Amidst the wrecks and wave tangled wracks left by the ever turning tide.
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Saturday, 15 March 2014
The continual call of The Right Sector as Far Right / Fascist / Uktra-Nationalist / Nazi / Nationalist etc prove that the media do not have a clue as to what either The Right Sector stand for politically or where they sit on the Nationalist spectrum. I define below where most Right parties and movements sit. The Right Spectrum is based on two forces Revolution and Reaction. One the Far Left we see the Socialist & Nationalist anti-corporate and anti-Imperialist impulse and the Far Right is designated by an Imperialist and Corporate impulse. This allows us to place nationalist political parties and movements on a Left to Right scale based on Left Nationalist Revolutionary ideology to Reactionary Right ideology. We shall start on the Left of the Right Spectrum. A) Social Nationalist - eg Strasserite Left Revolutionary Social Nationalists. Anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and nationalist. B) National Socialism - the original ideology of the NSDAP in Germany prior to the expulsion of the National Socialist left by Hitler. Had its origins in a fusion of the Left & Right. C) Conservatism - we can place this at the centre point of the spectrum. Do not confuse Conservatism with the Conservative Party in Britain, as the latter is now a social democratic party. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were ". The Conservatives who want things to remain stable are on the left of the Conservative wing, usually called 'the wets' or Red Tories and those who are the Dries, whose policies which came to be labelled as "dry" ones included foremostly reducing public spending, cutting taxes, lowering interest rates, tightly controlling the money supply, and reducing the regulatory power of the state – all policies which were closely associated with Thatcher. D) Paleo-Conservatism - emphasis on tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity. E) Nationalism - traditional nationalism relates to a protection of the people and the nation. Though the nation and people are seen as a unity, this is not based solely on an ethnic definition of the citizens of that nation. Those who are loyal to the nation are seen as one with the nation. Unlike Cultural Nationalism, which says only those who are culturally integrated into the nation and its culture can be members of the nation, nationalism allows other cultures to exist within the nation state as long as their loyalty is to the nation and the people of the nation itself - and not some other nation or their own ethnic interests. F) Cultural Nationalism - as this does not explicitly relate to ethnic interests, it sits between Paleo-Conservatism & Ethnic Nationalism on the spectrum. Though the fact that it demands cultural integration and excludes those who may be loyal to the nation even though they are not culturally integrated means it sits on the right of the spectrum to Nationalism. G) Ethnic Nationalism - as its focus relates to the protection and promotion of ethnic and cultural interests, it sits on the Right of the spectrum. H) Fascism - Fascism was the merger of the State & the corporations. Hence its union with the corporations ensured the pre-dominance of corporate interests took precedence over the socialist impulse within Fascism. Hence it has to be placed in the Reactionary Right section of the spectrum. Fascism can also be imperialist. I) Neo-Conservatism - this is included on the Far Right spectrum due to its imperialist, militarist, supra-national scope as way to promote US corporate interests. The fact that the movement has as much loyalty to Israel as America, means that it cannot be included within the definition of a Nationalist movement. J) Hitlerism - Hitlerism is not National Socialism. It is fact the antithesis of National Socialism as it is the use of the State to profit the Capitalists and Industrialists via the use of war as a mechanism to increase corporate profits. Hitlerism was Supra-national in scope eg Greater German Reich & The New Order based on supra-national imperialist Pan-Aryanism. So we can see that the placing of The Right Sector as a Fascist / Nazi / Hitlerite group is false. They fit squarely into the Nationalist bracket.
Monday, 10 March 2014
The origins of the Frankfurt School began with funding provided by the German Jewish Marxist Felix Weil. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Weil Weil had been a student of the German Marxist proffessor Karl Korsch. Who was not Jewish. Along with György Lukács, Karl Korsch is regarded as one of the major figures responsible for laying the groundwork for Western Marxism in the 1920s. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Korsch Karl Korsch was born in 1886 in Tostedt, near Hamburg in Germany. His father was a successful bank clerk and later a bank manager. Korsch went to school in Thuringia, and to university in Munich, Berlin, Geneva and Jena. Like Walter Benjamin, his first political experiences came as a member of the 'Free Student Movement', a broad, liberal and idealist organisation committed to the idea of transforming education in the interest of students. On the outbreak of war, in August 1914, Karl Korsch returned to Germany. He claimed to have served in the war, while openly expressing his opposition to it. For this, he was demoted from the rank of reserve lieutenant to corporal. Korsch boasted that he never carried a rifle or sabre. Somehow he survived the hostility of his own commanding officers, and was twice decorated with the Iron Cross, for acts of bravery under fire. 2) http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/korsch.html The Frankurt School as it has come to be known, is actually The Institute For Social Research and was founded in 1923. 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Social_Research Its first head was Kurt Albert Gerlach. A German Marxist. Not a Jew. He died before the centre opened and was replaced by Carl Grunberg 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Albert_Gerlach 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gr%C3%BCnberg Carl Grunberg was a German Marxist. He was Jewish. The idea of the centre and its origins are described here ; 1) http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School The Institute emerged from a week-long symposium held in Ilmenau, Germany in 1922. The First Marxist Workweek was organized and funded by German-Argentinean agricultural magnate Felix Weil with the purpose of combining the different trends of Marxism. The symposium was attended by Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, and Friedrich Pollock, among others. The event was reportedly so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent "Institute for Marxism" modeled upon the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1923, with the help of the German Communist Party, the Institute for Social Research was opened at Frankfurt University with Carl Grünberg as its first Director. The initial work at the Institute was oriented towards exploring Marxism as a scientific and economic methodology, but after the death of Grünberg and the temporary directorship of Pollock, Jewish Marxist Max Horkheimer was appointed the to the chair and changed the direction of the Institute from promoting an orthodox Marxist philosophy to what would later be called "cultural Marxism," better known as "political correctness." Cultural Marxism is also known Critical Theory ; 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism The ideological basis of critical theory comes from five Frankfurt School theoreticians: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Of these five only Adorno was not Jewish. All were Marxists. Modern critical theory has been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, including Jürgen Habermas. Lukacs was a Jewish Marxist. Gramsci an Italian Marxist. The current head of the Frankfurt School is Jurgen Habermas. Habermas is a German Marxist whose father was a Nazi supporter. He is not Jewish. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas So we can see from the above explanation of the Frankfurt School the following things ; 1) It was set up as a Marxist body to promote Marxism 2) every one of its founders were German and Marxists. 3) The aims of the organisation have always been to spread the ideas of Marxism into society. Therefore the contention that the organisation is Jewish and serves Jewish interests is clearly false. The organsations leadership is not united by one race, one nationality or one religion. Its leadership is united by only one thing - their support for Marxism. Which should come as a shock to non-one as it is an organisation set to represent Marxism. Therefore we need to address two issues peddled by the White Nationalist movement that the Frankfurt School is a Jewish plot to destroy society and for Jews to control the West. This is clearly false. For a start the ideology spread by the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism, DOES NOT BENEFIT JEWS. The basis of the contemporary LIBERAL society is LIBERAL. As a result of Liberalism and assimilation pushed by Liberalism derived from Cultural Marxism, the Jewish community is slowly being misceginated out of existence ; 1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26067980 2) http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/IntermarriageWhyNot/ 3) http://www.alternet.org/story/142478/israeli_government_ads_warn_against_marrying_non-jews EVEN BENJAMIN NETANYAHUS SON IS DATING A NON-JEW ; 1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/netanyahu-blasted-for-sons-non-jewish-girlfriend/ It is Liberal Jews and Liberals who most oppose the most nationalistic and racist ideology supported by many Jews today - this being the racist Imperialist state of Israel and its Racist, Nationalistic, imperialistic ideology of Zionism. Even within Israel vast swathes of the Jewish population, from anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews to Left Wing Liberal Jews oppose both the actions of the Israeli state and Zionism. The Liberal values that these left wing Jews in Israel support find their origin in Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. It can even be said that without the ideological influence on Israel and Jews by the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory / Cultural Marxism, that the Zionist Likudist Far Right in Israel and America would have no political or social opposition groups to oppose them and their activities at all. The Liberal movement deriving from Cultural Marxism has been the primary fetter on the Eretz Israel Imperialist and Militarist expansionist policies of the Zionist Nationalist right. If liberal Jews like Gilad Atzmon, Noam Chomsky and many others did not oppose Zionism both in Israel and America then Zionism would would have undoubtedly achieved most of its ideological aims in Israel, America and in relation to its expansionist foreign policy. Now we need to look at why so many Jews in the 1920's and 1930's supported Marxism. Thats a pretty easy issue to explain. As a result of social, political and legal anti-Jewish and anti-semitic laws and violence many Jews across Europe saw Marxism as a mechanism to liberate themselves. This is why Jews both in Germany & Russia embraced Marxism. This iw why many Jews in Russia decided to embrace the Marxist Revolution that had swept Russia in 1917 and become either Bolsheviks or Mensheviks. Many Jews in Russia had embraced the Bolshevik Party early on and had formed a significant proportion of its membership ; 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks The average party member was very young. In 1907, 22% of Bolsheviks were under 20, 37% were 20-24 and 16% were 25-29. By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (3% of the population in 1897 22% of Bolsheviks were gentry (1.7% of the total population), 38% were uprooted peasants, compared with 19% and 26% for the Mensheviks. In 1907 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks). Total membership was 8,400 in 1905, 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907 (8,400, 18,000, 38,200 respectively for the Mensheviks). By 1910 both factions together had fewer than 10,000 members. But many Jews had also embraced the Menshevik Party as well. An important issue to note re the Russian Revolution is that the Mensheviks had a far higher proportion of Jewish membership than the Bolsheviks - 20 % of the Mensheviks as opposed to the Bolsheviks 10 % 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensheviks The primary opponents of the Bolsheviks WITHIN RUSSIA were the Mensheviks. Menshevism was finally made illegal after the Kronstadt Uprising of 1921. Therefore the idea that Jews ran the Bolsheviks and formed the majority of its membership is false. What is also false is that the Jews all supported the Bolsheviks. The primary party supported by Jews was the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks fought against the Bolsheviks in the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921 and were banned as a a result ; The Kronstadt rebellion (Russian: Кронштадтское восстание, tr. Kronshtadtskoye vosstaniye) was a major unsuccessful uprising against the Bolsheviks in the later years of the Russian Civil War. Led by Stepan Petrichenko and consisting of Russian sailors, soldiers and civilians, the rebellion was one of the reasons for Vladimir Lenin's and the Communist Party's decision to loosen its control of the Russian economy by implementing the New Economic Policy (NEP). 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_Uprising The Mensheviks were led by a Jew ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Petrichenko So the leader of a major uprising against Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a Jewish Menshevik leading a Menshevik movement with a far higher number of Jews in it than the Bolsheviks. So the idea that Bolshevism was Jewish & supported by Jews is demonstrably false. Note that the Bolshevik Party with the smallest percentage of Jews in it, lost and the Bolsheviks won. So therefore the assertion that ; 1) As the Frankfurt Schools had a high number of Jews in it that they served Jewish interests as opposed to Marxist interests is false. Jews in the early 20th century did not form a monolithic, cohesive bloc. They were divided into Orthodox Jews, Nationalistic Zionist Jews and Communust Bolshevik, Menshevik and Liberal Marxist Jews. There were also atheist Jews, anarchist Jews and even fascist Jews such as the ones who supported Mussolini ; 1) http://redroom.com/member/frank-sanello/writing/mussolini%E2%80%99s-jews-the-chosen-people-fascist-italy-rejected 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margherita_Sarfatti Even Hitler had over 150,000 Jews fighting for Germany in WW2 ; 1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/museums/10682975/The-Jews-who-fought-for-Hitler-We-did-not-help-the-Germans.-We-had-a-common-enemy.html 2) http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html 3) http://www.rense.com/general43/jewserved.htm The soldier whose image of the ideal German Soldier used in Nazi magazines was also Jewish ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg Even the Number 2 in the leadership of Himmlers SS was Jewish ; 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice Even the British Union Of Fascists led Sir Oswald Mosley had Jewish members and candidates in elections. So we can see that as far more Jews served in the German military for Hitler, then using the same logic of those who call the Frankfurt Schools 'Jewish' simply by counting Jews involved in the organisation, then using that exact same 'logic' that the Nazis and the Nazi movement were also Jewish and controlled by Jews. The idiocy of 'counting Jews' as the basis of an proposition that an organisation serve Jewish interests, is about an asinine methodology one can imagine. Jews are not The Borg from Star Trek. They do not share a Hive Mind nor do they all have a sense of ethno-communal loyalty only to their fellow Jews. In fact such ethno-communalism that does exist, can be exploited by criminals within the Jewish community. For an example of how some Jewish crooks can exploit Jewish ethno-communalism for their own advantage we need only to look at such criminals as ; 1) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/world/americas/24iht-24jews.18903457.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 2) http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/12/charities_old_people_jews_hit.html If the Frankfurt School was Jewish, then so too must have been the Fascists in Italy as many Jews in Italy supported, funded and were members of the Fascist movement. THE PRIMARY POINT IS THIS - the Cultural Marxist movement that spawned Liberalism has not benefited the Jews in any way. It has led to the formation of the Jewish Left who oppose Zionist Nationalism. It has created the social dynamic towards Jewish assimilation that is misceginating much of the Jewish Community itself. It has created the myriad liberal social dysfunction such as the epidemic of drug abuse that kills many Jewish young people in the entertainment industry in particular eg Amy Winehouse. Cultural Marxism is as much a threat to Jewish social, political and ethnic communalism and genetic survival as it is to all those peoples exposed to it. All the above information is based on facts. If you think you can refute it then try. If you are right, I will publish it.
Friday, 7 March 2014
These are the same Cossack pro-Putin thugs standing alongside the anti-fascist mobs attacking Nationalists in the Ukraine, who did this to Pussy Riot in the Olympics ; http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/19/pussy-riot-attacked-whips-cossack-milita-sochi-winter-olympics
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II Now Cossack 'men' beat young girls with horse whips and some nationalists cheer that. Each is as ugly and stupid as the other. Russia has lost its honour and soul under Putin. It has become a pitiful whore to his propaganda and the most shallow and pernicious form of reactionary right Plastic Patriotism. As long as some retard waves a plastic Russian Flag, the Putin retarded masses will salute it and follow it. That is not Nationalism. That is the antithesis of everything that Nationalism and Nationalists stand for.
Thursday, 6 March 2014
The fact is that regardless of Yeltsin being the Russian president AT THE TIME, the Russian Constitution stated that the President did not have the power to remove the Russian Parliament - especially by using the army and tanks to shell the Parliament building, murder hundreds of people and put members of the Parliament in Prison.Therefore there is no legal authority for Putin to regard the orders of Yanukovych as the expression of a government that still retains power in the Ukraine, neither in fact or law or in regard to the legal principle as defined by Yeltsin in the 1993 toppling of Parliament. The actions of Russia are therefore illegal under not just Russian law, but Ukranian law and international law. The basis of this is the fact that the legal principle stating that the toppling of a government illegally can be legal is the legacy of the modern Russian state itself. In the ongoing Ukranian example ; 1) the surrender of power and the fleeing of the Yanukovych government from Ukraine 2) the issuing of illegal orders to Russia 3) and the ongoing illegal actions of Russia in the Ukraine as mandated by Yanukovych also ensure that the previous government cannot claim any legal authority in regard to their assertion that they are the legal government of the Ukraine.
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
So now we have more pot stirring in the Ukraine re the phone call between Cathy Ashton and Estonia's foreign minister, Urmas Paet. http://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-catherine-ashton-phone-shoot-maidan-bugged-leaked This makes sense. Both sides in this conflict, the EU & Putin both have a motive to try and discredit the nationalists in the Ukraine. Hence why that recording was leaked by the Russian security forces and why it specifically featured a conversation between two representatives of the EU smearing the Nationalists by insinuating that the protestors hired people to shoot themselves. I have no doubt that a wide range of window lickers will give some credence to these words. But the facts are clear - that we have a wide range of video evidence that shows conclusively that the police were shooting at the protestors both with sniper rifles and AK47's. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10651980/Ukraine-crisis-snipers-filmed-shooting-at-protesters-in-Kiev.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10651980/Ukraine-crisis-snipers-filmed-shooting-at-protesters-in-Kiev.html Note also the direction of fire - clearly coming from police lines ; http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-euromaidan-watch-protesters-duck-cover-get-shot-kiev-video-1556881 Note also in this footage - you can hear both sniper rifle fire and the sound of AK47's on automatic fire firing at the protestors - and also the rate of fire re the bullets hitting the ground and protesors is clearly not a sniper rifle firing. For that sheer volume of bullets only an automatic or semi-autmoatic rifle would do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQhuD4F1yJ0 Listen to the rounds coming in towards the protestors. Note the comments of a 'hail of bullets' coming towards the protestors. Sniper rifles do not create 'hails of fire'. Note that the BBC crew recording the fire from the sniper in the hotel heard only a few shots from one window in one building. Thats not a hail of bullets. All the footage clearly shows police officers firing AK47's at the protestors and that was the primary volume of fire. Does that negate the possibility that some of the protestors were shot by accident or design by others around the square ? Of course not - but the video evidence, eye witness testimony and facts all show conclusively that the firing was primarily from the police and that firing killed most, if not all of the protestors. Thats clearly not sniper rifle fire we hear in the footage above - that is clearly machine gun fire from an AK47. Hence that came from the police, not the protestors. and here we have footage of the police firing AK47's at the protestors ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgraA2ubsk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iICzRf8m21w Does that mean a more sinister explanation cannot be also true. Of course not. I suggest that the truth is a lot more less interesting than the conspiracy theories. Keep it simple says Occams Razor. Cui Bono ? Who benefits ? Lets say that the Russian government led by a man who served 16 years as a senior high ranking KGB officer ordered snipers to target both the protestors and the police. The reason for this is smimple - it then provides a pretext for the army to be sent in to protect both the police and the protestors. If the police could not break the demonstrations, which they couldnt after weeks of harsh violence and brutality, then the only other option would be to send in the army. That such a plan existed has already been documented, the toppled Ukranian government were about to launch a massive army led offensive to smash the demonstrations. The pretext for this, as discovered in the documents that were tried to be destroyed by the former prime minister of the Ukraine and discovered in bags thrown into the lake of his huge estate by people who saw pages of the documents floating on the water and retrieved them, was to plant a series of bombs in Kiev and blame The Right Sector. The army would then sweep in a smash the protestors. But the primary flaw in the 'the protestors shot themselves' conspiracy theory peddled by the EU is this - it pre-supposes that ; 1) The protestors would win the struggle against the government 2) that the shootings would not justify yet more government repression of the protestors. One thing is clear to all real Nationalists. The more violence you use the state, the more powerful the state becomes. Violence only feeds the monster. The use of terrorist violence throughout history has been used by governments as a pretext to impose ever more draconian laws to repress free speech, movement, protests and political parties. No serious revolutionary would use violence against a government. The Video Camera Is Our AK47. Far better for the revolutionaries TO BE FILMED BEING THE VICTIMS OF STATE REPRESSION than using violence against the state. In a case such as we saw in the Ukraine, the violence of the protestors was at all times DEFENSIVE not offensive. They were attacked by the police and defended themselves. Therefore that provided no pretext for an army intervention. Nor does the idea make any sense that by shooting POLICE OFFICERS, WHICH WHAT IS THE TAPE STATES THE ALLEGED SNIPER / SNIPERS DID that this would benefit the protestors - as this would merely generate support and sympathy FOR THE POLICE, not the protestors. If the protestors really wanted to kill their own people to generate support from the masses, then they would not have shot a single police officer. To shoot or kill just one police officer is an invitation for the whole power of the state to come crashing down on your heads. It also generates only sympathy for the police and the government.
In the news media we read that the previous toppled Ukranian government said that 27 police officers had been shot during the protests. Yet no evidence exists to prove this 'fact' and no video evidence exists of any film footage of any protestors shooting at the police. If police were officers were shot, then such a situation only benefited one side - THE GOVERNMENT. Putin in his press conferences said that the previous Ukranian prime minister 'did not stick to the plan'. Now we can see what the plan was.
As a final note re false flags attacks and the Russian government, remember the Russian apartment bombings of 1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing 293 people and injuring 651. The explosions occurred in Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 and 13 September, and Volgodonsk on 16 September. Several other bombs were defused in Moscow at the time. A similar bomb was found and defused in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September 1999. Two days later Federal Security Service (FSS) Director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the Ryazan incident had been a training exercise. This led some, such as Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, to speculate that the apartment bombings had been carried out by the Russian secret service FSB (formerly KGB). This is what happened to Litvinenko, a former FSB officer ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko and to Politkovskaya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya Now where have we heard of governments holding 'training exercises' on days and in locations when terrorist attacks happened such as ; 1) 911 2) 7/7 3) The Boston Bombings Read these to find out if the FSB would kill people to provide a pretext for the Russian government ; http://www.darkpolitricks.com/fsb-apartment-bombing-false-flag-attack/ This video explains it all ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9cRoXgawVA
Dark forces at work. And they all want to try and undermine the Ukranian Nationalists so they can control the Ukraine.Watch the video. And see who had just come to power in Russia after serving 16 years as a senior KGB officer. Putin.