“1. The party will stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc., and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes.
“2. It will stand for the complete political and economic liberation of the Indian people.
“3. It will stand for a Federal Government for India as the ultimate goal, but will believe in a strong Central Government with dictatorial powers for some years to come, in order to put India on her feet.
“4. It will believe in a sound system of state-planning for the reorganization of the agricultural and industrial life of the country.
“5. It will seek to build up a new social structure on the basis of the village communities of the past, that were ruled by the village “Panch” and will strive to break down the existing social barriers like caste.
“6. It will seek to establish a new monetary and credit system in the light of the theories and the experiments that have been and are current in the modern world.
“7. It will seek to abolish landlordism and introduce a uniform land-tenure system for the whole of India.
“8. It will not stand for a democracy in the Mid-Victorian sense of the term, but will believe in government by a strong party bound together by military discipline, as the only means of holding India together and preventing a chaos, when Indians are free and are thrown entirely on their own resources.
“9. It will not restrict itself to a campaign inside India but will resort to international propaganda also, in order to strengthen India’s case for liberty, and will attempt to utilize the existing international organizations.
“10. It will endeavor to unite all the radical organizations under a national executive so that whenever any action is taken, there will be simultaneous activity on many fronts.”

Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) described himself as “the philosopher of Fascism.” He ghostwrote A Doctrine of Fascism (1930) for his country’s prime minister and dictator, Benito Mussolini.

Philosophically he drew from Kant, Hegel and Marx — system builders. He had some admiration for Nietzsche, and he had a romantic view of historic leaders of Italian nationalism.

He had been an academic. the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Palermo University from 1907 to 1914 and later at the University of Pisa. In 1923 he accepted Mussolini’s offer of the post of Minister of Education.

Gentile admired Marx, but he and his fellow fascists were opposed to class struggle. Their nationalism embodied a unified patriotic devotion to the state. He and fellow fascists viewed Italy as a single organic entity and unifying force that bound people together by their ancestry. Mussolini, fascism’s great leader, said:

For us the nation is not just territory but something spiritual… A nation is great when it translates into reality the force of its spirit.

Gentile’s admiration for Marx can be compared to the youthful Adolf Hitler’s admiration for the socialist labor movement marching together in a seemingly endless file through the streets of Vienna. What Hitler admired was the labor movement’s mobilization for the sake of power. What Gentile admired in Marx was the unity of his system of thought, including its historicity. Gentile wanted to consider the fascist movement as progressive within a historical context.

Fascist philosophy held to the idea of struggle and conflict moving history forward, but rather than between classes it was between weak and strong nations. In The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, Gentile wrote that “mankind only progresses through division, and progress is achieved through the clash and victory of one side over another”

The Fascists believed in a national rebirth and in a new fascist man, Uomo Fascista as Gentile called it. This is vaguely similar to Nietzsche’s Übermensch, which some have translated to Superman. But Gentile was misreading Nietzsche. In Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the protagonist contends that “man is something which ought to be overcome,” that apes are a laughingstock to man and that man would be a laughing stock for Übermensch. Meanwhile, in the minds of some people in the world, Mussolini and fascist men displaying their superiority through pompous displays, swagger, bullying and chest beatings were in appearance ape-like.

The Fascist philosophy held that fascism was filling the need for purpose in the world that would otherwise be absurd. The philosophy of Gentile stood against the positivist philosophy, the philosophy that limited authentic knowledge to that based on sense experience. Fascist philosophy, claimed Gentile, was not skeptical, nor agnostic, nor pessimistic, nor passively optimistic. Fascism, he claimed, was man engaged in a moral and intellectual struggle in an exercise of free will in the creation of a new world.

Giovanni Gentile would remain loyal to Mussolini until his own assassination in April 1944, eleven months before Musolini’s assassination.

Marx’s role in raising awareness of important issues should be appreciated by any self-respecting, enlightened and pragmatic person. He may have not scored on every shot, but at least someone got the rebound. Juche (North Korea’s ideology) may not be Marxism, but it owes some of its influence to Marx. Benito Mussolini was a Marxist before he developed into a fascist. Mao may have modified Marx to be more agrarian and idealistic, and adapted to Chinese characteristics, but still was influenced by Marx. The Ba’athists with which I converse see Marx as an influence but not the “seal of the prophets.”

Marx also hated oppressive religious fanatics (of any religion) and considered religion to opiate. I salute him on that stance too!

It requires a religious belief in capitalism in order to keep trying to succeed against all odds, because otherwise it is easier to give up. After all, to succeed requires many failed attempts and/or a special networking connection, especially in this global economic meltdown. I can attest to the fact that most hardcore entrepreneurs truly believe these values.

WASHINGTON — The most popular religion in America isn’t Christianity, as most of us have been taught to believe. The most cherished belief system celebrates the principles of unfettered capitalism.

That misplaced faith in free markets was on display in this past Thursday’s health care summit, when — between sound bites and talking points — Republicans argued that “choice and competition” would largely resolve the country’s health care problems. That belief — that the arbitrary, confusing and consumer-unfriendly policies and practices that we euphemistically call a health care “system” can be transformed by relying on free market principles — is confounding.

Except for beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Affairs system — all government-run insurance programs — those of us who have insurance are utterly reliant on the private market. That’s what got us into the mess we’re in.

The health care market simply doesn’t operate like the market for cars or computers or flat-screen TVs. Sony and Samsung make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can. Health insurance companies make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can and then trying very hard not to actually deliver them.

Try to imagine that you’re awaiting delivery of your brand-new 50-inch TV, for which you’ve already made a hefty down payment. But the company calls to tell you that you violated some obscure clause in your contract, so they’re not going to bring it! In the health insurance world, it’s called “rescission.” Insurers decide they won’t honor the contract because of some alleged violation by the policy-holder.

They do that to keep their fat profit margins. Health care giant Wellpoint has proposed substantial rate increases in the individual market (policies for individuals who don’t have employer-based insurance), not just in California but in several other states. In congressional testimony last week, WellPoint president Angela Braly said the company had to raise premiums because of soaring health care costs. But Wellpoint hardly seems to be hurting; it reported a profit last year of $4.7 billion.

California’s Wellpoint subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, is not only proposing stunning rate hikes. The state’s insurance commissioner has announced that the company has also repeatedly violated state law by failing to pay medical claims on time and by misrepresenting policy provisions to consumers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

So, it seems, the company tells you that a policy offers broad coverage when they’re trying to get you to buy insurance. But when you need the coverage, you find out that the policy doesn’t offer broad coverage, after all. That helps explain why so many people, even with health insurance, go bankrupt after a costly illness.

Without stricter government oversight and regulation — which is the essence of the health care reform proposed by President Obama — health care costs will continue to soar while consumers get less and less. Obama’s proposals don’t represent a “government takeover,” as critics contend. The vast majority of Americans would still get their insurance in the private marketplace. But insurers would have to live by a different set of rules.

Vice President Joe Biden said it best at the summit: If Republicans agree that insurance reform is necessary, that health insurance companies should be prohibited from turning away consumers because of pre-existing conditions, that they should be prevented from enforcing lifetime caps on benefits, then the GOP must see the need for strict government regulation. You don’t get those changes in the “free market.”

And, unlike the choice of buying a computer or a car, you’d don’t really get to walk away from health insurance. If you do, you take your life into your hands. Having health insurance increases your chances of longevity.

Once upon a time, political leaders realized that all Americans needed access to electricity, and they stepped in to ensure that all households got that small miracle at reasonable rates — something that the “free market” could not provide. Americans need a similar intervention in health care now.

People like the Ba’athists are people who should be ruling over the Middle East. People who have a sense of identity, but are not religious zealots. Similar people should be ruling over Israel right now.

BAGHDAD —

Iraq on Friday announced the reinstatement of 20,000 former army officers who were dismissed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, in a gesture toward healing sectarian resentment over the disbanding of Saddam Hussein’s military.

But the timing of the announcement raised suspicions that Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his allies were just currying votes in upcoming parliamentary election.

The skepticism underscored how bitter feelings have become between Iraq’s factions ahead of the March 7 vote. Many had hoped the vote would be a chance to move past the Shiite-Sunni divisions that have wracked Iraq since Saddam’s fall nearly seven years ago, but instead the mistrust between the two sides has become starker.

Al-Maliki is facing Sunni anger after a Shiite-led commission barred 440 candidates—mostly Sunnis—from running because of suspected ties to Saddam’s former ruling party.

In theory, the military reinstatements should be good news for Sunnis. The 2003 order by Iraq’s then-American governor L Paul Bremer to dissolve Saddam’s 400,000-strong army—the largest in the Middle East on the eve of the 2003 invasion—is widely seen as one of the factors that fueled Sunnis’ sense of alienation with the new Iraq from the very start.

Sunnis dominated Saddam’s regime, and many top military officers came from the community. Jobless and angry, some from the old army took their expertise to the Sunni insurgency that broke out in the summer of 2003, seeking an income for their families or revenge against the Americans and their Iraqi allies. The disbanding, along with the looting of the army’s bases and depots across much of Iraq, is widely blamed for the tortuously slow pace of standing, equipping and training the country’s new army.

Over past years, thousands of officers from the disbanded army have trickled back to service in an ongoing process of reintegration. Friday’s announcement that 20,000 were being reinstated was the largest known single batch of returnees.

Defense Ministry Spokesman Mohammed al-Askari denied that the announcement was linked to the March 7 election for a 325-seat legislature, insisting that it was made when funding for the 20,000 positions became available.

“This measure has nothing to do with elections, rather it is related to budget allocations,” he said.

A Defense Ministry statement said the rehired personnel would be reinstated as of Sunday, but a senior Iraqi military official said the process of absorbing so many could take weeks and maybe months to complete.

The official said a systematic process to reinstate Saddam-era army personnel has been ongoing for months, with a ministry committee screening officers and noncommissioned officers for ties to Saddam’s regime or involvement in atrocities or war crimes.

He said reinstatements were strictly based on the army’s present requirements and mainly benefited officers from the rank of colonel down to noncommissioned officers. U.S. commanders have in the past pointed out that Iraq’s new army, which is at least 300,000-strong, desperately needed mid-ranking and experienced noncommssioned officers.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Critics, however, said the sudden return of their jobs might influence the votes of the reinstated personnel.

“No doubt, this move is related to the elections and it aims at gaining votes,” said Maysoun al-Damlouji, a candidate from a secular block led by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a fierce critic of al-Maliki.

The United States hopes a transparent and credible election will bolster national reconciliation efforts and pave the way for its combat forces to go home by the end of August and the rest by next year’s end.

Regardless of the motive, reinstating the large group of officers would go some way toward helping reconciliation. Al-Maliki has raised Sunni resentment with his relentless denouncements of Baathists in Iraqi politics. But at the same time, he has shown some flexibility on the issue when it comes to the military.

Al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government has already reinstated many Sunni officers as top commanders in the new army. It also waived “de-Baathification” rules and reinstated generals—Sunnis and Shiites—who once held senior positions in Saddam’s ruling party.

Analyst Nabil Salim, a Baghdad University political science professor, attributed Friday’s announcement to political and election considerations, but also saw it as a boost for the U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces as they fight insurgents.

“It is a good step to provide the new army with badly needed expertise,” he said.

What to do with officials from the Baath and former army officers has been a key source of tension for postwar Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands, including army personnel, were purged from jobs at the government and security forces under a controversial program conceived by Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority—the U.S. occupation government.

Many were allowed to return to government service in 2008. But the issue remains a source of friction, especially after the election ban, ordered by a committee led by two Shiite candidates believed to have ties to Iran.

One of the banned candidates, prominent Sunni lawmaker Saleh al-Mutlaq, pulled his party out of the election in protest, but he reversed the decision on Thursday. The decision effectively lifts the lingering threat that minority Sunnis would boycott the vote.

In yet another twist Friday, the spokesman of the Shiite-led political vetting committee that drafted the blacklist, Mudhafar al-Batat, said the panel would file a lawsuit against al-Mutlaq for his alleged involvement in attacks and killings carried out by insurgent groups linked to the Baath party.

Al-Mutlaq has repeatedly denied any links to the insurgency and says he quit the Baath party in the 1970s

Key visionary points:

1) “Up to date” views on religion.  Perhaps tolerance and collaboration but certainly not agreement with precepts that are clearly refuted by modern science.

2) “Up to date” views on race.  An acknowledgment of human biodiversity but rejection of  unscientific theories.  “Racial science” but not bigotry.  “Race realism.”

3) Integration of technology into society, as opposed to using technology as a means to deconstruct the concept of nationality.  Integration, not radical globalization.

4) A realization that capitalism can implode without authoritarianism.  Technology helps authority to gain more control over the market for national self-interest.

5) Not only should governments use technology to keep their people loyal, but inversely, the people should use technology to keep their governments loyal.

6) Population control ideally avoiding abortion.

7) “Up to date” views on ideology.  No following Marx, Mussolini, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad, Jefferson Davis, Moses or Adolf Hitler word for word.  It is the year 2010 now.

Younger predominately male workers need to stop waiting at the back of the line (we’ve waited long enough, how long are we supposed to wait), and really start to discriminate against older workers wherever we have the power to do so. It is the older generation, this baby boomer generation of screwups, who ruined the economy, and it is the older generation who imposes flawed ideology on the younger the generation. The older bourgeoisie useless parasites can shut their mouths about age discrimination, and realize how unfairly good they have it. They can shut up about how hard they worked to get to where they are, and realize that it was easy to succeed until they screwed everything up. The blatant nepotism! The preference of age over skill! The desire to hire a worker solely because he/she is more experienced, when he/she may be an idiot. They run up deficits, they deconstruct the ethnic identity of nations, they outsource jobs, they start imperialistic wars for liberal capitalism, they flood the working class with more immigrant competition and they think they are clever with their two party system.

(note that this article is merely artistic and I don’t really advocate violence)
Death to the bourgeoisie! Exterminate them. Imprison them. Kick them. Spit on them. Throw rocks at them. Hell piss on them. Throw them into volcanoes and then clap when the volcanoes erupt. Make them suffocate on their dollar bills.

It would be pleasurable to purge paranoids like Chaim Ben Pesach from the Zionist movement, but I just realized it’s not necessary. It has already occurred. The JDL has rejected him and Israel has banned him. Perhaps the JDL and Israel are neo-nazi organizations, and Rick Rubin was the Fuhrer. Allen-T was the SS Stormtrooper and EagleEye the Polish-Ukrainian collaborator.

I wonder if Kahanists would consider Lawrence Auster to be a neo-nazi. After all, his conversion to Christianity must be an attempt to genocide the Jewish people spiritually.

The better move is not to turn against Zionism, but to purge the Zionist movement of its undesirable mental defectives. The Zionist movement should move towards national bolshevism and integral corporatist nationalism, and away from Taliban style religiosity.

A dictatorship modeled off of Pol Pot’s khmer rouge could really rewrite the religious culture of the middle east, and then allow it to progress technologically after its original period of purification.

And don’t forget that pol pot was a nationalist!

Agencies – Media sources said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the investigation committee on the Iraq war when he claimed that attention to topple former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began after the attacks atheist ten of September. And removed the newspaper “The Independent” British unveiling of the document did not receive the Commission of Inquiry into the Iraq war, confirms that the government of Tony Blair made secret plans to drum up support for the establishment of an internal coup against Saddam Hussein two years before the invasion of Iraq. The newspaper “The Independent” The British Foreign Office officials drafted a plan called “contract with the people,” suggested to the dissidents in Iraq that toppling Saddam would receive support from Britain, also pledged to provide aid and debt cancellation of oil contracts and the provision of commercial transactions as soon as the ouster The newspaper “has been the completion of the plan, titled” Confidential – for the eyes of the British and U.S. “in the June 11, 2001, and approved by the cabinet of ministers.” The document said Britain would “want to deal with Iraq that respects the rights of its people and live in peace with its neighbors and abide by international law and the right of the Iraqi people to live in a society based on rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest, and that respects human rights, freedom and prosperity the economy. The document said “those who wish to be published a call for change in Iraq deserve our support. We look forward to the day when Iraq who is due to join the international community, will receive a new system to reschedule debt and aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund aid package and trade of the European Union.” Mr Blair said during his testimony before the commission last week that serious attention to the overthrow of Saddam breed only after ten atheist attacks of September, which changed from “a risk”. For his part, “said Ed Duffy, spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in foreign affairs, said the document questioned the validity of the certificate made by Blair should have been published before hearing his testimony on Friday. “The plan to support the Iraqis who seek to topple Saddam may be less harmful, and that was without a doubt the most legitimate what happened. However, it appears that Blair had always intended to change the system since the early and before the atheist of September.” “It seems, however, that veil of secrecy was lifted from the documents is crucial, which stop an obstacle to question Blair and other people.” In addition, newspaper “The Guardian” The Commission of Inquiry Celkot Blair will call again to make further submissions before it. She said Blair would be questioned in public and in secret after the committee expressed concern that his testimony on the legality of the invasion are contrary to those made by the former British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

This article focuses on Blair, but it is clear that Bush was trying to downplay the Afghanistan war, and switch to Iraq, even though a stronger case can be made against Afghanistan than against Iraq. Iraq is secular and never attacked USA. It was back stabbed. Afghanistan is theocratic and could be accused of Al-Qaeda collaboration. Yet Bush wanted to get the focus off of Afghanistan and onto Iraq.

The motives are ulterior! Profit and gain!

Here is an interesting post about Pol Pot and how he was really a Khmer nationalist and not a Communist. He adopted some Marxist rhetoric but followed his own line. And he sided more with Mao than with USSR. USSR of course had backed off from its Stalinist line, but still Maoism is strongly adapted to Chinese characteristics and quite different from Russian Bolshevism.

I already knew this, but it adds some extra angles to the discussion.

Kahanism is not the right path to fight Islamic extremism.

The neo-con path is not the right path either. Liberal democracy is not the right path when confronted with theological threats.

A third way is the real option.

Oh how I’d love to purge both the left and the right and bring an entirely new mentality to America!

The working class must not turn to egalitarianism but to authoritarian nationalism.

Mr. Hussein is a strong advocate of progress under the banner of secularism and a united Arab destiny. Mr. Hussein believes that a dictatorial government that force-feeds modernization is a shortcut to progress. He is convinced that such an approach will catapult the backward Arab world, starting with Iraq, into the next century.
-New York Times

The Ba’athist movment was and is clearly run by mainly Caucasoid Arabs (of course there is some racial variation), of Mediterranean appearance in Syria and of partial Iranid mixture in Iraq, who claim religious beliefs from Christianity, to Islam, to atheism, to even Judaism. It was a Jewish mother who convinced Saddam Hussein’s mother not to abort him. While many Muslims participate, an important point in their worldview is the separation of church and state. Ba’thists enthusiastically embrace secularism and technological progress and oppose Sharia law. In addition, the Iraqi Ba’athists embraced the Soviet Union, logically becoming allies of third positionists as nationalists who are conscious of the dangers of capitalism. The Ba’thist Arabs were not religious fanatics but progressive Human Beings. “American” imperialists targeted the Ba’athists not because they were a theological threat, but out of Corporate greed. There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Ba’athism, so the war was fought under false pretenses.

Arab Ba’thists strongly resisted and continue to resist a global capitalist structure that not only keeps them enslaved but also the majority of the world. Hence, Arab Ba’thists and their American, European and Israeli Third Positionist brothers should work actively together to smash imperialistic ideologies like capitalism, Shia fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism and mainstream Torah Zionism (secular Zionism is okay) wherever possible! HAIL the heroic Ba’athists! Only those who do not understand the material falsehoods of Abrahamic theology do not appreciate the hard work that they did for the betterment of progressive thinking. The accomplishments of the Arab Ba’athists should be remembered by any self-respecting race realist and anti-capitalist nationalist.

While the Middle East, North Africa and Near East are now enslaved by a reactionary religion, at one point Arabs were major contributors to paganism and technical progress. Saddam Hussein set out to progress his people scientifically at the expense of religion in the same way that Stalin did!  The regime in Israel which the Ba’thists opposed was nothing but a puppet for American interests.  America stabbed Saddam Hussein in the back, and logically he had to respond with defiance.  But this does not mean that Saddam Hussein was fixated on killing Jews.  Being a secular man, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein was open minded enough to embrace the right Israel if it wasn’t aligned against his interests behind America.

How do Clerics view the Ba’athists? As traitors to Islam who need to be decapitated!

HAIL the Ba’athist Arabs! Good fascists most of them… HAIL the ideology and the pragmatic results of its applications!

Some Arabs supported the Ba’thist Revolution to liberate the Arabs from the possibility of encroaching Sharia Law while others chose to side with the non-Arab South Asians who worship an Arabian religion in Iran.  The Ba’thist Arabs that sacrificed their lives to aid the destruction of Sharia law and liberal capitalism were spiritually connected to Europeans and secular Israelis that fought for the same goal.  It is absolutely correct to distinguish between good Arabs and bad Arabs. It is retarded to throw all Arabs into the same pot, declaring them enemies of progressive civilization. After all, historical evidence suggests otherwise. Besides, many Arabs were and are similar to Europeans, both culturally and racially.  All were pagan and now all are ruled by Abraham’s creed (Christianity, Judaism and Islam come from Abraham)! Physically, Bashar al-Assad is the president of Syria, and he is DEFINITELY Mediterranean in appearance, similar to a person in Southern Europe. Is Saddam Hussein non-White? No. Is Ralph Nader non-White? No. Is Steve Jobbs non-White? No.

Arabs as a group are not the enemy.  Massive immigration of Arabs into Europe, and Islamic imperialism are the enemy, but not Arabs in a physical sense just because they are Arabs. Theocratic nuts are the enemy. Failing to realize the genetic link between Europe and the Middle East is anthropology for a crippled mind. A lot of Arabs look Mediterranean in appearance, a few are actually blondish, and a few have a particular “Arabid” type which is still Caucasoid. There are, however, negroids who live in Arab countries and have mixed, and they should not be confused with the indigenous Arabs. In the case of Iraq, Iranian admixture is present (Persians are not Arabs).  There is variation in phenotype internal to the Arab linguistic group just like there is variation in phenotype internal to the Hispanic linguistic group, Soviet Geographical group and American geographical group.  Nevertheless the majority of Arabs are Caucasoid, with some variation in appearance from the Peninsula to the Gulf to the fertile crescent.

Islam is a reactionary religion. Iraq was a secular state and therefore indefinitely more progressive than the Islamic “republics” surrounding it. Most Arabs in Iraq opposed sharia law while other Muslims are religious fanatics. Why a socialist should support religious fanatics instead of rational secularists is beyond me. Ba’thism is a beacon of communitarianism. This is why it is necessary that Arabs orient themselves towards either Ba’thism or Social Nationalism (another secular party in Syria) instead of towards a capitalist liberalist AmeriKa or Sharia law. Social nationalists fringe movements and mainstream Ba’thist movements are trying to push Arabs in that direction. Only modernism can guarantee communitarian stability in the Middle East, if necessary by force. After all, it has been conclusively proven that hardcore Muslims are incapable of uniting themselves, for whatever cause. Muslims are by nature tribal and factional but Saddam Hussein brought many people together under his rule. Ba’athists are more industrious than theocrats as well. This is why Iraq remained a techno-progressive labor nation while Muslim nations reverted to their medieval (and natural) state of tribal and nomadic desert communities. While Saddam looked towards the future, Muslims longed to live in the past.

Iraq was a race realist tribal state which is superior to a liberal state. If Iraq was only a liberal state, it would have been defeated by Islam. But since Ba’athists are of a different mindset than Theocrats, Iraq adamantly resisted Iran. This is a good thing. Actually, to civilize the Middle East, Iraq was correct to invade Iran and Ku’wait. The effects of reactionary imperialism could be erased with progressive imperialism. Of course, for this to happen, Iraq needed the support of America, which backstabbed it, and could have benefited from a Euro-Siberian Empire.

There is a difference between Torah “Zionism” and supporting Jewish self-determination under the philosophy of secular nationalism. A Torah Zionist can be an ally to the extent they reconcile their views, but secularists are more likely to ally. Perhaps Jews and Arabs (many of which are racially Caucasoid, but that’s not the point) could even work together in the name of a Third Positionist ideology that focused less on religion.

I think for the purpose of defining movements that correct class warfare via nationalism, the term is adequate but otherwise it is overly broad. I’ll still continue to use it to categorize posts though. There is a big difference between using a state to discourage class warfare, which is fascism, and using genocides in a misguided attempt to remove class conflict, which is Croatian Nationalism and Nazism. One method actually works and the other doesn’t. One method is actually an ideology and the other is just prejudice disguised as ideology.

This is not a denial of race; I believe in race but I don’t think Neo-Nazis are good anthropologists and I don’t think it should be central to every single political question. I would venture to say that liberals would still consider me a racist, even though I am a more general right wing authoritarian. I do not support any massive immigration. If the massive immigration came from the Ukraine into Russia or Vice-versa, I’d still oppose it. Not to mention, I don’t think neo-nazis and their supporters know what they are talking about when it comes to human biodiversity, but even so, race should not be the answer to every political question. Yes I oppose aggressive globalization done in the name of “modernization” as a way to troll society. Liberal globalists take us for idiots. But this is not the same thing as basing all politics off of race.

I believe, however, that ideology is something which helps man to overcome nature. In that way, techno-fascism is the opposite of marxism. Religion is a perversion of ideology.

My worldview has a fundamental building block in the same way that a house may be made of a certain material:
1) I think that man is born a natural animal.
2) I think man must overcome nature for civilian society.
3) fanatical devotion to ideals is required to overcome nature
Part 1 is realism. Part 2 is idealism. Part 3 is means for the second to overcome the first. I believe strongly in setting goals and reaching them.

I acknowledge the existence of nature, but think man can master nature. Hitler had the opposite view and ridiculed the idea that man should overcome nature while Marx believed strongly in material determinism. Religious people believe in unscientific determinism. But I believe man can and should conquer nature.

I believe creating group identification systems – classes, nations, social constructs, gender awareness, race awareness etc. is good rather than bad. Liberalism intentionally trolls the groups which hold society in existence to ruin society, though some liberals believe they are decent people. Part of overcoming nature is group consciousness. Marxists are for using existing classes to destroy society, not for intentionally creating and preserving classes. Hitlerites think that group identification occurs automatically. I do not, I think it has to be programmed, which is rooted in my belief that man must overcome nature. Society can be engineered for improvement, but whoever dictates society must know what he/she is doing. I understand man thinks individualistically, but think man can be made to operate collectively through ideological agreement (Preferable) or through bribery (not as effective).

Because I believe man must overcome nature, I believe that man should create a social contract to preserve order between nations and individuals. But I believe that the contract has its limitations and therefore perpetual peace is not possible or desirable. There is some level of global group identification – we are all humans – but I think we should be broken up into smaller groups too – races, tribes, language groups, sexes etc. That means there are separate nations and separate social contracts. To argue for globalization is like arguing against modularity. The populations of earth should be breakable into smaller pieces. One would not design a house without modularity, and earthly society should not be designed without modularity.

In order to overcome nature, man must first acknowledge nature. Religion is a perversion of this process, a problem for techno-progression and competition for the state worship which I advocate due to the social contract. Man must totally worship collectivism if man wants to overcome individualism. Ideology is a transforming force, but religion is a perversion of ideology which replaces the truth with falsehoods. Man can be programmed (depending on intelligence and open-mindedness), but religion abuses the concept.

Because of all of this, I gravitate towards the bureaucratic state and think that it should be used to push people into nationalism. I believe in big government, but because I am a realist and a conqueror, I believe individual initiative and competition should be an important part of that government. Currency should exist, but Government should be harassing you like big brother. In other words, you can start your own business, but you better use it for the good of the state, not the bad of the state. And the state will watch you.

They got in power solely because of warfare. WWI got Lenin in power. The Tzar was too weak and unprepared.
WWII got Mao in power. Kai-Shek didn’t have the ability to fight another war after fighting Japan.

Non-Marxists got in power more because of the depression than the war. They worked within capitalism to fix its contradictions. The depression got Mussolini in power. Same for Hitler. Not Franco, however. Marxists took power more violently.

If Iranian Marxists or similar movements take power, it will be because of the pressure US put on Iran weakens it, not in spite of it. The more screwed up things get, the more the opportunity exists for change. That opportunity won’t exist without pressure from Zionism and America.

If Iran does become socialist, then US imperialism will be the reason. But fundamentally, not the way that Besoshvilli thinks. It will be because the Iranian people are sick of fighting and finally overthrow their own government which is already fatigued from USA. Not because the Iranian people rally behind their government. Not because Iran gets stronger and heroically fends off USA. Because Iran gets weaker. The only reason a Marxist should support the ruling order in Iran, is under the logic that it will self-destruct and socialism can defeat it. The idea of supporting the Theocratic capitalist regime as an end in itself baffles me and any clear thinker when done under the banner of Marxist-Leninism.

If the US disappeared tomorrow and Islam dominated the world, atheistic socialism would be finished. It is not the working class that allows for revolution. It is infighting between capitalists.

I stand and will always stand for a total purge of judeo-christian-islamic theology. The movement of right wing authoritarians will be an atheistic movement. Corporatism and state worship will obliterate religion, and I hope that religion people will be shamed as they try to shame others with their man made nonsense.

We can compare authoritarian ideological leaders to surgeons. Let us suppose that B-pep (a pro-Nazi internet figure) operated on me, and killed me instead of saving me. The correct response would be not to blame surgeons as a group or surgery as a practice, but to blame B-pep. Likewise, it is entirely possible to blame the Nazis and still hate liberals and internationalists at the same time. It is even possible to hate Jews and still hate Hitler, but I don’t hate Jews.

I will simulate how a neo-nazi responds to liberal smeers, and then I will simulate how I would respond:

While the negatively associated with Nazism has scared people away from authoritarian ideologies, we just have to accept it and minimize it by disassociating from it. Yes, Hitler’s image destroyed the image of those who fight against liberalism, but defending him only makes things worse. Besides, Nazism is philosophically flawed anyways.

The strategy should not be to defend Hitler. Right wingers of today do not have to take responsibility for Hitler, and right wingers do not have to apologize for Hitler. Right wingers do not have to defend Hitler. Neo-nazis feel they have to.

Statolatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Statolatry, which combines idolatry with the state, first appeared in Giovanni Gentile’s Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1931 under Mussolini’s name. The same year, an encyclical by Pope Pius XI criticized Fascist Italy as developing “a pagan worship of the state” which it called “statolatry”[1].

[edit] Ludwig von Mises’ Omnipotent Government (1944)

The term was also popularized and explained by Ludwig von Mises in his 1944 work Omnipotent Government. Statolatry is literally worship of the State analogous to idolatry as worship of idols. It asserts that the glorification and aggrandizement of ‘State’ or ‘Nation’ is the object of all legitimate human aspiration at the expense of all else, including personal welfare and independent thought. Expansion of the power and influence of one’s State is to be achieved, if necessary, through aggressive war and colonial adventures (i.e. imperialism). It far exceeds the patriotism of those who recognize the rights of people other than themselves to self-determination, and might best be described as super-patriotism or nationalistic chauvinism.

[edit] See also

• Fascism
• The cult to the emperor and Rome were part of the state religion in the Roman Empire.
• Jingoism
• Political religion
• Statism
• Totalitarianism
• We, a science-fiction novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin with a state cult.
• ethnolatry

Techno-Supermecism (my ideology) is entirely different. I see technology as something to be vertically forced on inferior and unwilling populations, and they can kiss my reactionary ass if they don’t like it. Techno-Supermecism reduces people to cogs on an authoritarian “fascist” corporate state worshiping wheel, and that’s just how I like it.

KIRKSVILLE, MO. — Recently police arrested a Kirksville High School student in connection with a hate group directed at another student formed on the social networking Web site Facebook.

Jerod Reed, 17, is charged with harassment, a class a misdemeanor. He was arrested over the weekend and remains behind bars on a $1,500 cash only bond.

Until recently, this type of cyberbullying wasn’t covered by the existing laws. But now, what kids may think of as gossiping with friends can have much more serious consequences.

“They’ve changed the laws now so that harassment encompasses telephone as well as any type of electronic device or electronic communication. And so if they threaten anybody, intimidate them or they cause any severe emotional distress or disturbance it’s actually a class A misdemeanor,” said Sara Holzmeier, Kirksville R-3 School Resource Officer.

That includes communication in text messages, online postings and in emails.

Authorities tell KTVO electronic harassment cases can be difficult because they have to prove who was actually sitting behind the computer when the harassment occurred.

“In this circumstance it was fairly easy because individuals came out on the site and claimed responsibility for starting the site and then it was just talking to the individuals and asking ‘did you start this and did you say this?’” Holzmeier said.

The Facebook group involved in the case has since been shut down, but not before many people joined and posted comments on the message board. We wondered how, in this case, officials decided that Reed was the one that should face criminal charges.

“We looked at a number of different factors–who started the site, the severity of the emotional distress it would have caused the individual that the hate group was started towards and the comments that each individual person made and how severely emotionally disturbed it would have caused the victim,” she said.

Holzmeier says it’s important that people, especially kids and teens, using these social networking sites think before they type. She says once you put it out there in a text or on a Facebook or MySpace post it’s there forever, and you can’t take it back.

The only way to have populism is to make the state so strong that it can play referee against economic impulses that are not collectively beneficial. A strong state enables a national self-interest.

Imagine all the problems “fascism” could have prevented. With a strong state, there would be no global economic meltdown because the government would put the bankers in their place. If the bankers act against the interest of the state, they get the purge.

National socialists and white nationalists argue that the movement should all be for the race, and they don’t even know how to define the race. The race is nothing but a collection of genetic matter without the state. The state is everything and everything else is nothing. A cruel death to neo-liberalism!

In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism. – Adolf Hitler, anti-fascist Racial Bolshevist (national socialist)

“White power” let’s create a utopia without any wars and Jews, where Portuguese “aryans” can take their place as the master race and stop war and conflict.” Or not. Real fascists realize that being against egalitarianism is part of being right winged. “Hate” is part of being right winged. Aggression is part of being right winged, to keep the social contract in place. Aggression against even family members if it is necessary. Aggression against people who come from the same continent and aggression against fellow nationals. Not this “let’s determine who is white and then form a separate nation.”

The idea of aggression against liberalism transcends race and unapologetically opposes a form of poorly defined racial Bolshevism which unites “european gentiles” against “Jews.” Right winged means hate, not unity.

Marxists, however, oppose it on grounds that it will create a class war, which the lower class will win.

Of course history has disproven the inevitably of Marx’s predictions. Marxists should just admit that real life Communist leaders were all revisionists, even Stalin and Mao, because real Marxism doesn’t and never did work.

Do a search on google blogs and see how many liberal hippis come up.

Search for “technocracy.”

Hardcore, nationalistic, war-mongering (but not nation building) and politically incorrect techno-fascism is the only way. Not this kum-bah-yah garbage.

According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to all things” and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless “war of all against all” (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.

Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.

What liberals do not understand is that the contract only works if it is mutual. If you tolerate people who want to kill you, then your tolerance causes your own death.

Openly intolerant political ideologies cannot be tolerated by groups with the stated aim of preserving peace. That is the contradiction of liberalism. In order to preserve peace, you have to support war against people who are against peace. In order to stop crime, you have to commit a state sanctioned crime against the criminal. But by declaring war on those who wish to destroy you, and supporting aggressive acts against criminals which limit freedom, you become more similar to your enemies. In order to defeat your enemies, you have to become more like them. If you are unwilling to fight, then the contract will crumble. The violent aggressor will gain power. The necessary response against a legitimate threat forces people who claim to defend peace to become violent. This contradiction applies not only to liberalism, but also to Marxism. Marxists claim to oppose imperialism, but construct their own form of red imperialism while arguing that it is necessary to stop imperialism. Other Marxists feel that Islam is an adequate substitute (which is another contradiction).

Mussolini (unlike Hitler) had this to say about peace:

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.

He was right for reasons I outlined above. If you want to stop political movements that are labeled intolerant, then you must counter their intolerance with your own intolerance. But then you’ve done what you’ve accused your enemies of doing. Peace is not possible to the extent people want to destroy it as the contract can be broken unilaterally, and peace is not desirable because it is not possible.

What we need to do is replace the ideals of tolerance with the ideals of strength. The idea of the social contract is filled with contradictions that require violating it to stop intolerance, but in a way that is itself intolerance. We should embrace intolerance and smash liberalism.

This is unnecessary because all you need to get into power is guns. You can vertically force socialism – or any other system of law- on a population. In fact, in my opinion, that brute force mentality was Stalin’s mentality rather than the more egalitarian pro-proletarian Marxist-Leninist approach.

He’s wrong that the only solution is to abolish industrial society.

The real solution is to increase control over business with a dictator, and use the control to protect the privacy ideals of individual workers.

What the businesses lose in freedom, the worker gains. While I do not trust technological data-mining in the hands of general business, I could trust a dictator who is properly groomed to control businesses and clearly of a populist mindset.

In a third position ideology, the state and business are merged anyways, so that would be easy.

The only real defense people on the other side of the debate can make is to either deny history, disagree with this aspect of Stalin’s legacy or argue that material conditions justified Stalin’s actions but do not currently justify opposition to Islam due to the position of American imperialism and the non-existence of the Soviet State (lesser evils).

If they chose the last approach, they would have to concede that if Communism had the strength it did before 1989, then opposition to Islam would be logical.

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia (comment by metal gear : this is technocracy). Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf’s were outlawed.[3] The Soviet government took the Paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic Hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.[2][4] This backfired, and the veil became more popular than ever among the workers, whereas prior to this was mostly used by the middle, wealthier classes.[5] Stalin’s Cult of personality, left virtually no place for any religious sentiment.[4][2]

Stalin also forcibly moved Chechens and several other small nationalities residing primarily in southwestern Russia (Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachais, Meshketian Turks, Kalmyks and others) from their homelands during World War II, lest they rise up against him in favour of Nazi Germany (comment by Metal Gear : everyone knows that).[6]

During Stalin’s reign, Crimean Tatar Muslims were victims of mass deportation. The deportation had begun on 17 May 1944 in all Crimean inhabited localities. More than 32,000 NKVD troops participated in this action. 193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported, 151,136 of them to Uzbek SSR, 8,597 to Mari ASSR, 4,286 to Kazakh SSR, the rest 29,846 to the various oblasts of RSFSR.

From May to November 10,105 Crimean Tatars died of starvation in Uzbekistan (7% of deported to Uzbek SSR). Nearly 30,000 (20%) died in exile during the year and a half by the NKVD data and nearly 46% by the data of the Crimean Tatar activists. According to Soviet dissident information, many Crimean Tatars were made to work in the large-scale projects conducted by the Soviet GULAG system.[7]

The Ba’ath Party was created as a cell-based organization, with an emphasis on withstanding government repression and infiltration. Hierarchical lines of command ran from top to bottom, and members were forbidden to initiate contacts between groups on the same level of organization; all contacts had to pass through a higher command level. This made the party somewhat unwieldy, but helped prevent the formation of factions and cordoned off members from each other, making the party very difficult to infiltrate, as even members would not know the identity of many other Ba’athists. As the U.S. and its allies discovered in Iraq in 2003, the cell structure has also made the Party highly resilient as an armed resistance organization.

The heroic (secular) leader Saddam Hussein devised a brilliant power structure to insure that constructive criticism did not become destructive as dissent was channeled in proper fashion.

Hierarchical groups were created, and all discussion between members of one group had to be supervised by a higher group. It was this bureaucratic and authoritarian structure that allowed Saddam to maintain a secular dictatorship in a reactionary middle east, and advance the culture hundreds of years forward in a short amount of time.

I am for expelling all immigrants from Europe. As for European Muslims, such as Albanians, Bosniaks, etc., they do not usually wear veil.

Then again, the problem will presents just with Islamic tourists, students and visitors, and I think they have all the right to dress according to their uses. Fascism protects and upholds tradition.

It is clear that the face must be unveiled on request for identification.

Spengler’s Apprentice

I think that’s really a stunning idea; just ejecting all immigrants outright. But it does raise an interesting question: many Europeans travel and live in nations other than their home nation, would intra-European immigration be met with the same stringent policy as foreign immigration into Europe? I for one think it should; Poles have no place in Ireland, nor do Spaniards have any place in Germany, nor do Ukrainians belong in Italy.

CaesarPrinceps

I agree with you.

I am not a White Nationalist, who agrees to savage White immigration. Why should I have 2 millions Russians in Italy???

One thing is study and work sojourns, which are fine. I am planning myself to study six month in Germany and three years in France.
Another is eradicating people and planting them in other cultures they do not belong with.

It is true, that in some case it is different, because we are speaking of similar people which can assimilate easily. e.g. France had absorbed during XX century some millions Portuguese, Spaniards and Italians, whereas there is easier assimilation between Germans and Dutch or Danes and Norwegians or Ukrainians and Belarusians, but this should be more the exception than the rule.

Flash

White Nationalism is founded by con artists actually. Don Black and David Duke don’t seriously believe in racial seperation or white supremacism. All over the internet I have found numerous scams started by these two ‘White Nationalists’ where they basically stole millions from their followers. Even on their own website they beg for donations constantly. If you’re a high-ranking white n. member and refuse to donate, you get an insant ban.

Ocelot

I do believe that David Duke believes in recial segregation and white supremacism, after all, he was de Imperial Wizard/National Director of the KKK. But it can easily be that he frauds white nationalists on the internet.

I don’t know much about Don Black, and I actually don’t care about him. He appeals to me as an uncharismatic fraud (where Duke still has some credibility in my eyes).

What disturbes me about Duke is that he is allying with Muslim-extremists throughout the middle-east to keep grip of his anti-semetic ideals. Because in this day and age, the white nationalists do best to ally with Israel (if they have to ally with one of the two) to defend their western homelands from Islamisation.

I think it depends on the approach one takes; in my opinion Duke is more of a “sophisticated” WN than a skin-head type, so his concern is not the coloured peoples who “pose a threat” to the white population, but the Jews. I won’t call it anti-Semitism par excellence, since he is siding with Semites in allying with Mohammedans but it is indeed the bourgeois anti-Semitism of the last century which casts the Jews in the role of evil internationalist millionaires whose sole goal is to hold the world firmly in their grip no matter the means. Duke may not be as much of a charlatan as Black is, but he’s just as much of a waste.

I really agree with many of the points made about identifying the differences between Europeans and opposing retarded anti-Semitism. I don’t know that I would go so far as to demand all immigrants are expelled, but I would definitely demand that the concept of citizenship isn’t confused with that of nationhood.

I don’t mean to single out David Duke or Don Black; they just happened to become the topic of the thread and are relevant to white nationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

In Keynes’s theory, there are some micro-level actions of individuals and firms that can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Some classical economists had believed in Say’s Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a “general glut” would therefore be impossible. Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation.

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy (“inducement to invest”) through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[3]

What Keynes argues is that the Government should act like a Referee, blowing the whistle in downturns and increasing its influence to counteract selfishness and stupidity and get the economy going again by calculated macroeconomic action.  When microeconomic individualistic choices “work,” then let them work.  But as soon as they collectively start to diverge from the interests of the nation, then the public sector (without a profit motive) must play referee.  I always had some interest in Keynes, but now I am 100% sold after the recession. Supporting free markets is just idiotic. You can’t have idealism (reduced unemployment, a strong middle class) without economic oversight and law enforcement.  Even Marxist regimes in name like the Chinese regime (in reality it has Maoist foundations) concede that in many cases markets are more efficient than the Government.  To argue completely against markets is to argue that the economy should move at the pace of a snail.  But to argue against Government is to not understand how microeconomic and national macroeconomic forces can diverge, and how Government has to bring them back together.  Obama actually has this right.

Keynes is not known for viewpoints on technology, but a long term view I have on economics is that spending must be forced on technology so that the economy can grow its way out of scarcity.  This requires a totalitarian effort; especially against religious sects who may feel threatened by having technocracy thrown in their face.  That’s their problem.

If 100 years later, Marx has still not been revised by his followers, then something is wrong. If 250 years later this is the case, then something is REALLY wrong. Nobody is perfect and everybody must evaluate and adapt. Being inspired by Marx is one thing. I believe Marx did advance human thought in his time. But he passed the baton long ago. Still following Marx word for word is like analyzing modern warfare with the logistics that were used before modern technology.  Surely strategy chances as technology advances from swords and shields to nuclear bombs.  This is as true in the field of economics as it is in the field of warfare.  New philosophers have stepped on his shoulder and analyzed the world with a more current sense of precision.

It seems the extremist left cares more about ideological purity than the extremist right. Though the marginalized extremist right is just more deceptive, and denies its Hiterlism. Third positionists are the only thinkers who analyze and stay current in their thought.  That’s why they do not march in step, and that is a good thing.  National anarchism is different from national bolshevism, which is different from corporatism, etc. Marxists do not stay current and Nazis do not stay current.  Both are stuck in the past.  Republicans and Democrats both make appeals to traditions too; though Republicans are more guilty.  Do I really care what the founding fathers said in the year 2009?  They were good thinkers in their time but it isn’t 1776.  I respect old thinkers, but I put them into context.  Anti-revisionists do not.

Those who argue against revisionism in a nostalgic dogmatic sense get the scientific method backwards.  The scientific method dictates that you base a hypothesis off of the evidence.  If it fails the evidence, you drop it and revise the hypothesis.  The mentality of one who philosophically opposes critical revisionism is to make a hypothesis based off of tradition, and then to revise the evidence to fit the hypothesis.  That’s the kind of process that lead to claims that the world was flat.

Interesting Website. I will add it to the blog roll. It has well constructed political opinion and links to very good material about the global financial crisis.

Juche theory is a type of Marxism ideology, but it is built upon the deification and mystification of Kim Il-sung (1912-1994). Its religious or pseudo-religious characteristics distinguish Juche ideology from all other forms of Marxism, including Marx-Leninism of the former Soviet Union, European Neo-Marxism, Maoism, and even Stalinism. Juche ideology characterizes Kim as the “eternal head of state,” a Messianic liberator of humankind, and describes North Korea as a chosen nation, and North Koreans as a chosen people who have a mission to liberate the world. While fear and terror are used to externally dominate the masses in a totalitarian state, Juche Ideology is a tool for the internal domination of their minds (known as hegemony).

The North Korean government admits that Juche addresses questions previously considered in classical Marxism, but distances itself from and even repudiates aspects of this political philosophy. The official position is that Juche is a completely new ideology created by Kim Il-sung, who does not depend on the Marxist classics.

In 1972, in response to the Sino-Soviet split, Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology.

The North Korean government does make some reference to the pre-Stalin internationalists, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Vladimir Lenin, as creditable leaders of the socialist movement in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, before the advent of Juche. But the writings of classical Marxism are generally forbidden for lay readers in North Korea. One of the premises of classical Marxist international socialism is that the workers of the world have no nation. Juche is tailored to the national peculiarities of North Korea, and to the task of creating socialism in a hostile environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche
Also Juche focuses on IDEAS whereas strict Marxism focuses on MATERIALISM! The IDEA of progressive nationalism and self-reliance, not the material class conflict of Marxism.

1. The people must have independence (chajusong) in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

Looks like IDEAS and GOALS to me; not talk of materialism and class conflict. Frankly it resembles Communitarian populism.

After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea’s greatest economic benefactor, all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution. But Marxist-Leninist phraseology remains in occasional use, for example, socialism and communism.

This validates my previous post, in which I argued that not all Communists and Socialists are Marxist-Leninists. Many envision some of the destinations that Marx mentioned, but not his pathways to get to the destinations.

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

“Israel was invented and founded by Red Zionists geopolitically as part of Eurasia, from the beginning oriented towards the Eurasian continent and developed as a Red proletarian communal republic. We, the National Bolsheviks of Israel, see our global mission in the resurrection and reworking of the idea of very great social justice for the Workers of Zion in the context of an interconnection with Russian National Bolshevism and the construction of a single imperial state free from the tyranny of globalism.”
– National Bolshevik Party Israel

The Jews were certainly overrepresented in the Soviet government. But this fact is utterly irrelevant and meaningless. These brave Jews divorced themselves from their reactionary religion and embraced European socialism (Russian Bolshevism), thus automatically becoming honorary Aryans. Hence, the Bolshevik Jews were not bad Jews but good Europeans (in the Nietzschean sense as like all true overmen they overcame their own former selves, morphing into something new, noble and self-sacrificing). It was, is and will always be preferable to collaborate with Jewish socialists. “White” capitalists are the mortal enemies of the White race while Jewish socialists actively undermine a power structure that not only keeps them disenfranchised but also the majority population (the White race). Hence, Jewish Bolsheviks and their European socialist brothers should work actively together to smash the capitalist exploiter beasts wherever and whenever they can! HAIL the Jewish Bolsheviks! Only traitors to Europe do not appreciate the hard work that they did for the betterment of our race. The accomplishments of the Jewish Bolsheviks will always be remembered by any self-respecting European patriot.

The 300 Jewish commissars defended the populist integrity of the workers’ democracy. They saved an empire. 300 Jews = 300 Spartans!

How did Nietzsche view the Jews? As a potential ruling aristocracy for Europe?

Is Stalingrad a Jewish-European acropolis, commemorating the red Jewish rulers and their faithful red European followers (soldiers under the banner of the Semitic Viking liberator of Hyperborea: Lenin, aka Ilyich the bladed hammer)? I will from now on claim that it is. We must honor the memory of our former Jewish masters. A crimson candelabra would be suitable, next to the monument of the Kalashnikov-wielding super-soldier.

HAIL the Communist Jews! Good Europeans most of them… HAIL Markus Wolf and the Sword and Shield of the Party: the Stasi!

Some Jews supported the Russian Revolution to liberate the Russian population from the yoke of the Asiatic Tsar while others chose to side with the anti-European capitalist West that came to aid the Asiatic Tsarist regime. Alexander Dugin’s argument is sound: The Bolshevik Jews that sometimes even sacrificed their own lives to aid the Russian people were spiritually connected with the ethnic Russians that fought for the same goal. Dugin is absolutely correct in distinguishing good Jews from bad Jews. It is retarded to throw all Jews into the same pot, declaring them enemies of Europe. After all, historical evidence suggests otherwise. Besides, many Jews were and are Europeans, both culturally and racially. For example, Heinrich Heine was a Jew, and he was DEFINITELY European. Was Karl Marx non-European? No. Was Gustav Mahler non-European? No. Was Baruch Spinoza non-European? No. Jews as a group are not the enemy. Capitalist exploiter Jews are the enemy, just like capitalist exploiter Whites are. Anti-Semitism is anti-Imperialism for crippled minds. Judaism as a religion is also more compatible with Europe since Christianity, still the majority religion of Europe, is directly derived from it. Islam, on the other hand, is violently anti-European, in every fibre of its Arabic construct. I cannot imagine Wagner being performed and admired in Saudi Arabia. Wagner, however, was and is performed and admired in Israel. A lot of Jews look more Nordic (i.e. pure Aryan) than Mediterraneans do. If a certain percentage of Jews cannot be considered European, then neither can a large percentage of Mediterraneans.

Islam is a reactionary religion. Israel is a secular state and therefore indefinitely more progressive than the Islamic “republics” surrounding it. Most Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) are non-religious while most Arabs in the Middle East (and elsewhere) are religious fanatics. Why a socialist should support religious fanatics instead of rational secularists is beyond me. Israel (not Palestine as Palestine does not exist and never has) can become a beacon of socialism in the world. This is why it is necessary that Israel orient itself towards a National Bolshevik Eurasia instead of towards a capitalist liberalist AmeriKa. The National Bolshevik Party of Israel as well as several other organizations (including Bead Arzeynu) are trying to push Israel in exactly that direction. Only Israel can guarantee socialist stability in the Middle East, if necessary by force. After all, it has been conclusively proven that Muslims are incapable of uniting themselves, for whatever cause. Muslims are by nature tribal and factional while Jews (in Israel) believe in democratic centralism, the hallmark of a successful socialist state. Jews are more industrious than Arabs as well. This is why Israel will remain an industrialized labor nation while Muslim nations will revert to their medieval (and natural) state of tribal and nomadic desert communities. While Israel looks towards the future, Muslims long to live in the past. Besides all that, it is clear that Israel is an outpost of Europe, both culturally and at least partly racially, while the Muslim nations in the Middle East are the sworn enemies of Europe.

Israel is a racialist state which is superior to a nationalist state. If Israel was only a nationalist state, it should have no problem assimilating its Arab minority. But since Arabs are a different ethnicity than most Jews, Israel adamantly resists assimilating them. This is a good thing. Actually, to civilize the Middle East, Israel should extend its boundaries from the Nile to the Euphrates. All non-Jewish citizens would thereby fall under de facto “protection” and would thus be easier to control. Of course, for this to happen, Israel must look towards Eurasia and not towards AmeriKa. Only in a federal Eurasian empire can Israel fulfill its destiny as a future world power.

Marxist-Leninist

A Marxist-Leninist supports Lenin’s interpretations of Marx’s views. Important points including rejecting idealism for materialism and believing in transitional stages – feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. A Marxist-Leninist is more than a Socialist or a Communist, but a conductor of transition through the alleged spectrum of feudalism to communism. They support advancing society from one stage to the next rather than merely attacking capitalism. Capitalism is favored over feudalism but not over Socialism or Communism.  Marxist-Leninists therefore support multiple Governmental forms depending on what “order” a given society is in the given stages.

Socialist

A person who looks out for the working class and rejects the “right to private property.” Marxist-Leninism supports Socialism as a transitional stage, but one can be a Socialist without being a Marxist-Leninist. If one rejects the concept of Socialism as merely a means to an end- a transition from Capitalism to create the conditions for Communism – but still supports a society similar to what Marx described as Socialism, then they are a non-Marxist Socialist.

Communist

A person who supports a society in which the state has withered away.  The state is no longer needed for the exchange of the means of productions.  Most Communists are Marxist-Leninists who view Communism as the final transitional stage, but this is not always the case. The Juche regime in North Korea envisions Marx’s final destination of Communism; but not his “roadmap” to arrive there. North Korea considers itself to be Communist but not Marxist-Leninist (officially). This means that they support the society Marx described, but do not support his methodology of bringing it to reality.

Objectively speaking, I support utilizing both socialistic and market infrastructures at the whim of an authoritarian model which contingently determines what is best for its people. I do not think the state will dissolve into Communism, nor do I think that would be a good thing. This is populism.

People who call themselves Marxist-Leninists do not align themselves with those who attack capitalism as an ideal; they just support the victims over the perpetrators. In a situation where Ahmajinedad (not to pick on him) and Idi Amin took over the world, capitalism and imperialism would not go away. All that would change is who the victim is.

When oppressed people gain power, they become bourgeois unless they reject the philosophical concept of capitalism. Self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist think they can spin capitalism like a ferris wheel. They support the bottom over the top, but the wheel continues to spin. The only way to stop capitalism is to shut off the wheel. Marxist-Leninists think changing the seats around is sufficient. More pragmatic anti-capitalists (Third Positionists) realize that it is not.

Yet Marx advanced political thought outside of the simplistic box of capitalism and had a sophisticated ideology which was anti-establishment. He understood the tactics of revolution and the need to reject the entire political process instead of attempting to use internal debate. Good third positionists should respect Marx, despite his imperfections. He contributed more to political theory than George W. Bush or Hitler ever did.

A Third Positionist is a person who is aware of international forces such as imperialism, Marxist-Leninism and global capitalism, and believes these forces must be kept in check to enable nationalism. There are different strategies – National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, State Corporatism, Ba’athism, Progressive Zionism and (unfortunately) Nazism etc., but all are aware of the forces of globalism and not completely subservient to the forces of globalism.  Not all nationalists are Third Positionists.  A nationalist can be a traditionalist and a conservative who is unaware of or indfferent to the sophisticated issues which I mentioned, and they would not qualify.

Third positionists are not like Marxist-Leninist internationalists in that they usually view political matters as internal and national. Marxists believe in organizing an international Communist Party and using it to take over the world where material conditions enable. Third Positionists often are pan-nationalists who tolerate ideological differentiation to the point where it can co-exist.  Marxist-Leninists have a very strict stance on materialism as compared to idealism, but Third Positionists vary depending on the Third Positionist ideology.

Most Third Positionists reject the concepts of “left” and “right” created in American politics as silly and juvenile.

Third Positionists disagree on how they think their revolutions will take place. Just as there are revisionists (not to use the term in a derogatory sense) and literalists in the Marxist world, not all Third Positionists agree on the methods to take power. I believe the entire political system will have be dispensed of but am open to being proved wrong.