As I turned on the debate I flicked to a different tab in my browser and was listening to the first speaker. When I flicked back to the tab I was shocked to see the first speaker was a man and not a woman.
You may think I am being facetious or adding this in for comedic effect.
This genuinely happened.
I listened to this pathetic weasel insist on a war – that he or his family would never fight discuss what would amount to forced conscription in Britain. Perhaps one of the top comments on the video expresses it best.
It’s the hand-on-hip posturing, the phoney drama-school theatrics, calling for war while swimming in a suit two sizes too big with a voice yet to break, that make this even more cringe.
I then listened to the second speaker, a foreigner from Ukraine, insist that we had to fight war with Russia. Interestingly this Banderite devoted a significant amount of time to “women’s rights” and urged for more female representation on the panels. The implication that women would be more pro war?
How about give British Working-Class women representation on that panel. Instead of foreigners demanding we fight their wars for their ethnic grievance against Russians. Given the motion in this debate was “This house would rather Go To War With Russians Than Lose Ukraine”.
The motion itself is not specific, perhaps deliberately. Are the debaters in the Oxford Debate club the ones going to war? It would certainly be funny to see the fishwife (first “male” speaker) and the dolled up Ukrainian climbing through trenches crawling with drones to determine which side Kramatorsk is on.
But we know these prostitutes of the imperialists would never willingly put their own lives on the line.
So the motion can only mean Britain going to war with Russia.
In all reality we are already at war with Russia. The effective drone attacks against Russian oil refineries were likely British/NATO drones. Long range missiles supplied by Britain have killed innocent people in Russia. Europe seems desperate to re-enact it’s once a century tragedy by wanting to invade Russia and parcel up the country. The imperialists seem to want to move a total war footing though. This will not be like World War 2 whereby a formal declaration of war happens and there is a callup. It’ll happen in a concentric circles of waves of mobilisation as it happened in Ukraine.
I understand why the imperialists want a war – I do.
Their child-raping sociopaths for a start, as the Epstein files proved. Secondly, without the partition of Russia and a new “Yeltsin era” Capitalism is going to crash and crash hard in imperialist societies.
They had hoped to banish class warfare by offshoring manufacturing and constantly lowering the wages via streams of mass migration – all funded and organised by the British State, American NGO networks and it’s intelligence arms. With a constant stream migrants who act as parasites on imperialism the British State never needs to worry about Class Warfare.
It is a similar process that led to the fall of the Eastern Bloc. Socialism can never gift you the commodities of slave labour. Bananas, avocados and fruits picked by children in South America. Chocolate picked by African children. High technology – phones, laptops, smart watches etc mined by slave labour in the Congo.
The Eastern Bloc brought down their socialist governments and destroyed their nations to get passports to the West where they could work as whores, gangsters and the advanced detachment of Capitalism. How else can you explain the depopulation of the former socialist nations?
I’ve provided a few graphs. Feel free to google yourself all the other ex-socialist countries. Try find a single one that bucks the trend that socialism created human beings and built up their nations whilst Capitalism depleted their nations and turned them into a vast reserve army of Labour.
How Would They Get Britons To Fight This War Against Russia?
The British State smuggled thousands of Afghans into Britain. It was initially kept secret from the British people and then a super injunction applied against it. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8zy78787o
These Afghans are quite literally the scum of the earth. The only people to collaborate with NATO were paedophiles and heroin dealers. People might want to go back and watch “This Is What Winning Looks Like” where they can see a British Lieutenant discussing with the Afghans NATO was arming and training talking about raping little boys. The Taliban came to power on the back of the popular power against the revulsion of Bacha Basi (Child Rape).
Both in the 1990s and again in the 2000s and 2010s.
The United States/NATO was happy to turn a blind eye to this child rape.
The United States has long known about the prevalence of bacha bazi among its partners in the ANSF. It is clear that the U.S. Department of Defense was aware, by 2009 at the latest, of coercive relationships between men and boys on U.S. military bases in Afghanistan. Billions of dollars were spent in order to ensure that the partnership between U.S. forces and ANSF had sufficient capacity to manage and maintain the internal security throughout Afghanistan. In the development of a security sector assistance plan, the U.S. overlooked multiple instances of criminal activity and gross human rights violations, including the sexual abuse of children on military bases.
The rampant nature of bacha bazi in some regions risked the legitimacy of the Afghan government in the eyes of Afghan civilians and undermines Washington’s reputation and that of America’s multilateral international partners. This will have long-term impacts well after the United States has completed its troop drawdown. Over the decades of the American military presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. has continuously turned a blind eye to the ANSF’s and Northern Alliance’s insistence that the current iteration of bacha bazi is Afghan culture, when in reality these groups are co-opting a historical practice in order to traffic and sexually abuse vulnerable Afghan boys. The continued and unquestioned support of the ANSF puts at risk long-term goals for stability and peace in Afghanistan, which the U.S. should continue to emphasize through foreign aid.
Have a read of this US Congress report. The US Army actually punished its own soldiers for complaining about the Afghan-NATO collaborators raping children.
Bacha bazi, which translates as “boy play,” is a form of child sexual abuse that has been reported amongAfghanistan’s military and defense forces. While there is no clear legal definition of the term, a DOD InspectorGeneral report from 2017 describes bacha bazi as the practice of men sexually abusing boys who are trained todance in girls’ clothing. 31This type of abuse is said to have a long history in Central Asia, and some who practice itreport seeing it as a sign of social status, but Afghan society at large reportedly disapproves strongly.The Taliban strongly oppose bacha bazi (despite their own use of children for frontline fighting), and had largelyeradicated it when they controlled the country. A former Marine who had served in Afghanistan noted that theTaliban have used reports of rapes committed by government agents as a recruiting tool.32 The current Afghangovernment, after initially failing to address bacha bazi, has pledged to tackle the problem.33 The Department ofState’s 2018 Trafficking in Persons report credits the Ghani Government with some strides toward criminalizingbacha bazi and enforcing those laws, but the practice continues to be widespread.34
This issue attracted significant congressional concern after the New York Times reported in 2015 that U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan were being punished for protesting against the sexual abuse of boys on military bases.35
Some Members intervened on behalf of several individual soldiers, and 93 Members asked SIGAR to investigatethe problem and the enforcement of Leahy Laws in Afghanistan. The resulting SIGAR report and a subsequentreport by the DOD Inspector General documented an ongoing problem, including a lack of clear guidance for U.S.forces to report and counter cases of abuse.36 Moreover, some Afghan units receive U.S. assistance despitecommitting “gross violation of human rights,” because of the “notwithstanding clause” that allows for exceptionsto the Leahy Laws, and because of procedural flaws in the way Leahy Laws are managed in Afghanistan. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30588
From Child Rapists heroin dealers in Afghanistan to the Banderite organ harvesters in Ukraine – NATO finds the most despicable people to wage its wars.
When NATO packed up its bags and left Afghanistan the ghost army it had trained and funded disappeared into smoke and the Taliban took back Afghanistan with little to no fight.
The people clinging to the aeroplanes trying to leave Afghanistan with the Americans were the paedophiles, gangsters and drug dealers that NATO had put into power to run the Afghan State. They knew a fate worse than death (deserved, in my opinion) awaited them.
These are the people that were let into the country by the British State, even secret from the government to begin with.
Why are they here?
They almost certainly will be the shock troops to beat a non-compliant British working class into dying in a trench for transnational global capitalism. In Ukraine they used the fanaticism of the Banderites to kidnap people off the streets and take them to the front whereby their life expectancy was reduced to one week.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/imXtr8Obcis
British Nationalism developed in a more peculiar way given the history of the British Empire. Whereby nationalism was transformed into a transnational global empire. Nationlism until the end of World War 2 was more or less for the Empire. Since World War 2 the imperialists – led largely by the British – have advanced a serious attack on Nationalism.
Viewing people who recognise they live in a territory, share an economic life, share a language, culture and shared history as a barrier to their profits the British State has gone about dismantling historical education of Britain and attempting to Americanise the country into a “we’re all migrants” framework.
The aim is to deny everybody everywhere a rooted place to call home where they might make demands of local industry, local culture against the homogenising slop passed around the world through the fetid, rotting corpse of HollyWood. To turn the entire world into rootless cosmopolitans not attached to anything or anywhere. Scrabbling from one economic zone to the next, begging to be explotited for their labour.
My point here is that the British State cannot use a faction of Nationalists like the Banderites to beat their own people into vans to be taken to a frontline. The British State will almost certainly rely on a mercenary army that is being built right under British peoples noses and that they’re currently paying for.
When you are being beaten into a van to advance transnational capital and protect Blackrocks investments in Ukraine, you will do well to remember the faces of those that demanded war.
