The old Marxist left was never about petty racial liberalism, abortion (Stalin outlawed abortion), and general countercultural revolution. Marxists instead were focused on economic issues and the working class. The new left is not the legitimate successor to the old left any more than hippis are the successors to Gulag watchmen. Likewise, the new “republican” right, with a libertarian slant, can hardly be seen as a successor to Hitler and the Ustaše. What passes for “left and right” is simply two sides of the same liberal Democratic coin. The debate is framed in a deceptive fashion, where two very similar parties (Democratic and Republican) are seen as representatives of an entire “left/right” spectrum. The first reality is that both parties are basically the same, and neither represents the historic left or right. The second reality is that the terms are meaningless to begin with.
The terms “left” and “right” have no logical meaning, they are just slurs thrown around by American political parties to attack the opposition. The bizarre but commonly held American view is that all who reject liberal capitalist democracy, from Pol Pot to Hitler, are organizable on this spectrum too. To each American party, the opposing party is wrongly viewed as similar to an ideology that rejects liberal capitalism. As if Communism is similar to the Democratic Party and Nazism is similar to the Republican party! The terms left and right are obsolete, and we are beyond left and right. They are oversimplifications that originate from a smear system within American politics, and philosophically, the terms are baseless. They derive their meaning from American history and that alone, rather than any philosophical reasoning. As soon as somebody uses this terminology, it is a good indication that they are brainwashed by the liberal democratic status quo.

On the Principles of Proletarian Press

The instruments of information dissemination have played an important role in the history of communism. From the illegal printing presses that helped spread the powerful word of Bolshevism throughout the Russian empire, to the pamphlets and leaflets that stirred revolutionary sentiments amongst American steelworkers in the 1930’s, the role of the proletarian press has always served as a special tool for communists across the globe.

The principles for which proletarian press ought to distinguish itself from the bourgeois press (mainstream media outlets) is the latter’s dependence on private capital as the ultimate benchmark for truth. Media conglomerates that control print, broadcast, and online news sources decide the content, format, and model of their publications and materials on the basis of what will successfully generate a profit – independent of principle or the truth. When the New York Times sees decreases in subscriptions or advertisement revenue, then they adjust the content of their paper accordingly. This is an expected and necessary maneuver for any business to exist in any market, even one as dominated by so few contenders as the media.

The proletarian press, on the other hand, shares none of its subservience to the interests of investors or shareholders. Its commitment is solely to the interests of the working class. And, it understands its commitment to violently shredding the bold lies of the bourgeoisie, and the system of liberal democracy – the most hostile elements to the working class. With the imbalance of an arsenal of resources at the disposal of the bourgeoisie, the proletarian press is at a significant material disadvantage against its oppressors. Thus, in light of this disadvantage, the proletarian press is justifiable in using extraordinary measures in order to maximize the effectiveness of its message. This includes employing a malleable and flexible definition of truth.

As part of its arsenal in order to properly arm the proletariat with the appropriate degree of class-consciousness in order to foster hostile attitudes towards the oppressor class, the proletarian press must use truth as a means to an end. The means are devised in a way to foster only one end – the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the private-capital system, and the establishment of socialism and the dominance of the Communist Party. The truth, insofar as it exists in and of itself, is irrelevant in matters of politics.

The principled approach to journalism, the press, and political communications in general for the proletariat must be inextricably linked to the interests of the Communist Party; the vanguard of the working class. The manipulation of information to serve the political objectives of the Communist Party, vis-à-vis the proletariat, is the sole objective for proletarian press. These means can be successfully employed through the purposeful manipulation of logic, the use of exaggerated information, concealing sources, focusing on the emotional (rather than rational) responses of the audience, adapting the context of information to the relevant conditions and biases of the audience, taking advantage of preconceived prejudices of your target audience, convey the message in a way most receptive to your targeted audience. The specific methodology for accomplishing this has been elaborated on by political scientists, journalists, political communications specialists, and others so I will only mention them briefly here. Manipulation of raw data can best be conceived through generalities without compromising credibility. For instance, if General Motors lays off 17,000 manufacturing employees it’s perfectly acceptable to round-up to “roughly” 20,000. The language in which one conveys this information can be easily adapted to best suit the author’s political needs, too. For instance, instead of “laying off,” the author could indicate that “in an attempt to cut costs and increase profits, the General Motors corporation is increasing the ranks of the nation’s unemployed by nearly 20,000.” Think pragmatically – the goal is to raise consciousness of the ranks of the working class, and in turn, increase their sympathies with the communist party, for whom the working class is the ultimate source of its strength.

Other techniques that may be utilized include failure to disclose sources, either of the information provided or the publication itself. This is especially useful when dealing with statistics that may be otherwise difficult to verify. For instance, consider the following headline: “local law enforcement infiltrates labor union; attempt to undermine workers’ rights.” This headline is useful on a number of levels. First, its quick to the point and generalized. Secondly, if read by a receptive audience, will have rouse an intentional emotional response to the violation of a labor organization’s ability to organize. Third, if the reader is enthralled enough to continue to read more (as is the intention of any headline), then there is a good chance their rationality will forgive the fact that no real source is indicated in the article itself.

Obviously one must be careful not to destroy credibility, either of the publication and/or the party, but nonetheless such tactics are employed everyday in the mainstream media and can be extremely effective when used by a skilled propagandist.

If the unfortunate happens, and credibility is damaged, the consequences may be extremely harmful to the Party. Therefore, any form of proletarian press ought to exercise extreme caution when deliberately manipulating information in order to politicize the proletariat. When used properly false information, subtle propaganda techniques, and deceitful rhetoric can be an effective tool against the bourgeoisie.

Often ones who yell “bigot” themselves are bigots. Often those who yell “racist” themselves are racist. Such is the case with the system of discrimination known as affirmative action. Affirmative action is a perfect example of why a multicultural society is more difficult to manage than a homogeneous one. Firstly, tension and anger. Whites who are passed over will feel resentment, and Blacks will view this resentment as proof that whites are evil and demand more entitlement with a mutual resentment. Is this better race relations? Secondly, the civil rights act provides complete “equality” to Blacks; this means that the only useful purpose of affirmative action is to give black people an advantage over whites. Not hiring the best people has the result of poorer performances which have pragmatic consequences that negatively effect society. From the point of the more qualified person who is not hired, it is not fair, but this is only half the deal. It also may not be fair to the person who dies because the policeman is not qualified enough to stop the murderer, or the person who dies because the Doctor is not qualified enough to diagnose the cancer, or the people who die because the airplane pilot crashes the plane. Proponents of this entitlement program claim to be fighting racism, but the “racism” that supposedly needs to be fought could not exist without diversity. If the goal is to reduce the total amount of racial tension in society, than why build the society on a multiracial foundation? It is counterintuitive to making the goal easy! This brings up the immigration argument, but that is peripheral to the original topic.

The root of the problem is that Black responsibility is not taken, instead white oppression is blamed. If blacks are not to be blamed for their own failures, the next step is to blame whites. This is inconsistent with the facts. Blacks have in every way been advanced ever since the 1960’s, rather than discriminated against. What about East Asians? If society was bigoted and oppressed the others, being racially variant, East Asians would be facing similar problems as Blacks. But they are not, instead they are prospering.  I find it hard to believe “white racism” would allow that.

Does giving people an unfair boost really benefit them? Does rewarding people for being less qualified really help their own development? A legitimate argument could be made that affirmative action cripples the black work ethic. Without a sense of responsibility, blacks are unlikely to mature as a community. A culture of victimization is not a healthy culture, and a culture of resentment and jealousy will not produce the peaceful society that the new left claims to be fighting for.

Anyone who notices the flaws in the bigotry of affirmative action is labeled a racist by the left-wing power structure. But anyone strong enough to resist this should be starting to ask tough questions. One of these questions is whether diversity really a strength. Does it strengthen the economy, increase work performances, cut down crime, alleviate tension, or anything of that nature? Is there a benefit to becoming a nation of squabbling minorities? Affirmative Action is a perfect example of that type of nation.

Many amongst the alleged “revolutionary left” in the United States believe that the country is under the control of vicious fascists overseeing the transformation of the bourgeois liberal state into a brutal police state. To put it bluntly, the idiocy of the “radical” left has demonstrated it’s rotten idealism and complete disregard for class-consciousness. True; Bush is often a lamentable figure in terms of his domestic and international policies. However, for the serious Marxist-Leninist who values the merits of class-antagonisms, and the objective validity of historical materialism — then Bush is a godsend.

Bush has not hindered the tide of inevitable socialist revolution, whereupon the proletariat expropriates the reins of political power from its oppressors, instead he has greatly increased the militarism of American foreign policy, encouraged international capitalism to spread its greedy hands to every corner of the earth rich in natural resources, proudly represents the interests of the bourgeoisie and makes no significant attempt to disavow this; just to name a few of his prolific accomplishments as President of the United States.

Any socialist who understands that the material conditions within a given society are the natural precedent to political escalations (culminating in outright revolution) will appreciate what politicians like George Bush represent for the future of American political economy. What others on the revolutionary left, particularly those infected with liberalism, have failed to understand is that significant changes for the proletariat will require its cooperation with the vanguard of the working class, i.e. the Party. It follows then that the Party represents the will of the class-conscious proletariat for whom no reconciliation within bourgeois society is possible. Thus, the pathway for true class-consciousness comes from the realization of unrestricted capitalism allowed to run its course in full (or at least to the point of practical class-consciousness amongst the proletariat).

Policies of class-reconciliation that try to mask the exploitative nature of capitalism are inherently opposed to the objective interests of the working classes. Liberals, social-democrats, democratic socialists, Greens all take an idealistic and optimistic attitude towards participatory politics that betrays the interests of the proletariat.

Though this is not necessarily a call for Marxist-Leninists to openly support neo-conservative, neo-liberal, or libertarian candidates. In fact, unless in a position to seriously damage the system through fraud or agitation, Marxist-Leninists should abstain and disregard the pathetic displays of democratic concessions this country has to offer as an illegitimate and undesirable characteristic of an illegitimate and undesirable society. Rather, Marxist-Leninists ought not to raise their voices in opposition to bourgeois politicians or policies who, by virtue of their excessive class bias towards the oppressors and imperialists, invariably serve the interests of the international proletariat on all fronts.

F.D.R. was put into office by the international banking establishment (they took full advantage of the “depression” that they created, by having full top end control of the U.S. economy beginning in 1913) and he dutifully acted on their behalf to reorganize the federal corporation in 1933 in favor of the creditors (i.e. the international bankers).

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

The first thing F.D.R. did was quietly declare in March of 1933 (by executive order) that the federal corporation was bankrupt and insolvent, which triggered the long standing debt contracts with the international bankers.  The federal corporation went into receivership (ownership) to it’s creditors (the international bankers).  The engineered “great depression” made receivership to the bankers possible, PLUS it consolidated existing control of the banking and monetary system into the hands of the PRIVATE, so called “federal reserve” (which is a private cartel owned by the international bankers).  F.D.R., acting on behalf of his handlers, came for our gold first.  He made it illegal for CITIZENS to own gold.  Whoever owns the REAL money, owns the monetary system.  Thus, in 1934, citizens abruptly ceased to own the monetary system, which of course meant that they had no more actual monetary power or wealth, OR control over the government (which solidified control over american citizens).  Then as if acting from a perfectly planned script for CONQUEST, him and his evil handlers successfully came for our guns in 1934.  The 2nd amendment was overthrown with the rest of the constitution.  We STILL have the huge 1934 gun ban and registration scheme strapped to our backs.

The “new deal” was a euphemism for the total reorganization of the federal corporation in favor of the creditors. The creditors (the international bankers) wanted an all powerful federal tyranny (which they obtained in the 1930s, so it’s mind boggling how tyrannical the federal “government” is today!)

What confuses a lot of people is that they BELIEVE that the constitution is still in force. The legal TRUTH is that the constitution was overthrown in 1933 and as part of the reorganization, the LOOK (i.e. appearance) of the constitution was allowed to remain. This is how federal “judges” were able to get away with complete and OBVIOUS perversion of the interstate commerce clause (the federal “government” claims the authority to regulate EVERYTHING-and I mean EVERYTHING, if any part of it was EVER a part of “interstate commerce.”)

Federal “judges” are well trained by the establishment legal system not to reverse the “progress” the control system has made since 1933. The training is subtle because the legal system (beginning with law schools) is totally obsessed with legal PRECEDENT (i.e. what other “judges” have ruled) as opposed to what the law ACTUALLY says. Law schools indoctrinate students to follow the establishment, and if they do, they will be rewarded with a lucrative career. Today, federal “judges” are controlled (in varying degrees from judge to judge) by the system that took power in 1933, and are strongly influenced when the establishment needs to pick and choose WHAT parts of the sham constitution they will enforce. The establishment maintains a network of loyal federal “judges” who will rule in ways the establishment needs (usually by throwing out or altering cases that could end up limiting federal power). People need to study this abomination for themselves (so they will be outraged enough to take action) so I encourage all Americans to read about cases involving the interstate commerce clause, and more specifically, what the treasonous federal “judges” did to Irwin Schiff and Hollis Fincher (Google is your friend).

The control system that took power in 1933 is beginning to come more out in the open as americans are growing accustomed to not having any rights or privacy or sovereignty. In many ways we are past the point of no return. In theory, an educated citizenry could rise up and reverse the “progress” that’s been made since 1933, but preventing such a thing is exactly WHY the federal “government” has gained effective control over the “school” system. That is WHY there is a federal department of “education.” That is WHY almost all “school” districts are addicted to and CONTROLLED by the “free” federal funding. Kids are brainwashed from day one into being government loyalists and establishment loyalists. This is the new “patriotism.”

Kids are taught massive contradictions which result in such confusion that the subject (the child) has no choice BUT to become loyal and subservient to it’s new master (government) Examples of INTENTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS:

1. The government indoctrination centers (”schools”) preach “say no to drugs” while at the same time PUSHING dozens of dangerous vaccines and mind altering drugs into the bodies of our children.

2. In English class, the poor kids are “taught” that they are there to “learn english,” and then they are taught garbage such as “inventive spelling” which has resulted in a nation full of idiots who cannot spell or use grammar that is even remotely correct.

3. The children are fed a constant stream of nonsense and lies about guns and are abused with scare tactics and intimidation tactics that they should “never touch a gun,” or that “guns kill…,” and that if they ever touch a gun or so much as TALK about guns at school they will be severely and unjustly punished (which frequently happens). I have personally spoken with several young neighbors to tell me just how many threats and how much intimidation they receive from the entire “school” system. One neighbor was given an assignment to find something unique about a certain country. I suggested talking about the gun laws there (since the gun laws of this particular nation are extremely different from ours). This 9 year old had a knee jerk reaction of fear that they would “get into trouble” for talking about guns. I said that this had nothing to do with guns, but the massive threats and intimidation from the “school” system had made this student totally unreasonable on this subject. The only thing this student knew how to do was to be totally obedient (and worshipful) to their government masters. The contradiction is that government agents constantly walk around with guns (the very tool that the students are taught to fear).

My two favorite quotes from the founding fathers:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams

The roots of a nation are the people who live in it. Globalists are pulling out the tree at its roots so they can climb higher in economics. But the tree will collapse, and the nation will be ruined, because those who support globalism lack foresight and wisdom. Elites don’t want people to be conscious of race. If they were, America would rise up as a racialist nation and people would stop the “global economy.” It’s time to admit that the motive is mainly fiscal for the suppression of racial consciousness, which if unleashed, would alter the economy and displace those who lead it.

If we accept the theory that behavior is to an extent influenced by reward and punishment, we can easily reason that these elites create the society which enables various outlets of multicultural ideology to flourish. Many nationalists narrowly talk about the Jews and their behavior but not about the society which allows and rewards such behavior. If the gentile elites disagreed with this, they would take them to task and make them stop, but they do not, and there is a reason. Why? Because they want to divert nationalist movements from directly striking back by indirectly distracting them with a Jewish red herring. In almost choreographed fashion, Jewish elites divert criticism from liberal democracy and are hated because they demand this and that, consider the whims of their emotions to be superior to scientific evidence, and cry when people point this out, but American gentile mainstream elites are applauding as their Jewish teammates do this. One has to question if those who endlessly rally against Jews under the banner of nationalism are working for the same elites or whether they are just deceived.

Pan-nationalism is the only way to defeat the global economy. We need to get over bickering between nationalists of different ethnic backgrounds. Patriotism is misguided. The American regime of 1776, from the beginning, has been nothing but a country of greed and multiculturalism. Ethnic nationalism must prevail over American pluralism, and the source (greed) must be attacked. Eventually it will catch up to them, and the country they have overextended by foreign immigration will fall apart. When the nation falls, so will the globalists who exploit it. Nothing will be left to hold the parasites up. Because they cut the tree at the root to reach higher, they will tumble down with the country they ruined.