The Day They Took Away Our Pagoda

dsc_1444

Since 2010, much damage has been done to fabric of the UK’s culture, since the coming to power of the Tory Party and LibDem Party. This has not only resulted in the death of thousands due to the ideologically led ‘Austerity’ programme that has seen the privatisation of the NHS and Welfare System, (which resulted in the UK being found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity by the UN in 2016), but also in a tremendous rise in racism, racist policies, and race-hate attacks. This is not to say that anti-Chinese racism is new – it definitely is not. The British Government – acting upon common sentiments among the population – has ethnically ‘cleansed’ the UK Chinese populations twice during the 20th century, once in 1919, and again in 1946 (the latter case under the Labour Party). Even when Labour’s Ken Livingstone was the Mayor of London, he nearly buckled to big business and suggested the pagoda be demolished and Chinese businesses be re-located to remote areas of East London (effectively ‘hiding’ and ‘isolating’ the Chinese presence in London). It was only extensive campaigning on behalf of the Chinese community – together with non-Chinese supporters – that called a halt to this new attempt at ethnic cleansing. The stay of execution, however, was only short-lived, as when the Tory Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London, he initiated a vicious campaign which has seen the mass ‘eviction’ of Chinese-owned businesses forcibly removed from the areas around Gerrard Street, their old premises demolished, and redeveloped for trans-national corporations to take-over and eradicate the ‘Chinese’ presence from the area. With the election of the Labour Blairite Mayor of London – Sadiq Khan – the continuation of cleansing the Chinese presence from London’s Chinatown was not only affirmed – but intensified as a consequence.

dsc_1443

London’s Muslim Mayor – despite being asked to intercede on behalf of the Chinese community- refused to support another of London’s ethnic minorities, and ordered the demolishing of the Pagoda that once stood near the entrance to Gerrard Street. This barbarous act has had a tremendously negative effect upon the psychology of the Chinese community in London (and beyond), and is tantamount in experience to a racial attack, or a hate-crime, but as usual, the mainstream UK remains indifferent to a prominent section of its population.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

English Language Reference:

http://ciac.co.uk/2016/11/17/the-pagoda-as-one-of-landmarks-in-chinatown-was-demolished/

 

Red Deer Cave People 马鹿洞人 (蒙自人): Unknown Humans Discovered in China

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

In 2012 (following the official publication of an academic paper upon the subject), Western media started to report about an unknown species of human that had been discovered in the Red Deer Caves of South-Western China (Yunnan province). Chinese language sources state that initial archaeological finds of this nature began as far back as 1979 (with a single thigh-bone), but that a serious Chinese-Western combined academic study of the area concerned, did not began until 2008, when more bone-evidence was unearthed. This type of unusual human appears to possess the physical characteristics of a Homo Erectus (which went extinct about 70,000 years ago), AND Homo Sapien – or ‘modern humans’ – which replaced Homo Erectus. Professor Ji Xueping also stated that one thigh-bone had characteristics of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis – which leads to the question as to why was it that so many different human species appeared to have shared (either together or separately) this particular cave space?

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

These previously unknown people (named after the cave and area of Yunnan province they were discovered within), were accomplished hunters that killed and cooked deer, made weapons, and probably could speak, but despite living at the end of the last Ice Age (between 14,500 – 11,500 years ago), their bodies possessed an hitherto undocumented  mixture of ancient and modern physical characteristics, usually not found together. This find suggests that a form of ancient humans lived much nearer the time of modern humans, than had previously been thought.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Current thinking suggests that all ancient humans died-out around 40,000 years ago – when modern humans spread and became dominant, but this find suggests that at least one branch of ancient humans lived side by side with modern humans – with the caveat that Red Cave Deer people do not appear to have inter-mixed with modern humans (unlike Neanderthals), and as a consequence, their distinctive DNA is not found in modern human populations. However, the Chinese language Wikipedia page suggests that this find might well have as of yet unknown implications for the development of the ‘Asian Race’, but does not elaborate.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Although Western scientists are speculating that this could be a ‘new’ species of human, Professor Ji Xueping advises caution. He states that there is not yet enough evidence to suggest such a conclusion, and states that these people could be demonstrative of late Homo Erectus as the species transitioned into Homo Sapiens, or of early Homo Sapiens that had just evolved away from Homo Erectus. Whatever the case, and despite the initial evidence that different human species possibly met and mixed in this cave, there is evidence of modern behaviours such as burial, the use of pigments (for painting), and the presence of artificial drill holes, amongst other examples. What can be said at this time is that these remains represent the oldest ‘ancient’ human presence in relatively recent historical times. Did these people migrate from Africa? Western scientists say ‘yes’, but Chinese scholars state that this question cannot yet be answered due to lack of supporting evidence. Certainly the ancient characteristics found in these people are similar in many ways to known populations that originated in Africa, but evidence suggests that a simple model of linear evolution may not be sufficient to explain the over-all complexity of human evolution. For instance, the Denisovan human species found in Siberia, has been proven to have shared living space 30,000 years ago with Neanderthals and modern humans. This evidence is augmented by some research that suggests that the Hobbit has evolved directly from the Java Man.  All of this suggests that human development is not as straightforward as simplistic models of linear evolution might suggest, but involves a much more complex basis, as yet not fully understood or defined. 

English Language Reference:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/14/red-deer-cave-people-species-human?CMP=share_btn_fb

Chinese Language References:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/马鹿洞人

http://baike.baidu.com/view/9887686.htm

http://roll.sohu.com/20151219/n431861297.shtml

 

Hitler and the Original Conspiracy Theory

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘…the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.’

Adolf Hitler (‘Mein Kampf’ – ‘My Struggle’)

For Adolf Hitler, the world was a simple place. The German people were racially and culturally superior, and every shred of evidence to the contrary was the product of Jews. Of course, exactly ‘why’ it was the product of Jews demonstrates Hitler’s particular ‘genius’, if it can be called that, to ‘imagine’ or ‘construct’ fictitious stories which he then presented to both himself and the German people as the ‘real’ history of the world. The fact that there was no physical evidence to support his claims was obscured in part by the sheer scale and scope of his story-telling, which often out-stripped the need for verification in the material world. For Hitler, non-truth possessed a greater force than real-truth. The deciding factor for Hitler, was of course, the bullet and the gas chamber. Anyone who dared to disagree with the stories he concocted from his imagination was often immediately imprisoned and put to death (and this included people who had been loyal to him for years). German citizens who disagreed with him, being of superior ‘Aryan’ racial background, were ‘tried’, and when sentenced to death for ‘treason’ (such as the heroine Sophie Scholl), were beheaded either by a special ‘in-door’ mobile guillotine (which saw the condemned sit on a sofa waiting for their turn – as if visiting the doctor!), or in the case of women, forced to don a white wedding dress as they were led to the ‘block’ in a public square, where a Nazi ‘headsman’ would despatch them with a swing of his axe. Others were sent to Labour Camps to be worked to death, or ‘volunteered’ for medical experiments, etc. What Hitler was able to do, was apply his destructive and murderous imagination to the realm of politics, and after seizing real political power, he started to manipulate the physical conditions of his existence to come into line with his ‘imagined’ pseudo-history. This meant at the very least, the re-education of the masses, and at the very worse, the physical eradication of those that defied his subjective opinion of how the world had functioned up to that point, and how it should continue to function.

What is interesting to observe, is how Hitler’s book Mein Kampf is written very much as a tome of logical self-discovery, which sees a self-proclaimed ‘naïve’ and ‘innocent’ Hitler initially ‘rejecting’ anti-Semitism, only to be radically swayed by a sustained logical argument (particularly through the work of Dr Karl Luege, the Mayor of Vienna, and leader of the anti-Jewish Christian Social Party). Culminating in Hitler’s radical transformation into a rampant and wholly committed anti-Semite. Like Hitler’s skewed view of the world, Mein Kampf is a ‘myth’. Even a cursory reading demonstrates that it is a manual of deception, designed to ‘convert’ unsuspecting (and poorly educated) masses to the Christian-based ideology of anti-Semitism. Whereas Hitler’s declared nemesis Karl Marx blamed all the ills experienced by the working class on the bourgeois class and the vicious system of capitalism it perpetuated, Hitler blamed everything bad that has ever happened to humanity upon the Jews. Not only is this historically inaccurate, but it is also extremely illogical. Ironically for all his secular ranting, Hitler expresses in Mein Kampf, the opinion that Christianity is superior to Judaism because Christian theology posits a ‘heaven’ to which all souls travel after death. As Judaism does not accept the Christian notion of ‘heaven’ (preferring instead to maintain a ‘mystery’ upon the matter), Hitler declared Judaism to be ‘non-Aryan’ in nature. Rather illogically, Hitler maintains a respect for ‘Jesus’ (a Jew), but damns the other Jews for turning their backs upon him, and having him crucified. Hitler allows a certain ’specialness’ for the Jew Jesus that he does not allow for the Jews in general, an odd distinction that he never explains or even attempts to justify. Suffice it to say that Jesus the ‘good’ Jew is rhetorically juxtaposed with the ‘bad’ nature of Judaism in general.  Hitler’s stereotype of the ‘rich Jew’ is justified upon the grounds that as Jews do not believe in an after-life, they dedicate their lives to accumulating wealth on the physical plane. Hitler conveniently ignores the fact that within the capitalist system, striving to acquire wealth is viewed as a virtue that all supporters of capitalism partake in. This is particularly true of the Nazi regime itself, which thoroughly supported the principle of accumulating wealth and thereby developing the German nation through the practice of rampant capitalism.

Those who are exposed to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and who are impressionable and generally unaware, are surreptitiously drawn into the murky world of enhanced inverted-thinking, racism and anti-Semitism. After taking Mein Kampf literally, and mistaking it for an important piece of world literature, the reader suffers a compromise of intellectual credibility, and begins the absurd journey of falling ever further down the rabbit hole of bizarre notions, paranoia, schizophrenia, sexism, racism, and quite often violent behaviour (particularly in the case of ardent Nazi converts). This feeds almost imperceptibly into the world of the contemporary ‘conspiracy theory’. Of course, I am not saying that governments and big corporations do not lie (on the contrary, WikiLeaks, other intelligence leakages and independent research, have confirmed that ‘lying’ and ‘misleading’ the general public is a fairly routine activity), but rather that for many conspiracy theories, Hitlerism, racism and anti-Semitism lie at their heart, even if the connection is not readily evident. For people such as the British John Friend (and his ‘nuclear weapons do not exist’ theory), the Hitlerite connection is hidden in plain view, as this individual blames absolutely everything upon ‘Jews’ and a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ (even the development of nuclear weapons in China!). What is particularly disturbing about the rhetoric of John Friend (and other supporters of the political far-right), is their denial that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan at the end of WWII, and the complete and total ‘racist’ disregard for the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese people caught in those blasts. The point is that Hitler advocated ‘lying’ as a legitimate political tool to propagate his rightwing agenda, and many so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ are in fact broad edifices of various forms of disinformation, skilfully weaved together and presented to the general public as an ‘exposé’, or as forms of ‘higher’ knowledge. In reality, just as Hitler favoured Christianity with its ‘mystery’ and ‘after-life’, conspiracy theorists have a zeal about their opinions that in many ways share a similarity with religious fanaticism.

Certainly the most obvious aspect of the contemporary ‘conspiracy theory’ is that of the unquestioned ‘faith’ that is required to propagate it. Although there do exist legitimate concerns about ‘official’ interpretations of events, and do warrant, in this sense, alternative interpretations (that may be referred to as ‘conspiratorial’), the fact remains that people like John Friend deliberately set-out to establish a racist and far-right political agenda as an a priori to questioning mainstream motives and interpretations of events. A rightwing agenda is not required to see through established narratives, which is achieved by the logical (and non-inverted) use of the human mind. John Friend goes as far as to state that the irreligious Soviet Union was the product of a Jewish conspiracy, which fits-in exactly with Hitler’s bizarre notion that Judaism was not a ‘real’ religion. Perhaps the weirdest example of mainstreaming a rightwing political agenda is that of Jim Fetzer associating the rumour that Paul McCartney died in 1966, with that of ‘questioning’ the validity of the Holocaust, and ‘denying’ historicity. Fetzer, in good Hitlerite tradition, sullies history by suggesting that more Catholics died in the Holocaust than Jews, but in so doing betrays his own ignorance by omitting the fact that Hitler’s Nazi regime was backed by the Roman Catholic Church due to a shared anti-Semitism. I give these two examples out of hundreds of others, because they appear to represent different ends of a spectrum of Hitlerite programming in the post-modern era.  Formal logic is abandoned in the rush to criticise official interpretations of events and history, and in so doing, a pseudo-intellectualism with far-right political and religious undertones takes its place. Through the medium of ‘entertainment’, Hitlerism is being broadcast into the West, in the English language for a new generation. Finally, the far-right nature of many conspiracy theorists is revealed by the fact that none of these people criticise ‘capitalism’, or the ‘capitalism system’, despite the fact that capitalism is premised upon ‘advertising’, ‘lawful dishonesty’ and ‘deception’. Perhaps this is because it is too near the reality of Hitlerism itself. As Hitler stated in Mein Kampf:

‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’

 

Youtube References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8kJaP2m1w&t=4931s (John Friend questioning the existence of nuclear weapons, linking this to a world-wide Jewish conspiracy and Holocaust Denial)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAwgW78lp2c (Jim Fetzer linking the Paul McCartney Died in 1966 Conspiracy Theory with that of questioning the Holocaust)

Ukraine: Neo-Nazi Insurgency (1945-1947)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘True, for a short time after the invasion of 1941, the Germans behaved like “liberators” of of the Ukraine, and were far less brutal there than in Russia proper. But this did not last long. By the beginning of 1942 Eastern Ukraine became the chief German reservoir for slave labour in the East. At least 2 or 3 million people – men and women – were deported to Germany. Alfred Rosenberg’s “theory” that the Ukrainians were real Aryans, while the Russians were “Untermenschen“, and that the former should, therefore, be given preferential treatment was dismissed by other top Nazis and Hitler himself as unrealistic; to Erich Koch, the Nazi Reichskonnissar of the Ukraine, the Ukrainians had, indeed, been Untermenschen from the start.’

(Alexander Werth: Russia – the Post-War Years Page 27-28)

Alexander Werth (1901-1969) was a Russian-born, British citizen who worked for the BBC as a journalist, and who was fluent in reading, writing and speaking both the English and Russian languages. This made him the ideal choice for the post of BBC Correspondent to the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). As a consequence of his Russian ethnicity (his bourgeois parents had left Russia to avoid the Bolshevik Revolution), he gained access to front-line Soviet Red Army activity as it was unfolding, and was often the first correspondent of any nationality, on the scene of major achievements, defeats or unsettling discoveries (such as Nazi German Concentration Camps situated in Eastern Europe). In fact, so popular was Alexander Werth in Soviet Russia, that he was permitted to interview Joseph Stalin in 1946. Both during and in the years following the end of WWII, Werth wrote many books about the USSR premised upon his own experience in that country, and presenting hard facts that often contradicted or exposed the general line of the US-led Cold War as being false and misinformed. What is interesting, is that following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the subsequent development of the internet, much of what Werth wrote has been confirmed through declassified Soviet language documents.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Alexander Werth was writing about the neo-Nazi insurgency in the Ukraine in his books during the height of the Cold War, explaining that although the Soviet Red Army expelled the main Nazi German military forces from the Ukraine after bitter and brutal fighting from early January 1943 until October 1944, what is less known in Western narratives is that an equally brutal Nazi insurgency began in Western Ukraine that lasted in its strongest phase between 1945 – 1947, but which is reported to have flared-up occasionally in the area until as late as 1955. Nazi German officers (who had not surrendered), led former Nazi German soldiers and volunteer Western Ukrainians in a guerilla formation termed the ‘Ukrainian Insurgent Army’ (UPA), which was a bizarre mixture of defeated and disorganised former Abwehr military formations, together with Western Ukrainians motivated by racist attitudes and anti-Semitism, and Cossack cavalry antagonistic to the Soviet Union. As it operated within the immense forested areas of Western Ukraine (making extensive use of tunnels, hidden bunkers and hollowed-out trees and hills, etc), the estimate of its strength varies between 25 to 100 thousand men under arms. The UPA operated with an intense brutality reminiscent of the Nazi German occupation forces. Any Ukrainian citizen that was loyal to the USSR, and who opposed Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism, were rounded-up and murdered – with the women and young girls being gang-raped prior to execution. UPA murdering methods were often very similar to the those seen in modern insurgency wars such as seen in parts of Mexico or the Middle East today. This is because the UPA pursued ‘terrorism’ as a means to frighten and control the Ukrainian populace, and to instil a racist nationalism in place of Scientific Socialism. As Western Ukraine had been considered part of Poland from 1918 onward, the UPA received material and moral support from the Polish neo-Nazi group known as  the ‘Armija Krajowa’, which operated either side of the Polish-Ukrainian border.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This neo-Nazi insurgency was limited to Western Ukraine primarily because these people had been part of the USSR for only a relatively short time, whereas Eastern Ukraine had been part of Russia for centuries. The Soviet Socialist education system had not yet been effective in Western Ukraine, as it had not been fully established, and been unable to re-educate the people there against racism, fascist nationalism and anti-Semitism. The Nazi German presence there had encouraged the most vicious expressions of the bourgeois class, which had congealed into the most vicious expression of murderous fascism amongst the people. As consequence, the Soviet Red Army that had entered the area in 1944, came under attack from the UPA after the Nazi German military forces had formally withdrawn from the area (retreating back to Germany). However, evidence was discovered that US and UK Intelligence Agencies were in communication with the UPA, encouraging resistance to the Soviet Authorities, and providing arms, ammunition, medicines, money, radios, transport, and even evacuation facilities. As the Soviet Red Army was still, at that time, an ally of both the UK and US, the Red Army Authorities were reluctant to directly clash with Western-backed insurgency forces before Hitler had finally been defeated in Berlin. This decision was influenced in part, by the death of Soviet Red Army General Nikolai Vatutin (of the 1st Ukrainian Front), who was killed during an attack launched by the UPA. As a consequence, as the Soviet Red Army moved further westward toward Germany, the specially trained infantry of the NKVD (or armed paramilitary police), were moved into the Western Ukrainian area, charged with putting an end to the neo-Nazi insurgency. The NKVD met UPA viciousness with viciousness, and in a two year bloody war of attrition, the UPA and its neo Nazi movement was eventually destroyed.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is stated that in 1944 alone – when the Soviet Red Army and NKVD were jointly operating in the area, as many as 57,405 neo-Nazis were killed, with 50,387 detained. From 1945 to 1947 – the UPA started to fall apart as the NKVD targeted its leadership, and the Western powers abandoned the UPA to its own devices. Although the neo-Nazism in Western Ukraine was officially stamped-out in the military sense, the ideology of neo-Nazism has lived on, hidden deeply amongst certain aspects of the Western Ukrainian people. In recent years, particularly under President Obama of the US, this neo-Nazism has been re-activated in Western Ukraine, and a neo-Nazi government (that extols Adolf Hitler) has been installed in Kiev.

Russian Language Reference:

http://geo-politica.info/kak-sovetskie-spetssluzhby-razgromili-oun-upa.html (Accessed 29.1.2017)

English Language References:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1946/09/24.htm (Accessed 29.1.2016)

Werth, Alexander, Russia – the Post-War Year, Taplinger, (1971)

Werth, Alexander, Russia at War 1941-1945, Barrie and Rockliff, (1964)

Yakov Dzhugashvili – Stalin’s Son Would Never Have Surrendered

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The life of Joseph Stalin’s eldest son – Yakov Dzhugashvili – has been shrouded in much mystery, particularly with regard to his death. Much of this misunderstanding was deliberately generated by the Western powers during the US-inspired Cold War. This form of disinformation strove to incorrectly present Soviet Communism as being synonymous with German Nazism, Joseph Stalin to be a dictator like Adolf Hitler, and the Soviet populace to be ‘imprisoned’ in their own worker’s paradise. The important point to remember about this type of ‘official’ and ‘ahistorical’ assessment was to propagate derision, uncertainty and confusion at every opportunity, and thoroughly discredit Soviet Socialism at every turn. The fact that this is not logical or truthful was irrelevant to the capitalist system, which viewed its ‘corrupt’ academia as being a means of ‘self-defence’ against the threat of a potential Socialist Revolution. Just as the Nazi Germans blamed the USSR for the atrocity carried-out by German troops at Katyn (a false narrative that has now main-streamed not only in the West, but also modern Russia), the Nazi Germans deployed what might be referred to today as a ‘psychological operation’ against the leader of the Soviet Union during the early stages of Hitler’s invasion of the USSR in July, 1941 and thereafter.

The English language Wikipedia page dealing with this subject, rather predictably follows the Western generated ‘myth’, as do some researchers in modern (capitalist) Russia, but recent Russian language research reveals a very different story.

The Nazi German Myth (Still Perpetuated by the West)

Captain Yakov Dzhugashvili was an officer in the Soviet Artillery that took part in the Battle of Smolensk. This was a hard fought battle that ended with a Nazi German victory. On July 16th, 1941, Nazi German troops were assessing the battlefield, the unconscious body of Yakov Dzhugashvili was discovered. The Nazi German story is that this man identified himself as Stalin’s son and added that he did not have his ‘official’ identification because he had swapped IDs with another Soviet soldier. Yakov Dzhugashvili apparently stated that he did not agree with his father’s political views, and advised all Soviet people to ‘surrender’ to the Nazi German occupiers and help over-throw the Soviet State. The Nazi Germans stated that later, they offered to exchange Yakov Dzhugashvili for Field Marshal Paulus (the German General that had surrendered German forces to the Soviets at Stalingrad), but Stalin refused on the grounds that a Field Marshall cannot be exchanged for an ordinary soldier. Stalin is further reported to have said that his son should have had the courage to shoot himself before falling into the hands of the Nazi Germans. Nazi German propaganda concluded this story by stating that in April, 1943, whilst housed in  Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, Yakov Dzhugashvili was shot dead by a Guard when he made a run for the wire. Below are the photographs used by the Nazi Germans to perpetuate this myth:

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Yakov Dzhugashvili Did Not Surrender

In 2016, the Russian language ‘e-news’ site published an online article entitled ‘Сыновья уходят в бой: как воевали дети Сталина’, or ‘Stalin’s Sons Go Off to do Battle’, which gathers together and logically assessed all the available evidence regarding Yakov Dzhugashvili. Despite all kinds of statements being attributed to Joseph Stalin about the alleged capture of his son, in fact there are no official records in the Soviet Archive that make any reference to being captured, or Stalin making any comment of such an occurrence either publicly or privately. This suggests that although the Nazi German myth was taken seriously in the West prior to 1991, it was unknown as a story in the USSR, until after its collapse in 1991. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the new ‘capitalist’ Russia was quick to import all kinds of anti-Soviet propaganda from the West, with the Nazi German myth of the capture of Yakov Dzhugashvili being prominent amongst them. This myth is important for the anti-Soviet lobby as it apparently demonstrates the ‘uncaring’ and ‘dictatorial’ nature of Joseph Stalin, and the fact that he was so unpopular that even his eldest son hated him. None of this is true. The photographs the Nazi Germans used look nothing like Yakov Dzhugashvili, and this must be because the Nazi Germans did not know what he really looked like, and had not recovered his dead body after the Battle of Smolensk – and if they had – perhaps the wounds were so appalling that his facial structure could not be discerned. Obviously in an attempt to palm-off a bad lookalike for Yakov Dzhugashvili, the Nazi Germans would have had to destroy the ‘real’ body to prevent awkward questions at a later date.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Two weeks after the Battle of Smolensk, Beria handed Stalin a copy of the above flyer allegedly featuring the news of the capture of his eldest son Yakov Dzhugashvili – effectively stating that he had chosen to ‘surrender’ to Nazi German forces because he disagreed with Socialism. Stalin apparently had no idea who the man was pictured on the flyer and automatically knew that Yakov Dzhugashvili was loyal to the Soviet Union and would never have voluntarily chosen surrender, or made any statement denigrating his father. In fact, Stalin’s adopted son Artem Sergeev, led a guerilla group of Soviet fighters behind enemy lines for the duration of the war, and reported that he had discovered and destroyed a crude printing press used by the Nazi Germans for anti-Soviet propaganda, in the Smolensk area. The decision to ‘propagandise’ the alleged ‘capture’ of Yakov Dzhugashvili appears to have been a ‘local’ Nazi German decision, that gathered a momentum as an ever expanding urban legend, as time went on. As Soviet casualties were appalling, many bodies could not be properly identified or even recovered – Yakov Dzhugashvili could have suffered this fate (as did millions of other Soviet men and women). Another alternative mentioned in Russian language sources is that Yakov Dzhugashvili stayed behind to destroy his artillery guns, to stop them falling into Nazi German hands, and in so doing blew himself up to avoid capture. Whatever the case, it certainty seems that Stalin was under the impression early on, that his eldest son had bravely died fighting in the Battle of Smolensk. However, despite this assessment of the situation, Stalin ordered Soviet Intelligence to carry-out a more thorough investigation and its was confirmed that Yakov Dzhugashvili had died bravely on the battlefield, and had not fallen into Nazi German hands, betrayed his father, or been taken to Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp. In fact it is thought that the ‘actor’ employed to play Yakov Dzhugashvili may well have been ‘shot’ in Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, when the Nazi Germans no longer had any need for him in 1943 (according to Artem Sergeev). During the US-inspired Cold War, the West resurrected this Nazi German myth as a means to discredit Stalin and the Soviet achievement of defeating Germany Nazism during the Great Patriotic War (1941-45), which saw the deaths of between 27- 40 million Soviet men, women and children.

 

English Language Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Dzhugashvili (Perpetuates the ‘myth’ of  Yakov Dzhugashvili surrendering to the Nazi Germans)

Russian Language References:

http://e-news.pro/history/106059-synovya-uhodyat-v-boy-kak-voevali-deti-stalina.html (Exposes the ‘myth’ of Yakov Dzhugashvili surrendering to the Nazi Germans)

http://secrets-world.com/interesting/7557-syn-stalina-yakov-dzhugashvili.html (Conveys the ‘myth’ of Yakov Dzhugashvili surrendering to the Nazi Germans – including the photographs used at the time to perpetuate this hoax)

http://proslogogu.ru/dzhugashvili-yakov-iosifovich/ (Conveys a more complete biographical background for Yakov Dzhugashvili, whilst casting doubt on the ‘myth’ of his demise)

 

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) – Deconstructing a Trotskyite

Author Christopher Hitchens

‘Of course, I do everything for money.’

(Christopher Hitchens)

Christopher Hitchens was born a privileged bourgeois (i.e. middle class) person, who was educated in Britain’s public school, before attending Oxford University and reading philosophy, politics and economics. As a student, he was a Member of the Labour Party, before being expelled in 1967 for opposing the Vietnam War. It is logical to assume that at this time in his life, his ideological viewpoint was defined as Marxist-Leninist, as he certainly espoused an opposition to capitalist war, imperialism, colonialism and racism. However, all this changed when he encountered the work of Soviet dissident Victor Serge, although it is certainly true that Hitchens had been taken with the works of George Orwell before that time. His conversion to the religion of Trotskyism can be traced through a foundation laid by George Orwell’s anti-Soviet writings, confirmed and strengthened by Victor Serge’s direct ideological inv olvement with the counter-revolutionary movement of Leon Trotsky. When Trotsky’s power grab in the Soviet Union failed in the mid-1920’s (following the death of Lenin), Trotsky switched tactics to that of attempting to’bring down’ and ‘destroy’ the USSR from within, fuelling discontent and rebellion throughout a Soviet population whose lives had improved immeasurably since the 1917 Russian Revolution. The capitalist West, seeing an opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union, assisted the Trotskyite movement from without, in an attempt to ferment a counter-revolution that would destroy Soviet Communism, and initiate a modern (bourgeois left) capitalist society administered by Trotsky and his cronies. Victor Serge was one of these cronies – whose counter-revolutionary activities are falsely eulogised by the Trotskyite left, where every villain is transformed into a hero.

The defining feature of Trotskyism is its dishonesty. Trotskyites share a common ideological bond with Adolf Hitler in that both assume that ‘lying’ is a legitimate political activity. This dishonesty is most obvious in the reluctance of Trotskyite groups and individuals to openly admit their ‘Trotskyite’ affiliations. This is a mainstay in the Trotskyite left’s ability to continue to attract and recruit the politically naive, and the easily led, by ‘pretending’ that they alone represent the ‘true’ Communist movement. If this were true, why not clearly state on all descriptive literature that such movements are ‘Trotskyite’ in nature? Trotskyites do not openly advertise their ideological affiliations because they know that as soon as it is understood that they follow the bourgeois left ideology of Trotskyism, it is also understood that such movements do not, in fact, follow revolutionary Marxism or Leninism. Trotskyites do not clearly state their ideological affiliation because such an honest and open policy would immediately indicate their bourgeois, corrupt, and counter-revolutionary status. The point of such people as George Orwell, Victor Serge and Christopher Hitchens, is to sully true revolutionary working class politics, and replace it with a bourgeois sham, or parody of ‘revolution’, where everything stays the same for the workers, but the White middle class feel better about themselves. A study of the life of Christopher Hitchens, is in fact a study of the ‘fetishisation’ of the revolutionary path of the working class, by a White, privileged, middle class man, who thought that what he had to say as an individual member of the bourgeoisie, was more important than the ‘collective’ revolutionary path of the working class. The hypocrisy that underlay Hitchens’ later political mercenariness, can be clearly discerned by his backing of New Labour’s neo-colonial ‘oil’ wars in the Middle East, and his whole-sale abandonment of anti-racism and peace activism (strong elements within Marxist-Leninism).

As his Trotskyism allowed for the distortion and misinterpretation of Marxism, Hitchens became something of a mouthpiece justifying ‘Islamophobia’ from the British left. This essentially racist attitude mirrored that of Trotsky, and as the mainstream press in the West was busy peddling anti-Muslim racism, Hitchens – as a White member of the privileged Bourgeoisie – was invited to express his anti-Islamic views throughout the UK and USA media – gaining much right-wing support in the process. Hitchens’ racism toward non-White people was camouflaged by a thin veneer that masqueraded as a Marxist critique of religion. However, this perversion of interpretation demonstrates exactly how Trotskyites misrepresent the very Marxism they claim to uphold. This is because Trotskyites exist within a ‘deluded’ interpretation of material reality, which is in fact a ‘mirage’. Trotskyites actually occupy a parody of historical materialism, where they firmly operate through the very inverted mind-set that Marx exposed as the basis of the bourgeois class. This is why the Trotskyite interpretation of Marxism is not ‘Marxist’, but rather a bourgeois inversion designed to disempower the working class, prevent the working class from uniting, and present ‘racism’ as real, religion as ‘evil’. Marx never said religion was ‘evil’ (as he rejected such Judeo-Christian notions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’), as Hitchens’ suggests, in fact Marx stated that theistic religion is a product of an inverted imagination, and that once this is abandoned, the human intellect begins to function the ‘right way around’. The working class throws-off the yoke of inverted religion ‘collectively’, and not with a personal age to grind, as suggested by the behaviour of Hitchens throughout his life. The bourgeois delusion that Hitchens presents, is that of a White bourgeois, who can, through the weight of his class privilege, gain access to State media and perpetuate his particular creed of middle class sentimentality. His pointless middle class ‘fetish’ attacks on religion (often facilitated by an equally ‘Trotskyite’ BBC), were only matched in their deluded sophistry by his attacks on the USSR and its history. These two attacks often ‘blended’ when Hitchens tried to laughingly convince the Western world that Lenin and Stalin were ‘religionists’ that founded and administered an ‘atheistic’ Soviet State. His lies about the Soviet Union are many and numerous and would justify a separate study. Suffice to say, Hitchens was a bourgeois Trotskyite who dedicated his life to destroying any genuine working class revolution by reducing all politics to the fetish of the capitalist individual.

Kim Sung-il Praises the Soviet Red Army!

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

“If the Soviet Army had not liberated Korea – Kim Il Sung said, – there could not have been a free North Korea. Therefore, the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II opened a new page in the history of the Korean people. “

In the report of the meeting of representatives of democratic political parties, social organizations and administrative departments of the People’s Committees of North Korea – held on February 8, 1946 -Kim Il Sung said:

“After the heroic Soviet Army defeated the Japanese imperialists and liberated Korea, the situation in our country has changed radically forever. For the Korean people have gained their liberation and freedom, and have a bright future, and a powerful momentum on the path of building a democratic independent state.”

At the solemn meeting in honour of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the DPRK on September 8, 1958, Kim Il Sung said:

“With the liberation of Korea, the great Soviet Army freed us from the colonial yoke of Japanese imperialism, and consequently, our people have opened a wide road to national independence and democratic development of the country.”

At the Liberation Monument, built in the DPRK, in the Russian and Korean languages is written:

“Eternal glory to the great Soviet Army that liberated the Korean people from the yoke of Japanese militarists, and opened the way to freedom and independence.”

Russian Language Reference:

http://www.vkpb.ru/index.php/kndr/item/2564-kim-ir-sen-o-roli-sovetskoj-armii-v-osvobozhdenii-korei

 

How Estonia Murdered its Jewish Population (1941-1942)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Soviet Red Army Troops Witness the Horror of Klooga Concentration Camp

‘The arrest of all male Jews over the age of 16 years is over. All of them were destroyed by the Estonian defense forces under the supervision of Sonderkommando 1a.’

(Official Report: Einsatzgruppe A Extermination Activities)

Estonia is one of a number of Eastern European countries that borders Russia, and which was ‘liberated’ by the Soviet Red Army forces in September 1944. The point of this article is to expose the anti-Soviet and anti-Socialist policy of the US-based English language Wikipedia pages, and the Estonian support for the political far-right. Today, since the inception of President Obama’s policy of the ‘Nazification’ of Eastern Europe (as a means to contain an ‘imagined’ threat from modern Russia), Wikipedia has colluded with various Eastern European countries in the manufacture of easily accessible ‘pseudo-history’ designed to pursue an implicit rightwing agenda. This ‘new’ fascism (termed ‘neo-Nazism’) pursues all the old US prejudices against Russia, with the added twist that the ‘Communist’ USSR was a regime that was identical with the ‘fascist’ dictatorship of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Indeed, the conflating of the USSR with Nazi Germany is the mainstay of Western anti-Soviet literature that thoroughly misrepresents the history of the Soviet Union, and ignores the suffering the Nazi German regime inflicted upon the Soviet people. This obviously deficient approach to history, is of course ‘ahistorical’ in nature, and is comprised of the bourgeois imagination separating the world into the mythological ‘good’ and ‘evil’ of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Capitalism is ‘good’, whilst every opposing ideology is deemed as ‘evil’. As a consequence, the 27-40 million Soviet casualties during WWII are played-down (or even denied), the Soviets are accused of committing all Nazi atrocities (or atrocities of their own that are presented as far ‘worse’ than anything the Nazi did), and the Nazi Germans are presented as being ‘freedom fighters’ and even ‘liberators’. This distorted grasp of reality can be seen in the number of published books over recent years, containing the confessions of various individuals (from different Eastern European countries) that ‘collaborated’ with invading Nazi German forces. Many such individuals were executed by the allied forces leading up to the end of the war in Europe, with many others executed after WWII had ended. In the Soviet Union, such individuals that had assisted the Nazi German forces in their campaigns of genocide, were usually hung in public. Therefore, immediately after WWII, it was universally agreed that anyone who had deliberately collaborated with Nazi German crimes against humanity, were criminals of the lowest kind.

To counter Estonia’s ‘official’ distorted history, and Wikipedia’s support for it, I have accessed Russian language historical records, and have discovered a much more routine explanation for the issue of Estonian history, which must be termed ‘alternative’ or ‘speculative’. What modern Estonian history cannot be termed is ‘factual’. Estonia has been dominated by the political far-right for decades, and it is this strong and unopposed opposition to this Estonian nationalism today, that has led to a complete re-writing of its history. Estonian history today can best be described as politically motivated, rightwing mythology, that is very similar in construct to that of Nazi Germany. Just as Hitler identified ‘Communism’ as his primary enemy, the Estonian government incessantly strives to misrepresent, distort and sully any and all aspects of the history of the Soviet Union. In fact, so wide-spread was the general collaboration of the Estonian population with the invading Nazi German forces, that by the end of January 1942, virtually all the Estonian Jewish population had been rounded-up (primarily by Estonian ‘volunteers’) and murdered under the watchful eye of the Nazi German occupiers. So successful was the anti-Jewish pogrom in Estonia that on January 31st, 1942, the Chief of the Security Police and SD, sent a report to Berlin, where it was reported that ‘Estonia is already completely free of Jews.’ Thus, the ‘Jewish question-final solution’ was implemented in Estonia for the first time in Europe, and due to the popularity of the Nazi German invaders amongst Estonian population, the Nazi Germans were able to declare Estonia officially ‘judenfrei’ in early 1942. When the Soviet Red Army ‘liberated’ Estonia in September, 1944, (following vicious fighting against the Nazi German forces supported by ‘volunteer’ Estonian SS Units), the Estonian Klooga Concentration Camp was discovered. This camp had held Soviet POWs, Jews, Romany, homosexuals and dissidents in the harshest of conditions. The Nazi Germans were able to operate this camp with such efficiency due to the complicity of the Estonian population. As anti-Semitism was common in Estonia, many Estonians had no moral qualms assisting in the rounding-up and murder of the entire population of Estonian Jewry. In fact, historical evidence suggests that so successful was the Estonian massacre of the Jews under Nazi German administration, that Adolf Hitler used the Estonian example as his ‘blue print’ for all subsequent extermination campaigns throughout Europe and the USSR. Needless to say, as the Soviet Red Army approached Klooga Concentration Camp, the Nazi German forces (together with the Estonian SS ‘volunteers’) started desperately to exterminate the remaining prisoners, and to pile their bodies on heaped-up logs for burning. Wikipedia, in its support for Estonian fascism, blatantly ‘lies’ when it suggests that the Estonian guards – that had been historically responsible for much of the killing – suddenly had a change of heart and tried to ‘protect’ the prisoners. Soviet accounts state clearly that this never happened, as the Estonians viewed Nazi Germany as an empowering ally, and would never have confronted its occupation in any way. In 2006, in an attempt to ‘mask’ its neo-Nazi collaborating history, the Estonian government ‘banned’ any public display of German swastika (a symbol still very popular amongst the Estonian people), together with the Red Flag of the Soviet Union (featuring the hammer and sickle of the international working class). In recent years, Estonia has had to confront its Holocaust-supporting past, after hosting a delegation from Israel at the site of the Klooga Concentration Camp.

Russian Language Reference:

http://www.stena.ee/blog/segodnya-v-estonii-chtyat-pamyat-zhertv-holokosta (Exposing Estonian complicity in the Nazi German Holocaust)

English Language References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_in_World_War_II (Supporting Estonian myth-making and pseudo-history)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klooga_concentration_camp (Perpetuates the myth that Estonian Concentration Camp guards tried to ‘protect’ prisoners they had been previously killing, from final execution)

Marx and Revolutionary Shakespeare

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘As his home town is increasingly colonised by tourists, whether or not they choose to visit the theatre which bears his name, the long-suffering son of Stratford is meanwhile being picked apart by historicists, feminists, Marxists, new historicists, post-feminists, deconstructionalists, anti-deconstructionalists, post-modernists, cultural imperialists and post-colonialists. Perhaps it is time someone tried to put him back together again.’

(Anthony Holden: William Shakespeare – His Life and Work)

A contemporary Chinese language text from Mainland China, states that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (the founders of Scientific Socialism), thought very highly of the English poet and playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616). furthermore, neither advocate of Communist Revolution would have a bad word said against this thoroughly bourgeois and land-owning bard, as Marx always said that although the bourgeois (middle) class was responsible for the repugnant capitalist system, nevertheless, many individuals within that class possessed an insight that transcended the limitations of their own socio-economic conditioning, and through expressing that insight in whatever format that was applicable to these ‘progressive’ individuals, were able to ferment revolution, and facilitate the eventual over-throw of their own class dominance for the universal benefit of the evolution of humanity. For Marx, Shakespeare possessed the mantle of ‘high art’ in an age were the bourgeois class had not yet secured political power for itself, but which was definitely heading in a direction that would end with the execution of King Charles I, and the permanent usurping of the aristocracy from political power. As a potential revolutionary, Shakespeare was an outstanding dramatist and poet of the European Renaissance era. Although Marx was well-read, and had studied the works of many poets and playwrights that had written in German, French and English, his considered opinion was that the work of William Shakespeare was not only original, but existed within a transcendent (and therefore revolutionary) category of its own, very similar to the genius philosophers and poets of ancient and classical Greece. Not only this, but Marx understood that Shakespeare’s work contained a highly ‘political’ central core of expression, that was disguised or camouflaged by veneers of drama and entertainment. William Shakespeare was a revolutionary subversive of such advanced ability that he not only continued to expose and undermine his contemporary socio-economic system, but became famous (and rich) in the process. Shakespeare, through his use of dramatised historical narratives, was able to ‘entertain’ and ‘move’ all those who witnessed his plays or heard his sonnets, at the first point of contact, whilst the underlying (deconstructive) elements of his true intentions, permeated the subconscious minds of his audience without conscious resistance, to re-emerge no doubt, at a later date throughout their disparate lives.

Although it is true that neither Marx nor Engels made a specific study of any of Shakespeare’s numerous plays or sonnets, modern Chinese scholarship (which has made a study of the influence of Shakespeare within the collected works of Marx and Engels), has revealed that the plays and characters of Shakespeare were often mentioned (or quoted) throughout the work of Marx and Engels. In fact, within the writings and letters of Marx, Shakespeare’s work is referenced as many as 147 separate times (as a means for Marx to positively elaborate this or that specific point he was making). Among the 37 works written by Shakespeare, Marx cites 21 titles throughout his main work (a number that does not include Shakespeare references contained within Marx’s personal correspondence). Throughout his main work, Marx mentions 47 Shakespearean characters by name, with the most frequent being Henry VI, and John Falstaff (from ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor’), which appear 32 times. This is because Marx practised the habit of quoting extracts of Shakespeare’s plays – stating more than once that Shakespeare had a better understanding of money, than did a modern German philosopher (quoting from Timon of Athens). In March of 1857, Marx satired Palmerston in his article entitled ‘The Coming Election in England’, using references from Shakespeare’s Richard III and King John – ridiculing Palmerston for the British government’s forced importation of opium into China. In defence of China -Marx asserts that this despicable British imperialist policy is ‘turning heaven and earth upside down’. In a letter to La Salle in May, 1859, Engels stated that German drama would do well to learn from Shakespeare, who wrote with a perfect combination of history and vivid imagination.

Marx and Engels existed more than 250 years after Shakespeare, and yet still affirmed the significance and value of Shakespeare’s works. Not only because Shakespeare’s works played a progressive role in the Renaissance, but also in the then stage of proletarian development. Shakespeare’s writing played a progressive role within the bourgeoisie of his time, so that even in modern capitalist society, the existent bourgeois ideological is subtly undermined. This policy has dialectical value in the development of historical forces that lead to an eventual Socialist Revolution.  Marx and Engels, from the historical reality of class struggle and the social role of literature, have historically affirmed Shakespeare’s revolutionary position, possessing both the viewpoint and method of the proletariat. Shakespeare is the ‘soul of the times’, and ‘he does not belong to any single  era, but simultaneously belongs to all eras’. In three or four hundred years, Shakespeare’s works have crossed all geographical and linguistic boundaries, and have become the common wealth of the people in all times, and in all places. Below are included two extended examples of how Marx uses Shakespeare in a revolutionary manner:

The Grundrisse (1857-1858)

(4) PRODUCTION. MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND RELATIONS OF CIRCULATION. FORMS OF THE STATE AND FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION. LEGAL RELATIONS. FAMILY RELATIONS.

Notabene in regard to points to be mentioned here and not to be forgotten:

(1) War developed earlier than peace; the way in which certain economic relations such as wage labour, machinery etc. develop earlier, owing to war and in the armies etc., than in the interior of bourgeois society. The relation of productive force and relations of exchange also especially vivid in the army.

(2) Relation of previous ideal historiography to the real. Namely of the so-called cultural histories, which are only histories of religions and of states. (On that occasion something can also be said about the various kinds of previous historiography. The so-called objective. Subjective (moral among others). The philosophical.)

(3) Secondary and tertiary matters; in general, derivative, inherited, not original relations of production. Influence here of international relations.

(4) Accusations about the materialism of this conception. Relation to naturalistic materialism.

(5) Dialectic of the concepts productive force (means of production) and relation of production, a dialectic whose boundaries are to be determined, and which does not suspend the real difference.

(6) The uneven development of material production relative to e.g. artistic development. In general, the concept of progress not to be conceived in the usual abstractness. Modern art etc. This disproportion not as important or so difficult to grasp as within practical-social relations themselves. E.g. the relation of education. Relation of the United States to Europe. But the really difficult point to discuss here is how relations of production develop unevenly as legal relations. Thus e.g. the relation of Roman private law (this less the case with criminal and public law) to modern production.

(7) This conception appears as necessary development. But legitimation of chance. How. (Of freedom also, among other things.) (Influence of means of communication. World history has not always existed; history as world history a result.)

(8) The point of departure obviously from the natural characteristic; subjectively and objectively. Tribes, races etc.

In the case of the arts, it is well known that certain periods of their flowering are out of all proportion to the general development of society, hence also to the material foundation, the skeletal structure as it were, of its organization. For example, the Greeks compared to the moderns or also Shakespeare. It is even recognized that certain forms of art, e.g. the epic, can no longer be produced in their world epoch-making, classical stature as soon as the production of art, as such, begins; that is, that certain significant forms within the realm of the arts are possible only at an undeveloped stage of artistic development. If this is the case with the relation between different kinds of art within the realm of the arts, it is already less puzzling that it is the case in the relation of the entire realm to the general development of society. The difficulty consists only in the general formulation of these contradictions. As soon as they have been specified, they are already clarified.

Let us take e.g. the relation of Greek art and then of Shakespeare to the present time. It is well known that Greek mythology is not only the arsenal of Greek art but also its foundation. Is the view of nature and of social relations on which the Greek imagination and hence Greek [mythology] is based possible with self-acting mule spindles and railways and locomotives and electrical telegraphs? What chance has Vulcan against Roberts and Co., Jupiter against the lightning-rod and Hermes against the Crédit Mobilier? All mythology overcomes and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in the imagination and by the imagination; it therefore vanishes with the advent of real mastery over them. What becomes of Fama alongside Printing House Square? Greek art presupposes Greek mythology, i.e. nature and the social forms already reworked in an unconsciously artistic way by the popular imagination. This is its material. Not any mythology whatever, i.e. not an arbitrarily chosen unconsciously artistic reworking of nature (here meaning everything objective, hence including society). Egyptian mythology could never have been the foundation or the womb of Greek art. But, in any case, a mythology. Hence, in no way a social development which excludes all mythological, all mythologizing relations to nature; which therefore demands of the artist an imagination not dependent on mythology.

From another side: is Achilles possible with powder and lead? Or the Iliad with the printing press, not to mention the printing machine? Do not the song and the saga and the muse necessarily come to an end with the printer’s bar, hence do not the necessary conditions of epic poetry vanish?

But the difficulty lies not in understanding that the Greek arts and epic are bound up with certain forms of social development. The difficulty is that they still afford us artistic pleasure and that in a certain respect they count as a norm and as an unattainable model.

A man cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish. But does he not find joy in the child’s naïvité, and must he himself not strive to reproduce its truth at a higher stage? Does not the true character of each epoch come alive in the nature of its children? Why should not the historic childhood of humanity, its most beautiful unfolding, as a stage never to return, exercise an eternal charm? There are unruly children and precocious children. Many of the old peoples belong in this category. The Greeks were normal children. The charm of their art for us is not in contradiction to the undeveloped stage of society on which it grew. [It] is its result, rather, and is inextricably bound up, rather, with the fact that the unripe social conditions under which it arose, and could alone arise, can never return.

An earlier example from Marx reads:

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society (Third Manuscript)

If man’s feelings, passions, etc., are not merely anthropological phenomena in the (narrower) sense, but truly ontological [41] affirmations of being (of nature), and if they are only really affirmed because their object exists for them as a sensual object, then it is clear that:

1. They have by no means merely one mode of affirmation, but rather that the distinct character of their existence, of their life, is constituted by the distinct mode of their affirmation. In what manner the object exists for them, is the characteristic mode of their gratification.

2. Wherever the sensuous affirmation is the direct annulment of the object in its independent form (as in eating, drinking, working up of the object, etc.), this is the affirmation of the object.

3. Insofar as man, and hence also his feeling, etc., is human, the affirmation of the object by another is likewise his own gratification.

4. Only through developed industry – i.e., through the medium of private property – does the ontological essence of human passion come into being, in its totality as well as in its humanity; the science of man is therefore itself a product of man’s own practical activity.

5. The meaning of private property – apart from its estrangement – is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and as objects of activity.

By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.

“What, man! confound it, hands and feet
And head and backside, all are yours!
And what we take while life is sweet,
Is that to be declared not ours?

“Six stallions, say, I can afford,
Is not their strength my property?
I tear along, a sporting lord,
As if their legs belonged to me.”

Goethe: Faust (Mephistopheles)

Shakespeare in Timon of Athens:

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist! …
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
… Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations.”

And also later:

“O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
‘Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen’s purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, loved and delicate wooer
Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian’s lap! Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss! That speak’st with every tongue,
||XLII| To every purpose! O thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels, and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!”

Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of money. To understand him, let us begin, first of all, by expounding the passage from Goethe.

That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [In the manuscript: ‘is’. – Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent – the […] [One word in the manuscript cannot be deciphered. – Ed.]chemical power of society.

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities – the divine power of money – lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not – turns it, that is, into its contrary.

If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence – from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power.

No doubt the demand also exists for him who has no money, but his demand is a mere thing of the imagination without effect or existence for me, for a third party, for the [others],||XLIII| and which therefore remains even for me unreal and objectless. The difference between effective demand based on money and ineffective demand based on my need, my passion, my wish, etc., is the difference between being and thinking, between that which exists within me merely as an idea and the idea which exists as a real object outside of me.

If I have no money for travel, I have no need – that is, no real and realisable need – to travel. If I have the vocation for study but no money for it, I have no vocation for study – that is, no effective, no true vocation. On the other hand, if I have really no vocation for study but have the will and the money for it, I have an effective vocation for it. Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image, transforms the real essential powers of man and nature into what are merely abstract notions and therefore imperfections and tormenting chimeras, just as it transforms real imperfections and chimeras – essential powers which are really impotent, which exist only in the imagination of the individual – into real powers and faculties. In the light of this characteristic alone, money is thus the general distorting of individualities which turns them into their opposite and confers contradictory attributes upon their attributes.

Money, then, appears as this distorting power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc., which claim to be entities in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence, and intelligence into idiocy.

Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things – the world upside-down – the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Chinese Language Reference:

http://wemedia.ifeng.com/282574490620879/wemedia.shtml

English Language References:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0998en.html#Pa

Tucker, Robert C, The Marx-Engels Reader, Norton, (1978), Pages 102-4, 254.

Holden, Anthony, William Shakespeare – His Life and Work, ABACUS, (1999), Page 1 (Prologue)

 

Kim Jong Un Puts President Trump in His Place!

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

International Online Special Report: In January the 3rd, 2017, US President Elect – Donald Trump – formally responded to the New Year message delivered by the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) – Kim Jong Un. President Donald Trump stated in his reply that North Korea cannot develop any nuclear weapons that might be targeted or used against the continental USA. Later that day, President Trump took to his twitter account and publically stated that  “North Korea has said that it has designed and built nuclear weapons (which are in their final stages of development) and which are aimed at different parts of the United States! This kind of thing of thing cannot be allowed!” President Trump was responding to Kim Jong Un’s New Year message (delivered via Korean Central Television) that stated that the DPRK will robustly retaliate in self-defence to any US-ROK aggression, and that North Korea has developed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICMB) with the capability to deliver nuclear warheads to the United States. The DPRK will continue to develop the technology to deliver a ‘pre-emotive strike’.

Chinese Language Text:

http://news.163.com/17/0103/13/C9S28F7U000187VE.html

 

%d bloggers like this: