RevLeft discovers the Socialist Phalanx

Rusty Shackleford wrote:Its probably because they just like strong man politics.

That's amusing. A RevLeft member characterizing socialism as an expression of 'strong man politics'. Careful, you might get banned for being a 'sexist'.

Sorry, the founders/membership of this forum are hardly so pitifully insecure as to gravitate towards an ideology on the basis of its perceived masculinity. (And just for the record, the general demeanor of the average male RevLeft member hardly screams masculinity.)

That and they are probably politically immature and think that stalin was some russian nationalist (even though he was goergian!) and probably played too much red alert and watch too much history channel.

What's all this nonsense about Stalin? This individual obviously hasn't invested any time into understanding the first thing about this forum. Sure, Stalinists are welcome, but Stalinism (heterodox or otherwise) is hardly the foundational or prevailing tendency here.

This is just another example of a RevLeft ignoramus jumping to the same old stereotypical conclusions about socialists who embrace certain expressions of nationalism. As I said before, most of the individuals on that forum are insulated, petit-bourgeois snobs, with a correspondingly repulsive hubris and dogmatic approach to every conceivable question.

Rafiq wrote:I don't think they're Fascists or anything similar, to be honest. That would be an ignorant accusation.

I would guess that they are former members of stormfront who have decided to take a more left leaning approach to their politics, i.e., they are stuck in some sort of limbo, where they combined their reactionary bourgeois views (Nationalism) with revolutionary ideology.

Think of it as a shift in politics, they'll eventually choose one over the other, and that will define their politics.

Also, I believe, after scrolling through the site, that strasserists are not very popular there. Actually Stalinism as a tendency is quite popular on there. They are much more tolerant to fascists, and hitlerites, than us, though.

It would be wrong to categorize them simply as racists and fascists, because their state of affairs (However bat shit insane it may be perceived) is much more complicated then that. The Idealogy is not necessarily class collaborationism, but it's definitely pretty stupid, (in that a worker's state would have no use for nationalism, if the revolution were to spread to every nation).

The above comment is particularly revealing of the dearth of realism and worth in the cosmopolitan Left. These self-righteous creatures truly wish to pursue some imaginary, dare I say transcendentalist, vision of global working class unity without any considerations for the innumerable other factors that influence and define the identities of the various peoples. Instead of advancing national liberation and international cooperation so that we can usher in an era of mutual respect and exchange amongst the different peoples (each of which is tied to a unique and inextricable historical ethnic heritage), these bourgeois brats indirectly serve to perpetuate the global capitalist order by failing to address even remotely relevant issues to real working class individuals; instead, they dream of some forthcoming international revolution with no basis in anything other than wishful thinking.

Rev Scare wrote:The above comment is particularly revealing of the dearth of realism and worth in the cosmopolitan Left. These self-righteous creatures truly wish to pursue some imaginary, dare I say transcendentalist, vision of global working class unity without any considerations for the innumerable other factors that influence and define the identities of the various peoples. Instead of advancing national liberation and international cooperation so that we can usher in an era of mutual respect and exchange amongst the different peoples (each of which is tied to a unique and inextricable historical ethnic heritage), these bourgeois brats indirectly serve to perpetuate the global capitalist order by failing to address even remotely relevant issues to real working class individuals; instead, they dream of some forthcoming international revolution with no basis in anything other than wishful thinking.

Very true. Apparently they don't realize the only thing that could connect the nations of the world peacefully would be self-determination for the proletariat of every nation. If some nations to wish to become more international than others, that's fine. On the other hand, while we still have separate nations, supporting cosmopolitanism will only drive the proletariat further apart. If some nations are to be forced to forget their nation and join the global nation, they will only be driven further from international cooperation.

Coach wrote:Why should I blame them for coming to such conclusions?
Look at the majority of the forum active membership and much of what it posts!
Fascist and Strasserite shit is everywhere here. I'm sick of it, and I ain't the only one.

And what may that " Fascist and Strasserite shit" be Coach? Tell me I am interested to hear. Let me guess is it the fact that some of us post about Nationalism ( and not just Socialism) that bothers you?

Ill tell you what Im sick of: Internationalists slagging off at those who dont believe in the same things they do. This forum does say that Anti Capitalist Nationalists are welcome. So if you dont like us then ban us. Otherwise show us some respect and dont slag off on us just because we dont believe in cooperating with workers of different nationalities ( and for the record some Strasserists here believe in cooperating with workers of different nationalities so I dont see what the hell your problem is with them). Either respect other forum members, get them banned, or keep your opinions to yourself. It is that simple.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:And what may that " Fascist and Strasserite shit" be Coach? Tell me I am interested to hear. Let me guess is it the fact that some of us post about Nationalism ( and not just Socialism) that bothers you?

Ill tell you what Im sick of: Internationalists slagging off at those who dont believe in the same things they do. This forum does say that Anti Capitalist Nationalists are welcome. So if you dont like us then ban us. Otherwise show us some respect and dont slag off on us just because we dont believe in cooperating with workers of different nationalities. It is that simple.

Thanks but Easy Reb remember rev left are watching united front yea.We are the new left

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:And what may that " Fascist and Strasserite shit" be Coach? Tell me I am interested to hear. Let me guess is it the fact that some of us post about Nationalism ( and not just Socialism) that bothers you?

Ill tell you what Im sick of: Internationalists slagging off at those who dont believe in the same things they do. This forum does say that Anti Capitalist Nationalists are welcome. So if you dont like us then ban us. Otherwise show us some respect and dont slag off on us just because we dont believe in cooperating with workers of different nationalities ( and for the record some Strasserists here believe in cooperating with workers of different nationalities so I dont see what the hell your problem is with them). Either respect other forum members, get them banned, or keep your opinions to yourself. It is that simple.

Let's not digress into another debate regarding socialist internationalism versus isolationism or another debate about Strasserism. We have open threads pertaining to both subjects in appropriate subforums. I encourage all parties interested in debating those matters to do so there.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:Ha they claim that i claim that socialism is about strong man politics when he/she missed the point of me saying that, basically, the fetishization of Stalin is basically just an attraction to strongman politics.

Either way, the criticism stands.

(And no, ISMAIL, im not attacking you, you dont seem to fetishize STALINNNNNN)

So how many members of the Socialist Phalanx actually fetishize Stalinism? After all, you did agree that Stalinism is a 'popular tendency' here and proceeded to provide everyone with your ridiculous theories as to why that happens to be the case.

Oh check it out! were all petit-bourgeois snobs! Funny thing is, most long time users here are wage-workers or squatters.

Nice way to qualify that statement. In any case, I'll just have to take your word for what it's worth (nothing).

And yes, you SF/SPh-ers who are watching this, i did make a highly intelligent jab at your website by calling it Phailanx. Har har har, my wit is unending!

Well, at least you are aware of how lame that was.

socialism, socialism and nationalism.

Fixed it for you.

the working class has no nation and the only role for nationalism is oppressed nations breaking free from the yoke of imperialism. And once that happens, it either remains under the control of the national bourgeoisie and remains nationalist, or becomes a workers' state and does not remain nationalist, but becomes internationalist.

Lets take the former Soviet Union as an example. All of the former soviet socialist republics were simply a part of the Russian Empire. With the revolution, all nations were given sovereignty. Ukraine became Ukrainian, Byelorussia became Byelorussian, Kazakhstan? Kazakh! Had the USSR been nationalist, Stalin would never have become General Secretary, and all the republics would have been one republic dominated by the same white-russians (not white as in the color, but as in nation) that ruled the empire, in which case, the USSR would not have had any grounds to claim itself as socialist.

You do realize that your entire argument contradicts itself, right? The Ukrainian people are a nation; the Kazakh people are a nation; the Russian people are a nation. The Russian Empire was a political construct that withheld recognition and autonomy from multiple nations. The policy of the Soviet Union can therefore only be interpreted as having been nationalistic, due to the fact that it recognized the very nations the Russian Empire refused to and further granted some semblance of autonomy to them.

To quote the Soviet Constitution of 1918:

Article II
(Chapter V)

11. The soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character may unite in autonomous regional unions, ruled by the local congress of the soviets and their executive organs.

These autonomous regional unions participate in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic upon a Federal basis.

You declare that the working class "has no nation" and then proceed to provide us all with an example of the Soviet Union pursuing a policy that was fundamentally left-nationalist. You RevLeft guys sure are "full of fail".

wolves in sheeps clothing.

Speak for yourself.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:Lets take the former Soviet Union as an example. All of the former soviet socialist republics were simply a part of the Russian Empire. With the revolution, all nations were given sovereignty. Ukraine became Ukrainian, Byelorussia became Byelorussian, Kazakhstan? Kazakh!

Thats kinda what were all about on one level or another im not sure what his argument is against us if that is his or rev lefts posistion.

Admin wrote:Let's not digress into another debate regarding socialist internationalism versus isolationism or another debate about Strasserism. We have open threads pertaining to both subjects in appropriate subforums. I encourage all parties interested in debating those matters to do so there.

For the record I wasnt trying to start another debate about any of those things. I just wanted to let Coach know I am sick and tired of him trying to say that some forum members dont belong here or that they are not Socialists ( because he has done this a few times now). That is all.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:For the record I wasnt trying to start another debate about any of those things. I just wanted to let Coach know I am sick and tired of him trying to say that some forum members dont belong here or that they are not Socialists ( because he has done this a few times now). That is all.

Fair enough.

Commissar Rykov wrote:I enjoy all the racialists and racialist discussions they have like http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t455...-homosexuality

Just a bunch of racialist wankers who don't want to associate with SF because they consider themselves Left Wing and thus would be unwelcome by their fellow idiots. It is hilarious in that it is pathetic and intellectually vapid. I do love how they whine about how they are not bigots then call posters here effeminate, petite-bourgeois, etc. What a bunch of clowns who wouldn't know Socialism or Leftist thought if it bite them in the ass. They missed their boat in the 20th Century when Yellow Socialists became Nazis and Fascists.

Here is the typical example of revleft user. More worried with racial and homosexual questions than anything pertaining the working class, the current economical situation ,or even any sort of open mind towards those who may not agree with him. Notice how we are right away called fascists, like if this is school, and we are throwing "label accusations" around..

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Here is the typical example of revleft user. More worried with racial and homosexual questions than anything pertaining the working class, the current economical situation ,or even any sort of open mind towards those who may not agree with him. Notice how we are right away called fascists, like if this is school, and we are throwing "label accusations" around..

Not to mention, within Revleft the question relating to homosexuality is inherently left unquestioned and labelled as a genetic factor as opposed to a factor in which social issues play part and are capable of changing ones sexual behavior towards a homosexual incline. I disagree with the term 'fascist' in relation to opposing views in relation to homosexuality and racial behavior as inherently, the social factors of these issues are shown to be greatly impacting. IE: A bourgeois Jewish individual that is still affected by the remaining monetary lending conditions of feudalism is inherently more inclined towards a position in capital; IE: In relation to homosexuality, homosexuality has been shown to be a social condition throughout history in such cases such as in Ancient Greece in which it was used for other men to 'bond' together as opposed to being an actual form of sexuality. While certain social issues are of essence, what should be furtherly of essence is maintaining an effective economic criticism and proposing alternatives against the exploitative capitalist system which ensures the oppression, repression, economic slavery and starvation of hundreds of millions throughout the world. Fascist racial and views are inherently existing in order maintain the existence of physical and social slavery, whereas views that propose positive proletarian nationalism are simply seeking to focus on the building of socialism in one country in relation to the theoretical works of socialism in a single country.

To the Socialist Phalanx:

Well considering Nations are generally social constructions themselves, I fail to see how they're relevant to proletarian emancipation.

Nations will change and alter themselves over time (Lebanon has only existed for the past 70 or so years, plus Phonocea included parts of Palestine and Syria, and it has drastically changed since then, via Rape, Slave Trade, culture wise, etc).

It is impossible to preserve a Nation for so many years. And I don't think any one who would even dare call themselves Socialist would suggest the workers of all countries build boundaries between themselves, while the Bourgeoisie is teaming up internationally, you suggest we divide amongst ourselves.

And the Soviet Union embraced nationalism because the revolution failed to spread to the surrounding countries, therefore the revolution was isolated and slowly, slowly degenerated into something horrible.

Another example. He fails to see how nationalism is important to advance socialism. Well lets see, first of all, the "nationalism" we here talk about is love for your country, your culture, and your people. The faux nationalism promoted by the capitalist system promotes individuality, except when it is convenient for them, witch is usually when imperialist ambitions come along. All the rest of the time, they ironically promote what your average revlefter promotes, ending all borders, free circulation of people and goods, etc etc. Except your average revlefter says we should also "fight the system". What system? Your politics? Well they are gone, no borders remember?.. Your bosses? Oh, thats a good one, the ones that are in the US, in Japan, in Germany, etc, and can smash your little uprising in southern california just like that?

People in Ireland, Greece, Portugal, China, etc etc are being shafted daily because their borders now represent nothing but a "regional administrative area" for the big capitalist corporations and institutions. How do you expect The greek people to stop their exploitation from abroad by opening their borders, and forgetting about any solidarity and unity they might have among themselves? We even have a clear cut example in Iceland of what happens when a country and it's people show the finger to the powers that be, even facing the threat of sanctions, and take care of their own business.

Besides, if countries are not needed, why all the support for national liberation militias? Oh, when fighting imperialism suddenly nationalism is ok? And if those same people don't want to be part of that "one people, one race, one language" dream? We here denounce such hypocrisy. More than ever, borders are needed, solidarity,and thinking about your people and your fellow workers is needed, protecting domestic markets is needed, respect for other nations is needed. There will always be something to divide us, even sports is enough, but we shouldn't want to destroy the few things that can bound our distinct people together, or else you can be sure your future lies on something along the lines of any futuristic dystopia.

Good luck trying to show people that they should forget their countries, and "fight the system" instead. I am sure it will bring results, like it did in the last few decades...

And I don't think any one who would even dare call themselves Socialist would suggest the workers of all countries build boundaries between themselves, while the Bourgeoisie is teaming up internationally, you suggest we divide amongst ourselves.

Supporting the self-determination of all the workers' nation states is in not the same as diving the workers, just as dividing the bourgeoisie into numerous different states does nothing to divide them from one another. They still work together to exploit workers, gain money, and engage in imperialistic ventures. Similarly, granting all the workers of the world self-determination for their nations is not the same as keeping them from working together.

Rafiq wrote:To the Socialist Phalanx:

Well considering Nations are generally social constructions themselves,

All human behaviors with regard to society can be, in some sense, described as "social constructions." It is an absolute redundancy to label a nation a "social construct" to any worthwhile end apart from some petty attempt at discrediting the concept. A workers' state, too, is a "social construct," yet this does not somehow mitigate its legitimacy.

I fail to see how they're relevant to proletarian emancipation.

National working class liberation is the only realistic manner of accomplishing a working class revolution. Considering that individuals within nations tend to identify with their national heritage (and why should they not?), it stands to reason that the nation serves as the primary vessel by which to carry out revolution. Expecting revolution to occur on some "international" scale that includes a globally unified proletariat (which itself presupposes a proletariat in possession of a broad common identity and homogenized post-revolutionary expectations—a nationalist conception) is fantastical to put it mildly.

In addition, a homogeneous country serves to solidify the position of socialism by providing an environment in which people see themselves as part of a greater whole rather than arbitrarily competing units of varying sizes (microcosms of nations). This is why I uphold the position that without socialism, there can be no nationalism, and without nationalism, there can be no socialism.

Nations will change and alter themselves over time (Lebanon has only existed for the past 70 or so years, plus Phonocea included parts of Palestine and Syria, and it has drastically changed since then, via Rape, Slave Trade, culture wise, etc).

No serious nationalist would deny the possibility of national transformation; in fact, the very purpose of left-wing nationalism is to provide the ideological bedrock upon which an organic (ergo evolving and progressive) social formation can develop, preferably within the parameters of a socialist order.

The fact that Lebanon (and the nationalist processes occurring during and after the collapse of the Iron Curtain that Admin has above described) has until relatively recently remained devoid of national character yet national character was nonetheless imbibed only serves to vindicate nationalism; it illuminates the importance and dynamism of group identity. As such, the nation can be demonstrated to be an emergent phenomenon: it manifests naturally as individuals and their relatives, tribes and their neighbors, states and their allies form mutually reinforcing bonds. Humanity would have long ago ceased to exist if this were not so. Indeed, your hypothetical international revolution demands that these conditions are, at the very least implicitly, underlying and as such would serve to usher in the formation of a newly conceived nation if successfully realized. Of course, we believe that expectations of such a scenario arising to be quixotic, untenable, and ultimately undesirable (upon what basis do you deny self-identified and uniquely differentiated groups their sovereignty and autonomy?).

It is impossible to preserve a Nation for so many years. And I don't think any one who would even dare call themselves Socialist would suggest the workers of all countries build boundaries between themselves, while the Bourgeoisie is teaming up internationally, you suggest we divide amongst ourselves.

That is anathema to what we propound. The demand that a nation be arbitrarily "preserved" (whatever that is to embody) is a reactionary nationalist conception. We do not ask that nations be "preserved" indefinitely, only that differentiated peoples with common interests be respected as legitimate constructs and, if warranted, granted autonomy. This does in no way undermine international cooperation, but on the contrary, it allows for diverse peoples to express solidarity without infringement upon them. This, and not some mindless pursuit of "integration," is the key to a truly international revolution: a global movement to eradicate capitalism, in which ethnically distinct working peoples stand as one due to their confidence that their own autonomy will not in turn be encroached, that stands in contrast to the contemporary fray spurred by imperialistic policies and cosmopolitan delusions.

And the Soviet Union embraced nationalism because the revolution failed to spread to the surrounding countries, therefore the revolution was isolated and slowly, slowly degenerated into something horrible.

This is both partially correct at best and irrelevant, so I will not address it. Admin has already refuted the major myths surrounding the Soviet Union's position with respect to nationalism.

Rafiq wrote:While the Soviet Union became more "Nationalist" it also became more Bourgeois. It's degeneration..

That's a pretty rapid degeneration, considering the fact that the material I quoted came directly from the constitution of 1918. Does that document strike you as especially bourgeois?

Menocchio wrote:Brownshirts waving the red flag.

Also, I'm under the impression that someone from the phailanx stated the protection of internal markets as an argument in favour of their brand of nationalism.

And they uphold revolutionary socialism. Right.
Big surprise, really.

It is exactly this sort of drivel that makes your forum such a joke. You don't have arguments, you have talking-points and platitudes. You cannot wrap your minds around the concept of a nationalism that is based upon a foundation of revolutionary socialism and therefore must resort to pitiful displays of conspicuous fabrication. Such straw men can then be attacked by the same trite arguments you regularly employ against reactionary nationalist movements.

It has already been stated, but I will say it again for the record. The ideological heterogeneity of the forum's membership does not reflect the values that the forum itself was founded upon. We welcome divergent opinions, because we (the forum administration/moderation) feel as though it is important to engage others in productive debate and promote our principles to those who don't might not initially share them.

That Annoying Commie wrote:I hate it when fascists hide behind socialist symbolism and insignia; it makes everything so confusing. The fascists can't even get any legitimacy for their own program, so they hide behind something else to make them seem more moderate than they actually are.

Neither of you have bothered to address the substance of what we promote here. (And, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the diverse views that are tolerated here, but rather the ideological basis of the forum itself.) None of you have actually presented an argument against left-wing nationalism. Rather, you have (opportunistically) presented our views in a fundamentally erroneous capacity, knowing full well that we cannot openly engage you in your puritanical forum.

Menocchio wrote:There's facism and there's fascism.

What I'm getting at is that Fascism is not a monolithic, unitary political doctrine. There are differences.
(and I wouldn't like this statement to be construed as apologism for Strasserites)

If matey boy who posted that is watching this Id like to see him prove Strasserism is a Facist ideology.

Rafiq wrote:I am not an admin and I cannot do anything about the Restriction of the users of the Phalanx.

But I will tell you, that I believe you are (Besides Strasserists, I think) allowed to do whatever you may please in the Opposing Idealogies forum.

So I welcome you to such, where we can have a civilized debate. It should be interesting...

Why don't you come all the way here, and accuse us in the face of being all you say we are? It's not us who are so "shocked" to see a different leftist type of movement. We know how revleft is operated, and what kind of strict party-line is enforced there, so we have no interest in wasting our time debating in a "hipster minorities" forum witch couldn't care less about the proletarian.

However, what it does serve, is still an international divide for the proletariat, different 'nations' competing for different resources, Land mass, sounds like a call to war from my perspective.

That is a poor argument against self determination of nations. So the solution is to abolish nations, and let people for their own interest groups. Yes because they will, it's human nature, it's in fact a totally natural thing to do, the only difference will be that then their loyalty will lay in whatever subjective factors will remain, witch can even ironically be geographical or language proximity, or worse, personal and financial gain. Notice how this is yet another capitalist argument in favor of "globalization" and the universal market. It stops wars and let everybody get products they say, only at the expense of the exact class conscience you claim to uphold.

Domestic markets have been the true nemesis for international capitalism, and the one thing, besides worker movements, that they have been hell bent into destroying. The more far away the decisions and the suffering of others is, the less people feel, and if we exchange the "we in CHINA are exploited" to "we in the proletarian class are more exploited in this region then they are in that region", we can clearly see the victory of capitalist forces, and where the problem with unity would lay.

War? Countries today are destroyed, and their population enslaved without a single shot being fired. Invasions are economical, and the oppression can come from anywhere in the world.

xx1994xx wrote:Neo-Fascists/Thrid Positionists are politically the biggest weirdos throughout the whole spectrum. The site does a good job at trying to conceal the brown shirt under their red sweater better than most though. For a second, I thought it was actually just a left-wing nationalist site that was unfortunate enough to have a small group of Strasserists, but they really are all just reactionaries who don't understand the role of the nation in capitalist society.

What a profoundly moronic statement. Had we no understanding of the function of various expressions of nationalism in capitalist societies, we would not endeavor to embrace left-wing nationalism — which explicitly rejects capitalism, imperialism, and all other manner of reactionary principles. For once, I would love for one of you assholes to actually substantiate your claims with evidence, rather than continue to post the same old (discredited) talking-points.

Rafiq wrote:I am not an admin and I cannot do anything about the Restriction of the users of the Phalanx.

But I will tell you, that I believe you are (Besides Strasserists, I think) allowed to do whatever you may please in the Opposing Idealogies forum.

So I welcome you to such, where we can have a civilized debate. It should be interesting...

I have no objection to debating any of you in the OV section of your forum. The only problem is that your cyber comrades have so libeled this forum that I will likely be banned the moment one of your overzealous moderators learns that I have anything to do with the Socialist Phalanx. If I can be assured that such will not transpire, I will be more than happy to oblige your request.

The fact that this forum explicitly repudiates capitalism, fascism, racism, chauvinism, imperialism, class collaboration, and every other reactionary concept you care to think of (example I, example II, example III, example IV) should be reason enough to transcend said libel and at least allow my participation in OV. But I won't hold my breath.

Therefore, if the zealots at RevLeft cannot be reasonable, I recommend that you and your friends come and debate us here, in our OV section.

That Annoying Commie wrote:I made an account over there called "Socialist Phailanx"

It got immediately banned before I could even post.

*lol face*

All I wanted to do was have a nice fun debate.

Let the 'debate' begin.

P.S. Anyone can register as 'guest' and post in the OV section here.

That Annoying Commie wrote:I made an account over there called "Socialist Phailanx"

It got immediately banned before I could even post.

*lol face*

All I wanted to do was have a nice fun debate.

"Debate" for me is something serious, with serious arguments and leveled argumentation. Childish word plays, straw men, baseless accusation and pure trolling aren't acceptable. We here are not a bunch of teenagers trying to show their "trend" is the most "cool.

Anyways, i second that, anyone can get to the OV and say whatever they want.

i don't understand why you could be a trot, and a fash at the same time? trotsky was JEWISH ffs, and so was Marx, so how the hell does that fit with this guy's "white nationalist" views, and what separated him from stalin was his ideas of saying that there could not be socialism in one country, but the working class of all countries had to fight for socialism across the world?

WN type fash also believe that the protocols of the elders of zion are a real document, or at least describe something that's really happening, and the protocols describe communism and workers' movements as being a jewish plot. so how the hell does this make sense if they then say they are trotskyists, when trotsky was not only jewish, but also socialist?

This obtuse individual, to put it mildly, attempts a series of straw men in order to try to discredit his opposition. Look how the type of fanatical and irrational speech is akin to the likes of stormfronters. One is accused of being a white nationalist without any proof whatsoever, and therefore should be against Trotsky. Well maybe we AREN'T white nationalists?... Not to mention how this individual once again confuses the global proletarian fight with some sort of incompatible notion with genuine nationalism.

Such childish and simplistic notions bore me really.