To: Aleksandr Dugin;  founder of the International Eurasianist Movement

From: Peter Wilberg; creator of The National People’s Party in the UK

Dear Aleksandr,

As a thinker and and author on philosophy, science and religion, theo-politics, geo-politics and financial geo-economics, and having great respect for the breadth an depth your work and vision, I am writing to you now – and through you, to the International Eurasian Movement as a whole – with a feeling of great urgency.

My aim is not only to let you know about The National People’s Party in the U.K., but above all to bring your attention through it to what I see as a central and urgent question -  one which I believe is absolutely vital for all Eurasianists to recognise if your vision is to be realised.

The question concerns the changed nature of money and currency and in particular the right of both nations and federations of nations to create and issue their own currency - without borrowing from commercial and international banks.  This is the sovereign economic right that Abraham Lincoln fought form by issuing  Greenbacks as a sovereign currency – a major cause of the war against the colonists launched by King George and funded by international bankers.

Almost every page and link on my website deals with the question of the nature of money and banking in an era characterised by the global financialisation of Western capitalis. This question become ever more important since the creation in 1913 of the Federal Reserve Bank in America, which, like most of today’s so-called ’national’ or  ‘central banks’ is not a federal, state or public bank at all but a cartel of private banks that does not even permit itself to be audited.  That is why I feel it important to immediately quote here the first statement on the National People’s Partyhomepage:

The purpose of this site is to place the economic and political situation of the U.K. and its people in the context of a much larger global reality  -  how the Big Banks (together with their puppet politicians and international institutions such as the IMF) are currently waging financial warfare and engaged in fiscal terrorism against all the peoples of the world – forcing them into unsustainable debt through imposed ‘bailouts’ and vicious austerity measures, asset-stripping and de-industrialising their economies and, as a result, committing what amounts to economic and social genocide.  In all this, we are witnessing the power of a new worldwide feudal and financial oligarchy  centred in America – one which is depriving all nations of their economic and political sovereignty.

The message of the National People’s Party in the U.K.  is therefore also a message to all nations – namely that, from a Marxist perspective, the changed nature of money means that  the class struggle has now become a national struggle  – a struggle of all peoples against the power of international finance capitalism and debt-slavery. That debt-slavery can only be defeated by first exposing a single ‘Big Lie’ –the lie that nations are necessarily dependent on borrowing from commercial banks to finance their own public spending and improve the lot of the people. 

The almost total global monopoly of private banks on the money supply of nations is made possible by lending out what Marx called ‘fictional money’. Today however, this takes the form of ‘digital’ or ‘virtual’ money created out of nothing on computer accounts. For today private banks are allowed to hand out loans on a massive scale - and at no matter what risk -whilst not being required to hold anything more than a fraction of the value of those loans as reserves. This is the system known as Fractional Reserve Banking. The problem is that the ”fictional money” it creates constitutes and controls the entire money supply of the UK and of most other Western European nations.

That is why I found it most important that you yourself refer in your writings to ‘eurasist finance’, a ‘eurasist rouble’ and to ‘the world virtual economy’. For as you write:

“The financial and economic system of Russia cannot ignore the forming of a virtual economy at a world level, the translation of economic potential into the sphere of information technology and electronic stock exchanges. In a distant perspective, the eurasist policy course must result in the relativization (and even deletion) of such a virtual financial system and in the returning to the priorities of real sectors, long-term investments and concrete production of material goods, to the transition from virtual capital to real, creative and organising management. But at a transitory stage Russia must participate in the world virtual economy, by delegating to special broker groups under strict strategic control of the highest state authorities, in order to assimilate the most recent technologies and whenever possible to readdress global trends in a direction strategically amplifying the positions of the eurasist geoeconomy.”

In recent years, and particularly following the international banking crisis – now cleverly turned by the bankers themselves into a so-called ‘sovereign debt’ crisis – the ‘virtual economic system’ has received intense critical analysisfrom radical economists in the U.K., Canada, the U.S.A. and elsewhere – for example  Ellen Brown, Michael Hudson – and Russia TV’s own Max Keiser.

I believe strongly that it would be most unfortunate if the ‘virtual money’ and the system of Fractional Reserve Banking did not receive the same degree of detailed critical analysis from Eurasionist countries and movements – since this is a system that knows as yet no firm geo-political bounds. For both in the U.K. and the U.S.A. there are also many new and growing movements for radical ‘monetary reform’  or ‘positive money’ –  all of which aim to restore to nations the sovereign power to issue and invest their own currency without borrowing from commercial banks.

A principle aim of my party’s platform is to re-affirm that, as Lenin already recognised in his day, the most important battle to be fought in our era is the the battle against international finance capitalism – based as it today on fictional money created as debt. Yet this is not a battle that can be won only by rational persuasion of economically ignorant politicians – or in a way that ignores larger geo-political questions of the sort you write of yourself.

We already know what happened when Yeltsin let the agents of international finance capital and its ‘shock therapy’ increase Russia’s own debt to the IMF to a level higher than that of any other country. And today Greece can be compared to post-Versailles Germany - having been conquered not by armies of soldiers but directly by armies of bankers directly imposing vicious cuts on the Greek people, and seizing their national assets through privatisation.  We should remember the turmoil, poverty and barbarities bred by ‘war reparations’ imposed on Germany and realise with grave seriousness their similarity to the ‘debt reparations’ now being imposed on Greece.

This communiqué is therefore also a plea to both you and the International Eurasian Movement to recognise that the real nature of the ‘financial crisis’ that is now dramatically affecting both the Eurozone and the U.S.A.  is of enormous relevance to the economic future of Eurasia – showing the absolute necessity for a Eurasian economic policy which radically challenges the foundations of the ‘virtual financial system’ – not just its technology of digitalised money but the financial vampirism  which it has facilitated.  This is the way in which the global banks  sucks the life blood from national economies such as those of Greece and Spain through debt and interest and interest to the point where their national debts become unsustainable. At the same time the very same banks are now demanding infusions of money from other debtor nations such as Germany or whole groups of nations such as those in the better-off countries of the EU. The  purpose of these infusions is not to help the real people and economies of nations in danger of defaulting. Instead their aim is only to keep the  banks themselves ‘liquid’ – given that their high-risk over-lending has now inevitably come back to haunt them, and their self-created  ’credit bubbles’ have become a ‘credit squeeze and ‘credit crunch’.

As you can read in both the homepage of my site entitled ’National Bolshevism’ my fundamental aim is both to offer a new monetary-economic focus and a new spiritual-philosophical foundation for ‘Conservative Revolutionism’ and ‘National Bolshevism’  itself  - but in a way that transcends both crude racist ideologies of the extreme nationalist ‘Right’and  the pseudo-Marxist ‘internationalism’ of the extreme Trotskyist ‘Left’.  And we should remember too, that the very term ‘National Bolshevism’ was not invented  in Russia but first used by anti-fascist grouping of social national revolutionaries in  post-Versailles Germany – intent on an an anti-Western alliance of Germany with the Soviet Union.

Today ‘National Bolshevism’ is in dire need of re-defining. This  means  reapplying Marxism to ‘the national question’ in both the economic and geo-political context of today’s world – a world in which new and genuinely inter-national federations are needed, in particular a Eurasian one.

For there is no worse threat or form of ‘extremism’ facing ‘Eurasia’ than that of the  global banking oligarchy that now rules  Western Europe - and which will use all means, economic and ideological, to extend its tentacles into Russia too. Its principal weapon will not be multi-culturalism but debt-fuelling consumerism. This has already destroyed any truly spiritual or  ’consersative’ sense of community and national identity in England, thus making it ever more questionable whether this country of the U.K. (unlike Scotland or Wales) can still be counted as a ‘nation’ at all - or only as a quasi-nation divided by those whodo or do not have the means to buy -  their very identity being defined by the brands, gadgets and commodities they can afford, and nothing more.   

with respects,

Peter Wilberg