Part 5 – Abandoning Political power systems

The political environment for a Positive Money

Positive Money is for us

Second part: strategic analysis :

II External diagnosis. 

Opportunities and threats in the environment of a Positive Money
for new use in life networks.

Chapter 1 The political environment

Full currency is for us = Positive Money is for us = A currency without debts is for us

Summary of the diagnosis of the external environment of a full currency (PESTEL method)

Ch 1 The POLITICAL environmentCh 2 ECONOMIC environmentCh 3 SOCIOLOGICAL environmentCh 4 TECHNOLOGICAL environment
The Fight Against a Private Central Bank

Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy,

Maurice Allais warns politicians

Initiatives for a Positive Monney

The Anglo-Saxon Financial Oligarchy’s Threat

Pierre Leroux and the associations

Karl MARX and the American Bankers
Distributive economy

Free Trade/Protectionism

The additional cost of Capital

the debt burden

repayment of public debts

solution to repay debts
The impoverishment of the population

wealth inequality

violence by the rich

discrediting the elites

Solidarity villages Marinaleda, Ungersheim

les SEL Local Exchange Services

Local currencies

Private currencies
the sale of financial securities

the casino economy

the stock markets are rising, the economy is flat

the big bubble machine US

Five ways finance has gone crazy

The blockchain a common good
Ch5 ÉCOLOGICAL environmentCh 6 LEGAL environment
Global warming

energy transition, sustainable development

political ecology

What is political ecology

The Climate Convention
money controls the economy

the central bank alone creates money

off-balance sheet management of investment banks

Money in Medieval Europe

the Swiss Initiative Monnaie Pleine
money owned by commercial banks

Glass-Steagall Act, security solution

Increasing fractional reserves

” The” solution to banking crises.

II External diagnosis.

The goal is for the company to study the environment in which it operates in order to detect potential opportunities and identify possible threats. This can be done through business intelligence.

The environment is divided into different parts. The PESTEL method is also called a PESTEL analysis or PESTEL model.

PESTEL, 6 letters for Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological and Legal. . This concept is very common in entrepreneurial jargon.

The external environment of the Mint Pleine is the liberal capitalist economic system led by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy which currently prohibits its use and which will remain a “competitor” not to be underestimated when a country or several have abandoned our systems of power to develop again a flourishing civilization with a prosperous economy within the framework of our Networks of Life.

Ch 1 the political environment to use a Positive Money :

The choice between a positive money and its management by citizens and their representatives, or the debt money created by private central banks, arose from the birth of “modern” democracies and the abandonment of the monarchical system. This was the case from the time of the Independence of the United States of North America and the establishment of the Constitution of the United States and this conflict has continued ever since.

The political environment is first and foremost a threat since international bankers’ families have succeeded in imposing their false currency and in indebting all the economies of nations at world level, except for a few empires that remain and are as much of a valor to legitimize the enormous expenditure on arms, support for the various terrorist movements and wars for the domination of energy sources and the organization of wars which is their age-old specialty, as far as France is concerned since Friday, October 13, 1307.

The political threat exerted so far to ensure the development of the system of global governance by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, too, is beginning to be known, evaluated especially in its criminal potential.

This political threat that fuels the transformation of parliamentary or presidential democracies into tyranny of shareholders and investment funds, the most visible form of the world government of plutocrats, the richest ruling minorities, rests on two “classic” foundations: a religious foundation identified in Anglo-Saxons in puritanism and a political foundation created from scratch by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy as opposition to the liberal capitalist doctrine, opposition selected and financed at the end of the 19th century in the communist movement to sow political division in Europe and then on other continents and thus legitimize the use of the power of the arms industry in the hands of this Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

But it is also an opportunity for two reasons. Firstly, because a few political leaders have succeeded in eliminating the private central bank in their country and, secondly, because today this liberal system is at the end of its rope because of all the crises and wars it has waged and which are better understood by the active minority of citizens who no longer want to submit to their world government.

Let’s start with the historical record of how heads of state, including presidents, have fought and sometimes defeated the financial oligarchy and their private central banks. Then we will analyze this political threat deployed by these families of international bankers who made their initial fortune in the USA and which is the threat that is the cause of the assassination of the political leaders who opposed them.

A) The political fight against a private central bank.

1) Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson,US Presidents versus a private central bank.

In the early nineteenth century, debate about the constitution of the United States of North America raged around this issue. Among its founders, Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the domination of a private central bank by financiers from London and Europe. We briefly quote a few quotes on this issue to illustrate this fierce and deadly struggle:

 “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…. If one day the American people let private banks control the issuing of money, the banks and companies that will build up around them will deprive them of their properties until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquer. ”   Thomas Jefferson

To be sure, Jefferson knew his opponent’s will:

« Let me decide and control the regulation of a nation’s money supply, and I don’t care what makes the laws. » Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Bankers’ Dynasty.(1744 – 1812).

Yet Jefferson’s will was not acted upon, because Washington, as President, yielded to Hamilton’s pressure to establish a private central bank. Hamilton made his case for public credit for national development; but in that case the public credit was made available by London-based, non-American private bankers who had huge financial interests in US development.

The “second largest bank in the United States” was authorized for 20 years under James Madison in 1816.

Once president, Jackson worked hard to repeal the law in order to create a veritable federal bank, which in the interest of the people, would be controlled by the state. On July 10, 1832, Jackson vetoed the creation of a central bank. He then vetoed the renewal of the central bank created by Hamilton to eliminate the national debt and strengthen federal power immediately upon assuming the presidency. He surrounds himself with advisers whom he trusts and with whom he makes decisions.

That same year Jackson paid the final amount of the national debt. He was the first and only president to do so. The crisis was resolved in 1833 by a sharp reduction in tariffs and marked the victory of individual states’ interests over the federal government. His resistance to what he regarded as dangerous powers of money was so crucial to his eyes that he carved an epitaph: “I killed the Bank” on his tombstone. Andrew Jackson was nicknamed Old Hickory in reference to the strength of walnut wood.

2) Abraham Lincoln

We presented the story of Abraham Lincoln and his fight against Lionel de Rothschild in the years 1860-1865 that ended with the assassination of Lincoln.

Otto Von Bismark, Chancellor of Prussia, following Lincoln’s assassination in 1865: “I fear that foreign bankers will completely dominate America’s abundant wealth…they will not hesitate to lead Christian states into wars and chaos, so that they may become heirs to the whole earth.”

document: 14 April 1865: the assassination of President Lincoln.

The Civil War has been officially over for a few days. President Abraham Lincoln visits the theater on Good Friday. He does not expect a well-known Confederate actor to have planned to assassinate him. Nor does he expect his bodyguards to make a mistake that will cost him his life.

For four years, the United States was divided in the deadliest conflict in its history, the Civil War, between the north and south of the country.

On April 9, 1865, the surrender of the South was finally signed. The Union, which hails from the north, emerged victorious in the conflict. President Abraham Lincoln is at the helm. But not all Southern Confederates surrender their weapons. Some are still convinced that victory is possible. John Wilkes Booth did. He is an actor with some glory. He cannot stand the abolition of slavery. He assembled a group of conspirators to assassinate Lincoln and several other high-profile EU politicians.

John Wilkes Booth’s plan

On April 14, 1865, Good Friday, Booth carried out his plan. He knows that Lincoln was at the Ford Theater in Washington, not far from the White House, that night. The president is scheduled to attend a performance of Tom Taylor’s play Our Cousin of America. Lincoln settles in box number 7. Booth knows exactly how to get there quickly. He knows this theater well, having played it several times. Around 10 p.m., during the third act, Booth walks towards the head of state’s lodge. He hides behind curtains and waits for the most comical scene in the room. He hopes the sound of laughter will cover the gunshot.

There is only one obstacle that can cause his job to fail: the president’s bodyguards. But they were absent. They went for a drink at the tavern across the street. Booth’s got free rein. He entered the dressing room with a one-shot gun. He fired his only bullet at close range at the back of Lincoln’s skull. Then he jumps on stage, five meters down. He actually gets hurt when he lands. He then shouts to the audience: “Sic semper tyrannis” (so the tyrants perish). This is the motto of the state of Virginia, which was originally attributed to Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic.

Two doctors in the room darted into the president’s dressing room and rushed around the body. Lincoln is not dead, but one of the doctors says, “His wound is fatal, he will not survive.” The decision not to bring the victim back to the White House in a carriage is made so as not to aggravate the injury. He’s being transported to an inn across from the theater. Lincoln died for more than nine hours and died on April 15, 1865. He is the first President of the United States to be assassinated. John Wilkes Booth escaped and hid on a Virginia farm. But he was spotted two weeks later and shot dead by Union soldiers on April 26, 1865. His accomplices, who have failed in their missions, are also arrested and executed.

https://c.dna.fr/culture-loisirs/2021/04/14/14-avril-1865-l-assassinat-du-president-lincoln

end of document.

There was no connection, therefore, with the person who ordered the murder, the person who wrote in his newspaper the Times of London, that Lincoln’s use of a positive money, the Greenbacks, should be prohibited and that this example capable of producing a prosperous economy as never before in industrial society, this example should be broken, condemned and forgotten so that no one could use it against the interests of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

This is how they proceed to eliminate their opponents: find enlightened, fanatics for causes other than money creation, here, prohibition of slavery, and arm their arms to execute the targets they have designated. These murderers are condemned or shot without knowing most often for whom they are actually killing, to whom their crime is benefiting.

3) J F Kennedy

To the list of political leaders who have implemented no-cost government money creation must be added the case of President JF Kennedy, who ordered that the Fed stop borrowing money and issue it through the US Treasury.

document:

On June 4, 1963, Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, which called for the issuance of US$4,292,893,815 (US$4.3 billion) by the Treasury rather than by the Federal Reserve’s traditional system. On the same day, he signed a law proclaiming that the one- and two-dollar notes should be convertible into gold and not silver, which helped strengthen the weakened U.S. currency.’[1]

Kennedy was well aware of the extent to which the Federal Reserve System had usurped his nation’s constitutional right to print money and its ability to regulate its currency. He also knew that this was the biggest challenge facing his administration.

Like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, he understood the consequences of trying to hand monetary control over to its rightful place in the Treasury. Though he had the statutory authority to act, Kennedy understood that his battles would be victimless, and that he would stand a good chance of surviving a loss, owing to the untouchable power and pervasive influence of his formidable opponents at the Fed.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed the executive order, this power was returned to the federal government, specifically to the Treasury Department, which has the constitutional authority to create and issue currency – without passing the Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 gave the Treasury Department the right to “issue certificates on money for ingots of money, money, or dollars.” This meant that for every ounce of money in the US Treasury, the government could introduce a new currency into the economy. As a result, more than four billion US dollars’ worth of bills entered into circulation under the $2- and $5-denomination. The $10 and $20 bills never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It is clear that Kennedy knew that Federal Bank notes that were used as legal tender were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Kennedy knew that if the cash-backed notes started flowing in large quantities, they would eventually have eliminated the Federal Reserve’s demand for them. This is a simple rule of economics. Treasury notes were convertible into physical money, and Federal Reserve notes were not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented US debt from reaching its current level (almost all of the $9 trillion in US federal debt has been generated since 1963) if Lyndon B. Johnson or his successor presidents had decided to bring it into force. It would have allowed the US government to repay its debt without going through the private Federal Reserve Banks and having to pay interest on the ‘new currency’. Executive Order 11110 offered the US the ability to create its own currency again, backed by money and a currency that was truly worth somethin

According to my own research, just five months after Kennedy’s assassination, no more certificates were issued about the 1958 money, and the rest were withdrawn from circulation. Perhaps Kennedy’s assassination was a warning to future presidents who might be tempted to interfere with the Federal Reserve’s private control of money creation. It seems fairly obvious that Kennedy has disturbed the powers behind the finances of the US and the world.’ – JFK Vs The Federal Reserve by John P. Curran (4-19-7) 

source: https://resistanceauthentique.wordpress.com/tag/en-argent-metal/

other source: http://alarecherchedelaverite.blogspot.com/2008/10/jfk-la-suite-de-lenqute.html

4) The warning of political leaders by Maurice ALLAIS Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988.

Our political leaders have been warned for centuries, including by Nobel laureates in economics. Maurice Allais – Nobel Prize winner in economics in 1988 – moved:

 ” All monetary creation must be the responsibility of the State and of the State alone: Any monetary creation other than the basic currency by the Central Bank must be made impossible, so that the “false rights” resulting at present from the creation of bank money disappear. He goes on to say, “In essence, the ex nihilo creation of money by the banks is similar, I do not hesitate to say so as to make it clear to people what is at stake here, to the making of money by counterfeiters, so rightly repressed by law. In practice, it is achieving the same results. The only difference is that those who benefit are different. “.

We point out that this “ex nihilo” money creation by the commercial banks to which Maurice Allais refers represents 93% of the M3 money supply (the currency + household savings + corporate savings, i.e. the sums they have for their current transactions according to their level of activity) in circulation in the euro area to date, but of course that the “ex nihilo” does not mean “without rules” or “without guarantees” … as far as banks are concerned it is indeed a “monetization” of claims or assets. There are other famous quotes on this fundamental issue of the power to create money. We cite a recent one.

«Printing counterfeit notes is illegal, but private money creation is not. The interdependence between the state and the banks that can create money is causing a lot of instability in our economies. This could – and should – be banned.” Starting his editorial in the Financial Times last Thursday (ndrl: April 24, 2014), Martin Wolf could not do a better service to the association Modernization Monitaire “MoMo”, which wants to entrust the monopoly of money creation to the Swiss National Bank (SNB).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_HijvHPND7o

5) recent initiatives to restore a positive money.

We presented the Swiss Citizens’ Initiative Monnaie Pleine in 2014 with a vote in mid-June 2018.

And we are explained about the limits imposed by the electoral system of Initiatives in this country. But this movement also developed in other countries shows that an active minority defends this political, economic and social program. This is an encouraging opportunity. On the other hand, the proposal of all the conditions to use a positive money as we present on fileane.com has no possibilities to express itself on the political ground in France and elsewhere because the local and direct participatory management means the crushing of the pyramid of hierarchical power system and the abandonment of the regime of political parties in a democracy that is no longer representative but direct participatory local. Likewise, the media controlled by financial groups and billionaires are hostile and quick to dismiss information about this alternative against their private interests.

Governments have not called into question the responsibility of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, nor in the organization of wars, nor in the conduct of financial and economic crises. On the contrary, since 2012, they have been called on to form strong governments to harshen up austerity measures and privatization plans for public services in order to help repay public and private debts accumulated as a result of these repeated crises. We are aware of this desire expressed by JP Morgan to demand authoritarian regimes in Europe.

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/vivre-est-un-village/blog/200613/jpmorgan-reclame-des-regimes-autoritaires-en-europe

These authoritarian regimes have been put in place, particularly in France, and the management of the COVID-19 health crisis has used and abused the liberticide measures with little success in the fight to eradicate this virus. Not to mention the significant increase in public debts caused by containment measures and medical and social spending. The 2023 pension reform has become a school case to illustrate these authoritarian regimes in Europe set up by this Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy led by the Puritan sect who claim to be intended to govern the world.

We shall see more at the level of the social dimension of the environment of a positive money, the local currencies, the SELS, the electronic currencies, individual ones which have nothing political since they wish to develop within the liberal capitalist system of power.

B) The political threat posed by the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

On fileane.com we described in the file: Dear enemies (of finance)

  1. who are they?
  2. how they control the economies of countries
  3. how they finance wars, especially the second world war and then anti-communist or terrorist conflicts.
  4. which recent or current cases they are involved in.

These documents illustrate the crimes, economic and financial crises and other maneuvers to enrich themselves without limits and extend the world government of these “dear enemies” of Anglo-Saxon high finance.

1) the religious foundation identified in anglo-saxons in puritanism.

Systems of power seek to intertwine economic roots with religious dogmas so that religion legitimizes the usurpation and confiscation of power by a social minority, as well as the duty of obedience and submission of peoples to that minority which governs its system of power. This root, which bears a religious dogma, is in principle very old, forgotten today.

Citizens are much more familiar with the political and constitutional rules to which they ultimately obey out of conformity or fear and which organize the theft of the wealth produced by their work for the benefit of this ruling minority of the capitalist and liberal system of power. Political conformism thus strips them of any control over their future. Yet many authors and researchers are showing us the way out of this conformism and submission.

« The future belongs to the one with the longest memory » Friedrich Nietzsche.

“ All we are is the culmination of centuries of work.” Ernest Renan.

“ The real men of progress are those who start from a deep respect for the past.” Ernest Renan.

The analysis seeks here with a respect for the past, to identify, reveal, understand and finally denounce a vast undertaking to seize political power for the benefit of a few, drunken of material power and financial wealth. Of course, and our reader knows this from having read our page on our two sources of knowledge, this is a religious conflict between on the one hand a religious and spiritual movement that advocates brotherhood and solidarity, love and on the other hand a sect that imposes the opposite: the dogma that a minority was elected and received the divine right to exercise power to subjugate peoples to its interests.

In Europe, since the Council of Nicea in 320-325, when the Christian communities, most often spiritual, agreed to fall under the power of the Roman emperor, political leader and henceforth defender of the Christian religion, the political and religious roots have again intermingled often for the better but also for the worse and it is this worst that is poisoning our societies now and for several centuries.

The elimination of the commons in England is also the starting point for mass emigration to North America and the colonies of the Caribbean islands.

Let us therefore take the time here to briefly retrace the history of this region to better understand the atrocities committed during the wars of the commons and the end of the enclosures and understand the elimination by the absolute monarchical system and then the capitalist system, of the knowledge about the functioning of the medieval period as well as the flourishing civilizations that have used the commons.

Let us begin this story once more on the banks of the Nile and in the temple of Denderah by following the account of Albert Slosman when he tells the initiation of Pythagoras in the 6th century BC. Once successful, the priests invite the new Greek insider eager to learn more, to visit the Celtic Druids heirs of the knowledge of the ancient Thule and the hyperboreans. According to the Egyptian priests, they have a higher level of knowledge than they do. But the Persian invasion led to the deportation of Egyptian captives and Pythagoreans to Babylon. Freed, Pythagoras will no longer go to the Celtic Druids of northern Europe and Scandinavia.

1.1 Eremitism and Christian monasticism mix with the Celtic Druids for a jointly owned society.

Ireland and Scotland were not conquered by the Romans and Celtic culture continued with its Druids and its culture based on the visible and invisible duality of worlds that could be crossed with magic and spiritual knowledge. Let us leave here the analogy with the upper and double worlds taught during the highest initiation of the temple of Denderah. Celtic culture favored autonomous communities with egalitarian social life and common management of wealth, as at the beginning of Egyptian civilization and in all flourishing civilizations since it is the best way to produce and distribute wealth with common ownership.

The conventional academic history indicates that the Christianization of Ireland really began with St. Patrick, bishop trained in Gaul in the rites of the Roman church, but that before his arrival there were already many Christian communities, that is to say before the mission of St. Patrick (located approximately from 432 to 461).

This first Christianization took place from the journeys of the Druids on the continent and their contacts with those who continued the teaching of the temples of the banks of the Nile, especially the fathers of the desert church near Dendérah and who heralded then gathered in communities, founded the Cenobite movement and monasticism. These rules of spiritual and social life fit very well with those of Druids and their communities. In reality, these are the optimal rules for using spiritual knowledge and translating it into social life to found villages and cities, whole regions that live the fundamental values of humanity: love and peace.

In Asia, the peoples also follow the teachings of Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha and in the Middle East, the teachings of Zoroaster and Mithra, and have done so for at least 6 centuries BC. For Ancient Egypt, the temple of Denderah was taught 4,608 B.C. and was taught about the last great cataclysm of 9,792 B.C. The history of the survivors and their migrations from their shelters on the highest mountains, Himalayas, Caucasus, Moroccan High Atlas, are known. Subsequently contacts and exchanges between groups of survivors developed on all continents and with the peoples who had escaped the destruction of the last great cataclysm and had been able to remain there.

This is to show that scientists, traders and other soldiers were moving regularly to develop constant relationships in our humanity and that the last great cataclysm had upset but never made disappear. That the Celtic Druids participated in the teaching of the knowledge of the Egyptian temples and then in their rescue as did after the year 500, the black monks of Bernard of Nurcia at Mount Cassin in Italy then the Benedictines, the Cistercians, the knights, is thus a self-evident fact, certainly rejected by the leaders of the systems of power hostile to the common property and the common goods… and to the Egyptian, Greek temples which taught these principles of life in humanist societies.

document:

The Irish invasion.

While Saint Gregory entrusted his writings with traditional doctrine, the barbarians continued to settle in the West. Ireland was spared, as was the west of the island of Brittany: a kind of Christian invasion was to be prepared which, from the 6th century onwards, would sweep over many areas of England and then on the Continent. This spirituality of the Celtic Christians must be studied separately: in Ireland it retained its originality; in many other regions, especially until the 9th century, it retained its influence. The great stages of its history are symbolized by the names of Saint Patrice and Saint Colomban.[17]

Notes

[17] History of Christian Spirituality, Volume 2, Dom J. LECLERCQ, Dom F. VANDENBROUCKE, Louis BOYER, at AUBIER, 1961, page 45, 48.

end of document.

The originality of Irish Christianity, a branch of Celtic Christianity, is based on the monasticism that structures social life around abbeys and convents and the use of common property and common property for the sharing of wealth.

In our paper on the monastic movement in Europe after the great invasions of the fall of the Roman Empire, it is stated that the Irish and Scottish monks had not been influenced by the power of the Christian Emperor of Rome after the year 300. Irish and Scottish Christian communities lived on the spirit, the model of the Church of Jerusalem and its spiritual communities, “primitive” Christianity. The management of the commons was thus one of the pillars of these communities. The Irish monks are at the origin of many abbeys in France which came to reinforce those founded by the Benedictines coming from Mount Cassin in Italy after the year 500.

The monastic dioceses of mother and daughter abbeys favored the eremite tendencies (such as the founders of the cenobite movement, the desert fathers who took over, saved the vestiges of the knowledge of the Egyptian temples including that of Denderah which delivered the highest initiation). Columban in 591, with a group of his disciples came to Gaul and preached at the court of Austrasia. He obtained from King Childebert the power to establish abbeys in the Vosges, Luxeuil and other places. Entered into conflicts with the bishops and the nobility, he was forced into exile and left for Switzerland, St. Gallen and then Bobbio, Lombardy where he died in 615.

These monks, dedicated to marrying the traditions of the Celtic Druids with the teachings of the Gospels, practiced the spirituality of the first church in Jerusalem. They refused the slavery and abuse of power of the kings of other peoples and made Ireland a world apart with fraternal communities and without social inequalities. This particular organization of Ireland and Scotland had spread to England where it met that of Roman Christianity, resulting in a number of theological and political conflicts.

1.2 The conquest by the Saxons

This example was unbearable for the Saxon kings who conquered England as early as the 1940s and did not want to submit to the Catholic power of Rome or to Irish monasticism and Celtic Christianity. The war against the “commons” was therefore first and foremost a war of religion and the utter destruction of this example of Irish Catholic communities. These angle and Saxon invaders from Germany, massacred the Breton and Celtic populations. It was the first destruction of the commons in England.

“In England, from 450, the Angles settled from Lower Germany. The Anglo-Saxons did not just subjugate the Bretons, they exterminated them. The struggle between the invaders and the invaders was a war of peoples of different origins and a religious war, and it was therefore atrocious. The history of this struggle, very little known, is surrounded by many legends (Round Table Cycle).Therefore the mores, the institutions, the laws of the AngloSaxons are first of all on British soil the faithful image of what existed, before the conquest, on the soil of Lower Germany.”

1.3 The Viking and Danish invasions

After a new Christianization of the country organized from Rome during the 7th century, when Charlemagne ruled much of Europe, after 835, the Viking and Danish invasions resumed.

In 1066, England was conquered by William the Conqueror, the Norman chief, who used the plans of Benedictine monk Lanfranc. With the help of excellent legal monks trained by Lanfranc in his renowned Bec-Hellouin school, he used the Benedictine knowledge to develop a medieval period in England as well.

In this long, troubled period before 1066, the Anglo-Saxon institutions had become so firmly established that the Norman conquest could not uproot them. The kingdom had become stronger. Oppressed or betrayed by its leaders, the Anglo-Saxon people are probably in such a miserable condition that one might wonder whether the Norman conquest was not a blessing for them later, for it at least put an end to the invasions. Nevertheless, it keeps its organization, it develops it; the cities are gradually growing: they have almost complete autonomy. They elect their magistrates, they have powerful corporations. The police, the administration, the judiciary, are in the hands of the aldermen. In the countryside, there is no evidence of the fragmentation of local groups, the weakness that seems to be the fate of the continent’s rural classes. The hundreds and townships are real legal persons who administer themselves more or less freely, there are local militias.

This Viking organization corresponds to that of the Vikings established in Normandy who converted to Christianity and who now support the Benedictine monks and their abbeys, convents, schools, commons, etc. But this Anglo-Saxon organization is also a force of resistance during the Norman conquest and the project of the Benedictine monks to develop a medieval society more humanist because rid of feudalism and quarrels between frank lords in France, will not see the light of day.

Yet, this essential character of the English guilds and corporations is not forgotten; they are close, closed, selfish, jealous associations. They served the cause of freedom, but later and in spite of them, so that it was questioned whether their progress in the twelfth century had not been a real public misfortune; for they were at the expense of the lower classes. Anyone who does not belong to one of these societies, and is not protected by his privileges, does not count in the city. They take care to prevent the formation of other corporations, they denounce their nascent rivals to the king’s officers who hurry to hit them with heavy fines. Corporation-to-corporation rivalries often degenerate into bloody riots. “

It is in this context particularly troubled by these squabbles and struggles between guilds and corporations on the one hand and the succession squabbles at the level of royal power on the other that the economic development of England encountered the vestiges of the common goods used by the lower classes, removed from political, economic and social life. The Anglo-Saxon atrocities came to the surface for more gang crimes.

1.4 The Second War of the Commons in the 16th century was even more terrible.

The new traders and craftsmen needed the land that had previously been managed as commons, including to raise sheep whose wool was used for the new textile industry, to expand their businesses. Cromwell is a draconian puritan. The Puritans, who are recruited mainly in the rural nobility and petty bourgeoisie, believe in predestination, advocate a return to evangelical sobriety and deny the clergy the right to interpret the faith on behalf of the faithful. Cromwell would fight against the king and nobles and establish a short-lived Republican dictatorship. He is not an insider to the spiritual process, he seeks power through economic development and especially trade with the English colonies. For him, slavery is necessary for the development of colonies. In short, they are predestined to govern the world and especially the people predestined to be slaves… a whole program of the most criminal.

Consequences of the Commons’ wars in England.

Document: IRELAND: FORGOTTEN WHITE SLAVES, Serge Henry, copied by Patrick Peters.

They came as slaves: human goods transported on British ships to the Americas. They were shipped by hundreds of thousands of men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest way. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set fire to their hands or feet as a form of punishment. Some were burned alive and placed on barbs in the market to warn other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all the bloody details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles also led a continuing effort to enslave the Irish. Oliver Cromwell of Britain has taken this practice of dehumanizing his neighbor to the next level forward.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as New World slaves. His proclamation in 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent abroad and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. In the mid-1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold in Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the largest source of human livestock for English traders. Most of the early slaves of the New World were actually white. From 1641 to 1652, more than 500,000 Irish were killed by the British and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. The Irish population has fallen from about 1500,000 to 600,000 in a single decade. Families were torn apart because the British did not allow Irish fathers to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This has led to a powerless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them, too.

During the 1650s, more than 100,000 Irish children aged 10-14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. During that decade, 52,000 Irish people (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2,000 Irish children be sent to Jamaica and sold to English settlers. [this appears to be the origin of the term ‘kid-napper’, a distortion of ‘kid-nabber’, a child thief, as defined by the English Dictionary of the Lowlands: ‘Thief of human beings, especially children; originally intended for export to North American plantations.’]

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as New World slaves. His proclamation in 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent abroad and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. In the mid-1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold in Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the largest source of human livestock for English traders. Most of the early slaves of the New World were actually white. From 1641 to 1652, more than 500,000 Irish were killed by the British and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. The Irish population has fallen from about 1500,000 to 600,000 in a single decade. Families were torn apart because the British did not allow Irish fathers to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This has led to a powerless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them, too.

During the 1650s, more than 100,000 Irish children aged 10-14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. During that decade, 52,000 Irish people (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2,000 Irish children be sent to Jamaica and sold to English settlers. [this appears to be the origin of the term ‘kid-napper’, a distortion of ‘kid-nabber’, a child thief, as defined by the English Dictionary of the Lowlands: ‘Thief of human beings, especially children; originally intended for export to North American plantations.’]

Many people today avoid the term “slavery” to describe this episode in the history of the Irish people. They use the legal term indentured serving [“contracted servants” – this is a form of engagement], but in most cases the slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

The slave trade began at that time. There was considerable evidence and testimony that African slaves, who were not stigmatized Catholic and were more expensive, were often treated better than their Irish counterparts. At the end of the seventeenth century, an African slave was quite expensive (50 Sterling), and the purchase of an Irish slave cost no more than 5 Sterling. If a farmer whipped or beat to death an Irish slave, it was not a crime; his death was a financial setback, but less than that of a more expensive African.

English teachers soon decided to take Irish women for their personal pleasure and profit, as the children of slaves were themselves slaves, increasing the volume of free labor. Because children were enslaved despite their mothers’ eventual release, they were rarely abandoned by their mothers, who thus remained enslaved.

At one point, the English found a better job for these slave women (often girls from the age of 12): the settlers crossed them with Africans to produce slaves of a particular complexity. These “mulattos” were more expensive than the Irish and saved money because there was no need to buy any more Africans on the market.

This Irish-African crossing continued for decades, and was so widespread that in 1681 a law was passed that “prohibited the coupling of Irish slaves with African slaves for commercial purposes.” In short, the idea was not to hurt the profits of the large slave-hauling companies. Britain still supplied tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Documents show that after the Irish Rebellion of 1798, thousands of Irish slaves were sold in America and Australia. The abuses against African and Irish captives were terrifying. In one incident, a British ship dumped 1,302 slaves in the Atlantic Ocean for food.

There is no doubt that the Irish have experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more so in the seventeenth century) as Africans. It is likely that the dark faces of many English-speaking West Indians are a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain stopped taking the highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. But the decision did not bind the pirates who continued this activity. (…) None of the Irish victims were able to return to their homeland to describe this ordeal. They are lost slaves, the ones who have been comfortably forgotten by the times and by history books.

But why is it so rarely discussed? Don’t the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims deserve more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story the one their English masters wanted: to disappear completely as if it had never happened. None of the Irish victims ever returned to their homeland to describe their ordeal. They are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books have forgotten.

Interesting historical note: the last person killed in the Salem witch trials was Ann Glover. She and her husband were sent to Barbados as slaves in the 1650s. Her husband was killed there for refusing to renounce Catholicism. In the 1680s, she worked as a housekeeper in Salem. After some of the children she was caring for got sick, she was accused of being a witch. At the trial, they asked her to pray to the Lord. She did it, but in Gaelic, because she didn’t know English. She was then hanged.

source: Don Jordan and Michael Walsh’s White Cargo, which tells the story of these forgotten slaves.

https://liberationirlande.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/la-traite-des-esclaves-irlandais-au-17e-siecle/

end of document.

The elimination of the commons in England, as in France, is first of all a war of religions but without the intervention of the Roman papacy, hence the level of extreme violence in these two British civil wars. To legitimize the power of the new individual entrepreneurs and their right to take, to steal the enclosures, the last common goods that ensured the survival of the peasants and poor people of the countryside, it was necessary to find at the religious level, arguments, a doctrine capable of discarding the original Christian principles and the practices of the spiritual communities born in Ireland and Scotland long before the year 500 and before the fall of the Roman Empire of the West. To silence Christian spiritual masters, monks, hermits and the secular church, a Christian sect has developed on the dogma of the predestination of certain faithful who have received the divine right to govern populations and especially the right to enslave other human beings. This outrageous and criminal distortion of the original Christian values then took refuge under the cover of the Anglican religion, cutting ties with the Roman papacy. We are also dealing here with a major source of European colonialism, a source preceded by the destruction of the Aztec empire and Tiahuanaco on the orders of the papacy to defend its religious dogmas contradicted by the knowledge of the Andes.

In the shadow of this Anglican religion, the new masters predestined to conquer the riches of the Earth did not shy away from any crime, genocide, slavery, pillage, colonial wars, world wars and since then, thanks to their domination of high finance, they have organized economic crises and world wars, unemployment, relocations of production, social dumping, widening inequality, attacks on nature and climate. These crimes were made possible by the elimination of knowledge contrary to their interests, the manipulation of public opinion, lies and fear, terror. English industrial capitalism was indeed the first in the West to develop and the misery reported by Dickens is certainly less atrocious than the slavery led by Cromwell and the English Puritans, but the methods, the ideology at the service of the all-power of people predestined to dominate the peoples come from far as if the mores of the invaders of the end of the Roman Empire always guided these criminals, wherever they emigrated and especially in North America.

The French monarchy has been much less atrocious toward its people, but in its center it has not seen, and has neglected, the beginnings of economic industrialization.

This historical reminder was indispensable because we must ask ourselves whether they will repeat these atrocities against us who are determined to restore the Common Goods, the positive money and the Social Rights in the functioning of our Networks of Life… and who will therefore ruin them, put them out of state to harm our humanity and the Earth, especially with our political institution of Security and Defense.

To eliminate this political threat based on religious and dogmatic roots established by Anglo-Saxon Puritans in England for the purposes of colonialism and the objective of finding slaves for the production of plantations, we use the teachings of our first source of knowledge, initiatory and spiritual. This recourse to our first source of knowledge allows the cleansing of these sectarian dogmas and of these criminal minorities who use them to steal the riches of everyone’s work, to reduce populations into slavery, to commit genocides under the invocation of their predestination to govern the world in the interest of the richest, those richest who present themselves by defending the dogma of their predestination, of their belonging to the initiates and the Illuminati, to the Luciferians and to these theocratic sectarian mafias.

The question of the predestination of God’s chosen humans has been radicalized among Anglo-Saxon puritans, but it remains at the heart of Christian doctrine with its supporters and opponents. This document remains very theological and addresses through Max Weber only the influence of Protestant practices in the development of European industrial society, notably in the example we presented with the Mulhouse Industrial Society. The crimes and genocides committed by the Anglo-Saxon “predestined” in Britain and the Americas are largely forgotten in today’s academic knowledge.

document:

The Puritans who, from 1642-1643, openly dominated the English political scene and exercised de facto power, did not err on the side of humility. While they proclaim themselves to be “wretched sinners” and continually plead for divine mercy, in accordance with the teachings of Calvin and John Knox, they firmly believe in the predestination and superiority of the “elect” over the “reprobate”. The chosen are the godly people, the “saints”, whose vocation is to make the virtue and the law of God prevail. The reprobate are marked with the seal of divine anger.

…/…

One cannot, however, complete this quick evocation of English puritanism without broadening its horizon. During the time of James I and especially Charles I and Charles II, many Puritans left England to practice their religion in the virgin lands of the new continent. They created communities across the Atlantic governed by the law of God as they saw fit. The most famous of these migrations were the Pilgrim Fathers of the Mayflower in 1620 and the Massachusetts Bay in 1629. William Penn’s Quakers in 1691 are another example. Thus were born, in New England, puritanical states of austere and republican spirit, which were at the origin of American independence in the 18th century and which have until today profoundly marked the mentality of the United States. The rigid “men of God”, who refused to bend their knees before the altar of the churches and Archbishop Laud, and who aspired to establish in the island of Great Britain the kingdom of God, have therefore not entirely lost their struggle, since their spirit survives in the entire Anglo-Saxon world and continues to influence the politics of the greatest power in the world.

Michel Duchein

source:

https://www.clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/pdf/pdf_puritanisme_et_puritains.pdf

It is a very “scholarly history,” not mentioning the atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by these puritan leaders “predestined” to govern the world… in the name of the common good, Christian dogma.

This subject is little known because it has been obscured and hidden by the leaders of the liberal and financial system of power. Using religious dogmas to counter the assertion of divine power, or even the divine nature of monarchs and emperors in Christianity, can be understood at some point in the evolution of political regimes. In France, a Montesquieu’s work on the necessary balance to be found between the three executive, legislative and judicial powers, to counter the royal absolutism put in place by the Franc kings, is far more productive of a civil peace and a more tempered evolution of the political institutions.

But industrial development, with its technologies that maximize profits only for private owners of the means of production – in principle, the rich, whose wealth often goes back to the plundering of the wealth of the commons of the medieval period – cannot be satisfied with religious arguments as sectarian as those advanced by puritans. The Protestant movement, we have shown, with the riches taken by filibusters and corsairs on Spanish and Portuguese ships which brought back to Europe the riches of the Inca and Aztec Empires of Andes and Central Americata, had launched the first industries in a Christian spirit based on communities and work and sharing wealth as in Mulhouse, Manchester and in the regions of Protestant worship.

The neo-liberal policies and the scandalous criminal handling of the COVID-19 health crisis since the end of 2019 show what is still capable of this caste of “predestined” who dares to work for the myth of the Common Good when these cynical measures are nothing but contempt, lies and theft of the peoples who are still subject to them, each time more divided by the slightest false pretense as in 2021 between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated and tomorrow even worse.

We will see in the cultural institutions of the Networks of Life how, with the help of our first source of knowledge who does not need to know how to read and write, we will eliminate the religious roots of the political, economic, theocratic, police and military systems of power. This secularism, which French philosophers since the Enlightenment have revealed the need for its intervention to purify the functioning of political power in a social group, is not just a republican doctrine intended to separate the church from the state in order to eliminate the influence of the essentially Catholic clergy always quick to defend a monarchy of divine right. The secularism of the poet who speaks here and of initiates to life after human life is about the eradication of religious dogmas which in the systems of power legitimize the domination of a minority over the rest of the peoples. In Networks of Life, political institutions are not used to control the economy and subject the sharing of wealth to the sole interests of the richest or most fanatical in theocracies.

The marriage of cultures which cements the foundations of the Confederation of Networks of Life has nothing to do with syncretism which seeks the lowest common denominator between religious dogmas and political ideologies to establish a consensus. This consensus, which the citizens and peoples subject to the power of the minority predestined to govern them, must find and accept as a pledge of belonging to these systems of power.

The marriage of cultures is based on the free practice of our path through our first source of knowledge in order to find this universal vision of our human condition and the universe in which we live. Then, equipped with this vision, we use methods, skills and material and immaterial means to respond to our reasons for living and share our values of love and peace. This sharing takes place through social rites, customs and practices related to the history of our predecessors and that of civilizations prior to ours. The basic principles of this operation are always the same: the alliance of the contrary and subsidiarity to create the wealth we need. The diversity of human cultures on our planet, as we have shown in the internal diagnosis in terms of the skills used for a positive money, like all diversities, is a source of synergy, wealth increase and prosperity.

For now, here, let us remember that we must eliminate religious roots and dogmas in the functioning of political power. In short: eliminate the caste of leaders who claim to be predestined, puritanical, Illuminati, ruling elites of a world government in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

2) the political foundation created from scratch as opposition to the liberal capitalist doctrine, opposition selected and financed in the late 19th century through the communist movement

The wealthiest Anglo-Saxon puritans after the wealth stolen through colonialism, to justify their private interests in industrial development, could not allow the development of Protestant religious practices or of some Catholics faithful to the spiritual roots of the first Christian communities or the medieval period. They had to find a political way to fight the legitimate demands of the workers, at least in the religious sense.

We have shown through the revolt of the canuts of Lyon in the early 1830s, how the monarchy and the French Catholic bourgeoisie massacred these two revolts in the name of the defense of private property inherited from 1789 but also in the name of Catholic dogmas which grant the right to lead a society to those who follow the teachings and rules of the Roman Church and grant charity to sinners who live in sin and a bad life.

But these arguments, which could defend a Catholic ruling minority, could not justify the enterprises of the families of international bankers to subdue the new working class that their financial policy based on the private ownership of the means of production had just created.

We know how they then chose to develop a labor opposition that he would keep tightly in control and the means to fight it militarily if necessary. This is still the age-old practice of international bankers and financiers: to fight wars between kings and lords to finance one side or the other, but not to finance both sides simultaneously, so as to obtain staggering profits that are impossible to obtain in peacetime.

The objective of capitalist leaders is to divide the populations in order to isolate the category of workers from the new industries. On the one hand, we must give hope to these workers that they can take power in place of the capitalists, but that all this remains a hope, an ideal that will never be achieved except when it comes to eliminating emperors or monarchs hostile to the introduction in their homes of a private central bank in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon high finance. In these specific cases, it is then a question of financing a revolutionary communist organization capable of taking power or failing to divide the country into riots and civil wars until the collapse of this emperor hostile to the world government of Anglo-Saxon high finance.

We know of the two major achievements of Wall Street financiers in the 20th century to eliminate the German and Austrian empires, and then quickly to eliminate the Russian empires. It is the Communist parties that have been at the wheel under the shadowy direction of the masters of American or London high finance. Then these communist militants were taken over in large part by the fascist and Nazi parties of countries defeated or ruined by World War I and which were fought on the battlefields of World War II against the communist soldiers of the Soviet Union. Here we have a masterpiece of the political manipulation of the people by the Anglo-Saxon financiers of Wall Street... and the colossal profits they made.

As we have done previously for the religious foundation used by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, let us take up the historical facts that allowed it to develop its communist opposition to fight its wars of conquest of wealth first in Europe and then elsewhere.

2.1 the French origin of socialism to establish the interests of workers in industrial society.

The understanding of capitalist industrial logic, in France and certainly also for other countries, dates from the revolt of the canuts of Lyon. We just said that.

In reaction to this gaping divide in French society between its ultra-conservative, brutal and massacring leaders on the one hand and the new working class on the other, in reaction also against the working-class misery unworthy of a civilized country, in addition to the reactions of the Protestant religious movement present on the borders of the country and almost non-existent in the country, it is intellectuals, Christian artists who have gathered together drawing on the gospels and Christian spiritual roots to propose an exit from the crisis capable of changing this new industrial society. Among them quickly emerges Pierre Leroux.

Pierre Leroux
Pierre Leroux

Pierre Leroux advocates for a law on social rights: after a certain number of years of seniority, the worker obtains social rights and becomes a partner in the capital of his company.

Thiers and the Liberals want a business corporations act. Workers are not expected to become shareholders, let alone because of seniority. This law was passed in 1864, but Thiers and his party rejected the Leroux law. It is true that, with social rights, all businesses quickly become cooperative, mutual, commercial companies. But private ownership of the means of production is no longer the source of social inequalities and of a capitalist system of power that concentrates the wealth produced by the work of all in the hands of the richest. Pierre Leroux poses a real choice of civilization..

2.2 Marx and German “scientific” socialism, that is to say purely rational and without religious and spiritual roots.

We were in the position of social political thought referee in the 1840s and 1880s. It is not surprising that high finance plunged Pierre Leroux into oblivion and put on the pedestal of Marx, continuing the maneuvers notably of Proud’hon, of Hugo in 1848.

Proud’hons slogan “property is theft” is an indefensible legal enormity. The complementarity between the three forms of property is certainly forbidden in France since Friday, October 13, 1307 and the beginning of royal absolutism but it exists and has been used in all the most flourishing civilizations with the common goods.

Yet Marx in 1848 used Leroux to crush his rival Bakunin.

In 1871, after Leroux’s death, Engels wrote that scientific socialism is German and that it continues the work of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen and therefore without Leroux.

By 1912, everything had become clear with Lenin’s statement that in 1848, French socialism had been nothing but a “happy dream.”

And Lenin, whom Marx ranked among his worst pupils, was chosen by Jacob Schiff, the banker of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, to lead the Russian revolution of 1917, after the failure in 1905 of another Schiff pupil, Trotsky.

Each time, high finance identifies and selects the authors, the most mediocre thinkers capable of the worst enormities to dismiss those who write and defend proposals contrary to their interests.

It is fine for those who defend their power, of course, but that is what we are talking about here: eliminating this high finance from power and putting back in place what has been banned, pushed aside, forgotten and made ignorant.

We will come back to Pierre Leroux and his associations even if he could not find the functioning of the medieval period, free cities and Greek and Egyptian cities. However, since 1848, the unanimous critics of the “scientific” socialists will insist: “the study of Eastern religions and revolutionary heresies” has misplaced Leroux in “the crypts of the past and the darkest regions of the human mind”.This ignorance of the history of the most flourishing civilizations has since been bridged by ethnologists, anthropologists such as Malinowski that we present on fileane.com with his study on the natives of the Trobriand Islands. We are here in the presence of the rhetoric used to dismiss, discredit, make taboo the knowledge which describes the functioning of organizations in networks of life, cities, tribes, free cities, local republics, in order to select only the knowledge capable of developing centralized powers with the cult of personality, of the charismatic leader and capable of organizing autocratic power systems more or less in accordance with a dictatorship and the despotism of a ruling minority, of a single party of proletarians, Soviets, National Socialism, fascism.

2.3 The use of Karl Marx’s writings by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy and the Wall Street and FED bankers.

Historical reminder.

Document: Rakovski, former ambassador to London and Paris of the Soviet Union.

Be careful how pervasively Marx reaches conclusions about the existence of Britain’s infant industry, the colossal industry of today; how he analyzes and criticizes it; how repugnant he is about manufacturing. In your imagination and in the imagination of the masses, then arises the terrible image of Capitalism in its human concreteness: the type of the manufacturer giving, a cigar in the mouth, as Marx describes it, angrily throwing the wife and the daughter of the worker out into the street with a mixture of satisfaction. Isn’t that true?

But at the same time, remember Marx’s moderation and bourgeois orthodoxy when he studies monetary affairs. In this currency problem, we do not see the famous contradiction appearing in him. To him, finance does not exist as something important in itself ; trade and the circulation of money are the results of the hated capitalist production, which enslaves and totally determines them. But on the currency issue, Marx is a reactionary; to our great surprise, he was. Keep in mind the Soviet-style “five-pointed star,” but that star shining across Europe, the five Rothschild brothers, with their bank, which has a massive accumulation of wealth, the largest ever…. So, this fact, so colossal that it misled people’s imagination at the time, Marx doesn’t notice. This is very strange… No?

…/… Rakovski says:

Marxism, before it is a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy [in disguise] for the Revolution. Nowadays, new disguises like “human rights” and many others have taken over. To pervert notions, to alter the meaning of words, is how they promote revolution. “Children’s rights” mean taking children away from their parents. Stalin specifically endorsed the personal (private) ownership of the kolkhoz – home, auxiliary economy, livestock, agricultural equipment – in his 1952 paper “The Economic Problems of Socialism.” By contrast, modern revolutionaries want to strip us of all property, as described in the post “Welcome to 2030.” One of the masks for the revolution is called the “digital economy,” and Marx laughs in his beard in front of all of humanity, our witness said.

source: https://www.traduitdurusse.ru/histoire/la-revolution-qui-est-en-cours/

Comments from these documents:

We have already quoted Rakovski in the text on the German miracle from 1933 to 1937 and Schacht’s monetary policy which is in the document: “Our dear enemies, the organization of wars”. We have this passage here:

“Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C.G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money. (Stalin came to in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)

Rakovsky said:

‘ Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states? ” (Henry Makow, “Hitler Did Not Want War”) March 21, 2004.”

source: www.savethemales.com and http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6720

Rakovsky clearly indicates that he understood the manipulations and criminal enterprises of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy and especially those carried out by Jacob Schiff to eliminate the Czar and then dominate the wealth of Russia before Stalin decided to play a completely different personal Soviet policy. The document cited here is more controversial. It would be a transcript of his statements, his monolog before his execution in 1941 by the NKVD. The reader will find a description of this type of trial, interrogation and execution in Elie Wiesel’s book “The Testament of a Murdered Jewish Poet”, which of course, as a poet we have read.

The essence of these remarks is based on the indication, the assertion that the families of international bankers want to establish a World Government led by the richest and regardless here the Kazar origins, those Kazars who chose the Jewish religion around the year 800 to escape the Muslim power of Badgad as well as the Christian power of Constantinople (read the book of Arthur Koestler: the Thirteenth Tribe). The peoples would no longer have a social class, especially a bourgeoisie rich enough to take power in its turn. The society without social class and perfectly submissive would be called Communist since everything would be collective and there would no longer be for them the private individual property which inevitably allows some to get richer than others until quickly threaten the richest. This is easily understandable especially when the reader has understood the complementarity between the three forms of property that the Life Networks use again.

Karl Marx’s ideas and writings, at the outset, are a historical reading grid of social evolution in industrial society and nothing more because this Marxist materialism does not take into account our two sources of knowledge and the knowledge, methods of the most flourishing civilizations, Egyptian and Greek in particular, nor the constitution of the Iroquois Nations that Engels recognized as being a social work superior to that of the Romans. This analysis of the formation of Capital and its contradictions which does not interest revolutionaries rather socialist or social democratic, is selected by international bankers and their more or less secret circles to give a certain legitimacy to this project of making the peoples “communist”.

To achieve this, the method they retain is the class struggle, a classic method: divide and rule, a method pushed to its climax since from this struggle must come the elimination of the social classes, starting with the bourgeoisie, the main target of the richest… and therefore of the “communist” parties. But Marx admitted to taking up this reading of French history through the class struggle of Augustin Thierry. Marx took a side for Proud’hon against Pierre Leroux and the humanist, Christian, associative socialism he developed with his friends.

We are not going to wade through endless debates here about whether Communism is still a Marxism or the other way around. Marx, until proven otherwise, had not indicated the use of concentration and extermination camps, the Gulag, world wars or financial crises to enrich the proletariat more quickly. As with other authors, scholars, his writings have been hijacked. This will also be the case at the same time for the English economist Ricardo whose economic theory had been estimated zero by his comrades but was selected by international bankers to legitimize England’s colonial economy.

The fact remains that this evolution from a humanist and associative socialism, participative to the communist system with the dictatorship of the party, a evolution supported and financed by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, is at the heart of the current problem of political ecology.

Its concrete and constructive roots are communal, local ecology and logically lead to participatory local direct democracy and the use of a positive money.

On the other hand, communal ecology and the resulting participatory local direct democracy have never been more threatened with possible eviction and disappearance by the powerful development of the “ecology of green capitalism”, industrial and financial organized in particular by Goldman Sachs. Since the confrontation between Leroux and Proud’hon, Marx, Lenin, nothing has changed, just the ideas, the frame of reference of the knowledge used to eliminate Leroux and his friends, again and again.

The threat posed by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy is now clear and we know better how to minimize and eliminate it :

puce rouge Fight religious root and puritanism with its dogma of predestination, using our first source of knowledge and the development of spirituality in the Networks of Life.

puce rouge fight the political root and its two axes of development :

  • Eliminate the plutocratic power system based on private central banks and the tyranny of shareholders by using a positive money in the Networks of Life again
  • eliminate this pseudo-communist movement based on the exclusivity of the collective property of a political party intended to serve as an opposition-pretext for the anglo-saxon high finance in order to legitimize its arms industry and its wars to dominate the world.

But there will be a final battle to eliminate our enemies, these “predestys” who want to govern the world and reject any spiritual personal initiatory approach, our first source of knowledge through which we share the universal values ​​of love and peace

The final battle of Christianity will be around the problem of money, and until this problem is solved, there can be no universal application of Christianity” Honoré de Balzac.

Balzac, who lived through the end of the 1st Empire and then the Restoration, the Monarchy, the revolution of 1848, had well understood that the values of original Christianity, that of the sharing of the common goods and the social communities of Ireland and Scotland that brought to Western Europe the lifestyles and norms saved by the fathers of the desert from the temples of the banks of the Nile, that of the time of the cathedrals, have only one enemy to eliminate: money, the power of the richest and international bankers who steal the work of the peoples.

That Soviet communism, which emerged from German scientific socialism, then wanted to eliminate Christianity is not a mere historical coincidence but the pursuit of a machiavellian plan, devilish materialized by millions of deportees, slaves, gunmen and massacred populations, genocides committed during the two world wars and that other dictators pursue against their peoples.

But there will be a final battle to eliminate our enemies, the “predestined” people who want to govern the world and reject any spiritual personal initiatory, our primary source of knowledge through which we share the universal values of love and peace.

Is ecology becoming the new field of maneuver of international high finance to lead national economies in a much more direct and visible way than in the last century now that its world government is in place and has won according to its leaders…? But not according to the poet who is speaking here.

2.4 Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and the real impossibility of Marxism and Soviet development without the structure of the state and therefore without using a system of power.

The notion of a state in Marx and Engels is “purely rational” and it ignores the “real” history of city-states of the medieval period as well as the history of the destruction in France, of the time of the cathedrals after Friday, October 13, 1307 by King Philip the Bell to develop royal absolutism, ban the communal assemblies and impose the control of the prefects and the centralized administration of the monarchy.

document, excerpts:

“The state,” Engels said in drawing conclusions from his historical analysis, “is therefore not a power imposed from the outside on society; it is not the advantage of ‘the reality of the moral idea’, ‘the image and the reality of reason’, as Hegel claimed. Rather, it is a product of society at a specific stage of its development; it is the admission that this society is entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, having split into irreconcilable oppositions that it is powerless to ward off. But in order that the antagonists, the classes with opposing economic interests, do not consume themselves and society in a sterile struggle, the need arises for a power which, seemingly placed above society, must blur the conflict, keep it within the limits of the “order”; and this power, born of society, but which places itself above it and becomes increasingly foreign to it, is the State” (pp. 177-178 of the sixth German edition).

Here is expressed clearly the fundamental idea of Marxism about the historical role and meaning of the state. The State is the product and manifestation of this fact that class contradictions are irreconcilable. The state arises here, at the time and to the extent that, objectively, class contradictions cannot be reconciled. And vice versa: the existence of the state proves that class contradictions are irreconcilable.

It is precisely on this essential and crucial point that the deformation of Marxism begins, a deformation which follows two main lines.

According to Marx, the state could neither emerge nor be maintained, if class reconciliation were possible.

According to the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists — who refer abundantly and complacently to Marx! — the role of the State is precisely to reconcile classes. According to Marx, the State is an organization of class domination, an organization of oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of an “order” that legalizes and consolidates this oppression by moderating the class conflict. According to the opinion of petty-bourgeois politicians, order is precisely the reconciliation of the classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; moderating the conflict means reconciling, not withdrawing certain means and methods of combat from the oppressed classes fighting for the peace.

overthrow of the oppressors.

On the one hand, bourgeois and especially petty-bourgeois ideologues, obliged under the pressure of indisputable historical facts to recognize that the state exists only where there are class contradictions and class struggle, “correct” Marx so that the state appears as a body for class reconciliation.

Thus, in the revolution of 1917, when the problem of the meaning and role of the state arose in all its dimensions, practically, as a problem of immediate action and, moreover, of mass action, socialist-revolutionaries and Mensheviks all poured, from the outset and without reservation, into the petty-bourgeois theory of the “conciliation” of the classes by the “state”.

Countless resolutions and articles by politicians of these two parties are all imbued with this petty-bourgeois and philistine theory of “conciliation”. That the state is the dominant body of a particular class, which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (with the class that is opposed to it), is what petty-bourgeois democracy can never understand. The attitude that our socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks observe towards the state is one of the clearest evidence that they are not socialists at all (which we Bolsheviks have always demonstrated), but petty-bourgeois democrats with pseudo-socialist phraseology.

Engels therefore refutes the argument that the state is necessary for the reconciliation of social classes:

“The state does not exist forever. There were companies that got away without him, that had no idea of the state and the power of the state. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily linked to the division of society into classes, this division made the State a necessity. We are now rapidly approaching a stage of production development in which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive obstacle to production. These classes will fall as inevitably as they once did. The state inevitably falls with them. The company, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of producers, will relegate the whole state machine to where it belongs from now on: in the museum of antiques, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.”

This quotation is not often found in the propaganda and agitation literature of contemporary social democracy. But, even when it meets, it is most often reproduced as if one wanted to bow before an icon, that is to say officially pay homage to Engels, without the slightest effort of reflection on the extent and depth of the revolution that this “relegation of the whole machine of the State to the museum of antiquities” implies. Most of the time, it doesn’t even seem to understand what Engels means by state machine.

Here we find one of the most remarkable and important ideas of Marxism concerning the State, that of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (as Marx and Engels were to express themselves after the Commune of Paris); we then find a definition of the State, interesting to the highest point, and which is also among the “forgotten words” of Marxism:

“The state, that is, the proletariat organized in the ruling class.”

Marx in his writings on the Commune of Paris in 1871 will understand that the insurrection of the proletariat cannot be an end in itself:

The only “correction” that Marx deemed necessary to bring to the Communist Manifesto, he did it by drawing inspiration from the revolutionary experience of the Parisian communards.

The last preface to a new German edition of the Communist Manifesto, signed by its two authors, is dated June 24, 1872. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said the program

of the Communist Manifesto “is now aged in some respects”.

“The Commune, in particular, has demonstrated, they continue, that the “working class cannot simply take the machine of the state ready and operate it for its “own account.”

Marx’s idea is that the working class must break, demolish the “state machine ready”, and not just take possession of it.

Marx disagrees and with Proudhon and with Bakunin precisely about federalism (not to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat). The principles of federalism derive from petty-bourgeois conceptions of anarchism. Marx is a centralist. And, in the passages quoted from him, there is not the slightest derogation from centralism. Only people imbued with a petty-bourgeois “superstitious faith” in the state can take the destruction of the bourgeois machine for the destruction of centralism!

The Commune is the form, “finally found” by the proletarian revolution, which makes it possible to achieve the economic emancipation of Labor.

The Commune is the first attempt made by the proletarian revolution to break up the bourgeois state machine ; it is the “finally found” political form by which we can and must replace what has been broken.We will see further on that the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, in a different context, in other conditions, continue the work of the Commune and confirm the genius historical analysis of Marx.

end of document

source :

https://instituthumanismetotal.fr/bibliotheque/PDF/lenine-l-etat-et-la-revolution.pdf

2.5 On the basis of these rational Marxist analyzes, the Russian revolution of 1917 will establish the Soviet system of power.

document, excerpts:

In his definition of “socialist democracy”, A. Vychinsky highlights the following three characteristics: the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviets and democratic centralism (1).

One immediately feels shocked by this dictatorial coating of socialist democracy. It is that the proletariat is not content, as the bourgeoisie once was, to settle in the avenues of the former power; it has the ambition to transform society from top to bottom and, to do this, it must begin by demolishing the foundations of the existing order. This means that the dictatorship of the proletariat ensures the transition between the dying bourgeois system and the communist system that is about to bloom. Its essential nature is thus not expressed in the temporary power of domination but in its mission to give birth to the new society.

To accomplish its work, the proletariat will give itself a new form of government: the Soviets. The Soviets mentor all workers, teach them the art of governing themselves to one day do without the state, the eternal apparatus of oppression. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the government of the majority, then transformed itself, thanks to the Soviets, into a government of all.

The success of this endeavor requires the combination of disciplined and effective government policy and free and creative activity by workers. In their arsenal of governmental techniques, the Bolsheviks possessed an ingenious weapon perfectly suited to this dual purpose: democratic centralism. It will be made an essential rule where the government will nip in the bud even the bureaucratic deviations that are always to be feared.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, protected by the Soviets against its own excesses and supported in its action by democratic centralism, could believe itself to be in a position to win.

We shall see that this has not been the case: the three constituent elements of Soviet democracy remain, but they are either empty of substance or diverted from their true destination.

Thus, according to the 1918 Constitution, Russia no longer forms a state, but is proclaimed “the socialist community free of all workers” (art. 10). This is a momentous statement that amounts to the death sentence of the state.

But the special circumstances of Russia at that time compelled the leaders to build a new apparatus of restraint (8), which was indispensable to confront victoriously the difficulties which were emerging and which had to be dealt with urgently.

The first distressing problem was the supply of wheat to hungry cities. This problem was all the more important because it determined the relationship between the working class and the peasantry. They had to resort to authoritarian measures that would incite and intensify the campaign’s opposition.

This posed the peasant question, which would become the key question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.

“The mechanism of the Soviet socialist state in the broad sense of the word is the mechanism of the dictatorship of the working class. This includes: the party as ruling and directing force, the Soviets with their many central and local branches, in the form of administrative, economic and cultural organizations and other public organizations, as well as mass associations of workers under the supervision of the Soviets, such as trade unions, komsomol and cooperatives.”

The proposed distinction, which is the direct counterpoint to revolutionary positions, establishes an indissoluble association between the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the state taking precedence over it. It forms the nucleus around which the dictatorship of the working class grows its institutions. A careful distinction must therefore be drawn between the organs of the state and the institutions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The organs of the Soviet state, as well as the other parts of the mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, pursue a common goal: the building of communism… Each function of the state (for it is, as will be seen, the functions of the state, N.R.) is performed not by a given category of organs but by all organs, using different methods and modes. (…). The specific uniqueness of State bodies lies above all in the fact that, in order to carry out the functions of the State, they have the means and possibilities denied to all other organizations. These means are usually referred to in the legal literature as “public authority” (vlastnaja sila) and “sovereign authority” (vlastnoe polnomocie), etc.” (14).

It could not be clearer: it is the eternal state, the public-power state.

What will become of the state and its functions in the age of communism? Stalin’s answer was categorical: “Will the state subsist in the age of communism? Yes, it will remain if the capitalist encirclement is not liquidated, if the danger of military aggression from outside is not ruled out… No, it will not remain, it will wither if the capitalist encirclement is liquidated, if it is replaced by the socialist entourage » .

While the first part of Stalin’s statement raises no doubt, the same cannot be said of the second. It is by no means certain that “victory for communism in all or most countries” would lead to the death of the state.

The October Revolution made the proletariat a governing class. Lenin and his companions wanted to make the revolutionary action of the previously oppressed classes the powerful lever of their own liberation. The superiority of Soviet democracy lay in the promotion of the proletariat to the “ruling class” of its own state. It does not appear that the current practice and functions of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” follow the path indicated by Lenin, from 1917 to 1918, and by the Program of the Bolshevik Party of March 1919.

First, far from realizing the “government of all,” the Stalinist system realizes the domination of the minority over the majority, the victory of competence over number; that also of the “legists-metaphysicists” over the depositaries of popular genius.

As a minority government, the Soviet state is congenitally incapable of fulfilling the commitment made by Marx, Engels and Lenin to free the workers. Among the historical missions assigned to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the broadening of the political framework of freedom and the liberation of man from all bourgeois alienations are undoubtedly the two most important.

All these reticence, distinction, and confession evoke the irresistible prophetic observation of Lenin: “As long as the state exists, no freedom.” One might add: no equality, either. Where there is neither freedom nor equality, there can be no government of the people by the people”. Removing the people from the affairs of the state is what Lenin denounced in the representative system of bourgeois democracy. His enthusiasm for the “Commune de Paris” can be explained by his admiration for the institutions of direct government.

A long road separates the Soviets of 1955 from those of 1917-18. From instruments of economic and political liberation, from power brokers at the beginning of the Revolution, they become auxiliaries of the state to which they provide the tools it needs for the handling and direction of the masses.

end of document

source:

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ridc_0035-3337_1955_num_7_2_9234

Each time, high finance identifies and selects the authors, the most mediocre thinkers capable of the worst enormities to dismiss those who write and defend proposals contrary to their interests.

We will not repeat here all our criticisms of Marxism but simply highlight the limits of these theses which are the consequence of ignorance or ignorance of the functioning of the medieval period and its practice of participatory local direct democracy.

In 1865, Lionel de Rothschild wrote that the elimination of full money without a private central bank is the main and vital objective of international banker families. It was also the signal for the killing of Abraham Lincoln who wanted to use a full currency without debts to the bankers.

These banker families began their fortunes at the end of the medieval period when free cities became city states. Their economic and political development over increasingly large regions had made it necessary to establish a centralized administration of these territories. These banker families knew how to use the structure of the state to maximize their projects and subject monarchies and political leaders to their financial affairs.

The structure of the state does indeed have the mission of economic and political control of vast territories and its operation is necessarily centralized. It then remains to know the nature of the system of power that uses it: a monarchy, a tyranny, a theocracy, a representative democracy, a socialist democracy based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, a Soviet government, or simply the world government of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy. The state is an “empty” legal structure capable of serving any political, economic, centralized system of power that prohibits and fights its enemy and its enemy: participatory local direct democracy.

Marx, Engels and certainly Lenin at the beginning were very close to the functioning of participatory local direct democracy but they ignored its functioning: the alliance of opposites to set the objectives, subsidiarity to obtain the optimal solution adapted subsequently to local particularities, the total quality approach and obtaining the cost of solidarity, the use of a full currency to develop the common goods. They wanted to eliminate the primacy of individual property, including that of means of production, but they did not understand why capitalism strictly prohibits common property and tolerates only a minimal share of collective property for the management of the state.

Our readers have understood that the political movement focused on fileane.com goes far beyond the theses, utopias, crimes of Marxist, communist ideology and the actions of the Soviet government of the USSR.

Selecting and financing the Russian revolutionaries so that they eliminate the Czar’s empire, this leader who stubbornly refuses at home the creation of a private central bank in the hands of the bankers of London and New York, just like his cousin in Berlin, is fair game for those who defend his power, of course, but it is this which is what we are talking about here: eliminating this high finance from power and putting in place what has been banned, pushed aside, forgotten to make the citizens ignorant. But Marx and his disciples were not interested in finance or, above all, in the use of a currency. If they had, surely, they would never have been held back by the financiers of London and Wall Street…

We will come back to Pierre Leroux and his associations even if he could not find the functioning of the medieval period, free cities and Greek and Egyptian cities. Yet since 1848, the unanimous critics of the “scientific” socialists will insist: “the study of Eastern religions and revolutionary heresies” has lost Leroux in “the crypts of the past and the darkest regions of the human mind.”

This ignorance of the history of the most flourishing civilizations has since been bridged by ethnologists, anthropologists like Malinowski that we present on fileane.com with his study on the indigenous people of the Trobriand Islands. We are here in the presence of the rhetoric used to dismiss, discredit, make taboo the knowledge which describes the functioning of organizations in networks of life, cities, tribes, free cities, local republics, in order to select only the knowledge capable of developing centralized powers with the cult of personality, of the charismatic leader and capable of organizing autocratic power systems more or less in accordance with a dictatorship and the despotism of a ruling minority, of a single party of proletarians, Soviets, National Socialism, fascism.

Continue reading