While internal struggles are taking place amidst the coalition government in Nepal, activists and supporters of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) have been carrying on the banner of armed struggle for the liberation of the working masses. Members of the Young Communist League, the militant youth wing of the Party, have carried out a number of important tasks in continuing the revolutionary struggle. Just last week the organization led an attack on the counter-revolutionary Himal Media and sacked the reactionary journalists who wished to restore the widely despised Monarchy.

The attacks carried out on counter-revolutionaries have received wide-spread condemnation from Western imperialists and “human rights” groups. The December 21^st occupation of Himal Media, led by Ramesh Babu Paint – Chairman of the All Nepal Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union, shows that the revolutionary spirit is strong in the youth of Nepal.

The bourgeoisie of any country grows nervous when they see the masses “getting out of line,” or “forgetting their place.” The rebellious Maoists set an invaluable precedent for all workers and peasants of the oppressed world, showing that it’s still possible to resist imperialism and the puppet governments that enable it.

Counter-revolutionary critics in the Western world are hiding their insidious attacks on the revolutionary struggle of the CPN (M) behind the typical veil of “rights” – the latest slogan accusing Maoist supporters and activists of undermining “freedom of the press” and “citizens’ right to information.”

However accusations from imperialist apologists have no solid basis in reality. What “freedom of the press” exists in a society where information is bought and sold on the market; where advertising rates take precedence over unbiased reporting, and media outlets are more accountable to shareholders and investors, rather than the public? Private ownership of the means and instruments of mass-communication is 100% diametrically opposed to the very principle of “freedom of the press.” True freedom of the press cannot emerge by simple declaration or promulgation. It must come with a struggle against the parasitic capitalist class who treat information as just another commodity on the market. Socialism represents the only possibility for true “freedom of the press,” and that is exactly the direction the militant activists plan to take.

This is from a conversation taken between Besoshvili and other users at Soviet-Empire:

The original question posed was:

Ok this question is to do with socialism and not communism. How do we ensure fully balanced media under socialism? Obviously at the moment media groups who are owned by people such as Murdoch etc pump out pro-capitalist propaganda and will print anything in order to sell papers. But with a state-owned paper you have the government controlling what information you receive. I can’t quite figure out the answer.

I haven’t posted at Soviet-Empire in years – but occasionally browse the site from time to time. Nonetheless, I found the discussion between Beso and users “Fallenraptor” and “Whitten” of particular interest, considering the media-oriented nature of our site and the Marxist-Leninist line.

…the major instruments and means of mass-communication will and must belong solely to state, and the message, information and content must be guided by the state/Party apparatus. This enables all major forms of mass-media (print, broadcast and online) to serve as important instruments in the cultural enlightenment of the people, political control of the population and provide the public with varying sources of information.

….there is no such thing as an “unbiased” media. It’s non-existent – nor would it be desirable. Every outlet or publication has editorial guidelines (that go well-beyond defining ‘house’ style and fact-checking policies). Rather than unrealistically trying to create a totally objective media; a socialist state should have no choice but exploit the power that comes with total control over the instruments and means of communications technology.

“Wheelchairmaniacal” said:

n a future socialist society, I can’t imagine it would be particularly popular in the west to make all media state-owned. One would hope that socialist governments would however bring the documentary formats back to state-channels like BBC or DR-TV in Denmark.

But I don’t understand the obsession with getting rid of freedom of expression. With the bourgeoisie gone (or well out of power), wouldn’t that mean for the first time you could ‘truly’ have freedom of expression? A freedom of expression in the best interests of society?

Besoshvili:

I didn’t say all media would be state owned – I said the means and instruments of mass-communication. Obviously, with technology, it wouldn’t be feasible or effective to try and control all forms of media. However, state ownership of communications is a basic necessity of socialism. To allow private ownership would not only be a contradiction – it would be ridiculously wasteful to simply discard such opportunity to reach the masses and consolidate a substantial power base.

Allowing trade & labour organizations to print, publish and write their own content would obviously be permissible – but even that has to have some restriction/limitation. Clearly we wouldn’t want another “Solidarity” movement to arise – hence the need for some degree of oversight from Party/State/Security organization(s).

As to the rejection of a completely objective media (as it relates to even the existence) – there are also numerous individuals (also highly educated) who reject the possibility that even basic information can be disseminated objectively. Jacques Ellul wrote that the belief that basic information dissemination can be objective is the biggest fallacy that has made modern day propaganda (whether state or private) so effective. Most people take for granted the way in which messages or information are conveyed. The language, the format, the chronological order, the medium, public bias, cultural norms, inherent prejudice, political climate, changes in material conditions all influence the way in which information is delivered and received by an individual.

The most effective propaganda is often times the most objective in content. Simply changing the structure of a message can have a great impact on how an individual (much less the masses) understand the message. Even changes as trivial as replacing articles, “a” with “the” in a sentence has proven to influence people’s minds to a great extent, and can reaffirm confidence in something that may or may not have happened.

Everything, from what I’m writing here to the messages you get on your TV or Radio, have an influence and attempt to frame your mindset in one way or another. Hence, the effort that would be required to even work towards establishing a *truly* objective form of information/news media would be a waste of time, and even more important, politically and economically inexpedient.

Not to mention – on a practical level the advantages of consolidating the means and instruments of mass communication far outweigh whatever disadvantages might arise. To weaken the dictatorship of the proletariat, in favor of pluralism and liberalism , would be a disservice to the Party and the working class.

“Whitten” said:

WCM is correct. In a stable socialist state media should be mostly uncensored. Free from private ownership information and opinion can be truly independent. This freedom is a pre-requisite of real public development in (socialist) understanding. The enlightenment of the masses cannot be attained by enforcing a regime of selective ignorance.

I would advocate the state/party disseminating crudely selective information that risks credibility. Lenin said on the subject that it was important to be as truthful as possible, and that transparency is not only important as a means of being open and honest with the masses, but also necessary to preserve credibility. After all – propaganda necessarily has to be subtle. If people assume you’re lying, assume you’re trying to influence them, then they simply shut you off or are now selectively biased against what you have to say. Thus, the ideal isn’t to keep the masses selectively ignorant; but rather, consolidate their support, raising them to a higher level of consciousness and framing them for a particular end/objective: communism.

You can’t raise someone’s level of consciousness by filtering their information supply. State ownership isn’t the only form of public ownership. Organisations can be publicly owned yet still completly independent.

Under socialism, the state is at the hands of the Party, which is inextricably linked with the masses of the proletariat. As such, it is the master of the revolutionary theory that guides and instructs the masses and puts them on the path of the victory of socialism, and finally, communism. The problem with independent (yet public) organizations also having a stake in such processes are the opportunity to deviate, distort or outright oppose the direction of socialism. Too great a risk. The sole purpose of the state is entirely entrenched in means, not ends. Thus, Marxist-Leninists should use the state accordingly. Not to sound the alarm for a slippery slope – but pluralism is as dangerous as outright counter-revolution.

The proletariat cannot censor themselves, that’s a logical absurdity. Only with unlimited access to information can they know for themselves what to accept and what to reject and only through this process can people develop true socialist consciousness.

I never said anything to the contrary; in fact, I specifically stated that state-run/Party-run media should be transparent and open.

Nor did I say that state/party organs should completely dominate the media – but rather the major instruments and means of mass-communication. This would mean media companies responsible for the publication of Tier 1 Media Outlets in print and broadcast need to be expropriated by the state. The Tribune Company, CBS, NBC, et al. would cease to exist as privately run corporations with private capital – and in turn would become public property vis-a-vis state ownership.

Again, lying to the masses is politically disadvantageous – nothing is more detrimental than losing your audience on the basis of lack of credibility. But, what does matter and what can be controlled is context, framing and spinning information to promote and reflect values in concert with the construction of socialism.

If the end objective is to increase the general consciousness of the masses – then it’s well known that it’s going to take work and will not be achieved over night. Furthermore, just because the masses are proletarian doesn’t make them communist. Putting the masses on the path to socialism and then communism can be supplemented by other means – in addition to the natural elevation of consciousness resulting from revolutionary changes in their relations to the means of production and material conditions.

Launching massive campaigns to disrupt, interfere with and undermine domestic affairs of defiant nations is nothing new in the strategy book of Western nations, such as Great Britain or the United States. Imperialism has transformed – no longer does it rely on the physical subjugation of colonies with direct plundering and enslavement, now it is much more sophisticated and disguised as a “humanitarian effort.” The goal of modern imperialism is to enable the import of private capital for the purpose of raping natural resources for bloated profit margins.

The tactics evolved even further in the latter half of the 20^th century, and continue to develop in the 21^st: using humanitarianism to mask pure imperialism. These were the (secondary) excuses used to justify the occupation of Iraq (after the faux intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize). These are the same hair-brained justifications put forth for military interference in Kosovo and the same tired, repetitive rhetoric we hear for advocating military involvement in Sudan and Zimbabwe. Allegations of crises, “genocide,” and human rights abuses, even if they are substantiated by fact, are nonetheless meaningless slogans perpetrated by people with material interests.

Social-Liberals, compelled by guilt and/or idealism, become the champions of such causes and only assist the further super-exploitative global relationship between oppressor countries (US) and the oppressed world.

Take for instance your average idealist, petty-bourgeouis college student who wants to hand out leaflets about the “human rights abuses” in the DPRK (North Korea) or “genocide” in the Darfur region of Sudan. These people, though admittedly they have little influence, espouse a line that is absolutely full of contradictions. Saying you’re against globalization and war – while at the same time spreading neo-colonialist propaganda charging crimes against humanity and calling for intervention to an independent nation is worse than the most open, strictest adherents to imperialist ideology. Such enablers are little more than tools and agents of global capitalism.

The next level of blame needs to be put on the bourgeois media – which broadcasts and publicizes sensational horror stories of atrocities, famines and other crises that play an undeniable role in shaping public opinion in support of war, intervention, imperialism and occupation. Headline after headline portraying “rogue” states and leaders as demons at the helm, abusing and degrading their populations or mishandling their responsibilities to the point of monumental crises, is nothing more than a means of using mass communications to create a public with no misgivings about their governments and private industry using military intervention, occupation, globalization and investment to re-shape defiant states in the image of a modern-day American colony.

The worst case is when such liberally minded reformist elements worm their way into the executive office and become heads of state or heads of government. Take for instance, Barack Obama, the most sophisticated of the imperialist elite, who uses catchy buzzwords (change, progress, humanity, equality) to promote an agenda with a different mask than his predecessors. The difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is style, not substance. Barack Obama is worse in that he masks his desire to see a McDonald’s on every corner of the globe with a humanistic idealism.

However – many Americans are duped by these idealistic values because they speak directly to their self-righteousness and guilt complex. However, this can also be attributed to the extremely short-sighted nature of the American electorate – which becomes so disenchanted with one of the mainstream ruling parties that they will just vote for the opposite in the next electoral cycle without ever considering that their might be an alternative, and the system repeats itself like clockwork.

The latest campaign is the destabilization of the African country of Zimbabwe, currently under the administration of President Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF. The ruling circles have their reasons for being interested in Zimbabwe – 1) it has extremely fertile land, capable of yielding cheap crops and vast amounts of untapped mineral wealth just waiting to be plucked by British and American investors; and 2) it sets an example of a defiant state that is unwilling to follow American/Western imperialist “democratic” standards for political administration.

The obvious economic returns that would result from re-colonizing Zimbabwe play an insurmountable role in imperialists aims in destabilizing the country, and installing a puppet regime willing and able to bend over backward for Western capital. The second, political basis, for imperialist objectives in Zimbabwe are nothing new – such as been the attitude of the Western imperialist ruling class towards intransigent states such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and others.

However, the general public – who only shares indirectly from the superexploitation of imperialism – need a more compelling reason to believe in the need to use military interventionist tactics in another nation. When it’s simply too obvious that a “rogue” nation’s government doesn’t constitute a national-security threat; they defer to the “humanitarian” angle – know that the young idealists and aging baby-boomers will take a bite from this bait.

Just take a look at headlines regarding Zimbabwe, or even better, President Mugabe and you will see the same rhetorical rubbish that has been used to slander other leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobadan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Aleksandr Lukaschenko et al. Moreoever, they describe the people under the leadership of the aforementioned individuals as oppressed, abused, lacking freedom and other nonsense. This rhetoric is the modern-day war rhetoric that turns a self-righteous, contradictory population into unapologetic supporters of imperialism and global capitalism.

I am curious as to what some of our dedicated scholars of Marxist-Leninism think about the question of progressive nationalism.  Do you hold to the mentality that all nationalism must be renounced for internationalism, or would you support progressive nationalism if it was proletarian nationalism?

My personal opinion is that Trotsky attempted to internationalize socialism in a more radical way than Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot or Mao.   I don’t understand why support of hardline internationalism is perceived by some as an irreversible and requisite part of Marxist theory, when in practice nobody actually applied it.  It wouldn’t matter much to me if they are right, because I don’t box myself as a literal follower of Marx, but I don’t think those who play up that angle are following Marx, but twisting his ideas.

There are many individuals who not only wish to silence criticism of Zionism in general, and the Zionist state of Israel in particular, but want to shut-down any dialogue whatsoever on the subject.

The preferred tactic of these individuals is to defame all critics as “anti-Semites,” despite the obvious ridiculous nature of such a claim. Such accusations represent feeble attempts by Zionist apologists to poison the well on the any discussion of the legitimacy of the Zionist state, the policies of Israel or the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Traditionally, such unscrupulous tactics (which defy logic or reason) are used by individuals who know that Western culture is particularly sensitive to accusations of “anti-Semitism,” fueled by a political atmosphere in support of unquestionable support for the Zionist regime of Israel.

Many of these individuals reference a particularly blunt quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

. . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–this is God’s own truth.

There are plenty more similar quotes that can be found spread all throughout the internet. This poor attempt to appeal to an authority figure(and in this case, someone who had no real authority on the subject) adds nothing to the conversation – and is no substitute for an argument.

Others may refer to the Holocaust as a justification and/or need of a Jewish state, citing the historical animosity Jews have experienced in continental Europe. However attractive this may seem to a childish mind; nonetheless, the events of the Holocaust do not justify the need for an independent Jewish state. Moreover, why this would be of any particular concern to the Western world outside of continental Europe (i.e. the United States of America) makes little (if any) sense.

This manufactured connection between the need for a Zionist state and past historical events is only suitable for shortsighted idealists who cannot comprehend how things work in a material world. Such individuals believe the world to operate on conditions of the ideal, and as such, could not possibly hope to offer any meaningful contributions to the discussion.

To defame critics of Zionism or Israel of “anti-Semitism” is an infantile tactic grounded in the interest of promoting a political agenda, and so far removed from objective reality that it becomes almost laughable. If one is too ignorant to distinguish between Zionism and “anti-Semitism,” then he or she really has no business participating in such discussions to begin with.

Further, as anybody who isn’t a beneficiary of the AIPAC knows, attitudes or opinions towards Zionism can, and most often do, exist independent of any supposed hatred of Jews. The two are not mutually inclusive. The Jewish question itself is an altogether separate question than that of Zionism; the latter falling under the category of ‘anti-Imperialism’ and the former under ‘ethnic chauvinism.’

Administrators and officials from Hamas addressed the crowd, announcing that the possibility of renewing the truce with the Zionist regime of Israel, set to expire next week, was “unlikely.”

In a broadcast statement from Hamas, the democratically elected organization accused Israel of failing to honor its side of the truce by continuing its devastating blockade of Gaza.

“There is no sense in extending the truce while the enemy is not respecting it and is keeping Gaza in a state of siege,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2008/11/17/more-on-status-competition/

In the 1920s, only the far left communist fringe in the United States consistently opposed racial discrimination

followed by

Status competition amongst elite liberals explains (in large part) why fringe causes eventually enter mainstream American political discourse.

With all due respect, I believe Prozium is reading into the issue here. The reason that people don’t support racialism is because it is easier to believe that everyone is the same. It is more convenient. In a nation of immigrants where everyone speaks the same language, to stand up and say “I am concerned with my ethnic roots” does take a powerful personality. It is simply easier not to do this. Remember that at the time of the founding fathers, language was a big issue, both between different types of Europeans, and between Indians and Whites. Now it isn’t.

Fellow dissident Robert Lindsay is experiencing difficulty with the censorship imposed on him by Google.  Note that google has purchased youtube, and that youtube gave us trouble too.

The same website that accepts neo-nazi websites (websites that out the personal address and phone number information of enemies) into its index doesn’t allow us to make videos and censors Robert Lindsay?  I am not a fan of Microsoft, but I can fully support Microsoft’s search engine ambitions in alliance against Google.  What a perverted display of hypocrisy, allowing people to have their reputations damaged by online gossip on forums that always gets to the top of the search engine, while simultaneously stifling more professional debate.

http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-status-report.html

Blogger locked this blog due to violation of the Terms of Service Agreement and the Content Policy. An investigation was undertaken and it was determined that while this blog is, like a lot of us, offensive, it, like most of us, does not yet deserve to die.

I guess some poor sensitive souls complained about the blog and a lot of people started crying, saying it was offensive. There were people crying everywhere, all over the country and even in some other nations, all because of Robert Lindsay.

A lot of people couldn’t go to work because they were too tearful, and traffic even got held up in some major US cities because of all the people crying. People would go into work and start crying and they would have to go home.

“Men” would come to read Robert Lindsay and start crying. Then they would go home and try to have sex with their girlfriends and wives, and halfway through the act, they would start crying again, lose their hardons, and curl up in a ball of tears next to their diabolically cackling women.

Robert Lindsay was starting to effect the economy and sex life of the nation itself.

Health experts warned that pretty soon some of these emo tards were going to start cutting themselves, burning themselves, acting out in Borderline ways, and even committing suicide on the Internet. All because of Robert Lindsay. It was a Goddamned public health issue, and Blogger had to do something quick.

Complaining about Robert Lindsay? That’s like complaining about the sky for being blue. The whole purpose of this blog was to be offensive. It was the spirit of Tony Clifton, Wally Gator, Lenny Bruce, the Sex Pistols, the Germs and the /b/ section of the Chans transmuted into a blog-shaped form.

Now you have to click through a content screen before we let you in here to be internally scarred and corrupted.

http://latteisland.blogspot.com/2008/09/conspiracy-of-american-elites.html

This seems to be a specifically racialist response to something Moldbug was going on about a while ago. I found this essay and comment at a forum associated with Iceman, a Jewish ethnonationalist who comments at Inverted World and elsewhere. I don’t know this Metal Gear person, but I agree with him.

Well it is nice to see some praise. My ancestry is 1/2 Polish, 1/4 Russian Jewish, 1/4 Moldavian immigrants into Ukraine. All from Eastern Europe.

Free Media Productions is the real deal.  To those who are watching from the outside, get off of the entertainment forums and join the real team.  Get off of the casual “free speech” websites and start putting yourself to work building a new media.