Re: Iron March Forum

[Isakenaz]

The boycott started in March 1933 in both Europe and the US. According to Berel Lang the March 1933 boycott was uncoordinated and soon ended. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_boycott_of_German_goods

And as a retaliation for such an act of naked aggression the nazis, some six years later, invaded Poland. Easy to understand the idea that WWII was started by the Jews

[capitalism_collapse]

Iron March members, I was curious as to your view of White Muslim populations -specifically those of Circassian, Chechen (though you may not regard them as "White" as I do), Bosnian, and Albanian (again, may not regard as "White" as I do), Iranian ("), and Afghan (") ethnicities.

Are most Iron March members generally against Islam or would you say it depends member to member. I know Iron March member Black Nationalist is Muslim -possibly Nation of Islam-style Muslim (but I do not know for sure). Thanks,

[kikehunt]

Iron March members, I was curious as to your view of White Muslim populations -specifically those of Circassian, Chechen (though you may not regard them as "White" as I do), Bosnian, and Albanian (again, may not regard as "White" as I do) ethnicities.

Are most Iron March members generally against Islam or would you say it depends member to member. I know Iron March member Black Nationalist is Muslim -possibly Nation of Islam-style Muslim (but I do not know for sure). Thanks,

Since most of us are European, defense of European culture would be to hold Muslims away from the continent. Of course history is subjective and determined by the strength of will to power. Whites converted to Islam (like hundreds of thousands are in Britain and France) represents their loss of confidence in European culture as something that is strong, which can give them a spiritual purpose in life, and can defend them. The abysmal decline of European power is a result of the treasonous policies of European governments, and the displacement of ethnic whites and also European culture from our own land is reason enough to revolt against these governments. When I said history is subjective,I mean it is up to Muslims to determine their own destiny. I will not tell them what to do, so long as they are Muslim Arabs in Arabia. In the current condition including Bosnians, Albanians and Chechens, they are a threat to Russia, to Europe (who are naturally connected to us) and must be suppressed.

Some national socialists like Otto Skorenzy and Savitri Devi have advocated a conversion of Europe to another (foreign) religion. I consider them to be spergs and insane, but I am just reporting on their opinion.

Obviously Hitler would have never oppressed the jews if they hadn't declared this unprovoked attack.

I was not referring to that specifically, but the British and French declaration of war despite the deliberately stated fact that Hitler wanted war with neither France nor Britain, and this was immensely against the interests of both. it was prompted by the investment of Jewish finance into the parties that supported war with Hitler, churchil's betrayal of his own people by forming a coalition with labor, the draconian internment of peace activists in Britain under regulation 18b of both Fascist and right/left orientation, most of whom at least from the fascist side just returned from Dunkirk. On iron march there is a thread called 'Regulation 18b and the Second World War' look it up on google, it has a good debate on Churchil and Roosevelt's conspiracy to begin the war. That Roosevelt lured the Japanese to attack pearl harbor through embargo and support of their enemies is basically a historic fact. Also, go to youtube and enter 'Patrick Buchanan on his book 'Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War';
Buchanan is neocon scum that still pays homage to the old ww2 narrative but his work is still a ground breaking example of common sense in the modern world, which is why he was vilified and fired.

[kikehunt]

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 literally don't know the first thing about history.
This is basically common knowledge if you took the time to study any of this, even from fucking wikipedia. I learned this shit still in my childhood. read it and weep
htt p:/ /br .dir.grou ps.yahoo.co m/group/monarquiadobrasil/message/3877

anything that disproves your delusional fantasies is nazi propaganda. In the 30s hitler was universally praised for making Germany economically self-sufficient, building the best system of roads in the world, increasing gdp by 40%, production by 60%, and lowering unemployment from nearly 50 to 2%. Apparently now it is nazi propaganda, which must be displayed on every single broadcasting network in the world.

[ForTheFuture]

I was not referring to that specifically, but the British and French declaration of war despite the deliberately stated fact that Hitler wanted war with neither France nor Britain, and this was immensely against the interests of both. it was prompted by the investment of Jewish finance into the parties that supported war with Hitler, churchil's betrayal of his own people by forming a coalition with labor, the draconian internment of peace activists in Britain under regulation 18b of both Fascist and right/left orientation, most of whom at least from the fascist side just returned from Dunkirk. On iron march there is a thread called 'Regulation 18b and the Second World War' look it up on google, it has a good debate on Churchil and Roosevelt's conspiracy to begin the war. That Roosevelt lured the Japanese to attack pearl harbor through embargo and support of their enemies is basically a historic fact. Also, go to youtube and enter 'Patrick Buchanan on his book 'Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War';
Buchanan is neocon scum that still pays homage to the old ww2 narrative but his work is still a ground breaking example of common sense in the modern world, which is why he was vilified and fired.

The Nuremberg laws came about well before the invasion of Poland, but you've already previously said that you don't care about this at all, so arguing about the holocaust is irrelevant, and it's all common knowledge. As for the WWII stuff, it's obvious the imperial powers didn't care about Polish sovereignty, as is the common narrative, the primary motivation for that war, like most, was financial, not ideological.

[ForTheFuture]

******, you literally don't know the first thing about history.
This is basically common knowledge if you took the time to study any of this, even from fucking wikipedia. I learned this shit still in my childhood. read it and weep
htt p:/ /br .dir.grou ps.yahoo.co m/group/monarquiadobrasil/message/3877

anything that disproves your delusional fantasies is nazi propaganda. In the 30s hitler was universally praised for making Germany economically self-sufficient, building the best system of roads in the world, increasing gdp by 40%, production by 60%, and lowering unemployment from nearly 50 to 2%. Apparently now it is nazi propaganda, which must be displayed on every single broadcasting network in the world.

Economies grow and shrink, bubbles burst. Improvement began in the late Weimar years and none of these 'economic miracles' have been long term, Spanish, Chilean, Portuguese, New Deal, ect. just the way it is in this mode of production.

[Isakenaz]

******, you literally don't know the first thing about history.
This is basically common knowledge if you took the time to study any of this, even from fucking wikipedia. I learned this shit still in my childhood. read it and weep
htt p:/ /br .dir.grou ps.yahoo.co m/group/monarquiadobrasil/message/3877

anything that disproves your delusional fantasies is nazi propaganda. In the 30s hitler was universally praised for making Germany economically self-sufficient, building the best system of roads in the world, increasing gdp by 40%, production by 60%, and lowering unemployment from nearly 50 to 2%. Apparently now it is nazi propaganda, which must be displayed on every single broadcasting network in the world.

Really? I have a first class honours degree in history, what's your excuse? Historically I know that Hitler died hiding in a bunker in the last remnants of his 'thousand year reich'. I also know that Mussolini was executed by the very people he had sought to restore to Imperial greatness. With the demise of Franco, Spain rushed to undo his fascist heritage, and Portugal followed suit with their own. Is there any existing fascist government to examine? You live in a 'black shirted' fantasy, with your circle-jerking comrades.

Fascism is about as usefull as balls on a catholic priest.

[Celtiberian]

when this is all the respect we asked for.

Your asinine political and racial theories, in addition to your vacuous 4chan-esque posts, do not warrant "respect." You should just be grateful that we've allowed you people to post here for as long as we have.

Common courtesy could've prevented your whole embarrassment but apparently this is a concept completely alien here.

What "embarrassment" could you possibly be referring to? We have successfully refuted every one of your criticisms of our forum and political philosophy.

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.

There is no such thing as a 'natural hierarchy.' Organizational forms are social constructs and always have been. But if you wanted to argue that humanity possessed a instinctual bias in a certain direction, anthropological data suggests that horizontal social relations would be the most probable.

They are not evil, they are merely reacting against unconstructive cultural imperialism by the west.

It depends entirely on how one defines "evil." Their refusal to grant females social equality, opposition to secularism, and general aversion to progress may be unobjectionable to a fascist, but that's because you share a common reactionary Weltanschauung.

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.

The latter half of your sentence is incoherent. An empathetic consciousness doesn't interfere with one possessing a cultural understanding as well.

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

You're right, it was economic imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism.

more a subsumation of our fellow humans to righteous authority.

"Righteous" by your irrational standards.

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.

Only a few? I suppose that's why colonial rule was resisted until it was finally defeated in virtually every oppressed country. It was even defeated in colonies which didn't suffer to an appreciable degree, e.g., the United States. Servility is in the "nature" of detestable masochists; it's definitely not a trait innate to the bulk of humanity.

It is constructive and beneficial to both parties.

Even Karl Marx admitted that the history of imperialism indirectly benefited the subjugated populations to an extent, but that's hardly a sufficient ethical justification for imperialism.

In that context something like peace corps would indeed be fascist

Your use of the term 'fascist' is so broad that it's essentially meaningless.

Yes

Then you're basically saying that the masses shouldn't be permitted to participate in the decisions which directly influence their life. (It's refreshing to see a fascist concede that they're in favor of enslaving their own people.)

not necessarily

But it remains an option.

Take for example Mosley's stance on parliamentary representation. Read '100 questions' it is very enlightening.

Mosley's corporativist proposal would prohibit citizens from voting on anything beyond elections to determine representatives "versed in the problems" of the specific occupations they belonged to. In other words, people would be excluded from every other decision which affects their life—and I won't even get into the significant overlap which exists between industries, further rendering such a policy unreasonable.

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

Are you suggesting that the Allied forces were merely the marionettes of international Jewry (as per the Hitlerian conspiracy theory), or are you instead referring to the insignificant boycott of German goods in 1933?

Hitler actually made the workers stronger by organizing them under one body, and actually giving them work.

"Stronger" by outlawing their right to strike? By taking away their dignity via forcing them to submit to their firm's "Betriebsführer" (aka capitalist employer) "In all matters pertaining to the factory" [Mason & Caplan, Social Policy in the Third Reich: The Working Class and the 'National Community,' 1918-1939 (London: Berg Publishers, 1993), p. 103]? I won't deny that they provided the German people with employment, but they accomplished that by a combination of restricting female participation in the workforce, creating short-term public works projects, and enacting a policy of military Keynesianism—the former of which should hardly be commended, and the latter two being unsustainable. Forgive me for remaining unimpressed.

Amazingly the marxist trade unions weren't capable of this.

Marxist trade unions weren't in a position to draft public policy, so they can hardly be faulted for that.

Germany prospered while the world suffered under the depression.

The Third Reich "prospered" at the expense of the nations they invaded and extracted resources from.

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.

The famine was caused by Stalin's policy of forced collectivization, which, apart from being unnecessary, was not supported by non-Stalinist socialists. Furthermore, state socialism is not the "central philosophy" of communism, it's but one economic model of many. It's not what I support either, but it would be disingenuous for me to deny its various successes just because I happen to disagree with it.

Freedom of speech was not abolished. Subversion and petty intellectualism, kunst and so on were

Which is an admission that any speech arbitrarily deemed subversive was illegal. To quote Noam Chomsky,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky quoted in Mark Achbar (ed.), Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1996), p. 184 (bold emphasis added).

Stalin's repressions of the military.

His military repressions were a political blunder unrelated to the country's economic performance. The Soviet Union excelled in arms manufacturing for the duration of its existence. I also couldn't be less interested in the finer details of military tactics utilized by the Soviet Union during the Second World War, so spare me. The fact remains that the Allied forces utterly defeated the Axis; the rest, as they say, is history.

Industrialization was happening under the Czar as well.

...At a snail's pace.


[Source: Robert C. Allen, Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 26.]

Agricultural employment reduced by only 8% in a span of nearly three decades during Tsarist rule. Soviet economic growth, by contrast, was extraordinarily rapid:


[Source: Robert C. Allen (2005), “A Reassessment of the Soviet Industrial Revolution,” Comparative Economic Studies, Vol. 42, p. 10.]

In fact, even during its more difficult periods, the Soviet Union never endured negative growth rates:


[Source: Allen 2005, p. 18.]

Most impartial economists attribute the USSR's slow down to diverting too many resources into military production, reequipping outdated factories instead of building newer ones, and replacing their strategy of capital production with one focused too strongly on the production of consumer goods. The principal–agent problem (inherent in both capitalist and state socialist firms) likely reduced productivity to an extent 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.

Reactionaries can be blamed for the civil war, though the Soviets should be denounced for the atrocities they committed against the more radical elements of the revolution (e.g., the of the Kronstadt commune and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine). And while I agree that the famine was unnecessary, at no point did the Stalinist regime make war with the Third Reich "inevitable"—the non-aggression pact was violated by the Germans.

you have literally no idea that every single communist state in the world existed to destroy its host nations.

Let me guess, you're advancing Kevin MacDonalds baseless hypothesis in which the Bolshevik Revolution is explained as an example of the Jew's rapacious drive to subvert and control gentile populations?

Anyway, didn't you say that you were finished debating here? Why don't you grace Iron March, 4chon, or whatever other fascist cesspool you belong to, with your presence? Your posts amount to nothing more than rank speculation and worthless commentary, you fucking zero.

[Isakenaz]

Nice one Celtiberian, I guess you own that particular arschloch.

[kikehunt]

Precisely why I do not debate celtiberian; you break up my post and throw the conversation into irrelevant tangents. eg; I will explain something and you will break it into twenty separate discussions that bear no relevance to the subject matter. You also fill it in with smug, condescending comments that one would have the temptation to punch across the face for were they said in real life. I will do the same for you;

You should just be grateful that we've allowed you people to post here for as long as we have.

Actually our posts have been censored and edited to fit your intellectual incapacity. You go on to say something about freedom of speech, which has no objective or moral value. It may to brain-dead commies, but not normal people.

We have successfully refuted every one of your criticisms of our forum and political philosophy.

do go on about that one

His military repressions were a political blunder unrelated to the country's economic performance. The Soviet Union excelled in arms manufacturing for the duration of its existence. I also couldn't be less interested in the finer details of military tactics utilized by the Soviet Union during the Second World War, so spare me. The fact remains that the Allied forces utterly defeated the Axis; the rest, as they say, is history.

Hahaha. Then why did you ignore my post on military strategy? I do not care about economics, I care about the soviet soldiers that bit it by the millions because of his incompetence. If there was such a great system of production why were their soldiers that recall going into battle without weapons? It is a typical internet delusion, you are completely infamiliar with the people that fought the war.

Are you suggesting that the Allied forces were merely the marionettes of international Jewry

see my exchanges with your fellow forum faggots

I won't deny that they provided the German people with employment, but they accomplished that by a combination of restricting female participation in the workforce, creating short-term public works projects, and enacting a policy of military Keynesianism—the former of which should hardly be commended, and the latter two being unsustainable. Forgive me for remaining unimpressed.

The german workers seemed to like it

The Third Reich "prospered" at the expense of the nations they invaded and extracted resources from.

Your use of the term 'fascist' is so broad that it's essentially meaningless.

Because it is a fairly common sense world view that does not involve needless complexity. Everything great has been simple, everything simple is great.

"Righteous" by your irrational standards.

hurp durr durr

...At a snail's pace.

Before Stolypin's reforms.

Soviet Union economic growth

The Third Reich "prospered" at the expense of the nations they invaded and extracted resources from.

here, have some of that medicine doctor

Reactionaries can be blamed for the civil war

Jews are responsible for the revolution.

Let me guess, you're advancing Kevin MacDonalds baseless hypothesis in which the Bolshevik Revolution is explained as an example of the Jew's rapacious drive to subvert and control gentile populations?

I am refering to the protocols of the learned elders of zion.

Really? I have a first class honours degree in history, what's your excuse?

hurp durp hurr, 'reference to authority' that you clearly don't have, besides wikipedia knowledge. I don't need an excuse, I actually know the facts, and have pages of debate to prove it. Your comment had nothing relevant to the subject matter of fascist economics. You can kindly fuck yourself in the arse.

Economies grow and shrink, bubbles burst.

Tell that to any qualified economist and he will laugh at you. Under the circumstances that international jewry placed Germany they should have been dieing of hunger, and the rest of the world was anyway to begin with. You are telling me this was all some accident caused by the weimar regime? You have a lot of fucking nerve to be this stupid. Read the article I sent you and you might actually learn something, dipshit.

The Nuremberg laws came about well before the invasion of Poland,

That is the point, Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany, and rightfully so. He only started killing them en masse as revenge, after 1941. Final solution was 1942.

[Isakenaz]

Actually our posts have been censored and edited to fit your intellectual incapacity.

Ah, written for you, that explains it.
To the intelligensia of Iron March (if such a creature exists); you'll have to find a new bitch, that one is busted.

[Guest777]

Let's get a few things straight. First of all, I am addressing the substance of your arguments, but you write paragraphs which contain several points that require individual consideration. They also happen to be highly contentious, which is why I can't simply ignore them and instead respond to the general thrust of your posts. You have steered the debate thus far, so don't act as if I'm digressing into irrelevant topics. If this is consuming too much of your time, I suggest you narrow the focus of your argument.

Individual points may require individual consideration, but if you nitpick them and allow them to take a life of their own without any intention of then taking that and referring it to the previous point makes the entire exercise a pointless detour tactic. I say this because I have noted in many places on many occasions where entire sections of my response have not been so much as acknowledged as indeed the entirety of my first contribution has been virtually lost.

The fact is you are terrible for making many quotations on just one topic whenever there is a specific point to contest, so what should be one response (Eg Genocide and foreign aid). these I have merged where they are all part of the same argument. If you can’t bring it back to the argument it serves no purpose.

Your inability to let irrelevant points slide in the heat of debate and rack up a colossal response is why you have had to wait a week for a reply. Please, where you can, restrain yourself.

You need to make some important decisions; You need to meet me half way merge your arguments and get on point, and keep things interesting. If you cannot do this then expect a long wait for a reply.

Item 1 Marxism cannot be nationalist:

James Connolly, Stanisław Brzozowski, and John Maclean weren't "true" Marxists, you're deceiving yourself. (I should also add that you've consistently failed to demonstrate a proficient understanding of Marxism, and are therefore in no position to judge such matters.)

Now I have had the chance to look into them and read them, it is clear to see what all these figures had in common – they are all seeking a ‘national liberation’ at the expense of existing nations they are part of. Nationalism is something that needs to be clarified because we are not sharing its definition here.

These men were Marxists, but not in any way nationalists, they were anti nationalists. This is with the possible exception of James Connolly owed to the very bizarre circumstances of Ireland which was never part of Britain and had not developed much sense of nationalism until relatively close to that time. As admin stated; Nationalism – concept of 19th century is integral; examples of nations are Germany, Britain, France, America, etc – these nations are empires as well, even the Netherlands contains various groups; the Flemish and the Friesians – anyone who would cleverly use them in a fratricidal conflict is destroying the nation.

The ‘nationalism’ you speak of; Scottish nationalism as it is expressed by John Maclean is by its direct trajectory no different to the cosmopolitan liberalism of the Scottish project as it stands today, as part of the global and European project. What really is there to differentiate it from the ‘nationalism’ as it was expressed in the Bavarian social republic which cleverly used Bavarian regionalism against the state authority in Prussia. It was in reality anti nationalism.

A figure like Alex Salmond makes sometimes very aggressive statements of pride and patriotism and the qualities and freedoms of the Scottish people, but this is only for a higher purpose of divide and rule under international finance – and to weaken feelings of nationalism. Maclean spent the First World War languishing in prison while the Scots, who were volunteers by the way, gave their lives in the largest number.

This is why real nationalism as expressed in the British isles is Unionist Including in Scotland, and including in Northern Ireland where is advocated a total union with Britain or a total union with Ireland – not a separate state.

History is littered with examples of humanistic independence/civil rights leaders, but always from a down position EXPECTING something, none fight for the existing national state, like how no liberal does today with the exception of the European union’s nurturing of the ‘small nations’.

I had a ‘friend’ from uni, a Marxist who was a member of the now defunct Free England Party on the basis of Billy Bragg’s ‘progressive patriotism’ – this figure dedicates his existence to fighting ‘fascism’ with the SWP and being a sick apologist for liberal degeneration and multiculturalism – but he waves the flag because he is too unimaginative for a socialist. He was very inconsistent and his views motivated by cowardice.

I think this is significant because it puts in perspective your own claim to a form of nationalism. Not only have I looked over your sources. I have looked through immigration topics and I don’t see any defences or concerns about the demographic future of a people.

I have done as you suggested and reviewed your forum. Your cosmopolitan section is bare to say the least littered with only a few examples of the type of response you are going to get in the real world. All of them immediately accuse you of being racist and the forum’s response is that somebody immediately cites the FAQ as if to say in bold letters WE DON’T BE RACIST BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE WE NOT – as if they didn’t see it or that is a credible response, you are simply not understanding the debate. Playing dumb as you lot do here may work on the internet for prolonging a debate until the other gives up, but I can tell you now that irl you would all fold like a pack of cards.

Another example from personal experience is a time when head of the conservative society wanted to have petitions signed for recognition of st georges day which is not an official holiday, the ubiquitous English flag was on display – this in many ways was the position of this place ‘muh volk’ ‘muh volkish nationalism’, his justifications were leftist; it was taking the holiday away from the fascists – and he depoliticised it with quotes about cups of tea and the like. He seriously thought that would protect him, the fool. 15 minutes under the criticism of the labour leader and he was buttdevastated, I did not come to his defence because I agreed totally with the labour leader; it is a fascist flag, my flag. That is less I can say for the other guy whose performance I had never been so embarrassed by.

That is my problem with this place all I see is backtracking, falling back on Marxist credentials to justify your position – when you don’t have the grit for it or any of the conviction of an opposing world view. This is needed if you want to defend anything; for there to be any limit of immigration, the maintenance of national traditions, etc on principle, requires principles that are rock solid. Even most nationalists and all conservatives snap like nothing because they are not fascists, and they need fascism to make a defence of the nation – to stand openly in opposition to a hostile viewpoint. Am I to take it you are seriously considering yourselves an alternative to us on this count. No. All you do is hide and backtrack you appeal to the leftist nationalisms’ of Ghandi, Connolly, Malcolm X etc, as if their sainthood under liberalism would actually apply to any European group promoting nationalism today. This is another form of avoidance.

The Marxist-Leninist definition, as propounded by Joseph Stalin, is "a historical, evolved stable community of language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a community of culture." Otto Bauer's Austro-Marxist definition also added that,

"The nation is a relative community of character; it is a community of character because, in any given era, a range of corresponding characteristics can be observed among the great majority of the nation's members, and because, although all nations share a number of characteristics by virtue of their humanity, there is nevertheless a range of characteristics that are peculiar to each nation and distinguish it from other nations. The nation is not an absolute, but only a relative community of character. . . The nation has a national character, but this national character merely indicates a relative commonality of the characteristics of individual behavior."
Otto Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. 22.

Unlike the Marxist-Leninists, the Austro-Marxists didn't believe that national identity was merely a transient historical phenomenon, and in this sense shares more in common with the left-wing nationalism I adhere to. To summarize, we define the nation as a community constituted by a shared belief in and mutual commitment to co-nationals, extended in history, active in character, and marked off from other communities by a distinct public culture. The last facet is what distinguishes us most sharply from reactionary nationalist currents, because it's inherently democratic—and since fascism is elitist, and thus rejects democracy on principle (not withstanding the nonsensical attempts by intellectuals like Giovanni Gentile to portray fascist authoritarianism as possessing a 'democratic essence'), it is fundamentally at odds with the nationalism you espouse.

What you are doing with nationalism is justifying it to yourself the way alot of ordinary people do - we call these people ‘patriotards’, and they are found as much on the left as they are on the right. They want the flash of the idea - security, pride, identity - but ignore what it means. they represent only the mindlless adherance to a state based world concept but it is completely devoid of the soul and purpose of a nation. Nowhere in the writings of any marxist will you find the fascist stones of blood and soil, ancestry, race and destiny. If a state based concept does not nurture those things necissary for the group to survive then there is no possible justification for it. It cannot be nationalism if it does not understand or defend the nation.

Only it isn't. It is the outcome of an attempt to graft onto Marxism a cosmopolitan project which neither Marx nor Engels acknowledged. Notice that I haven't argued that Marx and Engels were left-wing nationalists themselves, because that also wouldn't be accurate. The reality is that they didn't trouble themselves with the national question much, and the little they did write about the subject changed considerably throughout their lives. What is certain is that they never argued that ethnicity or national identity were destined to wither away upon the ascent of global communism, as Luxemburgists do.

Marx and Engels may not have specifically advocated what we might call multiculturalism, because they didn’t need to most of his adherents do today – and they do so for a reason. Greater than the Marxist scripture is the revolutionary idea behind it, the metaphysics of a revolutionary idea; what is acceptable today is not tomorrow. Aforementioned Billy Bragg, despite being the most prolific antifascist in the country draws a lot of criticism for even thinking the English flag is acceptable – eg his partner Weyman Bennet who believes that it is irredeemably evil and racist; in a power situation I think that Bragg would be killed by his own side.

You need to DEFEND against that – even if it is the smallest statement like; there should on principle be one less immigrant, that is a fight only a fascist can handle. Marxist theory provides no way of defending a single aspect of nationalism. It is therefore antinationalist in its conception as there is no room to defend it or any other aspect f traditional society (group survival). I accept that many great men may have adhered to Marxism on a scientific level, that is then, today they would be regarded as culturally fascistic.

Item 2 Genocidal Do-gooding:

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.

Marxism for all intents and purposes is has a unified geo-political narrative, this opressor-opressed relationship which draws lines in the sand. Many of our own nationalists do this with similar concepts like these 'ethno' and 'tribal' types - the question quickly comes up of 'what belongs to who?' and the most ridiculous fighting ensues

http://worldethnicmap.webs.com/worldmapnations.png

The thing is you talk about the ethnic cleansing of Rhodesia like that wasn't going to be the direct result of majority rule. The genocide of one group over another is very intimately tied to this dogooding principle - In which case how can you expect a people to accept this. When the French revolution reached Haiti the slaves were declared free - Great they thought! and killed everyone.

Rhodesia was a psuedo-nation and Zimbabwe is? As you say its foundation is fundamentally no different from that of the United States. It was never the aim of the Rhodesians to assimilate the native population, they were protected peoples . Only in the end did they try this doing everything they could constitutionally; Blacks were given the vote, their parties came to power in a unified government, and look what happened to them destroyed at the stroke of a pen - the africans too, both were winning the bush wars but became too liberal to fight, they bowed to international pressure and threw themselves at its mercy. What a mercy.

What has this taught Europeans; that you must utterly eradicate your enemies, you must never permit them to exist, even as loyal submissives because if you stay and give them food, books, medicine, etc then invite them into your home they will pay you back with murder. Wars in the future will be wars of total extermination because the world has seen the fruits of mercy, a value that exists only in Europeans. That is the 'ethical standpoint' that has been set for future wars.

When the Spanish rose against Moorish occupation they did not appeal their human rights and guilt the Moors into letting them go, they fought for every last inch of their land. If they didn't - well look at other parts of Europe, look at Bosnia and Albania - pseudo nations if such things existed. do you support that these people should disappear from Europe?

I guess it gives a new meaning to whether you would like to die for your principles - that is how I would judge the sincerity of Marxism. Genocide isn't always a factor, almost anything can make Marxism odious; again it is the law of Marxists that the protestant state in northern Ireland is an abomination that has no right to exist. Even though they would not be slaughtered they would lose their state - why should they surrender that when they don't have to?

The only way you could legitimately argue that Marxist analysis doesn't apply to "real life" is if it fails to accurately predict national liberation struggles. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case.

Yes because you can predict with certainty what will be the result of them every time - every time it somehow ends in Europeans getting slaughtered.

Item 3 Evolution, Ideology, consumer-communism, misc

Jessie Jackson is a Marxist? I'd enjoy seeing evidence of this.

In so far as he is a civil rights leader who supports Marxist social agenda – leave it at that.

If you've really developed a "consistent current," unlike your ideological predecessors, you shouldn't have any trouble summarizing it for us.

I think I can speak for the forum when I say that we are nationalists and we accept what this means. All others have some form of avoidance; mainstream politicians seeking respectability stupidly pretend they are liberal and they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Other groups like the new right and strasserism attempt to also avoid the fascist label by intellectualism; creating their own tier. We recognise that is fascism with is European man’s only defence against destruction, so we are fascists; which is militant revolutionary nationalism, and that is what we are trying to instil in our people and we have succeeded with as great many of them. No other community out there does this.

He only began threatening them after he assumed power, and it amounted to very little regardless. The Strasserist faction of the NSDAP did participate in strikes which made the bourgeoisie uncomfortable, but Hitler was always there to reassure them that such elements were never going to gain hegemony in the party. The Nazis blackmailed in a figurative sense; the capitalists felt compelled to fund Hitler not because the Nazis literally forced them to, but rather because they wanted to ensure that he felt an obligation to honor his commitment to defend private property.

So then why are you submitting it as evidence that he did the opposite – find me something of him grovelling to big business. Again this is difficult because there are like 50 Marxist/liberal versions of Hitler’s rise to power - the most popular I thought was that he came in to rescue the declining middle class who were being squeezed out by big business and had suffered terribly in the depression.
(History of Hitler's Empire, 2nd Edition, award-winning Professor Thomas Childers)

That Hitler is controlled opposition is an utterly ridiculous assertion. Aside from that I don’t see how proving any of this will get me anywhere. If I am for instance able to prove that something like Gottfried Feder’s theory of wage slavery was sincere, you would not claim such a thing, it belongs only in the fascist camp along with things like the social credit concept.

I didn't suggest that they were masochists. The fascists were involved in a struggle to attain state power, so they had an incentive to endure whatever hardships befell them in the process. However, the reason they didn't shy away from physical confrontations with the Left was because there was an undeniable adventurist element among the young veterans involved in those parties.

If they wanted only state power then there is a much easier way of doing that thought he official channels. You seriously think that all the people who hopelessly fought just in the past sixty years did so expecting some kind of big payoff in their own lifetime? There is no reward for failed fascist revolutionaries (failed leftists become university professors, etc) and until the system is overthrown you are condemned to a life of general misery, if nothing else - simply knowing what is wrong and feeling guilt if you are not doing anything to change it. Are you sincerely saying that these people had no values? Perhaps you don't know what it is like to be a fanatic which would explain alot about the current position of left nationalism.

What are you talking about? There were mass demonstrations in Moscow at the height of the capitalist reforms. And "one division" wouldn't have sufficed to take on the force of the military apparatuses of those countries. Moreover, one could extend that argument to fascism: why didn't the East Germans or the Italians, for example, resist the occupying forces more adamantly if they were so devoted to the fascist cause?

I am not going to debate the facts of history. Yeltzin stood on that fucking tank and held a press conference, he fired on the parliament virtually without opposition. You totally missed the point of what I was trying to say also, so I am not going to try and restate it here, it has nothing to do with the topic.

It hasn't been "proven." I don't deny that some activists derive satisfaction from participating in movements for social justice, but there are also those who do so simply because they believe it is the right thing to do. Kant's categorical imperative has long been followed by socialists and communists. And what makes you think that fascist activists are immune from deriving self-gratification from their activism, by the way?

Fascists don’t go round as self hating bent cultural spastics who need people to recognise how moralistic they are. I am a demagogue, I don’t give a shit.

I'm familiar with Peter Singer's work, and his Left bona fides are sorely lacking, to put it mildly. Being an exponent of evolutionary psychology, he has been on the forefront of arguing that Marxian socialism is infeasible due to 'human nature' since the 1970s. In short, he adheres to the Thatcherite dictum of there being "no alternative" to capitalism. His utilitarian ethics are the source of his commitment to foreign aid, and he's well aware of the unintended consequences which lie in imprudently assisting Third World countries—which is why he supports only those NGOs which have empirically demonstrated progress in alleviating poverty.

it goes to further show that leftist ethics that inspire marxism and marxists are not incompatable with hyper capitalism. you may question peter singer's credentials but he echos what most marxists advocate and - the point is - that the moral conception of life that you agreed with, of taken to its logical conclusion is the world of modern liberalism. It is not caring about the consequences it is being unprepared to make a morally inegalitarian decision and allowing others to pay for that stupidity.

Nice reductio ad absurdum, you sensationalist twit.

Muh dawkinsforum fallacy. You speak Latin too - you know that isn't a technical term right? Actually my sensationalist point was in reference to the example in an essay that Jewkiller poster here. That essay was removed by the mods though. It is not sensationalism, it is a moral conundrum highlighting the stupidity and evil of your thinking; you act on principle and for always acting on that principle you will negate it.

Which is exactly what charitable institutions that are legitimately concerned with helping people do.

they are doing an excellent job.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the study of human altruism. People engage in acts of generosity on a regular basis, so altruism is clearly an aspect of our Gattungswesen—though material conditions can either promote or retard its development. (And since we live in competitive capitalist societies, it's reasonable to assume that we're witnessing far less altruism than would otherwise be the case.)

This is exactly the moral sickness I was referring to. It has worked well within european societies - but applied universally without logic it is the greatest threat we face. When it is intellectualised it becomes selective; as leftists say you have all these animal charities when there are starving humans. I believe that altruism is only supposed to be applied within our own group, and outside it is destructive.

Whether you agree with them or not, rights exist because people accept their validity and actively enforce them. So, in addition to being wrong about matters of class, the allegedly "scientific method" which fascists follow falters when it comes to explaining rights.

Right, it has to be manifested in the real world, and so it has to bend to its laws. At the moment they are enforced with western do-gooders and western arms (a power built up for centuries through the most ruthless methods) – this is slowly leading to the west’s destruction and eventually stronger groups in tune with dawrinistic principles of life will take over and the rights will exist no more.

The human species is distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom because we are endowed with cognitive faculties which facilitate reason, abstract thought, and contemplation. To quote Marx,

These are irrelevant, though some animals can also do these things. You can destroy this by degrading humans, breeding bad and sick humans. They are no less applicable to the laws to genetics, and with these finely tuned instruments you talk about it is far far more important.

They cannot be communists if they reject the proletariat as the historical agents of revolution. Nor can they be if their objective is to "rule over and degrade" the working class. The Marxist position has always been that the revolution will represent a self-emancipation of the proletariat.

But as I demonstrated these were all members of the communist party, and that was their primary activity. Again you may wish to reject the main body of Marxism but that these people effectly ran an entertainment industry while nationalists were out in the cold shows that you somehow missed the boat. As a socialist phalanxer would you get anywhere in the industry today? No, but if you were something really choice like a syphilitic spastic mongoloid transgender-gender-gender communist cannibal, well then get your tux it is off to the Oscars.

The deterioration of conditions in the Third World is directly attributable to the neoliberal structural adjustment programs which the West has forced these countries to adopt (and which liberals like Singer dismiss, incidentally). It has nothing whatever to do with left-wing charity, except insofar as progressively-minded individuals substitute radical activism for passively donating to charities involved in microfinance, or participating in 'ethical consumerism,' or what have you. Slavoj Žižek critiqued this phenomenon quite well in First as Tragedy, Then as Farce.

(his thesis is described in the following brief lecture)


But even the left-liberals are intelligent enough to realize that any assistance provided to the Third World is offset by unsustainable increases in population size, which is why they are constantly struggling against the Christian charities in order to provide the needy with access to contraceptives. So your argument is a complete straw man.

It is not a strawman it is the logical outcome of your ideas. Zizek's lecture was sort of what I had in mind - It is a brief repose looking back on the faliure of soviet communism and how ridiculous it is that capitalism is responsible for feeding more people than ever but just because modern capitalist Leftism is absurd, doesn't mean it isn't true. It is a case study in leftist mentality - for a communist buying a moccachino is part of his moral duty and that is the Left wing character flaw - we have ours; cowardace, you have yours; egoism. If you are honest with yourself if you could give money now to make the world a more 'equal' place you would regardless of the means. I remember somebody in this topic talking about how much they hate capitalism; am I really expected to believe that with that moral motivation - with a starving child looking up at you with those eyes, you will say no to her, because of your interpretation of an economic theory.

Zizek talks about feeding the world - for how many generations? I am totaly unconvinced by your assertion that economic aid is fixing the worlds problems, when the population of africa is continuing to increase so exponentalilly. Are you really going to blame this on christian charities not giving out contraceptives. Your original insistance was that econmic aid was a good thing, and that fascists are evil monsters for not liking it. yet it began decades ago and the problem is now twice as worse.

Applying the truth of evolution to the study of human beings will tell you how we came to exist, but not why we behave as we do—unless, of course, you subscribe to the untenable biological reductionism that is evolutionary psychology (as Peter Singer does). The truth is that, like evolution itself, human behavior emerges from a dialectical process so vexingly complex that one can hardly separate nature from nurture.

You cannot separate nurture from nature. You can stutt and debauch an individual, dehumanise and make savage a child, but you can't instill higher instincts into those who are not capable. It is the reason the literacy rate in chicago is inbetween most african countries. The same applies to evolutionary sociology.

Wrong. The attempt to derive morality from nature is fallacious because each organism follows its own particular set of instincts. Humans, as I explained above, are unique insofar as we have the ability to choose which of our behaviors to uphold as ethical and which to condemn as unacceptable. As Stephen Jay Gould argued, even though "the range of our potential behavior is circumscribed by our biology," evolution has nevertheless provided us with a brain so flexible that it "permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous," while being "rigidly predisposed toward none."

It is more pronounced in humans whose gifts to imagine and reason make them prone to unnatural and anti-social behaviours.

Actually, it isn't. Charles Darwin's major contribution to the theory of evolution was natural selection, i.e., the differential reproduction of organisms as a function of heritable traits that influence adaptation to the environment. It also happens to be a theory in crisis. But even if the neo-Darwinians succeed in defending natural selection, the modern evolutionary synthesis is destined to be relegated to the dustbin of history because the primacy evolutionary biologists currently bestow onto natural selection is being progressively undermined by findings in symbiogenesis (i.e., horizontal gene transfer), epigenetics, Lamarckian retrogenes, and dialectical biology.

We are not just talking about genetics, but how these are exhibited socially. “the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Is no less true today than it was 150 years ago so far as Europeans go. symbiogenesis, epigenetics, Lamarckian retrogenes, are not making up for the lack of white births or the degeneration and destruction of society which is on a clear path to end completely within this century.

As if the family unit as it's currently constituted (patriarchal), contemporary social mores, race as it's commonly understood, and the current territorial demarcations of nations are 'natural.'

There is my case in point – you say these are social constructs. Marxists demean the purpose of family so there are no families, nation and race are ‘social constructs’ and so these too die.

As far as I am concerned I am the outcome of thousands of years of my group’s nurturing of the family and its rigid nationalism – if I am so egoistic I can end the line of my ancestors and the posterity I might have had – but why would I do that. Again, to return to an earlier point these things are both sacred; Births, Marriages, Loyalty is sacred; Destruction, Desecration, suicide is profane – in all cultures. It is no wonder you do not recognise the existence of fascism if you are to egoistic to have cut off all ties with your biological instincts.

We will not agree. You don’t have to tale about biology if you don’t want. We will crush you, we will not be dragged down by you. It is questionable whether or not we will come too late, but fascism will outlive liberalism.

They're on the "gravy train" because the bourgeoisie realizes that what they're producing is anything but communism, and therefore poses no threat to the status quo. What's the last radically subversive (in an anti-capitalist sense), big budget motion picture that was released?

>no Marxist would collaborate with the system
> those who collaborate with the system are not Marxists
>no true Scotsman… (I am also a true Scotsman by the way!)

This is where answering that question is difficult. I don’t know if there is a film produced by Hollywood for socialist phalanx, but there are a few that come to mind of which there could be no fascist equivilants, but that is picked up in a later response.

As for subversive - gee I must be wrong, there are no films that present figures of authority and law enforcement in any kind of negative light, good lord no. there are no films that glamorise criminals, spastics, drug users, faggots, victims, etc. Film makers are bored and need to emply alot of shock tactics and stick it to the worlds favorite punching bag; Quintin Tarantino's films come to mind 'Inglorious Basterds' 'Django Unchained' 'Machette'. 'Natural born killers' was a little off the rails also.

Unbelievable. So the hyperindividualism which pervades throughout society today is the product of a stunningly successful plot by a small circle of cultural critics from the Frankfurt School to instill an egocentric Weltanschauung in the masses, as opposed to the logical outcome of structuring society around bourgeois social relations and the profit motive? This is why it's impossible to have a rational dialog with fascists. You suffer from the same psychological disorders that afflict all conspiracy theorists.

the theory of cultural marxism; intellegencia of a nation who were leftists able to corrupt a whole generation because they had control of Music, Television, Publishing, etc - is less wild a theory than an economic system turning society on its head by itself. What is the form of hyperindividualism that made it overthrow a society. Capitalism and consumerism had existed for a long time before the advent of cultural and social degeneration. You would call the 50's - 60's a period of consumerism where there were bascially alot of healthy values in society. Why is it that the Individualist ideology does not appear until decades after the '68 revolution took those same values to victory.

You're literally forced to conflate hipsterism with communism in order to seem as if your argument possesses any validity. Pathetic.

Anarcho-communist-nihilist artist Stuart Home



A hipster is a communist consumed by capitalism. Whatever you want to think though these are the self proclaimed Marxist Leninists, and they outnumber you 100/1.

These people who you refer to as "Marxists" are almost invariably social democrats that regard Marxism as a product of the 'contemptible' legacy of Eurocentrism and philosophical positivism. I'm in academia, so I can attest to the fact that the vast preponderance of literary and cultural critics have no interest whatsoever in the revolutionary overthrow of capital; they are quite content with redistributive schemes that in no way threaten the logic of the system.

They reinvent it with the times, which is why the examples from the past you have provided are so flawed. They are in my opinion basically consistent with the ideas of the past even though they repudiate those individuals to some degree or whitewash them. You seem to be totally theoretical – you don’t view organisations as having a logical outcome through history. The hard left used to be strong in most European countries and anybody in the 70’s could have told you that today is exactly how they would have ended up.

So you are an acandenmic then? Interdasting.. What collage are you studying at?

Implying you didn't watch Der Untergang and fap to it until you bled. Implying you don't buy mock Nazi merchandise, implying you haven't been gentile'd hard.

Downfall was an awful movie. So depressing. No heroism. No story and just cinematically awful. That out of all the violent vigilante movies you are unable to come up with one that is sufficiently fascist I think make my point, even gran torino was a tale about multiculturalism. Harry Brown was tits awesome, but not something I needed to watch more than once.

You also seriously compare a cheap back end 2 bit Nazi operation to the veritable industry of soviet merchandise. nigga please; you can get all that commie shit in Wal-Mart and hippie stores. Where can you get ‘aryanwear’ anywhere other than on the internet? (as if we purchase such things, which we don’t). Again you have Che action movie; why don’t we get a breivik action movie? Why isn’t the life of somebody like Rockwell or Goebbels celebrated? This is not Marxist subversion, you have simply been bought, while we will never be accepted. Fascism is what the system fears more than anything, because they know it really will be their necks on the line.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than the asinine 'two sides of the same coin' (non-)argument. Consumerism doesn't facilitate equality or fraternity in any way, shape, or form, and "capitalism with a human face" is defined by its advocates as providing social welfare to people, so that market competition isn't permitted to allow them to fall beneath a certain arbitrarily conceived level—it's not a call for 'socialist' consumerism (a contradiction in terms, if ever there was one).

I think on a level you can argue that the cold war that was fought between the west and the east was for legitimate ownership over the enlightenment which they both claimed. I never said they were ‘two sides of the same coin’ because that is a vague analogy—The basis of my argument I have taken the time to lay out in all these points is that the two are not incompatible – Marxism has been completely absorbed by the system.

None of his work was "undone." On the contrary, his legacy can be observed to this day in talk radio stations and Tea Party rallies across the country:

I am starting to get a little tired of these lacklustre responses and democratic violin playing. I wasn’t aware anyone was actually being punished for being s subversive today – McCarthy deposed literally hundreds of people from positions of responsibility and authority. The opposite today is true – the system has rewarded literally thousands of people for their subversive views; sociology, human rights, ethnic and gender studies, etc – these scum, these nobodies rode in on the backs of the rising political class and they were given control over the minds and wallets of an entire generation of youth. You seriously have the audacity to complain about right wing radio – but has any talking head today managed to remove a single individual from any level of the power structure? The conservatives lost the culture war bigtime, they just got fucking beat – and as for McCarthy, back then he was hung out to dry as an example to the others and nobody has dared take it on since.

And the number of self-identified Marxist professors teaching courses germane to Marxism (economics, sociology, political science) are negligible, at best.

you are in an institution of higher learning and you seriously believe this? Again your definition of Marxist is fallacious and limited – you mean self identified Marxist Leninists, those are kooks, though you will find one in every institution. Most professors are marxists in same sense that someone who has a degree of admiration and accepts the legacy of Adolf Hitler might be called a fascist.

[Isakenaz]

Yada, yada, yada. Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Usual fascist crap ect.....

Why bother? No one wants to hear your fascist bull. Give it a rest and crawl back to the cesspit from which you came.

[Crimson Phoenix]

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.

Al-Qaeda and extremism of any sort is destructive as well, the only thing Al-Qaeda got right is their unwavering hatred of Liberalism. Extremists aren't at all interested in uplifting the minds and hearts of men, but instead are propetuators of ignorance and reactionism.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Are these people still implying that "degeneracy" is because of "cultural marxism", along with everything evil in the world?... that is so stormfront-esque..

[kikehunt]

Why bother? No one wants to hear your fascist bull. Give it a rest and crawl back to the cesspit from which you came.

If you are going to be a faggot about it you can kindly get the fuck out of the discussion. As I recall, ben was invited, you were not.

Al-Qaeda and extremism of any sort is destructive as well, the only thing Al-Qaeda got right is their unwavering hatred of Liberalism. Extremists aren't at all interested in uplifting the minds and hearts of men, but instead are propetuators of ignorance and reactionism.

This is why you are banned from iron march

Are these people still implying that "degeneracy" is because of "cultural marxism", along with everything evil in the world?... that is so stormfront-esque..

yes, except no one gives a fuck what you think.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Oh, and another thing, isn't the whole "follow the leader" tripe a bit capitalist in itself?

Corporations are virtually dictatorships that demand quiet obedience from their employees, as well as a total lack of moral and awareness of anything beyond what the company wants. Why don't you just get some high payed job in one? It's all you ever dreamed off, you have the clothes, the mindless formalities, the fear of disappointing the "leader", and you can squash "enemies" and "dissidents" along the way!

No need to thank me for showing that your dream (as well as all it's consequences) are right under your very noses!

Seriously now, corporations and rampant capitalism are more than enough reasons to dismiss fascism and it's power structure altogether. If anything, we need MORE democracy, not less.

[kikehunt]

Corporations are virtually dictatorships that demand quiet obedience from their employees, as well as a total lack of moral and awareness of anything beyond what the company wants.

The goal of the corporation is to give workers representation without subverting hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy are the leaders who are accountable to the people; the politicians, employers and managers are ultimately submitted to their authority. Capitalists and workers can equally appeal to the state. The state thus works as an arbeiter and settles disputes, so that neither side can agitate violence and hate against each other. It worked fine in Germany, while workers could not start a strike over any reason whatsoever, this surprisingly seemed to improve productivity and working conditions, whereas communist strikes had the opposite effect.

Why don't you just get some high payed job in one? It's all you ever dreamed off, you have the clothes, the mindless formalities, the fear of disappointing the "leader", and you can squash "enemies" and "dissidents" along the way!

Because at the end of it I will be loyal to the interests of some capitalist rather than the collective interest of the people, which the state represents. Capitalist is not a leader, he may have power, but it is not legitimate power, and it is power that he spends on himself, which I am aware is not the best appropriation of it.

No need to thank me for being a faggot

no need indeed

Seriously now, corporations and rampant capitalism are more than enough reasons to dismiss fascism

good way of saying you read nothing in this thread besides your ego.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Insulting me already? I thought fascists had more class, and uphold chivalry and etiquette. I see i was mistaken.

They clearly daydream as well, i am still wondering how the Goldman Sachs top brass are accountable to the people. You fail to grasp all that happened in the world in the last 65 years, specially the fact that big multinationals leaders are now far more powerful than any government or state. They are real dictators, who employ all your beloved tactics to control a sea of employees and consumers. You are really nothing but utopic children who think that people will throw themselves in front of these powerful leaders just because you promise them a dictatorship of old.

Wake and smell the coffee, you live in your dream turned true, brand loyalty and dictators are everywhere, call it the "new fascism". I wouldn't be surprised to see you lot turn into yet another neo-liberal capitalism apology group just like stormfront and countless other "nationalist" forums. I mean, the similarities are too difficult for even the most dense leadership and social darwinist fetishist to ignore.

[Crimson Phoenix]

This is why you are banned from iron march

No would you kindly explain why I'm banned on your autistic faggot circlejerk Iron March? You've never made it clear other than that I don't lend my hand in on the wanking you off like the others. I wouldn't be suprised in the least if each and every one of the Iron Marchers were in the closet, or were themselves WoW obessed spergs that worship orcs or some other sort of faggotry.

On the whole you people sound like insecure introverts, that wouldn't actually take up arms for you nation if it were to come down to it. You'd hide somewhere with your Iron March lovers, and sodomize eachother to your hearts content.

[kikehunt]

Now would you kindly explain why I'm banned on your autistic faggot circlejerk Iron March? You've never made it clear other than that I don't lend my hand in on the wanking you off like the others. I wouldn't be suprised in the least if each and every one of the Iron Marchers were in the closet, or were themselves WoW obessed spergs that worship orcs or some other sort of faggotry.

y u so mad?

On the whole you people sound like insecure introverts, that wouldn't actually take up arms for you nation if it were to come down to it. You'd hide somewhere with your Iron March lovers, and sodomize eachother to your hearts content.

y u do dis?

Insulting me already?

Yepo

They clearly daydream as well, i am still wondering how the Goldman Sachs top brass are accountable to the people.

They are not is the thing, but they do have a positive side; commie butthurt. I do tend to like that about them, no matter how much leftturds cry they are playing golf, sipping their scotch and do not give a fuck. I have to fuck you in the ass for fulfillment, they are satisfied spending money cause they have it.

[Leon Mcnichol]

They are not is the thing, but they do have a positive side; commie butthurt. I do tend to like that about them, no matter how much leftturds cry they are playing golf, sipping their scotch and do not give a fuck. I have to fuck you in the ass for fulfillment, they are satisfied spending money cause they have it.

Exactly what we though, you are nothing but dictator wannabes, dreaming of doing those things at the expense of the very people you pretend to hold so dear. Thank you for making it so clear.

[Guest777]

No would you kindly explain why I'm banned on your autistic faggot circlejerk Iron March?

You were banned because you had nothing to contribute and you were sperging out in the forum. This was in light of you being an admitted degenerate cosplaying faggot - though of course we are the autistic ones sure. You so mad bro, I am sure you will fit in here. 100% arse devastated.

Why bother? No one wants to hear your fascist bull. Give it a rest and crawl back to the cesspit from which you came.

Sure, I was just done wrecking this forum, I am proud of my work here and I will be back as soon as things go back to normal but I am not sure if that will happen. In the mean time just suck on that.

Insulting me already? I thought fascists had more class, and uphold chivalry and etiquette. I see i was mistaken.

Fascists are dicks. I don't think I am goaing to argue with that.

They clearly daydream as well, i am still wondering how the Goldman Sachs top brass are accountable to the people. You fail to grasp all that happened in the world in the last 65 years, specially the fact that big multinationals leaders are now far more powerful than any government or state. They are real dictators, who employ all your beloved tactics to control a sea of employees and consumers. You are really nothing but utopic children who think that people will throw themselves in front of these powerful leaders just because you promise them a dictatorship of old.

'Calling us weak does not make you stronger in the face of the strength of the Plutocracy,' Ernest retorted. 'And furthermore, I'm not done with you. There is a greater strength than wealth, and it is greater because it cannot be taken away. Our strength, the strength of the proletariat, is in our muscles, in our hands to cast ballots, in our fingers to pull triggers. This strength we cannot be stripped of. It is the primitive strength, it is the strength that is to life germane, it is the strength that is stronger than wealth, and that wealth cannot take away. 'But your strength is detachable. It can be taken away from you. Even now the Plutocracy is taking it away from you. In the end it will take it all away from you. And then you will cease to be the middle class. You will descend to us. You will become proletarians. And the beauty of it is that you will then add to our strength. We will hail you brothers, and we will fight shoulder to shoulder in the cause of humanity.

[kikehunt]

Exactly what we though, you are nothing but dictator wannabes, dreaming of doing those things at the expense of the very people you pretend to hold so dear. Thank you for making it so clear.

Of course we are, it is this thing called the will to power. If you do not wish to dominate you are a slave. Under fascism the king is the first leader but every man is a master; master of his farm, master of his wife, his children, household, his arms, his conception of life. it is genuinely his. Marxism desires all peoples to be slaves, Fascists desire all our people to be free.

I appreciate money but it is not my goal. Capitalism is not a sustainable or efficient economic system, but at the very least the capitalists themselves are men in that they do not grovel, but actually go to work and are the masters of their own lives; they get what they want. Their exploitation is not justified, but in the liberal society where fascist conceptions of service and love for country are exploited for profit, you either kill or are killed, you exploit or are exploited, so the position to use your intelligence, cunning and dominate instead of sucking cock sounds more practical than being a leftist whiner. "A liberal is a power worshiper without power" -Orwell, we do not seek capitalist power unlike Marxists, the power of money. We seek freedom and order, and the material actually comes on its own. For all their obsession with economics neither capitalism nor Marxism produce economic mode of production suitable to all classes. Fascism has and does, that is why the two regressive political forces aligned to destroy it before it caught wind.

[Confuciu]

There certainly is a lot of ass-fucking going on here

Remember: One of the very first things Il Duce did when taking up office, was to ban homosexuality, he did so because he saw it as a threat to family-values, and because the other parties in his coalition agreed. Fucking other men in the ass for fulfillment (like kikehunt says he have to do. As a substitute for not being a big-shot banker, is that it?) could bring you into prison for as much as two years - and this law was not abolished before long after the war.

On corporatism.... Despite not having heavily controlled labor-representation present within their system of corporate representation, the American system too, is used to distribute subsidizes.

A proper fascist would (unlike kikehunt) be quick to separate corporatism from corporations, to separate a corporation as a organ of political power, from corporation as a big firm. Different things, same name.

Uh dear uh dear... What is the world coming to.... I am breaking my cellphone in 3.... 2..... 1.... crash...

[Sponsored content]