•
The following resolution, submitted by the CPGB-ML, was overwhelmingly adopted by the national conference of the Stop the War Coalition, held on 25 April 2009.
No cooperation with war crimes
This conference condemns Britain’s continued involvement in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and calls for the immediate recall of all British troops from both these countries.
While the City of London’s financial elite sought to benefit by joining arms with the US to seize Iraq’s oil wealth and manipulate her domestic and foreign policy to their advantage, this conference affirms that the entire bloody debacle has always been contrary to the interests of the vast majority of British workers, who have consistently demonstrated their opposition to this modern-day Anglo-American colonial crusade.
Since 2004, more than 1.5 million wholly innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been slaughtered as a result of the illegal invasion and occupation of their country. This can only be termed genocide. In addition, more than 4 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes as internal and external refugees, and the resultant dislocation of Iraq’s cultural, political and economic life is near total.
In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been murdered, and the country’s infrastructure smashed to pieces as a result of the Anglo-American oil monopolies’ quest to control the routes of projected pipelines.
This conference notes with shame the fact that ‘our own’ British imperialist Labour government has been a key player in planning and perpetrating these heinous war crimes against the Iraqi and Afghan peoples.
Conference notes that many British workers were browbeaten, by a compliant political and media establishment, into accepting these wars on entirely false premises (Afghan responsibility for the 11 September attacks, Blair’s ‘45 minute’ claim about Iraqi WMD, etc) that sought to paint Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than Anglo-American imperialism, as the aggressors. Thus the necessary ground was laid to send British and US soldiers (workers in uniform) to do the bankers’, oil magnates’ and armament manufacturers’ dirty work.
This conference believes that war fought to enforce subjection and servitude upon another nation is morally abhorrent; to fight and die in such a cause is demoralising, corrupting and meaningless.
This conference realises that, although individually powerless, collectively, British workers do have the power to stop the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, since the government and corporations cannot fight them without us.
This conference therefore resolves that the coalition will do all in its power to promote a movement of industrial, political and military non-cooperation with all of imperialism’s aggressive war preparations and activities among British working people.
Union mobilisation remains key to the success of such a policy, and this conference instructs the incoming Stop the War steering committee to campaign vigorously among trade unions to encourage them to adopt a practical policy encouraging their members to do everything not to support illegal wars or occupations, directly or indirectly; and to render every support to members victimised for taking this principled stand.
This conference welcomes the magnificent examples set by such signal actions as:
- 2002/3: FBU strike action immediately preceding the invasion of Iraq, which threatened the entire enterprise.
- Jan 2003: Fifteen Aslef train drivers refused to move arms from Glasgow factories to Glen Douglas base on Scotland’s west coast (which remains Nato’s largest European arsenal, and from where they were bound for the Gulf).
- 9 Aug 2006: Protesters occupied the Derry offices of Raytheon when Israel invaded Lebanon, to “prevent the commissioning of war crimes by the Israeli armed forces using weapons supplied by Raytheon”.
- May Day 2008: tens of thousands of US west coast dockers defied court injunctions to strike in protest against US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the decision of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) leadership to withhold official sponsorship for the strike.
- Dec 2008: Smash EDO demonstrators occupied and disabled production at Brighton-based missile-delivery system manufacturer EDO (recently acquired by Armament Giant ITT) during Israel’s massacre of Gazans.
- Feb 2009: Norwegian Train drivers staged a national stoppage to protest the Israeli massacre in Gaza.
- Resolutions asking Bectu media workers to resist the transmission of imperialist war propaganda will be considered at the union’s forthcoming congress.
•
Yesterday I referred to what was funny about the “Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain”.
Today I could refer to what is tragic about it. I hope our friends do not take any offence in this. There were some differences between the draft that we received, which was going to be submitted by the hosts of the Summit, and the document that was finally published. In all that last-minute haste, there was hardly any time for anything. Some items had been discussed at long meetings held some weeks previous to the Summit. At the very last moment, proposals such as the one submitted by Bolivia, complicated even more the whole picture. The Bolivian proposal was included as a note in the document. It stated that Bolivia considered that the implementation of policies and cooperation schemes aimed at expanding the use of bio-fuels in the western hemisphere could affect and have an impact on the availability of foodstuffs, the increase of food prices, deforestation, the displacement of populations as a result of the land demand, and that consequently this could make the food crisis to be even worse, which will directly affect low income persons and, most of all, the poorest economies among developing countries. The note added that the Bolivian government, while recognizing the need to look for and resort to environmentally friendly alternative sources of energy, such as the geothermal, solar, and eolic sources of energy, and to small and medium size hydro-power generators, it advocates for an alternative approach, based on the possibility of living well and in harmony with nature, in order to develop public policies aimed at the promotion of safe alternative energies that could ensure the preservation of the planet, our ‘mother land’.
When analyzing this note submitted by Bolivia please bear in mind that the United States and Brazil are the two biggest producers of bio-fuels in the world, something that is opposed by an increasing number of persons in the planet, whose resistance has been growing since the dark days of George Bush.
Obama’s advisors published in the Internet their version -in English- of the interview the US president granted to some journalists in Port of Spain. At one point, he asserted that there was something he found interesting –an added that he had known of it in a more abstract way but that he found it interesting in more specific terms- which was listening to these leaders who, when speaking about Cuba, did so referring specifically to the thousands of doctors Cuba is disseminating throughout the region, and finding how much these countries depended on them. He said this reminded them in the US of the fact that if their only interaction with many of these countries was the war on drugs; that if their only interaction was of a military character, then it was possible that they would not be developing connections that, with time, could enhance their influence with a positive effect when they may find it necessary to advance policies of their interest in the region.
He said he thought that was the reason why it was so important -for the sake of their interaction, not only here in this hemisphere, but in the whole world- to recognize that their military power was just part of their power, and that they have to resort to diplomacy and their aid to development in a more intelligent way, so that peoples could see concrete and practical improvements in the life of ordinary citizens, based on the foreign policy of the United States.
Jake, one of the journalists, said thanks to the President and added that in Port of Spain the President had listened to many Latin American leaders who want the US to lift the embargo against Cuba. The journalist reminded the President he had said that was an important influence that should not be eliminated. But he added that in 2004 the President did support the lifting of the embargo. He reminded the President he had said that the embargo had not managed to raise the standards of living, that it had squeezed the innocent, and that it was high time for the US to recognize that that particular policy had failed. The journalist wondered what made the President change his opinion with regards to the embargo.
The President responded that the year 2004 seemed to be thousands of years ago, and wondered what he himself was doing in 2004.
The journalist answered that back then he was running for the Senate. The President added that the fact that Raul Castro had said his government was ready to talk with the US government not only about the lifting of the embargo but also about other issues, namely, human rights and political prisoners, was a signal of progress. He said there were some things the Cuban government could do. He added that Cuba could release the political prisoners, reduce the surcharge imposed on remittances, which will correspond with the policies that they have applied, whereby Cuban-American families are allowed to send remittances. He said that it so happened that Cuba applies a very high surcharge. He said that Cuba is exacting significant profits. He added that this would be an example of cooperation where both governments would be working to help the Cuban family and improve the living standards in Cuba.
There is no doubt that the President misinterpreted Raul’s statements.
When the President of Cuba said he was ready to discuss any topic with the US President, he meant he was not afraid of addressing any issue. That shows his courage and confidence on the principles of the Revolution. No one should feel astonished that Raul spoke about pardoning those who were convicted on March, 2003, and about sending them all to the United States, should that country be willing to release the Five Cuban Anti-Terrorism Heroes. The convicts, as was already the case with the Bay of Pig’s mercenaries, are at the service of a foreign power that threatens and blockades our homeland.
Besides, the assertion that Cuba imposes a very high surcharge and obtains significant profits is an attempt by the President’s advisors to cause trouble and division among Cubans. Every country charges a certain amount for all hard currency transfers. If those are made in dollars, all the more reason we have to do it, because that is the currency of the country that blockades us. Not all Cubans have relatives abroad that could send them remittances. Redistributing a relatively small part of them to benefit those more in need of food, medicines and other goods is absolutely fair. Our homeland does not have the privilege of converting the money minted by the State into hard currency -something the Chinese very often call “junk money”- as I have explained on several occasions, which has been one of the causes of the present economic crisis. With what money the US is bailing out its banks and multinationals, while plunging future generations of Americans into indebtedness? Would Obama be ready to discuss those issues?
Daniel Ortega stated it very clearly when he remembered the first conversation he had with Carter, which today I will once more repeat:
“I had the opportunity to meet with President Carter, and when he told me that now, after the Somozas’ tyranny had been ousted, and the Nicaraguan people had defeated the Somozas’ tyranny, it was high time ‘for Nicaragua to change’, I said: ‘No, Nicaragua does not need to change; you are the ones that need to change. Nicaragua has never invaded the United States. Nicaragua has never mined the US ports. Nicaragua has never launched a single stone against the American nation. Nicaragua has not imposed any government on the United States. You are the ones that need to change, not the Nicaraguans.’ ”
At the press conference, as well as in the final meetings of the Summit, Obama looked conceited. Such attitude by the US President was consistent with the abject positions adopted by some Latin American leaders. Some days ago I said that whatever was said and done at the Summit will be known anyway.
When the US President said, in answering to Jake, that thousands of years had elapsed since 2004 until the present, he was superficial. Should we wait for so many years before his blockade is lifted? He did not invent it, but he embraced it just as much as the previous ten US presidents did. Should he continue down that same path, we could predict he would face a sure fiasco, just as all his predecessor did. That is not the dream entertained by Martin Luther King, whose role in the struggle for human rights will ever more illuminate the American people’s path.
We are living in a new era. Changes are unavoidable. Leaders just pass through; peoples prevail. There would be no need to wait for thousands of years to pass by; only eight years will be enough so that a new US President –who will no doubt be less intelligent, promising and admired in the world than Barack Obama- riding on a better armored car, or on a more modern helicopter, or on a more sophisticated plane, occupies that inglorious position.
Tomorrow we shall have more news about the Summit.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 21, 2009
5:34 p.m.
•
At around 7:20pm on Wednesday 1st April 2009, as he made his way home through the city of London, 47 year old Ian Tomlinson, father of 9, was brutally attacked by uniformed thugs of London’s notorious Territorial Support Group (TSG) Riot Police.
The attack was witnessed (among others) by photographer Anna Braithwaite, who said: “I can remember seeing Ian Tomlinson. He was rushed from behind by a riot officer with a helmet and shield two or three minutes before he collapsed.”
Another witness recalls that as he was assaulted and thrown to the floor by these British state-sponsored thugs “…he hit the top front area of his head on the pavement. I noticed his fall particularly because it struck me as a horrifically forceful push by a policeman and an especially hard fall; it made me wince.”
Following his assault, he was seen stumbling before he collapsed and died on Cornhill Street, opposite St Michael’s Alley, at around 7.25pm.
Police initially claimed that “Mr Tomlinson appears to have become caught between police lines and protesters, with officers chasing back demonstrators during skirmishes.” And further that “when paramedics tried to move Mr Tomlinson away for urgent treatment, bottles were thrown at them by protesters”
Cold-blooded and unprovoked police murder
In fact the incident has been captured on video, and is available online. It can be clearly seen from this footage that Tomlinson posed no conceivable threat to the TSG assassins who took his life, but had his back to them and was walking away from them with his hands in his pockets, when he was arbitrarily struck in the legs with a baton and brutally shoved to the floor, without warning or provocation. No attempt was made to aid him as he lay on the ground, apparently remonstrating with the officers.
As a result of this cold-blooded and unprovoked assault, Ian Tomlinson hit his head forcefully on the concrete paving-stones. He subsequently became confused, collapsed and died. The cause of his death has initially been reported by the police as a “heart attack”, but he had no cardiac history, and was in good health, having recently run a half marathon. It seems far more likely that he suffered a fatal brain injury due to head trauma (the mechanism of injury and history suggest intra-cranial haemorrhage – bleeding into the cranial cavity, causing compression of his brain). While we await a coroners post mortem and inquest to shed light on these details, what is absolutely clear is that Ian Tomlinson was murdered by police thugs.
We note that news of this state-sponsored murder has only gradually leaked out, and at time of writing is confined to a few low-profile articles in the broad-sheet press. It is not hard to imagine the furore that would have ensued had a police officer suffered even a mild injury, let alone been killed – one need only cast one’s mind back to the recent assassinations of 2 soldiers and a policeman in the occupied six counties of Ireland to measure the contrast.
The foul deed has been committed, but now the campaign of dis-information, lies and slander will no doubt ensue. This has
become an all too familiar pattern following the murders of Jean Charles De Menezes, Harry Stanley and Diarmuid O’Neill, not to mention the attempted murder by police in Forest Gate.
Context of the attack
Police had been corralling demonstrators outside the Bank of England in what is essentially a form of (illegal) mass detention. Some had been thus imprisoned for hours, triggering counter demonstrations outside the cordons, demanding their release.
At around 7.10pm, G20 protesters had gathered outside the police cordon to call for those contained inside – some for hours – to be let out. Officers with batons and shields attempted to clear them from the road.
Around 7.20pm, five riot police, and a line of officers with dogs, emerged fromRoyal Exchange Square, a pedestrian side street. It was at this juncture that they encountered and attacked Ian Tomlinson.
The brutal and arbitrarily manhandling of this middle aged man quite without warning, cause or provocation, despite his lack of involvement in G20 demonstrations is easily understood by anyone that has ever encountered the TSG. Apart from being their usual modus operandi, it is quite clear that they wished to send a message to all those protesting against the reactionary policies of the City’s finance-capitalist elite and the havoc they are wreaking on the world, from destruction of jobs and livelihoods, to environmental devastation, and genocidal colonial wars of domination.
Who do the police serve?
The Police, Army and other “special bodies of armed men” form, together with parliament, the judiciary and prisons, etc., the modern capitalist state machine. This state is the means by which the capitalist class maintains its rule.
Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class.” The ancient and feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the slaves and serfs; likewise, “the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage-labor by capital…
In a democratic republic, Engels continues, “wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely”, first, by means of the “direct corruption of officials” (America); secondly, by means of an “alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange.” (Lenin, The State and Revolution)
The assertion is made that the police are here to protect and serve ‘the community’. But Ian Tomlinson’s death illustrates all to clearly that there is a real alliance between the state forces and the stock exchange in the City of London, and that the City’s bankers, for all their economic problems, remain very much in political control.
The TSG and other ‘elite’ units (such as the firearms unit SO19) of the police are really paramilitary forces of the British imperialist state; the domestic counterpart to their armies currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Far from getting one’s cat out of the tree or helping the elderly across roads, their real job is to put the boot in – to anyone deemed socially or politically dangerous by the capitalist class. And not only the boot, for they are amassing an arsenal of increasingly sophisticated weaponry (chemical weapons, ‘tazer’ stun guns, pistols, high power rifles and semi-automatic machine guns, etc), and the legislative powers to employ them with impunity. It is generally enough to throw in the word ‘suspected terrorist’ to justify any detention and any – even deadly – use of force. Nor do the ample provisions of the law hem in the actions of the state services, as can be seen from leaked evidence of British Secret Services routine use of Rendition of suspects for ‘contracted-out’ torture.
So bankers – whose ‘job’ is to ensnare masses of workers and third world nations in debt, and thus enable ‘dead’ capital previously looted from the world’s workers to extract yet more surplus value, vampire-like, from the blood sweat and toil of the still living impoverished masses – when they loose a few hundred billion in their financial crisis, can use their connections with (really mastery over) the governmental and state apparatus to loot the treasury (and therefore the tax-paying public) of its reserves, in a vain attempt to prop up their moribund capitalist economic system.
But workers, when they protest against the injustice of what they increasingly perceive to be the rule of the financial elite, can expect to get their heads cracked. Ian Tomlinson seems to have been ‘collateral damage’ (the intended action, but the wrong victim), as was Jean Charles de Menezes; but that does not change the nature of the shoot-to-kill policy employed by the Metropolitan Police, or its policy of beating protestors off the streets. Whatever happened to those much lauded ‘democratic rights’ of which we hear so much?
TSG record of brutality
Such heavy-handed actions and thuggish behaviour are not new to the storm-troops of the TSG. Rather, they form an integral part of their rich tradition of repression, as central to police culture as institutional racism, islamophobia, beating up striking miners and shooting the Irish. The TSG are well known, in police circles and beyond to be ‘animals’, who itch to exercise the little power they are licensed to wield; who revel as they torture their victims; who have been trained to find some little relief from their petty nature and poverty of spirit by the ‘power’ they feel as they kick the living daylight out of their victims – who are generally the most dis-enfranchised members of society: poor, working-class, Irish, Muslim, Black or Asian and, of course, political opponents of their master’s political system, or simply unlucky enough to be mistaken for one of these categories of personae non gratae (as was the case with Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes and now Ian Tomlinson).
These words might sound far-fetched to those who have not had the misfortune to encounter a TSG officer gleefully performing his duty, but a few examples may prove instructive:
Police officers involved in a “serious, gratuitous and prolonged” attack on a British Muslim man that led the Metropolitan police to pay £60,000 in damages this week have been accused of dozens of previous assaults against black or Asian men.
Babar Ahmad, 34, a terrorist suspect [ie a British working man who happens to be muslim and of asian origin], was punched, kicked, stamped on and strangled during his arrest by officers from one of the Met’s territorial support groups at his London home in December 2003.
After six years of denials from Scotland Yard, lawyers acting for the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, were forced to admit in the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of sustained and gratuitous violence during his arrest and agreed to pay £60,000 in damages.
But the Guardian can reveal that the Met was aware for years that the six officers involved were the subject of repeated complaints. According to documents submitted to the court, four of the officers who carried out the raid on Ahmad’s home had 60 allegations of assault against them – of which at least 37 were made by black or Asian men. One of the officers had 26 separate allegations of assault against him – 17 against black or Asian men.
The Met has confirmed that since 1992 all six officers involved in the Ahmad assault had been subject to at least 77 complaints. When lawyers for Ahmad asked for details of these allegations it emerged that the police had “lost” several large mail sacks detailing at least 30 of the complaints.
(Guardian, 21 March)
Details of previous criminal thuggery committed by just four TSG officers came to light after the high court issued a disclosure order on 13 February 2009, demanding that the Metropolitan police release all “similar fact allegations” to Ahmed’s legal team:
• March 2007: one officer is accused of bundling a man into the back of a police van where he was told to “get on his knees”. When he replied this was not Guantánamo Bay he claims the officer grabbed him round the neck and “discharged his CS gas while continuing to hold his throat”. He says he was then thrown from the van, leaving him with eye, neck and head injuries. According to the document no action was taken because the complaint was either “incapable of proof” or there was “no case to answer”.
• November 2005: two of the officers were accused by a “black male” of attacking him in the back of a police van. The document states that he was subjected to “constant kicking to his head and stomach (approx 12 kicks). Head lifted off the floor by grabbing his right ear and lifting head.” The attack left the man with bruising and swelling to his face but the case was not pursued, the Met said, because of “non-cooperation” by the complainant.
• October 2005: the document stated that two of the officers were involved in another assault on a “black male”. It read: “In van repeatedly assaulted – kicks to the face, stamps on his head whilst handcuffed.” The victim said afterwards he “felt like he might die”. Vomiting and blood coming out of his ears, black swollen eye, lip busted, hands very swollen.
• June 2003: two officers accused of beating a “black male” in the back of the TSG van. “The beating continued in the van and in a search room at the station.”
• July 2008: TSG officers ‘tazer’ [electrocute] 17 year old black teen in Hyde park for participating in a water fight (ibid)
Multiply this by the thousands of TSG officers deployed every day on our streets, and factor in the tiny proportion of victims who might think it worth complaining to the very police that have attacked them (and sought to criminalise them to justify their actions) in the first instance, and one begins to appreciate the massive repression meted out by the police in general and such units as the TSG in particular.
For the police, murder and repression represent business as usual
Quite clearly these draconian measures are fully sanctioned from the highest police and governmental levels and therefore the inevitable consequences are essentially considered to be business-as-usual by all branches of the state apparatus and the majority of media (as ever, acting as the faithful propaganda arm of the state in any matters of importance). Hence the low profile and ‘sympathetic’ coverage surrounding such abuses.
Judging from past form, we can expect, at best, a brief internal
investigation, followed by full exoneration of all officers involved – and their speedy return to cracking heads (a.k.a. their ‘duty’.) How else can the British monopoly-capitalist class govern in these uncertain times?
The government’s prime concern, now as with the Bloody Sunday or Hutton enquiries is to ensure that the state remains unfettered in its task upholding the real interests of the financial elite; the spirit, rather than the letter of the bourgeois legal code. British Imperialism has a long history of brutal colonial and domestic repression, but with deepening capitalist crisis, the full force of its many ‘anti-terror’ statutes will inevitably be deployed with increasing frequency.
The victims of state repression are bound to be overwhelmingly ordinary British workers, resisting the consequences of the free-market fundamentalism of ‘our own’ imperialist ruling class of bankers and financiers.
The way forward
We note that “[t]he state has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.” (Lenin, op cit)
Such increasingly desperate acts of violence will not safeguard this decadent and parasitic capitalist system of production for profit; this system of exploitation of man by man and nation by nation; of the many by the few. Rather, they will hasten the day that working people take their destiny in their own hands, and realize that force, when wielded by the masses against this repressive apparatus can “play another role” (other than that of a diabolical power) “in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with the new, that it is the instrument by the aid of which the social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms” (ibid)
We send our condolences to the family and friends of Ian Tomlinson, yet another victim of the British capitalist state, and hope that the mounting anti-capitalist movement will hasten the day of British Imperialism’s demise, which can be the only fitting reparation for its crimes.
•
While the CPB whinges to anyone who will listen to them about the wholly warranted criticism that they receive from the CPGB-ML, due to the former’s rotten revisionism, they have once again put their putrid politics of surrender and their deformed brand of internationalism on display to prove the correctness of our position of criticising them.
In an article in the Morning Star, a paper supported, promoted and sold by the CPB, on Monday 6 April, there was an attack on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by Kate Hudson, CND chair and a prominent member of the CPB. Ignoring the information put out by the KCNA, the news agency of the DPRK, she accepted without question the view of imperialism that this was some kind of test linked to weapons delivery systems and condemned the launch of the communications satellite by the socialist DPRK as both “unnecessary and provocative”. Adding for good measure “which, regardless of whether its intentions are peaceful,” (something she clearly does not believe) “risks others seeing the launch as a threat to regional security”.
In making this assertion, Ms Hudson shows the political cowardice that has come to be associated with her party. There are very many satellites whizzing around our planet, most of which are the property of imperialism and which are used for a variety of military and spying purposes. These satellites are launched on a regular basis without a murmur from Ms Hudson, her party or its paper, so what’s the big deal now?
The US objects strongly when its virtual monopoly of space is in any way challenged, even by a peaceful communications satellite, and the appeasers of CND and the CPB/Morning Star, instead of standing up and supporting the right of the DPRK to launch a satellite for whatever reason it wants, including defence if it should so choose, give lectures to a socialist country for ignoring the threats and lies of US imperialism and their lackeys.
We in the CPGB-ML, on the contrary, loudly applaud Comrade Kim Jong Il, the Workers’ Party of Korea and the people of the DPRK on the launch of this satellite and acknowledge their correctness in ignoring both the rants of imperialism and the lick-spittle admonishments of the social-pacifists of the CPB.
