4 April 2018

Notes on Globalism and its Counter-Power - Wilberg on Wednesday

From ‘Third Positionism’ to ‘Fourth Political Theory’ and Neo-Eurasianism

“What, then, constitutes the alienation of labour? First, the fact that labour is external to the worker … He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labour is shunned like the plague … Lastly, the external character of labour for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another.” Marx

Is there any alternative to the bleak picture presented here by Marx - and made manifest in the history of both Soviet-style ‘socialism’ and Western capitalism.  Can we find in modern history any successful ‘Third Positionist’ challenges to ‘globalisation’ - in contrast to purely utopian forms of ‘socialism’? For an answer to this question I believe we need to look more closely at German National Socialism, Syrian Social Nationalism, German and Russian National Bolshevism, but also and in particular the metamorphosis of the latter into Eurasianism through Dugin’s ‘Fourth Political Theory’ (4PT). This is now represented by Putin’s Russia.  That is why Western anti-Russian propaganda has now taken on the same proportions as hysterical anti-German propaganda and warmongering did  in the 20th century. At the same time U.S. military hawks have freely admitted that for them, the Motherland called ‘Russia’ - together with Central Asia and the Caucasus, are seen as nothing but a huge standing reserve of gas and other natural ‘resources’ - which America has the God-given right to appropriate. “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country” (Senator John McCain).

Can Hitler’s Germany or Putin’s Russia be simply dismissed by the term ‘national capitalism’? I think not. Instead I think they force us to apply more discernment to traditional socialist and even Marxist understandings of both ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’. Russian capitalism is not a debt-based and finance-driven capitalism of the Anglo-American type - one which also expresses the Judaic essence of globalism as Heidegger saw it. Russia’s current national debt to GDP ratio is very low, it has a national state bank, and its thieving oligarchs have been punished or expelled. Germany under Hitler simply abolished its national debt. Neither the policies of Hitler’s Germany nor that of Putin’s Russia were or are ideal societies free of contradictions - and there are many differences between them. But what they have in common was a successful striving to create an authentic sense of patriotic national unity based on respect for the shared values that defined the Fatherland or Motherland - ensured by the decisive use of state power to force large capitalist companies to do nothing that in any way went against the interests of either workers or the nation as a whole.  This in itself served to overcome ‘the alienation of labour’ in a very successful way - since the proletariat could genuinely feel its labour as serving and belonging to itself as the nation - and not just commanded by party bureaucrats, bankers or bosses. It also explains the success of Putin - and how he could at the same time both allow the inauguration a museum for the victims of Jewish-led anti-Russian and post-revolutionary terror in Russia and the USSR, whilst also respecting the sacrifices made in the ‘Great Patriotic War’ led by Stalin.  The Great Paradox and tragedy of this war, of course, is that it was a war of aggression against Germany itself, long planned by Stalin and not by Hitler. Stalin’s aim was to impose Soviet-style ‘socialism’ on the whole of Europe, Western as well as Eastern, by invasion - believing as he did that communist parties in Europe would not, in the end, be successful in rousing the proletariat to this end. Hence his huge disappointment, even directly after winning the war, that this prime objective had not been achieved. Hitler, on the other hand, had no interest in war with Russia until the massive build-up of numerically superior air power and tank divisions made a defensive Blitzkrieg-style strike unavoidable - hence his countless concessions and proposals for reasonable peace agreements, all of which were ignored. Let us pray the same fate does not await Russia - despite all its diplomatic efforts to thwart Western warmongering. Let us hope also that Putin recognises the importance of state money issuance free of entrapment to Western debt-slavery West - see this video. Today there is only one game in town, and that is still the old ‘Great Game’ of global geopolitics and money power - now steadily reaching its ultimate climax. The game is a continuation of the old British and now US-led aim to complete its drive for total global unipolar hegemony - even at the price of a third world war. The Game began with Halford Mackinder’s (1905) identification of a potential ‘Heartland’ uniting Russia, Europe and Central Asia that would threaten British colonial interests. The name of this Heartland is Eurasia, which, with its huge reservoir of natural resources - is destined to become ‘the new Middle East’. That is why it is so central to US economic and military policy to totally remove Russia from the ‘Great Game’, for example by means of attacks from Ukraine and through the Westernisation and Balkanisation of the Caucasus and the countries of Central Asia. Unbeknownst, even by name, to most Europeans, these countries have already long served as a primary conduit for CIA-backed heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia. But Central Asia has already been the object of covert destabilisation operations by the CIA, MI6 and the sinister armed thugs and assassins of ‘Gladio B’. These operations include both false-flag terrorist operations, political assassinations, the fuelling of ethnic and border conflicts, the employment of Al Qaida and ISIS-style mercenaries, and the massive US-based funding of hundreds of new Wahhabist mosques in order to alienate the long-existing native Muslim populations that also formed part of a multi-ethnic USSR - and instead bring them to the side of the global Atlanticist Empire - with the US as its head and Europe and NATO as its puppet. In opposition to this scheme is the Chinese plan for a new Chinese Silk Road through Central Asia, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Then there is also the Eurasian Economic Union with its centre in Moscow, an integrated single market of 183 million people and a gross domestic product of over 4 trillion U.S. dollars. But what has all this do with Europe, Britain and Brexit? What has it got to do with ‘socialism’?  People may think that Theresa May’s rabid anti-Russian hysteria is merely a ‘distraction’ from the rock-and-hard place contradictions of Brexit and the already proceeding fall of Britain - even before an agreement on the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU - into a ‘failed state’ characterised by a collapsed NHS, food banks, housing shortages, the end of free school meals, the fall in mortality age and other effects of ultra-austerity and the bankster driven immiseration of working people. In reality however, this is only part of the story. For behind the battle over Brexit lies the real battle - the most decisive global battle for humanity as a whole. This is the battle to oppose and prevent Atlanticist global economic, cultural and political hegemony over both Britain and Europe. The the main Atlanticist target in  Europe is (once again) Germany - the aim being to eradicate it through mass migration from Africa facilitated by the demolition of Gaddafi’s Libya. Yet what Theresa May has now made absolutely clear is that a post-Brexit Britain will - above all else - serve the warmongering Atlanticist Alliance - in opposition to a Eurasianist Alliance - an axis of sovereign countries already united by peaceful accords based on mutual respect and seeking nothing but peace and prosperity its essentially autonomous nations, cultures and ethnicities. 

The Fourth Political Theory recognises the defeat of Communism in the USSR, and the defeat also of Fascism and National Socialism. Capitalist liberalism - the 1st  political theory - won the wars of the 20th century. Hence the need to transcend the horizons of the Second and Third main 20th Century theories - Communism and Fascism/National Socialism - along with all its ‘Third Positionist’ varieties - whilst at the same time incorporating their best elements within 4PT. The effective result of this is a ‘Global Revolutionary Alliance’ (Dugin) against today’s totalitarian Liberalism and aggressive Atlanticism. We are not speaking of any institutionalised Alliance but rather an already existing and informal one which is increasingly transcending ideological differences between various Right, Left socialist and also Third Positionist ideologies -  uniting them under the banner that ‘your enemy is my enemy’. For as Dugin stresses, every single individual - as well as any family, group, party, community or nation - that attacks the Global Atlanticist Alliance is already and de facto a member of the ‘Global Revolutionary Alliance’ - one that cannot take the form of an ideologically monolithic ‘International’ except at the price of losing support from one or more of the countless groups, parties and nations, however small, that can ally within it - however disparate their theories and visions may be. True, 4PT is itself a meta-political theory, just as Eurasianism is both a geopolitical reality and a vision for humanity. I myself interpret what Dugin calls 4PT and Neo-Eurasianism as leading to a vision of a community of autonomous individuals and communities, whether on a regional, countrywide or local basis. Any central HQ or state power would have the sole role of cultivating their development, defence and mutual cooperation on strategic political and geopolitical level  and providing them with the necessary common infrastructure for transport, trade and secure communication - rather than imposing its own power and authority over these individuals and communities. This goes hand in hand with the concept of ‘Counter Power’ - “power in the hand of individuals who are not a part of the Establishment” (SMPBI) and whose genuinely free association as individuals, families, communities and peoples allows them to release themselves from the grip of technological and capitalist enslavement - not by rejecting technology in its entirety, but by rejecting its purely calculative and exploitative instrumentalisation in the service of globalist technology and its debt-based money power.


Dugin, Alexander  Eurasian Mission - an introduction to Neo-Eurasianism
Dugin, Alexander The Fourth Political Theory
Heidegger, Martin The Question Concerning Technology
Heidegger, Martin Discourse on Thinking
Marx, Karl Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

Other material by Peter Wilberg:


Anonymous said...

I think Britain should be part of the Eurasian Alliance. We may be leaving the EU but we are still geopolitically and historically part of Europe/Eurasia.

Anonymous said...

What? Hitler had no interest on invading Russia?
Stalin wanted to impose Russian rule all over Europe?
Hitler unlike Strasser was anti-Russian, he wanted to expand to the Urals and and regarded Russians as "untermenschen".
It was Hitler, NOT Stalin who broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Who launched Operation Barbarossa on the 22nd of June 1941?
As for Stalin, he wanted Socialism in One Country.
He was against the westward offensive in Poland unlike Lenin and Trotzky during the 1920 Polish-Soviet war.
Stalin had to do what he did in 1945-1949 because after losing so many Soviet citizens during the Great Patriotic War it was under threat fro US imperialism, the Marshall Plan and so on.
He wanted to protect his border and made sure nobody attacked Russia again. What the USA is doing today. The Eastern Block countries had more freedom in relationship to the USSR than Nato members in relationship to the USA. When Albania and Romania wanted to leave the Warsaw Pact they could. What Nato country ever left the Atlantic Alliance?
I only wish that the Strasser Brothers, the Brown Shirts and the real Nationalsocialists won the 1934 Night of the Long Knifes and that Hitler would have been thrown out of power. History would have a different turn.