31 January 2018

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

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections:


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

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

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

See also: http://www.unz.com/article/wicked-muslims-innocent-jews/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






Further questions in this context:

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

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

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

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

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

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




See also report on Rabbinical support for the Islamisation of Europe: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish bankers had their grip on America already from the 18th century onward: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=640

A most interesting critical review by Keven MacDonald of “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mYBcq78yIvKOHaRJEH6hPqOZAsryPQpC/view?usp=sharing This reveals the immense and disproportionate influence of Jews in the institutions of the USSR right up until the immediate years before Stalin’s death.