White Nationalism - Communism for people with White Skin ?

[Wodan]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?

[Vindex]

I would say it depends on the White Nationalist in question, that is why to me there is National Socialism/Organic Nationalism. And WN as WN is a blanket term which covers every person form reactionary republican christians to radical Wotanists.etc

It seems to me there can never be a honest consensus applied to WN because it is such a vague all emcompassing term.

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?

[ogenoct]

I would say it depends on the White Nationalist in question, that is why to me there is National Socialism/Organic Nationalism.

National Socialists cannot be White nationalists because National Socialists are anti-White.

Constantin

[Crowley]

White Nationalism has no economic policy. One could as easily be socialistic as libertarian, although there is a tendency toward socialism for the reason that socialism rules everywhere in one form or another at this time in history.

[Crowley]

National Socialists cannot be White nationalists because National Socialists are anti-White.

Constantin

flamebait.

[ogenoct]

flamebait.

Not at all. Just stating a fact. It is not my fault that some people cannot handle the truth.

Constantin

[Dan Dare]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?

I'm sure Cap'n Marinesko could cite chapter and verse, but isn't there something in Marxism that defines Communism and Nationalism as natural enemies?

Or did you mean to say Socialists, rather than Communists?

[Crowley]

Not at all. Just stating a fact. It is not my fault that some people cannot handle the truth.

Constantin

Why would such "truth" bother a gentle reader such as myself? The truth is you have a problem with Nazism, which is fine, but a national socialist is not necessarily German or Germanic. Chinese are national socialists as are Japanese as are in truth all the oriental nations I can think of offhand. Are they anti-Asian? Like I say, flamebait.

[ogenoct]

Why would such "truth" bother a gentle reader such as myself? The truth is you have a problem with Nazism, which is fine, but a national socialist is not necessarily German or Germanic. Chinese are national socialists as are Japanese as are in truth all the oriental nations I can think of offhand. Are they anti-Asian? Like I say, flamebait.

Not flamebait. I do not know why this self-evident truth would bother you. Maybe you are in denial? I was obviously referring to historical National Socialism (Hitlerism). Try telling the Chinese government that they are National Socialist. I think they would be a bit surprised. Japan is capitalist and hence not socialist (national or otherwise). Hitler himself said that National Socialism was not for export.

Constantin

[Vasily Zaitsev]

I'm sure Cap'n Marinesko could cite chapter and verse, but isn't there something in Marxism that defines Communism and Nationalism as natural enemies?

Or did you mean to say Socialists, rather than Communists?

Marxism-Leninism and nationalism are not natural enemies. Many Marxist-Leninist movements have been nationalistic and vice-versa. Both Lenin and Stalin wrote extensively on the right of all nations to self-determination.

What Marxism-Leninism opposes is national chauvinism used in the service of reactionary forces.

Communsim, as a stage of history, will see the national state transcended in much the same way capitalism was witness to the destruction of feudal state-forms such as the kingdom, duchy, or principality.

[ogenoct]

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/letters/40304letters.htm

Subject: HAIL Celine!

Celine the Impossible: The Anti-Humanist Prophet of Aryan Communism

{adrianian:- and what is France today? Zionists and 'moooosalems' squabbling over what to do with the French -

some excerpts from a Michael A. Hoffman essay as it appeared in his newsletter "Independent History and Research" (issue #5 Summer 1996)}

**************************************

The French they are a funny race, as the limerick says, and from rebel archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who tied the Vatican in knots for decades, to Paul Rassiner, Robert Faurrison, Henri Roques, Roger Garaudy, and now Abbe Pierre, these frenchmen have regularly monkey-wrenched the manufactured consensus of our aspirant slavemasters, sending the Learned Elders into paroxysms of showtrial persecutions and media maledictions. The godfather of this ongoing insurrection is the writer Louis-Ferdinand Celine.

The Times of London recently termed Celine's writing, "The most spectacularly virtuoso anti-semitic diatribes in modern letters."

These "diatribes" may be found sprinkled throughout much of his output, but especially in three of his books: "Short Sories for a Massacre", "The School for Cadavers" and "A Fine Mess". For these and other writings, Celine was sentenced to death by the post-war French government.

Louis-Ferdinand Destouches was born in Paris in 1894 of Celtic parents from the Breton region. His father was a clerk and his mother a lace-maker. He would take his mother's first name, Celine, as his pen name. <<<<<

======

Celine was soon a hero of the Left for both his innovative writing style and the ferocity of his critique of bouregoise society. But in 1936, after a trip to the Soviet Russia, he denounced the Reds as just another gang of swindlers, in his pamphlet "Mea Culpa"

"The program of communism? In spite of all assertions to the contrary: completely materialistic. The claims of the brute for the usage of the brutes...to stuff the belly. Take a look at the mug of the fat Marx, his belly full!"

Celine was not opposed to communism n principle. He believed that the white race was dying due to a lack of community consciousness and the prevalence of an egotism he had spotted behind the jingoism of Soviet propaganda: <<<<<

======

Celine'S definition of hell was 20th century modernism, which had blinded man, made him subservient to matter and exhausted him, all for the sake of profit. "We are croaking because we have no legends, no mysteries...Without artistic creation by everyone there can be no lasting society....The only defense, the only resource of the white man against robotism, and undoubtably against war...is to return to his own emotive rhythm." <<<

====

Celine was in favor of Communism, but Communism of a very special type, which had thus far only prevailed in the distant past of Europe and which he hoped National Socialism would embody. He outlined this in 1938 in his volcanic work of black comedy and intractable anti-humanism, "The School of the Cadavers" (dedicated to the pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate), wherein he identified himself as a "communist of the soul" and proclaimed his clarion precis:

"The Jew is afraid of only one thing, Communism without Jews" <<<

=====

Celine has no faith in mankind, yet he saluted and propagated the revolt of the German people as it was organized in the early years of National Socialism, calling, in his remarkable and prescient language, "The butter rebellion...The insurrection of the eternally skimmed!" He wrote:

"What's this! What's this! Insolence! Horror! The Aryan, that so docile, always bending butter-brain, who always on every occasion has submitted to Jewish will; whom the jewish knife has ground up, splattered, mashed, spread like butter for all eternity; that perfect comestible for commerce par excellence, for all war and peacetime trafficking, whom any bleary kike can slice up, chop up, speculate on, barter, stew, vilify, shit on at leisure, here he is getting together with his own now, en masse, suddenly standing up! The butter rebellion! The insurrection of the eternally skimmed! That's never been seen before! Heard of! Suspected possible, ever!"

In Celine's estimation, "The trick of the Jew as 'hunted' and 'martyred' never fails to work on the stupid cuckold of an Aryan. It is they who are persecuting us...We are the martyrs' victims" <<<<

=====

"...I don't want to go to war for Hitler, I'll admit it, but I don't want to go against him, for the Jews." <<<

Celine predicted that the bamboozled countrymen would wage fratricide anyway: "Frenchmen, you'll go off to war at the moment chosen by M. le Baron de Rothschild, your lord and absolute master, at the hour fixed, in full accord with his sovereign cousins in London, New York, and Moscow." <<<<

======

Celine saw France "...as a country essentially owned and operated by Jews in which the native or gentile population could only exist with the indulgence of their Jewish rulers. Celine says that if the bourgeois can 'smell a little jewish,' then this is all to their benefit as a kind of life insurance. In this sense, smelling a bit Jewish is akin to assuring one's survival in a land run by Jews...'The dream of the French bourgeois is to be Jewish, to worship the Golden Calf..." <<<

=====

Though he was raised a Catholic and had positive things to say about the early Church Fathers in (Mea Culpa) in 1936, by 1941 he pronounced, in (A Fine Mess):

"Crime of crimes, throughout our history the Catholic religion has been the great pimp, the great crossbreeder of noble races, the great procuress for the corrupt...for the rabid contaminator. The Catholic religion, founded by twelve Jews, will have proudly fulfilled its role when we have all dissappeared under the great boggy waves of that giant Asiatic whorehouse brewing on the horison." <<<

======

In a December, 1941 meeting between Celine and the Prussian officer and novelist Ernst Junger, at the offices of the German Institute of Paris, Junger reports:

"He (Celine) says how surprised and stupefied he is that we soldiers do not shoot, hang, exterminate the Jews--he is stupefied that someone availed of a bayonet should not make unrestricted use of it. 'If the Bolsheviks were in Paris, they'd show you how to go about it; they'd show you how one purifies a population, neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house." <<<

=======

Celine's relationship with the Nazi authorities was rocky He was, in his writing style, convictions and person, an extreme radical and a suspect Leftist or at least, a Bohemian, in the eyes of the bigwigs of Berlin. <<<<

=====

Kurt Vonnegut says that Celine, "discovered a higher and more awful order of literary truth by ignoring the crippled vocabularies of ladies and gentlemen and by using instead, the more comprehensive language of shrewd and tormented guttersnipes."

In any event Celine could have cared less: "I'm not a Yid, or a foreigner or Freemason or a graduate of the Ecole Normale; I don't know how to make friends and influence people" <<<<

=====

Celine, unlike Ezra Pound, who in his dotage, repudiated his attacks on Jews, never recanted and stayed defiant to the bitter end. In 1960 journalists asked him what his definition of tragedy was. He replied:

"Stalingrad. There's a catharsis for you. The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm. It's epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up." <<<<

=======

Celine's banned books, (Short Stories of a Massacre), (The School for Cadavers), and (A Fine Mess) remain under interdict in France and have not been published in more than fifty years. They have never been translated into English. The French publisher of the supposed "Collected Works of Celine" recently tried to pretend that these three books never existed.

Celine remains the focus of a constant stream of books and articles in France and interest in his material in English, is strong.

Celine the Impossible continues to haunt the dark century of his incarnation. He sought not happiness but truth, which he defined as facing up to the worst, a vocation which he fulfilled to such a virtuoso effect that he obtained, through his convulsive and oracular 'verbum', admission to the mysterious dance and eternal dream of racial memory, which he managed to make manifest even in this, the worst of times. <<<<

[Crowley]

Positive rep incoming.

[Captain Marinesko]

No, they are not.

[ogenoct]

from: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/eug.htm

This trend toward nationalism is also seen in a recent article about Russian Cossacks. It seems they have made an alliance with the Communists in the Krasnodar region and are now enforcing a "law and order" vigilantism to restore order. This new brand of Communist is also more nationalistic and extremely anti-Semitic, giving up internationalist communism for a new form of ethnic communism, again leaning more towards National Socialism than towards Western democracy. Though I would like to see more democratic ethnostates, it is understandable that these transitional forms must be supported given their history and suppression under Jewish Marxism and its suppression of the Russian people. Russia and other old Eastern Block states may well lead the West out of liberalism and into a new era of cooperative nationalism, where nationalists work together to support each other's efforts for a homogeneous populace that can strive together for hierarchical harmony, ethnic egalitarianism, social eugenics to improve the nation's genetic quality, and friendly competition between states while recognizing each other's autonomy.

[Wodan]

It seems to me there can never be a honest consensus applied to WN because it is such a vague all emcompassing term.

I would agree there, it is a - 'vague encompassing term.'

In other words, WN don't actually stand for anything other than White skin.

[Wodan]

I'm sure Cap'n Marinesko could cite chapter and verse, but isn't there something in Marxism that defines Communism and Nationalism as natural enemies?

That's a fair question, but would the answer be that a Nation cannot be built with 'White People' ?

For example, one cannot build a Nation out of Germans and Slavs!

My answer is, No, because 'White' does not infer an organic relationship, but one based on colour only.

Hence I would reason the terms - 'White' and 'Nationalism' are contradictory, and actually - 'White' infers a form of communism - much like the US before the War.

[Charlie Robespierre]

Well if both WN and Communism are crude rhetoric for a lethal internationalist materialistic ideology; then in that one sense, I guess they are interchangeable..

[Crowley]

I would agree there, it is a - 'vague encompassing term.'

In other words, WN don't actually stand for anything other than White skin.


How can white skin be stood for?

[ogenoct]

How can white skin be stood for?

Your skin is your uniform.

Constantin

[Wodan]

How can white skin be stood for?
That's one of my points.

I don't think anyone can stand for being 'White'!

As it does not mean anything beyond skin colour, a Nation is impossible.

[Crowley]

What is it that has a White American caring whether Rhodesian Blacks murder Rhodesian White farmers and not caring whether Hutsus murder Tutsis in Sierra Leone? A sense of community. That community can be called White Nationalism, or if that term comes across as ham fisted then call it something else, like White communitarianism, or whatever.

[Wodan]

What is it that has a White American caring whether Rhodesian Blacks murder Rhodesian White farmers and not caring whether Hutsus murder Tutsis in Sierra Leone? A sense of community. That community can be called White Nationalism, or if that term comes across as ham fisted then call it something else, like White communitarianism, or whatever.

....a community is not a Nation!

In fact community ....and .... communism, are related concepts.

[ogenoct]

then call it something else, like White communitarianism, or whatever

Aryan Communism!

Constantin

[Dan Dare]

That's a fair question, but would the answer be that a Nation cannot be built with 'White People' ?

For example, one cannot build a Nation out of Germans and Slavs!

My answer is, No, because 'White' does not infer an organic relationship, but one based on colour only.

Hence I would reason the terms - 'White' and 'Nationalism' are contradictory, and actually - 'White' infers a form of communism - much like the US before the War.

Well, I do agree, I think, to a large degree. White Nationalism is entirely an American construct, it is almost unknown elsewhere, except perhaps in the other European settler countries to a very small extent.

WNism arises out of the need for European-Americans to create a sense of solidarity. But since the ethnic origins of American whites have long since been subsumed into the 'Melting Pot', that solidarity cannot be based on the style of ethno-nationalism that is becoming more prominent in Europe (and has always been prominent everywhere else).

In this, as in many other things, America is a 'special case'.

[Thomas777]

White Nationalism is a uniquely American (and specifically Yankee) phenomenon...although many WNs seem sympathetic to Jeffersonian notions about direct consent vis a vis democracy (hence the strong WN support for Ron Paul.)

My opinion is that White Nationalism is a) Purely modern, b) Very much bound up with Protestant modes of Politics and statecraft, and c) not in any way analagous to Communism.

The most ideologically disciplined WN that I can think of at the moment was Sam Francis, and (as Macrobius has lamented) he was a self-identified Machiavellian. I think the significance of that cannot be overstated...Francis (and his fellow travelers) were/are very concerned with the maintenance of defensive (see Westphalian) statecraft in perpetuity. I suppose that one could argue that there are paralells between this body of theory and Right Hegelianism, and that is superficially persuasive in some sense but to extrapolate such a premise to an analogy about the ideological convergence of Marxist-Leninism and White Nationalism would be nothing more than a cynical fools' errand in the service of empty and ahistorical rhetoric.

I suppose I tend to consider the ''WNs are Commies!'' meme in the same sense that I do Jonah Goldberg's ''Fascism is Liberal!'' canard.

[Captain Marinesko]

European nationalist parties seem to humor American WNs on these issues. I guess I can't blame them.

[Basil Fawlty]

National Socialists cannot be White nationalists because National Socialists are anti-White.Oh come on now, you of all people should know that White/anti-White is an alien concept to European discourse.

[Crowley]

....a community is not a Nation!

In fact community ....and .... communism, are related concepts.


It all depends how it is defined obviously. Jews have often been referred to a nation within a nation, a nation without national borders, so the same could be so for Whites. But by all means if you don't like the word use another. The word doesn't matter, the community does.

[Thomas777]

In fact community ....and .... communism, are related concepts.

A community is an enduring association of humans. Communism is a historicist body of Political and social theory. One thing has very little to do with the other.

As per your reasoning (or more properly, semantic fetishism) I could allege that the National Endowment for the Arts is bound up with (purportedly) National interests, and National Socialism is concerned with the fortunes of the Nation. Hence, the NEA is a Nazi organization.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

....a community is not a Nation!

In fact community ....and .... communism, are related concepts.

Are you attempting to make a point here?

Is anybody who sees the human need for community or participates in a community a communist?

What about people who socialize? Are they socialists?

[Draco]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?


Well, like communism the anthem of the artifical "white nationalism" could be L'Internationale with a few lyrics changed about.

WNism ignores established Euro-ethnic customs and patterns and favors artificially integrating them all, much like "Yugoslavia".

I feel this is likely due to the fact that WNism is a largely American creation, and Americans a rootless people incapable of understand how things work in Europe.

[Baron_Corvo]

Well, I do agree, I think, to a large degree. White Nationalism is entirely an American construct, it is almost unknown elsewhere, except perhaps in the other European settler countries to a very small extent.

WNism arises out of the need for European-Americans to create a sense of solidarity. But since the ethnic origins of American whites have long since been subsumed into the 'Melting Pot', that solidarity cannot be based on the style of ethno-nationalism that is becoming more prominent in Europe (and has always been prominent everywhere else).

In this, as in many other things, America is a 'special case'.

It's no different in practice in the UK than in the US though Dan, it's just that WNs in Britain can't call themselves that for fear of being called "racist" so they have to say they're British nationalists. Still the same cat.

If you doubt that, go on Stormfront Britain sometime when Scottish or Welsh separatist nationalism is being discussed and see poster after poster exhort Scottish, Welsh and English people to "stick together for the good of our people."

[Dan Dare]

It's no different in practice in the UK than in the US though Dan, it's just that WNs in Britain can't call themselves that for fear of being called "racist" so they have to say they're British nationalists. Still the same cat.

I don't see this as being the case, BC. British Nationalist don't shy away from the WN label because they're afraid of sanctions, but because BNist is what they are. Ditto for French, German, Dutch, Flemish nationalists and so on. All of these descriptors take for granted that the people concerned are of European descent, and therefore white.

If you doubt that, go on Stormfront Britain sometime when Scottish or Welsh separatist nationalism is being discussed and see poster after poster exhort Scottish, Welsh and English people to "stick together for the good of our people."

I know, but the next level in the nationalist taxonomy after English, Welsh and Scottish is not WN, it's BN.

[Basil Fawlty]

Dan - When the BNP decided to target (unsuccessfully) the Irish vote in urban Britain, they pushed a white solidarity line to get over the obvious fact that no self-respecting Irish person is ever going to identify with a British neo-imperialist (e.g. see their policy towards Ireland) party like that. No one was taken in by it and all attempts to create a beachhead here have been neutralised. They thought that by helping set up some kind of Irish sister party, they would receive the imprematur which would attract support from the Irish in Britain. Thoroughly clueless about those they were trying to woo.

[Crowley]

I feel this is likely due to the fact that WNism is a largely American creation, and Americans a rootless people incapable of understand how things work in Europe.

Why do Whites in America, Canada, Australia, Rhodesia, South Africa, New Zealand need to consider ethnic feuds in hoary old Europe to stick together?
"White" is a colonial neologism for the simple reason that we aren't European ethnics anymore. Are we really suppose to care that Irish and English hate each other when many of us have both Irish and English ancestors? But I do care about niggers slaughtering farmers in Rhodesia and White city dwellers in Jo-burg.

[Odysseus]

What a strange, strange thread.

Anyways lets get down to brass tacks:

- Communism has nothing to do with skin tone.

There you go. Question answered. Racialism has absolutely nothing to do with communism. Racialism is just another disgusting convention of the bourgeoisie. ^_^

Now the concept of nationalism and how it relates to communism is significantly different. Nationalism when viewed as a method for self-liberation of oppressed nations is all well and good and has a progressive result. However when nationalism becomes the end in and of itself that's where it runs contrary to progress and communism.

Question answered?

[Vindex]

The most racial people I know are fellow working class Whites, while the "bourgeoisie" are the ones who encouage anti-racialist programs because they profit from them personally and don't have to live in the multi-racial messes they create, thats for the working White peasents.


What a strange, strange thread.

Anyways lets get down to brass tacks:

- Communism has nothing to do with skin tone.

There you go. Question answered. Racialism has absolutely nothing to do with communism. Racialism is just another disgusting convention of the bourgeoisie. ^_^

Now the concept of nationalism and how it relates to communism is significantly different. Nationalism when viewed as a method for self-liberation of oppressed nations is all well and good and has a progressive result. However when nationalism becomes the end in and of itself that's where it runs contrary to progress and communism.

Question answered?

[Odysseus]

The most racial people I know are fellow working class Whites, while the "bourgeoisie" are the ones who encouage anti-racialist programs because they profit from them personally and don't have to live in the multi-racial messes they create, thats for the working White peasents.

Yes and the fact that it keeps the working class hopelessly divided is just a lucky turn of events right? No racialism is meant to divide our attention away from those who are truly our enemies. Those same bourgeois pigs that push the lie of monotheism down our throats.

Monotheism, racialism, and ultra-nationalism are all creations of the plutocracy.

[Wodan]

I think there are serious implications for the Americans in the future, because of the ethnic divisions that exist in that country.

If and when America does collapse, I think those ethnic divisions will come to the surface, as in Yugoslavia.

I also don't think White Nationalism is an answer.

[1-800]

Monotheism, racialism, and ultra-nationalism are all creations of the plutocracy.

Monotheism as a creation of the plutocracy? That's a new one. Care to enlighten us?

[Captain Marinesko]

Those who speak of Yugoslavia forget that the ethnic divisions of Yugoslavia as we know them were caused largely by the ruling class from the feudal and later capitalist eras. Initially those who played up the ethnic differences were the Turks and Austrians, and later it would be the Germans and Italians, and finally NATO/EU. Same with most other ethnic conflicts; as Basil has pointed out, the conflict in Northern Ireland is not about religion, As if the people themselves automatically create this conflict due to inherent cultural differences, but rather the division has been the result of deliberate British imperialist policies. So it is with many such divisions throughout the world.

[Odysseus]

If and when America does collapse, I think those ethnic divisions will come to the surface, as in Yugoslavia.

When America falls it won't be ethnic divisions that come to surface it will be monetary divisions. And besides, the prospect of ethnic cleansing is kinda far-fetched for america.

I also don't think White Nationalism is an answer.

Thats because it is as flawed an ideology as Black Nationalism.

Monotheism as a creation of the plutocracy? That's a new one. Care to enlighten us?

Sorry I worded that wrongly. I was a bit tired so please forgive me. My meaning is this: racialism, monotheism, and ultra-nationalism all have natural origins but have been taken by the plutocracy and been exploited. But just because I say they have natural origins doesn't mean I think they are right.

[IlluSionS667]

White nationalism is the American equivalent to European "volkisch" nationalism, because the concept of "Volk" does not exist within an American context and their primitive markers of race ("Caucasian", "African-American", "Latino", "Asian" and "Native American") are the only relevant ethno-cultural dividers in the US today.

White nationalism is therefore a good equivalent to "volkish" nationalism, but only in the US and other New World countries where ethno-cultural identity has been blurred. In Europe, Asia and Africa, "white nationalism" (or "black nationalism" or "Asian nationalism") would be destructive, because it is not suitable for ethno-cultural reality in these regions.

[Vindex]

Looking big at the racial movements in the early 20th century they mostly came from the left and stood for racial socialism. The early White workers understood why the rich brought in the non-Whites.ie To displace the working Whites from their jobs because a asian/mexican will do the same job uber cheap without bitching. They understood the non-Whites as enemies and tools of the plutocrat.

The White workers pushed out the non-Whites as well as fought the rich. Speaking as a working class White Man I will not pretend to have some fellowship with brown people who have been shipped in by the plutocrat's to drive down wages and steal my birth right, in a nation created for me by my working White ancestors for Whites.ie There Kin, as a Heathen I also know that my White ancestors where damn well racial/kin loyal and knew themselves to be desended from the blood of the Gods and would not mix their blood. They called the non-Whites, skraelings.

Tom Metzger is the one White Racialist worth listening too, he is a racial socialist of the old school.

Yes and the fact that it keeps the working class hopelessly divided is just a lucky turn of events right? No racialism is meant to divide our attention away from those who are truly our enemies. Those same bourgeois pigs that push the lie of monotheism down our throats.

Monotheism, racialism, and ultra-nationalism are all creations of the plutocracy.

[Draco]

Why do Whites in America, Canada, Australia, Rhodesia, South Africa, New Zealand need to consider ethnic feuds in hoary old Europe to stick together?

I am not saying a Spanish Catholic should hunt down a German Protestant to re-enact the War of Religion. What I am saying is WNism would forcibly erase any past grievances by simply labeling us a collectively "whites". Even myself being a hybrid of almost the entire continent finds that ridiculous!

It is a fact the Brit and the Scot will never get along, nor the German and the Pole. So what? They are all markedly different peoples in culture, attitude, temperament, and values. And I still feel WNism is very similar to communism in it's attempt to enforce homogeneity (just replace the "white" with the "worker") amongst a naturally diverse people such as ourselves.

[Captain Marinesko]

While you all debate over race and ethnicity, keep in mind that class, a real, virtually tangible quality that drives human society, does not end at the border of any "race". You will not solve the problem of capitalism until you realize this, and realize that the only thing that will ever "secure the existence" of your "race"(whatever that is at present) will be to emancipate all of humanity. If you continue the system of exploitation in any significant way, there will always be the inevitable reality that your people will find themselves on the bottom at some point.

In this fight you will have to work with the Mexican workers, the blacks, etc. Better to do so based on an ideology of mutual respect between nations and recognition of peoples' national qualities.

Since you will not win otherwise, you might as well stop bitching about it.

[Empress Cheesatine]

While you all debate over race and ethnicity, keep in mind that class, a real, virtually tangible quality that drives human society, does not end at the border of any "race".

Race exists and is traceable by one's DNA, so why put the word in quotations? Class is fluid, race is not.

[IlluSionS667]

While you all debate over race and ethnicity, keep in mind that class, a real, virtually tangible quality that drives human society, does not end at the border of any "race".

Class is an artificial construct that becomes irrelevant in a society where people as judged on their individual capacities (such as a national-socialist society). Even in current decadent society, class differences are not as relevant as they may seem.

I know this from experience, as I come from a labor class family and I moved up to a bourgeois environment by mere education, choice of friends and choice of work. Similarly, one of my girlfriend's brothers (who come from an upper-middle class bourgeois family) has become a horse farmer and another of her brothers is a waiter. So while I moved up the latter, they moved down the latter.

Race, on the other hand, is biological and one cannot change race as one can change class. Therefore, race is a far more relevant divider of people than class.

You will not solve the problem of capitalism until you realize this, and realize that the only thing that will ever "secure the existence" of your "race"(whatever that is at present) will be to emancipate all of humanity. If you continue the system of exploitation in any significant way, there will always be the inevitable reality that your people will find themselves on the bottom at some point.

National-socialists realise this and they too opose capitalist exploitation. They too propose the emancipation of the working class. They just propose this within a context of class cooperation and gradual class dillution rather than class warfare. Besides that, they reject the idea that all races are equal and they prefer to focus on a particular Volksgemeinschaft (which they want to keep homogenous) and their particular needs.

In this fight you will have to work with the Mexican workers, the blacks, etc. Better to do so based on an ideology of mutual respect between nations and recognition of peoples' national qualities.

Mutual respect does not imply multi-culturalism and an ethnically homogenous society does not imply disrespect or hate towards other ethnic groups. In fact, ethnically homogenous societies tend to be far more hospitable and openminded towards other cultures because they have no bad experiences with them.

[Captain Marinesko]

Race exists and is traceable by one's DNA, so why put the word in quotations? Class is fluid, race is not.


The definition of "race" changes all the time, and is constantly argued over. Most people for example, consider European Jews to be "white", apparently you guys don't.

[Captain Marinesko]

Class is an artificial construct that becomes irrelevant in a society where people as judged on their individual capacities (such as a national-socialist society). Even in current decadent society, class differences are not as relevant as they may seem.

Class is artificial in the same way that economics and value is artificial. Race on the other hand, has many meanings to many people- sometimes it's skin color and physical features, sometimes it's DNA, etc. You can't base a society on that.


I know this from experience, as I come from a labor class family and I moved up to a bourgeois environment by mere education, choice of friends and choice of work. Similarly, one of my girlfriend's brothers (who come from an upper-middle class bourgeois family) has become a horse farmer and another of her brothers is a waiter. So while I moved up the latter, they moved down the latter.

You live in a former imperialist country that is now part of the imperialist EU, so of course you have some ability to move up or down. Most people in the world don't have that opportunity.


Race, on the other hand, is biological and one cannot change race as one can change class. Therefore, race is a far more relevant divider of people than class.

This statement is idiocy, namely because society has never been based on this, and since your definition of race constantly changes, it would be a huge pain in the ass. What would you do with Turks, Tatars, Jews, Brahmins, Persians etc.?





National-socialists realise this and they too opose capitalist exploitation.

LOL!



Mutual respect does not imply multi-culturalism and an ethnically homogenous society does not imply disrespect or hate towards other ethnic groups. In fact, ethnically homogenous societies tend to be far more hospitable and openminded towards other cultures because they have no bad experiences with them.

The Soviet Union was a far better example- while what you call "mixing" was not condemned nor encouraged, all peoples had their own republics and governments, and the distribution of wealth from the center for the most part encouraged people to "stay home". Only as this wealth began drying up in the late revisionist decades did people start to move into places like Moscow, from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. Now there is a flood, an illegal flood as well, because the wealth these people once had has been stolen by the Muscovite gangsters.

[Wodan]

The Soviet Union was a far better example- while what you call "mixing" was not condemned nor encouraged, all peoples had their own republics and governments, and the distribution of wealth from the center for the most part encouraged people to "stay home". Only as this wealth began drying up in the late revisionist decades did people start to move into places like Moscow, from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. Now there is a flood, an illegal flood as well, because the wealth these people once had has been stolen by the Muscovite gangsters.

The Soviet Union was only made possible because the US blindly gave millions of tons of grain to it every year.

Communists societies do not last long without the support of something non-communist.

As the whole planet is soon to be turned into a communist gulag, I have no doubt it will collapse, almost as soon as its 5 pointed star society has been achieved, and this time, nothing will bail it out!

In other words, every piece of scrounging commie scum is going to die by their own mongrelised stupidity.

[IlluSionS667]

The definition of "race" changes all the time, and is constantly argued over. Most people for example, consider European Jews to be "white", apparently you guys don't.

How "most people" classify an individual, is irrelevant. How academics like Günther and Coon classified an individual or how modern DNA studies classify an individual, is relevant.

Besides that, a nation schould be based on ethno-cultural grounds. A nation should coalesce with a "Volksgemeinschaft" which goes beyond just race. The Third Reich applied this principle correctly and allowed little free interpretation.

Class is artificial in the same way that economics and value is artificial. Race on the other hand, has many meanings to many people- sometimes it's skin color and physical features, sometimes it's DNA, etc. You can't base a society on that.

Volksgemeinschaft is a very real concept in all old world countries (not in the US, Canada or Australia because the ethno-cultural make-up is artificial in those countries). One cannot just change from one Volk to another and remains part of the same Volk until death. It's genetically encoded.

Class is irrelevant, because people can change from one class to the other if the government provides the means.

You live in a former imperialist country that is now part of the imperialist EU, so of course you have some ability to move up or down. Most people in the world don't have that opportunity.

True. However, the sort of society I promote (national-socialist society) does allow people to move up or down. That's what's relevant!

This statement is idiocy, namely because society has never been based on this

Actually, most societies have had a strong foundation on a particular Volk, mostly because travelling over long distances was barely possible and people therefore stayed with their own kind out of necessity.

since your definition of race constantly changes, it would be a huge pain in the ass.

That's why I suggest we use the definition of Volk, like the Third Reich did.

What would you do with Turks, Tatars, Jews, Brahmins, Persians etc.?

Some of these are different Völker and deserve their own plot of land for its own independent way of life.

Jews are an exception, being a natural parasite. They only prosper when parasitizing on other Völker. I don't think they can survive on their own, but I would like to see them try (Israel is not a good example, as it parasitizes on billions of US and EU funds)

Brahmins deserve to live independently within their own caste, as they have for thousands of years. They do not make up a particular volk, as they're both ethnically and culturally related to the other Indian castes.

I'm not sure about the ethno-cultural situation of modern day Persians.

The Soviet Union was a far better example- while what you call "mixing" was not condemned nor encouraged, all peoples had their own republics and governments, and the distribution of wealth from the center for the most part encouraged people to "stay home".

This happens to be one of the good things about the Sovjet Union.

[Vindex]

It seems to me communism is just as imperialist as capitalism. But it's only imperialism when the other guy is doing it.

[Basil Fawlty]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.So we are to put aside the deranged homocidal ravings of the Turner Diaries or the BDSM sub-pornographic fantasies of KD Rebel and see . . . what?

[Captain Marinesko]

The Soviet Union was only made possible because the US blindly gave millions of tons of grain to it every year.

Wrong, the Soviet Union bought grain during the war, when it was needed after the loss of Ukraine, and Khruschev had to resort to buying grain due to his idiotic, capitalist agricultural policies.


Communists societies do not last long without the support of something non-communist.

Nonsense.


As the whole planet is soon to be turned into a communist gulag, I have no doubt it will collapse, almost as soon as its 5 pointed star society has been achieved, and this time, nothing will bail it out!
In other words, every piece of scrounging commie scum is going to die by their own mongrelised stupidity.

When socialism becomes the dominant mode of production worldwide, then Communism will become possible. During this time, capitalist nations will drive themselves to collapse because if they attempt to match or compete with socialist production, they will destroy their own system due to overproduction(which leads to economic crisis). All it takes is a few major socialist countries to match the capitalist powers in production, and the Soviet Union after WWII was almost there, before Khruschev turned them back to capitalism.

[Wodan]

Wrong, the Soviet Union bought grain during the war, when it was needed after the loss of Ukraine, and Khruschev had to resort to buying grain due to his idiotic, capitalist agricultural policies.

The soviet union bought grain with American money - see Baruch and co.

[Wodan]

So we are to put aside the deranged homocidal ravings of the Turner Diaries or the BDSM sub-pornographic fantasies of KD Rebel and see . . . what?

Basically, yes!

These are Americans living in a world created by Hollywood!

[Captain Marinesko]

The soviet union bought grain with American money - see Baruch and co.

Please elaborate?

[Basil Fawlty]

Basically, yes!

These are Americans living in a world created by Hollywood!But I thought you were suggesting we should try to take them seriously? :confused:

[Wodan]

It seems to me communism is just as imperialist as capitalism. But it's only imperialism when the other guy is doing it.
Correct!

Marx, Lenin and all the rest advocated Dictatorship......


1. The chief reason why the “socialists” do not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat is that they do not carry the idea of the class struggle to its logical conclusion (C f. Marx, 1852) .[2]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the continuation of the class struggle of the proletariat in new forms. That is the crux of the matter, and that is what they do not understand.

The proletariat, as a special class, alone continues to wage its class struggle.


....and the plebs fall for it because they don't read the small print.

There is one born every minute.

[Draco]

Wrong, the Soviet Union bought grain during the war, when it was needed after the loss of Ukraine, and Khruschev had to resort to buying grain due to his idiotic, capitalist agricultural policies.

The (first anyway) artificial famine created by Stalin to punish the Ukranians for existing was in 1932.



Nonsense.

Can you name one functioning communist government that was capable of autarky or currently exhibiting it? Communist nations were dependent on non-Communist nations. The Soviet economy and infrastructure were obviously inferior to the capitalist ones. I didn't see the USSR giving tons of arms to America and Britain did you? It worked the other way around for a reason.


When socialism becomes the dominant mode of production worldwide, then Communism will become possible. During this time, capitalist nations will drive themselves to collapse because if they attempt to match or compete with socialist production, they will destroy their own system due to overproduction(which leads to economic crisis).

While I myself detest capitalism for putting a price on everything, even I admit it will always outproduce a socialist economy. Overproduction in a capitalist economy does not cause a collapse, it causes a shift. Whales hunted nearly to extinction for lamp oil? Enter kerosene. Too many tv's on the market? Enter the HDTV. So on and so forth.

A socialist economy is (theoretically) constrained by it's impetus to do good for it's people, the capitalist economy is unfettered by any morals or ethics in the quest to produce and sell.

[Wodan]

But I thought you were suggesting we should try to take them seriously? :confused:
.... I am just as confused as you are about what you thought!

:confused:

[Wodan]

Please elaborate?
You do your own research.

Check out which how Baruch and his fellow capitalists gave $20 million dollars to trotsky, lenin and scum.

[Basil Fawlty]

.... I am just as confused as you are about what you thought!

:confused:In a nutshell - I said it is impossible to take WN's (e.g. Lane, Pearce, KAS etc) seriously.

[Captain Marinesko]

The (first anyway) artificial famine created by Stalin to punish the Ukranians for existing was in 1932.

Idiocy. The famine was not "artificial". Nor did it affect only Ukrainians.





Can you name one functioning communist government that was capable of autarky or currently exhibiting it? Communist nations were dependent on non-Communist nations.

They were clearly not dependent. There is nothing in Marxist literature that says that socialist nations would not engage in any trade with capitalist nations. Socialism grows out of the previous system in the same way capitalism grew out of feudalism.


The Soviet economy and infrastructure were obviously inferior to the capitalist ones. I didn't see the USSR giving tons of arms to America and Britain did you? It worked the other way around for a reason.

I suggest you look at the production figures of the Soviet Union in the 30s in terms of raw materials, as well as the arms production figures from 1942 on, after the infrastructure was moved into the Urals. What sense would it have made for them to send arms to the British and US?




While I myself detest capitalism for putting a price on everything, even I admit it will always outproduce a socialist economy.

Actually there have been times when the opposite is true, such as during the depression. Do not forget that well beyond the socialist era(1924-56), the Soviet Union had managed to become the world's second largest industrial economy.


Overproduction in a capitalist economy does not cause a collapse, it causes a shift. Whales hunted nearly to extinction for lamp oil? Enter kerosene. Too many tv's on the market? Enter the HDTV. So on and so forth.

When you flood the market, profits fall, and people have to be laid off, it's that simple.


A socialist economy is (theoretically) constrained by it's impetus to do good for it's people, the capitalist economy is unfettered by any morals or ethics in the quest to produce and sell.

I'll admit that this is a limitation, but we have seen that it can indeed work, particularly once a different method of calculation and accounting is used, as in Toward the New Socialism.

[Captain Marinesko]

You do your own research.

Check out which how Baruch and his fellow capitalists gave $20 million dollars to trotsky, lenin and scum.


Lenin was financed partially by the German Kaiser. The Jewish bankers you refer to financed the Menscheviks, and the provisional government. Jacob Schiff for example, withdrew his funding when the Bolsheviks took power.

[Wodan]

In a nutshell - I said it is impossible to take WN's (e.g. Lane, Pearce, KAS etc) seriously.
I agree!

....just like the BNP and the Brits, they are a product of - judaisation!

[Captain Marinesko]

I agree!

....just like the BNP and the Brits, they are a product of - judaisation!


Of course, it's always the fault of the JOOOOZ. When white people, even White Nationalist, make asses of themselves, it's STILL the fault of the Jooz. That is why you people are like adult children. You can't take responsibility for anything. You want to blame Jooz collectively for anything you see a Joo doing, but of course you don't want some Native American or Indian whining to you about imperialism. You laugh when blacks in America talk about poverty keeping them down, but when whites act up- it's the Joo.

This is why you are marginalized.

This is why you will never see success.

[Basil Fawlty]

Captain, have you ever read Werner Sombart?

[Captain Marinesko]

Captain, have you ever read Werner Sombart?

Unfortunately no, but I looked up a biography of him so perhaps you can specify as to what aspect of his work you wanted to discuss. I can see he is obviously rather controversial.

[Basil Fawlty]

Unfortunately no, but I looked up a biography of him so perhaps you can specify as to what aspect of his work you wanted to discuss. I can see he is obviously rather controversial.Sombart's thesis about capitalism in some ways develops the theme of Marx's thesis in On the Jewish Question.

[Draco]

Idiocy. The famine was not "artificial". Nor did it affect only Ukrainians.

U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine disagrees with you:

Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine
Based on testimony heard and staff research, the Commission on the Ukraine Famine makes the following findings:

1. There is no doubt that large numbers of inhabitants of the Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasus Territory starved to death in a man-made famine in 1932-1933, caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by Soviet authorities.

2. The victims of the Ukrainian Famine numbered in the millions.

3. Official Soviet allegations of "kulak sabotage," upon which all "difficulties" were blamed during the Famine, are false.

4. The Famine was not, as is often alleged, related to drought.

5. In 1931-1932, the official Soviet response to a drought-induced grain shortage outside Ukraine was to send aid to the areas affected and to make a series of concessions to the peasantry. (Don't forget the famine was induced to punish the Ukrainians-Draco)

6. In mid-1932, following complaints by officials in the Ukrainian SSR that excessive grain procurements had led to localized outbreaks of famine, Moscow reversed course and took an increasingly hard line toward the peasantry. (So much for Communist solidarity-Draco)

7. The inability of Soviet authorities in Ukraine to meet the grain procurements quota forced them to introduce increasingly severe measures to extract the maximum quantity of grain from the peasants.

8. In the Fall of 1932 Stalin used the resulting "procurements crisis" in Ukraine as an excuse to tighten his control in Ukraine and to intensify grain seizures further.

9. The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 was caused by the maximum extraction of agricultural produce from the rural population.

10. Officials in charge of grain seizures also lived in fear of punishment.

11. Stalin knew that people were starving to death in Ukraine by late 1932.

12. In January 1933, Stalin used the "laxity" of the Ukrainian authorities in seizing grain to strengthen further his control over the Communist Party of Ukraine and mandated actions which worsened the situation and maximized the loss of life.

13. Postyshev had a dual mandate from Moscow: to intensify the grain seizures (and therefore the Famine) in Ukraine and to eliminate such modest national self-assertion as Ukrainians had hitherto been allowed by the USSR.

14. While famine also took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are parallelled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus.

15. Attempts were made to prevent the starving from travelling to areas where food was more available.

16. Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933.

17. The American government had ample and timely information about the Famine but failed to take any steps which might have ameliorated the situation. Instead, the Administration extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet government in November 1933, immediately after the Famine.

18. During the Famine certain members of the American press corps cooperated with the Soviet government to deny the existence of the Ukrainian Famine.

19. Recently, scholarship in both the West and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union has made substantial progress in dealing with the Famine. Although official Soviet historians and spokesmen have never given a fully accurate or adequate account, significant progress has been made in recent months.

Source: U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Report to Congress. Adopted by the Commission, April 19, 1988. Submitted to Congress April 22. 1988. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1988. 524p Available at: http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html



I have more in response but I have to go, I'll be around tomorrow.

[Odysseus]

U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine disagrees with you:

Yeah because America is the best source of information on the USSR.

[Captain Marinesko]

U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine disagrees with you:

The the evidence that has been revealed since then disagrees with it. This commission was in 1988, right after the Reagan administration, during the Cold War. There was no access to Soviet secret archives at this time, making it worthless.


1. There is no doubt that large numbers of inhabitants of the Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasus Territory starved to death in a man-made famine in 1932-1933, caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by Soviet authorities.

The premise is false because it claims the famine is man-made. It is basically circular logic: The famine was man-made because the famine being man-made(conclusion) is part of our evidence.


2. The victims of the Ukrainian Famine numbered in the millions.

About 1.5 million, out of 2.2 million excess deaths in the entire Soviet Union for 1931-32, based on demographic records that became available since then.


3. Official Soviet allegations of "kulak sabotage," upon which all "difficulties" were blamed during the Famine, are false.

That's really funny because Lynne Viola, and internationally recognized scholar on the subject, wrote an entire book about kulak sabotage.


4. The Famine was not, as is often alleged, related to drought.

Archival evidence opened after this "commission" shows otherwise.


5. In 1931-1932, the official Soviet response to a drought-induced grain shortage outside Ukraine was to send aid to the areas affected and to make a series of concessions to the peasantry. (Don't forget the famine was induced to punish the Ukrainians-Draco)

Archival evidence shows that massive aid was sent to Ukraine; in fact they received the most aid.


6. In mid-1932, following complaints by officials in the Ukrainian SSR that excessive grain procurements had led to localized outbreaks of famine, Moscow reversed course and took an increasingly hard line toward the peasantry. (So much for Communist solidarity-Draco)

Cold War idiocy. The records opened subsequently show that upon realization of the problem the grain quota was reduced to it's lowest percentage in the 1930s, and much grain was returned to collectives while some collectives were actually temporarily de-collectivized on a case by case basis.


7. The inability of Soviet authorities in Ukraine to meet the grain procurements quota forced them to introduce increasingly severe measures to extract the maximum quantity of grain from the peasants.

Rather cryptic claim.


8. In the Fall of 1932 Stalin used the resulting "procurements crisis" in Ukraine as an excuse to tighten his control in Ukraine and to intensify grain seizures further.

Idiocy, because the records show the exact opposite.


9. The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 was caused by the maximum extraction of agricultural produce from the rural population.

Subsequent records(a.k.a. actual evidence) show that it was caused by the poor harvest of 1931.


10. Officials in charge of grain seizures also lived in fear of punishment.

Proof?


11. Stalin knew that people were starving to death in Ukraine by late 1932.

Which is why the massive aid programme was initiated. Stalin, when informed of the problem, was noted to have responded, "you should have said something sooner."


12. In January 1933, Stalin used the "laxity" of the Ukrainian authorities in seizing grain to strengthen further his control over the Communist Party of Ukraine and mandated actions which worsened the situation and maximized the loss of life.

Nonsense. The procurement quotas had been lowered to their lowest level in 1932, as a direct response to the famine.


13. Postyshev had a dual mandate from Moscow: to intensify the grain seizures (and therefore the Famine) in Ukraine and to eliminate such modest national self-assertion as Ukrainians had hitherto been allowed by the USSR.

Idiocy. No such records show any kind of attempt to single out Ukrainians. The archives have been open for 17 years and there is not a single scrap of paper.


14. While famine also took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are parallelled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus.

The "man-made" famine also affected people in the Moscow area, including party members. Strange huh?


15. Attempts were made to prevent the starving from travelling to areas where food was more available.

It's called a rationing system, one part of the massive aid programme that was initiated to fight the famine and is creditted with saving 40-50 million lives during that difficult time.


16. Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933.

Evidence says otherwise. This statement just shows how ridiculous this Cold War commission was, because it constantly demands that the reader accept its premises a priori.


17. The American government had ample and timely information about the Famine but failed to take any steps which might have ameliorated the situation. Instead, the Administration extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet government in November 1933, immediately after the Famine.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! This very commission shows that they didn't know shit even in 1988!


18. During the Famine certain members of the American press corps cooperated with the Soviet government to deny the existence of the Ukrainian Famine.

There was Thomas Walker, with the Hearst(openly pro-Nazi) company, who later admitted that he was never in Ukraine when he supposedly wrote his report. The so-called man-made famine story originated from his report.


19. Recently, scholarship in both the West and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union has made substantial progress in dealing with the Famine. Although official Soviet historians and spokesmen have never given a fully accurate or adequate account, significant progress has been made in recent months.

LOL!


Source: U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Report to Congress. Adopted by the Commission, April 19, 1988. Submitted to Congress April 22. 1988. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1988. 524p Available at: http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html


1988. Let's try something a little more up-to-date shall we?


I have more in response but I have to go, I'll be around tomorrow.

Well since you lost he argument already and I have a hell of a lot more education in this issue on both sides of the coin, there is no need. Instead you should read the related works on this site, which is based on archival evidence.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/

Even Robert 'Fraud' Conquest himself was forced to admit to Tauger, Wheatcroft, and Davies, that he finally acknowledged that the famine was indeed not man-made nor directed at Ukrainians.

With the Soviet archives having been open for 17 years now, not one scrap of paper exists relating to a plan to starve anyone intentionally, nor to punish Ukrainians or any such nonsense. Ukrainians volunteered in droves to fight for the Red Army in the first days after 22 June 41, by ethnicity they are number two in terms of Hero of the Soviet Union awards, they had a large partisan movement, and at least a few million were killed by the Nazis, clearly not willing collaborators. Strange for a people that supposedly were intentionally "punished" in 1932.

[IlluSionS667]

In a nutshell - I said it is impossible to take WN's (e.g. Lane, Pearce, KAS etc) seriously.I agree!

....just like the BNP and the Brits, they are a product of - judaisation!

One must look at WN from a proper perspective.

WN'ers are folks who live in a heavily Judaised rootless country, where ethno-cultural ties has been reduced to empty labels such as "white", "African-American", "Latino", "Asian-American", etc. Americans lack and sort of deep culture like you find in Europe or Asia and they lack any sort of ethnic instinct like you find in Europe or Asia.

White nationalism is therefore an imperfect American equivalent you European Folkish nationalism. Nevertheless, this imperfect American equivalent is the best thing they've got, compared with the libertarians, the liberals, the communists, the paleo-conservatives, the neo-conservatives and other groups. I'd say it's the lesser of all evils.

To suggest that prominent White nationalist figures are sexually frustrated genocidal maniacs (as Basil Fawlty and Captain Marinesko suggested) is a misrepresentation of these individuals, based on thier own prejudiced interpretation of their writings.

[Captain Marinesko]

To suggest that prominent White nationalist figures are sexually frustrated genocidal maniacs (as Basil Fawlty and Captain Marinesko suggested) is a misrepresentation of these individuals, based on thier own prejudiced interpretation of their writings.

Feel free to explain what "seize and capture" women actually means. Also feel free to explain why Lane's KD Rebel, which puts forth ideas he has been preaching for a long time, poorly veiled in fiction, speaks of a woman needing a handgun to defend herself from what she would "wrongly call rape", in what is supposed to be a WN settlement. Why does a protagonist say that it is his right to take her anytime he wants? Why does she take all the blame herself and figure that she should have "given him sex"(what a sad way to look at sex)?

You have two options here really:

1. You are a delusional liar, understanding perfectly what these words mean while claiming they mean something else, basically "black is white."

2. You are a complete and utter moron or whackjob.

Choose...wisely.

[IlluSionS667]

Feel free to explain what "seize and capture" women actually means.

You should ask Lane.

Also feel free to explain why Lane's KD Rebel, which puts forth ideas he has been preaching for a long time, poorly veiled in fiction, speaks of a woman needing a handgun to defend herself from what she would "wrongly call rape", in what is supposed to be a WN settlement.

Here's the context :
Sensing that her body as a bargaining chip was losing value, and seeing Eric's an-ger, Dory meekly agreed. Between what Sheila and Linda had told her earlier, and Eric's threat to use his belt, she realized she was in danger of getting stripped and whipped on her bare butt if she couldn't appease her angry captor.
Then there was a completely unexpected development as Eric went to a drawer be-neath a gun rack and returned with a pistol secured in a holster with a clip on the side.
"Stand up," he ordered. Hesitantly she did so, and then he slid the gun and holster into her waistband.
"There, that will protect you from any danger you might encounter in Mathewsville, including what you probably wrongfully call rape," he informed her. "Not that taking you anytime I want isn't my right. Now, I smell supper. Go see if it is ready."
The cold fury in his voice was echoed by body language, and Dory figured she had pushed him too far already.
"I wasn't calling you a rapist," she protested in the most conciliatory manner she could muster.
"You were. Now go." He pointed to the kitchen stove, his rage fearfully evident to Dory.
To herself she said, why didn't I just flirt and tell him he's good looking and give him some sex? God, am I stupid. Now she would have to figure out how to make amends and appease him. It was doubtful, after she had already expressed herself as she did in regards to the bed and sex, that he would be easily fooled into thinking any sex offer now was sincere.

You have two options here really:

1. You are a delusional liar, understanding perfectly what these words mean while claiming they mean something else, basically "black is white."

2. You are a complete and utter moron or whackjob.

You're someone who only sees black and white, while ignoring huge shades of gray.

[Basil Fawlty]

To suggest that prominent White nationalist figures are sexually frustrated genocidal maniacs (as Basil Fawlty and Captain Marinesko suggested) is a misrepresentation of these individuals, based on thier own prejudiced interpretation of their writings.It hardly requires any interpretation at all! It screams off the page.

It doesn't help your case when you admit to not being able to remember the text under discussion yet argue to the point of embarassment against the very presence of what you had forgotten when you could have easily saved yourself this embarassment by scanning through the text.

[IlluSionS667]

It hardly requires any interpretation at all! It screams off the page.

Let's just assume that David Lane does promote men forcing women to have sex with them (aka rape). He does have some social darwinist influences (he mentions "might is right" in his literature), which could explain this. Let's just assume David Lane doesn't shun killing a few million people to achieve his ideals (which you seem to imply based on his mimicking the Turner Diaries, that includes the murder of millions of countymen).

Let's just take both assumtions for granted. Does this invalidate the other views he professes in your opinion? Almost all criticism of Lane and his ideological influences dealt with imply them being sexually deviant and implying a will to kill millions of people. Pierce's Cosmotheist views, Lane's heathen views and their general political views have not been addressed, which is what I find to be the most relevant parts.

It doesn't help your case when you admit to not being able to remember the text under discussion yet argue to the point of embarassment against the very presence of what you had forgotten when you could have easily saved yourself this embarassment by scanning through the text.

Even though I did read the Turner Diaries from cover to cover, I should have looked up the text before commenting on the atom bomb issue, I know that. Forgetting this is a nog a proper argument. As an honorable man, I admit that I made a foolish decision here.

[Basil Fawlty]

Pierce's Cosmotheist views, Lane's heathen views and their general political views have not been addressed, which is what I find to be the most relevant parts.A big part of the reason why we have not discussed these things is because of your, up to now, continued insistence to argue against their texts say. I'm delighted to see that you have sensibly given this up and so now the discussion can progress on to those matters that you mention above. We should continue this in the Lane thread though.

[IlluSionS667]

A big part of the reason why we have not discussed these things is because of your, up to now, continued insistence to argue against their texts say. I'm delighted to see that you have sensibly given this up and so now the discussion can progress on to those matters that you mention above.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with your depiction of Lane and his examples as sexually frustrated genocidal maniacs. I'm just saying that this is a matter of interpretation of particular elements within their literature (especially their fictional writings) and removed from the more relevant parts of their views. I prefer to focus on the relevant part of their views, such as their metaphysics (Pierce's cosmotheism and Lane's "Wotanism") and their politics (white nationalist ideology). These are the views I care for and the views I respect them for.

We should continue this in the Lane thread though.

Sounds OK to me. :)

[Wodan]

One must look at WN from a proper perspective.

WN'ers are folks who live in a heavily Judaised rootless country, where ethno-cultural ties has been reduced to empty labels such as "white", "African-American", "Latino", "Asian-American", etc. Americans lack and sort of deep culture like you find in Europe or Asia and they lack any sort of ethnic instinct like you find in Europe or Asia.

White nationalism is therefore an imperfect American equivalent you European Folkish nationalism. Nevertheless, this imperfect American equivalent is the best thing they've got, compared with the libertarians, the liberals, the communists, the paleo-conservatives, the neo-conservatives and other groups. I'd say it's the lesser of all evils.

I agree Americans exist in a jewish world, devoid of any cultural significance.

However, I think WN is NOT the best thing they've got.

I think whats happening is - WN is being promoted at the expense of NS.

Many people in the US are of Germanic descent, In my opinion these folk would find it easier to relate to NS than WN.

WNism is a red herring!

[IlluSionS667]

I agree Americans exist in a jewish world, devoid of any cultural significance.

However, I think WN is NOT the best thing they've got.

I think whats happening is - WN is being promoted at the expense of NS.

Many people in the US are of Germanic descent, In my opinion these folk would find it easier to relate to NS than WN.

National-socialism is not suitable for the American context, because the US lacks necessary requirements such as the concept of Volksgemeinschaft and deeply rooted culture. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe a true national-socialism is possible without these concepts and I don't believe these concepts can just be artificially created.

Anyway, George Lincoln Rockwell's "American Nazi Party" looked more like a paleo-conservative White Nationalist organisation than an actual national-socialist organisation. He actually pleaded for labeling George Washington as a fascist ;)

[Basil Fawlty]

Sounds OK to me. :)Well perhaps you should kick off with a general statement as to why you think the Lanean-Pearcean world-view is something to be commended. This is best done with reference to the relevant texts. ;)

[IlluSionS667]

Well perhaps you should kick off with a general statement as to why you think the Lanean-Pearcean world-view is something to be commended. This is best done with reference to the relevant texts. ;)

I dealt with every one of the 88 precepts in that other thread, which should be enough for now.

[Morbicae]

National-socialism is not suitable for the American context, because the US lacks necessary requirements such as the concept of Volksgemeinschaft and deeply rooted culture. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe a true national-socialism is possible without these concepts and I don't believe these concepts can just be artificially created.

It almost goes without saying that National Socialism is not suitable for the American context. The amount of multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism in America outweighs any possibility of any form of political party residing National socialism that may situate itself within America thriving. It almost defeats the purpose to form a National Socialistic party in the US, as the odds of failure stack up too high against the potential thriving, and if anyone is daft enough to attempt to defy the odds of this form of political "success" in America, I guess is a representative of the intellectual "integrity" of the particular individuals in question.

They'd be better off just thrusting their auto-contradictory White Nationalism, which was pointed out before as being a self-contradictory political stance; (as Nationalism is based on the productivity and sovereign performance of a particular political and cultural nation that is descendant of a particular family of generations dating back hundreds of years, let alone thousands; "White" being the colour of skin, which covers the entire of Europe, Northern America and post-explorer Australia, which cannot constitute a nation. So the validity of a "White" "Nation" is struck down completely, by the sheer fact that a "White" "Nation" cannot exist in a nationalistic form, which is what is being put forth by the parties at question) Americans will never thrive as a national socialistic nation, they are simply not compatible with that particular ideology.

Anyway, George Lincoln Rockwell's "American Nazi Party" looked more like a paleo-conservative White Nationalist organisation than an actual national-socialist organisation. He actually pleaded for labeling George Washington as a fascist ;)

George Lincoln Rockwell was a frank and very blunt political performer. He was more a face of the blunt ignorance that infected the American White public at the time. Although I agree with many of the doctrines spilt upon the parchment of his every-day writings, I still feel his unorthodox methods of the portrayal of the "white struggle" were counter-productive, and a further-strengthening example of what we can be taken less seriously for.

By the way, gang of the Imperium, I am very drunk, so I apologise for any nonsensical statements I may make.

I rest my case.

drunken Australian signing out.

[Vindex]

These is where I disagree America has what it takes for a NS movement the only issue has been the way it has been tried in the past has not taken advantage of that. American NS has to made to fit the America psyche.

National-socialism is not suitable for the American context, because the US lacks necessary requirements such as the concept of Volksgemeinschaft and deeply rooted culture. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe a true national-socialism is possible without these concepts and I don't believe these concepts can just be artificially created.

Anyway, George Lincoln Rockwell's "American Nazi Party" looked more like a paleo-conservative White Nationalist organisation than an actual national-socialist organisation. He actually pleaded for labeling George Washington as a fascist ;)

[Draco]

The the evidence that has been revealed since then disagrees with it. This commission was in 1988, right after the Reagan administration, during the Cold War. There was no access to Soviet secret archives at this time, making it worthless.

I trust the Ukrainians themselves on this matter.


Idiocy. No such records show any kind of attempt to single out Ukrainians. The archives have been open for 17 years and there is not a single scrap of paper.

That's funny. I've seen you shrieking Holocaust orthodoxy on this forum, and yet there was never a "single scrap of paper" ordering that either. Yet in this case the lack of a magical piece of paper proves it never happened, so, I can also assume that since no such paper exists ordering the Holocaust, you will desist in making claims it happened?

With the Soviet archives having been open for 17 years now, not one scrap of paper exists relating to a plan to starve anyone intentionally, nor to punish Ukrainians or any such nonsense.

There's that reliance on "scraps of paper" again. Please see above.


Yeah because America is the best source of information on the USSR.

Let's ask the Ukrainians themselves then:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DB113EF93AA15752C1A9609C8B63

Ukraine: Parliament Recognizes Soviet-Era Famine As Genocide


By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: November 29, 2006

Parliament narrowly adopted a bill recognizing the famine in 1932 and 1933 as an act of genocide by the Soviet Union against the Ukrainian people. President Viktor A. Yushchenko pushed for the bill, but deputies rejected his version and an alternative by his opponents, led by Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, who argued that the mass collectivization of farms ordered by Stalin, which resulted in the deaths of millions, had not specifically targeted Ukrainians and that the recognition would strain relations with Russia. The final bill was a compromise. It passed by a vote of 233 to 1; the rest of the 450 deputies did not vote, according to news reports. STEVEN LEE MYERS

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,451350,00.html

Ukraine Parliament Votes to Call 1930s Famine Genocide

Ukraine's parliament has voted to recognize the 1932/1933 forced famine as genocide, in a move that could pave the way for compensation claims by the familes of victims of the man-made disaster that claimed up to 10 million lives.

Ukraine's parliament has voted to recognize the famine in which millions died in 1932-33 as an act of genocide by the Soviet government under Josef Stalin, paving the way for possible compensation claims against Russia.

A total of 233 members in the 450-seat assembly approved a bill sought by President Viktor Yushchenko to press for world recognition of the famine, caused by Stalin's drive to collectivize farming and seen as a deliberate policy to crush the Ukrainian nation and smash resistance to Soviet policy by Ukraine's farmers or 'kulaks'.

Some estimates put the death toll as high as 10 million, or almost one-third of the population at the time. The famine is known in Ukraine as "Holodomor" or "Death by Hunger."

The vote opens the door to potential recognition of the famine by the United Nations as genocide against Ukrainian people. Ten countries, including the United States, have already recognized the famine as genocide.

Moscow opposes calling the famine genocide, saying that it did not specifically target Ukrainians. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin on Tuesday said Ukraine was "politicizing" the issue, the Interfax new agency reported.

The party of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, a Kremlin ally, had proposed using the word "tragedy" instead of genocide, in what was seen as an effort to avoid hurting ties with Russia. Only two of the 186 members of Yanukovych's faction supported the bill.

A total of 200 lawmakers did not cast a ballot. An independent poll released last week showed that around 70 percent of Ukrainians support recognizing the famine as genocide.

Yanukovych said Ukrainians were not alone in their suffering. "It happened on the territory of many countries (former Soviet republics), maybe in Ukraine it had a greater effect as Ukraine is a more agricultural country," Yanukovych said, according to the Associated Press.

During the height of the famine, thousands of people died each day and entire villages were devastated. Cannibalism became widespread. Those who resisted were shot or shipped off to Siberia.

The famine, never recognised by the Soviet Union, was only commemorated after the end of communism. Yushchenko, elected after mass "Orange Revolution" protests in 2004, last week presided over the second annual official ceremony.

cro/AP/Reuters

No doubt an anti-Communist conspiracy fomented by CapitalistOccupiedGovernments! Ukrainians! Free yourself from the mind-controlling COG shackles! Rise up! Form a line (just like the bread lines of the old days comrades!) and smash the COG! :viking:

[Odysseus]

I trust the Ukrainians themselves on this matter.

No you trust capitalist liars.

[Captain Marinesko]

I trust the Ukrainians themselves on this matter.

Who do you think compiled the documents that ended up in the secret archives? They are from the Ukrainian SSR, including reports directly form the collectives themselves.




That's funny. I've seen you shrieking Holocaust orthodoxy on this forum, and yet there was never a "single scrap of paper" ordering that either. Yet in this case the lack of a magical piece of paper proves it never happened, so, I can also assume that since no such paper exists ordering the Holocaust, you will desist in making claims it happened?

1. Are gas chambers and firing squads naturally occuring phenomena? Famines are.

2. While there is no written order directly from Hitler on extermination, there is reference to this in Goebbels' diary, there is Himmler's Posen speech, there is the Taubner verdict, there are the Einsatzgruppen reports. Nothing of the sort exists for the so called man-made famine.



There's that reliance on "scraps of paper" again. Please see above.

If a famine was deliberately planned, aimed at Ukrainians, there ought to be SOMETHING that suggests there was some kind of plan. There are Nazi documents that reference their plans against Jews and other nationalities. There is nothing of the sort for this so-called artificial famine.


Let's ask the Ukrainians themselves then:

You don't get to decide who "the Ukrainians" are. Archival evidence says no man-made famine. No evidence has been provided that it was. Case closed..




No doubt an anti-Communist conspiracy fomented by CapitalistOccupiedGovernments! Ukrainians! Free yourself from the mind-controlling COG shackles! Rise up! Form a line (just like the bread lines of the old days comrades!) and smash the COG! :viking:

Where is the evidence that there was a man-made famine against Ukrainians? Oh that's right, they don't have any. Just a natural famine(evidence does exist for this), and a massive government aid program which, while it did not manage to save everybody, managed to save the lives of 40-50 million in the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine. There is evidence of that.

It's funny how I link to a professor who has spent years studying this event and parallel events(I actually corresponded with him in the past as well), who has degrees in Soviet and Agricultural history, and you by contrast post links to news stories you Googled.

And that is why you lost. Thanks for playing.

[Odysseus]

You know the funniest thing about this is that the USSR relied on the Ukraine for a large portion of its grain yield. Why would they manifest a famine to destroy their own highly necessary resource? Simple answer is they wouldn't and they didn't. These so-called Ukrainian sources are lies.

[Captain Marinesko]

You know the funniest thing about this is that the USSR relied on the Ukraine for a large portion of its grain yield. Why would they manifest a famine to destroy their own highly necessary resource? Simple answer is they wouldn't and they didn't. These so-called Ukrainian sources are lies.

The actual behavior of Ukrainians during the war, as well as population statistics, show this. As for that poll taken in Ukraine, I find it very interesting because several times Ukrainians have attempted to hold referendums against NATO, and against breaking up the Soviet Union, and nobody paid attention to their opinions then.

Ukrainians, much like Russians, don't have a lot of readily-accessible information on the latest archival research. In Ukraine they are bombarded with pro-government and nationalist nonsense. Meanwhile the "Ukrainians" that bitch the most about the famine(while remaining eerily silent about women trafficking and plunging birthrates) live in Canada or California.

Ah those hilarious WNs..sometimes the US government is "ZOG" and can't be trusted in regards to anything. And then other times it can be trusted 100%.

[Wodan]

You know the funniest thing about this is that the USSR relied on the Ukraine for a large portion of its grain yield. Why would they manifest a famine to destroy their own highly necessary resource? Simple answer is they wouldn't and they didn't. These so-called Ukrainian sources are lies.
No, I dont think so!

The Ukranian famine was caused by the commies because the commies hated the Farming communities that lived there, and they murdered them.

7 Million Ukranian Farmers lost their lives to the jewish backed commie scrounging scum.

[Odysseus]

Ah those hilarious WNs..sometimes the US government is "ZOG" and can't be trusted in regards to anything. And then other times it can be trusted 100%.

QFT. I would rep you but:

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

The Ukranian famine was caused by the commies because the commies hated the Farming communities that lived there, and they murdered them.

7 Million Ukranian Farmers lost their lives to the jewish backed commie scrounging scum.

And that's backed up by what exactly? This is hardly even worth even responding to.

[Captain Marinesko]

No, I dont think so!

Well too bad your opinion doesn't go very far compared to the research of people like R.W. Davies, Stephen Wheatcroft, Lynn Viola, and Mark Tauger.


The Ukranian famine was caused by the commies because the commies hated the Farming communities that lived there, and they murdered them.

Any evidence on this? Interesting theory though. The country had an expanding urban population, was in the middle of one of the world's quickest industrialization processes, and for some reason wanted to kill off the people that were needed to provide that population with food, during a time when they also had a severe labor shortage.



7 Million Ukranian Farmers lost their lives to the jewish backed commie scrounging scum.

Too bad that doesn't jive with demographic statistics. Oh shit huh?

[Draco]

Who do you think compiled the documents that ended up in the secret archives? They are from the Ukrainian SSR, including reports directly form the collectives themselves.





1. Are gas chambers and firing squads naturally occuring phenomena? Famines are.

2. While there is no written order directly from Hitler on extermination, there is reference to this in Goebbels' diary, there is Himmler's Posen speech, there is the Taubner verdict, there are the Einsatzgruppen reports. Nothing of the sort exists for the so called man-made famine.




If a famine was deliberately planned, aimed at Ukrainians, there ought to be SOMETHING that suggests there was some kind of plan. There are Nazi documents that reference their plans against Jews and other nationalities. There is nothing of the sort for this so-called artificial famine.



You don't get to decide who "the Ukrainians" are. Archival evidence says no man-made famine. No evidence has been provided that it was. Case closed..





Where is the evidence that there was a man-made famine against Ukrainians? Oh that's right, they don't have any. Just a natural famine(evidence does exist for this), and a massive government aid program which, while it did not manage to save everybody, managed to save the lives of 40-50 million in the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine. There is evidence of that.

It's funny how I link to a professor who has spent years studying this event and parallel events(I actually corresponded with him in the past as well), who has degrees in Soviet and Agricultural history, and you by contrast post links to news stories you Googled.

And that is why you lost. Thanks for playing.

God you're fucking ridiculous. It is no wonder the only person you can talk to is yourself. When you convert to Monarchism from Marxism in a few months, I await your esteemed treatises on why we mere mortals must rely on the Divine Right of kings and live in a Hobbesian society to protect us form ourselves. That is far edgier than Marxism you know. You get to wear a powdered wig and carry a snuff-box too, how cool is that?

By the way, the only people who "lose" on the Internets are those who make "I'm leaving threads" and then fail to do so.

Thanks for playing. Have some cheap vodka, use whatever evil capitalist dollars you have left in your account and hire yourself an underaged 50 ruble Russian whore (that's like two bucks!) and call it a night.

[Odysseus]

You get to wear a powdered wig and carry a snuff-box too, how cool is that?

Regardless of everything else wrong you said... that made me lol.

[Draco]

No you trust capitalist liars.


COG?! Oh noez!

http://ui12.gamespot.com/1227/cog-87317_4.gif

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20061114/gtgears1113/gow_220big.jpg


Teh COGz are cummingz 4 our bre@d lines and our unsh@ved wimminz1!!11

[Draco]

Regardless of everything else wrong you said... that made me lol.


At heart I'm incapable of genuine malice.

[Vindex]

After killing several million people what is lying in a report?

[Captain Marinesko]

God you're fucking ridiculous.

Yeah I'm posting evidence based on the latest research into the famine, as well as citing the top scholars who have studied this subject for a couple decades now, and I'm 'ridiculous'.


It is no wonder the only person you can talk to is yourself.

Well if you choose not to read the facts...


When you convert to Monarchism from Marxism in a few months, I await your esteemed treatises on why we mere mortals must rely on the Divine Right of kings and live in a Hobbesian society to protect us form ourselves. That is far edgier than Marxism you know. You get to wear a powdered wig and carry a snuff-box too, how cool is that?

Would you please show me when I have EVER been a Monarchist of any sort, much less changed from that position in a few months.

Hey why don't I play the same game: Who are YOU to criticize me when you were a former Islamic fundamentalist two weeks ago, and now you are a National Socialist Gay Rights activist!!



By the way, the only people who "lose" on the Internets are those who make "I'm leaving threads" and then fail to do so.

And people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.


Thanks for playing. Have some cheap vodka, use whatever evil capitalist dollars you have left in your account

Wow, you sure like white people.


and hire yourself an underaged 50 ruble Russian whore (that's like two bucks!) and call it a night.

Hmm....you must be confusing me with David Duke or some other white nationalist, because I don't pay for sex or exploit "white" girls like they do(or any girls for that matter). It's nice to see how much you care for "white" people with comments like that. Just goes to prove my motto: 'WNs are full of shit.'

Condolences on your lost debate.

[1-800]

Marinesko, give it up.

You posted at VNN for God knows how long and stopped being a White Nationalist Racial Futurian Agrarian National Transexualist because nobody thought that the Mongoloid Slavotards you so loved were sufficiently white.

You're the first person I have ever seen to take on ideology by osmosis: when in America, you were a White Supremacist, when in Russia, a Communist. I suppose if you got bored of bouncing around impoverished Eurasian hellholes like every other bratty American ex-pat and atrocity tourist, you could head over to Central America, soak up the local history, and we'd get a reasonable apologist for kleptocracy (or mass human sacrifice).

White Nationalism is stupid. Defeating it, or its adherents, in any debate is as much an accomplishment as tying your shoe. It's expected, because it is sheer nonsense.

[Wodan]

Good post!

Marinesko, give it up.

You posted at VNN for God knows how long and stopped being a White Nationalist Racial Futurian Agrarian National Transexualist because nobody thought that the Mongoloid Slavotards you so loved were sufficiently white.

You're the first person I have ever seen to take on ideology by osmosis: when in America, you were a White Supremacist, when in Russia, a Communist. I suppose if you got bored of bouncing around impoverished Eurasian hellholes like every other bratty American ex-pat and atrocity tourist, you could head over to Central America, soak up the local history, and we'd get a reasonable apologist for kleptocracy (or mass human sacrifice).

White Nationalism is stupid. Defeating it, or its adherents, in any debate is as much an accomplishment as tying your shoe. It's expected, because it is sheer nonsense.


I think White Nationalism and Communism are interchangeable terms meaning the same thing.

White Nationalism is the anglo-saxon rooted word equivalent to the French rooted word Communisme.

[Captain Marinesko]

Marinesko, give it up.

You posted at VNN for God knows how long and stopped being a White Nationalist Racial Futurian Agrarian National Transexualist

Perhaps you'd like to post some evidence that i was a supporter of such bizarre ideas. I described myself as a National Socialist, and subscribed mainly to the ideas of Povl Riis-Knudsen, Colin Jordan, and a little of Savitri Devi. I mentioned this numerous times.

So what this means is that you are basically lying here.


because nobody thought that the Mongoloid Slavotards you so loved were sufficiently white.

That's funny because WNs at VNN to this day still kiss Slavic ass because it is in these countries where they have a large population of neo-Nazis and skinheads. The only time WNs ever start insulting Slavs is when a Slav doesn't agree with them on some issue. Then the hate comes out.


You're the first person I have ever seen to take on ideology by osmosis: when in America, you were a White Supremacist, when in Russia, a Communist.

That's pretty funny too seeing that I got into Marxism while living in Prague, not Russia, and the first time I was in Russia in 1999 was the catalyst that got me into racialism in the first place. I abandoned the idiotic theories because I had trusted that nationalism and National Socialism held some kind of answers for Russia, and yet when I got to Prague(where I met people who informed me of the situation in Russia), I found that nothing significant had really changed ideologically since 1991, and found that the place is still a cesspool of degeneracy(Moscow).

I began to reexamine Marxism-Leninism in Prague because I realized that Holocaust documentaries and rap music couldn't explain European behavior.


I suppose if you got bored of bouncing around impoverished Eurasian hellholes like every other bratty American ex-pat and atrocity tourist, you could head over to Central America, soak up the local history, and we'd get a reasonable apologist for kleptocracy (or mass human sacrifice).

Since your original premise is already false, this hypothesis would also fail.


White Nationalism is stupid. Defeating it, or its adherents, in any debate is as much an accomplishment as tying your shoe. It's expected, because it is sheer nonsense.

I don't aim to defeat it, I aim to irritate its adherents because the results are hilarious. In other words, it's entertainment. Why do you think I'm so hard on David Lane? Nothing stirs up racialists into hysterics like attacks on Lane.

[IlluSionS667]

I described myself as a National Socialist, and subscribed mainly to the ideas of Povl Riis-Knudsen, Colin Jordan, and a little of Savitri Devi. I mentioned this numerous times.

You were basically a typical "neo-nazi" and never had a yota of insight in old school national-socialism.

That's funny because WNs at VNN to this day still kiss Slavic ass because it is in these countries where they have a large population of neo-Nazis and skinheads. The only time WNs ever start insulting Slavs is when a Slav doesn't agree with them on some issue. Then the hate comes out.

The hate is mostly between German nationalists (of different varieties) and certain Slavic groups, for historical reasons. As a Flemish national-socialist, I've never had any problems with Slavs.

I had trusted that nationalism and National Socialism held some kind of answers for Russia, and yet when I got to Prague(where I met people who informed me of the situation in Russia), I found that nothing significant had really changed ideologically since 1991, and found that the place is still a cesspool of degeneracy(Moscow).

Russia turned from national-communism to degenerate capitalism with nationalist elements. Modern Russia is not anti-capitalist at all, which makes it entirely incomparable with national-socialism (actually, the old Sovjetunion resembled national-socialism more than modern Russia). Putin attempts to restore some of the good elements of the national-communist era, but he still has a lot of work to do and he's facing a lot of resistance from pro-Western Russians.

I began to reexamine Marxism-Leninism in Prague because I realized that Holocaust documentaries and rap music couldn't explain European behavior.

No serious national-socialist would say that Holocaust documentaries and rap music explain European behavior. :rofl:

Since your original premise is already false, this hypothesis would also fail.

You've based your entire view of national-socialism on a bizarre mixture of official anti-NS propaganda and "neo-nazi" works, making your view of it completely distorted.

[Captain Marinesko]

You were basically a typical "neo-nazi" and never had a yota of insight in old school national-socialism.

I guess reading Mein Kampf twice, and all those other Third Reich publications doesn't count?



Russia turned from national-communism to degenerate capitalism with nationalist elements. Modern Russia is not anti-capitalist at all, which makes it entirely incomparable with national-socialism (actually, the old Sovjetunion resembled national-socialism more than modern Russia). Putin attempts to restore some of the good elements of the national-communist era, but he still has a lot of work to do and he's facing a lot of resistance from pro-Western Russians.

Once again you don't know what you are talking about, be it about Putin, or Russia under socialism. The Stalin era was Marxism-Leninism, more or less the right way. Khruschev began an era of revisionism and state-capitalism, though even then these socialist states were better for eastern Europeans and central Asians than the whorehouse kleptocracies of today.



No serious national-socialist would say that Holocaust documentaries and rap music explain European behavior. :rofl:

Nonsense, they do it all the time; not directly of course.



You've based your entire view of national-socialism on a bizarre mixture of official anti-NS propaganda and "neo-nazi" works, making your view of it completely distorted.

That's really funny because I didn't know Mein Kampf or even stuff by Colin Jordan counts as "Neo-Nazi". And I've seen you backing people like Savitri Devi so who are you to talk?

[IlluSionS667]

I guess reading Mein Kampf twice, and all those other Third Reich publications doesn't count?

What other Third Reich publications?

Thusfar, you have displayed no understanding of national-socialism whatsoever. I find it quite hard to believe you actually read Mein Kampf, let alone other NS literature.

The Stalin era was Marxism-Leninism, more or less the right way.

Marxism-Leninism is internationalistic, wheras Stalinism is nationalistic. Marxism is anti-authoritarian, wheras Stalinism is authoritarian. Considering national-socialism is nationalistic, authoritarian as well as anti-capitalist and communitarian, Stalinism had more in common with national-socialist society than with classic Marxism. The same is true for Maoism and Juche.

Khruschev began an era of revisionism and state-capitalism, though even then these socialist states were better for eastern Europeans and central Asians than the whorehouse kleptocracies of today.

I fully agree, although I'm convinced that Putin and his supporters are a positive influence in Russia and could help bring back some of the good parts of the old regime.

Nonsense, they do it all the time; not directly of course.

The indoctrination of the masses goes way beyond rap music and Holocaust tales. It's pure 1984-style Orwellian brainwashing.

That's really funny because I didn't know Mein Kampf or even stuff by Colin Jordan counts as "Neo-Nazi". And I've seen you backing people like Savitri Devi so who are you to talk?

The organisation that puts individuals such as GL Rockwell, Colin Jordan, Povl Riis-Knudsen and Savitri Devi together was the World Union of National Socialists, founded in 1962, and clearly "neo-nazi". With this label, I refer to an organisation that professes ideas inspired by national-socialism but different from it.

While I find the texts of individuals such as Savitri Devi and GL Rockwell interesting reading material, that doesn't change the fact that they deviate from old school national-socialism. Many national-socialists, in fact, completely dismiss the literature of one or more of these figures.

So maybe you did really read Mein Kampf. That doesn't make you a national-socialist. Rockwell also read Mein Kampf, but he only marginally understood the concept of national-socialism.

[1-800]

Perhaps you'd like to post some evidence that i was a supporter of such bizarre ideas. I described myself as a National Socialist, and subscribed mainly to the ideas of Povl Riis-Knudsen, Colin Jordan, and a little of Savitri Devi. I mentioned this numerous times.


I have no idea who any of those people are (were?) -- you might as well be telling me your favorite comic book authors.


I don't aim to defeat it, I aim to irritate its adherents because the results are hilarious. In other words, it's entertainment. Why do you think I'm so hard on David Lane? Nothing stirs up racialists into hysterics like attacks on Lane.

Some dead jailbird is being trashed by an American expat who has discovered his crippling lack of talent and likability aren't liabilities in Eastern Europe? Sounds like a Hallmark movie to me.

[IlluSionS667]

I have no idea who any of those people are (were?) -- you might as well be telling me your favorite comic book authors.

GL Rockwell, Colin Jordan, Povl Riis-Knudsen and Savitri Devi are people who gained some support in the '60s and who promoted their own variation of national-socialism. These individuals are completely disregarded by most old school national-socialists or only given marginal attention. Nevertheless, our own Captain Marinesko considers them as representative for national-socialism. :rofl:

http://www.anthonyflood.com/Rockwell_at_Nation_of_Islam_Rally.jpg
American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell (center) at a Nation of Islam (NOI) rally, Uline Arena, Washington, DC, June 25, 1961.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8594/photosavitri7jj9.jpg
Savitri Devi, a French-Greek esoteric Hitlerist

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/colin_jordan1.jpg
Colin Jordan

[Thomas777]

GL Rockwell, Colin Jordan, Povl Riis-Knudsen and Savitri Devi are people who gained some support in the '60s and who promoted their own variation of national-socialism. These individuals are completely disregarded by most old school national-socialists or only given marginal attention.

I tend to be suspicous of people (''old school'' or not) who harbor a belief that National Socialism is somehow revivable in the 21st century.

NS is fundamentally important as a historical point of interest (and how we contextualize the 20th Century), but its totally irrelevant to contemporary electoral politics in the USA and Western Europe.

It was rather eye opening to me when a few years ago when I saw VNNers and assorted other self-proclaimed ''racialists'' celebrating the untimely death of Sam Franics...Marinesko's former comrades are a bunch of oddballs with a fetish for historical anachronism. They're simply not relevant to politics in any way and I'm frankly surprised as of late that we are having 10 and 12 page debates over the merits of David Lane, GLR, etc.

[IlluSionS667]

I tend to be suspicous of people (''old school'' or not) who harbor a belief that National Socialism is somehow revivable in the 21st century.

NS is fundamentally important as a historical point of interest (and how we contextualize the 20th Century), but its totally irrelevant to contemporary electoral politics in the USA and Western Europe.

The conditions today aren't as different from the conditions in Weimar Germany as one might assume. When I read Hitler's complaints about Weimar Germany, it often seems like he speaks of the world today.

It was rather eye opening to me when a few years ago when I saw VNNers and assorted other self-proclaimed ''racialists'' celebrating the untimely death of Sam Franics...Marinesko's former comrades are a bunch of oddballs with a fetish for historical anachronism. They're simply not relevant to politics in any way and I'm frankly surprised as of late that we are having 10 and 12 page debates over the merits of David Lane, GLR, etc.

GL Rockwell, Savitri Devi, William Pierce, David Lane and other individuals have their merits and are worth mentioning for that, but one shouldn't equal them with Third Reich national-socialism. Those are two different leagues.

And the VNN... That's just a bunch of worthless rednecks, just like the NSM, KKK, Blood & Honour, ...

[Wodan]

I tend to be suspicous of people (''old school'' or not) who harbor a belief that National Socialism is somehow revivable in the 21st century.

NS is fundamentally important as a historical point of interest (and how we contextualize the 20th Century), but its totally irrelevant to contemporary electoral politics in the USA and Western Europe.

That's one way of looking at things, and I myself use to think like that.

However, I think the main purpose of Adolf Hitler was to project National Socialism as the Idea for the 21st century.

I think the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's understood that the 21st century would be where the real contest would take place between the Germanic people (Aryans) and the jews with their twin Zionist and Communist doctrines.

[Captain Marinesko]

I have no idea who any of those people are (were?) -- you might as well be telling me your favorite comic book authors.

I see, your ignorance is my problem. Maybe you need this broken down for you:

You suggested I had some kind of bizarre ideology, I pointed out that I didn't.



Some dead jailbird is being trashed by an American expat who has discovered his crippling lack of talent and likability aren't liabilities in Eastern Europe? Sounds like a Hallmark movie to me.

I wonder what American expat you must be talking about. It doesn't sound like anyone I know personally.

[Captain Marinesko]

Thusfar, you have displayed no understanding of national-socialism whatsoever. I find it quite hard to believe you actually read Mein Kampf, let alone other NS literature.

That is for two reasons:

1. I have no interest in discussing National Socialist philosophy here.

2. You have clearly decided that you are the Master of National Socialism, so anything anyone else says is going to be rejected.



Marxism-Leninism is internationalistic, wheras Stalinism is nationalistic. Marxism is anti-authoritarian, wheras Stalinism is authoritarian.

Spoken like a true Trotskyite or anarchist.


Considering national-socialism is nationalistic, authoritarian as well as anti-capitalist and communitarian, Stalinism had more in common with national-socialist society than with classic Marxism. The same is true for Maoism and Juche.

Again, spoken like a Trot. Maoism and Juche are revisionist. Look where Maoism got China.



I fully agree, although I'm convinced that Putin and his supporters are a positive influence in Russia and could help bring back some of the good parts of the old regime.

Well guess what; they're not.



The organisation that puts individuals such as GL Rockwell, Colin Jordan, Povl Riis-Knudsen and Savitri Devi together was the World Union of National Socialists, founded in 1962, and clearly "neo-nazi". With this label, I refer to an organisation that professes ideas inspired by national-socialism but different from it.

While I find the texts of individuals such as Savitri Devi and GL Rockwell interesting reading material, that doesn't change the fact that they deviate from old school national-socialism. Many national-socialists, in fact, completely dismiss the literature of one or more of these figures.

Who are these National Socialists who dismiss all of this? How much sense does it make to insist on some kind of orthodoxy from the 20s and 30s in the modern age?

[Odysseus]

Spoken like a true Trotskyite or anarchist.

Wrong. Trotsky called for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky never argued against Stalin being in the position he held, but the way in which he ruled. Trotsky believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat (as do I). Now Council Communists try to claim that the dictatorship is wrong but they're basically just anarchists so fuck them.

[Wodan]

Wrong. Trotsky called for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think that's true, and I think he even Marx thought of communism as a dictatorship.


1. The chief reason why the “socialists” do not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat is that they do not carry the idea of the class struggle to its logical conclusion (C f. Marx, 1852) .

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/sep/x02.htm


However the problem is that the communists (aka jews) intend to have perpetual dictatorship.

[Captain Marinesko]

Wrong. Trotsky called for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky never argued against Stalin being in the position he held, but the way in which he ruled. Trotsky believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat (as do I). Now Council Communists try to claim that the dictatorship is wrong but they're basically just anarchists so fuck them.

I wasn't saying Trotsky argued against the DotP, I am saying that Trotskyites relish in spreading the dogma that the USSR under Stalin's administration was nationalistic and authoritarian.

[Odysseus]

I wasn't saying Trotsky argued against the DotP, I am saying that Trotskyites relish in spreading the dogma that the USSR under Stalin's administration was nationalistic and authoritarian.

I don't think I've ever heard a single real trotskyist (that means actually has read trotsky not just sits in a cafe wearing a che t-shirt) make authoritarianism seem wrong. However Stalin's USSR was nationalistic, even his supporters point that out (a hell a lot of them like him for that). Not that that is necessarily wrong.

[Captain Marinesko]

I don't think I've ever heard a single real trotskyist (that means actually has read trotsky not just sits in a cafe wearing a che t-shirt) make authoritarianism seem wrong. However Stalin's USSR was nationalistic, even his supporters point that out (a hell a lot of them like him for that). Not that that is necessarily wrong.

It only seems "nationalistic" out of the widespread bourgeois myth that Communism is somehow incompatible with national pride or identity. Just HOW was the Soviet Union nationalistic under Stalin? Supposedly using a lot of national symbols and references to Russian/Ukrainian history in WWII is supposed to validate this claim, yet folks rarely seem to realize that all these references were extremely valid given that it was Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian territory that was invaded. I am sure if Uzbekistan had been invaded we might have seen references to Tamerlane.

And let's not forget the organizing of the International Brigades- I can hardly think of a more internationalist organization than the USSR's involvement in the Spanish Civil War.

As for Trotskyites, they are usually liars just like their leader, so I am sure that on one hand they would support authoritarianism, but when trying to sell the ideology they would be saying things like: "No man, that's STALINISM! REAL Marxism isn't about authority man!!"

[Odysseus]

As for Trotskyites, they are usually liars just like their leader

Keep unfounded claims like this where they belong, in the garbage. I don't have time to debate if you're going to resort to ad homs.

[Captain Marinesko]

Keep unfounded claims like this where they belong, in the garbage. I don't have time to debate if you're going to resort to ad homs.


Go on Revleft and start talking with Trots about authoritarianism. I bet you anything they will not endorse it or at least try to use other terms. Then look at Trotsky's writings- he was indeed very authoritarian, wanting to militarize the workforce.

And you're free to post those examples of Stalin's nationalism at any time.

[Odysseus]

Go on Revleft and start talking with Trots about authoritarianism.

Don't fucking speak of such useless class traitors. Revleft is nothing but anarchists who say that anyone who believes the state has anything to do with revolution is a fascist. I've been banned from there two or three times (one of those really doesn't count because it was more of a Soviet-Empire raid). TBH the phora is pretty shitty when it comes to genuine communist dialog.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/
^ For the internet's real Marxists. ^

And lets stop with this, we can't let every communist discussion to Stalin vs Trotsky.

[Draco]

Yeah I'm posting evidence based on the latest research into the famine, as well as citing the top scholars who have studied this subject for a couple decades now, and I'm 'ridiculous'.



Well if you choose not to read the facts...



And people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.



Wow, you sure like white people.



Hmm....you must be confusing me with David Duke or some other white nationalist, because I don't pay for sex or exploit "white" girls like they do(or any girls for that matter). It's nice to see how much you care for "white" people with comments like that. Just goes to prove my motto: 'WNs are full of shit.'

Condolences on your lost debate.

Mmm, yes. That stunning wit. Anyway, I had tried to keep the topic of the thread civil (since this is outside the lounge), but the faux commie cunt couldn't keep his mouth shut and had to keep making his trademark snide remarks (can you preface any statement without calling someone besides yourself "an idiot"?) towards everyone from myself, to Albion, to Illusion, and I let it irk me.


Though ,these two cap'n gems do warrant special attention:


Hey why don't I play the same game: Who are YOU to criticize me when you were a former Islamic fundamentalist two weeks ago, and now you are a National Socialist Gay Rights activist!!

I have never exhibited any such tendencies. At the very least I am consistent. You must have attended the Keystone School of Ideology (boasting a revolving door curriculum since 2004!).


Would you please show me when I have EVER been a Monarchist of any sort, much less changed from that position in a few months.

Learn to familiarize yourself with our friend the future tense. I said you WILL be a Monarchist soon, or some other such fanatical booster of whatever nonsense you embrace next. When you're calling your former Marxist friends fools for not properly bowing to their liege, we'll all just shake our heads and go about our business.

Since your favorite person to talk to is yourself, I'll let you have the last word. I'm certain I'll be driven to despondency by your razor wit.

Keep unfounded claims like this where they belong, in the garbage. I don't have time to debate if you're going to resort to ad homs.

The Cap'n not resort to ad homs? You two comrades in communism haven't known each other very long have you?

[1-800]

I see, your ignorance is my problem. Maybe you need this broken down for you:

You suggested I had some kind of bizarre ideology, I pointed out that I didn't.


I was being facetious -- I am aware of John Colin Campbell Jordan & Devi, and to say that they represent a bizarre ideology would be giving them far too much credit. A farcical hodgepodge of mystic irrationality, bigotry, and Romantic sentimentality does not make for much more than interesting pamphlet material. I'm sure that if Devi were alive today, her 'DevForum' would be full of poorly adjusted nutters positing that the fourth orbital of Mars conflicts with Venus in ascension, thereby transfiguring the second coming of Kali into the rebirth of universal chaos or some such.


I wonder what American expat you must be talking about. It doesn't sound like anyone I know personally.

I believe the same one who remains as much an economic illiterate as he was when 'In The Movement' (or whatever ridiculous phrase the goyz in red, white, and blue like to use), and has flattered himself into thinking that a dilettante's broad understanding of history has finally removed the scales from his eyes.

But we all need our hobbies, I suppose.

[1-800]

The conditions today aren't as different from the conditions in Weimar Germany as one might assume. When I read Hitler's complaints about Weimar Germany, it often seems like he speaks of the world today.


Where are conditions like Weimar Germany? Certainly not in the United States. Are things so far gone in Germany (or wherever you live) that truckloads of notes are being unloaded to pay for a meal?

On the same note, when I hear Juvenal complain of II Century Rome, I often think of the United States! Invective against one place and time is easily transferable to another.

[Thomas777]

Where are conditions like Weimar Germany? Certainly not in the United States. Are things so far gone in Germany (or wherever you live) that truckloads of notes are being unloaded to pay for a meal?

On the same note, when I hear Juvenal complain of II Century Rome, I often think of the United States! Invective against one place and time is easily transferable to another.


This is of course true, and I find it peculair to say the least when people see fit to compare USA to Weimar.

I always understood that Weimar was the most volatile of places because Westphalian conflict resolution in Europe had broken down and Communists were busily killing piles of people and threatening civilization with contagion.

When I left my house this morning, I noticed a lot of snow, but I didn't see anybody going about the business of violent general strike in the streets. I tend to doubt that revolution (Nazi or Ron Paulian) is imminent.

[1-800]

This is of course true, and I find it peculair to say the least when people see fit to compare USA to Weimar.


There are several issues that make the rough economic times ahead (not, in my view, including the rough patch we are currently weathering, but further down the road) dissimilar enough from previous downturns to warrant attention -- mainly the demographic crisis in First World countries precipitated by the 1946-64 cohort's coming retirement.

No one now is burning dollars for warmth, of course.

[IlluSionS667]

Thusfar, you have displayed no understanding of national-socialism whatsoever. I find it quite hard to believe you actually read Mein Kampf, let alone other NS literature.
That is for two reasons:

1. I have no interest in discussing National Socialist philosophy here.

2. You have clearly decided that you are the Master of National Socialism, so anything anyone else says is going to be rejected.

All of the national-socialists on this forum disagree with your views on national-socialism. It's not I.

Further, there's no need to go in depth on National-Socialist philosophy to see you don't have a clue. The superficial things you've said so far are already full of BS.

Marxism-Leninism is internationalistic, wheras Stalinism is nationalistic. Marxism is anti-authoritarian, wheras Stalinism is authoritarian.
Spoken like a true Trotskyite or anarchist.

Spoken like someone who doesn't like to distort the facts to suit him.

Maoism and Juche are revisionist. Look where Maoism got China.

China may have become decadent due to its capitalist influences, but also well on its way to become the world's new superpower. I guess it chose for the most pragmatic solution, which is regrettable but understandable. I can only hope they will be able to revert some of the more negative elements of capitalism in the long run. It would be a pity if the old ways of China are all lost.

Juche, on the other hand, strives for complete Autarky and is anything but capitalist. I see it as the closest thing to a national-socialist system to this day.

I fully agree, although I'm convinced that Putin and his supporters are a positive influence in Russia and could help bring back some of the good parts of the old regime.
Well guess what; they're not.

We obviously disagree here. Time will tell who's right.

Who are these National Socialists who dismiss all of this?

Almost every national-socialist I've ever encountered, either online or in real life. Mention GL Rockwell or Colin Jordan on GDV and you're certain to be shouted down by the hard-core national-socialists out there.

How much sense does it make to insist on some kind of orthodoxy from the 20s and 30s in the modern age?

The vast majority of orthodox national-socialism is as much applicable today than it was back then. When you have a sound ideology, it requires only little to no change.

Where are conditions like Weimar Germany? Certainly not in the United States. Are things so far gone in Germany (or wherever you live) that truckloads of notes are being unloaded to pay for a meal?

I was actually referring to the moral and social climate, not the economical condition. For Weimar economical conditions, we'll have to wait a few more years... at most a few more decades.

When I left my house this morning, I noticed a lot of snow, but I didn't see anybody going about the business of violent general strike in the streets. I tend to doubt that revolution (Nazi or Ron Paulian) is imminent.

It's just a matter of time before the American empire will burn to the ground in social mirery and chaos. Expect your worst nightmare becoming reality within the next two decades.

[Wodan]

Where are conditions like Weimar Germany? Certainly not in the United States. Are things so far gone in Germany (or wherever you live) that truckloads of notes are being unloaded to pay for a meal?

The US is not currently like the Weimar, and I am guessing it wont crumble to the exact same disastrous state.

My guess is the US will plunge into a ethnic civil war, most likely in the next 4 years.

Read Chittum: Civil War II – The Coming Breakup of America.


On the same note, when I hear Juvenal complain of II Century Rome, I often think of the United States! Invective against one place and time is easily transferable to another.

Well maybe that's your problem, lots of Americans - particularly the people who support the administration actually believe the ludicrous notion - that America is like Rome, with an up and coming empire.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Captain Marinesko]

All of the national-socialists on this forum disagree with your views on national-socialism. It's not I.

You seem to be the only person on here describing yourself as National Socialist, and subscribing to some bizarre orthodoxy of it as well, so that's not really a group we're talking about. And of course you would disagree with my views on National Socialism; you disagree with any view of National Socialism that isn't totally positive.


Further, there's no need to go in depth on National-Socialist philosophy to see you don't have a clue. The superficial things you've said so far are already full of BS.

Gee that's really funny, because back in the day I got nothing but praise from self-described National Socialists, including Europeans. The only group that hated me the most was, National Socialist Movement.


Spoken like someone who doesn't like to distort the facts to suit him.

He is wrong; period.



China may have become decadent due to its capitalist influences, but also well on its way to become the world's new superpower.

Yes, a decadent superpower full of sweat-shop workers and prostitutes. Is that what you would like for Europe? Maybe you need to take a trip to China and find out about this a little more.


Juche, on the other hand, strives for complete Autarky and is anything but capitalist. I see it as the closest thing to a national-socialist system to this day.

Juche is a revisionist ideology made up to deal with North Korea's lack of allies post-91. North Korea has no chance of spreading its ideology, and it has been undertaking various market reforms from back into the 90s.



Almost every national-socialist I've ever encountered, either online or in real life. Mention GL Rockwell or Colin Jordan on GDV and you're certain to be shouted down by the hard-core national-socialists out there.

Sure buddy.



The vast majority of orthodox national-socialism is as much applicable today than it was back then. When you have a sound ideology, it requires only little to no change.

No, none of it is. It was never an "ideology" really, just a lot of reactionary bullshit meant to save capitalism.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

No, none of it is. It was never an "ideology" really, just a lot of reactionary bullshit meant to save capitalism.Wow, that's the worst one sentence analysis of National Socialism I've ever read.

[Wodan]

No, none of it is. It was never an "ideology" really, just a lot of reactionary bullshit meant to save capitalism.

Only an Untermensch would come out with something like this.

[Vindex]

Communism is state capitalism, while pretending to hate capitialism.

[Wodan]

National Socialism is the Soul of the Germanic Folk,

in contrast.....

White Nationalism represents nothing more than a multi-cultural judaised American mob.

[Draco]

Where are conditions like Weimar Germany? Certainly not in the United States. Are things so far gone in Germany (or wherever you live) that truckloads of notes are being unloaded to pay for a meal?

I believe he is speaking culturally, not economically.

[Baron_Corvo]

I don't see this as being the case, BC. British Nationalist don't shy away from the WN label because they're afraid of sanctions, but because BNist is what they are. Ditto for French, German, Dutch, Flemish nationalists and so on. All of these descriptors take for granted that the people concerned are of European descent, and therefore white.

I think this has historically been true but is now changing, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the BNP is courting mass electoral appeal by claiming not to be racist; secondly, nationalism in the British context is now associated as much with opposition to the EU as with opposition to nmmigration; and thirdly, non-white Britons who have assimilated well make much of the fact that they consider themselves British and want to be considered as such by others.

I know, but the next level in the nationalist taxonomy after English, Welsh and Scottish is not WN, it's BN.


Well it might be if Welsh and Scottish nationalism (not forgetting Cornish :)) were racial nationalist, but they're not; even as far back as 1967 Plaid Cymru had two black delegates at its annual conference, who were welcomed warmly. Also, there are signs of the American usage seeping over into British racial nationalism. I've seen several British nationalists describe themselves as WNs and also John Tyndall is described as a "great white nationalist" on the BPP's webpage.

Not only that, but Celtic nationalists are invariably very happy to be part of the EU, British nationalists normally want to leave it as soon as possible.

[Captain Marinesko]

Wow, that's the worst one sentence analysis of National Socialism I've ever read.

Take a look at how often the Nazis violated their own professed ideological values before making that judgment.

[cyborg]

Tu quoque fallacy above.

[Captain Marinesko]

Tu quoque fallacy above.

While I don't have the time to go into great detail on this subject, just consider the fact of how many Jews, including half Jews, made it into top positions in the Third Reich. I think that would constitute a major violation of their ideological platform, don't you?

[cyborg]

Then I'll commit my own tu quoque and remind everyone of the Soviet lend-lease from the capitalists for heavy armaments. I think in either case, leaders were being pragmatic as they should.

With Germany, they were realistic enough to recognize dedicated and talented people who happened to have a partly Jewish background. With Russia, they knew Germany's capability for pushing east using armor and aircraft, so they needed to acquire enough of their own.

I think we can understand the difference between using methods and keeping goals in mind. Neither side compromised much on ideological goals, regardless of the impurity of the temporary methods used.

[Wodan]

As far as I can tell, White Nationalists will accept anyone with White Skin, regardless of their ideological persuasion.

This of course means WN's are open to 'White' muslims, 'White' xTians, and other people who just have White skin.

[Captain Marinesko]

As far as I can tell, White Nationalists will accept anyone with White Skin, regardless of their ideological persuasion.

This of course means WN's are open to 'White' muslims, 'White' xTians, and other people who just have White skin.

You haven't been in the movement very long have you? Go on Stormfront and say something supporting Albanians or Bosnian Muslims and see what happens.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Take a look at how often the Nazis violated their own professed ideological values before making that judgment.Hitler certainly failed to come through with his party's rhetoric against big capital in Germany, but his obvious reasons were to gain a firmer grip on power, not to "preserve capitalism". His hold on power before the Night of the Long Knives was still very precarious, if he hadn't come down on the socialist wing of the party, he very easily could have found himself swept up in a coup. Most historians would agree that Hitler and his hardcore fans like Goebbels believed most of their rhetoric, and we all know Hitler wasn't a fan of threats to his power. It's very likely he would have largely disposed of the big capitalists and aristocrats that had only grudgingly accepted him after they outlived their usefulness.

[raven]

You haven't been in the movement very long have you? Go on Stormfront and say something supporting Albanians or Bosnian Muslims and see what happens.Even if the Albanian or Bosnian in question is Christian, they'll still deem them racially impure. Also it doesn't stop there. A significant minority (1/3 or more) of WN also don't look kindly to Slavs, the Irish and Southern Europeans in general.

[harjit]

Even if the Albanian or Bosnian in question is Christian, they'll still deem them racially impure. Also it doesn't stop there. A significant minority (1/3 or more) of WN also don't look kindly to Slavs, the Irish and Southern Europeans in general.

I think they are mostly joking about the Irish and Slavs etc, but do accept them.

They pretty much need every warm body they can get. Maybe they'll accept Turkey as part of Europe before the EU does. :rofl:

[raven]

I think they are mostly joking about the Irish and Slavs etc, but do accept them.

They pretty much need every warm body they can get. Maybe they'll accept Turkey as part of Europe before the EU does. :rofl:Diabloblanco already has. :rofl:

[Captain Marinesko]

Even if the Albanian or Bosnian in question is Christian, they'll still deem them racially impure. Also it doesn't stop there. A significant minority (1/3 or more) of WN also don't look kindly to Slavs, the Irish and Southern Europeans in general.


That is because underneath all this pseudo-intellectual, neo-Pagan, Pan-European bullshit, lie the same old nationalist rivalries and ignorant prejudices.

[Basil Fawlty]

I think they are mostly joking about the Irish and Slavs etc, but do accept them.They are not joking. I have observed WN's venting their spleens about the Irish at places like SF and VNN. They resent the fact that the etnically conscious Irish in America seem to follow an agenda that is at variance with the WN's and are resiatnt to appeals for white solidarity. This is a quote I saved from a anti-Irish rant at VNN a few years ago (the thread no longer exists). Broadly the view is that Irish ethnic interests are put ahead of those of whites in general. Similar to the charge made against the Jews in the US by the same people as the quote below reveals.
Irish Catholics …in my opinion …will for the most part will allways side with the jews …even if jews disappeared magically tomorrow they would fight against us to the bitter end. On this side of the ocean, the BNPers resent the Irish in Britain because they refuse to set aside the national question and join them in some pan-white anti-foreigner alliance.

[Basil Fawlty]

Here's more of that thread which I have managed to track down elsewhere.

Well you won't get any argument from me, or indeed the majority of Brit white nationalists. I must admit though, that I always thought Americans of Irish stock to be different from their spud munching scumbag ancestors.

They are without a doubt some of the most enthusiastic race mixers anywhere of any people, any color that I have ever seen

many of today’s Irish Catholics would be more than happy to thwart our efforts!

If we cannot come to terms with these folk somehow, then we may as well deal with them the same as we deal with the jew when we make our play to knock the jew off his throne

It's not just Irish Catholics but the Catholic church in America is encouraging massive illegal immigration.

That is indisputable.

Our media always compare the Blacks and Mestizos to the Irish and some Irish claim victim status along with them, it's encouraged.

[harjit]

They are not joking. I have observed WN's venting their spleens about the Irish at places like SF and VNN. They resent the fact that the etnically conscious Irish in America seem to follow an agenda that is at variance with the WN's and are resiatnt to appeals for white solidarity. This is a quote I saved from a anti-Irish rant at VNN a few years ago (the thread no longer exists). Broadly the view is that Irish ethnic interests are put ahead of those of whites in general. Similar to the charge made against the Jews in the US by the same people as the quote below reveals.
On this side of the ocean, the BNPers resent the Irish in Britain because they refuse to set aside the national question and join them in some pan-white anti-foreigner alliance.

Haven't looked at SF in ages, but in the past I did notice that a lot of fights did tend to break out in the Irish forum (reminds one of real life... j/k :)).

The Irish nationalists, like you said, frequently bitched about other white people, such as the UK (of course) and Poles etc. coming to Ireland to work. Then someone would admonish them for bad-mouthing fellow whites, and a melee would ensue.

However among thinking WNs I doubt many would be serious in their anti-Irish sentiment. You can probably ask any WN here. Given the percent of white Americans with Irish heritage, WN wouldn't last a day without them. It's amazing how in the old days the Klu Klux Klan was able to grow so large and powerful while opposing Catholics, meaning they were excluding Irish and Italians, two major white groups in America. There is no way that can be accomplished now.

If anything this may be more possible in Canada, where there is still a strong Anglo / WASP cultural consciousness (which incidentally, and on another topic, also serves to show that such can be possible without being racist, but American WNs wouldn't be able to get their heads around it given the melting pot nature of their society).

[Winston]

On this side of the ocean, the BNPers resent the Irish in Britain because they refuse to set aside the national question and join them in some pan-white anti-foreigner alliance.
Would you say that the 'national question' is of importance to Irish living in Britain? I would hope that they aren't letting it play too heavy on their minds as they're basically a 100% assimilated people, and to place Irish issues higher on the agenda than the immigration problem would be foolish.

[Basil Fawlty]

Would you say that the 'national question' is of importance to Irish living in Britain? I would hope that they aren't letting it play too heavy on their minds as they're basically a 100% assimilated people, and to place Irish issues higher on the agenda than the immigration problem would be foolish.I'm talking about Irish people who still retain a distinct identity as such, as opposed to those who have assimilated. Such people will be anti-BNP for starters. Some of them might even be indifferent or even hostile to the plight of the English nation in the face of immigration, etc. This last position I would be opposed to. In fact, I personally would be sympathetic to English nationalism whilst being hostile to Britishness, if you know what I mean.

[Winston]

I'm talking about Irish people who still retain a distinct identity as such, as opposed to those who have assimilated. Such people will be anti-BNP for starters. Some of them might even be indifferent or even hostile to the plight of the English nation in the face of immigration, etc. This last position I would be opposed to. In fact, I personally would be sympathetic to English nationalism whilst being hostile to Britishness, if you know what I mean.

I have no idea how large a group these Irish-with-a-strong-identity-living-in-Britain are, but if they're hostile to the nation then I consider them as much of a problem as any of the other immigrant groups. In fact, if their hearts are in Ireland and their feet in Britain, and they're anti-BNP, then that makes any animosity they are shown by nationalist groups completely justified, just as it is with regard the more overtly alien.
I think the vast majority of Brits, even moderately nationalist types who understand that anti-White immigration has been a bad thing whilst not identifying as a racialist, must be completely unaware that these sort of feelings are held by any of the Irish who live among us.

[Basil Fawlty]

I have no idea how large a group these Irish-with-a-strong-identity-living-in-Britain are, but if they're hostile to the nation then I consider them as much of a problem as any of the other immigrant groups. In fact, if their hearts are in Ireland and their feet in Britain, and they're anti-BNP, then that makes any animosity they are shown by nationalist groups completely justified, just as it is with regard the more overtly alien.I think the ones who are hostile would be a minority but indifference would be more siginficance amongst the ones who idenitfy with their Irish identity. Then there are the large group of assimilated irish, but they would be descendents of people who emigrated there at least three generations ago.
I think the vast majority of Brits, even moderately nationalist types who understand that anti-White immigration has been a bad thing whilst not identifying as a racialist, must be completely unaware that these sort of feelings are held by any of the Irish who live among us.You must understand that even the non-hostile cannot possibly support something like the BNP because it has an imperialist programme. Check out its policy on Ireland. You cannot underestimate the importance of the Irish national question for such people, even if in most cases its juts a kind of ideal or sentiment. You are aware that the history of the relations between these two islands over many hundreds of years has not been a happy one?

[Wodan]

You must understand that even the non-hostile cannot possibly support something like the BNP because it has an imperialist programme. Check out its policy on Ireland. You cannot underestimate the importance of the Irish national question for such people, even if in most cases its juts a kind of ideal or sentiment. You are aware that the history of the relations between these two islands over many hundreds of years has not been a happy one?

One thing that is shame though, is how Irish Nationalists don't own up to being as much as a bunch of shabbos goys as the British.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34766

Irish Nationalists - serving the jew since St Patrick in 432.

[Basil Fawlty]

One thing that is shame though, is how Irish Nationalists don't own up to being as much as a bunch of shabbos goys as the British.This is the biggest load of crap I think I've seen said about this. Jews hold no significant positions in Ireland and the Jewish population has shrunk steadily since the time of independence from 10,000 at its peak to about 1500.
Irish Nationalists - serving the jew since St Patrick in 432.:rofl: Bollox!

[Wodan]

This is the biggest load of crap I think I've seen said about this. Jews hold no significant positions in Ireland and the Jewish population has shrunk steadily since the time of independence from 10,000 at its peak to about 1500.
No it's not.

Jews dont have to hold positions in Ireland to be in Power in Ireland.

Your Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are paid shabbos goys, paid to bring in truck loads of Africans.

....and <flame deleted> you defend their position.

[Basil Fawlty]

Albion, stop trolling and flaming in highbrow.

[Wodan]

Albion, stop trolling and flaming in highbrow.
I'm not flaming, and i'm not trolling.

If one wants to connect it to the thread title, then one can say Irish Nationalism is a muted form of White Nationalism practiced in Ireland.

....and as pointed out, the leaders of Irish Nationalism have already sold the ordinary folk in Ireland out to jewish gangters!

It's a pity you wont admit it Basil Fawlty.

You Irish are just as bad the Brits. Caught in a jewish instigated war!

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm not flaming, and i'm not trolling.Making absurd claims about Adams and calling me a traitor. Trolling and flaming.
If one wants to connect it to the thread title, then one can say Irish Nationalism is a muted form of White Nationalism practiced in Ireland.Which would be pure BS.
...and as pointed out, the leaders of Irish Nationalism have already sold the ordinary folk in Ireland out to jewish gangters!An asburd claim for which no evidence is offered. Trolling.

[Reios]

U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine disagrees with you:

Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine
Based on testimony heard and staff research, the Commission on the Ukraine Famine makes the following findings:

1. There is no doubt that large numbers of inhabitants of the Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasus Territory starved to death in a man-made famine in 1932-1933, caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by Soviet authorities.

2. The victims of the Ukrainian Famine numbered in the millions.

3. Official Soviet allegations of "kulak sabotage," upon which all "difficulties" were blamed during the Famine, are false.

4. The Famine was not, as is often alleged, related to drought.

5. In 1931-1932, the official Soviet response to a drought-induced grain shortage outside Ukraine was to send aid to the areas affected and to make a series of concessions to the peasantry. (Don't forget the famine was induced to punish the Ukrainians-Draco)

6. In mid-1932, following complaints by officials in the Ukrainian SSR that excessive grain procurements had led to localized outbreaks of famine, Moscow reversed course and took an increasingly hard line toward the peasantry. (So much for Communist solidarity-Draco)

7. The inability of Soviet authorities in Ukraine to meet the grain procurements quota forced them to introduce increasingly severe measures to extract the maximum quantity of grain from the peasants.

8. In the Fall of 1932 Stalin used the resulting "procurements crisis" in Ukraine as an excuse to tighten his control in Ukraine and to intensify grain seizures further.

9. The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 was caused by the maximum extraction of agricultural produce from the rural population.

10. Officials in charge of grain seizures also lived in fear of punishment.

11. Stalin knew that people were starving to death in Ukraine by late 1932.

12. In January 1933, Stalin used the "laxity" of the Ukrainian authorities in seizing grain to strengthen further his control over the Communist Party of Ukraine and mandated actions which worsened the situation and maximized the loss of life.

13. Postyshev had a dual mandate from Moscow: to intensify the grain seizures (and therefore the Famine) in Ukraine and to eliminate such modest national self-assertion as Ukrainians had hitherto been allowed by the USSR.

14. While famine also took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin's interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are parallelled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus.

15. Attempts were made to prevent the starving from travelling to areas where food was more available.

16. Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933.

17. The American government had ample and timely information about the Famine but failed to take any steps which might have ameliorated the situation. Instead, the Administration extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet government in November 1933, immediately after the Famine.

18. During the Famine certain members of the American press corps cooperated with the Soviet government to deny the existence of the Ukrainian Famine.

19. Recently, scholarship in both the West and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union has made substantial progress in dealing with the Famine. Although official Soviet historians and spokesmen have never given a fully accurate or adequate account, significant progress has been made in recent months.

Source: U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Report to Congress. Adopted by the Commission, April 19, 1988. Submitted to Congress April 22. 1988. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1988. 524p Available at: http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html



I have more in response but I have to go, I'll be around tomorrow.

I just want to add that the prime incontestable evidence for modern Ukrainians that the events of 1932-33 were a famine genocide is stories narrated by their grand parents or parents who survived then. Each Ukrainian has an ancestor killed as a result of the genocide and each one knows about it from his family history.

Those Ukrainians who deny the genocide have either ancestors implicated in its conducting or just mentally sick.

[Captain Marinesko]

I just want to add that the prime incontestable evidence for modern Ukrainians that the events of 1932-33 were a famine genocide is stories narrated by their grand parents or parents who survived then. Each Ukrainian has an ancestor killed as a result of the genocide and each one knows about it from his family history.

Those Ukrainians who deny the genocide have either ancestors implicated in its conducting or just mentally sick.

It is not genocide because it was not "man-made", nor was it limited to Ukrainians. Suffering from the same famine affected the North Volga region as well as the area around Moscow.

[Reios]

It is not genocide because it was not "man-made", nor was it limited to Ukrainians. Suffering from the same famine affected the North Volga region as well as the area around Moscow.


It was man-made through the total confiscations of all the food and military blockade of the regions affected with starvation in order to prevent locals from leaving and saving their lives. Communists' detachments were searching for hidden food-stuffs and confiscating everything that could be eaten even when people were dying from starvation. Communist regime refused to admit the fact of mass starvation in Ukraine and refused to accept any foreign humanitarian aid.

It suffices to say that Ukrainians who survived 1932-33 called those events Holodomor. If you know the Ukrainian language Holodomor means to kill through starvation that is genocide.

There was nothing comparable in term of extent in Russia. The zones affected with atrtificially created hunger in Russia were within the areas populated by Ukrainian descendants like Kuban or other non-Russian people in most cases.


The events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine were seen by the Soviet Communist leaders as an instrument against possible Ukrainian self-determination. At the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Moscow-appointed leader Postyshev declared that "1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution."[48] This "defeat" encompassed not just the physical extermination of a significant portion of the Ukrainian peasantry, but also the virtual elimination of the Ukrainian clergy and the mass imprisonment or execution of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers and artists.
By the end of the 1930s, approximately four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite had been "eliminated".[49] Some, like Ukrainian writer Mykola Khvylovy, committed suicide. One of the leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks, Mykola Skrypnyk, who was in charge of the decade-long Ukrainization program that had been decisively brought to an end, shot himself in the summer of 1933 at the height of the terrifying purge of the CP(b)U. The Communist Party of Ukraine, under the guidance of state officials like Kaganovich, Kosior, and Postyshev, boasted in early 1934 of the elimination of "counter-revolutionaries, nationalists, spies and class enemies". Whole academic organizations, such as the Bahaliy Institute of History and Culture, were shut down following the arrests.

[Captain Marinesko]

That's interesting but unfortunately your side cannot provide evidence that this famine was "man-made", nor refute the evidence that has become available since the opening of the Soviet archives.

Terribly sorry. Say, when are the Ukrainian "nationalists" going to do something about Ukraine's CURRENT problems? I won't hold my breath.

[Reios]

That's interesting but unfortunately your side cannot provide evidence that this famine was "man-made", nor refute the evidence that has become available since the opening of the Soviet archives.

Terribly sorry. Say, when are the Ukrainian "nationalists" going to do something about Ukraine's CURRENT problems? I won't hold my breath.

You may fool others but there are tons of evidence from the Soviet and foreign archives, not to mention that the all these facts can be proven by thousands of those who survived the famine and are still alive. Nearly each Ukrainian knows what methods were used to cause and keep up starvation from their relatives of older generations. It is impossible to deny their testimonies.

[Reios]

Terribly sorry. Say, when are the Ukrainian "nationalists" going to do something about Ukraine's CURRENT problems? I won't hold my breath.

What "nationalists"? All your fellows, former communists and party bureaucrats, are in power in Ukraine. So you should know it better.

[Captain Marinesko]

You may fool others but there are tons of evidence from the Soviet and foreign archives, not to mention that the all these facts can be proven by thousands of those who survived the famine and are still alive. Nearly each Ukrainian knows what methods were used to cause and keep up starvation from their relatives of older generations. Is is impossible to deny their testimonies.


Then why haven't those "tons of evidence" been published then? Why haven't they been able to refute the evidence that the famine was in fact caused primarily by natural problems, and the existence of the huge Soviet aid program which may have saved as much as 40 million lives?

And do you also realize that without collectivization, people in the cities would have been starving? The Russian empire has had a legacy of famine due to backward agriculture. Who provided tractors, who provided chemical fertilizer? The Bolsheviks, not Roman Shukyevich or Stepan Bandera.

You keep talking about "every Ukrainian". Maybe you'd like to explain why those supposedly abused and starved Ukrainians decided to voluntarily support the Red Army and Soviet Union in far higher numbers than the nationalists. It has even been shown several times that if they had a choice, most Ukrainians would've voted against the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, like most other Soviet nationalities.

[Captain Marinesko]

What "nationalists"? All your fellows, former communists and party bureaucrats, are in power in Ukraine. So you should know it better.


Yuschenko and Tymoshenko are former "Communists"?

The Soviet Union was a revisionist state after 1956, so even those that did not go the liberal suck-up route can hardly be called Communists.

[Petr]

Communist regime refused to admit the fact of mass starvation in Ukraine and refused to accept any foreign humanitarian aid.
Why won't you explain us this detail, Cap'n? Surely the Reds didn't think they had anything to hide or to be ashamed of?

(During the great 1921-22 famine, massive Western aid was indeed sent and accepted by the Soviet leadership.)

Indeed, during the whole Stalinist era that you so loudly praise, the attitude towards foreigners in the USSR became positively paranoid, save for some ridiculous staged publicity stunts. I wonder why?

Nazi Germany, by contrast, was proud to publicize its achievements during the peace-time and did not significantly hinder the movement of foreign spectators.


Petr

[Reios]

Then why haven't those "tons of evidence" been published then? Why haven't they been able to refute the evidence that the famine was in fact caused primarily by natural problems, and the existence of the huge Soviet aid program which may have saved as much as 40 million lives?

They are available and published. You just don't care about the truth.
Your bullshit about natural problems is just your bullshit.

And do you also realize that without collectivization, people in the cities would have been starving? The Russian empire has had a legacy of famine due to backward agriculture. Who provided tractors, who provided chemical fertilizer? The Bolsheviks, not Roman Shukyevich or Stepan Bandera.

Your Bolsheviks ruined all the agriculture and had to buy food resources abroad.

You keep talking about "every Ukrainian". Maybe you'd like to explain why those supposedly abused and starved Ukrainians decided to voluntarily support the Red Army and Soviet Union in far higher numbers than the nationalists. It has even been shown several times that if they had a choice, most Ukrainians would've voted against the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, like most other Soviet nationalities.

What? voluntarily? Haven't you heard that there was a compulsary military service in the USSR? Ukrainians were just mobilized to the Red Army. Those who refused were to be shot according to marshal law. The attitude of Hitler to Soviet POWs made them stay within the ranks of the Soviet troops.


"It has even been shown several times"?

Who it showed? Mr Simonenko? Or Russian state controlled Medias?

[Captain Marinesko]

They are available and published. You just don't care about the truth.
Your bullshit about natural problems is just your bullshit.

Clearly they are not published. Unless you are referring to all that documentation that refutes your claims, analyzed by people like Dr. Mark Tauger.



Your Bolsheviks ruined all the agriculture and had to buy food resources abroad.

Ruined agriculture? Are you kidding? It was due to Khsruchev's idiotic policies that they were later buying grain from the US.



What? voluntarily? Haven't you heard that there was a compulsary military service in the USSR? Ukrainians were just mobilized to the Red Army. Those who refused were to be shot according to marshal law. The attitude of Hitler to Soviet POWs made them stay within the ranks of the Soviet troops.

Millions of people volunteered to join the army after 1941. Yes theoretically they would have been conscripted, but many volunteered rather than wait, many of them 16 and 17, just like in the US.



Who it showed? Mr Simonenko? Or Russian state controlled Medias?

It has been borne out by numerous polls.

[Reios]

Yuschenko and Tymoshenko are former "Communists"?

The Soviet Union was a revisionist state after 1956, so even those that did not go the liberal suck-up route can hardly be called Communists.

I see you are a loyal Lenino-Stalenets. But the fact is that nearly all the communists who lived up to 1956 remained alive and were left at their positions after 1956, there were no mass purges so there were the same communists as the ones before 1956.


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ющенко%2C_Виктор_Андреевич

Yuschenko became the member of the Soviet communist party in 1977.

Tymoshenko (true surname Grygan) was a big activist in the Young Communist League.

Don't make people laugh by calling a Ukrainian nationalist a semi-Armenian bastard.

Everyone knows that only a person from inside the Soviet system of power with good ties there could privitize state property in the early 1990s and succeed in politics.

[Reios]

Clearly they are not published. Unless you are referring to all that documentation that refutes your claims, analyzed by people like Dr. Mark Tauger.


Did he mention that when Ukrainians were starving in 1932-33, the Soviet regime broke all the records of selling confiscated Ukrainian food resources to Germany and other foreign states?

[Petr]

Clearly they are not published. Unless you are referring to all that documentation that refutes your claims, analyzed by people like Dr. Mark Tauger.
Tauger is an obvious lefty apologist for Stalin. Even Stephen Wheatcroft, whom you have eagerly cited elsewhere, disagrees with him. Robert Conquest and Tauger represent two unreasonable extremes:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3838


Petr

[Wodan]

Making absurd claims about Adams and calling me a traitor.

Here you go, here's your precious Gerry Adams welcoming Negroes into Ireland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80

Gerry Adams in his own words with a load of Negro invaders:


"I just want to say that Sinn Fein fully endorses your campaign."

.....

"We stand shoulder to shoulder with you"!



An asburd claim for which no evidence is offered.

Someone who does NOT know the score = Useful / Useless Idiot!

Someone who does know the score and betrays their Race = TRAITOR!

Take your pick Basil Faulty!

[Basil Fawlty]

Here you go, here's your precious Gerry Adams welcoming Negroes into Ireland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80

Gerry Adams in his own words with a load of Negro invaders:All very interesting, but quite irrelevant. This is the claim you have to prove: Your Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are paid shabbos goys, paid to bring in truck loads of Africans.Get cracking.
Someone who does NOT know the score = Useful / Useless Idiot!

Someone who does know the score and betrays their Race = TRAITOR!According to the Irish Constitution treason is defined as follows:Article 39
Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.
So unless you can show where I am guilty of this, your comment is nothing but impotent hand waving, trolling and flaming in fact.
Take your pick Basil Faulty!You are not in any position to offer me alternatives in anything.

[Wodan]

All very interesting, but quite irrelevant. This is the claim you have to prove: Get cracking.
According to the Irish Constitution treason is defined as follows:So unless you can show where I am guilty of this, your comment is nothing but impotent hand waving, trolling and flaming in fact.
You are not in any position to offer me alternatives in anything.
You really are off your rocker!

I suppose the Irish deserve what's coming to them!

[Basil Fawlty]

You really are off your rocker!

I suppose the Irish deserve what's coming to them!I'll take this as tacit withdrawl of your claims.

[Wodan]

I'll take this as tacit withdrawl of your claims.
I dont withdraw my claims!

In fact I will repeat the fact the Gerry Adams and the Irish Nationalists are communists working for the jews.

Both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are on the Westminster payroll.

Everyone at Westminister gets paid with jewish money.

I can see you dont accept this and you dont anything about know this either.

But that dosn't bother me!

What I will say is that the people behind Adams and Sinn Fein will turn the Irish people - brown i.e. cheaper negroes :rofl:

And from what I have seen of the Irish over the years, I believe you deserve this fate.

So you best start practising opening bananas, and sewing your lips together! Unless of course you've already got it in your blood.

:rofl:

[Basil Fawlty]

I dont withdraw my claims!

In fact I will repeat the fact the Gerry Adams and the Irish Nationalists are communists working for the jews.Its getting madder by the moment.
Everyone at Westminister gets paid with jewish money.I always thought MP's they were paid by the British tax-payer. Unless you mean some other form of payment, in which case you need to produce evidence and not hot air.
But that dosn't bother me!Apparently things like evidence, proofs, reason don't bother you in the least!

[Basil Fawlty]

@Albion, you have been told to stop flamin/trolling twice. Now I am just going to delete unless you have any substantial points to make on this topic, like evidence that Adams & co are on some kind of Jewish payroll.

[IlluSionS667]

@Albion, you have been told to stop flamin/trolling twice. Now I am just going to delete unless you have any substantial points to make on this topic, like evidence that Adams & co are on some kind of Jewish payroll.

First of all, I'd like to point out that this is a sub-section of a free speech forum for fascistoid ideologies. I don't see how Jewish conspiracy theories are out of place here.

Second, where's your evidence that Adams & co are not on some kind of Jewish payroll? I mean... almost every "democratic" politician is either on a Jewish payroll or dominated by people who are. This is true for the US, the UK, Ireland and the rest of the Western world.

Further, as a Flemish nationalist I have some experience with the Flemish nationalist movement and I can assure you that almost every Flemish nationalist movement consists mostly of psychologically dubious individuals, screw-ups, idiots, provocateurs and infiltrators. The few respectable intellectuals that do exist in these movements are rendered useless by the multitudes of human waste, which in its turn prevents other intellectuals from joining these movements. This way, Flemish nationalism is destroyed from within. I doubt it is very different for Irish nationalism. Anyway, I just actually discussed this very issue with a close friend and fellow nationalsocialist a few hours ago.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Second, where's your evidence that Adams & co are not on some kind of Jewish payroll?


Where is your evidence that Adams and co are not flesh-eating space creatures from the moons of jupiter? Burden of proof, anyone?

[Captain Marinesko]

I see you are a loyal Lenino-Stalenets. But the fact is that nearly all the communists who lived up to 1956 remained alive and were left at their positions after 1956, there were no mass purges so there were the same communists as the ones before 1956.


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ющенко%2C_Виктор_Андреевич

Yuschenko became the member of the Soviet communist party in 1977.

Tymoshenko (true surname Grygan) was a big activist in the Young Communist League.

Don't make people laugh by calling a Ukrainian nationalist a semi-Armenian bastard.

Everyone knows that only a person from inside the Soviet system of power with good ties there could privitize state property in the early 1990s and succeed in politics.


People are judged by what they do, not what they used to be. The actions of Tymoshenko and Yuschenko are die-hard capitalists, Tymoshenko could even be considered a oligarch. And at the same time, they push nationalist rhetoric including the famine-genocide bullshit.

Oh perhaps you think they don't reperesent you because they don't subscribe to your wacky nationalist theories- well tough. What do you think the break up of the Soviet Union was about? Do you think it was about "freedom", "nations", or any nonsense like that? Your nationalists served their purposes well, now they don't need you anymore. It's all about the money, and it always was- underneath all those lovely phrases about culture, spirituality, and freedom.

Also perhaps in your bizarre world Tymoshenko's mixed ethnicity holds some kind of significance, but to most of the world it does not.

[Petr]

What do you think the break up of the Soviet Union was about? Do you think it was about "freedom", "nations", or any nonsense like that? Your nationalists served their purposes well, now they don't need you anymore. It's all about the money, and it always was- underneath all those lovely phrases about culture, spirituality, and freedom.
Witness Marxist economic determinism in all its vulgar materialistic-reductionist repulsiveness.


Petr

[Reios]

People are judged by what they do, not what they used to be. The actions of Tymoshenko and Yuschenko are die-hard capitalists, Tymoshenko could even be considered a oligarch. And at the same time, they push nationalist rhetoric including the famine-genocide bullshit.

I just repeat you are obsessed with some nationalits' conspiracies. But the fact is the people who have power and fortunes in modern Ukraine are former communists and Soviet bureaucrats who have always been lukewarm or hostile to any sorts of nationalism, an essential part of them are not even Ukrainians. None of them uses nationalist rhetoric, they use democratic and liberal ones. It does not differ from the received political rhetoric in Europe.

Oh perhaps you think they don't reperesent you because they don't subscribe to your wacky nationalist theories- well tough.

If people do not subscribe to nationalist theories, they cannot be called nationalists. Everything is simple.

What do you think the break up of the Soviet Union was about? Do you think it was about "freedom", "nations", or any nonsense like that?
Your nationalists served their purposes well, now they don't need you anymore. It's all about the money, and it always was- underneath all those lovely phrases about culture, spirituality, and freedom.

Quite correct. It was your fellow communists who destroyed the USSR on their own and continue to destroy Ukraine today.

[ogenoct]

Everyone at Westminister gets paid with jewish money.

Shekel? Does "everyone at Westminster" have to convert the "Jewish money" into pounds at their neighborhood banks?

Constantin

[Draco]

Why won't you explain us this detail, Cap'n? Surely the Reds didn't think they had anything to hide or to be ashamed of?

(During the great 1921-22 famine, massive Western aid was indeed sent and accepted by the Soviet leadership.)

Indeed, during the whole Stalinist era that you so loudly praise, the attitude towards foreigners in the USSR became positively paranoid, save for some ridiculous staged publicity stunts. I wonder why?

Nazi Germany, by contrast, was proud to publicize its achievements during the peace-time and did not significantly hinder the movement of foreign spectators.


Petr

Capitalist propaganda! The Ukrainians themselves are in on it! Their traitor regimes parliament passing an act calling the famine deliberate genocide (what the fuck do they know am I right-I wasn't there, but neither were they!) is just more evidence it never happened.

Don't you understand!? There's a vast global conspiracy to make the USSR look like an evil, backwards, despotic regime that killed tens of millions of people!

Every Russian had vodka on tap from their futuristic plumbing system and flying Yugos, Stalin gave one lucky able bodied soldier a handjob every Tuesday, and bread lines that moved themselves before the CapitalistOccupiedGovernment (COG) took over!

FACT!

[Basil Fawlty]

Second, where's your evidence that Adams & co are not on some kind of Jewish payroll?
Where is your evidence that Adams and co are not flesh-eating space creatures from the moons of jupiter? Burden of proof, anyone?
I mean... almost every "democratic" politician is either on a Jewish payroll or dominated by people who are. This is true for the US, the UK, Ireland and the rest of the Western world.You have produced no evidence for this.

As for Ireland, we know whose payroll the ruling party are on, and they are defintely not Jewish. We know who they are because it has been proved again and again in various tribunals and unoffical exposes. Irish capitalists.

[Wodan]

You have produced no evidence for this.

As for Ireland, we know whose payroll the ruling party are on, and they are defintely not Jewish. We know who they are because it has been proved again and again in various tribunals and unoffical exposes. Irish capitalists.
Lets have a look at what payroll the Irish Capitalists are on!

Like every other bunch of third world scroungers, the Irish have joined in the jewish extortion racket of Germany. Here's some figures of what the lazy lying scrounging scum in Ireland recieve on the back of Germanic workers:


The EU issued a detailed report on its 2004 Budget today and it shows that Ireland's net receipts from the EU Budget rose by €34 million to €1.594 billion.

The Irish at €396 per capita in net receipts from the EU, were the highest in the EU15 while the Dutch headed the net payers at €125 per head. Greeks benefited by €377 per capita, Portugal by €298 and Spain by €200. Germany paid $87 per capita into the EU Budget.

Ireland's EU bonanza in 2004 amounted to 1.3% of GNI (Gross National Income) compared with 1.38% in 2003. Last week, the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said that Ireland would budget 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid by 2012.

The fact is Ireland does not support itself, it nevers has done and never will!

Ireland is a third world shit hole disguised by the jews as a first world paradise.

[Captain Marinesko]

I just repeat you are obsessed with some nationalits' conspiracies. But the fact is the people who have power and fortunes in modern Ukraine are former communists and Soviet bureaucrats who have always been lukewarm or hostile to any sorts of nationalism, an essential part of them are not even Ukrainians. None of them uses nationalist rhetoric, they use democratic and liberal ones. It does not differ from the received political rhetoric in Europe.


By your logic I am then a Christian because I was raised most of my life as a Christian. Despite the fact that I have absolutely no belief in God and stopped going to church regularly around the time I turned 17, I must still be a Christian because at one time I was.

And you are a damn liar if you claim they don't use nationalist rhetoric. They try to force everyone to use Ukrainian, UNA-UNSO was involved with the Orange "Revolution" forces, and they preach the same line of Famine-Genocide anti-Russian BS that you do.

Who cares if your ends are not the same? They rule and you don't, and you will never get in power because they have no use for people like you. Nobody wants nationalism in an era of globalization. It's bad for business.



Quite correct. It was your fellow communists who destroyed the USSR on their own and continue to destroy Ukraine today.

Again, being a Communist in name at one time in your life cannot explain away denigrating the ideology and state, stealing billions of dollars via privatization, and endorsing neo-liberal policies. If that is the case, then I should be the model for a Bible-believing Christian.

[Captain Marinesko]

Lets have a look at what payroll the Irish Capitalists are on!

Capitalists, by definition, aren't on payrolls. They derive income from profits based on the right of private property.


Like every other bunch of third world scroungers, the Irish have joined in the jewish extortion racket of Germany. Here's some figures of what the lazy lying scrounging scum in Ireland recieve on the back of Germanic workers:

Nonsense, Germany has been a major leading power in the EU for decades now. That it must pay certain "prices" for this privilege is meaningless.



The fact is Ireland does not support itself, it nevers has done and never will!

Ireland is a third world shit hole disguised by the jews as a first world paradise.

Aside from the fact that there is nowhere to smoke in the Dublin airport, I didn't see any signs of it being a third world shithole as you claim(though to be honest I never really explored the country). You do realize that Wind that Shakes the Barley takes place in 1920 right?

[Basil Fawlty]

Lets have a look at what payroll the Irish Capitalists are on!Nothng to say here, Marinesko has already pointed out the oxymoronic nature of that statement.
Like every other bunch of third world scroungers, the Irish have joined in the jewish extortion racket of Germany. Here's some figures of what the lazy lying scrounging scum in Ireland recieve on the back of Germanic workers:You wouldn't have the first clue as to what all that means.
The fact is Ireland does not support itself, it nevers has done and never will!Its doing a bit better since the British parasites packed up and left. Maybe I should start posting the food export figures at the height of the famine to get a sense of the enormous scale of British parasitism?
Ireland is a third world shit hole disguised by the jews as a first world paradise.You're an ignorant troll who would probably have difficulty finding Ireland on a map let alone know anthing about it.

Thanks for giving us an ample demonstration as to why the Irish can never and will never trust those whinging British nationalists who go on about "white solidarity" when we see through their pretensions a mile off.
What is happening to you now is the "blowback" of empire. Enjoy!

[Wodan]

Just to repeat the FACTS, in response to your rhetoric.


The EU issued a detailed report on its 2004 Budget today and it shows that Ireland's net receipts from the EU Budget rose by €34 million to €1.594 billion.

The Irish at €396 per capita in net receipts from the EU, were the highest in the EU15 while the Dutch headed the net payers at €125 per head. Greeks benefited by €377 per capita, Portugal by €298 and Spain by €200. Germany paid $87 per capita into the EU Budget.

Ireland's EU bonanza in 2004 amounted to 1.3% of GNI (Gross National Income) compared with 1.38% in 2003. Last week, the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said that Ireland would budget 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid by 2012.


The Irish have been turned into a community of scroungers by their acceptance of first - popery, and now - communism.

[Captain Marinesko]

Perhaps while you're looking up statistics, why don't you take a look at how much American money was poured into your beloved Germany in order to make it an economic power.

[Basil Fawlty]

Just to repeat the FACTS, in response to your rhetoric.That's all very well, but you don't know what these facts mean.
The Irish have been turned into a community of scroungers by their acceptance of first - popery, and now - communism.Sourgrapes that we never wanted you?

[Wodan]

That's all very well, but you don't know what these facts mean.

Is it a FACT that Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are inviting Africans into Ireland ?

[Basil Fawlty]

Is it a FACT that Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are inviting Africans into Ireland ?You tell me, you are the one who seems to be making the suggestion. If you are, you'd better have some evidence as your say so is not really good enough.

[Wodan]

You tell me, you are the one who seems to be making the suggestion. If you are, you'd better have some evidence as your say so is not really good enough.
Here you go scrounger, here's your precious Gerry Adams (a chief scrounger) welcoming Negroes into Ireland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80

Gerry Adams in his own words with a load of Negro invaders:


"I just want to say that Sinn Fein fully endorses your campaign."

.....

"We stand shoulder to shoulder with you"!


Show me an Irishman, and I will show you a mongrelised scrounger!

[Basil Fawlty]

Here you go scrounger, here's your precious Gerry Adams (a chief scrounger) welcoming Negroes into Ireland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80

Gerry Adams in his own words with a load of Negro invaders:That does not prove this " Is it a FACT that Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are inviting Africans into Ireland ?" which is what you claimed. Perhaps you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

[ScottishStalinist1]

Because the Soviet Communist Party rejected Mao's theory of continous revolution and in particular the bourgeoisie within the party line, it was only natural that the new capitalists in the former Soviet Union were inside the CP and were top level 'communists'. Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the others allowed the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism and then to dissolve the Soviet Union later, while Stalin certainly did not but resorted to failed police tactics (rather than mass revolutionary tactics like Mao done in the Cultural revolution), and Stalin then falsely claimed in the 1950s that the class struggle had ended under socialism and the bourgeoisie had been defeated for ever in the Soviet Union, which actually allowed the capitalist roaders to restore capitalism yet at the same time claim the USSR was still socialist. The same happened in all socialist countries including China today.

White nationalism is a right-wing, fascist variant of social democracy and not proletarian revolutionary communism. White nationalism seeks to unite the bourgeois white classes against the revolution and is mostly opposed to white proletarians in countries like in the Balkans, for example. It is also opposed to progressive separatism in places like Scotland, Wales, the Basque country, and so on, and allies herself with the oppressor nations of these countries.

[Wodan]

That does not prove this " Is it a FACT that Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are inviting Africans into Ireland ?" which is what you claimed. Perhaps you have difficulty with reading comprehension?
You quibble like a jew!

[Basil Fawlty]

You quibble like a jew!You said that Adams has been paid by Jews to invite Africans to Ireland. I have asked you to show evidence of this and you have singularly failed to do this, prefering to resort to cheap insults and other desperate attempts at distraction. Unless you have something solid don't bother replying.

[Abellio]

You quibble like a jew!

Maybe anti-semites are retarded. How did that prove your assertion regarding the Irish? How does comparing the action of a dispute to a Jew, insult the disputer? Surely, this is a compliment to Jews, for patience in working out problems.

White nationalism is a right-wing, fascist variant of social democracy and not proletarian revolutionary communism. White nationalism seeks to unite the bourgeois white classes against the revolution and is mostly opposed to white proletarians in countries like in the Balkans, for example. It is also opposed to progressive separatism in places like Scotland, Wales, the Basque country, and so on, and allies herself with the oppressor nations of these countries.

This is the contradiction I despise about so much of the New left-wing.

Some separatism's they declare "progressive" quite arbitrarily based on whether it serves their own personal interests at the moment. How is it that Scottish Nationalism or communal patriotism can be "progressive" while English Nationalism or communal patriotism is not? Why is Black Nationalism or Atzlan Nationalism progressive while European Nationalisms, or White American Nationalism, is not?

I see the logic in Lenin's idea that in an age of Imperialism, the patriots of the Imperialist nation must be for the defeat of there own nation. I agree with that, in that an end to exploiting other nations will be good for say, the English nation, but why curse the English? It seems to me that there is just as much bigotry on the left-wing as on the right-wing. It's just disguised in complicated social-economic, Marxist language, which few of the uneducated working class can understand.

A White Nationalism that supports the ruling capitalist class should be condemned of course, but treated no different, from any other, if it does not.

[Basil Fawlty]

Maybe anti-semites are retarded. How did that prove your assertion regarding the Irish? How does comparing the action of a dispute to a Jew, insult the disputer?In his mind it is an insult but then this only reveals that he hates thoughtfulness and a respect for distinctions. Surely, this is a compliment to Jews, for patience in working out problems. One would think, but not in the WN world of mindless reaction, where the application of intellect is regarded as a kind of weakness or Jewish trick.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

You quibble like a jew!

Jews are well known for their talmudic obscurantist tricks like 'defining terms', and 'supporting claims with appropriate evidence'. The jew Basil Fawlty, closely following his tribal brother, the jew Aristotle, is a notorious offender.

[Captain Marinesko]

Because the Soviet Communist Party rejected Mao's theory of continous revolution and in particular the bourgeoisie within the party line,

It wasn't Mao's theory, it was Stalin's theory, and Mao had actually invited bourgeois types into the Chinese Communist Party. That is no way to fight them. No wonder that China is now the world's biggest sweatshop/brothel, an imperialist wannabe, and all under the alleged ideology of "socialism". At least in Eastern Europe the misery cannot be blamed on socialism.

[ScottishStalinist1]

It wasn't Mao's theory, it was Stalin's theory,

Did or did not Stalin claim the everlasting victory of socialism and the defeat of the bourgeoisie inside the Soviet Union?

Lenin was the first to talk of a continuous revolution under socialism, while Stalin continued this through with lousy police tactics. Mao after studying the restoration of capitalism in the USSR had a more privileged position as to how to combat this and which is where his continuous revolution theory and practice comes from, which Hoxha upheld until the death of Mao, and then went back to police tactics and we all know how that went (his own party and hand-picked successor were restoring capitalism under his own old nose!).

and Mao had actually invited bourgeois types into the Chinese Communist Party.

What do you mean by bourgeois types - and what era of the Chinese revolution are you talking about?

No wonder that China is now the world's biggest sweatshop/brothel, an imperialist wannabe, and all under the alleged ideology of "socialism". At least in Eastern Europe the misery cannot be blamed on socialism.

There were capitalist sweatshops and millionaire capitalists in the post-Stalin USSR, which you seem to ignore for the devil knows what reasoning. China is now actually an imperialist power as it exports capital abroad.

[Petr]

It wasn't Mao's theory, it was Stalin's theory, and Mao had actually invited bourgeois types into the Chinese Communist Party. That is no way to fight them. No wonder that China is now the world's biggest sweatshop/brothel, an imperialist wannabe, and all under the alleged ideology of "socialism".
OOOHHHH YEAAH! :rofl:

Add Mao Zedong to that ever-handy list of "No True Scotsman" Communists!


Petr

[Vindex]

Well communism always was reactionary anyway.

[Abellio]

OOOHHHH YEAAH! :rofl:

Add Mao Zedong to that ever-handy list of "No True Scotsman" Communists!


Petr

I did not understand that joke, could you explain what you mean?

I take it that the theory of "continual revolution" under Lenin and Stalin is distinct from the theory of "permanent revolution" presented by Trotsky?

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

OOOHHHH YEAAH! :rofl:

Add Mao Zedong to that ever-handy list of "No True Scotsman" Communists!


Petr

Obviously no political leader is going to put Marxian theory as described by its academic discipleship into direct political practice, but there is a better argument to be made that Marxism was mere window-dressing for Mao than for other communist leaders. For a window into the amount of syncretism exhibited by Mao Zedong Thought, take a look at Meisner's Li Ta-Chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

The class composition of the CCP is a slippery issue due to the uniqueness of China's historical development.

A contradiction existed in Chinese society between post-Qing warlordism and the New Culture Movement birthed by the never before experienced social landscape left in the wake of the destruction of the dynastic cycle. The CCP resolved that contradiction by bringing to China the politics of ideological violence. Mind you, this was not a bad thing. China desperately needed a new political model.

As a product of the NCM, however, the CCP was not genuinely proletarian. Its founders and prominent cadre were drawn from the ranks of the NCM intellectuals who, in turn, came from the bourgeoisie-esque class that had arisen in coastal towns and ''treaty ports'' during the previous decades.

[Petr]

Obviously no political leader is going to put Marxian theory as described by its academic discipleship into direct political practice, but there is a better argument to be made that Marxism was mere window-dressing for Mao than for other communist leaders.
Heck, Lenin already took great liberties with his re-interpretation of original Marxist ideas. Marx himself had contempt towards Russians and probably didn't even dream of proletarian revolution starting in such barbarous Hyperborean country.


Petr

[ScottishStalinist1]

I take it that the theory of "continual revolution" under Lenin and Stalin is distinct from the theory of "permanent revolution" presented by Trotsky?


It is quite a complex issue but basically Trotsky's theory deals with pre-socialism, while Lenin and Mao's deals with the contradictions under socialism as it then exists.

The class composition of the CCP is a slippery issue due to the uniqueness of China's historical development.

A contradiction existed in Chinese society between post-Qing warlordism and the New Culture Movement birthed by the never before experienced social landscape left in the wake of the destruction of the dynastic cycle. The CCP resolved that contradiction by bringing to China the politics of ideological violence. Mind you, this was not a bad thing. China desperately needed a new political model.

As a product of the NCM, however, the CCP was not genuinely proletarian. Its founders and prominent cadre were drawn from the ranks of the NCM intellectuals who, in turn, came from the bourgeoisie-esque class that had arisen in coastal towns and ''treaty ports'' during the previous decades.

Lenin in 1912 (Democracy and Narodism in China) said that the Chinese bourgeoisie still had a progressive role to play in the world unlike the American and European bourgeoisie.

Heck, Lenin already took great liberties with his re-interpretation of original Marxist ideas. Marx himself had contempt towards Russians and probably didn't even dream of proletarian revolution starting in such barbarous Hyperborean country.

In Marx's Preface in the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto he actually wrote that the Russian revolution would ignite a proletarian revolution in the West, and that the then existing common ownership of land would be a starting basis of communist development.

[Wodan]

You said that Adams has been paid by Jews to invite Africans to Ireland. I have asked you to show evidence of this and you have singularly failed to do this, prefering to resort to cheap insults and other desperate attempts at distraction. Unless you have something solid don't bother replying.
Here's something solid scrounger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80

[Basil Fawlty]

Here's something solid scrounger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80Solid? How does this prove your claim that Gerry Adams is being paid by Jews to import Africans into Ireland? It doesn't. You obviously don't even know what that protest was about.

[Abellio]

@ Captain Marinesko.

Where do you think the most likely place for a new socialist revolution to occur will be, and how long before it takes places?

Does it need to take place in a time of recession or depression?

What is your take on the resignation of Fidel Castro?

[Vasily Zaitsev]

@ Captain Marinesko.

Where do you think the most likely place for a new socialist revolution to occur will be, and how long before it takes places?

Does it need to take place in a time of recession or depression?

What is your take on the resignation of Fidel Castro?

Petition Flak (Overwatch) for access to the Socialist Paradise. This line of conversation belongs there and would be a welcome addition.

[Cid]

Castro has resigned due to ill heath and old age. The man is bodering on dementia praecox. He can not go on forever, nothing is of a permanent nature, everything perishes after its shelf life.

[Odysseus]

Heck, Lenin already took great liberties with his re-interpretation of original Marxist ideas. Marx himself had contempt towards Russians and probably didn't even dream of proletarian revolution starting in such barbarous Hyperborean country.

In Marx's Preface in the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto he actually wrote that the Russian revolution would ignite a proletarian revolution in the West, and that the then existing common ownership of land would be a starting basis of communist development.

Repped for that. Thank you SS1 for pointing that out.

[KetevMeriri]

Marxism-Leninism and nationalism are not natural enemies. Many Marxist-Leninist movements have been nationalistic and vice-versa. Both Lenin and Stalin wrote extensively on the right of all nations to self-determination.
That's because they believed self-determination of a people is one of the levels for reaching a Marxist revulotion, it doesn't mean they were nationalists. Stalin, though, loved to use nationalist rhetoric in his speeches, instead of saying "Fight in the name of Communism, brotherhood.." he said "Fight for mother Russia" etcetra. Well, that's not suprising since Nationalism, and fighting for those who alike you is much "easier" than fighting for someone who doesn't even look, think and act like you.

[Captain Marinesko]

That's because they believed self-determination of a people is one of the levels for reaching a Marxist revulotion, it doesn't mean they were nationalists. Stalin, though, loved to use nationalist rhetoric in his speeches, instead of saying "Fight in the name of Communism, brotherhood.." he said "Fight for mother Russia" etcetra. Well, that's not suprising since Nationalism, and fighting for those who alike you is much "easier" than fighting for someone who doesn't even look, think and act like you.

Both concepts were used- A Russian who fights for socialism is fighting for mother Russia.

[Brett]

Dan - When the BNP decided to target (unsuccessfully) the Irish vote in urban Britain, they pushed a white solidarity line to get over the obvious fact that no self-respecting Irish person is ever going to identify with a British neo-imperialist (e.g. see their policy towards Ireland) party like that. No one was taken in by it and all attempts to create a beachhead here have been neutralised. They thought that by helping set up some kind of Irish sister party, they would receive the imprematur which would attract support from the Irish in Britain. Thoroughly clueless about those they were trying to woo.

Totally agree. But just out of interest, if the BNP would change just that one policy (towards Ireland, sticking to the current programme, or perhaps accelerating it), do you think Irish voters would then change their mind?

I suppose what I'm asking is, would just the use of the term 'British' in the name of the political party put off Irish voters, even if these policies were refined?

[Basil Fawlty]

Totally agree. But just out of interest, if the BNP would change just that one policy (towards Ireland, sticking to the current programme, or perhaps accelerating it), do you think Irish voters would then change their mind?Well, if the BNP was to change that policy it would no longer be the BNP! The BNP is for consolidating the Union, not disintegrating it.

Most Irish nationalists who I have conversed with are very sympathetic towards Scottish, Welsh and the emergent English nationalist movements but find British nationalism to be anathema, simply because it is in direct opposition to one of the principle goals of Irish nationalism; the formation of an all-Ireland republic. Even if the BNP was to simply draw back to a preserving the 6 counties within the Union this would be unacceptable and would proably come into conflict with the Good Friday Agreement which is now British state policy.
I suppose what I'm asking is, would just the use of the term 'British' in the name of the political party put off Irish voters, even if these policies were refined?As I suggested above, its not so much the word but of course what it means which they find unacceptable. Also most Irish people would not idenitfy with what they would perceive as a kind of recidivist imperial racism embodied by the BNP, rightly or wrongly.

[Tchort]

White Nationalists are Communists in the same way Christians are Communists.

When speaking of just blanket objectives rather than specific theory, the goals of all 3 mass constructs are the same: The united, utopian community in which every member is a firm believer, selfless and generous, bound to his neighbor by the strength in their similar convictions. This is accomplished by organizing and 'sharing' resources amongst all those who are 'IN'.

[Westminster]

You tell me, you are the one who seems to be making the suggestion. If you are, you'd better have some evidence as your say so is not really good enough.

It would appear from the YouTube video he provided that he supported his point. In regards to your objection, their support = an "invitation." So, I think you should eat your words. However, I don't expect you to, because you "never" do! Anyone who's ever tangled with you knows, you seem petty and dishonest.

Quite frankly, his contributions here seem pretty good, but yours seem pretty poor. (Although, you at least read)

Remember, Sin is Fine or whatever that Micky Mouse group of Micks is called :rofl: is left-wing trash. So, it isn't surprising they likey Blacky (aka Amor de Negros). After all, Blacks vote left.

[Westminster]

That group, of course, is a left-wing group and it wants a united and independent Ireland. That is a Nationalist cause. So, here we have "nationalism" coming from The Left. They also like to promise lots of tax payer supported goodies. That seems like Populism. As I recall, The Nazis provided lots of tax payer supported goodies too and they were all for a united and independent Germany. What distinguishes them from Sin is Fine, or whatever that mickey mouse group of micks is called, from The Nazis appears to be how they feel about El Negro e, perhaps, El Kike-o. In other words, how they feel about people who differ from them racially and religiously. This would make a group "Progressive" or "non-Progressive." The Nazis were "non-Progressive." Sin is Fine, appears to be "Progressive." Remember, Progressive does not = Populist. They can be all for "Equality," but not for "goodies."

[Aryan Imperium]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?


Excellent question old friend and I am sorry to see that you have been silenced for asking it.
Clearly free speech is not so precious to our American `friends` after all.
White nationalism is a uniquely American phenomenon and not surprisingly it lacks vision, depth, profundity, ideals, ideology, spirituality or any forward plan.
It is all that the USA can come up with after realising that they were wrong for opposing true Aryanism between 1941-1945.

[Basil Fawlty]

It would appear from the YouTube video he provided that he supported his point.No it didn't. Nothing in the video supports his claim that Adams is "inviting" Africans to Ireland.
You appear to be as ignorant of the situation as that other buffoon.

[Westminster]

No it didn't. Nothing in the video supports his claim that Adams is "inviting" Africans to Ireland.

I think you are in denial.

[Basil Fawlty]

I think you are in denial.What you think is of no interest to me.

[Westminster]

What you think is of no interest to me.

I'm not surprised.

[Maponus]

If one has the insight to read through the rhetoric put out by White Nationalist, and one has the ability to stand back to put White Nationalism in perspective.

Would it be fair to classify White Nationalists as Communists (with White skin) ?

No, White Nationalists don't believe in equality between classes, and are often socially conservative. Plus, Stalin banned the Russian Darwinist Soceity, because survival of the fittest did not fit in well with a classless, stateless, money-less soceity or Ivan Mitchurin's bogus agricultural "science". White Nationalists are social Darwinists, communists are Lysenkoists. (http://www.appletmagic.com/lysenkoism.htm)

When speaking of just blanket objectives rather than specific theory, the goals of all 3 mass constructs are the same: The united, utopian community in which every member is a firm believer, selfless and generous, bound to his neighbor by the strength in their similar convictions. This is accomplished by organizing and 'sharing' resources amongst all those who are 'IN'.

So the ideal Monarchist soceity is communist?

[Westminster]

White Nationalists are social Darwinists

Not all White Nationalist believe in Evolution.

[Maponus]

Not all White Nationalist believe in Evolution.

I am aware of that, but it's a typical White-European thing to completely ignore the contradictions between our "Christen heritage" and our totally heretical "great thinkers". Most of the original white nationalists here in Britain believed in Darwin and in Christ at the same time, I dare say some of them still do.

[Westminster]

I am aware of that, but it's a typical White-European thing to completely ignore the contradictions between our "Christen heritage" and our totally heretical "great thinkers". Most of the original white nationalists here in Britain believed in Darwin and in Christ at the same time, I dare say some of them still do.

Can't argue with you there.

I recently saw Ken Hovind's video series on Evolution (he's a Creationist). I think it was the fourth or fifth video that seemed to argue that either you believed in a kind of evolutionary hierarchy between Whites and Blacks that rendered Negros trash or you thought they were "equal" (the same as) to Whites. I mean talk about all or nothing! [It seems likely that God made us all, but he "made" or allowed them to become, dumb/childish and hence, "inferior," in a relative sense, to Whites.] And then after spending so much time ripping The General Theory of Evolution to shreds and gaining the confidence of the audience, he goes on this thing about how Evolution caused The Holocaust and he's got a picture of himself standing next to one of those embarrassingly small ovens that was supposed to have processed so many millions of people in such a short time. I thought that was pretty discouraging.

But, when it comes to Evolution, I think that first video is really good, but when he gets on The Holocaust, Hitler, The KKK and Race, he seems "brain-damaged!" :rofl:

[Empress Cheesatine]

Castro has resigned due to ill heath and old age. The man is bodering on dementia praecox. He can not go on forever, nothing is of a permanent nature, everything perishes after its shelf life.

Ooh, nice.. He's going out like Reagan. Now the left's celebration of Reagan's Alzheimer's will be blunted by Castro's going loony.

[MELTDOWN]

A priest, a nun, an Irishman, a Scotsman, a cowboy, a lawyer, a salesman, and a blonde all walk in to a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, is this some kind of joke?"

[Mark Janssens]

Well, like communism the anthem of the artifical "white nationalism" could be L'Internationale with a few lyrics changed about.

WNism ignores established Euro-ethnic customs and patterns and favors artificially integrating them all, much like "Yugoslavia".

I feel this is likely due to the fact that WNism is a largely American creation, and Americans a rootless people incapable of understand how things work in Europe.

And how do things "work in Europe"? I see little difference between Swedes, Danes, and Germans in terms of their lifestyle and values. The Allied victory in 1945 ended European nations as their own unique entities.

[Mark Janssens]

It is a fact the Brit and the Scot will never get along, nor the German and the Pole. So what? They are all markedly different peoples in culture, attitude, temperament, and values. And I still feel WNism is very similar to communism in it's attempt to enforce homogeneity (just replace the "white" with the "worker") amongst a naturally diverse people such as ourselves.

How are Englishmen and Scotsmen different? Be specific.

[Mark Janssens]

The definition of "race" changes all the time, and is constantly argued over. Most people for example, consider European Jews to be "white", apparently you guys don't.

By the Jews very actions they behave as a racial group so the biological aspect becomes a secondary consideration. In other words, they are a race because they choose to be one.

[Mark Janssens]

The Soviet Union was a far better example- while what you call "mixing" was not condemned nor encouraged, all peoples had their own republics and governments, and the distribution of wealth from the center for the most part encouraged people to "stay home".


American racialist Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) said that there were billboard-style signs in Moscow encouraging the mating of Russian women with Korean men. He mentioned this in his 1935 book Clashing Tides of Color. Also, you have to consider that the NKVD especially targeted Russian males for deportation to Siberia therefore Koreans and other Asiatic males were brought into Russian cities to replace them and ultimately this led to race-mixing.

[Mark Janssens]

How "most people" classify an individual, is irrelevant. How academics like Günther and Coon classified an individual or how modern DNA studies classify an individual, is relevant.

Gunther told Hitler that only 12% of the German population were pure Nordics. This is why the whole blond/blue eyed stuff the masses today believe about the Third Reich is a huge myth since when Hitler discovered how low the actual figure of Nordics was in Germany the 1933 propaganda frenzy of Nordicization came to an end. Most Germans are either Alpines or a mixture of Nordic/Alpine.

[Mark Janssens]

But I thought you were suggesting we should try to take them seriously? :confused:

Some White Nationalists are like that but not all.

[Mark Janssens]

You do your own research.

Check out which how Baruch and his fellow capitalists gave $20 million dollars to trotsky, lenin and scum.

I thought that was Jacob Schiff?

[Mark Janssens]

I agree!

....just like the BNP and the Brits, they are a product of - judaisation!

You think William Pierce was a product of Judaisation? The man was a scholar and a science nerd, hardly the stuff of Hollywood Nazidom.

[Mark Janssens]

Yeah because America is the best source of information on the USSR.

What about when the same information comes from Americans who were formerly Pro-Soviet such as journalist William Chamberlin?

[Mark Janssens]

One must look at WN from a proper perspective.

WN'ers are folks who live in a heavily Judaised rootless country, where ethno-cultural ties has been reduced to empty labels such as "white", "African-American", "Latino", "Asian-American", etc. Americans lack and sort of deep culture like you find in Europe or Asia and they lack any sort of ethnic instinct like you find in Europe or Asia.

You think all Europeans have a strong ethnic instinct? Teenage Romanian Whiggers? Czech porn stars?

[Mark Janssens]

Feel free to explain what "seize and capture" women actually means. Also feel free to explain why Lane's KD Rebel, which puts forth ideas he has been preaching for a long time, poorly veiled in fiction, speaks of a woman needing a handgun to defend herself from what she would "wrongly call rape", in what is supposed to be a WN settlement. Why does a protagonist say that it is his right to take her anytime he wants? Why does she take all the blame herself and figure that she should have "given him sex"(what a sad way to look at sex)?

You have two options here really:

1. You are a delusional liar, understanding perfectly what these words mean while claiming they mean something else, basically "black is white."

2. You are a complete and utter moron or whackjob.

Choose...wisely.

David Lane wrote that perverted fiction fantasy while spending the rest of his life in prison (think about it)

And yes they were repulsive writings.