Disclaimer: Nothing within this page or on this site overall is the product of Panagiotis Kondylis's thought and work unless it is a faithful translation of something Kondylis wrote. Any conclusions drawn from something not written by Panagiotis Kondylis (in the form of an accurate translation) cannot constitute the basis for any valid judgement or appreciation of Kondylis and his work. (This disclaimer also applies, mutatis mutandis, to any other authors and thinkers linked or otherwise referred to, on and within all of this website).



For "'War and Politics': Clausewitz's position", scroll down!
NOW ONLINE!



BECAUSE THE NOTES TO THEORY OF WAR ARE VERY COMPREHENSIVE AS FAR AS NOTES GO, IT COULD BE THAT THE TRANSLATION OF THIS BOOK IS POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER 2040 - IF ALIVE AND ABLE...








EVERYBODY MUST OBEY, OBSERVE, FOLLOW AND ABIDE BY THE LAW.

DO NOT READ - EVER - MY COMMENTS OR NOTES. YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TIME.

NO POLITICAL AND OR OTHER NORMATIVE-IDEOLOGICAL PROGRAMME IS SUPPORTED - EVER - BY THIS SITE (APART FROM P.K.'S 1% OF HIS OEUVRE WHICH WAS DEDICATED TO THE QUESTION OF OUR PATRIA SURVIVING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T WANT TO DO SINCE IT'S ALREADY IN A COMA. ITS ELITES AND PEOPLE ARE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, AND ITS DEATH (BY COLLECTIVE SUICIDE CUM EUTHANASIA) IS NEARLY ABSOLUTELY COMPLETE).




"'War and Politics': Clausewitz's position"







[[This is a translation of the Greek text (appearing in Λεβιάθαν (= Leviathan) 15 (1994), Athens) by P.K. based on the German text taken from the book Theorie des Krieges. Clausewitz, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stuttgart 1988, pp. 11-32. The text here corresponds with much, but not absolutely all (e.g. some of the (not insignificant explanatory passages in the) footnotes are omitted), of Ch. 1, Part 2 »„Reiner“ und „wirklicher“ Krieg in anthropologischer und kulturphilosophischer Sicht« (= “‘Pure’ and ‘real’ war from the anthropological point of view and from the point of view pertaining to the philosophy of culture”), and, the first 5 pages of the 21 pages of Ch. 1, Part 3 »Krieg und Politik oder Gewalt und Macht« (= “War and politics or violence and power”). I did not, by and large, consult the German text for this translation. That will be done, obviously, if I ever get around to translating the whole German book Theorie des Krieges. Clausewitz, Marx, Engels, Lenin = Theory of War. Clausewitz, Marx, Engels, Lenin in full.]]

[[Readers are encouraged to read this text carefully - and even though I had already covered all the major points in the "Theory of War - Summary Notes", there's nothing like following the unfolding of P.K.'s thought from his actual words in their overall order. The greatest benefit will be had by those (if any) who have studied The Political and Man esp. the second half of Ch. 2 and Ch. 3, because e.g. one will be able to better understand how GREAT, TRULY GREAT, was Clausewitz's mind in not only pre-empting the Weberian ideal-type by some 80-100 years, but also how close the great military theorist's notion of "social union" comes to "the political" as expounded by P.K. in The Political and Man (which is grosso modo, mutatis mutandis, roughly, sort of, kind of, equivalent to the "politics" of Aristotle, which in turn is used by the Prussian) - but that's not all. So, TAKE YOUR TIME, study this very carefully, study The Political and Man very carefully, as well as Theory of War - Summary Notes, and obviously you'll learn nothing about how to fight one of today's wars if you are a military man, but you will expand your thinking about why humans fight wars and why wars are such a tragic - but unfortunately - ultimately - unavoidable part of human existence.]]

[[So, in summary, "politics" in the Aristotelian and Clausewitzian (and Tocquevillian (if I'm not mistaken) sense, broadly (for the most part) overlap with one another and with, or is roughly equivalent to, the notion of "social organisation" (or the Prussian's "social union" inclusive of "political communication"), and P.K.'s "the political" (though obviously the closer we examine these great thinkers' respective uses of the aforesaid terms, the more finer points of definitional distinction we shall (perhaps or probably) encounter, particularly in P.K.'s case where his definitions of both the social (society) and the (narrower than the social) political, and then politics (not as in the political or Aristotle's politics (“politics”, in the objective sense of public-political communication in the framework of a political community), but more in the narrower sense of party politics ("I am engaging in politics/politicking) in maintaining and or seeking a share of governing a polity), are very clear in The Political and Man. What is fascinating here also, is that when we come to a concept such as "democracy" we can see it clearly in ancient Greece and then in its meta-development in Hellenic Rome up to its final remnants under Ottoman-Barbarian/Animal-Mohammedan Rule in the 19th and early 20th century (Contogeorgis, who obviously never refers to Mohammedans as "animals" - that's me the CRAZY, MAD, LOONY satiricial-literary persona doing it), where "democracy" is actual democracy as social organisation, including the political and politics (in the narrower sense), and then we see in the West, "democracy" - after being roughly synonymous for a period of time in the 19th century with social democracy and even socialism - being heavily ideologised as a concept towards the end of the bourgeois parliamentary-oligarchic-capitalistic-liberal-European-colonialistic/imperialistic era when universal (male, then also female) suffrage arrived on the scene - (until then, the greats who referred to democracy (from Bodin and Spinoza to Montesquieu and Kant (if I'm not mistaken), et al.), by and large meant a polity that was very corrupt and abusive, and tended towards forms of ochlocracy) -, so that in the 20th century era until the present, P.K.'s social organisation-related ideal-typical concept of "mass democracy" (which sociologically also includes fascism/national-socialism and communism at its extreme ends in terms of atomising and massifying and urbanising and secularising and de-traditionalising etc., etc., etc., society), when compared to oligarchic bourgeois liberalism (say 16th century to 19th century) and societas civilis (= later-stage feudalism, say 9th/11th century to 15th century), gets confused with "democracy" and "liberal democracy". However, as I explained many times, those engaged in the science of historical concepts have a duty to get into all the "heavy details" and distinctions of what is being talked about, whereas for the purposes of most "discourses" in order to minimise confusion and keep things simple for readers, a bit or a lot of ideologisation does not go astray, and that's why - and I fully understand why - most people still talk about "democracy" and or "liberal democracy" when really they mean a mass democracy as a presidential and or prime-ministerial "electable monarchy" (Contogeorgis) and or (usually two or three) Party oligarchy, with some aspects of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers connected to parliament or congress, Voting usually every 3-5+ years, etc., intersecting with the Mass Media and State "educational" Indoctrination and Big Money Political Party Lobby Interest Group Donors, Hedonistic, fully Monetised "I shop "crap and shit" (= subjective value-judgement on my part!), therefore I am" Consumption, etc., etc., etc., which in a number of countries effectively means GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE accumulations, concentrations and crystal(lisation)s of ZIO-JOO-JEW-elite-level Banker-Financier-Corporations-Corporate-"Multi-nationals" Wealth and Power, along with the FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO LOBOTOMY (ZIO-JOO-and Protestant/Catholic/Atheist cock-sucking femino-fagottising propaganda) which inter alia purports that ZIO-JEWS are somehow "special" or "chosen", when in fact - subjectively seen as a matter of TASTE - they are the most filthy, disgusting, repugnant, reprehensible and vomit-inducing people ever known in and to the history of mankind, including in regard to their ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE OVER-depictions and OVER-portrayals of Holocaust-ZIO-JOO-FILTH in respect of SIX (6) million dead when more than 200 or 250 million (incl. tens and tens and tens of millions of whites incl. Orthodox Christians) non-JOO/ZIO innocents died in the 20th century, and not to mention the GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE through PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY NETWORKING Jewish JOO ZIO over-representation in a number of sectors in certain countries, from the Mass Media and Mass Entertainment, to Superior Courts of Record, Specialist Medicine, Elite University Professors and Students, Political (Policy) Influence, etc., etc., etc., (as well as all the ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC "THE HORROR, THE HORROR, THE HORROR" ZIO/USA-JOO-and friends of SATAN ("STAN")-SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY "OPEN SOCIETY" and "GLOBAL VILLAGE OF THE ONE ZIO-JOO WORLD" PROPAGANDA AND INVASION ASSISTANCE TO MOHAMMEDAN AND AFRICAN INVADERS INTO EUROPE WHEN ISRAEL "IT JUST HAPPENS" SHOULDN'T "OPEN SOCIETY"-DIE-VERSIFY-MULTI-CULTURALISE-MULTI-RACIALISE ITSELF WITH FULLY OPEN ZIO-LOVE-SATAN-"STAN" BORDERS FULLY OPEN TO SIX (6) (THAT'S A NICE NUMBER, ISN'T IT?) MILLION BEAUTIFUL BLACK AFRICANS AND HIGH-IQ MOHAMMEDANS - and whilst anyone can query the number of Greeks, Romans, Hellenes massacred in thousands of HOLOCAUSTS (= GREEK WORD!) and forcibly or more indirectly Musulman/Animal-converted and Anglo-ZIO/USA/etc.-migrated out of existence throughout the centuries and millennia (amounting to probably up to or more than 6-10 million), but it's illegal to investigate the ZIO-JOO FILTH. I wonder why?). In any event, Western "democracies" still to this day offer more individual freedoms (and higher material standards of living (following centuries of super-exploitation of (incl. millions and millions and millions of white) labour and natural resources, and all the industrial and technological innovation and entrepreneurial skills etc., etc., etc., achieved historically mostly by whites (= FACT))) to most (though not necessarily all) people on average, compared to far more authoritarian regimes based more on "harder forms of power and hegemony" than on "softer forms of power and hegemony" (and which (that is, the far more authoritarian regimes of "harder forms of power and hegemony") are generally far more authoritarian and heavy-handed for very specific, concrete historical reasons, such as FIGHTING HARD to shrug off up to centuries of WhiteDevilEvil(incl. JOO international banking-financing-usury/(slave/opium)trading)Man Hegemony - apart from all the troubles, in certain countries and regions, with Mohammedan Ultra-Animal-Barbarian Savagery (which of course has not in the least been the only kind of savagery in history, but proportionately has nonetheless been very prominent, including the massacres and forced and more indirect conversions of tens and tens and tens of millions (Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, et al.) throughout Central Asia and Persia/Iran, Afghanistan etc., the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, up to Asia Minor and Southern Europe, etc.), AND, apart from all the inherited political cultures which have usually always better suited collective sensibilities and collective identities and the need for social ORDER, social COHESION and social DISCIPLINING, incl. the social phenomenon which the Great (non-flying) Godfather of modern Sociology Baron and others referred to as "oriental despotism".]]  



Make a free website with Yola