First Russian Aviator – Mikhail Nikiforovich Efimov (1881-1919) Bolshevik Revolutionary

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Mikhail Efimov was known to be a good athlete in his youth, a profound thinker and inventor, and supporter of the Bolshevik Revolutionary Movement led by Lenin. Although the Wright brothers of the USA are believed by many to have made the first manned flight in a heavier than air machine – there is still argument and dispute about this fact. Even the European Press was doubtful of this claim at the time. However, whatever the actual facts, even in Russia today, the Wright brothers are generally credited with achieving the first ‘crude’ flight, as it where, but it is Mikhail Efimov who is believed to be the first true ‘pioneer’ of manned flight.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Despite being a successful athlete, Mikhail Efimov’s dream was always to fly in the sky. In 1909 he successfully took to the skies in a glider, but later that year, at the expense of banker Ivan Ksidias, he went to study piloting in France, where his instructor was pioneer of aviation – Henri Farman.  On December 25th, 1909 Mikhail Efimov made his first independent 45-minute flight in an aeroplane over France. This was a substantial breakthrough in aviation, as prior to this, pilots had stayed in the air for only several minutes at a time. On March 21st, 1910 in Odessa, Mikhail Efimov – in the presence of 100,000 people on the field of the Odessa Racetrack – took to the skies yet again. On this day he climbed five times, (performing three laps) at an altitude of 50 meters, including two flights with passengers – bankers Ivan Xidias and the Chairman of the Odessa Flying Club -A rthur Anatot. These flights were carried out on the aeroplane ‘Farman-IV’. also on this day, Efimov set a world record for the duration of a flight with passengers. The previous record had belonged to one of the founders of aviation – Orvil Wright. This flight marked the beginning of the development of piloting aircraft in Russia. After landing, Efimov was awarded a laurel wreath with the inscription ‘The First Russian Aviator’.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

With the outbreak of WWI, Mikhail Efimov filed a report asking for him to be sent to the Western Front. Eventually he volunteered for the 32nd Airborne Detachment on the Western Front. As an experienced pilot, he flew reconnaissance and bombing missions over enemy positions, whilst gathering valuable reconnaissance information. For his military service he was awarded a full set of St. George Crosses, and the Order of Anna III medal with swords. As a progressive thinker, he supported the February Revolutionary Movement in Russia, and as a Bolshevik, he supported the October Revolution of 1917. However, as soon as the Revolution was declared, fourteen Western powers (including the USA, the UK and Germany) sent a combined ‘White’ force into Russia to combat the new ‘Red’ threat. In 1919, Mikhail Efimov was captured by these ‘White’ forces (known as the ‘White Guard’) and executed without trial (for supporting the Socialist cause).

Russian Language References:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ефимов,_Михаил_Никифорович

http://tehvov.ru/hist/1408-jelektrik-vysokogo-poleta-pjat-faktov-o-pervom.html

Pravda: Stalin Deconstructs Trotsky’s Duplicitous Letter (15.12.1923)

zmdS-fxrcizu3704160

Full Article – JV Stalin – UK

Trotsky’s Letter

The resolution of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission on internal Party democracy, published on December 7, was adopted unanimously. Trotsky voted for this resolution. It might have been expected, therefore, that the members of the Central Committee, including Trotsky, would come forward in a united front with a call to Party members for unanimous support of the Central Committee and its resolution. This expectation, however, has not been realised. The other day Trotsky issued a letter to the Party conferences which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to weaken the will of the Party membership for unity in supporting the Central Committee and its position.

Judge for yourselves.

After referring to bureaucracy in the Party apparatus and the danger of degeneration of the old guard, i.e., the Leninists, the main core of our Party, Trotsky writes:

“The degeneration of the ‘old guard’ has been observed in history more than once. Let us take the latest and most glaring historical example: the leaders and the parties of the Second International. We know that Wilhelm Liebknecht, Bebel, Singer, Victor Adler, Kautsky, Bernstein, Lafargue, Guesde, and others, were the immediate and direct pupils of Marx and Engels. We know, however, that all those leaders—some partly, and others wholly—degenerated into opportunism.”. . . “We, that is, we ‘old ones,’ must say that our generation, which naturally plays a leading role in the Party, has no self-sufficient guarantee against the gradual and imperceptible weakening of the proletarian and revolutionary spirit, assuming that the Party tolerates a further growth and consolidation of the bureaucratic-apparatus methods of policy which are transforming the younger generation into passive educational material and are inevitably creating estrangement between the apparatus and the membership, between the old and the young.”. . . “The youth—the Party’s truest barometer—react most sharply of all against Party bureaucracy.”. . . “The youth must capture the revolutionary formulas by storm. . .

First, I must dispel a possible misunderstanding. As is evident from his letter, Trotsky includes himself among the Bolshevik old guard, thereby showing readiness to take upon himself the charges that may be hurled at the old guard if it does indeed take the path of degeneration. It must be admitted that this readiness for self-sacrifice is undoubtedly a noble trait. But I must protect Trotsky from Trotsky, because, for obvious reasons, he cannot, and should not, bear responsibility for the possible degeneration of the principal cadres of the Bolshevik old guard. Sacrifice is a good thing, of course, but do the old Bolsheviks need it? I think that they do not.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand how opportunists and Mensheviks like Bernstein, Adler, Kautsky, Guesde, and the others, can be put on a par with the Bolshevik old guard, which has always fought, and I hope will continue to fight with honour, against opportunism, the Mensheviks and the Second International. What is the cause of this muddle and confusion? Who needs it, bearing in mind the interests of the Party and not ulterior motives that by no means aim at defence of the old guard? How is one to interpret these insinuations about opportunism in relation to the old Bolsheviks, who matured in the struggle against opportunism?

Thirdly, I do not by any means think that the old Bolsheviks are absolutely guaranteed against the danger of degeneration any more than I have grounds for asserting that we are absolutely guaranteed against, say, an earthquake. As a possibility, such a danger can and should be assumed. But does this mean that such a danger is real, that it exists? I think that it does not. Trotsky himself has adduced no evidence to show that the danger of degeneration is a real danger. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements within our Party who are capable of giving rise to a real danger of degeneration of certain ranks of our Party. I have in mind that section of the Mensheviks who joined our Party unwillingly, and who have not yet got rid of their old opportunist habits. The following is what Comrade Lenin wrote about these Mensheviks, and about this danger, at the time of the Party purge:

“Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability . . . and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves ‘on principle,’ so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective colouring, just as a hare’s coat turns white in the winter. It is necessary to know this specific feature of the Mensheviks and take it into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred of the Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i.e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain.” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)

How could it happen that Trotsky, who lost sight of this and similar, really existing dangers, pushed into the foreground a possible danger, the danger of the degeneration of the Bolshevik old guard? How can one shut one’s eyes to a real danger and push into the foreground an unreal, possible danger, if one has the interests of the Party in view and not the object of undermining the prestige of the majority in the Central Committee, the leading core of the Bolshevik old guard? Is it not obvious that “approaches” of this kind can only bring grist to the mill of the opposition?

Fourthly, what reasons did Trotsky have for contrasting the “old ones,” who may degenerate, to the “youth,” the Party’s “truest barometer”; for contrasting the “old guard,” who may become bureaucratic, to the “young guard,” which must “capture the revolutionary formulas by storm”? What grounds had he for drawing this contrast, and what did he need it for? Have not the youth and the old guard always marched in a united front against internal and external enemies? Is not the unity between the “old ones” and the “young ones” the basic strength of our revolution? What was the object of this attempt to discredit the old guard and demagogically to flatter the youth if not to cause and widen a fissure between these principal detachments of our Party? Who needs all this, if one has the interests of the Party

in view, its unity and solidarity, and not an attempt to shake this unity for the benefit of the opposition?

Is that the way to defend the Central Committee and its resolution on internal Party democracy, which, moreover, was adopted unanimously?

But evidently, that was not Trotsky’s object in issuing his letter to the Party conferences. Evidently there was a different intention here, namely: diplomatically to support the opposition in its struggle against the Central Committee of the Party while pretending to support the Central Committee’s resolution.

That, in fact, explains the stamp of duplicity that Trotsky’s letter bears.

Trotsky is in a bloc with the Democratic Centralists and with a section of the “Left” Communists—therein lies the political significance of Trotsky’s action.

Pravda, No. 285, December 15, 1923

The End of WWI – Not What It Seems

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Red Army Soldier Awaiting Execution By White Army

‘Bolshevism Must Be Strangled in its Cradle’

(Winston Churchill)

Although the Great War – also known as the First World War (or simply WWI), is often dated by historians as occurring between 1914-1918, it is not uncommon to see dates such as 1914-1919, and 1914-1921, on war memorials remembering those who died.  This discrepancy arises because the end of WWI can be taken as being three different historical points in time:

1) 1918 = November 11th, the day the Armistice (or ‘cease fire’) was declared and accepted by both sides.

2) 1919 = the signing of the Treaty of Versailles – or the official declaration of peace accepted by all nations.

3) 1921 = the US signs a separate peace treaty with Germany.

WWI was essentially an imperialist war fought between the related royal houses of Europe, designed to settle an upper class squabble about which country controlled what geographical area and which resources.  The fuel for this meat-grinder of industrialised war, was of course, the working class of the respective countries involved.  Every year in Britain, the bourgeoisie replicates the myth that the working class suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties (in warfare) is good for it, and everyone is encouraged to wear a red poppy.  The Germans are seen as the enemy, but unlike the German soldiers that fought for the odious Hitlerite ideology of WWII, the German common soldiery of WWI are generally treated with sympathy and respect by the British establishment.  The sentimentalist view is that both sides agreed to a cease fire on November 11th, 1918, and the First Great War came to an end, but what if I told you that British and German troops had already invaded Revolutionary Russia prior to this date, and had been fighting against Communism BEFORE WWI came to an end?  This information is not common knowledge because the bourgeois system that eulogises war, does not want the ordinary people to possess knowledge that breaks-up that class’s warmongering sentimentality, deception and lies.  The fact of the matter is that British and German working class men were sent as ‘foreign invaders’ into Revolutionary Russia after the 1917 Communist Uprising.  Although the newly formed Red Army tried to prevent German incursions into Russian land, its lack of experience told, and after various set-backs, Lenin was forced to sign a separate peace with Germany (the so-called Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March, 1918 – which conceded various Eastern Russian lands to Germany, for the sake of peace) German troops immediately occupied these Russian areas and started a suppression of all Revolutionary tendencies amongst the Russian people.  From at least May of 1918 (six months before the end of WWI hostilities), British troops (alongside such other countries as the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, India, Greece, Italy and even China – forming the so-called ‘White Army’), invaded Revolutionary Russia in an attempt to destroy the Communist Government.  Later that year, Russian history records that the British army committed the atrocity of carrying-out the mass execution of around 30 Russian POW at Baku.  It is said that this happened because the prisoners were Bolshevik political officers, responsible for propagating (and explaining) Revolutionary principles to the ordinary Russian people.  Therefore, it can be said that from May to November 1918, both British and German troops had invaded Revolutionary Russia, and despite both countries still murdering one another in France, fought on the same side of attempting to preserve the international capitalist system in Russia, against Lenin’s Communist Revolution.  Of course, in the end, the Bolshevik Movement and its Red Army eventually defeated all foreign forces in Russia by around 1922, with the Soviet Union being officially founded on December 30th, of that year.

References

Dates on war memorials

The Russian Civil War

Allied Intervention in Russia 1918-1919

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trotskyism Supports Bourgeois Racism & Counter-Revolution

0000000000

I am not that concerned about Leon Trotsky the man – although, of course, I would strive to free him as part of an oppressed humanity, and I wish him personally no ill will.  Leon Trotsky the Jewish person, the Russian, the intellectual, the innovator and the one-time avid supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution and Marxist-Leninism, I treat as any human-being in need of revolutionary freedom from the trap of bourgeois existence.  I would also not have wished him killed, or supported his murder if I had been alive and directly involved in his epoch of activity, but he died 27 years before I was born, and I only became aware of his divisive representation on the Communist left, over a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  My upbringing was implicitly Marxist-Leninist, with a broad support for the USSR and any Socialist or Communist country (including China and Cuba, etc). In fact, when I was young, there was no such thing as ‘anti-capitalism’ outside of the Marxist-Leninist critique.  Today, many White liberals talk about ‘anti-capitalism’, but only from a bourgeois and ‘reformist’ perspective, unaware that capitalism cannot be reformed away from its inherent nature of division and ruthless exploitation.  This is exactly what Trotskyism supports – co-operation with capitalism and the bourgeois class (whilst on the surface espousing anti-capitalist and anti-racist rhetoric).  This is what Trotsky became when he decided to try and wrestle power of off Joseph Stalin, and lead the USSR down a bourgeois reformist path.  This is the Trotsky that I cannot abide and it is signified by a deliberate and malignant intellectual outpouring of his mind against Marxist-Leninism, and consequently the USSR.  Trotskyism is the distorted rhetoric of a failed power-grab, and Trotskyites are the followers of the rhetoric of Leon Trotsky’s failed power-grab.  Trotskyism cannot succeed because its premise is the blue-print of Trotsky’s failure to divert the USSR off of its revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist path.  This is why there has never been a successful Trotskyite revolution anywhere in the world, despite the deceptive and dishonest Trotskyite tactic of ‘entryism’ into the existing Socialist and Communist left.  This is basically access through ‘mimicry’, whereby the Trotskyites use all the key words found on the left, such as ‘anti-fascism’, ‘anti-capitalism’, and ‘anti-sexism’, etc, whilst actually advocating co-operation with fascism, co-operation with capitalism, and co-operation with sexism, as a means to gain ‘entry’ into the bourgeois system (which never happens).  Racism is a major facet of Trotskyism which manifests through that philosophy’s expressed race-hate for China, the Chinese people, and the Chinese Marxist-Leninist Communist Revolution.  Trotskyites, whilst professing an ‘anti-racist’ rhetoric, are prepared to use the very same racist rhetoric to attack and denigrate Communist China, and in so doing are simply aligning themselves with pre-existing anti-Chinese bourgeois racism – which hates all things ‘Chinese’ simply because it is not ‘White’ or ‘Eurocentric’ in origination.  This demonstrates just how far Trotskyism has diverted away not only from Marxist-Leninism, but also from Marxist-Engelism.  Marx would have thoroughly ‘critiqued’ Trotsky and his band of retrogrades, and consigned Trotskyism to the dustbin of history.  The Workers must educate themselves through Marxist-Leninism, and avoid the distortion of Trotskyism at all costs – if the bourgeoisie are to be permanently uprooted through the correct application of Scientific Socialism.

Russia: Lenin Remembered in 2014

VL-97-04

On November 6th, 2014, the leader of the Communist Party of Russia – Gennady Zyuganov – together with other party members and supporters, assembled together at Lenin’s Mausoleum situated in Red Square, and respectfully laid flowers.  At such an important time of the year, it would be very difficult not to pay respect to Lenin in this fashion!  This is because the next day – November the 7th, 2014 – marks the 97th anniversary of the ‘October Revolution’ (in 1917) – that saw Lenin and the Bolsheviks brought to power in Russia!  (In the old calendar, the Revolution happened in ‘October’).  These momentous events brought the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to power

VL-97-03

VL-97-02

VL-97-01

Original Chinese Text:

11月6日,俄共领导人久加诺夫与党员和支持者一起,向位于红场的列宁墓献花. 今天,2014年11月7日,是苏共「十月革命」的第整整97周年。

Two Buddhist States in the USSR

4e65d26cgbd312d89990a&690

Buddhism has existed in Russia for hundreds of years and the Republic of Kalmykia (situated in the Volga area) not far from the Caspian Sea, is considered the only Buddhist country in Europe.  Its capital – Elista City – lays around 1392km (or 865 miles) south of Moscow.  The Kalmyk people are ethnically Mongolian in origin, and their presence in Russia appears to stem from around the 13th century with their country (ruled by a Khanate) being originally independent. From 1556, however, Kalmykia has been part of Russia proper.  Around 37% of the Kalmyk people practice Tibetan Buddhism, with 18% being Russian Orthodox Christians and 13% describing themselves as atheist. Smaller numbers practice Islam Hinduism and pre-Buddhistic Shamanism.  This centre of Kalmyk Buddhist culture attracts many Russians from other areas to explore and practice Buddhism.  Indeed, the spread of the popularity of Buddhism in greater Russia can be attributed directly to the presence of Kalmyk culture.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 – the Kalmyk people joined the Communist Movement at the behest of Lenin – who promised them autonomy and land.  After an initial territory was established in the 1920’s – a full Republic of Kalmykia was finally established under Stalin in 1935.  When the Nazi German Army invaded the Kalmykia area it was reported that a certain percentage of the population joined the Nazis and actively participated in the rounding-up and murder of Soviet Jews.  Kalmyk volunteers also formed the Kalmyk Legion – a military formation in the German Army that fought against Soviet partisans and the Red Army.  This behaviour of a minority of Kalmyks sullied the otherwise good reputation Kalmyk men and women had fighting in the Red Army.  As the USSR was under tremendous strain in 1943, the entire Kalmyk community was relocated to Siberia to prevent further collaboration.  In 1958 – this order was rescinded and the majority of Kalmyks returned to their ancestral home in Russia.

There were in fact two Buddhist States in the USSR – the Republic of Kalmykia (descended from Mongolians) and the People’s Republic of Tanna Tuva (descended from the Xiongnu) situated in Eastern Siberia. The Xiongnu were a fierce nomadic tribe occupying the area to the north of China.  These people periodically invaded China (and Russia) and have been ancestrally associated with the Hakka Chinese people.  When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, Lenin promised the Tuvan people independence and this was granted in 1921 – forming the People’s Republic of Tanna Tuva.  During WWII, the Tuvan people enthusiastically supported the Soviet Union – actively fighting against the Nazi German invaders.  In 1944 the Tuva State voluntarily became a part of the USSR – and formed the non-sovereign Republic of Tuva.  Today the majority of the Tuvan people practice Tibetan Buddhism or pre-Buddhistic Shamanism.

 

(Source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_a3d35b2001012f8d.html)

 

 

 

 

Palestine and the Asymmetric Value of Life

aPalestine-01

Criticism of the behaviour of the modern nation state of Israel is hampered by history and the political domination of the rightwing. Modern Israel pursues a rampant nationalism, (i.e. ‘Zionism’), which is – like all variants of bourgeois nationalism – racially motivated and culturally bias. Anti-Semitism, of course, that is the irrational hatred of a race of people, existed prior to the rise of the Christian movement, but has been encapsulated and preserved in that theology, down to the present day. Anti-Semitism, as a manifestation of a bourgeois sham (designed to separate the international working class and make it fight amongst itself), should not be confused with the legitimate criticism of the political, cultural, and military behaviour of the modern state of Israel. The behaviour of Israel, is not the behaviour of all Jewish people that live in the world, but is rather the historically conditioned unfolding of brutal oppression as developed and perpetuated by the international bourgeoisie. Modern Israel behaves in a thoroughly rightwing and intolerant manner, whilst people of the Jewish religion, often face a continuous anti-Semitism from the Christian right (and its supporters), which is in reality simply another branch of the international bourgeoisie. This apparent contradiction and disunity amongst the ruling classes signifies a conflict premised entirely upon the myth of religion. The contradiction and paradox mounts up when it is understood that Christianity is historically a branch of Judaism, and has strove to artificially distance itself from its mother-religion by embracing anti-Semitism. Early Christians were counted as Jews, until their behaviour resulted in their expulsion from the Jewish religion. Whereas at one point these Jewish-Christians would have been the victims of anti-Semitism, following their systemic break with Judaic officialdom, the Christians deliberately aligned themselves with anti-Semitic racism, and this perspective of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance, has served as a foundation for the development of theology and church policy to the present day. This racist mind-set has been compounded by the Christian pursuance of the Judaic belief in the god-given ‘specialness’ of its adherents. Judaic adherents believe that they form the ‘chosen people’, as do the Christians – who were rejected out of this ‘specialness’. Christianity has had to re-define its ‘specialness’ by making it available to anyone (Judaism does not proselytise), through the socio-psychological and cultural pressure of ‘conversion’. Whereas within Judaism it is believed that only those born ‘Jewish’ are saved, Christianity has developed the counter-myth that only those who ‘convert’ to Christianity will be ‘saved’.

The problems that the modern state of Israel represents, does not require the use of anti-Semitism to convey. From a purely dialectical perspective, the situation is clear-cut, particularly when the words of Marx are remembered, and religion is taken as the basis for all ignorance oppression. The history of religion, that is the history of imagined realities, is the unfolding of mythology mistaken as fact, throughout human society, and which influences its continued development. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are all facets of the same theological mythology. The Jewish Rabbis had reduced polytheism to monotheism, and created the notion that those who were born as ‘Jews’, were simultaneously born ‘special’, and that all those not born within Judaism, were subsequently ‘not special’, and by implication, ‘not blessed by god’. The founders of Christianity and Islam – Yeshua Ben Yoseph (Greek: Jesus Christ), and Mohammed – were both Jewish reformers who took-on the collective ‘specialness’ applied to the Jewish people, firmly onto themselves as individuals. This megalomania led to obsessive faith in select individuals, by followers who fought one another to prove that their particular ‘prophet’ was the most ‘special’, or indeed the ‘only’ special human communicator with a god that no one else could see. Judaism rejects Christianity and Islam as false teachings perpetuated by rebel Jews who attempted to distort the ‘true’ teachings of Judaism into nothing less than a personal fetish. In other words, the fetish of group religion is reduced to the fetish of individual religion, and this irony remains unobserved by the ‘faithful’ in both camps. Jewish resistance and antagonism toward the adherents of Christianity and Islam, is premised solely upon the foundation that these two religious pathways distort rabbinical and biblical teaching. It is an attack on other religions justified through the theology of a vengeful god. It is interesting to note that Christianity attacks both Judaism and Islam for exactly the same reason, as does Islam in its attacks upon Judaism and Christianity. Each of these three inter-related religions all advocate an exclusive ‘specialness’ for their own adherents, that due to its intolerant core, ensures that each generation either completely intellectually dismisses the relevance and validity of the other religions, or openly attacks and destroys their physical presence in the world – quite often both responses are pursued simultaneously. As theology represents a psychological cul-de-sac of an imaginary take on the world, it’s totalitarian and hierarchical statements can never be proven as ‘real’, but which can be continuously fought over by one generation to the next. The conflict and violence is real, whilst the theology that causes it is false.

Modern Israel is a direct product of European – specifically British – imperialism. Following WWII, and the subsequent shock of the Nazi German holocaust against European Jewry, the British bourgeoisie that ruled Palestine, without taking into account the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, arbitrarily separated the country in half and allowed the modern state of Israel to be established in a predominantly Islamic country. Due to the situation in war-torn Europe, people of Jewish origin migrated in their thousands to this newly founded state – this included survivors of the Nazi death-camps. Almost immediately the Islamic population protested and was ignored by the Western powers of the international community. The modern state of Israel, in the meantime, was financially and militarily supported by the USA and Western Europe, and would eventually be given nuclear weapons. The Palestinians, supported by the Soviet Union and other Middle Eastern countries, gathered arms and periodically launched campaigns of open warfare against Israel, but failed to achieve the objective of reuniting their country, Israel, after-all, was materially supported by the advanced capitalist countries, whilst Palestinians lived in a state of abject poverty, having to face the daily presence of heavily armed and aggressive Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and on street corners. Israeli and Palestinian relations have more or less continued in a spiral of death and destruction which has seen the routine exchange of tit for tat torture, kidnap, and murder. The impoverished Palestinians struggle to retain a grip on their own country, whilst Israel continues to build settler-homes (exclusively for Jews) upon Palestinian land.

Young Palestinian children, and youths are routinely maimed and killed by the Israeli military forces. The Western bourgeois media virtually ignores these regular occurrences – deeming them unworthy of reporting. However, whenever an Israeli child or youth is maimed or killed, the Western bourgeois media immediately springs into action with an indepth analysis of the situation and the people involved. The Palestinians are always presented as ‘terrorists’ and the Israelis as otherwise ‘pure’ and ‘innocent’ victims of a pointless violence carried-out by members of a morally bankrupt religion. The tragedy of the three Israeli youths found dead recently, has initiated this sentimentalist response from the Western media, which has begrudgingly, and as an after-thought, also reported that the body a dead Palestinian youth has also been discovered. The message is clear – the value of life ascribed to an Israeli is greater than the value of life ascribed to a Palestinian. Although it is exactly the same ignorant religiosity that underlies all bourgeois thinking and behaviour, the matter is complicated by racism and political expediency. Sixty years ago, political policy was openly dictated by anti-Semitism, which was the norm throughout Europe. Today, the political policy of the USA and Europe is dictated through the auspices of Islamophobia. The lurking religiosity of Christianity can be seen to be behind these two policies of hatred. When all the historical issues surrounding imperialism and colonisation are taken into account, it is the Judeo-Christian mythos of ‘specialness’ that fuels religious and secular nationalism and racism. As Islam (Palestine), is a threat to the hegemony of Judaism (Israel), the life of an Israeli will always be viewed as significantly more valuable to that of a Palestinian.

With the religious notion of ‘specialness’ comes the inevitable shadow of ‘victimhood’. When the notion of religiously inspired specialness is criticised, deconstructed, or condemned for whatever reason, those who believe that they are divinely ‘lifted up’, through its auspices, immediately and habitually condemn the criticism as an ‘attack’ and resort to the counter-strategy of assumed ‘victimhood’. Victimhood and specialness form two-sides of the religiously minted coin – one can not exist without the other. Physical and psychological suffering, imagined or otherwise, is unnecessarily fed through the Judeo-Christian religious filter (including Islam), so that even the assumed mantle of ‘victimhood’ becomes yet another manifestation of religious inspired ‘specialness’. It is a cycle of irrationality preserved and conveyed within the structure of theological teaching. The Judeo-Christian religionist is of the opinion that his ‘specialness’ is greater than any other distinguishing mark in life, and that his suffering is more authentic, worthwhile and legitimate than that experienced by any other individual or group. Indeed, as the bible conveys, to be ‘special’, is to be a ‘victim’, and although Israel is undoubtedly an imperialist presence which oppresses the Palestinians (with the complicity and aid of the bourgeois West), nevertheless, it is equally true that both the Jewish Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians both perpetuate religious ignorance as legitimate aspects of national characteristics. The impoverished and disadvantaged Palestinian Muslim stands in stark contrast to the privileged and all-powerful Israeli Jew – whilst both sets of religionists continue to claim a special divine rite, whilst simultaneously asserting that each is a ‘victim’ of history and circumstance.

Any attack upon Israel, or Israeli interests, is automatically interpreted by the Israeli state as being motivated by ‘anti-Semitic’ sentiment, and no distinction is made between these acts, and those that are genuinely ‘revolutionary’ in nature. This is how the propaganda of the Israeli state deliberately conflates and confuses genuine anti-Semitism with genuine revolution. This is a prime example of bourgeois conservatism at work, which reduces all progressive criticism and action against it, to the level of blatant anti-Israeli racism. This appeals to the contradictory nature of Western Bourgeois sentiment that since the end of WWII has officially followed the line of condemning racism, whilst actually continuing to perpetuate it around the world, through the vehicle of Christian theology, or its secular form as found within modern politics and commercial interests. As the Western bourgeoisie reject the excesses of its Nazi German branch, it behaves in a manner where it feels it must continuously support the victims of those excesses – namely the followers of Judaism and the modern state of Israel. This unconditional bourgeois support may be broadly described as ‘rightwing’, and noted for the fact that it varies to a considerable degree in its sincerity. This unconditioned support is countered (on the right) by various racist, nationalist, and Christian fundamentalist groups, (which for one reason or another) oppose the existence of Judaism and the Israeli state, etc. Although the unconditioned support for the modern state of Israel from prominent factors of the bourgeois right is politically and militarily powerful, such support, however, is not unanimous. This situation may be juxtaposed with the progressive and bourgeois political left, which more or less unconditionally supports the Palestinian cause. The left views the Palestinian people as being the victims of imperialism and colonialism, and varies in its proposed solutions to the problem. At one end of the scale there is the establishment of a peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine, possibly with geographical area that is now left of Palestine recognised as a sovereign state, and its people protected by international law. At the other end of the scale there is the idea that Israel as a state should be severely economically, politically, and militarily punished for its behaviour in the Occupied Territories, and even that the state of Israel itself should be dissolved and the Israeli population moved elsewhere. It is interesting to note the similarity in many of these policies between left and right – policies which not unjustifyingly, often attract the accusation of anti-Semitism as a motivating force. If Israel was removed as an influencing factor in Palestine, the immediate issue of Palestinian freedom would be solved. However, a Palestine free of Judaism is a Palestine full of Islam. The Palestinian people may be politically free in one sense, as they may pursue self-determination, but remain entirely shackled to the self-limiting theology of Islam, that has its roots within Judeo-Christian religiosity. Without the Marxist transcendence of religiosity in Palestine – and the equal freeing of Jewish and Muslim workers – replacing one religion with another does not solve the issue of historical oppression of the international bourgeois over the international proletariat. As long as religion rules the roost, the worth of human life will always be asymmetric in Palestine, and religious hatred will ensure that one massacre always follows on from another without end. This is the price humanity has to pay for a contrived ‘specialness’ on earth that only ever exists within the human imagination.

The modern state of Israel, although geographically small, (around half the size of Wales), is significant for the West as it represents a symbolic European presence in a predominantly Arabic area. Anti-Bolshevik, British imperialism created the conditions for the migration of millions of Jews from Soviet Russia, who were adamantly opposed to Marxist-Leninism, and the establishment of a Socialist state in pursuance of the development of Communism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 set the agenda for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, a British plan which was implemented from 1917 onwards, but which received official government backing in the early 1920’s via the so-called ‘Mandate of Palestine’, which was nothing other than the League of Nation’s attempt to define and justify European imperialism. The Arab authorities in Palestine continuously refused to grant permission for the mass migration of Jewish settlers into their country, and were never consulted in the eventual partition of Palestine by Britain and the United Nations in 1948. The wishes of the Arab population of Palestine were completely ignored by the UN in their planning to establish an Israeli state premised upon the Israeli nationalism (Zionism). As the USSR supported the Palestinians as an ‘oppressed population’, the USA supported the state of Israel as a representative of European capitalism in the Middle East. Any opposition to the establishment of what amounts to a Western backed pro-capitalist, and highly militarised colony in Palestine, is immediately equated with anti-Semitism in the USA and Israel, even though such a criticism is based upon the legitimate observation and interpretation of historical fact, and is not, in anyway, premised upon racial or religious bigotry. In fact the establishment of the state of Israel by the United Nations can be viewed as the continuation of the anti-Semitic policy of removing otherwise integrated Jewish populations from mainstream European life, and ghettoising these populations in a single, small state in an obscure part of the world. Creating the modern state of Israel in Palestine also ensures that the transplanted Jewish populations are under continuous cultural and military pressure. This precarious situation is ‘balanced’ by every illegal act carried-out by the Israeli state being ignored and going unpunished, whilst the West throws limitless amounts of money and arms, whilst a priori supporting every action the Israeli authorities take against a terribly impoverished, Palestinian population. The existence of Israel also serves as a great ‘de-stabiliser’ in the Middle East, which is designed to create doubt and insecurity in the area, and serve as a platform for European foreign policy. Despite the pretence of secularism, Western religiously inspired imperialism can be clearly perceived in the case of the relationship between the West and Israel. When the bible is used to justify and interpret reality, conflict between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ is the inevitable result.

China as Developmental Archetype for Humanity

IMAG1005

China’s presence in the world is an important agency of change and transformation both for individuals and nations.  Chinese culture represents the next stage of world development.  What exactly this new reality will be like is unknown at present, and will only become known after the event – when history is objectively viewed some time in the distant future.  In other words, the changed world that will be triggered by the spread of Chinese thinking and cultural will not be fully understood until it has already been experienced.  This kind of Chinese influence has little to do with politics, trade, or military conquest, although any or all of these concepts might serve as a vehicle, but is rather the product of the Chinese presence in the world forming a distinct psychological, developmental archetype that upgrades and makes better every other psychological or cultural construct it encounters.  This influence is not forced, brutal, or violent in any way, but is rather the effect of a gentle but continuous presence that exists on all frequencies of humanity’s existence.  China represents a superior level of psychic, emotional, and physical presence that facilitates transformation into an enhanced dimension of being.  Even as an ancient civilisation, China has existed almost ‘ahistorical’, and has appeared like a modern, or post-modern nation even when perpetuating a state premised upon feudal imperialism.  It has, as a nation, embraced the Western philosophy of Karl Marx, and has survived the collapse of the Russian Bolshevik version of Communism.  In world-wide affairs, this regional reality is a microcosm of the influence Chinese culture represents both as a nation, and through its citizens, which includes the influence of  Chinese people (and their descendents) living outside of China today.  The influence of Chinese culture is travelling through the fabric of society with alacrity.  This influence is not political, economic, or racial in any way – as it does not demand any obvious commitment from those it transforms.  This process is a historical force that travels over the globe unopposed, because it is in accordance with the deepest aspect of humanity’s understanding.  It can not be opposed because it does not employ materialist methods.  It is very much a natural force existing in the continuous moment, and as such can not be prevented from achieving its task of developmental transformation.  Needless to say, a psychological and physical power of this magnitude is often not understood through those who act as the agents of its deployment.  The average Chinese person embodies this paradigm of transformation in every fibre of their being, but generally remains consciously unaware of the effect of its presence on all who come into contact with it.  Life continues in the obvious (everyday) manner relating to Chinese culture, and there is no real understanding of the deeper psycho-spiritual energy that is in operation.  This is as it should be, as the entire transformation process avoids the trap of ego-awareness and the psychological structures that operate through materialist paradigms, seeking personal aggrandisement and power.  Chinese cultural influence in this fundamental aspect is a purely natural manifestation that has no lower human intention attached to it.  It is free of gross human error and greed and represents the next step in the evolution of the human mind.

%d bloggers like this: