Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 34

.....................

Diego Fusaro critiques “anti-fascism”:

But what is anti-fascism worth today when the fascist threat isn’t real? Today anti-fascism has become a tool of the glamorous and cosmopolitan left to defend capitalism. And when fascism really appears, for example during the Ukrainian coup d’état in 2014, our Eurocratic left applauds it! And the only one to combat it gloriously, namely Putin, is treated as a fascist himself! It’s the height [of hypocrisy]! Anti-fascism is a weapon of legitimation for capitalism, an article from the catalogue of the politically correct cosmopolitan.

..................

From an interview Diego Fusaro:

Regarding these right wing values, you've often denounced the theory of gender, could you reiterate your analysis for our readers?

The theory of gender embodies the project of the New World Order in the area of sexual mores. Its goal is to destroy the family, this “genetic cell” according to Hegel on which the entire society rests. Hegel told us that citizens are a universal family in the state. So the project of the globalists is to destroy the family and the state, the family as genetic cell and state as “the fulfillment of ethics.”
In order to do that, they destroy the basis of the family, that is to say sexual difference, through the ideology of sexual postmodernism which negates identities. In the same fashion that the liberal destroys the state, the gender fluid libertine attacks the family. Thus only atoms remain in a context of erotic free exchange without bonds. The family is dissolved and there only remains an atomized system of pleasure seeking individuals, without ethical value or stable bonds.

You also speak of “feminization” or “de-virilization.” How does the reading of Marx and Hegel, who you claim for yourself, lead you to these conclusions?

These authors are precisely the remedy against the de-virilization in progress! Because de-virilization bases itself on the destruction of man, who is a political animal as Aristotle said: so man doesn't exist as a simple atom but in relation to the community. De-virilization precedes the atomization of society, that is to say the opposite of the “community” of which Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx spoke [6]. Today there is only the omnipotent atomized individual, animated by an unlimited consumerist will to power whose consequence is “gender fluidity,” this idea that everyone can quite simply decide if he is a man, a transgender woman, or who knows what! They present it to us as a form of emancipation, but on the contrary it's the acme of capitalism: we become pure asexual consumers without identity.

.....................

Michéa on the trap of individualism:

The advent of the individual was simultaneously the best guarantee for henceforth globalized instrumental systems - economic, financial, techno-scientific - of being able to deploy at will complex networks against which individuals, but also communities and states, find themselves politically and ethically helpless.

....................

"But what I fear, what even today one could grasp with one’s hands if one felt like grasping it, is that we modern men are pretty much on the same road; and every time man starts to discover the extent to which he is playing a role and the extent to which he can be an actor, he becomes an actor... With this, a new human flora and fauna emerges that cannot grow in firmer and more limited ages – or that would at least be formally condemned and suspected of lacking honour; it is thus that the most interesting and maddest ages always emerge, in which ‘the actors’, all types of actors, are the real masters. Precisely because of this, another human type becomes ever more disadvantaged and is finally made impossible; above all, the great ‘architects’: the strength to build is now paralysed; the courage to make far-reaching plans is discouraged; the organizational geniuses become scarce – who still dares to undertake works that would require millennia to complete? For what is dying out is that fundamental faith on the basis of which someone could calculate, promise, anticipate the future in a plan on that grand scale, and sacrifice the future to his plan – namely, the basic faith that man has worth and sense only in so far as he is a stone in a great edifice; to this end he must be firm above all, a ‘stone’... above all not an actor! To put it briefly – oh, people will keep silent about it for a long time! – what from now on will never again be built, can never again be built, is – a society in the old sense of the term; to build that, everything is lacking, mainly the material. We are all no longer material for a society; this is a timely truth! It is a matter of indifference to me that at present the most shortsighted, perhaps the most honest, at any rate the noisiest human type that we have today – our good socialists – believe, hope, dream, and above all shout and write pretty much the opposite." -Friedrich Nietzsche

........................

" the organized nation can only be a nation where class differences have been eliminated in a real way, not by pious wishes, because such differences automatically presuppose tensions, harmful to National Harmony. " "

- François Duprat, revolutionary nationalist manifesto

.......................

We have been unable to preserve our own historicocultural character in the face of the machine and its fateful onslaught. Rather, we have been routed. We have been unable to take a considered stand in the face of this contemporary monster. So long as we do not comprehend the real essence, basis, and philosophy of Western civilization, only aping the West outwardly and formally (by consuming its machines), we shall be like the ass going about in a lion's skin. We know what became of him. Although the one who created the machine now cries out that it is stifling him, we not only fail to repudiate our assuming the garb of machine tenders, we pride ourselves on it. For two hundred years we have resembled the crow mimicking the partridge (always supposing that the West is a partridge and we are a crow). So long as we remain consumers, so long as we have not built the machine, we remain occidentotic. Our dilemma is that once we have built the machine, we will have become mechanotic, just like the West, crying out at the way technology and the machine have stampeded out of control.

Jalal Al-e Ahmad, Occidentosis: A Plague From the West, Mizan Press (1984), p. 31

....................

What is Creativity?

Kim Jong Il said:
"Creativity is an attribute of social man who transforms the world and shapes his destiny purposefully and consciously."

Creativity is one of the essential attributes of man, social being.

With creativity man transforms nature and society to be more useful and beneficial to him by changing the old and creating the new.

Creativity is an attribute of transforming things and phenomena of the world actively, purposefully, and consciously in conformity with man’s independent desire and demand.

Monkeys or chimpanzees get their food with stones and sticks and beavers make embankments to protect their nests with trees. Their behaviors are only the blind activities based on their instinct and therefore, there are no changes in their activities in the past and at present. However, man not only utilizes phenomena as they are but utilizes them by transforming the world actively, purposefully and consciously in conformity with his will and demand.

Creativity is an attribute of creating the new.

The most important characteristic of man’s activities is not the partial reproduction or change but the creation of the new that does not exist in ready-made forms.

Thanks to man’s creative activity of creating the new he can create the new things, the artificial things which can never be done by the nature itself. By doing so man expands ceaselessly his domination over the world.

Like this man becomes a being with creativity, the creative being because he transforms things and phenomena in the world in conformity with his demand and creates the new.

That man has creativity means that he has creative capability to transform nature and society in conformity with his will and demand. With creative capability he becomes the most powerful being in the world and makes creative activities of transforming nature and society to be more useful and beneficial to him.

Creative capability includes scientific and technological knowledge, experience and skill.

Scientific and technological knowledge is a social consciousness that reflects the essence and law of things and phenomena, methods and means to change them. By virtue of scientific and technological knowledge man can make creative activities of liquidating the old and creating the new. Of course man’s creative activities of liquidating the old and creating the new have relations with experience and skills. However, man plays no more decisive role than scientific knowledge.

In this respect, the main factor determining man’s creativity is said to be scientific and technological knowledge, which is, so to speak, creative capability of man.

........................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 33

Globalization encompasses three institutions: global financial markets and transnational companies, national governments linked to each other in economic and military alliances led by the United States, and rising "global governments" such as World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, and World Bank.
Charles Derber argues in his book People Before Profit, "These interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized, taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and international bodies". Titus Alexander argues that this system institutionalises global inequality between western countries and the Majority World in a form of global apartheid, in which the IMF is a key pillar.

The establishment of globalised economic institutions has been both a symptom of and a stimulus for globalisation. The development of the World Bank, the IMF regional development banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and multilateral trade institutions such as the WTO signals a move away from the dominance of the state as the exclusive unit of analysis in international affairs. Globalization has thus been transformative in terms of a reconceptualising of state sovereignty

Derber, Charles (2002). People Before Profit. New York: Picador.

Alexander, Titus (1996). Unravelling Global Apartheid: an overview of world politics. Polity press. pp. 127–133.

..................

“In all of Europe, in the whole world, political power is at the service of high finance and banking, it submits to the abject impositions of thieves and fraudsters working together in legal consortium. Not even in the worst times of barbarism and slave trade were human beings trafficked with such cold cruelty. Nations are put on the market. Public life exists only as a filthy commerce practiced within the confines of sterile institutions and hollow laws.”

- Gabriele D’Annunzio in an address to his Arditi, Fiume, 1920

...............

October 20th, marks the anniversary of Gaddafi’s assassination. Let us recall the words of his will and testament:

I call on my supporters to continue the resistance, and fight any foreign aggressor against Libya, today, tomorrow and always.

Let the free people of the world know that we could have bargained over and sold out our cause in return for a personal secure and stable life. We received many offers to this effect but we chose to be at the vanguard of the confrontation as a badge of duty and honour.

Even if we do not win immediately, we will give a lesson to future generations that choosing to protect the nation is an honour and selling it out is the greatest betrayal that history will remember forever despite the attempts of the others to tell you otherwise.

..............

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 32

They quickly forgot that Karl Marx already condemned the unfair competition that immigrant workers represented for the autochthonous proletariat: according to him, immigration was “the reserve army of capital.” In the 1950s, the Communist Party, denouncing contraception and abortion as “bourgeois vices” at the same time, didn’t reason any differently: internationalism and cosmopolitanism were not synonyms in their eyes. Jean-Claude Michéa repeats it today: globalization is nothing other than the planetary extension of a speculative and deterritorialized capitalism of which peoples are paying the price. Don't forget, either, the stances of André Gérin, former communist mayor of Vénissieux (“Immigration is not an opportunity for France.”) or the stances of the communist union leader Jacques Nikonoff, former president of ATTAC (“We must stop immigration and organize repatriation on a voluntary basis”), nor, of course, the letter addressed by Georges Marchais to the rector of the Paris mosque in 1981, an era where the FN was still only a groupuscule: “The crisis point has been reached. I'll make it clear: we must stop clandestine and official immigration.”

A key figure in this regard: according to an IFOP poll last January, 51% of Mélenchon voters find that the immigration rate in France is too high, against only 31% among Emmanuel Macron's voters. One in two! Actually, it's not a secret for anyone that La France insoumise has two entirely different electorates. That's what explains the decreasingly muted war being waged in its ranks by the libertarian progressives of the Danièle Obono or Clémentine Autain type, and the advocates of a real left wing populism.

Alain de Benoist

...................

Friedrich Engels, excerpt from "On Authority." 1874.

"Had the autonomists contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."

.......................

....................

“Liberalism, then, drives the attempt to displace the heterosexual norm....liberalism defines people as simply property-owners, narcissistic self-owners, choosers and consumers.

Liberalism...denies the importance of relationships. Thereby it encourages the undoing of community, locality and beauty – and also marriage and the family.

And there is, naturally, money to be made out of all this. Husbands, wives, children and adolescents (this last an invention of the market) are more effective and exploitable consumers when they are isolated.

Fluctuating identities and fluid preferences, including as to sexual orientation, consume still more, more often and more variously in terms of products and services.” - John Milbank

..................

Europe as far as Vladivostok: The Minimum Size

The nation-state, if it wants to be independent, is obliged to have adequate military means. The possession of this means depends on demography, autarky for raw materials, and the industrial power of the state. Between Iceland and Vladivostok we can unite 800 million people (enough to balance the 1.2 billion Chinese) and also we find with Siberian oil, all that is necessary to satisfy our energy and strategic needs.

I affirm that, from the economic point of view, Siberia is the most necessary province for the viability of the European Empire.

A great union between Western Europe, highly industrialized and at the forefront of technology, and Siberian Europe, full of nearly inexhaustible energy resources, will permit the creation of a very powerful republican Empire, with which everyone will find an accord.

- Jean Thiriart

.................

18th of August, 1941

Dear Fritz, dear Liesel, dear Boys! […] It is not Russianism that will bring about the destruction of the earth but Americanism, not just the English but all of Europe has fallen prey to it as it represents modernity in its monstrosity.

—Martin Heidegger

...................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 31

...............................

The idea that what defines me as a man or woman is not so much my anatomical or biological particularities but my personal “feeling” only constitutes, of course, one development among others of this ideology of “it’s my choice” - with its little “Sartre for dummies” twist - which defines the essence of cultural liberalism (while the binary left-right divide remains the only thing whose “deconstruction” is forbidden).

Jean-Claude Michéa, interviewed in Le Figaro September 19th

.......................

........................

"Utopian writing began to express this dream of a marvelous new world in which science and technology conquer all problems, and man becomes a new Adam, living in a paradise on Earth. For the Christian the basic problem and roadblock is sin; for the scientific utopian, the basic problem is insufficient science and technology. As science and technology develop, all man's problems will disappear.

In the Soviet Union especially, science fiction became the expression of this hope. Science cannot fail; technology will overcome all problems. The future will see communism triumph because it is scientific, and it avails itself of every instrument of science to create the perfect future for man. For Communist science fiction, there is no failure, only the steady triumph of scientific socialism. In the United States, many science fiction writers are beginning to see sin in man's future destroying or misusing all the powers opened up by science and technology to create a hell on earth. The result is a vision of the future filled with great horrors and no faith. The American perspective is half-humanistic; it sees science as a new god and able to create almost at will. But the American perspective is also half-Christian; it sees science as also subject to original sin and thus able to use its powers to unleash fearful calamities and destruction. The Soviet Communist is forbidden to doubt the future; it is a question of science and controls, not a question of religion. The American still sees the scientist producing science; he sees the men behind science and is distrustful of man. The American is ready to believe in sin and depravity but not in salvation."

Excerpt from 'Law and Liberty'(1984) by R.J. Rushdoony

.................................

Between Fiume and Moscow there is an ocean of shadows. Yet Fiume and Moscow are two luminous banks. We must, as quickly as possible, erect a bridge between these two banks.

Mario Carli, Italian Futurist poet

..................................

"All thinking appeals to authority, and the question to ask of any man or of any philosophy or religion, is simply this: "What is its authority?" To what does it appeal as the foundation, the basis, of its thinking?

In any system of thought, authority is inescapable. In this respect, every religion, political faith, philosophy, and science is authoritarian. Each appeals to a basic and ultimate authority, to God or man, to the individual or to people in the mass, to reason or to experience; whatever the case may be, something is the underlying authority in every system of thought.

No man can escape the problem of authority. Every man will consciously or unconsciously appeal to some authority as basic and ultimate to life. Most authorities revered by men today are human authorities: the individual, the people, the elite thinkers and planners, science, reason, or the state, these are all humanistic authorities.

When a man's authorities are of this world, then man is in danger. These authorities are then not only ultimate, they are also proximate or present. They stand right over him with all their imposing claims, and, because they occupy the same ground man does, they limit and destroy the liberty of man.

Two things of the same world cannot occupy the same point in time and space. If a man's gods or authorities are of this world, they will insist on occupying his place in time and space, and the result is the enslavement and eviction of man from his due liberties and station in life. A man cannot compete with his authorities, with his gods; they are by his own recognition above and over him. If a man's gods are of this world, and if they are man-made and humanistic, they know only one realm to occupy, man's realm. This is why anarchism and democracy, while professing to exalt man, end by oppressing him. This too, is why humanistic science, while claiming to serve man, ends by using man as its experimental test animal, its guinea pig.

Behind every system of law there is a god. To find the god in any system, locate the source of law in that system. If the source of law is the individual, then the individual is the god of that system. If the source of law is the people, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, then these things are the gods of those systems. If our source of law is a court, then the court is our god. If there is no higher law beyond man, then man is his own god, or else his creatures, the institutions he has made, have become his gods. When you chose your authority, you choose your god, and where you look for your law, there is your god.

Just as it is impossible for man to live without authority, so it is impossible for man to live without law. Moreover, every honest system of law will openly avow its basic authority and disavow every other authority. Every law presupposes a basic authority, and the ultimate authority of every system of thought is the god of that system."

Excerpt from 'Law and Liberty'(1984) by R.J. Rushdoony

...........................

"it is only when our people are educated in the history of its own struggle and traditions, that its national pride can be stimulated and that the broad masses will be encouraged to the revolutionary struggle"
- Kim he sung

..............................

" the communist, who is internationalist, can he at the same time be patriot?
We think not only can he, but must. " "
- Mao Zedong

..........................

Alain de Benoist on the European Union and the future of Europe

from an interview with the Italian site Girodivite:

Europe isn't doing too well … How to heal it?

Let's stop speaking of “Europe” when we want to speak about the European Union already! Europe is a bimillennial civilizational, historic, and geographic reality. The European Union is a recent institutional creation, which is entirely different. Moreover one of the criticisms that one can make about the European Union could be having discredited Europe in a way. “Europe” appeared as a solution to nearly all problems a few decades ago. Today, it has become a problem that adds itself to the others.

That said, it's true that the European Union isn't doing well. It's the least one can say. I'm not a doctor and I don't have the solution to “heal” it. If the remedy existed, it would have been discovered a long time ago. But at least one can seek to establish a diagnosis. The European Union constructed itself in spite of common sense from the beginning. It privileged commerce and finance in relation to politics and culture, while it should have done the opposite. It constructed itself starting from the top, while it should have constructed itself from the bottom, with respect to the principle of subsidiarity. It established itself without consulting the peoples (and the rare times where it did so, they didn't take their opinions into account). It enlarged itself too rapidly, at the risk of becoming ungovernable. It was incapable of fixing its own geopolitical limits and even of determining its reason to exist. Instead of desiring to create a power, it desired to create a zone of free exchange and a market. It endowed itself with a single currency by willingly ignoring the structural differences existing in the different member states. Finally, it proved itself to be incapable of facing the migratory challenge. The result is that it is powerless today, almost bankrupt and nearly totally paralyzed.

Facing this situation, there are two possible solution: retreat to the scale of nations or the creation of “another Europe.” The second is my pious wish today. The first has the advantage of preserving at a lesser level things that cannot exist on a greater level, but it doesn't resolve another problem, namely the need to have a power on a continental level allowing us to exist in a multipolar world.

Today the new element is that the European Union is in the process of breaking up. The establishment of the Euro already created a North – South disconnection, between the “rich” countries of the northern part and the “poor” southern countries, who have suffered the full force of the dramatic consequences of liberal austerity programs. The migratory crisis now reveals a second disconnection, no longer between North and South, but between East and West, because the partisans of a return to borders rally around the countries of the Visegrád group today. I have a hard time seeing the European Union survive this double rupture. Likewise, “Euroscepticism” is rising everywhere, to such a point that one asks oneself if it won't be in the majority following the next European elections. So things are in the process of moving substantially. We are only at the start of a process.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 30

.................

"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country.

Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.

From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily."

- His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
.....................

.....................

"Middle class, middle man, incapable of great virtue or great vice: and there would be nothing wrong with that if only he would be willing to remain as such; but when his childlike or feminine tendency to camouflage pushes him to dream of grandeur, honors, and thus riches, which he cannot achieve honestly with his own 'second-rate' powers, then the average man compensates with cunning, schemes, and mischief; he kicks out ethics and becomes a bourgeois. The bourgeois is the average man who does not accept to remain such and who, lacking the strength sufficient for the conquest of essential values - those of the spirit - opts for material ones, for appearances."

Paravese, Roberto (1939) 'Bonifica antiborghese', in Edgardo Sulis (ed.), Processo alla borghesia, Roma: Edizioni Roma, pp.51 - 70.

..................

..................
What’s the purpose of militancy? Rarely to advance the cause one defends, but before all to shape oneself. To endow oneself with a character. To structure oneself, physically and mentally. Militancy is a school. Militancy is a giving of oneself. But it also can be an alienation. Each time it prevents one from thinking for himself it alienates. [...] It allows one to acquire an armor, but one can forget that the cuirass is not the body. There is an enormous difference between the engaged spirit and the partisan spirit. Even in the service of the best of causes, a partisan spirit is never a free spirit. The important thing is to engage oneself full time, with self detachment. The priority is always beyond one’s self.

Alain de Benoist, ID magazine (n° 9 - spring 2007)

................

.........................

.................

.....................

......................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 29

...............

"However, Israel continued the war, with Syria becoming the prime target of its military thrust. These military operations exposed in an especially revealing manner the Israeli government's perfidy, and unmasked Israel's real face as an aggressor. It became clear to us that the main objective of Israel and the imperialist circles which supported it, was the liquidation of all the revolutionary governments in the Arab world..."
―Leonid Brezhnev, On Soviet Policy Following the Israeli Aggression in the Middle East (1967) 

....................

Communists want to end private property, but that doesn't mean anyone is coming for your tooth brush.
....................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 28

How disgraceful it is that money owed over rent has risen to 200million and 30 percent of all private tenants are in debt over rent arrears. How shocking it iscouncil´s have hundreds of million s in financial black holes, with all constituencies including rural ones have up to 10,000 on their housing waiting list. Even with homelessness rising, it has became illegal to rough sleep, beg or be homeless. How sick this Globalist and treacherous regime is...

Dion Gibbs, BPWP

...................

...................

" I believe the National-Bolshevism is the most perfect eschatological formulation of the traditional idea taken in its most paradoxical and interesting version. The National-Bolshevism is the least pragmatic ideology, the least modern in the negative sense among all the those I know.

In fact, talking about the most distant and healthy tradition, I believe in the current circumstances, that a myth myth or a comforting thesis for misfits or incapable.

If we are truly rooted in the world tradition, we are forced to commit suicide or to move on to the offensive. We have to throw bombs, kill enemies, engage in active and totally subversive politics, otherwise we just dream."


Alexander dugin

.................

“To argue that the workers’ movement can be independent of the nation’s life and destiny is to say that it does not matter what range of forces and means of action it has at its disposal.”

Brzozowski continues:

“To renounce one’s national existence is to give up hope of influencing human reality: it means destroying one’s own soul, for the soul lives and acts only through the nation….A man without a country is a soul without a substance.”

It appears that for Brzozowski to deracinate a people, especially the working class, from their historic community is to deprive them of an essential means of being:


“We cannot communicate with anyone except through the nation. There is no road to life except through that body spirit by which we are sustained and exalted….Poland, our language and soul are not accidental figures of inanimate, uncaring nature: they are a great reality in their own right…”

Donald Perkins

......................

"With regard to our ideology, here I would like to bring more clarity. As I said, we adhere to the principles of freedom, justice, conscience, and equality. Freedom is a cornerstone value for the people and the state. For the people and the state, it is a matter of sovereignty and independence, i.e. the right to take decisions about their fate. But freedom does not equal permissiveness. Human freedom of the people and the state may restrict the freedom of certain persons, the people and the state must be respected as well as their own. Therefore, the concept of freedom for us is inextricably linked with the concept of order. Freedom is something that is worth fighting for and worth dying for. The freedom of Donbass! That is a slogan that motivated volunteers in the fight."
Alexander Zakharchenko

.........................

...............

..................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 27

...............

"If one man smites you on the cheek, don’t turn the other soft and meek, but smash him back and lay him low, war for war, and woe for woe."

"Let no wrong go unavenged."

- Ragnar Redbeard

Alexander Zakharchenko, Rest in Power.

.......................

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 26

.............

Yesterday, 49 years ago, a young Muammar Gaddafi inspired by great revolutionaries and his own forefathers' anticolonial struggle led the "Free Officers" to overthrow a comprador monarchy to join the United Arab Republic. The UAR was the boldest international step of Arab unity- to unite Arab states under a single Republican nationalist government with participants/desiring applicants often not geographically adjacent. Egypt as the heart- Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, and later Libya as participants or aspiring members. Libya was immediately ready to join the UAR, an event postponed and later canceled by Gamal Abdel Nasser's tragic passing and Sadat the traitor's treason.

Al Fatah Revolution set the tone for Libya's policy, followed by the confiscation of the largest western imperialist military bases in the world, the expulsion of imperialist troops, nationalization programs, land redistribution for the laborers and peasants, huge infrastructure projects using profits from natural wealth, the establishment of cooperatives, anti-imperialist alignment, and representation of the Arab cause.

In 1977, Libya underwent a thoroughly-planned transformation from a republic into a "Jamaahiriyyah", or "state of the masses". This incorporated a system of popular committees and conferences, open to all Libyan citizens, to formulate and discuss policies from local expenditure to education to use of oil revenue to international relations- effectively making Libya a direct democracy- a feat even admitted by the New York Times just two years before the savage international war of terror launched against the Great Jamaahiriyyah.

No parties, no influence of capital on politics, and "no government also". Libya became the biggest supporter of national liberation movements across the world- from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and underground Filipino communists to the most uncompromising Palestinian guerrillas to Angola to anti-Shah movements in Iran to the brave Irish Republicans and the Sandinistas. Wherever an anti-colonial/anti-reactionary struggle was found, the helping hand of Libya was also found- public, financial, and material support.

Despite international pressure, western economic sanctions, multiple CIA and MI6 hatched coup and assassination attempts, the revolution remained strong and true. Africa's most blossoming jewel, the Arab world's most principled state- father and brother to all anti-imperialist liberation fighters, and the torch-bearer of Nasser's legacy.

The supporters of independence will never forget the name "Muammar Abu Minyar al Qaddafi" The Green struggle lives on in the hearts of millions. As anti-imperialists, it is our duty to support the last of the unwavering Arab Nationalists by standing with the progressive Baathist government of Syria led by President Dr. Bashar al-Assad!

Join us: Pan-African Renaissance comrade Abdur-Rahman

.......................

The Metaphysics of Bolshevism

The term “bolshevism” has at first appeared, as it is well known, during the discussions in RSDRP (Russian Social Democratic Labour (Worker’s) Party) as a definition for the fraction, which took the part of Lenin. Let us remind, that Lenin’s policy in Russian Social Democracy consisted in the unlimited radicalism orientation, compromise refusal, accentage on the elite character of the party and on “Blankism” (the theory of a “revolutionary conspiracy”). Later the people who did the October Revolution and seized the power in Russia were called “bolsheviks”. Almost immediately after the revolution the term “bolshevism” has lost it’s limited meaning and has become to be perceived as a synonym for the “majority”, “all-national policy”, “national integration” (“bolshevik” can be approximately translated from Russian as a ‘representative of the majority’) . At a certain stage the “bolshevism” was perceived as purely Russian, national version of communism and socialism, opposed to the abstract dogmatics of the abstract Marxists and, simultaneously, to the conformist tactics of other social-democratic trends). Such interpretation of “bolshevism” was, at large degree, characteristical for Russia and almost exclusively dominated in the West. However the mentioning of “bolshevism” in a combination with a term “national-bolshevism” is not limited to these historical sense. The question is about a certain policy, which is common for all the radical left tendencies of the socialist and communist nature. We may call this policy “radical”, “revolutionary”, “anti-liberal”. The aspect of the left teachings, which Popper reckons in the “totalitarian ideologies” or in the teachings of the “enemies of the open society” is meant here. Thus, “bolshevism” is not just a consequence of the Russian mentality influence on a social-democratic doctrine. It’s a certain component which is constantly present in all the leftist philosophy, which could develop freely and openly only in Russian conditions.

In these latter days the most objective historians more and more often raise a question: “And whether the fascist ideology is really “right”? And the presence of such a doubt, naturally, points to an opportunity of interpretation of “fascism” as a more complex phenomenon, possessing a great deal of typically “left” features. As far as we know, the symmetric question - “And whether the communist ideology is really a “left” one?” - is not raised yet. But this question is more and more urgent. It is necessary to raise it.

It’s difficult to deny the authentically “left” features in communism - such as the appeal to rationality, progress, humanism, equalitarianism and etc. But alongside with it, it has the aspects, which unequivocally drop out of a framework of the “left”, and are associated with a sphere of irrational (surd ?), mythological, archaic, anti-humanist and totalitarian. It is this set of “right” components in the communist ideology is what should be named “bolshevism” in the most common sense. Already in Marxism itself its two ingredient parts looked like rather doubtful, from the authentically “left” progressivist thinking point of view. It’s the heritage of the utopian socialists and Hegelianism. Only the Feyerbach`s ethics drops out of this “bolshevik” in its essence Marx’s ideological construction, giving to all the discourse a certain terminological coloring of humanism and progressivism.

The utopian socialists, which were undoubtedly included by Marx in a number of his predecessors and teachers, are the representatives of a specific mystical messianism and forerunners of the “Golden Age” return. Practically, all of them were the members of esoterical societies, inside which an atmosphere of radical mysticism, Eschatology and apocaliptical apticipations prevailed. This world was a mix of some sectant, occult and religious motives, the sense of which was reduced to the following scheme: “The modern world is hopelessly bad, it has lost it’s sacred dimension. Religious institutes have degraded and have lost God’s blessing (the theme which is common for extreme Protestant sects, “Anabaptists” and Russian old-believers). The world is ruled by evil, materialism, deception, lies, selfishness. But the initiated ones do know about a soon upcoming of a new golden age and promote this upcoming with the enigmatic rituals and occult actions.”

The utopia socialists reproduced this common for western messianist esoterism motive on the social reality and gave to a coming gold century the social and political features. Certainly, there was a point of the eschatological myth rationalization in it, but at the same time, the supernatural character of the coming Kingdom, Regnum, is obviously seen in their social programs and manifestos, in which one could easily detect a mention of future communist society wonders( navigation on dolphins, weather operation, common wives, peoples flights in air etc. ). Absolutely obvious, that this policy has almost traditional character; and such radical eschatological mysticism, idea of return to the Beginning, makes it absolutely logic to name this not just a “right“ component, but even “extremely right“.

Now what regards Hegel and his dialectics. It’s widely known that the political beliefs of the philosopher himself were extremely reactionary. But this is not the point. If we study Hegel’s dialectics more closely, to his philosophy base method (and it was the dialectical method what Marx borrowed from Hegel at a greater degree), we shall see a concrete exactly traditionalist and also eschatological doctrine, using some specific terminology. Moreover, this methodology reflects a structure of the initiatic, esoterical approach to the gnoseological problems, apart from just profane, every day logic of Decart and Kant, who relied on “common sense”, gnoseological specifications of a “every day consciousness”, which, as we notice a propos, all the liberals and Karl Popper in particular are the apologets of.

Hegel`s philosophy of a history is a traditional myth version, integrated with purely Christian teleology. The Absolute Idea is alienated from itself and becomes the world (Let’s recollect Koranic formula: “Allah was a hidden treasure, which has wished to be learned”.).

Being incarnated throughout the history, the Absolute Idea affects the people from the outside, as a “ruse of the World Intellect“, predetermining the providential character of tissue of events. But finally, by means of Lord’s Son advent, the apocaliptical perspective of the Absolute Idea total realization unveils itself on the subjective level, which due to this becomes “objective” instead of “subjective”. “The Being and the Idea become one.“. Atman coincides with Brahman. And it takes place in a certain chosen Kingdom, in an empire of the End, which German nationalist Hegel identified with Prussia.

The Absolute Idea is the thesis; its alienation throughout the history is the antithesis; its realization in the eschatological Kingdom is the synthesis.

The Hegel`s gnoseology is based on such vision of the ontology. Apart from the usual rationality, based on the laws of the formal logic, operating only with the positive statements, limited by the actual cause-and-result relations, Hegel`s “new logic “, takes into account the special ontological dimension, integrated with potential aspect of a thing, inaccessible to “every day consciousness “, but actively used by mystical schools of Paracels, Boehme, Hermetists and Rosicrucians. The fact of a subject or statement (to which Kantian “every day” gnoseology is reduced)is for Hegel just one of three hypostacies. The Second Hypostacy is the “denying” of this fact, and interpreted not as pure nothing (as the formal logic sees it), but as a special superintellectual modality of existence of a thing or a statement. The First Hypostacy is Ding fuer uns ( “a thing for us “ ); The Second is Ding an sich ( “ a thing in self “ ). But apart from Kant`s vision, “the thing in self “ is interpreted not as something transcendent and purely apophatic, not as gnoseological non-being, but as the gnoseological in-other-way-being. And both these relative Hypostacies result in the Third one, which is the synthesis, embracing both statement and denying, the thesis and antithesis. Thus if one considers the process of thinking consistently, the synthesis occurs after “denying”, as the second denying, i.e. “ Denying of denying “. In synthesis both the statement and denial are taken. The thing co-exists in it with its own death, which is evaluated in special ontological and gnoseological view not as emptiness, but as the in-other-way-being of life, as the soul. The Kantian gnoseological pessimism, the root of liberal meta-ideology, overturns, unveils as “thoughtlessness”, and Ding an sich ( “ the thing in self “ ) becomes Ding fuer sich ( “ a thing for self “ ). The reason of the world and the world itself are combined in the eschatological synthesis, where existence and non-existance are both present, without excepting one another. The Earthly Kingdom of the End, ruled by the initiated ones` cast ( the ideal Prussia), is integrated with the descending New Jerusalem. The end of a history and era of Holy Spirit comes.

This eschatological messianist scenario, having been borrowed by Marx, was applied to a little bit different sphere, to the sphere of the industrial relations. Interesting, why he did so? The usual “rights” explain it “by the lack of the idealism“ or “his rough nature“ ( if not by the subversive intentions). Surprisingly foolish explanation, which, nevertheless, is popular with several generations of reactionaries. What is most likely, Marx , who used to closely study English political economics, was shocked by similarities between the liberal theories of Adam Smith, who saw the history as progressive movement towards the open market society and universalization of a material monetary common denominator and Hegel*s concepts concerning the historical antithesis, i.e. the Absolute Idea alienation throughout the history. Marx has genially identified the maximum Absolute self-alienation with Capital, the social formation, which actively submitted the Europe, contemporary to him.

The capitalism structure analysis, its development history gave Marx the knowledge of the alienation mechanics, the alchemical formula of its functioning rules. And this mechanics comprehension, the “formulas of the antithesis “ were just the first and necessary condition for the Great Restoration or the Last Revolution. For Marx the Kingdom of coming communism was not just the progress, but the result the turn-over, “revolution” in the etimological sense of this word. Not accident, that he calls the initial stage of the humankind development the “cave communism“. The thesis is the “cave communism“, the antithesis is the Capital, the synthesis is the world communism. The communism is synonymous to the End of History, the era of the Holy Spirit. The materialism and accentuating the economy and industrial relations, testify not about Marx’s interests practicism, but about his aspiration to the magical transformation of the reality and radical refusal from compensatory dreams of those irresponsible dreamers, who just aggravate the element of alienation by their inactiveness. According to such a logic, the medieval alchemists could be reproached with the “materialism” and hunger for profit, if one does not take into account the deeply spiritual and initiatic symbolism, hidden behind their discourses about the urine distillation, obtaining gold, conversion of minerals into metals etc.

It is this Gnostic tendency of Marx and his predecessors was applied by the Russian bolsheviks, who were raised up in an environment, where the enigmatic forces of Russian sects, mysticism, national messiaism, secret societies and passionate romantic characters of Russian rebels were being summoned against the alienated, temporal, degraded monarchic regime. “Moscow - Third Rome, Russian people is the God carrier, the nation of the All-man. Russia is destined to rescue the world. All those ideas impregnated Russian life, which had it in common with the esoterical plots incorporated in the Marxism. But apart from purely spititualistic formulas, the Marxism offered economic, social and political strategy, which clear and concrete, clear even to the simple person and giving basis for social and political measures.

It was just the “right Marxism“ that triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of “bolshevism”. But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least “modern” (“alienated from the Spirit“) and, correspondingly, the most “conservative”, the most “right” peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, “bolshevik” essence in the communism.

The national-bolshevism takes turn of just such bolshevik tradition, the policy of the “ right communism “, which was originated by the ancient initiatic societies and spiritual doctrines in remote ages. Thus the economic aspect of communism is not diminished, is not denied, but is considered as a gear of the teurgic, magic practice, as a particular tool of a reality transformation. The only thing that should be rejected here is an inadequate, historically exhausted Marxism discourse in which the accidental, inherent to the past epoch, humanist and progressist themes are often present.

The Marxism of the national-bolsheviks means Marx minus Feurbach, i. e. minus evolutionism and sometimes appearing inertial humanism.
-Metaphysics of National Bolshevism

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 25

......................

"Such theoreticians in France, inside and outside the Communist Party, could have no idea of the value of art based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism. The purpose of these elements was to separate art and literature from politics and ideology, of course, proletarian politics and the Marxist ideology. They struggled to clear the way for the spread of bourgeois ideology and politics, for the development of decadent art, psychoanalysis, sexual and crime novels, so that the markets, bookshops, show-cases, theaters and cinemas would be filled with such works." - Enver Hoxha (Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism)

........................

”It is interesting to note that the "sexual revolution" was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word "household" suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.”

Michel Houellebecq, The Elementary Particles

.......................

The only thing that kept this „ressentiment criticism‟2 from becoming cynical was its self-annulling aversion from practical life and power. This changes with second generation Kritische Theorie, in which the demoralizing self-interest in the rat race of career critics prevails over the cultivation of a feeling of injustice. (CCR xxxv-vi) The real object of Sloterdijk‟s diagnosis is therefore the pragmatic nihilism of a „pseudo-critique‟ which has wilfully lost its innocence and compensates for its own bad conscience with an ever higher level of reflectivity or artfulness. Its point of view remains that of unhappy consciousness, but its ressentiment is now „reflexively buffered‟ (CCR 5), such that, in the form of a cynical alliance of rationalism and ressentiment typical of „Christian-bourgeois-capitalist schizophrenias‟ (CCR 107), it effectively perverts the imperative of sapere aude: „Only in the form of derision and renunciation do references to the ideals of a humane culture still seem bearable. Cynicism, as enlightened false consciousness, has become a hard-boiled, shadowy cleverness that has split courage off from itself, holds anything positive to be fraud, and is intent only on somehow getting through life.‟3

Sloterdijk.

Home Schooling: An Act of Revolution

It is a sad fact that the world we live in is not what we have been taught to accept it to be.  The democratic system ensures that power is kept from the people (just look at the Referendum on EU membership, which is not only being ignored, but overturned); the Health Service keeps people sick (look at the promotion of Trans-gender surgery, rather than mental health care for what is in many cases a fad), whilst legally pushing drugs on us which only benefit the pharmaceutical corporations; the Law protects the real criminals; the Police are the most violent corrupt scum in all of society; liberalism enforces illiberal thought; and the Education System exists to keep knowledge away from the people, leaving those exposed to it equipped only to serve as fodder for the economic system and its military apparatus.

In place of the toxic health service, there is alternative medicine and decent non-GM, non-doctored food.  In place of the tyranny of liberalism, there is freedom of thought and the will to say no to the harmonising bigots.  In place of the Law and its Police thugs, there is community cooperation and street level discipline.  But above all, the most important part of our struggle, is to keep our children free from the mendacious poison of the School System.

Home Schooling requires dedication.  Sending a child to school opens up time for oneself, and for the day-to-day tasks of housework, shopping etc.  Having a child to teach, reduces the time, and opportunity, to complete everyday chores; having more than one child, of course, reduces time further.  Home Schooling is not easy.  Home Schooling is tiring, and requires a shift in attitude and focus.  Education Inspectors have to be satisfied that the child is being educated to a level appropriate to age, and this requires the collation of a vast amount of evidence.  Lessons have to be structured, although they do not have to be restricted to a classroom, and of course the factory-focused rigid time slots of conventional schooling do not have to be adopted.

Home Schooling is hard, but rewarding.  Your child does not have to be exposed to paedophile pro-trans, pro-promiscuous sex education.  You can teach your child to question all information, and to seek real knowledge, rather than to accept the lies which are presented as 'history', 'citizenship' and other subjects.  You can arm your child with knowledge from which he or she can see the world through his or her own eyes, and not the blinkers of the Establishment.  One of the greatest advantages is that you can spend quality time with your child and not hand him or her over to a liberal indoctrinator whose aim is to turn your child into an obedient producer-consumer, with no individuality or sense of self respect and purpose.

We are fighting for a future in which the Working Class are free.  What is the point in fighting for freedom, if we fail to protect our children from the enemy in the Establishment?  Home Schooling has become an act of Revolution in these dark times.  We must keep our children safe from the harm of the liberal nightmare, so that when we overthrow it entirely, they are already prepared for the freedom which will come in the new Socialist Republic of the Isles.  We are but a link in a chain, and that chain is under threat.  Protect the chain by taking responsibility for your own flesh and blood.  Do not let the enemy poison your kin.

Home Schooling is one of the most important weapons in our arsenal.  Let us use it to our fullest and build a future Britain of our choosing, not of the globalists.  It isn't an easy path, but its rewards are immeasurable.  Our children are worth the struggle.  Isn't it, after all, for them that we fight?

Defend Children: Defend Childhood

The duty of a Socialist Republic is to defend the most vulnerable, and to do all that can be done to protect the future - the next generation.  Capitalism takes the exact opposite approach, and we have to stop that damage ourselves, and do it now.

Childhood ends as soon as children enter high/secondary school, and parents hand over power to the state and the media. Turn on any radio station which plays 'pop' music, and one finds oneself bombarded with foul lyrics focused on the need to have sex, to be pretty, and to be 'popular' - itself a term used euphemistically to encourage promiscuity.  Television and the film industry ridicule virginity, and promote experimental sex with as many people as possible of both sexes.  Sex education in schools bombards children with pornographic material, backed up with a politically correct message that it is 'healthy' and 'natural' to behave in a manner which totally destroys all self respect and turns the individual into a sexual commodity.

With the constant barrage of propaganda promoting sex as a be-all and end-all for everyone, is it any wonder that children see the act of sex as a way to prove that they are 'grown-ups'?  Pop music aimed at children is replete with lyrics which are often so obscene that cds are accompanied by ludicrous 'parent advisory' warnings; warnings which only serve to make the so-called music more desirable to children who feel the need to rebel.  This, of course, is the whole idea.  The school system condemns children who do not wish to engage in sex acts with anyone and everyone, as bigots.  Children should not be encouraged to have sex with anyone! 

For the hypocrites of the media to gasp in horror at the sexualisation of children, then in the very next moment, promote a film or piece of music which encourages children to adopt the lifestyle of prostitutes, is hypocrisy of such an extreme that it explains how the serial pædophile, Jimmy Savile, was able to go about his evil trade for his entire adult life, with no opposition.

As any parent knows, children copy adults; this is how they learn.  When adults abdicate their responsibilities, leaving children at the mercy of the State and the media, it does not take a genius to know that they will mimic the attitudes and behaviours of those who are presented to them as role models.  Teachers are effectively commissars of liberalism; inculcating the young with the diseased thought of political and social extremists.  Sex education lessons cannot but create a desire to put into practice all which is taught; when lessons teach that transgenderism is real, children will feel compelled to play about with lunatic ideas which cannot lead anywhere except the road to insanity and physical injury. 

Children in the West are under a relentless assault from the media, education system and of course their equally embattled peers, to abandon the innocence of childhood and become depraved sexual beasts.  The only chance for our children to get through this minefield unscathed, is for parents - indeed for all adults - to take responsibility for them.  Children learn to dress inappropriately through watching pop stars on the television - take the television away and should they express a desire to dress in a way which sick paedophiles will take as a green light to attack them, don't let them!  Children become obsessed with sex through listening to degrading music - don't let them!

If possible, home school your children.  Abandoning your children to the Establishment's education system, is tantamount to acquiescing in their brain-washing.  For those who cannot home school, every opportunity must be taken to learn exactly what they are being taught by the mis-educators, and doing everything possible to reverse the damage.

Childhood matters.  Children are the most important people in our society, because they are the future.  Childhood does not end at 12; it is being destroyed by design.  Identifying the instruments of destruction (the State, the media, pop culture, fashion et al) is the key to saving our children.  Once we can see who is damaging our children we can stop them.  There are parents who allow their children to watch television unsupervised, and who do not know what their children are listening to.  This is an outrage and is inexcusable.  If we do not defend our children, then the battle is already lost.

Turn off the television!  Turn off the radio!  Throw the magazines in the bin!  Take responsibility for your children; guiding them away from all harmful influences.  If childhood ends at 12, that is the fault of the parents who have failed to protect their own.  If there is only one aspect of our lives which we refuse to hand over to the enemy, it has to be this one.

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 24

.....................

Another realistic reason why the omnipotence of 'wealth' is more certain in a democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it. - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution)

"Multi-millionaire Julian Dunkerton said he was backing the People's Vote campaign because "we have a genuine chance to turn this around".

Mr Dunkerton said he believes his brand, which he left earlier this year, "would never have become the global success that it did" if Brexit had happened 20 years earlier. His donation, the largest received by the People's Vote, will go towards funding opinion polls.

He added: "I will be paying for one of the most detailed polling exercises ever undertaken by a campaign so that more and more people have the confidence to demand the democratic right for their voice to be heard."
- Donald Perkins

..............................

"Nationalism emerged as a progressive idea along with the formation and development of each nation. However, it was understood in the past as an ideology that defends bourgeois interests. It is true that in the days of the nationalist movement against feudalism, the newly-emergent bourgeoisie, upholding the banner of nationalism, stood in the van of the movement.
At that time, the interests of both the masses of the people and the newly-emergent bourgeoisie were basically coincident in their struggle against feudalism. Therefore, the banner of nationalism seemed to reflect the common interests of the nation. As capitalism developed and the bourgeoisie became the reactionary ruling class after victorious bourgeois revolutions in various countries, nationalism was used as a means of defending the interests of the bourgeois class.

The bourgeoisie disguised their class interests as national interests, and used nationalism as an ideological instrument for solidifying their class domination. This led nationalism to be understood, among the people, as a bourgeois ideology that runs counter to the national interests. We should distinguish clearly between true nationalism that loves the nation and defends its interests and bourgeois nationalism that advocates the interests of the bourgeois class. Bourgeois nationalism reveals itself as national egoism, national exclusivism and big-power chauvinism in the relationship between countries and nations; it is reactionary in that it creates antagonism and disagreement between countries and nations, and checks the development of friendly relations between the various peoples of the world.

The original revolutionary theory of the working class failed to give a correct explanation of nationalism. It paid major attention to strengthening the international unity and solidarity of the working class all over the world-the fundamental problem in the then socialist movement-failing to pay due attention to the national problem. It went so far as to regard nationalism as an anti-socialist ideological trend, because bourgeois nationalism was doing great harm to the socialist movement. This is why progressive people in the past rejected nationalism, considering it incompatible with communism.
It is wrong to view communism as incompatible with nationalism. Communism does not advocate only the interests of the working class; it also advocates the interests of the nation-hence it is an ideology of loving the country and the people. Nationalism is also an ideology of loving the country and the people, as it defends the interests of the country and the nation. Love of the country and the people is an ideological emotion common to communism and nationalism; herein lies the ideological basis on which they can ally with one another. Therefore, there is no reason or ground to pit one against the other, and reject nationalism.

Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations-this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism.
Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation.

For the first time in history, the great leader President Kim Il Sung gave a correct explanation of nationalism, and elucidated the relationship between communism and nationalism and between communists and nationalists in his revolutionary practice of carving out the destiny of his country and people. He said that in order to be a true communist one must first become a true nationalist. With a determination to devote his life to his country and fellow-countrymen, he embarked on the road of revolution in his early years and created the immortal Juche idea, on the basis of which he established a Juche-oriented outlook on the nation, and scientifically expounded the essence and progressive character of nationalism. Through a correct combination of class character with national character and of the destiny of socialism with that of the nation, he realized an alliance between communists and nationalists, cemented the class and national positions of our socialism and led the nationalists to join the efforts for socialist construction and national reunification. Attracted by his broad magnanimity and noble personality, many nationalists took the patriotic road to national unity and national reunification, making a clean break with their erroneous pasts. Kim Ku, a life-long anti-communist, allied with communists, a patriotic changeover, in the twilight of his life, and Choe Tok Sin, a nationalist, was able to find salvation as a patriot in the leader’s embrace. The great leader treasured and championed the independence not only of our nation but also of the peoples of the rest of the world. He devoted all his efforts to the cause of making the whole world independent, as well as to the Korean revolution. We can say that there has been no man in the world as great as him, who devoted his whole life to the nation’s independence and prosperity, and a bright future for mankind. He was the most steadfast communist and, at the same time, a peerless patriot, true nationalist and paragon among internationalists.

I also assert, as the leader instructed, that one must be an ardent patriot, a true nationalist, in order to become a genuine revolutionary, a communist. The communist who fights for the realization of the independence of the masses of the people must first of all be a true nationalist. Those who fight for their people, their country and their homeland are genuine communists, true nationalists and ardent patriots. Those who do not love their own parents, brothers and sisters cannot love their country and compatriots. Likewise, those who do not love their own homeland and people cannot become communists.

We are inheriting with fidelity the great leader’s noble idea of loving the country, the nation and the people, and making every effort to rally all the sections of the nation by dint of all-embracing politics, and lead them to the road of patriotism.

It is not communists but imperialists who oppose nationalism and place obstacles in the way of the independent development of nations at present. The imperialists are manoeuvring cunningly to realize their dominationist ambition on the plea of “globalization” and “integration.” They claim that the ideal of building a sovereign nation-state or the love for country and nation is a “national prejudice lagging behind the times,” and “globalization” and “integration” are the trend of the times in the present situation, when science and technology are developing rapidly and economic exchanges between countries are being conducted briskly on an international scale. Today, when every country and nation is carving out its own destiny with its own ideology, system and culture, there can never be a political, economic, ideological and cultural “integration” of the world. The manoeuvres of the US imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are aimed at turning the world into what they call a “free” and “democratic” world styled after the United States, and thus bringing all countries and nations under their domination and subordination. The present era is one of independence. Human history is propelled by the struggle of the masses of the people for independence, not by the dominationist ambition and aggressive policy of the imperialists. The manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are doomed to failure, as they are opposed by the vigorous efforts of the world’s peoples aspiring after independence.

We should resolutely oppose and reject the manoeuvres of the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration,” and staunchly fight to preserve the excellent characteristics of our nation and safeguard its independence. We frequently emphasize the Korean-nation-first principle so as to preserve the national character and defend the independence of the nation."

- Kim Jong Il, On Having a Correct Understanding of Nationalism

...........................

.......................

For many people, and I believe that we observe it in public politics, the principal frontier that divides our societies, is not the frontier that separates social-democrats and conservatives, but the frontier that separates those on top from the rest of society, the remainder of society that suffers from the neoliberal consensus, from technocratic policies and budget cuts, sometimes applied by the left, sometimes by the right. [...] What’s at stake in our European societies is not so much knowing if the policies of our government will orient themselves a bit to the left or to the right. It’s about a fundamental combat between democracy and oligarchy. And this combat can rally many people who traditionally associate with the values of the right, or conservative values, but who are beginning to see that there’s nothing to hope for from the traditional elites of their countries. [...] Presently, the frontier between democracy and oligarchy is a more radical frontier, which furthermore allows for a much larger majority than the left alone.

« Pour beaucoup de gens, et je crois qu’on l’observe bien dans les politiques publiques, la principale frontière qui divise nos sociétés n’est pas celle qui sépare les sociaux-démocrates et les conservateurs, mais celle qui sépare ceux d’en haut du reste de la société, reste de la société qui souffre du consensus néolibéral, des politiques technocratiques et des coupes budgétaires, appliquées tantôt par la gauche, tantôt par la droite. [...] Ce qui est en jeu dans nos sociétés européennes n’est pas tant de savoir si les politiques de nos gouvernements vont s’orienter un peu plus à gauche ou à droite. Il s’agit d’un combat fondamental entre démocratie et oligarchie. Et ce combat peut rassembler beaucoup de gens qui s’associent traditionnellement aux valeurs de la droite, ou à des valeurs conservatrices, mais qui commencent à percevoir qu’il n’y a rien à espérer des élites traditionnelles de leurs pays. [...] Actuellement, la frontière fondamentale entre démocratie et oligarchie est une frontière plus radicale, qui laisse par ailleurs entrevoir la possibilité d’une majorité bien plus large que celle de la seule gauche. »

(Inigo Errejon, entretien, Le Vent se lève, 16 août 2017)

..........................

“Mussolini is a riddle to me. Many of his reforms attract me. He seems to have done much for the peasant class. I admit an iron hand is there. But as violence is the basis of Western society, Mussolini’s reforms deserve an impartial study. His care of the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about co-ordination between capital and labour, seem to me to demand special attention. … My own fundamental objection is that these reforms are compulsory. But it is the same in all democratic institutions. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini’s implacability is a desire to serve his people. Even behind his emphatic speeches there is a nucleus of sincerity and of passionate love for his people. It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini.”

— Mahatma Ghandi, December 20, 1931

....................................

Otto Strasser on Race:

"Reconstruction, to our minds, could only be brought about on the basis of a new order which would re-establish harmony between capital and labor and between the individual and the community. The word 'harmony' excluded any idea of dictatorship. There would be no dictatorship, either of class or of race." (Hitler and I)

"This advocacy of the idea of the People logically implied the disavowal of any valuation of peoples or nations as good or bad, as better or worse, since they all have equal rights, equal needs, and equal duties, in accordance with the will of the Creator, who gave each of them its own kind, its own nature, and its own tasks. This profound respect for organic life and the fact that it is necessary for us and incumbent on us to recognize and maintain human dignity imply that it will be a non-conditional part of the social and political organization of New Germany to maintain the equal rights of all human beings." (Germany Tomorrow)

Otto Strasser on Anti-Semitism:

"In various parts of my Deutsche Revolution and in numerous articles in the international press I have expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterized the Hitler System; and I may also mention that as early as 1928 in a party periodical, I protested editorially against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of the People!" (Germany Tomorrow)

............................

.........................

The right of self-determination is a way of respecting a nation’s right to live the way it chooses to. Lenin states that this right applied even to the most ‘extreme’ options, including the ‘right to secession’. For this reason, the right of nations to self-determination forms the ‘right to establish a separate state’. This means that even if a majority of a nation now calls to ‘break off from’, i.e. ‘secession’, this right must be recognised. However, Lenin did not want this right because he wanted a separation, but because he wanted to advocate a genuine fraternity and unity among peoples. According to the programme of the Bolsheviks, the solution to the national question was to recognise the right of self-determination, and through this, removing all national privileges under a single state framework as a voluntary union based on equal rights. In order for the peoples to live together, the ‘right to secession’ must be recognised. Prohibition of this right encourages separation. For example, the more the demand of Turkey’s Kurds to have autonomous life is repressed, the more the Kurdish people gain a sense of need for ‘separation’. Therefore, the right of nations to self-determination does not mean to advocate separation but to defend the removal of national privileges and the conditions of voluntary unity.
- Arif KOŞAR, http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 23

......................

In his work ‘Stalin: The Enduring Legacy’ Kerry Bolton highlights the cultural policy of the USSR under Stalin and Zhadanov:

“Andrei Zhadanov, the primary theoretician on culture in Stalinist Russia, was an inveterate opponent of ‘formalism’ and modernism in the arts. ‘Socialist realism’, as Soviet culture was termed from 1932, was formulated that year by Maxim Gorky, head of the Union of Soviet writers. It was heroic, folkish and organic. The individual artist was the conveyor of the folk-soul, in contrast to the art of Western decline, dismissively described in the USSR as ‘bourgeoisie formalism’.”

“While in the West the extreme left and its wealthy patrons championed various forms of modernism, in the USSR they were marginalized at best, resulting in the suicide for example of the Russian ‘Constructivist’ Mayakovsky. The revitalisation of Russian-Soviet art received its primary impetus in 1946 with the launching of Zhadanovschina.”

“The classical composers from the Czarist era, such as Tchaikovsky, Glinka and Borodin, were revived, after being sidelined in the early years of Bolshevism in favour of modernism, as were great non-Russian composers such as Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert…Modernists who had been feted in the early days of Bolshevism, such as the playwright, Nikolai Erdman, were relegated to irrelevance by the 1930’s. Jazz and the Associated types of dancing were condemned as bourgeoisie degeneracy.”

“Zhadanov’s speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) intended primarily to lay the foundations of Soviet music, represents one of the most cogent recent attempts to define culture…the Zhadanov speech should rank alongside T.S. Elliot’s Notes Towards a Definintion of Culture as a seminal conservative statement on culture.”

.........................

.............................

We do not understand democracy in its bourgeois meaning--of babbling, lack of discipline, anarchy. We understand democracy as the active participation of the citizens in formulating and implementing the Party's policy.

Nicolae Ceausescu