THE THIRD POSITION BLOG

[As I was deleting some old emails I stumbled upon this gem of an article. It's a bit old but still relevant. GM]

by Prof. James Petras
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
Global Research, June 28, 2004
Rebelion

The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact
the battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies,
including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization
(ILO), the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health
Organization and reports from NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts
and regional and national economic experts provide hard evidence to
discuss the merits of capitalism and socialism.

Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent
of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as
a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with
an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years
of "transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the
performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations,
free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy,
society and general welfare of the population.

Economic Performance: Growth, Employment and Poverty

Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and
publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to
capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining,
communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have
been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by
mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. This has led to
massive unemployment and temporary employment, relative stagnation,
vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the economy via
illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources.

In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the
Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of
the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/
22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30%
is "employed" in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband,
drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In
Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse
conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past
15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism
(especially if we include the benefits of health care, education,
subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have
grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80%
of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels
exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-
central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living
standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has
out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries
and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and
educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the
number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to
5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National
Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high
technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which
most people live without central heat and electricity.

In Russia the pillage was even worse and the economic decline was if
anything more severe. By the mid 1990's, over 50% of the population
(and even more outside of Moscow and St. Peterburg - formerly
Leningrad) lived in poverty, homelessness increased and universal
comprehensive health and education services collapsed. Never in peace-
time modern history has a country fallen so quickly and profoundly as
is the case of capitalist Russia. The economy was "privatized" - that
is, it was taken over by Russian gangsters led by the eight
billionaire oligarchs who shipped over $200 billion dollars out of
the country, mainly to banks in New York, Tel Aviv, London and
Switzerland. Murder and terror was the chosen weapon of "economic
competitiveness" as every sector of the economy and science was
decimated and most highly trained world class scientists were starved
of resources, basic facilities and income. The principal
beneficiaries were former Soviet bureaucrats, mafia bosses, US and
Israeli banks, European land speculators, US empire-builders,
militarists and multinational corporations. Presidents Bush (father)
and Clinton provided the political and economic backing to the
Gorbachov and Yeltsin regimes which oversaw the pillage of Russia,
aided and abetted by the European Union and Israel. The result of
massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and
desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders,
alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times.
Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last
year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/
2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba's 74
years (Cuban National Statistics 2002). The transition to capitalism
in Russia alone led to over 15 million premature deaths (deaths which
would not have occurred if life expectancy rates had remained at the
levels under socialism). These socially induced deaths under emerging
capitalism are comparable to the worst period of the purges of the
1930's. Demographic experts predict Russia's population will decline
by 30% over the next decades (WSJ Feb 4, 2004).

The worst consequences of Western supported "transition" to
capitalism are still to come over the next few years. The
introduction of capitalism has totally undermined the system of
public health, leading to an explosion of deadly but previously well-
controlled infectious diseases. The Joint United Nations Program on
HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) published a comprehensive empirical report which
found that in Eastern Europe and Central Asia…"infection levels are
growing faster than anywhere else, more than 1.5 million people in
the region are infected today (2004) compared to 30,000 in 1995" (and
less than 10,000 in the socialist period). The infection rates are
even higher in the Russian Federation, where the rate of increase in
HIV infection among young people who came of age under the Western-
backed 'capitalist' regimes between 1998-2004 is among the highest in
the world.

A big contributor to the AIDS epidemic are the criminal gangs of
Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic countries, who trade
in heroin and each year deliver over 200,000 'sex-slaves' to brothels
throughout the world. The violent Albanian mafia operating out of the
newly "liberated" Kosova controls a significant part of the heroin
trade and trafficking in sex-slaves throughout Western Europe and
North America. Huge amounts of heroin produced by the US allied war
lords of "liberated" Afghanistan pass through the mini-states of
former Yugoslavia flooding Western European countries. The newly
'emancipated' Russian Jewish mafia oligarchs have a major stake in
the trafficking of drugs, illegal arms, women and girls bound for the
sex- industry and in money-laundering throughout the US, Europe and
Canada (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya ,2000). Mafia billionaires have
bought and sold practically all major electoral politicians and
political parties in the self-styled "Eastern democracies" , always in
informal or formal alliance with US and European intelligence
services.

Economic and social indicators conclusively document that "real
existing capitalism" is substantially worse than the full employment,
moderate growth, welfare states that existed during the previous
socialist period. On personal grounds -in terms of public and private
security of life, employment, retirement, and savings -the socialist
system represented a far safer place to live than the gang-controlled
capitalist societies that replaced them. Politically, the communist
states were far more responsive to the social demands of workers,
provided some limits on income inequalities, and, while accommodating
Russian foreign policies interests, diversified, industrialized and
owned all the major sectors of the economy. Under capitalism, the
electoral politicians of the ex-communist states sold, at bargain
prices, all major industries to foreign or local monopolies,
fostering monstrous inequalities and ignore worker health and
employment interests. With regard to ownership of the mass media, the
state monopoly has been replaced by foreign or domestic monopolies
with the same homogenous effects. There is little question that an
objective analysis of comparative data between 15 years of capitalist
'transition' and the previous 15 years of socialism, the socialist
period is superior on almost all quality of life indicators.

Let us turn now to compare Cuban socialism to the newly emerging
capitalist countries of Russia, Easter Europe and south-central Asia.

Cuban socialism was badly hit by the turn to capitalism in the USSR
and Eastern Europe. Industrial production and trade fell by 60% and
the daily caloric intake of individual Cubans fell by half.
Nevertheless infant mortality in Cuba continued to decline from 11per
1000 live births in 1989 to 6 in 2003 (comparing favorably to the
U.S.). While Russia spends only 3.8% of its GNP on public healthcare
and 1.5% on private care, the Cubans spend 16.7%. While life
expectancy among males declined to 58 years in capitalist Russia, it
rose to 74 years in socialist Cuba. While unemployment rose to 21% in
capitalist Poland, it declined to 3% in Cuba. While drugs and
criminal gangs are rampant among the emerging capitalist countries,
Cuba has initiated educational and training programs for unemployed
youth, paying them salaries to learn a skill and providing job
placement. Cuba's continued scientific advances in biotechnology and
medicine are world-class while the scientific infrastructure of the
former communist countries has collapsed and their scientists have
emigrated or are without resources. Cuba retains its political and
economic independence while the emerging capitalist countries have
become military clients of the US, providing mercenaries to service
the US empire in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast to
Eastern Europeans working as mercenary soldiers for the US in the
Third World, 14,000 Cuban medical workers serve some of the poorest
regions in Latin America and Africa in cooperation with various
national governments that have requested their skills. There are more
than 500 Cuban medical workers in Haiti. In Cuba, most industries are
national and public with enclaves of private markets and joint
ventures with foreign capital. In ex-communist countries, almost all
basics industries are foreign-owned, as are most of the mass media
and "culture industries". While Cuba retains a social safety net for
basic foodstuff, housing, health, education and sports, in the
emerging capitalist countries the "market" excludes substantial
sectors of the unemployed and underpaid from access to many of those
goods and services.

Comparative data on economy and society demonstrate that "reformed
socialism" in Cuba has greatly surpassed the performance of the
emerging capitalist countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, not to
speak of Central Asia. Even with the negative fall-out from the
crisis of the early 1990's, and the growing tourist sector, Cuba's
moral and cultural climate is far healthier than any and all of the
corrupt mafia- ridden electoral regimes with their complicity in
drugs, sex slavery and subordination to U.S. empire building. Equally
important while AIDS infects millions in Eastern Europe and Russia,
Cuba has the best preventive and most humane treatment facilities in
the world for dealing with HIV. Free anti-viral drugs, humane cost-
free treatment and well-organized, extensive public health programs
and health education explains why Cuba has the lowest incidence of
HIV in the developing world despite the presence of small-scale
prostitution related to tourism and low incomes.

The debate over the superiority of socialism and capitalism continues
because what has replaced socialism after the collapse of the USSR is
far worse on every significant indictor. The debate continues because
the achievements of Cuba far surpass those of the emerging capitalist
countries and because in Latin America the emerging social movements
have realized changes in self-government (Zapatistas) , in
democratizing land ownership (MST Brazil) and natural resource
control (Bolivia) which are far superior to anything US imperialism
and local capitalism has to offer.

The emerging socialism is a new configuration which combines the
welfare state of the past, the humane social programs and security
measure of Cuba and the self-government experiments of the EZLN and
MST. Wish us well!

Global Research Articles by James Petras

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

It's interesting to witness the United States support separatism when it's in Russia's sphere of influence, but the very thought of racial separatism or state secessionism here in America is still considered a mad or absurd idea.

Even more interesting is the FACT that Kosovo's separatist movement is run by radical Muslims with direct ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

I don't believe that the dissolution of Serbia is a good idea. Recognizing the rights and cultural autonomy of a people is one thing, but granting Kosovo the status of a sovereign nation is quite another. The Serbs have lost enough land- and lives- already. They cannot be expected to passively allow yet another chunk of their homeland to be handed over to the New World Order.

No doubt, the United States relishes the prospect of an "independent" Kosovo (i.e., a new U.S. puppet state) from which it can continue to monitor and sabotage Russian influence in the region. Remember, the U.S. was instrumental in propping up the terrorist KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) during the 1990s. Anything that will diminish Russia's influence in the region will be supported by Washington. Never mind the fact that tradition and history are on the side of the Serbs and not the Albanian separatists and KLA terrorists and their U.S. backers.

With that said, I must reiterate: When Serbia does take Kosovo back (and she should), she must grant the Albanian minority living within her borders full cultural autonomy and political rights. But the idea of separatism, in this instance, must be squashed as it ultimately serves the interests of the globalists in their relentless drive to dominate recalcitrant nations and peoples such as the Serbs.  

In Cuba, as you now know, the ailing nationalist-socialist hero Fidel Castro has graciously removed himself from the seat of power. He now leaves the political door open to a new generation of Cubans who will  hopefully continue to carry the torch of socialist revolution into the future. Castro's 49-year tenure as the supreme ruler of Cuba was a necessary step in the building of true socialism on that island nation.

While the criminal U.S. regime and a small but vocal Cuban exile community here in America make a lot of fuss over Castro's alleged tyrannical rule, the fact remains: There is NO violent counterrevolution about to break out in Cuba. Apparently, the people of Cuba are content with their situation. Collective living has improved the lives of millions of Cubans and, despite its occasional setbacks, it is far preferable to the economic uncertainty and social instability of dying, decadent capitalism.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I wrote this essay a few years ago. It was intended for an online discussion group but it never got posted. It is a blueprint of sorts for an American National Bolshevik movement. In any case, I still like it and agree with its contents. It's on my homepage which is located here:

http://hometown.aol.com/newdawn70gpm/myhomepage/politics.html

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I agree with Barack Obama: America is in dire and desperate need of change. Of course, our nation's been changing (for the worst) for the past 40 years or so, and at a pretty steady pace at that. So any positive change will have to nip the past negative changes in the bud. If Obama has the panacea, the penicillin, or the magic pill that will cure our national woes then please do deliver the goods, Mr. O. I, and many other patriots, will embrace your campaign with open arms.

As it is, Barack Obama looks like THE BEST candidate at this point in time. (The best candidate after Ron Paul, of course. Paul's constitutionalist message is just not resonating with the "neoconned" Republican crowd. I voted for him in the primary, but let's face it, Ron Paul- or any other non-mainstream candidate- has no chance of succeeding in this election.) Obama looks like the best one running because, quite simply, he's young, a little naive, and not tainted by the same corruption that taints the ageing neocon McCain and the often despised establishmentarian Clinton. All things considered, Obama's "inexperience" is probably more of an asset than a liability in this particular election.

So while it's doubtful that Mr. O will bring about all the needed or desired changes, he will at least be instrumental in wiping the slate clean after twenty years of Bush/Clinton/Bush misrule. He WILL probably end the occupation in Iraq and maybe even engage in civilized dialogue with "our nation's enemies." (Go figure, Putin and Chavez are now among "our nation's enemies" even though neither one of these leaders has threatened our nation in any way whatsoever. In fact, Hugo Chavez has generously provided low-cost heating oil for some of our nation's poor.) On economic issues, health care, illegal immigration and job creation, Mr. O offers nothing more than typical bourgeois liberal solutions (a la Clinton). On race relations, he may surprise us all. Already I'm hearing some racialists say that an Obama presidency will be good because it will stir up the racial caldron, so to speak, as Mr. O will ultimately pander to black interests, thus "awakening" white America to the realities of race. I think that he may do just the opposite and try to distance himself from racially polarizing positions. If anything, he's more likely to cater to the interests of white middle class liberals and moderates. We'll see...

Of course, if Hillary does defeat Barack in the primaries, I'll have to force myself to say a good word or two about her! Because in my estimation, John McCain is Satan incarnate. And ANYONE, even a Clinton, who can keep THAT alien-embracing, war-loving, Putin-hating, hotheaded globalist from becoming president will surely get my support in the coming election.    

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Much of what I've written for this blog, I must admit, tends to focus on the negative side of things, movements and beliefs. To paraphrase Nietzsche: If you stare into the right-wing toilet long enough, soon the toilet- and all that it contains- will stare right back at you.

Well, it is obviously time to stop staring into the toilet!

There are, after all, some good things left in this world. Not all is dim and hopeless, politically speaking.

Just this past week America was visited by an honorable and articulate statesman (something our own nation seems to be in dire need of), a man who sparked both wonder and controversy when he spoke at Columbia University in New York on Monday. I'm speaking, of course, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And regardless of the fact that I'm neither a Muslim nor a "Holocaust denier", I nonetheless applaud Ahmadinejad. Good manners and affability- or lack of these things- say a lot about a man. After watching Ahmadinejad's fine, graceful "performance" (via the boob tube), I felt somewhat embarrassed to be an American. As I'm sure you've already heard, the leader of Iran, after receiving a less than flattering introduction speech (to put it mildly) from the president of the university, was subjected to a coarse, obnoxious audience Q&A session. Mass laughter broke out when the Iranian leader gave a politically incorrect answer to a question about homosexuals in Iran. While I don't share Ahmadinejad's homophobia (or rather, his failure to even acknowledge that gays exist in his country), I have much more respect for the reactionary Iranian than I do for the smug bourgeois know-nothings who, in showing such disrespect to the leader of the Iranian people, demonstrated to the rest of the world what "American hospitality" is all about. Not surprisingly, the American mass media- news anchors and columnists alike- responded to Ahmadinejad's remarks in a similarly (sheep-like) snide manner.

Ahmadinejad gives me HOPE because, even in hostile territory, he prevailed. When all was said and done, the man stood tall and defiant:just like John Wayne confronting a horde of crazy, uncivilized savages in an old Western; only in this flick, the savages were played by pale skins and the role of the heroic good guy  (usually reserved for The Duke) was played by a pint-sized, dark-skinned Persian. The brave Persian didn't flinch or lose his train of thought as the prearranged barrage of verbal missiles were fired at him from every direction. Ahmadinejad proved that American "tolerance" is indeed a MYTH, especially when "unacceptable" ideas are presented; he also proved that "freedom of speech" is MEANINGLESS when those who are speaking (in this case, American academics) are either too immature or media-conditioned to partake in a free and rational political discourse.

And, of course, Ahmadinejad's anti-imperialist stance is the correct revolutionary position. Iran should- indeed, has every right to- continue its nuclear development program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin, while not always "perfect" in their words and actions, represent the bare beginnings of a 21st century anti-imperialist resistance and populist-socialist renaissance that is neither strictly orthodox Marxist nor "liberal-democratic" in origin.

Remember, autumn  is the greatest season of all and- already!- signs of hope abound.   

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

The recent uproar made by the Armenian-American community in Watertown, Massachusetts over the ADL's refusal to acknowledge the genocide of over 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, and Abe Foxman's subsequent and insincere about-face on the issue should have been a propaganda victory for revisionists and nationalists alike, but instead it's looking much more like a typically embarrassing episode for some overly zealous anti-Semites. Some white nationalists, instead of benefiting from such a blunder on the ADL's part, did what WNs do best: within days (hours?) of this news coming out the right-wing propaganda machine was already claiming that it was, in fact, JEWISH Turks who were ultimately responsible for the deaths of over a million Armenians!

Jewish Turks...!?

Of course, what happened to the Armenians was horrible and it should certainly be acknowledged by one and all for the genocide that it was. And the ADL are, without a doubt, hypocrites, they always have been. While the ADL wish to remind us everyday of 6 million dead Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, they are hesitant to acknowledge the pogroms endured by other ("less significant") peoples. There is no forgiving that. Clearly, the ADL are ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

But likewise, in the past, few white nationalists have even acknowledged the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians.  After all, according to official neo-Nazi propaganda, the only truly genocidal events of the past century were the killing of "nearly one million" German civilians in Dresden by the Allies during WWII and the "Jewish Bolshevik" slaughter of "100 million white Christian Russians" during and after the Russian revolution; and, of course, let's not forget the ONGOING "genocide" against the white race by ZOG. Yeah, I know, "whites only make up 8% of the world's population and only 2% of that are white women of child-bearing age." (I've got the program. I've swallowed the dogma. I know the mantras. And I'm SICK TO DEATH of hearing this swill.)

Defeating the Zionists/neocons/imperialists and their lackeys is necessary, but the way to go about doing it should not involve conspiracy theories and falsified history.

Jewish Turks...!?

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

American nationalists seem to be unanimously endorsing Republican candidate Ron Paul for President. Paul's constitutionalist and libertarian rhetoric makes him an attractive candidate to many. I like Paul not because he advocates free enterprise or abolishing the income tax, but because he is, at least, confronting our currently inept system and maybe generating important questions among the populace. Frankly, I believe that libertarianism is silly and utopian and, worse yet, it neglects the social and racial collectivism upon which any healthy society needs to function. Of course, Paul stands no chance of winning, just as populist Pat Buchanan didn't stand a chance in previous elections. But Pat did manage to open up a few eyes and ears along the way and that's what ultimately counts. So while Paul (and his libertarian/constitutionalist ilk) may not have the right SOLUTION for our people, he is getting some Americans to ask the right QUESTIONS about the role of government and taxes, war, immigration, and political alternatives.

But still, is he the best choice? Do patriots or nationalists ever bother to look to the left for political alternatives?

On the Democratic side of the fence stands Dennis Kucinich. Unlike Paul, Mr. Kucinich understands the need for MORE government in certain areas. Whereas Paul's individualist rhetoric sounds good in theory, in reality, America is now a nation of 300 million people. Does the selfish individualism of the populist or libertarian right take this into consideration?

 Kucinich, the most 'far left' of the Democratic candidates, believes in a national health insurance program for all Americans. This, of course, may require higher taxes, but in a nation of nearly 46 million uninsured  (and another 50 million underinsured) it makes perfect sense. Every other industrialized country has "socialized medicine" (or something resembling it.) Why can't America? And why are so many so-called nationalists often afraid of actually NATIONALIZING things such as health care? (Socialism and Nationalism benefit one another.) 

Kucinich is also the only candidate who is seriously pushing for impeachment. (First for Cheney, then possibly for Bush.) No wonder the mass media is practically ignoring this guy!

He also wants more federal funding for Amtrak. Personally, I love traveling across country by train. I'd hate to be deprived of this service and convenience, as would millions of other Americans. Railroads are an American tradition as they were instrumental in the initial building and expanding phase of this great nation. Kucinich not only wants to save our "national" railway service with more federal funding, he wants to eventually see Amtrak expand its lines and service. 

I know that our dubious elections are often mundane affairs, especially to self-proclaimed revolutionaries. But if you must vote, often just to show some form of token dissent, you should at least know what some of the OTHER candidates are saying. Ron Paul is not the only game in town. Dennis Kucinich can easily appeal to thinking, progressive nationalists.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

One of the major arguments in nationalist circles (i.e., online forums)  today seems to be the ever fascinating 'Who Is Worse: Jews Or Muslims?' debate.

My own belief: It is neither the Jews nor the Muslims whom we need to worry ourselves sick over.

The knee-jerk anti-Semitism exhibited by many racial nationalists is as deplorable as the obnoxious pro-Zionist stance of right-wing folks like Jared Taylor and Nick Griffin. Can we finally come to the realization that there is a fundamental difference between the good Jews (mere "Jews") and the bad ones (Zionists and criminal Jews)? And can we admit that the worldwide "Jewish conspiracy" (sometimes called 'ZOG', 'JOG', or whatever other stupid acronyms white nationalists have invented) is mostly bunk? Yes, you've heard me correctly- BUNK, with little or no meaningful foundation to support it. If 'ZOG' truly exists, then it is merely a tentacle on the already existing capitalist power structure. There is NO independent entity known as the Zionist Occupation Government.

If there's ANY truth to these "Jewish conspiracy" theories, we should not fault the Jews for "controlling" the very politico-economic system that "we" erected in the first place. The true culprits, capitalism and liberal democracy, are, when you get right down to it, as Western (and hence, as 'Aryan') as the Acropolis or Norse mythology. Not everything that Western man has created has been good or even beneficial to his own people. So I sincerely doubt that it is solely (or even mostly) a Jewish conspiracy that has brought the West to its knees. Rather, time and circumstance and our own negligence have brought it down.

Also, some Jews actually look and act more 'Aryan' than certain skinheads and white nationalists do! (I honestly can't tell the difference between some skinheads and various wiggers that I've seen in the past: Both have a fondness for crummy tattoos, shaved heads, sloppy attire, and macho goon attitudes.) If the word 'Aryan' truly means 'noble one', then your average secular Jew may be closer to the 'Aryan ideal' than many run-of-the-mill American white power enthusiasts.

And an ideology such as right-wing National Socialism, with its ridiculous  Hitler worship, does little more than expose the utter insecurity and abject depravity of the 'true believer'. When one is so desperate that they must join a freak show in order to "prove" their racial loyalty (or in some cases, their racial lineage), I suspect that something is rotten in Denmark!

And let's not kid ourselves into believing that there's much of a difference between "responsible" white nationalist organizations, such as the National Alliance, and "ridiculous" outfits like the NSM. The only real differences that I can see between the two is that the Alliance doesn't use as many exclamation points in their rants and they prefer to show their love for sexy Adolf in the privacy of their own closets instead of at public rallies. How pathetic!

Then there's Holocaust Revisionism, which tries desperately to separate itself from the white nationalist movement that it's inevitably linked to (an exercise in futility if ever there was one.) Revisionists are only fooling themselves when they claim to be "truth seekers" and objective scholars: More bunk! Holocaust revisionism is just bad propaganda at this point. In the eyes of most people, the shoddy pseudo-historical works of revisionist authors cannot exonerate Slav-hating criminals such as Hitler or Himmler. And just HOW does revisionism contribute to the betterment of our race? Or how does it even contribute to the betterment of the German people in particular?

Oh yes, as to the Muslims ... I got sidetracked there for a moment ... Europeans and Americans face entirely different situations in regards to Islam. The American Empire, through its arrogance and tyranny,  has earned the hatred of millions of Muslims throughout the world. Muslims are not invading our country, but many of them are justifiably angry about America's imperialistic designs on their lands (add to that our nation's continued support for Israel.) We reap what we sow.

Unchecked Muslim immigration into Europe may pose a threat to the future of the European people and culture. And while we certainly are concerned about the future of our ancestral homelands, America is our home now and our problems here are plentiful and demand urgent action on our part. Ultimately, our biggest problem resides within ourselves. Forget about all the other "enemies" (real or mostly fabricated) for a moment.

Now is the time to improve our own conditions, to get on with our lives (and to try to inject something positive into the world we find ourselves living in), to foment revolution and renewal, and to stop whining about non-existent villains.   

If the White Nationalist Movement is THE BEST that our race has to offer, then we might be better off going the way of the dodo bird!

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

     Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) was so much more than just the leader of the Russian Revolution, hero of the radical left, and convenient villain and scapegoat to right wing reactionaries.

      Lenin began the arduous task of worldwide revolutionary struggle, the struggle for a new world, the struggle for progression in all spheres of human activity. Lenin dared to break the chains of oppression in his own homeland and pry open the treasure chest of human potential. His very existence was spent in selfless devotion to proletarian struggle and the will to ennoble man.

      Lenin was no mere Napoleonic or Hitlerian "man of destiny" as such men are usually just paltry and self-centered egotists who believe that fate has picked them out for some great historical task ahead. These fatalistic "men against time" are just the foul remnants, the final remains, of liberal bourgeois culture with its ridiculous notion of the individual triumphing over the collective. Lenin was not a man against time, he was very much a man in tune with the spirit of his time. To Lenin, the task at hand involved one and all. The task at hand was for the benefit of one and all: The collective must triumph over the individual! Revolution must triumph over reaction! The commune state must triumph over the profiteers and the bourgeoisie!

     It is well known that prior to the earth-shattering events that took place in Russia in 1917, Lenin had accepted the sad fact that he would most likely die in obscurity without witnessing the Revolution that he had spent the better part of his life laying down the foundation for. This harsh reality did not extinguish the eternal fire burning within Ulyanov. For all true saviors come unannounced, without much fanfare, and are willing to sacrifice any fame, fortune, or reputation in the process.

      Lenin was one such being. A remarkable and selfless individual, Lenin walked into the helter skelter of 1917 as one would walk into a burning building: practically unannounced and with his own  welfare in great peril. His motives were clearly altruistic as he was always in the service of the Revolution and the people of the Motherland who would benefit the most from the Revolution.   

      First and most importantly, Lenin was a son of Russia. He was neither "a Jew" nor a traitor to the Russian nation. Racially, Lenin was typically "Eurasian" in both character and appearance. He did not destroy the tsardom as much as rejuvenate it, he replaced its alien Romanov countenance with one that was indigenous, honest and Slavic. The peasant and the worker, the backbone of the nation, were to be revered. A new aristocracy, the proletarian elite, were to dispense power in a just and equitable manner. There would be no more pretenders on the throne of the Motherland! "Bolshevik barbarism" was the only antidote to the sterility of the Romanov dynasty, the indifference of the Orthodox Church to the plight of the people, and the ultimate failure of (alien) Western liberalism. The Bolsheviks were hated by both the reactionary Right (Tsar and Church) and the bourgeois Left (Kerensky, the SRs, and the liberal intellectuals). Therefore, Bolshevism was truly the third way of its day.

      Rightists continue to ignore the facts: Lenin was a Russian patriot who never once betrayed his own blood or soil. Marxism was the creed upon which national resurrection would be fostered. Class war was the necessary remedy that would cure the nation from the ailments of imperialism, disunity, and social anarchy. A revolutionary socialist state would blossom to the benefit of all. And beyond that, a glorious Soviet Empire, a proud union of Slavic brothers and sisters, lay ahead thanks to Ulyanov- and his faithful comrade Stalin.

      Secondly, Lenin will always be The Eternal Revolutionary. Lenin cannot die. His spirit lives. The national resurrection that he brought about in the Motherland was a microcosm for a far greater task ahead: the revolutionizing of man. The Bolshevik Revolution, while I contend that it was ultimately a contained and strictly Russian affair, was also the opening salvo in a much larger process of national renewal and social revolution on a far greater scale. A truly effective revolutionary MUST BE a Leninist as Lenin represents the very essence of active resistance and radical renewal. Lenin is an inspiration to anyone who would resist the sterility and hopelessness of their own era.

      Thirdly, Lenin was the architect of modern day socialism. This cannot be denied. Socialism continues to be the wave of the future: This revolution cannot die! As man continues to live collectively, in either large centralized states or in smaller "decentralized" communities, there will be socialism. Indeed, as long as man is a social being with a greater understanding of his own material needs, his natural inclination will be towards strengthening the collective. Beyond the confines of the post-industrial age, Leninism will continue to exist. It may even appear under a new name. In fact, it will continue to evolve and adapt to whatever new and unforeseen circumstances arise. And this is what Lenin truly meant by the idea of "international revolution". Lenin's dream was not of the hellish polyglot globalist nightmare that capitalism has so generously bestowed upon the various nations and races of the world. Rather, socialist revolution would strengthen what is best in each and every nation and nurture a collective spirit among the people of the nation.

      Lenin foresaw a continuance of evolution and progression in ALL realms of human activity: The ennobling of man! He was The Great Ennobler.   

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

[This is, hopefully, my final statement on a subject that I've been ranting about for the last five months or so on this blog and elsewhere.  Am I flogging a dead horse? You decide.]

    Modern day America, that imperialistic, multicultural and crass consumer behemoth, is a perfect example of why white nationalists are only half-correct in their belief that RACE- and race alone- is the overriding factor in determining the fate of nations and civilizations.

    There are other factors.

    America's sorry state cannot solely be the result of lowering white birthrates or race-mixing or "the browning of the nation." After all, long before this mess transpired, America was still a nation that promoted unbridled capitalism and consumerism instead of collectivism; "multiculturalism" in the form of alien (Semitic) religion, the Jazz Age and similar trends; and the continued utilization of non-white (dirt cheap) labor for obvious reasons. Those were "the good old days" according to certain right-wingers who pine for the past, but I would hesitate to call them good. In fact, "the good old days," the days of alleged prosperity and free markets and red scares and burgeoning suburbs and John Wayne, those smug days of wine and roses were, in fact, the BEGINNING of what has NOW come around full circle: Foolish capitalism eventually devours itself and we are now seeing this take place before our very eyes.

     The Rightists, of course, have their dogma to adhere to so they will not even consider this.  They would rather believe that the good times were disrupted by the social turmoil of the sixties with its peaceniks and  "Judeo-Communists" and Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr. (that evil God-fearing Christian "Communist") and Jane Fonda, etc. You know, the USUAL list of "bad guys" that the right wing still love to refer to on a regular basis.   

     They conveniently ignore economic trends that demanded the expansion of a servant class and a "culture" that promoted the selfish interests of the individual over the collective. And then they wonder WHY the hippies and secular humanism and Affirmative Action and gay marriage and hordes of illegal immigrants came along! They constantly blame "Communism" or some other vague, amorphous scapegoat for the 1001 evils that have plagued this country- but they NEVER blame the obvious.

     The right wing (and many racialists) often reduce history into a simplistic "Us vs. Them" type of scenario. The problem with this is WHO EXACTLY they are categorizing as "Us" and "Them". "Us" is, of course, "the silent majority": the great white middle class (that is rapidly ceasing to exist, thanks to unbridled capitalism). And "Them" are, no doubt, the usual suspects: commies, immigrants, non-whites, the unemployed- "the parasites" who supposedly feed off of the "productive" white collar Ward Cleaver class. But herein lies the greatest problem: Most whites nowadays tend to identify with "Them," not in a cultural sense, of course, but in an economic and social sense. We're finding ourselves among "Them"- not out of choice, but because of circumstances that the ringleaders of "the silent majority" have neither the ability to comprehend nor any intention of even trying to comprehend. (And, for the record, the TRUE parasites are the capitalist elites who feed off of  both the productive middle and lower working classes.)

    The problem with the sixties wasn't that the Jewish commies and blacks were rioting in our streets- the REAL problem was that the white worker wasn't out there rioting along WITH them! 

    America was never taken over by Communists, but rather it has been compromised by the economic elite and their political lackeys, including watered-down, establishment "left wing" progressives and "right wing" Judas Goat reactionaries who pretend to stand up for the best interests of their race and nation. 

    In fact, the best interests of our race and nation involve freeing OUR people from a system that has never existed for their best interests.  It is that simple.

    We need the sage advice of Lenin and Mao just as much as that of Washington and Jefferson, great men all. My own feelings on the American Revolution is that a constitutional republic was a good start as it was necessary for the colonists to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarch. (Just as the Russians liberated themselves from a similar tyranny in 1917, I might add.) Our Founding Fathers were progressive national revolutionaries for THEIR era. Monarchy and colonialism were replaced by a constitutional republic, indirect democracy and free enterprise  which  were certainly revolutionary concepts at the time. But these concepts were NOT ENOUGH. As America's (mostly European) population expanded with the arrival of more and more of our people, "democracy" and free enterprise, with their emphasis on limited state power and the importance of individual rights over COLLECTIVE survival, became more and more of a hindrance to our racial and (eventually) our socio-economic well-being. Witness the millions of urban and rural poor in America today (a good number of whom are as white and as "Aryan" as our Founding Fathers were) and you will begin to see that our enemies are clearly not the commies or even the rank and file race-mixers (who actually don't know any better, thanks to being brought up in a liberal-capitalist culture that actively promotes such activity.)

    While a constitutional republican form of government served our people well two centuries ago- as did a capitalist economic system at the outset of the Industrial Revolution when our population was still relatively low and racially homogeneous, this system has since become the greatest obstacle to our survival as a people.

     Marx and Engels gave us the solution. (And I would add Lenin and Mao as well as Spengler and Niekisch to my own peculiar form of 'National Bolshevism'.) That solution is SOCIAL and ECONOMIC revolution - and, beyond that, revolution on every other level of our existence. We must finally embrace a thoroughly COLLECTIVIST revolutionary program if we are to salvage our once great nation of pioneers and builders- and socialist revolution is the beginning of a collective reawakening in our people.

     Yes, race matters, but "racialism" goes nowhere fast within the confines of an antiquated and reactionary right wing belief system that only upholds the old, self-destructive order of things.

     Our race can only be "reborn" through the destruction of capitalism, the construction of a socialist state and, following that, a reaffirmation of our collective will as a people.

     As for the other races, they are not our enemies. They are only our competitors within this completely unnatural and corrupt capitalist system.

      Communism does not "promote race mixing"- that, like so much else, is a blatant right wing lie. Read Marx and Engels and Lenin  and please point out to me just where these gentlemen promoted the actual MIXING of the races. Communism never sought to DESTROY races and racial distinctions, but it does seek to IMPROVE each and every one of us- and certainly our relations with one another. It does not seek to destroy nations, traditions, cultures- on the contrary, such a system would PRESERVE and MULTIPLY what is best in every people and culture.

      Liberals, capitalists and Judeo-Christians, on the other hand, promote the destruction of racial and cultural distinctions as well as the abrogation of national sovereignty for their own selfish reasons, the widespread destruction that they have caused on a worldwide scale can be seen by one and all. We must counter this destruction caused by capitalism and its ideological allies with a renewed spirit of creative collectivism.

     For Class War and National Resurrection.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this