Alfred Rosenberg talks about finance capitalism and national-socialism

The following is a very good article written by Alfred Rosenberg that outlines how national-socialism and the majority of national-socialists viewed capitalism of the western model, it wasn’t even the left of the party, the national-socialists were both left and right at the same time, it was a socialism that combined both the left and the right and combated the class struggle through the state and the nation.

So check out this piece, it’s really interesting and provides a really hidden view of the national-socialists of Germany at that time, it’s a view that doesn’t really get out much and shows that there was a lot of variety within the German parties at that time.

History isn’t simple, it takes a lot of resources to study and isn’t as simple as calling someone a fascist or a communist.

The article is right here-

“Nationalism pertains mainly to foreign policy while socialism is the domestic complement. Corresponding manifestations are the army and the police. We want to bring together the two currents that splash around the middle, the strongly nationalist movement and the strongly socialist movement purged of Marxism. Therefore National-Socialism distinguishes itself from the religion of the Second Reich- from National-Liberalism- which is distinguished on the one side by unlimited exploitation, on the other by charity. On one side the ladle of finance scoops away small savings; on the other side nursing homes and hospitals appear. This is most evident today in America, where exploitation has already become a condition that is encouraged. The stock-jobber who has robbed a people for 60 years, in the 65th year builds a hospital for his victims”- Alfred Rosenberg


What is Fascism? The beginning of a discussion about what it means to be a Fascist.

“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality- thus it may be called the ‘ethnic’ State.”

(Source- What is Fascism by Benito Mussolini)

“There’s nothing more hypocritical than a well-fed citizen protesting against the working class idea of class struggle. You made it through the winter all snug and comfortable. Your very person is provocative of class struggle. What gives you the right to puff yourself up, all swelled with the pride of national responsibility, against the struggle of the working class? For almost 60 years, has the middle-class State really been anything other than an organized one-class State which out of compelling historical necessity, itself gave rise to the working class concept of class struggle? Didn’t you pay the price of this one-class State on November 9, 1918? And aren’t you at this very moment busily exploiting the people’s despair of the insanity of Marxism in order to re-establish the same old reactionary middle-class nonsense as before?”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“Are you monarchists or republicans?

Neither one nor the other. Because:

1.) The question of the organizational structure of a State is a very minor one today. A people wasting away under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles has other things to worry about than the question of monarchy versus republic.

2.) The people will be able to settle this question once and for all only when they have their liberty.

But in principle we say:

A good republic is better than a bad monarchy, and a good monarchy is better than a bad republic. Both forms of government have their merits and their disadvantages. Weighing them against each other is the concern of a people facing the rest of the world in liberty.”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“It is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor, we must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.

We permit no one to try raising on Romanian soil another flag, save that of our national history. No matter how the workers’ class may be, we do not tolerate that it rise up against the country or that it make common cause with foreign movements outside our borders. No one will admit that for your bread you lay waste and band over into the bands of a foreign people of bankers and usurers, everything that for two millennia the sweat of a people of workers and brave ones has saved. Your rights, yes- but within the rights of your people.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“I believe in the one and undivided Romanian State, from Dniester to the Tisa,. the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God, concerned about the country and its people; giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and to women; protector of the family, paying its public servants. At that time we had not heard of Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism and workers on the basis of the number of children and the work performed, quality and quantity; and in a State, supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences; and in addition to salaries, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“The Zionists declare interest in the Orient, yet energetically safeguard themselves against going to Palestine as pioneers of Europe. A leading writer even openly said that the Zionists would Fight alongside the ranks of the wakening Asiatic peoples. From the fire of all burning thorn bushes and from the nights of solitude only one cry resounds to them: Asia. Zionism, it is asserted, is only a partial idea of pan Asiaticism. At the same time a spiritual and political link passes over to the idea of Red Bolshevism. The Zionist, Holitscher, discovered the inner parallels between Moscow and Zion, while the Zionist, F. Kohn, declared that- from the patriarchs- a single line extends up to Karl Marx, to Rosa Luxembourg, and to all Jewish Bolsheviks who have served the cause of freedom.

This Zionism proclaims its wish to found a Jewish state. A desire may quite honorably exist among a few leaders for some final redemption to build a pyramid of life on the soil of the Jewish nation. Building such a state results in a vertical structure in deference and contrast to the horizontal layering of former existence. Regarded from the primordial aspect, this Jewish infection is alien to our national feeling and to the ideas of state of the European peoples.”

(Source- Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg)

Kim Il Sung speaks directly to SJW’s and their bad manners

“Today our functionaries have become so insolent that they show no respect for their seniors. They have been allowed to fall into such a  habit, whereas Communists naturally have a higher moral sense than any other people, and hold their revolutionary seniors in high esteem.

In our People’s Army a vigorous struggle has been waged to uphold the revolutionary traditions and, as a result, most of the people who had taken part in revolutionary activities have become either regimental or divisional commanders.

If we had not organized the People’s Army with old revolutionary cadres as its core, what would have been the outcome of the last war? It would have been impossible for us to defeat the enemy and win a great victory under such difficult conditions.

During our retreat certain foreigners predicted that most of our army units, trapped by enemy encirclement, would not be able to get back. But we were firmly convinced that all of them would manage to come back. In fact, they all did return, with the exception of the dead. The foreigners were greatly impressed at this and said there were few armies like ours in the world. How did this come about? The explanation is that our army cadres were comrades who in the past had taken part in guerrilla warfare or in local revolutionary movements. That is precisely why our army is strong.

Ten years have passed now since our Party was founded. Therefore, the Party members should naturally be educated in the history of our Party. If our functionaries are not educated in the revolutionary history of our country, they will be unable to carry forward our fine revolutionary traditions, nor will they be able to realize which direction to take in the struggle, or sow enthusiasm and creative initiative in their revolutionary activities.”

Kim Il Sung talks about Internationalism and Nationalism

“In connection with the problem of establishing Juche I think it necessary to touch on internationalism and patriotism.

Internationalism and patriotism are inseparably linked with each other. You must know the love of Korean Communists for their country does not go against the internationalism of the working class but conforms fully with it. To love Korea is just as good as to love the Soviet Union and the socialist camp and, likewise, to love the Soviet Union and the socialist camp means precisely loving Korea. They constitute a complete whole. For the great cause of the working class has no frontiers and our revolutionary cause is a part of the international revolutionary cause of the working class throughout the world. The one supreme goal of the working class of all countries is to build a communist society. The different, if any, lies only in the fact that certain countries do this earlier and others later.

It would be wrong to advocate patriotism alone and neglect internationalist solidarity. For the victory of the Korean revolution and for the great cause of the international working class, we would strengthen solidarity with the Soviet people, our liberator and helper, and with the peoples of all the socialist countries. This is our sacred internationalist duty. The Soviet people, on their part, are doing all they can to consolidate solidarity not only with the countries of the socialist camp but also with the working class of the whole world, both for the communist construction in their country and for the victory of world revolution.

Thus, patriotism and internationalism are inseparable. He who does not love his own country cannot be loyal to internationalism, and he who is unfaithful to internationalism cannot be faithful to his own country and people. A true patriot is precisely an internationalist and vice versa.”

(Source: Kim Il Sung- Selected Works, Volume 1, P. 593)

MGTOW on an international and national stage as seen by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad

“We know we have to enter politics somewhere, but we don’t want the kind of politics which the whiteman has set up for you. We don’t want to follow that way. I am now looking at an example of clean politics from the nation of Asia and portion of Africa. This type of politics will make you a better man. They don’t have robbery and deceitful politics which you are born under, here in America’s way of politics. We don’t what no thieves in our nation. As it is written, Jesus said, and I say the same, ‘all before me were thieves and robbers.’ Jesus could not have said that, because that would have meant that all prophets before him were thieves and robbers, but I can say it absolutely and prove it.

We don’t want to build a nation on the basis of who can rob the other the quickest and get the most. We want to build up a nation with a clean heart and hands, to deal with the their people in the way of justice and righteous. We do t want any robbers. We can’t use a robber; especially after being robbed to death by our enemy, the slave master’s children.

We want to build a world for the black man. The white world is moving off the scene. If you don’t know it, I’ll show it to you. You’ve got to do something for yourself or else. I’m not saying this just to be talking, I’m talking to hear from you. We’ve got to do something for self. I have the key to doing for self. If you will come get yours, I will have it.

At the present time, as you probably know, many countries are, for the first time, uniting themselves. Here we are, the poor forgotten people in Americs, singing old glory to Allah, glory to the Lord, glory to Jesus and doing nothing about making that glory. Make your glory for yourself. Stop laying around the other fellow’s gate, begging him to make you a glorious place.”- The Honorable Elijah Muhammad

(Source: The Theology of Time: Secret of time, p.294)

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad explains MGTOW in a different way

“We cannot step through the earth, not by any means. The earth is approximately 8,000 miles in diameter, through it. Our legs don’t measure that. I’m only asking you not to be proud. We can’t reach the top of the mountains and we can’t step through the Earth, so why shouldn’t we be on the level of the earth? This is what has ruined the black man in North America, he’s taking steps after his slave master, wanting to be proud and act like a big boy. You cannot be a big boy, you were with him. He has the world and you have nothing.

We have men of all types and these men want to know if whether or not we have something above what they have or something equal, on which we can listen to each other. We don’t believe in criticism, because we all came from slave-parents. If we want to criticize each other, we have to go back and get a hold of the devil slave-master and see how many of us he raise higher than the other.

I love common language, I love to be equal with you. I don’t like raising myself above you just because I believe I know more than you-no. We don’t do that. I may have insulted you when I said what I said, but I am a man taught by God, lived with God for three years and a half and he taught me His wisdom. I know you didn’t hear all of this as I did. I know you did not see all of this which took place forty years ago, which I’m teaching you about today. I want to let you know that I am not proud over you, in the way that we say the enemies’ proudness comes to us. I’m not that kind of man. I am a little old man that just loves to talk with you and loves to see you in a better condition than you’re in. I love to make you acquainted with my God and your God with you. This is the kind of little fellow you see standing here. He doesn’t like showing off by any means.” –  The Honorable Elijah Muhammad

(Source: The Theology of Time: Secret of Time, p.138)

American unionists ask Joseph Stalin a question

“QUESTION IX: American labor leaders justify their struggle against the Communists on two grounds: (1) The Communists are disrupting and destroying the labor movement by their factional fights inside the unions and their attacks on all union officials who are not radicals, and (2) American Communists take their orders from Moscow and hence cannot be good trade unionists since their loyalty to an outside foreign body is placed above their loyalty to the union. How can this difficulty to adjusted so that American communists can work jointly with other sections of the American labor movement?

REPLY: I think that the attempts of the American labor leaders to justify their struggle against the Communists do not stand examination. No one has yet proved nor can it be proved that the Communists disrupt the labor movement. But it can be taken as fully proved that the Communists are the most loyal and boldest champions of the labor movement all over the world, including America. Is it not a fact that during strikes and demonstrations the Communist workingmen take their place in the front ranks of the working class and receive the first blows of the capitalists, whereas the reformist labor leaders take shelter in the backyards of the capitalists?

How can Communists refrain from criticizing the cowardice and the reactionary policies of the reformist labor leaders? Is it not clear that such criticism can serve only to stimulate and strengthen the labor movement? True, such criticism destroys the authority of the reactionary labor leaders, but what about that? Let the reactionary labor leaders answer the criticism, not expel the Communists from the unions. I think that if the labor movement in America desires to live on and develop, it cannot avoid a conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the trade unions. I think that the conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the trade unions, criticism of the reactionary labor leaders, etc., will continue to grow notwithstanding the efforts of the reformist labor leaders to prevent it. The working class of America stands in absolute need of such conflict of opinion and of such criticism in order that it may be able to choose between the various tendencies and finally to take up its stand as an independent organized force within American society. The complaints made by American reformist leaders against the Communists merely indicate that they are not sure of the correctness of their case and do not feel strong in their position. That is why they fight criticism like a plague. It is a remarkable fact that the American labor leaders are more determined opponents of elementary democracy than many capitalists in America.

The assertion that the American Communists work under “orders from Moscow” is absolutely untrue. There are no such Communists in the world who would agree to work “under orders” from outside against their own convictions and will and contrary to the requirements of the situation. Even if there were such Communists they would not be worth a cent. Communists bravely fight against a host of enemies. The value of a Communist, among other things, lies in that he is able to defend his convictions. Therefore, it is strange to speak of American Communists as not having their own convictions and capable only of working according to “orders” from outside. The only part of the labor leaders’ assertion that has any truth in it at all is that the American Communists are affiliated to an international Communist organization and from time to time consult with the Central body of this organization on one question or another.

But what is there bad in this? Are the American labor leaders opposed to an international workers’ center? It is true they are not affiliated to Amsterdam, not because they are opposed to an international workers’ center as such however, but because they regard Amsterdam as being too radical (laughter). Why may the capitalists organize internationally and the working class, or part of it, not have its international organization? Is it not clear that Green and his friends in the American Federation of Labor slander the American Communists when they slavishly repeat the capitalist legends about “orders from Moscow?” Some people believe that the members of the Communist International in Moscow do nothing else but sit and write instructions to all countries. As there are more than 60 countries affiliated to the Comintern, one can imagine the position of the members of the Comintern who never sleep or eat, in fact do nothing but sit day and night and write instructions to all countries. (laughter). And the American labor leaders believe that with this ridiculous legend they can cover up their fear of the Communists and conceal the fact that Communists are the bravest and most loyal workers in the labor movement in America.

The delegation asks for a way out of this situation. I think there is only one way out: leave room for conflict of opinion and of tendencies within the American trade unions, give up the reactionary policy of expelling the Communists from the trade unions, and give the working class of America an opportunity of making a free choice of these tendencies; for America has not yet had its November Revolution and the workers there have not yet had the opportunity of making their final selection from among the various tendencies in the trade unions. “

Stalin on “Forced ‘Democracy'”

“Some think that talk about democracy in the trade unions is mere declamation, a fashion, called forth by certain phenomena in internal Party life, that, in time, people will get tired of ‘chatter’ about democracy and everything will go on in the ‘old way.’

Others believe that democracy in the trade unions is, essentially, a concession, a forced concession, to the workers’ demands, that it is diplomacy rather than real, serious business.

Needless to say, both groups of comrades are profoundly mistaken. Democracy in the trade unions, i.e., what is usually called ‘normal methods of proletarian democracy in the unions,’ is the conscious democracy characteristics of mass working-class organizations, which presupposes consciousness of the necessity and utility of systematically employing methods of persuasion among the millions of workers organized in the trade unions. If that consciousness is absent, democracy becomes an empty sound.

While war was raging and danger stood at the gates, the appeals to ‘aid the front’ that were issued by our organizations met with a ready response from the workers, for the mortal danger we were in was only too palpable, for that danger had assumed a very concrete form evident to everyone in the shape of the armies of Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, Pilsudski and Wrangel, which were advancing and restoring the power of the landlords and capitalists. It was not difficult to rouse the masses at that time. But today, when the war danger has been overcome and the new, economic danger (economic ruin) is far from being so palpable to the masses, the broad masses cannot be roused merely by appeals. Of course, everybody feels the shortage of bread and textiles; but firstly, people do contrive to obtain both bread and textiles in one way or another and, consequently, the danger of a food and goods famine does not spur the masses to the same extent as the war danger did; secondly, nobody will assert that the masses are as conscious of the reality of the economic danger (shortage of locomotives and of machines for agriculture, for textile mills and iron and steel plants, shortage of equipment for electric power stations, and so forth) as they were of the war danger in the recent past.

To rouse the millions of the working class for the struggle against economic ruin it is necessary to heighten their initiative, conscienceless and independent activity; it is necessary by means of concrete facts to convince them that economic ruin is just as real and mortal a danger as the war danger was yesterday; it is necessary to draw millions of workers into the work of reviving industry through the medium of trade unions built on democratic lines. Only in this way is it possible to make the entire working class vitally interested in the struggle which the economic organizations are waging against economic ruin. If this is not gone, victory on the economic front cannot be achieved.

In short, conscious democracy, the method of proletarian democracy in the unions, is the only correct method for the industrial unions.

Forced ‘democracy’ has nothing in common with this democracy.”

(Source: )

The personality of Karl Marx

“Marx represents a whole world of ideas and images; he is unsurpassed as a theoretician, statesman, strategist and tactician of the class struggle. His brain was like a tremendous laboratory, which analytically and synthetically worked over facts and events, beginning with revolutions, wars, colonial revolts, pronuncimamentos, peasant rebellions and parliamentary debates, and ending with strikes, demonstrations and even the smallest spontaneous economic and political actions.

Marx was not merely a person of encyclopedic education, he was an independent dialectic thinker. He was not a scientist in the narrow, professorial sense of the word. He was an innovator, bold to the extreme, who fearlessly carried his thoughts to their logical conclusion. He was one of those thinkers (and there have been very few of them in the history of mankind) who with the minds of great geniuses looked into the future, and with the daring hands of revolutionaries and artists (‘my work represents one artistic whole,’ he wrote to Engels in 1865) pointed out the path of development from capitalism to communism.

Marx did not guess nor did he prophesy. He argued, analyzed, dissected facts, exposed their inner connections and placed them in such a way that they themselves compelled definite conclusions. He placed Hegelian dialectics on its feet, he was never lost in the face of facts; always remaining firm, he knew exactly what he wanted in theory, in politics and in tactics.

Marx devoured an enormous number of books, deeply analysed facts and moulded them with his masterful mind, which to the very last days of his life continued to pour forth ever-new treasures for the international proletariat.

Marx was not a dry bookworm; he seethed with the great passion and ardour of a fighter. He disliked unnecessary words, glib but empty phrases, and fought against those who roamed in the ‘misty realm of philosophical phantasy’ (Communist Manifesto, p.32). Every phrase written by Marx, every one of his words lives to-day- so much life and passion is there in the works of this great scientist, the tireless destroyer of all pseudo-scientific authorities, the exposer of petty-bourgeois babblers, the merciless enemy of all pseudo-socialist schools, sects and groupings.

Marx possessed the special ability of clothing his rich thought in scant but vivid language. This is why even to-day when one immerses oneself in the works of Marx one is bound to feel deeply moved. It is not only his major works that have retained their importance up to the present time; even his separate articles on vital questions, his notes and letters going far back to the nineteenth century, throw light on the path of the development of the labour movement in the twentieth century. The more one peruses the rich inheriticane of Marx, the more vital it becomes, the more pronounced become the features of this great theoretician and organizer of the working class, the nearer and more comprehensible does he grow- he who gave his life for the purpose of converting the working class ‘from a class of others into a class for itself.’

Marx is multiform, but uniform and consistent in all that he said and did. Not in vain did he succinctly describe the distinguishing feature of his character as singleness of purpose. Only conditionally is it possible to separate some one question or group of questions from the whole of Marx’s work. However, it must be borne in mind at the outset that the inheritance that Marx left is the richest that any person ever left to his descendants, that it is monolithic and it is difficult to divide into separate parts.

It is especially difficult to separate from the depository of ideas and thoughts that Marx left that part which deals with the trade union movement and the economic struggle. Marx did not write any special books or pamphlet or textbook on this subject. His ideas on problems of the economic struggle and the role of the trade unions in the past, present and future can be found all through his works, especially in his practical work as leader of the International Workingmen’s Association.

Is it worth while to collect the opinions and ideas of Marx on questions of the trade unions? Has he, admirers of textbooks and thick reference works might ask, a definite opinion on these problems? To this we can reply- indeed, it is worth while. The slightest, if serious, acquaintance with the works of Marx shows that although Marx did not write any thick books on the trade unions and although he did not frequently deal with this question, still the separate opinions expressed by him constitute a definite system, map out a definite line and give an absolute definite understanding of the role and tasks of the trade unions in the general class struggle of the proletariat. It must be borne in mind that in these questions Marx also laid out new roads. The three sources of Marxism mentioned by Lenin (classical German philosophy, classical English political economy and French socialism) had to be mastered by Marx.”

(Source: )

Ibn al-Khattab talks about the war in Tajikistan

“Regarding the Tajik cause, I say to the Muslims: I remember in Tajikistan that I spoke with Abdulloh Nuri, the leader of the Tajik, I mentioned to him that we have minimum experience, so we don’t want to be presented as masters in the field of military operations and jihad. It is known that every cause has many problems. For example: teaching the Muhajreen (refugees) and media work. There were many problems of this kind in the camps of the Muhajreen.

We mentioned to them that we only came to give support and aid. If there were any problems, there should be direct contact with Sayid Abdulloh Nuri, so that nobody can interfere in the matters of the mujahidin and if there were any interference Ustaz Abdulloh Nuri will immediately take care of it. Alhamdulillah it was an experience which we benefited from. On the contrary, other groups came and stayed with the Tajik in their camps and began to ask them for food, tents, ammunition, etc. They complained and said ‘we have 1000 problems’ and these brothers themselves became problem 1001.

If we come to a cause and begin to ask its people for help, knocking on the doors of the leadership, asking for meetings, demanding petrol, diesel, ammunition, plans for an ambush or operation then this is not the true meaning of support. In reality you are only increasing the problems. These things happened but we tried to avoid it and didn’t allow anyone to interfere in our work.

We began to work and prepare. I said to the brothers that if anyone wants to be involved in any action he should be prepared and shouldn’t ask anything from anyone. It’s true that they came to support and coordinate under one leadership from that country, but going to battle and arranging the matters should be in the hands of the Ansar, if they were one group or more.

In my opinion, this was a very good experience and had good success in it. I discussed with many brothers who visited us, they said that we should support the leadership and take from the leadership and such. So we told them that we aren’t Tajik. We came to give support and help; we cannot stay on the mountains and ask them to give us aid. We have to be prepared.

I remember what happened in Afghanistan. There were many problems with some of the Afghan and the Ansar. Like when someone got martyred or fell in a mine field, we would ask the Afghans to bring his body back. We weren’t ready to take care of our dead and wounded and such matters. Fighting is fighting. It is not an easy thing. Or when an operation happened and 30 or 40 got killed. How could 30 or 40 die in an operation? Was it planned properly? So they blame the Afghan commanders or they claim that a particular group didn’t cover them with artillery, or that this group hit them or this group left them. I remember after every operation here would be problems and they would look for a scapegoat and put the problems on someone’s back. Really there was no studying and order in the case of entering. There were some fronts, Alhamdulillah, which had an arranged leadership and the situation was much better.

Regarding the operations, there were many examples in Afghanistan, to avoid all kinds of problems we prepared ourselves for Tajikistan. We spent four months only preparing what we need. We prepared a house, bought weapons, wireless equipment, and transportation like cars and trucks. Crossing the river, which was a very big problem, only that is considered jihad. We visited the border region and we regularly meet with Adbulsamaad (Mullah Qurban) the commander of that area and, one of the good educated Tajik brothers who knows Arabic. We also met a commander called Yahiya in Alur and Shayab.

We explored the area and prepared all matters. We only asked the Tajik for one thing. We said to them: ‘we don’t want your money or weapons. We won’t cost you anything. We came to give you aid. We just want from you one thing: Mujahidin who you endorse and know, so that we train and prepare them with everything. After those men are fully trained we can enter battles. We have entered in front of those people/ We shouldn’t urge people while we are sitting or talking through the radio. we should be in front of them. If we present anything good then it is for Islam and if we didn’t present anything we wouldn’t cost you anything. So that no one will say that Al0Ansar came to us from this group and we gave them weapons, ammunition and clothes, but they cheated us or they didn’t know what to do, or they cost us heavy expenses for nothing, and such talk that would be said by the hypocrites or who work on such matters. We have come to you so that we can provide you from our side.

Alhamdulillah, we carried out some successful operations. This was our strategy in supporting the Tajik and I swear to Allah that it succeed, but some of the people in the leadership tried to say, why are they not under our command or why those people have cars and such talk. They even appointed a commander called ‘Radwan’, he was the most insidious that I have ever seen. In the end they killed him. When they appointed him as military Amir, he tried to interfere in our matters, but we said to him not to come to our area. We are only connected with Abdulloh Nuri.

According to me and those who were with me this experience was very hard. We used to solve every problem that faced us. When we went to Afghanistan the jihad was ready. The roads and the fronts were safe. The brothers only went to camps to get trained, he would be received and move between guest houses and camps. After that he goes to the front and the Afghan brothers will keep him in certain position and tell him to shoot at this or that direction, and nothing else. We didn’t solve problems from the beginning, like building roads, searching for water, planning things from scratch, arrange the transportation, communications, knowing the locations and many other things. If I talk about these subjects I have to go into the details and leave the main subject.

In my opinion, we didn’t really do jihad in Afghanistan. The Afghans did almost everything. Many brothers came to Afghanistan after 1985/1986 and the majority of them in 1988.  The brothers who came in the beginning faced the difficulties. At that time most of the matters were already arranged. In Tajikistan we began with nothing and we weren’t used to that. This was a new experience for us. It was a hard and tough experience in all standards. I don’t think that I or the brothers who were with me will go once again through an experience like Tajikistan. Sometimes the cars would reach an area, then for three or four days to a certain area, then we would walk with donkeys and muels until we reach rivers. The river by itself was a monster and only crossing it was a jihad. There were mountains which I have never seen in my life, the least height was 3000 or 2500 meter. Alhamdulillah, we did one or two operations despite the problems of the Afghans who lived there and problems regarding supplying the mujahideen. The main problem that faced us was getting food and roads which we couldn’t find.

Once I went to reconnaissance, I found about 25 posts through 9 Kilometers. There were routes that you cannot walk in and even the mules cannot walk on. I remember that we used to pay to move the BM Katyusha rocket launcher from our first base before the border for 2000 for each rocket, and from there we would move it to the river for 6000, and after crossing the river they take a 1000 then an Afghan person would carry it on his back, because there was a section of porters, who would carry I to the front for 6000. If we calculate the total expenses of one rocket it is 5000 rupees plus 12000 rupees, until it reaches the front, which means the price increases 2-3 times to keep it with the weapons. It was a very hard cause, but Alhamdulillah the brothers learned and gained a lot from it. The problems needed to be solved from day to night.

We stayed in Tajikistan and wanted to prepare the people for jihad. Our number was small, 100 to 120 people. Then we began to prepare for larger numbers, 300 to 400 mujahideen. Our capabilities were weak and the Muslims weren’t concerned about the cause. Maybe because the problems in Afghanistan, and the continuous fighting between the factions. Also the roads there were hard and it wasn’t easy for the good people to reach it. As I said before, the cause was treated with injustice and it was from the hardest causes that the Muslims faced. The weak leadership and the problems between them was also a problem. I didn’t see any people who are fanatic about nationalism- we ask Allah wellness from this- like the Tajik, when they would speak against each other, they would say; he is from Panj province, and this one is from Qulab province, and he is from Dushanbe, this is from that province and he is from that province.

Alhamdulillah, it was a good experience for us. While the brothers who came to support the cause and went to other locations with the Tajik, they had transportation problems and conflicting orders. So they came out of this with low morals. They said that the Tajik have nothing and they only want to fight. In the end, instead of supporting the cause they came out with bad ideas and began to say things about it that shouldn’t have been said. This was the first experience with the Tajik, but you had an experience before it, so why did you go to them and begin an experience from scratch? What made you go through these problems? You have been granted by Allah by a previous experience and you know about weapons and fighting, so you have only to work according to your own knowledge. To put everything on the shoulders of the Tajik is not right. There were many problems and the hypocrites were working from the inside. So unfortunately the brothers came out with a bad idea and said some things that shouldn’t have been said. There was no need for these matters.”

(Source: )