.

Archive for May, 2011

Albert Einstein on “Terrorism” within Zionism and Italian Fascism

Sunday, May 29th, 2011

The link
Einstein basically says that anti-imperialism is a good thing, but accuses a faction of the Zionist movement of not being sincere in its anti-imperialism. He then speaks out for the working class, and bashes the Italian Fascist model, which harms workers. This took place in 1948, so at this point the war was already over and Italian Fascism could be examined objectively along with other ideologies, such as German Nazism. At this point, Zionism was starting to gain influence, but nobody saw Zionism as “the movement of the Jewish people” because only recently had it became more popular.

*So Einstein had some political views similar to mine right now. Granted I admired fascism for a while, but unlike the guy Einstein is bashing, I legitimately changed my viewpoints. The problem with fascism is not that it is authoritarian, but it misdirects class antagonisms so that the ruling order can continue to exploit people. In Italians fascism, problems of class conflict are “addressed” by making the working class adopt ideologies and appeals to “duty, honor, etc.” As Marx noted, ideologies cause people to act against their own economic self-interest. That is a very broad notation, but it applies in this circumstance.

Socialist Phalanx – Budding Website / Community

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

The Website
The forum

It is for both progressive nationalists and for revolutionary socialists (Have they read my post?). By the way, the two views are not contradictory because nationalism and internationalism are not contradictory, just different levels in a hierarchy. Since my views on race are very polished and well spoken, and cannot be seen as crude or hateful, I believe it is a good fit.

I like the way they differentiated “progressive nationalism” from other viewpoints. This website has the potential to be a good website and host a good community. Here are their membership rules:

*Who may join?

Anyone who is either a revolutionary socialist or a progressive nationalist.

*What is ‘progressive nationalism’?

Progressive nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

*What is ‘revolutionary socialism’?

For purposes of this forum, revolutionary socialism is defined as a socialist tendency based upon a fundamental commitment to the complete abolition of capitalism — this being contrasted to conventional Social Democratic and corporativist models, based upon the partial or complete maintenance of the capitalist mode of production — and the construction of a workers’ state.

Note: In this context, no distinction is drawn between literal revolutionary socialists, Blaquists/Vanguardists, democratic socialists, anarchists, etc.

*Is this a racist website?

No. This forum does not tolerate animus towards individuals based upon their race or ethnicity. Moreover, it does not tolerate hostility towards individuals based upon their sex, religious affiliation, etc.

*Is this a fascist website?

No. None of the ideologies found within the heterogeneous construct referred to as ‘fascism’ objectively meet the standards of revolutionary socialism or progressive nationalism.

*What is the ‘Revolutionary Syndicalist Front’?

The Revolutionary Syndicalist Front (RSF) is an international organization created for the purpose of networking individual radicals and political groups who adhere to the principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism.

*What is the Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front?

See the ECRSF website. Its function within the Socialist Phalanx is purely administrative.

*Do you have to be in the RSF to join the Socialist Phalanx?

Absolutely not.

On Anarchism

Friday, May 20th, 2011

Anarchists such as Goldman, Bakunin, and their followers have always been enemies of working people and the revolutionary labor movement. Throughout history, anarchists have functioned as a trojan horse of the revolutionary movement. Anarchism is not rooted in the working-class, but instead reflects the confusion of the petit-bourgeoisie and the lumpen elements that compose its base. Anarchists deny the need for democracy and reject the principle of revolutionary discipline.

Anarchism is at its core reactionary. It emerged as a petit-bourgeois fear of the development of industry and the striving to protect the petit-bourgeoisie’s illusory independence. But Engels taught in On Authority that such thinking is backwards and harmful, as “Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.”

Despite their anti-authoritarian pretensions, the fact is that anarchists themselves have set up separate political groups and veered towards dictatorship and even towards a form of barracks communism.

Wherever anarchism has reared its ugly head, there have only been setbacks for the working people. It became an obstacle to the goals of the working-class In late 19th century Russia and elsewhere, the anarchists served only to endanger the revolutionary movement with their counter-productive acts of terrorism and sabotage. With the victory of the Russian Revolution, anarchism degenerated into an outright counter-revolutionary force, joining other enemies of the young Soviet Republic in their vain efforts to smash the new workers’ and peasants’ state. They committed several terrorist acts in Moscow and elsewhere, including assassinations, bombings of passenger trains, and so forth. Anarchist cells were unmasked and destroyed by the Cheka .

V.I. Lenin in his writings totally discredited anarchism and exposed anarchists as the subverters that they are.

The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics.

The workers’ movement was make the struggle against all forms of deviation a top priority, whether it be the “Eurocommunist” revisionism of the Right or the anarcho-Trotskyite trojan horse of the Left. Whether during the days of the First International during Marx & Engels in the 19th century or the recent demonstrations against the global capitalist crisis, anarchistic forces harm the working-class movement with extremist acts during political developments, providing the forces of reaction with pretexts to unleash mass repression. The purpose of their very existence in the present day is to discredit all progressive forces in the eyes of the masses, drawing attention to how a handful of hooligans smash windows and shops amidst massive, peaceful demonstrations by honest workers.

Sound Political Theory and Antisemitism

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

I showed, in previous articles, how leaders of some fringe movements use antisemitism as an attempt to confuse the followers that they wish they had. They do have a few followers however, and for people who buy into what their leaders tell them, it gives answers. The wrong answers, but they feel like the right answers. In this article, I will explain why antisemitism is incorrect not in an Ad hominem sense of being bourgeois and not in an ethical sense, but grounded in deep political theory.

I should note that a defense against anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and obsession with the national background of Jews is not a defense of Jewish extremism or imperialistic iterations of Zionism. Neither is it an attack on modern science in favor of Orthodox religion. Rather, the aim of this article is to explain the secular causes of our current society, the theoretical deviations of antisemites and the differences between them.

First off, hardcore antisemites view themselves as knowing something that the rest of the people are too weak to know. Analogously, one cannot give a rated “R” movie to a twelve year old. It may be true that the average person will not even touch issues involving Jews, due to the emotional overtones of the issue, however this does not mean that fringe antisemites know what they are talking about. People who blame the Jews as the primary cause for racial dispossession and imperialism in the middle east do not understand the difference between opportunism and cause / effect.

Someone who sees things in terms of political opportunism only sees things in terms of platforms. “I’m pro-gun, pro-life, anti-market, anti-immigration” etc. “You have the same positions, so we have something in common.” But that is just opportunism, it does not mean we fundamentally see things the same way. And it is only a matter of opportunism that the current mode of production – imperial capitalism – happens to be good for liberal warmongering Jews (not ALL Jews. Jews as a group were more anti Iraq war than the national average). There are plenty of opportunists who benefit from the current order. However, opportunists do not control democratic opinion and opportunists do not create the material conditions that lead to their delightful benefit.

As I noted earlier, systems of government form as reactions to material conditions and economic circumstances which cause antagonisms which are managed by leaders in different directions. Tzarist despotism created conditions which caused the Russian revolution. The loss of world war I and the great depression set the stage for Nazism. Conflicting systems of economics between the slave-driven agrarian South and the industrialized North caused the Civil War. British imperialism created antagonisms that caused the American revolution and its two-party Oligopoly.

As technology and economics evolve, sometimes the systems of government do not immediately change with it, but instead hold on to nostalgia, or “the way things used to be.” Take the confederacy. The people may be ready to abolish slavery and/or advance the social conditions of Women, because of an economy that is structured differently as modes of production change, but the Government may react, or be “reactionary,” and oppose this. What we have in fringe white nationalist groups are people who are reacting to this conflict. They want to keep the society the way they think it used to be, but the material and technological conditions are changing. A class conscious nationalist, unlike a reactionary nationalist, understands that material conditions and nationalism must be designed to intersect in a future manor, not as they did in the past. But a reactionary feels the pain and tension between the customs of the past and the material conditions of the present, and he/she tries to understand and explain this without actually grasping a materialist analysis. People like this feel their society is being taken away, and they do not really understand “why” in a macroeconomic sense.

Blaming the Jew is the glue that holds together the broken political theory of the followers of the fringe movement, but for the leaders, blaming the Jew is “scapegoating,” or a cynical ploy. It works because some individual Jews indeed are opportunists who indeed fully support the current order. But the answer is still a shallow answer. It should be noted that the REAL leaders, not the fringe leaders but the people with power in society, also benefit, because these movements never get very far.

In summary, antisemites see Jews in power positions and see opportunists who think the current order is good for themselves, and therefore think that the current order was created by Jews, instead of by the material conditions that lead to it. In any system of government, there are opportunists and profiteers, and people who advocate a specific agenda, but fundamentally the opportunists are like people who are merely riding a wave.

Yes Israel has some influence on America, but that is only because the two countries are linked, and it is a “reward” given to Israel for cooperating with America’s globalist agenda and advancing it in the Middle East while oppressing Arabs who resist. Yes some individual Jews may support immigration, but free market liberal capitalism is what drives it and sets the conditions for the political legislation which enables it. Yes some Jews may profit from the system, but contingent forces, ideas and the reactions to them create the system. Fundamentally, “follower” antisemites do not understand the clash of the times and blame the Jews to explain it.

Comrade Avakian on neo-liberal imperialism

Monday, May 16th, 2011

Bob Avakian, leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party

The Jews as a Scapegoat

Sunday, May 15th, 2011

In my last articled, entitled “A Critique on White Activist Ideology,” I explained the basic characteristics of the so-called White Nationalist Movement. In this post, I will, in Marxist-Leninist terms, explain “why” White Nationalists need a scapegoat.

As I have explained in other articles, poorly run businesses, governments and forums tend to shift the blame for their own incompetence by blaming someone else. I should note that these vbulletin phantom cowards sometimes blame former posters as well, but I will not focus on that aspect in this post. As far as real life leaders, Hitler did this quite blatantly with the Jews. Mussolini instead of blaming a group of people, blamed abstract concepts (which is more reasonable). Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to start wars. The people who lead the crusades, on both sides, appealed to religion a bit more blatantly, as did Osama Bin Laden. In the case of Bin laden, he also appealed to the idea that America was a corrupter, and he was there to clean things up.

So basically, the bourgeois class likes to have some sort of enemy apparatus which it can use to confuse the Proletarian class, motivate / dispatch the Proletarian class and blame if it fails. “You are fighting this war because it is someone else’s fault. Just put up with my bullshit for a little bit longer, and we’ll fix the country by solving the problem.” A class conscious Marxist-Leninist should realize that the people in power are the problem, not the apparatus on which the bourgeois class projects its blame and uses to justify policy. Now it could be the case that the leader makes a good criticism of a legitimate enemy, but bad leaders rely on enemies to cover for their own incompetence and keep people active and moving.

The idea of focusing most of one’s energy towards an excluded Caucasian group is what I highlighted on the last article. It seems that anonymous vbulletin phantoms have picked “The Jews” as their pretend world scapegoats. White Nationalists are not really bourgeois materially, but to use Besoshvilli’s terms, they are “in denial of their own class position” and therefore believe they are influential and can benefit from having a scapegoat, even though they are a bunch of anonymous deluded phantoms. The idea of considering Jews as a non-white group comes from an asset vs. liability analysis, in which Jews are considered much more useful as a scapegoat, on which to shift the blame for the incompetence of the white nationalist movement, than as allies. And let’s all sit back and laugh until we pass out, because we know the white nationalist movement is pretty incompetent.

In the real world, you don’t “assign” people a race. You use observation and deductive reasoning to “uncover” the truth, which should be as easy as using your sense of vision. But White Nationalists need to exclude a White Group, so they can pretend whatever excluded group is “sneaking in” and “undermining,” and therefore can say to their deluded audience this : “We’ll get the Jews out of the way, and then our movement will have a future! You must stay vigilant and aid us, and if things go wrong, we know why we’re not succeeding!”

A Critique on White Activist Ideology

Saturday, May 14th, 2011

There are plenty of things to criticize, but I will focus in this essay on “who is White,” and how White Nationalism focuses more on blaming “excluded Caucasian groups” for conspiracies than on racial differences. I could also criticize ethnic nepotism theory, which is refuted by the constant infighting in these movements, but will not opt to do that in this post.

First what we must point out is that being what is commonly labeled by opposition as “White Supremacist” or “Nazi” (they call themselves “White Nationalist”) rests on a set of ideological viewpoints that depend on more than just a belief in racial differences. The position that there are races such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid is a fairly mainstream position. It is a position that is mainstream enough that people who believe it are not considered extremists. While most liberals would be opposed to emphasizing basic racial differences, they would not argue that anyone who believes in them is a “Nazi.”

The distinguishing characteristic behind the range of ideologies labeled “White Supremacist” or “Nazi” – whether pan-European or Nordicist or anything else – is the belief that certain groups of people who are socially accepted as Caucasians are mixed with racial elements that are radically foreign and usually conspiring to hide this. That there is a measurable pure group, and that other groups deviate from it, depending a bit on the ideology of the individual who believes in this. Basically, Nordicists get history out of order, and believe that the White race was born in Europe, and therefore that other Caucasians look slightly different because they are admixed with “Muds.” “White Nationalists” have a similar ideology, but attempt to ignore the fact that Southern Europeans have a more Mediterranean appearance due to their geographical position.

Deviating populations may be Jews, Arabs, Irish, Italians, Armenians, East Caucasus Georgians or various groups, again, depending on ideology. On the internet, ideology seems to be centered around Jews, who allegedly are aware of their impurity and seek to undermine racial solidarity because of it. Note that the argument that Jews promote multiculturalism because they were persecuted is a different argument than the argument that they do it because they are impure.

Back to the real world … there are different levels of pigmentation attached to different Caucasoid groups, but differences in pigmentation are not indicative of Negroid or Mongoloid or Australoid ancestry. If those differences are not attached to Negroid or Mongoloid or Australoid admixture, then those differences are very small. There are differences in bone structure as well, but the same logic applies.

There are differences in specific markers from person to person, and some markers (whether Mitochondrial DNA, Y Chromosome or Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) are more common in specific groups. Autosomal DNA studies are used, however, to show how genetically related two populations are on average. What autosomal DNA shows is that all Caucasians cluster. So it is not that groups are conspiring to “pass as White,” but rather that they are taking the correct position and the White Nationalists are wrong based on ancestry, genetics and physical appearance as well.

I will concede that the idea of classifying the races will make a certain type of liberal uncomfortable, but still, I believe most people would be comfortable with what is written above.

If one accepts the idea that Europeans are the descendants of non-Europeans, and one accepts the idea that Nordics are depigmented Mediterraneans, it undermines a whole racial taxonomy in which there is a “pure Aryan race.” I must laugh at the idea that White people are “indigenous Europeans.” Neanderthals? The Caucasian race originated in North Africa. “White Nationalism” and “neo-Nazism” depend on conjuring up and exaggerating racial differences between so called “Europeans” and “non-Europeans,” and what is particularly amusing is when they are faced with a contradiction of including one group while excluding a similar group based on who is “Aryan” or who is “European.” Why do you think the Caucasian race is tied together by religion (paganism and Christianity/Judaism/Islam), folklore, wars and physical appearance with differences mainly in hair and eye color? The answer is that the Caucasian groups, including Arabs and North Africans, are linked by ancestry to the extent that they are not mixed with something else.

My aim in this post was to explain the difference between regular racialism, which liberals may try to avoid, and the ideology of “the white nationalist movement,” which is usually what “civil rights groups” such as the Southern Poverty Law Center attack. I believed that was achieved by showing how “white nationalists” exaggerate inter-Caucasian differences as if they are racial differences, and then blame certain White Groups for trying to “undermine” them and “conspiring to pass as White to advance non-Whites.” On the anonymous sections of the internet, the group blamed is usually Jews. Off the internet, it could be another group.

Interview by Breckenridge Elkins of American Onslaught

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

Download Interview
The link

Interview with Kane. Free Media Productions, Current Events, Marxist Theory, Circle of Crust Gossip.

It was a combination of a casual conversation and an interview. I did not prepare answers, so they were very intuitive answers.

“In Your Face” Communist Protest

Sunday, May 8th, 2011

I have shown this to most of my inner circle. I’ve in fact known about this video for a few years, but mostly watched it over and over again in private. To be honest, this is my favorite video on youtube. When I was unsure of whether or not to embrace Marxism, this video helped nudge me

I decided to show it here. Please note that my position on Bin Laden is clear. It was articulated in the last article. Watch the ENTIRE video.

The first guy reminds me of Besoshvilli with his talk about imperialism and how “The problem is here.” He basically accuses USA of imperialism and bashes it for wars in the middle east.

The third guy reminds me of myself, particularly when he appears the second time. He’s just flipping people off and inciting.

The second guy does not particular remind me of anybody, but with a stretch, you can maybe substitute Chapeav or Daniel Shays. Both seem very moved by the deaths caused by US imperialism.

Here is the video. Yes I am loyal to my metro, but that does not mean I occasionally post West Coast Bay Area material.

Bay Area “Revolutionary Communist Party” disrupts meeting.

I “feel” this.

Osama Bin Laden and the US Government

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

“Serial killers do, on a small scale, what governments do on a large one.” – Richard Ramirez

“Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit,or fun.” – Richard Ramirez

I should first note that Osama Bin Laden is not a serial killer, but a politically motivated mass assassin. The quotes still apply.

Some people take the line that Osama Bin Laden was someone who was resisting imperialism.

My line, however, is not that Osama Bin Laden is to be admired, but that Osama Bin Laden and the US Government have a lot in common. They worked together during the time of USSR to fight USSR and both are willing to kill large numbers of innocent people to advance a particular idea. In one case the idea is free market capitalism. In the other case the idea is Islamic feudalism. Both sides are willing to blame the other side and use it to justify their behavior. Osama Bin Laden politically profited from US imperialism. US imperialism politically profited from Osama Bin Laden.

In my line, Osama Bin Laden is not seen as the opposite of America, but as being very similar to America. It is a fight between two reactionary forces, both of which are willing to utilize methods that murder innocents. Both believe in ideals (“Freedom” and Islam) and both recruit and mislead individuals who are affected by class antagonisms and political discontent.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor