“The motto ‘He who works shall eat’ should be firmly established; the government will no longer supply bread for all the idlers, money-lenders, speculators in gold and black marketeers of town and countryside. Let them work, and they may eat.”- Enver Hoxha

“Now the peasant will no longer be supplied with ration cards. Is this a correct measure? Yes, it is absolutely correct. It is a measure which does not cut the peasant off from supplies of the things he needs, such as manufactured and industrial goods. The fruits of the toil of the working class and of the working masses of the city are for the poor and middle peasant, too. They will be the first to benefit from it, but there should be order and justice in everything. Those who work and sweat the most should be the first to benefit, and at cheaper prices. Is it fair that the workers in the towns, at the construction sites, and in the factories should turn out oil and kerosene, thread and cotton fabrics, extract salt from the sea, build highways and railroads, and can never even see an egg or buy a turkey even at 1,500 or 2,000 leks?

Is it permissible that with one turkey the peasant may buy thread, and kerosene, and rope, and cotton fabrics? No, this is not fair at all, and our peasant himself understands that such a situation cannot go on for long. Harmony must be established in the market and prices, for neither the working masses of the town nor the labouring peasantry benefit from anarchy. The peasants may imagine that they benefit, but in reality, those who profit from this situation are the capitalists of town and countryside who are fishing in troubled waters, encouraging anarchy, confusion, the black market, weakening our state power and preparing its overthrow. Therefore, the new kind of relations between the town and the countryside, the new way of mutual exchanges, is the fairest of all.

The methods of wholesale purchases of grain, of meat, etc., are quite fair, and we should uphold them. In the practical implementation of these ordinances, concessions and mistakes may be made, but we should struggle against them, correct them wherever they crop up, and see that they do not recur.

It was wrong for our state to ensure the break, and at the same price, alike for those who did not work and produce and for those who toiled in production. The motto ‘He who works shall eat’ should be firmly established; the government will no longer supply bread for all the idlers, money-lenders, speculators in gold and black marketeers of town and countryside. Let them work, and they may eat. They will earn their bread with work. But if they continue their trade as speculators, then they will learn that our state and our laws are much more powerful than fifty black marketeers who will not be able to fish in troubled waters for long.

As for the peasants who do not produce or who produce very little grain, our government has given them broad possibilities to earn their bread through their own work. Although they will be provided with something on coupons, this will not completely solve the problem of bread for them. It is right that they should earn their break through work instead of sitting among the rocks with a couple of goats. These peasants should come to work in the big state projects, or in the various projects of their districts and regions, where they will immediately enjoy the same treatment as the workers. Apart from this, when the peasant goes to work on such jobs his family in the village will have their food guaranteed. This is the right way. Or this non-producing peasant, without leaving his region, could get busy procuring various materials which the state needs, and there are plenty of these in our country, which represent a great asset, but which are going to waste. But if these non-producing peasants do not want to work in their interests and that of their families, in the interests of the state and the whole society, is that the fault of the state?”

(Source: https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/ebooks/sw/vol2.pdf )

Advertisements

” The labouring peasantry cannot build a better life without the assistance and the leadership of the working class. This is a scientific Marxist law, and there is no power on earth to change it.”- Enver Hoxha

“Everyone should be fully mobilized for the fulfilment of the plan, and we must continue to make sacrifices, for socialism cannot be built without work and sacrifices. We should sternly combat all tendencies towards lack of discipline at work, in the first place, on the part of people of the state administration and some party members; we should get rid of the lazy and of the idea that everything can be put in order from the offices and that decrees and paper work are all that is required. No, matters are not carried through simply by writing memos about them. All the memos in the world cannot develop agriculture, build factories, machines, tractors, and so on, nor carry out land improvement schemes. Live leadership is what is required, problems should be followed up to their solution, and the people should be helped and supervised in their work. They must be made to face up tot their responsibilities. We shall not allow our state to become a state of red-tape bureaucrats who think only of their wages, and as long as they are sure of their wages the work may go to the devil. Such a state of things must cease, and there is bitter disillusionment in store for anyone who does not carry out his tasks, does not work conscientiously and take full responsibility for the work the Party and the government have entrusted him with, and carry it out regardless of whether he may be a party member, a simple clerk or a senior official. The party members, first of all, and all the others should get a thorough grasp of this advice of the Central Committee of the Party and our government on these matters. Anyone who does not carry out these elementary things is not serving the people properly, and the just struggle of the Party and the people’s power will automatically reject such unconsciousness and parasitical individuals.

Life is earned with honest toil. Bluff, demagogy, and lies are short-lived when confronted with the iron and conscious discipline of our heroic Party which is guiding out people with a sure hand in the construction of socialism. So the labouring peasantry, too, should be fully mobilized in the tasks of agriculture, to get the maximum work done, to open up new land, turn out as much first class produce as possible, adopt new methods of work, apply agricultural science, be militant members of agricultural cooperatives or selling and buying cooperatives, basing themselves firmly on the laws and ordinances of the government. The working peasantry should understand the new economic ordinances correctly and carry them out. They have been issues in the interests of the labouring peasantry and the working class, whose alliance should grow stronger from day to day. The labouring peasantry cannot build a better life without the assistance and the leadership of the working class. This is a scientific Marxist law, and there is no power on earth to change it. Any other road leads the labouring peasant towards the abyss, leads him towards life-long enslavement to the bey and the city capitalist. No, our peasant and our worker have not shed their blood in order to go backward, but to go forward, always forward, to happiness.”

(Source: https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/ebooks/sw/vol2.pdf )

“One does not build Socialist Revolution and smash imperialism and Zionism by the destruction of the social fabric in its entirety”- NACAZAI talks about its social views

“Grasp these truths clearly, that the question of morality in our era is not in its ever most primacy a question of right wing or left wing morality, secular or religious, but the question of whether or not the defense of morality should exist at all. NACAZAI is in the camp with those who stand by the defense of the masses, of the nation statte, spirituality, progressive aspects of the people’s religious institutions, the sacred nuclear family, and of socio-political integrity as a matter of principle. The deathbed of dogmatic western leftism in favor of nationalist and religious principles in a number of countries is largely the call for the primacy of the social mode over the individual as a globalist consumer.

For this reason, we cannot agree with nor accept for the sake of political expediency deviant liberal leftist appeals to social decadence, excessively harsh attacks on religion and spirituality, militant cosmopolitanism over socialist patriotism, a whole series of deviant fetish issues the pro-imperilaist Zionist-controlled left make into red lines while negating genuine red lines based on opposing imperialism and Zionism while promoting National Liberation.

One does not engage in proactive positive social upliftment and then defeat imperialism, Zionism, neo-colonialism, nor capitalism in these ever-destructive globalist times, by instilling in the masses weakness, lumpenism, degeneracy and fetishism, nor individualism and mammonism. Rather, we argue that these destructive distractions are our enemies and that to love the masses is to strive for their greatness and not the acceptance and romanticism of their backwardness.

NACAZAI throughly relishes its dismissal from organizations and personages it considers largely opportunistic anyway, and takes as a badge of honor complaints on our position against homosexual ‘liberation’, the imperialist destruction of all nations, our opposition to the destruction of healthy family life or the liberalization of what that means, and our support for those righteous people who love God and from perceived divine guidance meet the enemy in combat.

One does not build Socialist Revolution and smash imperialism and Zionism by the destruction of the social fabric in its entirety, as if the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. That which is a positive historical example or accomplishment, whatever its limitation and our reservations towards it, must be defended at all costs.

We cannot give the enemy one inch nor surrender the livability of our children and our children’s children by the erosion of social cohesion. Alliances with these ‘leftist’ military target enemies of humanity at the expense of the defense of future generations is nothing less than treason.

For a healthy, vibrant people nurturing one another in struggle!”

 

NACAZAI defends the memory of the Communist Party of Kampuchea

“Most of you all have noticed, at least briefly, the UN-sponsored ‘War Crimes Tribunals’ of former Khmer Rouge leaders.

I felt like it was important to say a few words.

First, the ‘tribunal’ follows the same Zio-imperialist form as that against the leadership of Iraq and Yugoslavia. It lacks any right to exist, and should be condemned. This is true even if many or even all of the detainees have repudiated their revolutionary work, and should be seen as an act of globalism seeking to destroy the national fabric of Kampuchea (Cambodia) by banning and tarnishing the highest expression of her revolutionary forerunners and traditions, namely Pol Pot.

People often have a real problem with Pol Pot, and consider him some sort of insane homicidal weirdo. I don’t, in fact, if one surrenders to this, they wind up destroying the revolutionary legacy of all peoples, and all peoples who have placed blows against the enemy receive such treatment.

It may well be true that Democratic Kampuchea made errors and that certain members may have actually committed crimes. In fact, it would be metaphysical to assume otherwise. Does this change anything? No, not really.

However, one cannot deny nor easily dismiss that the Kampuchean National Liberation struggle gave well over a million martyrs for the liberation of the land, actually defeating U.S. imperialism even before Vietnam of Laos did, and all this despite those two having far greater solidarity and aid for the outside world.

The policies of the Communist Party of Kampuchea have to be correctly seen in the context of deep hardships which they faced; hardships resulting from that country being bombed more than anyone in history by the U.S. imperialists. We have to understand that the Kampuchean leadership, far from being ethno-chauvinists, correctly understood well that the Vietnamese were seeking to swallow them and follow that people’s historical patterns of behavior against its neighbors, and that that were they to surrender their own nationalist and communist struggle to the geo-political expediency or directives of either Vietnam or the Soviet Union, that they never would develop such revolution.

Pol Pot, despite clear anti-imperialist and Communist credentials, has become a sacred cow of liberalism; supposedly showing that revolutionary struggle is often worse than imperialist aggression. This conspiracy is one that even many Communists, leftists, and would-be-anti-imperialists shy away from or promote. Not only are we spitting on the grave and memory of a revolutionary hero with such behavior, but we aren’t doing ourselves any good in the process.

Democratic Kampuchea has become the holiest of holy sacred cows for cosmopolitan anti-Communism. Hence, the enemy’s narrative needs to be smashed ruthlessly.

When we honor the heroes of resistance in the past, regardless of any mistakes which may have occurred, we objectively and subjectively strengthen our own struggles today.

The Communist Party of Kampuchea should always be remembered for having defended the national independence of Kampuchea, and that’s something we all need to learn from today. ”

(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080703163249/http://www.nacazai.org/Digest11/CPKincontext.html )

“Plagiary nations emerged, or are in process of emerging: countries where spiritual confusion reigns, featureless and with no sense of where they are going.” Alija Izetbegovic

“Among the props of doubtful value which our westerner takes home with him are to be found various ‘revolutionary’ ideas, reform programmes and similar ‘rescue doctrines’ which will ‘solve all problems’. Among these ‘reforms’ are examples of unbelievable shortsightedness and improvization.

Thus, for example, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, who was obviously a greater military leader than a cultural reformer and whose services to Turkey should be reduced to their proper measure, in one of  his reforms prohibited the wearing of the fez. It soon became evident that changing the shape of their caps cannot change what is in people’s heads or habits.

Many nations outside the Western sphere have been facing the problem of how to relate to this civilization for over a century: whether to opt for outright rejection, cautious adjustment or total unselective acceptance: the tragedy or triumph of many of them has hung on how they have responded to this fateful question.

There are reforms which reflect the wisdom of a particular nation and others which signify betrayal of itself. The examples of Japan and Turkey are classics of modern history in this respect.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, both countries provided a picture of very similar ‘comparable’ countries. Both were ancient empires, each with its own physiognomy and place in history. Both found themselves at approximately the same level of development; both had a glorious past, which indicated both great privilege and a heavy burden. In a word, their chances for the future were about equal.

Then followed the well-known reforms in both countries. In other to continue to live in its own way and not in another. Japan tried to unite tradition and progress. Turkey’s modernists chose the opposite path. Today, Turkey is a third-rate country, while Japan has climbed to a pinnacle among the nations of the world.

The difference in the philosophy of Japanese and Turkish reformers is nowhere more evident than in the question of the alphabet.

While Turkey abolished Arabic writing, which because of its simplicity and just twenty-eight characters is one of the most perfect and widespread of alphabets. Japan rejected demands by its Romaya to introduce the Roman script. It retained its complicated system which subsequent to the reforms, contained 880 Chinese ideograms in addition to 46 characters. No one is illiterate in modern-day Japan, while in Turkey- forty years after the introduction of Roman letters- over half the population cannot read or write, a result which should cause the blind to regain their sight.

And that is not all. It soon became evident that what was issue was not simply the alphabet as a means of register. The true reasons, and thus the consequences, which were much deeper and more significant. Its way of writing is the way in which the nation ‘remembers’ and endures in history. By abolishing the Arabic alphabet, all the wealth of the past, preserved in the written word, was largely lost to Turkey, and by this single act the country was leveled to the brink of barbarianism. With a series of other ‘parallel’ reforms, the new Turkish generation found itself with no spiritual prop, in a kind of spiritual vacuum.

The supporters of modernism in the Islamic world, then, were not wise men who sprang from the people, who would know how to implement in a novel way the old ideals and values under changed circumstances. They rose up against the values themselves and often with icy cynicism and astounding shortsightedness, trampled on what the people held sacred, destroying life and transplanting an imitation in its stead. As a consequence of such barbarity in Turkey and elsewhere, plagiary nations emerged, or are in process of emerging: countries where spiritual confusion reigns, featureless and with no sense of where they are going. Everything in them is derivative and artificial, lacking in force and enthusiasm, like the false glamour of their Europeanized cities.

Can a country unsure of its identity, of where its roots lie, have a clear picture of where it is bound or what it should be striving for?”

(Source: The Islamic Declaration by Alijia Izetbegovic)

“The problems of a world which lives billions of human being who practially live under conditions of hunger and misery and without hope, are not the problems of intellectuals.”- Fidel Castro

“Here we see a number of things, the beginning of a honeymoon in the relation between the liberals and imperialism. I have brought up some of this economic information on various dates simply because a number of political events transpired throughout this process. A veritable liberal hysteria began to develop over there. A number of political slogans began to be aired in favor of the creation of opposition parties, in favor of ideas which were frankly anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist, such as the idea that the party should cease to exercise the function which a party should exercise within a socialist society and that it should play the role of guide, reviewer, and the like-above all, a sort of spiritual director. In short, that power should cease to be a function of the Communist Party. This was revision of some alleged fundamentals on which a socialist regime, a transitional regime on the road to socialism and communism-that is to say, the so-called government of the dictatorship of the proletariat-in other words, a government in which power is exercised in the name of a class and against the old exploiting classes, which means that in a revolutionary process, political rights cannot be given away-the right to exercise political activities cannot be given to the old exploiters whose aim is to struggle precisely against the very essence and reason for the being of socialism.

A number of slogans and events began to appear and norms were adopted, such as those pertaining to bourgeois freedom of the press-in other words, the right of the counterrevolution and of the exploiters, and of the enemies of socialism themselves, to talk and write freely against socialism. Indeed, a process began in which key communications media were taken over and fell into the hands of reactionary elements. There were a number of slogans used in foreign policy which amounted to a frank rapprochement with capitalist ideas and theses, and to a rapprochement with the West.

Of course, all this linked to a number of slogans which were unquestionably correct. Some of these slogans won some sympathy for the liberalization or democratization movement. Even some European communist parties which were confronting their tragedy and their contradictions began to say that they were starting to look favorably upon the liberalization movement. It was a phenomenon is which everybody was trying to get a piece of the pie.

Then there were the problems in connection with incorrect methods of government, the bureaucratic policy, the alienation of the masses. In short, a number of errors for which they blamed the old leadership. There was also talk about the necessity of giving revolutionary orthodoxy to the development of the socialist revolution and the socialist system in Czechoslovakia.

Thus did these undercurrents develop in tandem, one in justification of the change, another which transformed this change into a frankly reactionary policy. This caused a division of opinion. For our part, I did not have any doubt-and this is a very important thing- I did not have any doubt that the Czechoslovak regime was developing dangerously toward a substantial change in the system. In short, the Czechoslovak regime was moving toward capitalism and it was inexorably marching toward imperialism. About this we did not have the slightest doubt.

I want to start by discussion this because I also want to cover some other matters with regard to what was going on there. There are some int he world who do not have this opinion. Many thought this danger did not exist. Many looked favorably upon a certain freedom of artistic expression and some of these things because, naturally, there are many people in the world who are sensitive regarding these problems. Many errors have been committed concerning these problems and many blunders have been made. Logically, certain sectors, above all the intellectuals, are very sensitive about certain means for coping with this.

The intellectuals are also concerned about other problems. They have been very sensitive to Vietnam problems and all these matters, although it must be said that a part of the progressive thought of the world, which loves with their own problems-the general problems of Europe, the problems of the developed world, the problems of the developed society-places more emphasis on problems which are of less concern to a large part of the world.

The problems of a world which lives under imperialist oppression, neocolonialism, capitalist exploitation in the underdeveloped areas of the world, and billions of human begins who practically live under conditions of hunger and misery and without hope, are not the problems of intellectuals. They are more interested in questions such as whether they out to let their grow long or not. It may well be a very debatable issue, but it certainly is not an issue which is of concern to people who wan to know whether they have a possibility or hope of eating. And thus, some emphasized the positive aspects which that evolution may have had and others emphasized negative aspects. Some favored new methods and placed their hopes in them and some did not have any hope. I reached that conclusion at the outset. I had no doubt that the Czechoslovak political situation was deteriorating and Czechoslovakia was sliding downhill to a return to capitalism and would inexorably fall into the hands of imperialism.”

(Source- https://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1968/08/24.htm)

“More guileful immigrants use their ‘Americanism’ as a blind for treason. Leaving their own countries in dissatisfaction, they assume the cloak of American citizenship”- H.P Lovecraft

“But since alien immigration has far exceeded normal proportions, it is but natural that we have among us an alarmingly vast body of foreigners from various countries who are totally unable to appreciate Anglo-American traditions. If not still attached to their respective nations, they are at least prone to regard the United States as a sort of spontaneously evolved territory without previous history or ancestry. Forgetting the Saxon inheritance that gave us language, laws, and liberty, they speak of America as a composite nation whose civilization is a compound of all existing cultures; a melting pot of mongrelism wherein it is a crime for a man to know his own grandfather’s name. They prate of Americanism as something of autochthonous growth, neglecting or unwilling to assign England the credit for its origin; and presuming to blame any citizen who is more than just than they in his appreciation of the Mother Land.

More guileful immigrants use their ‘Americanism’ as a blind for treason. Leaving their own countries in dissatisfaction, they assume the cloak of American citizenship; organise and finance conspiracies with American money; and finally, with an audacity almost ironical, call upon the United States for help when overtaken by justice! Half the detestable violence of the Irish ‘Fenians’ and ‘Sinn Fien’ ruffians was hatched in America by those who dare drivel about such a thing as ‘neutrality’! Others continue to serve their own countries under the all-enveloping American mantle. Prussian-American patriots deep in the sanctimonious circles of ‘Americanism’ and ‘pacifism’ are at the same time secretly destroying American property for the benefit of the Prussian cause. And these are the sort of worthies who compare their treacherous anti-American acts with the traditional affection of a real American of the land which gave birth to the American nation!

The very small surviving flock of native Fourth-of-July England-haters must not be charged with that moral delinquency which attaches to the foreign agitators. These belated revolutionaries mean well, and are to be tolerated with kindness. They head that amusing element which applauds every Englishman who becomes naturalized in the United States, but which denounces with unmerciful inconsistency every American who, like the late Henry James, renews ancestral ties with Great Britain.”

(Source: The Conservative- The Complete Issues by H.P. Lovecraft, Pg.95)

“This was also a responsibility of the Arab States themselves, so that class conflict did not appear in ways that allowed openings for foreign interference.”- A news report about a meeting with President Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld

“Interestingly the President used a direct quote from Rumsfeld’s statement to the Foreign Minister the previous evening when he said ‘having a whole generation of Iraqis and Americans grow up without understanding each other had negative implications and could lead to mix-ups.’ Even before the War, Iraqi leadership had examined circumstances of severance of relations and possible resumption, noting need to consider carefully the timing of any decision. The War had intervened and added complication that decision on resumption might be misunderstood by USG and others and the wrong reasons attached to it. He had now made a public statement pointing out that resumption did not depend on war continuing or not. But only on having decision when it was made understood correctly. When these natural conditions and true motives could be assured, Iraq would take the necessary decision. Iraq was pleased the U.S. understood this and left Iraq to choose proper timing and circumstances.

Still unwilling to leave the subject, Saddam noted Iraq was an independent and Non-Aligned country and it was incorrect and unbalanced to have relations with the Soviet Union and not with the U.S. Iraq had no ideological complexes on this score. Although there had been bloody conflicts between the Baath and the Iraqi Communist Party, Iraq had no complexes about its relationship with the U.S.S.R. Iraq had developed relations with the West on the same basis. France in particular understood the Iraqi view. U.S needed to understand the area better, receive Iraqi views and analysis in correct and comprehensive manner so it did not make mistakes in the area. No country or people can live in true independence or prosperity if it is isolated.

Turning to other subjects, Saddam noted that the Arab World had both very rich and very poor countries. The West did not wish for the Middle East to fall under Soviet influence. The Arab World also wanted to avoid coming under the influence of either Super Power. The U.S., as Iraq understood it, was not trying to bring Arabs into the American sphere but only trying to keep them out of the Soviet sphere so that commercial and other relationships could be carried on normally. The Middle East, for its part, needed Western expertise most when it was in a stable situation and focused on development. The U.S., UK, France and Japan should extend more financial assistance to poor states like Pory to draw it away from Soviet influence. Same was true of states like North Yemen, Sudan and Mauritania. This was also a responsibility of the Arab States themselves, so that class conflict did not appear in ways that allowed openings for foreign interference. ”

(Source: http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/38/12-21-1983.%20Cable.%20Rumsfeld%20Mission%20-%20Dec%2020%20Meeting%20with%20Iraqi%20President%20Saddam%20Hussein.pdf)

“Whether one believes in communism, nationalism or capitalism must not be an obstacle to great national unity.”- Kim Il Sung

“The question of our country’s reunification is not one of who prevails over whom. It is one of attaining the unity of a nation which has been divided by an outside force and achieving national sovereignty. In order to reunify the country, therefore, it is essential to proceed from endeavours to achieve unity between the north and south and promote great national unity.

In order to promote this, the north and south must transcend their ideas and systems and refrain from pursuing hostile policies toward each other.

At present different ideas and systems exist in the two parts of our country. In this situation, the north and the south should not try to impose their ideas and systems upon each other. We do not intend to impose the socialist system and communist ideology on south Korea. Neither should the south Korean authorities insist on ‘reunification by prevailing over communism’ nor demand that we desist from communism. In other words, they should discard their ‘anti-communist’ slogans.

The north and south should discard hostile policies which obstruct unity, and combine their efforts to find common ground. If each side does not endeavor to find common ground but opposes the other side and argues about things of the past in an attempt to justify itself, the gap between the two sides will grow wider and wider and the reunification of the country will be delayed still further. This would be a grave crime against the country and the nation.

In our opinion, it is quite possible to find a common ground if the north and the south work together, basing themselves on a sincere desire for unity. We have worked hard to discover this common ground in order to hasten the country’s reunification.

Recently, the south Korean authorities have been talking about ‘self-help’, ‘self-reliance’ and ‘self-defense’. We consider that is is possible to find some common factors here. We think that their ‘self-help’, ‘self-reliance’ and ‘self-defense’ may have some points in common with the independence policies of our Party and the Government of the Republic. The country’s reunification will be hastened if the north and the south discover, one by one, what common grounds exist between them and achieve their unity on this basis.

In achieving the great unity of the nation it is important to remove misunderstanding and mistrust between north and south.

Our country has been divided for so long that there are a number of points which the north and the south differ from each other and misunderstand and mistrust each other. As long as the two sides misunderstand and distrust each other, there cannot be genuine national unity. A family cannot be formed without deep trust between husband and wife. Even in the case of husband and wife, if they do not trust each other, they cannot live together and, in the long run, they will have to divorce. The north and the south should strive to eliminate mutual misunderstanding and mistrust.

To this end, the authorities and many personages of the two parts of the country should make frequent contact with each other and hold dialogues in good faith. If they get together and discuss any matters frankly and seriously, misunderstanding will be removed and mutual trust will be deepened.

Through our dialogue with you on this occasion, the misunderstanding between the north and the south has already been alleviated to a considerable extent. The dialogue between the north and the south should have been held earlier.

We thought that the south Korean authorities were going to be lackeys of US imperialism and Japanese militarism and sell out the country. But you say that this will never be the case. You also say that the south Korean authorities will neither bring Japanese militarists into south Korea again nor sell out the country as the lackeys of the United States and Japan, and request us over and over again to believe it. So we can believe you and eliminate our past distrust.

The south Korean authorities say that they have had the misconception that we are going to ‘invade the south’ and ‘communize’ south Korea. But we have no intention of doing these things. We have declared on many occasions that we have no intention of ‘invading the south’. We reaffirm this to you today. As for ‘communization’, we do not intend to ‘communize’ south Korea nor could it be ‘communized’ even if we tried to. Therefore, I think that we can now dispel the misunderstanding and deepen trust through contacts and dialogues in this way, we shall be able to achieve great national unity regardless of the differences in idea and ideals, systems and religious beliefs.

Another important factor in achieving great national unity is that the north and the south should refrain from abusing and slandering each other.

To achieve unity and cooperation, both sides should respect each other rather than resort to abuse and slander. If they continue abusing and slandering each other as they do now, the north and the south will not get on close terms but, instead, the gap will widen. That is why they should first stop abusing and slandering each other.

Achieving economic cooperation between the north and the south is also very important in attaining great national unity.

The northern half of the Republic is rich in natural resources and has a developed heavy industry. South Korea has some foundations of light industry from the past. If the north and the south effect economic cooperation and meet each other’s needs, they will be better able to solve immediate economic problems, and develop the national economy rapidly by their own efforts without introducing foreign capital. If the national economy is developed through north-south cooperation, our nation will be better off than Japan or any other countries that are said to be developed.

The north and the south should advance jointly in external relations, too. Only then will we be able to demonstrate the unity of our nation.

We consider that the north and the south will be able to promote great national unity in spite of the differences in their ideas and systems, political views and religious beliefs, if they all take a patriotic attitude and stand for national reunification. At present, even those countries and nations which have different ideas and systems, are on friendly terms and get along well together. And there is no reason why the differences in ideas and systems should prevent our nation, which is of the same blood, from united and cooperating.

Whether one believes in communism, nationalism or capitalism must not bean obstacle to great national unity. We are not opposed to the nationalists and capitalists in south Korea. The majority of the south Korean capitalists are national capitalists. We have been pursuing a policy of protecting national capitalists. For the sake of national reunification, we will unite and cooperate with the people of all backgrounds in south Korea including nationalists and national capitalists.”

 

“I believe that the objective of every patriot should be to rid every part of the Arab nation of foreign influence.”- Gamal Abdel Nasser

“Britain has been complaining to America and telling it that Gamal Abdel Nasser said he would expel Britian from the Arab nation and the whole Arab world. Naturally, Britian believes that her epulsion from the Arab world will raise the income of the Arabs and reduce the income she obtains by plundering Arab oil and other resources. I believe that the objective of every patriot should be to rid every part of the Arab nation of foreign influnece. Each part of the Arab nation should have the right to self-determination and independence. This goes for the Arab Gulf area, Aden and the occupied Yemeni South. This objective is dear to our hearts as Arabs, because it was the presence of the British in the Arab countries which broke up and divided the Arab nation and created Israel. When the British came to the Arab countries after the First World War, they gave Palestine to the Jews. It was they who created Israel, armed the Jews, blocked arms supplies to the Arabs and left the Arabs in Palestine at the mercy of the Jews in 1948. It was they who left Palestine- Haifa, Jaffa and the other towns. It was they who left the armed Jews to kill the unarmed Arabs. They did not have the sense of honour to carry out the task entrusted to them by the League of Nations when it gave them the mandate over Palestine. Britian is responsible for all which happened to us, to the Arabs in Palestine. She is responsible for the division of the Arab countries. She is repsonsible for the inter-Arab fricition and rifs. She is responsible for all which happened to us. The latest, of course, was the 1956 expedition against us in Egypt and her most staggering defeat by the Egyptian people and the Arab nation. In 1956, Arab workers all over the Arab nation stood against British imperialism and aggression. They stood against Britian in Kuwait and opposed British landings there. In Syria, Arab workers blew up oil piplines. In Libya and in every other Arab country they took a firm stand and struggled for the sake of the gains which we are proud of today. It is our duty, therefore, to support the struggle of those Arab workers in all the Arab countries so that they may get rid of British imperialism and British spheres of influence.

Britian will not forget her defeat in 1956 and will call for economic sanctions against us. For our part, we say that were are not afraid of economic sanctions.

Against any economic sanctions imposed on us by anyone, we can impose ten times as many sanctions. We can make his life utterly miserable.

I declare once more that our first task is to drive the British out of every part of the Arab countries and to liquidate British bases.”

(Source: https://archive.org/stream/NasserMay1#page/n8/mode/1up)