The US and the DPRK have reached an agreement which transforms the ceasefire of 1953 into Peace. Today's Summit is a historic occasion in which the aggressors of the USA have finally recognised the right of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to be a sovereign nation.
The key points of the summit declaration statement are as follows:
The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.–DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearising of the Korean Peninsula.
The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
SMPBI cautiously welcomes the outcome of the Summit. However, there are worrying parallels to be drawn with other countries which have effectively disarmed themselves in the pursuit of peace with the USA.
Iraq and Libya are key example of nations which were threatened by the USA. In both cases, following the destruction of their defensive capabilities, they were invaded and destroyed, They sought peace, and to prove their sincerity made themselves vulnerable. The US criminals took full advantage, and now Iraq is an occupied country, and Libya is in ruins.
If the US modus operandi follows as it always has, then Kim Jong Un (just as Saddam Hussein and Muammar al Gaddafi before him), may well have just signed his own death warrant, and opened the path for his country to be wrecked by a fake 'colour revolution' and/or a military attack.
The DPRK has started down a dangerous path. Creeping economic liberalisation threatens to let the Capitalist parasites back into the country. The existence of a McDonalds in Pyongyang is an illustration of the backwards steps away from the Juche idea.
Has Kim Jong Un saved his country from destruction by the USA, or opened the path for just that? We hope that this summit is the path to peace. Ideally this could be the starting point for reunification of Korea under the ideals of Juche, not the barbarism of Capitalism. We will probably not have too long to wait to see if this was a superb piece of diplomacy, or the leadership of the DPRK walking into a trap.
It is not the working class, but the capitalist class that undertakes the organisation of industry and the control of the market for profitmaking. This is no accusative statement. It is the claim boastfully and triumphantly made on behalf of employers and capitalists generally, by themselves and their political apologists. And surely no more discreditable admission of their personal incompetence, or the unserviceableness of their functions could be desired, than this of their cwn, that they are unable to conduct the production and exchange of the country, with even such bare efficiency as will allow of their paying the paltry wages demanded by their workers, or of their obtaining for themselves the no more than petty profits which they allege their businesses afford. What object can there be in producing commodities at all, if neither those who make them, nor those who Organise those who make them, nor those even who sell them, can get a “living wage” out of the undertaking?
And if neither the workers can get wages, nor the employers profit, to whom does the enormous sum of our industrial profits go – a sum admittedly sufficient, even with our present recklessly wasteful methods of production, to richly supply all our material needs as a nation, and of which at present the workers, some four-fifths of the nation, only obtain one-third? Who are the clever knaves, and how do they get their greedy fingers in. who contrive so successfully to deplete the workers of the reward of their labour, and the astute employers of their tender percentages? And why don’t the employers, the “captains of industry,” the “statesmen of commerce,” as they have, with prodigious flattery, been designated, seize hold of these wicked thieves and have them publicly arraigned for their crimes? Truly, if matters stand as said “captains” and “statesmen” protest upon all occasions of dispute with their workmen, they must either be imbeciles, and fit only to be confined in lunatic asylums, or themselves be the knaves, or the abettors of the knaves, in which case they should be stripped of their “captains’” uniforms, and deprived of their “statesmen’s” seals, and sent to the places which they have prepared for their less dangerous, but more unfortunate professional brethren.
And if we inquire we shall find that our worst suspicions of the capitalists are confirmed at every turn. Their everyday actions, their mode of life, their places of abode, the company which they keep, and even their antecedents, all track them down as men of evil principles and unrighteous deeds. J Bruce Glasier, Socialism and Strikes, 1920 .....................
“This time when people are excited about Socialism, and when many who know nothing about it think themselves Socialists, is the time of all others to put forward the simple principles of Socialism regardless of the policy of the passing hour. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists—who are Trade Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what no—will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way. Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e. convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles into practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion? Surely not. . .Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the new Order of Things” (Commonweal 15th November 1890)
“Fellow Citizens, We come before you as a body advocating the principles of Revolutionary International Socialism; that is, we seek a change in the basis of Society—a change which would destroy the distinctions of classes and nationalities. As the civilised world is at present constituted, there are two classes of Society—the one possessing wealth and the instruments of production, the other producing wealth by means of those instruments but only by leave and for the use of the possessing classes. These two classes are necessarily in antagonism to one another.” (Socialist League Manifesto)
“No better solution would be that State Socialism, by whatever name it may be called, whose aim it would be to make concessions to the working class while leaving the present system of capital and wages still in operation: no number of merely administrative changes, until the workers are in possession of all political power, would make any real approach to Socialism.” (ibid)
“To the realisation of this change the Socialist League addresses itself with all earnestness. As a means thereto it will do all in its power towards the education of the people in the principles of this great cause, and will strive to organise those who will accept this education, so that when the crisis comes, which the march of events is preparing there may be a body of men ready to step into their due places and deal with and direct the irresistible movement.” (ibid)
"Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles into practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible" ('Where Are We Now?', 1890, p. 226).
"Intelligence enough to conceive, courage enough to will, power enough to compel. If our ideas of a new Society are anything more than a dream, these three qualities must animate the due effective majority of the working people; and then, I say, the thing will be done" ('Communism', 1893, p. 229). William Morris ......................
"Technology also replaces the familiar connection of parts to wholes; everything is just an exchangeable piece. For example, while a deer or a tree or a wine jug may “stand on its own” and have its own presence, an automobile does not: it is challenged “for a further conducting along, which itself sets in place the promotion of commerce.” Machines and other pieces of inventory are not parts of self-standing wholes, but arrive piece by piece. These pieces do share themselves with others in a sort of unity, but they are isolated, “shattered,” and confined to a “circuit of orderability.” The isolated pieces, moreover, are uniform and exchangeable. We can replace one piece of standing reserve with another. By contrast, “My hand ... is not a piece of me. I myself am entirely in each gesture of the hand, every single time.”
Human beings too are now exchangeable pieces. A forester “is today positioned by the lumber industry. Whether he knows it or not, he is in his own way a piece of inventory in the cellulose stock” delivered to newspapers and magazines. These in turn, as Heidegger puts it in “The Question Concerning Technology,” “set public opinion to swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration of opinion becomes available on demand.” Similarly, radio and its employees belong to the standing reserve of the public sphere; everything in the public sphere is ordered “for anyone and everyone without distinction.” Even the radio listener, whom we are nowadays accustomed to thinking of as a free consumer of mass media — after all, he “is entirely free to turn the device on and off” — is actually still confined in the technological system of producing public opinion. “Indeed, he is only free in the sense that each time he must free himself from the coercive insistence of the public sphere that nevertheless ineluctably persists.”
But the essence of technology does not just affect things and people. It “attacks everything that is: Nature and history, humans, and divinities.” When theologians on occasion cite the beauty of atomic physics or the subtleties of quantum mechanics as evidence for the existence of God, they have, Heidegger says, placed God “into the realm of the orderable.” God becomes technologized. (Heidegger’s word for the essence of technology is Gestell. While the translator of the Bremen lectures, Andrew Mitchell, renders it as “positionality,” William Lovitt, the translator of “The Question Concerning Technology” in 1977 chose the term “enframing.” It almost goes without saying that neither term can bring out all the nuances that Heidegger has in mind.)
The heart of the matter for Heidegger is thus not in any particular machine, process, or resource, but rather in the “challenging”: the way the essence of technology operates on our understanding of all matters and on the presence of those matters themselves — the all-pervasive way we confront (and are confronted by) the technological world. Everything encountered technologically is exploited for some technical use. It is important to note, as suggested earlier, that when Heidegger speaks of technology’s essence in terms of challenging or positionality, he speaks of modern technology, and excludes traditional arts and tools that we might in some sense consider technological. For instance, the people who cross the Rhine by walking over a simple bridge might also seem to be using the bridge to challenge the river, making it a piece in an endless chain of use. But Heidegger argues that the bridge in fact allows the river to be itself, to stand within its own flow and form. By contrast, a hydroelectric plant and its dams and structures transform the river into just one more element in an energy-producing sequence. Similarly, the traditional activities of peasants do not “challenge the farmland.” Rather, they protect the crops, leaving them “to the discretion of the growing forces,” whereas “agriculture is now a mechanized food industry.”
Modern machines are therefore not merely more developed, or self-propelled, versions of old tools such as water or spinning wheels. Technology’s essence “has already from the outset abolished all those places where the spinning wheel and water mill previously stood.” Heidegger is not concerned with the elusive question of precisely dating the origin of modern technology, a question that some think important in order to understand it. But he does claim that well before the rise of industrial mechanization in the eighteenth century, technology’s essence was already in place. “It first of all lit up the region within which the invention of something like power-producing machines could at all be sought out and attempted.” We cannot capture the essence of technology by describing the makeup of a machine, for “every construction of every machine already moves within the essential space of technology.”
Even if the essence of technology does not originate in the rise of mechanization, can we at least show how it follows from the way we apprehend nature? After all, Heidegger says, the essence of technology “begins its reign” when modern natural science is born in the early seventeenth century. But in fact we cannot show this because in Heidegger’s view the relationship between science and technology is the reverse of how we usually think it to be; natural forces and materials belong to technology, rather than the other way around. It was technological thinking that first understood nature in such a way that nature could be challenged to unlock its forces and energy. The challenge preceded the unlocking; the essence of technology is thus prior to natural science. “Modern technology is not applied natural science, far more is modern natural science the application of the essence of technology.” Nature is therefore “the fundamental piece of inventory of the technological standing reserve — and nothing else.”
An example from the second lecture illustrates what Heidegger means. Scientifically speaking, the distance between a house and the tree in front of it can be measured neutrally: it is thirty feet. But in our everyday lives, that distance is not as neutral, not as abstract. Instead, the distance is an aspect of our concern with the tree and the house: the experience of walking, of seeing the tree’s shape grow larger as I come closer, and of the growing separation from the home as I walk away from it. In the scientific account, “distance appears to be first achieved in an opposition” between viewer and object. By becoming indifferent to things as they concern us, by representing both the distance and the object as simple but useful mathematical entities or philosophical ideas, we lose our truest experience of nearness and distance." Mark Blitz: Understanding Heidegger on Technology
Today is the monarch's birthday - well, one of them anyway. The media have been waxing lyrical about one of the Guardsmen in the Trooping of the Colour, wearing a Turban rather than a Bearskin Hat. As Republicans, it is hilarious to see the liberals falling over one another to celebrate the queen's birthday, and the way in which the ceremony has become more multicultural, and increasingly removed from its traditions. We want the monarchy gone, so we see nothing positive about appeal of the Ruling Class spreading further. We want a Republic to sweep away the parasites of the Ruling Class. As for the Trooping of the Colour, that ceremony celebrating our oppressors is an anachronism, and the types of hats worn have no significance whatsoever.
Elizabeth Windsor, the so-called Queen, is an utter disgrace. The woman has overseen the destruction of the United Kingdom, with its complete take-over by financiers and global capitalist corporations. For the ordinary people, her years of misrule have seen a proud land impoverished. The Working Class population is denied decent employment, liveable welfare and healthcare and a decent standard of living. Yet still flag-waving imbeciles continue to sing 'God Save the Queen' and to spout absolute drivel about "what a good job" the parasite does for the country!
Elizabeth Windsor is a despicable fraud. She is not, nor ever could be, the rightful ruler of the UK. She has her position simply because she is a member of a family, which has done more than any other to advance the causes of Global Capitalist Tyranny. Every policy wish has passed through parliament has had to have Royal Assent before becoming law. Thankfully, as the incumbent of the Throne has no legitimacy, then nor do any of the laws which have passed during her time.
As if to emphasise her disdain of the British people, the 'queen' gives out 'honours' on her birthday to all manner of scum. To be honoured by a despot is to have no honour at all, so anyone who accepts an honour from the Windsors, publicly identifies him or herself as a stooge of the Ruling Class and enemy of the people. In recent years, the queen has honoured the likes of Rolf Harris, Jimmy Savile and Shimon Peres. These are just a few of many decadent and degenerate creatures who have done nothing to help the peoples of Britain. It is indicative of the Ruling Class and Bourgeois collaborators that absolute scum are honoured by them. You can judge a man by the company he keeps - and in the case of the royals, that is very true.
Shimon Peres Shimon Peres was awarded the title of Knight of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George.
So what did Shimon Peres contribute to the world, and to Britain in particular? What had he done to merit an award from the queen?
Shimon Peres was implicated in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin's crime was to call for peace with the Palestinians and an end to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land in Greater Israel. Rabin did not advocate the dismantling of the bandit state, merely a reduced level of occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. This was so offensive to the elite of Zionism, that Rabin was murdered. Immediately following the murder of Prime Minister Rabin, Peres took the helm. One of his first acts was to invade the sovereign nation of the Lebanon, forcing 400,000 people to flee from their homes, and an unknown number to be murdered. The butchering of Rabin and the Lebanese by Israeli and Zionist forces under Peres' command was rewarded by the queen.
When visiting fellow Zionist state, Turkey, he stated that the massacre of 1,500,000 Armenians by the Turks in the Great War could not be called genocide and should not be considered to be of equal worth to the suffering of the Jews in the Second World War. In a sense, he was correct. The massacre of the people of Armenia is a historical fact, and therefore should not be compared with the Zionist propaganda of the Holocaust.
The knighting of Peres followed in the footsteps of the knighting of mass murderer and accomplice to the New York World Trade Centre massacre, Rudolph Giuliani. Knighthoods are allegedly meant to acknowledge deeds which have benefited the Crown of Great Britain. Certainly the WTC bombings aided the British invasion of the Middle East and Central Asia and helped secure the goal of a Global Zionist Empire. Obviously the millions of murdered Asians are of no consequence to our beloved Queenie.
There are still people who tug their forelocks and proclaim 'God save the Queen'. They argue that the Monarchy have served the British people and deserve our respect. They are wrong.
Jimmy Savile Jimmy Savile was a child procurer to the rich and famous. The story we are supposed to believe is that Sir James (OBE) wandered into Children's Homes and Hospitals and abused children whilst no-one was looking. This would of course be horrendous in itself, but it isn't true. For those from outside the UK, the term Children's Homes, is used alongside the equally sick euphemism, 'Care' to disguise a system of brutal cruelty in which children are stolen from their parents by the State using an army of Social Workers, backed up by the Police, and place in what would be better described as concentration camps for the innocent victims of the depots in authority.
The illusion of Sir James Savile going into places where he could abuse children using his fame as a television personality and charity organiser, is a smoke-screen. The picture we have of this foul man is of a child catcher, such as the one in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. There is an ironic truth in this, as in that film, the child catcher was working for the Ruling Class (as indeed Savile was). The controlled media (working for their owners) have twisted the Savile story to make him appear to have been acting more-or-less alone and for his own perverse gratification. In truth, Savile was but a gofer, working with the police and social services to procure victims to be raped by his high powered clients. Rather than using imagery of the Child catcher, we would be better using imagery of a man studying a menu and buying what is on it based on a shopping list given to him by others.
The Windsor scum, Westminster politicians, top civil servants, heads of police forces and assorted celebrities, used Savile and others like him as go-betweens. Savile's role in the child rape scandal was as a front man who would visit his clients in positions of power, take down orders for what particular children they would like to rape, torture and murder, then go to his contacts in the police, social services and the outrageous Family Court Service (secret courts which rubber stamp the break-up of families and which accept no defence against their actions) to ensure that children who fitted the bill would be taken from their families, placed in the child prison system (so-called Care) and made ready for their abusers.
Savile is now dead, and according to the controlled media, he was one of a kind and so we can all now breathe happily in the knowledge that our children are safe. This is preposterous. The people who gave Savile orders are still in place (some have died, but they have been replaced). The people who filled his orders and got the children for his clients to destroy are still in place (or likewise have been replaced by willing monsters who serve the State and have no qualms about ruining the lives of ordinary people.) The army of Social Workers, Policemen, Court officials, Media cover-up teams etc is still in place. And of course, Savile's death changed nothing. He was not a lone wolf - he was a member of staff, with many, many colleagues working alongside him to the same end.
The Savile scandal briefly gave us an opportunity to wreck the system which sees us as cattle, but then the majority of the people went back to sleep, swallowing the lies of the media, and focusing upon the next bit of fake news to be pushed into the public domain. There will be people reading this who will ask, why write about this now as it is old news? That is exactly why it has to be written now. Our children are still being destroyed and we are simply swallowing more media lies and letting it happen.
Savile was awarded the OBE, and made a Knight Bachelor by the queen for services rendered. He also was awarded a KCSG by Pope John Paul II. After Savile's peaceful death, his victims were further dishonoured when neither nor the monarchy nor the papacy would revoke his honours. Such is the calibre of the queen and the quality of the Honours List.
Republic Now
We seek an end to the monarchy, the aristocracy and the entire honours system. A free Socialist Republic will have no place for class distinction and no place for privilege, wealth and power due to birth. We do not wish the monarchy any ill, but nor do we wish that they continue as the Ruling Class. Let them celebrate their birthdays in private, and at their own expense. Their day is over, ours is coming.
In the USA, the Zionist President, Trump, has moved the US Embassy in Occupied Palestine to Al-Quds. There is a temptation to see this move as out of step with ordinary US politics, but if we look back over past anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist actions by the democracy in name only, US One Party State, the actions of Trump are just more of the same:
Six years ago in September. at the Democratic National Party Convention, former Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, put forward a motion enshrining in the party's official platform, recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. The motion was as follows:
'This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. I came before you today to discuss the two important matters related to our party's national platform. As an ordained United Methodist Minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the value we have expressed in our party's platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party's platform should as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shewn to the delegates.'
By linking God and Jerusalem, Ted Strickland continued the one-party-state policy of unrelenting Zionism: under the Republican administration, the Mosaic Law was more-or-less the modus operandi, the Democrats simply followed suit.
The vote at the Convention was farcical. The oral vote had to be taken three times, and each time a clear majority voted NO to the amendment to the party platform. Each time the vote was taken, the voice of the Democrats was clear: the will of the party was to keep the issue of God excluded from party policy, and for Jerusalem NOT to be recognised as the capital of Israel. In a display of sheer arrogance, Convention leader (Mayor of Los Angleles) Antonio Villaraigosa, declared that the requisite two thirds majority had been obtained, and that the motion had passed!
The USA is the face of Globalism, and certainly its military power, but it is not the over-riding power. To see what that is, just look at the decisions taken by government after government, regardless of party affiliation. The US regime is Zionist. The UK is the side-kick of the USA.
Although our focus is obviously on the British Isles, we do see the need to overthrow Zionism worldwide. Our Comrades in the US sections of the SMPBI are working to promote a Free USA where Zionism has no place. Any supporters in the USA should get in touch, so that we can pass you on to our Comrades in that country.
Africa is a troubled continent. From the time of the recent European Empires, it has been economically ravaged. Much has been written of the African Slave Trade, with blame for the human suffering being laid squarely at the feet of Europeans - all Europeans, not just the Ruling Class! - but as with most contemporary propaganda, the truth is somewhat different.
At the time of the Black Slave Trade, ordinary Europeans were also subjected to unspeakable horrors. There is a tendency to blame all British people for the suffering endured by the African Slaves, but this is inappropriate. Even if it was acceptable to blame people for crimes committed by their ancestors (which it is not), the Slave Owners were not Working Class people, but people from the Ruling Class and especially the financial class of banking parasites, and those who caught and enslaved them in the first place, were despotic Africans, many of whom have descendants today who still profit from the cruelty of enslaving human beings..
Those who say that the British should feel guilt and shame for the Slave Trade, conveniently forget that the same people who treated the Africans as sub-humans, also treated Working Class British and Irish people in the same way. Indentured Service, Press-ganging, Child-labour, Starvation etc were all common place in Europe, and all to the benefit of the same tyrants who raped Africa.
The Slave Trade contributed to an economic enfeebling of parts of Africa. The greed of some of the rulers was sufficient to allow them to sell their own people with no care for their welfare. This attitude was helpful to the gradual occupation of the continent by regimes based across Europe, and not just in the British Isles. In the case of Great Britain especially, it was easy for the ruling class to treat the people in their charge as less than human. It must not be forgotten that the entire class structure in the UK was created to prevent the dilution of the ruling class bloodlines with that of the lowly oppressed peasantry. The arrogance of the bourgeois mindset made the denigration of African culture, tradition and way of life, almost inevitable.
As Imperialism gave way to Globalism (the same thing but differently dressed) puppet regimes were created to administer a fake home rule in the place of open dictatorship.
Africa is rich in minerals. If the nations were ruled by and for Working Class Africans, the continent could be wholly self-sufficient. Much of the land is abundantly fertile, and there is no logical reason why anyone should go without food. In a free and Socialist world, Africa left to flourish, could be a shining example to the rest of us, and her people would have no desire to emigrate from their homelands. This natural situation is quite the reverse of the contrived reality, and this is deliberate.
The administrative division of Africa into the imperial territories paid no heed to cultural, linguistic, tribal or any other authentic natural divisions. The imperialists had as much regard for Africa as the globalists have for Europe - lines drawn on a map replaced natural territorial divisions which mattered to the people, and this crime is still having repercussions. Forcing incompatible people to live in the same space, sharing the same resources, goes against nature. Hostility is inevitable, and when the resources are so scarce that sharing with an outsider means your own kin going without even the most basic commodities, such as food, violence is not only understandable, but right. The transfer of power to servile and corrupt despots ensured that the natural wealth of Africa was kept away from the people. For the successor to imperialism, Globalism, to work, the breakdown of countries was the first stage, with the free movement of people a vital part of the plan, and nothing encourages people to move, more than to escape hardship.
In Africa, war and poverty were (indeed still are) used to drive people from their lands, and coupled with the fantasy of the European Union being a rich land which literally owes them a living, the conditions for mass migration were set.
By supporting despotic regimes which would put greed above people, the internationalists engineered the unthinkable; mass starvation in the most fertile land in the world. The best educated Africans were driven to emigrate, thus depriving their home nations of the best minds. Military hardware was poured into the continent to ensure that war was a constant danger, and of course to enrich the war manufacturers. When starvation came, the response was to televise the suffering and to ram home the propaganda that this was the fault of Europeans because centuries ago the transatlantic slavery industry had existed. Never mind that the Working Class of all races were butchered by the ruling class parasites. The SJW trots successfully used the lie of racism as a means of making people accept that people fleeing the destruction of Africa should of course be welcomed into Europe. Of course the bourgeois bastards made sure that they kept themselves away from the newcomers, proving their hatred for the Working Class both new and old.
In 1985, the images of starvation in Africa prompted the Live Aid concerts. Millions were raised to provide food and healthcare, but the underlying reasons for the starvation were not addressed; those being the greed and corruption at the heart of the regimes put in place by the corporate entities fronting for the globalised ruling class. As a result, most of the money donated by sympathetic people from across the globe, was syphoned off by the governments in Africa, and by their globalist overlords. Contrary to the vile anti-European propaganda of the SJW trots, vast numbers of Europeans contributed to the cause of helping Africans. Live Aid essentially achieved very little, and the manufactured hunger continued.
The light at the end of the tunnel came for the people of Africa with the great works of Muammar Al Gaddafi. After turning Libya into the richest nation in Africa, with the highest standard of living, and such riches as free energy for all, Gaddafi turned his attention to helping the rest of the continent. His plan to use the vast reserves of gold built up from oil sales to produce a single currency for Africa, would have freed the continent from the stranglehold of international finance. To prevent the Gold Dinar, which would have killed the hated IMF and World Bank, Libya was invaded and the potential saviour of Africa was martyred. Death and debt are big business and the capitalist menace is more than happy to murder millions to hold onto power. Sadly the treacherous Arab League are also only too happy to aid their Jewish paymasters, as they proved when they refused to help Libya; they have been equally despicable in their inaction and effective selling out of Syria.
If the Libyan plan had not been bombed into oblivion, Africa would have become self-sufficient. The exodus of Africans would have been reversed as all reasons for living outside the homeland would have faded into insignificance. This would have ended the nightmare of mass migration which has wreaked so much havoc on the ordinary people of Europe. The momentum towards self-sufficient regions would have been unstoppable, and the entire globalist criminal enterprise would have fallen. With the murder of Gaddafi, our strongest chance for freedom died in cold blood.
The irrational hatred of foreigners which has increased as a result of the mass migration from Africa (the so-called 'Syrian' 'refugees') is a part of the globalist agenda being fulfilled. Immigrants are treated as the cause of all our ills, not as victims of the globalist despots, who have been brought into our lands by our common enemy. This thinking only aids the enemy, by focusing our anger on symptoms of the problem, not the cause.
For the British Isles to be free, it is vital that we struggle for all people to be free: not in the way of open borders globalists, but as free Inter-Nationalist Socialists who respect the right of everyone to self-determination, and the sanctity of closed borders. The rape of Africa took a new turn with the American imperialist occupation spearheaded by AFRICOM. Yet again, African culture is being stamped on, war is being escalated, hunger is being spread, and more people are fleeing for the chance of any life, even a harsh one in Europe.
The Mass Migration which is crippling the NHS, the Housing and Transport Infrastructure, destroying the Green Belt and seeing Law and Order, Education and all areas of Society crumbling, is contrived. We need to see beyond the migrants to the cause of their migration. Ending the suffering of the Working Class in Africa is the only solution to the suffering of the Working Class here. Populist calls for the migrants to be sent back, which do not call for the People of Africa to become truly self-governing, are not real solutions. The longer Capitalism survives, the more all of us will suffer. We have to attack the problem, not the symptoms, and stand by our Working Class brothers and sisters worldwide in a fight to permanently destroy the global ruling class and their economic system - a system which is slavery for the twentyfirst century for everyone.
Editors note: This Wilberg on Wednesday is the published on the anniversary of Peter Wilberg coming to join the SMPBI (or SWPE as it was). Peter is a Philosopher who goes into areas where others dare not. To mark the anniversary of our Comradeship, the following is a controversial posting, which should reinforce our position as a party which does not limit itself to economics. The article concerns his book, the Science Delusion - a good read which we whole-heartedly recommend......
A BOOK FOR OUR TIMES BY PHILOSOPHER PETER WILBERG: 'THE SCIENCE DELUSION - WHY GOD IS REAL AND 'SCIENCE' IS RELIGIOUS MYTH'
SYNOPSIS - BLINDED BY SCIENCE? Ours is a culture indoctrinated by a new religion - 'science'. What used to be deferred to as the authority of 'The Church' is now the authority of 'The Science'
'The SCIENCE Delusion' offers a brilliant counterpart to the wave of aggressive atheism and anti-religionism exemplified by Richard Dawkins' critique of 'The God Delusion'.
Developing simple arguments first formulated by Bishop George Berkeley, Peter Wilberg casts himself in the role of 'God's Galileo'. He does so by identifying and undercutting 24 common myths that make up our common idea of 'science' - and in doing so challenges the invisible dogmas and unquestioned or contradictory beliefs that science itself is based upon.
The purpose of 'The SCIENCE Delusion' is not to defend any specific religious faiths, but to show that what we think of as science has less basis in either real-world 'evidence' or tangible human experience - than religion does.
QUOTATIONS
"Science IS the new religion."
Martin Heidegger
“The separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive and most dogmatic religious institution.”
Paul Feyerabend
"For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation."
Albert Einstein
"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is ‘The Book of British Birds’, and you have a rough idea of what it is to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Terry Eagleton
PREFACE TO 'THE SCIENCE DELUSION'
The aim of 'The Science Delusion' is not to defend any specific religious doctrines or dogmas, but rather to offer a timely counterpart to the new wave of aggressive anti-religionism exemplified by Dawkins’ ‘scientific’ critique of The God Delusion.
It does so by critically examining the supposed rationality of ‘science’ itself, showing that it is as much based on unquestioned assumptions and dogmatic beliefs – accepted entirely on faith – as the most ‘fundamentalist’ of religions.
The words ‘science’, ‘conscience’ and ‘consciousness’ all stem from the Latin scire –‘to know’ - a verb whose root meaning is ‘to cut through’. By ‘cutting through’ the common myths that make up our idea of ‘science’, as well as those that science itself fosters and is founded upon, this work presents a ‘heretical’ challenge to the quasi-religious authority that science wields in today’s world - or is used to wield for commercial and political interests.
Yet in contrast to the sterile Western debate between religious ‘theists’ and secular 'atheists', this books argues that God’s reality is not a question of the existence or non-existence of some sort of Supreme Being ‘with’ consciousness. Instead I draw on the Indian understanding that God is consciousness - a Supreme Consciousness that is both omnipresent and omniscient, universal and unbounded - for it is not, in principle, the property of any thing or being that comes to be or ‘exist’ within it.
Whatever your standpoint on God, The Science Delusion raises two important questions (1) why it is politically and culturally acceptable to question belief in the existence of God (a belief shared by both Newton and Einstein) but regarded as politically and culturally ‘incorrect’ to question (as did both Newton and Einstein) belief in an invisible force called Gravity? (2) what are the new waves of irrational religious fundamentalism a reaction to? Is it that religious fundamentalists are mad or bad, or are they just unconsciously reacting to the arrogance of a ‘new religion’, which despite its global authority - and in the absence of anyone to play the role of ‘God’s Galileo’ - hasn’t begun to be rationally questioned – ‘The Science Delusion’?
By ‘cutting through’ the many myths and delusions that make up our idea of ‘science’, as well as those that science itself fosters and is founded upon, I offer a ‘heretical’ challenge to the quasi-religious authority and almost totalitarian hegemony that the scientific world-view wields in today’s globalised Western media and culture - a culture in which deference to ‘The Science’ has become as automatic as deference to ‘The Church’ used to be in medieval Europe.
FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO 'THE SCIENCE DELUSION'
A typical news article of the sort that can be found almost everyday in the press today begins by announcing that “Researchers at the University of Oxford will spend 1.9 million pounds investigating why people believe in God. Academics have been given a grant to find out whether belief in a deity is a matter of nature or nurture.” In other words, belief in a deity is no longer even considered to be a theological or philosophical question at all – that is to say, a question of thought - but is instead reduced to a matter for ‘scientific’ investigation to be determined by ‘research’ (and that within the parameters of a wholly unquestioned, unthinking and superficial dualism of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’).
More frightening than this is the fact that not a single critical eyebrow is raised at the new, wholly unquestioned faith in ‘science’ of the sort that this type of ‘news’ reveals. That is why, in the context of the controversy surrounding the role of religion in today’s world - and the ever more aggressive attacks on it exemplified by Dawkins’ book on The God Delusion – it is well worth remembering the words of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, namely that “Science is the new religion.” He pointed out also that science is “...to a quite unimaginable degree, through and through dogmatic; dealing with un-thought-through conceptions and preconceptions.”
The fact is that most people remain literally ‘blinded by science’, unable to see or to see through its quasi-religious nature and the unquestioned dogmatic foundations on which it is based. The reason why faith in this “new religion” of science should be so blind is that it is based on a completely mythical understanding of the true history and nature of modern science and of scientific ‘explanations’ of the universe – which actually have the character of mythical explanations themselves.
It is these mythical explanations that this work challenges and undermines.
MYTHS THAT 'THE SCIENCE DELUSION' CHALLENGES:
Myth 1: Science is ‘materialistic’. Religion is ‘idealistic’.
Myth 2: Science ‘explains’ things. Religion accepts them on faith.
Myth 3: Science is mathematically precise. Religion is full of imprecise terms.
Myth 4: Science is not based on belief in supernatural beings or forces. Religion is.
Myth 5: Science is supported by hard facts. Religion is undone by hard facts.
Myth 6: Science is about reality ‘out there’. Religion is ‘all in the mind’.
Myth 7: Science rests on ‘empirical’ evidence. Religion rests on dogmatic belief.
Myth 8: Science can ultimately explain everything with its theories. Religion can explain nothing with its myths and dogmas.
Myth 9: Science asks questions. Religion does not question its dogmatic creeds.
Myth 10: Science has a logical foundation. Religion does not.
Myth 11: Science takes us beyond the superstitious beliefs and ritual practices of ‘pre-modern’ and ‘pre-scientific’ ages and cultures. Religion sticks to them.
Myth 12: Science can fully explain the origin of the universe on the foundation of physics. Religion needs metaphysical speculations and philosophies to support its beliefs.
Myth 13: Science is based on objective observations of nature. Religion projects subjective human feelings and phantasy onto nature.
Myth 14: Science shows that everything is ‘energy’. Religion believes that behind everything is ‘god’
Myth 15: Science was a progressive revolution in our human understanding of nature. Religion is reactionary, because it resisted and still resists this ‘revolution’.
Myth 16: Science has overcome ‘The God Delusion’. Religion still holds to it.
Myth 17: Science does not believe in miracles. Religion does.
Myth 18: Science has proved its truth through modern technology and medicine. Religion has not.
Myth 19: Science can create instruments of war and genocide but does not cause them. Religion has caused and justified war and genocide.
Myth 20: Science frees us from superstitions. Religion binds us to them.
Myth 21: Science is rational. Religion is irrational.
Myth 22: Science does not persecute ‘heretics’. Religion does.
Myth 23: Science frees thought. Religion restricts freedom of thought.
Myth 24: Science has to do with facts alone. Religion has to do with values.
Commuting to work is an un-natural and unhealthy part of life for many people. A direct consequence of commuting is that free time is greatly reduced. Having to travel many miles from home for very mundane work is a reality which highlights how capitalism is a broken system. People who live in areas where there is a shortage of work doubtless will be taking work from someone in the area to which they travel.
It is ironic that the demand for the 'right to work' has allowed the multi-nationals to create work which turns the employee into a cog in a machine. We have reached the point that those who are able to get even the meagrest of livings are told that they must feel fortunate to have any work at all, but surely quality of life should be more important than the quantity of money an employee can generate?
The daily journey which so many people endure is the result of work in every home town being scarce. This situation is a local mirror to the global one. How much better life would be if local communities provided work for their own, free from outside interference. In times gone by, every community would have had artisans and small traders to provide for everyone needs. This would have been a genuine example of each individual contributing according to ability, for the good of the whole. The social bonds were the cement which made such life so worthy. It was only with the enclosures of the land and the manipulation of land and labour that the creation of the capitalist system came about, and that the natural society was undermined and split by greed.
A return to the natural society is vital for humanity. It is an outrage that the globalists are able to displace people by military and economic warfare, forcing them to have to travel across the globe in search for work and for material survival. The displacement of people in the daily commute to work, is caused by the same globalist antipathy to local communities.
Defeating the entire globalist mafia is a daunting task, but as the saying goes, 'how does one eat an elephant? A small bite at a time.' So it is with our struggle. It is natural to buy locally, trade locally, work locally. This is the essence of local communities, and this is why such a lifestyle has become all but impossible for most people.
The globalists know that should we unite as local socialist societies, tied in comradeship with others like us internationally, they will be finished, and so they have created laws to ban discussion about such things as mass migration. The laws which claim to combat 'discrimination', really are designed to promote division amongst the Working Class and a false loyalty to the oppressor class which is behind global dislocation yet claims to be a part of the nation just like the rest of us. The globalists are liars, and could not care less about any humans of any nation.
The darling of the conservative voting part of the population, is Jacob Rees-Mogg: a man who is of aristocratic lineage, making him a part of the Ruling Class by birth, and not just a greedy bourgeois parasite by choice, like the majority of his party. Mogg is portrayed as the alternative to Theresa May. Whereas she is doing all she can to keep us saddled to the capitalist EU, with its open borders and mass migration ethos, Mogg is portrayed as the one who will break the UK out of the EU and transform GB from Great Britain to Global Britain. Mot many people think of what this means.
The Moglodyte Tories seek a Britain where all the victories of Socialism are overturned, where Union Laws are gone, where all the legislation protecting Workers' Rights (including Health and Safety Regulations, Minimum Wage, Maximum Working Hours, Statutory Sick Pay/Holidays) are wiped away, so that 'global britain' can be competitive in the capitalist free market. The Mogg Tories (all Tories in fact) are keen to sell the NHS to US corporations, to get rid of Social Housing, and to do away with all that stands in the way of profits for the Ruling Class. Far from enforcing the borders, they would demand a constant stream of cheap labour and ever more draconian laws to at once make people resent the migrants, and focus on the symptoms of capitalism, rather than the central problems of capitalism itself - namely the exploiting bourgeois class and the ruling parasites who they take their orders from.
The Labour Party Blairite faction are clamouring for the UK to stay in the Customs Union, making their 'Brexit' as false as Theresa May's. Under Capitalism, we will either have open borders as a part of the EU in all but name, or as a 'global britain' in which the only difference is that we lose any measures which have prevented total exploitation. We cannot fight Globalism as a part of the Capitalist System; We have to break our countries free from that system, and embrace Total Socialism.
Revolutionary Patriotic Socialism is the answer to the capitalist nightmare. An SMPBI Republic of the Isles would be built on community lines, with large cities broken into smaller towns, and with all housing and work being re-ordered so that no-one would have to travel to another town as a part of his or her working life. The mass migration of cheap labour would be ended as the borders would be sealed tight, and our Internationalist endeavours would promote Socialism in all countries, thus ending the need for people to leave their homelands in search of a better life elsewhere.
Capitalism is injurious to every aspect of our lives. Revolutionary Patriotic Socialism provides the answers to all the ills of Capitalism. In the Republic of the Isles, Localism will be the focus of everyday life for the People. Localism inside the Isles will be backed by Inter-Nationalism to promote our model to all who strive for freedom; offering it as a way of restoring communities and breaking free from the Globalist menace. We espouse 'Socialism in One Country, One Country at a Time', with every country having its own version of Socialism, with Borders kept in place to prevent multinationalism digging its way in. By this way, the capitalist disease will be rooted out and destroyed in our lands; in all lands.
