9/11: A Capitalist Crime that has been used as an excuse to Murder Millions.

Seventeen years ago on what was an incredibly hot and sunny day in the UK, the weather was not the major topic of discussion for the weather-obsessed Brits, but rather what was on practically everyone's minds was the horrific events unfolding across the Atlantic Ocean in New York.

On the 11th of September 2001, aeroplanes were crashed into the two World Trade Centre towers, with massive loss of life and with the collapse of not only the towers, but other buildings not hit by the aeroplanes.  The massacre was immediately blamed on Saudi Arabian CIA agent, Osama Bin Laden, and his Al Qaeda (Al CIAda) network of terrorists.

Interestingly, although the blame was lain on a Saudi, the USA did not take the logical step of attacking Saudi Arabia, in order to bring down the brutal regime which sponsors Wahhabi/Salafi terrorism world-wide - and which has since been proven to have been guilty of funding the WTC massacre - but rather, the USA launched an attack upon the nation of Afghanistan, under the pretext that Bin Laden was in that country at the time of the attack!  One man was focused upon.  The organisation he fronted (Al Qaeda) had been created by the USA to undermine the USSR's attempt to defend itself from Islamic terrorists operating on its borders, but was now redefined as a terrorist threat to the USA.  Afghanistan was duly invaded and seventeen years later is still occupied by Yankee imperialists working for the benefit of the global capitalist corporations.  The Taliban had never been a threat to the USA, other than a threat to its criminal trade in heroin, which they had began to disrupt before their country was invaded.  Heroin production and the resulting human misery thus caused is at an all time high thanks to the US occupation - as are the profits of the scum who put money before people and see nothing wrong in the despicable trade in death.

After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, came the great lie that Iraq was a terrorist menace and that it too had to be 'liberated' from its legitimate government.  The infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction lie was created - along with the War Criminal Tony Blair's 'dodgy dossier' to justify the destruction of a safe secular country, which seventeen years on is a wasteland, recovering from the US-created Islamic State terrorist regime, which began there as a staging post for the attack on Syria.  Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been a rich and peaceful country, which policed Islamic extremists with the rigour necessary to keep their insanity from corrupting the masses. After Saddam Hussein was illegally judicially murdered by the puppet regime serving the US imperial occupiers, the fundamentalist lunatics were encouraged to grow in strength, and the new bogeyman of IS was the result.

Between the brutal genocidal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US quietly moved to attack the nation of Yemen for the benefit of the brutal madmen in Saudi Arabia (the kingdom behind 9/11!) The genocide of the Yemen is ongoing although there is virtually a media black out on this tragedy, with most people not even knowing that the country is being obliterated by the House of Saud and its US allies.

The US terror train did not stop in the Middle East, but next went to Africa, interfering in country after country, to ensure that the economic power of the USA was upheld, making a string of African countries vassals of the US Empire in all but name.

Using the pretext of the environmental disaster in Haiti, the USA invaded Haiti in order to 'help' the country to deal with the 'natural' catastrophe besetting it.  Haiti has not since gained real autonomy from the US Empire.  The natural disaster saved the USA from having to create a political pretext for invasion.  In Venezuela, the legitimate Socialist system has been undermined to create great profits for the globalist capitalists, at the same time as great misery for Venezuelans.

Returning to their War OF Terror, the USA returned (although they never left!) to Africa in 2007 to invade Somalia. The result was the fracturing of the country and the explosion in Islamic (Wahhabi) extremism. Somalia became the Islamic State of Africa, all thanks to the supposedly anti-terrorist US intervention!

In 2011, the brutal butchers of the USA, under the order of puppet president Obama, invaded the rich and friendly nation of Libya, the bread basket of Africa and great hope for the continent. The much beloved father of Libya, Muammar Gadaffi, was murdered by the cold blooded butchers of Al Qaeda - the ones hated by the USA for 9/11 but now loved by them as liberators of Libya's oil(!) - and the country ruined.  The Gold Dinar proposed as a currency for an Africa free from the IMF was scrapped, and secular rule was replaced by rival religious terrorist lunacies.  The on-going invasion of Europe by economic migrants and wahhabi terrorists claiming to be 'refugees' was unthinkable with Libya acting as a barrier to them, but under US control it is accelerating for the benefit of global capitalist filth, who trade in human misery and in the destabilisation of the planet to make their misrule harder to fight against. 

Since 2014, the USA has been aiding Al Qaeda terrorists (back in the good books, all is forgiven, 9/11 is in the memory hole!) in their barbaric assault of the free people of Syria. The US creation of Islamic State was spread into Syria from the US base in Iraq.

Seventeen years after 9/11, the US terror machine has broken country after country, creating Islamic terrorist states across the globe. Poverty and the power of the IMF has increased. Manufactured waves of 'refugees' have made Europe unsafe, creating job insecurity which the globalist corporations have exploited to boost their own profits whilst making the indigenous Working Class fear for our futures.  Austerity is a part of the War OF Terror.

In the Ukraine, the US puppet regime has murdered vast numbers of Russians and Free Ukrainians as the US Empire spreads its terrorist army of NATO to the borders of Russia and Belarus.

The world in 2001 was a happier and safer place. The Saudi/US/Global Capitalist menace has destroyed, or is destroying, the following countries using 9/11 as the excuse:

Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq
Somalia
Sudan
Chad
Libya
Syria
Ukraine
Cameroon
Kurdistan
Palestine

It is occupying by stealth many other nations, impoverishing and brutalising vast areas of Asia, Africa, South America and Europe.   The stateless globalist Empire is destroying free countries everywhere.  The spread of fear in the EU and UK is a result of the combined terrorist weapons of economic Austerity and fake Refugees created by the puppet Islamic State in occupied Iraq and Syria.

The War OF Terror has created Islamic terrorism on a scale unthinkable before, yet curiously, just as with the fortuitous failure of Israelis to go to work in the WTC on the day of the massacre, Israel itself has not been attacked by the alleged enemies which encircle it!  Israel is the centre of operations of Global Banking Capitalism, adding another dimension to the US terror machine.

There is an undeniable wealth of evidence to prove that 9/11 was contrived to justify the creation of an unofficial Global Corporate and Finance Capitalist Empire.   The following are a sample of videos which cover some of the material concerning the atrocities of and since 9/11.  These videos have so far survived the Youtube purge, although that may change:

Those who fell on '9/11' were the first of many many thousands more to die at the hands of the Globalist tyrants. It will take a Global Revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and the foundation ideology which hides behind it.

Seventeen years have passed since the World Trade Centre Massacre on the 11th September 2001.  The atrocity has been referred to as an event which changed the world, and that certainly is the case.

The world of 11.9.01 was a happier place than the world we live in now.  There were problems, but none as extreme as the ones we accept today as part of normal life.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban government had just scorched all the Opium Poppy fields and it looked as if the scourge of Heroin and its associated crime would become a thing of the past, or at least reduced.  Things were looking good.

Following the 9/11 murders, President Bush Jr announced that a mysterious group known as Al Qaeda had carried out the attacks, and that their leader, a certain Osama Bin Laden, was hiding in Afghanistan.  He maintained that the Taliban were supporters of Bin Laden and that the USA would deal with these killers once and for all.  The problem was that this story was a lie.  Unbeknownst to the world at large, the Taliban had warned the USA about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.  They were also implacable enemies of Bin Laden who did not trust the man or his version of Islam.  The idea of them harbouring the man the USA claimed was responsible for the attacks was ludicrous.  There must have been an ulterior motive for targeting the Taliban.

The world only had to wait until the next month for the USA to attack Afghanistan, and not much longer to discover the real motive behind the libelling of the Taliban as the 9/11 butchers.  It was, in  a word, Opium. In 1999, NATO had bombed the European nation of Serbia in order to establish the criminal vipers nest of Kosovo.  Kosovo was established to facilitate the importing of Heroin into Europe.  The mercenaries used to defeat the people of Serbia were the terrorists used to undermine the Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  They were designated by their CIA handlers, 'The Cell', or to use the Arabic term, Al Qaeda.  Given their own criminal state in Europe, these vile creatures were responsible for ensuring that Europe was flooded with Heroin; the sale of which would be laundered through the banks.  The destruction of European lives and the vast profit made thereby was interrupted by the Taliban's burning of the Opium fields.

The Taliban had initially made use of Al Qaeda to eject the Soviet imperialists from their country.  As long as they played along with the demands of the criminals in London and Washington DC, the Taliban were left alone to conduct their affairs as they saw fit.  Football stadia were turned into public execution centres for undesirables but the hypocrites of the liberal-Establishment said and did nothing.  As long as the Heroin flowed out of Afghanistan, the rulers could behave as they pleased.  Seventeen years after 9/11, Afghanistan is certainly a different place. The soil is littered with more dead foreign soldiers than the total number murdered in New York City as an excuse to invade that country, and there are well over twelve times that number of dead Afghans.  The country continues to be a battleground with the Afghan Resistance fighting on to liberate their land.  In contrast to 2001, Heroin production is running at near capacity, protected by internationalist servicemen to benefit the political-economic elite and to destroy the home nations.

In 2003 the elusive Bin Laden was forgotten for a while, with the spotlight of the US-UK aggressors being focused on Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  It was alleged that the Iraqi nation was preparing to use 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'  against poor little Israel, and maybe even against targets in Europe .  This was a display of the most outrageous chutzpah by the war-mongers in the internationalist alliance centred on the UK and USA.  The infamous 'dodgy dossier' used by Prime Minister Blair to justify attacking Iraq was a complete forgery.  Even after the forgery was finally admitted, the aggression continued.

Iraq was an advanced nation which could trace its civilisation back to Babylon and Sumeria.  It was rich in culture and had vast oil reserves.  President Saddam Hussein had fought against Islamic extremism in Iraq, maintaining near secular rule, and even having Christians such as Tariq Aziz in his Government.  As part of his campaign against extremism he had waged war in the Kurdish Northwest of Iraq, murdering 182,000 people in the 1980s.  Alike to neighbouring Turkey where Kurds were also butchered, these crimes against humanity were conducted unhindered by the UK-USA cabal. Turkey continues to this day to butcher the people of Kurdistan, but like Iraq was, Turkey is an ally of the USA and allowed to murder at will.

Saddam Hussein prevented the rise of Wahhabi/Salafi Islam in Iraq, understanding that it would threaten the balance of Sunnis and Shi'ites.  He had commissioned research into the origins of the Wahhabists and found evidence proving they were a sect of non-Muslim origin which had infiltrated Islam with the objective of perverting and destroying the religion.  They were proscribed in Iraq and the Baghdad government had begun circulating information exposing the truth of the sect, and of Al Qaeda's ties to the USA.  Attempts to link Bin Laden and Hussein were as ridiculous as the WMD story, and equally deceitful.

The UK-USA coalition have systematically stripped Iraq of anything of economic value.  They have stolen the invaluable ancient Cuneiform Library (much still to be translated).  They have also taken control of oil production, which was the major reason for the invasion, rather than the nonsense of phantom WMDs.  Much has changed in Iraq since 11.9.01.  In 2001 Iraq was a vibrant modern nation, rich in culture and resources, with a tough ruler but one who maintained order for the majority; much of it now resembles a wasteland with depleted uranium scattered across the country from coalition artillery.  The death toll for the invaders runs to nearly 5000; for the inhabitants of Iraq, the death toll stands at a staggering quarter of a million ordinary Iraqi civilians murdered by the invaders or killed as a consequence of the invasion.  Is it any wonder that the people in neighbouring Iran are wary of the USA? Donald Trump's intermittent slandering of Iran and thinly veiled threats, do not help!

Public opposition to the Iraq invasion saw massive protests across Europe and elsewhere.  In order to keep people terrified by the spectre of Islamic extremism, on the 12th March 2004 Madrid was bombed (exactly 911 days after 9/11), followed on the 7th July 2004 by another copycat atrocity in London and then on the 1st October 2005 in Bali, bringing the fear of Islamic extremism to Australians.  Every case mirrored the 9/11 massacre insofar as Muslim extremists were blamed and ordinary civilians were murdered by agents working for their own governments.

As well as fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 'internationalist brigade' of the USA/UK and others, has been active in Somalia, the Sudan and other nations.  Using the pretext of fighting a War on terror, the globalists have no compunction about invading sovereign nations and initiating 'regime change' to replace governments who resist the globalist cabal, with compliant stooges.  This is done in the name of democracy, and scarcely anyone in the mainstream media remarks on the total hypocrisy of the rulers in London and their partners-in-crime.

Public dissent has become all but a criminal offence in many countries.  It has become common place for whistle blowers to die in mysterious circumstances, such as was the case with Dr David Kelly who questioned the London regime's WMD fantasy and was found dead shortly after.  His case has become one of many.  In 2001, one could be forgiven for believing that the UK was a free country; only a fool would believe that now.

Our streets are covered by a sea of CCTV cameras; our Police are armed with every non-lethal gadget imaginable (although many have died from Police use of these weapons); the everyday happy-go-lucky Briton of 2001 is a shadow of his or her former self, replaced by a timid and fearful soul who dare not use politically incorrect language or offer a serious opinion on any matter lest he or she be dragged off in the night.  This is not an exaggeration, if anything it downplays the tyranny in the UK.

In 2001 it took a contrived tale of a bogeyman in a cave to scare people into accepting war.  As we have seen by the invasion of Libya, and the involvement of UK military forces in attacking free Syria, the people will now accept any aggression without anything more than a tabloid færytale.  In Libya, tens of thousands of people have been murdered by NATO and their NTC stooges; this figure is an estimate from the NTC and certainly will not include the Black Africans butchered by the racists allied to NATO.  Ironically, the NTC contains Al Qaeda mercenaries.  Yes, the very same people who we are still told we are at war with.  In topsy turvy post 9/11 reality, what would provoke outrage in 2001 barely raises a murmur.  People have learnt to keep quiet and only have interest in trivial matters such as Reality TV, Celebrities and Sport.

Another result of the 9/11 New York Massacre has been the dæmonisation of Muslims.  Every Muslim is now perceived as a potential extremist.  There is no understanding that the Wahabbists of Al Qaeda (our allies in Libya!) are loathed by decent Muslims and are far from representative of Islam as a whole.  Groups such as the pro-Israel, English Defence League were created post-9/11 as anti-Muslim distractions, ramming Zionist propaganda into the minds of dis-satisfied English youths.  The EDL is all but gone, and in its place there are myriad grouplets of competing fantasists who imagine themselves as soldiers winning the Battle of Stalingrad, and Muslim-hating Zionists who cannot defend European Culture because they do not understand it.

In 2001 Europe and the USA were respected by the world, and the people were generally free to speak as they found.  As a direct result of the 9/11 Massacre, our nations have become Police States with total surveillance in all matters.  Criticism of authority has become equated with terrorism.  Fearful self-censorship has replaced freedom of expression.  Perpetual War has become a reality.  The upshot for the economy?  The richest people in society have profited massively from the theft of resources and commodities in occupied lands; the rest of us are suffering economic hardships which we would not have imagined possible in 2001.

2018 is not only seventeen years after 2001, it is a world apart, and not for the better.  Imperialist wars have made the world a much more dangerous place.  The global cabal could not have achieved the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya without the staged 9/11 attacks; nor could  Israel have continued its occupation of Judea and Samaria, and its siege of Gaza.  The prospect of a One World State is becoming a reality; bombed into place by NATO.  Without the 9/11 justification all this would have been much harder to accomplish.

Lest we forget the human face of the soldiers killed to further the interests of global finance, pictures of the British dead in Afghanistan and Iraq can be found here. These are joined by fellow Britons in the wars in Libya and elsewhere.  Others have died, not to mention servicemen from the USA and around the globe.  They died not in vain, but worse, for the global Ruling Class to gain more control over the Working Class worldwide.

Dying in vain is bad enough, but these men and women have died in order to extend the grip of power of the global financial parasite class; they have died as casualties in a war to crush freedom the world over, and they were unwittingly on the side of the enemies of humanity.  They are victims of globalism in a similar manner to the people they were fighting.  Similar, but not the same, as the people attacked by the globalist forces died fighting for freedom, or were simply murdered in cold blood without any justification.  'Our' soldiers are fighting for capitalism, and anyone who supports them in any way except demanding they come home, is an accomplice in the global march to serfdom for all except the self-perpetuating Ruling Class.

2.4 million people have been murdered as a result of the initial 9/11 massacre.  That is the reality of Capitalism.  Millions have been displaced, including those who have entered Europe as refugees and economic migrants.

Theresa May, Tony Blair, David Cameron, and the rest of the crocodile tear politicians, have the blood of millions on their hands. The attack on freedom through the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, serves to criminalise criticism of the forces behind 9/11 and the resulting wars.

On this day, the SMPBI stands in defiance of the parasites, and calls out the enemies of humanity. The Tories, Labour, Lib-dems, UKIP, Greens etc are happy to take the pay of the Globalist Capitalists and parrot the lies of the official 9/11 fable.  The deaths of millions and destruction of lives of many millions more, is the result of towing the line.  We will smash the Capitalist system in the Isles, destroy Zionist power and bring in a Socialist order which will not tolerate a single lie mouthed by the global enemy of humanity.  We have no doubt that this will provoke the ire of the global enemy, but we are sure that an educated and armed population of the British Isles, united with revolutionaries across the globe also throwing off the shackles of the capitalist system, will prevail.  Capitalism has slaughtered millions since 9/11 alone.  It has to be wiped from the globe.  SMPBI is a part of the international fight for freedom.

David Parry: Forging a Cultural Exchange between Azerbaijan and Britain

There are two things that can be said of Elchin Afandiyev: you will probably not have heard of him; you will be hearing a lot more about him in the future.

David Parry is a multi-talented individual, and when I attended, by invitation, a viewing of Citizens Of Hell Tuesday night, he was wearing his producer’s hat. Over the past few years, Parry has been nurturing cultural ties with the government of Azerbaijan, a country that has existed in its own right since only 1991.

Like Parry, Elchin Afandiyev is a multi-talented individual, a politician as well as a playwright, and this performance of his play Citizens Of Hell at Theatro Technis was a world first: the first time it had ever been performed either in the West or in English.

Community theatre is not for everyone, nor is Citizens Of Hell because it requires at least a superficial knowledge of one of the darkest periods of 20th Century history outside of its frequent wars, namely the Soviet Union under Stalin, in particular the denunciations and show trials which, contrary to what some continue to claim, was not a myth.

The play has only three characters: a husband and wife, and a mysterious visitor to their 5th floor apartment on New Year’s Eve 1937-8.

The play actually begins and ends with an art slide show set to music; there is a dialogue at the dinner table between the couple, then the stranger appears, and the wife recognises him for who he is at once, the Devil. That doesn’t stop her lending a hand when her husband attempts to strangle him, but after two resurrections there can be no doubt

Why would they resort to such violence? Because he tells them both some uncomfortable home truths about their respective roles in denouncing people to the authorities, and produces a letter the husband had written to Comrade Stalin himself.

Old Nick’s physical manifestation is hardly a new theme of course, it can be found in both literature and films including The Devil’s Advocate and ten years earlier in Angel Heart, but there is nothing as covert as either of those appearances here.

How does the story end? That would be telling, suffice it to say, the Devil is the only good guy in this two act play. The role is filled by Dominic O’Flynn, who currently has five entries in the IMDb. Expect to see a lot more in future.

The play Citizens Of Hell was performed at the Theatro Technis in North London. It was only a small production at a community theatre, but there is one man who hopes to see a mighty oak grow from this tiny acorn. The play was directed by lecturer David Parry, and it is important because? This was the first performance in the West and in English of this miniature, which was written by Elchin Afandiyev, who is a politician as well as a playwright in Azerbaijan.

On the Saturday following its premiere, producer Parry and the rest of his small but enthusiastic team mingled with representatives of the Azerbaijan Government. The play was sponsored by the country’s Ministry Of Culture And Tourism, and supported by the London Embassy.

Parry’s next project is something entirely different, but don’t think he is finished with either Elchin or Azerbaijan. Here is the man in his own words. On the play: “this was the play I had always envisaged. An exploration of political paranoia and sexual frustration: a spiritual dystopia”.

And on the playwright: “...I find Elchin a remarkable, not to mention subversive, playwright. Therefore, if I get my way, I would like to stage all 100 of his plays.”

This young country is strategically important, being rich in natural resources, and also in culture. It can only be beneficial to the UK to develop strong cultural ties with it, and if it does, a hundred years from now our descendants might find the name Elchin Afandiyev in their school curricula alongside Dickens and Shakespeare. If they do, David Parry is the man they will have to thank.

Alexander Baron's interview with David Parry, about Citizens of Hell:
Digial Journal, 6th August, 2013

London - Last month, the play ‘Citizens Of Hell’ had its London, UK, Western and English language debut. David Parry was the man behind it.

Alexander Baron: David, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to talk to us. Can I ask you why you chose this particular play to introduce Elchin Afandiyev to a UK audience?

David Parry: Towards the end of our brief premiere run, this was the play I had always envisaged. An exploration of political paranoia and sexual frustration: a spiritual dystopia. As such, performances became even more demanding for all those involved. Indeed, the very long speeches and highly destructive atmosphere proved challenging and tempestuous for the actors. Also, like most people involved in professional theatre, we would have benefited from more time in rehearsals (without the prohibitive costs), and better publicity.

AB: I gather that on the following Saturday you rubbed shoulders with the great and good of Azerbaijan. How did that go?

DP: Regarding the Ambassador's reception, the Embassy was generous to a fault. What is more, the Ambassador extended his personal support for my work once again, delivering a very fine speech. Overall, this was the most successful evening, particularly in terms of dramaturgy and cultural exchange.

AB: What about your team?

DP: I believe we will be recasting this show due to other commitments on the part of the actors. That said, our technical supports were wonderful and can hopefully stay with us. Certainly, I want to work with the artist Filip Firsov again and the designer Eva Terzoni. Moreover, Nick Pelas, John Dunne and I will be expanding my company (Allthing Ltd) into the radical voice in British Theatre. We aim to tackle those issue that our colleague shy away from.

AB: What do you think of the playwright? Obviously you know a great deal about the man and his work.

DP: On a personal level, I find Elchin a remarkable, not to mention subversive, playwright. Therefore, if I get my way, I would like to stage all 100 of his plays.

AB: What is your next project?

DP: My next arts project is more akin to Chamber Theatre a la Strindberg. It will be radical occult performance, wherein we will attempt to reach the wisdom of our ancestors through seance and ritual. Titled An Act Of Necromancy, my aim is to mix an invited audience with practitioners of the hidden arts to recover lost knowledge. It is already being advertised on Facebook and will be staged on Saturday, October 26, at a location to be arranged.
All in all, those things admitted, I suspect my work as a Heathen Priest equally needs a lot more attention. Obviously, I will keep you informed of developments.

AB: Oh yes, David Parry is also a pagan. And a lecturer. You may not believe in the supernatural, but it usually makes good theatre.

Socialism And Sovereignty belong together: Just as Globalism and Capitalism do

Mention that you are a Socialist, and the automatic assumption is that you are an Open Borders fanatic.  The idea that opposition to Capitalism means opposition to Sovereignty, is as widespread as it is idiotic.  Capitalism thrives on open borders: it needs for borders to be eroded so that it can make profit out of the free movement of goods and people.  Socialism promotes the well being of the Working Class, and by doing so, promotes self-sufficiency in all areas where that is possible.  Socialism promotes understanding between Sovereign Nations, with absolute control of the borders, and of all that crosses them (or doesn't).  Internationalism is the very opposite of Globalism, and it is only through the manipulation of the media and mis-education system, that the two have become confused.

When people think that Socialism means an end to Nations, they are confusing authentic Socialism with the liberal impostor pushed by the George Soros funded SJW lunatics.

Those who have fallen for the liberalist propaganda which links Socialism with the Globalist policies of Capitalism that are destroying the lives of the Working Class, consider the following words of great Socialists who fought for International Understanding, and against any erosion of our beloved borders:

A Chinese Perspective (Mao Tse Tung)

"Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism."

-  "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 196

A French View (George Marchais)

An interesting article that makes reference to the anti-immigration stance of George Marchais, former leader of the French Communist Party. Here are some of Marchais' quotes from the article:

"Due to the presence in France of almost four and a half million immigrant workers and their families, the pursuit of immigration is a serious problem today. We must stop official and illegal immigration, " said Georges Marchais, January 6, 1981.

"We think that all workers are brothers, regardless of the country where they were born (...)" But "in the current crisis, it [immigration] is for the bosses and the government a way to aggravate unemployment , low wages, poor working conditions, repression against all workers, both immigrants and French. That is why we say: we must stop immigration, or we will throw new workers out of work. "

"We must solve important problems posed in the French local life by immigration [...] are piled up in what we must call ghettos, workers and families to traditions, languages, ways to live different. This creates tensions and sometimes clashes between immigrants from different countries. This makes their relations with the French difficult. When the concentration becomes very important [...], the housing crisis worsens; HLMs are badly needed and many French families can not access them. The social welfare burdens for impoverished immigrant families are becoming unbearable for the budgets of communes populated by workers and employees. Education is unable to cope ... "

A British Take (Bob Crow)

A Russian Perspective (V.I. Lenin)

”You make the cause of the nation the cause of the people and the cause of the people will become the cause of the nation.”

A View from Burkina Faso (Thomas Sankara)

"Imperialism is a system of exploitation that occurs not only in the brutal form of those who come with guns to conquer territory. Imperialism often occurs in more subtle forms, a loan, food aid, blackmail . We are fighting this system that allows a handful of men on earth to rule all of humanity....We must learn to live the African way. It's the only way to live in freedom and with dignity....Without patriotic political education, a soldier is only a potential criminal."

Thoughts from Cuba (Ernesto Che Guevara)

Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end.

Thoughts from a certain German

"The proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must itself constitute the nation."
Karl Marx


To the liberal SJW idiots who have misappropriated the Red Flag, and promote Globalism, Open Borders, Mass Migration and all the other deeds of Capitalism, the above quotes must be unpalatable.  Socialism is unique in each country, and is unique for each people.  Those who try to universalise it, are the coca cola fakers who would be happy for a world in which no countries exist; McDonald's poison shops are in every town; where everyone dresses the same, watches the same TV, listens to the same music, has the same 'culture'; where nothing exists apart from a mass of consumers buying the same shit and slaving for the same global corporations - that is where Capitalism is taking us.  Globalism IS Capitalism.  The secure borders and absolute sovereignty of an Inter-national cooperation of free independent states, adhering to their own unique variations of Revolutionary Patriotic Socialism, is the only way of stopping it.

To Stop the Mass Migration from Africa, Stop the Exploitation of Capitalism

Africa is a troubled continent.  From the time of the recent European Empires, it has been economically ravaged.  Much has been written of the African Slave Trade, with blame for the human suffering being laid squarely at the feet of Europeans - all Europeans, not just the Ruling Class! - but as with most contemporary propaganda, the truth is somewhat different.

At the time of the Black Slave Trade, ordinary Europeans were also subjected to unspeakable horrors.  There is a tendency to blame all British people for the suffering endured by the African Slaves, but this is inappropriate.  Even if it was acceptable to blame people for crimes committed by their ancestors (which it is not), the Slave Owners were not Working Class people, but people from the Ruling Class and especially the financial class of banking parasites, and those who caught and enslaved them in the first place, were despotic Africans, many of whom have descendants today who still profit from the cruelty of enslaving human beings.. 

Those who say that the British should feel guilt and shame for the Slave Trade, conveniently forget that the same people who treated the Africans as sub-humans, also treated Working Class British and Irish people in the same way.  Indentured Service, Press-ganging, Child-labour, Starvation etc were all common place in Europe, and all to the benefit of the same tyrants who raped Africa. 

The Slave Trade contributed to an economic enfeebling of parts of Africa.  The greed of some of the rulers was sufficient to allow them to sell their own people with no care for their welfare.  This attitude was helpful to the gradual occupation of the continent by regimes based across Europe, and not just in the British Isles.  In the case of Great Britain especially, it was easy for the ruling class to treat the people in their charge as less than human.  It must not be forgotten that the entire class structure in the UK was created to prevent the dilution of the ruling class bloodlines with that of the lowly oppressed peasantry.  The arrogance of the bourgeois mindset made the denigration of African culture, tradition and way of life, almost inevitable.

As Imperialism gave way to Globalism (the same thing but differently dressed) puppet regimes were created to administer a fake home rule in the place of open dictatorship.

Africa is rich in minerals.  If the nations were ruled by and for Working Class Africans, the continent could be wholly self-sufficient.  Much of the land is abundantly fertile, and there is no logical reason why anyone should go without food.  In a free and Socialist world, Africa left to flourish, could be a shining example to the rest of us, and her people would have no desire to emigrate from their homelands.  This natural situation is quite the reverse of the contrived reality, and this is deliberate.

The administrative division of Africa into the imperial territories paid no heed to cultural, linguistic, tribal or any other authentic natural divisions.  The imperialists had as much regard for Africa as the globalists have for Europe - lines drawn on a map replaced natural territorial divisions which mattered to the people, and this crime is still having repercussions. Forcing incompatible people to live in the same space, sharing the same resources, goes against nature.  Hostility is inevitable, and when the resources are so scarce that sharing with an outsider means your own kin going without even the most basic commodities, such as food, violence is not only understandable, but right.  The transfer of power to servile and corrupt despots ensured that the natural wealth of Africa was kept away from the people.  For the successor to imperialism, Globalism, to work, the breakdown of countries was the first stage, with the free movement of people a vital part of the plan, and nothing encourages people to move, more than to escape hardship.

In Africa, war and poverty were (indeed still are) used to drive people from their lands, and coupled with the fantasy of the European Union being a rich land which literally owes them a living, the conditions for mass migration were set. 

By supporting despotic regimes which would put greed above people, the internationalists engineered the unthinkable; mass starvation in the most fertile land in the world.  The best educated Africans were driven to emigrate, thus depriving their home nations of the best minds.  Military hardware was poured into the continent to ensure that war was a constant danger, and of course to enrich the war manufacturers.  When starvation came, the response was to televise the suffering and to ram home the propaganda that this was the fault of Europeans because centuries ago the transatlantic slavery industry had existed.  Never mind that the Working Class of all races were butchered by the ruling class parasites.  The SJW trots successfully used the lie of racism as a means of making people accept that people fleeing the destruction of Africa should of course be welcomed into Europe.  Of course the bourgeois bastards made sure that they kept themselves away from the newcomers, proving their hatred for the Working Class both new and old.

In 1985, the images of starvation in Africa prompted the Live Aid concerts.  Millions were raised to provide food and healthcare, but the underlying reasons for the starvation were not addressed; those being the greed and corruption at the heart of the regimes put in place by the corporate entities fronting for the globalised ruling class.  As a result, most of the money donated by sympathetic people from across the globe, was syphoned off by the governments in Africa, and by their globalist overlords.  Contrary to the vile anti-European propaganda of the SJW trots, vast numbers of Europeans contributed to the cause of helping Africans.  Live Aid essentially achieved very little, and the manufactured hunger continued.

The light at the end of the tunnel came for the people of Africa with the great works of Muammar Al Gaddafi.  After turning Libya into the richest nation in Africa, with the highest standard of living, and such riches as free energy for all, Gaddafi turned his attention to helping the rest of the continent.  His plan to use the vast reserves of gold built up from oil sales to produce a single currency for Africa, would have freed the continent from the stranglehold of international finance.  To prevent the Gold Dinar, which would have killed the hated IMF and World Bank, Libya was invaded and the potential saviour of Africa was martyred.  Death and debt are big business and the capitalist menace is more than happy to murder millions to hold onto power.  Sadly the treacherous Arab League are also only too happy to aid their Jewish paymasters, as they proved when they refused to help Libya; they have been equally despicable in their inaction and effective selling out of Syria.

If the Libyan plan had not been bombed into oblivion, Africa would have become self-sufficient.  The exodus of Africans would have been reversed as all reasons for living outside the homeland would have faded into insignificance.  This would have ended the nightmare of mass migration which has wreaked so much havoc on the ordinary people of Europe.  The momentum towards self-sufficient regions would have been unstoppable, and the entire globalist criminal enterprise would have fallen.  With the murder of Gaddafi, our strongest chance for freedom died in cold blood.

The irrational hatred of foreigners which has increased as a result of the mass  migration from Africa (the so-called 'Syrian' 'refugees') is a part of the globalist agenda being fulfilled.  Immigrants are treated as the cause of all our ills, not as victims of the globalist despots, who have been brought into our lands by our common enemy.  This thinking only aids the enemy, by focusing our anger on symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

For the British Isles to be free, it is vital that we struggle for all people to be free: not in the way of open borders globalists, but as free Inter-Nationalist Socialists who respect the right of everyone to self-determination, and the sanctity of closed borders.  The rape of Africa took a new turn with the American imperialist occupation spearheaded by AFRICOM.  Yet again, African culture is being stamped on, war is being escalated, hunger is being spread, and more people are fleeing for the chance of any life, even a harsh one in Europe. 

The Mass Migration which is crippling the NHS, the Housing and Transport Infrastructure, destroying the Green Belt and seeing Law and Order, Education and all areas of Society crumbling, is contrived.  We need to see beyond the migrants to the cause of their migration.  Ending the suffering of the Working Class in Africa is the only solution to the suffering of the Working Class here.  Populist calls for the migrants to be sent back, which do not call for the People of Africa to become truly self-governing, are not real solutions.  The longer Capitalism survives, the more all of us will suffer. We have to attack the problem, not the symptoms, and stand by our Working Class brothers and sisters worldwide in a fight to permanently destroy the global ruling class and their economic system - a system which is slavery for the twentyfirst century for everyone.

No to Foreign Aid. Yes to Socialism Worldwide

Foreign Aid and International Charity takes money from the poor in allegedly prosperous regions of the world and transfers it to the corrupt and wealthy in countries which are designated as poor.  It helps very few people, causes more hardship than it solves, and should not be allowed

Now, you may say, surely it is cold and heartless to object to funds being raised for children in need of food?  The money which is raised is generally not be used as the charity campaigners and politicians claim.  Most of the charitable money disappears in administration and running costs. With Foreign Aid as well as International Charity, a vast amount of money goes into the pockets of the regimes and corporations who are starving their own people for greed and to pay off IMF loans.  The remnant which does reach the people serves as a temporary measure which will help the people for a while, maybe allowing the next generation to reach an age when they can produce more people who are dependent on hand-outs and who face starvation.  By failing to address the root problems and merely applying succour to the symptoms, the suffering is sure to increase with many, many, more people surviving a miserable existence, or dying a painful death.

Why is there hunger?  There is hunger because the Globalist system demands it.  Nations which have been economically raped by the financial parasites of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Bank of International Settlements, are not allowed to implement economic policies which would lead to self-sufficiency in commerce, industry and agriculture.  The globalists have profited by theft of these nations resources, and by the lucrative armaments industry which makes obscene profits from destabilising countries and fomenting war and civil war.

Charity campaigners may (and at the higher levels, it is only may) be motivated by a genuine desire to help the people.  The governments who push Foreign Aid on the people have no such illusions.  Charities and Governments completely ignores the real causes of poverty: global exploitation and the banking racket.

Across the globe, the international financial parasites are raping the home-grown economies.  Whether in war-torn Syria, or IMF-controlled Greece, the objective is the same: to concentrate wealth in the hands of the bankers and their collaborators.  Charities who speak of the plight of the poor, but do not consider why they are poor, are gate-keepers for the Ruling Class, and as such, are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Charity and Foreign Aid promote mass migration.  Migrants wrenched from the poorest nations of the world deny their homelands the talents they take with them.  Those who have the will and wherewithal to escape poverty by migrating, are exactly the people who their countries need to stay at home.  The television images we are all used to of people in camps begging for food, are images of people who have ceased to resist their plight.  Whether in Africa, or in the hand-out mentality in our own Isles, those who would rather beg than fight for freedom, form a worthless underclass of lumpenproletarians who are beloved by the Establishment for their acceptance of whatever evil is thrown at them.  Those who accept bread and circuses at a cost of liberty, condemn us all to suffer under the heel of the ruling tyrants.  Charities which encourage this mentality, do the work of the rulers.

Giving support to the regimes which serve globalism condemns the people in every nation to materialistic tyranny.  Charity campaigns allow the finaciers' stooges in the governments in IMF-dominated lands to continue to neglect the people.  Those who implement austerity measures to provide the bankers with profits, are happy to allow charities to provide the people with food.  If they were loyal to the people, and not to the globalists (and their own selfish interests), they would send the foreign charities and the internationalists packing; using force if necessary.

The solution to hunger is not to provide the currently starving with food whilst raping the resources of the individual countries.  Yes, that provides a temporary relief to hunger, but in the long term leads to a deterioration with more people being born into hunger, and many more people dying and suffering.  With the economic demise of the west underway, it will not be long before the charitable donations dry up as people in the West cannot provide for themselves due to the crippling demands for tribute from the internationalist bankers.  The real solution is for all people to reject capitalism; to become mutually supportive within local communities; to end the exploitative economic system; to return to a sane and human-centred existence.

Let us take a stand and refuse to cooperate with the traitor politicians and the financial scum who misrule over us.  Let us support the peoples of other nations by campaigning against the IMF, World Bank, WHO, BIS, NATO,  the British Crown and all the other provisional Global Government agencies.  Let us make our homelands into no-go areas for capitalism, and let us encourage others to do likewise.  When the globalist parasites can no longer rape the countries of the world, the people will have no need to emigrate, and all of us can enjoy a restoration of the natural and wholesome living which comes from putting into practise the cherished ideology of Socialism in One Country.

People who cannot see that Borders are a vital defence against exploitation will be enraged by this article.  But by their actions in support of open borders and the destruction of indigenous autonomous living, they have no right to feel anger.  They should feel shame; shame from a realisation that it is their own blinkered semi-religious self-righteousness which has created the conditions for mass starvation, and misery worldwide.

THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA: A DELIBERATE PLAN BY THERESA MAY, JEAN CLAUDE JUNCKER AND THE EU ESTABLISHMENT TO DERAIL BREXIT.

by Pietro

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTMINSTER AND BRUSSELS NEVER ACCEPTED THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM SINCE THE MORNING OF THE 24th OF JUNE 2016. DAVID CAMERON RESIGNED AND GOT REPLACED BY THERESA MAY.

AFTER JUST REPEATING "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT" LIKE A PARROT SHE IS TRYING HER BEST TO BE IN THE EU IN ALL BUT NAME.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE KREMLIN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ATTEMPTED MURDERING OF A SPY AND HIS DAUGHTER IN SALISBURY (IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AGAINST THEIR INTEREST) THE ENTIRE WESTERN ESTABLISHMENT AND THE SOROSES OF THIS WORLD ARE PUSHING REALLY HARD TO START A NEW WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN ORDER TO KEEP NATO, THE UN AND THE EU ALIVE AND KICKING.

WITH THE EXEMPTION OF AUSTRIA, BULGARIA AND HUNGARY (And even these have sent home a token Russian in support of this lunacy) EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY STARTED THE MAD WITCH HUNT AGAINST RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS.

THERESA MAY, EMANUEL MACRON AND ANGELA MERKEL HAVE HAD A JOINT CONFERENCE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE HOSTILITY. UNLIKE IN 2014 WHEN CRIMEA RETURNED HOME THIS TIME THE EU IS EVEN MORE WARMONGERING THAN THE US

IN A MOMENT IN WHICH ALL THE MAINSTREAM POLITICAL PARTIES IN BRITAIN ARE AGAINST BREXIT: I MEAN THE FAKE SOCIALISTS (IN FACT GLOBOS) OF PLAID CYMRU, THE STRASBOURG NATIONAL PARTY, LABOUR (JEREMY CORBYN DITCHED HIS PREVIOUS EUROSCEPTICISM), MOST OF THE TORY PARTY AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE LIB DEMS - ALL WANTED TO REMAIN. THE GOVERNMENT ARE YET AGAIN TRYING TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP INSIDE THE EU.

THE 2017 SNAP GENERAL ELECTION WAS IN FACT AIMING AT UKIP. THEY WANTED TO BRING UKIP DOWN BECAUSE AT LEAST ON BREXIT AND ON IMMIGRATION THEY HAD SOMEONE TO ANSWER TO.

UKIP HAS AT THE MOMENT GOT NO CHANCE AS LONG AS THIS CLOWN (HENRY BOLTON) IS IN CHARGE OF THE PARTY.

NOW THERESA MAY AND HER CORRUPTED CABAL ARE USING THE SCARE-MONGERING OF THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT BRITAIN CAN'T HAVE IT'S FREEDOM AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BACK.

THE EU IS NOTHING FOR THE EUROPEANS. IT WAS SET BY A GROUP OF AMERICANS DURING THE COLD WAR IN ORDER TO OCCUPY ALL THE NATION STATES THAT FELL UNDER IT AND IS THE ECONOMIC WING OF NATO.

NOW THIS GLOBALIST INSTITUTION IS ALLOWING THE MASSES OF THE THIRD WORLD IN EUROPE IN ORDER TO CREATE IT'S OWN ELECTORATE, IT'S OWN "europeans" AND GENOCIDE ALL THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BY CREATING A GLOBALISED MAN.
...... WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE TROTZ, THE SJWs, THE MULTINATIONALS AND THE MISSIONARIES USEFUL IDIOTS.

WE NEED TO EXPOSE THE EU FOR WHAT IT IS, BRING IT DOWN TOGETHER WITH NATO AND THE UN, AND CREATE AN ALLIANCE OF FREE SOVEREIGN AND IDENTITARIAN NATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND BELARUS.

DOWN WITH GLOBALISATION!
DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!
DOWN WITH THE KALERGY PLAN!

SAY NO TO THE WHITE GENOCIDE (the first blow in a war for total ethnic genocide)!


note:
MAY AND JUNCKER ARE IN COLLUSION.THEY PRETEND TO BE BICKERING AGAINST EACH OTHER BUT IT'S ALL PART OF THE SHOW! EVEN IF JUNCKER IS NOT AS OUTSPOKEN THE ���� IS PART OF THE GLOBALIST PROJECT. MAIDAN IS THE FINEST EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSOPHOBIC ATTACK. THERESA MAY EVERYONE CAN TELL SHE FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE IN BRUSSELS THAN IN BRITAIN, AS SHE WAS A REMAINER IN THE REFERENDUM.

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.

Beyond the Religion of ‘Objective Science’ - Wilberg on Wednesday

Humanity at the Threshold of the Subjective Universe

Language as such is ‘no-thing’ - for it is everywhere and nowhere. It is not reducible to a localisable textual object or spoken word but is the invisible non-local context of every word, text and act of speech. Subjective awareness - like language as such - or like activity or potentiality as such - is also ‘no-thing’. It is also everywhere and nowhere - a subjectivity irreducible to any localized object and not the property of any localised ‘subject’. All apparent ‘physical’ objects are but elements of subjective experience emerging (physein) within an infinite non-local field of subjective awareness. We dwell not in an objective but a subjective universe. ‘God’ is not some supreme ‘subject’ that ‘has’ awareness - ruling over a universe of objects. God is awareness or subjectivity as such – absolute and as all-pervasive as space and time, transcendent and immanent in all things. As pure awareness or absolute subjectivity ‘God’ is the most fundamental reality of all and no ‘delusion’. Modern science on the other hand is a delusive religion resting on the central dogma of an objective universe ruled by human subjects or ‘observers’. Hence its ever more aggressive assault - not only on all religions that treat ‘God’ rather than Man as supreme ruling subject - but on any attempt to undermine the dogmatic identification of reality as such with a universe of objects and of truth with objectivity. In today’s ‘postmodern’ world however, this dogma is belied by the linguistic or sign character of objects themselves. Go into any airport or shopping mall for example, and you will find barely a single object that does not stand before us as a sign of some sort – whether a directional sign, the sign of airline or shop, or a carefully de-signed product or logo. Objects lose their substantive character as totally independent ‘things’ and become mere signs - signs whose sole significance lies in their being ‘signifiers’ for a whole world of other signs. Thus a fashion item, brand name or logo stands as sign for the whole world of fashion signs in the form of branded commodities. Similarly, an electronic gadget stands as sign of the whole world of telecommunications and computer technology – itself but a medium for the transmission of signs in the form of words, images, photo images and advertising signs and video streams. Where once material substances and their sensory qualities were beheld as symbols of a world of subjectivity or soul, they now stand as mere signs. Where religious symbols once reigned, now rules the commercial sign - or the purely abstract mathematical symbols of science.

“Science is the new religion.” (Martin Heidegger). Yet what is the central, unquestioned, unprovable and, as I shall argue, wholly untenable dogma of this religion? This fundamental dogma of science and the sciences is the identification of reality with a world of ‘objects’ and truth with ‘objectivity’. The dogma begins by forgetting that the very terms ‘object’ and ‘objectivity’ are, first and foremost words – linguistic constructs. Yet no physicist or philosopher bothers to consider in what way language as such can be considered to be an ‘object’ or to have ‘objective’ reality. We can identify a word on the printed page but cannot say ‘where’ language as such exists – it has no locality in the same way that a physical ‘object’ seems to have. Nor can we even say what language as such is - for it is not reducible to a finite set of sounds, alphabets, syntactic rules - or even ways of speaking. Even the spoken or written ‘word’ is only a word by virtue of being more than a mere ‘object’ – for what makes a set of ink marks on a page or sound waves in space into writing or speech is that we read or hear within them a totally invisible or inaudible meaning whose material form is but the manifestation. Though scientists constantly use language to articulate their own theories of a world of objects there is no ‘objective’ way of even proving the objective existence of that invisible, inaudible and immeasurable world of meaning that lies behind their language and language as such.

Moreover any very way of thinking, speaking or writing about language assumes and makes use of language, which is not the private property of any thinker, speaker or writer and has a character innately transcending everyone who thinks about it and every thing that can be said about it. Thus though the terms ‘object’ and ‘objectivity’ are used as if they were self-evident, they themselves rest on a reality – language – which cannot itself be reduced to any object or set of objects. One of the main uses of language however, is precisely to objectify reality – for no sooner does a word or term become part of the common currency of language (including the word ‘language’ itself) then we assume that it to refer to some pre-given thing or ‘object’ that has existed for all time. We make this assumption despite the fact that the very word used to name this ‘objectively’ existing thing may be a neologism of the only the most recent historic coinage – emerging within a specific historic culture at a specific time, and belonging to the vocabulary of a specific science, religion, or academic discipline within that culture.


Thus the word ‘religion’ was coined only a few centuries ago in European culture and thought. Yet having become common currency we assume it refers to some ‘thing’ which has always existed in human culture and of which all specific ‘religions’ are but variations. Thus we speak casually of ‘Eastern religions’, we superimpose a European linguistic construct on Eastern cultures, completely ignoring the fact that in the language of these supposed ‘Eastern religions’ themselves, there is not a single word that corresponds to our recently coined and now globally superimposed term - ‘religion’. The word ‘religion’ then, far from being taken as a historically and culturally specific linguistic construct, is taken instead as some universal cultural thing - an ‘object’ which has existed universally and throughout history, and is differentiated only by its local, historical and culturally specific ‘varieties’. What can be said of the objectifying use of the word ‘religion’ can be said of the word ‘science’ too – and indeed of the terminologies of all the sciences. For their very terms are linguistic constructs – terms which linguistically construct the very ‘objects’ whose reality they assume as ‘given’. That the relation of scientific terminologies to their supposed objects of ‘exploration’ and ‘explanation’ is not even explored or examined as a question in science, shows how, in its own dogmatic self-understanding, modern science is an ideology that lags behind the most elementary of ‘post-modern’ understandings of the objectifying power of language, understandings which are not ‘pre-scientific’ but post-scientific - or rather post-scientistic – what we take as ‘science’ being a quasi-religious ideology or ‘-ism’.

Yet there is an even deeper fault and fissure in the foundational dogma of science – the dogma of a world of pre-given ‘objects’ and of truth as ‘objectivity’. That fissure is to be found in the narrow concept of ‘subjectivity’ that it presents or implies as its ‘unscientific’ counterpart. In everyday language use we take the word ‘subjective’ to refer to things experienced ‘in here’ – in our minds or imagination, as feelings in our emotional life and imagination, as moods or as bodily sensations such as pleasure and pain. All these dimensions of experience are counterpoised to an external world of ‘objects’ assumed to exist ‘out there’ - independently of our experience of them. Not a single modern physicist and but a single modern philosopher – Edmund Husserl – has come to the elementary insight that all experiencing – including every element of our experience of a world ‘out there’ – is by nature subjective. The fundamental but still unacknowledged starting point of ‘science’ is therefore not what it takes it to be - the dogmatically assumed pre-existence of a world of objects ‘out there’. Instead the true foundation of all knowledge and all true ‘science’ is subjective experiencing. This is true whether or not any given elements of experience are thought of and experienced as ‘in here’ or ‘out there’, as purely personal or wholly impersonal, as relative or absolute.

It was Husserl’s great insight that by excluding our experience of the entire ‘external’ or ‘physical’ world from our understanding of the ‘psychical’, we reduce the ‘psyche’ to a purely internal world of private experiences - thus creating a wholly false dualism between the ‘physical’ and the ‘psychical’, the ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. The result is a wholly false separation of the so-called ‘sciences’ of ‘physics’ and ‘psychology’ - both of which ignore the inherently subjective nature of all experiencing, ‘outer’ or ‘inner’. That is why ‘phenomenological’ science is deeper than both physics and psychology, for understood properly, it is an understanding of science that transcends the unquestioned dualism of ‘subject’ and ‘object’, the ‘subjective’ and the ‘objective’. Phenomenological science runs counter to the dogmatic identification of reality with objects and objectivity. Indeed in its ultimate form ‘phenomenological science’ denies ultimate reality to any ‘objects’ whatsoever, which in essence are nothing more than linguistic objectifications of ‘phenomena’ ie. different elements or complexes of subjective experiencing.

The massive challenge posed by phenomenological science to our whole understanding of ‘science’ and the ‘sciences’, not least physics and psychology themselves, was understated even by Husserl, who failed to tackle the single most important fortress shared by both these sciences in defense of the dogma of objectivity. This is the highly Eurocentric but now ever more globalised dogma subjectivity is necessarily the private property of an individual ‘ego’ or ‘self’ – the so-called ‘subject’ - or that casually assumes that terms such ‘subjective’ or ‘subjectivity’ imply the existence of such a subject. As a result, the nature of subjectivity or consciousness as such is not even considered, but instead identified with the conscious experiencing of individual beings or ‘subjects’ - in particular human beings and subjects and individual human consciousness.

The identification of subjectivity, consciousness or awareness with a limited human ego or subject did not form any part of pre-modern Eastern ‘philosophical’, ‘religious’ and ‘scientific’ understandings of reality. Nor is it at all congruent with a new post-modern and post-scientific worldview. For the reduction of subjectivity as such to a property of an individual ‘subject’ is equivalent to reducing language as such to the private property of an individual speaker rather than the other way round – understanding speech as an individualised expression of language, one that shapes and reshapes the speaker’s very experience of themselves as an individual self or ‘subject’.

Philosophers in the West have no concept whatsoever of ‘subjectivity without a subject’ – the Eastern notion of a ‘universal consciousness’ that is the absolute source not only of all individualised consciousness, but of all that is – pervading all things, human and non-human. Instead, with only one or two exceptions they continue to wrestle with the meaning of ‘subjectivity’ whilst failing to even question the notion of ‘objectivity’. I have spoken of the everyday use of the term ‘subjective’. For Western philosophers subjectivity is understood only as the property of pre-supposed ‘subjects’. As a result, subjectivity is also identified with what is seen as the key attributes of such ‘subjects’, namely perspectival relativity, ‘ipseity’ or self-awareness, and autonomous agency.

‘Subjectivity’ is associated in Western philosophy with perspectival relativity because each ‘subject’, by virtue of having a unique location or ‘position’ (whether physical and perceptual, mental or emotional, ethical or cultural) sees ‘objective’ reality from a unique and therefore irredeemably ‘biased’ point of view. There is a paradox here. For having reduced subjectivity to a ‘subject’, this subject is then thought of in the same way as a localised object - being positioned at some ‘point’ in space. In contrast, in the most sophisticated of Indian yogic philosophies, subjectivity was understood as an all-pervasive or ‘non-local’ field comparable to space as such rather than any ‘objects’ in it. Space itself was not experienced by the yogi as anything ‘objective’ or ‘physical’ but as identical with the ‘universal’ or ‘divine’ consciousness’ – the latter being a limitless, non-local field of ‘pure awareness’ or ‘absolute subjectivity’ - and as such both transcendent and immanent, both embracing and pervading all things and beings within it. The practical yogic path to experiencing the limitless non-local nature of subjectivity was precisely through identifying with the seeming void or emptiness of the spaces within and around things – in reality the all-surrounding and all-pervading ‘space’ or ‘aether’ (Akash) of pure awareness.

I call my own further explication and refinement of yogic metaphysics ‘The Awareness Principle’. By this I mean the understanding that subjectivity or awareness as such (‘pure awareness’) cannot - in principle - be either the property of a pre-given subject or reduced to the function of any object. For in essence all ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’ are but differentiated elements of subjective experience - all emerging from and embraced by a spacious field of absolute subjectivity or ‘pure awareness’. From this point of view the association in Western philosophy of subjectivity with the ‘ipseity’ (self-recognition or self-awareness) of an individual subject is also undermined by The Awareness Principle. For awareness of any experienced ‘self’ or ‘subject’ cannot - in principle – be the property of any self or subject we are aware of. For like every element of our subjective experience, our experience of self necessarily belongs to an experiencing awareness or subjectivity transcending that particular, experienced self – or any self or subject. 

The Awareness Principle is a philosophy of absolute subjectivity transcending any subject. Behind the ‘Objectivity Principle’ of modern science on the other hand is the religious absolutisation of an abstract subject standing apart from, over and above a world of objects. Whether this absolute subject be conceived of – objectified - as human or divine makes no difference, for belief in its existence constitutes the central dogma shared by both modern science and theistic religions.

The absolutisation of the subject - as opposed to a subjectivity prior to all subjects – came to its fullest expression in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the subject as ‘observer’ is the principle agent responsible for determining what is observed. Whereas classical physics concealed the subject behind a world of objects in absolute space and time, Einstein’s General Relativity abolished the absolutivity of space and time, and Special Relativity made all motion relative to the observer – the subject. Quantum mechanics went yet further, ceasing to claim the existence of any objective world of particle-waves or wave-particles ‘behind’ instrumentally measurable data, and instead implicitly raising the scientist as such – the observing subject - to the status of a sole or absolute object. In place of God as a divine being or subject ruling over man and nature as its objects was placed the human being – but only in the form of the subject as posited by science - the observer. In this way we can see how theism, atheism, humanism and science all unite as one in sharing an identification of subjectivity with ‘the subject’ - whether it be conceived religiously, scientifically or humanistically.

Understanding itself as a mere set of operational practices with no claims to truth, science has, as Heidegger saw, become a mere handmaiden for technology - offering global capitalism an abundance of operational technologies to profit from by enframing exploiting the earth and converting it into a ‘standing reserve’ of human and natural resources. This exploitation is made possible, not in the first instance, through the machines and mechanics of industrial technologies, old and new - but rather through an unthinking mechanisation of thought itself. This is the transformation of thinking as such into a mere instrumental or operational tool for the enframing and objectification of every qualitative dimensions of earthly experiencing, into a specifically calculative mode of thinking which subjects them all to its own objectifying and purely quantitative or ‘quantised’ terms of reference. Such a mode of thinking is now being aggressively employed in an attempt to attack and wipe out any remaining experience or conceptions of a universal awareness or subjectivity – one that transcends both absolutised ‘subjects’, human or divine, and their worlds of operationally manufacturable and manipulable objects.

Heisenberg’s recognition of the intrinsic relation or ‘relativity’ of observer and observed in the observations possible in quantum physics could be seen as transcending the whole subject-object metaphysics of Western thought. Heidegger however, did not see Heisenberg’s ‘relativity’ as a return to a type of unifying ‘holism’ in physics - but rather as its very opposite - a theoretical mirror image of Hiroshima.

“The objectness of material nature shows in modern atomic physics fundamental characteristics completely different from those that is shows in classical physics … And yet – modern nuclear and field physics also still remains physics, i.e., science, i.e., theory, which entraps objects, in order to secure them in the unity of their objectness …

… the way in which in the most recent phase of atomic physics even the object vanishes also, and the way in which above all, the subject-object relation as pure relation takes precedence over the object … the subject-object relation thus reaches, for the first time, its pure ‘relational’, i.e., ordering character, in which both subject and object are sucked up … That does not mean that the subject-object relation vanishes, but rather now the opposite; it now attains its most extreme dominance …” Science and Reflection

No longer is it Newton’s God that is seen as supreme subject ruling over the earth but the human subject - a subject for whom, scientifically, objects, and even human beings themselves, no longer even exist except in so far as they ‘count’ as instrumental measurements or statistics. Such a delusive and deluded ‘subject’ is intrinsically destructive and self-destructive - for in submitting science to the service of commercial calculation and the technological-industrial depletion of the earth it quite literally removes the very ground from under its own feet. This is capitalist industry abolishing what Marx called its own ‘natural condition of production’ – whether in the form of forests and trees, soil, oil, water - or the exploited and polluted body of the human being.

The growth of a tree is not the activity of an agent or subject, human or divine. The tree is not grown at all, nor can the natural growth of trees be speeded up to keep pace with industrial demands for wood and paper. Trees are not grown. They emerge from the deeper soil and larger field of their environment, serving, like speech, as their living expression. Yet where can be found ‘physicists’ who remembers that the Greek physis – ‘emergence’ - is the true root and root truth of the term ‘physics’? Where are the philosophers who recall that the Greek logos - ‘speech’ - is the true root and root truth of ‘logic’? Where, above all, are the true thinkers who, as yogis, can once again experience space as the aether or ‘Akash’ of pure awareness, and who can once again experience the physical world as emergent word - as one experiential language or expression of pure awareness among others - not our language but that of a ‘God’ which does not ‘have’ but is awareness or subjectivity, universal and absolute?

Another attribute attached to the ‘subject’ and ‘subjectivity’ by Western philosophers is ‘titularity’ – its sense of owning its actions and experiences. As ‘subjects’ one aspect of our ‘subjectivity’ is defined - from this Western point of view - as the sense of an action or experience being ‘mine’. Eastern thought too has long recognized a close connection between what it understood as the limited self or ‘subject’ and this sense of ownership or ‘mine-ness’. Yet in contrast to Western thought yogic philosophy sees this ‘titular’ subject as the biggest obstacle in the way of realizing a higher and vastly expanded sense of self - a self identical with pure awareness or absolute subjectivity as such. That is why the basic principle of yogic philosophy and principal aim of yogic practice is to overcome ‘Anavamala’ - the basic ‘stain’ or ‘impurity’ of awareness that comes from ignorant identification of ourselves and of subjectivity as such with the finite ‘ego’ or ‘subject’ – the very ‘ego’ or ‘subject’ which Western thought takes, in its own ignorance, as something ‘possessing’ awareness or subjectivity as its ‘own’ titular private property.

The very terms ‘subject’ and ‘object’ are effectively separate, linguistically constructed ‘objects’ of Western philosophical discourse. It is because these linguistic constructs are then taken as ‘objectively’ real that the false assumption arises that consciousness and cognition are based on a sort of external relation between separable ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ - in reality a relation of linguistically constructed objects. In an attempt to give some sort of ‘objective’ reality to this linguistically constructed relation, the commonly accepted neuro-scientific account of perception reduces the ‘subject’ itself to a single observable object - the brain. In doing so however, it also reduces the external ‘objects’ we think we perceive ‘out there’ into mere subjective hallucinations ‘projected’ outward by the brain in response to sensory data. The philosophical and logical nonsensicality of this ‘scientific’ model of cognition is revealed as soon as we ask what sort of external ‘objects’ the brain and sense organs are supposed to derive their initial sensory ‘data’ or ‘information’ from - given that what we perceive as such ‘objects’, are according to neuroscience itself, nothing but subjective images manufactured by the brain! According to this attempt to solve the riddle of the subject-object relation therefore, the brain – itself but one perceptible object among others - is supposed to give us a perception of other objects by interpreting sensory data coming from its own subjective hallucinations of such objects!

Another unresolvable riddle and paradox arising from the subject-object model of consciousness is its inability to explain so-called ‘qualia’ – our subjective experience of sensory qualities such as colour. Here physics and our everyday experience of the world set themselves on a collision course. That is because, for the physicist, colours are ultimately nothing but ‘objectively’ measurable quantities - wavelengths of light. How then however, does our everyday qualitative perception of colours arise? How are we to explain our experience of a quale such as ‘redness’? Is it something ‘purely’ subjective, is it the subjective figment of a biological object – the brain - or is there some truly objective sensory quality – and no mere quantity – corresponding to it?

The assumption here is that subjectivity has no innately sensual qualities of its own - an assumption questioned by both everyday language and everyday experience. We both experience and describe ‘moods’ for example, in terms of sensual qualities such as light (being in a ‘bright’ or ‘radiant’ mood or being in a ‘dark’ mood), colour (being in a ‘blue’ or ‘black mood’), gravity or weight (being in a ‘heavy’ or ‘grave’ mood or one of ‘levity’ and ‘lightness’), spatiality (feeling ‘high’ or ‘low’, ‘up’ or ‘down’, ‘exposed’ to or ‘closed off’, ‘distanced’ or ‘close’), heat (feeling ‘warm’ or ‘cool’, ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ towards something or someone), texture (feeling ‘solid’ or ‘empty’, ‘knotted up’ or ‘strung out’), time and motion (feeling ‘speedy’ or ‘slowed down’, ‘in a whirl’ or ‘going round in circles’) etc. etc. Is it any surprise that given the existence of such innately sensual qualities of feeling awareness or subjectivity, they should find expression in our dreams as experienced sensory qualities of dream objects - a dark cloud in our dreams for example expressing a felt darkness of mood, for example? Indeed the whole riddle of sensory perception and of the subjective vs objective nature of experienced qualities or qualia are resolved for us every night - through our experience of dreaming. For in contrast to scientists, with their dogma of a world of objects and their identification of truth with objectivity, our experience of dreaming is something we recognize as wholly subjective. We do not take dream objects as ‘objects’ in the way that the physical sciences and Western philosophy consider them – as entities existing independently of consciousness or subjectivity. Instead we experience them ‘physically’ in the root sense, as phenomena emerging (physein) from within the overall field of our subjective dreaming awareness, whilst at the same time giving expression to that field - constituting animate portions of that awareness. We would not think of attempting to find the ‘objective’ cause of a particular dream, let alone an explanation for the experience of dreaming as such - in one particular ‘object’ we happen to dream of.

Yet this is precisely what neuroscience seeks to do in explaining the nature of our waking experience of phenomena - by taking one single object of perception (the brain itself) – as the foundation for our waking experience of all other objects. Indeed neuroscience even attempts to explain dreaming experience as a function of our brains. This is a further oddity or paradox - given that neuroscience maintains, in effect, that our perceptions of waking world objects are themselves dreamt up by the brain. The only object excluded from this whole brain-based explanation of our perception of objects is the brain itself - our perception of which is treated, unlike all other objects, as immediate and ‘real’. Neuroscience cannot, in principle, explain this contradiction in its account of perception. For even to recognise this contradiction would be to admit the absurdity of its claims that consciousness and perception are functions of the brain. For the logical consequence or reductio ad absurdum of this claim is that the brain too cannot be considered as a scientific ‘object’ existing independently ‘out there’ - but is rather a figment of its own subjective imaginings, an object dreamt up by itself!

Our subjective experience of dreaming offers us vital clues to a wholly different understanding of the fundamental nature of waking consciousness and cognition to that which is proffered by the logically confused and self-contradictory constructs and explanations of modern science – all of which are rooted in the dogmatic identification of reality with objects, of truth with objectivity, and of cognition and consciousness with a relation of separable ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’. Indeed the experience of dreaming offers us a wholly new understanding of the fundamental nature of reality as such, allowing us to acknowledge the fundamentally subjective nature of all supposedly objective realities. In waking life, as in dreams, we inhabit a subjective universe. This is not a universe composed of separable subjects but of multi-dimensional fields of awareness - all rooted in a universal and absolute subjectivity of which we, and all things, are individualised portions and expressions. This absolute subjectivity is not the private property of a supreme subject or ‘being’. Quite simply it is subjectivity or awareness as such - without a prior or pre-given subject as its ‘owner’.

‘The Awareness Principle’ undermines not only the objectivity dogma of science but the philosophical and religious dogma that awareness or subjectivity is necessarily the property of a pre-given subject or ‘being’, human or divine. It understands ‘God’ neither as a supreme being or subject, nor even as Being - but as that absolute subjectivity or unbounded awareness of which all beings and all bodies in space-time are portions and expressions. Modern science itself, by virtue of its own untiring attempts to sustain the notion of an objective universe and an objective ‘explanation’ of subjectivity or awareness, has brought itself - through the contradictions inherent in both quantum mechanics and brain science - to the furthermost boundaries of its most religiously cherished assumptions and beliefs. In doing so it has also brought humanity to the threshold of a wholly new understanding of the universe and of ‘science’ itself. Crossing this threshold marks our entry – or rather return – into the subjective universe from which we and all things hail. This is a universe that can only be explored through subjective sciences based on directly subjective and experiential modes of scientific research. Yet no amount of research will allow this threshold to be experimentally or even experientially crossed unless it is first crossed in thought. This means questioning and letting go of the long-standing prejudice that still governs human thinking - the prejudice that grants more ‘reality’ to the objective than the subjective, that reduces subjectivity to subjects, subjects to objects, and that ultimately reduces both to nothing at all. That is the threshold - for subjectivity, like language, is indeed ‘no-thing’ and no ‘being’ – but the source of all things and all beings.

Crossing the threshold to the subjective universe is not a return to ‘religion’ as it is currently practiced and understood. Instead it is a return from the new religion that ‘science’ has become back to the eternal inner truth of religion as such, re-linking us with that ‘God’ which is not a being ‘with’ awareness but simply is awareness - absolute and unbounded. This is not some ‘New Age’ God but the oldest, most primordial God of all; one that has never ceased to re-gather and re-plant the knowledge-seeds of its scientist-priests, both during times of war and of peace.

The fact that the very term ‘subjective universe’ is taken today as connoting a type of private, solipsistic universe of the individual subject - comparable to a purely private and fantastic world of our dreams or imagination - shows how dramatically the meaning of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ has altered over recent centuries. For as Owen Barfield has pointed out, the single most important attribute used or assumed by contemporary philosophers to define the basic concept of an ‘object’ – its nature as something independently real or self-subsistent in its own right – belonged originally to the word ‘subject’.

This is only one reason however for the difficulty faced by both physicists and philosophers in affirming the innate reality and validity of subjective experience and of subjectivity as such. The other reason is their own habitual defensive use of language as a way of intellectually distancing themselves from the realm of immediate subjective experience. In contrast, the yogis of the past took direct subjective experience as the starting point for the development of a refined subjective science and of philosophies that affirmed the absolute character of subjectivity or awareness. What is called ‘yoga’ did not suddenly come into being a fully-fledged philosophy or set of practices but arose from centuries of subjective-scientific experimentation with awareness, aimed at exploring and experiencing its many dimensions and qualities – the subjective universe. Out of such experimentation precise yogic practices were evolved and developed - not as mathematically calculated, operational acts performed on ‘objects’ – but rather as ways of letting presence and bringing forth new experiential aspects and dimension of that universe. Such practices made use of religious rather than mathematical symbols, and gave pride of place to the experienced body of the yogi - and not any technical instruments - as principal instrument of research. What passes as ‘yoga’ today however, is a pale and stale shadow of these practices, now adopted second-hand and without any memory of the original, experimental purposes they served - and through which they were evolved and refined, both in principle and in practice. These purposes were both scientific and spiritual - ‘spiritual-scientific’ – though the term itself is redundant so long as the original and essential meaning of the term ‘spirit’ itself remains unquestioned and clouded in holy smoke. What is ‘spirit’? In essence, it is nothing more or less than the immaterial yet foundational reality that is subjectivity or awareness as such - a reality that is the source of all in-spiration and indeed the ultimate foundation of breathing or ‘re-spiration’. Hence the yogic practice of using awareness of breathing to experiencing breathing itself as an in-spiration and ex-spiration of the life-breath or innate vitality (Greek psyche / Sanskrit prana) of awareness as such - that ‘higher air’ or Aether which permeates the spacious field of pure awareness that we perceive as empty space. Neither the subsumption and setting in stone of strict yogic practices within dogmatic religious sects, nor the secularisation or yoga as a mere means to physical well-being, do justice to its true significance as a primordial expression of subjective science - aimed at expanding the awareness of the practitioner to a degree that enables them to experience and explore ever-new and larger dimensions of the subjective universe of awareness.

In Europe and the West, the ‘subjective’ has long been relegated to the twin realms of religion and the arts - rather than seen as central to science and the sciences. In India and the East, the essentially arts of music, dance and sculpture never ceased to be understood essentially as religious-scientific disciplines or ‘yogas’. In the West, meanwhile, metaphysics and philosophy have long since given way to the new religion that is modern science, ruled by the high priests of quantum physics. Yet this is a ‘theory’ that no longer even understands itself as seeking fundamental truths but mere final mathematical solutions. Einstein himself said of it: "This theory reminds me of the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent paranoiac, concocted of incoherent elements of thought...If correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science." (letter to D. Liplein, July 5, 1952). It is indeed the end of physics as a purely objective science. Subjective science on the other hand, is aimed at not only at understanding but experiencing ultimate meta-physical and theosophical truths - not only understanding but experiencing the subjective universe.