Overthrow

 I intend to tell you, dear reader, what democracy is: not as an abstract ideal that represents nothing but "The Good", which is something about which we have had to change our minds very thoroughly, but as it actually exists and as it is actually practiced.  Here is what the democratic state is: A society in which a man lives better when he has no strong convictions and claims there is no truth other than all convictions and truth are mere subjective opinions that must conform to what is permitted by Law. A society where this former statement is immediately contested by a chorus that says: "no, you live better when you are willing to die for the state which grants you freedom! Ask not what your country can do for you, but how you can sacrifice for your country! The nation must be your highest conviction and value, without it, nihilism reigns!" A society which looks down upon clarity, clear distinctions, and reasoned knowledge with suspicion.  A society which instea...

 Translated from: https://de.cba.media/683061 So, let's revisit the tiresome topic of nationalism – nationalism understood first and foremost as an individual, subjective feeling of belonging to a community, based on characteristics that certainly vary nowadays; but these are, in any case, contributed by the adherents of nationalism. Let's also start with the assertion that nationalism and patriotism are the same attitude towards one's beloved fatherland. "Patriotism" generally expresses a positive, approving stance towards this attitude, while "nationalism" conveys a negative or at least problematic one. Nationalism is often interpreted as an excessive form, as an excess of an otherwise desirable love of one's country, which by no means necessarily has to lead to the devaluation of other fatherlands – and that doesn't quite hold water. The argument for this lies in looking at the complexities of international relations and the question of how th...

Some tentative thoughts about "the culture wars", transphobia, "schools as a site of grooming", et al. Leftists generally seem to frame the “culture war” as coming from only one side: right wing bigots want to take back the social rights of gays and other sexual minorities in the name of the traditional family. At least that’s how trans rights is talked about by the left: as a sign of their goodness, as part of their agenda to expand “social rights” and inclusion, as the latest frontier in the quest to uncover and eradicate discrimination of any kind; anyone who objects -- regardless of what it is they have to say -- or even expresses reservations is said to be motivated solely by “hate” (according to many trans activists, they are undergoing a “genocide”). The conservatives and right-winger say the family, morality, and religion is under attack by the left. I wouldn’t deny there is plenty of old-fashioned “homophobia” (of which, transphobia is related) expressed by...

 Intro "We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible." – Benito Mussolini One would be beating a dead horse today by claiming that a main feature of nationalism is to sort out and exclude people. When it comes to nationalism, one inevitably hears the bromide, attributed to Charles de Gaulle, that what distinguishes "ultra nationalism" from "healthy nationalism", or put differently, "nationalism from patriotism" is that nationalists hate others, and patriots simply love their own people. Ironically, this line about simply loving one's own people that is bandied about by today's democracy-lo...

1. "Brown terror," it is said, occurs when German right-wing extremists, operating underground, in their fanatical xenophobia, deliberately kill Turkish kebab shop or kiosk owners for more than a decade and then disappear again, without explicitly claiming responsibility in letters of responsibility that every Turk or Greek living in Germany is one too many for them. Therefore, there can be no talk of terror, especially of "brown terror," when, in the course of democratically legalized immigration policy, a "wall" is being built around Europe, intended to prevent the influx of unwanted foreigners, and where hundreds of foreigners die miserably every year – on land, but especially in the waters of the Mediterranean. Even there, there can be no talk of "brown terror" where the lives of people with foreign nationality are made so difficult in this country on the basis of the Aliens Act that they either voluntarily return to the regions where they ha...

"...it was demonstrated that one can live quite well here even without money. Would that be a perspective for critics of money if it became common practice?" I can't take the question very seriously. "...live quite well" by spending all day rummaging through dumpsters – here, no less, illegally, thus at the cost of punishment – frequenting food banks, asking friends and acquaintances for shelter, looking for discarded clothing at the Red Cross, etc. So, the "good life" is supposed to be spent entirely organizing the most basic necessities of life – food, drink, clothing, housing – without money. Don't you still have something planned for your life when food, clothing, and housing are somehow secured? Don't you have interests and desires whose fulfillment falls by the wayside when life without money inevitably fills your entire day. To voluntarily choose to live without money – the worst kind of poverty that the local economy has in store for wa...

  So, there is a misunderstanding here. I am looking at what it means when states guarantee their subjects freedom, rights, and equality in reality. Our claim is that in this society indeed particular forms of freedom and equality are realised, which cannot be brushed aside. This is different than most leftists who insist that these "ideals" simply are not truly realized, and only Socialism would be the real deal, would finally realize the ideals of the bourgeois French revolution. Instead, I'm arguing that these (freedom, equality, democracy, rights) are the forms in which (economic) exploitation and (political) domination happen today. The critique of domination and exploitation must therefore take on and criticize this freedom and equality, not ignore them and posit an ideal outside of them. So, a word of caution on inversion of arguments: if we criticize freedom, equality, humanity, democracy -- it's a bad habit in democracy to immediately assume one must simply w...

  A reader writes: ".... in a recent lecture in.... you framed the fears of fellow citizens for their jobs amid increasing demand from foreigners for work as nationalist. Your 'arguments' were not at all convincing to me. I personally have nothing against foreigners; I just fear for my job. Therefore, I am not a nationalist. I would never vote for the AfD or any other right-wing extremist party. That's why I think it's good when you and others speak out against the AfD. However, I am writing to you so that you reconsider your 'arguments' and refrain from calling harmless fellow citizens nationalists in the future..." Before anything, I'd like to set a few things straight: First, I didn't – directly – oppose the AfD in the aforementioned lecture. More on that in a moment. And second, I didn't call anyone a nationalist. Rather, I tried to criticize the slogan that foreigners are taking "our" jobs, and to point out its flaws and its ...