Re: Iron March Forum

[Rev Scare]

I would truly appreciate it if one of you halfwits would demonstrate how it is that we ignore or misrepresent (truly ironic, coming from you lot) your asinine assertions or fail to substantiate our arguments. I will ask once more: What have we failed to sufficiently address?

P.S. Christopher Hitchens was a 'neoconservative Trotskyist'!? What the hell is wrong with you?

[Celtiberian]

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.

Who are you referring to, the bourgeoisie or idealistic liberal professors? Because I was describing the former—the class which actually controls Western society. Since their sole concern is the accumulation of capital, their interest in Enlightenment values extends no further than the utility those values provide in that pursuit (they're more than willing to discard anything that obstructs it). Scientific disciplines, such as engineering, are promoted because they're vital to successfully executing research and development; psychology is useful for marketing and manufacturing the consent of the masses; economics and history are manipulated in order to facilitate the spread of false consciousness; and so on. Conversely, radicals value Enlightenment principles for their own sake.

They are not the least concerned with their people and that future, it is all universalist dross.

You must be unaware of the fact that modern nationalism derives from Enlightenment thought. Of course, Hegel and Fichte's respective conceptions of nationalism were decidedly more statist and reactionary than the romantic nationalism of Rousseau, or the left-wing nationalism espoused by Marxists like Connolly, Bauer, Maclean, and Brzozowski. Nevertheless, the fact remains that national identity during the pre-modern era amounted to little more than a recognition of ethnocultural diversity; it wasn't what we understand by 'nationalism' today.

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.

I realize that, which is why earlier in the thread I had written that society has essentially witnessed a triumph of the Scottish Enlightenment, as opposed to the more radical French Enlightenment. However, even the bourgeois revolutions in the United States and Great Britain professed to be predicated on principles that are fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. Furthermore, American revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine descended from the philosophical tradition of the French Enlightenment, which is why they were staunch proponents of economic egalitarianism and secularism.

Capitalists are not committed to socialism or collectivism of any sort but they share the mission of secular humanism.

I suppose that's why they regularly start wars that lead to the destruction of countless lives, and are more than willing to make alliances with oppressive regimes (theocratic or otherwise) in the process. They are committed to profit.

Your turf wars with other secular humanists are of no interests to me, the values are the same

You literally just admitted that the Enlightenment principles which bourgeois liberals uphold are distinct from those which radicals value.

I do not care about the economic system at all.

Because you're capable of observing the injustice that characterizes the capitalist mode of production with complete indifference. You're a detestable reactionary simpleton, perfectly content in your servitude; a happy wage slave, the system's useful idiot. Fortunately, sadomasochists like you don't make history.

hahahahahaa!

What's so amusing? Your belief in a theory you don't understand and cannot defend? Social Darwinism is universally regarded as an untenable Weltanschauung. No defense for it can be found in modern evolutionary biology. It is the relic of paltry bourgeois philosophy from the 19th century, and the fact that fascists still adhere to it would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic.

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?

It's not that your position is difficult to grasp, but that it's simply wrong. We obviously disagree on what qualifies as "decay," but capitalism's "change in values" is, again, attributable to changes in the substructure of society that necessitated adjustments in the superstrucutre.

Yeah, except that is BS. Socialism and Communism were tenants of the Marxists

Communism is what many Marxists suspect will be capitalism's successor-system, but Marxism is not communism. I'm astonished that you're so dense that you're incapable of discerning the obvious difference between an economic system and a conceptual framework utilized to investigate how such systems operate. Neoclassical economics isn't capitalism; it's a framework for understanding how capitalism functions. Marxism isn't communism; it's a framework for how understanding capitalism functions.

I don't care if you try to make your ideology as some unattackable position, because it is not; it exists in real life.

I never claimed that Marxism is impervious to criticism, I merely stated that the sorts of criticisms you were leveling against it were inapplicable. For example, you can argue that Marx's theory of value or crisis is inaccurate, but you can't claim that the history of the Soviet Union somehow invalidates Marxism. Marx and Engels's most significant contribution to communism was scientific socialism, i.e., a sociological theory of revolution which stresses the primacy of material conditions in generating radical consciousness among the agents of revolution. They wrote very little about how a communist society would function because, in their view, "recipes for the cookshops of the future" are utopian—a position which I happen to take issue with, incidentally. One thing is certain, however: Marx would have denounced Stalinism as a contemptible form of 'barracks communism.'

The projects these people promised would bring prosperity brought nothing but death.

What a simplistic view of history. Though undoubtedly disdainful in many respects, the state socialist regimes in the 20th century succeeded in lifting millions of people out of poverty and providing them with work, food, housing, education, and healthcare. It was at an unacceptable human cost, but that's a separate issue.

And what of fascism? You would think its political assassinations and the millions of corpses it is responsible for would at least humble you enough not to criticize regimes also guilty of committing crimes against humanity.

The criticism is connected to the state it produced.

See above.

Marx's actions and words effected the definitions of socialism and Communism, which had not existed in strict terms before.

You really should research these topics before you choose to debate them. Marx's work has done nothing to alter the heterogeneity of socialism. Different models have been proposed throughout history, and will continue to be. In his critique of utopian socialism, Marx rejected the idea that socialism could be described in the sort of detail many radical theoreticians were offering, and he criticized some of those models for retaining the most destructive features of capitalism. That is all.

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.

Okay..?

frankly I cannot tell them apart from cappies and other scum.

I presumed as much. Among other capacities, neo-fascists lack the ability to differentiate transparently discordant philosophies. It's also ironic that you should imply capitalists are "scum" when fascist corporativism is itself merely a form of capitalism.

The wheel did not make men gay and the aeroplane didn't tell women to abort.

No one is suggesting anything of the sort, you dunce. The Marxist position is that society's superstructure (law, education, politics, culture) reflects the interests of the economic base. For example, you will not find capitalist countries wherein property is outlawed or the values of cooperation are elevated above those of competition. Marxist materialism doesn't argue that all human behavior is reducible to the economic, only that society's leading institutions are in conformity with the demands of the prevailing mode of production.

You can also continue pissing about how cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, when it is actually a philosophy, written down and published.

The Frankfurt School published a few books on political philosophy and cultural criticism, but their following on the Left was modest and their societal influence was non-existent. Your conspiracy theory, however, advances a counterfactual narrative in which this small group of academics is alleged to have infiltrated elite universities, whereupon they successfully brainwashed their students, many of whom were later to be involved in the drafting of public policy. This, in turn, produced dramatic changes in the cultural fabric of North America and Europe. It's complete and utter nonsense.

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.

I see.. So the change in the political landscape following the collapse of the Soviet Union, in combination with advances in information technologies, aren't the source of globalization? Instead, we're to believe that the bourgeoisie are using a pernicious quasi-Marxist philosophy in order to deindustrialization the global north and exploit slave labor in the Third World? That's fascinating, because I was under the impression that the ideological justification normally offered in defense of this practice is based on liberty and free trade. In short, the government is argued to be inefficient at regulating trade and in violation of "natural rights" when it attempts to control how the bourgeoisie use their property. When did the sinister 'cultural Marxists' write anything in defense of this?

Liberal faggotry doesn't impress me either.

Such a sophisticated use of language. Your parents must be so proud.

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

A hundred years ago it wasn't providing humanity with a dignified existence, which is precisely why working people gravitated to socialism and communism at alarmingly high rates. Workers barely earned enough money to afford food and clothing, let alone decent housing or health care. It was the Soviet threat that compelled the bourgeoisie into the various concessions which created the robust European welfare states; and the outcome of the Second World War, in conjunction with favorable labor market conditions, is what placed American manufacturers in a position which facilitated the growth of a sizable middle class. That's all over now. Immigration, incorporating women into the workforce, and automation have provided the bourgeoisie with a domestic labor market in a perpetual state of surplus; capital mobility allows companies to scour the earth for sources of ever cheaper labor; the demise of the Soviet Union has emboldened the European elite to cut their countries' social services; and the recovery of our former economic competitors and arrival of new ones, are all undermining the system's ability to maintain a middle class for an appreciable percentage of the population. (This is why I referred to the middle class as a 'historic anomaly' in my previous post. For the majority of its existence, people have lived miserably under capitalism.)

Actually it would. Society would immediately go to war with its cancerous elements.

"Cancerous" by your absurd standards.

It will be a very bloody war, particularly for a mixed society such as America.

You have been deriding socialism for its violent history throughout our exchange, and yet you're the proponent of a cause which you readily admit would produce a "very bloody war"? Does the hypocrisy just not faze you?

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.

I'm not interested in reading your insipid, reactionary fantasies. With the exception of the Taliban and their ideological counterparts (evangelical Christians, etc.), people are simply not going to mobilize around a programme to murder gay people, feminists, and atheists. The fascist parties with any electoral support are even forced to narrow the scope of their traditionalism and instead stress their populist economic proposals in order to maintain even a meager following.

All Marxism can promise is the dead horse; equality, which people are already growing sick and tired of hearing about.

Are they really? Is that why anti-capitalist parties are gaining momentum across Europe, and why criticism of economic inequality and exploitation are at an all time high?

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

Absolutely. Equality is clearly unacceptable, and those who advocate for a system of equitable remuneration are traitors to the fatherland! Materialism? Everyone knows that idealism is the only sensible approach to the study of history and sociology.. Class egoism is destructive and an impediment to national unity! The bourgeoisie and proletariat are not antagonistic social classes, that's a Jewish myth. As for individualism, only the Führer should be permitted to exercise a degree of autonomy—the masses must blindly follow the orders given by their superiors. Finally, Marxian left-wing nationalists obviously commit race-treason by upholding the freedom of association and supporting a theory whereby the people democratically determine the criteria of national citizenship..

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.'

The Renaissance never produced a persuasive defense of autocracy. It was a period of time which saw the flourishing of art and science, and in which the Enlightenment's philosophical antecedents (e.g., humanism) were formulated. It was also when the forces of production were developed to the point which rendered feudal social relations anachronistic.

Human reason did not subvert authority

It still hasn't subverted authority, because society remains characterized by an indefensible hierarchy. Human reason will be the means by which it is eventually overcome, however. And it isn't authority per se which socialists oppose, but rather unaccountable authority. Mikhail Bakunin explains the distinction as follows:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (New York: Dover Publications, 1970), pp. 32-33.

Sometimes it is useful, but it is not more valuable than life. Therefore it should not be the basis of a civilization.

It is reason that enables us to determine what sort of life to value, because such matters are not always self-evident.

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.

Your meritocratic ideal cannot be realized because the hierarchy and material inequality you also favor undermines it. Like monarchism and the bourgeois plutocracy were currently live under, fascist regimes were replete with cronyism. Moreover, people should have the right to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by the outcomes.

Yeah, whatever, religion made man.

Sure it did..

Millions have died for religion and nationalism, none have died for 'material conditions.'

You say that as if the Russian Civil War; Paris commune; biennio rosso; Cuban, Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese revolutions; Spanish Civil War; and innumerable violent trade union struggles never occurred. Contrary to what you think, millions of people have given their lives in the pursuit of social justice.

Man does not 'create' religion, he lives for it.

That doesn't address why 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.

I already explained that communists hold no unanimous opinion on religion, just as fascists don't.

You missed the point entirely that they are against collective identity.

The existence of religious and nationalist communists disproves this inane assertion.

The whole class thing is not a collective idenitity; it is a collective economic unit, which enables Marxist intellectuals to control otherwise normal people.

The working class exists regardless of whether or not "Marxist intellectuals" are in control of it.

Retrograde because we support the natural and sincere human relationship?

It's retrograde because what you mean by "natural and sincere" social relations reduce to primitive and unnecessary ones. Contraceptives liberate men and women from having to fear that each time they copulate they might be in the process of conceiving a child. And since the planet's resources are finite, and there's no logical reason why sex should be strictly confined to matters of reproduction, it's preposterous to argue against contraception in the 21st century. Eye glasses and open heart surgery aren't "natural" either, but I doubt you'd take issue with them.

Whatever, women never had the vote because they did not create any of the social institutions to which they owe their existence.

Because they were restricted from doing so, you cretin.

Men have secured woman through their strength, wisdom, and of necessity. That is why men control society, and of course their self-evident superiority.

"Self-evident," is it? Brute strength is of diminishing value in the modern age, and women have consistently proven to be just as intellectually capable as men.

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.

None of the Marxist left-wing nationalist figures I cited were hostile to race or religion. The only Marxists who have ever expressed a desire to suppress ethnocultural identity have been Luxemburgists and certain Trotskyists.

Right right. Whatever you say, no need for evidence or anything like that.

Here's a very simple test which you can apply to yourself to determine the validity of my claim: Ask yourself who your ancestors were a thousand years ago, then examine your current class position. Which affects whether you'll be able to acquire food, shelter, and health care more?

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.

I'm sure it has told them something about the pitiful state of neo-fascism and how the reactionary mind operates.

[Guest777]

I would truly appreciate it if one of you halfwits would demonstrate how it is that we ignore or misrepresent (truly ironic, coming from you lot) your asinine assertions or fail to substantiate our arguments. I will ask once more: What have we failed to sufficiently address?

Assuming you want more than what I was directly responding to - but clearly that isn't enough. Part of my evidence for now is that you all drag your heels at everything, play dumb, expect me to walk you through it step by step, for me to basically make it impossible for you to wriggle out of it. Indeed true I could give you any number of examples, but I have yet to give a reply to Celtiberian, and I can only undertake one of these at a time.

[EDIT] If you want to actually experience this go onto revleft because they display the same kind of contempt towards you - leftism is a vicious circle, out there these is somebody more consistantly leftist than you.
revleft.com /vb/socialist-phalanx-t163705/index.html
Anyone would think they were talking about IM.

P.S. Christopher Hitchens was a 'neoconservative Trotskyist'!? What the hell is wrong with you?

I don't know, you can't really miss the guy. If I were to explain to you how Neo-Conservatism was a form of Trotskyism I would use Chris as people seem to at least understand his logic; he is a millitant Athiest who wants to spead the enlightenment to the rest of the world through cluster bombs. Come now, you must have noticed how many athiests have become these 'whack a muslim' types, draw muhammad day, muh freedom of expression, muh secular western democracy. I hope you are not implying that Christopher Hitchens isn't a trot, because that is how he self identifies - and he has a large record to back that up. He is also the foremost proponent of western intervention and muscular liberalism, famously in his support for the Iraq war's humanitarian mission. If he were alive to see it, he would consider western intervention in the arab spring to be the culmination of his lifes work.

If you look at its history Neo-Conservatism itself is also Trotskyist in origin.
wiki/Neoconservatism#History
Michael Harrington who coined Neo Conservatism began in the Trotskyite Independent Socialist League
"Harrington and Shachtman believed that socialism, which in their view promised a just and fully democratic society, could not be realized under authoritarian Communism and they were both fiercely critical of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Harrington became a member of Norman Thomas's Socialist Party when the SP agreed to absorb Shachtman's organization. Harrington backed the Shachtmanite realignment strategy of working within the Democratic Party rather than running candidates on a Socialist ticket."
Thus a monster was born.

Irving Kristol, recipient of the medal of freedom from G.W.Bush gave what I consider the best definition of a neo-conservative as a 'liberal mugged by reality', if marxists were consistant they would be Neo-Cons as well.

It is basically like how the then leftist government of my country who had all been on the anti war marches in the 70's literally handed all the military resources of Britain over to the United States with the support of the boomers who practically did the same thing. The small elements as represented by George Galloway are a confused and controlled side show that in light of recent events, has been exposed for the pawn he was.

[Alexander Slavros]

Mfw this crap is still going on. But since this has in part became a discussion of my character, I suppose I'll have to join in.

So far this thread was: a) about the appearance of this forum b) about nationalism, fascism and whatever this forum is c) about the behavior of IM members d) about me (of all fucking things you had to debate).

I'll go over all of these except c). Behavior of IM members was in question several times on here. No surprise our troll squad instantly descended on SocPhal with a vengeance for the lulz. If you want me to state my own vies on whatever subjects like Breivik and certain behaviors etc go ahead and ask, I'll answer in another post.

In this post I am foremost addressing the admin of SocPhal.

The SocPhal forum appearance. Yes, it does look like a game fansite or a roleplay website, simply because it goes over the top with the aesthetics and in some cases fails hard at it, just like game fansites and roleplay websites. How does it fail hard: since when is the nautical star associated with socialist aesthetics? You couldn't check wikipedia AT LEAST to figure that much out? Quote:

The 'nautical' star is a symbolic star associated with the sea services of the United States armed forces and with tattoo culture.

Nautical star tattoos are one of the most popular styles of star tattoos.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_star

The mock-"soviet" fonts you're using all over the place account for the over-the-top issue you have going on here. And what's this thing on the portal page?



Black on red? Well aren't we trying to be all kewl and stuffz. Actually, it's not the color scheme that kills it, since the black and red do go well together (add some white and you've got a winner, eh?), it's the added fancy font text that completes the ensemble, making it look like a roleplay community icon.

Allow me to give you some examples of roleplay, gaming and leftwing websites, that actually look more tame in their appearance than your forum:
theinternational-cn.com
z15.invisionfree.com/LSF/index.php fine, these are "anarchists"
z3.invisionfree.com/CNSWF/index.php
cnucr.canadaboard.net/login
soviet-empire.com/ussr
cpusa.org (here's something that'll get your knickers in a twist)
americanpartyoflabor.org
kprf.ru
leftfront.ru

The last 4 examples above are actual political organizations (regardless of their shit-factor) and they don't go nuts with mock-soviet images like you do. And some of those roleplay websites make stuff like this:



and somehow manage to look more presentable than you. Your forum looks more on par with websites like this:
cncgames.com
redalert3.narod.ru

Look at marxist.org even - extremely presentable while your forum is just simply suffering from "trying too hard to be uber socialist aesthetics". So the argument

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. .

just doesn't fly. You should at least strive to make it obvious that you're discussing real politics and not roleplay. Take Ben's suggestion to try and invent something new, naturally you won't like any of his proposals since they're too bourgeoisie. Let's talk color scheme for instance: dark tones and red highlights (essentially). Just like your image with the red background and black hammer/sickle/world, and the fail-choice of the nautical star (oh looks, half of it is already colored black, and it's a star -we'll add red and it'll be purfect!) I assume that this choice was prompted by the desire to represent both socialism and nationalism, since you claim your forum to be for left-wing nationalists. Problem is that it's the Strasserite "Autonomous Nationalists" shtick (and every other autonomous-smth group that popped up later), but it's your over the top "socialist aesthetic" that does define you as being something else, but the first association goes, as pointed out above, to gaming websites. Your icon for announcements isn't helping to clarify things - the Landfolk movement eagle? The symbol nowadays hijacked by the national-bolshevik front and all other manner of nazbols and strasserites?

Your problem is that you don't present a clear identity, I assume you do it to reel in more people, but hence the matter above, expect nazbols and strasserites. Otherwise it's quite clear whom you lot are if one bothers to look through your announcements and clears away the bait tags like "left-wing nationalism": you're marxists posing as syndicalists, the Sorrel brand, i.e. revolutionary syndicalists, but with a marxist twist (which makes it confused again since Sorrel said that socialism is dead due to marxist decomposition). Just call yourself a Sorelianist (wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorelianism) forum if you want to pretend to be that and invent syndicalist imagery for it, have Sorrel in your banner at least ffs. Ben's assessment of you being self-hating nazis and strasserites-light was incorrect - you're Marxists appropriating Sorrel.

All of your rhetoric and some information from the forum announcements point in that direction and yet you still insist on pushing the "nationalism" part to prominence as an integral part of your forum, and yet you fail completely to maintain any truly nationalist rhetoric, which is why so many of us are here. If you'd forgone that bit entirely there'd be no misconceptions, but then again who knows, maybe you do all that on purpose, like trying to be the opposite of Kai Murros, presenting yourself as nationalists to get nationalists into marxism, to reel in more people, though that doesn't explain why you don't try to convert us then. We come here as nationalists angry at your misrepresentation of nationalism.

Here's but a few of your failures at nationalist rhetoric:

*What is 'left-wing nationalism'?
Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — e.g. ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

No, wrong, nationalism is inherently anti-capitalist while the term reactionary, just as conservatism, is entirely dependent on its context. Modern day state-socialists and communists are reactionaries in Russia because USSR is an already passed state in our country. The only rhetoric in which "reactionary" works in a preset way is one with progressive linear vision of history, i.e. just like in marxism's historical materialism, where everything is put into stages from primitive communism to communism, with that system in place it's naturally easy to define anything of the previous stage as reactionary: proponents of feudalism are reactionaries to everything higher up the ladder, so to capitalists as well, while capitalism is reactionary to socialism and communism, while socialism is reactionary to communism. Nationalism, however, is not an inherent supporter of said vision of history, so it doesn't follow such interpretation, not that it matters to marxists because in marxist rhetoric nationalism's view of itself and the world is of no concern, obviously, but you try to pull a nationalism veil up on your marxism which makes no sense because it will cause a contradiction from both marxist and nationalist rhetoric, which is exactly why we're here and pissed off because we speak from the nationalist rhetoric, but I'll address how you ruin your own marxist rhetoric by using nationalism as well.

Nationalism is neither pro-capitalist nor is it reactionary by definition. Capitalism ignores nationhood in favor of cosmopolitanism in order to cultivate a global consumer society market, eroding all national and cultural differences, thus, naturally, nationalism will stand against it.

You, as marxists, propose that nationalism is a capitalist tool to keep the proletariat divided in order to easily control it, a classic marxist notion that is non-applicable to the modern world, where a global market exists, as opposed to a multitude of national markets that existed back when marxism was born, and in this setting nationalism is no longer a useful tool and is cast aside by capitalism, thus proving that nationalism is not in any way inherently tied to capitalism from either a nationalist or a capitalist perspective, even moreso proof of that is how this global cosmopolitan consumerist market has always been the logical end goal of capitalism as the best setting to make more money, meaning that it was inevitable for capitalism to drop nationalism from the get go, while as nationalism maintained its anti-capitalist positions throughout its history, which, you should realize, starts only from the 16th century and the formation of nation-states, the falling of empires.

Nationalism envisions organic unity of all people in the nation, so naturally exploitation, as marxism understands it, is immoral in nationalism, i.e. "how dare you exploit your own kin for personal gain?" (so much for your rhetoric about how "non left-wing nationalism" inherently supports economic exploitation). Even more immoral is the idea of national division, allowing anyone to divide the nation by any means, thus meaning class division and class warfare - you cannot be a nationalist and support the division of a nation by antagonized classes any more than you can be a marxist and support the division of classes by antagonized nationalities. You CAN, as a nationalist, treat some groups and individuals in a nation as traitors TO the nation, which is how capitalists and rich thieves become the enemy of a nation, but nationalism proposes other methods to class-war to deal with the matter. So how do you figure nationalism fits with marxism on that account when their rhetoric cuts through all of humanity by different categories that interject with one another?

And what of Marx's notion that proletarians have no nationality to begin with? That alone should dispel the notion of nationalism being compatible with marxism from a marxist rhetoric, and that rhetoric is what makes marxism unacceptable to nationalism. Even if we contrive that notion to being that the ruling class alone represents its nation then you just make an argument for nationalist rhetoric that everyone must belong to the nation and not just the ruling class, in fact the proletariat is he who builds up the nation and deserves the recognition of nationality more than anyone, thus making yet another nationalist point against capitalism and marxist rhetoric both at once.

You also said that ethnic chauvinism is inherent to all but the "left-wing form of nationalism". Typical misconception. Nationalism by its nature is nothing more than loving your nation, i.e. your people, culture and history. It doesn't even have any inherent political notions, because it is not of political origin, its origin is human nature. But just as with any case of loving something, one hates anything that threatens what that person loves. Ethnic chauvinism is a natural possibility with nationalism, that arises when the nation is severely threatened, it is a method of self-preservation, which only gained political context on its own with Nazism, and that's hardly every other "type" of nationalism other than "left-wing nationalism". Check Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin's "On Russian Nationalism", who Ilyin warns against such an outcome of nationalism when «the feeling and will of a nationalist turns into repulsion and dismissal to anything foreign, when it should explore the depths of its own spiritual value.» Point being yet again that nationalism is not inherently chauvinistic, it can be in order to defend the nation, it's an inherent possibility, that can be avoided.

Elsewhere the admin said in response to someone from IM the following:

Fascism is capitalistic because it retains existing social relations by maintaining private property. Fascism's heterogeneous regulatory proposals render it no more 'anti-capitalist' than various contemporary expressions of social democracy.

In here there is also evidence of further contradiction to being a marxist that tries to use nationalism in any way, not to mention how it also shows lack of knowledge of Fascism, as was pointed out by the person to whom he was replying in the first place. You can't HAVE nationalism without some form of private property. Private property was solidified by the formation of the family, note the marxist rhetoric includes beyond abolition of private property the abolishing of the family, because these things go hand in hand (long-life relations in the form of the family institute solidify the chance of passing on property through inheritance, something that Marx criticized as "the bourgeoisie reducing family relationship to a mere money relationship", which is kind of contrived since this process of property inheritance existed since before the formation of the bourgeoisie), this is logical in marxist rhetoric, until someone tries to then imply the maintaining of nationalism in the picture, because nationalism is closely related to family and upholds it as sacred. How do you combine these diametrically opposed rhetorics in your "left-wing nationalism" is also beyond me.

Now moving onto Me.

Your forum was created by a delusional Eurasian cosplayer, who is starved for recognition as a 'Russian national revolutionary'. Everything I have seen associated with Iron March — from its charter to its hilariously pitiful podcasts — makes me feel embarrassed for you.

Eurasian, so I assume you mean racial background, because if you meant the ideology you would've called me a Eurasianist (them's fightin' words, buddy). So if you have a "no racism" and "no to ethnic chauvinism" policy, then why do you care of what background I may or may not be? Kind of unmarxist and un"left-wing nationalism" as you had defined it.

Cosplayer? Well, I WAS mistaken for a security guard, a policeman and a biker on several occasions. I suppose I have some versatile outfit then. Can't at all be that its black because of the symbolism behind the color that is associated with nationalism and fascism, and can't at all be military-looking because I shop for military clothes for their functionality and out of pride of having militarymen in my ancestry. Yes, it's cosplay, and I attend lots of cosplay events, like marches, protests, blood-drives, eco-campaigns and charities drives, like buying school supplies for kids from needy families and when I gave away all my old civilian clothes to the families that suffered in the massive fires a couple of years back so I could cosplay 24/7. Here's some other people who liked to cosplay:



Now, honestly, you couldn't come up with a better way to attempt to assassinate my character other than how I dress? If this forum, with its "socialist aesthetics" were a person it would look like a guy in a jacket covered with fake soviet badges all over. Either that or:



Just need to replace the words on his sign with "SocPhalanx, srs revolutionary activism inside".

This forum is supposedly the "project" of the "Revolutionary Syndicalist Front", and yet it has no website beyond that of the "executive committee" which seems to be madeup of the staff of this forum, so supposedly its formed by people with political ambition and you do keep saying something about revolutionary actions that you do but don't deem us worthy enough to boast about said action in detail

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.

so I'm left to assume that your "revolutionary activities" are like those of the Left Front here in Russia - attending marches and shouting revolutionary slogans and otherwise being absent from society. You being westerners, however, I assume there's also fun gatherings in kitchens and debates over marxist theory that amount to nothing more than an annual circle-jerk to make everyone feel good about themselves. One would think that you'd at least work out some sort of mission statement by now but since the website of the executive committee lacks ANY information beyond that it is STILL "undergoing updates" since 10/24/2011, one does have to wonder if the SocPhal is the project of the RSF or if the RSF is the undergoing attempt at a project by the SocPhal.

Maybe you should try my sort of "cosplaying".

There was some other minute stuff and blahblahblah this post is too long as it is.

There also seems to be a misconception of me being "der fuhrer" of IM. I'm but one of several admins, out of which two do most of the "fuhrering" - me and Ben, we have equal footing.

I'll see how the responses to this post go and will decide if I want to address them or leave it as is, this topic has been crap for a while now, thanks to regular membership of both forums.

tl;dr SocPhal is a srs bznsz, no memes allowed gaming/roleplay website for marxists that try to appropriate Sorrel and don't understand fascism or nationalism, long live IronMarch and I don't know french.

Gas the kikes, race war now, 14/88 boots on the ground.

[Isakenaz]

Surely the simple answer is, if the appearance of this forum offends, then go somewhere else.

[Alexander Slavros]

Surely the simple answer is, if the appearance of this forum offends, then go somewhere else.

Offends? Well that's a hilarious premise. There's nothing here that offends unless you're a McCarthyist, that wasn't the point to begin with.

If anything, it's our forum header that is based on the premise of offending people away.

[Isakenaz]

Offends? Well that's a hilarious premise. There's nothing here that offends unless you're a McCarthyist, that wasn't the point to begin with.

If anything, it's our forum header that is based on the premise of offending people away.

Actualy although I stand in opposition to all you espouse, I have to admit I agree with much of your post. But then I'm not a popular member either

[Celtiberian]

Being that I already warned that posts related to forum aesthetics would be deleted, I'm inclined to edit your post and remove the content pertaining to that subject. But I will discuss the matter with the rest of the moderators before doing so.

No, wrong, nationalism is inherently anti-capitalist

Nationalism is a neutral medium that requires exogenous content in order to render it politically meaningful. National sentiments can be utilized to either advance or obstruct the class struggle, for instance. (Due to their commitment to 'class collaboration,' fascists have historically chosen the latter approach.)

while the term reactionary, just as conservatism, is entirely dependent on its context.

Correct.

Nationalism, however, is not an inherent supporter of said vision of history

It's not an 'inherent supporter' of anything, for reasons outlined above.

which is exactly why we're here and pissed off because we speak from the nationalist rhetoric

Nationalism isn't a homogenous concept, so don't act as if your fascistic interpretation thereof is the appropriate one.

Nationalism is neither pro-capitalist nor is it reactionary by definition.

Nationalism can be, and has been, utilized to facilitate bourgeois and reactionary objectives. It has also been used by revolutionaries to advance the cause of socialism, hence why I refer to it as a neutral medium.

Capitalism ignores nationhood in favor of cosmopolitanism in order to cultivate a global consumer society market, eroding all national and cultural differences, thus, naturally, nationalism will stand against it.

Late capitalism has undoubtedly become more international in scale, which is why bourgeois nationalism is no longer practiced to the extent it was in the decades preceding globalization's ascendancy. That's not to say it doesn't exist, however. The United States, for example, is a very jingoistic country, as is Russia.

You, as marxists, propose that nationalism is a capitalist tool to keep the proletariat divided in order to easily control it

We propose that it can be used for that purpose, while simultaneously acknowledging that it needn't be and that the source of national sentiment is unrelated to capitalism.

while as nationalism maintained its anti-capitalist positions throughout its history

Except, of course, when it was used by Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler to preserve capitalism—to say nothing of its continued use by the bourgeoisie to galvanize populations into supporting wars to expand markets and assert the geopolitical hegemony of capital.

Nationalism envisions organic unity of all people in the nation, so naturally exploitation, as marxism understands it, is immoral in nationalism, i.e. "how dare you exploit your own kin for personal gain?" (so much for your rhetoric about how "non left-wing nationalism" inherently supports economic exploitation).

Which non-leftist nationalist movements ever demanded the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, pray tell? Certainly not any fascist ones, unless you consider National Bolshevism (of the Niekisch/Paetel and Laufenberg/Wolffheim tendencies) to have been fascist.

Even more immoral is the idea of national division, allowing anyone to divide the nation by any means, thus meaning class division and class warfare - you cannot be a nationalist and support the division of a nation by antagonized classes any more than you can be a marxist and support the division of classes by antagonized nationalities.

The problem, in the opinion of we left-wing nationalists, is with the very notion of viewing capitalist countries as 'organic.' Bourgeois social relations are the source of the division in society. Class warfare isn't a perspective, it's a concrete reality. (This is where your fascist idealism and my Marxist materialism presents us with an unbridgeable impasse.)

So how do you figure nationalism fits with marxism on that account when their rhetoric cuts through all of humanity by different categories that interject with one another?

Marxist analysis applies solely to economic concerns, which is why individual Marxists adhere to a plurality of theses on the national question—from Luxembourgism to left-wing nationalism. As I've explained throughout this thread, Marx and Engels didn't leave behind a complete theory of nationality, only contradictory fragments of one. Contrary to popular myth, however, they never argued that ethnocultural or national self-identification would cease upon the ascent of global communism—a theme I further develop in my forthcoming paper on the national question.

And what of Marx's notion that proletarians have no nationality to begin with?

Simply put, it's a misinterpretation from a text which intentionally used hyperbole for reasons of political agitation.

That alone should dispel the notion of nationalism being compatible with marxism from a marxist rhetoric, and that rhetoric is what makes marxism unacceptable to nationalism.

Discontinue portraying yourself as an authority on the subject of nationalism; it's becoming ridiculous. Also, to say that Marxian left-wing nationalism is "unacceptable" to reactionary nationalists like yourself is merely stating the obvious.

you just make an argument for nationalist rhetoric that everyone must belong to the nation and not just the ruling class, in fact the proletariat is he who builds up the nation and deserves the recognition of nationality more than anyone, thus making yet another nationalist point against capitalism and marxist rhetoric both at once.

It doesn't qualify as a "point against" Marxism, because Marxist theoreticians have used analogous arguments for over a century. For example:

"This linking together of our national aspirations with the hopes of the men and women who have raised the standard of revolt against that system of capitalism and landlordism, of which the British Empire is the most aggressive type and resolute defender, should not, in any sense, import an element of discord into the ranks of earnest nationalists, and would serve to place us in touch with fresh reservoirs of moral and physical strength sufficient to lift the cause of Ireland to a more commanding position than it has occupied since the day of Benburb.

"Nationalism without Socialism—without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin—is only national recreancy.

It would be tantamount to a public declaration that our oppressors had so far succeeded in inoculating us with their perverted conceptions of justice and morality that we had finally decided to accept those conceptions as our own, and no longer needed an alien army to force them upon us.

As a Socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage—independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline."
James Connolly, “Socialism and Nationalism” in Peter Berresford-Ellis (ed.), James Connolly: Selected Writings (London: Pluto Press, 1997), pp. 122, 124.

"Scotland must again have independence, but not to be ruled over by traitor chiefs and politicians. The communism of the clans must be re-established on a modern basis. . . . Scotland must therefore work itself into a communism embracing the whole country as a unit. The country must have but one clan, as it were—a united people working in co-operation and co-operatively, using the wealth that is created."
John Maclean, “All H ail, the Scottish Workers' Republic!” in Nan Milton (ed.), John Maclean (London: Pluto Press, 1973), p. 218.

"Our guiding principle in all that concerns our relations to the people of other lands is internationalism. We are internationalists and anti-militarists.

But internationalism does not mean for us anti-nationalism. Nor has it anything whatever to do with the vague doctrine of world-organization, for which no accurately descriptive name exists, symbolized by the picturesque ceremony of a flag burning. This much exploited ceremonial was a crude attempt to symbolize a conception of a nationless world.

We repudiate the claim made by some that loyalty to this nation is inconsistent with true internationalism. Those who say that Socialism involves the view that the working class has no nation to call its own, that all nations are alike, that there is nothing to choose between a militarist autocracy and a democratic republic, do not preach Socialist Internationalism, but pernicious reactionary nonsense.

"Internationalism presupposes nationalism. It is the inter-relation of nations. The maintenance of national integrity and independence is an essential condition of internationalism. This principle has never in the past been seriously questioned in our movement. It has been the guiding principle of our policies in the Socialist International."
John Spargo quoted in Victor L. Berger: Hearings Before the Special Committee, Vol II, p. 627 (bold emphasis added).

"The effect on the character of the nation, the determination of the changes to this character, will be assumed once again by the society; the future history of the people will become the product of its own conscious will. The nation of the future will thus be capable of that which the commodity-producing society can never achieve: of educating itself, of fashioning its own fate, of consciously determining the future transformation of its character. Only socialism can give the nation full autonomy, true self-determination; only socialism can release the nation from the effect of forces of which it is not conscious and which are outside its influence.

"The fact [is] that socialism will make the nation autonomous, will make its destiny a product of the nation's conscious will, will result in an increasing differentiation between the nations of the socialist society, a clearer expression of their specificities, a clearer distinction between their respective characters. . . . Drawing the people as a whole into the national community of culture, achieving full self-determination by the nation, growing intellectual differentiation between the nations—this is what socialism means. The community of culture encompassing all members of the people, as it existed in the time of the communism of the clans, will be brought to life again by the communism of the great nations following the end of centuries of class division, the division between the members and the mere tenants of the nation."
Otto Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 96, 98.

You also said that ethnic chauvinism is inherent to all but the "left-wing form of nationalism".

Where was that said? We're well aware of the fact that non-ethnic varieties of reactionary and bourgeois nationalism exist. Our FAQ merely claims that ethnic chauvinism tends to be associated with "most other expressions" of nationalism, which, while perhaps a slight exaggeration, is certainly not an assertion that left-wing nationalism is the only non-racist form of nationalism.

It doesn't even have any inherent political notions, because it is not of political origin, its origin is human nature.

An admission which utterly contradicts your previous statements regarding nationalism's "anti-capitalist" and "anti-Marxist" nature.

You can't HAVE nationalism without some form of private property. Private property was solidified by the formation of the family, note the marxist rhetoric includes beyond abolition of private property the abolishing of the family, because these things go hand in hand (long-life relations in the form of the family institute solidify the chance of passing on property through inheritance, something that Marx criticized as "the bourgeoisie reducing family relationship to a mere money relationship", which is kind of contrived since this process of property inheritance existed since before the formation of the bourgeoisie), this is logical in marxist rhetoric, until someone tries to then imply the maintaining of nationalism in the picture, because nationalism is closely related to family and upholds it as sacred. How do you combine these diametrically opposed rhetorics in your "left-wing nationalism" is also beyond me.

What's beyond me is how you could commit a non sequitur as egregious as claiming that the abolition of private property is irreconcilable with nationalism—especially when the converse is the case. By 'property' Marxists mean private ownership of the means of production, not possessions for active personal use (cars, homes, computers, etc.), in case you're unaware. As for Marxism's alleged hostility to the family, consult my response to kikehunt.

[03844354]

Hello, I'm Black Nationalist from Iron March. I guess you guys would label me as a "reactionary" due to my Islamism. It should be noted that fascism is not necessarily "reactionary". Would you consider the Italian futurists to be reactionaries? That subgroup of fascists were quite revolutionary.

It should be noted that not all members on the forum support the Zionist entity. Totalitarian Socialist, Black Sun, and Aristocrat are rabid anti-Zionists realizing that the very existence of Israel is a cancer. Iron March is not racist. There's a difference between racialism and racism.

George Lincoln Rockwell was a great man. I can say this as a black. Whites and blacks cannot coexist peacefully. We're different from each other. It doesn't mean one group is necessarily superior or inferior. But, our cultures cannot stand together without a Yugoslavia conflict in the future. Rockwell would have helped American blacks to settle Liberia. We would be a prosperous nation by now without white influence.

I don't understand why we should even support your ill concepts of Marxian "economics". It seems like a socialist version of Austrian economics. It's unsurprising why academia labels Marxian economics as heterodox. Why should I believe in Marxian economics over Muhammad's (PBUH) economic jurisprudence? Marx's value theory and rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent.

Also, the philosophical basis of Marxism is easy to tear apart. Philosophical materialism is absurd. It denies CONSCIOUSNESS. Even atheists (David Charmers and John Searle) have rejected materialism for some sort of naturalistic dualism. Good job, your philosophical basis denies consciousness. So, are you guys philosophical zombies?

[Celtiberian]

I guess you guys would label me as a "reactionary" due to my Islamism.

In addition to your fascism, yes.

It should be noted that fascism is not necessarily "reactionary".

Relative to revolutionary socialism, it is.

Would you consider the Italian futurists to be reactionaries?

Of course. The Futurist's exaltation of mindless violence and warfare doesn't qualify as "revolutionary" as far as I'm concerned, and neither does their praise of corporativism.

It should be noted that not all members on the forum support the Zionist entity. Totalitarian Socialist, Black Sun, and Aristocrat are rabid anti-Zionists realizing that the very existence of Israel is a cancer.

Their opposition to Zionism stems from their virulent antisemitism, not out of sympathy for the Palestinians' right to self-determination—at least insofar as TotalitarianSocialist is concerned.

Iron March is not racist.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. But even if it wasn't, I would still object to its fascist content nonetheless.

Whites and blacks cannot coexist peacefully. We're different from each other.

Physiologically we are, but our psychological differences are negligible. Caucasians and blacks coexist on a daily basis, though I'm not dismissing the instances of tension that exist. Personally, I'm of the view that race relations will improve significantly under a socialist mode of production. If they do not, the people will possess the means by which to resolve the problem democratically.

I don't understand why we should even support your ill concepts of Marxian "economics". It seems like a socialist version of Austrian economics.

It's immeasurably superior to Austrian economics. If you're curious as to why you should support Marxism, I encourage you to study the theory and find out for yourself.

Why should I believe in Marxian economics over Muhammad's (PBUH) economic jurisprudence?

I'm unaware of what PBUH economic jurisprudence even is. I will say, however, that Marxism is the most persuasive method for analyzing capital's laws of motion that I've learned—and I've studied its main competitors (neoclassical and Austrian economics).

Marx's value theory and rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent.

Much as I dislike the man, Andrew Kliman has refuted the myth of inconsistency.

Also, the philosophical basis of Marxism is easy to tear apart. Philosophical materialism is absurd. It denies CONSCIOUSNESS.

You're caricaturing Marxist sociology by presenting it as a crude form of economic reductionism, when the materialist dialectic is anything but reductionist. The primacy given to materialism by Marx applies only in the narrow sense of explaining facets of society's superstructure; human agency certainly isn't denied. As Friedrich Engels explains,

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if anybody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure: political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into the systems of dogmas, all also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. . . . Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place, or the opportunity to allow the other elements involved in the interaction to come into their rights."
Friedrich Engels quoted in Robert L. Heilbroner, Marxism: For and Against (New York: Norton, 1980), p. 66.

Marx's philosophical anthropology also acknowledges the existence of human nature—how else could he argue that man is estranged from his Gattungswesen under bourgeois social relations?

[Confusion]

You CAN, as a nationalist, treat some groups and individuals in a nation as traitors TO the nation, which is how capitalists and rich thieves become the enemy of a nation, but nationalism proposes other methods to class-war to deal with the matter.

You can't HAVE nationalism without some form of private property. Private property was solidified by the formation of the family, note the marxist rhetoric includes beyond abolition of private property the abolishing of the family, because these things go hand in hand (long-life relations in the form of the family institute solidify the chance of passing on property through inheritance

So you are leaving Stalinism behind after all? Private property, but without capitalism? Because the capitalists are traitors? Not to participate in the now non-stalinist (feudal?) system of private property?.... But the infamous "guest77" disagrees, claiming that "your class-war is a race-war" in an earlier posting, so you seem to disagree on the subject - like you disagree on almost everything else, while also constantly shifting opinions.

Yes, yes - I am stupid for not understanding, its no problem - you don`t have to mention it. Racists are way to focused on intelligence anyway. Your quest for intelligence is leading you into a very foggy theoretical landscape. Even though your are smart enough to create such confusion, you may not be smart enough to leave it behind.

I`m so glad I`m leaving the internet And yes: "The internet will do well without you, you dum bourgoise slacker!" (or something similar, its no problem. Just don`t start talking about raping me in front of my mom, like "guest77" did:-()

Your ultra-intelectual excuses for ego-building and evil plots are actually quite boring. You are like that blob of cancer one meets at the top floor of the mage-tower in Dragon Age origins. It looks like shit, but it also have a spell that makes the hero and his/her companions fall asleep.

[DSN]

I'm unaware of what PBUH economic jurisprudence even is.

Just in case that wasn't a joke, PBUH (peace be upon him) is what Muslims say after mentioning a prophet.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Discussing how our forum looks? What is this, these trolls come from some fashion forum xfactor juri or something?...

Goes to show what really moves them, "fascism is kewl, all hail military supremacism, and serve the leader"...

If you like to "serve leaders" so much, and "kewl" aesthetics why don't you all go join some cult, preferably one against the use of technology that came after the grip of religion was loosed by the enlightment you so despise, thank you very much.

[kikehunt]

Discussing how our forum looks? What is this, these trolls come from some fashion forum xfactor juri or something?...

Goes to show what really moves them, "fascism is kewl, all hail military supremacism, and serve the leader"...

If you like to "serve leaders" so much, and "kewl" aesthetics why don't you all go join some cult, preferably one against the use of technology that came after the grip of religion was loosed by the enlightment you so despise, thank you very much.

funniest thing I have read today.

never change, communist scumbags

[Rev Scare]

funniest thing I have read today.

never change, commist scumbags

That is rich, you irrational little assclown. I will simply delete these useless, inflammatory troll posts in the future. These are times when I actually sympathize with Stalinism. I imagine you are nothing more than some pathetic teenager with a (cyber) fetish for authority. We fail to address your mindless ramblings? HAH!

Reactionary trash.

[Guest777]

Discussing how our forum looks? What is this, these trolls come from some fashion forum xfactor juri or something?...

Goes to show what really moves them, "fascism is kewl, all hail military supremacism, and serve the leader"...

If you like to "serve leaders" so much, and "kewl" aesthetics why don't you all go join some cult, preferably one against the use of technology that came after the grip of religion was loosed by the enlightment you so despise, thank you very much.

Again I have to take a break from a serious reply to address this recurring point. The Aesthetics of this forum were only ever raised to outline the stifling hypocrisy that was repeatedly going on in this thread. The original criticisms of iron march being its aesthetics, layout and organisation to make the specific point that we are cultural spastics lacking integrity and seriousness, as if to imply that Command&ConquerPhalanx possessed opposing qualities. An example of this might be the post you just made.

It is instructive that now such criticisms of how you choose to present yourselves are totally irrelevant and petty when we make them. Though I wonder why it is this was so hotly contested before if it was so ludicrous. It is clearly a sore spot and smarts bad.

I understand that unwanted visitors who I in no way invited are flocking to this place but it is also no reason to delete their content. Revscare says he will remove kikehunts 'useless posts' but all I am seeing is his main arguements being removed - Mabye he means now that all of his responses will be deleted (Edit, this si now so). What is the betting that when this is all over mine and Alex’s posts will be removed or doctored also for the sake of posterity. I will be keeping an eye on this.

[capitalism_collapse]

Iron March members, I have heard it said that Adolf Hitler and (perhaps most) of the Third Reich did not think highly of the Slavic peoples. Saw them as below the Aryan ideal or something to that extent. I was wondering if you had heard/read differently on that and if not, do your Slavic members generally tend to admire Adolf Hitler regardless of his (alleged) negative feelings towards them? Thanks,

[kikehunt]

We admire Hitler for his actions, not his ideology. Fascism is about action, not ideological musings, so he works as an inspiration because of what he did, and why he did it; for his people and their future.
National Socialism as an ideology is also an inspiration, Hitler's presentation and thoughts on it are within the context of the German state, and cannot be applied to the whole world. Being Russian I do not care what Hitler said about us; he lost the war, didn't he? Were Russia strong and not under the Communist yoke, he wouldn't have dared march his troops onto our soil. National Socialism in Germany had to rationalize Russia in this way because it desired the rich fields of the east in which to develop a new civilization. If I were a German, to see such an apparently great people stolen away and murdered by the millions by an elite of leftward kikes would've also caused me to think low of them. Yet having seen the German people stoop to an even lower level than that, we understand that a whole people cannot be judged by political circumstance.
National Socialism could be applied to any white nation, and it would look radically different than Hitler's Germany, because it emphasizes identity and distinction, not common ground or universalism. It is an idea with real power, because it is so ruthless, uncompromising and faithful, which is why we admire it.

[Celtiberian]

Fascism is about action, not ideological musings

I see. So, according to this criteria, the Peace Corps and PETA must be "fascist," since they are involved in a great deal lot of action. Or do you mean violent action? In which case, the anarchist militias of the CNT/FAI would also qualify as "fascist." Perhaps you mean hierarchically organized action, such as al-Qaeda terror cells. None of these seem to share any meaningful commonalities with fascism, though..

National Socialism as an ideology is also an inspiration, Hitler's presentation and thoughts on it are within the context of the German state, and cannot be applied to the whole world.

You mean suspending democracy and replacing it with the authoritarian Führerprinzip, ghettoizing and oppressing ethnic minorities, implementing a belligerent and imperialistic foreign policy, suppressing independent trade unions and communist organizations, and abolishing the freedom of speech is uniquely German? One would wonder why the fascist experiences in Italy and Spain were so similar, but, that aside, how fortunate for the rest of the world!

Were Russia strong and not under the Communist yoke, he wouldn't have dared march his troops onto our soil.

The state socialist "yoke" which Russia was under is what turned that backward peasant land into an industrial superpower rivaling that of the United States, so show a little gratitude. For all the justifiable criticisms one could level against the USSR, military weakness is not among them.

[capitalism_collapse]

We admire Hitler for his actions, not his ideology. Fascism is about action, not ideological musings, so he works as an inspiration because of what he did, and why he did it; for his people and their future.
National Socialism as an ideology is also an inspiration, Hitler's presentation and thoughts on it are within the context of the German state, and cannot be applied to the whole world. Being Russian I do not care what Hitler said about us; he lost the war, didn't he? Were Russia strong and not under the Communist yoke, he wouldn't have dared march his troops onto our soil. National Socialism in Germany had to rationalize Russia in this way because it desired the rich fields of the east in which to develop a new civilization. If I were a German, to see such an apparently great people stolen away and murdered by the millions by an elite of leftward kikes would've also caused me to think low of them. Yet having seen the German people stoop to an even lower level than that, we understand that a whole people cannot be judged by political circumstance.
National Socialism could be applied to any white nation, and it would look radically different than Hitler's Germany, because it emphasizes identity and distinction, not common ground or universalism. It is an idea with real power, because it is so ruthless, uncompromising and faithful, which is why we admire it.

Thanks, kikehunt. I appreciate gaining your perspective on the matter.

[kikehunt]

I appreciate gaining your perspective on the matter.

mfw when this is all the respect we asked for.
didn't stop the whole lot of you from going full arse burgers on us. Common courtesy could've prevented your whole embarrassment but apparently this is a concept completely alien here.

Perhaps you mean hierarchically organized action, such as al-Qaeda terror cells

Yes, that is a fitting description, though I would also add 'based on natural and organic identity' this is not strictly national identity but applies to many different forms of human heirarchy, religion not excluded. Al Qaeda is given the image to be Muslim fascists, and while I do not understand their inner workings which appear to be shrouded in a lot of mystery, the sort of appearance of fanatical defenders of a way of life that is predictably portrayed as 'evil' in the jewish media. They are not evil, they are merely reacting against unconstructive cultural imperialism by the west.

You mentioned peace corps, and while I do respect them more than the people that make world hunger pages on facebook, their action is based off of an empathic conscious that is obsessed with do-good and bears no connection or cultural understanding. Before anti-colonialism Europeans believed in something called the 'white man's burden' which was an attempt to extend civilization to the inferior races. It was not a 'cultural' imperialism, more a subsumation of our fellow humans to righteous authority. There were few rebellions against this until the west lost its moral strength, because it is in our nature to submit to the true leader. It is constructive and beneficial to both parties. In that context something like peace corps would indeed be fascist, because from such a perspective they can extend moral empathy to foreigners in a manner during which both parties assist each other and learn about each other. It is not done to feel good and in the zeitgeist about 'world change' and 'progress' but out of a logical connection, by people who can appreciate the foreign without detaching from the domestic.

You mean suspending democracy and replacing it with the authoritarian Führerprinzip, ghettoizing and oppressing ethnic minorities, implementing a belligerent and imperialistic foreign policy, suppressing independent trade unions and communist organizations, and abolishing the freedom of speech is uniquely German?

Yes, yes, not necessarily, not at all, yes to the communists, no, and no.
Heirarchy works differently in different nations but it is a fact of life. Take for example Mosley's stance on parliamentary representation. Read '100 questions' it is very enlightening.
Ethnic minorities need not be oppressed if they were not there in the first place. The violent repressions of jews only came when they declared war on Germany, before that they were deported with compensation.
Hitler actually made the workers stronger by organizing them under one body, and actually giving them work. Amazingly the marxist trade unions weren't capable of this. Germany prospered while the world suffered under the depression. Under Communist Russia this was felt in the form of a nation wide famine. mfw commies mad when their economic central philosophy failed to produce a successful economy.
Yes, we hate communism.
Freedom of speech was not abolished. Subversion and petty intellectualism, kunst and so on were, because these are cultural pollution. Also during wartime it happens to be that some forms of speech are extremely dangerous the war effort, so of course a system of censorship and control has to remain in place.

For all the justifiable criticisms one could level against the USSR, military weakness is not among them.

let me google that for you;
Stalin's repressions of the military.
mfw georgian ****** wasn't even around the first 8 days of the war
shot into the faces of soviet soldiers that retreated
threw them into mindless human wave tactics and lost the best prepared troops of the nation in the first few weeks due to complete unpreparadness for the war, and incompetence of maneuver. The greatest military catastrophe since the mongol's loss to the divine wind; Kiev, 600,000 surrendered, also tanks and airplanes. That was the creme of the red army lost and outed without one sign of direction. Umman. Most incompetent general staff in the world loses one of its best armies. Budyonny, my fucking god. The Baltics. Positioned themselves to be shot in the back. Counter-offensives into Kursk, the Baltic states and Finland yielded casualty rations of 10 to 1 in favor of rag-tag defenders. The only success of the first half of the war was Stalingrad, because Chuykov was in China and could not be purged by Stalin.

Industrialization was happening under the Czar as well. It would've gone far better had the Communists not purged millions in the civil war, the famine, and then made war with Germany inevitable.

you have literally no idea that every single communist state in the world existed to destroy its host nations. They nearly succeeded with Russia, except then the government was handed over to opportunists who seemed to care more about the people.

[Isakenaz]

Ha ha ha ha,

The violent repressions of jews only came when they declared war on Germany, before that they were deported with compensation.

Read some history, not nazi propaganda. I don't recall the Jewish people declaring war on anyone, un;ess it was in the sick minds of Hitler and his chums. Oh, I forgot anyonr who disagreed with Herr Hitler was a Jew. Therefore it would seem that all those nations that went to war against them were led by Jews, or worse Commie Jews

Germany prospered while the world suffered under the depression.

Again read some history, not nazi propaganda. But then history is written by the winners, and unfortunately for you that wasn't your deluded predecesors. Nazism and fascism belong in the 1930s, lets leave it there and move on.
You and your fascist friends had their chance and history proved them wanting.

[ForTheFuture]

This is what he is reffering to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_boycott_of_German_goods
Obviously Hitler would have never oppressed the jews if they hadn't declared this unprovoked attack.

[Rev Scare]

This is what he is reffering to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_boycott_of_German_goods
Obviously Hitler would have never oppressed the jews if they hadn't declared this unprovoked attack.

Are you seriously asserting that one insignificant boycott by a Jewish minority warranted the scale of state aggression in Nazi Germany against the whole of its Jewish community?

[ForTheFuture]

Are you seriously asserting that one insignificant boycott by a Jewish minority warranted the scale of state aggression in Nazi Germany against the whole of its Jewish community?

I was being sarcastic, of course not, but Kikehunt seems to think so.

[Sponsored content]