All posts by T.P. Wilkinson

Stop the Press: The 20 Percent Solution

The Great Reset Hymn

I have heard a lot of discussion about when the war will end that began in April 2020.

Yes, war. I have spent the better part of the past ten months trying to determine what the best attitude or approach to the current unpleasantness ought to be taken.

A tension has been created over the course of the year between those who think about what has been happening and those who do not. I have alluded to this tension in previous articles. Meanwhile there are a few others who seem to have grasped not only the urgency but the necessity of appropriate language for the current situation.

As I argued in February, we are not faced with a health issue and never have been. The People’s Republic of China was faced with a health issue and acted accordingly. This is not the place to discuss that history. However, at no time from December 2019 to the present has any national or international authority in the West ever been in the least interested in health and well-being of the inhabitants of the planet or those particular political entities that comprise the Anglo-American Empire and its suzerain states.

In a recent conversation with my music teacher I remarked that I was never very good at memorising anything. In previous articles I have alluded to this quality. Hence my entire intellectual development could be said to have been devoted to observation and the construction of relationships. For relationships to make sense one has to have an appropriate perspective or context. One way to see this is as a kind of pyramid or hierarchy, as metaphor an explanatory regress. The point is to construct a sufficiently broad view of events so as to organise the observations as intelligible relationships.

One day several years ago I visited the battlefield of Waterloo, a tiny place in Belgium not far from Brussels. There the visitor will find an artificial hill topped by a bronze lion, symbolising the forces of the British Empire and its allies who defeated Napoleon’s armies there. Atop this hill, a kind of observation post, there were plates depicting more or less the topography of that battle. By chance while I was there I overheard a conversation by two British NATO officers in mufti discussing the battlefield. Of course, when the battle was being fought there was no such hill and hence no such perspective. One officer said to the other, look at that small space and imagine. First the artillery fires across that field. Then the cavalry charges. Hundreds of horses churn up the earth. Then the infantry in line has to try to advance through all these mud and holes, marching in formation, trying to reach the range from which to fire on the French lines. The conversation continued in a technical fashion which I certainly found informative. But the point here is that from the top of the Waterloo monument one could contemplate the entirety of practical, tactical and strategic difficulties of two massed 18th/early 19th century armies battling in a space comparable to the Champs de Mars in Paris or the Mall in Washington or Green Park in London. Thousands of soldiers could barely see in front of them — this was before the introduction of smokeless powder — trying to maintain the infantry line which constituted massed firepower in the age before the machine gun.

From the top of the hill nearly two centuries later, it was easy to adopt a perspective that would explain many details of the battle as well as the problems each belligerent had to confront. In 2020 it takes some concentration and perhaps audacity to find a “hill” from which to see what has been happening and where the fronts are. It takes no imagination if one has studied the plans and the operations of the belligerent — the aggressor — to see what has been done so far. It takes only a bit more work and analysis to determine what the probable tactical objectives of the aggressor are — his strategic objectives are a matter of record.

In the course of the 20th century a kind of “rule of thumb” has become established in strategic circles that says essentially, the destruction, displacement or demobilisation of about 20% of a country’s population is sufficient to subjugate the country as a whole. I seem to recall this point being made while Ronald Reagan was presiding over the subjugation of Central America in the face of democratic movements in Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. At the official conclusion of those undeclared and illegal wars fought covertly through US proxies in the respective countries, 20% of Guatemaltecans and Salvadorans were either dead or in exile — many of whom comprising part of the despised migrant labour force north of the Rio Bravo.

If, however, we look back at the period from 1936 until 1945, we find that conservative figures record a 20% loss of population in both the Soviet Union and China as a result of combined Allied aggression. Unlike some sentimentalists I do not believe it appropriate to treat dictatorships that were heavily funded by the Anglo-American Empire (whether residing in Rome or Berlin) as hostile to it. The relationship between the Japanese Empire and the American Empire was comparable to that prevailing between Britain and Germany. The details of those relationships have been discussed elsewhere so those who are interested and not dismissive can find them with a bit of effort.

So reviewing the 20th century, roughly from 1912 onward from atop the hill at Waterloo, I find one cannot avoid some conclusions or some forecasts.

After the longest economic crisis of the 19th century in which the greatest gangsters the world had ever known, Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, DuPont (just to name those in the US) had seized unimaginable fortunes, the accumulated and slowly consolidating organisations of labour were educating and mobilising people throughout the empires to demand economic and social justice. The parallel competition among the elite demanded conquest. While competing for empire, all empires were agreed that labour had to be disciplined. Some 4 million dead ought to do the job. Even if in 1914 there was no hill from which to see the Somme, Verdun or Yprés, the spirit of victory was there: victory over the competition and above all victory over the lower classes.

A hundred years later the same vile gangsters, some with other names and more plebeian sartorial tastes, have been faced — no later than 2008 with the same dire problem. Well, in fact, that is the absurd aspect of this war. Unlike in 1912, there is no organised lower class, no organised middle class. In fact, since 1989 class has ceased to mean anything at all except — until air traffic came to a virtual standstill — the section of the aircraft one happened to occupy. For thirty years there has been no opposition to the plutocracy that emerged victorious in 1945.

So what is driving the war by those same “types” against the rest of us? They have managed to organise most of our youth around MTV, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. What more do they want?

However, that is the wrong question. When in New York or some other city dominated by elected and unelected criminals you are cornered at gunpoint, there is no natural limit to what you are expected to surrender. When you are audited by someone from the tax office who has been told, “your retention or promotion depends on bringing home the bacon, without litigation”, there is no limit to what you may have to pay.

When, however, you are dealing with the descendants of those vile aristocrats and monarchists, the power of the feudal system, many of whom continue to resent the revolution of 1789 and its continuation in 1917, then you are also dealing with an equally irrational, rabid pack. When the GDR was annexed and the Soviet Union dismantled, their assets stolen from the citizens to feed vultures, this was not merely gratuitous capitalist enrichment. It was vengeance.

We are not faced with a war — with the attack of the 0.01% just for money and assets. In fact, since they destroyed our public service sectors, plundered our pension systems, and squandered whatever taxes we paid on wars to conquer what they had not yet stolen, they have nonetheless remained unsatisfied.

Why were Louis Capet and his Habsburg spouse Marie Antoinette beheaded? Not because the French would not have a king. Rather because that king refused to be French. Louis XVI refused to accept the end of a regime in which people and countries were dynastic property. He refused to accept the role of citizen rather than owner of people and land in France. For the same reason the somewhat more thorough Russian Revolution abolished the dynasty and not just its paramount member.

The British — all their insincere claims to democracy and constitutional monarchy notwithstanding — and their North American cousins in the Anglo-American Empire never accepted either the French or the Russian Revolutions because they violated their deep feudal convictions. I have omitted the Papacy here for the purpose of brevity. However, what we currently face is the monstrous vindictiveness of the Reaction to 1789 and 1917.

This is not a virus. It is not a pandemic. If we are honest what we face today is a plague borne by the vermin that never accepted the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity — the humanist values that drove ordinary people to overthrow the feudal order in which the Church and nobility owned us.

If you ask them what they learned from history they will surely tell you — just like the WEF — “back then, they owned nothing, and we were happy”.

The post Stop the Press: The 20 Percent Solution first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Stop Press: No Left Turn

When one is stuck in traffic with an old car, in my case a 1962 Mercedes diesel, with no power anything, and merely 45 bhp to deal with younger cars, there is no temptation to aggressive driving. Despite the fact that a Mercedes is a classic man’s car, there is no machismo with a vehicle that tops at 120 km/h. However, what driving such a car makes obvious is just how few good drivers there are on the road despite, or perhaps because of, the advances in automotive technology.

Today’s drivers take no note of safety intervals or speed limits because they do not know what a braking distance is. Modern technology has bred something like autism, not only through contaminated vaccines, as a state of culture. Dementia is also not confined to the aged but clearly is a kind of lifestyle now.

For the last four years people writing, also in these pages, have reiterated ad nauseum the chant that the reigning POTUS is “the worst ever” in addition to other insults disguised as political analysis. As I wrote in 2017, what these people truly mean is that Donald Trump says what they really think but would not dare to say. He also speaks the language of ordinary power — not his but the power that the Anglo-American ruling elite can muster from the heartland — with its killer Iowa farm boys — to the urban metropolises on either coast with their thousands of underpaid, overambitious scriveners serving every segment of the American Dream machine — from Right to farthest Right. The Left in the US was killed off, banned or exiled by 1974. Everything else under that banner is mere sentimentality.

As the so-called Left — in that sense Mr Trump was only using domestic terminology — set out to prove, together with the sponsorship of other government agencies, that indeed a coup d’etat was possible without a US Embassy, it became apparent — at least from RoW — why the US Empire will never be ended by Columbia’s progressives.

I could go into far greater detail but I have written enough over the past years to explain myself.

Here I would like to highlight the most grievous moments of dishonesty. As I noted above people who sit in modern motor vehicles and believe that their road travel is driving are deluded. They cannot even hear their engine. They do not feel the speed. They are not able to detect the differences between their own cocoon on wheels and the rest of the environment with its diversity.

Since the AP presumed to declare the victor in this year’s POTUS contest, everyone from the FT to the usual “leftie” writers that post here, blatantly disregards the US Constitution and the election laws in force. Even in the 19th century there was an instance where the Electoral College chose a candidate who had not obtained the majority of the popular vote.1 That is a legal risk of the fundamental law that the so-called “Left” has yet to change. The reigning POTUS has every right to remain in office and to exhaust every remedy to assert his claims — by no means irrational or unjustified given the four years of uninterrupted threats by his opponents to use any means to remove him — that what was no doubt the greatest single electoral fraud in US history is tried and duly adjudicated.

I find the word hypocrisy weak because it suggests that the people who say one thing and do another are engaged in a petty offense. I do not believe that the “Left” of which I write here is hypocritical. Rather they believe as little in law or democracy as those whom they oppose. The adamance with which on one hand Mr Trump’s charges are dismissed and on the other hand simultaneous apologies are given for the fascists who dominate the Democratic Party (personified in the Bush-Clinton gang) shows, or ought to show, that what presents itself as “Left” or “progressive” in the US (and among their foreign friends) is just the low budget imperialism with which German Social Democrats supported the slaughter of World War I.

I could name names. However, I just had lunch and that would only add to my dyspepsia.

If those who feel they have overtaken the “worst person” on the road that ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are already celebrating, they should recall that in the course of four years Mr Trump has survived even impeachment proceedings. The campaign against Mr Trump did not increase the number of Democratic Party hacks in Congress, but reduced it.

Perhaps I am too obsessed with slow moving vehicles and historical comparisons. However, it is worth recalling that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow. It was a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who extended Jim Crow to the federal civil service and assured its enforcement in the military. It took a war the US started in Korea and nearly lost (that war is also not yet over) to force an otherwise segregationist Democratic POTUS to order integration of the US military. It was the Democratic Party that dominated the corrupt urban political machines that suppressed Black and immigrant voters in the North and ran the Klan in the South. It was the Democratic Party that defeated Radical Republicans, ended Reconstruction and perpetuated the racist system in the US for another century.

So where these people who look to the Democratic Party get the nerve to claim any decency at all escapes me. Some poignant remarks from Malcolm X come to mind:

It isn’t a president who can help or hurt; it is the system. And this system is not only ruling us in America, it is ruling the world. Nowadays, when a man is running for president of the United States, he is not running for president of the United States alone; he has to be acceptable to other areas of the world where American influence rules. … the shrewd capitalists, the shrewd imperialists knew that the only way people would run toward a fox would be if you showed them a wolf.2

I can only conclude that those who revel in the supposed defeat of Donald Trump are like those drivers in new technology-saturated cocoons to which I initially referred. They have no sense of speed, or safety intervals, braking distances or even how the machine in which they sit actually operates. They do not understand the electoral mechanics and have no respect even for the formal legal structures — they have never been able to change and hence are equally obliged to accept.

They are irresponsible, reckless drivers who should never be trusted on the roads to democracy — anywhere.

  1. Note: In the 1876 US Presidential election Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes was elected by the electoral college. In 1888 Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote against Republican Benjamin Harrison but lost in the electoral college.
  2. Meeting of the Pan-African magazine Présence Africaine, 23 November 1964.

The post Stop Press: No Left Turn first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Annual Alpine Crucifixions

Morgen in Riesengebirge, by Caspar David Friedrich

Sometimes it can be useful to be brief. Last year, the wave of worry, promoted by the Swedish Alberich, without at least the artistic virtue of her deceased compatriot, Birgit Nilsson, stimulated predictions of imminent Götterdämmerung. This virtually Wagnerian kitsch was further dramatised by the pretensious performers of troupes apocalyptical like Extinction Rebellion. As 2019 ended we were all to believe that indeed Valhalla lay around the corner- at least for the sustainable. Instead we should have anticipated the Götzendämmerung. Yet 2020 proved that the idols are worshipped more than ever, albeit with the collusion of the gods.

The general tendency (or intention) to focus public attention on phenomena which require religious faith is a very old means of exerting control and diverting attention from the destructive activities of those in whom control has been concentrated.

The reluctance to attribute climate change to universal — in the sense of phenomena in the universe — processes like solar activity, planetary motion etc. lies in the fact that this would weaken clerical claims to authority (whether as priests or scientists).

By attributing events — most of which we only “know” from mass media depictions — as “climate change” and due to CO2, it is possible to promote a pseudo-scientific argument that implicates the masses without necessarily subjecting the “clergy” to the same accusations. CO2 has the same function as “sin” for the Church. So the rich and powerful can say “we are all sinners” but there are only a few of us and many more of YOU — the masses of CO2 sinners. What is demanded then is submission and penance, while the rich — literally have recourse to indulgences.

The crimes of mass poisoning and destruction of the habitable environment — we need only remember that mega-cities are the product of land theft and wage or other forms of slave labour — are entirely withdrawn from the scope of specific (e.g. class) human responsibility. They become non-events.

Often it is said that climate activists are like religious fanatics. However, to adequately respond to the problem — not merely condemn it — one has to pay more attention to how religion as such functions, especially in a culture polluted by Christendom.

On another level, and levels are always being confused, the demands for less waste and unnecessary consumption — rooted in the Puritan morality of non-conformist clergy — has more appeal given the forty years of declining incomes for labouring people. It suggests to the frugal and ordinary that they could preserve what little they have accumulated if they could only live in an environment where conservation was a generally accepted practice and value. Meanwhile monopolies and cartels — the rulers of the economy — dress their business models in new garb like “sustainability” and “carbon neutrality”. For them sustainability is foremost sustainable profit and carbon neutrality a fiction achieved by trading in environmental indulgences (e.g. emission certificates). Having accrued their tonne of wealth, they would have us believe they will be satisfied with a few tonnes less.

(Well, a tonne of wealth comes from creating several tonnes of poverty too. But that has never stopped anyone interested in wealth for its own sake.)

A few years after the Club of Rome (1968) was founded and began its crusade, a German-speaking engineer was endowed with the resources to begin in 1971 what would become the World Economic Forum (WEF), a kind of ecumenical council for the episcopate and prelates of capitalism. In 1972, the Club of Rome published the eugenic epistel,  The Limits to Growth. Soon Klaus Schwab became a kind of permanent prefect of this college of cannibals. One is tempted to say pontiff. His role seems clearly to be that of a bridge between the rapacious, vicious, and obscenely wealthy and those who deliver their messages to the true believers and the masses compelled to be faithful. For nearly 50 years, the pontiff of profit has preached to the flock how they may expect to be sacrificed in future. The most recent version of this message is the encyclical “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

A particularly obnoxious aspect of the WEF theology is implicit in the call for a “fourth” industrial revolution, the blatant disregard for the violence of the previous three. Industrial revolutions were not revolutions so much as they were wars against labour at each time when the risk swelled that such labour would demand its share of the fruits it had produced.

Among others Andre Gunder Frank (e.g. in ReOrient) explained, the so-called Industrial Revolution (the first one) in the Western peninsula, in part, as propelled by a population shortage. In contrast to the centre of human civilisation, Asia, labour was always relatively expensive in what came to be known as Europe (except slaves, whose labour generated much if not most of the capital for the Industrial Revolution). In fact, what we now know as western capitalism and white supremacy are directly related to chronic shortages of reliable (subservient) labour in the West. However, the overproduction that soon resulted regularly from industrial manufacture also required the destruction of competitors and later the inducement to desire rather than need products. Massive industrial strength wars, leading to atomic weapons, were the other means by which profitability was restored and surplus population slaughtered, starved or killed by disease.

The WEF anticipates a “4th industrial revolution” because since the 1950s labour in the West has been considered too expensive at any price. Now having stripped almost all benefits of the wage/ salary and non-wage growth as well as pensions (employees’ deferred income- deceptively called a “benefit” by the State) from the declining labour force, there is a need to redesign industry again to eliminate all but the most essential workers at any educational level. It must be remembered that the WEF represents the pinnacle of profitability and control. The rhetoric of stakeholder v. shareholder notwithstanding, the overall social objective of the class represented in these alpine atrocities is the means by which wealth can be further amassed. It would be more useful to understand “stakeholder” as a reference to those who may be burned at the stake, to sustain the benefits to elite shareholders.

The apparent paradox is that this will eliminate the capacity for consumption and hence an economic model based on low or no consumption is needed in the West.

Hence drug addiction is the best model there is for this kind of economy. The never-ending wars in Latin America, the Middle East and South Central Asia assure the supply of illicit drugs. Expanding the drug addiction beyond narcotics to what might be called “life entitling” substances; e.g., medicines and vaccines, offers the potential to reduce political opposition/resistance while maintaining income streams as the population declines. This was, in fact, the business model of the British East India Company, producing opium in India to smuggle into China. That model has never really been abandoned, merely its legal forms have been changed.

The 4th industrial revolution will be just as criminally violent as the previous three but it will involve applying old techniques — religion and drugs — to subject at least 20-30 per cent of the world population. This is to be eased by the viral and climate crusades designed to prepare the pious masses to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the alpine conclave. The rest of us are just industrial waste, green indeed, like soylent green.

The post Annual Alpine Crucifixions first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Reflections on white elections

In less than four weeks a nation that loves nostalgia will be entertaining an election not unlike those a century ago. The election on 3 November 2020 will be fundamentally a “white man’s election”, the penumbra of protest notwithstanding.

Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination and the election four years ago by appealing to the populist elements that were opposed to what can actually be called the Bush-Clinton gang in the GOP. With the necessary money and a salesman’s astute sense of how to hawk, he overwhelmed the GOP establishment candidates and placed himself on the wave of those who rightly hated Clinton and certainly had no love for Obama.

Neither Hillary Clinton’s horrid personality nor her legacy could possibly appeal to anyone except party diehards, gravy train parasites and the academic faux gauche; i.e., those who bought the synthetic brand Obama in 2008 and became addicted to the product.

Mr Trump’s unexpected win — although not surprising for those who had a sober view of Clinton — caused considerable upset in the Establishment. As I have noted, but apparently few others have, while Donald Trump is unsurprisingly rich, he is, in fact, the first POTUS to be elected in at least a century who was not previously a senior civil servant, military officer or professional politician. That, of course, means that he was not “trained” how to behave or instructed as to who really makes decisions for the White House. Although the mass media have focused on his business career and his wealth, they conspicuously ignore the fact that he is also the first person in the White House since 1980 not controlled by the Bush family!1

Since in the US no one likes to talk about power as it is really exercised and by whom, four years have been spent attacking a mediocre New York real estate gangster for stage performances that were largely spoiled by the crew behind the curtains. Never mind any virtues or defects of Donald Trump’s ostensible program or policies since these are not really important. The most serious problem has been that there was a policy and program adopted prior to his election that Ms Clinton was supposed to represent and failure to elect her meant this policy and program had to be pushed without her– against Mr Trump, if necessary.

Donald Trump’s failure to cooperate with those who, in fact, make policy was manifest in the frequent changes to high office appointments. Since the only power Mr Trump actually has had — not unlike Jimmy Carter — is to appoint and dismiss cabinet officers and some other senior bureaucrats, this is what he did. Although his appointments did not give him more control over the relevant departments, they did cause considerable irritation throughout senior echelons of the federal bureaucracy. The most obvious disruption arises when people whose careers have advanced by following certain superiors in a given structure find that they have a new boss and perhaps even that they are transferred to some part of the organisation less favourable to their future promotion. For outsiders these changes are scarcely noticeable but for career civil servants at the higher management levels such disruption is taken very seriously. The programs that were dependent for their smooth implementation on continuity from the Obama-Clinton management were now subject to administrative delays or even budgetary obstacles. Thus layers of official Washington had reasons to aggravate the obstructions and contribute to the attack on Trump.

As the impeachment proceedings finally demonstrated, the principal objections to Donald Trump were nothing more than his frustration of the Establishment program to which the Bush-Clinton gang was committed. Every effort has been made to show that Donald Trump as POTUS is neither entitled nor competent to exercise executive authority. Nor is he allowed to change Establishment policy (in the form of initiatives under his predecessors). Yet the US Constitution does not name failure to adhere to the policies of a previous administration as a violation of the law or an impeachable offense. None of those who claim that Mr Trump is the “worst ever” POTUS seem to have any recollection of George W Bush, a semi-literate son of the ruling dynasty, re-elected by blatant election fraud with at least one illegal war to his credit, not to mention the demonstrable corruption in office. No matter how mediocre he may be, Donald Trump’s record is snow white compared to that of his predecessors.

Failing impeachment and removal from office, the immediate effects of the 2015 pandemic plan were then turned against Mr Trump in a last ditch attempt to show that he is incompetent, if not the cause of the faux pandemic.2  Clearly a project, which under Ms Clinton would have been launched earlier (no doubt to profile her “leadership”), was now implemented in the hope that it would foil Donald Trump’s re-election chances. However, that was not sticking either.

A serving POTUS rarely has to seek party re-nomination for a second term, the micro-convention held by the Republicans was therefore a formality. For years,  however, the Democratic Party has had to contend with its dissident left wing (in the US sense of the word). Again Bernie Sanders was let into the bullring to take a few stabs at a Trump effigy to keep the restless in their seats until a suitable nominee could be appointed.

The lockdown — apparently supported mainly by Establishment jurisdictions — was bound to create a variety of social tensions. Hence the situation was ripe for some creative counter-insurgency work. It is no secret that police officers, especially — but not only — in urban forces, perform contract murders frequently for those who run the drug business in the area. It takes little fantasy to imagine that Mr Floyd was assassinated for propaganda reasons. The rather unusual spread of simultaneous demonstrations following his murder was quicker than even the Ferguson or Charleston killings several years ago could trigger.3 Moreover careful attention to the locations and the composition of the demonstrations ought to have raised suspicions.

The demonstrations in predominantly white cities like Portland, while forty years ago perhaps sensible venues, were selected for media-effectiveness. White folks demonstrating in cities, where Blacks form an insignificant portion of the population, that “Black lives matter” also makes sense. It is comparable to the US motivation for dropping atomic bombs on cities that had not yet been attacked. These demonstration venues also have advantages: The absence of any other distracting activity made the demonstrations the easy focus of cameras. There were no embarrassing Black neighbourhoods to film and maybe raise questions that did not fit the script. The scope of Black issues could be carefully defined without any real Blacks involved.

One of the tactics of counter-insurgency developed and refined from the Phoenix Program is the creation of armed propaganda teams that appear and behave like the enemy. BLM is such an organisation, as is Antifa. Remarkable about the conduct of these two groups — exhibiting traits of CANVAS coaching — is that they perform a mirror of what whites thought they saw in the 60s.4 The propaganda team composed the language by borrowing heavily from “white” depictions of the Civil Rights movement protests. The point of the operations was not to mobilize Blacks — on the contrary. The primary aim of the operation is consolidation of white votes for the Democratic Party. Instead of dressing like the Klan to intimidate Blacks, they are costumed like Civil Rights protesters to intimidate Whites who might vote for Trump.

There is another aspect of this campaign that is even more provocative. As the escalation of sexual identity/ gender based politics has overwhelmed nearly all other opposition issues, the classical and wholly unresolved issues of economic justice, the plantation prison system, housing and education, not to mention the militarism that drives US foreign (and domestic policy) have been obscured. If one considers the positions taken by arguably the most radical Black American of his day, Malcolm X, there is nothing in any of his speeches that would justify or promote the conduct under the banners of BLM and Antifa.5 Ironically — but I believe intentionally — the excited attention given to Black Lives Matter and its allies actually serves to suppress the fundamental issues of white supremacy upon which the US is based and that people like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King consistently raised.

Historically elections have been fought for marginal shifts in the allegiance of white voters. Since the 50s these shifts were occasionally magnified by whether Blacks were able to vote or not. One could say that Black votes became the “swing” constituency in presidential elections. This was always a source of conflict within the historically racist Democratic Party. The mobilisation of Black voters was so contentious that it had even split the party.

Barack Obama conspicuously avoided mentioning King’s name in any of his speeches during the 2008 presidential campaign. Yet his speeches were saturated with subliminals that surely triggered the name in the heads of liberal listeners. (I frequently had to show people the speeches afterwards to prove that he had never said “King”.) This practice continued throughout his two-terms. Surely he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize so quickly to consecrate his election as if he were “Martin Luther King”, without being him. At the same time the “right Black man” was finally given the prize.

Black Lives Matter consortium was invented and funded to promote virtual Black protest with subliminal messages aimed at white voters in the same way the Obama campaign was contrived. In the view of the Establishment, real Black Americans are too offensive to whites and too unreliable politically. Moreover there is a standing policy in the Democratic Party not to mobilize Blacks except under the most controlled conditions. Ideally these are the conditions under which what Black Agenda Report calls the “Misleadership Class” can manipulate them. So what we have, in fact, is the product of a long-standing practice of the historical Democratic Party, a Black movement without any Blacks. The core of this armed propaganda has modernised the minstrel show in a violent and destructive manner.

These Democratic Party covert operations are designed to smear Donald Trump without staining the Democrats themselves. It is another strategy for capturing the “swing vote” without any obligation to serve the constituency whose ballots it needs. It aims — like in elections a century ago — to stuff the ballots for a Southern racist (Biden) against a carpetbagger (Trump) and, regardless of who wins, leave everything else just as the Establishment wants it.

  1. This author contends that essentially from the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 until 2016, the Bush family has directly or indirectly controlled the White House. GHW Bush exercised this control as vice president for two terms, as POTUS for one. Bill Clinton was essentially co-opted into the Bush gang while governor of Arkansas when the state was being used as a hub for drug running by CIA assets. GW Bush then served two terms and was relieved by Barack Obama, a person with a long and intimate relationship to the US intelligence services with which the Bush family also enjoys a historically strong connection. Hence “bipartisanship” in the US has been based upon domination of both major parties by an alliance of the Bush family and the Clinton couple. However, were the same configuration to be identified in another country; e.g., the Soviet Union/ Russia, the conclusion would be reached immediately that the intelligence agencies or even criminal syndicates have undue control over the executive. For example, it has been commonplace to identify Russian President Vladimir Putin as a former KGB officer. It was very rare that US President GHW Bush was introduced as a former head of the CIA. By treating the entire US system as sui generis there is virtually no analysis of power relationships and structures pertaining to the USA in categories or concepts that permit comparison with other regimes. This is deliberate and not accidental, another aspect of so-called “exceptionalism”.
  2. Although the extent to which prior planning exercises occurred and public statements were made by various prominent individuals suggest that the conditions for the so-called pandemic in 2020 could have been man-made, any culpability remains deniable.
  3. On 9 August 2014, Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, a town in Greater St. Louis. On 17 July 2015, nine parishioners were murdered in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, including the senior pastor, by one Dylann Roof.
  4. CANVAS, the Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies, is the successor organisation to OTPOR, a Serbian consultancy specialised in training for revolutions. It played a major role during the NATO war against Yugoslavia, coaching civilian opposition to the Serbian government.  Also see The Revolution Business.
  5. Malcolm X delivered a speech at the Oxford Union, 3 December 1964.

The post Reflections on white elections first appeared on Dissident Voice.

The Fourth Circle

Gustave Dore — Dante’s fourth circle of hell “the hoarders and wasters”

In 1973, the world economy was brought almost to a halt by a supposed shortage of oil. The ostensible trigger for this alleged shortage was the so-called Yom Kippur War in which the armed forces of the Anglo-American Empire’s settler-colonial offshore enterprise in Palestine, also known as the State of Israel, repelled the forces of Egypt and Syria, which had moved to reoccupy the territory stolen from them by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. One response to the Anglo-American Empire’s support of its client state against those states Israel wished to conquer was an oil embargo proclaimed by OPEC, with the largest producer — the autocratic Anglo-American protectorate Saudi Arabia at the lead.

Portrayed in the mainstream Western media as a sign of Arab economic strength — also as anti-Semitism in some quarters — the embargo led to massive economic disruption in all the countries that had to import oil, mainly Europe and its former colonies. This embargo created the impression of a global oil shortage — which although there was none, could not be overcome without violating the power of the oil cartel. While the OPEC embargo formally restricted the sale of crude oil to Israel’s sponsors, there was no real oil shortage since oil supplies to Europe and the US have always been in the hands of the majors (now super-majors), then known as the “seven sisters”.1  OPEC’s announcement of an embargo at the well had no impact on the enormous upstream reserves held by the mainly American majors. However, it did provide the pretext for massive price increases at the pump — presented as shortage-induced.2

Unnoticed except in the aftermath and ignored generally in popular debate or historical literature was the far more insidious deal made secretly while everyone from Bonn to Boston and Lyon to Los Angeles was queuing for petrol or the dole. In 1971 Richard Nixon had announced that the US dollar would no longer be redeemable for gold — at any price. This decision had been largely induced by the enormous debt incurred funding the US war against Vietnam. In the course of this fateful decision, secret negotiations were undertaken with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which led to an agreement that Saudi Arabia and OPEC would not sell oil in any currency except US dollars. The oil crisis pushed the price of oil to such heights that many countries in Europe and especially the newly independent countries, soon exhausted their foreign exchange reserves and were compelled to borrow US dollars to pay for oil imports. The result was a boom for the US regime; e.g., oil and banking — not its ordinary citizens — as the demand for US currency led to an inflow of foreign exchange and an overall improvement in its current accounts. Meanwhile the US Treasury could literally print dollars to buy oil — when the time was right.

Even today this story is told in a way to cast aspersions on the Arab states — although all the major oil-producing Arab states involved were and are entirely dependent upon the Anglo-American Empire and its military force for their very survival. It is a false parable used to exaggerate the innocence or helplessness of the settler-colonial state “surrounded” by “ragheads” instead of “redskins” who have all the oil, while poor Israel only has atomic bombs and the biggest foreign aid subsidy per capita of any country the US funds.

Why do I take the trouble here to recount history, which is or ought to be well known — at least to the historically literate?

It is worth recalling here that the Seven Sisters, as they were then called, are actually fewer now due to mergers. The upstream oil industry is still dominated by the Standard Oil companies (yes, Rockefeller; i.e., ExxonMobil) and their allies as well as the Rothschild-Nobel companies. Together they assure that oil prices and distribution are closely controlled — if not absolutely– and that the commerce in oil is billed in the leading currency of the Empire, the US dollar.

The Anglo-American Empire, amazingly similar in composition to the dream of Cecil Rhodes and his personal banker Lord Rothschild3, relies not only on oil and the financial transactions connected with it. There are two other major businesses that support the value of lead currencies, like the USD, GBP or even the EUR. They are war — and hence both legal and illegal arms sales — and drugs, both licit and illicit. All three “markets” are entirely controlled by cartels and state regulation. Moreover, they provide windfall profits because they are all addictive and toxic. That means the traders get money and the buyers get garbage.

Stemming from the 19th century Opium Wars, Great Britain became the biggest dope pusher in the world. The opium trade made the British East India Company shareholders and those who traded with and for it wealthy beyond compare.4  While the US American schoolchild may learn about the Boston Tea Party, in which a few ruffians dumped British East India Tea into the harbour as a protest against taxation like the Townshend Acts 5, they won’t learn that proud New England families not only funded the Ivy League colleges with slave trading but with the income from opium business.

It is essential to recall that every crime is simply the unauthorised version of an activity otherwise deemed legal. The difference between marriage with dowry and prostitution is simply the statute book. The difference between war and murder is the sovereign authorisation. Seagram (Bronfman) produced whiskey in Canada that was legal and sold it more profitably in the US during Prohibition where it was illegal. The leading pharmaceutical companies are the brothers of the heroin, cocaine and synthetics pushers. And between all these folks who are all just merchants, there is the State — the armed bureaucracy that regulates these businesses in accordance with the most powerful to permit each side of these businesses to extract the maximum profit — yes, from us.

That said, as I have written in previous articles6 , the question of history arises not from the need to find the “true past” but to answer questions in the present. It is the most urgent present question with which I have been preoccupied for the past six months. Why in a global system dominated by the religious ideology of Business and the absolute priority of “the economy” have we seen the leading authorities, autocratic and bureaucratic, suspend the “economy” and disregard Business because of a new, improved version of the seasonal influenza? There are rational and irrational explanations. That is because power may be understood rationally but those who hold and exercise it are often — if not always — clinically insane (it is just because they own the clinics and the doctors that no one can utter this diagnosis!).

Again I want to remind the impatient reader — who implicitly strains my patience by not reading or remembering anything longer than the last Facebook or Instagram post — that all meaningful organisational decisions are made in secret by those who have the most power in the organisation — whether it is the classroom in which you send your child to be bullied (or bully) or the workplace you freely attend to earn money to pay the bank for the privilege of living in whatever house they let you buy. If you work in a big enough company or institution your boss and the bank know what your credit future will be like before you do. But never mind this bit of mundane reality. The point is simply nothing of any importance is ever decided in public where you have anything to say about it.

Having gotten that embarrassing sentimentality out of the way, let us consider what has happened since March 2020.

Following events in China, the OPEC of the pharmaceutical cartel, aka the World Health Organisation (in an earlier article I also wrote that “witch-hunting” is also part of their job), performed some international bureaucratic gymnastics — like several years ago with the so-called “swine flu” — to declare a high grade pandemic phase alert.7

This decision was presented as some kind of service to public health — this euphemism is deliberately conflated with concern for the well-being of ordinary humans, but is nothing of the sort. To make this quite clear: most genuine public health issues arise from poor nutrition, vile working conditions, polluted air, water and food, and poverty.8  None of these “pathogens” is part of the WHO brief. The World Health Organisation was established solely to market Western medical products worldwide and at the most profitable rates possible. This means among other things by arranging that poor countries devote precious foreign exchange for the purchase of bulk pharmaceuticals of dubious value under the pretext of being able to treat their indigent populations for illnesses that are almost entirely due to poor nutrition, vile working conditions, polluted air, water and food, and poverty. Long before the Bush-Clinton clique promoted “humanitarian interventionism”, the WHO was poisoning the poor for humanitarian purposes (also known as eugenics).

N.B. anyone who has not grasped the consequences of the US regime’s ownership of the UN and its agencies should read the story of the UN in Korea and in the Congo for a start.9

But I am digressing if only slightly. OPEC has never included all the oil producing countries and it was only effective as a cartel because it had the deep, if covert, collaboration of the Anglo-American oil majors. Without the pumps — wholly controlled downstream by either Rockefeller or Rothschild/Nobel — Saudi oil would have been worthless. While we all imagine that oil is what drives our cars and heats our homes that is, in fact, a relatively minor and expendable part of the oil economy. Downstream the truly lucrative oil flows into petrochemicals; e.g., plastics, fertilizers, and guess what — pharmaceuticals! Indeed the oil business, which started with “snake oil”, has never left it. Petroleum, that stuff that sticks to duck feathers and suffocates fish is the same gooey slime that forms the basis of much of the medicine you take. Think about it a minute: Monsanto (now part of IG Farben legacy, Bayer AG10 started as a poison producer when the US Army panicked about a potential natural sugar shortage during the Great War and gave John Francis Queeny the inspiration to sell the US Government coal tar as a sweetener. Some readers may recall when saccharine was finally prohibited. However, it had been identified as a carcinogen already in the 1920s!

Pharmaceuticals — until the dawn of genetic manipulation, a largely petrochemical or opiate driven product stream — is an integral part of the triad that drives modern capitalism: drugs, oil and guns. The oil industry is tightly held; mainly by two dynastic groups. And surprise, surprise the drug industry is too — the successors to the Anglo-American opium trade dominate the licit pharmaceuticals side and the illicit opium-based and cocaine drug trade.11   Since these businesses cannot be regulated in boardrooms alone, more than occasional persuasion is needed. So guns are just as important. But the gun trade is a topic for another day.

So what happened in March, really? My previous observations and summaries have not yet been rebutted. Nonetheless, I do believe that beyond the obvious manifestations of the West’s confrontation with China, aside from the hyper-policing regime that is being created, there is a useful analogy which is perhaps more powerful than the US regime’s destruction of the New York World Trade Center buildings. That act of armed propaganda by other government agencies was certainly powerful in expanding the police and military power of the degenerate US Empire. However, like the US war against Vietnam it has been extremely expensive. All the president’s accountants and all the president’s lawyers have not been able to put Humpty Dumpty (at least not his bank account) together again.

So like those who tried to command Richard Nixon — and finally deposed him — the ruling class of the Anglo-American Empire is determined to eliminate another “Nixon” outsider (although Nixon always thought he really “belonged”) and restore order. Nixon, like the reigning POTUS, enjoyed wide popular support. However, he had lost the support of the Establishment (which has come to be called the “Deep State” so as to imply that there is no Establishment or to lend its overt members legitimacy while denying the means by which it actually exercises power). Nixon actually saved the Establishment but it did not want to be saved by an outsider. It did not want anyone outside its own exclusive circle. So a pretext was found — and he was dismissed. He knew that the alternative was a “Kennedy solution”.

The present POTUS has been trying to save the US regime from the antagonism of those it has abused both domestically and foreign. He has tried to harness the latent populism — what too many people confuse with “Left” — and channel it back into that revival tent in a way no Oreo Obama could have done — despite his Kennedy plagiarism.

But that is all really a sideshow for the financial disaster that the Reagan-Bush-Clinton dynasty (and its obscene scions in Britain and Germany) left the dying Anglo-American Empire. Nixon presided over the clever back channel negotiations to open China, bring Pepsi to the Soviet Union and save the USD by linking it to oil. Everything indicates that Trump has no clue of any of this — and no one is going to tell him either.

But the USD domination is under attack from all sides, by the weak and the strong. The Empire has been losing its wars but paying its bankers trillions and trillions for that privilege — beyond the capacity of anything the Empire can produce. Without a reinforced US dollar no one in the Empire can imagine the future.

So hark!  The sneeze heard around the world.

The WHO assumed the role OPEC played in 1973. It declared a global pandemic under the most spurious conditions with the full knowledge that this would not only permit a shutdown of the economy (for political and economic benefits I have detailed elsewhere) but to create something only logical — the Pharmadollar. To keep it poetic, we now have the three P’s of global monetary domination: pistol dollar, followed by the petrodollar and now the pharma-dollar.

An emerging and potentially infinite demand for pharmaceuticals — legal or illegal — safe or unsafe — will offer the Western pharmaceutical cartels untold and unlimited profits and because these are all countries working in the USD/EUR markets, together with the WHO, will be guaranteed potentially unlimited profit streams. So from the first circle of hell we descend into the fourth circle. Can we get any closer to damnation?

  1. Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters (1974.
  2. John M. Blair, The Control of Oil, 1976.
  3. To avoid confusion: Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild, 1840-1915.
  4. See John Newsinger, The Blood Never Dried, 2006, and Nick Robins, The Corporation that Changed the World, 2006.
  5. For readers not schooled in US mythology, the Townshend Acts (1767) were consumption taxes imposed on British North American colonies intended inter alia to defray the costs of defending the colonies with British troops. Every US school pupil learns that these were great injustices — because the colonials were not represented in the British parliament. What they do not learn is that the colonies were all run as business ventures for private profit and the use of British troops to protect private investment could not be seen as a charitable exercise by those who ran the British Empire from London. See Gerald Horne, The Counter-Revolution of 1776, (2014).
  6. The First Circle“, Dissident Voice, April 24, 2020 and others posted there since.
  7. See table:  WHO Pandemic Phase Descriptions and Main Actions by Phase; and video NewsBreak 81: Confirmed: COVID-19 Plandemic a Known, Live “Training & Simulation Exercise” under WHO.
  8. A popular misconception lies in the belief that the aim of Public Health as a discipline is human health. In fact, schools of public health; e.g., the first one funded by the Rockefeller fortune at Johns Hopkins University, now sponsored by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, were created to teach professionals how to protect the rich from the diseases of the poor. This was defined as a management objective, implemented either using business or military models of organisation. Many of the people involved in terrorising the population as representatives of health departments or public health agencies are not physicians but professional managers of healthcare facilities and products. However, since our society has been trained to believe economists and business executives like those of the Middle Ages believed priests, it is virtually impossible to break the power of the medical fetishes these managers hold. See E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller’s Medicine Men (1979).
  9. See Bruce Cumings extensive scholarship on the Korean War, especially his two volume Origins of the Korean War (1981) but also his shorter derivative work and/or watch the Thames TV documentary Korea: The Unknown WarFor the treacherous role of the UN in the Congo:  Ludo de Witte (2002).
  10. After Mr William “Bill” Gates III made substantial investments in the entity. IG Farben was the German international chemicals and pharmaceuticals cartel that was technically divested by order of the US Military Government in Germany for its participation in war crimes under the NSDAP regime. In a fashion not unlike the US divestment order dissolving the Standard Oil trust, IG Farben was “punished” as a holding entity (1952) but its constituent corporations were reconstituted with immunity because they had not existed separately under the National Socialist regime, Bayer, Hoechst, BASF, Agfa, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, and Chemische Fabrik vorm. Weiler Ter Meer.
  11. For a good overview of the US regime’s international drug market management system, see Douglas Valentine, The Strength of the Wolf (2004) and The Strength of the Pack (2009) and its integration into the national security (Phoenix) state, The CIA as Organised Crime (2016).  A declassified OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA) report summarises the use of opium by the Japanese as a weapon of war. When the US entered Southeast Asia after Japanese withdrawal, they adopted the Japanese business model, Opium: A Japanese Technique of Occupation (1945) prepared by Mrs Katherine Lyman.

The post The Fourth Circle first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Confess to Covid: just short of witch burning

English propaganda poster by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, London 1915 (Wikipedia Commons)

Despite the lamentations and orders from Geneva or the local capitals of Capital, I refuse to believe that COVID-19 or the putative pathogens are a principal challenge to humanity — except for those using these viruses for policing and/or culling the population.

Instead I find we are in a situation not unlike that which led to the notorious Non-Aggression Pact concluded between the German Empire under NSDAP rule and the USSR. It is completely understandable that China and Russia want to avoid open war with the Anglo-American Empire. However, we in the West must be honest about the criminals that rule us. Just as they did a century ago — and, in fact, throughout the 20th century — they are preparing a war that will “neutralise” millions on the planet. I leave it to the imagination as to the substance of this euphemism.

So much noise is being made about a vaccine. This is noise but not meaningless noise.

There was a Covid “vaccine” on the shelf before the pathogen was released. By that I do not mean that there was a “cure” or a prophylactic. That would be to mistake the true nature of the “vaccine”. As I wrote in an earlier article what we have is the introduction of a new religious regime.1 Instead of the “sin” and “heresy” terms long abandoned by all except the most primitive Christian sects, we have “infection” and “denial of the disease/resistance to the so-called health measures”.

It is entirely unimportant whether a vaccine does anything at all. The only important quality is that it be distinctive enough so that standard issue chemists/physicians recognize it as a product they are willing to distribute. This has been assured by the years of indoctrination of the medical profession to obey its masters in the pharma/chemicals cartel.

The important — and lethal, in social terms — power of the vaccine is that it takes the place of auricular confession and indulgences, for centuries the stock and trade of Christianity. Here it is irrelevant whether one is Catholic and uses a confessional or Protestant and testifies to the congregation. Beginning with the AIDS campaign, the forces — led in the field by Fauci, the CDC and NIH — for viral warfare discovered that they could create and manipulate social stigmatism by associating it with alleged health hazards (somehow this was never used against DuPont or Monsanto…) They were able to create a microcosm of moral terror against homosexuals based on “health risk”, rather than old time religion.

This same strategy was modified and has been rolled out worldwide. Hence the greatest policing forces for vaccination (what James Corbett et al. call “medical martial law are not the uniformed services but the private sector and most of all, your neighbour. This is ultimately a religious restructuring of the society based on ancient methods — not so ironically promoted by a man who spent his entire education under the control of Jesuits.2

Just as no one can see if god actually granted absolution (or even cared about the alleged sins committed) no one can see — except the clergy — if you are really a sinner and whether you have been saved by absolution through the needle (or patch). But failure to prove that you have been in the confessional or have obtained either absolution or an indulgence will be sufficient to risk being outlawed or in historical Catholic terms, excommunicated. In the Middle Ages, excommunication meant one was denied the right to property, life or anything. Food, shelter, and protection could be denied. One could be robbed or killed with impunity.

Most recently decrees have been promulgated that children must wear masks in school. While it is impossible to deny that COVID has virtually no effect on children, they have been defined as health risks to the adult population. These little creatures although not ill are all potential transmitters of the dreaded pathogens. Yet the real reason for designating children from ages 6 to 11, as “carriers” is nothing more than an alibi for a practice the Church understood centuries ago. Successful indoctrination has to begin before the age of seven. Even the alternative pedagogy of Rudolf Steiner, popular in Germany, is based on “seven-year” cycles. The ideological foundations have to be laid by age seven and boosted by age 14.

Most of the West believes that the paramountcy of “science” meant an abandonment of religion and superstition. The adoption of science as an ideology had little to do with replacing either.3   Although the entire campaign against the pseudo-pandemic was initiated and is managed from the US — with the WHO as cut-out4 — very little attention is paid to the way fundamental power transformations have been made in the most religious country in the world — the USA. Even sober analysts are distracted by such circuses as the POTUS election cycle. These circuses are symptoms mistaken for causes.

Because there is a widespread and mistaken belief that “science” prevails over religion as a basis of knowledge, the religious use of science and the exercise of clerical power are not recognized, let alone discussed.5 Children were taught by the Church to denounce their parents to the Inquisition. The culture of denunciation was always a central part of Church power and we see it reintroduced today in broad daylight with barely a bark.

Along with the “vaccine race” there is also the so-called coviPass scenario. Each vassal regime is to issue a certificate of vaccination/immunisation. It sounds like the WHO vaccination book travellers take when they leave Europe or North America for the “jungle”. According to this scenario normal life; e.g., leaving one’s residential cell, travel, employment in conventional workplaces, and use of public facilities (although most of these have meanwhile been privatised) will be granted to those who submit to the vaccine(s) and surveillance.

However, there is no more normal life for the permanently unemployed, the bankrupt, and the homeless; in short, all those whom this action has ruined or will ruin economically.

Hence only people who have a “normal life” will be able to return. The rest will have lost it. Hence whatever life they may be permitted to have, if any, will be subject to prescription by the viral inquisition, dependent on favour or chance.

At the end of July it was announced that 180,000 enterprises collapsed in Portugal alone. That does not count the chain reaction those collapses will cause: not only in unemployment but the ruin of other firms in the supply chain.

180,000 bankrupt firms means conservatively 540,000 unemployed, in addition to those unemployed already under-counted. This is a potential unemployment of 1-2 million in a country with a workforce of about 5 million. Exact government statistics are only available for COVID infections, so estimates here will have to suffice.

Tax receipts have already dropped drastically which also means that the banks will squeeze more out of the State; i.e., budget cuts, leaving next to nothing but promises for those without jobs and uncertainty for those who have them. Portuguese wages range between EUR 500 and 2,000 per month for ordinary work, i.e. about half of what Germans earn (but for a 6-day week and 10-hour day). Of course, the cost of living in Germany is high for ordinary workers too. It is only a certain trained sense of superiority that leads workers in Northern Europe to believe they are and will be better off with 250,000 bankruptcies — and counting.

Similar conditions can be expected among the other so-called PIGS, especially since these countries scarcely recovered from the imposed bankruptcy of 2008.6 Yet none of this counts in the Big Picture, solely dedicated to sustaining the COVID illusion.

The indulgence or similar instrument issued by the Church ostensibly certified the forgiveness of god, divine grace. Of course, it was only a license sold for pecuniary and penitentiary benefit. This is what the vaccine together with any “CoviPass” will be. The attention devoted to medical efficacy is a distraction. A vaccine need not do anything. There is no way to prove that one has been protected or cured — except to believe the authorities. All your neighbours and/or their children will be sure that you confess your sins — because the wages of sin are death.

  1. Privacy, Auricular Confession and Computer Viruses, Dissident Voice, 25 May 2020.
  2. Anthony Fauci, who despite Donald Trump’s attempts to subordinate him, remains the virus primate in the church of disease, graduated from a Jesuit high school and the Jesuit foundation College of the Holy Cross.
  3. The Marginalist Counter-Revolution, Dissident Voice, 21  July 2020.
  4. It is an unpleasant fact that even the Left is reluctant to acknowledge but the entire UN System is organised based on Anglo-American corporation law. The real decisions — the ones that count — are made by those who own the majority of shares or the controlling shares in the entity. This translates into a US majority in the Bretton Woods machine (IMF/World Bank) and the UN agencies where the US regime pays the greater part of the budget (e.g. personnel expense). This means that no “well-managed” UN agency can act in ways that would lead to reduction or elimination of funding. It is a matter of public record that the USG and BMGF are the single most important funders of the WHO. This is not merely because of the amount of funding but the fact that no other individual source, whether one or more national contributors, have equal or greater power over the majority shareholders. If more people understood how corporations are ruled, in fact, they would not be deceived by the appearance that the US is just one of nearly 200 nations represented in the UN organisation.
  5. Henry C Lea, Superstition and Force, 1970. In fact, the idea that arguments could be won or guilt could be proven by scientific evidence is a very recent arrival in Western culture. Despite the popular TV and cinema depictions of supposedly “scientific” investigation, the presumption that the authorities are justified and correct in their accusations or hypotheses is so strong that evidence is presented as the task of affirming the official story, not discovering the truth.
  6. Since everything that ever happened prior to March 2020 has been erased from historical memory — well almost — it should be recalled that PIGS was the common abbreviation used in the mass media to identify Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the countries most seriously plundered by the 2008 financial coup.

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.