As with any mythological symbol, the ‘Trident’ of Ukraine is full of ‘pre-history’ – most of it made-up, false, or deliberately fabricated and misleading. Although there is no archaeological evidence, Ukrainian nationalistic history (which attempts to construct a Ukrainian identity that is separate and distinct from Slavic Russian), paints a picture of exotic origins! This symbol is nothing less than the trident of the Greek god Poseidon! If this ‘origin story’ is correct, then the Ukrainians, despite being the obvious (and scientifically proven) descendants of marauding Scandinavians (exactly the same as their Russian neighbours), are nothing less than the modern survivors of a colony of ‘White’, and ‘European’ Greeks who settled in the area around two thousand years ago! The fact that Ancient (and Classical) Greeks were Southern Europeans who routinely ‘mixed’ with Middle Eastern and Asian people (hence their ‘olive’ complexion) appears lost on on these Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. Here, we start to see the ‘irrationality’ of Eurocentric racism.Origin of the ‘Trident’ Emblem of Ukraine
NED’s history should lead to it being renamed the “National Endowment for Attacking Democracy,” as journalist Stephen Kinzer suggests.If the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Is Subverting Democracy—Why Aren’t Some of the Left Media Calling It Out?
J. Sakai offers an anti-worker analysis of revolution. Fred Hampton offered us an alternative we must learn from.The Anti-Marxist Elitism of J. Sakai’s ‘Settlers’
Building on your observations – that there has been some kind of ongoing voting fraud in the US – you are correct but perhaps not in a manner not quite as you intended. Liberal democracy is a fraudulent method of governance devised by the bourgeoisie to maintain its control of the means of production, and therefore control of the political process which controls society. Within this context – the liberal democratic is ‘fair’ – but only ‘fair’ when viewed from within the context of its own inherent ‘inequality’. This corrupt system is designed so that its self-defence mechanisms function so as to ‘limit’ the political freedom of the workers. How so?
So who is this responsible for this blatantly impossible assertion about Stalin? It was the son of a Trotskyist. Antonov-Ovseyenko was a Trotskyist who tried to use his military position to aid Trotsky take over the party in the USSR.
The bourgeois scholars in the West all clamored to support Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko’s book. The endorsements on his book jacket read like a who’s who of anti-Soviet propaganda. The book received an introduction and praise by Stephen F. Cohen, Princeton professor and darling of the social-democrats and revisionists for his sympathetic biography of N. Bukharin and political opposition to the Cold War. The other endorsers include democratic socialist Irving Howe, cold warrior and bourgeois scholar Robert Conquest, Robert G. Kaiser, Leonard Schapiro, Harrison Salisbury and of course the New Republic, which called it “the most important book to have come out of the Soviet experience since Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.” From this we can see how much credibility the mainstream discussion of Stalin deserves–none.