A Sensible Approach to Refugee Repatriation - Wilberg on Wednesday

Germany Calling...

Subject: German AfD party proposal for return of refugees back from Germany to Syria, as reported in the National-Zeitung:

20,000 Syrians given a temporary ‘holiday’ permit from Turkey to revisit their homeland decided to NOT to return to Turkey - among other reasons because despite some remaining security issues they found conditions in Syria better than in Turkey itself - and some even quickly got jobs there. Overall, the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR have reported that a total of 700,000 refugees, including 443,000 internally displaced Syrians or those from neighbouring countries have already returned to their home towns or villages, and that 76% of remaining refugees plan to do so next year if conditions, including infrastructure and security have improved enough.

Given these facts, and recognising that war in Syria is effectively over, the newly elected representatives of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) in Germany have put forward a proposal that:

“The German government should immediately enter negotiations with the Syrian regime in relation to Syrians taken into protection by Germany”.

Their proposal also includes for a set of sensible repatriation measures that include 1. ensuring that refugees are returned to safe areas 2. have adequate means of living 3. the repatriation could begin first of all with work-capable men - to be followed by other family members resident in Germany when the men have work and adequate living conditions for them have been established for the families 4. during this time provision made for the families in Germany itself will be guaranteed 5. that Syrian children in Germany should already start to receive education in Syrian 6. that a basic amount of financial help should be given to refugees to restart their lives in Syria.

Sounds like a well-thought out, common sense and humanitarian plan for refugee repatriation doesn’t it?

It shares the sentiments expressed by Lebanese President Michel Aoun, who recently appealed for international help in returning Syrians to their homeland. In addition, a resolution agreed by representatives of the Arab League and the EU, together with France, the U.K., Russia, the U.S.A. and China stated that: “It is the command of the hour that the UN and international community undertake all possible efforts for the safe return of displaced Syrians, particularly in peaceful, accessible and undisputed zones” and stressing that NO political conditions (i.e. regime change!) should be attached to these efforts. But which countries and governments will actually respond to this “command of the hour” in the sensible way suggested by the AfD in Germany? And which affected country is actually going to start even just talking to Bashar Al Assad and entering in constructive, cooperative action with the Syrian government to aid in repatriating the vast numbers of genuine Syrian refugees, which - as all parties above agreed - cannot be sustained in Europe?

Reject anti-Fascism and anti-Communism. Everything For Class And Nation

There are aspects of the fourth political theory which are disagreeable, but this excerpt is very important and very true. The anti-fascist prejudice mentioned exists to such an extent that few even realize that there were different tendencies within fascism (or even within the different forms of "fascisms"). And on the other hand the anti-communist prejudice mentioned is obviously manifest in fools who label anything they dislike as being "communist", someone like David Duke is a good example of this. He sees himself as a revolutionary against the system, but in fact unwittingly defends the system of liberal capitalism by attacking an imaginary communist boogeyman. The tendency to label everything reactionary as "fascist" (from the left perspective) and the tendency to label everything postmodern as "communist" (from the right) are identical. They fail to realize that the real enemy is capitalism and liberalism (in all of its forms).

What we need as Americans and is a near complete makeover of culture and priority. We have a government but no state as so many writers (especially Spengler and his progeny) have said before. We need to abandon capitalist economics and Trotskyist Geopolitics.

....After much trouble, Ozymandias Drakes is back on the Facebook Front. By his writings above, he has joined the fight with a determined will. Welcome back Comrade.

A Response to the debate on the Journal of Progressive Nationalism - Wilberg on Wednesday

[Editor's introduction: This is Peter's response to the ongoing Dialogical Journal of Progressive Nationalism.  For people who do not check into the Journal, this response will have been missed.  That is unfortunate.  It is reprinted below so that more people will see it, and to spur readers on to join in the debate on the Journal! 

To Anon specifically, thank you for your contribution, and please continue in this interesting discussion.  By examining ourselves we grow, and often it is necessary that in order to develop, we need to have light shone on particular aspects which we may have not been aware of. 

Anon has not stated who Anon is - and what (if any) relationship he or she may have with the party, but that is of no importance.  Discussion and examination from the perspective of another can be the catalyst we need to we see ourselves more clearly]

To Anon.

First of all, thank you for making a serious, critical contribution to The Journal of Progressive Nationalism.

"A preliminary definition of progressive nationalism: national, socialist, and therefore necessarily monetarily sovereign, but also non-racist and protective of national minorities - even whilst being fundamentally assimilatory in relation to national values, laws and cultures." Wilberg

You argue that “this roundly contradicts what has been written on the SWPE site where white separatism is promoted, not just European values and culture but it would appear that the DNA thing is central.” It would have - and still would be be - useful for me in responding if you had cited those elements on the SWPE site which you see as standing in contradiction to my remark - in particular but not only your impression that for the SWPE “the DNA thing is central”. But let us move on to the conclusion you draw re. SWPE policy:

“The result seems to be in terms of policy that the SWPE wishes to send all non-white people and of course some white non-British people away with what is called voluntary repatriation. This idea might have been a goer 50 years ago, possibly, but things have changed hugely since then. Getting nostalgic about the old NF policies as if they have standing outside of historical context is foolish. That's not to say that it is in and of itself a bad idea and that it wouldn't have any effect, but ultimately if you wanted to whiten Britain a bit more, you would end up with non-voluntary repatriation, inevitably. So please, don't try to sweeten the pill, the results would be violent and ugly.”

Again, I  find myself largely in sympathy with what you write here, although in SWPE policy outline, I could come find only one statement in the policy outline  that appears to confirm that repatriation is part of SWPE policy:

“We will use the profits of the multinational corporations to pay for the resettlement of people in their homelands.”

The question for me is that what is meant by “people” here remains a bit unclear. European whites or non-white non-European “people”? Recent, young and first generation immigrants or also second, third or fourth generation ones?  To use a personal example, my German wife, who, speaking fluent English, lived and worked in England for 30 years, did not form part of any German ‘minority’ community, and was perfectly happy to assimilate with British people and culture without giving up her German nationality.  Then again, living as I do in Prague, I see no tension whatsoever between native Czechs on the one hand, the large Ukrainian and Russian immigrant communities - which effectively form part of an intra-white and intra-European form of ‘multiculturalism’. Here also, the Vietnamese population, despite a lack of social or even linguistic assimilation, constitutes a perfectly harmless ‘national minority’.   

On the other hand, I believe there are strong arguments for the repatriation of particular groups of young, wholly un-assimilable, aggressively native-hostile or criminal first-generation non-white male immigrants in Germany, since a result of the dire conditions and demographic explosion in Africa  there will, within decades there may soon be literally hundreds of millions of Africans on their way to that country and others. And in a German context also, I believe there are also good grounds for offering aid to those recent immigrants who wish to return to their homelands - including many Syrians who have a deep attachment to their homeland, and whose return is only obstructed by continued Israeli and U.S. military provocations and attacks upon Syria. 

I am also in sympathy with your reference to Strasser and agree with the view that:

“....even if immigrant groups do exist within the social national state, they can choose to assimilate which as has already been explained is not multiculturalism, or can form a national minority group which absolutely must accept that the public, majority national culture is the dominant one and that their scope is very much limited to their own community. This, I would propose is also not multiculturalism, there would be a dominant culture, unapologetically so. This cultural self confidence would I imagine express itself in the fact that our legal system is formed by the dominant, British culture and would start to be applied without fear or favour across the land and in every quarter.”

Again, with reference to Germany, the idea of maintaining an “unapologetic” dominant national culture or Leitkultur in the terms you describe it has considerable and justificable support, and I agree with you that such a policy should be applied in Britain also - but only if we do not confuse “national culture” with the imperial nostalgia of the English ruling caste, which has, since the end of the 19th century, based its policy towards Europe on the sole principle of doing everything possible to aggravate national conflicts and bring about wars between European nations and peoples - and above all to keep Europe and Russia divided.

Returning to your critique, however, I do see a problem in ensuring through the British legal system that what you call the “scope” of national minorities  is very much limited to their own community. Throughout ancient and modern history - including American, British and Russian history, there has been a problem of ethnic minorities exerting a wholly disproportionate influence (albeit not always negative) on the economic, financial, political and social systems of their host countries, and also on their media and cultural values. Thus the entire history of American economics was effectively a history of struggle with Jewish banking interests and Zionist political interests - a struggle decisely lost with the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve bank in 1913 as well as the Zionist-pressured entry of America into both World wars and its wars of aggression in the Afghanistan and the Middle East. Similarly, the disproportionate role of Jews in the Russian revolution, as well as in the NKVD, Gulag system etc. cannot in any way be underestimated. As for Britain, the power of the Zionist-Jewish lobby - and its growing influence on even the legal system today also cannot be underestimated. This influence too, has a very long history going back many, many centuries. In the 20th century, Zionist groups were the chief backers of Churchill and Roosevelt’s warmongering against Germany  (even Churchill’s much beloved cigars were paid for with Zionist money). The there were the Zionist-backed plans - the Kaufman (1941), Hooton (1943) and Morgenthau (1944) plans - for the extermination of Germany and the Germans. I do not refer to all this to justify the wholesale expulsion of all members of a ‘national minority’ such as the Jews (and certainly not to a land - Israel - seized at gunpoint through the occupation and ‘ethnic cleansing’ of its native population). 

Having said this however, I believe that there are important further questions to be addressed in relation to your post. You offer  reasonable definitions of ‘multiculturalism’ and of ‘assimilation’ - though I believe there are more questions that can be asked about the use of these terms. Thus there is true and fake ‘assimilation’. Just think of the Zionist lobby and neocons in the U.S. - who from the outside appear assimilated, and may even be secular Jews - but whose prime loyalty is to Israel and their own international ‘tribe’.  In contrast, many German Jews were assimilated to the point of seeing themselves primarily if not only as German patriots - cherishing its culture and even fighting for it in both world wars. The German-Jewish relation could have become a model of a most fruitful symbiosis - were it not for those internationalist Jews and Jewish elites who sought only to exploit, profit and exert disproportionate power over their Gentile compatriots.     

You write also of  “national cultures” and the  “cultural self-confidence” of nations - or even simply of ‘nations’ as such. Here I see another question that still needs addressing. For if we think of the “cultural confidence” of Germans and the immense contribution of German culture European culture as a whole - we must not forget that this long preceded the establishment of Germany as a nation state. The question I see here is too complex and deep to go into here, but I would suggest there are grounds for distinguishing what has been called a national ego (whether in the form of the state, political institutions, a prominent leader etc) from the national soul - by which I do not mean anything that can be reduced to biology or DNA, but rather embraces all those distinctive or core values and qualities of different peoples which first gave birth to ‘nations’ (a word whose earliest root meaning is simply ‘to be born’). ‘Nationalism’ based on what I call ‘the national ego’ and the political state can serve to defend or even bring about a renaissance of the national soul. But it can also serve as a form of (over-)compensation for the loss of that soul, i.e. for the disensoulment of nations and their cultures which is the mark of  U.S. based global capitalism - which, through its global ‘pop’, gender and celebrity-obsessed culture industry seeks imposes its own soulless, wholly homogeneous commercial monoculture - including, paradoxically, a homogeneous monoculture of ‘diversity’ - on the media and culture of Europe and other regions. 

It is unfortunate that even the term ‘progressive’ nationalism still retains connotations of a soulless and purely ‘progress’ oriented modernism, in response to which the attempt to merely revive and mimic the symbols and rites of ‘traditional’ cultures and religions has given rise to a mere marketplace of New Age forms of pseudo-spirituality - and constitutes yet another form of superficial identity politics. 

Finally, an important question I hope to write a lot more about, but feel a need to provisionally state. The question has to do with the way in which so much political discourse in the U.K  today takes the form of virulent and vituperous debates about what the best and most correct ‘answers’ are to particular issues - rather than deeper discussion and debate of what the most essential QUESTIONS are that might lie beneath these issues.

Thanking you again for your comments,

Peter Wilberg

The British Isles - not just a matter of geography, it is our home

The Party has been in discussion over a change of name to reflect our change in position over the issue of the Nation as we envision it.  This has led to a delay in getting out literature for distribution, and to those affected by this, we can assure you that your patience is appreciated and that the issue is being resolved.

We have come to an agreement that the party must not be limited by narrow regionalism, and must not be diluted by globalism.  The party must be anchored in the Working Class of the Motherland.  This does not mean that we have any animosity to others, but that we appreciate the need to unite the Land with the People who have come from her.

The unique admixture of Peoples in the British Isles, binds us together in a way which no other European nation can claim.  Our people have been blended together over millenia, with the ancients joined by the Britons, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and others.  In a sense we are the most truly European of all the peoples of Europe, which makes our love for Europe strong.  The globalisers would use this to argue that we must remain in the EU, but that is to mix a beautiful natural reality (Europe) with a political-economic construct (EU); the latter of which through its globalist policies has become a very real threat to the survival of the former in any worthwhile sense.

We have reached agreement that the Party must be a Party for the entire British Isles, on both sides of the Irish Sea and from the very farthest of the Channel Isles right up to the far north of the Shetlands, from the westermost islands of Kerry to the shores of Suffolk.  Ours is the Party of the British Isles, embracing all our peoples and fighting against divisive regionalism and any arrogant designs of domination by one part over any other. 

We reject such 'politically correct' nonsense as our homeland being the 'Islands of the North Atlantic', the 'Anglo-Celtic Islands' etc.  The term British Isles includes the two large Islands of Ireland and Great Britain, as well as the over six thousand smaller ones.  Political Correctness is a liberal fad which will die as all mindless fads do.  The British Isles will remain. We use the term British Isles because we will not bow down to the lunacy of the liberal mafia - we aim to destroy them and build a better nation when they have been swept away.

Thanks go to Bob for all the help in sorting out graphics for the name change, with particular emphasis on the design of a Party Badge for members to wear with pride.  We are nearly ready to finalise the new name, so please bear with us and be patient for a little while longer.

The Question of 'Rootlessness' - and 'Identity Politics' : Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections

Part 3. The Question of ‘Rootlessness’ - and ‘Identity Politics’

“Thus, both [the imperialistic-bellicose and humanitarian-pacifistic way of thinking] can be used by “international Jewry” to proclaim and accomplish one as a means for the other [their common end of a rootless, leveled, homogeneous, technological mass civilization] — this machinational “history”-making entangles all players equally in their webs.”  Heidegger

The association of the Jews in particular with a “rootless cosmopolitanism” has a long history, which Heidegger here reaffirms. But it was after WW2, which resulted in the displacement, driving out and uprooting of so many Germans - both from and within their homeland - that Heidegger came to consider rootlessness (loss of ‘autochthony’) as something “caused not merely by the circumstance and fortune, nor … only from the negligence and superficiality of man’s way of life” but from “the spirit of the age in which all of us were born”. More significantly, he came also to associate this rootlessness with a growing attachment not just to financial calculation but also to technology, “which everywhere and every minute claim, enchain, drag along, press and impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other”, and “whose accomplishments come speedily to be known and publicly admired”.

At a time when information technologies, computers and the now ubiquitous ‘smartphone’ had not even begun to encroach upon human life and activity, this was an extraordinary example of Heidegger’s historical prescience.

“What we know now as the technology of film and television, of transportation and especially air transportation, of news reporting, and as medical and nutritional technology, is presumably only a crude start. No one can foresee the radical changes to come. But technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology.”

Heidegger did not seek to deny the usefulness or even necessity of technical devices, but warned of the way in which they threatened the complete extinction of another type of thinking to the dominant mode of “calculative thinking”. It was in his Memorial Address on the death of the composer Konradin Kreutzer that he called this other type of thinking “meditative thinking”. Indeed he spoke of man as being literally “in flight” from thinking in this meditative sense. 

“Yet you may protest: mere meditative thinking finds itself floating unaware above reality. It loses touch. It is worthless for dealing with current business. It profits nothing in carrying out practical affairs. And you may say, finally, that mere meditative thinking, persevering meditation, is ‘above’ the reach of ordinary understanding. In this excuse only this much is true: … meditative thinking requires a greater effort. It is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to await, as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen. Yet anyone can follow the path of meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. Why? Because man is thinking, that is, a meditating being. Thus meditative thinking need by no means be ‘high-flown’. It is enough if we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest - on that which concerns us, each one of us, here and now … now, in the present hour of history.”
Heidegger goes on to ask a fundamental question:

“Even if the old rootedness is being lost in this age, may not a new ground and foundation be granted again to man, a foundation and ground out which man’s nature and all his works may flourish in a new way…?”

For if not:

“Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing an indifference towards meditative thinking - total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature - that he is a meditative being. Therefore the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.”

To all this we might add that it would have come as no surprise to Heidegger, that within all the New Age cults and literary trash that would come to promote ‘meditation’ as a practice, one will never once come across the term ‘meditative thinking’. Instead ‘thought and meditation’ are treated in New Age culture as total opposites. Hence the pathetic degree of dumbed-down thinking - if not complete thoughtlessness - that finds its expression in the jargons of New Age literature, as it does also in both empty corporate jargons and the worship of technological science - what Heidegger called “THE new religion”. Nor is it a surprise that Twitter alone has become a principal technological instrument for the dumbing-down of human thinking - promoting unthought, knee-jerk reactions to the latest bits of informational ‘news’ that can be used to confirm with the existing beliefs and prejudices of its users without any deeper thinking or research.

That said, is there an answer to Heidegger’s quest for a new form of rootedness - one no longer reducible to the old fetishes of ‘Blood and Soil’, ‘Race’ and ‘Tradition’? For as a result of the now almost total dominance of calculative thinking:

"The world now appears as an object open to the attacks of calculative thoughts - attacks that nothing is believed able any longer to resist. Nature becomes a gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for modern technology and industry...The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit … Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium … uranium is set upon to yield atomic energy.

Heidegger’s own answer to the question of technology was that:

"We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology releasement toward things."

Further reflections come from the English philosopher Simon Glendinning:

… Flourishing, I want to say with Heidegger, does presuppose some kind of milieu which provides what we might call a “racinating function”. However, what we need to take our leave from is the disastrous temptation to represent every “nativisation” in “blood and soil” terms. Against Heidegger, I will want to affirm another nativisation – the being-at-home … that belongs, as Nietzsche stressed, to a human being who has achieved “independence of any definite milieu”.

This suggestion is given a further and even more pointed signification by Harvey Requiem:

“… there will always be outcasts who will find their autochthony and therefore pursue meditative thought simply through the necessity of it, because they cannot find an anchor in mainstream calculative society. They are not permitted a place in the calculative 'herd', which is how most people seem to find their meaning, therefore they must find their meaning elsewhere and are forced to meditate lest they lose their minds.”http://harveyrequiem.blogspot.cz/2012/02/on-martin-heideggers-memorial-address.html

Neither of these quotations are an answer in themselves. Yet they contain  the seed of an answer. We need only rethink Nietzsche’s attack on the “herd mentality” in a new way - as the cultivation of human beings who are not in any way bound or constricted by group identifications of any sort - whether ethnic, racial or gender-based, religious, political or ideological, regional, national or supranational. Such group identifications express a weakened and insecure sense of self, and with it a need to bury and confine the truly autarchic self - what I call ‘the deep self’ - within the restrictive and outworn baggage of group ideological languages and their symbolic ‘identifiers’. Thus I see no essential difference between, for example, the identity politics of the liberal and Trotskyite Left, and that of both Islam on the one hand and ‘ethnonationalism’ or ‘identitarianism’ on the other (including the ultra-identitarianism of World Jewry). Similarly, it makes no essential difference whether one seeks a basis for one’s sense of self by identifying as a feminist, gay, transgender, black, white (or even as a ‘socialist’) or doing so through a ‘them and us rejection’ of groups one does not identity with - which is just a form of negative identification and negative identity politics in which identity is entirely constituted by what one negates.

There is a dialectical relation between positive and negative identifications and identity politics, one which not only makes them inseparable but also serves globalist interests - through the ever-increasing polarisation and fragmentation of society into groups based on opposite identifications: feminism versus patriarchy, gay or lesbian identity versus ‘straight’ heterosexuality, traditional genders versus ‘trans-genders’ etc. etc. Such multiple identity polarisations are a globalist strategy of the 1% - and a useful distraction from focussing on it. It is important also to understand the connection between polarising group identifications and ‘self-identification’ in the sense defined by Gilad Atzmon. This is what he calls ‘ASA’ - for example the need to identify oneself primarily and fundamentally AS A ‘gay’ and AS A part of the ‘gay community’ - rather than just being homosexual, and not making a fuss of it or turning it into the core of one’s selfhood.  Do ordinary workers need to identify themselves AS workers? No, they simply find themselves in the position of having to be workers. In this sense, the common essence of all identity politics lies in the need to find a substitute for an authentic and autarchic sense of self in group identifications and identities, whether positively or negatively. I am not of course suggesting that identities, groups and communities of all sorts, including ethnic groups, are invalid or redundant. What I am saying is that groups and communities need to be composed of authentically autarchic individuals - those whose native soil lies in their own innermost soul - which both embraces and transcends identities and identifications. Only the ego and egotism, long cultivated in the Judaic tradition, thinks of itself as possessing identities as a form of private property. In contrast, the soul is awareness as such - a universal awareness field of which we are each an individualised portion and embodiment. The ‘deep’ self, as this pure, knowing awareness, includes an awareness of multiple roles and identities - but it is not itself an identity. That is why those insistent outsiders - foremost among them the German writer Ernst Jünger, close friend and correspondent of Martin Heidegger, - consistently refused to be bound by group identifications but embodied a truly sovereign individual. He himself called such an individual an ‘anarch’ - in contrast to the revolutionary ‘anarchist’. ‘Anarchs’ are simply aware, truly autarchic and self-rooted individuals without whose inner sovereignty there can be no free and sovereign groups, communities, states, societies or nations of any sort at all. 

On 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - Wilberg on Wednesday

Further political and philosophical notes and reflections:

Part 2. On 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'

Some extracts:

Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game…

Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgment, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interest? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is unthinkable; for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution.

The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. ...through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade...

NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

What is it to the proletariat labourer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side, … once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate…

It is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the "goyim" the very principle of god-head and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs.

In order to give the GOYIM no time to think and take note, their minds must be diverted towards industry and trade. Thus, all the nations will be swallowed up in the pursuit of gain and in the race for it will not take note of their common foe. But again, in order that freedom may once for all disintegrate and ruin the communities of the GOYIM, we must put industry on a speculative basis: the result of this will be that what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands and pass into speculation, that is, to our classes.

Economic crises have been produced by us for the GOYIM by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation. Huge capitals have stagnated, withdrawing money from States, which were constantly obliged to apply to those same capitals for loans. These loans burdened the finances of the State with the payment of interest and made them the bond slaves of these capitals ....

We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the GOYIM, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any GOYIM who oppose us by deed or word.

Commentary:

That the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a Russian ‘forgery’, full of plagiarisms from many earlier texts, is irrefutable. What is less remarked upon is their clearly Russian character, expressed by a hatred of both the landed (Tsarist) aristocracy and also by the ‘plan’ to replace it with a Stalinesque-type “despot” in full control of the State and all property - and who would be deified like a God. What is also not remarked upon enough is the failure of the Protocols to promote or anticipate the success of the Zionist movement - with its aim to reclaim Jerusalem. Then there is the clear lack of knowledge presented in the Protocols of the Judaic holy books themselves - which in themselves contain ample material of an even worse sort than that presented by the Protocols themselves - and which already declare that the Jews are destined to be global rulers of mankind and non-Jews their slaves. Instead the Protocols simply seek to re-contextualise elements of Jewish scripture and of the historical roles of the Jews in a more modern context.

From this point of view - and as Goebbels himself recognised - the whole question of the ‘authenticity’ of the Protocols is, in the end, wholly irrelevant - since most of what they are purported to ‘forge’ was already a reality at their time of writing - for example the reign of liberalism, Jewish control of the press, of speculative finance capital - and also of socialist and Bolshevik movements etc. But the biggest mistake of the Protocols was the perceived need of their authors to present Jewish supremacism as a carefully crafted conspiracy of a single directorate. It is better described as an international tribal network of diverse political and economic groupings elites - a ‘worldwide web’ - one with no central headquarters or leader, but with a clear history, direction and agenda (albeit one of which most Jews, even those participating in and supporting it, are largely ignorant).

“The locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks.” Proverbs 30:27.

Does this all mean that, in truth, Jews are indeed to blame for all the ills of this world, and have worse in store for it? Such a claim rests on a wholly impoverished understanding of history and historical developments. It is like claiming that the rise of capitalism was ‘planned’ and executed by a secret elite. To be sure, there were countless individuals, financial elites and also ‘secret societies’ like the Masons - all of whom did indeed vigorously participate in and furthered the rise of capitalism under the slogan of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. But to attribute the rise of capitalism to these individuals, elites and societies - rather than understanding them all as an expression of this rise - is to turn the dynamics of history on its head. Man does not make history. History makes man. This was the understanding that both Marx and Heidegger brought to expression.

“...the conspiratorial theory of history, which is based on the assumption that whatever happens is intended to happen, i.e., it is the result of conscious planning and deliberate action. Since Heidegger rejects this premise, he also rejects such anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as naively humanistic in their understanding of history. Heidegger does not, however, deny that human thought and action play important roles in history. But he believes that they are not the ultimate forces. Thus Heidegger does not deny that the Jewish community world-wide actively pursues its perceived collective interests. But he does believe that Jewish policies are not the cause or explanation of modernity, but instead that modernity arises from deeper, broader, and ultimately inscrutable forces. Heidegger sees the rise of Jewish power — in both Anglo-American capitalism and Bolshevism — as a product of the Jews’ unique adaptation to the spirit of modernity, which is an age of rootlessness and calculation. Jews, therefore, appear to be both subjects and objects of the modernization process. Primarily they are objects, since history is ultimately outside of human control. But since world Jewry is already characterized by rootlessness and calculation, it is capable of accepting the “world-historical task” of driving modernity toward its consummation: a rootless, homogeneous, technological mass society, which will ultimately ensnare and destroy the Jews as well. So, in the end, they are objects as well.” Greg Johnson

In other words, Jews are as much an object - indeed a slave and also a victim of their own ‘chosenness’ and supremacism - as they are its subject or ‘agent’. Similarly, the financial speculator or billionaire is as much a slave to speculation and money as he is master of it. Mammonism is no more a creation of money owners than capitalism, as an international economic system, was the planned creation of owners of capital.

In what then, lies the uniqueness of the power of international Jewry? The answer is simple and plain to see - and ever more so. Namely that it has become, like the fake gas chambers of Holocaust mythology, something totally outside the realm of ‘politically correct’ discussion and rational critique among leading statesmen and politicians of all colours or parties - not least the ‘far Left’. As Gilad Atzmon put it, Jewish power is the power to prevent any discussion or critique of Jewish power. As for Zionism in particular, far from being merely a response to anti-Semitism, its philosophy was, from its very inception, itself rabidly anti-Semitic. Herzl was an anti-Semite of such virulent extremism that his remarks puts the ‘Protocols’ in the shade. His aim was nothing less than to eradicate what he saw as disgusting and dirty Eastern Jews - and turn them instead into virile Gentiles with their own land, state and racially pure nation.

“Leon Ritter von Bilinski — the man whose memoirs were to expose the Disraeli origins of Herzl's ideas — told Herzl bluntly that the Zionists’ ideas and assumptions were exactly those of the worst anti-Semitic racists.” Mark Burdman

Martin Heidegger was perhaps the deepest philosophical critic of biological racism - both that of the Jews and its mirror image in Hitler’s biologism - and indeed Hitler’s Anglophilia:

“The idea of an understanding with England in terms of a distribution of imperialist “prerogatives” misses the essence of the historical process, which is led by England within the framework of Americanism and Bolshevism and at the same time world Jewry to its final conclusion. The question of the role of world Jewry is not racial, but the metaphysical question of the type of humanity that can accept the world-historical “task” of uprooting all beings from Being.”

Today this type of humanity is exemplified in Silicon Valley, with its principal and on-going project of creating machine-like human beings whose thought and perception are linked directly - digitally and electronically - to a singular Artificial Intelligence called ‘The Singularity’. What is here called ‘intelligence’ however, is nothing but the technological expression of what Heidegger called “machination” and “calculative thinking”, i.e. a type of ‘intelligence’ than can only calculate (previously associated with specifically Jewish financial talents - but which knows no dimension of living, meaning or being outside ‘the virtual’. But it is also not difficult to guess who the main financiers of research into this wholly artificial ‘intelligence’ are.

See also: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-capitalists-high-technology.html