Alpha/S. wrote:This dream for "sustainable and effective African independence" is nothing more than that, a dream. Africa is not going to be independent in any tangible form nor is it going to develop much due to the lack of human and physical capital that the native populations there posses. Expecting this absent real power relations would be unrealistic. Furthermore I don’t subscribe to this notion that all groups innately “deserve” to be respected at all - respect is earned by one’s strength. Those fascists who think that these frankly weak and low IQ populations will amount to much are ignoring reality.
On the subject of deserving to be respected, I have never been of the belief that any group in the world "deserves" to be respected simply because they exist. Respect is earned through struggle, and it is the struggle of certain political forces and leaderships within Africa that have moved toward the realization of this goal which earned respect, whether Qaddafi, Nkrumah, Lumumba, Barre, or even Savimbi - and it is that which is partially the subject of what I was discussing. Interestingly enough, the countries of these former great leaders for the African people have in many cases been the largest target for outside exploitation, or simply outright destruction of the power in question which could not be co-opted and refused to be exploited. Libya was brutally attacked in a campaign which targeted everything from schools and municipal centers to its water infrastructure, with its Great Manmade River project previously renowned as a continental wonder and gem of engineering in the Sahara, even among Western observers; now it is a tribalist cesspool and moving toward a failed state. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia have become the worst conflict zones in the world in a chain of events following Lumumba's assassination by the CIA and Belgian intelligence, and Barre's own death in exile in Nigeria after Washington quickly pulled support for him as the Cold War drew to a close. Modern Ghana has become a notorious puppet state which cares more for taking its dictates from international finance than Nkrumah's vision for Pan-Africanism in the wake of decolonization, and Angola has become little more than a gussied up resource market for the Chinese as even the former Angolan communists have chosen not to resist the global model.
I feel that sometimes when I attempt to write here from a more analytical point of view, my comments are taken as championing or direct support for what is being discussed. I do respect the Africans' struggle to achieve real, legitimate independence in the post-colonial era, but this does not mean I don't understand that it is a long way off. Many remarkable things have been achieved toward the realization of this end, many coming from the former Libyan Jamahiriya whether in the form of the first African satellite launched to avoid the need for routing through a European network or the several conferences orchestrated by Tripoli to discuss moving toward a standard, singular gold-based African dinar currency. Of course, much of that has been undone in the past several years as the current neocolonialist era unfolds and the U.S. and China wage a proxy conflict in Africa, but this doesn't render it impossible. Africa may have disappointingly low human capital for its large population, but it does have an incredible resource wealth, much living space, and nowhere to go but up if foreign meddling is kept at bay through the quest of
real leaders with stated visions and ruthless measures to ensure the success of said visions, rather than the rotating empty suits which predominate in the West and areas of the developing world in which it maintains hegemony.
Alpha/S. wrote:Those fascists who think that these frankly weak and low IQ populations will amount to much are ignoring reality. In addition, this attitude seems to have nothing to do with historical reality at all. Fascist tradition clearly shows a desire for imperialistic goals - Italy under Mussolini absorbed Ethiopia and attempted to turn the Mediterranean into an "Italian Lake". National Socialist Germany invaded its neighbors with the goal of ethnic cleansing in search of lebensraum and the Japanese Empire was just that, a mighty Empire attempting to bring East Asia under its control. Imperialism is not only justifiable but an inevitable outcome of disparate power relations. Further it makes sense to support the dominion of the strong over the weak since anything else would be ahistorical. What are your goals really Sage?
Believe me, I have always found the collective struggle you highlight more than worthwhile and what's more it shall forever be enshrined and stand as a clear as crystal testament to our resolve; I had close family lost and injured in the war. Yet in a recent discussion concerning Venezuelan politics and the renewed interests of nationalists in the global-south, I wrote a small tidbit concerning my honest feelings about why fascists through the International Third Position (not the British movement we saw arise in the 80's out of the white nationalist and rather contrived National Front, but the Third Position as an intellectual and political umbrella movement internationally) must indeed be interested in the cause of peoples everywhere, on each continent, demonstrating through force and action a desire of liberating themselves from the domination of the degenerate influence of finance and the worldwide neoliberal project and establishment of organic, culturally rich, and harmoniously totalitarian effectively hierarchical societies conducive with the fascist vision for civilization's progress. It is no coincidence that Bulgarian fascist Volen Siderov of ATAKA wrote effectively in defense of a third world
socialist following Chavez's passing - "President Chavez served as an example for Bulgarian patriots as a statesman who served the people's interests and not the interests of oligarchy". It is also no surprise or coincidence that more and more Russian fascists in the wake of the calamity wrought upon Russia by the introduction of liberalism into the country in the 90's, in line with Aleksandr Dugin's writings and the Neo-Eurasianist school of thought, along with some policy proposals of the thoroughly Strasserist National Bolsheviks, have called for increased cooperation between Russian nationalists and the peoples throughout the Caucasus along with European nationalists against the tide of liberal-capitalism emanating from the New World and the Chinese model. A large part of this naturally involves directly supporting nationalist struggles in the developing world, whether it be Ba'athist Syria against the imperialist designs on that country, the Azawad Liberation Front in Mali, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation rooted in Chiapas/Mexico who cannot be called rightist but are interested in developing that country entirely apart from the model laid out by the liberal establishment in Mexico City, or the Hindu Tamils of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, among others.
My point is that while I in many respects would love nothing more than to return to continue the eternal struggle from the second where we left off, that would be poorly conceived as I have seen radically new developments in this world over the course of my life. What basically must be understood is that while, yes, fascism was undoubtedly imperialist at a time when imperialism was at its height, neoliberalism since 1991 has become globalized and internationalized, and fascists have very little hope of shaking off that putrid, undignified, unbecoming yoke without global organization of fascists, left-nationalists, right-socialists, Third Positionists (which in the majority of cases is fascists' presentation in the modern era), conservative revolutionaries, and Radical Traditionalists to address what is in fact a global problem - Plainly, the neoliberal model for globalization. We must keep our eye on the ball, as this is a message of so much more than supremacy, but namely the vital supremacy of peoples within their own land for those with the fortitude to fight for it.
My goals, in shorthand have always been some form of:
- An end to globalism (which I use as shorthand for globalization under neoliberalism)
- An end to the political hegemony as well as that in academia and cultural spheres to the equally materialist, (faux in the case of the former, real in the case of the latter) egalitarian, anti-national, spiritually empty, and internationalist creeds of capitalism and Marxian socialism, to be supplanted by corporatism in tandem with a Prussian-based model of guild socialism as envisioned by Otto Strasser
- An end and peeling off of the idea that is the modern "West", with its philosophic and intellectual base deriving from the Enlightenment, in favor of the rebirth of a truly
European civilization for Europeans - European in religion, European in social customs, and entirely pagan in its moral outlook, closer to what was seen in Rome of the ancient Latin people or in classical Germania during the same period than a mentality of what Nietzsche accurately described in Zarathustra as a "slave morality" which developed after 2,000 years of Christian saturation.
Consult
The Genealogy of Morals for a better glimpse into what has developed as my lifelong perspective on this issue:
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:"And we are the first to admit that anyone who knew these "good" ones only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude, and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality, pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble races there lurks the blond beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the Scandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword "barbarian."
Only through struggle which itself defines life can the imposition of an alien ideology upon the races of the world be reversed, and that inevitable, necessary,
holy war, unity must develop to utterly pulverize the world's worst elements responsible for the state of affairs today. Only then can independent societies develop upon their own trajectory through a blood-bound people with a unified consciousness, totalitarian in political structuring, yet cosmic in aim. Only then can the requisite holes be poked through and the true drive toward understanding and exploration of this universe and what lies beyond be realized.
Alpha/S. wrote:Frankly I don’t understand why you are so concerned with the independence of Africa since due to its own weakness it will only continue to fall under the peripheral control of various Empires. The fact that China is moving in when western hegemony weakens is proof of this. You can replace one oppressor with another, but not the reality of the oppressor. Not really. It has never been my opinion that the weaker groups should be favored over the stronger. Consider the very existence of the United States if you will, it was the direct result of European colonialism coupled with the utter ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations (though disease had a large role in this as well). As a result a weaker civilization was replaced by objectively stronger one and the nation we live in now is born as a result. That is what happens due to demographic displacement couple with objectively superior economic systems/levels of development.
Africa is useless.
It is not my chief concern, but can I inquire as to why you seem hostile to the idea? The development of Africans by Africans for Africans should not threaten Europeans and European-descended peoples elsewhere in the world. Between various races and peoples, there will always some form of inequity - a relationship partly based in exploitative or predatory concerns, but that does not mean that Africa is devoid of purpose beyond their role in all that. Those people have a journey to go down the same as anyone else, and if they can crush liberalism's grip in their own territorial space while trading with the world and continuing to improve the quality of life for their inhabitants, then why should they not be cheered on?
For a further peek into my thoughts on the relationship between fascists of a truly revolutionary quality of any age and social upbringing in the developed world with those seeking national empowerment in the global-south -
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=142564I will borrow a page from Rei's playbook by referring to my own quotation, pertinent to the subject as it is:
Far-Right Sage wrote:In the era we now find ourselves living in, one should seek to better serve the collective interest by consolidating and cleaning up one's own homeland before attempting largescale external power projection. Many in the far-right today reject excessive and vulgar imperialism because, frankly, it is counterproductive in an age in which the greatest focal point of resistance should be the anti-globalization effort, which finds natural bedfellows in the anti-colonial liberation movements and regimes which sprung up from the era of decolonization.
This is not a particularly new development, although it is being discussed more and more openly in a post-Cold War world. One of the greatest faces of anti-colonial nationalism in the developing world is of course Gamal Abdel Nasser and the German resources, men and the expertise they brought with them, which were allocated to Nasserite Egypt are staggering. Johannes Von Leers, Alois Moser, Karl Luder, Wilhelm Boeckler, Ludwig Heiden, and many more. Egypt at the time was naturally the greatest barrier to Israeli expansionism, and what is particularly interesting is the mindset of many brilliant German men involved in bolstering Nasser's security apparatus. They did not travel to Egypt merely to attain safety in exile which they could have enjoyed in good health in Franquist Spain like Hans Ulrich-Rudel, Argentina, Paraguay, or a number of other locales. Nor did they seek to assist the Arab cause entirely out of anti-Jewish sentiment, but quite like the Arab revolutionaries of the 60's up until today, they viewed the Jewish outpost in the Middle East as an unjust colonialist stain and forward base of a far larger and despised enemy; an enemy of course they had sought to defeat previously.
There is much to get into and I don't wish to wildly hijack the discussion, but this affinity between the German people and the former subjects of the Muslim world far predates the National Socialist movement, by the way. It is a relationship rooted in common interests, the only rational manner in which any alliance can sustain itself and justify its existence. It has its roots in a shared Anglo-French colonialist exploitation which predates even Wiilhelmine Germany, and indeed German unification. A common theme in Hitler's warnings to outsiders who would do the people harm, particularly the French who became drunk off imperial hubris as if it was a goblet of Merlot, was to focus their minds away from the Napoleonic era in which the German states were backwater fiefdoms to be kicked around in no less humiliating a manner than the British and French African and Asian colonies.
Of course there is always a distinct line. I do not consider Berlin's annexation of ethnic German enclaves within the arbitrarily established Polish and Czech borders to be imperialism. The campaign against the Soviet Union was certainly imperialistic, and one which I certainly would have supported at the time for reasons of security, resource enhancement, and ideological neccessity. Today, I believe more can be gained from a measure of cooperation with the Russians in a number of arenas, after a small bit of key territory is returned.
So yes, I do believe as a representative of the far-right that more is to be gained from standing in opposition to imperialism today and espousing pan-nationalist sentiments which can fan the flames of anti-globalist fury from Riga to Kathmandu. This is particularly logical because the greatest pushers of imperialist agitation today are liberal regimes.
Again, there is historical precedent, although this seems to have all been forgotten today in the rush to portray our people as cartoonish villains despite the fact that many actions taken were done so in a move of resistance against the oppressive political, social, and economic conditions and precedents set in Europe and its dominions throughout the centuries.
Brilliant anti-colonial rhetoric [is needed] which instills pride in a people and at the same time uplifts the lowest members of society to economic and social conditions formerly unattained while the great unitary collective State stands with its back to the wall like a magnificent glistening animal against the conditions of a money-grubbing, morally degenerate, deteriorating world around it.
As we move beyond the war and into a new and uncertain phase in an emerging century, this type of stuff will continue to remain powerful and potent for a reason; it speaks to an inner consciousness which can not be erased as a result of political conditions perpetually in flux. It speaks to men of all races at a time when members of certain cultures slated for systematic sanitization and obliteration and men and women of the agrarian backbone and working classes realize the contempt members within our own government have for their toil and, as they perceive, an impudent desire to stand proud and independent.
Marxist publications may tell you otherwise, but anti-colonialism has a home on the right because the post-Enlightenment right was born in the bloody and heroic spirit of mass revolution
"I am never guided by a possible assessment of my work" - President Vladimir Putin
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi