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

WHAT IF ISRAEL IS BEHIND THE TERRORISTS?

As in Madrid, Manchester, London, Berlin etc. (not to mention New York 9/11) so now in Barcelona.

Important questions:

1. Why do the so-called 'Islamist' terrorists always leave their passports or ID behind - even in the rubble of the Twin Towers?!

2. Why are the terrorists always shot and killed, even if they are unarmed or only have knives - instead of being interrogated? (Clue: the dead don't speak).

Forget ISIS and Al Qaida. Think MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence and covert terror operation - famous for stealing passports and giving active support to ISIS.

Pity ISIS didn’t exist in 2004 to take blame for the Madrid bombing which had Israeli Mossad fingerprints all over.

The train bombings occurred one year after one million Spaniards joined up to 30 million other people around the world in protesting the imminent Iraq invasion, an Israel’s proxy war, and in the context of the Spanish people’s overwhelming rejection of the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq.

Catalans are holding a referendum on October 1, 2017 to split from Spain. Spain’s Jewish Lobby is against a independent Catalonian State, fearing a pro-Palestine country in Europe. Most Catalonians support boycotting Israeli products.

For a list of Mossad terror and false flag operations see article below:

WHAT IF ISRAEL IS BEHIND THE TERRORISTS? | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Now before you laugh and head off to get a coffee, just stop and think for a moment. Would any real group of…

WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM

Marxism for the 21st Century: Wilberg on Wednesday

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

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

2.   The BIG LIE swallowed by The Left 

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Gaping Black Hole in Political and Economic Thinking 

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

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

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

7. Lessons from History

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This is also the reason why, whilst in sympathy with many of the policies of SWPE, I see my role as one of contributing to a rethinking of their ‘classical’ political-theoretical foundations - elements of which I see as either partly contradicting or at least as not helpful in opening the way for a far deeper and more detailed philosophical, theoretical and practical articulation of these policies in the historical and geopolitical context of our times.

Brexit: A Cynical Manipulation

On the 23rd of June 2016, the people of England, Cymru and Kernow voted to leave the EU. Alba and the British-occupied north of Ireland voted to remain, as did the nation of Gibraltar, and the globalised city of London.  Due to the sparsity of people in the Remain-voting areas, other than London, the result of the Independence Referendum was for the UK as a whole to strike out on the path of Sovereignty and Freedom.

The referendum Voting patterns showed a clear division between the Ruling Caste and their bourgeois lackeys on the one side, who voted to keep the UK inside the EU, and the Working Class who voted for the UK to regain control of its own destiny.  The political divide was equally stark, with the globalising liberals lining up in defence of their beloved EU superstate, and the anti-Capitalists of every political stream joining together to break the UK out of the clutches of the despots of finance capitalism.

A year after the vote, with the ludicrous Article 50 negotiations crawling along, it is evident that the people were lied to.  The implication given by David Cameron and his partners-in-crime, was that once the votes were counted, the UK would either continue as a part of the EU, or it would be outside the bloc and would be an independent country.  If the vote had been pro-EU, that would have been the case, and nobody would have heard of Article 50 at all.

The procrastination following the vote has led people to the logical conclusion that the government expected the people to do the bidding of Brussels, London and the Bankers/Corporations who control them, and that with the rebellion of the Working Class was completely unexpected. This is quite possible.

The level of propaganda thrown at us included the useful execution of the MP Jo Cox, who was an outspoken advocate of EU power-grabbing.  We were supposed to vote to stay in prison out of a sense of respect for a dead politician. A few pathetic liberals may have been swayed by the killing, and probably more by the sickening celebrations by the State-stooges of the now thankfully illegal National Action, but the impact on the EU vote was negligible.

The Ruling Caste only allowed the EU Referendum because whatever the result, they would win.  If we had voted to stay in the EU, we would have voted to accept an EU Army, the Euro as our currency, complete metrication, a single legal system, and through rapid stages, the end of all the countries of the EU, with the UK divided into nominally distinct areas with as much influence on EU policy-making as a current local authorities have on Westminster.

Total standardisation of the economy would have meant the UK as a sovereign entity, would have ceased to exist.  This would have been catastrophic for the Working Class, but would have been a glorious victory for the corporate despots who would have had all barriers to their accumulation of wealth and power, removed.  The Referendum split the people into the decent family-centred freedom-loving Proletariat on one side, and the vile self-obsessed individualistic bourgeois capitalist scum on the other. The fact that we won the vote proves that the flame of Revolutionary Socialism burns brightly in our people.

The immediate resignation of the fake populist leader of UKIP, Farage, allowed the media and Establishment to push their Article 50 nonsense onto the people. The bourgeois filth who took to the streets to demand the EU vote be ignored, stood as counter revolutionaries, defying the people.  The time to push forward the revolution was missed, and the UK has languished as a prisoner in the EU prison ever since.

The departure of the Prime Minister and the subsequent calling of an election by his replacement on a platform of more austerity, pay freezes, benefits cuts, the confiscation of homes of the elderly, was all designed to give more authority to the EUphile MPs, mocking the Working Class vote. The situation we have now is of a government serving business, riding roughshod over the wishes of the Working Class.  This is as it always has been, but now much more transparently than since the vote was grudgingly given to us, which came about only within the last hundred years.

With the likes of Trilateral Commission member, David Miliband joining the choir of Globalist Dictatorship, the Referendum is being more and more openly ignored.  We voted for Sovereignty, for total control of our borders, for total control of our territory (including the seas of the UK), for total control of the economy.  What we are getting is a pledge to keep or seas as places open for all factory fishing environmental terrorists.  Our borders will not be closed until after an open-ended transition period, which will no doubt be extended and extended until with the help of the media, and the reality of vast numbers of people brought in as cheap labour, will become irrelevant.

The refusal to respect the will of the Working Class proves that the Ruling Caste and their Middle Class lackeys, are the enemies of the people.  It is so obvious that only the most brainwashed of the media-consumers can fail to see it.  The problem, of course, is that apathy is the greatest tool of the Ruling Caste, with the failure of the people to rise up, being taken as an excuse to push ahead with the globalist agenda regardless of what the people have stated they demand be done.

The bleak situation we find ourselves in is one in which we have voted to leave the EU, and the corrupt globalising political class is manipulating our decision in order to make sure that we do not gain the sovereignty we demand, but rather fall further into the web of global control.  The probability of the UK moving from the EU to the EEA, will mean that the UK does not achieve the ability to renationalise and rebuild heavy industry and our vital transport infrastructure.  The government has stated that if there is no EU Trade Deal, the default position will be for the UK to become a tax haven for the rich, with the Working Class becoming even more the subjects of tyranny than we already are.  The party of government would be happy to govern the UK according to World Trade Organisation rules, which also prohibit the implementation of policies which protect the people from multinational exploitation.  WTO vs EEA really is a false division - in both scenarios, the Working Class are used as fodder for the profits of the rich, with sovereignty eroded to make sure the capitalists in charge can gain more wealth and power with no fear of the people getting in their way.

The only solution to the Brexit trap, is for the Working Class to stand up against the Ruling Class and their bourgeois collaborators, and demand that the UK gain complete sovereignty, leaving not only the EU, but the WTO, IMF, NATO, UN, WHO, World Bank and all other branches of the global capitalist system.  The solution to the capitalist EU is not for a continuation of the capitalist UK in a different structure, but for a complete break from the bankers' economy and the establishment of a free federal Socialist Workers' Republic, in which 'trade' with other countries is not a priority, but rather the welfare of the British Working Class is the absolute focus of government.  We need the full implementation of Socialism in One Country, and the long-term goal of assisting other countries to do the same, so that ultimately capitalism will collapse everywhere and the whole world will be free.

Join us. Make a difference. Don't let the capitalists turn our Brexit victory into their victory.

Stalinism, the Occult and the Fetishism of the Sign - Wilberg on Wednesday

Despite the official declaration of materialist science as the only true Soviet religion, the so-called Stalinist ‘cult of personality’ that was launched in 1935-6 effectively imbued Stalin with singular ‘theurgical’ powers of omnipotence and omniscience. “Official rhetoric praised the magic and miracles wrought by the cadres (as opposed to the impersonal magic wrought by science and technology) and made it clear they owed their effectiveness to Stalin. Other people shared in his mana, a supernatural force that is concentrated in particular persons of object”, his portrait was a religious icon and the very utterance of his name regarded as a mantra for heroes of labour - even though such terms as mana and mantra were known only by ethnographers and occultists. Specially composed folklore specifically invested Stalin with magical powers…” and among esotericists “a legend circulated among them that Stalin knew something which no one else could ever discover and that he was an incarnation of Manu.” In contrast, failures in the 5-years plans were filmically portrayed as the work of saboteurs and wreckers - who in turn were presented as evil sorcerers or black magicians. As for censorship in the Soviet era, this was nothing uniquely ‘Stalinist’, nor merely an Orwellian activity of deletion or erasure, but an active and above all conscious use of specific sets of authorised and official phrases or ‘memes’. This is an activity comparable in principle to the occult elevation of the magical power of The Word - and the elevation of Semiotic theories of language and of Symbolist theories of art to a position almost above Marxism-Leninism. For now, the verbal signifier’ or artistic symbol achieved dominance over and displaced sensuously experienced reality. Such theoretical and theurgical understandings of Stalinism were not only recognised but given theological and philosophical praise and affirmation by thinkers such as Maxim Gorky - the founder of ‘Socialist Realism’ - and in his own way by Stalin himself. Hence his recognition of the significance of Semantics and Semiotics and his declaration that “ the sphere of action of language, which embraces all fields of man's activity, is far broader and more comprehensive than the sphere of action of the superstructure. More, it is practically unlimited…”

In the West however, the fetishism of the name or image, symbol or ‘signifier’ over experienced reality, serving purely capitalist purposes, has now created its own globalised ‘virtual’ reality - reflected in everything from commercial ‘logos’ to religious and political symbols, the images imprinted on coins and paper currencies, the barcode and pin number, digital ‘coding’, ‘user-friendly’ computer or smartphone ‘icons’ and ‘profile images’, ‘virtual’ imagery, the carefully selected media headline or photograph, and, last but not least, the unquestioned terms and jargonsof the sciences and of New Age ‘spirituality’ and pseudo-science. A fetishism of the sign can thus now be said to dominate over the fetishism of the commodity and the worship of money as analysed by Marx, money being itself a signifier and nothing of intrinsic value. But signs have now themselves become ‘money’ - in the form of new and fetishised currencies of human interaction, relationships and exchange - for example psycho-babble, New Age speak, and the multiple jargons of the sciences - now taken as more real than the experienced realities they claim to explain. Language is also constantly reshaped by technical developments in the means of production and ‘economic base’ - hence along the machine age came a mechanistic language that reduced the human being to a biological machine, the era of competition for oil as a principally ‘energy resource’ went along with the deliberate promotion of a ‘cult of energy’ (rather than ‘matter’) making it the highest scientific concept of reality - and allowing Californian-based New Age cults to use the new jargons or ‘energy’ to colonise, commercialise, corrupt and effectively marginalise the languages of both philosophy and of ethnic-national spiritual traditions. Similarly the language of the computer age not only sees but also actively seeks to reduce the human being to a technically controllable biological computer (the philosophy of so-called ‘trans-humanism’).

Thinking and the Concept of Time - Wilberg On Wednesday

The End of Thinking?

This first set of reflections is designed to point to a larger and more complex phenomenon - one which can be characterised in its essence by an almost universal sense of threat and insecurity based on a fear of and failure to recognise and handle complexity and contradictions. The result is an almost universal attempt - not least, but not only on the part of the English ruling caste - to use failed or failing attempts at simplification or ‘magical thinking’ to retreat from or avoid facing them (for example the complexities and contradictions involved in leaving the E.U). But I see this is part of a much broader phenomenon - albeit one particularly manifest in the U.K. and U.S. The phenomenon is one of governments, movements and parties of all colours and many nations showing, almost on a day-by-day basis, how they can no longer even get a proper grasp on what they themselves are doing - except through these failed attempts at simplifying their own thinking - and that of others. This fear-induced drive to simplify not just political thinking but thinking as such poses, in my view, an even greater threat than all the apparent ‘issues’ that human beings and society face on both an individual, national and global level - issues that are themselves perceived in an already preconceived, decontextualised, dehistoricised and therefore also over-simplified way. This was why, when asked about how his own thinking might benefit or change the world, Martin Heidegger responded by questioning whether thinking itself and as such still had any chance of surviving - except through the birth of wholly new type of thinking - not a simplified or magical thinking but one based on a new awareness of and relation to language - not least fetished religious, scientific and political terminologies and jargons. As for now, as Heidegger saw it: “Man is in flight from thinking.”

Awareness-based economics - rethinking ‘the labour theory of value’

Thinking is itself a conscious activity. More precisely it is an activity of, and arising from awareness. The question is, how much awareness or attention? One defect of Marx’s labour theory of value is that it made no distinction between quantity and quality of labour time: that is to say, between the quantity of time expended in labour, i.e. in productive and creative activity or ‘labour’ of any sort, ‘manual’ or ‘mental’, and the quality of awareness that goes into that labour. It is the failure to make this distinction that allows economies to arise in which a low-paid nurse, for example, may be wholly unpaid for the qualities of awareness she or he gives to her patients, whereas a high-paid boss may be paid millions for bad management i.e. for not giving proper awareness and attention to their job, whilst a multi-billionaire can make tens of millions each week, simply through investments handled by others, without needing to do a thing, i.e. without needing to contribute either any quantity or awareness quality of labour. The distinction between labour time and its awareness quality is reflected in the crass division of labour and gross inequality of earnings in both industrial and service sectors of capitalist economies. The performance of repetitive labour tasks that require little or no awareness can only accrue value and generate surplus value for employers through long hours of work - through mere quantity of labour time. Here too, however, a contradiction lurks. For it has now been shown in many countries that in any forms of labour in which a certain quality of awareness is both a necessary and significant source of value, the awareness quality given to labour - and hence also its value - can actually be significantly increased by reducing the number of working hours. In other words, productivity can be increased by reducing working hours - but only if these more productive hours are properly remunerated. The problem with the whole concept of ‘productivity’ however, is that it too remains a purely quantitative measure, designed to exploit labour even further by extracting more surplus value from their labour with the same number of working hours. The distinction between labour time and labour quality - the quality of awareness and attention given to any productive activity, including thought itself, is essential to considering how different types of labour should be remunerated in a socialist economy. In my view there should only be one basis for any pay differentials for a given quantity of labour time - a differential totally independent of the type of labour and based solely on the quality of awareness and attention invested in it, what I call its ‘awareness value’. For ultimately it is both the time quantity and the quality of awareness given to human activity or labour of any sort that is the foundation and source of its value - and not simply the abstraction of labour time. Were this not the case, it would be impossible to conceive how high civilisations, cultures and craftsmen of the past achieved all that they did without need even for any precise measure of time of the sort introduced by the relatively recent invention of clock time - a measure of time which itself ignores variations in time quality. The very fact that the term ‘quality time’ hasbecome part of our ‘modern’ vocabulary is, paradoxically, an indicator of the extent to which the human being’s natural relation to time itself and natural sense for different subjective qualities of time - something that needed no name in the past - has been distorted by the domination of a uniform measure of objectified time - clock time. There was a time when people knew that ‘slower is faster’, that ‘taking one’s time’ adds quality and value to both thought and labour, whereas speediness and manic busy-ness deprives them of quality and value - and deprives individuals of the sense of value fulfilment that should be both the motive force and prime source of satisfaction in all human activity - the sense of fulfilling, for both their own good and that of others, their individual values and creative potentials.

The PSFMA: The American Partner of SWPE

SWPE is an organisation which seeks to end the Capitalist State in the UK, and to build a Socialist Society of mutual cooperation.  SWPE stands under the banner of victory over the exploiters, of victory for Class and Nation.

To achieve a Socialist Society, means to take a stand against Global Capitalism, and by doing so to invite the attention of the terrorists of NATO, who are used by the Ruling Caste to murder all who stand in the way of the march of the financial imperialists and corporate oppressors.  It would be naive to the point of stupidity to imagine that we could achieve Socialism In One Country, without Socialists in other countries also achieving victory over the tyranny of capitalism.

SWPE is very pleased to be linking up with Socialists in other countries.  We believe in borders, and in the right of every people to control and own everything within their own lands.  We have been asked to recommend kindred spirits in the USA, for our Brothers and Sisters in that country to join. We have forged links to this end with the People Social Freedom Movement: America (PSFMA), which we urge all Socialists in the USA to support.  Their struggle is our struggle.

The following is the 11 Point Plan of the PSFMA

1) We call for community empowerment and grassroots democracy in order to allow for the people to express their freedom and destinies free from the control of the oligarchs that has divided the people and ripped freedom from our hands.

2) We call for full employment in quality jobs that are owned and managed by the workers themselves free from the exploitation of one class over another. As true freedom can not be expressed through poverty.

3)We call for universal healthcare and housing for all American citizens as you can not express your freedom while sick or homeless.

4) We call for a modern education system that focuses on history, literacy, mathematics, and cooperation to end the capitalist system that has produced children that know only enough to be cogs in a machine.

5) We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and break up the IMF and the creation of a democratic banking system modeled after the credit unions and an end to debt slavery (usury).

6) We call for the abolition of the CIA and the NSA as they have been doing nothing but infringing on the rights of the American people as well as all of their pet bills.

7) We call for the Federal legalization of Marijuana on both medical and recreational as there has been no evidence that has been provided that it has any negative impact on the human body and instead all of the evidence provided has proven it to provide many benefits.

8) We call for the separation of Church and State as promoted by our founding fathers and the reversal of the Republican attempts to force their religious beliefs down the throats of the American public.

9) We must respect autonomy within Native American land and communities, respect their Tribal Police and Tribal Courts and the reinforcement of the treaties signed throughout the ages.

10) We must promote the growth of renewable energies as seen in Southern Arizona and promote natural gas as well as the discontinuing of practices such as fracking in order to tackle Climate Change aka Sabotage.

11) We want an immediate end of all wars for oil and the end of the funding of terrorists around the world.

In addition to the 11 Points, the PSFMA has a policy of reaching out to others, in order to build Socialist Unity in practise.  This is a strategy we share, and it is refreshing to work with others who realise the futility of trying to make the various factions of the Left fall in line behind a single leadership structure - something which those who have any knowledge of the reality of politics will know is an unachievable dream, as long as the leaders of the many competing groups are unwilling to abandon their positions of authority in minuscule ghettoised organisations.

Again from the PSFMA:

We want to unite all people who are serious about creating socialism through our philosophy of community first

• You have been told that socialism can only be created in some distant future and only after the capitalist system has reached this or that stage or when the proletariat has been organized for this or that union or party we say that socialism can only come if we build it from the ground up through the radicalization and organization of our communities through service to the people, education, and art and the creation of a federation of these communities.

• There are those of you who say that revolution must come first however if I toss a penny amongst you each “vanguard” party among you will argue wither or not the coin landed heads or tails and such is your definition of revolution and socialism. We say that yes an insurrection maybe important in the future but as of right now we need to focus on the building of communities against the state and teaching the people about socialism through example and through practice. We say this that we believe in the realization of socialism in order to bring about the revolution!

We want unity amongst the Proletariat;

• We uphold Revolutionary Intercommunalism and as such we hold that unity must be achieved amongst all strata of the Working Class however we hold to the ideas of Bookchin that the consciousness of the Proletariat has became a clone to that of the Capitalist class and that the new consciousness must be communal in nature.

We want an active general strike not one that is reliant on just the factory workers but one that is also in the communities.

• This general strike not only focuses on labor but also a strike against the cultural and political life of the Capitalist Class and restores the autonomy of the Proletariat

We are socialists cloaked in the green of our communities and the red of labor we hold dear to these simple principles and to the need to engage in immediate action against capital and its forces.

The website of the PSFMA can be found at: https://psfma.wordpress.com/