The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Diana Johnstone Archive
Trotskyist Delusions
Obsessed with Stalin, the disciples of Leon Bronstein see betrayed revolutions everywhere
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_796270189

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.

The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.

McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”. The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.

But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness.

This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.

“Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna.

Whose “ideological lynchpin”? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.

In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.

It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).”

No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.

Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times!

And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.

Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.

This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.

This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.

The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?

Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened?

For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.

In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.

Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong rule.

McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.

If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.

“In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.”

The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”.

This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?”

One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “if we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?”

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, Israel, Neocons, Syria 
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
93 Comments to "Trotskyist Delusions"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. (((Trotsky)))

    So sick of the Jewish bull$hit we have to deal with.
    Whether it’s (((Marxism))) or the (((Globalists))) that are destroying our country’s through diversity.

    Or the manipulation to fight their enemies for them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people.

    Shouldn’t a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects?

    Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that.

    If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from Burundi, mainly to prevent baHutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the bUgandan army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million baHutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus), from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat) coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the death threat by former US secretary of state for African affairs, Herman Cohen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @mark green
    Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people.

    Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects?

    Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!

    Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky’s main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. Considering America (and Japan’s) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that.

    If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies’ intervention (and Canada’s!), directly (1994, from Burundi, mainly to prevent baHutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the bUgandan army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million baHutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus), from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi’s first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat) coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the death threat by former US secretary of state for African affairs, Herman Cohen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    What do recommend on the Tutsi-Hutu conflict? Also, how well do you think Kagame's government's working now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Silva says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that.

    If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from Burundi, mainly to prevent baHutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the bUgandan army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million baHutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus), from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat) coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the death threat by former US secretary of state for African affairs, Herman Cohen.

    What do recommend on the Tutsi-Hutu conflict? Also, how well do you think Kagame’s government’s working now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    I recommend firstly Chris Black. I linked his one article above, and I recommend both his article on the assassination of prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, and his interview with Corbett report.

    Secondly, I recommend Robin Philpott. He is a bit PC, but he gives a good overview of the war.

    If you can get a copy of Rwanda and Burundi by Lemarchand, you'll get a good idea of what was happening around the 50s-70s, although Lemarchand later adopted the party line regarding 1994 (the book was written in 1970, and one of the chapter titles is Inyenzi at the Gates). You might also want to look up the Kalinga drum, and with whose testes it was decorated...

    If you want a left-wing view of 1994, perhaps somewhat akin to Johnstone's sympathies, see Enduring Lies, by Herman and Peterson.

    I have heard good things, but not read, Kagame's Economic Mirage.

    You might also want to read books by the peacekeepers, e.g. Ngijol (Autopsie, French), Deme (Rwanda 1994), Boohbooh (Le patron de Dallaire, French). Viktor Bout flew in the French peacekeepers who saved lives in western Rwanda...

    You might also want to look at Justice Belied...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Silva
    What do recommend on the Tutsi-Hutu conflict? Also, how well do you think Kagame's government's working now?

    I recommend firstly Chris Black. I linked his one article above, and I recommend both his article on the assassination of prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, and his interview with Corbett report.

    Secondly, I recommend Robin Philpott. He is a bit PC, but he gives a good overview of the war.

    If you can get a copy of Rwanda and Burundi by Lemarchand, you’ll get a good idea of what was happening around the 50s-70s, although Lemarchand later adopted the party line regarding 1994 (the book was written in 1970, and one of the chapter titles is Inyenzi at the Gates). You might also want to look up the Kalinga drum, and with whose testes it was decorated…

    If you want a left-wing view of 1994, perhaps somewhat akin to Johnstone’s sympathies, see Enduring Lies, by Herman and Peterson.

    I have heard good things, but not read, Kagame’s Economic Mirage.

    You might also want to read books by the peacekeepers, e.g. Ngijol (Autopsie, French), Deme (Rwanda 1994), Boohbooh (Le patron de Dallaire, French). Viktor Bout flew in the French peacekeepers who saved lives in western Rwanda…

    You might also want to look at Justice Belied…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    Thank you very much. I'll ask someone else that's kinda pro-Tutsi for their recommendations, and compare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Silva says:
    @Johan Meyer
    I recommend firstly Chris Black. I linked his one article above, and I recommend both his article on the assassination of prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, and his interview with Corbett report.

    Secondly, I recommend Robin Philpott. He is a bit PC, but he gives a good overview of the war.

    If you can get a copy of Rwanda and Burundi by Lemarchand, you'll get a good idea of what was happening around the 50s-70s, although Lemarchand later adopted the party line regarding 1994 (the book was written in 1970, and one of the chapter titles is Inyenzi at the Gates). You might also want to look up the Kalinga drum, and with whose testes it was decorated...

    If you want a left-wing view of 1994, perhaps somewhat akin to Johnstone's sympathies, see Enduring Lies, by Herman and Peterson.

    I have heard good things, but not read, Kagame's Economic Mirage.

    You might also want to read books by the peacekeepers, e.g. Ngijol (Autopsie, French), Deme (Rwanda 1994), Boohbooh (Le patron de Dallaire, French). Viktor Bout flew in the French peacekeepers who saved lives in western Rwanda...

    You might also want to look at Justice Belied...

    Thank you very much. I’ll ask someone else that’s kinda pro-Tutsi for their recommendations, and compare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. that today’s Trotskyite communists come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday’s Trotskyite communists are now called

    (((neo-cons)))

    originally via the “anti-Stalinist” Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    "Conservative" Stephen Schwartz at NRO (2003) still singing the praises of Trotsky, and bashing those evil Stalinist heretics:

    www.nationalreview.com/article/207196/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz

    "To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who... [was so unfairly poisecuted and bla, bla, bla]
    To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will."

    https://kek.gg/i/5zsKHj.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating. It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.

    The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn't believe what he is saying any more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.

    It's all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out there as this cartoon villian.

    As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now... the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.
    , @Paw
    This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
    It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: “Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people’s countries?”

    I feel it clarifies matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    You're standing on solid ground, there Dave.
    I like to respond to holocaust discussion with the question: "the Jews and...who else ?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Obsessed with Stalin, the disciples of Leon Bronstein see betrayed revolutions everywhere

    Lev Bronstein.

    Leon Trotsky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Wally says:

    McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”. The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
    Like the ultimate in propaganda, the absurdly impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.
    No proof required. Control ‘the media’, control so called ‘academia’, buy the politcian$ , and bingo! Bye bye to Free Speech.
    If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech? Only liars demand censorship.
    fact:
    The Soviet communists presented a detailed study of mass extermination steam chambers which was accepted a Nuremberg, no study for the now alleged pesticide using ‘gas chambers’ was ever presented at Nuremberg, or any other court.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Wally, Wally, Wally
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Seraphim says:

    @The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.

    Wasn’t ‘Trotskyism’ ‘aligned’ with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia to carry on the ‘permanent revolution’?
    And when Stalin cut Trotsky’s crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey “Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials”. And who are the imperialist ‘neo-cons’ other than ‘old Trotskyists’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent.
    What one reads in these two books does not make the suspicion go away
    John W Wheeler-Bennett, ‘Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918’, 1938, 1963, London
    Erich Ludendorff, ‘Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China and Vietnam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Vojkan says:

    If they weren’t so nefarious, the trotsies wouldn’t be worth reading, let alone mentioning. Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we’ll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism. Neocons are jewish supremacists aided by corrupt to the core goyim, plain and simple. They do have in common with their guru one conviction, that the end justifies the means. That is the recipe of evil.
    It’s a pity that so many youth are misled still today in believing in the hoax that Trotskyism is somehow something moral. Trotsky was himself a murderer. Killing is immoral. It sometimes is necessary and cannot be avoided as with regards to the psychotic butchers who came from abroad to Syria and are known as ISIS but it is still immoral.
    Normal people sense killing as immoral therefore psychopaths have to come up with stories such as Germans slaughtering Belgian babies with bayonets, Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Serbs genociding Bosniaks or Albanians, Qadhafi readying for genocide in Benghazi, Assad pulling children’s fingernails or gassing them, Iran being responsible for 9/11 etc, all in order to dehumanise the enemy of the moment and compel people to accept that killing “sub-humans” half way around the world is a moral act. It isn’t. Period. Unlike all those fake atrocities, Western and Saudi trained, armed and financed foreign terrorists in Syria did film themselves doing horrors. They videotaped themselves burning people alive, throwing people off building tops. They videotaped themselves beheading children. Assad didn’t make those videos, ISIS did, to brag. Only mentally ill people can support those “rebels” against Assad. Yet, as a Christian, I don’t consider killing them as moral, I consider it as necessary and unavoidable, but it is an act that mandates penitence.
    Trotsies ignore those qualms and, whether real or alleged followers, are sick people. End of story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Dave from Oz
    Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?"

    I feel it clarifies matters.

    You’re standing on solid ground, there Dave.
    I like to respond to holocaust discussion with the question: “the Jews and…who else ?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Thirdeye says:

    From Trotsky’s doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in revolution – no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a “pure” faction and a “get something done” faction. International Socialists represented the “pure” faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More “pure” factions spun off in the early 1960s, which sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the “pure” factions. The “get something done” faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their “revolutionary” rationale for those movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist “Trotskyism” of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend to accomplish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations. Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism. The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.

    There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open borders and anti-nationalism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was “Never trust a Trot.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Thirdeye says:
    @Seraphim
    @The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.

    Wasn't 'Trotskyism' 'aligned' with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia to carry on the 'permanent revolution'?
    And when Stalin cut Trotsky's crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey "Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials". And who are the imperialist 'neo-cons' other than 'old Trotskyists'?

    The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin’s return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pindos
    It served Jew interests - destroy Russians
    , @Paw
    This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
    It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions...
    , @Paw
    Not only to German , but the German general Staff. And Lenin lived from robberies with murders .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Thirdeye says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent.
    What one reads in these two books does not make the suspicion go away
    John W Wheeler-Bennett, ‘Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918’, 1938, 1963, London
    Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918', Berlin, 1918

    If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China and Vietnam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defensor of a mass murderer.

    The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he “writes well”, which, she admires.

    That one can “write well” and “speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn’t occur to Ms Johnson.

    The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.

    “Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality…”

    No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
    Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.

    The first european revolution – The French Revolution – was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial killing of a people – People of Vendée – .
    The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.

    It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc…) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.

    Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher – A French Genocide: The Vendee.

    “In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries”

    Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Revoluteous
    Eh... No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals, or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?

    Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus, a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.

    The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.
    , @Anon
    I’m very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
    It’s not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.

    Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too

    Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans.
    There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau maintained by some college history department.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Parbes says:

    Great article! Thanks to Diana Johnstone for writing such a fine article which blows right out of the water so much of the BS being bandied about in relation to the Syrian War, Stalin, etc. Ms. Johnstone is a REAL intellectual. Wish there were more like her in the Anglosphere nowadays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family.
    Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping….hardly signs of a baby killer or a ‘chemical animal’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car ...
     
    Sometimes he still does. The following video of Pres. Assad driving his Honda was shot in E. Ghouta (Damascus) just this past March:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg2eIcvUqL8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Jake says:

    Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols.

    Trotskyites and WASPs – who created the largest empire in world history – in bed together, with the evil House of Saud, could destroy civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. No more Stalin. No more USSR even.

    Yet the Trots are still objectively counterrevolutionary left deviationists after all these years. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. They were a bunch of murderous Commies, so what difference does it make who is a Trotskyite, a Leninite, as Stalinite, a Maoite, a Potite, or a Castroite? In hell with all of these Commies. This has given me a great idea, though – how about let’s do some crowd-funding to purchase thousands of ice picks and ice axes (take your pick!) and distribute them to the inner and outer parties of all Communist countries?

    It’s a win/win guys!

    #IceAxesForCommies
    #[email protected]
    #MentionAchmedENewmanForAdditional25%Savings

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Pindos says: • Website
    @Thirdeye
    The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.

    It served Jew interests – destroy Russians

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    It served Jew interests – destroy Russians
     
    Then they could just as well have kept their money. Nicholas II was doing a fine job at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. nickels says:

    Interesting.
    I just finished Kotkin’s Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
    My other theory is that they were a paychological projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
     
    That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally--and the NKVD specifically--from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.

    I just finished Kotkin’s Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
     
    Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand the context in which they took place.
    , @utu

    projection of guilt
     
    Come on, psychoanalyzing Stalin? Psychoanalysis can explain everything (X and not-X) that's why it has no explanatory power.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/understanding-stalin/380786/
    In the contemporary West, we often assume that perpetrators of mass violence must be insane or irrational, but as Kotkin tells the story, Stalin was neither.
     
    After reading few reviews of Koktin books I am ready to invest my time and effort to give him a chance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Fools and idiots come in various shapes and sizes, as do socialists and wildlife. The zebra stands out from afar, its stripes give it away. Likewise, the Trotskyites stand out markedly in the fairly jumbled-up socialist landscape, given away by their towering stupidity and luminous obstinacy. Whenever some wretched poor, weak country is being bombed by the West, these useful idiots of empire jump up and down in merriment. Whenever a union anywhere is trying to extort more money for less work, these fools give their support. The burning down of churches and the spreading of atheism at gunpoint is another trait of theirs. Christian Socialists they hate with a special vengeance, taking their cue from Marx the great “visionary”, whose vision was fairly deficient in many ways.

    Stalin had Trot’s head badgered-in, if I recall. Well, with a head as stupid as Trotsky’s, half the world would be itching to bash it in. One of those good things that Stalin did, IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Moi says:
    @OpenYourEyes
    President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family.
    Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping....hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.

    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Oh, the horror!
    , @MarkinLA
    And this is unusual for the third world?
    , @Anon
    There are plenty of medium and low priced stores in Paris.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.
     
    Perhaps she rather likes being served in Arabic!
    , @Anon
    She has to, all the stores in Syria have been bombed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Thirdeye says:
    @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    Oh, the horror!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Trotsky was a liar conspiring with the Nazis and Japan. Grover Furr has published the evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky's life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    "McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”. The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies."
    Like the ultimate in propaganda, the absurdly impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.
    No proof required. Control 'the media', control so called 'academia', buy the politcian$ , and bingo! Bye bye to Free Speech.
    If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech? Only liars demand censorship.
    fact:
    The Soviet communists presented a detailed study of mass extermination steam chambers which was accepted a Nuremberg, no study for the now alleged pesticide using 'gas chambers' was ever presented at Nuremberg, or any other court.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Wally, Wally, Wally

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, I am all you think about.

    And as usual, you cannot refute what I post.

    And note the increasing numbers here who are rejecting the fake & incredibly stupid 'holocau$t' tales.

    www.codoh,com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Thirdeye says:
    @Pindos
    It served Jew interests - destroy Russians

    It served Jew interests – destroy Russians

    Then they could just as well have kept their money. Nicholas II was doing a fine job at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. MarkinLA says:
    @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    And this is unusual for the third world?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Mrs Kennedy bought all her clothes in Paris although she laundered then through an American manufacturer

    Mrs Trump buys a lot of her clothes in Italy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    There are plenty of medium and low priced stores in Paris.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Shakesvshav
    Trotsky was a liar conspiring with the Nazis and Japan. Grover Furr has published the evidence.

    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky’s life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Magarac

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.
     
    That was the official Stalinist line during WWII.
    , @Anon
    Wasn't the small point of disagreement which should be top dog?
    , @Jesse James
    Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert. You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.
    , @Seraphim
    Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
    'Revolutionary defeatism' was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky's too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @OpenYourEyes
    President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family.
    Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping....hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.

    Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car …

    Sometimes he still does. The following video of Pres. Assad driving his Honda was shot in E. Ghouta (Damascus) just this past March:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @nickels
    Interesting.
    I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
    My other theory is that they were a paychological projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.

    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.

    That’s exactly how I interpret Stalin’s purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally–and the NKVD specifically–from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.

    I just finished Kotkin’s Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).

    Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn’t make sense is because he doesn’t really want to talk about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin’s purges, you first have to understand the context in which they took place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped in all the classic WASP institutions.

    https://www.hoover.org/profiles/stephen-kotkin

    Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
    The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just crazy.
    Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet you're reading propaganda.

    If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.
    , @Anon
    So many of the books about the revolution and USSR have been written by commie Jews. It’s good to be sceptical about everything they write.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Syrians have told me that Bashar al-Assad was a decent chap. But taking his family shopping could not be different from John McCain walking through Baghdad with one hundred soldiers around him and helicopters overhead to show how safe it was. If Bashar al-Assad “went shopping” in Damascus (instead of London or Paris) then two thousand plain clothes were also shopping with him. And for what would he “go shopping” in Damascus? Shopping for an illusion, that’s what.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    Perhaps she rather likes being served in Arabic!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Quartermaster
    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky's life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    That was the official Stalinist line during WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Bravo! Another ringer from Diana Johnstone.

    “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” [-Tony McKenna]

    This is like cursing the pizza store owner who gives ‘protection’ money to the mafia, without cursing the mafia which extorts him! As Johnstone later points out, back then Assad had little choice but to try and make his peace with Uncle Scam as best he could, since the USSR was no longer around to protect Syria.

    McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?”

    Ah yes: Louis Proyect. The one and only! It was he who recently defended the ‘rebels’ as proletarian Bolsheviks struggling for a new, socialist Syria:

    “The Syrian rebels are generally drawn from the poor, rural and unrepresented majority of the population, the Arab version of John Steinbeck’s Joad family. Despite the tendency of some on the left to see them as sectarians who rose up against a generous Baathist welfare state because it supported a different interpretation of who was the true successor to Muhammad, the revolutionary struggle in Syria was fueled by class hatred.”

    The Joads were jihadis? Who knew!

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/13/chemical-attacks-false-flags-and-the-fate-of-syria/

    The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.

    Which is why, once they reach a certain age and a certain level of burn-out, rather than simply give up on politics entirely, they usually tend to become neoconservatives, as did Chris Hitchens. For them, the Rockefeller/Rothschild ‘new world order’ is the next best thing to Trotsky’s ‘world revolution’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

    They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our “struggle” is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

    In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Quartermaster
    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky's life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    Wasn’t the small point of disagreement which should be top dog?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Wally, Wally, Wally

    Indeed, I am all you think about.

    And as usual, you cannot refute what I post.

    And note the increasing numbers here who are rejecting the fake & incredibly stupid ‘holocau$t’ tales.

    http://www.codoh,com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. nickels says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
     
    That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally--and the NKVD specifically--from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.

    I just finished Kotkin’s Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
     
    Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand the context in which they took place.

    I don’t know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped in all the classic WASP institutions.

    https://www.hoover.org/profiles/stephen-kotkin

    Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
    The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just crazy.
    Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone’s personality you can bet you’re reading propaganda.

    If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shakesvshav
    I see you go for the comic book villain invented by Cold War propagandists like Robert Conquest.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists, such as Francis Parker Yockey:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey#Later_life_and_works
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Uebersetzer
    It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos - malicious gloating. It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night - a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.

    Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.

    The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn’t believe what he is saying any more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.

    It’s all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out there as this cartoon villian.

    As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now… the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @nickels
    I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped in all the classic WASP institutions.

    https://www.hoover.org/profiles/stephen-kotkin

    Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
    The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just crazy.
    Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet you're reading propaganda.

    If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.

    I see you go for the comic book villain invented by Cold War propagandists like Robert Conquest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    I ordered:

    Myths truth about 1937 Stalin s counter revolution Mify i pravda o 1937 gode Kontrrevolyutsiya Stalina (Russian)
    by A. M. Burovski

    Found this:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Thirdeye
    From Trotsky's doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in revolution - no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a "pure" faction and a "get something done" faction. International Socialists represented the "pure" faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More "pure" factions spun off in the early 1960s, which sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the "pure" factions. The "get something done" faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their "revolutionary" rationale for those movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist "Trotskyism" of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend to accomplish.

    Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations. Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism. The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.

    There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open borders and anti-nationalism.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism.
     
    Well...... the narrative is kind of cloudy.

    The Bolshies made alliances with nationalist forces against the Tsarists, but as often as not they ended up in violent conflict with them. Russian nationalism and its spiritual connection to the Tsar put it on a collision course with the revolution, which in its early years still adhered to the Marxist orthodoxy of revolutionary internationalism. Their big success in managing nationalism was de-fusing it in the Ukraine with territorial and economic concessions. Later, the interests of the nationalities of the various SSRs were hardwired into the central bureaucracy. After Lenin came two leaders not from the Russian SSR.

    The Nationalist movement in China was influenced by Western ideas and acted against the old Dynasty more than against Western colonialism. Anti-colonial nationalism drove the May 4th movement, which later would give rise to the CCP, but the CCP's appeal to peasants was mainly against the remaining feudal elements. Anti-colonialism was more of a theoretical concern. Opposition to the Japanese invasion mainly had the practical effect of a truce between the Kuomintang and the CCP; prosecuting a war against the Japanese wasn't really a practical option for them.

    The Viet Minh were nationalist first and Communist second. The Communists gained ascendancy largely because they were the ones who could secure foreign aid for the anti-colonial cause. Once the colonial-aligned forces were driven out, it didn't take long for Vietnam to embrace capitalism - the quickest peaceful abandonment of communism ever.

    Maybe the best example of communist-nationalism is Cuba, still here almost 60 years after booting out Yankee imperialism and influencing nationalist movements throughout Latin America.

    It is kind of ironic that the ideas of national self-determination and national-interest driven economic and foreign policy, which rallied much of the post-colonial world to the communist cause, are now driving people to the conservative cause.

    The oh-so-pure "world revolution" advocates such as McKenna and Proyect seem to be using "Stalin!" as some kind of escape button in the face of their own contradictions in aligning with neocons, Zionists, and Islamo-fascists against governments they deem insufficiently pure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @James Brown
    The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defensor of a mass murderer.

    The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.

    That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.

    The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.

    "Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality..."

    No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
    Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.

    The first european revolution - The French Revolution - was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial killing of a people - People of Vendée - .
    The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.

    It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc...) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.

    Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher - A French Genocide: The Vendee.

    "In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"

    Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.

    Eh… No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it’s not a joke. Fully European, of European people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals, or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?

    Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that’s all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus, a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.

    The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution...Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.

    What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the American Revolution.
    Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.

    "The entire Human History is criminal" - It's false.

    "We must understand, not look for criminals."...Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions are made by criminals...Not just Robespierre, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA
    And this is unusual for the third world?

    Mrs Kennedy bought all her clothes in Paris although she laundered then through an American manufacturer

    Mrs Trump buys a lot of her clothes in Italy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moi
    and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

    She has to, all the stores in Syria have been bombed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
     
    That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally--and the NKVD specifically--from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.

    I just finished Kotkin’s Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
     
    Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand the context in which they took place.

    So many of the books about the revolution and USSR have been written by commie Jews. It’s good to be sceptical about everything they write.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonFromTN
    The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.

    You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

    They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our “struggle” is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

    In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    The Trotskyists didn't leave America, they just morphed into Neocons (or so I've been told).
    , @Thirdeye
    Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class - the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands. We are all Third World now.
    , @Joe Franklin
    Trotskyites transformed into a modern victim cult.

    Proletariat class is replaced with victim class, and the bourgeoisie class is replaced with the oppressor class or else the Nazi white supremacist.

    Jews learned lessons from WW2 and applied it to their class warfare schemes.

    Feminist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Male oppression
    Jewish are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gentile oppression
    Queers are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Straight oppression
    Muslims are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Christian oppression
    Disabled are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed White oppression
    Latinos are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gringo oppression
    Military Veterans are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Militia oppression
    Native Americans are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Paleface oppression
    Asians are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Occidental oppression
    International Socialist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Local Government oppression
    SJW Crony Capitalist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Honest Businessmen oppression
    Zionist-Neocons are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Anti-Fascist oppression

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Brown
    The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defensor of a mass murderer.

    The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.

    That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.

    The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.

    "Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality..."

    No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
    Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.

    The first european revolution - The French Revolution - was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial killing of a people - People of Vendée - .
    The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.

    It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc...) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.

    Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher - A French Genocide: The Vendee.

    "In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"

    Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.

    I’m very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
    It’s not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.

    Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too

    Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans.
    There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau maintained by some college history department.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
    In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)

    Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".

    If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

    For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

    You nailed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. nickels says:
    @Shakesvshav
    I see you go for the comic book villain invented by Cold War propagandists like Robert Conquest.

    I ordered:

    Myths truth about 1937 Stalin s counter revolution Mify i pravda o 1937 gode Kontrrevolyutsiya Stalina (Russian)
    by A. M. Burovski

    Found this:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Excellent article.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. utu says:
    @nickels
    Interesting.
    I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
    The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
    My other theory is that they were a paychological projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.

    projection of guilt

    Come on, psychoanalyzing Stalin? Psychoanalysis can explain everything (X and not-X) that’s why it has no explanatory power.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/understanding-stalin/380786/
    In the contemporary West, we often assume that perpetrators of mass violence must be insane or irrational, but as Kotkin tells the story, Stalin was neither.

    After reading few reviews of Koktin books I am ready to invest my time and effort to give him a chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Kotkin's writing is readable and the details are interesting.

    But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.

    You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn't an implied psychopath?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Quartermaster
    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky's life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert. You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Seraphim says:
    @Quartermaster
    There was a small point of disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin, but that was all it took for an animal like Stalin to go after Trotsky's life. Stalin killed men for far less.

    Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

    Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
    ‘Revolutionary defeatism’ was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky’s too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Mulegino1 says:

    As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects’ willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

    Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of Kuehn and Loeb.

    Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.

    Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the “Hymn of the Soviet Union” (now the Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace “The Internationale.”

    In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their temporary allegiance to their great American golem.

    The origins of the Cold War (and today’s Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Unfortunately, I already used up my 'Agree' button!
    , @RobinG
    I've always been a little confused what people mean when they [self-righteously] call themselves Internationalists. Not looking so good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Paw says:
    @Uebersetzer
    It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos - malicious gloating. It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night - a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.

    This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
    It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Paw says:
    @Thirdeye
    The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.

    This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
    It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. RobinG says:
    @Anon
    You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

    They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our “struggle” is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

    In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

    The Trotskyists didn’t leave America, they just morphed into Neocons (or so I’ve been told).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Paw says:
    @Thirdeye
    The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.

    Not only to German , but the German general Staff. And Lenin lived from robberies with murders .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Louis Proyect – this is a vile scribe, who blackens the pages of the Counterpunch. A part of the Trotskyite gang that took over this once venerable magazine!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Hervé Fuyet
    Hello Diana,

    I remember with emotion the old days, where in Minnesota, the Communist Party with me among others, and the Trotskyist of the WS with you, among others, if my memories are good, we were fighting inside the movement against the war from VietNam.

    The Trotskyists said then that once peace is won, it would be necessary to work for the overthrow of the regime of “pro-Soviet revisionist HoChiMinh”.

    Even today, most of the troskysts (and CPF Eurocommunists for that matter) still deny the socialist character of China, Viet Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and so on.

    And this is even more true since these countries are inscribing their economy in the continuity of Lenin’s NEP!

    We come to this fable of the end of History with “globalized capitalism”, as we enter a multipolar world where the socialist countries (China, VietNam, North Korea, Cuba, Kerala …) in alliance with the BRICS non-imperialist, take over.

    Have you evolved from Minnesota, or are you still a fellow traveler on the WS Trotskyite?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. @Revoluteous
    Eh... No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals, or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?

    Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus, a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.

    The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.

    Maybe you’re right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution…Except that it wasn’t really a Revolution. If we want to be precise, we should call it war for “Independence”/For Power.

    What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the American Revolution.
    Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide is an example how “revolutionary” (criminal), the American Elite were/are.

    “The entire Human History is criminal” – It’s false.

    “We must understand, not look for criminals.”…Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions are made by criminals…Not just Robespierre, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Revoluteous
    Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others. And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.

    Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).

    What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.

    If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But, Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.
    , @Seraphim
    The first European revolution was the English Revolution of 1640, after Marx. But you may consider Protestantism as the 'first' revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @nickels
    I ordered:

    Myths truth about 1937 Stalin s counter revolution Mify i pravda o 1937 gode Kontrrevolyutsiya Stalina (Russian)
    by A. M. Burovski

    Found this:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

    Excellent article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anon
    I’m very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
    It’s not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.

    Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too

    Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans.
    There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau maintained by some college history department.

    Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls “Unsung Heroine”.
    In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)

    Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their “République”.

    If you’re interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He’s one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he’s almost unknown because he doesn’t write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Before I read Secher I read Boudereau’s memoires and numerous other histories written from the truth about the Masonic property grab so called revolution perspective.
    , @anon
    How dare that scum of the earth White hating Jew Howard Zinn speak of Renee Boudereau

    Zinn is a White goyim hating Jew. He only criticized America because it’s a White goyim country

    He hates you and me as much as he hates the American elites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution...Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.

    What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the American Revolution.
    Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.

    "The entire Human History is criminal" - It's false.

    "We must understand, not look for criminals."...Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions are made by criminals...Not just Robespierre, of course.

    Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others. And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.

    Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).

    What I am trying to say it’s maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier than French too. If none speaks about it’s because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.

    If you have such “accidents” you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal the “criminals”. Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it’s hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But, Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Forrestal

    Yes, it was.
     
    No. The "American Revolution" was not a revolution; it was a war of secession. As was the "Civil War," of course. One successful, one failed -- but neither had as its object obtaining control of the central government of the existing polity, while maintaining it in its existing form.

    They both aimed at achieving independence, with their own territory, from their existing rulers, and from their state. It should be obvious that the Americans had no ambition to overthrow the king, invade London, and take control of the British Empire. Just as the Confederates had no desire, or plan, to rule over the North.
    , @James Brown
    "All Revolutions are about power."

    If you know that and you know that the true nature of power is evil you can not fail to get the true nature of all revolutions: evil.

    It doesn't of course mean that before the revolution, the power in place was "good".

    It means only, without exception that the crimes committed to achieve and maintain power (which is the definition of a revolution) were far worse than the crimes that were being committed by the rulling class before the revolution.

    French Monarchy was far from perfect. But the crimes committed by the French Monarchy are childish play when compared to what French criminals/terrorists/revolutionaries will commit after 1789.

    Without American "Revolution", no indian genocide and slavery would have been abolished sooner.

    Without Russian Revolution, no genocide of Russian People. No French Revolution, no genocide of People of Vendée.

    "maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move."

    Revolutions can be many things but you can be sure they are not "accidents".
    Revolutions are planned and executed by criminals and people with "thirst for power".
    The fact that you have idealists, naîves, intellectuals (fools) that support revolutions doesn't change the true nature of the act, which is criminal.

    And revolutions are also very expensive . Without money, no revolutions.

    Without money from american capitalists/bankers no communist revolution in Russia.etc..etc..

    "Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way"

    I don't call them criminals. They are criminals. When people kill other innocent people, traditions, customs,religions, laws, say they are criminals.

    The fact some people kill in the name of "principles", "ideas", "state", "revolution" etc...doesn't change the nature of the act.

    Their crimes will go unpunished - the worst criminals are never punished -, but that shouldn't impede us to call them what they are: criminals.

    I'm not really interested in "differences" between Lenine/Stalin/Trotsky.
    For me, they are a bunch of criminals. I presume that "intellectuals" that have nothing to do write books about those criminals. When I was more stupid, I used to read them. No more time to waste in such useless activity.

    "Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser?"

    You can't be serious. If you try, you will find the answer to your "no- question."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. nickels says:
    @utu

    projection of guilt
     
    Come on, psychoanalyzing Stalin? Psychoanalysis can explain everything (X and not-X) that's why it has no explanatory power.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/understanding-stalin/380786/
    In the contemporary West, we often assume that perpetrators of mass violence must be insane or irrational, but as Kotkin tells the story, Stalin was neither.
     
    After reading few reviews of Koktin books I am ready to invest my time and effort to give him a chance.

    Kotkin’s writing is readable and the details are interesting.

    But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.

    You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn’t an implied psychopath?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Thirdeye says:
    @Anon
    You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

    They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our “struggle” is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

    In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

    Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class – the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands. We are all Third World now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @nickels
    I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped in all the classic WASP institutions.

    https://www.hoover.org/profiles/stephen-kotkin

    Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
    The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just crazy.
    Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet you're reading propaganda.

    If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.

    The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists, such as Francis Parker Yockey:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey#Later_life_and_works

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Thanks!

    That tip led me to this interesting article, describing the Trotsky-NeoCon connection in detail:

    http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kerrybolton/Yockey.html

    This ‘cultural bolshevism’ exists in a literal, definite sense in America, and can now be identified more specifically perhaps than Yockey was able to do in his own time. Trotskyite-bolshevism remained a significant tactic of American foreign policy during the Cold War for the purpose of subverting the Soviet bloc, as Yockey discerned. The Stalinists were correct in describing Trotskyism as a tool of ‘international capital’.

    The specific organ for the propagation of ‘cultural bolshevism’ was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded primarily as a means of (1) destabilising the Soviet Union, and (2) co-opting non-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist Leftists, including communists, onto the American side of the Cold War. Such was the hatred of Trotskyites for the USSR without their idol that they readily sold themselves for anti-Russian purposes.

     

    And this:
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/03/americas-world-revolution-neo-trotskyist-foundations-of-u-s-foreign-policy/view-all/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Mulegino1
    As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

    Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of Kuehn and Loeb.

    Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.

    Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."

    In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their temporary allegiance to their great American golem.

    The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.

    Unfortunately, I already used up my ‘Agree’ button!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Thirdeye says:
    @unpc downunder
    Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations. Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism. The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.

    There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open borders and anti-nationalism.

    The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism.

    Well…… the narrative is kind of cloudy.

    The Bolshies made alliances with nationalist forces against the Tsarists, but as often as not they ended up in violent conflict with them. Russian nationalism and its spiritual connection to the Tsar put it on a collision course with the revolution, which in its early years still adhered to the Marxist orthodoxy of revolutionary internationalism. Their big success in managing nationalism was de-fusing it in the Ukraine with territorial and economic concessions. Later, the interests of the nationalities of the various SSRs were hardwired into the central bureaucracy. After Lenin came two leaders not from the Russian SSR.

    The Nationalist movement in China was influenced by Western ideas and acted against the old Dynasty more than against Western colonialism. Anti-colonial nationalism drove the May 4th movement, which later would give rise to the CCP, but the CCP’s appeal to peasants was mainly against the remaining feudal elements. Anti-colonialism was more of a theoretical concern. Opposition to the Japanese invasion mainly had the practical effect of a truce between the Kuomintang and the CCP; prosecuting a war against the Japanese wasn’t really a practical option for them.

    The Viet Minh were nationalist first and Communist second. The Communists gained ascendancy largely because they were the ones who could secure foreign aid for the anti-colonial cause. Once the colonial-aligned forces were driven out, it didn’t take long for Vietnam to embrace capitalism – the quickest peaceful abandonment of communism ever.

    Maybe the best example of communist-nationalism is Cuba, still here almost 60 years after booting out Yankee imperialism and influencing nationalist movements throughout Latin America.

    It is kind of ironic that the ideas of national self-determination and national-interest driven economic and foreign policy, which rallied much of the post-colonial world to the communist cause, are now driving people to the conservative cause.

    The oh-so-pure “world revolution” advocates such as McKenna and Proyect seem to be using “Stalin!” as some kind of escape button in the face of their own contradictions in aligning with neocons, Zionists, and Islamo-fascists against governments they deem insufficiently pure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Haxo Angmark
    that today's Trotskyite communists come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyite communists are now called

    (((neo-cons)))

    originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review.

    “Conservative” Stephen Schwartz at NRO (2003) still singing the praises of Trotsky, and bashing those evil Stalinist heretics:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207196/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz

    “To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who… [was so unfairly poisecuted and bla, bla, bla]
    To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Revoluteous
    Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others. And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.

    Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).

    What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.

    If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But, Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.

    Yes, it was.

    No. The “American Revolution” was not a revolution; it was a war of secession. As was the “Civil War,” of course. One successful, one failed — but neither had as its object obtaining control of the central government of the existing polity, while maintaining it in its existing form.

    They both aimed at achieving independence, with their own territory, from their existing rulers, and from their state. It should be obvious that the Americans had no ambition to overthrow the king, invade London, and take control of the British Empire. Just as the Confederates had no desire, or plan, to rule over the North.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. RobinG says:
    @Mulegino1
    As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

    Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of Kuehn and Loeb.

    Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.

    Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."

    In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their temporary allegiance to their great American golem.

    The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.

    I’ve always been a little confused what people mean when they [self-righteously] call themselves Internationalists. Not looking so good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. M7 says:

    Communism – the most radical form of international socialism – was the most criminal form of human state organization. Only Chinese succeeded “reforming” it in a form of national socialism (YES) that works very well. It was only the wisdom given by the deep traditions of the Chinese people that prevented communism from totally destroying their country.

    US became controlled by the same type of apparatchik (and same ethnicity) as the founders of Bolshevism in Russia.

    Trotsky and Stalin are the two sides of the same coin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Seraphim says:
    @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution...Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.

    What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the American Revolution.
    Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.

    "The entire Human History is criminal" - It's false.

    "We must understand, not look for criminals."...Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions are made by criminals...Not just Robespierre, of course.

    The first European revolution was the English Revolution of 1640, after Marx. But you may consider Protestantism as the ‘first’ revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. Maybe one can also say that The French Revolution was the "first" European Revolution because it's the one the future "revolutionaries" (crimianls, in fact) will have as their model. They said it and wrote about it.

    Lenine , I believe, studied the French Revolution more than any other revolution in history.
    He was in Vendée.

    The genocide that the Bolsheviks will commit later in Russia wouldn't probably been possible without the French Revolution and the fist genocide (as far as I know) in the European continent: The Genocide of People of Vendée.

    The French revolution taught the future revolutionaries that there was no limit in crimes that can be committed to build a "better" world and the "new" man.

    What is true for Lenine and bunch of other bolsheviks' criminals, also applies to Hitler, Pol Pot, Talaat Pacha.

    That's why I believe is correct to call the French Revolution, the "first" european revolution.

    It's the father and mother of "modernity".

    Even American "Revolution" can be said to be a product of the French Revolution. There is no contradiction.
    The Amercian founding fathers were sons of "Enlightenment". Without French Philosophers no French Revolution and no American "Revolution".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Revoluteous
    Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others. And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.

    Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).

    What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.

    If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But, Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.

    “All Revolutions are about power.”

    If you know that and you know that the true nature of power is evil you can not fail to get the true nature of all revolutions: evil.

    It doesn’t of course mean that before the revolution, the power in place was “good”.

    It means only, without exception that the crimes committed to achieve and maintain power (which is the definition of a revolution) were far worse than the crimes that were being committed by the rulling class before the revolution.

    French Monarchy was far from perfect. But the crimes committed by the French Monarchy are childish play when compared to what French criminals/terrorists/revolutionaries will commit after 1789.

    Without American “Revolution”, no indian genocide and slavery would have been abolished sooner.

    Without Russian Revolution, no genocide of Russian People. No French Revolution, no genocide of People of Vendée.

    “maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move.”

    Revolutions can be many things but you can be sure they are not “accidents”.
    Revolutions are planned and executed by criminals and people with “thirst for power”.
    The fact that you have idealists, naîves, intellectuals (fools) that support revolutions doesn’t change the true nature of the act, which is criminal.

    And revolutions are also very expensive . Without money, no revolutions.

    Without money from american capitalists/bankers no communist revolution in Russia.etc..etc..

    “Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way”

    I don’t call them criminals. They are criminals. When people kill other innocent people, traditions, customs,religions, laws, say they are criminals.

    The fact some people kill in the name of “principles”, “ideas”, “state”, “revolution” etc…doesn’t change the nature of the act.

    Their crimes will go unpunished – the worst criminals are never punished -, but that shouldn’t impede us to call them what they are: criminals.

    I’m not really interested in “differences” between Lenine/Stalin/Trotsky.
    For me, they are a bunch of criminals. I presume that “intellectuals” that have nothing to do write books about those criminals. When I was more stupid, I used to read them. No more time to waste in such useless activity.

    “Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser?”

    You can’t be serious. If you try, you will find the answer to your “no- question.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Seraphim
    The first European revolution was the English Revolution of 1640, after Marx. But you may consider Protestantism as the 'first' revolution.

    Maybe you’re right. Maybe one can also say that The French Revolution was the “first” European Revolution because it’s the one the future “revolutionaries” (crimianls, in fact) will have as their model. They said it and wrote about it.

    Lenine , I believe, studied the French Revolution more than any other revolution in history.
    He was in Vendée.

    The genocide that the Bolsheviks will commit later in Russia wouldn’t probably been possible without the French Revolution and the fist genocide (as far as I know) in the European continent: The Genocide of People of Vendée.

    The French revolution taught the future revolutionaries that there was no limit in crimes that can be committed to build a “better” world and the “new” man.

    What is true for Lenine and bunch of other bolsheviks’ criminals, also applies to Hitler, Pol Pot, Talaat Pacha.

    That’s why I believe is correct to call the French Revolution, the “first” european revolution.

    It’s the father and mother of “modernity”.

    Even American “Revolution” can be said to be a product of the French Revolution. There is no contradiction.
    The Amercian founding fathers were sons of “Enlightenment”. Without French Philosophers no French Revolution and no American “Revolution”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    La Fayette fought in the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson seconded by La Fayette directed the 'storming of Bastille' from the American Embassy and together redacted the 'Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen' (it was still the rights of Man, not 'Human Rights'). Partners in crime all the way.
    , @Seraphim
    French 'Enlightenment' itself is inconceivable without the 'scientific' and philosophical revolution which developed in the wake of the Cromwellian Revolution and the 'Glorious Revolution' which drew the plans for the overthrow of the traditional powers of Church and Monarchy. Spinoza, Newton, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, are the fathers of the Franco-American Revolution. Besides the English Revolution created also the 'operatives' of the revolution, the Freemasonry. The drab materialism that this 'philosophy' secreted, the anti-human egotism it encouraged, the religious belief in 'progress' as an unavoidable necessity, permitted the ebbing of charitable feelings towards one's fellows and permitted to commit genocide with a clear conscience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Anon
    You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

    They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our “struggle” is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

    In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

    Trotskyites transformed into a modern victim cult.

    Proletariat class is replaced with victim class, and the bourgeoisie class is replaced with the oppressor class or else the Nazi white supremacist.

    Jews learned lessons from WW2 and applied it to their class warfare schemes.

    [MORE]

    Feminist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Male oppression
    Jewish are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gentile oppression
    Queers are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Straight oppression
    Muslims are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Christian oppression
    Disabled are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed White oppression
    Latinos are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Gringo oppression
    Military Veterans are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Militia oppression
    Native Americans are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Paleface oppression
    Asians are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Occidental oppression
    International Socialist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Local Government oppression
    SJW Crony Capitalist are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Honest Businessmen oppression
    Zionist-Neocons are favored by illicit federal laws because of presumed Anti-Fascist oppression

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Seraphim says:
    @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. Maybe one can also say that The French Revolution was the "first" European Revolution because it's the one the future "revolutionaries" (crimianls, in fact) will have as their model. They said it and wrote about it.

    Lenine , I believe, studied the French Revolution more than any other revolution in history.
    He was in Vendée.

    The genocide that the Bolsheviks will commit later in Russia wouldn't probably been possible without the French Revolution and the fist genocide (as far as I know) in the European continent: The Genocide of People of Vendée.

    The French revolution taught the future revolutionaries that there was no limit in crimes that can be committed to build a "better" world and the "new" man.

    What is true for Lenine and bunch of other bolsheviks' criminals, also applies to Hitler, Pol Pot, Talaat Pacha.

    That's why I believe is correct to call the French Revolution, the "first" european revolution.

    It's the father and mother of "modernity".

    Even American "Revolution" can be said to be a product of the French Revolution. There is no contradiction.
    The Amercian founding fathers were sons of "Enlightenment". Without French Philosophers no French Revolution and no American "Revolution".

    La Fayette fought in the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson seconded by La Fayette directed the ‘storming of Bastille’ from the American Embassy and together redacted the ‘Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen’ (it was still the rights of Man, not ‘Human Rights’). Partners in crime all the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    Fun fact: while the "human skin" lampshades turned out to be merely overheated war atrocity propaganda, there is at least one copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man still extant that is bound in human skin -- the skin of victims of the Terror.

    . "...among other anthropodermically bound documents from that period are a copy of The Rights of Man and several copies of the French Constitution of 1793"

    http://hlrecord.org/2005/11/books-bound-in-human-skin-lampshade-myth/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Seraphim says:
    @James Brown
    Maybe you're right. Maybe one can also say that The French Revolution was the "first" European Revolution because it's the one the future "revolutionaries" (crimianls, in fact) will have as their model. They said it and wrote about it.

    Lenine , I believe, studied the French Revolution more than any other revolution in history.
    He was in Vendée.

    The genocide that the Bolsheviks will commit later in Russia wouldn't probably been possible without the French Revolution and the fist genocide (as far as I know) in the European continent: The Genocide of People of Vendée.

    The French revolution taught the future revolutionaries that there was no limit in crimes that can be committed to build a "better" world and the "new" man.

    What is true for Lenine and bunch of other bolsheviks' criminals, also applies to Hitler, Pol Pot, Talaat Pacha.

    That's why I believe is correct to call the French Revolution, the "first" european revolution.

    It's the father and mother of "modernity".

    Even American "Revolution" can be said to be a product of the French Revolution. There is no contradiction.
    The Amercian founding fathers were sons of "Enlightenment". Without French Philosophers no French Revolution and no American "Revolution".

    French ‘Enlightenment’ itself is inconceivable without the ‘scientific’ and philosophical revolution which developed in the wake of the Cromwellian Revolution and the ‘Glorious Revolution’ which drew the plans for the overthrow of the traditional powers of Church and Monarchy. Spinoza, Newton, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, are the fathers of the Franco-American Revolution. Besides the English Revolution created also the ‘operatives’ of the revolution, the Freemasonry. The drab materialism that this ‘philosophy’ secreted, the anti-human egotism it encouraged, the religious belief in ‘progress’ as an unavoidable necessity, permitted the ebbing of charitable feelings towards one’s fellows and permitted to commit genocide with a clear conscience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Couldn't agree more and couldn't have put it better. Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Seraphim
    French 'Enlightenment' itself is inconceivable without the 'scientific' and philosophical revolution which developed in the wake of the Cromwellian Revolution and the 'Glorious Revolution' which drew the plans for the overthrow of the traditional powers of Church and Monarchy. Spinoza, Newton, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, are the fathers of the Franco-American Revolution. Besides the English Revolution created also the 'operatives' of the revolution, the Freemasonry. The drab materialism that this 'philosophy' secreted, the anti-human egotism it encouraged, the religious belief in 'progress' as an unavoidable necessity, permitted the ebbing of charitable feelings towards one's fellows and permitted to commit genocide with a clear conscience.

    Couldn’t agree more and couldn’t have put it better. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. nickels says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists, such as Francis Parker Yockey:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey#Later_life_and_works

    Thanks!

    That tip led me to this interesting article, describing the Trotsky-NeoCon connection in detail:

    http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kerrybolton/Yockey.html

    This ‘cultural bolshevism’ exists in a literal, definite sense in America, and can now be identified more specifically perhaps than Yockey was able to do in his own time. Trotskyite-bolshevism remained a significant tactic of American foreign policy during the Cold War for the purpose of subverting the Soviet bloc, as Yockey discerned. The Stalinists were correct in describing Trotskyism as a tool of ‘international capital’.

    The specific organ for the propagation of ‘cultural bolshevism’ was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded primarily as a means of (1) destabilising the Soviet Union, and (2) co-opting non-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist Leftists, including communists, onto the American side of the Cold War. Such was the hatred of Trotskyites for the USSR without their idol that they readily sold themselves for anti-Russian purposes.

    And this:

    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/03/americas-world-revolution-neo-trotskyist-foundations-of-u-s-foreign-policy/view-all/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. RobinG says:

    Thanks for the FPJ link. Funny, if not mind-numbing.

    Life of Brian – scene 3 – People’s front of Judea

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @Seraphim
    La Fayette fought in the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson seconded by La Fayette directed the 'storming of Bastille' from the American Embassy and together redacted the 'Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen' (it was still the rights of Man, not 'Human Rights'). Partners in crime all the way.

    Fun fact: while the “human skin” lampshades turned out to be merely overheated war atrocity propaganda, there is at least one copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man still extant that is bound in human skin — the skin of victims of the Terror.

    . “…among other anthropodermically bound documents from that period are a copy of The Rights of Man and several copies of the French Constitution of 1793″

    http://hlrecord.org/2005/11/books-bound-in-human-skin-lampshade-myth/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort", that was the real Declaration of the Rights of Man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Seraphim says:
    @James Forrestal
    Fun fact: while the "human skin" lampshades turned out to be merely overheated war atrocity propaganda, there is at least one copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man still extant that is bound in human skin -- the skin of victims of the Terror.

    . "...among other anthropodermically bound documents from that period are a copy of The Rights of Man and several copies of the French Constitution of 1793"

    http://hlrecord.org/2005/11/books-bound-in-human-skin-lampshade-myth/

    “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort”, that was the real Declaration of the Rights of Man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Brown
    Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
    In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)

    Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".

    If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.

    Before I read Secher I read Boudereau’s memoires and numerous other histories written from the truth about the Masonic property grab so called revolution perspective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Brown
    Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
    In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)

    Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".

    If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.

    How dare that scum of the earth White hating Jew Howard Zinn speak of Renee Boudereau

    Zinn is a White goyim hating Jew. He only criticized America because it’s a White goyim country

    He hates you and me as much as he hates the American elites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?