascists laying low abroad helped to spread their strategies and tactics elsewhere.

In Germany, opposition to fascism was similarly complicated by post-war “stay-behind” networks. Like Italy, the post-war order in Germany maintained tacit bonds between state entities like the Bundesnachrechtendienst and non-state fascist groupuscules. However, fascist groups like the Sozialistische Reichsparty faced a ban, making overt organizing difficult. At the same time, veterans organizations became breeding grounds for Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda, and anti-immigrant sentiment was not unusual. During the 1980s, a strong horizontalist resistance movement grew in opposition to nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, and economic exploitation called the Autonomen movement, which targeted and was targeted by fascists seeking to generate mass resistance to immigration, refugees, and multicultural society. Partly in response to the Autonomen movement and the government’s ban on certain fascist parties, “national revolutionaries” developed the strategy of “Freie Kameradschaften”—small groups of 3 to 5 people committed to engaging in political violence against the homeless, disabled people, migrants, non-whites and non-straight people. Through the Freie Kameradschaften, fascists began to appropriate the strategies of the Autonomen movement, including donning black clothing and black masks to maintain anonymity. Yet they met with violent resistance from the leftist Autonomen movement, which produced a new wave of horizontalist Antifaschistische Aktion groups.

As with the Italian terrorists who fled through Franco’s Spain to promote fascism elsewhere in the world, Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie had escaped to areas of Latin America and worked to foster a new international movement. Throughout Latin America, and most notoriously in Argentina where the fascist-organized Alianza Anticommunista Argentina fought a “Dirty War” against left-wing Peronists known as Montoneros, fascists helped train and create anti-left paramilitary groups that instigated the conditions for Civil War and military coup. These forces found militant opposition in the form of national liberation armies like the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional in El Salvador who engaged in a long-term revolutionary war against paramilitaries who committed such heinous acts as assassinating the Archbishop Romero during mass and raping then murdering a group of Catholic nuns. At the same time, fascist networks oriented through Salazar’s Portugal strove to maintain colonialism in African countries like Guinea-Bissau, where anti-colonial forces under Amílcar Cabral fought them.

Such far-right and colonial networks developed and/or supported by fascists found happy allies within the US government, including the fairly extensive intelligence networks created by fascist propagandist Willis Carto, Roy Cohn and Lyndon Larouche. Intimately tied to the former’s large base of supporters was a rising fascist militant named David Duke, who mass marketed a new generation of Ku Klux Klan violence as “white civil rights.” Having fallen off after its height in the 1920s, the Klan received a boost of support from the White Citizens Councils and the populist politician George Wallace in the 1960s; however, Wallace’s events faced violent resistance from community groups, and FBI support for integration hindered the Invisible Empire’s growth. The resurgent Klan found powerful opposition in the form of civil society groups and new anti-racist formations.

As the Southern Poverty Law Center came into effect, working within the courts and peaceful social organizations to promote diversity against hate, left-wing radicals developed more militant strategies for opposing the rise of fascism. Targeting racism through militant class struggle, the Workers’ Viewpoint Organization attempted to organize an inter-racial textile workers’ union to oppose the Klan in Greensboro, North Carolina. However, the Klan fought back, uniting with area fascists for a 1979 ambush against an anti-Klan rally that left five dead and five wounded. Other left-wing groups like the John Brown Anti-Klan Committee and the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee emerged with the desire to expose fascism within the US and to defeat racism through militant class struggle, and met with varying levels of success in the Midwest amid the rise of fascist skinheads.

As well as Latin American military dictatorships, Italian fascists also influenced the English far-right, bringing the “political soldier” concept to a group of fascists that decided to splinter front the National Front and organize skinheads as the frontline shock troops of a new fascist movement. These fascist skinheads mobilized through a network of Oi! punk bands and publications, spreading throughout North America and meeting an increasingly organized resistance by the mid-1980s. Anti-racist skinheads organized into Anti-Racist Action, Red and Anarchist Skinheads, and local manifestations of Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, among other groups, to confront fascists attempting to create a violent mass movement against non-straight, non-white people in society. As fascist skinheads were beaten out of urban areas by anti-racists, fascist strategy moved toward the militia and Patriot movement during the 1990s, which provided a new kind of “leaderless resistance” based in rural areas where the left had a less formidable presence.

These small bands of violent fascists often identified with the fascist skinhead movement also appeared in France under the Parti Nationaliste Française et Européen and Troisième Voie through the related paramilitary formation, the Jeunneses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires, who at times stewarded marches of Le Pen’s Front National. With Le Pen increasingly pressuring the centrist parties at the polls, the French Socialist Party created the popular S.O.S. Racisme group, which promoted multiculturalism through large events and public gatherings. In the streets, the foot soldiers of the “national revolution” found more violent opposition from gangs like the Black Dragons and Duckie Boys. Similarly, in the UK, the large Rock Against Racism movement gave way to the Anti-Nazi League, which cultivated a mass movement against the National Front and British National Party. More confrontational and revolutionary left-wing groups also emerged like Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action, which like Anti-Racist Action joined the militant horizontal strategies and tactics of Antifaschistische Aktion. By the late 2000s, these groups and groups like them were increasingly referred to as “Antifa.”

The appropriation of Autonomen movement strategy and tactics came to a head amid the 2008 recession, when “Autonomist Nationalists” began to form black blocs from the Czech Republic to Germany and the Netherlands. The black blocs were repeated by supporters of the “CounterJihad” movement appearing in Germany as PEGIDA and in England as the English Defense League, among other places. Meanwhile, those groups have seen a rising wave of opposition, including a humiliating running battle between fascists and antifascists in Brighton that left the “March for England” in tatters. This and other events showed that groups with names like National Action and National Resistance that have emerged from Sweden to Ukraine, linking up for spontaneous street demonstrations and acts of mob violence, are virtually impossible to oppose without organized community defense.

In the US, the CounterJihad groups associated with the militia movement galvanized the anti-mosque movement of 2014, appearing outside of places of worship or community centers often with black masksarmed with assault rifles and other weapons. These formations are increasingly opposed by likewise-armed community defense groups and antifas who seek to protect non-white communities from attacks and intimidation. More recently, the alt-right has emerged in league with Donald Trump, taking much of its inspiration from the “intellectual” fascist milieu that emerged during the Years of Lead to link left and right and reproduce the conditions that led to the destruction of the Dreyfusard consensus. Where the alt-right has moved into the physical space of real life, it has been dogged by antifa opposition—as in the recent protests against Milo Yiannopolos at the University of California–Berkeley.

Fascism has never arisen without opposition through community consensus. Instead, antifascists have worked to root out fascist infiltration and “entryism” that seeks to pass as the merger of left and right, while also militantly opposing fascist marches and meetings. Where fascism obtained power, it did so through the largely through the betrayal of the organized left by its leadership, along with state collaboration with the fascists amid significant, often violent, fighting amongst left-wing groups. If, in Italy and Germany, antifascists had decided to join with powerful liberals and even conservatives to defend their communities against Blackshirts, if the Communists of Germany had not succumbed to the temptation of labelling social democrats the equivalent of fascists while completely alienating everyone outside of a particularly small section of the industrial working class, perhaps fascism might never have emerged—perhaps it would have only been a detail in the history of Italy in the 1910s. It is wise, then, to heed the warnings of history and to maintain a form of militant antifascist action based in tactical alliances and the spirit of friendship rather than vulgar self-interest and political bravado. Where fascism is proud, we must be humble. Where fascism is divisive, we must unite. Where fascism is weak, we must strike.

[1] The shock troops of the merciless anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, the Black Hundreds are widely seen today as some of the earliest formations of what would become the fascist movement, and it was none other than the famous writer Fyodor Dostoevsky who, with a co-author, would set out the platform of the “conservative revolution” followed by the later melding of the German “Patriotic movement” and Marxian theorists known as the National Bolshevik wing of the Nazi Party.


Alexander Reid Ross teaches geography at Portland State University. He is the author of Against the Fascist Creep and the editor of Grabbing Back: Essays Against the Global Land Grab. His articles have appeared at sites like ThinkProgress, The Ecologist and the Cambridge University Strategic Initiative in Global Food Security. Project Censored recognized his work for Media Democracy in Action in Censored2016.