Najnowsze komentarze

III Ankieta Wydawnictwa Podziemnego

Dziecko w szkole uczy się fałszowanej historii od Piasta do równie sfałszowanego Września i dowie się, że obrońcą Warszawy był nie jakiś tam Starzyński, ale komunista Buczek, który wyłamał kraty „polskiego faszystowskiego” więzienia, by na czele ludu stolicy stanąć do walki z najeźdźcą. – Tak w roku 1952 Barbara Toporska opisywała ówczesny etap bolszewizacji Polski.

Przyjmijmy, na potrzeby niniejszej ankiety, że był to opis pierwszego etapu bolszewizacji, klasycznego w swoim prostolinijnym zakłamaniu. Kolejny etap nastąpił szybko, zaledwie kilka lat później, gdy – posługując się przykładem przytoczonym przez Barbarę Toporską – w kontekście obrony Warszawy wymieniano już nie tylko komunistę Buczka, ale także prezydenta Starzyńskiego (i to z największymi, bolszewickimi honorami). Przyszedł w końcu także moment, gdy komunista Buczek albo znikł z kart historii, albo też przestał być przedstawiany w najlepszym świetle – jeszcze jeden, mocno odmieniony okres.

Mamy tu zatem dynamiczne zjawisko bolszewizmu i szereg nasuwających się pytań. Ograniczmy się do najistotniejszych, opartych na tezie, że powyższe trzy etapy bolszewizacji rzeczywiście miały i mają miejsce:

1. Wedle „realistycznej” interpretacji historii najnowszej utarło się sądzić, że owe trzy etapy bolszewickiej strategii są w rzeczywistości nacechowane nieustającym oddawaniem politycznego pola przez bolszewików. Zgodnie z taką wykładnią, historię bolszewizmu można podzielić na zasadnicze okresy: klasyczny, ewoluujący, upadły. Na czym polega błąd takiego rozumowania?

2. Jak rozumieć kolejno następujące po sobie okresy? Jako etapy bolszewizacji? Jako zmiany wynikające z przyjętej strategii, czy ze zmiennej sytuacji ideowej i politycznej, czy może trzeba wziąć pod uwagę inne jeszcze, niewymienione tu czynniki?

3. Trzy etapy i co dalej? Czy trzecia faza spełnia wszystkie ideowe cele bolszewizmu, czy wręcz przeciwnie – jest od realizacji tych celów odległa? Czy należy spodziewać się powrotu do któregoś z wcześniejszych etapów, a może spektakularnego etapu czwartego lub kolejnych?

Zapraszamy do udziału w naszej Ankiecie.

II Ankieta Wydawnictwa Podziemnego

Dorobek pisarzy i publicystów mierzy się nie tyle ilością zapisanych arkuszy papieru, wielkością osiąganych nakładów, popularnością wśród współczesnych czy potomnych, poklaskiem i zaszczytami, doznawanymi za życia, ale wpływem jaki wywierali lub wywierają na życie i myślenie swoich czytelników. Wydaje się, że twórczość Józefa Mackiewicza, jak żadna inna, nadaje się do uzasadnienia powyższego stwierdzenia. Stąd pomysł, aby kolejną ankietę Wydawnictwa poświęcić zagadnieniu wpływu i znaczenia twórczości tego pisarza.

Chcielibyśmy zadać Państwu następujące pytania:

1. W jakich okolicznościach zetknął się Pan/Pani po raz pierwszy z Józefem Mackiewiczem?
Jakie były Pana/Pani refleksje związane z lekturą książek Mackiewicza?

2. Czy w ocenie Pana/Pani twórczość publicystyczna i literacka Józefa Mackiewicza miały realny wpływ na myślenie i poczynania jemu współczesnych? Jeśli tak, w jakim kontekście, w jakim okresie?

3. Czy formułowane przez Mackiewicza poglądy okazują się przydatne w zestawieniu z rzeczywistością polityczną nam współczesną, czy też wypada uznać go za pisarza historycznego, w którego przesłaniu trudno doszukać się aktualnego wydźwięku?

Serdecznie zapraszamy Państwa do udziału.

Ankieta Wydawnictwa Podziemnego

1. W tak zwanej obiegowej opinii egzystuje pogląd, że w 1989 roku w Polsce zainicjowany został historyczny przewrót polityczny, którego skutki miały zadecydować o nowym kształcie sytuacji globalnej. Jest wiele dowodów na to, że nie tylko w prlu, ale także innych krajach bloku komunistycznego, ta rzekomo antykomunistyczna rewolta była dziełem sowieckich służb specjalnych i służyła długofalowym celom pierestrojki. W przypadku prlu następstwa tajnego porozumienia zawartego pomiędzy komunistyczną władzą, koncesjonowaną opozycją oraz hierarchią kościelną, trwają nieprzerwanie do dziś. Jaka jest Pana ocena skutków rewolucji w Europie Wschodniej? Czy uprawniony jest pogląd, że w wyniku ówczesnych wydarzeń oraz ich następstw, wschodnia część Europy wywalczyła wolność?

2. Nie sposób w tym kontekście pominąć incydentu, który miał miejsce w sierpniu 1991 roku w Moskwie. Czy, biorąc pod uwagę ówczesne wydarzenia, kolejne rządy Jelcyna i Putina można nazwać polityczną kontynuacją sowieckiego bolszewizmu, czy należy raczej mówić o procesie demokratyzacji? W jaki sposób zmiany w Sowietach wpływają na ocenę współczesnej polityki międzynarodowej?

3. Czy wobec rewolucyjnych nastrojów panujących obecnie na kontynencie południowoamerykańskim należy mówić o zjawisku odradzania się ideologii marksistowskiej, czy jest to raczej rozwój i kontynuacja starych trendów, od dziesięcioleci obecnych na tym kontynencie? Czy mamy do czynienia z realizacją starej idei konwergencji, łączenia dwóch zantagonizowanych systemów, kapitalizmu i socjalizmu, w jeden nowy model funkcjonowania państwa i społeczeństwa, czy może ze zjawiskiem o zupełnie odmiennym charakterze?

4. Jakie będą konsekwencje rozwoju gospodarczego i wojskowego komunistycznych Chin?

5. Już wkrótce będzie miała miejsce 90 rocznica rewolucji bolszewickiej w Rosji. Niezależnie od oceny wpływu tamtych wydarzeń na losy świata w XX wieku, funkcjonują przynajmniej dwa przeciwstawne poglądy na temat idei bolszewickiej, jej teraźniejszości i przyszłości. Pierwszy z nich, zdecydowanie bardziej rozpowszechniony, stwierdza, że komunizm to przeżytek, zepchnięty do lamusa historii. Drugi stara się udowodnić, że rola komunizmu jako ideologii i jako praktyki politycznej jeszcze się nie zakończyła. Który z tych poglądów jest bardziej uprawniony?

6. Najwybitniejszy polski antykomunista, Józef Mackiewicz, pisał w 1962 roku:

Wielka jest zdolność rezygnacji i przystosowania do warunków, właściwa naturze ludzkiej. Ale żaden realizm nie powinien pozbawiać ludzi poczucia wyobraźni, gdyż przestanie być realizmem. Porównanie zaś obyczajów świata z roku 1912 z obyczajami dziś, daje nam dopiero niejaką możność, choć oczywiście nie w zarysach konkretnych, wyobrazić sobie do jakiego układu rzeczy ludzie będą mogli być jeszcze zmuszeni 'rozsądnie' się przystosować, w roku 2012!

Jaki jest Pana punkt widzenia na tak postawioną kwestię? Jaki kształt przybierze świat w roku 2012?




Dariusz Rohnka


Ten sam nacjonalizm

Jeff Nyquist nie jest typowym przedstawicielem amerykańskiej publicystyki. Nie tylko czytuje Golicyna, wietrzy za komunistycznym spiskiem na globalną skalę, ale jeszcze w dodatku wierzy, że wschodnioeuropejskie rewolucje z lat 1989-1991 były elementem długofalowej strategii, poczęły się z samych Chruszczowa i Mao. Dzięki takim poglądom Nyquist wydaje się wyrazisty, bezkompromisowy, interesujący i oryginalny na tyle, aby warto było czytać jego teksty i dyskutować z nim złożone sprawy tego świata. A jest doprawdy o czym, biorąc choćby pod uwagę przemianę, jaka dokonała się w myśleniu politycznym Jeffreya Nyquista.

Jako niemal niepodważalny aksjomat, Nyquist przyjął w ostatnim czasie, że zarówno Saakaszwili w Gruzji, jak i Juszczenko na Ukrainie, są źródłem nadziei dla wolnościowego zrywu w tej części Europy, a pojawienie się obu herosów na politycznej scenie dowodzi, że sowiecka długofalowa strategia przeżywa ostatnio wyjątkowo trudne chwile, i kto wie, czy w perspektywie ulotnego czasu nie okaże się efemerydą. To nowe, tryskające nadzieją, stanowisko amerykańskiego publicysty ma, jak się przy okazji dowiadujemy, przeciwważyć jego osobisty, Nyquistowski, wewnątrzamerykański oraz globalny pesymizm. Dwóch wyzwoleńców spod bolszewickiego jarzma ma stanowić ekwiwalent amerykańskiego upadku! Taki, nader zaskakujący wniosek, wydaje się wypływa bezpośrednio z jego dywagacji.

Czy rzeczywiście zaskakujący? Po początkowej konfuzji pora na zastanowienie. Czy istotnie odmiana, którą zaserwował sobie i nam, Jeff Nyquist, jest aż tak radykalna? Sięgnijmy, dla ilustracji, po jeden z ostatnich artykułów Nyquista, po „Kwestię gustu” i pierwszy w nim akapit. Nyquist pisze między innymi:

Państwa byłego Układu Warszawskiego przyłączyły się do NATO, podobnie jak trzy byłe sowieckie republiki. Jeśli Moskwie nie spodoba się polityczny rozwój wydarzeń w Europie Wschodniej, rosyjskie czołgi już nie będą mogły być wezwane w celu przeprowadzenia interwencji.

Czyżby zatem pierwszy wyłom w strukturze długofalowej sowieckiej strategii? Niekoniecznie! Autor sugeruje raczej coś poważniejszego. Pisze wyraźnie „… przyłączyły się do NATO.” Kto mianowicie? – „Państwa”!… Jakie „państwa”? – „Byłego Układu”. Pisze to wszystko Nyquist bez cienia ironii, aluzji, mrużenia oka, w jednej jedynej intencji przekazania suchego faktu. Cóż zatem mamy? Po pierwsze, w wyniku rozpadu sowieckiego imperium (fikcyjnego czy też prawdziwego?) pojawiły się „państwa” (mniemać wypada – suwerenne). Następnie „państwa” te w wolny i nieprzymuszony sposób opuściły Układ Warszawski. Po czym „przyłączyły się” do NATO (czyli, zakładać chyba wolno, odwróciły sojusze!). Cóż na to Moskwa? Moskwa okazuje się bezsilna, ba, nie może nawet wysłać czołgów… Ta bezradność ma dwa powody. Po pierwsze, „państwa” wyzwoliły się spod kurateli (znaczy, nie są bratnie); po drugie, same czołgi nawet okazują się być cudze – są rosyjskie!

Zapewne warto zapytać samego Jeffa Nyquista, jak rozumie „długofalową sowiecką strategię”, „rozpad sowieckiego imperium”, „upadek komunizmu” – warto, ponieważ zachodzi niejakie podejrzenie, że interpretuje te prowokacyjne terminy w sposób mniej lub bardziej dosłowny, uznając, być może, że „strukturalne zmiany”, które dokonały się w obrębie sowieckiego bloku, miały charakter realny, czyli że, w przełożeniu na język konkretu, peerel stał się Polską, ludowe węgry Węgrami, ba – nawet ukraińska socjalistyczna republika – Ukrainą.

Zatrzymajmy się w tym miejscu na moment i przypomnijmy sobie słowa czołowych bolszewików pierestrojki, którzy, jak słusznie stwierdza Nyquist w którymś miejscu, niekiedy przemawiają do nas otwartym tekstem. Posłuchajmy zatem, co miał do powiedzenia Borys Jelcyn na XXVIII Zjeździe KPZS w lipcu 1990 roku:

Aparat partyjny zdecyduje o fundamentalnej restrukturyzacji Partii. W państwie demokratycznym zmiana w kierunku systemu wielopartyjnego jest nieunikniona. Różne partie polityczne będą stopniowo tworzone w naszym kraju. W tym samym czasie fundamentalna odnowa KPZS jest nieunikniona. Po pierwsze, należy przeprowadzić organizacyjną kodyfikację wszystkich platform, które istnieją w ramach KPZS i dać każdemu komuniście czas dla politycznego samookreślenia. Myślę, że większość wybierze skrzydło demokratyczne. Należy zmienić nazwę. Powinna to być partia demokratycznego socjalizmu. Partia powinna się pozbawić wszystkich państwowych funkcji. Powstanie partia typu parlamentarnego. Jedynie taka może być partią kierowniczą i wygrać wybory dla tej czy innej frakcji.

Wypowiedź Jelcyna została poparta przez samego wodza pierestrojki, Gorbaczowa, który w precyzyjny sposób ujął zagadnienie „strukturalnych zmian”:

Potwierdzamy determinację KPZS, aby wzmocnić jej awangardową rolę w społeczeństwie i osiągnąć jeszcze większy postęp na drodze do rewolucyjnej restrukturyzacji.

W partii musi się dokonać proces restrukturyzacji, aby mogła wzmocnić swoją rolę partii awangardowej. Musimy ustanowić w Partii rządy mas w oparciu o demokrację, równość, otwartość, głasnost i krytycyzm. […] Uczynimy wszystko, żeby partie komunistyczne w poszczególnych republikach osiągnęły swój niezależny status tak szybko, jak to możliwe, status, który będzie prowadził nie do podziału komunistów i narodów, ale do nowej międzynarodowej jedności KPZS w oparciu o wspólne ideologiczne podstawy.

Z pozoru przynajmniej, wyznania bolszewickich klasyków pierestrojki nie powinny pozostawiać miejsca na dowolność czy też życzeniowe myślenie, w praktyce dzieje się jednak inaczej. W przypadku Nyquista, któremu powyższe cytaty z pewnością nie są obce, owe bolszewickie credo sformułowane na ostatnim zjeździe bolszewickiej partii przed „rozpadem” Związku Sowieckiego, nie przeszkadza w dochodzeniu do najbardziej zdumiewających stwierdzeń: a to, że, jak mniemać wypada, „niepodległa Ukraina” otoczona została „łańcuchem” wrogich, rosyjskich bądź też z „Rosją” skojarzonych sił (nawiasem kilkuset kilometrowy odcinek graniczny z „Polską” trudno chyba uznać za „słaby korytarz”); a to, że „Rosja” posiada „wysoko postawionych agentów w ukraińskim systemie bezpieczeństwa”; czy też znowu, że mianowicie Juszczenko (było nie było, wedle Nyquista – prezydent „niepodległej Ukrainy”) wykazał się odwagą, propagując pamięć o wielkim głodzie na Ukrainie. I choć „nie uważa jakoby pomarańczowa rewolucja osiągnęła prawdziwą niepodległość Ukrainy” (to, co powiada Nyquist, zdaje się niekiedy sprzeczne), uważa jednocześnie, że istnieją tam realne siły polityczne, które do takiej niepodległości dążą.

Dlaczego tak się dzieje? Dlaczego ponad wielokrotnie ujawniane założenia pierestrojki i długofalowej strategii przekłada Nyquist bajania rozpijaczonego Borysa Jelcyna na temat „generała, który byłby jak generałowie o których czytałem w książkach, kiedy byłem młody”? Odpowiedź może być tylko jedna – to nacjonalizm. Ten sam nacjonalizm, który w otwartym starciu z bolszewizmem doprowadził na skraj politycznego absurdu polityków miary Piłsudskiego czy Churchilla; który przyczynił się do zwycięstwa bolszewizmu w roku 1917, 18, 19, 20, 22, 39, 41 czy 45, a który jest także jednym z głównych motorów napędowych bolszewickiej polityki zarówno światowej, jak i tej prowadzonej na gruncie lokalnym.

Nacjonalistą Nyquist niewątpliwie jest, czego dowód dał zresztą w niezwykle jasno brzmiący i zdecydowany sposób, pisząc w jednym z ostatnich swoich komentarzy:

Wmawia mi się, że nacjonalizm i antykomunizm są ze sobą sprzeczne, że tak naprawdę nie jestem antykomunistą, co odczytuję jako stanowisko wyjątkowo napastliwe w stosunku do mojej osoby. Jestem Amerykaninem. Stany Zjednoczone są moim narodem, a bez mojego narodu byłbym albo martwy, albo na wygnaniu. Jeśli nie jestem częścią mojego narodu, kim jestem? To jest właśnie mój nacjonalizm, kpijcie z niego albo go deprecjonujcie, skoro taka wola.

Czyż nie ma racji? Bo cóż złego w poczuciu narodowej tożsamości, w więzi odczuwanej z krajanami, czy w dumie z osiągnięć własnego plemienia? Ilu z nas jest wolnych od podobnych „instynktów”? Sam, zdarza się, kibicuję sportowcom z biało-czerwonym emblematem na piersiach, choć to przecie przedstawiciele wrogiego mi tworu.

Istota, w moim przekonaniu, tkwi w szczegółach, w zasadniczych drobiazgach; w różnicy jaka zachodzi pomiędzy narodową dumą, a narodowym egoizmem; naturalnym uczuciem więzi, a przeświadczeniem, że sprawie własnego narodu należy się pierwszeństwo ponad interesem jednostki czy interesem innych nacji; w skrócie – w wytyczeniu granicy pomiędzy patriotyzmem a nacjonalizmem. Jako nacjonalista, ale także antykomunista, Jeff Nyquist jest osobą szczególnie powołaną do udziału w dyskusji nad powyższym problemem.

Być może zechce także przy tej sposobności pochylić się nad kilkoma pokrewnymi kwestiami i odpowiedź na szereg, mniej lub bardziej prowokacyjnych, pytań. Jakie znaczenie dla egzystencji narodów i świata miał rozbujany narodowo-amerykański egoizm w XX wieku? Czy twarde obstawanie przy rzekomo najlepszych amerykańskich interesach miało jakikolwiek wpływ na: los węgierskich powstańców roku 1956; kubańskich partyzantów w Zatoce Świń; wietnamskich antykomunistów w roku 1975; czy też amerykańskich sojuszników z bitnego narodu Hmong, którzy AD 2010 dogorywają jeszcze w laotańskiej dżungli? W jakiej mierze to właśnie nacjonalizm jest odpowiedzialny za to, że aparatczyków w stylu Juszczenki czy Saakaszwilego poczyna się traktować jako nie-bolszewików, ale patriotów ich własnych narodów, zapominając, że reprezentowane przez nich „państwa” nie były w okresie ostatnich 90. lat ofiarami rosyjskiego imperializmu, a jedynie dobrze dopasowanymi trybami bolszewickiej machiny politycznej; że zbolszewiczała ludność tych krajów, podobnie jak ma to miejsce w peerelu, w Czechach, czy w Bułgarii, nie tylko nie ma geopolitycznej szansy, ale po prostu nie jest zdolna do budowy wolnych społeczeństw?

Na te i wiele innych pytań należałoby odpowiedzieć zanim pochylimy się nad rachunkiem szans antykomunistycznej idei zamkniętej w pierwiastku nacjonalistycznych egoizmów i sprzecznych, na ogół, interesów.

—————————————————

W trakcie wcześniejszej wymiany opinii na temat pewnych aspektów nacjonalizmu i antykomunizmu Jeff Nyquist poczuł się urażony, uznając że część wytoczonych argumentów układa się w stanowisko „wyjątkowo napastliwe w stosunku do jego osoby”. Dobrze, że wypowiada się szczerze i w sposób nie budzący wątpliwości, ponieważ nie ma nic gorszego aniżeli utajona uraza otoczona pozorem gładkich słówek. Jeff napisał w sposób prosty i jasny, co go boli. Dzięki tej okoliczności mogę pospieszyć z zapewnieniem, że nikt z grona zespołu Wydawnictwa Podziemnego nie zamierzał nigdy poddawać w wątpliwość jego antykomunistycznej postawy; mogę upewnić go także i o tym, że nie mamy w zwyczaju wdawać się w polemiki z ludźmi, którzy nie zasługują na nasz szacunek.

Otwarte dyskusje polityczne wywołują emocje, niekiedy po prostu wzajemną irytację osób, które nie zawsze skłonne są wysłuchać z uwagą poglądów drugiej strony. Te niekomfortowe aspekty uczestniczenia w debacie wynikają z samej natury wymiany argumentów i są niezwykle trudne do uniknięcia, niewątpliwie jednak doniosłość poważnej dyskusji, a taką przecież prowadzimy z Jeffem Nyquistem, przeważać powinna wszelkie niedogodności. Biorąc powyższe pod uwagę, ale także opierając swoją opinię na dobrej znajomości głównych uczestników dyskusji, jestem przekonany, że w tym konkretnym przypadku wszelkiego rodzaju uboczne czynniki, ani nie przesłonią istoty sporu, ani też nie przeszkodzą w osiągnięciu pożytecznych wniosków.



Prześlij znajomemu

21 Komentarz(e/y) do “Ten sam nacjonalizm”

  1. 1 Ricardo

    I’ve been reading Nyquist’s articles for several years now (including his book, naturally), and I would say that accusing this man of being overly optimistic is silly. If anything, reading too much Nyquist can make a person rather depressed; then again, however, depression tends to follow truth!

    Nationalism, the way you depict it, certainly has not benefited the United States all that much. You list many failures of the United States, and I believe many more can be listed. We can start with our failure to take out the Russians when we had the chance during WW2; maybe we can even start at that moment when the Congress interpreted an unlimited power clause in the Constitution that has left us hostage now to a majority of socialists from different states dictating our very lives. Despite our failures, our „nationalism” (patriotism is the better word) is probably the only thing keeping the U.S. from falling into the abyss completely (as it stands, we have one finger holding our body weight). That is because there is something in the classical Americanism and patriotism that is anti-communist at its very core. That is, a love for limited government, self responsibility, and the Christian religion. To be nationalist is to care for one’s own country and people. We desire reform and a country that prides itself at being itself. Nationalism does not equate to ignoring the plight of other countries, it merely represents our strong desire to not see our people die a painful death. Surely, you can love your people and hate your communist government at the same time? With this definition in mind, I cannot imagine how an anti-communist cannot be a patriot for their nation as well. And by the way, our anti-communism and common humanity makes us all sacred brothers. When you all suffer, we suffer also! This is the type of „nationalist” Nyquist is, not a blind national egotist.

    In the United States, I believe a revival has ignited in the people thanks to Obama and our socialists in Congress. A revival where many people are digging into their roots and discovering the true American spirit. The American spirit, by default, is also an anti-communist spirit. There has never been a greater time in America than now to convince them of the Communist threat. We stand on the precipice of many great and wonderful achievements; we need only to grasp this victory and grip it tightly! If the anti-communists in the U.S. play it right, and our leaders are not too weak, we can possibly turn the tide against the evil in Moscow. — On the other hand, they also have us exactly where they want us. We have Obama as President. War can break out at any moment in the Middle East. Our economy is a ponzi scheme; we have exported our industry overseas; we have aimed our bombs into the oceans; our best leaders are ignorant of the Russian menace; The great vicious bear has begun devouring people freely which shows it has no fear; and we are vulnerable to a WMD or economic attack that can render us paralyzed if not destroyed. Perhaps all we can really offer you is one thing: Rather than going out with a whimper, perhaps we’ll leave with a BANG! That’s better than whimpering, and you and your people should prepare for the war that comes next.

  2. 2 Sonia Belle

    Ricardo,

    I don’t think you actually understand what a „Communist threat” is. Unlimited government, lack of self responsibility, and the persecution of religion (Christian or otherwise), are the SYMPTOMS of Communism. They are the ultimate consequences of it, but they are not the cause of the Communist threat. The Communist threat resides in the politization of all aspects of life. When your neighbor tells you to recycle, that’s not Communism. But when your neighbor on the left talks to your neighbor to the right, and together they come to see you and tell you to recycle („because the children…”), that’s Communism. When you shop and look at every label to make sure it’s organic and „fair trade” and doesn’t come from Colombia, that’s Communism.

    Every country has its own road to Communism. In America, Communism would, at first, enjoy a huge support among blacks, but only a few years later, all blacks would be exterminated.

    Btw, a well-known book has been written about America becoming a Communist country. It’s called „The Turner Diaries”…

  3. 3 michał

    Ricardo,

    Silly? I would agree that it is silly to be overly optimistic about apparatchiks such as Yushchenko, about careerists such as Saakashvili and overall about the developments in Eastern Europe where commies remain firmly in control. So let’s have a look at what your man has actually said, shall we?

    First he says:

    “The peace and prosperity mediated by American power is also coming to an end. What happens next will depend on the people of Poland, Ukraine, Germany and France (among others). Poland is a front line state in the struggle against Russian power, and everything that happens in Poland today is decisive for Europe. The Russians face serious problems at home, and their strategy of neutralizing the United States is simply a preliminary step to subjugating Europe. If the countries of Europe show their resolve, Russia will be placed in a hopeless situation. Here Poland can set the tone for the rest of Europe. It is my hope that Europe (in the days to come) will recover its moral courage, its internal vitality, and its faith.” (15 November, all quotes below are from this website)

    I analysed this passage extensively here: http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en/2009/11/30/english-poland-as-a-front-line-state/#more-253 so I won’t be repeating myself but I stand by every word I said.

    He then wrote:

    “Something is taking shape in Poland, in Ukraine, in Georgia, in the Baltic States. Defeats are beside the point. Do not despise humble beginnings. Did you know? The president of Ukraine will not go to Moscow. And Russian tanks turned back after invading Georgia.” (3 December)

    He then offered this insight:

    “The decisive argument for the authenticity of Saakashvili’s revolution in Georgia is found in the Russian military strike of August 2008: The Kremlin displayed its evil intentions and then was forced to abandon its military offensive by Western economic pressure.” (12 January)
    And then added for good measure: “What I wrote, of course, is true.” (8 February)

    I maintain that this is “overly optimistic” (especially the last quote) but I will leave it to you to decide whether this is silly.

    As for your insistence on defending Nyquist’s understanding of nationalism, can I just remind you that he wrote to Darek: “And cannot you recognize the absurdity of using the word “patriotism” divorced from the word “nation”?” Well, I don’t know what to admire more: The arrogance? The panache with which he shoots himself in the foot? Or the mindboggling stupidity of this sentence? I think it’s brilliantly funny. In other words, I don’t really care what type of nationalist Nyquist really is.

    The real problem is this: if the menace is “Russian”, as you say, then there is a simple solution and stoking the fire of nationalism should be able to deal with it. But the menace is not “Russian”. It is a bolshevik menace so, as Sonia rightly says above, „every country has its own road to communism”. Unfortunately, it comes in patriotic Polish disguise to Poles but draped in Ukrainian colours to the Ukrainians. It will not strike America down, what for? It will come from within, with star spangled banner, and Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama were just the avant-garde of what is to come.

  4. 4 Ricardo

    Sonia, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote and am unsure how anything in my writing indicated that I did. I also do not foresee a Turner Diary type „race war” occuring anytime soon, and I certainly wouldn’t celebrate it. The leftists would like us to believe that is what the opposition wants, but it is not so. You are not in the USA possibly, but our „Tea Party” movement is interesting insomuch that I have seen polls indicating as much as 40 percent (sometimes I see numbers larger) indicate they had never been involved in politics before. The novelty of the „first black President” has already run its course, and those first time voters who came out for Obama will not come back again in such a great degree. There is much to be optimistic about, at least for the next election cycles here in the U.S.

  5. 5 Ricardo

    Mihal, I followed those articles and, to be honest, I came away from it feeling like I had witnessed a bunch of Catholics fighting over proper ritual. Too much hullabaloo over such small matters. If you knew Nyquist’s writings for the past several years, you would understand that he holds no self delusions. (On that topic, I did speak the word „Russian” too freely. The anti-communist Russian would know who I really meant.) If you are against a „patriotism” that actually serves communist strategy, then we are in total agreement. However, in the American context, patriotism/nationalism is not so useless.

  6. 6 michał

    Ricardo,

    I unfortunately do know his writings and am more and more convinced that I was wasting my time. It is not a small matter – it is fundamental. And where should we discuss our differences freely if not in The Underground?

    Nationalism is an instrument that commies play on with virtuoso skills. Lenin quickly realised that by fanning the flames of nationalism he would be able to play one nation against the other in defence of his base. They never looked back since. Nationalism cannot be a major force against the bolshevik threat, which looks like a paradox at first sight but it isn’t really if you think it through. Bolshevism always comes in disguises such is its nature.

  7. 7 Ricardo

    ~ Michal

    Well, I do not disagree too hard. I have run into Russians over the past few years who have taken up the passion for Joseph Stalin rather bizarrely. I was on a Russian forum at one point where my disagreement over an issue caused them to call me either a „dirty” Jew or a Georgian (as they had just invaded around that time). On other occasions they have rehabilitated Stalin and argued about how he was a „true Russian Czar” and not apparently a communist. Their, umm, „patriotism”, certainly was the foul and disgusting kind.

    However, I still fail to see how American patriotism/nationalism (such as the TEA Party etc) is somehow vulnerable to being a tool of Lenin. We have leaders talking to the nation about communism and communist front groups; on the radio not long ago, we even had a popular radio talk show host discuss for the first time (in my memory) his realization that Communism may not have really died in the „former” Soviet Union. He had on a caller who gave out the basic TFP/Golitsyn thesis whom the host called „a brilliant man”. If the American patriotism can do so well to wake people up regarding the dangers of communism, why can’t a legitimate patriotism/nationalism in some other country accomplish the same?

  8. 8 Ricardo

    Of course, the best anti-communist weapon is truth, and all truth inevitably comes from God. I am not saying that using a patriotic furvor to promote anti-communism is the best option. I think it is actually more of a helpful side-effect.

  9. 9 Sonia Belle

    Ricardo,

    The „tea party movement” is a perfect antidote to Communism. They are against big governments (even Republican big governments). They are against taxes (even taxes used to fight the War on Drugs).

    —————————————
    in the American context, patriotism/nationalism is not so useless
    ——————————————

    1. Patriotism is not the same as nationalism. A patriot love his country („patria”), his land. Fair enough. A nationalist love his „nation”, a collective mass, a mob.

    In United States, Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo are nationalists. Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney are patriots. See the difference ?

    Jozef Mackiewicz called himself a „patriot of the landscape”. He loved his land. He hated the competing mobs of nationalists destroying his land.

    2. For Communism, nationalism is a golden opportunity. Half of their job is already done. When the Communists marched into Poland in 1945, most Jews were already dead. They didn’t have to deal with 3 millions of small-business owners, merchants and self-employed craftsmen. It was so much easier to turn Poland into a Communist country when almost half of its middle-class was exterminated already, by German nationalists.

    And after that, it was simply a game of playing the remaining Jews (mostly Communists) against Polish nationalists. And both sides trying to find support in Moscow. Outnumbered, the Jews forged an alliance with so-called „Reform Communists”. The Jews finally lost the power struggle in 1968, but the „Reformists” continued the same game with the nationalists (by then known as „The Concrete”) from then on. And again, each side looking to Moscow for support. „Divide and rule”…

  10. 10 michał

    Ricardo,

    Most people on this planet think – correction! most people do not think at all but those who do – think that soviet union is a continuation of Russia. A Polish historian and politician wrote a quite brilliant book in the 30s called „From White Tsardom to Red”, which is a compendium of superficial arguments for that continuity. But it is so wrong! And that is why I started this discussion with Nyquist because, silly me, I was hoping that he could be persuaded… Communism cannot be defeated if it is not properly understood. It’s like going into the ring but not seeing your opponent clearly – you have no chance, you’re going to be knocked out – „well, you’re gonna get whipped tonight” (as Joe Frazier said to that clown).

    That Russia does not exist since 1917 is not an academic point but a fundamental truth, without which we cannot ever engage communism, let alone defeat it.

    I gave up, I’m not trying to persuade anyone but, as you rightly say, truth is the best weapon and I will still strive to tell what I believe to be the truth: patriotic fervour is not enough to defeat the commies.

  11. 11 Mikel

    A few notes I can add to the good comments above. I believe in an approach that is less technical these days and more on the story of how things happen. I am attempting to bring some intriguing examples which might elucidate what is what.

    Many believe Hitler was a nationalist or even right wing patriot, but, frankly, he did away himself with the German flag and put on the Nazi flag. How is that love of country but total disrespect in fact? I believe those inheriting the nation of Germany had no idea about how it came there and arrogantly used what was there but never really cared about developing anything respectable: they claimed what they never built without having the character or confidence to accomplish the same on their own. It’s all these neo-cons, these neo-democrates and these children going to their parents church, who inherit the building but not the meaning or understanding of it, apparently. It’s an empty wealth, an empty pride, a neo-patriotism.

    In that sence JRN might be right, that, some of the tribulations going on in Eastern Europe are of the sort of emergence of folkes who really know what it means to look to rebuild things from the ground up, ready to relearn what had been forgotten or suppressed.

    Obviously this „change” and getting used and conditioned by „change” and „reforms” and what not, all contribute to Bolshevism and the destruction of the nation-state, and, ironicaly, Perestroika’s call for change from communism could very well lead to more of the same. Obama is a testament to that – using these code words he has been brainwashed with which he only partialy understand within the scope of his own personal „hopes” or utopian goals in abilities or revenge.

    Communism also strives in greater government, because government is like a false bride who believes she is „independent” because she still has potential elsewhere in being courted if her husband fails. Meanwhile a real independent people do not „communist” support via romantic scams to others, indeed. Thus, the sort of nationalism based in righting past wrongs is very vulnerable to communist manipulation.

    Another issue is that of free trade. Internationalism only help make goods cheap and thus fund the foreign companies taxed by foreign governments and only helps, thus, foreign governments. Again, here we have an adulterous intergovernmental relationship to suppress or oppress productive people for the benefit of government bureaucrates, all under the guise of helping our people and their people. So, nationalism does not have to be brutal, it can be fair competition and impeding the growth of foreign governments which in the end tend to be vulnerable to communism as their size increase. When a government turns inward on income/export tax and refuses to levy import taxes, it’s when democratic betrayal occures and punitive taxes against unfair and sinister foreign government is avoided. We would not need to deal with „sanctions politics” if we were agreeing that export/income taxes are illegal or questionable at least.

    Many a people want to work and a job, and it does not matter if it is for a private or public company. There we have threats of corruption and apathy toward communism, turning such people into easy stooges. I have seen right wing patriotic Americans who after Obama’s inauguration were truly hoping he’d succeed turning the country around with his government intervention. It was sad to watch such „let us help it” „bipartisan” support, a pseudo-patriotic display of people who were inherent betrayer and socialy inconfident, isolated and not independent at all – despite showing skills and abilities at work every day! We are not just talking about a bride relying on adultery to claim a pseudo-independence, but folkes who can do it alone but somehow are either caught up, inconfident or seem to be intimidated by regulations.

    Obama keeps talking about being a good father or a good husband, but in his mind it means to follow his definition of fatherhood, which is one rewarding idiots and adulterous out of control people, never being able to punish them and remove oneself from caring for bad children or bad wives. Here is an interesting microcosmic application of communism at the „Social (dis)organization” level, all under the guise of defining what is pater, what is man-hood, bravery and what not. For them, fatherhood is a title which depends upon prefered treatment. One is still a country and a legitimate father, even after disowning one’s children or freeloaders in government. Communism is thus an insistance on making one a slave of the Earth, of worlds’ of people, on which we are kins by blood or otherwise. Without that kinness enforced, communism does not exist. So, absurd forms of love the land itself promotes communism.

    Communism is very much threatened once the spirit of prostitution and betrayal and false independence is unveiled. This politcal game of race and marbles and colors, is not policy nor fair competition. When nationalism is reduced to xenophobia and, yet, to adulterous relations with foreigners, ironicaly (as a „Germany” of pure race allied with a yakusa dominated slanted eye yellow „Japan” yielded), we can smell communism.

    Last but not least, communism manipulates in favor of „multicultural adulterous” behaviors at the political level. So, while Hitler was in other nations’ face cross border-wise, the Russian with communist leanings can leverage Russia via pro-communist domestic politics inside Congress itself. Here we do not have an opposition at the nation to nation meetings, but a nation declaring itself ideologicaly communist, and a nation which can now use the adoption of such submission to general ideology to leverage itself and its funding via internal politics of other nations. It’s very clever, and it’s also very interesting that Hilter’s party and flag was itself hampered in ways that the communist one never were in internal US politics – for why would a local care to support Germans or Nazi locals of a particular lot or race in Germany to whom he would never belong anyways.

  12. 12 michał

    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand you. So when is Nyquist right, when he says:

    „It’s only a matter of time before we find that this most recent democratic revolution in Ukraine was again a disappointment: that nothing has changed. The old structures remain. And as soon as we discover that, they have another democratic revolution; we’ll say, ‚OK, this time it is the real one.’ How many democratic revolutions do we have to see in Ukraine…” [this is a quote from Robert Buchar’s recent book, page 155]

    or when he says on this website:

    „What happens next will depend on the people of Poland, Ukraine, Germany and France (among others). Poland is a front line state in the struggle against Russian power, and everything that happens in Poland today is decisive for Europe.” [this is a quote from Triangular Constellation Part 2]

    To my simple mind these two statements are contradictory. So when you say „JRN might be right” what exactly do you mean? One cannot say: this ceiling is black or maybe it is white and retain any credibility.

  13. 13 Mikel

    I mean that JRN is sensing something. These two statements do not necessarily contradict each other. Of course, I might go too far and overthink him out, advocating the client for more than what he is – defeating my own goals. I simply do not think JRN has „changed” the way Obama would want him so, God forbid, things are actualy sobering up even more as Moscow seem to be intervening again.

    The first statement, to me, means that the mechanisms of elections and selection of candidates are tainted/flawed and still vulnerable to communism. That being said, the rise of a new Polish elite which thinks for itself could form a higher or competitive standards (unbeknowst to itself because it is still manipulated and not in full control or vision of how or if it is controled) than that of Moscow’s. Moscow thrives on impotency and „baby talked” the Warsaw pact. Nowadays there is less consulting that is coming from Moscow and the Polish state might have somewhat rebelled, unknowingly.

    Even under a pavement a plant grows unless you actively put another layer of pavement now and then. Moscow left a heavy tarp on top of Poland, but now it is becoming brittle and spruce are popping out. Thus another layer in the form of another manipulated „democratic” vote, intimidating and strong arming Poland might be required again and again.

    Any hint of increase in standards is invariably squashed by the communists as a threat. We see that socialy everyday in cynical environment, like, say, in a liquor store or institution. Lowering the standard is praised as funny, but increasing it grates on the nerve of certain circles as it forces them to work or to levels of potency they cannot attain.

    Moscow’s intervention in „processes” are a mean to use the election process for „reforming” and managing the „loose cannons” who think they „can do their own things”/(think for themselves).

    To make a long story short, the first statement means that Poland stands up, and the first statement means Moscow is going to attempt to intervene more directly and overtly, and, thus, the old internal shadow structures are either insufficient or have somehow erroded over time.

  14. 14 Mikel

    I have a couple other notes to make, regardless of what JRN meant said or what not.

    Sometimes seeing a bit of light and growth can go a long way in figuring out the harm done to a blinded and exploited nation. It’s the foreign visitor’s syndrome: he goes to one country, apreciates certain things, hates others, comes back home and is even more frustrated at home because there no one has evolved. I remember my „compadre” going to the US as tourists, and not as visitors, loving the stupid stuff that was not really American, like Disney World, and thinking it was America. ANd, yet, the same people would criticize and hate anything that was really American but they had no idea nor any understanding of it. It was retarded. The free flow inherently creates that, even when it is more and more controled and information organs are threatened to death (journalists and dissidents getting poisoned). This flow is threatened nowadays under a rising globalism system on communist control and standardization terms.

    Inversely, one could surmize that the Perestroika deception is really an exercise in mocking the other side’s gullibility. In fact, it seems that while out west it were looked upon as an increase in Moscow’s openness and increase of standards, we can see that Moscow in fact used it to even lower its own standards, importing the trashy stuff of the West (culture of rock’n roll and crass money grubbing lawyer culture). It’s no accident that Yeltsin chose the French styled management of the state over the US constitution based one, requiring an official Declaration of Independence to make it whole.

    This is the fate of „progress”, and what was advertised as an increase in standards was really an opportunity to even lower them and further communism under a wilder jungle than it ever was. Perhaps there is a resistance in Eastern Europe to go down that path, or that fast into that path. We see it in the „wolfication” of race politics. It’s not policy to play with probability of being elected given support for this or that combination of races or ethnies over others. This is more like the way a wolf would compute to get to a target rather than promote a sound policy. Even a down to earth brains of a goat under the current rhetorics of the propagandas could run for the election, nay, even strategize better than utopians like Obama would.

  15. 15 michał

    Mikel,

    I think it is both much simpler and yet, from a certain point of view, much more complex than you have been presenting it.

    What happened in 1989-91 was a formalisation of changes, which were taking place in Poland since 1956. Formal freeing of areas, which could be freed anyway because commies were not threatened by them as they have proved in Poland for decades. For instance, when I say to anyone in the West that I went to a private school for boys in Poland, they are flabbergasted. As far as I know it was the only such school between West Berlin and Vladivostok (although I will stand corrected if anyone knows better). It’s far too complicated to explain here how it came about but what I’m getting at is that you are completely wrong when you think that “the rise of a new Polish elite which thinks for itself could form a higher or competitive standards” and that it somehow will harm Moscow’s interests. It won’t because it can’t; because this was happening since 1956 and slowly this “elite” formulated a concept of what we see today. It was hidden under a myriad of different names, like “finlandisation” of Poland or “living as if we’re free” etc. Whatever the name, the concept was realized in 1989. So attaching hopes to it now is rather funny from my viewpoint.

    One of the main premises of this website is that Poland still does not have it’s own statehood, that today’s Poland is merely a continuation of “polish people’s republic” and the same goes to other such republics, including what you call “Russia”. Moscow does not need to intervene directly because it has a bigger fish to fry in Germany and all the political shenanigans going on in Europe serve only hide their main objective. Nyquist’s contention that Poland or Ukraine are “frontline states” only muddies the water further and whatever your fancy footwork it still remains in direct contradiction to his previous statement.

    Your statement about the nature of perestroika is spot on, though. The greatest anticommunist of the 20th Century, Józef Mackiewicz, said that the main strength of the communist deception lies on the other side, in the willingness of the free people to be deceived. But it’s not only true about perestroika. Stalin mocked Churchill’s and Roosevelt’s gullibility in Yalta and even more in Nuremberg. Khrushchev mocked Kennedy in Cuban missile crisis, Brezhnev laughed at the gullible West in Prague 1968 and so on.

  16. 16 Mikel

    Yes, the mysticism makes the goal and methods of Moscow frustrating for us to find, and that in itself is demoralizing, unless one is passionate about discovering it. It’s a pain in the butt for me and I do it only out of other motivations. It’s kind of like the mystifying works in their favor because their motives are probably very simple, such as crass power and greed.

    And, yes, this mockery of FDR I believe is one of the key to their strategies of deception. It’s also key in dividing us because when we call on FDR’s foolishness, he hates us and seeks counsels all the more from the Soviets. He is a cripple and not just because of the effect of Polio – which affects his mentality and self-image all the more.

    When looking at it, Revolution then might be a way to steal the motivation from that of others: make them feel guilty about wealth while the communist themselves meet and congratulate each other – in a sort of underground privacy – of each other’s growing wealth and growing obsene poetization of super-greed, ironicaly. It makes them definitely shrewder, all this „all too humane” business, when being humane is in making poor choices, and not „being weak for first class human pedophiliac sacrifice choices” (the French book „The Lover” makes that clear, as well as when the Pharisees kept the good fat of the lamb for themselves and left the bones for God, all the while accusing others of sin, although, in communist case, it’s a strategic process of isolating the wealthy for making the deliberately unsuccessful look persecuted etc…).

    Anyways, same old nationalism? For sure, let us not let them steal that nationalist motivation from us either (and other ones), so that they can foment nationalism for their own sakes too while stealing this from us. Upon cursory observation of various day to day behaviors, communists and „psychological survivalists” tend to be like the student who says he hates math while getting excellent math grades. Somehow somewhere something is not right. More blatantly, in courtrooms, they will openly accuse some of having affairs while glorifying the brazen pedophiliac affairs and obsenities done in their own circles. It is disturbing that this now is being spread as a culture in general – with feminist „stand up commedians” talking about their vaginas while accusing others of coveting it (when we all know they wish they could rape like men could), but it is necessary if they need to win out juries before they commit the very crimes – and for increased morale’s sake.

    The West needs to wake up to this mockery and coopt this Political Correctness. It would be an ugly confrontation but that is the only chance we have to make the bully back down. Mere cursorial purposefuly arrogant and provoking finger wagging against the Soviet legacy in Russia would go a long way. This does not require us to become like them, contrary to popular inklings, if we get the context right.

    I think that while in Poland there is a lack of motivation and subserviance programmed „psycho-materialy” since 1956, a fear factor against Russia might exist there that does not exist in the West which has not really known the attrocities outright. It’s not a front line against communism per-say, but it does require some form of intervention. The acts of Putin’s intervention after the plane crash would indicate that this „poison of false compassion” intimated into „compassionate conservatism of Bush” to fool us to believe it, is another attempt at stealing Poland’s motivation for vengence (foolish or not) for Moscow’s own sakes – kind of like the saying that vengence is reserved for God, but in this instance for Moscow itself. If this Political Correctness is waged actively against Poland, then Moscow must smell something dangerous coming out of Poland, or that which could come out of Poland, in my opinion.

    You are right, they cannot for now oppose Russia, most obviously. That being said, the art of grabbing attention can be done expensively and via monetarial subsidy and expensive enforcement, or it can be done masterly, with psychological confidence, without needs of props. This art is sought out by communists but I have seen it to be clumsy, programmed and not natural. The Chinese are better at it, and many other „savage” cultures in South America are natural at it. Probably an inner KGB is made of such artists of mystifying „seers or oracles”, however, I believe that if we put our heads to it, we can beat them at it, we can find ways to remove their clothes, to even be „loved” by them, while being so ridiculously confident that we would need not any props to buy out or force out this love in effortless ways. It may seem naive, but I sense some sort of artificial nervousness coming out of Moscow, I sense a lack of confidence and the existence of weaknesses in their resorts to such shenanigans and „anger” issues.

  17. 17 michał

    Mikel,

    When you say „mysiticism” you probably mean that it the whole thing can be bewildering, i.e. mystifying. But this is a very unfortunate choice of words beacuse it throws us back to a very long established school of thought about communism. Namely, that it is some sort of a strange product of the mystical East. The undeservedly famous quote from Churchill sums it up perfectly: „Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” This was said during WWII, when there was no Russia only soviets. Churchill should have known better, after all, he was the one who called bolshevism a plague. Anyway, my point is that there is nothing mysterious about bosheviks, communism is a Western invention, and it is in essence a Method of gaining and keeping power. As you rightly say, there is nothing new in it, all elements of the Method are as old as politics, but no one before commies used them so methodically and so ruthelessly, so overwhelmingly and totally.

    I don’t follow you on Poland. Today’s Poland is not a sovereign state. No danger can come from it because at the heart of „polish people’s republic no 2″ there is an „arrangement” (an untranlateable Polish word „układ”), signed by Wałęsa and commies in 1989. Kaczyński too was a signatory of this agreement. 15 years later, for reasons of political expediency, decided to argue against it but then did nothiong about it when in power.

    So either I don’t get it or there is no potential danger nor „lack of confidence” emanating from soviets. Lenin quite rightly said to his bolsheviks in 1920: „We will have Poland anyway, when the time is right. In the meantime, strong Poland is in our interest. The stronger it is, more hated it would be by Germans. We can always unite Russians against Poland. We can even ally ourselves with Germans.”

  18. 18 Mikel

    You are right. Lenin had these games and knew of the corruption. He knew of the jealousies and sibbling rivalries in Europe. He knew of the power of bankruptcy, of spending and sleeping on assurances that we can spend because they will spend and we do not need to work too hard on rearming and protecting our borders, just securing our base and reassuring the people wives of our wisdom in it. It were however only a delay of the inevitable collapse and of the confidence that new games would be figured in the future, with chaos always at our side if we kept moving with it, going from one Russian base, to another Swiss refuge, to another London or what not, while the people were left there to fight the provoked wars, humiliated and suffering.

    OK, I don’t mean to speculate too much and this must be taken with a grain of salt given that we are not all in the game, but outsiders to this Casino’s business, kind of like observant gamblers. It’s what I mean by mystics: go to a Casino and the experience can seem mysterious, the business model is unknown. Observe a little and see that each time one wins, $50 in tip is given to the Croupier. Now, that is steady revenue, and it makes gambling to earn money ridiculous. One would rather get in the game then come as customers and outsiders. And so, communism is like that, it is a simple game of gambling to some and to get into, and to others it is an insider’s conspiracy and intrigue that mystifies a newcomer. I am sorry, but losers gamble, and the ones who think they are smart by counting cards are even more stupid in wasting their apparent wits in trying to break the business from grass root: it never happens, the house always wins. The substance is at the business model level of communism. Find a model, compete with it, teach people about it, and, guess what? Why go to the Casino when I can make my own and ruin my neighbor? When we can litteraly screw with each other. Try preventing that kind of bankruptcy. Nah, there they come with their guns and their sudden call for „moderation” and to stop „extremism in Russia” (to take the silly desperate words of Putin, Ah!). What a beast to coopt against communists these little critter rat children of Lenin and Stalin have they become in Russia. There, that’s a brotherhood that can hold itself, perhaps, packing itself by and by like unto roving wolve societies with 20,000 nukes while our clueless leaders discuss the sex of the angels and argue that Obama is not a communist (he is a personality cult „people owning” Maoist, imo, a most dangerous Eastern Manchurian arbitrary aborter and genocide trained).

    The world might become a switchboard, like a Casino gambling on a Casino, a machine going totally chaotic this or that way without warning. Are we ready? Are we survivors? Are we giving ourselves a chance? What should we fight? What should we not waste our energies on? Do we know? We can know, with a little faith in that.

    Let me speculate further… (disclaimer)

    Well, when Lenin said that anyone can run a business and it requires no intelligence, I am reminded of the same sort of hubris confidence that the idiot blacks now parading on this World Cup in South Africa advertise in their struggle against „White Oppression”, that „we are here at last”. Yet all those modern stadium and modernity came from White People. Debts will be repaid, and some people really view themselves as the new makers of South Africa, while they never built those things in the first place, claiming them as their own achievement.

    It’s ridiculous. Achieving some degree of respect does not mean you will get any more than that by claiming the goods you never could build yourself in the first place given how primitive and dysfunctional your society was from the get go. Verily, the little children who were born in South Africa with a silver spoon in their mouth and mistreated the blacks are really no different than the blacks now in power and claiming all the same silver spoons and suckling on it. It smells of adultery or strange motivation: indeed, perhaps this is a „Western Invention” gone wrong at the hands of apprentice sorcerers, who thought that a selection in the world could be done by motivating idiots that would self-burn to death in the end. However such can learn from their own mistakes and venge too. Some call it a manifestation in and unto itself, a necessary let go of a field into non-cultivation so as to improve the soil for the next year after the wild sterile brushes are burned. The world run under such a system is not the same „old” nationalism, but some even more prior primitive method of developing the ground. We all learn that way in school too, with very primitive methods of self-selection instead of a truly scientific wholesome approach.

    Call me naive, but this very star that could shine in Poland is feared by the impotent communists. It’s like green energy: if it were so viable, why would it require so much free advertisement dollars and subsidy.

    OK, communists are smart, they are cunning and they are the essence of the focused political animal and is like a rogue agent of the type of specialization that modern industry is responsible for being – yet incapable of controling it. It’s a plague indeed.

    In any case, to come up with the observation of a character and explore where he or she came from, it requires a process of integration from a derived product. The derived product we eat and produce, we have no idea where it came from, but we use it. The algebra that results from the need to practicalize mass production has cut out some variables. All the constants are summed to zero. Pythagore’s theorem reduces to a simple formula. But we forgot the whole important „Square within a tilted square” observation that is at the origin of this discovery. The algebraic simplifications yielded an easy formula for capenters to use every day, but it also robbed of the information. If the formula had kept its „canceling useless variables”, some remnant of it would be remembered and Euclide’s original „Industry of Vision” maintained.

    Now we are rudderless. Communists are like that, they want the solutions, the answers now, without ever being able to respect the type of industry and thinking required to come up with these products. They fashion themselves for Political Correctness sakes as „borrowers” and not „owners”, while they gratify themselves of sex, free porn, free production and abortion. Come on, and these people tell me they hate money and want to do away with it?

    For sure, the West is guilty of one thing, and it is of Kinsey sales’ tactics involving sex and money greed. This stuff comes back to bite you. Even the new Catholic laissez faire is extremely cynical: „let them indulge in sex and sin, in our house, while we watch over them, as they get titillated around by a devil we shall do nothing to exorcise and warn against”. There are ways and methods to wise up a folkes without letting them burn as chaff for an abandoned field to fertilize thus. We cannot change people, because people are not exactly like a field of wheat, some of them are stubbornly rebellious, but in the midst we miss those who would be truly motivated to open their eyes and who are sick of the depressing cynicism and death around. Some even empower themselves over it. Heck, I should know better, I have a condition that let me it to that.

    What is that condition? Well, when I mean mystical I mean secretive. Keep a secret and it makes one powerful. Keep others ignorant, and it makes you admired. Find a new secret source with exclusive access, and others (except for the terminaly doomed or demoralized or lazy) will keep you alive simply because they cannot steal that from you and they know they depend on you and your knowledge of it. Give them an easy tool like Pythagore’s theorem with which they can build houses, and until they realize that they need to also learn about the story behind it, and not just follow the „orders of Lenine” like little admiring conformist stupid robots who could do much better than Lenine himself, they will keep mystifying and follow the stupid road of death he had in mind for his little sick obsene retirement in „power of the world”.

    Truly, these guys have to be derivatives of some „Western thought”, just as religion is a dum sheep derivative of God and rituals. Ah! Opium of the people, yes, indeed, Opium mystifies our experiences, angelifizes everything around, and communism as a cult of Lenin, is a low religion. It’s very simple in a way and practical, and its tenets are mingled in a strange dry coded intellectual language that erase any sort of the exitement in it that seem to excite Krutchev, because the mystics that it manufactured for itself gave itself power and admiration, and it induced awe in people in most ridiculous ways.

    The agreemenst of Poland with Russia are too like Pie Crust treaties and currency to debauche through hyperinflation. We can manufacture these papers too and make the fools keep buying them again and again too ourselves. We can tend the cheek and „act stupid” and see where this game leads to, like in a game of chicken about who will swerve off the road first. Ah, this is all so „mature” but is all but vanity in a secular world which is missing of the very substantific and more real mystic of religion. For sure, those who are terminaly ill seem to have nothing to lose, but do they really know and are capable of taking more pain?

    Let us drug them more, let us make them take that final opiate jump into mad conflagration, let us play this game of „I die and it is funny”, let us „empower” them to grow their own weeds and communism poppy fields around. We have been too nice in keeping them from suffering the consequences of their own intakes. We can only do so much, take care that we breath so we can take care that they breath their last breath in some form of humane treatment.

    Russia is dying, the communists move out of East Berlin and to Canada and the US, like locusts they are, for their final days of bliss, because, radiation sickness is like that too, it can be a terminaly castrating self exilarating poisoning, a most powerful drug. Experience its death and your eyes will open, and Chernobyle was such an experiment.

    But I degress a bit too deep. Suffice it to say that the mystics I am talking about is about where this whole communist business came from and how we can tackle it from an original integrated product of it, instead of fighting it at the derivatives’ level, because the integrated product is what generates all its poison derivatives we have such a hard time following. We lose the leadership and we get tired fighting this terror because we want easy „final/initial” solutions, like those dumb toy play obsessed perverted Germans industry worker animals, instead of searching for a source that is not as impressive as its „leadership” seem to indicate, pushing us over left and right.

    Indeed, the best Poland can do for now is to be pushed around and not resist this terror because it is like chasing a string like a kitty teased by a child, demoralized and tamed to submission and boredom. However we do not need to mean it as giving up like a kitty cat, it means focusing on looking for the source of it, attacking it when it is asleep and the source (having a life of its own by design for easy retirement sakes of Lenin) is bored itself of its tormenting. We have a machine to stop, and it will be stopped if we all see some responsability in it to be stopped. A vengeful feeling or not matters not, because the curse will continue to the eventual inherent vengeful end. A government and a private need mutual motivations to balance and not to castrate each other, except in those times of control „refertilization” process and economic slow downs that are necessary to pay tribute and refocus on what made possible the work week of production and derivative enjoyments of modernity.

  19. 19 michał

    Mikel,

    I’m not sure you convince me. You are piling one metaphor upon another and the picture gets too complicated; it does not shed any light, it does not explain. Let’s look at your starting point: communism is like „a simple game of gambling to some and to get into, and to others it is an insider’s conspiracy and intrigue that mystifies a newcomer.” But that would be true about anything… Look at your roulette table: there are mystified newcomers aplenty, there are insider conspiracy theories at every table (by the way, at respectable establishments one cannot tip the croupier – there are very good reasons for that). You are talking about perceptions and they do not say much about the subject (or at least not in this case).

    I don’t believe for a moment that commies are smart and cunning. Have you ever read anything by Stalin? Did you see Khrushchev? Did you hear Brezhnev speak? Did you ever read any of Yeltsin’s bright ideas? These were halfwits – all the worse for the people these morons fooled! Churchill or Kennedy were extremely bright and lots of good came of it. Commies are simpletons, the trouble is they don’t have to be very clever because no one wants to fight them and their Method is much better than anything ever encountered before their calamitous appearence on the world scene.

    You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the economics and on economic tools against communism. But in Leninist politics economy is subservient to politics (quite ironic really for Marxists) – it’s the political will that matters. Euro, for instance, is a fundamentally Leninist project, where the political will outweighs the economic or financial realities. It may be that the will is slowly disappearing and that is the only reason why it could fail. Were it open to economic realities, economies such as Germany and Portugal, or Ireland and Holland could not be joined in a monetary union for one day. The same is true about soviets. Their economy collapsed in 1917 and they happily continued. It then went from bad to worse, people starved, and it went on. They would produce cars that were jawdroppingly undriveable (if there is such a word) and at the same time send a man into space before the US. There is no point in applying any „normal” economic criteria to them. In fact, any normal criteria, full stop. Someone said that commies are like a zero in Algebra: zero does not behave like any other number because it isn’t any other number. No normal rules apply to zero; indeed, try and divide by it…

  20. 20 Mikel

    „”Euro, for instance, is a fundamentally Leninist project, where the political will outweighs the economic or financial realities. It may be that the will is slowly disappearing and that is the only reason why it could fail.””

    Ah, yes, indeed, there is something „romantic” in artificial will and ultimate failure of these projects.

    What I was refering about is the shrewdness of the death camp. The honest is really unsuspecting. Two agents could be speaking and bragging about their own devotion to their respective countries and then congratulate each other and sleep in adulterous manner. These „smart a$$” behaviors are not visible to the honest person, and any normal businessman or judge out West would attack a person denouncing the obvious emotional adultery and wave against any scrutiny and suspicion raised against them.

    This is what I meant by mystifying to some.

    Also the KGB Moscow theater is there for all to see. Time and again I see communists going to the exploitative rescue of Jews during WWII, of children in the third world, of freaks who perceive they are mocked by their peers or the Bible out West, and, yet, these same communists who aid those freaks also end up ministering to Christians persecuted by freaks. Those Christians are wooed with the condition that they either accept the influence of the communist’s own freakish theories of „humanism” (into accepting a stupid common denominator that would reduce their standards of materialism), if not, they will set up traps and blackmail in order to humiliate their targets and force them to the fold somehow, or destroy them altogether, politicaly or even physicaly. Some of the communists are embeded with each group, playing the freak death cult card, while others play the tearing christian card. There is a whole choreography of actors who have nothing in common in their roles, but cursorty observation would tell someone that indeed these are just role players and not real victims.

    Yes, these people are primitive and stupid, but just like a Hondurean will practice a culture of testing and blocking and mocking their antagonists, there is something of a strange culture in communists, albeit it is much more mechanical and less naturaly geneticaly culturaly ingrained. It’s a series of set of instructions and active measure methods they instruct themselves in the undertaking of people, going back to their controlers in case something does not work out.

    This has been my experience with suspected agents I know they are because they are not merely repeating a propaganda, they are actualy placed in positions of recruitment (Temple leaders, lawyers/prosecutors who do not argue cases but theories instead, military officers who play the Obama „cock block” game inside the ranks and strangely asking for defunding of military programs that they are themselves part of, opinion/story tellers who always bring about political discussions in a sort of dialectic to advance their position and show off on topics they studied before anyone on the job, manning the language, issues and conclusions pre-emptively; and the media is filled with them as well as the acting industry etc.), and they are visible because their usage of active measures and soft black mail makes them so.

    Such creatures are not completely stupid when in their position of advantage as game players while others go about honestly in their business (or even their ego games, others are still honest and do not see this organization around and have a game from an individualistic narcissistic self-flatering way, not comprehending that a whole team of a more mediocre kind of theirs is around), and they are incredibly organized, much like a theater troop organizes roles and different characters around, but communists do it in the real.

    This is what I call the shrewdness of this organization.

    Like you said, if we used their methods against them, we are much smarter and could out do them easily in wits, but we fail to recognize this and organize ourselves into detecting them and playing along with them is what I meant.

    There is something also uncanny about the lack of confidence in communist circles who are obsessed with control, and not just for organization’s sakes, but something of a homosexual like neediness in their death cult. I know of an artist who represents art in a freakish way, using the freak and the human sacrifice as a means to cause a venue of crowds so as to attract opportunity for all kinds of advertisers and politicians’ opportunities to show off. We see that in festivals like Pirate Day or Gay Pride or what not. Now, this artist is completely independent and not communist but has been harassed by communists as being an evil extremist of sorts, completely shunned.

    This means to me that the communist freak is still afraid of revealing his freakishness and allegiance to death for what it is. The communist is snobish and has weaknesses and cannot be real to himself or herself. It has to make sure the laws and culture he or she is in makes their behavior allowable and then they might reveal a bit more of themselves, if ever in intellectualizations. They always have to make „humane excuses” for their wild expenses and failures. Meanwhile the real freak show artist will be much more independent and will directly open up shop and proselytize his madness or stupidity, in a strange sort of business agreement with the opportunities he brings to the private and the public for advertisements and political support.

    There is no need for huge investment for whomever has the wits, in my opinion, to outdo or scare Moscow in using their dark force card. We can tend the other cheek and show them how far this can go, and I am pretty sure they are not as ready as they are to go through the contortions of a Yoghi style freak working on street corners with prostitutes litteraly outprostituting their own pimp in terms of shock and abuse behaviors.

    They seem to be intent on opening the gates of hell or playing with it, but because „that’s not how we do things out West” (and other hypocrite and PC snobish comments), we fail time and again for their relativistic and progressist political lines of moralization (ie. that the two sides are about the same, and these days we should support black and brown minority „marbles”, all concerns devoid of foundation or policies, but only there for vote support).

    As for the zero behavior, I am not sure where communists fit in this, but I do know that Islam does. In Islam you do a good deed on the right of the scale, you can do a bad deed on the left, both weights relativize to a balanced zero. As a result the plus and minus can be canceled and all stories, good or bad, can be forgotten, as if nothing ever happened. Some cultures have a way to avoid reality and to void their consciousness to this „zero” indeed. Mohammed however took over the good deeds for his own sake, and instead of doing a good deed to a neighbor, the islamic can replace it and do it in general at the Mecca or in some kind of miltiary service for this Interpreter/”Opinion Maker” that Mohammed is. That, in itself could be very similar to Marxism’s monopolizing wish of opinion making for self agrandizement.

  21. 21 michał

    Mikel,

    You lost me. I’m not sure where I fit in this (to borrow your phrase). If I understand you correctly, you are describing, although in unusual language, what is commonly known as the communist „march through institutions”, i.e. your „prostitutes outprostituting their own pimps” – but I’m not sure I get you.

    I don’t understand you on the „zero behaviour” either. If I kill someone tomorrow, no amount of good deeds on your part will ever outweigh the evil committed. I’m not sure you interpret this point of Islam correctly but I am sure that this is not the marxist way. What I think you may have had in mind is the fundamentally ideological, i.e. completely relative concept of good, which is clearly presented by revolutionaries of all hues, marxists, islamists or else. Truth or good, is no longer objective in their view but is purely a function of attainment of their ideological goals. Whatever brings you nearer to your aims is good, whatever slows down your progress is bad or at best a „bourgeois superstition”. So this is not a concept of „balancing” but of clear cut, black and white, subjugation of people’s behaviour to an ideological goal.

Komentuj





Language

Nowe książki Wydawnictwa Podziemnego, już w sprzedaży:


Zamów tutaj.

Jacek Szczyrba

Punkt Langrange`a. Powieść.

H
1946. Powieść.

Książki Wydawnictwa Podziemnego

Zamów tutaj:



J.R. Nyquist
Koń trojański
 
Dariusz Rohnka
Wielkie arrangement

Dariusz Rohnka
Fatalna Fikcja