DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 28145--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 6, 2024, 6:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]We owe so much to the great minds of the Renaissance;
those men and women who finally cast off the shackles of
medieval small-mindedness and ushered in the return of
intellectualism and civility.[/quote]
That "medieval small-mindedness" was called Catharism.
#Post#: 28146--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 6, 2024, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"do you agree with the broader point that "non White" countries
are not ethnostates?"
Of course! I have said repeatedly that Israel is for now the
only ethnostate in the world, and does not wish to be in the
position of being the only ethnostate in the world, hence is
encouraging the formation of more ethnostates.
#Post#: 28371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Neo-Colonial Mentality
By: antihellenistic Date: October 24, 2024, 12:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=antihellenistic link=topic=2112.msg24234#msg24234
date=1701319362]
Recall on Neo-Colonialism definition, by Kwame Nkrumah
[quote]A key theme in the study of postcolonial Asia and Africa
has been the extent to which the end of formal empire did or did
not bring about true independence and freedom for the formerly
colonized. In 1965 Kwame Nkrumah published Neo-Colonialism: The
Highest Stage of Imperialism, a ringing denunciation and
analysis of the former colonial powers’ continued influence on
African and non-Western affairs. In Neo-Colonialism Nkrumah made
it clear that national independence was only the beginning of a
long struggle for true colonial liberation, that even without
formal colonial rule the structures of imperialist domination
remained largely intact. In Nkrumah’s Marxist analysis the
ultimate world struggle took place between rich and poor
countries, which represented a much more insidious form of
colonialism: “The neo-colonialism of Today represents
imperialism in its final and perhaps most dangerous stage . . .
The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is
subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the
outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its
economic system and thus its political policy is directed from
outside . . . Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather
than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries
of the world.”113 As Nkrumah and many others realized, the
struggle to make viable, independent nations free of outside
control, especially control by international capital and the
former colonial powers, went far beyond raising a new national
flag.[/quote]
The example :
[quote]In practice, the former colonial powers continued to
wield significant economic and military influence over their
former colonies, especially in Africa, after granting them
formal independence. In the Congo, for example, Belgian firms
retained control of the bulk of the country’s lucrative mining
industry well after the end of that nation’s crisis of
independence.114 In the postwar era, Britain became noteworthy
for peacefully granting its former colonies national
independence, but this often went along with economic dominance
of the new national economies by British financial institutions
and multinational companies. During the 1950s and 1960s
Britain’s Commonwealth of Nations helped link the economies of
the former colonies to London, and after Britain joined the
European Union in 1972 it continued to retain special economic
ties to its former empire. Such ties were often subtle, and for
the most part the British did not intervene militarily in
Anglophone Africa after independence. Nonetheless, they ensured
a continued British presence in its former colonies that
transcended the granting of formal sovereignty to the empire.115
France played a much more direct and powerful role in its former
colonies after the mid-1960s. In 1958, in the context of the
crisis produced by the Algerian war and the collapse of the
Fourth Republic, France held a referendum in its African
colonies offering them either continued association with (and
aid from) France or immediate independence. With the signal
exception of Guinea, all the colonial subjects voted for the
former.116 Two years later, however, faced with increasing
African demands for independence, the government of Charles De
Gaulle decided that the days of direct colonial rule in Africa
had come to an end. In 1960, as a result, France granted
independence to no less than fourteen colonies in sub-Saharan
Africa. French officials shuttled from one colonial capital to
another, lowering the French flag and hoisting that of the new
nation. By the time Algeria achieved its freedom in 1962, the
French Empire in Africa was no more.117
That hardly spelled the end of French economic and political
influence on the continent, however. Even more than Britain,
France retained considerable influence over the new governments
of its former African colonies, a phenomenon often referred to
as Françafrique.118 In 1960 De Gaulle appointed Jacques
Foccart, a veteran of the Gaullist resistance during World War
II, special adviser to the president in African affairs. Foccart
constructed a special office in the Élysée Palace, removed from
parliamentary oversight or control, and used it for most of the
rest of the twentieth century to direct French involvement in
African affairs.119 Foccart’s office directed covert payments to
African leaders to ensure their loyalty and compliance, and also
financed secret wars against insurgent forces that threatened
French interests. For example, French forces waged a secret war
in Cameroon, overthrowing Marxist insurgents and ensuring the
establishment of a compliant independent regime in 1960.120 More
generally, France included its former African colonies in a
financial union called the franc zone, opening them to
investment by French companies and in effect subsidizing
France’s economy. France also signed agreements for technical,
cultural, and military cooperation with most Francophone African
states and sent technical advisers, teachers, and other experts
to Africa to promote French culture and politics.
Perhaps most strikingly, France intervened militarily time and
time again in Francophone Africa. The French retained garrisons
with thousands of soldiers in its former African colonies and
used them to prevent challenges to French interests. Throughout
the late twentieth century France maintained large military
garrisons in Francophone Africa, frequently deploying their
troops across the region. Between 1960 and 1995 France
intervened thirty-five times in African conflicts, usually to
prevent challenges to allied regimes. For example, in 1964
French paratroopers landed in Libreville, the capital of Gabon,
to defeat an attempted overthrow of that regime. French
interventions sometimes took place outside Francophone Africa.
In 1977 and 1978 France intervened in the Congo to protect
dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, a strong defender of Western
interests in Africa. The fact that these interventions usually
occurred at the invitation of a local ruler did not contradict
the fact that as a general phenomenon they challenged the
reality of Francophone African independence, independence which
seemingly had to be defended time and time again by a white
man’s army.121
The particular issue of French military intervention in
Francophone Africa relates to a broader question, that of the
relationship between independence and democracy in the
postcolonial world during the late twentieth century. As this
study has shown, most colonial territories in Asia and Africa
had been controlled by democratic European states, and many of
them had inherited the structures of formal parliamentary
democracy from their imperial masters, structures that in many
cases the colonized used in the struggles for independence.
Frequently, however, these structures did not endure into the
postcolonial era. Instead, all too often colonial rule gave way
to military dictatorship. This was especially true in Africa; as
we have already seen, the independence of the Belgian Congo led
quickly to the overthrow and assassination of democratically
elected Patrice Lumumba and the dictatorship of Colonel Mobutu.
In February 1966 Kwame Nkrumah, perhaps Africa’s greatest
independence leader, was overthrown by a military coup d’état
widely rumored to have been facilitated by the American CIA.122
When Algeria became independent in 1962, FLN leader Ahmed Ben
Bella established an authoritarian regime, only to be overthrown
by the army three years later.123 By the end of the 1960s
virtually all of the newly created African states had become
military dictatorships.
Although this pattern occurred most noticeably in Africa, other
parts of what had become known as the Third World were certainly
not immune. Although the Middle East had been a major pioneer in
the revolt against colonialism after World War II, the area soon
fell under the control of a mixture of monarchies and military
regimes. Latin America, which had largely freed itself from
colonial rule in the early nineteenth century, remained
dominated by military dictatorships in the late twentieth
century, often aided by the neocolonial influence of the United
States. The armed forces seized power in Brazil in 1964, in
Argentina in 1966, and in Chile in 1973, among other examples,
and in general, whether or not it was actually in power, the
military remained a powerful political force throughout the
region.124 The main alternative to military rule in the
postcolonial Third World was not liberal democracy but rather
Marxism. Communist regimes in Vietnam, Cuba, and above all
China, for example, had often successfully challenged the
monumental Freedom Now? 285 problems of poverty and land reform
in the postcolonial world, without making freedom a
priority.12[/quote]
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 296 - 300
[/quote]
Hitler's Worldview inspired Kwame Nkrumah
[quote]Nkrumah’s intellectual preparation
To prepare himself adequately for the fight against colonialism,
Nkrumah engaged in intensive reading of revolutionary materials.
Nkrumah devotedly read Hannibal, Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin,
Mazzini, Gandhi, Mussolini and Hitler :
…. First, I could not understand how Gandhi’s philosophy of
non-violence could possibly be effective. It seemed to me to be
utterly feeble and without hope of success. The solution of the
colonial problem, as I saw it at that time lay in armed
rebellion. How is it possible, I asked myself, for a revolution
to succeed without arms and ammunition? (Nkrumah,
1957:vii-viii).[/quote]
Source :
Etim, E., & Okon. (2014). KWAME NKRUMAH: THE FALLEN AND
FORGOTTEN HERO OF AFRICAN NATIONALISM. 10(17), 1857–7881.
Retrieved from
HTML https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236412143.pdf
#Post#: 28372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Western Neo-Colonial Mentality
By: antihellenistic Date: October 24, 2024, 12:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/e15de93222020da0eb86da722299a0c3/cc30203c49eb369f-a0/s1280x1920/60011a80b3edb78738952796de6a0d4a1bb5cca4.jpg
[quote]In his autobiography, Kwame Nkrumah, a proponent of
Pan-African socialism, mentioned drawing inspiration from Lenin,
Mazzini, Mussolini, and Hitler. He also noted that despite his
influences, he consistently identified as a non-denominational
Christian and a Marxist socialist.[/quote]
Source :
Kwame Nkrumah - The Fascifist Archive
HTML https://t.me/TheFascifistArchive/15524
#Post#: 28373--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 24, 2024, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course, Nkrumah himself is still colonized:
[quote]a proponent of Pan-African socialism[/quote]
Someone needs to tell him that "African" is a Western category.
To be truly anti-Western, we must stop thinking according to
Western categories.
His choice of clothing also reveals his colonization.
#Post#: 28704--------------------------------------------------
Re: JEWS HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH US!
By: rp Date: November 18, 2024, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Zionist psyop:
HTML https://x.com/JewsFightBack/status/1857164655137021977?t=3xw1aD14BdJGoBjTc9NTvQ&s=19
[quote]
From one indigenous people to another: The Māori of New
Zealand stand with Zionism. Zionism is a reclamation of
ancestral lands and a fight for self-determination. Drop a
🇮🇱 in the comments if you get it!
[/Quote]
"Reclamation of ancestral lands". Not if you stole it in the
first place, in which case "reclamation" just means you are
attempting to steal it again.
#Post#: 28751--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: rp Date: November 22, 2024, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gcqt8KYWAAANRTD?format=jpg&name=medium[/img]
Even if all of those things are true, none of that implies that
those groups invented Western Civilization.
#Post#: 29006--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 24, 2024, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdKUdPWKQ3k
In principle, I would not be opposed to an anti-Western America
liberating Canada from Britain:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
[quote]• Monarch
Charles III[/quote]
and Greenland from Denmark:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
[quote]• Monarch
Frederik X[/quote]
but even in that case they would be returned to indigenous
monarchs rather than (as Trump wants) become part of the US. In
contrast, False Leftist Kulinski is implicitly supporting the
Western colonial powers.
#Post#: 29007--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: rp Date: December 24, 2024, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I remember Dazhbog pointing out how False Leftist Abby
Martin was doing the same in another video vis a vis the Mexican
American War.
#Post#: 29009--------------------------------------------------
Re: False Leftists getting leftism wrong
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 24, 2024, 7:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An ethical reason for present-day invasion of Mexico by the US
would be as a response to Mexico trying to prevent refugees from
entering via the Mexico-Guatemala border. Of course, in order
for the US to not be hypocritical, it should first open the
US-Mexico border. Needless to say, Trump who wants to close the
US-Mexico border cannot justify invading Mexico.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page