Starting with a clarification about today’s Special Edition. I need to clarify that i'm not really close to the relatives i mentioned who are living in the Haifa area, indeed not even in regular contact with them. The only relative in Israel i'm in regular contact with lives in suburban Tel Aviv. But i am still concerned, and also concerned about all the people in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. And also about you and me and the rest of the world, because this is moving us toward WWIII. There is more about this topic, right below, in the 4IR segment.
Biomedical. Dawn Lester about the latest shift in the “COIVID” narrative.
Sowing more seeds of confusion… Dawn Lester, 9/22/24.
So, the narrative that ‘Covid’ was caused by a lab-created ‘virus’ has now been flipped again - but not to the truth that there never was a ‘virus’, sadly. Instead, it has been flopped back to the original ‘animal origin’ story that claims ‘the virus’ emerged from a Wuhan market.
I discovered this latest spin in a very recent BBC article entitled Covid’s market origins that begins, “A team of scientists say it is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market, rather than a laboratory leak.” This claim is based on a study published last year, 2023, entitled Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market The study begins with the statement that, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, emerged in December 2019.”
And this is where the problem with this story starts, because, as so many of us have been reporting for more than 4 years, there is no evidence, and there never has been, that a so-called ‘virus’ that became known as SARS-CoV-2 was the causative agent of so-called ‘Covid-19’. And this is why the ‘no virus’ position is of such importance - because otherwise, ‘they’ can keep flip-flopping on the alleged origin of the ‘virus’ for as long as they want and keep people in a state of fear that there is a ‘virus’ that they can ‘catch’ and spread to others.
Although I’ve written about this many times, the reason for returning to it is because it seems that ‘they’ are changing the narrative to completely avoid the isolation issue and instead place all the emphasis on ‘genetics’.
The BBC article refers to the study and states, “Their analysis was published last year and the raw data made available to other scientists. Now a team in the US and France says they have performed even more advanced genetic analyses to peer deeper into Covid’s early days.” The article continues, “It involved analysing millions of short fragments of genetic code – both DNA and RNA – to establish what animals and viruses were in the market in January 2020.”
The team from the US and France that is reported to have ‘performed even more advanced genetic analyses’, has published its results, on 19th September 2024, in a paper entitled Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, the summary of which begins, “Zoonotic spillovers of viruses have occurred through the animal trade worldwide. The start of the COVID-19 pandemic was traced epidemiologically to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.”
Zoonotic refers to a disease that is claimed to be transmitted between humans and animals, which presupposes that there is such a thing as an ‘infectious disease’ that is caused by a ‘pathogen’ of some description. But there is zero evidence that any ‘disease’ is caused by a so-called ‘pathogen’. This means of course that there is also zero evidence for the notion of ‘zoonotic spillover’.
Nevertheless, the propaganda continues and, according to the BBC article, the new study, “…shows Covid virus and susceptible animals were detected in the same location, with some individual swabs collecting both animal and coronavirus genetic code.” And under the heading Reading the virus’s code, is the statement that, “The research teams also analysed the genetic code of the viral samples found in the market, and compared them to samples from patients in the early days of the pandemic. Looking at the variety of different mutations in the viral samples also provides clues.”
I need to emphasise a point here that can not be stated often enough - in order to determine the genetic code of a ‘virus’, it is essential to have performed direct observation of that ‘virus’ alone, meaning separated from everything else (in other words, isolated), so that it can be studied. Only then could its genetic material be characterised and recorded as being ‘unique’ to that entity. If this process were followed, it would allow a genuine database to be created for the genetic codes of various ‘viruses’ that could be accessed for comparison with other ‘viruses’ to determine ‘mutations’ or ‘variants’.
The fact is, this has never happened. No ‘virus’ has ever been isolated from the fluids of a sick person and its unique characteristics, including its genome, characterised. This means that absolutely no one knows the genome of any so-called ‘virus’. This, in turn, means that any statements about finding the genetic code of various ‘viruses’ in animal markets are grossly misleading, which is putting it mildly. So-called ‘viral genomes’ are assembled within computer programmes, they are not detected by any direct means.
I would also add that PCR, which is used as one of the main ‘tests’ for ‘Covid’, has been shown to be unable to detect the presence of viruses. But also, to test for something using PCR, it is essential to know what one is looking for in order to know what to match it against. Because no one knows the ‘genetic code’ of any so-called ‘virus’, the PCR test is meaningless.
In his very thorough essay, A Farewell to Virology, Dr Mark Bailey refers to the topic of ‘viral genomes’ and calls it an illusion, he states, “The virus genomes have become what is possibly the greatest illusion in virology, an illusion which propagates a belief that viruses are indeed being shown to exist. The virologists themselves don’t seem to appreciate the fatal flaw in their methodologies even when they state it themselves…” He also states that, “It should be clear at this point that each coronavirus genome has been templated against other so-called genomes without the virologists demonstrating that any of the sequences come from a virus.”
And if those statements aren’t sufficiently convincing, he summarises the situation succinctly in the statement that, “…virology’s fictional genomic inventions have been relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political interventions.”
And it looks like ‘they’, the ‘would-be controllers’ as I call them, are going to continue to rely on these ‘fictional inventions’ to create more division, not only within the general population, but also within the ‘truth community’ regarding the existence of the ‘virus’.
Although it seems to be heavily promoting the ‘animal origin’ story, the BBC article does seem to hedge its bets on the ‘lab leak’ story by not entirely dismissing it, as in the following comment,[Screen shot]
So which narrative are we being asked to believe here? As there’s always a point to these stories, it’s worthwhile to note that the BBC article ends with the following, “Prof James Wood, the co-director of Cambridge Infectious Diseases, said the study provided “very strong evidence” of the pandemic starting in wildlife stalls at the market. However, he said it could not be definitive because the samples were collected after the market closed, and the pandemic probably started weeks earlier. And he warned "little or nothing" was being done to limit the live trade in wildlife, and "uncontrolled transmission of animal infections poses a major risk of future pandemics."
So that’s the key takeaway message - it’s all about the potential for ‘animal infections’ and the ‘risk’ of future ‘pandemics’. Also, demonising animals plays into the aspect of the agenda that seeks to make us fear nature and not want to live with animals, which, according to their ideology, will make people more willing to move into ‘smart’ cities.
Yet again, this is clearly all about fear. Therefore, knowing there is no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’ that can be transmitted between people - or between animals and people - eliminates ‘their’ ability to scare people and invoke all kinds of measures in the name of ‘protecting us’.
My comment at the page,
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, Sep 22. Liked by Dawn Lester
Does the unicorn come from mutated horses, or mutated deer? :-) One wonders how many "health freedom" activists will grab on to this ...variant of the official narrative in hopes of getting some mileage out of it, unaware that by doing so the narrative is getting mileage out of them. Thanks for the shot of sanity, Dawn!
And, the State of New York has just declared an imminent threat of Eastern Equine Encephalitis, adding to fears of “COVID,” Mpox, Avian Flu, and Polio.
Details coming later.
And, What’s Left? looks at a topic which heavily involves Biomedical but also 4IR.
What’s Left, 9/21/24. 56 minutes.
"Gema and Andy discuss the “shake my head” frustration of watching lesser evilism revive, revitalize and metastasize itself in the US elections of 2024. Check us out!”
My comments. Thanks, Andy and Gema. Good to see you again, Gema, and hear the good news about Dariel coming along. Hoping to see you again soon.
Excellent points, excellent discussion overall. Yes, while people think they can use the system to push matters a few inches in a "good" direction by voting for the "lesser evil," they are actually the ones being used. Sucked into the entire logic of the system and hence legitimating it.
Good point by Gema about spending initiatives in local elections being bundled up in complex ways so that we really don;t know what we're approving when we vote for them. And an excellent point by Andy as to how the "lesser evil" argument seems to be getting pushed hard by people in the "health freedom" community who are supporting Trump, father of Operation Warp Speed. He also was responsible for a Sept 2019 executive order pushing the development of "new flu shots," knew about the Fed planning to flood the market with money to counter the Sept '19 Repo Crisis, and signed the March '20 emergency declaration.
Along the same lines, i've seen former "leftists" and even self-declared "Marxists" who felted totally burned by the left's endorsement of the entire post March '20 regime, and are now spouting right wing nonsense.
This is what Trump is about RIGHT NOW, or at least a couple of weeks ago.In the debate with Killer Kamala
"We got hit with a pandemic. And the pandemic was, not since 1917 where 100 million people died has there been anything like it? We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542
4IR. A video about Lebanon which presents a different perspective than the pro-Israel one which dominates You Tube, and even different from what Al Jazeera puts forth, i.e. the Lebanese as simply victims.
HEZBOLLAH'S REVENGE: ISRAEL IGNITES LEBANON WAR IN MASSIVE RAID w/ GHADI FRANCIS & LOWKEY, Danny Haiphong, 9/23/24.An hour and 9 minutes.
"Lebanese journalist Ghadi Francis and UK-based journalist and rapper Lowkey join in a special panel covering the escalating situation in Lebanon and its connection to the cauldron of regional war that's been heating up since Israel's launched its g*nocidal campaign nearly one year ago.” [Links]
My comments. Francis (her first name is pronounced “Khadi”) makes lots of excellent points. She notes how Operation Devices of last week has rendered all personal devices around the world, be they pagers, cellphones, laptops, even solar energy systems, into potential physical weapons to be used against the possessors of these devices. She states that no amount of bombing will force Lebanon’s people to back down, to stop resisting, The Israelis will invade at their great peril. And she calls upon people who are concerned to actually do something in their lives about it, rather than merely feeling bad, express to the world how they feel. Lowkey is a participant in the UK’s group Palestine Action which is sabotaging the making in the UK of devices and systems used by the Israeli military. And he notes how Israel’s actions have turned the world against it, including public opinion and even mass action in the US, Canada and Europe.
And, a report on yesterday’s closure by the IDF of Al Jazeera’s office in Ramallah, in Area A of the West Bank, which is supposedly under the control of the Palestinian Authority. This demonstrates who really controls Area A.
Israel closes Al Jazeera bureau in Ramallah:: All you need to know. At 3am, heavily armed Israeli soldiers raided the office of Al Jazeera in Ramallah, throwing the team out. Al Jazeera Staff, 9/22/24.
On live television, heavily armed Israeli soldiers raided Al Jazeera’s occupied West Bank bureau in Ramallah and handed the bureau head, Walid al-Omari, a notice to shut it down. The soldiers ordered everyone working the overnight shift at the bureau to leave, telling them they could take only their personal belongings.
What happened and why? Here’s everything we know:
Who closed the bureau? The order came from the Israeli military authority despite the bureau being in Area A, an area delineated as being under Palestinian control in the Oslo Accords. Wait, so if Ramallah is under Palestinian control, how can Israel do this? This is not the first time Israel has undertaken actions in the Oslo Accords-defined Area A, where Ramallah is and where the Palestinian Authority (PA) has its seat.
Why is Israel intensifying its crackdown on media coverage?
One year ago, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland reported that, just between June and September last year, there had been many Palestinian casualties caused by Israeli operations in Area A. The other two areas in the occupied West Bank are Area B, which the PA also administers on paper, sharing security control with Israel. Area C is under complete Israeli control. Regardless of legal jurisdiction, Israel has acted with impunity across the occupied West Bank.
Why did Israel raid the bureau?
Israel has often targeted Al Jazeera and its journalists, at times going as far as killing them – as it did Shireen Abu Akleh, Samer Abudaqa, Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi. "This is very much in line with the policy of the state of Israel since 1948 … to prevent real news about Palestinians or about what the state of Israel is doing to Palestinians … colonising them and arresting them and torturing them,” Rami Khouri, distinguished fellow at the American University in Beirut, told Al Jazeera.
But why did Israel do this? The closure order accuses Al Jazeera of incitement and supporting “terrorism”. Khouri said Al Jazeera is “the primary instrument for informing the world about” Israel’s violations in Palestinian territory.
What did Israel do to the bureau?
The entire team working in the bureau overnight was told to leave. Initially, they were told on camera that they should leave with their personal belongings and cameras. However, they had to leave the cameras in the office in the end.
Al Jazeera’s Jivara Budeiri, who had been working when the raid happened, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the Israeli group that raided the office had included engineers, which made her fear that the raiders had also come to destroy the bureau’s archives. The soldiers were in the offices for a few hours, during which time the only thing that could be observed was some of them tearing down a large banner of slain Al Jazeera Arabic journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.
Are the Al Jazeera team OK? Nobody on the team has been injured. They spent hours standing on the street at a distance from the office building, unable to approach it to retrieve their cars. They were also, according to Al Jazeera Arabic’s Budeiri, unable to move to cover the raid, as any member of the group who moved was threatened with an Israeli weapon’s laser. As the Israeli soldiers were in the Al Jazeera bureau destroying things like the banner of Shireen Abu Akleh, more soldiers in armoured cars patrolled the area around the building, and the bureau team could hear gunfire and firing of tear gas canisters all around.
When can the bureau reopen? The order is for 45 days. However, bureau head al-Omari said he assumes it will be renewed automatically, as has been the case with an early May civilian order Israel issued to close the Al Jazeera bureau in Israel.
What’s the difference between a civilian order and a military one? Probably nothing in practice, however, there are some differences in form. Al Jazeera’s bureau in Israel was closed in May after the Israeli parliament passed what became known as the “Al Jazeera Law”, which allowed the government to shut down, for 45 days at a time, any foreign media that posed a threat to the state. With this justification, a large number of inspectors from the Ministry of Communications arrived at the Al Jazeera offices and confiscated equipment on May 5. The “temporary shutdown” has been renewed since then and still holds.
The Ramallah closure comes from an authority that does not, in theory, have any power over Ramallah.
What can the bureau do about this? Bureau head al-Omari was told by one of the soldiers that any inquiries would have to go to the military command that issued the order. Al-Omari told Al Jazeera Arabic over the phone that this likely meant that any appeal would have to go through the military courts system. The Israeli military courts run on an opaque system of “secret evidence” and indefinite administrative detentions.
What’s the situation now? The Al Jazeera bureau is inaccessible to the team, sealed off with two large metal plates welded over the entrance.[Photo]
Ending this segment and this edition, an article from about 18 months ago about multipolarism, just came across it while searching Magma Magazine to see if T Mohr ever got further in his series Virology as Ideology, which started in January 2023. Worthwhile points, even if i do not fully agree, i am definitely not a Leninist, in fact not a “Marxist” per se but rather Marxian, or “Historical Materialist,” per EP Thompson and Maximilien Rubel.
Multipolarism is Neo‐Kautskyism: on Real Denazification and its Enemies, T. Mohr, 4/21/23. Two short segments.
There is no more pressing question for communists today[1] than the assessment of the Russian Special Military Operation (SMO) now entering its second year. Our answer not only determines our immediate political activity but, even more crucially, how we interpret the SMO is invariably a question of how we interpret the structure of the current world order. Indeed, as the fate of the Kommunistiche Organisation (KO) has illustrated, the question of the SMO is simply an acute form of the imperialism question: that is, what is the nature and character of class society today?
While there are of course a rich variety of answers to this question within the communist movement, for the purpose of this rough sketch we can speak of two broad camps: those who see the SMO as primarily aggressive and reactionary, and those who see it as primarily defensive and (at least potentially) progressive. In the German communist movement, the KPD (or at least its leadership), MLPD, and KO (kommunistische.org) can be placed in the first camp, the DKP, Freidenker, and KO (kommunistische-organisation.de) — as well as we in the FLZ — in the other. On the international stage, the most significant representative of the first camp is the Greek Communist Party (KKE), of the second: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF). Theoretically, the first camp tends to interpret the war as an inter‐imperialist conflict over spheres of interests (e.g., through the lens of the KKE’s »Imperialist Pyramid« theory). The theoretical outlook of the second camp on this question is more diverse, but I will argue here it tends to rely, implicitly or explicitly, on one form or another of Multipolarism. This term is difficult to define insofar as it is less of a theory per se than something which functions, depending on the context, as a slogan, a constellation of images and suggestions, a brand or posture.[2] We can nonetheless say that it entails the belief that the world is now defined by an intense struggle between the old imperialist powers (generally conceived of as the relatively unified triad of Europe and Japan under the leadership of the USA‐NATO) and the ascendant Global South (including Russia). The struggle of the Global South, led by the BRICS, is in this worldview inherently (»objectively«) progressive, regardless of the capitalist or even overtly reactionary character of the governments themselves (including Modi’s fascist Hindutva regime). In more extreme forms, the capitalist nature of China, and indeed even the Russian federation, is called into question.
Neither camp has yet to elaborate an adequate theoretical account of the modern world system or, consequently, a political program which meets the demands of the current moment — for reasons I explain in more depth in my essay, »Imperialism Today is Conspiracy Praxis.« In the simplest terms, this is because both operate upon the basic, flawed assumption that the chief organizational principle of capital is, to this day, antagonistic national blocs. Why such national blocs should be assumed as the decisive organizational principle of modern capital, despite the momentous transformations in the structure of global economic relations over the past century, is never argued for, but is simply assumed as self‐evident, or dogmatically asserted through the mechanical application of Marxist texts from the beginning of the last century, or earlier………..
Such a maneuver tears Lenin’s critique from its real historical context, evacuates its content, and indeed, positively inverts its political implications. Ultra‐imperialism, in the sense of Kautsky’s usage, denoted a positive development, a moment in a social‐democratic reformist fantasy of capitalism’s evolution into socialism. He argued that financialization would lead to ever greater cooperation between a smaller sum of cartels, consequently lessening the unevenness and contradictions in the economy — as opposed to Lenin, who correctly argued that it would, in fact, heighten them. It is also worth stressing that Kautsky’s notion was inseparable from the ongoing contemporary debate regarding the concept and slogan of »United States of Europe« conceived as a progressive, intermediary outcome of popular, anti‐monarchical, bourgeois revolutions, above all in the most regressive European monarchies of Russia, Germany, and Austria.
Formally, the most direct parallel of such a position is the (neo)liberal human rights interventionist position, which sees the U.N. or even NATO as progressive forces with a right and duty to eschew traditional legal concepts of Westphalian sovereignty. While this position played some useful role in rationalizing NATO’s post cold‐war rampage through all remaining scraps of even partially liberated global territory, it was so laden with bad faith even at its first articulation, and has become so totally discredited by the cynicism of its application, that it cannot be treated as a position that any serious good‐faith interlocutor might hold. It functions now less as an actively held ideology and more as a sort of place‐holder, a malicious smirk left on the NATO cocoon which the global ruling class has all but shuffled out of. We will expand upon this point below, it is sufficient to note here that this is not a position with any currency among communist, or even, anymore, amongst the non‐Marxist left.
When we look more closely at the political content, rather than the superficial form, of the dispute between Kautsky and Lenin, however, we see that the dangers which Lenin saw in Kautsky’s position are today most acutely posed by Multipolarism — and, indeed, that both arise out of a remarkably parallel class basis. Kautskyite social‐democratic revisionism arose, historically, out of the conflicted interests of the petty‐bourgeoisie and upper strata of the working classes, or labor aristocracy, in imperialist nations. Both classes, in being subordinate to the capitalist ruling class, are attracted to the revolutionary potential of the working classes, and to the prospects of communism which they offer. They are also, however, frightened of this class — frightened of losing their meager privileges and sliding into it themselves, frightened of being punished by the ruling class for associating with it, frightened, in their relative comfort, by the disruption and volatility of revolution itself, even when in the long run they would benefit from it. Frightened that, finally, the working class won’t win.
As a consequence, these classes have a tendency to revise, or pervert, Marxism, which is simply the most scientific and lucid articulation of the perspective and program of the working classes (viz. revolutionary communism). This tendency is, naturally, cultivated with great energy and effort by the ruling class itself. The particular strength of this tendency in the imperial core countries grew out of the ruling class’s ability to use imperial superprofits to this end. Kautskyites, yesterday and today, thus naturally seek to beautify, rationalize, or minimally, delay the overthrow of imperialism. To do this, they reject the materialist analysis presented by Lenin, which showed that imperialism is an inevitable and ineradicable outgrowth of financialization and monopolization. As Lenin wrote:
The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy ›preferred‹ by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non‐monopolistic, non‐violent, non‐annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non‐imperialist policy. The result is a slurring‐over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.[4]
Thus the working classes are drawn away from direct revolutionary confrontation with the imperialist order, and beguiled into thinking that imperialism is one possible policy of the bourgeoisie, amongst others, which can thus be remedied via reformist means within capitalism. Even worse, as Lenin notes, this allowed for the absurd notion that imperialism was, or at least could be, progressive. Thus the working class are lulled into playing the pawns of the petty‐bourgeoisie in the latter’s parliamentary struggle for more privileges, and away from their own, revolutionary and internationalist program:
"[…] the only objective, i.e., real, social significance of Kautsky’s ›theory‹ is this: it is a most reactionary method of consoling the masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism, by distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and directing it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary ›ultraimperialism‹ of the future. Deception of the masses — that is all there is in Kautsky’s ›Marxist‹ theory.[5]"
One hopes the parallels with the Multipolarist position are beginning to be clear now, but we will try to explicitly unpack them. Multipolarism arises out of and chiefly attracts two classes which while distinct in important ways, are objectively converging.[6] One is the upwardly mobile, comprador[7] middle‐classes of the south, to whom a portion of the privileges once dispensed to the imperial petty‐bourgeoisie and labor‐aristocracy are being redistributed in what might be considered a sort of rational restructuring. The ideology rationalizes their role and offers them a tool to pacify their own workers with nationalist fantasies of restored dignity, and the vague prospect of eventual socialism at some undisclosed point in the future. The other class it attracts are precisely those downwardly mobile middle classes of the (soon to be former) imperial core whose privileges are being redistributed.[8]…..
A comparable task has been given to the leaders of the South today. What person of sound instincts can fail to sympathize with the rhetoric and posture of the Russian Federation against ever more brazen return to open Nazism in the West? Yet all the same, no serious Marxist can possibly be forgiven for ever believing the Russian ruling class has any intention on delivering on this rhetoric. Denazification is the revolutionary demand of the post‐soviet masses which the ruling class can’t simply will out of existence, and so they must try to co‐opt, warp, invert in just the same way other progressive demands have historically been taken up by the left in parliamentary democracies. To critique the system‐loyal left wing politics of bourgeois parties is not to critique socialism or left wing politics, but their appropriation and vitiation. Precisely the same is also true with the progressive content — full decolonization, full denazification, full global communism — which multipolarism acts as a reformist substitute for.
The task of communists is to enable the masses to clarify their revolutionary demands and to enact them themselves via their own revolutionary means, NOT to shepherd them back into the traps of the ruling class — be they Intra‐national parties or international blocs. The real task of Putin and his clique couldn’t have been made clearer than his declaration, at the start of the SMO, that the task was to denazify AND decommunize Ukraine. Anyone familiar with the relentless anti‐communism of his domestic policies should’ve know which was his real priority. But it is important to emphasize that, all the more so sice the total Nazification of the globe which has occurred since the defeat of communism — these two terms are simple straightforward opposites, no more radically, diametrically opposed than up and down, left and right, North and South. Real Decommunization IS NATOfication IS Nazification. Real denazification and deNATOfication today must and will be communization and nothing less.The radical concentration of the current ruling class and their audacious program of global fascist dictatorship have reduced this relation to a pure, frictionless vector.
The original Nazi program of depopulation and plunder in Russia and the Ukraine has already recommenced, with only slight modifications. Yet it is also occurring inside‐outside a spectacular or farcical restaging of the same. It is essential to parse and appreciate the stacked functions here, the multiple layers of the spectacle. 9/11 was carried out under the cover of multiple real‐fake‐real military exercises or »war games« carried out in U.S. airspace. Most participants were fulfilling real goals for the real operation while believing themselves to playing the fake or simulated role in the exercises. Important aspects of the Covid program appear to have been hammered out in numerous elite »Pandemic Exercises,« like Johns Hopkins’ Event 201. In Syria the conflict between the U.S. and Syria was »fake« and »real.« Fake in that the U.S. Army and ISIS were two arms of the same exact ruling class. Real in that the real territory and real population of Syria was plundered, slaughtered, and pillaged with real guns, bombs, and mercenaries. In Ukraine the privileged, connected, or useful are siphoned out of the country or protected while the Ukrainian population — one of the most potentially rebellious populations in the world, extremely critical of the Covid program like almost the entire post‐soviet population — is sent to the most senseless, grotesque death fighting their Russian brothers. For its part, the Russian leadership has evidently done everything in its power to forestall real Denazification or even the achievement of minimally comprehensible war aims.[32] If the illusions about an »objectively« progressive stance being forced by circumstance on the Russian ruling class were true, we would have, as a bare minimum, general mobilization and the domestic social program (also offered to liberated territory in Ukraine) necessary to promote it.[33] We have seen nothing of the sort, of course, because nothing terrifies the ruling class — in Russia, in China, in Europe, America, or anywhere else — than the post‐soviet masses once again armed, mobilized, and really on the march against Nazism — as they well should be!
As Holderlin famously remarked, where the danger is, there grows the saving power as well. The sordidness of our current moment is also the fullness of its potential, if only we were willing to recognize it. A recent remark of a comrade struck me as indicative of how we’ve lost our vision: they said something along the lines of this: ›after Nord Stream 2, any idiot can see there is no benefit for Germany in NATO.‹ The utter incoherence of such a statement, for a communist, can perhaps best be revealed by counterposing an equally (in)coherent statement, which is in fact no less absurd: ›after 9/11, any idiot can see there is no benefit for the USA in NATO.‹ One hopefully sees here how such phrases are in some sense true, but also politically meaningless. They betray a lapse into the utterly blinkered national framework of the petty‐bourgeois. And the rotten hopelessness of this politics could not be clearer than in the lame, absurd, Larouchie‐style demands, which have somehow infected communist politics, calling for Germany (or even the USA!) to give up its imperialist policies, and even join peacefully with the rising South, perhaps even the Belt and Road Initiative! This is really the purest, most rank Kautskyism, which can only be forgiven for not lulling the masses into passivity in so far as it is so risible and imbecilic as to attract no one but the most utterly politically useless petty‐bourgeois fools. As the middle classes slide into the ranks of the masses, we must not adulterate communism to fit their tepid revisionist tastes: we must subordinate them to the full, unequivocal revolutionary program of the masses.
Capitalist Imperialist Germany (or the USA) will never enter into genuine peaceful and friendly relations with any nation, other than temporary alliances with fellow robbers — this is Marxism‐Leninism 101. Rhetorical calls for such simply insult the intelligence of the masses. There has been exactly ONE peace‐loving and peace‐making German state in history — the German Democratic Republic.[WHAT A JOKE, NO WAY, it was just a franchise of the Soviet Union, INC.] It was the product of the only real denazification: communization. The compromises made possible with or within capitalist imperialism by the massive, world‐altering weight of really existing socialism‐communism (like, in the FRG, social democracy and Ostpolitik) are no longer possible with the eradication of socialism, and communists must give up their illusions about this fact! We must stop fantasizing that the same geo‐political logic obtains as it did in the Cold War. The ruling class today intends to make no compromises, and neither should we. In the current transition the ruling class has demolished its own legitimacy and the ideological foundations of its political hegemony as it strives to build something new. The moment could not be more ripe. Everyone everywhere is ready for communism right now [I don’t think so, LOL] — and instead the communists are trying to sell them the most sordid, compromised subordination to the Ruling class!
The great Irish Revolutionary James Connolly recognized that the real progressive content of anti‐imperial Irish nationalism could only, ultimately, be fully realized by internationalist revolutionary communism. He wrote new lyrics for the tune of a famous Irish rebel song of the 19th century, a perfect artifact of the progressive petty‐bourgeois republican nationalism of that era, which expressed the hope that »Ireland, long a province, be a Nation once again.« As Newton teaches us, today there are no nations, but only provinces of a single empire. The revolutionary possibility to overthrow that empire has ripened far beyond the utility or viability of any national framework for such a struggle, and will now only serve to hinder it. The proto‐revolutionary‐Inter‐communalist revised lyrics penned by Connolly serve even today as a perfectly appropriate rejoinder to the sordid ruling class politics hocked by the Multi‐polarists: