Re: Iron March Forum

[Leon Mcnichol]

'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.

How communist of you, i bet you would be called commie scum in a tea party rally with that speech, i am proud of you.

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.

And Ayn Rand would be proud of you my friend.

And what's with your fetish with homosexual insults, seriously?...

[ForTheFuture]

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.

Fascism desires all men to be free? You what? Well, perhaps all men that fit the parties mould of acceptability and do not question the legitimacy of the 'king'. Not only this, but, all of these freedoms, can, and have been taken away from citizens of fascist regimes. Whilst capitalism aims to limit the effect someone's status on society has on the opertunities people have and communism aims to do away with it fascism has always expressed desire to enforce these in the name of social order, stability ect. BOLLOCKS.

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.

[Guest777]

How communist of you, i bet you would be called commie scum in a tea party rally with that speech, i am proud of you.

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.

¿Qué?

[kikehunt]

Well, perhaps all men that fit the parties mould of acceptability and do not question the legitimacy of the 'king'.

Not the party, the nation.

Whilst capitalism aims to limit the effect someone's status on society has on the opertunities people have and communism aims to do away with it fascism has always expressed desire to enforce these in the name of social order, stability ect.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDUMBBBBBBBBBBB
yeah, you are a fucking retard. No surprise it is so easy to enslave humanity by feeding it this marxist tripe. It is like, 'opportunity and freedoms111! gibs me moor, I can haz mor govurnment? plz gibs me moor stuff' precisely why i defend capitalism even when it is the most repugnant economic system in history, even moreso than marxism, at least before it went full assburgers.

[ForTheFuture]

Not the party, the nation.

Well, nation and party are interchangable seen as the party represents the nation and enforces the actions necessary for its survival, right?

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDUMBBBBBBBBBBB
yeah, you are a fucking retard. No surprise it is so easy to enslave humanity by feeding it this marxist tripe. It is like, 'opportunity and freedoms111! gibs me moor, I can haz mor govurnment? plz gibs me moor stuff' precisely why i defend capitalism even when it is the most repugnant economic system in history, even moreso than marxism, at least before it went full assburgers.

And yeah, but why does your sarcastic tone worth more than if I was to simply read your posts in a silly voice. I was simply saying that an egalitarian society would mean more freedom. You can say this is unrealistic, utopian ect. repeat that whole line again, but to say Marxism aims to make men slaves, while fascism aims to make them free in plainly false.

[kikehunt]

but to say Marxism aims to make men slaves, while fascism aims to make them free in plainly false.

Look at the history. Look at real history, not Communist propaganda. Then ask yourself weather you would live in the free egalitarian society of the soviet union. if you do not like that, than your egalitarian society does not exist at all. Marxism had 200 years to yield something; you have what you have. Compare that to life in evil fascist Germany. Now question where man was freer to be man, the man of his nation and nature. These things are very simple because they are real. When you are grounded in something real, understand your heritage and the condition of man, you can talk about freedom. Aspiring to freedom on the basis that you will promise it to anyone without a place to draw it from is ridiculous. Fascism gives man what he has always needed; leadership and pride, and this enables him to build his own freedom, if he is strong enough. Promising everyone nice things because you will steal it from the ones that earned it isn't called creating something new. You cannot multiply by dividing, this is common sense. That is why all communism has resulted in actual dictatorship and catastrophe, not the imaginary ones you have been told about fascist governments. You believe in this so unequivocally, even though this is propaganda fed to you directly by the system you claim to despise. come over to the light side, we have a lot to teach you.

[Crimson Phoenix]

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.

Believe what you will circle-jerking faggot. I was not "sperging", I was explaining my position, yet that is "sperging" to you queers, but your entire forum showcases you and the other Iron Marchers are the ones actually afflicted with autism and insecurity. I didn't contribute anything because I wasn't allowed to, when I argued my position on anything it was somehow "sperging" or "not third positionist". Instead of debating me, you limited my posting capablities and resorted to trolling like the degenerates you are. If anything I'm more Fascist than you people and I don't even claim the label anymore.

[Crimson Phoenix]

We are sorry to have offended you, but your kind is not welcome on iron march. I hope this post will have been a fair reconciliation, and that you will embrace this chance, and come back to us with open arms.

I have no problem with offense, I do however have a problem with you, your fellow IMers, and your lackluster debating practices. I have no interest in returning to Iron March for any reason, I've gone beyond simply disagreeing with your views to being your new eternal enemy. May death come to you soon and be as excruciating as naturally possible.

[Red Aegis]

Well I'm convinced.

[Rev Scare]

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.

We have provided reasonable and thorough responses to your arguments. If there is anything in particular you do not feel to be sufficiently addressed, I recommend you state so explicitly rather than thrust your silly indignity upon us.

[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.

We have no interest whatsoever in venturing to RevLeft merely to engage in meaningless debates with their myopic, sectarian, and highly dogmatic administration. I assure you that RevLeft can in no way be regarded as "more leftist" than us. Such a proposition rests upon the assumption that nationalism is inherently "right-wing," when this is not the case, nor is it an alien phenomenon in the history of working class movements. RevLeft members are always welcome to post here in a civil capacity should they be so inclined.

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.

The above is a convoluted non sequitur. Nothing follows. Christopher Hitchens was ultimately a bourgeois liberal twit who enjoyed controversy. When has he ever self-identified as a Trotskyist outside of, perhaps, dabbling in "radical" youth movements? To a man such as Hitchens, the term "socialism" was merely a convenient political cover to appear "edgy." He was no more a socialist than Obama. The fact that Hitchens blithely borrowed ideas from the socialist and Marxist traditions when it suited his provincial intellectualism means very little. His liberal idealism conjoined with his jingoistic support for Western aggression are diametrically opposed to the views found on the revolutionary left. Here was a man who, much like you, had no serious understanding of capitalism nor socialism, let alone Marxian analysis, but merely appealed to the (modern liberal) "Left" when he found opportunity to do so.

That he could so nonchalantly transition from espousing socialism to proclaiming capitalism as the more "revolutionary" of the two and embracing neoconservative principles only reveals the shallow nature of his dedication to the "Left."

If you look at its history Neo-Conservatism itself is also Trotskyist in origin.

Claims such as this prove that you fascist numbskulls lack any meaningful knowledge of the various philosophies, ideologies, and political currents you reference. Neoconservatism is a highly reactionary right-wing political ideology. Any parallels one can draw between it and the views propounded by Leon Trotsky must be merely superficial and incidental. A handful of leftist dilettantes who subsequently heralded reaction do not alter this reality.

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.

Michael Harrington was a dedicated socialist his entire life, and he coined the term "neoconservatism" in order to distinguish his opposition. That some prominent neoconservatives embraced left-wing politics once upon a time prior to succumbing to reaction is immaterial. It is about as relevant as David Horowitz's betrayal of principle, and it cannot serve as a genuine basis for drawing appreciable ideological connections between radical leftist currents such as Trotskyism and modern conservatism.

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.

What is the importance of this with respect to the argument?

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',

Yes, Irving Kristol is generally regarded as a founding neoconservative intellectual. This quote refers to modern liberals and does not bear upon your contention that Christopher Hitchens was a "neoconservative Trotskyite." Also, spare me his right-wing platitudes.

if marxists were consistant they would be Neo-Cons as well.

You are obviously much too dense to comprehend our repeated claim that Marxism does not constitute a proper ideology, but a mode of analysis. This is also another non sequitur.

I can quote Irving Kristol's own definition of neoconservatism, but it would be pointless and likely futile. Any buffoon with a moderate degree of education could ascertain that radical leftism and neoconservatism represent distinct and conflicting positions on the political spectrum.

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.

Which "leftist" government would that be? The neoliberal government of Thatcher? The reformist and bourgeois 'Labour' Party? The same government which is attempting to impose austerity measures upon its working class in the wake of capitalism's most severe crisis in recent history?

Substantiate your argument without descending into rank speculation, quote mongering out of context, and drawing baseless comparisons, you babbling fool.

[Isakenaz]

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.

No you 'f' off, fascist ass bandit. If, as you say, "ben was invited", what's your excuse?. You keep saying you are finished with this forum, but you keep on inflicting your nasty scum-bag-opinions.

[kikehunt]

but I am contributing to the discussion! samples of your buttmad rage are entertaining. What's your excuse? You have just been showing us your hollowed-out caping arese.

[Isakenaz]

but I am contributing to the discussion! samples of your buttmad rage are entertaining. What's your excuse? You have just been showing us your hollowed-out caping arese.

I need no excuse, as I'm not the yapping dog trailing at his masters heels in search of a few kind words of encouragement. Perhaps you should change your forum name from kikehunt, to shitehunt, or better still 'Fido'?

"Hear boy, good fido, roll over and have your tummy tickled"

[Guest777]

We have no interest whatsoever in venturing to RevLeft merely to engage in meaningless debates with their myopic, sectarian, and highly dogmatic administration. I assure you that RevLeft can in no way be regarded as "more leftist" than us. Such a proposition rests upon the assumption that nationalism is inherently "right-wing," when this is not the case, nor is it an alien phenomenon in the history of working class movements. RevLeft members are always welcome to post here in a civil capacity should they be so inclined.

'myopic, sectarian, and highly dogmatic' is the mark of a consistent iron clad political faith which wishes to preserve its ideological integrity - ie not tolerating guilt trips or compromises on the 'nationalist question'. Revleft, by far the largest leftist forum on the internet (10,000 of them allegedly) proves its righteousness by its success. They are to my mind the logical outcome of Marxism in the same way Christopher Hitchens is.

Item one is a critique of Marxian ‘nationalism’ from a fascist perspective

The above is a convoluted non sequitur. Nothing follows. Christopher Hitchens was ultimately a bourgeois liberal twit who enjoyed controversy. When has he ever self-identified as a Trotskyist outside of, perhaps, dabbling in "radical" youth movements? To a man such as Hitchens, the term "socialism" was merely a convenient political cover to appear "edgy." He was no more a socialist than Obama. The fact that Hitchens blithely borrowed ideas from the socialist and Marxist traditions when it suited his provincial intellectualism means very little. His liberal idealism conjoined with his jingoistic support for Western aggression are diametrically opposed to the views found on the revolutionary left. Here was a man who, much like you, had no serious understanding of capitalism nor socialism, let alone Marxian analysis, but merely appealed to the (modern liberal) "Left" when he found opportunity to do so.

Hitchens has pretty decent Trotskyite credentials unlike you he was actually a celebrated marxist writer, and as far as I can tell he has been consistent in his ideology from then until now. If you called him a bourgeois he would 'say right back at you'. Who do I trust you are him.



I would regard this as being as good an example as any, because he is fighting with another trot to prove who is more progressive and he uses neo-conservatism to explain it. I hope his leftist language here really disturbs you and drives home the point.

He wrote for this paper we have called the new stateman and though he left it over its pro-islam postion it is about half loony left: CPGB, SWP, etc, and about half labour party and guardian columnists to give another example of your pro system position. Trotskyism would be a funny thing, if it fit only your definition. Literally a million people in the west say, form the ages of 15-26 are trotskyists - and as far as you are concerned suddenly almost all of them seem to abandon their entire position as soon as they get a career handed to them. You would have hailed Chris as a comrade in the 70's - now he is a 'bourgeois twit'. It is more than conveniant.

That he could so nonchalantly transition from espousing socialism to proclaiming capitalism as the more "revolutionary" of the two and embracing neoconservative principles only reveals the shallow nature of his dedication to the "Left."

No, I just think it is telling of the shallow arbitrary nature of leftism, which has been my whole argument.

Claims such as this prove that you fascist numbskulls lack any meaningful knowledge of the various philosophies, ideologies, and political currents you reference. Neoconservatism is a highly reactionary right-wing political ideology. Any parallels one can draw between it and the views propounded by Leon Trotsky must be merely superficial and incidental. A handful of leftist dilettantes who subsequently heralded reaction do not alter this reality.

Autistic rage translation; The facts you are giving contradict MY pavlovian memorised opinion! You keep making arguments that contradict mine and this makes me angry!

Is it reactionary? What has the Iraq war and Arab spring been other than to bring the jacobinian revolution to the middle east. Straight white western males are being butchered every day so that Afghani schoolgirls can get an education, and they can have their own version of pop idol. This is ‘reactionary’ and unprogressive – suuure. At least these are its stated aims is it too impossible to consider that this is not some clever conspiracy and some people actually believe this stuff – which after 50 years of Marxist subversion is hardly surprising.

A reactionary right winger is somebody like Pat Buchannan who is anti-war and anti globalist.

Michael Harrington was a dedicated socialist his entire life, and he coined the term "neoconservatism" in order to distinguish his opposition.

Tac 2. Invent a something out of nowhere.

That some prominent neoconservatives embraced left-wing politics once upon a time prior to succumbing to reaction is immaterial. It is about as relevant as David Horowitz's betrayal of principle, and it cannot serve as a genuine basis for drawing appreciable ideological connections between radical leftist currents such as Trotskyism and modern conservatism.

For the sake of argument there are people who do a 180. Christopher's brother Peter was also a trotskyite, and is now one of the most prominant social conservative political writers in the country. the chasam between these two men is huge and I encourage you to dig up any of his work, and you will realise how totally different the two men are.

What is the importance of this with respect to the argument?

It is but one explanation for your recurring no true Scotsman fallacy. That such people delibarely sought entryism into mainstream political parties to promote a militant humanist foreign policy. in a way it is not too unlike the support western communist parties gave the state during the war on fascism. Now, why do you think Neo-cons take the exact same attitude and call their enemies ‘islamofascists’.

Yes, Irving Kristol is generally regarded as a founding neoconservative intellectual. This quote refers to modern liberals and does not bear upon your contention that Christopher Hitchens was a "neoconservative Trotskyite." Also, spare me his right-wing platitudes.

Well they are there to prove a point. If you believe in humanism it is all very well and nice when you can be on socialist phalanx and take the moral high ground on everything, but when you are faced with the world you realise your values are on the line out there and you have to fight for that.

You are obviously much too dense to comprehend our repeated claim that Marxism does not constitute a proper ideology, but a mode of analysis. This is also another non sequitur.

Yeah that is where I am coming from, you have completely missed the point of communism. What do you think all those people died for if not a moral conception of life?

I can quote Irving Kristol's own definition of neoconservatism, but it would be pointless and likely futile.

It might be an argument. SHOCKER.

Which "leftist" government would that be? The neoliberal government of Thatcher? The reformist and bourgeois 'Labour' Party? The same government which is attempting to impose austerity measures upon its working class in the wake of capitalism's most severe crisis in recent history?

Yeah this is where you are out of your depth mate, and please lay off the sensationalist bilge. I am obviously not talking about Thatcher because she was turfed out of office before you were born and long before this neo-conservative stuff became government policy. To my knowledge Thatcher didn’t engage in any escapade that could be called neo-conservative. In ’91 the hard left in Britain dissolved, and the labour split movement; the liberal and social democrats became a right wing party – all the left wing people in Britain pretty much got on the labour gravy train.

In 1997 the conservative party suffered one of its greatest ever defeats and the strongest Labour government since 1945. It is true that Blair and Brown’s ‘new labour’ dropped the clause 4 stipulation for the nationalisation of industry – they invented a form of welfare capitalism where they quadrupled public services but paid private businesses; universities, schools, hospitals, welfare, transport. These exploded. New labour was the Scottish wing of the party which is Britain’s socialist heartland, more reliable than even the north which they had to fight the liberals for.

If you think they are right wing then you are literally retarded. When I was studying at school they gave us all £30 a week just for turning up to lessons – this is but one example of some of the policies they had during this era. The public sector policies I have mentioned changed the face of my country beyond all recognition; they cleaned out the Arts, Universities, schools, local government, media, etc, and installed all their liberal left cronies. It is when this whole multiculturalism thing really got pushed and they opened the door to 2 million immigrants,

Now this is relevant because one of the first things Blair did in office was to go to the whitehouse and literally beg Bill Clinton to invade Serbia to bring the people freedom and democracy and to stop the second holocaust. Clinton reluctantly agreed and the Serbs buckled under the threat ending what was probably the first neo-conservative war. This was not motivated by any economic interest, only the humanist doctrine you espouse.

Substantiate your argument without descending into rank speculation,

Detailed thought out argument. You are welcome.

quote mongering

lol

out of context,

When?

and drawing baseless comparisons, you babbling fool.

Stop using evidence, you are making me cry.

I need no excuse, as I'm not the yapping dog trailing at his masters heels in search of a few kind words of encouragement. Perhaps you should change your forum name from kikehunt, to shitehunt, or better still 'Fido'?

"Hear boy, good fido, roll over and have your tummy tickled"

You’re a funny guy. Not only did I not invite anyone here, kikehunt has had his own fun here and never felt compelled to argue on my behalf or white knight me.

[GF]

God there are so many things wrong with this thread.

[kikehunt]

God there are so many things wrong with this thread.

your repetitive bitching, to give one example

[Red Aegis]

your repetitive bitching, to give one example

Yeah? You're nothing but a joke. Your ideas are laughable and not even worth addressing. Your ideology will remain obscure and you will never accomplish anything. Have fun wallowing in your own filth. I'm done with this shit. Respond all you want, I won't see it.

[Leon Mcnichol]

I just deleted a kikehunt post because i think it's enough of insults here. Either you lot post like adults, or i will keep deleting childish posts.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Now this is relevant because one of the first things Blair did in office was to go to the whitehouse and literally beg Bill Clinton to invade Serbia to bring the people freedom and democracy and to stop the second holocaust. Clinton reluctantly agreed and the Serbs buckled under the threat ending what was probably the first neo-conservative war. This was not motivated by any economic interest, only the humanist doctrine you espouse.

Mindless history revisionism is not worth debating, unless you prove this, and say exactly what in our "humanist doctrine" motivates invading sovereign countries.

I can as easily say that Blair was a capitalist agent working to allow access to the balkans for the US and their companies, an important geopolitical area in all the European history.

[Guest777]

God there are so many things wrong with this thread.

Look at it! could it be the largest thread in your history? such pride.

[GF]

your repetitive bitching, to give one example

This is my second post in this thread. Yeah, that's repetitive bitching all right.

[GF]

Look at it! could it be the largest thread in your history? such pride.

Frankly, you guys seem to be the ones with excessive hubris. While some on our side may be very hostile to giving any sort of consideration to your views, the immaturity of your responses outweighs theirs.

[Guest777]

Frankly, you guys seem to be the ones with excessive hubris. While some on our side may be very hostile to giving any sort of consideration to your views, the immaturity of your responses outweighs theirs.

What do you mean by 'your'? I have been perfectly cordial most of the time, so was Alex. Most users here have given practically no consideration, but rather than keeping it to themselves they have continually ignored serious responses but still drop in to make provokative remarks - If this happened on Iron March then there would be reprimands. It is retarded for a member to promote his standing in the forum by attempting to get in on a drama - whenever we have someone with a genuine mental ilness this is exactly the kind of behaviour they engage in. If these are somehow provokations why do your members continually respond to kikehunt? I also find this passive agressive voting more than a little bizzare, I am not sure what is trying to be proved with this.

[DSN]

I wouldn't mind this thread if there wasn't so much ping pong going on. Half of these posts (from both sides, not just the IM members) have nothing to do with socialism, fascism or anything else either side supports. I'd probably join in if I had some idea of what this thread is even about now or where it's going. All of this irrelevant banta and insulting contributes nothing valuable to the forum, so it's simply a matter of who's willing to realise it and give up first. This thread would have more use as a means of documenting the lamest insults we can think of.

I jump out of my goddamn seat when I see a post that isn't about forum designs, retardation or faggotry.

[kikehunt]

This is my second post in this thread. Yeah, that's repetitive bitching all right.

I meant you as in a collective.

I wouldn't mind this thread if there wasn't so much ping pong going on. Half of these posts (from both sides, not just the IM members) have nothing to do with socialism, fascism or anything else either side supports. I'd probably join in if I had some idea of what this thread is even about now or where it's going. All of this irrelevant banta and insulting contributes nothing valuable to the forum, so it's simply a matter of who's willing to realise it and give up first. This thread would have more use as a means of documenting the lamest insults we can think of.

I jump out of my goddamn seat when I see a post that isn't about forum designs, retardation or faggotry.

As usual, your 'informed' comments are hypocritical, and are of a passive-aggressive nature. Take a look at any of rev scare's posts for example. Every single one of them screams 'no, no, you're wrong, because you're a fascist, and fascism is ebul' it is desperate and pathetic, and insulting. If you go back in the comments, at least, before butthurt admins started deleting everything, you would see that every single shitstorm was initiated by YOUR members either being complete douchebags or completely stupid. Exhibit one;

Ishkenaz (right after ben's long-ass post)
wow why do you nazis even bother writing your stupid informative posts. just go back to your cesspool.

it was something along those lines. Basically every single post by all of you except celtiberian had that same condescention on some level, be it concealed or explicit. Now you are simply deleting my posts because, vulgar as they may be, they point out your hypocrisy and inconsistency. For example, my posts are deleted for being 'insulting'; read the post by red aegis on this same page. When I pointed out that you should probably delete that too, I am censored. freedumb of speech please. where is muh freedumb of speech?

[Sponsored content]