Category Archives: Hinduism

Karl Marx on the Jewish Question

Rabbis from Yemen. Photo: M.E. Lilien, 1906

Rabbis from Yemen. Photo: M.E. Lilien, 1906

This article was published by Alliance (Marxist-Leninist) as part of the publication Alliance, issue #30, “Marx, Lenin and Stalin on Zionism.”

Marx’s Views

There can be little doubt that the position of Germany Jewry was that of a discriminated section of the German people. This is attested to even in the biographies of the few that managed to climb out of the slums such as the Rothschilds (Elon A; “Rothschild”; London; 1993).

We will not need to itemize these discrimination in detail, as the texts and interpretation are easily available. In brief, the Jews suffered severe restrictions including curfews, limits on where they could live, special mandatory requirements in order to allow them to perform any work, no State employment allowed, and a host of petty problems including upon marriage rights. This does not even discuss the excluding the possibility of pogroms.

The views of Lenin and Stalin on the Jews, followed those of Karl Marx – himself a Jew. In turn, Marx’s views on the Jewish Question, were very similar to contemporary Jewish progressives, such as seen in the early views of Moses Hess, a Jewish social democrat. In essence they all urged Jews to fully embrace secular society in order to merge into it. But Hess then renounced a secular progressive stand to adopt Jewish mysticism. But Moses Hess turned to embraced mysticism. In doing so he ensured that later on, ‘progressive minded Zionists,’ would point to Hess rather than Marx, in order to argue that Socialism and Zionism are supposedly compatible!

In contrast to their support of Hess, Zionists loathe Marx, and charge him of racism. But the grounds for this Zionist charge, are transparently flimsy. The charges invoke a Marx – “alienated” from his Jewishness. The charges of anti-Jewish racism has to deal with the fact that Marx was a descendant of a long line of Rabbis in Germany and Italy. His father in Trier had converted to Christianity, in order obtain livelihood, although his mother never did convert. Marx, it is claimed hated ‘his Jewishness’ – Saul Padover uses the term:

“Selbsthass [self hatred] of Marx.”

(Padover S.K.; “Introduction” vol 5, “On Religion”; Karl Marx Library; New York; 1974, p. Xiii.).

As Padover puts it :

“As an understandable defense mechanism, young Marx deprived of a spiritual base of support in Judaism, imbibed the ancient hostility to his people and accepted all the ugly stereotypes of the brutally caricatured Jew then widely prevalent in Europe .. This was an expression of what the Germans call Selbsthass.”

(Padover Ibid; p. xiii)

The evidence for this is said to reside in his letters, and, especially in his early work. But when these are read, it is clear that what is objectionable to the Zionists, is simply the boldness of the following assertion: That to be free, and to truly and fully exercise civil rights, the Jew must renounce Jewishness, just as the Christian must renounce Christianity.

Even the most antagonistic Zionists, such as Saul Padover, are forced to acknowledge, that Marx’s first published work on the “Jewish Question” which appeared in the Cologne Rheinische Zeitung in the summer of 1842, was a forthright defence of the Jews. At that time, Heinrich Hermes of the Kolnische Zeitung, a Catholic paper, had attacked Jews. In this attack, Hermes denied that Jews had any rights to “Civil Equality.” Marx openly counter-attacked this in print. Following his defence of civil rights for the Jews, Marx told Arnold Ruge that he had been approached by local Jews, to put a petition on behalf of Jews to the Landtag (Diet):

“Just now the chief of the local Israelites came to see me and asked me to forward a petition for the Jews to the Landtag [Diet] and I want to do it. Revolting [Widerlich] though the Israelite religion is to me, nevertheless Bauer’s opinion [on the Jewish Question] seems to me to be too abstract.”

(Marx; Letter to Ruge A; March 13th 1843; Cited Padover Introduction Ibid; p. Xxi.)

The petition was successful, and marked the first time that a German parliament had granted “Complete equality of Jews in civil and political matters.” Padover is forced to take note of this, but he deals with it, by simply dismissing it as: a “political gesture taken by Marx” in spite of “his revulsion for Judaism.” But it is clear that Marx calls the “Israelite religion” revolting, not Jews themselves. In fact the whole of Marx’s work testifies to his determination to tear the veils that perpetuate slavery and enchainment. With Engels, Marx identified backward looking nationalisms and religion as narcotic-laden veils – Marx called a spade a spade. He is just as virulent about Christianity, about Islam, about Hinduism – and all religions. Indeed all these were means to disguise and veil the reality of the world. Hear Marx on the Hindus and the Brahmins:

“We must not forget that.. that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism…the perpetuation of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns…this passive sort of existence evoked…murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan…the little [Hindoo] communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery…they subjected man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances…they transformed a self-developing social state into a never changing natural destiny, … brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that Man the sovereign of nature fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman the monkey, and Sabbala the cow.”

(Marx.,”British Rule in India”; “Marx & Engels on Britain.” Moscow; 1971; p.168. p171-172.)

“I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan…the mythological chronology of the Brahmin himself, places the commencement of Indian misery in an epoch even more remote than the Christian creation of the world.”

(Marx, “The British Rule In India,” Ibid. p.168)

Who denies that Marx fought the religious vapours of the Brahmins? Just so, he fought the religious and pseudo-nationalist Zionist vapours. Neither of these fights, made him an anti-Indian racist, or somehow ‘alienated’ from Indian problems, as Padover would have us believe!

What did Marx say on the Jewish Question?
Marx only wrote two main articles that explicitly dealt with the Jews as a central theme. They both took the same essential line.
Namely that:

That the Jews in general, had found a niche in capitalist society, by acting as money lenders. Stripping away sanctimony, Marx therefore proclaimed that something else, besides religion, defined the Jews. In his first article, Marx contrasted the “actual secular Jew” with the “Sabbath Jew.” Since the public role of he most prominent Jews was as money merchants, he concentrates on the “haggling” and usurious life of the Jewish trader:

“Let us consider the actual secular Jew, not the Sabbath Jew as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of religion in the actual Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the world cult of the Jew? Schacer [Bargaining, haggling, or huckstering-Ed]. What is his worldly god? Money! What actually was the foundation in and of itself, of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism. Hence the Jew’s monotheism, is in reality, the polytheism of many needs, a polytheism that makes even the toiler an object of divine law…The god of practical need and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel before whom no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and converts them into commodities.. The god of the Jew has been secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange… What is contained abstractly in the Jewish religion – contempt for theory, for art, for history, for man as an end in himself – is the actual conscious standpoint and virtue of the money man…The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the money-man in general.”

(On the Jewish Question – “Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher,” Vol 3 Marx Collected Works; pp 146-74).

Padover makes Marx into a mythical Christian loving and Jew hating person. But in reality Marx describes clearly, from where in his view, Christianity came from. It arose from Judaism:

“Christianity arose of Judaism. It has again dissolved itself into Judaism…Christianity overcame real Judaism only in appearance, It was too noble, too spiritual to alienate the crudeness of practical need except by elevating it into the heavens. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, and Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity; but this application could become universal only after Christianity as the compete religion had theoretically competed the alienation of man from himself and from nature.”

(Marx; “On the Jewish Question”; p.191; in Padover Ibid).

For Marx, it was necessary to emphasize the need to dissolve the religious fetters upon the Jews, and by so doing allow them to enter into the rest of society. The article ends with the words:

“The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Jewishness.”

(Marx; “The Holy Family” (b) The Jewish Question No 1. The setting of the question. Volume 4; CW; Moscow; 1975; p. 87; also in Marx “On The Jewish Question”; p.192; in Padover Ibid.)

The second article was contained within a section of the “Holy Family,” which was a settling of accounts, by Marx and Engels, with the pre-Marxist ideologies in Germany as represented by Bruno Bauer, a member of a philosophical grouping known as Absolute Criticism.

Bauer argued to deny civil rights to Jews, because like everyone else, they had no inborn “Rights of Man,” no ‘dogmatic’ claim for this that over-rode everything else. The implication was that nothing was “owed” to the Jews. In an attack on the materialists, whom he names the “spokesmen of the masses,” Bruno Bauer repudiates any ‘Rights of Man’:

“How thoughtless the spokesmen of the Masses are; they have God knows what a great opinion of themselves for supporting emancipation and the dogma of the rights of man.”

(Karl Marx: “The Jewish Question No 1. The Setting of the Question.” Part of “The Holy Family.” (1844); In Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; p. 87).

Marx replies that the abstract “Rights of Man” are irrelevant as compared to the much more real, fundamental and practical assertions of the inborn rights of man to “fish, hunt etc,” as had been pointed out by Charles Fourier:

“As for the ‘rights of man,’ it has been proved to Herr Bruno (‘On the Jewish Question’ – Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher)- Vol 3 M CW- pp 146-74) that it is ‘he himself,’ not the spokesmen of the Mass, who has misunderstood and dogmatically mishandled the essence of those rights. Compared to his discovery that the rights of man are not inborn – a discovery which has been made innumerable times in England during the last 40-odd years – Fourier’s assertions that the right to fish, hunt, etc are inborn rights of men is one of genius.”

(Karl Marx: “The Jewish Question No 1.” Part of “The Holy Family”; Ibid; p.87-89).

One of Bruno Bauer’s assertions, had been that it was only to be expected, and indeed was quite natural, that a Christian state would not enshrine rights for Jews:

“The Christian state having as its vital principle a definite religion, cannot allow adherents of another particular religion … Complete equality with its own social estates.”

(Bauer cited in Marx, “The Holy Family” Ibid; p. 88.)

Marx in reply, points out that the Christian states render this whole question meaningless, since they do not even allow civil equality to their Christian their “own social estates”- to use Bauer’s phrase, to even non-Jews:

“The Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher [showed] that the state of social estates and of exclusive Christianity is not only an incomplete state but an incomplete Christian state… Absolute Criticism still regards the abolition of religion atheism, as the condition for civil equality… It has therefore not yet acquired any deeper insight into the essence of the state.”

(Karl Marx: “The Jewish Question No 1.” Part of “The Holy Family”; Ibid; p. 88).

For further detail, the interested reader can consult the Appendix [below] for a detailed annotation of Marx’s article. Although those two articles are the basic and longest exposition on the nature of the Jews by Marx, an isolated later description of the Jews by Marx is often quoted, as another example of Marx’s alleged “anti-Semitism.” Here Marx discussed the historical role of the Jews, and he was equally graphic as in his earlier remarks. Marx’s vivid phrasing – “Jews in the pores of society” – offends Zionists. It seems that this image of the Jews who were not fully visible in the middle of society, Marx painted by Marx, is somehow a ‘racist’ view of Marx. But in what context does Marx place this image? Marx is talking about trading for commodities in the ancient world, where the dominant relations of production are not commodity based. Marx asserts that Jewish trading is ancient in its history:

“In the modes of production of ancient Asia, of Antiquity etc; we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and hence the existence of men as mere producers of commodities plays a subordinate role, which however increases in importance as the ancient communities approach closer and closer to the stage of their decline. Trading nations proper exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the Gods of Epicurius in Intermundia, or like the Jew in the pores of Polish society. These ancient social organisms of production are extraordinarily more simple and transparent than the bourgeois ones, but they are based either on the immaturity of the individual man, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him naturally with his own species, or on direct master-servant relationships. They are conditioned by a lower stage of development of the productive forces of labour and the correspondingly encompassing relationships of men within their material generating processes, and hence to each other and to nature. This actual narrowness is realised ideally in the ancient worship of nature and in folk religions. The religious reflex of the real world can vanish altogether only when the relationships of practical everyday life offer men daily visible and reasonable relationships to each other and to nature.”

(Marx K; “Capital” Volume 1; Chapter 1; Section 4; Cited by Padover Ibid; p. 137.)

Well, is this unfair? Marx is simply pointing out that Jews were not given full civic right in then Poland. There is another dimension, relating to the Jewish concentration in trading. Perhaps Jews were not important traders in the ancient world, and perhaps commodity trading was a more main-stream and prominent feature in antiquity?

But, no evidence to contradict Marx, is shown by those such as Padover who critique Marx here.

The very useful function of providing loose monies for loan, had been the prerogative of the Jew, right up until the Reformation. Until then, loans were made only in the interstices of society. But the increasing need of capital, fueled a demand for the practice of charging interest, or usury. This became a root cause of the Reformation, the vast social movement that upturned traditional Catholicism, and is usually portrayed as the rise of the Protestant religion. But the underlying reasons for the Reformation are still often overlooked. The drawback of Catholicism, one the Protestant version of Christianity could overcome for society, was the lack of money trading. Under Catholicism but not under Protestantism, money trading by loans (known as usury) was forbidden as avarice:

“The historical background.. Consisted of the body of social theory stated & implicit, which was the legacy of the Middle Ages. The formal teaching was derived form the Bible, the works of the Fathers & Schoolmen, the canon law and its commentators, and have been popularized.”

(Tawney R.H. “Religion & The Rise of Capitalism”; London; 1975; p. 28)

The condemnation of usury supported a land owning feudal society. Pope Innocent IV argued:

“If usury were general, men would not give thought to the cultivation of their land except when they could do ought else, and so there would be so great a famine that all the poor would die of hunger.”

(Tawney R.H. “Religion & The Rise of Capitalism”; London; 1975; p. 56)

“Early Councils had forbidden usury to be taken by the clergy. The Councils of the 12th & 13th Centuries forbid it to be taken by clergy or laity, and laid down rules for dealing with offenders… The Legislation of the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Viene (1312) … re-enacted the measures laid down by the third Lateran Council (1175) & supplemented them by rules which virtually made the money-lender an outlaw.”

(Tawney R.H. “Religion & The Rise of Capitalism”; London; 1975; p. 58.)

Luther‘s views largely echoed traditional Catholicism. But Calvinism, in contrast, was unlike Lutheranism – it was largely an urban movement that reflected the needs of the growing capitalist society. Calvin could write:

“What reason is there why the income from business should not be larger than that from landowning? Whence do the merchant’s profits come… except from his own indulgence & industry?”

(Tawney R.H. “Religion & The Rise of Capitalism”; London; 1975; p. 113)

There was an intense frustration, by all capitalists and traders, inside the developing capitalist Middle Ages society of developing nations. Even in Florence, the greatest mercantile centre in the Middle Ages, the patent nonsense of the old laws, was shown by the simultaneous hypocrisy of banning usury, whilst depending upon imported Jews to conduct it:

“Florence was the financial capital of medieval Europe; but even at Florence, the secular authorities fined bankers right and left for usury in the middle of the 14th Century, and fifty years later first prohibited credit transaction altogether, and then imported Jews to conduct a business forbidden to Christians.”

(Tawney R.H. “Religion & The Rise of Capitalism”; London; 1975; p. 49.)

So there was a societal need and drive, to adopt the mores of Calvinism.

Following this, the social utility of Judaism to a developing capitalist society diminished. Large scale pogroms would follow the rise of capitalism, which had now ensured its own secure form of usury. (This is a very truncated synopsis. Since Marx’s views on this question encompass the whole place of religion in civil society, we carry a more detailed view of this in Appendix 1).

In Conclusion: Marx stripped bare of camouflage, the vice in which modern workers of all colours and creed were held – capitalist relations. This meant the dissolution of religious faith. Naturally, religiously biased ideologues, like Zionists, will find this offensive. Too bad! We next examine how Marx’s views were echoed by Lenin and Stalin on this question.

Source

Appendix: A More Detailed Synopsis – with our commentary – of Marx’s views on the Jewish Question

All the quotations from Marx’s articles below are drawn from the Marx-Engels Internet Archive and can be found at the following web site for the full index of works by Marx on one particular Internet Archive: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844-jq/index.htm

Please note that all emphases below in the quotes are from the Alliance editors.

Marx’s article contains more than simply an analysis not only of the attitude that revolutionaries should take to the Jewish Question. Because the Jewish Question is a complex mixture of political, civil and religious victimisation, Marx has to deal with the relation of religion to society. Marx also deals with Bauer’s misconceptions surrounding the Democratic Rights Of Man – as adopted by the French Revolution and the USA War of Independence.

Marx first summarises the position of Bruno Bauer.

Bauer starts out saying that no one in Germany, has the type of freedom that Jews want, ie “civic political emancipation.” He argues that it is therefore “egoist-ic” to want a “special emancipation” separate from other humans. He argues that emancipation cannot come from those who are themselves “not free”:

“Bruno Bauer: The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation. Bruno Bauer replies to them: No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are ‘egoists’ if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844-jq/index.htm

For Bauer the roots of the “Jewish Question” lie in a religious opposition. This opposition can only be resolved by rendering the opposition impossible. Christianity and Judaism are simply different stages “in the development of the human mind.” But there is only one way to render opposition “impossible” – by abolishing religion. The Jew must follow Bauer’s dictum of self-emancipation, the Jew must renounce religion:

“How, then, does Bauer solve the Jewish question?…
‘We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others.’
The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By ‘abolishing religion.’ As soon as Jew and Christian recognize that their respective religions are no more than ‘different stages in the development of the human mind,’ different snake skins cast off by ‘history,’ and that man is the snake who sloughed them, the relation of Jew and Christian is no longer religious but is only a critical, ‘scientific,’ and human relation. Science, then, constitutes their unity. But, contradictions in science are resolved by science itself.”

For Bauer this renunciation and self-emancipation is necessary for Christians as well as Jews. It has a “universal significance.” The question embraces more than the individual, being also a “question of the relation of religion to the state”:

“The ‘German Jew,’ in particular, is confronted by the general absence of political emancipation and the strongly marked Christian character of the state. In Bauer’s conception, however, the Jewish question has a universal significance, independent of specifically German conditions. It is the question of the relation of religion to the state, of the contradiction between religious constraint and political emancipation. Emancipation from religion is laid down as a condition, both to the Jew who wants to be emancipated politically, and to the state which is to effect emancipation and is itself to be emancipated.”

In any case, argues Bauer, even if the State itself took the actions demanded by Jews, the State’s formal actions will not achieve the desired results. Bauer cites the French State as an example. Here the formal declaration of equality for all was not matched in practice. He then stresses that the responsibility for emancipation lies with the victim, the Jew – who should renounce religion and the Sabbath allowing him/her to attend the Chamber of Deputies and vote down the “privileged religion.” With the ending of a “privileged religion” (ie Christianity) the freedom of worship as an individual act will follow. Marx concludes:

“Bauer, therefore, demands, on the one hand, that the Jew should renounce Judaism, and that mankind in general should renounce religion, in order to achieve ‘civic’ emancipation. On the other hand, he quite consistently regards the ‘political’ abolition of religion as the abolition of religion as such. The state which presupposes religion is not yet a true, real state.”

Marx now begins his demolition of Bauer. In essence, Marx shows that Bauer:

(i) Confuses civil and political emancipation;
(ii) Does not understand the distinction between full human freedoms and state granted political freedom;
(iii) That he does not understand the concrete manifestations of the Jewish Question in the different States;
(iv) That he does not understand the Declaration of Rights Of Man.

Marx outlines the limitations and the questions left unanswered by the mechanistic Bauer. Especially asks Marx, What is the nature of the emancipation being demanded that Bauer has not addressed?

“At this point, the one-sided formulation of the Jewish question becomes evident. It was by no means sufficient to investigate: Who is to emancipate? Who is to be emancipated? Criticism had to investigate a third point. It had to inquire: What kind of emancipation is in question? [Editor’s emphasis]. What conditions follow from the very nature of the emancipation that is demanded? Only the criticism of political emancipation itself would have been the conclusive criticism of the Jewish question and its real merging in the general question of time. Because Bauer does not raise the question to this level, he becomes entangled in contradictions. He puts forward conditions which are not based on the nature of political emancipation itself. He raises questions which are not part of his problem, and he solves problems which leave this question unanswered.”

Bauer excuses the bigots who opposed Jewish emancipation, seeing them as only committing only one error- they assume a Christian state to be the only true one, and they do not criticise it as they do Judaism. For Marx the relevant criticism is the state itself, and the relationship of political emancipation to human emancipation:

“We find that his error lies in the fact that he subjects to criticism only the ‘Christian state,’ not the ‘state as such,’ that he does not investigate the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation and, therefore, puts forward conditions which can be explained only by uncritical confusion of political emancipation with general human emancipation.”

Thus Marx turns Bauer’s question to the Jews around. Marx defends in effect the right of a private choice to religion and Judaism in particular. This right is not dependent upon, nor subordinate to a superior political emancipation:

“If Bauer asks the Jews: Have you, from your standpoint, the right to want political emancipation? We ask the converse question: Does the standpoint of political emancipation give the right to demand from the Jew the abolition of Judaism and from man the abolition of religion?”

Marx also points out that freedoms necessitate understanding concrete realities. There are particular aspects that the Jewish question takes in different societies. Thus in Germany, a state not yet undergone the bourgeois revolution, a theological State is encountered by the Jew:

“In Germany, where there is no political state, no state as such, the Jewish question is a purely theological one. The Jew finds himself in religious opposition to the state, which recognizes Christianity as its basis. This state is a theologian ex professo. Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism — criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology. Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.”

Whereas since France is a constitutional state with differing effects on Jews, there it was a question of a incompleteness of political emancipation:

“In France, a constitutional state, the Jewish question is a question of constitutionalism, the question of the incompleteness of political emancipation. Since the semblance of a state religion is retained here, although in a meaningless and self-contradictory formula, that of a religion of the majority, the relation of the Jew to the state retains the semblance of a religious, theological opposition.”

Only one state, the USA, has an apparently fully secular relationship with its peoples, allowing religious freedoms. Although Marx made it clear that he obviously understood that hypocrisies abounded, saying that although the USA Constitution was clear on the freedom of worship, North America is pre-eminently the country of religiosity. Nonetheless:

“Only in the North American states — at least, in some of them — does the Jewish question lose its theological significance and become a really secular question. Only where the political state exists in its completely developed form can the relation of the Jew, and of the religious man in general, to the political state, and therefore the relation of religion to the state, show itself in its specific character, in its purity. The criticism of this relation ceases to be theological criticism as soon as the state ceases to adopt a theological attitude toward religion, as soon as it behaves towards religion as a state — i.e., politically. Criticism, then, becomes criticism of the political state. At this point, where the question ceases to be theological, Bauer’s criticism ceases to be critical.”

In any case, the fundamental question is the relation of political emancipation to religion. Marx argues that if religious motivations still remain, despite “political emancipation” in countries like the USA, it is because of an incomplete secular freedom, a defect of a secular narrowness. Religion itself is not the cause of the defect. Religion can only be overcome not by overcoming religious narrowness but by getting rid of secular restrictions – Not by abolishing religion as Bauer proclaims:

“The question is: What is the relation of complete political emancipation to religion? If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. Since, however, the existence of religion is the existence of defect, the source of this defect can only be sought in the nature of the state itself. We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions. We do not turn secular questions into theological ones… The question of the relation of political emancipation to religion becomes for us the question of the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation. We criticize the religious weakness of the political state by criticizing the political state in its secular form, apart from its weaknesses as regards religion.”

Marx agrees with Bauer, that for both Jews and Christians, full liberty means shedding religious superstitions. But for a fuller human liberation, the first and immediate need is for separation of state and religion, for the emancipation of the state from any particular secular elements and from state religion. This is a political emancipation & not a religious emancipation which requires human emancipation:

“The contradiction between the state and a particular religion, for instance Judaism, is given by us a human form as the contradiction between the state and particular secular elements; the contradiction between the state and religion in general as the contradiction between the state and its presuppositions in general. The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general… the state as a state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion — that is to say, by the state as a state not professing any religion, but, on the contrary, asserting itself as a state. The political emancipation from religion is not a religious emancipation that has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction, because political emancipation is not a form of human emancipation which has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction.”

It is irrelevant if even the majority of the people remain religious. For religious sentiments remain, until the people undergo a more profound freedom. The problem is the limits of a political emancipation by itself:

“The limits of political emancipation are evident at once from the fact that the state can free itself from a restriction without man being really free from this restriction, that the state can be a free state without man being a free man.”

Marx means by this, the need for a further and profound liberation of the human. To drive his point home, Marx draws an analogy to private property relations. As the USA state had abolished requirements of property for the right to vote, he argues that it had effectively abolished private property. But Marx says this is ridiculous since clearly, private property not only exists in the USA, but that it forms the presupposed basis for the state:

“Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their special nature. Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence; it feels itself to be a political state and asserts its universality only in opposition to these elements of its being.”

Consistent with this type of hypocrisy of the tenets of the bourgeois Constitution, religious conflicts will exist in politically bourgeois states. But these are no different in kind from contradictions even the bourgeoisie find themselves in with respect to their status as supposed free citizens. Marx locates Jew’s problems in civil society, in the same conflicts of the citizen whose political powers are merely a sophistry and not a real one:

“Man, as the adherent of a particular religion, finds himself in conflict with his citizenship and with other men as members of the community. This conflict reduces itself to the secular division between the political state and civil society. For man as a bourgeois [ here, meaning, member of civil society, private life], life in the state is only a semblance or a temporary exception to the essential and the rule. Of course, the bourgeois, like the Jew, remains only sophistically in the sphere of political life, just as the citoyen only sophistically remains a Jew or a bourgeois. But, this sophistry is not personal. It is the sophistry of the political state itself. The difference between the merchant and the citizen, between the day-labourer and the citizen, between the landowner and the citizen, between the merchant and the citizen, between the living individual and the citizen. The contradiction in which the religious man finds himself with the political man is the same contradiction in which the bourgeois finds himself with the citoyen, and the member of civil society with his political lion’s skin.”

For Marx, Bauer ignores the Jew’s secular problems, confining himself to the purely religious conflicts:

“This secular conflict, to which the Jewish question ultimately reduces itself, the relation between the political state and its preconditions, whether these are material elements, such as private property, etc., or spiritual elements, such as culture or religion, the conflict between the general interest and private interest, the schism between the political state and civil society — these secular antitheses Bauer allows to persist, whereas he conducts a polemic against their religious expression.”

As explained, Marx distinguishes political emancipation from the full human emancipation that tackles the religious sentiment. It is not surprising then, that Marx says that political emancipation of itself, often leaves religion intact. A thorough liberation, including from religion, requires special periods when new political states arise out of civil society, where a permanent non-stop revolution does not baulk at hurdles:

“Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But, it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.”

So Marx differentiates between the more limited liberation in political emancipation of the secular state of bourgeois society (that which in words denies religious persecution and property rights, but in fact endorses them) and a fuller human liberation. Where does all this leave the Jew? Bauer had denied the Jew civil rights till renunciation of Judaism. Marx denies that. But he adds, for full liberation, the Jew must strive for a human liberation from religion itself – as well as striving for political emancipation. The latter can be achieved without renouncing Judaism, but human liberation requires leaving religion. The Jew however, in confronting the Christian state, in demanding civic rights is acting politically:

“Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you Jews want to be emancipated politically, without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-hearted approach and contradiction is not in you alone, it is inherent in the nature and category of political emancipation. If you find yourself within the confines of this category, you share in a general confinement. Just as the state evangelizes when, although it is a state, it adopts a Christian attitude towards the Jews, so the Jew acts politically when, although a Jew, he demands civic rights.”

Bauer had a somewhat mystical idea of how Democratic Rights were obtained. According to Bauer, the rights of man were not a gift of nature but were obtained by struggle against historical tradition:

“But, if a man, although a Jew, can be emancipated politically and receive civic rights, can he lay claim to the so-called rights of man and receive them? Bauer denies it. [Says Bauer]:

‘The question is whether the Jew as such, that is, the Jew who himself admits that he is compelled by his true nature to live permanently in separation from other men, is capable of receiving the universal rights of man and of conceding them to others. For the Christian world, the idea of the rights of man was only discovered in the last century. It is not innate in men; on the contrary, it is gained only in a struggle against the historical traditions in which hitherto man was brought up. Thus the rights of man are not a gift of nature, not a legacy from past history, but the reward of the struggle against the accident of birth and against the privileges which up to now have been handed down by history from generation to generation. These rights are the result of culture, and only one who has earned and deserved them can possess them.

Can the Jew really take possession of them? As long as he is a Jew, the restricted nature which makes him a Jew is bound to triumph over the human nature which should link him as a man with other men, and will separate him from non-Jews. He declares by this separation that the particular nature which makes him a Jew is his true, highest nature, before which human nature has to give way. Similarly, the Christian as a Christian cannot grant the rights of man.'”

In countering this naive mystic view, Marx shows that Bauer had not even understood the notion of the universal rights of man. For Bauer, man has to sacrifice the privilege of faith to obtain universal rights of man. But Marx points out that these rights were never seen, by either the French and the USA framers of the Declaration of Rights, as being contingent upon abolition of religion:

“Let us examine, for a moment, the so-called rights of man — to be precise, the rights of man in their authentic form, in the form which they have among those who discovered them, the North Americans and the French. These rights of man are, in part, political rights, rights which can only be exercised in community with others. Their content is participation in the community, and specifically in the political community, in the life of the state. They come within the category of political freedom, the category of civic rights, which, as we have seen, in no way presuppose the incontrovertible and positive abolition of religion — nor, therefore, of Judaism.”

Marx now examines the possible differences between the rights of man and the rights of the citizen:

“There remains to be examined the other part of the rights of man — the rights of man, insofar as these differ from the rights of the citizen. Included among them is freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion one chooses. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791, Article 10:

‘The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent.'”

Marx quotes the Declaration, showing that the Right of freedom of conscience is drawn from Nature:

“All men have received from nature the imprescriptible right to worship the Almighty according to the dictates of their conscience, and no one can be legally compelled to follow, establish, or support against his will any religion or religious ministry. No human authority can, in any circumstances, intervene in a matter of conscience or control the forces of the soul.”

Marx now distinguishes between man and citizen. Man – as in rights of man – is the person who makes up civil society. Man, separated atomically from other men. He goes on to quote directly from the most radical Constitution that of 1793, that was used to define liberty, what is it that constitutes liberty?

“The rights of man, are, as such, distinct from… the rights of the citizen. Who is man as distinct from citizen? None other than the member of civil society. Why is the member of civil society called man; why are his rights called the rights of man? How is this fact to be explained? From the relationship between the political state and civil society, from the nature of political emancipation…

…Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man.. as distinct from the rights of citizens, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society — i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 2. These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property.

What constitutes liberty?

‘Article 6. Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others, or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791: Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others.’

Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.”

Marx returns to contrast Bauer‘s position with that of the 1793 Constitution. Bauer’s position in demanding of the Jew to renounce Judaism before granting human rights – Liberty in the words of the Declaration of Rights Of Man – is that unless the Jew does renounce Judaism he will remain separate from non-Jews:

“Why is the Jew, according to Bauer, incapable of acquiring the rights of man? As long as he is a Jew, the restricted nature which makes him a Jew is bound to triumph over the human nature which should link him as a man with other men, and will separate him from non-Jews.”

And Marx replies to him saying that the very notion of liberty under the bourgeois Declaration of Rights is of a separation of man from man, on an isolated individual. This is easily illustrated with respect to another aspect of the Declaration of Rights of Man, that concerning private property:

“But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself. The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.

What constitutes man’s right to private property?
Article 16. (Constitution of 1793):
‘The right of property is that which every citizen has of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry.’

The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s property and to dispose of it at one’s discretion (a son gre), without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it. But, above all, it proclaims the right of man of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry.”

Of the other rights of man: There remains the other rights of man: equality and security. Marx goes on to show that these also consist of a guarantee of individual rights as a self-sufficient nomad:

“Equality, used here in its non-political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberty described above — namely: each man is to the same extent regarded as such a self-sufficient monad. The Constitution of 1795 defines the concept of this equality, in..

Article 3 (Constitution of 1795):
Equality consists in the law being the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.
And Security? Article 8 (Constitution of 1793):
Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.

Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the concept of police, expressing the fact that the whole of society exists only in order to guarantee to each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property. It is in this sense that Hegel calls civil society the state of need and reason.”

Marx concludes that egoism is enshrined in the Democratic Rights of Man:

“None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society — that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bound holding them together it natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.”

As the Democratic Rights of Man signalled the victory of the bourgeois production over feudal production, Marx finds it consistent that an egoistic man should result:

“Feudal society was resolved into its basic element — man, but man as he really formed its basis — egoistic man. This man, the member of civil society, is thus the basis, the precondition, of the political state. He is recognized as such by this state in the rights of man.”

Again Marx stresses the incompleteness of the emancipation achieved under bourgeois rule, that there is freedom of religious opinion, but not freedom from religion:

“Hence, man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not freed from property, he received freedom to own property. He was not freed from the egoism of business, he received freedom to engage in business. Man as a member of civil society, unpolitical man, inevitably appears, however, as the natural man. The rights of man appears as natural rights, because conscious activity is concentrated on the political act. “

Full emancipation has still to come, when the abstract citizen is re-absorbed into the individual man, – that is when recognises and exerts his conscious social powers:

All emancipation is a reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself. Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person. Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his ‘own powers’ as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.”

For Bauer, the Christian is closer to freedom than the Jew, since the Christian only needs to give up religion. But the Jew not only has to give up religion but also has to give up struggle to perfecting his religion. Marx realises that Bauer has simply re-dressed in civic clothes, the old religious conflict between Judaism and Christianity. Marx condemns the transformation of Jewish emancipation into a purely religious question:

“For Bauer: The Christian has to surmount only one stage, namely, that of his religion, in order to give up religion altogether, and therefore become free. The Jew, on the other hand, has to break not only with his Jewish nature, but also with the development towards perfecting his religion, a development which has remained alien to him. Thus, Bauer here transforms the question of Jewish emancipation into a purely religious question. The theological problem as to whether the Jew or the Christian has the better prospect of salvation is repeated here in the enlightened form: which of them is more capable of emancipation. No longer is the question asked: Is it Judaism or Christianity that makes a man free? On the contrary, the question is now: Which makes man freer, the negation of Judaism or the negation of Christianity?”

Bauer uses a complex theological argument to portray the Jews need to overcome not only Judaism itself, but also Judaism’s link with Christianity. Jews must not only come to terms with Judaism, but also with Christianity by carrying out the Critique of the Evangelical History of the Synoptics and the Life of Jesus, etc. Since Bauer conceives of Judaism as a Acrude religious criticism of Christianity, and of Judaism merely of religious significance, he transforms the emancipation of the Jews, also into a philosophical-theological act. Finally Bauer notes & excuses that Christians find Jews offensive. In contrast to this religious hocus-pocus, Marx emphasises the secular realities. This means an unsentimental analysis of the position of the Jew in society:

We are trying to break with the theological formulation of the question. For us, the question of the Jew’s capacity for emancipation becomes the question: What particular social element has to be overcome in order to abolish Judaism? For the present-day Jew’s capacity for emancipation is the relation of Judaism to the emancipation of the modern world. This relation necessarily results from the special position of Judaism in the contemporary enslaved world. Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.”

So saying Marx locates the Jewish reality in money trading, in sacher – or huckstering:

“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.”

This being so, only a societal change of society to abolish those preconditions of huckstering – can make the Jew impossible:

“An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Bauer argues that the Jews have financial power, and goes so far as to state that it is fiction to say that the Jew is deprived of political rights, given the Jew has so much money power:

“According to Bauer, it is a fictitious state of affairs when in theory the Jew is deprived of political rights, whereas in practice he has immense power and exerts his political influence en gros, although it is curtailed en detail.”

Marx replies that money power is not always consonant with political power:

“The contradiction that exists between the practical political power of the Jew and his political rights is the contradiction between politics and the power of money in general. Although theoretically the former is superior to the latter, in actual fact politics has become the serf of financial power.”

The peculiar power of the Jews arises from the need for money free of restraints:

“Judaism has held its own alongside Christianity, not only as religious criticism of Christianity… but equally because the practical Jewish spirit, Judaism, has maintained itself and even attained its highest development in Christian society. The Jew, who exists as a distinct member of civil society, is only a particular manifestation of the Judaism of civil society… The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism. … Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world — both the world of men and nature — of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.”

Indeed Judaism reaches its peak in Christian society, since its social function of money loaning is unique, and very much needed by Christians:

“Judaism reaches its highest point with the perfection of civil society, but it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains perfection. Only under the dominance of Christianity, which makes all national, natural, moral, and theoretical conditions extrinsic to man, could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the state, sever all the species-ties of man, put egoism and selfish need in the place of these species-ties, and dissolve the human world into a world of atomistic individuals who are inimically opposed to one another.

“Christianity sprang from Judaism. It has merged again in Judaism. From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become a Jew again. Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity, but this application could only become general after Christianity as a developed religion had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature. Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading. Selling [verausserung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entausserung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity — money — on them. In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest. We explain the tenacity of the Jew not by his religion, but, on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion — practical need, egoism.”

Is there a Jewish nation? Marx thinks this is a chimera:

“The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general. The groundless law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself. Here, too, man’s supreme relation is the legal one, his relation to laws that are valid for him not because they are laws of his own will and nature, but because they are the dominant laws and because departure from them is avenged.”

Again the social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism ie the emancipation of society from money and mercantile bonds of trading:

“Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism — huckstering and its preconditions — the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.”

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

Source

Revisiting the Kashmir Issue

kashmir_disputed_2002

Nirmalangshu Mukherji

In a just world order, rights of self-determination of people, including the right of independence, ought to be viewed as a basic and absolute value. As with most moral principles, however, the actual implementation of such demands raises difficult issues since they always arise in a historical context of an unjust distribution of rights. In other words, the demand for self-determination arises precisely because it has not been met so far, rendering the context in which the demand arises as an unjust one. We will briefly examine the right of self-determination of people in Kashmir from this perspective.

In that unjust context, dimensions of external control intervene with people’s rights for decades — sometimes, over centuries. These controls not only generate vested interests for the agencies of control, typically they curb people’s ability to voice their demand to the point that sections of people internalise the features of control and begin to demobilise on the issue of self-determination. As a result, people themselves get divided. The agencies of control are then able to use this fact to perpetuate their control in the name of people. The historical passage of time is a crucial aspect of the scenario just sketched. We will look briefly at Iraq to get a sense of the issue before we turn to Kashmir.

In Iraq, the imposition of (current) external control is recent, brutal, and clearly linked to the vested interests of US foreign policy around control over oil. The imperialist aggression stands fully exposed; thus, the people subjected to massive violence stand united in their opposition to US occupation. Reliable polls suggest that 1% of the Iraqi population welcome the US presence in Iraq while over 80% demand an immediate end to US occupation; the rest varying on when they want the occupying forces to withdraw. Even with the tiny minority who demand a phased withdrawal of US forces, it stands to reason that their apprehensions about the fallout of immediate withdrawal is directly linked to the chaotic state of Iraqi society caused by US aggression itself.

For the sake of argument, imagine a grim (and hopefully false) scenario in which the US, assisted by the client Iraqi regime, is able to perpetuate its crimes in Iraq for several more years. During this period, suppose some semblance of order and stability returns in the natural course: some oil money is used to restore the food and the health systems; water and electricity return to normal flow; people are able to engage in some trade inside and outside Iraq; tourists return; some institutions, including education institutions, begin to function; violence in the streets is reduced; the resistance is partly broken; US forces mostly stay in barracks close to oil installations; an increasing number of people begin to queue up in US-sponsored elections.

In this scenario, it is quite likely that the minority of the currently wavering population will increase several fold. Citing favourable polls, the US will then be in a position to claim that US presence is needed to bolster stability and (democratic) order in Iraq. Nevertheless, it is clear that nothing changes in so far as the absolute value of the people’s right to self-determination is concerned. Violent enforcement of external control for long periods of time to drive people to exasperation and apparent conformity is a tested strategy of occupying forces with superior gun power. For the same reason, it is of utmost importance that the current resistance in Iraq continues to grow under the common command of the people; this is also a tested method of rendering unsustainable the tested strategy of the occupying forces.

Two other features of current Iraq are relevant here. First, there is no doubt that Iraq is a divided society with at least three contending parties: the sunnis, the shias, and the Kurds. But the division between the people of Iraq cannot be an argument against self-determination. We may have opinions on the further dismemberment of Iraq or on unsustainable alliances between the parties. But it is for the people of Iraq to choose which course they wish to adopt. Second, when the right of self-determination is viewed as an absolute value, the character of resistance to imperialism is also of no concern. Once again it is for the Iraqi people to choose what they feel is the right form of resistance. Historically, the choice could well turn out to be a mistaken one; but then it is again up to the Iraqi people to correct the course.

To sum up, the right of self-determination cannot be withheld even if (a) some sections of the population do not desire it any more, typically out of duress, (b) the people in the relevant region are divided, and (c) the character of resistance to external rule is questionable. We recall that the British used each of these to postpone independence until the circumstances arising out of the second war and liberation of people around the globe forced the British to leave India.

In a recent article posted in Znet (‘Is independence a viable option for Jammu and Kashmir?’, 24 January, www.znet.org), Badri Raina, as the title suggests, has raised the issues the British raised for decades before they were compelled to withdraw from India. The interest of this piece is that the author belongs to the left, and Znet is a well-known platform for left-wing opinion. The arguments therefore are more refined than a mere imperial assertion of the following kind: Kashmir belongs to us because some raja signed some piece of paper. The net effect, however, remains the same.

Raina raises versions of each of (a) to (b) above as an opposition to ‘the formulation that militancy and violence could not justly be expected to be shut down till the right to ‘self-determination’ was granted’ (note that the expression ‘self-determination’ is used with quotes by Raina). He also raises versions of (c): ‘how long can the valley then resist the push to theocratise both state and polity in that ‘independent’ situation. Surely, both Kashmiris and the Indian state have big stakes in all this.’ But since Raina produced no facts to support this view, I will ignore this part of his essay.

The Polls

Raina’s first argument, a version of (a), concerns a poll conducted by the MORI International organisation that ‘covered all regions, urban and rural, of the three provinces of the Jammu & Kashmir State.’ Although Raina thinks of the MORI Foundation as ‘a reputed agency by all accounts’, he does not mention that the foundation is US-based. Raina also cites another poll subsequently conducted by Synovate India which covered just the valley.

In what follows, I will focus on the MORI poll since, as Raina observed, it covered ‘all regions.’ Further, the focus on MORI is justified because Raina begins this part of his essay with the condition that ‘whatever resolutions are debated or found  must pertain to the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir rather than  merely any discrete part.’ I return to the implications of imposing this condition on any ‘debate’ later. For now, obeying Raina’s condition, it is obvious that the findings of the MORI poll are directly relevant. Also, I will take the validity of the findings for granted.

The part of MORI results which has drawn world-wide attention, and flagged repeatedly by Raina, suggests that 61 per cent feel that they would be better off politically and economically as Indian citizens, and only 6 per cent feel that they would be so as Pakistani citizens. Raina comments: ‘by no stretch of the imagination then can it be argued that the overwhelming sentiment in the state of Jammu & Kashmir is for  “sovereign, secular, independence.”  ‘However much as these findings might shock some knowledgeable peddlers of the “Kashmir Question,”’ Raina continues, ‘those are the facts.’

Praful Bidwai (‘Wanted: policy, not hubris’, Frontline, July 6, 2002) points out two related problems with the results. First, ‘the overwhelming majority of those who would prefer to be Indian citizens belong to Jammu and Ladakh, not to the Valley. The “don’t know” answers to the question are concentrated in Srinagar.’ To elaborate, whereas 99 per cent of respondents in Jammu and 100 per cent in Leh felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, 78 per cent of those in Srinagar said they did not know while 9 per cent felt they would be better off as Indian citizens and 13 per cent as Pakistani citizens.’ Bidwai explains: ‘the 78 per cent “don’t knows” clearly include a large number who subscribe to azadi or that version of it which equals autonomy or independence from India, but who reject merger with Pakistan. Given that the core Kashmir problem is about the Valley, this is a sobering thought.’

Second, Bidwai observes that ‘the critical issue within Jammu and Kashmir is not just “free and fair” elections, but inclusive and free elections.’ In other words, ‘fairness in determining the popular will can mean very little unless the electoral process involves the broadly representative spectrum of political opinion in the State.’ As a matter of fact, several currents of opinion have just not been allowed to function in Jammu and Kashmir for decades. This fact, combined with decades of violence resulting in nearly a hundred thousand civilian casualties, untold economic misery, and the general alienation of people from articulated political process, explain the staggering figure of ‘don’t knows’, which, as Bidwai pointed out, is crucial for understanding the situation in Kashmir.

Raina is entirely silent about this part of the MORI findings. As noted, his strategy is to build up on the fact that these findings are restricted to the valley, hence they are irrelevant in view of the ‘all regions’ condition imposed by him. Further, the ‘don’t knows’ don’t count since, according to him, ‘unarticulated private predilections of any group of people in any part of the state  cannot be authorized agenda as the problem is addressed.’ In other words, first we are advised to overlook the historical conditions which have led to ‘unarticulated’ opinion in vast sections of the people; then we are advised to ignore the opinion since it is ‘unarticulated.’

Raina has another strategy to defray this ‘sobering’ aspect of MORI findings: for the valley, instead of depending on the MORI poll, he shifts to the Synovate poll taken three tears later in 2005, despite his ‘all regions’ condition, and juxtaposes these results with that of the (inconvenient) MORI poll. According to the later poll, 36.2% Kashmiris in the Valley and Rajouri (equally muslim dominated) prefer the India option. This enabled Raina to conclude from articulated opinion that ‘by no stretch of the imagination then can it be argued that the overwhelming sentiment in the state of Jammu & Kashmir is for  “sovereign, secular, independence.”’ Setting aside the algebraic issue of whether the remaining 63.8% represent ‘overwhelming sentiment’, recall the historical feature of (a) that, as time flows and the prospects of attaining basic rights recede, people are likely to resign to less desirable options in the absence of organised democratic struggle.

The period between 2002 and 2005 – the post 9/11 world – has seen a setback to people’s democratic struggles in these parts of the world. Specifically, the turn around in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy under US pressure, the continuing violence and economic misery, the sectarian character of the jehadi groups, and the opportunism of Hurriyat and other political parties, on the one hand, and the limited restoration of the electoral process and opening up of some economic activity, on the other, could have led to an increase in the resigned opinion. In other words, there is no evidence that the crucial democratic test of ‘fairness in determining the popular will’, advocated by Bidwai, has been met. By adopting the synchronic perspective, Raina has failed to appreciate the historical condition of people under duress.

Division of people?

Turning to (b) above, let us examine the validity of Raina’s ‘all regions’ condition. As noted, Raina has a two-pronged argument: (A) people in the valley do not have the ‘overwhelming sentiment’ against India; (B) taking all regions into consideration, the ‘overwhelming sentiment’ is for India. Combining the effects of (A) and (B), Raina’s ill-concealed message is that, even if (A) is false, (B) takes precedence. In other words, even if the people in the valley are overwhelmingly against India (and for independence), we should ignore their opinion since people in the region as a whole want to remain in India. Raina puts the message rhetorically as follows: ‘how is the desire for “independence” of half the valley’s population to be squared with the overwhelming opinion in the valley?’ The additional argument that (A) could well be true just bolsters Raina’s strategy. We saw that (A) is not likely to be true. This leaves the entire burden of Raina’s argument on (B) alone – the ‘all regions’ condition.

Since the ‘all regions’ condition looks like a classic, pre-emptive, statist move to defray any demand for secession, the leftist Raina needs to find ‘democratic’ arguments in support of the condition. Along with much rhetoric, he weaves in two facts: (1) “people in all regions are in general agreement that ‘the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir — Kashmiriyat — should be preserved in any long-term solution. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar’; (2)  An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity.’ So the argument is that, since a vast majority of people wish to uphold ‘Kashmiriyat’ and are against the division of Kashmir on religious or ethnic grounds, the demand for independence by a section of the population ought to take the backseat. In fact, those who demand independence while upholding (1) and (2) – there must be some given the numbers – are plainly inconsistent, and hence, they can be ignored.

Notice first that the charge of inconsistency assumes that if the people in the valley wish to secede from the Indian state, they would be doing so on religious or ethnic grounds. Once we decide to look at people’s movements only through communal or sectarian lenses, we lose sight of the basic historical issue that vast sections of people may simply to wish to secede from a State. It is the Indian state the people in the valley are against, the state that is seen to have confiscated their own statehood first by fraudulent means by entering into an undemocratic pact with a raja, and then by half a century of accelerating repression. If religion were the issue, the valley would have preferred the Pakistan option which is overwhelmingly rejected by the people in the valley, as the MORI findings cited by Raina show.

In fact, the charge of inconsistency – if not downright sectarianism – applies to Raina himself. Having argued in favour of the view expressed in (B), Raina also argues strongly in favour of turning the current Line of Control into a state boundary since ‘Kashmiris that live in what is called the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir are not Kashmiri-speaking, barring a sprinkling, and even within the valley there never has been much love lost between the Kashmiri-speaking muslim Kashmiris and those that are non-Kashmiri-speaking Mirpuris or Punjabis! If anything, it is the Pandits who tend to be missed as blood brothers!  Wheels within wheels, you might say.’ Setting aside the issue of truth-content of these remarks, Raina is now clearly advocating a division of Kashmir on ethnic lines in contradiction to the stated position in (B).

I am not suggesting that there is no tension between the desire for unity of all Kashmir on the basis of Kashmiriyat and conflicting region-wise opinion on the issue of secession from India. But the difficult task of resolving this and other conflicts bestows on the people of Kashmir when they prepare to exercise their right of self-determination with freedom and dignity. When the conditions for exercising the will of the people occur, all parties have the right to approach the people with their opinion. But, ultimately, the people must give the verdict on how they wish the difficult issues to be resolved. The right of self-determination, in other words, is supreme and absolute.

It is interesting that Raina barely touches the fundamental issue of self-determination, and restricts his discussion only to what he considers to be hurdles in ‘granting’ independence to the people in the valley. Again, the message is ill-concealed. If independence is not admissible in the first place, people in the valley lose the right to exercise this option. Once they lose the right to exercise a specific option, the general right to exercise any option loses meaning. Hence, the people in the valley do not (really) have the right of self-determination. As a result Raina holds that ‘the right to secession,’ which was ‘at one time a part of the theoretical repertoire of the undivided Left in India’ needs to be revised by the division of the current left to which Raina belongs. In the revised picture, basic rights of the people are viewed by Raina as ‘nothing but another form of Idealism,’ ‘a thin ground’ for ‘granting secession’. So what was viewed as part of the basic theory of the ‘undivided left’ turns into a dispensible rhetoric for that strand of the left which views the stakes for the Indian state as higher than the people who inhabit that state.

Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi

Source

 

Marx on Hindusim

Marx3

“Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.”

– Karl Marx, “The British Rule in India”

White Power and apocalyptic cults: Pro-DPRK Americans revealed

sutter-with-cult-god-690x360

Jason Sutter, a former pro-North Korean support group ringleader, now a self-proclaimed hindu priest, in an illustration created by NK News for this article

American homegrown terrorist groups are the chosen favorites of Pyongyang

BY NATE THAYER , MAY 6, 2013

WASHINGTON D.C. – In September 2003, John Paul Cupp, the 22 year old son of a fundamentalist Christian preacher from Indiana received a message from the government of North Korea.

“Upon the authorization of the Central Committee” it read, Pyongyang “extends militant greetings to you who extend warm support and solidarity to the Songun policy of our respected Marshal Kim Jong Il, treasure sword of our nation.”

The “formation of the Songun Politics Study Group USA has been reported to our Central Committee and, through it, to the Workers Party of Korea….Now your organization has been introduced to the entire Korean nation in the south and the north We are very pleased to have a revolutionary organization and comrades like you in the land of the United States, the bulwark of imperialism and determined to further the relationship with you in depth,”

Rodong Sinmun, the official voice of the ruling Korean Worker’s Party (KWP), reported the news on September 11, the two year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.

The message from Pyongyang promised to send further information “by DHL” to the address of “Comrade John Paul Cupp.” What North Korea didn’t mention was at the time was John Paul Cupp had no address because he was homeless and living in a tent under a highway in Portland, Oregon.

“My father is a loser. He lives in Lynn Haven, Florida,” wrote Cupp on an online family genealogy thread in October 1999. “I moved to Portland to join the communist party and get my poetry published. I am 19 years old.”

By the time Cupp vowed his loyalty to Pyongyang and was made Chairman of the newly created Songun Politics Study Group USA, his evolving political ideology embraced white supremacy, pro Islamic Jihadists, virulent anti-Semitism, and launching domestic terrorism to achieve the armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

John Paul Cupp (c) in trench coat when he was homeless living in Portland Oregon in the early 2000’s when he became the chief U.S representative of the Pyongyang sanctioned group of U.S. supporters of North Korea. North Korean media heralded Cupp as a “prominent U.S. public figure.”

John Paul Cupp (c) in trench coat when he was homeless living in Portland Oregon in the early 2000’s when he became the chief U.S representative of the Pyongyang sanctioned group of U.S. supporters of North Korea. North Korean media heralded Cupp as a “prominent U.S. public figure.”

In recent years, the North Korean government has joined in alliance and found common cause with American citizens from the violent armed fringes of both the political far right and left who are members of registered U.S. domestic terrorist organizations, have been convicted for violent racial attacks, claimed to have  sent Anthrax chemical warfare agents to the President of the United States, been sentenced to mental institutions for threatening to assassinate sitting U.S. presidents, and been imprisoned for plotting terrorist attacks on U.S soil.

“Comrade Kim Il Sung and Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il are the two greatest human beings in the entire history of the world”

Several have made official visits to North Korea as the invited guests of the Pyongyang government.

The American political activists of the pro North Korean political organizations created by Pyongyang in the U.S.  include leaders of armed white power groups accused of trying to spark violent race wars, ; Americans fighting for the creation of a U.S. state populated exclusively  by white people; supporters of the extermination of the Jewish race; who applaud the 9/11 and Oklahoma City terrorist attacks; and others who hold as their ideological mentors the religious suicide cult leader Jim Jones, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, and the assassins of three U.S. presidents and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

John Paul Cupp with SKS rifle in 2009 with confederate flag in the background. Photo taken in 2009 while he was advocating white supremacy and head of the official U.S. Songun Politics Study Group

John Paul Cupp with SKS rifle in 2009 with confederate flag in the background. Photo taken in 2009 while he was advocating white supremacy and head of the official U.S. Songun Politics Study Group

But according to North Korean official propaganda, these American citizens and the Pyongyang government they view as their ideological mentors agree on one thing: The Kim family dynastic leadership are the greatest political thinkers of our times.

“My personal opinion,” John Paul Cupp said in a 2007 interview, “is that great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il are the two greatest human beings in the entire history of the world. For us, it would be impossible to even wake up in the morning should we lose the ability to cherish them.”

Within months of creating the pro-Pyongyang group, Cupp was regularly featured in North Korean propaganda as a ”prominent U.S. public figure,” who was the leader of a broad U.S. movement with deep loyalty to the Kim family’s global political vision.

John Paul Cupp at the top of the Juche Tower, Pyongyang, North Korea, on an official trip by invitation of the North Korean government as head of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group in 2006

John Paul Cupp at the top of the Juche Tower, Pyongyang, North Korea, on an official trip by invitation of the North Korean government as head of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group in 2006

FROM WHITE SUPREMACIST TO ISLAMIC CONVERT

While serving as the Chairman of the Songun Politics Study Group USA, recognized by Pyongyang as their primary U.S. support group, and several other political front groups created in North Korea but portrayed as homegrown U.S. mass political movements, Cupp’s political platform included anti-Semitic laced rhetoric (“hey anyone, actually killing Jews is to be supported in so far as they are killing  Jews”) to racism (“I fully invite every member of an Islamic or Third World country that US imperialism wants to bomb to join us in a cross burning and Jena-rope-the-goat/President event to show how much we love scabs and tools of the Jews and imperialist finance capital”) to support for “Aryan hero Lee Harvey Oswald” and the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

In a post on a white supremacy website titled “A Call for White Resistance” Cupp wrote “One of the things that was brought to my attention while I was visiting North Korea is that during the course of the anti-Japanese struggle the masses began scattered and wanting, then non-violently resisting, and then resisting with ‘terrorism’ and what we call ‘lone wolf actions’ today,” he wrote.

“When looking at our White European-American nation, one finds a people who have not lost their desire to fight the enemy oppressor and who are willing to take matters into their own hands.”

Cupp cited a list of American “Lone Wolves” to be emulated which included the far-right White Supremacist who committed the most deadly domestic terrorist act in U.S. history when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, a White Supremacist group who stockpiled weapons and explosives then went on a murderous campaign of assassination against blacks, and the assassins of Presidents Kennedy, Lincoln and McKinley as well as Martin Luther King.

But that didn’t stop the North Korean government from appointing him the head of the officially sanctioned political organization of U.S. citizens supporting the government of North Korea. Nor did it inhibit Pyongyang prominently depicting the then 22 year old American in state media dozens of time in the following years as a “prominent U.S. Public Figure” and inviting him on official government sponsored visits to the DPRK.

A photograph of John Paul Cupp, Chairman of the U.S Songun Politics Study Group taken at the demilitarized zone on the border with South Korea from the North Korean side. Photo is with a North Korean military officer in the neutral zone during a 2007 trip Cupp made to North Korea as an official guest of Pyongyang

A photograph of John Paul Cupp, Chairman of the U.S Songun Politics Study Group taken at the demilitarized zone on the border with South Korea from the North Korean side. Photo is with a North Korean military officer in the neutral zone during a 2007 trip Cupp made to North Korea as an official guest of Pyongyang

For many North Koreans, the only source of information on developments outside the DPRK is the strictly controlled government media and many therefore believe that the world masses are ardent supporters of Kim Il Sung’s Juche political ideology.

On April 15, 2004 (Kim Il Sung’s birthday), Cupp sent a poem to Pyongyang expressing his fealty to Kim Il Sung and Juche which was promptly republished by North Korean media.

“Marshal Kim Jong Il is the most outstanding revolutionary leader of our era. His Songun army-centered stance, against the fascist scum goons of the White House, cannot be called anything short of genius, extreme bravery, defiant, principled, and even scholarly,” Cupp wrote. “Marshal Kim Jong Il has clearly shown that the gun is the revolution. He clarified that the gun is the faithful and uncompromising companion of the revolutionary. This gun-based approach is correct in every single way.”

In October 2004, the KCNA heralded Cupp as praising the wife of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and mother of then leader Kim Jong Il which spoke of “a revolutionary comrade-in-arms most loyal to President Kim Il Sung and gave birth to leader Kim Jong Il.”

Another KCNA dispatch the following month published an article by Cupp titled “What a great man Comrade Kim Jong Il is” which read “Then there are questions as to why do intellectuals respect and revere General Kim Jong Il so deeply,”

“He [Cupp] explained in the article that Kim Jong Il is the most prominent leader in the present era just as President Kim Il Sung was. Though the socialist movement suffered setbacks in different countries, the brilliant and august name of Kim Jong Il serves as a symbol of the militant and invincible defender of the world, he stressed,” wrote KCNA.

Cupp remained head of the U.S. Songun Study Group for the next seven years during which he travelled to Pyongyang as an official guest of the North Korean government. Simultaneously, he forged alliances with other American White Power extremist groups who shared his fidelity to Pyongyang, created other political front groups espousing armed revolution to create a racially pure state, and joined with apocalyptic fringe religious sects espousing suicide bombers as a tactic for achieving religious and political goals.

In an article Cupp wrote while serving as head of the U.S. Songun Study Group , he said “Imagine a racial communist super-State comprising all of Europe and Russia and stretching across the reclaimed Siberian Land Bridge Project into White North America and includes Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Argentina in its project. Bloodline shall supersede geographical boundaries [this will be] the total victory of White Power over the conspiracy for our genocide, more than just racialism, but true socialism, and the rebirth of the neighborhood and family again.”

“The best models existing today are those of North Korea and the Iraqi Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party”

“Long live the White race!,” the article concluded, “Long live the communist revolution! Let us vow to die in the trenches of combat before ever even considering the thought of surrendering our European-American Nation!”

In December 2009, Cupp penned a piece in which he wrote “White Power, when correctly defined, ultimately wants both separation from and death to America. Indeed, ‘White Power, Death to America!’ … the best models existing today, and worthy of careful study, admiration, and solidarity by our people are those of North Korea and the Iraqi Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party.”

In February 2010, Cupp created another organization called “Aryan Athiests.” The next month, he formally converted to Islam and changed his name to Wahid Yayah Cupp.

By 2011, his erratic behavior and a myriad of infighting among other American contenders for the official endorsement of Pyongyang caused Cupp to be eased out as top leader of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group.

The road travelled by pro-North Korean American citizens since 2003 has been similarly strewn with controversy, intrigue, and buffoonery. During the last decade, other politically-active Americans were also going through important transitions on their way to joining John Paul Cupp as staunch supporters of Pyongyang and their brand of government.

JOSHUA CALEB SUTTER: PREACHER’S SON, NEO-NAZI, FEDERAL PRISONER

Joshua Caleb Sutter has one of the more colorful resumes in fringe American politics. Also the son of a fundamentalist Christian preacher, David Sutter, a well-known South Carolina white supremacist leader, Joshua Sutter was primed for the world of extremist politics from a young age.

He began dabbling in white racist politics as a teenager and rose rapidly through the ranks to become a national leader of the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist neo-Nazi group which advocated the armed overthrow of the U.S. government in order to impose a whites-only racially pure state in its place.

Joshua Sutter , former Aryan Nations white supremacist leader and leader of the Rural People’s Party in his guise of Hindu priest, Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri at the Hindu New Bihar Mandir temple located on Sutter’s rural South Carolina property. (Photo: newbiharmandir.org)

Joshua Sutter , former Aryan Nations white supremacist leader and leader of the Rural People’s Party in his guise of Hindu priest, Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri at the Hindu New Bihar Mandir temple located on Sutter’s rural South Carolina property. (Photo: newbiharmandir.org)

Sutter lived at the headquarters compound of the Aryan Nations in Pennsylvania until his arrest by undercover federal agents in February 2003 for purchasing illegal automatic pistols with their serial numbers scraped off, and possession of silencers in a foiled plot to launch bomb attacks in a domestic U.S. terror campaign.

At the time, Sutter was also a preacher for the Church of the Sons of Yaweh, a white supremacist “Christian Identity” church with links to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

“Roses are red, violets are blue – for every dead Arab, another dead jew!”

After the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center bombings in New York, Sutter assumed the title of the Aryan Nations “Minister for Islamic Liaison”, tasked with building alliances with international Islamic jihadist groups.  Sutter caught the attention of federal authorities in 2002 after he released a “message of solidarity and support” to Saddam Hussein after Sept. 11 predicting that “the evil regime of the United States … shall be utterly wiped off the face of the earth.”

Among other aliases, Sutter used the name Wulfran Hall, High Counsel of Aryan Nations, while living at the rural Pennsylvania Aryan Nations headquarters owned by Sutter’s mentor, Aryan Nation’s head August Kreis.

On the Aryan Nations website, after leading a large White Supremacist, anti-Semitic rally in Washington D.C., Sutter wrote: “Skinheads, Aryan Nations and Identity, National Alliance, Creators all marching side by side with one enemy in mind – the jew,” citing as a “poignant example” the slogan of the demonstration: “Roses are red, violets are blue – for every dead Arab, another dead jew!” Calling whites “the true chosen race”, Sutter wrote ‘Yes, oh yes… and it shall be much worse this time. Jew – all of your planning, scheming and attempts and preparedness shall not save you from that fateful day, for no man knows the hour….But a little bird told a friend of a friend of a friend who told me that it “shan’t be too far off”…”

Joshua Caleb Stutter, former leader of the Rural People’s Party, selling racist knick knacks (L) and posing in front of a Nazi flag (R)

Joshua Caleb Stutter, former leader of the Rural People’s Party, selling racist knick knacks (L) and posing in front of a Nazi flag (R)

Sutter was arrested in February 2003 for purchasing gun silencers and an automatic pistol with its serial numbers scratched off from an undercover federal agent. The arrest was part of a sting operation which foiled attempts by Sutter’s White Supremacist extremist comrade to use explosives and weapons to blow up abortion clinics and kill political opponents.

Sentenced to two years, Sutter was released from a Georgia federal prison on Nov. 9, 2004 and moved back to his hometown in rural Lexington County, South Carolina.

THE RURAL PEOPLE’S PARTY AND THE JIM JONES JUCHE CARAVAN

That is when Sutter began a twisted web of sharp u-turns in his ideas, veering off to remote side roads of political ideology, and formed a new underground political organization–the Rural People’s Party (RPP)–which embraced both Kim Il Sung’s Juche ideology and that of Jim Jones as its twin political mentors.

In documents compiled by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University (which has an extensive archive of the Jim Jones People’s Temple organization), a member of the Rural People’s Party submitted a biography of the history of the party. Documents and other evidence obtained by NK News show that  the author of the RPP biography was Joshua Sutter and the article was sent from Joshua Sutter’s property in South Carolina.

“The Rural People’s Party (RPP) was officially ratified into existence in 2004 when our founder was released from federal prison after serving a sentence on weapons charges,” the document says, revealing details which mirror the biography of Joshua Sutter.“Other comrades on the outside had already scouted out and purchased a rural location for the founding of a commune,” said the RPP document.

A plaque presented by the Rural People’s Party and Songun Politics Study Group to Kim Jong Il on Kim Il Sung’s birthday

A plaque presented by the Rural People’s Party and Songun Politics Study Group to Kim Jong Il on Kim Il Sung’s birthday

According to Lexington County title records, on Aug 19 2003, David and Laura Sutter, Joshua’s parents, purchased 3.61 acres of land and a mobile home on 480 Sherwood Drive for $75,000 –the same location of the headquarters of the Rural People’s Party, according to multiple documents obtained by NK News during this investigation.

A photograph on the official RPP website shows a single wide mobile home with a North Korean flag flying on a flagpole in a wooded area and is captioned: “ Central People’s Commune of the Rural People’s Party: Militant Juche Songun and Jim Jones thought Communism North America.”

But Sutter didn’t abandon his far right, extremist white supremacist politics when he was released from the penitentiary at the end of 2004.

The singe wide mobile home in Lexington County, South Carolina that served as the headquarters of the RPP. A North Korean flag flies in the foreground, and large cloth portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, obtained from the North Korean government, decorate the entrance.

The single wide mobile home in Lexington County, South Carolina that served as the headquarters of the RPP. A North Korean flag flies in the foreground, and large cloth portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, obtained from the North Korean government, decorate the entrance.

Upon release from prison, Sutter began working at the Southern Patriot Shop, a White Supremacist retail outlet managed by Sutter’s father, Pentecostal preacher David Sutter. The shop sells racist paraphernalia and is owned by the League of the South, an established hate group.

While it was on the date of his release from federal prison that Sutter founded the Rural People’s Party—it was also in the following months that, Sutter using alias’s including Wulfran Hall, actively resumed his leadership role in the white supremacist terror organization Aryan Nations.”We can become more than simple domesticated pawns in the games of jewish commerce. We spit upon the false sanctity of the ‘flag’ – of whatever country,” wrote Sutter in February 2005 on the Aryan Nations website. “We spit upon the erroneous sanctity of the cross – and all the meaningless relics of organized religion which is but another way to enslave us and control us, to keep us from realizing the potential that we possess as a race.”

Audio recording of “Forbidden Knowledge” by Joshua Stutter, during which he outlines his extremist political beliefs. Source: Archive.org

Sutter also provided an approved list of books which he positively reviewed. They included “A Practical Guide to The Strategy and Tactics of Revolution” which demonstrates four ways to “undermine/overthrow/disrupt/de-stabilize the present anti-Aryan System, and thus create or provoke a revolutionary situation”.

The book lists four methods for revolution: “(1) assassination of individuals; (2) terror bombing (including targets where civilian casualties are probable); (3) sabotage of the infrastructure of the System – such things as roads, communications, television transmitters, airports, railways, power stations, food supplies, businesses, shops, financial institutions and so on; (4) terror campaigns directed at our enemies – indiscriminate or otherwise.”

Mobile trailer home which serves as headquarters for the RPP, the pro North Korean political group started by white supremacist Joshua Sutter

Mobile trailer home which serves as headquarters for the RPP, the pro North Korean political group started by white supremacist Joshua Sutter

Also, Sutter provided helpful tips and instructions on killing perceived enemies. “The best types of soft target in this respect are: (1) enemies of Aryan freedom” and “politicians who have spoken-out against Aryan groups or who have done things harmful to our race and our freedom (such as supporting some new anti-Aryan law or encouraging race-mixing). On the practical level, the organization must collect intelligence on suitable targets, acquire suitable weapons and prepare statements for after the action. Individual covert cells can then be supplied with a list of targets, and armed with suitable weapons.” Instruction for terrorist attacks and sparking a race war are also detailed by Sutter.

By April 2005, the Aryan Nations leader and Sutter’s mentor, August Kreis, moved the group’s national headquarters to a doublewide trailer in Lexington County to be near Sutter. On April 9 2005 Aryan Nations leader Kreiss bought a .732 acre piece of land, with a mobile home, at 160 Maplewood drive, Lexington SC for $18,000.

But the following month, Louisiana based Aryan Nations leader and preacher of the White Supremacist hate church Sons Of Yaweh Morris Gulett wrote from the Louisiana West Monroe Correction Center on May 12, 2005 accusing Joshua Sutter of being an undercover government informer. “Brother Charles Thornton from Alabama and myself are in federal custody here in Louisiana charged with Conspiracy to Commit Armed Bank Robbery. We were set up by one of the church’s oldest members, Joshua Caleb Sutter.”

“Let me say that this entire debacle was an FBI set up from the very beginning. There would be no alleged crimes, were it not for an FBI informant/agent provocateur, one Joshua Caleb Sutter, a now former member of the Church of the Sons of YHVH/Legion of Saints.”

Interior of mobile home used by the RPP as the headquarters of the Songun Policy Study Group (USA)

Interior of mobile home used by the RPP as the headquarters of the Songun Policy Study Group (USA)

Within days, Kriess removed a photo of Sutter posing in a black turban and face mask, and articles he wrote from the Aryan Nations Web site, and Sutter went underground. The following years, Joshua Sutter focused on supporting the government and Juche ideology of North Korea using a variety of aliases

KEVIN WALSH AND ZIAD SHAKER AL-JISHI: THE WHITE NATIONALIST AND THE PALESTINIAN AMERICAN

It was also in 2004 that Kevin Walsh, an articulate virulent white nationalist and anti-Semite both began an alliance with Cupp and was arrested himself for threatening to assassinate by gun then U.S. president George W. Bush.

“Police in Phoenix cautiously approached Walsh, a registered handgun owner. Guns drawn, Walsh responded by drawing his own”

“John Paul Cupp and I were political collaborators discontinuously from 2004 to 2010” said Walsh in a series of email interviews.  In 2004 “I was arrested and was incarcerated until 2006.”

Police in Phoenix cautiously approached Walsh, a registered handgun owner. Guns drawn, Walsh responded by drawing his own. The standoff ended without violence, but an Arizona judge declared that Walsh must have been insane and committed him involuntarily to a mental institution for 180 days.

He was released two years later, whereupon he resumed his political alliance with John Paul Cupp, based on their shared support of the North Korean vision for how to politically organize a government.

Walsh joined another organization which was run by Cupp—the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZI). Together, the two created the European-American Socialist People’s Front (EASPF).

Photo of hammer and sickle flag inside the RPP headquarters in rural Lexington County South Carolina

Photo of hammer and sickle flag inside the RPP headquarters in rural Lexington County South Carolina

A synthesis of White Nationalism and Marxism-Leninism “EASPF is essentially a national communist or racial communist organization,” wrote Cupp on a Yahoo! Group message. “I have been to North Korea and am deeply in love with them.”

Cupp wrote that the North Korean Juche ideology supported “biological and cultural distinctiveness” and were “not nihilistic towards the realities of bloodline in the creation of national identities of people the way Western leftists are.”

Kevin Walsh was more direct in his assessment of the two outfits. “NACAZAI and EASPF were only websites. We didn’t have any kind of mass following or street organization. We would write essays and solicit support, but no support came,” Walsh told NK News in an email interview.

“Jewish power and American imperialism are the source of great misery for the Arab people and the rest of the world, and they must be smashed”

All of Walsh’s emails end with a quote from an April 2006 Rodong Sinmun article: “The south Korean pro-American traitorous forces advocating the theory of ‘multiracial society’ are riffraff who have not an iota of national soul, to say nothing of the elementary understanding of the view on the nation and social and historic development.”

NACAZI was run by Cupp and a Palestinian American by the name of Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, who also held the title of deputy chairman of the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group. Ziad has made numerous trips to Pyongyang on the invitation of the North Korean government over the last decade.

“Jewish power and American imperialism are the source of great misery for the Arab people and the rest of the world, and they must be smashed. We have made great progress in the last decades for the revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle both in the DPRK and Iraq. We at NACAZAI from our geographic position have tried to contribute to this just and worthy effort to rid the world of Jewish power and American imperialism,” said Ziad, in an interview published on the now defunct NACAZI website.

In an October 2006 letter to Kim Jong Il, Ziad said “For the last several years, I have been active in supporting the DPRK, because of my firm convictions in support of socialism and against imperialism and Zionism. The Korean revolution, through my numerous conversations and recent August visit, has demonstrated to me that it is not only genuine in its efforts, but further-more, the most advanced outpost for anti-imperialism in the world today.”

The letter concluded: “While you long for Korean unity, I long for Arab unity. Like the Korean people under your care, my Arab people long for unification and independence. The lessons you have propagated against flunkeyism, by calling for preserving the Juche and national character of the revolution and synthesizing the people’s cultural and historical identity simultaneously with the anti-imperialist class struggle under the banner of ‘nationalist in form and socialist in content’, is nothing short of genuineness creatively putting its pulse on the needs and desires of the great masses of periphery.”In recent years, North Korean state media has heralded Ziad’s visits to Pyongyang and his messages of support to the Kim family dynasty numerous times.

ZIAD, CUPP, SUTTER AND THE JUCHE CARAVAN

In December 2007, Ziad and Cupp travelled to meet Joshua Caleb Sutter at his rural mobile home in the woods of South Carolina, and formed a political alliance.

“A successful Songun Conference was held outside of Lexington, South Carolina at the Rural Peoples Party’s Central Commune […] Participants included the US Songun Group, the RPP, and the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism,” wrote Cupp in a December 2007 message to political supporters.

While the cast of characters and organizations in the U.S. supporting Pyongyang increased, so did the tension between the extremist leaders with varying political agendas fighting for control over the small  U.S. Juche organization officially sanctioned by Pyongyang.

The U.S. Songun Politics Study Group’s official North Korean government contact was through a known front group for North Korean intelligence agencies, the Committee for Cultural and Foreign Relations, charged with garnering foreign support for the government, and their offices and contacts are located in Pyongyang. For the U.S. political activists and groups, a man using the name Zo Il Min was their primary North Korean contact.

“Cupp told me that Zo Il Min is from southern Korea but had moved to the DPRK and that he has a cable connection to an e-mail address in Japan to do Songun work internationally,” said Walsh in a series of email interviews with NK News from his Arizona home over recent months. “I don’t know if that is true and whether the Juche study group really is sanctioned by the DPRK government. Given the sort of people they’ve been tolerating in positions of leadership recently, I certainly hope not.”

“The first time the RPP and John Paul Cupp crossed paths was in July 2007, when the RPP released a message of support for Pol Pot”

During the late 2007 meeting in the South Carolina woods with former Aryan Nations leader Joshua Caleb Sutter, the leader of the  Rural People’s Party, both Cupp and Ziad quickly found common political ground with the White Supremacist-turned Pyongyang disciple.

“In 2008 Cupp and Ziad had become involved with the Rural People’s Party and had actually travelled to South Carolina to meet their leader, known as David Woods. Cupp would later say that Woods was a pseudonym for Josh Sutter and that Sutter had been arrested for some offense and had become a government agent” said Walsh. “Cupp and Ziad had initially thought Woods/Sutter and the RPP were sincere,” Walsh told NK News.

Jillian Hoy—or “comrade Morrison” of the pro North Korean Rural people’s party holding a Korean trade magazine sent to them by the Pyongyang government in 2008. The photo is from inside the mobile home in rural South Carolina that served as headquarters for the RPP.

Jillian Hoy—or “comrade Morrison” of the pro North Korean Rural people’s party holding a Korean trade magazine sent to them by the Pyongyang government in 2008. The photo is from inside the mobile home in rural South Carolina that served as headquarters for the RPP.

The first time the RPP and John Paul Cupp crossed paths was in July 2007, when the RPP released a message of support for Pol Pot, the former leader of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge movement, on a pro-Khmer Rouge website. 1.8 million people died during Pol Pot’s 3 years and 8 months in power in the 1970s.

Sutter sent a message. “We stand in firm solidarity with the Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot and as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization have held steadfast in defense, study, assimilation into party line and, by our work in establishing the Central People’s Commune, advancing toward practical implementation of Pol Potism. Please find as follows some links to photographs taken at the CPC, a place which all who uphold the glorious line of the CPK are most graciously welcome.”

The message contained photographs of the Khmer Rouge flag flying over a vinyl-sided mobile home in a rural setting – the Central People’s Commune of the Rural People’s Party. In photographs published elsewhere, the same trailer and property later show pictures of the North Korean flag and large portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on the exterior of the small building.

John Paul Cupp wrote back a month later “On the Occasion of CPK Foundation Day” to the RPP: “It takes a lot of courage and guts to defend Democratic Kampuchea and Comrade Pol Pot in the U.S. I congratulate the RPP on this statement.”

After the December 2007 meeting in South Carolina between Joshua Sutter, the RPP, John Paul Cupp and Ziad, the group of extremist leaders decided to join forces. Joshua Caleb Sutter, Jillian Hoy (an RPP committee member), James Porrazzo (another White Supremacist leader), and others affiliated with the RPP were all present.

Literature and propaganda material also sent by the North Korean government to the Rural People’s Party (RPP)

Literature and propaganda material also sent by the North Korean government to the Rural People’s Party (RPP)

On February 9, 2008, a joint statement was released in celebration of Kim Jong Il’s birthday, announcing “The Songun Politics Study Group (USA)… are pleased to announce the formation of the US Preparatory Committee for the Celebration of February 16th and Red Sun’s Day.”

“The Committee will be chaired by John Paul Cupp and Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, Chairman of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI) will be the Vice Chairman,” the statement said. Included in the release was an RPP Statement, a letter to Kim Jong Il from John Paul Cupp and a similar letter from Ziad Shaker al-Jishi, Chairman of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI).”

“Weapons-grade anthrax isn’t something some redneck can make on the weekend in his tool shed”

The meeting between the unlikely grouping of white power extremists, Palestinian Americans and a formerly homeless person produced several new elements in the nexus between Pyongyang and their American citizen comrades.

“Cupp did tell me that Woods/Sutter had been talking about having been involved with sending anthrax to the White House,” Walsh told NK News.

“Ziad had said something similar. I said, ‘I seriously doubt that he had anything to do with that.  He doesn’t have the technical know-how to make weapons-grade anthrax. I have two university degrees, and I don’t have that technical knowledge. Weapons-grade anthrax isn’t something some redneck can make on the weekend in his tool shed. It takes a great deal of medical and biological expertise and expensive laboratory equipment. It’s not a do-it-yourself project for revolutionaries.’”

Picture of Pol Pot on the wall inside mobile home on secluded South Carolina property of the Rural People’s Party (RPP) headquarters

Picture of Pol Pot on the wall inside mobile home on secluded South Carolina property of the Rural People’s Party (RPP) headquarters

Walsh said if Sutter and Ziad were correctly recalling the conversations, “then it would seem that Woods/Sutter is some kind of government provocateur trying to entrap people by inciting them to use harmless powder that he claims is weapons-grade anthrax.”

Walsh added that North Korea had no control over the white nationalist group, European American Socialist People’s Front (EASPF), which he and Cupp ran, “because I had veto power over everything there, and I originated a lot of the ideas, and no one in Korea told me to do anything.  I suspect the Rural People’s Party is run by the FBI, so if the DPRK is having anything to do with them, it’s probably not a good idea for them.”

In the South Carolina backwoods on April 15, 2008, Kim Il Sung’s Birthday, the RPP changed its official constitution to formally pledge loyalty to Pyongyang and their Juche ideology, giving equal status to both Kim Il Sung and Jim Jones. , officially adopting Juche as its “guiding ideology” and announcing a new “officially authorized” website which posted North Korean official propaganda “provided to the RPP by the Pyongyang Mission of the Anti-Imperialist National Democratic Front of South Korea (AINDF).”

The RPP also posted a picture of RPP Central Committee member Jillian Hoy holding an inscribed plaque sent to “KPA Supreme Commander Kim Jong Il on the occasion of the birth of his father Kim Il Sung” which was captioned: “RPP Central Committee member holds plaque for KIM JONG IL presented on behalf of RPP and the Songun Politics Study Group (USA).”

The RPP copied the official policy of the North Korean Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation  by using a different, bolder and larger font and type style for the North Korean leader’s name.

THE PLOT THICKENS, THE GROUP UNRAVELS

But like any good melodrama script, the new alliance also produced a subtext of love, betrayal, and treachery.

And so began what would be a rapidly unraveling political alliance of U.S. North Korea supporters as  the U.S. Songun Study Group and the RPP ushered in a tumultuous period worthy of a bizarre soap opera script.

“The rivalry was to get tenser, including an exchange of death threats and an alleged assassination attempt.”

During early 2008, John Paul Cupp fell in love and became engaged to Jillian Hoy, but that relationship would implode within months amongst accusations of it having been a politically motivated “honey trap” whereby Hoy was accused of attempting to poison Cupp in an alleged RPP bid to take over control of the officially recognized U.S. Songun Study Group.

By the summer of 2008, the RPP, having established their own direct connection to Pyongyang, cut all ties with Cupp. The rivalry was to get tenser, including an exchange of death threats and an alleged assassination attempt.

“Cupp was involved in a sexual relationship with one of the female members and had told me on the telephone that they were to be married. In July 2008, Cupp became severely ill with chronic appendicitis and some kind of lung infection and had to be hospitalized,” Walsh recalled in an email to NK News.

“He wanted to talk to his ‘fiancée,’ and I e-mailed the RPP on his behalf but got no response.  When he was released from hospital, she still didn’t respond.  It was then that Cupp came to the conclusion that it was all some kind of set-up.”

Jillian Hoy—who used the name “Comrade Morrison” in her role with the RPP—was in fact Joshua Sutter’s girlfriend—and soon to be wife.

The RPP “contact[ed] the then Songun Politics Study Group USA in 2007 and had very cordial relations with them,” wrote Jason Adams-Tonis in December 2011, the head of the Songun Politics Study Group by that time. Jillian Hoy “became the fiancée of the then chairman John Paul Cupp” but in June 2008 the RPP “cut off all ties, unprovoked, with us. Cupp believes his illness was caused by being poisoned by Jillian” and Adams-Tonis charged the “whole RPP action was designed as a government attempt to seize control over the Study Group.”

Jason Adams-Tonis added “with Cupp dead, Woods [Joshua Sutter] would have become the study group leader and thus have an inside connection to the DPRK leadership.”

“[Sutter] later boasted to me that Jillian was in fact his own girlfriend and that he had indeed poisoned Cupp,” wrote Adams-Tonis, quoting Sutter as saying Cupp was “insane” and the Study Group “deserved” a better leader.

“In personal conversations I had with the RPP leader, who utilized the pseudonym Woods, Woods told me that he had been a member of Aryan Nations before his ‘conversion’ to communism and that he feared retribution by Aryan Nations for his defection,” according an online post by Adams-Tonis in December 2011.

He wrote that Sutter, in “statements to me and also to other comrades”, tried to recruit them as loyalists to seize control “in his unsuccessful 2007-8 attempt to take over the group.”

Cupp had a lengthy hospitalization in July of 2008, but emerged seemingly even more radical in his political beliefs.

“The content of [Cupp’s] political manifestos were extreme enough to draw the pointed but gentle rebuke of Pyongyang directly.”

In August of 2008, Cupp wrote numerous public screeds extolling the mass killing of all Jews, support for suicide bombers, Saddam Hussein, Sirhan Sirhan (the assassin of Robert Kennedy), and various calls for  a new government to replace the U.S. authorities with  a nation populated by an Aryan race.

CUPP DRAWS PYONGYANG’S DISSAPPROVAL

Cupp posted many of these screeds on the official North Korean U.S. Songun Politics Study Group which was disseminating propaganda sent by and on the instruction of Pyongyang.

The content of his political manifestos were extreme enough to draw the pointed but gentle rebuke of Pyongyang directly.

In an email from North Korea to Cupp on September 15, 2008, Pyongyang wrote instructing Cupp  to pull non DPRK provided political propaganda from the U.S. Songun Study Group’s website and refrain from posting DPRK material on Cupp’s incendiary white supremacist anti-Semitic web pages.

“Dear comrade CUPP,” the North Korean message began “We would like to make a comradely suggestion to you on the matter of publishing the great Juche and Songun-related photos and articles, great leaders’ works, etc, on the internet. Could you please publish those materials exclusively on the US Songun website and the US Solidarity webpage and not post non-DPRK materials on this, and not post those Juche-Songun and DPRK photos and articles on your?”

“That’s only for the sake of the dignity and prestige of our great leaders and the DPRK. We hope you who sincerely and ardently follow and revere the great leaders could understand what we mean and soon rearrange the materials on the internet, please. We’re waiting for your reply in this connection and the good news of your better health. With our sincere and comradely regards, Zo Il Min, Representative of the Pyongyang Mission of the AINDF, September 15, Juche 97 (2008), Pyongyang, DPRK.”

On September 15, Juche 97 (2008) John Paul Cupp replied to Pyongyang requesting him to tone down his virulent extremist politics.

“I will most certainly, as always, comply with the dictate given to me, and all these articles will be removed and I will comply with the request by this by Sunday… I do believe in…fulfilling the tasks assigned to me. I never ever even remotely wanted to disparage the DPRK in any way, shape, or form… what brought about this concern? Did someone complain? Am I in trouble?  I wish to tell you that I have never stopped in my reverence to the DPRK leadership.”

“the DPRK has known we support Saddam, hollowcause revisionism, reject ‘Israel’ and detest Jews for several years now and sided with us privately on most of that”

But Cupp reacted to  the rebuke with alarm to his U.S. comrades . A September 16, 2008 email from Cupp to a half dozen members of the U.S. Songun Study Group with the subject “HUGE EMERGENCY NEWS” said: “I need you to promise me you aren’t going to contact the DPRK […] Someone is fucking with us, and whining up the ass to the DPRK, and crying to them about three things: A. My open support for European-American nationalism (which they probably went and told Zo Il Min I was a KKK lynching or something), our position against the Jews (but they’ve known that for like 6 years!) and our support for armed struggle to bring down the American regime”

“I mean I told them I laughed my ass off at Sept 11 and they chuckled,” Cupp said.

Cupp concluded “We are the most open and honest about not bowing to the Jews and hating America and supporting all international and national violence or other means to stop them….this is a major security issue attempting to wreck our ties to the DPRK (and the DPRK has known we support Saddam, hollowcause revisionism, reject ‘Israel’ and detest Jews for several years now and sided with us privately on most of that).”

His erstwhile comrade, Kevin Walsh, told Cupp that he would have told Pyongyang differently.

“Quite frankly if Zo Il Minh had come to me with such a request, I’d have told him to fuck off. No one is going to stop my expressing support for the DPRK, not even the DPRK leadership itself.  NACAZAI is an independent anti-imperialist organization, not an agent of any foreign government, no matter how progressive.  The Korean Revolution is worthy of defense, even if the leadership no longer think so.”

“You don’t get to vote in DPRK elections,” Walsh wrote to Cupp, “So you don’t have any obligation to go along with DPRK decisions. You are not an agent of a foreign government, and for the sake of your legal status, it is for the best that things stay that way.”

Cupp did not take North Korea’s advice.

Immediately after the rebuke to Cupp from the North Korean government, Cupp posted a virulent message on the Aryan Nations website in support of a White Supremacist U.S. terrorist, David Lane, who had been sentenced to death  and executed after his arrest for a spree of racial and terrorist violence in 2001. Cupp wrote Lane “rests with our martyrs and ancestors for all of eternity” and said it was “time for raising the White Power battle cry….David Lane is a symbol of our struggle for liberation by any means necessary.“Lane recognized that America is the enemy of White people and the world.  He taught us to love the White woman with all our hearts, and to defend her in with the same fanaticism of Timothy McVeigh… and Palestinian human bombs….On the day when a great army of Aryan guerrillas answers the call, we will honor him through victory and martyrdom. White Power, build the People’s War!

FROM JUCHE CARAVAN TO HINDU TEMPLE: A NEW GOD IN LEXINGTON COUNTY

On November 18, 2008 Joshua Sutter and Jillian Hoy (aka Comrade Morrison and Cupp’s erstwhile ex-fiancé) married at a South Carolina Apostolic Pentecostal church “on the anniversary of the People’s Temple martyrdom” to the tune of the song “Hold On, Brother” from the People’s Temple album “He’s Able”, and “Marching to Zion” used for the movie Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones, according to Lexington County, South Carolina probate Court records.

Jillian Hoy, wife of white power leader, pro North Korea advocate, and Jim Jones supporter Joshua Caleb Sutter. Here Hoy, who bills herself a Hindu priestess Jayalalita Devi Dasi, is pictured at the rural South Carolina property where the Hindu temple New Bihar Mandir is located which worships the deity Kali, the “Goddess of Destruction” is located

Jillian Hoy, wife of white power leader, pro North Korea advocate, and Jim Jones supporter Joshua Caleb Sutter. Here Hoy, who bills herself a Hindu priestess Jayalalita Devi Dasi, is pictured at the rural South Carolina property where the Hindu temple New Bihar Mandir is located which worships the deity Kali, the “Goddess of Destruction” is located

By 2009, both the RPP and the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group vied for control over the officially-sanctioned U.S. support group for North Korea. In doing so, both groups veered farther into extremist white supremacist and apocalyptic religious politics.

“In 2009, leaders of the clandestine U.S. White Power movement created another religious organization—a Hindu sect worshipping an apocalyptic Hindu Deity, Kali”

“The RPP continues to work within religious circles in line with the example given to us by Jim Jones and Peoples Temple,” said the RPP in a November 2009 biography written for the University of California at San Diego Center for Religious Studies,

Also in  2009, Joshua Sutter, Jillian Hoy, and other leaders of the clandestine U.S. White Power movement created another religious organization—a Hindu sect worshipping an apocalyptic Hindu Deity, Kali.

Taking on the aliases of a Hindu priest and priestess, Sutter and Hoy established the New Bihar Mandir Temple at the same rural South Carolinian location  as  the Rural People’s Party  headquarters and where the U.S. Songun Study Group represented by Cupp and the Palestinian American activist Ziad secretly travelled months earlier to formalize their political alliance.

Sutter adopted an additional new identity of a Hindu Hare Krishna priest calling himself Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika Mandir. Sutter’s bride, Jillian Hoy, took on the name Jayalalita devi dasi, and billed herself as a Hindu priestess.

While ostensibly clandestine in its formation using aliases and other tactics to obfuscate who was in fact behind the new Hindu temple, the New Bihar Mandir Hindu Temple used the same mailing address and phone numbers used for the RPP. Public recruitment notices in local newspapers and in new age circles listed the physical address as that of the Sutter owned property and Joshua Sutter was given as the contact person to call for directions to worship services.

New Bihar Mandir’s Myspace page, created in 2009, says “A new god has come to rural Lexington County, South Carolina: Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika.” Adding “Lord Kalki will appear as the “Killer Avatar” to cleanse the earth as the pivotal factor in a worldwide annihilation, from which, like a phoenix arising from the ashes, will come a new Golden Age (or ‘Satya-yuga.’)”

The New Bihar Mandir proclaimed “Lord Kalki is our commander, ultimate master and final authority life after life.” According to ancient Hindu scriptures, history is divided into four epochs: now is the ‘Kali Yug’, the Age of Kali, an epoch of darkness and disintegration…New Bihar Mandir, a worldwide movement of devotees and temples, is beginning to bring this prophecy into fruition.”

Map showing location of the “New Bihar Mandir Hindu Temple” – a religious cult ran by the same people who once operated a pro-North Korean organization from the same location. Map: Google.

‘Shree Shree Kalki-Kalika Mandir’ and ‘Jayalalita devi dasi’ both list their marriage dates on My Space as November 18, 2008, the same date listed on Sutter and Hoy’s marriage license in Lexington County probate court records. In keeping with their affinity for violent apocalyptic religious sects with a political agenda, The New Bihar Mandir Temple heavily promotes Velupillai Pirabhakaran, the head of the Sri Lankan LTTE ‘Tamil Tigers’ armed guerrilla group, who was a devoted follower of the same Kali sect of Hindu and responsible for creating suicide squads of teenage girls dispatched to explode deadly terrorist bombings and assassinate political leaders, including the May 21, 1991 killing of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, home to India’s Tamils.

“New Bihar Mandir of Lexington, South Carolina has as its foremost mission providing the facilities for persons in our area hitherto unfamiliar with ancient Vedic wisdom to engage in this bhakti-yoga (devotional yoga) and commune personally with Lord Kalki and Goddess Kali,” reads the New Bihar Mandir MySpace profile.

Photo of weapons and other offering to the Hindu Goddess kali at Joshua Sutters rural South Carolina property. Titled “Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri , New Bihar Mandir, United States”, the photo is taken from the official New Bihar mandir temple website and posted in 2009

Photo of weapons and other offering to the Hindu Goddess kali at Joshua Sutters rural South Carolina property. Titled “Their Lordships Shree Shree Kalki-Kalaratri , New Bihar Mandir, United States”, the photo is taken from the official New Bihar mandir temple website and posted in 2009

The New Bihar Mandir Temple Face book page, used the slogans “Where Worlds Collide” and “I have become death, the destroyer of worlds “and invites the public to “Contact us to learn how to get involved in NBM.”

The previous year Sutter had professed loyalty to the Hare Krishna sect of Hinduism. “In retrospect I can see just how much my life has been enriched by your work,” Sutter wrote in a letter to the head of a North Carolina-based Hare Krishna temple.

“[My wife] is now having some of the happiest times I have seen her have since our marriage because of the enriching potency of Krishna consciousness,”

“[We] covertly inserted ourselves into various religious organizations in the rural Lexington County area”

By 2010, in addition to proclaiming loyalty to Pyongyang and their Juche ideology Sutter and the RPP simultaneously asserted their devotion to white racist Christian Identity churches; the Jim Jones religious cult; a Hindu apocalyptic sect worshipping “the Goddess of Destruction”; a mostly black South Carolina fundamentalist Pentecostal church, and the more mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect – all within a matter of several years.

A biography of the RPP published by the University of San Diego in 2010, and written by Sutter, explains the reasoning behind the discordant affiliations.

The many shades of Jillian Hoy: (L) Jillian Hoy in a photo  taken during a pilgrimage to visit the former church headquarters of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple in Los Angeles, (C) Hoy holds an RPP plaque devoted to Kim Jong Il and poses for a photo (R) Hoy in her guise as a Hindu preistess

The many shades of Jillian Hoy: (L) Jillian Hoy in a photo taken during a pilgrimage to visit the former church headquarters of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple in Los Angeles, (C) Hoy holds an RPP plaque devoted to Kim Jong Il and poses for a photo (R) Hoy in her guise as a Hindu preistess

During 2008, the Rural People’s Party “covertly inserted ourselves into various religious organizations in the rural Lexington County area,” wrote Sutter for the archives of Jim Jones’s People’s Temple. “Many communists might look upon our activity…as suspect, due to what – in our opinion – is a naive belief… that all political activity must by default primarily be “above-ground.” These same people seem to forget that Joseph Stalin began his political activity at Tiflis Theological Seminary as a seminarian, and that Kim Il Sung organized many pre-revolutionary anti-imperialist activities while an accomplished organist at his parents’ Presbyterian church in Korea….at the peak of the RPP’s involvement in local Pentecostal and Apostolic circles, two members of our organization were married in a ceremony at a local Apostolic church on November 18th, the anniversary of the Peoples Temple martyrdom.”

THE NEW BIHARD MANDIR WHITE SUPREMACY CONNECTION

The members of the  New Bihar Mandir temple include a veritable who’s who  of North American white power activists. They include a ‘Minister Black’ identified as ‘Works at New Bihar Mandir’ and a former white power activist; James Porrazzo the former leader of the American Front, once the largest white power neo Nazi group in the U.S.; ‘Emily Putney, Porrazzo’s girlfriend in Massachusetts and convicted of an anti-Semitic assault and hate crime on an elderly Jewish man in 2010; ‘Jayalalita Devi Dasi of Lexington, South Carolina’ who is Jillian Hoy of the Rural People’s Party and Joshua Sutter’s wife; ‘Rex Morgan’ a white power activist with a history of involvement in Satanic cults; and Chris Hayes a long time white supremacist activist with the American Front.

“The Aryan is white and noble in contradistinction to the black and ignoble.”

The group all using numerous aliases.  are affiliated with white supremacist groups, Satanic cults, and underground political groups who call for the violent armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

On James Porrazzo’s web site “OPENREVOLT” he posted an article “NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA” on August 22, 2011 which begins: “We assume, quite justifiably, I think, that the Bhagavad-Gita sets forth Aryan philosophy. The Aryan is white and noble in contradistinction to the black and ignoble. This book then, if Aryan, must give us a noble system of philosophy and ethics.”

The article concludes with: “This post is dedicated to his Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupada, my anonymous Krishna Conscious Spiritual Advisor (you know who you are) and my brothers and sisters at New Bihar Mandir.”

Jillian Hoy at hare Krishna ceremony at hare Krishna temple retreat in North Carolina in 2009

Jillian Hoy at hare Krishna ceremony at hare Krishna temple retreat in North Carolina in 2009

On July 4, 2012, on the white separatist web site run by Porrazzo “American Front”, there is a graphic labeled as the artwork of New Bihar Mandir dedicated to the military unit of suicide bombers of the Sri Lankan LTTE, listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., the EU and others.

ENTER JASON ADAMS-TONIS AND THE ‘FBI INFORMANT’

In late 2009, John Paul Cupp and Kevin Walsh got into a confrontation with Joshua Sutter and James Porrazzo of the Rural People’s Party over a young recruit by the name of Jason Adams-Tonis.

A New York University college student from New Jersey, Tonis had contacted the RPP earlier in 2009 interested in working with U.S. supporters of North Korea. Tonis was unaware about the ongoing clash between the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group, and was taken aback by the RPP private denunciation of the Songun Study Group, and contacted them.

“Someone has told me that your leader, Woods, was formerly a member of a white gang. He and few others did something, got caught by the cops, and Woods snitched to avoid going to jail.”

Tonis then contacted Cupp at the U.S. Songun Study Group who denounced the RPP to Tonis as possible government informants.  On August 25th, Cupp wrote to Walsh, saying that Tonis told him he had “contacted the RPP some time back and they claimed to be the real representatives of the AINDF in the US! I made clear to him that they only time the AINDF ever contacted them was at my suggestion to which I take enormous self criticism.”

Tonis wrote to the RPP head Joshua Sutter afterwards on October 31. “Someone has told me that your leader, Woods, was formerly a member of a white gang. He and few others did something, got caught by the cops, and Woods snitched to avoid going to jail.”

“This person believes that Woods founded the RPP as an FBI/CIA or other government attempt to infiltrate the American Songun movement and the DPRK. Care to comment on the allegations?” Tonis wrote. “I wish you would be more open with me, a Communist party is supposed to be a family but how can we ever become a family when you don’t even tell me your names?”

“All you do is keep secret, said Tonis, “Secrecy is important for some kinds of political work, but how can you even build a party if we don’t even know each other’s names?”

The message was not well received.

Sutter replied back, saying “Consider all friendships between us as ended. This email is being forwarded to the Special Dictatorship Group intelligence apparatus of the party as facsimile copy. Please return any and all materials the party has sent you to the party post office box. Should you choose not to reciprocate in the requested manner, we will take other measures”

On November 3, Tonis emailed Cupp in panic. With the subject line I think the RPP is coming after me, Tonis wrote “ooh my god…I just got an email from the RPP, they’re making some sort of threat against me, what should I do?”

John Paul Cupp responded Tonis regarding the conflict in an email, saying “Okay so it looks like we are going to wind up getting stuck with an ugly fight with the RPP, maybe even literally.”

“Woods went nuts and is basically threatening to kill Jason in not so many words….I think he is afraid the RPP is going to send some ZOG agent to kill him and his family,” wrote Cupp.

“We cannot promise they aren’t crazy enough to try killing him”

Cupp decided to “avoid confrontations that needlessly waste literally years of our time or get people killed and locked up” and opted to warn Joshua Sutter that he would publicly identify him by his real name and his white supremacist past unless he backed off.

Cupp wrote that he told Tonis “we cannot promise they aren’t crazy enough to try killing him” and that “I have already told him about my lung stories and true or not he is sure I was poisoned so he will listen.”

“We [could] avoid these people and not waste years fighting with them,” Cupp concluded, “but if we do, we fight them ruthlessly. I also genuinely think one of two things, either a) Jason is some sort of agent or tool or b) his life is in serious danger. Woods is crazy enough that if he feels all is lost, to just drive up to such said address and kill him. He really is that nuts. He’d do that to me, also.”

“I am concerned that lots of well meaning sort of national communistic types, both White and Black are going to contact the RPP in the next few years looking for options ‘outside the box’ and could wind up dead or seriously harmed,” Cupp said. “At some point we need to eliminate the RPP, likely for now we see if it can implode. If it doesn’t we make clear who they are out in the open and destroy them, but first get inside their allies so these people know who they are dealing with.”

Cupp’s 2010 conversion to Islam did not ring true with Kevin Walsh, who broke all ties with Cupp and resigned from both Nacazai and the EASP. “In March 2010, Cupp made a public and obviously false conversion to Islam on Face book three weeks after posting on a Face book group that he had himself founded called “Aryan Atheists,” Walsh said.

Cupp was eased out of the leadership of the Pyongyang-recognized U.S. Songun Politics Study Group, and was replaced by Jason Adams-Tonis by February 2011.

In a statement posted in December 2011, the Study Group said: “In February 2011, John Paul Cupp’s mentally ill state and devolution reached a point whereby he totally abandoned Juche and communism. Jason-Adam Tonis was left to take over leadership of the group and try to rebuild it.”

Jason-Adam Tonis “decided to lead it in a strictly orthodox Juche-Songun framework, away from racism and all those who supported racist ideas. Jason-Adam Tonis since 2009 had always opposed John Paul Cupp’s white nationalist line but his attempts to lead Cupp back to the orthodox Juche camp always ended in failure due to Cupp’s increasing mental illness.”

“Mr. Tonis was at that same time campaigning for ‘Prime Minister’ of a Japanese based political organization called the Manchukuo Temporary Government.”

TONIS: A TEMPORARY PRIME MINISTER OF A TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT

The transition, however, was far from smooth and Jason-Adam Tonis’s promotion in February 2011 hardly brought a semblance of harmony to the U.S.-North Korea political movement.

In fact. Mr. Tonis was at that same time campaigning for “Prime Minister” of a Japanese based political organization called the Manchukuo Temporary Government. The Official Website of the Manchukuo Temporary Government states on May 28, 2011 “Mr. Jason Adam Tonis was elected as the new Prime Minister.”

The state of Manchukuo existed as a puppet state of Imperial Japan between September 1932 and the 1945 Russian invasion, and was the site of some of the worst atrocities committed by the Japanese military and is a symbol of Japanese imperialism and aggression to many Asians.

“The sovereign rights and ruling right was handed to the Temporary Administrator Mr. Jason Adam Tonis,” announced the Manchukuo Temporary Government in April 2011.

Their manifesto includes the statement: “We put emphasize in watching the Korean peninsula’s relation. If the two Korea are at war with each other [sic]. We will no doubly declare war on North Korea to fight the totalitarian Kim regime and liberate the North people [sic].”

JAMES PORRAZZO: THE PRO-NORTH KOREAN WHITE SUPREMACIST

An increasingly prominent figure among U.S. citizens supporting North Korea in recent years is James Porrazzo.

Porrazzo became a key figure in pro Pyongyang activist circles in America when he was released from prison in 2007 or 2008 after a stint for selling illegal growth hormones used by athletes to increase strength.

He was also former head of the largest white supremacist group in the United States, the American Front.

Founded in 1987, the American Front was affiliated with racist groups such as the White Aryan Resistance, and gained publicity for breaking U.S. chat show host Geraldo Rivera’s nose live on his television show. Starting out as a White Supremacist skinhead group targeting blacks and Jews, it soon went through numerous internal power struggles and ideological programs.

“In 1998, Porrazzo was arrested for assault against an anti-racist activist in Springfield, Missouri, given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to give up racist politics”

American Front members committed numerous violent racial hate crimes in the 1990s. In 1991, police offers searching a Beaverton, Oregon residence found a “hit list” of Portland police officers. In 1993, in California and Washington states a series of bombings targeting blacks, gays and Jews were attributed to the American Front. The U.S. Attorney in Washington State said the American Front were part of a larger conspiracy to incite a race war.

Their motto was to “Secure National Freedom and Social Justice for White people in North America.”

In 1996 James Porrazzo took control of the group, and moved to Arkansas where he professed an ideology known as “Third Positionism” – an amalgam of far right racial politics and leftist communist economic policies which had its roots with the European fascist right.

In 1998, Porrazzo was arrested for assault against an anti-racist activist in Springfield, Missouri, given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to give up racist politics.

“By the early 2000s,” the anti-racist Anti-Defamation League wrote, “Porrazzo had largely run the group into the ground and it was Porrazzo’s approach to Islamists which seems to have been the final cause of his undoing.” The group promoted not only Hamas and Hezbollah, but even Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. After 9/11, that kind of promotion “inspired some heavy state harassment and severely limited our ability to safely expand or organize,” Porrazzo said.

Porrazzo advocated “socialist revolution in a racialist context,” explaining “We propose a workable, realistic alternative, and that is Separatism! White autonomy, Black autonomy, Brown autonomy and death to the current twisted system…. The only other obvious route would be an eventual winner take all race war: I don’t think anyone with any sense would want that… ”

After the September 11 terrorist attack, Porrazzo disappeared from public activism. The American Front was taken over by another virulent white racist, David Lynch, who was murdered by an assassin on March 2, 2011.

A man, possibly Porrazzo, at the RPP headquarters, now a temple.

A man, possibly Porrazzo, at the RPP headquarters, now a temple.

Like many of U.S. citizens supporting North Korea, Porrazzo goes to great lengths to hide his real identity and obfuscate his real political agenda by using a myriad of pseudonyms and front groups. In doing so, he and his confederates continued to try to lure potential supporters to their true political beliefs.

A careful dissection of their complex web of front religious cults, White Supremacist groups, and neo Nazi front organizations all lead back to the same core group of people and extremist political objectives.

“In 2008, Porrazzo, a long time member of the U.S. based Hare Krishna Hindu sect, joined forces with Joshua Sutter in the RPP.”

In a March 2013 interview with Polish National Socialist organization XPortal, Porrazzo explained “The American Front  took “what we could from left-wing sources” but a “very influential” ideology was what was called “ ‘occult fascists’, this on top of the foundation of our having been America’s first national ‘Skinhead’ organization” and “very importantly from Gaddafi‘s Green Book.”

“One of the areas we studied heavily was the Islamic resistance movements towards the Globalists. This study would backfire on American Front when Sept 11th occurred” which resulted in “heavy state harassment and severely limited our ability to safely expand or organize. By 2002 we voted to put American Front into a ‘tactical hibernation’ until we felt the situation was better suited for us to act openly.”

In 2008, Porrazzo, a long time member of the U.S. based Hare Krishna Hindu sect, joined forces with Joshua Sutter in the RPP. He was also was a leader in the 2009 formation of the New Bihar Mandir temple.

In a series of August 2011 email communications between a group of radical anti-racists, one American Front member, Kent McLellan, broke with Porrazzo and detailed his political activities.

I’m done with American Front,” wrote McLellen. “James Porrazzo, former leader of American Front…is a convicted GHB peddler, as well as actual contributor to Libya, (in fact in 2003 Libya tried to give him $3 million but was denied by the US government) […] He also [believes] in Hindu/Satanism/Allah.”

Kent McLellen, at the time was an avowed white supremacist who had spent time in prison for racial hate crimes.

TYLER MOSES AND THE UNITED JUCHE FRONT OF NORTH AMERICA

On November 17, 2011 the United Juche Front of North America was created by someone using the name Tyler Moses.

Tyler Moses was an alias used by Joshua Sutter in 2002 while serving as the “Pennsylvania state coordinator” for the white racist terror group Aryan Nation shortly prior to his arrest for buying illegal weaponry from an undercover federal law enforcement agent in a plot to launch a bombing campaign in the U.S.

“The sole mission of The United Juche Front of North America is to disseminate information related to the practical application of Songun and Juche based ideologies on the American continent,” the organization’s manifesto read.

“We recognize as Americans that support of the DPRK is seen as a hostile act and are acting in accordance [with] the engagement of operating behind enemy lines.”

Just as David Woods was the alias used by Sutter as head of the Rural People’s Party, Tyler Moses was the alias he used to coordinate a White Power march on Washington D.C.

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

Jillian Hoy, who also claims to be a disciple of the mainstream Hare Krishna Hindu sect, holds up Hare Krishna literature at a rural South Carolina library in 2009

In his time as leader of Aryan nations Sutter also used his real name and other aliases, including the name Wulfran Hall. In his incarnation as a Hindu priest for the New Bihar Mandir temple he assumed the name Shree Shree Kalika-Kalki. In other covert communications with outsiders, he used the name Stephen Browne.

But numerous South Carolina, online, and other records show that all these identities are, in fact, Joshua Sutter. They share birthdates, marriage dates, telephone numbers, and addresses.

THE BID FOR PYONGYANG RECOGNITION

In December 2011, in an apparent attempt to seize control over the organization and become the only official organization supporting North Korea in the U.S., Joshua Sutter and James Porrazzo, used the RPP, New Resistance and another pro-Pyongyang group created using pseudonyms to attack the Pyongyang-recognized leadership of the North American Juche-Songun Ideas Study Group.

“The Juche movement in North America has been hampered in its development because of the study group’s former chairman John Paul Cupp’s deviationism from Kim Il Sungist Thought”

“A few weeks ago, a man using the name Tyler Moses formed a group calling itself the Juche Front this man was also an Aryan Nations figure and he claimed also to be a Hare Krishna and member of New Bihar Mandir, as part of our group’s routine background check for applying member candidates, we discovered the identity of New Bihar Mandir’s leader Shree Shree Kalika-Kalki Mandir was actually Sutter,” wrote the North American Juche Songun Study Group in December 2011.

The statement continued: “Over the past several years, the Juche movement in North America has been hampered in its development because of the study group’s former chairman John Paul Cupp’s deviationism from Kim Il Sungist Thought and his flirtations with anti-communist philosophies such as white nationalism.”

Cupp’s deviations “led him to bring many dangerous and suspect people into the group; two of these individuals were Joshua Caleb Sutter and James Porrazzo,” the statement said, referring to the former leader of the Aryan Nations and the former head of the American Front.

the fault for these matters rests solely upon John Paul Cupp and his adoption of a pro-white nationalist line; had he not done so James Porrazzo and Joshua Sutter would never once have ever been considered for a moment to be validly qualified to be members of this study group, from now on we will pursue a more vigilant anti-racist, anti-white nationalist policy.

The statement concluded “The North American Juche-Songun Ideas Study Group repeats and reaffirms our warning to all comrades and friends of the DPRK and Juche to avoid James Porrazzo and his New Resistance group.”

Porrazzo and Sutter lashed back, creating another front group, the Swords of Songun and went public with attacks on Tonis the same month.

Swords of Songun was a newly created pro-North Korean web page that posted propaganda it had obtained from the North Korean government describing itself as the journal of “Juche Truth, a North American National Revolutionary think-tank focusing on the study of Juche and Songun.”

But its sole posting was a vitriolic screed against Tonis titled “A warning to all Revolutionary friends of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Juche Thought: This silver spoon fed NYC metro-sexual exposed.” contending “Tonis’s true beliefs as the Manchukuo group is obsessively pro-Japan and anti-China, anti-communist (Tonis professes to be pro-Stalin and Mao to some he is spying on), anti-”racist” (Tonis also advocates racial separatism to others he spies on) and most disturbingly militantly anti-DPRK.”

Swords of Songun spewed venom at Tonis saying “He tongues the toes of the Japanese along with his Manchu reactionary cohorts as if they were his 55 year old tranny possible police contact / boy-girlfriend’s – then he attacks the Japanese attempting to curry favor and trust with the DPRK!” and threatened Tonis with death.

“Tonis went too far when he tried to infiltrate the New Resistance. In addition to whatever harm he has caused to the DPRK through his weekly contacts with DPRK representatives… turbulence was ignited between Juche Front and NR”

“After the Revolution he will answer for his crimes.”

New Resistance is a clandestine front organization controlled by James Porrazzo, and other veteran hard-core members of extreme right wing white supremacists that had their origins in the Aryan Nations and American Front of the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

The Swords of Songun website, aside from posting long sections of official North Korean propaganda detailing Juche ideology and praising the Kim dynasty, attacked the U.S. Songun Study Group and its leadership.”Jason-Adam Tonis…has repeatedly tried to drive a wedge between New Resistance and other revolutionaries  in North America and the Eurasian Movement led by Comrade Alexander Dugin. This will not continue. New Resistance urges all revolutionary organizations to break communication with Tonis and his fake Juche honey trap’s pig work.”

After the Revolution,” the article warned, “he will answer for his crimes.”

But the dissension within the U.S. group, not to mention the extreme racist and white supremacist public views of its top leaders, did not stop the North Korean government from heralding the U.S. figures in their official media.

On December 19, 2011 Kim Jong Il died.

One week later, the official North Korean state media said in an article headlined “Organizations of Foreign Countries Mourn Demise of Kim Jong Il” said that “Different organizations of the world sent letters… on Dec. 19 and 20, expressing profound condolences over the demise of leader Kim Jong Il.”

“They included,” the article said, “the North American Group for Study of the Juche, Songun Idea in the U.S. and the North American Committee against Zionism and Imperialism.”

EPILOUGE

The 2011 split amongst U.S. Juche supporters did not usher in a new harmony.

The U.S. Juche Study Group became wary of infiltrators. “Advocates of a global melting pot  may not find this the group for them. While parallels can be drawn between the Great Leaders’ ideas and those of third positionists, they are notoriously filled with police officers, would-be-terrorists and a whole host of other shady folks and we ask that if you’re a member of any of these types of groups, stay away from us.”

The most prominent advocate of third positionism, James Porrazzo, explained his political strategy in March 2013.

“We took from left-wing sources” and the “very influential ideology of ‘occult fascists’,” calling American Front “America’s first national ‘Skinhead’ organization.”

“We studied heavily the Islamic resistance movements” which “backfired on American Front when Sept 11th occurred” with “heavy state harassment severely limiting our ability to expand. By 2002 we voted to put American Front into ‘tactical hibernation’.”

In 2009, Porrazzo sabotaged rival “bandit groupings, disrupted it and reestablished American Front as a National Revolutionary movement.”

In March 2011, American Front leader David Lynch was assassinated and Porrazzo attempted to seize power. Law enforcement infiltrated the group and uncovered a muder plot against to Porrazzo by rivals “conspiring with (white power group) Combat 18.”

Porrazzo recruited American Front members to his New Resistance group promoting North Korea, racial separatism, and the overthrow of the U.S. government.

In May 2012, 14 American Front members were arrested plotting “race war” and charged with stockpiling weapons, paramilitary training using automatic weapons, and murders of political enemies.

Porrazzo’s rival’s sidelined, he disbanded the group and its website, directing to links  to New Resistance. FBI documents show Porrazzo  threatening challengers to  his leadership.

“We “cleared the slate” continuing our revolutionary efforts under a new banner…and New Resistance was born. Anyone claiming to be American Front is a renegade,” Porrazzo said in March 2013.

On March 16, 2013, the far right Russian Defense League named Porrazzo its “Ambassador” to the U.S.

May of 2012 also saw  renewed  infighting within the U.S. Songun Politics Study Group.

Despite Jason-Adam Tonis’s claim of  moving away from racist politics after taking over from the Muslim convert John Paul Cupp, private emails obtained by NK News show Tonis denigrating rival U.S. DPRK sympathizers as “all Jews or else fags.”

“Have you ever heard of a group called the American Front ? Sutter/Woods is now working with them,” Tonis wrote white supremacist Kevin Walsh. “I’ve made received “death threats…because I believe bloodline is the main determinant of nationality as Kim Jong Il postulated” adding “comrade Woods aka Joshua Sutter came back under a new alias and tried to steal control of the group by accusing me of being a CIA agent.”

Walsh replied “The WWP are a bunch of Jews” and “I can’t believe any thinking person would take “Woods” seriously. My advice is to cut off all relations with anyone who wants to work with Woods.  Those who want to work with him are either government agents or too fucking stupid to be of any use to you.”

However Walsh soon discovered Tonis’ claims of renouncing white supremacy. Walsh–a committed racial separatist and anti Semite–objected.

“I maintain that white nationalism is the correct interpretation of Juche for the European-American community and is in no way incompatible with communism.  The  Korean people in the north keep their blood pure, and so should the European-American people,” Walsh wrote. “Tonis didn’t have a problem with this in 2009. Whatever the ultimate cause of Cupp breaking with Tonis, it was not white nationalism. I support solidarity with the Korean people against imperialism, but I don’t knowingly work with liars, hypocrites,  fraudsters, and traitors. If the Korean people want to work with such people, more the fool they.”

Tonis replied to Walsh with a violent threat. “The Juche party is based on absolute unity around the Leader. As leader of the US study group I demand you submit to me and follow my orders. If not then, the next time I’m in Arizona, I’ll gladly crack your skull open.”

“I must make self-criticism for wasting too much time and been too patient with hypocrites and cowards. I am making an implied criticism of the Koreans for having such flakes as Cupp represent them in North America, but in their defense, they probably didn’t have a whole lot of volunteers come forward and couldn’t be terribly choosy. In any case, I wish the Korean people well, but I will sever all relations with this particular group.”

John Paul Cupp did not reply to messages seeking comment. Using the name Walid Cupp, he said. “I support the Korean [stance] against American Imperialism, but I have been a practicing Muslim for a few years now and no longer am directly involved.”

Jason-Adam Tonis responded to NK News interview requests for an saying “I’ve not been in good health lately and have been unable to reach a computer. Of course I would love and am always ready to talk about the DPRK and Americans such as myself who are supporters of it.” He did not  respond to further questions in a subsequent emails. Neither Joshua Sutter or James Porrazzo responded to messages left for them.

Source

V.I. Lenin on Religion

VladimirLeninStatueRussia_500

Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion. Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.”

– V.I. Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party Towards Religion”

[…] under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.”

– V.I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion”

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.”

– V.I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion”

“[Engels polemicized against those who] gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.”

– V.I. Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party Towards Religion”

“[…] Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government   jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The Russian revolution must put this demand into effect as a necessary component of political freedom. In this respect, the Russian revolution is in a particularly favourable position, since the revolting officialism of the police-ridden feudal autocracy has called forth discontent, unrest and indignation even among the clergy. However abject, however ignorant Russian Orthodox clergymen may have been, even they have now been awakened by the thunder of the downfall of the old, medieval order in Russia. Even they are joining in the demand for freedom, are protesting against bureaucratic practices and officialism, against the spying for the police imposed on the “servants of God”. We socialists must lend this movement our support, carrying the demands of honest and sincere members of the clergy to their conclusion, making them stick to their words about freedom, demanding that they should resolutely break all ties between religion and the police. Either you are sincere, in which case you must stand for the complete separation of Church and State and of School and Church, for religion to be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair. Or you do not accept these consistent demands for freedom, in which case you evidently are still held captive by the traditions of the inquisition, in which case you evidently still cling to your cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes, in which case you evidently do not believe in the spiritual power of your weapon and continue to take bribes from the state. And in that case the class-conscious workers of all Russia declare merciless war on you.”

– V.I. Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party Towards Religion”

Marx & Engels on Colonialism in India

“The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked”

The Future Results of the British Rule in India
New-York Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853

“However infamous the conduct of the sepoys [the native Indian troops rising up against colonial rule, who were accused of atrocities], it is only the reflex, in a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India, not only during the epoch of the foundation of her Eastern Empire, but even during the last ten years of a long-settled rule. To characterize that rule, it suffices to say that torture formed an organic institution of its financial policy. There is something in human history like retribution; and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself.”

The Indian Revolt
New-York Daily Tribune, September 16, 1857

“We have here given but a brief and mildly-colored chapter from the real history of British rule in India. In view of such facts, dispassionate and thoughtful men may perhaps be led to ask whether a people are not justified in attempting to expel the foreign conquerors who have so abused their subjects. And if the English could do these things in cold blood, is it surprising that the insurgent Hindus [Indians] should be guilty, in the fury of revolt and conflict, of the crimes and cruelties alleged against them?”

Investigation of Tortures in India
 New-York Daily Tribune, September 17, 1857

Marx and Engels opposed colonialist "justice," shown suppressing the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (or "Sepoy Mutiny") in this Punch cartoon

“I know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures. But when you have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it from its fabrication.[…] The railway-system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of modern industry. This is the more certain as the Hindus [Indians] are allowed by British authorities themselves to possess particular aptitude for accommodating themselves to entirely new labor, and acquiring the requisite knowledge of machinery.[…] Modern industry, resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labor, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power.

All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation?

The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus [Indians] themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether.”

The Indian Revolt
New-York Daily Tribune, September 16, 1857

By and by there will ooze out other facts able to convince even John Bull [Britain] himself that what he considers a military mutiny is in truth a national revolt.

Indian News
New-York Daily Tribune, August 14, 1857

[T]he cheapness of the articles produced by machinery, and the improved means of transport and communication furnish the weapons for conquering foreign markets. By ruining handicraft production in other countries, machinery forcibly converts them into fields for the supply of its raw material. In this way East India was compelled to produce cotton, wool, hemp, jute, and indigo for Great Britain. […] A new and international division of labour, a division suited to the requirements of the chief centres of modern industry springs up, and converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field.

Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt in New York
April 9, 1870

In India serious complications, if not a general outbreak, is in store for the British government. What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindus, pensions for military and civil service men, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc., etc. – what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England – it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the sixty millions of agricultural and industrial labourers of India! This is a bleeding process, with a vengeance! The famine years are pressing each other and in dimensions till now not yet suspected in Europe! There is an actual conspiracy going on wherein Hindus and Mussulmans co-operate; the British government is aware that something is “brewing,” but this shallow people (I mean the governmental men), stultified by their own parliamentary ways of talking and thinking, do not even desire to see clear, to realise the whole extent of the imminent danger! […] Tant mieux! [So much the better!]

Marx to Nikolai Danielson in St. Petersburg
February 19, 1881

You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies. In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied by a European population, Canada, the Cape, Australia, will all become independent; on the other hand the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply subjugated, India, Algiers, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions, must be taken over for the time being by the proletariat and led as rapidly as possible towards independence. How this process will develop is difficult to say. India will perhaps, indeed very probably, produce a revolution, and as the proletariat emancipating itself cannot conduct any colonial wars, this would have to be given full scope; it would not pass off without all sorts of destruction, of course, but that sort of thing is inseparable from all revolutions. The same might also take place elsewhere, e.g., in Algiers and Egypt, and would certainly be the best thing for us. We shall have enough to do at home. Once Europe is reorganised, and North America, that will furnish such colossal power and such an example that the semi-civilised countries will follow in their wake of their own accord. Economic needs alone will be responsible for this. But as to what social and political phases these countries will then have to pass through before they likewise arrive at socialist organisation, we to-day can only advance rather idle hypotheses, I think. One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive wars of various kinds.

Engels, Letter from Engels to Karl Kautsky In Vienna
London, 12 September, 1882