Saturday, 28 September 2013
by Robert Edwards - ESA No 48 - Sept/Oct 2013
In his book, Mosley - Right or Wrong?, Sir Oswald Mosley made his views on race perfectly clear when he stated, “The first thing to note is that races are different - I say different from one another, mark you, not superior to one another”.
Many misguided racial supremacists, have been led up the garden path, however, and had adopted the concept of Nordic superiority and the absurd idea that only the Nordic is creative. The Scandinavians of the 9th century are remembered as the feared Vikings of the seas but today are the pacifist exponents of democracy, pornography and liberalism. Nordicism is a very narrow concept based more on sentimental attachment to the past than on any real scientific evidence. They talk of “our Nordic race” when, in fact, Nordics are simply a type and not a race.
The idea that a Herrenvolk should be characterised by blondness of hair, blue eyes and tallness of stature is a misleading interpretation of National Socialist doctrine. This exaggerated Nordicism was promoted quite independently of the German NSDAP by the eccentric Hans Guenther. Other Nordic theorists were even more barmy and an embarrassment to the National Socialist movement.
The nonsense that the Nordic was a special gift of creation and that they even created Chinese culture was tame stuff compared to some of the wilder notions in this superiority theory.
Would you believe that a Karl Weinländer proclaimed that an infusion of “Nordic blood” promoted rapid good health, whereas, a transfusion of “Jewish blood” would kill a patient.
The idea that all creativity stems from the Nordic would imply that anyone creative must be Nordic ... tall, blond and blue-eyed.
One could fill all the pages in this publication with the names of the greatest in European history and very few would qualify as being Nordic. It is very easy to laugh at this claptrap and, indeed, it has been jumped on by the Hollywood film mafia as representing the official race theory of National Socialist Germany and thus a grotesque caricature.
It should be suffice to state that Hitler had no truck with these ridiculous theories and talked only of ‘Aryans’ without being at all specific regarding physical type.
We can assume from that, that he was referring to all Europeans, regardless of colour of hair and eyes or stature. He made this clear at Nuremberg at a party rally in 1933 where he said, “We do not conclude from a man’s physical type his ability but, rather, from his achievements his race”.
This is a far cry from the rubbish involving cephalic indices and blondness.
An intelligent race theory requires a far broader perspective and an appreciation of other races, people and civilisations. We share this planet with many diversely different groups of people with whom we need to communicate and understand. To do otherwise is a great folly, for we would only isolate ourselves and reduce the chances for greater opportunities in the wider world..
No race is inferior or superior to another. We must establish this fact if we are ever to be taken seriously with a wider audience. That does not diminish the love and worth we place upon our own race, the European race.
We must acknowledge the great achievements of other peoples down the ages and not insult them with nonsense about superiority.
The contributions of the early Egyptians or the civilisations of Sumaria, of Babylonia, of Phœnicia or the Chinese, have been of immeasurable significance. As Arnold Toynbee pointed out in his Study of History, the Nordics have contributed only to four or five of Mankind’s twenty one great civilisations ... in contrast, the peoples of the Mediterranean have contributed to ten. The Arab Empire extended from Spain right across to China while Europe lived in the Dark Ages.
The greatest empire builder was the Greek [Macedonian] Alexander the Great who spread Greek culture to many parts of the world. He was undefeated in battle and regarded as one of the most successful commanders in world history. Such was his fame, twenty cities he founded all bore his name ... Alexandria in Egypt for one.
Many military academies around the world still teach his tactics.
But Alexander the Great was not a Nordic. He was from the Mediterranean. The ancient Greeks were an ‘Aryan’ people whose achievements easily outshone those of the Nordics. After all, Classic Greece is regarded, justifiably, as the cradle of European civilisation.
Dr Ludwig Eckstein from the headquarters of the Reichsführer SS encapsulated this view towards the end of the Second World War with:
“While supporting our own race and, if necessary, fighting against other races to protect its right to exist, we should not overlook the fact that almost all other races display something in themselves that is sound and biologically resolved and is therefore BEAUTIFUL, NATURAL and VALUABLE. ... each race carries first of all the measure of worth in itself.
When once we understand this then we do not foster feelings of inferiority in others, a consequence the hitherto existing race theories have too often achieved”.
This was a far more mature approach to the race issue and a lesson many still need to learn today.
Hatred is borne of fear and has no place in our racial consciousness, where we stand firm and confident regarding the great achievements of our own people ... no more than the achievements of others.
We need to fear nothing when we adopt this maturity of thinking, for then other races and peoples would regard us with respect while, at the same time, dealing a powerful blow at the mistaken and misbegotten slurs our traditional enemy has thrown at us.
Race is an ideal ... A COMMUNITY OF BLOOD IN A COMMON HOMELAND.
It provides us with our character in a collective expression. It is the same with all races and we must foster this ideal for all Mankind. Only then can some order be put back into the world and our destiny as Europeans fulfilled.
copyright©2013 Robert Edwards
Saturday, 14 September 2013
The United States is both feared and hated throughout the world. That should be self-evident. No nation has wielded such power since the dawn of human history, in terms of military hardware and advanced technical expertise.
“American interests” determine policy and anyone that stands in the way of these interests is in very serious danger.
|The United States: World Enemy Number One|
America persecutes its dissidents mercilessly and will hunt them down obsessively. The recent case of Edward Snowden is the latest example. Like Bradley Manning before him, Snowden exposed the criminal nature of the United States, the illegality at its very core.
Instead of studying the message within these exposures, they decided to “shoot the messenger”. Is it treason to speak the truth, especially where a crime is committed, and to let the whole world know the United States is run by evil, wicked men?
How can the United States regard as property, material they have acquired illegally? Spying on people entails stealing personal details without the owner’s knowledge or consent. Snowden is not the criminal in this case.
The moral argument is always paramount in these cases and those who stand for rights and justice against tyranny are the heroes and champions.
Bradley Manning is one of those rare heroes whose conscience determined his actions. Who can forget that footage taken from a helicopter gunship in Iraq, murdering Iraqi civilians and journalists by firing on them indiscriminately? Over the intercom we heard a colleague urging on the man on the trigger to kill more. We all saw it and we should be sickened by it. A one off? No way. American society is obsessed with gun ownership and the compulsion to shoot something or someone. I recall, in the early days of the Iraqi occupation, US soldiers using the phrase “turkey shoot”. It was a reference to the murderous activities of these US soldiers in Iraq, terrorising the population, torturing and murdering them. These soldiers are psychopaths and they are trained to become psychopaths. It is the reason so many discharged soldiers later suffer from mental illness. Their consciences weigh very heavily just a little while later and all they have are memories of the atrocities in which they were involved or party to. British soldiers suffer the same way.
All of this is condoned by the US Administration. Extraordinary rendition, one of those American gobble-de-gook phrases, a euphemism for torturing someone using the facilities of another country, is sanctioned by the state. A former aide to George W. Bush said without these methods, including water-boarding, they would not have advanced so quickly. A man under torture will say anything to stop the cruel torment. It is acknowledged under International Law that torture is unacceptable. More than that, the results from torture are never reliable.
So why do they do it? Because they can? Because they are sadistic psychopaths? Probably. Only a psychopath could behave that way.
United States foreign policy is based on permanent war. It is the neo-con strategy for imposing “freedom and democracy” on the rest of the world. Dreamed up by a gang of Jewish former Trotskyites, they took their global/internationalist perspective onto a different level. From the permanent revolution of their student days to permanent war as US policy.
There is also big money in war. The bigger the war, and the more destruction, the bigger the rewards. Not only the spoils of war in terms of natural resources but the big contracts for rebuilding the infrastructure. Then there is this massive armaments industry and all the people involved in it. The military/industrial complex describes this partnership between big money and the means to terrorise the world. It is the greatest threat to world peace.
Another aspect to American criminality is the systematic rape of Iraqi women by US soldiers. This is, perhaps, the most degrading act anyone could endure. We know of these rapes through the egotistical custom of filming these crimes as a kind of trophy. It is more commonplace than we would like to admit.
Rape as a weapon of war was Stalin’s policy in 1945 as Russians swept across East Prussia and on to Berlin. It was motivated solely by revenge. The many rapes and other sexual abuse perpetrated by the US Army were of a different nature.
In March 2006, four US soldiers raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, murdering her and her entire family ... a 5 year old child included. A cover-up ensued, concealing the presence of two child victims.
The world was earlier shocked on learning the abuses conducted within the walls of Abu Ghraib prison in 2004. The US commander of the prison was suspended but refused to shoulder all the blame for the inhuman treatment of prisoners there. She implicated the CIA and private US government contractors in the beatings and torture of inmates, as well as the rape of Iraqi women.
The CIA link is the most interesting here. A commander of a Military Police Brigade revealed a directive from the Military Intelligence and the CIA that focused on successful interrogations. It was no coincidence that only weeks before the Abu Ghraib abuses occurred, a team of CIA, Military Intelligence and private contractors under US authority entered Abu Ghraib with their “main and specific mission to give the interrogators new techniques to get more information from detainees”.
CBS News released the photographs showing torture and sexual abuse at the prison. Iraqi POWs were sexually assaulted using objects such as truncheons. President Obama was instrumental in blocking the release of thousands of photographs depicting every indecency, abuse, torture and rape.
Of the photographs that were released, one shows a US soldier raping a female prisoner while another shows the rape of a male prisoner by a male translator.
The Daily Telegraph offered an explanation for the suppression of about 2,000 other photographs taken at Abu Ghraib after interviewing the former army officer who headed the inquiry into Abu Ghraib. The newspaper commented, “the graphic nature of some of the images may explain President Obama’s attempts to block the release of over 2.000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published”.
Obama changed his mind on releasing the photographs because he believed the safety of US soldiers would be at risk. He said, “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger”.
This concealment of American criminal activity in both Iraq and Afghanistan is also linked to the United States refusal to sign up to the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
The existence of the facility at Guantanamo Bay is also illegal under International Law. Men are imprisoned there for years without charge or trial. It is a blatant suspension of habeas corpus. These men are also tortured regularly.
When Obama cried about “inflaming anti-American public opinion” over the release of graphic photos depicting torture and rape, he is clearly helpless over the continuing abuse of human rights going on in Guantanamo Bay ... or Gitmo, as it is affectionately called.
This attempt to conceal the ugly, dark side of the American government’s internal and external activities has created a shadow government that cares nothing for the sensibilities, rights or humanity of others. It is, literally, if you are not with us ... then you are ... dead!
Secrecy is more important than justice to the US secret state. People like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden acted morally ... they did the right thing. People prefer transparency and honesty to being spied on without knowing it.
Some of us in the long political struggle are not too surprised. In fact, we are so conditioned that we talk on the phone with that possibility of it being “tapped” ever present. It is not paranoia because the secret state has been doing it since the days of Alexander Graham Bell. They used to mainly target troublesome trades unionists and left wing politicians who had a liking for the Soviet Union. According to the facts emerging from the NSA and GCHQ, we are now all targets of the secret state, whether you are a trade unionist or a lefty MP. Social control must be total.
The American excuse that releasing all this information threatens national security does not hold water. What this does, though, is something far more valuable. It exposes evil. It exposes the hard faced men behind the scenes.
In retrospect, our relationship with the United States has been disastrous for both us and the rest of Europe. The Cold War was marked, again, by American interests and the “Merkan way of life”. We became Americanised and British Prime Ministers became lap dogs to the Ugly American in charge of the Oval Office.
Nikita Krushchev offered an olive branch in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War. He told the Americans that the Russians would withdraw all Soviet forces from Eastern Europe if the Americans would do the same in Western Europe. The United States turned him down.
They wanted to keep their bases in Britain and in Western Germany. They were just getting the taste for imperialism and sending troops around the world ... to Korea and to Indo-China. They were ‘anti-communist’ and were using it as a bogeyman to scare people, just as they promote this bogus war on terrorism today. America is the real terrorist. The real problem has always been the United States and its policy of permanent war.
Our natural ally is to the East, as part of our continental land mass. Russia is an advanced civilised power, rich in culture and intensely proud of its achievements. Its people are naturally friendly and courteous. Have you ever heard an American be polite, apart from the insincere and ubiquitous “have a nice day”? It is in their bastardised language, this slack disregard for the feelings of others ... demonstrated in their foreign policy and the way they treat non-Americans.
Our other natural ally is in the Muslim world and a religion that opposes usury and therefore is the deadliest enemy of debt slavery.
Anyone who opposes usury and debt slavery is on the right path. It is the curse of the entire world and the greatest challenge of today.
copyright©2013 Robert Edwards
Monday, 8 July 2013
ESA No 45
To be the perfect Marxist you would need to take on all of Karl Marx’s opinions and ideas ... and not simply The Communist Manifesto and the complete text of Das Kapital. For Marx was far more than the revolutionary economist and theorist. He was a man of his time and his own personal and family circumstances.
For example, he was not Karl Marx the Jew, as right wing reactionaries have dubbed him in an attempt at identifying him as part of a cosmopolitan international conspiracy. To Adolf Hitler, for example, he was “the Jew Karl Marx”.
His father had converted to Lutheranism before Karl Marx was born and so the future revolutionary theorist would have known nothing of the Jewish belief system until much later into his life and only then in complete opposition to it.
Marx was of Jewish extraction but he was not a Jew. This is a phenomenon that was more widespread than acknowledged. There is a long tradition of apostasy which continues today with men like Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon who have reacted aggressively to the Jewish mindset and set themselves the task of exposing its more contentious aspects. Israel Shamir has explained he had shed his Jewishness, like a snake sheds its skin, and then converted to Coptic Christianity, one of the earliest expressions of the first Christian churches. His apostasy is complete and cemented by his outspoken views on the Zionist state and all the trappings of Jewish supremacism that go with it. Gilad Atzmon started out as a fervent nationalistic Israeli Zionist and then turned on it with a ferocity so often associated with the convert. He now lives in London.
Karl Marx was none of these things. His father was the apostate and the son was born into a Lutheran upbringing, the Jewish background, or “heritage” as it is now called, being a mere detail of ancestry. So Karl Marx was never a Jew, in the sense that he did not possess the mindset of a Jew. He was baptised at six.
Political opponents at the time liked to make references to Marx’s perceived “Jewishness”. For example, the anarchist Bakunin, who had collaborated with him, wrote on Marx, “Himself a Jew, he attracts, whether in London or in France, but especially in Germany, a whole heap of Yids, more or less intelligent, intriguers, busybodies and speculators, as the Jews are likely to be, commercial and bank agents, writers ... correspondents ... who stand one foot in the world of finance and the other in socialism”.
As much as Marx denied being Jewish, the more his critics and opponents insisted he was a Jew, attributing Jewish traits to his ideas. According to Robert Weltsch, editor of Jüdische Rundschau from 1919-1938 and a prominent German Zionist who used the slogan in his paper, “wear it with pride - the yellow badge”, in response to the Nazi boycott of Jewish shops, “It can be said that his Jewish origin has been stressed more by those who regard him as a disaster for mankind than by those who see in him as one of the blessed pioneers of a new era of human existence”. There were exceptions to this rule.
The German Marxist, Otto Rühle, (1874-1943) held a different, less charitable, explanation with, “As soon as he began to come into contact with the Gentile world and was intelligent enough to make comparisons, it was inevitable that he should feel his Jewish origin to be a disadvantage, a shackle upon his aspirations ... declaring himself before all the world not to be a Jew ... but one who takes so much trouble to declare that he is not a Jew must have reason for being afraid of being regarded as a Jew”.
Marx’s Jewish origins were a matter of indifference to himself, however.
In 1843, a German historian and close friend of Marx, Bruno Bauer, published a book titled The Jewish Question ... or Die Judenfrage in German ... which proposed the abolition of religion, leading to the emancipation of Jews in Germany and Prussia in particular. He believed only a secular state could lead to this freedom, with all religion eradicated. Prussia was very much a Christian state, restricting the rights of Jews. Perhaps this ‘detail of history’ contributed largely to the abolition of Prussia after 1945 by the victors of war.
Marx responded immediately to Bauer with his On The Jewish Question (written in 1843 and published in 1844), containing some controversial opinions that would be deemed anti-Semitic today. Marx disliked Judaism as a secular religion and made that very clear. The concept of ‘anti-Semitism’ did not exist in those days, it should be understood, and antipathy towards Jews was more or less the norm, Marx being no exception in that respect.
In his response to Bauer he wrote, “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew - not the sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look at the secret of the Jew in his religion but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? *Huckstering, What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time”.
Where Bauer calls for the abolition of all religion in a secular state as the way forward to the emancipation of the Jews, Marx called for the Jew to first emancipate himself, to rid himself of his nature as a Jew through his secular religion of Judaism.
Marx then went on to state, “We recognise in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”.
But Bauer in his The Jewish Question is no less an “anti-Semite” than Karl Marx.
Bauer writes on page 114, “The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe”.
To which Marx responds, “This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews”.
Marx is a prophet of our Modern Age insofar that he recognises the origins of American capitalism, in particular. They are Jewish, he says.
He quotes a certain Captain Hamilton (Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and the 1st US Secretary of the Treasury): “The devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoön who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view, the world is no more than a Stock Exchange and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour ...”.
Was Marx simply using Bauer’s essay Die Judenfrage as an excuse for espousing his own particular brand of anti-Semitism because, in today’s terms, that is what it is. If you place the Jews in a bad light then you are an anti-Semite, by definition.
He is right in criticising Bauer’s mistaken claim that a secular state would abolish religion. It did nothing of the sort in the United States which has no state religion. In reality, religions flourished there more than anywhere else. The American religious Right, along with the Zionist Christians, in the United States exert enormous influence in this secular state.
Religions exist side by side more comfortably in a secular state. They did so in Syria under President Assad, before the West and Saudi Arabia supported a violent rebellion composed of mercenaries and terrorists. The Christian community, in particular, was protected by Assad, himself of a Shia sect. The rebels very soon set about desecrating the objects of other religions while the West turned a blind eye to their atrocities.
It was Marx’s view that the secular state is not a threat to the existence of religions. His answer to the “Jewish problem” was that, in the case of the Jews, emancipation must first come from within.
Marx had not achieved the completion of his now famous critiques of capitalism that subsequently made him widely known as an economist of some gravitas. It is said that the conclusions he arrived at within On The Jewish Question set the tone for his anti-capitalism and related theories on economic inequality.
If the foundations of Marxism are based firmly on his anti-Semitism in On The Jewish Question, discussed here, then surely all those who call themselves Marxists need to rethink their position. The same goes for the anti-Marxists who attack the “Jew Karl Marx” for simply being a Jew and the claim that Marxism is somehow Jewish. It is clearly not, based on the text of On The Jewish Question.
Towards the end of his essay he wrote, “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other gods exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. Money is the self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world — both the world of men and nature. The god of the Jews has become secularised and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusionary bill of exchange”.
copyright © Robert Edwards 2013
Thursday, 7 March 2013
|Binjamin Netanyahu, the butcher of Gaza|
Dare I say, far worse than the Jewish Holocaust of the 20th century, eventually brought to a finality in 1945. The suffering of the Palestinian people which began in 1948 at the time of the Catastrophe, Al Nakba in Arabic, has gone on for nearly 65 years, for as long as I have lived, in fact.
It is the time scale of suffering that exceeds that of the Jewish tragedy that compels me to describe the persecution of the Palestinians as of greater significance and importance than the Jewish Holocaust, even with the iconic gas chambers left out of the equation.
There is a connection, however. It concerns the way the state of Israel was founded and planted upon an indigenous people, that of historic Palestine. Zionism as a political philosophy is an idea first hatched in the 19th century. It was based on a complete rejection of European society which these secular Jews decided was afflicted with an incurable disease called “anti-Semitism”, a disease being regarded as a pathological condition of the Gentiles. Of course, anti-Semitism is a modern false construct, a misnomer, since the term ‘Semitic’ refers to a family of languages and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
Thus was born the idea of a homeland for the Jews. But where and how? These early Zionists were largely secular Jews and were essentially political, not religious. However, they were not above exploiting religious myth for their own secular ends and the Book provided all that. Biblical prophesy became a weapon in their secular arsenal. They would say, “I may not believe in God but, nevertheless, He gave us the Promised Land”. Such chicanery and double-speak has characterised Zionism up to the present day. Remember, it was God that cast the Jews out of Israel for their transgressions against it and the Western governments put them back!
The Balfour Declaration offered the Jews a homeland in Palestine with the proviso that the rights of the Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, be given due consideration and their rights preserved. The sites of the three Abrahamic religions were to be respected. But the Jewish Holocaust in Central Europe was to hand the Zionists the greatest gift in terms of an awful alibi in the theft of Palestinian land and the dreadful treatment of the occupants.
Zionist terror was absolute as a consequence of the emotional blackmail associated with the Jewish Holocaust. The Zionists believed they could act with impunity. They still do.
Under the British mandate, Zionist terror gangs waged war on the British soldiers not long after the war against Germany. Our soldiers were ironically labelled “Nazis”, to die at the hands of Jewish terrorist gangs. Some of our soldiers were kidnapped, tortured and then their bodies left hanging, booby-trapped with high explosives for their unwitting comrades.
Menachem Begin, a leader of the Stern Gang and, later, an Israeli Prime Minister, wrote in his autobiography, “The blowing up of the King David Hotel was the highlight of my career”.
The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Army at the time. Casualties included many innocent civilians.
This was how the State of Israel came into being, with the massacres in Arab villages and the torture of young British soldiers carrying out their duties under the British mandate. Behind it, of course, was a powerful Jewish lobby in the United States, the same lobby that pressurised President Truman to tell the British to get out at a time of uncertainty and turmoil. Then the Haganah (the Jewish paramilitary organisation that was the embryonic Israeli Defence Force) and the various Jewish terrorist groups had full rein to commit the vilest of atrocities resulting in the displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their ancestral homes.
The Israelis could not have succeeded without two factors. The first was the support from the powerful and wealthy Jewish lobby in the United States, virtually pulling the strings of successive American presidents, as much as they do today. Secondly, the memory of the Jewish Holocaust, perhaps one of the most potent of modern-day episodes in human history that has become an icon of human suffering. If it were that alone, there would be much to be said for it. If it were recognised as one among many human tragedies then it would have its rightful place in our hearts.
This was not the case with Israel and world Zionism. The Zionists claimed it was unique in world history and, thus, other tragedies were not worth a glance over the shoulder. The plight of the Palestinians was a consequence of this mindset, giving the Israelis an impunity with the Holocaust as the backdrop to all its actions ... “Anyone who criticises us is an anti-Semite and a Nazi”. The Holocaust was to be used as a playing card in the game of international power politics and it served their purposes very effectively for many decades, now wearing a bit thin with its gloss considerably tarnished. It no longer serves as an alibi for so many human rights violations.
The irony is that it was the Zionists who, not only behaved like Nazis, but based their own world view on that of Jewish supremacism. The kind of supremacism that made the German Herrenvolk beliefs seem almost modest in terms of a national or racial pride.
Never mind the Menachem Begins or the Ariel Sharons (the butcher of the Palestinian camps in Lebanon), we have now become familiar with their worthy successor in the world of Israeli Jewish supremacism, Binjamin Netanyahu, perhaps one of the most hawkish and uncompromising exponents of Israeli expansionism ever to walk the stage of Israeli politics.
Netanyahu believes in the superiority of his people over all others. What you get today is not the wounded look of a Holocaust survivor who feigns victimhood in a seemingly friendless world full of “anti-Semitic” perils. Oh, no. Netanyahu dispenses with all that tosh. What we see today is the final stage of Israeli Zionist evolution in political terms ... the totally self-confident Zionist expansionist who does not give a stuff what the rest of the world thinks of what he says or does.
The attacks upon Gaza with all the modern weaponry that the American tax dollar can buy are carried out ruthlessly. The blockade of Gaza serves no military objective with the only possible result that the poor people of Gaza, men, women and children, suffer hunger, the cold and bad health. It is inhuman and against international law.
Aid ships carrying nothing more than medical supplies and children’s books have been attacked by armed Israeli soldiers with the resultant deaths of unarmed civilians, with others arrested and imprisoned in Israeli gaols. Some have disappeared.
The man behind all of these actions is Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of a coalition consisting of the most extreme elements in Israeli politics. The Shas Party, for example, has called for the liquidation of the Arabs.
There is an enormous differential in terms of the lethal military power between the Israelis and that of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have no army, navy or air force, for a start. They are completely under an occupation that does not hesitate to use the mailed fist in an indiscriminate way, attacking children, hospitals and schools. They commit these atrocities knowing they have the protection of the United States through the political clout of the Jewish lobby in the form of the powerful AIPAC.
Recently, during the last Israeli offensive in Gaza, the Zionists killed two Palestinian journalists, their target being a media station, the al-Aqsa television facility. A two-year old boy across the street also died. All in all, more than 170 Palestinians died during these acts of aggression ... with six Israelis losing their lives in responsive rocket attacks.
Responding to criticism of the illegal building of Jewish settler homes within Palestinian territory, Binjamin Netanyahu said, “We live in a Jewish state and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Western Wall is not occupied territory. We will build in Jerusalem because this is our right. What the UN says doesn’t interest me”.
Fourteen members of the UN Security Council had condemned Israel for the construction of new settler homes while the United States, uncharacteristically, accused the Zionists of “engaging in a pattern of provocative action”.
The continued building of Jewish settler homes is, of course, provocative but, more than that, it is a strategy that puts up very clear obstacles to peace. Even though the United States has pronounced these illegal actions to be “provocative”, the US State Department, in the person of Victoria Nuland, explained that the US Administration “would not support a proposal for a Security Council resolution being discussed in preliminary talks in response to the plan for Israeli settlements”.
She said, “I don’t think we think that is a helpful step at this point”. Which is diplomat-speak for “We support Israel whatever Netanyahu says or does”.
The Palestinians, under the direction of Mahoud Abbas, responded through Nabil Abu Rudeina, with the words, “The Palestinian Authority is to take important and necessary measures against Israel’s settlement building, including recourse to the UN Security Council, to prevent implementation of these decisions”.
Now the Palestinians have UN observer status, they are able to draw on the support of the United Nations directly, along with most countries which recognise the Jewish settlements as illegal, to voice the fact that the territories were captured by Israel in the 1967 war and are therefore subject to the Geneva Conventions ... which forbid construction on occupied territories. As a breach of the Geneva Conventions, Israel is guilty of war crimes. Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. Under international law, every people under an occupation has a right to resist that occupation. Palestinian resistance is, therefore, perfectly legitimate and morally correct.
We have already revealed that Netanyahu is not interested in what the UN says and is ignoring opinion around the world. He is also in contravention of international law. The hundreds of Palestinian children in Israel’s jails are also cited as a war crime and the Palestinians are to take this to the UN.
Israel’s principal mentor, the United States, is equally contemptuous of international law, having attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, placing these two countries under occupation. Those who resist these illegal occupations are equally justified in their freedom struggle and are backed by international law up to the hilt. They are freedom fighters, as such. Under the Geneva Conventions, it is forbidden to construct on occupied territories, which makes war criminals of the Americans, too. copyright©Robert Edwards 2013
Thursday, 24 January 2013
by Robert Edwards
Published in ESA No 43
We continue to lurch towards further economic crises and there is no one in power with any idea of how to save us. The main political parties carry on the same old pantomime act of blaming each other for the nation’s continuing decline, with the excuse they ‘inherited’ all these problems from a previous government. A government that blames a previous government for over-borrowing now borrows more then ever. All governments have played a part in this slow, painful and agonising rot. All of them are to blame. We can now add the Limp Democrats to this misbegotten bunch to whom the curse, be careful of what you wish for when you hunger for power at any price, applies so appropriately. No one gets let off the hook on that score.
What can you expect when we are ruled by spoilt-brat multi-millionaire toffs, most of whom have never done an honest day’s work in their lives? The worst of all are the old Etonians who were brought up in privileged circumstances and educated at schools for the very same privileged class where the curriculum included a doctrine of elitism drummed into them at a young age ... “You are born to rule and to rule over all others”.
I watched part of the Tory conference where the main clues were with the cameras panning the audience. If you are any good at reading faces, preferably at first sight as with physiognomy, then Toryism was expressed in the unfeeling arrogance and smugness on the faces that have long caricatured your average Tory delegate at conference. They are as much a social type as your average old school bellicose trade union leader ... albeit a different sort altogether. The hardened old faces of the polarised leaderships of the opposing social classes.
Before I am tempted to embark on a stormy voyage of class war polemic, I need to point out what I consider to be the worst and the best aspects of British politics. Here goes.
The worst is exemplified in the cold-blooded indifference to the suffering of others less fortunate, in the saying, “Because they failed so miserably at being as thrifty as we were”. Perhaps they were not given the opportunity to save on the poverty line. Struggling to survive does not offer the chance of acquiring such bourgeois virtues.
This reactionary treatment of the working class, now relegated to the position of an under class, is perhaps the biggest factor in dividing a nation. The British long ago made an art of it and it is little altered today. Class war is a two-sided coin, for sure, whether Left or Right.
The Tories are overwhelmingly concerned with ‘business’ and the workers regarded as secondary to this, merely attributed the role of serving business, which success is determined by the acceptance of the lowest wage possible. If the Englishman will not work for peanuts then they import foreigners who will ... the entire blame for this most ugly aspect of immigration being placed on the “lazy Englishman”. The import of cheap labour serves business and never the workers. Profits come first and the workers last.
No one attacks the bankers, who are entirely responsible for our continuing economic woes. The creation of money and its supply is entirely within the domain of private banking and the government is basically helpless there. Within the practice of lending with interest, the banks create money out of thin air, which is nothing more than phantom currency. Paid back, it disappears to nothing again. That’s right, it is a scam ... simply numbers on a computer’s database. A performing illusionist would understand the trick.
Yet the system is such that everything depends on the banks functioning as they do and we bail them out with taxpayers money while insisting the taxpayer lives in comparative poverty. Bankers can then award themselves massive bonuses without consulting anyone. At the same time, austerity is imposed upon the masses as a matter of government policy.
European Socialism is opposed to the money supply being exclusively under the control of private banking, which is a law unto itself. A private set-up that can withhold money from the system by simply ceasing to lend through alleged “lack of confidence” should not be tolerated in any country that calls itself democratic and ultimately answerable to the people.
Then there is the borrowing deficit and its urgent reduction, the beginning and end of Tory-led government policy. Cuts here and cuts there because the cartel of private banking, that rules over most economic systems in the world, says so. “Do what we say or you don’t get any more money”. So the millionaires that currently rule over us tighten the screws to please their banker chums. Everything becomes alarm and urgency when it comes to “reducing the deficit”. Why not simply underwrite the debt and start all over again? That would mean the end of debt slavery and the end of the rule of international banking and finance.
You have to ask yourselves what money is and what purpose it should serve. It is a means of exchange which the people should own. Its purpose should be to assist in the easy and secure exchange of goods.
Instead, it has been completely hi-jacked and used as a means of control. The result is that the greater part of the wealth in the world is in very few hands while the “prols”, the great majority, have very little. Is that morally right?
That, then, is the worst of British politics ... this total subservience to the Money Power. Banks love to loan to those who struggle to pay it back. Default on the loan and they will seize your goods and assets. This is all achieved by the act of borrowing on interest, the simple act that creates money out of thin air. They now do this to entire nations.
The best is yet to come. There is another kind of politics that is in revolt. Tightening the austerity screw in countries like Spain and Greece has produced such a movement that identifies the International Monetary Fund as the tyranny that kills. Oh, yes ... pensioners in these countries are now committing suicide as a consequence of severe austerity measures imposed upon the people by the money-lenders. What a shame and disgrace.
They call it a “bail-out” as if it were some kind of altruistic service. It is nothing of the kind. It is, in reality, more of the same debt slavery with terms that can never be realised because austerity measures imposed destroy businesses and jobs, thereby preventing any form of meaningful growth. Italy had to sell off its state-owned companies on defaulting, Greece had to sell off all its unpopulated small islands on defaulting ... and so on. This scam is nothing more than highway robbery on a massive scale.
The movement in revolt is in preparation and appears on the streets of some countries suffering under severe debt slavery. It is a movement that is neither left nor right but cuts right across the political spectrum. Neither the far-left nor the far-right can lay claim to this movement in revolt because neither of these opposite polar political extremes have ever identified the real enemy in the terms of the new revolt. The enemy is the global economic order in the hands of a few. All the rest is a mere bagatelle. It deflects from the only real important issue which is the life and death struggle we all face today and being another reason that nationalism is part of the problem. Divide and rule ... the rulers being international finance.
So how do you get out of this situation and on to the road to recovery? Well, it will not be by remaining as small, isolated countries pulling up the drawbridge. They will simply pick you off one by one. A veteran British nationalist gave a talk to The London Forum recently, hosted by the affable Jez Turner, where he rambled on about the entire world being ‘bankrupt’. He blamed the Saudis and the Chinese for this. At the end of his ramble he offered his solution, which was to revive British industry, produce only what we need and not to live beyond our means. He called it ‘economic nationalism’. In other words, old fashioned autarky, ... meaning more austerity.
The problem with such a policy is that you end up surrounded by the rest of the world pulling in an opposite direction. You could never compete successfully on world markets to sell your goods, so tiny little Albion, a small set of islands out in the North Sea, is going to supply everything that a population of fifty-odd million requires. It would not work.
You need a large enough area with room for expansion and, of course, every foodstuff and raw material that we require for a good standard of life. “To do great things in a great way”, is an old Mosley maxim.
Oswald Mosley offered a solution to the rule of money in the 1960s. He said it could be achieved with existing European governments if they had the will. He said all they had to do in order to be rid of debt slavery was to agree to meet at an appointed hour. They had to do this in unison. All these heads of European governments would then declare their own system, united in common purpose, with complete control of the money supply out of private hands and under the control and direction of European government. All previous debt would be null and void. Our own banking system, under new guide lines, would then serve the European people in a constructive way without the curse of usury, which is lending at interest.
All politicians today are obsessed with the ‘debt crisis’. They live with debt and they think of little else. In other words, everything is subservient to meeting this ever-present borrowing deficit.
It has become a new religion, little different to pagan worship when the angry god must be placated with more human sacrifices. The World Bank and the IMF are the new pagan gods of global politics ... and they want to see more suffering before they are finished.
It is happening now with pensioners dying, not just in Greece in acts of suicide, but here, too, every Winter, as fuel prices rise beyond the means of ordinary old folk. That’s another issue, while privatised utility companies provide massive riches for the Fat Cats, our people struggle as never before. These essential utilities should all be back in public ownership with a fair deal for all. An end to this culture of privatisation and greed. It works for the rich but not for the poor.
Europe a Nation would be very different to the United States. The United States is based on greed. Kenneth Clark, in his BBC series Civilisation, when referring to ‘heroic materialism’, he said, in relation to America, “It’s godless, it’s brutal, it’s violent”. America is the ‘spiritual’ home of a soulless materialism where big money rules. Watch Presidential elections.
Our Europe would have the steady foundations of social responsibility with real opportunity for all. It will be the essence of European Socialism. The Americans hate socialism, somehow equating it with communism, to the point they really do believe in the survival of the fittest, that if you can not afford medical care then you can damned well die in pain and agony. They do not care. They love their guns more than their fellow man.
Our National Health Service is a beacon of light amid so much darkness in the world. In a world without predatory banking and the grip of usury, we can organise a society where nothing can impede growth and ‘austerity’ was just a bad dream. Organising within a self-sufficient European system, with the lead of European government, science and labour will lift us up through their own efforts ... and money will simply be a means of exchange.
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Beyond the old ideas of nation-states within our fractured and divided Europe ... towards a new political and economic system for our Europe united and free
by Robert Edwards (ESA No 42 September/October 2012)
The first thing we need to do, in relation to Europe, is clearly define our position regarding European identity. Why do we claim to be European above all other considerations and why do we feel justified in proclaiming complete European integration to be the only constructive way forward?
We begin from the premise that Europeans have so much in common in terms of cultural, artistic and scientific achievement, that we must come together in order to preserve our unique civilisation. We are also very similar in ethnic terms but we also rejoice in the great diversity of types that complement each other. From the Nordic to the Mediterranean, we share the same history of achievement and, on those broadest of terms, we find the basis for fraternal solidarity. We call it European brotherhood.
This European identity is further enforced and affirmed by the great tragedy of war and internecine conflict. What greater motive for coming together in common purpose than to push aside national differences that had, too often, led to massive slaughter on battle fields, most often in the pursuit of economic advantage. By coming together as Europeans we end, for all time, the possibilities of future wars between Europeans.
When the greatest European in modern history was released from detention during the last months of the Second World War, this was his first observation. He said the worst were ever united but the best were ever divided. The worst, of course, being the jackals of war that profited from the second European conflict in the Twentieth Century. They destroyed both Germany and the British Empire. Europe was carved up between East and West while America and Russia occupied our continent throughout the Cold War. The best were then more divided than they ever were.
There should be a lesson to be learned from that but still we have separate states with separate national agendas, each of them vying for an advantage over their neighbours. The phrase ‘European Union’ remains a misnomer rather than the reality it should be. Why do we have this situation? I am going to point the finger of accusation firmly in the direction of the United States, currently attempting to expand its imperialist agenda as the world’s only military super power (global cop?) joined at the hip to Israel, also armed to the teeth, mainly by the American taxpayer. The United States hates the idea of Europe as one, with its own government and its own foreign policy. Furthermore, it clings to that Cold War set-up, NATO, in order to lead Europeans by the nose in its illegal military incursions. They fear Europe having its own defence system independent of the United States. This would, of course, leave the United States considerably weakened with the potential of becoming isolated. Can you imagine a Hilary Clinton without an obedient William Hague, that droning, servile, monotone mouthpiece for Washington and Tel Aviv? David Cameron and Nick Clegg went off on holiday to Spain and left him in charge. It is who pulls Hague’s strings that should worry us most.
Hague’s recent attacks upon the European Union and Britain’s relation to it leave us in no doubt that he is firmly in the pay of Europe’s enemies.
It was under George W. Bush that the doctrine of ‘Old Europe and New Europe’ was first created. Rather than allow Europe to integrate as one, the Americans sought to undermine this by reaching out to the newly-emerged former communist states, bribing and placing pressure on them for the purpose of buying permanent bases in Russia’s backyard. They dubbed these economically weaker states ‘New Europe’, thus implying ‘Old Europe’ (Western Europe) could be treated differently and separately. How’s that for dirty tricks? Divide and rule by Pax Americana.
European Action says, there should be no American military presence anywhere in Europe and, this presence should, henceforth, be regarded as a subversion of European territory and, thus, an illegal act of invasion. We thought the Cold War had ended but the American imperialists are still here with new ‘Checkpoint Charleys’, all ready for a new Cold War with ‘enemies’ of their own making. The CIA mindset infects all discussion on who or what is a threat to “the American way of life” and “if you are not with us then you must be against us”. We do not buy this oversimplified blackmail. Let me make it even more simple: we oppose you. ... period.
Our European identity shall be defined by our opposition to American imperialism in all its forms. Above all, we should never permit the Americans to play their games within Europe, buying off corrupt leaders with large financial hand-outs and dividing us still further. European politics is a matter for Europeans only. Or so it should be.
Our European identity is also determined by the necessity to build a new economic order independent of the present global structures. By this, we mean an end to the system of international finance controlled and manipulated by cartels of private bankers. This was discussed in the previous issue of European Socialist Action (No 41), the publication of European Action, in the front page article, WE MUST END THIS BANKERS’ RACKET.
The need for a single European economy with a European government controlling our own money supply could not be more obvious and necessary. This means an exclusively European banking system in the service of Europeans. All banking should be nationalised for this purpose. This can only be achieved on a large scale within an area large enough to sustain such a policy ... and that area is Europe! As OM would say, “Little England could never work”.
Have you noticed how right wing nationalists in this country never discuss these issues? They want “out of Europe”. Are they going to hire some tug boats and pull us across the Atlantic towards what they deem to be their true allies fighting ‘the Muslim threat to the West’? They talk of ‘Western values’ as if we share so much with America. Right wing nationalists love America rather than Europe. They prefer to be the servile ‘partner’ to Uncle Sam and deceive themselves with nonsense about a special relationship. The Americanised patriot is alive and well in the BNP and the EDL.
Who was it who said, “We have nothing in common with America apart from a language ... but we have everything in common with Europeans apart from language”? The first part is only partially true as correct and proper English still remains our prerogative.
I picked up the phone recently to learn that someone wants to offer me a good deal with a privatised utility company. I suggested he should get a proper job producing wealth and that I am fine with my current provider. I was very polite. He tells me he served in Iraq and this is the only job he can get. We got a bit friendly and he opened up his heart on matters to do with the world situation. It was then that I was given a deep insight into how far our soldiers are brainwashed. He would not accept that Britain should not have coalesced in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, even with all the facts thrown at him. His most revealing statement, after asking why he was there, was, “We have to support our allies”. We did not do that in Vietnam so why should we be the all too-willing accomplices in the recent batch of war crimes? The Americans were never our allies ... it is America first and last with them. The naivety of some of our own people is astounding.
The Twentieth Century is the shameful century of slaughter on an unprecedented scale which nearly destroyed Europe on two occasions. The causes of the two major world wars are still being discussed by historians around the world and, as time marches on, we become less hidebound by the impact of the old war propaganda immediately post-1945. Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable to consider all the facts leading up to wars and not to simply accept the received standard version. Some people call it ‘historical revisionism’ but we shall use that old legal phrase, ‘taking into consideration all the facts’. That way we avoid association with those whose only interest is the rehabilitation of the Nazis. It seems clear that all sides in war commit atrocities, as they do so today.
We reject, totally, the right wing nationalist claim that their mythical ‘sovereignty’ is threatened by Europe and we equally reject notions of confederation, a half-way house and an obstacle to fully integrated unity. Smaller, separate nations have never had ‘sovereignty’ because they have always been dependent on more powerful external forces. The nationalists are like the blind leading the blind, oblivious to these facts, immersed in myths and legends of heroic deeds of yore but never aware of the realities of predatory international finance.
Most people were inspired by the daily events during the London Olympics. They were organised and arranged to invoke the maximum patriotic fervour, the crowds deafening in their deeply emotional response when a British participant won a medal. The Union flag became a fashion accessory, draped over the shoulders in a victory roll, for all to see. Government ministers were to claim these games would boost the economy and give ‘GB’ a good kick-start. We were given the feel-good factor as more and more people claimed they were so proud to be British as a result.
Well, the economy is still in a state of stagnation and the only change we have experienced is a number of Olympic participants from Third World countries not returning home but are actively seeking asylum. Surprise, surprise! Guess where they come from?
Bike sales will peak and then just as quickly decline to its pre-Olympics level. Patriotic fervour will simply peter out and flying the Union flag will again be regarded as ‘fascist’.
Patriotism is a sentiment used by both the best and the worst in equal measure but those who peddle this feeling for political aims or advantages have been seriously misleading people in Britain.
It is not ‘patriotic’ to claim Britain can go it alone and compete successfully on world markets. It is the most shameless nonsense . Equally, it is the most idiotic nonsense that an ‘independent’ Scotland would be so in the sense that the buffoon Alex Salmond would be the Prime Minister of a new state in complete control of its finances, including the money supply.
Nationalism is the tool of international finance. Why do I say this? Because international finance preys on the chaos of international trade between nations competing, each one attempting to sell more than it imports. A favourable balance of payments, in other words. Separate nations are in a life or death struggle in a situation whereby nations can not all succeed at the same time. Success under these conditions means others losing out. The winners are usually those countries that keep wages down in order to keep costs down. Those who try to do well by their workers do not stand a chance.
Europe should unite as a single political and economic unit, large enough and powerful enough to free itself from the international trading system. In other words, a self-sufficient European socialist state with its own government. Then, at last, the European people determine their own future.