Comments posted

Page 1 of 3520 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Golden Dawn from the horse's mouth wrote:

Giorgos (George), editor for the website of the New York division of Golden Dawn:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/07/RIR-150727.php

This comment appeared in entry 'The logic of capitalism; the unemployed and the superfluous' on 07/29/15, 01:07 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Søren Kierkegaard wrote:

“Sleeping is the highest genius” - Søren Kierkegaard

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/29/15, 06:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Keltic Keisaku wrote:

There once was a monk named Dogen
by whom no koans were spoken
He is said to have sought
the open hand of thought
and through sleep to have awoken

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/29/15, 04:26 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dan Dare wrote:

The interests of Asia and those of the North Atlantic, fit together and complement each other.

Hmmm. Do they really?

This comment appeared in entry 'North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet' on 07/28/15, 04:28 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

It’s a good idea to use this as a wedge issue.

Queers are a very small part of our populations and clearly a practical place to make a concession (since their small presence is inevitable) when choosing a side to take in order to exploit a contradiction in liberalism and drive a wedge against Islam.

We can freak-out the Mulims, cause significant consternation in the liberal world view and crucially, wedge against “conservatives” altogether as they are, as you say, conserving liberalism and universalism, e.g., through Christianity.

This comment appeared in entry 'Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims' on 07/28/15, 01:34 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

Speaking of wedge issues, this is another wedge issue that is coming up just north of where Weston is, and which has been developing for a while now. There is the fact that the ‘gay rights’ issue has evolved to the stage where ‘gay rights’ are now associated with what they call ‘white privilege’, because Muslims don’t like gay people and so rubbing it in their faces is now considered to be a form of oppression directed against what they regard as a marginalised group.

Breitbart, ‘Swedish Nationalists Plan Gay Pride March Through Muslim Area: Left Is Outraged’, 23 Jul 2015: (emphasis)
[...] Organisers said there was no dress code, adding: “You could take the opportunity to tan your belly and legs in the sunny weather.”

However, angry left wing and gay rights activists have taken to Facebook, denouncing the planned pride march as “right wing”, “xenophobic” and “pure racism”.

A counter-demonstration is now planned, with organisers claiming Järva Pride “pits two oppressed groups against one another.”

Taxpayer-funded gay rights group RFSL has distanced itself from the pride march, accusing it of promoting racism and white privilege, while some activists are even calling for the organisers to be arrested for “hate speech”. [...]

Of course, it is difficult to understand how Muslims could be an oppressed or marginalised group, considering that they hold institutional power in a whole region of the world called ‘MENA’ (Middle East and North Africa), and have a large population of adherents as well as being one of the world’s largest and most overbearingly oppressive religions. A religion which asserts that all other gods are ‘false’, other than their own.

The fact that there is a situation where the liberal establishment is defending that religion in European lands, shows how far the Overton Window has been dragged.

This comment appeared in entry 'Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims' on 07/28/15, 01:07 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

anti-immigration protests in Warsaw wrote:

Polish Nationalists protest immigration in Warsaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrNJbgePdE

This comment appeared in entry 'Poland' on 07/28/15, 12:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Immonen calls for a Finnish Finland wrote:

Finns Party MP Olli Immonen’s Facebook page on Saturday. The slogan on the banner calls for “A Finnish Finland”.

The leader of the populist Finns Party has so far remained silent after a prominent MP called on his followers to “fight until the end” against the “nightmare called multiculturalism”.

Olli Immonen, member of parliament for the northern Finnish town of Oulu, posted his remarks in English on Friday night on Facebook and on the website of the nationalist organisation Suomen Sisu, of which he is the chair.

The MP, an outspoken opponent of immigration who on his website describes the need to fight the “Islamification” of Finland, predicted in his post “‘The ugly bubble that our enemies live in will soon enough burst into a million little pieces.” He added that “We will fight until the end for our homeland and one true Finnish nation.”

The remarks drew widespread condemnation from other politicians, who accused him of inciting hatred. However the 29-year-old’s own party leader, Timo Soini, who is also the country’s foreign minister, has so far been unavailable for comment.

This comment appeared in entry 'Kai Murros on the European Revolution!' on 07/27/15, 11:03 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

sampling DavidPeppiat on nationalism wrote:

A further sample of DavidPeppiatt’s argument for nationalism:

Paul says,
“Nationalism isn’t, as you say, “an infinitely malleable idea”, but it does have various interpretations, broadly divided into ethnic and civic nationalism.”

DavidPeppiat:

Civic nationalism is not part of the nationalist Weltanschauung. It is part of the liberal Weltanschauung. It is (a minor) one of the massifying tendencies therein. The dividing line between the two worlds is that between blood, the organic, the particular, and the idea, the artificial, the general. If you have read, say, Hegel on liberalism, or Nietzsche, Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, you will know what I am trying to say (not very well, I fear).

Paul:
..“why I describe ethnic nationalism as “impractical” is that, difficult as it is to locate ourselves within a culture or a community, most of us don’t know or care enough about our ancestry to locate ourselves at all within a race.”

DavidPeppiat

You are complaining about the contrivances of liberalism, not about nationalism. In nationalist thinking, the psychological products of the life that is now lived in the West - hyper-individualism, alienation, self-estrangement, ethno-masochism, etc - are understood to take us all away from our natural identity and life-interest, and into a contrived circumstance (of which much is generated philosophically and politically by an extremely hostile culture of critique). In a healthy society - one with a quietist ethnic nationalism informing Power - there are the counter-forces of self-consciousness, solidarity, and heritage to guide you. We don’t have these as things are, and that’s why you can’t comprehend their “practicality”. You are thinking like the liberal you are, obviously.

Paul:
A shared identity that can only be proved by tests in a laboratory whose validity is discounted by many scientists is never going to be a sound foundation for a community, let alone for a polity.

DavidPeppiat:

No, belonging is more openly available to the understanding than that. Suppose that you traced your lineage back to, say, Elizabethan times, noting every single branch however remote. Then suppose you turn-about and trace the lines of all those branches, right down to the present. You would have a human bloom probably a million strong. That’s what kinship, people- hood, connectedness means. It isn’t difficult to apprehend.

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/27/15, 10:34 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

meanwhile in Israel... wrote:

Meanwhile in Israel....

The past year saw some of the most ruthless Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza since the territories were occupied in 1967. Israeli political leaders incited violence against Palestinians and soldiers and civilians carried out these commands, while the government’s parallel war on African refugees raged on.

What follows is the third annual list of racist ringleaders who have championed Israel’s efforts to drive all non-Jewish African asylum-seekers — a community of 50,000 men, women and children — out of the country and back to the tortures from which they fled in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on 07/27/15, 09:49 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dresden attacked by night, bio-weapon wrote:

Residents Wake up to Find Overnight, City Park Has Been Turned Into Migrant Camp For 2,000

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/25/residents-wake-up-to-find-overnight-city-park-has-been-turned-into-migrant-camp-for-2000/

The German city which dared to stand-up to their government’s policy of accepting Islamisation and mass migration appears to have been punished for dissent by the zero-notice imposition of a migrant camp.

Government employees stood by the entrance of a city park in Dresden, Saxony on Thursday night handing out fliers to passers-by informing them the next day the green space, which lies a short walk behind the city’s famous Semper Opera house was to be transformed into a ‘tent city’. In reality, a Breitbart source in the city said, the first most people knew about the plan was when a convoy of lorries and construction equipment rolled in to begin work hours later.
Dresden Refugee Camp

Bulldozers worked throughout the night to clear away grass and to pull up trees to make the park ready to receive the large white marquees provided by the German Red Cross to house some 1,100 refugees. That was the number, at least, that residents were given when the plans were announced. Within hours of the first migrants arriving on Saturday, the number the city-centre camp was expected to house had already been uprated to 2,000.

At the same time the gender and age makeup of the camp was announced, giving an interesting insight into the nature of ‘refugees’ to Europe and who they leave behind. Of those living in the tent city, 79.3-per-cent are men, 12.4-per-cent are women, and 8.3-per-cent are children.

This comment appeared in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on 07/27/15, 09:36 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

America's rapist wrote:

America’s rapist

This comment appeared in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 07/27/15, 09:21 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

On the globe of my childhood, I was always intrigued by a series of massive bodies of water inland in Western Asia - the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and what was called on my globe, “The Ural Sea.”

                 

What is more commonly known as “The Aral Sea” was suddenly all but gone one day when I took a look at the map of that area again.

In days to come, it will make for an interesting point of departure on the topic where East meets West. In this case where the ancient silk road and a sea millions of years old was considered by some Soviet planners to be “nature’s mistake”, which needed to make way for a new “cotton road.” Its waters once replete with life to feed and employ local populations was inefficiently diverted to irrigate cotton farms, where those local populations were sent to be slave labor;  and the sea that once sustained them and their now destitute, desert communities, turned into carcenogenic, windswept sand.

Cotton and the Disappearance of the Aral Sea

                               
Receding of the Aral Sea from 1960 to 2008 (Source: Wikipedia)

The fishing towns that lined the borders of the Aral Sea were once a showpiece of the Soviet Union’s industrial might. The sea was so teeming with life that sailors could pull ashore 50,000 tons of fish a year, bringing resources and economic opportunity to the communities that worked on its shores (Pearce 109). Located on the border between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the Aral Sea has transformed from one of the four largest lakes in the world to perhaps the world’s greatest environmental disaster. In under half a century, water diversion projects and mismanagement have reduced the Aral to less than 10% of its original surface area. Formerly productive fishing towns now sit in the middle of a salty desert. Populations are plagued with chronic anemia from salty tap water and a plethora of respiratory conditions brought on by the pesticides that once resided on the sea floor are now carried across the land by desert winds. To suggest that the disappearance of the Aral Sea was an unforeseen consequence of Soviet era engineering is an outright falsehood. Many scientific and political leaders in the former Soviet Union believed the Aral Sea to be a mistake of nature and a waste of water resources.

                                       

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/27/15, 01:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Ellen Brown on Greek debt wrote:

Ellen Brown on the Greek debt

http://www.starktruthradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Ellen-Brown-on-Greece.mp3

This comment appeared in entry 'The logic of capitalism; the unemployed and the superfluous' on 07/27/15, 10:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

From a ground-floor reply posted by someone named DavidPeppiatt at the Democracy Forum this morning, to a poster arguing, in essence, for civic nationalism and multiracialism:

Nationalism endeavours to cohere all the interests in society. It recognises the individual not as an entity oppressed by power, class, and circumstance (to be released by a coarsely interpreted but always notional act of breaking all the bounds, especially including those of Nature) but as a natural part of a natural whole in and through which self-realisation is found in either being or becoming. The purest form is existential, and will concern itself with self-consciousness, natural right and interest, solidarity, and social capital. Its intellectual high priest is Martin Heidegger.

Now, it is no more possible to cohere this nationalism with liberalism than it is to cohere self-consciousness with self-estrangement, or the organic with the artificial, or the authentic with the fake. To put it another way, liberalism acts on the human personality - that part of the psyche which is the product of Time and Place. There is no human presence in personality - quite the opposite - and therefore no genuine freedom to be got out of liberalism. On the other hand, nationalism can, in theory at least, deliver a society of men and women who inhabit their nature quite simply and self-consciously. True freedom, of course, is the freedom in being.

I must add that such a society has to be ethnically homogeneous. The sundering, self-estranging Western model of multiculturalism is only possible in a liberal polity.

http://democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=142590&page=3&p=2040409#post2040409

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/27/15, 05:05 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Goodwin's White privilege wrote:

]DAILYKENN.com—A the charred body of a 24-year-old businessman was found in his sneaker boutique earlier this year.

Arrested in connection with the brutal murder are Zachary D. Jones, 26, and Marvin Barrington, 23.

Police are looking for a third suspect, Antowan J. Hawkins, 22.

The remains of 24-year-old entrepreneur Aaron Goodwin were found in his burned out shoe store.

News reports say the crime occurred in Tallahassee, Fla. in May. The arrests were reported July 26, 2015.

In the ongoing effort to convince Americans that blacks are the oppressed victims of white privilege, such horror stories remain unreported by the mainstream Marxist media.

http://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2015/07/arrests-made-in-24-year-old.html


“White privilege”

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/27/15, 04:43 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

An interesting direction, Daniel. Here are some similar sentiments from Saigyo Hoshi:

Saigyo Hoshi, ~1140 CE, wrote:

月のゆく
山に心を
ゝくりいれて
やみなるあとの
身をいかにせん

My mind I send
with the moon
that goes beyond the mountain,
but what of this body
left behind in darkness?

And:

Saigyo Hoshi, ~1140 CE, wrote:

おしなべて
ものをおもはぬ
人にさへ
心をつくる
秋のはつ風

even in a person
who thinks nothing
of all things
it creates a heart for
the first wind of Autumn

And:

Saigyo Hoshi, ~1140 CE, wrote:

身をすつる
人は誠に
すつるかは
捨てぬ人こそ
すつる也けれ

He who casts himself away—
has he truly
cast himself away?
The real castaway is one
who casts nothing away at all!

This comment appeared in entry 'Dōgen' on 07/26/15, 03:52 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dōgen wrote:

                                   

To learn Buddism is to know yourself

To know yourself is to forget yourself

To forget yourself is to identify yourself with the law of the universe – one with the universe

To be one with the universe is to “drop” the notion that you are one with the universe

Along with the body and mind of yourself and others – Dōgen

This comment appeared in entry 'The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement' on 07/26/15, 03:05 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

katana wrote:

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on July 26, 2015, 12:55 AM
Oh, not so fast, I am of course approaching AE911’s website and their conspiratorial-sounding claims with all the due skepticism which I think should be afforded to it.

As you will find out Kumiko, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth do NOT make any conspiratorial claims at all, as a cursory glance at their website will show.

[http://www.ae911truth.org/]

What they do state, in their professional opinion, is that the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 is only adequately explained by controlled demolition. That the “official explanation” is nonsense.

They do NOT offer any opinion on who is responsible for this controlled demolition or why it was carried out.

—————-

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 2: The Beginning of Business, click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

This comment appeared in entry 'North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet' on 07/26/15, 03:24 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

katana on July 25, 2015 wrote:
I can, with full confidence, predict you will conclude the obvious — the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. That’s the easy part for all with any commonsense.

Oh, not so fast, I am of course approaching AE911’s website and their conspiratorial-sounding claims with all the due skepticism which I think should be afforded to it. I see that whole narrative as being generated by those social forces which seek to exonerate the true Islamist culprits behind 9/11. I think that these denialist narratives really do serve only as a kind of intentional or unintentional attempt at influencing, disrupting, and dis-integrating the decision-making process within the North Atlantic, while keeping intact the decision-making process of the Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups.

Of course, I will read it because I don’t want to be unfair by trying to criticise something I haven’t read yet, so I’ll make sure to do at least that first before I make my criticisms of it. I assume that they will have very involved and complex explanations for their claims, which I’ll probably have to go through one by one.

However, in the meantime I would suggest that everyone should review the appropriate manuals which concern Counter-Insurgency (COIN), and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), because these would shed some light onto how an enemy—particularly Al-Qaeda which has a somewhat sophisticated public relations network—would be willing to provide certain statements which would appear to validate the narratives in the conspiracy theories.

For example, Osama bin Laden initially denied all knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and the Taliban initially denied having sheltered Bin Laden, because they knew that these statements would be cited by people in the west, to create confusion. That was a calculated ambiguity by them, which persisted until they no longer felt that it was having the desired result. It would also not surprise me if Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups were to endorse the 9/11 conspiracy theories for the same disruptive reasons.

I would say that everyone should be careful not to end up walking into exactly the kind of beliefs that Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda inspired groups would want you to believe.

This comment appeared in entry 'North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet' on 07/26/15, 12:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

Absolutely great article in every way.

Alain de Benoist is one of the greatest thinkers in Europe right now.

This comment appeared in entry 'The logic of capitalism; the unemployed and the superfluous' on 07/26/15, 12:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Greg Johnson's bum steer wrote:

In my experience of people throughout my life, from the most ordinary to the most gifted and learned, I have yet to meet someone who is not in some ways intelligent and in someways a bit, lets be kind, ordinary.

Our feet are on the ground.

The same can be said of Greg Johsonon. He does not speak for all of White Nationalism and all he shows in this article is that he neither understands social constructionism nor its purpose. He is giving a bum steer that the lame will take.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/why-race-is-not-a-social-construct/

What he has done with this article is set up a bunch of straw men about what social constructionism is supposed to be. It may be what rogues under the banner of social constructinism might do, but it is not social constructionism proper.

Farther, he says that if “everything is a social construct then there is nothing to contast it with.” That isn’t true.

For the most fundamental example, at one end there are facts which are more objective and on that end social construction would be more a matter of how those facts count. On the other end one might literally construct things with other people.

Social constructionism (proper) doesn’t deny facts, but it does provide for agency and social agency in regard to how those facts count. That is a social agency that we need.


Jews have abused this notion in order to make it didactic, to make Whites react into becoming right wingers and as such, react in a way so as to repel, if not scare (our) people from participation by denying agency and accountability.

This comment appeared in entry 'Yes, The White Race IS ..A Social Construct (Contrary To Jewish And Right-Wing Denial)' on 07/25/15, 10:50 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

animal rights activists caught wrote:

Animal rights activiss who released Minks from cages and escaped detection by being careful with online activity, were caught nevertheles…

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0725/California-animal-activists-arrested-after-releasing-5-740-mink

This comment appeared in entry 'The Surveillance Society and Freedom-Curbing Legislation' on 07/25/15, 10:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

katana wrote:

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on July 23, 2015, 11:14 PM
Regarding Katana’s mention of AE911, I’ll take a look at what they are saying and then get back to you in my next response here, since of course I would have to properly look at what they are saying before I can respond to you, so you’ll have to wait on that response for a couple of days!

Please take your time Kumiko. Take a few weeks, but do reply.

I can, with full confidence, predict you will conclude the obvious — the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. That’s the easy part for all with any commonsense.

The next part, the connecting of the subsequent dots can be difficult especially given our life-long brainwashing and control by the jew system we live under.

In short, once you accept the fact that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and providing you have a desire for truth, all roads lead inexorably to organized jewry and its engineering of the false flag known as 9/11.

The jews did 9/11. It’s both as complicated and as simple as that.

—————-

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Teil 1: Vorwort des Herausgebers; Einleitung Mein Leitgedanke, click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

 

This comment appeared in entry 'North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet' on 07/25/15, 07:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

it seems like you are trying to de-emphasise the fact that their actions are an exponent attached to the result of a very Russian base. These are the questions that appear immediately: Who were Stalin and Dzerzhinsky working for?

Dzierzinski’s ideology and actions were (Jewish) and entirely alien from Russian interests in their origin and intent, yes. The Russian state was just a horse for him to ride and use in whatever which way.

In the case of Stalin, his motive would still be alien, only similar to Jewishness as he is of the same haplogroup area (but farther back, before phylogenetic branching) and using a cartoon version of “Russified” Marxism as an excuse to wield it’s power - i.e., in the case of Stalin, I believe the issue was more desire for personal power than Jewish interests or authentic Russian interests. To that end Stalin would have no problem sacrificing Russians, he would even kill his family or anybody else.

Whose uniforms were they wearing? Whose language were they speaking?

Therefore, uniforms and language were just stealth and means to their ends, but not representative of their true allegience.

Which ideological and repressive state apparatus were they making decisions within the framework of?

Jewish.

Which country’s geostrategic interests were they making decisions on behalf of?

Russia was a proxy “government” for the Jews to stear toward their interests. In Stalin, as in the case of Christianity, they created a Frankenstein.

“What was the demographic composition of the party that they were a member of?”

That doesn’t matter, they are used to being an alien minority and then using coalitions, “unions” against the host power and against eachother.

What was the racial nature of the policy preferences that characterised the institutional and bureaucratic inertia of the state apparatus which they had inherited after the close of the First World War?

It was probably a situation of late feudalism, and mid industrialism, where nobility and insutrialists were represented by Euroean folks existing alongside an uneasy relation of Jews, who were resented for being non-Christian aliens, operating as middlemen, money collectors and so on; more, as they could not own land or be represented in political power, they latched onto an ideology which would allow them to form coallitions as “union” representatives of “other exploited” groups.

The appearance was to correct the injustice of Russian racial policy preferences, but there was no concern for Russian interests in this replacement ideology (it was supposedly “a-racial”); in which they would not really create a nascent polycentrism of unions, but centralize all power against Russians and to themselves, only trusting themselves. Therefore, Stalin would have rode a wave of reaction to that virulent Jewish usupration and anti Russianness and overcorrected (in order to use that force - “mother Russia” and so on). They tried to deal with Stalin but he turned out to be more virulent than they, and merely took the centralization of power to himself.

Yes, Stalin’s was a distorted and perverted cartoon represention of Russian interests.

The answer to all those questions is ‘Russia’ and ‘Russians’. It’s one of those things where it should be impossible to say otherwise.

I think not. There were structures, you can say bad, obsolete structures that the Jews and others were reacting to, but the replacement ideology was Jewish in its manifestation and because it did not have Russian interests in mind that probably explains some the overcompensation that you see, which Stalin commandeered.

The proper homeostasis mechanism was not in the hands of those who cared about Russians as a human ecological system.

Nor is it in the hands of Whites in other nations of Europe, the Americas, Australia, SA

By the same logic,

...a logic of geopolitical interests in securing resources for a nation, I presume.

..and you are presumably talking about the old 18th century notion in which British, Germans, Russians ect would pursue necessary resources through military conquest - part of the dubious, extant structure that I was acknowledging…which you seem to want to say that Russians are particularly guilty of.

when the Russians attacked Azerbaijan and defeated all of the above mentioned people, so that ..essentially a Russian reconquest of Azerbaijan is what it was) and take everything for themselves, and then you have Dzerzhinsky and Stalin prancing around trying to suggest to people that all the national borders should be removed two years later, what would that be called?

Russian interests to the violent exponent—which is to say ‘raised to the power’—of a Georgian (Stalin and Ordzhonikidze) and a Jew (Dzerzhinsky). Because that’s what it is.

No, it is Jewish because there is a qualitative diffference in means and ends of achieving Russian intererests.

The means would be more reckless with Russian and foreign blood.

The ends would be Jewish or Stalin’s idiosyncracy.

But it’s almost as though you don’t want to say that the base of all those actions is Russian. Why? It seems strange to me how much resistance this notion is being met with.

Because you are not yet fully appreciating what Jewish crypsis and virulence does.

..how it can blend with and influence a people.

We might need to get you some new contacts so that you can see the color of Jews and their difference….then the difference that they make.

It’s not that a Russian state and people wouldn’t have geopolitical interests..

Not that historically, especially, they couldn’t have been part of militaristic atrocities

But the would-be homeostatic correction of those overextensions, those imperialist aggressions can and have at times been taken out of Russian hands..

..through a Jewish version of “correcting” the Czar and his power, with a coalition of minority unions..

And as those interests are commandeered by Jews or someone similarly poison (like Stalin), again, there is a qualitative change in the means and the ultimate aims of those interests ...

And it isn’t Russian.

Though it will provoke a violent Russian reaction..

...and as it is not accountable to Russians it does not concern itself as much with blowback…rather would it have been more inclined to use Russians, Russian military etc, to bully other people and not care about putting them in line for retaliation.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/25/15, 04:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

An Azeri noblewoman.
Image: An Azeri noblewoman. I bet she preferred Britain over Russia.

Daniel, I feel like you are arguing against an argument that I haven’t really made. I’m not trying to say that Dzerzhinsky ‘was not a Jew’, obviously he was a Jew which is why I named him as one, and obviously Stalin was a Georgian, which is why I’ve named him as one.

But it seems like you are trying to de-emphasise the fact that their actions are an exponent attached to the result of a very Russian base. These are the questions that appear immediately: Who were Stalin and Dzerzhinsky working for? Whose uniforms were they wearing? Whose language were they speaking? Which ideological and repressive state apparatus were they making decisions within the framework of? Which country’s geostrategic interests were they making decisions on behalf of? What was the demographic composition of the party that they were a member of? What was the racial nature of the policy preferences that characterised the institutional and bureaucratic inertia of the state apparatus which they had inherited after the close of the First World War?

The answer to all those questions is ‘Russia’ and ‘Russians’. It’s one of those things where it should be impossible to say otherwise.

The British Empire also would have known this quite well, because they had willing non-British people working for them as well. For example, Britain had people in Azerbaijan who were aligned to British interests who they deliberately supported after the Russian White Army retreated in January 1920. Obviously the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was not white British people, they were people who looked like the person in the image I’ve embedded in the right-hand side of this post. But can anyone reasonably argue—taking the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic as a test case—that when the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic proceeded to attack people in Karabakh to put down the Armenian rebellion there and keep the territory integrated with its territory, that this was ‘not a British interest because Britons would have used less brutal tactics if they had done it themselves with white British commanders’?

No, no one would make that argument. It would be clear as day that what was happening was the result of a British Imperial interest in trying to win the rivalry against Russia over the flow of oil in the Caspian Basin on the world-system level and the Azeri conflict over territory in Karabakh (half the companies that produced the oil drilling machines, machine tools, and pipelines were Armenian, and half the oil services workshops were Armenian) on the regional level, two things which were not fully in alignment in terms of methods but which had meshed with each other.

It was both top down, and also bottom up. There is interaction between the two levels. However, what is happening on the world-system level, has the initiative and shapes the range of options available to individual actors within the system. So what was happening in that example was both British and Azeri. It was not merely one or the other, it was both.

It’s clear that, using this example, Russia and Britain had competing interests in Azerbaijan, and that any brutality carried out by the Azeris against the Armenians to try to prevent them from forming a breakaway country, was an Azeri exponent of ethnically-motivated violence attached to a British interest.

By the same logic, when the Russians attacked Azerbaijan and defeated all of the above mentioned people, so that Russians could suppress everything (essentially a Russian reconquest of Azerbaijan is what it was) and take everything for themselves, and then you have Dzerzhinsky and Stalin prancing around trying to suggest to people that all the national borders should be removed two years later, what would that be called?

Russian interests to the violent exponent—which is to say ‘raised to the power’—of a Georgian (Stalin and Ordzhonikidze) and a Jew (Dzerzhinsky). Because that’s what it is. But it’s almost as though you don’t want to say that the base of all those actions is Russian. Why? It seems strange to me how much resistance this notion is being met with.

Keep in mind, this is not a moral issue. It doesn’t involve notions of ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’, or even ‘rights’. It’s just a description of the situation as it was, the description of a social tendency and the description of a strategic threat emanating from Russia.

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 10:27 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Wooden Ships wrote:

                        Wooden Ships

If you smile at me, I will understand
‘Cause that is something everybody everywhere does
In the same language

I can see by your coat, my friend
You’re from the other side
There’s just one thing I got to know
Can you tell me please, who won the war ?

Say, can I have some of your purple berries?
Yes, I’ve been eating them for six or seven weeks now
Haven’t got sick once
Probably keep us both alive

Wooden ships on the water, very free and easy
Easy, you know the way it’s supposed to be
Silver people on the shoreline, let us be
Talkin’ ‘bout very free and easy

Horror grips us as we watch you die
All we can do is echo your anguished cries
Stare as all human feelings die
We are leaving, you don’t need us

Go, take your sister then, by the hand
Lead her away from this foreign land
Far away, where we might laugh again
We are leaving, you don’t need us

And it’s a fair wind blowin’ warm
Out of the south over my shoulder
Guess I’ll set a course and go

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 05:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dzerzhinsky / Selman Rufin wrote:

Since the last time I looked into his background, it has admittedly become more difficult to find sources avowing Dzierznski’s Jewish background.

While the sources I quote follow plausible arguments, they are almost as prejudicially inclined to believe that Dzerzhinsky was Jewish as I am.

There were then, as there are now, obvious reasons for Jewish heritage to be unacknowledged - especially in the case of someone like Dzierżyński. That makes the matter of tracing his ethnicity more difficult. While the patterns of behavior strike me as quite Jewish, the sources need much more corroboration.

http://kanada.net/war/prologue.html

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky nicknamed Iron Felix (11 September 1877 – 20 July 1926) was born on the territory of the Republic of Belarus. Dzerhinsky’s father was Jewish and his mother of Polish origin. His family spoke Polish and some Yiddish/ Hebrew. When he was 7 years old he learned Russian. Brought up as a Catholic due to his father’s falsified nobility Dzerzhinsky was often called the “non- Jewish Jew”. He was head of the Cheka from 1917-1926 which was notorious for kidnap, torture and mass summary executions.


Fałszywi Polacy. Selman Rufin alias Dzierżyński.

“We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity”

http://www.prisonplanet.pl/polityka/falszywi_polacy_selman,p1864870805

There is a problem with who he really was. It is interesting when you compare versions of the Polish Wikipedia, designed as less valuable to the public than other versions.  First, it says that the father of the future Red executioner had the name Rufin and was an Italian Jew, sent to Moscow’s empire. He lived in Oziembłowie in Naliboki Forest only beginning in 1875. In 1877 Felix was born. Felix had eight siblings. His sister, Wanda was accidentally shot by Felix in childhood. Russian historian Alexei Chromow confirms that the real name of the executioner was Rufin Selman, [1985 Progress publishing house Biography Dzerzhinsky]. Rufinowie bought the property of Dzierżyńskich’s who were deported to Siberia after the January Uprising. The fate of the real Dzierżyńskich is unknown.

Wikipedia states “Felix” Iwieniec was born August 30, 1877 in the district Oszmina, Vilna, citizenship tsardom of Moscow, and later the Soviet Soyuz - as the village was renamed after the revolution. The same period is described differently in another booklet: Dzerzhinsky often visited Pilarów, but to their house did not go. He talked with them in the courtyard. “Because it’s the count’s threshold - he said - I will not go”. He lodged with the peasants, the farmhands in the barn. This is strange behavior for an alleged nobleman. Such actions of agents of varying sorts are perfectly describes in the book by Jozef Ignacy Kraszewski. Rufin Selman - Dzerzhinsky used pseudonyms Jasek, Jacob, Pereplyolczik, Franek, astronomer, Joseph, Domanski. He was a member of several committees of the revolution. Rufina- Felix Dzerzhinsky was born in Alleged Polish nobility. Underline “alleged” in Wikipedia. Below “curriculum vitae” Rufina by foreign-language Wiki.

Already in 1896, at the age of 19, he was one of 15 delegates to the first congress of the Jewish party called the Social Democratic Party LDP. In 1897 he took part in the Second Congress of the LSDP, where he rejected independence. For the first time in the same year, he was arrested in Kaunas for participating in the strike. Nowhere is it stated where sources of funding came for the man to cover subsistence and travel costs. Indeed, there is a constant lack of background information - typical of revolutionaries, or rather paid agents. With matters that they had to keep secret after all, the parties and contributions generally fabricated. Anyway, nowhere did labor parties subsist of their own contributions. In Poland, e.g., in the interwar period the Communists were financed by Komitern in the amount of 300 zł per month. While teachers received a salary during this time of approx.120 per mo.

In 1898, Felix Rufin Selman was exiled for 3 years to Wiatka. In August 1899, he was sent to Vilnius, where he was one of the founders of the SDKPiL in 1899. His stay in jail must not have been too restrictive as he was able to organize the founding of parties. In 1900 he was re-arrested and imprisoned in the Citadel in Warsaw and later transferred to the prison in Siedlce. In 1902, he was exiled for five years in the depths of Siberia to Wiliusk. From exile, he fled to Lodz [year not given]. Then, enigmatically it is stated that emigrated from the country. How is it possible for him to “emigrate” as a fugitive from Okhrana in exile? Okhrana, or secret police, which allegedly so cut off the revolutionaries do not know. On a boat he went to Berlin, or some other State of Prussia - there he gained a passport and paid travel expenses - which does not happen by accident. In Berlin, he was elected secretary of the Committee of Social Democracy with Rosa Luxemburg and Leo Jogicza, widely known as “Polish” revolutionaries. It’s like an unknown man coming from another country immediately promoting strangers to the highest authority of his own party. And apparently miracles do happen? In Berlin, Felix Rufin aka “Blood” initiated the “Red Banner”, which dominated the SDKPiL. In 1903 he was elected to the Main Board of the organization. Of course, all this is performed without funding?

“Felix” was arrested again in 1912 spending 4.5 years in tsarist prisons. Freed in 1917 after the February Revolution, and at once in the same year joined the Bolshevik Party. Quite differently this period is written about in a book published by the Military Political Academy: “On September 1, 1912 Dzerzhinsky was arrested for the sixth time. As a result he spent two years in his already well-known X Pavilion of the Warsaw Citadel. The arrest prevented the cooperation with Lenin, who in the years 1912 - 1914 was in Krakow at the White Dunajec. After the hearing April 29, 1914 Dzerzhinsky was sentenced to three years hard labor. In connection with the outbreak of war he was deported to the heart of Russia.”

Already in April 1917, he joined, the Moscow Committee of the Bolsheviks, and then proceeded to the Executive Committee. [Because it’s, you know, a Committee like we sip a beer]. He was subsequently elected to the Central Committee. He served an active role in the Military Revolutionary Committee in St. Petersburg. On December 20, 1917 he was put in place on the head of All-Russia Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage - Wait. Waiting has taken a decisive fight against political opponents without any count murdering tens, hundreds of thousands of people. According to the words of Rufina Selmana- Dzerzhinsky “Red Terror lies in the extermination of people based on their class membership”.

Here are a few sentences about the activities of waiting in the first years after its creation.

“At the end of 1920 in Soviet Russia there were already 84 concentration camps which held about 50,000 prisoners. In 1923, the number of camps has risen to 315, and prisoners to 70 thousand. From year to year the number grew to a record-breaking 1950 level of 2.6 million people encarcerated at the same time.”

On 12 January 1919, Lenin signed the plan of operations Wisla, a plan to attack Poland. On the same day special forces murdered the lover of Alexander Helphanda - nicknamed Parvus, Rosa Luxemburg and Libknehta. A Photo of Rosa Luxemburg was reportedly on the desk of Rufin Selman until the end of his days. The Soviets were stopped 14 and 17 February at Maniewiczami and Bereza Kartuska. During another raid on Poland in 1920, Rufin Selman - Dzerżyński became a member of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee of Poland in Bialystok. Until his death Rufin Selman - Dzerzhinsky - was primarily a Soviet Communist. The English version of the biography makes no mention of his role during the invasion of Poland in the years 1918 - 1920 and cooperation with Germany.

Dzerzhinsky’s strident postion, both ultraviolent toward Slavs and in no way displaying sympathy for Polish nationalism, does tend to lend weight to the suspicion that this man was not Polish or Slavic in his genetic bias.

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 01:59 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

But I am not quite so charitably disposed to Lenin.

You quote:

I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the “crime” of those “nationalist-socialists”, distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze’s “manhandling”. I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.

It is convenient and egregious rhetoric on the part of Lenin to say that “Dzerzhinsky distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind”, as if Dzerzhinsky was merely imitating what the Russians would want in their nationalism.

Dzerzhinsky, an egregious man, a half Jew and half Pole, was infamous.  He was, incidentally, condered by Pilsudski to be “the” arch enemy.

One cannot propose him to White naionalists as “a Russian.” Not even an imitation.

Dzerzhinsky was not merely doing an imitation of Russian chauvinsim for any reason but to co-opt it, and doing his best to mislead the 70 percent of the Russians in the communist party to his Jewish aims.

He was a Jew, and that accounts for his cold indifference to the spilling of Russian and Georgian blood by the millions.

Just as Lenin not being a Russian explains his malice toward Russians and their rule.

Lenin does not mention Jews as Jews because he shares their malace as an ethnic minority toward the Russian majority and its rule. He sees Jews as too valuable a partner in a coalition of minorities to name them as a source of mass murder.

[A]ll the material which Dzerzhinsky’s commission has collected must be completed or started over again to correct the enormous mass of wrongs and biased judgments which it doubtlessly contains. The political responsibility for all this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

These two non Russians were riding the wave of Russian nationalism along with minority and lower class grievance in order to co-opt its power.

At least Lenin recognizes Stalin to be a Georgian, not exaclty a Russian.

Of course, Lenin knows full well that neither Stalin nor Dzerzhinsky are Russians by blood, since he would know that Stalin was blatantly a Georgian and he might even be aware that Dzerzhinsky was a Jew. However, Lenin knows that 70% of the Communist Party is Russian and that a general disposition of Great Russian Chauvinism is manifesting and that Stalin and Dzerzhinsky are acting as willing and deliberate spearheads of that tendency.

Again, I strongly disagee.

At a minimum, Dzerzhinsky and his fellow Jews would be distorting Russian nationalism and imperialism beyond Russian interests because they didn’t care if Russians had the blood of homocide on their Russian hands nor the risk of a suicidal mission on their hands. Thus, they were not, as Lenin portrays them, acting as “true Russians.” They were acting in a Jewish perverted version. In a word, they would not care about Russians.

In the case of Stalin, the fact that he would have no problem killing fellow Georgians is entirely consistent with his personality.

His “Russian Chauvinism” was really just a vehicle for power, same as with Jews. But in Stalin’s case, he comes from an earlier branch of the same violent and aggressive stock from which emerged Jews.

Thus, his destructive actions stem not as much from his world view as from his violently disposed genetic make-up. A violent proclivity that could be directed in any which way.

It is only convenient rhetoric (and with hindsite, absurd rhetoric) by Lenin that he would call Dzerzhinsky and Stalin Russian chauvinists who are acting in Russian interests.

Neither of them were anything of the kind.

The 70 percent Russians of the communist party got hoodwinked and swept up in wishful thinking. That is not to say that the Russians are a wholly innocent people - who is, except the Germans of course (wink).

[Lenin is showing in this letter—the last letter he was to write before his death—that he is afraid that their actions will make him, and his ideological project, look disreputable and bad in the eyes of the people of Asian descent. Because Lenin is trying to make Asian peoples feel comfortable with his project and make them feel non-threatened by it.

I don’t doubt that he was concerned to defend Asian nationals and other regional nations on the margins of Russia, but he was also kissing up to the Jews, who, unlike other groups, had neither claim to the area nor a shared vested interest with its native peoples, other than overthrowing the Russians. Lenin was either naive or disingenous as to what could and would happen through coalition with Jews beyond that.

That he sees Dzerzhinsky and Stalin as “acting Russian” by their craven uncaring for Georgians and Belarusians goes to show that something is very wrong in Lenin’s assessment.

He was so intent on taking the Russians down, in depicting the Russians as the sole and inherently bad people, that he would even say that the most homocidal Jews, acting wth characteristic Jewish malevolence, were acting “Russian.”

I said..

But was Stalin characteristically “Slavic” or was he more a “Georgian”, of haplogroup G, that crazy, volatile and sometimes ultra violent stuff mutated in the Caucuses?

I think he was of course fully a Georgian, but that he was ‘acting as though a Russian’.

It seems he played Russian nationalism as means to power and gave vent to a violent predisopotion by its pretext.

I think that it’s a misinterpretation by you.I was only giving this example to show that Lenin’s ancestry provided the prism through which he viewed the situation, because his non-Russian origin would have made him especially attuned to the adverse situations that faced the original inhabitants of the lands that the Russian Empire had conquered.

So I’m only saying that Lenin was seeing the situation through a prism shaped by his ethnic genetic interests and the understanding that he would have gained from that, and that it is an example of how that can manifest in situations that it is not traditionally thought to be present in.

I don’t think that I misunderstand. However, I do see the value in looking at things from Lenin’s perspective and seeing grievances that he had on behalf of surounding and subsumed minority nations as valid.

 

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 08:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mick Lately wrote:

Pro-vaxxer madness:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/24/first-malaria-vaccine-given-green-light-by-european-regulators

“The world’s first malaria vaccine has been given the green light by European regulators and could protect millions of children in sub-Saharan Africa from the life-threatening disease.”

Just what Europe needs: more Sub-Saharan African children to survive and move to Europe in search of “a better life”.

This comment appeared in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on 07/24/15, 07:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

In 1922, Stalin proposed that Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, would be dissolved as nations entirely. He did this in a resolution called “On the Relations between the RSFSR and the Independent Republics”. This was a transparent and frontally blatant Russification attempt it would seem, one which entirely contradicted the idea that Lenin and Stalin had developed jointly after 1913 that had been known as the ‘Affirmative Action Empire’.

“Affirmative Action”.... where have I heard that before?

“Affirmtive Action Empire”...quite descriptive of Neo-Marxist application in The U.S.


Of course, in the most charitable interpretation of what they meant, the nations would have been a union among unions who would, by “affrimative action”, be included in the union of unions, “the empire.”

..that, as opposed to “affirative action” Jewish American style, which means White hiring prerogative and discretion is completely denied and they must hire blacks, other non-Whites, etc.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 06:54 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

Franklin Ryckaert on July 24, 2015 wrote:
You can never suppress nationalism by whatever “internationalist” ideology.

This much we agree on.

That was true in the Soviet Union, it is also true in China. How are the Chinese behaving towards the Tibetans and the Uyghurs? Well, they are flooding their countries with ethnic Chinese in order to make them minorities in their own countries and their nationalist aspirations are harshly suppressed.

Naturally I don’t agree with what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, that is a serious error they are committing, and it will also backfire on them later. Regarding the Uyghurs, they chose to wage Jihad, and were simply met with a hard response, and so that is a more complex issue.

I think the indigenous peoples of Siberia are better off with the rule of a majority of Slavic Russians than they ever would be under the boots of imperialist Chinese or Japanese.

I can’t imagine why you’d believe that, given the history of Siberia, since I’m sure you would know what has happened to them as a result, and how their populations were viciously attacked by Russians again and again. Also, I don’t see how this is some kind of false choice either-or question, given that I never suggested that Japan or China should be putting ‘boots’ on anyone in Siberia. In fact, the peoples of Siberia should be self-governing, and they should be assisted to this end by those East Asian nations that have autonomy.

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 06:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kumiko Oumae wrote:

DanielS on July 23, 2015 wrote:
Kumiko, you make some very good points about Lenin, his promotion of an idea of confederated ethnie’s (national liberation) as opposed to Stalin’s and the Jewish idea, Luxembourg’s idea, of absorbing all the various nations of peoples around.

Yes. Despite everything, Lenin was very pointed in trying to prevent Stalin’s ideas on this particular issue from coming to manifestation. During the Georgian civil war, on March 03 1921, Lenin wrote to Ordzhonikidze (who would later be turned upon and purged by Stalin anyway) and Stalin, telling them to make a coalition with the Georgian intelligentsia and the small traders, which they generally seem to have ignored, because they went ahead and did whatever they felt like anyway.

So Stalin was willing to destroy Georgia for the sake of carrying on the chauvinist agenda, and that I suppose could be interpreted as a sign of just how committed to it he was, since he was okay with brutalising the very country that he came from.

After that, the communists addressed the question of constitutional arrangement of the territories. In 1922, Stalin proposed that Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, would be dissolved as nations entirely. He did this in a resolution called “On the Relations between the RSFSR and the Independent Republics”. This was a transparent and frontally blatant Russification attempt it would seem, one which entirely contradicted the idea that Lenin and Stalin had developed jointly after 1913 that had been known as the ‘Affirmative Action Empire’.

Stalin’s ‘justification’ was that it would be a way to make sure that counter-revolutionary forces would be held in check by the GPU of the RSFSR. The GPU was operating out of Moscow, meaning that he was essentially saying that these country would be ruled from Moscow and would have no borders of their own.

Lenin strongly opposed this, but by now he was very ill. His proposal to try to mitigate it was to propose the creation of the “USSR”, in which all the republics would be constitutionally equal participants. This was not a very comprehensive mitigation, and it was more difficult for him because Stalin began to deny him access to information.

Stalin then tried to achieve the same chauvinistic results by the back door, since then he decided that he wanted to create a Transcaucasian Republic which would be led by people who held Great Russian views again. This time the Georgian Communist Party officials resigned in protest, and were then replaced with precisely the kind of people who would be willing to go along with it.

Lenin was upset. He writes in December 1922:

Vladimir Lenin, ‘The Question of Nationalities or “Autonomisation”’, 1922 wrote:
When this question arose last summer, I was ill; and then in autumn I relied too much on my recovery and on the October and December plenary meetings giving me an opportunity of intervening in this question. However, I did not manage to attend the October Plenary Meeting (when this question came up) or the one in December, and so the question passed me by almost completely.

I have only had time for a talk with Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who came form the Caucasus and told me how this matter stood in Georgia. I have also managed to exchange a few words with Comrade Zinoviev and express my apprehensions on this matter. From what I was told by Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who was at the head of the commission sent by the C.C. to “investigate” the Georgian incident, I could only draw the greatest apprehensions. If matters had come to such a pass that Orjonikidze could go to the extreme of applying physical violence, as Comrade Dzerzhinsky informed me, we can imagine what a mess we have got ourselves into. Obviously the whole business of “autonomisation” was radically wrong and badly timed.

It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been “busy” most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.

It is quite natural that in such circumstances the “freedom to secede from the union” by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.

It is said in defence of this measure that the People’s Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People’s Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.

I think that Stalin’s haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious “nationalist-socialism” [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being “internationalist” because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the “crime” of those “nationalist-socialists”, distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze’s “manhandling”. I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.

[...]

In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it. It is sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than Polyachiska, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are always Khokhols and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always Kapkasians.

That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or “great” nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.

What is important for the proletarian? For the proletarian it is not only important, it is absolutely essential that he should be assured that the non-Russians place the greatest possible trust in the proletarian class struggle. What is needed to ensure this? Not merely formal equality. In one way or another, by one’s attitude or by concessions, it is necessary to compensate the non-Russian for the lack of trust, for the suspicion and the insults to which the government of the “dominant” nation subjected them in the past.

I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of “nationalist-socialism” (whereas he himself is a real and true “nationalist-socialist”, and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than undergo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities.

[...]

[A]ll the material which Dzerzhinsky’s commission has collected must be completed or started over again to correct the enormous mass of wrongs and biased judgments which it doubtlessly contains. The political responsibility for all this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

[...]

It must be borne in mind that the decentralisation of the People’s Commissariats and the lack of co-ordination in their work as far as Moscow and other centres are concerned can be compensated sufficiently by Party authority, if it is exercised with sufficient prudence and impartiality; the harm that can result to our state from a lack of unification between the national apparatuses and the Russian apparatus is infinitely less than that which will be done not only to us, but to the whole International, and to the hundreds of millions of the peoples of Asia, which is destined to follow us on to the stage of history in the near future. It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing. There can be no doubt about that and it would be superfluous for me to speak about my unconditional approval of it. It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins.

A very comprehensive condemnation.

Of course, Lenin knows full well that neither Stalin nor Dzerzhinsky are Russians by blood, since he would know that Stalin was blatantly a Georgian and he might even be aware that Dzerzhinsky was a Jew. However, Lenin knows that 70% of the Communist Party is Russian and that a general disposition of Great Russian Chauvinism is manifesting and that Stalin and Dzerzhinsky are acting as willing and deliberate spearheads of that tendency.

Lenin is showing in this letter—the last letter he was to write before his death—that he is afraid that their actions will make him, and his ideological project, look disreputable and bad in the eyes of the people of Asian descent. Because Lenin is trying to make Asian peoples feel comfortable with his project and make them feel non-threatened by it.

Stalin and Dzerzhinsky knew that Lenin’s anger and the fact that he had written it into a letter could be very bad for their prospects of leadership. Hence, they took Lenin’s letter and hid it until 1956, when it was too late to make a difference.

But was Stalin characteristically “Slavic” or was he more a “Georgian”, of haplogroup G, that crazy, volatile and sometimes ultra violent stuff mutated in the Caucuses?

I think he was of course fully a Georgian, but that he was ‘acting as though a Russian’.

And wasn’t getting the Jews out of power a good thing? After all, they were heavily responsible for the anti-Russian blood bath at the onset and well into Stalin’s reign (granted, of terror). Weren’t the Jews largely involved with setting up the framework of terror that Stalin, the Georgian, moved into?

Yes, I’m sure they were. I hadn’t said otherwise, I simply take for granted that you know I agree with the accuracy of that history, and that you know that I know of it.

It is good to introduce some balance, but you seem to be going soft on Jews .

I think that it’s a misinterpretation by you. I was only giving this example to show that Lenin’s ancestry provided the prism through which he viewed the situation, because his non-Russian origin would have made him especially attuned to the adverse situations that faced the original inhabitants of the lands that the Russian Empire had conquered.

So I’m only saying that Lenin was seeing the situation through a prism shaped by his ethnic genetic interests and the understanding that he would have gained from that, and that it is an example of how that can manifest in situations that it is not traditionally thought to be present in.

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 06:27 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mick Lately wrote:

The summer of rage and Jade Helm 15 merging and melding in a sickening swirl and swill:

Data-driven U.S.A. is dreideling out of control, nobody knows what’s real or a false flag anymore:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sandra-bland-twitter-erupts-over-theory-that-hanged-woman-was-already-dead-in-her-mugshot-10411761.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11759901/Louisiana-cinema-shooting-live.html

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 05:20 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Franklin Ryckaert wrote:

You can never suppress nationalism by whatever “internationalist” ideology. That was true in the Soviet Union, it is also true in China. How are the Chinese behaving towards the Tibetans and the Uyghurs? Well, they are flooding their countries with ethnic Chinese in order to make them minorities in their own countries and their nationalist aspirations are harshly suppressed. I think the indigenous peoples of Siberia are better off with the rule of a majority of Slavic Russians than they ever would be under the boots of imperialist Chinese or Japanese.

This comment appeared in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on 07/24/15, 04:09 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3520 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›