Your hypocrisy chokes me.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The favorite child of Marxists, Russia, has made another imperialist intervention today, and Western mainstream Marxism is keeping quiet. From tomorrow, Marxist analyzes of equal distances will be launched, again blaming the West.
Who does this? mainly Western Marxists.
Their own boss bothers them, they hate him, and they will not cry more than normal if their enemy's enemy rapes a country.
The world is theirs, the high intellect is theirs, the problem is theirs, their master is the worst because he is THEIR master.
The other master, the one who is away from their ass, can be a little useful for their purpose of building their own socialism, their own paradise. But how much they look like their master! how much they look like their own enemy! they are western, but more western than the "normal" western rulers.
Their anti-Westernism stinks of colonialism in reverse, their anti-imperialism is selective, because what concerns them mainly is their over-inflated philanthropic and narcissistic radicalism, and their own Father-master.
They are the prodigal sons of their Father, they target their own Father mainly, they do not care about the rape of other peoples by their own Fathers-Monsters.
They only care about their own Father-Rapist-Monster, the Fathers-Monsters of non- Western peoples seem in their eyes somewhat likeable, for everything only their "own" Father is responsible because he is "THEIR OWN" Father.
The Eastern fascists appear to them as extensions of their "own" Fascists, since their own Fascists are a more important enemy because they are their familiar enemy.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
According to the melodramatic language of the left, NATO is a "criminal organization", while what was the "Warsaw Pact"? flower shop? and who did the operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968? The aliens? Who performed the operation in Hungary in 1956? People from space?
Who suppressed the free will of the Polish people? The inhabitants of Patagonia?
Who supported all the bloodthirsty Ba'athist regimes in the Arab world? William Shakespeare?
Who made the first invasion of Afghanistan after wolrldwar 2 ? Julius Caesar?
Yes, NATO can be called a criminal organization if the same is done with the Warsaw Pact, the pact of the pseudo-communist countries of non-existent - existing real or not, socialism.
Also, because there is the Hitlerist-Nazi-inspired argument that it is not permissible to have a NATO presence next to Russia, I would say the following:
Why shouldn't the opposite be the case when there was a Warsaw Pact? Let's say that next to Greece was Bulgaria, which was a member of the Warsaw Pact, so Greece had to declare war on Bulgaria according to this ugly "logic"?
The "logic" that next to a strong country there should be no threat, in the sense that there should be a ban on arming its neighbors if they belong to another military coalition or have alliances with the enemies of that powerful country was exactly the argument used by the Nazis, in accordance with the doctrine of "living space". The same argument is used today by Turkey, which demands the disarmament of the Greek islands, because ... it is threatened by Greece.
There was once an agreement to demilitarize the Greek islands, on the condition that the Greek minority in Istanbul, Imvros and Tenedos [Greek islands under the Turkish state], be protected, and this did not happen: Happened rapes and arsons by Turkish nationalists (especially in Istanbul, where there were many) and the Greeks gones all out .
So Turkey, using the same Nazi arguments as Russia, is calling for the demilitarization of the Greek islands because it says its hinterland is in danger.
Lies, reversal of reality, violation of all international rules, brazen threats, immoral propaganda.
But let's continue:
And tell me, when Castro wanted to bring nuclear weapons to Cuba, was he right or not? If it did, why does Ukraine not have it accordingly, and if it did not, why are you defending Castro?
I forgot, you are also defending the adventurer handsome man Castro's comrade who would preferred a nuclear war event, to have nuclear weapons in Cuba.
Pro-Sovietism and later, today, pro-Russianism of the left is a spiritual cancer.
---
The fact that the imperialist east is not at the top of the imperialist pyramid does not make it any better. It probably makes it worse. See Germany in the interwar period. The vengeful ''wronged'' imperialist powers are always worse! Don't be so naive anymore! Both the new-Turks and Kemal came after the development of nationalism in the Balkans (which also operated with ethnic cleansing, etc.), showed themselves as victims of Western imperialism and finally ended up committing 3 genocides! not one, 3!
People of the east, workers of the east, wake up from your Marxist lethargy, is this Marxism? I don't know, but I know that you have not yet stood up, and listened the flattery of the anti-Western Western(!) leftists, which because they are incapable of making a workers' revolution in their countries are waiting for you as their ideological salvation but want you to defeat their own special internal class enemy, without caring about your own terrible internal class enemy, which is the Eastern imperialists and capitalists.
Let the western leftists defeat their own enemy mainly with their own forces, and then ask you for help for it, after letting you concentrate on your own enemy.
--
I came to this world to whip you with truths.
Your comrades in the west are constantly flattering you, calling you to their countries for help, because they are incapable of doing anything other than anarcho-syndicalism for high school students.
You come or live through the fire, you have crossed mountains and seas, you have been persecuted by rulers who do not joke, they kill in the cold, while the western left and anarchists have participated in marches at most, they may have thrown some Molotov cocktails, but they are unable to take part in any military revolutionary formation, and if some of them finally succeed, they are presented here in the west as if they were the gunpowder-smoked Guevara in person. They brag like generals about what a Kurdish or Afghan farmer does to defend himself daily against ISIS or the Taliban.
Everything you have to do for yourself, and you do it anonymously, sacrificing yourself anonymously, for them it's a Joker movie adventure.
--
The wrong anti-imperialist distance:
''Even though NATO provoked the war, this does not mean that we agree with Putin..''
The right anti-imperialist distance:
''Although Putin and Russia provoked the war, this does not mean that we agree with the West and the United States..''
Everything else is nonsense of people who have not understood the extreme reactionary role of the new Eastern imperialism.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The reason why Kurdish left-wing patriots are turning to separatist nationalism is that you, the super-internationalists, Iranian communists, under the guise of hypocritical internationalism, are you denying the Kurdish people the right to autonomy within a democratic federation.
The ideological attack and slander they have exercised e.g. the Hekmatists against the federal idea leads the Kurds directly to the idea of secession, and so super-internationalism is once again revealed as a tool of chauvinism of the powerful ethnic groups (in this case the Persian national majority once again), on the basis of the ''logic'' of assimilation and cultural alienation of oppressed and weak ethnic groups.
What else can these ethnic groups, such as the Kurds, do but turn to autonomism after all this?
It was inevitable, and in this light it was entirely expected that Komala would disintegrate again and that a united Kurdish national front would emerge, beyond vague, imaginary chimerical and ultimately dubious internationalisms, which always "accidentally" prevent an ethnicity, a nation, to find its own independent path.
In the beginning there was the possibility of a federal democracy, but the Iranian communists blocked it, they wanted everything, now they will have nothing.
The Kurdish nation is finding its way, like any other nation.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Secular religions have a quality that gives them both an advantage and a disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions: the hope for the realization of the heavenly vision on earth.
When this heavenly vision is "applied" there are some problems, paradise then appears either as a semi-paradise (at best) or as a normal hell. But even then, if the visionaries are at a guaranteed great spatial distance, then the vision can remain intact, with propaganda lies and ideological drugs. That is why modern ideological religions keep their "self" strong when they "operate" idealizations from a safe distance, "away from our ass".
But when the existence of this false State ceases, when the realization of Paradise collapses even far away from us, then there is a problem. Paradise was fake, even though it existed somewhere as a Name as a point as a flag, while now it has disappeared from the earth, so what do we do?
Here is the disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions:
The (imaginary too) Paradise of purely transcendental religions is so ... far away that no refutation can touch it.
The wounded visionaries of the worldly Paradise, however, counterattack and close their deep wound with a new vision, of a distant place, yet existing on earth again.
So they discover new exotic movements, heavenly, far removed from their ass.
And the life of religions goes on.
Amen.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Hekmat slandered the idea of a federation as a vehicle for Kurdish nationalism and said in one of his sophistic arguments something like this: Leave the idea of a federation, if you want you can leave a united socialist Iran, but federation? No.
It put the Kurds in front of a blackmailing ideological and political dilemma, which in fact functioned and functions as an ideological-moral repression. When you put someone in front of such a dilemma, you are actually depriving them of the opportunity to think beyond the terms of a metaphysically meant extreme polarization in which there are only two absolute possibilities and thus moderate intermediate solutions are ruled out. Because people know that secession means bad things, you push them to accept a somewhat better scenario, to exist in a single territory without direct oppression, thus wanting to make them forget the really best scenario which is the federation.
Ultra-Communist ideological chauvinism that fits snugly with the wishes of the Persian ethnic majority and with the ideology of the ethnically assimilated Kurds whether they are communists or not.
Thus, through the assimilation of Kurdish left-wing patriots and nationalists through an abstract super-internationalist Marxism, there was no national movement analogous to that which existed in Turkey. The chauvinist Turkish Maoists and communists did the same, but the great leader of the Kurdish people, Ocalan, blocked their way, establishing a great and militarily incomparably effective national democratic movement.
If Ocalan had not prevailed in the factional struggle, even by hard means, there would be nothing in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan today, and the Kurdish-Turkish Marxist-Leninist left would still be discussing exactly what Marx, Lenin and Mao said in the letter ''a'' or ''b'' etc.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Both Stalin and Trotsky coldly plotted a mass crime against the poor peasants of their country.
Stalin did it.
All this under the pretext of communist collectivization and the war against the Kulaks. Liars both.
The state collectivization was done with the aim of enslaving the poor peasants to the new exploiters and tyrants, state and party bureaucrats. If the Stalinists and the Trotskyists are real communists, I am the Sultan of Brunei.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
One year after the Russian invasion.
Personal detachment, complete ideological apostasy, not for to I fall into the arms of the right or to the bourgeois liberalism, but to think alone, without any ideological family chain anymore.
Alone, you and me, opposite.
---
I judge a global political space, a global political subjectivity, based on its first (as a majority within it) immediate reactions to an important international political event.
Today a large part of the global left has slightly corrected its positions on the question of the genocidal attack of the Russian imperialists, but even now there is in its popular base (all over the world) a significant luben current of support for Russia, and inside the somewhat more intellectual currents in circles of intellectuals and journalists, there is a significant current of critics of the Russian intervention, but most of them in retrospect and without making open self-criticism for their first neutral reactions, and also unfortunately there is a more insidious neutral current in which secret pro-Russians or sick anti-Westerners are hidden, or simply expresses through it the ultimately most reprehensible attitude of the left today, which is however an extension of old ideological and moral sins, which manifests a incredible and vast political cynicism that competes with the right-wing/fascist cynicism.
The global left, as an overall ideological current, was not completely defeated in 1989, with the fall of Stalinism, it is breathing its last breath now, on the ruins of Ukraine.
Personal note
---
What is left, for me, as a living thing within the so-called movement, is the ruin, but alive as a ruin, of anarchism.
Of course, I don't declare myself an anarchist, but if there is something that makes sense to put in front of me in order to judge it and practice polemics against it or to convince me, that is anarchism.
Besides, in my humble opinion, the deepest core of radical movements in the modern era is the anarchist ideological core.
In the light of this core and in the light of the possible criticism we will bring to it, we will also see the "left" phenomenon.
With the left, I will not talk in essence again, as we would commonly say.
I don't talk truly to them anymore.
I talk to everyone, but I will only talk to the leftists and to the right-fascists only as a complete stranger.
I tell them clearly. To me they are strangers forever.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The Charter movement is better than the right-wing movement of superficially pro-Western followers of the would-be Shah, but it is a movement that does not raise the issue of multi-ethnic democratic representation of the multi-ethnic Iranian people, through a "body" of directly and freely elected representatives, as a direct revolutionary demand.
The Iranian people expect democracy and what do the opposition offer them?
Bonapartist monarchical pseudo-liberalism of the Right and radical semi-democracy of the Left, without either of them talking about a freely elected constitutional "body" of power.
The impasse theirs, of the right and the left Iranians.
----
Το κίνημα τής Χάρτας είναι καλύτερο από το δεξιό κίνημα των επιφανειακα φιλοδυτικών, ακόλουθων τού επίδοξου Σάχη, όμως είναι ένα κίνημα που δεν θέτει το ζήτημα για πολυεθνική δημοκρατική αντιπροσώπευση τού πολυεθνικού ιρανικού λαού, μέσω ενός σώματος άμεσα εκλεγμένων αντιπροσώπων, ως άμεσο επαναστατικό αίτημα.
Ο Ιρανικός λαός περιμένει δημοκρατία και τι του προσφέρουν οι τής αντιπολίτευσης;
Βοναπαρτιστικο μοναρχικό ψευτο-φιλελευθερισμό οι Δεξιοί και κοινωνικό δημοκρατισμό οι αριστεροί, χωρίς κανένας από τους δύο να μιλά για ελεύθερα εκλεγμένο συντακτικό σώμα εξουσίας.
Το αδιέξοδο δικό τους, των δεξιών και των αριστερών Ιρανών.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Kind of comical.
Separate grassroots movements sometimes want a useful transient relationship with the enemy of their enemy (who, transient lover, is not the best dude), but they receive criticism from other grassroots movements who do the same thing, but with the dude who is the enemy of the other dude (the dude who is in a temporary romantic relationship with the criticized).
The criticized's answer is that everyone does the same.
However, when the criticized comes to the position of the criticize, he does not say the same thing as what he said when he was criticized! He also says what his critics used to tell him.
We are all hypocrites, that's what I have to say.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The "Charter of Minimum Demands" presented by a multitude of trade union and social organizations in Iran, is a positive democratic step to create a broader democratic unity of leftist and progressive forces against the theocratic regime.
However, it does not suggest the question of creating a constitutive constitutional assembly of freely elected representatives.
In this sense the whole text is incomplete.
On the other hand, the most sectarian, extreme Leninists, etc., who judge this Charter negatively, don't also raise the question of a freely elected democratic governing body of Iran, building this their inability to propose the correct no on the shyness of the left-wing democrats who drafted the Charter, but on their incurable sectarianism.
The Iranian left is entrenched in an ideological system that promotes the shyness of democratic initiative or the sectarianism.
However, the source of shy action is also sectarianism. n
The authors of the text of the Charter are also influenced by a dogmatic type of neo-Marxism that may seem satisfactory to the movement in the West as a neo-leftism that coexists normally with a mature bourgeois democracy, but this dogmatism does not meet the needs of a movement that has as its historical task also modern democracy.
---------
The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition is further complicated by the strange reappearance of a top security guard and torturer of the Shah's old regime at a demonstration.
It is generally considered that this appearance had a symbolic character and sent messages from the monarchists and the would-be Shah himself, but to whom?
Was the would-be Shah aware of this strange reappearance?
Was it done with his approval?
Could it be that an essentially insignificant event, was exploited by the Russian Putinist and Iranian theocratic propaganda machines to create a complete alienation between the secular right/extreme right and the rest of the (left, democratic, centrist) wing of the Iranian opposition?
For 2 years, but also now, since the beginning of the new movement in Iran, I have said that there is a special propagandistic collaboration between Russian Putinists and Iranian theocrats so that, when there is appearance of far-right elements "next to" the Iranian movement, to become "useful objects" of propaganda campaign to slandering the whole movement. I can prove this that I have predicted this and I have said this. I asked the Iranian friends in Left to keep calm, but I see that if there is a theocratic and Russian trap, they are already trapped. Does what I say mean that the royalists are justified? No.
Does this mean that surely the would-be Shah has also fallen prey to a provocation trap? No. The Shah and his followers, as well as the semi-liberal circles around the Shah, have shown that they have clear Bonapartist authoritarian aspirations, since they do not openly talk about a representative parliamentary sovereign democratic system. Neither did the would-be Shah separate himself from his father's crimes, nor did he separate himself from the torturers of Savak.
---
There is no political scene as complex as the Iranian one.
Vertigo of multiple contrasts forming a maze of possibilities.
To say my stereotype, Iran is the land of multiple mirrors.
I hope the left and the centrist forces succeed, that's all I can say.
---
The revolution is in the streets, it is not "begging for something from the West" but also it does not keep equal distances between "Eurasia" and the West.
Because whoever keeps these equal "anti-imperialist" distances, ultimately does not keep real equal distances, it doing the favour of "Eurasia", i.e. Eurasianism.
Why is he doing that? because of ideological virginity?
--
I read, but I hope it is a rumour, that the European Parliament has invited as a speaker the would-be, and probably far-right, Shah.
See now what is the difference, for example, between the USA and the European Union.
The Americans (capitalist-imperialists) support whoever it is convenient for them to support, without being so strict in their bourgeois ideological preferences, and without raising their ideological stature until they become the judges of the universe, without on the other hand avoiding their own messianic or other bad moralisms.
In the Iran issue there has been support for the would-be Shah, also for the People's Mujahideen (MEK), which was founded as a left-wing Islamic anti-imperialist organization that killed American agents and ended up, after an unacceptable alliance with Saddam Hussein, having a strategic relationship of support from circles of the US Republican party (no offense to them by me).
Also the US has generally helped others, centrists, groups and personalities, and as a western country has certainly offered political asylum and a well-meaning hospitality and acceptance to many known and unknown Iranians and Kurds.
In general, the USA plays with everyone and everything, and of course as a superpower it also plays games with the theocratic elite, especially the so-called reformers.
Behind and beside everything, of course, there is a continuous economic game of capital, legal or semi-legal or illegal activities, the well-known of capitalism.
What is Europe doing? (we mean the European Union).
Similar things, almost the same, but by adding we would say that there is help from state and European institutions and civil societies not exclusively to the Iranian and Kurdish leftists, but nevertheless the Iranian and Kurdish leftists feel perhaps in the territory of the European Union somewhat like at home.
All good so far.
And so a moment comes the European Union, this undefined Thing, and after supporting the Iranian democrats, in general the anti-establishment ones, says in its broadest "wisdom" the irresistible, and finally unaccountable, "maybe we should call prince (would-be Shah), to his make a speech in the European Parliament?".
These people, if this invitation is valid and it is not a rumor, they are idiots, they are dumb, they are stupid lobbyists, scumbags, small-minded people.
They commit the politics and the name of Europe and its citizens to the promotion of a successor of a bloodthirsty regime, who indeed does not guarantee a smooth democratic transition from a theocratic regime to a parliamentary democracy, but plays with all possible bonapartist semi-dictatorial semi-fascist scenarios succession of regime from another regime.
There was a networking of the monarchists and the so-called experts of the European institutions, who fell like a ripe fruit, something like the "unfortunate" Greek MEP?
I hope the information I am conveying to you is not valid.
But when one looks at and compares European with American and British bourgeois politics, one sees the difference in the level of power, seriousness, coherence and simultaneous multiplicity in strategic thinking and action between the two main pillars of the West's international dominance.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
