Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 30

.................

"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country.

Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.

From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily."

- His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
.....................

.....................

"Middle class, middle man, incapable of great virtue or great vice: and there would be nothing wrong with that if only he would be willing to remain as such; but when his childlike or feminine tendency to camouflage pushes him to dream of grandeur, honors, and thus riches, which he cannot achieve honestly with his own 'second-rate' powers, then the average man compensates with cunning, schemes, and mischief; he kicks out ethics and becomes a bourgeois. The bourgeois is the average man who does not accept to remain such and who, lacking the strength sufficient for the conquest of essential values - those of the spirit - opts for material ones, for appearances."

Paravese, Roberto (1939) 'Bonifica antiborghese', in Edgardo Sulis (ed.), Processo alla borghesia, Roma: Edizioni Roma, pp.51 - 70.

..................

..................
What’s the purpose of militancy? Rarely to advance the cause one defends, but before all to shape oneself. To endow oneself with a character. To structure oneself, physically and mentally. Militancy is a school. Militancy is a giving of oneself. But it also can be an alienation. Each time it prevents one from thinking for himself it alienates. [...] It allows one to acquire an armor, but one can forget that the cuirass is not the body. There is an enormous difference between the engaged spirit and the partisan spirit. Even in the service of the best of causes, a partisan spirit is never a free spirit. The important thing is to engage oneself full time, with self detachment. The priority is always beyond one’s self.

Alain de Benoist, ID magazine (n° 9 - spring 2007)

................

.........................

.................

.....................

......................

GLOBALISATION OR FINANCE CAPITALIST TROTSKYISM?

Now, of course, there have been countless works written on this complex and often enigmatic world system – some good, some bad. Without a doubt, all of the more competent works highlight the incontrovertible fact that the world system commonly known as “Globalisation” is actually Atlanticist in origin, which is to say Anglo-Saxon, and it is championed and promoted most viciously by the United States via its primary political-economic-cultural nerve centres (i.e. the Pentagon, Wall Street and Hollywood).

Needless to say, it is not too often that the fundamental roots of this hellish monster are either explored or revealed by even the best or most famous writers. In many cases, the so-called “conspiracy” authors (or those labelled “conspiracists” by the mainstream media) do a much better job of exposing the Globalist golem for what it actually is: a leftover and yet greatly strengthened form of Trotskyite Internationalism, or more specifically: Finance Capitalist Trotskyism. In other words, Globalisation is best defined as a postmodern/post-industrial phenomenon which is: economically Financialist, culturally Capitalist, and politically/socially Trotskyite. These three highlighted words represent the unholy trinity of Globalisation.

To understand the historical roots of Globalisation, its component parts and its goals, one must first go back to the height of the Cold War and enquire as to what ideological values were in dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union. This is to say, one must first understand the deepest spiritual impetuses for the geopolitical tensions that existed during the “hottest” years of the USA – USSR rivalry. And so, the following question must be posed:
What primary ideological values of Marxism were openly opposed by the United States?

Answer: materialism, anti-traditionalism, ethno-socio-cultural mass-leveling, gender equality, internationalism (the eradication of national borders), and anti-classism (socialism).

It is more than ironic that out of all of the principles of orthodox Marxism cited above, only the last (anti-classism) was prevented from taking root in American society. In all other respects, the United States and its NATO vassals were far more successful than the Soviet bloc countries in implementing these anti-traditional goals – and long before the Cold War had officially ended.

Indeed, all throughout the twentieth century the U.S. government poured vast amounts of money into the radical mass-levelling of American society – a fact that has become increasingly obvious since the famous counter-cultural upheavals of the late 1960s. What resulted was a profoundly liberal American worldview (accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike) which actually stood firmly against the professed “human rights” which were claimed to be upheld by the most radical voices of the counter culture. There developed a great paradox of ethnic and gender “equality” which only highlighted the multidimensional problems affecting the innately hypocritical American society – a society which is indeed multicultural and multiracial, yet which was also founded on the genocide, slavery and oppression of the same groups it now provides with a paternalistic “pat on the back.” And so, as the Trotskyite/Neocon Nathan Glazer proudly boasted in the title of his 1998 book: we are all Multiculturalists now.

Whether Democrat, Republican or so-called “Independent” – all of the American political elites have accepted the socio-political dimensions of the international communist ideology or what can be termed mass-levelling or mass-hyper-egalitarianism, i.e. Trotskyism. Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology, every denizen of the planet possesses the same rights so long as the dogma of liberalism (or hyper-individualism) is never brought into question. For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal” in the purest sense of the term – meaning, in the eyes of liberals all human beings are cut from the same American mold, they are all considered equally worthless as atomised pieces of consumerist cannon fodder who must readily serve the liberal Atlanticist elites. They must jump when the commissars in Washington and New York tell them to jump, they must go to war when the commissars in London and Brussels tell them to go to war, they must die when the commissars in Hollywood tell them it is “heroic” or culturally acceptable to do so. This is Globalisation. This is Death.

If one should visibly rebel against the liberal worldview at any time, what follows is his or her branding as a “racist,” even though liberalism has fomented more ethnic and cultural chauvinism than any other creed known to man. Nevertheless, the heretic crusaders against liberalism will undoubtedly be called “racists.” Public censuring and total social alienation – loss of friends, livelihood and even one’s own family – inevitably come next. This is Trotskyism plain and simple. This is the legacy of Trotsky’s liberal Left Opposition. In fact it was Trotsky himself who first coined the term “racist” in 1927. Needless to say, Cultural Marxism or so-called “political correctness” falls clearly within the schema of Trotskyism. For those who are not familiar with Leon Trotsky and his connection to liberal Globalisation, I will provide a concise historical background.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was the chief proponent of International Socialism/Communism in the USSR – he represented the anti-Leninist interests of the so-called Left Opposition, or more precisely: the liberal internationalist communists. What can only be described as the “National Bolshevik” tendency (or centrist position) of the Bolshevik Party was championed by Joseph Stalin who happened also to be the originator and proud exponent of the “Socialism in One Country” doctrine, not to mention the rightful political heir to Lenin.

In February of 1929 Stalin effectively banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union on account of his subversive liberal-internationalist propaganda which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the Soviet Union at the most critical period of its development after the great human tragedies of the First World War (1914-17) and the subsequent Russian Civil War (1917-1922). What the Soviet people needed more than ever during this period (in the absence of Lenin who died in 1924) was a strong man in the Kremlin who represented the great bulk of the Russian and Soviet masses. They needed a great man of steel who represented the humble class origins of the peasantry and yet also embodied the combined supra-national aspirations of the people. The man the Soviet people needed was Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili: Stalin.

Certainly, volumes can be written on the subject of the Stalin-Trotsky rivalry, however the main reason for the dispute and Trotsky’s eventual exile (along with the famous trials against the Left and Right Opposition members) can be summed up thus: Stalin was a National Bolshevik (not ideologically but in his deeds) – he restored greatness not only to the Russian folk, but to all the other Eurasian ethnic groups who comprised the former Tsarist and then Soviet peoples. Stalin brought back order, hierarchy, patriarchy, religious tolerance, national patriotism, civic pride, as well as a renewed interest in the arts and sciences. Most importantly, all of these achievements were accomplished within a national or supra-national context; i.e. they were accomplished for the Soviet people and the Soviet people alone. The liberal-internationalist Trotskyites, on the other hand, spoke in terms of a world revolution. They promoted the view that nations and cultures do not exist – that an inorganic world community of workers must have the unique Soviet experiment foisted upon them mercilessly for the sake of internationalism. Does any of this sound familiar to the reader? If not, perhaps I should replace the word “internationalism” with “globalization.”

At any rate, the Stalin-Trotsky feud is absolutely crucial if one is to understand the ideological mechanics (if not the roots) of postmodern Globalisation. It is also important to recall Stalin’s chief accusation against the Trotskyites: that they were the paid agents of international capitalism. The validity of Stalin’s claim is glaringly clear if one conducts the proper research, particularly the well-documented collusion between Monopoly Capitalism, the Federal Reserve Bank and Leon Trotsky – three of the foremost pawns of the Atlanticist-American elites.

For example, it is a fact of history that Leon Trotsky (real name: Lev Bronshtein) was admitted into the United States during World War I, and welcomed with open arms by his fellow radical internationalists in New York City. Yet far from living the meagre lifestyle of a “comrade worker,” Trotsky lived an extravagant lifestyle, owning one of the city’s first refrigerators and frequently being chauffeured around in a limousine. Even more disconcerting, President Woodrow Wilson provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to advance the cause of international revolution. This is not at all surprising when considering the fact that Wilson had one of the most liberal administrations in U.S. history. Some of Wilson’s most influential and trusted advisers were: Paul Warburg, Henry Morgenthau, Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, and Stephen Wise (just to name a few). These same folks were instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Other names which directly funded Trotsky’s cause include: William Boyce Thompson – director of the Federal Reserve Bank and a large stockholder in the Rockefeller/Rothschild-controlled Chase Bank; Thompson donated 1 million dollars to Trotsky for propaganda purposes. Eugene Boissevain – a prominent New York banker connected to the Guaranty Trust Company. Alexander Gumberg – a Wall Street businessman who also had connections to Chase Bank. All in all, most of the pro-Trotskyite support originated from one single address: 120 Broadway, New York City.

When one investigates the matter thoroughly, one thing becomes perfectly clear: the so-called “red menace” turns out to be much more of a green menace, due to the vast amount of U.S. greenbacks which funded the cause of Trotsky’s failed International Revolution. A sufficient primer for those who might be new to the subject would be: Antony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. While not an entirely accurate work, it does highlight the early twentieth century roots of Globalisation quite convincingly, along with Sutton’s other works such as Wall Street & FDR, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

And so, a clear picture emerges from a rigorous investigation of the facts: Big Business, the Federal Reserve Bank, and Leon Trotsky – all firmly under the control of the Atlanticist elites – worked in collusion to bring about an international communist regime inside Russia with two ultimately liberal goals: (1) the neutralisation of all business competition that could pose a threat to the monopolistic hegemony of the United States and Britain, and (2) the promotion of a radical social world agenda. Needless to say, there is a plenitude of corroborating evidence behind the latter point, as it has always been the richest members of the economic and political classes (the robber barons and their political capos – the “bosses”) who have supported the most outlandish forms of social experimentation. Typically, the more outrageous the cause, the more funding it received. Thus, the ideology of International Communism may well have been born in 1848 – the year Marx published his famous work. But as a viable political force International Communism was created and bankrolled in the midst of World War I by the wealthiest one-percent of the banking class, their political lackeys and the radical agitator “hitmen” of Trotskyism.

By the 1930s, mass droves of the latter group – the radical agitator Trotskyites – immigrated to the United States where they were welcomed with open arms by the Roosevelt administration. Immediately the disciples of Bronshtein burrowed like plague-bearing rats into positions of power within the Democratic Party. Many – like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, and Irving Howe – found the Republican Party to be just as easy to infiltrate, yet under the guise of “Neoconservatism.” In time, the GOP was successfully commandeered by the sons of these “former” card-carrying Trotskyites – by second generation Neocons like William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz, et al. This second generation would go on to form the backbone of the Neoconservative Movement of the 1990s and 2000s – a rabid group of liberal free-market radicals whose political trademark can be found in virtually every one of their works and speeches through the recurrent use of the word “Globalization.” This conspicuous trademark of theirs is simply another way of saying “Internationalism.”

The Finance Capitalist world system created by the abovementioned second-generation Trotskyites is the same one that emerged victorious from the Cold War. It currently poses the greatest existential threat to every living person on this planet simply because it is depriving entire nations, peoples, and cultures of their inherent right to pursue their own traditional and unique ways of life independent of American control. This is unipolar Globalisation in the proverbial “nutshell.” It is an attack on true autonomy – since true autonomy can only exist within a multipolar context – and thus it is an affront to the collective dignity of all mankind.

Globalisation must therefore be destroyed by any means possible. And when the usurious banking industry and the power of stock companies and the U.S. military industrial complex – which provides the armed muscle for the first two – are all finally destroyed, the Atlanticist cobra will no longer have any venom in his fangs. (And what threat is a cobra if it is deprived of its only means of attack?)

Finance Capitalist Trotskyism (i.e. Globalisation) is the venom that is currently poisoning the world. It is being employed by whites and non-whites alike, by Christians and non-Christians, Jews and non-Jews, left-wing and right-wing; by members of every race, confession and political creed on the planet – but all for the benefit of one select group: the wealthiest one-percent of the liberal Atlanticist power elites. To put it another way: for the benefit of the Anti-Christs.

And so, to conclude, it could rightly be said that the Cold War was eventually won neither by Capitalism (Thesis) nor Communism (Antithesis), but by Finance Capitalist Trotskyites – the deceptive International Synthesis of the two. The Neo-Eurasianist worldview is therefore vehemently opposed to the diabolical synthesis – the unholy union – of both systems, i.e. the Atlanticist/Anglo-American extortionist racket which currently runs the world under the guise of “Globalization.” And peace-loving people all over the world ought to be against this racket too!

Reproduced with thanks to Christopher Pisarenko, Katehon

How free movement is wrecking Romania (CPBML guest post)

Romanian border with Bulgaria. Photo Jaggat Rashidi/shutterstock.com

In February this year there was a short news item in the Romanian news. An American automotive parts producer, Delphi Packard, announced that it was shutting its factory in Moldova Noua, in the south west of the country, because it can’t get enough workers to enable full production. 

That item didn’t make it into the newspapers here. That’s hardly a surprise: there’s been plenty of discussion about the effect on Britain of the EU’s free movement of labour – but little about its effect on the countries whose workers come to Britain to work. Those who champion free movement seem oblivious to the wreckage the policy leaves behind.

The 700 or so workers who were employed in the factory will swell the ranks of the local unemployed or, more likely, join the millions of their compatriots who have gone abroad in search of work.

The old and children

Romania has become a country populated mainly by the old and by children. Working-age adults are thin on the ground, except in August and around Christmas, when they come home for a visit. 

And land prices have slumped, says a September 2018 report by Colliers International. Properties in the capital Bucharest are just 50 per cent of their 2008 values – that’s one year after Romania joined the EU.

While the British press is piling up scare stories of Jersey potatoes left to rot in fields when free movement to Britain ends, the nightmare of labour shortages has already hit Romania. 

Describing an idyllic Bruegel-like harvest scene in the country’s Maramures Valley, Timestravel writer Chris Haslam noted this year, “Look closer, though, and you notice that unlike Bruegel’s depiction of strapping youths and comely maidens, nobody in these fields is under 50 years old.”

The young have gone. “The kids have left,” one farmer sighed to Haslam. “My son is driving a delivery truck in Peterborough.” 

Exodus abroad

Since Romania became part of the EU in 2007, 3.7 million Romanians have left to work abroad (though they are still counted officially as part of the population). To put that number in perspective, in 2007 the working age population amounted to 14 million, so around a quarter of the country’s workers have gone.

Many of those who left did so after 2014, when all restrictions on movement for work within the EU were lifted for Romania (and Bulgaria, which joined the EU at the same time as Romania). Before 2014 some countries required work permits. Others, such as Ireland, had allowed unrestricted movement since 2012.

The result was an outpouring of workers – not just into low-paid unskilled manual work. It affected skilled workers, too. In the professions, where work permits are easier to come by, the exodus started even earlier.

“IF YOU THI

And it came swiftly. One of the most acute areas of labour shortage is in medicine. For all the talk of an NHS crisis when Britain leaves the EU, the real crisis is in countries such as Romania. Between 2011 and November 2013 fully a third of Romania’s hospital doctors left the country.

No wonder Professor Vasile Astarastoae, president of the Romanian College of Physicians, talked to The Guardian about “a major crisis”. 

“If you think that the situation is bad in Bucharest, in the rural areas it’s tragic,” he said in an interview, this time to the Financial Times in January 2014. “Those who used to operate there are now filling the gaps left from those who have migrated abroad.” In many rural towns and villages there are no doctors at all.

Disappearing doctors

A year later, Viorel Husanu, president of national healthcare union Sanitas, told the news agency Agerpres that half of Romania’s doctors had left – 14,000 of them, along with 28,000 nurses. According to Deutsche Welle, Germany’s public international broadcaster, they were joined by 43,000 pharmacists. Estimates suggest that the bulk of the doctors have gone to Germany, France and Britain.

By 2017, even The Independent was reporting that a third of hospital positions in the country are lying vacant. In March this year, the government responded by raising medical salaries by 70 per cent, though Romanian doctors will still be able to earn two to three times as much by working in France, Germany and Britain, for example. 

In order to fund the rise, the government hiked employees’ social security contributions by 25 per cent (at the same time as reducing employers’ contributions).

Romania is also haemorrhaging researchers. Around 20,000 now work abroad, according to the Romanian Association for Health Promotion – proportionately, as large a loss as the flight of doctors. These include many of Romania’s best scientists, which makes it harder for those left behind to gain science funding from the EU – virtually the only source available.

Added to this, around 300,000 young Romanians have chosen to study abroad, in search of better education and better job prospects after they graduate. The result is a decimation of the talent available to the country.  

EU funding stranglehold

And there’s a further twist of the EU knife. With its skilled workers lured abroad and its economy severely damaged, Romania has become almost totally dependent on the EU. Most of its public funding – 70 per cent – comes from the EU’s regional funds (for comparison, EU regional funds account for 5% of Austria’s spending). And 70 per cent of its exports go to other EU countries. 

Meanwhile, a report from a German political institute, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, in 2014 suggests that the outflow of workers is set to continue. Almost 80 per cent of young people (15 to 29) polled by the institute wanted either strongly (42 per cent) or very strongly (36.9 per cent) to be established outside Romania within 10 years.

The EU is turning Romania into a wasteland – and the worst is yet to come, according to the United Nations. It forecast last year that the country’s population, currently around 19,700,000, will fall to 16,400,000 by 2050 and below 12,100,000 by 2100.

That is the EU, destroyer of nations.

…and union rights attacked too

It’s been well documented – and not just in Europe – that when the global financial institutions impose “structural adjustments” it leads to an increase in migration. Romania has had more than its share of these “adjustments”. You’d almost think that encouraging migration was a deliberate policy.

When the financial crisis of 2008 struck, Romania was hit hard. Cap in hand, it went to the EU and asked for €20 billion to keep itself afloat. The “Troika” (European Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund) that asset-stripped Greece was happy to oblige.

But there were conditions (as in Greece): workers’ rights, both individual and collective, were savagely cut. As the Institute of Employment Rights reported in 2016, new provisions made it easier for employers to hire and fire, as well as introduce “flexible” employment contracts. 

Cross-sectoral collective bargaining was outlawed. Even sectoral collective agreements were hamstrung, and their number fell by 60 per cent. Public sector salaries were slashed by a quarter, along with reductions in benefits.

That is the EU, destroyer of trade union rights.

Source: https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/how-free-movement-wrecking-romania 

Republished with full permission, and thanks to the CPBML

Party Slogans can say more than they want to!

The main parties of the British Isles all have slogans which they feel convey a message of what their intentions are.  The slogans tend to be short and to the point, but they often convey more than the authors desire.

The Liberal Democrats are, for some unfathomable reason, considered important players in Westminster.  There slogan is: 'Demand Better!'  We couldn't agree more - Demand Better than these sad deluded degenerate middle class idiots!  The 'rats have taken to cosying up to the would be dictator, Gina Nadira Singh - Miller: an egomaniacal individual, born in South America to Asian parents, she lost a court case trying to block the will of the British People to leave the European Union, and now uses the Lib Dems as a vehicle to thwart the UK democracy.  The rootless, globalist, globe-trotting bigot is at home with the Lib Dems, because like her, they too have no respect for Sovereignty and the decision of the Working Class to make Britain a free nation.  Demand Better indeed!

The Greens (whoever they may be), also get disproportionate media attention, in spite of being a Brighton and Hove party, with no support outside a very strange area of England.  The trans-fascist party is all for opening the borders and ending the existence of the UK.  Of course they are anti-democracy, openly calling for Brexit to be overturned.  Their slogan is 'For the Common Good', which fits perfectly with their policies in being vague, dull and nonsensical.

The Tories have an unofficial slogan of 'A Global Britain', which is an open statement of a desire to destroy the sovereignty of the UK, and turn it into a tax haven for Global Capitalists, and a plantation for the Working Class, who will see our already pitiful standard of living, crushed as the natural protections to our well being are smashed, and our country becomes unrecognisable as a part of a Globalised nightmare devoid of Culture, Tradition or any sense of Britishness worth the word.

Labour have the equally odious slogan, 'Rebuilding Britain For the Many', Not the Few, which is designed to give the impression that they care about the Working Class and are going to weaken the power of the parasitic Ruling Class.  Labour want to throw open the borders, build on every inch of Green Belt land, and do to the UK exactly what the Tories are doing.  The vile racist, Dianne Abbott, points to the future for the Working Class if she and her trotskyite partners-in-crime became the government, and just who the 'Few' are that they are against.  Unlike the sly Tories with their pretence of respecting the EU Independence Referendum, Labour are now openly calling for a Second Referendum, to bully us into staying in the grips of the Globalist Bloc, as a stepping stone to Total Capitalism Worldwide, with all borders obliterated and all peoples reduced to servitude.

The parties in Wales, Scotland and both sides of the division line in Ireland, also have slogans, which have the same desire of hoodwinking the people into thinking that the politicians are going to stand up for the people, rather than sell us all out to Globalisation.

There is only one party with a slogan which is honest and states exactly where the party stands.  That party is the SMPBI:

Wilberg on Wednesday - The Illness Is The Cure pt 12/46

Biomedicine as
Money-Driven Medicine

The increasing trend toward the privatisation of medicine has its roots in the privatisation of illness as such– and in the massive corporate profits that can be derived therefrom.

Yet to reduce illness to the private property of an individual’s body is to wholly ignore the role played in illness by the sickness of the world and planet they live in – whether in the form of economic deprivation, ecological destruction, environmental poisoning and – last but not least, worldwide wars.

Then again, endless political debates about how to deal with the ever-increasing costs of funding for national or private health provision all fail to get the central point – namely, that in capitalist economies, the medical diagnosis and treatment of illness is essentially big business and money-driven– exploited for the promotion of new medical drugs and technologies. That is why the big pharmaceutical companies make more profits than all the Fortune 500 corporations put together.

What is conventionally regarded as ‘science-based’ or ‘evidence-based’ medicine is actually nothing of the sort – given the corners cut by Big Pharma in testing new drugs, in informing the public on their true and often minimal efficacy, in warning them of their side-effects and often serious dangers – not to mention the massive sums of money spent noton costly ‘R&D’ but purely on marketing the latest drugs and treatments to doctors and surgeons. Even the most reputable medical professionals and ‘experts’ are now regularly paid to have articles offering misleading ‘evidence’ for the efficacy and ‘safety’of new drugs and medical technologies published in their name – whether or not they have participated in that research or even so much as read the articles sent for their signature. In reality, modern medicine and its treatments have been acknowledged by the Journal of the American Medical Associationitself to be the third leading cause of deathafter cancer and diabetes.

Money-driven medicine has effectively turned patients themselves into commodities for sale by their physicians – offering a source of profit not just through drugs but through expensive hi-tech testing and ‘treatment’ technologies. All this at massive expense to national health services and/or to the profit of private health providers milking health insurance companies or even public health services.

The truth is that illness is essentially big business, that ‘Big Pharma is Big Bucksand Bad Medicine’, and that today’s ‘evidence-based’ medicine is essentially Money-Driven Medicine . Indeed any drug or new medical technology that actually ‘cured’ a disease would be fatal for the profits of the entire Medical-Industrial Complex. Nevertheless the promise of cure is constantly promoted by this multi-trillion dollar medical industry – one with vast lobbying power and almost complete monetary control of regulatory organisationssuch as the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.A.

“The pharmaceutical companies have become the favourite whipping boy in discussions about the corrupting influence of money in medicine. And the companies deserve a lot of the criticism they receive … but I want to be clear that they are not the only problem. The larger truth is that creating new patients and making more diagnoses benefits an entire medical-industrial complex that includes Pharma but also manufacturers of medical devices and diagnostic technologies, freestanding diagnostic centers, surgical centers, and even academic medical centers.”

Dr. H. Gilbert WelchOver-Diagnosed – making people sick in the pursuit of health

To put it bluntly, there are surely understandable reasonsfor people feeling or even getting seriously anxious, depressed or sick if they can’t earn a living wage, can’t rent or pay for housing, if their homes are threatened with foreclosure, if they face a daily threat of joblessness – or can see no chance of realising their life potentials. Yet modern ‘scientific’ medicine consistently ignores such reasons for both mental and physical illnesses, instead reducing them to a result of chemical imbalances in the brain or biological ‘causes’ of one sort or another. In this way it totally denies all life-meaningto illness – and its relation to the innate sickness and sickness-generating effects of capitalism itself.

Complementary medicine and proponents of alternative psychosomatic, psychoanalytic and existential understandings of illness frequently either ignore or downplay its social, political and economic dimensions. For capitalism also profits from illness in another way – by manufacturing it on an industrial scale through the dis-ease generated by what Marx called wage-slavery. This is the prostitution of the individuals’ ‘labour power’ i.e. their bodies – to make profits for an employer, only for the employee to be casually disposed of through unemployment at times of economic downturn.

Yet what ‘employment’ itself means in capitalism is that anyone from skilled and experienced workers, to unemployed graduates, budding artists, musicians or scientists whose education or training, skills, interests and actual workhas no current ‘market value’ can be forced into employment in the form of any low-paid job offered to them, even if it doesn’t pay them a minimum or living wage – or in no way actually ‘employs’ their true skills, gifts or potentials.

In these circumstances, illness can thus serve as a form of mute political protest at the economic demands imposed by capitalism and the distress this imposes on people. For it offers the individual time to temporarily reclaim their body as their own, and allow it to embody and symbolically register their felt dis-ease and distress in what, for most, is the only socially acceptable way – through medical disease symptoms. The problem is then that their bodies are immediately reclaimedby medical professionals and the medical-industrial complex, in a way that actively furthers the process of translating and transforming an individual’s felt ‘dis-ease’ into some medically diagnosable ‘disease’. The patient’s body is perceived and treated as a biological machine – rather than as a living embodiment of the human being. And as with any other machine, the aim is to repair it and restore its economic functionality.

For just as capitalism identifies work solely with ‘employment’ that profits an employer, so also it identifies ‘health’ solely with an individual’s economic ‘functionality’, i.e. the capacity for ‘employment’ in the labour market rather than the capacity to engage in personally meaningful activity or work – irrespective of its ‘market value’. Similarly capitalism recognises as ‘illness’ only that which interferes with the mechanical functioning of body and mind in the performance of mechanical tasks, physical or mental. All this has recently become ever clearer through governments making receipt of welfare benefits for the dependent on tests designed only to show that (totally irrespective of the individual’s medical condition and indeed even if they are terminally ill) they are still capable of employmentof some sort – even if they can’tget a job, even if that job does not pay a living wage and even if it is clearly damagingto both their medical health and their essential ‘health’ i.e. their capacity for living a meaningful and fulfilled life.

The role of the doctor in what is ever-more evidently a money-driven medicine is – paradoxically – to rule out entirely from consideration the larger life context in which an illness first manifests – not least its economic context and the effect of the latter on the patient’s social world and relationships. Thus, loss of housing, jobs or life opportunities of the sort that lead to disheartenment and loss of heart on the part of patients count for nothing – until and unless this loss of heart manifests as diagnosable symptoms of ‘heart disease ’. These are then, like all other forms of illness, cold-heartedly treated as if they had nothing to do with the patient’s actual life whatsoever. The role of the biomedical doctor is principally to act and do – to treat patients and not to talk with them – and certainly not to listento them, to hear and feel their inner ‘dis-ease’ and learn about the health of their livesand relationships. The seemingly idealistic aim of improving patients’ health and ‘saving’ or ‘extending’ patients’ lives through medical tests and treatments of all sorts is pursued at any cost to their bodies as a result of serious side-effects and at whatever expense to their real health i.e. their qualityof life.

The result is a veritable epidemic of ‘preventative’screening – at high cost to public health services – but resulting in over-diagnosis and over-treatment, even of people with no symptoms whatsoever. This leads in turn to widespread ‘iatrogenetic’ (medically caused) illnesses – which then require yet further medical treatments. A prime example is screening men for prostate cancer by conducting blood tests which measure their level of ‘PSA’ (Prostate Specific Antigen). If this is found to be above a set figure, intrusive biopsies are then regularly conducted. These can produce the very symptoms of prostate cancer they were supposed to prevent from emerging – as well as increasing the likelihood of any actual cancer spreading through the body. Yet as many doctors admit, most men die withand not fromprostate cancer – whereas surgical and drug treatments for it can and often do dramatically reduce their quality of life, for example through making them impotent or incontinent.

Constant government, media and press propaganda regarding ‘health risks’ of all sorts, together with mass screening programs, serve a vital role in maintaining money-driven medicine and the medical-industrial complex – creating a type of mass hypochondriawhich feeds it with new patients to be medically processed or peddled with new drugs. No better was this pathological state of affairs expressed than by Illich:

“People who are angered, sickened and impaired by their industrial labour and leisure can escape only into a life under medical supervision and are thereby seduced or disqualified from political struggle for a healthier world.”

Illich, Ivan Medical Nemesis, The Expropriation of Health

(see appendix 7)

THE EU IS PART OF THE US IMPERIALIST PROJECT.

The Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, economist, president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), denouncing how the EU is (and has always been) an American imperialist project, initiated with the Marshall plan and culminated (for now) in the dreaded and contrasted TTIP, and how it has become a tool to restore the Iron Curtain to the detriment of Russia: Is the Cold War coming back?

For more educational videos selected by the Party International Liaison Officer, visit the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7XHiss9ApoCmM8crV-cAoFRhT1bnP6ks
Viewing is required by all activists, and recommended for all supporters.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 29

...............

"However, Israel continued the war, with Syria becoming the prime target of its military thrust. These military operations exposed in an especially revealing manner the Israeli government's perfidy, and unmasked Israel's real face as an aggressor. It became clear to us that the main objective of Israel and the imperialist circles which supported it, was the liquidation of all the revolutionary governments in the Arab world..."
―Leonid Brezhnev, On Soviet Policy Following the Israeli Aggression in the Middle East (1967) 

....................

Communists want to end private property, but that doesn't mean anyone is coming for your tooth brush.
....................

The World Turn'd Upside Down

The British Isles are in a mess.  This is a fact which only the wilfully blind can ignore.

There exists in the UK, what is laughingly referred to as a legal system.  In a sane world, the Law would serve to uphold the moral virtues which keep society working.  However, in the UK, morality is a vice which has to be crushed using all means necessary, and the Law exists to financially penalise those who dare to live a moral life.

Here are some factual examples, which will have to be kept anonymous due to confidentiality issues and potential prosecution under various restrictive legislative Acts:

• A woman feigned illness to get her husband to go to a pre-planned event alone; having insisted that he go, after he repeatedly stated his desire to stay home and look after her.  He went, but returned early to care for his sick wife, only to find her in bed with another man.  He struck the man, and was arrested for assault.  His adulterous wife was given sole right of occupancy of their house (for which he still has to pay), into which she duly moved her boyfriend.  The wronged husband lost his home, family, liberty, and as a result, his job also.  The adulteress and her boyfriend gained financially and their lifestyle is now being subsidised by the husband, at the order of the law.  In the UK, monogamy, faithfulness and honour is punished.
• A pædophile moved into an area near a park so that he could prey on local children.  His evil proclivities were discovered and he was given a well-deserved beating.  The men who beat him were arrested and imprisoned.  His house now is covered in CCTV cameras, and there are regular police patrols to protect him from further rightful punishment.  The patrols are not to protect the little boys that this disgusting pervert targets, but to protect him.  In the UK, pædophiles have rights.
• The owner of a small business had his premises repeatedly broken into and burgled.  Knowing that the police would do nothing, and that his insurance premiums would rocket, he did not report the break-ins, and instead built defences to keep the burglars out.  When the defences failed and his business looked set to go bankrupt, he was forced to report the burglars.  Upon inspection of his premises he was ordered to remove all his defences as a burglar could be injured.  Despite being clearly identified, the thieves were not arrested, and the owner has since been burgled again.  It is only a matter of time before his business closes.  In the UK, burglars have rights, and the greedy scum who embrace the capitalist ethic of doing whatever it takes to make money, can act as they please.
• Heroin dealers have a system for announcing when a new shipment of heroin has arrived; they set off fireworks during daylight hours.  The police know this but do nothing to locate the dealers, and now the dealers are so confident that they don't even bother to use different locations to release the fireworks.  At the same time, growers of cannabis in neighbouring areas are routinely prosecuted.  Why the different treatment for dealers in death and growers of a plant which is less harmful than alcohol?  The heroin dealers are a protected section of the neighbourhood, and the cannabis growers are generally British Working Class.  For all the rhetoric of being anti-racist, the police prosecute people on a racist basis - turning a blind eye to serious crimes which are committed by a demographic which if prosecuted, would bring in accusations of racism; letting newcomers whose presence here serves the agenda of globalising the country, get away with murder.  In the case of heroin dealers, this is literally the case.

These examples are part of a bigger national picture.  In the case of the soft treatment of heroin dealers, this is hardly surprising considering that the entire war on drugs is a farce.  The occupation of Afghanistan was in part to guarantee the production of the opium crops, which the Taliban had threatened.  The NATO war against Serbia which boosted the criminal Albanian mafia operation, known as KLA-led Kosovo, was mainly to provide the heroin traffickers with a distribution base in Europe.  The government make a lot of money from flooding Europe with the drug of death, and the last thing they want is their private army (the police) hampering this trade.  Home grown drugs which they cannot profit from are dealt with mercilessly; afterall, profit, not people, is all that they care about.

In the Healthcare System, victims of serious life-threatening illnesses can find themselves denied medicine which could save them, due to financial costs imposed by central government.  However, men who like to dress up as women, and allow their kinky sexual behaviour to consume them to the point where they think they are women, get un-necessary and expensive treatment free on the NHS.  Due to the liberal extremist policies of government, all manner of mental aberration is pandered to, and genuine physical illness is neglected.  This bizarre situation has reached the point where the basics of biology are ignored, and a man who has his genitals mutilated is legally referred to as a woman.  It is surely not far away when a man who likes to wear leather can marry a cow and be referred to as a bull.  It is no less ridiculous than the legal situation regarding the mentally ill who call themselves transgender.

Monogamy is no longer the norm.  The family is the backbone of society, and for this reason, the Establishment use everything in their power to undermine it.  Fetishists who take their perversion to the extreme, are called transgender and are afforded special rights and legal protection; promiscuity is encouraged as natural, with the nonsense that it is a part of the struggle for equal rights that women behave like unpaid prostitutes; adultery is no longer legally recognised as a serious offence, and those who react 'adversely' to it are seen as the real criminals.  Those who defend the rights of women are labelled as 'haters' and transphobes.  Anything which is good for the family and for society is deemed unacceptable in the new dark age we find ourselves in.

Those who should rally to the flag of freedom have been misled by the depots in charge into fighting against their natural allies.  People who have the effrontery to call themselves Socialists have incorporated into their ideology the specific aim of abolishing all immigration controls; something which could not but harm the economic and social well-being of all everyone who has to work for a living.  Likewise the 'No Platform' strategy denies those who are misled by the Trotskyite usurpers of socialism, the vital dialogue with real Socialists who understand the importance of defending the nation and all to whom it belongs.  The curse of globalism perfectly suits the Ruling Class who benefit from the ability to enslave people from every corner of the world, but it is the death knell for free workers and the owners of small and non-exploitative concerns.

Amongst those who understand the importance of the Sovereign Nation has developed the unholy idolisation of the Country as an economic beings.  Defending Capitalism at all costs, the misled Tories, UKIPers etc alike to their manipulated Trotskyite counterparts, are fighting for the Establishment which has created the conditions they instinctively stand against.  The most extreme example to date is the English Defence League which opposes Islam because Muslim women do not dress as whores and get so drunk that EDL members can have sex with them.  If Muslims were as debased, degenerate and decadent as the Establishment-loving EDL and other victims of the brain-washing which is destroying Europe, the EDL would just love them.  Sadly this is not an exaggeration of the facts.

The modern virtues of promiscuity, consumerism, globalism, abortion on demand, sexual laissez faire, libertine 'laxist' liberalism etc, are the true vices which are threatening every one of us; ironically those who embrace them, more than the rest of us.  Standing our ground and defending what is good should not be an excuse for repeating the failed tactics of yesteryear.  We need to stand firm against globalism, but to be fluid in our associations, allying ourselves with others issue by issue whenever that allows us to make advances against the real enemy.

Our battle is becoming ever more complex, as we are attacked on ever more fronts.  The larger the number of people who are attacked, the greater the possible counter attack.  Division is stifling our defence.  We have to overcome the old and failed modes of thought, and band together issue by issue, and beat this monstrosity.  SMPBI reaches out to all who share our love of our Isles, and our determination to overthrow the enemies within, creating in place of the degenerate liberal disorder, a society of Free Patriotic Socialists.  Join us.

The Anglo-Zionist Ruling Class: The Enemy of the Working Class Everywhere

In the struggle for freedom, it is vital that we fight the real enemy, and do not get drawn into attacking those who are used as human shields.  We need to distinguish between the real architects of our plight, and those who may be associated through kinship or locality.  Our enemies have no qualms about sacrificing the common people in order to gain more control.

A particularly problematic issue is how to differentiate between our active enemies, the sleepers, and those who are genuinely not a part of the problem.  There is an undeniable Zionist dimension to our problems, discussion of which invites accusations of anti-Semitism.  This is a trap for to silence criticism of the Ruling Class, and it is a trap we must be careful to not fall into.  There are those who regard appealing to ordinary Jews to join in the resistance to the globalist order, as nothing short of treason.  Those who believe that all Jews are intrinsically bad, and all Gentiles good, have obviously watched too many films of the Cowboys and Indians variety.  There are many Zionist megalomaniacs who are not Jewish, and there are many Jews who do not seek to enslave humanity.  It is important to not accept the way of thinking which the media, and those who would lead us, would like to spoon-feed us.

As British citizens, we must appreciate that the deeds of the Establishment do not reflect the will of all the people.  The Ruling Class method of silencing those who oppose the rulers has the ridiculous result of labelling those who oppose the tyrants who sit in power over us, as self-haters, and terrorists.  We do not hate ourselves or our people; only the vermin who misrule in our name.  The label 'self-hating' conjures imagery of a mirror-smashing, possibly self-harming, loathsome creature who is wracked with feelings of inferiority and disgust, and who probably is justified in these feelings.  This label works well in preventing ordinary people associating with, or even listening to, someone they perceive as ill, and possibly as contagious.  However, when one looks behind the character assassination, more often than not, one can find someone who loves his (or her) own people to the point of no longer being able to accept the actions of a ruling minority who besmirch the national character through their selfish deeds.

There are good Israelis who should not be spoken of in the same breath as the likes of Netanyahu, the MOSSAD, and the MOSSAD-created Hamas rocketeers in Gaza.  The same goes for many ordinary Britons in relation to war criminals such as all recent Prime Ministers, the MI6 architects of the 07/07/05 London Bombings, and to the MI5 murderers who created the IRA as a method of dividing the peoples of the Isles against one another, with the people in the north of Ireland taking the brunt of the propaganda campaign.  The temptation to see everything in black and white, as good or evil, is human, but it is not realistic.  It is unpleasant to have to admit that some of one's own kind are such foul specimens that their existence is an affront to human decency.  we in the SMPBI love our people, but we are not blinkered to the fact that the world is a more dangerous and unhappy place due to the actions of people who are of our nation and country.

It is not self-hatred to fight against internal domestic enemies; indeed the enemy within is more dangerous than the enemy without.  The Monarchy are at the heart of the globalist agenda, and have been instrumental in the destruction of Europe.  If supporting the Monarchy is patriotic in the UK, then UK patriotism is in more desperate trouble than one would fear.

The UK Establishment murdered over One Million people in the Great Hunger of the 1840s, and caused a further Two Million to flee their Irish homeland.  The Monarchy did nothing to stop the murders, but rather sent in police and army units to crush a much needed revolt.  The resentment against the British is still evident today, but as reasonable as it is to despise the British Establishment for its murder of the Irish (by stealing their food and manufacturing starvation), it is not acceptable to blame all the British for this crime.

At the time of the Great Hunger, life for ordinary Britons was no picnic; the industrial revolution had destroyed the peasantry.  The Establishment had stolen their land and forced them into soul-destroying work in which life expectancy was low and wages lower.  Child labour, press-ganging (naval slavery), murder of trade unionists, unsanitary urban slum dwellings, work houses, police brutality, exile or execution of dissidents, malnutrition, and even the right of the Establishment land owners to take the virginity of all girls (in other words to rape children); these and other horrors were the lot of the common people.  Those who label the British as evil, really need to take a moment to reflect on the brutalisation of the British people by the Establishment.  The crimes of the rulers against the world outside the UK mirrored those against the people of these Isles.

For the Jewish people, the same situation presents as for the British.  The Second World War is often cited as an anti-Jewish war, but the truth differs from the propaganda.  There were no Homicidal Gas Chambers in Nazi-controlled Europe, and until the end of the War when food and medical supplies were cut, the occupants of the transit (concentration) camps were actually less likely to go hungry or to perish than those outside the camps.  The Jews were terrorised and forced to leave their homes; often they had assimilated and in some cases were unaware of their Jewish ancestry.  The Jews were put into the camps in order to fulfil the Zionist goal of populating Palestine with Jews and turning it into a hub for global Zionist rule.  Whereas the propaganda of the 6 million is an outright lie, the suffering of the common Jews was genuine.  Indeed, it would not be surprising to find that the deaths of around 700,000 (not 6,000,000) Jews at the end of the war were allowed by the Zionists who controlled both sides, in order to make their propaganda more realistic.  Ordinary Jews - like the Working Class of all origins - have always been pawns to be sacrificed as needs be.  All that matters to the Establishment is that their wealth and power increases.  The ordinary people are insignificant.

It is said that the life of every Palestinian isn't worth a single Jewish fingernail.  If this was the genuine policy of the Israeli State, then from the perspective of national preservation, (its location in Palestine aside), this is laudable.  However, the policies of the Zionist regime are now steering Israel to war; a war in which millions of Israelis could perish.  A Zionist policy for the defence and strengthening of a Jewish homeland, kept distinct of all others and secure within its borders is a reasonable objective, when one understands the ethnic-solidarity of the Jewish people.  Without the Talmudic hatred of the Goyim, there would be no problem with the Jewish State.  The Talmudic infiltration of Europe and much of the non-Jewish world has proven that there is no worthy National Zionist ideal but only the programme of Zionist Imperialism.

Zionist Imperialism utilises the following weapons: Political Correctness; Multi-Culturalism; Mass Migration; Pro-Transgenderism; Anti-Indigenous Rights; Supremacy of Materialism over the Spiritual.  National Zionism rightfully keeps these poisons away from the nation.  It would be naïve to think that Zionism has been hijacked by imperialists.  Zionism is the political expression of the Talmud, and at its core is based on the lunatic notion that the Jews are God's Chosen People and have a right to rule over the whole world, with the non-Jews existing only to serve them.

The idea that opposition to evil is self-hatred, highlights just how far our enemies have progressed in turning from a virtue to a vice, allegiance to what is morally right.  The British Establishment has been thoroughly Zionised since at least the time of the arrival of William Stadholder (1748), although the roots of the decay can be traced to William the Bastard (1066).  With the next William soon to take the throne, this process is now so far developed that the UK would be unrecognisable to the people living under the previous despotic Williams.

There is a tendency to view the people of a country and its ruling elite as one and the same.  This is certainly not the case in the UK.  In Israel, the rulers may at least be of the same stock as the people, but are their aspirations the same?  The 'self-hating Jews' who love their people so much that they are willing to endure the venom of Organised Jewry, in order to expose the evils of the Israeli regime, are an asset to the struggle for freedom worldwide.  Those who vilify them are as much enemies of humanity as those who sing God Save the Queen and wave their shiny red white and blue rags.  We need to accept the fact that loyalty to the Establishment is treason to the people, and the only loyalty which matters is loyalty to the people.

The British ruling class of Monarchy, Financiers, Freemasons and Bankers have trodden on the people for centuries.  They are the ones who created Israel as a base for the transformation of the world into a fully controlled mass of producer-consumers, ruled by unseen depots. There is a level of Zionist control over the British Establishment which makes an attack on the Establishment an attack on Talmudism.  In these days of political policing, it is dangerous to point to the enemy, and clearly state that it has an identity.   But to cower in the face of danger is to allow our enemies to win.  Much of the Establishment of the UK is Zionist by politics.  Herein lies the problem: it is often assumed that Israel controls the UK, but the relationship is not so simple; the same Establishment controls both countries.

Due to the rôle of Zionism in the UK, criticism of Israel is forbidden.  The attacks on Jeremy Corbyn for 'anti-Semitism' are attacks against a decent human being who understands the nature of Zionism, and who until recently, had the courage to stand up to it.  He has weakened and bowed his head in submission to the global financial ruling class.  We have stood firm.  Our attack against the Establishment cannot avoid attacking certain Jews, but there are Jews by radition who have awoken to the lies of their self-appointed leaders and should be fighting alongside us.

There is a natural knee-jerk reaction to go on the defensive when one feels one is being attacked.  For the reactionaries in Britain, this manifests as a rallying to the Monarchy, jingoistic support of the soldiers who are killing for the multi-national corporations.  For Jews, it is Israel to which they rally, and the IDF butchers who they defend.  It doesn't have to be this way.

In the UK there are growing numbers of people who can see how evil the Establishment is.  When such people are attacked as a part of a general attack on Britain, this only harms the opposition to globalism.  We who live inside the beast are as much victims of the globalist cabal as those who are openly attacked outside our borders.  And so it is with Israel.

In an ideal world, Israel would return the land stolen from Palestine and relocate to Birobidjan.  The best that we can realistically hope for is that decent Jews who rightly wish to live amongst their own will either relocate to the real Jewish State, or at least put pressure on the Tel Aviv regime to make peace with Israel's neighbours.

Maybe one day the Talmudists will be defeated, then National Zionism can become a reality and the Jewish State can thrive as a distinct land in which lunatic religious bigotry is contained (or better still vanquished), and can no longer threaten the rest of the world.  We can but hope.  For this possible outcome, we need to take the serious step of focusing our attacks on the globalist Establishment in Tel Aviv and London, and not on the ordinary people, who by and large just want to get on with their lives and look after their families.  We need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all who oppose globalism and all who believe in a free world of independent, self-sufficient, ethnically-distinct, culturally-strong nation-states.

Attacking all Jews or all Britons only serves to bolster the support for the Establishment of those who are neutral in this conflict, or are only partly aware of the internationalist menace.  We cannot afford to strengthen our enemies in any way.