Wednesday, 30 August 2017

A further constructive suggestion for refining the SWPE Policy Outline: Wilberg on Wednesday

1. On Immigration

From the SWPE Policy Outline:

The Twentieth Century saw mass immigration of non-Europeans…

This is, of course, correct.

But the Outline goes on to say:  “the Twenty First is seeing the continuance of this with the addition of unsustainable levels of European immigration

Incorrect. The real and serious danger, now and in the near future is one facing Germany and Europe as a whole: this is the danger of unsustainable levels of non-European immigration through the EU - for example from North and Sub-Saharan Africa via Italy.

The result of this will, if the present trajectory continues, be an almost total population replacement of an ever declining birth-rate and demographic of white Europeans by non-Europeans. The source of this coming and massive immigration wave will not be Syria but, above all, Africa - where a demographic population explosion is taking place. As a result, the number of young African males seeking a place in Europe will be the same as the entire population of Europe, not the 2 million or so let into Germany but more than 400 million.   

This danger was created and is exacerbated by a new wave of ruthless colonialism in Africa:

The implications for ‘Brexit’:
. We seek a Free England - free from all foreign entanglements (political or economic).
“The emphasis of the Brexit negotiations for many on the winning side of the debate is to end ‘freedom of movement’, a central pillar of EU membership which enables visa-free travel throughout the continent for all EU citizens. No mention is made of controlling non-European immigration, despite the fact that this is the more problematic of the two. After all, which immigrant groups are most highly represented in honour crime statistics? Which immigrant (and their descendants) groups are the source of Britain’s ‘home-grown’ terror problem? Which immigrant groups are the most economically inactive? Which immigrant groups are grossly over-represented in rape and other sexual crime statistics? I can assert with great confidence that the groups in question are not Dutch, German, Polish or Hungarian people. Of course, that is not to say that we should have an open door to all of Europe. We should encourage the best and brightest from all of Europe to come and settle here in England, whether they be Poles, Hungarians or Germans, but we cannot allow our country to become Europe’s ‘trash can’. There were very real and very valid stories that surfaced during the referendum campaign of thuggish gypsies and criminal gangs (mostly from Romania) who had exploited the EU free movement rules to run prostitution rings here in England and work in the black economy. There are undoubtedly people we must keep out. But the fact of the matter is that the real problems have come from the non-European immigrant communities. The grooming gangs, the terrorists, the honour killers; these are not Poles or Hungarians, but Pakistanis and Afghans. The British people must stop excusing their politicians’ failure to tackle non-EU migration, simply because it isn’t convenient to the Brexit cause to point it out. Similarly, the politicians must stop pretending they are cracking down on immigration simply by keeping their pledge to withdraw Britain from the European treaties.” from

It simply makes no sense - in fact it is quite obscene in this context - to laud countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for refusing to take non-European immigrants, whilst glossing over hate attacks on Poles, Czech in the U.K. itself.

What needs to be closed more than anything else are not England’s borders to Europe but Europe’s own borders. This is well understood in Germany itself, and not just by the ‘Old Right’ or ‘neo-Nazis’ but by a whole new non-violent movement of tens of thousands of young people, mostly in their 20s and previously apolitical, who believe in protecting German and European identity - and who take to the streets to do so.   

See the movement’s Austrian founder, Martin Sellner, take on and destroy a London left-liberal multi-culti (Mo Ansar) on this video about immigration from Africa:

Note all the slurs and ridiculous name-calling from Mo Ansar - which Sellner just smiles at because he is so used to them from the Austrian and German media! He himself is not - or no longer - a racist, a white Nationalist or a National Socialist - and is against the use of political violence. On the other hand, the ‘Antifa’ Mo Ansar explicitly states that Europe has no choice but to surrender to total population replacement (‘civilisational change’) - in other words DIE!!!  In his own videos Sellner also asks why it is that those who want to close Europe’s borders are called racist, far-right or ‘Nazi’ - but it’s fine if Saudi Arabia and many other non-European countries (including many African countries!) countries keep their borders firmly closed and want to maintain their ethnic homogeneity??? Note also: Ansar’s friends - the Antifa in Germany regularly use violence against any person not conforming to “political correctness” on immigration and others issues - but are never arrested for doing do. They constitute a covert and violent arm of the state - it’s secret bulldog.  

Two further but important points to note in relation to the E.U. - both Germany and Italy are not following E.U. laws and regulations on non-EU immigration. Instead they are both in flagrant breach of them!!!  Finally, an old clip from ‘Yes Minister’ - which is not just comedy at all. The aim of British ruling caste as described by ‘Sir Humphrey’ remains the same - to keep Europe divided - but with Brexit it has just become more difficult to achieve without a disastrous own-goal:

Note: I do not wish us to get too carried away by Martin Sellner and his Identitarian Movement.  Here we see a very young and intelligent 28 year-old Austrian who has finally found his vocation - his identity - as an ethno-national and pan-European ‘Identitarian’ (!) and also by distancing himself from both the Left and his early mentors in the ‘Old’ National Socialist Right (which of course included a Socialist element which he seems never to have ‘got’). He also makes the same fatal mistake that he accuses Hitler of having made - identifying race or ethnicity with religion (in this case Islam) and also by identifying Islam with terror. As a result, he not only forgets that by far the greatest number of victims of Islamist terror are Muslims but does not distinguish between secular states such as Syria - most of whose people regard themselves first and foremost as Syrian patriots and only secondarily as Muslims. In effect Sellner replaces Hitler’s simplistic biological anti-Jewdaism with a simplistic anti-Jihadism. In relation to Africa, Sellner also forgets that 45% of ethnic Africans are Christian. He also sidelines the entire tradition of non-terroristic Shia Islam and the anti-globalism of Iran. By focussing exclusively on the threat to European identity of a multi-ethnic religion - Islam - rather than on the basic threat of population replacement from ethnically non-European continents and their internal communities (like the Pakistani community in the U.K.) he actually undermines his own defence of European ethnicity  - which itself has embraced a wide variety of religions, both Christian and pagan). And though he repeatedly nodded agreement with Ansar on the historic responsibility of European colonialism for the impoverishment of Africa, he makes no reference to the immense efforts made not only by Maoist China but also by present-day China to help Africa - through massive cooperative infrastructure projects not based on usurious loans - and aimed at helping to replace corrupt tribal rulers with leaders drawn from skilled workers and administrators.   
A Note on Defending Europe: Please comrades, let us finally and firmly distinguish in principle between the E.U. on the one hand and Europa on the other, which its rich cultural history - which needs our help in defending. For right now Europe is under attack in six ways:

  1. Through its open borders to Africa, a continent ruined by British colonial and U.S. interests, which threatens Europe with an ethnic population replacement.    
  2. From the absolute dictatorship of political correctness imposed on Germany since the end of WW2 - not just by the media but by the police and courts. It is this dictatorship which led to Merkel’s ‘open door’ policy - yet another form of ‘reparation’ for supposed German war guilt - but one which even Merkel now deeply regrets.
  3. From the economic war launched on Russia by the U.S. Congress which threatens the European economy too (the unholy alliance of the U.S. frackers and Saudis to prevent Europe obtaining its oil from Russia).
  4. From the subordination of NATO to U.S., Saudi and Zionist interests.
  5. From the First Commandment i.e. to be a ‘Friend of Israel’ - followed by the Tories, by the puppet German establishment - but also by the Poles - who while opposing open borders are also and at the same colluding with the U.S. against Russia - as they did with England against Germany.   
  6. From the total failure of the European Left to unite in a pan-European movement aimed both at closing Europe’s borders and at ensuring the monetary sovereignty of European countries and their freedom from global finance capital - something neither the new Right nor the traditional Left still have any idea how to do i.e. through the nationalisation of money creation.     

What we are effectively seeing is Hitler’s prediction and nightmare come true - namely that the defeat of Germany in WW2 would result in total U.S. hegemony over Europe, alongside a traditional divide and rule policy towards it on the part of a defeated British Empire, and a massive increase in global Zionist-Jewish influence - not least through its financing of BOTH ‘multi-culturalism’ AND a controlled opposition to it. This is no better symbolised than by EDL members waving both Union Jacks AND Israeli flags (!) or by the Dutch anti-Islamist Geerd Wilders getting money from Israel. For anything that make Arabs or Muslims in general appear ‘evil’ serves Israeli-Zionist interests. For a greater Social Nationalist Syria, and not a greater Israel or ‘global Britain’!!! For a new European Union of Sovereign Social Nationalist States!!!

Monday, 28 August 2017

The Trans Agenda is Surgical Homophobia

SWPE has a policy of accepting people as members according to their individual abilities and what they have to contribute for the furtherance of the cause.  We recruit people of quality, rather than going down the pointless road of trying to gather together a mass membership at the cost of diluting our principles in exchange for allowing anyone with the membership fee to come on board.

Our selective recruitment policy has brought in people with keen minds, with commitment to the struggle for freedom, with the ability and drive to build the organisation in a manner which will enable us to have an impact beyond our small numbers.

We are building the Vanguard. We are building bridges to compatible organisations and to individuals who share our desire for a Free and Socialist world, built one country at a time.  We want the best people as Comrades, and we are getting the best!

Our policy on sexuality is very clear.  We oppose homophobia, and we equally oppose the promotion of sexuality as the defining feature of an individual.  Just as it is absurd that consenting adults should be shunned or attacked because of their sexuality, so it is absurd that people should have employment reserved for them for the same reason.  Our policy has always been - and remains - that consensual sexuality is a private matter, and that we take no interest in the sexual proclivities of individuals.  The key term here is 'consensual': paedophiles, animal-abusers and other rapists are not welcome in our ranks, and in the coming Socialist Republic, there will be absolutely no tolerance of such despicable people. We affirm the right of the People to not have to breathe the same air as the lowest of all humanity, which by their actions forfeit any right to exist.

There would be no need to comment further, except for the British State joining the global capitalist carousel of police state tyranny, based on the concept of 'feelings' as more important than facts. The liberal despots have cynically created a wealth of 'identity politics' based on the ridiculous concept of the supremacy of subjective feelings over objective facts.  Under the guise of supporting sexual freedom, they are promoting the most horrendous and destructive form of homophobia, coupled with institutionalised medical child abuse.  We whole-heartedly respect the right of the individual to freedom of sexuality, and the right of children to be allowed to be children. It is in defence of these basic rights that we have to speak out against the 'transgender' agenda.

Let us state this in the plainest possible way: There is no such thing as transgender; Gender is just a different way of referring to sex (the biological reality, not the action of intercourse); As there are only Two Sexes, so there are only Two Genders; Sex=Gender and is defined by unchangeable Chromosomes, not by emotion, whimsy, or fashion.  The natural world is comprised of males and females, with incredibly rare instances of hermaphrodites.  It doesn't make any difference how one 'feels', if you are born with a penis, you are male, with a vagina, female.  This is nature, and no amount of fake science - so called social science - can change that.

No amount of legislation can turn an ideological position which goes against nature, into a fact. Were it not for the unfortunate event that the poison of Trotsky survived the execution of that madman, the liberal bourgeoise identity-obsessed gender-diversity crowd would be a tiny minority of mentally ill individuals languishing in hospitals for the insane.  They now are sufficient in number to be a real problem, and because they have latched their stupidity onto the politics of the Left, they are a problem which we have to confront and expose.

The Trans Agenda is divisive.  It is pushed by idiots who do not understand that they are fighting for the global capitalist goal of obliterating all that stands in the way of their total victory.  An atomised country, with no loyalty to Class, to Family, to Society, is no country at all, but rather a piece of territory ripe for exploitation.  The Trans movement is leading people to view themselves as the centre of the universe, with no bonds to others, except when it suits the furtherance of their own selfish hedonistic desires.  Younger people in particular are being subjected to intense levels of brain-washing in which to identify as what you biologically are, incurs sneers of you being a 'cis' male or female - which apparently is an expression of oppression!

Homosexuals are being targeted by the transgenderist fanatics.  The ideology claims that it is possible to be a man trapped inside a woman's body, or a woman trapped inside a man's.  This has allowed for the return of the stigma against homosexuals, with Lesbians being encouraged to see their attraction to other women as proof that they are actually men, and in need of therapy to 'cure' them of their 'problem'.  Gay men who enjoy dressing up are being encouraged to believe that what is nothing but a fetish, is actually proof of 'gender dysphoria', and rather than being men who are attracted to men, they are really women 'trapped' in the wrong bodies, with the 'cure' being surgical genital mutilation. Let us repeat our position on homosexuality: It is something which occurs in nature across many species; it is not an 'illness' which requires gender reassignment surgery to 'cure'.  The hypocrites who scream against homophobia but promote the 'trans' agenda, are the truest homophobes, promoting surgery as something desirable to 'correct' nature.  These people are the worst of all bigots, because they are too stupid and idealistic to see the harm they cause.

Biology is based on cold hard facts.  The transgenderists base their whole ideology on emotionalism and intolerance of reality.  Clothes are garments; they do not have magickal properties which can change people at a cellular level.  If a woman keeps her hair short and dresses in masculine clothes because she likes to dress that way, she does not transmogrify into a man.  If a man puts on make-up and dresses in feminine clothes, that does not make him a woman.  When Shakespeare wrote that 'the clothes maketh the man', he was speaking of people being judged by appearance.  The liberal lunatics are taking his words literally and judging people to be nothing more than the clothes they wear; having no value as people; being nothing but sexual creatures who can be 'gender fluid', being female when taking on the garments associated with femininity and male when wearing the garments associated with masculinity.  This is absolute stupidity.

Economically, transgenderism is a drain on the resources of the nation.  It doesn't matter if people undergo surgery in private rather than NHS hospitals - in a Socialist country there will be no private health care, only a single system for everyone. Ideologically driven 'treatment' uses bed space, medical facilities, the time and labour of medical staff, and all manner of resources which could be focused on treating genuinely sick people.  Those who argue that transgender operations should only be carried out privately are missing a key point - they should not be carried out at all.  We want a health service which looks after the sick, and creates good health, not one which is used for surgical alterations based on vanity or on religious delusion. Genital mutilation is always undertaken with an excuse which is ideological or religious - we demand that all this stops.

The greatest harm of the transgenderists comes from the acceptance of this fashionable ideology by bourgeoise liberal teachers, social workers, medical staff, and others in positions where they can impact on the lives of ordinary people.  The transgenderist bigots are not content with encouraging adults to go through dangerous surgery to 'cure' themselves of homosexual desires, by taking on the external appearance of the opposite sex as a means of having their homosexuality made 'socially acceptable' by becoming legally heterosexual.  The bourgeoise filth are actively targeting children, with the number of children being sexualised and put through hormone poisoning (so-called therapy) and genital mutilation, increasing year on year.

Colours and clothes have no meaning other than that which people attribute to them. Traditionally, Blue was associated with the highest female in Christianity, the Virgin Mary.  Pink was the colour associated with boys.  Fashion changed.  Traditionally it was (Ruling Class) Men who wore high heeled shoes, painted their faces, wore wigs, while Women dressed in a more plain manner.  Fashion changed.  In nature it is common for males to be more showy than females (lions and peacocks are obvious examples). The biological imperative for the male to attract a female requires males to compete and for the most attractive to be victorious in the struggle for a mate.  Before fashion shifted, humans followed the same natural rule.

There is a world of difference between cross dressing transvestites, who indulge in a fetish for sexual gratification, and those who think they are trapped inside the wrong body.  Transvestites should be considered alongside people who like bondage and other kinky sex.  The transgenderists deliberately try to associate kinky sex fetishists with people who 'feel' like the opposite sex.  This is a deliberate distortion to make what is in reality a very small scale phenomenon appear commonplace. Transvestism does not harm anyone - it is simply the indulgence in a desire to dress up. Transgenderism on the other hand, causes physical harm to those who undergo surgery, mental harm to those who may only be clothing fetishists but get drawn into it because of liberal societal pressure, it causes psychological harm to people who are not confident in their sexuality and feel that it is better to be mutilated in order to be considered heterosexual, than to be openly homosexual - which of course is a better and more natural option, and would be the obvious choice were it not for transgenderist homophobes forcing their insane ideology on them.

For transgenderists, women who do not dress up in an increasingly gaudy and prostitute like manner, must be inwardly men, and in need of gender reassignment.  Likewise men who adopt the sexist stereotype in which women are portrayed as sex objects, must be real women!  This is offensive to men and women.  In the cases of Lesbians and Gay men, the transgenderist attack is purified homophobia.  In the case of children conditioned by liberal parents to think they must 'transition', it is child abuse.

SWPE opposes the trans agenda and especially the moves by the State and Trotskyite terrorists to make defence of nature illegal.  We call upon homosexuals to stand up and embrace their own sexuality and fight those who would have them feel that they must have cosmetic and genital surgery to make them more acceptable.  We call upon heterosexuals to oppose the transgenderists by accepting that homosexuals are born that way, and are not in need of any cure.

In a Socialist Britain, those who harm children - regardless of sexuality, religion, etc - will be dealt with with the mercy they have afforded their victims.  We will not tolerate the corruption of the youth. So-called parents who have told their children that they must transition because it suits the fashionability of said parents, will be treated as any other paedophile.  We are not liberals. We are Socialists. We fight for our people against decadence, degeneracy and all other forms of decay which come from the hedonistic ideology of self indulgent capitalism/trotskyism.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

The Barcelona Attack - Another MOSSAD Job?: Wilberg on Wednesday

As in Madrid, Manchester, London, Berlin etc. (not to mention New York 9/11) so now in Barcelona.
Important questions:
1. Why do the so-called 'Islamist' terrorists always leave their passports or ID behind - even in the rubble of the Twin Towers?!
2. Why are the terrorists always shot and killed, even if they are unarmed or only have knives - instead of being interrogated? (Clue: the dead don't speak).
Forget ISIS and Al Qaida. Think MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence and covert terror operation - famous for stealing passports and giving active support to ISIS.
Pity ISIS didn’t exist in 2004 to take blame for the Madrid bombing which had Israeli Mossad fingerprints all over.
The train bombings occurred one year after one million Spaniards joined up to 30 million other people around the world in protesting the imminent Iraq invasion, an Israel’s proxy war, and in the context of the Spanish people’s overwhelming rejection of the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq.
Catalans are holding a referendum on October 1, 2017 to split from Spain. Spain’s Jewish Lobby is against a independent Catalonian State, fearing a pro-Palestine country in Europe. Most Catalonians support boycotting Israeli products.
For a list of Mossad terror and false flag operations see article below:
Now before you laugh and head off to get a coffee, just stop and think for a moment. Would any real group of…

Marxism for the 21st Century: Wilberg on Wednesday

What most people, including socialists and communists, SIMPLY DON’T KNOW...

·   Where do commercial banks get the money to lend you, your family, businesses or national governments? No, notfrom savings accounts or other reserves – but, quite literally, from nothing. They create the money they lend simply by keying figures into a deposit account.  It is this fictitious electronic money, created from thin air, that they then count as an ‘asset’ on their books – but also demand be paid ‘back’ by the borrower – with interest. To top it all they have total freedom to make a lot more money by selling loans they make on the financial markets.  So when an individual, a business - or a government -  takes a loan from a commercial bank, they are giving it free licence to create that money for itself – but then paying that bank the same amount of money to do so! Banks literally lend money into existence – principally for themselves. Long ago commercial banks were prohibited by law from printing their own paper notes. But technology has changed, and with it the means of production of money. The result is that banks can once again effectively ‘print’ their own money in another way – by creating it electronically and as digital money. As a result, 97% of all money in circulation does not consist of notes and coins that are printed or minted by governments but is money created  by commercial banks – as debt. That means commercial banks have an almost complete monopoly on the money supply of nations. It also means that all capitalist economies are now debt-based and debt-fuelled. For if all debt were paid back there would be no money in the economy. Yet national governments, banks and treasuries have for a long time been banned by international agreement from creating their own money in the same way that commercial banks do all the time. The issue of paper currencies such as Greenbacks as  debt- and interest-free money that began even before the American Civil War - to be used for investment in public spending and the real economy - was the real cause of the war of Independence, in which King George was backed by the bankers. And all governments that have since sought to overturn the monopoly of banks – in particular the big international banks – on the supply of money, have been sanctioned, trade-embargoed or targeted for ‘regime change’.  

2.   The BIG LIE swallowed by The Left 

Most people – including Labourites and those on the Left, still swallow the BIG LIE that governments are dependenton either taxation or borrowing from the big international banks to fund public spending, and that therefore the only area of choice governments and political parties have therefore, is  between either implementing or arguing for more or less ‘austerity’ (to bring down the national debt) or else for greater or lesser tax increases or reductions. The idea of ‘sovereign money’ - independent, national and state money-creation - does not even occur to them and is never so much as mentioned in the media or parliament. Those who advocate ‘socialism’ as the solution however, still think principally in terms of  the traditional aim of renationalising key industries, public utilities  and services. What they do not realise – and why they have lost credibility - is that this is actually quite impossible without renationalising money and money creation. Then again the traditional Marxist expectation that capitalism would collapse through a falling rate of profit, unemployment and wage stagnation is completely out-dated. For finance capitalism in its new form came up with an answer to this ages ago – by getting workers to use credit cards and ‘pay-day loans’ to borrow the money they couldn’t earn as low-paid wage-slaves and become debt-slaves as well - and by forcing governments to borrow from the banks too.

3. Why the Left – including the socialist and even communist Left – has lost credibility

Because it has failed to keep up with the times and the changing nature of capitalism it has made itself an easy target for the Thatcherist-Reaganite claim that There is No Alternative  -  offering as it does no clear counter-argument to the ‘false-flag’ issue of ‘national debt’ – which is solely a result of the international finance capitalism and not ‘over-spending on the part of national governments.  Marx long ago recognised the predatory and parasitic nature of unproductive, credit- and debt-fuelled finance capital - what he called “usury capital”. As Michael Hudson writes:  “Marx expected the Industrial Revolution’s upsweep to be strong enough to replace this system with one of productive credit, yet he certainly had no blind spot for financial parasitism. “Both usury and commerce exploit the various modes of production,” he wrote. “They do not create it, but attack it from the outside.”  “Usury centralises money wealth,” Marx elaborated. “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself to it as a parasite and makes it miserable. It sucks its blood, kills its nerve, and compels reproduction to proceed under even more disheartening conditions … usurer’s capital does not confront the labourer as industrial capital,” but “impoverishes this mode of production, paralyzes the productive forces instead of developing them.” Yet neither Marx, Engels nor Lenin could possibly have anticipated how what Marx called “fictitious money” would – through the digital era and as electronic money – become the principal form both of money and a means of unprecedented wealth expropriation through debt. 

“Engels noted that Marx would have emphasized how finance remained largely predatory had he lived to see France’s Second Empire and its “world-redeeming credit-phantasies” explode in “a swindle of a magnitude never witnessed before.” But more than any other writer of his century, Marx described how periodic financial crises were caused by the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, without regard for growth in productive powers. This self-expanding growth of financial claims, Marx wrote, consists of “imaginary” and “fictitious” capital inasmuch as it cannot be realized over time. When fictitious financial gains are obliged to confront the impossibility of paying off the exponential growth in debt claims – that is, when scheduled debt service exceeds the ability to pay – breaks in the chain of payments cause crises. “The greater portion of the banking capital is, therefore, purely fictitious and consists of certificates of indebtedness … A point arrives at which bankers and investors recognize that no society’s productive powers can long support the growth of interest-bearing debt at compound rates. Seeing that the pretense must end, they call in their loans and foreclose on the property of debtors, forcing the sale of property under crisis conditions as the financial system collapses in a convulsion of bankruptcy.”

4. What even ‘hard-line’ communists or supposed ‘Marxists’  fail to see...

Global finance capitalism and other form of ‘rentier capitalism’ - in which profit takes the principal form of income received as interest, rent, bonds and other financial instruments is fast transforming itself into a new form of neo-feudalism based on debt-slavery. In this neo-feudal ‘world order’, there quite simply is no longer a national ‘ruling class’ either - just a parasitic sub-class of non-productive rentiers and bankers – themselves puppets of an international financial or ‘rentier’ elite (that far-less-than 1% who own most of the world’s wealth). In those countries where a national ruling class of productive industrial capitalists does still exist to some extent, the ruling international financial elite works constantly to overpower it – for example through the exercise of international money power (World Bank and IMF) as well as through political destabilisation or outright war. The only empire in the world today is ‘The Empire of Money’ – which has no respect for any ethnic, cultural or spiritual traditions, though it is happy to pit them against one another. Imperialist states such as the U.S. are just the military-political instruments deployed by The Empire of Money and its masters – the global financial elite represented by the Bilderberg Group. Political independence – for example in Greece, Russia or Scotland - is a necessary precondition for monetary independence (i.e. sovereign money creation) but is meaningless without this monetary independence. The Republic of Ireland was the proof of the pudding – for without monetary independence its historically hard-earned national independence proved no political defence against the power of predatory international finance capitalism. And Scotland, if it wins political independence, may bask in and even benefit from this for a while – but without monetary independence from the international banks, this national ‘independence’ will eventually prove illusory.  

5. The Gaping Black Hole in Political and Economic Thinking 

Throughout Europe and the world, people are groaning under the weight of financially imposed austerity measures and resulting,unemployment, impoverishment, joblessness and debt – unable to afford even food and medicine, or to get or do anything with their skills and education. As a result, hundreds of thousands regularly take to the streets to vent their rage in countries such Italy, Spain and Greece. Yes, they could and should cancel their debts to international banks. But then what? The gaping hole that even in these countries you will not find a single political party or movement - of either the Left or Right, far-Left or far-Right - with a policy that recognises that the only solution to national and global poverty and immiseration is the renationalisation of money and money creation. This was the solution that Lincoln first came up with – so no surprise he was assassinated!

6. Falling Prey to the old Ploy - Divide and Rule

Greeks blaming Germans, neo-Nazis blaming immigrants or Islam, UKIP and others blaming the EU – and none of them have a clue! This applies even to ‘communist’ parties across the globe, who still think industrial corporations rule the world - when in reality they are just ‘cash cows’ for  predatory finance capitalism – why else would up to 40% of the price of manufactured goods just go to paying off interest to the banks or keeping speculative financial shareholders happy? It is these same ‘communists’ who still think in terms of a parochial class war between a national ‘working class’ or ‘proletariat’ and a national ‘ruling class’ or ‘bourgeoisie’, i.e. who simply do not see that what is happening is the rise of a national underclass (working or not-working) in all countries and an international  ruling class of bankers and financiers on the other – with ever less and less classes and strata of society in between. 

7. Lessons from History

A comparable state of affairs that history offers us was the creation of a vast national underclass in Germany following the massive financial burden placed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Two boxers came out into the ring to slug it out – the German Communists in one corner and Hitler and his ‘National Socialists’ in the other. Both knew a thing or two. The Communists blamed the capitalist system. Fair enough. But you can’t tangibly see an economic ‘system’ in the same way you can see an orthodox Jew (or a Pakistani Muslim) on your street - or know that a family in your block of flats, religious or not, is Jewish or are immigrants. Nice ‘Right hook’ from Adolf - bringing a first point on his score card - and that of the racist, anti-immigrant or anti-Islamic far-right movements of today. The Communists also knew from Lenin that finance capitalism had a big part to play in the current capitalist came. Too true.  But then another hefty ‘Right hook’ from Adolf – focussing on the international nature of finance capitalism and identifying its machinations with a global Jewish conspiracy. The Communists of course, didn’t go along with the anti-Semitic line (recognising as they did that “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”) but nor did they sufficiently emphasise the national nature of the German people’s struggle and the international nature of their enemy. How could they, given that Hitler could score yet another point by identifying all Communists and Marxists with the ‘traitors’ who paved the way for Versailles – the latter having seeing this war simply as an ‘imperialist war’ when in reality it was a war waged by English finance capitalism against the threatening power of German industrial capitalism - industrial capitalism having been long on the wane in England itself. Once in power of course, Hitler himself would eventually avail himself of American banks and bankers and financiers – including those from whose family Messrs. Bush Senior and Junior hail. But before that Hitler had also used a form of national, state-issued money to rebuild the economy - with such success that whilst Britain and America were suffering ‘The Great Depression’, the German economy was booming (and that despite a complete trade embargo being imposed on Germany as punishment by the international bankers for such an act of national financial insolence). Nor did the Communists acknowledge that the Kaiser himself had granted German workers more rights and benefits than in England or any other capitalist economy. Thatcher was renowned for seeing England as a ‘nation of shopkeepers’. Well, that’s exactly how the Kaiser and many other Germans saw England before WW1 – as a country of purely self-interested and utilitarian traders, wheelers and dealers – lacking all depth of soul and richness of culture. So the war was seen as a war ‘for culture’ and against a particularly soul-less English form of capitalism - of the sort that Margaret Thatcher would later become the chief ideologist and promoter of.

8.  The Gaping Black Hole of Monetary Ignorance – and the Message that MUST be put out 

One can play around – and many do – with a whole variety of different ideological combinations of ethnic identitarianism, nationalism and traditional socialism or communism – and do so till the cows come home. But so long as those foreign looking guys over there with their long beards are seen as more of a threat than your friendly and familiar high street banks and their underpaid staff you’re being conned. For those banks are like the brush head of a vast global hoover - sucking immense wealth from your high street to the City of London and Wall Street, and ending up in the hands of a ruling elite of criminal banking financiers like Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, J.P. Morgan etc. That is why it is above all important that socialists and communists of all varieties finally recognise what they simply don’t know – and unlike many non-socialists haven’t bothered to even research and cotton onto – namely that banking, even on the high-street level is legalised fraud. That a mortgage or car loan for example, even in terms of Common Law, is a fraudulent transaction; that, unlike money you put in a piggy bank or safe deposit box, it is not you but your bank that actually owns the money you deposit in it; that your bank creates the money it lends you from nothing - a new form of counterfeiting -  and that it makes so much money from your loans and deposits that it effectively owes you ten or a hundred times more than you either borrow from or deposit with it it.It is high time therefore for socialists and communists to wake up to the central significance for our times of just onesingle policy that was already stated in The Communist Manifesto - “the centralisation of credit in the hands of the state”. Unless the demand for National People’s Banks and National People’s Money – issued debt- and interest-free - and invested into the real economy and not the private banking system itself - goes right to the top of any new political manifesto, the central issue of our times will remain unaddressed – the monopoly of international and commercial banks on money creation - and their consequent stranglehold on national governments of any colour or ideological persuasion, and that however nobly ‘nationalistic’ or ‘socialistic’ their aims may be.

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

4PT - On the Need for a ‘Fourth Political Theory’... Wilberg on Wednesday

It is my firm belief, shared with Stalin, that Marxism is not a dogma but must undergo constant development. It is also my belief, shared with Alexander Dugin, that political theory and its language - whilst drawing on their best elements - must now go beyond all three principal ideologies of the 20th century - namely bourgeois liberalism and individualism (i.e. egotism), Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism and what he calls ‘fascism’. I believe it would be more accurate to speak of National Socialism rather than ‘fascism’, since this shared a number of common features with Stalin’s ‘Socialism in one Country’ and the Russo-German tradition of ‘National Bolshevism’ that both influenced Stalin and survived his death. Though Stalin held to the language of Marxism-Leninism and Hitler’s economic success was inspired by Gottfried Feder’s analysis of usury capital, both leaders were forced by circumstance to place geopolitical considerations at the core of their practical policies. Recognising this, Dugin’s great contribution to political thought has been to rescue geopolitics from the margins of political theory and place it at its centre. In doing so he also returned to and recognised the central significance of McKinder’s model of global geopolitics which, since 1904, had been the foundation of Western imperialist foreign policy and the basis of its central agenda - to create a unipolar global hegemony of the ‘arc’ of oceanic capitalist ‘crescent’ states and their culture by using all possible means, not least the instigation of multi-front wars, to prevent the rise of a ‘multi-polar’ world, i.e. one based on an axis of regions and countries belonging to the Eurasian ‘heartland’ - and based on mutual respect for each other’s cultures. From this perspective the war between Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany - Russia and Germany having been the most important countries of the Heartland - was a catastrophic success for U.S. hegemonic imperial interests and ambitions. For despite military victory at enormous human cost, the Soviet Union and its Red Empire ultimately did not survive this war - West Germany having been turned into an vassal state of the U.S. Empire - to be followed, after the fall of the USSR and DDR - by all the countries of Eastern Europe. Thankfully, nations such as Russia and China have, after faltering during the post-Mao and Yeltsin eras, since refused to bow to the hegemonic unipolar model of Western global capitalism and geopolitics - though like the USSR and National Socialist Germany - and Iran, North Korea and China today - they are both now targets of Zionist backed US-NATO military expansionism, aggression and political-cultural subversion. Of course there is far more to Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory than ‘mere’ geopolitics, not least since it argues that, historically, politically - and philosophically - there is far more to ‘geopolitics’ itself than meets the eye. And though he does not present his book as a dogma but as an invitation to a new form of meta-political discussion and discourse, I concur with his basic thesis that neither Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism nor National Socialism, neither purely class nor race-based ideologies any longer offer an adequate, comprehensive and deep enough philosophical and theoretical foundation for our era - and that whatever vital and highly relevant elements they both still retain. It is Dugin’s recognition of these still relevant elements, together with his foundational Heideggerian philosophy, that have led to him becoming, like Martin Heidegger, a thinker reviled in the West - accused of promoting a toxic and veritably ‘Satanic’ Stalino-Nazi ideology, being Putin’s ‘Rasputin’ etc. So whilst, as a philosopher, I have both sympathy for and also question certain aspects of Dugin’s brand of 4PT, I am most certainly of the view that a ‘Fourth Political Theory’ is necessary - and that such a theory can only come to fruition through a constructive critical and questioning response to both Dugin and Heidegger.
Note: This is also the reason why, whilst in sympathy with many of the policies of SWPE, I see my role as one of contributing to a rethinking of their ‘classical’ political-theoretical foundations - elements of which I see as either partly contradicting or at least as not helpful in opening the way for a far deeper and more detailed philosophical, theoretical and practical articulation of these policies in the historical and geopolitical context of our times.