Wednesday, 14 February 2018

The Question of 'Rootlessness' - and 'Identity Politics' : Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections

Part 3. The Question of ‘Rootlessness’ - and ‘Identity Politics’

“Thus, both [the imperialistic-bellicose and humanitarian-pacifistic way of thinking] can be used by “international Jewry” to proclaim and accomplish one as a means for the other [their common end of a rootless, leveled, homogeneous, technological mass civilization] — this machinational “history”-making entangles all players equally in their webs.”  Heidegger

The association of the Jews in particular with a “rootless cosmopolitanism” has a long history, which Heidegger here reaffirms. But it was after WW2, which resulted in the displacement, driving out and uprooting of so many Germans - both from and within their homeland - that Heidegger came to consider rootlessness (loss of ‘autochthony’) as something “caused not merely by the circumstance and fortune, nor … only from the negligence and superficiality of man’s way of life” but from “the spirit of the age in which all of us were born”. More significantly, he came also to associate this rootlessness with a growing attachment not just to financial calculation but also to technology, “which everywhere and every minute claim, enchain, drag along, press and impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other”, and “whose accomplishments come speedily to be known and publicly admired”.

At a time when information technologies, computers and the now ubiquitous ‘smartphone’ had not even begun to encroach upon human life and activity, this was an extraordinary example of Heidegger’s historical prescience.

“What we know now as the technology of film and television, of transportation and especially air transportation, of news reporting, and as medical and nutritional technology, is presumably only a crude start. No one can foresee the radical changes to come. But technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology.”

Heidegger did not seek to deny the usefulness or even necessity of technical devices, but warned of the way in which they threatened the complete extinction of another type of thinking to the dominant mode of “calculative thinking”. It was in his Memorial Address on the death of the composer Konradin Kreutzer that he called this other type of thinking “meditative thinking”. Indeed he spoke of man as being literally “in flight” from thinking in this meditative sense. 

“Yet you may protest: mere meditative thinking finds itself floating unaware above reality. It loses touch. It is worthless for dealing with current business. It profits nothing in carrying out practical affairs. And you may say, finally, that mere meditative thinking, persevering meditation, is ‘above’ the reach of ordinary understanding. In this excuse only this much is true: … meditative thinking requires a greater effort. It is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to await, as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen. Yet anyone can follow the path of meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. Why? Because man is thinking, that is, a meditating being. Thus meditative thinking need by no means be ‘high-flown’. It is enough if we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest - on that which concerns us, each one of us, here and now … now, in the present hour of history.”
Heidegger goes on to ask a fundamental question:

“Even if the old rootedness is being lost in this age, may not a new ground and foundation be granted again to man, a foundation and ground out which man’s nature and all his works may flourish in a new way…?”

For if not:

“Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing an indifference towards meditative thinking - total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature - that he is a meditative being. Therefore the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.”

To all this we might add that it would have come as no surprise to Heidegger, that within all the New Age cults and literary trash that would come to promote ‘meditation’ as a practice, one will never once come across the term ‘meditative thinking’. Instead ‘thought and meditation’ are treated in New Age culture as total opposites. Hence the pathetic degree of dumbed-down thinking - if not complete thoughtlessness - that finds its expression in the jargons of New Age literature, as it does also in both empty corporate jargons and the worship of technological science - what Heidegger called “THE new religion”. Nor is it a surprise that Twitter alone has become a principal technological instrument for the dumbing-down of human thinking - promoting unthought, knee-jerk reactions to the latest bits of informational ‘news’ that can be used to confirm with the existing beliefs and prejudices of its users without any deeper thinking or research.

That said, is there an answer to Heidegger’s quest for a new form of rootedness - one no longer reducible to the old fetishes of ‘Blood and Soil’, ‘Race’ and ‘Tradition’? For as a result of the now almost total dominance of calculative thinking:

"The world now appears as an object open to the attacks of calculative thoughts - attacks that nothing is believed able any longer to resist. Nature becomes a gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for modern technology and industry...The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit … Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium … uranium is set upon to yield atomic energy.

Heidegger’s own answer to the question of technology was that:

"We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology releasement toward things."

Further reflections come from the English philosopher Simon Glendinning:

… Flourishing, I want to say with Heidegger, does presuppose some kind of milieu which provides what we might call a “racinating function”. However, what we need to take our leave from is the disastrous temptation to represent every “nativisation” in “blood and soil” terms. Against Heidegger, I will want to affirm another nativisation – the being-at-home … that belongs, as Nietzsche stressed, to a human being who has achieved “independence of any definite milieu”.

This suggestion is given a further and even more pointed signification by Harvey Requiem:

“… there will always be outcasts who will find their autochthony and therefore pursue meditative thought simply through the necessity of it, because they cannot find an anchor in mainstream calculative society. They are not permitted a place in the calculative 'herd', which is how most people seem to find their meaning, therefore they must find their meaning elsewhere and are forced to meditate lest they lose their minds.”

Neither of these quotations are an answer in themselves. Yet they contain  the seed of an answer. We need only rethink Nietzsche’s attack on the “herd mentality” in a new way - as the cultivation of human beings who are not in any way bound or constricted by group identifications of any sort - whether ethnic, racial or gender-based, religious, political or ideological, regional, national or supranational. Such group identifications express a weakened and insecure sense of self, and with it a need to bury and confine the truly autarchic self - what I call ‘the deep self’ - within the restrictive and outworn baggage of group ideological languages and their symbolic ‘identifiers’. Thus I see no essential difference between, for example, the identity politics of the liberal and Trotskyite Left, and that of both Islam on the one hand and ‘ethnonationalism’ or ‘identitarianism’ on the other (including the ultra-identitarianism of World Jewry). Similarly, it makes no essential difference whether one seeks a basis for one’s sense of self by identifying as a feminist, gay, transgender, black, white (or even as a ‘socialist’) or doing so through a ‘them and us rejection’ of groups one does not identity with - which is just a form of negative identification and negative identity politics in which identity is entirely constituted by what one negates.

There is a dialectical relation between positive and negative identifications and identity politics, one which not only makes them inseparable but also serves globalist interests - through the ever-increasing polarisation and fragmentation of society into groups based on opposite identifications: feminism versus patriarchy, gay or lesbian identity versus ‘straight’ heterosexuality, traditional genders versus ‘trans-genders’ etc. etc. Such multiple identity polarisations are a globalist strategy of the 1% - and a useful distraction from focussing on it. It is important also to understand the connection between polarising group identifications and ‘self-identification’ in the sense defined by Gilad Atzmon. This is what he calls ‘ASA’ - for example the need to identify oneself primarily and fundamentally AS A ‘gay’ and AS A part of the ‘gay community’ - rather than just being homosexual, and not making a fuss of it or turning it into the core of one’s selfhood.  Do ordinary workers need to identify themselves AS workers? No, they simply find themselves in the position of having to be workers. In this sense, the common essence of all identity politics lies in the need to find a substitute for an authentic and autarchic sense of self in group identifications and identities, whether positively or negatively. I am not of course suggesting that identities, groups and communities of all sorts, including ethnic groups, are invalid or redundant. What I am saying is that groups and communities need to be composed of authentically autarchic individuals - those whose native soil lies in their own innermost soul - which both embraces and transcends identities and identifications. Only the ego and egotism, long cultivated in the Judaic tradition, thinks of itself as possessing identities as a form of private property. In contrast, the soul is awareness as such - a universal awareness field of which we are each an individualised portion and embodiment. The ‘deep’ self, as this pure, knowing awareness, includes an awareness of multiple roles and identities - but it is not itself an identity. That is why those insistent outsiders - foremost among them the German writer Ernst Jünger, close friend and correspondent of Martin Heidegger, - consistently refused to be bound by group identifications but embodied a truly sovereign individual. He himself called such an individual an ‘anarch’ - in contrast to the revolutionary ‘anarchist’. ‘Anarchs’ are simply aware, truly autarchic and self-rooted individuals without whose inner sovereignty there can be no free and sovereign groups, communities, states, societies or nations of any sort at all. 

Wednesday, 7 February 2018

On 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections:

Part 2. On 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'

Some extracts:

Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game…

Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgment, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interest? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is unthinkable; for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution.

The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. ...through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade...

NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

What is it to the proletariat labourer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side, … once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate…

It is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the "goyim" the very principle of god-head and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs.

In order to give the GOYIM no time to think and take note, their minds must be diverted towards industry and trade. Thus, all the nations will be swallowed up in the pursuit of gain and in the race for it will not take note of their common foe. But again, in order that freedom may once for all disintegrate and ruin the communities of the GOYIM, we must put industry on a speculative basis: the result of this will be that what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands and pass into speculation, that is, to our classes.

Economic crises have been produced by us for the GOYIM by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation. Huge capitals have stagnated, withdrawing money from States, which were constantly obliged to apply to those same capitals for loans. These loans burdened the finances of the State with the payment of interest and made them the bond slaves of these capitals ....

We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the GOYIM, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any GOYIM who oppose us by deed or word.


That the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a Russian ‘forgery’, full of plagiarisms from many earlier texts, is irrefutable. What is less remarked upon is their clearly Russian character, expressed by a hatred of both the landed (Tsarist) aristocracy and also by the ‘plan’ to replace it with a Stalinesque-type “despot” in full control of the State and all property - and who would be deified like a God. What is also not remarked upon enough is the failure of the Protocols to promote or anticipate the success of the Zionist movement - with its aim to reclaim Jerusalem. Then there is the clear lack of knowledge presented in the Protocols of the Judaic holy books themselves - which in themselves contain ample material of an even worse sort than that presented by the Protocols themselves - and which already declare that the Jews are destined to be global rulers of mankind and non-Jews their slaves. Instead the Protocols simply seek to re-contextualise elements of Jewish scripture and of the historical roles of the Jews in a more modern context.

From this point of view - and as Goebbels himself recognised - the whole question of the ‘authenticity’ of the Protocols is, in the end, wholly irrelevant - since most of what they are purported to ‘forge’ was already a reality at their time of writing - for example the reign of liberalism, Jewish control of the press, of speculative finance capital - and also of socialist and Bolshevik movements etc. But the biggest mistake of the Protocols was the perceived need of their authors to present Jewish supremacism as a carefully crafted conspiracy of a single directorate. It is better described as an international tribal network of diverse political and economic groupings elites - a ‘worldwide web’ - one with no central headquarters or leader, but with a clear history, direction and agenda (albeit one of which most Jews, even those participating in and supporting it, are largely ignorant).

“The locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks.” Proverbs 30:27.

Does this all mean that, in truth, Jews are indeed to blame for all the ills of this world, and have worse in store for it? Such a claim rests on a wholly impoverished understanding of history and historical developments. It is like claiming that the rise of capitalism was ‘planned’ and executed by a secret elite. To be sure, there were countless individuals, financial elites and also ‘secret societies’ like the Masons - all of whom did indeed vigorously participate in and furthered the rise of capitalism under the slogan of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. But to attribute the rise of capitalism to these individuals, elites and societies - rather than understanding them all as an expression of this rise - is to turn the dynamics of history on its head. Man does not make history. History makes man. This was the understanding that both Marx and Heidegger brought to expression.

“...the conspiratorial theory of history, which is based on the assumption that whatever happens is intended to happen, i.e., it is the result of conscious planning and deliberate action. Since Heidegger rejects this premise, he also rejects such anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as naively humanistic in their understanding of history. Heidegger does not, however, deny that human thought and action play important roles in history. But he believes that they are not the ultimate forces. Thus Heidegger does not deny that the Jewish community world-wide actively pursues its perceived collective interests. But he does believe that Jewish policies are not the cause or explanation of modernity, but instead that modernity arises from deeper, broader, and ultimately inscrutable forces. Heidegger sees the rise of Jewish power — in both Anglo-American capitalism and Bolshevism — as a product of the Jews’ unique adaptation to the spirit of modernity, which is an age of rootlessness and calculation. Jews, therefore, appear to be both subjects and objects of the modernization process. Primarily they are objects, since history is ultimately outside of human control. But since world Jewry is already characterized by rootlessness and calculation, it is capable of accepting the “world-historical task” of driving modernity toward its consummation: a rootless, homogeneous, technological mass society, which will ultimately ensnare and destroy the Jews as well. So, in the end, they are objects as well.” Greg Johnson

In other words, Jews are as much an object - indeed a slave and also a victim of their own ‘chosenness’ and supremacism - as they are its subject or ‘agent’. Similarly, the financial speculator or billionaire is as much a slave to speculation and money as he is master of it. Mammonism is no more a creation of money owners than capitalism, as an international economic system, was the planned creation of owners of capital.

In what then, lies the uniqueness of the power of international Jewry? The answer is simple and plain to see - and ever more so. Namely that it has become, like the fake gas chambers of Holocaust mythology, something totally outside the realm of ‘politically correct’ discussion and rational critique among leading statesmen and politicians of all colours or parties - not least the ‘far Left’. As Gilad Atzmon put it, Jewish power is the power to prevent any discussion or critique of Jewish power. As for Zionism in particular, far from being merely a response to anti-Semitism, its philosophy was, from its very inception, itself rabidly anti-Semitic. Herzl was an anti-Semite of such virulent extremism that his remarks puts the ‘Protocols’ in the shade. His aim was nothing less than to eradicate what he saw as disgusting and dirty Eastern Jews - and turn them instead into virile Gentiles with their own land, state and racially pure nation.

“Leon Ritter von Bilinski — the man whose memoirs were to expose the Disraeli origins of Herzl's ideas — told Herzl bluntly that the Zionists’ ideas and assumptions were exactly those of the worst anti-Semitic racists.” Mark Burdman

Martin Heidegger was perhaps the deepest philosophical critic of biological racism - both that of the Jews and its mirror image in Hitler’s biologism - and indeed Hitler’s Anglophilia:

“The idea of an understanding with England in terms of a distribution of imperialist “prerogatives” misses the essence of the historical process, which is led by England within the framework of Americanism and Bolshevism and at the same time world Jewry to its final conclusion. The question of the role of world Jewry is not racial, but the metaphysical question of the type of humanity that can accept the world-historical “task” of uprooting all beings from Being.”

Today this type of humanity is exemplified in Silicon Valley, with its principal and on-going project of creating machine-like human beings whose thought and perception are linked directly - digitally and electronically - to a singular Artificial Intelligence called ‘The Singularity’. What is here called ‘intelligence’ however, is nothing but the technological expression of what Heidegger called “machination” and “calculative thinking”, i.e. a type of ‘intelligence’ than can only calculate (previously associated with specifically Jewish financial talents - but which knows no dimension of living, meaning or being outside ‘the virtual’. But it is also not difficult to guess who the main financiers of research into this wholly artificial ‘intelligence’ are.

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

Some more critical historical questions relating to the Brexit debate - Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections:

Part 1. Some more critical historical questions relating to the Brexit debate

Questions: how would either Brexit or remaining in the EU bring us one millimetre closer to true socialism or even real national sovereignty? Does anyone seriously believe that any party in the UK Parliament, pro- or anti-Brexit, has any more interest in controlling immigration than Germany or the EU? Why was the UK under Blair one of the few EU countries, besides Ireland and Malta, that did NOT impose a transition period before accepting migrants from ex-Soviet states such as Romania or Poland? The answer is ‘the elephant in the room’: Jewish influence and the taboo on talking about it - the ‘Jew taboo’ in talking of Jewish supremacism. Britain is not a democracy: it is an oligarchy. The most influential component of this oligarchy is Jewish, and if Jews opposed Third World immigration it would not be happening. And according to Theresa May “Jewish values will prevail.” But what of Blair’s Jewish immigration Minister - Barbara Roche.

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 in 2011: The most incredible revelations [about New Labour’s conspiracy] concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK. … Like [Jack] Straw, Blair was careful never publicly to mention the rising number of immigrants from India and Pakistan who could now enter Britain. Nor did he consider how to provide housing, schools and healthcare for an additional 300,000 people arriving a year. Least of all did either of them question whether the immigrants would have any effect on the lives of the British working class. (Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that 23 British workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.) Could this chicanery get any worse? It did — with the appointment of Barbara Roche as Junior Immigration Minister. Blair’s only instruction to her was to deport bogus asylum seekers. But Roche wasn’t playing. ‘It was clear Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain,’ recalled Stephen Boys-Smith, the new head of the immigration directorate. ‘She didn’t see her job as controlling entry, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’ Jack Straw never openly contradicted Roche — it simply wasn’t worth the risk of alienating the Labour Party. So she set to work on a speech, in which she outlined the advantages of reducing controls to immigration and portrayed asylum seekers as skilled labour. She didn’t discuss what she was going to say with Straw. …‘Well done, Barbara,’ Blair told Roche soon [after the speech]. Despite its controversial content, her speech passed relatively unnoticed. But migrants quickly grasped its importance and passed the news on to their friends and family across the world. Labour was letting more people in, they told them, and — unlike other European countries — Britain would provide benefits and state housing. … One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most … would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

See also:

As regards refugees from Syria, American Jews and Jewish organisations united around the idea that they were victims of some sort of Syrian Hitler - Assad. As a result they encouraged America to eventually let in the grand and generous total of 10,000 Syrian refugees - completing forgetting that it was precisely America and Israel - and not Germany, which is where the majority of refugees ended, who were responsible for their plight.

Eleven Jewish organisations joined another 70 groups in pleading with Congress to keep open the Obama administration’s program, which would allow in 10,000 refugees over the next year from among the 200,000 to 300,000 in Europe. Among the signatories were mainstream bodies like the the Reform movement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the National Council of Jewish Women, as well as HIAS, the lead Jewish body dealing with immigration issues, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for Jewish public policy groups.

If the EU broke down tomorrow and we would have a new ‘Europe of Nations’, each of them imposing strict immigration controls and regulations - as Austria has now also done - how would even this bring us closer to socialism or true national sovereignty? For the fact is that most of the European parties or governments pursuing this goal are:

1. in hock to the Jewish-dominated global monetary system.

2. bow down to and pledge fealty to Israel - whatever it does.

3. pursue neo-liberal economic policies aimed at reducing state spending of the sort and promoted first by the Milton Friedman, and then by Thatcher and Reagan - not the EU.

4. strong supporters, like Poland, of the NATO-Atlanticist alliance which, through the Zionist neocons in the White House, first created the flood of internal and external refugees through US wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Syria.

As well as Hungary and the Czech Republic, the new Austrian government bows to Israel:

During the recent (2017) Austrian election campaign, “the ruling Social Democratic Party of Austria (called SDO for short) imported an Israeli dirty-tricks master, a macher in Yiddish, Tal Silberstein, to besmirch its [anti-immigration] adversary Sebastian Kurz.The idea was that the Austrians will get cold feet and run away from Kurz. Kurz figured this out and asked the Facebook moderators to stop it. Usually you do not have to ask FB twice to stop Nazi stuff. Kurz was lucky as Silberstein had been arrested in Israel for corruption-related offences. After that, the FB unplugged its ears and removed Silberstein’s created pages and groups. This was sheer luck: if he were arrested elsewhere, he would be considered a victim of antisemites, and his nasty web would remain intact. So the attempt of Silberstein to frame Kurz as an antisemite had failed, up to a point. He anyway continued to smear another Austrian politician as a Jew-hater. That was the ‘far right’ FPO [Austrian Freedom Party] leader Heinz-Christian Strache. The end of the story may comfort us: the Austrians preferred these two parties, Kurz List and FPO, despite the alleged antisemitism, and punished SDO, the kosher party. However, before celebrating let us see the downside of this wonderful event. In order to extricate themselves and their parties from the Jewish smear, the two leaders swore loyalty to Israel. They went (separately) to Israel, took photo-op with PM Netanyahu and at the Holocaust memorial, they spoke endlessly how much they adore and appreciate Israel. The antisemitism accusation is a win-win proposition for Jews. If a politician doesn’t do what the Jews want, they call him antisemite, and he (a) does what they want, and/or (b) swears fealty to Israel. In case (a) he is a liberal, in case (b) he is a nationalist. In both cases, Jews win.” from Antisemitism Weaponised

Similarly, although Hungary banned billionaire financier George Soros, it’s still business as usual for the banksters: Viktor Orban went on to promise Netanyahu “zero-tolerance for anti-Semitism”. And according to Netanyahu, “Israel has no better friend in Europe than the Czech Republic”.

Question: What does it mean, besides mere words, for a country to “declare independence” or say that it is “taking back control” - whether through leaving the EU or by plotting a supposedly independent course within it. Does this not beg the basic question: declaring independence or taking back control from what or whom - if not from the parasitic international banking system? And is it any accident that the EU migration chief in 2015 was non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International, and affirmed the Kalergi agenda in no uncertain terms:

Further questions in this context:

What possible reason obligates a Corbyn, like most Tories and many other Labour MPs, to become a ‘Friend of Israel’? Does this not lend credibility to the term ‘ZOG’ - Zionist Occupied Government?

And again, why are those European countries, parties, governments and leaders who most oppose the Islamisation of Europe ‘the best friends of Israel’ - and vice versa? Voltaire’s answer: “Ask whom you cannot criticise and you know who rules you.”

But this question is not asked. Instead opponents of Islamisation in Europe ignore all those facts that point to the main instigator of ‘Islamisation’ being none other than Israel itself.

Fact 1: Israel and its neocon Zionist agents in the White House were chiefly responsible for the US wars of aggression in Iraq and the Middle East which first gave rise to the refugee crisis.

Fact 2: Israel gave and still continues to give military support to Islamic terrorism in the form of ISIS, even to the extent of bombing Damascus and the Syrian army.

Fact 3: Zionist jews actively promote an ‘open borders’ policy in Germany, Sweden, the UK and elsewhere in Europe. See the words of Barbara Lerner Spectre below, who though she is an Israeli national, has the support of the Swedish government in promoting immigration:

See also report on Rabbinical support for the Islamisation of Europe:,7340,L-4299673,00.html

Fact 4: Israel benefits from the rise of ‘anti-Semitism’ stemming from Arab immigration - because this distracts attention from its own genocidal war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, its ambitions for a ‘Greater Israel’ and its warmongering policy toward Iran. Yaron London, an Israeli journalist, wrote that if Trump’s America’s can be made to “hate Arabs more than they hate Jews”, it would be a “good deal”.

Fact 5: rather than using the full force of the law to stop rampant crimes and also sexual attacks on European women in Sweden, Germany and the UK (not a single victim of which has been Jewish) both Britain and Germany are introducing new laws against so-called anti-Semitic ‘ ‘hate crime’.

Fact 6: even if uncontrolled immigration does lead to a rise in anti-Semitism, this would not prevent Jews returning to Israel. But it is more likely to fuel a violent civil war - itself a convenient excuse to impose a form European martial law on the nations of Europe.

Fact 7: Count Kalergi, founder of the Pan-European movement whose 1925 book laid the programmatic basis for the present EU, was funded, with the help of the Rothschild family by the Wall St. banker Max Warburg and believed that Jews would be the new ruling elite in a Europe whose population would be transformed into a mixed “Negroid-Eurasian” race.

Fact 8: Jewish supremacism is not a conspiracy but a fact. Zionist jews control Hollywood, almost all the major US media, the hi-tech internet giants like Google, Wall Street - and, last but not least, the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. As for the EU, Mario Draghi, head of the ECB, was vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs. And Emmanuel Macron was a Rothschild investment banker. And already in the 18th century they had financial control over America, a control they fought ruthlessly to maintain in the face of resistance from both Lincoln and the Southern states - and which culminated in the secret but successful plot to create a Jewish-controlled private central bank - the Federal Reserve - in 1913,

‘Globalisation’ is simply the monetary and political form taken by Jewish supremacism.
How can any country simply ‘declare’ political sovereignty from the global monetary system, for example through Brexit, unless it first of all reasserts - as Lincoln did, as Germany did in the thirties, and as Kennedy tried to do - its sovereign right as a nation to issue its own debt- and interest-free money - rather than getting into mounting debt with the global banksters.

US corporate interests and their controlling Jewish financial interests are therefore the ‘elephant in the room’ of the acrimonious and divisive Brexiteer/Remainer debate which obsesses British politics - a debate which only divert all attention from this Jewish elephant.

Should not Marxists look a little deeper beneath the surface of this simplistic and simplifying debate, which has nothing to do with the real interests - or real enemies of workers - Brexit or no Brexit? It seems that socialists have forgotten or know nothing of the extraordinarily well-researched work of German economist and sociologist Werner Sombart - according to Friedrich Engels the only professor who fully understood Marx’s Das Kapital. It was Sombart’s book on The Jews and Modern Capitalism showed, without the slightest trace of racial or religious malice that without Jews and Judaism capitalism simply would not exist in its present form.

Thus simply demonising or sanctifying the EU forgets that it is part of the U.S.-Zionist-Wall St. imperial project to dominate Europe through TTIP, sanctions on Russia and by employing NATO to encircle and harrass Russia. And yet this US supremacist project is itself in essence a Judaic one through and through, whether led by Jews or not. For it is above all Jews who are happy to see Europe crumble and - once again - see Russia submit to Jewish oligarchical power, as it did to the genocidal violence of Communist Jews, from Trotsky to Yagoda, against ethnic Russians and Ukrainians - particularly the peasantry, whom Lenin himself despised, believing that if any Russian had intelligence they would most likely have a Jewish element in their ancestry.

Leave or Remain? In itself is this not a question which has proved to be perhaps the most effective form of divide and rule - one which has not become almost neurotic political obsession - obscuring all other and larger issues - but is perhaps the most divisive political civil war that Britain has seen since Cromwell - he whom Dutch Jews veritably praised as their Messiah - and through whom they gained re-admittance to England. Later the reign of William III created conditions for the establishment of the first - and notoriously usurious - ‘Bank of England’. William himself was dedicated to Calvinism - a Christian reinvention of Judaism that sanctioned usury. And even before the accession to power of the Jewish Tory Prime Minister Disraeli, the unholy alliance of British Imperialism and ‘proto-Zionism’ had already been forged. See also: Disraeli and the Imperial Anglo-Zionist Alliance

Additional notes:

The CPBML in particular seem to see Brexit as a sort of fuse lighting the way to socialism. Yet they admit that: “Leaving the EU will only mean an independent Britain if we make it so. Above all, we need control over our economy.” By “control over our economy” they then go on to list a set of traditional Corbynesque style socialist policies. Yet they have the naivety to insist that Brexit negotiations themselves “must” be conducted in this with these aims - by the Tories!!! And their idea of “control over the economy” includes everything except what is most essential to implement any socialist policies - the creation of a sovereign money supply independent of the banks and the debt-based global monetary system.

The oldest and biggest immigration wave still visible in Britain today began before the European Common Market even existed - resulting from the catastrophic and totally arbitrary British-drawn partition of India and Pakistan in 1948, which, along with a huge post-war need for labour, resulted in the 1948 Act allowing the immigration of Commonwealth citizens. Many hundreds of thousands came from India, Pakistan and the West Indies to Britain through the 1950s, not just for short-term work, but settling for good. Immigration has continued and widened ever since, resulting in an ethnic and cultural diversity that would have been unthinkable in 1945.

It was not Angela Merkel but Winston Churchill, who, already in 1946, promoted the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’ launched by Count Kalergi, whose “International Paneuropean Union, also referred to as the Paneuropean Movement and the Pan-Europa Movement, is the oldest European unification movement, beginning with the publishing of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's manifesto Paneuropa (1923), which presented the idea of a unified European State.”

Lenin believed that “in the civilised world….the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identity with the advanced movements of the epoch … the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population.”

In the end it makes no difference whatsoever how many Russians were or were not murdered under Soviet rule, even if it were tens of millions. Why? Because the mythos of Auschwitz and the identification of Germany and National Socialism as the embodiment of Absolute Evil has long cemented itself. Hence also the 1943 Hooton plan for population replacement in Germany through the mass immigration of non-white males and their forced intercourse with native German women (sound familiar?).

The Soviet Union under Stalin was the first country to recognise the State of Israel - only after which did Stalin gradually begin to see hidden Jewish tribalism and nationalism as a problem - resulting in a plan for the world’s first Anti-Zionist Congress - something still long overdue! NB Stalin had 3 Jewish wives, the last of which was the sister of the Jew Lazar Kaganovich.

It is interesting to note also that, from 1967 to 1994, 43% of all the heirs of previously 'loyal', solid Soviet and Communist citizens and apparatchiks of Jewish ethnicity had emigrated to Israel and the USA. Those that went to America became the arch neo-cons and today's Clintonite Russophobes. Those that remained included the oligarchs and key, Western-backed players in undermining Russia from within.

Jewish bankers had their grip on America already from the 18th century onward:

A most interesting critical review by Keven MacDonald of “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” This reveals the immense and disproportionate influence of Jews in the institutions of the USSR right up until the immediate years before Stalin’s death.

Saturday, 27 January 2018

Holocaust Memorial Day - A Celebration of Globalist anti-Working Class LIES

Global Capitalism is a sickness which is destroying the entire world.  It is a sickness which only survives because of a mendacious propaganda which links criticism of an economic system with a racist genocidal mania.  This is a difficult subject to broach, but it is one which must be.  As Socialists opposed to the Liberal Left and the Racist Right, the temptation to shy away from such a controversial topic as the 'holocaust' is a very strong one.  But to do so is the politics of cowardice. On this day, we have to look at the propaganda, who it benefits (the Ruling Class, Banking system and multinational capitalist corporations), what impact it has on free speech and freedom in general, and to grasp the nettle and openly discuss an area which is forbidden in many countries and which will result in attacks by devotees to a new religion which only continues to hold sway due to the willingness of the 'faithful' to use physical violence and the full weight of the law to attack 'foul blasphemers' who do not share their devotion.

Everyday, without fail, there will be mention in the media of the genocidal gas chamber-operated, human soap-creating, miraculously efficient (at least temporarily) killing machine of Nazi Germany. In conventional schools, every opportunity presented will be used to bring up the evil of Europeans who did 'nothing' to stop the murder of the Jewish people - including the nasty Brits who waited until 1939 to destroy their country, their people, and their future, by going to war with the Germans; nearly a whole three years before the fictitious annihilation of European Jewry began. The evil Poles are especially focused upon for their failure to save the Jews; being selfish enough to be more pre-occupied with the German and Soviet occupation of their homeland, and the war which ravaged their nation.

There are those who have looked into the Holocaust story and found strange anomalies in the story. There is the bizarre fact that the alleged Gas Chambers could not have been operated as described, without killing the guards of the internment camps. Then there is the whole issue of the work-load of the camp crematoria, which achieved such efficiency that they defied the laws of physics; miraculously disposing of more bodies in two and a half years than they could have been reasonably expected to process in over a century. The marvels of German engineering are so amazing, that one wonders how they managed to lose the war. If the Nazis were so efficient at killing human beings, then how did the inmates of the concentration camps manage to survive at all. The global Jewish population was higher after the war than before it. If the Germans had been as efficient as propaganda maintains, this would have been impossible.

Whether it is the revision of the Auschwitz death toll from 4 million to 1.5 million (and lower) by Israeli officials, and the outrageous stubborn refusal to lower the total 6 million figure; the lack of real evidence to prove that any of the 'crimes' happened, except that procured by through torture or given by witnesses who have been proven to be, ahem, untrustworthy; the fabled tales of geysers of blood, electrocution swimming baths, shrunken heads, Human Skin lampshades and soap, or any of the other amazing tales, which have been thoroughly debunked, the Holyhoax is still taught as fact. The Flat Earth Society is laughed at for clinging to the Biblical idea that the Earth was created in Six Days, and that it is possible to fall off the edge if one sails too far. The Holyhoax is founded on the same religious claptrap, yet is solemnly taught to school children, and is repeated incessantly to the mind-controlled masses of all ages; with legal penalties in several countries for those who refuse to have faith in the impossible tales of Gentile evil and Jewish victimhood.

Does any of this matter? Is it really important that the fairytale be debunked? Is it only nice and polite to allow those who witter on about the evil Nazis to indulge in their fantasies? Is it the duty of all who do not wish to be labelled as 'anti-Semites' to stay silent as all Gentiles are libelled and slandered as psychopathic butchers, and homicidal maniacs? Is it acceptable to allow the defamation of all non Jews, but especially the European people, to go unchallenged?

Europe is in trouble. Our cities have been turned over to peoples from across the globe who do not share our traditions, our culture, our heritage, or our identity. These new-comers have been wrenched from their homelands by the economic destruction wrought by the international corporations and their proxy armies. The initial waves of non-European immigration came soon after the catastrophic Second World War, when the work required to rebuild our devastated lands was such that those working on the restoration programmes were able to demand higher wages, and better working conditions. The ruling Establishment needed to create mass unemployment in order to keep wage demands down, and to keep the indigenous common people in their place - as obedient and cowering wage slaves. The newcomers were used as Scapegoats to divert attention from the real destroyers of the nation who brought the immigrants into the European lands; the spectre of the Holyhoax was used to reinforce a prohibition of any criticism of the hidden Zionist ruling power.

Immigration in Europe is a real and growing problem; a problem which must be dealt with if the European nations are to survive. The relocation of the immigrants to their home countries can only be achieved if the factors which caused their dislocation are dealt with; namely the economic system which has turned their homelands into economic wastelands. It is far easier to focus upon the immigrants themselves, than to look for the reasons they have migrated across the globe. For this reason, knee jerk anti-immigrant parties are tolerated (albeit half-heartedly abused by the media), but those which question the cause of mas migration are crushed. The Holyhoax is a useful tool of our enemies; it make criticism of the Zionist mafia synonymous with a desire to exterminate the Jewish people in toto - ignoring the fact that ordinary Jewish people are not represented by the Zionist Ruling Class and nor are all Zionists Jewish.

There are Hollywood Nazis who shout ridiculous slogans such as 'Six Million, Not Enough', and who call for people who are physically different to them to be killed. These types are a gift to the Establishment, and in most cases the organisations to which they belong, are created and guided by the Establishment. The existence of those who wear Nazi regalia and chant slogans calling for genocide, is a continuation of the Holyhoax propaganda. Whereas this sort of behaviour should be passed off as an irritating diversion from serious efforts to resolve our problems, it has a damaging impact which helps to reinforce the popular image of anti-internationalists as anti-humans. The Hollywood hobbyists are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

The Holyhoax has been used to halt criticism of Israel. By accepting the lies of the Holyhoax, the people have been conned into accepting the ongoing lies of genocide by heretics who fail to accept Globalism as innevitable. In Serbian Bosnia, the fabricated Srebrenica Massacre fable drew on the Holyhoax tales; in Syria, the lies about Houla, and the foul anti-Libyan stories about a government massacre in Benghazi, were also echoes of the Holyhoax propaganda. If the people only knew that the Holyhoax has as much truth in it as the lies of German soldiers bayoneting babies during the Great War, then they would be less likely to believe the lies of the modern era. The Holyhoax propaganda has pre-programmed the masses who have not questioned it, to accept the lies against Serbia, Libya, Syria, and of course the 9/11 World Trade Centre Massacre. From these outrageous calumnies have come wars of aggression by the NATO terror machine, and millions of deaths - not illusory 'gas chamber' deaths, but real deaths of people of all manner of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, including a number of Jewish people who the Zionist terrorists are just as happy to sacrifice in order to achieve their goals - all organised for the benefit of the internationalist corporations.

There are laws prohibiting research into the Holyhoax. Why? Because without this evil propaganda, the entire edifice of the globalist war machine would collapse, and with it the wage slavery it enforces. The Holyhoax defames Europeans. It paints us as murderers who must be eliminated as a race, lest the Jews be liquidated 'again'.  The fact that the Capitalist system is not controlled by or headed by a single ethno-cultural group, is ignored by the promoters of the Holocaust story and of their pain-staking linkage of 'holocaust denial' to anti-Semitism.  More than this, the neo-nazi groups who chant racist slogans against the Jewish people, help to keep this link alive.  Ordinary Jewish people have become a collective human shield behind which the Global Ruling Class of all ethnic backgrounds, sit in smug safety.

The Holocaust does matter. It matters because it is the rationale for our destruction. It matters because it keeps the ordinary Jewish people in the grips of their leaders who have lied to them just as they lie to us. Without the Holyhoax, perhaps the Jews could escape from the mind control of the Zionists, and renounce their vile supremacist Talmudic creed, which is used as a divine excuse for the subjugation of the Palestinians. Then, maybe, the pariah nation could return to the fold of humanity, and without the likes of the Rothschilds to mislead them into the path of tyranny, they could live in peace side by side with everyone else.

The Holyhoax is the cornerstone of Internationalism. To destroy the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, we must expose the lies upon which the very real evil facing us, is founded.

Today in the UK, and in many other countries, is Holocaust Remembrance Day. The 27th January is the holiest day for the Cult of Holocaustianity.

In our schools, all year round children are spoon-fed lie after lie about the treatment of Jews in wartime Europe, and about the 'guilt' they must feel because their grandparents and great-grandparents didn't do enough to stop a piece of fiction dreamed up by the victors of the Second World War.  The deaths of countless Britons in the suicidal war for Global Capitalism means nothing to the Ruling Class. The Zionist media devotes its entire schedule to the brain-washing of gullible viewers into accepting the lies of the Holocaust as a means of countering criticism of the brutal occupation of Palestine. The legal system criminalises all objections to the brain-washing of the school system and media. Everything the Establishment is doing to destroy Working Class European life in our unhappy lands, is celebrated in its purist form on this day; Holyhoax day.

Politicians across the land have been attending services presided over by corrupted clergymen and professional liars lamenting the demise of 6 million Jews; failing to mention that the global Jewish population actually rose in the alleged Holocaustian years. The media-numbed masses have been listening intently to Jewish Germans telling fantastic tales which would make the worst fiction authors blush. How many will pause to consider the fact that had the Jewish population of Germany been annihilated as the lying propagandists of the Holyhoax maintain, rather than simply relocated to the USA and elsewhere, then there would be almost no Jews with German names, rather than the majority, as is the case? Of course, the Cult of Holocaustianity is built on blind faith, and its devotees can no more consider questioning the trustworthiness of those who preach to them, than they could allow room for doubt even when confronted with the blatant absurdities of the fables themselves.

Those of us who have survived the genocide of rational thought which is laughingly referred to as 'education', are duty bound to ensure that we too mark the festival of self-abasement with a defiant defence of the Truth. We will be called 'Holocaust Deniers' but we should not be cowed by such a label. Of course we deny the ridiculous lies of our oppressors, and we should do so with pride. Submitting to a lie out of fear of the repercussions of upholding the truth, is the worst kind of cowardice; a cowardice which emboldens our enemies and tightens the mental shackles which hold our children in a position of servitude.

The Holyhoax is a faith which can easily be disproven. There are the fantastic tales of lamp shades and soap made of human skin, which even the High Priests themselves have admitted are false. There are the fabricated statements of 'survivors' which attest to information they cannot have been privy to at the time of their detainment; although such fraudulent 'evidence' was sufficient for the Zionist victors to judicially murder those defeated in conflict. There are the stories of mobile diesel vans, electrocution swimming pools, gas chambers disguised as telephone boxes, gas chambers masquerading as shower rooms (built in such a way that should gas have been used, not only would the inmates have died, but also those removing them, inmates and staff alike), and indeed so many other ridiculous tales as to make belief in the Holocaustian nonsense impossible but for the power of media manipulation.

Holocaustianity is crafted in such a way that any criticism of anything in which Jewish people have a leadership role is automatically reacted to as an expression of anti-Semitism which can only the lead to the Gas Chambers. Criticism of Usury is not allowed, thus giving the Rothschild Bankers and the likes of George Soros absolute power in the West. The genocide of Palestine is only half-heartedly spoken of (or in the case of the BBC, treated as self-inflicted and no fault of the Israelis at all).

More Germans died during the Zionist-orchestrated RAF terror bombing of Dresden than the total number of Jews who perished throughout the entire Concentration Camp system. In the case of the latter, the majority of those who died, did so after contracting Typhus, which should have been curable had it not been for the military actions of the powers under Zionist control. In the case of the former, old men, women, children, the disabled and those wounded in battle who were no longer fighting, were deliberately murdered in a carefully crafted fire-storm, calculated to murder as many human beings as possible as a means of instilling fear of the Zionist War Machine - in a real Holocaust of fire.

There are people who consider opposition to Holocaustianity as a pointless exercise, akin to discussing the nonsense of the Flat Earth Society. However, whereas both articles of faith have their origin in the Bible, the Flat Earth Society has never harmed anyone, let alone been used as a justification for the genocide of entire peoples. Holocaustianity excuses the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians with the childish logic that because the Jews suffered in the early 1940s, that somehow makes their decades-long persecution of Arabs acceptable. This argument is of the level of a school child fighting in a playground arguing that the other child 'started it'. Two wrongs do not make a right - especially when the first 'wrong' is the product of a disturbed imagination, and didn't occur to begin with.

Perhaps the greatest lie of the Holocaust is that the Jews were a people without a land, and therefore had to be given Palestine as a homeland where they could 'never again' be Holocausted. Palestine was already populated, and the Jewish Homeland of Birobidjan had been in existence for decades before the Zionists stole the land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

The name of Auschwitz has become synonymous with suffering. We all know the stories of the 4.5 million Jews who were done to death by the evil Nazis in Shower Rooms which had inside them carefully hidden Gas Chambers. We all know how the wicked Germans destroyed all evidence of their crimes against humanity, including making the ashes of their millions of victims disappear without trace. The super efficient Nazis removed all traces of their murderous death industry, even to the point of making the Showers Rooms appear as nothing but Shower Rooms - even removing any indication of the use of Prussic Acid (Cyanide), which would have stained the walls of the 'Gas Chambers' with an unmistakable blue tinge which could never be removed. We all know the stories of the endless number of 'survivors' who escaped the murderous Nazis in such numbers that they almost outnumber the entire Jewish population of Europe at the time of the Second World War. We know the stories because for seventy years we have had them rammed down our throats and have been prosecuted and beaten (some people have even been killed) if we ever dare to consider that they may not be entirely true.

The Auschwitz legend of the 4.5 million murdered Jews has so many flaws in it that even the official Holocaustian narrative has had to be toned down, with the number of dead revised to 1.1 million Jews done to death at the infamous camp. The 6 million total has not been reduced to take into account the reduction at Auschwitz. According to the religion of the Holocaust, 6 million minus 3.4 million does not make 2.6 million (which would still be a tragic figure if it was true), rather it still makes 6 million. Such absurdities only help to throw doubt upon the entire story of the sufferings of the Jews in wartime Europe. In Germany it is a criminal offence to point to this obvious mathematical discrepancy. The Holocaust story has to be protected by law because it is far more than an account of a period of history; it is the justification for the anti-borders globalist nightmare which is destroying the entire planet.

Auschwitz was an internment camp and a labour camp. Neo-Nazis claim that the Jews didn't suffer; that they had swimming pools, brothels, bands and all the amenities one would expect of a holiday camp - the neo-nazi argument is of course absurd. Being interned for a long period of time is doubtless not a pleasurable experience; no matter how relaxed a prison is, it is still a prison; being forced to work for the benefit of those who have imprisoned you is an insult and an affront to one's dignity, no matter how easy the work. Those who like to compare Auschwitz to Butlins are idiots, and they make real research into that period in history all the harder. The inmates of Auschwitz and all the other internment camps (regardless of whether they were Jewish), did suffer the indignity of being incarcerated. Some of the inmates died of sickness which they would not have endured had they not been incarcerated. At the end of the war, as typhus ravaged Europe, the camps were not spared by the sickness and people died in large numbers inside the camps, just as ordinary people did outside them. With the exception of the unavoidable outbreaks of sickness which created intolerable conditions, the inmates of the internment camps in German-controlled Europe suffered the same indignities as those in the internment camps in the countries controlled by the Allied powers. The Auschwitz experience was not unique, and until the final days of the war when sanitation broke down, the inmates experienced conditions no harsher nor easier than those in camps in any of the countries involved in the war.

We are told that the Nazis gassed the Jews - they did not. We are told that the Jews were tortured, raped, experimented upon and brutalised - they were not; in fact in the rare instances when camp guards mistreated the inmates, the guards were harshly punished, including the use of the death penalty for the worst offenders. We are told that the Holocaust was a unique tragedy in which humans suffered more than at any time before or since - it was not. The internment camps were simply internment camps and of no significance to anyone other than those who were in them at the time.

The propaganda of the Holocaust was used to justify the partition of Germany and the outlawing of any political expression of a desire for nations to exist as sovereign entities. This political action was extended to every nation on the globe outside of China, Israel and a very small number of independent nations - the number of which has been reduced steadily in the last 70 years, but rather more rapidly since the contrived propaganda which was the massacre at the World Trade Centre on the 11th September 2001.

The Holocaust is the justification for globalised capitalism. According to the official narrative, Europeans murdered 6 million people simply because they had a different ethno-religious background. This is an act of defamation which paints ordinary Europeans as murderers or as callous individuals who will turn a blind eye to the murder of innocents. If Europeans have a trait which defines us, that trait is compassion and empathy. We are naturally a kind and welcoming people who abhor injustice and cruelty. Our famed fondness for animals is an extension of our desire for people to be treated fairly. That we are labelled as murderers and uncaring bigots is offensive and inaccurate. The Holocaust propaganda has resulted in our natural desire to see people treated in the same manner as we would like others to treat us, turned into a weapon to bring about our own demise.

In Europe, the Holocaust has been used as a stick to beat us into submission to Globalism. Because the Germans in the 1930s dared to attempt to break away from the Global Banking System, Germany was smashed. Anyone who suggests that Globalisation is bad for the ordinary people and only benefits the Ruling Class and multinational corporations, is automatically labelled a 'Nazi' who wants to gas the Jews, who we are led to believe (with neo-Nazi collusion) are the top Bankers and the heads of the largest corporations.  The Zionist machine carefully keeps this narrative alive while making noises about anti-Semitism.  Capitalism is multi-ethnic, but it serves the Ruling Class to keep opposition to Globalism focussed upon one specific people.

 Anyone who suggests that we should have border controls to keep the number of people in our own country at a level which doesn't harm the land, the infrastructure, the environment, the wildlife etc, is labelled as a 'Nazi' who hates people who are different and wants to halt mass immigration as a first step towards committing genocide. Anyone who suggests that multiculturalism is bad for our own culture is labelled as a 'Nazi' who has a bigoted supremacist hatred of others, which (yawn) must lead to genocide. The example of the Holocaust is used to show what happens when people want the seurity of Sovereignty, to live in peace with nature, free from the diktat of the Global Financial Elite, to enjoy their own culture, traditions, land and environment. The fact that the Holocaust is nothing more than 1940s propaganda is the reason that it has to be protected by law to stop people realising that there is nothing wrong with wanting to be free and not wanting to be a part of a Global Plantation in which we are cattle to be used and abused by the Ruling Class as they see fit.

In Palestine, the Holocaust had the impact of taking a country from its then occupiers and giving it to the Zionist criminals under the lie that the Jews needed a special homeland lest they be holocausted out of existence. Collective European Guilt was used as a means of giving over territory to the Zionists - or more specifically, the Banking Financial elite - to use as a centre of operations in their criminal plan for the creation of a Global Order in which all countries paid allegiance to the Usurious Order. The Arabs in Palestine lost their land and the Jewish people who moved into that territory did so in complete ignorance of the fact that they were being used as a human shield to hide the criminal elite within.

The Holocaust has brought nothing but misery to the world. It has been used to justify the obliteration of nations, endless wars of aggression for financial gain, mass immigration with the inevitable (and planned for) destruction of cultures and peoples. It continues to be used to silence all who can see the ruination of the planet at the hands of greedy Capitalists. Its promotion by collaborators in high places, such as the Pope, celebrities and politicians of all conformist hues, gives it an air of respectability which it does not deserve. The enforcement of acceptance of lies upon lies by the cowardly media, civil servants and police of many countries, who would rather destroy the lives of their fellows than lose their positions of authority, maintains the Holocaustian dogma and enslaves us all.

Yes, some Jews suffered during the Second World War, but their suffering was no worse than the suffering of non-Jews. We are told that in all 80 million people died during the War, but that the 74 million have to be forgotten and the 6 remembered forever. The 6 million figure is a lie. At most, maybe a quarter of a million Jews died in mainland Europe during the war; most of them through natural causes, the rest as a result of the war itself. More Germans died in the destruction of Dresden than Jews died in the camps - and most appallingly of all, the photographs of dead Jews in Auschwitz which we are all familiar with, contain a good number of pictures of the victims of the RAF terrorists, murdered in Dresden whilst the interned Jews were kept safe from the war by the kin of the Germans who perished. No Jews were gassed. The Holocaust is a lie from start to finish.

On this seventy third anniversary of the entry into Auschwitz of Allied forces, let us have the courage to speak the Truth. We Europeans are not monsters. Wanting to be free does not mean wanting to enslave others. It is time to say NO to the propagandists and to tell our children that what they are bombarded with in the Schools, Churches and Cinemas, is a vile fiction to make them feel guilty for existing. This evil propaganda has to be confronted and the minds of our people liberated.

We cannot leave this issue in the hands of the racist bumbling Hitler-worshipping skinheads, who would have had no place in the nazi state they revere. We have to expose the Holocaust lie as a means of bringing freedom to Palestine, of stopping the NATO aggressors who justify their murder of Africans, Asians and Europeans by referring to the hackneyed propaganda, and of defending the Working Class from the machinations of the globalisers who hate our defence of Socialism and Sovereignty, because it stands in the way of their theft of the land and wealth of the Working Class worldwide.

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

Inner Universe: Fundamental Science or Fundamentalism - Wilberg on Wednesday

In an age in which rigid religious fundamentalisms coexist uneasily with no less rigid scientific fundamentalisms - including both biological and quantum-physical reductionism - is it anymore possible to articulate a fundamentally new understanding of both science and religion - a new metaphysics that is at the same time a fundamental physics and a fundamental psychology, a fundamental biology and a fundamental theology? This is the challenge that Fundamental Science takes up.

In an age in which post-modernism has relativised the words and works of the world's greatest thinkers, from Heraclitus to Heidegger, and our universities have reduced them to slots in an academic curriculum, can one propound a fundamentally new philosophy? To do so may be culturally and academically 'incorrect'. But this too is a challenge that Fundamental Science takes up.

In doing so it questions not only the basic metaphysical assumptions of physical sciences, but also those of biological medicine and genetic psychiatry, the latter being the most obvious and widespread application of a thoroughly outdated, primitive, causalistic understanding of the human body. The physics beyond physics or 'meta-physics' of Fundamental Science provides the theoretical and practical foundations for a medicine beyond medicine, a 'meta-medicine' that challenges the reduction of the human being to the human body and brain. In doing so it offers a radical alternative to the ever-increasing use of biotechnology, a technology whose sole aim, besides corporate profit, is the annihilation of all bodily and behavioural expressions of individual and social dis-ease.

Fundamental Science is not an eclectic, New Age mish-mash of quantum physics with rehashed Eastern mysticisms. Nor is 'meta-medicine' merely a form of 'alternative' medicine, but a Fundamental Medicine - a radical rethinking of the nature of health and the human body as such. Its basis is a Fundamental Biology, which, like its counterparts - Fundamental Physics, Fundamental Psychology and the other Fundamental Sciences - are not simply separate fields of Fundamental Science, but the diverse expression of a set of Fundamental Dynamics common to all - a field-dynamics of awareness as such, in which all physical phenomena we are aware of, are understood as the expression of patterned field-qualites of awareness or qualia Fundamental Science is not quantum physics but cosmic qualia science. As such it represents a rethinking of the fundamental nature of science, scientific method and scientific research, a Copernican revolution in fundamental science and fundamental research that I call The Qualia Revolution - the transition from quantum physics to a cosmic qualia psychology.

The result of over thirty years of phenomenological research and conceptual refinement, it offers a fundamentally new understanding of what mass and energy, light and gravity essentially are - showing that the outer, extensional universe of space-time has its source in a non-extensional or inner universe. This inner universe is composed not of quanta but of qualia, not of extensional or energetic fields but of intensional and inergetic ones - field-patterns and qualities, densities and intensities of awareness as such. Fundamental Science, as cosmic qualia science, is a comprehensive conceptual framework that encompasses fundamental dimensions of both physics and psychology - uniting them through a unified field-dynamic understanding of awareness or subjectivity as such.

Drawing on the Spiritual Science of Rudolf Steiner, the Dialectic Phenomenology of Michael Kosok, Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance and Eugene Gendlin's philosophy of directly experienced meaning or Felt Sense, Fundamental Science provides a methodological bridge between quantitative, empirical research and qualitative experiential or 'phenomenological research', between theoretical and experimental science on the one hand, and theosophical or 'spiritual-scientific' research on the other. It offers new qualitative methods of Fundamental Research - qualia research - which require no instrument but the researcher's own organism, understood as an body of awareness composed of organising field-patterns of awareness. Qualia research is conducted through dyadic field-resonance between two researchers, whose results can be validated, as in the physical sciences through comparing the experiences of different pairs of researchers.

Today both science and religion stand at a threshold, both having failed to provide an account of the fundamental nature of reality. In place of a fundamental science we have instead various forms of fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalisms identify the fundamental nature of reality with their own all-too-human and culturally specific symbols of this reality, presented in the form of mythological stories. Meanwhile, science has retreated into its own form of quasi-religious fundamentalism, identifying the fundamental nature of reality with its formal representation in mathematical symbols and relationships. Religious accounts of fundamental reality have always taken speech and language - the word - as the highest expression of the inner order of the universe, what the Greeks called its logos. Our current concept of 'science' on the other hand, presents an account of this logos based not on language but on number, on counting and on quantitative mathematical accounting. The Greek verb legein, from which both the ancient concept of the logos and modern scientific terms such as 'logic', 'biology', psychology etc. derive, contains within itself the seeds of division between science and religion, bearing as it does the double meaning of (a) to understand or 'gather' something and to provide a verbal account of it and (b) to gather things (the harvesting of fruit for example) and to count them. What fundamentalist religion and science both share is the belief in a single pre-given order of things, natural or divine, a single pre-ordered reality. Both science and religion see nature and man as obeying physical or ethical 'laws' which themselves are nothing more nor less than human representations of reality.

Where they both fall down is in providing an account, not of pre-ordered reality but of order as such and what precedes it - of pre-order. Pre-order is identified, both scientifically and religiously with chaos, another Greek concept. Science is only just beginning to understand that chaos is not merely random disorder but possesses an intrinsic order of a different sort. But the mathematics of 'chaos theory' is a far cry from the understanding that all ordered systems are the expression of different potential orders, and that pre-order, far from being a uniform, undifferentiated or formless state of matter or consciousness, is a highly differentiated field of potential patterns of manifestation - and that any actual or manifest order, any actual or manifest phenomena - indeed any actual or manifest universe is but one self-manifestation of this primordial field of potential patterns.

Fundamentalisms of all sorts seek a foundation for the known universe in terms that are by no means 'fundamental', but derive instead from unquestioned scientific assumptions and religious myths - from misconceived interpretations of the nature Fundamental Reality. What I call Fundamental Science has nothing in common with religious or scientific fundamentalisms. Its foundation lies in a dimension of reality misconceived in both science and religion, therapy and theology. It is this realm of nothingness or no-thingness, of non-extensional or 'intensional' reality that I call the Inner Universe. This inner universe is not made up of energetic fields nor of their expression in any observed or experienced phenomena we are aware of. Instead it is made up of fields and patterned field qualities of awareness as such.

Unlike the physical sciences, what is known as 'phenomenological' science has always recognized that awareness is the pre-condition for the experience of any phenomena or universe whatsoever. What it has not fully explored is the field character and field-dynamics of subjectivity as such. Instead, the objective world is seen as a world of pre-given objects and subjectivity is seen as the property of a pre-given subject, human or divine - thus reducing God to one object or subject among others.

Fundamental Science is 'field-phenomenological science', based on a 'field-dynamic phenomenology'. Its basis is the recognition that fields and field-patterns of awareness are the precondition, not just for our own human experience of physical phenomena but for the very emergence [Greek phusis] of those phenomena in nature itself. All actual energetic field-patterns have their ultimate source in potential field-patterns. These potential field-patterns, by their very nature, form no part of any actual extensional universe but have an intensional reality only in awareness as such.

In Husserl's 'Transcendental Phenomenology', awareness is always 'intentional', an awareness of something. Field-Dynamic Phenomenology does not identify awareness with consciousness of any actual phenomena but rather with our awareness of potentiality. Fundamental Science and Fundamental Theology are united in the understanding that our own direct awareness of potentiality can re-link not only with our own innermost potentials and those of others, but with the 'Power of God' - that infinite and inexhaustible field of potentiality that constitutes the aware inwardness of both God and Energy, their fundamental intensional reality.

What Husserl called noemata (from the Greek noos - awareness) correspond to sensory qualities or aspects of things. He understands these noemata as co-constituted by noeses or intentional acts - the subjective angles or aspects from which we view things. From Husserl's point of view, intentionality is a direction of awareness that co-constitutes its object. But whilst the noetic acts give access to specific sensory qualities of things, awareness, for Husserl, remains something essentially neutral - devoid of any intrinsically meaningful and sensual qualities.

Physical science has its holy Einsteinian trinity - Mass, Energy and Light. But the physical universe and all physical phenomena - including light itself - are only visible or measurable in the light of our own awareness of them or of the instruments with which we measure them. The missing third element in the dualistic science of matter and energy is not the quantity [c] - the speed of light - but consciousness and awareness as such. In a fundamentally unaware universe of matter and energy no fundamental reality can be attributed to pre-order, consisting as it does of potential patterns or events rather than manifest or actual ones. Why? Because potential patterns, structures and forms by definition have no reality as actual material or energetic patterns. They are only in so far as there is awareness of them. They have their fundamental reality only in fields of awareness, and as patterns of awareness.

Fundamental Science is founded on the revolutionary proposition that awareness is the qualitative inwardness of energy, just as matter is its phenomenal outwardness. It distinguishes however, between awareness in the form of our own localized human 'consciousness' of the universe, and awareness in its non-local or field character. The religious belief that the universe is a product of a God or gods, of beings with their own consciousness, fails to recognize, that any given being or consciousness is itself the actualization of one particular ordering or pattern of awareness, and as such is itself but one self-manifestation of a primordial field of awareness consisting of a limitless number of potential patterns and consciousnesses - potential beings. Even monotheistic accounts of reality have always fallen into contradiction by representing God both as an infinite and absolute being and as one being or consciousness among others - whether other gods, mortals, or hierarchies of semi-divine spiritual beings. Fundamental science is also fundamental religion in contrast to fundamentalist religion. It transcends the self-contradiction of religion by recognizing instead that any true "God" is not and cannot be one god, being, or consciousness among others but must instead be understood as the primordial field or ground-state of awareness that is the source of all possible gods, beings, or consciousnesses. Conversely, any actual being is both an independent consciousness or 'self' imbued with its own unique pattern of awareness, and, on the other hand the divine self-manifestation of that inexhaustible field of potential patterns of awareness - that we call God. This field is the source not only of a limitless number of actual consciousnesses or beings but of a limitless number of worlds - any such world being nothing but a patterned field of conscious experience, already ordered and shaped by an underlying field-pattern of awareness.

Drawing on Eastern spiritual and scientific traditions, in particular Vedic philosophy and science, theosophists have long argued that there are basic units or 'atoms' of awareness as well as basic units of matter or energy. In doing so they provided a bridge between idealistic and materialistic philosophies, between theology and theoretical physics. This was a bridge that was otherwise lacking in Western thought until the philosophical implications of quantum theory began to sink in - bringing into question as it did our understanding of what matter as such essentially is. Theosophical science has nevertheless been studiously ignored by both scientists and academic philosophers of science, as well as by clerics and theologians of all faiths - regarded as eccentric or fanciful speculation not worthy of any serious intellectual attention. The principal threat that theosophy posed to both science and religion lay in transgressing the politely respected boundaries between scientific 'knowledge' and simple religious 'faith'. It did this by acknowledging an inner dimension of Creation that could itself be the object of direct cognition and scientific investigation - an inner universe consisting of countless non-extensional fields or planes of awareness, an inner universe that linked the physical reality-field in which we dwell as human beings to the withinness or intensional reality of God. Theosophy challenged what Heidegger called the 'double accounting' of the scientist as a human being - that sort of schizophrenia that allows a human being to appreciate fine art or even follow a faith whilst at the same time, as a scientist being forced to stick to the official line that both our perception of a work of art and the very concept of a God are products of chemical processes occurring in the brain.

The limits of theosophy lay in its lack of a properly developed phenomenological basis. Theosophy failed to recognize, as phenomenology did, that science rested not so much on sense perceptions or empirical facts as on theoretical models and their verbal signifiers - on concepts such as 'matter', 'energy', 'particle' and 'waves' etc. These concepts were understood in a naïve way as names for pre-existing things. And just as conventional science saw the outer universe as a world of pre-given material entities and physical forces, so did theosophical or spiritual science see the inner universe as a neatly ordered world of pre-given spiritual beings and non-physical forces. Theosophy, however, was more explicit than science in taking signifiers as its starting point - not just verbal concepts or mathematical signs but esoteric symbols inherited from archaic spiritual traditions. Just as the empirical scientist's research was unknowingly framed by unquestioned theoretical models and metaphors, so was the theosophist's own direct 'psychical' or 'clairvoyant' cognition of the inner universe generally framed by these occult symbols and the unquestioned spiritual doctrines that were their source. Alternatively, theosophical 'knowledge' was expressed in terms borrowed from the science of the day, but in a way that did not question those terms any more deeply than science itself. Fundamental Science is a fundamental reinterpretation of theosophical knowledge, the modes of cognition and modes of research on which it is based, but one which does not take as its unquestioned foundation either modern scientific concepts or terms borrowed from ancient spiritual doctrines. In this respect it is inspired by the type of theosophy propounded and practiced by Rudolf Steiner under the name 'anthroposophy' - one which recognized that scientific knowledge of the inner universe needed as its foundation clearly defined concepts and modes of cognition.

Any truly Fundamental Science must address fundamental questions. This includes questioning the fundamental nature of 'science' and scientific knowledge themselves. Most current attempts to provide a new account of the fundamental nature of reality tend to draw on concepts deriving both from specific fields of modern (Western) science on the one hand and on specific (usually Eastern) religious or mystical traditions on the other. In doing so they commit a fundamental error. For Fundamental Science cannot, by its very nature, be a grand unifying 'synthesis' or 'integration' of concepts deriving from specific sciences, specific religions or spiritual traditions, or specific disciplines such as logic and mathematics, linguistics and semiotics, theology and philosophy. Instead its foundation must lie in Fundamental Concepts. Fundamental Concepts are qualitative concepts, which, though they may derive from one specific science, one religion or one discipline are in some way comprehensive - fundamental to all sciences, religions and disciplines. As a result they are concepts, which cannot, by their very nature be understood in the terms of one science, religion or discipline alone. The fact that a Fundamental Concept derives from a specific science such as physics, a specific spiritual tradition such as Buddhism, or a specific discipline such as psychoanalysis, does not mean that this science, tradition or discipline is itself somehow fundamental to all others. The reason why I counterpose Fundamental Science to 'physical science' is that in our current concept of science as such, physics is still regarded as a science that is in some way more 'fundamental' than other sciences, and therefore fundamental to them. This is understandable, because many of the basic concepts of physics such as 'field', 'resonance', 'energy', are indeed Fundamental Concepts. The problem is that they are not understood as qualitative concepts, but instead seen as purely quantitative, physical concepts, to be understood within the terms of physics alone. The impossibility of doing so is the reason why physics as a science is in such a quandary at the moment, unable to give an adequate account of the fundamental qualitative sense of its own basic concepts - to say what 'matter', 'energy', 'electromagnetism', 'gravitation' etc. essentially are. Instead they are defined in terms of one another, as abstract mathematical variables with no intrinsic meaning outside their own mathematical relationship.

Any specific science whose basic concepts were understood as Fundamental Concepts, would indeed be fundamental to the understanding of all other sciences and have direct relevance to understanding them in a deeper, more fundamental way. A truly Fundamental Physics, for example would be fundamental not just to chemistry and biology, but also to philosophy and psychology, sociology and economics, semiotics and linguistics etc., just as any of these sciences, would, as Fundamental Sciences be fundamental both to each other and to physics itself. Liver, kidneys, lungs, heart and brain all being fundamental to the life of our bodies, the latter cannot be reduced to the functioning of any of these organs, nor can any one of them be regarded as fundamental - the organ of life. The very nature of Fundamental Science lies in the fact that different Fundamental Sciences, like different vital organs of the same body, are all fundamental to one another - with none being more fundamental than all the others. A Fundamental Qualia Psychology, or a Fundamental Qualia Linguistics or Biology, is at the same time a Fundamental Qualia Physics. A Fundamental Qualia Philosophy or Theology is at the same time Fundamental Qualia Science - and vice versa. That is because at the foundation of all the sciences are Fundamental Concepts that are exclusive to any given science and cannot be understood within the terms of that science alone.

The concept of 'resonance', for example, whilst deriving from physics, has a fundamental relevance for psychology, biology and linguistics. That is because very it has a fundamental qualitative sense that cannot be understood in terms of physics alone, only be understood in the context of all of these other sciences and disciplines In general, a concept deriving from the terminology of a given science or discipline can only become truly fundamental concept or universal concepts - if it (a) understood as a qualitative concept with a depth dimension of meaning (b) our understandingof this qualitative depth dimension of meaning is enriched by seeing how the same concept drawn from a particular science or discipline gains new meaning from its application within other fields and disciplines. This is quite the opposite from treating the science or discipline from which a concept is drawn (for example physics or psychology, semiotics or linguistics, theology or philosophy) as intrinsicially more fundamental that others sciences and disciplines.

Fundamental science is a fundamental rethinking of the very nature of science and scientific investigation, questioning the underlying metaphysical assumptions on which physical science is based and exploring the fundamental meaning of basic physical-scientific concepts such as 'matter' and 'energy'. As well as providing an essential philosophical foundation for the developing field of 'New Science' and 'New Energy' research it also offers a fundamentally new paradigm of Fundamental Research. This is not experimental research in the ordinary sense so much as direct experiential research. Instead of being aimed at the gathering of quantitative data it is a form of qualitative 'phenomenological' research and investigation requiring no other instruments than the researcher's own organism or body of awareness. It is field research in the most direct sense - based on the researcher's ability to to resonate with the different field-patterns and qualities of awareness that constitute the Inner Universe. It makes use of the dyadic field - the combined awareness of two people - to amplify their mutual resonance with these inner field-patterns and qualities of awareness. Fundamental Research has not only its own unique meditational practices and methodological procedures, but its own methods of validation, based on comparing the experiences gathered by pairs of researchers.

The framework of Fundamental Science, as cosmic qualia science, and original methods of resonant 'field-phenomenological' research into qualia that go with it, are not based on the meditational practices of any established spiritual tradition, Eastern or Western. Unlike the majority of these practices, Fundamental Research Fundamental Science has profound theoretical implications for our understanding of the human as well as the natural sciences, fulfilling Marx's vision of a "human science of nature" which complements the "natural science of man". It also has direct practical applications in the fields of medicine and psychotherapy, offering as it does a fundamentally new understanding of the nature and meaning of health and illness. Fundamental Research has led to the development of new methods of therapy, transcending the division between somatic medicine and psychotherapy, based on direct qualitative field-resonance between the felt body of the healer and that of the patient.

To download for free the rest of the book, click the following link: