Monday, October 5, 2015

Existence of the White Nation: Sakai versus the Nazis.

I have been thinking of writing another article on what I like to call the 'White Nation thesis' for awhile now. One of my numerous banned accounts on /r/communism made a big stink about the phrase “The True Story of the White Nation” being removed from a potential cover of the second edition of J. Sakai's Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, and JMP even mentions this in his review of the second edition (getting the quote wrong, of course), noting that the publishers decided to keep the phrase in after all.

It could be said that MIM, Sakai, and the film Birth of a Nation all agree: the White Nation is real, and it came into existence after the American Civil War. There are many, many who would disagree with the White Nation thesis though, as I have found out from trolling various right-wing websites associated with the NRx phenomenon. The White Nation thesis is not only rejected by most on the Amerikan “Left,” but the 'Right' as well doesn't actually like this idea, which may or may not be surprising, depending on how much experience one has talking to these people.

Probably the strongest argument I have encountered against the White Nation thesis actually comes from a well known, now defunct German political party known as the National Socialist German Worker's Party, more popularly known as the Nazis. While reading Grover Furr's Blood Lies, I thought to myself “Timothy Synder is so eager to accept Nazi narratives about the Soviet Union. Would he be equally as likely to accept Nazi narratives about Amerika?” This got me interested in researching exactly what the Nazis were saying about their Other major second World War opponent.

At first I could only find vague statements made by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger against what he called Americanism. Americanism is a phenomenon that seeks to destroy Europe, Bolshevism is a derivative of Americanism, Americans are nihilists and rootless ahistorical people, etc. Searching for more in this vain, I eventually stumbled on a gem produced by the Nazi party that seems to have largely skipped the notice of other commentators. Typing the title of this pamphlet into a Google Books search turns up nothing, and an internet search only reveals a handful of White Nationalist forums discussing it (mostly in praise of it, despite it being a denial of the White Nation thesis). It is a propaganda pamphlet produced during the war, giving a much fuller theoretical treatment to the vague sentiments expressed by Heidegger.

The pamphlet is called Europe and America: Failures in Building an American People. I immediately went through this pamphlet, and was struck by just how compelling the Nazi case was. While most people, whether “Left” or 'Right' that deny the White Nation thesis basically deny there are such things as nations at all, this pamphlet begins by contrasting the German nation to the American population:

When speaking of the German people, we are dealing with a fixed group of people who are defined by their nature and territory. There is usually a “natural” relationship between between a people and its territory, such that naming the people brings to mind a territorial area. On this particular section of the world with its climate, its beauties, and its nature, the people’s history took place. Here its inhabitants found the source of their strength. Here its cultural landmarks give evidence of its spirit. Here its myths and fables have their roots in the distant past.

Such a relationship between people and space does not exist in the USA. They have no myths and fables, only facts. They jumped right into the middle of history — the only instance in world history in which the development of a governmental system and a “people” could be observed by historians from the very beginning.

Americans have no mythic history. There is no pre-Christian American mythology, there are no American legendary figures like Faust. There is no ancient mythology that goes back to the hazy and foggy times before recorded history. Americans have to import these ideas from other European nations, usually Greece, as they have none of their own (except for maybe those who are big into claiming to be 1/32 native American or something). This is something that immediately sets the various European settler colonies and their identities apart from the European nations they came from.

While the Nazi pamphlet is much shorter in length and written with a different purpose in mind, the Nazi narrative emphasizes the differences between the European settler populations in North America, while Sakai tends to stress their unity against the natives and blacks. While the White Nation thesis sees the White Nation coming into existence after the Civil War, the Nazi thesis presented here sees a fairly unified group of Northern Europeans, until the 1880s:

As long as the primarily source of immigration was Northern Europe, there was really no racial problem. The various ethnic groups were close enough so that intermarriage had no negative effects. A unified people developed over the decades and centuries. That changed during the 1880’s. The immigrants from the north declined and were replaced by other groups. Between 1900 and 1910, only 23.3% of the newcomers came from Germanic areas, while 76.7% came from Southern Europe or the Slavic nations. Things were even less favorable in the following decade. The new immigrants had other customs, other languages, other ways of thinking, other religions, other skills. The nationality issue suddenly became a problem. Even the most superficial observer had to see the danger of a racial mosaic within the nation’s boundaries. Many occupations were practically monopolized by individual nationalities. In the housing industry by 1910, for example, the Irish did the excavation, the Germans the rough construction, the Italians the interior work, native Americans the plumbing and the Jews the painting. The most basic areas demonstrated the disunity of the USA. The problem of Americanization was clear.

For the author of the pamphlet, immigrants from elsewhere besides Northern Europe presented a problem. It would not be possible to truly integrate Slavs and Italians, for example, into America. Perhaps here the Nazis have in mind the largest mass-lynching in America, directed at Italian Americans in 1890 in Louisiana. Even today, especially in the Northeast, Italians still tend to think of themselves as Italians first, and only afterwards as 'white' people. The Italian identity has largely resisted assimilation into the White Nation, but this largely seems to be based on how much intermarriage has taken place in a particular family. People with one set of Italian grandparents and another 'white' set of grandparents typically see themselves as 'white' people. The White Nation's race-ideology Sames the two sets of grandparents into Whiteness; they are just two different shades of Vanilla being mixed together. Euro-mixing has that effect on the children of different European heritages.

The only problem here is that Vanilla flavors could only be mixed with other Vanilla flavors. The White Nation's race-ideology can not Same two sets of grandparents if one is European and the other is African or Asian. The Nazi author discusses this phenomenon:

The population, however, did put one limitation on the melting pot thesis. Mixing with Blacks was out of the question. Even today 30 states have strict laws against intermarriage with Negroes. (Naturally, that has nothing to do with illegitimate relations between Blacks and Whites; the estimates are that 20,000 mixed-race children are born annually.) The Negro problem, indeed the racial problem in general, is viewed differently in the industrialized North than in the more agricultural South, which had drawn a sharp line for centuries between the Colored and Whites...Despite all efforts by Roosevelt and his Jewish men behind the scenes, the melting pot theory does have its limits. This is one of the biggest problems in the domestic developments of the union. Time will tell if the growing demands for emancipation by the Black element, which in some Southern states comprises over half of the population, will succeed. That might eventually lead to a dissolution of an American state.

Here the Nazi author almost seems to give the game away in favor of the White Nation thesis. The emancipation of the Black population, then mostly confined to the Southeast, might lead to the dissolution of the American state. Since this has already happened, and the American government is still around, such a notion might seem wrong and fanciful. But what the Nazi author actually means is that the White population, once the emancipation of Blacks is complete, will no longer want anything to do with Americanization. That is, the emancipation of Blacks means the end of America as a New European state. Such an America as we live in today is a multi-racial “Nation” of people, and it is this state of affairs that hilariously has some 'Right' wing people saying America is a communist country (even while they simultaneously deny the White Nation thesis, suggesting that they actually prefer a communist 'America' to a White Nation-State).

The Nazi author continues pulling at the seams that have stitched the White National Identity together, noting how the first World War caused many German and Irish Americans to remember their European origins, which has them form their political opinions accordingly:

Even before the World War, a certain re-nationalization of the masses was noticeable, which could even be decisive in presidential elections. The World War encouraged such developments. For example, the Germans were strong enough so that Wilson was forced to speak against entering the war. Other “hyphenated Americans,” above all the Irish, also held to their ancestry, showing the weakness of the melting pot.

The famous French intellectual Ernest Renan once noted in his essay What is a Nation that it was a process of collective-forgetting that allowed Nations to come into existence in the first place. It is the collective-forgetting that allows people to assume they are united into one whole people that allows them to maintain a shared identity:

Forgetting, I would even say historical error, is an essential factor in the creation of a nation and it is for this reason that the progress of historical studies often poses a threat to nationality. Historical inquiry, in effect, throws light on the violent acts that have taken place at the origin of every political formation, even those that have been the most benevolent in their consequences. Unity is always brutally established.

However, the essence of a nation is that all of its individual members have a great deal in common and also that they have forgotten many things. No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgund, an Alain, a Taifala, or a Visigoth. Every French citizen has forgotten St. Bartholomew’s Day and the thirteenth century massacres in the Midi. There are only ten families in France that can furnish proof of Frankish origin and even such proof is essentially defective due to the thousand unknown pairings that can derange every genealogical system.

The Nazi author, by bringing up German and Irish attitudes toward the first World War, is saying that much of the population has not forgotten who they are. If they have not forgotten their European origins, then they have not really assimilated into America, or rather, into the White Nation.

The rest of the pamphlet, while fascinating, is essentially pointing out how this process of Nation-formation is hindered in various ways, and how it has been hindered in practice in America. It is probably the most complete attack on the White Nation thesis I am aware of, as other attempts to undermine it essentially deny the existence of all Nations and seek to eliminate 'Nation' as a mental category altogether. My experience is that any careful interrogation of such narratives always reveals themselves to be grounded in race-ideology, and while the Nazis certainly believed in race-ideology, they do not overtly attempt to use it to undermine the existence of all Nations (at least in this pamphlet).

So here we are at a fundamental contradiction. We have J. Sakai, MIM and the film Birth of a Nation on one hand, supporting the existence of a White Nation in North America, and the Nazis and most of the Amerikan “Left” and 'Right' on the other hand, denying the existence of the White Nation. My initial reflections on this contradiction is that it is basically impossible to accuse proponents of the White Nation thesis of thinking like Nazis, as the Nazis explicitly denied the White Nation thesis, and until I come across something better, the Nazis seem to be the most forceful opponents of the White Nation thesis. The second thing that comes to my mind is that the Bolsheviks must necessarily also have believed in the White Nation thesis (they created it's logical corollary after all, the Black Nation thesis), and my research into Lenin's Notebooks on Imperialism seems to indicate Lenin not only believed the White Nation thesis, but believed that English-speaking European Americans and Canadians actually belong to the same nation (as MIM contended they do).

In fact, the opposite seems to be the case regarding accusations of Nazism. Those who deny the existence of the White Nation are the ones opening themselves up to accusations of thinking like Nazis. If one where to construct an attack on the White Nation thesis that didn't simply try to deny that Nations exist at all, it would undoubtedly look much like what is written in the Nazi pamphlet here. Without the White Nation, America is either just a population of people with no real unity, or else the unity is the fake unity that is attempted by Zionist Hollywood to construct a modern, multi-national and multi-“racial” identity for Americans.

Monday, August 31, 2015

Faggot Balls: Once again on JMP, First-World "Maoism," and Faggotry.

JMP is at it again. JMP has devoted three posts so far to reviewing the academic work of Jasbir Puar, specifically her book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Several days before the first part of JMP's review came out, one of my numerous banned accounts was messaged on /r/communism by the account calling itself “marxism-feminism.” The account “marxism-feminism” presents itself as a Maoist, possibly a female, that is also interested in the old MIM lines. Allow me to present the exchange, with some commentary of my own:

Comrade, why the homophobia? I always appreciate the posts you make on Third Worldism and other subjects... but then you suddenly start throwing "faggot" around. It's upsetting. Don't you know that the word is a dehumynising slur?

At this point I had not actually commented with that banned account on anything regarding sexual topics. I assume that the user “marxism-feminism” can tell when I am posting simply because of the lines I take on the Western Labor Aristocracy (or maybe Tor doesn't exactly guarantee one of anonymity online). The idea “marxism-feminism” is presenting to me is that I have a correct position on the Labor Aristocracy, so why do I say the things I do about faggots?

Deciding to be initially polite, I recommend some literature to read:

Homophobia is a loaded term.
I used to have the same sort of views on the gay-question as your standard "Leftist" in the West. While I had been exposed to some critical Queer Theory years ago, I never took it more seriously than investigating whether or not homosexuality is biological in origin, and then only as a critique of the claims that it is, not as an investigation into the social-constructivist position. 
It all began to change when I was attending a conference of a self-proclaimed anti-war youth organization during the bombing of Libya, and we never once talked about the bombing of Libya, yet spent days explaining terminology like "cis-gendered" for hours on end. That's when I started developing a hostility to this crap that I couldn't put into a theoretical context. 
Then a comrade on Facebook who I deeply admire sent me a copy of Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs, and I was finally able to articulate what I had experienced in a theoretical way grounded in some of the most advanced Queer Theory available. I suggest reading this interview of Joseph Massad for a condensed version of what he talks about in the book: 
The Empire of Sexuality
Then I suggest reading the work of Queer Theorist Jasbir Puar, who Joseph Massad largely copies anyway, except in a more negative fashion. If you can master this material, then you'll understand my feelings on the topic.
And to push it further, you can go back to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, to realize they all had similar, perhaps even more viciously negative conclusions about male homosexuality. From what I can gather, the Albanians even went as far as to suggest that male homosexuality is actually an extreme form of misogyny. I have yet to investigate this claim, as I myself am trying to explore the available research into the psychological origins of male homosexuality, without much success. I have a working hypothesis not based in Freudian nonsense, but have no way to confirm or disconfirm it. My theory is male homosexuality and autogynephilia have similar psychological origins, but begin at different points in the life of the male. Male homosexuality is what happens when the process begins before puberty, and autogynephilia is what happens when it begins after. Just a hunch that I can neither confirm or disconfirm, and contacting the alleged experts on homo-psychology yields nothing of any value whatsoever either. Guess I'll have to wait for someone else to explain the psychological origins of male homosexuality, and see if my guess comes close to theirs or not.

There was some more back and forth exchange, but it isn't as interesting.

A few days later, the Klanadian “Maoist” JMP is a busy beaver, blogging away about his own reading of Jasbir Puar's book. That this conversation with the person calling themselves “marxism-feminism” and JMP's blog is linked is beyond question in my mind, given as how JMP himself directly references me in his opening post about the book. To quote him:

And since, months and months ago, there was this internet eclectic-revisionist-chauvinist-tanky-pseudoTWist marxist who cited Puar in a meandering attack on some post I wrote in order to justify his homophobia (which I could tell, from the 50% of Puar's book I had read, but only foggily remembered, was an insulting appropriation of her intellectual labour), it's all the more appropriate that I try my first (and hopefully not last) "Let's Read" series with her.

No link back to my attack on his post is given, of course. In any case, it appears JMP has been assigned the task by whatever handlers he has of declawing the work of Jasbir Puar. The implications of Jasbir Puar's work are very, very profound, and represent a clear and present ideological danger to much of First-Worldism, particularly organized “Maoism” in North Amerika.

For JMP to accuse me of writing a  “meandering attack” on one of his posts is a bit hysterical, considering how long-winded and full of shit his three posts have been so far. JMP's hatchet-job of Jasbir Puar is so wandering and aimless than even the most ardent boosters of Puar could find something to agree with in JMP's 'critique'. JMP's first point to the reader says all most people will care about:

My first impression of Puar's Terrorist Assemblages is that it is going to be a frustrating read. Although it seems to excavate important territory (i.e. the way that queerness has been, one the one hand, appropriated by the imperialist camp for the war on terror and, on the other hand, displaced to terrorist bodies), and promises important theoretical concepts, so far it seems to be entrenched in the kind of smorgasbord approach to theory I've complained about before.  That is, instead of providing a rigorous interrogation of the concrete and material factors of a social phenomenon upon which to build a theoretical development (which is, at least to my mind, the very strength of the historical materialist approach), it instead becomes waylaid in academic eclecticism.

JMP makes it clear to his readers: Puar is difficult reading. Expect academic language similar to the likes of Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, or Louis Althusser. Expect to read something that looks like the output of The Postmodern Essay Generator. JMP doesn't have to himself imply all of this is nonsense, akin to the critiques aimed at postmodernists by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Jean Bricmont (not just a theoretical physicist critic of postmodernism, but a staunch anti-imperialist as well), as this conclusion will come naturally to certain readers of his. Perhaps even the whole book is just an academic fraud of sorts, like the infamous Sokal Affair. Better trust JMP's judgment, as he is trained to read this sort of academic mumbo-jumbo lingo. JMP got a PhD in Philosophy somewhere, after all.

JMP continues this theme later in the essay, this time taking a potshot at “queer theory” itself: Puar's 'method' (if we can call it that) lacks formal 'rigor' and is akin to throwing around random conjectures wildly.

Which brings me to Puar's defense of her theoretical eclecticism by simply deeming it queer theory: "a queer philosophical methodology… challenges a linear mode of conduction and transmission: there is no exact recipe for a queer endeavor, no a priori system that taxonomizes the linkages, disruptions, and contradictions into a tiny vessel." (xv) As a philosopher this bothers me immediately, particularly since it claims that there can be a philosophical methodology that lacks rigour (and celebrates this lack of rigour) justified as queer––this seems like a complete rejection of what philosophy means, a discipline that was always intended to provide clarity, and conflate it with random theorizing.  More to the point it reads as an excuse for eclecticism and an excuse to not be coherent: I'm not going to try to provide a concrete analysis of a concrete situation because that would be not-queer.

JMP lets the reader know, Puar is a representative of something called “queer theory.” While not definitively implying all “queer theory” is like this, it is suggested to the reader it may well be. And perhaps without fully realizing (or maybe he does), JMP gives a tell to his real thoughts:

JMP doesn't like the idea of sexuality itself not being contained in a “tiny vessel.” This “tiny vessel,” in reality, is the Western sexual epistemology itself.

Allow me to introduce a concept I've been thinking of for awhile now. I like to call it the Faggot Ball. People who subscribe to an origin of homosexuality as essentially a biology based phenomenon (the “essentialist” understanding, as opposed to the Queer or “social constructivist” position) are believers in the Faggot Ball. The Faggot Ball is the cause of homosexuality. It could be in your genes, or caused by hormones in fetal development, but it is basically a ball inside you, that has been with you since you were a small collection of cells, making you a faggot. The Faggot Ball is always there. It can not be gotten rid of. You might not even know you're a faggot, until you look deep inside yourself and find the Faggot Ball somewhere. The Faggot Ball defines essentially everything about you, and you know others have the Faggot Ball inside them too, hence their shared life experience must be very similar to your own (the basis of Homo Nationalism).

Queer Theory is essentially the denial of the existence of the Faggot Ball. It is the denial of the idea that allows faggots to treat themselves as if they were a real Nation. Whatever turns men into faggots has nothing to do with biology. The ultimate origins of male homosexuality are psychological and ideological. The understanding itself of who and what a faggot even is bullshit: there are no Faggot Balls. There can not be a Faggot Nation, as the common identity is built on a false understanding of reality itself.

Allow me to reference something from Zionist Hollywood, ala Zizek. There is an episode of the show American Dad where the show's main character is presented as trying to become a homosexual. The character eventually reaches a point where he is with a homosexual in bed, and he goes to kiss him. After the kiss, the character just immediately gets up and declares himself not a homosexual. Then the character proceeds to go the GOP convention and to tell them homosexuality is not a “choice.” The obvious thought to any critical reviewer would be that in real life, the main character would have probably been coaxed to getting his dick sucked on before declaring himself not a homosexual. People undoubtedly would think a bit differently about a protagonist who closed his eyes and let himself be sucked off by another man declaring he is not a homosexual than merely engaging in a kiss.

In a very real way, JMP's objection to the rejection of a narrative where everything fits in a “tiny vessel” is an objection to Queery Theory itself. JMP believes in the Faggot Balls.

Enter Rictor Norton, stage right. Norton is a critic of Queery Theory, the “social-constructivist” view of homosexuality, and is a proponent of the essentialist understanding of the origins of male homosexuality. In other words, he believes in Faggot Balls. And strongly too. Norton has made an academic career of sorts attacking Queer Theory. Norton has wrote a book called Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Queer History and the Search for Cultural Unity, the objective of which is to refute the “social-constructivist” view of the origins of homosexuality and thus Queery Theory itself (as there is no Queer Theory without this proposition).

For those not willing to buy the book, his provocatively titled essay F*ck Foucault: How Eighteenth - Century Homosexual History Validates the Essentialist Model is free to read, and basically covers the same points. Here we have an attempted rehabilitation of the essentialist understanding of faggots, complete with the typical projection of modern understandings of faggots onto the fairly recent past. Foucault is wrong! Faggots are a species (and a Nation, Puar might add)!

Once it is clear JMP and Norton share essentially identical views, the nature of JMP's review of Puar can be understood. JMP is trying to steer the reader away from Queery Theory. Puar represents a dangerous sort of theorizing, that if taken up by certain people, could lead to violence. No one is born a faggot. Faggots are created in some fashion, and the modern homosexual identity is totally the product of capitalism and imperialism itself. Cecil Rhodes was a faggot, after all.

But JMP is trying to do this without bringing up the defining proposition of Queery Theory itself: there are no Faggot Balls! Nowhere in his three articles published so far does JMP directly address the issue of the origins of male homosexuality. JMP wants to leave himself room to straddle the fence here, just like he did in the previous essay of his I attacked (which still seems to have him fuming all these months later). Perhaps JMP is aware on a philosophical level just how hallow the essentialist understanding of male homosexuality is, but is too much of an opportunist to state so outright. It pays better to be a faggot-enabler, after all.

The Hetero-Homo binary upheld by faggots and people like Rictor Norton shouldn't take very long to dismiss as simplistic nonsense, given how varied human sexual practices are. There was a recent article in Vice talking about why some women fuck their dogs. The author Mish Way talks about why some women have relationships with animals. It immediately reminded me of the film Zoo, which is a documentary about the zoophile Kenneth Pinyan, who died from internal injuries caused by letting horses fuck him up the ass. Where does fucking animals fit into the Hetero-Homo binary? It doesn't. Zoophilia is mental illness to such thinkers. There is no ball inside someone that makes them want to fuck their dogs, or to get giant horse cock forcibly rammed in their ass. There are no Zoo Balls, cries the essentialist in this instance. This is outside the bounds of discussion.

Pedophilia is also outside the bounds of discussion, despite the long-standing “Left” critique that attacking pedophilia was a round-about way of attacking faggots. “There are no Pedophile Balls either!” cries the essentialist. It is outside the bounds of discussion as well, as many posters on RevLeft have discovered for years now. BDSM sits somewhere on the dividing line of this boundary of acceptability, this ideological barrier separating bad sex from good sex. It is being negotiated between the imperialist Oppressor Man and his Oppressor Woman (see MIM's ideas on the Gender Aristocracy), and the Homo Nationalist has rightly understood the need to butt out of that conversation.

The Homo Nationalist, the supporter of the essentialist narrative of male homosexuality, says there are no Zoo Balls or Pedo Balls inside you. These are not hard-wired sexual orientations, but inexplicable mental disorders that need to be controlled. To make such claims about Zoo Balls and Pedo Balls would only hurt the Homo Nationalist project itself. In this instance, the Homo Nationalist is turned into the sex police of sorts, or rather, the Homo Nationalist is in charge of policing sexual narratives in the Western imperialist nations.

But the imperialist bourgeoisie and its loyal Labor Aristocracy has put the Homo Nationalists into a bind. While the term LGBTQ is continually being eroded to merely LGBT (minus the Q), the Homo Nationalists also are forced to integrate the transwoman, even though it has been known for some time the Homo Nationalist views the transwoman as a faggot with a mental disorder. I first discovered this was a common view held by homosexuals from my previous student activism, plus various conversations with homosexuals online. I recall being part of a Facebook conversation where this was extensively argued by faggots.

There is a reddit post worth quoting at some length on the topic of Homo Nationalist non-acceptance of the transwoman identity. It is titled “I do not think trans-sexuality should be part of the gay rights movement.” Here is the thrust of it:

This is a bit of a frightening thing to post because people get very, very defensive about this sort of topic, and understandably so.

I would like to start by saying that I am a gay rights activist. I have participated in protests, days of silence, and voted on all the pro-gay legislation I could. I have plastered my town in signs to vote "Yes" on gay marriage, and even defaced anti-gay displays (not that this in any way legitimizes me. The anecdote is provided for understanding of my views.) But I've never really accepted the "T" in the LGBT community.

I am proud that a community could band together to support a group which faces discrimination and ostracization from the world at large. I'm not condemning the decision to defend a group of people who need defending. But I don't think trans-sexuality should be encouraged.

From my point of view, the entire idea of the gay rights movement, and by larger extension the LGBT community, is to accept who you are. It asks you to accept yourself and to accept others as they were made, and to end judgement based on arbitrary terms like sexual preference or gender roles. That is why I want to fight for this community, to see more people happy and accepting themselves. Gay or not.

But I don't feel like trans-sexuality is self acceptance. I think it is self denial in the most extreme form. We cannot, scientifically, turn a man into a woman, or the reverse. We can remove organs. We can alter the shape and appearance of genitals. We can provide hormones which impart characteristics of a gender. But none of this truly changes a sex. Your given sex affects the development of your brain, which is something you couldn't change with all the surgeries in the world. So shelling out huge money and undergoing major biological changes just to chase the idea of the other side, it doesn't seem healthy to me. It seems like the ultimate denial. And I don't think we should be acting like it's an alternative to loving yourself for who and how you are naturally.

I don't hate trans-gendered people and I don't want them to be treated unequally. They deserve love and compassion as much as anyone else. But I think we're doing a grave disservice by promoting it as a regular sort of thing. It is, undeniably, very unnatural. And it far overextends the boundaries of sexuality which LGB is literally named for.

The Homo-Nationalist understanding here is clear: the transwoman is a faggot in denial of their faggotry. The Faggot Ball is bursting forth out of them, regardless of their willingness to accept it or not. They cannot accept the existence of the Faggot Ball, so instead they imagine themselves as women, when they are really just faggots. They should just accept the Faggot Ball, stop pretending to be women, and just be faggots. Like the rest of the Faggot Nation.

JMP is in agreement with the poster here, even if he doesn't realize it himself yet. The transwoman doesn't fit into the “tiny vessel” that is the Faggot Ball theory of male homosexuality. Trannies don't make sense to the Faggot Ball understanding of reality. Neither, for that matter, does male bisexuality. This prejudice of the Homo Nationalist is perhaps probably more familiar to ordinary people who have had any extensive conversations with faggots. To the Homo Nationalist, the bisexual male is just a faggot in denial. There is no Bisexual Ball inside a male (maybe they might admit this is possible for the female, but never the male). It's either a Faggot Ball or a Straight Ball (or more Homo Chauvininistically, mere emptiness). The bisexual male is just a faggot who refuses to acknowledge what having a Faggot Ball inside them means. Having the Faggot Ball means you're a faggot and nothing else, period.

On the website of Kersplebedeb, which also publishes stuff by JMP, there is another interesting critique of the work of Jasbir Puar. It reads sort of like a much better and less meandering and long-winded version of what JMP has written so far, but there is one part in particular I'd like to focus on:

While there were a lot of esoteric catchphrases summing up the whys and hows of this, there was nothing – nada, zilch – in the way of actual historical or political explanations. It seems this judgment on a terrain of struggle was the product of a lot of mental energy and pure logic, no actual practical experience necessary. That would just get in the way.

The phrase “a lot of mental energy and pure logic” I think is key. The edifice which Puar has built is indeed the work of a lot of mental energy and pure logic. Pure logic building upon the very foundations of Queer Theory itself. If there are no Faggot Balls, as Queer Theory assumes, then it is hard to deny what Jasbir Puar is saying to people. Homo Nationalism is real, except calling it Homo Nationalism is just being nice. It is actually Homo Fascism and Homo Imperialism. Faggots are not a species, they are not a nation, they are agents of US imperialism. Gay Rights is the Gay International. The Gay International and Zionism are joined at the hip. Zionism, imperialism, and faggotry are inextricably all linked and bound up together, just like Joseph Massad says.

Or you can believe like Rictor Norton, the anonymous LGB(T?) reddit activist, and JMP do: there are such things as Faggot Balls inside people, and the work of people like Jasbir Puar and Joseph Massad is only contributing to the oppression of those with Faggot Balls inside them. And Israel is a champion of Human Rights, aka Faggot Nationalism.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Book Review: A History of Quebec Nationalism.

MIM once suggested that you could tell First-World 'Marxists' were pulling your leg by asking them why they think Canadians are a separate nation, but black people aren't (even though this was a Comintern line forced on the American communist party). I have considered this a very astute observation. It immediately reveals many things to anyone who is paying attention, the chief of which is that the National Question has almost no bearing on the political consciousness of White Nation "Leftists." It is as if to even consider black people belong to a separate nation is some sort of political sin, while White Nation "Leftists" just take it for granted that English-speaking Canadians belong to a different nation than themselves. It is as if they think there is such a thing as an 'American Nation', a delusion they share with the Democratic and Republican Parties alike.

MIM didn't write too much on the question, and it is evident they weren't terribly familiar with Canadian politics. But this one observation can and should be used as a jumping off point, to seriously explore the National Question in the North American context. MIM took the position that the Québécois are an Oppressor Nation, but freely admitted this was not a serious investigation into the issue. They even hint that whether or not they would support Quebec Nationalism was simply a strategic question when they say "If MIM thought separation could cause true disaster, we might support it." Clearly, MIM did not want to support the Nationalism of a European nation, even the Irish, but they were conflicted, as their position is clearly not a Marxist-Leninist one. The Right of Nations to Self-Determination applies to all nations, even Oppressor Nations.

While it is perfectly clear Lenin himself considered blacks a separate nation inside the United States (page 275), there are also hints that Lenin didn't think English-speaking Canadians formed a separate nation from white Americans. Both hints come from his Notebooks on Imperialism. Probably the most important hint is that Lenin read a book titled The Americanization of Canada, which was the PhD thesis of Samuel Erasmus Moffett, the nephew of Mark Twain. Moffett declares at the end of the book:

"The English-Speaking Canadians protest that they will never become Americans--they are already Americans without knowing it."
The first chapter of the book, where Moffett goes over the moving of Anglo-Canadians back and forth over the border, should be enough to convince any serious reader that his thesis is quite correct. If Lenin even read the first 20 pages of this academic diamond in the rough, then Lenin could not possible have believed Anglo-Canadians and white Americans belonged to two different nations.

The second hint from the Notebooks comes from Notebook Omicron. Lenin writes "The labour movement in Canada ("bourgeoisified")" (bold in the original) beside this passage from Die Neue Zeit:

"The skilled, and especially the English-speaking, part of the working class is completely bourgeoisified. It's conception of trade unionism is still wholly that of the old, narrow-minded English trade unions."
Here Lenin is not only quoting approvingly of the separation of English and French Canadians into two different groups, he also notes that the English-speaking 'workers' were already bourgeoisified at the beginning of the 20th century!

All this, I think, is a good Marxist-Leninist introduction to the book under review, A History of Quebec Nationalism by the journalist Gilles Gougeon. Gougeon himself introduces the book by referencing the breakup of the Soviet Union, possibly forshadowing to the reader what might be in Canada's own future due to Quebec Nationalism:

September 1991. I have to go to Samarkland, in Uzbekistan. After the failed coup against Gorbachev, the producers of Le Point are dispatching me to the Soviet Union to put together a series of televised reports on the emergence of democracy in the old empire of the Czars.

On September 5, I land in Uzbekistan, 3,500 kilometers southeast of Moscow, to determine whether or not the new Soviet revolution has spread beyond Russia. Far from Moscow, I have heard, the wellspring of democracy is being drowned out by nationalism. On my arrival in Samarkland, I secretly make contact with a colleague on whom I'm counting for an explanation of the local sociopolitical dynamic. "He'll be able to give you a sense of the situation," I'm told. "It's a fight for power among the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, and the Russians within an Asian culture and in an Islamic context."

First meeting. Alexander is waiting for me on a park bench. He gets up, shakes my hand, introduced himself and says something that I take to be a formality. The interpreter, taken aback, translates it for me: "So, is Quebec going to separate?"

More than 10,000 kilometers from Quebec, in a city that was on the legendary silk route and has known Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great, this man brought me back home with a jolt. In Samarkand I was being asked the same question that hundreds of people have asked me over the course of my reporting in Africa, Latin America, central Europe, Scandinavia, the Persian Gulf, western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Quebec."

Certainly a very pointed introduction!

While not being an expert on Canadian history, this books seems to do a splendid job of highlighting the National Question in Canada. At a mere 115 pages (including the bibliography), it reads like something out of Oxford's Very Short Introductions series of books. Probably the most disappointing aspect of the book for me was realizing it is just Gougeon interviewing various historians, some of whom are more interesting than others. I would have preferred a book written by a single author presenting their point of view, and I'm sure there would have been more footnotes to follow up on, as this slender volume contains very few references to outside material.

While all the interviews are informative for various aspects of the history of Quebec and the various nationalist thinkers throughout its history, the most interesting interview for me was with the historian Robert Comeau. Nearing the end of the book, I was already hungry for meater material to read, and only Comeau seemed to be pointing me in the right direction. Gougeon asks Comeau in the interview about the importance of the historian Maurice Séguin:

"I think that Maurice Séguin was the most controversial, the most misunderstood, and yet the most important historian of modern Quebec. I think that through his students, Maurice Séguin has been more influential than you can imagine...

He was getting ready for the separatist struggle and he went back to the essential point, which for him was the defeat of the Quebec people in 1760. He was obsessed by the problem of his nation. The way he experienced the tragedy of Quebec was absolute and excessive. He spoke passionately to us about what he saw as the main problem: that the Quebec people had been put in a minority position in a federal system. That, for him, was the essential form that oppression took.

What was striking in his thought was the emphasis he placed on the interdependence among political, economic and cultural factors. A people couldn't be culturally sovereign if it didn't have mastery of its political life. So he always drew out the links among economic, political and cultural factors and spoke of a people's need not ot be "displaced." He saw oppression as displacement. He believed that for individuals and peoples alike, acting on one's own, being autonomous, was a source of enrichment and experience."

There is more worth quoting from Comeau on the importance of Maurice Séguin, but I will leave it to anyone interested in obtaining a copy for themselves of the book. For me, this was the most important chapter on pointing the way forward in my own continued studies of the Quebec Nation, Quebec Nationalism, and the National Question in North America.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Turner Diaries: A Marxist Review.

I just recently finished a rather notorious book known as the Turner Diaries, written by William Luther Pierce using the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. To those who don't know, this is the book that has inspired various home-grown white terrorists to attack the US government, most famously Timothy McVeigh's attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City.

In one of J. Sakai's more powerful writings, "The Shock of Recognition: Looking at Hamerquist's Fascism & Anti-Fascism," Sakai makes many interesting remarks about who the real internal security threat to the US government is. It isn't communists, anarchists, liberals, black nationalists, Muslim extremists or Mexican immigrants. It is a type of white man, probably in his 20s or 30s, who might be attracted to books like the Turner Diaries. To quote Sakai at length:

The truth here is startling and it isn't in the least bit vague. The new fascism is, in effect, "anti-imperialist" right now. It is opposed to the big imperialist bourgeoisie (unlike Mussolini and Hitler earlier, who wanted even stronger, bigger Western imperialism), to the transnational corporations and banks, and their world-spanning "multicultural" bourgeois culture. Fascism really wants to bring down the World Bank, WTO and NATO, and even America the Superpower. As in destroy. That is, it is anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist. Because it is based on fundamentally pro-capitalist classes.

Obviously, rightist political views that touch on fascism are held by many white Americans. They're conditionally loyal to the government (and in the government) only because their level of prosperity and privilege is so high that why should they lift their faces from the trough? But if the u.s. capitalist class left it to a "democratic" vote of its white citizens, known fascists like David Duke would be in the u.s. senate, there would be no W.T.O. but also no Civil Rights Act, and much of America would proudly fly the Confederate flag of the slavemasters. The imperialist State's largest domestic security priority is not terrorism, the ghetto or the border as they pretend, but restraining and defusing white settler rebellion to the right.

When I read this piece a few years ago, it was these passages that stuck with me more than anything else Sakai wrote in his book review. While not everything Sakai writes is golden (Sakai admits in another article that he once believed AIDS was created by the US government to exterminate blacks in America), Sakai is generally a cut above anything you will find coming out of traditional "Left" circles of the White Nation.

As I hinted at in my first post on this blog, for anyone wanting to really screw with the US government, it would be men like Timothy McVeigh, who are attracted to material like the Turner Diaries, who form a base of people capable of engaging in terrorist attacks on the US government. While the first inclination no doubt would be for a hostile foreign power to reach out to Black Nationalists or communists, it is in my view, and the view of Sakai, that this would be an error. It is an understandable error, given the history of the United States, to assume that the US government ultimately represents the White Nation and its most fascistic elements. But this is not true, which is why there are thousands of white men like Timothy McVeigh in the United States, who have a deep, deep hatred of the US government.

How this radioactive element of the US population is contained is a story that is not told very often. Reading works like the Turner Diaries could give you a clue, but let me spell it out for the reader: the job of the mainstream 'Right' is to fool these people into thinking they have their interests at heart. This is why the term Cuckservative has gained some traction recently, even making it into the mainstream press. The mainstream 'Right' press openly discusses this problem, because they know the spreading of this particular meme speaks of the radioactive element of the US population leaking out of its container.

Just as it is the job of the Democratic Party and the Labor Bureaucreacy to keep the "Left" minded 'workers in line, so it is the job of the Republican Party and various 'Right'-wing organizations to contain this element of the White Nation. It is my hunch that a lot of Marxist-Leninist discourse on the National Question realizes the ultimate conclusions of a thorough-going Nationalist leads them to a type of socialism: a socialism for their nation. The Nationalist could only want the best for their People. That this type of thinking inevitably leads to a volkish socialism, except possibly in the advanced capitalist countries where imperialism yields enormous benefits to the entire population, seems obvious to me.

It is also why all the thoroughly Nationalist-minded revolutionaries of the undeveloped world turned to the Marxist-Leninist ideology in the first place. One of the architects of the Vietnam War, Dean Acheson, once remarked that "All Stalinists in colonial areas are nationalists." The authentic-Nationalists of the Oppressed Nations are ultimately forced to become Marxist-Leninists, if they truely give a damn about their People.

Skipping ahead in the Turner Diaries to the point where the Organization has taken over southern California, the operation was only possible because the Organization had infiltrated the military enough in the area to cause extreme confusion. One of the generals in Northern California also defected from the US government (called the "System" by Pierce/Turner). The figure of General Harding is a perfect representative of the type of 'Right' thinking man who tries to keep a lid on the radioactive element of the US population. The Organization sends some representatives to General Harding, in a bid to get him on their side:

"Revolutionary Command made the strictly practical decision to let General Harding carry the ball in his area, and our people were instructed not to oppose him. This had the effect of substantially reducing our own losses, although the military has actually suffered many more casualties in northern California than in the south. This is because Harding has failed to take sufficiently radical measures to consolidate his authority and to deal with Black military personnel.

When a delegation of Organization people went to Harding last month and suggested a joint Organization-military rule for northern California, with Harding’s forces handling defense matters and the Organization handling civilian matters—including police functions— Harding arrested them and has refused to release them. Since then he has been issuing idiotic proclamations about “restoring the Constitution,” stamping out “communism and pornography,” and holding new elections to “re-establish the republican form of government intended by the Founding Fathers,” whatever that means.

And he has denounced our radical measures in the south as “communism.” He is appalled that we didn’t hold some sort of public referendum before expelling the non-Whites and that we didn’t give individual trials to the Jews and race-criminals we dealt with summarily. Doesn’t the old fool understand that the American people voted themselves into the mess they’re in now? Doesn’t he understand that the Jews have taken over the country fair and square, according to the Constitution? Doesn’t he understand that the common people have already had their fling at self-government, and they blew it?"

Here ostensibly 'Right'-wing General Harding, who has just himself mutinied from the "Left"-wing US government, is calling the Organization a bunch of communists for utilizing "radical measures." The "radical measures" here is referring to the forced expulsion of blacks, Chicanos, and the murder of Jews and "race-traitor" whites. Pierce's mouthpiece Earl Turner no doubt sees the US government ("the System") as representing communism, but Harding turns the charge against them. Who is right, General Harding or the Organization?

Turner has much more to say about 'Right'-wingers in general. General Harding would fit into the mold Turner describes for them early in the book:

"Our present inability to recruit is a source of great worry to everyone. Rumor has it that there has not been a single new recruit in the Washington area in the last two months. During that time we’ve lost approximately 15 per cent of our strength. I hope conditions aren’t as bad elsewhere.
Of all the segments of the population from which we had hoped to draw new members, the “conservatives” and “right wingers” have been the biggest disappointment. They are the world’s worst conspiracy-mongers—and also the world’s greatest cowards. In fact, their cowardice is exceeded only by their stupidity.

The current conspiracy theory being circulated among conservatives is that the Organization is actually in the pay of the System. We are hired provocateurs whose job is to raise enough hell to justify the repressive counterrevolutionary and anti-racist measures the System is taking. If we would just stop rocking the boat, things would be easier on everyone. Whether they believe that theory or not, it gives them an excuse for not joining us."

General Harding becomes the ultimate coward, refusing to unite with the Organization to fight "the System," and using a 'conspiracy theory,' that the Organization is an expression of communism, as the excuse.

In another article I wrote for this blog, I point out that the 'Right' in the US is essentially split between pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions. There are fundamentally ideological issues here, such as whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are "white" people, and certainly religion plays a role here. Some of the most influential men in the American 'Right' act as go-betweens for the two factions. They seek to contain the radioactive element, even fooling it, into accepting the leadership of the mainstream pro-Israel faction. They will tell the minority faction whatever they want to hear about 'the Jews' behind closed doors, and get them to go along with whatever the larger faction, and ultimately the Republican Party, want. The Turner Diaries, in a sense, could be seen as a breakdown of this entire political process.

When playing on these national questions, the Turner Diaries is at its most powerful and explosive. An updated, 21st century version of the Turner Diaries would no doubt want to give greater attention to this aspect of American 'Right' politics. The people that become White Nationalists are usually too stupid to figure it out, and if they do, what they can even do about it.

The Turner Diaries is at its weakest when discussing international questions. The views of Earl Turner and General Harding are basically identical when it comes to the Soviet Union. The Organization, seemingly having lost all real concern for the immediate welfare of the 'white race,' decides to send nukes to the Soviet Union, simply to provoke a nuclear exchange between "the System" and the USSR for tactical purposes.

This weakness at analysing international questions is a reflection of the race-ideology of the White Nation. In the mind of American White Nationalists, 'nation' just becomes another word for 'race', or at best, a 'nation' is just a small subgroup within a 'race'. This is clearly reflected in Earl Turner, who laments that an "unknown number of millions of racial kinsmen in the Soviet Union" had to die for the plans of the Organization to succeed. From other passages in the book, it is clear Earl Turner sees the Soviet Union as another version of "the System." Earl Turner and General Harding both share the same disgust for communism. That the Soviet Union is nuked at the same time as Israel hints to the reader that Pierce ultimately sees the Soviet Union as essentially being another Jewish controlled "System." But then how would Pierce attempt to explain the extreme hostility of the Bolsheviks to Zionism, and the opposition of the USSR to the state of Israel? Pierce obviously wouldn't want to bog down his white readers with discussion of such questions, least it show his view of the international situation to be not much different from the General Harding types of the world.

Probably the most hilarious aspect of the book is its almost pornographic depictions of "System" support for miscegenation continually scattered throughout it. White Nation feminism, dominated in the mind of Earl Turner by Jewish women, has resulted in a situation where rape is basically not a crime anymore:

"Consider rape, for example, which has become such an omnipresent pestilence these days. It had already been increasing at a rate of 20 to 25 per cent per year since the early 1970’s until last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that all laws making rape a crime are unconstitutional, because they presume a legal difference between the sexes. Rape, the judges ruled, can only be prosecuted under the statutes covering nonsexual assaults.

In other words, rape has been reduced to the status of a punch in the nose. In cases where no physical injury can be proved, it is now virtually impossible to obtain a prosecution or even an arrest. The result of this judicial mischief has been that the incidence of rape has zoomed to the point that the legal statisticians have recently estimated that one out of every two American women can expect to be raped at least once in her lifetime. In many of our big cities, of course, the statistics are much worse.

The women’s-lib groups have greeted this development with dismay. It isn’t exactly what they had in mind when they began agitating for “equality” two decades ago. At least, there’s dismay among the rank and file of such groups; I have a suspicion that their leaders, most of whom are Jewesses, had this outcome in mind from the beginning."

This passage sets up the basis for the continuous theme of black men raping white women found all throughout the Turner Diaries. One could only laugh at it today, when it has become obvious to most that White Nation "feminism" is just as racist-minded as it ever was. One need only ponder over the hoopla surrounding the Hollaback catcalling video to see clearly White Nation "feminism" hates black men as much, if not more, than White Nationalists do.

That Pierce could actually imagine something like this being the case leaves one to question just how serious of a work the Turner Diaries is. One gets the impression it serves the function of leaders of the Confederacy telling Southern white men that their daughters will be marrying black men if the North wins. Perhaps Pierce thought such a thing would be necessary to motivate white men to violence with this book. Personally, I can't drop the suspicion that it only serves to mock the intelligence of his own readers who could believe such a thing would become possible.

One last aspect I want to touch upon is Earl Turner's praise for Black Nationalism. Despite Earl Turner ultimately being committed to a project of extermination all non-white people from the Earth, Turner still has respect for Black Nationalism:

"Besides the political vandals and the loonies, two other segments of the population have been playing an important role in recent events: the Black separatists and the organized criminals. Until a few weeks ago everyone assumed that the System had finally bought off the last of the nationalist-minded Blacks back in the ‘70’s. Apparently they’ve just been lying low and minding their own business, and now they see a chance to get a few licks in. Mostly they seem to have been blowing up the offices of Tom groups and shooting each other, but they organized a pretty good riot in New Orleans last week, in which there was a lot of window-breaking and looting. More power to them!"

Here Turner surprisingly expresses support for Black Nationalism. As the old saying goes, like is attracted to like, at least in this instance. While the passage is ambiguous enough to be interpreted simply as support for their disruptive activities, it seems clear to me Pierce/Turner is expressing support for Black Nationalism much the way the leaders of the KKK supported the efforts of Marcus Garvey back in the early 20th century. Seemingly, an authentic Black Nationalism would have prevented the situation Turner and white America finds itself in. A triumphant Black Nationalism would have created a separate Nation-State in North America, and blacks would be responsible for themselves, policing themselves, feeding themselves, etc. An authentic Black Nationalist ideology would create in the minds of black men (and women) a bond between themselves, leaving no thoughts of miscegenation in the black man or the black woman. This hints to the reader another vision of a war against "the System" could be imagined, one in where the White Nationalist and the Black Nationalist team up to destroy "the System" together, to live in peace in separate Nation-States, rather than the gory vision of the Organization necessitating the extermination of all non-white people.

There are some other things worth briefly mentioning. Mirroring the ideological fanaticism of Islamist Takfiris on the payroll of the US and Israel in Syria, Turner is converted into a quasi-religious group known as the Order by reading 'the Book,' the contents of which are never revealed to the reader. Pierce here is consciously suggesting what is needed is a White Man version of ISIS, complete with a religious ideology that will drive them to do things like commit suicide for the cause, which Earl Turner ultimately does by flying a plane over the Pentagon and dropping a nuclear weapon from low altitude. This ultimately reveals Pierce's own dismissal of White Nationalism as being enough to get the job done, which further lends credence to the idea Pierce does not take his readers seriously, much like Pierce's own tax-exempt Cosmotheism church scam.

The impact this book has had on the radioactive element of the White Nation should be consciously pondered over by all enemies of the US government. That Pierce himself doesn't take his readers seriously should encourage other enemies of the US government to consider writing their own version of the Turner Diaries, perhaps with a less objectionable ending. Poking the beast of White Nationalism will undoubtedly become a necessary strategy in order to bring down the US government, and implanting in these radioactive minds a vision of a White Nation-State living in harmony with the rest of the world would be a prudent thing to do.

Friday, July 10, 2015

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and Faggotry: Achilles Heel of Western "Maoism."

As I have stated elsewhere on this blog, acceptance of faggotry is absolutely required on the Amerikan "Left," whether within the mainstream "Left" or on the fringes of it. Even groups which allegedly don't take a pro-faggot line, such as the Ray O. Light group, are not open about their views on homosexuality. My guess is some old people in control of the ROL group don't want to change the line on this question, while any younger people they recruit probably do, and they would just rather not talk about it than struggle on the question, possibly splitting their already tiny party in the process.

For those interested in the history of the communist movement's attitude towards faggots, it should be noted that it has always universally been negative. Engels was especially visceral in his opposition to faggotry. The German group Neue-Einheit has a webpage titled Unequivocal statements by Friedrich Engels which compiles all the remarks Engels made on the subject. Of particular interest to anyone interested in the theory of the Labor Aristocracy (and the Labor Bureaucracy) are Engels' remarks about the faggot Hasselmann. Basically what we have here is an instance of homosexuals becoming the leaders of the early German Labor Bureaucracy, and being extreme opponents of Marx and Engels. This episode in the radical careers of Marx and Engels should have special importance to anyone who might want to critically review Miriam Frank's Out in the Union: A Labor History of Queer America to figure out exactly when the Amerikan Labor Aristocracy embraced faggotry wholeheartedly.

While Marx and Engels are clearly opposed to faggotry, with Engels explicitly associating it with pedophilia in his most important independent work (Origins of the Family), the Bolshevik attitude is less clear. Many people bring up the decriminalization of homosexuality and the removal of age of consent laws in 1922 as evidence of the Bolsheviks' "progressive" attitude towards kiddy-rape and faggotry. While age of consent laws were abolished in 1922 and homosexuality decriminalized, this was the work of a small committee of individuals. When the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries pulled out of the Justice Commissariat in protest of Brest-Litovsk, the drafting of the new code went primarily to a handful of Bolsheviks who had taken over the Justice Commissariat and the Institute of Soviet Law. Most of these people were also heavily involved in the 1919 trial of pedophile-priest Bishop Palladii, which itself is a testament to how Bolshevism viewed men and boys fucking. The original documents under review, written by Kozlovskii, actually did have references to age of consent and kiddy-rape. Exactly why they were removed remains obscure.

There is certainly nothing in anything Lenin wrote that would lead one to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks were pro-faggot. In fact, the opposite is the case. The German communist Clara Zetkin wrote down Lenin's remarks on various topics relating to women and sex, which seem to backhandedly speak of homosexuality. To quote the relevant parts:

It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.”

While faggots are not mentioned specifically, one would have to go through mental gymnastics to conclude that Lenin doesn't have in mind faggots, along with other sexual degenerates. And just as Lenin predicted the total parasitism of Western Europe, he has basically outlined how the pro-faggot movement won acceptance from the imperialist bourgeoisie of the West; they used a 'sex theory' to win acceptance from bourgeoisie society, namely the lie that people are born faggots. Probably most importantly, Lenin said this shit should not be allowed into the party. While not a blanket ban on homosexuals entering the party, it is a ban on the ideas spread by homosexuals into a revolutionary party. Lenin doesn't want to let people into the revolutionary Party that is supposed to represent the working class that would split it based on their ideas about faggots, which for all practical purposes today, would be a ban on faggots and their enablers into the Party.

Not much needs to be said about the attitude of the Bolsheviks under Stalin. Faggotry was re-criminalized in the USSR, and would remain so until 1991. The Bolsheviks would go as far as equating homosexuality with Nazism and fascism itself, an idea picked up later in The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Even during the period of decriminalization of homosexuality, it was still seen as a mental illness that needed to be cured. The modern idea that people are born with faggot-DNA never crossed the minds of the Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin. They all clearly viewed it as an extreme form of degeneracy, linked with the bourgeoisie and fascism itself.

That's four out of the five heads. What about Mao?

This issue has been on my mind as of late primarily because First-World "Maoists" are some of the worst boosters of US imperialism in the world today. First-World "Maoists" have latched on to lines spewing from Beijing about "Soviet Social-Imperialism" to justify all sorts of phrase-mongering chicanery in the service of their imperialist masters. MIM had been exposing these liars for decades, but few today are willing to follow in MIM's footsteps in ruthlessly criticizing First-World "Maoism."

It is well known the RCP=CIA used to have an anti-faggot line, one they seemed to try to keep a lid on, just like the Ray O. Light group allegedly does today (and probably for similar reasons). MIM used to attack them for this, but never seemed to develop any sort of detailed, coherent critique based on this. For all their great theoretical insight, MIM never seemed to want to tackle this question in any great detail, and I have an idea why.

If you type in words like "homosexuality mao cultural revolution" into a search engine, you will get many, many results talking about the persecution of homosexuals during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Mao himself is said to have viewed homosexuality as the "mouldering lifestyle of capitalism" and homosexuals are said to have been more persecuted during the GPCR than at any time during all of China's history. There are tales of the Red Guards publicly castrating homosexuals during this period. People suspected of engaging in homosexual acts are said to have been rounded up and put in camps.

As with anything about the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the evidence is scanty. Most of these claims either have no sources at all, or their sources don't really have any sources either. There is probably better direct evidence for the persecution of homosexuals under the GPCR available in the Chinese language, and will have to wait until someone is willing to translate them (such as Li Yinhe's "History of Chinese Homosexuality"), but on the flip side, no one has seriously tried to deny these claims either. Which brings me to my next point...

Given that all First-World "Maoists" groups will claim that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the greatest revolutionary advance in history (or some such garbage), and given that nearly all First-World radiKKKalism requires the acceptance of faggotry, we have an interesting contradiction on our hands. At this point, it seems to me First-World "Maoists" would simply dismiss the issue out of hand, because primary sources are lacking. This will eventually change, and people will see that it is undoubtedly true that faggots were persecuted under the GPCR, and that the CPC has never viewed faggots in anything but a negative light. This opens up the possibly of splitting First-World "Maoism" into two camps: those who, like MIM, refuse to give up the GPCR as symbolizing the greatest revolutionary advance ever, and those who love faggots more than the GPCR as a symbol. More importantly, it opens up the possibility of splitting Third-World Maoists who still adhere to all this dogmatic nonsense from the First-World "Maoists" who won't step away from faggot-worship.

And for those willing to listen, it is also an opportunity to spread the queer-theoretical attacks on homo-nationalism and the homosexual identity that can be found in the works of people like Joseph Massad and Jasbir Puar. This is important for getting people to realize First-World faggots are not only just as parasitic as their straight counterparts, but that imperialism will increasingly rely on faggotry as a rallying call for First-World radiKKKalism to get behind imperialist military campaigns. And the sooner the Third-World realizes that the imperialists and the faggots are joined at the hip, the better off the Third-World will be.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Is the Black Nation an Oppressor Nation? A response to Kevin “Rashid” Johnson.

In 1913, Lenin wrote a short work titled “Russians and Negroes.” The work is definitely worth reading in its entirety, as its shortness conceals a huge depth of theoretical insight. Basically, Lenin is making a comparison between the lives of American Negroes circa 1913 and Russians. To quote Lenin:

It is a permissible comparison. The Negroes were the last to be freed from slavery, and they still bear, more than anyone else, the cruel marks of slavery—even in advanced countries—for capitalism has no “room” for other than legal emancipation, and even the latter it curtails in every possible way.
..half a century later, the Russians still show many more traces of slavery than the Negroes. Indeed, it would be more accurate to speak of institutions and not merely of traces. But in this short article we shall limit ourselves to a little illustration of what we have said, namely, the question of literacy. It is known that illiteracy is one of the marks of slavery. In a country oppressed by pashas, Purishkeviches and their like, the majority of the population cannot be literate.
In Russia there are 73 per cent of illiterates, exclusive of children under nine years of age.
Among the U.S. Negroes, there were (in 1900) 44.5 per cent of illiterates. 

So Lenin, going by a single dimension of measure (literacy), concludes that the average Russian had it worse off than the average black person in Amerika in the 1910s. I am immediately reminded of a Social-Justice Warrior type article called Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. Like all people who subscribe to such notions, it is rife with the narrow nationalism of White Nation “Leftism.” This is why the author thinks “Straight White Male” is the easy setting, while “Gay Minority Female” is the “hardcore” setting. The narrow nationalism is self-evident to anyone with a global outlook on the world, as the article is reeking of First-World chauvinism. The author of the piece even explicitly seeks to limit the thought experiment to the “the Western world,” because to extend the scope of the thought experiment to the entire planet immediately breaks the point the author is trying to get across. How cold “Gay Minority Female living in AmeriKKKa” possibly be the hardcore setting, compared to say, “Poor ugly guy living in Bangladesh” or even “Working class Indian woman”?

Comparing the lives of your average black person today with your typical Russian probably doesn’t change the results much. The life options and prospects available to your average black man or woman living in AmeriKKKa exceeds anything available to your typical Russian man or woman. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average black man makes around $37,000 a year. The average Russian income is around $17,000 a year. The difference between the income available to your average Amerikan white dude and a black guy is just as large as between a black guy and a Russian. Within a global context, perhaps playing the game on “Black guy living in AmeriKKKa” isn’t that hard of a difficulty setting.

Things undoubtedly begin to change as you climb up the social-ladder in Amerika. The Obama-supporter and black comedian Chris Rock once had a bit where he proclaimed a poor one-legged “white” bus boy wouldn’t trade places with him, even though Chris Rock is a millionaire; they would prefer to see where being “white” takes them. The actual social-reality Chris Rock is complaining about to his audience is one only successful blacks have to deal with: never really being accepted into the rich-guy club. It’s probably true that a rich Russian would never want to trade places with a rich black Amerikan, even one that was significantly richer, because of some negative social aspects of being black that apply to all blacks in Amerika regardless of wealth. But the typical Russian, let alone those even more “hardcore” on the difficulty-setting of life, would trade places with your average Amerikan black man in an instant.

This begs the question: is the Black Nation an Oppressor Nation?

Some have answered the question in the affirmative. The so-called Leading Light has all but explicitly stated as much, when they seek to liquidate the National Question in the North Amerikan context. What they are gently trying to tell their international readers is that you are insane if you think the Black Nation is gonna rise up anytime soon. They are saying the workers of the Black Nation have more in common with imperialism than they do the Oppressed Nations of the world, even if many of them are socially-slighted by chauvinist White Nation workers. George Jackson once said “The entire colonial world is watching the blacks inside the U.S., wondering and waiting for us to come to our senses.” The so-called Leading Light is telling the world that any “Hope” placed on the Black Nation for some “Change” to the imperialist world system is completely misplaced. Absolutely and utterly misplaced.

MIM disagrees with this assessment of the so-called Leading Light, still holding out hope for the Black Nation, Aztlan, white women, etc, to be able to play some sort of revolutionary role within the Belly of the Beast. Which is why Kevin “Rashid” Johnson’s polemic against MIM Prisons appears interesting. Is Kevin “Rashid” Johnson unaware of this theoretical difference separating MIM Thought from the so-called Leading Light?

Much of Rashid’s critique is basically aimed at tagging the old “Petty Bourgeois” label on to MIM and MIM Prisons. Rashid quotes Mao as saying all classes have their own ideologies, and will assert themselves on ideological questions at all possible opportunities. Rashid points to the alleged white dominance of the defunct MIM organization as proof of the “PB” nature of MIM Thought.

But as anyone who knows the MIM line in and out, it isn’t all “workers” in Amerika they considered parasites. They specifically excluded black workers, immigrants laborers, etc. MIM said White Nation workers were hopelessly parasitic. MIM never once claimed it was the case for the workers of the Black Nation. MIM seemed to have unlimited faith in the workers of the Black Nation. MIM believed in the potential of workers of the Black Nation. MIM Prisons still seems to believe in it today. The so-called Leading Light is telling MIM Prisons that this belief is misguided, that black “workers” are just as parasitic as their White Nation counterparts. The so-called Leading Light thinks all of this is misguided pious faith in a nation basking in parasitism.

One could even go further, and note that while MIM would have never dreamed of disparaging workers of the Black Nation in this fashion, they were more than willing to do so in the case of various European nations. The most glaring case is when MIM claimed that the struggle in Ireland could be viewed as simply the Irish Nation attempting to renegotiate their relationship with Western imperialism. In other words, MIM was saying the Irish demand for the self-determination of their nation was not sincere, but a cynical expression of opportunism by an entire nation. MIM’s hope for the Black Nation would never allow them to contemplate this possibility, though they didn’t even hesitate suggesting this possibility when discussing the Irish Question.

Should a serious anti-imperialist refuse to contemplate whether or not the entire Black Nation is bought off, and parasitic?

Luckily, reality is giving us an opportunity to test this question. The victory of the PASOK 2.0 organization in Greece known as SYRIZA has much larger implications than whether or not the Labor Aristocracy thesis is valid. SYRIZA is clearly an opportunist organization, and only the criminally stupid or the conscious agents of White Power and Zionism are pretending otherwise. The coming struggle of the KKE against the Euro-Union imperialist agents known as SYRIZA will tell the entire world something about the Greek Nation itself. As George Jackson said, the entire Third World should be watching the Greek Nation now, to determine whether or not those nations on the periphery of US imperialism are capable of truly revolutionary feats, or whether they prefer the imperialist comforts collaborating with Zionism and White Power gives them. What the Greek Nation and the KKE is capable of doing in the coming months and years will give an indication of what the Black Nation is capable of in the Belly of the Beast. And it will tell the world the significance of the National Question to the struggle against Western imperialism and Zionism.


Sunday, January 11, 2015

First-World "Maoism" is Social-Fascism: Against JMP

JMP, author of the MLM-Mayhem blog and known member of the PRC-RCP, has written a post where he tries to stake an imaginary “Third-Way” position between what he calls “Tankyism” and “Anti-Tankyism.” Before I get into a full response, I want to take a few moments to talk about something that isn’t discussed very often.

In an attack on Bob Avakian, MIM had suggested to its readers that Avakian was more willing to accept Canadians as a separate nation than he was black people. Ever since engaging with Canadian “Maoists” online, including some of the better ones like Jason Unruhe, I’ve noticed there is always a distinct tendency for them to identify as separate from Amerikans. I am reminded of a racist joke in the South, that goes something like “What is the difference between a nigger in Georgia and a nigger in Florida? The state-line.” It has been my thinking for awhile now that a joke like this could be made about the Euro-Settlers in Klanada and Amerika. The reality is that the White Nation in North Amerika is ruled by two different governments. The imaginary line on a map separating Amerika and Klanada has no real meaning, especially since Klanadians mostly consume the same Zionist Hollywood shit as part of their collective cultural experience. The identity separating Klanadians and Amerikans amounts to little more than the differences between people that identify with individual states in America.

It should come as no surprise that JMP never touches on this theoretical issue, as the PRC-RCP is particularly disgusting in their opportunism on the National Question in the Klanadian context. The  political elephant in the room in Klanada, ever since the October Crisis, when the Marxist-Leninist organization Front de libération du Québec caused much ruckus in Klanadian politics by doing awesome things like bombing the Montreal Stock Exchange and trying to kidnap Zionist diplomats, has always been that Quebec is a separate nation of people. The PRC-RCP does not support this, even though they like to talk a big game about “Protracted People’s War,” no doubt to recruit young Klanadian social-fascist faggot-worshippers impressed by such rhetoric. Anyone familiar with the recruitment strategies of the far “Left” of the White Nation should see this game for what it is. If JMP and the rest of the White Nation “Left” faggot-worshippers wanted to get “Protracted People’s War” going, they would just immediately liquidate their idiotic organization and join with the Quebec Nationalists. Rather, the PRC-RCP was founded by Labor Aristocratic Quebec people to steer the self-determination of the Quebec Nation back into the embrace of the northern government of the White Nation.

Pretending the PRC-RCP is simply deluded on this issue, rather than conscious charlatans working as agents of the northern government of the White Nation, leads to a type of thinking that Lenin once heavily criticized at the Second Congress of the Communist International. In it, Lenin attacks the Italian communist Serrati, on the question of the “sincerity” of people who oppose the line of Bolshevism.

Comrades, Serrati has said that we have not yet invented a sincerometer—meaning by this French neologism an instrument for measuring sincerity. No such instrument has been invented yet. We have no need of one. But we do already have an instrument for defining trends. Comrade Serrati’s error, which I shall deal with later, consists in his having failed to use this instrument, which has been known for a long time.
“We are leaders elected by the masses, “ Comrade Crispien continues. This is a formal and erroneous point of view, since a struggle of trends was clearly to be seen at the latest Party congress of the German Independents. There is no need to seek for a sincerometer and to wax humorous on the subject, as Comrade Serrati does, in order to establish the simple fact that a struggle of trends must and does exist: one trend is that of the revolutionary workers who have just joined us and are opposed to the labour aristocracy; the other is that of the labour aristocracy, which in all civilised countries is headed by the old leaders. Does Crispien belong to the trend of the old leaders and the labour aristocracy, or to that of the new revolutionary masses of workers, who are opposed to the labour aristocracy? That is a question Comrade Crispien has failed to clarify.

JMP’s entire essay treats what he even calls “cruise missile socialism” as some sort of sincerely mistaken view. To JMP, “Anti-Tankyism” isn’t the ideology of a conscious set of First-World imperialist parasites fighting for the leadership of Oppressor Nation “workers,” they are potential recruits. In fact, the whole essay is one long attempt to recruit “Anti-Tankies” who are just too obviously imperialist agents of the White Nation Labor Aristocracy, to a much more refined Social-Fascist ideology, as espoused by various First-World “Maoist” organizations, like the PRC-RCP. With all this in mind, now I will review his post.

To JMP, it is “tankyism” for socialist countries to defend themselves from internal and external enemies. JMP makes this clear when he writes:

“What we end up, particularly in online debates about international politics amongst marxists, is a polarized discussion where one side endorses one type of tankyism (i.e. the right of supposed socialist states to role out the tanks and military suppression to protect their socialism, or the ghost of socialism)”

Perhaps JMP would like to take this idea back to the Russian Revolution itself. Was it “Tankyism” when the Bolsheviks organized people to hunt down and kill Mensheviks? Maybe JMP should read Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism, particularly this passage:

But Kautsky goes further to develop his theme. He complains that we suppress the newspapers of the SRs and the Mensheviks, and even – such things have been known – arrest their leaders. Are we not dealing here with “shades of opinion” in the proletarian or the Socialist movement? The scholastic pedant does not see facts beyond his accustomed words. The Mensheviks and SRs for him are simply tendencies in Socialism, whereas, in the course of the revolution, they have been transformed into an organization which works in active co-operation with the counter-revolution and carries on against us an open war. The army of Kolchak was organized by Socialist Revolutionaries (how that name savours to-day of the charlatan!), and was supported by Mensheviks. Both carried on – and carry on – against us, for a year and a half, a war on the Northern front. The Mensheviks who rule the Caucasus, formerly the allies of Hohenzollern, and to-day the allies of Lloyd George, arrested and shot Bolsheviks hand in hand with German and British officers. The Mensheviks and S.R.s of the Kuban Rada organized the army of Denikin. The Esthonian Mensheviks who participate in their government were directly concerned in the last advance of Yudenich against Petrograd. Such are these “tendencies” in the Socialist movement. Kautsky considers that one can be in a state of open and civil war with the Mensheviks and SRs, who, with the help of the troops they themselves have organized for Yudenich, Kolchak and Denikin, are fighting for their “shade of opinions” in Socialism, and at the same time to allow those innocent “shades of opinion” freedom of the Press in our rear. If the dispute with the SRs and the Mensheviks could be settled by means of persuasion and voting – that is, if there were not behind their backs the Russian and foreign imperialists – there would be no civil war.

This is how the Russian Revolution and it’s ensuing Civil War played out. One section of Russian Social-Democracy organizing the murder of another section. Is JMP not familiar with this? What does he imagine will happen in Amerika and Klanada, if revolution is to ever come here? Does he not think one section of people calling themselves “Marxists” within the White Nation Labor Aristocracy will be organizing the murder of another? The “Anti-Tanky” people he is trying to recruit to his brand of First-World “Maoist” Social-Fascist bullshittery are certainly capable of doing everything in their power to get people to go along with the imperialist mass-murder of other nations. What makes him think “Anti-Tankies” won’t organize to murder and terrorize their domestic opponents, as the bourgeoisie leans more and more on them as revolution approaches?

More to the point, what makes JMP think “Tankies” won’t organize the murder of these people in return? In the case of any Quebec Nationalists seeking the self-determination of their Nation outside of the northern government of the White Nation, I would personally advise them to hunt down and kill people in the PRC-RCP. A little investigation by any such people would quickly reveal that the people who formed the PRC-RCP are members of the imperialist Klanadian Labor Aristocracy, and are acting on behalf of the interests of the northern government of the White Nation, and not in the interests of the Quebec masses. One only has to look at the wishy-washy bullshit these people put out about Syria to understand this. It would be not only the duty of a Quebec Patriot to kill these “Left” agents of the northern government of the White Nation on behalf of his own people, such a Quebec Patriot would be acting in the interests of the entire international working classes of all Nations in doing so. It would simultaneously be a profound act toward the self-determination of the Quebec Nation, and a blow to imperialism that would be felt for decades.

Next, JMP likes to make up what the “Tanky” narrative is in regards to the DPRK:

“The tanky narrative, then, overcodes the reality of the DPRK, producing a very unscientific binary: either you’re a tanky who supports the DPRK unconditionally as a socialist paradise”

Despite the fact that the economy of the DPRK is the closest thing left on Earth to how the economy was structured in the USSR under Stalin, the pro-DPRK “Tanky” narrative isn’t that the DPRK is a “socialist paradise.” Only First-World social-fascist faggot-worshippers are interested in what is or is not a “socialist paradise.” The reality is that if revolution ever came to Klanada or Amerika, it would be an absolute nightmare for the vast majority of people. Their living standards would drop enormously, as their lifestyles would begin to reach an equilibrium with the rest of the planet. The ensuing Civil War would kill millions and millions of people, and would almost certainly lead to the creation of the Nation-States of Quebec, the New Republic of Africa, Aztlan, etc . And this is precisely what every genuine anti-imperialist wants to bring to Amerika and Klanada. Anyone who is telling anyone anything different is not only a liar, but will no doubt be the very people organizing the murder of the real revolutionaries. They will be the Mensheviks of North Amerika.

The DPRK is not a “socialist paradise.” Is it the embodiment of the will of a people to resist their own conquest by the Oppressor White Nation. It should be the natural and total embodiment of the will of a people to fight the White Oppressor Nation. If the resolve of the people of the New Republic of Africa, of Aztlan, of the Quebec Nation, etc, were equal to that of the absolutely heroic people of the DPRK, Amerika and Klanada would cease to exist as imperialist powers. The DPRK isn’t hated by worthless White Nation “Leftists” for any other reason. The Workers Party of Korea has resisted the will of the White Oppressor Nation as only a few others have. This is why the “Anti-Tanky” modern day Mensheviks hate it so much. It is because they are conscious White Nationalist servants of the imperialist Labor Aristocracy.

JMP announces his essential ideological unity with “Anti-Tankyism” in the next paragaph:

“Let’s be clear: I don’t think the DPRK is anything more than a revisionist socialism overdetermined by the siege mentality of isolation.  I think any socialist state that determines its leadership through some semi-feudal notion of patrilineal inheritance has serious problems; I agree with the assessment made by the CPC, when it was still a socialist country, that the DPRK was thoroughly revisionist.”

What JMP is trying to tell his potential “Anti-Tanky” recruits is that if they adopt the Ortho-Maoist line, they will stand on much better grounds to take a shit on the DPRK with. However, anyone who has seriously studied the foreign policy of Maoist China knows it became completely and utterly chauvinist. Ortho-Maoists will tie themselves into ideological knots trying to justify Maoist China’s support of Pakistan’s genocidal war on the Bengali Nation. The Bangladesh Liberation War is the Achilles Heel of Ortho-Maoist stupidity. It at once exposes the fact that the National Question never once even entered into the political calculus of Mao’s China when dealing with the rest of the world. China’s recognition of Pincohet was the turning point for the Cubans and most of Latin America, besides the CIA nihilist-guerrillas known as Sendero Luminoso. Most of the less-stupid Ortho-Maoists try to pin-point the ‘degeneration’ of Mao’s China to before the 9th National Congress, but this is mostly an exercise in stupidity. The truth of the matter is that the only imperialist country to ever have a proper communist revolution was Russia, and the struggle of Oppressor Nation Marxist-Leninists is completely different than what goes on in Oppressed Nations. In Oppressor Nations, there is a large “Left” Labor Aristocracy that has to be waged war against. In the Oppressed Nations, it takes much less convincing to get the majority on board with your program. You simply point the finger at who is working for the foreigners. There was no massive Labor Aristocracy Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc, had to fight for leadership of the working class. Imperialists Oppressor Nations don’t usually support massive Labor Aristocracies in the nations they occupy (the Republic of Korea being a notable exception). That completely defeats the purpose of extracting imperialist super-profits. They instead rely on compradors, most of whom identify more with their masters than they do their own people, historically because they became converts to Christianity. In the case of China, their experience at keeping China together for them to stand up to the imperialists is completely different than what is needed in most countries. The only country who should attempt to follow the Chinese model is India, yet the “Maoists” in India, mostly Bengali-speaking fools who didn’t even support their own people’s National Liberation War against Pakistan,  don’t act or think anything like Chinese Communists did. Yet First-World “Maoists” love them!

JMP goes on to compare defending the right of Koreans to self-determination to other things he and the “Anti-Tanky” First-World social-fascist faggot-worshippers don’t like:

“Even still, it is also bizarre to me that there are people who will go out of their way to defend the DPRK as a socialist state on par with pre-Deng China or pre-Khrushchev Russia.  It is equally weird that some of these same people justified the rolling out of the tanks in Tiananman Square (as if these tanks were protecting “socialism”), or the rolling out of the tanks in Afghanistan to protect the puppet PDPA government in the 1980s”

It never occurs to morons like JMP the project of the Chinese Communists had more to do with holding Chinese people together than building the socialist-faggot-paradise that First-Worlders want. So naturally, JMP jumps in bed with the rest of the political-class of US imperialists in condemning the crackdown of a “movement” that worshipped White Nation “democracy.” JMP also has a thing for a tiny group of nobodies in Afghanistan, who can’t even be bothered to comment on the situation in Syria, least they expose themselves as nothing more than UNITA-style CIA assets.

JMP next hints to his potential “Anti-Tanky” recruits how they should begin phrasing the issue:

“While it is true that it is not an authentic anti-imperialist position to support the nascent imperialisms of Russia or China over US imperialism”

JMP, while often pretending to have affinities with Third-Worldist political economy and its calculation of the surplus-value extracted by the Oppressor Nations of the world, doesn’t actually believe any of it. Like the Labor Aristocracy Deniers within the imperialist White Nation Labor Apparatus, he can not tell you who is and who is not an exploiter within the First-World. JMP can offer no calculation of how much surplus value the imperialist populations of Amerika and Klanada are extracting from the Third-World, so why should anyone take anything people like JMP say about Russian and Chinese “imperialism” seriously? Do Russia and China have gigantic Labor Aristocracies who depend on imperialism for their way of life? Can JMP and the other Ortho-Maoist faggot-worshippers tell you how much surplus-value Russia and China are extracting from other nations around the world, when they can’t even tell you how much surplus-value the White Nation Labor Aristocracy is consuming? I personally welcome the day when those who have a serious understanding of the nature of Unequal Exchange enter the debate on Russian and Chinese “imperialism.” The truth of the matter is that the Oppressor Nations of the world exchange commodities with each other at roughly equal rates of Purchasing Power Parity, while the Oppressed Nations exchange commodities that are undervalued with the Oppressor Nations. Russia and China are working hard to break up this relationship, which will free the world from the currency-regime of the Western imperialist countries. Far from being “imperialist,” Russia and China are threatening to kill the imperialist system completely. This is the real reason why “Anti-Tankies” and other First-World social-fascist faggot-worshippers hate Russia and China with a passion.

JMP blows a dog-whistle for his liberal faggot readers:

“Interesting tangental point here: did you know that there are right wing US christians who are asking for political asylum in Russia because of their homophobia?”

That’s quite hilarious, if true. Of course, any serious Queer Theorist, like Jasbin Puar, has long recognized that Homo-Nationalism is linked at the hip with the Western imperialist liberal nation-state. When the bombs were failing down on Libya, “socialist” faggot-worshippers spread the remarks of Gaddafi about homosexuals and AIDS as wide as they could. This is because the “socialist-paradise” imagined by imperialist parasite First-World socialist-faggots is a land where all sorts of sexual perversions, including pedophilia, are celebrated. The imperialists are trying hard to turn Amerika into exactly this, because they rely on their “Left” Labor Aristocracy to maintain their rule. So it’s no wonder that JMP would bring something ridiculous like this up, because JMP cares more about the feelings of First-World faggots than the people actually resisting US imperialism.

The rest of JMP’s bullshit revolves around trying to pin Kautsky’s “super imperialism” onto the “Tankies.” One only needs to read Lenin’s Imperialism and the Split in Socialism to understand how idiotic this is. Lenin predicted the world we actually live in today. The people of Western Europe and Amerika (and a few other nations) live on the backs of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. There isn’t merely a tiny imperialist class sucking super-profit out of the Third-World for themselves. Millions and millions, if not the vast majority of the people in the Oppressor Nations, depend on this as a way of life. Lenin said the only solution was to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses. The real masses are in places like the DPRK. Just as the vast majority of Euro-Settler Israelis support the genocidal policies of their state, just as most Amerikans support war abroad, so too do the masses of people of Korea hate Amerika, both in the North and in the Occupied South. They are not people blind to their own objective interests and national aspirations to self-determination, just as the parasites of Israel and the White Nation are not blind to their own objective interests. This is the truth the “Anti-Tankies” JMP seeks to recruit desperately want to obscure with a mountain of lies. And that is why the people of the whole world will rise up and kill them one day.