When did the PKK save the Yezidis who were the other?

 

When did the PKK save the Yezidis who were the other Kurdish organizations and the Kurdish communist organizations? 

They only know how to slander people who are full of political and strategic flaws but save lives. 

They equate them with Barzani's nationalists or even with Isis. Factionalism and ideological warfare have some limits. Especially when your ideological opponent has shown in practice that he helps his people. 

The slanders against the PKK, especially the slanders of the Maoists and the Stalinists but also of some extreme anarchists, go beyond all limits of audacity and political immorality, and I already know them in my country.

Criticism of Stalin, who was responsible for huge mistakes and crimes, they do not know how to do, they are annoyed with a petty bourgeois patriotic party that has shown in practice that it is fighting against the Islamo-fascist enemy, even ending up in cynical alliances. 

So what to do? 

Can you wait for the global labor movement? Where is; 

Where are the radical intellectuals of the west? What your Western comrades are doing now is working to structure a lacy "critique" of Putin and to justify even theocrats in Iran for "anti-imperialist reasons"

I did not see any of them, and in my country Greece, refer to the struggles of the Iranian working class and the thousands of dead in 2018-2019, in Iran, from the repression of the Theocrats. 

On the contrary, there were some, leftists !, who marched in Athens against the assassination of Soleimani! 

 

Stop the slander of the PKK by the sectarians and the extremist Stalinists. 

It is not a working class organization, nor is it responsible for its alliance with the United States. 

Be silent at last and make substantial criticism, not slander.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

The political contradictions and antinomies that I touch

 

The political contradictions and antinomies that I touch as a blind man will not be solved by me but by people who will be neither crowds nor individuals. I trust the people who come, I hope mainly to the people of West Asia, for reasons that do not make sense to analyze again. However, I do not want to hide from these contradictions, nor do I want to believe in a point of escape on a redemptive horizon. 

These contradictions are presented to me in sleep and wakefulness as unresolved, forever unresolved, and only in this way can I expose them in a way that makes them visible to everyone and to me. 

Anyone who rushes to overcome them by recruiting horizons and future redemptions is not a stranger or an enemy to me, but I feel, I believe, I claim that with his optimism he prevents their complete appearance.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Orbital The Box

Σημείο

 

Σημείο μιας νοηματικής εκκίνησης τής έννοιας τής παγκόσμιας Κυριαρχίας.

 

Η στήλη απεικόνισης τής νίκης του Ακκαδαίου βασιλιά Naram-Sin επί του λαού των Lullubi είναι μια θριαμβική απεικόνιση αυτής της νίκης.

Εμφανίζει την σκοπιά των νικητών, δίνει μια υποκειμενική εικόνα για το τι συνέβη κατά τη διάρκεια της μάχης από την σκοπιά τους.

Η ιεραρχία της κλίμακας τής εικόνας δείχνει ότι ο Naram-Sin είναι το πιο σημαντικό σημείο τής ιεραρχικής απεικόνισης.

Ο καθένας στην απεικόνιση κοιτάζει προς τον Naram-Sin, ο οποίος ορθώνεται σε μια ηρωική και θεία στάση πάνω στο βουνό.

Οι στρατιώτες του Naram-Sin κατευθύνονται με ομαλό τρόπο στην άκρη του βουνού, ενώ οι ηττημένοι πέφτουν κάτω από το βουνό.

Ο ανοργάνωτος τρόπος των ηττημένων ενισχύει την εικόνα τής υποταγής τους.

Η αποδιοργάνωση τους δείχνει την ταπεινή και βάρβαρη φύση τους, η οποία καθιστά την ήττα τους μια νίκη τής Κυριαρχίας επί των αδύναμων.

Τα στρατεύματα τής Κυριαρχίας περπατούν στην κορυφή των πεσόντων στρατιωτών, δείχνοντας την ανωτερότητα τους και την αδιαφορία για τη ζωή τους.

Οι άνθρωποι τού λαού Lullubi πέφτουν ως ηττημένοι με έναν ανοργάνωτο τρόπο, δείχνοντας κατά την απεικόνιση τής στήλης ότι είναι βάρβαροι.

Με την απεικόνισή τους κάτω από τα στρατεύματα, νομιμοποιείται ηθικά και οντολογικά η ήττα τους.

Ο Naram-Sin ισχυρίστηκε ότι ήταν «βασιλιάς των τεσσάρων τεταρτημορίων του σύμπαντος» και άρχισε να γράφει το όνομά του με ένα σημάδι που σήμαινε τον εαυτό του ως έναν θεό ισότιμο με οποιονδήποτε στο μεσοποταμιακό πάνθεο.

 

Η ύβρις του Naram-Sin. Η ίδρυση της απόλυτης κυριαρχίας...

Η κορύφωση της κυριαρχίας της Ακκαδικής αυτοκρατορίας ήταν η ηγεμονία του πρώτου αυτο-ανακηρυσσόμενου [ως] θεού-ηγεμόνα στον Μεσοποταμιακό χώρο.

Ο Naram-Sin ήταν ο ηγεμόνας εκείνος που μεταμόρφωσε την παράδοση της θεοκεντρικής πολιτείας των κατακτηθέντων Σουμερίων που είχε περάσει στα χέρια των κατακτητών Ακκαδαίων σε ένα πρωτογενές θεοκρατικό σύστημα, εις το οποίο όμως ο ηγεμόνας κυρίαρχος αποτελεί το κέντρο της λατρείας. Βλέπουμε λοιπόν έναν ηγεμόνα ενός κατακτητικού πρώην νομαδικού λαού που έχει οικειοποιηθεί τον πολιτισμό των μη-νομάδων Σουμερίων να μετατρέπει το θεοκεντρικό σύστημά τους σε θεοκρατικό με την έννοια όμως που έχει ένας τέτοιος προσδιορισμός στα πλαίσια μιας ηγεμονοκεντρικής λατρείας και θεοποίησης (κάτι σαν αρχέγονος πρωτο-θεοΚαισαρισμός).

Ο Naram-Sin ανακηρύσσει τον εαυτό του «Κύριο των 4 διαστάσεων-τεταρτημορίων-οίκων του σύμπαντος Κόσμου»... 

Αυτή η αυτο-ανακήρυξη έχει έναν κοσμο-ιστορικό χαρακτήρα, εφόσον δεν σημαίνει έναν περιορισμό στην αναλογία θεού ηγεμόνα και θεού ή θεών που κυριαρχούν στον σύμπαντα Κόσμο αλλά μια επέκταση της Ί-διας κυριαρχίας του ηγεμονικού υποκειμένου, έναν αποκλειστικό χαρακτήρα της ειδικής [ως θεϊκής] κυριαρχίας του.

Το γεγονός της αρχεγονότητας αυτής της ανακήρυξης, στο πρώτο σκαλοπάτι μετά τον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πολιτισμό, αποδίδει στην πράξη μιαν εξέχουσα συμβολική και οντολογική σημασία που ενισχύεται ακόμα περισσότερο από την εκδηλωνόμενη οντολογική και νοηματική θρασύτητά της, την οποία δεν βρίσκουμε σε κανέναν άλλο ιστορικό κόσμο και σε καμία άλλη ιστορική στιγμή (πλην ίσως της Ρώμης, και αυτό έχει την σημασία του).

Πάλι η Μεσοποταμία διδάσκει ιστορία.

Η ύβρις και η βεβήλωση που πραγματοποίησε ο Naram-Sin έγινε ήδη από τότε ξακουστή και αποτέλεσε ένα αντι-πρότυπο που πυροδότησε μιαν ολόκληρη μεσοποταμιακή λογοτεχνική και μυθολογική παράδοση.

Εκεί που πραγματικά κορυφώνεται η ιστορικο-οντολογική σημασία της ύβρεως του ηγεμόνα είναι στην αποτύπωση και συμβολοποίηση της νίκης του επί των «ανθρώπων των βουνών» (Victory Stele of Naram-Sin) (οι σύγχρονοι Κούρδοι εθνικιστές και εθνοαπελευθερωτές δεν έχουν χρησιμοποιήσει τυχαία το γεγονός αυτό, και βέβαια την αποτύπωσή του που έχει ίσως μεγαλύτερη σημασία γιατί σημαίνει).

Όπως θα δείτε εγκαθίσταται ήδη από τότε, πολύ πριν την Θεογονία του Ησιόδου, η ριζική διαφορά Τάξεως και Χάους, όπου η Τάξη εκφράζεται στην μορφή του ηγεμόνα και του στρατεύματός του ενώ το Χάος στις μορφές των νικημένων ανθρώπων του βουνού που πεθαίνουν πέφτοντας στο βάραθρο με χαοτικό ασύντακτο τρόπο, δείχνοντας έτσι πως το Χάος για την πρωτο-θεοκρατική σκέψη και νοηματοδότηση δεν είναι μόνον κάτι εις το οποίο πέφτεις αλλά είσαι κιόλας αν πέφτεις (πεθαίνεις στην μάχη) με ασύντακτο τρόπο. 

Το Χάος δεν προϋπάρχει, κατά την Ακκαδαϊκή σκοπιά, μόνον, αλλά υφίσταται στην «βαρβαρική» ασύντακτη τροπικότητα της στρατιωτικής δράσης. 

Η Ακκαδική κυριαρχία στην κορύφωσή της παραδίδει ρατσιστικά «αντι-βαρβαρικά» «μαθήματα» στους ηττημένους προ-κρατικούς ανθρώπους, και αυτά τα μαθήματα είναι πολιτικο-στρατιωτικά μαθήματα που αυτοί (οι προ-κρατικοί ή μετέπειτα αντικρατικοί άνθρωποι, λαοί ή τάξεις) καλούνται να πάρουν χωρίς να δεχτούν την βεβήλωση της ανθρώπινης υπόστασής τους και την κυριαρχική αποτύπωσή τους (κατωτεροποίησή τους) από τον νικητή Κυρίαρχο, αλλά και χωρίς να επαναπαυθούν στην ανοργανωσιά τους.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

To the Iranian and Kurdish comrades. Positions and question.

 

Position 1.

Supporting a national struggle does not mean supporting the national capitalist-bourgeoisie. The fact that a popular or communist movement can support an honest struggle supported by the national bourgeoisie does not mean the support of the national bourgeoisie. 

The fact that the national bourgeoisie can lead this struggle does not mean that you support the national bourgeoisie, even if you have to enter into a dangerous and transient alliance with it. 

The notion that opposing interests between two social classes prevent their partial identification is a sectarian and dogmatic notion that has been completely overthrown in World War II. Not only is it justified to enter into an alliance with the national bourgeoisie of your country but also to enter into a national bourgeoisie of a foreign country if there is an anti-fascist struggle.

Tudeh's mistake was not that he believed that there was a national bourgeoisie but that he did not understand a) the negative balance of power for such an alliance and that he did not understand b) the reactionary ideological character of the theocratic elite leading the national struggle against foreign imperialism.

However, despite this mistake, the perception of those who denied the national struggle as justified and honest appeared when Iran was attacked by Iraq. Iran was right in its defense against the invaders and Saddam Hussein. 

The reactionary Bonapartist leadership of the Iranian national struggle against the invaders tarnished this struggle but did not cancel it. 

The Iranian people and the Iranian working class defended the country and turned a blind eye to the fact that the leadership of the struggle was reactionary, because the people chose their homeland that was right, they chose the least evil in the face of the greatest evil that would be its occupation of his homeland by the fascist army of Ba'athist terrorists.

The left was surprised, because the trophy of popular sacrifice and victory became the trophy of the theocrats, but neither the people nor the Iranian nation are to blame for this surprise, the left is to blame when it does not know the power of national consciousness in the working masses. .

When the nation is right the working people defend the nation, and endure the oppression of the national bourgeoisie if the national bourgeoisie leads the nation that is right.

The game of national leadership in Iran was lost for the Iranian left before it was conquered by the theocrats, but for this the responsibility in the nation and the meaning of the nation should not be sought.

 ---

 

Western imperialism, the United States, Israel, are in partial but real conflict with the capitalist theocratic regime in Iran. Iran is a key ally and member of the new Eastern imperialist pole, which is why it is being targeted by Western imperialists. The competition is between imperialists, and Iran as a key semi-active member of the emerging imperialist pole is taking part in this competition at the risk of its very existence as a nation state.

The West has a clear and insidious goal: to use the Iranian working class, but especially the oppressed (and colonized by the central nationalist-theocratic core of the Iranian nation-state) non-Persian ethnic groups, to disrupt the unity of the Iranian nation-state. 

The West wants to divide the Iranian nation-state into separate and hostile ethnic groups.

The main responsibility for this danger lies with the theocratic capitalist regime itself, but this does not mean that the West has no bloodthirsty adventurous plans.

How does the iranian left view these strategic plans of the West?

The regime uses fear, it uses national danger, to terrorize the Iranian people, but does that mean there is no danger?

---

 

Position 2.

When the PKK launched an honest nationalist struggle in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, it was forced to form an alliance with Assad's Ba'athist regime in Syria.

I think this alliance was necessary, but it turned into a disaster when Assad was pressured by the Turkish state with the threat of war, at a time when there was no longer a Soviet Union to support him. 

The entire structure of the PKK was liquidated and its leader wandered all over Europe until he was sold by his false allies, such as the Greek state. 

He made a mistake in trusting the Greek left and the Greek state. 

Not only did they not support him but they handed him over to the enemy, in exchange for a peace that stems from the fear of the Turkish state.

What is the lesson?

When you belong to a weak and oppressed nation, even if your nation has a state (the Kurds do not have that either) you are a game in the hands of stronger powers and your allies are made of straw, they can sell you in the bazaar the next day.

---

 

When you set up politico-military structures but also camps in the area of ​​a foreign nation, and not just a nation state, do you have control over the policies you pursue? What will be the consideration that this foreign nation-state will ask you for? What will the strong protectors of this seemingly hospitable nation-state ask you for in return?

If this nation-state has an ethnic composition like your own nation, your own ethnicity, yet by what political and class forces is it controlled? are they independent of other foreign powers?

What projects do you participate in?

How will you mitigate the inevitable influence of the hosts? will you be able to control this influence? or will your autonomy slowly erode?

And if, however, you have agreed to suffer this influence, because you have accepted without admitting it or even to yourself to form an alliance with the host, then how will you cut yourself off from him if necessary? Will you be able then?

---

 

Position 3.

The winner of the battle was Fidel Castro and not Che Guevara. Fidel won the fight because he fought mainly on the familiar national battlefield.

When Che went to a foreign country alone, without having (above him) a leader created by that country, he lost. And this defeat was not only certain but also fast like a passing night, like a meaningless moment.

When the passionate but deeply rooted in the nation and its citizenship, the great Peruvian revolutionary Abimael Guzman, fought, for years, in an unequal and desperate struggle, he may have lost but was slow to lose, he could have won because he was fighting within the nation of, in his country. He did not ask for help from any other nation.

Help from foreign people makes sense when you have practical control over your affairs, even if you are a communist movement.

---

 

Those who see the notion of the nation as synonymous with the national bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in general have lost, are losing, and will lose all political battles.

---

 

What was created through capitalism will not necessarily go away with its destruction. The dialectic of the deniers of the concept of nation is not dialectical, it is a metaphysical denial.

---

 

Some people think that if they stick the word "capitalistic" in another word, they will defeat that other word. This is even considered a materialistic analysis, while reminiscent of a religious naming ceremony.

---

 

The concept of the nation sinks into a conservative self-reproduction if abandoned by democratic citizens and the left. Then our friends from the far left accuse this meaning of being synonymous with conservatism, not blaming themselves for abandoning it to conservative logic and practice.

---

 

By continuing to ''structure'' your political notions, you will not be able to defeat either the emerging ethnic nationalism of the oppressed ethnic groups in Iran or the nationalism of the sovereign Iranian capitalist nation-state.

I do not know of any ready-made solution, nor do the neo-left neo-anarchist theories provide a better solution than those provided by historical communism.

The only solution I can imagine is to orient oneself into direct empirical reality with an anti-theoretical attitude, as if one wants to look at things as dead ends, to the point of despair. One would say that this is not a "dialectical" or scientific theory. But would such an attitude be preferable if he wanted to at least understand the danger of the situation.

Even Marxism has come to be used as a sedative. Since "dialectic" means an "end" then our "dialectical" Marxist is simply looking to find the right medicine, as if it were in some sky of Platonic Ideas.

I do not intend to hurt anyone's Marxist faith, after all, how can you distinguish in so many Marxisms and factions who is the truest, the true Marxism?

This situation is of a theological nature.

I look at a foreign nation or two foreign nations from a far. I do not understand their language. With a little English and the translator I catch the meaning. And I see the same peace of mind, the same faith, the same delusions that I see in the struggling and passionate progressive people that nest in my own nation.

Most of them no longer want to wear the clothes of the nation, their nation, and in a sense they do well.

But at the same time that they refuse to wear this outfit, they speak and act as if they live in a private ethnic world. You get lost in the labyrinth of their own stories, you get lost without the thread of Ariadne in their own national world. The very ones who deny the nation and feel that it is drowning them like a poisoned garment, are the ones who live mainly in this garment, breathe the sky of their beloved homeland even if they live thousands of kilometers away from it, exiled and wounded, wronged and despised, persecuted and exiled by the angry state that rules it.

Their comrades from other nations, who are also enemies of chauvinism and primitive nationalism, listen to them, respect them, help them, but they cannot understand them, even if there are no translation problems.

At the critical moment, when there will be a great uprising in the homeland, they will leave the foreign country, and will run to help their people. The comrades will be in solidarity, some few and courageous internationalists will follow them, but their battle will be theirs, it will be the battle for the homeland.

Tell me now. If so, then where does the "dialectic" go? Where is the guaranteed solution to the tragedy that has migrated for many years to the heroic people of Iran and the mountains of Kurdistan?

Is there a solution to this tragedy?

Is there a way out of this Iranian impasse?

Is there a way for the glorious but sometimes talkative dialectic to solve the riddle?

---

 

Dear Iranian and Kurdish comrades, I translate for you what the slogan I republish here says, which has been written repeatedly on all the walls of Athens:

"Let Greece die and let us live"

This slogan is a widespread slogan of the left and anarchist anti-capitalists in my country, and it means a complete renunciation of the concept of nation and homeland.

According to the extreme sectarian logic, this meaning («nation») belongs to the class enemies of the working class, belongs to the capitalist social class, to the state.

The consequence of extreme sectarian internationalism is this slogan.

In this slogan to see the consistency and completion of the ideas of renunciation of the nation.

Would you like to see in your homeland for example a slogan:

"Let Iran die and let us live"?

or

"Let the Kurdistan die so that we can live"?

And yet the new left in the West thinks that with such "logics" it is fighting fascism, nationalism and racism.

What do you say?

There will be sectarians who will refuse to "sign" this slogan, but I want you to know that I do not believe them.

In their minds they have the same cement.

They just hide and speak with a deceitful moderation, which the people of the bottom, the illiterate people understand, and understand the meaning.

I want to know, are you related to these sick ideas?

Because in the West the revolutionary left and post-feminism are flirting with such ideas.

Do you think they will respect your country?

Do you think that they will care if your homeland is torn to pieces for the benefit of imperialism?

Do you think that their flattery matters to you?

---

 

Dear comrades, my thoughts on your movement start from a distant place. We are brothers, all people are brothers but we remain strangers to each other.

I do not want to teach people who have given their lives for their people, and are risking their sweet lives.

Maybe my thoughts are on the wrong track. However, they are clear on some issues.

I unconditionally support your movement, I have defended your movement in Greece when almost no one said anything. When Khamenei's theocrats in 2018-2019 killed cold-blooded protesters, I was a conduit informations for the horrific events when Greek society was silent or suspicious of the movement, when the ISIS-theocrats exterminated the Yezidis, I shouted almost alone in absolute silence. When the Iraqi state exterminated young people, I shouted almost alone in complete silence.

Believe what I said I was wrong, but my support is real. I expect a lot from you, I expect you to change the whole landscape of the Middle East, I expect you to illuminate our mistakes, to correct us, to give us again the lost ideological courage, I can say a new revolutionary faith.

---

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Φυλακή..

 

سعید پوریان

زندانی !

اکثر آدما زندانی هستن ، اگه تو سلول نباشن ، زندانی سیستم هستن و اگه هیچکدوم از اینا نباشه ، محصور در فکر و اندیشه هاشون هستن ، بهتره که نگم اندیشه و فکر ، بلکه زندانی باور هاشون هستن ، به یه چیزی باور دارن ، بعد زندونی اون باور میشن ، به اون باور اعتقاد دارن ، ایمان دارن ،

بقدری هم به اون باور ، ایمان پیدا می کنن ، که اصلا دوست ندارن که بدونن که بیرون از باورشون ، حرف های دیگه ای هم وجود داره ، و آدمای دیگه ای با باورهای دیگه وجود داره ،

یاد می گیریم که آدمای دیگه ، با باورهای متفاوت از ما ، دشمن هستن ، یا اگه دشمن نباشن ، از ما نیستن ،

از فلسفه و استدلال ، فقط جهت باورمند تر شدن خودمون بر باور کنونی خودمون استفاده می کنیم و نه جهت کشف حقیقت ،

وقتی هم که از باور قبلی خودمون دست می کشیم ، می ریم باوری با صد و هشتاد درجه اختلاف با باور قبلی رو انتخاب می کنیم و زندانی باور جدید میشیم !!!

 

 

Ένα καταπληκτικό (μικρό σε έκταση) κείμενο ενός εξόριστου Ιρανού κομμουνιστή, το οποίο θα μπορούσε να λειτουργήσει ως εκκίνηση για μια νέα ανοιχτή επαναστατική κριτική θεώρηση των εννοιών και ιδεών.

Δεν θα περιαυτολογήσω αν πω ότι έχω εκφράσει ανάλογες, σχεδόν ταυτόσημες απόψεις.

(Χρησιμοποιήστε τον αυτόματο μεταφραστή, το κείμενο έχει απλή συντακτική δομή και καταλαβαίνεις επακριβώς τι λέει). 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

This is the question

 

I will try to write an analysis on some issues related to the movement in Iran, the divisions and the factions. I have the right?

I have no right nor do I know details and basic things, but I see things that I see in Greece, which cause me great dissatisfaction, I can also say anger. The leftists suffer from ideological pathologies that they do not want to admit and discuss calmly, not even with each other. After all, I'm not interested in the left in Greece and Iran, but in the people, the day laborers like me, and when I see the political representatives of my social class suffering from serious political ills, I get angry with them first. The first and basic ideological and political disease is the alienation from reality itself, the avoidance of critical questions that have difficult answers.

How will the defense of Iran's national sovereignty be combined with the rights of non-Persian ethnic groups in a democratic revolution (proletarian or bourgeois)?

This is the question, and it has no ready-made easy answers written in sacred Marxist or other scriptures.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Arthur Neville Chamberlain

Ο Arthur Neville Chamberlain στην Ελλάδα είναι αριστερός και αναρχικός.

Anne Clark -LIVE- "Our Darkness" @Berlin Nov 09, 2014

Εξελίξεις στο ιρανικό (σεκταριστικό) κομμουνιστικό κίνημα.

Left-wing nationalism in non-Western countries, even when it occurs in ethnic minorities, is like the deepest peel of an onion. 

Beneath the external Marxist-Leninist and other internationalist shells appears this deeper shell, the left-wing nationalist core. 

Being in the middle between internationalist's communists and left nationalists, I have to say that calm and truth are needed in these disputes that occur in movements that have both tendencies but it seems to them that the internationalist tendency prevails. Internationalists must understand that left-wing nationalism or ethnocentrism is on fire like a blazing fire and must not artificially extinguish it. Better to be separated from the beginning and to have a kind of moderate rivalry but also alienation from the beginning. 

I consider myself, without being competent and an expert on the issues of the Iranian left, that the split of the communist Komala led by Alizadeh is a left-wing nationalist split, which will move between anti-capitalist left and left nationalism without joining the tendency Mehtadi. 

The internationalist's who are protesting against Alizadeh's attitude today are right to protest, in my opinion, and I like them, but on the other hand they are behaving like the cheating husband. 

The movement in the Kurds can not but tend to nationalism-ethnocentrism, this is to be expected, but the Hekmatists knew it from the beginning, trying from the beginning to set up their movement mainly in this area despite the fact that it is a iranian communist movement-party. 

So why are they surprised if left-wing nationalism is mushrooming everywhere in Kurdistan? even to people who stood with them in past conflicts with other versions of left-wing nationalism? 

They acted sectarian as super-internationalists, and now they will reap the fruits of their ideological one-sidedness. 

I like them more but they are also sectarian.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος