Chapter 14

Chapter

Chapter 13

Chapter13, Dialectical Reciprocity

Dialectical Reciprocity is the synthesis between Dialectical materialism and Reciprocity without the linear historical materialism which is proven to be historical revisionism on par with holocaust denial. Dialectical Reciprocity rejects both holocaust denial and linear historical materialism. Reciprocity is a process of exchanging things with other people in order to gain a mutual benefit. The rule of reciprocity, is a social ethic where if someone does something for you, you then feel obligated to return the favor which stands in contrast to both Nationalism and Communism. If we lived by the rule of reciprocity, children would learn to share with each other, take turns, and engage in reciprocal actions. Instead the rule of competition is the daily bread of most children. Hostility is the norm of society now that Capitalism has defeated Communism. Dialectical materialism is a philosophy of science, history, and nature developed in Europe and based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This concept only became genuinely material with Vladimir Lenin before that Dialectical materialism was no better than Idealism. Marxist dialectics, as a materialist philosophy, emphasizes the importance of real-world conditions and the presence of contradictions within things, limited to class only. This is in contrast to the Leninist dialectic, which emphasizes the observation that contradictions in material phenomena could be resolved by analyzing them and synthesizing a solution whilst retaining their essence. It is also with Leninism that National Struggle became recognized as part of the Revolutionary Process yet there was still a rejection of Jewish Nationality and Byzantine Catholic Nationality. What is needed is Dialectical Reciprocity which also fits into a Theory from the Black Panther Party known as Revolutionary Intercommunalism. Dialectical Reciprocity is the only way to deal with Communists. Communists think that they can argue against real Socialists because they know how to argue with Anarchists and win such pointless irrelevant debates. Debating the Communists is not hard. I have never lost a debate to a Communist. Showing a great deal of Reciprocity towards the various types of Communist is a vain pursuit which in many cases may even get you killed. Marxist-Leninists and Maoists respond the best to Reciprocity. Anarcho Communists only know how to accuse everyone of being Jewish as if that was a crime of some sort. Trotskyists will only belittle anyone who dares to disagree with them. Classical Marxists, Orthodox Marxists and Libertarian Marxists only care about spreading Socialism by using a Communist Nation-State to spread a Communist Empire across the World so that everyone is assimilated into Communism. These Communists are not much better than Trotskyists. Trotskyists still oppose Dialectical Reciprocity. Every time I try to teach young Radicals about Dialectical Reciprocity it is the Trotskyists who resort to pure violence. 

Dialectical Reciprocity requires respect and honesty. Dialectical Reciprocity requires acknowledging that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics saved the World from Nazism while also acknowledging that Joseph Stalin failed to see Adolf Hitler as the primary contradiction until the Nazi invasion of Stalingrad forced him to see otherwise. In the 1930s, a great deal of Communists, Bundists and Social Democrats from Germany and Austria sought refuge from the Nazis in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These were some of the bravest, most courageous people in history yet the Soviet secret police handed over hundreds of these dissenting voices to the Gestapo. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’s 1936 constitution afforded “the right of asylum to foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people.” But the bureaucracy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics betrayed their own Constitution when dealing with hundreds of German and Austrian exiles, handing them over to the Nazis from the late 1930s on. Many of the victims were Bundists, given Joseph Stalin's book Marxism and the National Question it should be no shock that Joseph Stalin would let the Nazis deal with his Bundist problem. As bad as this is, Leon Trotsky would have done much worse in all probability doing the same as Adolf Hitler given his victorious attacks on Judaism when he led the Red Army on that Aristocratic Train of Privilege that he commanded from. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany in August 1939. The Wehrmacht invaded Poland a week later. Dialectical Reciprocity requires seeing how flawed Joseph Stalin really was while simultaneously acknowledging that Leon Trotsky was an antisemitic hardliner. Stalin was never equipped to fight antisemitism because he based his entire view of Jews on Lenin's very misinformed aristocratic views of them. Dialectical Reciprocity requires admitting that Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence is a Book of Slander with clearly racist undertones which is rather typical of Trotsky's racism towards Georgians. When sourcing such a silly book it lacks foundation much like most of Trotsky's work. The more that Leon Trotsky slandered Joseph Stalin the more it became obvious to Stalin that Trotsky's exile was not enough. This is why Trotsky got the Ice-pick. Having all of this awareness comes to Demarchist lips all the time yet this causes both Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists to find themselves in a bit of a emotional state of being, thus derailing any honest conversation so be warned. Marxist-Leninists act like you are crazy when you point out to them that Joseph Stalin was in favor of the creation of a Zionist State, sure he regretted this but regrets don't abolish Zionism. Trotskyists should not even be approached as they are all scum. Trotskyists surround Abraham Weizfeld. Abraham Weizfeld is the last Bundist. Marek Edelman is called the last Bundist. To say that Marek Edelman is a Bundist at all is just a lie. If telling the truth still holds value than it needs to be said that Marek Edelman used to be a Bundist but is now just a Liberal. The last Bundist is Abraham Weizfeld not Marek Edelman. It would be a taxing challenge to reach Abraham Weizfeld, he has very intellectually dishonest views on Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. One conversation with me and Abraham Weizfeld would realize that Stalin was merely a fool while Trotsky was tyrannical. Unfortunately for me I can not make this virus slow down. I also happen to know that as great as Abraham Weizfeld is he can never get away from the Anarcho Communists and Trotskyists who have spooked him. As it stands Abraham Weizfeld is without Comrades. I am the Comrade of the last Bundist but he does not have any awareness of me. I have tried now for twelve years to get in touch with Abraham Weizfeld but I never get anywhere. Maybe I am not going through the correct channels. Abraham Weizfeld has known such individuals as Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini and Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. Dialectical Reciprocity requires recognizing Abraham Weizfeld while denouncing Marek Edelman. 

Dialectical Reciprocity requires having a decolonizing language. This means saying that Whiteness is a lie. This means recognizing that within the First World it is Black People who have the capacity to overthrow the First World. This means that the First World is a global Bourgeoisie and that the Third World is a global Proletariat. Dialectical Reciprocity is how Demarchy starts thus giving rise to Socialism. Dialectical Reciprocity is more advanced than basic Reciprocity yet this remains unnoticed.

Chapter 12

Chapter

Chapter 11

Chapter 11, Nationality and Class Struggle

Too many Communists consider Class Consciousness to be a contradiction to National Consciousness never seeing them as both equally valid. Only the Maoists recognize the importance of Nationality and how this can connect to Class. However the Maoists do not recognize Byzantine Catholic Nationality or Jewish Nationality because of Joseph Stalin. Some Maoists are even Pro-Zionist. I was sure that I could get the Maoists to realize the parallels between the Black Panther Party and the Jewish Labor Bund. I had no such luck at all. Maoism never goes all the way. Just because Maoists go further than Marxist-Leninists does not mean they go far enough. Every Maoist out there hates Philosophical Religions like Confucianism and Buddhism. Maoists even consider Satanism to be a Religion despite being that Satanism is a Anti Religion movement that was started by Anton LaVey. There was no Satanism before Anton LaVey. Before the Satanism of Anton LaVey and Michael Aquino the very word Satanic was an insult. Satanism has its roots in eurocentricity not antiquity. There was of course historic Devil Worship which is not religiosity yet like Star Worship and Nature Worship could be seen as closer to religion without actually being religion. Devil Worship, Star Worship and Nature Worship all could be to a great extent considered protoreligious as well as postreligious. Devil Worship had little to no relation to Devils before the rise of Islam. African Devil Worship has evolved due to this yet it remains marginal given that it was a more understandable practice before taking on the Christian and Muslim interpretations of Satan as the Devil. I have concluded that Maoism is without popularity in the United States of America due to its Anti-Americanism. The Anti-Americanism of Maoism is essential to Maoism even though most Maoists in the United States of America have changed their positions regarding this. I am convinced that this is because Maoism just like Abimael Guzmán himself is disingenuous. National Struggles are struggles against Westernism. Communists would find my words to be in opposition to Dialectical Materialism. Their confusion is not my fault nor is it the fault of anyone else but the Communists themselves. The most obvious National Struggle within the First World to pay attention to is the Black National Liberation Struggle. Black People are the descendants of the Slaves stolen from Africa. Unlike the White Nation which does not actually exist, the Black Nation is very real. Five hundred years of non-stop kidnapping then slavery, then Jim Crow, then institutional racism and assimilation into the White Society which paradoxically makes new Movies all the time addressing these issues is where the highest revolutionary potential in the First World will always be. It will take Black People to bring down the First World. 9/11 may have temporarily distracted some Black People but Amadou Diallo is still dead and a few more Amadou Diallos throughout the span of thirty years or so may cause Black People to rise up. I can not provoke any such uprising as I am not Black. 

I am merely telling the truth. Blackness is both Class Struggle and Nationality there is no contradiction at all. Although not as intense as Black National Liberation Struggle, both Byzantine Catholic National Liberation Struggle and Jewish National Liberation Struggle matters for Revolution yet the price for both those Jewish and those Byzantine Catholic is to understand that all in the First World should walk behind the Black National Liberation Struggle. To do otherwise shows that there is some type of collective narcissism which insists on watering down the essential part that Blackness has in Revolution. 

If the Jewish National Liberation Struggle against the Zionist State is defeated it will spell a new Holocaust for the Jews because they will be blamed for Zionism. Jews all throughout the World are openly showing their opposition to Zionism yet somehow this remains unknown. Byzantine Catholics throughout the World oppose Islamophobia openly yet no one understands why. We reject Islamophobia even though most Muslims throughout the World have now come to blame Christians for everything bad that happens to them. The truth is that Jews throughout the West are censored. So this is why no one seems to know that they reject the Zionist State of Israel. The repression of Byzantine Catholics is a bit more our own fault. It is easy for any of us to reject Islamophobia. It is hard for us to challenge other Christians. This is the simple truth, we have become far too complacent. But we are a Nation too. Our National Liberation Struggle will be one of not just condemning Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Zionism but it will also of confronting our own heretics. It is terrifying to challenge the Ku Klux Klan. It is terrifying to challenge the Christian Zionists. It is terrifying to challenge the Mormons. It is terrifying to challenge the Seventh Day Adventists. It is terrifying to challenge the Messianic Zionists for Jesus. It is terrifying to challenge the Cult of the Rapture. It is terrifying to challenge any kind of Crusade. But we must remove Crusades and Crusaders from the Body of Christ forever, this is where the National Liberation Struggle of Byzantine Catholics truly lives. It is the duty of every Byzantine Catholic to aid the Jews in their National Liberation Struggle against Zionism. 

Chapter 10

Chapter 10, World Transcendentalism.


There are those who say that we need Secularism, even though Secularism is a position of bigotry. What the World needs is Transcendentalism, but not the American Transcendentalism that is pathetic and only capable of making everyone believe in the dangerous notion of Metaphysics. We need World Transcendentalism.

 All society and societies have three basic pillars, Social ethics, Civil ethics and Societal ethics.  World Transcendentalism is a societal ethic, but in order to understand it, I must first explain the other two ethics.

    Social ethics have to do with social norms, and deviance.  

I will use Heteronormality and Pan-normality as examples.  Heteronormative social norms depict any lifestyle different to it as a deviance and a damnable offense.  The problem here is that history and nature prove that being heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and asexual are not deviances from sexuality but expressions of it.  Pan-normality accepts this fact and is therefore preferable to heteronormality.  Pansexuals transcend sexual orientation in the same way the irreligious transcend religiosity.  This is why only pan-normality can replace heteronormality.  Belonging to a heteronormative society does not mean homophobia is encouraged. Heteronormality however does have systemic issues that leads to bigotry.


    Civil ethics are the standards of common community.

One of the most typical and sadly cliche features of a Civil ethic is that it is usually either Libertarian or Totalitarian. Very seldom anymore is a Civil ethic Authoritarian.
Libertarianism means that a individual’s “freedom” can come at the expense of another’s individual liberty.  Humanism is not humanitarian.  Humans that make themselves the center of everything- unlike humanitarianism, Humanism does not seek to ensure human welfare, rather it promotes human desire over human necessity. Secular Humanism is secularism with humanist characteristics.  Thus, as we push for world transcendentalism, the anti-environmentalism of the secularism of the secular human will push those of us fighting for World Transcendentalism to a state of war if we don’t attack first.  If we wait too long the environmental state of the world is going to deteriorate to the point where we no longer have a planet to live on.  The future of our World literally depends on it.

 Realizing just how much cultural genocidal domination that the bigoted nature of Western Evils holds hostage over the collective hive mind of Humanity today, I can see that I have to go off on yet another tangent in order to avoid neglecting context. 

Feminism is a type of Libertarianism often overlooked. Its roots lie in the later years of the 19th Century when the European women were offended that the recently freed male slaves potentially had more rights than they did. It could also be considered a form of Maternal Colonialism, as demonstrated by the Temperance Movement and Suffragists. Notice the rights they were fighting for did not apply to women of color. Followed to its logical conclusion, Feminism today is more of a modern kind of Matriarchy than an egalitarian or Civil Rights movement. One does not need to oppress the other when fighting for one's rights. It would be as if Dr King, Jr. had fought for european immigrants and their descendants to be sold into slavery and beaten. Nonsense! Feminism and the rights it claims to fight for are two different things, now.

It is important to note here that a true Matriarchal society never existed. The Amazons are a Greek myth based probably on the Scythians, who had women warriors out of necessity, as the men were often out on long campaigns as they migrated. Even the Minaons may have had a more matrilineal culture than a matriarchal one, as such cultures are existent even to this day. Whatever form of Matriarchy that might come from this toxic Feminism might actually be the oppressive force Feminism claims Patriarchy to be.

Let me here talk about this "Patriarchy" the Feminists rail against so much. The real issue Feminism caused was a prolonging of the Labor Problem. The Labor Problem has never been solved. For the uninitiated, the Labor Problem is the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist class. As wages steadily decline due to inflation and inadequate remuneration for their labor, the worker suffers more each year. Then, as the women joined the workforce, the workforce doubled and women could now be exploited as much as their male counterparts. It was then possible for both the man and woman of the household to be exploited, and it created a band-aid to the Labor Problem.

   Every other major problem created by the exploitation of the woman worker is not due to some male conspiracy so much as it is due to the exploitative nature of Capitalism. It is therefore incumbent on the Feminist to address their concerns not from a standpoint of their genitals, but from a standpoint of their inherent class. Capitalism does not care for your genitals, nor your religion, nor your politics unless it can be exploited for monetary gain and to your detriment.

    So we can understand that Transcendentalism revokes the idea of imposing one's own ethics, be they social, religious or civil, in favor of accepting that within the greater society of the World, different ethics exist. As stated above, however, being accepting comes with the caveat of some forms of ethics to be intolerable. These intolerable ethics are judged by no other merit or metric except that they conflict directly with the values of Transcendentalism and are either Totalitarian or Libertarian in nature. Each Nation of the world must be allowed to govern their own within the laws of their Nation, regardless of political borders. When a person from one nation commits a crime against a person from another, the Cosmopolitanal Law will apply.

        To put this another way, consider that Moral Relativism removes entirely the idea that your Nation's ethics applies to another Nation, but leaves you with no recourse for when another Nation's ethics are Intolerable. World Transcendentalism acknowledges that the Moral Relativist has removed themself from taking action, but considers them spineless for not confronting Totalitarian and Libertarian ethics. There must be a limit and an enforceable standard that transcends and unites all Nations while protecting their autonomy from other Nations.

     Secularism intertwines with Feminism and Feminism intertwines with Heteronormality. Feminism also can help Lesbians to an extent yet it adds to their objectification by Heterosexual Men. Feminism is also highly oppressive to Gays like myself, payed Liberal Gay Gatekeepers that get on Capitalist media tend to champion Feminism, they do this at the expense of our further alienation in Heteronormal society. Feminism has never been more powerful than it is now, yet as Feminists gain more and more power already in full control of the Civil ethic of the United States of America and the Continent  Europe it becomes more and more accepted as fact without investigation that women are oppressed and that Men are all equally free and this is done and the expense of what Whiteness is doing to the Black Nation and what the First World is doing to the Third World.

  In retrospect I just did more of a written Montage of the overlapping intertwined issues, it was very necessary, so now I return to the main subject.

The Civil ethic that must replace Feminism needs to be Masculinism. If we fail to correctly challenge the Libertarian folly of Feminism it will become the Totalitarian rule of Matriarchy, whether this Matriarchy will be openly referred to as Matriarchy or whether this Matriarchy will still call it self Feminism is unclear to me, I only know we need to prevent this, we can not prevent this with outdated Patriarchy. Patriarchy must be upgraded to Masculinism. I am openly a Gay Masculinist. Masculinism is for Men and Women, unlike Feminism which is only for Women. But let us not get this confused with the reactionary Men's Rights Movement (MRM) which hijacked the just cause of the Men's Movement. The Men's Movement openly used the word Masculinist which the Men's Rights Movement barely uses at all anymore. I will need to explain what Masculism is before I go any further. 





    Societal ethics are things that pervade all of society and are far broader. 

Secularism is a kind of societal ethic that claims to be inclusive and tolerant of religion, so long as it doesn’t influence politics.  The issues here is that most people are motivated politically by their religion.  The opposition for the existence of the apartheid state of Israel by the Jews is religiously motivated.  In fact, many oppressive Christian laws have passed under the guise of “secularism”. Politics is always colored by the religious orientation of the politician and it is part of personal identity and cannot be separate.  It’s therefor necessary that we allow ourselves as a society to transcend the theocratic and irreligious domination over the other in our politics.  When the political party can make a religious appeal but espouse secularism all that is happening is a subversion of that religion.  If your religion motivates your politics, this kind of sham is easily identified for what it is.  Theocratic societal ethics, however, are not always harmful.  In fact theocratic societal ethics are somewhat necessary for orthodox groups such as the Jewish Nation and Muslims.  This is not to say that we should all embrace theocratic societal ethics, rather that it, unlike secularism, is as least functional in small groups.
 The solution, then, is to transcend.  Transcending isn’t “rising above” religious motivation, it is understanding that those motivations are for the good of their communities.  Where these community goals align and overlap is the job of politics to determine and implement.  For we all well know that Secular politics have only benefited Corporatism and the rape of our planet and natural resources.  It never has truly benefited people.  Therefore we need World Transcendentalism.

Chapter 9

Chapter 9, Demarchy instead of Communism.
Demarchy 

Demarchy is not some eurocentric endgame like Communism. Demarchists seek Direct Democracy. Socialism is the road to Direct Democracy. Demarchy is the organic Political Action OF The Now taken in both the First World and the Third World to safeguard organic Socialist movements away from the destructive nature of Communist Endgames which can only be called Cultural Genocide. Most every Communist believes that their theories are universal and thus must be forced on all Socialists. Demarchy is the first step to bringing the World Socialist Revolution about. This Urban Scholar Thesis is an expression of Demarchy. Demarchy is a place of philosophical foundation in flux yet never straying from the theoretical foundation of which Demarchism is truly based upon. I did not invent Demarchy, I have merely given this organic Political Action OF The Now a name.

Demarchism is not Libertarian. Demarchism is not Totalitarian. Demarchism is Authoritarian.

Demarchy is the agenda to bring about a government of Direct Democracy with the economy of Proletariat Socialism. Demarchy is the agenda of Demarchists to bring about the Cosmopolitanal laws enforced by the Civil Society with World Transcendentalism replacing the polarizing systems of Theocracy and Secularism. Demarchists in the First World seek to ensure the social norms of Pan-normality instead of the inversions of Tranarchy and Hetero-normality. All Demarchists fight for the recognition of National Cultural Autonomy in a World Federation System that acts as a negotiating Civil World Assembly instead of an overarching State.

I just realized that I have not made it clear the differences between Demarchy and Demarchism all that clear, indeed I most likely caused even further confusion. So now I must explain all this in the most redundant way that I possibly can.

Obviously it is Demarchism which Demarchists adhere to rather than Marxism. Marxism teaches that Socialism is the transition between Capitalism and Communism, such a view is a lie just as Marxism is a lie. Leninism is a correction because Marxism is Idealist, it is with Leninism that Marxism became materially based. Trotskyism is a racist ideology which synthesizes Leninism with Marxism using Anarcho Communist language while attempting to betray every single Anarcho Communist joining the Fourth International. Trotskyism is the only true version of Marxism which is why all true Socialists must denounce Trotskyism. 

Demarchism is the Theory and Praxis of Socialists who reject the discredited Communist theories of Assimilation and Cultural Genocide. While many Communists can be called good Socialists they can never be called great Socialists. Demarchism is Methodology not Ideology. The word Demarchist is meant to be a word distancing itself from the words Marxist and Communist. Demarchism has nothing to do with Anarchism whatsoever. Demarchism is the methodology of true Socialists attempting to bring about World Socialist Victory. Demarchists are the true Socialists. Demarchism is the methodology of all true Socialists. Demarchism is organic uncompromising Socialist theory and praxis. 

Demarchy is Action. Demarchy is the first phase of World Revolution. Demarchy is the actions taken by Demarchists who wish to bring about Socialism. Demarchy has been done twice before. When Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi fought for the People of Libya so that they could later create the Jamahiriya, this was Demarchy. When the great Socialist Revolutionary Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías attempted to Coup D'état the American controlled Government of Venezuela this was Demarchy. 

Now that I have explained the difference between Demarchism and Demarchy I can better explain. 

Demarchy is the audacity to start a plan of long drawn out actions to undermine Western Values. Communists lack the historical insight necessary to overcome their own idealisms. Demarchy manifests uniquely wherever it is attempted. Communists seek to bring about Communism after enough States have become like the Capitalist Country of China which makes no sense yet this is where they stand. Writing this Thesis which will no doubt be boycotted by Academics is blatant Demarchy. This Thesis may not be as glorious as Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi overthrowing Italian Colonizers but nevertheless writing this Thesis is an action which constitutes Demarchy. Demarchy is daring to formulate a correct enough Theory that works in real life. Demarchy is daring to think outside of Marxism when planning to build Socialism. Demarchy is not the goal. Demarchy is the first step towards World Revolution. Demarchy becomes Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience becomes Revolution. The only Revolution which matters is Socialist Revolution Worldwide. The goal is Direct Democracy not Communism. World Socialist Victory brings us to Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is the Endgame not Communism. Demarchy is a rejection of mass entertainment. Entertainment is the opiate of the masses. Demarchy is the action of showing how Religion is innately geared towards Socialism when agitating for Socialism to the masses. Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Lumpenproletariat funded by his Capitalist benefactor Friedrich Engels the Hegelian, his work amounts to very little in Modern life. This is a quote from Karl Marx showing how dishonest he was;

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

This is all a lie. This is a bigoted disregard for Orientation. So I am going to fix the words of Karl Marx; 

Spectator distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Entertainment is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of entertainment as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Do you see what I just did? My accurate correction of Karl Marx is Demarchy. Now you go and do the same. Bring some Demarchy to the World.

Chapter 8

Chapter 8, What is Patriotism?
I need to explain what Patriotism is and what it is not. Patriotism is love, loyalty, devotion and sense of attachment to a Country recognizing it as his or her homeland. Patriotism is also the fellowship of citizens who share the same devotion to their Country. Patriotism is not national pride except in the case of National Patriots. Patriotism is not Nationalism yet it is not a mere attachment to Territory either.

I must start with some basics.
Country should not be confused with Territory. There are several factors that can identify Territory but the most basic concept of a Territory is an area of land under the jurisdiction of collective ownership. All the factors that constitute a Territory are the same as all the factors that constitute a Country. 

#1 A Country is a Sovereign land.
#2 A State is defined by a Government's estate of a Country.
#3 A Nation-state(this system is known as Nationalism) is when the State is fused with the Nation.

The earliest version of Statehood is Oligarchy. It is worth pointing out that not all Kingdoms can be called Monarchies. To make it even more difficult for the eager student, Country should not be confused with Territory. Unlike a Country, a Territory is without Sovereignty.  Sovereignty does not mean Lords and Serfs. Royalty does not mean Monarchy or Autocracy. Nobility does not mean Aristocracy. The assumption that allows for these notions to get confused with each other is called eurocentricity. 

It occurs to me that I have to go into a tangent just to deprogram you.

Let me start with the differences between the forms of Non-State Sovereignty.
#1 Monumental Sovereignty. A Sovereign Monument is a locational object which is considered sacred either symbolically and/or literally. The most ancient Sovereign Monument is not even Man made, I am of course referring to a Mountain. This concept can be expanded to a River or even a Fortress.
#2 A Constitutional Sovereignty. This is the most correct form of Sovereignty because it can be upheld by all Citizens of the Country without everyone having to visit the locational object.
#3 Royal Sovereignty. This is typically known as a Kingdom. There are no more Kingdoms because in a Kingdom the Kings and the Queens must answer to Scholars, Priests, Shamans and/or Court Clerics. In a Kingdom the Scholars, Priests, Shamans and/or Court Clerics can de-thrown a Royal Ruler handing Sovereignty to someone else.    
#4 Noble Sovereignty. This is a much lesser discussed version of Sovereignty common in Tribalism and Theocracy. This system of Sovereignty arises out of the merit of deeds. Nobility can only be passed by a Noble to his or her children by giving them hands on training in governance. A Kingdom can also be built on Noble Sovereignty. There is nothing stopping a King or Queen from being a Noble rather than a Royal.

Now I will get to the differences between the forms of State Sovereignty.
#1 Monarch Sovereignty. This is typically called Monarchy or Autocracy. This is when the King or Queen but usually King takes the Country as his entire estate of property thus owning the people on it as well. This requires Sovereign Social Overreach defining Government's estate of a Country into the landowning Statehood. Monarch Sovereignty is actually much newer than people think. Monarchy did not exist anywhere in history except in China, that is until Europe replicated this tyrannical system. European Monarchy and European Autocracy is where Capitalism first emerged as a economic system.
#2 Imperial Sovereignty. This is typically known as an Empire. This is a form of Oligarchy more than it it is a form of Monarchy. However Empire can be under Monarchic control or oligarchic control depending on what causes an Empire to form in the first place. This is when the King or Queen takes the role or maybe even title of Emperor or Empress. This expansionist position takes the Power of Statehood. Make no mistake an Empire is a State. Empire is the estate of regional hegemony.
#3 Oligarch Sovereignty. This is typically called Oligarchy. This is the earliest version of Statehood. Oligarchy is the rule of a few in power. Oligarchy in antiquity has made Royal families and Noble families dynastic, this is the foundation of Class Division. In the history of antiquity there have been other ways that Statism arose but this is the most common and repetitive in the history of antiquity. 
#4 Feudal Sovereignty. This is typically called Feudalism. Feudalism with the exceptions of Europe and China this system of Statehood was much less repressive than Oligarchy. Both in Europe and China this form of Statism is severely repressive. In the Asian Feudal States with the exception of China, Feudalism was not as tyrannical. As long as the poor classes of society did not oppose the Feudal lords and Feudal ladies. The Feudal lords and Feudal ladies did not typically repress their subjects. Contrary to popular belief Free Trade was common in these Feudal States. Theocratic welfare and even Theocratic Socialism on a local level was even possible within the Asian Feudal States. This however does not mean that Feudalism was desirable in Asia. This only means that Feudal life was more content in Asia than it was in Europe. The European Feudal States were under the indirect control of the Roman Catholic Church, the only local welfare came from the Church and there was never any Theocratic Socialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels threw away the historical facts in favor of a revisionist narrative, they made it seem like local equality was to be found in these places because they had repressive Communes that provided no equality on a local level in any way, shape or form. Feudal Commune living was very miserable and overbearing, every Married Couple could at least expect to loose one Child. The cost of getting Married was often not attainable in these Feudal Communes. Commune living does not always mean equality, this alone should be enough to become suspicious of the very word Communism but alas, it is more likely in their typical emotionalism and their typical Marxian Idealism that the Communists will cling on to the word Communism even more so. 
#5 Feudal Imperial Sovereignty. This is typically called Feudal Imperialism. This is when a Feudal State becomes an Empire. This happened in both Europe and Asia a lot, usually because of the desire for material possession. This was more terrifying in Europe than in Asia. Feudal Imperialism in Europe is what would give way to Monarchism.
#6 National-Tyrannical Sovereignty. This is typically called Nationalism. Nations sought independence from Monarchies by declaring their independence from the Monarchic States with Nationalism. Most of the Nations of the World did not benefit from Nationalism. Nationalism is when the Nation is fused with the State, this causes assimilation of marginalized Nations with in the Host Nation socially dominating the State, this is an ingenious form of State repression. 

The Tangent is over and I am happy to have deprogrammed you.

 

Patriotism

Patriotism does not contradict National-Cultural Autonomy. Patriotism is organic to those loyal to their Country. Nationalism is what corrupts Patriotism. Patriotism is the deepest loyalty a person can have when fighting off invasion. This is what makes British Nationalism such a mockery to proud Celts, there can be no Patriotism to being something as Colonial and as Nationalist as being White enough to say "I'm British" because it is pure assimilation. Patriotism is the People's political power of collectivist mutual aid. Patriotism is loyalty to the point of dissent against the Government in the name of the Civil Society. Patriotism requires feeding the Country, protecting the ecological environment, ensuring fairness to all who are part of the Country. Anyone calling themselves a Patriot must come to realize that the only economy that can set all Countries free is Socialism. Demarchists knowing that religiosity is a matter of orientation just as Homosexuality versus Heterosexuality is a matter of orientation need to make the appeal to the World. Socialism is not about trivializing faith, family and home. Socialism is about collective community power and stable economy. Patriotism and Socialism have no contradiction. 

National Patriotism 

National Patriotism is the Patriotism of National Countries. If we remove the notion of the State, we can from there safely say that there are Non-National Countries and that there are also National Countries. National Patriotism is in Cuba. Actually if I was to be truly honest with you. National Patriotism is a word that has a Non-Demarchist definition but that definition is not dialectical to the word's sake. Hence I will give no reference to the Non-Demarchist definition here. National Patriots tend to embrace Socialist economy. Fidel Castro is more of a National Patriot than a Communist. Che Guevara was a hardcore Communist. Che was so Communist that his Marxism contradicted Castro's National Patriotism. Che Guevara had no strategy other than fighting Revolution all by himself all over the World. Che Guevara was responsible for the Communist usage of the reactionary term "pan-americanism" even though he was not the one who coined this reactionary term. The Mexica Movement has correctly discredited the term "pan-americanism"yet several White Communists in their Neocolonial behavior keep objecting to decolonizing dialectics nevertheless. White Communists are just as bad as White Supremacists on these matters. In some instances White Communists are actually worse. White Communists have been actively sabotaging and belittling the Mexica Movement since 1992. Olin Tezcatlipoca has had only slanderous harassment from such Communists never any solidarity. Communists don't know how to show Solidarity to anyone except for other Communists and even then this is not so. Communists love to attack other Communists. Never again can the Communists be allowed to make Western historically revisionist claims. Communists hold a greater threat to National Patriotism than even Capitalists. At least the Capitalists can unite an entire population against them. Communists on the other hand don't know how to keep preserving National Patriotism even when they understand that it is essential. The theoretical foundations from the old Jewish Bund with Abraham Weizfeld's theoretical expansion and the work by Chris Hedges on Religion can be understood as being part of the basic theoretical soil of Demarchism. The Mexica Movement needs support. Along with the Jewish Bund, Weizfeld and Hedges, the Mexica Movement also has everything to do with the theoretical soil of Demarchism. National Patriotism is the Patriotism of National Countries which can be the greatest weapon against Colonialism if kept away from the Communist mindset which itself is also Colonial.

 

 

Cosmopolitanal Patriotism  

Cosmopolitanal Patriotism is when you are loyal to another Country for political, cultural or reasons of belonging to a diaspora. Having loyalty to a Country you do not live in can seem taboo yet I assure you that it is ethical too. I know Mexicans who are loyal to Mexico yet they are Citizens of the United States of America. This loyalty of theirs can be called Cosmopolitanal Patriotism as well as National Patriotism. I should mention that their loyalty to Mexico is only by default. What they really held loyalty to was the Liberation Movement of Aztlan. So the loyalty to Mexico expressed was limited. The loyalty to Aztlan by these disenfranchised Mexicans to Mexico was secondary to their loyalty to Aztlan. Cosmopolitanal Patriotism is always patriotism for a different Country, the exception to this is of course the Indigenous. Indigenous Cosmopolitanal Patriotism can be found in the Mexica Movement as well as many Navajos and Hopis in Arizona. Many of the Indigenous Mexicans rejecting the term Mestizo uphold a stance for Indigenous Cosmopolitanal Patriotism, this is the Mexica Movement which is far more advanced than any Communist organization. The very hip and informative Mexica Movement expresses a Indigenous Cosmopolitanal Patriotism for the new decolonized Cemanahuac. Cemanahuac would be all of the land called by Westerners the "americas" under the control of the Indigenous. Communists find this offensive because for them to ever admit that their Western views have never been nor will they ever be revolutionary is too much for their Hegelian dogmatic faith. Cosmopolitanal Patriotism is a near-perfect counter to Capitalist and Communist reaction. Whenever the Marxists show themselves as the cosplayers that they really are this tends to confuse the growing hungry-homeless youth in the United States. Out of this confusion they turn to Anarchism. After they have turned to Anarchism they destroy their records and stay off grid. I live off grid myself, but I have ways of securing my living arrangements. The same can not be said for these Anarchists. Demarchism is necessary because Anarchists offer no solution to the Communist insanity which is Marxism. There are Anarchists for Capitalism as well as Anarchists for Communism. Anarchists are worse than Communists. Anarchists can never even hold their own in an argument against a single Communist. This is not good, the Communists will lead us into assimilation and cultural genocidal politics if we do not oppose them. The growth of Anarchism is the fault of Marxists. The Soviet Union is gone, China has lost anything that can be called Socialist. Marxists live in the past and they lack appealing ways to bring people to Socialism. Communists have not proven that Communism works. They have only proven that Socialism works. Cosmopolitanal Patriotism is beyond the comprehension of all Communists.

Patriotic Nationalism 

Patriotic Nationalism is the tactic of Patriotic Nationalists. Patriotic Nationalism is also a transitional strategy to bring us closer to Socialism. Patriotic Nationalists are Demarchists with the aim of deconstructing Nationalism along with Capitalism. Within the First World it is Patriotic Nationalism that will separate Nationalism from Patriotism. If genuine Revolutionary Socialists are not willing to remove Marxism from the Socialist lexicon then the result will be a fully pure Anti-Socialist Globe. The result of which must never be allowed. Within the Third World the role of Patriotic Nationalism is different. Third Worlder Patriotic Nationalists highlight the best parts of Marxism then throw away the rest. The parts of Marxist theory that are kept within Patriotic Nationalism give Third World Patriotic Nationalism a sort of pseudo-New Democracy feel to it. Third Worlder Patriotic Nationalists are very popular in that place in the World we like to call the Middle East. The Terror-war carried out by the United States and its lackeys is shifting everything at a very rapid rate. In the devastated Country of Iraq the Patriotic Nationalists join in both Communist and Nationalist Parties attempting to teach Demarchism. I don't think that the Iraqi Patriotic Nationalists are going to win many people over. Communism and Nationalism both offer instant results and in a devastated Country that can be very appealing. It is actually the Islamic Republic of Iran where Patriotic Nationalism is most likely to be used. Qasem Soleimani is a friend of mine in Iran and what he teaches is Patriotic Nationalism. Iran is one of the only places where Socialism can come without violence. National-Cultural Autonomy is in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This means that the policies of Iran and the Government of Iran hold more capacity for Socialism than any of the Nationalist and Communist Parties in Iran. Qasem Soleimani is a hero. Marxists have no interest in a Modern Hero because such Heroes will never be Communists.