Farewell

Comrades,

Due to ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx, I must regretfully resign as a member of the forum. I assume my account will still be left active, so if you wish to talk with me, you can PM me, but I will not be making any more posts as a member of the Phalanx. Thank you, and goodbye.

-TDW

I'm sorry you've decided to completely resign from the forum, but we will certainly leave your account open.

All the best.

Stick around, have your say here, listen to what the other forum folks are trying to communicate to you, give it some thought, and let us know what you think.

This isn't some gulag or some penalty. Nobody says you are a lost cause. This is us trying to have a real focused struggle around the interests of our people. Notice that no ban hammer has been dropped on you. If you go, it is your choice, not ours...it doesn't need to be that way.

Like the others I'm sorry you feel it necessary to adopt that position. I had hoped you might at least stay around, debate, argue and try to advance your views. But then you are obviously unsure of the validity of your 'Hitlerist' ideology, so perhaps rather than fight your corner you would be better off at some 'reactionary' forum where you can debate with like minded individuals. Not so exciting perhaps, but at least safe and secure in the knowledge that no-one will expect you to provide answers, merely back-slapping and ass-kissing agreement.

TriumphDesWillens wrote:Comrades,

Due to ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx, I must regretfully resign as a member of the forum. I assume my account will still be left active, so if you wish to talk with me, you can PM me, but I will not be making any more posts as a member of the Phalanx. Thank you, and goodbye.

-TDW

I feel the same way which is why I haven't posted much here and why I didn't even bother to respond to the replies I got to my previous post. I got called a "troll" and threatened to be gulag'd (restricted to OV) over my disagreement with their making a big deal out of petit-bourgeoisie such as the Stormfront White Pride Interprise.

I'm against capitalism too, though not necessarily against private property, I'm more of a Hitlerist than a Strasserist.
By which I'm referring to the differences in the kind of Socialism each one espoused, and not that I'm for any kind of "chauvinism" towards another White / European nation. Which is what most of the people here refer to when they say "Hitlerism," so I needed to clarify.

I would support Lebensraum only IF it's taking land away from nonwhites, especially jews. But I am against White on White violence.

Herr Hitler describes my ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx

We National Socialists see the higher level of human economic development in private property, which regulates the distribution of wealth according to the difference in performance, and which enables and guarantees the benefit of a higher standard of living for all.

Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest agrarian State in the world.

-Chancellor Adolf Hitler, in a Reichstag speech 21 May 1935


That and also their allowance of Marxists and Leninists on here, and the quotations I see in their signatures, etc. All that tells me that I don't quite fit in heer.

Well goodbye then, and don't forget to close the door on your way out to stop other nasty things from getting in.

Rasistu' wrote:

TriumphDesWillens wrote:Comrades,

Due to ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx, I must regretfully resign as a member of the forum. I assume my account will still be left active, so if you wish to talk with me, you can PM me, but I will not be making any more posts as a member of the Phalanx. Thank you, and goodbye.

-TDW

I feel the same way which is why I haven't posted much here and why I didn't even bother to respond to the replies I got to my previous post. I got called a "troll" and threatened to be gulag'd (restricted to OV) over my disagreement with their making a big deal out of petit-bourgeoisie such as the Stormfront White Pride Interprise.

I'm against capitalism too, though not necessarily against private property, I'm more of a Hitlerist than a Strasserist.
By which I'm referring to the differences in the kind of Socialism each one espoused, and not that I'm for any kind of "chauvinism" towards another White / European nation. Which is what most of the people here refer to when they say "Hitlerism," so I needed to clarify.

I would support Lebensraum only IF it's taking land away from nonwhites, especially jews. But I am against White on White violence.

Herr Hitler describes my ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx

We National Socialists see the higher level of human economic development in private property, which regulates the distribution of wealth according to the difference in performance, and which enables and guarantees the benefit of a higher standard of living for all.

Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest agrarian State in the world.

-Chancellor Adolf Hitler, in a Reichstag speech 21 May 1935


That and also their allowance of Marxists and Leninists on here, and the quotations I see in their signatures, etc. All that tells me that I don't quite fit in heer.

Hitler always seemed to lack a proper understanding of socialism. This was primarily due, in my opinion, to his general disregard for economic concerns. He focused far too much upon the "racial questions" of his time, and I believe this to have been a deeply flawed approach.

At the same time, in office, Hitler undoubtedly became more amenable to bourgeois influence, as his unwillingness to further the revolution to completion required that he "mediate" the different forces in society.

Rasistu' wrote:I feel the same way which is why I haven't posted much here and why I didn't even bother to respond to the replies I got to my previous post. I got called a "troll" and threatened to be gulag'd (restricted to OV) over my disagreement with their making a big deal out of petit-bourgeoisie such as the Stormfront White Pride Interprise.

It just doesn't make sense for someone to join a forum which explicitly espouses revolutionary socialism and yet take the time to defend the merits of petit-bourgeois capitalism. That's precisely why we have an 'Opposing Views' section, so individuals like yourself can debate our position while not spamming the main forum with defenses of capitalism.

I'm against capitalism too, though not necessarily against private property, I'm more of a Hitlerist than a Strasserist.

If by "private property" you include the means of production, I honestly don't see how you could legitimately claim to oppose capitalism. The very foundation of the capitalist mode of production is private ownership of the means of production coupled with wage labor. If you don't oppose those two essential features of capitalism, you're not a socialist—at least insofar as revolutionary socialists are concerned.

By which I'm referring to the differences in the kind of Socialism each one espoused, and not that I'm for any kind of "chauvinism" towards another White / European nation. Which is what most of the people here refer to when they say "Hitlerism," so I needed to clarify.

I would support Lebensraum only IF it's taking land away from nonwhites, especially jews. But I am against White on White violence.

It's utterly hypocritical for nationalists to oppose foreign countries invading and colonizing their nation, while nevertheless making arbitrary exceptions (i.e., allowing imperialism in non-Caucasian countries) when it concerns the foreign policy of their own country. This is perhaps one of the most important distinctions between reactionary nationalism and left-wing nationalism.

Herr Hitler describes my ideological differences with the Socialist Phalanx

Despite whatever personal qualities he possessed as an orator and political organizer, Adolf Hitler was wrong about quite a lot. He never truly understood Marxian theory, nor did he correctly diagnose what was wrong with the Soviet Union. Though the NSDAP's political program promoted economic policies reminiscent of those enacted in state socialist regimes, in practice Hitler's socialism was basically little more than dirigisme with a few social welfare programs. For all his anti-capitalist rhetoric, he never truly sought to transcend bourgeois social relations, Hitler merely wanted to create a more 'socially just' form of capitalism. If you want to call that "socialism," be my guest, but I cannot.

That and also their allowance of Marxists and Leninists on here, and the quotations I see in their signatures, etc. All that tells me that I don't quite fit in heer.

Perhaps not. Though I doubt you understand Marxism or Leninism thoroughly enough to genuinely reject them on the basis of what they actually represent.

Celtiberian wrote:It just doesn't make sense for someone to join a forum which explicitly espouses revolutionary socialism and yet take the time to defend the merits of petit-bourgeois capitalism. That's precisely why we have an 'Opposing Views' section, so individuals like yourself can debate our position while not spamming the main forum with defenses of capitalism.

I just found it ridiculous that you guys were complaining about a pro-White group trading amongst itself. That said, I joined this forum when it wasn't viewable to guests, in fact that's the reason I created an account - to view it.

If by "private property" you include the means of production, I honestly don't see how you could legitimately claim to oppose capitalism. The very foundation of the capitalist mode of production is private ownership of the means of production coupled with wage labor. If you don't oppose those two essential features of capitalism, you're not a socialist—at least insofar as revolutionary socialists are concerned.

Well I'm NOT a revolutionary kind of socialist, by which I mean a communist like you lot. I despise Marx and Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and all the rest of them.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of the workers owning the means of production instead of it being privately-owned, I'm just not convinced that it is necessary, or even the best way to go. After all, A. Hitler didn't see the need for a Bolshevik-style "class-warfare" and neither do I.
Hitler sought to unite the classes, as Germans, not have them at each-others' throats or killing the "bourgeois class" and their children, by which I mean physically and literally a la USSR.

Hitler knew that the problem is international jewry and was not shy about it either. [Why did the commies and capitalists join forces and destroy Germany? The only logical and honest answer is: JEWS. Judea waged war on Germany]

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way NS Germany operated while private property was still in effect because the NSDAP did NOT do away with private property rights. I'm against uncontrolled capitalism, international capitalism, globalism and all the rest of it, but I don't see how Stormfront's little petit-bourgeois operation is contributing to Mexicans flooding our borders, or outsourcing jobs to China, etc.

It's utterly hypocritical for nationalists to oppose foreign countries invading and colonizing their nation, while nevertheless making arbitrary exceptions (i.e., allowing imperialism in non-Caucasian countries) when it concerns the foreign policy of their own country. This is perhaps one of the most important distinctions between reactionary nationalism and left-wing nationalism.

I didn't say "non-Caucasian countries," I said White nations. Are you being deliberately obtuse? White and "Caucasian" are NOT synonymous.

Anywho, it is NOT anymore "hypocritical" than punching someone in the mouth in revenge whilst not wanting to get hit yourself. As far as jews are concerned, it is a matter of revenge.

Also, I didn't say that it's a "goal," I just said that I wouldn't oppose it. So realistically speaking I would be adequately satisfied with at least a European Europe, even if we have to give up America, Canada, etc.

Despite whatever personal qualities he possessed as an orator and political organizer, Adolf Hitler was wrong about quite a lot. He never truly understood Marxian theory, nor did he correctly diagnose what was wrong with the Soviet Union. Though the NSDAP's political program promoted economic policies reminiscent of those enacted in state socialist regimes, in practice Hitler's socialism was basically little more than dirigisme with a few social welfare programs. For all his anti-capitalist rhetoric, he never truly sought to transcend bourgeois social relations, Hitler merely wanted to create a more 'socially just' form of capitalism. If you want to call that "socialism," be my guest, but I cannot.

Yeah well, how many Mexicans or other cheap nonwhite third world labor was imported into NS Germany? How many jobs were outsourced?
In fact the German workers and German people in general seemed quite happy living in The Reich.

Of course it wasn't commie-like socialism, stop acting like you Marxists have a monopoly on the word socialism.

Perhaps not. Though I doubt you understand Marxism or Leninism thoroughly enough to genuinely reject them on the basis of what they actually represent.

Ad Hom.

Hey, if you think Jews are the real problem, and Hitler was a-okay, and don't believe in class warfare against the exploiting ruling classes when they happen to be 'white', and can't stand commies...WHY ARE YOU HERE?
There are a bunch of forums for people who think like that , blame minority scapegoats, and won't do a fucking thing to actually liberate our people (the majority of whom must work for wages in order to make a living). The only time they would actually come out into action is to attack protesting/striking workers or minorities on behalf of the ruling class---we saw a foreshadowed glimpse of what's to come from them in Wisconsin.
Come on out---dare ya! Bring your Stormfront and Tea Party buddies, your goddamn Constitution, your second amendment remedies, your Scars and Stripes USA and Confederate and swazi flags, and your crucifixes, and your portraits of your beloved Breivik, and then raise your hand against the working people and the oppressed and youth who try to make a fightback against this system---dare ya!

Come on, racists and Nazis. Don't just sit on your ass and vote Republican next year. Come bring the fight in the streets, like you and your buddies always say you want to. You'll be on the wrong side of the barricades, helping the cappies, thugging it for this system, blaming and harming working people LIKE YOU, but that's not nearly as important to you as your conservative Christian racist Nazi-wannabe crap is, am I right? Anything for a few more blood-soaked bucks and a pat on the back from the bosses and being able to continue pretending that you are in a superior race and that you are more 'moral' and meritorious than most people, am I right?

There has never been a better time for the right-wing idiots thugs of this system to trigger a massive fightback of the working people against it. Light that spark, follow your beloved Breivik, prove us right, I dare you to do it and thus justify a massive mobilization and struggle to put an end to this system and all its lackeys and terrorists. Do it, be Uncle Sam's cannon fodder, and the masses of working people will bury this USA along with you, and then finally we can get to the work of establishing independent national workers' states on this continent (such as a Euroamerican workers' state, which is to say, we'll build an actual 'white nation' despite of the efforts of reactionary WNs and fascist thugs and their right-wing coalition buddies).

What...are you surprised that 'commies' are more likely to forge a liberated independent Euroethnic national workers' state in North America, while WNs and fascists never would? Are you surprised that we revolutionary socialists are more likely to actually fulfill the essence of your oft-quoted 14 words, while your right-wing racist and Nazi buddies will merely talk about it while clinging to and serving THIS SYSTEM? Stand against the working people and the oppressed and the youth...then you're also actually standing against the real-world actualization of the essence of those 14 words you WN/NS types love to chant, and proving yourselves to be the lackeys of this system and the fetters which we must smash and overcome in order to actually secure upon this continent a "white nation". When your racist fascist right-wing buddies actually do get around to making a fight against us, we're gonna show them up not only as the SYSTEM-SERVING TERRORIST DOGS they are, but also as ANTI-WHITES!
Fuck them and their Jim Crow tradition! Fuck this system that has oppressed, exploited, and harmed white and non-white working people since its inception. Without revolutionary socialism, claims of white patriotism are just a bunch of rotten baloney. Playing the blame minorities game just shows how they NEVER actually intend a day where whites and non-whites actually liberate themselves and self-determine their own destinies in their own independent national workers' states...the WNs can't conceive of a day when the various ethnonationalities aren't being leveraged and played against each other for the benefit of an exploiting oppressor ruling elite!

I, too, have thought about leaving before comrade. I don't though, it isn't a bad environment here and it is a nice place to learn and grow. I have my own stances on the petty-bourgeoisie and I like to debate and discuss. Although sometimes it is annoying to here NS described as "racist" and "nazis" most of the members are pretty nice people.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I, too, have thought about leaving before comrade. I don't though, it isn't a bad environment here and it is a nice place to learn and grow. I have my own stances on the petty-bourgeoisie and I like to debate and discuss. Although sometimes it is annoying to here NS described as "racist" and "nazis" most of the members are pretty nice people.

Except Celt. Celt's weird.

Rasistu' wrote:

Celtiberian wrote:It just doesn't make sense for someone to join a forum which explicitly espouses revolutionary socialism and yet take the time to defend the merits of petit-bourgeois capitalism. That's precisely why we have an 'Opposing Views' section, so individuals like yourself can debate our position while not spamming the main forum with defenses of capitalism.

I just found it ridiculous that you guys were complaining about a pro-White group trading amongst itself. That said, I joined this forum when it wasn't viewable to guests, in fact that's the reason I created an account - to view it.

We were not "complaining" about "pro-White" groups trading amongst themselves—in fact, most of us couldn't care less about what simplistic courses of action white nationalists decide to undertake. We were pointing to the fact that white capitalists are no more conducive to advancing any "white cause" than other capitalists.

If by "private property" you include the means of production, I honestly don't see how you could legitimately claim to oppose capitalism. The very foundation of the capitalist mode of production is private ownership of the means of production coupled with wage labor. If you don't oppose those two essential features of capitalism, you're not a socialist—at least insofar as revolutionary socialists are concerned.

Well I'm NOT a revolutionary kind of socialist, by which I mean a communist like you lot. I despise Marx and Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and all the rest of them.

What type of "socialist" are you, exactly? Do you believe that reform is a possible avenue for attaining any laudable social justice in society? It does not seem that you are a "socialist" to begin with, but little more than an overzealous reactionary who propounds discredited collaborationist policies between capitalists and workers. You "despise" Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin? What do you know of them apart from what you've read in your Hitlerian bible and other holy texts? Don't be absurd. You know nothing.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of the workers owning the means of production instead of it being privately-owned, I'm just not convinced that it is necessary, or even the best way to go. After all, A. Hitler didn't see the need for a Bolshevik-style "class-warfare" and neither do I.

Then it is settled: you are no socialist. Hitler attempted to foolishly reconcile bourgeois interests with the state, and his brand of "socialism" was on par with the Keynesian New Deal of Roosevelt and Old Labour in Britain at worst and approaching Soviet state capitalism at best.

Hitler sought to unite the classes, as Germans, not have them at each-others' throats or killing the "bourgeois class" and their children, by which I mean physically and literally a la USSR.

Attempts to "unite the classes" are farcical. It is impossible to "unite" the interests of capital with those of a genuine people's state, let alone the working class. Your understanding of the nature of capitalism and its social relations is evidently nonexistent. Hitler failed to consummate even his original 25-point Programme upon attaining power.

Hitler knew that the problem is international jewry and was not shy about it either. [Why did the commies and capitalists join forces and destroy Germany? The only logical and honest answer is: JEWS. Judea waged war on Germany]

No, that is the "logical" answer if one is a crackpot who would prefer to spout off about mindless conspiracy theories rather than critically analyzing our governing institutions in order to assess how our societies truly function in light of our social organization. You are sorely lacking historical knowledge or are delusional if you believe that Germany did not contribute in any way to its becoming embroiled in what would eventually result in the outbreak of WWII. As far as the Soviet Union was concerned, the two nations were ideologically polarized from the very beginning: Stalin viewed Germany as a fascist, ergo counterrevolutionary, state, whereas Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as a pernicious Bolshevik threat. If I do recall correctly, was it not Germany that initiated war with the Soviet Union via Operation Barbarossa?

Hitler was quite outspoken about his imperialistic leanings (often cloaked in some mystical European solidarity), and the results speak for themselves.

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way NS Germany operated while private property was still in effect because the NSDAP did NOT do away with private property rights. I'm against uncontrolled capitalism, international capitalism, globalism and all the rest of it,

We are revolutionary socialists who wish to emancipate the working class from the exploitation inherent to the capitalist mode of production. Retaining exploitative private property makes you a capitalist. Assuming that it is feasible to restrain the interests of capital for the long-term is both theoretically unsound and thoroughly contradicted by historical reality.

but I don't see how Stormfront's little petit-bourgeois operation is contributing to Mexicans flooding our borders, or outsourcing jobs to China, etc.

Straw man and non sequitur.

It's utterly hypocritical for nationalists to oppose foreign countries invading and colonizing their nation, while nevertheless making arbitrary exceptions (i.e., allowing imperialism in non-Caucasian countries) when it concerns the foreign policy of their own country. This is perhaps one of the most important distinctions between reactionary nationalism and left-wing nationalism.

I didn't say "non-Caucasian countries," I said White nations. Are you being deliberately obtuse? White and "Caucasian" are NOT synonymous.

Red herring. His contention is valid regardless of your semantic quibble.

Anywho, it is NOT anymore "hypocritical" than punching someone in the mouth in revenge whilst not wanting to get hit yourself. As far as jews are concerned, it is a matter of revenge.

This would perhaps be a legitimate (yet arguable) justification if Jews existed as a consciously subversive group in our societies, but no such proof exists outside of your near religious zealotry.

Also, I didn't say that it's a "goal," I just said that I wouldn't oppose it. So realistically speaking I would be adequately satisfied with at least a European Europe, even if we have to give up America, Canada, etc.

If you choose to adopt such a complacent demeanor regarding imperialism, then you are in no position to castigate any perceived Zionist wrongdoings.

Despite whatever personal qualities he possessed as an orator and political organizer, Adolf Hitler was wrong about quite a lot. He never truly understood Marxian theory, nor did he correctly diagnose what was wrong with the Soviet Union. Though the NSDAP's political program promoted economic policies reminiscent of those enacted in state socialist regimes, in practice Hitler's socialism was basically little more than dirigisme with a few social welfare programs. For all his anti-capitalist rhetoric, he never truly sought to transcend bourgeois social relations, Hitler merely wanted to create a more 'socially just' form of capitalism. If you want to call that "socialism," be my guest, but I cannot.

Yeah well, how many Mexicans or other cheap nonwhite third world labor was imported into NS Germany? How many jobs were outsourced?
In fact the German workers and German people in general seemed quite happy living in The Reich.

That is a highly neglectful position. Massive immigration into the West did not occur until the greater part of two decades into the post-war era, when Western Europe was rebuilding but experiencing a grievous labor shortage. The United States did not experience its large scale waves of immigration until the 1970s, when America's decided economic advantage floundered vis-à-vis a reconstructed and booming Europe and Japan; this prompted the importation of cheap foreign labor.

Of course it wasn't commie-like socialism, stop acting like you Marxists have a monopoly on the word socialism.

You are not a socialist; you are a reactionary. Stop acting like you reactionaries have a monopoly on the world.

Perhaps not. Though I doubt you understand Marxism or Leninism thoroughly enough to genuinely reject them on the basis of what they actually represent.

Ad Hom.

No, he was not assailing your character; he was drawing a valid conclusion based upon what you have posted. This latest response only serves to corroborate his original estimation.

You palpably fail to meet either the tenets of revolutionary socialism or left-wing nationalism. Your understanding of socialism, capitalism, and the real problems facing our nations is grossly inadequate at best and a childish caricature at worst. Return to SF and continue to partake of their stultifying fruit; do not bother us with such feeble and pathetic arguments.

Rev Scare adequately dealt with this post, I'll only address a few points.

Rasistu' wrote:I just found it ridiculous that you guys were complaining about a pro-White group trading amongst itself.

Ethical consumerism accomplishes absolutely nothing, aside from individual consumers feeling slightly better about their purchases. We were merely highlighting how Stormfront's encouragement of consuming from Caucasian petit-bourgeois vendors is a ploy to increase Don Black's revenue stream.

Well I'm NOT a revolutionary kind of socialist, by which I mean a communist like you lot.

One needn't be a communist to oppose private ownership of the means of production. For example, Thomas Hodgskin, John Francis Bray, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Dyer Lum, John Gray, etc. all opposed private ownership of productive assets and yet none of them were communists.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of the workers owning the means of production instead of it being privately-owned, I'm just not convinced that it is necessary, or even the best way to go.

It's entirely necessary if you're opposed to economic exploitation. If you're indifferent to the social relations of capitalism, I'm puzzled as to why you'd be interested in socialism at all.

After all, A. Hitler didn't see the need for a Bolshevik-style "class-warfare" and neither do I.

Class warfare isn't something that's 'needed' to advance an agenda, it's a phenomenon which the contradictions of capitalism gives rise to. Hitlerian National Socialists and fascists believed that class warfare could be suppressed by a combination of collectivist education and the state taking on the function of mediator between labor and capital, but this approach inevitably fails as it leaves in place the very material conditions which create class antagonisms in the first place. Furthermore, capitalism simply will not abide prolonged conditions of dirigisme—which is precisely why the bourgeoisie overthrew Mussolini in 1943 and attempted to overthrow Hitler in 1944.

Hitler knew that the problem is international jewry and was not shy about it either. [Why did the commies and capitalists join forces and destroy Germany? The only logical and honest answer is: JEWS. Judea waged war on Germany]

Blaming the world's problems on "international jewry" is conspiratorial, ahistorical nonsense.

You're also forgetting that the USSR was defending itself from an imperialist invasion Hitler was responsible for. Bear in mind, the Soviets had entered into a non-aggression pact with the Third Reich for the explicit purpose of avoiding a war. The reason the capitalist West participated in World War II was because Hitler was capriciously invading sovereign nations and disrupting the hitherto existing world order (of which they played a leading role).

Of course it wasn't commie-like socialism, stop acting like you Marxists have a monopoly on the word socialism.

No one here has ever suggested that only Marxists can accurately be described as 'socialists.' Socialism antecedes Marxism and various non-Marxian forms of socialism continue to exist to this day.