All posts by T.P. Wilkinson

Yes, we need to talk about Romanticism

We need a robust discussion about Romanticism as has been properly introduced, though not for the first time in these pages. Some very important observations have been made with the proposal that Romanticism is something we “need to talk about”.

In fact, there is a serious need for placing much of the political and economic debate here and today in the context of cultural history. In a part of the world, or a population, that has been schooled for the past century to look forward and never look back — except under the most circumscribed and frankly quite dishonest conditions — it is indeed helpful and I have been arguing, essential to recognise broader processes which have shaped the Geist (culture) in which we live today.1   As I have also argued elsewhere we have no genuine access to the past but only to documents, which we ascribe to the past.2 We construct the past — to the extent we are interested in it at all — by ordering such documents and artefacts in a manner we call chronological (although often enough even the chronology has had to be revised).

For this reason, Romanticism as it has been described elsewhere, does reflect a point of departure for examining a bundle of attributes. These attributes are in turn historicised in the context of two cultural historical traditions. Let us leave aside chronology for a moment.3 Those traditions are Romanticism and Enlightenment. Since the discussion “we need” to have is one in the context of Western culture, a discussion of Enlightenment in other cultural contexts; e.g., Islam, can be deferred here. That is not because it is irrelevant but because it would exceed the scope of this intervention.

While one can certainly find sources that support the definition of Romanticism as focus on emotions, it is not very useful to suppose that emotions and sentiments are antonymous. The problem, which such a dichotomy attempts to address, is real. However, it can be stated in another way: why is the emotional as a source of consciousness and supposed font of knowledge of the world melded with possessive individualism? To say of Romanticism that; i.e.: “This movement over time towards the Romanticist inward-looking conception of emotion and feelings has had knock-on negative effects on society’s ability to defend itself from elite oppression (through cultural styles of self-absorption, escapism, and diversion rather than exposure, criticism and resistance) and retarded “art’s frequently reiterated dedication to humanity”, is to no small degree anachronistic.

The inward-looking conception is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, which is better termed — vulgar Enlightenment. The Enlightenment secularised Christian salvific dogma, distilling sentiment from religious prescriptions. The inward-looking conception was a secularised form of Protestantism’s justificatio sola fide. Voltaire parodied this superficial substitution of rationalism for divine will in Candide.

In contrast the phenomena that triggered the extremes of Romanticism were the French Revolution and its apparent failure. All the major Romantics, especially the English Romantics like Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth, were sincere supporters of the French Revolution.4 The myth of British liberty was fully discredited by the support Britain and its allies gave to the Reaction. The degree of disappointment cannot be exaggerated. The emotions which became the focus of Romantic poetry — and one must remember that until the latter part of the 19th century poetry was the mass cultural product par excellence, not the much later novel — were by no means expressions of individual self-absorption. On the contrary they were expressions of deep social despair. When Wordsworth returned from fighting in the French Revolution he spent some ten years living in London’s slums trying to come to terms with the failures in France. Byron’s “adventures” were clearly an expression of his inward disgust with Britain and a determination to fight it at every chance he had — dying in a war for Greek independence.5

The interpretation of Romanticism — the driving artistic and cultural force for revolution and utopianism in the 19th century — as an opposite to the Enlightenment is only possible if one takes today’s “inward-looking conception of emotion and feelings” ascribes it to Romanticism and projects this back to the documents and artifacts produced nearly two centuries ago.6

Romanticism has been a controversial concept for most of the 20th century. The term itself can be deceptive since its use is often an allusion to a cliché that, in fact, derived from the popular literature historically ascribed to the Enlightenment (late 18th century). Gerald Horne suggests — not without reason — that at least the British “Enlightenment” to which Adam Smith belonged was a rationalisation for political solutions innovated in the Western hemisphere in order to stabilise the colonial order there.7  The “sentiments” which were to lead Europeans to overlook ethnic and religious conflicts of a fratricidal nature would in turn permit even Jews to have rights in the New (colonised) World.

In contrast Romanticism became an expression of great despair at the failure of revolutionary forces and popular insurrection to overthrow the rationality by which the Church, the State and Capital maintained their domination.

Today people have already come to take “social distancing” for granted — within a mere six months. The Romantics were faced with enforced social distancing and vicious repression to which today’s “inward-looking” identity fixated Enlightenment followers are virtually (since real contact is avoided) committed with life and whatever genitals they may have accidentally acquired or developed.

Indeed we need to talk about Romanticism. However, there is not just one concept of Romanticism. So that it is still necessary to clarify the use of the term about which we intend to talk.

* We Need to Talk about Romanticism, Dissident Voice, August 1, 2020

  1. GWF Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807), Morse Peckham argued that what Hegel meant could best be translated as “culture”.
  2. See “Romanticism and War: Contextualising a theory of interpretation”, Dissident Voice (15 September 2016.
  3. Not only is the value ascribed to the so-called Medieval epoch by artists; e.g., Walter Scott, a complex subject, it cannot be assumed that the periodicity upon which such cultural-historical paradigms are based is beyond question. It is at least safer to say that any assertion that a value or set of values is derived from the past or antiquity is under some conditions an affirmation and under others an condemnation. Thus the validation in reference to a past has to be distinguished from any other valuation criteria.
  4. “I cannot, however, be insensible of the present outcry against the triviality and meanness both of thought and language, which some of my contemporaries have occasionally introduced into their metrical compositions; and I acknowledge, that this defect, where it exists, is more dishonorable to the Writer’s own character than false refinement or arbitrary innovation, though I should contend at the same time that it is far less pernicious in the sum of its consequences. From such verses the Poems in these volumes will be found distinguished at least by one mark of difference, that each of them bas a worthy purpose. Not that I mean to say, that I always began to write with a distinct purpose formally conceived; but I believe that my habits of meditation have so formed my feelings, as that my descriptions of such objects as strongly excite those feelings, will be found to carry along with them a purpose. If in this opinion I am mistaken, I can have little right to the name of a Poet. For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: but though this be true, Poems to which any value can be attached, were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man, who being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply. For our continued influxes of feeling are modified and directed by our thoughts, which are indeed the representatives of all our past feelings; and, as by contemplating the relation of these general representatives to each other we discover what is really important to men, so, by the repetition and continuance of this act, our feelings will be connected with important subjects, till at length, if we be originally possessed of much sensibility, such habits of mind will be produced, that, by obeying blindly and mechanically the  impulses of those habits, we shall describe objects, and utter sentiments, of such a nature and in such connection with each other, that the understanding of the being  to whom we address ourselves, if he be in a healthful state of association, must necessarily be in some degree enlightened, and his affections ameliorated.“ William Wordsworth (1802) Preface to “Lyrical Ballads”.
  5. T P Wilkinson, “Humour, Hatred, and History, or Byron’s Revolutionary Abandonment”, Bulletin de Liaison de Societe Francaise des Etude Byroniennnes, 2008, pp. 37-45.
  6. Here I would like to draw explicit attention to the body of work on Romanticism by Morse Peckham (1914-1993), Explanation and Power, (1978); Man’s Rage for Chaos, (1967); and three volumes of essays: Romanticism and Behavior, Romanticism and Ideology, The Triumph of Romanticism.
  7. Gerald Horne, The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism, January 22, 2018.

The Marginalist Counter-Revolution, Science and Medical Social Management

By the time Alfred Marshall became prominent, the theory of capitalism formulated in Marx’s Capital had become a theoretical pillar of organised working class politics in Europe. Remarkably the so-called “marginalist revolution”, of which Marshall became a leading figure, coincides roughly with the abolition of slavery in Brazil (1886) and a major economic depression.1  Thus the shift from economics, for the allocation of surplus to that of managing scarcity is not a purely theoretical development. Following later scholars like Eric Williams, who argued that the “surplus” for industrialisation in Europe — that which had to be allocated through struggle or Adam Smith’s “invisible (whip) hand”– was derived from slavery and would now under the terms of marginalism become a “scarcity” of resources that theoretically had to be shared with liberated slaves and organising industrial labour.2

One of the objectives of political struggle in the 19th century was to appropriate the wealth held by the Church and the State and subject it to community/popular control. This meant also a struggle to find forms of governance adequate to this task. The opposition of marginalism, closely linked to progressivism and the emergence of “science” as religion (Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer), was a denial that the economic relationships between classes could be defined in any way, which would permit popular/communal control.3  Marginalism not only rejected the existence of a surplus to be allocated but also the idea that social benefit could be measured and therefore allocated through communal/popular governance. Since every economic relationship was reduced to implicit contracts between individuals there was no way to create scientifically reliable economic knowledge of classes, only tentatively for individuals, so-called methodological individualism.

What came to be social policy at the outbreak of WWI was, in fact, a denial that there was anything social at all. The entire history of the State’s promotion of adventurers, who in turn bought or leased the instruments of the State for the creation of monopoly wealth, was reduced to a footnote at best. Marginalism was conceived to explain — apologetics — what, in fact, had led to its creation as an ideology to counter democratic economic forces.

This is important in order to understand how the US religious doctrine of “free enterprise” was concocted and how the marketing strategy of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) became the dominant ideology of the end of the 20th century and the formal unquestioned dogma of the 21st. What is often alternatively called “neo-liberal” and “neo-conservative” is better understood if one looks at the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The 18th and 19th centuries were something like the Reformation, culminating in Marxism — itself a spectrum as broad as that between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The 20th century began the “Counter-Reformation”. Despite the successes of the October Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and the Cuban Revolution, the effect of this counter-revolution was to isolate these revolutions from the rest of the Church. In 1989, the Russian Revolution was no longer merely isolated but largely defeated — not surprisingly with a Polish pope in the van. The bullet in the neck was the NATO war against Yugoslavia.

The Counter-Reformation had two principal effects in Christendom. One was that it defeated the Reformation in the core Catholic dominions. In the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, for example, there was no Reformation. In the rest of the realms, the political content of the Reformation was purged. Luther and Calvin sided with the State and preserved their own versions of clericalism, inheriting, but not abandoning, the economic wealth and privilege established by centuries of Church theft.

The three great revolutions of the 20th century and to a far lesser extent the failed Mexican Revolution were the first to successfully transfer the socially generated wealth that had been appropriated by the Church and the corporate class (whether aristocratic or plutocratic) to a political structure based on popular/communal ownership and forced, for a brief period, the “Capitalist Church” to share at least symbolically some of its hoarded loot to provide facilities called “public” (as opposed to popular) and create a veneer of reform. The Church did the same thing in the Counter-Reformation — terrorising with the Inquisition and extending educational access through schools for the working class and poor and allowing local languages and some minor concessions to national preference in the clergy. From 1949 until 1989 the strategy was fierce repression and selective gradual openings:  social democracy in Western Europe (except Spain and Portugal, of course) on the “front” and death squads everywhere else.

1989 put an end to the biggest competitive alternative system and restored Russia to Orthodoxy if not to Catholicism. Since then the entire veneer of social democracy has been scraped away in the Western front-line states.  Seventy-odd years of pacification reduced the forces of class struggle — meaning those who supported popular/communal control of social wealth rather than corporate monopoly of the State — to less than a shadow of their former selves.

Nowhere, and at no time, has this become more evident than in 2020 when not a single political party of the “class struggle” tradition was able or willing to respond to the coup de grace against public space, social wealth and humanism that was administered in March past. The conspicuous silence at the massive theft that was orchestrated — untold trillions — while the bulk of the Western population was under house arrest — is beyond shameful.4 This was not an act to restrain a viral pandemic but an act culminating in the final expropriation, not only of the last scraps of social democracy but of the entire public space in which such struggles took place but also could take place. In Portugal, the quality might be called “Salazar light”, not the “new normal” but the “Estado Novissimo“.5

What we hear, for example, from the curia in Brussels, with its quasi-dual pontificate comprising the German Chancellor and her former rival now the president of the European Commission or the World Economic Forum, is something comparable — but, of course, on a global scale — a homily like that delivered by Martin Luther in support of the violent suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. (Here I am only talking about those who are members of the “Left”.)

The Counter-Revolution/Counter-Reformation, whose spokespersons convene in the conclaves at Davos, has clear objectives. The euphemism is the great “reset”.6 What is described euphemistically as “growth” has always meant growth in power and control. By declaring an end to public space — anywhere — they are returning us to the closed world whose creation and maintenance was the objective of the Roman papacy. (I republished the bull Unaam Sanctam earlier this year for a reason!7  I do not want to repeat here everything I have tried to describe elsewhere. 8  At this writing the conclave in Brussels is deciding what to do with the residue of Christendom in the Western Empire.

Habemus Reset!

Somewhere I read in a history of China that at least the Confucians were amazed at the Roman Catholic Church’s organizational power and wondered that there was nothing equivalent to it in China. The Rockefeller Foundation was so concerned about China that it started very early (ca. 1914) to fund and train Chinese physicians in the Rockefeller model of industrial medicine and social engineering.9

The West compensates for its relatively small population with an extraordinary level of violence and organization. It was that “catholic” organisational capacity that shut down the West and its dependencies in March — and including the Shrine in Fatima, defies the strength of the Holy Virgin.

(What we have been told is the 18 months in the race to a “vaccine” should probably be seen as a planning parameter — adopted at least as early as 2015 — in the pacification program for which the vaccine is both a decoy and a weapon, by no means a toy.)

  1. For a discussion of the so-called “marginalist revolution” see, for example, Nuno Martins, “Interpreting the capitalist order before and after the marginalist revolution”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2015, 39, 1109-1127.
  2. See Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery, and Gerald Horne, The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism, reviewed by this author.
  3. What most people understand as “Darwinism” is actually “social Darwinism” as taught by Herbert Spencer et al. Charles Darwin did not consistently argue for the “survival of the fittest”. Rather he suggested that species’ variations could explain why some members of a species proliferated in an environment or survived changes in the environment. Unlike Spencer and vulgar Darwinists, Darwin claimed no teleology or interest in nature that could predict or promote any species or variation thereof. For a brief discussion of the difference between Darwin and vulgar Darwinism, see Morse Peckham, “Darwinism and Darwinisticism” in The Triumph of Romanticism (1970) pp. 176-201.
  4. While it is a matter of record that the US Federal Reserve gave away some USD 4 trillion on a single day at the beginning of the so-called pandemic, with no questions asked, both the US regime and its vassals in Brussels feel that any assistance to Europe’s SME sector must be endlessly debated and so structured that only the administering banks profit from it.
  5. For example, under Salazar’s Estado Novo that ended by revolution in 1974, three persons meeting in public spaces; e.g., on the street, constituted a “demonstration” requiring police authorisation. For those old enough to remember, the similarity to masks and social distancing is hard to overlook.
  6. World Economic Forum: The Great Reset; see also here:
  7. There is One God, One Faith, and One ChurchDissident Voice, May 2020.
  8. See my Dissident Voice articles this year if interested.  See, among others, “Re-Orientation”, 3 February 2020, and “The First Circle”, 24 April 2020.
  9. E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, Medicine and Capitalism in America. It is just a coincidence that it was also a man named Gates, Frederick T, a Baptist preacher and not a physician, who initiated the tradition of plutocrats using medical institutions to design society in their particular interests. Rockefeller money turned the Peking Union Medical College from a missionary endeavour into a scientific medical school. Rockefeller money also seeded the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, now under the patronage of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, where it hosts such exciting séances like Event 201.

Aldous Huxley’s Programme

There have been for some time, especially from libertarian quarters, accusations that the COVID-19 crisis has led to a state that has been called by some “medical martial law”. I believe the more accurate term and point of departure is “medical social engineering and management”. Martial law sounds more dramatic and seems simpler to understand. Yet we have to get beyond slogans and deal with long-term processes and policies if we are to find adequate responses today. Literary metaphors, like those found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 have been reduced to clichés. While their ideas may in part illustrate what today seems like prophecy, it is not enough just to imagine that there is — or might be — some underlying or even secret “plan”.

Much of this reporting creates the impression that some base of fundamental liberties (civil or human) is at risk here, only now. Sporadic attention is given to the relationships between pharmaceutical companies, the BMGF and governmental as well as international entities, e.g. WHO. This reporting is easily dismissed by a population that has been immunised to such reporting, pre-emptively since the introduction of such communication concepts as “fake news”. The developments in digital and especially internet-based mass communications have reinforced the belief that technology is independent and that science and what is called knowledge is not only independent but also inevitable in form and substance. We have internalised the beliefs in our own domination so that we cannot conceive it as domination at all. A sentimental reference to lost or endangered liberties is really a distraction from the problems at hand, even if such “liberties” may be part of the heritage we honestly want to save from destruction.

The long-term perspective is missing because it is difficult to render comprehensible. John Maynard Keynes was to have said, “in the long term we are all dead.” Yet by mimicking the news cycle, grasping for some novelty or titillation, and omitting the redundancies of historical context, writers and speakers with ambitions to overcome the propaganda barriers to political activism are unlikely to reach anyone but the converted.

In my February article Re-Orientation I tried to give the emerging crisis, nominally triggered by the viral incidents in Wuhan, China, some of the historical context which even alternative media in their addiction to the “fear mongering news cycle” are wont to report. The first point is that there is no true, undeniable “origin”. We have to start with a problem and then draw on numerous sources and observations – research — to define the problem by giving it a context into which the history flows. We create a history by the way we define the problem. The origin is, in fact, the beginning—the value we pursue in uncovering events and translating them into fields of action rather than frustration.

If we assume that the governments of the West, in particular that of the US, are what they claim to be, then all the concern about the USG response to the so-called pandemic remains focussed on whether and how it meets the needs of the people on whose behalf it claims to govern. In other words framed in the propaganda terms specified by the regime itself. If, however, we recognize that the governments of the West, in particular the US, but also those governments it helped to reorganise after the subsequent world wars in the 20th century (most of the Western peninsula and much of the Western hemisphere) are Business operations or extensions of corporate power, then the focus changes fundamentally — depending on whether one is on the side of Business or its target.

The USG as an extension of Business, especially its monopolist/ oligarchic forms, and has been firmly established as such since 1913 at the latest. It is also from about this time that the major oligarchs in Business set about organising first the US and then the rest of the world in ways amenable to system maintenance and control for Business. This strategic organisation pre-dates such post- WWII institutions like the IMF or UN and the quasi-conspiratorial committees so familiar now that they need not be mentioned here.

WWI was a milestone because it essentially created the current Anglo-American Empire through which Business rules to this day.

Without rehearsing all the actions and transformations along the way, it is useful to focus on some relevant policies or attitudes that became anchored in the West.

  1. The Bank of England became the model for international financial management and manipulation. After WWII it would become the model for all central banking. This was the significance of the so-called Aldrich Plan and the Federal Reserve Act.
  2. Military-led industrialization and economic organisation would prevail under so-called “scientific” management principles, promulgated by elite “business schools” where mathematical modelling would displace political contests. Alfred Marshall was one of the principal theorists for the creation of de-politicised “scientific” economics based on mathematics. Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford helped establish “scientific” industrial organisation.
  3. Mass media organisation would be integrated throughout state and commercial organizations — propaganda would be shared to promote Business. The formalisation of this practice derived from the work of the Creel Committee and was later theorised and intensified by Edward Bernays.
  4. Medicine would become the focus of all social engineering and management. Medicine would replace religion as the ideological vanguard of imperialism. This was the principal contribution of the Rockefeller tax dodges (General Education Board, Rockefeller University, Rockefeller Foundation et al.) under the management of Frederick T. Gates.

The problem we face here is that after a century of “scientific” management and medicine we are unable to reconstitute political contests. Even those people who claim to be trained in fields like economics are thoroughly dominated by the ideology of positivist science, which became the underlying religion of 20th century capitalism. Science in the West was adopted primarily as a weapon of anti-communism and against popular democratic movements.

We therefore have enormous almost insurmountable difficulties in challenging the State politically because there is only a scientific-technological framework (purified of any historical context). This framework asserts above all class neutrality — thus denying the political power struggle that is really the core of events. It is not an accident that one of today’s grand political managers, George Soros, named his espionage and political warfare operations after the concept popularised by Karl Popper, whose main ideological contribution was to insist that “real science” was only possible under capitalism in what he called the “Open Society”. What he actually meant was a translation of the US “Open Door” doctrine. The US regime’s “Open Door” is a euphemism for manifest destiny or Business domination through the Anglo-American Empire.

For several months now debate has focussed on the truth and accuracy or efficacy of the science and governmental actions supposedly derived from said science. This is best dramatized in the obsession on all sides with “body counts”. The factual basis of the pandemic is reduced to how many “pairs of ears” the COVID armed propaganda teams bring back from their raids. The constant repetition of the official pandemic narrative is illustrated by video footage of the same scenes every day, hours on end. If one watches at least TV reporting carefully one will notice that most of the video film shows practically empty wards, single patients at the most and lots of people in hazmat suits standing around machines. In footage from Brazil- a regime even more merciless toward its poor than the US—the images bear more resemblance to the Christo (1935-2020) public wrappings and happenings of the 1990s, promoting the sensationalism of the country’s archetypical telenovellas, rather than radical political action. Yet the repetition has its effect also by supplanting all other information. 30,000 deaths per day due to preventable starvation never got so much coverage as the deaths of an 88-year-old and 94-year-old this week, attributed to COVID.

There has been no serious challenge to the science, per se, or the claim that the government acts based on science rather than the interests of the people for whom it ostensibly governs (although it is clear that the “for whom” is Business and not real human beings).

Moreover the theology of economics has not been challenged either — as if this were a real science; e.g., something objective. Pronouncements from central banks and government ministries are presented as based on accurate measurement and analysis. A cursory review of the history reveals, however, that the definitions of such core concepts as “cost of living”, “unemployment”, “inflation”, “purchasing power” etc. are changed routinely to permit the Business regime to present data which is misleading at best. The benchmark figure, growth in GDP, bears little or no relation to the most important issue for real human beings, the capacity to generate enough income to sustain a decent living; i.e., home, food, clothing, education, healthcare, etc.

It is particularly telling that the same material misstatements in all manner of economic data are made by officials clothed with government or scientific authority are made now during the so-called pandemic.

For example, it is no secret that unemployment is undercounted—all the time. For real people unemployment means lack of a source of adequate income. However, the regime’s definition of unemployment is number of people who register under whatever narrowly specified conditions permit such registration. The informal sector is omitted as well as those who were previously self-employed but due to bankruptcy, illness or disability are no longer able to work. Then, of course, there are the deliberate deceptions like not counting people who have been assigned to “programs”, like training or part-time subsidised jobs of limited duration. Then, of course, there are people who are not counted because there is no one counting.

In the case of the pandemic, it must be said that the definition of “case” has also been changed from time to time to permit reporting in line with the prevailing political warfare agenda:

“A COVID-19 case includes confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.”

Thus “probable cases” include–

“A probable case or death is defined as:

The “epidemiological evidence” means that you have been in close proximity (less than 6 feet) with a person who is a confirmed case. Clinical evidence means only that you have COVID-like symptoms and those include colds, flu, allergies, and much more.

This is abetted by the quasi-official status given to people who are, in fact, agents of Business—but then again the entire government apparatus is an extension of Business. Official sounding entities like the “Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists” suggest higher authority without any indication of who the members of this body are and what interests they may actually represent, let alone who constituted them with the colour of authority in the first place. The creation of “authorities” was one of the major innovations of the 20th century PR industry.

Why should we trust statistics or statements about COVID from people and entities that habitually lie and distort data as a matter of public policy? If they cannot count the living accurately, why should we believe when they pretend to count the dead? This data cannot be adopted seriously. There must be a presumption that it is at best wilfully misstatement intended to support the interests and policies of the Business in “disease”, as well as any other Business interests that may be conveniently so achieved.

Just as DuPont has more or less controlled the US atomic weapons program since its inception, the pharmaceutical cartel has controlled the chemical and biological weapons programs jointly managed by the Pentagon and the CDC/ NIH establishment. To determine for whom someone like Dr Fauci works is easy enough when one checks his patent and investment portfolio. It requires no feats of magic or sorcery to recognise that virtually every mass campaign leading into the COVID “pandemic” has been organised and promoted by Business. Moreover these campaigns have been focussed since 2016 on the removal of the present POTUS, Donald Trump, at all costs! To put this in perspective, we should remember that the Inquisition and the Crusades were colossal undertakings mainly for the benefit of controlling the Papacy in the Middle Ages. The Papacy as the titular head of the largest multinational corporation of its day (and still one of the “big players” today) was to the barbarians of the Western peninsula what the POTUS is today for the barbarians of the Anglo-American Empire.

Since we have lost the capacity to engage in politics and pursue a human political-economy, we are forced to accede to a form of rule which at present will become “corporate medical social engineering” in a pure form unmediated by any of the rituals of political process. In fact, it is a religious form of control just like the Inquisition was in its heyday. It relies upon fear of disease, instead of mere sin. We are already witnessing the denunciatory culture, fanatical moralism, irrational fear, obsession with rituals, and all of those human practices that were supposedly banished by Enlightenment. Although it has been common sense for decades that viruses are vulnerable to the light of day and humans flourish in fresh air, Business—the universal Church of our era—is returning us all to our caves and huts, to the very conditions which led humanists to call that past era of Christendom—the DARK AGES.

That is a problem that needs to be taken seriously as a precondition for any critical attack on the kinds of actions and transactions that will — if continued — destroy the material basis for real human life and whatever civilisation we have been able to maintain despite Business and the Church.

Marxism is a humanism

It is many years ago that Jean-Paul Sartre wrote an essay, which was, in fact, the preface to his magnum opus, The Critique of Dialectical Reason, the title of which was “The Search for Method”.

A significant transformation from his critique of Heidegger, Being and Nothingness, Sartre attempted to liberate European Marxism from its captivity in Russian party ideology and restore its historicity.1

Contrary to liberal interpretations Sartre was not an advocate of either neo-Marxism or post-Marxism. If anything, and this can be seen well in his writings on colonialism, Sartre was arguing for a return to Marx as a historian and not only a political activist.2 His distancing from the French Communist Party was not, in fact, a rejection of communism or Marxism but an insistence — actually consistent with Lenin — that the Russian Revolution produced a communist party for Russia and not for the world. It was incumbent on every revolution to create its own communist party in the consciousness of concrete historical conditions—conditions, which in France were obviously different from those in Russia.

The most important moment in Sartre’s essay is an anecdote that on its face has little to do with Marxism, class struggle or any other conventional political context. He relates a story about a woman who explains that she is filled with love. She is so saturated with love that she has yet to find any partner who is worthy of her, who knows how to appreciate her love — to love her with the immensity of her own love. Sartre writes that this love, about which she speaks; these complaints that she has not yet found someone worthy of her love are self-deception. He says that the only love that is real is that love which is actually lived. This implies in the end that one can question whether “love” is the right term for the lived experience in question, but there is no meaning to love that has no consequences in action.

This meant that the question of whether the PCF was really representing the working class in France or representing something else; e.g., the interests of the Russian communist bureaucracy in the working class in France, was not a theoretical question but an empirical one. It was not a denial of communism in the Soviet Union for Russian and other Soviet citizens. However, it was a refusal to confuse the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union — abstractly – theoretically — with those prevailing in post-WWII France.

In that sense Sartre was far closer to Fidel Castro’s view of communism as class struggle always situated in very specific historical contexts, which, of course, were changed by the struggle itself — a process he then attempted to explain in The Critique of Dialectical Reason. There is a strong liberal school that insists that Castro’s communism was insincere or not truly international because of his disputes with both the Soviet Union and China. However, Castro was very clear that he did not live in Russia or China.

In the Soviet Union, communism was a strategy for industrialisation and thus economic and political independence from the Western financial elite to which the Romanovs had indebted the country. In the West; i.e., in Germany and France the class struggle was for the humanity of the working class. For Castro class struggle did not mean forced industrialisation of Cuba. On the contrary he argued that since Cuba’s economic advantages lay in uniquely favourable agricultural productivity, the first priority of the revolution was food security combined with food export in return for goods that are needed but too expensive to produce domestically. Of course, the economic model of the US and Europe was (and still is) giving glass beads and old guns in return for valuable commodities.3 Therefore class struggle also meant finding the fairest terms of trade and not re-inventing the wheel.

The practical conditions under which a revolution became possible in China were truly “Marxist” — from the historical standpoint — but they only became communist once it was possible for the revolutionaries to act with some security. Before 1500, China- and not England(!)—was the workshop of the world. The collapse of the ancien regime after the Opium Wars left a country whose people could no longer rely on any state to protect them, let alone serve their needs. The most pressing need was obviously to create the conditions for the then overwhelmingly rural population to feed itself. The subsequent land reform, ending the extortionate rents paid to largely absentee landlords, enforced by the 8th Route Army was practical revolution even before theories emerged to define the government of the Chinese Communist Party.4

Again this is entirely consistent with Lenin’s observations and attitude.5 Lenin too did not announce a revolution he knew could not succeed. He led a revolution of the possible. Since a revolution is not a finished product like a simple coup d’état in which one group of masters replaces another, Lenin could not foresee the future and did not try. Instead efforts went to make the future day by day. The fact that the Soviet Union would have to fight foreign intervention for some five years and later have virtually its entire economic accomplishment destroyed by the West in WWII did not permit much leeway for contemplation. On the contrary it forced the establishment and perpetuation of a wartime bureaucracy that became a burden once Western invasions were finally repelled.6

There is every reason to believe that Mao acted the same way—conceiving and fighting a revolution into a civil war based on immediately establishing the possible and the necessary. The civil war was not won by party debates but by peasants who had gained the stake for which they were willing to risk their lives. There seems to be a kind of universal contempt for peasants among those who live in towns and cities, especially if they do not work with their hands. Part of this tension is aggravated by the conditions of industrialisation under which peasants were deprived of their land and forced into labour camps (also called factory towns). There they became dependent on cheap food unless they still had family connections to the land.

The manipulation of this antagonism between rural and urban populations is aggravated by the intellectual and social formations that emerge in towns or cities—which are often opposed to traditional (and in the Western peninsula, ecclesiastical, especially since the Church was and is also a major landowner) formations. Or to put it simply, the clergy dominates the peasant and the worker is dominated by the factory organisation. Business adventurers; i.e., capitalists, exhibited at best indifference toward religion. Later it was recognised that this created an ideological vacuum into which the first communist organisations were able to move. The French Revolution had stimulated numerous attempts to secularise religion.7  Many of the pre-Marxian communist organisations were formed as lodges or fraternities modelled on the orders of the Church (or anti-clerical Freemasonry) they were to replace. Such organisations were not only secular alternatives they were also attempts to acknowledge the intangible elements of struggle, what is known in Roman Catholicism as “spirituality”.

In reaction to the intensified organisation of industrial labour, a parallel movement among the theologians of capital (economists and engineers) developed. On one hand Auguste Comte published his work proposing a “religion of science”, Positivism.8  Then as the 19th century came to a close, amidst the greatest economic depression to date, the business corporation adopted and modified the ideological tools of the Church. This was acknowledged in the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum.9  Although this encyclical is usually considered a sign that the Roman Catholic Church (and hence Christendom) was adopting modern humanism, nothing could be further from the truth. The papacy was simply catching up with industrial capitalism and beginning to develop the defence of its economic (and political power) for the 20th century. Together the Church and the corporation would fight for the “hearts and minds” of those they had neglected so long. Corporations would learn to be more like churches and the Church would align itself more closely with Business.

There are two basic myths of love– at least in Western culture, in which Marxism is clearly rooted. The first is love as praxis, the daily creation of the good for real human beings, which is complemented by struggle since there is no single universal way to create the good and it cannot be created alone. The second is love as an ideal directed inward and enforced by obedience and servility until death.

Christianity in the West has taught the latter. If the Church is the “bride of Christ” then, anti-communism is the harlot. The adulterous spouse of white supremacy is nihilistic, like the Christian dogmatic system from which it derives. The struggle in revolutionary praxis includes the struggle to free oneself from the abstraction and inward obsessions of obedience and servility captured as the love of some “god”– especially the tortured and murdered god of the Greco-Christian tradition.

Love in praxis is what Marxist humanism tries to describe. Liberation and love for real human beings are not ideals but ways of acting in the world. They are not simply intentions directed toward passive recipients but the creations of struggle and thus they are not very effectively bureaucratised, to say the least. Sartre’s Marxism was not opportunistic or vulgar pragmatism but based on a sincere understanding of historical materialism. Fidel Castro insisted that democracy was not to be measured by mere procedures but, most importantly, results.

Today we are faced with a global struggle in which the ruling class is imposing on the world’s real human population, procedures defined as medical, based on a conception of “health” that is as empty as Christianity’s promise of “salvation”.  This should be no surprise. The merger of Church and Business has made it possible for the fear of sin and damnation to be fully secularised, packaged in sickness even the Virgin is too weak to heal. We are told that our obedience and servility is for the good of all. However, neither that good, nor those all, actually exist. Like Sartre’s infinitely loving woman for whom no love need be lived, our rulers like their progenitors in Christendom, hold infinite health and safety but alas, none of us are worthy of it. Yet instead of rejecting their manifest insincerity, their base motives, and their actual violence to us, we cling to that abstract faith of our fathers and mothers. Does this not reflect our own learned and deepest fear to love in struggle for life those with whom we are joined in struggle? Are we simply proving with our fear that we are afraid in the face of those who would rule us to struggle to be truly, real human beings?

  1. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (1958), Critique of Dialectical Reason (1976), The Search for Method (1960).
  2. Jean-Paul Sartre, Der Kolonialismus ist ein System in Articles, Speeches, Interviews 1947-1967, German edition of Collected Works, 1988.
  3. Lee Lockwood, Castro’s Cuba, Cuba’s Fidel, 1969.
  4. Lucie Bianco, Origins of the Chinese Revolution, 1915-1949 (1971).
  5. Concisely formulated in V. Lenin, Left-wing Communism: An infantile disorder, 1920.
  6. See also Mosche Lewin, The Making of the Soviet System, 1985.
  7. Jules Michelet, L’Histoire de Revolution francaise, 1969.
  8. Sartre argues that Comte’s “cult of humanity” leads to a closed system of humanism, and to fascism. (“Existentialism is a humanism”, 1946) An in fact Comte’s positivism was an element of the ideological basis for military governments throughout Latin America; e.g., Brazil.
  9. Pope Leo XIII, 1891.

Eugenic Euphemism

George Orwell (Eric Blair) was not the first or only person to write that empire needs euphemism as well as control over language and not just the people who use it.1 Mark Twain and even Ernest Hemingway also captured this quality although they were usually less explicit in their illustrations. In contemporary memory George Carlin gave what was probably the best classic rendition of the pathology.

RT reported that Texas estate agents have decided that residential property descriptions should no longer use the term “master bedroom”. Instead the term “primary bedroom” is to be used.2  Perhaps the proper consequence of eliminating the term “master bedroom” ought to be to rename all ordinary accommodation “slave quarters”. After all if someone has a mortgage rather than clear title or is dependent upon a job to raise “hut tax” (local property taxes), then he or she is certainly no master.

The diversion of protest energy into the Northern elite’s ideological war against the populist South is a more than unfortunate development. It will consume lots of time and energy that would better be focussed on the real content of white supremacy in the US. However, by removing all the Confederate and other traces of the white supremacist culture propagated by the ruling elite, it will be possible to sanitize the language of the new versions of slavery that have been in operation and expanding. It will remove the traces of the dominant culture from physical space — having already achieved the concealment of the dominant culture in the media space.

The truth is that of all the lives that do not matter to the ruling elite, Black lives are simply those kept historically at the least value. Being Black in the US can be compared to the treatment of an underlying asset in a financial derivative transaction. Such a model was described sarcastically in Dead Souls.3  The book’s hero, Chichikov, in anticipation of the czar’s decree abolishing serfdom, with its promise of compensation to those who lose their serfs, travels throughout the country buying the dead serfs from landowners. He has a careful plan, which he conceals with his jovial sociability and willingness to pay above average prices. The dead serfs he wants are those not yet registered as dead. Even those who suspect him of sharp dealing do not grasp that he plans to recover his fortune by filing for compensation for all the dead serfs he has bought — once the czar’s decree becomes law. While the system of white supremacy in the US Empire — like serfdom — is odious, there are those who see every option to profit even from ostensible attacks on it.

There are clearly multiple waves on this sea of troubles. This year the wave of resistance and opposition to police terror against Blacks (but also in general) was joined by the wave created by the ruling class under the auspices of its eugenicists, Gates, Rockefellers, et al., namely, the virus wave unabashedly promoted for profit and population control. The virus wave meant the extended incarceration of much of the workforce that is not already serving as bonded labour in US prisons. The violence done to millions who were or will be deprived of their sources of income was compounded by the quasi-house arrest imposed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) counter-insurgency command together with its sister components in the National Institutes of Health (NIH). After four years of non-stop assault against the POTUS with utter disregard for any other social or economic policy (unless for personal enrichment of those in office and their friends), the discrepancy between the euphemism of America’s return to “greatness” and the real conditions for ordinary people in the Empire had become almost intolerable.

It is not clear yet whether all these waves could merge into a tsunami or “killer wave”. BLM (Black Lives Matter™) has been shaped by its three “founders” and trademark holders into an American “Pussy Riot” — desecrating the icons of the South instead of fornicating in Orthodox churches.4  Meanwhile less than lip service is paid to the wanton destruction of the SME sector in the US and Europe. Instead hot and cold hysteria are being applied along with the same kind of censorship and repression from the worst anti-communist purges. Masks are not just metaphors for muzzles. They physically restrain debate about the criminal liability of the great corporate cartels that rule the US through their proxies in Washington and the state capitals. Western Europe is held hostage by its own viral vassals of the Pharmaceutical and Banking cartels– determined to wage this phony war at least until Trump is defeated or they get their wonder vaccination into the hands of the UN Witch Hunting Organisation (WHO) and can start turning all of us into GMOs.5 It is not ironic nor is it accidental that the two biggest waves in the storm that hit us were catalysed by people and forces for whom fewer lives matter.

We are witnessing a massive counter-insurgency program. The forces that combined a century ago to wage war against the German Empire have again combined to wage war against what they imagine will be the empire to supersede them. To wage that war a century ago, the fathers and grandfathers of our rulers felt no amount of death and destruction was too much if it meant crushing their opponents at home and abroad. Working and lower class manhood was slaughtered from 1915 until 1920 and again from 1939 until 1945.6  Samuel Cohen, renowned as the father of the “neutron bomb”, felt he had conceived the ultimate weapon for making atomic war tolerable — just killing people, without destroying buildings and infrastructure.7

Ronald Reagan — who together with Margaret Thatcher — initiated the campaign to destroy what remained of social benefits in the 20th century state– became a sponsor of this solution. No later than the ascendancy of Reagan as the first surrogate for the Bush dynasty, did the concerted effort begin which has culminated in the viral solution to the population problem. The destruction of the public sector and its capacity — in the US always very limited — to mediate the real needs of the population was a prerequisite for imposing loyalty and dependency upon private business corporations. Defunding health, education and housing long preceded today’s demand to defund the police. Defunding the police would potentially make them even less accountable by returning them to the private sector from which they originated. That is not an argument against abolition but a warning of the conflicting interests causing the waves throughout the West. When the ruling class decides to abolish an institution that serves it, then that is most certainly not motivated by desire for its own demise. Rather it usually means a nascent replacement is in the nest, waiting to be hatched.

One indication for the kind of institution has been the obsessive work in the field of gene manipulation over the past three decades. One profit stream already envisioned — which would complement the disabling and closure of most large hospital systems — is the individual medicine based on patented genetic therapies. No generic health care will be offered but only medical treatment tuned for people who have registered genetic properties to match with appropriate individual (patented and exceedingly specific) measures that cannot be easily reproduced and certainly are not generic — suitable for mass production at lower costs. Another profit stream is the vaccine-based treatment of regularly updated viruses. This is simply the “Medical Microsoft model”. Applied, however, on a large scale like that being pushed through the WHO, this profit stream is analogous to the GMO model used to consolidate global agriculture (to the extent not already owned by the biggest agro-cartels). The GMO model is the successor to the Monsanto product pair of hybrid seed with Roundup herbicide.8

The investments of Gates in Monsanto were also philosophical. For those who are unfamiliar with this: Roundup basically killed every plant in a field except the hybrid seed, which was immune to it. The CIA applied the same principle in Korea and Vietnam — kill everyone who has not been put in a strategic hamlet, those who are alive behind barbed wire will survive as non-communists (or anti-communists). Vaccines are essentially weapons. Bill Gates likes to call them “therapeutics”; it is a nice euphemism — sounds friendly, helpful, courteous, kind — and all the rest of the Boy Scout oath.9 The “therapeutics” for the masses will include identifiers. It is a kind of electro-chemical identity policy. Yes, identity policy derived from identity politics — the agenda of the ruling class which is now backing covertly and philanthropically (with money washed away from taxation with the detergent of “charity”) the purging of the culture from a range of unacceptable identities, especially those with historical significance.10 The ultimate euphemism is the language that can be used free of any traces of what it dare not name.

  1. George Orwell, Politics in the English Language, 1946.
  2. “Texas realtors ditch term ‘master’ for bedrooms and bathrooms, despite it having no connection to slavery”, RT News, 26 June 2020.
  3. Nikolai Gogol, 1842.
  4. BLM (2013) founders are Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. Pussy Riot has been described as a “feminist protest punk rock and performance art group” in Russia, notorious for a performance staged in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour on 21 February 2012. They were arrested, charged and convicted of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred”. It became a cause celebre for Putin opponents, especially in the West.
  5. Also known officially as the World Health Organisation (WHO). GMO is a genetically modified organism.
  6. See, for example, The Great Class War, reviewed by this author “Romanticism and War”, Dissident Voice, 15 September 2015.
  7. Samuel T. Cohen (1921-2010), American physicist. The neutron bomb was also referred to as a low-yield tactical atomic weapon.
  8. Roundup is a glyphosate herbicide launched by Monsanto in 1974. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018.
  9. BBC Breakfast Interview cited in “The First Circle”, Dissident Voice, 24 April 2020.
  10. Paul Street, “What would the Black Panthers think of Black Lives Matter?

Political ABCs: Maybe the Difference between a “Cop” and a “Crook” is Just a Badge

Not the only “finest” but the ones with the biggest TV and movie coverage

While it may be common knowledge that fire departments originated as private organisations to defend the interests of property insurers, it has probably been forgotten that in the US police were originally the hired gangs of landowners and merchant-industrialists. As urban conurbations like New York City grew, the police were the action arm of the political machines that served to dominate native and immigrant workers. A job in the police department was a patronage post; i.e., one either bought a job or by demonstrated willingness to act for the political boss(es) could be given a shield, a license to use violence and commit crimes on behalf of the machine or for personal gain as long as it did not conflict with the interests of the former.

In the expanding continental empire that became the USA, the rural police were either the auxiliaries of the slave patrols or the “deputised” vigilantes in the service of big landowners, railroads, mining companies or ranchers. Community policing, let alone “democratic” policing was never a meaningful part of the US political system. What has recently been condemned as corrupt and brutal policing is actually consistent with historical tradition of localised repression.

When in the so-called Progressive Era corporate cartels realised it was necessary to counter emergent mass democratic movements, the ruling elite began a process of “professionalisation”. This trend actually covered most of the West. Ideological catalyst for “progressivism” was the adoption of the ideas of Auguste Comte, best illustrated in the case of Brazil whose flag today is adorned with the motto of Positivism (and the Positivist Church) “Order and Progress”. The emphasis was on technocratic order, embodied in the military as an emerging scientific bureaucracy. Progress meant resisting democratic demands with gradual technocratic solutions.

In the US this meant professionalisation of local government and integration of the private/ partisan police forces into a permanent civil service. Thus the gangs of capitalists acquired protected status as part of the new, modern, professional government apparatus which rationally could counter the “irrationality” attributed to democracy, not least of which the horror of communists and anarchists among the immigrant population. In many US cities, this meant that the ethnic hierarchy became entrenched in the forces of “law and order”.  Irish came to dominate East Coast urban armies — later Italians were allowed to join. Blacks were excluded– also because one of the jobs of the police was control over Blacks and other racial inferiors in the labour force. Even today the major urban armies of the US Eastern seaboard; e.g., Boston, New York, Philadelphia, are dominated by Irish and Italian dynasties for whom the police force is also a cult.

Tourist trap, New York City

Not only was the struggle for democratic and socialist government subverted by imposing “progressive” public administration, these professional governments were equipped with private armies which were then given a badge and virtual immunity from any form of civil or criminal prosecution. Although some may know the history, it is important to recall that these policies were developed, supported and ultimately imposed by the plutocrats of the 19th century, Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, later Ford and others both directly and through philanthropic foundations — established to evade taxes and distribute bribery — and make public policy at arm’s length.

Under Woodrow Wilson, that South Carolina racist and Princeton professor promoted to POTUS, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was essentially moved from its role as private and mercenary political hammer to a State apparatus.  Under A. Mitchell Palmer, who installed them under a fascist bureaucrat named John Edgar Hoover — who then turned it into the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US equivalent of what Hitler established as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the controlling office for all Nazi political and criminal police forces).

The US Constitution does not provide explicitly for police powers — except in the Second Amendment. That infamous addition is usually interpreted as the right for anyone in the US to own and bear firearms. However, that is incorrect. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the slave states from federal interference in their “slave patrols”, the militias organised under state authority to hunt runaway slaves, discipline slaves and prevent resp. suppress slave rebellions. In other words, the implied police power of the Second Amendment was conceived as an instrument for controlling slaves and later Blacks after slavery was abolished. This is the license that the Constitution gives to the thugs clothed in municipal or state uniforms as professional armies for the oligarchy that owns the United States.

After World War I those owners sought means to establish federal jurisdiction over political dissent, especially given the enormous numbers of urban immigrants from inferior European stock. People like Henry Ford realised that suppressing the consumption of alcohol would create a nationwide pretext for social control without openly contravening the supposed constitutional liberties; e.g., the First Amendment or those forbidding unreasonable search and seizure or denial of due process. The Volstead Act was adopted and the Prohibition amendment entered into force. For the first time since the Civil War, the federal government had a mandate to coordinate policing throughout the US and to mobilise the corporate machine police forces for political control. This not only made families like the Kennedys and Bronfmans fabulously rich, it helped establish the corporate form of crime of which Meyer Lansky became the paragon (although popular culture focuses on Italians rather than Jews).

The federal prohibition of alcoholic beverages did not end drink but created the context for a massive expansion of corporate and state police power. Now the taxpayer — obviously not corporations or their plutocratic owners — could pay the bill for their own repression. This would not have been possible were the US not historically saturated with the hypocritical theocratic culture of Oliver Cromwell’s puritan republic. Since “white” American politics — even abolitionism — has always been dominated by the theocratic tradition of the colonial era, prohibition of alcohol could be promoted as a necessary imposition of moral conduct upon inferior European stock — where wine and beer were ordinary food — and as a purification of the body politic. In fact, it was an alibi for political policing of immigrants, socialists, and any other “un-American” activities.

When it became clear that Prohibition’s days were numbered and an enormous army of uniformed thugs would suddenly be unemployed, people like Harry Anslinger, wed to the Mellon dynasty and a former head of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s private army, lobbied for the prohibition of narcotic drugs. One of his barely valid reasons was that policing narcotics would also preserve an instrument for policing Blacks. So the Federal Bureau of Narcotics became the primary national race police while the its senior rival the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the US secret political police (what was called under Hitler the Gestapo — abbreviation for Geheime Staatspolizei, as opposed to the Schutzpolizei or protective police).

Together these two federal agencies began the process of shaping disparate and independent warlords with their municipal armies into forces that could be mobilised either for political or racialist purposes. The so-called New Deal not only introduced a vast array of federal interventions in the economy and social organisation, some of which were barely socialist but most of which were proto-fascist/corporatist, it nationalised the police powers (and overseas subversion). This meant the corporations were no longer directly liable for the actions of their gangs; e.g., the Pinkertons, Ford Service or the numerous railway and factory police forces deployed to control workers and their communities. The uniforms and badges were exchanged and now these private armies were agents of state repression. The fiction of civilian control was preserved in part due to corporate and jurisdictional jealousies. However, these armies became entrenched parts of the civilian bureaucracy, unionised, and established legacies that made many forces virtually hereditary castes.

It is against this background that one needs to understand the decades of opposition to police in the US, mainly from non-white and poor communities in the US. This opposition is not based on occasional abuse or failures in training. It is based on the intuitively recognised fact that the police in the US — as in the rest of the US Empire — are an army of occupation. They are, individual police officers of good faith notwithstanding, the daily terror and threat of terror which is the complement to Hollywood propaganda and the dictatorship of the workplace. It is no accident that someone like Dan Mitreone, an Indiana police chief, became a notorious trainer of torturers in Latin American police forces before he was kidnapped and executed. Michigan State University ran, or served as a conduit for, programs throughout the US war against Vietnam which brought members of these municipal terror organisations to Southeast Asia to torture Vietnamese.

Of course, policing in Britain and throughout Europe is also derived from state terror policies. Yet only in Britain and the US does one have such an enormous investment in the myth of good police officers. The late journalist Alexander Cockburn once wrote that Britain had the only police department that was treated as a global tourist attraction. Hollywood has done everything possible to give the NYPD that reputation too — although even less deserved. FBI and DEA have become “brands” for leisure attire. Have you seen anyone wearing a “GESTAPO” tee shirt?

Tourist trap, London (1981)

The current wave of demonstrations and demands for an end to police repression and even an end to the police force as such may shock some who think that it would be enough to end racialist abuse by the police, to finally convict police of the capital crimes they commit and punish them accordingly. In a country which is proud of its death penalty, the number of police condemned for murder and punished accordingly can certainly be counted on one hand — or less! The number of people wrongly convicted and/or executed for allegedly killing police gangsters is enormous. The City of Brotherly Love is infamous here.

The problem, of which the murder of George Floyd is only one example among thousands (or perhaps millions throughout US history), is complex. First of all, the warlords — the corporate owners of municipalities and their armies called police — have to be restrained. These armies, like the paramilitary units that same US corporate oligarchy maintains in its overseas protectorates, have independent means; e.g., through their control of drug, gambling and other cash flows. They can buy, blackmail or otherwise suborn politicians and judiciary. They are organised in powerful unions with cult-like loyalty through generations. They are supplied by the covert internal security apparatus established since Hoover’s ascent and enriched after the war on Vietnam and 9-11 — officially the Department of Homeland Security. They can rely on a perverse criminal code, both at local and federal level, which legitimates their functions. Last but not least they are integrated in the penal value chain since the privatisation of prisons and other disciplinary operations. There is so much money involved that it is mind boggling.

Although I remain sceptical as to the actual organisation(s) behind the wave of demonstrations and actions aimed at police forces and their crimes, the issues are real. An adequate and dialectically developing movement to address these long suppressed issues will need to deal with the complexity of police history and especially the powerful financial and political interests behind this municipal militarism that plagues the US and constitutes one of the main obstacles to democratic struggle there.


Travesty or Tragedy?

I have often wondered what the world would have been like if the USA had lost 20% of its population (like the Soviet Union in WWII or Salvador and Guatemala at US hands) in any one of its endless wars?

I do not wonder that if one now searches for web entries on deaths in Africa, figures caused by starvation, political-economic terror and the lack of basic infrastructure (despite 70 years of “Western aid”) and other diseases, nothing appears before COVID-19.

There is profuse interest in wherever Americans are (although one could understand were the rest of the world indifferent). The idea that the most wasteful population on the planet might be brought to a standstill — perhaps even releasing resources for the rest of the world — has some attraction. Is it merely impolite to ignore the “suffering” of the self-important imperialists?

Or perhaps this suffering is really feigned, like that when a few superfluous office buildings were spectacularly demolished for fun and profit?

The recent stories retroactively “reclassifying” influenza certificates are no less disingenuous. Should revised “corona” statistics be trusted any more than the unemployment statistics, the regularly altered “basket” used for the Cost of Living Index, the numbers of deaths reported in US theaters of war, or the tax returns of  Fortune 500 conglomerates?

There is a potential for unprecedented change if the humane imagination can grasp a world entirely devoid of the Anglo-American Empire. Yet the image that comes to my mind is Géricault’s “The Wreck of the Medusa.”

However, I fear that the supposed gravity of illness in the USA is as contrived as the allegations made against China. This does not mean there are no deaths, just that they amount to no more than the count of bloody ears after a pacification job.

Were this a true pandemic, the USA would be the least important concern for rest of world — except to send all their green and tan clad vermin back to their nest.

The US regime is not only the leading producer and user of weapons of mass destruction, they lead with other WMDs: mass distraction and mass deception.

The apparently overwhelming volume and variety of data and contradictory or partial information in circulation masks the political and economic issues with the beloved, seductive but ultimately deceptive gauze of pluralism.

While the whole world’s attention is focused on the fevers of white folks, the piracy, brigandry and murder continues unabated.

Water, water every where,
and all the boards did shrink,
water, water every where
nor any drop to drink.1

  1. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, First published in Lyrical Ballads, First Edition, 1798.

Privacy, Auricular Confession and Computer Viruses

The original business with personal secrets

The unilateral declaration of independence adopted by the slave traders and slaveholders in congress assembled, otherwise known as the American Declaration of Independence, is one of the most successful psychological warfare instruments of modern history. Alone it did not win the fight of the colonial elite against its cousins in Great Britain. However, once the British regime was forced to cut its losses after the defeat at Yorktown, this propaganda document became the source of the most powerful delusion since the inception of Christendom based on the myth of an obscure crucifixion.

This instrument, for white supremacy the equivalent of the ten commandments attributed to Moses, has formed the basis of the religion in whose thrall millions of people for whom Christianity is perhaps meaningless or trivial have been held for over a century. That is not much time seen from the entirety of human history. However, given its global proliferation, penetrating areas where even Christianity could not win, it is remarkable to say the least. The brilliance with which an ideal whose fulfillment has been denied to more than the majority of the world’s population is still preserved is an expression of the insidiousness of the system of white supremacy. As James Baldwin told Cambridge students in 1964, he was raised “rooting for the cowboys” in American Western films — until he realised that he was, in fact, one of the “Indians”.

Most of the world consists of “Indians” — it is “Indian Country” as the US Cavalry called it whether in Dakota, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

We find that we are being told to root for those whose entire social model is based on our subjugation or, if need be, extermination. Since we all learned to be “cowboys” we think that those who rule us are the Cavalry who will save us from the “Indians” — if we follow their orders and stay in the wagon train, wear our masks, keep our distance — and keep our mouths shut, only to prevent the dispersion of particulate infectious material, of course.

Let us be clear about one thing. The US Empire cannot collapse as long as its citizens at home are willing to travel throughout the world terrorising other countries. However, this capacity is rapidly being exhausted. Hence the cannon fodder at home is superfluous. At the same time if everyone is policing herself or himself for fear of infection or some other invisible fate, then there simply is less need to have troops around terrorising the world. Instead the terror can be performed more compactly with pharmaceutical teams operating in geographically quarantined territories, isolated by the collapse of international transport — except for the select.

As I have written in the past the actions implemented by the coordinated intelligence and policing forces worldwide aim at retraining masses of people to live with less work, less money and less social contact (such contact subject to constant surveillance — aka “tracing”). This is simply policing and population control without any health advantage whatsoever. Of course, there are various opinions — like other exit points on the human body — as to whether masks, gloves, and distance restrain disease proliferation. Yet this plurality of opinions is deliberately maintained because the more opinions in circulation the less chance that common sense will prevail. This is also a factor in deniability. People waste their time trying to decide which priest to believe, while their jobs disappear and their homes are confiscated.

But to come to the point, the principal objection raised to many of the incipient measures — contact tracing, health monitoring or the Gates ID2020 concept in its various forms — is that it would intrude on the privacy of individuals. However, there is no privacy in the West. Rather there is a religious belief in privacy (the individual equivalent of secrecy). Where does this belief originate? Western privacy is a reaction but actually a compliment to the Roman Catholic practice of auricular confession. The confessional defined the “private” as the scope of potential deviance from conformity to the Catholic universal doctrine which was defined as “sin” or “heresy”. Sin could be forgiven by confession to a priest. Heresy could only be punished — it was left to god to deal with the heretic once he was executed by the secular arm.

Privacy is really only the general privilege of the ruling class to conceal its wealth, methods of theft and murder, evade taxes, and prevent you from knowing how and why you can work yourself to death and still not own your home or the food on your plate. It immediately disappears — privacy that is — once you make a claim on the regime. To get a pittance for your family as an unemployed person you have to confess everything. The owners of the world can print four trillion dollars a day and no one has to answer a single question.

The “virus” is the contemporary manifestation of “sin”. We are all sinful and therefore the ridiculous number of infections reported. Many will die — that is the purpose of “sin” to rationalise the murder of our fellow human beings by priests/doctors/soldiers/police. Not to believe in the “virus” is heresy. You wondered why, since you linked your first PC to the internet, you are constantly plagued by viruses. Did it ever occur to you that the company that made the software also owns the viruses? You could dismiss this “planned obsolescence”; e.g., the fact that there are no more original spare parts for your three year old computer or car, by claiming that a new product was “progress”, another step on the stairway to heaven.

But now the producer of the most virus-laden software in the world tells you on TV that you will never be free of the virus his friends developed that can kill your grandmother or your child with cancer (from some other industrial poison).

And you are happy now. If you were a white man, you might have been created equal. If not, well, tough luck. You have a secret, not for long. If you aren’t infected yet, just check your computer…

Faschion: Dressing for Obedience 

Asset Deals: John Paul II and his successor ex-Hitler Youth and Roman Grand Inquisitor Joseph Ratzingen, Benedict XVI1

In 2015 I argued that the purpose of the CIA war against Vietnam was two-fold. First of all the company was charged with preserving the now US interest in what had been French business in Indochina. The second objective — a part of its global strategy — was to create a country, the Republic of Vietnam (aka South Vietnam), which could sustain the illusion — created in Korea between 1945 and 1952 — that there were two countries: one that counted as civilised (capitalist and subordinated to the West) and one that was not really Vietnamese (like the PRDK is not really Korean and at that time the PRC was not really China).

To understand this approach to world politics and the general hatred of humanity underlying it, one has to take very seriously a tiny detail in the history of US colonialism. That detail is the personality of the man who turned working class denim trousers into a fashion item, a guy named Edward Lansdale. The history of covert action — namely, the cowards’ war for capitalism or as Agee called it the campaign of “capitalism’s invisible army” — can be simplified as the marriage of desire and deceit. In a sense the opacity of covert action or what has been popularised as the “deep state” can be traced to the doctrine of sacerdotal celibacy. Sacerdotal celebacy — the rule that priests cannot marry — was first a rule to protect the property accumulated by the Church from dissipation by the inheritance in favour of clerical children. The second reason for it was to protect the investments of the Catholic Church in prostitution and slavery.2  As much as I would like to elaborate on this Western cultural phenomenon, a dogma derived from Roman Catholicism, that would go too far for what is intended here as a brief intervention. My intention here is simply to strongly suggest that readers think in broader contexts than are ever presented by any media.

We have now reached a point where the covert action programme formulated by those who organised and conducted the mass killing system in Vietnam and later in Latin America and in Central Asia has become the central product to be marketed worldwide. The so-called pandemic, the Covid-2019, is nothing more or  less than a product of the counter-terror factory that the Anglo-American Empire established in Vietnam — based on the template already developed in Korea.

In Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines and the Surveillance State, Alfred McCoy (2009) wrote that the machinery (now digital) for policing in the US began in the Philippines — a US colony from 1901 until 1949 — and thereafter a protectorate. That is also where the Levi’s marketer, Lansdale, began his career as a terrorist. Douglas Valentine (1990) showed in great detail from the testimony of those who actually created and executed the Phoenix “marketing campaign of South Vietnam” how this system was built and operated. Valentine, in contrast to McCoy,  emphasises the purpose of a system which is consciously defective but infinitely violent. Whereas the vast majority of opponents to US wars object to their injustice, they do so implying that these wars — were they justly waged — would somehow be less or acceptably imperial. Ultimately in his book The CIA as Organised Crime Valentine (2016) shows that the Phoenix program is the “new normal”.

What happened in between October 2019 and March 2020 can be translated into the sequences of the war against the VCI as conceived, planned and implemented by the US Central Intelligence Agency. (Actually it is irrelevant whether it or other government agencies actually was the overall planning and executive instrument.) Daniel Estufin called it in an rather unqualified fashion the recognition that the “limit to growth” had been reached. This explanation reminiscent of the Club of Rome and its eugenic report avoids an elemental difficulty with the entire “growth” concept. One can summarise that in the pathological definition of “cancer” as uncontrolled cell growth at the expense of the healthy organism. This is, in fact, a wonderful example of what the neo-conservative literary scholar described in her book Illness as Metaphor (1978). The economy must grow and grow without purpose or reason. The rulers, like cancer cells, must steal through all seasons. Cancer, the ubiquitous, virtually incurable self-destruction of the individual human body — almost entirely induced by the toxification of the environment by unrestrained theft under capitalism — is the sickness of surplus. In the 19th century people died of consumption — tuberculosis — the toxification by raw accumulation and the exhaustion of human bodies.

However, with the digitalisation of capitalism and its extraction methods, the disease which is the penultimate expression of capitalist pathology, is the virus. Communists were germs or bacteria. After the destruction of virtually anything resembling communism — the European communist parties notwithstanding — a new pathological model was needed. The virus is an insidious metaphor. It is not like bacteria, a life form which can both produce and destroy. The post-communist era — whereby communism was simply a term for any opposition to the ruling gangsters — requires new terror products. That actually means old products in new packages. Anti-communism was repackaged as anti-terrorism (of course, only pseudo-Islamic terror, an utter fantasy, like in the era of the Reconquista and Crusades). The so-called corona virus, for the honest, is really a fabrication — probably developed in the same kind of imperial laboratories where the computer viruses have been designed since a certain entity sought to guarantee the monopoly it expected from its IBM days.

In a previous appreciation I indicated that the “lockdown” should be understood in terms of the “strategic hamlet” program. Now I would advise those who are not saturated in obsequiousness or servility to consider the current phase — called contact tracing — in terms of what was called in Vietnam “census grievance”.

The historical crisis with which we are confronted today is first and foremost a crisis of literacy. It would take too much space to explain what I mean by that. However, reading Paulo Freire’s now very unfashionable Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968) would make my point clearer.

Irony is a term used to describe linguistic practices, reading, writing and speaking. It designates a discrepancy between the circumstances explicitly perceived and the language used to describe them. Yet if one applies the term with that rare quality, sincerity, then there is indeed some irony to be found in the appreciation of that part of the world with the most favourable population density (albeit thanks to the immeasurable homicidal capacity of its ruling class), where the ruling class mandates the most fanatical interest in social distancing and masking (or gloving). The irony lies in the fact that the most sociopathic segment of the world’s population is located in the Western peninsula of Eurasia and North America where very low population densities prevail. People who have on average more living space per capita than anywhere else in the world — just cannot get enough. Now people, who for some five hundred years have vented their malice on Africa, Central and South America, Australia and Asia (not to mention millions slaughtered between 1915-1945) just cannot bear being closer than 1.5 meters to each other and want this to be the British (or German) standard for the world.

It is hard to share sympathy or even affection with much of what is published as “critical” today. It is just as esoteric as the tatoos on so many legs, arms and backsides. Permanent jewelry and stenciled stupidity, masks and gloves substituting thinking or love. My sympathy at least is exhausted by people whose sterility and verility transcend human dimensions.

A few months ago I was adamant about the insincerity of the global warming crusaders. I remain so. I am convinced that these were witting or unwitting campaigners in the crusade of death that the rich white supremacists on this planet are waging against ordinary people. Their message was nothing more or less than the blind religious fanaticism that has made the West the best organised homicidal society on the planet. That is the legacy of Christendom.

Today at lunch I watched a report on the canonisation of the Polish fascist known by his papal name, John Paul II. Roman Catholics are now permitted to venerate this vile cleric as a saint. The rest of the “white” world will venerate him for his contributions to the world we have today. It is a world liberated from every respect for life in whatever form and dedicated to the cult of death.

If we do not resist the cult of death and its sociopathic instruments — like social distancing — we will actually join — but not as TV actors — a society of the “living dead”.

  1. Together with the US regime this dynamic duo in the Catholic cult of death- the ancient foundation of Christendom and global terrorism-  waged war against communism and national liberation.
  2. Henry G. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 3, 1907.

There is One God, One Faith, and One Church

On 1 May, International Labour Day (except in the USA),1 I happened to see the current prime minister of Portugal proclaim on television the next stages of the policing that began with the proclamation that the world was in the midst of a “pandemic”. He explained that masks would be obligatory in schools after they are reopened, that restaurants would be permitted to reopen in a limited fashion starting 18 May and gave other details as to how public movement and economic activity would be ruled in the foreseeable future.

Of course, opening on 18 May only applies to those businesses that have survived that long, without going bankrupt. Portugal is remarkable in many respects, for example, that it is almost entirely “chain-free”. One reason is that multinational restaurant chains — like those that have replaced virtually all restaurants in the US — are simply too expensive for ordinary Portuguese citizens. The other reason is the loyalty of the population to its own fine food culture. Portugal is one of the few places in the West I know where the food eaten by the rich and the poor is essentially the same — and by that I do not mean the fast food monotony to which Andy Warhol very poignantly referred.2 A city like Porto is still full of family-owned restaurants where the chipped potatoes are peeled and sliced in the kitchen and not poured from a bulk package manufactured by some Nestlé subsidiary. McDonald’s has had to compete not only in price but even in the style of bread used, yet is still too expensive for people whose average monthly wages are less than EUR 1,000. One has to wonder which restaurants Prime Minister of Portugal António Costa has in mind when he says that they will be permitted to open again after more than two months closure. Do we see here the result of another act to subordinate the last elements of Portuguese entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency in a country whose elite has always profited from Portugal’s quasi-protectorate status?

I do not have any new answers to that question. However, I have tried to surmise or by means of judicious investigation identify the rational criteria, which would compel those who have ordered this international quarantine to end it.3 Alas, in vain. At the end of four months there is still no evidence published anywhere that the progression of the so-called “pandemic” has in any way approached that of the seasonal influenza casualties of 2019 or any year prior to that. It stands to reason that if this were more deadly than the seasonal flu, then in the same period we would have to record far more deaths than in the previous year. Even with all the fraud and forgery, the death toll has not reached that level year-on-year. Nor have any truly new and impossible conditions arisen since then, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus can explain — unless one considers the obvious mental derangement and hysteria among the supposedly educated segments of the population.

The favoured argument among the “moderates” — those willing to listen to doubts expressed by ordinary citizens — is that all these steps are necessary to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing. In other words, the people who have been subjected to this covert state violence are themselves to blame for the inadequacy of the healthcare system. This was not the fault of parasitical corporations, bribery, privatisation, insufficient or no funding and resistance to any change of policy that would channel money away from investment banks to blood banks (unless, of course, those blood banks were also run for profit) — all abetted by elected and appointed public officials.

If responsibility is considered for any policy failure, however, it is only the lack of masks, HAZMAT suits and emergency equipment not the failure to maintain a solid general healthcare system including preventive, curative and palliative medicine. In other words, the “counter-terrorism” model is the only one available to government. Such emergency measures are just like the futile instructions to airline passengers about procedures that are virtually useless when an airplane crashes. I wonder seriously for whom is the emaciated healthcare system to be protected after more than thirty years of wanton destruction by those who claim their sudden concern. The defensive arguments and criticism can be compared to a group of arsonists advising the homeowner whose house they have set in flame that it really would have been a good idea to have more hoses and paid for more insurance coverage. What this really means is the State (actually those who manage it on behalf of its owners) wants us all to stay at home so that none of them has to accept responsibility for massive criminal negligence. Meanwhile we are burning with that very house they have torched.

In contrast the Chinese government built a hospital in two weeks to take up the slack in a city of some 11 million inhabitants, dismantling it once the mission was accomplished. While in Europe and the USA there are no public institutions left capable of delivering even the ordinary mails in under two weeks, let alone build a hospital and staff it.

There being no rational basis for the Western style of international quarantine, that leaves only two other mutually inclusive options: corruption and religion. For years I have argued that political science and many other academic disciplines practiced in Western universities are defective because of their failure to analyse the institutional foundation of the West: Roman Catholicism. Except in Catholic institutions, my assertion is usually dismissed. The basic sophistry used to ridicule my advice is that while the churches, and even the Church still exist today, they have an entirely subordinate role. Nobody believes that the pope in Rome has temporal authority, let alone universal power. Church attendance is just a private matter. The Reformation curtailed the power of the Roman hierarchy. These arguments even come from people who have read Michel Foucault or  Gramsci4 and therefore with a second thought or three ought to know better.

What many seem to forget is the Counter-Reformation or the Protestant witch burning, including the practices of Puritan New England. Moreover, the Christian churches together and in Europe the Roman Catholic Church in particular belong to the largest landowners in the West, usually tax-exempt, and often concealed through corporate shells.5  In any realistic appraisal of a political system ignoring major landowners like the Church is either a sign of incompetence or mendacity.

Elsewhere I have said 1984 has to be one of the worst books ever written.6  That is not so much a reflection of the author as it is of those who have read it over the past 70 years since it was published. Orwell created some modern terms to describe ancient phenomena that have been forgotten. Properly speaking they have not been forgotten but concealed. Given the explicit and insidious collaboration with the fascist aggression by the two Pius popes in the 20th century, including WWII, it is understandable that explicit references to the original totalitarianism of the West would be discouraged. In fact, much of the treachery and viciousness of Pius XII was only disclosed after his death and amidst the greatest of resistance both in the Church and beyond.7

It is helpful to recall that for most of Western history even possession of the mythology volume, known as the Holy Bible, was restricted entirely to clergy.8

Unauthorised possession or reading it among unauthorised laity could be treated as a capital offense. The Holy Office, also known as the Inquisition, had emerged not only as a central and secret police force for the Roman Catholic Church but a major economic player in every Christian dominion.9

To be accused of heresy or some other violation by the Inquisition was the same as being guilty. An accused forfeited all rights immediately — the right to own property, to conclude any kind of binding business or legal transaction — and was subject to confiscation of all property, real and personal. Those who spoke in favour of an accused could be punished as abetting heresy with the same penalties. The only appeal was to the pope in Rome — very difficult to lodge when one was chained to the wall of some dungeon and anyone who acted on one’s behalf could suffer the same fate. It would go too far to explain all that could and did happen under this regime. The curious are referred here to Henry Lea’s multi-volume works; e.g., The History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.10

However, it is very important to distinguish between the popular and incorrect view of the Inquisition — that its primary job was enforcing doctrinal conformity. The Holy Office was established to control population and population movement and to assist those who owned the Holy See in their efforts to enrich themselves and the Church. The Inquisition was an espionage system that recorded every detail necessary to identify, observe, and pursue its targets throughout Christendom — that is most of Europe and the overseas possessions of Catholic princes. Heresy was punished — rather heresy was the pretext for punishment and control. Denying that one was a heretic was impossible. The only hope was that no one had motive to make a denunciation. To escape incarceration meant only that one became a legitimate target — like in the notorious “free fire zones” in Vietnam.11

My point is that Orwell did not discover or describe anything new or modern. In fact, as a propagandist in the service of His Britannic Majesty’s government, he was simply describing his working environment with the language of the day — albeit in a kind of roman à clef. Blair (Orwell) was for all intents and purposes Winston. He probably could not have written a story with the ancient foundations of Christendom at the centre.

Despite the heinous conduct of the Roman Catholic Church in the 20th century, it actually recruited successfully. Both the famous and the infamous have joined or returned to Mother Church.12  And a son of the fanatically Presbyterian Dulles family was even raised to the cardinal’s dignity.13  One can only guess why.

The (previous) pontiff emeritus was head of the Holy Office before his coronation. There should be no surprise that an obedient member of the Hitler Youth would make a great career in a Roman Catholic province governed by pro-fascist prelates under a fascist pope. Joseph Ratzinger went on to lead the persecution of heretics in Latin America, collaborating deniably with the death squad regime that murdered Bishop Oscar Romero while disciplining every important member of the clergy who opposed military dictatorships installed and maintained by the US regime. The ubiquitous corporation, which Ratzinger would then head as Benedict XVI, is recognised for having the oldest espionage organisation in continuous operation.14 Orwell could not have described the way the Church exercises power without drawing attention to those who still held it and whose successors hold it today.

Now I am not saying that the present condition — the crusade that is being preached throughout the Western Empire — is a creation of the Vatican State or the Roman pontiff, also a Jesuit. (At the same time I would not rule out their active, if discrete, participation.) It is surely an accident that one of the most fanatical and greedy prelates preaching this crusade is also a product of Jesuit education.15

What I am saying is that if we want to understand the structures, the rhetoric and the discourse along with the kinds of measures and the force being applied, we should look very carefully at the most fundamental institution that defines the style and substance of Western beliefs and statecraft. That original multinational corporation contains the blueprint — or to use fashionable genetics jargon, the “DNA” of the corporate state in which we live today.

It does not matter that the word “infection” is used instead of “sin” or that the intelligent, fact-based suspicions of the official story about the “virus” are called “denial” and not “heresy”. Orwell would have called these doubts “thought crime”. The infection is just as invisible as sin. The definition of health risk lies solely at the discretion of the clergy, wearing white coats or HAZMAT suits instead of cassocks. Although neither Mr Tedros16 of the WHO nor a medical official can order an arrest, incarceration or torture, they can advise or instruct “the secular arm”17 to act “in the interest of health” (i.e., in the interest of the Faith). As argued elsewhere recently, one of the world’s wealthiest individuals has assured us that we just do not know if we can ever prevent sin, whether we will ever have a chance of salvation, even if the auto de fé of vaccination is performed.18.

Social distancing, then (Photo 1) and in the “modern” age (Photo 2).19

Many people, who would refuse to hear a priest or minister who advocates witch burning, lend all their attention to clerics dressed like physicians or hospital technicians — reading from inscrutable reports devoid of consistency, coherence or any other base in reality. For example, when the Portuguese prime minister declares that restaurants will be allowed to open on 18 May, one could just as easily ask — why not 17 May or 19 May? The answer is that there is no substantive reason — at least none to which the public is privy.

Now we are approaching —  if we have not already passed — the point where the secular arm can no longer retreat. The crusade has been declared for the health of Christendom. Whoever fails to make the sacrifice will be punished. For the secular arm to admit that it has erred is no longer possible without hastening its own demise. Hence like a thousand years ago, the secular arm — the princes of Christendom who owe their allegiance to the spirit of mammon, to that same god which ordained every pontiff and is the pinnacle of the great chain of being to which we are all subordinated — must continue to punish us or risk being punished or even destroyed by those whose lives it has ruined.

The inquisitors were well aware of this risk. That is why they were permitted anonymity, hired protection (paid from the profits of confiscation) and an absolute immunity from Rome. Our princes have their inquisitors and have equipped them with modern privileges, immunities and authority.

It seems therefore appropriate that a key dogmatic proclamation be revised to reflect the few minor but functionally significant changes in the 700-odd years since it was first promulgated.

Promulgated this time in Geneva,

Unam Sanctam

(Ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam…)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church (read State) is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3] (Capital). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one test and vaccine [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide; i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God (Capital), my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church (yes, the corporate state), He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Italians, or others should say that they are not confided to Peter (e.g. the WHO or other high offices of the Lords of Capital) and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church (in the State), since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest and doctor of medicine; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest (banker and doctor of medicine).

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual (and medical) power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God (Capital) and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual (and medical) power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual (medical) power; but if a minor spiritual (medical) power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God (Capital, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like any sane person alternative explanations, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for health (salvation) that every human creature be subject to those who control the World Health Organisation.

This bull****, slightly updated, was promulgated originally 718 years ago in November 1302 by the reigning Roman pontiff, Boniface VIII (1294 – 1303), less than a year before his death. Could he have died of a coronavirus?

  1. It is always worth recalling in the context of American exceptionalism that Labour Day in the US is the first Monday in September. Everywhere else (apart from Canada) Labour Day is celebrated on 1 May, in commemoration of the Haymarket massacre in Chicago! During a labour demonstration on 4 May 1886, a police provocateur detonated a bomb. Eight labour activists were arrested and tried, four were executed by hanging; one committed suicide and the remaining three were pardoned after six years in prison.
  2. Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to B and back again), (1975).
  3. Quarantine, originally meant 40 days (from the Italian quarantana, OED) applied by the Venetian authorities to ships arriving from abroad. 40 days is also the span of time between Ash Wednesday and Easter or the traditional period allocated to mourning for the dead in which a widow could remain in the home of her deceased husband. In Portugal many thought the economy would just be closed until Easter. This is no longer a quarantine but a form of massive house arrest.
  4. For those who have not the relevant titles are Madness and Civilisation (1961), The Birth of the Clinic (1973) and Discipline and Punish (1975), Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) Prison Notebooks (posthumously 1947).  Gramsci, who was one of the founders of Italy’s Communist Party, devoted considerable thought to the problem of latent power (hegemony), particularly conspicuous because of the role played by the Roman Catholic Church in Italy — even after Italian unity. He especially analysed the function of intellectuals and culture in regime maintenance.
  5. I have read but unfortunately cannot find the citation that the Roman Catholic Church directly and indirectly still holds about a third of all land in Western Europe. In Germany it benefits from a church tax collected by the State. In some jurisdictions of Germany, the Church is still compensated with tax revenues for secularisation of property in the 19th century! Church property is generally exempt from taxation. There are schools, hospitals, and innumerable institutions operated ostensibly as charities and privileged financially or politically by the State; e.g., payment of staff salaries. This state support assures that the spiritual arm retains its capacity to share power with the secular arm.
  6. Looking for the Thought Police? Try looking in the mirror“, (1984 is probably the worst book of the 20th century) by T.P. Wilkinson/August 25th, 2017.
  7. Karlheinz Deschner, Die Politik der Päpste in 20. Jahrhundert (1991) also in God and the Fascists (2013).
  8. Canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse (1229): ‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’

    ‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission, may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

  9. Originally known as the Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, since 1542 it has been called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Previous to the establishment of the papal inquisition, the church police power was concentrated in the dioceses and exercised by the episcopacy (1184 – ). The papacy used the Roman inquisition (1230 – ) to suborn the episcopacy, especially in France, and as an instrument to establish papal supremacy. Popes deployed the so-called mendicant orders, principally the Dominicans and Franciscans, because their independence from episcopal authority or monastic discipline and their mobility made them ideal shock troops.
  10. Henry C. Lea, The History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages (1888) also The History of the Inquisition in Spain (1887).
  11. See “The First Circle” by T.P. Wilkinson,  April 24th, 2020; and A Fly’s Eye View of America’s War Against Vietnam, especially Part 3, 30 April 2015.
  12. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the first noxious example that comes to my mind.
  13. Avery R Dulles, SJ (1918- 2008), son of John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State and brother to Allen (CIA director), became a Jesuit priest, created a cardinal in 2001.
  14. The papal nuncios, Vatican ambassadors, prelates in various orders, especially the Society of Jesus, and what one writer identifies as the Santa Alleanza, the clandestine service to have been formed by Pope Pius V in 1566, all comprise an ancient espionage capabilities extending throughout Christendom and wherever the Roman Catholic Church has entry. The Holy Office itself managed an enormous network of spies and collaborators. This prolific espionage apparatus profits from cooperation with the secular espionage and clandestine services, too. The long-time head of counter-intelligence in the CIA, Catholic James Jesus Angleton, was reputed for his close relationship to Vatican offices.
  15. Anthony Fauci, the notorious promoter of the corona “pandemic” and profitable pharmaceutical products, is a graduate of the Regis High School in New York City and the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts; both are Jesuit institutions.
  16. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organisation, the secretariat of the World Health Assembly, located in Geneva, Switzerland.
  17. The Inquisition was formally an investigating and policing institution with judicial but not enforcement powers. Condemnation by the Inquisition could incur penitential measures; e.g., compulsory pilgrimage, castigation, compulsory clothing marks (wearing a cross as a symbol of condemnation, lending another sense to the colloquialism: having “one’s cross to bear”) and incarceration. However, execution of the condemned was reserved to the State. Hence when the Church’s penitential measures were deemed inadequate, the “spiritual “ Inquisition could order the condemned remanded to the “secular arm”, a euphemism for the enforcement of the death penalty by the State.
  18. See “The First Circle” by T.P. Wilkinson,  April 24th, 2020.
  19. The dunce cap is very similar to the coroza those condemned for heresy were forced to wear in their auto de fé.