We have seen how the Bolsheviks in Russia repressed the grassroots revolutionary movement and imposed a centralised authoritarian regime that declared war on small farmers and hitherto independent individuals, turning most of the population into powerless slaves to a giant industrial machine.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power." George Orwell (1984)
"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell (1984)
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." Lord Acton
While I agree with all of them, with regards to the first of your five global-mafia-project-countering "if we:" 's, to wit, "i. Prioritise decentralisation of power and promote the principle that this process should be continued to the lowest possible level, thus reversing the current power structure and restoring decision-making to the people.", there is the serious problem of the criminocracy's communitarian model false-bottom-up-consensus strategy.
It should be possible to distinguish fake bottom-up consensus from the real thing, once one is aware of the manipulation. They clearly do not actually intend to decentralise anything!
It is my impression that while people like Mark Windows, Sandi Adams and the late Rosa Koire have been sounding the alarm for many years now, the percentage of the population that is awake to the "communitarian model" deception is still very small.
Off topic Paul but have you seen the Great NHS documentary? 8 mins. in was a light bulb moment for me having recently finished reading your essay about the Rothschilds.
Thanks, Ian. I hadn't, but I just checked out the section you mention (and will watch the rest later!). It's great that they mention the Rothschilds' role! Hopefully people are now waking up to what this nefarious gang have been doing (mostly in secret).
Accept the premise that all government is a false flag, any type any time. Work back from there. History proves this is so. If government worked to the benefit of the citizen (slaves), after 5,000 years at least few countries would be totally free where the citizen would be top dog.
I was right with you with every word (it's certainly how I feel about Marx, and would say he was an infiltrator/spy for the bankers and industrialists right from the start) - up to the point where you issued your 4 demands.
The first one, decentralisation, I can definitely go with.
The other three, which essentially amount to dismantling progress, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I am not in love with nature myself and live a lovely rural existence, no, not that. But I think you are making the classic mistake of being unable to separate the neutral technological progress from the 'bad guys' who control it. Take nuclear fission, for example - in the hands of the right people this can provide free energy to everyone - thus, ironically, it being free, liberates everyone.
Likewise the Internet. It's not the Internet's fault it's controlled by bad guys, is it?
And most importantly the 'central bank' - you are kind of suggesting that a central bank is 'unavoidably' controlled by 'the parasite class'. But why should that be so? Is it not possible to find some good people to control it and make sure everyone has enough money?! Or is that beyond the wit of humanity? (especially if you have decentralised branches, all linked together, but each of which is controlled by the local community).
What about all the wonders of the future, like interstellar travel? That requires very great cooperative projects, a burgeoning education, university, and research infrastructure, and so on. Why should all those people who would love to see such a beautiful future and be part of an interstellar community of civilisations be denied such wonders because you 'demand we dismantle progress and technology and force everyone back to living simple peasant existences'? Isn't this just the mirror image of what the Marxists and communists were saying?
I think humanity is capable of great things - and your demands would prevent that. And forcing them on everyone is the anathema of anarchism - which is about freedom.
So this would conflict with your demand no. 4, which is the autonomous freedom to choose - well what if I and my friends, my community, choose to pursue beautiful advanced technologies for the benefit of all? Will you prohibit my community from using digital platforms and central bank issued currency, even if it's the people, not the state, who own that currency supply? What if my brother or sister doesn't want to be forced to work the land? What if they are rubbish at it! Didn't the Bolsheviks force highly skilled and educated engineers to sweep factory floors?
Then there's culture - how can everyone partake in culture if we've cut off global communications and there aren't any drama schools anymore?
And so on, and so on.
I think it's perfectly possible to have a system which accommodates both those who wish to live rural lives and those who wish to embrace a utopian advanced tech future. It's not either or.
The problem, as I have suggested lots of times, is the monsters themselves, not the neutral unconscious 'stuff', like technology and money and so on. Remove the monsters and we can have any society we wish. Or, better still, a variety of societies, then everyone gets the freedom to choose which kind of socio-cultural environment they want to live in.
So whilst I agree with the sentiment behind your 4 demands, I really think you should iron out the contradictions and find different wording for them. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to take offence, be turned off, and portray you as, horror of horrors, a Marxist in disguise... And I know that's not what you are!
Hardly "Marxist in disguise"... Marx was a proponent of industrialism! That's what the essay is saying, that communism was/is another way of imposing "development" (exploitation and destruction) on people against their will. Not the only way, of course, and unfortunately you seem to have fallen for all the global industrialist propaganda about "good" technololgy, space travel etc. Technology - Technik - is nothing other than a means of enslaving the vast majority of humankind in the interests of the global mafia. I'd recommend reading my essay "A developing evil' to better understand this vile agenda. https://winteroak.org.uk/2022/08/02/a-developing-evil-the-malignant-historical-force-behind-the-great-reset/
Sorry - a better thought. Because I have been doing a bit of devil's advocate here (I admit it!).
I should've added that I do, in fact, completely agree with you about the best way for human beings to live being in small, autonomous communities and practicing artisanship and holistic natural living. I totally agree largely because of my knowledge of anthropology, evolution, neuroscience (Dunbar's number etc.) and psychology. Human beings evolved to be best adapted to life in small autonomous communities (in which bad guys just get ostracised because they can't disguise themselves - they are quickly detected as socially disruptive and removed).
Likewise, 'heavy industry' has certainly been used for exploitative purposes. But I am interested to know where you draw the line with regards to technology. Remember that technology is, at heart, just 'toolmaking'. So where's the permitted threshold? How about axes and bows and arrows?
If you had a time machine, would you travel back 50k years to ice age Europe and tell those small, autonomous, anarcho-socialist communities that they are no longer allowed to have bows and arrows because at some point in the future some bad guys are going to use that technology to make wars and kill people and enforce a statist society on them? Clearly, despite having the same basic kind of technology (hand-held weaponry) as the Roman Empire did, those million humans who lived in Europe in the ice age never created statism. And that's human nature. That's why I say it's not tech, but the 'nature' of the bad guys to use, or misuse tech for enslavement. They don't behave like normal human beings.
Likewise, during the Roman Empire there were, indeed, small scale communities practicing holistic living but then along came the Roman army and we know the rest. So how do we stop the likes of fascists like the Romans from doing the same thing, without taking away pretty much 50k years' worth of technology?
Here's a cool thought experiment: Supposing I installed you, Paul, in control over the central bank/money supply (Bank of England, say), having scooped up the Rothschilds and put them in the stocks (I'd also ensure a constant of supply of rotten tomatoes - call it bread and circuses). I am willing to bet every last cent I have that you would not suddenly use your new found power to instigate a war, perpetuate it, profit from it, gather together a group of narcissistic sociopaths and call them the Tory party and install them as your gilded puppet government. I would imagine you would cancel everyone's debt, print a load of money and distribute it to the poor, shut down all the arms manufacturers and pharma companies (or give them to the people, perhaps) and do a whole load of other great stuff. I seriously doubt you would be instantly corrupted simply by virtue of suddenly owning a printing press.
So whilst I totally agree that the bad guys, who control technological development now, are using it for their own purposes, it is not the tech itself that is the problem - removing the tech doesn't remove the bad guys. The only solution is to remove them. Then we, decent people, get to use that tech for good. Technik is, yes, the 'means' as you say - but Technik doesn't do it autonomously. It's not conscious. It's just a machine that needs to be switched on and used or misused, according to the whim of the owner/controller. So, logically, remove those owners.
Yes, perhaps then if that happened people would abandon high tech stuff. But there would be those who remember it, and mourn its loss. I enjoy understanding the cosmos, for example, and would be very unhappy without a telescope.
For the vast majority of human beings, yes, they are evolved to live in fairly low tech, small communities. That would make them happy. But how do we maintain that system? How do we prevent a new order of criminocrats from conspiring together, developing statist ideologies and imposing them on the people and just endlessly repeating this cycle of enslavement followed by revolution and a thousand years of simpler life followed by a new order of monsters followed by revolution and so on and so on? That, I say, is the truly key question here. We need to focus on them, their character, not on the 'tools' they use - that could be construed as a misdirection.
Final question: What is the lowest level of technology required/permitted to remove the technological means for the bad guys to create statism and enslavement? Given it happened 5,000 years ago?
Obviously tools like bows and arrows are not the same as factories and the rest of the industrial infrastructure. They are not means of exploitation of others' labour. Regarding your question about how a future society could avoid the same fate, I think the ethos and spiritual beliefs of our communities are key. We need to learn the lesson of what has happened to us and embed in our thinking, everywhere, in different ways no doubt, the wisdom that we will not allow small groups of ruthless people to control us. Part of this would be the conviction that we would naturally give everything, sacrifice our lives if necessary, to prevent this from happening. The industrial age would remain in the collective memory as a dark warning as to what could happen if ever we lowered our guard. Personally, I think this industrial hell was a one-off historical disaster and if ever we get out of it intact, it will never emerge again.
I agree about having people remember the lessons of what happened and preserving this in such a way to ostracise bad people almost as a kind of sacred duty - which is where mythos comes in of course. I think I mentioned in a comment on another (I think it was your latest) post about how important it is to record and preserve history and have an Archive.
So I completely agree with you about the community beliefs. Couching it in a mythos or cultural history is a very good way of doing this.
Hmm. I just had a revised thought which is that maybe I/we are getting mixed up between 'industrial' technology (large scale) and smaller, individual and holistic forms of technology.
Technology itself, I say, does not automatically lead to enslavement. Tech doesn't enslave people, people enslave people. Same thing as 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. My point is that it's possible to have benevolent people in charge of technology, in which case all of it is actually liberating, not enslaving.
We, for example, are using advanced technology right now to communicate. Yes, the Internet has been used for malevolent purposes, but we can also use it for good purposes, to bring people together and educate each other.
If we say that technology always leads to corruption (for want of a better word) then that's a really denigrating thing to say about humanity, that they are essentially not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to avoid corruption. But I think human beings can be better than that (especially with the right education and benevolent leaders and a stress free life and so on).
If I am going to get mystical about it, I would talk about 'Atlantis' and how they maintained a high tech utopia simply by ostracising bad guys, so no corruption, so the tech was always used for benevolent purposes, and at the same time they were able to maintain a beautiful, holistic and spiritual life in harmony with nature...
''After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l'Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”....''
Excellent summary!
Reading this piece, a few quotes came to mind:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power." George Orwell (1984)
"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell (1984)
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." Lord Acton
While I agree with all of them, with regards to the first of your five global-mafia-project-countering "if we:" 's, to wit, "i. Prioritise decentralisation of power and promote the principle that this process should be continued to the lowest possible level, thus reversing the current power structure and restoring decision-making to the people.", there is the serious problem of the criminocracy's communitarian model false-bottom-up-consensus strategy.
It should be possible to distinguish fake bottom-up consensus from the real thing, once one is aware of the manipulation. They clearly do not actually intend to decentralise anything!
It is my impression that while people like Mark Windows, Sandi Adams and the late Rosa Koire have been sounding the alarm for many years now, the percentage of the population that is awake to the "communitarian model" deception is still very small.
Off topic Paul but have you seen the Great NHS documentary? 8 mins. in was a light bulb moment for me having recently finished reading your essay about the Rothschilds.
Thanks, Ian. I hadn't, but I just checked out the section you mention (and will watch the rest later!). It's great that they mention the Rothschilds' role! Hopefully people are now waking up to what this nefarious gang have been doing (mostly in secret).
Accept the premise that all government is a false flag, any type any time. Work back from there. History proves this is so. If government worked to the benefit of the citizen (slaves), after 5,000 years at least few countries would be totally free where the citizen would be top dog.
The irony of the bolshevik revolution was that before it, the people actually had the power under the czar in a semi anarchist system.
The royalty lived in luxury but they were indebted to the people.
The people ran the production... Hmm where did we hear that from? 😂
I was right with you with every word (it's certainly how I feel about Marx, and would say he was an infiltrator/spy for the bankers and industrialists right from the start) - up to the point where you issued your 4 demands.
The first one, decentralisation, I can definitely go with.
The other three, which essentially amount to dismantling progress, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I am not in love with nature myself and live a lovely rural existence, no, not that. But I think you are making the classic mistake of being unable to separate the neutral technological progress from the 'bad guys' who control it. Take nuclear fission, for example - in the hands of the right people this can provide free energy to everyone - thus, ironically, it being free, liberates everyone.
Likewise the Internet. It's not the Internet's fault it's controlled by bad guys, is it?
And most importantly the 'central bank' - you are kind of suggesting that a central bank is 'unavoidably' controlled by 'the parasite class'. But why should that be so? Is it not possible to find some good people to control it and make sure everyone has enough money?! Or is that beyond the wit of humanity? (especially if you have decentralised branches, all linked together, but each of which is controlled by the local community).
What about all the wonders of the future, like interstellar travel? That requires very great cooperative projects, a burgeoning education, university, and research infrastructure, and so on. Why should all those people who would love to see such a beautiful future and be part of an interstellar community of civilisations be denied such wonders because you 'demand we dismantle progress and technology and force everyone back to living simple peasant existences'? Isn't this just the mirror image of what the Marxists and communists were saying?
I think humanity is capable of great things - and your demands would prevent that. And forcing them on everyone is the anathema of anarchism - which is about freedom.
So this would conflict with your demand no. 4, which is the autonomous freedom to choose - well what if I and my friends, my community, choose to pursue beautiful advanced technologies for the benefit of all? Will you prohibit my community from using digital platforms and central bank issued currency, even if it's the people, not the state, who own that currency supply? What if my brother or sister doesn't want to be forced to work the land? What if they are rubbish at it! Didn't the Bolsheviks force highly skilled and educated engineers to sweep factory floors?
Then there's culture - how can everyone partake in culture if we've cut off global communications and there aren't any drama schools anymore?
And so on, and so on.
I think it's perfectly possible to have a system which accommodates both those who wish to live rural lives and those who wish to embrace a utopian advanced tech future. It's not either or.
The problem, as I have suggested lots of times, is the monsters themselves, not the neutral unconscious 'stuff', like technology and money and so on. Remove the monsters and we can have any society we wish. Or, better still, a variety of societies, then everyone gets the freedom to choose which kind of socio-cultural environment they want to live in.
So whilst I agree with the sentiment behind your 4 demands, I really think you should iron out the contradictions and find different wording for them. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to take offence, be turned off, and portray you as, horror of horrors, a Marxist in disguise... And I know that's not what you are!
Hardly "Marxist in disguise"... Marx was a proponent of industrialism! That's what the essay is saying, that communism was/is another way of imposing "development" (exploitation and destruction) on people against their will. Not the only way, of course, and unfortunately you seem to have fallen for all the global industrialist propaganda about "good" technololgy, space travel etc. Technology - Technik - is nothing other than a means of enslaving the vast majority of humankind in the interests of the global mafia. I'd recommend reading my essay "A developing evil' to better understand this vile agenda. https://winteroak.org.uk/2022/08/02/a-developing-evil-the-malignant-historical-force-behind-the-great-reset/
Sorry - a better thought. Because I have been doing a bit of devil's advocate here (I admit it!).
I should've added that I do, in fact, completely agree with you about the best way for human beings to live being in small, autonomous communities and practicing artisanship and holistic natural living. I totally agree largely because of my knowledge of anthropology, evolution, neuroscience (Dunbar's number etc.) and psychology. Human beings evolved to be best adapted to life in small autonomous communities (in which bad guys just get ostracised because they can't disguise themselves - they are quickly detected as socially disruptive and removed).
Likewise, 'heavy industry' has certainly been used for exploitative purposes. But I am interested to know where you draw the line with regards to technology. Remember that technology is, at heart, just 'toolmaking'. So where's the permitted threshold? How about axes and bows and arrows?
If you had a time machine, would you travel back 50k years to ice age Europe and tell those small, autonomous, anarcho-socialist communities that they are no longer allowed to have bows and arrows because at some point in the future some bad guys are going to use that technology to make wars and kill people and enforce a statist society on them? Clearly, despite having the same basic kind of technology (hand-held weaponry) as the Roman Empire did, those million humans who lived in Europe in the ice age never created statism. And that's human nature. That's why I say it's not tech, but the 'nature' of the bad guys to use, or misuse tech for enslavement. They don't behave like normal human beings.
Likewise, during the Roman Empire there were, indeed, small scale communities practicing holistic living but then along came the Roman army and we know the rest. So how do we stop the likes of fascists like the Romans from doing the same thing, without taking away pretty much 50k years' worth of technology?
Here's a cool thought experiment: Supposing I installed you, Paul, in control over the central bank/money supply (Bank of England, say), having scooped up the Rothschilds and put them in the stocks (I'd also ensure a constant of supply of rotten tomatoes - call it bread and circuses). I am willing to bet every last cent I have that you would not suddenly use your new found power to instigate a war, perpetuate it, profit from it, gather together a group of narcissistic sociopaths and call them the Tory party and install them as your gilded puppet government. I would imagine you would cancel everyone's debt, print a load of money and distribute it to the poor, shut down all the arms manufacturers and pharma companies (or give them to the people, perhaps) and do a whole load of other great stuff. I seriously doubt you would be instantly corrupted simply by virtue of suddenly owning a printing press.
So whilst I totally agree that the bad guys, who control technological development now, are using it for their own purposes, it is not the tech itself that is the problem - removing the tech doesn't remove the bad guys. The only solution is to remove them. Then we, decent people, get to use that tech for good. Technik is, yes, the 'means' as you say - but Technik doesn't do it autonomously. It's not conscious. It's just a machine that needs to be switched on and used or misused, according to the whim of the owner/controller. So, logically, remove those owners.
Yes, perhaps then if that happened people would abandon high tech stuff. But there would be those who remember it, and mourn its loss. I enjoy understanding the cosmos, for example, and would be very unhappy without a telescope.
For the vast majority of human beings, yes, they are evolved to live in fairly low tech, small communities. That would make them happy. But how do we maintain that system? How do we prevent a new order of criminocrats from conspiring together, developing statist ideologies and imposing them on the people and just endlessly repeating this cycle of enslavement followed by revolution and a thousand years of simpler life followed by a new order of monsters followed by revolution and so on and so on? That, I say, is the truly key question here. We need to focus on them, their character, not on the 'tools' they use - that could be construed as a misdirection.
Final question: What is the lowest level of technology required/permitted to remove the technological means for the bad guys to create statism and enslavement? Given it happened 5,000 years ago?
Obviously tools like bows and arrows are not the same as factories and the rest of the industrial infrastructure. They are not means of exploitation of others' labour. Regarding your question about how a future society could avoid the same fate, I think the ethos and spiritual beliefs of our communities are key. We need to learn the lesson of what has happened to us and embed in our thinking, everywhere, in different ways no doubt, the wisdom that we will not allow small groups of ruthless people to control us. Part of this would be the conviction that we would naturally give everything, sacrifice our lives if necessary, to prevent this from happening. The industrial age would remain in the collective memory as a dark warning as to what could happen if ever we lowered our guard. Personally, I think this industrial hell was a one-off historical disaster and if ever we get out of it intact, it will never emerge again.
I agree about having people remember the lessons of what happened and preserving this in such a way to ostracise bad people almost as a kind of sacred duty - which is where mythos comes in of course. I think I mentioned in a comment on another (I think it was your latest) post about how important it is to record and preserve history and have an Archive.
So I completely agree with you about the community beliefs. Couching it in a mythos or cultural history is a very good way of doing this.
Hmm. I just had a revised thought which is that maybe I/we are getting mixed up between 'industrial' technology (large scale) and smaller, individual and holistic forms of technology.
Technology itself, I say, does not automatically lead to enslavement. Tech doesn't enslave people, people enslave people. Same thing as 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. My point is that it's possible to have benevolent people in charge of technology, in which case all of it is actually liberating, not enslaving.
We, for example, are using advanced technology right now to communicate. Yes, the Internet has been used for malevolent purposes, but we can also use it for good purposes, to bring people together and educate each other.
If we say that technology always leads to corruption (for want of a better word) then that's a really denigrating thing to say about humanity, that they are essentially not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to avoid corruption. But I think human beings can be better than that (especially with the right education and benevolent leaders and a stress free life and so on).
If I am going to get mystical about it, I would talk about 'Atlantis' and how they maintained a high tech utopia simply by ostracising bad guys, so no corruption, so the tech was always used for benevolent purposes, and at the same time they were able to maintain a beautiful, holistic and spiritual life in harmony with nature...
To eliminate the global mafia you might have to eradicate the entire species.🤔
''After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l'Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”....''
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm