ArisVelouchiotis posted:

the guy who wrote this song, ewan maccoll, also wrote "the ballad of ho chi minh," a standard in vietnam. it all ties together

kfVsGapy5vQ
9q7spvl8x4c

hell yeah

Petrol posted:

some decent agitprop around my way.

that looks like papyrus font

aerdil posted:

https://careers.state.gov/uploads/da/75/da754d680e1af3a743f049f08796aead/Updated_FSOT_Reading_List_Aug2013.pdflol

Haha @ an atlas

aerdil posted:

https://careers.state.gov/uploads/da/75/da754d680e1af3a743f049f08796aead/Updated_FSOT_Reading_List_Aug2013.pdflol

haha damn

conec posted:

are her eyebrows photoshopped on

I'd like to believe that but the cover looks like it was made in mspaint

Just got this in the mail, v excited

Serong was seconded to the CIA in vietnam as a counterinsurgency adviser. He continued after that as a RAND consultant. He was close friends with B.A. Santamaria, infamous Australian head of Catholic Action who was pretty much single handedly responsible for destroying any real leftist influence in the major unions and the Labor Party. Serong was heavily involved in the World Anti Communist League through the 70s and 80s. I'm going to enjoy this book. Thank you

Let’s start with a simple question: how does a partisan determine who their enemy is? For the autochthonous defenders of the homeland this is relatively straightforward. In the case of the Spanish guerrilleros battling Napoleon’s army, the partisan was simply defending their homeland, their soil, their people and the enemy was the invader, the other. For the global revolutionary, the situation is a bit more complex, but Schmitt claims that it was Lenin’s cognizance of the enemy and his ability to clearly articulate this that was the secret of his enormous effectiveness. Not being able to determine friend from enemy is disastrous. It threatens the very concept of the political, which is not merely about martial conflict but the ability of a group to collectively identify their friends and enemies.

The political does not reside in the battle itself, which possesses its own technical, psychological, and military laws, but in the mode of behaviour which is determined by this possibility, by clearly evaluating the concrete situation and thereby being able to distinguish correctly the real friend and the real enemy.

This does not mean that any two groups can “objectively” be each other’s enemy—“each participant is in a position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence”—but how can this be determined with anything approaching certainty under the integrated spectacle?

chickeon posted:

Yeah that was easily one of the better things to come out of the Jacobin shithouse in a while, despite the requisite hand wringing over STALINDEATH. ill touch a poop if they ever publish anything that comes close to tackling that particular area of historical revisionism

hell, I'll be right there with you, touching a poop, if that happens