Re: Iron March Forum

[Rev Scare]

>ignore point
>question formatting
>????
>profit

Exactly which elements have we failed to address?

so many kikes on this forum.

How juvenile.

also, go to 4chon /new/ and they will teach you what '>' means

That you would even associate yourselves with such despicable segments of online frivolity (which is ironic, considering your high "stakes" in the Kulturkampf) should be a cause for shame.

I will respond to your vacuous reactionary screed, but your trolling will not be tolerated.

[Rev Scare]

Cute name.

Bro, what are you trying to say? Are you implying that racial displacement,

If by racial displacement you refer to the continuous rise in immigration rates from non-European countries into the global north, then you are correct. This is attributable to Western capitalism's desire for cheap labor.

the criminal welfare state,

Which aspect(s) of the welfare state is "criminal"?

and cultural guilt are not real?

The only individuals perceiving or experiencing "cultural guilt" are paranoid right-wing kooks, often as a result of fear-mongering by right-wing hacks, and bourgeois liberals, who must contend with the contradictions inherent to supporting capitalism while lamenting its consequences.

If you are white, no matter where you live you feel the collapse of world-authority and racial hygene everywhere you go.

I do not quite understand what you are attempting to convey here. Elaborate.

It is not like you have to be a master in racial theory to understand,

"Master" in racial theory? Is that a serious appellation you uphold? All right, Rosenberg.

nor do you have to subscribe to national socialism to understand the present mentality of oikophobia to be suicidal.

The integrity of national identity has not been threatened in the least. Simply because the average proletarian does not concern him or herself with the rabid race baiting that you are accustomed to does not indicate a lack of national spirit. As left-wing nationalists, we fully recognize that post-revolutionary social organization will orient along national lines. Nationality, however, is a fluid concept and does not retain the rigid historical constitution you ascribe to it.

Yes the movement is fractured, that is not a reason to fracture it further. All of these 'groups' are mostly spurges who are more concerned with feeling good about themselves than they are with actually preserving their race. They are laughable not because of our worldview but because of their pseudo-philosophizing, while avoiding any sense of action that might be constructive.

These are issues that we do not concern ourselves with. The preservation of "race" is immaterial to us. Fascism remains a fringe movement because the bourgeoisie in most of the global north lacks the willpower to finance fascist parties, which is primarily a result of an atrophied Left—precisely what the revolutionaries of this forum intend to resurrect. If proletarian revolution were imminent, rest assured that your horrendous ideology would gain greater support. Therefore, it stands to reason that if you wish for fascism to gain traction, support us!

As for "white people" they are lazy and apathetic because they have been robbed of the will to fight and sedated by the press,

"White people" are not a homogeneous construct, and treating them as such is purely arbitrary. If you mean to say that the overwhelming majority of people do not subscribe to your inhumane, jingoistic, virulently racist, sexist, exploitative, imperialistic, and repressive notion of "paradise," then I concede that this is thankfully the case.

who is bought off by Jewish banks.

Spare us the banal "Jewish" finance conspiracy theories. Not only are Jews and gentiles virtually indistinguishable in their roles as capitalists qua capitalists, but finance capital itself is not accorded a particularly noxious status in the exploitation of labor and the ensuing ills of capitalism. I can direct you to threads refuting such myths if you should so desire.

Learn how banks actually function in an economy before proceeding to lend them any undue (let alone coordinated) influence. The only substantial reason finance capital has come to dominate economic transactions and policy over the past several decades is due to the fact that the bourgeoisie has adopted financial schemes as a mechanism for accumulation above the pace of industrial production.

The institution of false values is a process that takes generations, but they have done it successfully so that we are at the point where the citizenry willingly defend the government's commitment to their dissolution.

Substantiate your claims or do not offer them. The specter of "cultural Marxism" is a paleoconservative myth, and Jewish capitalists are no more insidious than gentiles. All of the cultural shifts you have expounded are explained by modern capital accumulation, which has utilized advances in mass psychology to promote a grotesque consumer culture.

Bear in mind the apocalypse revolution scenario is completely unrealistic and irrelevant.

The hell? No kidding...

Whites have proven in the past that because they have no identity or self worth they will let minorities piss in their side. Unless some action is taken now and the people become highly agitated, there may be no turning back in a generation, we will simply lack the population and the monopoly on international trade/military technology that we posses now. This is the generation of the last man, and if it doesn't meet that calling that it will perish in rivers of blood.

The proletarian does not control immigration policy. Immigration is the result of class struggle, during which the bourgeoisie has availed itself of foreign labor in order to leverage its position and depress wages, curtail benefits, and suppress revolt. The pitiful status of labor unions, the fact that real wages in the United states have stagnated for the past three decades, and the gradual rollback of the Western European welfare state attest to this reality.

As for the white population, it is not declining. Fertility rates are in a global wane, which renders the hyperbolic and antiquated Malthusian overpopulation "doomsday" scenario propounded by fascists and other nitwits completely unfounded. Lastly, to assume that Caucasian hegemony will be threatened by impoverished immigrants from the global south is ridiculous. The Western bourgeoisie represents the nexus of global capitalism, and most of the world's economic—ergo military—might is concentrated in the global north.

[Confusion]

Integralist-party non-racist:

UK debate-forum

Non-racist leader of the original integralist-party:

Plinio Salgado

And then we move fast-forward to this day, this thread, and this neo-nazism.

[Celtiberian]

However forgive me if I am to sympathize with people more like me, regardless of the morals of the situation - in this case it would be the Israelis. I've met quite a few Israelis and I quite like them. I also sympathize with the Afrikaners as well. I am American, but in some circumstances I will show a kinship with westerners more like me.

What kind of logic is this? Ted Bundy shared cultural and ethnic affinities with you as well, but does that render his crimes to have been any less vile? If you're incapable of denouncing murder in an impartial manner, I would submit to you that you're legitimately sociopathic or intentionally dehumanize ethnocultural populations distinct from your own in order to psychologically cope with your utter disregard for their lives. (Soldiers in combat zones do the latter on a regular basis, otherwise the trauma of accidentally shooting a woman or child, for example, would be too much to bear.)

But I don't have a moral opposition - we did the same thing to the native Americans, I am not remotely ashamed of it.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, you probably aren't ashamed of it because it's relatively easy not to considering you didn't have to participate in their extermination and you're the beneficiary of that particular historic crime. The question, however, is whether or not you would object to your own people being annihilated by a superior force. If not, on what ethical basis do you contend you have a right to submit other populations to such treatment? And if you don't have one, why should anyone take you seriously?

On top of that considering the current Islamic plague infesting Europe, I do not sympathize. At least Israel knows how to deal with them - white phosphorous.

Radical Islam is empowered by the geopolitical actions undertaken by European and North American governments, so if you're genuinely concerned with eradicating it, demanding an end to the occupations of Muslim lands and an end to the Western support for the Israeli terror state would be a step in the right direction. With respect to their presence in Europe, take that up with the bourgeoisie. One final point: anyone who can extol the use of white phosphorous very likely tortured animals as a child and watches recorded suicides in their leisure time. If that doesn't define you, you should at least be slightly disturbed by the fact you could be included amongst such people.

Well I do respect Asians. Some may potentially be friends, such as the Japanese.

Would you care if they were ethnically cleansed, or would you instead 'not give a shit,' as per your view regarding Arab genocide?

But hate is good. Hate gives a structure to our lives. Hate gives us a reason to exist, a focus, something to strive for, an identity.

Leave it to fascists to take Kai Murros's hyperbole seriously. The man's clumsy attempt at poetry has about as much relevance to political philosophy as an Adele song. Hate is a neutral medium, and the context by which it emerges and is expressed determines whether it can be classified as productive or counterproductive. Contrary to Murros's claim, it isn't inherently "good."

What in the world is wrong with you? What is arbitrary about loyalty to a group that you were born in and belong to?

Loyalty is understandable, but blind loyalty is something else entirely. If one is born into a murderous family, we may understand the factors which contributed to his or her also becoming a murderer, but it doesn't excuse the crime itself. Anyone with access to information and possessing the capacity to think has a responsibility to reflect upon his or her actions in life. Should our group require of us something reason tells us is unethical, we have an obligation to resist.

Who decides who is oppressed and whose rights are being violated? that is arbitrary

It depends entirely on how we define the terms and which ethical principles we uphold. Your appeal to social Darwinism is no less arbitrary than our espousal of egalitarianism, only the latter is more defensible from the perspective of justice, utility, and even self-interest.

let me ask you; are you a Palestinian? Have you been to Palestine? No? Then shut your mouth because people are getting killed and you have no right to an opinion on this subject.

And yet you were the one who brought Rhodesians into our debate, when I'm quite confident you've never set foot in Africa. Using this (il)logic, any books or articles which proffer ethical valuations by authors relying on data unrelated to firsthand experience should be dismissed as illegitimate. You do realize how absurd this is, don't you?

Nationalism is a groups defence against extinction and destruction from other groups.

I could just as easily argue that internationalism is a global union of mutual aid meant to facilitate peace between nations. The end result—national preservation—would be the same, only it wouldn't be debased by the primitive zero-sum logic of reactionary nationalism.

Something is good because it is good for your people and group

That's tautological. First, you have to provide a coherent explanation of what good is, then address why it's only applicable to "your people."

>ignore point
>question formatting
>????
>profit

so many kikes on this forum.

also, go to 4chon /new/ and they will teach you what '>' means

Listen, asshole. Normally I could tolerate a few trolls, but considering that this forum is currently being inundated with an onslaught of stupid courtesy of Iron March, I will be deleting these types of vacuous posts from henceforth. I'm also tired of the petty argument concerning forum aesthetics and will be deleting any further posts related to that subject as well.

Either contribute something of significance or fuck off.

[NationalPhalanx]

Like the Boers in South Africa, the Rhodesians were a pseudo-nation which had no right to colonize Zimbabwe. That obviously doesn't excuse whatever murders were committed during their expulsion from Africa, but that's a separate issue. (The same can be applied to the Moorish occupation of Spain (711-1492), for instance, so be sure not to accuse me of having an 'anti-white' bias in your response.) Most contemporary nation-states were established by a history of conquest and murder, though that doesn't render such methods defensible from an ethical standpoint. So, in my opinion, whenever an occupied population succeeds in overthrowing a colonial force, it's justified in so doing. The Boers and Rhodesians largely failed in their endeavor to create African states because the sub-Saharan demographic within 'their' territories never assimilated into the national culture those European colonists established, and one of the main reasons they didn't is because the Europeans sought to divide the society by race. The ensuing struggle was inevitable.

Oh God, where to start.

First you say Boers and Rhodesians are pseudo-nations. How? They have families, they have an identity, they struggled to survive in an unforgiving land. Yet they are "illegitimate". The area the Afrikaners colonized was mostly uninhabited at the time, by the way. On top of that Africans never had a concept of a real nation - just tribes. Whether an area is owned by whites or not in ITSELF means nothing to them in most cases.

As for Rhodesia's case the entire fiasco surrounding that country borders on Orwellian absurdity. Rhodesia had actually planned to raise the African population to western levels over time before giving them the vote - it wasn't even strictly racist, but realistic, and the entire west bawwed and went "muh rights" and let a prosperous nation die. Schooling was difficult because if you put Matabele and Shona together they would try to kill each other. Do you honestly think it was reasonable to give them all the vote then? Seriously? They didn't let them vote for the same reason you do not let your three year old drive a car. If it was groups of white tribalists instead of blacks the same rules would apply - so it is not even strictly racial. The Rhodesians were probably less racist than the general populace of our forum.

South African Apartheid I will admit was racial segregation for it's own sake(and even then it is a fact that modern South Africa is completely and utterly run down and a crime-ridden mess), but Rhodesia was in it for the greater good even from your point of view. Oh, I'm sorry. "Muh material conditions" "muh bourgeois oppressors", right? Pragmatism is a totally foreign concept to Marxists, it seems. It is all based in principle, not practice. In that sense it is like Liberalism despite being more "scientific" because it is based on materialism.

What kind of logic is this? Ted Bundy shared cultural and ethnic affinities with you as well, but does that render his crimes to have been any less vile? If you're incapable of denouncing murder in an impartial manner, I would submit to you that you're legitimately sociopathic or intentionally dehumanize ethnocultural populations distinct from your own in order to psychologically cope with with your utter disregard for their lives. (Soldiers in combat zones do the latter on a regular basis, otherwise the trauma of accidentally shooting a woman or child, for example, would be too much to bear.)

The situation is not entirely parallel.

But we have a rather close situation in which it is one or the other - so I have to prioritize.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, you probably aren't ashamed of it because it's relatively easy not to considering you didn't have to participate in their extermination and you're the beneficiary of that particular historic crime. The question, however, is whether or not you would object to your own people being annihilated by a superior force. If not, on what ethical basis do you contend you have a right to submit other populations to such treatment? And if you don't have one, why should anyone take you seriously?

First of all, not being ashamed =/= being for it. I think groveling shame is pathetic, such things should be taken with stoic responsibility. It happened and I accept that.

Most of them, 95% at least, died of disease - and before you bring up the blanket story that is apocryphal. French and Indian war, I believe. If it was planned it never went through, and it would have made little a difference.

One final point: anyone who can extol the use of white phosphorous very likely tortured animals as a child and watches recorded suicides in their leisure time. If that doesn't define you, you should at least be slightly disturbed by the fact you could be included amongst such people.

If I can directly deal with these sociopath allegations - if anyone on our forum was a clinical sociopath they wouldn't like or favor anyone, including their people. A sociopath hates and is sadistic towards everyone. What we are displaying is selective empathy, which everyone is capable of to some extant, some more than others.

Would you care if they were ethnically cleansed, or would you instead 'not give a shit,' as per your view regarding Arab genocide?

I probably would be upset because I actually respect them. That I will admit.

And yet you were the one who brought Rhodesians into our debate, when I'm quite confident you've never set foot in Africa. Using this (il)logic, any books or articles which proffer ethical valuations by authors relying on data unrelated to firsthand experience should be dismissed as illegitimate. You do realize how absurd this is, don't you?

He is British, they are his people. He is right to defend them.

[Celtiberian]

First you say Boers and Rhodesians are pseudo-nations. How? They have families, they have an identity, they struggled to survive in an unforgiving land.

They were transplanted Brits, as you even admitted. They didn't exist long enough as an independent entity or develop a unique enough culture to qualify as a nation. The Rhodesians were colonists, and, if you had any intellectual integrity, you would admit as much and defend them on that basis.

I brought up the subject of Al-Ándalus in my previous posts, and I'm curious: do you regard the Moorish colonizers of the Iberian peninsula to have been a nation? Did the indigenous Iberian kingdoms cease being nations when they lost their sovereignty to them? Was their national liberation struggle not legitimate?

The area the Afrikaners colonized was mostly uninhabited at the time, by the way.

That's a popular myth perpetuated by racist propagandists:

"In addition, the library housed important materials. Many were from the South African regime, which had justified its racist policies through a prolific stream of books, pamphlets, maps, and other materials prepared deliberately to promote white Afrikaners' view of history and geography. These documents declared that South Africa was uninhabited when the Dutch arrived in the seventeenth century, ignoring or distorting archeological research that confirmed extensive African settlements as far back as the Early Iron Age (Lane 1990). The moral justification of both the black homelands policy and of apartheid itself rested on claims that the black majority had never lived in any of the 87 percent of South Africa designated, in the twentieth century, as 'white homeland' (Laurence 1987, 155). According to John C. Laurence (1987), the entire policy of apartheid was based on a deliberately fictionalized version of history so successfully disseminated that it led to global misunderstanding of the situation in South Africa."
Rebecca Knuth, Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2006), p. 46 (bold emphasis added).

On top of that Africans never had a concept of a real nation - just tribes.

Tribes are the source from which many nations materialize, and I don't regard bourgeois nation-states as being intrinsically superior to them in moral considerations.

As for Rhodesia's case the entire fiasco surrounding that country borders on Orwellian absurdity.

A principled anti-imperialist like George Orwell would be appalled to see his name used in this context.

Rhodesia had actually planned to raise the African population to western levels over time before giving them the vote - it wasn't even strictly racist, but realistic, and the entire west bawwed and went "muh rights" and let a prosperous nation die.

And they were supposed to take this alleged promise to eventually be extended the right to vote on faith alone? Don't be naïve. The history of suffrage has demonstrated that voting rights are never simply granted to people; they are fought for. And in what sense would have expanding suffrage destroyed that "prosperous nation"?

Do you honestly think it was reasonable to give them all the vote then? Seriously? They didn't let them vote for the same reason you do not let your three year old drive a car.

I believe people have an inalienable right to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by the outcomes. Your analogy merely reflects the profound depth of your ignorance.

The Rhodesians were probably less racist than the general populace of our forum.

Judging from the content of your forum, that wouldn't surprise me. But that's not setting the bar very high.

Pragmatism is a totally foreign concept to Marxists, it seems. It is all based in principle, not practice. In that sense it is like Liberalism despite being more "scientific" because it is based on materialism.

Your defense of injustice on the basis of so-called "pragmatism" reminds me of the following passage:

"If you're robbing somebody, oppressing them, dictating their lives, it's a very rare person who can say: Look, I'm a monster. I'm doing this for my own good. Even Himmler didn't say that.

A standard technique of belief formation goes along with oppression, whether it's throwing them in gas chambers or charging them too much at a corner story, or anything in between. The standard reaction is to say: It's their depravity. That's why I'm doing it. Maybe I'm even doing them good.

If it's their depravity, there's got to be something wrong with them that makes them different from me. What's different about them will be whatever you can find.

And that's the justification.

Then it becomes racism. You can always find something—they have a different color hair or eyes, they're too fat, or they're gay. You find something that's different enough. Of course you can lie about it, so it's easier to find.

Take the Serbs and the Croats. They're indistinguishable. They use a different alphabet, but they speak the same language. They belong to different branches of the Catholic Church. That's about it. But many of them are perfectly ready to murder and destroy each other. They can imagine no higher task in life."
Noam Chomsky, How the World Works (Berkeley: Soft Skull Press, 2011), p. 199.

In other words, it's a self-serving fiction you utilize to justify oppression. 'The Africans were too savage to be trusted with suffrage,' 'the Africans should have been grateful that the Europeans brought civilization to them, irrespective of whatever hardships they endured as a result,' etc.

First of all, not being ashamed =/= being for it. I think groveling shame is pathetic, such things should be taken with stoic responsibility. It happened and I accept that.

No one is suggesting that you should feel ashamed for something you took no part it. The issue is whether or not you're able to accept what happened to the Native American people as having been unjust.

if anyone on our forum was a clinical sociopath they wouldn't like or favor anyone, including their people. A sociopath hates and is sadistic towards everyone.

And why should I believe that the reverence you profess for your people is legitimate, as opposed to simply being a Machiavellian façade?

What we are displaying is selective empathy, which everyone is capable of to some extant, some more than others.

What you're displaying is logical inconsistency, hatred, and (again) general ignorance.

He is British, they are his people. He is right to defend them.

He included two qualifications for being permitted to comment on historic events: shared ethnicity and direct experience. In the case of Rhodesia, he probably lacks the latter and consequently fails by his own criteria.

[Red Aegis]

How has anything been inconsistent on our side? Several of you keep repeating it but none of you have pointed out where the errors actually are.

[Celtiberian]

u mad bro?

Annoyed would be a more apt description.

your faggots started the whole fashion war to begin with. Ben made a casual comment and what was the response? "hurp durp, you avaturd sucks" so do not blame me for this.

Benjamin made a critique and we responded in kind. Both sides expressed their opinions and now it's time to move on.

Also, what has I evun done?

You're violating our policy by spamming the forum with racist nonsense, and your posts contribute absolutely nothing to the discussions underway.

I posted a fairly decent set of articles on morality. Did any of you faggots even bother to respond? Basically ignored them and decided to sperg out. it is not my fault I called them out for it.

Your "articles on morality" consisted of two propaganda pieces which weren't posted in response to anything we've been discussing. If you think Joseph Goebbels or George Lincoln Rockwell wrote anything pertinent to a specific point we've made, you should have quoted our argument and responded with the relevant passage from the aforementioned articles, or simply summarized their argument.

And you banned me why? Precisely that, it isn't even because I'm an antisemite, it's because I call things the way I see them. I see nothing but spastic red alert shit, except for a few of your remarks.

"Spastic"? That's ironic coming from an individual who's clearly incapable of writing a coherent response, or refraining from including infantile racist and homophobic insults therein.

The only part where you're right is discerning economic Marxism from cultural Marxism; but it is still an extension of the same egalitarian, materialist theory.

'Cultural Marxism' doesn't exist outside of the minds of the reactionary conspiracy theorists who concocted it. Have you actually ever read Adorno or Habermas? They were/are hardly the radically 'anti-white' villains David Duke told you they were.

Economic Marxism has been dead for a very very long time, so these professors that you hate, or at least separate from Marxism, are only carrying on your legacy, because you are a necrophiliac of the 'old commies.'

Marxist economics is alive and well, I assure you. There are, of course, individuals who identify with the Marxist tradition that nevertheless reject elements of Marx's critique of political economy, and I have no problem with those of them that advance Marxism in interesting directions. My debate with Benjamin Noyles, however, concerns his belief that the Frankfurt School has had an extensive affect on society and his tendency to erroneously conflate liberal cultural criticism with Marxism.

[Confusion]

Funny thing is, I'm working with a few non-Whites, even a Jew is on friendly terms with me(and he agrees that all Jews in the West who refuse to go to their "homeland" should be killed, although we disagree on where it should be as I want it in Madagascar, he wants it in the current place of Pastiness).

Lies, utter bullshit and ludicrous fairy tales!!!

This is sooooo incredibly funny.

It is too much.... I have to..... Rollonthefloorlaughing!!!



(Ouch, the floor was kind of hard )

[DSN]

This thread is seriously getting ridiculous.

[kikehunt]

Lies, utter bullshit and ludicrous fairy tales!!!

This is sooooo incredibly funny.

It is too much.... I have to..... Rollonthefloorlaughing!!!

We have a Jewish National Socialist on iron march. He is of Jewish ethnic background but a German nationalist. Google 'abba ahimeir'; they consider Judeo-Bolshevik traitors in the west to be dead weight on their race. The primary obstacle facing the modern state of Israel is the cultural poison imported by cultural Marxists from the west, and the foreign policy restrains in force by the United States and the UN, prohibiting them from taking decisive action against their Arab enemies.

I for one support real Jews in Israel, and massacring Arab scum.

Your "articles on morality" consisted of two propaganda pieces which weren't posted in response to anything we've been discussing. If you think Joseph Goebbels or George Lincoln Rockwell wrote anything pertinent to a specific point we've made, you should have quoted our argument and responded with the relevant passage from the aforementioned articles, or simply summarized their argument.

Hurr durr, we do not approve ebil racis propaganda here on revleft.

>nazis are evil
>prove you're not evil
>le gasp! Dat be racis propaganda literature
>permaban. Take your racis elsewhere racis

Marxist economics is alive and well, I assure you. There are, of course, individuals who identify with the Marxist tradition that nevertheless reject elements of Marx's critique of political economy, and I have no problem with those of them that advance Marxism in interesting directions. My debate with Benjamin Noyles, however, concerns his belief that the Frankfurt School has had an extensive affect on society and his tendency to erroneously conflate liberal cultural critics with Marxists.

Hurr durr, book on marxism means it is pupulur.
Way to ignore the point. Liberals, Marxists and so on have the same goals.

Despite their mutual hostility, liberalism and Marxism basically belong to the same universe and are both the heirs of Enlightenment thought: they share the same individualism, even the same universal egalitarianism, the same rationalism, the same primacy of economics, the same stress on the emancipatory value of labor, the same faith in progress, the same idea of an end of history. In almost all respects, liberalism has only realized more effectively certain objectives it shares with Marxism: the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the universalization of the system of production.

-

What we call “the political left” is nothing but a consistent drive to turn the world over to those who call themselves intellectuals.
The much touted leftist love for the working class boils down to power for the intellectuals. The intellectual's ideal philosopher Karl Marx, said he did everything for the workers, but he never said that the masses should rule. Marx wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
And who would be the dictators of the proletariat?
Surprise surprise, Karl Marx's dictatorship would not have a single working man in it! Marx's ideal was for intellectuals to rule over the workers. Those who say they are professional intellectuals tend to love Marx.
Marx never did a day's work in his life. Lenin and Trotsky never did a day's work in their lives.
The first time I heard the Preamble to the Soviet Constitution was when a professor read it in class. I laughed out loud. Nobody else saw the joke.
That preamble said that the Soviet Union would be “a nation workers, peasants, soldiers AND INTELLECTUALS.”
No ten year old would fall for that crap.
Lets say that several ten year olds were talking about setting up a country. One of the kids says, “OK, Tommy, You'll be the soldier. You'll do the fighting and get your leg blown off. Will, you'll be the peasant. You'll spend your whole day out in the mud and grow all our food. Frank, you'll be the worker. You'll spend all day toiling in the factory.”
Natrually, being intelligent tend year olds, Tom and Will and Frank will ask, “So what will you be doing?” To which the guy setting things up will reply “I'll be the intellectual. I'll sit around and tell you what to do.”
No reasonably intelligent ten year old would be taken in by that line.
But leftist intellectuals never question that line. A room full of students in class with me saw nothing funny about it. I laughed out loud.
I laughed out loud because I was more than ten years old and I had the mind to prove it.
It had never occurred to my class that there was anything funny about this crap. It certainly never occurred to my professor that there was anything funny about this crap.
Liberals accept this pure unmitigated horseshit about rule by the intellectuals with a perfectly straight face. If you list the villains of political correctness, you will find that each and every one of them is a group that has money or power that the social science 'intellectuals' want for themselves. Businessmen are evil, white people are evil, military men are evil, and so forth.
Leftism says that the money and power white people have needs to be taken in the name of white guild. The government will take that white guilt money. Then the only truly moral people in our society, the intellectuals, will hand out that money. Surely you didn' think minorities would decide how to hand out white guilt money? Businessmen also have money the intellectuals want to control. Military men compete with professors for the public trust, and government money. Anyone who is a villain of political correctness is in competition with those who call themselves 'intellectuals.' But no liberal ever notices this, which leads me to conclude;
Leftists have a mental age of six. My brother was literate when he was six and it got him into trouble.
When my brother was six, my mother was pregnant with her fifth child, your obedient servant the author of this screed. During that pregnancy my six year old brother read a fateful sentence in the Readers' Digest. When you are six, no matter how smart you are, adults know everything and the printed word is sacred. And the printed words he read were;
“Every fifth child in the world is Chinese.”What the reader's digest meant was that one every five children on earth was Chinese. But that is not what it SAID.
Sometimes my brother looked forward to the idea of a Chinese little brother. Sometimes it worried him. Soon he would be taking a little brother around who looked like absolutely nobody else he knew.
But the one thing he had no doubt was that his little brother would have dark skin and epicanthic eye folds like any other little Chinese fifth child said.
The Reader's Digest had said so. But no permanent harm was done because my brother grew up. My brother was six years old, but he grew out of it. A leftist is an adult who never grew out of it. Leftists are six years old mentally.
Neither can you be a conservative spokesperson if you have a mental age over ten.
All “conservative spokesmen” must have two things in common;
1 They have to be able to read the preamble to the Soviet Constitution and smell a rat in there somewhere. In other words, they have to have the smarts of an average ten year old
2 But you can't be a conservative spokesman if you are smarter than the average ten year old. A grownup that heard the preamble would laugh out loud.
If you want to appear on talk shows as a Conservative Spokesman, you can't just laugh out loud at the Liberal Spokesperson on the other side.
You can't be a conservative spokesman if you see anything funny about leftist intellectuals who say professors should rule the world. So today's adult world has no serious political right. Our National Dialogue consists of a left which says professors should rule the world and an opposition on the right which has to take them seriously.
Universities give leftism a solid base of power. Since everyone who goes to college gets a thorough introduction to the ideas of communism, that idea exerts a lot of control. Our committed liberals include tens of millions of yuppies and pseudo-intellectuals who never outgrew their college education.
These millions of yuppies and pseudo-intellectuals who never outgrew their college communism are referred to collectively as 'popular opinion.'
Some open opposition to fashionable leftism is allowed. But it can only go so far as it does not genuinely threaten it.
How long would a talk show last if an adult got on it and laughed out loud at leftists? So what we have is the left and a loose group of libertarians, neoconservatives, Buckley theologues, and others who oppose leftism.
But every one of this hodge-podge of professional anti-leftists has to take leftism seriously. If you don't take leftism seriously, you don't get paid. We cannot have a serious national dialogue until we stop this childishness. No real right can exist unless it sweeps the silliness of the left away. No serious right can exist without starting by throwing every single Absolute, Required Truth that leftism preaches right out the window and starting fresh.
No adult right can take the left seriously. No political adulthood can exist unless its first demand is that we rid of the unmitigated crap and start fresh.
No adult right can be 'respectable.' It has to be revolutionary.

[Red Aegis]

Wow, that was some of the dumbest shit I've read in a while. Not only that, but yet again you didn't answer any of the arguments presented. You're a real winner.

[kikehunt]

>your argument is invalid
>evidence?
>"that is the dumbest shit I've read in a while"
>FEEEEEL PAIIIN!!!!

mfw ass 100% demolished
mfw this is actually what commies call 'debate'
mfw he cannot even tell I am bitch-slapping him with my cock

[Isakenaz]

I see the same old shit infesting this forum. Why do we bother debating with mindless fascist turds. As someone once said to me.
"arguing with fascists is like wrestling with a pig in shit, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it".

[kikehunt]

Actually, that is a quote by a fascist thinker; George Bernard Shaw, without your obvious abuse of the originale.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

google it, ******

[Isakenaz]

I don't give a ..... who said it first, or what was the original quote. I think it fits fascists better.

I don't understand why you have to continue placing any relevance in a political system that was kicked into touch by the 'free' world over half a century ago.
The world had a chance to embrace fascism/national socialism, circle jerking, call it what you will. It was rejected and consigned to the dustbin of history, just leave it there where it belongs.

[Confusion]

Really? Good luck on that.

A friend made this image for me. You can have it as well, its a forum-signature:



(Guest said something about fighting for the Ba`ath party. Was it removed?)

[Rev Scare]

We have a Jewish National Socialist on iron march. He is of Jewish ethnic background but a German nationalist.

I am sure that he has expended a considerable amount of time rationalizing his cognitive dissonance in order to espouse your reactionary nationalism.

Google 'abba ahimeir'; they consider Judeo-Bolshevik traitors in the west to be dead weight on their race.

Not all forms of Zionism were as reactionary as the right-wing currents which came to dominate Israeli policy (with the assistance of Western powers seeking a manageable ally in the Middle East).

The primary obstacle facing the modern state of Israel is the cultural poison imported by cultural Marxists from the west,

I tire of your mindless regurgitation of "cultural Marxist" hysteria. Provide evidence for such a bold claim. It is patently absurd to believe that a marginal group such as the Frankfurt School (of which I am certain you know very little about) came to influence Western policy to the extent you believe.

and the foreign policy restrains in force by the United States and the UN, prohibiting them from taking decisive action against their Arab enemies.

The United States' unilateral foreign policy in the Middle East is opposed by most civilized nations. However, the UN does not possess enough authority to seriously challenge, let alone "prohibit," U.S. imperialism.

I for one support real Jews in Israel, and massacring Arab scum.

Anybody remotely familiar with the history of Israel would acknowledge that its position is illegitimate and that its policy regarding the Palestinians is completely unjustified.

Hurr durr, we do not approve ebil racis propaganda here on revleft.

Merely quoting propaganda chief Goebbels is not a valid argument, you imbecile. Why should we lend any credence to the propagandist ideologue of the Nazi Party? His declamations mirror yours, or rather, yours mirror his. They are vacuous and meaningless to me.

>nazis are evil
>prove you're not evil
>le gasp! Dat be racis propaganda literature
>permaban. Take your racis elsewhere racis

Have enough self-respect to refrain from communicating in such a vulgar, adolescent fashion.

Hurr durr, book on marxism means it is pupulur.

Nobody has claimed that it is popular. Celtiberian was referring you to a modern interpretation of Marxist theory, imbuing classical Marxism with new life. He provided it to counter your assertion that "economic Marxism is dead." Fool.

Way to ignore the point. Liberals, Marxists and so on have the same goals.

First of all, liberalism is an ideology; Marxism is a mode of analysis. It cannot be argued that the two share the "same goals." One can be a liberal and Marxist, and one can uphold capitalism while agreeing with basic aspects of Marxist theory.

Second of all, classical liberalism, with its belief in the sanctity of private property, is at odds with the aim of socialists. While many of us, as rational individuals, champion numerous ideals of the Enlightenment, we find bourgeois liberalism an obstacle to the full realization of those values.

Despite their mutual hostility, liberalism and Marxism basically belong to the same universe and are both the heirs of Enlightenment thought: they share the same individualism, even the same universal egalitarianism, the same rationalism, the same primacy of economics, the same stress on the emancipatory value of labor, the same faith in progress, the same idea of an end of history. In almost all respects, liberalism has only realized more effectively certain objectives it shares with Marxism: the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the universalization of the system of production.

-

What we call “the political left” is nothing but a consistent drive to turn the world over to those who call themselves intellectuals.
The much touted leftist love for the working class boils down to power for the intellectuals. The intellectual's ideal philosopher Karl Marx, said he did everything for the workers, but he never said that the masses should rule. Marx wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
And who would be the dictators of the proletariat?
Surprise surprise, Karl Marx's dictatorship would not have a single working man in it! Marx's ideal was for intellectuals to rule over the workers. Those who say they are professional intellectuals tend to love Marx.
Marx never did a day's work in his life. Lenin and Trotsky never did a day's work in their lives.
The first time I heard the Preamble to the Soviet Constitution was when a professor read it in class. I laughed out loud. Nobody else saw the joke.
That preamble said that the Soviet Union would be “a nation workers, peasants, soldiers AND INTELLECTUALS.”
No ten year old would fall for that crap.
Lets say that several ten year olds were talking about setting up a country. One of the kids says, “OK, Tommy, You'll be the soldier. You'll do the fighting and get your leg blown off. Will, you'll be the peasant. You'll spend your whole day out in the mud and grow all our food. Frank, you'll be the worker. You'll spend all day toiling in the factory.”
Natrually, being intelligent tend year olds, Tom and Will and Frank will ask, “So what will you be doing?” To which the guy setting things up will reply “I'll be the intellectual. I'll sit around and tell you what to do.”
No reasonably intelligent ten year old would be taken in by that line.
But leftist intellectuals never question that line. A room full of students in class with me saw nothing funny about it. I laughed out loud.
I laughed out loud because I was more than ten years old and I had the mind to prove it.
It had never occurred to my class that there was anything funny about this crap. It certainly never occurred to my professor that there was anything funny about this crap.
Liberals accept this pure unmitigated horseshit about rule by the intellectuals with a perfectly straight face. If you list the villains of political correctness, you will find that each and every one of them is a group that has money or power that the social science 'intellectuals' want for themselves. Businessmen are evil, white people are evil, military men are evil, and so forth.
Leftism says that the money and power white people have needs to be taken in the name of white guild. The government will take that white guilt money. Then the only truly moral people in our society, the intellectuals, will hand out that money. Surely you didn' think minorities would decide how to hand out white guilt money? Businessmen also have money the intellectuals want to control. Military men compete with professors for the public trust, and government money. Anyone who is a villain of political correctness is in competition with those who call themselves 'intellectuals.' But no liberal ever notices this, which leads me to conclude;
Leftists have a mental age of six. My brother was literate when he was six and it got him into trouble.
When my brother was six, my mother was pregnant with her fifth child, your obedient servant the author of this screed. During that pregnancy my six year old brother read a fateful sentence in the Readers' Digest. When you are six, no matter how smart you are, adults know everything and the printed word is sacred. And the printed words he read were;
“Every fifth child in the world is Chinese.”What the reader's digest meant was that one every five children on earth was Chinese. But that is not what it SAID.
Sometimes my brother looked forward to the idea of a Chinese little brother. Sometimes it worried him. Soon he would be taking a little brother around who looked like absolutely nobody else he knew.
But the one thing he had no doubt was that his little brother would have dark skin and epicanthic eye folds like any other little Chinese fifth child said.
The Reader's Digest had said so. But no permanent harm was done because my brother grew up. My brother was six years old, but he grew out of it. A leftist is an adult who never grew out of it. Leftists are six years old mentally.
Neither can you be a conservative spokesperson if you have a mental age over ten.
All “conservative spokesmen” must have two things in common;
1 They have to be able to read the preamble to the Soviet Constitution and smell a rat in there somewhere. In other words, they have to have the smarts of an average ten year old
2 But you can't be a conservative spokesman if you are smarter than the average ten year old. A grownup that heard the preamble would laugh out loud.
If you want to appear on talk shows as a Conservative Spokesman, you can't just laugh out loud at the Liberal Spokesperson on the other side.
You can't be a conservative spokesman if you see anything funny about leftist intellectuals who say professors should rule the world. So today's adult world has no serious political right. Our National Dialogue consists of a left which says professors should rule the world and an opposition on the right which has to take them seriously.
Universities give leftism a solid base of power. Since everyone who goes to college gets a thorough introduction to the ideas of communism, that idea exerts a lot of control. Our committed liberals include tens of millions of yuppies and pseudo-intellectuals who never outgrew their college education.
These millions of yuppies and pseudo-intellectuals who never outgrew their college communism are referred to collectively as 'popular opinion.'
Some open opposition to fashionable leftism is allowed. But it can only go so far as it does not genuinely threaten it.
How long would a talk show last if an adult got on it and laughed out loud at leftists? So what we have is the left and a loose group of libertarians, neoconservatives, Buckley theologues, and others who oppose leftism.
But every one of this hodge-podge of professional anti-leftists has to take leftism seriously. If you don't take leftism seriously, you don't get paid. We cannot have a serious national dialogue until we stop this childishness. No real right can exist unless it sweeps the silliness of the left away. No serious right can exist without starting by throwing every single Absolute, Required Truth that leftism preaches right out the window and starting fresh.
No adult right can take the left seriously. No political adulthood can exist unless its first demand is that we rid of the unmitigated crap and start fresh.
No adult right can be 'respectable.' It has to be revolutionary.

What is this rambling screed? The ruling class determines the ruling ideology. Bourgeois ideology is hegemonic in academia. This myth pertaining to corrupt "leftist" intellectuals dominating academic thought is completely bunk. It should not come as a surprise that you find it easy to indulge these conservative delusions, as you have likely never stepped foot on a college campus.

[kikehunt]

Honestly, what have you done to aid the debate? It is like, I posted the article, and all you do is scream about denying what it says. You do not assert that with any evidence or context whatsoever. What is the point of even writing empty words. No, I've never stepped on a college campus in the west because I don't live there. The essay is written by a professor and the first thing that comes up when you enter 'college' in youtube is why it is a scam, and various student films about repression of free thought. I dare say, you've probably never stepped on such a campus either, and are just perpetuating a shitfest to save face, even though no one gives a flying fuck. I know plenty of people in the west from both sides of the political spectrum who had nothing positive to say about the professors or the academic atmosphere there.

Have enough self-respect to refrain from communicating in such a vulgar, adolescent fashion.

didn't I already explain how you have a mental age of six?

[Celtiberian]

Hurr durr, book on marxism means it is pupulur.

"Hurr durr!" I provided you with a link to a book that exemplifies the continued relevance of Marxist economics—specifically with respect to value theory. If you had taken the time to review its content, you would understand why. I'm not going to provide you with an exhaustive list of contemporary works on Marxist economics, because I have neither the time nor the desire to do so. If you're legitimately interested in learning the subject, I recommend starting with some of the articles in our Education sub-forum. In the mean time, it would be wise to refrain from pronouncing Marxism "dead," considering you lack even a basic understanding of the theory.

And Marxism obviously isn't popular in academia, but that's because economics departments are merely bourgeois indoctrination centers (minor exceptions like the University of Massachusetts, Amherst notwithstanding), as opposed to institutions meant to educate people in the manner by which the capitalist mode of production actually functions.

Way to ignore the point. Liberals, Marxists and so on have the same goals.

Tomislav Sunić's pitiful writings are hardly worth responding to, much less the inane ramblings contained in a random imbecile's review of the Communist Manifesto. But I'll humor you by offering a critical analysis of their respective theses on Marxism.

Despite their mutual hostility, liberalism and Marxism basically belong to the same universe and are both the heirs of Enlightenment thought: they share the same individualism, even the same universal egalitarianism, the same rationalism, the same primacy of economics, the same stress on the emancipatory value of labor, the same faith in progress, the same idea of an end of history.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, the difference is that Marxists recognize that the values associated with the Enlightenment are in contradiction with the mode of production which historically accompanied their philosophical ascendancy, i.e., capitalism. Those values also happen to be a marked improvement over the backwards 'traditionalist' dogma Sunić espouses.

In almost all respects, liberalism has only realized more effectively certain objectives it shares with Marxism: the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the universalization of the system of production.

Nonsense. There is a reason Sunić conveniently omits any evidence indicating that Marxism is concerned with the "eradication of collective identities": none exists. Class itself is a collective identity, and it is of central importance in Marxist theory. Furthermore, Marxism doesn't possess any "objectives" because it's merely a method of analysis. One could argue that communism does, but its objective is simply the elimination of the exploitation of man by man. Communism, as Marx conceived of it, represents a synthesis of the communitarianism of pre-state society with the individualism of modernity. He didn't view it as an idealist project of eradication, but rather as the constructive outcome of the dialectical processes of history.

What we call “the political left” is nothing but a consistent drive to turn the world over to those who call themselves intellectuals.

The much touted leftist love for the working class boils down to power for the intellectuals. The intellectual's ideal philosopher Karl Marx, said he did everything for the workers, but he never said that the masses should rule. Marx wanted a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
And who would be the dictators of the proletariat?

Surprise surprise, Karl Marx's dictatorship would not have a single working man in it! Marx's ideal was for intellectuals to rule over the workers. Those who say they are professional intellectuals tend to love Marx.

This grossly misrepresents Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat by conflating it with the Stalinist view thereof. It was Auguste Blanqui who coined the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat," and he meant thereby rule on behalf of the common people. Marx understood it in this sense as well, and considered it radically democratic as a result. Since Marx predicted that the proletarian revolution would first occur in this most developed capitalist countries, the notion of a vanguard elite autocratically representing a proletarian minority—as transpired in the Soviet Union—cannot be attributed to him. Marx regarded the Paris Commune as a realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat, thus highlighting the democratic character he associated it with.

Marx never did a day's work in his life.

Karl Marx was a journalist who lived in abject poverty. If journalism doesn't qualify as "work," one must wonder what this dimwit means by the term.

The first time I heard the Preamble to the Soviet Constitution was when a professor read it in class. I laughed out loud.

Much as I laughed at loud upon reading this distorted tripe.

That preamble said that the Soviet Union would be “a nation workers, peasants, soldiers AND INTELLECTUALS.”

The horror..

But leftist intellectuals never question that line.

They didn't question the line because it was written to illustrate the (arguably) classless nature of the Soviet Union—notice how capitalists were conspicuously omitted. Intellectuals can be interpreted as being synonymous with academicians, but this lamebrain wants us to believe that it was included as an admission of the Soviet's desire to structure society on the basis of technocratic domination.

Liberals accept this pure unmitigated horseshit about rule by the intellectuals with a perfectly straight face. If you list the villains of political correctness, you will find that each and every one of them is a group that has money or power that the social science 'intellectuals' want for themselves. Businessmen are evil, white people are evil, military men are evil, and so forth.

And what exactly does this have to do with Marxism?

Leftism says that the money and power white people have needs to be taken in the name of white guild. The government will take that white guilt money. Then the only truly moral people in our society, the intellectuals, will hand out that money.

I already explained how "white guilt" and redistributive schemes designed to remedy the alleged historic injustices wrought by Caucasian people have nothing whatever to do with Marxism in my last response to Guest777.

Our National Dialogue consists of a left which says professors should rule the world and an opposition on the right which has to take them seriously.

Our national dialogue has never had a Left to speak of. 'Respectable opinion' in the United States consists solely of the views held by intellectuals subservient to the two factions of capital.

Universities give leftism a solid base of power. Since everyone who goes to college gets a thorough introduction to the ideas of communism, that idea exerts a lot of control. Our committed liberals include tens of millions of yuppies and pseudo-intellectuals who never outgrew their college education.

kikehunt, do you honestly believe that this person's unsubstantiated opinions validates the ludicrous 'cultural Marxist' conspiracy theory you follow? The man offers absolutely no evidence for his claims, and yet you uncritically accept them. (Being that you're a fascist, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your credulity.) Thank you for successfully demonstrating that our position on the 'cultural Marxism' myth is correct.

[Rev Scare]

Honestly, what have you done to aid the debate?

I have, in my opinion successfully, responded and refuted your twaddle.

It is like, I posted the article, and all you do is scream about denying what it says.

Scream? No. I dismissed it as meaningless reactionary trash, which it is.

You do not assert that with any evidence or context whatsoever.

The burden of proof is not upon me. The onus is upon you to vindicate your cultural Marxist conspiracy theory (myth).

What is the point of even writing empty words.

Three quarters of your posts are vacuous. You should have an answer for me.

No, I've never stepped on a college campus in the west because I don't live there.

Then shut the fuck up.

The essay is written by a professor and the first thing that comes up when you enter 'college' in youtube is why it is a scam, and various student films about repression of free thought.

This is most amusing. Simply because you can cite an "authority" figure does not lend credence to your argument. Ultimately, the content is genuinely important, and your New Right "intellectuals" merely propound their distorted, empirically weak, and largely baseless interpretation of social, economic, political, and historical issues. If you wish to learn how to properly incorporate ethos into your argument, read carefully through some of Celtiberian's posts in this thread.

I dare say, you've probably never stepped on such a campus either, and are just perpetuating a shitfest to save face, even though no one gives a flying fuck.

If you do not "give a flying fuck," then kindly fuck off.

I know plenty of people in the west from both sides of the political spectrum who had nothing positive to say about the professors or the academic atmosphere there.

Well, I find the entire capitalist system quite deplorable, and education is but one facet of it. The educational system in the United States is rather stultifying due to the fact that it is structured to meet the demands of the labor market, not to cultivate sophisticated citizens. This is a legitimate criticism. Your anecdotal evidence is not.

I currently attend a higher education institution, and I can unequivocally state that "leftism," in a radical sense, hardly pervades the political consciousness on campus. I would say that most of my sociology and humanities professors have espoused social democratic views, at best, and have deliberately ventured to undermine Marxist thought. The only remotely "radical" professor I have come across was in a Political Ideologies class, and he was more of a highly progressive Left-liberal than revolutionary Marxist, and he staunchly maintained that he was in the minority amongst his colleagues.

Reactionary views are not underrepresented on campus, I assure you.

didn't I already explain how you have a mental age of six?

If my mental age is six, then I can scarcely imagine the depth of your lowly baseline.

[kikehunt]

durp durr hurr, you iz reaktion. I iz rait bcz I mrxst
"sht the fck up yu ignrnt prck"
I am engaging in uber srs debate

yeah, same as usual, no evidence or argument, all pretense, condescension and butthurt. I am done with your anus, for now.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, the difference is that Marxists recognize that the values associated with the Enlightenment are in contradiction with the mode of production which historically accompanied their philosophical ascendancy, i.e., capitalism. Those values also happen to be a marked improvement over the backwards 'traditionalist' dogma Sunić espouses.

congrats ******, you admit that the values are the same, you simply disagree with the application. The only difference is that capitalism has at least some basis in real life (competition, social darwinism) so it has survived and actually produced something whereas marxism has not, because it is total delusional fantasy. I agree that this is the genuine representation of enlightenment values. Without enlightenment values we have long since moved into the modern world, past feudalism and past neoclassicism. The enlightenment has remained but a negation of white Christian civilization which only gained cultural hegemony 1920ish, and world control in 1945. Since then the manifestation of enlightenment values (the west) has declined into an abyss, to where it's citizenry are in complete disarray, penetrated on every level by homosexuality, feminism, atheism, self-hate, consumerism, race treason, immigration, dependency and so on. This society cannot last another decade at the helm of world-mastery unless it experiences a social revolution and reverses its fortunes. This is the product of the enlightenment in any form, liberalism, marxism, I do not care.
You call feudalism a dogma, but feudalism is long gone and Sunic desires no restoration of it, only the fundamental roots and social structure that secure any stable society. Yes we would technically have those in common with the feudal era, just like we would any human civilization.
"englightenment" universalism and so on are a negation of those fundamental structures; the church, patriarchy, land property, hierarchical authority of the state, and so on. Not a pure negation of feudalism, but one of civilization itself. You've also neglected to mention why they are superior to feudalism. I would prefer hunter-gatherer society to the modern reign of decadence, because at the very least it is a system which maintains structure and natural order, it enables man to make full use of his body, to be pure and unmolested by hedonism or infidelity. In the present state the most simple expression of thumos or will to power is brutally suppressed and man is given to room to move within the enclosed structure.

Nonsense. There is a reason Sunić conveniently omits any evidence indicating that Marxism is concerned with the "eradication of collective identities": none exists. Class itself is a collective identity, and it is of central importance in Marxist theory. Furthermore, Marxism doesn't possess any "objectives" because it's merely a method of analysis. One could argue that communism does, but its objective is simply the elimination of the exploitation of man by man. Communism, as Marx conceived of it, represents a synthesis of the communitarianism of pre-state society with the individualism of modernity. He didn't view it as an idealist project of eradication, but rather as the constructive outcome of the dialectical processes of history.

Evidence Marxists are against collective idenity;
Against the social institution of church. Murdered clergymen.
Against the family. Feminism, the vote, the pill etc
Against the nation. 'Workers of the world unite' and so on, German socialists expressing 'solidarity' with French communards

Class is not a real identity. It is based on shifting material conditions, not blood, not land, not faith. it is nothing that connects to the people, which is why the nationalistic west never adopted Marxist values, but the capitalistic west now is with enlightenment values; because it is increasingly controlled and obsessed with these materialist conditions. Marxist movements have only been successful insofar as they have been able to lie to their people; The Paris Commune was a proletarian state, and didn't last three months. The Soviet Union was pseudo-nationalist and Russian chauvinist, and it lasted 70 years. The people of the east were easily swayed to Marxism because class inequality is actually much sharper in non-capitalist states than in the modernized, industrial west, but also because eastern leaders did not buy into 'internationalism.' "we have a secret weapon, it is called 'nationalism'"- Ho chi minh

I already explained how "white guilt" and redistributive schemes designed to remedy the alleged historic injustices wrought by Caucasian people have nothing whatever to do with Marxism in my last response to Guest777.

They have to do with Marxist egalitarian logic applied to race, and enlightenment universalism, whos values you admitted Marxism does not reject. Universalism seeks the infinite, but not the conquest of the infinite; it's recognition. It is the desire to see everything have its own special set of rights, even if they are not interested in your preconceived notions of human purpose. The ideal that the 'oppressed' must revolt against their masters and nurture over nature logic is one easily applied to the international condition of white supremacy, earned in the blood of millions of Europeans who sacrificed for this so called 'privilege.' Even if it is separate from 'Marxism' itself, you admit you share the same values, thus you have the same opinion on the matter as the liberals you call non-Marxists, you simply have different, in your opinion more 'revolutionary' means of dealing with it.

This grossly misrepresents Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat by conflating it with the Stalinist view thereof. It was Auguste Blanqui who coined the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat," and he meant thereby rule on behalf of the common people. Marx understood it in this sense as well, and considered it radically democratic as a result. Since Marx predicted that the proletarian revolution would first occur in this most developed capitalist countries, the notion of a vanguard elite autocratically representing a proletarian minority—as transpired in the Soviet Union—cannot be attributed to him. Marx regarded the Paris Commune as a realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat, thus highlighting the democratic character he associated it with.

Yeah, right, too bad that did not ever happen IRL, at least for longer than 3 months. The people's democracy in the Paris commune did not stand the test of time. Neither was it the spectacular peaceful beautiful affair that leftists conceive it to be; they shot up churches and murdered clergymen, and confiscated nearly all private property. Eg; not something I want, not that I own much. Push came to shove, the socialist mode of production could not survive one punch. Neither did it ever happen again, since I am guessing you are an anti-Stalinist commie of some king (lol) which raises the question of class as a legitimate means of social organization. People are tied together by blood and identity. the red flag is cute, but in the end people do not care about it unless class inequality is blatantly in front of their face and they are starving. That is why Marxists ended up with the 'dilemma' of the middle class, and turned to self-hate in order to convert modern middle class citizens to the Marxist cause. The rest you know, new left, frankfurt school etc.

Karl Marx was a journalist who lived in abject poverty. If journalism doesn't qualify as "work," one must wonder what this dimwit means by the term.

oh pow wittle maxie, how did he ever survive, with his upper-middle class jewish background? Indeed, who am I to question the 'work' that is Marxist intellectualism. backbreaking indeed, good thing universities are practically government sector, and they are reimbursed properly with the millions they deserve for poisoning youth.

The horror..

You would know if you lived through the famines and mass executions caused by their genius social engineering.

kikehunt, do you honestly believe that this person's unsubstantiated opinions validates the ludicrous 'cultural Marxist' conspiracy theory you follow? The man offers absolutely no evidence for his claims, and yet you uncritically accept them. (Being that you're a fascist, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your credulity.) Thank you for successfully demonstrating that our position on the 'cultural Marxism' myth is correct.

I already explained, it is a very simple concept to understand. Cultural Marxism is 'enlightenment values' conveyed through the new left progressive university professors, hippies, counter-culture and so on, perpetuated to cultural hegemony in the 60s. it is not the owner of the system but is employed by the capitalist class to sedate the regular people. This is basically common cultural knowledge, what is there exactly that I need to prove? Google 'Noel Ignaetev' this is a man paid for by Harvard University Press to sell anti-white propaganda. He is not the only one. do not ask another stupid question like 'what this has to do with marxism' because I already explained this, also not once.

[Celtiberian]

you admit that the values are the same, you simply disagree with the application.

No, I reject the notion that the bourgeoisie ever felt a genuine commitment to Enlightenment values. 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' was seen by them as a useful slogan to galvanize the peasantry and artisans into supporting their historic struggle against the Ancien Régime, but that was the extent of it. The only value which capitalism inculcates in the masses is that of possessive individualism. The drive to expand the system is attributable to the profit motive, not some idealistic mission to evangelize the people of the world into accepting the principles of reason, secularism, autonomy, tolerance, and universal rights.

The only difference is that capitalism has at least some basis in real life (competition, social darwinism)

I already refuted the social Darwinism canard in my response to Guest777. If you have anything to add to what I wrote on the subject, I invite you to do so.

so it has survived and actually produced something

It has produced the dreaded 'modern world' that fascists like yourself detest. Communists, on the other hand, have long praised the progressive elements of capitalism. Its ability to develop the forces of production, for example, remains unsurpassed in history. Unfortunately, it is also riddled with contradictions and injustices which can only be overcome by transcending the system itself and advancing to a still higher mode of production, i.e., socialism.

whereas marxism has not, because it is total delusional fantasy.

How many times am I going to have to repeat this before you're finally capable of comprehending? Marxism is a method of analysis; socialism and communism are modes of production. What about this perplexes you so? You may attempt to argue that the historical experiments with socialism have failed in some capacity—though you'd be wrong—but such a criticism is not applicable to Marxism.

The enlightenment has remained but a negation of white Christian civilization which only gained cultural hegemony 1920ish, and world control in 1945.

In recent decades Western society has indeed become more secular, de jure imperialism has been replaced by a more sophisticated de facto model, racial antagonisms have subsided to an extent, and gender relations have improved. However, much of this resulted from technological advancements in the substructure of society, which compelled the bourgeoisie to support certain modifications to the cultural superstrucutre. I realize that this materialist explanation will be rejected by you offhand—because fascists prefer idealist conspiracy theories (such as the 'cultural Marxism' myth which you simply can't bring yourself to discard) that don't require much abstract thought—but I wrote it for the sake of the viewers of this thread.

Since then the manifestation of enlightenment values (the west) has declined into an abyss, to where it's citizenry are in complete disarray, penetrated on every level by homosexuality, feminism, atheism, self-hate, consumerism, race treason, immigration, dependency and so on. This society cannot last another decade at the helm of world-mastery unless it experiences a social revolution and reverses its fortunes.

Conservative sensationalism doesn't impress me. Faulting the likes of atheism, homosexuality, and feminism for the myriad problems confronting people today is beyond ridiculous. We are certainly heading into an abyss, though. But it's because capitalism is no longer capable of providing a dignified existence to the mass of people. History has shown that individuals are willing to tolerate immense injustice as long as two basic conditions are met: (1) false consciousness allows them to rationalize the situation in an acceptable manner, and (2) enough opportunity exists to provide a sufficient percentage of the populace with stable employment, housing, health care, and food. Both conditions are currently being undermined by the capitalism's internal contradictions. And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your reactionary Kulturkampf would do absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.

You call feudalism a dogma, but feudalism is long gone and Sunic desires no restoration of it, only the fundamental roots and social structure that secure any stable society. Yes we would technically have those in common with the feudal era, just like we would any human civilization.

Any society organized around the fascistic principles of authoritarianism, militarism, hierarchy, and jingoism doesn't deserve the title of "civilization."

You've also neglected to mention why they are superior to feudalism. I would prefer hunter-gatherer society to the modern reign of decadence, because at the very least it is a system which maintains structure and natural order, it enables man to make full use of his body, to be pure and unmolested by hedonism or infidelity.

Enlightenment values are superior because they are the product of human reason, whereas the manipulation of base instincts (fear, superstition, brute force, etc.) is the foundation of your traditionalist dogma.

Evidence Marxists are against collective idenity;
Against the social institution of church. Murdered clergymen.

Accusing Marxism of being opposed to religion by appealing to acts of religious suppression committed by certain self-identified Marxists is akin to accusing Christianity of being supportive of torture by pointing to the history of the Inquisition. Karl Marx, though secular, nevertheless maintained a sympathetic view of religion. In his view, it existed to consul individuals enduring conditions of extreme privation and injustice:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion; religion does not make man. Religion is, in fact, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet gained himself or has lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, which is an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human being because the human being has attained no true reality. Thus, the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression of and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is a demand for their true happiness. The call to abandon illusions about their condition is the call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. Thus, the critique of religion is the critique in embryo of the vale of tears which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man shall bear the chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall cast off the chain and gather the living flower."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 131-132.

Marx would have viewed the various attempts to abolish religion by state fiat as contemptible, because, in his opinion, it would have been inhumane to deprive people of religion whilst they were still experiencing economic hardships. He firmly believed that humanity would leave religion behind once material conditions sufficiently improved—and it's hard to doubt him in this respect, considering that developed countries tend to be far more secular than their poorer counterparts. However, by now you have (hopefully) learned that Marxism is a method of analysis and not a political project; and just as there have been communists who condemn religion, there have also been those who defend the freedom of religion. Take James Connolly, for example. When responding to the allegation that socialism is incompatible with religious faith, he wrote:

"No, my friend, Socialism is a bread and butter question. It is a question of the stomach; it is going to be settled in the factories, mines and ballot boxes of this country and is not going to be settled at the altar or in the church.

. . . . That the question to be settled by Socialism is the effect of private ownership of the means of production upon the well-being of the race; that we are determined to have a straight fight upon the question between those who believe that such private ownership is destructive of human well-being and those who believe it to be beneficial, that as men of all religions and of none are in the ranks of the capitalists, and men of all religions and of none are on the side of the workers the attempt to make religion an issue in the question is an intrusion, an impertinence and an absurdity.

Personally I am opposed to any system wherein the capitalist is more powerful than God Almighty. You need not serve God unless you like, and may refuse to serve him and grow fat, prosperous and universally respected. But if you refuse to serve the capitalist your doom is sealed; misery and poverty and public odium await you."
James Connolly, Socialism Made Easy (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1909), Ch. 4.

Against the family. Feminism, the vote, the pill etc

Should you ever bother to read The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, you'll discover that Friedrich Engels was of the opinion that communism would result in the granting of formal equality to women and perhaps communal child rearing, not the abolition of the family. Marx was himself a father and husband, so he couldn't have considered it an inherently objectionable institution. Then there were Marxist figures like James Connolly, who were among the most staunch defenders of family unit. Universal suffrage and contraceptives have undoubtedly been supported by Marxists throughout history, and rightfully so—the fact you consider them objectionable reveals just how retrograde your cultural views truly are.

Against the nation. 'Workers of the world unite' and so on, German socialists expressing 'solidarity' with French communards

I also addressed the erroneous notion that Marxism is opposed to national identity in my response to Guest777. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to have followed the debate. Respond to what I wrote there, if you take issue with any of it.

Class is not a real identity. It is based on shifting material conditions, not blood, not land, not faith.

It's an identity which affects our lives in profound ways. Far more than, say, who our ancestors happened to be a thousand years ago. Deny it at your peril.

it is nothing that connects to the people, which is why the nationalistic west never adopted Marxist values

That's demonstrably false. The socialist and communist movements were at their height in the early 20th century, when Europe and North America were still highly nationalistic (often in a reactionary sense).

Marxist movements have only been successful insofar as they have been able to lie to their people

You're confusing Marxism with fascism. Need I list examples for you?

The Paris Commune was a proletarian state, and didn't last three months.

Because it was premature and therefore easily destroyed by the forces of reaction, just as anarcho-syndicalism in Spain was.

The people of the east were easily swayed to Marxism because class inequality is actually much sharper in non-capitalist states than in the modernized, industrial west

Actually, wealth inequality in the United States is currently at levels virtually indistinguishable from the feudal era.

but also because eastern leaders did not buy into 'internationalism.' "we have a secret weapon, it is called 'nationalism'"- Ho chi minh

Internationalism is not incompatible with the left-wing nationalism many Marxists (the Socialist Phalanx included) espouse. Again, read my response to Guest777.

They have to do with Marxist egalitarian logic applied to race

Marxian egalitarianism applies solely to economic standing, so it's fallacious to attempt to expand it into biology. In Lenin's words,

"When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. . . . In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.
Vladimir Lenin, “A Liberal Professor on Equality,” in Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. 20 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), pp. 144-147.

Moreover, cosmopolitan redistributive schemes intended to repent for past racial injustices ignore the class source of race relations. In other words, requiring the descendants of European indentured servants or relatively recent European immigrants, for instance, to pay reparations for the slavery wrought by wealthy landowners cannot be defended on Marxist grounds. Defending the equality of rights and opportunities—irrespective of race or gender—on the other hand, is a consistent application of communist ethics.

earned in the blood of millions of Europeans who sacrificed for this so called 'privilege.'

You mean the "millions of Europeans" who were coerced or manipulated into risking their lives to expand the territories and increase the wealth of the ruling class?

Yeah, right, too bad that did not ever happen IRL, at least for longer than 3 months.

Anarcho-syndicalism lasted for approximately 3 years in Spain, and millions of workers are currently members of labor-managed firms—which are essentially the embryos from which syndicalism will materialize in the coming years. Fascism lasted no longer than 23 years in Italy and 12 years in Germany before being defeated by the combined efforts of bourgeois liberalism and Bolshevism. This, however, doesn't prevent you from believing in its feasibility. We apply the same rationale to communism.

Neither was it the spectacular peaceful beautiful affair that leftists conceive it to be; they shot up churches and murdered clergymen, and confiscated nearly all private property.

Who ever claimed that it was a 'peaceful affair'? As Mao once remarked, "revolution is not a dinner party."

Push came to shove, the socialist mode of production could not survive one punch.

It wasn't the mode of production that failed, but rather the governing apparatuses which were either incapable of defending the revolution or instead fell victim to their own internal contradictions. The former was the consequence of revolutions occurring in countries whose material conditions were not yet conducive to the development of socialism, while the latter was the inevitable result of edinonachalie and permitting an unaccountable nomenklatura to control the state.

the red flag is cute, but in the end people do not care about it unless class inequality is blatantly in front of their face and they are starving.

Class inequality is 'blatantly in front of our face,' and it's only getting worse. Marxists recognize that material conditions provide the source from which the proletarian revolution will manifest, which is precisely why Marx's immiseration thesis is of such critical importance.

That is why Marxists ended up with the 'dilemma' of the middle class

First of all, the middle class was a historical anomaly that is currently in the process of becoming pauperized. Secondly, its existence never presented Marxism with an insurmountable dilemma:

"It is true that there has been an immense expansion in technical, administrative and managerial jobs, as capitalism deploys its technology to squeeze a larger amount of goods out of a much smaller body of workers. Yet if this is no disproval of Marxism, it is partly because Marx himself took note of it. As long ago as the mid-nineteenth century, he is to be found writing of the 'constantly growing number of the middle classes,' which he rebukes orthodox political economy for overlooking. These are men and women 'situated midway between the workers on the one side and the capitalists on the other'—a phrase that should be enough to discredit the myth that Marx reduces the complexity of modern society to two starkly polarized classes. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he was well aware of how the capitalist process of production was already drawing more and more technical and scientific labour into its orbit. He speaks in the Grundrisse of 'general social knowledge [becoming] a direct productive force,' a phrase that prefigures what some would now call the information society.

Yet the spread of the technical and administrative sectors has been accompanied by a progressive blurring of the lines between working class and middle class. The new information technologies have spelled the disappearance of many traditional occupations, along with a drastic dwindling of economic stability, settled career structures and the idea of a vocation. One effect of this has been an increasing proletarianisation of professionals, along with a re-proletarianisation of branches of the industrial working class. As John Gray puts it, 'The middle classes are rediscovering the condition of assetless economic insecurity that afflicted the nineteenth-century proletariat.' Many of those who would be traditionally labeled lower-middle class—teachers, social workers, technicians, journalists, middling clerical and administrative officials—have been subject to a relentless process of proletarianisation, as they come under pressure from tightening management disciplines. And this means that they are more likely to be drawn to the cause of the working class proper in the event of a political crisis."
Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right (London: Yale University Press, 2011), pp. 173-174.

and turned to self-hate in order to convert modern middle class citizens to the Marxist cause.

For the last time: those who advocate that certain individuals be ashamed of their nationality, gender, or sexual orientation will find no textual defense for such a practice in the corpus of Marx's work.

how did he ever survive, with his upper-middle class jewish background?

The fact his parents were middle class was of no avail when he was a political exile in England, struggling to make ends meet.

You would know if you lived through the famines and mass executions caused by their genius social engineering.

That's irrelevant to me, being that, unlike your beloved leader (Alexander Slavros), I don't defend the crimes committed by state socialist regimes.

Cultural Marxism is 'enlightenment values' conveyed through the new left progressive university professors, hippies, counter-culture and so on, perpetuated to cultural hegemony in the 60s.

At no point did Hippie culture achieve "cultural hegemony" in the 1960s, nor did Enlightenment values or the views held by the Frankfurt School.

it is not the owner of the system but is employed by the capitalist class to sedate the regular people. This is basically common cultural knowledge, what is there exactly that I need to prove?

Isn't it obvious? You need to provide a concise definition of what 'cultural Marxism' is by one of its exponents, and cite empirical evidence that verifies that it's being utilized by the bourgeoisie to 'sedate regular people.' Good luck.

Google 'Noel Ignaetev' this is a man paid for by Harvard University Press to sell anti-white propaganda. He is not the only one.

Noel Ignatiev teaches at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, a miniscule institution that isn't exactly renown for its stellar history department. He also served as an academic advisor at Harvard for 6 years, but that's hardly a position that enables one to effectively spread "anti-white propaganda." Regarding his books, university publishers provide a service to academicians by releasing works which otherwise wouldn't be published due to their limited marketability; which is to say that he isn't making much money from book sales.

Anyway, the man follows a bizarre political tendency, so extreme in its revision of Marxism that there is scarcely anyone on the Left who takes it seriously—Maoism Third-Worldism. And if you truly believe that American culture is in anyway reflective of the views such individuals espouse, you're even more delusional than I initially thought.

[kikehunt]

No, I reject the notion that the bourgeoisie ever felt a genuine commitment to Enlightenment values. 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' was seen by them as a useful slogan to galvanize the peasantry and artisans into supporting their historic struggle against the Ancien Régime, but that was the extent of it. The only value which capitalism inculcates in the masses is that of possessive individualism. The drive to expand the system is attributable to the profit motive, not some idealistic mission to evangelize the people of the world into accepting the principles of reason, secularism, autonomy, tolerance, and universal rights.

Except that is precisely what they believe in. If you have ever heard these people talking that is all you will have heard about; how Christianity is bigoted and evil, or anti-reason, how you need to be tolerant, diverse, human rights etcetera. They are not the least concerned with their people and that future, it is all universalist dross. Liberty, equality and fraternity was the motto of the French revolution, not the whole enlightenment. The other half, behind the American revolution was liberalistic, whereas the French revolutionaries were socialists. Capitalists are not committed to socialism or collectivism of any sort but they share the mission of secular humanism. Your turf wars with other secular humanists are of no interests to me, the values are the same, I do not care about the economic system at all.

I already refuted the social Darwinism canard in my response to Guest777.

hahahahahaa!

It has produced the dreaded 'modern world' that fascists like yourself detest. Communists, on the other hand, have long praised the progressive elements of capitalism. Its ability to develop the forces of production, for example, remains unsurpassed in history. Unfortunately, it is also riddled with contradictions and injustices which can only be overcome by transcending the system itself and advancing to a still higher mode of production, i.e., socialism.

Again, it was not the economic form of capitalism itself that produces decay, but the change in values. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Marxism is a method of analysis; socialism and communism are modes of production.

Yeah, except that is BS. Socialism and Communism were tenants of the Marxists> I don't care if you try to make your ideology as some unattackable position, because it is not; it exists in real life. The projects these people promised would bring prosperity brought nothing but death. The whole sectarian nonsense about there being no true Scotsman is just a fallacy to perpetuate a criminal form of government. Marxism is not abstact, it has clearly defined terms of belief, if this is just 'criticism' and 'analysis' than that is not my fault but Marx's for not bringing it into play and remaining 'intellectual'. The criticism is connected to the state it produced. Marx's actions and words effected the definitions of socialism and Communism, which had not existed in strict terms before. It is highly possible that the left secularist sector on the intellectual scene may have broken up, may have merged into the American liberal group and broken with secular/socialist values in favor of market democratic ones. So Marx bears direct responsibility, and the people who today call themselves Marxists are indeed Marxists for all intents and purposes. I am not interested in clearing up leftist ideological feuds; they are all the enemy, and frankly I cannot tell them apart from cappies and other scum.

In recent decades Western society has indeed become more secular, de jure imperialism has been replaced by a more sophisticated de facto model, racial antagonisms have subsided to an extent, and gender relations have improved. However, much of this resulted from technological advancements in the substructure of society, which compelled the bourgeoisie to support certain modifications to the cultural superstrucutre.

hurr durr, more BS. The wheel did not make men gay and the aeroplane didn't tell women to abort. You can also continue pissing about how cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, when it is actually a philosophy, written down and published. I am only saying it is profitable for the present ruling class to adopt this philosophy for higher yield of profit from sweating the east than from equipping the west.

Conservative sensationalism doesn't impress me.

Liberal faggotry doesn't impress me either.

We are certainly heading into an abyss, though. But it's because capitalism is no longer capable of providing a dignified existence to the mass of people.

Yet somehow one hundred years ago it was completely capable of it. Mysterious, huh?

your reactionary Kulturkampf would do absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.

Actually it would. Society would immediately go to war with its cancerous elements. It will be a very bloody war, particularly for a mixed society such as America. Through simple exposure to life (war) the critical body of society that serves as the formative basis for a national culture, the young men, will have been restored to tradition in a way, and also brung back social stability and destroyed the enemies of the state. Then they will resettle the land, rebuild the country, and through internal rebuilding coupled with cultural programmes, within one generation incredible inroads will have been made on the way back to healthy social circumstances, and with modern technology and social independence applied for national interest and not for hedonism, fascism applied to the modern age will be absolutely limitless in its potential. All Marxism can promise is the dead horse; equality, which people are already growing sick and tired of hearing about.

Any society organized around the fascistic principles of authoritarianism, militarism, hierarchy, and jingoism doesn't deserve the title of "civilization."

Any people organized around the communist treason of equality, materialism, classism, individualism and race-treason don't deserve the title of "society."

Enlightenment values are superior because they are the product of human reason, whereas the manipulation of base instincts (fear, superstition, brute force, etc.) is the foundation of your traditionalist dogma.

Feudalist society was based on authority. Human reason is nice and all that, it is what separates civilization from barbarism, but they had that and it was called the 'Renaissance.' Human reason did not subvert authority, human reason applied as a value inherently greater than that of roots and loyalty, that does. 'Reason' is of abstract value, because it is only an ideal. 'Culture' is not an ideal, it may not be something physical and blindingly evident so that a six year old Marxist can see it without trouble, but it is the very interactions and way of life that people live. What is reason to that? It is but a method of analysis. Sometimes it is useful, but it is not more valuable than life. Therefore it should not be the basis of a civilization. Hierarchy and authority, which place the best at the helm, based on their tested ability to fight and win the trust of others; that is. This secures the leadership of the society. Ways of expressing hierarchy have changed, that is why I am not a 'traditionalist' not do I advocate a restoration of feudalism. If there is no hierarchy than this enables false-leaders, like capitalists, intellectuals and modern politicians to take power. These are different from heirarchy because while they still require use of force, they do not require trust and sincerity, whereas a genuine leader requires absolute faith.

Accusing Marxism of being opposed to religion by appealing to acts of religious suppression committed by certain self-identified Marxists is akin to accusing Christianity of being supportive of torture by pointing to the history of the Inquisition. Karl Marx, though secular, nevertheless maintained a sympathetic view of religion. In his view, it existed to consul individuals enduring conditions of extreme privation and injustice:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion; religion does not make man. Religion is, in fact, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet gained himself or has lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, which is an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human being because the human being has attained no true reality. Thus, the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression of and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is a demand for their true happiness. The call to abandon illusions about their condition is the call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. Thus, the critique of religion is the critique in embryo of the vale of tears which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man shall bear the chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall cast off the chain and gather the living flower."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 131-132.

Marx would have viewed the various attempts to abolish religion by state fiat as contemptible, because, in his opinion, it would have been inhumane to deprive people of religion whilst they were still experiencing economic hardships. He firmly believed that humanity would leave religion behind once material conditions sufficiently improved—and it's hard to doubt him in this respect, considering that developed countries tend to be far more secular than their poorer counterparts. However, by now you have (hopefully) learned that Marxism is a method of analysis and not a political project; and just as there have been communists who condemn religion, there have also been those who defend the freedom of religion. Take James Connolly, for example. When responding to the allegation that socialism is incompatible with religious faith, he wrote:

"No, my friend, Socialism is a bread and butter question. It is a question of the stomach; it is going to be settled in the factories, mines and ballot boxes of this country and is not going to be settled at the altar or in the church.

. . . . That the question to be settled by Socialism is the effect of private ownership of the means of production upon the well-being of the race; that we are determined to have a straight fight upon the question between those who believe that such private ownership is destructive of human well-being and those who believe it to be beneficial, that as men of all religions and of none are in the ranks of the capitalists, and men of all religions and of none are on the side of the workers the attempt to make religion an issue in the question is an intrusion, an impertinence and an absurdity.

Personally I am opposed to any system wherein the capitalist is more powerful than God Almighty. You need not serve God unless you like, and may refuse to serve him and grow fat, prosperous and universally respected. But if you refuse to serve the capitalist your doom is sealed; misery and poverty and public odium await you."
James Connolly, Socialism Made Easy (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1909), Ch. 4.

Yeah, whatever, religion made man. Millions have died for religion and nationalism, none have died for 'material conditions.' Man does not 'create' religion, he lives for it. Whatever Marx said I do not care because this is reality at its plainest and Communist movemements have sought to brutally extinguish it. You missed the point entirely that they are against collective identity. The whole class thing is not a collective idenitity; it is a collective economic unit, which enables Marxist intellectuals to control otherwise normal people. It is the opposite of 'identity' it is a group without a purpose except to be exploited. That is what the 'intellectual' essay by Robert Whitaker talked about.

Universal suffrage and contraceptives have undoubtedly been supported by Marxists throughout history, and rightfully so—the fact you consider them objectionable reveals just how retrograde your cultural views truly are.

Retrograde because we support the natural and sincere human relationship? Whatever, women never had the vote because they did not create any of the social institutions to which they owe their existence. Men have secured woman through their strength, wisdom, and of necessity. That is why men control society, and of course their self-evident superiority. Contraceptives add evil intentions to sex, so that man or woman could exploit the other without being made responsible for their sexual act. Sex becomes like shaking hands instead of the near-sacred act it used to be considered. The difference between these two societies can be made as picturing two different forms of chimp; bonobos and chimpanzees. A society based on sexuality, which is how jews like Freud have often tried to define all society, is one where women manipulate men. A society where human desire is checked by responsibility and authority, is one where men retain their righteous place at the top of the order, and become a constructive group that can fight for and expand the interests and desires of their women. This is why patriarchal societies built empires and the amazons have been tossed into the dustbin of history.

I also addressed the erroneous notion that Marxism is opposed to national identity in my response to Guest777. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to have followed the debate. Respond to what I wrote there, if you take issue with any of it.

Some interesting bullshit. The pseudo-nationalism of Marxist thinkers was anti-nationalism in their time. They passed an 'okay, fine' to national idenitity while destroying that of race and shared religion. Once those institutions came down and the worker's paradise was still not about, Marxist intellectuals then targeted the next level of social structure in line. Soon they will be proclaiming humanism itself is evil because the poor animals and environ- oh wait, they already are.

It's an identity which affects our lives in profound ways. Far more than, say, who our ancestors happened to be a thousand years ago. Deny it at your peril.

Right right. Whatever you say, no need for evidence or anything like that. I was going to reply to the rest but I realized I was wasting my time, especially since you continue diverging the thread into a million unanswerable claims. I simply don't have the time. It was nice talking to all of you, hopefully our discussions here have told you a lot about the intellectual quality of your fellow members.

[Guest777]

I stopped playing video games when I was still an adolescent. Whatever similarities exist between this forum's design and that of various games and websites are therefore purely coincidental. I make no secret of the fact that the design is strongly influenced by socialist aesthetics — just as the aforementioned games and websites are. .

That is what I am worried about, if you honestly think that this tacky design is socialist then I really do wonder. What sets the style? Socialists or the entertainment industry? The soviet union ended in 1991 and all that culture exists today only in video games. This is important because though you say you grew out of it you are still unable to distinguish between politics and childhood entertainment. It does throw the sincerity of such marxists into question.

In any case what it shows is that modern Marxists possess a total lack of imagination or creativity. I give you an example of what themes you might have taken:
-Modern worker environment; office theme.
-Made to look like an institution of higher learning.
-economics: photographs of CEO’s and how they are linked, charts and graphs explaining finaincial crisis.
-Even an existing subculture; the black bloc would be example.

But no, you went with red alert. ORIGINAL STLYE DO NOT STELE

That is all very ironic coming from someone who has an admitted appreciation for the 'artistic talent' of the man responsible for these pieces:

If you read his work you would realise thre is no irony in that. Those are pretty old though, practically when he started out, you were unable to use anything within the last couple of years?

I also find your criticism ironic considering your immense admiration for America's little 'führer', George Lincoln Rockwell:

You are right I do admire him because very simply put, anyone who bothers to study the man and his method knows that he was a genius. You point to things from a time you do not understand– yet if you look his method is the basis of all successful public relations. That image you posted for instance; ‘HateBus’ was in refrence MLK’s ‘LoveBus’ which they shadowed up and down the country with the aim of promoting themselves as the opposite of liberal agenda. If a leftist did something this today this would be called the satire of century – because you are ignorant of the history you dismiss it.

Even the depressingly bleak and negativist essay ‘the brief history of the white nationalist movement’, has nothing but good to say about him.

“post-war American National Socialism owes its existence to one man: U. S. Navy Commander George Lincoln Rockwell. One of the few genuinely heroic figures the American racial nationalist movement has produced, Rockwell formed the American Nazi Party in 1958 after years of floundering around the traditional “right wing” and becoming disillusioned with everything he found there.
…. Commander Rockwell established for the American Nazi Party the first Four Phase Program. For a political plan developed in 1958, it showed remarkable prescience, and had Commander Rockwell lived and been better served by those who claimed to be his friends and supporters, it is possible that his program would have taken the Party much farther than anyone thought possible.
…….Phase One was the most spectacular and in many respects the most misunderstood phase, a misunderstanding that persists to this day. It involved a series of flamboyant and sometimes downright bizarre publicity stunts such as dressing Rockwell himself and small numbers of supporters in quasi-Third Reich style uniforms and then picketing the White House; trying to conduct chaotic open-air rallies on the Washington Monument grounds; starting a riot when Rockwell tried to speak in Times Square in New York to a mob of thousands of screaming, frothing Jews; dressing up in gorilla costumes and riding around New York posing as the “Lower Volta delegation” to the United Nations; donning gorilla suits again and running through the 1964 Democratic convention yelling “Ah’s de Mississippi delegation and ah demands mah seat!”; riding through the South in a Swastika-spangled “Hate Bus”, etc. When you hear Movement people today speak of “Phase One tactics”, it is this kind of rambunctious and amusing but not really productive activity that is meant.
Briefly stated, Rockwell was faced in the 1950s and early 1960s with an urgent need to break through the news blackout of all pro-White activity, the media boycott of all pro-White viewpoints, at any cost-even the cost of making the Party look ridiculous through blatant publicity stunts.
It is sometimes difficult for older comrades to remember, and of course younger comrades never knew, that as bad as the left-wing liberal bias in the news media is today, in Rockwell’s day it was even worse. Whereas today the technological developments such as the internet, computer bulletin boards, CB radios, fax machines, cable access etc. have to a certain degree undermined the power structure’s grip on the nation’s communications, in those days there were only three networks and the major newspapers were even more completely Jewish-owned and controlled than today. The entire communications industry marched in grim lockstep, the Great Society ruled, the State of Israel was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and could do no wrong, blacks were a noble and sensitive race of persecuted paragons, and anybody who suggested differently simply was not allowed to be heard. It was essential that Rockwell smash this paper curtain of silence.
However, it must not be thought that George Lincoln Rockwell was nothing but street theater. He was also a brilliant writer and organizer. In 1960 he wrote his seminal work In Hoc Signo Vinces, the first National Socialist polemic in the English language since 1945. In 1962 he co-founded the World Union of National Socialists and co-authored the Cotswolds Declaration, the fundamental statement of the National Socialist world view in post-war times. His books This Time The World and White Power are today just as fascinating and instructive reading as they were when they were written.
Rockwell was also a riveting and charismatic speaker, as can be heard to this day in recordings of his famous addresses at Brown University and taped excerpts from his interviews, many of which are available from various Movement sources. Today collectors pay fabulous sums for original copies of his magazine, The Rockwell Report, and his “Boat Ticket Back to Africa” is the single most popular racial nationalist item ever created by any right-wing or racialist group; millions of copies have been printed and distributed down the years.
By 1966 the ANP was at last beginning to break through to large numbers of white people. In that year the Party’s Chicago unit organized massive white resistance to a physical invasion, massively backed by organized liberalism, which Martin Luther King spearheaded into the various ethnic neighborhoods on the city’s South Side. Mobs of young men wearing White Power T-shirts and Swastika armbands battled against the NAACP monkoids and their police protectors. The resistance was so fierce that it caused King to remark that “he would rather lead ten marches into Selma, Alabama than one march into Gage Park in Chicago.”
In early 1967 Rockwell obtained major funding from a cartel of wealthy right-wing businessmen, including the Hunt brothers in Texas, and he used this money to print and publish the book White Power and also the newspaper of the same name. In a historic staff conference held in Arlington in June of that year, Commander Rockwell inaugurated a new direction which would take the Party out of the “Hollywood” phase and more into the American mainstream. The plan was eventually to jettison the uniforms and the Phase One activity. Even Rockwell recognized that they were a temporary tactic, and they had served their purpose.”

His speech Nazism the only answer to communism is something I think you would essentially agree with, and was the theme in which I based my original response.

Anyone can see that humor is not absent from this forum. It is, however, clearly separated from its central focus. In the case of Iron March, it appears as though those lines are blurred to such a superfluous extent that you have abandoned the very pretense of being a forum with a serious purpose.

That you take yourselves so seriously does a huge discredit to this place, you have nothing to be proud of and no dignity to protect. If we allow the same kind of attitude then we will fade into the same insignificance.

Our forum unlike yours is actually busy enough that the percentage of serious material counts for a lot. Unlike you we have something to show for our work so the people who come to Iron March actually have something to gain;
Literally hundreds of books and essays bought, found, scanned, translated, transcribed, reformatted, uploaded, complete with reading and analysis of these text. This weekend are no less than four people are reading 4pt and will give an oral presentation on it. I am writing a book, and so is my friend who is posting here.

This makes no mention of the fact the forum contains many real life activists and even public figures who post there. People who are not only respectable but are working towards their principles in the real world.

On here there is nothing even approaching that because you are totally absorbed in your own world. Leftists are the heroes of their own fairytales; they are good and always right and everyone else is bad – therefore everything they say no matter how meaningless is of great significance and they can do no wrong other than to look at an opposing view that doesn't accord with their worn out dichtomy. It is probably a form of sexual identity as well. The demeaning that goes on at Iron March is to prevent exactly this, it is a reality check before people start getting up themselves, and thinking they are something special.

Please do not compare us let alone claim you are superior when we are actually something.

It appears as though the only individual that demonstrated any interest in the garbage your dear leader has written was a confused reactionary who subsequently joined your forum. Incidentally, that work was immediately sent to our Opposing Views section.

Of course, because it was probably you who did it. It wasn’t just OP it was the whole thread being apologists for him, and most importantly nobody formed an opposing argument because none of you know what that is. I was just running that by you because nobody on the whole internet could care less about what you have created here – yet even this place people read his work. And that makes you mad - hence why you already have personal hostility to him, even though he has never had to even acknowledge any of it.

He has a lot going for him, he is clearly talented in graphical design and he can write. If he wanted he could use these skills to get all the recognition you speak of - He could easily have gotten to the top of this young Eurasianist group under Dugin, in fact he was invited to GRA. Unlike most of them he speaks English and French - his English is flawless and that makes him effectively invaluable. He has done all this in just a few short years - I think his website came up only last year. He has also written a book recently - that is an achievement - it is being translated by others. We will see what the results of that are in a few years, but it is not like any of us ever stop. Yes there will probably be a lot of failures but we always learn from that and adapt because we are trying to make a difference

[centerkissing-ass.jpg . Try to contain yourself. With such zealous reverence, one might assume that little Slavros is something more than another petty, irrelevant purveyor of false consciousness.

Nothing I gave was a personal opinion or an exaggeration, just totally objective observations against an emotional, prejudiced, and ignorant assessment. If you want to contest any of these do so by facts, do that instead of make insults – it doesn’t invalidate your slander being totally impotent or that objectively by comparison he is hundred times the man you are. Just because I state these facts doesn’t mean I am holding him up as some kind of standard, I am afraid that is just your smallness projecting onto him.

With respect to his literary 'accomplishment', I cannot help but invoke Christopher Hitchens' on the matter.

"Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay."

Ah Christopher hitchens; Trotskyite Neo-conservative, how very appropriate for you to quote this person – it is only unfortunate he was more consistant in his support of George bush than the other people here. Really though you people really had the gall to criticise us for honestly using Hitler quotes, when you refer to that monster? Glad he died.

You're in no position to judge my commitment to my principles. And I have absolutely no interest in informing you of what my revolutionary activities consist of.

Your revolutionary.. activities? I was actually just asking if you like do anything like how we do - we scribble and just hope a piece fo work will outlive us, but you are a revolutionary? Gosh how exiting! That in itself is quite an unprecedented claim given the full extent of all left wing organisations and activists and the number of 0 engaged in revolutionary activity – you among them are engaged in such activity.

Come on now you Marxists are supposed t be intelligent, Lenin had a word for it ‘Sophian language’, which now especially true after the Brandenburg vs Ohio decision which makes it perfectly legal to hypothesise the removal of authority. Please help, I wouldn’t know how a left wing activist would even go about such things.

What is the betting that after hearing your response you will sound more bought and sold than the occutards.

I hope you're being facetious.

As if to imply you could do better. As usual it is all talk and no trousers with you lot – never is there any argumentation to back up unqualified opinions. You say they are terrible but you don’t give substantive reasons – I don’t even know if you are referring to the same thing as I am.

[Sponsored content]