''The King is nake''

It applies to the whole "neutral" left, anarchism, etc. "The King is naked", but he still plays with his dick in public.

 

To Iranian Hekmatists:

Do you remember when a senior party-official of You celebrated the mobilization of an Italian labor union against the shipment of arms to Ukraine?

You are not Stalinists, supposed, nor do you support the Russian imperialist campaign, but you keep an equal distance to Western (American) and Russian (Eastern in general) imperialism-nationalism.

See now what this union is that excited your leadership with its action.

Excerpt from an article on the Italian left:

''On the other hand, the position of the organization Potere al Popolo (Power to the People), which was formed by some of those who left Rifondazione along with other political and social groups, and the union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB)—which are linked organizationally and directed politically by the organization Rete dei Comunisti (which produces the electronic magazine, contropiano.org)—should be noted. USB played a leading role in the port workers’protest against sending weapons to Ukraine, trying to block the loading of them, an anti-militarist practice already used in other conflicts where NATO was a direct player in a war of aggression. 

USB is part of the World Trade Union Federation (www.wftucentral.org) and has participated in several meetings with it in Damascus, including at the invitation of President Assad. This detail is not secondary. 

Even in the case of the Syrian conflict, USB sided decisively with Assad (and thus with Russia) in the face of an uprising supposedly desired and financed by U.S. imperialism, which was alleged to have also invented and financed ISIS, like Al Qaeda before; this also explains the USB’s coldness toward the experience of Rojava and the YPG, which at one stage of the conflict leaned on the U.S. to fight ISIS...''

 

"We must not become again like the Others".

Once the question was "what to do".
Τoday it has been completed, but in a way that radically changes its essence, as follows "what to do, and what not to do again".

--

Expanding on what I said:

Leftist-anarchist-marxist-communist-radical friends.

Perhaps you agree with this question as I presented it to you as a supplemental question after so much has been thrown at our heads (after the Soviet Union turned out to be a huge state-capitalist state-socialist fraud).

But most of you give the wrong, narcissistic, self-righteous answer:

"We must not become again like the Others"

You mean the "capitalist world", so you say that what (as mistake) should not be done again is to "not be yourself but the Other".

If this is historical self-criticism I am either Nebuchadnezzar or some Caliph in Baghdad.

When you say that something must not happen again, on your part, you must not only say "don't become like the Other again" (the class enemy), but also to add that you ''must not remain the same as your former revolutionary self", for which the Other (the enemy) is not only to blame.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

That's enough, we're sick of You.

 

Out of respect for the Arab Syrian Facebook-friend, I will not provide the link to his article on the attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie.

He practices a kind of ''Whatabοutism'', too, although he has criticized this "heterodetermination" in relation to Ukrainian.

There, in this matter (Ukrainian issue), he knew how to criticize ''Whataboutism'', because the "Russian enemy" "appeared" in the picture, and he was right.

But now that political Islam appears in the picture, he forgot (fraudulent or unconsciously) his criticism of "heterodetermination" and practices ''Whataboutism'', citing the example of a writer's murder by the Israelis.

I will tell you my sin.

Father, I have sinned.

What the Arab Syrian NOW did for the Israelis (and probably the Kurds, I suppose) I did, and continue to do, for the Arab anti-Zionists (and other anti-Zionists), while I also criticize Whataboutism elsewhere.

I have sinned, and since I am not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Buddhist, nor a polytheist, nor a Hindu, nor even a Marxist (can you imagine? the guy has a big problem), I will tell my second and biggest sin, which already has imprisoned me in various rooms of hell:

Unless we confess our sins at the same time, all together, and ask forgiveness from ourselves, I am not going to stop sinning, Zionistically.

Whatever you do, Israel was borned again, to exist forever, until the end of the Dominion world, because before it has no reason for a Jew to trust you, that he is not targeted from all of you.

The friend is anti-Assad, but the pro-Assads say the same.

The various anti-Zionists are capable of eliminating each other, but when it comes to Israel they agree that it is to blame for everything, and ''why don't we talk about it and only talk about Rushdie?''

That's enough, we're sick of You.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

The sophistry upsets you..

The sophistry upsets you, not because it is sophistry, thus a violation of Reason, but because it reveals the gaps in your own, apparently coherent, argument, but also (it upsets you, because it reveals) the possibility that your own Reason as a whole, as an edifice, to has hidden sophistic underpinnings.
Sophistry disturbs a hidden sophistry, who has married, settled down, decided to have children, and teaches them the "Reason Against Sophistry".

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Until then, I fight.

I declare my unilateralism in some issues concerning people, places, ideological nuances, and I pledge to continue to exercise this unilateralism by trying not to lie to myself and others.
I hate Turkey, and I say it openly, cynically, without any shame.

--

 

When the Treaty of Lausanne was concluded between the defeated Greece and Turkey, it was institutionalized through this treaty that in Greece there is a Muslim minority in western Thrace, and in Turkey an Orthodox-Christian minority in Constantinople. 

The choice to define these now institutionalized minorities based on their religious rather than their ethnic/national identity was Turkey's choice, not Greece's, and it was chosen because Turkey wanted to bury and assimilate the citizens of the former Ottoman Empire who were Muslim but NOT Turks, as for example the Kurds were (who fought in the Greco-Turkish War of 1920-22, on the side of the Turks, hoping that the bastard Kemal would recognize them as a nation in a Turkish-Kurdish federation, but he deceived them, let them be careful too, when they slaughtered Armenians and Greeks they did it for the sake of the Turks but the Turks have no respect, or dignity and never keep their promises).

The two minorities had hundreds of thousands of members.

How many Greek Christians remained in Constantinople today?

3-4,000. The rest were driven out by pogroms, rapes, mass murders, threats and terrorism.

The Turkish minority of western Thrace, in Greece (a part of the Muslims in western Thrace are not Turks), increased, and they enjoy the rights of the Greek citizen, under a regime of oppressive or semi-oppressive surveillance of course. 

Maybe we should treat them to something sweet?

If Turkey starts a war against Greece with the aim of seizing territories, the Greek nation has every right to expel the Turks from Greek western Thrace. If they want let them go to their beloved Turkey, unless they fight on our side against Turkey.

--

 

Turkey reconciled with the Chechen collaborators by selling in the bazaar the Islamic National Guerrilla (which is right to fight the Russians).
Turkey sold in the bazaar the anti-Assad Syrians, Islamist or not, and makes dirty arrangements with the Assad regime, the Russian neo-tsarists and the Iranian theocrats, who also use the Kurds to "reduce" Turkey, as long as they need this "reduction''.
The middle east (and the Caucasus) is full of fools, but I forgot... "it's all Zionism's fault"...

--

 

When you are betrayed you must betray those who betrayed you while you did not betray them. Otherwise, you're an idiot, man.

--

 

When war as a means of settlement and completion of human antagonisms (which are not only class antagonisms) is over, notify me.
Until then, I fight.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Η περιπέτεια μιας λέξης: «αναθεωρητισμός». The adventure of one word: "revisionism".

 

Η περιπέτεια μιας λέξης: «αναθεωρητισμός».

---

Στα νιάτα μας, στην Ελλάδα, αυτή η λέξη πρωτακούστηκε όταν την χρησιμοποιούσαν οι μαρξιστές-λενινιστές (συνήθως σταλινικοί τού ΚΚΕ) για να χαρακτηρίσουν τα μέλη τού ευρωκομμουνιστικού ΚΚΕ-Εσ.

Μετά από πολλά χρόνια άναψε σε όλο τον κόσμο (εμφανίστηκε στην κοινή θέα) μια υφέρπουσα συζήτηση για τις γενοκτονίες που διέπραξαν οι Ναζί, ειδικά για το ολοκαύτωμα, και για την ιστορική διαφορά και ομοιότητα μεταξύ ναζισμού και (σταλινικού) κομμουνισμού.

Υπήρξε μια σειρά κρυφο-χιτλερικών δυτικών ιστοριογράφων που από την μια σχετικοποιούσαν τις ναζιστικές γενοκτονίες και από την άλλη εξομοίωναν αυτές τις γενοκτονίες με τις σταλινικές μαζικές δολοφονίες και γενοκτονίες.

Έπρατταν θεωρητικά αυτή την εξομοίωση όχι από την πλευρά ενός προοδευτικού ή συντηρητικού φιλελευθερισμού (όπως άλλοι) αλλά εκκινώντας από μια ακροδεξιά οπτική γωνία.

Ονομάστηκαν (κι αυτοί) «αναθεωρητές», ως αναθεωρητές τής κοινής μεταπολεμικής ιστορικής αλήθειας που μέχρι τότε δομούνταν ως κοινή δια-ιδεολογική δυτική διαπίστωση ότι ο Ναζισμός υπήρξε μια ιδεολογία και μια πολιτική πρακτική που υπερέβη (προς τα κακά «άνω») κάθε όριο δολοφονικότητας, απανθρωπιάς και τερατωδίας.

Η στάση αυτών των αναθεωρητών κατακρίθηκε έντονα και με ισχυρά επιχειρήματα, και τέθηκαν στο περιθώριο τής σοβαρής ιστοριογραφίας.

Το μεγάλο σκάνδαλο ξέσπασε όταν ένας δεξιός Γερμανός ιστοριογράφος και στοχαστής, ο Νόλτε, έπραξε μιαν ανάλογη ιστορική εξομοίωση, μεταξύ Ναζισμού και Κομμουνισμού, χωρίς να ξεπέφτει μεν στα προπαγανδιστικά ατοπήματα των φιλο-χιτλερικών αναθεωρητών ιστοριογράφων αλλά πλησιάζοντάς τους με έναν τρόπο που απέδωσε στα θεμελιώδη επιχειρήματά τους μια «στερεότερη» θεμελίωση.

Το κεντρικό απαράδεκτο επιχείρημά του ήταν ότι ο Ναζισμός-Φασισμός ήταν μια ολοκληρωτιστική «απάντηση» στον προϋπάρχοντα ολοκληρωτισμό τού Κομμουνισμού.

Πρέπει να επισημάνουμε σε αυτό το σημείο ότι «παράλληλα» με όλες αυτές τις δεξιές-ακροδεξιές «ζυμώσεις» υπήρχε ένα ευρύ φάσμα αντι-σταλινικών αλλά ακόμα και αντι-κομμουνιστών αριστερών και φιλελεύθερων, οι οποίοι στάθμιζαν (και σταθμίζουν ακόμα) τούς «δύο ολοκληρωτισμούς» (Φασισμός/Ναζισμός-Κομμουνισμός) ως ουσιαστικά όμοιους, αλλά δεν ενοχοποιούν περισσότερο τον Κομμουνισμό, τείνοντας μάλλον στην «παραδοσιακή» μεταπολεμική άποψη ότι ο Φασισμός είναι (ήταν) χειρότερος.

Ωστόσο, το μεταπολεμικό ιστοριογραφικό δια-ιδεολογικό «κοινωνικό συμβόλαιο» απέκτησε τις πρώτες του ρωγμές.

Τι συνέβη επιπλέον που μεγάλωσε το ρήγμα στην μεταπολεμική ιστοριογραφία;

Είδαμε εν συντομία και δια παραδειγμάτων ότι οι πρώτοι που έσπασαν την δημοκρατική αντιφασιστική αφηγηματική σύμβαση στον δυτικό κόσμο ήταν καταρχάς ακροδεξιοί ιστοριογράφοι που κρύβονταν μέσα στο κύριο ρεύμα τής δυτικής μη-φασιστικής δεξιάς, «έπειτα» ήρθε (εμφανίστηκε) η πρόκληση τού Νόλτε.

Η αριστερά ως αντιφασιστική/αντιναζιστική ιδεολογική και πολιτική δύναμη (και δίπλα της ο αναρχισμός με τις δικές του εναλλακτικές αλλά συνεπώς αντιφασιστικές αφηγήσεις) αντεπιτέθηκε, όχι αποκαθιστώντας την κοινή δια-ιδεολογική αντιφασιστική μεταπολεμική αφήγηση, αλλά επιτιθέμενη ΚΑΙ στην «αναθεωρητική κρυφοχιτλερική ακροδεξιά» ΚΑΙ στην «αναθεωρητική δεξιά» τύπου Νόλτε, αλλά ΚΑΙ στον κεντρώο σοσιαλδημοκρατικό και φιλελεύθερο «χώρο» κατηγορώντας τον το τελευταίο ότι βρίσκεται σε ουσιαστική, ως καπιταλιστική, αντι-αριστερή σύμπραξη με την δεξιά ακροδεξιά κ.λπ

Η βρώμικη απαράδεκτη «αναθεωρητική» ιστοριογραφική και εντέλει αφηγηματική επίθεση τής δεξιάς στην αριστερά, απαντήθηκε από την αριστερά με μια σχεδόν εξίσου αλήτικη και λούμπεν αφήγηση, που ενοχοποιούσε συλλήβδην όλους τους αντι-ολοκληρωτιστές αριστερούς και φιλελεύθερους, κατατάσσοντάς τους στον ευρύ όρο τού (ιστοριογραφικού-αφηγηματικού) «αναθεωρητισμού».

Καμία ελπίδα, κανένα φως, ΤΙΠΟΤΑ δεν άλλαξε.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

---

 

The adventure of one word: "revisionism".

---

In our youth, in Greece, this word was first heard when it was used by Marxist-Leninists (usually Stalinists of the KKE) to characterize the members of the Euro-communist KKE-Es.

After many years a debate was ignited around the world about the genocides committed by the Nazis, especially the holocaust, and about the historical difference and similarity between Nazism and (Stalinist) Communism.

There has been a series of covert-Hitler Western historians who on the one hand relativized the Nazi genocides and on the other equated these genocides with Stalinist mass murders and genocides.

They theoretically did this simulation not from the side of a progressive or conservative liberalism (like others) but from a far-right perspective.

They were (also) called "revisionists", as revisionists of the common post-war historical truth that until then was structured as a common inter-ideological Western finding that Nazism was an ideology and a political practice that exceeded (to the worse "above") any limit of murder , inhumanity and monstrosity.

The attitude of these revisionists was strongly criticized and with strong arguments, and they were put on the sidelines of the serious historiography.

The big scandal broke out when a right-wing German historian and thinker, Nolte, made a similar historical analogy, between Nazism and Communism, without falling for the propagandistic naiveties of pro-Hitler revisionist historians.

He approached them in a way that gave their fundamental arguments a more "solid" footing.

His central objectionable argument was that Nazism-Fascism was a totalitarian "answer" to the pre-existing totalitarianism of Communism.

We must point out at this point that "parallel" to all these far-right "fermentations" there was a wide range of anti-Stalinist and even anti-communist leftists and liberals, who weighed (and still weigh) the "two totalitarianisms ” (Fascism/Nazism-Communism) as essentially similar, but they do not blame Communism more, leaning rather towards the “traditional” post-war view that Fascism is (was) worse.

However, the postwar historiographical inter-ideological "social contract" developed its first cracks.

What else happened that widened the rift in postwar historiography?

We saw briefly and by way of examples that the first to break the democratic anti-fascist narrative convention in the Western world were first far-right historiographers hiding within the mainstream of the Western non-fascist right, ''then'' came Nolte's challenge.

The left as an anti-fascist/anti-Nazi ideological and political force (and alongside it anarchism with its own alternative but therefore anti-fascist narratives) fought back, not by restoring the common inter-ideological anti-fascist post-war narrative, but by attacking BOTH the "revisionist Hitlerian far-right" AND the "revisionist right" of the Nolte type, but ALSO in the centrist social democratic and liberal "space", accusing them (liberalleftists-socialdemocrats ect) of being in an essential, as capitalist, anti-left partnership with the far-right, etc.

The dirty unacceptable "revisionist" historiographical and ultimately narrative attack of the right on the left, was answered by the left with an almost equally vagrant and lumpen narrative, which implicitly incriminated all anti-totalitarian leftists and liberals, classifying them in the broad term of (historiographic- narrative) "revisionism".

No hope, no light, NOTHING changed.

Ioannis Tzanakos

 

 

 

1) Healthy Political Cynicism, 2) Comparisons and evaluations of political and value similarities and differences // 1) Υγιής Πολιτικός Κυνισμός, 2) Συγκρίσεις και αξιολογήσεις πολιτικών και αξιακών ομοιοτήτων και διαφορών.

1) Healthy Political Cynicism.

 

I don't know if there is politics without "cynicism"*, but I am beginning to believe that when it comes to the analysis of political phenomena and what it has to do with making political judgments, a way of "cynicism" is necessary in order for someone to be able to unmask the extreme moralism and idealism of all of us, so that he can see the real face of our narrowheartedness and our attachment to our material-interests and value choices. 

The purpose of this kind of "cynicism" is not necessarily the sanctification and moral legitimization of this narrowness or finitude of ours, since an unmasking can potentially have many and contradictory developments, if it happens.

 

* We are of course referring to the modern meaning of the term, and not to ancient cynicism.

---

 

 

Many years ago, I criticized the use of the term ''proxy'' to incriminate alliances of weak political, class and national 'bodies' that are in an objectively weak position in the global balance of power.

There is no weak factor in the world struggle for politico-military existence which is not forced to resort to an alliance with a great politico-military power.

Contrary to what many otherwise "humanist" or "Marxist" people say, I believe that people and movements have dignity, even when they are reactionary.

Everyone has their own agendas, and everyone at some point is looking for support, weapons, money, networks and direct or indirect contacts with a large civil-military force.

Look at what Lenin did using German imperialism during WW1, and look at it from a non-conspiracy point of view, as another manifestation of this aspect of political affairs.

Accepting the presence of this "earthly" dimension of politics and strategic practice, how do we construct analytical and value judgments for the alliances of the Ukrainians, the Kurds, and the Palestinian fighters?

Without moralizing, with accepting a degree of "political cynicism" as an element of political and civil-military practice, which alliances as cynical alliances are justified? and to what extent?

At what point does justified cynicism in geopolitical and political-military issues turn into unjustified destructive dead-end cynicism?

--

 

When you consider "supreme value" as a constituent term of a theory that intends to explain the world, then probably - so I believe - you either want to be deceived by the "literalism" of ideologies or simply to deceive.

Let us consider as an interesting aspect of things the fact that in many cases the "impostor" and the "deceived" may be the same person.

-----

 

2) Comparisons and evaluations of political and value similarities and differences.

Azov battalion in Ukraine is politically weak, still, but I don't think Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza are politically weak.
Want comparisons?
I have more others in my pocket.

-

If the Ukrainian resistance was led by Banderists and fascists, I would not support it. 

The Ukrainian resistance is led by a bourgeois authoritarian but also a democratic state, which is why I support it (even if there are some strong far-right elements there as well). 

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza is led by the Islamofascist gangs of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who are indeed exploiting their own people - not that Israel is not to blame. 

My heart is cold for the movements in the Arab world, since many years, and I am not alone in this feeling. I just haven't learned to hide my feelings.

-

There is a simple reason that I only hope for the democratic labor movement in Iran and partly in Kurdistan, and I have NO hope for the movements in the Arab world. 

I hate religion and there is no going back on that. Islam, Christianity, Judaism and religions in general, if you take them seriously, they turn you into a bastard or a seriously ill person.

I don't want to be related to religion, directly or indirectly. 

Today's Arab world stinks of religion.

-

Israel uses the same argument as Russia, since both countries mention the existence of an absolute Evil (fascism-Nazism or Islamofascism) within the peoples that are subject to their attacks. 

To the extent that this fact is valid, the argument is strong, but it is more valid in the case of Gaza, while it was not valid or is valid very little in the case of Ukraine. 

Well, it is wrong to consider an argument as invalid only because it can function as a pretext if it is not based on facts. 

Russia's argument is weak because it is not based on facts, not because it is invalid on its own. 

If what Russia said based on facts was valid, the argument would be correct and the intervention justified, but this was not the case. 

In the case of Israel there is a greater degree of truth in its argument, mixed of course with lies and propaganda.

-

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος