Comic Relief - Yet more 'charity' transferring the crumbs from the poor to the rich

In 1984 in Æthiopia, one million people starved to death, with another six million at risk of starvation. The BBC began pushing images of starving children to get the public into a state of shock. Arch-europhile globalist liberal, Bob Geldof, organised the Live Aid concerts to raise money and to ensure that he gained publicity after his music career collapsed. The result was a massive £100 million raised by the general public, with more tax-payers' money given by Government. The money dispatched to Africa was syphoned off by the ruling class for funding their war against the people of Æthiopia. However, just about enough money got through to feed the starving multitude.

The masters of heart-rending propaganda at the BBC used every underhand trick to make the British people feel guilty if they didn't give money to feed the hungry. At the same time, millions were unemployed in Great Britain, and sporadic riots were breaking out. The focus of attention on Africa helped take the public gaze away from the ills afflicting the nation. Bob Geldof received a knighthood for his services to the Crown. Indeed, his help in playing on the natural empathy of the British people for the suffering of others allowed the Government to continue its globalist agenda. The people of Britain, including many of the Live Aid organisers, were manipulated for political gain.

In 2002, four million Africans were in danger of starvation.  Again the begging bowls went out, culminating in the 2005 Live8 concerts.  The result of charity globally, has been to foster a dependency culture in Africa and parts of Asia.  The constant influx of money has bolstered brutal regimes, allowing them to wage war on their own people. Food has become used as a weapon to keep the ordinary people oppressed. Another result is that many more Africans are leaving their homelands to seek a safer existence elsewhere. These people tend to be the most motivated as they are the ones who put in the effort to leave their lands. This is effectively a drain of the very people who could, if encouraged to stay, help their nations.

The BBC has been a mouthpiece of the globalist-imperialist ruling class since its inception. The propaganda they use to get people to give money to the starving millions is cynically designed to appeal to the heart, not the head. If Africans had been allowed to run their own affairs, the theft of resources by multinational capitalist corporations would have been possible and in 1984, one million people would not have been in such hunger that they died.  Many more millions who have subsequently died due to hunger or conflict would have been able to live decent lives.  Capitalism is responsible for the genocide in Africa, and indeed across the world. The people of Africa need to take control of their lands, oust the oppressive globalist-compliant corporate puppet regimes and become self-sufficient. Obviously the BBC would not want their globalist owners to lose control.

The rulers of the capitalist order want mass starvation and ignorance as it displaces indigenous populations, leading to civil disruption in the lands to which the emigrants flee. The people of Africa are being used to destroy the social cohesion of Europe, the Americas and other lands. Charities who beg for cash for food are fuelling this global catastrophe.

The BBC fund-raiser, Children In Need, is another begging mechanism which transfers money from the compassionate poor, to the parasitic rich. The modus operandi of Children In Need is to emotionally blackmail hard-pressed working class people, inculcating a feeling of guilt for not being close to starvation.  As food banks become a means for survival for many people, as homelessness becomes a massive problem, and as people are now literally starving to death in the British Isles, this emotional abuse is an absolute outrage.  Britain is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. There is no excuse for poverty in the UK. Children In Need claims to be for the benefit of poor families in Great Britain. In reality much of the money goes abroad. Of the money which stays in the country, a substantial proportion goes to unhealthy politically motivated causes, such as funding pro-transgender sex-education (liberal brainwashing) for the very young and other trotskyite identity politic insanity.  The 'charity' Mermaids, is funded by the national lottery as well as other organisations which steal money from the most financially vulnerable - it is just one of many organisations whose actions are destructive to the youth of the nation, promoting unnecessary surgery and paedophilia.  Amnesty, Children In Need, Live Aid, Comic Relief etc - all have dark side, in fact, all have very little positive about them.

Other charities raise millions for globalist identity politics pushing causes. Oxfam is openly dedicated to transferring money to regimes in far off lands. For those who wish their money to be spent in that way, Oxfam is fine. Cafod is of a similar vein. Cancer Research funds vivisection but is at least honest about this. The problem lies with think-tanks like Common Purpose, and charities such as British Red Cross, Help the Aged etc, who purport to look after people in Britain, which to an extent they do, but not exclusively. A lot of money is diverted to politically motivated causes which ordinary people would probably not support, and to other countries. Even animal charities are not exempt from corruption and misuse of funds.

How do we deal with this misappropriation of funds? There is a saying 'Charity begins at Home'. This is where it must end too. People need to look after their neighbours, friends and relatives. By building a support network, decent people would be helped keep out of poverty. Unworthy sorts, such as heroin addicts who are given housing, benefits, food parcels etc almost as a reward for their anti-social and criminal lifestyles should be left to either sort their lives out or face the natural consequences.  As Socialists, we of course stand by fellow Socialists in every land. What we will not do, is support causes which prop up capitalist regimes and keep the working class down at home and abroad.

Ordinary people must refuse to give tax-money to prop up the banking system, fund illegal wars in the Middle East, pay for the European Union and push the degenerate liberal brainwashing of the masses. We must gird ourselves to say NO when the begging bowls come around. Even giving ten pence to these gangsters is unacceptable. Every penny given pays for our own exploitation.



If government was refused the funding and the permission to engage in political and military atrocities at home and abroad, the taxes which would otherwise go to undermining our society could be used to help our own people. The government gains its power from us. We must take that power back by refusing to give them unquestioning obedience. We must refuse to donate to charities. we can help our own people by being decent citizens. We can look after animals by giving food to the shelters, or housing those we can. We don't need faux-charities who are bleeding us white whilst helping destroy us. We are on course to living in a complete dictatorship. The choice is stark - either stand up to the petty dictators of the State and their friends with the begging bowls, or accept the absolute tyranny of the global capitalist order.

In 1984, the BBC broadcast harrowing images of Africans in Æthiopia dying of starvation. The politicians were quick to jump into the fray, stating that 'something had to be done' to alleviate the hunger, and then the phenomenon of Live Aid sprang into action, with pop music celebrities releasing the original 'Feed the World' single, followed by the massive trans-global concerts to raise money ostensibly to feed those starving to death in Africa. In 2014 we had a repeat of the 1984 Feed the World single hitting the charts (albeit one with different 'celebrities' fronting it and the emphasis on ebola rather than hunger). People in Africa were and are still dying of hunger and disease and people in the West are still being told that it is our fault. 

In 1984, the Live Aid phenomenon was used to justify external interference in Africa. Using the malleable publicity-seeking musicians to fleece the gullible general public with emotional propaganda designed to make us feel guilty for not starving whilst others were, the politicians in the 1980s used Live Aid to enact regime change across Africa in order to remove any protection the people had from globalising corporations. The largest share of the vast amount of money extracted from the working class of the European world was syphoned off by corrupt politicians and industrialists in every part of the globe, with the people in Africa receiving a meagre fraction. The causes of the Æthiopian famine were not addressed, so nothing changed to prevent future hunger and associated problems.

Just like the an Gorta Mór in Ireland, the Æthiopian Famine was not the result of natural conditions, but was caused by the theft of food from the people by those who controlled the economy; just like in Europe, the despots who condemned ordinary people in Africa to a painful death by lack of food, were people motivated by financial greed and the lust for political power. The liberals who shouted 'racism' from the rooftops and tried to make Europeans feel guilty because Africans were starving, were either indoctrinated idiots who sincerely believed that evil White people were starving Black people due to the colour of their skin, or simply liars. The starvation of the Æthiopians was motivated by a belief in money over people, and if there was an element of racism involved, it was not White versus Black (as was blatantly evident by the massive donations from ordinary White people who often themselves had very little money), rather it was the old supremacist hatred of the zionist bigots who believe they are 'chosen' by their 'god' to rule over the rest of us and profit from us even when that means killing us.

The 'race card' has been played to death in African-European relations. African-Americans in particular are taught to hate Europeans for the treatment of their ancestors in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Europeans are taught that we must feel remorse for what our ancestors did to the Africans. The truth of the matter is that although there were some Europeans who profited by the misery of the Slave Trade, they were members of the European ruling class, and as such were people who had no concern for any members of humanity whatsoever, and rather than acting out of 'racism', their persecution of the Africans was simply a natural progression from their persecution of ordinary Europeans.  When David Lammy spouts drivel about Comic Relief being offensive because it allows white to feel they re doing something to help non-whites, his racist rubbish is just more of the same drivel which the liberal regimes have pushed for many many years.

The hated Normans who invaded England in 1066 under the leadership of William the Bastard, enslaved the Britons and others who lived in the country. The industrialists of the English, then later, British Empire, brutalised the common people, using their puppets in power to create a legal system which to this day still designates us as property of the ruling class (Subjects of the Crown). Africans were enslaved simply because they were a cheaper commodity, insofar as their enslavement didn't require a convoluted contractual and policing system . Ordinary Europeans were just as brutalised as ordinary Africans, and to suggest that we should be made to feel guilty because the people who owned us owned others with different skin tones, is incredibly offensive.

The eminent Trinidadian researcher, Professor Tony Martin, undertook painstaking research into the African Slave Trade. His conclusions vindicate the common European people from all blame, and prove that the Ruling Class in Europe, along with their Jewish, Arab and African counterparts, are wholly to blame for the evil and indefensible persecution of human beings and the treatment of ordinary people as items of property. Tony Martin was not a 'racist' or a 'white supremacist', but a sincere academic researcher. The fact that he was of African descent does silence those who seek to label all who question the official story of the Slave Trade as racists, but not because they will listen to a non-European exposing the slander against us, but because they refuse to listen! If Tony Martin had been White, he would have been defamed and attacked by the liberal bigots who form the foot soldiers of identity politics; because he was Black, he was simply ignored. To the fake anti-Racists, the work of a Black man is obviously less important than comparable work of a White man! The irony doubtless doesn't register with the globalisers whose only real contribution to the pursuit of mutual respect and equality of care, is to hate all people who oppose the destruction of sovereignty, culture, and all natural diversity, equally.

Tony Martin's lecture on the Jewish role in the Slave Trade is vital viewing as it systematically deals with the racist anti-European guilt propaganda which has been used to justify the further economic exploitation of Africa and the fleecing of ordinary Europeans by the same globalising concerns. The direct link to the video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

The exploitation of the good will of ordinary working class people worldwide in 1984, was a reprehensible display of arrogance by the people who created the famine in the first place. The Ruling Class used the racist supremacist superstitious drivel of the monotheistic religions to justify the occupation of Africa in the first place. National boundaries were torn up by imperialists who had no respect for the natural diversity of Africa. Tribes were thrown together in new States created by bureaucrats drawing lines on maps; the breakdown of these false States was an inevitable outcome if the indigenous peoples were ever to have control over their own territories again, thus the wars which have devastated Africa can be seen as a direct result of the imperialist policies of the 'European' Ruling Class. The 1984 interference in Æthiopia did not address the fundamental problems effecting that land; rather, it consolidated the rule of the corrupt African Ruling Class which is just as subservient to the capitalist money power as the enemies of the people who infest the places of power in our own countries.



Foreign Aid to Africa has increased dramatically since the 1984 Live Aid propaganda ploy of the globalist mafia. In the UK, the Government of the Bankers has ring-fenced Foreign Aid, whilst cutting back services for the general population of the country. A staggering £10.3 BILLION (0.7% of taxes extracted from the people) is given to overseas despots, with criminal and corrupt regimes taking a sizable chunk of the money stolen with menaces from people in the UK by the criminals in Westminster with the help of their uniformed thugs in the UK police. In Æthiopia, the raping, torturing and burning alive of ordinary people by the security forces of the State, has increased in direct correlation to the amount of money given by the UK Taxpayer. The brutalisation of ordinary Africans has been largely funded by Foreign Aid. But, that isn't all that Foreign Aid pays for.

The great con of Foreign Aid is nothing but redistribution of wealth from the poor in the UK to the rich in the IMF and in the multinational corporations which are destroying the entire world. The World Bank and IMF have issued loans across Africa, on the condition that everything owned in the countries to which loans have been given, is privatised. The result has been that the economic rape of Africa has accelerated, with massive deforestation, the destruction of wildlife, obliteration of indigenous culture and the theft of natural resources and food by multinationals who don't give a damn about anything other than profit. This is pretty much what has happened in Europe as well with the EU's austerity policy.   In addition to losing everything which belongs to them, the people of Africa still have to pay back the loans issued by the IMF; the money from the loans having been squandered and stolen by the corrupt politicians - again, exactly like in Europe.  Foreign Aid is used by the corrupt politicians as a means of supplementing payments to the IMF for loans which haven't benefited anyone other than the corrupt Ruling Class and the globalist corporations. For example, in Zambia, the privatised copper mines create great wealth for the overseas speculators, whilst the people of Zambia, despite living in a land which has the third largest copper reserves in the world, live in absolute poverty, with 80% living on about £1.50 per day. Africans are taxed to the hilt to pay the IMF debt, and Foreign Aid, rather than helping the people, also goes to the same despicable enemies of humanity.

The 1984 'Feed the World' song was reissued in 2014 with new puppet performers and a few different lyrics. In 1984 the song stated 'Thank God it's them instead of You', but this line was ditched. Perhaps it was due to the fact that the UK in 2014 as now, was subject to a degree of poverty previously unimaginable, and so for many people, the misery of poverty is not something which happens to others, but something which happens to us. We have people relying upon food banks to survive; we have people dying of starvation or of hypothermia due to having to make a choice between eating or having heating; the UK is suffering 'austerity' to pay the IMF money which they have no right to anyway, whilst the Ruling Class sip champagne and laugh at us all. In spite of the hardship we are all enduring, people who have less than nothing are still scraping together money to give to the poor in Africa - and we are still being called racist!

The solution to world poverty is not pop songs, charity, or the IMF, it is jettisoning the entire apparatus of globalisation. The Banking System and Global Trade are at the root of all our woes. If the IMF debt was cancelled by means of ending that organisation in its entirety, the entire world would be better off.  In the UK, just as in Africa, the solution to poverty is the complete socialisation of the entire economy - from the largest concerns to the smallest - and the prohibition of all unearned income. This means that the Stock Exchange must be closed down, the Banks must not only be closed but those behind them punished for their crimes against humanity (in the way dictated at Nuremberg), all foreign ownership must be outlawed and the entire market ethos must be overturned in favour of a restoration of the indigenous ethos of organic British Socialism. Obviously, this isn't going to happen unless we make it happen - and there is no chance it will ever happen unless we have a complete change of outlook. We need to shed the race hatred which sees others as inferior to us and as therefore not important; we need to make a stand in favour of a real solution to the woes of Africa - absolute decolonisation and a restoration of the entire continent to its own people and of the people of the continent back to their homeland as a part of a global relocation of all peoples to their own lands.

Today is Comic Relief Day. Beginning in 1988, by 2017 over £1bn had been extorted from the working class, with poverty in Britain and abroad increasing in the same period, rather than coming down as we were led to expect.  Charity is a con.  We need to look after our own - by bring food to the homeless, by taking over squats to house people, by helping our human and animal population. none of this requires giving a penny to the BBC/State-sanctioned charity muggers. Did anyone in his or her worst nightmares ever truly imagine that the UK in 2019 would be as awful as it is? If we allow the descent into hell to go unchecked, we will look back at these days with fondness. We cannot allow that to happen.  We need a lasting solution  a revolutionary solution. We Need Socialism, for the British Isles, for the World.



Please comment at:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/smpbiforum/comic-relief-yet-more-charity-transferring-the-cru-t118.html

Freedom is an Illusion without Economic Sovereignty

The present government is possibly the least trusted government in living memory, and it is certainly a contender for the least democratic.  At a time when the policies of government have pushed the people to think only of how they are to survive, the cynical opportunists are wasting no time to break every election pledge, and push forward with an agenda that the people did not, and would not, vote for.

Under the lie of 'austerity', the government are transferring wealth away from the poorest sections of society, into the coffers of the richest.  Theresa May has stated that austerity is over.  The austerity policies continue, so this is another sound bite without substance.  Giving tax breaks to their friends and their masters in the Establishment, and cutting services for the common people, the government insist that only by encouraging enterprise and cutting bureaucracy can the country struggle out of recession.  What they fail to mention is that every recession is artificially created in order to redistribute wealth away from the people.

The re-privatisation of the Banks taken into public and part-national ownership under the previous regime, was conducted at a loss to the taxpayer.  Yet again, the bankers gained at our expense.  If the government was honest in any way, it would admit that the banking crisis was created to increase the grip of international finance, and that the only solution to our economic woes is for the government to issue its own currency, and pay the banks what they are owed in debt, using worthless pieces of paper created with no backing - in exactly the same way as the banks created the debt in the first place.  Would the banks then fail?  Hopefully so.  However, what would be guaranteed would be that the people would owe the banks nothing, and the graduated income tax system introduced as a temporary measure to repay the Bankers' loans to pay for the war against Napoleon, could finally be abolished.  Of course, as the politicians serve the Bankers and not the people, this outcome could not be expected under the present system.

On top of the theft of the people's money; in effect reducing us all to wage-slaves who have no option but to pay their taxes forever, the government have 'relaxed' green belt restrictions, allowing for the already over-populated UK to be flooded with millions more people who will be housed at the cost of the destruction of the land.  Our country already relies on imports of food, thus an increase in population can only make the suffering which will come when food imports are interrupted, more devastating than if the population stayed at roughly the ridiculous level it is at now. 

Tinkering with the economy is the way of political parties of ever hue.  What the main parties will not do is to bring about full economic sovereignty for the country.  As long as the issue of currency is in the hands of the banks, the country will never be free.

The great American, Thomas Jefferson stated that
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

That was true for the early United States, and it is true now in this and every other country.

Relaxing austerity is mere smoke and mirrors.  Theresa May will not tackle the banks, nor will Jeremy Corbyn.  Refusal to even consider breaking the power of the banks, is certain proof of allegiance to the economic system they are a central part of.

Britain Today

75% percent of working people struggling to make ends meet. Financial stress, based on ballooning household debt (19 billion) as well as fraudulent banking debt and battles with aggressive bailiffs due to crippling (and ILLEGAL) council tax bills - all of which together are now recognised as a leading cause of mental distress and general ill-health (not to mention 40,000 austerity suicides). This is no longer even capitalism but feudal debt-slavery. 'Mortgage' translated from French: 'the grip of death'. Yet where is any sign of the sort of rebellion stirred by the Poll Tax? Instead even petitions to abolish council tax fail to gather almost any support - so deeply ingrained and seemingly unbreakable is the belief that council, income and other taxes are necessary for state or local expenditure.

That is why Lincoln's message must be explained and repeated again, again and yet again: “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency, and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government, and the buying power of consumers." Is this really so difficult to understand? If so, why? Too many other issues muddying the picture and allowing 'divide and rule' to reign. I propose a campaign to gather signatures for petition to enact Lincoln's socialist monetary policy - which was so successful until sabotaged by interest-greedy banks - not least the Bank of England itself.

Informative site: http://www.timetounite.com/stop-paying-unlawful-fraudulent-illegal-council-tax/

Sajid Javid: Zionist Tory Banking Tyrant; Enemy of the NHS and the Working Class Worldwide

The Home Secretary Sajid Javid, will tomorrow lift all restrictions on non-EU people working in the NHS. He will effectively open the borders to anyone from anywhere in the world (except the EU), as long as they claim to have a background in healthcare.

Who is this Sajid Javid who is playing loose and fast with our sovereignty?  Javid was born in Rochdale to Pakistani immigrants.  In 1995 he began working for Chase Manhattan Bank in New York and South America, followed by Deutsche Bank in London and Singapore, having a working lifetime in the heart of the Globalist Capitalist Banking Criminal Network for 14 years.  He progressed to Managing Directorship level.  He has Global roots, Global experience and is committed to furthering the cause of Globalisation.

Javid left Banking to go straight into a safe seat for the Tory party, becoming an MP in 2010.

As well as a career in Banking, Javid is a confirmed Zionist, who has stated that should he be offered the chance to live in the Middle East, the only country he would want to live in is Israel. He used his position as Communities Secretary to attack councils who supported the BDS movement and in this way increased the power of the Zionist stranglehold in British politics.  He is - of course - a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, aka the Conservative Enemies of Palestine and Freedom Anywhere.

In 8 short years as an MP, Javid has advanced at a rate which is even surprising for the corrupt Tory party, to now hold the position of Home Secretary.  Clearly being an ex-Banker, a Globalist and active Zionist, is the key to success in the Tory ranks.

His announcement that the NHS should be filled to the rafters with non-EU workers, is an affront to the people who voted for Brexit. We voted to secure our borders, not kick them wide open.  But more than this, it is an attack on the Working Class in Britain, who will be denied work, as cheaper imported labour will once again be used in place of training the unemployed.

The NHS does need more skilled staff. Importing skilled staff from other countries - especially underdeveloped ones - is a drain on those countries.  It is a form of racism, to attack countries economically - as Javid's banking colleagues do - then to steal the best workers from those impoverished countries to staff the NHS.  Every country needs its best people to help it develop. Stealing the best from other nations is to cause a brain drain and to cause skills shortages in those countries, which will of course, further impoverish them.  SMPBI is outraged at this racist attack on poorer nations, which will become poorer still as a result.  Javid is a Banker at heart, and does not care that it is the likes of the World Bank and IMF which are destroying the underdeveloped world.  He is a Globalist who has no respect for Borders and National Integrity.

SMPBI calls for British Jobs for British Workers. Our People must come first. If there are skills shortages, there must be free training for the Working Class to fill those shortages.  We call for an end to the disgusting abuse of foreign countries which comes in the form of draining them of their best workers rather than train our own citizens.

Sajid Javid is an absolute disgrace. His identification with the Zionist menace is a clue to his character.  He respects Israel and attacks those who oppose the brutalisation of the people of occupied Palestine.  Javid is living proof that it isn't only the liberal globalists who are a danger to freedom, but all globalists.  If the countries destroyed by Bankers like Javid were free from the capitalist sickness, they could have their own NHS's, and their own people could help to raise the standards of those countries.  If the British Isles were free from these political and corporate parasites, we too could have an NHS staffed with our own Workers, with Class and National Loyalty making our lands better places in which to live.

Javid personally gained by accepting payments from the Fracking Industry to overturn the democratic decision of Lancashire County Council to ban Fracking in Lancashire.  The man who claims to care about the NHS, took payments to bring in unsafe practices which are linked to decline in health in people living in affected areas.  Lancashire is 120 miles from where Javid is an MP, and much further from where he sits in London.  The Tories will sell off the NHS at the first opportunity. Javid has as much respect for the NHS as he has for the People of Lancashire who he sold out so his corporate friends could make a killing in an industry which has very serious questions as to its safety. He is corrupt to the core - a perfect Tory!

Javid has to go, and so does the entire corrupt Globalist Zionist system.

Save our NHS. Train our People. Stop the Exploitation of other lands. Close the Borders and Stop the Parasitic Skills Drain, which in turn impoverishes not only the lands of the immigrants, but also our own.

Thoughts on China's Economic Agenda for 2018 - Wilberg on Wednesday

As a Marxist, I believe it is the firm duty of the CPC to represent the interests of farmers and the industrial and white-collar proletariat in private capitalist corporations - as they did before 1949. If they don't, who will? China will then just be selling out its own workers to foreign and domestic wage-slavery.

The capitalist class would very much like the CPC to serve its exclusive interests rather than  those of the people - just as 'democratic' governments in the West do. The CPC must do the opposite - use its authority to protect the proletariat and migrant farm labour from abuse by foreign and domestic capitalist corporations - and severely punish those corporations which defy regulations on minimum wages, impose unhealthy working conditions or economically enforced and excessive overtime.

I was very disappointed that the panel in this discussion used nothing but the language of capitalist economics and not one single element of Marxism in analysing the economic challenges and the future of economic development in China - particularly in the light Xi Jinping's recent and renewed emphasis on the enduring scientific truths of Marxism. The CPC has vastly and successfully accelerated the first stage of capitalist development - what Marx called the 'primitive accumulation of capital' through migration of labour from farms to factories - as well as further stages of capitalist development such as the concentration of private capital in ever larger corporations. And in his great work 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific' Engels stressed that the final stage - state capitalism - provides the foundations upon which the transition to socialism, i.e. full state and social ownership of the means of production based on can proceed - accompanied by the Communist-led promotion of ECONOMIC democracy and working class control of the management of corporate enterprises - thus ensuring that they serve the people and not just profit. The 'visible hand' must gradually replace the 'hidden hand'. Foreign and domestic capitalist interests will necessarily work to subvert this staged Marxist and CPC led process - not least through promoting the dominance of speculative finance capital over industrial capital, the state and the people. Beware of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs!

A debt-based state economy can only be avoided by holding to the central policy of 'The Communist Manifesto': 'the centralisation of credit in the hands of the state' - in this way maintaining China's sovereign national right to issue its own money without debt and submission to the international finance capital. The People's Bank of China has so far managed directly and indirectly to protect this basic right and maintain control of the money supply, since its 'debt' is purely notional (see  See Ellen Brown on 'Funding Infrastructure: why China is running circles around America.' )

If the privately run banking system  can create money from nothing - as the Fed and other privately owned central and commercial banks in the West freely admit to doing - so can the PBoC, but in order to invest it in the real economy and in the labour and welfare of the people (for example through state funded healthcare, unemployment security and affordable state-built housing). Its task is not like that of capitalist central banks like the Fed - which creates money to bailout the very Wall St. banks that own and control it.

The biggest threat to China is the coming collapse of this whole Western-style privately owned central and commercial banking system - from which both the state and people are forced to borrow money created from nothing. In every respect it is the duty of the CPC and its leadership to ensure that 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' means exactly that: the evolution of 'SOCIALISM with Chinese characteristics'. Only through economic policies founded on Marxism and Scientific Socialism, which alone can recognise and overcome real economic and also CLASS contradictions facing China (let's be true Marxists and not avoid talk of class contradictions) can the great objective of Communism be fully achieved by the CPC. I was happy to hear Xi Jinping reaffirming this truth. So less reliance on capitalist economic 'experts' and more study and application of Marxist economic analyses please!!!

Charities are Tax-exempt. Shouldn't the work of SMPBI also be?

Throughout Europe - with the exception of Iceland - the people are being forced to pay for the 'mistakes' of the Bankers.  Iceland has proven that the only way to deal with the Banking criminals is to let their businesses fail, and to arrest them for crimes against the people.  Sadly, in the rest of Europe, the grip of the Bankers is so complete that the people are being made to pay with their own money, to make up the profits lost by the greedy Banking cartels.  If any other businesses lose such vast amounts of money that they cannot operate, they close - and so should the Banks.  Indeed, the entire immoral system of usury should be closed, regardless of whether it is in debt or profit.

The Bankers' puppet governments introduced Austerity measures in the British Isles with interest rate freezes, tax hikes, and cuts in services.  Free Banking has all but ended, so now we have a situation where it is nigh on impossible to pay for one's utilities, or to receive pay from an employer, without having a bank account, but not only does it cost money to have one; the greedy profiteers no longer pay a level of interest which covers the costs of having an account!  That is theft, pure and simple.

The Bankers hide behind the governing regimes; deflecting anger from the financiers of the Ruling Class who are the real source of policy, regardless of the espoused politics of the government of the day.  The present government has made much of the idea of closing tax loopholes, and of preventing people who are not entitled to Welfare Benefits from receiving them.  As has become the norm in the UK, the spotlight of scrutiny has not fallen evenly across all those resident in the UK.

People in the UK are taxed more than any other nation in Europe, and for that matter most of the world.  We have to pay tax on every penny we earn, and every penny we spend.  The State even has the audacity to take a cut of any money we may have saved for our children, with its outrageous Inheritance Tax and Death Duties. 

As well as taxation at national level, we have local taxation.  Every household in the country has to pay 'Council Tax', which amounts to around £1000 per annum per dwelling in the least affluent areas, increasing with the value of the property.  Council tax is allegedly to pay for services provided by the local administrative authorities, but considering that almost every service has been contracted out to profit-making companies, the reality of Council tax is that it is yet another way to rob the people, and transfer what little money we have into the hands of the private companies which rule over us.  It is illegal to not pay Tax, thus the system is tantamount to an extortion racket - either we pay those who exploit us, or we are punished by their legal system, in terms of fines (more extorted money), or imprisonment.

There is an exception to the Council Tax rule.  Those who claim to live in accommodation which is used as a place of worship, do not have to pay the tax.  What this means in effect, is that all one has to do to escape the attention of the tax mafiosa (and dodge the tax system) is to register as a religious leader.  The people who benefit from the tax loophole which the Establishment refuses to close, are the liberal clergy who happily push the neo-con sjw policies of the governing regime.  In addition there are newer religions to the Isles who are happy to jump on the band-wagon, thus allowing the organisers of the religious populations to keep hold of the money they generate through extortion of the collecting tin, whilst those less inclined to listen to the organised theists - whether atheist of spiritual in a sense which doesn't rely on designated places of worship, become economically impoverished.  It is understandable that people who are aware of the tax loop-holes will take advantage of everything which they are given, and they should not be blamed for that.

Why should religion be a reason for tax exemption?  If we lived in a theocracy, and there was one religion enshrined by the State, then there would be no reason for places of worship to be given preferential treatment, as they would be an integral part of society.  We do not live in a theocracy.

If people wish to worship in an organised manner, let them pay for the costs of the places they use; it is beyond arrogant for people of any faith to expect their beliefs to be paid for by others.  Without tax exemption for religious places, those which flourish would provide income to the local authorities, and those which did not, would die.  Any religion which cannot survive without grandiose displays of material wealth, deserves to fail. 

Education centres are - like religious places - tax exempt.  The ludicrous situation exists where the state education system keeps children in  ignorance of anything which matters, and where the only real education which can be obtained is in the fee-paying sector.  The Ruling Class and their bourgeois collaborators have enough money to pay for their children to be educated away from the proletarian masses, but then the schools to which they send their children, have charitable status, and so contribute nothing to the economy.

If all so-called public (private) schools had to pay into the tax system, that would greatly enrich the coffers of the exchequer.  The existence of a two-tier education system in which the Working Class receive nothing but indoctrination and knowledge sufficient only for servitude, in institutions which the parasitic rich wouldn't consider sending their children to, is offensive to the nation as a whole.  If the State sector is not good enough for the Rulers, then it is not good enough for anyone.  SMPBI will abolish fee paying schools, faith schools, charitable schools, and nationalise all of them so that everyone gets equal education, and no-one can pay for 'better' education.

So what can we do?  We can home school and thus keep the state away from our children.  Those who can afford to send their children to the elite schools, should refuse to as a matter of principle.  There is no excuse for the class system, and anything which props it up is repugnant. 

How should we deal with the tax loop-hole?

We can register our homes as places of worship, and with-hold taxes from the Capitalist regime.  SMPBI does have a spiritual dimension, so why shouldn't we be able to meet together for reflection in the same way as the organised religious groups do?  If they refuse to accept our expressions of belief as valid, then surely that amounts to prejudice and discrimination on spiritual, political and cultural grounds?  It is worth considering, for reasons financial and moral. 

It is possible to buy religious titles from (unsurprisingly), the USA, at an initial cost which is a fraction of the annual saving.  The legal protection and financial exemptions afforded to the majority faiths should apply to everyone.  This isn't tax evasion, but common sense.  Why pay a penny to the enemy regime, if we can legally avoid it? 

'axe, tax or borrow' - toxic belief or global 'big lie'? - Wilberg on Wednesday

“The supranational sovereignty of world bankers is surely preferable  to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

David Rockefeller 

We say it isn’t!!! 

A spectre haunts the entire world – including our own nation. This is the spectre of ever-growing debt and loss of national sovereignty to international banks and the plutocracy of “world bankers” – the ‘1%’’ that seek to impose a new form of monetary debt feudalism. The result is harsh cuts in private incomes and/or public spending, widespread child, food and fuel poverty, unemployment, homelessness and loss of vital public services such as medical care - not to mention global ecological devastation, wars and death. The spectre can be compared to a global economic pandemic.  This pandemic however, is not the sort caused by a nasty bug or virus. Instead it is the result of a totally unquestioned but highly toxic belief. 

This belief is shared by politician and parties of left, centre and right and alike - indeed even by the far left and far right. It is also perpetuated by the governments, press and media of all nations – who have turned it into nothing less than a global ‘Big Lie’ - one that both the leaders and peoples of most nations, including our own, often swallow even without even knowing it.

The belief, though never even questioned in parliament, press or news media is a very simple one: namely that governments are dependent either on taxation or on borrowing from private banks and financial markets to fund public spending and promote economic growth.

This belief is not only held by parties and politicians who prefer to reduce taxes and public spending, and seek to impose ever harsher ‘austerity measures’ to cut the national deficit. It is also shared by politicians and parties who prefer to ‘tax and spend’ and want their government to borrow more in order to maintain or increase public spending and promote economic growth. 

The paradox here is that it is precisely public borrowing from the private finance sector that makes economic growth more important than it would otherwise be – for it is needed mainly just to provide the means to pay off ever-growing amounts of private, corporate and national debt and compound interest. 

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell

The truth that now needs to be told is that no nation or state, ruler or government ever needs to borrow any money from private banks or moneylenders. Instead, as Lincoln recognised – and proved so successfully in practice - it just needs to create and issue its own money:

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency, and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government, and the buying power of consumers.”

We need a ‘New Economics Movement’ to re-affirm this basic economic truth. 

Paradoxically however, the truth itself is far from being ‘new’. It was recognised by the Spartans, by the ancient Greeks and their philosophers. It was recognised by the Roman Empire and its Caesars – who successfully poured their own state currency into the lands they conquered to stimulate ‘economic growth’. The policy of creating and issuing their own currency was followed by the Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors.

It was also followed by most English monarchs since the 12th century – or was so until the Free Coinage Act of 1666, which took away the sovereign prerogative of the monarch to issue and create money, and the subsequent planning and founding of a privately owned ‘Bank of England’ – against the opposition of both the landowning Tories and leading economists such as David Ricardo.

This historic change - one that was to have global significance - was symbolised by deliberately burying the type of currency issued by British monarchs for hundreds of years - so-called ‘tally sticks’ – under the new temple-like building that still constitutes the Bank of England. The Bank of England was built like a temple because it was a temple - a temple to a new god and a new monotheistic religion – not a religion that believed in a divinely appointed monarch but one whose sole god was the god of money – ‘the monotheism of money’.

“The Bank was to be allowed to create bank notes in an amount equal to the money it lent to the government. This is another way of saying it could use government debt as its reserves or collateral. For example: the Crown wants a loan from the Bank; the Bank has no money of its own but creates money for the loan out of thin air, based on the reserve assets of the Crown’s resulting debt to it.” Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money

The economist David Ricardo immediately saw what scam the new ‘Bank of England’ represented.

“Suppose that a million of money should be required to fit out an expedition. If the state issued a million of paper … the expedition would be fitted out without any charge to the people; but if a [private] bank issued a million of paper, and lent it to the government at 7%, … the country would be charged with a continual tax of 70,000 per annum.”

Instead of this Ricardo proposed a establishing an English National Bank capable of issuing its own money without borrowing from private banks and bankers. Similarly, the centralisation of credit in the hands of the state was one of the central planks of Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’.  Yet neither Ricardo nor Marx were alone among political and parliamentary opponents of the Bank of England. In fact many Tories, monarchists, economists, politicians and thinkers of all hues would have agreed with the following remarks of Marx, which complement those of Ricardo:

“At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the state … The Bank of England begin with lending money to the government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of bank notes … It was not long before this credit money, made by the Bank itself, became the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the state, and paid, on account of the state, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the Bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced.”

“The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation [of capital]. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and this turns into capital, without the necessity of exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry … The state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as hard cash would.”

Here Marx also echoes Aristotle, who argued that whilst commodities such as corn or cattle could naturally breed more of themselves and in this way provided the basis for a type of natural ‘interest’ payment when lent out (at least until corporations such as Monsanto came to place global patents on farmer’s seeds or breeds of livestock) the breeding of money through usury and interest was wholly un-natural.

THE COLONISTS REBEL 

“The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.”   Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

The surrender of the sovereignty of individuals and nations – whether to the power of monarchs or to ‘money power’ - was resisted only in America. That is why, as Benjamin Franklin recognised, monarchs and money power united to attack the rebel colonists and undermine by all means possible the issuing of paper currencies such as the 'Continental' and ‘Greenback’, particularly if issued as legal tender, i.e. as money  in itself and not an IOU or promise to pay the holder in the form of silver or gold. Eventually this monetary rebellion was brought to heel by the private bankers barons – who eventually succeeded in making it redeemable with gold that had then to be borrowed from them at interest! Yet until this point, even British parliamentarians had had occasion to see how the American colonists lived far better lives - through issuing their own debt- and interest-free money - than the miserably impoverished masses in a Britain ruled by the money power of private bankers.

And today, nations worldwide - whether monarchies, democracies or dictatorships - have surrendered their most basic sovereign right – the right to issue and create their own interest-free money. Instead they have made themselves dependent on borrowing – at interest – from commercial international banks and a global banking mafia - ‘the 1%. Yet how is the belief - the global big lie - that governments need to borrow from private banks still sustained? It is sustained by phrases such as ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’, by repeated negative references to governments ‘printing money’ – or by dire warnings that if they did the result would be hyperinflation. All of this is nonsense. It is based on the seemingly common sense idea that you can’t just ‘make money from nothing’. And yet that is precisely what private and international banks and financial speculators do today. Banks do not lend from capital reserves or savings. They literally lend money into existence from nothing – just by keying in figures into borrower’s electronic accounts. That fictional loan money, created by a few keystrokes, then counts as the banks ‘assets’, and the loans themselves (however ‘bad’ or ‘toxic’) are free to be sold on – making yet more money for the banks in addition to the interest gained on them.

In simple terms, the very act of taking out a loan - whether on the part of an individual, business or government – actually gives private banks permission not only to create the money that they lend from nothing  but also claim it as their own money - even though they didn’t have it before! To top it all, the banks then demand that the borrower pay them ‘back’ this money that they didn’t have but created from nothing – but this time with compound interest payments charged on top! This is nothing but legalised counterfeiting – not through forgery of paper money– but by just creating money electronically through keystrokes on a computer. It is also legalised fraud – for the borrower doesn’t know that in taking out a loan he is allowing the bank not just to make its own money from nothing – without labouring for it – but to make far more money for itself than it lends out – none of which benefits the borrower. Morally, therefore, it is not borrowers but the banks themselves that should be charged interest on the money they lend into existence, i.e. create without having to engage in any form of genuinely productive work.  As for the old but still-repeated tale that ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’, whilst this may apply to ordinary households it certainly does not apply to nations or to privately owned banks.  For one thing private banking is a financial ‘tree’ – ‘making money from nothing’ and from its ‘negative money’ -  from want of money and debt. 

MAKING MONEY FROM NOTHING

As William Paterson, one of the key founders of the Bank of England admitted:

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”

This basic truth has been confessed countless times by bankers themselves:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.” 

Josiah Stamp, ex-governor of the Bank of England,

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” 

Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

“The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.” 

H.W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand


“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing.” 

Ralph M. Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury

“Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower’s IOU.”   The Federal Reserve Bank of New York

“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the Commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are, absolutely, without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse, unless it becomes widely understood, and the defects remedied very soon.”

Robert H. Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia


Congressman Patman: "How did you get the money to buy those 2 billion dollars’ worth of Government securities in 1933?” Governor Eccles: “We created it.” Patman: “Out of what?” Eccles: “Out of the right to issue credit money.” Patman: “And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government’s credit?” Eccles: “That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.” 

Dialogue notated during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941. ‘Governor’ Eccles was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank.

THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPAL OF A NEW ECONOMICS

If national governments – not private banks – reasserted their sovereign right to create and issue money of their own for public spending there would not only be no need for them to borrow from private bankers – there would also be no need for them to tax the people.  The whole battle between economic policies based on ‘tax and spend’ policies and those which seek to cut both taxation and public spending would become totally meaningless – as it would be already if the real issue were understood. This is the issue of who has the power to create, issue and regulate a nation’s money supply – private bankers or the nation state. Today it is private bankers who have this power, and it is this that results (as it did in the past) in inflation, economic depression and cuts in public spending.

For all these reasons the principal policy and demand of a New Economics Movement must be that the power of money creation be restored to the nation and state. For in this way alone can true economic sovereignty be restored to all nations - with money used for the benefit of the people and not the banks and financial markets. In this way also the pressure to maintain economic growth at a rate that everyone knows is fast depleting the planet’s resources will be reduced – because no element of that growth will any longer be needed simply as a source of taxation to pay back or bailout the big banks. Their power rests on the simple reality that today it is not paper or cash but electronic money - created as debt - that accounts for 97% of the nation’s money supply – and therefore actually depends on debt to sustain that supply. In such a debt-based monetary system, if all debt to the banks were paid off, both the banks and the nation would be bankrupt. A no-win situation unless money creation itself is re-nationalised and thereby also control of the nation’s money supply.

 “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce … and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

James A. Garfield, assassinated President of the United States

“Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to … provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.”

Theodore Roosevelt

“The bankers own the world. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control over that money, and they will create that money right back again. Take this power away from bankers and all great fortunes will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this then would be a happier, better world to live in … But if you want to continue to be slaves to the banker and pay the cost of your own enslavement, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.” 

Josiah Stamp

The dangers associated with the total control over the money supply of the nation by privately owned commercial banks was long ago recognised by Ricardo, who advocated instead both a truly public or National Bank and the creation of special monetary commissioners to determine how much new money it could create and inject into the economy - thereby achieving far greater control of inflation than a totally unregulated and uncontrolled  monetary system run for the benefit of private banks and financial speculators, or even the regulation of interest rates by today’s Bank of England – which allows the banks themselves to borrow at zero or even negative interest - whilst lending it out at any interest rate they choose.

Though the Bank of England was nationalised in 1946, its role as a central bank is now reduced to regulating monetary policy, and it can create money only through trading in government bonds (debts) or by borrowing and accumulating debt. At the start of the First World War however, a Currency and Bank Notes Act was passed which granted temporary powers to the Treasury in Great Britain for directly issuing banknotes to the value of £1 and 10/- (ten shillings) in the UK. These treasury notes had full legal tender status and were not convertible for gold through the Bank of England, thus replacing the gold coin in circulation to prevent a run on sterling and to enable raw material purchases for armament production. The wording on each note was:

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND — Currency notes are Legal Tender for the payment of any amount — Issued by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury under the Authority of Act of Parliament (4 & 5 Geo. V c.14).

Treasury notes were issued until 1928, when the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928 returned note-issuing powers to the banks. Today the Bank of England is still responsible for printing paper money and coins - which it can sell to commercial banks and thus use as a source of income.  Yet this form of money now constitutes only 3% of the nation’s money supply - the remaining 97% being created from nothing by commercial banks. Significantly, Treasury notes were not redeemable in gold. This reflected another basic truth central to the New Economics Movement – namely that to serve as legal tender money need have token  value with no intrinsic value in itself. Even if coins are made of gold or silver their value as money is completely distinct from their value as commodities in the form of precious metals – for monetary value can be decided by the state (by ‘fiat’). It was the attempt to base the value of money on precious metals such as gold and silver that led the Spartans to create their own form of fiat money from ‘base metals’ – using iron rendered valueless for any purpose – just as it led the English monarchs to use wood in the form of tally sticks.

CREATING DEBT-FREE MONEY THROUGH NEW NATIONAL CURRENCIES 

In the face of the nationwide poverty, wage- and debt-slavery currently being imposed by the international banks in both the U.K., the U.S. and many countries of the Eurozone, - exemplified by the dramatic increase in unemployment, homelessness, child poverty and ‘food banks’ - the New Economics Movement proposes a radical strategy to counter ‘austerity terrorism’. At the heart of this strategy will be ‘free money’ i.e. the free distribution of a new debt- and interest-free national currency in any quantity and denominations, both in the form of paper money notes and as an electronic money system. The free money will be given firstly to independent local traders and then directly to people on the street and on their doorsteps. Distributing free money will itself constitute a high-profile and highly original form of electoral campaigning for fundamental monetary reform – one which is not based exclusively on distributing flyers or pamphlets, or just talking to people without anything more than words to give them. It will also be a way of directly demonstrating and modelling the very aims of this campaign for public money - by building a fully public ‘National People’s Bank’ from the ground up. This New Economic strategy could be implemented in three stages:

1.     Creating a central website through which (a) anyone can download pre-designed images of and print any quantity of the new paper currency in different denominations (b) which explains the principle of its use and distribution (see below) and (c) that can also be used to log and track its distribution and circulation and form the basis of an electronic account, electronic currency and free ‘free-money’ cards.

2.   Offering local independent traders and craftsmen – in particular independent food retailers such as bakers, butchers and grocers – any amount of the free money they wish. The sole condition imposed on receivers of the new currency will be a pledge (see below and printed on each note along with the address of the central website) to accept as payment from customers as much of the free currency as they ask to be given. Traders will also be encouraged to offer a part of this freely received money to their suppliers on the same conditions – thus establishing a supply chain and leading to a stage at which they pay their suppliers in the new currency.

3.    Handing out the ‘new money’ freely on the high street or door-to-door, along with a list of local shopkeepers, traders and craftsmen and service providers willing to accept it.

It is important to emphasise three basic principles governing the new currency, namely that:

(1) the holder pledges to accept in payment for their own good or services as much of the new money they hold or use as payment for the goods and services of others

(2) the new currency will be a form of money in itself – a mere token of value with no intrinsic value. Thus whilst, for the purpose of domestic or international trade, the new currency will be purchaseable in Pounds or other currencies it will not be redeemable in those currencies i.e. holders of the new currency will not be able to exchange it for the official national currency or other currencies.

(3) the new public currency will be a truly national one – and not merely some form of local currency or LETS scheme, for example in the case of the Republic of the Isles, a ‘People’s Pound’. 

Given the nature of the new currency, each note will therefore carry the following words:

If used in payment for goods or services from others, the holder promises to accept the amount on this note as payment for any goods or services of their own.

Each note will also carry a statement declaring that it can be bought with the official national currency or with foreign currencies but cannot be sold in exchange for them.

Local Currency - Proof that we don't need Usurious Bankers

When the town of Lewes in Sussex launched its own currency, the few people who were aware of this development tended to be sceptical about the chances of it being anything but a momentary fad. That was in the summer of 2007.  Now the currency has been in use for over a decade.  Although it is used in parallel with the British Pound which it hasn't replaced, the existence of a local currency not controlled by the Banking criminals, is a marvellous thing.  The paper currency is issued by the Town Council - and not by the Banks.

The Banking system is a fraud wherein money is created out of nothing, put into circulation as debt, and repaid using real tangible property when debtors default. The usurious system is designed to consolidate wealth (real wealth) in the hands of the self-chosen financial elite, at the expense of the impoverished masses.

Lewes Council have taken a brave step in issuing their own currency; a small step, but a significant one. This has been done before to great success. A good account of how a currency can be issued debt-free as social credit for the benefit of the ordinary people, is available in the booklet 'The Guernsey Experiment' by Olive & Jan Grubiak. Lewes Council are to be applauded.

The Capitalist System is based on Banking.  It will take more than setting up Local Currencies, Local Exchange Trading Systems and the like to break the grip of the Bankers, but it will at least deny them the wealth they steal from us in creating money as debt.  It is a start.

Recommended reading:

http://www.deturope.eu/img/upload/content_02925342.pdf

http://www.letslinkuk.net

https://www.thelewespound.org/how-it-works/

http://www.henley-in-transition.org.uk/projects/seedling/local-currency/index.htm

#InternationalWomen’sDay - A Cynical Assault on Womanhood

Today has been designated International Women's Day.   We do not pay heed to the United Nations, and certainly we have no respect for that organisation. A Globalist body telling people world-wide that we must celebrate/mark a particular cause on a particular day, is an affront to Freedom.  We choose to comment on the issue of Women's Rights on this day, not out of any deference to the UN, but because today is as good as any day to discuss the issue.

When liberals and Trotskyites speak of Women's Rights, they speak as one with the Capitalists.  They speak of the 'right' to indulge in all manner of hedonism with no consequences.  They speak of turning Women into mere economic units, to be equals as wage slaves alongside men. The equality of the liberal is the equality of depravity and degradation.  It is the equality which can only be found in the sewer and in the ruins of society.  It is the equality of nobody having any value, of nobody mattering except in terms of their ability to spend money and to be a part of the death cycle of the economy.

When the Suffragettes fought for the vote, it was from a belief that voting matters. As we have seen with the way that the Brexit Referendum result has been distorted to the point of negation, democracy is a sham. The extension of votes to 16 and 17 years-olds in Scotland, is a ploy to give the impression of democracy, but considering the harm done to young people by the education/indoctrination system, the extension of the vote is likely to increase the power of the Ruling Class by supplying voters who have not learnt to distrust authority.  In the unlikely event of these people voting with wisdom, the results will be ignored anyway.  The extension of the Vote to Women is a false victory.  With all the main parties subservient to the Ruing Class, the Working Class of both sexes have no power, and the pitiful toadying of the Middle Classes to those they see as their 'betters' doesn't help matters.

Another false victory is Women in the workplace.  Whilst it is only right and natural for single Women and married Women without children to have equal opportunities with Men in employment, what is put across by the media as an advance for Womankind, has been nothing but the extension of Wage Slavery to everyone except those who misrule us, who ensure that only members of their own class (and the Bourgeois sycophants) get any work which allows for a decent life.

Wage Slavery is presented as the be-all and end-all, with the idea that it is a great achievement for a Woman to have a career, but to raise a family is a drudgery to be ashamed of.  As a result, Women have been encouraged to shun monogamous relationships, choosing instead a life of fruitless and futile promiscuity.  In the struggle to overcome the Patriarchy, Women have been pushed by the media into a lifestyle where they have to compete with Men in employment (by mimicking the masculine) and break up the routine with a carousel of sexual hedonism which perfectly suits the sexist egoism of men who see Women as sex objects. The Patriarchy has turned the strive to freedom into little more than cost-free prostitution, with servitude in work thrown in as an added insult.

Women in Wage Slavery who do have children have to hand their children over to 'Child Care Providers' who act as surrogate parents, while the Women work for material gains, which ironically are out of reach once child-care costs have been taken into account. Women are told that raising children isn't a proper job, and that therefore children must be handed over to strangers be paid to raise - mainly Women!

For Working Class Women, work is a dead-end. In the worst cases, Women are encouraged to abort their children so they can stay in work. The reduction in population of Working Class children, is used as an excuse by the Ruling Class to import millions of non-natives who compete for employment and by virtue of coming from countries with poorer living standards, reduce labour costs to the bosses.

When we speak of Women's Rights, we speak of the Right of Women to be Women. To be in a monogamous relationship with a partner of your choice is liberating. To have children who you can raise according to your own standards is empowering. To not have to work outside the home is to have the ability to build a life which is tailored to your own needs.  To be able to work until such time as children come (and after they are grown) is to be able to have a balanced life.  All these things are opposed by Trotskyites and their fellow Globalists liberal Capitalists.

The only way in which sexual parity will be achieved is when Nature is embraced, and when People come before Profits.  Pitting Men against Women as rivals is un-natural. We exist side-by-side as Equals in Nature, who compliment each other.  The old religious bigotry which sees Men as 'superior' has lost its power as the monotheistic religion has died.

An end to bigotry, an end to competition, a future of unity and cooperation, is the true way to achieve Rights for Everyone.  The false Men/Women divisions have to be banished forever. The Patriarchy has to go, and the Matriarchy has to be crushed before it develops. This can only be achieved by overthrowing the Capitalist system, rejecting 'no borders' Globalism, and embracing Pure Natural Socialism.

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