Uphold The Two Nevers: Never Shun a Comrade, Never Stifle Discourse

30 April 2026.

Comrades, as is well-known, US liberalism is entering a profound mode of unresolving crisis. One of the clearest examples of this crisis-driven emergency, as Peter Turchin has correctly pointed to, is the rise of the cancellation-purge and the gruesome willingness of both the counter-elites (in our case, party and organisation leadership) and the credentialed activists (our cadres and independent comrades) to engage in campaigns of denunciation and total social war over the smallest of political disagreements, or ,,reactionary infractions'' (substitute ,,revisionist'' as needed!) as these miniscule disagreements, previously well and useful, have been recast. This is but one aspect of what we Reform-Leninists have characterised as the Yezhovite mind-set.

But why do we bring up this 'ancient liberal history' at the present moment? It is for the reason, first combatted in a forceful call to arms by Comrade Özkirimli and Comrade Neiman, that the Wokerite liberal creed indeed has somewhat transfigured itself onto the Left as a form of Woke Yezhovism. The Hoxhaists are a stereotypical, low-hanging example, yet evidence none the less to this mind-set. Then, there are more subtle indicators, such as ice-pick and other 'ultra-chekist' jests, to say nothing of the perverse, wholly uncomradely wishing of death upon many comrades, such as Comrade Stalin, Comrade Bukharin, Comrade Trotsky, Comrade Khrushchev, Comrade Tito, Comrade Gorbachev, and Comrade Deng to name some of the most notorious targets of instance. The liberals and Hoxhaists have simultaneously called for the deaths of Comrade Castro, Comrade Mao, and Comrade Kim Il-Sung, demonstrating the sheer hypocrisy of the ,,tolerant liberal'' concern for ,,mannish rights''.

This Woke Yezhovite trend is a pernicious influence, for it attempts to misconstrue wanton slaughter, vengeful tyranny, and embittered retribution as communist policies. It need not be said that this is either the biggest error ever encountered or a downright slander by covert detractors. Alas that, it is to be feared that most of this infantile madness is of the former category. Though the madness is not entirely home-grown: US society and its sociality are fundamentally liberal, unlike Europe, which still has some mitigating feudal conservative traditions to counter-act the worst excesses of Wokery, which means that, especially in its weakened political and cultural state, the US Left is surrounded in an ocean of corrosive liberalism, without an expansive, rooted sociality and high culture of its own to negate any potential corruption. That is to say, spiritual pollution from liberalism is a clear and grave danger. The madness starts abroad,then comes ahouse to roost over the coals those in want of vigilance and sufficient preparation. This is not the only source, of course. The Yezhovite mind-set has a long tradition on the Left, possibly going all the way back to the First International. But even then, the Marx-Bakunin split was far and away less vicious than what should come after.

The Left has surrendered its sociality and any positive high cultural outlook it had to the liberal hegemony. This flagrant tailism will not serve it well. The folk, not just the worksfolk of worker, crafter, and tiller, but a substantial proportion of society generally, including a growing number of intellectuals outside the intelligentsia and the ivory tower complex most importantly, are turning against the constant retribution of Wokery. More and more men are calling for the metaphorical social guillotines to finally go still, for the Lubyanka to cease cramming everyone it can into the basement. Very quicky in the rise of the Wokerite phenomenon, re-education was abandoned for repression outright. This is when we knew that Wokery had failed: repression is an emergency lever response to imminent crisis, and is thus an a priori admission of of a political line's failure, which catalyses the imminent crisis necessitating repression in the first place.

When repression becomes the sole effective response, that is the sign that an ideology possesses nay organic basis, and is an artificial construction or one of a minority class, nay pun intended. In this case, Wokery is partially artificial, with the CIA assisting it through the Congress for ,,Cultural Freedom'' (anti-cultural degeneracy): the compromised post-modernist Michel Foucault, the tailist party wrecker Angela Davis, and the divisive yet elusive 'J Sakai' are but three big examples. Yet Wokery is also partially an organic development in the ideology of the credentialed smallburghers of the university. Frustrated by their inability to ascend the presently bloated and ever more disparate ranks of the Professional Intellectual-Managerial Patrons (PIMPs) of the liberal capitalist order, the members of academia have taken their commitment to anti-cultural individualism, and engineered a monstrosity out of it: the monster of identity politic. In times of crisis, individualism desperately attempts to re-establish the cultured communal (gemeanshiply) regime it sought so completely to liquidate through individualism and cosmopolitanism. Truly, evil can not recreate that which it should destroy. This goes truest for the whole cultivation of a high culture regime.

To rectify the problem of liberal and cosmopolitan corruption of the Left, we are proud to announce the programmes of the Two Nevers: that of Never Shun a Comrade and of Never Stifle Discourse, operating under the policies of Gladsnost and Disclosnost, respectively. Why do we mention liberalism and cosmopolitanism as the primary source of this corruption to be combatted, rather than dogmatism or ultra-Leftism? It is simply because these home-grown phenomena, being thus, are not as corrosive in their vituperation as the ideologically offland influence of the former. Personally, it has been our experience that it is the more liberal Leftists, as opposed to the ultras or the hard-liners, which to-day engage in the absolutely anti-social practise of shunning, whereby unmanifying someone with differing opinions is somehow viewed as preferable to the ,,heinous crime'' of ,,platforming'' them in discussion. This cult-like, anti-social unmanification is not only terribly unbefitting of comrades, but also stifles the discourse necessary to form a proper analysis of truth from facts, and therefore precludes the development of a reasoned line.

At a time when a growing proportion of the masses are becoming afeard of the liberal chekists, purge-happy and o so ,,tolerant'' as they have shewed themselves to be, the very last thing the Left ought to be doing is tailing this outwrothly, indeed frightening behaviour. 'Serve the folk' means first and foremost not scaring them into stillness, which should make the mass-line, or a republicanism of any manner, simply impossible, on account of their unwillingness to speak openly with us. Now is the opportune moment to demonstrate to the worksfolk that, contrary to liberal lies, we communists are the only ones willing to tolerate genuine democratic centralist, republican, mass-line discussions, especially when it comes to the extremely contentious spheres of ideology and culture. Now is the time for the bright Red dawn to shine through the grey storm-clouds of cosmopolitan liberalism, which has so violently thrashed society with paranoid repression.

Glory is for the ones to look forwards: as those lashing out to retain an untenable present shall find the time made past as they blow into the rubbish bin of the stulted and insipient. Let us not follow the Woke liberals in this ignominious end; let us demonstrate our superior capacity for sincere honesty and our dedication to reason from all truths of fact, nay matter how potentially inconvenient they may happen to be. If communists may not allow a sufficient compromise of pluralism to unite and overthrow the brittle fist of liberalism, then it is reasonable to assume that fascism will do so. That is the fact.

What are the specifics of these two programmes? And what is the actual meaning of 'never'? Never Shun a Comrade is much closer to a literal definition of 'never'. Either criticise the thoughts of a comrade in principled manner, or initiate official party proceedings, and leave polemic out until the proceedings are finished. These are the only principled courses of action which are permissible under Never Shun a Comrade. The programme firmly rejects as unacceptable such uncomradely behaviours as shunning (cutting off all or most communication), hearspeech or rumour, conspiration or intrigue, betrayal, and execution of a comrade (irrespective of legality). These things must never be done, and any comrade faced with the knowledge of their occurrence must dutifully struggle against these doings to the last second of their ceasing. Such is the gravity imbued of this important programme.

Never Stifle Discourse is a more complicated programme. The 'never' here is more figurative, as there may be times when controversies must be placed under a cool-down period for the general benefit of society. Hysteriæ are very hard to control and may be impossible to eliminate, making the temporary repression of inciting incidents one of the only ways to mitigate the potential intensity of hysteria, ideally preventing violence. A high culture can also limit the potential for hysteria, but this takes decades of deep focus (and some luck) to cultivate successfully. Society and state may not rely on this mode, and can not pause their own functions for all this time, of course. Outside crisis situations, and certainly amongst comrades, repression must be directed exclusively at severe dangers, and err upon the ghost of clemency, even outright amnesty if the infraction is small enough or plausibly justified without causing immediate harm.

Whilst shunning comrades decreases the Party's number and perceived trustworthiness, stifling does damage far worse. This stifling makes the Party and state blind to what are in fact expressions of genuine disagreement on socialist policy on the one hand, and class ideologies emanating from the material and social conditions on the other. This does not mean that the Party must heed every call or petition, especially of the latter variety, which should subvert the very process of democratic centralism. Never Stifle Discourse entails the right to speak, but enforces nay obligation upon the Party regarding the right to be heard. Now, with that being said, I personally do tend to favour a more open discourse, excluding moments of active, imminent crisis. I have written in many places the unorthodox opinion that the cadre category of independent comrades, those not belonging to any party, serving as something akin to independent central inspectorate control-commissar auditors (I do not find the term 'watch-dong' pleasant) for all communist parties, are absolutely essential and beneficial to the movement. Comrades can naturally be trusted, so they must be placed in every field, including non--party fields, to replace the pieces of society, namely its personnel, for that of a socialist society, id est with our comrades, whichever party or independent of one.

The evidence is clear that most repression stems from an unscientific lashing out of emotions, rather than any kind of consideration. This has also led to unusually bitter hostilities betwixt comrades as well. Let us take, for example an example of liberal repression, the persecution of philosopher and theorist Aleksandr Dugin. The persecution of Dugin might make the liberal ruling-class feel safer, or personally satisfied in the purpose of vindication (in the original sense of 'vindiction'), but it addresses nothing in its lulling of the intellectual senses into falsehood. Communists must uphold the scientific approach, which means creating a line which, being based on reasonable truth from objective facts, precludes the need for repression, itself an intrinsic confession of erroneous analysis or policy. Shunning and stifling is for the enactor's own emotional benefit. These two anti-social emergency levers are not known for making matters better. Indeed, shunning and stifling generally make resentment and unsettled disputes fester until they explode or make mutual resolution impossible.

Let us bravely advance to truth from facts, holding firm to the programmes of the Two Nevers! If comrades discover any violations of Never Shun a Comrade and Never Stifle Discourse, remember that it is certainly in yourown best interest to combat them, for you could always be next to be shunned or stifled. Speak up against such acts, in defence of comradeship and reason. That is the scientific practise of the Two Nevers.