UNITE! Info #303en: Two replies to Waistline2, on social-imperialism resp.
"AIDS"
[Posted: 06.01.2008
Note: The "UNITE! (etc) Info" posting series (1995-) advocates the
political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. For all items, see
www.rolf-martens.com.
INTRO NOTE:
Two brief exchanges of views between me and Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, who writes to the mailing list MLL at
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list,
perhaps
may
interest others.
The one I'm bringing first here took place earlier today. I'm showing my
reply,
also sent to the Modern Marxism mailing list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modern_marxism/,
to one by Waistline2 under
the
subject line Re: Im****tant article "NE: Intl. sit., Europe, M-L, '73" now
in
html form. It referred to my "News with brief comments" item 335, of
yesterday,
which advertised Info #041en-rep, with the article by Klaus Sender
(Hartmut
Dicke) from 1973, "The International Situation, Europe and the Position of
the
Marxist-Leninist Parties". Waistline2's posting is quoted here - only with
a
rather long and in my opinion not very interesting article by some others,
which he brought, snipped - after mine, which replied to it. The main
theme in
that exchange was the question of (the earlier existing) Soviet
social-imperialism.
In the second place I'm bringing an earlier reply of mine, sent on
29.12.2007,
to Waistline2, who on 24.12 had commented on a reply by me the same day to
Nikogda Nichevo <intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>. In Info #301en, "A reply to
N.
N. on 'green' and quackery warfare", of 25.12, readers can find both what
I
wrote in reply to Nikogda and also, among other things, Waistline2's
comment on
that. His comment will be shown in full here again, in pieces interspersed
with
bits of my reply to it. The main theme in that earlier exchange of ours
was the
"HIV"/"AIDS" terror hoax campaign and also quackery warfare in general.
OUR EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON SOCIAL-IMPERIALISM ETC:
RE: IM****TANT ARTICLE "NE: INTL. SIT., EUROPE, M-l, '73" NOW IN HTML FORM
(A posting by me to the MLL and MM mailing lists on 06.01.2008, 12:35 GMT,
MM
message #713)
I don't agree, Waistline2, with that idea by "science of society" which
you
seem to embrace, that there can be production without work.
"The beginning of production without work opens up the epoch of
distribution
according to need.", you quoted. That's some (propaganda) work for the
ruling
reactionary bourgeoisie, I hold, which certainly can produce no good
results
for the m***** of people.
Concerning Soviet social-imperialism, which in your - quite erroneous -
view
"wasn't even there", one thing was said in that article from 1973 which
was
pretty perspicacious, I think - in its part III:
"What on the one hand is causing op****tunism must, on the other, cause an
intensification of international class struggle. Modern revisionism has
its
root cause in the massive, extensive exploitation of the countries of the
third
world. And it is from this aspect that it must necessarily reveal itself
the
most. The Soviet revisionists' social-imperialism is bound to clash openly
with
the oppressed peoples and nations."
And what did in fact happen, six years after that?
A largescale aggression by Soviet social-imperialism (which you're saying
"wasn't even there") against Afghanistan began. It continued for 10 years.
What took place in that time? As described for instance in my "UNITE! Info
#019en: Social-imperialism's Afghan war" (09.10.1996), part 1/4,
[QUOTE:]
During the 10-years long war of open aggression,
¤ 1.5 million Afghans were killed
¤ 5-6 million were forced to leave the country - the biggest refugee
catastrophe in our time - and 1 million more forced to leave their homes,
to
become refugees in Afghanistan itself
¤ 7000 villages were annihilated and 5000 more seriously damaged
¤ between 10 million (UN estimate) and 60 million (other estimates) mines
were
laid throughout the country by the invaders
¤ these mines have so far caused 200,000 deaths and 400,000 maimings; they
continue today to take a heavy toll and several decades will be required
for
their removal
¤ large parts of the vital and scarce forests were systematically
destroyed by
the Soviet forces
¤ the infrastructure and the fields for agriculture were destroyed to a
great
extent
In other words, this was a very "typical" genocidal imperialist war.
[END OF QUOTE]
Unfortunately, some kind of blindness on your part causes you to still not
realize, that this was the "work" of a very reactionary power, rightly
called a
"social-imperialist" one, by the Chinese and other communists in Mao
Zedong's
time, using a term that was coined by Lenin, concerning some people who
were
not against tsarist and later bourgeois Russia's likewise reactionary war
in
1914-1917.
Mao Zedong as early as in 1964 in fact said (Some Interjections At A
Briefing
[in] The State Planning Commission Leading Group, May 11, 1964):
"The Soviet Union today is a dictator****p of the bourgeoisie, a
dictator****p of
the grand bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictator****p, and a Hitlerite
dictator****p. They are a bunch of rascals worse than De Gaulle."
You still don't think he was right in that, do you? But later events
clearly
showed that he was very right indeed. Not only those in Afghanistan in
1979-1989 but also many others. But of course those in Afghanistan quite
in
particular opened the eyes of people in many countries, just as the events
in
Vietnam and other countries in Indochina in the 1960s and early 1970s
opened
the eyes of many, concerning the character of US imperialism.
As said in 1973: "The Soviet revisionists' social-imperialism is bound to
clash
openly with the oppressed peoples and nations", that showed some good
thinking,
in my opinion, and very much indeed did it get confirmed.
Also, in that time, 1973 etc, Soviet social-imperialism did look pretty
strong,
on the surface at least.
But in that article (whose translation into English, published in the UK
in
1976, I was in on), towards the end of its last chapter, III, it also was
said:
"Soviet revisionism at present, at a time when it itself is also beginning
to
totter, and frantically is scheming aggressions, will attempt to assemble
the
most united reaction possible, or to cover up as far as possible the
contradictions within the camp of reaction, its own isolation and
weakness. The
Marxist-Leninists, however, must in no way let themselves be misled by
this."
The fact that it was already beginning to totter, was realized back then,
in
1973. Not so bad, I think. And as is well-known too, it was precisely on
Afghanistan that that "big and strong" social-imperialism choked, and in
1989-91 "imploded" more or less totally. Just like its predecessor Hitler
fascism, it tried to swallow far too much.
Quite interesting in this connection, I think, are some pieces of
conversation
among the social-imperialist chieftains earlier in 1979, before they did
decide
on their aggression against Afghanistan. Some do***ents on this apparently
came
to be published after 1991, and some parts of these were translated into
Swedish by Stefan Lindgren - who, by the way, both was among the leaders
of the
movement here in Sweden protesting against the aggression against
Afghanistan
by the social-imperialists and also is the chairman of our - unfortunately
much
smaller - organization today in this country which is protesting against
the
aggression by the US imperialists, demanding that those (some 350) troops
from
Sweden too, which most criminally is taking part in that aggression, be
withdrawn immediately.
[organization: http://www.afghanistan.nu/]
Some parts of that translation by Stefan Lindgren of the earlier Soviet
do***ents I translated further into English and put into that Info of mine
in
1996. The manner in which those Soviet revisionist chieftains discussed
the
question of Afghanistan perhaps may remind you, Waistline2, and others
too, of
the way some chieftains of a certain other big power, as is infamous too,
discussed such other countries as say China, Korea, Vietnam etc.
Here are just a few glimpses,
[QUOTE - from the Swedish magazine Afghanistan-Nytt No. 4/1994:]
THE HERAT UPRISING
In March 1979, almost nine months before the Soviet invasion, considerable
disturbances took place in the third-largest city of Afghanistan. On 17
March,
the Soviet Politbureau convened for a three days long meeting. During the
first
two days, Brezhnev was not present.
GROMYKO:
"The situation in Afghanistan has seriously deteriorated. The centre of
disturbances is now the city of Herat....As is known from earlier
telegrams,
the 17th Afghan division is stationed there. It restored order but now
seems in
practice to have disintegrated. The artillery regiment and one infantry
regiment which were part of that division have gone over to the side of
the
insurrectionists."
....
The situation had not been adequately met by the Afghan government,
Gromyko
held, and he continued:
"As a characteristical thing may be noted that at 11 o'clock this morning,
I
had a conversation with AMIN, who is foreign minister and the deputy of
TARAKI,
and he expressed no anxiety whatsoever concerning the situation in
Afghanistan
but spoke with Olympic calm about the situation's not being all that
complicated (...) Amin even said that the situation in Afghanistan is
normal...."
"Within about half an hour we got a another message, which said that our
comrades, the military Chief Adviser comrade Gorelov and the Charge
d'Affaires
comrade Alekseyev had invited comrade Taraki to visit them (...) As far as
military assistance was concerned, Taraki said in passing that perhaps
help
will be needed both on the ground and in the air. This must be understood
to
mean that we are requested to send ground forces as well as aircraft."
"I hold that we must proceed from the most im****tant fact when helping
Afghanistan, and this is, under no cir***stances must we lose that
country."
[Recognize the style here, perhaps, Waistline2? I commented on that
statement,
in part 2/4 of my Info #019en in 1996: A statement which of course was
just as
candid as, and similar to, for instance the discussion by the US
imperialists
in the late 1940s and early 1950s on how it came to be that "we" had
"lost"
China, about "who was responsible for that", etc etc.]
Several other speakers expressed their distrust of the Afghan government
and
its heavy-handed purges of rivaling Communist [as those people of course
would
call them - comment by me] factions.
Even at this point in time, there within the Politbureau were put forward
various proposals on armed intervention and even on a complete invasion.
Defence minister USTINOV briefly re****ted:
"Tomorrow, 18 March, operative groups will be sent to Herat's airfield."
He at the same time presented two possible lines of action. In the one
case,
smaller forces would be sent. In the other, the Soviet Union would
dispatch two
divisions, or about 36,000 men.
The proposals were met with some objections.
KIRILENKO:
"The question arises, against whom our Army will wage war if we send them
there. Against the insurrectionists, but the insurrectionists have been
joined
by a large number of religious persons, Moslems and among them a large
number
of the common people. In this way we will be forced to a considerable
degree
to wage war against the people."
[This they already knew quite well, you see, Waistline2.]
The following day, KOSYGIN re****ted on his telephone conversation with
Taraki.
The anti-aircraft batallion in Herat had also gone over to the enemy. "If
the
Soviet Union does not help us now", Taraki had said, "we will not be able
to
stay in power."
[A puppet government, thus, you see. One of the infamous type that has
been
named after a person in the country where I was born, by the way, Vidkun
Quisling. He never got very much of popularity in our country, neither
before
nor during that Nazi aggression and occupation of it against which my
father
fought in April 1940, as long as that was possible at that part of the
front
where he was, and during which I was born (in 1942); the "original
quisling"
was hung after the war, and the old Nordic first name of Vidkun went out
of
fa****on completely in our part of the world. I was quite pleased to read
that
the Taliban in Afghanistan (OK, not otherwise my biggest favourites,
ideologically) had hung the "copy cat" Najibullah too, when they caught
him,
but some people calling themselves "communists" were even "aghast" at
that, in
an Internet debate in 1996, because they were thinking of course about
what
risks they themselves might be running, because of their not so
particularly
good policies concerning certain big-power wars of aggression and mass
murder.
Well, back to the old Soviet do***ents:]
This was understood by both Kosygin and Ustinov as a request for direct
military assistance. But still, individual Politbureau members raised
serious
objections to an invasion.
ANDROPOV:
"We know Lenin's teachings about the revolutionary situation. What such
situation might there be in Afghanistan? There isn't such a situation
there at
all. We can only help the revolution" [the counter-revolutionary Soviet
revisionist leaders of course used such upside-down terms when speaking
among
themselves, too] "in Afghanistan by means of our bayonets, and this is
absolutely impermissible for us. We cannot take such a risk."
[Like the "traditional" imperialists, the Soviet revisionists would mix
"moral"
statements with candid ones. Here of course "impermissible" was the
hypocritically "moral" and "it's too risky" the candid.]
GROMYKO:
"I wholly sup****t comrade Andropov on our having to exclude such a measure
as
sending troops into Afghanistan. The Army is not reliable there. In this
case
our Army, if we send it into Afghanistan, will be an aggressor. (...) We
must
consider the fact that neither can we justify juridically the sending in
of
troops. (...) Afghanistan is not subjected to any aggression. (...)
Furthermore
it must be pointed out that the Afghans themselves have not officially
made a
request to us concerning the sending of troops."
The discussions went back and forth and a decision seems to have been
reached
only on the third day of the Politbureau session, when BREZHNEV was
present and
unequivocally made clear that sending in Soviet troops could not be the
right
thing to do at this moment.
The session was ended by a decision immediately to call Taraki to Moscow.
This
meeting did take place on the following day, 20 March. In a rather
patriarchal
tone, Brezhnev educated his colleague and warned him on his purges.
"Repression", Brezhnev said, "is a sharp weapon which must be used very,
very
sparingly".
As the same time, Brezhnev repudiated the idea of dispatching Soviet
troops.
"I'm saying it quite plainly: This is not necessary. It would only play
into
the enemy's hand."
He also asked Taraki why he had not "had the borders closed", as if it
would be
possible to close the over 2,000 km long borders of Afghanistan to
Pakistan and
to Iran by means of a governmental decree.
During Taraki's continued consultations with Kosygin, Gromyko, Ustinov and
Ponomarev, Ustinov was able to promise Soviet ****pment of 12 Mi-24-type
helicopters. Citing the unreliability of those Afghan helicopter pilots
who had
been trained in the Soviet Union ("Moslem brothers" or "pro-Chinese")
[Whom
indeed *could* those "great" Afghan "Communists" trust, among "their own"
people?], Taraki asked for the assistance of pilots and also tank crews
from
Cuba [! - note the method here!], Vietnam [!] or other socialist [well
now....]
countries.
This proposal was bluntly turned down by KOSYGIN:
"I cannot understand why this question arises...The question of sending
people
who would climb into your tanks and shoot on your people. This is a very
serious political question."
[That comment I like quite in particular, Waistline2! I wrote about it in
1996:
Even one of the leading Soviet revisionists himself was shocked by the
vile
proposals of those people, or at least pretended to be.]
After their meeting with Taraki, [the Soviet revisionist chieftains]
Gromyko,
Andropov, Ustinov and Ponomarev worked out a proposal for a decision by
the
Politbureau, in which the Afghan leader****p were criticized for their
suggestion of introducing Soviet troops into the country. This line was an
expression of "lack of experience" and "...it has to be held back also in
the
case of new anti-government actions in Afghanistan".
[END OF QUOTE]
But then, as everybody knows, the 10-years-long aggression, ending in the
aggressor's ignoble defeat and even largescale implosion, began some
months
later in 1979 anyway.
"No social-imperialism?" How some people can actually think that, still
today,
is a little difficult for me to understand, Waistline2. Somehow, some of
them
don't even seem to be bad persons otherwise. You may have seen some
postings to
MLL by one Alexander ["democrite" <democrite@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>], in France,
concerning
the foul assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which he, in contrast to you,
failed
to condemn. I on my part actually have had, and still am continuing, some
co-operation with him, concerning certain other matters, but am
criticizing of
course his very wrong standpoint of "no social-imperialism", and also
wrote,
recently, that I found his standpoint on this assassination quite bad. I
suppose I can co-operate on some points with you too, Waistline2, despite
that
strange blindness of yours. Against certain unfounded attacks on me by
some
others, you defended me, which I appreciate.
By the way, did you see a couple of postings to MLL just now by a certain
.....ahem....writer, who quite openly *attacked* Franklin D. Roosevelt for
his
actions of bringing the USA into the war against those Hitler etc types,
saying
that this was "treason" and what-not, and that *the working-class* in the
USA
was *against* that country's joining the anti-Hitler(etc) war?
Now I know New Year promises, of being nice to people etc, are promises.
But
perhaps there's a sufficient reason here for giving some of them a break?
I on my part, as you may have guessed, don't think it's necessary for me
to
engage in closer, or even more distant, "combat" with phenomena which I on
my
part hold largely are resembling windmills, ghosts, mirages, "production
without work", "work without production", doors slamming open or shut just
by
the wind, and things like that.
Rolf M.
[Yours was pretty long too, as is mine above, but perhaps some of the
others on
MLL and MM have metabolisms strong enough to stomach all of this which
they're
being served by me now anyway, and those who haven't of course can just
push
the "off" button at whichever point they want.]
WAISTLINE2'S REPLY TO ME, EARLIER TODAY:
[QUOTE:]
----- Original Message -----
From: <Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: <marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [MLL] Im****tant article "NE: Intl. sit., Europe, M-L,'73" now
in
html form
Quote
“Understanding the rhythm of the process of change allows us to look
objectively and optimistically at these difficult times. The crisis and
polarization in the world communist movement are bound to be the prelude
to the
destruction of the communist movement on its old basis and a leap forward
to a
communist movement that is really for communism.
To unfold this and figure out its implications, we have to look at this
crisis
in what is known as the "communist movement" in its objective and
historical
context.
In the past epoch, the world communist movement was an ideological
expression
of a movement that was not objectively communist. In the 20th century, it
grew,
developed great strength, and, in some cases, achieved political power on
the
basis of the historical struggles to industrialize and against colonialism
and
neo-colonialism.
The world is clearly changing. Industrialization is no longer the
predominant
economic task today. And the struggle between colonies and neo-colonies,
on the
one hand, and imperialist countries, on the other, is no longer the
dominant
social polarity in the world. The beginning of production without work
opens up
the epoch of distribution according to need.
There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, a movement that
was
objectively and practically for reform but whose combatants were
ideologically
in favor of communism (or in sup****t of the Soviet Union or China) and,
on the
other hand, a movement that is objectively and practically for communism
and
whose combatants are consciously communist.“ (end quote)
http://www.scienceofsociety.org/discuss/wc3.html
(http://www.scienceofsociety.org/discuss/wc3.html)
Comment
Posing the question as the correct approach of Marxist Leninists seeking a
“real,” “genuine,” “actual,” Leninist type organization (or any other
adjective
denoting “authenticity” as one understands it) seem to pose the social
question backwards. In my estimate any comrades seeking to unravel the
world
we live in should consult part 1 of Stalin’s re****ts to the 15th, 16th and
17th
Soviet Party Congress to gain insight into exactly what a re****t on
the International Situation consists.
Ideological proclamations simply will not due. In this regard the
suggested
“article . . . written by Klaus Sender (Hartmut Dicke), chairman of the
small
but at the time politically im****tant party in Germany the KPD/ML (NEUE
EINHEIT),” - 1973, which I “actually read in total” was profoundly
unenlightening. Not only do I not subscribe to the “ideology of Soviet
Social
Imperialism” or the theory that the bourgeois mode of production was
restored
in the Soviet Union under the Khrushchev regime, or the idea that the
Soviet
Union was ever the principle and primary enemy of the worlds people,
rather
than my own imperial masters, this 1973 article runs counter to how I was
taught to approach the International Situation. The first step is always a
sober appraisal of the state of development of the productive forces, a
view
of the basic cl***** in various sectors of the world theater; the
political
backdrop of events and finally the foundations - political and ideological
of
the existing communist and revolutionary movements.
As the comrade noted the re****t from 1973 is dated and the world has
changed
“dramatically” (my word) in the past 35 years. In 1973 I was 21 years old
and
gravitated towards the CPC polarity in the world communist movement. The
social
struggle and crisis throughout America’s industrial factory circuit of the
Midwest (called the “Rust Bowl” in the mid and late 1980s) of the United
States
would not begin peaking until roughly 1978, although at that time we did
not
understand this until the “bottom” fell out of Chrysler in the third
quarter
of 1979.
I was laid off in January 1980 and would not return to work until the
second
week of January 1984. During those four years the party understood that
something different - a restructuring of some sort, was taking place in
America
under the rubric of the “Reagan Revolution.” The Reagan administration
carried
out a political restructuring of America and by the end of his term there
was
no significant sector of anything remotely resembling a distinct
“industrial
sector of capital” in America. The victory of the Vietnamese Revolution
was the
definitive turning of a page of world history and more than less ended
the
period of revolutionary storm centers in the “Third World.” This is not to
say
that national liberation struggle disappeared from earth. They did not.
However, in the early 1990s the communists current from which I grew up
would
note that a current that began in America in 1776 has run its course, as
a
historical current altering world events, and what laid before us was the
“Undiscovered Country.”
Comrade Stalin taught us and bequeathed to us the standpoint of proceeding
from
as much objective data as possible. Stalin was a harsh teacher and anyone
that
study him will reap the rewards of his methods of inquiry. Comrade Stalin
demanded facts and data and the driest of re****ts to ascertain concrete
features of class in motion and the economic logic driving each distinct
phase
of bourgeois production and politics. Comrade Stalin will break and
destroy
the novice who rests content on ideological proclamations. Like Sherlock
Holmes Stalin asked what are the facts?
Pardon my “technologist tendency.”
There are some brutally hard economic facts that exist in America whether
we
like them or not or choose to take them into account or not.
Below is reprinted an old discussion of the state of the world communist
movement with the web site location at the end. This entire article is to
long
but what the heck. In total 7 pages.
Peace.
Comrade Waistline
http://www.scienceofsociety.org/discuss/wc4.html
(http://www.scienceofsociety.org/discuss/wc4.html)
....
[The rest of that one "gets the axe" here, since I think it's mainly
boring.
Those interested in it will find it via the link above, which I've checked
out
far enough to see that it works. - RM]
[END OF QUOTE]
OUR EXCHANGE ON "AIDS", QUACKERY WARFARE ETC:
RE: YEAR OF GLOBAL COOLING - AND...[REPLY TO WAISTLINE2]
(A posting by me to the MLL and MM mailing lists on 29.12.2007, 11:52 GMT,
MM
message #615)
Hello Waistline2,
Here's a reply of mine to yours (sent to MLL on 24.12) on these subjects
too.
I shall be quoting, in pieces, all of your reply here - I included it in
one
piece in my "UNITE! Info #301en: A reply to N. N. on 'green' and quackery
warfare", of 25.12 - see my homepage at www.rolf-martens.com.
[The original subject line was: Re: Year of global cooling - and of
continued
"green" and quackery warfare]
You wrote:
"The material below is excellent in my opinion."
(You quoted, last in yours, a passage of mine on one of the several
subjects
touched on initially by N. N., one starting out with "The 'AIDS' terror
campaign has not been the only one in which that same trick has been used
or at
least been tried. ...")
Thank you for that. Further:
NUCLEAR ENERGY - YES, ABSOLUTELY; THIS WE VERY MUCH NEED
You wrote:
"You have also convinced me that my lazy attitude toward the nuclear
regime is
unacceptable, when I already believed that it was the perfect energy
source to
sustain the emerging technological regime. I apologize for calling you a
spokesperson for the nuclear energy industry.
You are in fact a spokesperson for an energy regime that meets the
requirement
of the proletarian revolution and its goals."
No need to apologize. And yes, clearly, the use and further development of
nuclear energy favours the people, already under capitalism (which now
tends to
ban it), and even more under socialism. Welcome among its adherents!
"You are correct on the issue of sustainability in my estimate. My last
argument over this issue was several years ago. What is not sustainable is
the
bourgeois mode of production. This sounds quaint and like a sound bit,
but it
is the truth. The idea that the earth is running out of oil or water or
toilet
paper is monstrous."
Absolutely. On this, N. N. and I agreed too.
ON SOME IM****TANT POINTS CONCERNING MEDICINE, YOU AND I AGREE
"I personally believe that it is virtually impossible to convince any one
or a
mass of people about the nature of disease without actually curing them
of
their various diseases. How you arrived at your conclusion concerning the
nature of disease is mind boggling in the sense that I had to cure myself
and
undertake massive study spanning twenty years to discover the nature or
logic
of the body which I call metabolic."
As you could see in a reply of mine to Steve Houston on 27.12 under "Re:
Green
and quackery warfare (cont) [a reply on sources]", I never knew much about
medicine or biology but have been reading Stefan Lanka (and others) on
viruses
from August 2000 on, after somebody tipped me off about the website
www.virusmyth.net, refuting the big "HIV"/"AIDS" terror hoax of the
imperialists, and have been reading some articles and books by and about
Ryke
Geerd Hamer, on his radically new theory in medicine, which I've come to
conclude is basically correct, only in the last couple of years.
Once again, I recommend the website http://germannewmedicine.ca/
on this
last.
You obviously agree with Lanka and Hamer on some im****tant points, going
straight against the present-day "official" medicine, which you're right
in
saying is continuing to uphold some quite wrong and absurd hypotheses,
such as
have served oppressing cl***** during hundreds of years in history too.
ONE BIOLOGY/MEDICINE THEORY WHICH I DOUBT, AND ONE LINE OF ACTION WHICH I
HOLD
IS VERY WRONG
That particular theory which you're sup****ting, concerning metabolism,
however,
and which I've seen you present in several earlier postings too, I firstly
don't know much about and secondly - on the basis of my still scant
knowledge -
am suspecting is wrong.
I know some other writers too have maintained that the question of what
people
eat is very im****tant. I'm skeptical about that. And it seems that the
very
well-informed medical specialist Hamer does not place that question high
on the
agenda either. He does say that you need to avoid stuff which is obviously
poisonous, including vaccines and of course "chemo-therapy", which the
present-day bourgeois medical establishment is telling everybody are
"quite
normal" things. A certain book above all on pre-history which I think is
im****tant among other things has some notes on early eating habits. A
little
more on that further below.
One of the points on which I've disagreed with you in earlier discussions,
Waistline2, and on that one rather sharply too, is your accepting or even
advertising the propositions of certain so-called "healers", who say that
they
with certain "medicines" - not the infamously poisonous, murderous ones of
the
"official" medicine, but some stuff which perhaps at least does no harm to
people - can "cure AIDS".
The term "AIDS" of course is just a wrong and terroristic renaming, by the
"official", mass murdering quacks, of over 25 different actual afflictions
which have nothing in common and none of which is caused by any virus.
Thus
when somebody, having been brutally swindled by those quacks into
believing
that he/she "has been infected with" - a totally non-existing - "HIV", or
"has
the disease/syndrome AIDS", he or she above all must be informed of that
fact,
that there are no such things. Anybody saying instead "I can cure your
AIDS",
offering the same perhaps innocuous substance as "medication for" that
particular affliction, among over 25 possible, from which the person in
fact
suffers, or "for" perhaps nothing at all, is a quack too, namely one who
wrongly *confirms* that terror lie which the person has been told by the
"official ones", "I'm HIV-infected", or "I have AIDS".
Those "unofficial" quacks are profiting from, earning their money from,
the big
terror lying of the quacking medical establishment, and are deceiving
their
"patients" too, making things worse for them and not any better. All
honest and
well-informed people must *expose* those terror lies of the ruling
bourgeoisie,
instead of *going along with* them, which of course is "less
uncomfortable" and
also more "profitable". Such "healers" too must be told to cease their
type of
quackery - even if it perhaps is a less murderous one than the "official"
one,
and must certainly not be encouraged or even advertised. This I still
hold.
Has "your" "metabolism theory" anything to do with Marxism? I don't think
it
does. This in itself of course doesn't mean it's wrong.
Neither Marx nor Lenin or Mao Zedong knew anything about the rather recent
research of Lanka, Hamer and others in medicine, for instance. They all
did
their best to keep up with the actual developments in the natural
sciences, and
combated swindles within them, which there were in their respective times
too,
as best they could.
Still, as I already said, I on my part doubt that theory of "a metabolic
breach" - but am willing to consider, of course, any argument put forward
as
evidence of its being correct, any observation that might favour it.
It seemed that you argued for metabolism's having something to do with the
arising of private property. The criticism by Haines Brown of such a
theory I
hold was correct. Private property, in contrast to possession, is
something
which exists only on account of society. It's a social relation, which
clearly
arose when exploitation began, and social cl***** started to appear.
"Soul food" (which you mentioned) and stuff like that certainly has
nothing to
do with the question of property, at least. Should people be recommended
to
stop eating it? So far, I can see no reason for that, nor for such
questions'
being of any vital im****tance.
AN IM****TANT BOOK ON PRE-HISTORY (ETC), WHICH HAS SOME PASSAGES ON FOOD
TOO
The book I mean is Evelyn Reed: "Woman's Evolution, from Matriarchal Clan
to
Patriarchal Family" (Pathfinder Press, the USA, 1975), which is a
much-developed continuation of Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State" (from 1884), or a continuation of certain parts of
it.
I have a copy of a Swedish translation of that book by Evelyn Reed.
Unfortunately it's not on the Net. I tried to order a copy in the original
English from Amazon.com but was told they were out. If someone has one and
could scan it on to the Internet, that would be a good thing, I think. I'd
very
much like to have that at my homepage, for instance. I've copied at least
its
table of contents, which in itself contains some bits of information, from
Amazon.com. See:
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060308_reed_woman's_evolution_contents.html
It seems that at an early stage, it was above all the men who ate meat,
while
the women, who were the ones who invented agriculture (and probably also
discovered the controlled use of fire), mainly ate vegetable and cereal
food
which that agriculture produced. A couple of chapters, the table of
contents I
mentioned shows, are headed:
"2. Taboo Against Cannibalism 23
The Fossil Train of Cannibalism 27
The Savage Ignorance of Cannibalism 29
Totemism and Taboo 34
Food Avoidances: Survival of Cannibalism 40
....
4.The Maternal Clan and *** Segregation 75
Father-Son Jealousy and ***** Reform 76
Eating and Mating Restrictions 81
Segregation of Hunters from Mothers 84
5. The Productive Record of Primitive Women 105
Control of the Food Supply 106
The Use of Fire in Cooking and Industries 110
The Medicine Woman 112".
I could perhaps re****t on some of the text there, later on.
MORE ON YOUR AGREEMENT WITH AND DIFFERENCES FROM STEFAN LANKA AND RYKE
GEERD
HAMER
You further wrote:
"The body is spontaneous metabolic. The problem is that very few people
understand the metaphysical presumption they bring to the table when
discussing
disease or the living man.'
What you refer to as 'oxygen poor blood" as incubating the diseased state
I
call the 'acid and alkaline' (or as it is called he pH balance) relations
of
the blood. A pretty good primer on this subject is Acid and Alkaline. It
took
me a couple of weeks to understand what you meant by 'a shock' to the
system in
relations to the emergence of the disease state because I conceived at
'shock'
as being an external event to the body of man. 'Shock', apparently can be
external or internal or both at the same time."
I didn't actually write "oxygen poor blood", but:
"...Many diseases, though, are caused by poisonings of various kinds,
including
by poisons which bacteria can produce in *oxygen-poor* conditions, *not*
in
living creatures but in *dead* biological matter. ..."
And the theory about its being certain shocks that cause many of those
conditions which today are most often called "diseases" but in reality are
Significant Biological Special Programs (SBS), developed by living
creatures,
in the course of many millions of years, for coping with certain types of
crises, that's one im****tant part of Hamer's entire (rather) new theory
within
medicine.
He says too that such a shock can be either external or internal - or
perhaps
both. I'm recommending again the articles at http://germannewmedicine.ca/
on
this.
You continued:
"In the mid 1990's I became involved in actually healing people and came
in
contact with a healer from Africa combating the poisoning called Ebola.
Thus,
I could grasp the earlier distinction made between 'biological warfare'
and
chemical warfare. One hundred years from now the industrial epoch - the
epoch
of the bourgeoisie, will be identified as the years of metal and chemical
poisoning of man.
Bear with me.
My mother was a nurse and we would read her books at children. Thus, I
possessed an interest in medicine and understanding of some of the actual
operations of the human body at an early age, and possess an absolute
hate of
drugs, except in life threatening cir***stances. Mother died of blood
acidity
that her body localized into to clusters called cancer. She simply
believed in
the bourgeois approach to medicine. This means I was forced to take her
to her
sessions of chemical injections (chemo-therapy) that sought to burn the
demons
out of her body.
Her death from quackery intensified my desire to study everything
including
books on genetics. My status as a high paid worker means I could spend
thousands on books and I did."
Hamer precisely warns against "chemo-therapy" as one very nasty form of
"official" quackery, which has killed and continues to kill many.
Further:
"There is a point to my jumping.
Detoxifying man from the last 400 years of blood poisoning occupy the
center of
virtually everything I write, although it is not apparent lots of times
because
people cannot believe something that goes against their actual living
process.
Detoxifying man of several thousand of years of wrong food is going to be
the
great struggle of the post communist world. In other words I studied -
(theoretical and practical), the impact of various foods on our bodily
processes and organs. Most of what we eat and call food is not food at
all. It
is virtually impossible to believe that wrong eating or what Engel's call
'eating everything eatable' created our specific line of history."
As I already said, I'm skeptical about that theory of yours on food, and
about
some theories by others on the same question too.
By the way, does yours include liquid ditto - drinks? Marx and Engels at
least,
in the "Manifesto", among other things poked some fun at some "temperance
fanatics" of that time (1847), writing - see
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
-
"2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
....
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in
order
to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians,
improvers of
the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of
societies
for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics,
hole-and-corner
reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover,
been
worked out into complete systems."
I hope you're not one of those "temperance fanatics", who exist still
today
too.
In your next paragraph anyway, you said a couple of things which, for
instance,
Stefan Lanka and Ryke Geerd Hamer have said too and which I hold are quite
correct and also im****tant:
"In other words I do not believe you can convince very many people on the
nature of disease and the absurdity of the viral theory of disease,
without
curing them and then they still tend to believe one has preformed magic
rather
than simple and elementary science. What you call 'quackery warfare' was
not
invented by the bourgeoisie. Rather, the militant bourgeoisie inherited
this
line of reasoning."
The "viral theory of disease" precisely is all wrong. And that which I'm
calling "quackery warfare" has indeed been engaged in, by ruling
reactionary
cl***** against the people, for hundreds and even thousands of years, as
pointed out above all by Stefan Lanka. See some things by him which I
cited in
my "UNITE! Info #290en: On quackery warfare (2) - some medical history",
from
31.08.2007.
Further:
"Vaccinations today are no different from injecting people with mercury
in the
'Middle Ages' to drive out demons and placing leeches on the human body to
suck
out demon spirits called viruses today."
Yes, precisely. This, apparently, you've found out more or less all by
yourself, not having access to those im****tant and rather recent writings
on
this which I've been lucky enough to come across - something of an
achievement
on your part, at least, I hold. But, as I already said, your sup****ting
some
"unofficial" "healers of" - non-existing - "AIDS" is/was really a serious
mistake.
THANK YOU FOR SOME NICE WORDS ALSO IN YOUR LAST FEW PARAGRAPHS - THOUGH,
AS I
SAID, SOME THEORIES OF YOURS I DO DOUBT
You wrote:
"I asked myself this: 'on what basis or what is the environment and
cir***stances of a society that allows itself to believe that disease is
called by demons spirits entering the body?' The answer I came up with is
that
society does not allow itself to believe in demon theory.. Rather this
demon
ideology is enforced on society by the ruling class. Disease appears to
bourgeois industrial man in the same relations as Marx described the
commodity
form or 'the fetish that attaches itself to commodity production.'
Social
relations of/between people appear as material relations between things.
The
disease appears as precisely . . . the disease, the villain, the enemy,
which
must be treated and stamped out at all cost, rather than as a symptom
indicating metabolic imbalance. Most of our illness's are the results of
outright poisoning with some of this poisoning being self inflicted.
How did you arrive at your concept of disease? Hatred of the bourgeois
order?
Was this enough for a 'leap of faith' outside bourgeois logic?"
[As I already wrote, that's not "my" concept of disease, but that of Ryke
Geerd
Hamer.]
"At any rate you have won a medal of Lenin for coining the term 'Green
Warfare.' It is in fact green warfare and designed to lay waste to
mankind
and widen the metabolic breach."
[Thanks! To be more precise, I've been using the term "'green' warfare" -
with
the word "green" within quotes here, so as to say that the
"environmentalism"
pur****ted in that warfare is not a genuine one but only a pretext for
those
*anti-industrial* policies which make up the essence of that warfare, and
by
the term "quackery warfare" I'm referring to some different things, namely
some
- likewise very largescale - wrongdoings in the field of medicine.]
"I am at least a decade away from my Stalin medal. Not for anything
written
about the 'new class' being formed in correspondence with the new
technological
regime - which I did not pioneer but absolutely see and believe, but
rather
raising Marx concept of the metabolic rift [Did Marx actually have such a
concept? If so, where in his writings is this to be found?] to a science
embracing man himself.
Opposing the ferocious campaign to continue poisoning man is the loftiest
of
goals. In perhaps a few years I will return to the art and science of
healing
the body and detoxifying it of 40 centuries of garbage. One of the only
land
animals to eat garbage other than man is the hog and we eat it. Meat is
not
the worse thing to eat.
I come from a people that have feasted on garbage for 50 solid years and
call
this garbage 'soul food.' And then wonder why they are sick. We did not
eat hog
intestines in celebration one hundred years ago. Consequently, we are
amongst
the sickest people in America. Millions are horribly sick and go to their
death
believing they are the unfortunate victims of demons. Millions sit in
church
each Sunday seeking miraculous relief from their disease and victory over
the
demons that seem to inflict them from nowhere.
Interestingly, when I dealt in healing and the use of various herbs my
best
customers who financed the business and allowed it to exist where
preachers
who would state, they did not now how to explain disease to their flock
without
a mass rejection.
Bravo for you, even if we never agree on the time frame of the restoration
of
the bourgeois mode of production in the Soviet Union.
Peace"
Thanks again. Concerning the question of when the overthrow of socialism
in the
Soviet Union took place, and some other matters, quite possibly, you and I
will
continue to disagree.
Did you read some of my recent replies to Taimur Rahman, subject "Who was
Bhutto?", concerning those, in my opinion, not so im****tant writers to MLL
Mark
Scott and frankenstein580 and that person in the USA, the
bourgeois-reactionary
Thomas P. Murray, who, I have concluded because of some longtime
experience,
probably is ghost-writing their postings? That phenomenon may interest you
too,
I'm guessing.
Rolf M.
[Note added in this Info: See Info #131en, "The merry Murray 'M-L' melee",
of
21.08.2000, part 1/8 etc.]
_____________________
Message posted by:
Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden
Phone and fax:
+46 - 40 - 124832;
rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
