The Natural Order of Money and Why Abstract Currencies Fail and a Unit of account for the people.

Money Creation

the short version

Money is an option to purchase human labor, and money creation is a global human labor futures market.

State asserts ownership of our labor, by spending options to claim our labor into existence as currency. (one way to create money, pay with other people’s stuff)

 

Why should we not include each in money creation?

All sovereign debt shall be financed with Shares of global fiat credit, that may be claimed by each adult human on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual social contract

 

 

“Now Proudhon advocated a society without government and used the word anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the collectivists. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that ‘Property is theft’, he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of ‘right of use and abuse’; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as ‘Mutuellisme’, all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something like I per cent, or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Everyone being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly rent for the use of it. A general ‘social liquidation’ would thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon’s work”

.https://archive.org/details/PeterKropotkinEntryOnanarchismFromTheEncyclopdiaBritannica/page/n3

Issuance of the money is one question Stephen and I agree your solution would work well enough and probably also stay on the correct side of the Pigou Dalton Principle which has insights into Taxation psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou%E2%80%93Dalton_principle

On WeslyFreebergs Quanta the Measure of the Unit of account is profound to the basis of the value of the generally produced, “Universal Income Money”?

Wesley provides profound insights into the embodied energy aspects of the production of life’s necessities and luxuries and Decisions on production whilst providing self-ownership and symbiosis is something which Abstract money simply does not do, Wesley proves his point in his essay here.

https://medium.com/@wesfree/the-natural-order-of-money-and-why-abstract-currencies-fail-a-critical-review-e05f928fb64c

There are several ways to skin the cat but I do think that Money as a commons or even a UBI based upon the rights of Man, Paine and many others.
Historical advocates[edit]

I have made my own extensive researches into these questions which are found on my own blog meanwhile I hope that you and We will continue your twitter conversation exploring the synergies inherent in both of your insights.
https://moneyasdebtblog.wordpress.com/the-author/

https://youtu.be/7jL4muI13qA

 

The Natural Order of Money and Why Abstract Currencies Fail — A critical review

Introduction

An article published by Roy Sebag (“RS”) this past March with the above captioned title was recently brought to my attention in the course of an interesting “conversation” on Twitter, which actually included a well-known anthropologist, some crypto people, and some “gold-bugs” inter alia. In this essay, my first on Medium, I shall argue RS fails to properly describe “the Natural Order of Money” with an undisguised attempt to perpetuate a long-ago discredited “intrinsic” value theory.

Barley — Natural “Money”

And, by its glaring omission, RS also evidences misunderstanding of the historical relationship and distinction between the Unit-of-Account (or what I prefer, Money-of-Account) — the description and specification of “money” — and the Medium-of-Exchange (money-proper), whence the “money-stuff”

https://theconquestofdough.weebly.com/on-the-chronology-of-human-society.html

ConquestofDough

Advertisements

Tom v Tommy II: incompetence, hypocrisy and cover-up on cultural immigration issues.

I appreciate this series John it begs so many questions though Blair first up is no more a Left Winger or Socialist Than Mrs May is a Tory or Conservative they are both Neo-Liberal Fascists as are Trudeau, Vardeker, Tusk, Junker, Verhofstad, and Macron.

Next up just as being Anti Israeli State Extreme Right Wing Zionism I call it Netanyahu Zionism is not Anti-Semitic, Similarly being Anti Pakistani Grooming Gang is simply not Islamaphobic or Rascist.

I personally Like Tommy Robinson and support him, I regret that some of his support comes from Political quarters I disagree with but the characterisation of Tommy as a Thug is just plain ridiculous, He is not an effeminate pansy big girls blouse type and has been a football hooligan in his youth but I can not condemn him for that I have had my fair share of street fights in my Own Youth, I’m not proud of it but it was part and parcel of the values I grew up with and still hold.

First Islamic Terrorism.

9/11

7/7

and Dying To Win,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/manchester-terror-attack-a-reichstag-fire-moment-for-mrs-may/

Just as the Narratives on Chemical Weapons in Syria are again unravelling and Mrs May all done up like a dog’s dinner visiting Brave Salisbury and its Dunkirk spirit against Novichock,
The Establishment and the spooks cannot be given a free pass on 9/11 or 7/7

https://www.globalresearch.ca/opcw-syria-report-chemical-weapons/5670364

Pandorama is a good FIlm exposing BBC Bias and Hope not Hate,

tommy has explained much of the State action against him which has been confiscatory and vindictive similar tactics were visited on Moar Dib the maker of 7// the ripple effect and on 9/11 Dr David Kelly did not die by his own hand.

Tom Watson’s excesses are completely in line with Establishment Trough Swillers like Watson, Blair and the rest of them. Corbyn is a peculiar species of career politician it is to his credit though that he at least appears to like a bit of the other and Dianne Abbot was pretty dishy back in the day, I once met Oona King at a reception in Whitehall and would have loved to have been in the position of doing a Corbyn with her , she was lovely, I met the Odious Lib Dem Simon Hughes at the same event, and would have loved to Go full intercity Chav on him.

My Point is that Brexit is a Pantomime and Anyone being demonised is more than likely One of the good guys.

There is a lot of Snobbery against Tommy basically he is a very courageous and I would argue sincere man.

My old Chauffeur/Minder from my Lord of the Manor days is a devout Pakistani Muslim, he like me understands and supports Tommy’s positions although I myself think whilst Tommy has Salafist Wahabbism very well understood he is mistaken about the prophet. and Islam in general. Cultural assimilation and Integration are difficult concepts and many people are ill-equipped to judge these things as Tommy demonstrates so ably in this video.

 

@Caratacus , That made me Smile a broad smile.
Brought to mind this Ted Talk on the subject.

@jay
March 5, 2019 at 4:38 pm
Tommy is a zionist shill…

Zionism and an interest in the Jewish people in Israel who do not support Netanyahu Zionism are two very different things. It strikes me that Tommy may be less well informed on Zionism than he is on Islam I doubt somehow that he has read much Sufi philosophy or indeed Maimonides.

Always in divide and rule strategies of the Oligarchy, a fostering of my enemies enemy is my friend thinking is adopted and encouraged.

Two Blogs on The Theology.

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/they-would-not-dance-and-they-would-not-follow-me/

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/last-night-in-lambeth-terrorism-rape-politics-and-religion-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-london-bridge-and-bourough-market-murders/

“The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my Visions Greatest Enemy
Thine has a great hook nose like thine
Mine has a snub nose like to mine5Thine is the Friend of All Mankind
Mine speaks in parables to the Blind
Thine loves the same world that mine hates
Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates
Socrates taught what Melitus10Loathd as a Nations bitterest Curse
And Caiphas was in his own Mind
A benefactor of Mankind
Both read the Bible day & night
But thou readst black where I read white”

Blake. The everlasting Gospel.

brent1023 • 4 years ago
This article makes the assumption that there is only one zionism.
It would be a mistake to assume there is only one Jew and to be anti-Jew because of the actions of one person.
It is also possible that deciding to be anti-zionist because you find Netanyahu-zionism appalling is a similar mistake.
How did Netanyahu-zionism – an extreme form of zionism – get to define zionism?
I personally reject Netanyahu-zioinism because in my view it cannot lead to a solution to existing problems in the middle east. It can only make those problems worse and worse.
That does not mean I reject zionism – the zionism of the early years of the state as practised by the few Israelis I knew. My understanding of their vision and their life seemed to me something that could have led to a stable future.
That was pre-wall, pre-extreme settlement policy days.
I am not convinced that Netanyahu-zionism was an inevitable outcome of those days. I could be wrong. I am not sure how anyone could prove that Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism. I certainly don’t understand why so many people act as if Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism.

Hi Kevin, in the comments the whole polarity and polarisation alienation of the debate plays out . Over and over the same taunts are rehearsed.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/why-i-am-antizionist-jew/

Jay, I do not know how much you know about Politics in Israel, and how deeply you have read into the Geo Politics surrounding Zionism in the late 19th Century and going back further into Jewish History and indeed Feudalism. Its a big ask to expect everyone to accord to your own take on things and to assume they operate in accordance to your own assemblage of information and understanding.

Enchiridion 42: How logic proves no fucks should ever be given towards other’s thoughts or actions towards you
Man this really hit hard for me and drilled it in. On one hand, it is easy to say “Stop worrying about what is out of your control.” But this passage hit the nail on the head for me and explained it in a way that metabolizes it for my subconscious.

“42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.” ”

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/r7uv0/enchiridion_42_how_logic_proves_no_fucks_should/

The Slog.

win_20190127_120036 Following on from yesterday’s post about immigration dishonesty, The Slog digs up the roots of Britain’s population explosion to find the entire political class guilty of dissembling dereliction and reality rejection. Top of the list of miscreants is Tony Blair….but the contemporary Labour/Islam alliance follows the appalling example he set.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

The story of how Britain’s immigration spiralled out of control after 1997 is perhaps one of the greatest examples of how blind Leftlib belief in experts can backfire.

In 2003, Home Office officials seized upon a report produced by Christian Dustmann, of University College London, in which it was estimated that – in the light of Poland’s access to EU free movement policy – around 13,000 Poles would arrive in the UK during 2004.

In fact, 430,000 turned up during the following three years…so the “expert” research was wrong by 91%.

All this was happening on Tony Blair’s…

View original post 2,064 more words

Macron . Make 1984 Fiction Again

 

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/three-goals-to-guide-european-union-renewal-by-emmanuel-macron-2019-03/english#comments

 

https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/03/04/for-european-renewal.en

 

Selection_379

 

 

 

 

 

We are here and Macron is Mr Hitler?

End of the Weimar Republic[edit]

Hitler’s chancellorship (1933)[edit]

Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on the morning of 30 January 1933 in what some observers later described as a brief and indifferent ceremony. By early February, a mere week after Hitler’s assumption of the chancellorship, the government had begun to clamp down on the opposition. Meetings of the left-wing parties were banned and even some of the moderate parties found their members threatened and assaulted. Measures with an appearance of legality suppressed the Communist Party in mid-February and included the plainly illegal arrests of Reichstag deputies.

The Reichstag fire on 27 February was blamed by Hitler’s government on the Communists. Hitler used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the presidential assent of Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the following day. The decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and “indefinitely suspended” a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the Nazi government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing the Communists.

Hitler and the Nazis exploited the German state’s broadcasting and aviation facilities in a massive attempt to sway the electorate, but this election yielded a scant majority of 16 seats for the coalition. At the Reichstag elections, which took place on 5 March 1933, the NSDAP obtained 17 million votes. The Communist, Social Democrat and Catholic Centre votes stood firm. This was the last multi-party election of the Weimar Republic and the last multi-party all-German election for 57 years.

Hitler addressed disparate interest groups, stressing the necessity for a definitive solution to the perpetual instability of the Weimar Republic. He now blamed Germany’s problems on the Communists, even threatening their lives on 3 March. Former Chancellor Heinrich Brüning proclaimed that his Centre Party would resist any constitutional change and appealed to the President for an investigation of the Reichstag fire. Hitler’s successful plan was to induce what remained of the now Communist-depleted Reichstag to grant him, and the Government, the authority to issue decrees with the force of law. The hitherto Presidential Dictatorship hereby was to give itself a new legal form.

On 15 March, the first cabinet meeting was attended by the two coalition parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag: The Nazis and the DNVP led by Alfred Hugenberg (288 + 52 seats). According to the Nuremberg Trials, this cabinet meeting’s first order of business was how at last to achieve the complete counter-revolution by means of the constitutionally allowed Enabling Act, requiring a 66% parliamentary majority. This Act would, and did, lead Hitler and the NSDAP toward his goal of unfettered dictatorial powers.[55]

Hitler cabinet meeting in mid-March[edit]

At the cabinet meeting on 15 March, Hitler introduced the Enabling Act, which would have authorised the cabinet to enact legislation without the approval of the Reichstag. Meanwhile, the only remaining question for the Nazis was whether the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) would support the Enabling Act in the Reichstag, thereby providing the ⅔ majority required to ratify a law that amended the constitution. Hitler expressed his confidence to win over the Centre’s votes. Hitler is recorded at the Nuremberg Trials as being sure of eventual Centre Party Germany capitulation and thus rejecting of the DNVP’s suggestions to “balance” the majority through further arrests, this time of Social Democrats. Hitler, however, assured his coalition partners that arrests would resume after the elections and, in fact, some 26 SPD Social Democrats were physically removed. After meeting with Centre leader Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and other Centre Trade Union leaders daily and denying them a substantial participation in the government, negotiation succeeded in respect of guarantees towards Catholic civil-servants and education issues.

At the last internal Centre meeting prior to the debate on the Enabling Act, Kaas expressed no preference or suggestion on the vote, but as a way of mollifying opposition by Centre members to the granting of further powers to Hitler, Kaas somehow arranged for a letter of constitutional guarantee from Hitler himself prior to his voting with the centre en bloc in favour of the Enabling Act. This guarantee was not ultimately given. Kaas, the party’s chairman since 1928, had strong connections to the VaticanSecretary of State, later Pope Pius XII. In return for pledging his support for the act, Kaas would use his connections with the Vatican to set in train and draft the Holy See‘s long desired Reichskonkordat with Germany (only possible with the co-operation of the Nazis).

Ludwig Kaas is considered along with Papen as being one of the two most important political figures in the creation of a National Socialist dictatorship.[56]

Enabling Act negotiations[edit]

On 20 March, negotiation began between Hitler and Frick on one side and the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) leaders—Kaas, Stegerwald and Hackelsburger on the other. The aim was to settle on conditions under which Centre would vote in favour of the Enabling Act. Because of the Nazis’ narrow majority in the Reichstag, Centre’s support was necessary to receive the required two-thirds majority vote. On 22 March, the negotiations concluded; Hitler promised to continue the existence of the German states, agreed not to use the new grant of power to change the constitution, and promised to retain Zentrum members in the civil service. Hitler also pledged to protect the Catholic confessional schools and to respect the concordats signed between the Holy See and Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1931). Hitler also agreed to mention these promises in his speech to the Reichstag before the vote on the Enabling Act.

The ceremonial opening of the Reichstag on 21 March was held at the Garrison Church in Potsdam, a shrine of Prussianism, in the presence of many Junker landowners and representatives of the imperial military caste. This impressive and often emotional spectacle—orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels—aimed to link Hitler’s government with Germany’s imperial past and portray National Socialism as a guarantor of the nation’s future. The ceremony helped convince the “old guard” Prussian military elite of Hitler’s homage to their long tradition and, in turn, produced the relatively convincing view that Hitler’s government had the support of Germany’s traditional protector—the Army. Such support would publicly signal a return to conservatism to curb the problems affecting the Weimar Republic, and that stability might be at hand. In a cynical and politically adroit move, Hitler bowed in apparently respectful humility before President and Field Marshal Hindenburg.

Passage of the Enabling Act[edit]

The Reichstag convened on 23 March 1933, and in the midday opening, Hitler made a historic speech, appearing outwardly calm and conciliatory. Hitler presented an appealing prospect of respect towards Christianity by paying tribute to the Christian faiths as “essential elements for safeguarding the soul of the German people”. He promised to respect their rights and declared that his government’s “ambition is a peaceful accord between Church and State” and that he hoped “to improve [their] friendly relations with the Holy See“. This speech aimed especially at the future recognition by the named Holy See and therefore to the votes of the Centre Party addressing many concerns Kaas had voiced during the previous talks. Kaas is considered to have had a hand therefore in the drafting of the speech.[56] Kaas is also reported as voicing the Holy See’s desire for Hitler as bulwark against atheistic Russian nihilism previously as early as May 1932.[57]

Hitler promised that the Act did not threaten the existence of either the Reichstag or the Reichsrat, that the authority of the President remained untouched and that the Länder would not be abolished. During an adjournment, the other parties (notably the Centre) met to discuss their intentions.[58]

In the debate prior to the vote on the Enabling Act, Hitler orchestrated the full political menace of his paramilitary forces like the storm division in the streets to intimidate reluctant Reichstag deputies into approving the Enabling Act. The Communists’ 81 seats had been empty since the Reichstag Fire Decree and other lesser known procedural measures, thus excluding their anticipated “No” votes from the balloting. Otto Wels, the leader of the Social Democrats, whose seats were similarly depleted from 120 to below 100, was the only speaker to defend democracy and in a futile but brave effort to deny Hitler the ⅔ majority, he made a speech critical of the abandonment of democracy to dictatorship. At this, Hitler could no longer restrain his wrath.[59]

In his retort to Wels, Hitler abandoned earlier pretence at calm statesmanship and delivered a characteristic screaming diatribe, promising to exterminate all Communists in Germany and threatening Wels’ Social Democrats as well. He did not even want their support for the bill. “Germany will become free, but not through you,” he shouted.[60] Meanwhile, Hitler’s promised written guarantee to Monsignor Kaas was being typed up, it was asserted to Kaas, and thereby Kaas was persuaded to silently deliver the Centre bloc’s votes for the Enabling Act anyway. The Act—formally titled the “Act for the Removal of Distress from People and Reich”—was passed by a vote of 441 to 94. Only the SPD had voted against the Act. Every other member of the Reichstag, whether from the largest or the smallest party, voted in favour of the Act. It went into effect the following day, 24 March.

Consequences[edit]

The passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 is widely considered to mark the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Nazi era. It empowered the cabinet to legislate without the approval of the Reichstag or the President, and to enact laws that were contrary to the constitution. Before the March 1933 elections, Hitler had persuaded Hindenburg to promulgate the Reichstag Fire Decree using Article 48, which empowered the government to restrict “the rights of habeas corpus […] freedom of the press, the freedom to organise and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications” and legalised search warrants and confiscation “beyond legal limits otherwise prescribed”. This was intended to forestall any action against the government by the Communists. Hitler used the provisions of the Enabling Act to pre-empt possible opposition to his dictatorship from other sources, in which he was mostly successful.

The Nazis in power brought almost all major organisations into line under Nazi control or direction, which was termed Gleichschaltung.

The constitution of 1919 was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that it was a dead letter. Those articles of the Weimar constitution (which dealt with the state’s relationship to various Christian churches) remain part of the German Basic Law.

If You prefer the Stalinist Metaphor which in many respects is slightly more accurate but essentially part of the same historical process which Led to that huge Colonial Resource war World War 2
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/mrs-may-stalinist-lord-protector-netenyahu-zionism-thought-police-gnasherjew-labourantisemitism-rinos-twats-and-c-u-n-t-s/

Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
At the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU February 24-25 1956, Khrushchev delivered a report in which he denounced Stalin’s crimes and the ‘cult of personality’ surrounding Stalin. This speech would ultimately trigger a world-wide split:
It is clear that the creation within the Politbiuro of this type of commissions – “quintets,” “sextets,” “septets” and “nonets” – was against the principle of collective leadership. The result of this was that some members of the Politbiuro were in this way kept away from participation in reaching the most important state matters.
One of the oldest members of our Party, Klimenty Yefremovich Voroshilov, found himself in an almost impossible situation. For several years he was actually deprived of the right of participation in Politbiuro sessions. Stalin forbade him to attend Politbiuro sessions and to receive documents. When the Politbiuro was in session and comrade Voroshilov heard about it, he telephoned each time and asked whether he would be allowed to attend. Sometimes Stalin permitted it, but always showed his dissatisfaction.
Because of his extreme suspicion, Stalin toyed also with the absurd and ridiculous suspicion that Voroshilov was an English agent.
(Laughter in the hall.)
It’s true – an English agent. A special tap was installed in his home to listen to what was said there.
(Indignation in the hall.)
By unilateral decision, Stalin had also separated one other man from the work of the Politbiuro – Andrey Andreyevich Andreyev. This was one of the most unbridled acts of willfulness.
Looking at the experiences of different countries under the European Union Enlargement since Maastricht and the Political tourniquets applied ever tighter since Lisbon and one sees all of the Failings of Stalinist Five-year plans and a sort of Lysenkoism regarding their efficacy
A doubling down on the insistence upon an elite narrative of Ideal reality which simply could never become the Picture of any objective observer.

GLOBALISATION UN-ENTANGLED. (A FOUND POEM, CIPHER OF GLOBALISM )

CUT-UP TECHNIQUE[EDIT]

Cut-up technique is an extension of collage to words themselves, Tristan Tzara describes this in the Dada Manifesto:[49]

TO MAKE A DADAIST POEM
Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

Meanwhile, Brexit is headed into the Long Grass where the determined punt from the Stalinist tory C U N T S always intended it to go.
Meanwhile, The Anti Semite Netanyahu Zionist thought police paid me a visit recently.
@Gnasherjew #LabourAntiSemitism.
Gnasher and I attended the madrassa of hard left Anarchism, I await reprisals.

¡No Pasarán!

Speech by Dolores Ibárruri, translated by Fabien Malouin.

Here is the translation of Dolores Ibárruri’s (also known as La Pasionaria) famous battlecry appeal for the defense of the Second Spanish Republic. Immortalized in popular culture on the Spanish Civil War, here follows a translation of the actual speech, given before press microphones in the Government Ministry Building in Madrid, representing the position of the Spanish Communist Party, which was then a part of the Popular Front Government.

Delivered on 19 July 1936.
Workers! Farmers! Anti-fascists! Spanish Patriots! Confronted with the fascist military uprising, all must rise to their feet, to defend the Republic, to defend the people’s freedoms as well as their achievements towards democracy! Through the statements by the government and the Popular Front (parties), the people understand the graveness of the moment. In Morroco, as well as in the Canary Islands, the workers are battling, united with the forces still loyal to the Republic, against the uprising militants and fascists. Under the battlecry ‘Fascism shall not pass; the hangmen of October shall not pass!’ workers and farmers from all Spanish provinces are joining in the struggle against the enemies of the Republic that have arisen in arms. Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and Republican Democrats, soldiers and (other) forces remaining loyal to the Republic combined have inflicted the first defeats upon the fascist foe, who drag through the mud the very same honourable military tradition that they have boasted to possess so many times. The whole country cringes in indignation at these heartless barbarians that would hurl our democratic Spain back down into an abyss of terror and death. However, THEY SHALL NOT PASS! For all of Spain presents itself for battle. In Madrid, the people are out in the streets in support of the Government and encouraging its decision and fighting spirit so that it shall reach its conclusion in the smashing of the militant and fascist insurrection.

Young men, prepare for combat! Women, heroic women of the people! Recall the heroism of the women of Asturias of 1934 and struggle alongside the men in order to defend the lives and freedom of your sons, overshadowed by the fascist menace! Soldiers, sons of the nation! Stay true to the Republican State and fight side by side with the workers, with the forces of the Popular Front, with your parents, your siblings and comrades! Fight for the Spain of February the 16th, fight for the Republic and help them to victory! Workers of all stripes! The government supplies us with arms that we may save Spain and its people from the horror and shame that a victory for the bloody hangmen of October would mean. Let no one hesitate! All stand ready for action. All workers, all antifascists must now look upon each other as brothers in arms. Peoples of Catalonia, Basque Country, and Galicia! All Spaniards! Defend our democratic Republic and consolidate the victory achieved by our people on the 16th of February.

The Communist Party calls you to arms. We especially call upon you, workers, farmers, intellectuals to assume your positions in the fight to finally smash the enemies of the Republic and of the popular liberties. Long live the Popular Front! Long live the union of all anti-fascists! Long live the Republic of the people! The Fascists shall not pass! THEY SHALL NOT PASS!