Philosophy for Militants

by Alain Badiou, Bruno Bosteels (Translator)

An urgent and provocative account of the modern 'militant', a transformative figure at the front line of emancipatory politics. Around the world, recent events have seen the creation of a radical phalanx comprising students, the young, workers and immigrants. It is Badiou's contention that the politics of such militants should condition the tasks of philosophy, even as philosophy clarifies the truth of our political condition. To resolve the conflicts between politics, philosophy and democracy, Badiou argues for a resurgent communism - returning to the original call for universal emancipation and organizing for militant struggle.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Theory, Nonfiction, France, Activism

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Alain Badiou, Ph.D., born in Rabat, Morocco in 1937, holds the Rene Descartes Chair at the European Graduate School EGS. Alain Badiou was a student at the École Normale Supérieure in the 1950s. He taught at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis) from 1969 until 1999, when he returned to ENS as the Chair of the philosophy department. He continues to teach a popular seminar at the Collège International de Philosophie, on topics ranging from the great 'antiphilosophers' (Saint-Paul, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Lacan) to the major conceptual innovations of the twentieth century. Much of Badiou's life has been shaped by his dedication to the consequences of the May 1968 revolt in Paris. Long a leading member of Union des jeunesses communistes de France (marxistes-léninistes), he remains with Sylvain Lazarus and Natacha Michel at the center of L'Organisation Politique, a post-party organization concerned with direct popular intervention in a wide range of issues (including immigration, labor, and housing). He is the author of several successful novels and plays as well as more than a dozen philosophical works.

Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.

Reviews

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A.B: My proposition is that we have to put an end to France.

Interviewer: Pardon?"

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alain Badiou, along with a group of other leftist thinkers, has been responsible for one of the more interesting developments in political theory and philosophy in the last 10 years or so – the discussion around what has been called the Idea of Communism, and what others (Jodi Dean, in this case) have recast as the Communist Horizon, and what he called The Communist Hypothesis all of which adds up to the opportunity to rethink what the end goal of communist activism and politics might be.

When I first came across this idea, I found (and still find) it incredibly exciting – the chance to image what a condition of emancipation might look like, without being constrained by the Actually Existing Socialism of the USSR, the People’s Republic of China or their ilk. This ‘freedom’ comes also from Badiou’s work, where as part of the development of the notion of the communist hypothesis he argued that in terms of conjecturing what a state of liberation might look like, the era since the mid-1970s (for him, the end of the Cultural Revolution in the PRC) has meant we’re in a position in terms of our goals not unlike the 1840s: multiple and contesting strands many of whom work together to develop the bigger picture. Activism and peoples’ struggles since he made this case seem to be bearing him out, as we’ve seen all sorts of options and ideas mooted and developed for where we might be going, or what we might envisage as an ‘end-game’, most notably the ‘pre-figurative’ politics of communalism.

Badiou is prolific, not in the manner of Žižek with his efflorescence of journalistic excess: Badiou’s work is more comprehensively located at the ‘serious’ end of philosophy, but as an activist himself he teaches, he talks, he lectures – some of which are published, such as the three talks that make up this short (60 pages) and in places demanding text. Which brings me to the second thing I like about Badiou’s approach: aspects of his lapsed Maoism. Some of this is frustrating (he remains oddly attached to the ‘event’, the ‘big bang’ of change) but other parts are refreshing, most notably his view that it is not for the philosopher to tell those in struggle what to do (I may be over-reading this, but this rather resembles the old Maoist notion of the ‘mass line’ – ‘the people, and the people alone, are the motive force of history’ as the slogan once in wide use asserted). Philosophy is quite often described as a second order analysis – as about how we work. Badiou is quite clear that philosophy is not about laying down a programme for action, but exploring questions and posing problems to be teased out in practice, and for him there are four sites of practice: politics, art, science and love – for Badiou, these are what matter.

The longest of the three essays/chapters/talks explores precisely this question – the relationship between philosophy and politics. For him, to a large degree, this means opening up the question of the relationship between philosophy and the general intellect (he is, remember, a solidly grounded Marxist) and in doing so poses key questions about relationships between democracy, philosophy and politics, about participation and practice and about the relations between activists.

In doing so, he then poses the question explored by the second chapter/essay/talk: what the activist ‘looks like’. He does this by exploring the image of the warrior as pre-modern hero and the soldier as modern hero, drawing, intriguingly, on poems by G M Hopkins and Wallace Stevens, to argue that neither image – warrior or soldier – provides a useful model for the contemporary activist: this is then his challenge, his philosophical question – what does the contemporary activist look like.

In part, this seems to be related to what the contemporary activist strives for: what’s the goal? This returns, in a sense, to the question posed by The Communist Hypothesis in the third essay/chapter/talk. This takes him to questions of the law and desire, of the institutions of politics (not of the state, but of politics), i.e., parties and what they aspire to. Here is where love and art (at least in my reading) find voice alongside politics in Badiou’s socio-cultural scheme as the Idea of Communism becomes a fiction, becomes poetic – which of course it must. The utopia (the no-place, at least not yet) where we are going does not exist so it must be fictional, a vision of a place, and to inspire it should be poetic. The last thing the left needs is to be over-proscriptive.

My version of Badiou’s Philosophy for Militants then is a philosophy that gives permission to dream, to conjure up a future and in doing so find a way to work that brings that about: the goal shapes the practice. Next time I read these 60 pages I’m sure it will be with a different outcome. Bruno Bosteels’ introduction is well worth spending time on: it paints aspects of the bigger picture(s) in which he, Badiou and others are working but always in terms of Badiou’s wider body of work. Bosteels (I assume) has also added a brief and in places annotated further reading section.

It’s demanding, but it is worthwhile the need to sit quietly in the corner to work through each of the chapters.

[Amirsaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

این‌جا یک ریویوی خوب از کتاب هست:
http://problematicaa.com/philosophy-f...

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Badiou is not known for his clarity, lucidity, nor compact writing. Every time I've tried to listen to him on Youtube, or read one of his longer pieces, I fall asleep before I'm certain he's even made a point. Hell, to be really crass, my friend Jesse described him as "a walking corpse." Hence, I waited to pick up another book by him - I had his Ethics which matches all the mentioned negative commentary - until a very short one came out. This book was quite the surprise. It's comprised of 3 pieces, all talks her Badiou sometime between 2005 and present. They go in order of clearest, to most confusing, chronologically.

I would not call this book Philosophy for Militants, nor would I call put a gun on the cover, if I was the publisher. Frankly, the book should be called "Philosophy by a Militant," or "Philosophy for militant Philosophers." Although even militant is a strong word, whereas Zizek will call upon the reader to slice off the testicles of the bourgeois, and/or put them in front of a firing squad, Badiou is merely talking about philosophy's relation to politics, and vice versa, and how Truths of philosophy can impinge upon the liberal society of everyone has a right to an opinion. There's some radical undertone here, but again, nothing worth putting a gun on the cover over!

Badiou lays out some very basic points. 1) Philosophy since the time of Socrates has always been about not taking your given social situation, or the societal truths you're brought up in, for granted. One should question and try to improve the society they are born into. This process of questioning and philosophic deliberation requires a democratic form. Everyone talking philosophy ought to be heard, and rebuked; or accepted. Anyone can be a philosopher, including a raving lunatic like Socrates, or a Bishop like Berkeley. Philosophy is a way of being that anyone can undertake. However, if one is committed to truths in philosophy, than the democracy that gives rise to philosophy is not quite the same as the best democratic lay out for actual society. In liberal states it's pretty damn clear that the news, tv, radio, magazines, books, etc., are just riddled with trash, and non-sense. The philosopher cannot respect these points of views out of some liberal bias that everyone gets an opinion, instead non-truths are to be met head on. And this leads to a serious problem, we need democratic philosophical processes, but not liberal democratic governments, if we are want to aspire to a society that is more truthful, and essentially better.

The other essays are also interesting, but progressively get more confusing. The final essay is something to do with set theory, and the singularity of proper noun political movements (e.g., Maoism, Leninism, etc).

Also, interesting to see Badiou's favorite poet is Wallace Stevens..

[Lucas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a manifesto for militants, it is philosophy for militants because even if you do not agree with Badiou the questions raised in this book should be considered by all who consider their ideologies to be related to direct action and struggle. The book is divided into three essays.

The first is about how philosophy and politics coincide and what exactly their relationship is. It goes over the different ways philosophy can be used to attain justice for society, and create an egalitarian future.

The second essay analyzes poetry to help us better understand the passage through history of the image of the individual glory seeking warrior to the anonymous soldier of the modern era. The end is left open to consider the meaning of the soldier in the recent past and the new image that can replace it, possibly the militant.

Finally Badiou addresses the current political struggle and how it deals with the law today, how there will always be movements outside of the law and he discusses how the proletariat is meant to overcome these issues. He ends by stating that it is necessary for the left today to create a new fiction in which to ground our movement.

Interesting read, sometimes a little dry. Important to understand the basics of Marxist theories, and important to know dialectical thinking if you want to understand the book.

[Jasper L · Rating 3 out of 5]

Second read (2023): Second time around I have to admit that it is not my favourite of Badiou’s little books. Mainly, I feel that Badiou is a little imprecise at times, even regarding his own work. But I think the purpose of the book is a call to begin thinking novelty (fiction), not to do philosophy as such.

I do really appreciate that he makes explicit reference to the possibility (and likelihood) that the generic can be local, emphasising the situated or immanent nature of Truths that is key to Badiou’s philosophy. In the political condition, this is an important point to drive home I think - often overlooked.

First chapter on Althusser is the highlight for sure though.


First read (2020): Great way to engage with the politics of Badiou without having to do the maths. Although, you should probably just do the maths.
In all seriousness though, you can read this collection once and engage in a very accessible overview of the relationship between philosophy and politics. But you can also continue to revisit this collection and gain some very useful conceptual guidance prior to tackling 'Being and Event'.

Worth a read no matter what you are looking for

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite being pro-communist, you can smell some fear in Badiou's words.

[Crito · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first two essays are interesting, particularly the first in its exploration of the relations between philosophy, democracy, and politics, although I am occasionally suspicious about his level of abstraction. The third however.. I know he has a reputation for it, but actually seeing Badiou philosophize from set theory is like watching someone try to cut their steak by jamming the side of their fork into it.

[Zay Min Htut Aung · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such a quite difficult work! but Alian Badiou himself is not such a difficult philosopher in this contemporary era huh(understandable)?
I literally like this work. It gives me some remarkable ideas of politics of truth but not political truth. I do not like writing reviews . I think the essence of a book is deviated when we write reviews, isn't it?

[Skeptical Leftist · Rating 3 out of 5]

I usually don't enjoy continental philosophers but this was refreshing, the description of the model for the soldier I found to be very true and also very enlightening. His concept of eternal recurrence in philosophy was very interesting as the idea that much of philosophy was a recycling of old arguments or the building of base upon base upon base with only superficial changes was something new to me, however I feel it is at best partly true and not reflective of movements like empiricist philosophy or logical positivism or even the contemporary analytical philosophy that took the ideas of the past further than could have ever before been conceived and justly did away with much of the old problems posed stupidly and badly to which Continental philosophers like Badiou still cling too. In this you see I'm biased, and so be it that I am, I am deeply put off by his reverence of Plato reflective in literally all of his work which bleed's metaphysical nutjob in my eyes and was further vindicated in this well written but relatively fruitless book.
Lastly his focus on violence and a philosopher-king type mentality show that he is still a right wing communist, and by that I mean a Leninist/Maoist he simply cant shake off that old failed idea and how much damage it did to the left by having demeaned our struggle as nothing more than militant Keynesian one party dictators who put a bullet in the head of all who challenge them in whatever form they might find or think exists.

He represents the old guard of the left, arrogant, elitist, and needlessly confusing for the sake of continental mystery argument. The sooner his camp dies out the better it will be for 21st century left.

[José Pereira · Rating 1 out of 5]

Got almost nothing out of this. The book has little to do with militancy or praxis, but the biggest problem is that the texts in it are pretty much empty.
Badiou just makes highly ambitious speculations that he backs up with zero arguments. The main thesis - that politics is necessary for philosophy, but philosophy is incompatible with democracy - is argued for at a high-school level. It only "works" because Badiou has ridiculously simplistic and naive notions of justice and freedom. Badiou is forced to claim that any account of justice would be oppressive because then people would be limited by it, and not able to just do whatever they want, that is, engage in democratic practices.
Skip this one.

[tara bomp · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short book divided into 3 sections that don't really connect. The title is pretty misleading - the book doesn't really live up to the combative title and the talk about "physical" action is pretty limited. His ideas about unnameability, "generic"ness, what philosophy is are all interesting, although there was nothing that made me go wow - I feel I'd probably have got a lot more out of it if I was more familiar with Badiou's other work. Still interesting stuff. The book is confusing in a few points but that's inevitable and the language isn't too specialised. However, I found the translator's forward somewhat baffling and very tough going.

[Attasit Sittidumrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book's first article, the enigmatic relationship between philosophy and politics, is Badiou's best writing on politics, especially how his philosophical system re-appropriates political philosophy by recasting the premise of justice, which leads philosophical activity in the direction of emancipatory politics

[Sean Flynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disappointed by the misleading title, not disappointed with the content...
Simple and blunt about the current failures of democracy and the possibility of renewing a political democracy through communism

[Anders · Rating 4 out of 5]

So this was a nice slim little volume with 3 tiny lectures by Badiou. Definitely my least favorite of the Badiou that I've read so far. However, that isn't to say it isn't worth checking out. It's so short that if you're into Badiou, you might as well.

First off, let's discuss the title. So in the preface the translator is frank about it: the title of the French book is the much more straightforward: The Enigmatic Relationship Between Philosophy and Politics, which as it happens is also the title of the first lecture (the other two being: The Figure of the Soldier and Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). He says that Badiou balked at the change by the publisher but eventually came around on it because he felt he could back the sentiment and so the translator also agrees with Badiou. I don't disagree with them. I think it's a clear move by the publisher to rope in people by sensationalizing it. However, I also trust the intentions of Badiou. The problem is that the content just doesn't match up with the title, even if Badiou is willing to tout philosophy for militants as one of his prime missions. The lectures themselves have some overlap with militancy and the idea of philosophy for militants, but I think it's just too much of a stretch, content-wise, to warrant the name it has. Whew okay now that that's over with...

The first lecture is great and talks about exactly what it says. This is one of the reasons the title change sticks in my minds because surely "The Enigmatic Relationship of Philosophy and Politics" is a altogether too wordy title (Or is it??), but at least it tells me what I'm gonna read. In the lecture there are some interesting suggestions about what Philosophy is and how we use it (no doubt elaborated on further in his other readings). They're clear and palatable explanations of pieces of Badiou's framework. "Philosophy is the act of reorganizing all theoretical and practical experiments by proposing a great new normative division, which inverts an established intellectual order and promotes new values beyond the commonly accepted ones." A neat definition of Philosophy to engage with. And, as always, there are some nice artistic bits: "In this way, the future of philosophy, like its past, is a creative repetition. It will forever be the case that we must endure our thoughts for as long as the night lasts." I love it! He mentions Plato and Heidegger because of course, but they tie into this interesting point about how to properly account for values, old and new. Some might say Philosophy is primarily concerned with valuation by way of moral evaluation and decision.

He uses the notion that philosophy is an inherently democratic activity to differentiate it from politics which has designs on objectivity. "In short, if there exists something like a political truth, this truth is an obligation for any rational spirit. As a result, freedom is absolutely limited. Conversely, if there exists no limitation of this order, there exists no political truth. But in that case there is no positive relationship between philosophy and politics."

And a few pages later, he indicts Rorty with a much-needed indicting: "Richard Rorty has declared: "Democracy is more important than philosophy." With this political principle, Rorty in fact prepares the dissolution of philosophy into cultural relativism. But Plato, at the start of philosophy, says the exact opposite: philosophy is far more important than democracy. And if justice is the philosophical name of politics as truth of the collective, then justice is more important than freedom." Plato later gets his own indictments.

He ends with a philosophical proposal on what to call Communism, which resolves the relationship between Philosophy and politics. I'm leaving a lot out (of a very short lecture), but it's interesting and even better all together.

The second lecture (The Figure of the Soldier) is not bad. It's a more literary and poetic meditation on soldiers. Features Wallace Stevens' "Transport to Summer"

The third returns to a more political subject (Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). It basically builds on ideas from the first lecture to make a more pointed assertion about the dangers of expressive dialectics and the social construction of key issues involved with politics.

When I read Badiou I often get the feeling that I'm missing something, or I don't know enough about his framework or vocabulary to say I understand everything he's saying, but for this short selection of lectures, that was a less frequent occurrence. A nice short read for all the Badiou fans out there. Looking through the book again to write the review I changed from a 3 to 4 star so maybe that's something in itself.

[Maty Candelaria · Rating 3 out of 5]

For my first Badiou book, I found “Philosophy for Militants” to be a very interesting introduction. It is also a very short read.

The text is composed of three main essays: the first on the relationship between a politics and philosophy, the second on the so-called “figure of the soldier” which is contrasted with the Nobel Warrior, and the third on politics as “non-expressive dialectics”.

For Badiou, philosophy is necessarily conditioned by 4 non-philosophical domains: "science, politics, art and love"(3). Although philosophy often attempts at reinventing itself, it is always finds its way back to its Greek origin, as well as its condition for possibility: Ancient Greek Democracy.

However, this origination itself posses a contradiction within philosophy from the very beginning. Democracy is the condition of philosophy, but the end cannot be an equality of truths. Badiou maintains, following set theory, that there are no relative truths. But perhaps we can have a universal, or generic truth.

The figure of the soldier, for Badiou, marks a shift away from that of the warrior. Read uncharitably, Badiou’s praise of the soldier can be seen as quite conservative. However, in light of the third essay, Badiou seems to be calling for a new fiction, or new figuration of collective imagination which is both scientific and generic.

Here, not only is set-theory vital for Badious arguments, but so is poetry. Much like Deleuze, Badiou cannot help himself to this or that tradition, such as Math, Science, Continental Philosophy or Analytic, Poetry, etc, Badiou must make a kind of monster.

Badiou’s monster, following set theory, is a mathematical one which attempts to go beyond Law and Desire, to create *new* fictions that might help us express a Marxist present and future.

I am currently undecided if Badiou is successful.

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really love the way Badiou writes.
The book was alright, with some good poetry commentary, with some good analysis on the relation of politics and philosophy, some set theory with bowls of apples and dead frogs, and some fine takes on fiction and possibilities. Badiou insists alot on finding something "new" to express things but he doesn't necessarily offer any alternative.


"Kant said that the history of
philosophy was a battlefield. He was absolutely right. But it is also the repetition of the
same battle, in the same field. A musical image may be helpful here. The becoming of
philosophy has the classical form of the theme and its variations. The repetition provides
the theme, and the constant novelty, the variations."

The funniest part and the most cringe of the entire book was this part:

"My proposition is that we have to put an end to France." (based beginning)

"I’ve thought for a long time that France should merge with Germany. I’m very happy,
moreover, that other people, such as Michel Serres, now share my opinion. There is no
future for France alone. The European combination is teetering, as we’ve seen with Greece,
and everyone understands that France and Germany form the hard core of Europe. A
merger would make it possible to stand up to the other economic great powers, which
neither France nor Germany – nor Europe – is capable of doing today. The French and
German economies are already intertwined, so let’s have this hard core realised politically!
That could be in the form of a federal State, as is already the case with Germany" (goofiest take i've ever seen in my life)

3/5

[Ziikii]

I propose to call ‘communism’, philosophically speaking, the subjective existence of the
unity of these two meanings, the formal and the real. That is to say, it is the hypothesis of a
place of thought where the formal condition of philosophy would itself be sustained by the
real condition of the existence of a democratic politics wholly different from the actual
democratic State. That is, again, the hypothesis of a place where the rule of submission to a
free protocol of argumentation, open to be debated by anyone, would have as its source the
real existence of emancipatory politics. ‘Communism’ would be the subjective state in
which the liberatory projection of collective action would be somehow indiscernible from
the protocols of thinking that philosophy requires in order to exist.

[Olivia Merrill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophy for Militants is, in its composition, three lectures prepared and presented by Alain Badiou: the first on the relationship of philosophy and politics, the second on the soldier as a figure of democracy, and the third an exploration for a nonexpressive dialectics, what Badiou considers a necessary attempt to formulate a new relationship between masses, parties, and leaders.

The first of these I found useful and would recommend to anyone interested in the relationships underpinning democracy, philosophy, and politics. The other two, while interesting, are inconclusive and not as informing or engaging. A short, good read regardless.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full review here: https://afightingtruth.wordpress.com/...

Wouldn't recommend reading first, as may have been more intelligible after The Communist Hypothesis, but still compelling and hints at what might be useful in the concept of 'truth-procedures' (but they are not philosophised in detail here). Interesting too for his discussion of the 'possibility of the impossible'.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

The focal point of this book - although slightly obfuscated by Badiou’s poetic style of writing - is the necessity of the unity of political thought and practice. I’m doing so, he presents a somewhat symbiotic relationship between the practice of militants and their philosophy. Have given three stars, as even though I mostly agree with the ideas presented, the style of writing can make it difficult to understand.

[Mohammadreza Alihoseiny · Rating 1 out of 5]

به جز چند بخش کوتاه از کتاب بقیه‌ی بخش‌ها ارزش خواندن ندارند. تلاش یک کمونیست مائوئیست که همانطوری که در کتاب اشاره می‌کند قصد دارد جوان‌ها را متقاعد کند. اکثر تلاش او در این کتاب همان تلاش کلاسیک چپ‌ها برای مصادره‌ی مفهوم مبارزه و تبدیل سرمایه‌داری و هرچیزی که به نحوی در کنار آن قرار دارد به لولو خورخوره است.
در کل ارزش خرید و خواندن ندارد.

[Biaru · Rating 1 out of 5]

First essay has some insight and moments. Nothing truly riveting, just merely an outline. Other two essays did nothing for me at all. This is an insanely misleading text, as the text has nothing to do with militia in a direct sense; it supposedly revolving around militants is why I purchased in the first place

[Jim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Attention for this misnamed text likely reliant on Badiou's intellectual notoriety, as it surely isn't on the content.
I found little of consequence here, and would say anything of note has been written about by Badiou in his other books, and done with more explanation and erudition.

[Nicolás · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first true Badiou read. Nothing mind-blowing. As with other marxists, his assumptions are uninspired and the conclusions very close to conservatism.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't do a lot for me.

[Hugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good essays, still, just a little taste

[Salahuddin Hourani]

ملاحظة لي: لم اقرا الكتاب بعد - عن ضرورة انخراط الفلسفة في النضال والصراع وعدم التعامل معها كعلم لا علاقة له ولا تاثير له على الواقع

[Hamzah H · Rating 4 out of 5]

Badiou’s bowing to mathematics in almost every work he’s written will be the bane of my existence. favorite french dude though

[Blake Riley · Rating 3 out of 5]

my introduction to badiou, i tryed to finish in a few days but ended up taking longer. he himself is an interesting character, former maoist and tenured mathematician. as with other french philosophers i found myself getting lost in the language, which was mostly translated twice as i learned from the afterword. it kept my attention with easily related moments i can relay below:

"I believe that the most difficult problem of our time is the problem of a new fiction. We must distinguish between fiction and ideology. Because, generally speaking, ideology is opposed to sceince, to truth or to reality. But, as we have known since Lacan, truth itself is the structure of fiction. The process of truth is also the process of a new fiction. Thus, finding the new great fiction offers the possibility of having a final political belief."

"By corruption I mean, above all, the mental corruption which leads to a world that, while being so evidently devoid of any principle, present itself as, and is assumed by the majority of those who benefit from it to be, the best of all possible worlds. This reaches the point where, in the name of this corrupt world, people tolerate the waging wars against those who would revolt against such disgusting self-satisfaction - and, within our borders, our persecution of those who are badly 'integrated', all those who, having arrived from elsewhere, do not unconditionally profess the self-proclaimed superiority of capitalo-parliamentarianism."