Holes in the History Wall Tales, Biden Horses Snicker in Washington

November 10, 2020 Arabi Souri

Biden Masked
Holes in the History Wall Tales, Biden Horses Snicker in Washington
Written by Naram Serjoon (source in Arabic)

Marx was not mistaken when he said that history has a scientific movement that makes predicting its journeys like unveiling the unknowns of a mathematical equation, the study of history enables to predict the location of its steps and the direction of its journey.

But Marx’s discovery was used for something else, not just to study history and predict events, we have reached the time of making the history in America, everything at this time has become manufactured or prefabricated, the days and months are poured into mixers and the wall of American time that surrounds us and imprisons us in the prisons of Facebook, the Internet and Instagram is made of them. Seconds, minutes, and hours are melted down to make the stage for events, therefore, the movement of history is apparently governed by the one who holds the bridle of the horse that time uses to ride past us. This is what the United States of America is trying very hard, opposing the natural movement of history, and wants us to believe in the end of history because it has managed the secrets of history-making and analyzed its genetic material. If America manufactures airplanes, bombs, technology, cloning cells, and humans, then why does it not make history as well? America thinks everything can be made if you know its genotype, code, and equations!

Therefore, let us peek behind the holes in the events whose stories and narratives have turned into impermeable walls that do not allow us to see beyond them of the secrets of the date rigging machine that prints the path of the dateline and its breaks just as dollars are printed for us on paper without gold backing. That is, the history that America makes are illusions, like its dollars without value.

When we see the solid walls of history, we must look for cracks or holes through which we see the hidden and the concealed.

For example, among the holes of history, we used to see a wall called the Balfour Declaration, and in that ‘promise’ there were small holes from which we looked and knew that the date of the promise was not a coincidence and a moment of clarity decided by His Majesty’s government, rather, that promise was coupled on that date with the strike of German ammunition workers, the stopping of factories, the cessation of funding for the German army, and after the Germans were on the way to victory in the war, everything turned in 1917, the date of the Balfour Declaration … and the date of the introduction of the first chemical weapon in history to the British army by the Jewish chemical scientist Chaim Weizman, who became one of the founders of Israel later.

What is this coincidence between the Balfour Declaration and the defeat of Germany on the same date?

Among the large holes through which we look at the secrets of Turkey’s history, one of the holes takes us to look at a delusional contempt moment when suddenly the Turkish army allowed the Islamists in Turkey to come to power before the arrival of the Islamist Arab Spring. What is this coincidence if this was not carefully coordinated and arranged?

Yes, what is this coincidence between the arrival of the Islamists and Erdogan to power and the arrival of the Islamist wave led by NATO Turkey to the Middle East?

All stories of history are full of holes, and we should only look boldly and with a critical eye, looking through these holes.

We will know how Kennedy’s assassination was preceded by his powerful statements about the profound forces and capital that govern America and control its decision, which must be curbed.


And we will learn from among the holes how the Watergate scandal began in Damascus when Henry Kissinger was sitting with his boss Nixon and listening to him as he spoke with the late President Hafez Al-Assad about ways to end the conflict in the Middle East in a fair way, and how he was the one who imposed the framework of the debate on his boss. As soon as Nixon returned, he found Watergate waiting for him.

What is this coincidence between Nixon’s talk in Damascus and Watergate, which was waiting for him within days of his arrival?

Today, some holes began to appear in the narration of events, so if we look through some of the holes that appeared in the wall of the American novel about Coronavirus and the defeat of Trump, we might be able to know the itinerary of the next American trip in Biden’s time. Suddenly, through a sudden announcement that the Coronavirus vaccine had been successfully developed in the “Pfizer” laboratories, I tripped over a question that my eyes stumbled upon and it was walking adrift. The question asked: What is this coincidence in the emergence of the treatment or vaccine immediately after the end of the American elections and the securing of Trump’s departure? And why is the world talking that the return to normal life will take place next spring in 2021, that is, with the beginning of Biden’s assumption of power? Today, he says that his team devised an elaborate plan to get rid of the virus and defeat it. It will appear as if Biden is the one who defeated Coronavirus and will assume the presidency without Coronavirus or a dead Coronavirus, and economic activity will return to the same state as it was.

The question that I stumbled upon stumbled upon another question by itself, which is whether China was involved with the Democrats in fabricating the Coronavirus crisis and launching the novel in Wuhan, China because it made a deal with the Democrats who secretly went to it, like what they did in the Vietnam War, and offered a deal to the Vietnamese, urging them to refuse to compromise with the Republican administration in order for it to fail in the elections, so the Democrats present the Vietnamese with a much better offer to end the war.

This correlation between launching the virus story from China and ending and toppling Trump’s rule is possible because it is in the interest of both parties to get rid of Trump’s next project heading to China? China is concerned about Trump’s tendency against it and his trade war, and therefore it may have accepted the Democrats’ offer? Why was the virus absent from China and remained in America eating from the economy of Trump and the West until Trump was overthrown, and then the vaccine appeared two days after the elections? Is this the reason for the resentment against Anthony Fauci among the Trump administration to the point that someone asked to behead him?

Today, if we want to see how Biden’s new cowboy horses will go, the study of history says that whoever makes the next history and forces it to move in the direction they want will be the US Military-Industrial Complex represented by Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the war elite. The danger of this Complex is that it has an American economy that wants to rise quickly after Coronavirus and the strong blow it received. The only way to revive the economy is to sell arms and reproduce wars. Therefore, it got rid of Trump, who wants to run an economy that competes with China in everything, while the Military-Industrial Complex is only meant to establish the war economy, the huge arms trade, and successive wars.

The battlefields that will be conducted in the time of Biden are vast to saturate the insatiable hunger of the Military-Industrial Complex, but it is not thought that the same old battlefields will be attractive. A war arena like Syria can no longer be returned to it with the presence of Russia and the crushing of the Islamist groups that suffered a very violent blow in that war. It will not satisfy the need for the Military-Industrial Complex, insatiable for widespread wars. But will Iran be its battlefield, Turkey, or Russia’s periphery? Each battlefield has its own attraction.

Biden wars - Military Industrial Complex

It also appears that the temporary truce with the Americans ended in eastern Syria with the announcement of the deaths of four Americans in eastern Syria. While Biden awaits the day of his coronation, the movement to uproot the American army and its allies in eastern Syria will have been organized, and this was announced in the first resistance operation that killed four American soldiers in the Syrian Jazira (northeast) region.

A very accurate and calculated timing, not by chance, after the announcement of Biden’s arrival (winning), who received the bloody message from eastern Syria that a safe exit from Syria is better than stubbornness. And that this arena is no longer an arena for the American army and American adventures, and that it must hasten to get rid of the burden of being in eastern Syria in order to turn to the wars that are drawn for it according to the agenda of the Military-Industrial Complex in the rest of the world.

Nothing happened by chance these days, and I do not think that the presidential conversation between the People’s Palace (Syria’s Presidential Palace) and the Kremlin was also a coincidence at this time that announces Biden’s arrival at the White House.

It is a conversation that I do not think is far from catching the American bull’s horns before it slips and becomes difficult to control, and perhaps eliminating its last terrorist warehouse in Idlib before Erdogan reopens and leases his goods to Biden in exchange for relief.

I hear the neighing of our horses in the Jazira (Hasakah, Der Ezzor, and Raqqa) and Idlib, but no one will see what will happen except those who pierce the wall of time with the beam of their eyes, and who pierces the wall of American stories with his steel questions and breaks the wall of time with his horse’s neighing.

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

ثقوب في جدار حكايات التاريخ .. خيول بايدن تحمحم في واشنطن ..

Posted on 2020/11/10 by naram.serjoonn

لم يخطئ ماركس عندما قال ان للتاريخ حركة علمية تجعل التنبؤ بمسيرته مثل كشف مجاهيل معادلة رياضية .. فدراسة التاريخ تمكن من توقع مكان خطواته واتجاه رحلته .. ولكن اكتشاف ماركس تم استخدامه لشيء آخر ليس لمجرد دراسة التاريخ والتنبؤ بالاحداث .. بل وصلنا الى زمن صناعة التاريخ في اميريكا .. فكل شيء في هذا الزمان صار مصنوعا أو مسبق الصنع .. فالأيام والشهور تجبل في خلاطات ويصنع منها جدار الزمن الأمريكي الذي يحيط بنا ويسجننا فيه في سجون الفيسبوك والانترنت والانستغرام .. وتصهر الثواني والدقائق والساعات لتصنع منها منصات الاحداث .. ولذلك فان حركة التاريخ محكومة على مايبدو بمن يمسك بلجام الحصان الذي يرحل عليه الزمن .. وهذا ماتحاوله جاهدة الولايات المتحدة الامريكية التي تعاند حركة التاريخ الطبيعية وتريد ان نؤمن بنهاية التاريخ لأنها تمكنت من أسرار صناعة التاريخ وحللت مادته الوراثية .. فاذا كانت اميريكا تصنع الطائرات والقنابل والتكنولوجيا واستنساخ الخلايا والبشر فلماذا لاتصنع التاريخ أيضا .. فكل شيء يمكن صناعته كما تعتقد اذا عرفت تركيبه الوراثي وشيفرته ومعادلاته؟؟


ولذلك دعونا نسترق النظر من خلف ثقوب في الاحداث التي تحولت قصصها وسردياتها الى جدران كتيمة لاتسمح لنا برؤية ماوراءها من أسرار ماكينة تزوير التاريخ التي تطبع مسار خط التاريخ واستراحاته كما تطبع لنا الدولارات على ورق من غير رصيد ذهبي .. اي ان التاريخ الذي تصنعه اميريكا وهم مثل دولاراتها لارصيد له ..

عندما نرى الجدران الصلبة للتاريخ يجب ان نبحث عن شقوق او ثقوب نرى من خلالها المخبوء والمخفي .. فمثلا من بين ثقوب التاريخ كنا نرى جدارا اسمه وعد بلفور وفي الوعد ثقوب صغيرة نظرنا منها وعرفنا ان تاريخ الوعد لم يكن مصادفة ولحظة صفاء قررتها حكومة صاحب الجلالة .. بل اقترن ذلك الوعد في ذلك التاريخ باضراب عمال الذخيرة الالمان وتوقف المصانع وتوقف تمويل الجيش الألماني وبعد ان كان الالمان في طريق الانتصار في الحرب انقلب كل شيء عام 1917 .. تاريخ وعد بلفور .. وتاريخ تقديم السلاح الكيماوي الأول في التاريخ للجيش البريطاني من قبل العالم الكيميائي اليهودي حاييم وايزمن الذي صار من مؤسسي اسرائيل لاحقا ..فماهذه الصدفة بين وعد بلفور وهزيمة ألمانيا في نفس التاريخ؟؟


ومن بين الثقوب الكبيرة التي نسترق النظر من خلالها الى أسرار تاريخ تركيا يأخذنا أحد الثقوب لنطل على لحظة فاصلة مخاتلة عندما سمح الجيش التركي فجأة للاسلاميين في تركيا بالوصول الى السلطة قبل وصول الربيع العربي الاسلامي.. فماهذه الصدفة لو لم يكن هذا منسقا ومرتبا بعناية؟؟ نعم ماهي هذه الصدفة بين وصول الاسلاميين واردوغان الى السلطة ووصول الموجة الاسلامية التي تقودها تركيا الناتوية الى الشرق الاوسط؟؟

كل قصص التاريخ ملأى بالثقوب وماعلينا الا أن ننظر بجرأة وبعين ناقدة فاحصة من خلال تلك الثقوب .. وسنعرف كيف سبق اغتيال كينيدي تصريحاته القوية عن القوى العميقة ورؤوس الاموال التي تحكم اميريكا وتتحكم بقرارها والتي يجب لجمها .. وسنعرف من بين الثقوب كيف ان فضيحة ووترغيت بدأت في دمشق عندما كان هنري كيسنجر يجلس مع رئيسه نيكسون ويستمع اليه وهو يتحدث مع الرئيس الراحل حافظ الاسد عن طرق انهاء الصراع في الشرق الاوسط بطريقة عادلة .. وكيف انه كان هو الذي يفرض اطار النقاش على رئيسه .. وماان عاد نيكسون إلى واشنطن الا ووجد ووتر غيت في انتظاره .. فما هذه الصدفة بين حديث نيكسون في دمشق وبين ووترغيت التي كانت بانتظاره فور وصوله بأيام ؟؟ ..


اليوم بدأت بعض الثقوب تظهر في رواية الاحداث فاذا مانظرنا من خلال بعض الثقوب التي ظهرت في جدار الرواية الامريكية عن كورونا وهزيمة ترامب فربما تمكنا من معرفة خط سير الرحلة الأمريكية القادمة في زمن بايدن .. ففجأة ومن خلال اعلان مفاجئ عن ان لقاح كورونا قد تم تطويره بنجاح في مختبرات “بفايزرز” وقعت على سؤال تعثرت به عيني وكان يسير على غير هدى .. السؤال قال: ماهي هذه المصادفة في ظهور العلاج او اللقاح فورا بعد انتهاء الانتخابات الامريكية وضمان رحيل ترامب ؟؟ ولماذا صار العالم يتحدث عن ان عودة الحياة الى طبيعتها ستكون مع الربيع القادم عام 2021 أي مع بداية تسلم بايدن مقاليد الحكم .. وهو اليوم يقول ان فريقه وضع خطة متقنة للتخلص من الفيروس ودحره .. وسيظهر كأن بايدن هو الذي هزم كورونا وسيتسلم الرئاسة من غير كورونا او بكورونا ميت ويعود النشاط الاقتصادي الى حاله كم كان ..


السؤال الذي تعثرت به تعثر هو نفسه بسؤال آخر هو ان كانت الصين متورطة مع الديمقراطيين في افتعال ازمة كورونا واطلاق الرواية في ووهان الصينية لأنها أجرت صفقة مع الديمقراطيين الذين توجهوا سرا اليها كما فعلوا في حرب فييتنام وعرضوا صفقة على الفييتناميين يحثونهم فيها على رفض التسوية مع الادارة الجمهورية كي تسقط في الانتخابات فيقدم الديمقراطيون للفييتناميين عرضا أفضل بكثير لانهاء الحرب ..


هذا الترابط بين اطلاق حكاية الفيروس من الصين وبين انهاء حكم ترامب واسقاطه وارد لأن من مصلحة الطرفين التخلص من مشروع ترامب القادم نحو الصين ..؟ فالصين قلقة من نزعة ترامب ضدها وحربه التجارية ولذلك فانها ربما قبلت العرض الديمقراطي؟ فلماذا غاب الفيروس عن الصين وبقي في اميريكا يأكل من اقتصاد ترامب والغرب حتى تم اسقاط ترامب ثم ظهر اللقاح بعد يومين من الانتخابات؟؟وهل هذا هو سبب النقمة على انتوني فاوتشي بين ادارة ترامب الى درجة ان هناك من طلب قطع رأسه؟؟


اليوم اذا اردنا ان نرى كيف ستسير خيول راعي البقر الجديد بايدن فان دراسة التاريخ تقول ان من يصنع التاريخ القادم ويرغمه على التحرك في الاتجاه الذي يريده سيكون مجمع الصناعات العسكرية الامريكية الذي يمثله بايدن وهيلاري كلينتون ونخبة الحروب .. وخطورة هذا المجمع هو ان لديه اقتصادا امريكيا يريد النهوض بسرعة بعد كورونا والضربة القوية التي تلقاها .. والطريقة الوحيدة لانهاض الاقتصاد هو في بيع السلاح واعادة انتاج الحروب .. وهو لذلك تخلص من ترامب الذي يريد ادارة اقتصاد ينافس الصين في كل شيء فيما المجمع الصناعي الحربي لايعنيه الا ان يقيم اقتصاد الحرب وتجارة السلاح الضخمة .. والحروب المتتالية ..


ساحات الحروب التي ستدار في زمن بايدن واسعة كي تشبع نهم مجمع الصناعات العسكرية ولكن لايظن ان الساحات القديمة ذاتها ستكون جذابة .. فساحة حرب مثل سورية لم يعد بالامكان العودة اليها مع وجود روسيا وسحق الجماعات الاسلامية التي تلقت ضربة عنيفة جدا في تلك الحرب .. وهي لن تفي بحاجة المجمع الصناعي العسكري النهم للحروب الواسعة .. ولكن هل تكون ايران ساحتها ام تركيا ام محيط روسيا؟؟ فلكل ساحة جاذبيتها ..


ويبدو أيضا ان الهدنة المؤقتة مع الامريكيين انتهت في الشرق السوري باعلان سقوط اربع قتلى امريكيين في الشرق السوري .. وفيما ينتظر بايدن يوم التتويج ستكون حركة اقتلاع الجيش الاميريكي وحلفائه في الشرق السوري قد انتظمت وتم الاعلان عن ذلك في اول عملية مقاومة قتلت اربعة جنود امريكيين في الجزيرة .. توقيت دقيق جدا ومحسوب وليس بالصدفة بعد اعلان وصول بايدن الذي وصلته الرسالة الدامية من الشرق السوري .. من ان الخروج الآمن من سورية أفضل من العناد .. وان هذه الساحة لم تعد ساحة للجيش الامريكي وللمغامرات الامريكية وان عليه ان يستعجل التخلص من عبء التواجد في الشرق السوري كي يلتفت الى حروبه المرسومة له وفق اجندة المجمع الصناعي العسكري في بقية العالم ..

لاشيء حدث صدفة في هذه الايام .. ولاأظن ان الحديث الرئاسي بين قصر الشعب والكرملين كان أيضا صدفة في هذا التوقيت الذي يعلن وصول بايدن الى البيت الابيض .. وهو حديث لاأظنه بعيدا عن الامساك بقرون الثور الامريكي قبل ان ينفلت ويصبح ضبطه صعبا .. وربما تصفية أخر مخازنه الارهابية في ادلب قبل ان يعيد اردوغان افتتاحه وتأجير بضاعته لبايدن مقابل التخفيف عنه .. انني اسمع صهيل خيولنا في الجزيرة وادلب .. ولكن لن يرى ماذا سيحدث الا من يثقب جدار الزمن بشعاع عينيه .. ومن يثقب جدار الحكايات الامريكية بأسئلته الفولاذية .. ويخرق جدار الزمن بصهيل جياده ..

Will Confucius marry Marx?

Will Confucius marry Marx?

October 10, 2020

By Pepe Escobar, posted with permission and first posted at Asia Times

Chinese scholar Lanxin Xiang has written a book, The Quest for Legitimacy in Chinese Politics, that is arguably the most extraordinary effort in decades trying to bridge the East-West politico-historical divide.

It’s impossible in a brief column to do justice to the relevance of the discussions this book inspires. Here we will highlight some of the key issues – hoping they will appeal to an informed readership especially across the Beltway, now convulsed by varying degrees of Sinophobia.

Xiang delves right into the fundamental contradiction: China is widely accused by the West of lack of democratic legitimacy exactly as it enjoys a four-decade, sustainable, history-making economic boom.

He identifies two key sources for the Chinese problem: “On the one hand, there is the project of cultural restoration through which Chinese leader Xi Jinping attempts to restore ‘Confucian legitimacy’ or the traditional ‘Mandate of Heaven’; on the other hand, Xi refuses to start any political reforms, because it is his top priority to preserve the existing political system, i.e., a ruling system derived mainly from an alien source, Bolshevik Russia.”

Ay, there’s the rub: “The two objectives are totally incompatible”.

Xiang contends that for the majority of Chinese – the apparatus and the population at large – this “alien system” cannot be preserved forever, especially now that a cultural revival focuses on the Chinese Dream.

Needless to add, scholarship in the West is missing the plot completely – because of the insistence on interpreting China under Western political science and “Eurocentric historiography”. What Xiang attempts in his book is to “navigate carefully the conceptual and logical traps created by post-Enlightenment terminologies”.

Thus his emphasis on deconstructing “master keywords” – a wonderful concept straight out of ideography. The four master keywords are legitimacy, republic, economy and foreign policy. This volume concentrates on legitimacy (hefa, in Chinese).

When law is about morality

It’s a joy to follow how Xiang debunks Max Weber – “the original thinker of the question of political legitimacy”. Weber is blasted for his “rather perfunctory study of the Confucian system”. He insisted that Confucianism – emphasizing only equality, harmony, decency, virtue and pacifism – could not possibly develop a competitive capitalist spirit.

Xiang shows how since the beginning of the Greco-Roman tradition, politics was always about a spatial conception – as reflected in polis (a city or city-state). The Confucian concept of politics, on the other hand, is “entirely temporal, based on the dynamic idea that legitimacy is determined by a ruler’s daily moral behavior.”

Xiang shows how hefa contains in fact two concepts: “fit” and “law” – with “law” giving priority to morality.

In China, the legitimacy of a ruler is derived from a Mandate of Heaven (Tian Ming). Unjust rulers inevitably lose the mandate – and the right to rule. This, argues Xiang, is “a dynamic ‘deeds-based’ rather than ‘procedure-based’ argument.”

Essentially, the Mandate of Heaven is “an ancient Chinese belief that tian [ heaven, but not the Christian heaven, complete with an omniscient God] grants the emperor the right to rule based on their moral quality and ability to govern well and fairly.”

The beauty of it is that the mandate does not require a divine connection or noble bloodline, and has no time limit. Chinese scholars have always interpreted the mandate as a way to fight abuse of power.

The overall crucial point is that, unlike in the West, the Chinese view of history is cyclical, not linear: “Legitimacy is in fact a never-ending process of moral self-adjustment.”

Xiang then compares it with the Western understanding of legitimacy. He refers to Locke, for whom political legitimacy derives from explicit and implicit popular consent of the governed. The difference is that without institutionalized religion, as in Christianity, the Chinese created “a dynamic conception of legitimacy through the secular authority of general will of the populace, arriving at this idea without the help of any fictional political theory such as divine rights of humanity and ‘social contract’’.

Xiang cannot but remind us that Leibniz described it as “Chinese natal theology”, which happened not to clash with the basic tenets of Christianity.

Xiang also explains how the Mandate of Heaven has nothing to do with Empire: “Acquiring overseas territories for population resettlement never occurred in Chinese history, and it does little to enhance legitimacy of the ruler.”

In the end it was the Enlightenment, mostly because of Montesquieu, that started to dismiss the Mandate of Heaven as “nothing but apology for ‘Oriental Despotism’”. Xiang notes how “pre-modern Europe’s rich interactions with the non-Western world” were “deliberately ignored by post-Enlightenment historians.”

Which brings us to a bitter irony: “While modern ‘democratic legitimacy’ as a concept can only work with the act of delegitimizing other types of political system, the Mandate of Heaven never contains an element of disparaging other models of governance.” So much for “the end of history.”

Why no Industrial Revolution?

Xiang asks a fundamental question: “Is China’s success indebted more to the West-led world economic system or to its own cultural resources?”

And then he proceeds to meticulously debunk the myth that economic growth is only possible under Western liberal democracy – a heritage, once again, of the Enlightenment, which ruled that Confucianism was not up to the task.

We already had an inkling that was not the case with the ascension of the East Asian tigers – Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea – in the 1980s and 1990s. That even moved a bunch of social scientists and historians to admit that Confucianism could be a stimulus to economic growth.

Yet they only focused on the surface, the alleged “core” Confucian values of hard work and thrift, argues Xiang: “The real ‘core’ value, the Confucian vision of state and its relations to economy, is often neglected.”

Virtually everyone in the West, apart from a few non-Eurocentric scholars, completely ignores that China was the world’s dominant economic superpower from the 12th century to the second decade of the 19th century.

Xiang reminds us that a market economy – including private ownership, free land transactions, and highly specialized mobile labor – was established in China as early as in 300 B.C. Moreover, “as early as in the Ming dynasty, China had acquired all the major elements that were essential for the British Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.”

Which brings us to a persistent historical enigma: why the Industrial Revolution did not start in China?

Xiang turns the question upside down: “Why traditional China needed an industrial revolution at all?”

Once again, Xiang reminds us that the “Chinese economic model was very influential during the early period of the Enlightenment. Confucian economic thinking was introduced by the Jesuits to Europe, and some Chinese ideas such as the laisser-faire principle led to free-trade philosophy.”

Xiang shows not only how external economic relations were not important for Chinese politics and economy but also that “the traditional Chinese view of state is against the basic rationale of the industrial revolution, for its mass production method is aimed at conquering not just the domestic market but outside territories.”

Xiang also shows how the ideological foundation for Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations began to veer towards individualist liberalism while “Confucius never wavered from a position against individualism, for the role of the economy is to ‘enrich people’ as a whole, not specific individuals.”

All that leads to the fact that “in modern economics, the genuine conversation between the West and China hardly exists from the outset, since the post-Enlightenment West has been absolutely confident about its sole possession of the ‘universal truth’ and secret in economic development, which allegedly has been denied to the rest of the world.”

An extra clue can be found when we see what ‘economy” (jingji) means in China: Jingji is “an abbreviate term of two characters describing neither pure economic nor even commercial activities. It simply means ‘managing everyday life of the society and providing sufficient resources for the state”. In this conception, politics and economy can never be separated into two mechanical spheres. The body politic and the body economic are organically connected.”

And that’s why external trade, even when China was very active in the Ancient Silk Road, “was never considered capable of playing a key role for the health of the overall economy and the well-being of the people.”

Wu Wei and the invisible hand

Xiang needs to go back to the basics: the West did not invent the free market. The laisser-faire principle was first conceptualized by Francois Quesnay, the forerunner of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Quesnay, curiously, was known at the time as the “European Confucius”.

In Le Despotisme de la Chine (1767), written 9 years before The Wealth of Nations, Quesnay was frankly in favor of the meritocratic concept of giving political power to scholars and praised the “enlightened” Chinese imperial system.

An extra delicious historical irony is that laisser-faire, as Xiang reminds us, was directly inspired by the Taoist concept of wu wei – which we may loosely translate as “non-action”.

Xiang notes how “Adam Smith, deeply influenced by Quesnay whom he had met in Paris for learning this laisser-faire philosophy, may have got right the meaning of wu wei with his invention of “invisible hand”, suggesting a proactive rather than passive economic system, and keeping the Christian theological dimension aside.”

Xiang reviews everyone from Locke and Montesquieu to Stuart Mill, Hegel and Wallerstein’s “world system” theory to arrive at a startling conclusion: “The conception of China as a typical ‘backward’ economic model was a 20th century invention built upon the imagination of Western cultural and racial superiority, rather than historical reality.”

Moreover, the idea of ‘backward-looking’ was actually not established in Europe until the French revolution: “Before that, the concept of ‘revolution’ had always retained a dimension of cyclical, rather than ‘progressive’ – i.e., linear, historical perspective. The original meaning of revolution (from the Latin word revolutio, a “turn-around”) contains no element of social progress, for it refers to a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that takes place when the population rises up in revolt against the current authorities.”

Will Confucius marry Marx?

And that brings us to post-modern China. Xiang stress how a popular consensus in China is that the Communist Party is “neither Marxist nor capitalist, and its moral standard has little to do with the Confucian value system”. Consequently, the Mandate of Heaven is “seriously damaged”.

The problem is that “marrying Marxism and Confucianism is too dangerous”.

Xiang identifies the fundamental flaw of the Chinese wealth distribution “in a system that guarantees a structural process of unfair (and illegal) wealth transfer, from the people who contribute labor to the production of wealth to the people who do not.”

He argues that, “deviation from Confucian traditional values explains the roots of the income distribution problem in China better than the Weberian theories which tried to establish a clear linkage between democracy and fair income distribution”.

So what is to be done?

Xiang is extremely critical of how the West approached China in the 19th century, “through the path of Westphalian power politics and the show of violence and Western military superiority.”

Well, we all know how it backfired. It led to a genuine modern revolution – and Maoism. The problem, as Xiang interprets it, is that the revolution “transformed the traditional Confucian society of peace and harmony into a virulent Westphalian state.”

So only through a social revolution inspired by October 1917 the Chinese state “begun the real process of approaching the West” and what we all define as “modernization”. What would Deng say?

Xiang argues that the current Chinese hybrid system, “dominated by a cancerous alien organ of Russian Bolshevism, is not sustainable without drastic reforms to create a pluralist republican system. Yet these reforms should not be conditioned upon eliminating traditional political values.”

So is the CCP capable of successfully merging Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism? Forging a unique, Chinese, Third Way? That’s not only the major theme for Xiang’s subsequent books: that’s a question for the ages.

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

1. Introduction

There are some incidents in life which a person would continue to review time and again, knowing pretty well that, it would be just a futile exercise from which he/she won’t really draw serious lessons (those who believe in learning from past deeds/misdeeds seldom forget the proverbial statement of Marx: ‘History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce’). Similarly there are some historical events which intelligent people re-evaluate and reappraise repeatedly even after centuries – needless to say that, such reappraisals don’t stop the historical figures from different societies and different times from committing similar mistakes. Leaving aside the question of why and how political actors might indulge in erroneous reiteration of policy implementation, let me indulge in a simple exercise of re-evaluating – arguably the most prominent political leaders of inter-war Europe – Lenin and Stalin. Safeguarding the core interests of Russia during the world wars – I and II – was the greatest ‘sin’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Quite expectedly, the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State elites, who coordinated the 20th century ‘world order’, had been castigating Lenin and Stalin for all sufferings that the world has been infected with, since the beginning of 20th century.

As I said, some historical events remain ‘evergreen’ in terms of importance and impact – no other historical event in the past millennium was more intriguing and had more significance than WW-I and WW-II. And, Lenin and Stalin were the towering figures who influenced most decisively the outcome of WW-I and WW-II with respect to Russia. Having educated under Anglo-dominated education system, and spent working life under the influence of Zionist-Capitalist world order, I’m amply exposed to the 24×7 propaganda on so-called ‘cruelty’ and ‘sins’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Now in the diamond jubilee of Victory Day (Nazi Germany’s surrender to Soviet Union) it is time to explore the greatest ‘sins’ of the greatest ‘sinners’. Let history speak for itself.

This article will be primarily a mapping of political and economic event-vs.-timeline in the Eurasian landmass, with minimum commentary, as and when required, from my side. It would be better if history speaks for itself.

2. Soviet Russia at the End of WW-I

It is interesting to note that neither Russian empire nor German empire were adversary to each other to a very high degree of enmity. Actually both the Russian emperor and his cousin, the German emperor were reluctant antagonists in the WW-I, events of which from the very beginning (assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914, when he and his wife were on official trip in Sarajevo, Serbia that came under Austro-Hungarian rule after centuries of Ottoman Turk rule) to the very end (abolition of four empires in Europe and Asia i.e. Russian empire in 1917, Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, German Empire in 1918, Ottoman Turk Empire in 1922) were manipulated and managed by the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State consisting of the ruling elites of British, French, American (USA) empires (representing the interests of wealthy class of bankers-industrialists-landed aristocrats and other elites having substantial wealth and power).

2.1 Objectives of WW-I:

Even if the belligerents Nicholas II and Wilhelm II didn’t suspect in 1913 that a war was brewing, Polish leader Joseph Pilsudeski (most dedicated Zionist imperialist leader in 20th century east Europe ) had prior knowledge of the war plans and how it would end! Viktor Chernov, one of the founders of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, wrote in his memoirs about a lecture by Josef Pilsudski, Polish leader delivered in Paris in early 1914. Chernov wrote:

“… Pilsudski confidently predicted the Balkans sparking an Austrian-Russian war in the near future … Pilsudski then set the question squarely: how would the war go down and who would triumph? His response reads as follows: Russia will be defeated by Austria and Germany who will in turn fall to the English and French (or English, Americans and French) …”

The WW-I primarily served three key purposes:

2.1.1 Due to the expansion of German empire in Africa as well as their world-wide business in the last quarter of 19th century, the Deep State of major colonial empires British and French increasingly came under the perception that German empire would very soon develop into a formidable competitor to their business of colonial empire across the world. WW-I wrecked the German empire as well as demolished the German economy to the extent that Germany couldn’t become a competitor to other European empires in the 20th century. Due to that, the British, French, Dutch, Belgium, USA colonial empires got a fresh lease of life.

2.1.2 In the European and Mediterranean geopolitical arena the longstanding empires like Russian, Ottoman Turk, and Austro-Hungarian Empires were obstinate in resisting the manipulations by Anglo and French rulers. The Anglo and French oligarchy found it very difficult to bring the entire European region under the influence of politics of liberal democracy whereby the elites of the society would create political parties, hold elections, and run government that will create a façade of people’s involvement in the governance (at the same time, however, everywhere in Europe the government, the central bank, and the economy would be owned and operated by the Deep State of major colonial empires). Due to destruction of 4 empires, the stage was set for the so-called transformation of most of the European societies to democracy

2.1.3 The Jewish and Anglo bankers and businessmen based in west European societies had been always in the forefront of the process of development of capitalism in Europe and the global colonies of European powers – starting from the ‘school’ of mercantile capitalism in 16th century, they ‘graduated’ from agrarian capitalism in 17th century, and in 18th century earned ‘master’s’ in industrial capitalism. The autocratic monarchy without democratic government proved to be impediment to the development and growth of capitalism in large part of Eurasia and east Europe. Destruction of four empires opened the floodgate of capitalistic development in those regions at the cost of common people who formed 90% of the population

2.2 Onset of WW-1:

After assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914 in Sarajevo, Serbia Austro-Hungarian empire laid a claim on Serbia. Serbia resisted with backing from Russian empire. Germany and Austro-Hungarian unity was backed by historically German-speaking community in both Germany and Austria, while Orthodox Slavic culture was the bond between Russia and Serbia. If Austro-Hungarian and German leadership were confident that Russian empire would come forward to actively support Serbia in case of any conflict with Serbia, they would not have not crossed that line (since any attack on Russia would mean conflict with France, and any attack on France would mean conflict with Britain). Instead of peace-making efforts British and French diplomacy was busy adding fuel into the fire. British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey enticed Germany and Austro-Hungary at one side and Russia at the other side to declare war against each other, and then involved France and Britain in the war. Key events unfolded as below:

2.2.1 Instead of saying that Britain will support Russia, in July 1914 Grey told German ambassador that, Britain “cannot tolerate the destruction of France.” which meant that, in case of hot conflict between Germany and Russia, the British won’t come into picture unless France came under attack

2.2.2 Grey hosted Russian Ambassador Benckendorf after his meeting with the German ambassador, and expressed that Russia should come to Serbia’s defence when Austria attack Serbia

2.2.3 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov proposed that Russia, England and France collectively pressure Austria, and force Austro-Hungarian Empire into a political settlement of their claims against Serbia. Grey rejected the proposal because that would have killed the entire war plan

2.2.4 On 23rd July, the Austrian ambassador to Serbia presented the Serbs with the ultimatum; Serbian Prince Regent Alexander sent telegram to Russian Tsar Nicholas II seeking help

2.2.5 On 28th July 1914, Austrian guns opened fire on Serbian land on the pretext that couple of clauses of Austrian demand were not agreed by Serbia

2.2.6 On 29th July, the Grey met twice with the German ambassador Lichnowsky. In the words of Lichnowsky “Grey declared that, the British government wished to maintain its former friendship with us, and it would stay out of it, since the conflict was limited to Austria and Russia. If, however, we pulled France into it, then the situation would dramatically change and the British government would potentially be compelled to take immediate action.” British and French Deep State not only organized the First World War, they tried to adjust the situation so that the fighting broke out only between Austria, Germany and Russia. They themselves wanted to stay out of it. Only when Russia and Germany destroy one another, the French and British forces will join the fight to extend their empire! (The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State followed same simple logic to plan for WW-II.)

2.2.7 Assuming that France and Britain would not join the conflict, on 31st July 1914 Germany (siding with Austro-Hungarian empire) declared war against Russia

2.2.8 France and Russia were party to ‘alliance treaty’ by which France should have come forward in support of Russia against German aggression on 31st July itself – but keeping in line with Grey’s diplomacy, against German query dated 31st July 1914 of whether or not Paris would remain neutral, France pulled back military forces 10 kilometers from the border and told that the action was “proof of France’s peaceful intentions”

2.2.9 But the duplicity was evident next day when French Prime Minister Viviani announced the military mobilization on 1st August 1914

2.2.10 On 3rd August 1914, Germany was left with only one option – to declare war on France

2.2.11 Next day on 4th August 1914, Britain entered the war to help France and Belgium. Thus with an ulterior motive of complete destruction of Russia and Germany, British and French empires ensured that the Austro-Hungarian animosity towards Serbians (culminated through the murder conspiracy) would engulf all key powers of Europe and Eurasia in WW-I viz. Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, colonial empires of Britain and France.

2.2.11 At the onset of WW-I in 1914, Russian Empire consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Russia
  • Ukraine except Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • North-Eastern Warsaw-Lublin region of Poland
  • Finland
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Moldova (and Transnistria region)

Eastern (Russian) Theatre of WW-I encompassed at its greatest extent the frontier between the Russian Empire and Romania on one side and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Turk Empire on the other. It stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south, involved Eastern Europe. Between August 1914 and the end of 1914, Russian empire was advancing against German and Austro-Hungarian forces, but 1915 onwards German and Austro-Hungarian forces were on the offensive (except Galician and Romanian regions where Brusilov Offensive worked in favour of Russian empire). German-Austrian advance was stopped at the end of 1915 on the line Riga–Dvinsk–Dünaburg–Baranovichi–Pinsk–Lutsk–Ternopil. That imply, the Russian Empire already lost by the beginning of 1916 the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Lithuania
  • Large part of Ukraine
  • Large part of Belarus
  • Large part of Poland

2.3 March (February) Revolution in 1917:

The above mentioned front line did not change significantly until the abdication of Russian Tsar in March 1917 when ‘February Revolution’ was instigated by the following 3 political parties and Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd (Leningrad / St. Petersburg) by the Provisional Committee of the State Duma:

  • Constitutional Democratic Party (support base – professionals, academicians, lawyers)
  • Socialist Revolutionary Party (support base – peasantry, agrarian labour)
  • RSDLP-Menshevik faction (support base – industrial labour, intellectuals with moderate view)

Economy of Russian Empire bore the brunt of the mobilisation and losses in WW-I. Gross industrial production in 1917 decreased by around 36% of what it had been in 1914. Real wages (inflation adjusted) fell to about 50% compared to what they had been in 1913. Over and above that, to meet the war expenditures, Russian Tsarist government took debt of more than 50 billion roubles. In and around Petrograd, discontent with the monarchy erupted into mass protests mainly against food rationing on 23 February (8 March). Mass demonstrations, violent clashes with police and gendarmes, industrial strikes continued for days. On 27 February (12 March) mutinous Russian forces sided with revolutionaries – 3 days later on 15 March Tsar Nicholas II abdicated ending Romanov dynastic rule. In the new post-Tsarist era, State Duma was led first by Prince Georgy Lvov and then by Alexander Kerensky.

There are two groups of ‘nationalist’ intellectuals with leftist and rightist views in Russia and Europe who share, rather a delusional view of 1917 anti-monarchist revolution – they think that the Zionist anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian oligarchy and elites of Europe conspired with Bolshevik communists (popular feeling was all communists are atheist) to destroy the ‘Russian’ Tsar Empire and Orthodox Slavic society (fact of the matter was Romanovs were a German clan migrated from Prussian region). This group of intellectuals forget that (a) for at least two centuries Russian empire was one of the most unequal oppressive hierarchical feudal society, and people from industrial working class, peasantry, soldiers were spontaneously agitating for most basic of the rights – right for food, and (b) in March 1917, Bolshevik communists were completely outsmarted by the above mentioned three party combination, who ousted Tsar and his council of ministers to form Provisional Government – had the Provisional Government not messed up, Bolshevik party would have to wait few decades to come to power.

Historian Alexander Rabinowitch summarised the causes of February 1917 revolution: “The February 1917 revolution … grew out of pre-war political and economic instability, technological backwardness, and fundamental social divisions, coupled with gross mismanagement of the war effort, continuing military defeats, domestic economic dislocation, and outrageous scandals surrounding the monarchy”.

The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State, was pleased with the abdication by Tsar and the installation of the Provisional Government. They were very swift in recognising the government:

USA government recognition on 22 March 1917

UK, France, Italy government recognition on 24 March 1917

The haste with which the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State (the same elites who manipulated the events that led to entry of Germany and Russia in WW-I) welcomed the Provisional Government led by three anti-Bolshevik parties prove that, the Zionist-Capitalist elites were indeed anti-Tsar anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian, but they teamed up with anti-Bolshevik regime; and identifying Zionist-Capitalist elites with Bolsheviks would be no more than Orwellian truth.

Various estimates suggest Russian empire had around six million casualties (dead, missing, and wounded) during WW-I before January 1917. On the war front, by January 1917 everything was bleak – inadequate supply of arms-ammunition-food, incompetent officers, war-weariness among soldiers, mutinies among soldiers demanding end to war efforts, abnormally low level of morale among officers and soldiers, etc. And, on the home front burning issues like inflation, poverty, scarcity of food commodities, overstretched railway network, and millions of refugees from German-occupied Russia combined to bring a nightmare in Russian empire.

Initial composition of the Provisional Government formed mainly by three parties was led by Minister-President and Minister of the Interior Georgy Lvov. After July crisis, on 6th August 1917 the Second coalition cabinet was formed under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky (Minister-President and Minister of War and Navy). The Third Provisional government led by Minister-President Alexander Kerensky was formed on 8th October 1917. The Provisional Government was inherently weak and incompetent – even if they passed new laws and policies, implementation and enforcement of the same lacked ingenuity. The Provisional Government had internal contradictions on the issue of continuation of WW-I – Kerensky Offensive was launched with disastrous results. Opposition from common people to government policies and war efforts increased by the day.

On 14th March 1917 the Petrograd Soviet issued “Order No. 1,” which instructed the troops to disarm their officers. This was one of the significant instances where Provisional Government and Soviet both wanted to assert their power. To restore Army’s morale Kerensky launched an offensive (Kerensky Offensive) on 1st July which ended in a military catastrophe – morale of the Russian Army went down further. In September 1917 the then commander-in-chief of the Russian army, General Lavr Kornilov’s troops approached Petrograd, apparently to seize power in a military coup. Kerensky arrested them. The Kornilov affair remain unresolved till now. The exist a line of thought which suggest that Kornilov and Kerensky reached an agreement before the troop movement by which it was agreed that power would be shared by two of them; however in reality, Kerensky’s actions were betrayal of Kornilov. Whatever might the reality, relation between Provisional Government and Russian Army hit a new low.

2.4 November (October) Revolution in 1917:

While the country was rapidly sinking in chaos and disorder, the Bolshevik party under Lenin’s leadership quickly recovered the organisational ground lost to the Menshevik Party and Socialist Revolutionary Party in the beginning of 1917, by (a) positioning the Petrograd Soviet as a working committee which was more competent compared to the Provisional Government (indeed, Petrograd Soviet managed to take over the control of Petrograd, the most important trading and port city, gained control of the Imperial Army, and the Russian Railways beside their already existing control of local factories); (b) steadily weakening the three parties who were the backbone of the Provisional Government through pulling the left-minded members of those parties within the fold of Bolshevik party (within just 7 months, intellectual voices almost became non-existent in those three parties which outsmarted Bolshevik party in seizing state power; and, (c) creating the Red Guard units in March 1917 as paramilitary volunteer organizations (comprised mainly of factory workers, peasants, soldiers, sailors) for “protection of the soviet power”. They fought to protect and extend the power of the soviets (like Petrograd Soviet).

Continuous shortage of food, and other supplies created tremendous unrest – there were mass strikes by millions of workers in Petrograd, Moscow, Donbas, Urals, and Central Industrial Region during September and October 1917. The factory committees coordinated workers’ strike and negotiated better pay, working hours, and working conditions. During the same time, the peasant community lost faith that the land would be distributed to them by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries – peasant movements targeted against the landowners spread to 482 of 624 counties. Seizures of land as well as marches on landowner manors became common. Spectre of famine generated a tendency of storing grains rather than selling them in the market. Soldiers and sailors became unionised and they started ignoring the authority of the Provisional Government.

Families of soldiers would incite “subsistence riots”/ “hunger riots” during which rural citizens seized food and other supplies from shop owners, who they believed to be charging higher prices.

The Central Committee of Bolshevik party made the decision on 23rd October to seize power. Red Guards forces attached with Bolshevik party began to occupy the government buildings on 7th November, 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace was captured. The Military-Revolutionary Committee coordinated the Red Guards activities. On 8th November, 1917 the Second Congress of Soviets elected a new cabinet of Bolsheviks known as the Council (Soviet) of People’s Commissars, with Lenin as leader. The cabinet passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land which were approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies.

Historical timeline shows that the first seizure of power in Tallinn by Soviet happened on 5th November 1917, next in Petrograd, Minsk, Novgorod, Ivanovo-Voznesenski and Tartu on 7th November 1917, next in Ufa, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, and Narva on 8th November 1917. Significant power seizures included Pskov, Moscow, and Baku on 15th November 1917, Sevastopol on 29th December 1917, Kiev and Vologda on 8th February 1918, and the last on 25th February 1918 in Novocherkassk.

The Constituent Assembly elections were held on 25th November 1917. On 18th January 1918 the Constituent Assembly had its first and only day in session. The Constituent Assembly rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land that prompted the Congress of Soviets to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.

Apart from the peace and land decrees, Soviet issued other decrees which clearly established their ideology as pro-poor as their party claimed:

  • Nationalization of private property
  • Nationalization of Russian banks
  • Expropriation of Church properties
  • Expropriation of private bank accounts
  • Repudiation of foreign debts
  • Higher rates of wages for workers
  • Introduction of eight-hour working in factories and other establishments

2.5 WW-I Peace Treaty in 1918:

There were three views prevalent in 1917 Russia:

  • Continue fighting in WW-I to defend liberty and “Russian honour” – Kerensky (initially the Minister of War, thereafter the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government) was a proponent of this opinion
  • Opinion called as “revolutionary defensism” suggested achieving peace without annexations and indemnities. Supporters of this view didn’t have much fervour for territorial gains or Pan-Slavic liberation, but if pushed to the wall they were not ready to formally accept defeat
  • Another view called “defeatism” was held by the Bolshevik Party leaders who proposed that WW-I was an ”imperialist war” where common people were being killed for the expansionist designs of empires – they also wished to achieve peace without annexations and indemnities, but if pushed to the wall they were ready to formally accept defeat

Lenin’s call for cessation of hostilities in WW-I was backed by hard realities of poverty among common Russians and shortage of supplies for Russian Army – Lenin was neither swayed by the aristocratic ‘glory and glamour’ of the Tsarist empire nor influenced by ritualistic ‘patriotism’ parroted by bourgeois and Menshevik socialist politicians. The Decree on Peace called “upon all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace” – peace may be decorative item for oligarchy and aristocracy, but peace is an essential element of plebeian life. Lenin was particularly scathing in exposing the role WW-I played for Russian people’s suffering – food shortage, tax rise, rising cost of living, refugee crisis, etc.

Trotsky was appointed Commissar of Foreign Affairs in new Bolshevik government. Trotsky appointed Adolph Joffe to represent the Bolsheviks at the peace conference with the Central Powers. The key events were:

2.5.1 An armistice between Russia and the Central Powers (German empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman empire) was concluded on 15th December 1917. A week later peace negotiations started in Brest-Litovsk

2.5.2 Kaiser Wilhelm II, Chief of Imperial German Army Paul Hindenburg, Army General Max Hoffmann, Army General Erich Ludendorff, Foreign Minister Richard Kuhlmann, these five high priests of German imperialism were the main actors on German side during negotiation. On the Russian side Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Stalin were main actors during negotiation.

2.5.3 Germany agreed to Russian demand of peace with “no annexations or indemnities”, but with proposition that Poland and Lithuania will be independent on the basis of ‘self-determination’ (obviously both the so-called independent state will align with German empire). One of the Russian negotiation team member, noted Marxist historian Mikhail Pokrovsky wept and asked how they could speak of “peace without annexations, when Germany was tearing eighteen provinces away from the Russian state”

2.5.4 On 1st January 1918, the Kaiser discussed with Hoffmann on future German-Polish border during which Hoffman suggested Germany should take a small slice of Poland. Hindenburg and Ludendorff were of different opinion who, being the winning side, wanted much more territorial acquisitions including Baltic countries. Ukrainian Rada declared independence from Russia, and demanded the Polish city of Cholm and its surroundings.

2.5.5 During 1st week of February 1918, a group of ‘Left’ Communists comprising of Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek wanted to continue the war with a newly-raised revolutionary force while awaiting for socialist revolution in Germany, Austria, and Turkey. Trotsky wanted to “announce the termination of the war and demobilization without signing any peace”. Lenin advocated for signing an early deal rather than having even more disastrous treaty after a few more weeks of military defeats.

2.5.6 Peace negotiation started on 10th February 1918 and Trotsky proposed the German side his concept of ‘no war and no peace’, and abstained from drawing any conclusion

2.5.7 German General Hoffmann notified Russian team on 16th February 1918 that German Army would resume their attack on Russia because peace treaty was not signed. On 18th February 1918 Lenin’s resolution that Russia sign the treaty was supported by Central Committee. Lenin convinced the majority of Bolshevik party leadership (most of whom, as a first choice, wanted a new war to be waged against imperialist Central Powers) that a peace treaty with the Central Powers is a must for the new Bolshevik revolution to sustain in the long run – historical facts show, extremely unfavourable environment at that point of time in Russia because (a) Food shortage was rampant which created large scale civil unrest, (b) Tsarist Army was in complete disorder while Red Army was being built from scratch, and (c) lack of strength of German socialist party to compel their government to cease offensive (as part of WW-I) on Russian front

2.5.8 Germany launched Operation Faustschlag on 18th February 1918. General Hoffmann advanced further into Russian territory till 22nd February 1918, and on 23rd February 1918 he tabled new terms for peace treaty that included withdrawal of all Russian troops from Finland and Ukraine

2.5.9 Trotsky resigned as foreign minister. Sokolnikov arrived at Brest-Litovsk to represent Soviet Russian Bolshevik government, and the peace treaty (called as Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) was signed on 3rd March 1918

2.5.10 With this treaty, Russia had to renounce all territorial claims in

  • Finland
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Ukraine
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • Bessarabia
  • Russian part of Poland (was under possession of White Army);

Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks. Consequently, Russia lost one-third of its population, half of its industrial land, one-fourth of its railway, three-quarters of iron ore, and nine-tenth of its coalfields as German side insisted that Russia has to cede more than 150,000 sq. km. of territories.

2.5.11 This treaty was annulled by the Armistice of 11th November 1918 when Germany surrendered to the Entente Powers (excluding Russia). The Bolshevik legislature (VTsIK) annulled the treaty on 13th November 1918

2.6 Russian Civil War and Formation of Soviet Union:

Anti-Bolshevik groups landowners, bankers, middle-class citizens, monarchists, army senior officers, and politicians like liberals-conservatives-democrats as well as non-Bolshevik socialists aligned against the Bolshevik Communist government. The anti-Bolshevik groups were collectively known as ‘White Army’ who controlled significant parts of the former Russian Empire between 1918 and 1920.

In January 1918 Trotsky headed the reorganization of the existing Red Guards into a Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army in order to create a more efficient military force. In June 1918 Trotsky instituted mandatory conscription of the peasantry into the Red Army, and inducted former Tsarist Army officers as “specialists”. By 1922, more than one-third of all Red Army officers were ex-Tsarist Army officers. To prevent sabotage, the orders of ex-Tsarist Army officers were subject to approval by Bolshevik political commissars assigned to the unit. At the height of the Civil War the Red Army numbered almost five million men. Trotsky was the overall Commander and the Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council.

The Civil War in the military sense was fought on several fronts. The key events during the civil war between the ‘White Army’ and ‘Red Army’ were:

2.6.1 Czechoslovak Legion (by end of 1917, the Legion had more than 60,000 soldiers) was granted permission to evict from Ukraine in February 1918 by the Bolshevik government – since most of Russia’s main ports were blockaded, the Legion would travel from Ukraine to port of Vladivostok, where the men would embark on ocean-going vessels. The slow evacuation by Trans-Siberian Railway was aggravated by shortage of transport vehicles. On 14th May 1918 at Chelyabinsk Legion forces attacked POW and revolted against Bolshevik authorities. The Red Army lost control over Volga, Ural, and Siberia regions along the Trans-Siberian Railway. The Czechoslovak Legion occupied more cities in along the Railway route, including Nizhneudinsk, Kurgan, Novonikolaevsk, Mariinsk, Kansk, Samara, Kuznetsk, Irkutsk, and Chita. With Bolshevik forces on retreat, the White Army occupied Petropavl, Omsk, and Syzran, and advanced towards Saratov and Kazan. By 1919 relation between the Legion forces and White Army deteriorated sharply. Between December 1919 and September 1920, the Legion evacuated by sea from Vladivostok.

2.6.2 Western Siberia was the theatre for another White Army – Admiral Kolchak assumed command of this army in November 1918. During the summer and fall of 1919 Kolchak launched successful offensives against Red Army. In the spring of 1919 while approaching the shores of the Volga he was stopped and defeated by the Red Army. He was captured and shot without a trial, and his army disintegrated quickly.

2.6.3 Eastern Siberia Japanese forces entered through Vladivostok in August 1918 strength of which later increased to 70,000 troops. The Japanese were joined by British, USA, Canadian, French, and Italian troops. On 5 September 1918, the Japanese forces linked up with the vanguard of the Czechoslovak Legion. The Japanese forces ventured up to the west of Lake Baikal. By November, they occupied all ports and towns in Siberia east of Chita and the maritime provinces. The British, French, and Italian contingents marched westward to support Kolchak’s White Army.

2.6.4 Southern Russia & Ukraine had Volunteer Army organized among the Cossacks by General Alekseyev and General Kornilov in the winter of 1917-18. General Anton Denikin took over after death of Alekseyev and Kornilov. To extend material support to the White Army the French Army occupied Odessa and Sevastopol on 18th December 1918, a month after the WW-I armistice. In October 1919, Denikin’s Army, augmented by French and British aid and supplies, reached Orel about 250 kilometres south of Moscow. The Red Army crushed Denikin’s Army in the subsequent battles waged in October and November 1919. In the Crimean peninsula General Wrangel reorganized his army and held on for a while, from where it was dislodged on 14th November 1920 when General Wrangel fled Russia.

2.6.5 Caucasus also had its own share of civil war. In 1917, Allied military troops from British forces (and its colonies – Australia and Canada) deployed across Qajar Persia to seize Baku oil fields. The force fought the Red Army at Enzeli, then proceeded by ship to the port of Baku on the Caspian Sea. Ottoman forces clashed with Allied forces in September 1918. After the Ottoman Empire withdrew its forces from the borders of Azerbaijan in the middle of November 1918, fresh British troops arrived in Baku on 17 November.

2.6.6 North Russia was the most intensely battled region (apart from Baltic). To counter German troops that landed in Finland in April 1918 (who could capture Murmansk–Petrograd railway, ice-free port of Murmansk, and city of Arkhangelsk including supply warehouses) and to actively participate in anti-Bolshevik struggle of the White Army, the Allied block sent a huge force to north Russia. The military force comprising of army and navy of Zionist-Capitalist powers (UK and colonies, USA, France, and Italy) led by a British officer Lt. General Poole, launched anti-Bolshevik operation in late May-June 1918 in Arkhangelsk. On 2nd August 1918 Tsarist Russian officer staged a coup under tutelage of General Poole against the local Bolshevik government, and seized power.

In September 1918, the Allied Powers captured Obozerskaya. Their invasion followed the routes of both banks of the Northern Dvina river in the east, Vaga river and Onega river in the west, and Arkhangelsk Railway. Fighting was heavy – after initial gain by Allied forces, Red Army fought back. By next four months the Allied Powers’ gains shrunk to only around 50 km along the Northern Dvina and Lake Onega Area. USA forces fought their last major battle at Bolshie Ozerki from 31st March till 4th April 1919. From April 1919, the inability to defend the flanks and mutinies in the White Army caused the Allied Powers to decide complete withdrawal. On 27th September 1919, the last Allied troops departed from Archangelsk. Murmansk was abandoned on 12th October 1919.

Estonian Commander Laidoner rescinded his command over the White Russians on 19th June 1919, and they were renamed the Northwestern Army under the command of General Yudenich. The Northwestern Army on 9th October 2019 launched Operation White Sword to capture Petrograd with arms-ammunition provided by Britain and France. With the help of Estonian Army, Estonian Navy, and British Royal Navy Yudenich’s troops approached to within 16 km of Petrograd. The Red Army repulsed them back to the Narva River, and launched a counter-offensive in December 1919. Defeated and disorganised, some White Army soldiers retreated beyond Estonian state border and the remnants of the Army were evacuated from Arkhangelsk in February 1920. The Bolsheviks took Arkhangelsk on 20th February 1920 and Murmansk on 13th March 1920.

2.6.7 Baltic campaign of British military (Operation Red Trek) was the biggest naval intervention starting from November 1918 in Russia by the imperialist powers especially UK. British Royal Navy ships supported the Estonian and Latvian anti-Bolshevik troops by bombarding the Red Army positions on land. British military provided military supplies to the anti-Bolshevik troops and denied the Bolsheviks the ability to move by sea. The Russian Baltic Fleet, though severely depleted after WW-I, was still relevant to the Red Army for protection of Petrograd. The Estonian High Command pushed across the border into Russia and initiated an offensive Narva – the attack was supported by British Navy and Estonian Navy. The Estonian Pskov offensive commenced at the same time on 13th May 1919 and captured Petseri town by 25th May to clear the land between Estonia and Velikaya River (to facilitate northern White Army movements). In the summer of 1919, the Royal Navy boxed up the Red fleet in Kronstadt. In the autumn of 1919, British forces provided gunfire support to General Yudenich’s White Army which launched a failed offensive against Bolshevik-held Petrograd. On 2nd February 1920, Soviet Russia signed the peace treaty recognising Estonian independence – this resulted in withdrawal of British Navy from Baltic.

In November 1918 Latvia proclaimed independence, but Red Army launches its assault on the pro-White Latvian troops on 1st December 1918 and moved forward to control most of the territory by February 1919. German and Latvian forces launch counterattack on Red Army on 3rd March 1919. Pro-German nobility formed army and tried to establish their authority before ceasefire on 3rd July. The anti-Bolshevik West Russian Volunteer Army attacked Riga on 8th October, but was defeated after five weeks of fighting. The joint forces of Poland and Latvia launched an attack on the Bolsheviks in Latgale and took Daugavpils. Latvia signed cease-fire on 1st February 1920 with Soviet Russia, and on 15th July 1920 with Germany.

2.6.8 When it became evident that the Red Army and the Bolshevik government has effectively organised themselves across Soviet Russia to crush all resistances by different White Army as well as foreign forces, all Allied forces were evacuated by 1920, apart from the Japanese forces who stayed until 1922. Estimates of the casualties of the Civil War, most of them civilian victims range from a minimum of 10 million to 25 million

2.6.9 By 1921 the Red Army reoccupied all those regions that were part of the defunct Russian Empire except Poland (Poland also seized western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia), and Baltic region (Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia-Finland). On 29th December 1922 a conference of plenipotentiary delegations from the Russian SFSR, the Trans-Caucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). These two documents were confirmed by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first USSR constitution was formally adopted in January 1924.

The most agonising irony of this historical period was that, White Army was seeking support (in the name of Tsar) from same imperialists who completely destroyed Tsarist empire just 3 years back. The-then zionist-capitalist Deep State in UK-France-USA-Japan-Italy withdrew all support and threw the Russian White Army contingents into bottomless pit when they found Soviet Russia had built a strong new army – the Red Army.

There exists a view shared by so-called “nationalist” and “patriotic” leaders of past and present Russia – had Bolshevik party led by Lenin not interfered with Russia’s involvement in WW-I to sign a peace treaty with Germany (and its allies), Russia would have been in the ‘winning team’ of the Entente Powers and would have got a share of the booty flowing out of the Versailles Treaty signed just 8 months later. This view is untenable when scrutinised deeply. Had Russia been active on the WW-I war front even after February 1918, they could have lost even more territory that could include Russia proper. By 1916, Russian Army was not only hopelessly short of food, clothing, ammunitions, and other logistics in the war front, but Russian Army morale was, to a large extent, shattered; moreover Red Army was not yet in complete shape. Strategically, Lenin proved to be far-sighted – he could sense that, with USA officially entering the WW-I on 6th April 1917, Entente Powers would win against Central Powers, and those Zionist-Capitalist powers would directly control the vast east European territories (earlier part of Tsar Russia, but lost to Germany during WW-I). Lenin assessed that concluding a peace treaty with Germany in February 1918, while control of at least Russia proper was still with Bolshevik party, was administratively better than, simultaneously facing onslaught of German Army (in absence of a peace treaty) plus assault of White Army buttressed by active support from anti-communist governments of about 15 countries that included significant imperialist power like:

  • UK, Australia, Canada
  • France
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • USA
  • Romania etc.

History proved Lenin’s sagacity – after the conspiracy by British diplomat Bruce Lockhart to sabotage the Bolshevik government in 1918 got exposed, from 1918 till 1921 the Zionist-Capitalist hyenas were out to dismember Russia proper in dozens of pieces using the White Army generals Yudenich, Kolchak, Denikin, and few others, but with German Army neutralized along most of the front, the Red Army valiantly fought against them for unification of Soviet Russia.

2.7 Who Ultimately Won WW-I?

Genoa Economic and Financial Conference was held in Genoa, Italy from 10th April to 19th May 1922, as planned by British PM David Lloyd George. Primarily the objective was how the European countries can deal with the pariah states of Germany and Russia to resolve the major economic issues.

The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State comprising of more than 30 countries including the imperialist powers UK, France claimed that Soviet Russian (Bolshevik) government need to pay them (a) pre-WW-I debts plus interests, (b) war time debts plus interests, (c) all assets provided to the White Army plus interests, (d) cost of all enterprises, which had been owned by foreign citizens. Total claim was worth 18 billion golden roubles. The expectations were that the Bolshevik government would surrender Soviet Russian economy and become a kind of colony of UK-France-Italy.

Lenin’s government submitted a counterclaim 30 billion golden roubles that would pay for the losses due to foreign intervention and the blockade during the civil war. While the imperialist Deep State delegates were busy discussing the unbelievable ‘audacity’ of the Soviet government, the Soviet Russian delegates concluded a pioneering agreement with Germany on 16th April 1922 in Rapallo, the Genoa suburb. Both sides accepted the nullification of Brest-Litovsk Treaty, mutually gave up their territorial and financial claims (like reimbursement of military expenses and civilian losses), Germany acknowledged nationalization of (German state and private) property in Soviet Russia. West European delegations came to know about this Agreement only after it had been signed previous night.

Soviet Russian delegates offered the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State a softer version of Soviet claim – Soviet government would acknowledge pre-war debts of Russia and would provide former owners the right to lease their ex-property or to take it on concession; in lieu of that UK-France-Italy were to acknowledge the Soviet government and provide it with financial support, forgive war debts and interests, acknowledged nationalization of enterprises. The Soviet delegation stuck to their stand during the Hague conference in June, 1922. The objective of the conferences, obviously, were not achieved (by the-then Deep State).

At every step of statecraft – economic, political, diplomatic, and military – Lenin outmanoeuvred the zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries. Their revulsion about Lenin was so complete that they refused to recognise USSR while Lenin was alive! Only after his death on 21st January 1924, USSR was recognised by European and American imperialist powers – UK on 2nd February 1924, France on 28th October 1924, Italy on 7th February 1924, and USA on 16th November 1933.

Soviet Union was constructed on the same map where Tsarist Russian Empire once existed, albeit with smaller footprint. Led by Lenin, the new country set out on the journey of a social development free from ALL sorts of exploitation unheard of in the entire human history. Soon Russia and its imperial adversary Germany patched up in order to tackle their own financial and economic problems. In the final assessment, one can conclude that it was Lenin’s Soviet Union which won the WW-I by not allowing the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State to ruin the Eurasian landmass. And, that fact didn’t go down well with the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy of imperialists like UK-France-Italy-Japan-USA, who again started next round of conspiracy to draw Soviet Union and Germany into yet another devastating war.

3. Soviet Union and Germany during WW-II

No sooner had the news spread about signing of the Treaty of Rapallo on 16th April 1922 night than the Zionist-Capitalist powers started their plan for another round of conflict between Russia and Germany in order to ruin both. In the 1920s neither Russia nor Germany remained empires ruled by aristocracy, but WW-II remained same old story just like WW-I – a web of deception and conspiracy pieced together by Zionist-Capitalist elites.

3.1 Objectives of WW-II:

In the section 6. ‘Geopolitics 1930 onwards’ of my earlier article ‘Bridging China’s Past with Humanity’s Future – Part 2, I recapitulated on the objectives of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State related to WW-II.

[Link: http://thesaker.is/bridging-chinas-past-with-humanitys-future-part-2/ ]

I would like to quote it here, since it is pertinent:

“ With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist-Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW-I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:

  • own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
  • own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
  • control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth

I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.

The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW-II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of Zionist-Capitalist empire:

  • combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
  • combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
  • stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
  • stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire (as against ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version) in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way;

Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW-II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. “

3.2 Prelude to WW-II:

Treaty of Versailles to end WW-I was signed on 28th June 1919 in Versailles exactly 5 years after assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, with stringent conditions that impacted Germany’s economy. Harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles created a kind resentment among the Germans as well as other peace-loving Europeans, for they anticipated a violent reaction in future from the German population against such humiliating treaty.

3.2.1 Conditions of Treaty of Versailles

Territorial implications – Germany was stripped of 65,000 sq. km. of territory and 7 million people. Germany had to give up all direct territorial gains and protectorates via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Germany would recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and Eupen-Malmedy. Germany was to cede the control of Saar to League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite would decide sovereignty. France would control Alsace-Lorraine. A plebiscite would decide sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein. Germany would recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia including some parts of Upper Silesia. Germany would recognize the independence of Poland including some portions of Upper Silesia, East Prussian Soldau area, Posen, and eastern Pomerania. Sovereignty of Southern East Prussia would be decided via plebiscite. Thus Poland got about 51,000 sq. km. area at the expense of Germany. Germany would cede Danzig and its hinterland for the League of Nations to establish the Free City of Danzig.

German colonies in Africa were converted into League of Nations mandates. Togoland and Cameroon were transferred to France. Ruanda and Burundi were transferred to Belgium. Britain got German East Africa, and (UK’s colony) South Africa got German South-West Africa. Kionga Triangle in northern Mozambique was allocated to Portugal. German Samoa was allocated to New Zealand, while German occupied islands in the Pacific Ocean south of equator were allocated to Australia. German concessions in Shandong, China was transferred to Japan who also got German occupied islands in the Pacific north of equator.

Trading of military machinery – Germany was prohibited from the manufacture or stockpile of armoured cars, battle tanks, military aircrafts, naval vessels, chemical weapon etc. Limits were imposed on the type and quantity of weapons and arms trading.

Reparation implications – An Allied “Reparation Commission” would be established to determine the amount which Germany would pay – it would submit its conclusions by 1st May 1921 after hearing the German Government’s stand. Interim reparation fixed at 20 billion gold marks ($5 billion) in gold, commodities, ships, securities, and other assets.

On 24th April 1921 German Government wrote to USA Government expressing readiness to accept total liability of 50 billion gold marks as reparation. The London Schedule of Payments of 5th May 1921 established final reparation sum of 132 billion gold marks to be paid by all Central Powers combined. The Commission, however, recognized that the Central Powers were not in a position to pay except Germany. Reparation amount was divided into three series of bonds: “A”, “B”, and “C” Bonds. “A” and “B” together had a nominal valuation of 50 billion gold marks (US$12.5 billion) which must be paid by Germany (out of which 9 billion gold marks payments were made between 1919 and May 1921). Reparation against “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) may/may not be required to be paid depending on Allied Powers decision in future.

The USA provided UK and France with loans amounting to USD 8.8 billon, when it formally entered WW-I. The total sum of war debt owed to the USA was USD 11 billion (including the loan given between 1919 and 1921) – essentially the UK and France governments wanted Germany to pay the reparations equivalent to their total loans accumulated during the course of WW-I.

3.2.2 Implementation of Reparation Payments

The flight of German capital abroad as a result of reparation payments and lower tax collection resulted in massive state deficit. To overcome that German government printed and dumped German marks without backing of gold/silver/forex. As a result, 1922 to 1924 German currency collapsed on hyperinflation (in 1923, inflation rate reached 578512%, 1 USD was worth 4.2 trillion Deutsch marks). Germany was unable to pay reparations.

During March to December 1923, Dawes Plan was formulated for which John Foster Dulles (legal advisor to USA President Woodrow Wilson), Montague Norman (Head of Bank of England), Charles G. Dawes (Director of one of J.P. Morgan banks), collaborated with Hjalmar Schacht (Dresdner Bank official). Dawes Plan transformed the existing Reichsbank as an institution independent of the Reich government (at least 50% of ruling body non-German) with Schacht as the director of ReichbankDawes Plan also introduced Reichsmark on 30th August 1924 replacing the old German mark and the hyperinflation was brought under control. In April 1924 the Dawes Plan formally replaced the “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) omitted. In 1st year following the implementation of new plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. Increasing gradually that figure would become 2.5 billion marks per year by 5th year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established to coordinate the payments. A loan of 800 million marks would be arranged to back the German currency and economy – over 50% from USA based banks, 25% from UK based banks, and the balance from other European countries.

On 16th September 1928, a joint Allied-German statement was published acknowledging the necessity of a new reparation plan. The Young Plan (formulated by Owen D Young, American industrialist and trustee of Rockefeller Foundation) presented in June 1929 established the final reparation requirements at 112 billion gold marks (US$26.35 billion) with a new schedule of payments that would see final instalment of payment by 1988. In addition, Young Plan shifted the responsibility of coordination of reparation payments to Bank for International Settlements (which was established to coordinate among central banks and to receive and disburse reparation payments). A new loan of 1200 million marks would be raised by USA, UK, France and other European banks to back the German currency and economy.

With the financial crisis in German economy in 1931, USA President Herbert Hoover publicly proposed in June 1931 a one-year moratorium to reparation and war debts. Reparations were suspended for a year. On 16 June 1932 the Lausanne Conference opened, which annulled the Young Plan and instead required Germany to pay a final, single instalment of 3 billion marks. Thus Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid less than 21 billion marks in reparations.

The relationship between Nazi government and the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State was so good that Reichsbank head Schacht travelled to the U.S. in May 1933 to meet major Wall Street bankers. As a result, USA-based banks provided Germany with new loans totalling USD 1 billion. After that, in 1933 new German Chancellor Adolf Hitler cancelled all payments, but neither Britain nor France forced German government to pay up. In June 1953, London Agreement on German External Debts resulted in agreement to pay 50% of the loan amounts that had been defaulted on in the 1920s and 1930s, but deferred some of the debt until German unification. In 1995, following reunification, Germany began making the final payments towards the loans. A final instalment of US$94 million was made on 3 October 2010, settling German loan debts in regard to WW-I reparations.

It will not be out of place to recall the views on ‘burden of WW-I reparation on Germany’ from three outstanding historians: AJP Taylor in his The Origins of the Second World War stated that in 1919 “many people believed that the payment of reparations would reduce Germany to a state of Asiatic poverty”, and that Keynes “held this view, as did all Germans; and probably many Frenchmen”. However, he also says these “apprehensions of Keynes and the Germans were grotesquely exaggerated”Hans Mommsen & Elborg Foster wrote in their book The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy, “Germany financed its reparation payments to Western creditor nations with American loans”, which the British and French powers then used to “cover their long-term interest obligations and to retire their wartime debts with the United States”. Apparently what the authors wanted to convey between the lines was: as a direct fallout of the Treaty of Versailles, the Zionist-Capitalist banking elites of USA, UK, France and other European countries established total control in 1920s over Germany’s economy including monetary system through loans, and forced equity purchase as reparations.

3.2.3 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Economy of Germany

With the support of large bank loans from New York and London economic prosperity returned during 1924 to 1929 period. During this period exports doubled, and by 1929 GDP per capita was about 12 per cent higher than in 1913. However, even before the financial crisis of 1931, unemployment was more than 2 million by the end of 1928.

Germany made payments for both reparations and loans with shares of German companies – that allowed USA-based and UK-based capital to integrate itself into the German economy. The total foreign investment in German industry during 1924 to 1929 period amounted to nearly 63 billion gold marks – repay of loans accounted for 30 billion gold marks, and reparations accounted for 10 billion gold marks. JP Morgan provided majority of the investments. By 1930, German industry (majority owned by USA’s financial and industrial oligarchy) was second ranking in the world:

  • German military industry company IG Farben was under control of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
  • German radio and electrical industry companies AEG and Siemens had General Electric as large investor around 30% stake, JP Morgan controlled General Electric
  • 40% of Germany’s telephone network was controlled by ITT, JP Morgan controlled ITT
  • 30% of Germany’s aircraft manufacturer Focke-Wulf was controlled by JP Morgan
  • Germany’s automotive industry company Volkswagen was owned 100% by Henry Ford, while Opel was taken over by the DuPont family’s General Motors.
  • In Germany metallurgical monopoly was established by Rockefeller bank, Dillon Reed and Co in 1926 – Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Unified Steel Trust) of Thyssen, Flick, Wolf etc.
  • By 1933, USA capital entered major banks like Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank etc.; in 1936 New York branch of Schroeder’s bank merged with a Rockefeller holding to create investment bank Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.

After Hitler seized power as the Chancellor, 1933 onwards, the economy continued to develop. Like the previous government, Hitler also viewed foreign credit as source of financing his four-year plans. Government mixed pro-people measures (as subsidies) with corporatocracy. UK and Germany signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement in 1934 which enabled Germany to become UK’s primary trading partner. Nazi party allotted maximum predominance to Germany’s military industry. During the WW-II German economy was buttressed exploitation of conquered territories and society. Real GDP grew by more than 50% between 1933 and 1937. Spending on military machinery between 1933 and 1939 increased tenfold (from 1.9 billion to 18.41 billion marks) and, growth as a percentage of the annual budget from 24% to 58%. Industrial production increased substantially until 1945 (due to production of military armament) when WW-II ended.

Rockefeller oil giant Standard Oil constructed large oil refineries in Germany that supplied the Nazi war machinery with oil. For the military and aerospace sector also American MNCs like Douglas, Pratt and Whitney tied up with German companies to build aeroplane factories. By 1941, when the WW-II was in full-swing, direct USA investment in the German economy crossed more than USD 0.5 billion (Standard Oil – USD 120 million, General Motors – USD 35 million, ITT – USD 30 million).

3.2.4 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Politics of Germany

Weimar Constitution stipulated that Reichstag elections would be held every two years. Such impractical postulation resulted in 9 Reichstag elections over the course of 14 years (1919-1933) and 14 different persons served as chancellor. As a result of the absurdity when Hitler appeared and Nazi party renounced the ‘circus show’ general population welcomed them enthusiastically. The significant points about the rise of Nazi party and Hitler are noted below:

  • NSDAP (Nazi party) was based on racist imperialist anti-communist philosophy from its birth. Adolf Hitler announced Nazi party’s program on 24th February 1920 which included clause like:
    • We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples
    • We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germaine shall be abrogated
    • We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population (i.e. Lebensraum – living space)
    • Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be countryman
    • Etc.
  • On behalf of USA secret services, US Military Attaché in Germany Captain Truman-Smith explored potential recruits among German politicians who would work to further the interests of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State – retired General Ludendorff, Crown Prince Ruprecht, and Adolf Hitler. On 20th November 1922, the captain met with the future Fuhrer in his apartment. Hitler was quite candid with the American. After returning from Berlin, Truman-Smith submitted a report, which the embassy sent to Washington on 25th November 1922. Hitler, the Nazi leader invited Truman-Smith, the USA diplomat to his next rally. Instead of going there, Truman-Smith sent his friend (another secret service officer) Ernst Hanfstaengl. Ernst Hanfstaengl had dual German-USA citizenship (born in Bavaria, Germany and graduated from Harvard University along with FD Roosevelt as his classmate-cum-friend in 1909). Two meters tall Ernst was called as “Putzi” by Nazis. Ernst Hanfstaengl Putzi was truly the friend-philosopher-guide for Hitler, he was the puppet master behind the scene:
    • Hanfstaengl, introduced Hitler, the rustic corporal to Munich’s elite society, taught Hitler the manners prevalent in high society and gave Hitler respectability. Putzi’s family did the most important task of image-making for Hitler.
    • The Hanfstaengl family was rich. In March 1923, Hanfstaengl gave Hitler a loan of USD 1,000, which was a huge amount those days.
    • In his memoirs, Hanfstaengl states the ideas he embedded into Hitler’s mind: “If there’s another war, whoever has America on their side will win. The only sensible policy that you should follow is friendship with the United States. If they Americans end up on your enemy’s side, you will lose any war…”. During 1923, Hanfstaengl held a series of geopolitical discussions with Hitler to shape his ideas in detail and expanding his horizons – “In many ways, Hitler was still malleable and obedient,” Hanfstaengl wrote. In 1924, “the obedient student” wrote his own book, repeating the thesis of his friend, the USA secret service agent.
    • Hitler was a gifted orator. Ernst Hanfstaengl added confidence and enhanced effectiveness of Hitler’s communication skills.
    • Responding to Hitler question: “how can I get through to the German people, without the press? The newspapers totally ignore me. How can build on my success as an orator with our pitiful Volkischer Beobachter (Nazi newspaper), which comes out with my speeches only once a week? We will not achieve anything until it prints daily.” Ernst Hanfstaengl provided a loan of USD 1,000. With the money Nazi party bought a new printing machine for their newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter. Putzi pulled cartoonist Schwartzer to make the newspaper attractive.
    • Hitler ‘appointed’ Putzi as the foreign press secretary of the party. Furthermore, Putzi also headed the foreign press division in Hitler’s deputy’s office. He was the single most important interlocutor between the German national oligarchy and zionist-capitalist oligarchy based out of USA-UK-France-Italy.
  • The Beer Hall Putsch or Munich Putsch was a failed coup d’état by Nazi Party led by Hitler – he tried to seize power in Munich along with Hess and Hanfstaengl, Bavaria on 8th and 9th November 1923 using about 2000 Nazis marching to the Feldherrnhalle, in city centre. Police confronted, and a wounded Hitler escaped to Hanfstaengl’s house in Uffing about 60 km from Munich. After 2 days, he was arrested and charged with treason. The putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation through front-page headlines in newspapers. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to 5 years in prison. In prison he dictated Mein Kampf to his fellow prisoner Hess – in it he extolled the benefits of an Anglo-German alliance (UK and USA being the principal countries of Anglo block). The manuscript of Hitler’s book was secretly taken out of prison. Hitler was released only after 13 months in prison (12th November 1923 to 20th December 1924). The zionist-capitalist oligarchy of Anglo block used their clout to release Hitler so quickly. He came to Hanfstaengl’s new house across the Isar river after leaving prison.

Hitler’s book – Mein Kampf (My Struggle) – was unable to get wide audience. The first edition sold 10,000 copies in 1925, and about 7,000 were sold in 1926. In 1927, first and second editions combined found only 5,607 buyers, and in 1928, only 3,015 buyers took it. But even without any other income, by the summer of 1925, he bought a villa in the Bavarian Alps (future Obersalzberg) and six-seater Mercedes Kompressor car. Hitler’s lifestyle changed – upmarket clothes, a car and chauffer. Responding to the Weimar tax inspectors, Hitler said “neither in 1924, nor in the first quarter of 1925 did I receive any income. My living expenses are covered by loans” – it happened 100 years back, as it happens now – a ‘leader’ selected by zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy has multiple avenues of income that a commoner won’t have!

  • In the summer of 1932, Winston Churchill came to Germany on a personal visit. As written in Winston Churchill’s memoirs: “In the hotel, Regina, a gentleman introduced himself to someone in my entourage. His surname was Hanfstaengl and he spoke at length about the Fuhrer, with whom he was apparently very close… In all likelihood, he was assigned to make contact with me and clearly tried to make a good impression… As it turned out, he was Fuhrer’s closest confidante. He told me I should meet Hitler …”

Hanfstaengl’s side of the story reads differently: “I spent a good deal of time in the company of his son Randolph (son of Churchill) over the course of our pre-election trips. I even arranged for him to fly with us one or two times. He brought to my attention that his father would soon arrive in Germany and that we should organize a meeting”.

American secret services wanted a face-to-face meeting between would-be Chancellor of Germany and would-be Prime Minister of UK so that a personal equation grow between them – in spite of Hanfstaengl’s persuasions Hitler didn’t go to the meeting with Churchill. Churchill lamented in his memoirs: “Thus, Hitler missed his only opportunity to meet me”. However, Churchill discussed very sensitive geopolitical subjects with Hanfstaengl during that meeting. Hanfstaengl’s memoirs mention: “Churchill asked, ‘say, what your boss thinks about an alliance between France, England and your country?”

In February 1934 Hanfstaengl left Germany without the Fuhrer’s consent and went to Italy to meet with Benito Mussolini to initiate rapprochement between the two dictators. Putzi told Mussolini, “Such difficulties can exist between our two Fascist states.” History shows that the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was on upswing from this point onward. Hanfstaengl time and again proved that he was the boss and Hitler-Mussolini were being groomed to carry out some strategic mission in near future – to destroy Soviet Union and communism.

  • The Nazi Party became largest party in parliament, but it didn’t get absolute majority. It received 33.1% of vote in November 1932, 37.4% of vote in July 1932, and 18.3% of vote in March 1930. Vote share of Social Democratic Party dropped from 37.9% in 1919 to 18.3% by 1933, while vote share of German Democratic Party dropped from 18.6% in 1919 to 0.8% by 1933.
    • On 4th January 1932, at a meeting between Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, German Chancellor Franz von Papen, Bank of England Governor Montague Norman, and USA politician John Foster Dulles a secret agreement was reached on funding for the Nazi Party. On 14th January 1933 Hitler held a meeting with Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schroeder, a Nazi-oriented banker during which Nazi party’s programme was fully endorsed. Even if Hitler was unable to win elections, he was sworn in as chancellor on 30th January 1933. Such move by the President Paul Hindenburg could be possible because the oligarchy modified the procedure of appointment of chancellor in March 1930 – instead of the leader of the parliamentary majority becoming the chancellor, the post would be appointed by the country’s president (article 48 of Weimar constitution). So President Hindenburg could appoint any German citizen as chancellor irrespective of result of the parliamentary election.
  • Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the German parliament (Reichstag) building in Berlin on 27th February 1933, four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s government stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist was the culprit – German court gave verdict that Lubbe had acted alone. After that incident, Reichstag Fire Decree was passed – Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to come down heavily on the German Communist party that was completely against the Nazi party. Historians later concluded based on evidence, that the arson had been planned and executed by the Nazis as a false flag operation. In 2008, Germany posthumously pardoned Lubbe under a law to lift unjust verdicts dating from the Nazi period.

Following the Reichstag fire, the Nazis suspended civil liberties and the Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections, no single party secured a majority. Hitler tabled the Enabling Act on 24th March 1933 which gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and without constitutional limitations. With Nazi paramilitary encircling the building, Hitler forced the Centre Party and Conservatives to vote for the Act while only the Social Democrats voted against (the Communists were excluded). The Act allowed Hitler to rule by emergency decree for next 4 years, though Hindenburg remained President.

Hitler immediately abolished the powers of the states and on 14th July 1933 outlawed all non-Nazi political parties and trade unions. The Act did not infringe upon the powers of the President, and after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler usurped the Presidency by appointing himself President. German military took an oath on the day of Hindenburg’s death, swearing “unconditional obedience” to Hitler personally, not to the office or to the nation.

3.3 Onset of WW-II:

The revival and rearming of the German and Italian military forces between 1933 and 1939 occurred with the prior knowledge and continuous financial and technological support of the-then zionist-capitalist oligarchic elites of Anglo block countries especially UK and USA. The goal of this policy was to create a colossal war machine in the guise of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy in order to strike a deadly blow to the Soviet Union (the resurgent new ‘edition’ of the ancient Rus Slavic civilisation).

3.3.1 Rebuilding German empire

Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power as a dictator in a single party rule, 1934 onwards Hitler went on a steady military build-up and empire building in Europe in order to create a communist-free German empire that will include most of the Europe and expand into East direction to create a Lebensraum i.e. living space for the racially superior ‘German race’ after decimating local population like Poles, Russians, Jews, Gypsyes, Serbs, Czechs etc. who collectively were termed as the so-called non-Aryan Untermenschen i.e. sub-human creatures (these policies were part of 25-point programme of Nazi party declared in 1920, as well as part of Mein Kampf book published by Hitler in 1925):

3.3.1.1 Hitler’s first major foreign-policy agreement was with Poland – on 26th January 1934 ‘Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact’ was signed for 10 years

3.3.1.2 In June 1935, ‘Anglo-German Naval Agreement’ was signed in London that allowed Germany to build naval power including submarines, beyond the limits set by the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I

3.3.1.3 In September 1935 Nazi Germany adopted the ‘Nuremberg Laws’, which revealed the racist philosophy of the Nazi party. According to the “Reich Citizenship Law” citizenship could only be held by a person possessing “German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich.”

3.3.1.4 On 7th March 1936, Hitler sent troops into Rhineland which was a demilitarized buffer zone between Germany and France as per the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I

3.3.1.5 In 1936, Nazi Germany signed pacts with Militarist Japan and Fascist Italy to create an anti-communist platform as well as friendly cooperation among themselves

3.3.1.6 Fascist military insurrection against the Spanish government began on 17th July 1936 in Spanish Morocco and in Canary Islands. Within two weeks, two German military squadrons arrived in Spain, and German transport planes brought Moroccan troops into mainland Spain. Nazi Germany continuously sent military supplies, carried out bombing raids, and assisted the Fascist forces of General Franco in Spanish Civil War till Franco’s win in April 1939. It can be safely assumed that the same zionist-capitalist oligarchy from Anglo imperialist countries extended generous help to Franco through Hitler.

3.3.1.7 Nazi Germany forced Austria to sign ‘Austro-German Agreement’ on July 11, 1936 that guaranteed mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs plus independence of Austria as “a German State.” Being served ultimatum on 11th March 1938, Austrian chancellor von Schuschnigg announced his resignation. On 12th March 1938, German troops entered Austria – Germany annexed Austria [practically, WW-II started with it]

3.3.1.8 In the first conference about Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland (where ethnic Germans were numerically much larger than the Czechs) was held in London in April 1938 – British and French statesmen opined that a clash with Germany be avoided at all costs. On 30th September 1938, ‘Munich agreement’ was signed between Germany, Italy, UK, and France represented by Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, and Daladier to transfer Sudetenland to Germany – the Czechoslovak representatives were not even invited to this meeting! On 1st October 1938, German troops entered Czechoslovakia. By mid-March 1939 Czechia was annexed by Germany. Slovakia announced its independence and withdrew from the country. Hitler allowed Hungary to annex 12000 sq. km of southern Slovakia and a small region of Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia on 2nd November 1938. Hitler also allowed Poland to get a small region of Těšín of Czechia. Instead of taking military or diplomatic measures against Hitler, Bank of England transferred Czech gold reserves worth six million pounds stored in London to Nazi Germany.

3.3.1.9 In October 1938, German Foreign Minister Joachim Ribbentrop demanded that, in lieu of renewal of Poland-German non-aggression pact (signed in January 1934), city of Danzig (now called Gdansk) would be occupied by Germany, and Danzig corridor (to connect Germany proper with East Prussia by a motorway and a railway through Polish land) would be constructed by Germany. As a normal reaction, Poland refused. Hitler rescinded the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact (and Anglo-German Naval Agreement) unilaterally on 28th April 1939 in the Reichstag, with Germany renewing territorial claims in Poland

3.3.1.10 In April 1939, Nazi German forces seized the Memel district from Lithuania

3.3.2 Policy of Appeasement

1934 Onwards, the period when Hitler went on a steady military build-up in Europe, UK (world’s foremost colonial empire) Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Ramsay MacDonald as well as French (world’s second largest colonial empire) leader Edouard Daladier followed a compromising policy towards Nazi Germany – this was called in history as the ‘policy of appeasement’ (with German Nazi government). Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, who led foreign policy initiatives since 1934 (centred on concept of ‘collective security’ among all big European powers), commented on such policy of appeasement “England and France are now unlikely to retreat from the policy they have set out for them-selves, which boils down to unilateral satisfaction of the demands of all three aggressors – Germany, Italy and Japan. They will present their claims in turn, and England and France will make them one concession after another. I believe, however, that they will reach a point where the people of England and France will have to stop them. Then, probably, we will…return to the old path of collective security, because there are no other ways for preserving peace“.

Stalin gave a speech that was broadcast on Soviet Union television on 10th March 1939, in which he not only identified the policy of appeasement, but, he also outlined the objectives of such policy:

“The war is being waged by aggressor nations, which in every way infringe upon the interests of non-aggressor states, primarily England, France, and the United States, and the latter withdraw and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors. Thus, we are witnessing a blatant carving up of the world and its spheres of influence, at the expense of the non-aggressor states, without any attempt at resistance, and with even a bit of their acquiescence. It is hard to believe, but it is so. …. The policy of non-intervention betrays a desire not to impede the aggressors in their shameful deeds, not to obstruct, for example, Japan’s involvement in its war with China, and even better – with the Soviet Union, and not to deter Germany, for example, from getting caught up in events in Europe or from getting involved in a war with the Soviet Union. A motive can be seen to allow all the participants in the hostilities to sink deeply into the quicksand of war, to surreptitiously urge them onward, to allow them to weaken and exhaust each other, and then, when their strength has been sufficiently sapped – to appear on the scene with fresh forces, to take a stand, ‘in the global interest’ naturally, and to dictate conditions to the crippled belligerents.”

Britain, France and Poland continued to sabotage the collective security talks proposed by Soviet Union. UK and France wouldn’t give any guarantees of attacking Germany in the West in case of war – on the contrary, the zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy was, in fact, in collusion with Nazi Germany. Poland was generally viewing Russia as a victim for its own colonial war (war between Russia and Poland after Russian Revolution over the Tsarist territory claims-counterclaims still were resonating with Polish leader Pilsudski) and Poland saw Germany as an ally for such an adventure. Poland would not agree to let the Red army engage Germans on Polish territory. Basically the USSR was offered nothing but would have to declare a war on Germany and wait till Germany is done with Poland and invades the USSR.

On March 18 1939, Litvinov again suggested convening a pan-European conference to be attended by Britain, France, Poland, Russia, Romania, and Turkey. During March and April 1939 Europe witnessed hectic parleys over possible tripartite alliance among UK-France-USSR as suggested by USSR through a documented proposal. In the UK Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy on 24th April 1939, Neville Chamberlain opposed the Soviet proposition saying “The Soviet’s present proposal was one for a definite military alliance between England, France and Russia; It could not be pretended that such an alliance was necessary in order that the smaller countries of Eastern Europe should be furnished with munitions… Then there was the problem of Poland.” (Who oppose any agreement with USSR based on which USSR participate in fighting against Nazi Germany within Poland boundary). Communist USSR’s Joseph Stalin removed Maxim Litvinov and installed Vyacheslav Molotov thinking Molotov to be a dynamic negotiator. Molotov spent May and June 1939 to work out on the same tripartite alliance, but in vain.

In July 1939 Germany proposed a non-aggression pact to Molotov in which they suggested USSR can get control of most part of the former Tsar empire like:

  • the western parts of Ukraine and Byelorussia following the Curzon line of demarcation discussed during closure of WW-I (both erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, part of which were taken by Poland between 1918 to 1922),
  • Bessarabia (erstwhile Tsar empire province, part of which were taken by Romania),
  • Karelia (part of erstwhile Tsar empire Dutchy of Finland),
  • Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania in Baltic (erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, independent countries WW-I)

And as per the German proposal, rest of the East Europe will come under Nazi Germany sphere of influence either by direct annexation or formation of protectorate. Soviet leadership, after exasperating failure of 5 years of discussions on military pact with UK and France, and in the midst of a massive war since May 1939 with Japanese empire in Khalkhin Gol near Mongolian border, couldn’t miss ‘opportunity’ of getting few extra years (before Nazi assault). On 23rd August 1939 the German–Soviet nonaggression pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) was signed.

USSR regained control of western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia in September 1939 from Poland, and Karelia region from Finland in November 1939. Then USSR moved into Baltic region and Bessarabia in June 1940. While discussing on the annexation by Soviet Union, on 4th October 1939 Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said in the House of Lords “… the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.”

Hanfstaengl set the ball rolling with frantic pace of militarization in Germany, and then he left Germany in March 1937 before any (future) Nazi war crime could implicate him. Putzi went to USA and was appointed an advisor to his friend USA President FD Roosevelt (as an expert on Nazi Germany he was in a position to suggest best how to coordinate with his ex-student, Hitler)! Ernst Hanfstaengl was the pioneer of a future phenomenon whereby thousands of Nazi scientists, technocrats, businessmen, military officers, and government officials would become American citizens and job seekers through ‘Ratlines’.

3.4 WW-II:

3.4.1 Journey from Phony War to Operation Barbarossa

Hitler’s Germany was in the thick of action during the 1939 through 1941 opening war fronts one after another:

3.4.1.1 Nazi Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939, Warsaw resisted until 27th September before surrendering. As usual, neither UK nor France militarily intervened to support Poland.

3.4.1.2 On 3rd September 1939, UK and France declared war on the Third Reich which is called as Phoney War’ in WW-II history. The Polish military mission who flew to London had to wait for a week to meet British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Edmund Ironside – General Ironside promised 10000 obsolete rifles (while German Battle Tanks and Fighter Planes were thrashing Poland). During the 8 months duration of Phoney War, only once there was a land operation when French troops invaded Germany’s Saar district for couple of days. British Navy tried to enforce a blockade against German goods transport, and during German attacks at sea Royal Navy carrier HMS Courageous was sunk. During the ‘Nuremberg Trials’, German General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions, during our war with Poland, remained absolutely idle.”

3.4.1.3 Nazi Germany struck again to occupy Denmark with a surprise attack that lasted less than 4 hours on 9th April 1940. Attacking Norway on the same day, German forces completed the Norway invasion on 10th June 1940

3.4.1.4 On 10 May 1940, eight months after Britain and France had declared Phoney War on Germany, German Wehrmacht launched Operation Fall Gelb and marched into Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France marking the end of the Phoney War. By the evening of 10th May most of Luxembourg was occupied by German military. In Netherlands, the battle lasted from 10th May to 17th May, while in Belgium the battle raged on from 10th May to 28th May. In Belgium and northern France the fight was between German Wehrmacht and Allied forces in which France committed their best troops. Between 26th May and 4th June 1940 the defeated Allied soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk harbour in northern France. German forces began Operation Fall Rot on 5th June 1940 to capture remaining part of France outflanking the Maginot Line. Paris was occupied on 14th June, on 22nd June 1940 armistice was signed by France and Germany.

3.4.1.5 Formal military alliance i.e. ‘Berlin Pact’ was signed by Germany-Italy-Japan in September 1940 (original Axis Power). Later on Hungary joined in November 1940, Romania joined in November 1940, Bulgaria joined in March 1941.

3.4.1.6 In April 1941 Nazi Germany launched an invasion of Yugoslavian regions and Greece (the original Balkan campaign launched by Fascist Italy in October 1940 didn’t achieve the objective, hence this new initiative). Yugoslavian regions and Greece were divided among the Axis Powers viz. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

3.4.1.7 When Nazi Wehrmacht launched ‘Operation Barbarossa’, the largest military operation in documented history of humankind on 22nd June 1941 (officially authorized by Adolf Hitler on 18 December 1940, but got delayed due to delay in finishing Balkan campign) across western border of USSR along a 2,900-kilometer war-front with more than 38 lakh military personnel from countries of Axis Powers, USSR could not sustain its resistance against the Nazi Wehrmacht. Since November 1941 when Nazi military was about 25 km away from Moscow, USSR fought back and launched ferocious counterattack on German military. From January 1943, after winning the Battle of Stalingrad, Red Army became more confident about defeating the so-called ‘unassailable’ Wehrmacht. However, it was the Battle of Kursk (largest tank battle in history) in July 1943 which completely turned the tide in favour of Soviet Red Army. Every passing day the Red Army became unconquerable force that decimated Nazi Wehrmacht single-handedly and liberated entire east Europe before capturing Berlin in May 1945.

As analysed by Mikhail Meltyukhov (Russian military historian working at the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research), during a period of two and half years (from 1 January 1939 to 22 June 1941) USSR increased their military strength assiduously that helped the final destruction of Nazi Germany:

  • Battle Divisions increased from about 131 to 316 (140% increase)
  • Military Personnel increased from 2,485,000 to 5,774,000 (132% increase)
  • Battle Tanks increased from about 21,100 to 25,700 (22% increase)
  • Aircrafts increased from about 7,700 to 18,700 (143% increase)

3.4.1.8 Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power in Germany, Lebensraum (Hitler announced Nazi party’s 25-point program on 24 February 1920 which included Nazi demand for new land and territory for the maintenance of German people and the settlement of surplus German population – known as Lebensraum i.e. living space) became an objective of Nazi party’s militarism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Eastern Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (GPO) or ‘Master Plan for the East’ dealt with how Germany can set up a Lebensraum in Eastern Europe necessary for survival of so-called Aryan race (Nazis assumed Germans as ‘pure Aryan’ race) by eliminating most of the local non-Aryan population (Nazis assumed Slavs as non-Aryan and hence Untermenschen i.e. sub-human) like Poles, Russians, Jews, Czechs, Slovaks, Gypsyes etc. through mass killing, decimation by starvation and disease, and deportation to Siberia. The body responsible for the GPO was the SS’s Reich Main Security Office under Heinrich Himmler, which commissioned the work before World War II started. After the invasion of Poland, the original blueprint for GPO was discussed by the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood (RKFDV) in mid-1940. The next known version of GPO was procured by the RSHA from Erhard Wetzel in April 1942. The next revision was officially dated June 1942. The final settlement master plan for the East came in from the RKFDV on 29th October 1942. A document which enabled historians to accurately reconstruct the Generalplan Ost was a memorandum released on 27th April 1942, by Erhard Wetzel, director of the Nazi party Office of Racial Policy, entitled “Opinion and thoughts on the master plan for the East of the Reichsführer SS”.

Himmler stated openly: “It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply. As of June 1941, the GPO policy envisaged the deportation of 31 million Slavs to Siberia. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum after exterminating majority of the indigenous populations, to enable Germany to confiscate agricultural and mining products to transfer to Germany.

[Link: http://gplanost.x-berg.de/gplanost.html ]

After Stalingrad defeat and surrender by the legendary 6th Army of German Wehrmacht in February 1943, Generalplan Ost was suspended by Nazi party. However, German savagery with the civilian population of Slavs, Jews, and Gypsyes, from 1940 to 1945 still continue to shock the people across world.

3.4.2 Second Front of Allies

True to their deceptive and manipulative core nature, the leaders of UK and USA zionist-capitalist clique didn’t pay any attention to Stalin’s repeated request from 1941 to 1944 of opening a second front in the west against Nazi Germany which would help Soviet Union to get a respite from deadly Nazi onslaught. For the Anglo imperialists the WW-II plan was simple – Germany and Soviet Union should fight between them to finish each other, and then they would appear on the scene to occupy the vast Eurasian landmass and spread Freedom (to loot the natural resources) and Democracy (to install puppets over the illiterate and simple people).

On 28th April 1942, FD Roosevelt addressed to the USA: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Only when it became crystal clear that, in absence of a second front, Soviet Red Army would liberate the entire Europe on its own (thereby banishing any future influences of zionist-capitalist oligarchy on the government formation in whole of Europe), the Allies opened a second front in WW-II in June 1944 with the Allied landings in Normandy.

From all four key perspectives – mobilization, viciousness of struggle, loss of life, and loss of infrastructure – Eastern front was far more significant compared to Western front. In the opinion of Norman Davis: “German losses on the Eastern Front accounted for about 80 per cent of the total…”

At the end of the WW-II, Soviet Union had lost about 26.6 million people, Western Allies lost less than 2 million, Germany lost around 4 million troops in the Eastern front and 1 million on the Western front.

Also, from the military logistics point of view, Soviet Union could defeat the industrially and technologically superior Nazi Wehrmacht and invade Nazi Germany capital by May 1945 because:

  • 21-month respite provided by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was utilised for increasing the production of military machinery on a gigantic scale
  • Lend-Lease policy of the FD Roosevelt provided food-clothing-raw materials-rail engines-automobiles-petroleum products-ordnance goods and ammunitions etc. between 1 October 1941 to 2 September 1945 (1947 money value of which amounted to about USD 11 billion)

3.5 Aftermath of WW-II:

At the onset of WW-II in 1938, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):

  • Russia
  • Ukraine except Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus

A complete and thorough assessment of WW-II casualties should be again undertaken by the group of CIS countries who were part of USSR 30 years back – every post-1945 citizen of this planet owe a bit to every known/unknown USSR citizen for their immense sacrifice to resist the Fascist forces during WW-II. I think, casualties were more than 30 million – military killed in action, soldiers missing in action, killed/died while POW, military death of wounds, civilian death on front, civilian death of forced labourers in Germany, civilian death in German prisons, civilian death of starvation, missing civilian, the list of category consists of all possible permutation-combination. Even if we accept government figure of 26.6 million dead plus wounded, it become 13.7% of 194 million population of USSR in 1940. Almost all physical infrastructures in Belarus, Ukraine, Crimean, and European regions of Russia were destroyed by indiscriminate bombing of Germany. Tragedy of such gigantic scale in any society would have been the cause of crushing defeat. But Communist Party of Soviet Union led by Stalin withstood such barbaric assaults only to rebound with more strength – economic, political, and military.

At the end of WW-II in 1945, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory:

  • Russia
  • Ukraine including Western Galician region
  • Crimea
  • Belarus
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Moldova (Bessarabia)

Except during the initial 6 months of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin proved himself a leader who was in control of the complete situation even at the worst moment. The zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries and their lackeys in east Europe were outsmarted by Stalin at every round of the geopolitical game surrounding WW-II. Stalin was disliked so much among the zionist-capitalist oligarchy and aristocrats that, on the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 (under suspicious circumstances) the stark enemies like Winston Churchill sent no condolences, or send a sympathy card. Interestingly, only after Stalin’s demise, Churchill was found to be suitable candidate for Knighthood and Nobel Prize (in literature) in 1953.

By 1953 when Stalin died, USSR already changed beyond imagination. A country that had, 30 years back, one of the most oppressive society with extreme poverty, widespread illiteracy, very high mortality, and high concentration of wealth within aristocrats, got transformed into a society where ALL citizens had guaranteed food-education-healthcare-housing-employment-vacation facilities. Soviet Union was the second most powerful country in terms of scientific research, atomic research (second country to test atomic bomb), space research (first country to send space craft), military machinery, and industrial machinery. By then, 85 significant Soviet journals were being translated into English language by USA government funding. Within three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major world power struggling almost single-handedly against the Zionist-Capitalist powers and their monstrous Fascist offspring. Born to shoemaker and house cleaner, Stalin was a true anti-elitist plebeian revolutionary who even sacrificed his son during WW-II by refusing to exchange him (in German captivity) with German General (in Soviet captivity).

4. Conclusion

Let me clarify at the end that, this article doesn’t aim to paint a bright untainted image of Stalin. I would like to also take this opportunity to briefly explain why.

The 6th Congress of the RSDLP (Bolshevik) party in July-August of 1917 elected the Central Committee comprising of 21 leaders:

  • Politburo members – Vladimir Lenin, Andrei Bubnov, Grigory Sokolnikov, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky
  • Secretariat members – Felix Dzerzhinsky, Matvei Muranov, Yakov Sverdlov
  • Only Narrow Composition members – Vladimir Milyutin, Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky
  • Only members of CC but not part of above groups – Ivar Smilga, Fyodor Sergeyev, Alexei Rykov, Viktor Nogin, Nikolay Krestinsky, Alexandra Kollontai, Nikolai Bukharin, Jan Berzin

In 1940, only 3 of the top 21 leaders of Bolshevik party would be alive: Stalin, Matvei Muranov who was sent into retirement from political life, and Alexandra Kollontai who was sent on foreign diplomatic assignment away from internal politics and governance. A little workout reveals that 7 of the top 21 leaders (Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Fyodor Sergeyev, Vladimir Lenin, Viktor Nogin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky) died due to ailments, or accidents. In other words, the remaining 11 of the top 21 leaders perished during the period when Stalin consolidated his power within the Bolshevik party and USSR. Like many others, I couldn’t get convinced, how more than 50% of the Bolshevik Party leaders were traitors to the state and the party! That would also mean, as a corollary, that Lenin led Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 with less than half of the Bolshevik party central committee members as true patriots! Even considering and acknowledging the facts that:

  • Trotsky and his team representing the interest of Zionist bankers based in Europe and USA tried to derail the economy and destroy the society across Soviet Union, and
  • Marshall Tukhachevsky and his team of Generals tried to seize state power and thereafter surrender large tract of the then USSR to Fascist Germany to make peace with Germany,

There can’t be any doubt that, paranoid and autocratic behaviour of Stalin created an organisational disarray within the Bolshevik party which pushed more and more leaders against Stalin’s style of functioning, that again created even more distrust in Stalin, finally culminating in massive purge and repression (after murder of Kirov).

Keeping in view the stellar achievements and leaving aside the organisational mismanagement during the initial decades of formation of Soviet Union, let me remind the readers across the world who love truth-justice-equality-morality, Lenin and Stalin were among the most outstanding leaders of the toiling masses in the history of humankind, who never compromised with capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism (academicians caringly call the combination of these three virus as ‘world-system’ or ‘world order’).

The application of the Marxist theory of socialism, as carried out by CPSU under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin had significant drawbacks, which were resultant of the-then prevailing geopolitical conditions as well as the necessity of creating a ‘material basis’ for the socialist transformation of the society. Fundamental working principle of capitalism has not and will not change in future – whether it was mercantile version, agrarian version, industrial version, or more recent financial version, capitalism (coupled with Zionism and imperialism) will continue to seek accumulation of wealth by direct and indirect exploitation of 90% common people. Considering the maxim ‘failure is the pillar of success’, people across the world look forward to the current Marxist parties and leaders in Russia and other Eurasian regions for making the second and completely successful attempt to initiate a colossal movement that will sweep away the Zionist-Capitalist filth accumulated over past 6 decades in erstwhile USSR, to usher new era of Marxist economy and collective society where every citizen can breathe fresh air free from the polluted pungent smell of capital and profit. Inquisitive readers may look into details of such possibility in one of my previous articles, link of which is given below:

[Link: http://thesaker.is/towards-a-new-dawn-of-collective-community-in-a-new-union/ ]

Russian society would, thus vindicate the appearance of so many extraordinary personalities on its soil each of whom was a doyen in their own era, including great humanists like Tolstoy-Chekhov-Gorky and great leaders like Peter-Lenin-Stalin!

Note: The following books were referred:

Nikolay Starikov – Who Set Hitler Against Stalin

William Shirer – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Joachim C. Fest – Hitler


Short profile:

By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

Alan Dershowitz on “Not Promoting Jewish Values”

 BY GILAD ATZMON

Dershowitz is upset by Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Karl Marx and Gilad Atzmon’s failure to promote ‘Jewish Values.’ The question that comes to mind is what exactly can we learn about Jewish values from this Harvard ‘law scholar’?

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Donate

Paradigm Shifts

source

by Francis Lee for The Saker Blog

Paradigm Shifts

INTRODUCTION:

I first wrote this article in 2012 and have had to make a number of minor alterations. Of course a great deal has happened since that time, most of it bad. We now seem to stand on the threshold of an even bigger and deeper crisis than in 2008, plus additional worrying features, viz. the pandemic and possible future pandemics as well as increasing and widespread economic and geopolitical instability. The crisis portents were always there but both the PTB and the populations at large did not seem unduly concerned about these developments which were taking place and maturing through the post-2008 period.

Paradigm Shifts

Some years ago I reviewed a book – State Building – by one Francis Fukuyama. This was one of Mr Fukuyama’s lesser known works, he is more famous for being the theorist of the ‘end of history’ – a view promulgated during the halcyon days of the neo-liberal counter-revolution circa the 1980s. After the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, and with social-democracy effectively throwing in the towel in Western Europe, Mr F postulated that liberal, deregulated, market capitalism was now the historical norm, and if countries had not arrived at this terminal point in their history, then in the fullness of time they surely would. In short this is when one paradigm or epoch ends and another one begins. Certainly, the world underwent a both quantitative and qualitative paradigm shift in 1980s an historical shift which has lasted for at least 4 decades.

This current view was to become the received wisdom in official circles, and I would argue that in a contingent sense still is, at least among the political, financial and media elites. But it could be plausibly argued that this current paradigm is in secular decline and a new paradigm seems to be emerging. That is why we study history. Epochs come and go. Whether this will be for good or ill is an open question. Paradoxically, the established paradigm – let’s call it the Thatcher/Reagan settlement – represented almost a theoretical mirror image of the cruder types of Marxist historical materialism. Of course, both were extremely contestable since the human agency was excised from the historical process; a process apparently beyond human volition and control; almost a force of nature. It followed from this, therefore, that politics was no longer about choice, according to the post-modernist fraternity, the grand political narratives were at an end; henceforth politics was to be simply about administration: the relevant question being who could run the system more efficiently. How simplistic and facile these notions now seem.

To be fair Fukuyama has now admitted that he was wrong, and the more humanistic interpretation of Marxism – as espoused by inter alia Georgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci – does allow for human intervention in the historical process, in fact it insists upon this. Marx also, at least in his early years, put forward the famous dialectic. ‘Men make history, but they do not do it as they please.’ This is to say that they were creatures of their time and made political choices, but these choices were historically conditioned and constrained.

However, it seems commonplace among the journalistic types and other jobbing mediocrities to think that history is something in the past and that the present is the point of arrival; a tendency to take the empirically given as somehow natural and inevitable; its permanence taken for granted. And of course those who have most to gain from the present dispensation will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to change this state of affairs. Reforms are possible – even though these will be generally opposed by these same entrenched interests – but the fundamental structures and institutions of the system will be left broadly unchanged. This is true at all times and in all places, including our own.

We can say, therefore, that the world crisis of 2008 and its various explanations were thus all based upon the notion that the neo-liberal capitalist order is inevitable and permanent. Even erstwhile radicals like Will Hutton of the Guardian and Paul Krugman of the New York Times believed this to be the case. These are essentially mainstream Keynesians, who argue for a more regulated capitalism which they regard as viable, whilst their opponents the free-market Hayekians – Peter Schiff and US libertarian Ron Paul – believe in less or even no regulation. But of course both schools are committed to the capitalist system so the argument has been something of an in-house debate between the two establishment viewpoints.

That the system is in a protracted and long-term crisis is self-evident. But the contending viewpoints above are posited in a rather narrow and orthodox spectrum of economic theories which I think fail to address the depth of the predicament.

The Hayekian/Von Mises Austrian school

For a long time after the Second World War these particular theorists were exiled to a virtual leper colony of macro-economic theory. This was a period of the Roosevelt/Attlee settlement, the spread of communism over Eastern Europe, China and Indo-China. The catastrophe of depression/fascism/war, all emanating from uncontrolled markets and market crashes, followed by trade wars of the 1930s and then the shooting wars, was rejected absolutely by the electorates of the western world as well as by their leaders. But Von Mises, Hayek, et al. bided their time until their moment came. This moment came in the 1970s when the post-war boom petered out. They found a populariser of their beliefs – albeit in crude form – in Milton Friedman of the Chicago School and what was called monetarism. These ideas then migrated from academe via the broadsheet press and finally to the right-wing political parties at the time headed by Thatcher and Reagan.

The Austrian school believe that attempts to control capitalism through state intervention will fail and will in fact be positively counter-productive. This is because such interventions distort the price mechanism leading to misallocation of resources, inflation, and asset price bubbles. A good example of this would be the credit/property boom (2008) which was enabled by the accommodative actions of the Central Banks and Treasuries around the world, but particularly by the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve Board. Interest rates were kept low and both heads of the two respective central banks as well as Treasury officials, in the UK’s Labour government, Gordon Brown and Edward ‘light touch regulation’ Balls in the UK, and the Fed boss Alan Greenspan in the US. Thus the natural cyclical tendencies immanent in the capitalist system were given an additional push by government monetary policy. Why? The answer is disarmingly simple: booms and bubbles (at least during the up-phase) are popular with the masses and are therefore good politics. Who can ever forget ‘the-end-of-boom-and-bust’ triumphalism of the period? However, the Austrians continued to argue that booms and busts are intrinsic to the system. One cannot exist without the other. During the boom phase of the cycle investors and consumers tend to become overconfident and make foolish investment and purchasing decisions. Prices start to rise due to the continual demand for factor inputs, growth becomes more and more febrile, banks make foolish loans and acquisitions (Northern Rock and the Royal Bank of Scotland come to mind), and then, when rises in income can no longer support rises in asset prices, the whole thing collapses. This is what happened in 2008; the bust part of the cycle then begins. All the bad investments and overspending now come to light. Companies go bust, unemployment mounts, debts are written down simply because debtors cannot pay, and all the misallocations of resources can clearly be seen with half-finished empty houses standing as the self-evident physical symbols of the manic bubble period which preceded them. Here Andrew Gamble explains:

‘’For the Austrians, the business cycle had a necessary and important function within capitalism. The crisis phase of the cycle was crucial if capitalism were to renew itself and purge itself of the false values and the misallocation of productive resources which had grown up during the boom phase. The crisis was a moment of truth, when suddenly the plans, the claims and the expectations which had been formed during the upswing were put to the test. Many of them would be found wanting, and those responsible for them would have to face the consequences. The process was not just to keep capitalism efficient; it was also necessary to keep capitalism moral. Only if agents bore full responsibility for their actions would the values of prudence, reliability and sound judgement and trust, on which capitalism relied, be upheld. The crisis purged capitalism in a double sense: both practically and morally. To many of its defenders the two were equally important. It was what gave capitalism its moral legitimacy and its practical dynamism.’’ (1)

It was argued that full recovery would not be achieved by bail-outs, Keynesian deficit spending, or by rescuing companies which were simply inefficient or did not supply consumers or investors with their preferences as demonstrated by the market price mechanism. Such policies would simply create ‘moral hazard’ a tendency for investors and consumers to carry on as usual with their losses being underwritten by the state; in this situation there was no intention or incentive for improving their business efficiency. These bailed-out entities were the economy’s living dead, kept alive on state support – zombie banks as in Europe and Japan and zombie auto companies like Fiat, Kia, and GM, or insurance companies like AIG, all of which should have been allowed to fail. With their failure more competitive efficient companies would arise in their place.

Recovery could only get underway when, as during classical depressions, prices fell, which meant that if wages and interest rates fell more slowly – if at all – then disposable income would start to increase. This being the case consumers would start to spend again and businesses start to invest. Similarly bankrupted and distressed firms would be bought out at fire–damage prices by the more efficient and larger firms with more up to date equipment. Growth now resumes given the destruction of existing capital values. The process of accumulation can restart.

What is striking about this (Austrian) theory is its similarity to Marx’s view of trade cycles, and also to those views espoused by Schumpeter. But much of both theories were formulated in an earlier phase of capitalism. But for all that the Austrian theory’s analysis of the bust is quite plausible and sophisticated.

‘’The anti-deflation policies which have been adopted (i.e., Keynesian demand management) is largely a policy of price-fixing, a policy of preventing the market from exposing capital misallocations and then liquidating them. The root causes of the crisis remain in place and the underlying problems unaddressed … The economy cannot realistically be expected to rectify itself if the market is not allowed to liquidate capital misallocations. The state has erected a protective fence around the most dislocated sectors of the economy (house prices for example) trying to keep market forces outside. As long as it lasts no true recovery is possible.’’ (2)

Summing up the Austrian view, capitalism is intrinsically cyclical. The Growth periods tend to run out of control resulting in bad investments and resource misallocation. This process is fed by easy credit and excess liquidity. Asset price inflation rises to a level which can no longer be sustained by rises in income or further borrowing. The boom turns into a bubble and the bubble bursts. Then the whole process swings into reverse – the bust has arrived. However, the bust rectifies the situation by liquidating all the mal-investments and making way for a reconfiguration of the system on a more sustainable and efficient basis. Capitalism restructures itself through these types of crises.

Prescriptions

Although the Austrian (and indeed Marxist) analysis of the bust is, I would argue broadly speaking correct, but the future policy prescriptions of the Hayekians seem frankly alarming. The scope and interdependence of the system is such that the notion of simply letting the bust take its course would lead to quite massive economic, political, and social dislocations on a global scale – as would have been the case had world governments simply let the coronavirus pandemic rampage through societies and run its course in 2020 – such a policy would dwarf the depression of the 1930s and 2008. In a strictly logical sense the reasonings of the Austrian school are correct, but their policy prescriptions are simply too terrible to contemplate.

‘’The Libertarians are actively promoting policies sure to bring about immediate economic hell, in the faith that punishment and suffering are the prerequisites to an economic afterlife in a better world. While in the end their philosophy of economic karma may ultimately prove correct, before accepting the remedy through collapse, other approaches should be put to the test. Economic reincarnation could take a lot longer than the Libertarians anticipate. The Renaissance did follow the fall of Rome – but only after 10 centuries.’’ (3)

So what about the alternatives?

John Maynard Keynes and his followers

Well I think we need to clear up one or two things about Lord Keynes before we start. Keynes was emphatically not a socialist, if anything he was actively hostile to socialism. He opined that: ‘’The class struggle will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.’’ (4) We might legitimately enquire who, apart from Keynes himself, might be the ‘educated bourgeoisie’ exactly! Further, The Labour party is a class party, and that class is not my class. Again, How can I adopt a creed – Socialism – which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement. It seems necessary to state this because of the widespread belief on the left that Lord Keynes was indeed some sort of (closet)-socialist. This could not be further from the truth: Keynes main aim in life was to save capitalism from itself.

His magnum opus, ‘’The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money’’ first published in 1936, represented the culmination of his earlier writings in which he elaborated what he believed to be the problem situation which had arisen in the world economy during the 1930s, and what he believed to be the solutions. But Keynesianism is not really a theory of the trade cycle, nor is it a general theory (more of which later) it is more a theory of boom/bust and possible ways out of economic depressions. The bust period in a capitalist economy generally follows a period of excess credit and hence debt-fuelled growth. This was the case during the roaring 20s with runaway credit (debt) fuelling growth until – pop went the weasel! Credit duly contracted as the defaults multiplied, and so the Roaring 20s transmuted into the depressed 30s.

‘’In 1930 the US money supply comprised currency held by the public (9%) and deposits held at commercial banks (91%). Banks used these deposits to fund their loans. When the credit that fuelled the Roaring 20s could not be repaid, the banks began to fail. When a borrower defaults it not only destroys credit, it also destroys the deposits which funded the credit. Between 1930 and 1933, 9,000 US banks failed. The corresponding destruction of deposits caused the country’s money supply to contract by a third from $46 billion in 1928 to $31 billion in 1933. As the money supply shrank the happy economic dynamic that expanding credit had made possible, went into reverse, and the global economy spiralled into catastrophe.’’ (5)

Post-crash, the problem was not excess demand but insufficient demand. This became known as debt-deflation. This is where Keynes and his co-thinkers entered the scene. With consumers and investors not spending, aggregate demand in deflationary conditions is flat, or even falling. Therefore the solution could only be increased spending by the government. This to be carried out by a mixture of monetary policy (lowering interest rates and Open Market Operations, and now Quantitative Easing – QE) and/or fiscal policy (taxation and public spending). This is of course something of an oversimplification of Keynes’ theories which were somewhat more radical than most of his enthusiasts found to their taste, but it broadly captures the gist of what he said. The increase in aggregate demand would feed through to the rest of the economy and so induce an increase in output which would be eventually self-sustaining. Governments would find it necessary therefore to run budget deficits during this period. Q.E.D.

This approach was taken up by the Roosevelt administration when it came to office in 1933. At that time unemployment in the US stood at the alarming figure of 25%. A raft of policy measures including the Works Programme Administration (WPA), National Recovery Act (NRA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Civilian Conservation Corps, were implemented. Unemployment fell to 14% by 1936, but then rose again during a new recession in 1937/38 to 20%. So the track record of Keynes policies seems patchy to say the least.

The Long Boom and its collapse 1980-2008

In our own time we have seen almost a repeat of the 1930s debacle. The long boom of 1980-2007 was floated on a sea of debt. But even this period was punctuated by blow-outs, first in the Savings and Loans episode of the 80s and 90s, then the Long-Term Capital Management collapse in the 90s, and finally the dot.com bubble in 2001. The 2008 crisis was, however, seemingly worse than these events and more global than that of the 1930s. In 2008 the whole credit/property induced boom came to a shuddering halt when the sub-prime borrowers in the US defaulted. House prices, which, had been rising by double digit percentages since the early 90s collapsed in 2006 and have been falling, apart from one or two transient minor upturns, ever since.

The same was to also happen in Iceland, Ireland the UK and Spain who had also built their policies around house-price inflation. Mortgage backed derivatives – i.e., those financial products which were based upon these repackaged dubious mortgages were parcelled up and sold as new financial products to brain-dead investors around the world after being given the triple AAA seal of approval by the ratings agencies. These derivatives were only producing a stream of income so long has the mortgagees continued to pay their instalments – when they defaulted the derivatives became worthless, the banks, who among others such as pension funds who had been purchasing these debt instruments, then found that their newly acquired ‘assets’ had turned into liabilities overnight. Many banks were effectively insolvent, and the great bank panic of 2008 spread around the world.

Governments found it necessary to bail-out these institutions in order to avoid a global meltdown. So the banks happily transferred their junk ‘assets’ onto the sovereign nations’ balance sheets courtesy of the Central Banks. Needless to say this was only the opening of the great recession of 2008/09 which in spite of its putative ‘recovery’ still drags on. The crisis was to cross the pond from the US – whose fundamental problems still seem unresolved – to Europe where the problem became more acute.

Stabilisation and low growth 2009-onwards

Since the nadir of 2008/09 there has been a stabilisation rather than what we might meaningfully call a recovery in the global economy. Growth is flat or falling in Europe, although there are very marked regional disparities, and very weak (and as I write, beginning to actually stall) in the USA, again with regional disparities. Interestingly, perhaps with all the clamour regarding austerity in the eurozone, no mention was made in the 40 or so US states – some effectively insolvent – which oversaw swingeing austerity programmes, California and Wisconsin come to mind, as does Detroit, famous for Tamla Motown and auto-vehicle production. A one time industrial city of 2 million people became a ghost town of 700,000.

Concomitant with this there were high levels of unemployment on both sides of the pond. Official figures for US unemployment, as found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are completely fraudulent and always have been since whole swathes of de facto unemployed have been disappeared off the register simply by definition. (The same disappearing trick was used with the core inflation figures.) The BLS gives three levels of unemployment according to how the word is defined. In fact there are six definitions ranging from U1-U6. The BLS uses U3 but the figure for U6 is double. And if the same definition were applied as used to be the case then unemployment would be almost 4 times the official account. The same jiggery-pokery is used when defining inflation. Each redefinition gives a lower figure.

Regarding this universal practise, it was the late Conservative Member of Parliament and at one time member of Mrs. Thatcher’s Cabinet, Lord Gilmour, who once said of his government’s unemployment reduction programme: ‘’Now we have reduced the unemployment figures, perhaps we can make a start on reducing unemployment.’’ I am afraid the pollution of statistics is the same for inflation, GDP growth and various other economic statistics. These statistics are not some measurements of objective facts, but simply political constructions. (6)

In passing we should become aware of a new economic development which came into being after 2008 and persists to this day. This was the genesis of the so-called ‘gig’ sometimes called ‘sharing’ economy. It should be made clear that this sector of the economy is generally very much ’off the books.’ The modern workforce has become increasingly stratified. There are well-paid jobs for a small portion with the requisite skills, but the vast majority of new employment is in the low-paid service sector, such as retail, leisure, hospitality, age-care and health-care. The sharing-economy is generally part of the informal sector but requires abundant cheap contract labourers to be available at the touch of a smartphone screen. Fulltime employees with normal benefits would make the model unworkable. This ‘gig’ or sharing economy exploits low-wage workers in a weak economic environment. This new ‘eke-onomy’ consists of individuals renting out their houses, cars, or labour make only a fraction of what they would receive in traditional full-time jobs, without any employment benefits. This is what Marx/Engels termed the industrial reserve army consisting of the unemployed and under-employed. Moreover, in the UK at least most of the workforce engaged in this low-paid, insecure drudgery are for the most part, immigrant labour, often illegal, from Romania, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the English-speaking part of Africa and even as far as China. Welcome to the ‘smart’ economy.

Keynesian policies … and debt levels

The general Keynesian response to the downturn has been a hue and cry for stimulus at all costs. Keynesian counter-cyclical policies traditionally consisted of 1. Monetary policy. This comes under the remit of the Central Bank and consists of control of interest rates and money supply. 2. Fiscal policy, which is the remit of the Treasury consisting of taxation and public expenditure. Sotto Voce It should be noted at this point that the Central Banks became the source of economic policy. This was a new departure since it meant that fiscal policy was relegated to a secondary role in economic planning. Monetary – i.e., central bank – policy now ruled the roost. The rigidly orthodox European Central Bank (ECB) – more catholic than the Pope – adopted hard-nosed monetary policies in the eurozone with alacrity, whilst the Anglo-American approach involving monetary and second-tier fiscal policies were partially adopted in the UK and more rigorously in the US.* The ECB put the weaker economies in the eurozone – Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Latvia – through the wringer of a grinding depression. No stimulus policies were undertaken, since it is argued this would pile more debt onto unprecedented levels already extant. Results have to say the least, not been exactly encouraging, particularly in the southern European periphery. This situation has received press coverage ad infinitum much of it justified, but much incredibly biased and ignorant, but hey, this is the white noise of democracy in action.

Given that the eurozone crisis has received saturation coverage we will move on to the UK. Here we have a bizarre mismatch of policies: a loose monetary policy with the Bank of England lowering the base rate to 0.5% and engaging in money printing – otherwise known as Quantitative Easing – and a tight fiscal policy with the Treasury cutting back on public spending. The result? The worst of both worlds, inflation, and – good old 1970s stagflation.

The poster child for the Keynesians was the United States which threw everything but the kitchen sink at the problem in both fiscal and monetary terms. This produced some low growth and a slight fall in unemployment, albeit from an extremely high level, and recently reversed, but each additional stimulus has had less of an impact than the one preceding it. A sort of diminishing returns was to set in, whereby more and more of the ‘fix’ is needed to get any sort of result.

‘’ … in the 1970s the increase in GDP was about 60 cents for every dollar of increased debt. By the early 2000s this had decreased to close to 20% of GDP growth for every new dollar of debt.’’ (7)

The Federal Reserve had already initiated 2 rounds of QE injecting literally trillions of $s into the economy. In addition it lowered interest rates to 0.25% – zero to all intents and purposes. The Fed’s purchase of paper assets was facilitated with the printing of paper monies. These paper assets consisted of US Treasury bonds and junk securities from government sponsored enterprises such as Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, the two government agencies whose remit was to issue mortgages to prospective US homebuyers. This meant that the assets purchased by the Fed were nothing more than debt, unredeemable debt at that. This is a weird situation where the Fed was buying US bonds issued by the Treasury department so that the US Federal government could pay its current bills. And where did the Fed get its money from? Out of thin air apparently, it simply printed the stuff! When the stage is reached where governments have to pay their current expenditures by printing money then the alarm bells should start ringing. An idea of the monies involved was described as follows:

‘’Before the first round of QE began, the Fed held roughly $900 billion of assets. When it ended on March 31, 2010 the Fed’s balance sheet had more than doubled to $2.3 trillion. There is no precedent for fiat money creation on this scale in the US during peacetime.’’(8)

Suffice it to say that money printing has continued and massively expanded to the present day 2020. Increasing the supply of paper money in the economy in the absence of demand for it can only produce one result – inflation, albeit after a time lag. (But this works on the assumption that the velocity of circulation of such monies remains constant. If the circulation falls to zero, then there will be no inflation. Deflation is more likely if the money supply does not reach the real economy. If the rate of money circulation does not alter, we can expect inflation to appear.) It will be objected, however, that the US rate of inflation was at the time of the 2008 episode only 2.3%. True. But bear in mind that both food and fuel price increases are left out of the calculation in what is termed US ‘core inflation’; another egregious example of officialdom’s statistical sleight of hand. Were those price rises added in then at the very least the US inflation figures would almost certainly double. Moreover, the global effects of the Fed’s policies has been to export this inflation around the world as a mass of greenbacks flew out of the US looking for more favourable investment outlets. The global supply of these Eurodollars (i.e., US$s circulating outside of the US) had ballooned, and this led to an inflationary impact globally as food and commodity prices (notably oil) had spiked. This in turn led to food riots and political disturbances throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. A sort of unforeseen justice was done, however, when higher oil prices hit the price of gasoline in the US – a boomerang effect. The inflationary effect of the Fed’s money printing also meant that local currencies were put under pressure. When the $ tsunami entered a country their own currency was subject to an upward revaluation, which meant a higher exchange rate. They were therefore faced with two choices: one, do nothing and let their export markets contract since their currency was now more expensive, or two, maintain the value of their currency against the US$ by purchases of more of these dollars with their own currency. This would mean that their own money supply would expand and become inflated. Thus US inflation had become global inflation. Yes, devaluation is a great way to start a currency war.

As far as fiscal policy goes the US has consistently run budget deficits since the 1990s when it actually recorded a small surplus. The cost of the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the cost of ongoing wars in the middle east, the cost of bailouts to various financial institutions, the cost of fiscal transfers to cash-strapped states and various stimulus programmes has raised the US budget deficit (2008 figures) to $15.5 trillion, which given that the Gross Domestic Product of the US as of May 2012 was $15.6 trillion, makes the ratio close to 100%. Even before the economic crisis, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion. Now the implications of this are indeed sobering.

According to the authors Reinhart and Rogoff when debt to GDP ratio reaches 90% this will constitute a drag on future growth. And bear in mind that this figure of debt-to-GDP has risen to 107% in 2020. Longer term implications of America’s chronic debt problem are manifest. Sure the Fed can print unlimited monies, but it can’t guarantee that these greenbacks will have any value.

Over the next 20 years, the Social Security Trust Fund won’t have enough funds to cover the retirement benefits promised to Baby Boomers. That means higher taxes since the high U.S. debt rules out further loans from other countries. Unfortunately, it’s most likely that these benefits will be curtailed, either to retirees younger than 70, or to those who are high income and therefore aren’t as dependent on Social Security payments to fund their retirement.

Second, many of the foreign holders of U.S. debt are investing more in their own economies. Over time, diminished demand for U.S. Treasuries could increase interest rates, thus slowing the economy. Furthermore, anticipation of this lower demand puts downward pressure on the dollar. That’s because dollars, and dollar-denominated Treasury Securities, may become less desirable, so their value declines. As the dollar declines, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less, which further decreases demand.

The bottom line is that the large Federal debt is like driving with the emergency brake on, further slowing the U.S. economy.

Now if we add in private debt to the equation – i.e., the debts of household sector corporate sector, business sector, non-corporate businesses, State, and local government – then the debt soars to something like $50 trillion, or 363% of GDP. Then of course there is the chronic deficit on current account which adds a further dimension to the problem, and all of these seemingly intractable processes are still ongoing but hey, let’s not labour the point.

The seriousness of the situation is only matched by the complacency of the US authorities who seem to think they can go on raising the budget borrowing ceiling and that overseas investors will simply keep on buying their Treasury bonds forever. If ever there was a definition of unsustainable this is it.

In fact the structural problems in the US economy could well be fatal if these colossal debt levels are not reined in or simply stabilised. The US is being kept afloat by their ownership of the global reserve currency and the willingness (for now) of investors, mainly China, Japan and the oil-rich states in the middle-east to keep purchasing US Treasury paper – paper assets of dubious value and paltry yields. Overseas investors are aware of this situation and have begun to lower their exposure to the US$s and dollar denominated assets by diversifying into other assets and have also started to trade in their own currencies rather than the dollar. Straws in the wind perhaps, but indicative of future trends.

Taken by themselves Keynesian demand-side policies of stimulating the economy hardly begin to grapple with the problem. This is because deeper problems are on the supply-side not the demand-side of the economy. They can be classified as follows. Deindustrialisation as the manufacturing base is hollowed out or emigrates to cheaper venues; ageing populations; rising energy costs and scarcity; saturation of markets; lack of leadership at the political level; finance running amok; the ability to create paper money and assets without limit; an inadequately trained workforce; skills and investment deficit; and structural unemployment brought about by new technologies. And to crown it all there is the dreaded ‘Triffin Paradox’ to be factored into the equation, but this would take another article. Moreover, I could also have added in the issue of climate change but didn’t want to depress my readers unduly.

Keynesianism is fixated on the demand-side. But in a world beset by the sort of supply-side problems listed above traditional demand-management policies used since the war will not be effective. It is also worth adding that both Germany and Japan, where the wartime devastation was manifest both recovered strongly without Keynesian demand management. This actually serves to validate the Austrian and Marxist theory that upturns and booms in a capitalist economy are the result of the destruction of existing capital values. Japan and Germany roared ahead because their own industries and infrastructure was decimated, and they had to install the most modern up to date capital equipment and technologies and again start from scratch. Economies which start from a low base tend to have extremely high rates of growth.

I did mention earlier that Keynes’ General Theory is in fact not a general theory at all but a special theory. Such policies may have been appropriate for the post-war period with the usual cyclical movements of the trade cycle, but dare I say, this time it’s different. What we are now confronted with is a systemic global crisis of capitalism. In the present situation Keynesian policies – which are commonly understood and promulgated by his epigones – are unlikely to have the desired effect for the following reasons.

‘’Keynes’ theory that government spending could stimulate aggregate demand turns out to be one that works in limited conditions only, making it more of a special theory than a general theory which he had claimed. Stimulus programmes work better in the short run than in the long run. Stimulus works better in a liquidity crisis than in an insolvency crisis, and better in a mild recession than a severe oneStimulus also works better for economies that have entered recessions with relatively low levels of debt at the outset … None of these favourable conditions for Keynesian stimulus was present in the United States in 2009.’’ (9)

It has been calculated that growth would have to be at the rate of 6% per annum which when inflation is factored in reduces to actual growth of 2% to make any inroads into the huge debts. This seems very, very unlikely, although this is what the US authorities will attempt to do.

One final point with regard to Keynesian policies: They are often thought of as an alternative to austerity, when in fact they are simply austerity by other means. It is an open secret, though never admitted, that both the Fed and the Bank of England are attempting to monetize the debt levels in both countries. This entails keeping inflation one or more jumps ahead of wages, pensions, benefits, and interest rates. This inflation is engineered by the Central Bank which devalues the currency – supposedly to make exports more ‘competitive’ and printing money through QE. Devaluation leads to an increase in import prices which will tend to feed through the rest of the economy causing domestic inflation. The time-honoured claim made by the then British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in 1967 that the proposed 17% devaluation of the £ ‘would not affect the pound in your pocket’ was simply a barefaced lie. When a country devalues its currency it makes itself poorer (‘competitive’ is of course the preferred description). That is its whole raison d’être, and in this respect, it is no different from a policy of deflation.

Thus the disposable income of the mass of the population is effectively pushed down as prices rise, and the most acutely affected will be the poorer sections of the community or anyone who keeps their assets in cash. The more opulent, however, will be able to switch into stronger currencies, and physical assets such as precious metals, property, L’Objets d’Art which will appreciate in price. Inflation will help debtors since their debts will be effectively amortized, i.e. grow less as inflation lowers the magnitude of the debt. Of course the principal debtor is the government.

Forcing down interest rates to near zero in an inflationary environment gives savers two options. Do nothing and watch their savings melt away, or just go out and blow the lot. Similarly investors will be forced into more risky investments as they see the paltry return to safer bolt holes such as gilts being eaten away by inflation. It all rather sounds like a re-run of 2002-2007 credit-fuelled growth madness. And paradoxically, because disposable income is crimped by such a policy, aggregate demand falls, and this gives another push to deflation – the law of unintended consequences.

Keynesians see the problems of past and present capitalism as purely technical. They apparently believe that capitalism can be ‘fixed’ using appropriate tools and that it would therefore be possible to have permanent semi-boom conditions. This is clearly expounded by economists such as the American Keynesian, Paul Krugman in his book Peddling Prosperity, first published in 1994. Having spent most of his life during the post-war boom, he is apparently dumbfounded that it suddenly ended in the early 1970s. He intoned that … In 1973 the magic went away. Well ‘magic’ had nothing to do with it. Capitalism was beginning to enter into a periodic systemic convulsion which is now reaching its climax.

After Keynes – What to Do?

‘’Can Capitalism survive? No I do not think it can … Can Socialism work? Of course it can.’’ (10)

On the first point Schumpeter was at that time wrong, but it is now a question which needs to be raised again. On the second point, he has to be right. But this is a political rather than a purely technical question. The present crisis will be solved sooner or later (preferably sooner) but the question is how, by whom, and for whom?

The question for socialists, or for that matter any oppositionists to the present regime, is what should the strategy be for the coming struggles with this system – a system which cannot go on in its present form for the simple reason that it needs to grow at a compound rate of 3% forever – this is not possible for both political, economic and environmental reasons. (My emphasis) Socialism or a collapse into semi-barbarism seems to be on the agenda once again. But we shouldn’t be surprised by this; it is surely what we have been expecting since the trouble started brewing in the late 60s. After all capitalism moves in huge cyclical convulsions, and this is one of them.

This is a colossal question and I can only allude to possible areas of political action. The first thing to realise is that the historical window for a social-democratic Keynesian solution to the crisis is now closed. It was only made possible by a specific conjuncture of political and economic circumstances. The Thatcher-Reagan settlement and globalization marked the death-knell of the Keynes/Beveridge consensus. (11) Does this mean that socialists should not support a policy of reform within the system? Not at all. But this support must perforce have in view the objective of forcing a paradigm shift away from what has been a trade unionist approach of simply gaining and defending reforms – to a struggle for real political and economic power. (My emphasis).

The programme of the liberal-left – the type of journalism which we see in the Guardian and Independent and Labour party publications – actually advocates reform of a system which is beyond reformIt should also be clearly understood that such reforms as advocated by most of the liberal-left such as public spending on work creation programmes, investment in green technology, a national investment bank will only provide a temporary fix, and may well have negative downsides, such as inflation.

‘’A short-run revival of growth, as opposed to proliferating distress, can … buy time for longer term solutions to the transition to be worked out. But bought time is only useful if it is put to good use.’’ (My Emphasis – FL)(12)

Keynesian reform will not be a long-term solution, but it can alter the political balance of power and shift the argument in favour of the 99%. The politicisation of the mass of ordinary folk can begin with such an approach. Socialists, however, need to go much further than the type of Keynesian stimulus programme as advocated by Hutton, Krugman, Elliott, et al. Such a programme might consist of the following set of workable policies.

  1. Public works programmes to reduce unemployment. Or full maintenance for the unemployed.
  2. Nationalization of all deposit taking institutions and the setting up of a national bank.
  3. Strict rules on credit creation and the Shadow banking system.
  4. More transparency and an end to over-the-counter (OTC) trading.
  5. Closure of tax havens. Stop tax avoidance scams such as Transfer Pricing.
  6. Withdrawal from overseas conflicts and NATO.
  7. Harmonisation of corporate tax rates within the EU.
  8. End of the global reserve status of the US dollar.
  9. Indexation of wages, pensions, benefits, interest rates to inflation
  10. A move away from indirect to direct taxation, and higher tax rates for the upper quintile of the population.
  11. Tax harmonisation in Europe to prevent tax competition and the race to the bottom.

These represent the economic demands. But capitalism also works at a political micro-level. The power relations in the work-place are such that employees and consumers have no say in how the business is run, by whom and for whom. Shareholder value is all that matters. This should be replaced by a stakeholder approach were all the interest groups have a say in the running of the organization.

Of course there is no possibility that such demands as these will be met, there is a war going on after all, and at the moment the class enemy have the power and the veto, notwithstanding the democratic will of the people. Moreover, some of these questions can only be raised at regional and/or global levels. This opens up several additional cans of worms. There is the seemingly intractable issue of Europe and the euro? Reversion to national currencies (as advocated by the Guardian’s economics team) may only lead to devaluation and trade and currency wars. Then there are global currency and trade issues: What replaces the dollar as the basis for a global currency? The IMFs Special Drawing Rights? A new gold standard? Or Keynes’ idea of a global currency – Bancor – to replace national currencies, in international trade. Then there is the massive question of climate change and the massive ecological damage and negative externalities which is the corollary of consumer capitalism. The problem we face is that politics are national, but capitalism and economics are global. But reforms of this type can obviously only be carried out at international level (13) but the starting place must be national. Co-ordinated global action is not going to happen any time soon, but regional action, whether in Europe, North and Latin America as well as the ASEAN bloc is a possibility – in fact it is the only option for supra-national policy making at the present time.

The task seems truly Herculean, the point is, however, that these issues must sooner or later (preferably sooner) be raised. They cannot be evaded. We do not choose history, history chooses us. And this is the labour of Hercules which history has bequeathed.

‘’An alternative (to capitalism – FL) will have to be found. And it is here that the emergence of a global co-revolutionary movement becomes critical not only to stemming the tide of self-destructive capitalistic behaviour … but also to our re-organizing ourselves and beginning to build new collective organizational forms, knowledge banks and mental conceptions, new technologies and systems of production and consumption, all the while experimenting with new institutional arrangements, new forms of social and natural relations, and with the redesign of an increasingly urbanized daily life …

While capital has provided us with an abundant means with which to approach the task of anti-capitalist transition, the capitalists, and their hangers on will do all in their power to prevent such a transition no matter how imperative the circumstances may be. But the task of transition lies with us not the plutocrats. As Shakespeare once advised: ‘’The fault … is not in our stars, that in ourselves that we are underlings.’ Right now, as Warren Buffet (the famous American investor – FL) asserts his class is winning (the class war) our immediate task is to prove him wrong.’’ (14).

NOTES

(1) Andrew Gamble – The Spectre at the Feast.

(2) Detlev Schlichter – Paper Money Collapse.

(3) Richard Duncan – The New Depression p.105

( 4) JMK – Essays in Persuasion – 1925 – Am I a Liberal, A short view of Russia. Ibid

(5) Richard Duncan -The New Depression – p.121

(6) In this connection see ChrisMartenson.com Crash Course, Fuzzy Numbers and John Williams Shadow Government Statistics – passim.

(7) Foster and Magdoff – The Great Financial Crisis – p.49

(8) Richard Duncan Ibid.

(9) James Rickards – Currency Wars –pp.186/187 – My emphasis FL

(10) Joseph Alois Schumpeter – Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy – 1943

(11) William Henry Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge, KCB was a British economist and Liberal politician who was a progressive and social reformer. His 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services served as the basis for the

post-World War II welfare state put in place by the Labour government elected in 1945

(12) David Harvey -The Enigma of Capital– p.278

(13) I have since revised this view and would argue that that starting place for the sweeping reforms which are necessary at the global world system must include and start at the national level. This is not the EU we signed up to in 1976, and there comes a time in politics where it is judicious to give up flogging a dead horse. A progressive Labour government under Corbyn would not have been allowed by EU law to implement its economic reforms, cancel Trident, leave, or even modify its NATO membership. Democracy is impossible without some measure of sovereignty, and nations must get control of their own foreign and economic policies since if they don’t the globalisers and Bilderbergers will and have done

(14) David Harvey, op.cit

*The Federal Reserve Act of 1977 modified the original act establishing the Federal Reserve in 1913 and clarified the roles of the Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve has two mandates: maintaining maximum employment and maintaining stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. Congress explicitly stated the Fed’s goals should be “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. It is these goals that have come to be known as the Fed’s “dual mandate’’. All of which was enabled to act in both monetary and stimulus capacities.

Francis Lee

Updated from 2012 to 2020

Being Ahead of Time

 BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

https://www.unz.com/

In my recent book, Being in Time, I analyse Jewish controlled opposition. I argue that some self-identified Jews end up being on both polar extremes of every debate that is even mildly relevant to Jewish existence: Those who have recently been disturbed about the Jews who are at the centre of the impeachment trial have also found that Jews hold key positions on Trump’s defense team. Those who accuse Jews of pushing immigration and multiculturalism can’t deny that Trump’s senior policy advisor on immigration is Stephen Miller and that breitbart.com was “conceived in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians’ solidarity movement is dominated by a few well organized Jewish solidarity groups that do little but divert the discourse from the Palestinian right of return and exhaust the movement in their relentless witch-hunting of truth speakers and seekers.

In Being in Time, I point out that as soon as an issue or event is identified as a potential Jewish problem, a Jewish satellite dissent emerges to ‘calm things down.’ As soon as Corbyn became the modern Amalek (‘existential threat’), Jews for Jeremywas formed to dismantle the idea that Jews hate Corbyn collectively. Those who view Capitalism as a Jewish construct are similarly reminded that Marx was also a Jew. In Being in Time I argue that none of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is only natural for Jews to denounce the crimes that are committed on ‘their behalf’ by a state that defines itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ The same applies to Jews who are genuinely tormented by the vast over representation of Jews in some problematic spheres. Yet, the outcome of all this is potentially volatile: every crucial debate regarding the West and its future; Globalism, Neocons wars, capitalism, immigration, multiculturalism, Israel and so on, is too frequently reduced into an internal Jewish exchange.

It was therefore just a matter of time before some Jews would admit that the involvement of a few prominent Jewish celebrities in some spectacular sex crimes is becoming rather embarrassing and even dangerous for the Jews.

It seems as if Jonah Goldberg has launched the ‘Jews against pedophilia’ campaign. Today, The Jewish World Review published an article titled “French pedo flap a cautionary tale for OUR cultural aristocrats.” In the commentary, Goldberg digs into the activities of Jewish radical ideology, along with those of the notorious paedophile, Gabriel Matzneff.

Goldberg was triggered by a New York Times article that examined the rise and fall of the paedophilia devotee. Matzneff is 83, an old man now, but he has been the darling of the French literary world and media for decades: his work was supported by leading newspapers and literary publications. “He’d appear on highbrow TV shows,” Goldberg writes, where he’d “regale interviewers and audiences with the sublime pleasures of having sex with children in France and on sex tours of southeast Asia.”

In his book “Under 16 Years Old,” Matzneff wrote, “To sleep with a child, it’s a holy experience, a baptismal event, a sacred adventure.”

But the contrast Goldberg draws between Jeffrey Epstein and Matzneff is surprisingly clumsy: “The well-connected billionaire spent vast sums to keep his sexual abuses at least somewhat secret. Matzneff not only confessed to his crimes, his confessions were celebrated as literary contributions.” I feel the need to remind Goldberg that nicknaming one’s plane the “Lolita Express” is hardly an attempt to hide one’s sexual morbidity and crimes. If anything Matzneff is like Epstein in that both celebrated a peculiar sense of impunity. Needless to mention, no Jewish outlet denounced either of them or their not very secretive activities before they were caught and charged.

Jewish Radicals and the role of the Orgasm

Next comes the ‘rationalisation.’ “Matzneff was a Child of 68,” Goldberg writes, “a product of the left-wing ‘May 68’ movement that shook France in the 1960s. These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism or bourgeois morality was backward. Conventional sexual morality was part of the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism.”

Goldberg doesn’t approve of the ‘Jewish radicals and their ideology. He reminds us that “a few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a.k.a. Dany le Rouge), the famous former radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He (Cohn-Bendit ) dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying they were merely intended to provoke.”

Goldberg is a well-known and successful writer, he could have published his criticism of Matzneff and Jewish radicals in numerous national American news outlets but, presumably he made the decision to use a Jewish outlet. Whether intentionally or not, Goldberg provides an insight into Jewish survival strategy in general and Jewish controlled opposition in particular. Criticizing radical philosophy and the advocacy of pedophilia on ideological grounds by Jews in a Jewish media outlet conveys the image that Jews can deal with their problems. The goyim should let it go or, even better, move on.

But Goldberg’s account is either mistaken or misleading. The sex revolution that branched into advocating paedophilia wasn’t invented in 1968. Its radical Jewish roots take us back to the 1920-30s and, in particular, to the early work of Wilhelm Reich.

The Following is an excerpt from Being in Time in which I delve into Wilhelm Reich and his ‘genital utopia.’

In his 1933 work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Jewish Marxist and Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of ‘reactionary’ Fascism over ‘progressive’ Communism. Reich was desperate to rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism. In order to do so he formed a new ‘post Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.

According to Reich, the attraction of reactionary and conservative politics and the inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian patriarchy which affects the family, parenting, primal education and eventually, society as a whole.
Of course, the remarkable popularity of fascism in Europe could have provided the scientifically-orientated Reich with a clear refutation of Marxist working class politics, theories and predictions. After all, dialectical Marxism had failed as a social theory as well as a methodical prophecy. But for some reason, he, like many other Jewish intellectuals of his time, decided to stick with Marx. Hoping to rescue what was left of dialectical materialism, and insisting that true communist political revolution would prevail once sexual repression was overthrown, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud into a ‘Sex Revolution.’

Wilhelm Reich posited that sexual liberation on a mass scale would save Marxist dogmatism and working people as well. In chapter five of The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he declared war on the patriarchal and conservative family which he saw as being at the core of mass conservatism: “From the standpoint of social development,” Reich wrote, “the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it.” The traditional family is a “central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.”

In the eyes of the neo-Marxist affection, both romanticism and traditional family values were obstacles to socialist reform and Reich’s vehicle towards the new world order was … orgasm! In his 1927 study, The Function of the Orgasm, he came to the conclusion that: “there is only one thing wrong with neurotic patients: the lack of full and repeated sexual satisfaction.” In the hands of Reich, the Marx-Freud hybrid was leading to what some critical cynics dubbed “genital utopia.”

Reich believed that for women within the patriarchal society, sex was within the realm of duty and/or restricted to procreation. “The maintenance of the authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as far as possible in women and children. The woman is not supposed to be a sexual being, only the producer of children.”(The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich pg 56 37. Ibid pg 56)

Within the traditional society, the woman was robbed of any libidinal consciousness: “This idealization of motherhood is essentially a means of keeping women from developing a sexual consciousness and from breaking through the barriers of sexual repression, of keeping alive their sexual anxieties and guilt feelings. The very existence of woman as a sexual being would threaten authoritarian ideology; her recognition and social affirmation would mean its collapse.” Women were mere baby factories, who had only an instrumental role because: “Imperialistic wars require that there be no rebellion in the women against the function that is imposed on them, that of being nothing but child-bearing machines.” This description of the woman and the family fits the traditional Jewish orthodox family rather better than, say, the German, French, Italian or Spanish family cell.

But Wilhelm Reich wasn’t only a dialectic social revolutionary, he was also a pragmatist. He invented the Orgone Energy Accumulator, a wooden box about the size of a telephone booth, lined with metal and insulated with steel wool. The Orgone itself was a vague concept: an esoteric energy, a universal life force that was massless yet omnipresent and promised to charge up the body with the life force that circulated in the atmosphere and which he christened “orgone energy.” His Orgone box promised to improve “orgastic potency” and, by extension, physical and mental health Thus, the newly liberated Western subject was invited to experience the true meaning of Marx and Freud through sweating towards full emancipation by means of accumulating ‘Orgone energy’ in this wooden box.

Those who watched Woody Allen’s comedy film Sleeper (1973) probably remember the Orgasmatron – the orgasm inducing machine. In Allen’s satirical take on Reich’s Orgone box, it is actually the authoritarian regime that encourages its citizens to emancipate themselves by means of their genitalia. In Allen’s prophetic movie, the orgasm, like consumerism is a reward from the oppressive regime that diverts the masses’ attention from their existential misery.

The ‘authoritarian’ Germans, both fascist and communist, quickly expelled Reich from their ranks. By 1934, even Freud didn’t want anything to do with Reich. The progressive Americans however, tolerated his ideas, at least for a while. Reich was eventually arrested and died in an American prison leaving behind some radical minds, still convinced that the Orgone box was acting as a greenhouse for cosmic, libidinal energy. Within the free-ranging pornographic realm in which we live, the universe has become an extended Orgone container: pornography is free to all; genital sex is deemed almost Victorian; heterosexuality, at a certain stage, was on the verge of becoming a marginal adventure. And yet authoritarianism hasn’t disappeared. Quite the opposite; to borrow Marx’s metaphor – it is sex and pornography rather than religion that have become the opium of the masses. And yet, this ‘progressive’ universe in which we live didn’t defeat the inclination towards violence. We are killing millions by proxy in the name of moral interventionism and Coca Cola.

Donate

Gilad Atzmon on Red Ice Radio talking about Being in Time

June 04, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Gilad returns to Red Ice to discuss his new book, Being in Time, political censorship, Marxism, and much more. To begin, Gilad tells us about a recent incident in which antifa, unhappy with his outspoken views, attacked him. Gilad uses this story to draw attention to the fact that the West is currently divided between those who believe in civil debate, and those who do not. We discuss how the elite caters to the later, silencing views in opposition to the globalist agenda. Later, we discuss Trump, the Left’s curious relationship with the working class, and the role identity plays in politics.

In the members’ hour, we discuss how the Left discarded its support for free speech. We then talk about Karl Marx. Gilad argues that Marx was, all things considered, an intellectual open to debate and philosophical inquiry; his followers, as Gilad explains, then took his ideas and turned them into dogma. Switching gears, we discuss Gilad’s recent book, Being in Time. Gilad outlines some of its main ideas, and describes how it relates to The Bell Curve – a book which has been thoroughly suppressed and attacked by egalitarian academics. This leads to a discussion on the ruling elite: who they are, how they came to power, and to what extent Jews play a role. Our show covers much more, and concludes with a discussion of the Manchester bombing.

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad’s site  here.

 

Being in Time reviewed by June Terpstra

May 21, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://www.opednews.com/

Firmly rooted in the Western intellectual tradition, Gilad Atzmon’s “Being In Time” opens doors to shed light on the particular ideological constructs that influenced the schools and movements of left and right political wings that have produced a world in poverty and war, offering a matrix of controlled opposition embedded in modern, Jewish, secular politics to distract and destroy from within. Atzmon’s analysis, written like an intellectual jazz composition, celebrates Athenian philosophical calls to reason while urging the unpacking of political ideology to reveal the con-game being played to keep power in the hands of those who already have it.

In the first half of the book Atzmon offers a brilliant decoding of left and right wings of the Imperial Houses of Domination. On the left, he gives the reader Marx, Adorno, and the Frankenfurters defending principles of utopianism and what ought to be. To the right, are Breitbart, Murry and Hernnstein, playing Johnny one note for conserving the structures of power in hopes to hold on to their piece of that pie. Atzmon suggests that, “instead of looking at the world through the lens of the Right/Left dichotomy, or a particular ideological perspective, it will be more instructive to impose a meta-ideological method that juxtaposes ‘the humane’ i.e. the human condition and the political spectrum as a whole. Instead of imposing any particular ideology, be it Right, Left, Marxism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Fascism and so on I want to examine the relationship between a political system and the human condition.”

Atzmon engagingly utilizes the controversial Bell Curve of the Right Wing to show how a Jewish “cognitive elite” attempted to separate itself from the rest of society’s “unchosen” through selective breeding conflating genetic determination with heritability to fit what scientists call a power distribution so that a small group of exceptional performers overtake the rest. Atzmon poses that rather than increasing the performance of cognitive elites, the ideology of the curve has actually been constraining how all people perform.

A Return to Athens

In the post-political neighbourhood in which we live, much of humanity has been reduced to serving the interests of big money, mammon and oligarchy, with Left and Right, those two familiar poles of politics as we have always understood them to be, now indistinguishable and irrelevant. The freedom to think openly and speak clearly are but nostalgic concepts. Our Western Liberal Utopia has turned into an Orwellian dystopia. Gilad Atzmon

Atzmon, taking philosopher, Pierre Hadot’s advice, models the determinate individual separating himself from the All, be they Left or Right, by adding a difference which, as Plotinus says, is a negation. The best life depends upon becoming one’s true self via the intellect, which means to step away from identity politics, which teaches us to identify ourselves by our victimhood and oppressions in a competition for least powerful giving us an excuse not to act.

“Being in Time” is a peripatetic walk, from the man who brought us The Wandering Who,through the present post-political narrative. Intendedto make the ideologies driving the narrative available to all, thereby depriving it of its power, the book takes us on path to build moral courage. The chief consideration is how to popularize the walk of “being in time”, and to provide the individual, in a time of general confusion and dissolution, with a living and breathing moral basis for practical life.

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com

The book is now available here

COLLIN BELL: SOMETIMES THE TRUTH CAUSES DISCOMFORT -A BOOK REVIEW

Concise, clear, and easy to read.

Gilad utilises a very readable style when articulating his ideas.

The book joins the dots and exposes, among other things, the many and various strands of zionist thought for what they are. A con and a fraud.He also seeks to illustrate that many of the more pernicious among them actually pretend, on the surface, to oppose zionism.
A rather hollow pretense ?

Of course the Alan Dershowitz’s (and fellow travellers) of this world will howl with indignation accusing Gilad of being anti-semitic, a self-hating Jew etc., etc., but hey, what’s new ?

These people have been attempting to close down the Palestine debate for decades with just this sort of ploy, and it’s wearing a bit thin.

The nonsense that one can somehow completely separate ‘Jewish’ and ‘zionist’ is pure fantasy land.

Have these people not noticed that Israel is (and always has been) defined as ‘the Jewish state’ ?

It was set up in the name of the Jewish people, and has been nurtured and maintained ever since by the various Jewish communities and their allies, around the world.

‘Jewish’ and ‘zionist’ ARE inextricably intertwined.
I agree that they are not quite the same thing, but there is enormous overlap and since the whole project of Israel was created in the name of ‘Jewish’, the idea that Gilad (or anyone else for that matter) should wish to explore just what is meant by ‘Jewish’ seems like a both logical, and necessary project to me.

‘Project Israel’ was set up as a secular state after all, decrying religion, yet the justification for it’s existence is purely biblical.

Without the religious connection there would be absolutely no justification for the ‘Jewish State’s existence.

How’s that for a paradox ?
So the question of just what is meant by ‘Jewish’ and ‘the Jewish people’ is at the heart of the whole subject.
Gilad is not the first, and I’m sure he won’t be the last to attempt to get to the bottom of this conundrum.

Famous predecessors include Karl Marx who wrote extensively on this subject in 1843.

Marx didn’t have many positive things to say, and in attempting to get to the bottom of this thorny question of identity, Marx never once used the word ‘zionist’ because of course the political movement called zionism hadn’t yet been invented.

His musings were aimed fairly and squarely at ‘The Jewish Question’.
One of his famous conclusions was that ‘Jewish Internationalism’ was ‘the Internationalism of the financier’ and that as such, lay at the heart of oppression everywhere.

But I’m wandering.

Gilad is very clearly on a journey toward understanding.
Understanding the central themes that shaped his life growing up in the newly formed Israeli state, and just like the story of ‘the King’s new clothes’, on enquiring he finds that there is curiously little substance to the whole thing.

Jewish identity is, it seems, remarkably elusive.

All rather curious when one considers the impact that the creation of ‘the Jewish state’ (with it’s accompanying creed of ‘chosen-ness’) has had (and continues to have) on the world stage.
If you like ‘thinking outside the box’ you will surely find this book interesting.

An absorbing journey, intelligently articulated.
Not a book for the rigid thinker.


Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish  Identity Politics 
 Amazon.com  orAmazon.co.uk.

What is Zionism?

by Lasse Wilhelmson
Thursday, August 16th, 2012

– its history and role over the past 150 years

Mount Zion, Jerusalem
Moses Hess
Zionism is, according to its own prominent figures, a religious/political movement the aim of which is to create a socialistic model state for Jews in the land of Palestine where Mount Zion is located. Its roots are found in Judaism and in the middle of the nineteenth century Moses Hess, Karl Marx’s mentor in socialism, developed it into a political movement. Hess was named The Communist Rabbi and with his book Rome and Jerusalem, 1862, laid the foundations for Zionism. Before this, he had formulated the first written principles of Communism – Socialism and Communism, 1843, A Communist Credo: Questions and Answers, 1846, and Consequences of a Revolution of the Proletariat, 1847. In keeping with this, he assisted Marx and Engels in their work with The Communist Manifesto, 1848, particularly concerning the role of religion. (1)

Theodore Herztl
Theodor Hertzl, usually called Zionism’s official founder, planned the colonisation of Palestine in a more practical book, The Jewish State, 1896, which was approved by the first Zionist congress in 1897. He described Hess’s book Rome and Jerusalem as the book that says everything you need to know about Zionism. “Race”, people, nation and the chosen all merge in Zionism to create a national socialism, colonial style, synonymous with “lebensraum” and “blut und boden”. Later on, German national socialism was created with the same ideological components and with similar practical effects on society. Nazism is the Germans’ national socialism and Zionism is the Jews’.

I too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea.”

Chaim Nachman Bialik, national bard of Israel, wrote this in “The Present Hour” in 1934.

The Balfour DeclarationThe Balfour Declaration, signed 1917 by Britain’s foreign minister and lord Rothschild, created the prerequisites for a national identity for the Jewish group through a Jewish state in the land of Palestine, in accordance with Zionism’s short-term goals. Britain gave away a country owned by others to a third party, in exchange for the cooperation of the Jewish mafia on Wall Street, partly to fund Britain’s military endeavours in the First World War and partly to get the US on the side of the British in the war against Germany.
There was little support for Zionism among Europe’s Jews to begin with, nor among Jews in German concentration camps during the Second World War. However, the panic-stricken exodus of Jews from Germany to Palestine was engineered by a collaboration of Jewish Zionists and German Nazis, thus blocking a more substantial exodus to other countries. This was done through cooperation between The World Zionist Organisation and Germany, the so-called Transfer Agreement in 1933. Preceding this, world Jewry had declared war on Germany in the form of a worldwide economic boycott. However, much earlier on, as part of Europe’s colonisation, Zionism, since the end of the nineteenth century, had guided the Jews in the colonisation of Palestine. Politically Zionism had its great break-through after WWII with the proclamation of the Jewish state in Israel in 1948.
Eastern European Marxist Jews, lead by Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding father who saw himself as a Bolshevik, came to play a crucial part in the colonisation. The socialist kibbutzim where only Jews could become members, paved the way to the theft of land and ethnic cleansing of approximately 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, the Nakba cataclysm. These Palestinians and their offspring still live in refugee camps or in exile and are denied their right, laid down by the UN, to return. The eviction was carried out by the Jewish army Haganah helped by Jewish fascists from the Stern and Irgun terrorist gang groups, founded by Zeév Jabotinsky who cooperated with Benito Mussolini. That same year, the Stern gang murdered Folke Bernadotte, the Swedish UN envoy and negotiator of the UN plan for partition (2).
However, it was not until after the 6-Day War in 1967 that Zionism (post-Zionism) became a significant force in the US, through Jewish influence on banking, media, the film industry, the academic sphere and the Jewish lobby organisation AIPAC, and the neo-conservatives’ (neocons) influence on US foreign policy and the neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US neocons comprise an alliance of Jewish and Christian Zionists and neo-liberal conservatives, with Leo Strauss as their foremost ideological figure. A kind of rightwing Zionism that bears great similarity to Jabotinsky’s in Palestine. But neocons also have roots among Trotskyites in the US, who like Ben Gurion in Palestine, were Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union took a very active part in the work leading up to the admittance of Israel as a member state of the UN. To what extent this was made to reinforce their influence among communists in the US who were predominantly Jews, or the first importand act of SU Social-imperialism, may be disputed.
Most religious Jewish assemblies worldwide today, see Zionism as a positive development of Judaism (3). But some smaller groups of orthodox Jews such as Neturei Karta, consider Zionism incompatible with Judaism because the creation of a Jewish state can only be the work of God, not of people as in the case of Israel. Christian Zionism has considerable support in the American Bible Belt, but also Christian congregations such as The Swedish Pentecostal Movement give support. Christian Zionism is a large organisation but is subordinate to Jewish Zionism in its support of a Jewish state in Zion where the supposition is, however, that one-day the Jews will become Christians (4).
Neturei Karta
NetureiKarta
Today, Zionism has become the most dominant ideology in the western world and is the most significant expression of Anglo-American imperialism. It is used to control people’s thoughts by restricting freedoms of speech and press, and to motivate neo-colonial wars aimed at Islam. This is accomplished by presenting an official picture of “The Holocaust” as an exclusively Jewish affair and it is treated like a religion; questioning it is taboo and liable to punishment by law. Today, in many countries there are academics in prison for their criticism. The European Union is promoting economic and military collaboration with Israel.
Countries with Nuclear weapons, not including USA and Russia
The new Hitler is said to be in Iran. Ahmedinajad is accused of wanting to wipe out the Jewish state in a “holocaust”, using nuclear weapons he doesn’t have but Israel does. Criticising Israel’s policies and its influence in the US is labelled “anti-Semitism”; questioning parts of the Zionist picture – 6 million Jews in one Holocaust – is called “Holocaust denial”; criticism of the Jewish mafia’s dominance within the power elite, mainly on Wall Street and The Federal Reserve, is named “racist conspiracy theories”.
Considerable efforts are being made in the US and the EU to promote further restrictions and legal punishment of such criticism. It is reasonable to consider that the concerns surrounding details of Hitler’s war crimes against diverse groups of people, including the Jews, should primarily be a matter of discussion between researchers of history, in the same way that the crimes committed by Stalin in the 1930s in Ukraine during the great hunger catastrophe are studied.
In Sweden, organisations such as The Expo Foundation (the Swedish Searchlight), and The Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism (the Swedish ADL), play a significant part as front organisations for the government authority Forum for Living History (FFLH) in its defence of the Jewish state and the promotion of Zionist ideology. FFLH, the witch hunt and subsequent sentencing of Ahmed Rami (Radio Islam webbsite), are a few of the signs of Zionism’s influence over Sweden’s institutions of government. The business world has its equivalent in the way that the Jewish family corporation, Bonnier, influences the media. The extreme rightwing Sweden Democrats, is the political party that is most Israel-friendly, consequently also the party that launches the most aggressive attacks on Islam.
Spreading information about the destructive influence Zionism has on humanity in today’s world, and in Sweden, is predominantly an ideological struggle against control and manipulation of people’s thinking. Especially since Zionism hardly exists in public debate. And the reason for this is that the means of production of culture and ideology are to a great extent owned or influenced by Zionist interests.
The heavily nuclear-armed Jewish apartheid state – Israel, is today the greatest threat to world peace through its influence in the western world, and Zionism is the greatest threat to humanity, including the majority of Jews. Zionism is used by the power elite in its efforts to secure a new world order with one Big Brother state and continual conflicts and wars between various religious, ethnic and cultural groups from disintegrated national states. In this light, Israel is the capital of the world and the Palestinians are the oppressed peoples of the world. Hence, Zionism is dangerous and must be resisted.
——————————————–

1) It should be stressed that although Zionism is a religious and Jewish national socialist project, while Marxism is a secular and international socialist project open to all, both can be seen as Jewish projects, as can the neocons, because of the dominance of Jews in the leadership of these projects. Karl Marx was not a Zionist, but nevertheless Moses Hess was his personal stand-in at the meetings of the Internationale in 1868 and 1869, 6 years after having written Zionism’s Magnum Opus: Rome and Jerusalem.
2) Marxism and Zionism can be seen as complementary survival projects for Jews in Europe, lasting a hundred years, from the middle of the 19th century up to the middle of the 20th century – a double faced tribal strategy. Zionism created the necessary conditions for a nation for the Jews, while at the same time Marxism reduced the strength of all other nations through its internationalism. Regardless of whether this came about intuitively, or was launched as a conspiracy by the Freemasons, or Moses Hess planted the seeds or it was a combination of all these and other factors, the tangible result was that the Jewish group was reinforced. To such an extent that even Hitler and Stalin’s attempts to reduce its influence failed. We see today, that these strategies were successful regarding Jewish power, especially in the West, and in post-Zionism’s role in the neo-colonial wars. The fact that the majority of Jews are exploited by the Zionist power elite does not alter this fact.
3) Religious Jewish assemblies today, for example in Sweden, consider that a person born of a Jewish mother, who does not belong to any other religion, is religion-wise a Jew. It is also possible to convert to Judaism. But many who consider themselves Jews are in fact secular. Being a Jew today then, is primarily a question of taking on board an identity that is tied to the Jewish state and “The Holocaust”, and sometimes also religious conviction. Every individual Jew can choose to be or not to be a Jew.
4) Judaism, Jewish mentality and Zionism are conceptions with fluid boundaries. They are connected but must at the same time be kept apart. This is because of the diverse opinions amongst religious Jews about Zionism, and because the number of non-Jews influenced by Jewish mentality and Zionism is much bigger than the number of Jews. Modern research has shown that Jews are neither a homogenous ethnic group or a people in the common meaning of the word, but rather, instead, a scattered group held together by a common tribal mentality and religious rules (Halakha) that give guidance as to how matters stand with non-Jews (goim) who, in this context, are considered less than human.

A few important references:

Hess, Moses. ”The Holy History of Mankindand Other Writings”, ed. by Shlomo Avineri. Cambridge University Press, 2005
Shahak, Israel, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”, Pluto Press, London, Sterling, Virginia (1994, 1997) 2002
Sand, Shlomo. ”The Invention of the Jewish People”, Verso Books, 2009
Slezkine, Yuri. ”The Jewish Century”, Princeton University Press, 2004
Felton, Greg, ”The Host and the Parasite”, Dandelion Books, 2007
Atzmon, Gilad. “The Wandering Who?”, Zero Books, 2011

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Syrian Crisis: Three’s a Crowd

Members of the Free Syrian Army “commados brigade” take position near the town of al-Qusayr in Syria’s central Homs province, in anticipation of an attack by government regime forces on 10 May 2012. (Photo: AFP – STR)
Published Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The conflict in Syria has recast the political fault lines in the Mideast. Divisions that were once demarcated by ideology and religion, are today centered around the issue of overthrowing the Assad government.
Arab leftists, nationalists and Islamists are now divided between and amongst themselves over the Syrian question, and have borne yet another quasi-movement, the anti-interventionist “third-way” camp.
Third-wayers, comprised of intellectuals and activists from academia, the mainstream media and NGOs, support elements in the home-grown opposition, reject the Syrian National Council (SNC) on account of its US-NATO-Israeli-Arab backing, and reject the Assad leadership on account of its repression of dissent and its alleged worthlessness to the Resistance project.
While the third-way camp is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine in orientation, this hardly constitutes a political position. The Palestinian cause has become deeply etched in the Arab collective subconscious and has even become an increasingly pervasive slogan in western liberal activist discourse. Now the real litmus of Arab intellectuals’ and activists’ commitment to the Palestinian cause is no longer their support for Palestinian rights, but rather, their support for the Assad leadership’s struggle against the imperialist-Zionist-Arab moderate axis’ onslaught against it.
“O people and political forces”
Wake up American Administration is the one
occupying your Palestine,
violating your Al-Quds,
threatening your Holy mosque…

Supporting Assad’s struggle against this multi-pronged assault is supporting Palestine today because Syria has become the new front line of the war between Empire and those resisting it. The third-way progressive intellectuals are failing to see the Syrian crisis through this strategic lens. They have shown an inability to “take a step back from the details and look at the bigger picture,” to quote Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The third-way campaign against Assad only serves the strategy and interests of the US and Israel, who have made no secret of the fact that his fall would help them achieve their wider strategic ambitions of weakening Iran and resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine.
Rats desert a sinking ship, fools ride

Moreover, agitation against the regime on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes further incites sectarian oppositionists who identify the regime with Alawis, thereby indirectly fanning the flames of Sunni-Shia tension in Syria and the region at large.

The exigencies of the situation require Arab intellectuals to assume a more strategic and responsible position which is based on a recognition that despite its many flaws, the Syrian regime is actively resisting imperialist aggression and anything less than lending it full support — for the duration of this crisis at least — is tantamount to opposing its resistance to imperialist aggression. Although part of our duty as intellectuals is to call for political reforms and a greater inclusion of the homegrown, legitimate opposition in the reform process, this must be done in a manner which neither undermines the regime’s current position vis-à-vis our shared enemies, nor benefits the latter.
In fifteen months, third-wayers have failed to deliver a political solution for a conflict that now belongs entirely to larger geopolitical players. Instead, third-way proponents have taken a seat at the fringes of this conflict and satisfy themselves with pats on the back for “moral consistency” – all the while continuing to lend their legitimacy to a less sovereign and less secure Syria.
As Lenin observed regarding third-way politics:

“The only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms, there can never be a non-class or an above class ideology). Hence to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is much talk of spontaneity. But spontaneous development of the working class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology.”

Although the quote relates to class analysis, Lenin’s argument lends itself well to the Syrian case since he viewed imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. It is fully in line with Lenin’s logic to therefore argue that the geo-strategic balance of power and the political exigencies at hand leave very little room for such irresponsible and aimless rejectionism practiced by leftist intellectuals, when this only serves to strengthen imperialism both ideologically and politically.
It is not a coincidence that today’s third-wayers also have a misplaced faith in the ability of the Syrian masses to spontaneously resist imperial designs on their country independently of the Assad regime, despite the massive information war waged against them and the imperialist coalition’s firm grip on the uprising and its future direction.
This assumption also ignores the sizeable number of Syrians — at least half of the voting population — who have entrusted the Assad regime to confront Empire’s hegemonic ambitions and lead them out of this crisis.
Indeed it is something of an irony that many ordinary Syrians who do not enjoy the same social function or profession as intellectuals have been far more successful than the latter in resisting the propaganda onslaught directed at them. While such an advanced level of political consciousness is in part the product of Syrian political culture, it has undoubtedly also been sustained by the Assad regime’s political identity as a resisting frontline state, and reinforced by the punitive measures imperialist powers have subjected it and its people to as a result of this identity.
The history of struggle and sacrifice in neighboring Palestine and Lebanon, and the wider resistance paradigm in which they are anchored, have also contributed to this critical consciousness.
In effect, Syrian political consciousness has in large part been shaped by these challenges and the sacrifices the Syrian people had to make in facing them – in short, by their commitment to foiling imperialist-Zionist schemes. As defined by Marxist educator Paulo Freire, “critical consciousness” or “conscientization” doesn’t merely involve a deep understanding of oppression and domination, but also, the will and commitment to struggle against it:

“Conscientization is not exactly the starting point of commitment. Conscientization is more of a product of commitment. I do not have to be already critically self-conscious in order to struggle. By struggling I become conscious/aware.”

Given that third-way intellectuals are producers and disseminators of knowledge and are hence responsible for their own conscientization as well as that of the Arab public, a dilution of their resistance consciousness can only mean that they are not sufficiently committed to the struggle, according to Freire’s logic.
This is largely due to intellectuals’ professional considerations as they relate to academia’s political standards and criteria for publication and promotion. However, politically correct liberal discourses centered on individual rights unconsciously seduce people further into auto-censorship. While the appeal of liberal ideology was less potent in the past, the rebranding of the Arab uprisings as a liberal democratic popular wave has rendered liberalism the new intellectual default position for many progressive Arabs who are keen to remain at the vanguard of regional political trends.
Although Empire has always engaged in a civilizing mission to implant liberalism in “authoritarian” cultures, its latest incarnation of liberal imperialism is less the overt cultural colonialism of the past, characterized by Orientalist tropes, and more a campaign which markets an attractive liberal ideology to more discerning intellectual consumers. Thus, unlike its cruder predecessor, which was easier to detect and hence resist, today’s intellectual imperialism works in far more insidious ways on account of its affected benevolence and seeming universalism, both of which facilitate its internalization.
Moreover, in contrast to more direct modes of imperial control, the new liberal imperialism is an exercise in hegemonic domination which is not imposed but afforded its consent by those its hegemonizes. As with the hegemony practiced within western societies, hegemonic imperialism is exercised by civil society actors like the mainstream media, academia and NGOs, even more so than by governments.
As acknowledged by a senior British diplomat who worked for the Blair government, Sir Robert Cooper, in his seminal essay “The New Liberal Imperialism,” wrote:

“What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle… a framework in which each has a share in the government, in which no single country dominates and in which the governing principles are not ethnic but legal. The lightest of touches will be required from the centre.”

While Cooper was referring to the laws of international and regional organizations, his logic can just as easily be applied to the supposedly universal rules and standards governing the media and academia.
None of this is to say that progressive Arab intellectuals are intellectually colonized; only that they remain imperialized by liberal hegemony. As in the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the term, colonialism is but one expression or phase of imperialism and as such, the two concepts are not synonymous. Colonialism involves the transfer of a population to a new territory, where they live as permanent settlers, whereas imperialism refers to the way one country exercises power over another, either by means of colonialism or through indirect mechanisms of control. By implication, intellectual colonialism can be seen as a direct Euro-American epistemological invasion which leaves a distinct ethnic footprint, while intellectual imperialism is an indirect form of epistemic control which appears culturally neutral when exercised outside the Metropole, and class-blind when administered within it. It is precisely because of the undiscriminating nature of this deeply entrenched and well concealed domination that de-imperialization is a much harder goal to achieve than decolonization.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is an independent Lebanese academic and political analyst. She is author of the book, “Hizbullah: Politics and Religion”, and blogger at ASG’s Counter-Hegemony Unit.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Gilad Atzmon: "Tribal Marxism for Dummies"

Sunday, April 24, 2011 at 8:29AM Gilad Atzmon


This is an old paper of mine it was published originally on PTT (June 2009). I re-post it following the disappearance of PTT and its Archive.


“The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this “we know better” attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior.
Hisham Bustani

“The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise. While it poses a challenge to Western domination, it is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” Moshe Machover June 2009

For very many years the Palestinian solidarity discourse was dominated by leftist ideology carried largely by Jewish Marxists. Though the support of Jewish leftists was rather important at an early stage, it lost its primacy and urgency as Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian solidarity discourse evolved into a vivid autonomous discourse based on widely accepted ethical grounds. The Israeli war crimes against Palestinians are now well documented. No one needs the odd kosher ‘righteous Jew’ to approve that this is indeed the case.
And yet, in spite of the clear fact that Palestinian solidarity discourse moved ahead, Jewish Marxists are still insisting upon dictating their tribally orientated pseudo-analytical vision of reality.

Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power.

Palestinian thinkers were probably the first to realise that the situation in Gaza, Nablus and the refugee camps had little in common with 19th century Europe. This was enough to defy Marxism as a sole analytical political tool. However, the Jewish Marxists had a far more adventurous plan for Palestinians, Arab people and the region in general. They wanted Arabs to become cosmopolitan atheists. They suggested that Arabs should drop ‘reactionary Islam’ and liberate themselves as ‘the Jews did’ a century ago.

Seemingly, Palestinian and Arab intellectuals grasped that the method that successfully transformed Russia into a Soviet Union, at the expense of millions, was not going to liberate them. They obviously realised that the Jewish Marxists did not intend upon bringing millions of Palestinian refugees home either. It wasn’t even set to launch any form of an adequate resistance. It was there to saturate the discourse with empty rhetoric and pseudo-analytical jargon in order to divert the attention from questions having to do with Jewish tribal politics and Jewish identity.

As interesting as it may be, it is actually the Jewish Marxists, those who support Palestinians as long as they drop Islam, who are the ultimate exemplary exponents of Jewish tribal politics. It is the Jewish Marxist rather than the ‘Zionist’ who exposes the Jewish political ugly attitude in its worst crude form. This is good enough reason to monitor the Jewish Left and to understand its philosophy. As we will see soon enough, Jewish Marxism is there to suppress any form of engagement with the Jewish question by means of spin. It is there to stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying. The Judeo Marxist is an imposter prophet who claims to know the answers and yet, for some reason, his reading of historical events is no less than a total catastrophe. None of his predictions stand the reality test.

One of the last prime exponents of Judeo Marxist ideology is Professor Moshe Machover. Machover was born in Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, he moved to Britain in 1968. He was a founder of Matzpen, a miniature Socialist organisation in 1962.

Machover’s reading of Zionism is pretty trivial. ‘Israel’, he says, is a ‘settler state’. For Machover this is a necessary point of departure because it sets Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.

However, as much as Machover is desperate to divert the attention away from the Jewish question, Jewish tribal politics and the Jewish identity, his entire premise can be demolished in a one simple move. If Israel is a ‘settler state’ as he says, one may wonder, what exactly is its ‘motherland? In British and French colonial eras, the settler states maintained a very apparent tie with their ‘motherland’. In some cases in history, the settler state broke from its motherland. Such an event is a rather noticeable one. The Boston Tea Party may ring a bell. However, as far as we are aware, there is no ‘Jewish motherland’ that is intrinsically linked to the alleged ‘Jewish settler state’. The ‘Jewish people’ are largely associated with the Jewish state, and yet the ‘Jewish people’ is not exactly a ‘material’ autonomous sovereign entity. The lack of material Jewish motherland leads to the immediate collapse of Machover’s colonial argument.

Moreover, native Hebraic Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to any motherland except their own state. As an ex-Israeli, I can testify that neither my parents nor myself or any of my fellow expatriates have ever been aware of our ties to any other (mother) state except Israel. Accordingly, it may be true that Zionism carries some colonial elements and yet, it is not a colonial project per se, for no one can present a material correspondence between Jewish ‘motherland’ and a Jewish ‘settler state’. The Jewish national project is unique in history and as it seems it doesn’t fit into any Marxist materialist explanation.
We are therefore entitled to assume that Machover’s ‘settler state’ is just another Judeo Marxist spin that is there to divert the attention from the clear fact that Israel is the Jewish state. In order to understand Israel’s unique condition we must ask, “who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness?” In fact answering these questions will help us understand why Machover and other Jewish Marxists invest so much effort producing all those spinning lines. As interesting as it may sound, Machover’s alteration of Marx’s ideology is very similar to the Zionist distortion of the Old Testament.

Machover’s recent publication is a pompous lengthy talk delivered in November 2006 at the Brunei Gallery Lecture Theater (SOAS). For some reason it was published this month by the ‘International Socialist Review’ (ISR).

Considering the embarrassing fact that none of Machover’s prophetic predictions ever stood the reality test, the publication of such an embarrassing paper raises serious concerns regarding the editors of the ISR’s understanding of world current affairs. It would be very interesting to learn from the ISR whether they approve Machover’s suggestion that Islam “is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” It may also be important to make sure that every Muslim on this planet grasps that an Elder Jew Marxist from London is convinced that they should throw away their Qur’an.

I may as well mention that here in Britain and in some other European countries more than just a few people are concerned with the latest rise of nationalism. Shockingly enough, comparing Machover’s pretentious and supremacist take on Islam with rightwing nationalists reveals a very amusing fact. As it happens, Machover, the supremacist tribal Jew, has managed to locate himself on the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. While Griffin is kind enough to offer ‘foreigners’ £50,000 to go back to their ‘homeland’, our Kosher Marxist Machover is set to rob the indigenous of his belief on his land. Griffin would not be able to get away saying about Islam that it is ‘backward looking’. This is hardly surprising, while Griffin has to meet a vast opposition, Machover would have very little opposition within the left. One reason is obviously due to the fact that Machover and his three Jewish supporters are unnoticeable. Another reason may be that racism and supremacy is, unfortunately, a Jews only territory. As we can see Machover is getting away with it. Hopefully, this will change soon.

Machover launches his 2006 talk raising an interesting question: “How should we think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

One may notice that Machover uses the word ‘should’ and ‘we’. This form of speech suggests that the elder may possess the right answers within his intellectual arsenal. Following the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Machover declares with confidence “We must be clear as to how the issue ought to be approached.”
I may admit that when a Jewish marginal Marxist voice utilises the “we”, ”should” and the “ought”, my red alert light turns on. I recently read about some Bolsheviks who held similar ideas to Machover’s did to Ukrainians peasants in the name of just another “we”.

Machover dares to come with a pretence of an analytical argumentation that will produce a concept of resolution. “Understanding,” he says, “ought to precede judgment.” Someone should remind the Hebraic ‘prophet’, who probably failed to read a single philosophical text in the last 50 years, that ‘understanding’ is itself subject to prior ‘understandings’ and ‘judgments’. In fact Machover’s own systematic failure to understand the power of Islam and Arab resistance is in itself due to his own prior understandings and some severe Judeo Marxist indoctrination.

It would take Machover many thousands of words of pseudo-analytical text before he outlines his vision of ‘Resolution—principles and preconditions’.

“Above all,” he says, “pressure must be applied on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.” “Equal rights”, he affirms are “essential elements that a lasting resolution must embody”. This is quite an astonishing insight from a man who claims to understand the conflict. In spite of his ‘analytical research’ Machover somehow failed to realise that the Jewish state is not going to willingly approve any form of equality, for Jewish political ideology does not succumb to the belief in human equality.

“The right of return,” he continues, is the “ recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, to be rehabilitated and properly compensated for loss of property and livelihood.”
This is indeed beautiful and correct and yet, Machover fails to tell us what is going to lead the Israeli Jews to give away their little ‘Jews only state’.

Machover eventually comes with a very simple resolution. “The third and most fundamental element in a genuine resolution is removal of the fundamental cause of the conflict: the Zionist colonisation project must be superseded.” I may stress at this point that Moshe Machover is not one of my satirical fictional characters. He is real and he even has at least 3 Jewish Marxist followers. The crucial question here is how these 4 Judeo Marxists are going to sell this reasonable idea to the Israeli Jews?

Like other deluded solidarity campaigners who fail to realise that the Palestinian future will be determined by ‘facts on the ground’, Machover engages himself in the one state/two state academic resolution discourse. “For a two-state setup to satisfy them, Israel would have to be de-Zionized: transformed from an ethnocratic settler state into a democratic state of all its inhabitants.” For some reason, Machover, who doesn’t even live in Israel, believes that he can tell the Israelis in what kind of country they should live in. “On the other hand, a single state would have to be not merely democratic (and hence secular) but have a constitutional structure that recognizes the two national groups and gives them equal national rights and status.” Once again the Elder Jew Marxist, the embodiment of the ultimate possible marginal voice, is telling the Palestinians and the Israelis that if they want to live together they better be secular. One should admit by now, it indeed takes some chutzpah to be a Judeo Marxist.

After 22 pages of Marxist self-indulgence on the verge of verbal masturbation, the man himself comes with the necessary goods. He admits that he was wasting the time of his listeners.
“Indeed, no genuine resolution is possible in the short or medium term, because of the enormous disparity in the balance of power.”

So in case you happen to wonder what may bring a change. Here it is. ‘Moishe of Arabia’ has two answers to offer. “First, decline in American global dominance” as if Israel is bound to crash with its current allies. As Machover knows, Jews changed their allies rather often in the last century.

“Second,” he continues “a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab East, leading to a degree of unification of the Arab nation—most likely in the form of regional federation.” Seemingly, the archaic Marxist fails to gather the most obvious evolving story, the Arab nation is largely Islam. Arab people are becoming more and more united around their love of Allah and the notion of Ummah. As far as reality is concerned, Islam is the rising force, whether our four Judeo Marxists like it or not.stunning win in the first Palestinian parliamentary election which it has taken part in. Would elections take place in the PA today, the Hamas victory would even be greater. Considering the fact that Islam is the only successful resistance force against Western colonialism and the Zionist war machine, the fact that ISR published Machover’s Judeo-centric intellectually lame analysis is there to prove that the time may be ripe for Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip. In 1884, in his invaluable paper ‘On The Jewish Question’ Marx argued that for the world to emancipate itself of capitalism, it should liberate itself of the secular Jew[1]. I do not know much about people liberating themselves. I would narrow it down and argue that for Marxist and socialists to liberate their discourse in accordance with their master mentor, they may have to consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators.

As we saw before, in terms of tolerance and ethics, Machover positioned himself to the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. In terms of political pragmatism, he is to the right of Shimon Peres and his ‘New Middle East’. Machover has his own plans for a New Middle East. He is going to unite them all and throw their Qur’an away.

By now we are really accustomed to the fact that Machover doesn’t like Islam. “The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promiseNor can it possibly be a uniting force: on the contrary, it is deeply divisive as between Sunnis and Shias, and has no attraction whatsoever for non-Muslim and secular Arabs (including Palestinians), let alone Hebrews.”

Interestingly enough, Moishe of Arabia comes with these embarrassing lines in November 2006, just 5 months after the Shi’a Hezbollah gave a signal of support to its Sunni brothers in Gaza, reminding Israel that they were just to the north, and wide awake, serving the Israeli army with a humiliating defeat. The Marxist elder comedian gave his 2006 talk less than a year after Hamas has scored a

In fact, many Socialists and Marxists do, especially out of the Anglo-American world. However, those Marxist and Socialists who keep spreading anti-Islam views better just join the Jewish Lobby, Wolfowitz and the Neocons, the NJF They better do it because this is where they belong.

[1]“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.” Karl Marx On The Jewish Question, 1844

Gilad Atzmon: From Rabbi Yosef to Marx

>

In case the Goyim cannot find a purpose in their life, Israeli senior Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is there to help them out. In his Saturday sermon Rabbi Yosef revealed that the sole purpose of Gentiles is to serve Jews.
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world.” The Rabbi was also kind enough to provide the Goyim with some precise tasks. “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.
That is why gentiles were created.”
I guess that it is about time the friends of Israel in Western politics started to fully comprehend their role in our Judified universe — AIPAC and the Conservatives’ Friends of Israel do indeed, have a crucial function : They are there to ‘help’ our politicians grasp why they ‘were created’.
And their role is, apparently, to ‘serve the Jews,’ as the Chief Rabbi describes it so eloquently.

But there is a further and even much more sinister meaning to Rabbi Yosef’s sermon: according to the Rabbi, the Goyim will ‘work’ hard, they will ‘plow’ and ‘reap’ while the Jew ‘sits like an effendi (master)’ and ‘eats’.

In just a few words Rabbi Yossef expresses the depth of Judaic contempt towards labour.
The senior Rabbi provides us with a devastating glimpse into the Judaic alienation from these aspects of the human condition and human experience. In an unequivocal manner, Rabbi Yosef depicts a clear dichotomy: Jews are the master race and the Goyim are nothing but a work force. The Goyim are there to sweat and struggle while the Jew is ‘sitting’ and ‘eating’.
I guess that Rabbi Yossef has managed, in just a few words, to portray the intrinsic relationships between Judaism and Capitalism.

But in fact, Rabbi Yossef didn’t invent anything new here — his Saturday sermon sounds familiar enough to me. Karl Marx in his paper On The Jewish Question, identified aspects of Jewish ideology at the heart of Capitalism: “It is mankind (both Christians and Jews) that needs to emancipate itself from Judaism” Marx wrote.

Marx managed to identify an inclination towards exploitation at the heart of Jewish culture.

However, being a humanist, Marx wanted to believe that mankind (Jews and others) could overcome this tendency. Many early Zionists too, were also convinced that in Zion, Jews would liberate themselves and eventually become a nation like other nations,through productivity and labour.

Seemingly though, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is not that impressed with either Marx, or some of the ideals within the early Zionist dream: Rabbi Yossef is brave (or foolish) enough to sketch the inherent bond between Jewish culture and Capital.

The only question that is still open is, for how long can the rest of humanity tolerate that kind of Rabbinical arrogance?

%d bloggers like this: