The Jewish Question

Coach wrote:I totally disagree with this position. I DO want to "spilt up the US into a 'white section' 'brown section' 'yellow section'" I DO want a "black belt nation". I want to rip the US empire to shreds (including internally), and let the working people of the various nationalities living on this soil form their own independent national workers' states as they see fit to do so. Most of our ancestors fought for a USA that was NEVER actually theirs!
The only way that a nation for our own working people on this territory will not be a "lost cause" is if it is Euroamerican national workers' state. And that ain't gonna include the territory of all the 50 states, nor the whole sum total of the wealth of the present USA.

I want to rip it to shreds too, but for the benefit of our people. I think the idea that everyone is just going to move to their own respective quarter of the nation peacefully is a fantasy. Also, I will not displace a single white family. I will not leave them at the mercy of aggravated blacks like they are left at in South Africa.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I want to rip it to shreds too, but for the benefit of our people. I think the idea that everyone is just going to move to their own respective quarter of the nation peacefully is a fantasy. Also, I will not displace a single white family. I will not leave them at the mercy of aggravated blacks like they are left at in South Africa.

There will be a Euroamerican workers' state (regardless of population numbers and territorial size), so how could that not benefit our people. If they want it, it will be there. If some of them want to continue trying the integrated cosmo societal experiment in a workers' state, fine, they'll probably have to learn the hard way, and we'll be there when they change their minds or ask for our help in extracting them from their integration mistake. I think that non-white workers and white workers by and large will choose to go to the national workers' states dedicated specifically to people like them, and that the cosmo integrated society concept will decline in popularity with most who aren't part of the ethnically-mixed population. Yes, all the working people get to choose which way they want to go, and I think they'll understand that if they currently live in an area that will not be dedicated specifically for people like them or is one of the ethnically mixed cosmo lands they will have to move along and they'll likely expect and recieve compensation and assistance in making relocations. In America, most of our working population is quite mobile now, they don't have long established "roots" in the way that you could argue most Americans had 150 years ago. American people move all the time just to get a new job, to go to school, for a new house, for a better neighborhood, to be closer to family, whatever. When the socioeconomic and political incentives and disincentives are such that working people of all nationalities are encouraged to move to their own dedicated national workers' states, you won't have to coerce hardly anyone...they'll be begging us to help them move and start a new chapter in their lives within the new developing socialist society in their own national workers' states ASAP! Why in the fuck would anyone want to be stubborn and deliberately set themselves up to be in the extreme minority in a territory where they might not be very welcome and would have less political power/rights, when they could have a much better life elsewhere and our own nations would help bring 'em home? I think the vast majority of working people of all these nationalities are going to be realistic about what must be done, and they do it in such a way that we all mutually benefit because otherwise they're just needlessly screwing themselves and flirting needlessly with disaster.

Look, SS, the best things and the best aspects of our people you really care about can be actually accomplished and liberated by revolutionary Socialism-Nationalism, without the need for all that Nazi stuff, and far more effectively than any of that Nazi stuff. With revolutionary socialism-nationalism, our working people can deal with or overcome any challenges to us and our interests. Do you really believe in our people? Don't you think that if our working people had societal power in their own hands in their own national homelands in a socialist society, that they'd be more then capable of voluntarily preserving our existence as distinct ethnonational communities (which obviously means that ethnic Europeans as a whole would not go extinct any time in the forseeable future)? A Euroamerican workers' state would really be a new chapter in the history of this continent. The whole argument for white guilt is gone. "Blame whitey" is gone. The old race games are over, swept away right along with exploitative society. It's a fresh start for all the nationalities. Only a minority of the insane would want to go back, if that.

We revolutionary SNs decided that we want real liberation and real victory for our people, not to impotently bitch, not to surrender and accept this society as 'the best possible', not to compromise for the sake of the exploiting ruling class. If we really want our people to win liberation and a better future, then we have to act like it, speak like it, provide a serious winning example. Fight smart. Fight to win. Don't be a Nazi, be a Euroamerican revolutionary worker, and then discover that we're not alone and not powerless to change this world. Our working people don't need a Feuhrer from above to tell us what to do and save us. They need more that that! They need people like you to fight to win, to step up to the plate among them and provide a winning revolutionary leadership example for them to learn from and emulate, to show other highly motivated radicalizing folks among our working people how to lead a mass fight to win as well. Revolutionary SN encourages, enables and empower our people; it bring us together and strengthens us; it points out where our real power lies and that WE CAN change course to a future of higher human quality and greater social justice and progress. It ain't just about economics (though certainly that is important).

There will be a Euroamerican workers' state (regardless of population numbers and territorial size), so how could that not benefit our people.

Large enough for the current Euro-American population in the United States? Better damn well be. I don't want our people crammed into a tiny little state.

If they want it, it will be there. If some of them want to continue trying the integrated cosmo societal experiment in a workers' state, fine, they'll probably have to learn the hard way, and we'll be there when they change their minds or ask for our help in extracting them from their integration mistake. I think that non-white workers and white workers by and large will choose to go to the national workers' states dedicated specifically to people like them, and that the cosmo integrated society concept will decline in popularity with most who aren't part of the ethnically-mixed population. Yes, all the working people get to choose which way they want to go, and I think they'll understand that if they currently live in an area that will not be dedicated specifically for people like them or is one of the ethnically mixed cosmo lands they will have to move along and they'll likely expect and recieve compensation and assistance in making relocations. In America, most of our working population is quite mobile now, they don't have long established "roots" in the way that you could argue most Americans had 150 years ago. American people move all the time just to get a new job, to go to school, for a new house, for a better neighborhood, to be closer to family, whatever. When the socioeconomic and political incentives and disincentives are such that working people of all nationalities are encouraged to move to their own dedicated national workers' states, you won't have to coerce hardly anyone...they'll be begging us to help them move and start a new chapter in their lives within the new developing socialist society in their own national workers' states ASAP! Why in the fuck would anyone want to be stubborn and deliberately set themselves up to be in the extreme minority in a territory where they might not be very welcome and would have less political power/rights, when they could have a much better life elsewhere and our own nations would help bring 'em home? I think the vast majority of working people of all these nationalities are going to be realistic about what must be done, and they do it in such a way that we all mutually benefit because otherwise they're just needlessly screwing themselves and flirting needlessly with disaster.

It sounds like a very good idea, peacefully splitting up the nation into sections. And where do the mixed ones go? I sure as hell don't want them. Maybe the black nationalists won't want them, either. Does that mean we have to make a whole section for mixed people as well? How are the borders going to be enforced? How can we trust other non whites to stay true and not attack us? Who says if our population explodes we don't need to take over some of their land? It sounds like such an easy plan you have, but it is anything but that. I do not even have a plan as to how to "divide" the united states up if that is a desirable end at all.

Look, SS, the best things and the best aspects of our people you really care about can be actually accomplished and liberated by revolutionary Socialism-Nationalism, without the need for all that Nazi stuff, and far more effectively than any of that Nazi stuff. With revolutionary socialism-nationalism, our working people can deal with or overcome any challenges to us and our interests. Do you really believe in our people? Don't you think that if our working people had societal power in their own hands in their own national homelands in a socialist society, that they'd be more then capable of voluntarily preserving our existence as distinct ethnonational communities (which obviously means that ethnic Europeans as a whole would not go extinct any time in the forseeable future)? A Euroamerican workers' state would really be a new chapter in the history of this continent. The whole argument for white guilt is gone. "Blame whitey" is gone. The old race games are over, swept away right along with exploitative society. It's a fresh start for all the nationalities. Only a minority of the insane would want to go back, if that.

I must admit I appreciate your good intentions and your solidarity, but I think you are making assumptions. I do believe in putting more power in the hands of the workers and restoring the natural resources as well as the means of productions into the hands of the people. I believe in a strong state as well, elected by the working people and a servant of the working people. I am not sure what you mean, "nazi" stuff, but your goal and my goals really aren't that different.

We revolutionary SNs decided that we want real liberation and real victory for our people, not to impotently bitch, not to surrender and accept this society as 'the best possible', not to compromise for the sake of the exploiting ruling class. If we really want our people to win liberation and a better future, then we have to act like it, speak like it, provide a serious winning example. Fight smart. Fight to win. Don't be a Nazi, be a Euroamerican revolutionary worker, and then discover that we're not alone and not powerless to change this world.

I can be a National Socialist and a revolutionary European-American worker. Like I said, I am not your typical who says they are NS but knows very little about the system. I even have my own twist on it and how I would do things differently. For example, I am not a class-collaborator. Many NS are.

Our working people don't need a Feuhrer from above to tell us what to do and save us.

Judging from the state our people are in today we could sure as hell use a Furher to come down from a cloud and lead the way for our people.

They need more that that! They need people like you to fight to win, to step up to the plate among them and provide a winning revolutionary leadership example for them to learn from and emulate, to show other highly motivated radicalizing folks among our working people how to lead a mass fight to win as well. Revolutionary SN encourages, enables and empower our people; it bring us together and strengthens us; it points out where our real power lies and that WE CAN change course to a future of higher human quality and greater social justice and progress. It ain't just about economics (though certainly that is important).

And that is what Hitler did for his people (yea yea I know he didn't abolish the bourgeoisie, but like you said it is more than economics; even if they are important). Aside from that, I don't see where we really differ. The only thing I can imagine that we differ on right now is how we are going to split up the USA.

Coach wrote:There will be a Euroamerican workers' state (regardless of population numbers and territorial size), so how could that not benefit our people. If they want it, it will be there. If some of them want to continue trying the integrated cosmo societal experiment in a workers' state, fine, they'll probably have to learn the hard way, and we'll be there when they change their minds or ask for our help in extracting them from their integration mistake. I think that non-white workers and white workers by and large will choose to go to the national workers' states dedicated specifically to people like them, and that the cosmo integrated society concept will decline in popularity with most who aren't part of the ethnically-mixed population. Yes, all the working people get to choose which way they want to go, and I think they'll understand that if they currently live in an area that will not be dedicated specifically for people like them or is one of the ethnically mixed cosmo lands they will have to move along and they'll likely expect and recieve compensation and assistance in making relocations. In America, most of our working population is quite mobile now, they don't have long established "roots" in the way that you could argue most Americans had 150 years ago. American people move all the time just to get a new job, to go to school, for a new house, for a better neighborhood, to be closer to family, whatever. When the socioeconomic and political incentives and disincentives are such that working people of all nationalities are encouraged to move to their own dedicated national workers' states, you won't have to coerce hardly anyone...they'll be begging us to help them move and start a new chapter in their lives within the new developing socialist society in their own national workers' states ASAP! Why in the fuck would anyone want to be stubborn and deliberately set themselves up to be in the extreme minority in a territory where they might not be very welcome and would have less political power/rights, when they could have a much better life elsewhere and our own nations would help bring 'em home? I think the vast majority of working people of all these nationalities are going to be realistic about what must be done, and they do it in such a way that we all mutually benefit because otherwise they're just needlessly screwing themselves and flirting needlessly with disaster.

Look, SS, the best things and the best aspects of our people you really care about can be actually accomplished and liberated by revolutionary Socialism-Nationalism, without the need for all that Nazi stuff, and far more effectively than any of that Nazi stuff. With revolutionary socialism-nationalism, our working people can deal with or overcome any challenges to us and our interests. Do you really believe in our people? Don't you think that if our working people had societal power in their own hands in their own national homelands in a socialist society, that they'd be more then capable of voluntarily preserving our existence as distinct ethnonational communities (which obviously means that ethnic Europeans as a whole would not go extinct any time in the forseeable future)? A Euroamerican workers' state would really be a new chapter in the history of this continent. The whole argument for white guilt is gone. "Blame whitey" is gone. The old race games are over, swept away right along with exploitative society. It's a fresh start for all the nationalities. Only a minority of the insane would want to go back, if that.

We revolutionary SNs decided that we want real liberation and real victory for our people, not to impotently bitch, not to surrender and accept this society as 'the best possible', not to compromise for the sake of the exploiting ruling class. If we really want our people to win liberation and a better future, then we have to act like it, speak like it, provide a serious winning example. Fight smart. Fight to win. Don't be a Nazi, be a Euroamerican revolutionary worker, and then discover that we're not alone and not powerless to change this world. Our working people don't need a Feuhrer from above to tell us what to do and save us. They need more that that! They need people like you to fight to win, to step up to the plate among them and provide a winning revolutionary leadership example for them to learn from and emulate, to show other highly motivated radicalizing folks among our working people how to lead a mass fight to win as well. Revolutionary SN encourages, enables and empower our people; it bring us together and strengthens us; it points out where our real power lies and that WE CAN change course to a future of higher human quality and greater social justice and progress. It ain't just about economics (though certainly that is important).

Great post, Coach, as always.

Ideas that have been mooted by one of our comrades (Coach) about the creation of workers states which would seem to replace nations as they exist at the present, have met with varied responses, usually hinging on the impossibility of getting people to leave their homes and move to new areas respective to their ethnic background. In defence of his ideas he has proposed that the modern American is more mobile and therefore less dependant on ‘roots’. Although initially bothered by the idea of giving autonomy to groups to build new nations within pre-existing ones, I find myself forced to agree with his reasoning.

Nations, as we know them, were created at a time when the ethnic groups that dominated a set area were more or less static. Oh yes those early nations were susceptible to the waves of immigration that swept Europe at various historical stages and wars and subsequent invasion has combined to alter those national boundaries over the centuries, but ‘nations’ as we see them are mainly of 18th century construction small independent states welded together by aggression, or fear of aggression, under the belief that bigger is better.

Prior to the ‘Age of Empire’, as many call it, nations existed only in the minds of the privileged few, to the average peasant struggling to produce enough food to provide for his family whether the earth in which he toiled was called France, Germany, Britain etc, mattered little. The only time nationalism percolated to the lower classes is when required to act as canon fodder for the ruling class of the nation in which their patch of land resides. Of course then, those with a vested interest beat their chests, unfurl a flag, blow trumpets and remind everyone rich and poor alike that the ‘fatherland/motherland’ needs then to shed their blood in its defence.

Now we find ourselves in an age where the domination of the global market has in turn spawned a global work-force, a work-force in which ideas of nationality play little part other than a divisive tool for use by the global capitalists. It’s all the same, America, Europe, Asia, Africa whatever, keep the workers in a given nation off balance, unable to truly unite against the unnecessary domination of the bourgeois, by giving them the target of the immigrant and the foreign worker, help cast them as the enemy, the stealers of work, instead of what they really are comrades in exploitation.

True, we can look back to the failures of the past, see how if we apply them in a different fashion we can fix the situation which they did so much to cause in the first place, which is what many of the so called White Nationalist’s do. Or we can try and find a new way, one that doesn’t concrete itself in the failed experiments of the past.

Overall, I still have problems with his “white worker states, black worker states” and so on, for I see the problems the beset the present nations simply regurgitated in another form. Eventually racism, chauvinism and Empiricism will raise their heads, initially such states would have the fact that they exist for the benefit of the worker rather than benefitting from the worker, but eventually will that be enough to tie us together in some international-national comradeship? Maybe yes, maybe no, however it is a discussion point worth addressing. To once more try to alter the future of the world by regurgitating the errors of the past (no matter how noble the intentions) will simply result in a repeat of the disasters of the past. Hitler and his NSDAP belong in history, let’s leave then there and try and find something new. Socialist-Nationalism the ‘next Left’.

Isakenaz wrote:Ideas that have been mooted by one of our comrades (Coach) about the creation of workers states which would seem to replace nations as they exist at the present, have met with varied responses, usually hinging on the impossibility of getting people to leave their homes and move to new areas respective to their ethnic background. In defence of his ideas he has proposed that the modern American is more mobile and therefore less dependant on ‘roots’. Although initially bothered by the idea of giving autonomy to groups to build new nations within pre-existing ones, I find myself forced to agree with his reasoning.

Nations, as we know them, were created at a time when the ethnic groups that dominated a set area were more or less static. Oh yes those early nations were susceptible to the waves of immigration that swept Europe at various historical stages and wars and subsequent invasion has combined to alter those national boundaries over the centuries, but ‘nations’ as we see them are mainly of 18th century construction small independent states welded together by aggression, or fear of aggression, under the belief that bigger is better.

Prior to the ‘Age of Empire’, as many call it, nations existed only in the minds of the privileged few, to the average peasant struggling to produce enough food to provide for his family whether the earth in which he toiled was called France, Germany, Britain etc, mattered little. The only time nationalism percolated to the lower classes is when required to act as canon fodder for the ruling class of the nation in which their patch of land resides. Of course then, those with a vested interest beat their chests, unfurl a flag, blow trumpets and remind everyone rich and poor alike that the ‘fatherland/motherland’ needs then to shed their blood in its defence.

Now we find ourselves in an age where the domination of the global market has in turn spawned a global work-force, a work-force in which ideas of nationality play little part other than a divisive tool for use by the global capitalists. It’s all the same, America, Europe, Asia, Africa whatever, keep the workers in a given nation off balance, unable to truly unite against the unnecessary domination of the bourgeois, by giving them the target of the immigrant and the foreign worker, help cast them as the enemy, the stealers of work, instead of what they really are comrades in exploitation.

True, we can look back to the failures of the past, see how if we apply them in a different fashion we can fix the situation which they did so much to cause in the first place, which is what many of the so called White Nationalist’s do. Or we can try and find a new way, one that doesn’t concrete itself in the failed experiments of the past.

Overall, I still have problems with his “white worker states, black worker states” and so on, for I see the problems the beset the present nations simply regurgitated in another form. Eventually racism, chauvinism and Empiricism will raise their heads, initially such states would have the fact that they exist for the benefit of the worker rather than benefitting from the worker, but eventually will that be enough to tie us together in some international-national comradeship? Maybe yes, maybe no, however it is a discussion point worth addressing. To once more try to alter the future of the world by regurgitating the errors of the past (no matter how noble the intentions) will simply result in a repeat of the disasters of the past. Hitler and his NSDAP belong in history, let’s leave then there and try and find something new. Socialist-Nationalism the ‘next Left’.

However the various working peoples collectively self-identify as distinct national communities requiring independent national workers' states is fine by me. I think the overall prevailing tendency will be to define their distinct national communities along common ethnic/cultural/linguistic lines, and much less often will working peoples collectively self-determine for ethnically/culturally/linguistically mixed national communities. We should respect all of their voluntary self-determined choices about nationhood either way, insisting only that they be consistent with the essential principles of revolutionary socialism and do what they can to advance the further development of socialist society.

Coach wrote:However the various working peoples collectively self-identify as distinct national communities requiring independent national workers' states is fine by me. I think the overall prevailing tendency will be to define their distinct national communities along common ethnic/cultural/linguistic lines, and much less often will working peoples collectively self-determine for ethnically/culturally/linguistically mixed national communities. We should respect all of their voluntary self-determined choices about nationhood either way, insisting only that they be consistent with the essential principles of revolutionary socialism and do what they can to advance the further development of socialist society.

See what I did with that last line in the paragraph above. It's the 'elastic clause', justifying extraordinary revolutionary rectification measures on the part of the working people and other consistently revolutionary socialist workers' state, just in case anybody tries to pull the counterrevolutionary shit you are concerned about (or any other kind of shit to drag us back to the restoration of exploitative oppressive society).

Pantheon Rising wrote:I believe Jews in general, are very hateful and hostile to Europeans.

There is a sociological basis for that some what generalising assertion. Diaspora Jews are a minority with a long history of prosecution as an "etnic" group. Their whole religion, which forms the core of their identity, is based on the diaspora and the prosecution of their people, they see themselves as a victim. Some asume that the overrepresentation within pro-immigration and multicultural groups of people from a Jewish origin in Europe are a consequence of that diaspora vision. The more minority groups and etnic diversity there is within a community the "safer" these minorities are; they no longer face the threat of a homogeneous white Christian society. In that sense they serve their own interests as a etnic group/minority. There are a big number of Jewish organisations who hypocrite promote a multicultural society in Europe and a "etnic" nationalism in Israël.

I do agree with the fact that not all Jews are hateful and bad though.

Jews are not a homogenic etnicity, but as a cultural group some are influenced by their separate religion, culture and identity. Something you see in allmost every culture on some degree; till some degrees the stereotypes always do fit.

I agree with what you have said, but when people start saying that the Jews "cause" immigration, that is where I draw the line.

It is capitalism that "causes" immigration. It is corporations that own the media.

Jews have made alliances with the elites and think a multicultural elite is a safer one. They are not necessary correct however, because evidence exists that black people hate Jews more than whites.

Also, it's really the spokesmen like Foxman who push this approach. The rest of the Jews are often lemmings. I do not believe in the Kevin Macdonald theory that genetic factors are at work, or that the Jews are a necessary part of immigration and globalization. It would go on without them for profit and people looking to make ends meet. And it is not pervasive among every Jew due to some gene or adaption.

Also Jews are motivated by the factors that motive everyone else, like corporate capitalism and greed.

Metal Gear wrote:I agree with what you have said, but when people start saying that the Jews "cause" immigration, that is where I draw the line.

I totally agree.

At the other hand this kind of behaviour can trigger a response from the indigenious people. In that sense one can see "antisemitism" as a "logical" reaction on the behaviour of some Jews (or any other minority). Society is identity based, identity is a consensus that is reached between people who form the community. If some groups within a community distinguish themselves from the rest this is going to trigger a reaction, especcially if some of these minorities put their own interests above those of other groups within the society.

In that sense we have to recognize that there is no "victimized" people, nor is there a "tätervolk" (perpetrator people). It's a vicious circle of action and reaction caused by the collision between different identities. That's one of the main reasons to be oppossed against mass immigration and the multicultural (kosmopolitan) society; it's disrupting society and leads to discrimination and racism. We need to recognize that racism and discrimination doesn't exist out of pure hatred, it isn't artificial, it aren't "bourgeois values"; but it's a process that is inextricably connected with the human nature.

It is capitalism that "causes" immigration.

These days it's the main cause for sure.

Jews have made alliances with the elites and think a multicultural elite is a safer one. They are not necessary correct however, because evidence exists that black people hate Jews more than whites.

Some do, some don't. It's all connected with natural behaviour and human nature.

I do not believe in the Kevin Macdonald theory that genetic factors are at work, or that the Jews are a necessary part of immigration and globalization. It would go on without them for profit and people looking to make ends meet. And it is not pervasive among every Jew due to some gene or adaption.

I think there is no good basis to suggest that Jews are a homogenious race or etnicity, so i think you can't speak of a joint genetical factor. But I do think that Judaïsm and Diaspora Jews historically have influenced the modern nature of Capitalism in a great sense; because of the materialist nature of their religion (and later on Christianity), because of their restricted jobs in the middle ages (as bankers), because of the fact that they where a minority without a connection with the indigenous peoples (they were used as liege-man), and so on. But that's ofcourse no excuse for blind antisemitism nor can one keep every Jew accountable for that.

I think they just got lucky. It used to be that loaning money was considered bad. I think the world has changed and I think Jews just got lucky. But it will change again and move to a working class movement, then bankers are not too lucky.

Metal Gear wrote:I think they just got lucky. It used to be that loaning money was considered bad. I think the world has changed and I think Jews just got lucky. But it will change again and move to a working class movement, then bankers are not too lucky.

I think that anti-semites often conveniently omit the existence of numerous anti-Zionist Jews, particularly on the left (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Norman Finkelstein, Joel Kovel, Marx), who also happen(ed) to be academics, scholars, and even Marxists/socialists—a segment of the population often denounced by these same reactionaries for their alleged role in the "Judeo-communist" conspiracy.

Socialism should liberate alll people,not just Europeans,or white people,so I don't understand why we're even asking this question

The Jewish "nation" is a boundless essence, an international consensus. The Jews lack a rooted affection for the land that mothers them and from which is drawn a cold cynacism, a mechanical, precise and clever way of being fixated upon the material. Thus they are champions of the cosmopolitan and urban mindset; with its international Capitalism, international Socialism and psychologically inept intellectualism. The Jew, like many a cosmopolitan urban-dweller, only understands life in terms of intellect and sentiment, never true culture-feeling, never true faith.

Consider Rand and Marx, albeit in a shallow and economic sense they're "opposed", they both share the one and same cold rationalism which at its heart lies a hatred of the nation and soil - this character is not a result of the fact that Marx and Rand were themselves decadent & bourgeois, it's erroneous to conclude that class character is the only character and no national/cultural character exists - this is what Marx and Rand would have us believe even though a travel of the world with eyes wide open quickly dispels this idea. Mankind is so much more than an economic(and so class)construct.

Culturally and politically the Jews are corrosive to any national feeling in the Western sense. However, the Jews are not without their merits, their proven individual brilliance is an asset that could be utilised for the benefit of all, to extract the Jewish intellect from the barren Jewish soul would be most beneficial.

I think it is proper I address this thread again, as I am the one who started it months back and since then my views on the subject have changed considerably. Both Kai Murros and Otto Strasser were fine with working with non-zionist Jews, and I think that certain segments of the Jewish population can even be worked with European nationalists as an ally against the ever growing threat of Islamization of Europe.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:The Jewish "nation" is a boundless essence, an international consensus. The Jews lack a rooted affection for the land that mothers them and from which is drawn a cold cynacism, a mechanical, precise and clever way of being fixated upon the material. Thus they are champions of the cosmopolitan and urban mindset; with its international Capitalism, international Socialism and psychologically inept intellectualism. The Jew, like many a cosmopolitan urban-dweller, only understands life in terms of intellect and sentiment, never true culture-feeling, never true faith.

Consider Rand and Marx, albeit in a shallow and economic sense they're "opposed", they both share the one and same cold rationalism which at its heart lies a hatred of the nation and soil - this character is not a result of the fact that Marx and Rand were themselves decadent & bourgeois, it's erroneous to conclude that class character is the only character and no national/cultural character exists - this is what Marx and Rand would have us believe even though a travel of the world with eyes wide open quickly dispels this idea. Mankind is so much more than an economic(and so class)construct.

Culturally and politically the Jews are corrosive to any national feeling in the Western sense. However, the Jews are not without their merits, their proven individual brilliance is an asset that could be utilised for the benefit of all, to extract the Jewish intellect from the barren Jewish soul would be most beneficial.

Your conclusions and comparisons between Rand and Marx are laughable. Marx never showed any "hatred" of the nation and soil in his writings, the only times he mentions the withering away of the nations is in the context of the time where many burgoise states ruled over various ethnic and cultural groups, and that such states would succumb to the future emancipation of the proletariat of said groups.

As for classes, sure, mankind is so much more than that, but then again, Marx's work is so much more than the "Das Kapital". I just doubt you read any of it.

I think everyone interested in the so-called 'Jewish Question' should read up on Labour Zionism. They not only uphold good social nationalist principles (favouring a 2-state solution to the problem of the Middle East) but also acknowledge the unhealthy nature of a national population being entirely part of the capitalist class. In other words, there is nothing about the Jewish people that causes them to inherently oppose us, as if such an idea ever made sense.

(I think the example of Zionism shows that, revolutionary or reactionary, the idea that Jews are incapable of "true culture-feeling" is nonsense.)

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Your conclusions and comparisons between Rand and Marx are laughable. Marx never showed any "hatred" of the nation and soil in his writings, the only times he mentions the withering away of the nations is in the context of the time where many burgoise states ruled over various ethnic and cultural groups, and that such states would succumb to the future emancipation of the proletariat of said groups.

As for classes, sure, mankind is so much more than that, but then again, Marx's work is so much more than the "Das Kapital". I just doubt you read any of it.

Did not Marx refer to Slavs as sub-humans that must perish in a revolutionary holocaust? The quote has been posted on numerous right wing sites as well as left. If you do not know which one I am referencing I will be glad to find it and post it.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Did not Marx refer to Slavs as sub-humans that must perish in a revolutionary holocaust? The quote has been posted on numerous right wing sites as well as left. If you do not know which one I am referencing I will be glad to find it and post it.

Leon wasn't discussing that. He was combating TheRedSquirrel's declaration that Rand and Marx were both Jewish and both antinationalist, to support the assertion that Jews are inherently cosmopolitan. "Hatred of the nation and soil" referred to the idea of a nation, not to a particular one, though I am sad to hear that Marx had anti-Slavic prejudices.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Did not Marx refer to Slavs as sub-humans that must perish in a revolutionary holocaust? The quote has been posted on numerous right wing sites as well as left. If you do not know which one I am referencing I will be glad to find it and post it.

You mean when he and Engels proclaimed that in the aftermath of a french proletarian revolution, the slav league will be crushed? That was a statement in relation to the geo-politics of the time, and how the russian czar was using the nationalist movements of occupied slav states to oppose what Marx and Engels felt were the proletarian classes of the west. So it is a quote totally out of context.

Besides, Marx said bad things even about the Jews, zionists, etc etc. I don't see what his personal views of the politics of the time(witch changed over time) have to do with the analysis of his work regarding the capitalist mode of production, or the social classes.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Besides, Marx said bad things even about the Jews, zionists, etc etc. I don't see what his personal views of the politics of the time(witch changed over time) have to do with the analysis of his work regarding the capitalist mode of production, or the social classes.

Wasn't Ron Paul just labeled as a racist by people in a thread here because of his supporters?...

Balkan Beast wrote:Wasn't Ron Paul just labeled as a racist by people in a thread here because of his supporters?...

No one explicitly called him that anywhere in the topic from what I can see. Everything said was in reference to his supporters, not the man himself. Paul may or may not be a racist, but nevertheless he's just like every other scummy politician these days for knowingly accepting campaign money from an actual racist in order to further his own agenda. If he is so opposed to racism and wants to promote liberty for ALL and not for SOME, perhaps he should rethink who he accepts money from.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:You mean when he and Engels proclaimed that in the aftermath of a french proletarian revolution, the slav league will be crushed? That was a statement in relation to the geo-politics of the time, and how the russian czar was using the nationalist movements of occupied slav states to oppose what Marx and Engels felt were the proletarian classes of the west. So it is a quote totally out of context.

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
- Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )

I believe is the exact quote. According to Marx, races which don't wish to master "communism" must perish. Sounds pretty hateful to me.

Besides, Marx said bad things even about the Jews, zionists, etc etc. I don't see what his personal views of the politics of the time(witch changed over time) have to do with the analysis of his work regarding the capitalist mode of production, or the social classes.

It doesn't have anything to do with that. But when one identifies as a Marxist they should understand the hateful man they are identifying themselves with; just as those who identify as Hitlerists should do the same, just to be fair.

Leon wasn't discussing that. He was combating TheRedSquirrel's declaration that Rand and Marx were both Jewish and both antinationalist, to support the assertion that Jews are inherently cosmopolitan. "Hatred of the nation and soil" referred to the idea of a nation, not to a particular one, though I am sad to hear that Marx had anti-Slavic prejudices.

Rand was entirely Nationalist of course; a zionist though and a supporter of the terrorist state of Israel. Therefore she is not only a steadfast market liberal, but a supporter of genocide. Marx was indeed anti-nationalist as he was INTERNATIONALIST. Why do you think Marxist parties have been so hostile to any nationalist groups? Especially the NSDAP, even before the leader's departure from the original socialist doctrine.

No one explicitly called him that anywhere in the topic from what I can see. Everything said was in reference to his supporters, not the man himself. Paul may or may not be a racist, but nevertheless he's just like every other scummy politician these days for knowingly accepting campaign money from an actual racist in order to further his own agenda. If he is so opposed to racism and wants to promote liberty for ALL and not for SOME, perhaps he should rethink who he accepts money from.

Just like every other politician takes donations from racist zionist Jews, why is it only a big fuss when a politician is accused of being a white racist?

Pantheon Rising wrote:"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
- Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )

I believe is the exact quote. According to Marx, races which don't wish to master "communism" must perish. Sounds pretty hateful to me.

Is there an easily verifiable and valid source for the quote? I cannot seem to find it. It also strikes me as disingenuous to extract the quotation out of proper context and then accuse Marx of having advocated racial genocide.

Pantheon Rising wrote:"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
- Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )

I believe is the exact quote. According to Marx, races which don't wish to master "communism" must perish. Sounds pretty hateful to me.

I also can't seem to find that quote anywhere relevant. And given the number of false quotes that prevail in the internet, specially in said foruns, i wouldn't be surprised this to be false as well, or severely out of context. Still, i wouldn't make any apologies it if was true, since i never elevate any man to a deity status.

It doesn't have anything to do with that. But when one identifies as a Marxist they should understand the hateful man they are identifying themselves with; just as those who identify as Hitlerists should do the same, just to be fair.

The difference here is Marx is a name in itself in economics and sociology. Hitler's sole contribution to the world is Mein Kampf, and his rulling of Germany. It's like saying that when you identify yourself with Alan turing's work, you identify yourself with an homosexual. Its a bit like missing the elephant in the room.

Rand was entirely Nationalist of course; a zionist though and a supporter of the terrorist state of Israel. Therefore she is not only a steadfast market liberal, but a supporter of genocide. Marx was indeed anti-nationalist as he was INTERNATIONALIST. Why do you think Marxist parties have been so hostile to any nationalist groups? Especially the NSDAP, even before the leader's departure from the original socialist doctrine.

Because the NSDAP wanted to cooperate with capitalists? It seems obvious to me, although the 25 points were more radical, the Marxists couldn't abide with them. Besides, they were a rival party, in a struggle for power.

Just like every other politician takes donations from racist zionist Jews, why is it only a big fuss when a politician is accused of being a white racist?

Fair point, and i agree. But then again, Ron Paul is a reactionary anyways.