Category: Politics

Återigen i mycket substantiellt och seriöst också från ungtrottarna i RKP, på deras senaste (tredje) kongress 10-12 april. Fritt från knäppt, irrelevant eller destruktivt politisk-korrekta/wokeistiska inslag, och även från marxismens svaga och felaktiga delar. Niklas Albin Svensson:

Det viktiga är att här finns de avgörande dimensioner som ingen av de i riksdagen representerade politiska trogloriktningarna och till dem knutna media har ens den första lilla antydan till en början av en skymt av en tillstymmelse till en aning om hur de måste analyseras, för att inte tala om en vilja, en strategi och en politik för att hantera dem. Eller V och några dem närstående publikationer kanske fortfarande ibland har ett svagt eko av det, som kan se ut som en antydan, en antydan till en början, eller möjligen, som mest, t.o.m. en antydan till en början av en skymt.

Att det finns mycket att tillägga behöver man inte tillägga.

Ordförande Haz talar kort i egenskap av ACP:s ordförande, efter likaledes hörvärde George Galloway som ju nu i bakgrunden av sin journalistiska verksamhet och mediala närvaro är ordförande för Worker’s Party of Britain, vid den formella lanseringen i Moskva igår av den nya politiska plattformen Sovintern:

Den ledande kraften bakom detta initiativ tycks vara vad jag uppfattar som det övervägande konservativ-socialistiska partiet Rättvisa Rysslands ledare Sergej Mironov. Sovintern förklarar sig vara ett internationellt nätverk för en “socialism 2.0”, som drar nytta av den historiskt existerande socialismens erfarenhet, och som säger sig ha samlat 100 partier av varierande socialistiska schatteringar från 70 länder över hela världen. “Sov” i organisationens namn syftar rimligen på sovjeterna eller Sovjetunionen, och “intern” måste användas på samma sätt som i Komintern. En internationell sovjetism.

Det går ännu inte, åtminstone inte för mig, att bedöma i vilken utsträckning detta verkligen är en ny konstruktiv öppning för konservatismen, hur nära organisationen står ryska regeringen, huruvida engagemanget är egentligt internationellt eller huvudsakligen ryskt, hur hållbar och sammanhängande den bredfrontiga visionen är, och hur seriösa och kvalificerade de deltagande partierna. Men det hela förtjänar utan tvekan redan att uppmärksammas.

Haz talar föredömligt om andlig och moralisk auktoritet, som han ställer i motsats till den västkapitalismens enbart materiella som nu dessutom är på väg att gå förlorad. När han nämner 1900-talets socialistiska erfarenhet (han talar här om det som precedens) som en avgörande fördel för dagens socialister i jämförelse med den ryska revolutionens, ett “otroligt arv”, är det värt att känna till att detta alltid också varit en av hans egna huvudpoänger.

Han menar i själva verket att socialismens partiella historiska uppbyggnads fakticitet innebär att kapitalismen egentligen redan s.a.s. är principiellt övervunnen, att trots Sovjetunionens fall någon hållbar återgång till och rekonstruktion av kapitalismen, något borttänkande av socialismens uppnådda resultat, inte är möjligt. Att den markerar en irreversibel utveckling.

Det är förvisso en beaktansvärd poäng för en historiefilosofisk och delvis historiematerialistiskt influerad modernitetsanalys, men den kräver att vad som måste vara dess verkliga, fulla innebörd tas på allvar. D.v.s. det förhållandet att erfarenheten inte bara är positiv utan även negativ och att inte minst det senare måste läras av.

Haz och andra liknande socialister är dock i detta avseende helt klart på rätt spår – vilket förstås är orsaken till att jag försökt lyfta fram dem. De i Sovintern samlade kan nu, vill Haz starkt betona, erbjuda inte bara en materiell utan en andlig, moralisk, kulturell och värdemässig väg för världen.

A Study in Psychological Warfare

Independently published, 2025

Amazon.com

Publisher’s Description:

In Khrushchevism: A Study in Psychological Warfare, journalist and organizer Caleb T. Maupin exposes how Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous “Secret Speech” became more than just a turning point in Soviet history – it became a blueprint for ideological collapse.

With fearless clarity and emotional urgency, Maupin argues that Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin wasn’t just a political pivot – it was the beginning of a psychological war on belief itself. Maupin pushes back against historical assumptions about the Soviet Union, but also digs deeper in the nature of illiberal and anti-imperialist groups. He explores how a mindset following Khruschev’s template has overwhelmed leftist movements, cultural institutions, and even the minds of activists, creating a climate for organizational self-destruction and lassitude.

Inside this book, you’ll learn:

– How Khrushchev’s 1956 speech demoralized millions across the global communist movement and worked to obscure the great accomplishments of the Stalin era.

– The CIA’s weaponization of certain non-conformist mindsets and the cult panic to destroy revolutionary groups

– The hidden role of Trotskyist factions, NGOs, and liberal identity politics in fracturing working-class movement.

– How the global anti-imperialist movement has changed and what can be done to push back against the atomization created by the dying liberal order.

Part history, part ideological exorcism, Khrushchevism is written for those who are tired of the performative left, disillusioned by liberalism, and hungry to build something real. With personal reflections and spiritual clarity, Maupin offers a new framework to guide a new generation of organizers, thinkers, and builders.

This is not an academic book. It is a political weapon. If refused to accept what we’ve been told about the 20th century, and if you’re ready to win the psychological war – this is your field manual.

By Caitlin Johnstone

One common feature of western empire propaganda is that we are always given reasons for the empire’s violence, while the violence of those who resist the empire tends to be framed as happening for no reason at all.

We’ve all been fed reasons for the US-Israeli war on Iran, and we all know what those reasons are. Even less-informed members of the western public will have heard something about the Iranians being a nuclear threat, having a tyrannical government, and maybe something about sponsoring terrorist groups.

But the so-called “peaceful protesters” who were killed in an uprising fomented and facilitated by the United States? They were killed for no reason, simply because the Iranian government is evil and hates dissent. All the Iranian police officers who died in the uprising perished for no reason, perhaps of natural causes. It is only by pure coincidence that this happened at the exact same time the US empire was making the decision to try to topple the Iranian government.

We’ve all been given the official reasons why Israel has spent years blanketing the Gaza Strip with military explosives: Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7 2023, so it needs to get rid of Hamas for its own security.

But why did the Hamas attack happen? It happened for no reason. If you look to the propagandists in the western press for answers, October 7 happened solely because Hamas are evil and wanted to kill Jews for belonging to the wrong religion. Absolutely no mention of Israel’s savage treatment of Palestinians for generations, or the dreadful living conditions imposed upon the giant concentration camp that Gaza had become.

We’ve been told why the western empire is pouring weapons into Ukraine: Ukraine was invaded by Russia. The empire wants to protect the freedom and democracy of the Ukrainian people, and to deter future expansionism by Vladimir Putin.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine? No reason. Putin’s just evil and hates freedom, that’s all. Sure, countless western experts and analysts had been warning for years that NATO aggressions were going to lead to a war on Russia’s border, but they were just rambling lunatics whose forecasts of war were proven correct by pure coincidence.

Our entire understanding of history is framed in this way. Fidel Castro killed people in Cuba. Why did he kill them? No reason; he was just a mean jerk. All the violence of the socialist revolutionaries around the world overthrowing the abusive governments which preceded them is framed as causeless genocidal carnage inflicted by murderous tyrants who simply loved killing people. The desperation caused by the capitalist exploitation that had been imposed upon those populations is completely redacted from our history books.

A mature understanding of our world begins with a curiosity about why the violence is happening. Violence is not always justified, but there is always a reason why it happens. Western pundits, politicians and newscasters will very seldom tell you what those reasons are unless it advances the interests of the western empire. 

So if you want to have a truth-based understanding of what’s really going on in our world, you need to actively seek out the answers for yourself.

Texter av Catelina Johnstone

Carlos Martinez är en av redaktörerna för “plattformen” Friends of Socialist China, som i förra veckan arrangerade detta webinarium med deltagande av en lång rad personer av vilka flera – och några flera gånger – förekommit i mina inlägg, och med sig själv som ordförande:

Vad är det viktigaste med detta? Det är att det bidrar till att stoppa barbartrogloatlantardernas krigsförberedelser mot Kina (atomvärldskrig) – och därmed till bevarandet av västerlandet, och till dess inslående på en ny väg.

“This event will explore how these achievements are a product of China’s social, political and economic system: socialism. In spite of several years of intense propaganda and misinformation about China in the media, large numbers of young people in the West are going through ‘a very Chinese time in their lives’, not least because they are seeing China’s extraordinary achievements in poverty reduction, technological innovation, ecological protection, infrastructure development and more. This webinar, organised by Friends of Socialist China, will explore how these achievements are a product of China’s social, political and economic system: socialism. The speakers will argue that China’s progress would simply not have been possible within a framework of capitalist rule, and that the country’s experience provides a powerful example of the superiority of socialism in terms of delivering for the people and for the planet.

Confirmed speakers:

George Galloway (Former MP, leader of Workers Party of Britain / ‪@GeorgeGallowayOfficial‬)

Li Jingjing (Journalist and political commentator, CGTN / ‪@Jingjing_Li‬)

Chen Weihua (Former China Daily EU bureau chief)

Ben Norton (Editor, Geopolitical Economy Report / ‪@GeopoliticalEconomyReport‬)

Danny Haiphong (Geopolitical analyst and journalist / ‪@DannyHaiphongYT‬)

Tings Chak (Asia co-coordinator, Tricontinental Institute / ‪@Tricontinental‬)

Keith Bennett (Co-editor, Friends of Socialist China)

Ileana Chan (Host of the Global Majority for Peace podcast / ‪@EmpireWatch‬)

Qiao Collective (Diaspora Chinese media collective)

Chair: Carlos Martinez (Co-editor, Friends of Socialist China / ‪@InventTheFuture‬)”

By Caitlin Johnstone

Ultimately what separates the anti-imperialist left from mainstream liberal “humanitarians” is whether you’re in it for humanity or for yourself.

For the liberal, wanting peace and justice is more of an abstraction than a desire to fight the concrete power structures responsible for the lack of peace and justice in our world.

If you’re a liberal you oppose the idea of children being killed and starved in the abstract, because thinking of yourself as a moral person allows you to feel nice feelings about yourself, but you have no interest in taking a well-defined stand against the empire which routinely kills and starves children via genocides, wars of aggression, and siege warfare.

You don’t want families living in poverty because it would make you feel like a bad person if you did, but you also don’t take a concrete stand against the capitalist system whose very existence depends on the perpetual creation of poverty and scarcity.

You kinda-sorta want everyone to have happy and plentiful lives free from fear and tyranny, but you don’t want to consider the possibility that your own country is responsible for abusing, terrorizing and exploiting the global south. Because that would make you feel uncomfortable feelings.

It’s not about wanting to actually help humanity and fix the world’s problems, it’s about you and your feelings.

Those who oppose the capitalist empire are actually interested in bringing health and harmony to our species. They do not shy away from uncomfortable truths about their own government’s abuses, the dystopian nature of western civilization, or the way their own creature comforts are built on the backs of workers in impoverished countries. Because for them it’s not about feeling nice feelings, it’s about creating a better world.

The western anti-imperialist has no problem recognizing that their own society is the main villain on the world stage, because they’re actually looking at the sources of the abuses and injustices in our world. The liberal “humanitarian” prefers to see evil only in foreign regimes, because being the bad guy doesn’t feel nice.

The western anti-imperialist recognizes that both mainstream political parties in their country promote the warmongering, militarism, capitalist exploitation and imperialist extraction which sustain the western empire, and they oppose the abuses of both parties whoever happens to be in office. The liberal “humanitarian” only recognizes wrongdoing in one mainstream political faction while proudly supporting and voting for the other, because this allows them to feel like they’re helping.

The western anti-imperialist accepts that standing on the morally correct side means eating loss after loss and receiving disappointment after disappointment, because the push for revolutionary change is swimming directly against the current imposed on every institution in our society. The liberal “humanitarian” feels nice feelings about their position because their side wins elections half the time, while smugly sneering at those to their left who never get their people into office.

The western anti-imperialist will stare unflinching into the carnage from Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, feeling all the anguish and rage from witnessing those atrocities supported by their own nation. The liberal “humanitarian” tries to avoid looking at those things, because their entire worldview is built upon psychologically compartmentalizing away from reality in order to prioritize their own feelings.

Basically it’s the difference between actually being a good person and just wanting to feel like you’re a good person. The former is hard, while the latter is easy.

Which one do you want to be?

Texter av Catelina Johnstone

Riktigheten av mina korta kommentarer om Orbán och Ungern för snart fem år sedan ser kanske nu ut att i mycket ha bekräftats, även om det verkar litet oklart exakt vilken väg den nya regeringen kommer slå in på.

I andra delen av min serie inlägg under rubriken Invandringspolitik och världspolitik skrev jag:

“När det gäller Europa är Ungern för många av de populistnationalistiska högerfrontsanhängarna den främsta förebilden. Liksom andra fall i Centraleuropa skiljer det sig från Västeuropa därigenom att en ledande politiker ur den “vanliga” högern, Orbán, själv tagit steget att anamma en invandringspolitik motsvarande de västeuropeiska populistnationalisternas. De historiska skillnaderna gör dock att detta fall långtifrån är helt jämförbart med det block som nu är på väg att formas i Sverige. Orbán har, så här långt, kunnat nå avsevärd framgång, och det återstår att se hur länge den kan fortsätta, hur långt han kan nå, hur beständiga resultaten blir. Men grunden även för hans politik framstår redan från början som otillräcklig och riskabel, såtillvida som den förutsätter en ganska stark fortsatt anslutning till NATO, Israel, och, noga taget, det vanliga övernationella atlantdominerade kapitalistiska systemet, oaktat hans goda relationer med Ryssland och de selektiva restriktioner han upprätthåller mot George Soros.

Givetvis kan Ungern justera kursen. Men hittills tycks regeringen exempelvis behöva stödja detta systems fortsatta politik i Mellanöstern, vars våldsamma uttryck ju orsakat en stor del av migrationen. EU:s utrikesministrar kunde inte enas om ett gemensamt uttalande om Gaza-Israel i maj, eftersom Ungern på grund av stödet för Israel inte ställde sig bakom kravet på eldupphör. Långsiktigt förefaller Ungerns paradigm ingalunda fullt tillfredsställande och inte heller generaliserbart. Det representerar inte i tillräcklig utsträckning den självständiga europeiska linje som är vad som verkligen behövs. Att populistnationalisterna i övriga Europa kan sätta sådan tro till Ungern beror på att de anser, eller väl snarare hoppas, att invandringsproblematiken kan lösas inom dess ram, att Soros är en abnormitet, ett undantag som går att komma till rätta med utan att överskrida det, och, djupast sett, att det ekonomiska system paradigmet är en del av verkligen är det riktiga och normala, som de inte har några problem med. De tror inte bara på de för den modifierade och utvecklade populistnationalismen väsentliga konservativa värdena, utan också på högern i allmänhet.”

Alla tre delarna av Invandringspolitik och världspolitik finns också samlade i ett inlägg, och ger tillsammans den nödvändiga bakgrunden till och sammanhanget för denna bedömning.

Mckay och Kit Klarenberg förklarar det hela närmare i senaste avsnittet av deras program Decline and Fall, och Mckay har följt upp med två avsnitt på sin egen kanal (1, 2) som går på djupet om de problem den nationalborgerliga kapitalismen oundvikligen ställs inför under de förhållanden dagens euroatlantiska generalimperialism eller globalism, vår tids utvecklingsstadium av kapitalismen, erbjuder. En tredje del utlovas, som jag också kommer posta här.

Problematiken uppkommer givetvis i vad Wallerstein i sin världssystemteori kallar de semiperifera länderna och genom deras av Samir Amin analyserade beroende, i övriga delar av världen. Men den föreligger även i det europeiska sammanhanget, och Mckay beskriver i detalj hur så sker i fallet Ungern. Vi har att göra med en problematik som också all populist- och radikalnationalistisk politik i Europa ställs inför, i synnerhet i de mindre länderna, och som de helt enkelt inte kan lösa inom sina nuvarande ideologiska ramar.

Jag kan inte se att något sådant parti har eller någonsin har haft en politik för den nödvändiga typen av hantering av västs megaföretag och finansiella institutioner, att dessa partier kan vinna en tillräcklig maktbas för att genomföra en sådan, eller att de ens har en tillnärmelsevis adekvat teoretisk förståelse av problematiken.

Så länge de inte starkt vidareutvecklar den socialkonservatism de i bästa fall åtminstone tenderar att omfatta, förblir det enda de åstadkommer en ineffektiv och ytterst helt harmlös, mer eller mindre vild gestik inom ett system som uppställer principiellt oöverstigliga gränser och hinder för dem. De blir meningslösa. De reduceras till medel för det oförstådda systemets avledning, oskadliggörande och absorption av den legitima popoppositionen. Ja, de kan i detta stadium av sin korruption eller inskränkthet låta sig användas för systemets än mer sinistra åtgärder mot denna.

By Caitlin Johnstone

The most common pro-war talking point about Iran is that they massacred tens of thousands of protesters in January of this year -  but what’s funny is that they never cite the same number. Because it’s a completely fictional story, they can just make up any number they want.

In online discourse with empire apologists these past few months I’ve been told that the number of dead protesters is thirty thousand, forty thousand, fifty thousand, sixty thousand, seventy thousand, eighty thousand, ninety thousand, and a hundred thousand. 

They really do seem to just throw out whatever number feels believable in a given moment. I recently saw an exasperated Glenn Greenwald ask an interlocutor on Twitter, “How do you decide when to claim that Iran killed 30,000 protesters, or 45,000, or 70,000? Does it depend on the day of the week or lyrical flow or something else?”

Iranian regime change muppet Reza Pahlavi claimed in January that 50,000 protesters had been massacred by the Iranian government that month.

Notorious Korean propagandist Yeonmi Park put the number at 40,000.

In February, President Trump said it was 32,000. By April he had inflated that number to 45,000, and then later climbed it up to 60,000.

Last month I saw The Australian’s Cameron Stewart swelling the number to 80,000.

In February there was a viral tweet by a propaganda account called The Persian Jewess asserting that “90,000 protesters have been killed to date,” while right wing influencer Nicholas Lissack said it was actually 100,000.

The other day someone commented on a post of mine telling me “Iran killed over 40k protesters standing up for freedom,” and when I dismissed that claim another empire apologist came in and adjusted the number to 30,000.

The reason they can’t settle on a number is because it’s all made up. 

Nobody denies that thousands of people were killed in the January unrest; the Iranian government itself has stated that 3,117 people were killed in the violent clashes, including large numbers of security forces. Given that the US Treasury Secretary has repeatedly admitted that the US deliberately fomented the unrest in Iran, and given that Trump has admitted to sending weapons into the country with the goal of arming the protesters, and given that Trump’s previous secretary of state has suggested that Mossad was intimately involved in the so-called “peaceful protests”, it was inevitable that people were going to be killed.

But the war propagandists couldn’t be content with a few thousand deaths. They needed something more spectacular. Something sensational. So they started circulating thinly-sourced reports by shady individuals claiming the body count was much higher than acknowledged, and then further inflating the numbers in those reports.

And when they did this it made it clear that they’ve been lying about the whole thing, because anyone can see the numbers going all over the place depending on who happens to be speaking and what kind of mood they happen to be in. They made a classic blunder in fiction writing, as explained in a viral post that was doing the rounds on Tumblr a few months ago:

“speculative fiction writers i am going to give you a really urgent piece of advice: don’t say numbers. don’t give your readers any numbers. how heavy is the sword? lots. how old is that city? plenty. how big is the fort? massive. how fast is the spaceship? not very, it’s secondhand.

“the minute you say a number your readers can check your math and you cannot do math better than your most autistic critic. i guarantee. don’t let your readers do any math. when did something happen? awhile ago. how many bullets can that gun fire? trick question, it shoots lasers, and it shoots em hard.

“you are lying to people for fun. if you let them do math at you the lie collapses and it’s no fun anymore.”

If you’re going to write fiction, it’s important not to disrupt the illusion and snap the reader out of the imaginary world you are creating for them. The narrative about tens of thousands of dead Iranian protesters is fiction, and everyone’s waking up to the lies.

Texter av Catelina Johnstone

Utdrag från avdelningen för politik på Contents-sidan:

Den nödvändiga komplexifieringen av Burkeförståelsen

Om Charlie Kirks omprövning

Rockhill och den kompatibla vänstern

Xi på SCO-mötet

Diesen: Intervju med Wagenknecht

Att förstå atlantsystemet

Mer fredsteater?

SSU och NATO

“Rule by the Rich”

By Caitlin Johnstone

It used to be hard to help westerners see the depravity of the US empire. Now it’s just right in everyone’s face with raw genocide footage and insanely evil warmongering of direct economic consequence.

It took a lot of work to help the average westerner understand that NATO aggressions actively provoked the war in Ukraine, or that western interventionism played a major role in the violence and chaos in Syria, or that US economic warfare was largely responsible for the suffering of Cubans and Venezuelans. The murderous savagery of the empire was hidden behind layers of obfuscation, allowing the propagandists to frame the western power structure as a passive witness to the abuses of foreign regimes.

Now the propagandists have very little to work with, so those obfuscations can no longer take place. There’s no way you can spin a school full of children blown up by an American double-tap airstrike as anything other than what it is. There’s only so much narrative manipulation you can exert on raw video footage of a western-backed genocide playing out in full view of the entire world day after day for years. There’s no way to propagandize westerners into believing they want to pay a lot more more money for their fuel and groceries.

I saw former EU parliament member Luis Garicano complaining on Twitter that Trump’s actions are making it look as though leftists have been correct about the US empire this whole time, saying “Many of us, liberal Europeans, spent decades pushing back against the European extreme left’s cartoon version of America (it’s all oil/ imperialism/getting rich at the expense of others) and then one dumb administration walks in and performs the caricature to perfection.”

Garicano’s entire worldview depends on his ability to avoid recognizing the obvious truth: that the so-called “extreme left” has always been correct, and that the empire he worships has always been evil. It’s just having a harder and harder time masking its true nature, because of the very evils it has tried to conceal.

Everything’s becoming more and more revealed. More and more transparent. What was once done solely by whistleblowers, investigative journalists, activists and dissident media is now being done by the empire itself, because there’s only so long you can hide the truth about something so malignant. An empire that is held together by lies, corruption and endless slaughter was never going to remain unseen. The brutality necessary to dominate the planet had to come out into the light eventually.

“May all be revealed” has been my prayer for our world for many years now. That dearly held wish is now being answered, and the truth is looking every bit as ugly as expected.

May all be revealed. May all that is hidden become seen. In the empire. In our governments. In our culture. In our community. In our interpersonal relationships. In ourselves.

All abusiveness ultimately boils down to a lack of clear seeing. Governments are able to abuse people because the dynamics of corruption and tyranny aren’t clearly seen by the public, who would violently revolt if they truly understood what their leaders are doing to them and to their world. Domestic violence and family sexual abuse can only continue when the rest of the community doesn’t see and understand what the abuser is doing. Our own abusive tendencies can only persist for as long as our trauma responses and maladaptive coping mechanisms remain hidden in the shadows of our subconscious mind.

All of these dysfunctional dynamics will lose their durability as we become more and more conscious of what’s really going on, in ourselves and in our world. Things look ugly now because the truth is ugly, but it is only by truth revealing itself that we can move toward health and harmony as a species.

If you’ve ever done deep inner work on your own psychology you have seen this play out in your own personal experience. You can heal your inner woundedness if you can gather up the courage to plunge into your own darkness and face with uncompromising honesty the uncomfortable realities you’ve been avoiding within yourself throughout your entire life  –  but you kept those things unconscious for a reason. They’re scary. They’re painful. They’re shameful. Facing them can feel like the end of the world. Yet it is only by coaxing them into the light of consciousness that they can be fully seen, reconciled, and healed.

The whole world is like that. Humans as a collective cannot fix problems which we don’t clearly see and understand. Our rulers pour so much energy into maintaining influence operations like news media propaganda, Hollywood psyops, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation and government secrecy in order to obstruct our clear seeing and understanding. 

But it’s all coming tumbling out into the cold light of day now. More and more is becoming visible. 

May the lies and obfuscations continue to unravel. May the truth continue to reveal itself.

Texter av Catelina Johnstone