Wednesday, 20 June 2018

On the Innately Capitalist Character of Modern Technology and its ‘Science’ - Wilberg on Wednesday


Why did the rise of modern science and technology go hand in hand with the rise of capitalism?
Why did modern science technology ‘take off’ with capitalism and vice versa?

One basic and obvious Marxist answer is that it was new production technologies (from the steam engine to electricity) that first made capitalist forms of mass production in industry possible - and with them capitalist relations of production.

On a deeper level however, I see a connection between the particular character of modern science and technology and the rise and development of capitalism. In particular, what is notable is that in no earlier, pre-capitalist understandings and uses of nature is there anything remotely resembling the ruling conceptions of modern science - in particular the concept of energy that came to dominate both modern scientific discourse and ‘New Age’ pseudoscience (‘energy medicine’ etc.)

      As I have mentioned in several of my books, including The Science Delusion, in his essay entitled ‘Power vs Energy - The Difference Between Dynamis and Energeia’, Johnathon Tennenbaum shows clearly the geo-political use that the ‘energy’ concept was first promoted to serve:

“… the ‘Energeticist Movement’ associated with Wilhelm Ostwald around the turn of the 19th century advocated a World Government based on the use of ‘energy’ as the universal, unifying concept not only for all of physical science, but also for economics, psychology, sociology and the arts … Not accidentally, the Kelvin-Helmholtz doctrine of ‘energy’ became a key feature of Anglo-American geopolitics, from the British launching of Middle East ‘oil politics’ at the beginning of the 20th century … to a new Middle East war.” 

Even here however, I believe we are still only touching the geopolitical surface of the question. A deeper connection between capitalism and the concept of ‘energy’ can be found in Marx’s concept of exchange value as an intangible “universal equivalent” relating all commodities - one that has its source in what he called “abstract labour”.

Marx argued that abstract labour - labour stripped of all its concrete, tangible human forms - is the sole true source of economic value in capitalism. Yet the idea of abstract labour is, by definition, an abstraction - a pure ideality - albeit one that has become realised  or made manifest in the economic life of capitalism. The Hegelian idea of ‘real abstractions’ - abstractions that take on an actual life of their own in society - can also be applied to modern science. This applies particularly to the abstract concept of ‘energy’ - which also has the character of a ‘universal equivalent’ - since it is seen not only as that which universally equates and relates all natural phenomena, but also as something more fundamentally ‘real’ than all its concrete and sensuous manifestations - for example as heat, light, electricity, magnetism etc., all which are no longer experienced as having any independent soul.

But the rabbit hole linking science and capitalism goes deeper still. For as well as having its linguistic roots in the Greek word for ‘work’, the term  ‘energy’ is still defined today as ‘the capacity to perform work’ - exactly the same definition that Marx gives to human labour power.  I argue therefore that a principal role played by the concept of energy - in what can well be called capitalist science - is to facilitate a view of nature too, as something that can be made to perform work, i.e. to be quite literally ‘put to work’, ‘set to work’ or ‘pressed into work’ in just the same way as human labour is within the capitalist system (as well as being exploited in the same way as human labour power).

So just as one can talk, in Marxist terms, of wage-slavery and the exploitation of labour, so one can also talk of enslaving and exploiting nature - by setting or pressing it to work through the technologies of capitalism. Similarly, just as, according to Marx, the abstraction called ‘value’ necessarily circulates in a number of different economic spheres of economic activity  - production capital, commodity capital and money capital etc. so also is ‘energy’ (and now also ‘information’) seen as circulating throughout its many concrete forms of manifestation in nature.


What also unites ‘energy’, ‘abstract labour’ and economic ‘value’ is, of course, that they are purely quantitative abstractions - and that their ‘working’ (Greek energeia) is essentially heedless and even destructive of all their sensuous, qualitative forms - for example by undermining the concrete, sensuous labour of the artisan or through the despoliation of the earth.  The notion that what is ‘real’ is only that which is quantitatively measurable has a long history going back to Galileo, but it found its most developed expression in the philosopher of capitalism par excellence - John Locke. For it was he who reduced all immediate sensuous qualities dimensions of human experience to a mere by-product of measurable quantities such as mass, motion etc.

Marx saw also how the human activity of pressing nature into work through production technologies went along with the pressing of human beings into work as mere servants or “appendages” of these technologies.

“All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force.”

Here we see a convergence of Marxist and Heideggerian thinking on the question of modern technology and its ‘sciences’ - which, as Heidegger points out, are themselves already based on the use of technical apparatus. Heidegger also emphasised strongly how science and technology force nature to reveal itself (theoretically and in practice) solely according to modern scientific preconceptions. In doing so however, nature does not actually reveal its essential nature or ‘truth’ to humanity, but rather is forced to conceal its essential truth or  innermost soul - like a slave being ordered to mutely obey its master’s commands - or a victim of torture being forced to ‘confess’ under interrogation something which has nothing to do with truth at all - a truth which remains all the more hidden and concealed the more successful the torturer is in forcing a confession of falsities.

Besides speaking, as Marx did, of commodity-fetishism, I think there are good grounds for speaking also of the techno-fetishism of modern capitalism. It was this techno-fetishism, along with the concept and geopolitics of ‘energy’ - that first led Heidegger to see technology as turning the planet into nothing but “a giant gasoline station”. It is the same fetishism of technology that sees it as holding the answers to all the world’s problems - but without so much as asking (as both Marx and Heidegger did) what the deepest questions are that lie behind these problems. 

The biggest question has to do with capitalism itself, and in particular its innate need for the infinite self-expansion of abstract economic ‘value’ - at the expense of all authentic human values. That is why, as the globalisation of capitalism across the planet advances to its ultimate limits, capitalism now seeks to use technologies of space-travel to the moon and other planets as offering  new, trans-terrestrial sources of value exploitation and expansion to save itself from collapse. Yet the in-built necessity for the growth and self-expansion of economic value is never questioned - instead it is just meekly accepted as a ‘law of nature’ that corporations have to record an expansion in their sales and profits.

At the beginning of this essay I mentioned that the ruling concepts of modern science and technology had no place in pre-capitalist cultures and civilisations. And yet what monumental ‘technological’ wonders did they accomplish, achievements which were not measured by their exchange value or even by their use-value alone - but also by their beauty (such as the beautiful Indian temple complexes carved entirely out of and within a single rock face). Today we content ourselves with megacities characterised by totally soulless steel and glass skyscrapers - and all our technologies together seem incapable of creating anything of authentic beauty - anything with soul.  It is also standard for the monumental megalithic works of earlier civilisations - such as the the pyramids of Egypt and South America to been seen simple as a work of hordes of slaves. Yet how can this be, since even today there is still no existing human technology that can come even close to achieving the precision of cutting and drilling of granite that we see in many of the temples, tunnels and dug out rock chambers of early Mesoamerican and Egyptian - to mention but two. So instead of speaking of concrete and ‘concrete labour’ we might better speak of ‘granite labour’ and of granite - which seems to have been cut, drilled, shaped and sculpted to impossible perfection in the past - as if it was butter and not one of the hardest of rocks.

From this and many other forms of evidence available I believe we can come to no other conclusion than that many of the monumental works of prehistoric civilisations were indeed the work of those ‘gods’ which so many ancient myths report as coming down from ‘the skies’ or ‘heaven’, i.e. advanced extra-terrestrial species of consciousness who were understandably worshipped as ‘god-kings’ - and which seeded all great historic civilisations. True, these god-kings, as a ruling elite, were given a portion of the surplus created by the otherwise free productive activity of their peoples (what Marx called ‘The Asiatic Mode of Production’). But the people in turn got something back from their ‘god-kings’ in the form of practical use values of immense importance such as irrigation systems of the most sophisticated sort. For as elites they were, at least at the start and for a time, true cognitive elites - until they degenerated into decadent royal dynasties or ruling class parasites resting their authority on ‘the divine right of kings’.

Looking back into prehistory then, it is as if, through its techno-fetishism, today’s global capitalism is, in effect, attempting to catch up with what was once a global network of prehistoric civilisations sharing technologies far more advanced than our own. What these ancient peoples knew, we have long forgotten - so blinded have we become by the products of our current science and technology, all of which are commodities produced to feed the endless spiral of value creation, and not created as use values to serve human material and spiritual needs. True, the peoples of  prehistoric global civilisations did not have gadgets like cars, televisions, smartphones or drones. On the other hand, it is likely they had no need of them - for human consciousness itself still had highly developed capacities of distance vision, and a level of empathic-telepathic resonance with others of a sort that made any need for ‘messaging’ redundant. There is ample evidence also that is was not ‘energy’ but sonic resonance - realised through music, tuned chanting and singing - and amplified by natural piezoelectric materials - that was the essential ‘scientific’ principle of those prehistoric and pre-capitalist societies and technologies, used for example, for the sonic drilling, carving and acoustic levitation of huge blocks of stone. In contrast, today’s technologies however largely substitute for or simulate what used to be natural powers of resonant human consciousness and communication - although technologies of sonic drilling are now industrially produced and applied - and the possibility of sonic levitation has been laboratory proven. (see the YouTube channel called Ancient Architects).

As for the true purpose of today’s newest, latest and most heavily funded technologies - such as AI-driven Genetics, Nanotechnology and Robotics (GNR), what will they be capable of creating for humanity? Nothing but tools for both the military-industrial complex and the medical-industrial complex, with its promise of genetically eliminating diseases which in reality are created by the alienation of labour - by capitalism itself. And what could be more obscene than use of technologies to replace human-human relations, including sexual relations, with human-robot relations. Yet already we see the development and marketing of robotic sex partners - and even robotic parenting products - ‘cute’ robots that will sing bedtime songs to children and act as their principal playmates.

Finally we have the sinister ideological phenomenon known as ‘trans-humanism’, with its intentional purpose of using GNR to technically ‘upgrade’ biological human beings to the supposedly ‘higher’ status of cyborgs and ‘spiritual machines’ through technologies of so-called ‘Artificial Intelligence’ - something which, in reality, bears no relation to conscious human ‘intelligence’ at all - let alone anything resembling human subjectivity - but takes the form only of ‘quantum computing’ and its higher capacities for pure and impersonal calculation.

The in-built dynamic of capitalism requires, as Marx saw, an endless self-expansion for its own sake of abstract economic ‘value’ - itself seen as an impersonal driving ‘energy’. This capitalist ‘law of value’, is today being realised through new technological commodities which increasingly serve no meaningful human use value at all. It also stands in stark contrast to what Marx envisaged as the free self-expansion of human human subjectivity and consciousness in a post-capitalist era.


“...it seems as if modern humanity were rushing headlong towards this goal of producing itself technologically. If humanity achieves this, it will have exploded itself, i.e. its essence qua subjectivity, into thin air, into a region where the absolutely meaningless is valued as the one and only ‘meaning’ and where preserving this value appears as the human ‘domination’ of the globe.”

Martin Heidegger




Further reading:

Heidegger, Martin The Question Concerning Technology
Wilberg, P. The Science Delusion
Wilberg, P. From New Age to a New Gnosis - towards a new gnostic spirituality
Wilberg, P. The Qualia Revolution - from quantum physics to cosmic qualia science
For a further critique of the ‘energy’ concept see my essay on Matter, Energy and General Relativity


Images thanks to Paul A Philips

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Thoughts on Marx and the Free Press

Thoughts on Marx and the Free Press 
by Carl Barjer


Matter is the precondition of mind's possibility; and vice versa. As Marx well knew, the Bible was a balm, with a god made up by men to make life more tolerable. In the beginning was the word of men, with which they wrote god into mental existence; 'He' resides exclusively in the minds of the men who created 'Him'.

Marx was right about some stuff, wrong about others; but his work is shot through with honest endeavour. Communism was to come at the end of a process that would've dissolved corporations and withered away the state.

Marx adamantly, explicitly supported press freedom. What later came to be called 'Communism' perverted Marx's ideas.


What Marx knew, and we're seeing today, is that capitalists, when left to their devices, will create a system where power and wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

'The World’s 8 Richest Men Are Now as Wealthy as Half the World’s Population'
http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

That means a small minority enjoy considerable freedom, while a large majority are constrained, restrained, chained. One thing Marx failed to foresee, is how major a role debt would come to play in later stage 'capitalism'. Most of the masses are enslaved by new masters: mortgages, credit owners, loan sharks, etc.

Big bank takes little bank; the latter's now suborned to the former.

Marx's support for "press freedom" was principled and practical. As subsequent revolutions showed, unless you take the people with you - by educating and freeing them to achieve class consciousness - the a 'socialist' state will soon become as oppressive as the one it replaced.


EVERY society that attempted a premature and violent revolution, soon abandoned Marx's ideas, and imposed new variants on age old forms of oppression. Monarchs, aristos and priests were replaced by 'strongmen', tyrants and dictators. Instead of 'dictatorship' of the proletariat, new elites were formed to dictate to, and reimpose oppression over, the proles.

Marx opposed property. Communal living means everything is there for everyone to enjoy, as and when they need it. They are collectively and individually free; the one facilitates the other. For 'socialism' to transform into 'communism', the state (and the oppression that goes with it) must whither away


'Communism' refers to a post state, communal society, where people collectively make use of the products of their work; and control the means they collectively produce goods and services with.

'Corporatism' refers to control by certain groups, in their interests, at the expense of society in general.

Bourgeois 'capitalism' refers to control of the means of production by a minority, who own property.


All isms are impossible, in a sense; such is the nature of ideals. But those who used the term 'Communism' in reference to their regimes, abused it absolutely.

'Corporatism' was established as a reaction, and opposition, to supposed 'Communism' and 'socialism'.

'In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an alternative to socialism which would emphasise social justice without the radical solution of the abolition of private property. The result was called Corporatism.

'The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organised into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy, which operates through competition, a corporate economic works through collective bargaining..

'Under corporatism the labour force and management in an industry belong to an industrial organisation. The representatives of labour and management settle wage issues through collective negotiation. While this was the theory in practice the corporatist states were largely ruled according to the dictates of the supreme leader.'

Examples: 'Fascist' Italy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Peron's Argentina, New Deal USA (under Roosevelt).


“Freedom of the press… is a kind of beauty, which one must have loved to be able to defend. It is something which I love truly, whose existence I feel to be essential, to be necessary to me so that without it I cannot live at peace, or live a full life”.

But does this follow?

“ Hence we not only opposed censorship of the workers’ and radical press, but would also have ‘made objections no less earnestly’ to bans on the reactionary, monarchist and anti-Semitic press. “

The press, for Marx, was to be of the people, for the people, by the people. Most of what masquerades as the press today would be rejected as a mockery of the term. To quote Lenin:

““Freedom of the press” … is a deception while the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists and while capitalist rule over the press remains, a rule that is manifested throughout the world all the more strikingly, sharply, and cynically, the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example.

“The first thing to do to win real equality and genuine democracy for the working people, for the workers and peasants, is to DEPRIVE CAPITAL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF HIRING WRITERS, BUYING UP PUBLISHING HOUSES AND HIRING NEWSPAPERS. And to do that the capitalists and exploiters have to be overthrown and their resistance suppressed.

"In capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion.

“In this respect. too, the defenders of ‘pure democracy’ prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement.

“Genuine freedom and equality will be embodied in the system which the communists are building and in which there will be no opportunity for amassing wealth at the expense of others, no objective opportunities for putting the press under the direct or indirect power of money, and no impediments in the way of any working man (or groups of working men, in any numbers) for enjoying and practising equal rights in the use of public printing presses and public stocks of paper.””

In a Marx/Lenin sense, what we mostly have in the UK is a press more akin to a capitalist state-controlled one, than a free one. It needs replacing, rather than regulating. Creating a free press would require proactive, revolutionary and sustained effort.

Monday, 18 June 2018

Fate's Good Fortune: A Mini Stage Drama by the Rev'd David Parry

One of my experimental Dramas, Fate's Good Fortune, recorded by Paul Obertelli

This is an audio demonstration of David William Parry's mini stage drama "Fate's Good Fortune". The play is about the death, life, & moment in Barzakh (Purgatory) of the former president of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev.

Sunday, 17 June 2018

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 15


Colonisers are those who indebted Africa through their brothers and cousins who were the lenders. We had no connections with this debt. Therefore we cannot pay for it. Debt is neo-colonialism, in which colonisers transformed themselves into “technical assistants”. We should better say “technical assassins”.They present us with financing, with financial backers. As if someone’s back could create development. We have been advised to go to these lenders. We have been proposed with nice financial set-ups. We have been indebted for fifty, sixty years and even more.

That means we have been led to compromise our people for fifty years and more.Under its current form, that is imperialism controlled, debt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa, aiming at subjugating its growth and development through foreign rules. Thus, each one of us becomes the financial slave, which is to say a true slave, of those who had been treacherous enough to put money in our countries with obligations for us to repay.

We are told to repay, but It is not about this so-called honour of repaying or not. Debt cannot be repaid, first because if we don’t repay, lenders will not die. That is fore sure. But if we repay, we are going to die!

— Martyr in the continued struggle for African liberation, Capitaine Thomas Sankara (1949-1987)

...............................

Today the discourse of human rights does not only serve to furnish a substitute ideology following the collapse of “great narratives.” By seeking to impose a particular moral norm on all peoples, it aims to restore the West’s good conscience by allowing it to establish itself once again as a model and denounce those who refuse this model as “barbarians.” In history, “rights” have only too often been what the masters of the dominant ideology have decided to define them as. Linked to the expansion of markets, the discourse of human rights constitutes the ideological framework of globalisation. It is before all an instrument of domination, and should be seen as such.

Alain de Benoist

........................

General Remer on the false dichotomy between the West and Islam, created by Zionist media:

The front-line does not run between the Islamic world and the West. The cherished dream of Israel, of the Jewish organisations, and of their media, is to convince public opinion in the West that the Islam is an enemy and a threat for the West, and that all the Jews want is but preventive protection from an Islamic strike force in order to defend the West. Islamism is a world religion that is accessible to all. Judaism on the contrary is reserved for the racist ethnic group of the Jews, the "chosen people".

The witch hunt against the Islam is a tactical propaganda of the Jewish organisations that served at its time to sway public opinion in favour of a war against Iraq. The same tactic is being used today in the witch hunt against Persia. Unfortunately, there are no Islamic media that should be a match for the Jewish media.

...................

We distinguish two levers: on one hand the national idea, that is to say the Fatherland as historic enterprise and the guarantee of a historical existence for all Spaniards; on the other hand the social idea, the socialist economy, as the guarantee of daily bread and economic wellbeing of all the people.

Ramiro Ledesma Ramos

.....................

I think we should think twice about our stance on Technology...

In front of Technology, and Technical development, there are two different tendencies in our Conservative Camp. So, we have those who repudiate Technology and mechanisation in the basis of Vitalism and Organicism, thus Technology is seen as a degenerate by-product of Western Intellect and Willpower, who is the ''enemy of life''. The most extreme view of this conception can be founded in the writtings of Conservative Revolutionary Ludwig Klages (Klages opossed the ''Geist'' (Spirit) to the ''Seele'' which is Human Soul, or Life) but also other KR authors such as Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen and even Oswald Spengler and of course Martin Heiddeger, shows distrust in Technology.

The leftist National-Communist current of German Conservative Revolution supported Total Mechanisation of human existence. The most radical proponent of this trend was of course Ernst Niekisch, but also we can found this techno-bureaucratic tendency in Walter Rathenau, Ernst Junger, and even the Fascist Ramiro Ledesma Ramos. Ernst Niekisch characterised Marxism as an Existentialist philosophy and the Technical worldview by excellence. Why¿
Because Marxism understand the development Human History, from the standpoint of the development Means of Productions, being the development of Technical Means and Tools who the men use to satisfy his existential necessities the main factor of changes in Human Social Regime. So, Marxism is a techno-centric world view.

Ernst Niekisch saw the Bolshevik Total Mechanisation was the basis of destruction of the decadent Bourgeoisie Society based in Individualism, Drunkenness and Subjectivism and the values of 1789 and the rise of a New ``Luciferian`` Civilisation, with a New Man embodied in the figure of Worker, whom he describe as a Demon. A new Civilisation based on Technical values of Hardship, Precision, Total Objectivity and the obedience of the law of the Machine.

This was an opportunity for Germanic Race, through Total Mechanisation whom is resulting from War Communism, they could re-asume their Racial Identity, buried by Western and Latin Capitalism and Imperialism, and its catholic super-structure.

This ideas are very, very alike to Salvador Allende Cibernetism, Cybersyn project and also resembles the Juche Idea with his ´´Man Master of the World, He Rules everything and Decides everything´´ stuff. Also, we found here concepts that remind us the Left Hand Path...

credits to: Jose Stalin

........................

Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a little tired of waiting for the Hitlerian nightmare that the corporate media promised us was coming back in 2016. Frankly, I’m beginning to suspect that all their apocalyptic pronouncements were just parts of some elaborate cocktease. I mean, here we are, a year and half into the reign of the Trumpian Reich, and, well, where are all the concentration camps, the SS units with their death’s head insignia, the Riefenstahlian parades and rallies? Trump hasn’t even banned the Democratic Party, or annexed Canada, or invaded Mexico, or made anybody wear colour-coded armbands. If he doesn’t start Hitlering relatively soon, the oracles of the corporate media are going to have some serious explaining to do.

I don’t think I’m overreacting. After all, back in 2016, The Guardian promised us an “Age of Darkness,” and the end of “civilized order” as we know it. “Globalization is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed,” one of its more hysterical pundits proclaimed. “Donald Trump is actually a fascist,” Michael Kinsley assured us in The Washington Post. Charles Blow of The New York Times warned that Trump’s election was “the beginning of the end,” the descent of the republic into “racial Orwellianism,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Thomas Friedman called it “a moral 911.” Paul Krugman predicted nothing short of “a global recession with no end in sight.” Jonathan Chait, after heroically vowing not to flee the country with his terrified family, but to stay and fight to the bitter end, guaranteed us that the “monster,” Trump, would “shake the republic to its foundations.”

Perhaps my seismometer is on the fritz, but I haven’t detected much foundation shaking. Yes, Trump repulses me, personally. I do not like the man. I never have. I was based in New York for fifteen years, in the 1990s and early 2000s, before he became a game show host, when he was still just a shady real estate mogul with alleged ties to organised crime who occasionally appeared on Wrestlemania and just generally went about the city making a narcissistic ass of himself and plastering his gold-plated name onto everything. So I have no illusions about his character … the man is an inveterate snake oil salesman with the moral compass of a Tijuana pimp. All I’m saying is, we were promised Hitler, or Mussolini at the very least, and it seems like all we’re getting so far is just regular old narcissistic Donald Trump.

Of course, he could just be laying low and holding back on the Hitler stuff as part of the evil master plan personally developed by Vladimir Putin to systematically brainwash Americans (with state-of-the-art mind-control Facebook ads) into embracing all-out National Socialism and marching through the streets in full Nazi regalia singing Amerika Über Alles… at which point Trump will rip off his mask, reveal his true Hitlerian face, Steve Bannon will suddenly reappear in the turret of an M1 Abrams tank at the head of a division of rebel infantry flying giant Confederate flags as they hideously rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Putin-Nazi Holocaust will begin.

Or maybe the extremely serious, Pulitzer Prize-winning political pundit David Leonhardt is onto something. In a prominent op-ed in The New York Times, he wonders if Putin’s “secret plan” is for Trump to destroy “the Atlantic alliance” by arriving late for the G7 meeting and “picking fights over artificial issues,” not to mention insulting the Canadian prime minister, which, it doesn’t get much more hair-raising than that. OK, I know you’re probably thinking that sounds like the hopelessly paranoid jabber of some conspiracy theorist nut on YouTube, but we’re talking The New York Times here, folks, and a bona fide “respectable pundit” who wrote a whole 15,000-word ebook and has been interviewed by Stephen Colbert, among his many other distinguished accomplishments.

Examined in the context of other blatantly loony theories the corporate media are currently attempting to ram down our throats, Leonhardt’s theory kind of makes sense. The Guardian, another very serious newspaper, in addition to covering the repercussions of its coverage of Corbyn’s Nazi Death Cult, is hot on the trail of the soon-to-be-infamous Putin-Banks-Brexit Connection. According to “documents seen by The Observer,” a Guardian sister publication, Arron Banks, a “Brexit bankroller,” allegedly had brunch with the Russian ambassador three times, instead of just once, as he had claimed. He was also allegedly offered a piece of some shady gold deal in exchange for the number of someone on Trump transition team, which for some reason it was otherwise impossible to obtain. Or whatever. It doesn’t really matter what happened. The point is, Putin orchestrated the Brexit, presumably as part of his secret plan to destabilise the Atlantic alliance, and then blackmailed Trump into running for president with that “pee-tape” the Democrats paid a former British spook to allege exists.

Paul Krugman of The New York Times concurs. In his latest extremely serious piece of totally respectable grown-up opinionating, he once again calls Trump “a quisling” (he’s developed a fondness for this term, which goes over well with New York Times readers) and reiterates that Trump is “a de facto foreign agent” and that “America as we know it is finished.” Tragically, according to Krugman, the FBI, CIA, and other Guardians of Western Democracy are utterly powerless to deal with this quisling, and his evil puppet master, Putin, because it turns out the entire Republican Party is “hopelessly, irredeemably corrupt.” Yes, it appears the only chance we have to save the world from Trumpzilla, and imminent Putin-Nazi Holocaust, is to elect a buttload of Democrats to office, and eventually an Obama-like Democratic President, so they can launch an all-out thermonuclear war against Russia and North Korea … that’ll teach these Putin-Nazis to screw around with our trade agreements!

Oh, and also, we need to cancel the Brexit, and do away with all these “populist” movements that Putin has fomented all over Europe. For example, according to billionaire George Soros, the refugee-hating League in Italy is likely another Putin-backed front, part of his scheme to “dominate the West.” One can only assume that the AfD, the FPÖ, Rassemblement National, and every other extreme-Right party exploiting people’s rage and fear in Europe are parts of Putin’s grand conspiracy (except, of course, for the Ukrainian Nazis the Western alliance put into power). Soros, like billionaire Bruce Wayne before him, tired of waiting for the West to strike back, is taking matters into his own hands. Not only has he been tirelessly laboring to prevent Donald Trump from “destroying the world,” now he’s financing “Best for Britain,” a campaign to de-brainwash the British people, who, obviously, only voted for Brexit because they’d been brainwashed by the Putin-Nazis.

I could go on and on with this. Have you heard the the one about the Putin-Nazis conspiring with the NRA? How about the one where Emmanuel Macron, in order to protect the French from “fake news,” and division-sowing Putin-Nazi memes, wants the authority to censor the Internet? Or have you read the column in which David Brooks, without a detectable trace of irony, laments the passing of international relationships “based on friendship, shared values, loyalty, and affection” … seriously, he used the word “affection” in reference to the Western alliance, one of the most ruthless, mass-murdering empires in the history of ruthless, mass-murdering empires? Oh,yeah, and I almost forgot … MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is reporting that the North Korea summit was also orchestrated by Putin!

I’m not sure how much more bizarre things can get. This level of bull goose loony paranoia, media-generated mass hysteria, and mindless conformity would be hysterically funny … if it weren’t so fucking horrifying in terms of what it says about millions of Westerners, who are apparently prepared to believe almost anything the authorities tell them, no matter how nuts. That famous Voltaire quote comes to mind … “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” he wrote. Another, more disturbing way of looking at it is, people willing to believe absurdities, to switch off their critical thinking faculties in order to conform to an official narrative as blatantly ridiculous as the Putin-Nazi narrative, are people who have already surrendered their autonomy, who have traded it for the comfort of the herd. Such people cannot be reasoned with, because there isn’t really anyone in there. There is only whatever mindless jabber got injected into their brain that day, the dutiful repetition of which guarantees they remain a “normal” person (who believes what other normal persons believe), and not some sort of “radical” or “extremist.”

These people are the people who worry me … these “normal” people who, completely calmly, as if what they are saying wasn’t batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people, some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.

CJ Hopkins

Saturday, 16 June 2018

The Post-Revolutionary Society has to be built Now


Why is the world suffering from the machinations of the global capitalist mafia? What has happened to us that has allowed these inhuman monsters to gain such power over our lives? It seems that not many years ago, although intrigue was afoot, the world at large was for all practical purposes immune to the drive towards the global gulag. So what happened to weaken our natural immunity? Why did we let our mortal enemies get the upper hand?

This is indeed a tricky question to answer. It could be suggested that the reason our hidden masters have such power is that we perceive them to have this power. What has changed is that we now have a mass media which presents a false image of the world to us, and by owning that media, our enemies have convinced us that we are powerless to halt their 'progress', and that we really shouldn't waste our time trying to.

The printed word, which offered the opportunity for a great spreading of knowledge, has become a medium for the spreading of ignorance and falsehood. To an even deeper extent, audio, and visual media, have become a source of power for those who seek to control us. This is because the human brain works in sounds and pictures and absorbs more information if presented in a manner which mimics natural interaction and experience. Thus the advent of Hollywood and television has proven to be highly significant in influencing how the world is perceived and how this perception is reflected in how people behave in reality.

Our enemies control the media. They own every major outlet, either directly, or directly by being hold the purse strings through advertising. Thereby, they are the editorial power - deciding exactly which issues will be discussed, and in which manner, and which will be ignored. People who speak of revolution are deluding themselves - the media as it exists is in the hands of the globalists, and so long as they have financial power, that is where it will rest.

'Money', in the form we have come to know it, is an illusion. It is produced at the strike of a key on a computer, and from that moment on exists as a generator of debt. We cannot compete with the globalists by trying to become financially more powerful in the conventional sense, as they control the money supply and can create currency at will. What we have to do is look beyond the playing field that has been concocted for our enslavement, and work in reality, rather than in illusion, refusing to play their game and support their agenda.

How do we escape the web which has been spun for us? The media constantly tell us that we cannot. Well, we can. A key step in our struggle for freedom is to stop listening to the lies which are used to imprison us. How many people watch television from the moment they get home, to the moment they go to bed? Some may convince themselves they are 'selectively' viewing and that by filtering out what they consider the most harmful programmes, music, films etc, they are safe from the influence of the mind controllers. This is rubbish! The powers-that-be are far from stupid. They have created levels of control - some obvious, some subtle - but all designed to manipulate the viewer/listener. The obvious mind control is deliberately obvious, so as to allow the participant of the media circus to consider him or herself to have discovered the game and dodged it. 'I don't watch the soaps, I only watch history documentaries' etc - if this is you speaking, you haven't escaped the mind programming, you have actually embraced it more than those who watch all the drivel on the TV, as you believe what you watch to be fair and unbiased. the solution? Turn the machine off, put it in a cupboard, and when the withdrawal symptoms have worn off (It is an addiction - you will experience withdrawal), bin it!

Freeing your mind from the media is but one step in the march to freedom. It is, however, the most important step. Once you are 'clean' of the media poison, you will come to realise that the media are really powerless. they gain control over us because we invite their toxic propaganda into our minds. Once we no longer partake of their lies, they have no power at all. 'But what will I do if I don't have a TV?' you may ask. Think about that question - what will you do, other than stare at a box in the corner of your room? For a start you will NOT stare at a box in the corner of your room! You will Not be programmed to be a servant to the machine - eating your meals at certain times so you can watch the programmes you just MUST see! You will be free to leave your home and live in the real world. You will be free to talk to your loved ones - about things which really matter. You will be free to explore your desires, to explore the world and to enjoy your imagination. In short, you will be free to begin living in a manner of your choosing, not in the manner designed by those who seek to control you.

This is but the first step. Once you have made yourself aware that the media control is a lie, you will begin to see concrete ways to live outside the wider control of the ruling elite - and then we will take back our power from the minority who rule us, and take back our freedom. Their power is the power we give them. We have to take it back!

As Revolutionary Patriotic Socialists forging the path of Economic and Social Liberation, we have to change ourselves from victims of the system, into combatants who stand outside the system - not combatants in the stereotypical guerilla warrior style, but combatants in the manner of people who have freed ourselves from the control of the enemy.  Fighting in chains is futile. We must first of all break those chains.

The chains of forced labour can be broken by engaging in cooperative labour with like-minded people, self-employment, or other forms of labour which are not part of the trap of exploitative wage-slavery.

The chains of staring at the tv can be broken by using the tv as a monitor only, and only watching that which is not a part of the controlled media propaganda.

The chains of neediness can be broken by learning and practicing self-reliance in all areas where we can do things for ourselves - as individuals and as groups of people united in comradeship and friendship supporting and helping each other.

The first step on the road to freedom comes in freeing ourselves.  This is the beginning of Revolution. As we free ourselves, we become better able to help others onto the path to freedom, and in this way we build the resistance and create a network that exists outside the control of the liberal tyranny.  We need to build the Socialist Republic now, so that when the capitalist system implodes, we already have a better way in embryo, which will be the foundation of the future. And of course, from the strength and security of that network, we can do all we can to hasten the collapse of the hated system of exploitation.

Friday, 15 June 2018

Home Education or Liberal Indoctrination - an obvious choice


The UK and Ireland share in common a dire education system in which all that is taught is obedience to the anti-values of liberalism.  People who are able to keep their children out of the clutches of the liberal mafia will find that although their children tend to outperform those in the system.  They will constantly notice discomfort on the behalf of the individuals asking about their child's school, when they are told that he/she doesn't go to a conventional school, but is schooled at home.

Such is the impact of the liberal education system, that the majority of people in the UK, consider it unhealthy, un-natural, and just plain wrong for a child to be educated by anyone other than an accredited teacher. There are even those who don't accept that homeschooling has any validity, and argue that it shouldn't be allowed. In some countries, homeschooling is illegal, and there are those in the UK who would like to see it proscribed here as well.

Why is there hostility to homeschooling? Why do people sincerely doubt the ability of parents to raise and educate their own children? Scare stories in the media and decades of propaganda about the dangers of not being 'normal' members of society, have taken their toll.  By 'normal', the propagandists of course mean conformist. Those who dictate behind the façade of democracy, are wary of anyone who does not accept their rule, and use every means at their disposal to enlist the ordinary people into fighting against any threats to their control. Hostility to homeschooling is a result of a refusal to accept that liberalism isn't magnanimous; it is an expression of defence of the prison state for fear of the consequences of freedom, such as responsibility, self-reliance, and having to think, act and feel for oneself.

In the UK, to become a teacher, one has to undergo a one year post-graduate course. Yes, one year! The course deals with how to control a class of 30 or more children, and how to implement government social-engineering lessons. The knowledge of the teacher from his or her chosen university degree course may, or may not, be useful in teaching, dependent upon which subject or subjects he or she is to teach. 

When one begins homeschooling, it really doesn't matter if one is educated to degree level. Understanding the complexities of Statistical Analytical Procedure, or the different strands of thought involved in the Sociological study of Gender Identity Issues (or other such piffle), really does not help when it comes to teaching a child to read and write, to grasp the fundamentals of mathematics, or to do art and crafts.

Education is a vital part of a child's development, but the regimentation of education is un-necessary, and indeed injurious to the child.  Regimented education prepares the child for his or her place in the class system.  For those who are educated in the State sector, the strict conformity to the bell/buzzer, and the absolute insistence that the Teacher is always right, prepares the child for a subservient role in the economy.  For those educated in the fee-paying sector (the bizarrely named Public Schools), the emphasis is on preparation for a managerial role, and the more expensive the school, the higher the level of management and of power in adult life.  Thus, the Institutional School System, ensures the continuation of the Class System, and of Materialism as the be-all and end-all of life.

In official schools, the emphasis is clearly placed on conformity and obedience.  Freedom of thought is forbidden, and where it raises its head, it is punished.  In History lessons, children are taught that the British are basically evil due to their involvement in the African Slave Trade.  Woe betide any child who dares to mention the fact that it was the Ruling Class who created the Slave Trade, and that Working Class Britons were enslaved by the Ruling Class and their collaborators before the same tragedy was inflicted upon Africans.  Anyone who dares to question the official fantasy version of history risks punishment which could include prosecution for thought crimes.  Schools exists to disseminate propaganda, not to impart knowledge.

Homeschooling is time consuming, and it is not without costs.  Teaching materials, pens, paper, and all the paraphernalia associated with education, have to be bought.  There is no refund of taxes for not using the Establishment system, thus homeschooling effectively means paying for one's child's education twice over.  However, monetary considerations should not be paramount.  Yes, homeschooling requires sacrifice, but having children requires sacrifices.

A misunderstanding of homeschooling is that the education a child receives at school is superior to that it can receive elsewhere.  This is nonsense.  A child learning at home has the complete attention of the teacher, and even where there is more than one child present, the ratio of child to teacher cannot be as high as that in an external school.  It is argued that discipline suffers when a child is at home; those who argue this may be referring to their own inability to discipline their children, but that doesn't mean that all parents are lazy or incompetent in looking after their own.

Home-schooled children tend to work harder than other children, and have fewer long holidays.  They certainly do not have the chance to avoid doing work set for them, and if they ever utter the words 'my dog ate my homework', the chances are it will be true!

The State actively encourages parents to hand their children over to nurseries and pre-schools before giving them to more strangers in the school system itself.  It is not uncommon for a child as young as one year-old to be given into the care of non-family members.  If parents are willing to abrogate their parental responsibility in order to gain material wealth, then they do not deserve to have children at all.  Such parents reduce themselves to breeders of the next generation of producer-consumers; victims of the anti-human State.

Do you want your children to be indoctrinated with globalist propaganda?  Do you want them to be taught that there are more than two genders, and that feelings are more important than facts?  Do you want your children to grow up supporting NATO's wars against humanity; to have no love for anything but materialism; to have no culture; to have no spiritual or intellectual goals?  Or do you want them to be free, feeling, thinking, intelligent, articulate, questioning human beings? 

Homeschooling is more important than ever now that there are more failing schools than ever, increased class sizes and easier exams. Also the very fact that the liberal dogma effectively means that bright kids are ignored in the class room so that more time can be spent on thick and/or disruptive kids means that a decent education in a state school is very unlikely.

Children can get all the socialising they need from clubs and extracurricular activities. The socialising in schools is unnatural and bullying, peer pressure and pecking orders always establish themselves.

Unless you are happy for the liberals, capitalists, globalists and trotskyites to destroy your children and any hope of them achieving a future of moral, cultural and spiritual worth, then you will do all you can to keep them out of the School System.  The citizens of many countries are legally barred from home educating their children.  In the UK we are still allowed to raise our own children as we see fit.  If we do not make the fullest use of this opportunity, then we are collaborators with the destruction of society, and deserve the evils which our enemies are striving to make our reality.  The prison door is closing.  We have the chance to put a foot in the door and empower the next generation with the tools to restore freedom.  This is a chance we cannot afford to miss. 

SMPBI members and supporters are encouraged to do all they can to limit the influence of the liberal indoctrination system on children they are responsible for.  If you can home school, you should.  In the coming Republic, education will be the responsibility of the community, with all teachers and children knowing one another, and no strangers involved.  The education that we would give our own children now, is the education we want for the nation when we sweep away the decadent parasitic system of today.  Our children deserve our fullest commitment; nothing less will do.

Thursday, 14 June 2018

Sajid Javid: Zionist Tory Banking Tyrant; Enemy of the NHS and the Working Class Worldwide


The Home Secretary Sajid Javid, will tomorrow lift all restrictions on non-EU people working in the NHS. He will effectively open the borders to anyone from anywhere in the world (except the EU), as long as they claim to have a background in healthcare.


Who is this Sajid Javid who is playing loose and fast with our sovereignty?  Javid was born in Rochdale to Pakistani immigrants.  In 1995 he began working for Chase Manhattan Bank in New York and South America, followed by Deutsche Bank in London and Singapore, having a working lifetime in the heart of the Globalist Capitalist Banking Criminal Network for 14 years.  He progressed to Managing Directorship level.  He has Global roots, Global experience and is committed to furthering the cause of Globalisation.

Javid left Banking to go straight into a safe seat for the Tory party, becoming an MP in 2010.


As well as a career in Banking, Javid is a confirmed Zionist, who has stated that should he be offered the chance to live in the Middle East, the only country he would want to live in is Israel. He used his position as Communities Secretary to attack councils who supported the BDS movement and in this way increased the power of the Zionist stranglehold in British politics.  He is - of course - a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, aka the Conservative Enemies of Palestine and Freedom Anywhere.


In 8 short years as an MP, Javid has advanced at a rate which is even surprising for the corrupt Tory party, to now hold the position of Home Secretary.  Clearly being an ex-Banker, a Globalist and active Zionist, is the key to success in the Tory ranks.

His announcement that the NHS should be filled to the rafters with non-EU workers, is an affront to the people who voted for Brexit. We voted to secure our borders, not kick them wide open.  But more than this, it is an attack on the Working Class in Britain, who will be denied work, as cheaper imported labour will once again be used in place of training the unemployed.

The NHS does need more skilled staff. Importing skilled staff from other countries - especially underdeveloped ones - is a drain on those countries.  It is a form of racism, to attack countries economically - as Javid's banking colleagues do - then to steal the best workers from those impoverished countries to staff the NHS.  Every country needs its best people to help it develop. Stealing the best from other nations is to cause a brain drain and to cause skills shortages in those countries, which will of course, further impoverish them.  SMPBI is outraged at this racist attack on poorer nations, which will become poorer still as a result.  Javid is a Banker at heart, and does not care that it is the likes of the World Bank and IMF which are destroying the underdeveloped world.  He is a Globalist who has no respect for Borders and National Integrity.

SMPBI calls for British Jobs for British Workers. Our People must come first. If there are skills shortages, there must be free training for the Working Class to fill those shortages.  We call for an end to the disgusting abuse of foreign countries which comes in the form of draining them of their best workers rather than train our own citizens.


Sajid Javid is an absolute disgrace. His identification with the Zionist menace is a clue to his character.  He respects Israel and attacks those who oppose the brutalisation of the people of occupied Palestine.  Javid is living proof that it isn't only the liberal globalists who are a danger to freedom, but all globalists.  If the countries destroyed by Bankers like Javid were free from the capitalist sickness, they could have their own NHS's, and their own people could help to raise the standards of those countries.  If the British Isles were free from these political and corporate parasites, we too could have an NHS staffed with our own Workers, with Class and National Loyalty making our lands better places in which to live.


Javid personally gained by accepting payments from the Fracking Industry to overturn the democratic decision of Lancashire County Council to ban Fracking in Lancashire.  The man who claims to care about the NHS, took payments to bring in unsafe practices which are linked to decline in health in people living in affected areas.  Lancashire is 120 miles from where Javid is an MP, and much further from where he sits in London.  The Tories will sell off the NHS at the first opportunity. Javid has as much respect for the NHS as he has for the People of Lancashire who he sold out so his corporate friends could make a killing in an industry which has very serious questions as to its safety. He is corrupt to the core - a perfect Tory!

Javid has to go, and so does the entire corrupt Globalist Zionist system.

Save our NHS. Train our People. Stop the Exploitation of other lands. Close the Borders and Stop the Parasitic Skills Drain, which in turn impoverishes not only the lands of the immigrants, but also our own.