Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old May 5th, 2015 #1
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default On Ba'athism

On Ba’athism — Part I — Origins and Beliefs
May 5, 2015 in Commentary

Ba’athism has no founding moment, but rather grew out of the writings of three Arab nationalist thinkers in the early 20th Century who founded their own individual movements that later coalesced into a unified, pan-Arab nationalist movement. Michel Aflaq of Iraq and a Greek Orthodox Christian, Zaki al-Arsuzi of Syria and Salah al-Din al-Bitar of Syria and a Sunni Muslim who worked with al-Arsuzi to found the Syrian Ba’ath Party.

Their ideas emerged in the context of both Ottoman and European occupation of Arab lands and synthesized with the emerging forces of 20th Century ideologies of Fascism and Socialism. It was the first wave of Third World liberation movements that would overtake the European empires in the later half of the 20th Century, however unlike the African movements, Ba’athism emerged with one of the most coherent and effective ideologies.

Ba’athism is often greatly misunderstood by many commentators in the West, who often believe that anything that is from the Middle East, must automatically something jihadist related. Yet Ba’athism seeks to transcend the purely Islamist view of history and theology. Ba’athism, or al-ba’ath in Arabic means “resurrection” or “renaissance” and the movement was seeking to establish ethnic Arab liberation against the foreign Turkic and European forces that were alien to the Arab lands and bring about a revival of the great Arab culture. Prior to World War I, the Ottoman Empire was the center of the Islamic caliphate and strictly speaking a theocracy, that Arab nationalists, were opposed to.

Therefore, Ba’athism and the Ba’ath Party sought to bring unity and revival to all forms of Arab history and identity which includes the Christian heritage of Arabs that existed before the advent of Islam.

It well known that many Ba’athist thinkers and leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, were influenced by the Nazis and National Socialist thought, yet Ba’athism should not be confused with National Socialism. Other than certain economic ideas and a mutual hatred of the Jews, the two ideologies are actually quite different. Whereas Nazism sought to empower the Aryan race in order to expand outward and take away from the undeserving and inferior, Ba’athism was the inverse of National Socialism in that it sought to use nationalism as a means of liberation from external forces.

The motto of Ba’athism is “Unity, Liberty, Socialism” which contains many of the ideological components of leftism, which was not uncommon among anti-colonial movements, yet it retained the “trappings” of Fascism. Unity of the Arab peoples, liberation from foreign occupation and anti-capitalism in the form of not being trapped in the Western economic-financial matrix was the objective.

Ba’athism though, as in almost every ideological movement, could not be satisfied with only one brand. Since the 1960s, the movement has been split between Syrian and Iraqi factions. First split came in 1966 when the military of Syria launched a coup against the civilian control of Aflak and Bitar and the debate then became about structural organization. The Iraqis demanded that the Syrians form their party as it was originally intended, to be ruled by civilians to keep the Baath Party populist in nature. There were then subsequent attempts at reconciliation, especially under Saddam’s Iraq, but nothing ever came of attempts at reunion.

Gamel Abdal Naser of Egypt was viewed as a unifying figure thanks to his role in the Suez Crisis and bringing about the short-lived existence of the United Arab Republic (UAR) of Egypt and Syria (1958-1961) that was supposed to include Iraq, however the UAR was viewed as a strategic threat to Jordan, and Jordan sought to unite Iraq and Jordan together against the UAR.

In Iraq, a massive political schism between the Hashemite royalists, who were loyal to British rule and influence, came into conflict against Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athists. Later Saddam Hussein, working in connection with the CIA, launched a coup against the monarchy and established Iraq as a Ba’athist state.

Over time, Iraqi Ba’athism under Saddam adopted a much for right-wing tone, of vehement anti-Communism, mainly in its never ending war against the Kurds who were largely Communist-based. It is at this moment that the Iraqi Ba’athists began working with the CIA and Saddam eventually getting his chemical weapons from the US government that he used against the Kurds and Iranians. In contrast were the Syrians who viewed themselves as staying more true to the orthodox creed of pan-Arabism and socialism, in contrast to Iraq’s Iraqi-first Arab socialist views.

Further exacerbating the tensions between Syrian and Iraqi Ba’athism was Saddam’s purges of the Iraqi Ba’athist Party of any orthodox sympathizers and anyone opposed to his rule and Iraqi-first Ba’athism. This then culminated in the final split, when the Iran-Iraq War began in 1979, Syria sided with jihadist Iran against Saddam Hussein and this relationship was never repaired, even to the point of Syria participating in the 1991 war against Saddam Hussein and not opposing the second US war against Saddam Hussein in 2003.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the removal of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt all that remains is what is left of Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Though Assad has proven to be far more resilient against the Western backed insurgency than was originally thought possible, the insurgency is still far from over, and if Assad does win, his regime will never return to its original level of power and influence.

http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/05/baathism-1/
 
Old May 9th, 2015 #2
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

On Ba’athism — Part II — Ideology in Practice
May 7, 2015 in Commentary

Though Ba’athism barely remains, it had a number of successes before collapsing.

First, it succeeded in liberating the Arab lands from Western occupation, for the most part. While Saudi Arabia remains a proxy of the Americans and Palestine is occupied by Israel, Arab nationalists largely succeeded in kicking the French out of Syria and Lebanon, and the British out of Iraq and Egypt.

Secondly, Ba’athism suffocated Salafism, Wahabism and other forms of jihadism in the Middle East. It was not until the Iranian Revolution that jihadism finally had a base to operate out of. keeps repeating this, why?

Thirdly, Ba’athism developed Arab societies that were on the path to industrialization and modern infrastructures and economies that were not agrarian, thereby launching the Arab world into the modern global economy.

Lastly, Ba’athism assisted in the preservation of Christianity in the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarak were still in power, the slaughter of Christians in Iraq, Syria and Egypt would not be occurring. Ba’athism provided an ideological framework in the Middle East for Christians to coexist with Arab Muslims and also took away an impetus for Saddam or Mubarak to harass or persecute Christians. For Saddam, Assad and Mubarak, retaining control was the primary goal, and jihadists who caused strife by attacking Christians were made examples of.

Ba’athism failed to properly articulate the distinction between socialism and Marxism. Michel Aflaq rejected Communism and Marx’s dialectical materialism, yet that was never enough to stop the peasant orientation of the Syrian revolution and what became Syrian Ba’athism. Furthermore, the natural alliance of the Ba’athists in the beginning to draw close to the Soviet Union against the West and the US backed Persian Shah of Iran inevitably drew the Ba’athists to become more engrained in their ideological socialism, even if it was not prudent. Hence Saddam’s move to the right, working with the CIA in order to fight Kurdish Communists, Iranian jihadists and export petroleum to the West, cannot be condemned, as ultimately, a pan-Arab vision that unites around something as abstract as Socialism was doomed to failure from the beginning. Whether it was demagoguery, the realities of economics, or simply different visions of Ba’athism, ultimately its disunity was exacerbated by the various jihadist and secularist forces of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the West, that eventually turned in on the Ba’athists.

Ba’athism’s demise was due to its failure to fully unify the Arab identity and to stave off Israeli and American influence and attacks. Once Egypt was at peace with Israel and Syria and Iraq were irreconcilable, Ba’athism simply became a means for Mubarak, Assad and Saddam to retain power in their fading regimes, as Saudi Arabia and Iran began exporting various forms of jihadist thought that has now all but replaced Ba’athism.

The West determined that Ba’athism had to go. Though Fascism and crypto-Fascist movements served the West well in the post-Cold War world though such leaders as Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, General Suharto in Indonesia, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the post-Cold War supremacy of American liberalism demanded that all ideologies, states, entities, and forces that were not liberal must be destroyed and brought into the uni-polar new world order of American-liberal hegemony.

Though Russia is the center point of this new war by liberalism on everything else, the Middle East became the flashpoint of this conflict as the new world order needed to bring the Islamic world to heel, secure the energy resources, and isolate Russia. This is what the Syrian Civil War is about. The US instigating an insurgency against President Assad to remove him. It also explains why Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Kaddafi of Libya had to be removed. They were anti-jihadist, but they were also for forming an alternative regional order that would have stood against Western liberalism. Saddam Hussein was no doubt one of the best leaders in the Middle East for establishing regional stability and making Iraq the main counterweight to the jihadist-controlled nations of Saudi Arabia and Iran, yet his fall was ultimately his own undoing. Simply put, he should never have invaded Kuwait.

The absolute massacre of the Iraqi military in 1991 at the hands of the highly advanced US military was the final death knell in the heart of Ba’athism. It also consequently was the trumpet sounding the need for jihadism to replace nationalism as the ideological guiding force of the Arab world. This is why many of the Ba’athists who fought for Saddam or served in his government later joined the jihadist insurgency against the Americans or have even joined ISIS.

All ideologies need a tribal/national core to operate from and once that core is removed, the ideology will wither and die without the needed financial and political support along with the geographic legitimacy.

Looking back, Saddam should have found ways to build a new economic-military axis with Assad, the PLO, Mubarak and Kaddafi in order to begin providing for a secure network that could hopefully peaceably resist the influence and take over of the West. However, this probably would have proven futile. The West would have eventually succeeded in launching the Arab Spring or some sort of color revolution against Ba’athism because by 1991, Ba’athism was already bankrupt, financially, political and even spiritually. Ba’athism only existed by 1991 inside the personality cults of Saddam, Assad and Mubarak. It no longer served a realistic purpose in the world.

Islamism is providing a better means of resistance to modernity/liberalism, because it is explicitly anti-modern. Ba’athism, though very identitarian and even fascistic, was still operating in a modernist paradigm. It still believed in social progress, the benefits of socialism, and that there is such a thing as utopia that can be built upon an artificial idea. ISIS, Revolutionary Iran and orthodox Islam reject all of this and only believe in their own version of “the Kingdom of Heaven” which is transcendent in nature. Ba’athism ultimately copies liberalism, in refusing to assert a dominant religious creed and thereby denying itself access to the supernatural. Obviously Islam, especially Sunni Islam prevailed in applying Ba’athist ideology, yet if you are going to be a Muslim, you might as well be the best Muslim possible. Plus one day you are going to die and is it worth the risk of being a loyal servant of Allah, or a pure nationalist who is cozy with kafirs?

Christine Helms, a scholar on Arab nationalism wrote on the decline of Ba’athism that…

Quote:
“Declaring Arab nationalism “bankrupt,” the political “disinherited” are not rationalizing the failure of Arabism, dissociating its ideology from graceless excesses of its proponents, or reformulating it. Alternative solutions are not contemplated. They [the youth] have simply opted for the political paradigm at the other end of the political spectrum with which they are familiar–Islam.”
Ba’athism existed in the fight for ethnic liberation but once that liberation was achieved, the Arab world found it much more convicting and even internally liberating to get back to the creed of Muhammad, rather than Aflaq. With Socialism discredited in the USSR’s collapse, and no longer being able to financially and militarily support the Ba’athist regimes, the paradigm of Ba’athism eventually collapsed just like Maoism, Marxism-Leninism and eventually will liberalism because it failed to meet its objectives and the internal needs of the masses it was supposed to be appealing to. Eventually being pan-Arab is just as silly as being pan-white.

There are too many sub-cultures and cliques that people adhere too. The rivalries between Christians, Sunnis and Shiites is too powerful to put aside in the face of ancient rivalries that go back to the 600s. Pan-Arabism was ultimately just as futile as advocating for the global proletariat and the Jews were simply not enough motivation for Arabs to unite against, just as Capitalists were not a convicting enough force for Russians, Chinese, Koreans and Germans to remain in lockstep with one another. Ba’athism, in its defeat, much like Communism’s ultimately leads us back to the focal point of 21st Century anti-liberalism, which is in Eurasianism’s traditionalist orientation, that the locality and organic tribe are what matter. The Chinese and Vietnamese of the 1970s might both have been peasant societies, and Communist, yet they were ultimately more loyal to their respective national loyalties than to the higher ideology. Same is true for the Arabs, who live in nations that are even more artificially constructed than perhaps the United States is.

As well, there are and were massive demographic changes in Arab society that hindered the continued existence of Ba’athism. As noted geostrategist Robert Kaplan has observed in his book The Coming Anarchy, “Seventy percent of the Arab population has been born since 1970—youths with little historical memory of anticolonial independence struggles, postcolonial attempts at nation-building, or any of the Arab-Israeli wars.” Therefore as jihadism rises against Americanization and American military involvement in the region, and Ba’athism failed in its regional objective, Ba’athism ceases to mean anything solid to the young Arab.

As ISIS rampages though the Middle East, it will only be defeated by an awkward coalition of pro-Western monarchies such as Jordan, working in tandem with Hezbollah, what’s left of Assad’s Syria and jihadist Iran that ultimately competing with ISIS over who gets to be the top jihadist dog. Hence, even if Assad wins, Ba’athism is still irrelevant and defeated. If Assad wins, Ba’athism will never be able to be exported outside of Syria and if it does live, it will be transformed into an ideology that serves to keep the Syrian state united, rather than unifying the greater Arab world, which is now more or less under the occupation of pro-Western puppets or jihadist regimes.

http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/05/baathism-2/
 
Old May 9th, 2015 #3
Jim Harting
Senior Member
 
Jim Harting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,285
Default

The Ba'athists are the natural allies of White Nationalism and National-Socialism in the Arab world.

Although their movement is currently weak and in retreat, this may be a temporary circumstance.

Inevitably, at some point, the tidal wave of Islamic revivalism (both Shi'a and Sunni) that first emerged in the late 1970s will recede. At that time, the Arab world will be ripe for another ideology that can lead them into a better future.

Ba'athism rejects religious superstition and sectarianism. It is implacably hostile to Zionism. Its emphasizes the blood-unity of the Arab peoples and the unity of Arab culture. It stresses technological and social progress. It is friendly to the European legacy of National-Socialism and Fascism.

If there is a realistic ally for us in the Arab world, it is Ba'athism.
__________________
NEW ORDER Website: http://theneworder.org
NEW ORDER on GAB: https://gab.ai/NEW_ORDER
NS Publications: http://nspublications.com
VNN National Socialist Union: https://vnnforum.com/group.php?groupid=58
 
Old May 12th, 2015 #4
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

On Ba’athism — Part III — Lessons for Europeans
May 11, 2015 in Commentary

Despite its failures, Ba’athism does offer European nationalists some positive ideas to apply and perhaps even more importantly, it provides us a fascistic model to follow that is not from 1930s Europe.

Most likely, the various European peoples in North America and a goodly portion of Europe are going to become occupied by the Third World demographic changes. Whites in places such as Colorado, Oregon, Andalusia and Marseille, for example, are going to find themselves living as white minorities in their own county, not unlike whites in South Africa and Rhodesia.

Politically, socially and economically, the reservation lifestyle could become a normal way of life for Europeans. Europeans are therefore going to need an ideology of liberation that breaks them out of post-modern thinking that lead to their subjugation in the place. It is just short of insanity for Europeans to keep seeking answers in the figures, movements and writings of the 1930s in Spain, Germany and Italy or even worse, Dixie in the 1860s.

Ba’athism though, does provide a communitarian framework of sorts, for Europeans to begin the process of liberation. Fascism, Falangism and National Socialism are ideologies of external conquest, whereas Ba’athism is an ideology of internal spiritual awakening that forges an identity, and then can be projected outward. Primarily in the coming resistance to occupation, the ideology must be a shield and sword; a defense against false ideas and a means to liberate from the oppressed. More specifically, a resistance against liberalism and capitalism and a strategic means to bring about a revival of European identity that is separated from liberal Americanization.

Despite the rejection of liberalism that is coming by the Right, certain words and symbols that relate to classical liberalism, such as “liberty,” “freedom,” and “rights” are not going away. They are perhaps permanently ingrained in out psyche now as Europeans, no different than using Arabic script for numbers is a part of our normal daily routine.

Fortunately, Ba’athism’s model does allow for these words and symbols to be used in a positive manner for the liberation of our people from the yoke of bankers, Hispanicization and/or Islamicization. Freedom from, in the Ba’athist sense, will mean liberation from foreign occupation and the corollary being that these lands (Europe and North America) are our lands and not the occupiers.

It should be clarified though that any adoption of Ba’athist principles must come in essence not substance—this is not a cause of Arab liberation in North America or Europe, but rather European liberation with the hope of building a collective European identity and purpose in the 21st Century and beyond. Europeans should not be running around Amsterdam, Seattle, or Perth waving Egyptian or Syrian nationalist flags as a means of Dutch, northwest or Australian liberation, only rather it is time that Europeans educate themselves with and learn to use a new lexicon of ideas that prepares us to break free from the bonds of foreign occupation of financial and demographic control.

White nationalists often cry havoc that whites are going to be exterminated. That is a little overzealous. Whites are always going to be here. They are still living in long lost ancient places such as the Caucuses, Assyria, far western China and the Himalayas. But just because they exist, does not mean they are going to be living in the same manner that they once were, even if it were in their own lands.

The WN movement has been utterly ineffective in the post-World War II world, because it has been zealously committed to reviving the destroyed reichs of the past, whether it was German, Italian, Spanish, Southern or trying to convert Argentina into a Francoist style regime. By realigning our mindset to an ideology of liberation, rather than external conquest, Europeans can actually play into a paradigm of us versus them that is positively predisposed to our benefit, rather than benefiting off the backs of others, as imperialistic thinking demands.

http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/05/on-...for-europeans/
 
Old May 12th, 2015 #5
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Harting View Post
Ba'athism rejects religious superstition and sectarianism. It is implacably hostile to Zionism. Its emphasizes the blood-unity of the Arab peoples and the unity of Arab culture. It stresses technological and social progress. It is friendly to the European legacy of National-Socialism and Fascism.
Saddam's regime went through massive efforts to preserve the native cultural history that was Mesopotamia. ZOG's ISIS goons are busy looting and destroying the remnants of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. One thing jew controlled movements all have in common is their hate for ancient culture that is not theirs. They don't want a Nation of people to look and see the enormous accomplishments of their ancestors and to draw inspiration from that. Its almost like jews are jealous after being on this planet for thousands of years while having no societal accomplishments worth mentioning.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.
Page generated in 0.05679 seconds.